I’m reminded of the challenges of starting a business in rural Maine when I drive through downtowns that no longer resemble those of my childhood, as I pass empty factories that used to employ hundreds of our neighbors and as I see our community demographics shift toward older and poorer.
I moved back to Maine in 2009 with a young family and business in tow. Moving my company to Pittsfield presented some risk, but — like many Maine kids — much of my identity is intertwined in this land and these communities. It was important to my wife and me that we raise our kids here.
The work I do — solar and energy efficiency — clearly fit a need, given the age of the housing stock in our region and our heavy dependence on fossil fuels. By the end of 2015, my business had grown to a staff of 10 technical professionals.
While we’ve had modest success, we’ve also run into an unexpected challenge — the outrageous claims and hostility directed toward our industry by elected leaders.
Gov. Paul LePage recently vetoed and lobbied against LD 1649, a bill that had strong bipartisan support and represented a collaborative agreement between parties that rarely agree on energy policy. In his opposition, LePage claimed the solar industry has “bamboozled” the people of Maine and should leave the state.
Although the state’s ratepayer advocate, a LePage appointee, estimated the bill would save ratepayers over $55 million, the governor stated LD 1649 would increase everyone’s electricity rates by 70 percent. His claims were so egregious that they were laughable to any objective observer with knowledge of the bill.
House Minority Leader Ken Fredette worked quietly behind the scenes with similar tactics. Under Fredette’s leadership, I learned from conversations with legislators, the Republican caucus was incorrectly informed that solar costs three times as much to build as it actually does and a manufacturer was invited to make the outrageous claim that the bill would increase their electricity costs by 30 percent. Opponents of the bill used tag lines to make it sound like they supported solar as they actively worked to undermine the 40-plus small businesses that comprise Maine’s solar industry.
Before the final vote on LD 1649, one member of Fredette’s caucus told me that his vote to override the bill would be fruitless because “Fredette has three legislators that will walk if he needs them to.” Ultimately, six key House Republicans either left the chamber or refrained from voting.
Fredette’s over-the-top rhetoric during a floor speech prompted Rep. Mark Dion, chair of the Energy, Utilities, and Technology committee, to sarcastically respond that perhaps “only the wait list at DHHS [Maine’s Department of Health and Human Services] wasn’t a consequence of our attempt to revise solar policy.”
Dion also made the observation that Fredette’s arguments represented those of a lawyer presenting a case weak on facts. “We walk into the courthouse with a suitcase full of data … that will sufficiently confuse the jury so they forget why they were there to begin with,” Dion said to his fellow attorney, Fredette.
Dion observed Fredette’s actions were similar to that of a lawyer who is tasked solely with winning for his client, no matter the merit of his case.
So, who was Fredette’s client?
The people of Maine? If so, why would he fail to invite the Public Advocate — the representative tasked with advocating on behalf of Maine’s ratepayers — to present his analysis to the House Republican caucus? As he omitted this balanced information, Fredette provided incomplete and outright false information.
Was his client the Republican Party? The bill had bipartisan support in the House and Senate.
There’s a more troubling possibility. In November 2015, Fredette’s “Leadership for Maine’s Future” PAC received a $2,500 donation from a large, out-of-state company that actively worked behind the scenes to kill LD 1649. Some of Fredette’s comments were eerily aligned with those of his PAC’s donor. Was this his client?
As my business awaits the outcome of the Public Utilities Commission review of net metering, so, too, do many of our clients. The failure to pass LD 1649 has left many small businesses in Maine’s solar industry with uncertainty that has led to layoffs when most companies were expecting to hire.
Though there was disagreement regarding the merits of LD 1649, the people of Maine, our small businesses and employees deserved an honest discussion so that the bill’s risks and opportunities could have been fairly considered. Instead, we got political games and another step back for Maine’s economy.
Vaughan Woodruff is owner of Insource Renewables in Pittsfield.