On Tuesday, Governor Janet Mills publicly rebuked Central Maine Power’s (CMP) newly proposed five-year spending plan, which would raise the average household’s electricity bill by up to $35 per month. Mills called the proposal “massive and unacceptable,” citing concerns about affordability for rural residents, seniors, and small businesses. While no one celebrates higher utility bills, this particular line of criticism rings hollow. The truth is that Maine’s own energy policies, championed by the governor herself, already cost ratepayers even more.
The proposal, filed by CMP with the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC), seeks to raise an additional $438 million over five years, averaging out to roughly $87.6 million per year. This funding would go toward systemwide grid improvements, storm hardening, and investments to meet growing peak electricity demand, particularly during Maine’s increasingly hot summers. CMP argues that these upgrades are necessary to accommodate rising load demands and to ensure grid reliability in the face of extreme weather and the state’s ambitious electrification targets.
Yet instead of acknowledging the role state policy has played in creating those very pressures, Mills is scapegoating the utility itself. It’s a convenient political move, but a deeply misleading one.
Rate Shock and the Cost of Climate Mandates
CMP’s request is undoubtedly significant, but it pales in comparison to the cost burden of Net Energy Billing (NEB), Maine’s solar subsidy program. According to the governor’s own Energy Office, NEB was projected in 2023 to cost ratepayers over $230 million annually, topping out at $234 million in 2025, according to the Office of the Public Advocate. Even under the revised cost-control framework implemented by LD 1777, which would reduce the cost to Mainers by approximately $60 million, the program would likely still extract an estimated $173 million from Mainers each year. That’s nearly double the annual impact of CMP’s proposed increase.
NEB functions by overpaying small-scale solar producers for their electricity, sometimes at rates more than two or three times the market value of the energy they generate. These inflated payments are then passed directly to customers through higher distribution rates. The program incentivizes rooftop and community solar, which is both non-dispatchable and intermittent, meaning it often fails to generate power when demand is highest, such as on cloudy days or after dark.
That mismatch is not just inefficient; it actively destabilizes the grid. As more subsidized, unreliable solar is added to the system, CMP and other utilities are forced to spend more on grid upgrades and backup capacity to maintain reliability. That’s the very reason CMP now says it needs to raise rates: to ensure the system still functions amid rising peak demand, heat waves, and surging electrification.
In short, the rate hike isn’t a cash grab on the part of CMP. It’s a direct consequence of the very energy transition Mills and legislative leaders have mandated and continue to accelerate.
No Free Lunch: Who Really Pays for the “Green Energy” Transition?
The reality is simple: There is no decarbonization without cost. Maine’s energy policy has for years prioritized emissions goals over affordability, with the assumption that the public would absorb the expense without complaint. But that assumption is starting to break down. Ratepayers are already stretched thin by the cumulative effects of rising housing costs, healthcare expenses, and groceries. Now, with electricity prices climbing even before the full effect of electrification hits, Mainers are understandably frustrated.
CMP is hardly a model of customer service, but the company’s proposal at least attempts to address real system improvements. Unlike NEB, which hands ratepayer dollars to private solar developers with little regard for reliability or cost to consumers, CMP’s upgrades are tied to tangible improvements, storm resilience, reduced outages, and stronger infrastructure. Moreover, the plan would support job creation in energy construction and maintenance, not speculative solar schemes that often benefit out-of-state investors more than local communities.
If the governor is serious about lowering energy bills for working Mainers, the first step isn’t opposing CMP’s proposal; it’s ending expensive, regressive subsidy programs like NEB. There is a path forward that balances sustainability and affordability, but it requires being honest about tradeoffs. We cannot demand a zero-carbon grid, reject natural gas and nuclear, and then act shocked when the grid becomes fragile and expensive to maintain.
What Comes Next
The first public hearing on CMP’s proposal will be held on October 14 at the Hilton Garden Inn in Freeport. A second hearing is scheduled for October 15 at the PUC office in Hallowell. These hearings will provide a platform for Mainers to express their views on the proposal, and they should. But they should also demand transparency from state leaders about all the drivers of high electricity prices, not just the ones that are politically convenient to criticize.Maine can’t continue to subsidize intermittent solar, demand an all-electric future, and still expect cheap, reliable power. New England based studies show that energy costs will continue to rise as the region continues to subsidize renewable energy, and the only way to stop this is to continue using traditional, dispatchable energy sources. Hopefully, Maine policymakers realize that before it’s too late.