THE MORE WIND AND SOLAR, THE HIGHER THE ELECTRIC RATES

1) Wind and Solar Subsidies Provide a Bonanza for Wall Street

 

This URL shows wind and solar prices per kWh would be at least 50% higher without direct and indirect subsidies. They would be even higher, if the costs of other items were properly allocated to the owners of wind and solar projects, instead of shifted elsewhere. See below section High Levels of Wind and Solar Require Energy Storage.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-tesla-powe...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plant...

 

This URL shows about 2/3 of the financial value of a wind project is due to direct and indirect subsidies, and the other 1/3 is due to electricity sales.

http://johnrsweet.com/Personal/Wind/PDF/Schleede-BigMoney-20050414.pdf

 

- Indirect subsidies are due to federal and state tax rebates due to loan interest deductions from taxable income, and federal and state MARCS depreciation deductions from taxable income.

 

- Direct subsidies are up-front federal and state cash grants, the partial waiving of state sales taxes, the partial waiving of local property, municipal and school taxes. See URLs.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

 

Any owner, foreign or domestic, of a wind and/or solar project, looking to shelter taxable income from their other US businesses, is allowed to depreciate in 6 years almost the entire cost of a wind and solar project under the IRS scheme called Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, MARCS. The normal period for other forms of utility depreciation is about 20 years.

 

Then, with help of Wall Street financial wizardry from financial tax shelter advisers, such as BNEF*, JPMorgan, Lazard, etc., the owner sells the project to a new owner who is allowed to depreciate, according to MARCS, almost his entire cost all over again. Over the past 20 years, there now are many thousands of owners of RE projects who are cashing in on that bonanza.

Loss of Federal and State Tax Revenues: The IRS estimated the loss of tax revenues to the federal government for the 5y period of 2017 - 2021. See “Energy” heading in URL

The next report would be for the 2018 - 2022 period

https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=select&id=5

 

The indirect largesse, mostly for wind and solar plants^ that produce expensive, variable/intermittent electricity, does not show up in electric rates. It likely is offset by taxes and added to the federal debt.

Most of the direct federal subsidies to all energy projects of about $25 billion/y also do not show up in electric rates. They likely were also added to the federal debt.

 

Most of the direct state subsidies to RE projects likely were added to state debts.

 

The additional costs of state-mandated RPS requirements likely were added to the utility rate base for electric rates.

 

* BNEF is Bloomberg New Energy Finance, owned by the pro-RE former Mayor Bloomberg of New York, which provides financial services to the wealthy of the world, including providing them with tax avoidance schemes.

 

^ In New England, wind is near zero for about 30% of the hours of the year, and solar is minimal or zero for about 70% of the hours of the year.

 

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/68227.pdf

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tax-equity-investors-b...

 

Warren Buffett Quote: "I will do anything that is basically covered by the law to reduce Berkshire's tax rate," Buffet told an audience in Omaha, Nebraska recently. "For example, 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." 

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2014/05/12/e...

2) States With and Without Mandated Renewable Portfolio Standards

 

Here is an item of interest to many people regarding mandated RPS requirements, which require utilities to sell a certain percentage of their total electricity sales as renewables, such as wind, solar, wood burning, municipal waste burning, etc. Some states also count hydro as renewable.

 

States with mandated RPS requirements had electricity prices 26% higher than those without.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/02/researchers-say-renewable-en...;

 

The 29 states with mandated RPS requireme

nts (plus the District of Columbia) had average retail electricity prices of 11.93 c/kWh, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. 

 

The 21 states without mandated RPS requirements had average retail electricity prices of only 9.38 cents/kWh.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/

 

The logical conclusion is, the more RE, the higher the electric rates, regardless of energy mix on the grid.

3) Comparison of California, US and Vermont Electricity Prices, All Sectors

It is important to understand no cost ever disappears. The key issue is allocation (a.k.a., follow the money), which often implies politics, and realizing state and federal energy policy objectives.

Only a part of the costs of RE projects is added to the utility rate base. The other parts are paid for by: a) increasing taxes, fees and surcharges, and/or 2) increasing prices of goods and services, and/or c) adding to federal and state debts. Thus any increase in rates reveals only a part of the cost picture.

The weighted average US prices includes high California prices and quantities, a major component of the weighted average. Table 1 shows the weighted average US price including California. See URLs

 

http://www.neo.ne.gov/statshtml/204/204_2017.htm

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/California/

 

If California were removed, it would lower the US average. A comparison of California versus that lower US average shows California rates, all sectors, increased 28.36% and US rates (wo/California) only 5.45% during the 2010 - 2018 period.

 

California’s irrational/over-the-top/expensive RE efforts are demonstrating, the more highly subsidized RE, the higher the electric rates. But that is only a part of the cost picture, because not all costs end up in the rate schedules, as shown in section 1.

 

Vermont: The Vermont rates, all sectors, as posted by EIA, do not include the Efficiency Vermont surcharge and the Electric Assistance Program fee tacked onto electric bills by politicians to finance pseudo-social programs.

 

The EV surcharge has been increasing from about 6% in 2010 to about 8.0% in 2018 for most households.

 

If EV and EAP charges were added, Vermont rates increased 16.34% and US rates (w/tiny Vermont) only 7.63% during the 2010 - 2018 period. See table.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/efficiency-vermont

 

Year/All sectors

CA

US, w/CA

US wo/CA

VT wo/EV + EAP

VT w/EV + EAP

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

c/kWh

2010

13.01

9.83

9.58

13.24

14.03

2011

13.05

9.9

9.66

13.8

14.67

2012

13.53

9.84

9.55

14.22

15.14

2013

14.30

10.07

9.74

14.61

15.62

2014

15.15

10.44

10.07

14.57

15.62

2015

15.42

10.41

10.02

14.41

15.46

2016

15.23

10.27

9.89

14.46

15.57

2017

16.06

10.48

10.05

14.6

15.77

2018

16.70

10.58

10.11

15.09

16.33

Increase, %

28.36

7.63

5.45

13.97

16.34

 

Household Electric Bill With and Without Efficiency Vermont Surcharge: The GMP energy $/kWh for “households” is significantly greater than for “all sectors”. Here are the data from my recent bills.

 

1

Billing period

 

19-Apr

19-Mar

19-Feb

.

20-Dec

.

20-Oct

20-Sep

2

Usage, kWh

 

513

740

885

869

545

496

3

Total bill w/EEC, $

 

102.29

139.38

164.39

162.58

108.12

99.30

4

Unit cost, $/kWh

(3/2)

0.1994

0.1884

0.1858

0.1871

0.1984

0.2002

5

GMP energy, $/kWh

 

0.1645

0.1645

0.1645

 

0.1645

 

0.1567

0.1567

6

EE charge, $

 

7.03

10.15

12.13

12.28

7.70

7.01

7

Total bill wo/EEC, $

(3-6)

95.26

129.23

152.26

150.3

100.42

92.29

8

Bill increase due to EEC, %

(3/7)

7.38

7.85

7.97

8.17

7.67

7.60

Germany and Denmark Household Electricity Prices: The above correlates well with this graphic, based on Eurostat data. Denmark and Germany have advanced the most along the wind and solar installation path. They have the highest household electric rates in Europe. See graphic and Appendix.

 

 

4) Cost Shifting is the Name of the Game Regarding Wind and Solar

 

Cost shifting is rarely mentioned, identified or quantified. Those costs, as c/kWh, could be quantified, but it is politically convenient to charge them to:

- Ratepayers, via electric rate schedules, and/or added taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bill

- Directly to taxpayers, such as carbon taxes and user fees

- Directly to federal and state budgets and debts

 

No cost ever disappears. Eventually, the various costs would increase the prices of energy and of other goods and services.

Efficiencies improvements elsewhere in the economy may partially, or completely, offset such increases.

However, RE subsidies would divert capital from other sectors of the economy, which likely would result in fewer improvements in efficiencies.

 

Cost Shifting: Here is a partial list of the costs that were shifted, i.e., not charged to wind and solar plant owners, to make wind and solar appear less costly than in reality to the lay public and legislators.

 

1) The various forms of grid-stabilizing inertia (presently provided by synchronous gas, coal, oil, nuclear, bio and hydro plants).

 

2) The filling-in, peaking and balancing by traditional generators (mostly gas turbines in New England), due to wind and solar variability/intermittency, 24/7/365. The more wind and solar on the grid, the larger the required up/down ramping capacity of the gas turbines, which imparts added costs to owners for which they likely would not be paid:

 

- Less annual production to cover power plant costs, which jeopardizes the economic viability of the plant

 

- Inefficient remaining production (more fuel/kWh, more CO2/kWh), due to up/down ramping at part load, which further adds to owner costs, and reduces less CO2 than claimed. See URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions...

 

- More wear and tear on the gas turbine plants, which further adds to owner costs

 

NOTE: All of this is quite similar to a car efficiently operating at a steady 55 mph, versus a car inefficiently operating at continuously varying speeds between 45 mph to 65 mph.

 

3) Any battery systems to stabilize distribution grid with many solar systems. They would quickly offset downward spikes due to variable cloud cover. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plant...

 

4) Any measures to deal with DUCK curves, such as a) daily gas turbine plant down and up ramping, b) utility-scale storage and c) demand management.

 

5) Grid-related costs, such as grid extensions and augmentations to connect the remotely distributed wind and solar, and to deal with variable/intermittent wind and solar on the grid. Those grid items usually are utilized at the low capacity factors of wind and solar, i.e., a lot of hardware doing little work.

 

6) Utility-scale electricity storage (presently provided by the world’s traditional fuel supply system).

https://www.neon-energie.de/Hirth-2013-Market-Value-Renewables-Sola...

7) The costs of additional systems for predicting wind and solar conditions in areas with wind/solar systems to provide information to grid operators regarding likely same-day/next-day wind and solar electricity, which would impact any scheduling of the output of other generators (mostly gas turbines and hydro plants) to ensure reliable electric service at 99.98%, 24/7/365. See Appendix 4.

The above 7 items are entirely separate from the high levels of direct and indirect subsidies. They serve to make wind and solar appear to be much less costly, than in reality. See sections 1 and 2 and Appendix.

  

All that enables wind and solar proponents to endlessly proclaim: “Wind and solar are competitive with fossil and nuclear”.

 

Example of Cost Shifting: To bring wind electricity from the scarcely populated, windy Panhandle in west Texas to population centers in east Texas, about 1000 miles, $7 billion of transmission was built, because owners of wind turbine plants successfully lobbied Texas legislators. They made sure the entire cost was “socialized”, i.e., it appeared as a surcharge on residential electric bills.

 

Example of Cost Shifting: Often the expensive grid connection of offshore wind plants, say from 20 miles south of Martha's Vineyard, across the island, and then to the reinforced mainland grid, is not included in the capital cost estimates, i.e., all or part of it is provided by the utilities that buy the electricity under PPAs to make PPA-pricing appear smaller than in reality. That cost is “socialized”, i.e., it appears as a surcharge on residential electric bills, or is added to the rate base.

 

Wind and Solar Wholesale Prices in NE: Here are some wholesale prices of wind electricity RE folks in New England, especially in Maine, do not want to talk about. They would rather dream RE fantasies, obfuscate/fudge the numbers, and aim to convert others to their dream scenarios, somewhat like religious missionaries. See table 2.

 

Comments on table:

 

Indirect subsidies are due to loan interest deduction and depreciation deductions from taxable incomes.

Direct subsidies are due to up front grants, waiving of state sales taxes, and/or local property (municipal and school) taxes. See URL.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

 

Wind/Solar Electricity Cost

Direct/Indirect subsidies

Cost shifting

NE Wind

NE Solar

 

 

 

Ridgeline

Field-mounted

 

 

 

c/kWh

c/kWh

Owner sells to utility

No

No

  20 - 22

25 - 28

Owner sells to utility

No

Yes

 17 - 19

22 - 25

Owner sells to utility

Yes

Yes

 8.5 - 9.5

11.0 - 12.5

APPENDIX 1

I googled “eurostat, household electric rates, c/kWh, in 2018, by nation”

I got this URL

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electr...

 

Click on “Electricity prices for household consumers”. You will get these graphs. Prices are in euros; euro = $1.117

The countries with the highest installed RE megawatts per capita have the highest household electric rates.

  

APPENDIX 2

Electricity Moving at Near the Speed of Light on the Grid

 

 - According to Physics 101 in engineering colleges, electricity moves on the grid as electromagnetic waves at near the speed of light, i.e., from northern Maine to southern Florida, about 1800 miles in 0.01 second, or Vermont's length, 160 miles, in 0.0009 seconds; the electrons vibrate in place at 60 cycles per second and migrate at about 1 inch/second. In fact, if electricity did not move that fast, no electric grid would work.

 

- As Vermont is connected to the NE-grid, any electricity drawn fromthe VT high voltage grid consists of the NE grid mix, i.e., not some hypothetical, artificial “Vermont mix” or “New Hampshire mix” based on commercial power supply contracts, such as Green Mountain Power of Vermont contracting to buy low-cost, low-CO2 electricity from the Seabrook Nuclear Plant. Any electricity generated in Vermont and fed intothe VT high voltage grid instantly becomes part of the NE grid mix.

 

- That means the below table is correct regarding the sources and categories of generation. However, no matter what the sources and categories, all of it is one mix, i.e., the NE grid mix.

 

- For lay people and RE proponents to proclaim, without scientific proof, there is a “Vermont mix”, or a “New Hampshire mix”, is beyond rational.

 

NOTE: An exception could be made for “before the meter” solar, such as residential rooftop solar. If that solar system would provide a part of its electricity directly to the residence, likely via a battery to minimize variations, then that electricity would not become part of the NE grid mix. The remaining part of its electricity, not used by the residence, would be fed into the distribution grid, which is tied the NE grid.

 

APPENDIX 3

Vermont Generation Data, per VT Department of Public Service

See 2016 data, latest available from VT-DPS, on page 55 of URL 

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2019%20...

 

Small-scale solar acts to reduce the load on the VT HV grid, unless there is so much small-scale solar on a distribution grid it would exceed consumption and spill into the NE HV grid.

 

ISO-NE would be unhappy with such erratic spillage, as it already would be dealing with the daily Duck curve, which is due to become worse as more utility-scale solar would be installed.

 

GMP is installing small battery systems (Tesla Powerwall 2.0s, etc.) to act as dampers and minor storage, in case of solar output downward spikes, due to variable cloudiness. Southern California and southern Germany, with many small and large-scale solar systems, have been doing the same for at least 5 years.

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/large-scale-solar-plant...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-res...

Comments on Below Spreadsheet

 

Total VT in-state generation  = 1,091,663 + 101,378 + 100,000 + 154,748 + 185,807 = 1,633,632 MWh, about 27.2% of total Vermont supply in 2016.

 

VT has 84 dams, which produce about 8.7% of 2016 VT supply, 0.087 x 6,029,690 MWh = 524,583 MWh, per VT-DPS. 

http://www.vtep.org/documents/07-30-12%20FINAL-VT-Electricity%20Por...   

 

GMP has 77% of the VT market. GMP buys under contracts some NH hydro, plus a large chunk of H-Q hydro.

I tried to find the source of PURPA hydro, but so far no luck.

 

GMP generates about 390,000 MWh/y from the 44 VT dams it owns. See section 5 of GMP 2018 URL 

The 40 VT dams owned by others generate about 524,583 - 390,000 = 151,583 MWh. See page 3.2 of GMP 2017 URL

 

https://www.greenmountainpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/IRP-T...

https://greenmountainpower.com/regulatory/2018-integrated-resource-...

 

VT hydro supply is 720,389 MWh, about 12% of total supply; excludes H-Q

 

GMP and other VT utilities buy the difference from out-of-state generators, 720,389 - 524,583 = 134,583 MWh, which could be from plants on the CT River or elsewhere in NH. The entire CT River is within NH.

APPENDIX 4

CO2 Intensity of US Grid is Decreasing

In 2018 the percent increase in CO2eq was less than the percent increase in net generation. As a result the US grid CO2eq intensity decreased.

It has been steadily decreasing since 2009, even though the US economy and population have significantly grown during the past 10 years.

The main reason is the phasing out of older, less efficient coal plants and replacing them with highly efficient, up to 60%, gas turbine plants that use abundant domestic low-cost natural gas. See table and URLs.

 

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&am...

 

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#environment; click Environment, table 12.1; XLS

 

Year

US Net Generation

CO2eq

Grid CO2eq intensity

Small solar, BTM

 

Fed to HV grid

 

 

Fed to distribution grids

 

TWh

Metric ton

g CO2eq/kWh

TWh

2018

4177.810

1762.580

422

29.543

2017

4034.268

1742.792

432

23.990

2016

4076.675

1821.233

447

18.812

2015

4077.601

1912.521

469

14.139

2014

4093.606

2049.826

501

11.233

APPENDIX 5

Vermont Standard Offer Program:  The SO program was established to subsidize 1) the build-out RE systems in Vermont, and 2) to force Vermont’s electric utilities to buy the expensive electricity at premium contract prices, far above NE midday wholesale prices of about 6 c/kWh. SO program categories are farm methane, food waste, small hydro, landfill methane, PV solar, and small wind.

 

The American Restoration and Recovery Act, ARRA, of 2009, provided generous federal subsidies for RE projects. Various states also pitched in. Due to 1) the upfront 30% federal tax credit subsidy, FTC, and 2) the upfront 15% state tax credit subsidy, STC, and 3) the loan interest write-offs, and 4) the capital cost depreciation write-offs in less than 6 years, the upfront turnkey capital cost of the solar projects were effectively reduced by about 45% ,and the electricity could be sold by owners to utilities at lesser prices/kWh. See URL and note.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/excessive-subsidies-for...

 

This induced Vermont, and out of state, and foreign multi-millionaire investors to spend several hundred million dollars to build-out PV solar projects in Vermont during the past 9 years. It is no surprise, in not-so-sunny Vermont, PV solar became the largest SO category, by far. See URL.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/pdf/subsidy.pdf

 

SO projects started to produce electricity in 2010. See URL; click “projects on line”, click “SOP monthly production”, click April 2019 and download the spreadsheet.

 

- PV solar prices paid to owner were 30 c/kWh in 2010, and 11 - 12.5 c/kWh in 2018.

- In April 2019, the entire SO program produced 10,695,917.86 kWh, and owners were paid $2.133,789.65, for an average price of 20 c/kWh.

http://www.vermontstandardoffer.com/projects-online/

 

The contract prices are for 25 years, and as new SO projects (mostly solar) would be added to the project list, the average of 20 c/kWh would slowly decrease. Utilities merely add their costs, plus “state-authorized management fee, c/kWh”, to the rate base, which spreads the cost to various classes of users.

http://www.vermontstandardoffer.com/sop-production/2019-standard-of...

 

Vermont’s renewable portfolio standard, RPS, requires utilities to sell a mandated percentage of their total sales as renewable electricity. The SO program purchases count towards that RPS percentage.

 

NOTE: NE midday wholesale prices have been nearly unchanged from 2008 onwards, courtesy of abundant, domestic, low-cost, low-CO2, gas (4.5 - 5 c/kWh), and low-cost, near-CO2-free nuclear (4.5 - 5 c/kWh). 

 

NOTE: Since 2010 the capital costs of solar systems have significantly decreased. Based on 2018 capital costs, and competitive bidding, owners would have to sell to utilities as shown in the table.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-more-wind-and-solar...

Wind/Solar Electricity Cost

Direct/Indirect subsidies

Cost shifting

NE Wind

NE Solar

 

 

 

Ridgeline

Field-mounted

 

 

 

c/kWh

c/kWh

Owner sells to utility

No

No

  20 - 22

25 - 28

Owner sells to utility

No

Yes

 17 - 19

22 - 25

Owner sells to utility

Yes

Yes

 8.5 - 9.5

11.0 - 12.5

APPENDIX 6

I just saw this graph of monthly data. Note the variations during a year.

Whereas, the graph is a nice picture showing the progress the US is making to have the US economy operate on wind and solar, it is, in fact, a highly deceptive hyping for wind and solar by the US government. In 2018, the averages of wind and solar output was about 8% of total US electricity fed to grid, after at least 20 years of generous federal and state subsidies.

The US grid has to be able to move around the electricity from where it is generated (wind in the Great Plains and sun in the Southwest), to population centers where it is used (mostly the east and west coast). Also, the electricity may be generated when demand is low, i.e., it needs to be stored, which is very expensive.

NOTE: For example, to bring wind electricity from the scarcely populated, windy Panhandle in west Texas to population centers in east Texas, about 1000 miles, $7 billion of transmission was built, because owners of wind turbine plants successfully lobbied Texas legislators. They made sure the entire cost was “socialized”, i.e., it appeared as a surcharge on residential electric bills.

 

If higher levels of wind and solar in the future, daily variations would require other generators (mostly gas turbines and hydro plants) to ramp up and down at part load, which is inefficient, to maintain balance between supply and demand, 24/7/365, as the grid does not store electricity. Any storage that does exist is completely inadequate, especially when multi-day wind/solar lulls occur.

 

Note the annual maximum and minimum sum of wind and solar for each year. It is almost two to one. The more wind and solar, the larger the quantities of electricity that would be missing during annual minimal conditions, and during conditions when winds and sunshine would be minimal in many parts of the US, including New England, which happens at random, 24/7/365.

 

And those large quantities of missing electricity would have to be supplied by a very large capacity, MW, of other generators, such as gas turbines and hydro plants, with some of it supplied from storage plants. All those peaking, filling-in and balancing plants would need to be kept in good working order, fueled, staffed and ready-to-go, at any time the grid operators order them to perform services. See Note.

 

The owners of these plants would receive capacity payments from ISO-NE, the grid operator, to provide their services, as they do in Germany, the UK, Ireland, etc. However, the cost increase of these services due to increased variable/intermittent wind and solar, would not be charged to wind and solar owners, but would be shifted to users, via rate schedules, and taxpayers.

 

NOTE: Owners of wind and solar plants do not get ordered to perform, because these owners could not force the wind to blow and the sun to shine, when there is a wind/solar lull, or any other time.

 

NOTE: In New England wind is minimal about 30% of the hours of the year, and solar is minimal or zero about 70% of the hours of the year. These hours very often coincide during multi-day wind/solar lulls. The often-mentioned refrain “the wind will be blowing somewhere” is nonsense, as the New England grid has minor connections with other grids, and nearby states likely would have similar weather conditions. Here are articles of multi-day, wind/solar lulls during summer and winter.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lul...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/a-likely-scenario-durin...

 

APPENDIX 7

Here are the data regarding the Georgia Mountain production and capacity factor. The plant is locaced on a windy ridgeline in Vermont.

In 2018 the New England CF was about 3.367 TWh/{(1300 MW, onshore + 30 MW, offshore) x 8766} = 0.288

 

MW

h/y

CF

MWh

10

8766

0.348

30490

10

8766

0.353

30937

10

8766

0.378

33148

10

8766

0.371

32511

10

8766

0.290

25395

 

Views: 293

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

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"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."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

 

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

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(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 https://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?" https://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.” https://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!

© 2019   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service