Cloudy
51°
Cloudy
Hi 56° | Lo 36°

Senate rejects moratorium on wind farms and Northern Pass

Efforts to put a one-year moratorium on new energy projects like wind farms and the Northern Pass found very little support yesterday in the state Senate, which killed a final attempt, 20-4.

After nearly two hours of debate and a dramatic plea from Sen. Jeff Woodburn, a Dalton Democrat who opposes Northern Pass, the Senate could agree only to study the state’s process for permitting energy projects.

Sen. Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, proposed the study after failing to find support for his one-year halt on new wind projects. Bradley, who yesterday said Northern Pass lines should be buried, was criticized earlier this week for trying to remove Northern Pass from the one-year moratorium.

He acknowledged from the Senate floor how divisive the legislation had become.

“I hope some of the white-hot rhetoric we’ve heard outside this room . . . can be replaced with more congeniality,” Bradley said, “and less questioning of peoples’ motives and integrity.”

Bradley’s two-part study passed, 23-1, with Sen. John Reagan, a Deerfield Republican, casting the lone “no” vote.

The original version of the Senate bill never named Northern Pass, a $1.2 billion project that would bring hydropower from Canada to the New England grid. But it targeted the project with its requirements that a “large scale transmission facility” get local approval, minimize adverse effects on the landscape and do more than bring jobs and tax revenue to the state.

Sen. Jeanie Forrester, a Meredith Republican who opposes Northern Pass and sponsored the bill, attempted to amend legislation at a committee hearing earlier last week by replacing it with a moratorium on all new energy projects.

The move was popular with Northern Pass foes who packed the meeting and spoke during the committee’s five-hour hearing. The committee, however, adopted a different amendment sponsored by Bradley that limited the moratorium to just new wind projects.

Bradley defended that move on the Senate floor yesterday, saying wind-energy projects pose unique challenges for the state. For example, he said, wind turbines cannot be buried in a way transmission lines can. And wind turbines’ need for open space makes them visible.

“We do not have in our statutes or our (Site Evaluation Committee) regulations any wind criteria for (permitting) parameters,” Bradley said. “There is nothing on height, on noise, on . . . decommission” of the turbines.

Bradley said a moratorium would give the state time to put those regulations in place. His amendment failed on a voice vote.

Forrester and Woodburn followed that vote with their own amendment, seeking a moratorium on wind and all elective energy projects, which would include Northern Pass. But the actual wording of the amendment put a moratorium on all energy projects, and that concerned Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, a Portsmouth Democrat who said she didn’t want to stifle other alternative energy projects.

Woodburn said his North Country constituents felt ignored at the Senate committee hearing on the bill. He also said it would be unfair to put a moratorium on wind but not elective projects like the Northern Pass.

“We expect a fair hearing,” Woodburn said. “(My constituents) don’t need to win but they need to be heard.”

Sen. Bob Odell, a Lempster Republican, urged his colleagues to defeat the moratorium, calling it a bad way to do business. All but four senators agreed.

In addition to Forrester and Woodburn, only Sen. Andy Sanborn, a Bedford Republican, and Senate President Peter Bragdon, a Milford Republican, voted for the moratorium.

The bill that passed would allow the state to spend up to $200,000 from the renewable energy fund to pay an outside expert to evaluate how the state’s Site Evaluation Committee decides whether to approve or deny new energy projects.

The bill, which now heads to the House, would also create a legislative study committee that would examine how well the state considers the potential impacts of wind farms on property values, landscape and job creation.

(Annmarie Timmins can be reached at 369-3323,
atimmins@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @annmarietimmins.)

Legacy Comments7

Build the Northern Pass and Wind Farms!!!!! NH needs it.

Northern Pass just blew another new Coos route announcement that it had promised to investors by the end of March. It doesn't matter what the NH Senate did or did not do. The people are speaking in ways that no one can deny - and they are saying, again and again, NO Northern Pass. How long will it be until Northern Pass pays attention? Februay 14, 2014, when Hydro Quebec has a chance to renegotiate the bum deal it got in the current three-year contract with Northeast Utilities. It may have made economic sense back in 2008 or earlier when the deal was cooked up, but now, with abundant natural gas, it makes no economic sense, and it is ruining HQ's reputation for future dealings in northern New England. The cat is out of the bag about dirty brown big hydro and the job-killing NIMBY position of any state that tries to use it to satisfy policy demands.

Right on Grafton. Northern Pass should be killed. And, as I have posted here before, windmills for wind power should be killed as well. You are absolutely correct, natural gas is so abundant and we now learn that we have enough oil to last maybe 300-400 years, not the propaganda about how it will run out in our lifetime. That oil? Right here on our own soil.

Obama and the democrats are making sure you never see a drop of that oil or Gas...Obama and his EPA are formulating new executive orders to stop fracking !!!!!!

How is the Cape Wind Project doing....? How long ago did it start....?

Good Post!!!! It is hard to believe that both a RINO like Jeb Bradley and a bleeding heart leftist like Martha Fullabull would come down on the same side of this very divisive issue. Northern Pass must never be allowed to proceed. Also, on a separate note, neither should windmills be allowed to dot our landscape.

It's ironic that Sen. Bradley wants "more congeniality" and "less questioning of people's motives and integrity" when it was his blatantly underhanded way of handling the public hearing on SB99 [ re: one year moratorium] that raised these issues in the first place when he resurrected and stripped out the part about transmission lines after ending the public hearing and sending people home without even considering or reading their testimony. I'm sure he'll say it was for our own good but we aren't children. We want to be accurately represented by those we elect and we want the interests of the people of NH to come before those of foreign and out of state utilities. Martha Fuller Clark's claims to be concerned about stifling other alternative energy projects are equally unbelievable. What other alternative projects are pending that she is referring to? The current approval process is lengthy and a moratorium wouldn't prevent anyone from starting or continuing the process - just final approval by the SEC while a comprehensive energy policy is developed that brings NH up to speed with others in our region. Google: NH General Court and use the Senate Roster to contact the senators and tell them we expect them to represent the best interests of NH and not CT or Canada.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.