Last week, the state of Maine and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission signed an agreement to streamline the permitting process for tidal energy projects off the coast, a move hailed as a signal to industry that Maine is serious about its future here.
In fact, John Ferland, the president of Ocean Renewable Power Co., which is pursuing tidal projects in Downeast Maine, called the deal a "regulatory innovation, " according to the Portland Press Herald.
We're heartened by this development, as a pro-active approach toward developing renewable energy is crucial for Maine to reach its potential for generation. Government can act as a trailblazer for new technologies, by clearing the permitting path for entrepreneurs and investment to follow.
Gov. John Baldacci deserves credit for getting this deal done.
Yet, it also raises a question. How much of an obstacle to energy development is government? If the agreement between state and federal officials to share information and adopt a mutually agreeable permitting schedule is an innovation, doesn't this mean the system needs fixing?
A strong regulatory environment is a necessity to protect the public interest, but good intentions can sometimes yield negative results. Maine's health insurance market, for example, is oft-criticized for being over-regulated, which drove away the competition among insurers.
Now, regulations like community rating and guaranteed issue have ensured thousands of Mainers have been covered by health insurance. It's an interesting argument, though, to consider whether the price of these regulations — increased insurance premiums — has been worth it.
And a weak regulatory environment can breed base exploitation, which must be avoided. Look no further than the fast, frightening meltdown of the American financial system to exemplify the terrible toll a barely regulated, or not regulated at all, atmosphere can level.
For something as important as energy, however, it would be worthwhile for the state and federal governments to review all its jurisdictional overlaps to ensure they are as cohesive, efficient and streamlined as possible. It is odd to think of something as simple as this as an innovation.
We'd use another descriptor for it: common sense.

verified If only the nation, or the world for that matter, had a sensible energy policy to start with. Energy policy in the US is driven by corporate interests, not the interests of the citizens. That is why 90% of energy subsidies are directed toward outrageously expensive, uncontrollable wind power, when every study done shows that the most cost effective immediate solution to our reliance on foreign oil and fossil fuels in general is massive conservation and efficiency programs.
If the subsidies targeted for 2700 MW of wind power by 2020 were instead directed toward C and E, every household in Maine would be eligible for approximately $14,000 in incentives for insulation, heating system upgrades, storm windows, and more fuel efficient vehicles. Instead we get thousands of turbines on Maine's mountain ridges, effectively destroying forever the sense of place that was recently found by the Brookings Institute to be Maine's most important asset. All of these turbines will generate about 4% of the electricity used by the New England grid on an average day. Why are we doing this? Because Angus King sees himself as the Lawrence of Arabia of Wind and Gov. Baldacci has been sucked into the idea that his legacy will be "the renewable energy governor". With such political power being wielded the wind industry had no trouble monopolizing the Task Force and drafting legislation that removed all barriers to rapid disfigurement of Maine's western mountain landscapes. Citizens are left with little more than pitchforks to defend themselves and their communities against this brutal assault. State and federal governments do not have solutions to our energy problems - they are standing in the way, and destroying Maine's most precious asset at the same time.
"Maine's health insurance market, for example, is oft-criticized for being over-regulated, which drove away the competition among insurers. "
Meaningful competition does not exist in 47 of the 50 states. The insurers left Maine because they and their "competitors" carved up the US market so that they don't face competition. nothing frightens a businessman more than competition. regulation had nothing to do with it, but if you blame regulation and have a problem you fix it by doing away with regulation. Desperately necessary regulation. We saw that with the financial services industry which just plunged us into the worst recession since the Great Depression because necessary regulation had been repealed or unenforced.
No, let's keep the regulation but let's make it as effiecient as it can be.
Jon Albrecht Dixfield
In order to make comments, you must verify your account.
In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.
Login or create an account here.
Our policy prohibits comments that are:
- Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
- Excessively foul and/or vulgar
- Inappropriately sexual
- Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
- Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
- Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.