AUGUSTA, Maine - It was passed in 2008, formally adopted in 2010 and is still being gradually implemented, but Maine's "green-conscious" Building and Energy Code is now the target of some eight legislative efforts to weaken it - or repeal it altogether. Despite evidence that it will save the average Maine homeowner $200 a year - and is projected to save $100 million in energy costs over the next 10 years - the code is under fire.

Jack Meehan, who builds homes around Jefferson, favors the new code.

"I think it's going to be a valuable tool for residents, as well as builders, and I don't really want to see it repealed."

The measures aimed at changing the code are part of what critics call an "assault" on Maine's environment in the form of some 50 bills overall. Some lawmakers argue, as does Gov. LePage, that the changes are necessary in order to create a more "business-friendly" economic climate.

Naomi Mermin, with the Maine Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council, says her organization worked hard to get the code passed and helped educate the public and industry about it. From her perspective, opposition is coming from people who are simply resistant to change.

"The conversation at this point is: It's the law. Some people are having trouble with that and want to have some adjustment to it. We'll come out of that conversation with some positive adjustments, I really think. I'm sure that there are ways that we can do it even better, in terms of implementation."

Over the years, as he has built houses, Meehan says he has become focused on insulation and its role in saving energy. He admits his views on building codes have shifted accordingly.

"Twenty-five or 30 years ago, I might not have been as willing to give up my freedom to build however I chose, but with the code, we know we're going to have a structurally sound, energy-efficient building."

Naomi Mermin does not buy the argument that the Building and Energy Code needs to be weakened, or eliminated, in order to foster a business-friendly climate in economically troubled times.

"When we build energy-efficient buildings to work in, and have energy-efficient manufacturing, and when people can go home to a safe, warm house where they're not spending a disproportionate amount of their income on heat but they're spending their money in our local economy, that's good for our economy."

Maine is one of 40 states to adopt a statewide building energy code. Nearly half have adopted the same version of the code as Maine.





get more stories like this via email

As state budget negotiations continue, groups fighting climate change are asking California lawmakers to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies rather than slash programs designed to slow global warming.

Gov. Gavin Newsom's current proposal would cut oil and gas tax breaks by $22 million this year and $17 million the following year.

Barry Vesser, COO for The Climate Center, a nonprofit advocacy group, would like to see all subsidies eliminated.

"Oil and gas companies are one of the drivers of climate change, so we should not be making their profit margins bigger by providing public subsidies, and making it harder for renewables to compete against them," Vesser argued.

Gov. Newsom has also proposed to cut funding for climate-friendly programs helping lower-income families buy an electric vehicle or switch from gas to electric appliances.

Kevin Slagle, vice president of strategic communications for the Western States Petroleum Association, said in a statement, "California's already tough business climate is pushing companies to the brink. Removing incentives will drive California straight into the arms of more expensive foreign oil, ramping up costs for everyday Californians who can least afford it."

Vesser countered the threat of higher gas prices is a red herring.

"There's a lot that goes into calculating how much the cost of gas is, and this is not even pennies on the dollar," Vesser contended.

The state Senate's early action proposal estimated the budget deficit will be between $38 billion and $53 billion. The governor is expected to release new details on his budget priorities in mid-May. The Legislature must pass a balanced budget by June 15.

The New York HEAT Act might not make the final budget.

The bill reduces the state's reliance on natural gas and cuts ratepayer costs by eliminating certain rules. It was in both legislative chambers' one-house budgets, but last-minute scrambling could remove it.

New York League of Conservation Voters Policy Director Patrick McClellan said, aside from people's preference for natural gas, other challenges have made the bill hard to pass.

"I think that there has also been some irresponsible fear-mongering against this bill from some people who oppose it," said McClellan, "basically telling people this means that their natural gas service is going to be taken away from them tomorrow, or it's going to happen without warning, and that's just not the case."

The bill would not mean gas companies could walk away from providing service to new customers, since its effects occur over a longer period.

Rural lawmakers have been skeptical about relying solely on electricity, since people could lose power in bad storms.

If the bill isn't part of the budget, McClellan said the Public Service Commission can do more to require gas utilities factor climate change into their long-term plans.

It will take more than one bill for New York State to reach its climate goals.

McClellan said developing thermal energy networks is one way to build on what the HEAT Act would do, and provide good ways to decarbonize on a larger scale instead of going house by house.

"You're able to get a larger number of buildings and people all at once," McClellan explained. "The other exciting thing about thermal energy networks is, because you are talking fundamentally about piping systems that are underground, it's an extremely similar skill set for people who already work in the fossil fuel industry."

The bill would also eliminate the Hundred Foot Rule. This requires utilities to connect new customers to a gas line for free based on their distance to an existing main gas line, typically 100 feet.

This rule allowed utilities to shift around $1 billion in costs onto about 170,000 ratepayers.

Virginia's General Assembly will consider budget amendments to reenter the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, known as RGGI.

Gov. Glenn Youngkin pulled the state out of RGGI at the end of 2023, and now experts said the holes in the budget left by RGGI funding going away are not being filled. Money from the program was used to fund climate mitigation work.

Jay Ford, Virginia policy manager for the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, said the state saw many benefits when it was part of RGGI.

"We were reducing fossil fuel emissions that were being created here in Virginia," Ford pointed out. "There were some clear reductions as a result of our participation. So, we're improving air quality and we are helping expedite that transition to a clean economy."

Virginia residents mostly favored staying in RGGI, but Youngkin has said the reason for pulling out was in his view, it was a "hidden tax" for ratepayers. Ford estimated homeowners paid around $2 a month from their electric bills for RGGI and argued the trade-offs were worth it.

Between 2021 and 2023, RGGI revenue generated around $828 million for Virginia. Ford thinks not rejoining the initiative could slow down Virginia's ability to reach the Clean Economy Act's climate goals, and warned other effects could be costly to communities.

"On the ground in communities around the state, if we don't get back into RGGI, there's a real potential that the work to prepare the Commonwealth, and prepare our communities for climate impacts, could grind to a halt," Ford contended.

Virginia used RGGI money to help towns and cities fund their climate resilience plans. The state used 25-million RGGI dollars to establish a Climate Resilience Fund. There have been 107 "billion-dollar disasters" since 1980 in Virginia, with long-term costs totaling between $20 billion and $50 billion.