SUBSIDIZED SOLAR SYSTEMS CAUSE CHRONIC BUDGET DEFICITS IN VERMONT

Vermont has an anemic, near-zero, real-growth economy, which does not produce enough tax revenues year after year, partially due to the huge RE giveaways, such as: 

1) Federal and state ITCs; upfront giveaways to offset any taxes. 

2) Federal and state taxes not paid due to rapid depreciation write-offs during there first 6 years 

3) Federal and state taxes not paid due to loan interest deducted from taxable profits.

4) School portion of property taxes not paid; households have to pay more.

5) State sales taxes not paid on some solar system components.

6) In addition, the electricity is purchased at 13 - 14.5 c/kWh, but could have been bought at NE midday wholesale at 6 c/kWh.

 

The state giving investment tax credit, ITC, money to the tax shelters of multi-millionaires, who own the larger systems, and not collecting taxes due to rapid depreciation write-offs, has resulted in contributing to chronic budget deficits.

 

The addition of “excess paid above New England midday wholesale prices” has resulted in electric rates being higher than they would have been.

Benefits to Multi-Millionaires Riding the Solar Incentives Gravy Train: The recent tax law reduces the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. The tax avoidance effect of above items 1, 2, and 3 is shown in the table 1A. The table shows the federal tax avoidance by a multi-millionaire owner of solar system who has $2 million in profits in his various businesses on which he wants to minimize paying federal taxes.

 

- At a 35% federal tax rate the owner would pay $700,000 in federal taxes on a $2 million profit, if not riding the solar subsidies gravy train.

- That same owner would pay $250,000 in taxes on a $2 million profit, if riding the subsidies gravy train, a la Warren Buffett. At a 21% federal rate, that owner would pay only $110,000 in federal taxes. See table 1A.

NOTE: Similar tax avoidance would apply to any State taxes. The taxes avoided by the multi-millionaires have to be paid by others (higher taxes, increased electric rates, increased cost of goods and services) or are added to the federal and state debts. There is no free lunch, except in LaLALand.

 

Table 1A/Tax rate

35%

21%

Not riding the subsidy gravy train

 

 

Assumed profits

2000000

2000000

Federal tax

700000

420000

Riding the subsidy gravy train

 

 

Assumed solar deductions

1000000

1000000

Remaining profits

1000000

1000000

Federal tax

350000

210000

Assumed federal ITC

100000

100000

Remaining federal tax

250000

110000

Wind and Solar a Boon to Multi-millionaires: Warren Buffett, considered one of the outstanding investors of all-time, has stated: “On wind energy, we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them. They don’t make sense without the tax credit”. Buffett has investments in multiple wind sites, as do many other multi-billion dollar entities. Buffett and his cohorts hire tax accountants/lawyers to refine the subsidy-milking art form, as well as PR pros and RE lobbyists to continually increase the milking, via higher RPS targets and renewed subsidy periods.

GMP Purchased Electricity in 2016: GMP purchases electricity from about 25 sources. An increasing proportion has been expensive renewables, such as wind and solar.

 

GMP also produces electricity with its hydro plants, and wind and solar systems. The electricity produced (MWh) and the cost of the self-produced electricity ($; c/kWh) is unknown to the public at this time, but likely known to GMP, the PUC and DPS.

 

The data in the table was obtained from a GMP spreadsheet titled “GMP Test Year Power Supply Costs filed as VPSB Docket No: Attachment D, Schedule 2, April 14, 2017”.

 

NOTE:

- ISO wholesale market electricity cost is 46% less than GMP average cost.

- It would be much wiser for GMP to buy more ISO wholesale electricity to reduce its average costs.

- HQUS electricity cost is 8% less than GMP average cost.

- It would be much wiser for GMP to buy more HQUS electricity, which is abundant. Instead, GMP refuses to purchase additional, low-cost (5.549 c/kWh), very low-CO2 (much less than wind and solar), renewable, HQUS electricity even though 200 MW of a new power line, to be completed in 2019, is reserved for Vermont.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-add...

- Net-metered electricity cost is 3.61 times GMP average cost.

- Standard Offer electricity cost is 3.61 times GMP average cost.

- In 2016, the PUC finally wised up, after 6 years, and began competitive bidding of SO solar systems. A few competitively bid, large-scale, SO solar systems produce at about 13.5 c/kWh; heavily subsidized. More such systems would slowly reduce the average SO cost of 21.793 c/kWh.

- Ryegate, a wood chip-fired power plant, sells all of its output at 10 c/kWh, about 66% in excess of GMP average cost.

 

Table 1A

1

2

3

4

5

6

GMP purchases, 2016

MWh

% of purchases

Cost, $

c/kWh

% of Cost

Ratio of 5/2

HQUS (Hydro-Quebec)

919312

22.13

51013678

5.549

20.34

0.92

Standard Offer

78920

1.90

17199202

21.793

6.86

3.61

Net metered

71970

1.73

15699137

21.813

6.26

3.61

Ryegate (wood)

126707

3.05

12710175

10.031

5.07

1.66

ISO wholesale

575553

13.85

18645214

3.240

7.43

0.54

1772462

42.66

115267406

6.503

45.96

1.08

Other

2382075

57.34

135516232

5.689

54.04

0.94

Total GMP purchases

4154537

100.00

250783638

6.036

100.00

1.00

ISO midday wholesale

6.000

Solar Subsidy Cost Estimate for 2010 - 2017 Period: The total subsidy cost was at least (48,867 kW/2000 kW) x $3.5 million = $85.5 million, for Phase 1, the first 6 years of operation, just for the Standard Offer solar projects. The $85.5 million of subsidies for SO solar project comprises only three (in bold) of the above six items:

 

1) Federal and state ITCs; upfront giveaways to offset any taxes. 

2) Federal and state taxes not paid due to rapid depreciation write-offs during there first 6 years 

3) Excess paid above NE midday wholesale prices

 

Items 1 and 2 were about 2/3 of 85.5 million = $57 million. 

Item 3 was about 1/3 of 85.5 million = $28.5 million

Almost all of above items 1, 2, and 3 are paid to the tax shelters of mostly out of state multi-millionaires, who own the larger systems. Money going out of state!

NOTE:

Above items 1 and 2 were higher, because the turnkey capital costs/kW of earlier SO solar projects were higher

Above item 3 was higher, because SO solar feed-in tariffs were 24 - 30 c/kWh, versus about 13.5 c/kWh at present.

- This 13.5 c/kWh price started due to the PUC auctioning SO solar projects in 2016; finally a smarter approach.

- That means the above $85.5 million for just the SO solar projects is a rock bottom minimum for the many SO solar projects prior to the PUC auctioning in 2016.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/from-brownfield-to-gree...

Budget Deficits: There are other SO systems (small wind, small hydro, methane, etc.), and there are non-SO energy programs (such as rooftop solar, etc.), all of which receive federal and state support in one form or another. A central accounting of all the various costs does not exist, so legislators have no idea how much money is being spent on “energy”, and how much taxes are not being collected, and how much credits are doled out. So when an annual budget gap occurs, legislators are at a loss, as no rational explanation is available.

GMP Asset Base and Electric Rate Increases: GMP, a Canadian company, is building its asset base with leased/owned Powerwalls, heat pumps, solar systems, wind systems, (and poles, wires, substations), etc., on which it earns 9+%/y, and on which it receives federal and state ITCs, and on which it avoids paying state and federal taxes due to fast depreciation write offs, all as described in this article.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-and-...

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2017/november/27/gmp-psd-agree-502-p...

 

GMP is claiming increased regional network services, RNS, fees, imposed by ISO-NE, and increased build-outs of rooftop and SO solar systems have increased its costs. It is likely, GMP's dabbling in expensive solar/battery system combos, to promote its "islanding/microgrid" visions has been an additional increaser of its costs. GMP was awarded a 5.02% rate increase to raise $80 million in revenue during 2018. See URLs.

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2017/november/27/gmp-psd-agree-502-p...

Table 1 shows some typical production costs and wholesale prices of electricity in New England.

 

Table 1

Heavily subsidized*

Economic Cost*

Ridgeline wind; PPA pricing

9 - 10 c/kWh

15 c/kWh

Offshore wind; PPA pricing

18 - 20 c/kWh

30 c/kWh

Large-scale, field-mounted solar; PPA pricing

13.5 - 14.5 c/kWh

23 c/kWh

Residential rooftop solar; utility purchase

18 - 20 c/kWh

23 c/kWh

Hydro Quebec, per latest GMP contract

5 - 7 c/kWh

Subsidies not required

NE annual average wholesale

5 c/kWh since 2009

NE annual average night-time wholesale

3 - 4 c/kWh

 

NE annual average midday wholesale

6 c/kWh

 

NE annual average peak wholesale

7 - 8 c/kWh

 

* The low PPA pricing is made possible by means of subsidies and cost shifting. If those subsidies and cost shifting were eliminated, the economic cost of NE solar to the US economy would be about as shown in the table.

NOTE: Actually, the wind and solar prices in table 1, are even higher, because:

 

- The traditional generators have to be operated less efficiently to 1) more frequently start/stop, 2) operate at part load, and 3) ramp up/down, to provide peaking, filling-in and balancing services 24/7/365, to meet demand. This means, the more solar (and wind) percent on the grid, the more the cost of those services. Those costs are shifted to taxpayers and ratepayers to make wind and solar look less expensive.

- The wind and solar systems require expensive grid expansion and upgrades, and storage systems to connect them to the grid and to deal with the destabilizing influences of the variability and intermittency of the wind and solar electricity. Those costs are shifted to taxpayers and ratepayers to make wind and solar look less expensive.

NOTE: Regarding subsidies for traditional energy sources, such as nuclear, coal, gas, whereas, they are billions of dollars each year, if divided by their production over their LONG lives, they amount to just fractions of a c/kWh, whereas wind and solar would "not make sense" without the subsidies, per Warren Buffett.

NOTE: "The Vermont Chamber often reminds us (legislators) that dollars brought into VT by tourists recirculate several times in the Vermont economy". I agree, and therefore, Governor Scott and many others, do not want to damage the tourist industry, and do not want to:

 

- Build 500 ft tall wind turbines (mostly made in Denmark and Spain) on several hundred miles of pristine ridgelines, per the Blittersdorf Plan 

- Cover tens of thousands of acres of open areas and fertile meadows with solar panels made with dirty coal plants in China 

- Cut down VT forests in excess of 50% of annual biomass growth to increase the burning of wood

 

NOTE: It is completely absurd for Vermont to waste about $10 billion to build out heavily subsidized, expensive, wind and solar systems, that produce expensive variable, intermittent electricity, when MUCH CLEANER, STEADY, LOW-COST electricity is readily available from HQ. See table 1.

It is true, money goes to Canada, but far more money would accrue to people's pockets, because those billions of dollars on expensive build-outs would be avoided, and much of that money likely would be invested in profitable, tax-paying (not subsidy-sucking, not tax avoidance) businesses, that would create steady, good-paying jobs, with good benefits, while producing goods and services for the Vermont, and out-of-state and export markets.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/increased-canadian-hydr...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/more-energy-from-hydro-...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/gmp-refusing-to-buy-add...

Analysis of a Typical 2000 kW SO Solar Project in Vermont 

All of the below analysis is just for the Vermont SO solar projects.

In Vermont, a solar system, 2000 kW, turnkey capital cost about $5.9 million, produces about 2794 MWh/y and has revenues of about $365,000/y. See URL and funding sources summary in table 2. 

http://puc.vermont.gov/document/7874-standard-offer-solar-cash-flow...

Table 2/Funding Source

$

%/y

Repaid

Short term loan

1,356,212

3.0

6 y

Long term loan

1,356,212

4.5

18 y

Federal ITC

1,190,475

Upfront gift

 

State ITC

185,714

Upfront gift

 

Owner funds

1,808,283

 

 

Total

5,896,897

 

 

 

During the first 6 years, the equivalent of about 3.5 million/5.9 million = 59% of the turnkey capital cost consists of:

 

1) State and federal taxes not paid due to depreciation write offs

2) State and federal ITCs; upfront cash gifts

3) Excess paid above NE midday wholesale prices. See URL and table 3

NOTE: The 3.5 million is for only 3 of the above 6 subsidy items.

 

If the ITCs were removed, and the write-off period were a more normal 15 years, the electricity would need to be sold for at least 23c/kWh, almost 4 times NE annual average midday wholesale prices. See row 3 table 1.

 

- The variable, intermittent solar electricity is bought by utilities from owners at 13.036 c/kWh. Higher-quality electricity (not variable, not intermittent, steady, 24/7/365) could have been bought by utilities at the NE annual average midday wholesale price of about 6 c/kWh. The excess electricity costs would occur for 25 years, per SO contract. Clearly, the overall cost of SO solar is much greater than the 13.036 c/kWh paid to owners. See table 3.

 

- The federal ITC is 30% of the qualified portion of the turnkey capital cost. The qualified portion is 1,190,475/0.30 = $4 million of the $5.9 million turnkey capital cost, or 67%.

 

- The state ITC is 185,714/1,190,475, or 15.6% of the federal ITC.

 

- Owners collect ITCs up front and avoid paying any taxes due to rapid asset depreciation, for a total of $2,332,758, during the first 6 years. See table 3.

 

Whereas owners pay no taxes for the first 6 years, after year 6, the project would have taxable income on which state taxes ($285,476) and federal taxes ($1,075,571) likely would be collected during the 7 - 25 year period. See URL.

Owner earn a risk-free rate of return (IRR) of about 9%/y

Owners are not required to pay federal and state taxes due to loan interest deducted from taxable profits.

Owners are not required to pay the school portion of property taxes; households have to pay more.

Owners are not required to pay state sales taxes on some solar system components.

 

The subsidy train seems to be never-ending. Other households and businesses have to pay these taxes directly or indirectly.

NOTE: For comparison, the steadily increasing real estate/school taxes of a typical homeowner would be about $250,000 over 25 years. It looks like the assets of multi-million dollar SO solar systems are grossly under taxed.

Electricity Cost During 25 Years of Operation

 

Large-scale solar projects usually are financially structured in three phases:

Phase 1, years 1 - 6, the subsidy and write off phase; short term loan being paid off.

Phase 2, years 7 - 18, remaining subsidy phase; long-term loan being paid off.

Phase 3, years 19 - 25, remaining subsidy phase; loans paid off

 

Phase 1, year 1 - 6: Dividing the “Subsidy costs” and the “Excess paid above NE midday wholesale prices” by the 6-y production yields 14.0 c/kWh and 7.0 c/kWh, respectively, and adding the 6.0 c/kWh for NE midday wholesale, yields a total production cost of 27.1 c/kWh, during the first 6 years of operation.

 

Phase 2, year 7 - 18: The remaining subsidy is the “Excess paid above NE midday wholesale prices” of about 7 c/kWh. Adding other costs, such as paying off long-term loans, the production cost decreases to about 9.8 c/kWh

 

Phase 3, year 19 - 25: The remaining subsidy is the “Excess paid above NE midday wholesale prices” of about 7 c/kWh. Adding other costs, the production cost decreases to about 8.2 c/kWh.

 

The weighted average price of all 3 phases is about 13.036 c/kWh for this sample SO project. This price is similar to the average price of the 4 auctioned SO solar projects. See table 3 and URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/from-brownfield-to-gree...

 

NOTE: The 27.1 c/kWh is less in sunnier areas of the US, such as Texas and the Great Plains.

 

Solar Subsidy Cost Estimate for 2010 - 2017 Period: The above analysis is just for one 2000 kW SO solar system. In Vermont, about 48,867 kW of SO solar projects were installed since 2010.

 

The total subsidy cost for the 2010 - 2017 period was at least (48,867 kW/2000 kW) x $3.5 million = $85.5 million, for Phase 1, the first 6 years of operation, just for the SO solar projects.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State

Fed

Total

Table 3/Year

1

2

3

4

5

6

6y total

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

State tax not paid

42996

78104

41169

18803

18337

1227

200636

1.2

 

 

Fed tax not paid

161996

294270

155112

70845

69087

4623

755933

 

4.6

 

Total tax not paid

204992

372374

196281

89648

87424

5850

956569

 

 

 

State ITC gift

185714

185714

1.1

 

 

Fed ITC gift

1190475

1190475

 

7.2

 

Total ITC gift

1376189

1376189

 

 

 

Total tax subsidies (1)

1581181

372374

196281

89648

87424

5850

2332758

2.3

11.8

14.1

 

 

 

Paid for electricity

2158559

13.0

 

 

Wholesale, 6 c/kWh

993507

6.0

 

6.0

Electricity subsidy (2)

1165052

7.0

 

7.0

Total subsidy; 1 + 2

3497810

 

 

 

Total electricity cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27.1

REC

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0

 

 

Utility cost, 13 - 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10.0

 

 

APPENDIX 1

Legislation, enacted in May 2012 (S.B. 214 / Act 170), increased the Standard Offer Program to 127.5 MW. Starting April 1, 2013, there will be annual increases to achieve the program cap of 127.5 MW. The schedule for annual increases is as follows, and may be adjusted to account for greenhouse gas reduction credits, as provided for in the law.

http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/5680

 

Date

MW

Y-Y MW increase

1-Apr-13

55.0

1-Apr-14

60.0

5.0

1-Apr-15

65.0

5.0

1-Apr-16

72.5

7.5

1-Apr-17

80.0

7.5

1-Apr-18

87.5

7.5

1-Apr-19

97.5

10.0

1-Apr-20

107.5

10.0

1-Apr-21

117.5

10.0

1-Apr-22

127.5

10.0

APPENDIX 2

Electricity Cost During the First 6 Years of Operation: If, on average, three 2000 kW SO solar systems were placed in operation in each year, 18 systems would be in high energy cost mode at any time (Phase 1, the first 6 years), producing 18 x 16,558 = 298,044 MWh, at an economic cost of $80,471,880, at 27.1 c/kWh, which could have been bought for $17,882,640, at NE midday wholesale price of 6.0 c/kWh, then the excess cost difference is $62,589,240. See Item 1 of APPENDIX.

 

Having solar systems instead of buying at midday wholesale prices, costs an extra $62,589,240, during the first 6 years of the operation of the projects. The cost is borne by the federal and state governments and by Vermont ratepayers; the cost to Vermont ratepayers is reduced from 13.5 (the price at which the utility buys) to 10.5 c/kWh by selling RECs. See table 3.

 

Systems/y

Production/y

Production/6y

Cost/kWh

$/6y

3

16,558

298,044

27.0

80,471,880

3

16,558

298,044

6.0

17,882,640

Difference

62,589,240

APPENDIX 3

Lowell-Size Wind System on New England Ridgeline

Table 5 shows the values for a Lowell-size wind system. The turnkey capital cost, with $20 million grid connection, was about $170 million. It produces about 63 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.33 CF = 1,187,036 MWh/y.

Wind System

State

Fed

Total

Table 4/Year

1

2

3

4

5

6

6y total

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

$1,000

$1,000

$1,000

$1,000

$1,000

$1,000

$1,000

State tax not paid

1240

2252

1187

542

529

35

5784

0.5

Fed tax not paid

4670

8483

4472

2042

1992

133

21793

1.8

Total tax not paid

5910

10735

5659

2584

2520

169

27577

State ITC gift

5354

5354

0.5

Fed ITC gift

34320

34320

2.9

Total ITC gift

39674

39674

Total tax subsidies

45583

10735

5659

2584

2520

169

67250

0.9

4.7

5.7

Electricity cost

11396

9.6

Wholesale 5 c/kWh

5935

5.0

5.0

Total energy subsidy

5460

4.6

4.7

Total subsidy

72711

Total energy cost

15.4

REC

3.0

Utility cost, 9.6 - 3

6.6

Electricity Cost/kWh During the First 6 Years of Operation: Dividing the “Subsidy costs” and the “Excess paid above NE wholesale prices” by the 6-y production yields 5.7 c/kWh and 4.7 c/kWh, respectively, and adding the 5.0 c/kWh for NE wholesale, yields a total of 15.4 c/kWh, during the first 6 years of operation. After 6 years, the cost/kWh decreases to a 25-y average of about 9.6 c/kWh, as long-term loans are paid off. See table 5.

 

NOTE: The 15.4 c/kWh is less in windier areas of the US, such as Texas and the Great Plains.

 

Table 5/First 6 years of operation

$

MWh

c/kWh

Subsidy costs

2,332,758

16,558

5.7

Excess paid above NE wholesale prices

1,165,052

16,558

4.7

NE wholesale

 

5.0

Total energy cost

 

 

15.4

APPENDIX 4

Money received by investors in the early years, such as upfront federal and state ITCs, is always better than in later years. The SO projects are structured to provide a risk-free 9%/y internal rate of return, which is similar to an electrical utility in Vermont, such as GMP. It is quite generous compared to long-term interest rates.

During the first 6 years of a solar project, the economic cost is 27.1 c/kWh (using only 3 of the above 6 subsidies to simplify the analysis). Because of rapid solar build-outs, a substantial part of the installed solar capacity is less than 6 years old, and therefore in 27.1 c/kWh mode, in New England. The same is true for wind projects. Projects in this mode act as a major drag on economic growth.

 

APPENDIX 5

The above 27.1 c/kWh EXCLUDES the costs of EXTERNALITIES, such as:

 

– Any peaking, filling-in and balancing performed by the other generators
– Any battery systems to stabilize distribution grids with many solar systems.
– Any measures to deal with DUCK curves, such as utility-scale storage and demand management
– Any grid expansions and augmentations to connect distributed solar systems

 

Those costs, as c/kWh, are not easy to quantify, and as a result they are charged to ratepayers via rate schedules, and to taxpayers. Ultimately, they are reflected in the increased costs of goods and services, which usually act as a headwind to economic growth. There is no free lunch.

 

For example, to bring wind electricity from the Panhandle in west Texas to population centers in east Texas, $7 billion of transmission was built. The entire cost was “socialized”, i.e., a surcharge on residential electric bills.

 

Views: 241

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

First Prize

NE Book Festival

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT (excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?"  http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” http://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

© 2018   Created by Eben Thurston.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service