State board deals potentially fatal blow to First Wind deal
Credit: By Naomi Schalit and John Christie, Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, bangordailynews.com 20 January 2012 ~~
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Last April, Maine’s largest wind energy developer, First Wind, trumpeted a multimillion-dollar deal that would pay for the company’s ambitious plans to erect more wind turbines throughout Maine and the Northeast.
But the Maine Public Utilities Commission dealt a potentially fatal blow to the deal last week.
PUC staff, faced with what opponents of the deal have called the first serious challenge to the state’s landmark 2000 electricity deregulation law, recommended on Jan. 13 that the agency give the thumbs-down to the deal.
“We deny approval of the ‘proposed Transactions’ as we find that the risk of harm to ratepayers exceeds the benefits,” the draft decision reads, “even if conditions intended to mitigate the risk of harm to ratepayers were imposed.”
The recommendation, which will be considered and voted on by the three agency commissioners on Jan. 31, caps a nine-month struggle over a deal that’s described in legal filings as being worth, “at the high end,” $880 million. The capital infusion to First Wind alone would amount to $333 million.
First Wind, Ontario-based Algonquin Power and Utilities Corp. and Emera Inc., the Nova Scotia-based parent company of Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service, propose to jointly build and operate wind energy projects in Maine and elsewhere in the Northeast. After a failed bid to go public in 2010, which left First Wind cash-hungry, the deal is a way for the Boston-based company to continue building wind towers across Maine and the region and a way for Emera and Algonquin to reach new energy consumers in the U.S.
At last count, there were 312 legal filings with the PUC in the case, a brigade of lawyers from Maine’s top law firms and state agencies, briefs, motions and documents that reference Hemingway, Shakespeare and Lady Gaga, and a subpoena served on an Emera official by a retired Canadian Mountie.
The case before the PUC centered on two legal issues: Was the proposal in the interest of ratepayers and would the deal violate Maine’s Electric Restructuring Act.
The Electric Restructuring Act, which took effect on March 1, 2000, prohibits utilities from owning both transmission and generation of electricity, which forced the Maine’s utilities to sell off dams and power plants. After the restructuring, utilities were responsible only for delivering power while other companies produced it – all in an attempt to create more competition and lower electricity rates.
Parties to the First Wind deal asserted in filings that it would benefit ratepayers by providing “a substantial benefit in achieving the State’s aggressive wind energy targets,” lowering the price of electricity in the regional market and strengthening the finances of both Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service. Proponents said the Electric Restructuring Act would not be violated because Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service, the two regulated Maine utilities in the deal, would not actually own or “have any measure of control” over generation assets or hold a “financial interest” in them.
But Eric Bryant, an attorney for the Maine Public Advocate’s Office, which represents the interest of the state’s utility customers, said last week that his office opposed the First Wind deal because it could result in higher utility prices, thus violating a law that required a deal to do no harm to the interests of ratepayers.
Bryant said the plan also would violate the Electric Restructuring Act. Its complex corporate structure, he said, would amount to just what the law forbids – a utility controlling a power generator.
“It’s a virtual vertical utility,” said Bryant. “If we’re going to actually honor the restructuring act, you can’t allow this restructuring to happen.”
Anthony Buxton, lead attorney for industrial energy users including Verso, Huhtamaki and Madison Paper, who are opposed to the deal, said, “Maine is being asked to change its energy policy, dramatically. The interpretation of this part of the statute is incredibly important in keeping a competitive market for electricity prices in Maine.
“The question is whether the restructuring act will be kept whole,” he said, “or whether someone will drive a big hole in it.”
The PUC staff’s draft decision rejected arguments made by the deal’s opponents that the Electric Restructuring Act would be violated because an affiliate of the utility, not the utility itself, would own the generation assets.
The staff concluded, “The utilities will not have any equity interest or voting securities that will allow them to exercise any direct or indirect management control over the development or operation of generation assets within the meaning of the statute.”
Nevertheless, staff wrote that the proposed affiliation of Bangor Hydro and Maine Public Service with companies that will “develop, own and operate generation assets” raises “substantial concerns regarding the possible exercise of preferential treatment by a utility to its competitive affiliates.” That, in turn, could produce higher transmission rates and higher electricity prices.
“We firmly believe that the joint venture with Northeast Wind will bring significant benefits to Maine ratepayers and will lead to as much as $3 billion in investment in the Maine economy and its communities,” First Wind spokesman John Lamontagne said Thursday. “That will create hundreds of related jobs and generate more competitively priced clean, renewable energy for Maine homes and businesses.”
Emera spokeswoman Sasha Irving declined to comment.
The Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting is a nonprofit, nonpartisan news service based in Hallowell. Email email@example.com or visit pinetreewatcdog.org.
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding