[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


News Home

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links


Press Releases


Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics


Allied Groups

Utility says bill may have negative effect  

Credit:  By Kathy Mccormack / The Associated Press, www.concordmonitor.com 20 May 2011 ~~

A bill that would slow down a project to carry hydroelectric power from Canada to New England would have unintended consequences for the state, a representative of New Hampshire’s largest utility testified yesterday.

Donna Gamache of Public Service of New Hampshire said the bill, which she described as a “knee-jerk reaction” to the project, could stop many necessary electric transmission upgrades. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that PSNH also is concerned about long-term impacts the bill could have on the ability to provide cost-effective electricity.

Martin Murray, a PSNH spokesman, said the bill would threaten the chances of new renewable energy sources to connect to the grid. Projects such as a North Country wind project “or other projects that could bring important environmental or economic benefits to the state” could be jeopardized, Murray said.

The House-passed bill would prevent public utilities from taking private land to build a plant or transmission facility. It would allow construction if the transmission facility is needed for “system reliability” of the electric grid, a term that has no definition in the bill.

But landowners who fear that they could lose their property to the project, called the Northern Pass, say the bill would strengthen their property rights.

“When someone has the ability to take our land . . . which is my family asset, I have a real problem with that,” said Tom Thomson, an Orford tree farmer whose family owns 2,500 acres.

The bill was introduced in opposition to the Northern Pass, a project that would build power towers to carry transmission lines along a 180-mile route from northern to southern New Hampshire and provide electricity for the region. It would include 40 miles of new construction in the northern part of the state, where the opposition is based. Many opponents from the area, wearing their trademark hunter orange, crowded the 400-seat capacity Representatives Hall at the State House for the hearing.

Project opponents say the bill would stop the Northern Pass from using eminent domain because the energy from the project isn’t needed in the state. Supporters argue the bill would stop construction of other projects, and that eminent domain itself is rarely used.

“Legislation targeting a specific project sends a ‘keep out’ message to all who may wish to do business in the Granite State,” Joseph Casey, president of the New Hampshire Building and Construction Trades Council, wrote yesterday in a letter to Gov. John Lynch opposing the bill.

The group represents about 5,000 families. “Projects like the Northern Pass represent the future of construction employment – clean, renewable energy initiatives that create jobs, provide tax windfalls, and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels – all while providing much-needed construction jobs to our workers,” Casey wrote.

The project is proposed by PSNH’s parent company, Northeast Utilities, as well as NSTAR and Hydro-Quebec. The companies say it would create about 1,200 jobs a year during its three-year construction phase.

Gamache said PSNH is “making great strides” with landowners over developing agreements on proposed property use for the power project.

She noted that the utility has “gone back to the drawing board,” dropping some proposed routes and exploring more alternatives.

But not all landowners are on board. Robert Koerner of Pelham wrote to the committee that he was approached by two Northern Pass representatives in February. He was asked if he would agree to let them on his property to conduct surveys, evaluations and soil testing.

“They wanted to work with all landowners but if the landowners didn’t cooperate they would exercise their right of eminent domain. The threat of eminent domain has to be removed from this process,” he wrote.

Source:  By Kathy Mccormack / The Associated Press, www.concordmonitor.com 20 May 2011

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook


© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.