SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
maine
Community Benefits Agreements Can Embed Justice in the Clean Energy Transition
In states that are leading the way, CBAs ensure that energy projects provide clean power and bring economic and social benefits to the communities most impacted.
Jan 11, 2025
The clean energy transition is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build momentum for environmental justice.
As the transition accelerates, we face a choice: Will it reproduce the harms of the past fossil fuel-based energy system, or will it create a fairer, more just future where more people can access and benefit from accessible and affordable clean energy? For far too long, historically marginalized communities have been excluded from decisions about the challenges they face, and energy infrastructure is no exception.
Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs) are a tool for ensuring frontline communities receive real, tangible benefits from renewable energy projects.
States that embrace policies like CBAs are showing what’s possible: a future where energy solutions uplift communities rather than burden them.
CBAs are legally binding agreements between developers and communities that outline commitments such as local job creation, workforce training, or investments in public infrastructure. In states that are leading the way, CBAs ensure that energy projects provide clean power and bring economic and social benefits to the communities most impacted. From Michigan to California, states are showing what’s possible:
- In Michigan, developers pay host communities $2,000 per megawatt of energy capacity.
- In California, enforceable agreements with grassroots organizations ensure benefits flow directly to local people.
- In Maine, wind projects deliver long-term financial contributions to communities hosting the turbines.
These policies are not just about energy infrastructure; they represent a shift in power, creating systemic change for equity, accountability, and justice, giving those communities most affected by energy development a voice along with a share of benefits. These state successes show what's possible, but to scale these benefits nationwide, we need stronger federal and state policies working in tandem—like the Justice40 Initiative.
The federal Justice40 Initiative aims to allocate 40% of federal climate and energy investment benefits to communities that have long been overburdened by pollution and underinvestment. State policies require CBAs to build on this foundation, ensuring that energy projects are designed with and for communities that have historically been excluded from decision-making.
By centering racial justice in the clean energy transition, CBAs can:
- Deliver good-paying local jobs.
- Fund schools, public health, and infrastructure.
- Empower communities to shape the projects in their backyards.
Yet CBAs are only as strong as the policies that back them. Some developers will inevitably try to exploit loopholes, sidestep accountability, or push vague agreements that deliver little. In California, legally enforceable agreements with grassroots organizations ensure that the benefits of renewable energy projects flow directly to the local communities hosting them. To advance energy justice, CBAs must be enforceable (legally binding), transparent, and community-driven, and not just another box for developers to check.
We are at a turning point. State governments have a chance to lead by mandating strong, enforceable CBAs and ensuring communities are part of the decision-making process. This isn’t just about clean energy—it’s about repairing harm, investing in people, and building a just energy future.
The clean energy transition can be more than reducing emissions—it can be a powerful pathway to justice, equity, and community empowerment. States that embrace policies like CBAs are showing what’s possible: a future where energy solutions uplift communities rather than burden them.
By centering racial justice in the clean energy transition, CBAs can deliver tangible benefits that create lasting change:
- Good-paying local jobs that boost economic opportunity.
- Funding for schools, public health, and infrastructure to address long-standing inequities.
- Empowered communities that have a say in shaping projects in their own backyards.
CBAs ensure that historically excluded communities move from being merely hosts of energy infrastructure to being active partners and beneficiaries of the clean energy revolution.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maine Becomes Latest State to Sue Oil Giants Over Climate Deception
"With Maine's lawsuit, the demands that Big Oil faces accountability for decades of climate lies are growing louder and more powerful," said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity.
Nov 26, 2024
Maine on Tuesday joined a group of eight other U.S. states that have sued major oil and gas companies for deceiving the public about their products' role in the climate crisis.
Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey's office announced that he has filed a suit in state court against Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP, Sunoco, and the American Petroleum Institute.
Frey's suit accuses the companies of knowing about the potentially catastrophic consequences of continued dependence on fossil fuels for decades, thanks to companies' internal research, but that the defendants undertook a disinformation campaign to discredit the scientific consensus on climate change, delay a transition to a green energy economy, and sow doubt in the public's mind about the impact of burning fossil fuels.
"The state seeks to hold the defendants accountable for failing to warn Mainers and concealing their knowledge about the devastating consequences of the increasing use of fossil fuels on Maine's people, economy, and environment. This conduct has resulted in enormous financial burdens, public health impacts, property damage, and other harms across Maine as a result of extreme weather, sea-level rise, and warmer temperatures," according to the release from Frey's office.
"For over half a century, these companies chose to fuel profits instead of following their science to prevent what are now likely irreversible, catastrophic climate effects," Frey said in a statement. "In so doing, they burdened the state and our citizens with the consequences of their greed and deception."
Frey's lawsuit asks the court to require the companies pay for both "past and future climate harms caused by the defendants" and ensure that the companies end their "ongoing deception" in the state. The state is demanding a jury trial and numerous forms of relief, including penalties and disgorgement of profits, according to the release.
Frey is the 11th attorney general (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico), to take such a legal move. More than 20 states, tribes, cities and counties have so far pursued similar climate deception lawsuits to date, according the Maine attorney general's office. Earlier this fall, California's attorney general filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil, alleging that the company falsely touted chemical recycling as a solution to the plastics crisis.
A September report from Oil Change International and Zero Carbon Analytics found that the number of climate cases brought against fossil fuel corporations—many of which center on climate damages, misleading advertising about fossil fuels, or failure to reduce emissions in line with legal agreements—has been ticking upward since the 2015 Paris climate accords.
Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, whose organization helps communities hold fossil fuel companies accountable, applauded the move.
"Big Oil companies have lied for decades about the catastrophic harm they knew their products would cause, and now Maine has joined a growing wave of communities across the U.S. that are demanding accountability," said Wiles. "These polluters continue to fuel the climate crisis and lie about it to protect their profits. It’s only right that Big Oil companies pay their fair share of the damage their deception has caused. With Maine's lawsuit, the demands that Big Oil faces accountability for decades of climate lies are growing louder and more powerful."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Tiny State of Maine, a Big Election Day Win Against Dark Money in Politics
"Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board," said the chair of the campaign behind the measure likely bound for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nov 06, 2024
As billionaire-backed Republicans dominated U.S. elections on Tuesday, voters in Maine—among the top 10 states in terms of smallest populations—overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure to limit political spending, an initiative that could reach the country's top court.
Maine Question 1 targets super political action committees (PACs), dark money groups that, for the most part, are barred from directly contributing to or coordinating with a candidate but can raise and spend unlimited amounts of funds.
Question 1 asked Mainers, "Do you want to set a $5,000 limit for giving to political action committees that spend money independently to support or defeat candidates for office?"
WMTWreported earlier this year that "the $5,000 contributions cap would only apply to state races, not United States House or Senate races."
As of Wednesday afternoon, the measure had passed 531,573 to 186,707, or 74% to 26%, with 89% of the estimated vote reported, according toThe New York Times.
"When the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
"We're grateful to the Maine people for once again leading the way to help fix our broken political system," said Cara McCormick, chair of Maine Citizens to End Super PACs, which collected signatures to get the citizen-initiated measure on the ballot.
"The Maine people deserve a system that is not only free from corruption, but also free from the appearance of corruption," McCormick added. "Our greatest hope is to restore people's faith in our democracy and increase participation across the board."
The campaign highlighted that "some of America's leading constitutional law experts—Laurence Tribe, Lawrence Lessig, Neal Katyal, Al Alschuler, and others—have argued that Question 1 is the most immediate pathway to ending super PACs, the biggest source of dark money in elections."
Welcoming the measure's passage, Lessig declared Wednesday that "this is a great gift from Maine to democracy in America."
"We expect this initiative will be challenged," he explained. "But when the Supreme Court affirms what Maine voters have done, it could end super PACs everywhere."
As Maine Morning Stardetailed Wednesday:
Since Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, the Supreme Court has allowed contributions to be regulated when there is a risk of "quid pro quo" corruption, essentially a favor for a favor. In the case of elections, if there is a risk someone could be making a donation to a candidate in exchange for a favor, only then can Congress regulate that contribution. In 2010, the Supreme Court extended this reasoning to corporations and unions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Campaign Act.
Three months later, in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld that contributions to groups making independent expenditures can't corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. That decision essentially created the "super PAC," which can receive unlimited contributions but can’t contribute directly to candidates. Other lower federal and state courts followed suit, and the ruling was never reviewed by the Supreme Court.
The editorial boards of both the Bangor Daily News and Portland Press Herald backed the ballot measure, with the latter writing last month that "ours would be the first state in the nation since the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 to move to limit contributions to PACs that can make independent expenditures."
"We believe that political spending has spiraled out of control, in many cases, and that the absence of any limit on PACs is inappropriate and leaves America's system of campaigning and voting vulnerable to the whims of bad actors," the board argued. "If Maine can play a leading role in bringing some order and fairness to political spending nationally, we should seize the chance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular