Great News for Great Bay

Mar 18, 2014 by  | Bio |  Leave a Comment

Great news from Exeter, New Hampshire: On Tuesday, the 11, 78% of registered voters said “Yes” to funding the first steps in building a new sewage treatment plant – one that will replace the current, outdated plant that discharges into the Squamscott River, which flows into Great Bay. The $5 million bond issue for planning and engineering required 60% approval. Clearly, Exeter voters see the need to move forward with a new sewage treatment plant that will help bring relief to the nitrogen-plagued Great Bay estuary. This vote is huge for clean water.

Exeter, like neighboring Newmarket (whose residents voted overwhelmingly to fund a major upgrade to its sewage treatment plant), has a final permit from the EPA that regulates nitrogen discharges from the plant and requires that the town develop and institute a plan to reduce nitrogen pollution from stormwater. Excessive nutrients in the estuary have a direct and indirect negative effect on a very complex ecosystem. Nitrogen coming from sewage treatment plants and polluted stormwater can be reduced if we have the will to do so. The folks in Exeter obviously have the will to do just that.

A recently formed group of clean water advocates undertook some initiatives prior to the vote to help gain a positive outcome. I applaud their willingness to step up to the plate, do a little work, and help achieve a great result for the Squamscott River and Great Bay. Committed citizen activists always make a difference.

Not only did Exeter residents approve funding towards a new sewage treatment plant, they also voted to remove a centuries-old head-of-tide dam on the Squamscott/Exeter River. The Great Dam has contributed to several environmental concerns: it blocks anadromous fish passage, lowers dissolved oxygen content in the water behind the dam, and worsens upriver flooding. Removal of this dam will create only the second free-flowing river into Great Bay. You can read Exeter resident David O’Hearn’s blog post on this vote titled “Great Dam removal x 2”. David was recently featured in CLF’s “Faces of Great Bay”.

Faces of Great Bay: David O’Hearn

Feb 27, 2014 by  | Bio |  Leave a Comment

David-O'Hearn

David O’Hearn is a Bayman in New Hampshire’s Great Bay.

David O’Hearn is not easy to reach. If you want to sit down and talk, you need to catch him at work or during a blizzard. Otherwise, he is out doing something on Great Bay. That something does not include talking on a cell phone. David loves to clam, do a little trapping, harvest oysters, fish for stripers, catch a few smelts, and trap some lobsters. He always did and always will. He is a Bayman.

David grew up on the Squamscott River and still lives near it. The river and the bay attracted him like a magnet. He was enamored with the mysteries of the river and where it went. Great Bay was a whole new universe begging to be explored. He did things in boats as a youth that would appall any parent if they found out. Older, experienced baymen schooled him in fishing, shellfishing, and lobstering. He is married to the Bay, and has never contemplated divorce.

So what’s changed over the decades? In the early 1970s, the exposed mudflats along the Squamscott would stink from pollution that probably came from the already defunct textile mills in Exeter. The smell now is what you would expect. Wildlife along the river is much more prolific.

Water temperature and unusually large rain events, affecting salinity, really alter conditions in the Bay. “I did not catch even one lobster for an entire month after the Mother’s Day flood in 2006,” David says. “Nor did I trap any in Great Bay proper during the prolonged heat waves of the last two summers.” David sees green crabs when the water is warm, red crabs when the temperature is lower, and now even blue crabs at the mouth of the Bellamy. The invasive green crabs have been around for quite a while, but the blue crabs are new and may be a response to warming waters. “The striper fishing has been up and down and there used to be a lot more, and bigger, fish,” says David. He seldom sees any filter feeding pogies (menhaden) anymore.

Tides and rain affect water clarity. More sediment is in suspension. The extent of eelgrass has diminished. The last couple of years, David has seen a very significant increase in algae blooms and nuisance seaweeds. Pulling his lobster buoys becomes a real chore because the rope is fouled by a mass of plant growth like never before. “I am forced to pull a knife to cut the growth from the line while trying to operate my boat at the same time,” he says.

Though David is prone to voting “no” on most bond issues in Exeter, he is supporting the one this March to approve funds that will allow the town to move ahead with their new sewage treatment plant. “That new plant will reduce nitrogen that is currently wreaking havoc with Great Bay,” he says. David also supports the removal of the Great Dam in Exeter in order to maximize fish passage.

There is no question that David loves Great Bay. My sense is that he will pass on to others what he has learned from those who came before. David, and folks like him, is one reason that Great Bay needs and deserves whatever work is necessary to protect and improve it. Learn more about David and his love of Great Bay.

Our Faces of Great Bay series profiles people who live near and love the Great Bay Estuary, and who are working to protect it for today and future generations.

They’re Still Number 1: PSNH’s Merrimack Station Leads the State Again in Toxic Chemical Releases

Feb 20, 2014 by  | Bio |  1 Comment »

It’s clear to anyone paying attention to air pollution trends in New Hampshire that PSNH’s coal plants are a huge health and environmental liability for the state. And according to EPA data released last week, PSNH’s coal fleet continues to lead the state in toxic chemical releases: Merrimack Station in Bow remained New Hampshire’s number one toxic polluter in 2012, and Schiller Station in Portsmouth was number four.

Toxic-Chemical-Releases

“Merrimack-Station” by PSNH on flickr is licensed under CC by-nd 2.0

That these largely coal-burning facilities (one of Schiller Station’s units burns wood) are still the biggest releasers of toxic chemicals in the state is even more sobering given that the capacity factors (the ratio of utilization of a unit compared to its potential) for PSNH’s coal units hit their lowest levels ever in 2012:

I’ll say it again: a coal plant running at less than 1/3 capacity (the Merrimack units together ran at 32.23% in 2012) still releases more toxic chemicals than any other facility of any type in New Hampshire. 2012 was also the first full year that the $420 million scrubber was operational at the plant.

While Schiller Station dropped from second place in 2011 to fourth place in 2012 in toxic chemical releases, it’s a good bet that Schiller will be back in the number 2 spot when the 2013 numbers are released next year. Why? Though they’re still very low, the capacity factor for Schiller’s coal units nearly doubled between 2012 and 2013 (from 12.54% to 22.95%).

The bottom line: Even with a $420 million pollution control project online and rock-bottom capacity factors, PSNH’s coal-burning units are the state’s worst and fourth-worst toxic chemical releasers. The Public Utilities Commission and New Hampshire Legislature should keep this in mind as they discuss the future of PSNH’s electricity generating assets.

Toxic-Chemical-Releases

Source: ISO-NE and EPA Air Markets data

CLF’s Case Against PSNH’s Coal Plant for Clean Air Act Violations Moves Forward

Dec 5, 2013 by  | Bio |  Leave a Comment

Merrimack-Station

Yesterday, CLF won a resounding early victory in our 2011 federal lawsuit against Merrimack Station, Public Service of New Hampshire’s (PSNH) coal-fired power plant in Bow, for blatant violations of the federal Clean Air Act.

The impetus for our suit dates back to 2008 and 2009, when PSNH made major upgrades to Merrimack Station that allowed the plant to increase its emissions of air pollution — upgrades that triggered permit and other requirements under federal law (and under the state regulations implementing federal law). But PSNH didn’t get those required permits and continues to operate the plant without complying with the modern limits on the plant’s air pollution that should apply. Even after constructing a $422 million scrubber, which helps reduce some pollution from the plant, PSNH still emits more pollution than federal law requires, harming air quality and public health.

CLF brought the suit against PSNH in 2011, seeking penalties (payable to federal taxpayers) and immediate compliance with the law.

It’s been more than two years since I last provided an update on the litigation. During that time, CLF has been fighting diligently to move the case forward. In numerous briefs, CLF urged U.S. District Court Chief Judge Joseph Laplante to reject PSNH’s motion to dismiss. CLF also brought to light additional Clean Air Act violations associated with PSNH’s upgrade projects and petitioned the Court to consider those violations as part of the original case.

Yesterday, Chief Judge Laplante issued an order (PDF) that denied PSNH’s motion to dismiss and granted CLF’s request to bring new claims. The Court agreed with CLF that PSNH’s motion relied on the wrong rules, holding that the motion’s foundation “cannot bear weight”; the Court also determined that CLF followed all applicable requirements to bring its new claims in the lawsuit.

Judge Laplante’s ruling means that our case against PSNH can finally move forward. Now, CLF will have the opportunity to work with engineering and other experts, obtain more documentation from PSNH, and ultimately prove our allegations to the Court.

As regulators and legislators consider the future of Merrimack Station and PSNH’s other inefficient, costly power plants, CLF will be working to ensure that PSNH is held accountable and isn’t allowed a free pass to evade the bedrock requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Such A Deal: New Pipelines for Tar Sands Oil Bad for the Environment And Will Raise Gas Prices

Sep 4, 2013 by  | Bio |  Leave a Comment

Anyone who follows CLF’s work knows about plans being pushed to move oil derived from tar sands in Canada through pipelines that would cut across Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.  The purpose of the these pipelines is simple and clear: to allow this oil to reach the sea and foreign markets that can only be reached by oil tanker.

It is easy to understand why the Canadian oil industry, and the multi-national petroleum companies with big Canadian investments, want to move the oil extracted from the Tar Sands of Western Canada out to the larger world markets: doing so will mean they make A LOT of money.  The Canadian petroleum industry has explained this for us all very helpfully in an ad found on page 2 of the June-July 2013 issue of the Canadian Public Policy and Politics magazine with the zippy name of “Policy” that we reprint here.

The ad confirms the tar-sands-oilpurpose of the wave of pipeline building being pushed by the Canadian petroleum industry (and ExxonMobil and Koch Industries, the owners of leading Canadian companies like Imperial Oil/Esso and Flint Hills Resources): to raise the price of Canadian oil up to the levels found on many global markets.  As the ad shows, using little prices tags, the price of oil in the North American market hovers around $85 a barrel at times when the same barrel of oil sells for $110 elsewhere in the world. If the producers, refiners and sellers of that oil have access to world markets they can demand that North American customers pay them the higher price if they want to buy this oil.  This reality is especially stark when you look at the fact that oil refining companies with operations in the United States just don’t care if these pipelines get built – they are fully occupied with oil extracted right here at home.  It is just Canadian companies (and the multi-national companies like ExxonMobil and Koch who own Canadian operations) who profit from the push for these pipelines.

So we know who wins if new pipelines carry Canadian oil to reach global markets: the petroleum companies who reap the higher prices found beyond the United States and Canada. But who loses?

The answer to that requires us to think both about the short-term in which we all live our day-to-day lives and the longer-term world in which future generations will have to live.

When we think about immediate and short-term concerns for our families and businesses it doesn’t get any more real than gasoline prices.

Supporters of building pipelines to move Canadian oil to market generally and the highest profile project, the Keystone XL pipeline that would move oil through the middle of the United States from Canada to the Gulf Coast, invoke gas prices as a reason for taking that step, at least implying that the new pipelines will drive down gas prices.

However,  it is well documented in a number of reports and studies that Midwestern drivers would see gasoline prices rise on the order of 42 cents a gallon if that pipeline is built. And this is not surprising – if the oil used to make gasoline is being sold (and bought) at higher prices then gasoline prices will rise.

So in the short term – the losers in this equation? Anyone who buys gasoline or relies upon goods or services that rely on gasoline or diesel fuel that are transported by car, truck, ship or airplane – in short all of us.

And that doesn’t even get into the critical longer term issue: that tapping into the tar sands oil, bringing them to market and burning them would be a large step towards the devastating climate disaster that is unfolding around us and that we need to stop.

There are those who disagree with this assessment. Some politicians argue that tar sands oil from Canada is needed to free ourselves from dependence on oil imported from volatile (and often hostile) nations overseas.  They suggest that these pipelines will simply bring it that oil to markets we, here in the U.S., draw upon, oddly ignoring the stated purpose of the pipelines to bring the oil to higher-priced offshore markets.

And there are thoughtful and detailed analyses that disagree with the climate argument about this oil.  This analysis argues that if the tar sands oil is not brought to market that it will simply be replaced by slightly-easier-to-access Venezuelan oil with a very similar carbon footprint.

That climate impact analysis, and the political argument for building pipelines to tap into tar sands oil, however ignore one important, essential and difficult option: use less oil instead. The advent of electric vehicles, smarter urban development and increases in transit use all converge to show us a way forward and off of oil. The increase in fuel economy standards, a process that is well underway, is a step on that path.

Getting off oil will not be easy.  As the social critic, songwriter and bicycle enthusiast David Byrne has noted, “From the age of the Dinosaurs, cars have run on gasoline.”  Changing something so fundamental will be hard but it is what we need to do; that is what in all of our interests, not laying new pipelines to bring ancient oil derived from the cracking and boiling of tar sands to foreign markets where it will be burned and released into the atmosphere.

 

 

“No supportable basis for optimism” and “ever higher costs”: PUC Staff calls out PSNH’s failed business model

Jun 10, 2013 by  | Bio |  Leave a Comment

This past Friday, staff from the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission and The Liberty Consulting Group issued the results of their investigation (PDF) into the impacts of PSNH’s failing business model and “ever higher costs” to consumers. The Union Leader and NHPR were quick to quote the report’s damning conclusion:

In summary, the situation looks to worsen, as continuing migration from PSNH’s default service by customers causes an upward rate trend. We find no supportable basis for optimism that future market conditions will reverse this unsustainable trend, especially in the near term. To the contrary, the PSNH fossil units face uncertainties that combine to create a risk of further, potentially substantial increases in costs.

This underlines the benefits of abandoning PSNH’s residential energy service, noting that “PSNH’s default service rate has exceeded [competitive supplier] rates since mid-2009.” As PSNH itself stated in a filing before the NH Supreme Court in May, PSNH energy service ratepayers “have the legal right and ability to avoid payment of PSNH’s default energy service rate entirely by buying their electricity from a competitive electric power supplier.” The PUC staff’s report serves as a call to action for New Hampshire consumers to save money, protect their finances, and improve the environment by buying energy from lower cost and more efficient energy suppliers.

PSNH’s only public response to the report thus far has been to cite the dispatch of their coal units during extreme temperature events this year as evidence that the plants are necessary “insurance” against natural gas price increases. The report itself contradicts this, however, noting that even at this year’s levels of natural gas price spike frequency and severity in New England (due to a cold winter and a late spring heat wave two weeks ago), natural gas price fluctuations “have not served to give the PSNH fossil units enough of a boost to overcome their negative value,” and that PSNH has not offered any data or analysis to rebut this finding. That is, even with the extreme peaks of electric demand felt in the past year requiring their use more often than in the past few years, PSNH’s fossil fuel fired power units still lose ratepayer money.

The report assesses the real financial impacts of PSNH’s past and possible future decisions to invest in their coal units rather than shut them down, and demonstrates that the ratepayer money lost if PSNH’s electricity generation is sold off will be lower than many might fear. The key points raised by the report include:

  • Even in a best case scenario, PSNH’s already above-market rates will continue to climb. The investigation calculated PSNH’s energy service rates with a myriad of possible variables, including high natural gas prices and lower coal prices (the scenario that PSNH claims will validate its economic decisions) and a migration rate lower than PSNH reported this April. In all cases, the report found that PSNH’s default energy service rate would climb still higher than their current well above market 9.54 cents per kilowatt hour rate, to 10 or 11 cents per kilowatt hour.
  • Customers continue to flee PSNH’s energy service. CLF has been reporting the steep increase in residential customers rejecting PSNH’s high energy service rates for a while now. We’ve also noted that most large commercial customers had migrated away from PSNH years ago. The combination of these two trends led to the report this May that migration across all customers reached half of PSNH’s total load as of the end of April.
  • The full cost of the Scrubber Project has yet to be felt by ratepayers. PSNH has started recovering the cost of the ill-founded scrubber installation at Merrimack Station to the tune of 0.98 cents per kilowatt hour on a temporary basis. The report estimates that full recovery of the scrubber’s cost would nearly double that amount, to 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour added to ratepayers’ bills. This, of course, is a cost that competitive energy service providers don’t have to deal with.
  • Looming environmental compliance projects as Scrubber redux? PSNH is currently waiting for its new final permit from EPA for cooling water withdrawal and discharge at Merrimack Station. The final permit is likely to require cooling water intake structures (like those constructed at Brayton Point Station in MA), at a price tag of $111 million or more, in addition to other protections for water quality and wildlife. Costs associated with new or impending air quality requirements would require additional compliance at significant cost, and these estimates don’t even take into account the risk posed by CLF’s ongoing Clean Air Act citizen suit.
  • Potential ratepayer costs from divestment of PSNH’s electricity generation would be minimal. If PSNH’s generating assets are sold, New Hampshire state law allows PSNH to recover from ratepayers costs that are not covered by sale proceeds (“stranded costs”). The report roughly estimates that potential energy service rate increases to cover stranded costs would be no more than 0.9 cents per kilowatt hour and possibly much less, given the high value of PSNH’s hydro generation units.

The report ultimately recommends that the PUC initiate a proceeding to solicit formal feedback on the report and its conclusions. This proceeding would likely result in firmer value estimates for PSNH’s assets, interim steps that could be accomplished through the PUC’s existing authority, and more detailed recommendations for legislation.

As CLF and the Empower NH coalition have repeatedly noted, promoting and advancing competition in New Hampshire’s energy service markets yields only benefits for the state’s electricity ratepayers in the face of PSNH’s “ever higher costs” to ratepayers. While the PUC and the Legislature decide how to implement the recommendations of this report, ratepayers should continue to vote with their feet and leave PSNH’s energy service.

New Campaign Promotes Electricity Supply Competition in NH

May 30, 2013 by  | Bio |  1 Comment »

Hardly a day goes by at CLF that we don’t think about how to describe the work we do more simply and clearly. The issues we work on are complicated; the solutions often complex and nuanced. But the need to help people understand our role and theirs in protecting New England’s environment is critical to our shared success.

This week, we launched something completely different to help educate New Hampshire residents about how their choice of electricity supplier can save them money and help the environment. The multimedia campaign, called EmpowerNH, is the creation of a newly formed coalition of retail electricity suppliers, trade and consumer groups and CLF. The coalition grew out of a common interest among this diverse set of stakeholders in promoting a competitive electricity supply market in New Hampshire. As CLF Scoop has been reporting, PSNH’s state-sanctioned practice of charging sky high rates to keep its old, dirty coal plants in business has prompted tens of thousands of residential customers to switch to competitive suppliers, who are are currently offering better rates for cleaner power. The EmpowerNH campaign aims to inform consumers about their power to choose an alternative to PSNH, and make it easy to access information and compare offers from competitive suppliers.

The centerpiece of the campaign is a short video that uses whimsical drawings and stop motion animation to tell the story of electric supply competition in New Hampshire. Take a look, and let us know what you think. And if you like it, please share it with your friends!

 

 

Worth Remembering: Northern Pass Would Mean Big Changes in the White Mountains

May 8, 2013 by  | Bio |  Leave a Comment

(photo credit: flickr/crschmidt)

(photo credit: flickr/crschmidt)

With the Northern Pass “new route” drama entering its third year (Northeast Utilities executives once again failed to announce any progress on last week’s investor conference call), it’s important to remember that all we’ve been talking about is the northernmost forty miles of what is a 180-mile project that stretches from the Canadian border to southeastern New Hampshire.

The “new route” will not change one of the proposed Northern Pass project’s most troubling segments: approximately 10 miles through the White Mountain National Forest, within the towns of Easton, Lincoln, and Woodstock. It goes without saying that the Forest is one of New Hampshire’s most treasured public assets: a vast and magnificent wilderness that is among the most accessible and visited natural wonders in the nation and the cornerstone of the state’s tourist and recreation economy. The Forest is an awe-inspiring place, and its ongoing stewardship is one of those things that make me profoundly proud of this country.

Project affiliate Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) has a “special use permit” from the United States Forest Service for an existing transmission line, built in 1948, which is largely comprised of H-frame wooden poles standing about 50 feet tall. Northern Pass developer Northern Pass Transmission LLC (NPT) is now seeking a special use permit to remove the existing line and build two new sets of towers (one carrying the new Northern Pass transmission line and the other carrying the existing line) with a “typical” height of 85 feet.

Proposed Northern Pass tower design (existing towers in background)

Proposed Northern Pass tower design (existing towers in background)

You can read NPT’s permit application here (PDF) and download its attachments here. The project’s construction would impact important wildlife habitat and ecologically sensitive high-altitude wetlands, and the new more prominent towers would cross the Appalachian Trail and impact a number of the Forest’s other signature hiking areas and viewsheds. It’s also worth noting that the project’s failure to provide meaningful greenhouse gas emission reductions falls particularly hard on the Forest, where climate change is already shifting seasons, reducing snowpack levels, and disrupting mountain ecosystems in significant ways.

It will be up to the United States Forest Service – and specifically the supervisor of the White Mountain National Forest  – to decide whether to approve NPT’s permit application. In particular, the Forest Service must determine whether granting the proposed use is “in the public interest” and consistent with the current management plan for the Forest, which includes special protections for the Forest’s most important natural and scenic resources. This decision will follow the United States Department of Energy’s environmental review of the Northern Pass project as a whole, which CLF has been fighting to improve since the project was first announced in 2010.

Earlier this year, a diverse coalition of conservation organizations, including CLF, along with a grassroots group, several Forest communities, and the regional land use planning commission wrote to the Forest Service, urging the agency to take all available steps at its disposal to ensure comprehensive and rigorous scrutiny of the Northern Pass project and a full analysis of all reasonable alternatives, especially those alternatives that avoid or minimize impacts within the Forest.

Our letter (PDF) highlighted the Forest Service’s stewardship obligations and the special and stringent standards for granting a special use permit. We explained that the Northern Pass project, as proposed, is very different from an ordinary utility transmission line constructed to extend service or improve system reliability; the project is much more like a private commercial development, with no specific policy or law encouraging or requiring its development. We suggested that it was critical for the Forest Service to take these features into account as it weighs whether the project would be consistent with the “public interest” and the Forest’s management plan. Finally, we recommended that the Forest Service avoid relying on data collected by the first contractor hired to conduct the federal environmental review of the project, which was withdrawn by NPT after a public uproar, and that the Forest Service exercise its prerogative to order Forest-specific studies and to scrutinize and question all data and analysis presented by the current contractor team, the objectivity of which is in serious doubt.

Oddly, the federal environmental review of Northern Pass seems to be moving forward even as the project is stalled and the northernmost route has not been disclosed. As field work, studies, and analysis proceed, the Forest Service is hearing from many voices registering strong opposition to Northern Pass’s special use permit application, through efforts like ProtectWMNF.org and this recent citizen-generated petition. If you are concerned about the impacts of the Northern Pass project on the White Mountains, you can add your voice through those resources or by filing a comment with the United States Department of Energy.

A Message to the Energy Industry: The Demise of Northern Pass 1.0

Apr 26, 2013 by  | Bio |  2 Comment »

Earlier this week, I brought a message from New Hampshire to a gathering of major players in the Northeast’s energy industry in lower Manhattan, the Platt’s Northeast Energy Markets Conference.

wall street

(photo credit: flickr/Mathew Knott)

Remember Northern Pass, that novel Northeast Utilities transmission project that would import 1,200 megawatts of large-scale hydropower from Hydro-Québec?

The project, as it was conceived and pitched to the region and the industry, Northern Pass version 1.0 if you will, is dead.

I ran through the key financial elements of the original proposal, what I called the Northern Pass gambit:

  • $1.1 billion to build a new transmission line, funded wholly by Hydro-Québec.
  • A generous “return on equity,” or guaranteed profit on project costs, of 12.56% for project developer Northeast Utilities, paid by Hydro-Québec.
  • Easy and inexpensive siting approvals for the line, which would be located solely in New Hampshire, mostly in corridors controlled by Northeast Utilities subsidiary Public Service of New Hampshire, the state’s largest and most powerful electric utility.
  • Ample profits that would cover all Northern Pass costs and much more for Hydro-Québec, which would sell its hydropower in New England’s lucrative wholesale electric market, where energy prices were, in 2008 and 2009 when Northern Pass was conceived, orders of magnitude higher than Hydro-Quebec’s costs of generating power.
  • Unlike New England-based renewable projects, no public or ratepayer subsidies.

These elements looked good to investors on paper. But they have, one by one, fallen apart, and they no longer add up. I took the audience through the Northern Pass reality:

  • Years of a stalled siting process, as Northeast Utilities tries to purchase a new route for the northernmost 40 miles of the project, where PSNH has no transmission corridor, with repeated missed deadlines for announcing the new route and restarting the federal permitting process.
  • Increasing costs – an estimated additional $100 million in project costs already, even without accounting for any new route, mitigation commitments, or any underground component.
  • Growing doubt (even more pronounced than a year ago) that Hydro-Québec can recover Northern Pass development costs and its hydropower costs (which will only increase as costly new dam projects continue in northern Québec) through energy exports, given that wholesale energy prices in New England are now much lower.
  • Opposition by the vast majority of communities affected by the project, 33 at last count, local chambers of commerce, political leaders, and a diverse, well-organized grassroots movement of residents.
  • No support from any New England environmental group.
  • Mounting risk to NU’s lucrative return on equity, with the underlying deal expiring in 2014, and any renewal subject to federal regulators’ recently more skeptical view of such incentives.

And finally, I gave the eulogy for the key financial element of Northern Pass 1.0 – the one that attracted so much interest in regional energy circles, was the project’s key distinguishing feature from New England renewable energy projects, and continues to reside within the project’s discredited and misleading media campaign: the promise that the project would not require any subsidies.

In the last several months, as CLF predicted, Northeast Utilities, Hydro-Québec, and their allies have launched a major initiative to secure out-of-market subsidies of one form or the other for Canadian hydropower.  These efforts are now raging in the legislatures of Connecticut and Rhode Island and are simmering in other New England states. CLF is deeply engaged in protecting our state Renewable Portfolio Standard laws from this incursion and in turning back any long-term deals that will supply Canadian hydropower to these states at above-market prices or in a way that threatens renewable deployment in New England.

To us and to others, the false urgency associated with these proposals seems transparently calculated to advance a “Northern Pass 2.0,” just as Northern Pass 1.0 falls apart.

What would Northern Pass 2.0 look like? On the ground, whatever the “new route” New Hampshire continues to wait for, it will almost certainly look the same as Northern Pass 1.0, suffering from many of the same failings. But there will be some key differences, as the project’s underpinnings shift to accommodate a new economic reality. It will rely on public and/or ratepayer subsidies that will mean that New England will pay an above-market premium for the power or will provide an out-of-market gift of long-term energy price certainty to Hydro-Québec, in part to finance the associated transmission. In addition, many in New Hampshire’s North Country believe that the project will need to be sited on public land that is legally off-limits to circumvent the strong, ongoing efforts of the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests to secure blocking conservation easements – in effect, another public subsidy for the project that will face overwhelming pushback in New Hampshire. (Clearly, Northern Pass’s dogged legislative fight to secure an ability to use eminent domain for the project, which it lost in resounding fashion in 2012, was only a preview of coming tactics.)  

As CLF has consistently said, there may be appropriate alternatives to Northern Pass that strengthen New England’s access to Canadian hydropower resources, but only if those alternatives are pursued through well-informed, fair, and transparent public processes, provide meaningful community and ratepayer benefits, displace our dirtiest energy resources, and verifiably result in carbon and other emissions reductions. It does not appear that the emerging Northern Pass 2.0 – buoyed by a set of special deals and no discernible improvements – would do anything to advance these basic common sense principles, which should guide the region’s transition to a resource mix that will power New England’s clean energy future.

With few signs that Northern Pass’s sponsors have learned lessons from their missteps so far, Northern Pass 2.0 looks to have an even tougher path in New Hampshire than the dead end road that Northern Pass 1.0 has traveled. This was a message from the Granite State that the world of energy industry insiders and analysts needed to hear.

Page 1 of 1012345...10...Last »