By now, you’ve seen the Axios report that shows Maine’s electricity costs increasing by 36.3% over the last year, in sharp contrast to the national average of 6.5%. We all know it doesn’t have to be this way, but have you considered another significant cost driver that is rarely discussed: project labor agreements (PLAs) or harmony agreements, that are embedded in Maine’s energy policy? Several independent studies from housing, to energy, to construction show that these PLAs increase project costs up to 30%.
Maine Democrats push for wind and solar energy is often pitched as a win for both the environment and the economy. But let’s be honest: the rhetoric from labor groups and their majority party allies isn’t about delivering reliable, affordable power—it’s about a green jobs programs paid for by ratepayers and taxpayers. These jobs aren’t created. They are bought with the hard earned fruits of your labor. This isn’t a quest for cleaner energy; it’s a government-orchestrated wealth transfer disguised as progress.
Labor groups tied to project labor agreements (PLAs) for renewable projects in Maine are upfront about their priorities. They celebrate in the press and in the State House about the homes bought, vacations taken, and economic gains their members enjoy—not from market-driven innovation, but from mandated contracts that guarantee union labor for wind and solar projects. These agreements inflate costs, forcing ratepayers to shoulder the burden of inefficient, expensive energy. One former Maine Democrat representative – turned union thug – even claimed, “Capitalism is a race to the bottom,” as if market competition, which drives efficiency and affordability, is the problem. Instead, they champion a system where government picks winners, and consumers pay the price.
This mindset echoes a famous story about economist Milton Friedman. Visiting a canal-building site in a foreign country, Friedman was shocked to see workers using shovels instead of modern machinery. When told it was a “job creation program,” he quipped, “If you want to create jobs, give them spoons, not shovels.” The lesson? Prioritizing gross job creation over efficiency is economic folly. In Maine, we’re not just using shovels—we’re practically handing out spoons to build a “green economy” while ignoring the real cost to ratepayers and the broader economy.
The focus on job creation glosses over a harsh reality: traditional energy generation projects are designed to create energy, not jobs. These projects are labor-light by design. As climate economist Richard Tol explains, if the energy sector employs more and more people, retail energy prices skyrocket.
Higher energy costs ripple across every sector, stifling growth and eliminating jobs elsewhere. Maine’s non-energy economy—small businesses, manufacturing, tourism—employs far more people than wind or solar ever will. A small uptick in energy sector jobs comes at the expense of far greater job losses due to higher electricity bills. It’s basic economics: expensive energy means less growth, not more.
Maine’s renewable energy push hits ratepayers hard with soaring costs. In contrast to traditional energy projects, renewable energy projects have never been about energy, they have been about buying jobs – and that is the disconnect. Wind and solar projects demand significant labor for operations and maintenance, especially as equipment ages—a deliberate design to secure jobs for a few, often unionized, workers.
Professor Gordon Hughes of Edinburgh University argues these jobs are a cost, not a benefit, requiring hefty subsidies that strain the economy. Maine, already saddled with some of the nation’s highest electricity rates, faces even higher bills for unreliable energy. Wind and solar often generate power when it’s least needed, forcing reliance on dependable backup sources like natural gas, nuclear or hydroelectricity. Ratepayers are stuck paying for both intermittent renewables and the base-load systems that actually keep the lights on. Add to that the cost of new transmission lines to carry this inefficient energy and unaccounted decommissioning expenses for outdated equipment.
Are you ready to bankroll a “green economy” that prioritizes a few jobs over affordable, reliable energy for all Mainers?
The obsession with “green jobs” reveals a deeper issue: the goal isn’t decarbonization; it’s a government-led Ponzi-scheme. Maine’s policymakers, backed by labor and special interest groups, are picking winners—wind and solar—while sidelining alternatives like nuclear or market-driven innovations that could deliver cleaner energy more affordably. This isn’t about reducing carbon; it’s about funneling money to politically favored groups under the guise of environmentalism. If carbon reduction were the real priority, we’d let markets find the most efficient solutions, not mandate labor-heavy projects that enrich a few at the expense of everyone else.
As a conservative lawmaker, I trust markets, not government handouts. Economic growth comes from competition and innovation, not from forcing ratepayers to subsidize jobs. Maine’s energy policy should focus on affordable, reliable and secure power sources, not just those favored by labor groups. The green economy, as it’s being pitched, isn’t a path to prosperity—it’s a race to the bottom for everyone except those cashing the checks. Let’s stop digging with spoons and build an energy system that works for all Mainers.
