Sunday, May 24, 2026

Graham Platner’s energy plan prioritizes lowering costs and taking on big oil and the ‘oligarchy’

 

Graham Platner’s energy plan prioritizes lowering costs and taking on big oil and the ‘oligarchy’

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2026/5/23/800043145/news/graham-platners-energy-plan-prioritizes-lowering-costs-and-taking-on-big-oil-and-the-oligarchy/ 

Graham Platner’s energy plan prioritizes lowering costs and taking on big oil and the ‘oligarchy’

Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner speaks at a town hall in Ogunquit, Maine, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Caleb Jones)
Attribution: APDemocratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner speaks at a town hall in Ogunquit, Maine, in Oct. 2025.

Senate candidate Graham Platner’s key energy goal is to reduce costs for Mainers. He’d also like to tax the “ever-living hell out of the companies that made a lot of money on fossil fuels while they destroyed the planet.”

By Nathaniel Eisen for Inside Climate News


Graham Platner, the presumptive Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate from Maine, is known for a few things: his “more Bernie than Bernie” message of wresting back control from the rich and powerful; his biography as a Marine Corps veteran and oyster farmer with limited political experience; and his history of controversial and offensive online commentary and tattoos

Climate champion? Not so much.

But in recent weeks, Platner, who has talked about finding peace from some of his post-combat demons and political disillusionment while working on the clear blue waters of the Gulf of Maine, has started to roll out a message of protecting both the planet and pocketbooks, including through an energy plan released last week.

“We need to get off fossil fuels, not just for its impact on the environment and climate,” Platner told Inside Climate News in a summary of that plan. “We need to get off fossil fuels because that would make America self-sustaining.”

With the departure of Maine’s Governor Janet Mills, a candidate with a strong record of supporting renewable energy, Platner is the presumptive Democratic nominee, although a third candidate with a strong environmental record, David Costello, remains in the primary race.


Related | Democrats are expanding the Senate map. Can they keep it up?


Through the energy plan and his messaging, Platner draws on elements of the Green New Deal championed by the likes of Sen. Bernie Sanders. Look closely and you see him attempting to navigate the tensions inherent in a progressive environmental agenda today—between affordability now and in the future, between building and conserving, between moving fast and consulting people—in interesting and sometimes novel ways.

The early response among climate advocates in Maine has been positive; it remains to be seen how these ideas land among the wider electorate. 

A Boat’s-Eye View

Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner speaks at a town hall in Ogunquit, Maine, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Caleb Jones)
Attribution: APGraham Platner speaks at an Oct. 2025 town hall in Ogunquit, Maine.

Platner has seen the effects of climate change in his hometown of Sullivan and throughout coastal Maine, although, he told ICN, so far not directly at his oyster farm. 

Referring to the especially destructive winter storms of 2023-2024, Platner said, “Within the space of three days, we broke the high-water mark”—twice. 

Lobster piers that had stood for decades were destroyed or underwater, Platner recalled. 

“And it’s hard when that happens to look at it and be like, ‘Well, things are fine.’”

When asked why voters who care about climate action should vote for him at a recent town hall in Sabattus, Platner offered what amounted to an order of operations once in office: “Before we had outright fascism in the streets of this country, I would have said that climate change was the single greatest challenge that we faced. Sadly, in the short term, we’ve got to deal with the fascists.”

One volunteer climate advocate—Tom Mikulka, a co-facilitator for the Portland chapter of Third Act, a national group of retirees advocating for climate action—likes what he’s heard so far.

“He talks like a young ‘Third Actor,’” Mikulka said of Platner, while contrasting his positions to those of incumbent Republican Sen. Susan Collins, Platner’s likely opponent in the general election, whom he called, “one of the biggest enemies of the climate movement, certainly in Maine.”

And Emma Conrad, chair of the political committee of the Maine Sierra Club, which prominently endorsed Platner prior to Mills suspending her campaign, wrote that, “Platner’s focus on corporate greed, especially that of our country’s largest polluters, aligns closely with Sierra Club priorities.”

Relief at the Pump and the Meter

A sign shows the price of gas at a store, Tuesday, March 31, 2026, in Freeport, Maine.
Attribution: APA sign shows the price of gas at a store on March 31 in Freeport, Maine.

Platner’s energy plan calls for immediate relief from high energy prices.

Those prices are a major concern in Maine, as in many parts of the country. Electricity prices for residential customers are among the nation’s highest after rising steeply over the past decade. Heavy reliance on fuel oil and kerosene to heat homes is also a major cost driver, an issue that has only become more severe since the U.S. and Israel attacked Iran, leading to chokeholds on global petroleum supply by Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. 

Platner’s plan calls for incentivizing states to freeze electricity rates temporarily, as Gov. Mikie Sherrill has attempted to do in New Jersey.

It also calls for eliminating federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and instead funding the major road and infrastructure projects those taxes currently pay for with higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. 

“[R]egressive gas and diesel taxes hit working class Mainers the hardest,” the plan reads. “Relying on fossil fuels to fund basic infrastructure does not make sense if we want to reduce fossil fuels used in transportation.”

And it calls for rebates on electricity bills, to be paid for out of a tax on “windfall profits” U.S. oil companies have made since the start of the war with Iran, an idea first proposed by U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna of California and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, both Democrats.


Related | Maine’s shellfish harvesters are caught up in climate-related closures


Platner was noncommittal at the Town Hall about whether he supported an outright moratorium on construction of new data centers—as was recently proposed in Maine, a measure that Gov. Mills vetoed, upsetting her left flank—although other reports have him supporting such a measure on a private call with environmental activists.

He instead emphasized that a data center should be required to co-locate energy generation, or “bring its own power.” That requirement could help shield ratepayers from new costs associated with data centers. But without restrictions on fossil fuel power sources—especially in states that otherwise have strong renewable energy requirements—such facilities could make air pollution dramatically worse. 

In an interview with ICN, Platner said that “we need to take a breath and implement actual functional policy around [data centers].” Asked whether there should be restrictions on the type of power supply a data center can co-locate, Platner said that was “not something I’ve thought about yet.” The campaign told ICN a more extensive policy on data centers is in the works.

Build, Baby, Build

A campaign volunteer hangs a sign before Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner speaks at a town hall in Ogunquit, Maine, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025. (AP Photo/Caleb Jones)
Attribution: APA campaign volunteer hangs a sign before Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner speaks at a town hall in Ogunquit, Maine, in Oct. 2025.

Platner’s energy plan is more fully fleshed out. Francis Eanes, who is executive director of the Maine Labor Climate Council and who advised on the plan, said immediate relief for consumers is “essential if we want to build enough time, both politically and materially, for us to make the real, huge, significant investments to build our way out of this crisis.” 

The plan calls for the federal government to make those investments through several channels. First is a fund to provide low-interest loans to developers of transmission lines and large clean energy projects, both of which require significant amounts of up-front capital, whose borrowing costs has often thwarted or delayed such projects (even before President Trump began canceling permits, delaying reviews, and otherwise moving against them). 

The second is through use of the Defense Production Act—a law by which the feds can compel the private sector to produce goods essential to national security—to ramp up manufacturing of parts and supplies for those projects. That law was notably used to speed up production of personal protective equipment and vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Such ideas might raise fears of being tarred with the brush of “waste, fraud, and abuse” that the Trump Administration has assiduously applied, with scant evidence, while gutting foreign aid and domestic clean energy assistance programs. 

Eanes said that such initiatives should come with guardrails to prevent fraud or abuse but, echoing 18th-century Jewish mystic Rabbi Nachman of Bratslav, suggested that the important thing is not to be afraid.

“I think a lot of folks look back to the Solyndra days of the Obama administration, and the investment that got made there, and the fact that Solyndra later failed, and people, I think, have over learned that lesson. And they’ve gotten so cautious about making investments that might fail that they forget that the private sector does this all the time,” Eanes said.

Solyndra was a California maker of advanced solar panels loaned over $500 million by the Obama Administration, which subsequently went bankrupt without repaying the vast bulk of the loan. The program through which those loans were made also supported several successful companies and eventually turned a profit for the government.

Instead of “‘Can government bat 1.000?,’” Eanes went on, “The question is, can government deliver on the outcomes that we all agree are socially urgent and necessary?”

These elements of the plan drew a mix of praise and targeted criticism from several energy and economic policy experts. 

Ari Peskoe, director of the Electricity Law Initiative at Harvard Law School, applauded the energy infrastructure fund, calling government funding one of the “tried and true ways to bring down the cost of investment in needed infrastructure” like transmission lines.

Stephanie Kelton, an academic who served as chief economist to the Senate Budget Committee under Bernie Sanders’ chairmanship in the first two years of the Biden Administration, supported the spending efforts. But she said that Platner was “really painting himself into a corner” by linking each new spending proposal in the plan to a new source of revenue, such as taxes on oil profits or wealth.

“If you’re trying to deal with the urgent crisis that we are facing, then you need a full-throated public commitment to providing the resources, the funding to achieve the mission,” said Kelton, a proponent of “modern monetary theory” who believes in deficit spending to pursue socially beneficial goods like clean energy or housing.

Naming an Enemy

AP
Attribution: APGraham Platner speaks at an Oct. 2025 town hall in Ogunquit, Maine.

Platner’s thinking on how to pay for green infrastructure is part of an approach to climate politics foreshadowed in his now-famous campaign launch video, when he says, between swings of the kettlebell, “I’m not afraid to name an enemy. And the enemy is the oligarchy.”

And, according to Platner, for climate change, the oligarchy is Big Oil and Gas. 

“We also need to tax the ever-living hell out of the companies that made a lot of money on fossil fuels while they destroyed the planet,” he said at the Sabattus town hall.

Similarly, Eanes said that one of the benefits to linking new spending to a tax on oil profits is reinforcing this connection in voters’ minds. “It’s important if we want to win people’s trust and credibility that we can name an enemy, and we can name who’s standing in our way, and we can name who’s profiting off of the backs of everyday working people,” he said.

Energy analysts note that moving an economy off fossil fuels is more difficult than simply blaming the producers of those fuels for the climate crisis. It’s even harder than building massive amounts of new clean energy and transmission lines. It involves the individual decisions of hundreds of millions of Americans choosing how to heat their homes and what kinds of cars to drive, although, to be sure, fossil fuel industry groups continue to attempt to shape those choices, often with misinformation.

The energy plan does seek to help with at least the former, calling for federal funding for a “Whole Home Repair Program” modeled off Pennsylvania’s, to fund the types of repairs to a building’s envelope and electric wiring that are necessary first steps before an electric heat pump can be effective, while also making the house more comfortable and valuable. 

Eanes suggested that a dedicated climate plan the Platner campaign intends to release later in the summer may contain further proposals to address these issues. 

Forging Alliances

Graham Platner, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, speaks at a news conference Thursday, April 30, 2026, in Lewiston, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)
Attribution: APGraham Platner speaks at a news conference on Apri 30 in Lewiston, Maine.

The focus on housing is also at the core of an organizing strategy pursued by Platner and his allies, including Eanes’s organization, one that demonstrates a wide-angle lens on what a climate movement should do.

The Maine Labor Climate Coalition was organizing in Searsport to build support for construction of a staging ground for the floating offshore wind turbines the state of Maine hopes to build. When that effort was paused, in large part due to the Trump Administration’s efforts to thwart offshore wind, the group pivoted to supporting local residents of mobile homes’ campaign to pass a law stabilizing rents in their communities—an effort that succeeded

Platner said he simply attended one of the organizing meetings in Searsport and that “other people… deserve the credit” for the success there, although he did canvass in support of similar efforts in other parts of the state.

As a result of these wider campaigns, Eanes said his group is “in regular organizing relationships with between 1,000 to 2,000 of the most vulnerable, low-income residents across our state who feel alienated from the political system, feel generally deeply alienated from questions of climate and clean energy, because they’re facing crises today that they want answers to.” 

He sees the best climate strategy as one that helps people address current problems while simultaneously building support for addressing the biggest planetary crisis of them all.

“I see just huge opportunity for anyone or any organization that cares about climate to think about where and how we can broaden our lane,” Eanes said.

Younger climate-conscious voters gave Platner high marks for publicly supporting restoration of full sovereignty rights for Maine’s native Wabanaki tribes. Platner testified in support of two state bills earlier this year that would have ended the current exclusion of the tribes from the full benefits of federal laws that include several rights core to self-determination.

Roz O’Reilly said she appreciated Platner “being this messenger to communicate things that some people unfortunately just need [to hear from] someone who they see themselves in.”

O’Reilly, 18, is advocacy and storytelling manager for JustME for JustUS, a group organizing rural Maine youth “to create lasting power for their rural communities and the natural environment.” She sees tribal sovereignty as “inextricably woven” with climate justice.

“We have a lot to learn as climate advocates from the relationship that Indigenous peoples have held with the land for so long,” O’Reilly said.

Contrasting Approaches

FILE - David Costello, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Maine, right, speaks with Grace Jameson, of Saco, Maine, left, on Main Street in Saco, Thursday, Oct. 3, 2024. (Gregory Rec/Portland Press Herald via AP, File)
Attribution: APDavid Costello, Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Maine, speaks with a person in Saco, Maine, in Oct. 2024.

David Costello, a former acting secretary of the Maryland Department of the Environment running against Platner in the Democratic primary, also supported tribal sovereignty rights at a candidate forum hosted by the Penobscot Nation he attended with Platner.

Costello lags almost impossibly behind Platner in the polls. His environmental bona fides include helping craft Maryland’s initial climate action plan and moving some of the state’s earliest large-scale wind, solar and battery storage projects forward. His ideas provide a helpful contrast with some of the more unorthodox policy ideas of Platner.

For instance, in speaking to ICN, Costello said he supported putting a “price on carbon,” echoing his website’s call for “strict greenhouse gas emissions caps”—quintessential long-time asks for climate advocates. 

Many, perhaps most, economists say that a carbon tax is the most efficient and fastest way to shift the economy to cleaner forms of energy. But many U.S. political observers say that calling for such a tax is the most efficient and fastest way to shift a seat to Republicans.

Costello acknowledged that “maybe it is bad politics,” but also believes a cap or tax on carbon is “more sellable than we ever thought,” with a focus on investing the proceeds to benefit low-income households. That was how top Senate Democrats tried—and failed—to sell such a policy to the White House under President Joe Biden in 2021.

In contrast to Costello, and despite his call to “tax the ever-living hell out of” fossil fuel companies, Platner’s energy platform calls for eliminating the federal gasoline excise tax. 

He thus falls broadly into the camp of emphasizing energy and housing affordability while celebrating incidental benefits to the climate that many populist Democrats are running on in this election.

Unlike some advocates of that approach, he isn’t afraid to use the words “climate change.” He told ICN that, at least in Maine, those words no longer are as alienating to independent or conservative-minded voters as they once might have been. 

“I don’t think [the words climate change] are as much of a shut off as they used to be, primarily just because of the material realities that we’re seeing,” Platner said.

No Bunkers

Graham Platner, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, speaks at a news conference Thursday, April 30, 2026, in Lewiston, Maine. (AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty)
Attribution: APGraham Platner speaks at a news conference on April 30 in Lewiston, Maine.

Platner’s campaign has tapped into two major currents—progressive outrage over Trump and working-class anger about unaffordability and elite capture of politics. He is now beginning to weave a familiar Green New Deal style labor-climate-social welfare set of proposals into those currents, including at the Sabattus Town Hall.

“As we build all of this [infrastructure],” Platner said at that event, “it better be built with union labor.”

That drew whoops from the crowd, including from Lynn Gougeon, a retired corrections officer and union member from Gardiner. 

Gougeon told ICN that the marriage of labor and environmental concerns was core to her support for Platner, sounding a lot like him as she did.

“We are the ones that are affected—the laborers—by environmental decisions that are being made. We’re the ones that are threatened—if the oligarchs win, they’re going to destroy the whole world in order to extract as much profit as they can from the earth. But if we win, we’re going to take care of it because it is our backyard,” Gougeon said. “We don’t have a bunker to go to.” 

Daily Kos is free for everyone—no paywall, no barriers. Help keep it that way

Daily Kos is committed to keeping all our content free. That's why we don't have a paywall, and never will. However, Daily Kos' revenue is down, and we may not be able to continue producing the quality of work you have come to expect from us. Donations from our readers are our largest source of income. If you value independent, accessible, paywall-free journalism, please consider making a donation today.

$
OR
Donate with
1 Group Republished

Was this story worth reading?

Recommending and sharing stories helps us decide which stories are most important to show our readers.

65
Share:





Conversation

|

All Comments

  1. Comment by jprato.

    While I understand the need to address climate change a good deal of the public does not or rejects it when it hits their pocket books. Strategic reductions to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels and pointing them to renewable sources because they will LOWER energy costs is a smart direction to go. Passing laws banning gas stoves is just giving Republicans their next campaign issue to beat Democrats over the head with.

  2. Comment by Paul C.

    What I find most exciting is that Platner is rejecting outright the self censorship and accompanying cowardice that must accompany a strategic philosophy that says we must place the needs of the oligarchs above the needs of our actual base of working class people.

    There is no way to catalyze substantive change without placing the enemies of that change front and center because that is the only way to construct a coherent narrative that both addresses what everyone knows to be the truth and thereby create the mandate for the required changes during those critical first months in office.

    Substantive change in an oligarchy is not tinkering to please everyone. That only creates a vacuum that the oligarchs rush to fill with an astroturf revolution, as happened with the cynically named Tea Party revolution and its accompanying right wing Think Tanks, media and militias all culminating in the farce of a man like Trump winning on a message of overthrowing the status quo - all financed by the very oligarchs constituting the same status quo.

    During a time of extremis such as this, beware of any politician refusing to say out loud what everyone knows is happening and who does not explicitly run on a clearly stated platform of priorities and policies to fix what is broken. Platitudes such as "Hope and Change" always mean more of the same, by definition, because the public have not been moved to embrace a clearly articulated narrative about what is wrong, who the major actors are and what the policy fix needs to be.

    We need to wise up and stop being victimized by spineless career politicians whose only real goal is dying in office.

  3. Comment by Robpos.

    Personally, I’d much rather have a repentant sinner, trying to become more than he was instead of an unrepentant sinner who can’t see where they went wrong.

  4. Comment by oldmanriver.

    Excellent diary. Agree or not, it is very well researched with dozens of references and a clear focus. Kudos to the diarist.

  5. Comment by ExCorpFlunky (ZCT.Life).

    I’m glad he’s talking about it, at least. We certainly need to end all fossil fuel subsidies and take strong action to fight the climate crisis. This is a debate we need to have about the best ways, and we also must win this debate against the other party.

  6. Comment by Odysseus.

    “[R]egressive gas and diesel taxes hit working class Mainers the hardest,” the plan reads. “Relying on fossil fuels to fund basic infrastructure does not make sense if we want to reduce fossil fuels used in transportation.”

    Both wrong and wrongheaded.

    We need to discuss how to meet the needs of working class people without insisting that those solutions can only happen at an individual atomized level. Public transport needs to be improved.

    Separately, Taxes do not "fund" federal spending. Congressional appropriations create money, taxes destroy money. Platner is trying to close a loop that is not in fact closed. What we spend money on at the federal level has nothing to do with what we tax. Nixon took us off the Gold Standard in the 1970s.

    • Reply by Rob in Vermont.

      Being a Berniecrat he's likely a lot more apt than most candidates to be open to MMT.

  7. Comment by Odysseus.

    "It also calls for eliminating federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel,"

    Not just no but hell no.

    We need to raise taxes on fossil fuels immensely. Not by cents but by dollars.

    That can be accomplished indirectly, with something like a general carbon tax. Or it can be accomplished directly with the existing fossil fuels tax.

    We will never decarbonize transportation if we keep subsidizing polluters.

    • Reply by Rob in Vermont.

      He argues that it's a regressive tax.

    • Reply by Odysseus.

      ... and?

      There are much stronger arguments against his proposed action. I listed afew of them.

    • Reply by Rob in Vermont.

      I didn't reject your point. I just mentioned his.

    • Reply by oldmanriver.

      That was my initial reaction too. On second thought he has a point. If the goal is to transition to EVs then relying on a gas tax is self defeating. Like, take your plan. Raise the federal gas tax by $2 per gallon. Politically that is a suicide mission. And practically, your revenue drops fast and approaches zero over time. So you have to have a new political fight about funding all over again. Not saying that his plan is perfect but it makes as much sense as any other I've seen.

      Let me rephrase your conclusion:

      We will never decarbonize transportation if we rely on carbon emissions for funding.

    • Reply by gosoxataboy.

      That last line is effectively a non sequitur. He wants to eliminate the gas tax and instead raise taxes on the wealthy for funding. The latter can be done without the first. And if we raised the gas tax to reduce carbon (though I agree it is politically unlikely) and revenue eventually declined, then we could simply find other sources of revenue to replace it - like states taxing EVs are already doing. I see him saying he wants to get us off of fossil fuels but not how to do it. And making them cheaper isn't it

    • Reply by oldmanriver.

      Why is that a non sequitur? Seems logical to me. The gas tax that we rely on requires carbon emissions. Breaking that reliance allows us to reduce carbon emissions without a funding crisis. It seems more like we disagree on timing mostly.

      I would consider dumping gas tax and implementing vehicle fees simultaneously. You prefer high fuel tax until behavior changes then making the switch. In a perfect ethical world you are correct. In a world of selfish American politics I think the voters reject the party of high gas taxes so your ideal plan never happens. And all our other priorities fail as a result.

      Honestly, do you think a national candidate proposing $2 gas tax could get more than 100 electoral votes? In this country?

    • Reply by oldmanriver.

      Oops I replied to myself. See below...

    • Reply by Tak v2.

      Which isn't even an argument. It's just pointing out reality.

    • Reply by G2geek.

      Platner's got an excellent point here, and it's convergent with other threads of progressive politics, and your expansion on it is as well.

      - It's a regressive tax.

      - Yes, political suicide to raise the tax.

      - We shouldn't fund essentials with a self-eliminating funding source.

      - Far better to raise progressive taxes, pass the bill once and get it over with, and have a self-sustaining funding source.

      - And, that will also provide a better funding source for gov action on climate.

      Many of us who are eco-hardcores have been calling for increased carbon fuels taxes, and we have never made the connexion that these are inherently regressive taxes.

      Platner got it: he's thinking outside the box. That counts for a lot in my world.

    • Reply by Odysseus.

      "we have never made the connexion that these are inherently regressive taxes."

      Nonsense. Every carbon tax advocate that I have ever heard of has explicitly noted that raising carbon taxes alone is indeed regressive. That's why the most common proposals are fee-and-dividend, something structured like the Alaska Permanent Fund. Put a severance tax on the carbon mines and oil rigs, and pay everyone from the resulting fund.

      The rich people who are the major sources of carbon intense activity wind up paying more, and any impact on lower income folk is mitigated.

  8. Comment by Mark Lippman.

    It almost seems like some people are trying to drown out Platner's policy platform by distracting attention away from it to insist on other matters.

    • Reply by kenerator.

      Care to explain?

    • Reply by Mark Lippman.

      Look at the comment thread. It was hijacked away from the topic ***Platner's green energy proposals*** to other matters. Threadjacking is a violation of the Rule of the Road. https://www.dailykos.com/rules-of-the-road/

    • Reply by G2geek.

      Threadjackers are a thing (as in, headaches & nausea are a thing). Perhaps they're getting more sophisticated than back in the day when they'd just go in and poop all over the conversation and get flagged.

      Thanks for calling it out.

    • Reply by Isny.

      My eyes rolled to the back of my head when I started reading the comments. "Not this again, and again" I was thinking. And all those nasties were coming from out-of-staters.

      Yeah, let's not talk about climate change remedies, let's re-hash the Totenkopf and old Reddit comments. Snort.

    • Reply by redsprite.

      I don't like some of the things he's said and done, but he's come from nowhere to becom

 

No comments:

Post a Comment