Comment

Comment by Kathy Sherman on March 4, 2014 at 3:01am

Sorry Mike,

DPU is the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities and must approve the long-term contracts that the investor-owned utilities signed with developers for renewable energy (all wind) in Maine and New Hampshire. DOER is the Dept. of Energy Resources who set up the 'competitive' bid process and the soliciations. Apparently this was part of the Green Communities Act passed in 2008, although I was only aware of other consequences of the bill, such as incentives for municipalities in-state to allow industrial wind turbines to be sited 'by right'.

In Connecticut apparently the equivalent of our DPU had to approve the long-term contract with the Maine wind development with little choice. At least the Massachusetts utility regulators made a docket, and while a late attempt to gain intervenor status failed, they did hear from Friends of Maine Mountains, Wind Action and Windwise NH, and a large sizable number of citizens from Massachusetts and New Hampshire on a range of good reasons to reject the contracts.

NESCOE is governor appointed and had set-up guidelines for regional competitive bidding, all pretty much under the radar, and I saw it as having the impact that it did in terms of Maine wind development, but not on time to track it. NESCOE makes a range of decisions including those about transmission and who pays for it. I do not know whose bidding they are doing, but it is not any ratepayers or citizens in non-urban areas. Ditto the other governor appointees.

The Massachusetts DOER has a long history of pushing wind, and would like our entire state to be 'expedited siting' and our state agencies do not acknowledge any risks to endangered species, wetlands, humans or property values, and have spent a great deal of money on consultants who say so - significantly the 17th or 18th review of the Nordic surveys starring Maine's former CDC director on health risk, and most recently another Hoen study concluding no property value impact even within 1/2 mile. Massachusetts has collected an enormous amount of ratepayer money to map the wind resource throughout New England (along with CT Clean Energy Council) and it that early map shows in the Vinalhaven feasibility study.

Vermont seems to be leaning back towards distributed generation and away from 'Big Wind'. Permitting of the New Hampshire project in the bundle of long-term contracts is on hold because the developer, Iberdola, has 'issues with another NH wind project. I pray that the Maine Governor will keep the regulatory agencies firm in their responsibilty to assess the environmental and economic costs of the projects that won the bid (and several others that lost it), and that LePage will implement the OEIS recommendations by executive decree, if the legislature refuses to act.

Meanwhile, I will do what I can to persuade our legislators that financing out-of-state projects either by the high price of our renewable energy certificates or these long-term contracts is not in anyone's best interest. I am basically apolitical and I want to get back outside, and stop dealing with other peoples ignorance about how to save the environment.

Comment by Mike DiCenso on March 3, 2014 at 10:41pm

Kathy what does DPU and DOER stand for? Thanks Mike

Comment by Kathy Sherman on March 3, 2014 at 7:15pm

Martha,

I finally looked at some of the filings on the DPU dockets for the MA utilities long-term contracts for wind energy factories in Maine and NH (13-146 to 13-149).

In particular the DOER's response to the Attorney General Office critique. The AG seems to have taken the concerns about the 'hidden' costs of transmission raised by FMM and many others at the Oct. hearing open to public comment very seriously, and the DOER's rebuttal is telling.

However, the main point is that it says that the electrons that the utilities buy that is generated up there in Maine will NOT be transmitted down to serve Massachusetts load. It also says that an ISO-NE March 2013 analysis says that transmission in the parts of Maine where the contracted facilities are proposed is not congested, only western Maine is.
ISO-NE had a 'Maine reliability project' already in the works that I know nothing about, but some new transmission may be required for that.

So the bottom line seems to be that no one seems to care where the actual electricity goes, or whether needed in Maine. Like the deal with Connecticut, it will probably go to Canada since I had the impression that Maine already has sufficient generation. So tell Sen. A. that Maine will not be exporting electricity, only the equivalent of renewable energy or carbon credits. How that is going to help the replacement of coal-burning generators that have been kept on for grid reliability escapes me. It also escapes me how allowing dual fuel, oil and natural gas for times of NG shortage or diesel generators or any of the other things done to make room for increasing variable generators helps lessen our dependence on fossil fuel or improve air quality.

So Mass DOER seems to be saying that no new transmission is required for the wind energy factories in Maine other than to the closest high voltage substations. But, they also seem to say that even if it were required, it is not the business of the DPU, AG, MA ratepayer or anyone else. I certainly hope that it will be the business of Maine regulators evaluating any of these projects not yet approved.

MA DOER also indicates that they, and everyone on the proponent side sought a rush job on the decision in order to spend the required amount of money on time to get the PTC. I.e., the real cost is about 10.3¢/kWh, not less than 8¢/kWh. That should dampen enthusiasm all the way around.

You are surely correct about the transmission towers - their only advantage over turbines is that they don't rotate through acres of air making noise and killing birds and bats as they go. I have found it ironic that wind energy proponents are so quick to argue how many more birds are killed by transmission lines than their turbines, all the while ignoring the need for more transmission lines to get their product through the forest to where it is needed - more habitat fragmentation, more wetlands, more ugliness, more resources consumed to make them. They must be forgetting that they aren't talking about distributed generation anymore.

PLEASE URGE YOUR GOVERNOR TO STOP THIS WASTE AT ALL POINTS - Governor's conference, ISO-NE, NESCOE, and RGGI, as well as the statehouse.

Comment by Martha thacker on March 3, 2014 at 1:42pm

Another reason our lawmakers need to meet with anti wind farm spokes people in 2014. The transmission lines are going up. Southern Maine won't look so quaint for tourists..the transmission lines for wind are as ugly as the turbines..all for power to go out of state and benefit southern New England. The Lincoln News this week stated First Wind should be sued for lousy TIFs. I might add that the select men who voted in Rollins should be looked at for increased wealth. Guess nothing is going to come of Lincoln selectman Diane Traske's call  for a forensic audit going back to 2008 for their missing million. ..about the time First Wind came to our area. Deal with criminals , criminal behavior happens.http://bangordailynews.com/community/cmp-project-to-affect-traffic-...

Comment by Martha thacker on March 3, 2014 at 10:51am

I have to have representative  gov. in order to vote. Just emailed that message to Mike Michaud's office along with Brad Blake's comment on this article. As usual , Brad knows more than the reporters. Noticed in trying to find Rep. Michaud's email address, you can contact him and ask for a meeting . Opportunity is knocking on our door.

Kudos to Gov. LePage. I appreciate his stand.

Comment by Allen Barrette on March 3, 2014 at 8:30am

Now I't appears that our governor is on the correct road to sanity for all Maine's citizens. The Balducci circus is closed.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page