Energy Politics of the "Green New Deal " Communists in the USA

Billion-Dollar Network Is Playing Politics in America’s Energy Sector, Driving up Costs: Ken Braun

By Katabella Roberts and Joshua Philipp
December 23, 2021 Updated: December 23, 2021

Environmental groups and advocates are spending billions of dollars every year playing politics with America’s energy sector while simultaneously driving up energy costs for Americans, according to Ken Braun, the senior investigative researcher at the Capital Research Center.

President Joe Biden has issued a series of executive orders since taking office in an effort to tackle the climate crisis, slash greenhouse gas emissions by more than 50 percent by 2030 and become carbon-neutral by 2050.

Biden says his “whole-of-government” approach to climate change “creates well-paying jobs, grows industries, and makes the country more economically competitive.”

While many have championed the president’s ambitious push toward green energy, he has also faced criticism from those working in the oil and gas industry, among others.

In an interview with EpochTV’s “Crossroads” program, Braun said that numerous companies, including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and more, are pumping a combined billion dollars a year into promoting so-called green energy, in line with the president’s push, and move away from nuclear energy.

However, such companies are failing to recognize those renewable energies, which are weather-dependent, are not always reliable, and can also be costly.

“Most of the environmental movement, upwards of more than 1,000 organizations are spending over a billion dollars per year, pretending to be environmental stewards who oppose nuclear energy and promote these wind and solar fantasies that are land hogs and really destructive to our environment, in order to create energy that really isn’t going to get the job done for us,” Braun said.

“You intuitively know that these things don’t work, when the sun’s not shining, which happens in most places between eight and 14 hours a day. And the winds not blowing, and we don’t really have the battery storage to hold this power,” Braun said. “So if you really are concerned about reducing our carbon footprint, nuclear energy is the only way that you’re going to accomplish it in a reliable, non-weather reliant way.”

Epoch Times Photo
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) speak during a press conference to announce Green New Deal legislation to promote clean energy programs outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, on Feb. 7, 2019. (Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images)

President Joe Biden looks at a wind turbine blade as he tours the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Arvada, Colo., on Sept. 14, 2021. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)

Braun noted that such environmental companies are greatly exaggerating the risks associated with the use of nuclear energy and that they fail to talk about the risks that come from using renewable energy sources.

The senior researcher said studies have shown that nuclear energy is 351 times safer per megawatt-hour created than coal, 263 times safer than oil, and 40 times safer than natural gas, which he said means it is is “basically right down there with wind and solar, as far as its risk to people” goes.

“There are risks in wind turbines and solar panels that we don’t talk about, such as the predatory birds that just get chewed up by these windmills,” he said. “And the industry has pretty much declared it a trade secret. We can’t know how many of these things we’re killing. I would argue one bald eagle’s life is not worth an entire wind farm for what the wind farm gives us, versus how just glorious these birds are and should be protected. … But that’s the kind of environmentalist I am.”

“All of these organizations and some of a couple of those that I mentioned have 100 plus million dollar budgets. Most of the big ones you hear about are pretending to be environmentalists and hypocritically arguing against nuclear energy. … But they’re driving up energy costs on the rest of us by doing that. And so, they are distorting the market and they aren’t even accomplishing their goals,” Braun said.

“That’s major, that’s a billion dollars distorting our energy choices just making our problems worse and not doing anything to reduce carbon emissions, which is what all this billion dollars is supposed to be spent for,” he added.

“If our argument is that we are trying to reduce carbon emissions—if that’s important to you, as the Sierra Club and the Environmental Defense Fund … and all these environmental groups that are saying that this is their number one priority—if it’s really your number one priority, then you should be going to a crash nuclear program and saying all these subsidies that you’ve been telling to throw at wind and solar, you should be putting it into nuclear power. But that’s not the argument they make.”

Views: 134


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

Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:29pm



Energy systems analysts of Denmark, Ireland, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, etc., have known for decades, if you have a significant percentage of (wind + solar) on your grid, you better have available:
– An adequate capacity, MW, of other power plants to counteract any variations of (W+S), 24/7/365
– High-capacity, MW, connections to nearby grids
– An adequate capacity of energy storage, such as:


1) Pumped hydro storage
2) Hydro plants with reservoir storage
3) Grid-scale battery systems


The more presence of variable (W+S) on the NE grid, the more the other generators have to vary their outputs, which causes these other generators to be less efficient (more wear and tear, more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh).


Owners in European countries with much wind and solar on the grids get compensated for their losses.

Those compensations are charged to the general public, not to the Owners of wind and solar systems, as part of the political (subsidy + cost shifting) regimen, to make wind and solar appear price-competitive versus fossil fuels.


RE folks often advocate:
1) Electricity must be 100% renewable, or zero carbon, or carbon-neutral by 2050
2) Getting rid of the remaining nuclear plants
3) Getting rid of natural gas, coal, and oil plants
4) More biomass burning
About This Article


This article has four parts and an Appendix

Part 1 provides an introduction to miscellaneous energy topics, and consumption of world energy quantities
Part 2 provides an introduction to existing NE grid conditions
Part 3 provides an introduction to daily NE grid load shaping, to deal with heat pumps and EVs in 2030
Part 4 provides the future NE grid conditions with 20% wind and 10% solar in 2050


The Appendix shows various energy topics, such as Turnkey Capital Costs of Grid-scale Battery Systems; Grid-scale Battery System Operating Cost in New England; Energy Losses of Battery Systems; “All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England

Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:29pm

The EU is facing an energy crisis, because:


- Brussels’ RE idiots refused to sign long-term contract for gas from Russia
- The US, EU and NATO are stupidly trying to contain and pressure Russia.

- There is minimal wind, minimal solar, and some nuclear plants are down with “issues”

- The EU sucked gas from storage during summer, that would be needed in winter

- Germany and Belgium will close down more nuclear plants in 2022, for “green” reasons.


- Russia provides gas, as required by signed long-term contracts, plus about 5%
- The 5% is sold by Gazprom on the spot market at very high prices.

- Germany and France received all the 2021-contracted Russian gas by mid-December

- Germany and France are pumping some of that gas, via Poland, to Ukraine, which buys it at high cost.

- Owners are diverting LNG carriers to the EU to rake in on the high-SPOT-price bonanza.
- US spot price $7/million Btu; EU spot price $65/million Btu

Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:28pm



RE folks claiming EVs have no CO2 emissions is utter nonsense.


“Break their will” RE folks want to “Electrify Everything”, but that is an easily uttered slogan

It would require:


– Additional electricity generation plants, such as nuclear, wind, solar, and hydro
– Additional grid augmentation/expansion to carry increased loads for future EVs and heat pumps
– Additional battery systems to store the midday solar electricity surges for later use, aka, DUCK-curve management.
– Major command/control-orchestrating to avoid overloading distribution and high voltage electric grids regarding:


1) Charging times and duration of EVs and heat pumps
2) Operating times of major appliances
3) Control of electricity demands of commercial/industrial businesses


RE folks would have everyone driving UNAFFORDABLE EVS, that would reduce very little CO2 compared with EFFICIENT gasoline vehicles., on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.


EVs do not have a tail pipe, but they sure as hell “emit” CO2.


On a lifetime, A-to-Z basis, with travel at 105,600 miles over 10 years, the CO2 emissions, based on the present New England grid CO2/kWh, would be: 


NISSAN Leaf S Plus, EV, compact SUV, no AWD, would emit 25.967 Mt, 246 g/mile

TOYOTA Prius L Eco, 62 mpg, compact car, no AWD, would emit 26,490 Mt, 251 g/mile

SUBARU Outback, 30 mpg, medium SUV, with AWD, would emit 43.015 Mt, 407 g/mile

VT Light Duty Vehicle mix, 22.7 mpg, many with AWD or 4WD, would emit 56,315 Mt, 533 g/mile


If LDV average would become 40 mpg (by means of carrots and sticks), CO2 would become about 22.7/40 x 56.315 = 32 Mt over 10y, which is not that much more than the 26,490 Mt of a Prius L Eco.

If the NISSAN Leaf is compared with my 30-mpg Subaru Outback, a vastly more useful vehicle than a NISSAN Leaf, the CO2 reduction would be only 17 metric ton over TEN years.


“Going EV” to obtain a few more Mt/vehicle would require huge capital investments having a very high cost of CO2 reduction per metric ton.


Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:28pm

Elon Musk Comments on BBB, Subsidies, Government Regulations


”We don’t need the $7,500 tax credit,” Musk told a shocked Wall Street Journal CEO Council Summit interviewer. ”Honestly, I would just can this whole bill. Don’t pass it, that’s my recommendation.”


“Rules and regulations are immortal,” Musk continued. “They don't die. The vast majority of rules and regulations live forever ... there's not really an effective garbage collection system for removing rules and regulations, so this hardens the arteries of civilization where you are able to do less and less over time.”


This bill, which Democrats originally referred to as a “budget reconciliation bill,” has now morphed into little more than a vast expansion of the social welfare state for individuals and for rent-seekers in the renewable energy space. BBB is in fact a Green New Deal cornucopia.


When the moderator at the WSJ event pointed out that the bill contains billions in subsidies for the installation of new EV charging infrastructure, Musk responded by saying “Unnecessary. Do we need support for gas stations? We don't. I'm literally saying get rid of all subsidies.”


Musk also took to Twitter on Wednesday to further blast Democrats’ social-spending plan, saying it would explode the national debt by 24%. ”If ‘temporary’ provisions in the Build Back Better Act become permanent, US national debt will increase by 24%!” he tweeted.


”There is a lot of accounting trickery in this bill that isn’t being disclosed to the public,” Musk wrote in a subsequent tweet, adding a final shot at big-government policies: ”Nothing is more permanent than a ‘temporary’ government program.”

Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:27pm



I installed three heat pumps by Mitsubishi, rated 24,000 Btu/h at 47F, Model MXZ-2C24NAHZ2, each with 2 heads, each with remote control; 2 in the living room, 1 in the kitchen, and 1 in each of 3 bedrooms.

The HPs have DC variable-speed, motor-driven compressors and fans, which improves the efficiency of low-temperature operation.

The HPs last about 15 years. Turnkey capital cost was $24,000


My Well-Sealed, Well-Insulated House


The HPs are used for heating and cooling my 35-y-old, 3,600 sq ft, well-sealed/well-insulated house, except the basement, which has a near-steady temperature throughout the year, because it has 2” of blueboard, R-10, on the outside of the concrete foundation and under the basement slab, which has saved me many thousands of space heating dollars over the 35 years.


I do not operate my HPs at 15F or below, because HPs would become increasingly less efficient with decreasing temperatures.

The HP operating cost per hour would become greater than of my efficient propane furnace. See table 3


High Electricity Prices


Vermont forcing, with subsidies and/or GWSA mandates, the build-outs of expensive RE electricity systems, such as wind, solar, batteries, etc., would be counter-productive, because it would:


1) Increase already-high electric rates and

2) Worsen the already-poor economics of HPs (and of EVs)!!




Energy Cost Reduction is Minimal


- HP electricity consumption was from my electric bills

- Vermont electricity prices, including taxes, fees and surcharges, are about 20 c/kWh.

- My HPs provide space heat to 2,300 sq ft, about the same area as an average Vermont house

- Two small propane heaters (electricity not required) provide space heat to my 1,300 sq ft basement

- I operate my HPs at temperatures of 15F and greater; less $/h than propane

- I operate my traditional propane system at temperatures of 15F and less; less $/h than HP


- My average HP coefficient of performance, COP, was 2.64

- My HPs required 2,489 kWh to replace 35% of my fuel.

- My HPs would require 8,997 kWh, to replace 100% of my fuel.


- The average Vermont house COP is about 3.34

- The average Vermont house requires 2,085 kWh to replace 27.6% of its fuel, per VT-DPS/CADMUS survey. See URL


Before HPs: I used 100 gal for domestic hot water + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 850 gal for Viessmann furnace, for a total propane of 1,200 gal/y


After HPs: I used 100 gal for DHW + 250 gal for 2 stoves in basement + 550 gal for Viessmann furnace + 2,489 kWh of electricity.


My propane cost reduction for space heating was 850 - 550 = 300 gallon/y, at a cost of 2.339/gal = $702/y

My displaced fuel was 100 x (1 - 550/850) = 35%, which is better than the Vermont average of 27.6%

My purchased electricity cost increase was 2,489 kWh x 20 c/kWh = $498/y


My energy cost savings due to the HPs were 702 - 498 = $204/y, on an investment of $24,000!!


Amortizing Heat Pumps


Amortizing the $24,000 turnkey capital cost at 3.5%/y for 15 years costs about $2,059/y.

This is in addition to the amortizing of my existing propane system. I am losing money.


Other Annual Costs


There likely would be service calls and parts for the HP system, as the years go by.

This is in addition to the annual service calls and parts for my existing propane system. I am losing more money.


Energy Savings of Propane versus HPs


Site Energy Basis: RE folks claim there would be a major energy reduction, due to using HPs. They compare the thermal Btus of 300 gallon of propane x 84,250 Btu/gal = 25,275,000 Btu vs the electrical Btus of 2,489 kWh of electricity x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 8,492,469 Btu.


However, that comparison would equate thermal Btus with electrical Btus, which all engineers know is an absolute no-no.


A-to-Z Energy Basis: A proper comparison would be thermal Btus of propane vs thermal Btus fed to power plants, i.e., 25,275,000 Btu vs 23,312,490 Btu, i.e., a minor energy reduction. See table 1A


BTW, almost all RE folks who claim a major energy reduction from HPs, do not know how to compose this table, and yet they mandate others what to do to save the world from Climate Change.


Table 1A, Energy Savings

Heat in propane, Btu/y, HHV


Fuel to power plant, Btu/y


Fuel to power plant, kWh/y


Conversion efficiency


Fed to grid, kWh


Transmission loss adjustment, 2.4%


Distribution loss adjustment, 6.7%


Heat in propane, Btu/gal, HHV


Purchased propane, gal/y


Purchased electricity, kWh/y


Heat in propane Btu/gal, LHV


Standby, kWh


Defrost, kWh


To compressor, kWh




Heat for space heat, kWh




Furnace efficiency


Btu/y for space heat





















Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:26pm

“All-in” Electricity Cost of Wind and Solar in New England


Pro RE folks point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:


1) Above-market-price paid to Owners 

2) Subsidies paid to Owners

3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y

4) Grid extension/augmentation

5) Grid support services

6) Future battery systems


Comments on table 5


- Vermont legacy Standard Offer solar systems had greater subsidies paid to owner, than newer systems


- Wind prices paid to owner did not have the drastic reductions as solar prices.


- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems


- "Added to rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.


- “Total cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which wind/solar are added to the utility rate base


- “NE utility cost” is the annual average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh

for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.


- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.



1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.

2) There are Owning costs, and Operating and Maintenance costs, of the NE grid

ISO-NE charges these costs to utilities at about 1.6 c/kWh. The ISO-NE charges include: 

Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.


Table 5/VT & NE sources

Paid to











paid to



to rate





















Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new










Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy










Solar, standard offer, combo









Solar, standard offer, legacy









Wind, ridge line, new









Wind, offshore, new










Sample calculation; NE utility cost = Purchased, 6 + (RNS + FCM), 1.6 = 7.6 c/kWh

Sample calculation; added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh

Sample calculation; total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh


Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems

Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems

Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL


“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.

“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.

Areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW have lower c/MWh, than NE

Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:26pm

Widespread Environmental Destruction due to BBB bill


If Biden’s $4.490-trillion BBB bill becomes law, there would be a vast amount of environmental devastation all over the US, including:


1) On hundreds of miles of pristine, 2,000-ft-high ridge lines, for mounting 500-ft high wind turbines, in New England. The video shows the massive destruction require to install 500-ft high wind turbines on ridge lines in New England.


2) On at least 100 square miles of New England meadow land for mounting solar systems, that would produce almost nothing for a few days, after a snow fall, and nothing from about 4 pm in winter, and 5 pm in summer, to about 9 am the next day. The video shows the massive destruction required to install a multi-MW solar system on a wooded area with wetlands.


Such destructions would be common-place, and would create huge turmoil among nearby people, all while China, India, etc., continue burning at least 8 billion metric ton of coal, each year, as agreed to during the Glasgow, COP26


If all of New England were to disappear, it would not make one bit of difference regarding global warming and climate change.


China consumes about 50% of the world’s coal consumption of about 8 billion metric ton


Coal consumption




Billion metric ton

Billion metric ton















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."

Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:25pm

The BBB bill has 1) selective tax breaks, 2) state and local tax relief (SALT), 3) increased OSHA penalties, 4) Funds for an EPA Climate Corps.


If Congressmen and Senators vote for the BBB bill:


- They think it is more important to give tax breaks to reporters, the media, unions, trial attorneys, than to plumbers, truck drivers, etc.  This is a clear statement of who they really represent.


- They think is important to give rich taxpayers in states like California, Illinois, and New York a big tax break.


- They think it is important to targeted small businesses, because the BBB bill would increase OSHA penalties (this is hard to believe) 10 times, to $700,000 per violation. It would break many businesses.


They would give the EPA $7 billion to employ a “climate corps.”.

The local climate cop will be on your doorstep surveying your carbon footprint.


Ronald Reagan stated, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”


Comment by Willem Post on December 27, 2021 at 3:25pm



Distrust in Government


I am not surprised at the lack of public trust in Washington, DC, and elsewhere. The games of smoke and mirrors played in Washington are off-the-charts outrageous.


Never, ever, has there been such a level of deceit, as Democrats have inflicted on the US People, since January 2021, after using a fraudulent election in 2020 (see Appendix), to achieve a coup d’etat, to relentlessly push for a major increase of:


1) The size and intrusiveness of government, and

2) Democrat command/control over the federal government and the American people.


Here is an example:


Build Back Better' Would Cost $4.490 Trillion Over the Next Decade, if Provisions Were Made to Last 10 Years


PHASE 1; BBB programs have various expiration dates to understate the true cost


BBB Bill “Shaping” and Cost Estimating


The cost of the original BBB bill was $6.0 trillion, as crafted by extreme-leftist Sanders, Chairman of the US Senate Budget Committee. When his proposals proved to be a non-starter, he was told to “whittle it down” to an alleged $3.5 trillion, which, he declared, was the “absolute minimum”.


Whittled down means, he shortened the duration of some programs from 10 years to 1 year, or 2 years, etc., as explained in next sections. See table 1


Sanders is a life-long admirer of Communism and Socialism, who celebrated his honeymoon in the USSR, i.e., before the Iron Curtain came down


Explanation of “Standard Procedure” Congressional Budgeting


If a program of a bill would expire in one year, the costs of 9 years of the program would not be included in the bill’s total cost, if expiring in 2 years, 8 years of costs would not be included, etc. That is the “standard procedure” the US Congress uses to play bait-and-switch games with a bill’s “total cost”.


This is nothing short of premeditated lying to the American People. Decades of such procedures has led to the $30-trillion national debt. The main beneficiaries of the various bills are family, friends, and associates of Congress members, various self-seeking lobbies, and career bureaucrats, mostly Democrats, who would manage the government programs.


Opposition to BBB Bill: Manchin, moderate Democrat, US Senator of West Virginia, knows how to co-operate with moderate Republicans.


He had stated, he had reservations about the BBB bill, and would consider a bill costing about $1.5 trillion.


Senators Sanders and Wyden, the White House staff, and Pelosi’s staff, etc., aka “the Shapers”, had no choice, but to further whittle down the cost of the bill from $3.5 to $1.75 trillion, to partially placate Manchin, mainly by tossing some programs and shortening program durations even more. See table 1


At this point Manchin, who had been largely kept out of the loop, made more and more noise.

He and Sanders had frequent shouting matches about:


1) BBB budgeting smoke-and-mirror shenanigans, such as short program durations to reduce costs

2) BBB causing a major increase in the intrusiveness of the federal government

3) BBB increasing the bureaucrat headcount of federal, state and local governments by at least 100,000

4) BBB worsening high inflation rates in 2022, and beyond; CPI up 6.8%/y in November, 2021

5) BBB worsening multi-billion federal budget deficits in 2022, and beyond

6) BBB worsening the rapidly-growing US national debt, much of it owned by China, etc.

7) BBB worsening US trade competitiveness and $trillion-plus annual trade deficits

8) BBB worsening the precarious financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare Systems.


The BBB bill had become a Green New Deal cornucopia for boosting Democrat constituencies. See table 1

The BBB bill, aka “budget reconciliation bill,” had morphed into a vast expansion and increase of:


1) The socialistic welfare state for individuals, and

2) The decades-long bonanza for multi-millionaire subsidy-seekers in the renewable energy sector.


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 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?" 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.”

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!

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."

© 2022   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service