FYI: Northern Pass High Voltage Transmission Project

The competing project in VT get a major permit. This puts the project way ahead of NP.

http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/january/tdi-gets-psb-approval-12-billion-quebec-vermont-power-line

From the article:
Through negotiations with TDI, the Department and other agencies have secured benefits that would total more than $720 million if this project were to move forward. That would include over $260 million to aid our cleanup efforts, restore habitats, and enhance recreational opportunities on Lake Champlain, over $100 million to promote additional clean energy development in Vermont, and $136 million in savings for Vermont ratepayers.
(TDI is the developer of the project)

I haven't totaled the benefits proposed by NP, but suspect it is nothing close to this.

No doubt the developers approached this from two different directions. NP went in cocky, they thought they had carte blanche to do what they wanted in NH while the other developer knew they had to sell a project to a large number of stakeholders in VT. Ultimately there is a power demand for multiple projects so maybe NP will still pull it off using their approach but I expect there will still be some drama.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/...-a-vermont-power-line-say-about-northern-pass

http://nhpr.org/post/north-country-resident-appointed-state-group-considering-northern-pass

I would like to think this is a positive for those opposed to the current project but unless this person is independently wealthy and has infinite time to travel, I don't think she will be able to keep up with the volume of paperwork generated by a project like this. I was on the distribution for a far less controversial project and the shear volume of documents would have required a team to deal with to review and rationally comment.

http://www.wcvb.com/news/massachusetts-plan-could-spur-hydro-imports-to-new-england/37872292

This is big plus for NP (or any other transmission line development). The environmental effects of the large impoundments in boreal forest areas are conveniently not mentioned let alone of the practical and security issues in maintaining such long transmission lines.

http://www.unionleader.com/NH-society-includes-DOT-in-Northern-Pass-legal-action

This front in the battle seems to be simmering. SPNHF is definitely fighting an uphill battle on this one as the state has traditionally assumed very broad powers over state right of ways. If SPNHF wins, it potentially makes things more difficult for the state in the future, although unlike NP, the state has eminent domain rights.

Barkingcat said:

A new article on NHPR indicates that the Balsams project has received $2 million in funding from Northern Pass through the "Forward NH Plan."

Be sure to read Jim Dannis' comment at the bottom of the article -- that's more interesting than the article itself.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the SFPNHF amended the easement to trade one piece of land for a LARGER piece of land, after notifying and receiving the consent of the people who donated the money for the original easement. And the piece they gave up in no way "unblocks" this area for NP.

It is worth reading the entire transcript of Otten's comment, which is linked in the NHPR story: http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/nhpr/files/201603/03.07.16_-_sec_testimony_-_final.pdf

While it is true that the piece SPNHF gave up did not unblock NP's route -- that happened when NP signed a lease with Bayroot, presumably in return for $$ and support in building a giant wind farm to the north -- there are a whole bunch of people who gave money to SPNHF (and voted NO to the change) to keep that land conserved. Mr. Danis is not the only one who is unhappy and I'm sure the irony that NP is now paying to develop that property is not lost on many.

Here's an article with background about the Balsams and the NP involvement: http://www.newenglandskiindustry.com/viewstory.php?storyid=395

For those who don't remember, the Balsams was sold to the current ownership to block Northern Pass, and SPNHF fundraising dollars were used.

In addition, Governor Maggie Hassan signed a bill less than a year ago that gives the Balsams developers up to $30M in state backed bonds to fund this project. At the time, the bill was praised.

Do you think people would have been in favor of that bill (SB30) had they known Northern Pass was also funding the development?

See my post on the Balsams thread .

There was no vote offered to those who contributed to the SPNHF project to turn down the swap. There was a letter that informed those who contributed of their right to object to the state but it was not a vote. It was merely the right to express an opinion to the state entity that would have to approve the easement change. Contrary to popular belief, making a contribution to charitable cause does not entitle the contributor to control the operation of the cause.

As I noted in my other post on the Balsams thread the current ownership is a new group, the individuals who had purchased the land from the Tillotson's were bought out with minority shares in the new development corporation.

The bonds most likely would have gone through, they are economic development bonds that have been used in multiple parts of the state including Pease. The county had a right to issue the bonds in an incorporated territory, what the state did was allow the bonds to be issued for an unincorporated territory. it was matter of expediency to amend the current law to get the funding in place quickly. The bonds are paid for by the expected increased property taxes in the area, I expect Balsams may be paying little or no taxes currently due to the tree growth offset. The state effectively become the final recourse to the bondholders if the Coos county is unable to pay the bondholders off.

I should not have used the term "vote"; but I do know a number of people who formally objected. All were donors to the Trees Not Towers campaign and feel that a chairlift tower is also not a tree. Given that state employees were told not to get in the way of "progress" it is not a surprise the AG's office did not object to the change.

Unless I am mistaken, while there is a mechanism in place to issue the bonds, the Business Finance Authority will dictate many of the details. The average person (within no inside info) assumes the fix is in and these will be issued. However, aspects of financing can still be impacted, for example if the state demands a right to be first in line if there is a default.

I haven't read the details and the devil is in the details but it was represented that the resort will do Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILTs) which will be used to fund improvements to the state roads in the area (they need it) and that a portion of the PILT goes to pay down the bonds. This is a fairly standard public financing mechanism that occasionally gets abused.

Thus as long as the resort is solvent they will be making the PILT and that pays off the bonds. If the resort goes bust there most likely is some residual value and when resold there still will eventually be property taxes to pay down the bonds. The only scenario where the bonds don't get paid is that the resort goes bust and there is no value to what is left. Evergreen Valley in Stoneham is probably a good example of that although I think to this day, that there are still folks who own condos and pay property taxes. Sadly the other example could be Saddleback, slope side condos with no slope. I expect Jeremy could give other examples as curator of the New England Lost Ski Area site

Formally objecting means giving input to a process but nowhere in the process was there assurance that a donation gave control of the land in perpetuity. Using a hiking example, many hikers formally objected to removing the Pemi suspension bridge, the USFS as administering agency elected to receive these comments and decided that other priorities took precedence and tore it down. I would expect that there were numerous entities that gave input to the state of NH that a swap of these easements was in the publics good. Given that Jjim Dannis is lawyer I expect that if there was an actionable way to stop the process it would be put in place. Ultimately the Balsams development is small wart compared to the blight of NP. If SPNHF did not step up with a checkbook, and did multiple delaying tactics I expect the permits would be in place and the swatch cut. Sure there will be hurt feelings but ultimately the SPNHF anti NP effort will be remembered long after the Balsams skirmish is forgotten.

Bolton Valley in Vermont is another example of a ski area with multiple bankruptcies. The situation there was complicated by the fact that different entities owned portions of the resort. At least one year the ski mountain opened without a lodge.

I donated. I also donate knowing my dollars may not be used for the purpose intended. That said, this is slightly disturbing.

I personally don't like the sounds of these two lines:

"Based on his experience developing resorts Otten also said he doesn’t think the towers would hurt tourism."

"Otten said the money came through Northern Pass’ Forward NH Plan, there were no strings attached and there is the potential for “a more substantial investment.”"

The general approach of trying to link the Balsams project with NP and the participation of a high profile anti NP supporter is odd to me and in my opinion a very bad strategic move. Up until this point the anti NP strategy has been fairly tightly focused despite the diverse groups involved. One of the key strategies was to prop up north country opposition to the project as NP blocking maneuvers in the north country were easier as the right of way didn't exist. I think most observers realize that although some of the north country folks had personal commitment to the cause, much of the funding, coordination and backing came from the south particularly the Franconia region. Tying the two projects together risks alienating north country folks as I expect many north country anti NP folks are supporters of the Balsams project. There was a lot of time and effort to convince folks in the north country who had little in assets that they should voluntarily elect not to receive very large checks well over any market value to sell a right of way or land outright to NP. I expect more than a few of the SPNHF easements came down to making an offset payment to a landowner in lieu of the NP money, despite the PR that they were courageous individuals. Opening up a subsidiary front against the Balsams serves to potentially cause a backlash against the anti NP project. It could be real damaging for a couple of key north country folks to publically change their minds on NP due to the realization that the anti NP folks are in general anti development of the region and I expect NP would gladly publish daily full page ads in key media markets in NH publicizing this.

For those familiar with the area, the Balsams is "out of sight, out of mind" for most of the north country folks. The population base is centered along the Connecticut River Valley to the west which has RT3 running parallel to it. The original proposed NP route before the SPNHF blocking maneuvers, was roughly parallel to RT 3 in the valley so NP had a direct long term visual impact to the area population. The Balsams does not, it is somewhat similar although not as well geographically isolated as Waterville Valley. If you don't want to see the development just don't turn right off of RT3 and head to Dixville. Thus the folks along the Connecticut river corridor especially north of Colebrook can go about their lifestyle with no real impact from the Balsams except for increased availability of services that inevitably will be put in place to support the Balsams.(currently the closest hospitals are 30 miles south and many state services require an hour plus long ride down to Berlin or Lancaster) It would be hard to imagine subsidiary development related to the Balsams along the RT 3 corridor south of Colebrook being any more intrusive than the virtually deserted village of Groveton and the numerous failed businesses along the road. The same applies the approach from the west.

161 interveners, plus NP plus the state SEC and expect a few other parties. I expect few parties will have deep enough pockets to pay for the legal assistance required to review and comment on the mountains of filings that will be generated.

http://nhpr.org/post/northern-pass-interveners-settling-long-slog

My pockets are deep. Very deep. When I reach down through the holes I can touch the ground.

So as a layperson with respect to all this, is Dannis' beef that SPNHF is cooperating with Otten under pressure from the state, the result of which is to permit Otten to erect ski lifts, while at the same time Otten is taking money from NP, which SPNHF vigorously opposes? Does Otten have a choice? He presumably needs all the support and money and he get, the state is certainly behind redevelopment of the area, the north country is behind redevelopment of the area, and Otten needs power infrastructure for the kind of operations he is proposing. Seems like SPNHF understands the reality of needing and wanting to support Otten and the folks in the north country, even if it is not entirely consistent with its conservation objectives and has the negative optics associated with being intertwined in a project (the Balsalms) with NP.

Jim Dannis apparently was one of the contributors to the SPNHF appeal for funds to buy the Balsams development easement which was a blocking maneuver for NP. Ultimately NP went east of Balsams at a higher cost onto land owned by a large timberland owner who also has the Brookfield windfarm running through it. In order to support the Balsams redevelopment, SPNHF allowed the development easement to be modified and informed those contributing to the project that they could raise objections to the state entity that had to approve the changes. Mr Dannis is upset that the state allowed the easement to be changed and has stated that he is opposed to the Balsams project. I had stated in an earlier post that IMHO, this is poor strategy as it could impact opposition to NP in the north country as the north country is banking on the Balsams project as a source of much needed jobs. The recent disclosure that a portion of the Balsams project seed money is supplied by NP and that they expect to be receiving future investments from NP really muddys things. SPNHF really needs to keep NP isolated from the Balsams to retain north country support while one of many NPs strategies now appears to be to link the two as means of getting north country support.
I expect that some of the unspecified grid improvements mentioned by NP will go to upgrade the power lines to the Balsams to run their snow guns. They wouldn't be tapped off NP as Hydro Quebec has far more lucrative clients in Mass and CT but tapping it off the north country power grid would help out with some current issues that the combination of the two existing wind farms, the 8 hydro electric plants and the Berlin Biomass plant (all deemed green and renewable) have to curtail production as the lines heading south are undersized. If there is local demand for the power, that fees up some capacity to send more south.

Mr Dannis is upset that the state allowed the easement to be changed and has stated that he is opposed to the Balsams project. I had stated in an earlier post that IMHO, this is poor strategy as it could impact opposition to NP in the north country as the north country is banking on the Balsams project as a source of much needed jobs.

Click to expand...

Or said differently, a brilliant strategy by NP.