Peter L. Murray is a Maine attorney and a member of Maine Lawyers for the Rule of
Law. He lives in Portland.

One current development in downtown Portland that has not been attracting the attention it should is developer Portland Foreside’s proposal to build and operate a 20-megawatt natural gas-fired electric generation plant on its redevelopment property at the eastern end of the Portland waterfront.

This has all the earmarks of a developer maneuver that will redound to the disadvantage of condo buyers and tenants in the project itself, ratepayers of the local electric utility, residents of the East End neighborhood and the overall welfare of the city of Portland, its business community and its inhabitants.

Portland Foreside‘s pitch is that the proposed “cogen” facility will enable it to provide electricity to its various commercial and hospitality tenants, purchasers of the 700-plus condominiums planned for this project and even tenants and visiting yachts at the Four Points Marina more economically than would be the case if it took electricity from CMP and was required to pay its fair share of the cost of supporting the CMP network.

It is actually proposing to become an electricity island, not connected to the CMP grid. It is now seeking an “advisory ruling” from the Maine Public Utilities Commission that its plans do not make it a “public utility” subject to oversight and regulation by the Maine Public Utilities Commission.

Portland Foreside’s proposal is a bad idea for at least three reasons.

First, an electric generation plant of this size was never included in the plans and documents approved as a master plan by the Portland Planning Board some years ago. That approval was based on the representation that the new development would get its electric power from the local utility, not from a generating station run by the developer.

There has been no local review of the likely fallout from a fossil-fuel electric plant in terms of noise, vibrations, greenhouse gases and particulates. Such a facility would fundamentally alter the character and palatability of the entire development scheme and could adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood. It should not be allowed without a resubmission of the entire development to the Planning Board.

Is the construction and operation of an electric generation plant in the middle of Portland’s redeveloping commercial, residential and hospitality waterfront really in accord with Portland’s Comprehensive Plan and the planning and zoning regime that implements it?

Second, the proposed operation indeed falls under the statutory definition of “public utility.” Portland Foreside is arguing to the Maine Public Utilities Commission that its plan to sell the power generated only to its own operating entities exempts it from the definition of public utility and the jurisdiction and oversight of the PUC.

However, the ultimate purchasers of the power from the operating entities would be the condo owners, shop and restaurant tenants and marina customers, clearly a large group that represents the public for utility regulation purposes. And with good reason.

Why should the people who buy condominiums, who rent shop space or restaurant space, or who dock their boats at the Portland Foreside marina be left without the protection of the Maine Public Utilities Commission with respect to their electric power supply and what they pay for it?

Third, the proposal would deprive the existing public utility and its customers of the contributions by the many new electricity users at Portland Foreside to support the grid and common electric utility facilities that we all use and rely on. The common electric grid can only be maintained if all electricity users in the service territory sign up for service with the public utility and thus help pay for the facilities that serve us all.

To allow what is essentially a retail electricity operation to opt out of this common responsibility undermines the base of support for this public service asset. The result of such opt-outs is to increase the already high electric transmission and distribution costs the rest of us pay to support that network that is vital to the welfare of all.

It is to be hoped that the Portland Planning Board will stand up and assert its jurisdiction and responsibility to review this new version of the Portland Foreside development from the ground up to determine whether it really complies with all city ordinances, the Comprehensive Plan and the criteria that they embody.

It is also to be hoped that the Maine Public Utilities Commission will rebuff the developer’s efforts to exempt itself from its jurisdiction and from any obligation to take power from the local utility and thus support the public electricity network.

And finally, is it too much to hope that Portland Foreside itself will realize that this “cogen” scheme is a bad idea, bad for all concerned, and will take it off the table?