Maine bill would direct Efficiency Maine Trust to study job quality; unions back study, trust warns of burden

Representative Warren, the sponsor appearing by video, opened the hearing on LD725 by asking the Joint Standing Committee on Labor to direct the Efficiency Maine Trust to study the quality of jobs produced or supported by its programs. "It proposes a practical step in establishing specific and quantifiable performance metrics to evaluating energy efficiency jobs administered by the trust," Warren said, framing the proposal as a way to measure wages, benefits and workforce pathways.

Labor and union groups urged the committee to approve the study. Scott Cuddy, director of policy for the Maine Labor Climate Council, said the trust reports counts of jobs but not the wages, benefits or retirement outcomes that show whether those jobs are family sustaining. "We just don't know what the metrics of the jobs are," Cuddy said, urging the trust to gather the data so policymakers can improve outcomes and align public investment with workforce development needs.

Adam Good of the Maine AFL‑CIO said the state is spending public and ratepayer dollars to spur efficiency and clean‑energy work and should ensure those investments create high‑quality jobs that allow workers to "retire in dignity." Both union witnesses praised the bill's advisory group, saying it would add diverse perspectives to the study.

Michael Stoddard, executive director of the Efficiency Maine Trust, testified neither for nor against the bill and stressed practical constraints. He said the trust does not currently hold comprehensive job‑quality data and would need to survey hundreds of mostly small contractors and businesses to gather wages, benefit and apprenticeship information. Stoddard warned that carrying out a study could require taking money out of rebate pools to pay for the work and that a $5,000 threshold in the amendment being discussed would likely capture nearly all firms that participate in trust programs. "We don't have this information now, so we would have to go get it," Stoddard said, and noted the trust uses electricity customer dollars rather than state general fund money.

Committee members pressed witnesses on the $5,000 cutoff, whether the trust already conducts customer follow‑up surveys and whether the department or other agencies might already hold overlapping data. Witnesses agreed some basic questions—wages, benefits, the mix of contractors versus employees and registered apprenticeship participation—should be part of a practical study, and that the trust's contractor registration and follow‑up processes could be a starting point.

The chair closed the LD725 hearing and indicated the committee will consider amendments and further stakeholder input at work session.

The hearing record contains no committee vote on the substance of LD725; the item was heard and set for further work‑session consideration.