Progressives Advocate for Clean Energy, yet This Hydro Project Faced Delays for Years.
An initiative aimed at providing clean energy to Massachusetts has become stalled due to bureaucratic delays.
TroibNews 
On a sunny Monday in the summer of 2016, Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed a bill outside the statehouse aimed at maintaining Massachusetts and New England’s leadership in clean and renewable energy production. The legislation targeted a reduction in carbon emissions for the region while keeping electricity costs manageable. To achieve this, the Baker administration was tasked with coordinating clean electricity purchases from sources like wind turbines off the southern coast and hydropower from Canada. However, as Massachusetts is not directly connected to Canada, the new hydropower had to traverse neighboring states, which led to potential complications.
To facilitate the transfer, a substantial transmission line—a vast extension cord—needed to be constructed from Canada, across New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine, into Massachusetts's power grid. After assessing various proposals, Baker’s administration decided in 2018 to proceed with building a 192-mile transmission line traveling south from Canada, through New Hampshire into Massachusetts. However, convincing New Hampshire to approve the project proved challenging.
As public scrutiny increased, New Hampshire residents expressed concerns about the line cutting through the prized White Mountain National Forest. Environmental advocates, such as the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, began raising alarms over potential ecological damage. Ultimately, many Granite State residents felt their landscapes were being sacrificed to satiate Massachusetts's demand for green energy. In late 2018, a little-known New Hampshire siting board blocked the project by refusing to grant authorization, forcing Massachusetts to seek other options.
Baker quickly turned his attention to Maine. With a long border adjacent to New Hampshire, the state, known as “Vacationland,” was at the time led by the outspoken Republican Governor Paul LePage. Rather than resisting Massachusetts's interest in Canadian hydropower, LePage recognized it as a negotiating tool. He saw an opportunity for Maine to extract concessions if the Bay State was willing to shoulder the costs involved. Central Maine Power, a subsidiary of the Spanish-owned Avangrid, proposed constructing a project named the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC), which would be supported by local resources.
NECEC was projected to cost $950 million, significantly less than the previously suggested alternatives in New Hampshire. This initiative was more than just an extension cord; it included plans to connect to additional wind farms in western Maine. Avangrid claimed that the new infrastructure would create about 1,700 jobs and deliver cheaper Canadian power that could counter rising traditional fuel costs, potentially saving Maine residents around $40 million on utility bills. Communities alongside the proposed line were promised over $18 million in new local tax revenue. Notably, Massachusetts would cover the entire financial burden of the project, making it appear to be a considerable windfall for Maine.
However, realizing this potential gain proved to be complex. As proponents of clean energy encountered a decade fraught with legal disputes, referendums, public relations efforts, protests, and environmental assessments, they discovered that a conflict within the progressive movement presented a significant obstacle. The progressive drive for substantial outcomes was colliding with an equally progressive skepticism of unchecked centralized power.
Decades earlier, the establishment of a government-owned utility to electrify the Tennessee Valley had allowed authority figures to make decisions without scrutiny. Yet, the 1960s and 1970s saw rising doubts regarding the judgment of such officials, leading to a reform agenda that aimed to enhance scrutiny over powerful entities, thus protecting citizens from elite interests. But the evolution of democratic checks and balances had made it increasingly burdensome to initiate positive projects, gradually undermining the progressive cause from within.
Maine residents soon expressed concerns similar to those in New Hampshire, fearing they were being exploited by Massachusetts. Environmentalists raised issues about preserving the North Maine Woods, while critics argued the transmission line would disrupt beautiful landscapes and intrude upon the Appalachian Trail multiple times. The project’s planned route also threatened the picturesque Kennebec River Gorge. Maine's tourism industry, reliant on its natural allure, viewed NECEC as a significant threat.
Financially, the project faced challenges as well. Avangrid's plans to supply a sixth of Massachusetts's electricity—enough for 1.2 million homes—could siphon market share from established, less efficient energy sources that had already invested heavily in infrastructure, leading to complaints from traditional energy producers who feared financial losses. Astoundingly, advocates for conservation found themselves allied with representatives of the fossil fuel industry.
Initially, NECEC's backers cultivated favorable relationships with towns along the proposed route, detailing the benefits they would receive, such as improved electricity reliability and substantial funds to offset utility costs. Most communities expressed support for the project, leading some observers to believe it was a foregone conclusion, especially with endorsements from both LePage and climate-focused groups.
Nonetheless, the opposition surged. A coalition of conservationists and NIMBY activists emerged, armed with persuasive arguments that echoed the concerns that had doomed the New Hampshire proposal. NECEC’s approval process necessitated endorsements from various bureaucratic entities. The Maine Public Utilities Commission had to determine demand; the Department of Environmental Protection needed to protect the wilderness; and the Army Corps of Engineers had to evaluate the impact on waterways. If any agency rejected the project, the opposition might prevail.
Recognizing the tangible costs involved, Avangrid made concessions to mitigate public concern. The company pledged to invest $22 million in conservation projects to support the state’s tourism industry. To settle worries over the Kennebec River Gorge’s aesthetics, the plan to cross the river was scrapped in favor of burying the power lines, incurring a $37 million expense. Avangrid also amplified its compensation offer to quell comparisons with New Hampshire's deal.
However, doubts lingered around whether these additional concessions would prove satisfactory. After his term ended, Democratic Attorney General Janet Mills, who had previously criticized the project during the campaign, shifted her stance after assuming office. Her administration negotiated a new agreement known as "the stipulation,” in which Avangrid would invest $140 million in rate relief for Mainers, with additional funds toward subsidizing heat-pump installations and enhancing electric vehicle infrastructure. In total, this package was worth $258 million—an increase over what had been promised to New Hampshire.
These concessions significantly influenced the political landscape, prompting endorsements from prominent environmental groups like the Conservation Law Foundation and the Acadia Center. Mills's public support assisted in convincing the Maine Public Utility Commission to grant a necessary certificate in April, seemingly solidifying the project's path forward.
Yet, the narrative of Maine being exploited resonated strongly with the public, fueling ongoing opposition. Various environmental groups remained committed, determined to thwart the project. The adversaries understood that shifting public sentiment was critical for achieving their goals.
Organizing a sophisticated public relations campaign, the “Stop the Corridor” coalition, largely funded by fossil fuel firms, employed various strategies to garner support against NECEC. They distributed reports detailing potential ecological damage, prompting Patagonia to rally its patrons to sign petitions opposing the project. Perhaps most notably, their efforts sought to sway local populations by spotlighting how towns that had once backed NECEC were now reconsidering their positions.
By late 2019, the oppositional coalition shifted to a dual approach. They targeted regulatory bodies, pressing them to scrutinize whether approving NECEC would violate their duties and setting the stage for further challenges. Moreover, they revived progressive-era strategies advocating for citizens to legislate to surmount overly influenced political machines, proposing local referendums to allow communities to reject the project.
While the immediate goal was to motivate regulatory bodies to halt the project, they also prepared for a potential statewide referendum. The possibility revitalized engagement among opponents as they critiqued alternatives and raised questions regarding NECEC’s regulatory process.
Eventually, the Maine Public Utilities Commission grappled with the project’s impact on several natural landmarks. Proposed amendments to avoid crossing the Appalachian Trail were met with resistance, yet when the issue of Beattie Pond arose, consensus remained elusive. It wasn’t until Avangrid found an alternative route along land owned by Yale University that the Land Use Planning Commission approved the project, as it fulfilled the state’s standards.
With approvals acquired, Avangrid aimed to initiate construction. Still, the threat of a referendum loomed, leading some towns to bring legal actions against the approval process. Environmental groups contended that improper bureaucracies had granted consent, while energy competitors filed suit claiming the state’s process was flawed. However, endeavored legal challenges failed to gain traction, prodding opponents to pursue a last-resort strategy.
In early 2020, opponents proposed a statewide referendum, submitting a petition of 75,000 signatures to compel the Public Utility Commission to revoke NECEC’s approval. Avangrid contended this petition contradicted Maine’s constitutional constraints; to which, the state Supreme Court responded, ruling out the referendum as it aimed to reverse a decision grounded on extensive hearings and evidence.
Despite this setback, NECEC’s challengers employed new strategies to erect barriers. A revised referendum proposal sought to establish stricter requirements for future transmission lines, mandating legislative approval for any line and banning structures in Northern Maine, which garnered sufficient support to land on the November 2021 ballot.
As the battle over “Question 1” unfolded, it became a significant political focus, with a staggering $70 million spent on campaigning. Advocates for NECEC enlisted support from both Governor Mills and Governor Baker, alongside Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, and influential editorial endorsements. The broader clean energy movement viewed the outcome as vital to their interests.
The stakes were high beyond state lines; many similar projects across the country faced existential risks from the outcome of this referendum. If NECEC faced defeat, it could set back efforts nationwide to expand green energy infrastructure.
Though proponents had significant resources mobilized, underlying tensions marked the campaign. With remnants of anti-Massachusetts sentiment prevalent, the referendum passed with nearly 60 percent in favor, marking a pivotal shift in favor of NECEC’s opponents.
Avangrid promptly filed a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the referendum, arguing it violated their valid lease. With a substantial amount of money already invested and construction underway, the company vowed to see the project completed. Nevertheless, construction ceased while litigation progressed, as a recently elected governor reconsidered the terms of the agreement.
In August 2022, the Maine Supreme Court directed lower courts to examine whether Avangrid’s pre-construction work proposed protections from the implications of the referendum. After a lengthy trial, a jury unanimously concluded that Avangrid possessed vested rights to complete the project despite the referendum’s passage.
However, the financial landscape had shifted. Initial project costs of $950 million were now projected at $1.5 billion due to inflation and delays. With changing dynamics, Massachusetts grappled with ensuring the project’s viability as it approached critical carbon emission reduction deadlines.
By the time NECEC’s financing was up for discussion, extensive reviews had been conducted, but not a single watt of new clean energy had been integrated into the grid. Complications multiplied as external parties sought to challenge the project legally, raising questions of fairness regarding Bay State investments. Local developments prompted uncertainty about the completion timeline, with construction lagging well beyond original projections.
The NECEC project, albeit just one initiative in a vast country, underlines a broader challenge facing clean energy transition efforts. The conflicts hindering this individual transmission line's development reflect a pervasive struggle in navigating ecological concerns against the pressing need for sustainable energy solutions. Even when the intention to shift away from fossil fuels exists, systemic obstacles remain formidable, raising vital questions about effectively implementing the decisive actions required to combat climate change.
From the book *WHY NOTHING WORKS: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back* by Marc J. Dunkelman. Copyright © 2025 by Marc J. Dunkelman. Reprinted by permission of Public Affairs, an imprint of Basic Books Group, a division of Hachette Book Group, Inc. New York, NY, USA. All rights reserved.
Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News
To facilitate the transfer, a substantial transmission line—a vast extension cord—needed to be constructed from Canada, across New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, or Maine, into Massachusetts's power grid. After assessing various proposals, Baker’s administration decided in 2018 to proceed with building a 192-mile transmission line traveling south from Canada, through New Hampshire into Massachusetts. However, convincing New Hampshire to approve the project proved challenging.
As public scrutiny increased, New Hampshire residents expressed concerns about the line cutting through the prized White Mountain National Forest. Environmental advocates, such as the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, began raising alarms over potential ecological damage. Ultimately, many Granite State residents felt their landscapes were being sacrificed to satiate Massachusetts's demand for green energy. In late 2018, a little-known New Hampshire siting board blocked the project by refusing to grant authorization, forcing Massachusetts to seek other options.
Baker quickly turned his attention to Maine. With a long border adjacent to New Hampshire, the state, known as “Vacationland,” was at the time led by the outspoken Republican Governor Paul LePage. Rather than resisting Massachusetts's interest in Canadian hydropower, LePage recognized it as a negotiating tool. He saw an opportunity for Maine to extract concessions if the Bay State was willing to shoulder the costs involved. Central Maine Power, a subsidiary of the Spanish-owned Avangrid, proposed constructing a project named the New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC), which would be supported by local resources.
NECEC was projected to cost $950 million, significantly less than the previously suggested alternatives in New Hampshire. This initiative was more than just an extension cord; it included plans to connect to additional wind farms in western Maine. Avangrid claimed that the new infrastructure would create about 1,700 jobs and deliver cheaper Canadian power that could counter rising traditional fuel costs, potentially saving Maine residents around $40 million on utility bills. Communities alongside the proposed line were promised over $18 million in new local tax revenue. Notably, Massachusetts would cover the entire financial burden of the project, making it appear to be a considerable windfall for Maine.
However, realizing this potential gain proved to be complex. As proponents of clean energy encountered a decade fraught with legal disputes, referendums, public relations efforts, protests, and environmental assessments, they discovered that a conflict within the progressive movement presented a significant obstacle. The progressive drive for substantial outcomes was colliding with an equally progressive skepticism of unchecked centralized power.
Decades earlier, the establishment of a government-owned utility to electrify the Tennessee Valley had allowed authority figures to make decisions without scrutiny. Yet, the 1960s and 1970s saw rising doubts regarding the judgment of such officials, leading to a reform agenda that aimed to enhance scrutiny over powerful entities, thus protecting citizens from elite interests. But the evolution of democratic checks and balances had made it increasingly burdensome to initiate positive projects, gradually undermining the progressive cause from within.
Maine residents soon expressed concerns similar to those in New Hampshire, fearing they were being exploited by Massachusetts. Environmentalists raised issues about preserving the North Maine Woods, while critics argued the transmission line would disrupt beautiful landscapes and intrude upon the Appalachian Trail multiple times. The project’s planned route also threatened the picturesque Kennebec River Gorge. Maine's tourism industry, reliant on its natural allure, viewed NECEC as a significant threat.
Financially, the project faced challenges as well. Avangrid's plans to supply a sixth of Massachusetts's electricity—enough for 1.2 million homes—could siphon market share from established, less efficient energy sources that had already invested heavily in infrastructure, leading to complaints from traditional energy producers who feared financial losses. Astoundingly, advocates for conservation found themselves allied with representatives of the fossil fuel industry.
Initially, NECEC's backers cultivated favorable relationships with towns along the proposed route, detailing the benefits they would receive, such as improved electricity reliability and substantial funds to offset utility costs. Most communities expressed support for the project, leading some observers to believe it was a foregone conclusion, especially with endorsements from both LePage and climate-focused groups.
Nonetheless, the opposition surged. A coalition of conservationists and NIMBY activists emerged, armed with persuasive arguments that echoed the concerns that had doomed the New Hampshire proposal. NECEC’s approval process necessitated endorsements from various bureaucratic entities. The Maine Public Utilities Commission had to determine demand; the Department of Environmental Protection needed to protect the wilderness; and the Army Corps of Engineers had to evaluate the impact on waterways. If any agency rejected the project, the opposition might prevail.
Recognizing the tangible costs involved, Avangrid made concessions to mitigate public concern. The company pledged to invest $22 million in conservation projects to support the state’s tourism industry. To settle worries over the Kennebec River Gorge’s aesthetics, the plan to cross the river was scrapped in favor of burying the power lines, incurring a $37 million expense. Avangrid also amplified its compensation offer to quell comparisons with New Hampshire's deal.
However, doubts lingered around whether these additional concessions would prove satisfactory. After his term ended, Democratic Attorney General Janet Mills, who had previously criticized the project during the campaign, shifted her stance after assuming office. Her administration negotiated a new agreement known as "the stipulation,” in which Avangrid would invest $140 million in rate relief for Mainers, with additional funds toward subsidizing heat-pump installations and enhancing electric vehicle infrastructure. In total, this package was worth $258 million—an increase over what had been promised to New Hampshire.
These concessions significantly influenced the political landscape, prompting endorsements from prominent environmental groups like the Conservation Law Foundation and the Acadia Center. Mills's public support assisted in convincing the Maine Public Utility Commission to grant a necessary certificate in April, seemingly solidifying the project's path forward.
Yet, the narrative of Maine being exploited resonated strongly with the public, fueling ongoing opposition. Various environmental groups remained committed, determined to thwart the project. The adversaries understood that shifting public sentiment was critical for achieving their goals.
Organizing a sophisticated public relations campaign, the “Stop the Corridor” coalition, largely funded by fossil fuel firms, employed various strategies to garner support against NECEC. They distributed reports detailing potential ecological damage, prompting Patagonia to rally its patrons to sign petitions opposing the project. Perhaps most notably, their efforts sought to sway local populations by spotlighting how towns that had once backed NECEC were now reconsidering their positions.
By late 2019, the oppositional coalition shifted to a dual approach. They targeted regulatory bodies, pressing them to scrutinize whether approving NECEC would violate their duties and setting the stage for further challenges. Moreover, they revived progressive-era strategies advocating for citizens to legislate to surmount overly influenced political machines, proposing local referendums to allow communities to reject the project.
While the immediate goal was to motivate regulatory bodies to halt the project, they also prepared for a potential statewide referendum. The possibility revitalized engagement among opponents as they critiqued alternatives and raised questions regarding NECEC’s regulatory process.
Eventually, the Maine Public Utilities Commission grappled with the project’s impact on several natural landmarks. Proposed amendments to avoid crossing the Appalachian Trail were met with resistance, yet when the issue of Beattie Pond arose, consensus remained elusive. It wasn’t until Avangrid found an alternative route along land owned by Yale University that the Land Use Planning Commission approved the project, as it fulfilled the state’s standards.
With approvals acquired, Avangrid aimed to initiate construction. Still, the threat of a referendum loomed, leading some towns to bring legal actions against the approval process. Environmental groups contended that improper bureaucracies had granted consent, while energy competitors filed suit claiming the state’s process was flawed. However, endeavored legal challenges failed to gain traction, prodding opponents to pursue a last-resort strategy.
In early 2020, opponents proposed a statewide referendum, submitting a petition of 75,000 signatures to compel the Public Utility Commission to revoke NECEC’s approval. Avangrid contended this petition contradicted Maine’s constitutional constraints; to which, the state Supreme Court responded, ruling out the referendum as it aimed to reverse a decision grounded on extensive hearings and evidence.
Despite this setback, NECEC’s challengers employed new strategies to erect barriers. A revised referendum proposal sought to establish stricter requirements for future transmission lines, mandating legislative approval for any line and banning structures in Northern Maine, which garnered sufficient support to land on the November 2021 ballot.
As the battle over “Question 1” unfolded, it became a significant political focus, with a staggering $70 million spent on campaigning. Advocates for NECEC enlisted support from both Governor Mills and Governor Baker, alongside Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, and influential editorial endorsements. The broader clean energy movement viewed the outcome as vital to their interests.
The stakes were high beyond state lines; many similar projects across the country faced existential risks from the outcome of this referendum. If NECEC faced defeat, it could set back efforts nationwide to expand green energy infrastructure.
Though proponents had significant resources mobilized, underlying tensions marked the campaign. With remnants of anti-Massachusetts sentiment prevalent, the referendum passed with nearly 60 percent in favor, marking a pivotal shift in favor of NECEC’s opponents.
Avangrid promptly filed a lawsuit challenging the legitimacy of the referendum, arguing it violated their valid lease. With a substantial amount of money already invested and construction underway, the company vowed to see the project completed. Nevertheless, construction ceased while litigation progressed, as a recently elected governor reconsidered the terms of the agreement.
In August 2022, the Maine Supreme Court directed lower courts to examine whether Avangrid’s pre-construction work proposed protections from the implications of the referendum. After a lengthy trial, a jury unanimously concluded that Avangrid possessed vested rights to complete the project despite the referendum’s passage.
However, the financial landscape had shifted. Initial project costs of $950 million were now projected at $1.5 billion due to inflation and delays. With changing dynamics, Massachusetts grappled with ensuring the project’s viability as it approached critical carbon emission reduction deadlines.
By the time NECEC’s financing was up for discussion, extensive reviews had been conducted, but not a single watt of new clean energy had been integrated into the grid. Complications multiplied as external parties sought to challenge the project legally, raising questions of fairness regarding Bay State investments. Local developments prompted uncertainty about the completion timeline, with construction lagging well beyond original projections.
The NECEC project, albeit just one initiative in a vast country, underlines a broader challenge facing clean energy transition efforts. The conflicts hindering this individual transmission line's development reflect a pervasive struggle in navigating ecological concerns against the pressing need for sustainable energy solutions. Even when the intention to shift away from fossil fuels exists, systemic obstacles remain formidable, raising vital questions about effectively implementing the decisive actions required to combat climate change.
From the book *WHY NOTHING WORKS: Who Killed Progress—and How to Bring It Back* by Marc J. Dunkelman. Copyright © 2025 by Marc J. Dunkelman. Reprinted by permission of Public Affairs, an imprint of Basic Books Group, a division of Hachette Book Group, Inc. New York, NY, USA. All rights reserved.
Frederick R Cook contributed to this report for TROIB News
