Rep. Gerry Runte, D-York, represents parts of York and Wells and the town of Ogunquit in the Maine House of Representatives. He serves on the Energy Utilities and Technology Committee.

A recent Sunday op-ed, “Maine must not go from Vacationland to Generationland” (Feb. 15), argued that “By offering our best renewable resources to our Southern New England neighbors, Maine is condemning itself to pay much more to decarbonize at a later date.”

This perspective misunderstands how electricity systems operate and could lead to policies that increase costs, delay decarbonization and reduce Maine’s influence in shaping its energy future.

Maine’s electricity system is physically and economically integrated with the rest of New England. Power flows, fuel prices, reliability risks and climate impacts ignore state lines. Maine relies on regional resources, just as the region relies on Maine.

Planning to reserve renewable resources for Maine alone, or to decarbonize independently, is unrealistic and does not serve Maine’s long-term interests. An inward-looking approach may feel protective, but in practice it would limit Maine’s ability to shape regional outcomes that directly affect costs and reliability here at home.

Claims that the Public Utilities Commission’s current procurement of wind electricity is “giving away” Maine’s wind resources misinterpret its purpose. Any wind project in Maine, public or private, must connect to the regional grid and sell into the New England wholesale market, where prices are set regionally. The wind procurement does not transfer ownership of Maine’s wind to other states; it ensures competitive pricing and coordinated development within the system in which Maine already participates.

Further, the claim that Maine receives “inadequate compensation” overlooks how value is delivered to customers. Renewable development in Maine lowers wholesale energy prices, reduces exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, improves reliability and attracts private investment.

It also generates local tax revenue, land lease payments and community benefits. Maine ratepayers gain these advantages regardless of where the electricity is used in New England. Delaying development for hypothetical export tolls risks higher electricity costs by extending reliance on expensive fuels and congested infrastructure.

Comparisons to Norway, Alaska or Texas, which levy taxes or other fees on exports, may sound persuasive but are misleading. These regions control unique, dispatchable energy resources under sovereign ownership and export fuels or firm power. Maine’s wind resources are intermittent, easily substituted and part of a shared regional grid. Imposing severance taxes or “out-of-state taker” fees on electricity entering ISO-NE would be legally complex, administratively burdensome and unlikely to affect prices for Mainers.

Replacing the Department of Energy and Public Utilities Commission’s role in acquiring electricity supply with a Maine Generation Authority would not address the core issue. State-owned generation would still sell into the regional market, use the same transmission system and face the same pricing.

Creating a generation authority  would simply shift risks such as construction overruns, market volatility and technology challenges from private developers to Maine taxpayers and ratepayers, without guaranteeing lower long-term costs. Ownership alone does not ensure price control.

Maine’s resources already serve regional needs. The key question is whether Maine uses effective tools to align development with affordability, reliability, climate goals and land-use values. Part of the solution is not a generation authority, but a finance authority.

The real barriers to achieving our climate and affordability goals are insufficient transmission and storage, not a lack of wind or solar resources. Public financing for new transmission, grid-enhancing technologies and storage would lower the costs of these options, relieve congestion, lower peak demand, improve reliability and increase the efficiency of grid operation and the value of local generation, all of which translates to lower long-term costs of electricity.

We need to choose whether to engage confidently in an interconnected future or withdraw from it. Lower costs and effective decarbonization depend on shaping the regional system through smart planning, disciplined regulation and targeted public investment — not retreating behind borders that the electric grid itself does not recognize.

Maine does not need to choose between being Vacationland or Generationland — if it plans wisely, it can be both.