Letters submitted by BDN readers are verified by BDN Opinion Page staff. Send your letters to [email protected]
I believe the Pine Tree Power legislation that would be enacted by a yes vote on Referendum Question 3 this November has been insufficiently deliberated and is seriously flawed. I shall vote no. There can be alternatives.
Two questions come to mind regarding Maine’s two largest electric distribution utilities: In this 21st century era of outsized corporate profits, what ever is the appeal of these stodgy (at least as depicted in grade school) public utility enterprises to private investors? And, might a source of consumer resentment be not knowing just how money flows into, out of, and through these enterprises of avowed public interest and purpose? Enlightenment regarding such questions is unlikely to emerge spontaneously from behind the corporate curtains of these utilities.
How then to shed daylight on the inner workings of our investor-owned electric utilities short of hugely expensive and years-long expropriation of their assets? One possibility is to expand the legislative mandate of the Maine Office of the Public Advocate to require access to the full scope of financial transactions within these regulated public utilities. With more sunshine let into its boardrooms, investor-owned utilities might even choose to operate but not own electric power distribution systems. Any expansion of the role of the Office of the Public Advocate, however, is likely to be resisted and would warrant deliberation through perhaps several legislative sessions.
In a recent Bangor Daily News column, Amy Fried shared insight from her distinguished tenure as a professor of political science: “When students walked away from a class of mine thinking ‘That’s more complicated than I thought,’ I had succeeded.” Voters should keep this wisdom in mind when evaluating legislation-by-referendum questions on their ballots this November.
Paul Smith
Orono