Passersby observe the floodwaters at Veterans Memorial Park on the banks of the Androscoggin River in Lewiston on Dec. 20, 2023. (Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star)
While there is general agreement around the need to be transparent about how much Maine’s climate policies are costing consumers and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a Republican proposal to collect such data is being panned as redundant while omitting key details.
Sponsored by House Minority Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham (R-Winter Harbor), LD 495, proposes that the Maine Department of Environmental Protection be required to produce two estimates when adopting any new rules designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: one on the adverse climate effects that would be prevented by reducing emissions and another on associated costs that will fall to consumers.
“LD 495 strikes a necessary balance between environmental responsibility and economic fairness,” said Rep. Mike Soboleski (R-Phillips), who presented the bill Monday to the Maine Legislature’s Environment and Natural Resources Committee on behalf of Faulkingham.
Specifically, the bill mentions that the analyses should include the impact of new climate rules on the prices of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity, heating oil and propane.
Jeff Crawford, director of the Bureau of Air Quality with the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, testified neither for nor against the bill but explained that the department is already required to evaluate the economic impact of new rules, so the bill would not pose a significant new burden for the department.
Last June, the department released its 10th Biennial Report on Progress Toward Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals, which analyzed emissions by fuel source and economic sector. That report found that as of 2021, Maine’s gross greenhouse gas emissions were 30% lower than 1990 levels.
However, Crawford said that instances where the Legislature enacts a law that directs the department to develop new rules should be exempt from the sort of analysis outlined in the bill because those issues should have received a thorough vetting through the legislative process.
During the public hearing Monday, Jon Reisman, a former professor of economics and public policy at the University of Maine at Machias and conservative columnist with the Machias Valley News Observer, said Faulkingham submitted the bill at his request. He said the bill would offer an “infusion of transparency” and help the state move toward more accessible, equitable and effective rules, which he added would “dramatically improve climate change policy consensus.”
Reisman argued that had a similar bill been passed decades prior, the state could have had a “bipartisan and effective climate change policy.” Climate change policies in Maine often become partisan issues with Republicans concerned with increases to everyday expenses and Democrats focused on the cost of inaction.
Multiple environmental advocacy groups testified at the hearing. While they voiced appreciation for the desire to increase transparency, they contended that the proposal wouldn’t accurately capture the costs and benefits of climate policy.
Cathy Breen, director of government affairs with Maine Conservation Voters, said the requirement to estimate the reduced emissions is not particularly problematic, as it is already being done like Crawford pointed out.
However, Breen argued that the second requirement outlined in the bill would be impossible to meet. The costs of electricity and other commodities are subject to market forces beyond the purview of the department and, in some cases such as oil, dependent on international affairs.
Additionally, Sarah Nichols with the Natural Resources Council of Maine said the bill presents a “false choice.” Many efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions also reduce costs to taxpayers, she said, giving the example of recycling programs lowering waste management costs for municipalities.
Nichols also said the bill highlights why many climate-friendly initiatives receive opposition. The focus on immediate costs fails to see the bigger picture, especially the “enormous cost of doing nothing,” she argued.
Nichols highlighted a 2020 report from the Maine Climate Council that shows Maine and its citizens could incur significant costs if the state did not adapt to climate change. The report looked at the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of costs that could come from doing nothing to address sea level rise and increased flooding, among other estimates of inaction.
“If we evaluate policies based on costs without considering the full range of benefits they provide or based on the cost relative to a do-nothing scenario, we are setting ourselves up for bad analysis, bad results and ultimately, failure to protect Maine’s environment, economy and people,” Nichols said.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.