Northern Pass: Still Ignoring the Overarching Reason for Opposition

“The only people who support the use of eminent domain for private development are cities that use it, developers and businesses that benefit from it and planners who plan it. Everyone else hates it.” - Dana Berliner, Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice

Yesterday's Union Leader featured, Another View of Why New Hampshire should be open to Northern Pass project, penned by Ms. Julia Frayer, Northern Pass hired gun.

 Julia Frayer, Managing Director of London Economics, hailing from Boston's Atlantic Avenue Office writes in the UL, "There has been very little attention paid to the specific benefits the project will deliver to New Hampshire and New England and why this project is “needed.” Retained by Northern Pass for analysis of the New England energy market and the project’s potential impact, Frayer deflects the core issue that curries opposition and attempts to redirect the conversation back to the issues most favorable to Northern Pass.

 Frayer asserts, that little focus has been placed on the benefits the project will deliver to New Hampshire and New England and why this project is “needed.” To the contrary. There has been no notable opposition to what Northern Pass, Hydro-Quebec or any other entity having a say in this project, seeks to do. When we pare away the concerns of eminent domain, grabbing land by governmental force and legally sanctioning what amounts to nothing more than government-sanctioned land stealing, the opposition to the project goals shrinks exponentially. A very minute few oppose power companies.

 Frayer details five reasons why consideration should be given to the project, yet none of those include the tangible losses of private property and arbitrary taking of privately owned land. The reasons are, 1) low carbon-sourced power; 2) The Hydro-Quebec financed project will forgo consumer subsidies, not costing the public money; 3) The integrated New England Wholesale power market creates collective market benefits in the form of cost saving to New Hampshire; 4) An insular effect against “game-changing” events that typically lead to higher consumer electricity costs; and, 5) Increased diversity in the grid, resulting in more reliable delivery to consumers. Yay! all very good stuff! But Frayer is still in the wrong forest.

 The point missed is that Big Power is not in the business of being accommodating to the community or the landowners. That is their history, their track record and result. Big power only acquires property for their exclusive use, whether through easements, leases or eminent domain, and to the exclusion of all others.  National Grid, for example has in place a policy that all persons on land owned or controlled by them, that are not employees of National Grid, are reported to Police as "Trespassers." (as articulated in Hill v. National Grid). Big Power controls how land and anything in proximity that they perceive to have an effect, is used. They may exercise a right to the owner off his or her own land if interest serves them to do so in the form of lease and easement restrictions that likely vest some future property right against the owners interests. 

 Nothing that Julia Frayer writes can be disputed. She is correct all the way down the line. But she fails to address the seminal issue of what brings the current wide scale opposition to this project. This issue is a mere redux of the CU project controversy from the 1970's that took place in Pope County Michigan and the power company is a mere leopard that has not changed its' spots. 

CROSS-POSTED

Comments

[Harold]

Rick:

The make up of the next State Senate will change drastically if HB 648 is voted down.
Guaranteed, an influx of Northern Pass property owners will be swarming the bottom part of the State to unseat Senators that vote against HB648. Nobody’s going away.

[C. dog]

Rick –
You're spot on regarding primary point of opposition to NOthern Pass: property rights. One should not be surprised a nanny from London Economics would regurge some socialist cost-benefit backwash derivative of the Greater Good. However, I do not so readily concede ground on their own rigged turf.

Here's some fodder to befuddle their commi-calculators:
1. Low carbon, yes, low greenhouse gas impact not established. Really, these luv-guv mouth organs need more RGGI initiative. They "forgot" to fully account for the impact of the newly released swamp gas from that little puddle they created on the Land of the Cree. And remember kids, for those of you following along at home, swamp gas has much higher heat retention than lil' ol' CO2. (OOPS! I let another property right issue out of the bag)
2. Not costing the public money? Funny, I thought landowners in NH were part of the public. Public is such a fickle thing. When you no longer fit into the plans of Big Biz and Luv Guv, you're magically no longer part of the public, but part of the problem to be "fixed." Anyone got another set of neuticals?
3. So far, the inequality: ∫New England wholesale power cost < NH power initiatives
is an assertion. Remember, scale economies eventually always run into Bureaucracy bungling.
4. Here's an insular game-changing event: Canada "needs" the power. Sorry Uncle Sammy, no electrons for you this winter!
5. Grid diversity: hay, let's call Jesse Jackson and buy us some of that Rainbow Coalition shakedown power! Or, the Grate State of NH could return property rights to landowners and let them build what they may on hill and dale, oh say some wind farms, a smattering of natural gas turbines, a hydro-dam here and there, some solar beanie hats for the sun-afflicted ... Maybe someone could figure out how to tap into all that potential power generated by Sisyphus rolling all those pols back up Capitol Hill?

Rick, don't get conned by the British accent; it just makes them sound smart, not be smart. Look at England for copious evidence which rises to the level of proof as n approaches 100.
– C. dog strikes while the socialists are luke warm

[dave]

I've been to the country side where all the visual pollution is supposed to happen and am appalled at the already existing destruction of the visual landscape. Using the opponent’s logic there is a lot of visual pollution that the invasive species (human) must must be immediately rectified. First, all roads north of Plymouth must be eliminated and replacement vegetation planted. These scars on the land are unacceptable. In the future, all travel must be on foot using trails established by native wildlife. Second, all human built structures must be destroyed. Some limited subterranean dwellings will be allowed, but only with stringent environment impact studies. If the opponents agree to this, then we can talk about Northern Pass in a rational and equitable manner.

[C. dog]

Gee Dave –
I thought HB 648 and primary opposition to NOthern Pass were based on the fundamental principle of one's right to keep and enjoy their property. Wouldn't that be a civil right, or do you prefer unruly authoritarian fascism? Wonder how many farms were gobbled up by the AutoBahn? Anyone? Bueller?
– C. dog throw foul ball back at Dave