A funny thing is happening in Groveton . . .

Northern Pass hung out its shingle on Main Street in Groveton recently, and it's already attracting visitors. Even in deep winter, Northern Pass just can't keep a good grassroots opposition down.

The New Sign on Main Street

Visitors

NHCSE gets it wrong on Northern Pass

An "astroturf" (faux grassroots) group that promotes Northern Pass, the New Hampshire Coalition for Secure Energy (NHCSE) represents the Small Business and Small Industry Association and IBEW Local 104.

Following Minnesota's Lead

Last week, the NHCSE posted a blog, "Minesota Power to Import Canadian Hydro," that opens with a fundamentally inaccurate central claim: "Following New Hampshire's lead, Minnesota Power taps into the benefits of clean, renewable, Canadian hydroelectricity..." We'll leave aside the persistent false assertion that big hydro is "clean" - the U.S. EPA excludes it - and focus on the more deeply misleading implications of Minnesota Power's "following" New Hampshire's lead.

In the first place, Northern Pass is not New Hampshire. If Minnesota Power is following any lead in proposing its Great Northern Transmission Line (GNTL), it would be that of a group of corporations, Northeast Utilities, Northern Pass, and Hydro Quebec, which in no way comprises "New Hampshire," however one wishes to construe the term.

More importantly, Minnesota Power is not even following the lead of Northern Pass et al. There is a fundamental difference between the proposed GNTL and proposed NP projects. The key point is that a new transmission line cannot be built in Minnesota unless the PUC, under highly specific statutory tests, finds the transmission line is “needed” for reliable electric service:

 “The [Minnesota PUC] may only certify a project that is a high-voltage transmission line as defined in section 216B.2421, subdivision 2, that the commission finds is:

(1) necessary to maintain or enhance the reliability of electric service to Minnesota consumers;

(2) needed, applying the criteria in section 216B.243, subdivision 3; and

(3) in the public interest, taking into account electric energy system needs and economic, environmental, and social interests affected by the project.”

The "need" criteria referred to in section 2, above, are stringent:

Subd. 3.Showing required for construction.No proposed large energy facility shall be certified for construction unless the applicant can show that demand for electricity cannot be met more cost effectively through energy conservation and load-management measures and unless the applicant has otherwise justified its need. In assessing need, the commission shall evaluate:

(1) the accuracy of the long-range energy demand forecasts on which the necessity for the facility is based;

(2) the effect of existing or possible energy conservation programs under sections 216C.05 to 216C.30 and this section or other federal or state legislation on long-term energy demand;

(3) the relationship of the proposed facility to overall state energy needs, as described in the most recent state energy policy and conservation report prepared under section 216C.18, or, in the case of a high-voltage transmission line, the relationship of the proposed line to regional energy needs, as presented in the transmission plan submitted under section 216B.2425;

(4) promotional activities that may have given rise to the demand for this facility;

(5) benefits of this facility, including its uses to protect or enhance environmental quality, and to increase reliability of energy supply in Minnesota and the region;

(6) possible alternatives for satisfying the energy demand or transmission needs including but not limited to potential for increased efficiency and upgrading of existing energy generation and transmission facilities, load-management programs, and distributed generation;

(7) the policies, rules, and regulations of other state and federal agencies and local governments;

(8) any feasible combination of energy conservation improvements, required under section 216B.241, that can (i) replace part or all of the energy to be provided by the proposed facility, and (ii) compete with it economically;

(9) with respect to a high-voltage transmission line, the benefits of enhanced regional reliability, access, or deliverability to the extent these factors improve the robustness of the transmission system or lower costs for electric consumers in Minnesota;

(10) whether the applicant or applicants are in compliance with applicable provisions of sections 216B.1691 and 216B.2425, subdivision 7, and have filed or will file by a date certain an application for certificate of need under this section or for certification as a priority electric transmission project under section 216B.2425 for any transmission facilities or upgrades identified under section 216B.2425, subdivision 7;

(11) whether the applicant has made the demonstrations required under subdivision 3a; and

(12) if the applicant is proposing a nonrenewable generating plant, the applicant's assessment of the risk of environmental costs and regulation on that proposed facility over the expected useful life of the plant, including a proposed means of allocating costs associated with that risk.

If built, GNTL will have to be a “needed” line. It will undergo serious scrutiny by the Minnesota PUC to determine that it is a reliability project. This proposed line is completely different from Northern Pass, which is not "needed." It is an elective project, a merchant venture proposed simply to make money for its owners. It has neither been examined nor requested by ISO-NE for reliability.

In fact, the proposed Northern Pass project is a highly eccentric concept - a transmission line that no one asked for and no one needs to keep the lights on. The NHCSE's false analogy attempts to "normalize" Northern Pass, but Northern Pass remains what it is: a new brand of merchant venture on the part of its corporate sponsors that has nothing to do with traditional projects like the proposed Minnesota line.

In assessing the "need" for a new transmission project, the Minnesota PUC wisely evaluates the "promotional activities that may have given rise to the demand for this facility" (216B.243, subdivision 3 [4]). Such analysis is rooted in an ancient Latin question - cui bono?- loosely translated, to whose good? Who stands to benefit most from the project? Who stands to lose the most? Have project sponsors created demand through marketing techniques and so-called outreach campaigns? New Hampshire would do well to follow Minnesota's lead and ask the same questions as part of the regulatory review of Northern Pass. Minnesota has many other important criteria by which we should measure this elective project. See above.

Hydro Quebec Towers: A "Significant Chilling Effect" on Property's Value

The NH Board of Tax and Land Appeals ruled that the first HVDC power line in New Hampshire had a "significant chilling effect" on a property's value and granted a tax abatement of 50%. 


In a November 4th Union Leader article, "Northern Pass scares buyers, lowers values," Northern Pass spokesman Michael Skelton dismissed as biased opinion, not fact, the statements of two respected owner/broker realtors that the proposed project has already diminished property values along the intended route by as much as 50%. Skelton shifted the focus by asking whether people stopped
"visiting New Hampshire after the existing high-voltage transmission line from Quebec was built 20 years ago."

The relevant question that Skelton should have asked was: did that high voltage transmission line from Quebec reduce property values 20 years ago?

The answer is: yes, according to a property tax abatement order issued by the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA)* in 1992.

Before the BTLA issued that order, however, the developer of the high voltage direct current line from Quebec, the New England Hydro Transmission Company, Inc., had hired a local appraiser, Stewart Lamprey of Meredith, to assess "what economic impact, if any, transmission lines have upon adjacent property values."

Mr. Lamprey concluded that "the proximity to overhead high voltage transmission lines has no measurable effect on property values. This appears to be true whether a property is abutting, traversed, or visually affected by a power easement" (n.p., Land Utilization Study Along the Proposed Phase 2 Transmission Line in the State of New Hampshire, Jan. 18, 1986).

In 1986, the NH Site Evaluation Committee approved the Quebec line in part because "no contradictory evidence was introduced to rebut Mr. Lamprey's testimony" (p.15) that the project would have negligible effect upon property values."

But in 1992, two landowners along the Quebec line whose request for a property tax abatement had been turned down by their municipality, Wentworth, successfully appealed the decision with the BTLA,  which agreed that the new power line had a "significant chilling effect" on property values. We have no count at this time of how many abatement requests were granted by towns, obviating the need for appeals to the BTLA, nor how many appeals may have been filed in Superior Court rather than with the BTLA. Given the BTLA's response to these two appellants, however, it is likely that there were more than a few. 

 In 1987, the appellants purchased land and buildings in Wentworth for $135, 000. They were unaware that New England Hydro was about to construct Hydro-Quebec transmission towers on the right of way on the property. In 1989 and 1990, the town assessed the property at $133,800. The landowners appealed the assessment to the BTLA. Their appeal included the following arguments:

(2) since the date of purchase [the developer, New England Hydro] has erected Hydro-Quebec transmission towers in the right-of-way;
(3) a 350 ft. by 1400 ft. power line easement results in less than 1/2 acre of usable land;
(4) the Property is "unmarketable at any price";
(5) they paid too much for the Property because they weren't aware of the major "imminent expansion" by [the developer]. (p. 1) 

BTLA found the arguments compelling, citing both the visual impact and stigma associated with EMF radiation from high voltage lines:

(1) the fact that through ignorance of the Hydro-Quebec expansion the Taxpayers paid too much for the property should not go unadjusted;
(2) the knowledge of the impending construction of the Hydro-Quebec line would have a significant chilling effect on the value dwelling (and in general the property) in such close proximity due to both its visual effect and the uncertainty of the health concerns raised by electromagnetic radiation [emphasis added];
(3) owing to the close proximity (within 50 ft. according to the Taxpayers) of the house to the edge of the right-of-way...in the very shadow of the tower, the Board applies a 50% reduction to the total value and leaves the allocation of value between land and building to the Town. (p. 2)

BTLA reduced the town of Wentworth's assessment of $133,800 to $66,900, a 50% decline in valuation.  

Towns and landowners along the intended path of the proposed new Hydro Quebec line would do well to learn from history -- before it is too late. As did the developer of the first Hydro Quebec line, Northern Pass is already asserting that power lines have  little to no effect on property values.

As for Northern Pass, will it also dismiss the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeal's 50% reduction of the value of a property impacted by Hydro Quebec towers as a biased opinion by people who opposed power lines -- or file an ethics complaint?
_______________________
*Appointed by the supreme court of New Hampshire, the three full-time members of the BTLA are "learned and experienced in questions of taxation or of real estate valuation and appraisal."  Board members "do not engage in any other employment during their terms that is in conflict with their duties as members of the board."

Hydro-Quebec HVDC tower, Wentworth NH