The Republican Project asked gubernatorial candidates:
“Today, the Portland Press Herald is again advocating on behalf of Governor Baldacci that Maine continues development of offshore wind technology with foreign investment and taxpayer funding. Given that resources are finite, doing so will mean that fewer resources will be available for other urgent energy issues. Specifically, 85% of Mainers heat with oil, and we have one of the highest-priced electricity markets in the country, and it is doubtful that offshore wind development will do anything to address these issues. It is the opinion of The Republican Project that continuing to use taxpayer dollars to fund experimentation with an unproven technology that will neither provide heat nor reduce our electricity rates seems unwise.
Should you be successful in the gubernatorial election, will you elect to continue fund and seek federal funding for offshore wind energy development, or would you focus the resources on natural gas, nuclear, or other?”
Peter Mills responds:
30 years ago, Maine bet on the price of oil by compelling utilities to buy the output from wood fired generators. When oil prices dropped for the ensuing two decades, Maine people lost their bet by a wide margin. We are still paying it off in stranded costs.
13 years ago, CMP closed Maine Yankee 15 years ahead of its license expiration on the theory that it was not economical to overhaul the plant, particularly after weathering three public referenda to close it. Maine rate payers may have lost that bet as well.
Ten years ago, we forced CMP to sell its generators to the open market on the theory that competition would yield lower prices. We lost sovereignty over free hydro power and now pay as much for our electricity as customers in Boston and Hartford are willing to pay.
Hydro Quebec (HQ) just bought New Brunswick Power and is rumored to be negotiating to buy the power companies in PEI and Nova Scotia. HQ is the dominant provider of electric power in this quadrant of North America. Their monopoly control over access to Atlantic Canada has forced producers in Newfoundland to sell the first 20 years of power from the massive Churchill Falls hydro project at a quarter of a cent per KWH and the ensuing 20 years for only one fifth of a cent.That is 1/40th to 1/50th of the price presently being paid for power (excluding T&D charges) in Maine & New England.The power in Canada is so cheap that it will somehow find its way into the New England market whether it be by way of New Hampshire, Maine or the Atlantic ocean.
Just last month, the PUC ordered CMP and Bangor Hydro to purchase for the next 20 years the entire output of the Rollins Wind Project from a subsidiary of First Wind. Although the order requires that the power be sold at a discount to the market, it also sets a floor price of between $55/MWh and $65/MWh for the life of the contract. This is 22 to 26 times as much as it currently costs to produce power in Newfoundland.
Thus, Maine has now placed yet another bet. Although this is only a small one, it sets a precedent for future public commitments that are required for wind projects to obtain financing. While onshore wind is a proven technology, it may in the future face stiff competition from cheap Canadian power affecting the value of our bet.
I presently serve on a task force that is determining how to draft the terms and conditions for an energy corridor through Maine using rights of way along existing highways, rail beds, pipelines, power lines or submerged lands. Unless we are careful, such a corridor may prove useful primarily to Hydro Quebec and to consumers in southern New England with very little benefit to Maine.
1. Companies in Maine that generate power should be guaranteed affordable access to the corridor for delivering electricity into the lucrative southern New England market.
2. Power within the corridor should be accessible to Maine consumers at rates substantially below what we are presently paying as part of the New England market.
Everything else seems trivial.
The potential for off shore wind is a long way off. At present, it is not economical to generate wind power from a massive floating platform anchored to the bottom of the ocean. The test platform in Norway is unbelievably expensive and needs frequent maintenance in its hostile environment. It is not yet clear whether such turbines should operate on a horizontal or a vertical axis.
To my knowledge, very little of the money being invested here in Maine for the off shore wind pilot plants is coming from the state. $22 million came from the federal government and much of the rest came from BIW, Cianbro and other private partners who see an advantage to developing this technology in the United States over the next ten to twenty years. Maine provides an ideal environment for testing the equipment. But whether and when offshore wind will be able to compete with onshore wind and with other cheap sources from Canada is a matter for rank speculation.
The state money that is being invested in wind would be best focused on things that improve the known technologies of onshore wind: blades, towers, generators, transmission lines, etc. The Orono composite lab can help BIW, Cianbro, Reed & Reed, local fabrication shops and Maine’s boat building industry to develop a wind power market that may have carryover value to offshore wind but in the meantime can be used directly in less speculative onshore applications.
The materials lab in Orono is one of Maine’s most significant R&D resources. It has a proven record for attracting and multiplying commercial investments. The state should continue to support it in sensible ways particularly when small amounts of state money are all that is needed to attract large quantities of outside capital, new patents and new jobs.
We’ve been having informational meetings here in Clifton leading up to a wind energy project application that will probably come in July. Our small town (population 750 or so) has been scrambling madly to become informed on wind turbines, health issues, permitting, etc. My role has until recently been as a ‘planning assistant’. It has been a real challange to research and sift through fact and opinion and fiction. We don’t want this issue to divide our town as has been happening elsewhere in Maine. Reading this article has put even one more slant on the subject. Some will ask why our town has to run the risk of health consequences (truly I believe quite low in our situation) and possible reduction of home values (who knows about that one) and potential negative impacts on natural resources that our Comprehensive Plan was written to protect (using state grant money and at the urging of the State Planning Office) to produce electricity that costs several times over what we could easily obtain electricity from elsewhere. I will be watching the campaign to see how Mr. Mills addresses the wind energy issues. I find a lot in his statements and record to encourage me to vote for him, but found this one issue a little troubling. Emotion runs high when rumors run rampant. WE NEED THE TRUTH AND RATIONAL POLICIES BASED ON REALITY.