shutterstock_166240952.jpg
shutterstock_190890737.jpg
shutterstock_82644568.jpg

Statement on SEC written decision


SCROLL DOWN

Statement on SEC written decision


Press Release

March 30, 2018

On Friday, March 30, the SEC issued its long-awaited written decision outlining their reasons for rejecting Northern Pass.

Below is a statement from Protect the Granite State Senior Advisor Judy Reardon on the decision:

“Today’s thorough 287-page written decision makes clear that the SEC carefully weighed all of the evidence and correctly found that Northern Pass failed to meet its burden of proof.   Only a few months ago senior Eversource officials called the SEC “very judicious” and “very comprehensive”.   On that point we agree - the SEC is very judicious and very comprehensive, as today’s exhaustive decision shows.   It is long past time to move on from Northern Pass.” 

ABOUT PROTECT THE GRANITE STATE
Protect the Granite State is a Concord-based non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization established to provide New Hampshire residents with information about the Northern Pass Project, the 192-mile long transmission line that is slated to be built from Canada through New England.  Its mission is to give greater voice to the thousands of Granite Staters who have grave concerns about the significant negative impact the project would have on New Hampshire's landscape and tourism economy while delivering no benefits to ratepayers.

Statement on MA Decision to Term


Statement on MA Decision to Term


Press Release

March 28, 2018

CONCORD, NH -- Earlier today, the Boston Globe reported that the State of Massachusetts has officially cut ties with the proposed Northern Pass project, after conditionally selecting it last month for that state's Clean Energy RFP.  

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/03/28/northern-pass-power-line-short-circuited/fwF8ceb54ccFjDyx8T1ifJ/story.html

Protect the Granite State Senior Advisor Judy Reardon offered the following comment on today's developments:

From Reardon:  "Today's decision by Massachusetts to terminate its prior selection of Northern Pass for that state's Clean Energy RFP is yet another gut punch to a dying project.  After eight years, enough is enough.  It's long time for New Hampshire to move on from Northern Pass."

ABOUT PROTECT THE GRANITE STATE
Protect the Granite State is a Concord-based non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization established to provide New Hampshire residents with information about the Northern Pass Project, the 192-mile long transmission line that is slated to be built from Canada through New England.  Its mission is to give greater voice to the thousands of Granite Staters who have grave concerns about the significant negative impact the project would have on New Hampshire's landscape and tourism economy while delivering no benefits to ratepayers.

Statement on SEC Vote


Statement on SEC Vote


Press Release

February 1, 2018

Protect the Granite State Statement on SEC Vote to Reject Northern Pass

Concord, NH -- Protect the Granite State Senior Advisor Judy Reardon issued the following statement on today's unanimous vote by the NH Site Evaluation Committee to reject Northern Pass:

"We are pleased with today's SEC vote to reject Northern Pass, and grateful to the members for their hours of time spent considering the voices of thousands of Granite State citizens, businesses and municipalities who have said for years that Northern Pass will irreversibly harm our state, our economy and our way of life.  Today's decision is proof that grassroots voices matter, and the many leaders in this fight against Northern Pass deserve to be commended for lifting those voices loudly for all to hear.  This is their victory.  We recognize that this is not the end of the process, however, and that Eversource will continue to promote Northern Pass upon appeal.  We will continue to monitor developments and we will remain in the fight on behalf of our friends and neighbors who agree that Northern Pass is a bad deal for New Hampshire."

ABOUT PROTECT THE GRANITE STATE


Protect the Granite State is a Concord-based non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization established to provide New Hampshire residents with information about the Northern Pass Project, the 192-mile long transmission line that is slated to be built from Canada through New England.  Its mission is to give greater voice to the thousands of Granite Staters who have grave concerns about the significant negative impact the project would have on New Hampshire's landscape and tourism economy while delivering no benefits to ratepayers.

Statement on Northern Pass Selection in Massachusetts


Statement on Northern Pass Selection in Massachusetts


Press Release

January 25, 2018                            

Statement on Northern Pass Selection in Massachusetts


CONCORD, NH – Protect the Granite State Senior Advisor Judy Reardon issued the following statement in response to the selection of Northern Pass by the State of Massachusetts for its so-called Clean Energy RFP:

From Judy Reardon:

“Today’s decision is disappointing, but it is completely unsurprising that Eversource employees that dominated the Mass RFP selection committee selected Eversource’s Northern Pass project.  However, New Hampshire has yet to be heard.  The clear record before our Site Evaluation Committee is that Northern Pass will cause massive harm to our landscape and long-term damage to our natural beauty and tourist economy, with no lasting benefits.”

ABOUT PROTECT THE GRANITE STATE


Protect the Granite State is a Concord-based non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization established to provide New Hampshire residents with information about the Northern Pass Project, the 192-mile long transmission line that is slated to be built from Canada through New England.  Its mission is to give greater voice to the thousands of Granite Staters who have grave concerns about the significant negative impact the project would have on New Hampshire's landscape and tourism economy while delivering no benefits to ratepayers.
 

Join Public Statement by State Legislators


Join Public Statement by State Legislators


Before the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee

Northern Pass Docket, No 2015-06

JOINT PUBLIC STATEMENT BY STATE LEGISLATORS

July 20, 2017

            The undersigned New Hampshire state legislators and former members of the NH House and Senate appreciate the opportunity to explain why we continue to oppose the Northern Pass transmission project unless it is fully buried for its entire length.

            Northern Pass Would be a Giant Scar on the Face of New Hampshire. 

In order to issue a siting certificate, the Committee must find that Northern Pass (NP) “will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics…[or] the natural environment” (RSA 162-H:16,IV(c). As currently proposed, NP would bring 1090 MW of Canadian hydropower to the southern New England grid on 345-kV linesrunning192 miles down the center of the state.  Sixty of these miles would be buried within the White Mountain National Forest and upper Coos County, but the remaining 132 miles of lines would be hung from more than a thousand steel towers rising from 90 to 150 feet above the ground—as high as the State House dome, but without its aesthetic appeal. The towers would be among the tallest and ugliest man-made structures in New Hampshire.  Some 40 of NP’s above-ground miles would run through a new swath of clear-cut forest and farmland north of the Notches—but even the towers and lines in existing Eversource transmission rights-of-way to the south would rise far above the surrounding forest canopy and town or city skylines, making all of these industrial structures visible to residents and tourists for miles.

            At these heights, we believe Northern Pass would literally disfigure the face of our state.  It would permanently scar some of our most iconic landscapes, destroying vistas that represent what is most special and unique about New Hampshire to residents and visitors alike—our sense of place, and the image we seek to project to the rest of the country and the world.   It is inconceivable to us that New Hampshire’s “brand,” once signified by the Old Man of the Mountains’ craggy profile, could soon be represented by a string of industrial-grade steel towers more popularly associated with the northern New Jersey Turnpike.   (We acknowledge that some New Hampshire residents do not object to the look of the proposed NP towers, but respectfully suggest that most of them do not live or regularly travel within sight of the proposed power line.)

            Alleged Benefits of NP vs. Alternative Projects. In order for the Committee to find under RSA 162-H:16,IV(e) that “issuance of a certificate [to NP as currently proposed] would serve the public interest,” the project’s benefits should clearly outweigh its costs.  NP is not needed to bring power to New Hampshire (we export power to the rest of New England), nor is it needed in order to keep the lights on elsewhere in New England (ISO-NE considers that NP is not needed for regional “reliability”). But even if NP’s power were needed, it is completely unnecessary to do this damage to the landscape—to impose this unacceptable cost in return for alleged “benefits”—when at least two other announced projects would provide comparable benefits without the unacceptable costs associated with Northern Pass:

(1)      The New England Clean Power Link (NECPL) would be completely buried beneath Lake Champlain and Vermont highways for its entire length from the Canadian border to Ludlow, VT, and would provide a comparable amount of renewable power (1000 MW) from Quebec to southern New England.

(2)      National Grid and Citizens Energy have more recently announced the 1200-MW Granite State Power Link (GSPL), which would largely use existing towers in the existing HQ Phase II HVDC transmission corridor along virtually the entire 109-mile AC portion of the line from Monroe to Londonderry.  (GSPL would thus be virtually indistinguishable from the existing HQ Phase II power line.)

Either of these alternative projects would bring a comparable amount of Canadian renewable energy to the southern New England grid without any negative impacts on New Hampshire’s landscape.

            Several of NP’s alleged economic benefits to New Hampshire are questionable on their face, but when compared with GSPL or NECPL, at least two of the alleged NP “benefits” actually turn out to be negative.

            First, any wholesale electric rate reduction benefits resulting from what Eversource has called NP’s “market suppression effect” (i.e., the displacement of 1090 MW of higher-cost gas-fired electric energy with lower-cost Canadian hydropower)would also be achieved by either NECPL or GSPL.  But because the construction costs for both NECPL and GSPL would be significantly lower (NP’s projected cost is $1.6 billion, NECPL’s $1.2 billion, and GSPL’s $1 billion), the “transmission cost adder” to wholesale energy rates charged for power imported on these three international transmission projects would be significantly less for either GSPL or NECPL than for NP.   Thus, either NECPL or GSPL would be expected to provide more favorable wholesale energy rate reduction benefits than NP.

            NP’s market expert, Julia Frayer of London Economics International LLC, has estimated that New Hampshire ratepayers (a “blended” group of hypothetical residential, commercial and industrial retail consumers using an average of 300 kWh/month) would save an average of $18 per year from NP’s effect on New England electric rates.  For its part, GSPL has estimated—in response to our request for an applicable comparison to Ms. Frayer’s analysis—that a “blended”group of hypothetical New Hampshire residential, commercial and industrial retail consumers using an average of 300 kWh/month would save $21 per year.   While this “apples to apples” comparison arguably pits Macintoshes against Cortland's (because Ms. Frayer has used the REMI model for her calculations whereas GSPL analysts have used ESAI for their market model), it stands to reason that GSPL would result in more savings to New England/New Hampshire ratepayers because GSPL is projected to cost less than 2/3’s of NP’s construction price-tag.

            (We note here that although the SEC is able to review and evaluate in detail the energy and capacity cost savings claimed in Ms. Frayer’s report and pre-filed testimony, the public and their undersigned representatives ironically may see only “redacted” versions, and have been barred from hearing her testimony on the critical assumptions underlying these claimed “public benefits.”   We respectfully ask that the Committee take the wraps off Ms. Frayer’s report and testimony as of July 27, the deadline for submission of bids for the Massachusetts Clean Energy RFP, which is the only plausible basis for NP’s claim that it needs to keep Ms. Frayer’s analysis confidential.)

            Second, although they would affect different New Hampshire towns(the routes differ, and NP would be 80 miles longer than the New Hampshire segment of GSPL), most of the same temporary construction payroll and local economic benefits that would be provided by NP would also be provided by GSPL.  But GSPL’s net effect on municipal property taxes would be more beneficial than NP’s, because GSPL would cause no new off-setting negative view shed impacts on property values.

            While NP has touted its $200 million “Forward NH” plan, which would involve grants to North Country entities as a further inducement for approval of the project, GSPL would feature energy efficiency grants to low-income New Hampshire and Vermont residents from National Grid’s partner, Citizens Energy, and other financial benefits that GSPL claims would be comparable to NP’s Forward NH plan.[1]

            Thus, GSPL would provide New Hampshire ratepayers and residents with all the alleged economic benefits of NP—claimed reductions in wholesale electric energy rates, lower Forward Capacity Market costs, at least temporary construction employment payrolls and local economic benefits, and increased utility property taxes (without the offsetting negative view shed impacts)—all without the lasting damage to the landscape and New Hampshire’s brand that would be wrought  by Northern Pass.   For its part, NECPL would provide the same wholesale energy and capacity rate reductions to ratepayers without any construction impact in New Hampshire, though it would not provide New Hampshire communities withcomparable construction payroll or property tax benefits.

            Downtown Disruption. Under RSA 162-H:16,IV(b), the Committee must also find that NP “will not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region, with due consideration…to the views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies. NP's proposed construction schedule calls for burial of lines along Route 3 through downtown Plymouth.  NP officials have testified that construction in Plymouth would mean a disruption for 3-4 months.  (This could include Plymouth State University graduation, the summer tourist season, and arrival of new students in late August.)  NP has also stated that construction would include a detour of the roundabout (the main access point from I-93 into downtown Plymouth and the University).  Downtown would suffer the loss of parking spaces, single lane traffic through downtown, and disruption of 22 businesses on Main Street. 

            Meanwhile, legislation passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2016 (HB 626) would allow for a much more reasonable, less costly, and less disruptive alternative—burial of NP lines less than a mile away, along a parallel“energy infrastructure corridor” running beneath the I-93 right-of-way.  The townspeople of Plymouth and the Select board have repeatedly called for this option.  Franconia with its historic inns and small businesses has a similarly disruptive summer to look forward to.  Where is the common sense in unnecessarily shutting down thoroughfares in North Country towns during the height of the summer tourist travel season?

            In summary, well-designed alternative transmission projects are now able to provide virtually all of Northern Pass’s claimed benefits (most of which would go to southern New England) without the disruptions that NP would visit on New Hampshire communities, or the permanent scars on New Hampshire’s landscapes and brand.   In determining under RSA 162-H:16,IV(e) whether “issuance of a certificate [to NP as currently proposed]would serve the public interest”, we ask the Committee to weigh NP’s questionable alleged benefits against its monumental permanent costs, and either dismiss its application or condition its approval on full burial of the proposed line.

                                                                       

Respectfully submitted,

Rep. Neal Kurk, Weare                                 Rep. Suzanne Smith, Hebron

Hillsborough District 2                                 Grafton District 8

Rep. HowardMoffett, Canterbury              Sen. Bob Giuda, Warren

Merrimack District 9                                     Senate District 2                                           

                                               

New Hampshire State Representatives and

Former State Representatives

Belknap County

Belknap 1-- Rep. Valerie Fraser,  New Hampton

Belknap County Former State Representatives

Hon.  Ian Raymond,  Sanbornton

Carroll County

Carroll 1--Rep. Gene Chandler,  Bartlett

Carroll 2--Rep. Karen Umberger,  Kearsarge

Carroll 3--Rep. Jerry Knirk,  Freedom

Carroll 7--Rep. Edward Butler,  Harts Location

Cheshire County

Cheshire 1--Rep. Michael Abbott,  Hinsdale

Cheshire 1--Rep. Cathryn Harvey,  Spofford

Cheshire 1--Rep. Lucy Weber, Walpole

Cheshire 5--Rep. John Bordenet,  Keene

Cheshire 7--Rep. Gladys Johnsen,  Keene

Cheshire 9--Rep. Richard Ames,  Jaffrey

Cheshire 10--

Rep. Marjorie Shephardson, Marlborough

Cheshire 12--

Rep. Jim McConnell,  North Swanzey

Cheshire 13--Rep. Henry Parkhurst, Winchester

Cheshire County Former State Representatives

Hon. Charles Weed,  Keene

Coos County

Coos 1--Rep. John Fothergill,  Colebrook

Coos 3--Rep. Larry LaFlamme,  Berlin

Coos 3--Rep. Robert Thebarge,  Berlin

Coos 3--Rep. Yvonne Thomas, Berlin

Coos County--Former State Representatives

Hon. Larry Rappaport,  Colebrook

Grafton County

Grafton 1--Rep. Erin Hennessey, Littleton

Grafton 1--Rep. Linda Massimilla,  Littleton

Grafton 2--Rep. Skyler Boutin, Lisbon

Grafton 3--Rep. Vickie Schwaegler, Orford

Grafton 4--Rep. Rick Ladd, Haverhill

Grafton 6--Rep. Kevin Maes, Rumney

Grafton 7--Rep. Tiffany Johnson, Campton

Grafton 8--Rep. Travis Bennett, Plymouth

Grafton 8--Rep. Steven Rand, Plymouth

Grafton 9--Rep. Robert Hull, Grafton

Grafton 10--Rep. Roger D'Ontonville, Enfield

Grafton 11--Rep. Timothy Josephson, Canaan

Grafton 12--Rep. Polly Campion, Etna

Grafton 12--Rep. Patricia Higgins, Hanover

Grafton 12--Rep. Mary Jane Mulligan, Hanover

Grafton 12--Rep. Sharon Nordgren, Hanover

Grafton 13--Rep. Richard Abel, W. Lebanon

Grafton 13--Rep. George Sykes, Lebanon

Grafton 14--Rep. Brad Bailey, Monroe

Grafton 15--Rep. David Binford, Orford

Grafton 16--Rep. Duane Brown, Wentworth

Grafton 17--Rep. Stephen Darrow, Grafton

Grafton County--Former State Representatives

Hon. Rebecca Brown,  Sugar Hill

Hon. Mary Cooney, Plymouth

Hon. Susan Ford, Easton

Hon. Eric Johnson, Campton

Hon. Charles Townsend, Canaan

Hillsborough County

Hillsborough 1--Rep. Marjorie Porter, Hillsborough

Hillsborough 4--Rep. Carol Roberts, Wilton

Hillsborough 22--Rep. Shannon Chandley, Amherst

Hillsborough 28--Rep. Jan Schmidt, Nashua

Hillsborough 38--Rep. Richard McNamara, Hillsborough

Merrimack County

Merrimack 1-- Rep. Anne Copp, Danbury

Merrimack 5--Rep. Karen Ebel, New London

Merrimack 6--Rep. Beth Rodd,  Bradford

Merrimack 6--Rep. David Woolpert, Henniker

Merrimack 7--Rep. Clyde Carson, Warner

Merrimack 10--Rep. David Luneau, Hopkinton

Merrimack 10--Rep. Mel Myler, Contoocook

Merrimack 10--Rep. Mary Jane Wallner, Concord

Merrimack 11--Rep. Stephen Shurtleff, Penacook

Merrimack 12--Rep. Paul Henle, Concord

Merrimack 13--Rep. Beth Richards, Concord

Merrimack 14--Rep. James MacKay, Concord

Merrimack 15--Rep. Linda Kennison, Concord

Merrimack 17--Rep. Dick Patten, Concord

Merrimack 19--Rep. Christy Dolat Bartlett, Concord

Merrimack 20--Rep. David Doherty, Pembroke

Merrimack 20--Rep. Diane Schuett, Pembroke

Merrimack 27--Rep. Mary Stuart Gile, Concord

Merrimack County Former State Representatives

Hon. Paula Bradley, Concord

Hon. Helen DeLoge,  Concord

Hon. Barbara French, Henniker

Hon. Geoffrey Hirsch, Bradford

Hon. David Karrick, Warner

Hon. David Kidder, New London

Hon. Mario Ratzki,  Andover

Hon. George Saunderson, Loudon

Hon. Frank Tupper, Canterbury

Rockingham County

Rockingham 17--Rep. Ellen Read, Newmarket

Rockingham County Former State Representatives

Hon. Thomas Sherman, Rye

Hon. David Borden, New Castle

Strafford County

Strafford 6--Rep. Wayne Burton, Durham

Strafford 6--Rep. Timothy Horrigan, Durham

Strafford 6--Rep. Marjorie Smith, Durham

Strafford 6--Rep. Judith Spang, Durham

Strafford 17--Rep. Peter Bixby, Dover

Strafford County Former State Representatives

Hon. William Baber, Dover

Hon. James Verschueren, Dover

Sullivan County

Sullivan 1--Rep. Lee Oxenham, Plainfield

Sullivan 2--Rep. Suzanne Gottling, Sunapee

Sullivan 6--Rep. Virginia Irwin, Newport

Sullivan 7--Rep. James Grenier, Lempster

New Hampshire State Senators and Former State Senators

Senate District 21

Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, Portsmouth

Former State Senators

Sen. Richard Russman,  Dover

 

[1]Nor is NP likely to provide any “exclusive benefit” to New Hampshire electric ratepayers.  As recently as May 10, in their “Supplement to Objection to [NEPGA’s] Motion to Strike Power Purchase Agreement,” styled as a “legislative update,” Eversource and NP held out the possibility that NP could provide an exclusive electric rate reduction benefit to New Hampshire ratepayers (as distinct from New England ratepayers generally) in the form of a 20-year 100-MW Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between Eversource/PSNH and Hydro Quebec’s American subsidiary, Hydro-Renewable Energy, Inc.  The NHPUC had dismissed Eversource’s petition for approval of the proposed PPA on March 27, on grounds that it would conflict with the Electric Restructuring Act’s policy principles requiring a competitive generation market and “functional separation” of generation services from transmission and distribution services (RSA 374-F:3, III).  Eversource then asked for reconsideration, citing what it suggested would be likely passage by the Legislature of Senate Bill 128, which would permit consideration of “other [non-market] measures” such as the PPA.  But on May 9, the House Science, Technology & Energy Committee voted 20-1 to retain SB 128 rather than recommending its passage to the full House.  Whatever the committee’s further work (if any) and final recommendation on SB 128, it will not come to the full House for consideration until January 2018.

 

shutterstock_166240952.jpg

Press Release 9.19.17


News

Press Release 9.19.17


News

PRESS RELEASE

September 19, 2017

ICYMI:  Katherine Aldrich Cote Op-ED "Northern Pass Impact Would Be More Than Towers"

CONCORD, NH -- In case you missed it, today the Union Leader ran an op-ed from the owner of Polly's Pancake Parlor in Sugar Hill, Katherine Cote, outlining why burial of the proposed Northern Pass transmission line is no solution for small business owners like her in the North Country.

As Cote notes in closing: 

There are countless other small businesses like ours up and down the proposed Northern Pass route that face similar threats to their viability if this project goes forward.The combination of enormous transmission towers permanently changing our state’s landscape in some areas, and massive construction disruptions in areas like ours where Northern Pass is proposed for burial, is an existential threat to our existence and way of life.

Union Leader:  Another View:  Katherine Aldrich Cote -- Northern Pass Impact More Than Towers

September 19, 2017

I WRITE as a proud third generation owner of Polly’s Pancake Parlor in Sugar Hill. For 79 years we have served countless New Hampshire families — and maybe some of you reading today — as well as thousands of tourists who come annually to enjoy our breathtaking scenery and natural beauty.

Last month I submitted comments in opposition to the Northern Pass project that the Site Evaluation Committee is currently considering, joined by a number of other local small business owners who share our grave concern about how Northern Pass will negatively affect our businesses.

Many have talked about how enormous new electric transmission towers will gash our state’s communities and forests, with lasting negative impacts on property values, tourism and our environment.

However, less attention has been given to the enormous disruption that a multi-year construction project to bury portions of Northern Pass will cause.

As currently proposed, Northern Pass is projected to be a two-year build out that we know will take a tremendous toll on our business. So-called experts presented by Northern Pass have tried to minimize the impact construction will have on tourism and small business. Those experts aren’t from here. We are, and have been for decades.

The truth is businesses like ours rely on thousands of summer visitors to get us through the leaner winter months. We know from experience that any construction that affects access to our area roads, Routes 18 and 117 for us particularly, affects our business. We have kept meticulous attendance records along with records of other factors affecting the numbers. Past construction projects and events that limit road access have decreased our customers in the past. The two-year construction delays and disruptions projected by Northern Pass would dwarf those numbers, and cause enormous harm to our business and countless others.

Using Polly’s as an example, here are some numbers that will be impacted as context. From April to October 2016, Polly’s served 71,031 customers out of a total 93,500 for the year.

As you can see, the bulk of our business comes during those six summer months, driven largely by tourists from outside the area. During the height of the summer season we are serving on average 3,600 customers per week with a peak of 4,000 one week in August.

In 2016, Polly’s collected and paid $108,000 in Room and Meals Tax to the State of New Hampshire. Of that amount, 75 percent — $81,482 — was collected from April through October. Decreased, rerouted and impeded traffic on local roads at any time, particularly during the summer, will result in decreased tax revenue for the state.

We proudly employ up to 50 employees, with a gross payroll for 2016 at $480,000 not including officers. In the least these employees, who live as far away as Littleton or Whitefield, will be affected by traffic delays and road closures.

However, when our business is negatively impacted by Northern Pass construction, the hard truth is that we will have to lay off employees.

Polly’s receives weekly deliveries from 12 different vendors whose orders and schedules will be impacted by this proposed project. They will experience delays and possible loss of income due to decreased business.

Polly’s is but one example. The truth is there are countless other small businesses like ours up and down the proposed Northern Pass route that face similar threats to their viability if this project goes forward.The combination of enormous transmission towers permanently changing our state’s landscape in some areas, and massive construction disruptions in areas like ours where Northern Pass is proposed for burial, is an existential threat to our existence and way of life.

Standing against this is the alleged benefit of lowered electric rates if Northern Pass is built. Any good businessperson would prefer to see lower rates.

Northern Pass is primarily intended to use our state as an extension cord to feed electricity to southern New England, not to reduce our rates. In fact, expert testimony provided to the Site Evaluation Committee indicated that in a best case scenario, Northern Pass would lower electric rates by only 0.28 cents/kWh.

This minuscule and speculative savings is far outweighed by the massive and permanent negative impact of building Northern Pass, even more so now that there is at least one other competing transmission project that would have far lesser impact on our state.

Massive impacts with minimal benefits. It is clear Northern Pass is not right for New Hampshire.

Katherine Aldrich Cote lives in Sugar Hill.

shutterstock_190890737.jpg

Press Release 9.1.17


Statement on SEC Decision to Extend Deadline

Press Release 9.1.17


Statement on SEC Decision to Extend Deadline

Press Release

August 31, 2017

Statement from Protect the Granite State on SEC Decision to Extend Northern Pass Deadline

CONCORD, NH — Protect the Granite State Senior Advisor Judy Reardon offered the following comment on today’s
decision by the SEC to extend its deadline on Northern Pass to February 28, 2018, with a written decision from the SEC
due on March 31, 2018:

“Today’s decision by the SEC to extend its deadline on Northern Pass to February 28, 2018 is a victory for the
thousands of Granite Staters who oppose this project and whose concerns deserve to be heard and
considered. The last few months have raised a number of troubling issues concerning Northern Pass, including
the permanent harm it would cause to our state’s landscape and natural beauty, the negative effect it would
have on our communities, small businesses and tourism industry, and the minimal public benefit it would have,
to name just a few. That’s why a diverse coalition of elected, business and community leaders from across the
state have come together to oppose Northern Pass. Key questions about Northern Pass remain unanswered
and countless concerns and objections from impacted residents, municipal officials and business owners
remain to be heard.”

shutterstock_82644568.jpg

Press Release 8.31.17


35 to Zip

Press Release 8.31.17


35 to Zip

Press Release

August 31, 2017


Opponents of Northern Pass Dominate Final Public Comment Session Before Site Evaluation Committee

CONCORD, NH — Last night the Site Evaluation Committee considering the proposed Northern Pass project held its final
scheduled public comment session. A diverse group of thirty-five elected, business and community leaders from
throughout New Hampshire appeared in opposition to Northern Pass. Appearing in favor of Northern Pass? None.

This should not come as a complete surprise. In opening last night’s public comment session, SEC Chairman Martin
Honigberg noted that public comments received by the SEC to date are running 11:1 against Northern Pass.

Some of the noteworthy testimony from last evening includes:

Executive Councilor Joe Kenney: “My position is Northern Pass should not be built at all, or if it is permitted, it
should be buried.” “Northern Pass is an uninvited guest in the North Country.” “My gut instinct is that Northern Pass is
a bad deal for New Hampshire.”

Concord City Council: “On behalf of our community, the Concord City Council wants you to know that we absolutely do
not believe that the local economic benefits of the Northern Pass project are sufficient for you to determine that tis
construction is in the public interest if it’s built as proposed through Concord.”

“Northern Pass is an elective merchant funded project designed to transmit electricity from Quebec through New
Hampshire to the urban Massachusetts market. Its overall benefit to New Hampshire and the public is questionable.”
“If the line is built as proposed, its costs to the quality of life in Concord are perceived to be substantial.”

Mount Washington Auto Road General Manager Howie Wemyss: Northern Pass is “unwanted by nearly every
community on its route and will be extremely harmful to the North Country economy.” “The tourism expert hired by
Northern Pass doesn’t understand tourism in New Hampshire…I assure you people don’t travel to the summit of Mt.
Washington to see transmission lines.”

About Protect the Granite State

Protect the Granite State is a Concord-based non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots organization established to provide
New Hampshire residents with information about the Northern Pass Project, the 192-mile long transmission line that is
proposed to be built from Canada through New England. Its mission is to give greater voice to the thousands of Granite
Staters who have grave concerns about the significant negative impact the project would have on New Hampshire's
landscape and tourism economy while delivering no benefits to ratepayers.