Clear
70°
Clear
Hi 80° | Lo 52°

My Turn: Northern Pass does it again

In October 2010, New Hampshire residents woke up to find high-voltage transmission route lines drawn across maps of their properties by a project with a name that sounded vaguely like “Northwest Passage,” the fabled lucrative trade route from Europe to Asia. But this was Northern Pass, a Quebec-Connecticut plan to construct more than 1,100 visually jarring steel towers up to 155 feet tall through a 180-mile swath of New Hampshire in order to reach lucrative energy markets in Southern New England.

Without seeking permission from landowners, much less notifying them, the Northern Pass developers had helped themselves freely to private property to plot the route for their new elective power line. They assumed they would be able to take what they had to by eminent domain. They told the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so.

But such confiscation of private property was not to be. The Legislature took steps to remedy the egregious insult with House Bill 648, passed in 2012. HB 648 closed a loophole in New Hampshire law and denied optional, unneeded merchant utility projects like Northern Pass the right to seize the property of New Hampshire residents.

HB 648 leveled the playing field. Northern Pass was obliged to start over and win its route fair and square. The contest began. Northern Pass convinced a small minority of landowners to sell to them – for exorbitant offers – but the vast majority of those along the route opposed the project. At town meetings from 2011 to 2013, 10 communities on the then-proposed route in Coos County, including Clarksville, Stewartstown and Pittsburg, as well as 23 other towns to the south voted against Northern Pass in nonbinding warrant articles. And thousands of individuals donated to the Forest Society’s campaign to block the project’s intended route and compel the developers to produce a responsible proposal with viable alternatives acceptable to the public.

The will of the people had become clear. Northern Pass had failed to win the heart and mind of New Hampshire. When it ran out of property owners willing to sell land that would enable the project to work around Connecticut Lakes Headwaters conservation tracts, the project was at a dead end. This result should have led to a new proposal respectful of New Hampshire’s people and environment or ended the project, but neither occurred.

Instead, on June 27, residents of Pittsburg, Clarksville and Stewartstown woke up to find high-voltage transmission route lines drawn on maps of public roads in their towns by a project whose name they now knew all too well, Northern Pass. They learned that the developers are planning to use 8 miles of local roads to patch together a new route some 187 miles long, with only a tiny fraction (4 percent) buried along these roads. This is not the new deal New Hampshire has been looking for. Nor is Northern Pass’s apparent modus operandi a sign that the developers plan to respect New Hampshire values.

Northern Pass did not ask the towns’ permission to use their roads and apparently will not do so. On its website, the project says that where it has been unable to purchase private land or easements for its new route, it “will seek permission to use (other land) as part of its permit application with the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee.” That is, Northern Pass, a private project ineligible for eminent domain, will ask the SEC to authorize its use of town roads. Having failed to win over the public on the merits of the project, Northern Pass will once again resort to preemptive means to force its way through New Hampshire, disrupting the lives of citizens and communities even further.

If towns want to object, they will be forced to defend themselves in an expensive battle in the adjudicative SEC process. Towns as small as 300 people (Clarksville) will have to face off against the power and resources of mega-utility corporations with large squads of lawyers and a merchant project that has already spent millions preparing self-justifying studies and reports.

What’s to stop Northern Pass from seeking such preemptive solutions that use public road “workarounds” for its routing problems further south, for instance, near the Concord Airport or on existing PSNH easements with pole height, placement, and other restrictions?

Contact your representatives, senators, executive councilors and Gov. Maggie Hassan. Tell them New Hampshire still has crucial work to do to level the playing field for towns being eyed by private energy developers. We must protect citizens and communities from preemptive moves like the one that a merchant project now plans to request in Pittsburg, Clarksville and Stewartstown. And perhaps, as time goes on, in your town too.

(Susan Schibanoff, a member of Responsible Energy Action LLC, lives in Easton.)

The opponents prove again that they are nothing more than anti-progress, visual purist, NIMBYs

Northern Pass's amended Presidential Permit application thumbs its nose at the EIS process - offers two "land grabs" as its only alternatives

For a state with a huge revenue problem wouldn't it make sense to work with Northern Pass rather than rail against everything they propose? I don't understand the blanket "NO" and inability to engage in conversation. This has the potential to be a win/win now it seems to be more of a whine/whine

It is not possible to "work with" a developer who slaps non-negotiable ultimatums on the table and resorts to land grabs to avoid intelligent discussion with all the stakeholders, including residents of affected towns. Northern Pass's amended Presidential Pemit application, revealed yesterday, is the latest example. It dismisses any chance for a dialogue about alternative routes, designs. It rules out all alternatives that have been suggested and tries to run roughshod over small towns. It's Northern Pass's way or the highway. This has been going on for almost 3 years now. The Forest Society's blocking campaign is the way to bring these developers to the table. The only language they understand is "no."

To some degree, I hear the voices of those who object. The issue I have is the numbers of people who are saying "no" no matter what gets proposed. The bottom line is, our nation's electricity consumption increases every year. Power has to come from somewhere. Back when Canadian hydroelectric first started, the idea was to provide all the electricity needed in Canada and the USA. It is a very viable idea and the areas of the St. Lawrence used are perfect for the job. So, what are the options? Coal? More nukes? No thanks is my answer. So back to square one. This country needs to learn how to unify again, that its not about every person for themselves, or saying "no" to any proposal. We have to give sometimes, thats the way it works. This isn't about a Walmart or an bridge to nowhere, its about the need for more power. Most of the arguments against NP are false and untrue. Lets work this out and let them build it.

Simple answer here: bury the line, get the power you think we need even if the regional planners don't think we do. If PSNH can't figure out how to do it when projects in Maine, NY, and VT have, why? Is PSNH trying to squeeze so much profit out of this project to prop up their failing coal enterprise that they can't afford to bury it? (You do realize that supporting Northern Pass ultimately supports PSNH's coal plants, don't you?) Or are they just incompetent (with a history of that in Seabrook)? PSNH is not the only player in the transmission business. Get another bunch in here that can figure out what developers in Maine, NY and Vermont haven't had any trouble with: how to bury the line and still make enough profit to keep the investors happy. It's not rocket science. PSNH just wants to bail itself out with Northern Pass. That's why burial is not "affordable."

PUBLIC is the critical word in PUBLIC UTILITY

Post a Comment

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