127th Legislature

Energy Utilities Technology Committee

March 3, 2016 work session

Submission by:

Hendrik D. Gideonse,

119 Old County Road,

Brooklin, ME 04616

gideonse@midmaine.com

Chairman Woodsome, Representative Dion and distinguished members of the Joint Standing Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Technology. I am Hendrik Gideonse of Brooklin, ME. I seek to share my concern that LD 1513 should not and need not be decided in the current second session of the 127th Legislature.

That statement of caution rests on discomfort arising from my becoming aware well after the Public Hearing that there was much I couldn't easily find out bearing on LD 1513 though I looked and which I believe should be fully explored and aired before you come to any decision. Coupled with the long pause since the public hearing that some say has been created to allow companies with direct interests time to examine the implications of LD 1513, I seek to raise this caution flag.

LD 1513 seems simple and straightforward. That is, until you place it in the larger context of all too many corporate initiatives taken ostensibly in the public interest. Candor requires me to say I come to this proposal from the context of having spent several years working as part of STEWC, the Stop the East/West Corridor coalition, and on whose Steering Committee I currently serve (although I address you in my individual, not organizational, role).

When I look at LD 1513 I find myself asking questions like the following:

1. What is it trying to “fix”? What was wrong with the prior distinction between generation and transmission? (I must say, too, that the language is so convoluted in what it seems to be saying about what may and may not be permitted that it only succeeded in creating in me a sense of disbelief, obfuscation, and skepticism over the proposal which in itself is a reason for saying “no” or “not yet.”)

2. Who benefits from this proposal? Corporations? The environment? Ratepayers? Maine? Other states? And is there a downside? (There is always a downside. What is it in this instance and is it worth the risk?)

3. What is the current generation and transmission picture in Maine? Who is doing what, where, and in what amounts? What is projected for the future? What is being generated nearby outside of Maine that might be of relevance? Who is paying? Who is benefitting? If it’s not Mainers, who’s watching out for our interests?

4. Whenever transmission lines are considered, eminent domain issues are engaged. Forgive my suspicions, but that's how my STEWC experience has conditioned me. It has taught me the wisdom of vigilance and how the commitment of energetic response and assertive query can benefit the greater public. Transmission lines mean rights of way (ROW). Once granted they are unlikely to ever go away, and when granted for one purpose, they are legally poised for expansion to additional corridor uses. Long and painstaking tour de force work by a colleague, Eric Tuttle, using Google maps, has charted existing, proposed, and conjectural color-coded R.O.W. for electrical utilities in Maine (plus one railroad). The crisscrossing, proximity to one

another, and directionality invite your exploration and understanding, especially in light of the questions in #2 and #3, including our worries that, the existing and already planned transmission paths would, when supplemented by a few additional minimal segments, be in a position to achieve the E/W Corridor proposal possibility already brought to a halt by wide citizen engagement throughout Maine. The resulting pdf showing all this has been attached to the e-mail along with this testimony.

My concern , essentially, is that there are way bigger issues afoot than a straight-forward reading of LD 1513 suggests. Suspend consideration at this time. Adopt the larger frame of reference the four sets of questions sketch out for you. Then come back to the matter in another year in a broad and deliberate way with the wider publics suitably informed and engaged.

Thank you for your attention.