A campaign in Maine is gathering signatures to replace the state's investor-owned energy grid with a consumer-owned utility.

Central Maine Power (CMP) and Versant serve the majority of Maine utility customers, but they consistently rank lower for customer satisfaction, have more frequent power outages and have high rates, compared to consumer-owned utilities.

Seth Berry, former Democratic state representative from Bowdoinham and former House chair of the Maine Legislature's Energy Committee, left office recently to work on getting the initiative on the 2023 ballot. It is based on a bill, passed in 2021 to invest in a consumer-owned utility, but vetoed by the governor.

"This is a great opportunity for us to change it up and say, at least here in Maine, we're going to be independent," Berry explained. "We're going to have local control. It's a better business model, has proven to work better and that's where we're heading. "

Berry pointed out the campaign is on track to have enough signatures. Opponents argued a publicly-funded model would be too expensive.

But Berry noted CMP and Versant charge 58% more for service than consumer-owned utilities, which are currently in 97 Maine towns.

"They have better reliability, their customers are happy," Berry emphasized. "If they're not happy, they have a way to walk right into that board meeting and complain about it, which you certainly can't do with CMP; their governing board is actually based in a skyscraper in Spain."

He added as Maine looks to move toward improving the power grid, it is important to have accountability. Research showed by removing the profit incentives for current investor-owned companies, Mainers could save up to $9 billion over 30 years.

The New York State Legislature is considering a bill to allow the creation of public banks. The New York Public Banking Act would authorize municipal and other local governments to form and control public banks through ownership interests such as capital stock. The hope is these banks will invest in community endeavors rather than interests in line with making the bank profit. A report from the Rainforest Action Network said some of the largest banks in the nation are heavily invested in the fossil-fuel industry despite world policy shifts to renewable energies.

Mike Sandmel, senior campaign organizer with New Economy Project, said public banks present benefits to municipalities invested in them.

"Broadly speaking, it is a great tool for investing in infrastructure. This is a great tool for investing in affordable housing; for investing in small business creation," he said.

The recent turmoil following the failure of Signature Bank has influenced interest in public banking. Numerous organizations and elected officials across the state signed a letter
to the Majority Leader of the State Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly supporting the bill.

Primary opposition to the bill, currently under review by the Senate Banking Committee, has come from Wall Street banks trying to keep the business these cities bring, Sandmel said.

Previous versions of the bill were brought before the Legislature in the past two sessions, but never advanced beyond the Banking Committee. Sandmel is hopeful it will pass this year, but even if it does, work remains to outline local government's terms for a public bank, he said.

"We have to have conversations in local communities about is this something we want to do? Is this something we think we can pull off? What does our business plan look like? What does our application look like? You have to pass legislation, locally, right. Through city councils or county legislatures. To authorize actually doing that work of putting that business plan together," he said.

Other actions are being taken to make banks more accountable to the people whose money they hold, outside of this bill. New York City's Banking Commission
will include a public comment process for their public hearing to designate banks eligible for holding deposits of city funds.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed new regulations on credit card late fees, which could save Americans billions of dollars.

The bureau reported late fees cost cardholders about $12 billion a year. Congress attempted to ban excessive late fees in 2009, but the Federal Reserve still allowed companies to charge late fees up to $41. The new proposal would lower it to $8 and end an automatic yearly inflation adjustment for the fee amount.

Overall, the regulation would cap late fees at 25% of the minimum payment.

Daniel Rathfelder, vice president for card services for Coastal Federal Credit Union, said the new rules would help cardholders.

"I think overall, consumers are going to see some big pieces shift in their favor, if that gets adopted," Rathfelder observed.

Late fees are intended to cover collection costs, and some card issuers increase the fees with each additional missed payment. Under the proposal, companies would still be able to charge higher fees, if they can prove their collection costs are higher. The bureau estimated the new rule would save people as much as $9 billion a year. The agency is taking public comments until April 3.

The bureau also wants public comments on the possibility of a 15-day grace period beyond the due date before late fees can be assessed. Rathfelder noted in its public comment on the rule change, his credit union endorsed the idea.

"We pushed a little bit harder and said if consumers had a grace period, and the companies who could do automation around messaging and notification, getting people after the first day that it's due a notice saying, 'Hey, you missed this, but you have nine more days,' that would probably resolve a lot of the scenarios," Rathfelder explained.

Rathfelder added some enclaves of the financial services industry have already adopted grace periods, including for auto loans and mortgages.

New research shows Nevada's small-business owners say hospital consolidation in the state is exacerbating high health-care costs and want action to be taken.

More than one thousand business owners participated in Small Business for America's Future's most recent survey, and 94% of them reported hospital consolidation has made the overall availability and quality of health care in their communities worse.

Co-chair of the group Shaundell Newsome said they want to see more "fairness and equity" when it comes to accessible health care.

"When it goes from bad to worse, that is very tough on our small businesses," said Newsome. "And nearly half of the small-business owners say that hospital consolidation leads to a lack of competition, and makes hospital services more expensive for our employees."

According to the report, almost half of small-business owners say the lack of competition has made hospital services more expensive, while eating away at employees' pay.

Newsome - a small business owner himself - said he would love to be able to provide better health-care options to his employees, which he says cultivates a better workforce.

Newsome said Nevada is in need of more diverse providers, but not through consolidation.

He added that Nevada's recent progress in expanding access to health care is under threat - and said rather than reversing the progress that has been made, small business owners would like to see policy and lawmakers "double down" on making health care more affordable.

Newsome said this report reaffirms that sentiment.

"The rising cost of health care," said Newsome, "just basically limits an entrepreneur's ability to invest in the growth and the financial health of our businesses."

A majority of those surveyed in Nevada say it's time for the federal and state governments to intervene in the consolidation of health systems.




get more stories like this via email