(Hour 1b) Rich explained why he and GOP Senate candidate Jim Rubens have parted ways on the issue of Northern Pass.
Perhaps Rubens will see it Rich’s way when he’s sitting home in the dark from a rolling blackout. Blackouts that will become fairly commonplace if the power demands of folks in New England are not met.
Tune in for some inconvenient truths about the NE power pool and the diminishing supply due to factors like President Obama’s War on Coal.
Are we regulating ourselves into a third world country?
Read more in the On Air News Read.
What a remarkably uninformed tirade. This misguided monologue fails to understand that there are multiple competing projects to bring Canadian hydropower to New England. All of these transmission projects proposed buried lines EXCEPT Northern Pass. Why should New Hampshire support the one project, Northern Pass, that’s unnecessarily destructive of private property rights when the market is already moving toward a better solution (buried lines). And does Mr. Girard not understand the many alternative ways to address energy planning in New England in a less invasive manner than stringing massive overhead lines across our state, as if we were some Soviet region with no rights or say in our own destiny? This program is pure drivel by someone who appears to be reading from PSNH bullet points without understanding much of the context. And as for the assertion that the North Country is stupid, from listening to Mr. Girard for the first time I would think he’d shy away from intelligence comparisons. Particularly when commenting about folks as talented and accomplished as Jim Rubens.
That we disagree, Mr Dannis, does not mean I’m uninformed. The other projects to which you refer are not competing. They will rise or fall on their own merits and not be affected by what happens with Northern Pass.
Sen. Rubens, who has been a guest on my show numerous times, misstates the issue, in my opinion, regarding eminent domain. I happen to believe that the construction of power transmission facilities, like roads, constitutes serves a public use and provides a public benefit. Just because the power company is a private entity doesn’t mean that the use of eminent domain is simply something to improve private company profits, as alleged.
I think there are places where burying the lines makes sense and where it’s needlessly gratuitous. Of course, the whole thing could be buried, but at what cost? If memory serves, we’re talking an extra billion dollars to do that, right? That is a billion dollars that comes out of the rate payers pockets and, since we have the highest electric rates in the nation because of a series of dumb decisions, we ought to be mindful of that.
I understand all too well what “energy planning” has done and it’s been a disaster. While there are many areas in which I agree with Sen. Rubens, we part company on energy policy. Policies like his are the reason why the cost of power has gone up and the supply has gone down. Yeah, I know he’s the father of legislation that enabled NH power users to pick their suppliers, but he also supports, openly, environmental regulations that are putting entire categories of suppliers out of business or driving the cost of power needlessly higher. They have also made the region dangerously dependent on Natural Gas, which Rubens thinks is also too polluting a fuel source.
Folks in the North Country have continuously backed regulations and restrictions and opposed projects that have impeded development over a long period of time without challenge. The rest of the state has put up with it in the name of preserving what everybody thinks of as NH’s pristine environment. Well, enough already. These policies have driven jobs and people out of the region to the point were everybody looks around and says “what are we going to do about the economically depressed North Country?”
So, it would seem to me that the North Country has exactly the economy it wants: The low paying seasonal hospitality jobs that come with a tourist economy. That’s fine with me, except when those policies threaten the the entire state because extremists demand purity or we can’t have the power we need as a state or a region to be viable.
We both know there’s more to this than just whether or not there are power lines. Where were you when 400 foot tall wind turbines were being put along mountain tops and ridges and the dirty conservation land swaps that benefited the turbine companies and the environmental groups that intervened, but left the landscape despoiled for those who lived there? We engaged that fight, did you?
If the North Country wants to be something other than an economic backwater with low wage, low skill jobs that encourage the regions best and brightest to leave the region and state for opportunities, it needs to come to grips with the high cost of power among other things. It’s a matter of infrastructure and the North Country shouldn’t complain about the lack of it when it’s policies and demands are the cause.
BTW, the Rubens campaign has asked for time on the show to argue his point. Since we give all who would air their positions as much time as we can to state their case, he will be on the air as soon as it can be arranged. So, you might have to tune in one more time as the show that isn’t afraid of other people’s points of view and is willing to entertain the discussion and be informed through it, I’ve been known to change my mind with the facts demonstrate it should be changed, brings yet another voice on another topic on the air.
Thanks for your comments, I appreciate the vigor with which you state your opinion.
Thanks for the response.
As to your points:
1. Of course the other projects are “competing”. There is limited room on both the supply and demand side for piping Canadian hydropower into New England. Your argument is like saying that GM’s sales will rise or fall on their own and have nothing to do with whether Ford comes out with better products.
2. Private power projects should not be eligible for eminent domain. You’re position to the contrary is on the losing side of NH legislative history. Power generation lost eminent domain at the time of deregulation. Merchant transmission lines lost it with HB648. The NE Govs’ proposal, probably due to poor draftsmanship, may put it back on the table for projects under the NE RFP. Mistake…
3. Your memory doesn’t serve on line burial costs. Line burial costs, particularly in highway or rail bed rights of way (pre-softened) are actually comparable to overhead lines. Sometimes even less. There is detailed testimony on this at the NH legislature (see Senator Forrester’s website). See also the specific cost data for the competing buried projects (Champlain-Hudson, etc.), and focus on the underground (not underwater) components. The claims re: billions of dollars of additional expense carry zero weight when you look at the actual engineering costs prepared by professionals.
4. We agree that NH energy planning may rise to the level of kindergarten on a good day. I wholeheartedly agree the planners should step out of the way and let the market work. Then Northern Pass will fail, because they don’t have a legal route and (with planners out of the way) couldn’t use eminent domain to get one.
For a real debate, why not invite Northeast Utilities and a few opposition members for a live interchange on your show? I’ll bet that, as usual, Northeast Utilities will chicken out. They know they lose the policy arguments hands down and are afraid to share an open, unscripted forum.
My understanding is that they’re concurrent, not competing, power projects. With all the production that’s scheduled to come off line in NEPool over the next 3 years, all three projects will be needed and, in total, insufficient to replace the lost supply. Hydro Quebec has more than enough power production capacity to support all three, or at least that’s my information.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on the use of eminent domain. Like it or not, transmission lines are necessary and are often owned by publicly regulated utilities, regardless of the supply source. The public generally has a vested interest in the infrastructure being adequate and proper. Narrow interests must not be allowed to block any infrastructure project with widespread public benefits, though I agree every effort possible must be made to avoid invoking eminent domain.
My understanding is that where burying is financially feasible or otherwise practical, the lines are being buried and that overhead lines are being proposed for areas where burying is not practical. I really can’t imagine that any private sector company would go out if its way tin increase its costs and difficulties.
Remember who and what a lot of that power planning has been driven by. It certainly hasn’t been utility companies that profit by the production of power. It’s been radical environmental groups and interventionist governments on their behalf that have created not only the highest energy prices in the country, but the pending supply shortage that will devastate the state and region in the not too distant future.
I’d be glad to arrange that debate. I have entertained several such forums on a variety of topics on my show and would be glad to add this one to the dossier. In the meantime, I’ll ensure Rubens’ has his say.