The LePage administration is bent on taking the “quasi” out of the several quasi-state agencies, each of which serves an essential function in keeping Maine commerce humming. The scandalous abuse unearthed at the Maine Turnpike Authority seems to have been interpreted by the administration as the tip of an iceberg of corruption and wasteful spending in all such agencies.

This is the wrong conclusion. Legislators should insist on halting the governor’s petulant power grab until a more thoughtful analysis of each agency’s role can be undertaken. Even in the midst of budget challenges, a slower approach is needed before undoing decades of effective work.

There may indeed be expense lines for travel and conferences in some of these agency budgets that would raise eyebrows. But in the administration’s zeal to corral the agencies under the oversight of the governor’s office, it has misunderstood much. Topping the list is why those agencies were set up as semi-independent agencies in the first place.

Gov. LePage may think he can run agencies such as Maine Housing more efficiently and effectively, but like most of the agencies, its mission relies on being a step or two removed from politics. Even the Maine Turnpike Authority, which for years had a budget fattened by a steady revenue stream from tolls, must be safe from the influence of elected officials. Think of how the turnpike route and placement of exits would look if powerful legislators could have controlled its development.

The latest grab comes in the governor’s energy bill, released late in the session with little input by stakeholders. One component of the plan calls for the governor’s office to oversee the Efficiency Maine Trust. Efficiency Maine is the perfect example of a quasi-governmental agency that matches these post-recession, smaller government times. It exists, for all intents and purposes, to save Maine businesses and residents money on their electric bills. And it succeeds mightily in that mission.

For mere pocket change on electric bills, Efficiency Maine has funded improvements to businesses and homes that are expected to save $450 million in energy bills over the coming decade. It’s a simple but profound truth that the easiest way to lower energy costs is to improve efficiency. That means helping grocery stores retrofit their coolers, manufacturing plants replace electric motors, retail stores such as Marden’s reconfiguring lighting and homes adding insulation and more efficient windows and doors.

Efficiency Maine is presently run by a nine-member board, with all members being appointed by the governor, so Mr. LePage cannot credibly claim lack oversight. The trust is required to give regular, detailed reports to the Legislature about its work. Its budgets and how it aims to spend money must be approved the Public Utilities Commission, so in fact it functions much like Central Maine Power or Bangor Hydro except, unlike the utilities, Efficiency Maine is not-for-profit.

Gov. LePage may be confident that he can run Efficiency Maine better than it is now being run, but that assumption seems routed in ideological, not factual, beliefs. His bill, introduced by Sen. Mike Thibodeau, R-Winterport, betrays his bias for electric heat. That may be a good move, but as long as such strategies have direct ties to elected officials, they will be suspect. If the next governor has a very different ideology on energy matters, Republicans likely would distrust his or her manipulation of the trust.

Clamping the mantle of politics on an agency such as Efficiency Maine will push it backward, not allow it to tackle the rapidly changing energy challenges that we as a state and nation face. Hands off, governor.

Join the Conversation

55 Comments

  1. Efficiency Maine, CMP, and Bangor Hydro.

    Curious bedfellows.

    A quick question for you:

    Of the total funding for Efficiency Maine Trust, and the stimulus monies recieved, what percentage went to help other non-profits, such as rural wastewater facilities?  What percent went to actually helping residents with their homes?

    Please, do not include the amount that Efficiency Maine spent on contracted “auditors” who were paid to tell us to change our light bulbs.

    Lastly, what percentage was given to for-profit entities, such as mills and factories?

  2. For mere pocket change on electric bills, Efficiency Maine has left me without any change in my pocket.  That welfare program doesn’t need to be overseen by the governor, it needs to be eliminated. 

    1. Can you please elaborate?  I have been approved for Efficiency Maine and I am worried by the posts here that it is not a good program.  Did you use it and were dissatisfied?

      1. I think what the poster may be saying is whether it is good or bad is irrelevant.  If you wish to insulate your home or change your stove over to burn algae you should pay for it not him.

        1. He won’t be paying for it.  It is a loan.  I will have to pay it back at 4.99%.  That’s a fair rate in today’s market.  This is not welfare, it is a loan.

          1. You pay back the State for the loan but they initially take money from us in order to fund this system.”Initially established in
            2002, Efficiency
            Maine is primarily funded through the system benefit charge included in
            electricity rates, as well as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and various
            other funding sources.”
            http://www.efficiencymaine.com/about
            In your case this may be a loan but in no case do we ever get the State to stop finding ways to take our money.  Even if you do pay it back to them they will find another way to make the money go away.

          2. Fair rate?? Are you serious? The interest rate on my home equity line of credit is about half that. Anyone who would take advantage of that rate has not done their homework. The problem with Efficiency Maine is that they take money out of my pocket and I have zero chance of getting a penny of it back. Fund your own home improvements by going to you bank and credit union and taking out a loan or HE LOC. If you don’t qualify, then you have no business expecting Maine electricity customers to back you up.

      2. It’s not a good program.  My only knowledge of it consists of how much money they’re stealing from me every month.  My advice would be to stay away from Efficiency Maine.  A little pride and self respect goes a long way.

  3. I don’t understand Governor Lepages sudden aversion to quasi-government agencies. Afer all isn’t the MHPC using him as a quasi-Governor?

  4. Efficiency Maine is nothing more than a place for the party hacks and their flunkies to keep warm and dry with a government paycheck.  The sooner it is eliminated, the better off the taxpayers will be. 

    1. If LePage et al. get their hands on it, then you’ll really see “party hack” interference.

  5. It’s smart for a State this dependent on expensive resources, to invest in efficient technology.   As long as we’re using taxpayer money to fund heating assistance programs, we should be working to insulate and improve the equipment burning the oil that we’re buying for people.  I have yet to hear a rational argument in opposition to this – can someone articulate one?

    1. Absolutely not.

      Every dollar spent on energy efficiency saves hundreds over time.  

      It makes no economic sense to do nothing to encourage and expand programs that save energy.   At least, not to the taxpayer, the consumer, or the state.  

      Works out great for the oil companies, though !

  6. Personally, I would rather see all the funds for Efficiency Maine be designated in repairing our Maine roads.  It would be much better use of our hard earned taxpayer money.

  7. Didn’t Maine Housing opt to renovate a historic property (Portland?) that resulted in a cost of $235k per apartment?  Doesn’t sound like wise use of their limited resources.

    1. Yeah, gotta love that one. The call phones for the losers have better plans than my own cell phone plan that I have to pay for. International calls, texting, you name it. I have none of that.

  8. The take home message is that Maine people are just too stupid to invest in energy efficiency unless the government bribes them with other peoples money.  Oh and makes some more hack patronage jobs for the government class.

    1. Exactly.  Our money used to upgrade the facilities and homes of businesses and homeowners who could have used their own.  As long as government is going to give you someone else’s money, why use your own?

  9. The scandalous abuse unearthed at the Maine Turnpike Authority seems
    to have been interpreted by the administration as the tip of an iceberg
    of corruption and wasteful spending in all such agencies.

    This is the wrong conclusion.

    Oh? Why?

  10. Efficiency Maine should be renamed inefficiency Maine.  The only ones who benefit are the non taxpayers.  They get everything done to their homes from new furnaces, refrigerators, windows,blown-in and foam insulation all at no cost to them.  However, after having spent nearly 6,000 of my own money for updates 6 months later I received a$300 rebate and some light bulbs.  One person I know after they got all their free updates turned around and sold their house.

    1. Free?  I see on my flyer that was just sent to me that this is a loan program.  What’s free about it?  Or am I missing something?

          1.  Why do you have to be bribed with other people’s money to make your home energy efficient?  Maybe you could forgo some other expenses and do it yourself.

          2. Why would you treat people who use the program like they’ve stolen something from you ?

            Come on, have some integrity, people.

          3. I do have an issue with you, I saved up the money myself.  I gave up getting a used car, so I could make my house energy efficient.

          4. Because they did steal from me.  They just had the government hold the gun by goig through my electric bill.  Not to n mention the drones in government who run this program and skim their take off the top.  Like the drones who run LIHEAP and skim over a million off the top just for writing the checks. It’s like dealing with the mob.

            Come on, have the tiniest bit of self reliance.

          5. Because they have stolen from us. They get to use my tax money for XX number of years while I’m out that cash. I won’t be getting that 4.9 percent interest, the state will.

            And who would be foolish enough to sign for a 4.9 percent loan when money’s available for half that rate?

          6. Were you approved for a loan or are you getting everything for free?  How come I had to pay $6000 of my own money?

      1. Sorry, I’m too smart to pay twice the going interest rate on a loan. Wait, I SAVED MY OWN MONEY until I had enough to pay for the project. Funded it myself without robbing taxpayers or electricity customers.

  11. Vermont made a deal for under 6 cents a kilowatt for twenty years.
    Maine pays 4 cents a kilowatt for Efficiency Maine.
    Tell the Governor to make the deal.
    Your bill will go down if EM goes and Hydro Quebec comes on line.
    Twenty years is a long time to devlop on site power.

  12. BDN: “Gov. LePage may be confident that he can run Efficiency Maine better than it is now being run, but that assumption seems routed in ideological, not factual, beliefs.”
    Now that the BDN has expressed concern about legislation built on ideology more than factuality, perhaps they will ask for a rollback of Maine’s expedited wind permitting laws and others that provide the artificial growth media for wind power development.

    There’s no demonstrable evidence that mountaintop wind power development can provide significant long term employment, decreased dependence on oil, or result in significantly cleaner air in Maine.  There’s also no evidence that mountaintop wind power will save Maine from the “ravages” of global warming with which the NRCM threatens us if we don’t get on board their wind turbine proliferation campaign.

    Is the BDN similarly concerned with the flimsy premise that these government programs are built upon?  Or, is ideologically driven legislation simply okay when it fits your own ideology?

  13. “For mere pocket change on electric bills”  tells me that the consumer has been unaware of paying for everyone else’s energy audits, etc.  What is the mere pocket change?  Same as the USF on phone bills that is funding the “free” cell phones and minutes to so many?

  14.  Think of how the turnpike route and placement of exits would look if powerful legislators could have controlled its development.  Short term memory loss on this subject BDN.  It was part of the interaction of the director and his staff with the people in the Saco  area that led to his undoing.  Mr Violette  threatened political repercussions if the representative went forward with attempts to change the toll booths there.  In addition the director managed to “pack” the board with compliant members.  All through his “political influence”.   The director of Maine State Housing managed in implement a “point system” for contract awards.  A blatant implementation of a social agenda rather than focusing on affordable housing for those in need.  Damn the money full speed ahead. (It is only taxpayer money after all.) Efficiency Maine did little to protect its turf from Maine Green Alliance attempt to start what maybe charitable called a duplicate effort in weatherization of homes. Unfortunately “political hack-ism” is  alive and well in Augusta.  One would hope with a vigilant fourth estate this wouldn’t happen.  Politics has strange bedfellows and the Bangor “Democratic” News is a sleep on the job. 

    1.  “Think of how the turnpike route and placement of exits would look if powerful legislators could have controlled its development.”

      I’m thinking about …. …  Newport exits  – Benedicta ? are there others? 

      Doubt that the BDN editors have a clue – They don’t get off the pike toward NYTimes minerva. 

      (lol mixed metaphor) 

  15. Ok ,Efficiency Maine, is funded by everyone who pays an electric utility bill in the state of Maine. If high energy prices are one of the things keeping businesses away from Maine why not eliminate this program and decrease everyones electric bills a few dollars a month?  Its a start.

  16. It is not the wrong conclusion. Where there is smoke there is fire. Just another daily attack on our Governor.

  17. Efficiency Mine has some beneficial programs that deserve our support. Not everyone is in the middle class with extra money to spend on  insulation, etc. But it is unconscionable that Efficviency Maine provides subsidies to homeowners for wund turbines that cannot produce enough power to justify the expanditure. Eighty to one hundred twenty years pay backs are what those units require to pay forthemselves. Large scale wind farms also cannot pay for themselves in reasobnable amounts of time, if ever, as they have life spans of between 10 ans 20 years IF they replace expensive parts alonh the way. Tens of thousands of abandoned turbines are dotting the landscapes of California, Hawaii, and European nations. Yet EMTrust  is loaded with pro-wind power supporters . Economics is not one of their concerns. ClydeMacDonald

    1. March 19 News: Germany’s $263 Billion Investment In Renewables Is Biggest Energy Shift Since World War II
       
      Gee those foolish Germans.

      Not since the allies leveled Germany in World War II has
      Europe’s biggest economy undertaken a reconstruction of its energy
      market on this scale.
      Chancellor Angela Merkel is planning to build offshore wind farms
      that will cover an area six times the size of New York City and erect
      power lines that could stretch from London to Baghdad. The program will
      cost 200 billion euros ($263 billion), about 8 percent of the
      country’s gross domestic product in 2011, according to the DIW economic
      institute in Berlin.
      Germany aims to replace 17 nuclear reactors supplying a fifth of its
      electricity with renewables such as solar and wind. Merkel to succeed
      must experiment with untested systems and policies and overcome
      technical hurdles threatening the project, said Stephan Reimelt, chief
      executive officer of General Electric Co. (GE)’s energy unit in the
      country.

      1. Disqus generic email templateThanks for the info on Germany. Can you provide the source of yhe article? I am about to do a piece on Germany.s ill advised green revolution. Clyde —– Original Message —–
        From: Disqus
        To: portavi@tds.net
        Sent: Monday, March 19, 2012 11:12 AM
        Subject: [bdn] Re: Hands off Efficiency Maine, governor

        Mike wrote, in response to portavi:

        March 19 News: Germany’s $263 Billion Investment In Renewables Is Biggest Energy Shift Since World War II
        Gee those foolish Germans.

        Not since the allies leveled Germany in World War II has
        Europe’s biggest economy undertaken a reconstruction of its energy market on this scale.
        Chancellor Angela Merkel is planning to build offshore wind farms
        that will cover an area six times the size of New York City and erect power lines that could stretch from London to Baghdad. The program will cost 200 billion euros ($263 billion), about 8 percent of the country’s gross domestic product in 2011, according to the DIW economic
        institute in Berlin.
        Germany aims to replace 17 nuclear reactors supplying a fifth of its
        electricity with renewables such as solar and wind. Merkel to succeed
        must experiment with untested systems and policies and overcome
        technical hurdles threatening the project, said Stephan Reimelt, chief
        executive officer of General Electric Co. (GE)’s energy unit in the
        country.

        Link to comment

  18. Quasi-public (or quasi State as the BDN writes) agencies are inherently dishonest.  Because of “public trust” (a quality rapidly vanishing) the State can do some things we would never allow in a “private” business.  The State can take your land, home, and even personal property, as long as they pay “fair market value” which is determined by them. The State can imprison citizens, and determine when these people are released. The State can skirt some laws, and create and remove others. The State can “license” people and demand a fee for allowing people to conduct business. The State can commandeer  private funds through taxes fees and fines.

    Do you want your home taken by the State and then given to Home Depot because they will pay more taxes on the land than you?  Do you want the jails and prisons run by folks who are constantly searching for ways to acquire more tax money? Do you want the Maine State housing authority, or the turnpike authority run by people who are seeking to exploit those agencies for corporate profit?

  19. Efficiency, as in insulating older homes, is not a ponzi scheme as our Governor claims.  Effiency, reneawable energy, and heating systems that dont run on gas or oil will reduce demand for fossil fuels.
    Anyone living in a home that is not as energy efficient as it can be is only wasting money.

        1. Petroleum products.

          Fossil fuel are fuels produced from rotting organic material.  Saudi crude is a good example.  Other crude is produced from the creosote from the fire at center earth.  The predicted oil under Yellowstone, and the tar sands in Alberta are examples of this.

        1. I really don’t trust politicians…   Obama uses this term to convey the idea that the fuel is old and he is new… I guess it works…. for some.

    1.  Are the people living there not smart enough to invest in energy efficiency themselves?  Why does the government have to bribe them with money taken from others at the point of  a gun to get them to do something that makes so much sense?

  20. Closing places that cost US money is GOOD!! We could close fully 50 percent of all gov funded agencies and the regular joe would never know. Less government is good for the people.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *