The crisis politics of energy conservation, the lack of clearly defined state procedures for obtaining approval for energy projects, and the total absence of a coherent state energy policy have converged on the proposal of Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. to build a dam at Basin Mills in Orono, and to modernize its existing dam at Veazie.

Bangor Hydro this week asked the Public Utilities Commission to reconsider its July decision to reject the Basin Mills application as premature, arguing that the construction phase of the project is not that far away (1994), prospective investors need assurance that the project at least is consistent with state objectives, and last, that in the long process of applications and permits, state statute appears to give primacy to PUC approval.

The value of Basin Mills aside, Bangor Hydro makes an excellent point in its petition. State law, intentionally vague or muddled on so many energy matters, appears to be clear on at least one point: Once the commission accepts an application, it is obliged to render a decision on the proposal within 15 months.

The PUC can argue, as it did in this decision, that it has the authority to reject an application because it does not think a request is timely, but on a matter of such importance, the public should expect more of the commission than a facile response based on technicalities.

This confrontation between utility and regulator was inevitable. Maine has been ducking decisions on major energy projects. The state’s way of dealing with proposals for dams and power lines and coal plants is to force the applicant to run until he drops from economic and political exhaustion.

Everyone in Maine wants to criticize. No one wants to decide.

Beneath the arguments of the Public Utilities Commission and Bangor Hydro over the Basin Mills application run deep political currents on energy that have eroded the state’s ability to craft responsible policy in this area:

The conservation philosophy of Bangor Hydro-Electric is at odds with that of the PUC. Hydro does what it is required to do, nothing more, choosing not to be an innovator in conservation.

Utilities use conservation efforts to make political points with the commission, but the state has chosen to grossly undercompensate utilities for these programs.

Under the circumstances, it is unfair for the PUC to punish Bangor Hydro, or any other utility, because their opinions and approaches differ on conservation. If the PUC is serious about wanting utilities to get into the conservation business, it should provide them with the economic incentive to be aggressive.

Based on circumstantial evidence and observation, it is state policy to prohibit major new energy developments. No one will come right out and say that, but it is the practical application of the political and regulatory activities in Augusta. If this indeed is the case, it is time that someone in the capital stood up and said so. Such a policy deserves open public debate.

This state does not speak with a clear voice on energy matters. It never has. There are energy plans galore in the energy section of the State Planning Office, many of them spin-offs of projects lugged over from the old OER under Gov. Joseph Brennan, but Maine’s executive branch, its public utilities regulators, its transportation department and its legislature historically have been a total zero in developing and pursuing a focused energy plan that deals with all facets of consumption and conservation.

The PUC can chide the Hydro, but the culpability for this failure really is in Augusta, which in Maine’s energy universe is the center of inertia.