Transmission Line Burial Bill Rises from Dead

1/8/2016

Transmission Line Burial Bill Rises From Dead

By Robert Blechl, Staff Writer
Caledonian Record

A bill tabled last year that seeks to designate energy infrastructure corridors in the state for burial of transmission lines like Northern Pass came back from the dead this week after being resurrected by the N.H. House of Representatives.

Voting against tabling it for another legislative session on Wednesday were 241 state representatives, including nearly all state representatives in the North Country.

House Bill 626, whose North Country sponsors include state Rep. Sue Ford, D-Easton, and state Rep. Rebecca Brown, D-Sugar Hill, and state Sen. Forrester, R-Meredith, would create underground utility corridors along state-owned roads and highways.

 The text of the bill reads that as the state's businesses become more dependent on lower-cost energy to remain competitive and as its citizens seek more affordable and cleaner sources of power and become more aware of the value of the state's natural landscapes, "it has become increasingly difficult to site and develop large-scale above-ground energy transmission lines ... without unacceptably high development costs and regulatory delays, unacceptable negative impacts on the state's most valuable natural landscapes, and the potential for unacceptable adverse impacts on adjoining private property values."

The Legislature therefore "finds that it would be in the public interest for the state to designate certain 'energy infrastructure corridors' along, within, and under major state-owned or state-controlled transportation routes, for the underground collocation of major energy transmission lines necessary to support balanced economic growth, reduce or mitigate high energy prices, and contribute to a cleaner environment, while providing the state with market-based revenue from private energy transmission companies in return for the use of such designated energy infrastructure corridors."

Designated are Interstate 89 between I-93 and the Vermont border, Interstate 93 between the Massachusetts and Vermont borders, and Interstate 95 between the Massachusetts and Maine borders.

The bill would not mandate burial of future transmission lines.

Voting to bring HB 626 back were Ford and Brown and state Reps. Brad Bailey, R-Monroe; Erin Hennessey, R-Littleton; Paul Ingbretson, R-Pike; Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill; Linda Massimilla, D-Littleton; Wayne Moynihan, D-Dummer; Laurence Rappaport, R-Colebrook; Leon Rideout, R-Lancaster; John Tholl, R-Whitefield; and John Fothergill, R-Colebrook.

 Voting to keep it tabled were State Rep. Herb Richardson, R-Lancaster, and state Rep. Edmond Gionet, R-Lincoln.

On Thursday, Richardson said it's not a bill specifically about Northern Pass and he voted against it because burial along the state's main arteries would "kill the tourist industry" during construction and ultimately result in higher costs for utility rate payers because utility companies would have to pay the cost to widen the shoulders of the highways, where the lines would go.

 "If they do move the highway, it would be at ratepayer expense and we pay too much now," he said.

Richardson also said, "To dig the roads up will only affect upstate and the tourist industry."

Rappaport, who in past years sponsored similar bills encouraging transmission line burial, disagreed and said, "Just the opposite. Tourists aren't going to go to some place that's ugly."

 Cost-effective burial technology is available and the bill proposed "makes sense for the whole state," said Rappaport.

For those who want to buy property in the state, designated energy corridors would give them piece of mind in that towers and lines will not go near their property and reduce its value, he said.

Of HB 626 getting off the table, Rappaport said, "I'm on cloud nine on that one."

The bill now goes to House Finance Committee before it goes back to the full House and then, if passing a full House vote, to the N.H. Senate.

 In August, after years of fighting against buried line, Northern Pass announced it would bury 52 miles of its proposed 192-mile line that would stretch from the Canadian border to Deerfield.

 Opponents of overhead lines, citing adverse impacts to property values, tourism and the region's scenic beauty, say the company can feasibly bury all of it, but is unwilling because of profit or property tax reasons.

 

Northern Pass Dockets at the PUC

Dockets Involving Northern Pass Transmission LLC

at the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission

 

DE 15-459 

Northern Pass Transmission LLC Petition to Commence Business as a Public Utility DE 15-460 Northern Pass Transmission LLC Petition to Cross Public Waters in Pittsburg, Clarksville, Stark, Lancaster, Dalton, Bethlehem, Franconia, Easton, Plymouth, Woodstock, Ashland, Bridgewater, New Hampton, Hill, Bristol, Franklin, Northfield, Concord, Pembroke, Allenstown and Deerfield DE 15-461 Northern Pass Transmission LLC Petition to Cross Land Owned by the State in Stark Northumberland, Lancaster, Dalton, Bethlehem, New Hampton, Hill, Franklin, Canterbury, Pembroke and Allenstown DE 15-462 Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy Petition for Licenses to Construct and Maintain Electric Lines over and across Public Waters in Bridgewater, Bristol, Dalton, Deerfield, Hill, Lancaster, New Hampton, Northfield, Pembroke, Stark, Concord and Franklin DE 15-463 Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy Petition for Licenses to Construct and Maintain Electric Lines over and across Lands Owned by the State in Stark, Northumberland, Lancaster, Dalton, New Hampton, Canterbury, Pembroke and Franklin DE 15-464 Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy Petition for Approval of Lease Agreement between PSNH dba Eversource Energy and Northern Pass Transmission LLC Related: DE 11-250 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Investigation of Scrubber Costs and Cost Recovery DE 14-238 Public Service Company of New Hampshire Determination Regarding PSNH's Generation Assets New England Power Generators Association, Inc. and Energy Retail Supply Association withdrawal of support for Settlement Agreement (10/28/2015) Conservation Law Foundation Ltr of Withdrawal of Ivy L. Frignoca (12/14/2015) 





 

Berlin is Wrong on Northern Pass

Editorial

Coos County Democrat

Littleton Courier

12/30/2015 

 

Berlin is wrong on Northern Pass

 

Berlin Mayor Paul Grenier and seven members of the city council recently submitted a pro-Northern Pass letter to the state’s Site Evaluation Committee. The SEC will be making the decision on whether to allow construction of the controversial hydropower transmission project. Berlin’s support for Northern Pass is, quite simply, wrong and very disappointing.

 

The city’s Dec. 7 letter to the SEC makes statements that are not aligned with reality. Although praising renewable energy, the city seems to not know that big hydropower operations lack status as a renewable under state standards, mainly because of the impact on wildlife and the inevitable drowning of forests. Berlin also declares that Northern Pass "will provide much needed tax revenue to the County and the communities through which it passes," which is true enough. However, most towns that would host the transmission lines (and thereby grow the tax base) are strongly against the project. Because Berlin is not on the Northern Pass route, city leaders should not think they can speak for towns wanting nothing to do with the riches Northern Pass has promised.

 

Although praising the extra tax revenue from Northern Pass, Berlin’s leaders fail to remember how often towns are dragged into court over the tax valuation of utility infrastructure. This accounts for one reason why so many residents of Grafton County towns where lines would be buried are still fighting Northern Pass. For whatever financial gain they could accrue, these heroic citizens do not want Coös County to be plagued by miles of aboveground lines and horrendously tall towers.

 

Berlin is right to note that Northern Pass officials have worked hard to deal with the concerns of project opponents. However, city leaders are utterly inaccurate to state, "We understand that many of the concerns have been mitigated." Franconia, a town with no Northern Pass lines prior to the revised August proposal, is now appalled by the impact of burying five miles of lines through the town’s commercial corridor and close to several homes. Mitigating the impact of the new proposal, which would bury 60 miles of lines, has barely begun, and Berlin’s leaders seem ignorant of that reality.

 

The City of Berlin has become a severe outlier on Northern Pass, a Coös County municipality aligned with Hydro Quebec, not the residents and towns of the North Country that oppose the project. Leaders of "The City That Trees Built" seem to not respect why so many others in our region want to make sure they do not see their landscape become places that Northern Pass destroys.

 

Berlin will not see direct property tax revenue from Northern Pass. So why are other towns that will gain tax revenue still fighting so hard against Northern Pass? Grenier and the city council should have investigated that truth before they officially became craven propagandists for Hydro Quebec, a company owned by a foreign government. Berlin’s leaders are on the side of a Canadian monopoly that cannot find enough money from its $7 million of daily profit to bury all of Northern Pass.

 

Perhaps Mayor Grenier and the city council are so busy presiding over one of the highest tax rates in the state — which has gone up more than 20 percent in three years — to do their homework on Northern Pass. The next time each of the letter’s eight signatories go on the ballot, hopefully voters will ask each of them why they sided with a foreign government rather than the people of their own region.