Wind is business
During tough economic times, it would normally be prudent to welcome with open arms a business that is looking to invest in the Maine economy. If there is one business that has been investing heavily in the Maine economy in the last four years, it is the wind industry.
Here in Oakfield, we’re excited to welcome First Wind’s planned Oakfield project to our town. It will mean jobs, more tax revenues for the community and more business in town. We’ve worked for more than four years to build real public support for a wind project.
But I recently learned that the staff of the Maine Public Utilities Commission recommended against a proposed business venture between First Wind and Emera. I am concerned that rejecting this deal could jeopardize investment in Maine and small communities would stand to lose.
The PUC has an important job, but at the same time it needs to recognize that its actions could have negative impacts on local communities across the state. I urge the PUC to find a middle ground and keep the needs of towns such as Oakfield in mind. We must not turn away from long term energy independence and real investment in small Maine communities.
David Gordon
President
Katahdin Forest Products Company
Oakfield
Health care over tax breaks
Gov. LePage’s proposal to cut 65,000 low income children, the elderly and disabled from MaineCare cuts while giving tax breaks to those earning more than $200,000 is an unfair way to fill the shortfall in the budget.
The people who are most vulnerable should not be made to suffer more while the wealthiest in our state continue to enjoy tax breaks. People will still get sick and need care, but they will be forced to turn to much more expensive emergency and crisis care that will have to be paid somehow.
According to the Maine Center for Economic Policy, if we simply restored Maine’s 2010 tax rate for people earning more than $200,000 per year and the top 1 percent who earn more than $354,746 a year (6,700 households), this would generate about $72 million a year. MCEP also points out that based on 2009 figures, the top 1 percent had an effective state and local tax rate approximately 12 percent lower then the average for all Maine people.
Shouldn’t they pay their fair share so that their state and local tax rate isn’t lower
than that of the average Maine family? Shouldn’t those with incomes of more than $200,000 per year be asked help to make sure low-income children, the elderly and the disabled have the health care that could mean life or death?
Ilze Petersons
Orono
Go, UMaine women
I would like to express my congratulations to UMaine women’s basketball head coach Richard Barron.
After six long years of decline and loss of fan interest, it is good to believe that UMaine is starting its long climb back to respectability. The last few games have shown a renewed spark and the will to battle all the time.
As a longtime fan, I look forward to seeing them once again in the Big Dance in March.
Good luck the rest of this season and the seasons to come.
Terry Lyon
Medway
Ilze Petersons–You are right, of course, when one looks at the big picture with compassion. Unfortunately, our elected officials seem to be seeing the big picture through tea colored glasses. The good news is that many of our fellow citizens are finally beginning to understand the concept of economic inequality and it is becoming increasingly evident how our commonwealth has been hijacked by a handful of avaricious turncoats. Thanks for your letter.
…
DAVID,
The investment in wind energy comes from the taxpayers, you know the givers and not the takers. As a giver I say no to your wild imagination about any benefits of wind energy.
ILZE,
Do you liberals every sing a different song? Try the tune of ” We Gotta Cut The Budget ” or my favorite ” Let The Axe Fall And The cuts Be made “.
Anyone other than your (often ultra-) conservative views is a “liberal”? From Porgy and Bess, “It Ain’t necessarily so”. As for your Worst Sellers, we’ll pass on hearing them, especially if you’re singing them.
Do you know that – thanks to Ronald Reagan – you are a co-owner and legal guardian of spent nuclear fuel from Maine Yankee currently stored in Wiscasset?
Well do you?
Prolly not.
And your point is ……….?
If you don’t get it, you ain’t tryin’.
I think the state gets 75 million a year to store it. At least they were.
You’re asking other people (…ever sing a different song?) to not do something you do all the time? Oh – I forgot – it’s your way or the highway.
Ilze Petersons, Terry Lyon: good letters.
Let me translate for you. Mr. Gordon is pleading that the PUC commissioners ignore what their staff and legal counsel have recommended. He also wants to ignore the recommendations of the Public Advocates office. Yes, he is saying “screw the ratepayers all over Maine”. He encouraging the PUC to make a decision that would significantly raise our energy costs in hopes that he will see some local tax relief from the the so-called “community benefits” program that the developer is required to give to host towns.
Mr. Gordon, you seem to be confusing the PUC’s responsibility to strike the best deal for ALL it’s ratepayers with some form of entitlement program you hope benefits you and your company.
Anyone considering a log home package now or in the future should remember this and avoid Mr. Gordan’s company and products like the plague.
Does Mr. Gordon own land he is leasing to First Wind?
Does ANYONE think for even one nanosecond that Gordon gives a hoot about energy independence.
I’m thinking if one were to stand between Gordon and a dollar he might get trampled.
‘Does Mr. Gordon own land he is leasing to First Wind?”
Four or five crucifixes (aka wind mills) on ones property would be a nice little income would it not :-/
And people like you do not care that they ruin others” enjoyment of their camps or outdoor pastimes, long as you can make a quick buck. 1A and B lakes need protection from careless developers and associated scoundrels.
hey enron I don’t like the dam things either :-/ how you came to surmise I want them is beyond me ???
just saying Gordon might be getting about 10 grand for each ill fated wind mill planted on his land making it a big cha ching for him :-/ :-/ :-/
“During tough economic times, it would normally be prudent to
welcome with open arms a business that is looking to invest in the
Maine economy. If there is one business that has been investing
heavily in the Maine economy in the last four years, it is the wind
industry.”
You apparently expect the public to assume you are normal and
prudent. When you use the word “we” I don’t believe you are
speaking for the people of Oakfield. It sounds more like you are
trying to convince a pre-schooler that what you are doing is OK.
Well, Mr. Gordon, it isn’t OK. Wind
turbines do not sequester any CO2, as do trees, but generate megatons
of CO2 throughout all the processes from their manufacture to their
installation. They force property values down, force taxes
and electricity rates to go through the roof. They blight our
mountaintops, ruin tourism to our wilderness mountains and lakes and
threaten to burn them down. They will blight our lives. You should be ashamed of yourself, David Gordon. President,
Katahdin Forest Products Company in Oakfield
What about the cell phone towers on every knoll and hill from here to Presque Isle? As far as CO2 generated during construction, what doesn’t generaste CO2? your car was manufactured, as were the appliances in your house, etc, etc, so that does not wash. Wind may not be the be all and end all, but we should utilize every thing we can. What would you prefer, LNG in Eastport? Propane in Searsport? A new maine Yankee? Saying NO to everything is a cop out, give us some alternatives.
Hydro. Offshore wind. More ISOLATED wind farms. LNG is better than oil. Solar. Conservation.
Im with you on hydro, but in case you haven’t noticed we are removing dams at a rapid pace in Maine to restore the wild rivers and encourage salmon runs. Wind turbines need to be where it’s windy, but I agree that there should be significant setbacks (or prior agreement of adjoining landowners). I looked at solar myself (evacuated cylinder system) and to provide domestic hot water (with a very little left over for heating) was $15,000, considering that I have already installed a propane heating system when I built the house, this was simply to large an investment for a secondary heat source. Conservation….. Well, I hate to say it, but I don’t think Americans are going to embrace conservation until the price of energy prices are thru the roof. I don’t want to become the naysayer, but am becoming frustrated with the slow pace of our embrace of renewable energy.
Removed for no reason.
nosoupforyou
We should really be looking very hard at off-shore wind development. The winds are stronger and there will be no issue with neighbors complaining of the sound.
lol
Dave Gordon – keep your project away from the people who don’t want it. That would include everyone on Mattawamkeag Lake and Pleasant Lake.
And keep your hand out of the taxpayer and ratepayer pockets.
I was actually thinking of looking at your log homes. I would now NEVER BUY A KATAHDIN CEDAR LOG HOME as I now know the company stands for trampling others rights.
Thanks for making that connection. I have a friend buying a log home this spring. I guarantee it will not be from Dave Gordon.
I’ve heard it before ” If you’re in business in a small town it’s best to stay out of politics because it’ll come back to haunt you” Never mind blabbing your mouth off on the web :-/
I will blab wherever I choose. Pay attention, you might learn something. Don’t opine on topics you don’t understand.
Hey I’m on your side :-0 you misconstrued much :-/
I was making the point of Mr. Gordon making money by having these egg beaters on his land and at the same time being in a business where he sells most of his log home kits to folks ( like myself) that love the outdoors, it seems to be a bit of an oxymoron to me :-/
Billy got my driff ;-)
I’ll bet Gordon’s blabbing here costs him the sales of several log homes over time.
A cedar log home. Now there’s an INEFFICIENT house.
Dave Gordon – it seems your friends at First Wind cannot stay out of trouble.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/first-wind-merger-faces-strong-headwinds-with-the-puc-1
RE: Wind is business.
If First Wind were a viable company with a viable business plan in a viable industry, it’s future viability wouldn’t be hanging on a PUC decision. If the Oakfield project is in jeopardy, it’s because First Wind is a house of cards, not because the PUC staff made a wrong decision.
The Maine PUC is supposed to be looking out for all Maine ratepayers, not doing favors for First Wind and few handfuls of project beneficiaries. All indications are that the PUC staff is doing it’s job in this matter. Good for them.
“references to the First Wind and APUC exceptions in their filing, and advocating
based on such improper submission, thereby deliberately exposing the
Commission to prejudicial material in an effort to influence its
decision. Petitioners clearly knew what they were doing, and this was
no mistake (see footnote 1 to Petitioner’s exceptions). Indeed, the
reason was because they did not like the Examiners recommendation.
Despite the Examiners best efforts to protect the Commission from
this improper action, they were unsuccessful because the Examiners
did not realize that the Petitioners had included -such
references in their Exceptions, which had already been reviewed by
the Commission”Docket 2011-170, Feb 2 2012 RELEASE!
The Scoundrels break the law, don’t like getting caught, so they play games with PUC examiners…NEVER DO THAT ..BAD BAD Foul Wind loses…..!!!!
“Petitioners clearly knew what they were doing, and this was
no mistake (see footnote 1 to Petitioner’s exceptions). Indeed, the
reason was because they did not like the Examiners recommendation.”
“Because of the potential harshness to some parties of
dismissal with prejudice, the Law Court cautions that before
dismissal, consideration should be given to whether the conduct was
intentional or innocent. Here, as has been shown, Petitioners’
conduct was intentional”
INTENTIONAL HUH.!!!!!!!!!..THEY CAN DO MANY THINGS TO FOUL WIND NOW.
THEY HAVE BEEN VERY VERY BAD (as we know this scoundrel company has been everywhere in Maine)
Playing Dirtball after the clock has run out, closed, and changing the score , Again, First Wind’s game..Caught this time for sure.Never try to influence the judge by modifying the playback , when he is not looking!
“Ex parte contacts are antithetical to the very concept of an
administrative court reaching impartial decisions through formal
adjudication. We agree with the observations of the District of
Columbia Circuit regarding this principle
We think it a mockery ofjustice to even suggest that
judges or other decision makers may be properly approached on the
merits of a case during the pendency of an adjudication.
Administrative and judicial adjudications are viable only so long as
the integrity of the decision making process remains inviolate. There
would be no way to protect the sanctity of the adjudicatory process
if we were to condone direct attempts to influence decisionmakers
through ex parte contacts.” Professional Air Traffic Controllers
Org. v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 685
F.2d 547, 570 (D.C.Cir.1982) (
PATCO v. FLRA II).
The fact that these communications came at a crucial
time – right before deliberations -made _them even more egregious.
“No communication from any other person is more likely to deprive the parties and the
public of their right to effective participation in a key governmental decision at a most
crucial time.” Id. As Justice Spottworth stated: “~ultimately, an agency must be the
guardian of its own honor. If it permits interested persons to show
contempt for its formal adjudicatory processes by the subversion of
ex parte pleas and approaches, then those processes will indeed become contemptible”
PATCO, supra 685 F.2d
547, at 601
Petitioners’ behavior in this proceeding warrants the
dismissal of this proceeding or entry of judgment based upon the
relevant case law. For the reasons described herein, the conduct of
Petitioners in presenting prejudicial non-record information in their
Exceptions and by encouraging First Wind and APUC to do the same
through unauthorized exparte communicationS,
“seriously and irreparably affected the ability to proceed to a
fair resolution of the claims.” PeIletier
supra, at 190.
Further, these actions “violated. .. clearly articulated orders.” Ladieui,
supra, at 1057
Here no lesser sanction than dismissal( with prejudice or entry of judgment)
could guarantee or affect the orderly progress of the litigation or
remove the taint or appearance of unfairness.
PñzncisSobe,
supra.
Anything less would reward Petitioners for their actions, and would cause prejudice to the
parties who have complied with the rules and fair play, and the
public who expect nothing less Dismissal, particularly given the
recommendations of the Examiners, would be consistent with the public
interest and the Commission’s responsibility to ensure that the
regulatory “system” protects those interests.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, the following parties
respectfully request that the Commission dismiss the Petitions ~vith
prejudice, and for such other and further sanctions, including but
not limited to rendering judgment against Petitioners as reflected in
the Examiner’s Report with regard to 35-A MRSA Section 708 that the
risks of the proposed First Wind and APUC transactions set forth in
this consolidated case even when mitigated by conditions outweigh the
benefits of the transactions, thus, the “no net harm” standard is
not met and the Proposed Transactions cannot and are not approved”
Respectfully submitted
Public Advocate
Eric J. Bryant Esq.
Docket No. 2011-170 , Feb 2, 2012
This
is Tony Buxton on behalf of the
10
Industrial Energy Consumer Group.
11
The Industrial Energy Consumer Group strongly endorses the
12 motion of the Public Advocate and the Public Advocate’s
13
argument.
14
others, thought this case was ready for decision.
15
intervening time, there have — there has occurred what is
16
either a remarkable set of coincidences or a deliberate,
17
intentional, fully-orchestrated effort to lobby this Commission
18
improperly in violation of the rules, in violation of the cases
19
that Mr. Bryant cited, and in violation of the civil rules.
20
is with a lot of sadness that I say that because we all have
21
long relationships, but we deal here with the law and with
22
parties, and this is an extraordinary moment for the
23
Commission.
(From Jan 25 2012 PUC discussions, public record 2011-170 transcript)
Yes , this is extraordinary(but not to MANY citizens in Maine), First Wind is seen to be what it is, an underhanded, law breaking process breaking scoundrel.
YIKES!
Arthur123 overload!
Now, I know some thought if it was “Green” , one thought one could do anything one likes!
(as long as someone else pays for it and you pocket the “green $$$” and don’t get caught breaking serious laws of this state and country.)
In their arrogance, because of their high level connections to the White House, First Wind has gone too far.
Overload, not really, just facts, and time for many to start digesting what is happening in this state.
Time for the press to print facts too, not GREEN Liars Lies !
Facts, darn those facts, and LAWS!
Erik Siemers Business Journal staff writer – Portland Business Journal
Email
| Twitter
Iberdrola Renewables, the nation’s second-largest wind energy
developer, on Thursday said it will keep its U.S. headquarters in
Portland for the next 10 years.
Contributing to the company’s decision was Portland Development
Commission’s offer of a $1,155,000 grant to be used for various tenant
improvements, including technology upgrades.
====================================
Just why is the Portland Development Commission granting Iberdrola $1,155,000? Does tenant improvements mean the are “staying in town” and paying for rents or property for their staff? Does technical upgrades mean they intend to maintain their physical equipment, cars and recreational expenses, etc.??
Mr. Gordon – please consider your own words:
“We’ve worked for more than four years to build real public support”
Consider that if it takes “more than four years” of “work”, then the “public support” is NOT REALLY THERE.
If you built public support, why did you hide the expansion from 50MW to 150 MW and a 59 mile transmission line from your neighbors in Island Falls?
Hey Dave Gordon…how much are you making leasing to FoulWind? You forgot to mention that. You cite “long term energy independence” but you seem to ignor the truth that windsprawl will do nothing in that regard. Nice that your fellow Oakfield citizens voted in your own interests and ignored the Island Falls residents, the lakeshore owners on Mat. and Pleasant and Skitacook lakes and other small ponds nearby. Maybe others care about the outdoors as something other than a way to make a fast buck? Monkey business is not good business and windsprawl can go back to their own backyards in Mass.
Dave Gordon Gekko.
Greed is good.
When the inevitable happens and we slip from this socialistic state into outright communism and we’ve beaten down all the evil capitalists and stolen what THEY have worked for who’s gonna take care of you folks then.That is what you folks want isn’t it ,somebody to take care of you.
When more wealth is held by less people now than when when we broke up the robber barons in the 1910’s, I think it is time to reign in the capitalists.
Having tyrant business owners is just as bad as tyrant communist leaders… they both revert to keeping themselves in power and grabbing more and more for themselves.
How does this reflect the great American way?
How does this fulfill the promise of all Americans having opportunity?
How does concentrating, with intent, most of the money and power at the top end help this country and its people to live and prosper and pursue happiness?
It’s ridiculous to whine about a few pennies tax per dollar earned over a $1 million! Millionaires were paying that same tax just 11 years ago and noone was crying that the sky is falling, but look at how foolish the righties rhetoric is now when it is suggested to go back to the prior tax rates!
You are talking about tax rates not tax revenue. Income is not static. A wise legislator will not take last years income mulitply it by the increase in the rate and say that is the increase in revenue we are budgeting.
Please, please , please lookup the definitions for Socialism, Cummunism and Facism and tell me which form of government we most closely resemble.
I’d say it falls right about where you’ve got an , between socialism and communism.You should try reading all the definitions of a word not just the one that suits you.
Show me any definition that puts the US government somewhere between a socialist government and a comunnist government. Go on, show me.
We know by now that industrial wind is all about money, not about the environment or “weaning us off foreign oil”. It’s tough to blame the landowners for supporting something that is going to put money in their pockets; leasing to the wind developers is big bucks for them. The award winning documentary “Windfall” explores this problem very closely. I would highly recommend that everyone interested in Maine’s future as it pertains to industrial wind watch this documentary. It will be coming to Maine in February and March.
As for the PUC, they are doing their job. First Wind was doing underhanded things to influence the PUC’s decision. They got caught. Guess we Mainers aren’t as stupid as they thought. The PUC is looking out for the rate payer. That’s their job and they’re doing it. I, for one, thank them.
Very well said Penny !! and thanks for the heads up of the upcoming documentary..
Ilze,
We have a $120 million shortfall this year and the the majority of the tax cuts doe not take place until 2013. Repealing the tax cut is not going to do anything to eliminate that. MCEP claims that a family with one member working minimum wage pays a state and local tax rate that is 70% higher than the top 1%. Well they pay no Maine income tax and in 2010 if they were a family of four they paid no federal income tax but received a check for $7,836 when they filed. Are they receiving food stamps and section 8 housing? So how do they come up a rate 70% higher. MCEP has some creative people.
Most of the rhetorical used to promote class warfare by the left has little connection to either facts or truth.
ALL of the rhetoric used to promote class warfare by the Right has no connection to either facts or truth.
Your fact:
The income tax cuts are in effect now for 2012.
The truth:
Tax Rate Schedules. For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, the existing individual income tax rates have been changed as follows: the 2% bracket is changed to a 0% bracket, the 4.5% and 7% brackets are collapsed into a 6.5% bracket and the 8.5% bracket is reduced to a 7.95% bracket. 36 MRSA § 5111. LD 1043, PL 2011, c. 380, Part N. Personal Exemption. For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, the law conforms the Maine individual income tax personal exemption amount to the federal personal exemption amount. 36 MRSA § 5126. LD 1043, PL 2011, c. 380, Part N.
Income Taxes are not the only type of taxes. There are Sales Tax, Property Tax, Excise Tax, taxes in your phone bill, your cable bill and multitudes of other taxes that hit lower income people much harder then they hit the higher income people.
That is most likely what is meant when MCEP says STATE AND LOCAL TAXES.
Seeing as they don’t reveal how they came up with their percentages we don’t know exactly what they mean. But they don’t pay income tax, housing probably paid by section 8, food paid with food stamps etc. Does the 70% higher rate than the top 1% make sense? On top of that they get a check from the government equal to 1/2 their income.
Some simple math here.
If the average 1% pays an effective tax rate of 15% (from the IRS, it is not exactly 15% as I am going from memory but it is close and State Tax would not add that much to their tax bill because most of their income is not earned income but instead comes from Capital Gains, Dividends and/or interest) in order for them to pay 70% more than the 1%ers they would have to pay 21% of their income in taxes (let’s say 25% to account for State Tax). If you add in Sales Tax, Property Tax, Excise Tax and the multitude of other taxes that take a substantially larger percentage of a poor person’s income you would rapidly get to that amount.
The MCEP said a family with one worker making minimum wage which includes 1 person all the way up to your example of a family of four. For a single person who’s only source of income is a minimum wage job, they would still owe both State and Federal Taxes, would not receive any of the benefits you implied that all families get, and still have to pay all of the other taxes listed.
I highly doubt there are many families of four being supported by one person earning the minimum wage. And any that are would need help just to survive.
Much of the income tax cuts are in effect now for 2012. Why must the right lie about stuff all the time.
Why do some people accuse other people of lying when they don’t know what they themselves are talking about?
From Maine Revenue:
Tax Rate Schedules. For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, the existing individual income tax rates have been changed as follows: the 2% bracket is changed to a 0% bracket, the 4.5% and 7% brackets are collapsed into a 6.5% bracket and the 8.5% bracket is reduced to a 7.95% bracket. 36 MRSA § 5111. LD 1043, PL 2011, c. 380, Part N.
Personal Exemption. For tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, the law conforms the Maine individual income tax personal exemption amount to the federal personal exemption amount. 36 MRSA § 5126. LD 1043, PL 2011, c. 380, Part N.
2012 already changes the personal exemptions and the 7% rate is reduced to 6.5% and the lower rates eliminated. All that will happen in 2013 is the reduction of the top tax rate to 7.95%.
Really? Got a source because the law Title 36 and the bill LD 1043 don’t support you. For example the personal exemption: For income tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2000 but before January 1, 2013, a resident individual is allowed $2,850 for each exemption that the individual properly claims for the taxable year for federal income tax purposes, unless the taxpayer is claimed as a dependent on another return. For income tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2013, a resident individual is allowed a deduction equal to the total amount of deductions allowed for personal exemptions in accordance with the Code, Section 151. [2011, c. 380, Pt. N, §11 (AMD); 2011, c. 380, Pt. N, §19 (AFF).]
I can post the tax tables also contradicting you if you wish. Someone lying to you?
(Jan 25, 2012 PUC Transcribed notes from 2011-170, )
MR. BRYANT: I interrupted you so I apologize. Thank
you, Chuck. Well, of the three options that the staff
discussed, the one that I suggest you take is the first. We
were very surprised at the filings that came in on Monday,
particularly the filing by First Wind and Algonquin, but also
the exceptions filed by Petitioners. Exceptions (inaudible)
parties have the opportunity to comment on the Examiners’
Report is not the time to amend the filing. It’s not the time
to submit new evidence. Not a time for non-parties interested
in the outcome to file anything. It’s also not a time for new
arguments.
You found correctly yesterday that First Wind and
Algonquin violated Rule 760-A and you struck their filings. We
appreciate that. Thank you. However, Petitioners, who all
along have resisted suggestions that they or anyone from Emera
would violate FERC standards of conduct, the Petitioners want
this Commission to believe their behavior can be governed, who
have said that customers don’t need to worry about abuses of
the rules of conduct, who have said trust us, have violated
Rule 760-A(d). Sub D reads, “No party in a proceeding shall
request, encourage, suggest, or provide any assistance to any
other person to make a communication that would violate
BROWN & MEYERS
subsection A.” Subsection A is the section that First Wind and
Algonquin violated pursuant to your ruling yesterday.
It’s clear from reviewing Petitioners’ tainted
exceptions that — and the rejected filings of APUC and First
Wind that these three entities acted in concert with a willful,
intentional, and orchestrated attempt to get information,
evidence, and argument to the Commission that is not allowed by
the rules. If you look at page six of the Petitioners’
exceptions and compare it with page three of First Wind’s
rejected filing, it reveals word for word quotations. It shows
that First Wind and Petitioners acted together. Much of the
information on page five of six — five and six of Petitioners’
exceptions is not record evidence, at least not that I
remember. A review of page 13 of Petitioners’ exceptions shows
that Petitioners and APUC did the same thing.
Petitioners have also violated Rule 773 of the
Commission’s rules which says that only record evidence can be
considered by the Commission, and Petitioners violated the
Examiners’ January 19th scheduling order which is the one that
was issued after Petitioners sought a one-day extension for
filing their exceptions and parties objected because the basis
for that request for an extension appeared to be time to
develop new conditions or negotiate modifications. The
scheduling order issued by the Examiners clearly says, in fact,
quote, “Exceptions must be based on record evidence in the
BROWN & MEYERS
10
case.” By citing non-record facts contained in the rejected
filings of both First Wind and APUC, Petitioners have violated
that order.
(Jan 25, 2012 PUC Transcribed notes from 2011-170, )
“So there’s a lot of violations here. Not just by the
non-parties but by the Petitioners themselves. This case is
not governed by the rule of the deal or the rule of corporate
profit or the viability of unregulated enterprise. It’s
governed by the rule of law. The rules broken by Petitioners
and their counterparties to the pending transactions are not
about missing a deadline or failing to three-hole punch data
responses. They’re rules of substance, integrity, and ethics.
It’s the ex parte rule which rule should not be treated lightly
by the Commission or the Examiners. The rule was adopted, in
fact, in 1996 following a case in which NYNEX had others
interested in the outcome who were not parties attempt to
contact Commissioners after the Examiners’ Report came out.
Rule 760-A was a reaction to that and, in fact, in the rule
adopting that new amendment, the Commission said, “Our primary
objective in addressing this issue is to prevent similar
behavior by parties to our proceedings in the future. The
purpose of the rule amendments is to make our ex parte
prohibition abundantly clear so there’s no question about the
extent of its reach. And we seek only to ensure that
participation occurs at a time and in a manner that is fair to
all parties.”
BROWN & MEYERS
11
(Jan 25, 2012 PUC Transcribed notes from 2011-170, )
Bryant continues…………
“The violations that I’ve discussed are egregious and,
in my practice, unprecedented by a utility subject to
regulation. Violations such as this must be dealt with firmly
and swiftly. The public demands that PUC process be one of
integrity. The public must be able to trust that their
interests are being handled by this Commission and that it
keeps its house in order.
Therefore, we ask the Examiners to take two actions.
We ask the Examiners recommend to the Commission that this case
be dismissed with prejudice, and we ask that the Examiners
exclude the Petitioners’ tainted exceptions in their entirety
just as they have correctly excluded the filings made by First
Wind and APUC. The Commission should not read, consider, or
act upon any of the facts or arguments contained in those
exceptions. Thank you.
MR. HARWOOD: Would you like me to respond, chuck?
MR. STONE: (Inaudible).
MR. COHEN: Alan, I’m still the Examiner, okay? Bill
MR. STONE: (Inaudible).
MR. COHEN: Bill, why don’t –
“The violations that I’ve discussed are egregious and,
in my practice, unprecedented by a utility subject to
regulation.”
Ilse,
I could not come up the the $72 million if we “simply restored Maine’s 2010 tax rate” for those making over $200,000. I had to go back three press releases to find the rest of the story. The $72 million does not come from restoring the 2010 rate. It comes from that and and additional tax on the top 1%. They weren’t proud enough to actually tell us what the additional tax rate was but using the $72 million figure I come up with an additional 2% or a top rate of 10.5%. If this ever happened I hope they have better luck than Maryland. They implemented a “millionaire’s tax” in 2008. It resulted in $250 million less revenue not more and a study showed that 1/8 of those making over $1 million left the state.
2008 is not a good year to compare tax policies.
All states lost revenue that year, remember that was when Bush’s tax and economic policies caused the worst recession (some say it was/is a depression) since the Great Depression.
So was the rise in tax revenues and decline in unemployment from 2003 when most of the cuts were implement to 2008 caused by Bush’s tax and economic policies? Maryland found that 6.4% of the people who filed million dollar returns did not file returns the following year (2010) which implies that many of them left the state. Maryland has abandoned their millionaire tax and they state they will balance the budget with spending cuts.
The rise in revenue and the decline in unemployment was the result of an improving economy which may or may not have been helped by the 2003 tax cuts.
You stated that Maryland instituted a ‘Millionaire’s Tax’ in 2008 that resulted in less revenue not more. I stated that 2008 was not a good year to compare tax policies because all states, including states that cut taxes, saw a steep decline in tax revenue. I stand by that statement.
It’s such a bogus argument to suggest that if a millionaire has to pay say 2¢ per dollar more tax on only the dollars earned above $1 million that they will leave state. Geez they had an additional 4.6¢ fed income tax per dollar just 11 years ago and they were doing just fine!
Won’t have to be million dollar income in Maine they want a 10.5% rate starting at $.330,000. Maryland top rate was only 6.5%. They no longer have a millionaire’s tax. Maine has the highest percentage of homes owned by non-residents. Many retirees are keeping their home here and making their residency in other states. With the baby boomers starting to retire you will see more of it. Maryland found that 6.4% of their million dollar income people did not file a return the next year. Moving from the state was probably the reason for a high percentage of them. Also having a high top rate keeps people from moving into a state. The Democrats voted to lower the top rates and now the Republicans have. Raising the top rate is not going to happen through the legislature.
David Gordon, I’d like to hear more specifics. I’ve heard (many times before) that turbine projects bring jobs, tax revenue, and business.
I can see the tax revenue…from the wind companies.
But the jobs? How many? For how long? Local jobs?
And the business. How? What? How much?
In exchange for…..what? Cheaper electricity? A loss of the visual landscape?
David Gordan, President, Katahdin Forest Products Company
…NOT…an advocate for what is best for the Oakfield/Island Falls communities.
David Gordon…
Is it not interesting the people who support First Wind for the most part are in the lower income bracket. Oakfield residents have no regard for the effects wind towers will have on the environment, you on the other hand only care about money in your pocket. To think you have worked 4 years to convince people this is a good thing, did you ever take the time to do your research as to how this will effect Pleasant lake and Mattawamkeag Lake?
Katahdin Forest Products will not have to worry about selling homes to people who can afford them, David has done a great job of alienating them.
David,
Is it not interesting how the people who are in favor of wind towers are for the most part on some sort of welfare. You worked 4 years to convince the residents of Oakfield First Wind will provide financial rewards to a starving community. Really? Did you tell these people how their taxes will go up while their property values decline? No doubt you were thinking only of yourself, the financial gain for you!
Did you ever consider the impact to Pleasant and Mattawamkeag Lakes? Again, thinking only of yourself!
Katahdin Forest Product Company does not have to worry about selling their homes, David has done a good job of alienating the people who can afford to buy them.
Sounds like David Gordon has sold his soul for a few quick bucks!
Fifty 500 foot tall wind turbines overlooking the pristine lakes around Oakfield will forever destroy their visual beauty not to mention the many negative health side effects for anyone who lives near them.
If David Gordon wants to live in an industrial wasteland let him live in New Jersey, but do not try and pollute the Maine landscape for your own selfish purposes and false propoganda.
And do not ask the Maine taxapayers to continue to subsidize First Wind’s massive, money-losing, environmentally destructive, energy inefficient wind developments.
I am shocked at David Gordon’s comments. Being a KFP home owner I find his disregard for the environment and ecological concerns to be extremely dissappointing.
An Open Letter to MPUC
Please do not let First Wind take
advantage of the ratepayers of Maine.
Please abide by your staff’s recommendation to deny their request.
First Wind is not considering what’s in the best interest of the citizens
of Maine in their proposal.
They seek subsidies from Maine taxpayers while at the same time they are self-enriching themselves by paying their executives millions of dollars in annual compensation (according to their recent IPO filing).
They are severely unstable from a financial perspective (losing tens of millions of dollars each year and are heavily in debt) and only seek to
self-enrich themselves at the expense of the citizens of the State of
Maine.
What happens if First Wind declares bankrupcy after they have destroyed the
natural beauty of areas such as their proposed building of fifty 500 foot tall
wind turbines in Oakfield – which overlooks two pristine Class 1 lakes of
“statewide significance”?
Why let First Wind destroy Maine’s
natural resources for the sake of building massive wind farms in areas of low
wind resources as documented by the US Department of Energy’s wind maps?
First Wind activities are basically acting like a Ponzi scheme! Selling
their current wind farms in order to construct new massive wind farms. And all
the while their financial situation is getting worse by the day with recurring
annual losses in the tens of millions of dollars and extremely high debt
levels.
Please stand up for the citizens of Maine and do what’s right for them and
not what’s right for First Wind.
Thank you.
Here’s the Department of Energy Wind Map:
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4630
It shows that the plains of the Midwest is where the reliable wind is, not on the forested mountain ridges of Maine!
So why has First Wind targeted Maine to build its massive wind developments?
Answer: because it can get massive tax subsidies from the citizens of Maine and can easily fast-talk the citizens of small rural communities that getting a little short-term tax relief and a new fire truck will offset any environmental or health damage that fifty 500 foot tall wind turbines will create.
Not to mention that their property values will be drastically reduced because who in their right mind would want to live next to a 500 foot tall wind turbine that can damage your health and piece of mind?
Hi! Thanks for the post. It truly puts into perspective why Iberdrola is not pushing itself in Maine. I suppose they figure the mountains aren’t going anywhere soon so they will maintain a “camp” in Maine. And, get this, Portland is giving them a grant of over a million dollars to do so. Portland’s mayor is clashing with LePage and a picture is beginning to come into focus. The wind industry has its roots so deeply buried in Maine politics that we will have to use the” larger pliers.”
the whole thing reminds me of “The Music Man” with Robert Preston. but this is real and far more dangerous to Maine wilderness and finances
David Gordon,
Your title gives you away. It is clear that the nature conservancies , logging companies, in Woodstock, it is Bayroot, LLC, (owned by the Yale Investment Fund) and the industrial wind projects, stand hand in hand. They are linked together in some economical way. I do not support what the wind industry is doing in the state of Maine. I realize that logging is part of living in Maine, but the wind industry is not the way Maine needs to go for renewable energy. All I hear from your article is the crying of a man who will not get the trickle down affect of federal subsidies. Maybe you should be asking yourself how First Wind got it’s self in jeopardy with the PUC? It might have something to do with Ethics and morals and thinking it could stretch the laws of the land. Not good business practices.
People invest in businesses with the knowledge that they may fail. It looks like First Wind can no longer claim things that are false, reference to their business solvency. and some one just might have made a “BAD” investment in Oakfield.
Let me ask David Gordon just 2 questions:
1) Is it” fair” to ask the taxpayers of Maine to subsidize the million dollar salaries of the First Wind executives who live in Boston?
2) Is it “fair” to ask the citizens of Maine to pay higher electric rates so that First Wind can build massive wind farms in the pristine areas of Maine resulting in massive environmental destruction?
Mr. Gordon – do you wonder why First Wind has been unable to build any of their massive wind farms in their home State of Massachusetts? Massachusetts has mountain ridges located in pristine areas too.
Why is it “ok” for First Wind to destroy Maine’s natural beauty and receive massive subsidies from Maine’s taxpayers and ratepayers and its not “ok” for First Wind to do the same to their own home state?
Answer: First Wind is trying to bamboozle the citizens and politicians of Maine with pretty talk and the spreading of some money for short-term benefit and long-term environmental damage.
Don’t be fooled by their shenanigans before its too late!