Maine: The wind energy plantation — Part I

Comment

Comment by Kathy Sherman on February 22, 2015 at 10:08pm

(re BDN cont)
Since the CMP contract is for power only, the developer may well get an additional 6¢/kWh selling the 'environmental attributes' into the MA REC market, and thus earn considerably more than First Wind will make from their contracts with MA utilities which bundle power and environmental attributes together. The BDN editorial was totally misleading in comparing the rates that the utility will pay to current retail rates in Maine. There is no mention of transmission costs to ratepayers. Maine retail rates are considerably less than Massachusetts, and that's before the costs of new renewables and transmission kick in as projects are built.

Ackerman's point about the audacity of signing these long-term contracts before permitting and environmental review have even started is spot on. How can they be considered a 'public good or necessity' for Maine? And when Maine's wind law was written, there was much more 'dirty coal' and even oil in the ISO-NE generation mix than there is now or will be when these turbines go on line. So the benefits CAN'T be presumed.

Comment by Kathy Sherman on February 22, 2015 at 9:49pm

Thanks for the link.

The story on this in PH is even worse, in its reportage of a memorandum of understanding between Emera and CMP for solutions to transmission for northern Maine wind projects generally, not just EDP's Number Nine.
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/01/07/utilities-agree-to-provide-po...

On the one hand, it would seem to benefit Aroostok to be connected to the ISO-NE grid rather than a small independent system which I have read has operational issues. However, addition of variable generation from wind, even without cost consideration or environmental consideration does not seem to be to anyone's benefit other than the utilities putting up the wires and the wind developer who may well get much better pricing under ISO-NE market rules. ISO-NE's rules seem to be forever shifting to accomodate the limitations of fickle, ill-timed, non-dispatchable wind output.

I don't see where it is saying who pays for this connection or even if ISO-NE has approved it. The idea has been put forward that the costs of transmission necessitated by 'social policies' of individual states would be allocated to those states, i.e., CT, RI and MA, which created those policies, whereas new or improved transmission required for system reliability or economic reasons WITHIN the regional system would be divided to the ratepayers proportionately. E.g., I thought Maine ratepayers would only pay 8% of the costs of the 'Maine Reliability project'.

The parts that I am certain of are 1) that the ratepayers in all New England states are being screwed, 2) that the utilities will now be raking in via transmission what they may have lost in profits after deregulation operating power plants (ignoring that Maine PUC didn't seem to think that the Emera-First Wind deal was a violation of deregulation requirements; ditto CMP-Iberdola and Emera themselves) and
3) that we, the people/ratepayers, especially those concerned about proliferation of industrial wind, have not paid sufficient attention to the transmission issues and their costs, environmental consequences, property rights intrusions. Although local impact can be less than 500 ft. high, 2.8 acre-swept area rotor on a ridgeline, way more people would be involved and care, if they knew, and then they might start to ask what percentage of homes in CT or even office buildings in Portland and Bangor will be powered by this huge wind facility at this huge cost- 74,000 seems like a pretty low number for this massive project and is that adjusted for a realistic capacity factor?

I was quite taken by surprise by this transmission plan because when Connecticut regulators (PUC equivalent) approved the contracts for EDPR Number Nine with CT utilities, they knew that there was no transmission path by which the electrons would get anywhere near the state, and clearly expressed that any environmental benefits would be to Maine, Maritime Canada or the Atlantic. They were forced to rubber stamp the selection made by the executive's energy office after competitive solicitation.

I do want to correct one point. Connecticut did not BAN industrial wind turbines, they placed a moratorium until the Siting Committee came up with acceptible criteria. The Siting committee had heard two proposals, one of which in Prospect was literally across the street from a residential neighborhood and on top of public water supply. Connecticut is right next to the bottom of the NERL/TrueWind ranking of potential wind resource by state. Neither CT or MA have any clue about siting or regulation of industrial wind, and think that 1.1 or 1.5 times height is adequate setback.

I did not know that CT had lifted the moratorium, but CT and MA RPS policies and consequently the REC prices, especially in MA, are so high and so manipulated that the federal PTC should be unnecessary. See a comment on the BDN story about the CMP contract approval that LePage wants reconsidered - since the contra

Comment by arthur qwenk on February 22, 2015 at 7:25pm

Welcome Paul Ackerman.

This site is full of factual content dating back to its  inception  in 2009 ,which was a citizen grass roots action  against the scourge in this state called Industrial Wind. The  wind liars hate it,because the facts are everywhere presented herein. Dig in and enjoy, and help end this nightmare called Industrial Wind in Maine. 

  

Comment by Jim Wiegand on February 22, 2015 at 7:24pm

"One nation under God" or "One nation under Fraud"                                                       I know the answer. But for others, all they need to do is read the article below and follow H.R. 493 in Congress to find out.                                                                                                                                                                                             

 

It has been posted on two sites. "H.R.493 - IS MORE THAN AMNESTY FOR THE WIND INDUSTRY'S EAGLE SLAUGHTER" and "Clean Energy Producers Act of 2015 (H.R. 493): Eagle Slaughter Amnesty for Industrial Wind"

 

Comment by Dan McKay on February 22, 2015 at 7:04pm

Welcome to the Task Force, Mr. Ackerman. Who have nailed it.