Connect with us

Maine

Mainers could pay $32 million for grid upgrade in New Hampshire

Published

on

Mainers could pay  million for grid upgrade in New Hampshire


Maine ratepayers will be on the hook for $32 million if Boston-based Eversource Energy follows through on a plan to rebuild a 49-mile transmission line in New Hampshire, according to Maine’s public advocate, who has joined other state officials in calling the scale of the project excessive.

Consumer Advocates of New England, the group of officials opposing the project designed to upgrade the New England grid, said Eversource has failed to demonstrate that it is a “reasonable use of consumer dollars.” Less than 8% of the line needs to be replaced, according to Eversource.

Maine Public Advocate William Harwood said the impact on a typical customer’s monthly bill would be modest. He didn’t provide a dollar estimate but said Maine ratepayers would be responsible for about 9% of the $360 million total cost of the project, though Eversource pegs the total at $384 million. The price tag would be spread over the useful life of the project – Eversource says the average age of transmission pole structures is up to 60 years – and reflect a return on profit of about 10%, he said.

The cost of electricity is an increasingly pointed subject as ratepayers are called on to finance grid upgrades to withstand frequent and destructive storms and accommodate greater electrification to heat buildings and charge electric vehicles to cut carbon from the atmosphere. Costly transmission upgrades are another matter and draw fire from consumer advocates, who say the projects unnecessarily add to ratepayers’ burden and aren’t adequately regulated.  

Advertisement

Don Kreis, New Hampshire’s consumer advocate, accused Eversource of “unconstrained spending” on transmission projects.

“I’m proud to join my counterparts from around the region in opposing efforts to gold-plate the transmission grid and send the bill to everyone in New England,” he said.

Eversource’s service territory is Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Because its transmission lines are part of the New England grid, the region’s ratepayers pay for upgrades.

CRITICS: MORE REGULATION IS NEEDED 

The state officials also criticized what they say is a “lack of meaningful oversight” over improvements to utilities’ privately owned facilities.

Advertisement

“We need an effective regulator to police this,” Harwood said. “If we don’t do anything, we should try to get (the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to exercise its authority.”  

The New Hampshire project is the “poster child of what’s wrong with transmission regulation,” he said.

Proposals for new transmission lines are reviewed by federal regulators, transmission planners and the industry, but rebuilds or repairs such as what Eversource is proposing do not face similar scrutiny. Instead, state and local laws may require reviews and FERC may examine whether a utility’s spending decisions allow it to recoup costs from ratepayers.

The region’s ratepayer advocates said decisions about the scope of Eversource’s project and how much it will cost ratepayers “lie with the individual asset owner.”

If the utility follows through with the project, the ratepayer advocates say they might challenge the decision before FERC.

Advertisement

And the New England State Committee on Electricity, whose members are appointed by the region’s six governors, said without “information showing that this use of consumer dollars is well-supported and reasonable” that it’s prepared to “use its full resources to explore all available options to dispute the reasonableness of the investments, including but not limited to action at FERC.”

The owners and residents of property with a power line easement sued Eversource, FERC and the ISO on Aug. 16, demanding that the regulators play a greater role. Kristina Pastoriza and Ruth Ward, a New Hampshire state senator, asked the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire to order FERC to end the ISO-NE practice of exempting large transmission rebuild projects, including the Eversource plan, from a planning process “that will ensure that retail ratepayers who have no adequate remedy at law pay just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory rates.”

Pastoriza and Ward also asked the court to rule that an Eversource claim to rebuild the power line on their property is a breach of a 1948 easement and would unreasonably interfere with their rights and use of their property.

A FULL REBUILD IS EVERSOURCE’S PREFERENCE

Eversource sought the views of public officials and others at several meetings. It has proposed three alternative projects, but says its preference is a “full line rebuild.” That approach would have higher initial costs, but lower anticipated costs over time, the utility said. It also would avoid future disruptions to the environment and local communities and improve telecommunications capabilities for northern New Hampshire substations, the utility said. It’s estimated to be completed by 2026.

Advertisement

Eversource says rebuilding the power line will make the transmission system more resilient to extreme weather and will replace aging infrastructure that in many cases was built decades ago. Eversource said it engaged in “extensive community outreach.”

The utility said drone inspections in 2022 showed 41 natural wood structures dispersed throughout the length of the power line had woodpecker damage, rotted or split pole tops, cracked arms and other damage. Eversource also identified other parts of the line as high-priority concerns.

Harwood questioned why Eversource would favor replacing the entire transmission line of 583 structures if 41 are damaged. He called it an “example of excessive spending.” The utility says most of the structures are made of wood and would be replaced with steel structures.

Eversource offered as an alternative to replacing 43 structures and other nearby equipment that require immediate attention. But that project would lead to “many additional future structure replacement projects” as structures continue to deteriorate, Eversource said.

“Our initial analysis of a pared-back alternative that would leave some component of the line in place indicated that such an approach would ultimately result in higher costs over time as we would eventually need to go back and replace those other aging components,” an Eversource spokeswoman said.

Advertisement

Critics of utilities have called out projects upgrading transmission systems paid for by ratepayers while delivering a return for investors. “Therefore, their incentive is to build big things, whether or not those things benefit ratepayers or local communities,” said backers of last year’s unsuccessful ballot measure to establish a publicly-owned power company.

Annual spending by major U.S. electric utilities on electric transmission more than quadrupled to $40 billion in 2019, from $9.1 billion in 2000, according to the most recent data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Spending was focused on new transmission infrastructure and the operation and maintenance of transmission systems. Spending on new transmission capacity accounted for $23.5 billion, or 59%, of the $40 billion spent by major utilities.

Ari Peskoe, director of the Harvard Law School Electricity Law Initiative, said local transmission projects often involve replacing aging infrastructure for which it’s easier to obtain public permitting than new projects. The projects also are less expensive and are often more profitable, he said. Regional projects, on the other hand, are tougher to permit and typically require agreements among neighboring utilities to allocate costs, he said.



Source link

Advertisement

Maine

Watchdog searching for stores selling now banned products with PFAS in Maine

Published

on

Watchdog searching for stores selling now banned products with PFAS in Maine


The Maine nonprofit Defend Our Health is taking on the role of watchdog to make sure companies and stores are not selling products that are now banned in Maine because they contain toxic “forever chemicals.”

As of Jan. 1, Maine joined Minnesota as the first states to ban thousands of everyday products containing toxic PFAS chemicals.

The new ban includes children’s toys, cosmetics, cookware, and cleaning products. It also includes reusable water bottles, upholstery, clothing, and feminine products.

The National Institute of Health says even trace amounts of PFAS have been linked to low birth weights, compromised immune systems, cancer, and other adverse health effects.

Advertisement

Cookware in a store (WGME)

Defend Our Health says so far, most stores in Maine are complying with the law.

“We’ve seen a lot of the physical retailers complying with the ban. We have seen, for example, the PFAS-containing cookware being pulled from the shelves,” said Emily Carey Perez de Alejo, with Defend Our Health.

It is also not allowed in Maine to sell and ship banned products online to people in Maine like frying pans coated with PFAS.

Defend Our Health says a lot of online retailers have marked PFAS products not deliverable to Maine, while others have tried to comply, but missed a few products.

Advertisement

“From some retailers we have seen a wide array of PFAS-containing cookware still available for delivery to Maine,” Carey Perez de Alejo said. “So, we’ve reached out to the state to report some of these violators. We’re going to be reaching out to the companies. Hopefully, it’s just an oversight and they will be taking action to correct and come into compliance.”

Toys in a store (WGME)

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection says it will be reviewing the information received from Defend Our Health.

The Safer Chemicals Program manager says the Maine DEP will investigate to ensure no banned products are being sold in Maine, either in stores or online.



Source link

Continue Reading

Maine

State recommends major changes for Maine’s mobile home parks

Published

on

State recommends major changes for Maine’s mobile home parks


Residents of Bay Bridge Estates in Brunswick said that Tuesday was the day that their homes were being hooked up to the town’s water supply. (Daryn Slover/Staff Photographer)

A new state report offers a series of recommendations to expand existing mobile home parks in Maine and build new ones, allow homeowners to obtain traditional mortgages at more favorable rates and overhaul the state’s oversight of parks.

The 30-page report, written by the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future and mandated by legislation passed last year, is intended to be a blueprint for future proposals as lawmakers seek to protect the roughly 45,000 Maine residents who live in mobile home parks.

It will be presented to the Housing and Economic Development Committee this month.

Advertisement

Mobile home parks in Maine and across the country — often considered the last form of unsubsidized affordable housing — are increasingly being purchased by out-of-state investors who raise the monthly lot rents, in some cases doubling or tripling prices, according to national data. 

Park residents, often low-income families or seniors on a fixed income, own their homes but not the land they sit on and residents are essentially helpless against rent increases.

“If they’re forced to lose their housing because the rents get too high, it’s hard to see where they’d be able to go,” said Greg Payne, senior housing adviser for the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future.

The state is feverishly trying to build tens of thousands of housing units in the coming years, but Payne said in an interview it’s just as important to “protect the housing that we do have.”

Advertisement

“If we lose any of our affordable housing stock, that’s going to make our challenge even greater,” he said.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR OWNERS, RESIDENTS

Many state officials would like to see more mom-and-pop or cooperatively owned manufactured housing communities, especially as the state tries to ramp up production.

But according to the report, the number of locally owned communities has been dwindling, and smaller owners and developers frequently struggle to increase available housing in their parks.   Boosting supply could also help lower costs for existing residents. 

As with all construction, it has gotten expensive. 

“There are plenty of owners who I think would be willing to expand if the math worked,” Payne said. “If we’re able to help with that, it creates more units that we desperately need across the state and creates the opportunity to spread existing costs across more households.”

Advertisement

The report recommends, among other things, making it easier for park owners to access MaineHousing construction loans, which state statute currently prohibits. 

The office also suggested developing a subsidy program that would give owners a forgivable loan if they agree to charge income-restricted lot rents to income-restricted households. 

‘TOO GOOD TO MISS’

The report also recommends allowing mobile home buyers to take out traditional mortgage loans.

Historically, loans for manufactured homes have been titled as personal property or “chattel” loans, similar to cars. These loans, according to the report, typically have shorter terms, higher interest rates, fewer lenders to choose from and inferior consumer protection. 

Over the years, construction technology and government regulations have evolved and factory-built houses are now often comparable to site-built housing, according to the report.

Advertisement

The price gap between the two is also narrowing, with many mobile homes selling for well over $200,000.

Payne said he spoke to an Old Orchard Beach resident whose interest rate is more than 11%, and is paying about $640 a month for a $60,000 loan, on top of her monthly lot rent. Comparatively, according to mortgage buyer Freddie Mac, the current interest rate on a 30-year mortgage is about 6.15%. That would save her hundreds of dollars a month.

“We don’t often have the opportunity to increase affordability and have nobody losing,” Payne said. “It’s an opportunity that could be too good to miss.”

‘SYSTEMIC LACK OF SUPPORT’

The report recommends an overhaul or “reimagining” of state regulation and oversight of mobile home communities to better serve residents. 

Currently, the Maine Manufactured Housing Board is in charge of licensing and inspecting parks, while landlord and tenant issues and consumer protection claims are enforced by the Office of the Maine Attorney General or the court system. 

Advertisement

But according to the report there is a “systemic lack of support” from state government in addressing some of the more common problems in parks — poor living conditions, untenable community rules and fees, disregard of state laws — and attempts to get help from either agency often result in referrals elsewhere. 

“This pattern of circular referrals, rarely leading to support, often leaves park residents feeling isolated and unheard,” the report says. 

The office recommends that the Legislature transfer the responsibility for certification, technical assistance and regulatory coordination from the Office of Professional and Occupational Regulation, where the board is currently housed, to the Maine Office of Community Affairs, which would also serve as a “first call” for residents seeking assistance.

Compliance with state rules would be handled by the attorney general’s office, which may need to find ways to provide more legal support to homeowners.

Finally, the report recommends directing more private resources toward supporting a housing attorney at Pine Tree Legal Assistance who has expertise in mobile home park issues.

Advertisement

LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS

Mobile home parks have been a hot-button issue in the last few Legislative sessions.

Lawmakers last year passed a series of bills designed to protect mobile homeowners, including one that gives park residents the “right of first refusal” if their community goes up for sale. 

In addition to the recommendations outlined in the recent report, the state is seeking to collect more data about the state’s parks.

Historically, the Maine Manufactured Housing Board has not tracked whether the parks are owned by resident co-ops, out-of-state corporations or Maine-based operators. It also collected no information about how many lots are in each park, vacancies or average lot rents.

That information is now required in order to license a park.

Advertisement

Another bill, which has resulted in confusion and some retaliatory rent increases, requires owners to provide 90 days written notice of a rent increase and establishes a process for residents to request mediation if the increase is more than the Consumer Price Index plus 1%. While owners are required by the new law to act in good faith, they are not prevented from moving forward with an increase.

Efforts to institute statewide rent control failed in the last session, in part due to Maine’s long history of local control, but many communities, including Brunswick, Saco and Sanford, have passed rent control measures or moratoriums on rent increases as they grapple with how to protect residents. 

The state report includes a model rent stabilization ordinance for municipalities but no mandate.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Maine

How labels make or break Maine’s recreational cannabis compliance system

Published

on

How labels make or break Maine’s recreational cannabis compliance system


A group of recreational cannabis flower products purchased in October at Brilliant Buds in Bethel were fully compliant with state requirements.

The stickers for the “Find.” brand products displayed required warnings, strain names, potency values, processor license information and batch identifiers.

A Find-brand package purchased at Brilliant Buds in Bethel shows a medical-use label faintly visible beneath the recreational sticker, including the strain name MAC 1. Find is Curaleaf’s economy and mid-tier product line, typically selling for about $75 an ounce in Maine’s medical market and around $125 an ounce in recreational retail. (Courtesy photo)

But when the recreational stickers were peeled back after being purchased on Oct. 24, medical cannabis labels were found underneath. The labels included Curaleaf’s Auburn facility address and medical-style batch data. Curaleaf is one of the largest multistate medical cannabis operators in the United States.

Was it a labeling error? Was the product for medical use instead of recreational? Was it simply a case of recycled packaging?

Advertisement

Those questions and more are at the core of labeling irregularities in Maine’s cannabis packaging, verification and retail compliance model: repurposed or mislabeled consumer packages can move through intake, stocking and point-of-sale without triggering an alert.

One recreational-use bag labeled “Turnpike Cookies” revealed a medical label beneath it printed with the strain “MAC 1.” A second bag of “Mintz Snackz” had the same label. In both cases, the originally labeled strain name was faintly visible through the sticker.

The discovery does not establish wrongdoing or intentional misconduct, but it does raise questions for consumers and regulators who may not necessarily be able to distinguish if a product on the shelf had an old label that was not properly removed or if the product was intended for one market but was being sold in the other without following all required rules.

In the case of the layered labels at Brilliant Buds, it was all legal. Maine’s recreational cannabis rules do not prohibit layered labels, and the final, visible sticker is treated as the compliance record at retail.

With labels from different regulatory programs remaining visible beneath a retail sticker, however, it has created confusion among consumers who want to know exactly where their cannabis is from and raised questions about packaging quality control.

Advertisement

Under Maine rules, the label itself is the mechanism by which retail compliance is communicated and enforced. The Office of Cannabis Policy allows multiple labels on a recreational package, provided required information is not obstructed.

Maine’s recreational cannabis program includes mandatory testing, track and trace, stringent labeling and universal symbols. The medical cannabis program does not require mandatory testing or track & trace.

Kaspar Heinrici, chief executive director of SeaWeed Co. in Portland, said the recreational cannabis market operates under a level of scrutiny that is often misunderstood by the public.

“There is still a misperception that cannabis operators are putting a plant into a bag with little oversight,” he said. “The reality is that regulated recreational operators are working with a level of organization, testing and standard operating procedures closer to the medical or financial services industries.”

TRACING CANNABIS

Maine’s recreational system requires cannabis sold at retail to be identifiable for recall purposes through batch information printed on the label.

Advertisement

Heinrici said Maine’s batch-based approach is intended to balance public health protections with operational practicality.

“If there is an issue with one unit of a product, it likely extends to the rest of the package and potentially the package it came from,” he said. “Being overly specific at the individual unit level is not going to provide additional benefit.”

At the retail shelf, compliance and recall depend on the accuracy of the information printed on the visible retail label. Inspection quality can vary depending on staffing levels, lighting, workflow and training. Batch numbers are often printed in small type.

The rule does not require individual retail units, such as eighths, quarters, ounces or pre-rolls, to carry a unique electronic identifier, radio frequency identification tags or scannable code. But it does for cultivation and wholesale inventory movement.

Maine uses Metrc (short for Marijuana Enforcement Tracking Reporting Compliance) a track-and-trace inventory system adopted in many cannabis jurisdictions.

Advertisement

Other states use different track-and-trace platforms. For example, Connecticut uses BioTrack. In Connecticut, each retail cannabis unit carries a printed unit identification number with a machine-readable barcode, as well as a QR code with a link.

A Curaleaf “Ched-R-Cheez” cannabis label from Connecticut shows a printed unit identification number with a machine-readable barcode and a QR code intended to link consumers to batch-specific test results. (Courtesy photo)

Curaleaf is headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut, and operates more than 150 operates medical and recreational dispensaries nationwide.

Maine consumers do not have a comparable consumer-facing verification tool.

Heinrici said that while testing and traceability are essential, additional regulatory layers do not always translate into better consumer outcomes.

Advertisement

“The track-and-trace and testing requirements are important for public health, but they verge on being overly detailed and overly burdensome for the end consumer,” he said. “More regulation always comes with a cost, and that cost ultimately shows up at the register.”

SHIFTING MARKET IN MAINE

Curaleaf entered Maine in 2016 through its relationship with Remedy Compassion Center, one of the state’s original eight nonprofit medical cannabis dispensaries and the first to open under Maine’s medical program.

While Curaleaf exited recreational retail storefronts in Maine in 2023, citing competitive pressures, the company remained active in the state’s medical cannabis program as well as recreational cultivation and manufacturing.

It appears Curaleaf is dipping its toes back into recreational retail. In late November, job postings for Curaleaf-managed operations at Brilliant Buds in Bethel signaled a return through a licensed partner rather than a Curaleaf-branded store. Additional Curaleaf job listings in Bangor indicate a recreational retail component planned for that location.

Curaleaf did not respond to repeated requests for comment for this article. Attempts to seek comment from Brilliant Buds were also unsuccessful.

Advertisement

A reporter visited the Bethel store in person but was asked to leave upon entry. A follow-up phone call to the store and subsequent emails seeking comment were not answered.

Office of Cannabis Policy Data Analytics Director Eric Miller said recently that recreational sales are strongest in western and southern Maine, particularly in border-adjacent regions near New Hampshire, a factor that may help explain Curaleaf’s focus on Bethel.

John Hudak, the director of Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy, said sales data suggest some border effects, but emphasized they are not the primary driver of Maine’s recreational market.

“I think New Hampshire is having an impact in York and Cumberland County, but it’s not the major driver of Maine’s cannabis economy,” Hudak said, adding that tourism and Maine consumers account for most recreational sales.

MEDICAL vs. RECREATIONAL

Maine regulates cannabis under three distinct frameworks: medical cannabis, recreational cannabis and hemp-derived products. Each system operates under different statutes, labeling rules, testing standards and tax structures.

Advertisement

Recreational cannabis is overseen by the Office of Cannabis Policy and is subject to labeling rules, mandatory third-party testing, Metrc oversight and a 10% excise tax. As of late 2025, Maine lists roughly 180 licensed recreational cannabis stores, along with 78 cultivation facilities and 81 manufacturing facilities statewide.

According to data from the Maine Office of Cannabis Police, monthly taxable cannabis sales in Maine show medical sales peaking earlier and then leveling off, while recreational sales rise steadily after legalization, narrowing the gap between the two markets from 2022 through 2025. (Rebecca Richard/Staff Writer)

Maine’s medical cannabis program is also overseen, separately, by the Office of Cannabis Policy. Maine lists 86 active medical dispensaries and approximately 1,554 registered caregivers statewide. A medical cannabis caregiver is an individual or business authorized to grow and sell cannabis directly to registered patients, often operating at smaller scale and under less prescriptive labeling and testing rules.

“From a caregiver standpoint, testing and transparency matter because trust is everything,” said a Franklin County-area medical cannabis caregiver who requested anonymity. “Even unintentional confusion around labeling or testing can make patients question whether a product is safe.”

In July, cPort Credit Union notified many medical cannabis caregivers and caregiver storefronts statewide that their business accounts would be closed, citing evolving compliance expectations and regulatory risk. The decision did not apply to licensed medical dispensaries, which are subject to higher levels of oversight.

Advertisement

“Patients ask more questions now than they did a few years ago,” said the Franklin County caregiver. “Public perception around safety is shaped as much by labeling and communication as by the product itself.”

The labeling incident in Bethel illustrates a possible hole in Maine’s recreational oversight model. Cultivation and wholesale movement can be tracked with some accuracy, but at the retail shelf things can get much more dicey, relying on individual inspectors and label accuracy — rather than actual traceability.

At the point of sale, the sticker is the system. Against that backdrop, state regulators are continuing broader discussions about testing standards and consumer protection.

The Office of Cannabis Policy hosted a Cannabis Conversation on Testing Lab Standards on Dec. 22, hosted by director Hudak, which focused on how the state and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention work together to ensure certified cannabis testing labs, examining laboratory procedures, oversight and public health standards. The video can be watched on Maine OCP’s YouTube page.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending