Maine
Maine’s electricity prices grew at the third fastest rate in the country, analysis shows
Between 2014 and 2024, the average retail price for electricity in Maine increased by the third highest rate in the country, according to an analysis by The Maine Monitor, surpassed only by California and Massachusetts.
The average retail price of electricity in Maine during the 10-year period rose from 12.65 cents/kWh to 19.62 cents, according to data collected by the federal Energy Information Administration. That’s an increase of 55 percent.
At the same time, the average retail price of electricity in the United States rose from 10.44 cents/kWh to 12.99, or 24 percent.
Maine’s rate of increase, then, was more than twice the national average. But it was considerably less than California, which saw its average price grow from 15.15 cents/kWh to 27 cents, a 78 percent jump.
In New England, Maine was followed by Massachusetts, which climbed from 15.35 cents to 23.98 cents, or 56 percent. Rhode Island grew at more than 54 percent, going from 15.41 cents in 2014, to 23.85 cents last year.
As electricity demand grows, affordable power is critical to a viable energy policy. But Maine’s energy policy is under fire: in Washington, the Trump administration is moving to withdraw most federal financial support for clean electricity in favor of boosting oil, coal and natural gas. It also has begun to challenge state efforts aimed at slowing global warming.
In Augusta, Maine continues to debate the impact of solar incentives on electricity bills.
Against that backdrop, why did Maine’s electricity prices grow so fast, and what might it mean for the quest to make electricity more affordable in the future?
Promoted by Gov. Janet Mills, Maine has set a goal of getting 100 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources by 2040. This aggressive target aims to blunt the impacts of a warming climate, largely by cutting the harmful emissions from burning oil and natural gas. But this goal is juxtaposed against another primary objective of the state’s updated energy plan: “Deliver affordable energy for Maine people and businesses.”
A key way to achieve both objectives, state energy planners say, is to shift the way we fuel our cars and heat our buildings to efficient, electric-powered technologies powered by renewable energy sources. This strategy is called “beneficial electrification.” Measures include heat pumps for air and water, battery-powered vehicles, solar and wind generation and energy storage.
But a corollary to beneficial electrification is that electricity has to be affordable. Otherwise, residents and businesses have little incentive to switch.
Here’s the dilemma. At the same time Maine’s cost of electricity has been rising steeply, some of the proposed pathways to an all-electric future are facing unexpected challenges, both in terms of cost and availability. Examples include offshore wind, electric vehicles, heat pumps and new transmission lines.
“It’s fair to say we are at a crossroads,” said Bill Harwood, who retired in January as Maine’s Public Advocate. “We need to continue to subsidize renewables for the foreseeable future, because we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. But we need to be careful and thoughtful. We can’t over-subsidize it, like we did with (solar).”
Despite the increases, Maine’s electricity prices remain among the lowest in New England, noted Dan Burgess, who heads the Governor’s Energy Office. The factors pushing up prices are exactly why the state is working to move away from imported fuels in favor of homegrown renewable energy, he said.
Blaming natural gas, but it’s complicated
First, why did Maine’s electricity prices rise at such a fast pace?
Harwood and other energy experts blame three main factors — natural gas availability and price, a too-generous solar incentive program and recovery costs from recent violent storms.
Natural gas is the leading cause, but the reasons are more complicated than they may appear.
More than half of New England’s generating capacity comes from gas-fired power plants. This status dates back 25 years, as the region sought to phase out expensive and polluting oil generation.
Public opposition to more nuclear plants eliminated that carbon-free option. But new gas supplies in Canada and the Marcellus shale fields in Pennsylvania during the 1990s led policy makers and investors to back generators that promised cleaner air and lower prices. They were also quick to build. Several new gas power plants went up, including ones in Westbrook, Rumford, Veazie and Bucksport that benefited from two new gas pipelines from Canada.
But because these power plants respond daily to changing electricity demand, they aren’t able to secure the lowest gas prices through long-term contracts. As more businesses and homes converted to gas, the region’s pipeline system didn’t have enough capacity on frigid winter days. In response, developers sought to build new lines, including one through western Massachusetts.
A plan for Maine electric customers to help pay for some of the new capacity was championed by Gov. Paul LePage, a Republican. But new pipelines drew stiff opposition from local residents and some Democratic politicians.
Environmental groups also said new gas capacity would lock in the region’s dependence on fossil fuels for decades. Following legal actions, the projects were largely abandoned, including the $3 billion Northeast Energy Direct in 2016 that would have added to Maine’s supply.
Maine pays more for natural gas
This left New England electric customers at a disadvantage, according to Rich Silkman, an economist and former head of the Competitive Energy consulting firm in Portland. Pipelines carrying gas into the region from Pennsylvania face a pipeline constraint beyond the Hudson River, causing wholesale prices to rise significantly on the coldest days. This, in turn, caused electricity prices to soar.
Maine suffers the greatest impact, Silkman said. Gas from the Marcellus region must head first into the Boston area, before being delivered north into Maine and Atlantic Canada. This adds to the wholesale cost of gas for generators here, meaning that they run only at costly times to meet peak demand. On top of that, Burgess pointed out, the region depends on expensive, overseas shipments of liquefied natural gas in the winter to supplement domestic supply.
Over the 10-year period, electricity supply has been the single biggest share of a home’s monthly power bill. It has ranged from roughly 6 cents/kWh for Central Maine Power and Versant Power/Bangor Hydro customers in 2015, to more than 16 cents in 2023, following the spike in global energy markets tied to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. These supply costs made up between 45 percent and 59 percent of a total bill.
It’s easy to blame natural gas price volatility for higher electricity costs. But Silkman said natural gas opponents also should acknowledge that Maine’s higher than average electric rates are partly self-imposed, through public opposition and public policy.
“Maine tried to get a gas pipeline built,” he said, “but it had to go through Massachusetts. We could have easily expanded the gas pipeline and that would have solved our winter pricing problems.”
Today, President Trump’s declaration of an “energy emergency” has revived talk of pipeline expansion in the Northeast. Whether Trump can overcome continued opposition, and if companies that lost millions of dollars on earlier efforts will take another gamble, remain open questions.
Also pushing Maine bills up is the cost of recovering from more-intense storms linked to climate change. Trees falling on power lines, in the country’s most-forested state, is the prime culprit.
For example: Central Maine Power serves nearly eight in ten electric customers. The cost of restoring power and fixing storm damage hovered around $32 million a decade ago. It increased to nearly $72 million in 2020, to $119 million in 2022 and $168 million in 2023, according to the Portland Press Herald. To blunt the impact on customers, the Public Utilities Commission has approved a strategy to spread out cost recovery over multiple years. Even so, storm recovery will add $20 to the average monthly CMP bill this summer, according to the energy office.
Solar benefits depend on “perspective”
Beyond gas and storms, few recent energy policies have received as much scrutiny as net energy billing, a practice in which renewable energy generators are compensated for excess power they provide. The program was initially aimed at small, rooftop solar panels. But in 2019, lawmakers advocating for cleaner energy greatly expanded the size of projects that could qualify for net energy billing, as well as the level of compensation. Today, more than 15,000 projects qualify.
By that measure, net energy billing is a huge success. When there’s enough sunlight, those projects can together generate 70 percent of the output of the Seabrook nuclear plant. This exceeds a state energy plan goal of building 750 megawatts of so-called distributed generation.
But electric customers pay for the generous subsidies, recently estimated by the Maine Office of the Public Advocate at $220 million a year. The rate impact today on a typical CMP home customer is roughly $7 a month; it runs more than $20,000 a month for a large business, according to Central Maine Power.
“Maine made some mistakes,” said Barbara Alexander, a consumer energy consultant who advises AARP Maine. “We could have built all this solar with competitive bids for half the price. We missed out on how to do this in the most cost-effective way.”
Alexander lamented that Maine has invested so heavily in solar, but isn’t seeing much benefit in rates.
“The bogeyman here in New England is that, except for a couple of volatile years, natural gas is the fuel of choice for generation,” she said. “So either make gas cheaper or replace it. Neither of those things has happened.”
As costs mount, lawmakers have been working to dial back the solar subsidy program. They’re still at it this legislative session, considering measures — largely promoted by Republicans — that range from trimming the subsidies to killing the program altogether. Harwood, the former Public Advocate, said the solution is to put experts at the PUC in charge of a competitive bidding program, rather than leave complex pricing and market details to a part-time Legislature.
But one element that colors the debate over how solar policy contributes to high electric bills is, literally, perspective.
By law, the PUC must annually study the costs and benefits of net energy billing. The latest analysis featured three “perspectives,” on the value of the program — for society in general, for Maine specifically and for electric ratepayers. The study’s primary focus is on the general society perspective.
By that measure, the 2024 program costs were $202 million and the societal benefits were $194 million. This calculation included $53 million of benefits for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. By comparison, the ratepayer benefits were only $80 million. A bottom-line perspective: Reducing climate change emissions is good for the planet, but so far, has done little to lower your electric bill.
This story was originally published by The Maine Monitor, a nonprofit civic news organization. To get regular coverage from The Monitor, sign up for a free Monitor newsletter here.
Maine
Who is raising the most money in the Maine governor’s race?
(Joe Phelan/Staff Photographer)
Candidates vying to become Maine’s next governor have until midnight Tuesday to file campaign finance reports for the first quarter of the year.
The reports will show who is best positioned to control the message in the final month-plus until the primaries. But fundraising success doesn’t always guarantee a win at the ballot box.
The reports come as a growing number of leading candidates are taking to the airwaves a head of the June 9 primaries. Five Democrats and seven Republicans are vying to replace Gov. Janet Mills, who is term limited.
As of Tuesday, Republican Jonathan Bush topped all candidates in broadcast, cable and digital advertising, having booked nearly $1.5 million in ads through the primary, the political spending tracker AdImpact said.
But Republican Garrett Mason is benefitting from about $3 million in spending by Restoration of America PAC, which is running ads targeting Gov. Janet Mills and tying Mason to President Donald Trump.
Other Republican candidates running ads are Bobby Charles ($63,000), Owen McCarthy ($43,660) and Ben Midgely ($55,000.)
Hannah Pingree tops the Democratic slate with about $564,000 in ad spending, followed by Nirav Shah ($493,000), Shenna Bellows ($462,700) and Angus King III ($299,000.)
As of Tuesday afternoon, fundraising totals were only trickling in. Public access to those reports was hampered because the Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics & Election Practices is building a new website, and glitches made some reports unviewable.
This story will be updated when more reports are filed. As of Tuesday afternoon:
- Republican Jonathan Bush reported raising about $845,000 in the first quarter, but 60% of that, $500,000, was a personal loan to his own campaign. His totals were not yet available through the new website, but his quarterly fundraising and spending was provided by ethics staff.
- Republican Robert Wessels was the only other active candidate that had filed. He raised nearly $11,600 for the quarter and has about $13,540 in cash.
This is a developing story.
Maine
Obituary: Anne Theresa Tarling
Anne Theresa Tarling
SANFORD – Anne Theresa Tarling, 74, of Sanford, Maine passed away peacefully at home on April 23, 2026, surrounded by her loving family. While our hearts are broken, we find comfort in knowing she lived a full and beautiful life rooted in love, creativity, and devotion to the people who meant the most to her.
Anne was born on April 3, 1952, in Portland, Maine, to the late Joseph and Blanche Morin. She grew up in Portland and graduated from Deering High School in 1970.
In 1980, Anne married the love of her life, Ernest Tarling. Together they built a life centered on family, laughter, and partnership. Their 45 years of marriage were filled with shared memories and a deep commitment to one another and to their family.
Anne was a talented self-taught artist who found great joy in painting and sharing her creativity with others. She proudly exhibited her work at local art shows and specialty shops, and her paintings found their way into homes near and far. Her art brought beauty and comfort to many and will continue to remind us of her for years to come.
She also enjoyed gardening, sailing the coast of Maine, and hosting family gatherings. She was known for her famous chocolate chip cookies and for never missing a birthday or special occasion.
Being a devoted Nana brought her great joy, and she cherished time spent with her family above all else.
In addition to her parents, Anne was preceded in death by her brother, Stephen Morin; her sister, Julie Pochebit, her brother-in-law, Daniel Desmond; nieces Elizabeth McKee and Alison Pochebit.
She is survived by her brother, Paul (Sue Ellen) Morin, two sisters, Cheryl Desmond and Celine (Stephen) Pochebit; her husband of 45 years, Ernest Tarling; her son, Greg (Karen) Flagg, her four daughters, Jennifer Copper, Rebecca (Frank) Zavadil, Stefenie (Matthew) Burdick, and Kendra (Justin) Dowling; her 11 grandchildren, Cody, Matthew, Jackson, Gracey, Lucas, Quinn, Beau, Shea, Ellie, Will, and Stevie; a large extended family, including many loving nieces and nephews; and her longtime best friend, Sandy Hobbs.
A funeral service will be held Saturday, May 2, at 11 a.m. at St. Martha Church, 30 Portland Road, Kennebunk, Maine, followed by a celebration of life at 12:30 p.m. at For the Love of Food + Drink at Saltwater Farm, 411 Post Road, Wells, Maine.
To share a memory or leave a message of condolence, please visit Anne’s Book of Memories Page at http://www.bibberfuneral.com.
Arrangements are in the care of Bibber Memorial Chapel, 67 Summer Street, Kennebunk, ME 04043.
Maine
Moldy Maine weed is being treating with radiation
Maine marijuana growers are increasingly using radiation and other methods to remove contaminants from their products, a process consumers are likely in the dark about.
Despite a state policy requiring remediated products to be labeled as such, Maine’s Office of Cannabis Policy is not enforcing that rule.
In response to a complaint by a dispensary owner in late February, deputy director of operations Vern Malloch acknowledged, “we are not requiring labeling of remediated or treated product,” according to records obtained through a media request.
“We plan to issue guidance on this in the near future,” Malloch wrote.
Office of Cannabis Policy Director John Hudak also told lawmakers last year that the agency hasn’t enforced remediation labeling requirements since at least November 2024.
“The Office began receiving pushback from cannabis cultivators who did not want to label their cannabis if they ‘treated’ their cannabis with radiation or ozone prior to submitting the cannabis for mandatory testing,” Hudak wrote in testimony last year.
A spokesperson for the agency declined to answer specific questions Monday, but confirmed the agency stopped enforcing the rule after some growers raised concerns over the “misleading impact” that labeling treated cannabis has on consumers.
“Requiring label disclosure of the use of irradiation or ozone treatment implies a consumer risk that is not scientifically supported and is potentially misleading in its implication about potential harm from exposure,” Alexis Soucy, OCP’s director of media relations, wrote in an email.
Over the last couple years, several marijuana products have been subjected to recall because of high levels of mold, yeast and other contaminants. Unsafe levels of mold in cannabis can cause flu-like symptoms, including respiratory issues, sinus infections, headaches and dizziness.
But rather than tossing their product, growers can turn to a process called irradiation, often involving gamma rays or X-rays, to remove contaminants.
Supporters say it’s a safe way to reduce waste and prolong shelf lives. Mold and yeast grow naturally just about everywhere and many species are benign. Standard cannabis mold testing does not differentiate between harmful and harmless microbes.
Opponents, however, argue there isn’t enough research about remediating cannabis to say whether it’s safe or not. There is not much data on whether the various types of remediation are effective at killing microbes or are safe for consumers, most of whom don’t know about the practice.
“It’s a complex topic without many answers,” said Yasha Kahn, who co-founded MCR Labs, one of four licensed cannabis testing facilities in Maine. “Hopefully, the rescheduling can lead to more research.”
The federal government moved last week to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III drug. Decades-long restrictions on cannabis research will be lifted, which acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said will allow for studies into “marijuana’s safety and efficacy.”
Kahn, who operates several testing labs throughout New England, said irradiating cannabis has become increasingly prevalent in legal markets across the country and the world. It’s still debated whether irradiation works as well as it’s supposed to, he said.
‘THIS IS A FAIRLY NEW PROCESS’
There are numerous kinds of cannabis remediation, each with its own pros and cons. Growers most commonly use X-rays, gamma radiation or ozone gas to remove mold and microbes.
Radiation does not kill all the mold, yeast and other microbes present in cannabis outright, Kahn said. Certain species of mold, like harmful mycotoxins, can often survive remediation. Others can remain dormant for months following the procedure.
“Irradiation gets rid of mold’s ability to procreate, and not necessarily permanently,” he said. “You can take that same product and test it again, months from then, and there’s going to be mold growth.”
Some in the industry, like organic marijuana farmer Lizzy Hayes in Mercer, fear that having the option to remediate cannabis removes the incentive to grow clean cannabis. If you can simply use radiation to eliminate mold from harvested crops, she said, why would you put effort into growing mold-free products?
Part of the blame, according to Hayes, lies at the feet of Maine’s recreational cannabis testing regime. Unlike the state’s medical marijuana market, batches of recreational cannabis products must be tested for contaminants like mold, yeast and heavy metals before they can be put on a dispensary shelf.
But since the mold test only detects the presence of mold, not whether it’s harmful, Hayes said many growers save themselves the trouble and irradiate their cannabis by default rather than risking a failed test.
“When you have a regulatory system that incentivizes irradiation, it’s also making it so that customers don’t have access to as high quality of a product,” she said.
Some in the industry disagree. A bill was proposed last year to codify requirements around labeling treated cannabis and inspecting remediation equipment. It was ultimately defeated after many Maine cannabis growers testified in opposition to the bill.
“Radiation and ozone treatment methods are well-established, scientifically validated technologies commonly used in industries far beyond cannabis,” wrote Jacob Racioppi, owner of Goose River Cannabis in Unity. “In fact, they are standard in the food industry.”
Joel Pepin, co-founder of JAR Cannabis Company, owns and operates one of about a dozen X-ray machines in Maine’s cannabis industry. He estimated that about half of Maine’s recreational cannabis has been treated by similar methods. It would be overkill, he said, to require all of that product to be labeled over scientifically unfounded concerns.
“If we apply this same logic to other industries in Maine, then why doesn’t this bill also require dental patients to wear a shirt that says, ‘treated by X-ray’ after leaving the dental office?” Pepin testified.
Neither Racioppi nor Pepin responded to requests for an interview.
Lorri Maling, laboratory director at cannabis testing facility Nelson Analytical, seconded Pepin that remediating cannabis is “more in use now than it was a few years ago.”
While some opponents of irradiation claim the process reduces THC content and eliminates terpenes — the chemicals that give different cannabis strains unique scents and effects — Maling said there’s no data to back that up. Nor is there much data to back up many other conclusions about the effects of irradiating cannabis.
Most of the studies on the effects of irradiation have been on fruits and vegetables, she said, which have not shown any negative effects — though there’s no guarantee that any remediation method will kill all bacteria.
“This is a fairly new process for cannabis,” Maling wrote in an email. “I really cannot say that it is safe or unsafe for cannabis as there really is not enough data on this.”
-
Movie Reviews14 minutes agoPanic Fest 2026 Film Review: “Buffet Infinity” – MediaMikes
-
World26 minutes agoAcid Attack in Indonesia Evokes Brutality of Suharto Era
-
News32 minutes agoBeneath King Charles’s Jokes and Decorum, Some Subtle Rebuttals to Trump
-
Politics38 minutes agoFull Guest List for Trump’s State Dinner With Charles and Camilla
-
Business44 minutes agoPrime Minister Mark Carney Says Canada’s Economy Is Expected to Grow and Deficit to Fall
-
Health56 minutes agoCould At-Home Brain Stimulation Reduce Psychiatry’s Reliance on S.S.R.I.s?
-
Culture1 hour agoBook Review: ‘The Rolling Stones,’ by Bob Spitz
-
Lifestyle1 hour agoFashion Can’t Get Over Michael Jackson