For the Truth about Northern Pass from Its Sponsors, Go Out of State

 "Under this structure, Connecticut can only win."
     --Raymond Gagnon, Northeast Utilities

Connecticut Power and Energy Society

Eleven months ago, March 8, 2011, Raymond Gagnon made a power point presentation to a group called the Connecticut Power and Energy Society (CPES). Mr. Gagnon is (or was) director, transmission projects, Northeast Utilities. The title of his presentation was simply "Northern Pass." The presentation was made to a Connecticut audience.

CPES describes itself as "Connecticut's leading association of energy professionals." Its mission is to "share the latest insightful and unbiased information about energy in Connecticut."

Let's see how Mr. Gagnon scored in both categories: lack of bias, which we'll extend to include accuracy of statements, and insight.

Accuracy and lack of bias

Mr. Gagnon earns an "F" here. For starters, his presentation is captioned "Bringing clean power to the people of New England." Hydro power from Quebec's impoundment dams is not "clean" by U.S. standards, nor does it qualify as renewable in NH, and it's not going to the people of New England. It's going to the people of Massachusetts and Connecticut. Two big Pinocchios right on the title page.

Mr. Gagnon's projected in-service date of 2015 and other landmarks (page 8) are wildly off the mark, both a year ago when he made them and now.

And we'll have to leave it to others to calculate whether 1200 MW of "New England energy that doesn't come from fossil fuels" is really equivalent to 800,000 car emissions, 4.8MM tons of CO2 emissions avoided, and so forth (page 5).

Insight

Here Mr. Gagnon earns an "A." In his discussion of economic implications for customers and market participants, Gagnon remarks that under Northern Pass's participant structure, "Connecticut can only win." Hydro Quebec will pay the project costs, and Connecticut won't have the towers on its backs. (Indeed, Connecticut has outlawed such towers.) Mr. Gagnon is not forthright in how he states this win-win situation for Connecticut, but it's clear what he means when he says that Connecticut would have "no assets to site in the state": Connecticut would have no towers scarring its landscape.




  "Connecticut can only win" (page 4)


In terms of the "insight" that he provides for New Hampshire readers, who were not his intended audience, Mr. Gagnon ranks second only to PSNH's Patrick McDermott, who famously went to Atlanta in spring 2010 and confided to his professional colleagues what a tough sell Northern Pass would be back in New Hampshire. It would not yield much tax revenue, it would not classify as "renewable," it would have to go through the White Mountains, it would compete with indigenous projects, it would be environmentally objectionable -- and NH didn't need the power. Because of myriad negatives, PSNH had worked hard to perfect its sales pitch and would overcome the resistance before it even got started, McDermott boasted. "Make friends before you need them," McDermott advised his audience, political friends.

We don't have the full text of Mr. Gagnon's presentation, but we'll give him an A+ for an additional insight even though it's a painfully obvious truth rather than sage perception. Two slides after his remark on how Connecticut would "only win" with Northern Pass, he showed this slide with the caption "Resident Opposition":





Resident Opposition (page 7)


Page 7 is a collage of Opposition resistance genres and motifs: the "KMA" sign, Stop the Northern Pass's facebook avatar, and an Opposition member's truck with a "Bury the Northern Pass" bumper sticker (left) and a "Live Free or Fry" bumper sticker (right, with arrow).

It doesn't take rocket science to figure out why there is opposition to Connecticut's "win-win" project in New Hampshire, and it's not just the "residents" who oppose it. As the Forest Society's "Save the Balsams Landscape" campaign demonstrated, people from all over the country and from Europe joined together to conserve the area and to stop Northern Pass from completing its destructive plan in New Hampshire.

The "Resident Opposition" collage that Gagnon's Connecticut audience saw is unique. It is the sole occasion on which Northern Pass has been candid about the reaction here: New Hampshire does not want, New Hampshire does not need, and New Hampshire will not have this project. If you want the truth about the Northern Pass from its sponsors, go out of state--to Hartford, Atlanta, and elsewhere. You won't find it expressed here.

Postscript

If Mr. Gagnon plans to update his March 2011 talk, we offer him this postscript to the "KMA" sign for the "Resident Opposition" collage:

"Ditto!"

A Tribute to North Country Landowners

Bury the Northern Pass joins with Bob Baker (Columbia, NH) in paying tribute to the brave and selfless landowners of Coos County who value landscape, heritage, and community over private gain.


Open letter to the landowners of Coos County who are refusing to sell out to Northern Pass:

It was just one year ago that Northern Pass was telling the public and its investors that the 1200 MW High Voltage Transmission Line it was planning for Hydro Quebec would be constructed on the backs of New Hampshire landowners in 2013; and that the new transmission line would be in service by 2015.  However, the fact is that Northern Pass is no further ahead in building this ill-conceived project than it was a year ago. Its application for a Presidential Permit is frozen in place with many scoping steps yet to be accomplished before an Environmental Impact Statement can be designed and prepared. In fact, Northern Pass is so far behind schedule that even it acknowledges that the project can't possibly be in service until late in 2016.

What is holding up the project?  It is not just the virtually unanimous objections to the project in the New Hampshire communities that would be impacted by the construction of the transmission lines and towers—Franklin being an exception. It is not just the successful passage in the State Senate of legislation—House Bill 648-- against the use of eminent domain for transmission projects such as Northern Pass.

It is much more. It involves massive landowner opposition in Coos County where Northern Pass is attempting to cobble together a new route running from the Canadian Border to Groveton.  After being confronted with massive adverse testimony in the federal Department of Energy (“DOE”) scoping hearings held last March and April, Northern Pass announced that it was “listening” to the people and that it would be working on finding a new route in Coos County. Last May, Martin Murray, Northern Pass’s public relations specialist, told the press that Northern Pass was having much success in “talking with landowners.” Northern Pass even told the press that it would announce a new route in June of 2011.

Of course, mid-June came and went without a new route being announced; and the DOE extended the scoping comment period indefinitely pending Northern Pass identifying a new route from Groveton north to the Canadian border. 

On August 3, 2011, Northern Pass made this announcement:  “…the project’s expected in-service date has been modified to 2016, with construction expected in the 2014 – 2016 time frame, compared to the initial range of 2013 – 2015.  Our goal has been to locate the line within existing rights of way, as much as possible, and to minimize potential impacts for residents and communities. We listened to residents’ input and concerns, and determined that an alternative route is appropriate in the area north of Groveton, and that it can be developed without any increase in the project cost or benefits. The only change is in the construction schedule. The project expects to announce the new preferred route for that area later this year.”

But that didn’t happen either. “Later this year” came and went and so did a hoped-for right of way invasion of the Balsams properties in Stewartstown and Dixville that Northern Pass was apparently counting on for its new, so called landowner-friendly route. Speaking of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests’ acquisition of a conservation easement over the Balsams property and extinguishment of Northern Pass’s hoped-for right of way, here is what Northern Pass told the public earlier in January:  “While Northern Pass had an interest in this specific utility right of way, we are continuing to successfully work with landowners as we consider other routing alternatives. We look forward to soon announcing a new proposed route that has the support of underlying land owners.” 

But “soon” isn’t happening either. This was acknowledged two weeks later when Northern Pass dropped the “soon” prediction and simply claimed that it was still working “successfully with property owners to purchase land or easements to develop an acceptable route in that area of the North Country where there is no existing transmission right of way.” 

Get the picture? One delay after another. Numerous landowners are still refusing to sell out the North Country. They believe that our landscapes, our values, our ability to be right with the world—indeed our very essence--require that our communities not be damaged by the infliction of above ground high voltage transmission lines. They want the land to be preserved for our children and grandchildren to enjoy in the same ways that we have been privileged to enjoy.  They want to be good neighbors to the rest of the state. 

So don’t believe any of the Northern Pass claims that they are “successfully” working with property owners to develop an acceptable route through the North Country.  Fact is that there is no such “acceptable route.”  Fact is that landowners are declining huge offers of cash virtually every day.  Fact is that there wasn’t an announced new route in June as promised.  Fact is there wasn’t an announced new route “later” in 2011 as promised.  Fact is there won’t be a new route announced “soon”. 

My hat is off to the brave landowners of the North Country who have turned down enormous offers of money in order to preserve their properties and our scenic values for the benefit of family, friends and neighbors—indeed the benefit of all of us in the State of New Hampshire.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Bob Baker

Northern Pass's Newsletter (Issue 2): Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Northern Pass Newsletter Alert!
Newsletter #2 looks like more of the same "pious baloney" that Newsletter #1 brought us. But read it carefully . . . .

Northern Pass has just issued its second newsletter to “Northern Pass Landowners.” There they go again! We’ve explained before that there is no such person as a “Northern Pass Landowner.”  Northern Pass is still an idea on paper; it has no regulatory status whatsoever. Some of us do own land in NH that has an easement deeded to PSNH on it. This does not make us “Northern Pass Landowners.” Northern Pass is not PSNH. Northern Pass continues to use a dishonest term that attempts to get us to agree that our land rights (easements) are the chattel of Northern Pass. They seem to think that if they say it often enough, we’ll believe it.

Much the same can be said of the rest of the second newsletter. It’s full of half-truths, misleading statements, and spin. For instance, the newsletter says that “landowner outreach specialist” Jim Wagner visited folks, originally negative about Northern Pass, who were glad “to learn the other side of the story,” but it doesn’t tell you that Jim Wagner has also visited folks who detest Northern Pass and didn’t change their minds after his visit.  The newsletter has a feature piece on Brian Underwood, an appraiser hired by Northern Pass who not surprisingly concludes that HTVL lines won’t significantly lower your property’s value, but it does not tell you that Underwood declined to undertake a full scale "before-and-after" certified study like the one that shows a 60-90% drop in values of land in Dalton. He knew better.

Or look at the newsletter’s picture of an undammed river rushing under a high trestle bridge; the image is captioned “clean renewable power.” One of the several reasons that hydro power from Quebec is not classified as “clean,” “green,” or “renewable” in the U.S. and in NH is that huge and environmentally damaging impoundment dams are used to create it. Hydro Quebec’s electricity is not generated from freely running rivers like the one shown in the picture.

The column to read carefully, however, is “Working With You: Rights-of-Way Access.” You or your predecessor may have deeded an easement or right-of-way (ROW) to PSNH, but no one has deeded anything to Northern Pass. Northern Pass has zero authority over your contractual relationship with PSNH. But read the column anyway. It’s tricky. Watch the sleight-of-hand and ask yourself why Northern Pass is giving you “guidance” on an easement that it does not own and rights of access that it does not have. (Think! Why is Northern Pass being so "nice" to you?*)

Halfway down the column, Northern Pass starts talking about “impediments” or “barriers” that may have been constructed on a PSNH ROW -- things like livestock pens, hayfields, or gates and fences. Let’s add driveways, wells, gardens, septic systems, sheds, swimming pools, tennis courts, garages, even houses or parts of them. Remember, these are ancient ROWs. Northern Pass goes on to say that “the easement requires that a Joint Use Agreement [JUA] be executed to ensure that fences and barriers have gates or openings wide enough to accommodate access by emergency or maintenance equipment.” (As are easement deeds, JUAs are recorded at the county Registry of Deeds.)

Northern Pass has no authority to tell you what the legal relationship between the grantor and grantee of a PSNH easement is, but stay with this for a few more minutes anyway. Why would Northern Pass suddenly  raise the issue of a JUA on the illogical grounds that it will ensure that gates or openings are wide enough for maintenance equipment? If the gates or barriers have been there for years, as many have, they must already be wide enough or PSNH would have had them removed by now. Why does Northern Pass want you to think that you have to sign a JUA with PSNH? If you haven’t been asked to sign one before, why should you sign one now?Ask yourself, what's in it for Northern Pass? 

Be aware that under a set of very specific conditions, if your so-called impediment has been on a PSNH ROW for over 20 years continuously, you may have the right not to have it removed. You may have gained what’s called “adverse possession” of a portion of the ROW.  And if you sign a JUA, you may forfeit any right of possession that you have. Northern Pass would like that, of course. You need legal advice from your attorney, who will figure out and advocate for your rights, not "guidance" from a self-serving newsletter that's trying to get you to believe that you are a "Northern Pass landowner."

If Northern Pass wants you to sign anything, insist that Northern Pass pay your cost to consult an attorney of your choice before you decide and before you even discuss the matter.

Northern Pass has no legal right to require you to sign anything. You are under no obligation even to talk to Northern Pass. Your attorney can review your easement deed and advise you of your rights.

Please pass the word to all landowners with PSNH ROWs on their property.

_____________________________

Northern Pass's first landowner newsletter (November 2011) is here.




* "For God's sake, think! Why is he being so nice to you?