May 6, 2011
Concord Chamber Forum on Northern Pass
Suffice it to say that the Forest Society and PSNH, a subsidiary of Northeast Utilities, have different points of view on the relative merit, impact and real public benefit of the proposed Northern Pass transmission line. PSNH CEO Gary Long and Forest Society VP of Policy/Land Management Will Abbott presented those differing views at a forum hosted by the Concord Chamber of Commerce on May 5. Read Ben Leubsdorf's coverage of the forum in the Concord Monitor here. Read the Forest Society's presentation by Will Abbott here.
April 12, 2011
Forest Society Responds to Northern Pass
In response to comments submitted by Northern Pass to the Dept. of Energy today, The Forest Society is renewing its call for Northeast Utilities, PSNH, N-Star and Hydro-Quebec to withdraw their Presidential Permit application.
"These latest comments reinforce the fact that this proposal is not ready for the Permitting Process and needs to go back to the drawing board," said Jane Difley, president/forester of the Forest Society. "This latest filing also underlines the reality that there is little, if any, public benefit in the proposal and is designed to benefit Northeast Utilities and Hydro-Quebec."
Northern Pass acknowedged that certain of their alternative routes "are so lacking in public support that they should no longer be deemed practical alternatives," and consequently withdrew their support of those alternatives.
"Unfortunately, they seem to only be able to hear out of one ear," said Jack Savage, VP Communications. "We have maintained that their preferred route is also lacking in meaningful public support. For that reason, as well as the many other substantive problems with the proposal, Northern Pass should start over."
In its 13-page legal brief, Northern Pass maintains:
1. That its Presidential Permit is complete, and that it has no obligation to describe alternatives that do not "serve the purposes for the Project."
2. That a post-scoping public comment period, as requested by several organizations including the Forest Society, is "unwarranted."
3. That burying the proposed transmission line is "not practical" and "would have a prohibitive cost."
4. That placing the proposed transmission line underwater is "not a reasonable alternative".
5. That using the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPEI) line because "it would not meet the Project's purpose."
6. That it only wants to consider its preferred route and no longer supports certain alternative routes because "several of the alternatives...are so lacking in public support that they should no longer be deemed practical alternatives."
7. That it supports an extension of the scoping period (as previously requested by the Sen. Shaheen, Sen. Ayotte, and Congressman Bass,) in order to "pursue the identification of different potential routing options for portions of the preferred route", particularly in the North Country.
Paula Tracy has a good follow-up on reaction in the print-only edition of the Union Leader. Kathy McCormack's AP story can be read here. Read Tara Ballenger's story based on PSNH's announcement can be read in the Concord Monitor here.
"These latest comments reinforce the fact that this proposal is not ready for the Permitting Process and needs to go back to the drawing board," said Jane Difley, president/forester of the Forest Society. "This latest filing also underlines the reality that there is little, if any, public benefit in the proposal and is designed to benefit Northeast Utilities and Hydro-Quebec."
Northern Pass acknowedged that certain of their alternative routes "are so lacking in public support that they should no longer be deemed practical alternatives," and consequently withdrew their support of those alternatives.
"Unfortunately, they seem to only be able to hear out of one ear," said Jack Savage, VP Communications. "We have maintained that their preferred route is also lacking in meaningful public support. For that reason, as well as the many other substantive problems with the proposal, Northern Pass should start over."
In its 13-page legal brief, Northern Pass maintains:
1. That its Presidential Permit is complete, and that it has no obligation to describe alternatives that do not "serve the purposes for the Project."
2. That a post-scoping public comment period, as requested by several organizations including the Forest Society, is "unwarranted."
3. That burying the proposed transmission line is "not practical" and "would have a prohibitive cost."
4. That placing the proposed transmission line underwater is "not a reasonable alternative".
5. That using the Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPEI) line because "it would not meet the Project's purpose."
6. That it only wants to consider its preferred route and no longer supports certain alternative routes because "several of the alternatives...are so lacking in public support that they should no longer be deemed practical alternatives."
7. That it supports an extension of the scoping period (as previously requested by the Sen. Shaheen, Sen. Ayotte, and Congressman Bass,) in order to "pursue the identification of different potential routing options for portions of the preferred route", particularly in the North Country.
Paula Tracy has a good follow-up on reaction in the print-only edition of the Union Leader. Kathy McCormack's AP story can be read here. Read Tara Ballenger's story based on PSNH's announcement can be read in the Concord Monitor here.
April 11, 2011
Yesterday's Technology for Tomorrow's Needs
Rebecca Brown, executive director of the Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust (ACT), penned this op-ed that appeared in today's Concord Monitor. The ACT is a land trust that focuses its work on the western White Mountains (Littleton, Whitefield, Franconia and nearby towns), taking its name from the Ammonoosuc River. The Northern Pass power line corridor and associated towers would cut through ACT's area.
April 10, 2011
Hydro-Quebec's Dirty Secret
For an interesting point of view on the environmental impact of Hydro-Quebec's massive hydropower installations, read this article by William Marsden that ran in the Montreal Gazette April 9.
April 8, 2011
Ayotte, Bass Oppose Northern Pass as Proposed
Senator Kelly Ayotte and Congressman Charlie Bass wrote in a letter to the Dept. of Energy that they oppose the Northern Pass project as proposed.
"While we appreciate your consideration of our request to extend the comment period, we are also writing to oppose the Northern Pass Transmission Project as currently proposed. Although we recognize the potential benefits that a project of this scale could have on New Hampshire and the New England region, it is vital that we protect our state’s economy, natural resources, and quality of life." The full text of their joint letter can be read here.
In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Ayotte and Bass encouraged the Department of Energy (DOE) to study alternative options as it prepares a draft Environmental Impact Statement, including: the feasibility of burying the transmission line; the feasibility of burying the transmission line under the Connecticut River; and the relative impact of using only existing rights-of-way, or other appropriate routes, while also eliminating or minimizing the use of tall towers.
Read about it in the Concord Monitor here.
"While we appreciate your consideration of our request to extend the comment period, we are also writing to oppose the Northern Pass Transmission Project as currently proposed. Although we recognize the potential benefits that a project of this scale could have on New Hampshire and the New England region, it is vital that we protect our state’s economy, natural resources, and quality of life." The full text of their joint letter can be read here.
In a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Ayotte and Bass encouraged the Department of Energy (DOE) to study alternative options as it prepares a draft Environmental Impact Statement, including: the feasibility of burying the transmission line; the feasibility of burying the transmission line under the Connecticut River; and the relative impact of using only existing rights-of-way, or other appropriate routes, while also eliminating or minimizing the use of tall towers.
Read about it in the Concord Monitor here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
