Comments on: Northern Pass’s phantom “benefits”

By: Julie

Julie — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 20:10:30 +0000

This is a great discussion with all excellent points. thank you all for your great work, excellent arguements, and support of those from other areas than where you live. I am from the North Country, and am also 100% supporting anyone from any other area that wants to protect their properties from invasive species of any kind, from plant to steel, or even hot pipes buried underground. As an aside, I believe that the NEL line should NOT be buried on land through our seacoast area – it should be sent out to sea where it does not affect our neighbors on our short but beautiful seacoast.) The one issue that has not been mentioned in this conversation yet, is the need for a comprehensive, forward looking regional energy plan for New England. I believe that CLF has petitioned the PUC to do this prior to approving any plan from the Northern Pass or any other presented in the future. A regional energy plan would make approving or rejecting any proposed energy production or transmission project, a simple, quick process, rather than putting us through 4-5 years of economic and emotional hell while we await the long arduous process that is the current case. If, indeed, the coal plants at Bow, Schiller, Salem (Ma), and any other dirty plants, or even nuclear plants are slated to go offline in the future, then it would make sense to have a 25-50 year plan of principles that must be met to replace them with cleaner, locally produced energy that doesn’t require the use of eminent domain or any other unjustly or inequitably distributed costs. That way, those who wanted to “get a jump on the market” could begin developing their projects with a principled common sense that Northern Pass planners obviously left at the Canadian border. If the principles and guidelines were directly related to our goals of 25 in 25, and also directly related to the health and economic well being of our citizens, and the project was required to provide finances for unbiased studies representing pros and cons of the proposed project, then only well researched projects would even be considered. Hopefully, those would be truly renewable and clean projects, such as solar, wind, microhydro, and very efficient biomass projects in very local areas.

By: Susan Schibanoff

Susan Schibanoff — Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:38:27 +0000

Hi Fil, long time no see,

PSNH has now revealed that it wants to “expand” its ROWs along approximately 70 miles of the entire 180 mile route. They don’t give the widths. These “expanded” ROWs would, in fact, be new ROWs. PSNH has no rights to widen its easements. If property owners are unwilling to grant the additional easements, PSNH would then ask the PUC to condemn and seize the land by eminent domain. This would be the biggest land grab NH has ever seen. Northern Pass is not a reliability project; it is not needed to keep the lights on. A crown corporation, Hydro Quebec, is using PSNH to get the land it needs to send power south of us. Neither has any more business seizing private property than Wal Mart does.

By: Amanda

Amanda — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 03:37:39 +0000

I agree that the NP will be destructive and the efforts to sell it to the public don’t go much farther than ‘sounding pretty’. Let’s face it: it’s a hard sell. There is no actual need, no energy shortage or reliability issues here, we are doing just fine. Actually, we are using less energy than in 2007.

Taken from the June 26, 2011 article written by Staff Writer David Brooks of the Nashua Telegraph:
‘ISO-New England, which oversees the regional power grid and does a lot of analysis about electricity production and need, says the six-state region consumed about 3.5 percent less power in 2010 than it did in 2007, before the recession hit.’

Another positive point to mention: Merrimack Station is getting ready to start using the new scrubber technology that touts Capturing 80% Mercury Emissions and reducing Sulfur Dioxide by 90% (http://psnhnews.com/displaypage.cfm?pgid=71).
Given that Merrimack Station is still a coal-fired power plant, there is still the need for NH to find a local, renewable energy source, but until then, let’s all stand together to keep Northern Pass OUT of NH, and then focus on taking care of renewable, local alternatives.

By: Meg

Meg — Fri, 01 Jul 2011 04:40:20 +0000

Laura, I hear your concern regarding the pollution created by Merrimack Station. However, agreeing to the Northern Pass to possibly close Merrimack Stattion is not a good nor a safe solution. Choosing NP over MS is just moving from one horrible pollutant to another.From the frying pan into the fire and no way to undo damage caused by high tension cancer causing transmission lines.

Large hydro is far from green, this can even be found on HydroQuebec`s website. Everytime they dam a river by massive flooding the rotting flooded vegetation leaks methane causing also high levels of mercury in fish. HQ admits that it takes decades for them to correct the damage done to the environment. Why would we want to reward those practices?

I mentioned the health risks of high voltage transmission lines. This is a real threat. In several New England states, including CT the use of transmission lines on towers such as proposed by PSNH/NP is banned by law. Only lines buried underground are permitted due to the potential health risk these lines cause. This is similar throughout Europe. Germany the leading country of solar and wind energy only allow lines to be buried. Let`s not allow PSNH/NP to use outmodes to transmit energy.

Also a huge concern, and perhaps the greatest,is the serious threat of eminent domain. Many thousands do not want the existing ROW expanded to make room for the NP nor do their current easement deeds allow expansion (nor broadband). This leaves no option than the real and serious threat of eminent domain hanging over everyone`s heads. No one should lose their property rights to a private corporation, NP, for that corporation`s private financial gain.

We need to think long term and find real solutions within NH not more problems with devastating unrepairable effects.

By: Laura Bonk

Laura Bonk — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:41:42 +0000

I own a 120 acre parcel abutting Bear Brook State Park in Allenstown, NH. Running across this parcel is an existing power line. It is my understanding that Northern Pass is planning to remove the existing towers and replace them with much taller ones–ones that will be readily seen above the height of the surrounding forest. The corridor will most likely be widened.

Merrimack Station, a 500 MW coal burning power plant is about 5 miles from my property. Mercury deposits from Merrimack Station end up in the pond and brook on my own property as well as the ponds within Bear Brook State Park.

If PSNH would decommission Merrimack Station, I would support taller utility poles and a wider corridor on my property. That would be a fair tradeoff. However, the current proposal does not offer any benefits to the citizens of Concord, Pembroke, Chichester, Epsom, Allenstown and Deerfield. It is just more environmental degradation for us to live with. There are no benefits for the citizens of these communities.

Under no circumstances do I support a high voltage transmission line through virgin forest in New Hampshire’s north country. I have been living with the environmental degradation of an utility corridor–illegal ATV use, invasive species, loss of visual appeal, among other things. It is not fair to ruin the pristine forests of New Hampshire’s north country. A new high voltage line in the north country is simply unacceptable.

By: Christophe Courchesne

Christophe Courchesne — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:58:19 +0000

Filson – Thanks for your comment. We expect that there will indeed be a need to expand certain stretches of existing ROWs. When the project releases more detailed plans, it should be possible to see where all such expansions will be required. Easements may require amendments to make this happen, and that may require landowner consent and/or eminent domain; to avoid eminent domain, the engineering may well be adjusted to avoid expanding ROWs where not allowed under existing easements or where landowners will not consent.

By: Filson Glanz

Filson Glanz — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 15:33:38 +0000

During the Exchange Yesterday, it crossed my mind that the two coal fired PSNH plants should be shut down as a MINIMUM condition of New Hampshire going along with the plan. But I see in the statement on this web site you have already stated this. At least NH would have less asthma and air polution as a benefit of the project.

Also, the PSNH rep. stated that they would use rights of way already existing. But I have a friend who says the right of way on his property is 25 ft. wide, yet he was told the project would take more than that. Is there any truth in that as far as you know?