HALLOWELL, Maine — State regulators on Tuesday approved a multimillion-dollar deal that gives the parent company of Bangor Hydro a large stake of the state’s largest wind farm owner and could fund construction of hundreds of wind turbines in Maine and the Northeast. The staff of the Maine Public Utilities Commission had recommended rejection of the deal.
All three members of the PUC voted in favor of a complex series of transactions among First Wind; Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. and Maine Public Service and their parent, Nova Scotia-based Emera Inc.; and Ontario-based Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp.
The commissioners said the economic benefit of such investment was substantial, that any potential harm from the deal could be mitigated by PUC-imposed conditions and that the deal helped meet the ambitious goals of Maine’s 2008 Wind Power Act. Maine has 205 commercial wind turbines that can produce 400 megawatts of electricity. Tuesday’s deal could pave the way for construction of turbines producing an additional 1,200 megawatts.
“I’m not sure it would be sound policy for the commission to turn down a several hundred million dollar investment on the ground,” said Commission Chairman Thomas Welch.
“The magnitude of this investment in Maine is seldom seen and even less so in renewable, clean development,” said Commissioner David Littell, a former commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection.
“The Emera transactions meet a number of public policy goals, which encourage the development of investment in wind energy projects,” said Commissioner Vendean Vafiades.
Tuesday’s deliberations, which included statements from each of the commissioners and multiple conditions proposed for the deal, will be distilled into an order. That order will provide the written details of the commission’s decision and once issued can be appealed to the state’s highest court by any of the parties involved in the proceedings.
The deal originally proposed that First Wind, Emera Inc. and Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp. would jointly build and operate wind energy projects in Maine and elsewhere in the Northeast. After a failed bid to go public in 2010, which left First Wind cash-hungry, the deal is a way for the Boston-based company to continue building wind towers across Maine and the region. The deal also allows Emera and Algonquin to reach new energy consumers in the United States.
Legal filings estimate the worth of the deal as $880 million at the “high end.”
Algonquin subsequently pulled out of the portion of the deal to invest in First Wind’s holdings but remained a partner with Emera in related plans to expand into Northeast energy markets. Emera has a 49 percent interest in the proposed project and First Wind owns 51 percent. Originally Emera and Algonquin shared the 49 percent interest, as both entities were contributing to the financing — Emera $333 million and Algonquin $85 million. Algonguin pulled out its financial support earlier this year, giving Emera full financial control of the 49 percent ownership.
This separate deal between Emera and Algonquin allows Emera to invest in Algonquin and both companies will then buy, or invest in energy companies in the United States and Canada, according to Sasha Irving, Emera’s spokeswoman. The companies in press releases have described the deal as the pursuit of “specific strategic investments of mutual benefit.”
Algonquin has said its plans include “investment opportunities relating to unregulated renewable generation, small electric utilities and gas distribution utilities.” One of Algonquin’s businesses is already in the process of acquiring New Hampshire’s Granite State Electric Co.
Emera has said it will invest in “opportunities related to regulated renewable projects within its service territories and large electric utilities.”
Tuesday’s decision stands in contrast to the January recommendation of PUC staff that commissioners reject the deal because “the risk of harm to ratepayers exceeds the benefits.”
In a draft decision, staff wrote that the deal posed unacceptable potential for hikes in electricity prices, “even if conditions intended to mitigate the risk of harm to ratepayers were imposed.”
Several other parties also objected to the deal in filings over the last year with the commission.
Small electricity generators were joined in their objections by industrial energy users such as Verso, Huhtamaki and Madison Paper and the Maine public advocate, who represents the interests of utility customers. Some of them, like PUC staff, argued that electricity rates would rise; others said the plan would violate the state’s Restructuring Act of 2000, which prohibits utilities from owning both transmission and generation because it is seen as anti-competitive and contributing to high electricity prices.
Anthony Buxton, attorney for the industrial energy users who protested the deal, said Tuesday that the commissioners had hurt Maine’s energy consumers.
“The irony is that at a period when the competitive market is working very well, we have taken the risk of impairing the competitive market by allowing the vertical integration of utilities,” said Buxton. “We did away with that in 2000 and got a very competitive market — and now it will be at risk.”
“I agree that there are risks associated with the transactions,” said Vafiades, “but have determined the benefits are significant.”
Those risks, commissioners said, could be dealt with by imposing a number of conditions on the deal.
“There are a lot of them, probably 30, maybe more,” Welch said after the meeting.
One set of conditions, said Welch, would ensure that the companies did not favor their newly affiliated partners over lower-priced transmitters and distributors of power, thus costing customers more. Other conditions would limit employees of the affiliated companies from moving back and forth between companies, carrying information that they normally would be prevented from sharing.
Then, said Welch, “you want to have a healthy utility so they can do the things you rely on them to do.” So the PUC will impose conditions “that insulate both Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service from any financial problems that Emera might have as a result of this transaction.”
Emera spokeswoman Irving said Tuesday, “We’re very pleased the three commissioners agreed unanimously that this is a positive transaction for the state of Maine and we look forward to receiving the final written order and we’ll review it at that time.”
First Wind’s CEO Paul Gaynor thanked the commissioners for their approval. “The partnership will drive further growth of well-sited and well-run wind energy projects in the Northeast,” Gaynor said.
The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service based in Hallowell. Web: pinetreewatchdog.org. Email: mainecenter@gmail.com.
Wind is so much better than coal and oil. Coal is currently being mined by Massey in West Virginia, where mountaintops are blown off at a steady rate, watersheds are poisoned and the air we breathe is constantly contaminated by coal-fire power plants.
Oil supports dictators and tyrants, is an volatile source, and is effectively a drug to which the American people are addicted. It dragged us into Iraq with terrible effects.
Time to move into the future of infinitely renewable clean wind, solar and so on.
Windmills are not miraculously dropped on mountaintops from the sky. There is significant environmental damage associated with mountaintop industrial wind farms. The environmental issues you cite with coal mining may also be attributed to the installation of mountaintop wind farms. Those who benefit most from industrial wind farms are the Emeras, the Angus Kings, and the First Winds. The existing wind farms have not significantly impacted the New England grid nor have they brought down the price of electricity. The installation of these wind farms may bring a number of short-term construction related jobs but they do not provide hundreds of full-time, long-term jobs which is one mantra of those who blindly support this boondoggle.
Solar energy is by far the cleanest alternative. It’s a pity that the governments did not act on solar in the 70s; and more’s the pity that they support wind over solar.
Coal is far more destructive than wind. See, for instance, the documentary, “The Last Mountain.” As for solar, I’m all for it. And it is going to happen too, despite all the shills for Big Oil who scream no, no, no.
Progress is always a battle against sly and specious propaganda that serves those in power: oil and coal moguls.
I’ve seen first hand the coal mines in the Appalachians. I’ve also seen first hand the wind farms erected in the State of Maine. I dare say they are pretty equal in their destruction. Will you rail against the wind moguls the same as you do the oil and coal moguls? Wind developers also are purveyors of sly and specious propaganda. A desire to build an empire generally produces that particular bent.
Every time you flip a light switch, you pay Massey Coal Company to blow the top off a mountain, which results in polluted watersheds throughout Appalachia. It also puts mercury in the fish we eat and carcinogenic chemicals in the atmosphere, due to coal-fired power plants.
Honestly, it’s absurd to compare the strip mining of coal companies to the emplacement of wind mills. The damage, contamination and pollution are magnitudes apart. I understand you want Maine totally pristine, but that’s pretty selfish since you’re contributing to the rape of West Virginia.
Yes, the wind industry is big-money corporate. I’d like to see it scaled down so small business can jump on board, sell to individual homes and farms. Still, it’s a move in the right direction.
When you compare the amount of destruction to the amount of power generated I believe you will find that the ratio is quite comparable.
You are making an assumption about my wants that has absolutely no basis in fact. If I believed that industrial wind farms were an environmentally and fiscally responsible substitute for coal and oil, I would lead the parade. Mountaintop wind farms are not the answer. The raping of West Virginia is a fait accompli. Does that really justify doing the same to Maine?
Vilifying big oil and coal is “the in-thing” right now. There will always be a scapegoat but big oil and coal have doing nothing but fulfill the desires of consumers. My guess is that you don’t live totally off the grid, you drive an automobile, you use a number of petroleum based products everyday. In other words, you feed the machine. If you are really that committed to fight the evils of big oil and coal, you could live a life without the benefit of either. It’s not an easy life but it can be done.
Mountaintop wind is not a move in the right direction. It supplies little power in return for a large infrastructure and a lot of taxpayer funding.
You write “The raping of West Virginia is a fait accompli.” Far from that, there are new mountaintop removal mines opened every year. Furthermore, the seepage of heavy metals and acid lasts for generations. A gift that keeps on giving.
That said, and I am in favor of wind, this deal smells like a coal burner. If Mainers got some relief from high electric rates, then one can allow for the drawbacks of wind. But high electric rates while Maine generates power for other states is unconscionable. This deal means that the companies will return to the days when only one wire went through town, and the hand that turned the generator sent the bill. This is the reason the staff probably did not want to see the deal emerge. The bosses, with back slaps and winks know what is best. I hope they are right.
The raping of West Virginia is a fait accompli in that there has been massive destruction there and nothing can be done to change that. I think I understand the phrase but I may be wrong.
None of this wind business is being done to benefit the people of Maine. It is done for profit, that is the goal of any corporation and I understand that. I am not in favor of mountaintop wind; offshore wind has much greater potential and should be the favored mode. Solar power should also be on the list before mountaintop wind. In my years I have found that bosses’ back slaps and winks mean only one thing and that is generally what is in their best interest.
i’ll compromise with you and support offshore wind over mountain top wind.
~handshake~ Deal! Now if you could get legislation and funding to move off the mountaintop and take advantage of the sun and the much more reliable offshore winds I’d buy you lunch.
I worked in the Appalachian mountains near Keyser, WV and all the mining there was long-wall below the surface. Your blanket statement is naive and untrue. And where does the base load come from because we know wind cannot provide that? I should mention that my household uses about 1.3% of the electricity that Al Gore’s house consumes.
See the movie, “The Last Mountain.” They blow up mountains all the time, and if you know anything about WV you know it.
What does coal have to do with Maine?
You use energy from coal all the time.
Maybe we can find a way to to put all the naive, tree hugging hippies on treadmills, and put a bar of soap behind them, then harness the energy derived from them fleeing
Wind produces electricity, a small an unpredictable amount.
In Maine, we burn virtually no coal or oil to produce electricity. Moreover we are a net exporter of electricity.
Electricity produced in Maine is derived from natural gas, hydro and biomass. Our renewable percentage is just about the highest in the nation. The coal argument is false and is one that the environmental groups use to distract. They are bought off to greenwash.
You may wish to get your facts straight.
You may wish to realize that Maine imports a lot of electricity from non-Maine suppliers, regardless of whether we export any surplus.
You think we get all we need from dams? Or maybe you think we burn trees.
http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/1069193
Actually, if we could get hydroelectricity from the existing excess capacity at the mammoth dams in Quebec, we would get a good amount more from dams. And it would likely be very good for Maine’s economy. Vermont pays 6 cents a kwh for the electricity it gets from HydroQuebec.
But I never said I thought we get all our electricity from dams. You keep introducing things that are untrue.
Suck it up and admit you were wrong: Maine imports electricity from non-State suppliers and coal-fired power plants are big players.
You are showing how little you know. A typical driveby who changes the subject when they are out of arguments. You know wind in Maine has nothing to do with coal, but you introduced coal to scare people.
HUH? read your electric bill lately or are those lies? Maine is mostly a power exporter and only when it relies on the NE power grid is there a chance of using power generated by coal fired power plants. Do you even live in Maine?
and MERC is a better option? Bio Mass CHP plants have their own emission’s problems.
**Grew up in the coal regions of PA. People still have back yard coal mines, just like we have wood lots.
That’s a funny dream you’re having, about Maine making its own electricity:
http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/1069193
“Every time you flip a light switch, you pay Massey Coal Company to blow the top off a mountain…”
Talk about hyperbole! Only about 7% of coal production in the United States comes from mountaintop removal mining. It’s an indefensible practice for sure, but it has less to do with energy needs than it does plain old economics. You could stop mountaintop removal mining tomorrow by enforcing the Clean Water Act, but their is no political courage to do it. And, in New England, so little coal is burned (it accounts for less than 12% of our electricity) that we really couldn’t have any significant influence on it anyway. (ISO New England predicts that the remaining coal generators in New England will be replaced in the coming years with natural gas fired generators – not wind turbines.)We should be reducing coal consumption as much as we can, but suggesting that wind power on Maine mountains will have anything to do with that is just ideological dreaming with no basis in reality.
Your first argument: we shouldn’t use wind power because coal isn’t so bad.
Your second argument: using wind won’t reduce coal.
Your third argument: natural gas is coming soon, and is better than wind.
Counterargument:
Coal is far worse than wind, as you seem to admit.
Somewhere someone will use the wind wattage generated instead of coal.
Natural gas involves pipelines and a finite economically volatile source of fuel. Clean Wind is the sure energy source forever.
First, please don’t put words in my mouth. I never wrote that we shouldn’t use wind power because coal isn’t so bad. That’s a fabrication of yours.
Second, I stand by my statement that mountaintop wind turbines in Maine won’t have any significant impact on coal use in New England. That is supported by ISO New England’s 2010 Regional System Plan and the New England Wind Integration Study. If you still disagree, maybe you can take it up with them and straighten them out. Moreover, as long as there is a buyer for coal, it will be mined and sold unless mining it is outlawed. As most of the world still wants the lifestyle we have in the U.S., you can expect the demand for cheap coal to remain high for a very long time. Our coal exports have been increasing as it is.
Third, natural gas is already here and will be for a very long time. You might not like that, but it’s reality. Solar and wind cannot provide an uninterrupted energy supply and most people – maybe not you – are going to still expect the lights to come on when they flip a switch. Energy continuity is a requirement for industry – intermittency is not an option. Natural gas provides about 45% of New England’s electricity – more than wind could ever hope to.
These aren’t positions of mine. They are just statements in observance of reality.
”
Somewhere someone will use the wind wattage generated instead of coal. ”
Maine uses virtually no coal or oil to produce electricity.
Wake up wind is a joke high cost electricity hurts our Maine economy, stop tearing out dams and build more hydro, drill more of our own oil, burn more coal the country is full of good coal and with todays technology it can be burnt clean.
“I’ve seen first hand the coal mines in the Appalachians. I’ve also seen first hand the wind farms erected in the State of Maine. I dare say they are pretty equal in their destruction.”
LOL,
Save this post, Clara, it could get you out jury duty some day.
When you consider the clear cuts for transmission lines and the 10% graded access roads and the off-road traffic they open up; Clara might have a valid point of comparison. Strip mines get restored now; and after 10 years look—from aerial photos a lot like the surrounding forest. Some say they are more productive because of the fill used.
Not justifying coal mining; but using the old stereotypes is no more than fear mongering that isn’t based on present facts, just history. ….so tell us a story about non-unionized sweat shops that exploit child labor………………………………..to make your iPAD!
How can you, with a straight face, say that coal and wind are ‘pretty equal in their destruction’.
When we start having acid rain from wind farms, or strip mining for a wind mill, I might give you a nod of agreement. But as it stands, your point of view is pure hyperbole.
I said that when you compare the amount of destruction to the amount of power generated the ratio is comparable. In other words, coal mining is destructive but generates copious amounts of electricity; installation of mountaintop wind farms is destructive and generates not so copious amounts of power. That’s how I can say that with a straight face – please read and comprehend before attacking. Thanks.
Actually, here is what you said:
“I’ve seen first hand the coal mines in the Appalachians. I’ve also seen first hand the wind farms erected in the State of Maine. I dare say they are pretty equal in their destruction.”
thanks SD.
Yes, thanks SD. And sorry to you. I stand by my comparison as to destruction:value.
and I stand by my reaction to your comment as pure hyperbole.
wind and burning coal:
Clara, let’s just take an objective test. Buy some coal, light on the grill. now when the black smoke is spewing from your grill, (make sure you’re in an enclosed space where there’s no…eh hmmm… no wind….) Now, let’s see how long you can live breathing in the resulting CO2 and CO. Not long, I think, before you OPEN THE DOOR AND LET THE WIND IN.
wind. it doesn’t result in carbon monoxide. and is in NO WAY comparable to burning or mining coal.
That’s an objective test?
Wind power will not eliminate the use of fossil fuels in the generation of electricity.
Yes, utilizing fossil fuels is harmful to the environment.
But there is also environmental destruction with the installation of wind farms. Wind power does not in itself generate carbon monoxide but it does require the clear cutting of forests. Fewer trees = fewer carbon sinks. Carbon monoxide is a part of the life cycle and so cannot be eliminated.
Wind farms also create health hazards for those living nearby.
No system of electrical generation is perfect but trading one evil for another less effective one is not the answer.
I think you are: very intelligent. sensitive, and informed.
I also think you are letting ‘great’ get in the way of ‘good’.
Clara, I am not alone in saying “there are no great energy solutions”. I do however, think we need to start somewhere, and this is what green energy investment looks like.
Wind requires clear cutting of forests? It’s kind of sad how desperately your words distort and twist to make wind as destructive as coal. It’s a ridiculous claim. You’re the only person I know who is saying wind is as bad as strip mining.
The wind apparatus are not trekked to the top of mountains by Sherpa on a goat path. There is substantial removal of trees and vegetation to provide access for semis to move them. And the wind companies are not replanting after they’ve installed the wind farm. The roads and sites are permanent. Wind farms will contribute little to the power grid and virtually nothing to Maine residents. The environmental impact vs the power produced does not support this industry. Look at Germany – they have over 21,000 windmills which produce 8 percent of their electricity. 8%. 21,000 windmills. Look at Texas, has largest wind capacity in the country. One wind farm covers well over 45,000 acres and is home to only 491 windmills. One farm. Texas has many. And yet these wind farms manage to supply less than 4% of Texas electricity and they generally run at less than 50% capacity. How is that any more environmentally friendly than coal mining?
“…and is in NO WAY comparable to burning or mining coal.”
There’s also no comparison in the amount or quality of energy produced. Wind power on Maine mountains has little to nothing to do with mountaintop coal mining in WV or anywhere else. It’s a bad practice, but let’s not pretend that erecting mountaintop wind turbines in Maine has any capacity to stop it or even reduce it. The facts just don’t support that. I’m not even sure why coal mining would be brought into a discussion about an article on wind power in New England – there’s really no relation between the two. Of course, groups like the NRCM have perpetuated this falsehood as part of their campaign to industrialize Maine mountaintops. Perhaps you’re getting your information from them.
No, I’m not getting my information from ‘them’.
I’m thinking globally, you, I believe are thinking locally. I accept that the wind infrastructure is not perfect, by far. I am not willing to accept that coal and oil are the future. If not wind, what? If not now, when?
I share your interest in a clean environment, etc. and try to live my life in a way that is consistent with that, but…… Just building mountaintop wind projects in Maine because it has global trendiness doesn’t mean that it’s going to have any noticeable impact on oil or coal consumption in New England – and that’s where Maine wind generated energy would be used, not somewhere else on the globe. If you want to argue that mountaintop wind turbines would displace some natural gas electricity generation in New England, then I’ll go along with that. But your views about wind power in Maine displacing coal or oil to any significant degree aren’t supported by the people who operate our electric grid and I kind of figure that they are the experts.
Consider the Gulf of Mexico, the people and wildlife affected by the oil spill. Consider the entire eco system of the Gulf and the harm done and the centuries it will take to mitigate.
wind: damage, yes, but it is contained
oil and coal: affects all of us via wind and air quality with the real potential of eco disasters
we need to not let great get in the way of good.
You’re making a very general argument in favor of wind development, but you’re not providing any specifics to support your argument. What does the oil spill in the Gulf have to do with mountaintop wind turbines in MAINE? Less than 1% of electricity in New England comes from oil-fired generators. Okay, we replace that with wind power. Now what? Do you believe that’s going to decrease drilling in the Gulf? You’re making a conceptual argument. Again, I appreciate your concern for the environment – it’s my concern too. (I used to live on the Gulf Coast.) But, you don’t address environmental issues by looking only at broad, hazy concepts. You have to look at the local, specific realities. And the local reality in New England is that mountaintop wind turbines are not going to do much about oil or coal production in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world – it’s just the reality of our regional energy production patterns.
as I stated before, I believe you are thinking locally, I am thinking globally. Neither one of us is wrong, we just have different priorities.
That I’m thinking globally, you locally is just arrogant elitist tripe.
Clearly, I was replying to someone else. Had I been replying to you, PP, I would have deleted the word ‘thinking’.
I’m not an elitist. I was raised on a farm in Maine and am a small business owner with calluses on my hands to prove it.
The more wind used, the less coal used. It’s simple math. Also, wind in Maine is part of a national trend that is starting to challenge and dent the coal industry. Everywhere you see a windmill, there’s a very good chance it means less coal, since coal is used almost everywhere, including Maine.
Then I’d like to see your math. Here’s some data you can use: Less than 12% of New England’s electricity comes from coal burners. Most of that is base load generation. (Wind can’t supply base load generation.) ISO New England has stated that most wind power in New England would be used to displace natural gas fired power. Take a look at the 2010 ISO NE Regional System Plan and the New England Wind Integration Study.
National trends do not drive the New England grid so much as local reality. New England simply doesn’t use anywhere near as much coal as most of the other states and, therefore, has little influence on the coal industry overall. You can’t just make blanket statements about the entire country and apply that to New England. Electricity production is a regional affair and dependent on regional specifics.
Statistical obfuscation that takes up hundreds of words. If that isn’t a red flag …
Anyway, if someone flips a light switch and the energy is coming from wind, it probably replaced the most common source of electricity: coal. And so wind helps reduce coal.
Simple, isn’t it, when you aren’t trying to hoodwink folks.
Perhaps you don’t live in New England where 11.2% of the electrical energy produced in 2010 was from coal vs 45.6% from natural gas according to ISO New England.
Statistical obfuscation? No, just facts taken from published reports from ISO New England. ISO NE says that wind generated electricity in New England would displace primarily natural gas. If you have better information, I’m sure they’d like to hear from you.
If you’re not willing to participate in a fact-based discussion, we’re probably both wasting our time here.
She doesn’t have better info. I would stop feeding the troll.
My pleasure, you’re doing great!
sorry, if you support coal as being cleaner and more sustainable than wind, it is you, my friend who needs to comprehend.
thanks again.
Not even close. Coal mining on any of the mountains where Maine’s wind farms are located would turn those hills into divots. Are you saying that the wind farm developer LITERALLY take tens or even hundreds of feet of elevation off of these hills to install the turbines? Isn’t that sort of counter-productive to the object of trying to site them at an elevation? More rhetoric.
Wind is NOT the answer, but it is one piece of the puzzle. It is going to take an approach from multiple fronts to solve our energy crisis. Solar, tidal, hydro, distributed generation… all of the things are also PART of the solution.
Really? I said no such thing. I said that the amount of electricity produced versus the environmental impact of installing and maintaining mountaintop wind farms, is comparable to the amount of electricity produced versus the the environmental impact of coal mining.
Mountaintop wind should not be one piece of the puzzle. Look at existing wind farms and you will find that mountaintop wind will not produce near capacity nor will it supply more than a very small amount of demand. Offshore wind is more reliable and has greater capacity. The problem with offshore wind is that people can’t buy acreage in the ocean so they can make offshore wind the lucrative business that is currently mountaintop wind. It’s about the money, it’s not some altruistic desire to benefit Mother Earth or fellow inhabitants.
With all your ‘first hand’ knowledge can you tell us
about ‘ significant environmental damage associated with mountaintop industrial wind farms’. Just a few examples from YOUR ‘first hand’ knowledge would be most appreciated!
Could you give us some facts about how wind farms eliminate existing vegetation, displace or destroy wildlife and habitat, and permanently change the general topography of the land?
Are you serious? Have you been to any of these sites?
WHY does it matter if I’ve been to ‘
any of these sites’?
YOU said you had first hand knowledge.
First hand knowledge does NOT mean you read about it on a website!
I can.
“Coal is far more destructive than wind.” True but you are comparing elephants to butterflies.
Spruce, we do not burn coal for electricity in Maine. Or oil. Even if we sell our useless wind power to Massachusetts, the coal plants do not stop. They, by nature, burn 24/7 whether or not the wind is spinning the 40-story tinker toys in Maine.
Better how? Does the electricity form them cost less? NOPE. Are they cheaper to build? NOPE. Do they not harm the environment? NOPE.
You want a windmill great build one on your home. I want cheaper power. Wind does not offer that.
Your god is money, calculated over the short-term to serve your own best interest.
I truly hope the majority of humanity has more far-reaching eyes.
Actually my people do not speak the name of god out of respect.
The problem lies in people who “THINK” windmills do not do harm. Just like those who fail to realize the Prius is one of the least “green” vehicles to make.
It is not just my interest but all Mainers. If I told you I invented a way to make 100 percent clean power but it would cost every Mainer a million bucks woudl that be ok with you? The fact is Solar cells are ok but EXPENSIVE windmills are ok but EXPENSIVE.
When providing a service to almost every home in the state cost is a issue. Not matter how good you feel about green money is a issue.
Wind has no place in the portfolio. It cannot pull the weight for base load and is all about diminishing returns on our effort.
The people at Findhorn disagree with you:
http://www.ecovillagefindhorn.org/
You are over-invested in a major mistake. Ever remember: https://snt126.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0#!https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=b6147304a619be64!cid=B6147304A619BE64&id=B6147304A619BE64!225
By encouraging conservation, increasing investments in clean, renewable
sources of energy, and promoting increased domestic production of oil and gas,
we can build a more secure future for our country.
Ever remember: https://snt126.mail.live.com/default.aspx?wa=wsignin1.0#!https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=b6147304a619be64!cid=B6147304A619BE64&id=B6147304A619BE64!225
SD, the belief you have that the need for oil dragged us into Iraq is a misconception. Study more on war profiteering and you’ll see the patterns very clearly.
We burn virtually no coal in Maine for electricity. Nor oil.
So what’s this fake argument about?
our country
wrong, wrong, wrong:
http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/1069193
Oh come on spruce dweller. Stop the drivel about wind, coal and oil. Wind is cleaner than oil and coal but it will not replace either. Wind is an add-on, as available, surplus generation source. Coal is a 24/7 base load source. Oil is less than one half of one percent of Maine and US electricity generation, used on demand for peak load power. That is likely to be about 10 afternoons per year when it gets really hot. (When there is typically little/no wind blowing). We can build 2000 windmills in Maine and not a single coal plant can or will close. So stop the ideological BS.
Are you claiming we don’t use coal for electricity in Maine? And you’re saying, what, it’s all hydro-generated the wattage we use?
Wake up.
http://www.sunjournal.com/city/story/1069193
try filling up ur car with wind, and see how far you get, or maybe you have one of those solar models, get the price where the average American can afford wind and solar power, and they will use it. far too many things are made from a barrel of oil, its a pipe dream that we are gonna stop drilling for oil, also the Govt, would go broke, if they did not collect any taxes from the gas and oil use in this country, how big do you think just the tax base is that the govt gets just from gas and oil sales. No way any politician wants us to stop useing oil and gas.
Except that wind power in Maine has virtually nothing to do with coal or oil. ISO New England has already made it clear that wind power in New England is primarily about replacing natural gas electricity generation. So, spoiling Maine mountains to erect wind turbines will do absolutely nothing to save mountains in West Virginia or anywhere else. As for oil; less than one percent of electricity produced in New England comes from oil fired generators. The oil/coal myth was debunked quite a while back. Even the wind developers don’t try that one too much anymore.
By the way, the majority of the oil imported into the U.S. comes from Canada and Mexico. They might take exception to being called dictators and tyrants.
I’m sure you realize that as more industrial wind turbines are built in Maine, our air will become more polluted as those “wind farm” carbon credits get sold to mid-west coal fired power plants so that they can keep polluting our air. As for mountain top removal in coal country, this is a travesty that won’t stop until we ban exports of coal to China. That will happen when pigs fly. Industrial wind has been around since the ’70’s. It is a mature technology that has never worked and relies solely on government subsidies and industry brainwashing. Hawaii, California and Texas are littered with rusting towers leaking hydraulic fluid. Maine is too beautiful to sacrifice to the altar of special interest greed.
Once the deal is done, they will start removing the rules and the prices will go up.. This is really bad for the State of Maine.
The PUC commission are self serving and know once the deal is done, its all over for maine consumers…
Time to pass a laws prohibiting the personal gain before/durning and after being on a commission and thir family members. Minimum penalty 5 years imprisonment and 1 millon dollar fine.
Genius idea!! :-)
PUC Commissioner David Littell (who also in an arguable conflict of interest chairs the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) is a Baldacci appointment as is Vendean Vafiades.
How can Littell ensure fair electricity rates for consumers and utilities as a PUC commissioner, when his RGGI job mandates that he shoves high cost wind power down our throats?
Something is going on with this approval and it smells. Bad.
It smells bad because it is rotten. They just keep going around and coming around … doing damage all the way.
If they hose us we can always nationalize them.
Look at the money Angus King has Made on energy policy since a year before he was elected Governor.. He had the laws changed so that power distrubitors couldn’t sell power claiming it would be cheaper.. He sold his business to CMP for 8 Mil his wife was working for CMP
He changed the laws so that the Rate payers had to buy out contracts at full price then rebuy power from them, So the rate payers paid twice for the same power… Now on to Maine Yankee,,, The rate payers had to pay 5 dollars a month for 20 years to fund the closure, right before they closed Angus gave the funds to Bangor Hydro and CMP because of their claim it would run on for 20 more years. That was 125 millon dollars… Then 6 months later they said they were going to have to close Maine Yankee but didn’t have any funds to do it… So once again Angus forced the cost back onto the Maine Rate payers. If you trust anything the PUC does then you need your head examined…. This deal will double the cost of power and force industy in Maine to leave.. (the ones that are left, that is)
This is such a shame. We need to be decommissioning the
industrial wind mistakes already installed rather than promoting their disgusting
existence. I called and talked with Eric Bryant, Senior Counsel in the Public
Advocates office. He said that he worked hard to deny the decision. The next
steps he said might include calling for public hearing even though those were
formally completed. I also called the PUC and got information about how to
listen to yesterday’s discussion and follow issues and how to make a formal
complaint. We Mainers must really pull together to remove all industrial wind
turbines from Maine.
Pub Advocate http://www.maine.gov/meopa/index.shtml
MPUC http://www.maine.gov/mpuc/index.shtml
I agree entirely!
The snake oil merchants are back and as PT Barnum said there is a sucker born every minute.
Strange since the first wind farm was installed at Mars hill my electric bill has gone up. Whats up with THAT?
Sorry Pal, the Canadian Electric Companies are, ” for profit corporations “.
LePage takes care of his Canadian Buddies again. More wind turbines for Canadian Electric Corporations, all the while selling the expensive electricity to Mainers at a substantial profit.
How so? Two of the three PUC commissioners are Baldacci appointees. One of them was on Baldacci’s Task Force for Wind Power Development. Two other Wind Task Force members (Juliet Browne & David Wilby) appointed by Baldacci either do work for or are employed by First Wind. Former PUC commissioner, Kurt Adams – another Baldacci appointee – is now Executive Vice President for First Wind.
Most Maine wind projects are built and owned by out of state or foreign companies anyway, what’s one more foreign owner? Nice try though at spinning this to be the fault of our current governor.
oh this is Baldacci’s baby … but the current gov seems to love it,too …. there is enough here to go around for both administrations.
Wind power is a joke to expensive, does nothing to lower electricity rates, time to scrap this idea and build more hydro clean cheap power.
Maine Ratepayers Robbed; Citizens Ignored; Their Rights Laughed At
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/maine-ratepayers-being-robbed-citizens-ignored-their-rights
Trust the PUC???
PUC chairman took equity stake in wind company
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2010/05/06/puc-chairman-took-equity-stake-in-wind-company/
and
First Wind SEC filing change questioned
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2010/07/18/first-wind-sec-filing-change-questioned/
and
Group asks AG to probe official of First Wind
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2010/07/18/group-asks-ag-to-probe-official-of-first-wind/
Business as usual from the fully corrupted PUC.
This trio needs to be investigated next after MSHA.They have ignored recommendations of the PUC staff and boldly proceeded to fully accommodate the Wind lobby. To hell with any concern about increased energy costs for Maine, just accommodate the Wind lobby.
Now, if things proceed true to form, we should expect how many of the PUC Commissioners to end up in VP positions with First Wind??
Didn’t this same PUC frown on Governor LePage’s proposal to reclassify hydro power as a renewable because it might “open the door to a contract with Quebec Hydro” and lower our electricity rates? How strange that they would now be so eager to go into business Canadian owned Emera and Algonquin in the name of furthering industrial wind power in the state of Maine, which will RAISE our electricity rates. Could some of the “financial benefits” of this merger have ended up in the PUC’s pockets? They certainly aren’t looking out for the interest of the Maine rate payers.
No more wind mills. They will cost us in the long run.
They are already costing us our environment. Shameful.
Look at the photo accompanying this article. About 30 1.5 MW turbines are visible. Those 30 sprawling turbines might produce about 118,260 megawatt-hours of energy in a years time (intermittently and not necessarily when it’s needed). This is about 0.09% of New England’s electricity consumption in 2010. Now multiply the windsprawl you see in that photo by a factor of about 40 to 50 and imagine what Maine will look like in order to feed about 5% of New England’s annual electrical energy consumption. That’s just about what our state’s statutory goals for land-based wind power dictate.
I was thinking that too. I wonder how many acres of wind turbines it would take to equal say, Stratton Energy’s Biomass Plant? Doesn’t make sense. I also wonder the percentage of those wind turbines that are actually generating, not just spinning uselessly.
He/she argues in extremes…and uses inaccurate hyperbole common to unscientific, nonfactual rabble rousers.
well-sited and well-run wind energy projects in the Northeast,” Gaynor said.
HA! Laughing all the way bank as FW continues its assault on Maine with the help of our elected leaders. Shameful.
Why Maine does stay poor?
Elitist politicians on the job jumping trail in the Maine bureauocratic self-serving band wagon of crony politics.
Just look at the PUC.
Naive citizens are being fleeced by politicians who know how passive the electorate has become,
and how scientifically and economically challenged they are.
Maine will now go downhill further with higher electric rates.
My business is moving, hear that Mr. LePage!
Intervene and lower electric costs, or watch the Maine welfare state deteriorate further.
Reign in corruption in this highly corrupt state!
see Maine , one of the most corrupt states in the nation, with the likes of Mr. King leading the pack.
Maine falls short on accountability, transparency,
By NAOMI SCHALIT, LANCE TAPLEY and JOHN CHRISTIE Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting
http://pinetreewatchdog.org/2012/03/19/f-in-national-study-means-maine-ripe-for-corruption/
It would be interesting to see a 20 year pro forma, cash flow projection for these projects and compare the income side with a benchmark competitive rate per kwhr. If these wind projects are being subsidized by imposing 17 or more cents per kwhr, then we are not pursuing a competitive market agenda. How does this project compare with a state of the art 1,200 mwt natural gas, combined cycle plant? 20 yr comparison of cost to consumer?
We all want to support the advancement of wind and solar technology, but large implementation of non-competitive technology is not good social policy.