MPUC Docket No. 2025-00276 · under active review
CMP wants to run a new 115 kV line on steel poles up to about 110 feet tall through Cumberland, Falmouth and Portland, plus rebuilt lines in Westbrook and substation work in Yarmouth. We're the neighbors asking one question first: is it really needed?
We're not alone in questioning the need. Maine's Office of the Public Advocate has said CMP's Portland-area forecast may be overestimated. The Public Advocate, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Town of Falmouth all asked the Commission to test CMP's claimed need before anything else (Items 141, 142, 143).
CMP keeps changing its story on why this project is needed.
Which is it? →The need is driven by forecast load growth and aging equipment.
CMP’s exact words: “This study was driven by load growth forecasted in the area and asset condition needs.” Petition, p. 16 ↗
Neighbors and the Public Advocate question the forecast.
Neighbors on the route asked the Commission to test CMP’s forecast first. The Public Advocate agreed: “Solutions based on an unrealistically high load forecast create a risk that the modeled needs will not materialize.” ISO New England has cut its forecast twice since 2024. Motion on Need ↗ · Public Advocate ↗
The need is here now, not in a future forecast.
CMP’s exact words: “The customer needs that we’re seeing are today, needed today. They do not rely on projected future growth.” City meeting ↗
The case in 30 seconds
Meet the real need. CMP's case rests on a 2024 forecast that later forecasts have cut. The need should be independently confirmed before anything is built.
Work out responsible solutions together. Alternate routing, alternate technologies such as undergrounding, and non-wires options deserve a real evaluation.
Protect what makes Maine, Maine. Towns north of Portland would carry the towers, the clearing and the construction while receiving little to no benefit.
People deserve a real say. Most neighbors learned about this from each other, not from CMP. The case record only reflects what gets filed.
CMP keeps changing its story. First, the need came from forecast growth. Now CMP says it doesn't. Which is it?
Point 5: CMP petition, Docket 2025-00276 (Sept. 2025), p. 16; CMP to Portland's Sustainability and Transportation Committee, Oct. 21, 2026.
By the numbers
Steel monopoles up to about 110 ft
the full existing right-of-way CMP says it will clear, plus hazard trees 15–20 ft beyond the edge. 150 ft where CMP runs two separate lines.
towns on the route; a Phase 2 (South Portland) to follow
properties within 1,000 feet of the line
Heights: CMP's petition, Docket 2025-00276 (Sept. 2025), pp. 29–30. Corridor widths: CMP's Sept. 2026 data responses (AP01-001-018, EXM-004-002, ACAUS-001-001, AP01-001-013) and petition Fig. 8; CMP revised its clearing plan in September 2026, and these figures follow its latest filings. Property count: the Alliance's review of public parcel maps, counting every tax parcel whose boundary lies within 1,000 feet of CMP's proposed new or rebuilt line segments across the five towns, each parcel counted once. 1,000 feet is the distance to which the Northern Pass study found measurable value effects.
Is this line really needed?
CMP built its study on ISO New England's 2024 forecast. The 2025 forecast cut 115 MW from the 2030 summer peak. The 2026 forecast is lower still (Office of the Public Advocate comments, Item 141, Sept. 28, 2026). CMP says none of that changed its design. The landowner intervenors asked the Commission to settle the need question first, and the Public Advocate, the Conservation Law Foundation and the Town of Falmouth backed that request (Items 141, 142, 143). On Oct 9 the Commission's presiding officers ruled that need will be decided in the main case rather than a separate first phase (Procedural Order, Item 155). The landowners will make their case on need in written testimony due Oct 30.
CMP's forecasting practices “raise concerns that the Portland area forecast of load is overestimated, potentially leading to unneeded capital investment.”
What the real need is: reliability
One worn-out part at the Elm Street substation knocked out power to 28,000 customers on Oct. 9. An 80-year-old line failed in 2023. Fix them. That's upkeep, and it doesn't take a new 115 kV line through people's backyards. CMP's own plan prices rebuilding the old lines and building the new 115 kV line as separate jobs.
It earns a return on every dollar it spends on projects like this one. Bigger project, bigger payday. That's why someone independent has to check the need first.
Sources: CMP at Portland's Sustainability and Transportation Committee, Oct. 21, 2026 (outages); CMP petition, Docket 2025-00276, Table 1, Cost Summary (separate line items); CMP data response ODR-001-010, Att. 1 (return on investment; Data Requests tab).
Your town
This isn't abstract
Why we're opposing it as proposed
What CMP is proposing
Steel monopoles up to about 110 feet tall, above the tallest oaks in your neighborhood. An audible buzz in stormy and foggy weather. And aggressive clear-cutting of a right-of-way that today is often just a thin line of trees behind the back fence.
Illustrative only. The route, tower design and distances to homes are not final; these are examples, not a prediction for any one property.
CMP has applied for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to build new and rebuilt high-voltage transmission lines and to expand, build or remove substations across Cumberland, Falmouth, Portland, Westbrook and Yarmouth. In several of these neighborhoods it would be the first time high-voltage transmission has been sited there at all, not an upgrade of a corridor residents already live alongside.
Cost & timeline
Phase 1, the only phase CMP has filed so far, is a massive, disruptive buildout. A future Phase 2 (a South Portland loop) will follow in a separate filing, so a total scope isn't available yet. The Commission found the application complete in July 2026 and opened a review that could take up to a year; if approved, construction would run 2027 through about 2030–31: three to four years of heavy equipment, clear-cutting and construction traffic.
The route as CMP's application describes it today: the existing utility corridor, and where the proposed new line would run within it.
Map key
Right-of-way (ROW) boundary. The outer edges of CMP's existing utility easement.
ROW centerline. The midline of the easement.
Rebuilt line. CMP's current 34.5 kV line would be shifted to accommodate the second line and rebuilt with metal poles.
Proposed new line. The new 115 kV line CMP is proposing to add within the same right-of-way, alongside the existing line.
Illustrative impact depiction for the S180, S262, S180A corridor based on publicly available information; not intended as a final survey of impacts. CMP's own project page also includes its route map and town-by-town overview visuals.
See CMP's project map ↗Beyond the docket
Our case before the Commission is about need, cost and process. Separately, as neighbors and parents, many of us are also concerned about what runs through the air above this corridor, what gets sprayed on the ground beneath it, and what happens when overhead lines meet a hotter, stormier Maine.
Read what we know, and what we're asking forWho we are
We're pro-electrification. Portland should get the power it needs. We're not opposed to CMP as a matter of principle; we're asking for more from a public utility.
A coalition of landowners and residents across Falmouth, Cumberland, Portland, Westbrook and Yarmouth, organized under a written charter and participating as formal intervenors in the MPUC docket. Not a petition: a standing organization for legal and organizing purposes. Alliance for Responsible Infrastructure, Inc. is a Maine nonprofit that has filed notice with the IRS to operate as a 501(c)(4), to better advocate on behalf of impacted communities.
We accept that Portland-area energy needs are growing. Our position is that CMP hasn't proven the scale of need it claims, that its proposed solution imposes concentrated harm on communities and the environment in towns north of Portland that will receive little to no benefit from it, when better solutions exist, and that a for-profit company performing a public function can't be trusted to self-correct without independent scrutiny.
Download the charter (PDF) ↓Get involved
The fastest way to be heard. Your comment goes straight into the official case record for Docket No. 2025-00276. No meeting, no lawyer, and you don't have to be a party. Say who you are, where you live, and how the project as proposed affects you.
Go and demand answers. CMP filed this plan more than a year ago, and most neighbors still heard about it from each other. Now CMP admits "more direct conversations are needed." Make it answer: Where do the poles go? How much gets cut? Why are we only hearing this now?
Monday. North Deering neighbors are asking everyone to show up in force and speak during public comment, 3 minutes each. You don't have to live in Portland to speak. Bring neighbors and family; a full room shows the Council how many people this affects. Ask Portland to stand with its neighborhoods: support an independent look at whether this project is needed, and oppose it as proposed.
Portland City Council ↗ · Can't make it? Add your name to our joint letter →Monday. Speak at public comment and ask the Town to press CMP for answers.
Friday. Moved from Oct 23 by the Commission's Oct 9 order. The Alliance's expert and landowner testimony goes on the record. Send property statements and photos as early as you can; they must reach us well before this date to be included.
What to send →Thursday, the week after intervenor testimony is due. ARI session first, same school; times to come. Show up in numbers and demand answers.
Tuesday. Every neighborhood on the route: show up and make CMP show its work.
Wednesday. Ask councilors to hold CMP to what it promised on Oct. 21. Time on the posted agenda.
Portland City Council ↗Thursday. Elm Street substation is in Yarmouth. Ask the Council to press CMP for answers.
Thursday. Moved from Dec 2 by the Commission's Oct 9 order. Live questioning of intervenor testimony by the other parties. In person at 26 Katherine Dr, Hallowell, or streamed.
MPUC live video ↗Docket dates per Docket 2025-00276 filings as of Oct 2026; meeting dates as announced in October 2026. Falmouth, Portland and Westbrook: check posted agendas. The Commission can amend its schedule; confirm on the case portal before you travel. Clerk's office: (207) 287-3831.
ARI and North Deering neighbors are sending a joint written comment to the Portland City Council for its Oct 19 meeting. One email adds your name. We list only your name and town or neighborhood, and only once you confirm. Sign on by Fri Oct 16. ✉
5 min · Falmouth residentsA 300-foot setback for above-ground high-voltage lines, 50 feet underground, while the state review is still open.
30 minPhotos, a description and the impact in your own words.
One evening“Speaking Up on the CMP Line”: talking points, dates and contacts for all five towns, and a draft email. PDF ↓
A SaturdayWe'll pair you up and give you door-hangers. Email to volunteer.
LandownersThe deadline has passed, but the Commission still accepts petitions showing good cause. PDF ↓
We can't make this case without independent technical experts and legal counsel; that's the single biggest thing standing between us and being heard in this docket. We're an all-volunteer effort covering those costs out of pocket.
Donate on GoFundMe ↗A call, email or letter to your state rep or town council carries real weight on a case like this.
Find my state legislators ↗An intervenor in the docket; filed in support of settling need first.
Cumberland Town Council ↗Meeting schedules and council contacts.
Portland City Council ↗Meeting schedules and council contacts.
Westbrook City Council ↗Meeting schedules and council contacts.
Yarmouth Town Council ↗Meeting schedules and council contacts.
How this could impact you
A rough starting point for your own written statement, not an appraisal. This gives an illustrative range calibrated to case data from the New Hampshire Northern Pass transmission proceeding, not your specific property. For anything filed as evidence of value, a licensed appraiser's opinion carries far more weight.
Within 300 feet, we assume the new towers and the cleared corridor will be visible from your home or yard; steel monopoles up to about 110 feet tall plus full-width clearing of the right-of-way leave little or no screening at that distance.
Rough range
Enter a property value for a dollar range.
Write this range into your statement as a starting figure, and say plainly that it's your own estimate pending a professional appraisal. Cite the source below if you reference these percentages directly.
Where these ranges come from: the Northern Pass economic impact report by Kavet, Rockler & Associates, prepared for New Hampshire's Counsel for the Public (NH SEC Docket 2015-06, 2016). Read the report (PDF) ↗
Kavet, Rockler & Associates, LLC, “Economic Impact Analysis and Review of the Proposed Northern Pass Transmission Project,” prepared for the New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General, Counsel for the Public (not by either side's advocates), NH SEC Docket No. 2015-06 (report filed Dec. 30, 2016; supplemental exhibit Apr. 17, 2017). Headline findings: over $1.1 billion in residential property within the project's viewshed, an estimated $15–30 million in wealth loss to affected owners, and value effects on nearby properties of “15% to as much as 34%, and more for individual properties” in the comparable studies the report reviewed. The report's own distance-and-view model (Tables 16–17) implies losses of roughly 32% for homes with an immediate view of the line, about 9% for a foreground view, and under 1% for more distant views; the authors call it conservative and note significant declines as far as 1,000 feet from the line. The report also cites a U.S. Department of Energy review that applied a 3.5% loss to all properties within 500 feet. Read the report ↗
The Commission only weighs what's actually filed. Send us three things:
Send photos, your property description and your written statement to our intake account. We'll compile it for submission into the case record and follow up if we need anything else.
Email contact@ariformaine.orgFiling deadlines, meeting outcomes and how to help. Sent when there's something worth knowing, not on a schedule.
We'll never share your email. Sends to our organizing team at contact@ariformaine.org.
Sign the petition · Falmouth residents only
Central Maine Power has filed for state approval of its Greater Portland Transmission Upgrades Project (Maine PUC Docket No. 2025-00276), a massive, disruptive buildout of new and rebuilt high-voltage transmission lines running through Falmouth, Cumberland, Yarmouth, Westbrook and Portland. Many affected residents were never properly notified before the filing, and the project as proposed would allow new towers and lines to be sited close to homes and school properties with no protective buffer in place today.
The Town Council has already begun looking into this docket, and town representatives have signaled to representatives of our Alliance that they are willing to consider a more active role in protecting landowner rights and the rights of our community. In 2013 the Legislature considered a 300-foot setback for new power lines near homes and schools (LD 950). At the Energy and Utilities Committee's request, the PUC reported that no state required a 300-foot setback, that it would not be feasible for distribution lines, and estimated it could cost about $950 million for CMP's existing transmission system alone. The bill was not enacted (Maine PUC report, Docket 2013-00402, Nov. 30, 2013).
We ask the Town Council to take up and adopt a 300-foot setback for above-ground high-voltage transmission lines, and a 50-foot setback for underground lines, without delay, while the state's review of this project is still underway and before any route or design is locked in.
Form not loading? Open it in a new tab.
Resources
The complete case against the project as proposed: community impact, the necessity question, alternatives CMP hasn't seriously evaluated, and procedural failures in how this was filed. PDF ↓
Speaking Up on the CMP LineTalking points for town councils and state legislators, meeting dates and contacts for all five towns, and a draft email you can send. PDF ↓
How to file a public commentStep-by-step instructions for submitting a comment directly into the official MPUC case record. PDF ↓
Filing for intervenor statusHow to petition to intervene as an impacted landowner, including how to make a compelling case for late intervention. PDF ↓
Northern Pass economic impact reportKavet, Rockler & Associates for NH Counsel for the Public, 2016. PDF ↗
Northern Pass report: official copyThe same report in the NH Site Evaluation Committee's archive (Docket 2015-06). ↗
Health and safetyElectromagnetic fields, herbicide spraying and wildfire risk: what we know and what we're asking for. →
More resources will be added here as we produce them: fact sheets, boards, expert materials, and anything else useful for canvassing, testimony, or talking to your neighbors.