FWIW, in response to the no-on-clean-energy-corridor mailing this morning, I sent the following message to the SoS office. I hope you’ll consider sending similar sentiments if you’re concerned about The Corridor.
——– Forwarded Message ——– Subject: Public Comment Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 10:57:14 -0400 From: Dick Atlee <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: Matt Dunlap <email@example.com>
I’ve enjoyed seeing you periodically at Hancock County Dem meetings, and have greatly appreciated your dedication to straightforward policy decision-making unencumbered by the partisan weighting that seems to affect many if your SoS peers nationally. I’ve particularly appreciated the courage you’ve shown in resisting the Real ID mandate to the greatest extent possible. It has become all the more frightening in the acceleration of the push for universal biometric identification unleashed by the current pandemic. It has been instructive watching India develop and implement such a system (12-digit code) for every one of its over a billion citizens, and China developing universal surveillance and control by “social credit scores.” For us, the best is clearly yet to come.
But my main purpose in writing is to express concern about the upcoming CMP Corridor referendum. Forgive me for not using the disingenuous and wildly euphemistic formal title.
The current wording:
“Resolve, To Reject the New England Clean Energy Connect Transmission Project”
is functionally (I hope not deliberately) misleading.
The project has little to do with “clean energy.” Not to go into the technicalities of carbon balance with hydro reservoirs, but someone is going to buy that energy one way or the other, regardless of this project. The fact that it is going to be Massachusetts, and not Maine (which will suffer the project’s various environmental degradation issues) is certainly relevant to Maine people in making their decision.
The same observation holds for the omission of the proposer. Quite apart from its Spanish parent company that will reap a windfall from the project, CMP has a checkered past in its own right, and a very poor record with respect to its customers. This is another factor of significance to Maine people in making a rational decision. The fact that CMP is not explicitly mentioned in the title language cripples their ability to make that rational decision.
Given the ongoing blitz of advertising, ranging from misleading to false, it would be consistent with your balanced approach over the years to make the initiative title more transparent for Maine voters. I have seen the following suggested, which makes sense in that context:
“Resolve, To direct the Maine Public Utilities Commission to reverse its approval of Central Maine Power’s proposed New England Clean Energy Connect power transmission line from Quebec to Massachusetts”
This provides the missing information in a fully accurate description, without in any way prejudicing the language.
Thanks very much for your consideration.
_______________________________________________ HCCN mailing list HCCN@mainetalk.org mainetalk.org/mailman/listinfo/hccn_mainetalk.org