Maine is becoming a proving ground for demonstrating that you can create new, lasting private sector jobs faster when working in a meaningful partnership between federal and local governments.
One of our newest success stories has been in wind production and manufacturing. Since 2003, the planning and development of three major wind energy projects in Maine created an average of 240 jobs per year and resulted in nearly $223 million in local spending.
Unfortunately, despite a record demonstrating progress in creating American jobs and cutting our dependence on foreign oil, Congress is poised to allow the highly successful production tax credit to expire, a move that will stop cold tens of thousands of wind energy manufacturing and engineering jobs in the United States.
Sparked by targeted federal incentives and private sector investments, the wind energy sector is a success story in Maine and around the country. Wind energy provides unlimited renewable energy, tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs, technological innovation, lower energy costs and a reduced dependence on foreign oil. Today, more than 400 manufacturing facilities across the U.S. supply some of the 8,000 components in a wind turbine, and 75,000 Americans work in wind manufacturing and development.
That forward progress is not guaranteed and is now at risk due to Congress’ inaction. While the key federal tax incentive, the wind production tax credit, is a fraction of what the federal government spends to subsidize other forms of energy, it has an outsize influence on private
sector wind investment across the country.
Over each of the last three years, the private sector has invested $10-20 billion in manufacturing and development thanks to the federal government’s $2-3 billion in production tax credits for wind energy. That is a return on investment well worth the effort.
For most of us though, the local impact is what matters the most. According to a December 2011 study by Navigant Consulting, a four-year extension of the wind production tax credit is expected to drive up to $250 million in new economic investment, and would continue the current trend of creating new jobs.
If Congress fails to extend the wind production tax credit, those jobs are gone with the wind.
In previous years when Congress decided not to renew the credit, wind manufacturing and investment dropped between 73 and 93 percent, and thousands of jobs were lost. With energy prices high and employment low, we can’t afford to repeat history.
Our local elected officials and business community are making profound investments to transform Maine into a diverse economy with strong ties to innovative industries. Extending the wind production tax credit makes a small down payment to guarantee that wind technology and manufacturing will be part of our economic future, and that our state investments will continue to create jobs and enrich our local economy for years to come.
I am a business owner, so I tend to look at the bottom line. I like to see a return on my investments, especially a return that allows me to grow my business and create more jobs.
The wind energy production tax credit will help expand businesses in our communities while achieving more energy diversity and energy independence for our country.
The wind production tax credit was originally developed and enacted into law with strong bipartisan support that continues today. It is a successful tax policy that rewards companies only when they develop, build and successfully operate a facility, and makes valuable contributions
to our domestic energy resources. Delaying its renewal would harm the innovative engineering sector where Maine is playing a national leadership role.
Our congressional delegation should stand behind our wind industry and stand up for our jobs by supporting the extension of this important job creation tool. We urge our delegation to support its extension.
Herb Sargent is president and CEO of Sargent Corporation in Bangor.
Herb
I suspect you wouldn’t want our tax dollars spent so freely if you didn’t have a dog in this fight.
First wind is the recipient of $471m dollars of ARRA grant money.
If they gave that to me, I could make a few jobs too.
As well as 1 multimillionaire. (Me)
“Progress is the root of all evil, bring back the good old days.”
-Gen. Bullmoose and noparkforme!
“If they gave that to me, I could make a few jobs too.”
By the way, how many jobs have you created in your lifetime? Herb Sargent and his family have created a ton of jobs, and have enabled a ton of Maine families to have a decent income, which is why he is respected across the state.
Not respected by anyone who actually understands the subject he writes on and his pandering parasitic self-serving shameless motivation.
“Not respected by anyone…”
How could you possibly know this, beyond your remarkable paranormal ability to read the mind of every person who ever held Mr. Sargent in high regard? It’s obvious that you are grasping at straws.
When does Mr. Sargent think he will be able to develop industrial wind projects without the tax payer paying for 30 percent of the tab?
Certainly if wind power is a profitable venture there is no need for the US treasury to be involved.
Stop and think about it!
Fossil Fuel is Finate.
Wind is Infinate,
but it is variable and unreliable.
Wind power NEEDs fossil Fuels for Load Stabilization.
Fossil Fuels NEEDS Renewables to stretch out thier existance.
Every Megawatt of wind power produced today is a Megawatt of fossil Fuel that stays in its underground storage for use another 100 + years at that price that after “Peak ” fuel will demand!
Competition is NOT the issue.
A sustainable energy source IS!
“Certainly if wind power is a profitable venture there is no need for the US treasury to be involved.”
Then why was the US Treasury involved in the development of the transcontinental rail system, aviation, nuclear power and even oil itself? By the way, the latter two categories, even now, after dominating the energy scene for generations, are receiving billions of dollars in annual subsidies.
Self serving propaganda from a company parasitizing our tax dollars and driving up electric rates for a worthless lie. A handful of jobs versus thousands lost “or not created” due to electricity rates made even less competitive. You fool nobody.
“A handful of jobs versus thousands lost “or not created” due to electricity rates made even less competitive. You fool nobody.”
You cast mud at one of the most respected business leaders in Maine, who has created more jobs and more paychecks than you’ll ever see in your lifetime. I wondered how long it would take for the usual handful of characters from the anti-wind side to start casting insults, rather than countering Herb Sargent’s arguments with other well-reasoned arguments. Billy, you’re just a hillbilly. You fool nobody.
Mr. Sargent:
I and a growing number of the public, who have taken the time to study the economics and health impacts, related to wind energy in Maine, will be watching our congressional delegation closely on any extension of tax credits. I assure you that many of us will be contacting our Reps. and Senators, encouraging them not to extend these tax give aways.
Maine is not he place for onshore wind. We are not the vast, vacant desert areas of the west, or the miles of uninhabited flatland of the great plains.
I would also point out that Maine’s wind is 89% below the national average.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/page/maine-s-wind-is-poor
This dog won’t hunt.
Taken the time to study the economics? Wind-power may be objectionable in specific situations due to environmental factors but the economics involved make all the sense in the world unless you want to conveniently overlook the far greater environmental and other cost factors associated with fossil fuels (natural gas included). Even considering just the “raw” energy costs, ignoring the costs of lung disease, mercury pollution, acid rain, etc., there is little doubt that fossil fuel costs can be expected to increase steadily, assuming the global economy gets back on even a marginally stable track. US market prices for oil, coal and gas are all subject to global market pressures as we have all found out. The currently lower natural gas prices are a temporary anomaly due to the still incomplete distribution infrastructure. If the US wants to be able to at least dampen any future energy pricing shocks it must see to it that a sizeable percentage of its total energy demand can be met through a combination of alternative energy sources, including wind. We had all better hope that countries like China and India will also accept that fossil fuel burning is ultimately a dead-end proposition. Currently China plans on having 100,000 megawatts of wind-energy production in place by the end of 2015. The total capacity in the US currently stands at 47,000 megawatts. Should we suppose the Chinese don’t know their economics? Instead of sniping at companies that want to actually do something positive for Maine’s economy, it would be far more productive if people could actually engage in useful dialogue. Granted, wind turbines may not be suitable in all locations but they do make economic sense.
In the near and mid-term, it’s hard to understand how it can be argued that wind power makes sense economically when we presently have an industry that is protesting the loss of federal subsidies – saying that without those taxpayer gifts, it will be not be able to survive. The same industry says that it must have renewable energy mandates, otherwise, there would be little, if any, demand for their product. That just doesn’t sound like an enterprise that makes economic sense. I disregarded the long term because, honestly, we don’t have any idea what the long term holds.
A little bit of research will easily reveal that all types of energy receive subsidies in the US (direct or indirect by means of tax breaks). Wind is by no means unique. We know a lot about the long term and from a national policy perspective it would be grossly irresponsible to ignore the rapidly growing fossil fuel demand in the developing world and the predictable impact on world supplies and pricing. Alternative energy offers enormous opportunities for the US in terms of innovative technology. We leave the market to countries like Germany and China at our own economic peril.
I have done a little research on this, and I would have to argue that wind IS unique in regard to the current levels of subsidization of various sources of electricity generation. Solar and wind are subsidized at a much higher rate than any other methods of generation in terms of dollars/unit of energy produced AND in terms of absolute dollars according to the EIA. Having said that, I’m an avid proponent of ending subsidies for all of these – fossil fuels included.
I think I would have to say we THINK we know a lot about the long term. There have been numerous predictions made in the last 10 – 20 years – by heavily credentialed people – about the proliferation of renewables and what they would be doing for us at this point in time. They’ve mostly been very wrong. The EIA made a recent prediction that 77% of U.S. energy will still be from fossil fuels in 2035.
Germany has indicated that it will have to build new fossil fuel – not wind – plants to replace the capacity lost when they swore off of nuclear. Their renewable development still depends on government funding programs and slows anytime the funds are pulled back. Still, less than 6% of their overall energy came from renewables in 2010. They’re not happily humming away under the power of renewables as is often characterized.
I’m all for innovative technology, preferably something with a better cost to benefit ratio than wind power (all costs – societal, environmental and financial.) We really haven’t looked over all of our options in Maine. We jumped headfirst into wind power as if it were going to solve myriad problems and we’re still treating it as if it will. I’m only saying that we should be more realistic about what wind power is or isn’t going to deliver, and then decide if it’s worth the many sacrifices that are required to develop it here. We really haven’t taken that approach.
For a good overview of energy subsidies see: http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf
I don’t believe and would not argue that wind will or should ever be more than a component of the nation’s energy mix and am optimistic that solar energy will ultimately become our primary source. In the mean time we should not discount wind energy’s advantages over fossil fuels, coal in particular.
I would urge to take the information directly from the EIA rather than filtering it through an agenda based organization. The link you site loses some pertinence since it is somewhat outdated, tracking 2002-2008. Wind subsidization really took off in 2008. Also, it doesn’t restrict its fossil fuel numbers to electricity production. Solar and wind power don’t really compete with fossil fuels in transportation or other non-electricity generation sectors. And, fossil fuels supply vastly more energy than renewables.
If you restrict your analysis to the electricity sector, where wind and solar compete, the numbers look much different. In that sector, wind power subsidies in 2010 where 2 to 3 times greater than fossil fuels in whole numbers.
“In that sector, wind power subsidies in 2010 where 2 to 3 times greater than fossil fuels in whole numbers.”
Restricting the analysis then removes from consideration such concepts as electric heat replacing our overwhelming reliance on heating oil, as well as the trillion dollar subsidy to keep a military force in the middle east for the past decade to protect the oil supply. These are real costs and benefits that need to be considered in the policy-making surrounding incentives for renewables (and for fossil fuels).
“I will be watching our congressional delegation closely….”
Are you also contacting your Reps and Senators about tax giveaways to the fossil fuel conglomerates that received $79 billion in subsidies between 2002 and 2008, while reaping record profits? During those same years, wind received a fraction of the $29 billion received by ALL renewables.
Your affiliation with a scoundrel company like First Wind makes you complicit to their law breaking ways.
Hopefully, the Maine PUC will firmly act to stop deregulation law breaching by First Wind, and in so doing will act to stop the impacts of increased residential electrical rates you are helping to create.
“Your affiliation with a scoundrel company like First Wind makes you complicit to their law breaking ways.”
Your libelous mouth denigrates your arguments.
The Public Advocate would seem to agree with arthur123.
Funny, I haven’t heard that Mr. Sargent is under any sort of indictment. Just more hysterical witch-hunting and callous accusations by the anti-wind mob.
Herb, you sound like you are proud of ruining the landscape in our state. Do you think the mtns. and ridges need your roads? NO! Do we need the unreliable power? NO! Do we want to expand the construction jobs which end leaving only 1 or 2 reg. permanent jobs per site? NO! Your company is getting rich on the taxpayers’ back and that will end soon, hopefully. Any businesses dealing with windsprawl should be boycotted.
“Do you think the mtns. and ridges need your roads? NO! Do we need the unreliable power? NO! Do we want to expand the construction jobs which end leaving only 1 or 2 reg. permanent jobs per site? NO!”
You don’t speak for Maine, and the mountains and ridges are not owned by you. By the way, what’s your idea for creating jobs? Maybe you are happily enriched for life and don’t need a job, but many many of your fellow Mainers do need jobs to support their families, and do not believe as you do that the expansion of construction jobs is not wanted.
What is your occupation, LM? You are an unabashed wind shill obviously. I have asked you repeatedly and you will not answer. You do not speak for Maine either. I have a say about the mtns. and ridges because the big landowners get big tax breaks and the rest of us pay extra to make up what they do not pay. Tree growth and 25% extra break for letting the public use the land are a couple sweet deals . There are more. I wish I didn’t work, but I do. I wouldn’t work construction demolishing Maine for nothing for any amount of money. The jobs Maine needs are permanent ones. Construction jobs should be rebuilding bridges and roads and rail systems without waiting for them to collapse. Those construction jobs are worthwhile. Windsprawl jobs are shameful. Herb loves to turn the spigot at the tax subsidy trough like the rest of the energy industry. Enough already for all of them.
“The jobs Maine needs are permanent ones.”
The jobs you mention are no more permanent than wind jobs, but as you admit, they are important nonetheless. What other ideas do you have to put Maine’s unemployed to work? Because “your dog won’t hunt,” to borrow a cut and paste phrase from one of your anti-wind colleagues.
You guys must have had a macho field day leveling and destroying Rollins Mt. and the ridges of Rocky Dundee after your buddies from Maine Drilling & Blasting had blown everything up. Shame on you! I resent companies making a profit from destruction of Maine’s natural resources. It is also dishonest to write this piece and NOT DISCLOSE that Sargent Corp. makes money directly from the windustry propped up by the PTC.
Regarding the PTC, the windustry can’t have it both ways. They whimper about being a struggling emerging industry that requires government support. Yet after decades of pouring money down this rat hole, we have no usable electricity to show for it. The 4th quarter production figures from FERC indicate a capacity factor of 24% for the Rollins project and that is intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable power that ISO-New England regards as a nuisance and just adds to the planning for surplus, not base load and base load following needs of the grid. The windustry blusters and threatens Congress that loss of the PTC will be the death of the industry. Well, after such a miserable track record, I say let it sink or swim without being propped up by the PTC, RECs, and heinous mandates.
Sargent Corp., Reed & Reed, Cianbro, Maine Drilling & Blasting, and all the other smaller contractors are all good companies. I admire their work on infrastructure projects that benefit everyone, public buildings, and private, non-subsidized construction.
These companies all feed at the tax subsidy trough of useless, destructive industrial wind projects. Then they shill for the wind industry, faithfully trotting out the latest propaganda from AWEA. Since wind power has no validity for reliable electricity production, doesn’t do a thing to reduce any form of pollution, creates noise problems, and has a sprawling, environmentally destructive footprint, the only mantra that the wind industry has is trying to justify the PTC and other subsidies and mandates as a jobs program.
With a $15 trillion National Debt, we can’t afford a Federal Jobs Program for useless wind power. Shame on Herb Sargent, Jackson Parker of Reed & Reed, Peter Vigue of Cianbro for turning their backs on good sound economics to be the mouthpiece of the discredited wind industry so they can feed off tax subsidy money.
Shame on these shills.
“Since wind power has no validity…”
Just because you say this mantra over and over does not mean that it is true. For every argument that the anti-wind side trots out regarding the uselessness of wind energy, the pro-wind side has a counter argument.
“With a $15 trillion National Debt, we can’t afford a Federal Jobs Program for useless wind power…”
One reason we are $15 trillion in debt is because we’ve spent $1 trillion over the past decade protecting the oil supply in the middle east with the US military. It’s time to try something different. Also, if we can afford a trillion dollars to protect middle eastern oil for the Sultans and the Sheiks, we ought to be able to afford all sorts of jobs programs for Americans.
Hey, Herb, good job of re-working that promo piece provided to you by AWEA. I like your company, but it is sad to see a business man pander to a failed tax credit.
I don’t think you would ever invest in a piece of equipment that worked less than 30% of the time. You wouldn’t invest in a piece of equipment that wouldn’t be usable when you need it or would cut in & out while you are using it. It wouldn’t be smart to invest in a piece of equipment that was so unreliable that you needed another piece of equipment to back it up. No business savvy person would do that. Yet that is exactly what the US Taxpayer is doing by being forced to buy wind turbines. It is time to stop the Production Tax Credit and stop the mandates for this folly.
“It wouldn’t be smart to invest in a piece of equipment that was so unreliable that you needed another piece of equipment to back it up. No business savvy person would do that.”
Tell it to the investors and/or government subsidy writers who financed the early developments in aviation, torpedoes, missile technology, automobiles, submarines, steel hulled ships, television, radar, space craft, etc.
It’s kind of sad to see these very wealthy contractors who have made very handsome profits off the tax backed wind turbine projects in Maine groveling on their knees with all kinds of stories about how wonderful these projects have been for Maine, when what they’re really saying is that their getting very wealthy from these inefficient, do nothing projects on the backs of all American tax payers because it’s our taxes that pay for the treasury grants the developers get; the production credits; the extravagently profitable carbon credits; the very beneficial and very unique to this industry depreciation schedules for their capital equipment; the state backed TIFFs; and all the other tax payer money they depend on to continue this devastation of our inland scenic areas.
These projects have proven to be so financially successful for Mr. Sargeant’s firm that he’s on here begging for the renewal of a couple of these financial gifts from our tax dollars that expired by law. And Mr. Jackson Parker from Reed & Reed has been all over the TV and other media lately telling the same fairy tales about local investment, hundreds of jobs (actually 2-5 full time maintenance jobs once the projects are up and running after 6 months of construction jobs). It’s shameful that First Wind and a couple other developers have turned these once proud “Captains of Industry” into tax dollar begging clowns. What would these companies’ founders think about the way these companies are being run today? It would be kind of sad, if it wasn’t such a scam to begin with.
“It’s kind of sad to see…”
It’s funny… the anti-windys whine and moan about the pro-wind side never having any facts or figures to back up the pro-wind stance. And then as soon as a respected authority on the topic steps forward to offer facts and figures, the anti-windys such as Big Wind whine and moan about someone stepping forward to offer facts and figures. The only “facts” that Big Wind/Northwoods will cuddle up to are the “facts” that support his snide point of view.
You consider Herb an authority on windsprawl? He is an expert on self preservation. Nothing else. Do you work for him?
Herb is an undisputed expert on creating jobs. What’s your claim to expertise in this field?
First, let’s have some disclosure. Mr. Sargent’s company – and presumably Mr. Sargent – is using this federal giveaway to their financial benefit. And let’s be frank, the financial benefits of wind power development in Maine are enjoyed by a very small and discrete group – chiefly, companies like Mr. Sargent’s.
The piece is essentially a reprint of the talking points of the AWEA, the wind industry’s national lobbying group – factually challenged as they are.
The AWEA exaggerates its jobs number shamelessly. 75,000 wind industry jobs? According to the Brookings Institute, it’s actually about a third of that, and most of those are simply short term jobs building wind projects.
Lower energy costs? Reduced dependence on foreign oil? Is the wind industry’s case so weak that it has to rely on these completely unfounded claims rather than something that is backed by demonstrable evidence?
The PTC is a corporate entitlement program. Certainly, the wind industry’s not alone in it’s exploitation of American taxpayers, but we should be eliminating these baseless programs, not creating or sustaining them. Think ethanol.
Invoking the “jobs” word to get away with programs or projects of questionable value has become so commonplace that it now has a name – “jobs blackmail.” If someone is pushing a project almost solely on the “jobs” claim, it’s pretty much a giveaway that there’s not much substance there otherwise.
“First, let’s have some disclosure. Mr. Sargent’s company – and presumably Mr. Sargent – is using this federal giveaway to their financial benefit.”
Oh, so what, armichka? The hero of the anti-windys (what’s-his-name who runs the favorite anti-wind propaganda site for the groupies) is a guide who has a dog in the fight also. He’s going to want to make sure that Maine is always going to be available to every bubba from North Carolina who wants to come here with a pack of dogs and kill Maine black bear, or slaughter a moose or whatever other animal he might want to kill for the fun of it, not to mention the blood money that the “tourist” will pay for the guide’s help in the killing.
Both sides have an agenda, including the anti-wind side. The wealthy anti-wind owner of the massive inn in Freeport also has a BIG dog in the fight, making sure that all of Maine’s land is available for an out-of-stater’s playground, but you don’t scold her for putting her points of view out there.
Also, there is ample information on the web discussing the number of jobs created by the industry. In Colorado this week, the bipartisan congressional delegation there is pointing to 6,000 wind-energy manufacturing jobs in that state alone, as they petition Congress for a continuation of support for the industry.
For every job created in the US an equal number disappeared from Europe .
First of all, “Prove it.” Second of all, “Who cares?” Plenty of jobs leave our shores to go overseas. Time to get some of them back.
I would expect ANYONE who stands to gain financially from their promotion of some policy to disclose that information – regardless of what side of any issue they are on.
Do you have information that whomever it is you are referring is gaining financially from their position on this issue? If they are, then I would expect them to disclose it if they are appealing to the public to share their position.
Nowhere in my comment did I suggest that there were no jobs in the U.S. associated with the wind industry. I suggested, and believe, that the AWEA inflates its job figures. I would trust the Brookings Institute numbers any day over those of an industry lobbying group.
Mr. Sargent: Not one of Maine’s industrial wind farms has used the PTC. They have all used the 30% grant or ITC. Using the 30% credit allows the wind projects to reduce the financing leverage to 50%/50% from the conventional 80%/20% debt/equity split. How is the PTC going to entice lenders to increase their exposure and risks? The answer is they will not without guarantees. The only guarantee left on the table now that the DOE Loan guarantee program has been shut down is premium energy rate power purchase contracts mandated by the PUC. The approval of the PTC extension will cause Maine’s electric rates to sky rocket.
Mr Sargent gets a F for his research on onshore wind energy in Maine….how about fixing our rural roads?? would be much more of a benefit than industrial wind energy on our precious mountain tops….”help get us off foreign oil” I think this fella works for/with the wind industry…Please, please don’t extend tax credits
A similar reforestation initiative will create more ‘accessible’….to the avg. unemployed Mainer, jobs; and have a much more profound impact on CO2 induced warming; all while providing up to 100 years of carbon sequestration and energy storage.
Time to look at less costly and less destructive options and more meaninful jobs. Go out and stand under a tree and fill your lungs with oxygen, and clear your head of greed.
Is it greed to want to put Maine workers to work?
That is a tongue-in -cheek statement if I have ever heard one. Herb is as worried about his workers as Jay Haynes.
And Mr Sargent…I realize that your business is much bigger than mine…however, a soon to be proposed windfarm that will be visable from the “Million Dollar View” scenic byway in Weston Maine will ruin my business, as well as surrounding real estate values….
Wind development in the state of Maine has been a disaster!
It is destroying Maine’s natural beauty while creating very permanent few jobs and costing Maine taxpayers millions in subsidies to the wind industry, not to mention higher elecctric rates for every Maine utility customer.
Why should Maine citizens be asked to subsidize a low efficiency energy industry that destroys its natural environment as is being proposed in the Oakfield /Island Falls area, where fifty 500 foot tall wind turbines are being proposed to overlook pristine wilderness lakes?
What about all the lost jobs when tourism declines?
What about the drastic reduction in home values when there is a 500 foot tall monster wind turbine staring you in your face?
Why should we continue to increase our debt and deficits in order to subsidize this inefficient industry which is already losing tens of millions of dollars – even with the massive subsidies.
The statistics provided by Mr. Sargent are not documented and are likely provided to him by the wind industry lobbyists which do not care about the quality of life of the people of Maine. They only care about thetaxpayer subsidized profits that flow into their fat pockets!
The Maine legislature and the US Congress should stop these deficit ballooning subsidies immediately.
Do what’s right for the citizens of Maine and not what’s best for the industrialized wind industry!
“Why should Maine citizens be asked to subsidize a low efficiency energy industry that destroys its natural environment as is being proposed in the Oakfield /Island Falls area”
You don’t make a big stink about subsidizing the big fossil fuel conglomerates, even though Big Coal is drenching your state in mercury emissions from coal fired power plants to our west. By the way, the voters in the Oakfield area gave overwhelming approval of the project there. Also, it is only your opinion that windmills destroy the environment. Untold numbers of people around the globe believe that windmills are far less destructive of the environment than coal, nukes, oil or gas.
“What about all the lost jobs when tourism declines?” There is absolutely no evidence that wind power has effected tourism adversely in any significant way in Maine. In fact, the latest figures from the office of tourism show an increase in tourist visits in Maine.
“The statistics provided by Mr. Sargent are not documented…” And your statistics are documented? By whom?
How do you know what else anyone makes a stink about? Oakfield was bribed and Island Falls will suffer for it. Untold numbers of people do not know the facts about wind power, but they are catching on.
“How do you know what else anyone makes a stink about?”
… by reading the incessant comments from the handful of anti-wind bloggers who write on these blogs. If the public support in Oakfield is actually a case of bribery, then file a criminal complaint. I’ll be watching the newspaper closely to see how your allegation holds up in court.
When the dust finally settles, people in the wind industry and at least two levels of government will be showing us all how they look in orange. Wite that down.
Yawn
The US Department of Energy wind maps document that the best wind resources are in the high plains of the Midwest, not on forested mountains in the state of Maine.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=4630
The only reason why the wind industry has targeted the state of Maine with their massive monster wind developments is not because Mane has a lot of wind but because of the hyper out-of-balance renewable energy requirement enacted by the Maine legislature several years ago.
This costs Maine taxpaers and ratepayers millions of dollars!
Why should Maine taxpayers and ratepayers pay millions of dollars to subsidize the wind industry – including Mr. Sargent?
Mr. Sargent – why do you need the welfare checks given to you by the Maine and US taxpayers?
If you can’t make a profit without taxpayer subsidies, shouldn’t you find a different line of business?
“If you can’t make a profit without taxpayer subsidies, shouldn’t you find a different line of business?”
Would you have said that about the contractors who the government subsidized to build the Interstate Highway system, which you enjoy to this day?
The interstate was practical. Wind turbines are a waste and their sole purpose is to sell RECs to coal burning power plants to keep operating out of compliance.
Naysayers scoffed at the Wright Brothers too, and at Henry Ford, and at John Ericsson, etc etc.
Self servers
Tax subsidies are nothing more than welfare payments paid by the taxpayers of Maine to people like Mr. Sargent and the million dollar salaried executives of First Wind!
Why should these multimillionaires receive welfare payments from the hard-working tax payers of Maine?
This money also goes toward paying fellow Mainers who Sargent employs to build wind projects, so that these workers don’t have to go on welfare, but can earn a paycheck.
Let them build bridges.
Having them also build bridges is a fine idea, Enron. I support you on that point.
The title of this article should be “Keep Giving Me Welfare Checks” paid for by the taxpayers of Maine.
Mr. Sargent is the owner of a construction company hired by the wind industry to develop the construction sites for their massive wind developments.
Did he mention that in his editorial? I don’t think so.
Mr. Sargent is simply arguing for more tax subsidies paid for by the Maine taxpayer.
He is basically asking for a handout – i.e. a welfare check.
“He is basically asking for a handout – i.e. a welfare check.”
Actually, it looked to me like Mr. Sargent was saying “let’s continue to support renewable power in Maine so my workers won’t have to rely on welfare checks, but can earn a paycheck.”
Herb Sargent Fan Club …sign up with Lifetime Mainah…while he is in a good mood.
It is always only a matter of time before the anti-wind arguments deteriorate into senseless name-calling.
Good lord. Did Herb Sargent pay for this advertisement, or did he get it for free?
The Bangor Daily News grants Sargent this free ad but chooses not to cover the big goings on at the PUC with First Wind/Emera:
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/first-wind-merger-faces-strong-headwinds-with-the-puc-1
“Good lord.”
You should try this for your fancy inn, Penny. Although I see you mentioning your own business here in the blogs quite a bit, you probably get far less of an audience for these ornery blogs than you get for the print editions.
Penny employs more people than FirstWind …or you…
I’m happy for her. The state needs all the jobs it can get right now.
To Lifetime Mainah
Since you responded to my many comments I sort of feel a need to respond back.
My basic overall point is that the taxpayers of Maine and the US should not be subsidizing any for-profit industry that cannot stand on its own – that includes the oil and gas industries which are very profitable and receive billions of unnecessary taxpayer subsidies.
The wind industry is not profitable and requires not only tax subsidies but also causes higher electric rates for Maine rate payers – a double whammy.
Where do you think tax subsidies come from?
Are you in favor of increased deficits?
If I open a business, should I expect to receive tax subsidies from the Maine taxpayers so I can pay myself a million dollar salary? What a great idea!!!
My basic overall point is that the taxpayers of Maine and the US should not be subsidizing any for-profit industry that cannot stand on its own…”
This topic has been discussed ad nauseum, MP, and I agree with you to a degree. But it’s important to remember that subsidies have played a key role in the history of America since the beginning, including the massive subsidies that led to the creation of the transcontinental rail system, the development of aviation, the harnessing of the Colorado river for hydro power, and the creation of the interstate highway system, to name a few examples. None of these developments would have gotten off the ground without government support, because the risks were too great for the private sector to take on.
OK – a reasonable reply.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on some of these points.
p.s. I am also against destroying the environment for the sake of trying to protect it (like is being proposed by the wind industry by building 500 foot tall wind turbines on top of forested mountains in the state of Maine) – but that debate may have to wait for a different day.
Thank you for taking a moment to consider my point of view. Because of your civility, I intend to spend more time considering your point of view as the debate continues.
In a Maine
lifetime there hasn’t been a bigger undertaking that has put our star-crossed
little state in some kind of dynamic position than this wind power initiative.
And not just for the people who are doing the work.
I don’t favor opposition to wind power for that reason alone,
really. But all debates have more sides. Left and right converge MAGICALLY in
this uber-polarized day to oppose wind power in Maine at every turn.
That these projects partially fall in the massive category
of ‘subsidized’ industries and interests
makes them ripe for the criticizing as does the status of being
“Green”.
You can jump right over the aisle and say that wind power
development in Maine
is “Unconscionable destruction” of mountain tops and view scapes
—having visited a few sites, I can’t imagine this work being done with more
care FOR the environment on challenging terrain. The work is both drastic and discreet in this way.
Everyone seems to have a plethora of ammo here—but
really…isn’t seeing gleaming white windtowers in your viewscape not a sign of
the world doing something clean to power itself? For once? No?
Isn’t unprecedented ‘action’ for Maine on the economic front good?
What I see is a
circle made of every guy biting the other in the behind with–ZERO benefit to
anyone.
I’m for wind power in Maine and I’m for Herb Sargent —Herb is one of those rare individuals who truly is an example for
every one, every day.
And since when did speaking up for something that is
proving to be good for business, the environment, our energy mix and Maine jobs
equate to something bad?
The conversation leads to business as usual around here: a zero sum game for Maine..again.
Wind energy is just a feel good enterprise. The wind dies and the miniscule power supply dies. There will be no shutdown of fossil fuel plants nationwide with the advent of windmills. The only people who win in windmills are the subsidizers and those who receive the money.
This is another green energy boondogle similar to Solyandra and Volt electric cars.