State government officials could provide a stack of studies, initiatives, programs and task force conclusions about Maine’s plans for improved energy efficiency but still would not quite get at what a coalition of Maine groups was describing last week. The groups want much stronger leadership and a lot more effort to improve the way Maine uses energy, and they have the state’s contribution to climate change as Exhibit A.

Maine already has a task force on climate change, just as it already has one for energy, a commission that watches the buying and selling of electricity and a department charged with protecting the state’s environment. But the groups, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, Mainewatch Institute and the Maine Center for Economic Policy, want more: They want the state to use less energy and use it more effectively, not as something it works on along with many other things but as a priority. Arguing that Maine has squandered its role as a leader in energy conservation and is failing at its own mandate to curb energy use, the groups offer four areas for improvement.

They want leadership through policy – for example, by state government reducing energy consumption by 25 percent by 2010. Second, the state should copy what works in other states to increase electric-energy efficiency, make town planning more efficient and establish building codes that result in a lower demand for energy and provide incentives for businesses that improve energy efficiency by 10 percent in five years.

Without deciding whether the specific timetables are the right ones, many people from across the political spectrum and from a range of businesses could agree that increasing energy efficiency – getting a job done or a product made with less energy and therefore less cost – is desirable. The Maine Public Advocate’s Office recently estimated that the state could save tens of millions of dollars annually by increasing investments in its energy efficiency programs.

The groups’ third goal is trickier: They want Maine to use renewable energy to displace dirtier sources. Federal energy policies of a generation ago that Maine embraced thoroughly gave the state some of the highest energy costs in the nation, drove businesses elsewhere and placed a burden on homeowners that they are still carrying. The groups’ plan recognizes this when discussing the need for an executive order that directs state agencies to purchase more of their power from in-state renewable sources “when available at competitive rates.” However, it would likely take a lot more than that caveat to nudge the state back toward the policies it is still trying to escape.

The final goal, support for regional and national action, is something Maine has done fairly well during the last decade. It has actively participated state organizations to reduce pollution regionally, demanded that the Midwest clean up its power plants and agreed with the rest of New England and Eastern Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a very good start, although it may also be able to do more.

More immediately, the value of all this is in goals 1 and 2: State leadership should take an aggressive role in finding opportunities for and promoting energy efficiency, both for government and, voluntarily, for business. It should set clear, significant goals for improving state efficiency and measure outcomes in dollars saved and air pollution avoided. Maine’s next governor should make these goals part of his administration.