Childhood Cancer Cluster near High Voltage Lines in Plymouth NH

The following is a scoping comment entered on the DOE EIS site on June 14, 2011 by Robert C. Hoyer, M.D., a pediatrician who practiced in Plymouth NH for 15 years.

I am opposed to NP's current proposal to carve a

path of unsightly and quite possibly unhealthy HV
towers thru Northern NH. This will blight the
landscape and affect not just the many unfortunate
people who abut it or see it, but all citizens of NH.

I worked as a pediatrician in Plymouth for 15 years,
during which time we experienced a cluster of
childhood cancers in an area close to high voltage
power lines. Although the government agency sent
to investigate could neither prove nor disprove
causation, parents were not soothed. There are
certainly enough questions left about these HV lines
that I would never advise a parent to buy a house
close to one, and frankly, they don't need to be told
by me - they reach their own conclusions.

Watch real estate prices drop, then watch a corresponding
drop in business profits from primary and second
home buyers and tourism. Watch towns around NH,
largely dependent on property taxes to fund
education, grapple with the short fall. This project
has a net negative impact, except for the balance
sheets of PSNH and HQ.

I would also like to object to the distinction being made between

cutting through new property and using existing ROWs for
these towers. Both are deplorable, but more
attention is being paid to ruining virgin land. I wish
to point out, however, that the existing ROWs in
question have been around from the 40s, with
wooden poles that do not rise above the tree line.

Previous approval for this does not mean that
existing ROWs should be treated as a ''given'' that
can be done with as PSNH pleases. They will
definitely have to be widened, the towers will affect
the surrounding homes in an entirely new way.

If this is permitted, people will understand that any
ROW in any area of the state is not safe to buy near.
Again, watch the real estate and thus the tax base
all over NH suffer as potential home owners realize
that no one in their government will protect them
from private industry, foreign and domestic.

If PSNH wants the tremendous revenue THEY will
receive from leasing the existing ROWs, they need
to bury the lines to protect the quality of life in NH.
If that's "too expensive" that is their problem, not the

citizens of NH.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On May 5, 2004, the Connecticut State Senate passed HB 5418 requiring burial of high voltage lines near residential areas and schools, daycare centers, playgrounds and other areas where children congregate. Human health and safety concerns along Connecticut Light & Power's and United Illuminating's proposed 69-mile Norwalk-to-Middleton upgrade motivated this legislative action. Owned by Northeast Utilities, CL&P and UI initially complained that burial was "too expensive," but the utility developers found a way to overcome their earlier objections.  


If HV undergrounding is necessary to protect human health in Connecticut, home state of PSNH's parent company NU, why not in New Hampshire?

Keep on Truckin'



Located on Main Street, Franconia, across from Garnet Hill courtesy of the Presby Brothers Construction



The current view from Streeter Pond Road across Bode Miller's Turtle Ridge Farm to Mt. Lafayette

Which view do you want?

The Biggest Land Grab in New Hampshire History

On its new website uploaded late this Friday afternoon, Northern Pass reveals what would be the biggest land grab in New Hampshire history. From Deerfield to Pittsburg, private property would have to be taken for a project with no public need or justification.

Of the 31 towns and cities on the proposed route, 21 would see the taking of land by eminent domain either to create a new right of way or to "expand" an existing right of way (ROW). Eight towns would be scarred with entirely new ROWs; thirteen towns would have existing ROWs "expanded" beyond current widths to accommodate the proposed HVDC line, which would be added alongside one or two HVAC lines. ("Expanded" is NP's term.)

In reality, both situations represent new ROWs. The difference between them is simply whether the new ROW would be created to abut an existing ROW or not. It doesn't matter whether 10', 25', 50' or 250' is taken if your house or land is seized by eminent domain. PSNH has no inherent right to "expand" their ROWs. The easement deeds do not contain blanket permission for PSNH to come back and take more land whenever it wants it. PSNH would have to condemn and take the additional private property by eminent domain.

For instance, PSNH states that over five miles of the seven mile ROW in Deerfield would have to be "expanded" by an unspecified amount. This information is oddly phrased to suggest that the "expansion" would somehow occur within the existing ROW. It would (could) not. The new ROW of unspecified width would run alongside the current ROW. It also implies that PSNH has the right to "expand" its ROW. It does not. PSNH would have to take private property to create a new ROW to abut their existing one.


Northern Pass website: "Community" page for Deerfield

 Northern Pass is proposing an eminent domain nightmare.

Further, the highest towers are proposed for two towns that host the White Mountain National Forest, the National Scenic Appalachian Trail (AT), and the lower part of Franconia Notch State Park: Lincoln and Easton. These mammoth towers will cross the AT, run close to South Kinsman, a popular hiking destination on the AMC's Four Thousand Footer list, and be visible from the I-93 gateway approach.

Northern Pass is proposing an outrage to federal and state scenic treasures.

Towns that would see private property seized by eminent domain to create new ROWs of unspecified widths that do not abut current ROWs: Chichester, Clarksville, Colebrook, Columbia, Northumberland, Pittsburg, Stewartstown, Stratford.

(Clarksville, Colebrook, Columbia, Pittsburg, Stewartstown, and Stratford carry the note that "this route is not final; project representatives are working with landowners and town officials to reevaluate certain segments of the preferred route, and to explore whether there might be other feasible routing options—particularly in the North Country—that could achieve broader community support." This is the so-called Plan B through the large land holdings in eastern Coos County that NP has unsuccessfully been trying to negotiate for months.)

Towns that would see private property seized by eminent domain to create new ROWs of unspecified widths that do abut current ROWs: Allenstown, Bethlehem, Bridgewater, Campton, Canterbury, Concord, Deerfield, Franklin, Hill, New Hampton, Northfield, Pembroke, Woodstock.

In all, of the 180 mile proposed route, 73 miles (40%) would see new ROWs.

For the "most common tower height" in each town, whatever that may mean, and for details about the lengths (but not the widths) of abutting and non-abutting new ROWs, see: http://northernpass.us/communities.

PSNH has repeatedly said that it would use eminent domain only rarely and as a last resort for this project. How does that square with the facts that NP has just announced: 21 towns and cities in NH would see private property seized by eminent domain for new abutting and non-abutting ROWs? How does PSNH's reassurance fit with the fact that it plans to take 73 miles of new ROWs of unspecified widths? How many hundreds of NH property owners will be deprived of their basic rights in order to support a private utility developer who said just two weeks earlier that HB 648 legislation was not necessary to protect them from such land seizure?