MaineMaine requires energy contract payment cuts when prices turn negative
Maine’s Public Utilities Commission requires negative-price payment terms in contracts from its energy bidding process, with exceptions requiring good cause and protections for customers and existing renewable generators.
What it does
Energy contracts from commission-run bidding must reduce seller payments when electricity prices fall below zero. Exceptions require good cause and commission findings that protect customers and existing renewable generators.
Investor-owned electric utilities must send yearly project plans to state reviewers. Utilities may choose whether to follow recommendations about alternatives to building power lines.
Plans to buy alternatives to power-line projects must identify which parts sit on the customer or grid side of the meter. The commission may adopt rules for this process.
Argument forReducing contract payments when electricity prices fall below zero could protect customers by accounting for those prices in payments to energy sellers.
Argument againstPayment cuts during below-zero price periods could reduce sellers’ contract income even when they deliver the agreed electricity.
More detail
Maine’s Public Utilities Commission must require payment reductions for electricity delivered during negative-price periods before approving covered contracts, unless it grants an exception. The requirement covers energy contracts resulting from competitive bidding run by the commission. An exception requires the seller to show good cause. The commission must find that the contract is cost-effective, includes other price protections for customers, and avoids cuts to existing renewable generators’ output as much as possible. The reduction equals the size of the negative price multiplied by the amount of energy produced and delivered under the contract. Payment reductions apply to energy produced and delivered during periods when the applicable electricity price is below zero.
Investor-owned electric utilities must send annual planning studies to the Public Utilities Commission and the Office of the Public Advocate for review by the coordinator who examines alternatives to power-line projects. The studies cover small transmission projects and distribution projects in Maine. They describe the system’s capacity, electricity demand, and planned investments tied to growth. Utilities may choose whether to follow the coordinator’s recommendations. Declining those recommendations cannot by itself create an assumption that the utility used poor judgment. Each annual study must examine system needs for the next five years and list proposed projects and their costs.
The coordinator must recommend cost-effective alternatives to power-line projects and provide a plan to buy them. The coordinator provides recommendations to the commission or an investor-owned electric utility, as appropriate. The buying plan must identify which parts are on the customer’s side of the electricity meter and which are on the grid side. The plan must follow section 3132-D. The Public Utilities Commission may adopt rules to carry out this review process. The coordinator develops recommendations based on the investigation required by this section.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed 1st Chamber
- Passed 2nd Chamber
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Apr 13Signed by Governor Janet MillsLatest
- Apr 7PASSED TO BE ENACTED, in concurrence.Passed 2nd Chamber
- Apr 7Sent for concurrence. ORDERED SENT FORTHWITH.
- Apr 7PASSED TO BE ENACTED.Became Law
- Apr 7In concurrence. ORDERED SENT FORTHWITH.
- Apr 7The Bill was PASSED TO BE ENGROSSED as Amended by Committee Amendment "A" (S-571).Minor
- Apr 7Under suspension of the rules, the Bill was given its SECOND READING without REFERENCE to the Committee on Bills in the Second Reading.
- Apr 7Committee Amendment "A" (S-571) was READ and ADOPTED.Minor
- Apr 7The Bill was READ ONCE.Minor
- Apr 7On motion of Representative SACHS of Freeport, REPORT A Ought to Pass as Amended was ACCEPTED.
- Apr 7Reports READ.
- Apr 6Sent down for concurrence
- Vote recorded ACCEPT REPORT 'A' OUGHT TO PASS AS AMENDED. Result: pass.Upper
- Apr 6Under suspension of the Rules, READ A SECOND TIME and PASSED TO BE ENGROSSED AS AMENDED by Committee Amendment "A" (S-571)Minor
- Apr 6Committee Amendment "A" (S-571) READ and ADOPTEDMinor
- Apr 6READ ONCEMinor
- Apr 6Roll Call Ordered Roll Call Number 883 Yeas 20 - Nays 12 - Excused 3 - Absent 0
- Apr 6ACCEPTANCE of The Report A Ought to Pass As Amended by Committee Amendment "A" (S-571) Report PREVAILED.
- Apr 6Taken from the table by the President
- Mar 24On motion by Same Senator Tabled until Later in Today's Session, pending ACCEPTANCE The Report A Ought to Pass As Amended by Committee Amendment "A" (S-571) Report.
- Mar 24Senator LAWRENCE of York moved to ACCEPT The Report A Ought to Pass As Amended by Committee Amendment "A" (S-571) Report.
- Mar 24Reports READ.
- Mar 20Reported Out - OTP-AM/OTP-AM/ONTP
- Mar 5Voted - Divided Report
- Mar 5Work Session Held
- 2025
- Jun 25Carry Over Approved
- Jun 25CARRIED OVER, in the same posture, to any special or regular session of the 132nd Legislature, pursuant to Joint Order SP 800.
- May 23Carry Over Requested
- May 22Work Session Held - TABLED
- Mar 21CARRIED OVER, in the same posture, to the next special or regular session of the 132nd Legislature, pursuant to Joint Order SP 519.
- Mar 5Received by the Secretary of the Senate on March 5, 2025 and REFERRED to the Committee on ENERGY, UTILITIES AND TECHNOLOGY pursuant to Joint Rule 308.2Introduced
Environment & Energy