FYI: Northern Pass High Voltage Transmission Project

Unfotunately the amount of continuing press on the project is being reduced substantially. I expect that is one of the reasons that PSNH has gone quiet. The general public loses interest after awhile whne a project like this is in the news.

I did see recently that the NH governor wrote a letter to the Connecticut govenor opposing CTs proposed changes to the renewable portfolio standard allowable technologies. They propose to allow large scale hydro (previoulsy excluded ) to count as renewable in CT. This will save CT a bundle. Mass is also considering this change for the same reasons. If this passes in both states, NP suddenly becomes extremely lucrative.

Northern Pass Documentary Premier on July 10 in Plymouth, NH

Copied from an email notification:

Greetings!!!

The long awaited Northern Pass documentary is complete!

The film is called:
NORTHERN TRESPASS

After two years of filming & editing, we have completed our 1 hour documentary.

We are thrilled to announce the
WORLD PREMIER
at the Flying Monkey Theater
Plymouth, N.H.
JULY 10
time & details (TBA)

Please save the date and make plans to come.
Bring everyone and make sure to include people who may think the NP
is a good idea or don't understand the issues.

Please send this announcement to everyone!

We will send along more details as we get them.
SAVE THE DATE!!!!!

Atta Girls
Indian Stream Productions

Full article appears to be behind a paywall. Here's the lede:

Northern Pass Wants to Use Protected Land
Wednesday, June 19, 2013

Faced with a block in their route, Northern Pass officials have asked the state about crossing the protected Connecticut Lakes Headwaters — but doing it underground, the state Attorney General’s Office said yesterday, confirming what elected officials and environmental advocates have predicted for weeks.


Edited to add--if you have trouble reading the entire article you can try incognito window (Chrome) or similar. That seems to work.

Northern Pass New North Country Route Announcement Scheduled for Today!!

Northern Pass has announced it will describe its proposed new route today at 11 AM in Hooskett.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new-hampshire/2013/06/26/northern-pass-route-being-announced/YoHhCrnSN2DSg7XHr5TYnJ/story.html

Is this going to be a real, viable route or more blowing smoke? I'm interested to see what they propose to cross the Connecticut headwaters and the WMNF as well as how they are going around the properties protected by the SFPNH, unless Vermont is now in the plan.

Also, Senate Bill 99 is now officially a law.

http://www.nhpr.org/post/hassan-signs-bill-study-site-evaluation-committee

Unless the news reports are wrong the proposed route with a short section buried is not going to be much of compromise that the conservation community will accept. Basically bury where they couldn't get easements.

peakbagger said:

Unless the news reports are wrong the proposed route with a short section buried is not going to be much of compromise that the conservation community will accept. Basically bury where they couldn't get easements.

Click to expand...

Yes - my guess from what I read is that they will propose going underground to cross the WMNF and the Connecticut headwaters, although as I understand it, crossing the headwaters is not an option whether over or under ground due to the language in the conservation easement.

Hopefully we will hear soon.

HERE is the new map that was updated this morning.

I don't expect that this will fly well with the majority of those opposed to NP. The North Country was always set up as the most logical way of stopping the project by folks from down south. The majority of the support and the money has come from southern NH and it sure appears as though there was no effort to make concessions.

I was quite surprised that they didn't at least propose to bury the line under the WMNF on the existing ROW or more logically run it along side the highway in Kinsman Notch.

peakbagger said:

I was quite surprised that they didn't at least propose to bury the line under the WMNF on the existing ROW or more logically run it along side the highway in Kinsman Notch.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but it was my understanding that the route through the WMNF isn't actually an "existing ROW" (i.e., they don't actually have the right to run the line through there), but instead requires a new special use permit from the Feds, the granting of which is by no means certain.

You are correct, the current line is covered by a special use permit over WMNF land which is specific to the current transmission line and cant be expanded to the new line. A new special use permit would have to be issued by the forest supervisor. If I remember correctly, the supervisor can take lots of input but ultimately it is his call. That's one of the reasons why I am surprised that they didn't try to find a another way to cross, like a state highway.

peakbagger said:

You are correct, the current line is covered by a special use permit over WMNF land which is specific to the current transmission line and cant be expanded to the new line. A new special use permit would have to be issued by the forest supervisor. If I remember correctly, the supervisor can take lots of input but ultimately it is his call. That's one of the reasons why I am surprised that they didn't try to find a another way to cross, like a state highway.

Click to expand...

That may yet happen. In other states the A.T. community including the National Park Service has successfully opposed new transmission corridors (which PSNH may try to argue this isn't).

The Alaska pipeline could have been tied up in court forever but ultimately Congress voted to allow it regardless, similarly the Keystone pipeline decision may be made in spite of existing laws. Doubtful that PSNH has that much clout alone but it would be harder to object if the government of Canada officially backs Northern Pass.

Raven said:

Yes - my guess from what I read is that they will propose going underground to cross the WMNF and the Connecticut headwaters, although as I understand it, crossing the headwaters is not an option whether over or under ground due to the language in the conservation easement.

Click to expand...

Courts can rule in mysterious ways and easements can be broken.

The good news here is that for the first time PSNH has declared it technically feasible to bury the line, so now owners of viewshed properties can try to insist that other sections be buried perhaps becoming 100%. It will be harder for Canada to insist the line be allowed if the issue is cost rather than permissions.

RoySwkr said:

The Alaska pipeline could have been tied up in court forever but ultimately Congress voted to allow it regardless, similarly the Keystone pipeline decision may be made in spite of existing laws.

Click to expand...

I believe the current administration will do everything in their power to not make that decision and pass it along to the next administration.

Agreed courts can rule in mysterious ways. Let's hope they stick to reason.

Is the goal of the 'stop northern pass' movement for wildlife conservation, view preservation, economic preservation (i.e. protect small power producers)? Just curious what's actually at stake if new right of ways are granted. This seems like a hot-button issue, so please note I am not being snarky here (which is my M O) - the question is sincere.

TJsName said:

Is the goal of the 'stop northern pass' movement for wildlife conservation, view preservation, economic preservation (i.e. protect small power producers)? Just curious what's actually at stake if new right of ways are granted. This seems like a hot-button issue, so please note I am not being snarky here (which is my M O) - the question is sincere.

Click to expand...

Any or all of the above - the antis are from a variety of groups often feeling the eyesore will hurt tourism

RoySwkr said:

Any or all of the above - the antis are from a variety of groups often feeling the eyesore will hurt tourism

Click to expand...

Interesting. I'm not sure that I ever considered transmission lines a bad enough eyesore that I wouldn't go somewhere. Are ATVs allowed to ride along the paths? I know the transmission lines where I grew up in southern NH were frequently used for recreation (though I am not sure if it was by design, allowed to happen, or frowned upon).

TJsName said:

I'm not sure that I ever considered transmission lines a bad enough eyesore that I wouldn't go somewhere.

Click to expand...

The city of Concord is spending over $3 million to bury less than a mile of lines so some people think they are really ugly

The parking lot for the new Market Basket off 114 in Bedford is actually under high-tension lines, I'm surprised that was allowed. Of course you aren't parked there very long.

In addition to ugliness, some people are very afraid of EMF, if that reduces potential buyers for your property or guests for your inn that is negative impact.

TJsName said:

Are ATVs allowed to ride along the paths? I know the transmission lines where I grew up in southern NH were frequently used for recreation (though I am not sure if it was by design, allowed to happen, or frowned upon).

Click to expand...

If the line is on a ROW the underlying landowner can control usage and I'm sure all 3 of the above apply at various spots NP received an endorsement from some ATV group by promising to allow ATVs on corridor lands they owned - of course some people rank ATVs even below powerlines in desirability

Another reason lines are buried is that they no longer get taken down by trees, ice storms, etc. If that's the only issue, most locations find that it's cheaper to leave them above ground and fix them as needed, but this is one more item in the overall equation.

The older HQ line that runs down through VT was shut down within the past year by someone who shot one of the insulators. The resulting impact of this was several million dollars worth of costs and a loss of this powerline for several hours. The actual cables very rarely fail or wear out, its the supporting infrastructure, like insulators or support cables. It all comes down to an initial capital cost versus benefit equation to the line owner. Build a low cost elevated network and its goes in quickly plus the permitting is somewhat easier as the wetland impacts are minimal. Once the line starts producing power the revenue rolls in and the shareholders are happy. They also have tobeat competing projects to the punch. Build a much higher cost underground line, it takes longer and the wetlands issues can really extend the schedule plus construction is much longer. Shareholders are unhappy.

What isnt factored in by the utility are the soft costs to the people living and recreating in the region by the impact of the towers vs the buried option. If someone is looking to buy land they have the option of not buying if they object to the towers in the viewshed, but anyone that already owns land doesnt have that option, the visual impact will be imposed on them with no mitigation.

A buried line does not need such an extensive ROW and has far less visual impact. There is still impact but a lot can be mitigated by aligning it with existing roads and former or existing rail beds. Arguably, the ROW for the buried line is just as effective for ATVs as the tower option and I expect most ATVers would appreciate a 50 foot ROW in place of 300 foot ROW. The buried ROW is going to tend to be better graded than a high tension line ROW.

peakbagger said:

Arguably, the ROW for the buried line is just as effective for ATVs as the tower option and I expect most ATVers would appreciate a 50 foot ROW in place of 300 foot ROW. The buried ROW is going to tend to be better graded than a high tension line ROW.

Click to expand...

The wide above ground ROW cuts prove to be less desirable for winter OHRV use as it is difficult to keep snow on them due to blowing and drifting, as well as steep straight and sidehill grades.