The following Op-Ed ran in the Concord Monitor by Tom Irwin, V.P. and New Hampshire Director, Conservation Law Foundation; Susan Arnold, V.P. for Conservation, Appalachian Mountain Club;
Michael King, Executive Director, North Country Council, Inc. and Will Abbott, V.P. for Policy & Land Management, Society for the Protection of NH Forests
When you don’t have a plan, it shows.
The would‐be developer of the Northern Pass project and its partner PSNH are scrambling to find a path of least resistance for transmission lines from the Canadian border to Groveton. Whatever “Plan B” emerges, there is no doubt that it will incite a brand‐new wave of opposition and will do nothing to address the concerns of residents along the proposed route south to Deerfield.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy is frozen in place without an environmental contractor and has delayed the environmental review of the project indefinitely, saying the process will start again at a time of Northern Pass’s choosing.
By contrast, Québec Premier Jean Charest is on a world tour seeking investors in “Plan Nord,” an $80 billion development plan for Québec’s far north. More than ten years in the making, the plan builds on Hydro‐Québec’s own strategic plan to increase exports and includes thousands of megawatts of damming projects that Hydro‐Québec intends to sell into New England and the northeastern U.S.
Quebec clearly has a plan for exporting power, promising decades of profits for the provincial treasury. Yet our federal energy agency is sitting back, waiting for a Hydro‐Québec‐backed developer to call the shots.
The delays mean that DOE still has a golden opportunity to change course – to sideline the proponents’ whims and start acting proactively and in the public interest.
In April, our organizations filed a motion with DOE asking for a regional energy study to assess the nature and extent of New England’s need for Canadian hydropower and to develop an appropriate plan to bring that power into the region. Aside from Northern Pass, there are other international transmission proposals, including a project to bury transmission lines down the Hudson River in New York. It only makes sense to consider, at the same time, all the common issues – such as the fossil‐fuel power that imports should displace, the impacts on local renewable projects, and all the alternative routes and transmission technologies ‐that should be understood in order to inform DOE’s review of Northern Pass and other future projects.
We believe a regional, holistic study is essential to determine if there are other, better ways to facilitate (or avoid) imports, with as many economic benefits and as little community and environmental damage as possible. The analysis should address much more than the least opposed route in Coös County. Investments in energy efficiency, reconfiguring the existing line through Vermont and New Hampshire, burial of lines in transportation rights of way, and adding capacity to the Hudson River project are among the alternatives that should be on the table. If any options have superior benefits and fewer impacts, it would be hard for DOE to certify that the proposed Northern Pass project is in the “public interest” and should be granted a permit to cross the international border.
Within a week of our motion for this regional assessment, Northern Pass’s PR machine flatly dismissed our request as a “delay tactic,” without once explaining why a regional study shouldn’t happen or mentioning that Northern Pass’s own blunders have been responsible for all delays to date. DOE itself has yet to respond, other than to state that it would not respond to individual motions during the permitting process.
The environmental review for Northern Pass hasn’t even gotten off the ground. DOE could and should prepare a comprehensive regional study now. Quebec has a plan; we should have one, too.
June 22, 2011
DOE Public Comment Period Extended Indefinitely
In response to suggestions from the Northern Pass applicants that a new route from Canada to New England for the proposed high voltage powerline and towers is likely to be presented, the Department of Energy has left open indefinitely the already extended public comment period that was to close June 14. Comments are being solicited from the public about what should be included in a required Environmental Impact Satement as part of the process for a Presidential Permit, which is required for the proposed powerlines to cross the international boundary.
As a reminder, here is how to submit comments:
You may mail, call, fax or email them to:
Brian Mills
Senior Planning Advisor
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202-586-8267; FAX: 202-586-8008
Email: Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov
Or you may email comments to: info@northernpasseis.us
As a reminder, here is how to submit comments:
You may mail, call, fax or email them to:
Brian Mills
Senior Planning Advisor
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE-20)
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Ave. SW
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: 202-586-8267; FAX: 202-586-8008
Email: Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov
Or you may email comments to: info@northernpasseis.us
Forest Society Submits Written Comments
In addition to the verbal testimony offered by President/Forester Jane Difley at the DOE scoping hearing in Pembroke, NH, in March, the Forest Society submitted written comments concerning the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement. Those comments can be read here.
June 10, 2011
WMUR: Mega-Utility Project Faces Many Hurdles
Given that Northeast Utilities CEO Charles Shivery stated in an earnings call for investors and industry analysts on May 6 that they "continue to expect to begin construction [of the Northern Pass transmission line] in 2013 and to complete it by the end of 2015", one wonders if Martin Murray's comments at the end of this recent WMUR Channel 9 story signals a realization that their timetable is unrealistic under the best of circumstances.
June 2, 2011
Senate Delays Action on Eminent Domain Bill
The NH Senate voted 14-10 today to re-refer HB648, the bill that attempts to clarify the constitutional protections against the use of eminent domain for private development and the standards that public utilities would need to meet in order to petition for the use of eminent domain for power transmission projects.
This was despite an admirable effort on the part of Sen. Jeannie Forrester (R-Meredith) to marshall support for an amendment to HB648 that could have provided landowner relief while minimizing concerns over unintended consequences.
While landowners facing the explicity threat of eminent domain by Northern Pass representatives were disappointed that the Senate did not provide them immediate relief, the debate over the use of eminent domain served to shine a bright light on process and questionable presumption by PSNH that eminent domain will be at their disposal for the proposed. Northern Pass project.
In fact, it would appear more evident than ever that Northern Pass, LLC, and its participant-funded proposal for a 180-mile transmission line would not have a clear path for the use of eminent domain thanks to Article 12a of the state contitution. As Sen. Jeb Bradley R-Wolfeboro) argued, the use of eminent domain by Northern Pass will be fought in the courts for a very long time regardless of the ultimate outcome of HB648. Bradley was among those who voted to re-refer the bill.
But to the extent that landowners should not have to empty their savings to protect their private property rights in the courts against a taking by a corporations such as Northeast Utilities (parent company of PSNH and partner with Hydro-Quebec in Northern Pass), the Senate would do well to follow through with their stated intent to take some time to find the right wording to clarify existing RSAs (notably 371:1) dealing with the use of eminent domain by public utilities.
An AP story by Kathy McCormack can be read here. An editorial on eminent domain and HB648 in the Union Leader can be read here. Paula Tracy's story in the Union Leader previewing the Senate debate on HB648 can be read here.
This was despite an admirable effort on the part of Sen. Jeannie Forrester (R-Meredith) to marshall support for an amendment to HB648 that could have provided landowner relief while minimizing concerns over unintended consequences.
While landowners facing the explicity threat of eminent domain by Northern Pass representatives were disappointed that the Senate did not provide them immediate relief, the debate over the use of eminent domain served to shine a bright light on process and questionable presumption by PSNH that eminent domain will be at their disposal for the proposed. Northern Pass project.
In fact, it would appear more evident than ever that Northern Pass, LLC, and its participant-funded proposal for a 180-mile transmission line would not have a clear path for the use of eminent domain thanks to Article 12a of the state contitution. As Sen. Jeb Bradley R-Wolfeboro) argued, the use of eminent domain by Northern Pass will be fought in the courts for a very long time regardless of the ultimate outcome of HB648. Bradley was among those who voted to re-refer the bill.
But to the extent that landowners should not have to empty their savings to protect their private property rights in the courts against a taking by a corporations such as Northeast Utilities (parent company of PSNH and partner with Hydro-Quebec in Northern Pass), the Senate would do well to follow through with their stated intent to take some time to find the right wording to clarify existing RSAs (notably 371:1) dealing with the use of eminent domain by public utilities.
An AP story by Kathy McCormack can be read here. An editorial on eminent domain and HB648 in the Union Leader can be read here. Paula Tracy's story in the Union Leader previewing the Senate debate on HB648 can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
