(The following is based on comments I filed with the PUC)
Central Maine Power is asking for a $189 million increase in annual revenue, which is about a 17% hike. The reasons are familiar: stronger storms, more electricity use from heat pumps and electric vehicles, aging infrastructure, and more rooftop solar. These are real challenges, and Maine’s grid does need investment. But that’s just part of the story.
The real question is whether we are making the right investments at the right cost, and if the system holds anyone accountable for the results. This filing raises serious concerns on that front.
You May Hear “Rates Are Going Down.” That’s Not Exactl;y What’s Happening.
Some reports about this filing suggest customers might see a small drop in their electric bills this summer. That’s technically true, but it’s also misleading. The reason is simple: your electric bill has two main parts.
- The supply charge (the cost of electricity itself) is set by regional markets.
- The distribution charge (the cost of delivering power) is set in this case.
Right now, supply prices are expected to drop temporarily. That reduction would happen whether this rate case existed or not. At the same time, CMP is proposing to increase distribution rates, which is the part they control.
When those two things happen at once, you can get a short-term net decrease. But that doesn’t mean rates are actually going down. It means one part of your bill is temporarily going down. The part CMP controls is going up, and that increase is what this case is about.
The Big Picture Is Right. The Details Are Not.
CMP released a long-term Integrated Grid Plan (IGP) in late 2025, then filed this rate case in April 2026. Both agree that the grid needs to be strengthened, expanded, and modernized. But just pointing in the same direction is not the same as making a clear, evidence-based case. The filing relies heavily on the IGP to justify its investments, but it doesn’t clearly show:
- Which specific grid problems does each investment solve?
- Whether the timing of those investments matches actual system needs
- Whether lower-cost alternatives were seriously considered
That last point is critical.
In many cases, reliability problems can be solved without building new infrastructure. Tools like demand response, battery storage, or shifting electricity use can help. These are called “non-wires alternatives,” and they can often lower costs and improve flexibility. There is little evidence in this filing that those options were meaningfully evaluated before defaulting to traditional construction. It is not clear we are choosing the right solutions at the right cost.
Our Utility Accountability Framework Has Real Weaknesses
Maine’s regulatory system is supposed to link utility spending to performance. This filing shows that connection is not working as intended.
First, performance targets aren’t improving.
CMP’s main reliability metric, SAIFI (which measures outages per customer), has not changed since 2022. Recent data shows CMP is already missing that target, yet the company is asking for $189 million in new investment. If customers are paying more, it’s fair to expect better performance. Right now, that expectation isn’t built into the system.
Second, storm costs are based on past events, not future needs.
CMP wants to raise storm costs in base rates from $14.1 million to $53.1 million per year, which is nearly four times higher. This is based on a five-year average that includes some of the worst storms on record. But if the proposed investments work, and stronger infrastructure and better vegetation management reduce damage, then future storm costs should go down. Locking in costs based on the most extreme recent years risks overcharging customers for improvements that are supposed to lower those costs.
Third, the rate structure itself creates upward pressure.
This case will set the starting point for future multi-year rates. That creates an incentive: the higher the starting point, the higher rates will stay in the years that follow. Without clear safeguards, this setup can quietly push costs higher over time.
What This Means for You
This isn’t about being for or against grid investment. We need to invest. The real question is whether the system ensures:
- We only build what we actually need
- We choose the lowest-cost solution that works
- We hold utilities accountable for results
- We don’t lock in unnecessary costs
Right now, the system doesn’t consistently do that.
What the PUC Should Do
Maine needs to invest in its electric grid. The direction CMP is taking, toward resilience, capacity, and modernization, is generally right.
But the process needs to ensure that:
- Investments are chosen from a real set of alternatives, not assumptions.
- Major cost drivers, including affiliate charges, are fully transparent.
- Performance improves as spending increases.
- Future costs reflect expected results, not just past extremes.
What I Will Be Working On Next Session
The Legislature should:
- Require a clear, enforceable link between long-term grid plans and the rate cases that follow, so utilities must demonstrate exactly how each investment addresses a defined need and why it is the lowest-cost option;
- Update Maine’s performance-based framework to require measurable improvement in reliability and resilience as a condition of approving new spending. Storm cost recovery should be tied to expected future outcomes, not just historical averages; and
- Establish guardrails around multi-year rate plans to prevent the initial rate case from setting an artificially high baseline for years to come.
The Bottom Line
Maine ratepayers are being asked to fund a major transformation of the electric grid.
That will only work if the system ensures discipline, transparency, and accountability.
Right now, the system doesn’t consistently do that, and this filing makes that clear.