Resources
Research, rate comparisons, and information to understand public power and energy sovereignty.
Visual Rate Comparison
Interactive charts showing the dramatic difference between Maine and Nebraska electricity rates
Rate per Kilowatt-Hour
December 2025
Maine's rate is 2.6× higher than Nebraska's public power rate
Average Monthly Bill
Based on typical state usage
Maine: ~550 kWh | Nebraska: ~956 kWh
Annual Electricity Cost
Projected yearly expense
Maine households pay $700-900 more annually
Year-over-Year Rate Increase
December 2024 to December 2025
Maine's rates are rising faster than Nebraska's
Rate Trend Over Time
2024-2025 rate progression
The gap between Maine and Nebraska continues to widen
The Bottom Line
Nebraska's public power model has delivered consistently lower rates for over 75 years. MSPA will bring that same proven model to Maine, cutting your electricity costs in half.
Key Residential Rate Comparison
December 2025 / Early 2026 Data
Maine
~550 kWh/month typical usage
~$167/month average bill
Among highest in U.S. (top 5-10 most expensive)
Nebraska
~956 kWh/month typical usage
~$111/month average bill
Among lowest in U.S. (top 2-5 cheapest)
Direct Head-to-Head
Maine's rate is 2.6× higher than Nebraska's
Maine households pay significantly more per kWh despite lower consumption
National U.S. average: ~17-18¢/kWh
If Maine household used Nebraska's usage (956 kWh), bill would exceed $290/month
Monthly Bill Estimates
Maine (~550 kWh): ~$167/month
Nebraska (~956 kWh): ~$111/month
Annual Perspective
Maine: ~$2,000-$2,200/year
Nebraska: ~$1,300-$1,400/year
Maine households pay $700-$900 more annually
Why the Huge Gap?
Ownership Model
Maine: Foreign investor-owned utilities (CMP/Iberdrola-Spain, Versant/ENMAX-Canada) extract hundreds of millions in profits annually
Nebraska: 100% publicly/consumer-owned (no investor-owned utilities). Eliminates shareholder dividends, uses tax-exempt bonds, reinvests in rates and reliability
Generation Mix
Maine: Natural gas dependence creates volatile ISO-NE market pricing. High delivery costs from forested/storm-prone terrain. Legacy subsidies add expense
Nebraska: Low-cost baseload (coal/nuclear), abundant wind integration, hydro. Public ownership enables long-term fixed-cost planning without profit margins
Infrastructure Factors
Maine: Higher transmission/distribution costs due to rural spread, trees/ice storms, winter peaks
Nebraska: Economies of scale, flatter terrain, more grid-efficient infrastructure with high per-capita generation
Rate Breakdown: Supply vs Delivery
Understanding the two main cost components of your electricity bill
Maine Rate Components
Standard Offer driven by natural gas volatility in ISO-New England. January 2026 rates: CMP 12.72¢, Versant Bangor 12.95¢, Versant Maine Public 14.88¢
CMP delivery up 145% since 2015. Versant transmission up 212% in some areas. Includes grid upgrades, storm recovery, vegetation management, and legacy costs
Delivery often represents 50–60% of bills in rural/forested areas
Nebraska Rate Components
Owned generation (hydro, wind, nuclear). Long-term planning without profit margins. No shareholder dividends
Tax-exempt bonds (2–4% interest) vs investor equity returns (9–10%). No foreign profit extraction
NPPD maintained rates for 11+ years until small 2026 adjustments. Remains in lowest 6.5–15% nationally
Where Foreign Profits Go
Annual profit extraction from Maine ratepayers flows to foreign shareholders instead of reducing local rates
CMP (Central Maine Power)
Acquired through Avangrid subsidiary. Fully privatized December 2024 after $2.5 billion buyout of remaining public shares
Avangrid reported $245 million quarterly profit in Q1 2023 during rate increase requests
2025 'Investing in Maine's Future Plan' sought $400–450 million annual revenue increase. Profits still flow overseas
Versant Power
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Profits flow to ENMAX in Canada. ENMAX reported $537 million year-to-date Adjusted EBITDA in mid-2025, including Versant contributions from Maine rate increases
Total Annual Extraction
These outflows fund foreign shareholders and international investments instead of lowering Maine rates or hardening the grid against storms
How MSPA Cuts Costs
Customer-owned model eliminates profit extraction and reduces financing costs
No Profit Extraction
All surpluses reinvested in Maine for rate relief, grid upgrades, and stabilization reserves. Like Nebraska: surpluses build accounts that fund lower rates and reliability improvements
Lower Capital Costs
Tax-exempt revenue bonds at 2–4% interest vs investor-owned equity costs at 9–10%. Savings compound over decades of infrastructure investment
Subsidy Elimination
Repeals technology-specific incentives. Competitive bidding on lowest all-in reliable cost favors hydro and natural gas baseload without artificial price distortions
Efficiency Gains
Consolidated operations reduce outsourcing costs. Reinvested funds double vegetation management and deploy AI tools optimized for Maine's forested terrain
Projected Savings
Conservative estimate based on Nebraska benchmarks, subsidy elimination, and ending foreign profit outflows
Redirecting even half of historical outflows (~$90–100 million/year) could reduce rates by 2–4¢/kWh statewide
Proven Model
Nebraska demonstrates this works: stable, low rates in a rural, cold-climate state without foreign or investor-owned utility profits. MSPA applies the same principles to Maine's context with phased implementation to prove savings first
Data Source
EIA Electric Power Monthly (December 2025 data, released early 2026). Rates fluctuate monthly with fuel costs, but the structural gap (Nebraska ~2-3× cheaper) has remained consistent for years. Nebraska's public-power model demonstrates that customer-owned systems deliver dramatically lower rates without sacrificing reliability.
Independent Financial Analysis
Comprehensive evaluation of MSPA's financial viability, acquisition costs, transition timelines, and projected rate impacts based on independent studies and Nebraska precedent
Independent Analysis Overview
MSPA is modeled on the 2023 Pine Tree Power proposal. Independent analyses, particularly from London Economics International (LEI) commissioned by Maine's PUC in 2020, provide detailed insights into financial viability, acquisition costs, and rate impacts. Nebraska's 100% public power system serves as the real-world precedent for MSPA's goals.
Financial Viability
LEI Analysis: Financially viable long-term with net savings
Net Present Value: $236 million in net savings over 30 years (base case)
First decade challenges: $118 million in net costs due to upfront debt service
Break-even point: 10-15 years, driven by eliminating $187M+ annual foreign profit extraction
Based on tax-exempt revenue bonds, efficient operations, and reasonable acquisition price
Nebraska Precedent: NPPD reported $537 million adjusted EBITDA (mid-2025) with rates in lowest 6.5-15% nationally. MSPA projects faster break-even (5-10 years) through phased pilots reducing upfront debt.
Acquisition Costs
LEI base estimate: $5.4-6 billion (2026 adjusted) for CMP + Versant at net book value
Potential premium: IOUs could demand 20-50% above book for 'going-concern' value
Total projected costs: $5-7 billion including transaction fees and litigation
Financed via revenue bonds repaid over 20-30 years at 2-4% interest
Nebraska transition cost ~$50-100 million (adjusted for inflation) via federal loans. MSPA's phased approach limits initial costs to $500M-1B for pilot segments, with federal grants (IIJA/IRA) offsetting 10-20%.
Transition Timelines
LEI projection: 5-10+ years for full transition
Phase breakdown: 1-2 years (board/operator), 2-3 years (acquisition/arbitration), 1-2 years (regulatory approvals)
Potential delays: Eminent domain challenges could add 2-5 years
Nebraska's transition took 13 years (1933-1946) starting with pilots. MSPA projects 5-8 years via phased pilots (2028-2030 start, full by 2033+) with success triggers ensuring viability before scaling.
Projected Rate Impacts
Short-term (First Decade): Potential 5-10% increase (~$10-20/month) from debt service
Long-term (30 Years): 10-15% lower rates (~$236M net savings) from tax exemptions and reinvested profits
Average household savings: $200-400/year long-term
Greatest reductions in delivery rates (50-60% of bill); supply stabilizes via neutral bids
Nebraska rates are 2.6x lower than Maine's (11.57¢/kWh vs 30.39¢/kWh, EIA Dec 2025). Post-transition, rates dropped 20-30% long-term. MSPA projects 15-25% reduction long-term, dropping typical bills from $167/month to $125-140/month by 2040.
Key Risks and Mitigation
Risk: Acquisition premium >20% above book could eliminate savings
MSPA Mitigation: Binding arbitration with 18-month cap reduces premium risks vs open court process
Risk: Operator management fees (10-20% of opex) could inflate costs
MSPA Mitigation: Rate-stabilization reserves and phased implementation with success triggers
Risk: Loss of IOU corporate taxes ($3.4M/year state revenue)
Offset: Higher property taxes and service efficiencies, plus $187M+ annual reinvestment staying local
Executive Summary
LEI deems MSPA-like models viable long-term with net savings
Short-term costs and uncertainties require MSPA's phased safeguards
Nebraska's success (low rates, no debt burdens) supports projections of 15-25% savings
MSPA positions Maine to achieve similar affordability by reclaiming sovereignty from foreign owners
Phased Implementation Roadmap
MSPA's carefully structured transition from pilot programs to full statewide operation, with performance triggers ensuring success at every stage
Pilot Programs Launch
Click to view milestones
Phase 1 Implementation
Click to view milestones
Phase 2 Expansion
Click to view milestones
Phase 3 Completion
Click to view milestones
Full Statewide Operation
Click to view milestones
Performance Triggers & Safeguards
Implementation pauses or reverses if key metrics are not met. Success must be proven at each phase before scaling.
Rate Comparisons
Detailed breakdowns comparing Maine's 27–30 cent rates to Nebraska's 11–13 cents. See exactly where foreign profits go and how MSPA cuts costs.
Feasibility Studies
Independent analysis of MSPA's financial viability, acquisition costs, transition timelines, and projected rate impacts based on Nebraska precedent.
Frequently Asked Questions
Answers addressing 2023 referendum concerns: debt structure, operational continuity, employee protections, performance triggers, and PUC oversight.
Media Coverage
News articles, opinion pieces, and press releases about Maine's public power movement and the fight against foreign utility control.
Advocacy Toolkit
Templates, talking points, and rate comparison graphics for supporters to share in their communities. Help neighbors understand the foreign ownership problem.
Legal Framework
Information about enabling legislation, Maine PUC oversight requirements, employee protection statutes, and the phased implementation roadmap.
Join the Movement for Maine's Energy Sovereignty
End foreign control. Cut rates in half. Keep Maine's energy dollars in Maine. Add your voice to the movement for customer-owned electricity.
Take Action Now