Comment

Comment by Penny Gray on March 2, 2019 at 5:07pm

Thank you for posting this, Eric.

Comment by Whetstone_Willy on March 1, 2019 at 11:15am

The sole reason for our carbon tax is to bring you to heel. 99% of scientists agree that assessing tread wear of shoes is an effective method of reducing your CO2 exhalations. With our climate change indoctrination programs in the schools, media and Hollywood, we hope this will be a shoe-in at some point soon.

Comment by Dan McKay on March 1, 2019 at 11:13am

Efficiency Maine Trust brags about the greenhouse gas reductions their programs are able to achieve. From their own annual reports, a price per ton is easily calculated. Remember, the millions of dollars expended by EMT come from your purchases of energy.

For the year 2016    EMT spent $43.7 million dollars of your money, reducing CO2 emissions by 119,000 tons or at a cost of $367 per ton.

For the year 2017      EMT spent $41.6 million dollars of your money, reducing CO2 emissions by 95,148 tons or a cost of $437 per ton

For the year 2018     EMT spent $47.1 million dollars of your money, reducing CO2 emissions by 89,847 tons or a cost of $524 per ton.

Comment by Willem Post on March 1, 2019 at 10:34am

Hearings about carbon taxes are a diversionary tactic, a red herring, that will befuddle/screw the gullible, lay public.

It would be much better for Maine to have more electricity from H-Q in Canada. See below

That approach would cost far less than burdening hard-pressed Maine households with more of REGRESSIVE, UNILATERAL carbon taxes that would gratify ego-centric folks with RE agendas and campaign promises, who are claiming they are entitled, because they are saving the world. BULL MANURE 

The governors of Maine and of Massachusetts are colluding, in secret, behind closed doors, to fulfill their too expensive RE agendas

Increased Canadian Low-Cost Hydro Electricity Much Less Costly Than Expensive Batteries

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ne-wind-and-solar-elect...

 

In 2050, additional tie line capacity to nearby grids, plus modifications to the NE grid could be in place for total capital cost of about 10 - 15 billion dollars, which would be amortized over40 years, i.e., much better than amortizing very expensive batteries over 15 years

 

- The annual electricity would be increased from 21.4 TWh in 2018 to 34.75 TWh in 2050. See table 2

- The daily electricity would be 0.059 TWh/d in 2018 and 0.095 TWh/d in 2050

- The tielines would be designed for temporary supply rates of 2 TWh/d

- The 7-day W&S lull shortfall of electricity would be eliminated.

- Grid-scale batteries would not be required, because the hydro plants of H-Q would efficiently perform most of the peaking, filling-in and balancing of the NE grid at very low cost. See table 2.

 

See spectrum Vaclav Smil URL

 

https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/a-critical-look-at-cla...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/economics-of-tesla-powe...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/partial-capital-cost-of...

 

Table 2/Year 2050	Batteries	Increased H-Q Hydro	Increased H-Q Hydro
		Plus Batteries	No Batteries
Normal wind plus ATM solar, TWh/d	0.298	0.298	0.298
Wind plus ATM solar during lull, TWh/d	0.060	0.060	0.060
Daily shortfall, TWh/d	0.238	0.238	0.238
Lull period, days	7	7	7
Lull shortfall, TWh	1.669	1.669	1.669
Increased H-Q hydro, TWh		1.070	1.669
Remaining lull shortfall, TWh		0.599	0.000
Charged into batteries, TWh as AC	1.669	0.599
In batteries, TWh as DC	1.517	0.544
Discharged from batteries, TWh as AC	1.379	0.495
Loss, AC to AC basis, TWh	0.290	0.104
Loss, AC to AC basis, %	17.36	17.36
Battery not full	1.5	1.5
Battery capacity, TWh as AC	2.069	0.742	Increased tie lines
Capital cost @ $100/kWh, $billion	207	74	10 - 15
Useful service life, year	15	15
Amortize @ 9%/y for 15 y, $billion/y	25.2	9.0

Comment by Dan McKay on March 1, 2019 at 8:03am

Portland Press Herald 3-1-2019 added to story :

"Mills sets goal to fight climate change: 100% renewable electricity by 2050"

LAWMAKERS EXPLORE CARBON TAX

Climate-related issues are expected to attract more attention this year in both Augusta and Washington, D.C., following last November’s Democratic wins.

On Thursday afternoon, a legislative committee heard several hours of testimony on a bill that would impose a carbon tax – or “assessment” – on heating oil, gasoline, kerosene and other fossil fuels. The assessment would begin at $5 “per metric ton of carbon content” – and increasing annually by $5 to $40 per metric ton – on fuel distributors, refiners or manufacturers with proceeds used to reduce utility customers’ bills.  

Bill sponsor Rep. Deane Rykerson,D-Kittery, proposed replacing the bill on Thursday with a “Carbon Pricing Study Group” to examine the issue and recommend changes. But Rykerson said fees on fossil fuels have proven successful in other countries – including Sweden and the Canadian province of British Columbia – in reducing fossil fuel combustion and encouraging investment in renewable energy or more efficient systems.  

“The problem that we are looking at is how to return that fee to Mainers in an equitable fashion, which is why I am proposing a legislative study with stakeholders to look at how that fee can be returned to everybody in Maine who   is impacted by the carbon fee. We can come back next year with a bill to both stimulate our economy and advantage of lower carbon emissions.”

But the Maine Republican Party and the Maine People Before Politics – an organization created by LePage – organized opponents who turned out by the dozens to oppose a bill that they said would merely harm lower-income Mainers and the state’s economy.

Comment by Long Islander on February 28, 2019 at 10:14pm

Thank you Eric. I look forward to listening to this. Just now, I scrolled to the last five or so minutes and listened to the exchange I had heard earlier. Basically, a woman opposed to the bill is appalled at the idea of her oil bill this winter and high taxes (after moving to Maine in the fall) and is very worried about managing all her expenses including driving her daughter to track meets. After she is finished, Representative Steven Foster (R) suggests to her that she may have less concern for her daughter's health than others do with respect to climate change which is going to "destroy our planet". In her response, she advised the "representative" that "not wanting to be taxed does not mean I don't love my child".