The Maine Wire
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
  • Support the Maine Wire
  • Store
Facebook Twitter Instagram
Trending News
  • Graham’s Ex-flames Now Coming Forward To Dish On The Infamous ‘Sperm King,’ Janet Is Secretly Jealous
  • National Republicans Warn Against Underestimating Platner’s Electoral Chances and Taking a Collins Victory for Granted
  • Peru Residents Vote for Draconian Ordinance Imposing HOA Style Property Rules
  • Platner Dodges MSNBC Question About Additional Damaging Texts Or Embarrassing Pictures Coming Out
  • Saco, Thornton Academy Contract Dispute Boils Over Amid Fight Over Student Transfers, School Choice Fears, and Long-Term Stability
  • Trump Backs Collins for Reelection Despite Longstanding Tensions, Targets Democrat Graham Platner
  • Field Notes: Graham Platner & Shenna Bellows Rally
  • 78% of Portland Voters Express Support for $179M School Budget
Facebook Twitter Instagram
The Maine Wire
Thursday, June 11
  • News
  • Commentary
  • The Blog
  • About
  • Support the Maine Wire
  • Store
The Maine Wire
Home ยป News ยป News ยป South Portland proposal threatens critical infrastructure
News

South Portland proposal threatens critical infrastructure

Steve RobinsonBy Steve RobinsonAugust 30, 20137 Comments7 Mins Read
Facebook Twitter Email LinkedIn Reddit
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Email

sopo

SOUTH PORTLAND – The city of South Portland will soon vote on a controversial environmental ordinance so broadly written as to cause the shutdown of critical infrastructure in one of New Englandโ€™s largest ports.

Supporters of the Waterfront Protection Ordinance (WPO) submitted petition signatures to the city in June, and, following the city councilโ€™s 5-1 vote against implementing the ordinance, council members voted unanimously to send the measure to voters this November.

While some environmental activists claim the WPO is designed to protect the cityโ€™s idyllic Bug Light park from polluting corporations, others have stated their intentions plainly: a fossil fuel free Maine. Opponents say the measure, if passed, would undermine the working waterfront and send the cost of gas, home heating oil, and property taxes skyrocketing.

Jamie Py, president of the Maine Energy Marketers Association (MEMA), said the problem with the WPO stems from sections 3 and 4, which will severely restrict economic activity in the region.

Section 3 of the ordinance would prevent products that arrive on ships from being blended with products that arrive by rail or truck, said Py. This would effectively block petroleum-related activity at South Portland facilities where additives are combined with petroleum to produce home heating fuel, diesel and gasoline.

Section 4, said Py, is worse.

The language of section 4 would effectively prevent companies operating on the South Portland coast from conducting maintenance, repairs and upgrades to existing facilities, even if the changes are needed to comply with state and federal regulations. The effect would be the eventual shutdown of nearly all industry in the area.

โ€œItโ€™s like telling [New England Patriots owner] Bob Kraft that the Pats can still play football, but they can never change their personnel,โ€ he said.

Whether the WPO becomes law or not, Mainers will still need gas for their cars and oil to heat their homes. Adopting the WPO, said Py, would simply mean higher prices, as petroleum products would need to be trucked up from Boston.

โ€œThis is critical infrastructure for all of us,โ€ said Py. โ€œUntil they build enough 450 foot tall wind towers to power their electric cars, we need this.โ€

Robert Sellon, a member of Protect South Portland, the group that formulated the WPO and is now advancing it, said Pyโ€™s claims about what the ordinance would do are โ€œabsolutely not true.โ€

Sellon said companies already operating have nothing to worry about. โ€œThis ordinance protects all current activities,โ€ he said. Sellon said the goal of the WPO was mainly to prevent new tanks from being constructed on the flood plains.

Asked whether the disagreement between each side of the debate over the language of the WPO means it should be modified, Sellon said no changes are needed in order to assuage industrial and commercial concerns.

Activists with 350-Maine, one of the environmental groups supporting the WPO, say their concern is with tar sands oil โ€“ a type of fossil fuel they consider an โ€œextreme energyโ€ choice.

โ€œWe have concerns about fossil fuels in general because of the climate changes issues,โ€ said Bob Klotz, tar sands coordinator for 350 Maine. According to Klotz, the ordinance was intended to to prevent tar sands trafficking in Maine. The fact that the WPO does not mention tar sands once, said Klotz, is what you get when you have 10 lawyers in a room debating legal language.

Asked about the economic impact of the WPO, Klotz downplayed the benefit for Maine of shipping tar sands and said he would like to see South Portlandโ€™s energy companies focus less on โ€œextreme energyโ€ and more on โ€œprogressiveโ€ and โ€œgreenโ€ energy sources.

The uncertainty caused by the pending vote has already affected workers in Southern Maine.

Buckeye Partners L.P., a publicly-traded limited partnership that has petroleum and natural gas pipeline facilities in South Portland and Bangor, was planning to upgrade its southern operations to accommodate the Portland International Jetportโ€™s demand for jet fuel. However, due to the uncertainty caused by the pending resolution, the company has put its plans on hold, meaning less work for Maineโ€™s construction contractors.

Buckeye sent an Aug. 7 letter to members of the South Portland planning board expressing its concern over the WPO, stating that the proposed code change, if signed into law, would have many unfortunate consequences.

โ€œWe are very concerned that the WPO, if enacted and legal, would put at risk the working waterfront,โ€ wrote Dan Ownby, director of business development at Buckeye. Ownby said that WPO would prevent Buckeye from conducting common sense repairs and additions. He pointed to their recent addition of a $100,000 security system and a $1,000,000 capital upgrade to petroleum product piping โ€“ both of which would be illegal if the WPO were adopted.

In addition, wrote Ownby, โ€œThe second phase of the project is on hold directly as a result of our concern the WPO, if enacted, would retroactively prohibit the second phase because this work could be interpreted as an enlargement of expansion of our facility. Placing the second phase on hold negatively affects us, the many contractors and their workers who would have performed the second phase later this year, and the City tax base.โ€

Linda Boudreau, who served 18 years on the South Portland City Council and three terms as mayor, wrote an Aug. 21 column for KeepMECurrent.com warning against the ordinance. According to Boudreau, the environmentalists behind the WPO used deceptive tactics to scare residents into signing their petitions:

โ€œThe Waterfront Protection Ordinance was placed on the ballot by citizen initiative.ย Proponents of the WPO secured signatures in large part by claiming that it was needed to protect Bug Light from โ€œsmokestacks.โ€ In fact, a script that proponents used to secure signatures says:

โ€œโ€˜As you may have heard, ExxonMobil wants to build two 70-foot smokestacks on the pier next to Bug Light in order to export toxic tar sands oil out of Casco Bay.ย This project is a big threat to our drinking water and Casco Bay.ย We can stop the smokestacks. If enough people sign the petition to put our Waterfront Protection Ordinance on the November ballot.โ€™

โ€œWell, who wouldnโ€™t want to sign the WPO petition after hearing that?ย  Except, this selective explanation of the WPO, specifically designed to scare you into signing, doesnโ€™t tell anywhere close to the real story.ย ย  First, ExxonMobil doesnโ€™t own or operate any terminals or pipeline facilities in South Portland and it isnโ€™t seeking to do anything here.ย  Second, there is no pending or proposed project by anyone to either develop โ€˜smokestacksโ€™ at Bug Light or export tar sandsโ€

Boudreau also warns against the consequences for South Portlandโ€™s economy and local government should the WPO be implemented:

โ€œPerhaps most importantly, the petitioners would have you believe that this is a very narrowly tailored ordinance. It is not. Itโ€™s time for some hard truth โ€“ if passed, the overbroad WPO would devastate our working waterfront and eventually end the petroleum industry that has been an integral part of our community and culture for nearly 100 yearsโ€ฆ

โ€œIf the WPO passes, the results will be immediate and dramatic.ย  Testimony before the Planning Board made clear that businesses will close, jobs will be lost and working families in our community will be harmed. The Waterfront Protection Ordinance will cost South Portland hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenue each year. This revenue supports our police, our firefighters, our teachers and schools, our roads and bridges.โ€

With both sides making incongruous statements about the potential impact of the WPO, itโ€™s clear that South Portlandโ€™s debate over the future of its coastal area is far from over. Energy producers and environmentalists will surely campaign hard over the coming months to convince voters that their assessment is the truth.

S.E. Robinson
MaineWire Reporter
[email protected]

global warming
Previous ArticleLePageโ€™s weekly radio talk addresses โ€œStuck Economy"
Next Article GOP health care reform reins in insurance rates
Steve Robinson
  • Twitter

Steve Robinson is the Editor-in-Chief of The Maine Wire. โ€ชHe can be reached by email at [email protected].

Latest News

Graham’s Ex-flames Now Coming Forward To Dish On The Infamous ‘Sperm King,’ Janet Is Secretly Jealous

June 11, 2026

National Republicans Warn Against Underestimating Platner’s Electoral Chances and Taking a Collins Victory for Granted

June 11, 2026

Peru Residents Vote for Draconian Ordinance Imposing HOA Style Property Rules

June 11, 2026
0 0 votes
Article Rating
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Les Gibson
Les Gibson
12 years ago

Environmental extremists telling lies to scare people into supporting a measure that will severely harm the area’s economy…… that couldn’t happen, could it? As a famous man once said, ‘ you just can’t fix stupid.’ The whackos will go to any lengths to move us backwards, all under the umbrella lie of ‘ we just want to protect the environment.’ BS! What they want is to force their vision of a utopian fantasy world upon us. Shame on the South Portland City Council for sending this lunacy to referendum.

0
Mark Bickford
Mark Bickford
12 years ago

If this passes, the lawyers will have a field day. This is going to cost South Portland a fortune.

0
Barbara Schwan Steinert
Barbara Schwan Steinert
12 years ago

I would urge ALL residents of South Portland to carefully review this bill before voting. The proponents will tell you that there is nothing to worry about, that existing activities will be protected, but what of future activities that are mandated by the government. They may say that the language doesn’t need to be changed but it’s the details that will get you in the end. Lawyers could potentially tie things up indefinitely.
Not all of us have the ability or the finances to convert to gas or pellets!

0
JRey Crow
JRey Crow
12 years ago

It seems that, among other issues, people are focusing on short run costs, ignoring the long run risk if these types of ordinances are not passed.

0
Sebrina Wollenberg
Sebrina Wollenberg
11 years ago

jooouli

0
porn
porn
11 years ago

you will love it

0
viagra
viagra
11 years ago

you will love it

0
Recent News

National Republicans Warn Against Underestimating Platner’s Electoral Chances and Taking a Collins Victory for Granted

June 11, 2026

Peru Residents Vote for Draconian Ordinance Imposing HOA Style Property Rules

June 11, 2026

Platner Dodges MSNBC Question About Additional Damaging Texts Or Embarrassing Pictures Coming Out

June 11, 2026

Saco, Thornton Academy Contract Dispute Boils Over Amid Fight Over Student Transfers, School Choice Fears, and Long-Term Stability

June 11, 2026

Trump Backs Collins for Reelection Despite Longstanding Tensions, Targets Democrat Graham Platner

June 11, 2026
Newsletter

News

  • News
  • Campaigns & Elections
  • Opinion & Commentary
  • Media Watch
  • Education
  • Media

Maine Wire

  • About the Maine Wire
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Submit Commentary
  • Complaints
  • Maine Policy Institute

Resources

  • Maine Legislature
  • Legislation Finder
  • Get the Newsletter
  • Maine Wire TV

Facebook Twitter Instagram Steam RSS
  • Post Office Box 7829, Portland, Maine 04112

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

wpDiscuz