By: Maureen Rose

Maureen Rose — Tue, 24 May 2011 16:22:21 +0000

I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS PROJECT… Our environment is more valuable than electricity at a cheaper rate… I will pay higher rates to preserve NH. The air, water and wildlife need the existing natural resources. We are not God and we should not destroy that which makes NH known for it’s beauty at any cost.
We will soon perish if we destroy our world and its natural resources that sustain us on a daily basis for our well being and our soul in addition to our health. Add solar panels to the existing towers. There has been enough destruction with all the power lines and cell towers that now exist. We need to pay attention to global warming and what we are doing to this planet not to mention our health.
Thank you for stopping this at any level.
Maureen Rose
Derry, NH

By: Tony Redington

Tony Redington — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 12:45:40 +0000

From the viewpoint of Montreal, the Northern Pass issue reflects a complete lack of state/regional (NE, probably, in this case) of even a short range plan for electrical needs and the solutions to those needs. Portfolio goals are nice but only part of the demand/supply pie. Vermont Yankee represents a nice and necessary re-juggling of the supply for that state (long die Vermont Yankee!). So, let’s get a rational electric supply/demand and the means to get that supply so that a coordinated (you have to include New York in this too) the need and how to supply that need of Canadian hydro (they are planning giant wind generation also). Thanks to CLF for highlighting the complete swiss cheese planning for electricity in New England. Of course Quebec policy is awash in electricity waste, underpricing and , extravagant hydro power energy waste of the rubber tired metro, etc., etc.–but that is another story.

Comments on: DOE must step back and consider Northern Pass in its broader context

By: Maureen Rose

By: Tony Redington