A Word About Maine Jobs and Industrial Wind

I've mentioned this interesting development before, but it bears repeating. 

We've heard it from the wind lobby over and over again: 

"Wind is the only game in town." 

When developers' claims that industrial wind facilities would counter the effects of global warming were debunked, they talked about national security, and used arguments that wind would "get us off foreign oil".

When they had to admit that Maine generates a minuscule amount of electricity from oil, and what we do use is imported from Canada and Mexico, they quickly changed tacks. 

When they were confronted with the damage to our mountains, they pointed their fingers at Appalachia's coal mines--hoping no one would remind them that there is only one electricity generator using coal in this state-and that's at the paper mill in Rumford, representing 1/2 of 1 percent of Maine's electric generation.

When challenged about their projects' impact on wildlife, they insulted us by comparing the massive assault to entire flocks of birds to the deaths caused by house cats and picture windows.

And when they had to face the victims--Maine citizens of every age and size--suffering the adverse effects of the low frequency noise and infrasound emissions of turbines, the wind industry talked about JOBS.


Renewable Energy Magazine published an article which should make even the staunchest Maine businesses advocating for wind development pause a moment.  Maybe even....worry.  What happens when the wind developers bring in their own construction crews to build Maine's grid-scale wind facilities?  Where are those promised jobs which will--as the only game in town--turn Maine's economy around and make all the negative impacts of industrial wind... worth it?

Will Reed & Reed and Cianbro and others still feel warm and fuzzy about Maine's wind energy plan, then?

Here's an excerpt from the article.  I urge you to read the whole thing by clicking the link above.

"Iberdrola brands itself as the US’s second largest wind operator, already possessing over 5 GW of wind capacity across the country. Now its engineering subsidiary, Iberdrola Engineering and Construction, is moving into wind farm construction in the US.

"Iberdrola Engineering, the Spanish energy giant’s engineering subsidiary, has been awarded a contract to build its first wind farm in the country through its US subsidiary, Iberdrola Energy Projects Inc. The facility is being built in Groton in the State of New Hampshire..."

Hmmmm.  New Hampshire.  Isn't that right over the Kittery Bridge?

The Voice of a King

Today is a special day for the citizens of Maine. Today, the Portland Press Herald printed TWO articles written by industrial wind developer and former governor, Angus King. My comments to the first op-ed, 'Energy Choices and the 'No Free Lunch' Principle' are below.

Mr. King says: "Critics of wind power fail to acknowledge that it calls for much smaller economic and ecological trade-offs than any other source."

Mr. King fails to mention: Wind delivers an unreliable, intermittent, unnecessary and expensive product which cannot be stored, and which has not been proven to provide the benefits he touts—that wind will reduce our dependence on those ‘foreign’ fossil fuels, or cause any appreciable reduction in greenhouse gasses. Trade-offs? We expect something of value for the price we'll have to pay.

Mr. King says:”And all the drama about wind power in Maine plays right into their hands”

What Mr. King doesn’t say: That ‘drama’ is called ‘freedom of speech’. That ‘drama’ is what happens when the people of Maine take the time to study the facts about ‘wind’ and realize that the current wind energy plan is a poor one which is the product of influence by a powerful corporate lobby, and not the product of sound science and economics. And as far as playing ‘right into their hands’… Mr. King’s modus operandi is this: more scare tactics, and more attempts to make those who are opposing his get-rich-quick schemes appear as if we are the problem. I suppose we’ve become a problem for Mr. King. He was relying on encountering complacent minions who would accept his every assurance about the benefits of wind without ever asking a single question or demanding proof of the value of his product. Now… when he says ‘their hands’… is he speaking of hands in the Middle East? If so, I think the people of Maine would like to hear Mr. King say that he has never had dealings with Iberdrola Renewables. That he has no intention of selling his developments to them, or partnering with them at some point in the future. Because Iberdrola Renewables is—kind of—“they”, are they not? A Spanish company partnered with the United Arab Emirates and Qatar? If Mr. King has no intention of ever selling Maine wind to a foreign company such as Iberdrola Renewables, then I think Mainers would be relieved to hear him state exactly that.

Mr. King says: “Wind opponents don't seem to realize that if they want to say no to wind, that's OK, but when they do, they are actually saying yes to something else, and that something else will most likely have much greater economic or environmental impacts.”

What Mr. King should not say: Mr. King should not put words in other people’s mouths. And Mr. King should not make vague statements such as this one. Mainers require proof. HIS product—wind--has so few benefits that it is astounding to realize that the wind energy plan has progressed as far as it has without any type of accountability or proof that the energy produced is reliable, affordable, and worth the incredible costs to our pocketbooks, our environment, our health, our Quality of Place, or our energy security. Until such scientific and economic proof is provided, no further wind developments should be built. That is not saying ‘no’. That’s saying, ‘Wait. We can’t afford to proceed with such an enormous plan without having proof that the benefits are worth the costs.’ That is the prudent, common-sense thing to do. Maine already produces more electricity that we consume, so there is no emergency. Let’s make sure this is the right thing to do. Show us the proof.

Mr. King says: “Almost 80 percent of all the energy used in Maine (for electricity, heating and transportation) comes from oil.”

Mr. King has a way with words. He is a master at obfuscation. How much of that 80% is used for electricity generation, Mr. King? Two percent or less? That statement is like saying “Almost 80 percent of all potatoes used in Maine (for potato guns, mashing, and baking) come from Aroostook County.” Sheesh.

Mr. King says: “we'll be that big national park many of the wind opponents seem to want.”

Mr. King is doing it again. Trying to create divisiveness, and putting words in others’ mouths. I oppose the current wind energy plan, but I am not in favor of a ‘big national park’. Wind opponents are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves—a fact which Mr. King is well aware of. If we weren’t capable of doing exactly that, there would be no need for the two op-eds Mr. King had published in today’s PPH.

Mr. King says: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch"

Quaint colloquialism aside, what Mr. King fails to mention is that—in the case of industrial wind—there most certainly is. Free lunch for developers; but very costly to tax-payers. Mr. King says nothing about the 1603 cash grant, a no-strings-attached gift from the federal government for ‘renewable’ projects such as those he hopes to build in Roxbury and Highland. Up to 30% of his projects’ costs could be reimbursed to Independence Wind, the company owned by Mr. King and Rob Gardiner. On a $200MILLION project, that’s a $60MILLION lunch. A bit more caviar for Mr. King than PB&J, I think.

Mr. King says: “Opponents of wind energy often repeat the silly charge that wind power somehow "destroys" mountains. They should go to West Virginia and see what the real thing looks like -- mountains torn right down to the ground to get at the coal.”

We should go to West Virginia, hmmm? With the high taxes Mainers pay, not many of us can afford the luxuries our former governor is accustomed to, such as traveling across the country in a motor home. Mr. King is very skilled at twisting others’ words and sensationalizing them. Coal in West Virginia and wind in Maine have very little to do with each other. Is Mr. King asserting that by building hundreds of miles of sprawling wind developments across our mountains, we will have an impact on coal mining in West Virginia? Prove it, please. With one exception, we do not use coal for electricity production in Maine. Nevertheless, that’s not even the point. Mr. King is again trying to turn the public’s eye away from the many problems inherent in his product of choice and make the issue about something else. He's also attempting to pit Mainer against Mainer, and Mainer against citizens of other states. He is demeaning in his attitude towards those of us who are opposing industrial wind projects based on the facts we discovered when we researched this issue. We all know the damage caused by coal mining. Does that mean Mr. King automatically gets a free ride, because his Highland project called for a mere 1.5 MILLION cubic yards of ledge and earth to be blasted and excavated? To give a visual, that amounts to more than 90,000 dump-truck loads full of mountain granite and soil. And that is based on fact, not speculation—taken from Mr. King’s most recent permit application submitted to LURC.

Mr. King says: Hydro “carries its own set of environmental challenges… New hydro, by the way, is about the same cost structure as wind -- expensive to build but essentially free to operate.”

Mr. King neglected to say that hydro has something of incredible value. It has the ability to be stored. Wind doesn’t. Mr. King also didn’t mention the flood control dams already in place in Maine rivers which could be retrofitted with turbines without new damage being done to the surrounding ecologies. Perhaps hydro would be a wiser investment for Mainers and for Mr. King?

Mr. King says: "Do I have to even discuss nuclear?"

Unless he’s an expert, Mr. King probably shouldn’t discuss nuclear energy. That’s not to say that the topic should be avoided altogether. All energy sources need to be debated, improved upon, and considered. Cost vs. benefit. We have amazing scientists who make advances all the time.

Mr. King says: “And don't forget the necessity of some really big transmission corridors through, you guessed it, Maine's western mountains.”

Let’s look at that statement, while ignoring the ‘you guessed it’ sarcasm. The Maine Legislature voted down a request from Quebec for that transmission corridor he speaks of, citing 'Quality of Place' and the damage to Maine’s scenic natural resources. And yet… the PUC approved the MPRP, a transmission corridor which will cut a 400+ mile long swath through 75 Maine towns. According to former governor John Baldacci, we needed this transmission upgrade to get wind energy to the states in southern New England, where it is needed. And Mr. King himself has applied for permission to build his own series of high-voltage transmission corridors through the Maine woods to get his product to market. Which will be less impactful to Maine’s natural resources? Dozens of transmission corridors criss-crossing the state, connecting 1800 turbines to the grid? Or one transmission corridor which would bring reliable and fairly inexpensive electricity into the state and country? It doesn’t seem reasonable for Mr. King to disparage one transmission corridor because it’s not going to benefit him, but promote those which will.

Mr. King says: “The whole energy world is falling down around our ears, and we're arguing about the occasional view? Give me a break.”

There he goes again. Scare tactics, sarcasm, and putting words in others’ mouths. Who’s arguing with Mr. King? We are opposing, yes. The burden of proof is his. Prove, with a science- and economic-based cost vs. benefit analysis that wind is ‘worth it’, and perhaps the conversation will change. And by the way… we’re not talking about ‘the occasional view’, are we? We’re talking about hundreds of miles of Maine’s mountaintops-- our most prominent feature—being capped by wind towers which are twice as high as Maine’s tallest sky-scraper. We’re talking about those same natural resources Mr. King urged Maine to protect in his 1995 inauguration speech. The Maine Center for Economic Policy agreed—they had this to say: “In recent years, numerous economic strategy reports have urged policy makers to capitalize on Maine’s unique and outstanding quality of place assets as effectively conveyed by the Brookings Institution’s influential report, Charting Maine’s Future: An Action Plan for Promoting Sustainable Prosperity and Quality Places.” The fact is that our storied natural resources and “Quality of Place” are a $10BILLION economic driver. If wind turbine developments were an ‘occasional view’, especially in the urban areas of southern Maine, our nature-based tourist industry wouldn’t be at risk. But 40 story turbines along 300-400 miles of rural summits won’t equate to ‘occasional’. Each development will be seen for miles and miles. Mr. King does his readers a disservice by not stating facts.

Mr. King says: “wind brings with it the first major investment in Maine in the past 15 years.”

Investment: The use of money in the hope of making more money.

Tax-payers and rate-payers in Maine and across the country are investing their money through grants, subsidies, TIF’s, accelerated depreciation, renewable energy credits, tax productions credits, and on and on.

Developers like Mr. King will profit by securing amazing returns on our money.

You’re welcome, Mr. King.

Mr. King says: “that saying no to wind is saying yes to something else -- at the moment, mostly oil -- whether we want to admit it or not”

Again… our former governor-turned-industrial wind developer is taking the liberty of speaking for others. And again; Mr. King needs to PROVE IT. Prove how saying ‘yes’ to Maine’s wind energy plan will say ‘no’ to oil. Facts, sir. Hard data. No computer modeling, no assumptions… prove it!If Mr. King can do that, he won’t have to write anymore sarcastic op-eds in which he takes the liberty of twisting words, he belittles and derides Maine citizens who disagree with what he is doing, he assumes to know his opponents minds, and which avoid the real issues by going off on tangents. Give us proof, please, that the 'presumptions of benefits' on which the Wind Energy Act rests are real. Prove it!