Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Energy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Presenters urge Millinocket council to back citizen-owned 'Great Northern Power District' referendum
Summary
Jim Stanley and Sam Smith told the Millinocket Town Council they want towns on a regional map to vote in November on a referendum to create a consumer-owned utility, saying incorporation would unlock USDA rural-utility funds and let the co-op reinvest local dam revenue to lower resident bills; councilors asked for written documents and did not place the question on the ballot tonight.
Jim Stanley and Sam Smith presented to the Millinocket Town Council on May 28 a plan to form a citizen-owned utility they call the Great Northern Power District, urging the council to put a referendum question to voters this November to authorize incorporation and participation.
The presenters described a cooperative model — modeled on Eastern Maine Electric Cooperative — in which each town that approves the referendum would appoint a trustee to a board that governs the consumer-owned utility. "We want to lower everyone's power bill," Jim Stanley said, and he told councilors the group had discussed USDA rural‑utility programs as a funding path once the corporation is formed.
Why it matters: presenters said the region’s hydro assets now generate substantial revenue that they say flows to investor‑owned utilities and out‑of‑state owners; they argued local control would let the community keep more of that revenue and reinvest it in lower retail rates and local infrastructure. Stanley said the district footprint follows an 1890 grant and that the organizers have drafted referendum language and models under Maine statutes they identified as chapters 35 and 37.
Councilors pressed presenters on legal and practical points. Questions included whether local utility employees would be retained, how existing three‑year grid agreements would be honored, the scope of any eminent‑domain actions, whether municipal taxpayers would bear litigation costs, and whether the USDA had made any written funding commitments. Sam Smith responded that the plan is to keep local workers "at their same rate of pay, with their same benefits," and that the incorporated entity would be the party that borrows and, if necessary, defends eminent‑domain actions. Stanley said USDA officials had told the organizers the program would be available once the group is incorporated, but councilors and members of the public asked to see written assurances.
Some of the presentation’s numeric claims drew skepticism. Presenters said seven dams with generation capability "produce upwards of $10 million a month" in revenue; a public commenter and a former councilor warned that litigation to acquire investor‑owned assets could cost tens of millions and asked for documentation of any federal backing.
Commissioner Marshall, invited to the meeting, said the proposal raised complex legal questions and described the effort as likely to be "very litigious;" he asked to see detailed materials and said he intended to attend a future meeting with the presenters to review legal and regulatory issues.
The presenters offered to share the referendum language and additional documents with the council and invited one or more councilors to participate in their organizing committee. The council did not vote to place the question on the ballot at this meeting and instead asked staff and presenters to exchange written questions and materials for the next meeting.
What happens next: presenters said they are aiming for a November ballot and told the council they need municipal referenda to demonstrate local support before the USDA or state regulators proceed with formal assessments. Councilors asked for a written packet of the referendum text and additional legal and financial details before committing to put the question before voters.
