Landmark decision
A news item you may have missed: In another landmark decision that resembles the court’s ruling on the definition of a corporation, the Supreme Court ruled five-to-four recently that constrictor snakes living in the wild and currently causing problems in Florida are so like corporations that they too are persons.
Because they are now persons, they can no longer be hunted unless they break laws.
Charlie Cameron
Addison
Investment in Maine
Jackson Parker has a huge stake in wind energy development ( “Clean energy investments support Maine jobs,” June 16 BDN OpEd). His perspective is narrow. His company has reaped millions in profits from the construction of an energy source which is high in cost, high in effects and very low in overall value. Wind is unreliable, intermittent, unable to be stored and unable to “stand alone.”
Mr. Parker mentions the “$1 billion of investment in Maine,” yet fails to qualify that statement. That $1 billion may have been “spent,” but the lion’s share has gone overseas. More importantly, the majority of that $1 billion came from hardworking Americans in the form of federal, state and local subsidies.
The Production Tax Credit, or PTC, Mr. Parker exhorts our senators to support is one such (very large) subsidy. Parker stated the PTC “helps level the energy playing field and provides the certainty that clean energy industries need for continued growth.” And yet Exelon, one of America’s largest wind operators, came out against an extension of the PTC.
“There comes a time when we need free-market price signals.” Free market. Fair and level competition. Pitting value and cost… against value and cost.
Wind isn’t a “developing” energy source and shouldn’t be propped up by American taxpayers. If the wind industry can’t compete — can’t stand on its own and provide a product of value without picking our empty pockets — then it shouldn’t be granted this lucrative subsidy. Maines senator’s should continue to support an energy plan based on science, economics and common sense. The PTC should be allowed to expire.
Karen Pease
Lexington Township
Misrepresentations
Once again Renee Ordway has resorted to falsehoods and misrepresentations when writing of the Dechaine case ( “Let’s not forget the evidence against Dechaine,” June 16-17 BDN). For starters, there is no proof that Dechaine locked his truck. Anyone could lock the doors without a key. And anyone could have had access to the locked truck through the rear slider. If Dechaine was the killer why would he lock the doors of his getaway vehicle anyway?
The alleged incriminating statements she quotes were offered in testimony by two detectives and are contradicted by their notes. Ordway has been corrected on these matters before, but chooses to employ fiction over facts because the facts do not support her opinions.
William Bunting
Whitefield
Leadership qualities
Some of the essential qualities of an effective leader are caring, the ability to inspire, intelligence, perseverance, courage to take risks, excellent communication, flexibility, empathy, setting a vision and continuous learning. Angus King is one of those rare leaders who possess all these qualities.
We have known each other for the past 16 years. He taught me on leadership at Bowdoin College. He led us on a trade mission to Canada.
He had the vision to see the need for computers in young students’ education and successfully introduced laptops to seventh and eighth graders. He took a risk by introducing this project and gained support from both Democrats and Republicans. That is exactly what we need — a leader who can bring people together in our state, our country and the world.
King is well educated with a law degree from the University of Virginia. He is a superb public speaker. During his term, many business people felt proud and inspired to do business in Maine because of him.
He is approachable and personable. Although I was new to Maine, I was able to walk up to him and introduce myself even though he held office as governor. Angus King works hard by spending his time as a lawyer, teacher, writer, businessman, loving husband and father. He is a voracious reader who learns continuously.
I know from direct personal experience, Angus King will be a great U.S. senator. Please support him.
Ashok Nalamalapu
Falmouth
Pig in a poke
Now that the primaries are over, the election campaigns will be in full swing. The Citizens United decision has enabled enormous amounts of cash to be dumped into advertising — much of which is designed to confuse rather than inform. The only defense for the voter is good journalism and debates where critical questions are asked.
Unfortunately, journalists too often pose either softball questions or allow candidates to dodge the subject. In the 2010 debates, candidates were often allowed to answer questions with a version of an amorphous, “I’m against waste, fraud and abuse.” I’m sure they also were against space alien invasion, zombie attacks and cholera as well.
That is not the point. The journalist’s (or debate moderator’s) job is to press the candidate to state their real views on the topic and not accept platitudes.
There are too many real challenges to allow candidates to dodge questions. The voters deserve more. We need to know where our representatives stand on the economy, whether they would support a war with Iran, whether they believe in climate change and-or evolution, how they feel about abortion and what their stand is on gay marriage.
Additionally, we need to know how they feel about growing income inequality, whether we should have more banking regulation and whether they think corporations are people. And yes, Angus King, we really do need to know who you plan to caucus with.
Without this information, voters will simply be buying a “pig in a poke.”
Greg Rossel
Troy
Radiant Christian
I would like to make an editorial comment about Diane Morrison, the woman that was tragically killed on outer Broadway on Sunday night, June 9, in Bangor.
She was a radiant Christian coming out of a wonderful anointed and glorious service both from the morning and then at that point from the night service at Glad Tidings Church, where she was an active member. If there were meetings to be remembered, they were those meetings. So when she was taken from our midst to a better place, she left in style. I personally greeted her with a warm handshake as she beamed with a smile that was characteristic of her demeanour.
When Glad Tidings Church assembled the following Wednesday, the editorial comment on the sign in front of the church summarized it all in one word, “Home” — Diane Morrison had gone home to be with the Lord whom she loved. She shall sorely be missed, but we take great comfort in the fact she has gone “home.”
Victor F. Pinard
Bangor
Rossel, I think you’re correct to a degree, however, one political party seems very comfortable with demonizing journalism and the media in general. They screech about non-existant biases and “gotcha questions” when they don’t have the facts or the truth on their side. It’s easier to make personal attacks and change the subject than it is to be accountable for their own actions. Did you notice how frequently that happened during the Republican Presidential debates? Do you notice how frequently Fox News complains about behaviors in media they exhibit and take to the extremes themselves? Remember how in 2008 Palin was asked about the newspapers she read and somehow the far-right characterized that as near an assassination?
The bias is real. Wake up!
http://www.newsbusters.org
Well, that certainly is an unbiased site :)
To Victor Pinard: a tragic loss, of course, but wasn’t her husband the driver of the vehicle that started the terrible accident? More interesting, you say that “So when she was taken from our midst to a better place, she left in
style. I personally greeted her with a warm handshake as she beamed with
a smile that was characteristic of her demeanor.” I’m surely not the only reader who, with the utmost respect for your faith, would love to know how you apparently made a quick trip to Heaven and then back. Sorry for your and Glad Tidings’ loss.
Charlie Cameron, this election season we will see the constrictors choking the airwaves with their own campaigns to styfle any opposing views from the other side.
It was President Obama who first claimed that he was going to raise $1 billion for his re-election campaign back in December. (wonder how without the CU decision) Now that is obviously not going to happen, its all about how the other guy is buying the election and choking the airwaves. The fact that the smart money is not going to Obama should tell you something.
Besides I don’t think Mr Cameron’s analogy works very well. The snakes in question are illegal aliens therefore probably Democrats. :)
Everyone has a side. I wouldn’t be suprised if the money tops 10 billion nationaly for all the campaigns combined this year. The big winner will be the TV stations.
I’m not sure who collects that data but someone must. Maybe opensecrets.org ?
Karen Pease – Wind is a scam. If it weren’t so heavily subsidized with taxpayers’ money, it would be non-existent. Mainers need to stand up against these monstrosities.
Wind is the only energy subsidized in this country?
Of course not. But, if ALL energy subsidies were eliminated, it would be one of the energy sources that would probably fade away. Most conventional sources of energy – and maybe even a few renewables – can survive without subsidies. Some cannot. Wind power is in the latter group.
Okay, but in what time frame will all energy subsidies be eliminated? Oil is very profitable and Republicans fight tooth and nail to keep those subsidizes in place. Why is a subsidy for an energy less valid for an energy that isn’t yet profitable? Isn’t the nature of subsidies exactly for that purpose?
What subsidies specifically are you talking about?
I did reply to a comment that said “ALL energy subsidies” didn’t I?
You mentioned Oil specifically. I was wondering what those “subsidies” were. What form do they take?
I’m not going to play whack-a-mole with you where you constantly change the subject. It’s not relevant to the comment I replied to in which EJP seemingly set up a rubric regarding energy subsidies. I’m not arguing for or against subsidies, I was asking another(s) about why those subsidies are valid in one case and not another.
Go try and bother someone else.
You made it relevant when you said, “Why is a subsidy for an energy less valid for an energy that isn’t yet
profitable? Isn’t the nature of subsidies exactly for that purpose?”
So It is important to know what they are then, don’t you think? How does a subsidy for a profitable enterprise differ? Wasn’t that your question? You wanted to know why they were valid… right?
I expect you don’t know and are deflecting.
The answers you create in your head seem more important than reality. So why bother asking? It’s just so typical of you to accuse others of the exact behavior you’re engaging in. Like I said, go bother someone else.
With your statement you are either trading on others peoples ignorance or your own. Which is it?
And I will post as I please.
I am and was talking about subsidies in general. You can’t force it to have me been talking about something else.
My point is that there are different kinds of “subsides” some are merely bookkeeping entries (oil) others are a checks written by the government. (wind) Not all subsidies are equal. Some are merely political attacks against a specific industry for getting a benefit that ALL industries receive. (depreciation)
Your post: “Why is a subsidy for an energy less valid for an energy that isn’t yet
profitable? Isn’t the nature of subsidies exactly for that purpose?”
The short answer is no. Subsidies are not given only for a failing/growing industry to be profitable. They are given for a multitude of reasons but sometimes they are simply called “subsidies” for political purposes.
LOL. Thanks!
I didn’t respond to your question because you already knew the answer. I would say that by the way others responded, you are the mole that got whacked.
I just wanted to know why you think subsidies for some energies are valid and others are not. That’s not what I mean when I say whack a mole either. I asked a direct question and then somehow others want to talk about a million other things instead of answering the actual question.
Oh, by the way, I never said I thought some subsidies were valid and not others. Don’t know where you got that idea. You need to quit reading things that aren’t there.
You said that oil subsidies pay for themselves, so it was my assumption that you support them as you were defending them.
I personally would like to see ALL subsidies for energy eliminated. Some would argue that subsidies aren’t so much a support for a developing sector as much as they are a reward for successful lobbying. Additionally, protracted subsidies – the wind PTC has been around for 20 years – can have the effect of masking a losing technology, making it look better than it really is.
I, too, would like to see all energy subsidies eliminated. That way we could all see which ones the private sector picks up and which ones are dropped. It’s the private sector that should be in control of supplying our energy needs, not the government.
Oil only gets 13% of the total subsidies, and that investment brings the government 4 times the revenue in return. But, even if the oil subsidies were cut, the oil industry would survive.
There are no returns for wind and solar subsidies, and the only people that benefit from wind and solar subsidies are the company execs that fill their bank accounts before filing bankruptcy.
So are you for some subsidies or against them entirely? If you’re for some, I just want to know why you’re for some and against others. That’s all.
I’ve already answered that both here and in other threads. I’d just as soon have them all eliminated. I’m tired of the government throwing my tax money into the bottomless pits of wind, solar, and other dead end endeavors. Let the private sector take charge and we’ll have affordable energy to supplement oil much sooner than with government involvement.
I would like to see the true costs of energy sources in the prices we pay.
For example how much of our Defense Budget is there to “secure” our sources of oil, how much in added costs to the nations people are not included in the costs of oil, gas and coal, how much in added costs to the environment are not included in the cost of oil, how much added costs to the taxpayer is not in the costs of cleaning up after oil extraction… etc.
Well, if you are going that route, then consider the true cost of a wind turbine, both economically and environmentally. Economically, they would never, ever pay for themselves without the unduly favorable (per MW) subsidies and the ability to sell Enron-inspired RECs. Environmentally, starting with the extraction of rare earth all the way through the destruction of carbon-sequestering forests, a wind turbine has a far greater carbon footprint than the carbon they purportedly offset by generating power from the wind. Ha! Little known to Mainers is that every time a source of power must be curtailed to allow wind into the grid, it is the renewable Maine hydro that gets curtailed—never, ever a distant coal fired plant. Wind turbines are not cost comepetetive, clean or green!
The oil, gas, and coal companies also pay lease payments, royalties, and taxes back to the government. These are energy dense resources, unlike wind. There is no payback whatsoever from the wind industry to the government, yet it gets huge subsidies per MW when looking at the electricity generating sector of energy. armichka is absolutely right. Take away all the subsidies (and in the case of wind, the MANDATES!) and there won’t be a useless wind turbines built anywhere. We also wouldn’t have to put up with ethanol, the other major tax & mandate scam!
Electricity prices = $32.00 MW natural gas and Maine will add $22.00 MW PTC + $30.00 MW Renewable Energy Credits + $4.00 MW in Efficiency Maine + $$$$ in buy outs of biomass and Maine Yankee…….I feel bad for all you people on the GRID under our PUC
Rossel, I don’t disagree with much of what you say however I do take issue with your statement that you need to know who King will caucus with. In my opinion that is only important if you subscribe to the belief that the party is more important than the person, a sentiment that is a large part of what’s wrong with politics today.
I disagree with you. In today’s politics, it is crucial to know with which Party a candidate stands.
RE Investment in Maine:
Mr. Parker’s continued vigorous advocacy for wind power is easily explained.Mr. Parker bought a very expensive, specialized crane with which to erect wind turbines. The crane only makes money when it erects wind turbines. Therefore, Mr. Parker lobbies our state and federal officials to keep the spigot open so that taxpayer and ratepayer money, as well as wind-friendly policy and statute, continue flowing. It’s the fuel that keeps his crane running. It really is just that simple.
They brag that it is “the biggest crane in New England”! Needs to be huge to put up turbines that are as tall as a 45 story Boston skyscraper! Come on, people! Wind power is useless. How can anyone think that destroying our mountains to put up turbines so huge is a good thing?
Ms. Pease – well said!
Mr. Rossel – the media is the problem, because they prop up a thoroughly corrupted and morally bankrupted party.
Ashok Nalamalapu – Angus King is popular in Maine because he rode a wave of economic prosperity and spent a ton of money. When that wave crashed, others had to clean up after his debt tsunami. You are new to Maine, but we lifers remember.
The last type of politician we want to send to DC is a tax-and-spender like King or Dill. What is it about $15 trillion in debt that people like you fail to understand?
A good part of the 15 trillion dollar debt, was caused by, someone who road the wave, and left the mess, for someone else to clean up. Now do you see, the hypocrisy in what you wrote?
Sorry to burst your anti-Bush bubble, buy that’s just not right. Go here and take a look at the facts:
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php
EJ, I, wasn’t born yesterday, and I have some understanding, of the stock market and other things.
?????
Of the $15 trillion dallar debt approximately $10 trillion occured with a Republican in office.
You also have to factor in the party in charge of the Congress. By the way, if Obama gets another 4 years, he’ll bring the deficit trophy back to the Dems. He’s already surpassed Bush’s 8 year total in less than 3 of his administration. But, if you want to send your children and grandchildren into massive debt, then vote for him again. I’m voting for America.
You say you will be “voting for America.” Gee, EJ, do you mean that someone in our elections is voting AGAINST America?
I’ll be voting for America when I vote to re-elect the president. I’ll be voting for America when I vote to re-elect Representative Mike Michaud. Haven’t made up my mind in the U.S. Senate race, but I’m sure I’ll be voting for America. I’ll also be voting for America when I vote for fairness and equal treatment under the law for all Americans regardless of their sexual orientation.
A vote for Obama is a vote for elitism, imperialism, and socialism, not America. He doesn’t understand the greatness of America and what it took to make it the greatest nation on earth. He doesn’t believe in American Exceptionalism, the entrepreneurial spirit, or pride in the country. He’s a poor excuse as Commander-in-Chief and has yet to earn the respect of the majority of the troops. And he actually believes that it’s all right to spend, spend, spend, even when history has shown that the only way to work a country out of a recession is to cut spending and allow the private sector to expand.
But, you go ahead and support you man. Go ahead and support the reward of immoral behavior. It’s your right.
I’m voting for America.
Mafia Today
http://tinyurl.com/6o3pwco
re: Karen Bessey Pease’s letter.
Not only did wind developer Exelon come out against an extension of the PTC, but
so did First Wind!
First Wind CEO Paul Gaynor recently said in an interview:
“I know the industry has needed it. I think the question for all of us is, Do we need it anymore or forever? I believe the answer is no. ”
Is this true or is it a strategic statement being made with some ulterior motive. Knowing First Wind, and knowing how unscrupulous they are, I suspect this is a ploy to starve the weaker wind developers out of business so First Wind will be left with a bigger piece of the pie.
see the full article at:
http://www.rechargenews.com/business_area/politics/article316284.ece
A fine response by Ms. Pease. One of the best kept secrets in the US is what is happening in Germany. According to a February article in Der Spiegel, traditional great German corporations are selling some of their firms. The head of the German Chamber of Commerce and several heads of corporations are quoted as saying that they are closing down and/or selling out and will be making their future investments overseas because of wind power. The three reasons they give for the switch: wind power is too expensive, too unreliable, and the signal too irregular. The irregularity of the signal affects large scale users such as stainlees steel andaluminum plants. One manufacturer claims he lost about $750,000 over a 10 month period or so because the signal caused the machinery to seize up. The Merkel government went all out for wind power as did the Papandreou government in Greece. So, the claim that wind power creates jobs is completely false except during the tax payer subsidized construction period. But editors of newspapers do not want to accept that truth.
Karen Pease’s Opinion piece is very well said and she makes excellent economic points that explain why the continued construction of massive tax-payer subsidized wind farms on Maine’s forested mountains is ridiculus and economically bad for Mainers and American citizens.
Other points that can be made against these 500 foot tall monsters are that they will destroy tourism; will drastically lower property values; will destroy the environment by clearcutting thousands of acres of forests; kill thousands of birds, bats and eagles; and lastly, destroy the scenic visual beauty of Maine’s wilderness areas as is being proposed by building fifty 500 foot tall wind turbines overlooking the wilderness lakes of Lake Pleasant and Lake Mattawamkeag near Oakfield and Island Falls in Aroostook County.
Mafia Today
http://tinyurl.com/6o3pwco
Good letter, Karen Pease. It would be very interesting to see what might happen if ALL energy subsidies were eliminated. Perhaps leveling the playing field would encourage us to focus on more promising energy sources. Small thorium reactors, for one, and hydropower. Industrial wind has had over thirty years to prove itself. It’s a mature technology that has its place in off-grid, battery-backed applications, but that’s about it.
Thank you, Ms. Pease, for speaking out against the extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind. If anyone in our Congressional delegation is going to honestly start to vote towards paring back spending and the scope of involvement of the Federal government, ending the PTC is one of many good places to start.
It is slated to end, do away with it now! After 20 years of subsidies and mandates, the industry itself admits it cannot survive without it. But the PTC props up a feckless, unpredictable, unreliable source of electricity that generates, nation-wide, at less than 30% of installed capacity. I wouldn’t justify subsidization even at 50%. The nation’s grid requires predictability and reliability, not surges and lulls of production based on the whims of weather patterns.
As other commenters point out, the wind industry would not exist without all the subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates. Wind is such a poor source of electricity, that it requires far greater subsidies than any other source of electricity per Megawatt Hour. Since there has been a long thread regarding energy subsidies, here is how the subsidies compare, as reported by USEIA.
In July 2011, the USEIA published results for 2010 for subsidies per MWH (direct, tax, R & D, and electricity support). The subsidy per MWH is $52.43 for wind; the next highest is $2.78 for nuclear, then 84 cents for hydro, 64 cents for coal, and 63 cents for natural gas.
Support for wind is bad economics, based on poor science, mandated by bad public policy caused by lobbyists influencing politicians pandering to be “green” rather than making sound decisions based on economics.
Thanks to Karen Pease for her excellent letter, plus some wonderful, informative comments posted about the wind scam. The Production Tax Credit (PTC) has got to go, but also the ideologically driven, arbitrary mandates forcing wind power onto the grid, known as “Renewable Portfolio Standards”. Let the market decide our mix of electricity generation, not politics!
TruthinMaine did a good job in posting the USEIA subsidy information. But I want to highlight another financial scam related to this. The ARRA Section 1603 allowed wind developers to forgo ten years of the PTC, which is based on output, and instead get a CASH GRANT (no strings attached gift of TAXPAYER $$$) equal to 30% of the construction cost of a wind project, as an inducement to build.
First Wind, the developer of the Rollins Wind Project in Lincoln Lakes, received $53.2 million on December 29, 2011. At 30%, that makes the project cost $177.6 million, rather than the $130 million that was usually the cited cost. For 40 turbines, rated at 60MW, it means each turbine cost $4.4 million; each installed MW cost $2.96 million. But wait! So far, including the windiest months of the year, the project has produced only 24% of that 60 MW (FERC data). So the output has actually been 14.4 MW, bringing the per MW cost to $4.29 million.
Those are horrendous economics. That’s why wind would never be cost competetive and it is actually an awefully capital intensive way to rip off the taxpayers!