FYI: Northern Pass High Voltage Transmission Project

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130801/NEWS05/130809950/0/news0401

The newly proposed route for Northern Pass appears to need the use of land protected by the Forest Society. Near Pittsburgh along route 3, NP has proposed burying the line, but the land they want to use is already protected. I expect this to cause some interesting legal arguments.

Thanks for adding that. I cannot see how electrical lines would be incidental to travel unless we start travelling the highways in bumper cars.

They could just drop in a couple electric car recharging stations along the way...

TCD said:

They could just drop in a couple electric car recharging stations along the way...

Click to expand...

A good point. However, we have had electric car technology for a long time and they are still a very small percentage of cars on the road with no guarantees that percentage will change. I hope that changes of course, however in this situation, I think this would be a weak argument.

Weak arguments have been abundant though.

Eminent domain under another name. Breaking news.

After more than a week of prodding by the Forest Society, Northern Pass has revealed its strategy to acquire its "new route": an eminent domain-style taking. In Chris Jensen's NHPR report today, Northern Pass states that it will ask the SEC to approve its request to use private land to site the new route. But SEC lawyer Michael Iacopino says the SEC does not have the authority to take private land. Former PUC chair and attorney Doug Patch says such jurisdictional authority for the SEC would be unprecedented. And Northern Pass says it won't go back and try to grab the Headwaters despite listing it as the alternate route in its amended presidential permit application filed on June 27th.

http://www.nhpr.org/post/northern-pass-says-state-could-overrule-forest-society-land-claims

I saw the NHPR report, as well, and while Northern Pass' new bid is a stretch, it still makes me seriously nervous. SPNHF will certainly make a hue and cry over this "new route" and all that it would entail. Hopefully that will just mean more opponents to this proposed debacle.

Barkingcat said:

Very interesting -- I wondered about this. Northern Pass appears to be admitting that it agrees with SPNHF that no utility easement currently exists along that section of Route 3, and, just as important, that SPNHF does indeed own the land under that same section of Route 3.

Asking the SEC to intervene is pretty severe, as well. Why even ask them to grant a utility easement along a state road (which, for the record, is a public easement over private land unless the state has been granted title) -- why not simply go for broke and just ask the state to force any/every private landowner to grant a utility easement over their property for Northern Pass? I cannot see where this strong-arm approach, under a veil of "utility easement for the public good," is going to help Northern Pass -- given the controversy over eminent domain and Northern Pass over the past couple of years.

Perhaps I give Northern Pass too much credit with this, but I wondering if this is all smoke and mirrors, given how desperate it sounds, especially aired in public?

Click to expand...

I am starting to think they are getting desperate. I am sure they never expected the resistance they have encountered in northern NH. They can't use the term eminent domain due to the huge negative press wave that brings.

My suspicion is that they are taking a similar approach to the Keystone Pipeline which is being built in Texas before it has been approved. It's an arrogant approach in which they are working under the assumption that policians will simply rubber stamp the permits. And of course, they may do just that, but if they were held to getting approval before starting, it would stop this strategy.

By spending a lot of money buying property and moving forward with the process (NP) without a legal route available and identified, I expect they will try to back door this near the end with the defense, "we have already invested millions of dollars and hours, are you going to make us waste all of that for some simple private property issues?" And no matter what the law says, it is real men and women who make these decisions, and people are fallible and sometimes easily influenced.

I'm one of those who switched from PSH to another power supplier in search of lower rates. However, regardless of the electrical supplier, PSH will still collect approximately $.10/kwh regardless of whether they supply the power or not. Here's how that "infrastructure" charge breaks down:

PSNH Customer Charge.............0.013591
KWH Distribution Charge...........0.030905
Transmission Charge.................0.014800
Stranded Cst Recovery Chg.......0.007840
System Benefits Chrg................0.033000
"Base" KWH Charge..............0.100136

And here are the energy charges from available suppliers:

Current Energy Charge Per kWh:
ENH:...................0.072840
PSNH:.................0.161410
NA Power:...........0.079900

So, even though ENH may charge 50% less than PSH for the actual electricity, you're not going to save 50% of your bill with PSH supplying everything. With ENH, my total cost is about $.17/kWh. In way of comparison, where I lived in the Eastern Sierra for 7 years my cost was a bit over $.14/kWh, which was considered high.

Personally, I think NH's rates are high.

Linked on the front page of Unionleader.com this morning:

http://dartreview.com/dartlog/2013/8/9/northern-pass-to-impact-the-grant.html

I left psnh and opted for enh specifically because of NP.

Andrew said:

I left psnh and opted for enh specifically because of NP.

Click to expand...

@Andrew, do you know the exact sources of power for ENH? I am interested in where some of the newer companies are getting their energy, especially if they are calling it green, local, or renewable. As we know, renewable does not always mean environmentally sound. I think having this type of information posted here would be a great resource for people wanting to switch over. As a start here is an official NH site that lists some options.

http://www.puc.state.nh.us/consumer/energysuppliers.htm

Some of these companies like Fairpoint have options for green wind power, but I want to be careful to not support ridgeline windfarms in NH. At the same time, I do not want coal fired power from any of them, like PSNH uses. I use very little electricity, so the rate is not all that important to me but the source is.

I don't have a handle on all of enh sources, but I did opt for "coal-free" sources. I was mainly looking for anything other than psnh due to being so disappointed with NP. I would not be surprised if eventually enh carried NP power if it's built, then I would seek another provider.

If you want to oppose PSNH and are concerned that the alternatives may not be a lot better, you may want to talk to ReVision Energy or any number of suppliers of Solar Electric Generating systems.(One of the member on this site works for one of these firms) There are incentives in NH plus a 30% federal tax credit . Depending on your access to sunlight, the payback is typically in to 5 to 7 year range for a system installed by a pro. With the current net metered rate plan, I pay a basic line fee every month (I think its around $11)and that's it plus I have built up a several month surplus of power generated. I recently self installed an addition to my current system so my payback would be somewhat shorter but the level of skill required to install a NEC compliant system may be above those of most on this site. There are various leasing options that sound great and may be for some, but keep in mind that the vast majority of those selling these systems are paid on commission and some may be for more interested in their commission than a good deal for the client. Folks in Mass have better incentives so the payback is usually shorter. Like any other popular commodity, caveat emptor applies.

The recent introduction of micro- inverters allows someone to start out small and add on as they can afford it, but the downside is a bit more cost per installed watt every time you expand. Please note, the vast majority of these systems stop working when the utility power goes off, if you want off gird, it will cost more and extend the payback, most estimates are that long term off grid power is 35 to 50 cents per KW with significant lifestyle impacts. One firm does offer an emergency power option for grid tie systems that will generate 15 Amps at 120 volts whenever the sun is out but in general "off grid" solar is quite expensive compared to a good Honda generator and 10 gallons of gas. There are also hybrid systems that qualify for federal incentives and can ride through power outages of limited durations, albeit at extra cost.

There are plenty of potential future buyers for NP Power as Mass, CT and RI all have requirements that force anyone selling power in those markets to have a certain percentage renewable power. Mass and CT currently do not allow NP type ponded hydro but there is intense lobbying in the background and in public to change this as the cost savings per KW hour is 10 to 15 cents per KW. Overall it will reduce the demand for wind renewable power as NP is substantially less expensive than most wind power projects. Wind power projects are partially financed by energy suppliers paying a premium for power generated renewably on long term contract basis . If the supplier can find a less expensive source of renewable power from NP, they will seek less from wind farms.

Rather than swinging the thread further away from its original intent, I would suggest breaking alternatives to PSNH power to a separate thread. If you really want to talk solar, feel free to PM me and I can point you to other forums that are solar related. If you want more details on my recent project, this link has some and even some pictures http://www.hearth.com/talk/threads/2-kw-or-bust.111002/

Well its officially in the federal register

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-08-19/pdf/2013-20129.pdf

Vermont Yankee to close

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...e-its-vermont-yankee-nuclear-power-plant.html

This wasn't unexpected, but the majority of the power went to Mass and CT. This most likely will crank up to demand for Hydro Quebec power as nuclear was regarded as carbon neutral. I expect Northeast Utilitiess is going to bring in the even bigger guns now to get the project approved. I also expect the proposed Lake Champlain powerline will also benefit.

peakbagger said:

Vermont Yankee to close

Click to expand...

A majority of Vermonters are breathing a sigh of relief. Vermont Yankee was wildly unpopular.

No one knows what will actually happen when VY closes. Here's one scenario:

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/52228/impact-closing-vermont-yankee-nuclear-plant

If that turns out to be accurate, this may be a "be careful what you wish for" situation. Then the same folks can just repaint their "Close VY" protest signs to say "Lower our electricity bills" and go marching again.

Of course other people have argued that there will be much less impact - certainly I hope that's true. We'll see.

Kevin Rooney said:

A majority of Vermonters are breathing a sigh of relief. Vermont Yankee was wildly unpopular.

Click to expand...

Really? Not with the majority that I know. Nor the 600+ that are going to be out of work. Nor will hardly anybody once they see the alternatives.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/01/who-told-vermont-to-be-stupid/

Oh frack!

SteveHiker said:

Really? Not with the majority that I know. Nor the 600+ that are going to be out of work. Nor will hardly anybody once they see the alternatives.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/01/who-told-vermont-to-be-stupid/

Oh frack!

Click to expand...

I read the article, and some of the comments. He's a shill.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Kevin! I would give you a greenie, but alas, they are no more.