End Point or Setback? A Retrospective of the Maine Public Power Ballot Initiative

In November 2023, Maine voted against a ballot initiative to establish a consumer-owned utility, Pine Tree Power, that would replace the two existing privately-owned utilities. Although Maine voters opposed the measure, CCI polling revealed that even following the vote, twice as many Mainers prefer public ownership of energy resources than prefer private ownership. 

Preference for public energy resource ownership was much higher than for private ownership, even following the vote.

What went wrong? What does this mean for public support for public power efforts in Maine and elsewhere in the country? What lessons can utility justice and public power advocates draw from this experience? 

Our report reveals:

• The Maine defeat did not doom public power as a cause—burgeoning campaigns from Tucson in Arizona to the Mid-Hudson Valley in New York are proof of strong momentum.
• The Our Power campaign was outspent at a ratio of 34 to 1, which meant the private utilities were not only able to put ads on more frequently and distort narratives, but also defang coalitional strength, manufacture credibility, and create an air of inevitability to depress voters.
• The campaign found that populist points about fighting corporate villains who controlled a public good and affordability were effective in convincing undecided voters.

At a time of increased climate disasters and skyrocketing utility bills, there is a major opening for public power organizers and utility justice advocates.

We recommend:

• Building on momentum, which remains strong even after the referendum defeat: Interest in public power remains high even after the ballot result, and Mainers believe that public power movements will continue to grow both within the state and nationally. 
• Identifying creative mobilization strategies to overcome entrenched power: Referendums require a high and consistent level of voter contact, which demands significant resources. There is a need for robust grassroots fundraising and creative ways of mobilizing to overcome incumbents’ abilities to outspend bottom-up campaigns.  
• Articulating the benefits of public power and harms of the status quo: Publicly run electric utilities can introduce uncertainty and may raise concerns for people unfamiliar with what this implies for rates and reliability—even when they are dissatisfied with the status quo. Organizers must convincingly demonstrate how public ownership will benefit communities and address the intersecting challenges of reliability, affordability, justice, and sustainability. 
• Drawing on the history of public power and adapting it for the present: Organizers can remind the public that there is successful precedent, and thus benefits, for public and other community-owned power in the US, particularly in rural and underserved communities, where cooperatives led the way for grid development. 
• Linking public power initiatives across place: Despite the ballot result, there was actually an increased belief that public power movements will continue to grow. Thus, linking efforts to build public power across localities may reinforce and invigorate this growing movement by facilitating learning and building capacity. 
• Creating touchpoints for organizers to increase capacity: In addition to lessons on paid media strategy to assessments of pre-campaign support strength among voters, one key avenue to increase organizing capacity is frequent, dedicated gatherings of public power organizers to bolster collaboration on public power fights across different political and geographical contexts in the US.