FRANKLIN COUNTY –- “I believe that (the public) should be wary of politicians’, including ex-politicians’, recommendations concerning how to solve Maine’s energy problems,” said Carroll R. Lee, former president of Bangor Hydro Electric Company. Lee’s statement was in response to Angus King’s recent energy speech which called for large-scale offshore wind power development. King’s idea was to develop 4-5,000 mega-watts of wind power on floating platforms over 20 miles out at sea.

Lee says that proponents of this idea are the same folks that, in the past 30-plus years, implemented laws and regulations that have driven up the cost and price of electricity in Maine nearly 75 percent relative to U.S. averages. These laws and regulations add nearly $1 billion per year to electric costs, Lee explained, while having the effect of increasing Maine’s use of oil and natural gas to the highest per capita in the United States.

“Evaluating alternative energy solutions consists of more than listening to a news sound bite, it takes some physics and thermodynamic analysis to determine the net results and outcomes,” said Jim LaBrecque, a contributing resource for this series and a locally-born inventor of HVAC control systems.

“Typically the public never gets the full story or understands the full consequences of these alternative proposals so therefore lack the ability to make informed decisions. Instead they become dependent on political posturing,” said LaBrecque.

For example, LaBrecque explained that the second law of thermodynamics basically says anytime you convert one form of energy into another you lose energy. In simple terms, wood-fired electric power plants receive three truck loads of wood from the forest and turns one truck load into electricity; the other two are wasted in the form of steam you can see coming out of the plant. LaBrecque used the Biomass plant in Eustis as an example.

“Public policy should have been written in consideration of the ‘second law’ to take advantage of this waste heat. We now have situations like Katahdin paper company in Millinocket (which) may be closing soon because the cost of oil to make steam is bankrupting them while at the same time we have wood-fired power plants around the state blowing steam off into the air,” LaBrecque pointed out.
LaBrecque says he is outraged at the bad decisions our elected officials have made over the years that are now having a hazardous effect on everyone of us.

Lee points out some misguided policies of the past here in Maine. The policies include: “the denial of utility plans for new non-oil power plants; mandates that utilities purchase high-priced, non-utility generated power; mandates that utility customers subsidize non-economic energy conservation; the denial of utility plans to interconnect and purchase low cost power from Hydro Quebec under long-term contracts; the denial of Bangor Hydro plans to double its hydro power generation.”

Other past misguided policies, Lee explains, include: “the shut-down of Maine Yankee; the implementation of electric deregulation (which required utilities to sell their low cost hydro and other generation plants and resulted in electricity prices paid by Maine consumers to be tied to natural gas and oil prices); the pending removal of three economically viable and expandable hydro dams on the Penobscot River; the requirement that Maine join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, increasing the cost of electricity by $30 million annually; and the mandate that 10 percent of Maine’s electricity be derived from new renewable generation (adding $60 million to annual electricity costs to Maine ratepayers).”

LaBrecque stated that he believes we face the most serious crisis that we’ve ever had to deal with here in Maine and in the nation.

“Think back and ask yourself if we are better off with closing down Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Plant when it was producing thee-cent per kWh electricity forcing us to now pay 16 to 18 cents?”

LaBrecque asked if we’d be better off if wood-fired electric plants were sited where they could have used the waste heat.

He questions why we didn’t allow power lines to be brought down from Canada supplying abundant hydro electric power form Hydro Quebec.

“Maine lawmakers should not have broken up our utility companies and forced them to sell off their hydro generation assets to out-of-state companies who, at the time, were providing us with very cheap and clean electricity.”

LaBrecque also noted that Maine lawmakers and regulators denied a coal-fired power plant to be built at Sears Island and denied Bangor Hydro to build the Basin Mills Hydro project as additional examples.

“Why should I believe these political hacks will make sound judgments during this newest crisis when history has proven otherwise,” LaBrecque said.

Lee said that misguided policies continue today and cited the following as examples: the removal of hydro with an economic cost of well over $1 billion; RGGI participation; new renewable subsidy mandate, and continued refusal to address deficiencies in deregulation “even with the historic increase in electricity cost that is significantly harming Maine’s electric ratepayers and destroying Maine’s economy (Holtrachem shutdown, GP paper mill shutdown, Katahdin mill shutdown…).”

Maine is possibly the most dependent state on fossil fuels in the country with 87 percent of Maine's total energy bill consisting of fossil fuels, not a good position for Mainer’s to be in.

“While at Bangor Hydro,” Lee explained, “I and others pointed out the flaws in Maine’s energy policies to politicians and regulators, including Angus King. Our view was that the development and use of electric resources with a utility/customer owned diversified generation portfolio would be part of the solution, not part of the problem.”

Lee explained that one only has to look 100 miles northeast to the policies of New Brunswick, where electric use per capita is three times Maine’s, where electric rates are one-third, and where oil use for heating is minimal.

“That could have occurred in Maine if not for the mistakes of politicians over the last 30 years. Perhaps, we should now look elsewhere for advice on energy policy. And, don’t blame the feds; this is a Maine-grown problem,” Lee said.
A plan for offshore wind power development could create an abundant amount of jobs here in Maine and contribute clean renewable energy to the New England ISO. Its cost and viability has yet to be fully investigated.

Hill provided a perspective on King’s energy proposal for off-shore development: “A 65-mile direct current power line (the Neptune Project), now connects Long Island with the power grid in Pennsylvania. The cable caries 660 megawatts and passes under the ocean floor. The cost was $600 million. The off-shore wind proposal of Angus King will require the transmission of 5,000 megawatts through several hundred miles of ocean-floor cable. I hesitate to do the math.”

As far as alternatives are concerned, are there plans and/or policies here in Maine to develop nuclear power facilities? Is nuclear power a problem of science and technological sophistication or is it now a political problem?

LaBrecque often speaks of Hill’s energy analysis. One of part of which is replacing one Seabrook-size nuclear power plant with wind turbines, “It would require six Mars Hill-sized projects in each of all 16 Maine counties.” Do we have the mountaintops across the State to do that, he asked.

The “Maine energy and the future” series will continue next with possible solutions for Maine people. As UMO Professor Dr. George Markowski explains, it will contain ways to “soften the landing” as energy sources become vital to our way of life.


WIND ENERGY IN MAINE:

Mars Hill: in production -- 28 units, 42 MW total, 150 million kilowatt-hours per year.

Stetson Mountain; under construction -- 38 units, 57 MW total.

TransCanada: LURC approved -- 44 units, 132 MW total.
When these 231 MW are up and running the wind contribution should be about 700 million kWh per year. New England uses about 130 billion kWh per year. The Maine wind contribution, including those yet to be constructed, will produce about one-half of one percent of New England electricity. A recent Governor’s task force projects the potential for between 2,000 and 3000 MW. (Provided by Professor Richard Hill)