Mainers overwhelmed the Legislative Committee on Energy, Utilities, and Technology (EUT) on Thursday, many waiting in the corridor to the chance to have their voices heard during the public hearing on a potentially consequential group of bills that could repeal or curtail the contentious net energy billing (NEB) policies driving some Maine companies out of business and, as critics argued, unfairly passing down the costs of the program.

“A job killing solar tax. That is what many companies across our state are calling Maine’s solar development subsidy program otherwise known as net energy billing,” said Sen. Stacey Guerin (R-Penobscot), sponsor of one of the bills to repeal NEB.

“What my constituants and many other residents and businesses across the state are saying is that they are already having a hard time keeping the lights on,” she added, “Everybody in this room is paying to own solar, even if you may not own it.”

Four of the five bills, LDs 32, 257, 450, and 515, submitted by Sen. Guerin, Sen. Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook), Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn), and Rep. Mike Soboleski (R-Phillips) respectively, were considered similar enough to be addressed together by public testimonies. All the bill sponsors, except for Rep. Libby, who was not present, presented their bills before the public testified on them as a group.

Hearings began at 9 a.m. and proceeded for nearly eight hours. So many Mainers appeared to testify on the set of bills that the committee was forced to make some of them wait outside the committee room in order not to exceed the room’s maximum occupancy. People testifying included numerous everyday Mainers speaking on both sides of the issue, along with a slew of lobbyists providing their input.

The NEB program, designed as part of the “green energy initiative” to increase the use of “renewable” energy programs, allows power companies, such as Central Maine Power (CMP) and Versant, to subsidize solar energy farms and household panels via rate increases for the majority of Mainers who don’t have either panels on their homes or buy-ins to solar farms.

For those who can afford panels, the program can be lucrative, allowing them to avoid energy costs, while for the rest of Maine, the rate increases can be burdensome and, for some households and businesses, devastating.

“We have the most generous subsidy for solar in the entire country for solar, and perhaps in the entire world, but we have shirked our responsibility in state government to responsibly pay for it,” said Sen. Stewart during his testimony on LD 257.

“If we as a legislature do not address this issue head on, ratepayers will continue to be on the hook for over $240 million per year, which is the current year’s projections, which equates to roughly $4.4 billion over the next 20 years,” he added.

Stewart argued that the NEB program disproportionately affects lower-income families, who must pay increased rates in order to subsidize wealthier residents who can afford to transition to solar.

“You cannot claim to care about poor people and support this public policy at the same time,” said Stewart.

“Net energy billing has proven to be an unsustainable and inequitable policy that disproportionately increases costs for Mainers, [sic] Maine’s working class and small businesses while failing to deliver the promised environmental and economic benefits,” said Rep. Soboleski, presenting LD 515.

Many who spoke in support of the bills argued that the program unjustly forced them to pay for their neighbors’ panels, while endangering the state’s economy by forcing businesses unable to cope with the rate increases to close up shop, leaving hardworking Mainers unemployed.

Jason Woollard, a potato farmer, traveled all the way from Aroostook County to explain the harm NEB could cause to his potato processing plant, the only one in the state, that employs over 100 Mainers and sends local potatoes across the country.

“Net energy billing policies are killing our business. A bill was passed around here earlier, that was our electric bill from January, we didn’t have that a year ago, and that totals $690,000 a year, we didn’t expect that. Our competitors don’t have to pay that,” said Woollard.

Clayton McKay, another concerned Mainer, also addressed his frustration with the NEB program.

“I think this bill should include some sort of reperations for the non-participants of this NEB, which happens to be 86 percent of the residential class,” said McKay.

Todd Griset testified on behalf of the Mid-Maine Chamber of Commerce in support of the bills.

“The costs of net energy billing to Maine ratepayers exceed the benefits, there can be no question about that,” said Griset.

‘You hear some people say that they are talking about the benefits of NEB, but how many businesses have come here and told you ‘I can afford this, bring it on, I want more?’ I don’t think you’ve heard that from a single business. You’ve heard quite the opposite from businesses, from people, from consumers,” Griset added.

Multiple opponents of the bill argued that ending net energy billing would unfairly harm businesses and families that had invested in solar energy because of the program, leaving them with failed investments. Other opponents resorted to common environmental talking points, suggesting that Maine’s NEB program is an essential part of preventing the Earth from being consumed by natural disasters and rising sea levels.

One woman, Sheila Corbett of Castine, who has solar panels on her house and is a beneficiary of the NEB program, spoke against the bills and in favor of preserving NEB.

“These bills, if passed, would repeal effective laws and incentives surrounding net energy billing, and would effectively result in a homeowner’s inability to recover the cost of their solar panel investment,” said Corbett.

She argued that their expired kilowatt-hour credits, energy they have not used, should go to low-income households.

She further argued that, in order to address global warming, Maine needs to expand, rather than reduce, its green energy arguments.

“If we choose to be our best selves for current and future generations, we would step up our net-zero goals,” added Corbett.

She ended her testimony by demanding, in a seemingly unrelated comment, that the legislature work to eliminate “disinformation.”

One man, Ted Rioux, an employee of a solar company, argued for NEB based on the jobs and economic benefits brought to the state by solar developers.

“Thousands of other Mainers just like me, at a time when many of us desperately needed it, found an opportunity to make a decent living through the 2019 expansion of Net Energy Billing. Hundreds of Maine residents have benefited from the economic impact these development projects have had” said Rioux.

Caroline Colan also spoke against the bills, testifying on behalf of the Governor’s Energy Office (GEO) while acknowledging some flaws in the current program.

“These programs, as well as other policy actions, have launched a successful solar industry in our state and have revived other important clean energy sources, including small hydroelectric dams,” said Colan.

She argued that the bills proposed to remedy the problems with the NEB program are “irresponsibly blunt,” but expressed a willingness on behalf of the GEO to work to modify the program.

The committee also heard testimony neither for nor against the bill from organizations, including Versant Power, wishing to provide input and information on the bills without taking a firm stance on them before they are potentially modified during a work session.

James Cody spoke on behalf of Versant, the second-largest energy utility in Maine.

“There is obviously a significant sense of frustration and concern by many folks, so we want to acknowledge that,” said Cody.

“The program has been a sucess in some ways,” he added.

He vowed that Versant is willing to provide the committee with any information it needs to find a middle ground that helps those suffering under increased energy rates and the alleged economic benefits brought by the NEB program.

Despite the fervor from the public on NEB policy, the hearing did not reveal a clearly favored position, with numerous everyday Mainers and organizations testifying on both sides of the issue.

Testimonies from both sides suggested some willingness to compromise and find a middle ground between complete NEB repeal and the current system that is driving businesses into the ground. The future work session on the bill is likely to address the desire for a middle ground, possibly softening the “blunt” nature of the bills while helping Mainers suffering under NEB.

LDs 32, 257, and 450 are essentially identical, and all three would completely repeal laws allowing the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to establish NEB practices and repeal laws referencing NEB.

Although it was included in the same public testimony, Soboleski’s LD 515 is distinct. His bill repeals the 2019 laws regarding NEB and instructs the PUC to initiate rule-making to return the state’s energy policy to its state from March 2017, and repeals any provisions that rely upon the 2019 energy policy.

The committee also heard separate testimony on Sen. Bruce Bickford’s (R-Androscoggin) LD 359, which would significantly alter NEB programs so that they are only applicable to the customers actually generating the renewable energy. Sen. Bickford’s bill specifically targets large-scale investors seeking to reap benefits out of the program, and seeks to refocus the program on the participating individuals themselves in order to reduce its costs and potential abuses.