I read with great interest Sen. Jeb Bradley’s “My Turn” column (Monitor Forum, Aug. 21). In it he describes his support for subsidies for six biomass plants in the state to preserve jobs, then decries the New England Ratepayers Association’s opposition to the legislation.
He goes on to lambaste NERA for failing to oppose Eversource’s proposed rate increase and casts himself as looking out for Eversource customers’ best interest.
It reminds me of the old story of a politician who arrives at a crowded campaign event and proclaims, “I’m pleased to see such a dense crowd here,” to which a voice in the back responds: “Don’t be too pleased; we ain’t all dense!”
Bradley fails to mention that the legislation he promotes puts the tab for the biomass subsidies squarely on the shoulders of Eversource customers exclusively, as the bill specifically requires only the franchised utility where the plants are located to purchase the plants’ output at above market rates. All six of the plants are located in Eversource territory.
Contrast this to the senator’s own admission that the other option would be capacity payments to the plants at approximately the same overall cost. The difference is that capacity payments would be passed on to all electricity consumers in the state, not just Eversource customers. This includes consumers in the senator’s home town of Wolfeboro, who would not otherwise be impacted by his Senate Bill 365 and the closely associated House Bill 183.
Bradley purports to support the continuing bailout of these obsolete and inefficient plants in order to preserve jobs. If Abbot-Downing were still making Concord Coaches, I suspect the senator would support a tax on Ford automobiles (assuming he, himself, doesn’t drive a Ford) to preserve jobs at another company that technology has passed by.
Note that the modern wood burning plant in Portsmouth has no need for subsidies, as their more efficiently designed plant can compete on the open market against plants fired by other forms of fuel, such as natural gas.
Make no mistake, these plants are not homegrown. The plants in Springfield and Whitefield are owned by a Korean conglomerate that posted a profit last year of $190 million. The Tamworth and Bethlehem plants are owned by ENGIE Resources, with $67 billion in revenues last year. Bridgewater is owned by Olympus Holdings, a privately held firm with power, entertainment and financing subsidiaries.
Do these companies really need an additional $17 million a year from Eversource customers? We will never know because the plants are not required to open their books to show profit or loss and have steadfastly refused to do so.
We do know that, like petulant children, when they don’t get their way they immediately scale back operations or shut down in a grown-up version of “I’m taking my ball and going home.”
If continuing to support these obsolete plants is in the best interest of the residents of the state, the subsidies should be part of the state budget. The plants should make their case and compete for funds against education; against rebuilding or crumbling roads and bridges; against funding for psychiatric beds at the State Hospital.
The argument is made over and over that there needs to be a market for low-grade wood so that forest owners can manage their lots to produce high-quality wood for sawmills. Why is this the responsibility of electricity consumers? These lands are likely in “current use” so taxpayers are already supporting the owners. Do electric customers get a refund when the high-quality logs are sold to sawmills?
Time and again businesses have cited high energy costs as a reason not to expand or relocate to New Hampshire. The senator should not be speaking out of both sides of his mouth when it comes to electricity costs. Then again, I live in Concord and am a Unitil customer so won’t have to pay the senator’s tax on electricity, so maybe I should just pretend to be one of the dense ones.
(Lee Lajoie lives in Concord.)