Vermont Reflections from Maine's Senate Primary

Hi folks. The Vermont House and Senate agreed yesterday on a version of a proposed bill to regulate data centers; I’ll provide more analysis in the coming days. As always, what follows is not legal advice.

I’m mainly writing to share what I spent much of the past month reporting on: Maine’s Senate Democratic primary, with a focus on climate and energy issues. Here are the two articles that came out of that reporting, both available for free on Inside Climate News (ICN):

Platner’s Energy Plan Prioritizes Lowering Costs and Taking on Big Oil and the ‘Oligarchy’

On Sullivan Planning Board, Platner Voted to Pump the Brakes on Solar

I’ve been reporting more and more on Maine for ICN in recent months, and it’s been a fascinating point of contrast to its fellow northern New England, largely rural, and politically heterogeneous state of Vermont.

There were many features of Maine policies and politics that brought a Vermont similarity or difference to mind during this reporting; I’ll mention just a few here:

First, the temporary local ban on larger-scale solar projects that candidate Graham Platner voted to pursue as a member of his town planning board inescapably brought some of the opposition to solar projects in Vermont to mind.

First point of difference: Vermont cities and towns would not have legal authority to pursue similar moratoria. Vermont is a Dillon’s rule state, in contrast to Maine, a home-rule state, and Vermont’s state law prevents such local blocking of energy projects (Towns can weigh in on their preferred sites for energy generation projects through town and regional plans).

Over a dozen Maine towns have voted for such moratoria (the proposed moratorium in Platner’s hometown of Sullivan has so far not advanced to a vote); the explanation I heard for this trend is that residents and officials of these towns felt unprepared for the speed and scale at which community and utility-scale solar projects were going up around the state and wanted time to get specific development review ordinances for such projects on the books.

Second point of difference: Maine saw a nearly 1300% increase in the total capacity of such projects installed between 2020 and 2024; in contrast, Vermont capacity grew by just 39% in that time. Vermont went from having more solar generating capacity in these categories (which exclude rooftop/other “behind the meter” solar) to having only about 20% as much as Maine. Vermont has roughly 30% of the total land-area of Maine.

Once concern you hear about larger solar projects in both states is that they are taking up valuable farmland. As discussed in the article, solar is compatible with some types of agriculture. And other types of development like suburban housing growth—which also represent more permanent changes in land-use than solar—are exerting arguably even more significant pressure on the remaining stock of agricultural land in much of New England. But this agriculture-solar land-use tension is one worth paying attention to. Maine’s state government has paid attention, in part through a dedicated multi-stakeholder group to develop recommendations on just this issue.

In contrast, Vermont’s two official commissions on electric generation siting, and solar siting in particular, convened over a decade ago, devoted little attention to agrivoltaics or solar siting on ag land.

This issue is heating up in Vermont as reflected in legislation proposed this session: one bill (which stalled in committee) would have effectively placed greater limits on solar development on agricultural land. Another (that passed the House and is slated for a hearing in the Senate today) would likely make it easier to cluster small-to-medium solar developments on all types of land, including farmland, and has recently drawn ire in some of the online communities that sprung up to oppose the changes to land-use laws wrought by Act 181.

Can a multi-stakeholder group truly help craft policies of widespread acceptability—or at least provide a forum where people holding opposing viewpoints make contact and learn something that moderates their views, making such an agreement ultimately more possible down the line? I defer to those who have been a part of such groups. But it does seem there’s room for an improved discussion on this issue (let everyone know if/where it’s already happening in the comments!).

Two other quick hits:

• I was struck by the organizing relationship that one of the people who advised on Platner’s energy plan described, between the climate-focused coalition of labor unions he leads and residents of manufactured home communities around Maine, whom they supported in fights for rent stabilization ordinances. It made me curious about whether anything remotely similar has been attempted by climate groups in Vermont (so far, I have not uncovered anything of comparable scope and scale).

• It was also fascinating to learn a little bit more about the efforts of Maine’s four federally recognized Wabanaki tribes to legally achieve more of the self-governing rights associated with being a fully sovereign nation—and why some of the climate-conscious voters I spoke with see this fight for full recognition of sovereignty as connected to the issue of climate justice.

  These conversations served as a reminder of how the legacies of genocide and forced displacement committed against Indigenous peoples of North America—and still more the perspectives of citizens of those nations today—should factor into in discussions about protecting a livable planet and the energy transition needed to get there.

  Operationalizing that clear moral principle can feel fraught right now in Vermont. The four state-recognized Abenaki tribes (who have applied for and not received federal recognition, due to different sets of criteria set by state and federal government) are fighting against a campaign led by Quebec-based Odanak and Wolinaq Abenaki nations (who claim, essentially, that the Vermont tribes are not who they say they are). The bitter dispute flared up again this week around the proposed dedication of a statute in Burlington.

  Again, this is a set of issues and history I am just starting to learn about. But as Seven Days reported in 2023, conservation and environmental groups in the state, several of whom had developed significant working relationships with the state-recognized tribes, have found themselves in a bind as a result of the dispute. For now, I just want to acknowledge what a hugely painful issue this is for many people.

See another Vermont connection or have thoughts about one of the above? Feel free to drop it in the comments.

Share