Northern Pass: An Elective Upgrade by the Developer

ISO-New England, the regional grid planner, classifies various energy projects, including upgrades, as either "reliability"  (necessary) or "elective" (not necessary) projects. The nomenclature is straightforward.


In ISO-NE's April 2011 report, Northern Pass (#226) is classified as "elective":

ISO-NE considers Northern Pass to be a "part 4b" project: "these projects may be promoted by any entity electing to support the cost of the transmission changes. The entity sponsoring the changes will have their own justification for their actions." Because they front the cost themselves, Part 4 and 5 projects are not subject to the scrutiny, planning, and management that traditional reliability projects needed to keep the lights on are. The new merchant and participant-funded projects can end-run the lengthy regional planning process by fronting the initial funding themselves, although of course they intend to recover it handsomely later on. Northeast Utilities has said that the motive for Northern Pass is not to keep the lights on, but to respond to "social policy goals" and to make money.

The concept of "reliability" need be no more complicated than ISO-NE's clear determinations and Northeast Utilities's own definition--"keeping the lights on."  

Developers of unrequested, unneeded, and unwanted elective projects like Northern Pass should not be allowed to use the police power of the state to condemn and seize private land for the sole motive of making money. It's really quite simple. They should have to negotiate their optional utility project with willing buyers like any other corporation.

More Extension Cords Across New Hampshire?

Northeast Utilities (NU) admits that Northern Pass is not meant to keep the lights on. What does NU say Northern Pass is meant to do?



On March 15, 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) held a one-day technical conference on merchant and participant-funded transmission. After the conference, various utilities filed written policy comments. On May 5, 2011, NU/NSTAR filed a comment requesting more flexible regulatory treatment by FERC; the full comment is here. In the two sections examined in this post, NU first explains that Northern Pass, a participant funded transmission project, is not needed for reliability: it's not intended to keep the lights on, but to respond to social policy goals and to make money. Second, NU dreams about building more big transmission lines from rural to urban areas.

Not Keeping the Lights on, Just Making Money

NU reveals what participant-funded transmission projects like Northern Pass are all about:  “Participant funded transmission projects are fundamentally different than regionally planned transmission projects intended to keep the lights on.  Unlike regionally planned projects that are designed to address NERC and ISO operational criteria, participant funded projects typically intend to respond to either social policy goals, such as state-mandated renewable portfolio standards and reduced carbon emissions, or underlying economic conditions beneficial to the participants, or both.  As such, participant funded projects may not impact a region’s transmission grid, reliability requirements or rates and therefore should be eligible for more flexible regulatory treatment because they meet different goals than regionally planned transmission projects”  (emphasis added).  In other words, these optional transmission projects, not intended to keep the lights on, basically try to meet “social policy goals” or just try to make money for the participants.  Thank you, NU, for making such a clear distinction between projects needed for reliability and optional projects like Northern Pass.

More Northern Pass’s on the Horizon?

NU further explains that, besides Northern Pass, it is exploring “other participant funded transmission projects” that will be “a collector system” for wind, biomass or other renewables.  The supplying or generating facilities will be far away from areas with energy demand, and thus there is a need for “significant transmission infrastructure” to deliver the electricity to urban areas.  In other words, NU is looking at a network of connector lines to hook up new renewables facilities to the grid, and the renewables facilities will be in rural areas. 

Any Questions?

Are there any questions about what Northern Pass is meant to do?

Are there any questions about NU's desire to drape more extension cords across NH?

Are there any question about why NH needs to pass HB 648?

Taking the Measure of Northern Pass's New Visual Simulations

Northern Pass has added some new "visual simulations" of towers to the "News & Info" page of its website. Let's take a look.




Here is the "visual simulation" of existing poles (left) and the proposed new transmission towers (right) at Forest Lake Road, Whitefield. (There's another pole to the right the same height as the ones on the left). Those towers sure are ugly, aren't they? But let's stick to the numbers for now. Those towers are about to get bigger (and uglier).

The existing front pole on the left measures 2-1/8" high in this browser; the simulated front tower on the right measures 3" high. Let's round it off to a 2:3 ratio. Do the math. Let's assume that the front pole is 56'; the front tower must then be 84'. That seems about right.

But, the legend tells us that the visible poles in the picture are 43'-56.5'. That must mean that the one in front is 56.5", the one in back 43'. Right? Hard to know. The visible towers are 80'-100'. That must mean that the one in front is 100', the one in back 80'. Right? Hard to know. But let's go with it.



The legend tells us the front pole is 56.5' and the front tower is 100' (approximately 1:2 ratio). But when we measured them by ruler earlier in the simulation, if the front pole was 56', the front tower was 84' (a 2:3 ratio). In the simulation, the tower only looked 33% higher than the pole, not almost 50% higher.

So what's wrong here? This must be it: objects may be larger or smaller than they appear in the simulations!

But which "objects" are smaller and which larger? Never mind. It's all still "preliminary":