Processing Your Payment

Please do not leave this page until complete. This can take a few moments.

January 24, 2011 Capitol Update

New approaches

By Mal Leary

LePage targets red tape

  • Hundreds of rules eyed for repeal
  • DEP draws ire at forums

Gov. Paul LePage has signed an executive order blocking any new proposed rules and regulations without his approval, calling it the first step in tackling what he calls excessive oversight hampering economic development.

“We are 48th in the nation in regulatory environment,” he said in an interview. “That’s what’s driving this. I don’t want to have to repeal any more than we have to.”

His red tape forums across the state have so far identified more than 200 rules, regulations and laws impeding economic development that are targeted for repeal, LePage said. “Anything that is anti-business, anything that is anti-Maine people and anything that will make our economy worse,” he said of his criteria.

The forums have identified a number of problems in several state agencies, but the Department of Environmental Protection in particular has been singled out. It permits most projects in the state because nearly all have an impact on the environment, and, at forum after forum, has been criticized for taking too long to issue decisions. At a forum before the Maine Business Association Roundtable last month, Peter Daigle of Lafayette Hotels, which owns more than two dozen hotels and motels across the state, blasted the DEP, calling it the “granddaddy” of red tape. Daigle said it took a decade to get an answer — eventually a no — on a planned new hotel in Wells.

Scott Carlin, owner of several IGA grocery stores in Aroostook County, joined with several speakers calling for a change in the “regulatory culture” to treat applicants as customers rather than adversaries.

LePage said his administration will do more than block new regulations with its executive order, it will also propose new rules, regulations and laws. But, he said, the first step is keeping the regulatory environment from getting any worse. “Some are going to require legislation, some are going to require new executive orders and some are going to just simply require saying, ‘Stop doing that, idiot,’” he said.

Bill seeks to abolish LURC

  • Counties would assume oversight
  • Homebuyer funding at risk

A new bill seeks to abolish the state’s Land Use Regulation Commission and give control of zoning in Maine’s unorganized territories to county governments.

“The issue for me was the Plum Creek hearings and the costs for that permitting,” said Rep. Paul Davis, R-Sangerville, who introduced the measure. “My bill would send this whole thing back to the counties and let the counties develop a plan and a permitting process.”

Davis said local officials are better equipped to regulate development than state bureaucrats. “It cost Plum Creek $25 million to go through the permitting process,” he said.

Projects that cross county lines could be handled by the two counties involved instead of a state bureaucracy like the 40-year-old LURC, Davis said. LURC was designed to provide the planning board, code enforcement and permitting staff for the plantations, townships and other unorganized areas of the state, which total more than 10 million acres. In the last four years, LURC has approved nearly $1 billion in commercial and residential development.

“It’s pretty clear that what we are doing now does not work and we need to do something else,” Davis said. “I am not suggesting there should not be government oversight over ... all this land mass.”

Rep. John Martin, D-Eagle Lake, said LURC has worked well to provide oversight of both commercial and residential development. The commission was created because counties did not want the responsibility and cost of providing that regulation, he said. “The counties don’t want it, I can tell you that,” Martin said. “I talked to Aroostook County leadership and they have no interest and no ability and do not want to raise the funds to do what would be necessary to do, basically zoning.”

Robert Howe, executive director of the Maine County Commissioners Association, said the organization has not yet discussed the proposal.

Martin doubted if counties would want to take on the additional costs, but Davis said his bill would provide funding by allowing county registries of deeds to keep revenues they now send to the state.“Currently, the registry of deeds in each county keeps 10% of their revenues and sends 90% to the Maine State Housing Authority,” he said. “I would propose to reverse that.”

Martin blasted that idea, saying the revenue supports the first-time home buyer program that has helped thousands of Mainers become homeowners. “So we have no housing for poor people in Maine? That makes even less sense,” he said.

PUC tackles smart meter alternatives

  • CMP program focus of investigation
  • Installations to continue

The Public Utilities Commission has voted unanimously to investigate whether it should require Central Maine Power to provide consumers with alternatives to the smart meters being installed throughout its service area.

Two separate petitions were filed under the “10-person provision” of PUC law, which allows 10 consumers to ask the PUC to investigate any action of a utility. The PUC stressed that the probe will focus on whether CMP should provide options, and will not address health concerns raised by the petitions. The smart meter technology uses low-power radio transmissions to transmit data on electricity usage to CMP computers, which has caused some concerns about possible health effects.

The smart meters were originally approved by the commission in February 2010. The program’s goal is to improve customer service, enhance storm restoration efforts, reduce utility operational costs, save ratepayer and utility costs and ultimately provide customers with tools to use electricity more efficiently.

PUC Commissioner David Littell said a full PUC hearing is the best way to address questions about other metering options. Among the unresolved issues is whether the federal grant funding half the cost of the meter project will be jeopardized if it does not cover all customers, he said. “Whether they are reasonable or not comes down to the issues of technical feasibility to maintain the approved grid and whether changes can be made in a way that is economically feasible,” Littell said.

Commissioner Vandean Vafiades said many of the individuals who wrote to the commission suggested they would be willing to partially pay for a more expensive metering system that provides the data CMP needs to manage its distribution system. Vafiades, author of the draft order that served as the basis for the PUC decision, said many issues raised by the petitioners are beyond the scope of the PUC. “The proceeding would be focused on whether there are or are not advanced metering installation alternatives that are technologically feasible, that do not impact network performance and [that are not] cost prohibitive to all ratepayers,” she said.

In its response to the petitions, CMP argued there could be significant costs to implement alternatives. But spokesman John Carroll said the company is pleased at the scope of the PUC’s investigation.

 

Mal Leary runs Capitol News Service in Augusta. He can be reached at editorial@mainebiz.biz. Read more of Mal’s columns here.

 

Sign up for Enews

Most Recent

Most Recent

Comments

Order a PDF