by Jonathan Reisman

The opening weeks of 2025 have brought home the consequences of mixing climate alarmism with identity/woke politics. The Energy, Utilities and Technology committee held a Public Advocate confirmation hearing where the Senate Chair ruled that any discussion of Maine’s energy and climate policies would not be allowed. 

The Public Advocate is supposed to advocate for the public on utility costs, but the principal driver of higher energy and electricity costs — climate alarmist policies — could not be discussed. Here is the testimony I submitted to the EUT committee, after introducing myself and citing my credentials.

The public advocate has a critical responsibility to define and fight for efficiency, fairness — what used to be called equity — and transparency. In my opinion, our energy policies are doing little, if any, of that, and the public advocate has failed to point that out or try to reverse it.

In my opinion, the principal reason we have increasingly expensive energy and a less reliable grid is climate alarmism. The best way to lower our energy costs would be to require efficiency, fairness, and transparency in climate policies. For instance, telling the people of Maine how much (if any) climate change these expensive policies are averting and at what cost. 

The public advocate could, and should, in my opinion, be doing exactly that. If the public advocate is unwilling to challenge climate alarmist dogma, our grid will become even more expensive and less reliable. I hope the committee will question the nominee on her climate and energy policy views and goals closely. I would be happy to answer any questions at [email protected]. Thank you.

The Committee approved Gov. Mill’s nominee. Our public advocate will not be advocating for efficiency, fairness, and transparency in energy and climate policy. In Europe, those policies have led to $.40/kWh electricity and de-industrialization/de-growth. That is the future Democrats and climate doomers are pushing for Maine.

The 2020 Climate Action Plan and 2024 update committed Maine to phasing out fossil fuels, electric vehicles, and “equity.” When I asked for the plan’s definition of equity, I got the runaround and word salad evasions. That prompted a series of Freedom of Access Act (FOAA) requests to the governor’s office and the departments of Environmental Protection, Health and Human Services, Education, General Services (home of Maine State HR), and the University of Maine System. 

Here is the response from Tim Feeley, the governor’s deputy legal counsel:

Hello Mr. Reisman:

This message is to respond to your FOAA request of January 7 submitted to the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future. The 2024 Climate Action Plan does not include a definition of “equity.”

References to associated assessment metrics can be found in the Climate Council’s enabling statute, 38 M.R.S. § 577-A(8)(E), and in the reports incorporated into the plan, which are available on the Climate Council’s webpage.

In fact, there is no definition of equity. There are some documents that define equity as the removal of inequities. Pursuing a policy goal without defining it is policy malpractice. Without a definition, there is no way to assess success or failure.

The lack of a definition within the University of Maine System reminded me of an equity definition request I sent to UMS Chancellor Daniel Malloy and UM President Ferrini-Mundy in early 2022, as they promoted equity and social justice:

I am writing to you because you have committed UMM, UM and UMS to an aggressive effort to implement equity and social justice. To my knowledge, you have not offered a definition of those terms, nor had one offered by the faculty or the Board of Trustees. My understanding of those terms, based on my disciplinary training in economics and public policy, the work of economics Nobel Laureate F.A.Hayek, and my understanding of equal protection under the U.S. Constitution, is not a positive one. 

I believe as UMS leaders promoting equity and social justice you should offer definitions and attempt to explain why my understanding is incorrect. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Here are the definitions I proposed:

Equity — Equity means equal outcomes. If a racial group, gender, or sexual preference makes up x percent of the population, they must make up x percent of any profession or group. Any representation less than x percent is prima facie evidence of systemic racism, sexism, and/or gender discrimination, unless the group is an oppressor class, such as white, heterosexual males. Representation over x percent is prima facie evidence that the group is an oppressor class.

Social Justice — Social Justice means the government transfers and redistributes income, wealth, and power from oppressor classes to oppressed classes. Oppressed classes have been the victims of systemic racism, sexism, and/or gender discrimination as proven by inequity and unequal outcomes. Oppressor classes include heterosexual, white males and, by some lights, Jews and Asian Americans.

I never got a response from either. 

As we celebrate Martin Luther King Day, we should recommit to promoting equal opportunity over equal outcomes and judging by the content of character and ability, rather than by the gender, race, and sexuality box checked.