TESTIMONY OF REP. SHARON TREAT
Supporting LD 1786 – An Act Regarding Energy Infrastructure Development

UTILITIES & ENERGY COMMITTEE

March 2, 2010

Senate Chair Hobbins, House Chair Hinck and Utilities & Energy Committee members. I am Sharon Treat, and I represent House District 79, Hallowell, Farmingdale and West Gardiner. I am testifying today in support of LD 1786, but requesting that the committee amend the bill to assure that our economy, environment, and energy future are fully protected.

I served on the Joint Standing Committee on Maine’s Energy Future as well as the Commission to Study Energy Infrastructure and am very familiar with the issues before this committee. The majority report of the Commission has much to recommend it, and it is my belief that we simply ran out of time before we could adequately address some of the additional considerations addressed in the Minority Report, which I supported. It is my hope that the Utilities Committee will fill in some of the gaps in LD 1786.

The fundamental difference – at least the difference that matters most to me – between the bill before you and the version I supported is the omission of a comparable environmental and needs-based review for all major energy corridors, whether on private or public lands. Unfortunately, LD 1786 will continue a fragmented system dating from the earliest years of this State which gives to the PUC case-by-case determination of “public convenience and necessity” but fails to look at the big picture and adequately address environmental and energy planning considerations.

To me, it simply makes no sense to have a comprehensive review of the impact of only some energy corridors. Thus while its great that LD 1786 requires consideration of the “long-term public interest of the State” and whether a transmission line “enhance(s) opportunities for energy generation within the State” and seeks to reduce electric rates, maximize economic benefit, minimize land use impacts and reduce the release of greenhouse gasses, it only does half the job. These criteria, which the Commission labored long and hard to develop, will apply only to projects on public lands. The major transmission projects on private lands, including projects with the scope of the build-out of CMPs power grid, would be exempt from such review.

Why does this make sense? And what are the unintended consequences? How is it possible to plan for Maine’s energy future when our planning criteria don’t apply to major projects that are currently anticipated? Won’t the two-tiered approach drive projects to site on private lands to avoid meeting the public interest test that would apply in the public land corridors under LD 1786? Is this what we want, taking private property, encroaching on homeowners backyards, all the while perpetuating piecemeal review of some of the most significant infrastructure projects in Maine’s history - projects that could truly determine our energy future without regard to our interest in home-grown power , cheaper electricity, and conservation?

We should not build infrastructure that we do not need, particularly when these projects will be as sprawling and extensive as an energy corridor will be. LD 1786 appropriately introduces additional criteria for reviewing new energy corridors, bringing our laws into the 21st Century. The bill only does half the job, though.

This legislation is now in your hands. I urge the committee to finish the Commission’s work, and amend LD 1786 to assure there is a level regulatory playing field and that there is careful PUC scrutiny of all major energy transmission corridors, including those built on private lands. Before we allow projects that would cut a swath across our state and some of its beautiful lands, we must make sure that those projects are necessary for our state’s prosperity and carry out our energy vision as we look to the future. Thank you.