Northern
Pass opponents have been waiting to learn to what extent the U.S. Dept. of
Energy (DOE) listened to the voluminous public comments regarding the need to
analyze alternatives to the proposed overhead transmission line, such as burial
along transportation corridors. The fear has been that the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) would be completed without serious study of such alternatives.
Prompted
by requests from the New Hampshire Congressional Delegation, the DOE released
on May 1 a preliminary report outlining the alternatives that will be studied
as part of the EIS for the proposed Northern Pass transmission line.
Now that
the report is out, the rush is on to understand not only what it says but what
it might mean for Northern Pass. The caveat, however, is that this is clearly a
preliminary report. As the document itself notes:
This Alternatives Addendum
document briefly discusses alternatives that will, as of this time, be included
in the draft EIS. However, this ongoing review may generate new information
that results in changes or additions to, or reorganization of, the information
presented below. DOE will use the information gathered during this process to
identify which of the alternatives are reasonable.
In other
words, if any one listed alternative is determined to be
"unreasonable" by the DOE, it may get short shrift. The report goes
on to say:
The range of reasonable
alternatives will be analyzed in detail in the draft EIS, including discussion
of design specifics and an analysis of potential environmental impacts. DOE
also will identify those alternatives that are not reasonable and, in the draft
EIS, will briefly discuss the reasons those alternatives were eliminated from
detailed study.
The Alternatives Being Analyzed
There
are 24 alternatives summarized in the report, including the so-called
"Proposed Action" (the largely overhead line that Hydro-Quebec and
Northeast Utilities want to build) and the "No Action" alternative
(what happens if no line at all is built).
Among
the rest are 10 variations on burial of some or all of the line, which suggests
that burial options are likely to be analyzed in some detail. Those variations
include burying only 10 out of 187 miles to avoid overhead lines through the
White Mountain National Forest, to "porpoising" above and below
ground, to complete burial either along the proposed right of way or under
roadways or rail corridors.
There
are a few surprises, such as the possibility of locating the conversion station
(the electricity would travel the greatest distance as direct current, or DC,
but must be converted to alternating current, or AC, to be accepted into the
New England grid) in Deerfield instead of Franklin as proposed by Northern
Pass. This possibility has not been part of any significant public discussion
to date.
One
alternative would apparently consider a terminus other than Deerfield, and
thus, as the report states, "Specific alternate locations for the project’s
terminus substations were not suggested, but different locations could
significantly expand the range of possible routes." Another alternative
considers placing the transmission line in an above-ground "tube" or
pipeline, while another considers using navigable waterways, such as the
Merrimack River. It's unknown to what extent such alternatives will get close
scrutiny.
What's Not Among the Alternatives
None of
potential alternatives listed in the report contemplate an international border
crossing other than the one requested by Hydro-Quebec and Northeast Utilities
in Pittsburg, N.H. This is notable for several reasons, not the least of which
is that absent eminent domain, all overhead and underground routes that start
at that point are blocked by the Forest Society's ownership of the Washburn
Family Forest in adjoining Clarksville, including land underneath Route 3.
Northern Pass has yet to secure a legally permittable route, and the
alternatives being studied by the DOE don't resolve that issue.
The sole
Pittsburg starting point is also notable in that the shortest route for power
to be delivered from Quebec to power-demand centers in southern New
England--especially if buried along roadways such as I-91--would not begin
there.
Also
missing among the alternatives is any consideration of so-called HVDC Light
technology, the kind of buried transmission cable to be used in similar
projects in New York (Champlain-Hudson Express and Vermont (New England Clean
Power Link).
Rather,
it would appear that the DOE for the most part has chosen to study alternatives
that start with the project developers' own assumptions--that the line would
cross into the U.S. in Pittsburg, N.H., and proceed to Deerfield, N.H., using
the limits of old-school transmission technology. This is somewhat less than
some stakeholders had hoped for. Gov.
Maggie Hassan in her statement about the report, saw fit to note, "I
continue to believe that, with any energy project, New Hampshire deserves the
latest technologies in order to protect what we all love about our state...
."
Increased Interest in Vermont
Meanwhile,
during a visit to New Hampshire, Vermont's Gov. Peter Shumlin offered to work
with Gov. Hassan to look into using Interstate 91 as a potential route for a
buried line.
"If
anyone can get it done, it’s Governor Hassan, myself and others," he said.
"We would love to find solutions to get our southern neighbors the juice
they need without destroying our pristine forests."
Two
other underground transmission proposals, both from Transmission Developers
Inc. (TDI) are proposed for Vermont/New York. The Champlain-Hudson Express, an
underground and underwater 330-mile 1,000MW project that would deliver power
from Quebec to New York, is well ahead of Northern Pass in the permitting
process. And in May, TDI applied for a Presidential Permit for its New England
Clean Power Link, another underwater and underground transmission line that
would deliver 1000MW of Hydro Quebec power to Ludlow, Vt., where it would
connect to the New England grid. TDI projects a 2019 completion date and $1.2
billion price tag for that approximately 150-mile project.
Perhaps,
then, it is not surprising that earlier this spring Northeast Utilities fielded
their own proposals to connect to the regional grid in Vermont. NU denied that
those proposals were meant as a hedge against the stymied Northern Pass project
in New Hampshire, but would not say how much electricity would be carried nor
what the source of power would be.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.