House Energy & Commerce Committee releases climate change-focused energy bill

On January 28, several majority members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee released a 622-page bill focused on addressing the impacts of climate change. Perhaps the most notable provision in the wide-ranging legislation is the goal of achieving a 100% clean economy by 2050 (bill language and section-by-section summary) and the creation of a federal Clean Energy Standard.

Title II of the legislation is focused specifically on the power sector (although much of the sweeping legislation would impact the electric grid). The bill includes language regarding electric transmission that mandates “the interconnection and coordination of facilities” under an ISO/RTO (“‘The Commission shall require each public utility to place its transmission facilities under the control of an ISO or an RTO not later than two years after the date of enactment’’) and clarifies that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission “may approve a carbon pricing regime that reflects the externalities associated with greenhouse gas emissions, to be used in setting rates and charges under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act.”

The measure mandates that states draft and submit “State Climate Plans” to the US Environmental Protection Agency, and dedicates significant attention to promoting energy efficiency as well as changes in the transportation sector.

The Committee is likely to embark on a period of receiving stakeholder feedback as well as several committee hearings to discuss various aspects of the legislation.

Views: 126

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

Comment by Willem Post on February 7, 2020 at 9:32am

Here is an example of Vermont and Maine legislator malfeasance, by kowtowing to special interest groups to have air source heat pumps in Vermont’s energy-hog houses.

That program is a colossal, unaffordable failure, plus it reduces CO2 at outrageously high prices.

About 100,000 to 125,000 of Vermont’s free-standing houses would need to have major energy retrofits, at an average turnkey capital cost of about $30,000 per house ($3.0 to 3.75 billion), to reduce their space heat to less than 15.0 (Btu/h)/ft2, at 65F indoor and -10F outdoor, to make them economically suitable for 100% space heat from ASHPs, plus about $20,000 per house ($2.0 to $2.5 billion) would be needed for ASHPs. See table 5A.
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...

CO2 Reduction

The below CO2 calculations, source energy basis, are for a typical Vermont house with an oil-fired traditional system and one ASHP. See table 5A.

100% Heat from Traditional Systems
– CO2 from fuel oil was 14798 lb CO2/y.

39% Heat from ASHPs, 61% Heat from Traditional Systems
– CO2 from ASHPs and fuel oil was 10656 lb/y, for a reduction of 4142 lb/y
– CO2 reduction cost was $4500 / (4142 lb/y x 15 years) = $0.0724/lb, or $145/US ton, or $160/metric ton; capital cost basis; excludes all other costs.
– CO2 reduction cost was $427.03/y / 4142 lb/y = $0.1031/lb, or $206/US ton, or $227/metric ton; amortization basis; excludes service and maintenance costs.

100% Heat from ASHPs
– CO2 from ASHPs was 6996 lb/y, for a reduction of 7802 lb/y
– CO2 reduction cost was $20000 / (7802 lb/y x 15 years) = $0.1709/lb, or $342/US ton, or $377/ metric ton; capital cost basis; excludes all other costs.
– CO2 reduction cost was $1897.91/y / 7802 lb/y = $0.2432/lb, or $486/US ton, or $536/metric ton; amortization basis; excludes service and maintenance costs.

Not only are owners with ASHPs in their energy-hog houses losing money each year, on an overall basis, but the CO2 reduction costs/metric ton for 100% heat from ASHPs are outrageously high, because with 100% heat from ASHPs, they have to do hard work on the cold side of the temperature range, i.e., low COPs, in cold climates.

Passivhaus-style buildings are an attractive alternative over energy-hog buildings, on a lifetime basis.

Comment by Willem Post on February 3, 2020 at 11:31am

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-savings-of-air-sou...

Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 BILLION PER YEAR FOR AT LEAST 33 YEARS, according to the Energy Action Network annual report.

 

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-... 

 

The CEP has a goal to install about 35,000 air source heat pumps, ASHPs, by 2025, and projects:

 

About 63% of building space heat and domestic hot water, DHW, from renewable electricity (wind, solar, hydro, biomass, etc.)

About 34% of building space heat and DHW, from wood burning (cordwood/pellet) and bio liquids.

About 3% of building space heat and DHW, from fossil fuels burning.

 

This article, based on the CADMUS survey, shows Vermont free-standing houses with ASHPs, would continue to have about 61% of space heat from traditional systems and about 39% from ASHPs.

 

That means, CEP goals regarding 63% of space heat of Vermont buildings with ASHPs, including free-standing houses, could not be implemented.

 

About 100,000 to 125,000 of the free-standing houses would need to have major energy retrofits to reduce their space heat to less than 15.0 Btu/h/ft2, at 65F indoor and -15F outdoor, to make them economically suitable for 100% space heat with ASHPs.

 

At present, about 88% of Vermont's free-standing houses are unsuitable for ASHPs.

 

Typical space heat demands of 2000-ft2, free-standing Vermont houses are shown in table 1.

 

NOTE: DHW is a separate issue, because ASHPs for space heat typically do not produce DHW.

 

Table 1/Vermont

Built

Area

Htg. Demand

Pk. Demand

Times

Air Leak

ACH

%

ft2

Btu/ft2/h

Btu/h at -10F*

Passiv

ft3/min

@ -50 pascal

Typical older house

1750 - 1990

68.4

2000

40.0

80,000

12.6

2667

10.0

Newer house

1990 - 2000

10.0

2000

24.0

48,000

7.6

1600

6.0

Newer house, IECC

2000 - 2012

10.0

2000

20.0

40,000

6.3

1867

7.0

.

"WS/WI house"

2012 - 2021

10.0

2000

15.0

30,000

4.7

800

<3.0

“HS/HI house”

2000 - present

1.5

2000

8.5

17,000

2.7

400

<1.5

Passivhaus

1985 - present

0.1

2000

3.2

6,348

1.0

160

<0.6

100.0

 

CADMUS Survey of Houses with ASHPs

 

CADMUS, an energy consultant hired by the Vermont Department of Public Service, performed a survey of 77 ASHPs at 65 sites in Vermont.

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

CADMUS calculated the total season heat to buildings at an average of 92 million Btu per site

 

- The space heat to the sites was 65 x 92 million Btu/site = 5,980 million Btu from all fuels*. See URL, page 22

- The space heat provided by ASHPs was 77 x 21.4 million Btu/ASHP = 1,648 million Btu. See URL, page 21

- Traditional systems provided 5980 – 1648 = 4,332 million Btu, or 4332/5980 = 72% of the total space heat.

 

No wonder the energy cost savings were only $200/ASHP per year, instead of the $1200/y to $1800/y bandied about on websites of ASHP promoters.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-a...

 

* Most traditional systems provide space heat and domestic hot water, almost all ASHPs do not. It is not clearly stated in the CADMUS report, if the 5,980 million Btu includes DHW, which is about 15% of the total. If DHW is deducted, the adjusted heat to sites would be 5,083 million Btu, and the traditional systems would provide 5083 – 1648 = 3,435 million Btu, or 3435/5083 = 68% of the total space heat, which would be close to the estimate of 61% from the analysis method used in this article. See Appendix 2.

 

CADMUS and VT-DPS concluded, on average, an owner invested $4500 in an ASHP (less with subsidies), but had energy cost savings of only $200/y; some had more savings than others.

 

Amortizing $4500/ASHP at 5%/y for 15 years (the factory warrantee is for 10 years), the annual payments would be $427.03/y.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

In addition, there would be annual costs for scheduled and unscheduled service calls, likely involving parts and labor, plus annual costs for maintenance contracts.

 

Those costs would be in addition to amortizing the cost of the traditional heating system investment over 15 years, plus the annual cost of service calls, likely involving parts and labor, and annual cost of maintenance contracts.

 

Independent energy systems engineers predicted installing ASHPs in energy-hog houses would result in this outcome some years ago, but they were ignored.

Comment by Willem Post on February 3, 2020 at 11:26am

Most folks, especially agitating folks, have zero idea what is required to transform the US energy situation.
They want to tax this and that and everything nd hand the private economy to the STATE GOVERNMENT, as part of their Socialist mantras.

Here is and example:

According to the CADMUS report regarding Vermont’s air sour heat pumps, ASHPs, there would be a very costly reduction in CO2/y

Before ASHPs,
– The purchased fuel oil was 601 gal/y, of which 75 gallon/y was allocated to DHW.
– The energy of 394.4 gal/y was used for heat; representing 100% of heat.

After ASHPs,
– The electricity for 39% of heat was 2085 – 205, standby/defrost = 1880 kWh/y.
– Heat provided by 1880 kWh/y was 21.375 million Btu/y. See table 8 of URL, and table 3
https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...
– The reduction of purchased fuel oil for heat was 525.9 – 318.5 = 207 gallon/y
– The reduction of CO2 was 4,142 lb/y per ASHP; source energy basis; downstream ignored.
– The CO2 reduction cost was $4500/(4142 lb/y x 15 years) = $0.0724/lb, or $144.86/US ton; capital cost basis; excludes all other costs.
– The CO2 reduction cost was $427.03/y/4142 lb/y = $0.1030/lb, or $206.20/US ton; amortization basis; excludes service and maintenance.
– The average owner had a net loss/y due to other annual costs that more than offset the energy cost savings. See tables 6 and 7.

NOTE: The US CO2 emissions are about 6 billion metric ton/y. If this were reduced by 25% using 100% ASHPs in all US buildings at $536/metric ton of CO2, the annual cost would be $804 billion/y, based on the low-CO2 NE grid at wall meter, somewhat less, based on the US grid CO2 at wall meter.

NOTE: Remember, just about the entire US building stock would have to upgraded to at least well-sealed/well-insulated to make that even possible.
Passivhaus level buildings, with near-zero heating and cooling, and very low electricity consumption, start to look pretty good?

NOTE: A car driven 15000 miles/y, at 30 mpg, would use 500 gallon of gasoline/y and emit 19.301, combustion + 4.825, upstream, well to tank = 24.126 lb of CO2/gal, or 12,063 lb CO2/y; source energy basis; downstream ignored

Table 5A/CO2 reduction

39% by ASHP

39% by ASHP

100% by ASHP

100% by ASHP

Per ASHP/site

Per ASHP/site

ASHPs/site

ASHPs/site

Capital cost, $

4500

20000

Amortization cost, $/y

427.03

1897.91

CO2 from fuel oil, lb/y

14798

Electricity to ASHPs, kWh

2058

8607

NE grid CO2, at wall meter, g/kWh

369

CO2 from ASHPs, lb/y

6996

CO2 reduction, lb/y

4142

4142

7802

7802

Life, y

15

15

Life CO2 reduction, lb

62135

117037

CO2 reduction, $/lb

0.0724

0.1031

0.1709

0.2432

CO2 reduction/US ton

145

206

342

486

CO2 reduction/metric ton

160

227

377

536

.

US CO2 reduction, billion mt/y

1.5

1.5

Cost, $billion/y

341

804

Comment by Willem Post on February 3, 2020 at 5:50am

Owners of wind plants usually sell to utilities at about 9.0 c/kWh, under long-term contracts.

Utilities could have at NE grid prices, which have averaged about 5 c/kWh during the 2009 – 2020 period.

Utilities charge more to rate payers to recoup their extra costs.

Owners are able to sell at such a low price, because of subsidies and cost shifting.

Comments on Below 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.

 

An owner of ridgeline wind would have to sell his output at 18.8 c/kWh, if the owner were not getting the benefits of cost shifting and upfront cash grants and subsidies.

That owner could sell his output at 16.4 c/kWh, if his costs were reduced due to cost shifting.

He could sell his output at 9 c/kWh, if on top of the cost shifting, he also received various subsidies. The same rationale holds for solar. See table.

 

In NE construction costs of ridgeline wind and offshore wind are high/MW, and the capacity factor of wind is about 0.285 and of solar about 0.14. Thus, NE wind and solar have high prices/MWh. See table.

 

In US areas, such as the Great Plains, Texas Panhandle and Southwest, with much lower construction costs/MW and much better sun and wind conditions than New England, wind and solar electricity prices/MWh are less.

 

Those lower prices often are mentioned, without mentioning other factors, by the pro-RE media and financial consultants, such as Bloomberg, etc., which surely deceives the lay public

 

Future electricity cost/MWh, due to the planned build-out of NE offshore wind added to the planned build-out of NE onshore wind, likely would not significantly change, because of the high costs of grid extensions and upgrades to connect the wind plants and to provide significantly increased connections to the New York and Canadian grids.

 

NOTE: For the past 20 years, Germany and Denmark have been increasing their connections to nearby grids, because of their increased wind and solar.

 

The subsidy percentages in below table are from a cost analysis of NE wind and solar in this article. See URL.

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

 

Values for 2018 are represented in below table.

 

NE Wind/Solar

NE Wind

%

NE Solar

%

Ridgeline

Large-scale

c/kWh

c/kWh

Price to utility

No direct/indirect subsidies

No cost shifting

18.8

100

23.5

100

Less cost shifting

2.4

13

2.1

9

Price to utility

No direct/indirect subsidies

With cost shifting

16.4

87

21.4

91

Less subsidy, wind

45% of 16.4

7.4

39

Less subsidy, solar

45% of 21.4

9.6

41

Price to utility*

With direct/indirect subsidies

With cost shifting

9.0

48

11.8

50

 

* Owner prices to utilities are based on recent 20-year electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in New England. These prices would have been about 48% to 50% higher without the direct and indirect subsidies and the cost shifting. Similar percentages apply in areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW, than New England. The prices, c/MWh, in those areas are lower than New England.

Comment by Willem Post on February 3, 2020 at 5:47am

COST SAVINGS OF AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS ARE NEGATIVE IN VERMONT, MAINE, ETC.

 

Vermont has a Comprehensive Energy Plan, CEP. The capital for implementing the CEP would be in excess of $1.0 BILLION PER YEAR FOR AT LEAST 33 YEARS, according to the Energy Action Network annual report.

 

https://outside.vermont.gov/sov/webservices/Shared%20Documents/2016...

http://eanvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/EAN-2015-Annual-Report-... 

 

The CEP has a goal to install about 35,000 air source heat pumps, ASHPs, by 2025, and projects:

 

About 63% of building space heat and domestic hot water, DHW, from renewable electricity (wind, solar, hydro, biomass, etc.)

About 34% of building space heat and DHW, from wood burning (cordwood/pellet) and bio liquids.

About 3% of building space heat and DHW, from fossil fuels burning.

 

This article, based on the CADMUS survey, shows Vermont free-standing houses with ASHPs, would continue to have about 61% of space heat from traditional systems and about 39% from ASHPs.

 

That means, CEP goals regarding 63% of space heat of Vermont buildings with ASHPs, including free-standing houses, could not be implemented.

 

About 100,000 to 125,000 of the free-standing houses would need to have major energy retrofits to reduce their space heat to less than 15.0 Btu/h/ft2, at 65F indoor and -15F outdoor, to make them economically suitable for 100% space heat with ASHPs.

 

At present, about 88% of Vermont's free-standing houses are unsuitable for ASHPs.

 

Typical space heat demands of 2000-ft2, free-standing Vermont houses are shown in table 1.

 

NOTE: DHW is a separate issue, because ASHPs for space heat typically do not produce DHW.

 

Table 1/Vermont

Built

Area

Htg. Demand

Pk. Demand

Times

Air Leak

ACH

%

ft2

Btu/ft2/h

Btu/h at -10F*

Passiv

ft3/min

@ -50 pascal

Typical older house

1750 - 1990

68.4

2000

40.0

80,000

12.6

2667

10.0

Newer house

1990 - 2000

10.0

2000

24.0

48,000

7.6

1600

6.0

Newer house, IECC

2000 - 2012

10.0

2000

20.0

40,000

6.3

1867

7.0

.

"WS/WI house"

2012 - 2021

10.0

2000

15.0

30,000

4.7

800

<3.0

“HS/HI house”

2000 - present

1.5

2000

8.5

17,000

2.7

400

<1.5

Passivhaus

1985 - present

0.1

2000

3.2

6,348

1.0

160

<0.6

100.0

 

CADMUS Survey of Houses with ASHPs

 

CADMUS, an energy consultant hired by the Vermont Department of Public Service, performed a survey of 77 ASHPs at 65 sites in Vermont.

https://publicservice.vermont.gov/sites/dps/files/documents/2017%20...

 

CADMUS calculated the total season heat to buildings at an average of 92 million Btu per site

 

- The space heat to the sites was 65 x 92 million Btu/site = 5,980 million Btu from all fuels*. See URL, page 22

- The space heat provided by ASHPs was 77 x 21.4 million Btu/ASHP = 1,648 million Btu. See URL, page 21

- Traditional systems provided 5980 – 1648 = 4,332 million Btu, or 4332/5980 = 72% of the total space heat.

 

No wonder the energy cost savings were only $200/ASHP per year, instead of the $1200/y to $1800/y bandied about on websites of ASHP promoters.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-a...

 

* Most traditional systems provide space heat and domestic hot water, almost all ASHPs do not. It is not clearly stated in the CADMUS report, if the 5,980 million Btu includes DHW, which is about 15% of the total. If DHW is deducted, the adjusted heat to sites would be 5,083 million Btu, and the traditional systems would provide 5083 – 1648 = 3,435 million Btu, or 3435/5083 = 68% of the total space heat, which would be close to the estimate of 61% from the analysis method used in this article. See Appendix 2.

 

CADMUS and VT-DPS concluded, on average, an owner invested $4500 in an ASHP (less with subsidies), but had energy cost savings of only $200/y; some had more savings than others.

 

Amortizing $4500/ASHP at 5%/y for 15 years (the factory warrantee is for 10 years), the annual payments would be $427.03/y.

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

In addition, there would be annual costs for scheduled and unscheduled service calls, likely involving parts and labor, plus annual costs for maintenance contracts.

 

Those costs would be in addition to amortizing the cost of the traditional heating system investment over 15 years, plus the annual cost of service calls, likely involving parts and labor, and annual cost of maintenance contracts.

 

Independent energy systems engineers predicted installing ASHPs in energy-hog houses would result in this outcome some years ago,

Comment by Willem Post on February 3, 2020 at 5:44am

The values for the NE mix of LDVs were based on the mix using, on average, 0.350 kWh/mile from the battery, which is reasonable, as the mix would include full-size cross-overs, SUVs, minivans and 1/4-ton pick-ups.

 

Table 3/NE grid

LDV mix

Tesla

Tesla

NE grid CO2

NE grid CO2

Model S

Model 3

PE

SE

kWh/mile

kWh/mile

kWh/mile

gram/kWh

gram/kWh

Source energy

1.2291

1.1713

0.8315

Upstream for extraction, processing, transport, etc., 10.2%

0.1138

0.1084

0.0770

Primary energy

1.1153

1.0629

0.7545

Efficiency loss, 55.5%

0.6078

0.5793

0.4112

Gross electricity generation

0.5075

0.4836

0.3433

Plant self-use loss, 3.0%

0.0152

0.0145

0.0103

Net electricity generation = Fed to grid

0.4922

0.4691

0.3330

310

342

T&D loss, 7.5%

0.0369

0.0352

0.0250

Fed to wall meters, as AC

0.4553

0.4339

0.3080

335

369

Charging loss, 15%

0.0683

0.0651

0.0462

Self-use loss, about 7%

0.0370

0.0359

0.0169

In battery a mix of LDVs in NE, as DC

0.3500

0.3329

0.2449

436

480

.

Travel, miles/y

12000

15243

11174

Wall meter electricity, kWh/y

5475

6614

3442

2 EVs

10950

 

The NE electric grid CO2 emissions for 2017 (latest numbers) were 682 lb/MWh, or 682 x 454/1000 = 310 g/kWh, as fed by power producers to the high voltage grid. 
ISO-NE, the grid operator, excludes the CO2 emissions of upstream energy.

https://www.iso-ne.com/static-assets/documents/2019/04/2017_emissio...

 

- 310 g CO2/kWh, primary energy basis, would become 320 x 1.102 = 342 g CO2/kWh, source energy basis.

- 335 g CO2/kWh, primary energy basis, would become 335 x 1.102 = 369 g CO2/kWh, source energy basis.

- CO2 is 0.4553/0.3500 x 369 = 436 g/kWh, if battery charge change is used for calculating CO2 emissions, primary energy basis

- CO2 is 436 x 1.102 = 480 g/kWh, if battery charge change is used for calculating CO2 emissions, primary energy basis.

- Downstream not included. See Note.

 

NOTE: 

Most non-engineer analysts of EV energy flow do not use real-world values for upstream energy and driving energy.

Often, they omit the charging loss and self-use loss and it’s CO2.

Often, they do not ratio upwards the CO2, as above illustrated.

Their faulty analysis leads to lesser calculated values of EV kWh/mile and CO2/mile.

That likely leads to rosy thinking regarding EVs and likely to faulty decision-making and policy.

 

Comment by Paul Ackerman on January 31, 2020 at 10:04pm

These are the same morons who will bankrupt the state in a few years time,and they "know" how best to establish another gigantic bureaucracy to control every aspect of your life via energy policy?

I think not. The state offices ought to be cut off from electricity and heat,let them figure out how to heat their meeting rooms with solar panels and windmills.

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!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service