Mills Administration and NRCM Welcome President Biden’s Climate Change Executive Orders

Mills Administration Welcomes President Biden’s Climate Change Executive Orders


Mills Administration Welcomes President Biden’s Climate Change Executive Orders
January 27, 2021

The Mills Administration today welcomed a series of Executive Actions taken by President Biden to address the global threat of climate change. Since taking office, Governor Mills has committed Maine to transitioning to a clean energy economy and carbon neutral future, goals which align with the President’s actions.

“The initiatives announced today by the Biden-Harris Administration signal the return of the United States as a global leader on climate and the Federal government as an ally to states like Maine that are already taking bold steps to protect our planet,” said Governor Janet Mills. “Maine won’t wait to curb greenhouse gas emissions, to expand our use of renewable energy, to encourage investment in energy efficiency, weatherization and clean energy innovation, or to protect Maine people, families and communities from the effects of climate change. I applaud the Administration’s commitment to these goals, and I look forward to working with them to preserve our planet for future generations.”

Among other actions, the President signed an Executive Order that establishes the National Climate Task Force, an assembly of leaders from across 21 federal agencies and departments, to enable a whole-of-government approach to combat the climate crisis. Governor Mills and the Legislature last year enacted bipartisan legislation that created the Maine Climate Council an assembly of scientists, industry leaders, bipartisan local and state elected officials, and engaged citizens, to develop a plan to protect Maine people and communities and to spur economic growth in the fight against climate change.

 “As co-chairs of the Maine Climate Council, we are excited that the actions announced today by the Biden-Harris Administration align with the direction, values and objectives of Maine’s four-year Climate Action Plan,” said Hannah Pingree, Director of the Governor’s Office of Policy Innovation and the Future, and Melanie Loyzim, Acting Commissioner of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. “From ensuring that science and equity are at the forefront of climate policy, to pursuing natural climate solutions alongside foresters and farmers, to accelerating electrification to curb fossil fuel use, the initiatives announced today will help Maine reach its ambitious emissions targets, grow our clean energy economy, and contribute to the global effort to fight climate change.”

In outlining his Executive Orders, President Biden also set a goal of a net-zero economy by 2050 in the United States achieved by transitioning American workers to good-paying clean energy jobs. Last month, the Maine Climate Council released its plan, Maine Won’t Wait, to reduce carbon emissions and achieve carbon neutrality in Maine by 2045, a goal set by Governor Mills before the United Nations General Assembly in 2019. Secretary John Kerry, President Biden’s special envoy for climate, praised the plan, saying “Maine is going to be ahead of the curve and get the job done for us and help set an example for every other state.”

“Maine spends more than $4 billion a year on out of state fossil fuels. By powering our grid with homegrown, clean energy, we can keep more of that money in Maine, ensuring the resilience of our communities, creating good-paying jobs, and fighting climate change,” said Dan Burgess, Director of the Governor’s Energy Office. “The President’s executive orders announced today align with Maine’s nation-leading target of 80 percent renewable energy powering our state by 2030 and with the governor’s goal of creating 30,000 jobs in Maine’s clean energy and energy efficiency fields by 2030.”

NRCM Praises Biden's Executive Orders On Climate Change

By Jennifer Mitchell

The Natural Resources Council of Maine is applauding a series of executive orders issued by President Joe Biden designed to tackle climate change.

Among other things, the orders end federal subsidies for fossil fuels, initiate a freeze on new oil and gas drilling leases on public lands and aim to conserve some 30% of the country’s lands and waters over the next 10 years.

Lisa Pohlman, chief executive officer at NRCM says it’s also encouraging that the administration is focusing on the development of new jobs to support the efforts.

“Making sure that those people who are currently in the fossil fuel industry don’t feel abandoned, but recognizing that everything to do with clean energy and climate at this point is about the new jobs and the new infrastructure that we need to put in place in the U.S.,” she says. “We are very excited about these new directions, relieved to have it dovetail with what we’re trying to do here in the state, looking forward to the kinds of investments that the federal administration may now make that could help us achieve our goals in Maine. So, it’s a good day.”

Biden is calling for a doubling of offshore wind power by 2030.

The orders reaffirm a commitment to science-based environmental policy, and makes climate change a consideration for every governmental department, as well as in matters of national security and foreign policy.

The president is also creating an office to address environmental justice issues, and identify environment policies that disproportionately impact low income and minority communities.

The new orders follow those issued by the new president on his first day in office, when he brought the U.S. back into the Paris Climate Accord, revoked permission for the Keystone XL pipeline and put a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife.


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: 84


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 January 29, 2021 at 9:40am

Wind and Solar Subsidies Provide a Bonanza for Wall Street


This URL shows wind and solar prices per kWh would be at least 50% higher without direct and indirect subsidies. They would be even higher, if the costs of other items were properly allocated to the owners of wind and solar projects, instead of shifted elsewhere. See below section High Levels of Wind and Solar Require Energy Storage.


This URL shows about 2/3 of the financial value of a wind project is due to direct and indirect subsidies, and the other 1/3 is due to electricity sales.


- Indirect subsidies are due to federal and state tax rebates due to loan interest deductions from taxable income, and federal and state MARCS depreciation deductions from taxable income.


- Direct subsidies are up-front federal and state cash grants, the partial waiving of state sales taxes, the partial waiving of local property, municipal and school taxes. See URLs.


Any owner, foreign or domestic, of a wind and/or solar project, looking to shelter taxable income from their other US businesses, is allowed to depreciate in 6 years almost the entire cost of a wind and solar project under the IRS scheme called Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, MARCS. The normal period for other forms of utility depreciation is about 20 years.


Then, with help of Wall Street financial wizardry from financial tax shelter advisers, such as BNEF*, JPMorgan, Lazard, etc., the owner sells the project to a new owner who is allowed to depreciate, according to MARCS, almost his entire cost all over again. Over the past 20 years, there now are many thousands of owners of RE projects who are cashing in on that bonanza.


Loss of Federal and State Tax Revenues


The loss of tax revenues to federal and state governments due to MARCS was estimated by the IRS at $266 billion for the 5y period of 2017 - 2021, or about $53.2 billion/y.

The IRS is required to annually provide a 5y-running estimate to Congress, by law.

The next report would be for the 2018 - 2022 period


The indirect largesse of about $53.2 billion/y, mostly for wind and solar plants^ that produce expensive, variable/intermittent electricity, does not show up in electric rates. It likely is added to federal and state debts.


Most of the direct federal subsidies to all energy projects of about $25 billion/y also do not show up in electric rates. They likely were also added to the federal debt.


Most of the direct state subsidies to RE projects likely were added to state debts.


The additional costs of state-mandated RPS requirements likely were added to the utility rate base for electric rates.


* BNEF is Bloomberg New Energy Finance, owned by the pro-RE former Mayor Bloomberg of New York, which provides financial services to the wealthy of the world, including providing them with tax avoidance schemes.


^ In New England, wind is near zero for about 30% of the hours of the year, and solar is minimal or zero for about 70% of the hours of the year. Often these hours coincide for multi-day periods, which happen at random throughout the year, per ISO-NE real-time, minute-by-minute generation data posted on its website. Where would the electricity come from during these hours; $multi-billion battery storage, insufficient capacity hydro storage?


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 January 29, 2021 at 9:40am



Regarding wind and solar, cost shifting is rarely mentioned, identified or quantified. Those costs, as c/kWh, could be quantified, but it is politically expedient, using various, often far-fetched reasons, to charge them to:


- Directly to ratepayers, via electric rate schedules, and/or added taxes, fees and surcharges on electric bills

- Directly to taxpayers, such as carbon taxes, user fees and surcharges.

- Directly to federal and state budgets and debts


Per Economics 101, no cost ever disappears.

Eventually, the various shifted wind and solar costs, plus direct and indirect wind and solar subsidies, would increase the prices of energy and of other goods and services.

Efficiency and productivity improvements elsewhere in the energy sector, and other sectors of the economy, may partially, or completely, offset such increases.

However, wind and solar subsidies would divert capital from other sectors of the economy, which likely would result in fewer improvements in efficiency and productivity in these sectors.


Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Existing and New Electricity Sources


This report uses publicly available data to estimate the average levelized cost of electricity from existing generation resources (LCOE-Existing), as compared to the levelized cost of electricity from new generation resources (LCOE-New) that might replace them.


The additional information provided by LCOE-Existing presents a more complete picture of the generation choices available to the electric utility industry, policymakers, regulators and consumers.


Existing coal-fired power plants can generate electricity at an average LCOE of $41 per megawatt-hour, whereas the LCOE of a new coal plant, operating at a similar duty cycle, would be $71 per MWh.


Similarly, existing combined-cycle gas power plants (CCGTs) can generate electricity at an average LCOE of $36 per MWh, whereas the LCOE of a new CCGT gas plant would be $50 per MWh.


Non-dispatchable wind and solar impose a cost on the dispatchable generators which are required to remain in service for peaking, filling in and balancing, 24/7/365, to ensure reliable electricity service.


Non-dispatchable means the output of wind and solar depends on factors beyond our control (the wind blowing and the sun shining) and cannot be relied upon for peaking, filling in and balancing.


Wind and solar increase the LCOE of dispatchable resources by reducing their utilization rates without reducing their fixed costs, resulting in a levelized fixed cost increase, i.e., higher c/kWh.


This report estimates the “imposed cost” of wind generation at about $24 per MWh, or 2.4 c/kWh, if CCGT gas generation performs the peaking, filling in and balancing.


The CCGT plants compensate for the erratic outputs of wind and solar by inefficiently ramping up and down their outputs at part load, and inefficiently making more frequent starts and stops.


All that decreases annual production of CCGT plants, adversely affects their economic viability, increases Btu/kWh and CO2/kWh, and increases wear and tear, all at no cost to the wind and solar multi-millionaires.


This report estimates the “imposed cost” of wind generation at about $24 per MWh, or 2.4 c/kWh, if CCGT gas generation performs the peaking, filling in and balancing.


This report estimates the “imposed cost” of solar generation at about $21 per MWh, or 2.1 c/kWh, if CCGT gas generation performs the peaking, filling in and balancing.


As a result, existing coal ($41), CCGT gas ($36), nuclear ($33) and hydro ($38) are less than half the cost of new wind ($90) or new PV solar ($88.7), if imposed costs were included.


NOTE: The imposed cost on ratepayers and taxpayers of various direct and indirect wind and solar subsidies are an entirely separate issue.


Cost Shifting From Millionaire Owners to Struggling Ratepayers and Taxpayers 


Clever multi-millionaires have known about wind and solar being much more expensive compared with existing generation (coal, oil, gas, nuclear, hydro, etc.) for at least 25 years.


By beating the drums of climate change and global warming, and using clever lobbyists in the halls of Congress and State legislatures, they were able to get all sorts of goodies, such as upfront cash grants, upfront tax credits, low-cost loans, generous, above-market, feed-in tariffs, production tax credits, and loan interest and asset depreciation write-offs to avoid paying income taxes.


All that enables them, and others to claim wind and solar is equivalent and competitive with other workers. What more could these millionaires ask for?


Cost Shifting: Here is a partial list of the costs that were shifted, i.e., not charged to wind and solar plant owners, to make wind and solar appear less costly than in reality to the lay public and legislators.


1) The various forms of grid-stabilizing inertia (presently provided by synchronous gas, coal, oil, nuclear, bio and hydro plants).


2) The filling-in, peaking and balancing by traditional generators (mostly gas turbines in New England), due to wind and solar variability and intermittency, 24/7/365. Their random outputs require the other generators to inefficiently ramp up and down their outputs at part load, and to inefficiently make more frequent starts and stops, which also causes more wear and tear, all at no cost to wind and solar owners.


The more wind and solar on the grid, the larger the required up and down ramping of the gas turbines, which imparts added costs to owners for which they likely would not be paid: And the wind and solar erratic output is coddled by government programs and subsidies!!


Owners of traditional generators:  


- Have less annual production to cover power plant costs, which jeopardizes the economic viability of their plants.


- Are left with inefficient remaining production (more fuel/kWh, more CO2/kWh), due to up and down ramping at part load, and due to more frequent starts and stops, which leads to less fuel and CO2 reduction than claimed, and increased costs for owners. See URL


- Have more wear and tear of their gas turbine plants, which further adds to owner costs


NOTE: All of this is quite similar to a car efficiently operating at a steady 55 mph, versus a car inefficiently operating at continuously varying speeds between 45 mph to 65 mph, and accelerating for frequent starts and decelerating for frequent stops.


3) Any battery systems to stabilize distribution grid with many solar systems. They would quickly offset downward spikes due to variable cloud cover. See URL.


4) Any measures to deal with DUCK curves, such as a) daily gas turbine plant down and up ramping, b) utility-scale storage and c) demand management.


NOTE: GMP in Vermont, has determined 70 of its 150 substations will eventually need upgrades to avoid “transmission ground fault overvoltage,” (TGFOV), if more solar is added per requirements of the VT Comprehensive Energy Plan. This is nothing new, as utilities in southern Germany have been dealing with these issues for over ten years, which has contributed to German households having the highest electric rates (about 30 eurocent/kWh) in Europe.


5) Grid-related costs, such as grid extensions and augmentations to connect the remotely distributed wind and solar, and to deal with variable and intermittent wind and solar on the grid. Those grid items usually are utilized at the low capacity factors of wind and solar, i.e., a lot of hardware doing little work.


6) Utility-scale electricity storage (presently provided by the world’s traditional fuel supply system).


The above 6 items are entirely separate from the high levels of direct and indirectsubsidies. They serve to make wind and solar appear to be much less costly than in reality. See sections 1 and 2 and Appendix.


All that enables wind and solar proponents to endlessly proclaim: “Wind and solar are competitive with fossil and nuclear”.


Example of Cost Shifting: For example, to bring wind electricity from the Panhandle in west Texas to population centers in east Texas, about 1000 miles of transmission was built at a capital cost of $7 billion. The entire cost was “socialized”, i.e., it appeared as a surcharge on residential electric bills. Wind in Texas would have been much more expensive, if the owning and operating cost, c/kWh, of those transmission lines were added to the cost of wind.


Example of Cost Shifting: Often the expensive grid connection of offshore wind plants, say from 20 miles south of Martha's Vineyard, across the island, then about 7 additional miles under water, and then to the reinforced mainland grid, is not separately stated in the capital cost estimates, i.e., all or part of it is provided by the utilities that buy the electricity under PPAs to make PPA-pricing appear smaller than in reality. That cost would be “socialized”, i.e., it appears as a surcharge on residential electric bills, or is added to the rate base.


Wind and Solar Wholesale Prices in NE: Here are some wholesale prices of wind electricity RE folks in New England, especially in Maine, do not want to talk about. They would rather dream RE fantasies, obfuscate/fudge the numbers, and aim to convert others to their dream scenarios, somewhat like religious missionaries.


Comments on Below Wind and Solar Cost 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.


1) The subsidy values in table 1 are from a cost analysis of NE wind and solar in this article. See URL


2) The grid support values in table 1 are from this report. See figure 14 for 2.36 c/kWh for wind, and figure 16 for 2.1 c/kWh for solar


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


NOTE: The NE wholesale price has averaged at less than 5 c/kWh, starting in 2009


NOTE: Importing more low-cost hydro (about 5.549 c/kWh, per GMP) from Quebec to replace “dangerous nuclear” and “dirty fossil” would be a very quick, smart and economic way to reduce CO2.


NOTE: 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 1) the direct and indirect subsidies and 2) the cost shifting.

Similar percentages apply in areas with better wind and solar conditions, and lower construction costs/MW, than New England. The prices of wind and solar, c/kWh, in those areas are lower than New England.


Table 1/Vermont & NE sources


Grid support


Paid to


 Added to



to owner



rate base







Solar, residential rooftop, net-metered







Solar, com’l/ind’l, legacy, standard offer







Solar, com’l/ind’l, new, standard offer*







Wind, ridge line, new*














Lifetime Cost of Electricity, LCOE

Gas, combined cycle, existing


Gas, combined cycle, new


Gas, open cycle, peaking, existing

9 - 10

Gas, open cycle, peaking, new




18 - 20



Nuclear, existing


Nuclear, new, 60-plus-y life


Coal, existing


Coal, new


Hydro, existing


Hydro Vermont, net-metered, new


Wood burning Vermont, net-metered, existing


* Competitive bidding lowered prices paid to owners.


* 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 January 29, 2021 at 9:35am





This article describes the efficiency of electric vehicles, EVs, and their charging loss, when charging at home and on-the-road, and the economics, when compared with efficient gasoline vehicles.


EVs are designed to be aero-dynamic, and to have low rolling resistance, efficient drive trains, and efficient batteries. This will minimize vehicle weight and maximize range. Tesla is the industry leader regarding efficient EVs.


Any economic analysis must include the amortizing of the difference in capital cost of EVs and equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicles.


Any CO2 reduction analysis must be the difference of the CO2 emissions of an EV and an equivalent, efficient gasoline vehicle, on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis


It is important to assess the cost and operating impacts of large-scale use of EVs on electricity generation, grid capacity and energy storage capacity, on an A-to Z basis.


This article has five parts and an Appendix.




Real-World Concerns About the Economics of EVs


This article describes in detail why it may not be such a good idea to have a proliferation of EVs, because of:


1) Their high initial capital costs; about 50% greater than equivalent gasoline vehicles.

2) The widespread high-speed charging facilities required for charging "on the road".

3) The loss of valuable time when charging "on the road".

4) The high cost of charging/kWh, plus exorbitant penalties, when charging “on-the-road”.


High-Mileage Hybrids a Better Alternative Than EVs


The Toyota Prius, and Toyota Prius plug-in, which get up to 54 mpg, EPA combined, would:


1) Have much less annual owning and operating costs than any EV

2) Have minimal wait-times, as almost all plug-ins would be charging at home 

3) Be less damaging to the environment, because their batteries would have very low capacity, kWh

4) Impose much less of an additional burden on the electric grids.


Hybrid Vehicles Much Better Than EVs


Hybrid vehicles, such as the Toyota Prius, save about the same amount of CO₂ as electric cars over their lifetime.


1) They are cost competitive with gasoline vehicles, even without subsidies.


2) They have none of the EV downsides, such as:


- Not requiring new infrastructure, such as EV chargers, additional electricity generation, grid expansion/augmentation, battery storage, etc.

- Not inducing range anxiety

- Refilling in minutes, instead of hours.


3) Climate change does not care about where CO₂ comes from.

Gasoline cars are only about 7% of global CO2 emissions,

Replacing them with electric cars will only help a little. See table and Part Five


Comments on Table


The table shows the CO2 emissions for four vehicles on a lifetime, A-to-Z basis.

It was assumed 20% of charging would be on the road and 80% at home.

The Model Y kWh/mile values were prorated from real-world Model 3 values


CO2, Lifetime/A-to-Z basis



Model Y

Model Y








Prius L Eco






EPA combined, Model Y



EPA combined, Model 3



Mileage, mpg



CO2, incl. upstream, lb/gal



Consumption, wall meter basis, kWh/mile





Travel, miles/10 years







Total electricity, kWh/10 years





NE grid CO2, wall meter basis, g/kWh

















Total CO2, Mt/10 years





Total CO2, Mt/10 years





Total CO2, Mt/10 years





Body CO2, Mt





Battery CO2, Mt



Total CO2, Mt/10 years





Total CO2, Mt/y





CO2, g/mile






EVs are Money Losers Compared to Efficient Gasoline Vehicles and Hybrids


Increasing the use of high-mileage vehicles, such as hybrids, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road (which need not involve any government subsidies), would reduce CO2 at much less cost per vehicle, than would the government-subsidized replacement of light duty vehicles with EVs.


The table show the total cost of owning and operating four vehicles.


The Nissan Kona EV, and Toyota Prius L eco hybrid, without all-wheel-drive, AWD, are not as versatile as the Subaru Outback and the Tesla Model Y for New England conditions, especially in rural areas.

All four have similar cargo space. See Part Four.


The difference in vehicle purchase cost was amortized at 3.5% for 10 years. Subsidies were omitted.

See table and Part Five


EV vs Gasoline

Electricity cost

Amortize cost difference

Total cost









Kona, no AWD






Cost, on-the-road charging






Cost, at-home charging






Model Y, AWD






Cost, on-the-road charging






Cost, at-home charging






Subaru, Outback, AWD






Gasoline vehicle; 30 mpg






Prius L Eco, no AWD






Gasoline/electric; 56 mpg







Heat Pumps in my Vermont House are Money Losers


It is important to assess the cost and operating impacts of large-scale use of heat pumps on electricity generation, grid capacity and energy storage capacity, during the coldest days of the year, on an A-to Z basis.


My annual electricity consumption increased about 50%, after I installed three 24,000 Btu/h heat pumps for heating and cooling my, well-sealed/well-insulated house. They displaced a fraction of my propane consumption.


My existing propane system, 95%-efficient in condensing mode, is used on cold days, 10 F to 15 F or less, because heat pumps would have low efficiencies, i.e., low Btu/kWh, at exactly the same time my house would need the most heat


There have been no energy cost savings, because of high household electric rates, augmented with taxes, fees and surcharges.

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

There likely will be service calls and parts, as the years go by, in addition to service calls and parts for the existing propane system.

I received a $2400 subsidy. 


Government Electric Vehicle and Heat Pump Mandates


Subsidies do not just disappear. They would be charged to others, and/or would be added to government debts.


Celebrating energy cost savings, and ignoring amortizing costs, and having minimal CO2 reduction is like living a fantasy. See Part Five regarding CO2


Governments mandating hundreds of $billions be spent on such poor investments, as part of climate-change fighting,
meeting Paris”, etc., would impoverish the US people, and make the US less competitive on world markets.


The CO2 reduction would have minimal impact on climate change, because the US emits less than 15% of the world's human-caused CO2. See URLs.

Comment by Stephen Littlefield on January 28, 2021 at 5:48pm

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers herded by evil people in power! Even John "Lurch" Kerry came out and said that the U.S. could drop to 0% emissions and it wouldn't change anything, because over 90% of pollution is produced in the rest of the world. Of course he didn't mention that China is the number one polluter and India is number two and they both get a pass in the Paris accord. This is just another attempt to destroy America by marxists to usher in the "new world order" and servitude by all to the rich elites that hate liberty for all! 

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."


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!

© 2021   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service