The letter touted the virtues of the Pine Tree Power referendum, which would forcibly acquire the assets of our two biggest electric utilities and create one huge “quasi-governmental” power company headed up by an elected board. It will cost us a minimum of $10 billion and about 10 years to set up this new government authority – that’s time and money we can’t afford to waste.

Nebraska’s system is rooted in time. It’s the only state in the country where all the homes and businesses get their electricity from some sort of public utility, more than 160 of them. Most have elected boards that I imagine are filled with politicians promising to keep electric bills low so voters are happy. After all, politicians want to get elected and reelected.

Over half of Nebraska’s electricity is generated by coal. That’s right – coal. Only a quarter of its electricity is generated by wind and a much smaller amount by hydropower. Here in Maine, over 70 percent of our power comes from renewables with even more clean energy coming on line every day. I’d say, on this point alone, we’re in a far better place than Nebraska.

It's clear as we look to the future that we need a stronger and more resilient electric grid so we can utilize all the renewables being developed every day and recover from stronger and more frequent storms. That’s a focus of our state’s climate plan.

Nebraska’s electric grid isn’t faring so well. A Nebraska Public Service Commissioner told the Maine Legislature that the state’s grid investments and maintenance suffer because “elected boards prioritize lower rates.” That explains why Nebraska’s electric grid ranks 49th in the country for grid modernization and 44th for grid efficiency.

It’s clear to me – Maine absolutely does not want to follow Nebraska’s lead. Knowing Pine Tree Power is “fashioned from the Nebraska public utility legislation” gives me even more reason to oppose this expensive political experiment.

Lastly, we have trees. Lots.

Brian Langley

Ellsworth