One of the major coming flashpoints this legislative session – one you may not have heard of, unless you’re already following it closely – is a proposal that would restrict the expansion of natural gas in Maine.

The debate is already proving contentious: proponents and opponents of the measure up for consideration, L.D. 2077, the innocuously titled “An Act Regarding Customer Costs and the Environmental and Health Effects of Natural Gas,” don’t even agree on what the measure would do, let alone whether it’s a good idea.

Its opponents, who include representatives of the natural gas industry and business interests, argue that the bill amounts to an outright ban on future natural gas expansion. Its proponents, meanwhile, insist that’s not the case, arguing it’s designed to protect both consumers and the environment. Who’s right? In a sense, they both are, and that’s the issue.

The bill would, in fact, not technically ban natural gas expansion, only make it so exceedingly difficult to finance that financing its expansion would be virtually impossible. As it was originally written, the bill would have forbidden natural gas companies from passing on the expansion costs to all consumers. Instead, only those consumers who directly benefit from an expansion would be able to have their rates increased to pay for it. This may seem relatively simple and fair. In reality, it completely undercuts the most common way in which these projects are financed. Think, for a moment, of roads: the costs of building, expanding and maintaining most state-funded roads are borne by all taxpayers, regardless of which particular roads you use on any given day.

The effect of this legislation would be similar to a hypothetical bill that bars any businesses from getting any sort of loans before it opens a new location or expands. That, too, wouldn’t technically ban all business expansion, but it would be so sweeping that, in essence, it would. It would be a backdoor ban, just like this bill is with natural gas expansion.

Right now, the problem is that the Legislature isn’t openly debating the bill as written and subjecting it to a simple up-and-down vote. Instead, representatives are huddled with lobbyists, in secret, trying to rewrite the measure so they can save it in some way. Although they’re sadly commonplace in Augusta, these types of backroom negotiations are never necessary, nor do they lead to better governance. Rather, they’re a simple way for powerful insiders and our elected officials to avoid public accountability. If all sides are being honest in their positions, there’s absolutely no reason these discussions can’t be conducted publicly.

If pressed, policymakers will claim that these are complex issues that ought to be negotiated in private. That’s patently absurd.

The real reason these negotiations are so often hidden from the public is to keep us unaware of how much influence unelected and unaccountable lobbyists – whether from industry or environmental groups – have over our government.

The truth is that these special interests hold enormous sway in Augusta, especially because we have a part-time, term-limited Legislature. Lest any of us forget, they’re called “special interests” because they’re only looking out for themselves, not the wider public; they have their constituents, just like any legislator. The only reason to have these negotiations in secret is to keep the truth from the public, an approach that leads to worse policies, not better ones.

This legislation also represents a broader shift in thinking on the part of the environmental lobby – a move from simply advocating for their preferred energy sources to attempting to cripple, or ban, the alternatives.

We’re seeing this strategy play out in another way in Augusta with the ridiculous proposal to ban the sale of new gas-powered vehicles.

Rather than strengthening their case, environmentalists weaken it with these sorts of arguments. If clean energy was truly competitive, it would be able to be successful on its own on a level playing field, without trying to ban its competitors, without receiving public subsidies. The electric vehicle legislation isn’t really about protecting consumers or the environment.

Instead, it’s about taking away consumer choice and rigging the marketplace in favor of a preferred outcome, and it ought to be debated honestly and in the open, not in secret backroom deals. These types of negotiations are undemocratic and they ought to be rejected out of hand.

Jim Fossel, a conservative activist from Gardiner, worked for Sen. Susan Collins. He can be contacted at:
jwfossel@gmail.com
Twitter: @jimfossel

Copy the Story Link