Comment

Comment by Kathy Sherman on January 7, 2014 at 2:48pm

I like the idea of saying 'wait a minute'/year or two, to get real, integrated energy policy that is NOT politically, lobbyist driven instead of knee-jerk reactions as have been coming out of all parties. Like decisions out of ISO-NE when they can't even agree amongst themselves, and are reacting to fear of natural gas shortage, making major BAD decisions about market timing, negative pricing and who pays. Along with NESCOE (the ones really responsible for the long-term contracts for wind generation in ME). And I have not checked it out, but if there is a shortage of RECs for '14, I think it is because financial institutions are buying them, not because of supply. 2000 MW of installed wind is eligible for those Mass RECs. How they got to be worth more than 6¢/kWh, I can't fathom. Mass has even pricier PV solar RECs that investors hoped to get 30-60¢ for, and needless to say that stimulated an oversupply of solar. But at least that is what was intended when the New England states deregulated- distributed generation, suitable for demand centers (not just rural, not just coast and ridgelines), no defacing transmission lines and transmission losses, no sending money out of state (except for the panels). It is not that I am so keen on solar, but when I read MaineEnviro talking about the millions invested in Maine Wind- how many of those dollars stayed in Maine. How many GE manufacturing facilities in New Engl.?
My main point is that a few short years ago, MA was hoping to stimulate about 25 MW of solar and soon might have 700 MW, not all of it meets the crihteria of environmentally-responsible. The other point would be to decrease the RPS by sending folks for a cool vacation in summer instead of destroying the very places they go.
Trite idea, I admit. But living in one of those spots, I get sick of cars left running so kids can use their devices in AC. Get real, get outdoors!

Comment by Dan McKay on January 7, 2014 at 10:49am

It looks like 2014 may be the year when there be a lack of "void of real value" RECs to meet New England State's Renewable Portfolio Standards. The pressure to accept hydropower is looming within Massachusetts and Connecticut. The obvious device needed to obtain enough Class I renewable to meet requirements is in new electrical transmission structures to either bring Canadian Hydro or Northern Maine Wind to Southern New England. Maine no longer has a Governor in love with wind, but both Mass. and Conn. have Governors with ultra green agendas.  

Comment by Brad Blake on January 6, 2014 at 11:38pm

Kathy, thanks for that contribution, as many people are under the false impression that if the PTC doesn't get extended, the threat from wind power development goes away.  I have long preached that the RPS is as powerful a driving force (if not more so) than PTC.  If a PPA can cover the investment without PTC, then the developers will still be turning Maine into a wind turbine plantation.

Comment by Sherwin Start on January 6, 2014 at 5:42pm

BOth of U are TOTALLY Correct- The LAW That was passed in 2008 Is One of the MOST Destructive Ever Passed in the History of the State of MainE! The 100 MW LIMITATION was  Instuted to Provide a SAFETRY NET for the Wind Power Industry to Get off the Ground-Just as The Same as the U.S. Congress Passed a Law tto protect the PHARMACEUTICAL Industry from Product Infringement and/or Production of  GENERIC Derivatives! It Has Already PROVEN That The Economy  of WIND POwer is NO WHERE What it Was PROMISSED to be When the Legislature was COEIRCED  into Passage of Maines WIND Power Development Law(s)! of the Law!

Comment by Kathy Sherman on January 6, 2014 at 11:40am

Well stated as always. However, there is another important piece to the trap, perhaps even more important than the long-term 'competive' bid process New Engl. governors asked NESCOE to set up, CT accepted without normal regulatory review, and MA DPU has long-term contracts under review for. That is the RPS of the other New Engl. states. The value of tier 1 RECs sold in Massachusetts far exceeds the value of the PTC, and every Maine wind facility, from Freedom and Vinalhaven on up, is eligible. I have written something more cogent, but in essence the MA WRECK market has likely been funding development of irresponsibly sited, and unnecessary (for in-state) wind generation all along. It seems well explained here:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2013/04/nepool-cl...

All along I hear from the wind industry, we don't need the federal PTC, we'll replace it with state RPSs (of course they already had both). All along, I knew that Massachusetts RECs were the highest in the nation by far at 4.5 ¢/kWh up to 2010 when national average was about 0.7¢/kWh. The last time that I had checked, prices were falling but shot up again to above 6¢/kWh, higher than the value of generation itself, especially in coal-burning states like Utah.

This has to stop!! No deals of gas pipelines for keeping Maine (and NY state) open to massive wind projects, and somehow a coordinated demand for oversight of the irrationale policies coming out of ISO-NE (referring to recent posts, changes in market timing, negative pricing, etc.).

Comment by Brad Blake on January 5, 2014 at 11:50pm

The favoritism to the wind industry in this state is disgusting and has to go. Start with the heinous, arbitrary "new renewables" RPS that is set up for promotion of the most destructive and expensive form of electricity generation. Massive wind turbines as tall as Boston skyscrapers do not belong in scencic Maine. These sprawling industrial sites are sited on ridges that are blasted away, leveled, and scalped, with millions of cubic yards cut and filled, with the mountain hydrology changed and wildlife habitat fragmented.

Further, wind power in Maine is a fickle trickle of unpredictable, unreliable, non-dispatchable electricity that disrupts the grid. In the entire year of 2012, the actual output of Maine wind turbines was 24.27% (FERC) and so far in 2013, the first 3 quarters figures are very much the same. Wind turbines are being built in Maine only because of the production tax credit and because Maine passed a bill that gives the wind industry special treatment. This law should be repealed. An independent report was ordered by the EUT Committee in the previous Legislature. The "OEIS Report" challenges the false assumptions of the "Wind Law" and provides modest recommendations for changes to the law. Sen. Cleveland, Rep. Hobbins and the Democratic leadership have determined that none of the recommendations in that report ever see Legislative consideration.

The 100 MW limitation was put in place at the same time as the "Wind Law" in order to protect the wind industry from competition from a very likely source of competitive pricing. It must be repealed as well, as it is anti-business and anti-free market. Maine sits between the Churchill Falls, Labrador hydroelectric project and the huge northeastern USA electricity market. The project, which is under construction, is envisioned as the second largest hydroelectricity complex in the world. Instead of keeping our electricity rates high and destroying Maine with hundreds of miles of uplands becoming wind turbine plantations, our Governor and Legislative leaders should be negotiating a deal whereby Maine prospers from long term stable electricity costs from this reliable renewable source.