Town Hall Talk

Over the next few days as town meetings approach, this resource post will be updated. Please bookmark and check back. Each town is different, but if you have facts and figures about your town to share, please submit them to burynorthernpass<at>gmail.com.

• Property taxes. In Atlanta in March 2010, to an audience of energy industrialists, PSNH was forthright about the difficulties of "selling" Northern Pass back in New Hampshire. PSNH economic and community development director Patrick McDermott stated outright that property tax benefits to towns other than Franklin would not amount to much. McDermott considered this a "negative":  “The negatives are that this project will not generate a lot of property taxes. Most of that will come from the converter station, which is a $200-million-plus investment.” (Read the other "negatives" here.)

• Electric bills. Using Northern Pass's own New England electric wholesale price projections for 2015 and NP's aggressive assumptions of 100% pass-through of wholesale price reductions to retail customers, the upper end of the savings range for New Hampshire families is only 97 cents a month or only 1% of the average 2009 $96.66 monthly electric bill. It is highly unlikely that NP would pass on 100% of wholesale price reductions; the actual savings are likely to be 0 to 97 cents per month. (15-page calculation and supporting documents available upon request.)

• Real estate values. According to the preliminary results of one professional "before and after" appraisal of a representative 12-acre parcel of high-quality view land in Dalton NH that would be bisected by a new right-of-way for the Northern Pass transmission lines, the project would have a very large impact on market value, reducing market value by 50%-83+%. Another realtor with 35 years of experience in northern New Hampshire believes the market value is likely to be reduced 100%, i.e., the parcel would be unmarketable. Sales have already fallen through because of the mere threat of the HVDC line. Sellers must disclose their proximity to the preferred and alternate routes.

• Taxes "in lieu." The taxes on the proposed new power lines will be “Taxes in Lieu,” which exempts N-star and H-Q from paying the largest portion of NH’s property taxes that supports education. The remaining smaller portion they will pay to the cities and towns of NH will be reduced over time as a result of the depreciated value of the towers and transmission lines.

• One town's "profit." On the approximately 7-8 miles of PSNH HVAC lines running through Sugar Hill on the existing right-of-way, the town collected $16,000 in 2010. A new HVDC line might generate more revenue provided the town were willing to pay for the appraisal, but depreciation would quickly reduce this benefit. Easton's figure is apparently much lower, $2,000.

• Property tax abatements. Municipal requests for property tax abatements from owners affected by the mere threat of Northern Pass transmission lines were due on March 1. No figures are available yet on the number and amount of abatements requested. If abatements are granted, the effect will be to raise property taxes for other owners in town.

• Federal Housing Administration mortgages. FHA rules prohibit the issuance of insured loans for homes located adjacent to high voltage transmission power lines. (See Section J.)

• Cost of alternatives to Northern Pass's above-ground transmission lines, such as burying the lines. Modest changes to the financing structure of the Northern Pass project can maintain a high level of profitability for the sponsors and at the same time potentially free up substantial capital (in the range of $600-$900 million) for investment in less impactful alternatives such as burying the lines. Alternatives are not "too expensive." (20-page calculation and supporting documents available upon request.)

• Fact check for the economic analysis in the most recent Northern Pass mailer. Read the small print. Look on the back of the page, "Sources and Notes," and you will see the disclaimer: "Any potential reductions or increases in other property values as a result of the addition of NPT are not covered in this report." You should also be aware that the "analysis" has been prepared by Dr. Lisa Shapiro, who is the "Chief Economist" for Gallagher, Callahan and Gartrell, the Concord Law Firm representing the Northern Pass in its proceedings with the State of New Hampshire. This is not an independent analysis. At the HB302 hearing several weeks ago, Rep, Garrity asked Dr. Shapiro if her analysis took offsets and reductions into account, and she replied that it did not.

Northern Pass and the WMNF (Part 1)

In order for Northern Pass to go through ten miles of the White Mountain National Forest in the towns of Easton, Woodstock and Lincoln, it will need to obtain a Special Use Permit from the Forest Service. It cannot take federal land by eminent domain. This post and the next one will examine recent policy decisions regarding the WMNF and the Special Use Permit process. Today is the 100th anniversary of the Weeks Act, legislation named after sponsor John Wingate Weeks of Lancaster NH that created the WMNF and other eastern national forests.

Recent Policy Decisions: The 2005 Forest Plan

In 2005, the WMNF completed an exhaustive eight-year study to chart its course for the next ten to fifteen years. Unlike National Parks, National Forests are designed for multiple use, including timber harvest, and finding the right balance of activities for the WMNF with its 7 million annual visitors was a challenging task. 6,000 public comments were collected, numerous public hearings occurred, and a veritable library of study documents was generated. Special attention was given to the impact of the WMNF on towns like Easton, Woodstock and Lincoln, which lie within the overall forest boundary.

The 2005 plan represents a compromise, of course, but there is an underlying direction in its provisions to manage the 800,000 acre WMNF as a natural and scenic refuge. Alternative 2, which was selected at the end of the process, reduced the allowable timber harvest by one quarter; it added 34,500 acres to the existing wilderness areas, increasing total wilderness acres in the forest to approximately 130,000; and it continued its ban on all-terrain vehicles.

Implementing the 2005 forest plan, The New England Wilderness Protection Act of 2006 increased the Sandwich Range Wilderness to its present size and created the Wild River Wilderness area. These areas now follow regulations designed to lessen the evidence of human impact on nature. Trails will not be brushed and otherwise maintained to the same standard as in non-wilderness areas; unpainted natural color wooden trails signs, fewer and further apart, will replace more obtrusive ones; painted trail blazes on trees will not be refreshed; when existing shelters require maintenance, they will be removed; dispersed and compacted earth tent pads will replace wooden decks; bridges will be removed; and so forth. For those of us who treasure the old Wild River shelters, even the dilapidated one in muddy Perkins Notch, it's like losing old friends to see them go. But it's an acceptable trade-off that acknowledges the WMNF's mission to offer its users the chance to experience solitude in nature, a vanishing resource for the millions of visitors who live within a day's drive of the forest in the densely populated urban centers of the Northeast.   

A compatible and highly perishable resource in the urban Northeast are natural scenic vistas, and throughout the 2005 planning documents, natural landscapes are consistently elevated as one of the WMNF's most important assets. The Executive Summary of the decision to choose Alternative 2 notes that all four possible alternatives prioritized natural scenery:

Research indicates that beyond their contribution to tourism, high quality

scenery and a natural appearing landscape enhance people’s physical and

psychological well being. Given the large population within a day’s drive of

the White Mountains and increasing populations near the Forest, the scenic

attributes of the White Mountain National Forest benefit a large portion of

the people in the northeast. All four alternatives would retain the vast

majority of the Forest in natural appearing conditions, so all should continue

providing these non-priced benefits. (Record of Decision Executive Summary)

As you drive north on I-93 and round the bend near Exit 28, the majestic vista of the Franconia mountains suddenly unfolds before your eyes. It's for good reason that 19th century travel writers dubbed this area "the gateway." For those of us who live in the North Country, when the confines of the near ground drop away and this view opens up, we know that we are home again; and those who visit from down under realize that they are finally away from home. Everyone who has seen this view instantly understands what the Forest Service meant when it wrote that high quality scenery and a natural appearing landscape enhance our physical and psychological well being. This is not merely a "non priced benefit" of the WMNF, it's a priceless benefit, one vigorously defended and prized in the 2005 forest plan. It is now under attack by the proposed Northern Pass project, which would place a row of 90-135' steel towers right across the gateway and up into the breath-taking vista if it is granted a special use permit.

Sign Gallery (21-30)

Please send pictures of signs opposing Northern Pass to burynorthernpass<at>gmail.com and we'll post them here. Each sign gallery will feature ten signs. Sign Gallery 1-10 is here, Gallery 11-20 is here.

#21. Rte. 3, Stratford. March 1, 2011.