Steve Heinz coordinates hydropower matters for the Maine Council of Trout Unlimited.
Kimberly Lindlof is correct in her May 28 op-ed on hydropower: Maine’s economic future depends on reliable and affordable electricity. As more homes switch to heat pumps, more vehicles become electric and demand for power continues to grow, Maine will need additional energy storage if it hopes to make effective use of the solar and wind resources it is developing.
This is not controversial. The more important question is how Maine chooses to add that storage and how proposed projects are evaluated.
The proposed Western Maine Energy Storage project in Dixfield has attracted attention because it could provide a significant amount of grid-scale energy storage. The project would use pumped-storage technology, moving water between two man-made ponds and generating electricity when demand is high.
It is an innovative proposal, and unless the ongoing environmental review identifies unexpected impacts or fatal flaws, it is likely to receive the permits and approvals it needs to move forward.
That is why the discussion should focus not on whether this project should exist, but on how Maine evaluates this project and future proposals that may follow. The Dixfield project should receive the same scrutiny that Mainers would expect for any other major industrial development proposed in the Maine woods. Energy projects should not receive a lighter review simply because they are associated with renewable energy.
Questions involving wetlands, wildlife habitat, groundwater, recreation, scenic resources, construction impacts and long-term land use deserve careful analysis. Those reviews exist for a reason. They help determine whether a project has been proposed in the right place, designed in the right way and whether impacts can be avoided, minimized or mitigated.
At the same time, the Dixfield project should not be confused with conventional hydropower. Pumped storage is fundamentally an energy-storage technology. In many ways it functions like a giant battery, storing energy when it is available and releasing it when demand increases.
That distinction matters because discussion of pumped storage often drifts into broader claims that hydropower is inherently “clean” or “green.” Maine’s experience with conventional hydropower tells a more complicated story.
Hydropower is renewable, but renewable and environmentally benign are not the same thing. For decades, regulators, fisheries agencies, tribes and conservation organizations have worked to address the impacts of dams on fish passage, river flows, aquatic habitat and water quality. Those issues have not gone away.
The Dixfield proposal should stand or fall on its own merits. Its review should focus on the impacts associated with this project, not broader claims about hydropower generally.
Looking ahead, future projects may be the more important issue. The developers of the Dixfield project say that the site is unique and have not suggested that they intend to pursue other similar projects across Maine. If that proves true, Dixfield may be less significant as a model for widespread development than as a reminder that Maine will need to make thoughtful choices among a variety of storage technologies.
Battery storage, pumped storage and technologies that have yet to emerge will all compete to help integrate renewable energy into the grid. Maine should welcome that discussion, but it should also insist on a simple principle: every proposal should receive an honest assessment of its benefits, costs and environmental consequences.
The standards Maine applies to future storage proposals should be the same standards applied to any major industrial project proposed in the Maine Woods.
Maine needs more energy storage. It also needs rigorous environmental review and an understanding of the tradeoffs that accompany large-scale development. Those goals are not in conflict. This is how Maine can build the energy system of the future while protecting the natural resources that make the state worth living in.