Net metering for solar not a subsidy
As a Washington County-born solar worker, I have three frustrations with the conversation around Maine’s net metering bill.
First, it is not a subsidy. Whether the government should subsidize solar is worthy of debate. But that is not what is in this proposal. Maine’s ratepayer advocate, in conservative modeling, found the bill would save non-solar ratepayers $55 million, largely by monetizing money left on the table by current solar policy. How is that a subsidy?
Second, why is renewable energy political? The Energy, Utilities and Technology Committee’s divided party-line vote makes it look like this is a fight between environmentalists and practical people, when it is not. I would think conservatives could rally around job creation, saving money and increasing energy independence. This is a common-sense compromise addressing most Republican concerns with previous solar legislation, and only the most far right, anti-renewable wing of the party is opposed to it. Why should the extremes dictate policy for the rest of us?
Third, no solar installers want to be at the State House. We are all a lot better at calculating string sizing and snow load charts than lobbying. There’s a lot that solar advocates do not love about this bill, but Maine’s solar industry supports it because we finally have a policy that strikes a truce with the utility companies, avoiding future wasteful battles at the Maine Public Utilities Commission.
The Legislature needs to do its job and pass LD 1649 so we can continue doing ours.
Fred Greenhalgh
Alfred
Trash debate needs more information
The April 2 BDN editorial about the Municipal Review Committee towns deciding the future of their waste disposal focuses on the critical issue of economics. The Fiberight proposal for trash handling involves two distinct phases. The trash handling, crushing, separating the recyclables and making methane from the remaining organic material is a tested and proven process by companies in Europe.
The second phase of making sugars, ethanol or refuse-derived fuel of what remains is more research and development than proven technology, especially at full scale. Is the Municipal Review Committee willing to allow this R&D to take place in Hampden? Is success in the R&D necessary for Fiberight to remain in the black? The economics of both phases should be scrutinized carefully to make it probable that the contract remains viable for the 15-year time period.
Larry Sikora
China
Maine ready for national park
Residents and businesses in the Katahdin region and across Maine have made their support quite clear for a national park and national recreation area east of Baxter State Park. I’m disappointed that Sens. Angus King and Susan Collins and Rep. Bruce Poliquin have not done the same.
I recently visited the area within the borders of the proposed park. My wife and I stayed in the charming Mount Chase Lodge in nearby Shin Pond and enjoyed spectacular scenery from cross-country ski trails along the East Branch of the Penobscot River. I saw that this is a special place — just the kind that our national parks are intended to preserve and maintain for all Americans to enjoy.
My visit also made clear why the Katahdin Area Chamber of Commerce and countless businesses and residents support the proposal. It accommodates a variety of activities, including snowmobiling and hunting, within the proposed recreation area, and could provide a real boost for a regional economy in transition.
Along with donating their land to establish the national park and recreation area, the current owners would establish an unprecedented, multimillion-dollar endowment for operations and maintenance.
I’m grateful that our leaders have carefully considered a variety of community voices to ensure the park proposal meets the needs of current and future Mainers. But the time has come for action. I urge King and his colleagues to tell the National Park Service that Maine is ready for this national park and recreation area.
Kurt Steiner
Waldo