FYI: Northern Pass High Voltage Transmission Project

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Why isn't Mass doing more to reduce consumption? I would think that would be a better use of tax dollars than paying corporations money to buy energy...oh wait, I think I answered my own question.

Mass actually is spending lot of the ratepayers money to reduce consumption and go renewable. Mass has a fairly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) and Industrial Efficiency program. Maine and NH both have a similar RPS statute but since both states produce a lot of renewable power, they really don't have to "walk the talk". Most folks don't hear much about the evils of the EPA Clean Power Plan which is the US approach to reducing Global Warming, the reason its not talked a lot about in New England is that most states are already meeting global warming targets by participating in the Regional Green House gas initiative. Unfortunately, the downside is that many industries are heading south to southern states where "dirty" power is cheaper. Those southern states are the ones that are raising a stink about the CPP as it means they have to do their part. Regionally the downside is that Mass would rather pay companies to build wind turbines in ME and NH and impose the visual burden on their scenery rather than have them in their own backyard. The major opposition to NP is not to prevent the power line from being built through NH rather its to minimize the impact to NHs scenery and resources and have NP pay its fair share for the impact. Unfortunately Eversource gambled they could pull a con on NH and instead have run into major opposition that has already delayed the project a couple of years and may end up killing it.
 
As a Mass ratepayer, I second the notion that there is a lot of energy conservation, and alternate generation, going on here. A look along the Mass Pike which has several photovoltaic sites is typical of the aggressive posture on conservation and generation, including co-generation, which the state has pursued for over 10 years. We also have an aggressive building code and our high utility rates make attractive paybacks for many energy improvements. The utilities are mandated to energy conservation and with energy conservation surcharges, have resources to support various programs including free energy audits, rebates etc.

There have been weatherization programs and subsidized appliance replacement (a big energy saver right there) for households below certain income limits.

My only complaint was the free CFL bulbs and promotion that accompanied many energy audits. Very energy saving but the mercury in those things problematic. Go LED for the best life cycle payback and quality light.

The classical divisive bashing of corporations is not unjustified but like any large organization, most notably gevernment, the bureaucracy and self interest is inherent. However, consider that our utilities provide a lot of well paying jobs and reliable service and that helps put things in perspective.

FWIW, I favor bringing hydropower down from Canada provided it be done in an environmentally and aesthetically pleasing way. I'd rather a bit of a compromise on that than ridge tops lined with "wind farms" ... how quaint a term for massive industrialization of pristine areas.
 
Stan said:
My only complaint was the free CFL bulbs and promotion that accompanied many energy audits. Very energy saving but the mercury in those things problematic. Go LED for the best life cycle payback and quality light.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with going LED lights now; the CFLs were a stop-gap for 5-10 years while we waited on LED technology.

As a point of fact however, a traditional incandescent light bulb running at 60W using coal-generated electricity (most of it) puts more mercury into the environment than if you actually break the equivalent 13W CFL on the floor. This has been a misconception unfortunately repeated by people with fine intentions but far too often.

The largest sources of mercury contamination are coal-fired power plants when generating electricity. If we want to get mercury out of our lives, we need to stop using coal. When the calculations are done, the traditional bulbs release more mercury this way than a broken CFL. Keep in mind that the mercury in a CFL only gets into the atmosphere if it breaks accidentally or the consumer/collection site does not dispose of it properly. That said, it's still no good since mercury is a neurotoxin, causes brain damage, and is linked to multiple learning disorders in children with many other links suspected.

No mercury is the only good amount. Too bad though, since it is one of the most amazing substances I have ever handled. A lead cannon ball will float in a tub of mercury and picking up a bottle of it by hand feels like you have a bowling ball crammed into a tiny bottle it's so dense.

So to agree with your point, LEDs are better environmentally and for human health....and who here misses burning their fingers changing a light bulb?
 
While we are drifting the thread, there is a new regulation that would have substantially reduced the release of mercury to the atmosphere by power generation. It was called the MATS rule. Unfortunately the supreme court threw it out in 2015 by 5/4 decision. http://www.utilitydive.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-epa-mats-rule/401467/. Its proven technology to remove it from gas stream but can be very expensive to retrofit. If you remember my prior comment about industry heading to areas of cheap power you know why areas with low cost power opposed it. I think that's one of the reasons why Brayton Point in Mass is closing and why Eversource spent 400 million plus at Bow to upgrade the coal boilers (an is now planning to sell them if possible and stick the charges fro the rebuild to the ratepayers). The nice thing with Mercury removal , is the only way it works is that all the other nasties get to go along for the ride.
 
This is timely, as today's mail contained a letter from my fair city's mayor, publicizing an energy audit program, as well as an event on Thursday to exchange up to 5 incandescent bulbs for LED bulbs. Didn't say who was paying, Eversource, taxpayers, or anyone else, although the envelope it came in had an Eversource return address.

I live in Connecticut, which is supposed to be a prime recipient of power transmitted by NP, and Eversource supplies power for a large part of the state.

TomK
 
Last edited:
TomK said:
This is timely, as today's mail contained a letter from my fair city's mayor, publicizing an energy audit program, as well as an event on Thursday to exchange up to 5 incandesent bulbs for LED bulbs. Didn't say who was paying, Eversource, taxpayers, or anyone else, although the envelope it came in had an Eversource return address.
Click to expand...
I had an audit performed--the inspector replaced every (non-dimmered) incandescent with a CFL and all of the dimmer-controlled incandescents with LEDs. CFLs are cheaper (for them)... LEDs are slightly more efficient, start up immediately, and are more dimmer-friendly, but are more expensive.

The audit also led to subsidized wall insulation. According to the inspector, the energy companies actually save money with these programs because they avoid the cost of installing more generation and transmission. Win-win.

Doug
 
Now back to the thread and Eversource Doublespeak

http://www.unionleader.com/Eversource-optimistic-on-Northern-Pass-chances

The quarterly financial calls are usually a source of doublespeak from Eversource and this call was no different. Various analysts are quite adept at poking vulnerable spots and NP is open sore that make it easy. Eversource is a public company and the management have staked future growth plans on the profits from the NP project. If the projected revenue doesn't appear from NP, the stock price will potentially take a significant hit and management may find themselves looking for a job. About the only recent positive NP news was the ruling by a court that NP can use an existing highway right of way to get through an area that is otherwise blocked from the NP right of way putting the entire project in jeopardy. The ruling was immediately appealed to a higher court and I expect will continue to be appealed until there is no way of appealing. Offsetting this is numerous bad news on the SEC front which all potentially introduce separate strings of litigation. I expect at some point the mass of legal firms circling the SEC process will go critical and Concord will collapse in on itself ;)

NP is bidding into a large renewable power supply contract for southern New England which potentially could substantially increase the revenue of the project, ultimately there could be decision on Eversource's managements part to bury the line funded by the supply contract. This would allow them to save face with Wall Street. The big risk is that many entities are bidding for this contract and Eversource would have to make 600 to 800 million dollar bet for the extra cost to bury the line that they would win the contract. If they don't make the bet, given the ongoing delay with NP permitting, they may not be able to meet the deadline for meeting the contract terms.
 
I can't help but think that it may have been cheaper to bury the lines and use existing right of ways wherever possible, rather than spend the millions it must be costing in legal fees and marketing to sway public opinion, not to mention all the time spent fighting to get it approved. Maybe management deserves to lose their jobs for their shortsightedness.
 
If you believe the stated cost adder for burying the lines of 600 to 800 millions dollars and the extended schedule associated with burial, there is lot of incentive to think that using political influence and throwing money at the problem would be far less expensive than spending the dollars to bury. PSNH (now Eversource) has always played the political game well in NH. They got the ratepayers to eat the Seabrook nuclear power plant fiasco and very soon will be putting the ratepayers on the hook for making up the difference between the capital invested in their power generation assets and the market rate (anyone want to buy a couple of coal plants for cheap?). In the past, anytime a local politician needed a few bucks for a project, PSNH was always willing to write a check to get the ball rolling. The big biomass project in Berlin only exists as PSNH wanted it built and pulled a lot of strings to get it built. There was no direct quid pro quo for this largesse they play a long game but it bought them direct access and gratitude to practically every politician in the state. They spend a lot of money in the state for goods and services to support their operation and all those suppliers are also their best buddies. They have already picked local suppliers all along the NP route to supply support services to the project and have let them know that they best show up at the meetings and express their support. They also have bought favor with some NH trade unions, despite union contractors being a minority in the state, by agreeing to go union for the major work which will be done by out of state firms.

Unfortunately, they may have guessed wrong and raised the wrath of the AMC, Sierra Club and SPNHF plus influential year round and seasonal residents in the Franconia and Easton valley. They eventually caved and agree to bury the line in these areas but this partial success really encouraged opposition elsewhere including the north country. The north country opposition was and still is propped up by folks from the south as the folks from the south and the various organizations realized that it was the best area to fight the project.

Do note that there was a buried underground utility project of similar scale and impact about 20 year ago that went through Northern NH called the PNGTS natural gas project http://www.pngts.com/company.html. PSNH wasn't directly involved but the developers were very careful to route the line through rural areas with far less political influence with almost zero local opposition. The key was it went SW from Canada over to the Maine border through the Berlin Gorham area and skipped the Franconia Easton corridor so the folks with influence figured it was Not in Their Backyard and therefore were real quiet on the trashing of the north country. The main impact of the PNGTS to the area is a permanent scar across the landscape, mostly in widened power line corridors. There was a nice short term impact to local business during construction, many made their money during the project and promptly shut down or sold their businesses to folks who didn't realize that they had missed the boat. These days a couple of local contractors get some work clearing the right of way every few years and there are couple of staff employees who service the compressor station near the border and a takeoff station in Albany Maine. The local towns also get property taxes on the land. The only real local employer in NH that has really benefitted is the local papermill in Gorham who buys natural gas from the line when it is available at low cost, this allows them to get off #6 fuel oil which is decidedly dirtier. The papermill appears to be surviving on a month by month basis and in no way is thriving but its better than the alternative.

I expect that no matter what the result of the project that there will some interesting studies done post mortem on the strategic decisions made on the project. In the meanwhile stock up on popcorn as I still expect the drama will continue until the SEC makes their final ruling in late 2017 at the earliest.
 
I heard on NHPR yesterday all of the politicians etc say it's a done deal. NP is coming. Get over it. Too bad but money and power rule.
 
CaptCaper said:
I heard on NHPR yesterday all of the politicians etc say it's a done deal. NP is coming. Get over it. Too bad but money and power rule.
Click to expand...

Odd. Last week, representatives for a candidate running for US Senate were blanketing my neighborhood. This was the more conservative of the candidates and when asked directly about her opinion on Northern Pass, the representative said in no uncertain terms that she opposes it.

The opinions I continue to hear are that very few politicians in NH, on either side of the aisle, are in favor of NP.
 
CaptCaper said:
I heard on NHPR yesterday all of the politicians etc say it's a done deal. NP is coming. Get over it. Too bad but money and power rule.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I had not heard that news report. I checked the NHPR news section and didn't see anything about it and the sites that generally report NP news didn't appear to pick it up.

It really depends on the wording of if NP is coming, many politicians are for getting NP built and actually quite a few but not all opposition groups to NP also agree with the concept of allowing Canadian "hydro"power to be sent through the state to southern New England. Where the big IF is the method of transport, the hybrid overhead solution with a stretch of underground over a meandering route of new and substantially widened existing right of ways that was introduced after the permit was filed or a complete burial along existing state corridors. The opposition as well as two state of NH departments that were asked to weigh in support total burial. Total burial will introduce another subset of discussions that most likely will require an extension of the SEC process or an outright new hearing. Most preliminary studies indicate that the total burial project is far better economic project than the hybrid. It shifts more work to state and local contractors and shifts revenue to state coffers for long tern right of way leases rather than to the profit making side of Eversource.

Astute politicians are quite adept at forgetting the big IF as its not a sound bite that rolls off the tongue. Chris Sununu, republican candidate for governor had a press conference this week where he was asked if he supported NP, his response conveniently forgot to answer the IF question but indicate that he supported NP. Given the baggage that comes along with the family name I expect he has to be very careful what he says with respect to NP.

Not sure if any odds makers are selling a NP bet but I sure wouldn't be cashing in my retirement to bet on it being built anytime soon in its current proposed configuration.
 
Last edited:
Barkingcat said:
I've not heard that from any New Hampshire politicians with the exception of one: Chris Sununu, currently a member of the New Hampshire Executive Council who is running for governor, who as recently as five days ago said in a Union-Leader interview that “Northern Pass is going to happen and I believe it should.”
Click to expand...

Let's hope so..
 
The hand of Massachusetts politics now enters the debate. Up until the passage of the law, Hydro Quebec hydro power was not counted as renewable due to environmental and social impacts to the local native tribes in the region surrounding the HW projects (the area impacted by the HQ complex would run from the western border of Mass to the far eastern tip of Maine)

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...tional-grid/G07xbGaNO5tE05hSxZSCuK/story.html

With respect to the two competing proposals, the submarine cable from Maine to Plymouth MA is a "wind play" it would bring more intermittent wind resources from Northern Maine onto the grid unless some pretty off the wall projects get added into it http://www.mainebiz.biz/article/200...-will-wiscasset-undergo-an-energy-renaissance. The line through VT is far more of a threat. Ultimately it comes down to which proposal can supply power that meets renewable criteria at the least cost.
 
An interesting approach to public hearings.

http://indepthnh.org/2016/08/15/nor...e-questions-but-not-all-can-hear-the-answers/

Eversource decided to bid on a potentially lucrative supply contract for three southern New England states after the project permitting was already underway. This potentially changes the economics of the project substantially. Many entities are bidding on this contract as its worth a lot of revenue and will allow whomever gets it to spend a lot of money to put in place valuable infrastructure. It conveniently also allows Eversource to claim confidentiality on the economics of NP which is one of many points that interveners are challenging. There are plenty of interveners opposed to NP who will get the information but it puts a major impediment in communicating to their supporters and also impacts fundraising, unlike NP the interveners don't have the ratepayers paying for unlimited legal resources.
 
And now the another legal challenge on the right to use existing easements.

http://www.citizen.com/news/2016-09-02/Local/Property_owners_challenge_easement_use_by_Northern.html

This has been brought up by several prior Anti northern pass folks including well off property owners farther to the south . I expect they would have sued previously but the shift to burial meant they no longer had standing to sue. It will be interesting to see if the deep pockets that were funding the northern NH opposition efforts will open up to assist this landowner.
 
Pretty quiet these days on the SEC hearing but another front is being opened with respect to regional power transmission lines. There are some very large power plant retirements around New England starting with Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, soon to be Brayton Point station (coal oil and gas) and soon to be Pilgrim nuclear plant. All of these plants were major baseload plants that ran 24/7 to supply power while other plants only operate when the demand was there. There are no replacements of this size on the horizon so the political solution is to import power into the region and hope there is enough capacity on the transmission system to keep everything running. Thus NP supporters are using these retirements to push the NP agenda

http://www.concordmonitor.com/energy-summit-NH-5137402

The regional grid operator is predicting brown outs within the next few years in the region during cold weather conditions, the warm winter last winter delayed the inevitable but one or two brown or black outs in major regions will most likely put a lot of pressure to put in transmission regardless of local and regional objections. Hydro Quebec did this after the 1998 ice storm wiped out their grid (the same grid that is supposed to supply NP). They got carte blanche from the province to run lines wherever they wanted to with minimal permitting and used those rights aggressively.
 
Last edited:
Northern Pass "lost" a big one today that would have significantly altered the economics of the project. There is a possible downside to this as if the contract had been lucrative enough, there may have been motivation for NP to just agree to full burial in hopes of getting it approved quickly.

NP had bid into a large renewable request for proposals for renewable power for southern New England. There were numerous parties that made proposals and the results of the initial paring down of proposals do not include Northern Pass. https://cleanenergyrfp.com/. This means that NP has to fall back to being a merchant project where the power is sold to the highest bidder. Given the loss of power generation in New England I expect they will have plenty of customers if and when it gets built.

I haven't gone into the individual proposals that got moved up to the next round but quite a few of the big windfarm development proposals in Maine appear to also have been taken out of the running.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Twin States Clean Energy Project - New Transmission Line
Replies
8
Views
2K
peakbagger
P
P
Northern Pass 2 ? Looks like its getting closer
Replies
2
Views
1K
peakbagger
P
P
Pacific Crest Trail Section J Snoqualmie to Stevens Pass
Replies
5
Views
2K
maineguy
maineguy
P
Hiking two trails with a bad rep (that they may not deserve).
Replies
15
Views
3K
Sherby
Sherby
P
Dalton Mtn NH - Landowner Request
2
Replies
22
Views
7K
NHClimber
N

Latest posts

Top