Liars' lies exposed as wind electricity price increases by 66% - Wake Up
This is just the cost of wind generated electricity. It doesn't address the many other costs. Wind power doesn't happen if so called representatives, regulators, environmental groups and media actually serve the people. Follow the money to the individuals who's pockets are being lined at everyone else's expense
By Mark Harrington | September 4, 2023 | newsday.com
Proposals could increase wind energy costs 27% to 66%
A report by the state agency leading New York’s transition into a carbon-free energy grid says requests by wind farm developers to sharply increase what they can charge for the power could potentially be 27% to 66% higher than originally proposed.
Wind farm companies requesting the increases previously filed documents with the state that excluded from public release most of the now-released financial information.
In a filing with the state Department of Public Service last week, the state Energy Research and Development Authority largely concurred with claims by three offshore wind giants about factors that necessitated their requests for higher rates for the energy they plan to sell to the state grid over the next five years. New York state has a plan for a carbon-free electric grid by 2040.
The so-called strike-prices for power from the planned arrays, which correlates to how much local utilities would pay for the power, would be from 27% to 66% higher than they originally proposed in their previous bidding documents, the filing shows.
For instance, according to the NYSERDA estimates, Sunrise Wind, which would connect to the energy grid in Brookhaven Town, has proposed that its original price increase from $110.37 a megawatt hour increase to $139.99, a 27% hike. NYSERDA estimates that for the average residential customer, it would mean a 40-cents-a-month increase over the less than $1 previously proposed.
The project is being developed by Danish wind-energy giant Orsted, which this week said it would need to take impairment charges – reductions in the value of assets – of up to $2.3 billion because of market factors affecting several of its projects, including Sunrise.
For Norway-based Equinor, which is developing its projects off the South Shore of Long Island, the requests are higher. Equinor’s Empire 1 project would see a 35% increase in its price, from $118.38 a megawatt hour to $159.64, with NYSERDA estimating a 48-cents-a-month increase in customer bills. Empire 2, which is slated to deliver power to Long Island at Island Park, would see its price jump from $107.50 to $177.84, with an estimated $1.08 a month increase on customer bills over prior estimates of under $1; and Beacon Wind, which is slated to deliver energy to Queens, would see its price jump 62%, from $118 to $190.82, with an estimated $1.14 monthly bill impact.
If the state approves the requests as they are, it would translate to a $3.10 monthly bill increase, over the prior estimate of under $2.
“The economic impact is far too great,” Michelle Leo, a member of Protect Our Coast Long Island, an opposition group in Long Beach, said in an email in response to the release. “Off-shore wind is clearly too expensive because of the return to the investors …”
Equinor spokeswoman Lauren Shane, in a statement, confirmed the estimates in NYSERDA’s filing “largely align with Equinor’s own analysis,” and added that it was “important to understand that the impact to ratepayers of the higher strike prices for our projects would mean, at most, an estimated $2.69 per month extra on New Yorkers’ electricity bills.”
NYSERDA, in a separate statement, noted its analysis showed that “providing a price adjustment of some degree could help mitigate risks of future costs to ratepayers while preserving progress toward Climate Act goals. However, any change in projected ratepayer impacts will depend on the outcome of the Public Service Commission’s petition proceedings.”
The cost estimates come as the state Public Service Commission is reviewing the developers’ petitions to determine whether they are justified before making a ruling to approve or deny them.
A firm working for NYSERDA in its filing found that the market factors that have led the companies to make the request were justified. All three companies cited “megatrends” that have increased costs, including “unforeseen inflation and supply-chain bottlenecks.”
NYSERDA’s researchers also found that wind farm product makers are facing “severe financial pressures” because of the bottlenecks and inflation, while rising interest rates are presenting another set of challenges.
NYSERDA’s review shows that the “costs to develop clean energy generation projects have increased materially,” the filing concludes. “These market conditions, driven in large part by increased demand for raw materials, an increased demand for large-scale renewable energy caused primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, as well as supply chain constraints and bottlenecks, are unprecedented.”
The report says Sunrise Wind’s request encompassed adjustment mechanisms for inflation and for the cost to interconnect the project.
Equinor, for its projects, requested “multiple adjustment mechanisms,” which would lead to “a materially higher increase in price than those requested by Sunrise,” according to the report.
Source: By Mark Harrington | September 4, 2023
https://www.wind-watch.org/news/2023/09/04/proposals-could-increase...
*************************************
Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Views: 221
Comment
-
Comment by Willem Post on September 8, 2023 at 9:23pm
-
The time to complete a project will be much longer, because of a lack of specialized ships, and litigations by opponents, with the cost clock running.
That will increase turnkey capital costs to more than $5000/ installed kW of capacity.
Borrowed money will be greater, and at high interest rates
Production and revenue will be years down the road
Owners will get their 9%/y on bigger investment amounts
Biden is trying to force a pound of shit through a straw
-
-
US/UK 56,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
The US government has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.
The UK government has the insane fantasy of wanting to build 26,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., in just 7 years,
The continent-based European big wind companies have only one third of the capacity per year for building 56,000 MW offshore by 2030, or 8,000 MW/y. These companies will concentrate on the U.S. market, because the Biden "Inflation-Reduction-Act” subsidies are about much higher than in the UK
1) Vattenfall, Sweden, has put 1,400 MW on hold in 2023 (will re-evaluate its entire 4,200 MW zone), because Vattenfall spreadsheets show a “net revenue shortage” of about 40%, meaning the prices, c/kWh, offered by the UK auctions are about 40% too low.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/07/20/breaking-vattenfall-stops-d....
BTW, about 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were rewarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
2) OERSTED, Denmark, is looking forward to a $2.6 billion loss on its three US East Cost offshore wind systems, mainly due to high inflation, high interest rates, supply chain disruptions, and not being awarded additional federal and state tax credits
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/denmarks-orsted-anticipates...
3) Off shore wind projects have huge increases in turnkey capital costs. See item 4 and Note
Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, original price $110.37/MWh, wants $139.99/ MWh, a 27% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, original price $118.38/MWh, wants $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase
Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, original price $107.50/MWh, wants $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase
Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, original price $118.00/MWh, wants $190.82/ MWh, a 62% increase
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-...
4)
Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...
IRENA, a European Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renew...
NOTE: “The all-in, turnkey capital cost associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits related to the "Inflation-Reduction-Act", has increased by 57% since 2021. Increased costs of materials, energy, components, labor, and supply chain constrains and disruptions explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased interest rates.”, per Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF.
Part 1
BIDEN 30,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
The Biden administration announced on October 13, 2021, it will subsidize the development of up to seven offshore wind systems (never call them farms) on the US East and West coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico; a total of about 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030.
This is part of the “Inflation Reduction Act”, which CBO estimated at $391 billion, but Goldman Sachs estimated at $1.2 trillion, due to Biden’s handlers “liberally interpreting” the various open-ended measures.
This deficit spending will be added to the national debt, which would increase inflation. See URL for explanation.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-s-green-energy-p...
Biden's offshore wind systems would have an adverse, long-term impact on US electricity wholesale prices, and the prices of all other goods and services, because their expensive electricity would permeate into all economic activities.
The wind turbines would be at least 800-ft-tall, which would need to be located at least 30 miles from shores, to ensure minimal disturbance from night-time strobe lights.
Any commercial fishing areas would be significantly impacted by below-water infrastructures and cables. The low-frequency noise (less than 20 cycles per second, aka infrasound) of the wind turbines would adversely affect marine life, including whales, and productivity of fishing areas.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/feds-finally-admits-of...
Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost
Electricity production would be about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 118,341,000 MWh, or 118.3 TWh
The additional wind production would be about 100 x 118.3/4000 = 2.96% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
The US grid load would increase, due to tens of millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.
Electricity Cost: Assume an offshore project consists of wind turbines and cabling to shore at $4,000/kW, producing at a lifetime CF = 0.45
- Amortizing a bank loan for 50% of the project at 6%/y for 20 years will cost 4.36 c/kWh.
- Paying the Owner for his investment of 50% of the project at 9%/y for 20 years will cost 4.74 c/kWh (9% because of high inflation).
- Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, will cost 8 c/kWh.
- All other items will cost 6 c/kWh
- Total energy cost 4.36 + 4.74 + 8 + 6 = 23.83 c/kWh
After subsidies, and accelerated depreciation, and deduction of interest on borrowed money, etc., the Owner would sell to a utility at 11.92 c/kWh
Not included:
- Levelized cost of any onshore grid expansion/augmentation, about 2 c/kWh
- Levelized cost of curtailment/counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh
In 2020, in the UK, with wind/solar at 28.6% of electricity fed to the grid (excluding imports), the curtailment/counteracting/balancing cost was about 1.9 c/kWh, which would exponentially increase to 6 – 8 c/kWh at 50% wind/solar.
- Levelized cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
Floating offshore, as in Maine and California offshore, would be about $6,000 to $7,000 per MW
The bank loan and Owner return parts of the levelized cost would be higher, about 15 c/kWh.
The levelized O&M and All other items would be higher, about 17 c/kWh
Total cost about 32 c/kWh, before subsidies, about 16 c/kWh, after subsidies
The various subsidies, added to national debts, would be higher
NOTE: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part of URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...There are four major items, usually not mentioned by wind/solar proponents
1) Wind/Solar Counteracting/Balancing Costs
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a fleet of quick-responding, counteracting/balancing power plants, usually combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, and hydro plants, with adequate nearby fuel supply to cover all circumstances, fully staffed, kept in good working order, ready to perform service, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, as demanded by the independent grid operator, such as ISO-NE, especially during:
1) Days with variable cloudiness
2) Days with panels covered with snow and ice
3) Days with foggy conditions
4) Late afternoon/early evening to mid-morning the next day.
5) Peak demand hours of late afternoon/early evening, when wind and solar usually are minimal
6) Simultaneous wind/solar lulls, when the output of both is minimal for up to 5 to 7 days, sometimes followed by another multi-day wind/solar lull. These URLs provide examples of multi-day, simultaneous wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lu...
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-st...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-...
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulet...
Without the fleet of counteracting/balancing plants, variable wind/solar power could not be fed into the grid.
That means, wind/solar power cannot ever function on its own.
The more wind/solar fed to the grid, the greater the fleet capacity, MW, in counteracting/balancing mode.The counteracting/balancing costs are almost entirely due to wind/solar output variations and intermittencies.
The fleet has to operate far from its preferred/more economical modes of operation. These plants experience:
1) More up/down production at lesser efficiencies; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
2) More wear-and-tear, due to up/down production and more starts/stops; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
4) Increased hot, synchronous (3,600 rpm), standby plant capacity, MW, to immediately provide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.
5) Increased cold, standby plant capacity, MW, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
When wind and solar were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto the NE grid, those counteracting/balancing costs were minimal, i.e., “buried in the data-noise of the grid”
Wind/solar became 28.4%, or 88.6 TWh, of the 312 TWh of electricity loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports
The curtailment/counteracting/balancing costs were £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion, or 1.9 c/kWh) in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, 2023.
The 1.9 c/kWh would exponentially increase to 6 – 8 c/kWh at 50% wind/solar, because of increased costs of curtailment/counteracting/balancing
The US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion, on a pro-rated basis, if 28.4% wind/solar loaded onto the US grid.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-s...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/514874/energy-mix-uk/
Those costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
2) Wind/Solar Grid Extension/Reinforcement Cost
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a significant extension/reinforcement of the grid.
The estimated capital cost of upgrading the UK grid for Net Zero by 2050 is about £200 Billion, which would be at least $2.0 TRILLION for the US, on a pro-rated basis, such as based on grid load or GDP.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-200-billion-bill-f...
A significant portion of those costs should be charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they will be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government wind/solar subsidies, which will also be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
3) CO2 Reduction, due to Wind, less than Claimed
Ireland: In Ireland, with 17% wind loaded onto the Irish grid in 2012, the officially claimed CO2 reduction of grid CO2/kWh was 17%
However, analysis of 15-minute grid operating data, and corresponding fuel consumption data of each power plant connected to the grid, showed, it was only 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, due to inefficient operation of the other power plants, when counteracting/balancing the variable output of wind, as above described.
The only reason the Irish government finally had to admit to the lesser CO2 reduction, is because public pressure forced the government to hold hearings on why Irish gas imports had not decreased with increased wind; “the smoking gun that did them in”
After 2012, Brussels gave money to Ireland to put in major capacity connections to the much larger UK and French grids. The Irish wind output variations were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto those grids, i.e., “buried in the data noise of the grids”
The UK: The UK, with 28.4% wind/solar in 2020, has a CO2-reduction factor significantly less than 0.526, because even more curtailment/counteracting/balancing is required.
Ireland, the UK, US, Germany, Spain, etc., have been over claiming CO2 reduction from wind/solar for decades, with connivance from Brussels. See explanation in URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
4) Germany, Denmark, etc., Using Nearby Grids to Counteract/Balance Their Variable Wind/Solar
Germany and Denmark have been doing that for decades, as they increased their wind/solar buildouts.
Germany has strong connections to the grids of nearby countries, including Norway, which is connected to Norgrid, which has lots of hydro in Sweden and Norway and nuclear in Sweden, all steady, traditional sources of electricity.
There was quite some panic in 2021, well before Ukraine events, which started in February 2022, when, because of low water and low wind in Europe, Norway and France could not export electricity to Germany, which had to restart coal plants and keep its 3 remaining nuclear plants in service longer than intended.
Germany cannot counteract/balance its own wind/solar, and when wind was lacking, it did not have a sufficient fleet of traditional counteracting/balancing plants, staffed, fueled, and with adequate fuel storage to provide 24/7/365 electricity. Germany had to impose rationing measures on its industry and households.
NOTE: Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...
Turnkey Capital Cost of 30,000 MW of Offshore Wind
The turnkey capital cost for wind systems would be about 30,000 MW x $4,000,000/MW = $120 BILLION; includes underwater cabling to shore, but excludes:
1) The levelized cost of Owners return on his invested capital, usually about 9%/y for 20 years.
Governments require an Owner puts up 50% of his own money (to have skin in the game), and 50% financing with bank loans.
2) The levelized cost of financing during high inflation, high interest years, which likely adds about 30% to the project levelized cost.
That 30% is more than offset by: 1) large upfront federal and state tax credits, 2) plus front-loaded, 5-yr depreciation of the entire project, 3) plus deduction of loan interest from any taxable incomes. See item 3
3) The cost of government subsidies and other financial benefits is equivalent to about 50% of the project levelized cost, which enables Owners to sell their output at about 50% less c/kWh, than without them
This reinforces the fantasy wind and solar are inexpensive and competitive with fossil.
4) The levelized cost of onshore grid extension/reinforcement, which is charged directly to ratepayers, taxpayers and government debts.
5) The levelized cost of the fleet of counteracting/balancing power plants, which is charged directly to ratepayers, taxpayers and government debts.
Owners usually are compensated for providing counteracting/balancing services from the budget of the independent grid operator, such as ISO-NE
The turnkey capital cost and higher O&M costs in 2022 and later years, and resulting cost of electricity production, c/kWh, have significantly increased, due to: 1) increased inflation rates, 2) increased interest rates, 3) supply chain disruptions, which delay projects and increase costs, 4) increased energy prices, such as of oil, gas, coal, electricity, etc., 5) increased materials prices, such as of tungsten, cobalt, lithium, copper, manganese, etc., 6) increased labor rates.
As a result, the spreadsheets of the US East Coast offshore wind projects (and in the UK), used for negotiating prices, c/kWh, do no longer make sense.
Owners/Developers want to renegotiate, delay and cancel projects. See below UK section.
They want to force ratepayers and taxpayers to pay more for wind electricity, c/kWh, for the next 20 years, to ensure providing a generous return on investment to European Big Wind companies and multi-millionaire owners with lucrative tax shelters
-
-
Floating offshore wind is the most expensive of all, at least $200/MWh.
That is the price paid to the Owner by the Maine Utilities, for at least 20 years.
The Utilities are forced to buy this variable/intermittent, junk electricity, that upsets their gridsAll that is well known by the entire legislature of Maine and hundreds of bureaucrats, but they tell Mainers nothing, for fear there would be riots in the streets, as there are in Germany and the UK
-
-
For decades, Denmark and Germany, both wind mavens, had the highest household electric rates, c/kWh, in Europe.
But that “honor” was passed to the UK, which now has the highest household electric rates in Europe, by far.
See image in URL
https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/energy-prices-uk-britai...
-
-
Bartlett is an idiot.
He is spouting nonsense, because the opposite happened in the UK, which had 28.6% wind/solar, in 2021, and as a result has the HIGHEST HOUSEHOLD ELECTRIC RATES, BY FAR, IN EUROPEThose rates have caused companies to close down their plants and move them elsewhere. Less jobs in the UK
The UK has become the economic/social basket case of Europe
The UK elites are getting scared, because the people are pissed and objecting en masse to their EXPENSIVE extremist policies
-
Comment by Dan McKay on September 6, 2023 at 5:45am
-
Not to be outdone, Phillip Bartlett II ( PUC Chair Commissioner) exclaims the mother of all lies:
"These projects will provide significant benefits to Maine and the region, including jobs during construction, property tax revenue for local communities, and environmental benefits from new renewable energy displacing fossil fuels," said PUC Chair Philip L. Bartlett II. The influx of renewable energy into the regional grid will also place downward pressure on electricity prices, benefitting consumers in Maine and throughout New England."
-
-
These prices paid to offshore wind turbine owners are much higher than my estimates, and now we see even those high prices are not enough
New York rate payers will be screwed big time, again, just for offshore wind
Many more screwings are coming regarding unreliable, expensive, low-range EVs, and heat pumps that do not work in cold climates, as I have been predicting for about 15 years
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!
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/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
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