Not For Sale

The Northern Pass project was rolled out early in Massachusetts and Connecticut as "affordable." In Spring 2009, a Massachusetts publication, Affordable Energy News, explained why a participant-funded (private) line was so attractive; at a conference in Hartford in October, 2010, HQ-US also touted the low costs of Northern Pass to rate-payers.

From "New Transmission Line Could Bring Canadian Hydro Power to Massachusetts," Affordable Energy News, Spring 2009.

"A frequent and often tumultuous debate around new transmission lines is who would pay for the costs associated with the new line. According to the proponents, 'the transaction proposed by the Petitioners resolves difficult and highly contentious cost allocation for new transmission. . . .
If the (proposed) HVDC Line were constructed as a Market Efficiency Upgrade and included in regional rates, the costs would be spread throughout New England, which is almost certain to create opposition'."

Instead, Hydro Quebec-US would directly pay for construction costs and receive transmission rights over the line, taking the risk of selling enough power to recover costs. Thus, the project would avoid "difficult issues regarding the benefit that different parts of the region would receive and the associated difficulties related to transmission cost allocation for a non-reliabilty project." Connecticut also supported the instant transaction and the funding mechanism, the article notes. It's easy to understand why.

(The full text of the article is here.)

On October 4, 2010, Steve Molodetz, VP of business development at HQ-US, addressed a business conference, "What's the Deal?," in Hartford CT.  Molodetz also stressed that Northern Pass would be a participant-funded venture with “zero impact on transmission rates” and no government or ratepayer subsidies, according to the report of the conference sponsor, the Connecticut Business & Industry Association (CBIA).

Mr. Molodetz's power point presentation dated 9/30/2010 may be seen here. "Benefits to New England" of Northern Pass are on page 16.

New Hampshire is not just a line on a project map, however. If the true full costs of the proposed project were calculated and borne by those in Southern New England who stand to benefit from it, Northern Pass would not be so "affordable" and attractive. These costs would far exceed compensation for NH land purchased or taken by eminent domain for new and widened ROWs. They would have to include the impacts of the 140-mile transmission line on New Hampshire tourism and recreation, real estate values, property taxes, jobs, lost income and home equity, and more.

But even if a "user-pays" or true cost internalization system were adopted, it could never compensate for what is beyond price: a pristine backcountry, the White Mountains, the Great North Woods, physical places that are ideas in the mind as well, refuges for the urban weary, for the many people in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Rhode Island, and down below who flock across our border in search of solitude and its wilderness values. These things cannot be bought; they are not for sale.

The Sign Gallery (1-10)

Please send us a picture of your home-made or other sign opposing Northern Pass and we'll post it here. Each "Sign Gallery" post will feature 10 signs.

Address for pictures: burynorthernpass<at>gmail.com. Thanks!







#1 Rte 3, Stratford, Mark McCullock, January 2011

 




#2 Greg Lamm, January 2011

 


#3 January 2011





#4 Poster Girls, January 2011



#5 Shaw's, Concord, January 2011



#6 Charles Young's Petition-on-Wheels panel truck with initial signatures, February 2, 2011.
Give him a wave and he'll give you a Sharpie to sign on. Just a friendly reminder: DOT prohibits profanity.

#7  I-93 Northbound near Plymouth





 


#8  Rte. 3, Stratford




#9  Rte 3, Stratford, "Five Chimneys," just north of Sign #1, February 2011



The Eleventh Hour

Recent meetings, growing skepticism, and two letters by Tom Mullen





PSNH informational meetings are starting to wind down in Coos and Grafton Counties. Since the earliest sessions in late October and early November, audiences have become increasingly negative and skeptical about the entire process. According to the Valley News, in last night's info meeting in Lebanon concerning the proposed alternate route through the Upper Connecticut valley towns of Haverhill, Piermont, Orford, and Dorchester, "environmentalists and land owners . . . reacted with dismay." Haverhill Town Manager Glenn English called the Northern Pass a "blight" that's going to have "no direct benefit" to the North Country. Despite PSNH's rhetoric of inclusion and "input," English feels that local communities will have little actual role in decision making once the regulatory merry-go-round starts up. Orford resident Sally Tomlinson commented that it almost looks like "games" are being played in attempting to pit preferred and alternate routes--and towns--against one another.

Faith in the process is now so low that no one was likely to believe PSNH spokesperson Allison McLean last night when she claimed that "we're kind of at step one of a marathon here." That talking point was echoed this morning on NHPR when PSNH's Martin Murray insisted that there's plenty of time for public "input" since we're only at mile three of a marathon. Few people are lulled into complacency by this talking point. Most of us realize that we're at the eleventh hour in terms of PSNH's efforts to capture the one thing that it must have to bypass public opposition, eminent domain. If PSNH has not already done so, it will likely soon make an end run around public opposition by getting a purchase agreement for some nominal amount of power from Hydro-Quebec, thereby claiming that it is a public utility not a private merchant transmission line. The next step would be to apply to the NH Public Utilities Commission for public utility status and thereby garner the privilege of taking our land by eminent domain.

At another meeting last night, one organized by and for the opposition in North Woodstock, Ray D'Amante came up from Concord to express solidarity with the North Country and to reiterate that it's the eleventh hour. Anyone who thinks that we are only at McLean's step one or Murray's mile three will be left in the starting blocks as PSNH crosses the finish line and the North Country's fate is sealed.

How do you get in the race to save the North Country? Write to your elected officials, to Senator Gallus, Governor Lynch, Senator Shaheen. Persist. Tom Mullen wrote to Senator Gallus on January 20 and again on January 21. With Tom, don't settle for "no position" as an answer from the people we elect to exercise leadership on our behalf.

Contact info for Grafton County elected officials is here.
Contact info for Coos County elected officials is here.


Bury the Northern Pass, a group of concerned citizens in Grafton County, participates in the No Northern Pass Coalition. To join the email list, write to burynorthernpass@gmail.com.

The Southern Pass?

Today's Concord Monitor carries an article by Tara Ballenger concerning the 28 miles of new right-of-way that the Northern Pass may have to cut in the Concord NH area.

Power plan has local connection

By Tara Ballenger

Created 01/21/2011 - 00:00

Concord Monitor 

Scope of impact depends on FAA

The Northern Pass project by Northeast Utilities and Hydro Quebec might require cutting as much as 28 miles of new right of way in the southern half of the state. How much - if any - hinges largely on the project getting approval from the Federal Aviation Administration to build the towers next to existing lines around Concord's airport, according to Northeast Utilities.

Officials and residents in Concord and neighboring towns are saying they aren't necessarily opposed to the project, which would bring 1,200 megawatts of electricity through 140 miles of high-voltage power lines from Canada to a converter station in Franklin, and then to Deerfield to be piped into the regional power grid. But those who are in the path of the proposed routes are voicing their concerns about clearing new rights of way to build them.

Worries about how transmission lines would affect property values, scenic views and the environment, echo sentiments heard in the North Country, where the proposal of 40 new miles of right of way has sparked significant protest.

"I'm not happy with it at all. I spent my life getting this chunk of land together, and it wasn't to give them a route to run their power lines though," said James Haggett of Pembroke.

Haggett and his wife, Linda, attended a selectmen's meeting in the town Monday. At the meeting, representatives from the project explained that if the FAA doesn't grant Northeast Utilities permission to build towers, which would range in height from 90 to 135 feet, near existing lines around Concord Municipal Airport, a swath of land just over 8 miles long and 150 feet wide may need to be cut through Concord, Pembroke and Chichester to avoid the airport.

"We're waiting for them to give us the determination so we can move forward," said Brian Bosse, project manager for the Northern Pass project, which submitted an application in late October.

Representatives for the project told people at the Pembroke meeting that they hope to hear back from the FAA in the coming weeks, said Martin Murray, spokesman for Public Service of New Hampshire, which is owned by Northeast Utilities. He said his estimate is based on how long the FAA has taken to make decisions about obstructions near airports in the past.

"We're as eager as the residents to find out," said Murray, who added that Northeast Utilities prefers to use the existing right of way by the airport if it's possible. "But I can't tell you what they're going to do."

The lines in the current right of way around Concord - including the lines around the airport - vary in height from 48 to 88 feet, so the new towers, which would be built next to the old ones, may represent a considerable increase in height.

No one at the FAA could address the specifics of the project's application for approval, but a spokesperson said that if the plans involve building towers high enough and close enough to the runway, aircraft will have to alter angles or directions to land safely and the approval process will involve significant research as well as the input of several arms of the administration.

The eight miles of new right of way would cut through undeveloped private land in the Broken Ground area of Concord north of Route 393 in Concord, and in north Pembroke and south Chichester between Plausawa and Garvin Hills. It would cut through 54 separate land parcels, most of them residential, Murray said.

"It's going to be a massive scar across the entire face of that mountain, which is very visible from the west looking east," said Raymond D'Amante, referencing the impact to the hills. D'Amante is a Concord-based attorney who will represent several Penacook and Chichester residents in upcoming Department of Energy hearings about the project and other meetings.

"More important is the impact on the properties that will be taken as well as the hundreds of properties that will not be taken but will still have the towers in their yards or just beyond their yards. They are massive steel towers" that are well over twice as high as the normal wood power lines people are used to seeing in that area," he said, adding that several historic properties, including homesteads dating to the 1700s in Chichester, will be affected.

Read the remainder of the article and see the route map here.


Bury the Northern Pass, a group of concerned citizens in Grafton County, is a member of the No Northern Pass Coalition; to join the email list, write to burynorthernpass@gmail.com.

What is Merchant Transmission and Why Should You Care? (Part 1)

Part 1 of a two-part blog.




Many people reading this blog are old enough to view their power company as an extension of state government that acts under regulation to serve the public by keeping the lights on at the lowest possible price. Power companies were never, in fact, so beneficent, but the words “public,” “service,” and “New Hampshire” in a dull but reassuring name like “PSNH” at least suggest as much. We gave them a certain amount of deference and respect because they were serving us, the public, and they knew what was best for us. To a degree, we tolerated their intrusions because they were acting in the public interest; in particular, we gave them the power of eminent domain to take private land when it served the greater good. Because of the stigma, we never associated the “s” word (socialism) with this collectivization, but the resemblance is obvious.

Now out of the blue comes the “Northern Pass,” and the name alone suggests something other than a public utility.  It evokes the fabled and much sought-after Northwest Passage, even though that is a route through the Canadian arctic seas, not the mountains, and in northern New Hampshire we call them notches, not passes anyway. Suddenly we went from bureaucratic, geographical public utility names like “PSNH” and “Northeast Utilities” to a mythical, nowhere name like “Northern Pass” evidently conjured up by a flatlander advertising firm as a sales pitch.

This apparent need to “sell” the Northern Pass points directly to what has happened in the electricity business.  There are now “merchant” ventures in generation and transmission, private free-lancers, so to speak, who must compete with one another in order to stay in business. To the winner go the spoils, and in the transmission business, the spoils to investors, stockholders, are huge profits.  The losers are “disincentivized,” weeded out. This is capitalism at its finest. It’s the American way.

The Northern Pass is one such merchant transmission project.  (Never mind that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has just invented a new term solely for Northern Pass, "cost-based participant funded transmission line”; the concept is the same, it’s private.) Northern Pass is supposed to sell itself to us if it is to succeed and reward its shareholders. Hence the public relations push and the fancy albeit inappropriate name. If it fails to sell itself, it is supposed to go out of business.

There’s nothing wrong with “selling” one’s product, but ultimately the product must stand on its own merits, not on the advertising.  It has become increasingly clear that the Northern Pass project lacks public merit; it’s wrong for the White Mountains, a bad deal for all of New Hampshire. How many editorials, opinion pieces, news releases by elected officials, conservation and outdoor groups, business leaders, private individuals have made that point now? Their collective weight should bring the project down sooner or later if capitalism works as capitalism should. 

But the elephant in the room is eminent domain, the privilege we grant to entities to take private land. Should we give a private corporation like Northern Pass the privilege that we have traditionally bestowed upon public utilities? If Northern Pass can’t sell its product to New Hampshire on its own merits, should this private company then be allowed to take our land in order to succeed and to reward its investors anyway? Should a losing capitalist venture be shored up with a socialist prop like eminent domain? Can you spell "bailout"?

With more and more merchant transmission projects popping up in the United States, this question has come to the forefront recently. In Part 2 of this blog, we’ll look at the answers given recently by the states of New York and Montana, no and no again.

Bury the Northern Pass, a group of concerned citizens in Grafton County, belongs to the No Northern Pass Coalition. To join the email list, write to burynorthernpass@gmail.com.