FYI: Northern Pass High Voltage Transmission Project

peakbagger said:

Northern Pass has signed a labor agreement

https://www.facebook.com/thenorthernpass/posts/10152416848570701

I have been unable to find much more on this but a job labor agreement with unions is not very helpful in a predominately non union state. There have been federal projects delayed in NH recently due to the lack of any viable union contractors. The Berlin Biopower project ended up having to recruit union trades from as far as Ohio as there was not adequate union labor in the region. I expect that Eversource knows this but it allows them to try to buy some badly needed PR.

Click to expand...

The Project Labor Agreement (PLA) does two things:
1) Sets a union wage rate for all prospective bidders to level the bidding playing field for open competition from larger contractors from out-of-state, who really are the ones with the capabilities to perform this scale of a project. It also allows smaller local contractors to participate on the project since they are signing a "this project-only agreement" that doesn't jeopardize their desire to remain as an open shop (non-union) contractor after this project is completed.

THE MORE IMPORTANT REASON,
2) This is a political move to get the construction trade unions, all contractors whether they be union or non-union, and construction workers behind this project. A slick move.

It really is a slick, well-timed move by Northern Pass.

State doesn't like the historical impact study

http://nhpr.org/post/state-criticizes-federal-review-northern-pass-historical-impact

And a link to the reports

http://www.northernpasseis.us/consultations/section106/

Another attempt at buying support in the north country for NP. http://nhpr.org/post/ride-wilds-discussions-northern-pass-over-multimillion-dollar-donation

This effort may be a path forward for NP to write off the overpriced land purchases in the area by transferring it to a non profit entity at the price they paid versus the market price which would be substantially lower.

It seems to me this is something of a no-brainer for NP. I'm sure NP retains rights to site transmission lines (and probably anything else they like...for example wind turbines) and they offload the asset and tax liabilities from their books). Depending on their tax situation there may even be some value in selling at a loss.
I'm also guessing that while Ride The Wilds thinks they are not agreeing to support NP, when they get the legal document is will include language indicating that RTW will not speak negatively about or in any way formally act against NP. I'm aware of at least one recent community forest land purchase where that type of language was inserted by the for-profit timberland owner--who also happens to want to build wind turbines and doesn't want the town formally taking a stance against. In that case I believe the town was unwilling to agree and walked from the transaction.

A recent editorial http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/...ermont-model-offers-northern-pass-alternative

And now for your reading pleasure, here is a link to the Draft EIS. http://www.northernpasseis.us/library/draft-eis/draft-eis-documents

I expect various organizations will summarize. If I had to the current proposal is cheaper and faster to build with a higher transmission capacity than the alternatives. The visual and environmental impact is the highest of the alternatives and the short term jobs are the lowest and long term revenue to the adjoining towns is the lowest. Thus it comes down to does Eversource get to maximize profits at a cost to the state? The cost difference is quite high so its the Eversource's incentive to spend what they have to buy the low cost preferred option.

There are also a section on the impact to the AT, basically the visual impact is significant and the Forest Plan will need to be amended to allow the impact.

I expect this is the beginning of the next round.

Eversource is proposing to bury the line under the WMNF http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150818/NEWS05/150819351. Given the impact analysis of the impact to the WMNF of overhead wires, I expect they realize that they were going to have heavy push back from regional if not national groups. By making this concession, it keeps the national groups out of the picture. Given the pricing and schedule impact of burying the lines, they can afford to be quite free with the cost difference. It will be interesting to see the cash commitments they are willing to hand out.

Indeed, lots of bribes (Oh, I'm sorry, incentives) in the proposal. The devil will be in the details--for example, they say 100MW grid upgrade but state for "existing renewables" so that makes one wonder whether it will be sufficient to enable the 200MW wind project proposed for Dixville and Dix's Grant (very close to Rice and Cave Mountains and the Dartmouth College Grant area). Also, the implication is that the project will provide power to NH residents--thus allowing use of eminent domain for land acquisition, but language seems to be carefully chosen to not say this explicitly (see for example first two bullets).

Here are the "benefits" from the FAQ:
• Energy costs lowered by $80 million annually for NH business and
residential customers
• Additional energy cost savings and stability for Eversource NH
customers through a power contract with Hydro- Québec
• Regional carbon emissions reduced by 3 million tons a year, equal to
the emissions from 600,000 cars
• $200 million fund to support community betterment, economic
development, clean energy and tourism initiatives in NH, with
emphasis on the North Country
• $30 million annually in new tax revenue for New Hampshire
• 2,400 jobs during construction
• Commitment to hire NH workers first and an innovative electrical
worker training program
• $2.1 billion increase in NH GDP during construction and beyond
• $7.5 million for North Country Jobs Creation Fund
• Grid upgrades to improve the North Country electric system
capacity by up to 100 MW, removing constraints to existing
renewable energy (e.g., wind, biomass, small hydro)
• $3 million for Partners for NH Fish and Wildlife program,
independently managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
– enhancing forest health, wildlife habitat, and clean air and water
• Mixed use of 5,000 acres in the North Country land for recreational
activities, economic development and natural resource preservation

Looks to me like they made a strategic decision to buy off influential project opposition west of the forest, (Franconia, Easton, Sugar Hill Woodstock, Thorton and Campton ) by doing burial and throwing Northern NH under the bus for view impacts. That group was using Northern NH as a straw dog to fight the project but I am curious if they will continue now that their viewshed is protected. SPNHF will end up with several new forest reservations in Northern NH and wont have to deal with the impact at the Rocks estate.

Boston Globe article today:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...-power-line/6xVxeQvA7W1vZ1PYLow4iN/story.html

Union Leader editorial http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150823/OPINION01/150829790?template=mobileart Make sure you read the comments at the bottom.

Thank you, peakbagger. NP has just offered a compromise that is still too bad to accept, but all they have to do is bury the entire line and most of the opposition will melt away. If other states can do that, so can we. A buried line is like a pipeline only without the chance of leaks. What is so bad about that?

Please keep alerting us as to the when and where so we can comment as needed. We'll win this one if only we all speak out. Let the groundswell become a tsunami.

peakbagger said:

Union Leader editorial http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150823/OPINION01/150829790?template=mobileart Make sure you read the comments at the bottom.

Click to expand...

It warms my heart to read some of those comments and reminds me of why I live where I do. I for one agree with most comments there and will stand with all NH communities to push for 100% burial. Dividing and conquering town by town will not work with proud Granite Staters.

With respect to comments to the DOE, now it time to send comments to the DOE, the clock is ticking. NP pulled a fast one in that the draft EIS covering multiple alternatives doesn't include this proposed alternative they are publicizing . Therefore its important in your comments that you comment on the draft EIS rather than the recent proposed alternative. Conceivably NP could withdraw the proposed scope and go back to running it overhead. Arguably they should have reset the clock on the EIS, revised it to cover this alternative and then restarted the clock. I expect that is another potential litigation route.

Thus in your comments its important to remember to reiterate your feelings on impacts to the WMNF and surrounding towns where burial is proposed as well as the impacts on the remaining sections of above ground.

I personally feel that the line should be buried and to limit the construction of new right of way elsewhere. NP has had to "gerrymander" the proposed route in northern NH to avoid SPNHF and federal lands. Its definitely not the shortest distance between two points. My feeling is that the line should be buried along its entire length and that the routing should be along existing highway right of ways rather than being routed underground in a newly cut right of way. This reduces the visual impact to the north country (and elsewhere) and coincidentally shortens the length of burial. NP does not want to do this as it reduces the revenue they will receive for rent on the new right of ways. Running along roads, they will end up owning money to the state for rent rather than receiving the revenue. There is also a subsidiary issue in that NP will have to somehow figure out a way of writing off the significant investment in the real estate they have made to date.

To date there is unity of the opponents but when the background wheeling and dealing happens that unity can dissolve.

Be careful what you wish for

peakbagger said:

With respect to comments to the DOE, now it time to send comments to the DOE, the clock is ticking. NIts definitely not the shortest distance between two points. My feeling is that the line should be buried along its entire length and that the routing should be along existing highway right of ways rather than being routed underground in a newly cut right of way. This reduces the visual impact to the north country (and elsewhere) and coincidentally shortens the length of burial. NP does not want to do this as it reduces the revenue they will receive for rent on the new right of ways. Running along roads, they will end up owning money to the state for rent rather than receiving the revenue. There is also a subsidiary issue in that NP will have to somehow figure out a way of writing off the significant investment in the real estate they have made to date.

Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for. I always assumed when they talked about burial they intended to bury the line on the rights of way. I looked at proposed burial route between Sugar Hill and Ashland. Burial would be right along Rt 116, Rt 112 through Kinsman Notch and then following Route 3 south between Woodstock and Ashland. These are all relatively quiet scenic back roads. We're not talking about burying fiber optic cable or water line here, but 1000 mega-watt power line. What would this look like? Amount of land needed would likely at a minimum match the existing highways in width. Down in Plymouth Rt 3 hugs the Pemigewasett River pretty closely not much room to squeeze 1000 megawatt power line. Rt 116 and RT 3 have many Mom & Pop motels and roadside cabins. This could really be bad for small time tourist business. Require eminent domain land takings on massive scale.

Jazzbo, thank you for dragging us back to reality. I would rather see another cleared swath through the woods with no towers on it then I would see all these people's businesses eliminated. Some change is inevitable, but the least change is best.
Peakbagger, is your tireless ability to unearth facts up to the task of discovering exactly what engineering the buried line would require? Thank you.

Creag Nan Drochaid said:

Jazzbo, thank you for dragging us back to reality. I would rather see another cleared swath through the woods with no towers on it then I would see all these people's businesses eliminated. Some change is inevitable, but the least change is best.
Peakbagger, is your tireless ability to unearth facts up to the task of discovering exactly what engineering the buried line would require? Thank you.

Click to expand...

NP website has some narrative text and innocuous looking sample photos of underground construction, but the sample photos aren't necessarily illustrating power lines of this size and magnitude. Sample photos might illustrate something with fraction of size in question here. How often do 1000 MW lines get buried? How about some real design cross-section drawings? Does NP have sample photos from some other project of similar size and scope?

I would be interested in Jazzbo's source of speculation on the width of a HVDC right of way. I expect that if someone has the time, the Champlain Express EIS has more details as they too are proposing buried HVDC (some of which is in NH). VT has rural roads and I expect that they have had to address these concerns. HVDC light, the proposed technology is new to the US and around the world so similar projects are few if any. NP is not advocating burial it is being forced on them so their statements on HVDC to date have been to magnify its impact.

We probably have a fundamental disagreement on the impact of a freshly cleared wide swath through the woods rather than expansion of a existing right of way. In my opinion from a visual impact basis, a new ROW has a far longer visual field impact than widening an existing corridor. The roads in the north country weren't designed to be narrow with poor sight lines, they are there by default and despite the short term impact to some businesses, having a wider right of way with potentially improved drainage and sight lines is benefit to those who live in the area.

I haven't researched extensively but have seen references to a 12.8 foot wide ROW width. Unlike an AC line the HVDC lines are located close to each other so that any electromagnetic interference is canceled out, thus no need to separate the wires and no need to keep a gap between the lines and the edges of the right of way. AC lines put out quite an electric field as anyone who has hiked under a high voltage power line has experienced. The width is mostly to keep the line isolated from physical damage. The line can be buried under a road although existing underground facilities in the road probably means location in a shoulder. Typically there is setback of buildings from the edges of the paved right of way of 20 to 30 feet (practically this is enforced by drainage and winter snowbanks. Given the poor construction of many of the rural roads I would expect that it would be easier to build in an expanded shoulder and that will most likely require tree clearing on one side of the road and a significant construction effort that will impact traffic. It really depends on the soils, if its rock, it requires blasting if soil its a lot easier and something like a ditchwitch can be used. I would speculate that the biggest impact may be a loss of roadside trees and impact to village districts where some older buildings are closer to the road.

If someone objects to routing along rural roads, there is an alternative to shift the route to the I93 right of way although I expect the Franconia Park way would be a major controversy. From a tax point of view the towns would probably prefer routing along roads as they get the tax revenue. If it goes along the interstate I don't think they get that revenue.

I do agree that burial does impose a whole new set of questions that haven't been answered well and as I stated when NP came up with last minute partial burial proposal the EIS process should have reset and the partial burial alternative should have been investigated as a separate alternative. Should the DOE go in the direction of burial I expect that there will have to be additional EIS work done on the specific local impacts. I would agree that I would want to see a lot more information on the burial impact from a less biased party than NP that stated it was impossible at one point.

Ultimately if you make rational comments to the EIS your opinion may have slight impact, it you don't then its just wasted effort.

Jazzbo said:

Does NP have sample photos from some other project of similar size and scope?

Click to expand...

C'mon, do you think NP (or anyone doing a project) is going to display any photos except those carefully taken and cropped to put what they want to do in anything but the best light? Sort of like those photos in the hotel ads that conveniently fail to show that adjacent railroad track that a train runs by on every morning at 3am...

If you really want to see what a project like that might be like, best to locate a buried cable project of similar capacity and scout it out at random locations...

TomK

peakbagger said:

I would be interested in Jazzbo's source of speculation on the width of a HVDC right of way. I expect that if someone has the time, the Champlain Express EIS has more details as they too are proposing buried HVDC (some of which is in NH). VT has rural roads and I expect that they have had to address these concerns. HVDC light, the proposed technology is new to the US and around the world so similar projects are few. NP is not advocating burial it is being forced on them so their statements on HVDC to date have been to magnify its impact.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I had no source except an educated guess that 1000 MW HVDC line is major power line and would have some environmental impact. I've since done online research and learned most of same things you've learned. ABB seems to be the dominant cable supplier and source of info on the subject. I can see HVDC is one piece of new and upcoming trend in so-called Smart Grid. ABB HVDC Light is technology of choice for new projects to move bulk power all over the world.

Northeast Energy Link is one of three (or four???) long-distance HVDC projects in scoping phase for bringing Canadian power to southern New England. The NEL has closest resemblance to NP as it is 230 mile long buried line coming in from Canada. The preferred project design calls for an underground route from Orrington, Maine to Tewksbury, Massachusetts. Current planning anticipates utilizing existing transportation corridors. One hundred ninety (190) of the two hundred thirty (230) mile route will be in Maine along the I-95/295 and Maine Turnpike corridors. I-93 route would provide better security as it is patrolled by state police as 1000 MW power line is critical bit of infrastructure. Since it is only 3' underground would be highly susceptible to sabotage by our enemies. I'm sort of partial to I-93 corridor as clearing for ROW would have added benefit of discouraging moose crossing. They sort of prefer to stay under cover and get a little paranoid when in wide open. (Just conjecture, as I'm no wild life biologist)