I have been wondering why the protesters who say “No Towers” are really doing their damnedest to make the Hydro Electric more expensive for those of us who must buy electricity. We will not eliminate the pre-existing power lines. We will still see electric poles. We cannot tax lines in the ground as we now do the electric poles so towns taxpayers will pay more property taxes and higher electric rates for all their work to bury power lines. Worse yet is the disturbance to the environment by the blasting of our granite sub terrain. Then there is the fact that to bury in the states Right of Ways would require that every time a highway is made larger it would require again digging up lines and reburying, more blasting and disturbance to the environment.
I as a rate payer of electricity am PROTESTING to our states site evaluation committee that they haven’t asked the protesters of the Northern Pass why they want Higher electric rates for New Hampshire electric users? And why do they want higher environmental impacts to our scenic state?
Sincerely,
Harriet E. Cady
P.O. Box 149
Deerfield, N.H. 03037
CADY SAYS: “I have been wondering why the protesters who say “No Towers” are really doing their damnedest to make the Hydro Electric more expensive for those of us who must buy electricity.”
RESPONSE: The opponents aren’t trying to make Canadian hydro power more expensive, market forces have already done that through lower natural gas prices. Nowhere can Northern Pass point to an actual cost savings their project would provide because
– They do not have a signed Power Purchase Agreement with Hydro Quebec though they have been telling us for over 5 years one was coming
– The project is being billed as “competitively priced”. That does not mean “cheaper”.
CADY SAYS: “We will not eliminate the pre-existing power lines. We will still see electric poles.”
RESPONSE: If Northern Pass goes through as proposed, the existing power poles will increase to nearly 2x in height in addition to the towers the NP proposes. If buried, those poles remain the same which do not generate much controversy.
CADY SAYS: “We cannot tax lines in the ground as we now do the electric poles so towns’ taxpayers will pay more property taxes and higher electric rates for all their work to bury power lines.”
RESPONSE: Buried lines will generate MORE tax revenue to the towns. The U.S. Dept. of Energy already concluded that in their Draft EIS. Towns agree with that conclusion. Currently, PSNH has over a dozen cases against small towns over the tax assessment on the existing poles. Towns are losing money in legal fees before the cases are even adjudicated. Furthermore, Northern Pass has already threatened every town in the state that if they don’t adopt NP’s tower assessments (which decreases revenue every year to down to zero in year 40) they will be sued.
CADY SAYS: “Worse yet is the disturbance to the environment by the blasting of our granite sub terrain.”
RESPONSE: Northern Pass’ current proposal would require more blasting than burying the line on I-93 which is an already softened corridor. To support the proposed average tower, blasting would need to be done 30’ into the ground. There are major concerns about this. Burying the line only requires 4-6 feet of deep.
CADY SAYS: “Then there is the fact that to bury in the states Right of Ways would require that every time a highway is made larger it would require again digging up lines and reburying, more blasting and disturbance to the environment.”
RESPONSE: That is claim that Northern Pass makes in order to avoid real discussion on the reality that the lines can be buried on I-93. The DOT rulebook provided guidance on this. DOT advises that the line be buried in such a way so that IF a road is widened, relocation of the line could be avoided, but there is no requirement. Responsible planning alleviates those concerns, something that Northern Pass is not interested in.
CADY SAYS: “I as a rate payer of electricity am PROTESTING to our states site evaluation committee that they haven’t asked the protesters of the Northern Pass why they want Higher electric rates for New Hampshire electric users?”
RESPONSE: The conclusion that opponents want higher electric rates is absurd and unfounded. The SEC’s statutory responsibility is to ask the applicant (Northern Pass) questions not of those who challenge the claims. If Northern Pass wishes to ask those opponents who are interveners those questions, it will have the opportunity to do so during the adjudicatory process when everyone is under oath under penalty of perjury.
CADY SAYS: “And why do they want higher environmental impacts to our scenic state?”
RESPONSE: Good question to be asked of Northern Pass.