northern pass whitefield hearing

THE NORTHERN PASS EIS

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

MOUNTAIN VIEW GRAND RESORT

WHITEFIELD, NEW HAMPSHIRE

September 25, 2013

NORTH COUNTRY COURT REPORTERS40 South Main Street

West Lebanon, New Hampshire 03784(603)298-2987 tel (603)218-6633 fax (603)443-1157 cell

[email protected]

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

mailto:[email protected]

RAY BURTON: Good earning, everyone. For

the record, my name is Ray Burton. It's been my

honor to serve on the New Hampshire Executive

Council now in my 36th year, and this map of the

State of New Hampshire is quite simple. Just

make one fold at the bottom of the map and

that's where you find 108 towns and 4 cities

spread across the northern 7 counties of the

State of New Hampshire. I, of course, appear in

opposition as I did on December 27th in 2010, in

opposition to this project. The ISO group

stated last summer when we were having hot days

that New England had enough power to get by.

New Hampshire has 4600 miles of state-owned,

state-maintained highway. We also have 400

miles of rail corridor. I would encourage the

department and those interested in this project

that the whole project be buried. Period. And

we in New Hampshire state government are not

making new ground or plowing new ground. We

voted at Governor Council several years ago to

bury a methane pipeline from Turnkey in

Rochester down to UNH so that they could help



[email protected]

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


with their energy costs. So as I stated before

on December 27, 2010, it's time for this

project, Public Service Company/Hydro-Quebec to

fold their tent and go home and leave us alone.

MODERATOR: Thank you for your comments,

Ray, and thank you to the crowd for resisting

that temptation to clap. I know it's tough, and

it's hard not to clap for Ray. Paul Grenier.

PAUL GRENIER: My name is Paul Grenier and

I reside in Berlin, New Hampshire. I currently

serve as the Mayor of the city of Berlin, and

I'm also a twelve-year Commissioner of Coos

County. I rise here today to support the

Northern Pass project in the route they have

proposed through Coos County. This new route

relies on existing rights-of-way that already

hosts electric lines, utilizes industrial forest

property ideal for projects like this, includes

a short span of underground that significantly

reduces lower view impacts in the northern Coos

County and lowers the heights of most towers in

our region. In total this redesigned route

significantly reduces the impacts on Coos



[email protected]

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


County. A critical part of this project is the

benefits it will bring to Coos County. As many

of you are aware Coos County economy continues

to struggle. Businesses face difficult times

and jobs are scarce. Northern Pass would bring

a major influx of new tax investment in our

region. Nearly 6 million dollars in new tax

revenues will flow to support local communities

as well as the county. Services like road

maintenance, welfare, nursing homes, law

enforcement and others will all benefit from

this investment in our county.

This also provides an opportunity to reduce

the tax burden of our citizens. Those of you

who are tasked with managing the county budgets

see the cost of services continue to increase

while the number of tax buyers continue to

decrease. This place is an unsustainable burden

on those of us that are remaining. Northern

Pass is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to not

only invest in the country but also reduce this

burden on taxpayers. The stability of this tax

revenue, however, remains a concern for many of



[email protected]

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


us. While PSNH has been a reliable taxpayer in

Coos County it is critical that residents and

taxpayers have assurances that the Northern Pass

tax revenue will remain stable for the next 20

years. I look forward to working to provide

that stability for our taxpayers. Thank you and

I urge you to undertake a thorough but efficient

review of this project to insure that Coos

citizens realize this benefit.

MODERATOR: Our next speaker. Ed Betz.

ED BETZ: My name is Ed Betz. I am the

Chairman of the Whitefield Planning Board and

CIP committee. Consideration should be given to

burying the DC line just north of Whitefield

Village at the PSNH substation. Right of way is

tight in this location and the substation is in

the middle of the right-of-way thus there are

proposed multiple towers close to Route 3 and

nearby residents. The proposed towers are to be

115 feet tall versus 55 feet for the existing

115 kV line. This is a terrible gateway for

Whitefield Village.

At the Mt. Washington Regional Airport, the



[email protected]

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


airport commissioners and FAA are proposing a

1000-foot one-way extension to accommodate jet

and commuter aircraft. At the north end of the

runway is the existing 115 kV line, which

structure is 55 feet tall and proposed DC towers

at 90 feet. The question is how will this

affect light safety and the glide path.

Reviewing the visual simulation at Burns Pond

and Forest Lake Road the monopole option would

be much more aesthetically pleasing than lattice

towers, but we have to ask the question that's

been asked before, two of them, will the

structures be designed to avoid a repeat of a

Quebec ice storm in 1998 and why can New York

State and Hydro-Quebec and New York utilities

bury 300 miles underground utilities when it's

not economical in New Hampshire. I know there's

a big piece of equipment today that can dig very

fast. And also appears that the DC line will be

much more valuable in the future as time passes

with Vermont Yankee and the coal and the oil

plants going out. And this is a comment from

the Whitefield Selectman. Two years ago PSNH



[email protected]

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


met with a group of Whitefield residents at the

Town Offices. The question was asked is how

will depreciation be calculated. Will

depreciation be a straight line for two years,

five years, ten years, 20 years, when the

residence and future residents of Whitefield is

going to have to look at this line for

generations. Thank you.


Ed. Next speaker, Marcia Hammond.

MARCIA HAMMON: Good evening, and I thank

you for giving us this opportunity to comment in

Whitefield, New Hampshire. I represent as a

State Elected Representative Carroll, Jefferson,

Whitefield and Randolph, and I wish to present

you with an important scenario that Northern

Pass could embrace. Bury the lines that

Hydro-Quebec's power will transmit to southern

New England. We of northern New England invite

the suburban and urban persons that are the

nature deprived, the ND persons, when driving

north on I-93 at Exit 30, the wooden towers

define a cut through the White Mountain National



[email protected]

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Forest. We have actually come to accept that

and may look for it when we are driving the

snowy roads. I'm here to state we do not want a

wider cut through the ROW or the right-of-way

that is in the Northern Pass plan. This would

support another trail of taller steel or metal

towers.

I am of the generation that read and

subscribed to the book Awake and Aware. Women

changed the way hospitals, actually profit and

nonprofit hospitals, dictated how babies were

delivered. Separated, my first baby, separated

from mother, husband and supportive family

members once a child was born and within a few

years women have imagined an improvement that

was beneficial for future generations and for

parenting. My generation is now joined with new

voices and we're saying no to the Northern Pass

as it is envisioned by her corporate leaders.

Moving massive quantities of electricity across

our state when it has been determined that it is

not needed. Our citizens are not a developing

country that can be flummoxed or trod upon, run



[email protected]

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


over. Previously we have attended to our

archeological sites. We have been conscientious

about conserving our sensitive lands. I speak

for the hungry eyes and the hungry hearts of

Europeans and Asians that trek to our state

burying the 8 miles that has been the second

plan I feel is a snub of our efforts to protect

the preciousness of our New Hampshire's beauty.

Please do not degrade and scar the vistas that

we revere. Please bury your pipelines as you

have in neighboring states. Thank you.


Marcia. Brad Bailey.

BRAD BAILEY: Good evening. My name is

representative Brad Bailey and I represent the

citizens of Grafton 14 which encompasses the

towns of Bethlehem, Franconia, Lisbon,

Littleton, Lyman, Monroe and Sugar Hill. When

this project was first announced I had no

opinion one way or the other as to whether the

Northern Pass was a good idea or not. After

spending time researching the project and

listening to my constituents I have publicly



[email protected]

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


come out opposed to the Northern Pass as

proposed.

It is my understanding that for the

Department of Energy to issue a Presidential

Permit, DOE must find that the project is,

quote, consistent with the public interest, end

quote. DOE's determination of whether a project

is consistent with the public interest depends

on the potential environmental impacts of the

project as documented and evaluated during a

National Environmental Policy Act review which

include the impacts of the project on electric

system reliability and any other factors DOE

views as relevant to the public interest.

I believe you may ultimately make the case

for additional electricity in southern New

England. Clearly, there is no current need here

in New Hampshire. So Hydro-Quebec would serve

as the electrical outlet, southern New England

as the user and New Hampshire as the extension

cord connecting the two. We all know that your

consideration does not rest on just what the

people of New Hampshire want or need, but if you



[email protected]

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


look at whether or not this project is

consistent with the public interest you must

consider the impact on the hard working people

of the North Country. This project will result

in the loss of tourism dollars vital to our

region. Real estate values will undoubtedly

plummet for many and the planned Pass will cross

environmentally sensitive areas. Clearly as you

can see evidenced by the many people here, the

vast majority of citizens in northern New

Hampshire don't want this. If you determined

this project must go forward against the will of

the people, then as a compromise it should be

buried. I would hope that you would consider

the issues I've raised and that of the many

people here tonight as being, quote, relevant,

to the public interest. End quote. Thanks for

your time.


Brad. Susan Ford.

SUSAN FORD: Thank you. For the record, my

name is Susan Ford. I am a representative in

the New Hampshire House of Representatives and



[email protected]

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


one of the 7 towns I represent is Easton where

the Northern Pass plans to cross the White

Mountain National Forest. I attended the

scoping sessions in Plymouth yesterday and share

some of the concerns of my colleagues. I

believe that Northern Pass should have to prove

that they have a clear legal path before having

their permit application accepted. Pretending

that they have a legal right to bury the line on

state and town roads is a joke. I suspect

you'll hear more about this tomorrow evening.

Their alternative plan is worse. They plan

to go under the Vermont headwaters. Really?

That land was one of the first purchases of what

we call the LCHIP program. That's the New

Hampshire Land and Community Investment Program.

By now you all know that New Hampshire doesn't

believe in taxes, but they adopted a fee that

would go into a fund to preserve New Hampshire's

heritage. LCHIP is a dedicated fund, and one of

the purchases, one of the first purchases was

the Connecticut River headwaters area. Do you

really think that the citizens of this state are



[email protected]

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


going to roll over and say sure, private

corporation, take this land for your private

gain. New Hampshire doesn't spend money easily,

but when we do, we hold on to what we value.

We all know they want these towers. PSNH

is hoping to garner the rent from Hydro-Quebec.

That's really why there is no alternative plan.

It's not that we can't bury these lines. It's

that we won't even discuss it. Senator

Forrester spoke to you about the 361 Commission

yesterday. It only makes sense to explore and

cost out what burying would cost under the New

Hampshire energy corridor. You heard yesterday

what the estimate was for that to happen.

Instead, PSNH has just paid outrageous prices

for land hoping to get a clear path through the

top 40 miles, a path they were unable to achieve

and you'll hear more about that tomorrow.

The area I live in is a prime tourist area.

You're about to destroy that economic base.

When the fall foliage is at the peak we actually

have traffic jams. Leaf peepers are slower than

skiers. It's a fine thing. I mentioned that



[email protected]

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


I'm on the Finance Committee. We need that 9

percent to fund our state.

Stop the project now. I'm not an

electrician. I am an educator. I do not know

the electrical aspect of this, but I do

recognize good thoughtful analysis when I see

it, and this application doesn't pass muster.

All I can say in closing is that you need to

send this back. We need to get our homework

done.


Susan. Next speaker, Linda Lauer.

LINDA LAUER: Thank you. I'm State

Representative Linda Lauer. I represent 8 towns

in Grafton County including the town of Easton

which is in the path of Northern Pass. I'm here

to represent my citizens, my constituents in the

town of Easton and northern New Hampshire who

say we don't want Northern Pass, and I'm also

asking that the Department of Energy protect the

public interest of our citizens by asking

Northern Pass to provide an accurate economic

impact statement so the communities at least



[email protected]

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


know what the impact on our economy is going to

be.

Northern Pass's website boasts of injecting

$28 million in new tax revenues to communities,

county and the state. If you look at that data

the first problem that pops up is that only

includes the revenue that the communities would

get from Northern Pass. It doesn't include the

revenue that we'll lose from the loss of

property value adjacent to it. The Appalachian

Mountain Club has stated that 95,000 acres in

the State of New Hampshire will be impacted

visually by Northern Pass as is currently

proposed. That doesn't include the northern

most 16 miles which we're just recently

rerouted. Now, if they put 125 foot towers in

front of my house, I guarantee you I'm going to

ask for a reduction in property value. So

claiming that you're going to get $28 million in

new tax revenues, first of all, doesn't count

the decrease in tax revenue that we should

expect.

The other problem bothers me even more and



[email protected]

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


that's the fact that any company can appeal

their assessment and if they're successful they

reduce their tax payments and it's already

happened. PSNH, right now, one of Northern

Pass's real tight bedfellows, has filed suits to

change the assessment formula in 31 local towns

including my hometown of Bath, and if they're

successful the assessment formula will change

and the assessment on those towers will go to

zero within 25 years. So the $28 million in new

tax revenues, it's offset today with permanent

reductions in the value of adjacent properties

and it disappears in 25 years. So I would ask

that as a sponsor of a state bill that would

require New Hampshire site committees to

thoroughly evaluate economic impacts on affected

communities, I would ask that the Department of

Energy do the same and require a similar

independent, unbiased and accurate economic

impact study for the Northern Pass project on

the affected communities. I think that will

help us determine if Northern Pass really is in

the best interests of our citizens.



[email protected]

16

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23



Linda. Next speaker. John Colony.

JOHN COLONY: My name is John Colony. I'm

a member of the Zoning Board in Sugar Hill.

Thank you for holding these public meetings and

for making them as accessible as they are. Two

nights ago members of the Nashua and Manchester

Chambers of Commerce spoke in favor of the

towers. That is in favor of the current

proposal from Northern Pass. I wonder what

their reasoning is. They must know it is bad

business to allow such flagrant damage to be

inflicted on the greater part of the state.

They must know it is reprehensible to cause

undoubtedly serious, long-lasting irreversible

damage and impoverishment of the entire Coos

County, but these chambers are okay with that.

So if there are any members of those chambers

here tonight, I yield the remainder of my time

to them if they will explain your reasoning. If

any friends of those chambers are here, and can

explain the reasoning, I yield my time to them

if they will explain their reasoning. There is



[email protected]

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


no good reason for Northern Pass. Thank you.


John. Neal Kurk.

SPEAKER: He spoke in Concord.

MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. I have

Andrew Hosmer. Are there any other officials

that are in the room? There's one. Another

one, two. Come on up. Three? Okay. Go ahead.

REBECCA BROWN: Thank you. I'm Rebecca

Brown, and I'm speaking with several hats this

evening. First I want to say that as someone

who spoke here two and a half years ago it's so

great to see many of us here back again and a

whole lot more people here than were here two

and a half years ago so thank you. So I am

proud to represent the North Country, five North

Country towns in the New Hampshire legislature.

One of these towns is Sugar Hill which has the

power line running through it and Sugar Hill

residents are united in their opposition to this

project. I'm also on the Board of Directors of

the North Country Council which is the North

Country's regional Planning Commission. The



[email protected]

18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


council has taken the position against Northern

Pass's proposal based on the fact that every

single Selectboard in affected towns has voted

against Northern Pass. I'm also the founder and

director of the Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust

which is the region's land conservancy. ACT has

many lands and many land-owning members who are

affected by the power line route. ACT in an

intervenor opposed to the project. I'm speaking

today as a State Representative and for ACT. A

value of many of my constituents and the trust's

mission is to conserve the working landscapes of

the North Country. Our land and our people are

our greatest assets. Our place is as much a

reflection of our people as we are a reflection

of our land. From our great Connecticut River

which is an American Heritage River and which

this project would affect to our rugged

mountains and to the crown jewel of our region,

the White Mountain National Forest which the

project will affect. In between are the private

forest and farms that have been worked and

tended for generations which are the heart of



[email protected]

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


our communities and which the project would

obviously affect. Our working landscape should

support renewable clean energy that goes to

power our region and it does through hydropower,

a growing number of solar installations, wind

and biomass. Many of our region see the economy

in part based on renewable energy. Northern

Pass does nothing to advance this. In fact, it

would do a lot more to make it difficult, both

by affecting the market and by creating an

enormous scar on the land that draws so many

people here.

I ask the DOE to consider the no build

option. I believe that is the proper one for

our environment and also consider burying the

lines. As a legislator I've asked Dartmouth

College to do a cost/benefit analysis of burying

the lines. They will focus on three key

factors. First, how many jobs would be created

for New Hampshire workers compared to aerial

lines. Second, what would be the investment

opportunity for New Hampshire businesses on

related technology and services; and third, what



[email protected]

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


would be the competitive advantage to New

Hampshire businesses for a more dependable power

source than aerial lines that are subject to

storms and outages. With the Department's

permission I'd like to give you that analysis

when it's completed later this year and thank

you.


Rebecca. Our next speaker?

MARGO CONNORS: My name is Margo Connors.

I'm representing the Sugar Hill Selectboard and

the Sugar Hill Conservation Commission. I also

testified in 2011. On March 8th, 2011 the town

of Sugar Hill unanimously voted to oppose

Northern Pass at its annual town meeting. The

town of Sugar Hill believes that there will be

serious negative environmental and economic

impacts for all of its citizens if the proposed

Northern Pass transmission line is built through

our community. We ask that you give serious

consideration to our concerns in order to

provide Sugar Hill and the State of New

Hampshire the fullest protection possible from



[email protected]

21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


the EIS phase of the permitting process. The

Selectboard and Conservation Commission have

examined the proposed Northern Pass route in

relation to our natural resource inventory,

conservation plan and revised master plan.

We believe that the following factors

should be studied by the Department of Energy.

One, the inherent physical changes brought by

towers lines and clearing of the right-of-way.

Two, the deleterious effects towers will have on

scenic areas and viewsheds. Three, the

degradation of property values and the resulting

loss of tax revenues. This has already occurred

in our town even with the idea of towers going

through. The assault on our town's conservation

land, water resources, wildlife, forest and

farmland. The impact on tourism that hulking

towers would have looming over our historic Main

Street. We ask that you evaluate the impact of

the proposed line on our recreational trails,

lands and water ways that are currently used by

numerous groups and year-round tourists.

Recreation land is one of the major facets of



[email protected]

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


our economy so we specifically ask that you

assess the visual and auditory impact of these

proposed lines.

We urge the Department of Energy to

carefully look at these issues and consider

alternatives to the proposed Northern Pass

project, either a no-build option or the

complete burial of the line along straight

transportation corridors. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker?

LINDA MASSIMILLA: Good evening. My name

is Linda Massimilla. I represent the towns of

Littleton and Bethlehem. I hadn't planned on

speaking tonight so lucky for you I have no

notes. I just wanted to make the comment. If

Northern Pass, the Northeast Utilities can

sweeten the pot by offering to put millions of

dollars into a fund to create new jobs for North

Country residents, then my question is why

couldn't they take some of that money and apply

it to burying the lines and using the rest of

their money for their North Country job



[email protected]

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


creation? So what I suggest is maybe Northern

Pass dig a little deeper to help dig themselves

out of this monstrous abomination. Thank you.


Linda. Any other elected officials who want to

speak? Last chance. We're going to go into our

preregistered list. I'm going to call up a Luke

and Cornelia Lorentzen?

CORNELIA LORENTZEN: I got the kid --

thanks for letting us go. I got the kid, he's

really with me. So we live in Sugar Hill. My

name is Cornelia Lorentzen. Luke, he lives

there, too, and we are against the Northern Pass

as it is proposed today. Nice to see all that

orange out there. Like you to consider the

opinions of the people who live in the places

that this is specifically going to affect and

that's us. Thank you.


Cornelia and Luke. I have an Evalyn Merrick,

and I'm also going to call up a Jessica Houle.

JESSICA HOULE: Hi. My name is Jessica

Houle, and I'm a 8th grader from Littleton, New



[email protected]

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Hampshire. I have been recently learning about

the Northern Pass project in my Social Studies

class. From my research I have learned that

this project does not benefit New Hampshire and

that I am against it. Some of the reasons why

I'm against this project is possible negative

health effects, damaging our views and

environment, damming up the water destroying

habitat and fish migration. Would you want your

child to have leukemia? Not just cancer but

nausea, vertigo, metallic taste and light

flashes. Studies show that there are possible

risks of leukemia from radiation in children.

These possible health problems could happen to

anyone that lived close enough to the towers.

Not only is our health being destroyed but also

our beautiful views. If this project proceeds

all we will see are these huge electric towers.

Tourists will not come to our area anymore, and

this will directly affect our economy. Already

natural disasters, weather and economic

recessions affect our tourism on a yearly basis.

Now we want a permanent structure in place that



[email protected]

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


will impact our tourism daily? Tourism is a

major source of income for New Hampshire and we

need to focus on attracting more people to our

area, not pushing them away. I really care

about the animals and do not want their homes

being destroyed by excavators in the

construction process and especially endangered

species like the golden eagle and common

nighthawk. Every day animals homes are being

destroyed. We need to actually take a look at

that. It is like us living on hold. How can

this get better if we're going to construct

these towers. Whether these lines are buried or

above ground, the habitats are going to be

destroyed by the construction and ongoing

maintenance of the new line. I'm asking the

Department of Energy to reject this application

and realize that this project will impact us

more than what we were told. Thank you.


Jessica. Next speaker, Evalyn Merrick. I'm

sorry.

EVALYN MERRICK: I used up 2 minutes of my



[email protected]

26

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


3 just getting up here.

MODERATOR: I'm now going to call some

additional names so we can fill out our on deck

circle now that it's clear so Kris Pastoriza,

Jim Dannis, Sandy Dannis, Linda Upham-Bornstein,

Susan Schibanoff, Deborah Warner.

EVALYN MERRICK: Thank you. For the

record, I am Evalyn Merrick, former State

Representative from Coos County. I am

expressing the following concern on behalf of

myself and also that of Michael Ransmeier who

could not be here today. Michael is an attorney

who practices in Littleton and is the chairman

of the Board of Selectmen for the town of

Landaff which is not on the primary Northern

Pass proposed right-of-way but would be bisected

by Northern Pass's proposed alternative route if

it has to go around the National Forest.

It is our understanding that there is an

existing DC line owned by National Grid starting

from the same headquarter substation in Quebec

and running down the western side of the

Connecticut River all the way through Vermont



[email protected]

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


and Massachusetts into central Connecticut. It

is allegedly not being fully used and would be a

far more logical alternative as a power supply

route than compounding the negative

environmental and economic impacts of creating a

second parallel power line along the route just

15 to 20 miles to the east. The real underlying

reason why Northeast Utilities which owns PSNH

wants the new Northern Pass route is so that

PSNH can receive the transmission fees for

running power over its New Hampshire lines. It

should not be the responsibility of New

Hampshire citizens or the DOE to underwrite an

effort to prop up a failing PSNH. If the DOE

simply told Northern Pass that the negative

environmental impacts for its plan could be

largely eliminated if it simply worked out an

arrangement of National Grid to use it's ROW,

the problem might largely be solved. Thank you

very much.


Evalyn, and thank you, Jessica, from earlier.

Kris?



[email protected]

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


SPEAKER: Can I pass my comments to someone

else?

MODERATOR: No. We could add them at the

back of the list though. That would leave us

Jim Dannis.

JIM DANNIS: So I'd like to follow up on

the topic of greed. Sandy and I spent a couple

of hours reading one of the Northern Pass's most

recent filing with Tom Wagner. It was the

filing asking for a permit to cross through the

White Mountain National Forest. Northern Pass

as usual made a number of statements that we

found flatly misleading to downright ridiculous

and they really all center on this theme of

greed so Northern Pass says we can't bury the

lines on I-93 to avoid the National Forest

because it will cost too much. Sandy and I did

a little illustration to help you understand how

ridiculous that statement is. Northern Pass is

guaranteed a return -- excuse me. Northeast

Utilities is guaranteed a return as owner of the

Northern Pass of 12.56 percent. 12.56 percent

on the money it puts into the project. I don't



[email protected]

29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


know about you, I don't get 12.56 percent on

anything. Let's look what that adds up to.

Northeast Utilities will make a profit margin, a

guaranteed profit margin of $88 million a year.

$88 million a year. So we said to ourselves,

what if Northern Pass did something really nice

or Northeast Utilities. What if they said we'll

just take a 3 percent discount on that 12

percent profit. We'll just take nine percent.

If they took 9 percent for just three to 5 years

that would free up up to $100 million so if they

just said we only need 9 percent, we don't need

12.56 percent, they free up enough money to bury

the lines for the entire route around the White

Mountain National Forest. I ask you, is the

White Mountain National Forest worth a three

percent discount off Northern Pass's profits? I

think it is. When they tell you they cannot

afford to bury the lines, just remember, it's a

lie. It's not true. And in terms of the

scoping process, we say we have economic experts

looking at this, we don't need economic experts.

We need to have financial experts. We need



[email protected]

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


somebody on Wall Street to give a report to the

DOE and the U.S. Forest Service saying you know

what? A nine percent profit margin for

Northeast Utilities is perfectly fine, thank

you. They can afford to bury the lines.

SANDY DANNIS: I'll save three minutes so

we can go on to Susan. That's all right. Bury

the lines.

MODERATOR: I don't know where I stopped at

calling names right now so Deborah Warner.

Dolly McPhaul. Dave Dobbins. Nancy Martland.

LINDA UPHAM-BORNSTEIN: My name is Linda

Upham-Bornstein. I have a Ph.D. in American

legal history and I am a resident of Lancaster

and I object to the proposed transmission lines

for both personal and public policy reasons. On

a personal level, my husband and I own a

historic home on Mt. Prospect Road in Lancaster.

Ironically, the farm was once owned by the Weeks

family whose efforts to preserve the northern

forest culminated in the passage of the 1911

Weeks Act. The proposed transmission lines will

run roughly parallel to and approximately two



[email protected]

31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


tenths of a mile from the eastern border of our

property. If these very large transmission

towers are installed, they will be a scar on the

landscape of the White Mountains and will ruin

the beautiful view that we have of those

mountains.

The construction of this transmission line

and the resulting significant and adverse impact

on our viewshed will also substantially reduce

the market value of our property. The Northern

Pass project will have a direct impact on our

property and other residential properties within

the Northern Pass viewshed. The diminution of

real estate tax revenues generated by the

affected properties will likely offset much if

not all of the temporary, and I emphasize

temporary, real estate tax revenues generated by

the Northern Pass project.

On a public policy level the Northern Pass

as proposed will have a negative impact on the

historic, cultural and environmental landscapes

of New Hampshire. The transmission project will

also be antithetical to the tourist and



[email protected]

32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


recreational industries that are Coos County's

that tonight's scoping meeting is held at a

hotel that markets and celebrates the very

landscape this project will project will

permanently scar. Moreover the project will

severely impact hundreds and more likely

thousands of historic buildings and cultural

landscapes that once lost will never be

recovered. Furthermore, the proposed

transmission line is inconsistent with New

Hampshire's Scenic Road statute and Cultural

Bylaws statute. The New Hampshire Supreme Court

observed that the purpose of the scenic road

status is to encourage tourist attractiveness of

our scenic roads and to protect the scenic

beauty of our state. Mt. Prospect Road is one

of five designated scenic roads in Lancaster.

It likewise seems incongruous that I must obtain

permission to cut down trees in my yard and that

an out-of-state utility will be allowed to eject

enormous and ugly towers in plain view. The

Northern Pass will adversely impact New

Hampshire's scenic byways and undermine the



[email protected]

33

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


purpose of this statute. Therefore, as a tax

paying citizens, I request, no, in fact, I

demand the Presidential Permit for the Northern

Pass project as proposed be denied. The DOE is

charged with preparing an Environmental Impact

Statement that examines all these issues and I

exhort them to include all multiple activities,

specifically burying the line and no build

alternative.


Linda. Our next speaker. Susan Schibanoff.

The floor is yours.

SUSAN SCHIBANOFF: Thank you, George. My

name is Susan Schibanoff. I live in Easton.

The White Mountain National Forest borders our

property. The PSNH right-of-way crosses our

land and connects with a temporary special use

corridor in the forest. Whatever affects the

forest directly affects us in Easton and in

nearby towns and vice-versa. We are good

neighbors. Good neighbors look out for one

another. And in that spirit, Mr. Wagner, I

suggest that there are three meticulously



[email protected]

34

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


researched documents that you consider, that you

should consider as you decide whether to issue

the special use permit that Northern Pass needs

to cross the forest, and I respectfully request

the DOE to include all three in the study.

The first document is the EIS prepared in

1978 by the State DOT to evaluate whether the

route that Northern Pass currently wants to use

to cross the forest was suitable to put a road

through. The State's conclusion was no. Any

infrastructure here would, quote, destroy the

near natural and solitude qualities of a major

portion of the White Mountain National Forest

through which it would pass.

The second document I'd ask you to look at

is the EIS that the DOE prepared in 1978 to '80.

That's the DOE. To evaluate whether this route

was suitable for a transmission line to bring

power down from a hydroelectric project in

Maine. The DOE's conclusion? No. Colocation

of overhead towers in this narrow transmission

corridor would cause severe defects on the

aesthetics of the environmental setting, on



[email protected]

35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


recreation, on community values and character

and on property values.

The third document is the EIS that the DOE

prepared in 1986 as part of its study of a

direct current transmission project with towers

lower than those proposed by Northern Pass.

Again, the DOE said no, don't locate them here

in the corridor that Northern Pass now wants to

use. It would cause severe land use conflicts.

Three EISs have already been prepared on

Northern Pass's currently proposed route. All

have said no. Mr. Mills, please include these

three EIS studies in the scope of your work.

Let's not reinvent the wheel that already has a

flat tire. Enough is enough. Thank you.


Susan. Or next speaker, Deborah Warner?

DEBORAH WARNER: I have a poster that has,

can you see it over here? Actually might move

up a little bit. Up higher. Thank you. I'm

Debbie Warner from Littleton. In my business

I'm a psychologist. My business serves Coos and

Grafton, and I would like to welcome the members



[email protected]

36

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


of the scoping committee to New Hampshire and

especially to our beautiful North Country.

Thank you for coming. I very much appreciate

the privilege of you coming to hear our voices

in person and it's just a privilege to have this

happen here. Thank you so much, everyone, for

being here.

I want to give you the results of a study

that I did last summer. It was a survey that I

did in asking people what do you like about the

North Country, and I just wrote down what people

said. And as you can see, the top two thirds of

the people said it's the mountains and the

forests and half of the people said it's people

here. These are very important aspects of the

North Country and as I listen to people talking

about it, I notice that it's not that they like

the North Country. We love the North Country.

You can go all around the state and you're not

going to find people who just love, Milford,

maybe? I don't know. And as I talk to people

around the state they say, you know, people

don't have the kind of passion about where they



[email protected]

37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


live as we do here, and the top thing that

people mentioned right off the top of their

heads is the mountains and the forests. And I

just want to bring that forward to us that it's

not just sentimentality. It's important to us.

The mountains and the forest are as important

and even sometimes more important than the

people who are our main reason for being here

and usually where people are. There are many

other things that I did calculate on this list

and I just wanted to bring those two forward to

you briefly as the top items that people

mentioned.

I want to turn this over and give you how

they interplay with our economics. Turn this

over. Mark is helping me. I appreciate his

kindness. Way up high. There you go. Thank

you. Thank you so much. And over here so these

gentlemen can see.

In terms of the economy there are several

different markets that we are affected by.

There's the external market which is where we

produce things and we send them out elsewhere



[email protected]

38

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


and money comes to us. This is a very good kind

of portion of our market. And at this point --

oh, I didn't realize I had a particular time

limit. I'll speak very quickly then.

This portion of the market has been

terribly depressed as the mills have gone. We

also have the destination market where people

from elsewhere come here and they bring their

money and spend it and then go home. And as you

see on the top, this is our depiction of our

results of what we love here and the mountains

and forests are very, very important to us and

that is what we have for them to come to. And

as our external market has been so depressed,

then we have the destination market as our main

reliant market force sector and it's very

important to us. This would greatly affect us,

and we know 95,000 acres would be affected.

People come here from all around the

Metropolitan surroundings, Boston and Montreal

as well as the prime destination for foreigners

to come. I have run out of time. I appreciate

that very much. Thank you.



[email protected]

39

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


MODERATOR: Thank you, Deborah, and your

assistant Mark. You are the first entrants in

today's Ross Perot presentation style award so

we'll see if there are other props that are

brought along. Our next speaker is Dolly

McPhaul.

DOLLY MCPHAUL: Hi, my name is Dolly

McPhaul, and I'm from Sugar Hill. There are

lots of things about the Northern Pass that

anger me and sponsors as well but I want to

address the Department of Energy tonight and

their lack of integrity, their blatant bias for

Public Service of New Hampshire. It's as the

two of them are joined together and they are

going to ram their way through New Hampshire

regardless of what the citizens want. They

don't seem to care that it's going to affect

people's property values. Sometimes those

property values reflect their retirement money.

They don't see seem to care that they're going

to ruin our beautiful views. They don't seem to

care that they are going to hurt our tourism

business and will have job losses from that.



[email protected]

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


And they don't seem to care about kids that go

to Profile Junior Senior High School and will be

spending daily right next to those towers with

the possibility of childhood leukemia. Their

bias goes on to their accepting the first permit

that PSNH asked for. They didn't have a route,

but the DOE accepted it anyway. They allowed

PSNH to select the company to do the EIS

studies. They allowed PSNH the right to

contribute language to the contract written.

They allowed PSNH to have the DOE

representatives trespass on New Hampshire

residents' properties to do their studies

regardless of the property owners' disapproval

and without a legitimate route, and they allowed

studies to continue which were supposed to have

citizens inputs but guess what? They forgot to

tell the citizens that those studies had

started. So the DOE to me has exemplified a

blatant bias for Public Service of New

Hampshire. Because that first application

failed, they applied number two. Again, they

don't have a legitimate route, and subsequently



[email protected]

41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


the four-person delegation to Washington lodged

an objection, but the Department of Energy being

sort of like a little lapdog to PSNH they just

followed them around and let them do whatever

they want so they ignored that and the project

was allowed to continue.

Then they failed to put on their permit

something that was required, listing

alternatives, and those alternatives were not

put on. Even though it was a requirement they

allowed the application to go forward. I'm

currently wondering if PSNH is looking at

another route coming down Vermont, maybe coming

into New Hampshire at Littleton and then going

on their rights-of-way. If that's the case are

we going to have to go through these charades

again or are they going to try to slip it in

under their second application for a permit. In

my mind, unethical but a real possibility. So

in closing I would like to say that the people

in New Hampshire have had enough, the Department

of Energy should listen to the people, and if

they grant this permit, they should be aware



[email protected]

42

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


that the people most very likely will ask for an

investigation of the people involved and the

process involved at the DOE. Thank you.


Dolly. Be careful with the woo-hoos. I did

hear one. Somebody tried sneaking it in. Our

next speaker is Dave Dobbins. By the way, the

Moderator is going to apologize because right

now we are at the break point that I had

originally set. To keep things moving, and if

Cynthia agrees, we're just going to go straight

through to probably 7 o'clock to 7:15. Dave,

come on up.

DAVE DOBBINS: That's quite a bit to

follow, I think. Before I actually start my

remarks I actually wanted to touch on protocols

for our meetings if I could just for a brief

moment, Mr. Moderator.

MODERATOR: Is this being counted as your

3?

DAVE DOBBINS: No. It has to do with

benefit to our audience.

MODERATOR: Sure. Go ahead.



[email protected]

43

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


DAVE DOBBINS: Thank you. We had a little

issue last night in Plymouth because some

members of the audience had wanted to pose

questions to the panel and that's not part of

the protocol. You had explained that if you

wanted questions about the project answered,

that there are developer representatives from

Northern Pass available to us, and I wanted to

ask a couple of quick things. One is will they

be available for questions in Colebrook tomorrow

night?

MODERATOR: Yes. As far as we know. Yes.

I can't control it. Yes.

DAVE DOBBINS: That kind of gave me a great

idea. It's like, you know, we have big crowds

coming into these meetings. How about if we

just adjusted the meeting format slightly, we

have the developers come up that first half

hour, address the entire audience questions and

concerns, and I think that would go a long way

to help answering some of those concerns and

hearing en masse what the developer has to say

about so many questions we have. I'd like to



[email protected]

44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


know if that would be possible for tomorrow

night.

MODERATOR: We will take it under

advisement. Let's just be clear. We got a lot

of comments last night in Plymouth. We made

adjustments to our process today. We'll take

your information under advisement and again,

tomorrow, the times are set so we only have the

same amount of time. Obviously, the number

people who registered to present comments is not

insignificant so we'll take it under advisement

and see what we can do.

SPEAKER: Good idea.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Are you going to

use your three minutes now?

DAVE DOBBINS: I would like to, yes.

MODERATOR: Okay.

DAVE DOBBINS: Thank you.

MODERATOR: And you're not going to ask any

questions, correct?

DAVE DOBBINS: Correct.

MODERATOR: Thank you.

DAVE DOBBINS: Good evening. My name is



[email protected]

45

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Dave Dobbins. I'm a resident of Gilford, New

Hampshire. Our town as you all probably know is

not on any of the proposed primary routes of

which there is one and since of course there's

no alternate route we're not on that route

either. You know, for that reason alone I

personally believe and I did communicate this to

Mr. Mills that I think the application should

have been rejected as invalid and incomplete and

would have prevented us from being here this

round at the moment. That didn't happen so

we're all here. So what I'd like to just

comment on is when the -- let me put these aside

maybe and try this. When this project was first

promoted by the developers they used this tag

line. A unique opportunity in time. And you

know, I've been thinking about that and it's

like, you know, that really was an unique

opportunity in time. For them. They announced

it at a time when, of course, New Hampshire

residents didn't know much about the project and

its whole impact on the State of New Hampshire.

And it also came at a time when this concept of



[email protected]

46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


a participant-funded transmission line is new to

the State of New Hampshire. And because of

that, it was a time and still is in which the

state of New Hampshire doesn't have adequate

legislation, adequate energy policies to

actually address this type of a for-profit

commercial venture coming in to deliver

transmission of electricity through our state to

another state, even if some small piece of it

makes a return loop some day.

So what I think is the applicants had an

open-ended period of time. You know, their

initial concept for participant funded was

approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission back in 2009. Yes. Before you folks

heard about it. And then, of course, we all

know they filed the original one on October 14th

of 2010. They supplemented that in 2011 in

February and in April and now here we are with

an amendment to that original application which

seems to have this odd status of yes, it's been

filed, it's kind of under review, we're thinking

about some other adjustments and oh, look, here



[email protected]

47

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


they are.

So what's me point? My point is reject

what was submitted and give the State of New

Hampshire the time and respect that it deserves

to enable us to let our represented officials

develop the right legislation to protect our

state, and it doesn't mean that some day some

transmission line may need to be built but let's

build it inside the framework that New Hampshire

citizens and its leaders have decided is right

for our state. Thank you.


Dave. Moderator wants to apologize to the rest

of the crowd and the audience and the speakers.

Technically, I did give Dave more time than

three minutes. I was kind of hoping he was

going to thank us for changing today's format

but anyhow. Our next speaker is going to be

Nancy Martland. I've got on deck if you could

come up, please, Henrietta Moineau, Rebecca

More, and Eliot Wessler. The floor is yours.

NANCY MARTLAND: Thank you. I'm Nancy

Martland. I live in Sugar Hill, New Hampshire.



[email protected]

48

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Many of you know that I work closely with Dolly

McPhaul, but I promise you we did not plan our

testimony together. Good evening to Mr. Mills

and Mr. Wagner. I'm very pleased to have this

chance to look you in the eye and speak to you

face to face about what concerns me regarding

Northern Pass. My comments do focus on the

permitting process. This project involves real

people who will suffer real damage. It is not

just a line on a map leading from impoundment

dams in Quebec to dollar signs in Connecticut.

Take a good look at us. We are the ones

you will injure through a faulty process. We

deserve the most rigorous, above-board scrutiny

possible. No excuses. This is a matter of the

public trust. Mr. Mills, I am sorry to say much

of the public has little if any confidence in

the permitting process. The United States

government owes New Hampshire a scrupulously

open, fair and exacting process, not a rubber

stamp affair controlled by the applicant. I

have not observed those qualities to date. What

I have seen looks more like an inside game.



[email protected]

49

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Here are some of the things that shake our

confidence. Allowing this permitting process to

go forward when the application was suspended

and right now when it is incomplete. Appearing

to fast-track these hearings with the minimum

possible abbreviated public notice period,

apparently ignoring the objections of our entire

federal legislative delegation to facets of this

project. Allowing portions of the permitting

process to go forward behind closed doors that

shut out the public but not Northern Pass

representatives such as the ongoing Section 106

process. The impression of interlock between

applicant and permitting agency. At least one

high level Northern Pass employee whose job is

to further this application is a former high

level DOE employee. And finally, allowing DOE

contractors on our land without our permission

or even advance notice of their presence.

These are the kinds of things that erode

the public trust. As a speaker noted last night

in Plymouth, this is tragic. I call upon you to

do better moving forward. Mr. Wagner, there is



[email protected]

50

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


no overriding public benefit to this project.

Nothing about this project justifies the assault

on a cherished White Mountain National Forest

landscape that so many have worked so hard to

acquire, protect and care for. I urge you in

the strongest possible terms to take your duty

as steward of this forest seriously. Thank you

very much.


Nancy. You are? Henrietta.

HENRIETTA MOINEAU: Henrietta Moineau of

Lancaster, New Hampshire. Because my time to

speak is so limited, I will state the barebones

reasons why the four electric power companies in

Canada and the United States should be denied a

permit for Northern Pass. Number one, 33 towns

up and down the Connecticut River have said no

to project. Number 2, if Northern Pass gets the

Presidential Permit to run their electric lines,

I was told they would be overhead electric lines

at the recent open house at Cabin Inn through

ten miles of the White Mountain National Forest.

Where and when will it stop. I foresee the



[email protected]

51

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


eventual end of our national and state parks.

Number 3, Northern Pass claims it will improve

our tax base. They don't mention the loss of

tax money for northern New Hampshire when people

sell their homes at a loss to move away from the

ugly and dangerous and I'll explain dangerous

later, landscape. Number 4, one bit of

information in the newspaper stated that Canada

has developed a, quote, huge, well-planned

facility that has expansion capability, end

quote. This is only the first phase, folks.

Number 5, Northern Pass is just that. Using New

Hampshire as a conduit for its electricity. New

Hampshire will receive no benefit. Number 6,

Northern Pass claims southern New England needs

the electricity. It does not. Why do I keep

getting propaganda letters from North American

Power located in Norwalk, Connecticut, offering

me cheaper electric rates than PSNH? Rhode

Island doesn't need it either. Rhode Island is

setting up wind power on Block Island which is

12 miles off the coast and running the electric

lines under the ocean to Quonset Point on



[email protected]

52

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Narraganset Bay. It will generate enough power

for 17,000 homes in one year. And last, number

7, at the Department of Energy meeting here in

2011, a man showed the crowd a one-foot thick

collection of research papers that told of the

deadly electromagnetic fields created above or

below the ground lines. That is, they cause

cancer and other medical problems. 33 years ago

I noticed there were no homes, no businesses, no

farms or anything near the massive towers in

Quebec province on my way to Montreal.

In plain and simple language there is no

need for Northern Pass and we New Hampshire

Americans don't want it above or below the

ground. Thank you.


Henrietta. Our next speaker?

REBECCA MORE: Rebecca More. Mr. Mills and

colleagues, I am Rebecca Weeks Sherill More,

Ph.D. I speak on behalf of the Weeks Lancaster

Trust which owns over 700 acres in Lancaster

where my family have farmed since 1786. Here in

New Hampshire we have a tradition that



[email protected]

53

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


conservation of the environment is plain common

sense. It ensures our natural resources for the

future. As a result, the Weeks Lancaster Trust

has filed a Motion to Intervene against the

request of Northern Pass for a Presidential

Permit. We urge the Department of Energy to

recommend that the proposed transmission lines

be buried along existing transportation

corridors. The Northern Pass would degrade the

quality of the environment in this region and

have a negative impact on the ability of

visitors to understand why we are stewards of

the natural world.

Over the past century, people in this area

have worked with federal, state and local

agencies to preserve the White Mountain National

Forest, Weeks State Park in Lancaster, Franconia

Notch Parkway and many conservation easements.

In 1911 my great grandfather, Congressman John

Wingate weeks sponsored the Weeks Act enabling

federal forestry conservation. The act

protected the headwaters of New England's major

rivers through the creation of the White



[email protected]

54

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Mountain National Forest. Those rivers power

industry in all six states. Today the forest

draws millions of visitors to enjoy clean air,

clear water and healthy outdoor recreation. The

proposed transmission towers would convey the

message to the world that in the US above ground

high voltage power lines vulnerable to solar and

ice storms are more important than the

environment. In 1941 Weeks's children gave his

estate on Mount Prospect for a State Park

dedicated to teaching about forestry

conservation. Visitors enjoyed the view of the

region while learning about the reclamation and

conservation of lands damaged in the 19th

century by the timber industry. The Northern

Pass towers would degrade both the view and the

learning experience at Weeks State Park. Today

you drove through the Franconia Notch state

parkway to reach Whitefield. In the 1960s

Interstate 93 threatened the Notch's fragile

environment. It was saved by a broad consortium

including my grandfather, former Secretary of

Congress, Sinclair Weeks. Such efforts



[email protected]

55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


replicated by many others across New Hampshire

and the US demonstrate the mutually beneficial

partnership between citizens and the federal

government. In closing, the Northern Pass could

demonstrate that a profit-making corporation can

model safe, public-spirited energy transmission

and preserve the valuable beauty of New

Hampshire by burying the lines.


Rebecca. Last speaker before our break. Eliot

Wessler.

ELIOT WESSLER: Can I thank you in advance

for an extra minute?

MODERATOR: No. Excellent try.

ELIOT WESSLER: Thank you. My name is

Eliot Wessler. I'm a resident of Whitefield. I

recently retired after 28 years working as an

economist in the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission. Frankly, I am all in favor of

importing excess hydro from Quebec and to a New

England market. My objection to this project is

that it will result in a massive imbalance

between those that benefit and those that bear



[email protected]

56

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


the cost. In a nutshell, this project as

proposed will create a huge monetary windfall

for Hydro-Quebec and its ratepayers while New

Hampshire residents bear all the environmental

costs. Northern Pass counts the benefits to New

Hampshire residents, and some of these benefits

in fact probably will flow to them even if

Northern Pass greatly exaggerates them, but in

sheer size these meager benefits are positively

dwarfed by the potential benefits to HQ and it's

ratepayers. HQ will be able to sell up to

10,000 gigawatt hours per year of excess hydro.

This would represent a windfall for HQ and its

ratepayers of as much as $400 million per year

and that's net of HQ cost and net of Northern

Pass's transmission charges. This works out to

$16 billion in nominal dollars over the 40-year

term of the contract. That's what we economists

call a whole lot of rent. And I also say God

bless capitalism and God bless HQ. Let them

capture as much of those rents as they can. But

PSNH is a homegrown utility. It needs to do a

better job of representing the people it serves.



[email protected]

57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


And DOE is our watchdog over this proposal.

It's DOE's job to focus not only on the

environmental benefits that may flow from this

project but on the costs that New Hampshire

residents will bear and how the applicants can

best mitigate these costs.

When asked about undergrounding the lines

Northern Pass always seems to respond in the

same way. That undergrounding is expensive and

then there's dead silence. Well, yes, it is

expensive, but with 400 million for year in the

rents it's my strong intuition that there's more

than enough money sloshing around in this deal

to cover any and all additional costs of

undergrounding the lines. And let's be clear,

that undergrounding the lines would not

eliminate all costs to New Hampshire residents,

but it would go a long way to mitigating those

costs. Undergrounding the lines would also go a

long way to dampening the opposition of this

project. Why then is Northern Pass so adverse

to even discussing undergrounding. The answer I

think is that they have boxed themselves in by



[email protected]

58

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


cutting a bad deal with HQ in the first place to

sell transmission under a cost base rate when

they could have applied for, almost certainly

been granted approval by FERC, my former

employer, to sell transmission under a market

base rate. Market base rates would have allowed

them to capture at least some of the rents, but

this would also have exposed them to use some of

those rents in mitigating damages. So they took

the easy way out.

My view is that this process should be

frozen until Northern Pass gets off the dime and

gets serious about estimating the benefits and

costs of undergrounding the line. To sum up, I

encourage DOE to use the occasion of the EIS

scoping to determine that there is a massive

misallocation of benefits and costs inherent in

the deal between Northern Pass and HQ and force

Northern Pass to plan for the undergrounding of

any HVDC lines it wants to construct in New

Hampshire.

MODERATOR: Thank you for your comments, Eliot.

Reminder for all speakers that when Travis stands up,



[email protected]

59

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


that's your three minutes and you are supposed to

stop. We're going to take our break right now. It

is, we'll call it 7:10. It will be a 15-minute break

so come back at 7:25. Just so we're clear on our on

deck circle when we get back and we can jump quickly

into this our first speaker will be Katie Rose, and

then we've got Margo Connors, Timothy Williams,

Frederick Von Karls and Roy Stever. Thank you.

(Recess taken)

(Message from Christopher Lawrence)

MODERATOR: Just so everyone knows, there's

been a request that we exceed the 3-minute rule

on Katie's song. Is that okay?

My name is Katie Rose, and I am a resident

here in Whitefield and we're disgusted we have

to be here two years later when we did this two

years ago.

(Singing) South of the Canada border, east

of Vermont countryside, some kind of natural

beauty and people came far and wide to view the

majesty of the land, one place untouched by

human hands, and those that called it home were

tougher than a granite stone.



[email protected]

60

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Then something come out of the darkness,

something of a dangerous kind. Trying to pass

legislation to run some high voltage power lines

with no concern for the local man whose great

grandfather had worked that land. The number

one priority was the profit of the company.

So live free or die, my friend. Live free

or die. This is the message that we send. Live

free or die.

Ads and propaganda littered with half

truths and lies. Anyone else might have been

fooled, but country folk can survive. They

wouldn't stand for the NPT depreciating their

property and making children unhealthy so more

people could waste electricity.



free or die.

Well, it's a sad story of oppression by a

powerful entity, but it's more about the human

spirit and people standing up for what they

believe and when our children are all grown and

having kids of their own they'll be thinking



[email protected]

61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


back to you and me and the spirit that kept them

free.



free or die, my friend. Live free or die. This

is the message that we send. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Katie Rose. Since

we let her slip on the time if anybody wants to

throw in a woo-hoo, go ahead. Felt good to get

that out, didn't it. Our next speaker, Timothy

Williams. Frederick Von Karls. Got an on deck

circle with nobody on it. How about a Roy

Stever. Jon Wilkinson. Kate Savage. The floor

is yours.

FREDERICK VON KARLS: Okay. Hi, everybody.

My name is Frederick Von Karls. I'm a clinical

psychologist with a Ph.D. in psychology, minor

degrees in sociology and anthropology,

especially cultural anthropology, so you might

think I care about people from some of the work

I've done and I do. So I intend to tell a story

here that might seem like it's coming out of

left field but over the time I have I think I'm



[email protected]

62

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


going to bring it to centerfield.

I doubt many people in this audience know

about a people in Hudson's Bay named the Nunavut

Inuit people. Part of their problem is that

Quebec hydro has for quite a few years now been

dumping fresh water which is accumulated through

the spring runoff season in dams and reservoirs

and is often heated beyond the normal

environmental, let's say, proper levels and

dumping that into the Hudson's Bay at a rate

that is really quite extreme and this involves

millions of gallons of water that's released

during the high peak energy seasons of winter in

Quebec and the northeast American coast. So

what happens with that.

Well, what happens with it is that the

people who live on these little barrier islands

who are surrounded mainly by salinated frozen

water at the time of year when the release is

held is that their water and their environment,

the whole ecological environment they live in is

changed dramatically. Fresh water freezes at a

much more accelerated rate than salinated water.



[email protected]

63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


And also, it affects the environment in another

way that I'll just make a slight note to that I

think is a big environmental impact in that that

fresh water then floods the Labrador coast and

creates a problem of disturbing the deep water

flow in the Atlantic in terms of the

Gulfstream's proper functioning.

The main point is that these people

survival is based on the Arctic idler which is

dying at remarkably great rates because of the

resalinated water so their culture here is going

down the tines. What I want to say is they

didn't get a choice. They still don't have a

voice and that what I'm feeling here in New

Hampshire is we're given one option. We're not

given a variety of options. We don't have the

opportunity to negotiate directly with any

power, we have to rely on people that are here

representing us, and I hope they take it into

account the fact that what happens here will

have a drastic effect on people here. What

happens here will affect all the people that I

think care about their environment in northern



[email protected]

64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


New Hampshire which is a whole bunch of folks.

And in conclusion I'd like to say, and I'm not

kidding about this, that I think there will be a

lot of depression and some extra drastic

consequences in people's personal lives in New

Hampshire which wouldn't be addressed because we

don't have the money for mental health services

to cover that here. I'll leave with that.

ROY STEVER: Good evening my name is Roy

Stever. Thank you for the opportunity to come.

I'm chairman of the Easton, New Hampshire,

Conservation Commission. Our Commission is

currently working on habitat protection, local

agriculture, the preservation of cultural

records and energy conservation in the town of

Easton.

Easton Conservation Commission strongly

opposes Northern Pass. We believe that the

project would be a devastating effect on

wetlands, habitat, recreation, tourism, scenic

values and cultural resources. We have filed an

application as an intervenor in the EIS

proceedings. With limited time I will review



[email protected]

65

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


our request to the panel first, then circle back

with supporting evidence. It seems to make

intelligent comments and we believe facts have

been withheld. Hopefully, I can prove that.

We asked that the following be delivered to

the Easton Conservation Commission 45 days prior

to the close of any EIS comment period.

1, answers to the questions that we

submitted to Northern Pass in July which I will

explain in a minute. 2, a fair and thorough

assessment of Easton's visual landscape

including more than 20 high-valued views. 3,

consideration of viable alternatives including

the no build option and burial along existing

transportation corridors. And 4, thorough study

of the impact of Northern Pass on the federally

and state protected Canada Lynx based on

confirmed tracks along Kinsman ridge this past

spring within miles of Northern Pass's proposed

route detailed in testimony just last night by

one of our Commission members, Steve Sabre, in

Plymouth. We would like USFS and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service with input from New Hampshire



[email protected]

66

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Fish & Game to examine the need to protect the

Kinsman ridge corridor involving Bob Pond and

land in Easton as critical habitat under all

existing laws, regulations and agreements

including the Endangered Species Act as amended

and the Canada Lynx Conservation Agreement. It

is impossible to comment on this project.

Our commission enjoys a strong working

relationship with the White Mountain National

Forest. We collaborate on activities such as

trail head improvement, cultural resources,

habitat improvement. Nearly 7 percent of Easton

lives within the forest. On June 10th members

of our commission met with Tom Wagner,

Supervisor of WMNF and members of his staff to

register our concerns, and we were cordially

received.

On July 2nd we issued an invitation to

Mr. Long, then President and COO of PSNH, to

meet with our Commission to discuss Northern

Pass. Mr. Martin Murray followed up, agreeing

to meet, even nominating dates in August. We

believe, however, that Mr. Murray changed his



[email protected]

67

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


mind after we informed him that our meetings

would be open to the public per RSA 91 A. We

subsequently received a letter from Mr. Long

indicating that we could instead meet at some

point in the future prior to the State's site

evaluation committee proceedings and after a

finer level of engineering design work.

Mr. Long and Northern Pass have turned

their back on a respected New Hampshire

institution in the Conservation Commission. We

take our role seriously and approach Northern

Pass to ensure of our own objectivity as we do

in any project in our town. Mr. Long and

Northern Pass team continue to ignore our

request to meet and to date have answered none

of our 26 questions, something they did not do

at the open houses by the way. We believe the

actual cost for locating 2 new lines in Easton

would make them make the most expensive miles on

the entire project due to remote terrain and the

need for helicopters. We also believe the

environmental, recreational and personal impact

along this stretch would an among the highest on



[email protected]

68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


the route and we strongly advise consideration

of no build or burial along existing corridors.

We continue to believe that the project is

a private profit-laden insult to the residents

of Eaton, the people of New Hampshire, the

millions who have visited the White Mountain

National Forest from all over the word, the

100-year-old Weeks Act and the countless

dedicated New Hampshire citizens and elected

officials who over the centuries have had the

courage to say no.


Roy. Jon Wilkinson. And also like to invite up

Frank Lombardi, Winifred Ward, Richard Mallion.

JON WILKINSON: My name is Jon Wilkinson.

I'm a resident of Lancaster, New Hampshire.

Mr. Mills and all the DOE folks that are here

tonight, I welcome you to my beloved home State

of New Hampshire. I hope you're able to witness

and enjoy the unique and natural transformation

of one of New Hampshire's many splendors that is

occurring right now as we go from summer into

the spectacular array of fall colors.



[email protected]

69

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Now then, here we are after two years since

the last DOE scoping hearing and with only three

minutes to speak I have little time to cover all

the reasons that I and thousands of New

Hampshire residents, landowners, businesses,

elected officials and visitors to this state

steadfastly oppose the possible granting of

United States Presidential Permit to the

proposed Northern Pass project. This hearing

should not even be occurring since after being

granted an ample amount of additional time the

Northern Pass project has been unsuccessful in

acquiring uncontested contiguous 40-mile

northern corridor through New Hampshire and they

have not offered a valid alternative route

required for the permitting process.

Also there are questions concerning the

existing Public Service transmission easements

Northern Pass went to use to our south. As to

the intent and need when those easements were

originally conveyed many years ago versus a

possible adding and altering of the size and

type of structures within those easements,



[email protected]

70

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


transferring of a different capacity of

electricity.

Northern Pass boasts many benefits about

their project. One of their claims about this

project is that it would be built at no cost to

taxpayers or customers. I totally disagree. If

this project is built as currently proposed it

would be an enormous cost to New Hampshire, land

owners, businesses and taxpayers. Destroying

views and lowering property land values is not a

win as they like to refer in their ads. It is

devastating personal loss in an unneeded

hardship.

I will close with a few questions. Who

needs the Northern Pass? The answer is not New

Hampshire. New Hampshire is an exporter of

electricity to the New England grid. Who needs

New Hampshire? The answer is Northern Pass.

Everyone please understand New Hampshire is the

only in the way of the Northern Pass. All they

want is to get their way through our state. Who

should have to sacrifice anything for the

Northern Pass to get their way through New



[email protected]

71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Hampshire? The answer, no one. No one who

lives in New Hampshire, no one who owns land in

New Hampshire, and no one who comes to New

Hampshire to visit. Mr. Mills, I respectfully

ask you to deny the Presidential Permit

currently proposed by the Northern Pass project.

Thank you.


Jon. Next speaker, Kate Savage.

KATE SAVAGE: Kate Savage from Jefferson.

We are all noticing the beauty of our trees

changing from green to orange. We have all

noticed the ugly green of greed and money and

the beauty of orange of opposition. We stand

united to speak loudly that we don't accept this

proposal for an extension cord running from

Canada through our state for the New England

power grid. The citizens of New Hampshire chose

to live free or die. The citizens of the North

Country choose to embrace a lifestyle of Yankee

ingenuity in keeping the natural elements real.

We choose to moderate our lives to responsively

consume our utilities which for New Hampshire



[email protected]

72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


has equaled a power surplus. With this surplus

we are not in need of this energy. Therefore,

with Northern Pass into the New England power

grid New Hampshire will not be taking the power.

In fact, per literature from the Hydro-Quebec

and the Northern Pass websites this power plant

is bidirectional. Once the power is into the

ISO-New England power grid Hydro-Quebec has one

of the first dibs on buying it back for its own

impending power droughts. To see this as a win

in any form for the State of New Hampshire is

blind. We have heard and read all of the many

promises. Of taxes, of 1200 jobs, of clean

energy. This scoping process that we are all a

part of requires alternative plans and paths to

the proposed line. Why then is the only

alternative listed that of crossing the

Connecticut Lakes headwaters which is legally

protected by a conservation easement. Should

not the alternative be a legal means such as

burial along existing right-of-way, highways,

corridors or perhaps on the transmission line

that exists across the Connecticut River in



[email protected]

73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Vermont? Northern Pass could make friends with

its neighbors that appreciate the scenic beauty

of the state rather than obstructing it.

While the opposition for this plan has been

strongly held in the North Country we are

encouraged that our brothers and sisters of New

Hampshire speak out loudly and informed making

this a New Hampshire Pass issue. This is a burr

in our side, and we aren't taking it quietly.

When Northern Pass arrives at the threshold

of our great national and natural treasures it

is a game over for the North Country. This is

not a NIMBY, not in my backyard, issue. This is

an EB issue. Everybody's backyard. The White

Mountain National Forest and the Connecticut

Lakes Headwaters are both there as protected for

everyone. We enjoy and appreciate the natural

beauty that Mother Nature provided to all of us.

The audacity of these private companies to even

ask permission to use these places is out of

control. Northern Pass is for profit, and its

only basis is that it doesn't provide energy to

Connecticut, Rhode Island or Massachusetts out



[email protected]

74

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


of kindness or goodness. It's for green profit.

That is offensive and underhanded to the

citizens of New Hampshire and we won't take

that. Thank you.


Katie. Our next speaker, Frank Lombardi. I'd

also like to call up Brian Calloway, Michael

Phillips, Michael Dionne, Christopher Emmons.

FRANK LOMBARDI: My name is Frank Lombardi,

and I'm a lifelong resident of Whitefield, New

Hampshire. The Northern Pass has no defined

route and this application is incomplete. The

first hearing should not have taken place and

neither should these because Northern Pass does

not own the route they're proposing and continue

to miss multiple self-imposed deadlines on

producing an official route. The project does

not only affect New Hampshire residents but all

the U.S. states. Globally, terrorism is

focusing on soft targets such as the most recent

attack on the shopping mall in Kenya. Would

this power line with its remote geographic

location and regional importance be considered a



[email protected]

75

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


soft target? I request that the Department of

Energy review with Homeland Security or the

appropriate authorities the possibility of this

power source becoming a potential terrorist

target. How can we rely on Canada for our power

and not consider how we will be securing it.

Next, Hydro-Quebec is a public utility

owned and operated by the Canadian government.

In 2003 Canada opposed the US decision to invade

Iraq. If the United States and Canadian

governments differ on future decisions, could

our electricity source be negatively impacted?

With such a strong dependence on Canada, would

we be able to make our own decisions without

asking for their input? On the same note,

purchasing this foreign energy from Canada is

like buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or

Iraq. We become dependent on them and in turn

these countries have political and economic

leverage over our foreign policies. Would we

just be exchanging our dependence on foreign oil

for foreign hydro?

My next question regards Northern Pass's



[email protected]

76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


hydropower undermining New Hampshire's already

producing power sources. There is no need for

additional power in New England as New England

is already in an overproducer of energy. Of

course, everyone wants cheaper prices, but

Northern Pass has not proven this to be a

benefit of the project. However, even if this

project could reduce energy prices, at what

cost. At the expense of our existing producers

in New Hampshire which sell to the same market

Northern Pass is aiming for? Additionally, will

Canadian hydropower imported from a foreign

country be required to meet the regulations of

New Hampshire's Public Utilities Commission or

will Hydro-Quebec set any price they want,

especially once our producers have been edged

out of the market. Our local wood chip plants

like Whitefield Power and Light and Pine Tree

Power already struggling as it is. These topics

need be addressed in DOE's study.

Lastly I'm asking the Department of Energy

pursue Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act

which requires that federal agencies take no



[email protected]

77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


action that would jeopardize any endangered or

threatened species or its habitat. United

States Code Title 16, chapter 31, 1531 requires

that the guidelines for the Endangered Species

Act be adhered to. The environmental effects of

this transmission line only be studied from

within the US boundaries but within Canada as

well. I respectfully request that you deny this

application because it is incomplete, it is not

in the interest of our national security, it

jeopardizes our political autonomy, it

undermines New Hampshire's already producing

power sources. It is detrimental to the area's

aesthetic values which may affect property

values and it may jeopardize endangered or

threatened species along the entire potential

project route, and I would like to submit this

written testimony for the official record.


Frank. To the audience, remember woo-hooing and

cat-calling is now out of bounds. Sorry.

Winifred Ward? Richard Mallion? Brian

Calloway. Michael Phillips. Michael Dionne.



[email protected]

78

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Mark McCullock. And Chelsea Petereit.

Hopefully, that's close. Ronnie Sandler. John

Jones. It's yours, Mark.

MARK MCCULLOCK: My name is Mark McCullock

from Stratford, New Hampshire. Last night in

Plymouth, Plymouth was the most intense scoping

hearing so far. The place was packed with folks

wearing orange and opposition speakers digging

deep into their souls trying to find a way to

make this DOE scoping process justifiably end.

Tom Wagner, the supervisor of White Mountain

National Forest, also had a personal friend

desperately come up to the mike and speak. He

stated that he stopped in to talk to Tom about

his concerns with the Northern Pass. He then

put his friend Tom on the spot as respectfully

as he knew how to in the public eye knowing that

his friend does have the authority to stop this

project from crossing White Mountain National

Forest. He was very troubled when Tom stated

something like this. I can't believe after all

these years trying to do the right thing for the

National Forest that I'm going to be judged by a



[email protected]

79

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


single decision for the rest of my life

concerning this project. His friend then knew

what Tom's decision already was and at that

point so did everyone else, still respectfully

listening to the remaining speakers at this

hearing. Tom's sincere friend knew he may have

put his friendship on the line for this DOE

scoping process. He then respectfully pointed

his finger at Tom and basically from my

perspective told him this. You know in your

heart what the right decision is. Make that

right decision. Tom, your friend is right. You

do know what the right decision is. I have been

watching you throughout these scoping hearings

and how intently you have been listening to the

people in opposition to this project.

Sometimes, Tom, please trust me on this, you

have to put your ass out there on the line and

do what you feel and know is the right thing to

do. Yes, there may be some political negative

consequences for this, but as far as being

judged for a single decision you make pertaining

to the stupid project, if you take your sincere



[email protected]

80

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


and desperate friend's advice, you'll be judged

for the rest of your life as a man who stood up

for what was right for White Mountain National

Forest and for the majority of New Hampshire's

citizens who also know what that right decision

is. Not just for the rest of your life, but

forever. Tom, my personal advice, this is my

personal advice, tell Northern Pass to kiss your

ass.


Mark. Again, I ask the audience, back to the

ground rules. I am not going to repeat them,

you guys know them. Let's try to respect the

speaker, let's try to respect the opinions and

thoughts and feelings of people in the room.

Chelsea.

CHELSEA PETEREIT: Hi, hard to follow the

husband. My name is Chelsea Petereit. I'm a

resident of North Stratford and a science

teacher in Lancaster and life is a balancing act

full of tough decisions and when students come

to me with their most pressing problem, should I

go to the dance on Friday night with so-and-so,



[email protected]

81

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


I tell them make a list of the positives and

negatives, and I did that for the Northern Pass.

And I'm not going to rehash all of that because

other more eloquent people have spoken about all

of those already tonight and in the past and

you'll hear more tomorrow night. Suffice to say

that my list of definite negatives vastly

outweighed the meager possible positives. But

think about this. There's a place that we all

want to go, and in this place there is all the

clean, safe affordable energy and enough to do

all we want and need to do. And to get to this

place, Northern Pass is taking us down this

path, and we're going down this path and like

whoa, there is a cliff. And they're like, go

for it, it's all good. And we're no, I'm not

going there. We won't all make it. Some of us

might make it. Some of us might benefit but we

all won't. Some people are going to get hurt.

And you look around and there are these other

paths, there's one and there's one and there's

one and guess what, they all go to that place.

Might take a little longer, but they all get



[email protected]

82

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


there. My personal favorite is that path where

you combine conservation with higher efficiency

and you add in a mix of some solar and some wind

and some small hydro that's produced where the

energy is needed and guess what? There's no

cliff, we can all get there. Northern Pass

doesn't listen. They won't listen. They keep

pushing us, edging us toward that precipice and

we keep fighting and struggling to keep from

going over the edge. Well, we've looked at

Northern Pass. We're not going to leap and

we're not going to stop fighting. Thank you.


Chelsea. Next speaker is Ronnie Sandler. I'd

also like to call up Charlie Duursema. Douglas

Eason, Allen Bouthillier, David Atkinson. The

floor is yours.

RONNIE SANDLER: My name is Ronnie Sandler.

I am a resident of Easton. I've lived in the

North Country for the past 46 years and I live

here because of the beauty of the landscape, the

rural beauty and the recreational opportunities

that are bound up here. I want to start by



[email protected]

83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


saying I've gone to the open houses, I've asked

questions, and my questions are not answered.

Last week I was told we'll get back to you on

that. I haven't heard anything yet. I'm not

expecting to. Number one, it's my understanding

that this is an incomplete application and I

thought there had to be an alternate route for

the application to go forward but I guess I'm

wrong on that. Everything Northern Pass has

been telling us doesn't pass the straight face

test. A hundred plus foot towers twice the

height of the trees through some of the most

scenic landscape in New England won't affect

tourism. Really? I don't know. It won't

affect the salability of property and the values

of the property. It's hard to believe that

property assessments won't go down. I have a

couple of friends that live in Sugar Hill.

They're in their late 70s, they own 400 acres

and a beautiful large house. They wanted about

two and a half years ago to start downsizing as

they get older, they wanted to sell a couple of

hundred acres on one side of the land with their



[email protected]

84

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


house and build a smaller house on that other

side. They went to three realtors. Every one

of them said don't even put your land on the

market until this Northern Pass thing is

finished because you will not sell it or if you

will, you will get 50 percent of the value.

The tax estimates given to towns and I want

to point out that Northern Pass is not willing

to guarantee those taxes. Now, this is from the

same companies that are suing the towns right

now to lower their tax assessments. It's no

wonder they don't want to guarantee them.

Employment estimates of 1200. I spoke to a

contractor at the open house who said to me I

don't know where they got that number. It would

be closer to 450 people. We'll bring half our

own employees, we'll hire loggers and earth

works locally and that's about it. And when I

walked in here today, I'm parked way down there,

there were three trucks from a Michigan firm

doing electrical work. I feel badly for the

brothers in the IBEW who probably won't be

getting the jobs they've been promised. Why not



[email protected]

85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


look at burying the lines. Let's get real

estimates of the cost and I encourage you to do

your own research and evaluations. We can't

believe everything or perhaps anything that

Northern Pass tells us. Thank you.


Ronnie. John Jones.

JOHN JONES: Thank you for being so

patient. You've been waiting to hear what I

have to say for two nights now. I'm from

Plymouth and stayed there. My name is John W.

Jones and I'm originally from Connecticut. I'm

a refuge from progress if you will. I've been

up here since 1959. Raised my family up here.

We live in the shadow of Mt. Kearsarge down near

New London in a little town called North Sutton

and I'm a rocket scientist, but the good news is

that is a no-brainer. I was thinking coming up

through the notch and holding back the tears and

the emotions and the love I have. These are our

White Mountains of home, sir, and for you to

allow them to put a string of these towers, ten,

15-story towers down through the White Mountains



[email protected]

86

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


here would be a desecration that would be

comparable to go to the Louvre in Paris and take

a Magic Marker and put warts all over the nose

of the Mona Lisa. It would be disgraceful, and

that's not an exaggeration. I'm a working man,

not a rocket scientist. And I am certainly

interested in employment for the North Country

and there's going to be an awful lot of digging

that's going to be have to be done if these

folks from across the border want to have their

way and send electricity to Connecticut through

our state. Thank you.


Charlie is pretty eager to get up here so --

CHARLIE DUURSEMA: Everything that's been

said is what I was going to say, but I'll just

read what I have. Charlie Duursema from

Lancaster. As an abutter to the existing

right-of-way crossing Route 2 in Lancaster I'm

very concerned about the Northern Pass

transmission line towers along with the

replacement towers for the existing lines.

These towers interfere with the beautiful scenic



[email protected]

87

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


view of the White Mountains Presidential Range

from a scenic area opposite Rogers Campground on

Route 2 and we will be stuck with these towers

forever. Much of New Hampshire's North Country

economy is based on and generated by

out-of-state vacationers who come to admire the

picturesque scenery and colorful autumn leaves

and whose visits may be impacted by unsightly

transmission towers interrupting their views and

quite possibly causing them to reconsider future

visits. This project jeopardizes our economy.

Because of the proposed height of the

towers my own calculations and observations

indicate they will be visible from my house.

This is through the woods, too, and are sure to

detract from my own property's appeal as well as

decrease its value and others along the

right-of-way. Do you think for a moment that

our local government will reduce our property

taxes because of this diminished value?

Absolutely not. We the people will lose on both

counts. If allowed to build the line, I am not

the only one who feels these transmission lines



[email protected]

88

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


should be buried along state-owned

rights-of-way, along highways or inactive

railroad beds. Northern Pass has spent too much

time trying to convince the public this is not

an option, but developers have been doing

exactly this for years. I say no to Northern

Pass.


Charles. Douglas Eason? Also like to call up

Chris Thayer, Robert Craven, Jan Edick.

DOUG EASON: Good evening. My name is Doug

Eason. I live down in Dover, New Hampshire.

That's where my primary residence is. My family

owns property in Stark and Groveton and I wish I

could wow you with some fancy charts or graphs.

I don't have a Ph.D. or psychiatry degree and I

certainly can't sing a lovely song like we heard

earlier, but I do have a passion for this topic,

and I can really think back to about 30 years

ago when I was just graduating from UNH and I

had a job and my parents were like whew, he's

out of the house, we finally got rid of him and

I just wasn't feeling it. I felt like I needed



[email protected]

89

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


to go out and see the world. I thought about

going to Europe. I quickly surmised I just

didn't have the money to do that, but I thought,

you know, the United States would be a great

place to see first. So much to my parents'

chagrin I quit my job, liquidated my bank

account, sold all my possessions that wouldn't

fit in the car, packed my camping gear up and I

hit the road and I spent over 6 months traveling

through the country. I lived in a tent. I saw

some of most beautiful natural scenery that this

country has to offer including Yellowstone,

Yosemite, but I felt lonely. I felt like I was

missing something and eventually I found my way

back to New Hampshire, and it quickly dawned on

me that New Hampshire has this small beautiful

environment that you feel comfortable in.

People come here because they can take the

breath of fresh air and feel like themselves.

And if this proposal should go through, that's

all going to go away. I compare these towers to

building a skyscraper and you might as well put

one up every 800 feet from Franklin to the



[email protected]

90

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Canadian border and I wouldn't put it past

Hydro-Quebec to spray pain them green and spend

a few million dollars more to convince us it was

a new species of tree and all will be well.

Well, it isn't going to well because it's going

to impact our tourism, our recreation, obviously

our property values, and it will destroy the

future for my children and your children and our

grandchildren. I'm asking the Department of

Energy to deny the Presidential Permit. The

Forest Service should deny the special permit,

and the site evaluation committee for New

Hampshire should be looking at underground

alternatives. There's all kinds of energy

options out there. All you have to do is search

it on Google and if the reps of Northern Pass

don't know how to use it, I'd be happy to show

them. Thank you very much.

MODERATOR: Thank you for your comments

Douglas. Allen? Like to call up Judy

Weisenberger.

ALLEN BOUTHILLIER: My name is Allen

Bouthillier. I'm from Lancaster, New Hampshire.



[email protected]

91

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


I was born and brought up in Coos County. Born

in West Stewartstown that's now a nursing home.

No longer a hospital. I'm in the logging

activation trucking business. I'm here to speak

on, I'm in favor of the Northern Pass idea. I

know I'm probably in the minority here, but I

want to say a few things. I've got two young

boys got out of college, they come to work for

me. I employ 25 people here. We need the work.

I've been in the logging business since 1983. I

logged on the White Mountain National Forest for

years. A few elitist groups that wanted to use

it for just their own use has basically shut

down the logging program on that so I've had to

diversify into other things which includes

excavation, site work and other things. I also

have a quarry. I've got 25 families that I

employ that rely on me keeping them employed.

The White Mountain National Forest was designed

and was developed and implemented to create jobs

and clean water and timber for the local

industries, the local people. And it's not,

it's a land the multiple use for many people. I



[email protected]

92

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


met Tom when he first came here and we've had

multiple talks about this. White Mountain

National Forest has a multiple use for

everybody. It should be used for everybody.

There is power lines on it as it exists. I hunt

on that land, don't log on it anymore. If you

leave here, you drive down as I have many a

times to go visit my kinds at UNH, you drive

down 93, you take Route 4 over there. You see

all this beauty that everybody talks about. But

you know what? Take a closer look. You're

looking through power lines everywhere you look.

Route 4, 93, Route 3, every single highway you

drive on you're seeing power lines. So, I mean,

it's not the end of the world. One thing is for

certain there's going to be change. Work with

these people, there could be some compromises.

Maybe there is some critical areas here where it

could be buried. I think you've got to work

with them. To say no, to stick your head in the

sand isn't the right way to go about this.

We've got to work with them. Thank you.

MODERATOR: David Atkinson.



[email protected]

93

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


DAVID ATKINSON: My name is David Atkinson

of Lancaster. I'm a former vice president of

operations of the Wausau paper mill that was

located in Groveton. I chose not to move out of

the area and stay in our beautiful North Country

and be around and hopefully to contribute to the

restoration of our fragile economy. I'm wearing

orange actually on purpose tonight. I have a

lot of respect for many of the folks that are

here in orange. So I think that we need to

compromise. Mark, Chelsea, Allen. I mean,

there's a lot of good friends I have here that

deserve to be heard. That being said, I want to

encourage the Department of Energy to support

the proposed route because I believe it is the

least environmentally impactful option

available. As a method of protecting the

environment, countless environmental laws,

regulations, require that new development take

place within the footprint of existing

development. This is an accepted approach to

minimizing environmental impacts that many

environmental groups have lobbied in favor of



[email protected]

94

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


over the years. For a great majority of the

proposed route, the Northern Pass follows this

same approach. It proposes putting new power

lines where power lines already exist. As many

hikers, hunters, recreational vehicle owners can

attest the land is already clear and maintained

for the purpose of hosting power lines and the

environmental disruption will be minimal

compared to clearing a new route or digging a

180-mile trench underground. Can there be more

underground? Possibly. I think as Allen just

said, that's worth some more exploration. It's

my understanding that less than one percent of

the electric transmission lines in our nation

are buried. Yes, cost is probably a driver in

this statistic, but I suspect that the negative

environmental impact of trenching is also a

significant contributor. Should be studied and

looked at. As a businessman, a long-term

resident, and a concerned citizen it is very

troubling to hear environmental special

interests and some elected officials question

the Northern Pass's use of the forest. I find



[email protected]

95

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


it very interesting that some of these special

interest groups actively opposing Northern Pass

were supportive of the wind towers that are

spread across our northern forest. These towers

are over four times the height of the proposed

towers in this project. The National Forest and

the Weeks Act were set up to allow for all uses.

These are not national parks. These are areas

that are meant not only to protect land and

provide recreational opportunity but also to

support the economic viability of the region.

In my experience a lot of the people

opposed to the Northern Pass are not directly

impacted by the project. Not everyone in this

room, but many simply want to stop any type of

economic activity in the region. I often refer

to these people as citizens against absolutely

everything. We need business investment in our

region. We need the jobs, even the short-term

ones. Our communities need the increased tax

base so that we can invest in our schools and in

our community infrastructure. I spent much of

last year as the building committee chairman for



[email protected]

96

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


the White Mountain Regional High School Career

and Tech Education project. This good project

was not supported in large part due to the

residential taxpayers having to carry too much

of a burden. Business investment like the

Northern Pass is important in our region to help

replace the large tax revenue vacuum created

when the mill closed their doors nearly a decade

ago. I received an unsolicited direct mailing

yesterday in my mail box that provided a very

simple comparison of 1200 megawatts of clean

hydropower to the construction of two nuclear

plants the size of Vermont Yankee, three

coal-fire plants, 300 wind turbines or over

24,000 acres of solar panels. My mind was made

up already but this unsolicited direct mail

piece was quite a powerful affirmation and

reinforcement of my position. Finally, I would

encourage the DOE to approve this project route

because it represents a good compromise. I hope

there's more compromise and in my assessment

it's a good project. Thank you.




[email protected]

97

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


David. Remind all speakers, again, it's

3-minute time. When Travis stands up, you're

encouraged to wrap up. Thank you. Chris

Thayer.

CHRIS THAYER: Good evening. Thank you for

this opportunity once again to provide public

comment on the Northern Pass transmission line

project. My name is Chris Thayer. My wife

Wendy and I along with our two young boys are

residents of Sugar Hill, New Hampshire. We

welcome tonight's hearing as a chance to take

part in the public process that ensures the

voices of New Hampshire citizens including those

in the North Country are directly heard and

considered in shaping the final Environmental

Impact Statement by federal agencies.

We stand in opposition to the Northern Pass

transmission line project as currently proposed

for the following reasons.

Despite efforts to suggest otherwise, the

expanse of metal towers and their addition to

existing transmission corridors will scar the

scenic landscape of our town and region



[email protected]

98

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


affecting quality of life, diminishing property

values and town tax bases and our reputation as

a scenic rural destination. In fact, I can

personally attest that the mere proposal for

such a project has already adversely affected

the purchase price of local real estate. Visual

studies of the proposed routes suggest an impact

on 95,000 acres throughout the state as a whole.

Public support for this project has been lacking

from the start with 30 of 31 communities, New

Hampshire communities, along the proposed route

formally in opposition to the project. I

respectfully request the Department of Energy to

evaluate all project alternatives including that

of no action or full burial along the entire

route that allows our northern region to retain

the natural assets that have been the life blood

of local citizens and the source of inspiration

and spiritual renewal for all over countless

generations.

The taller towers proposed for carrying the

high voltage direct current aerial transmission

lines will necessitate widening existing rights



[email protected]

99

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


of way and will allow for additional capacity in

the future. I respect actually request the

Department of Energy and related federal

agencies to perform due diligence in studying

the impacts to wildlife, wetland, forest

resources, communities and recreation areas

along the proposed routes including most

significantly the White Mountain National Forest

and the crossing of the Appalachian National

Scenic Trail. The recent celebration of the

centennial of the landmark conservation

legislation known as the Weeks Act created the

Eastern National Forest System and the White

Mountain National Forest. Any private

exemptions proposed or accepted for this project

are an insult to the legacy of the people's

forest and the generations who have entrusted it

to public protection and management. I have

other comments that I'll submit, but I notice

that Travis is holding up signs that everybody

knows well so I'm going to cut to the chase. On

behalf of my family along with others in our

community and surrounding North Country region,



[email protected]

100

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


we stand firmly against this project as

presented and ask that this public process

produce a result that serves the best interests

of the State of New Hampshire and those of us

who are lucky enough to call it home. Thank

you.


Chris. Robert Craven. I'm also like to call up

Andrew Smith, Carl Martland, Paul Haslanger,

Julie Seely.

ROBERT CRAVEN: My name is Robert Craven.

I'm a resident and former Selectman in the town

of Easton. In December of 2010 I and the Easton

Selectmen submitted a petition to intervene in

the NPT permitting process on behalf of the

people of Easton. The project if allowed to

proceed as proposed would have the devastating

impact on our town in terms of diminished

property values and quality of life as has been

amply discussed by past speakers. We should be

clear about the NPT project. This is simply a

private, for-profit merchant transaction.

Hydro-Quebec has excess power that it wants to



[email protected]

101

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


sell. NPT and PSNH would both profit handsomely

if this power were transmitted over the PSNH

right-of-way and it is estimated that PSNH would

realize a revenue of approximately $50 million

annually for leasing this right-of-way.

Therefore, it is clear that NPT has no interest

in seriously pursuing any alternative to their

proposed overhead power line which would deprive

them of this lucrative revenue stream. New

England power grid operator, ISO-New England,

has not declared need for any new power to the

grid in order to ensure its reliability. New

Hampshire is, in fact, a net power exporter and

this project would have no benefit to us. New

Hampshire is to be simply a conduit for a power

line that not only would not benefit New

Hampshire but would have a permanent devastating

effect on our quality of life. Not a very good

deal for New Hampshire.

There have been persistent and repeated

requests to NPT to consider underground rather

than overhead power transmission in public road

and rights-of-way. NPT has consistently and



[email protected]

102

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


repeatedly dismissed these alternatives as too

expensive, that would increase the project's,

considered as expensive and not practical. By

NPT's convoluted logic any alternative that

would increase the project's cost is considered

not practical and dismissed summarily. It's

true as NPT says that undergrounding power lines

is five to ten times as expensive as overheading

them. However, it's far less devastating to the

land, environment, property values and quality

of life. These issues must be factored into any

final project decisions as required by NEPA

regulations. If Hydro-Quebec wants to sell its

power in the US, they should bear the cost of

burying the transmission lines. By my rough

calculation the power transmitted over these

lines would generate gross revenue of around

$800 million annually. Surely this revenue

stream should be more than sufficient for

Hydro-Quebec to bear the cost of burying the

transmission lines.

In summary, we believe that NPT's current

permit applications fails to consider



[email protected]

103

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


undergrounding its proposed power transmission

lines within existing public transmission

corridors in a meaningful way and for that

reason should be rejected.


Robert. Jan Edick.

JAN EDICK: My name is actually Jan Edick.

It's Dutch. What can I do. I live in

Littleton. My home is just down the road from

the original alternative route of Northern Pass.

I have no confidence that like the phoenix it

won't rise again so it's here. I'm retired.

I'm primarily concerned with the negative impact

Northern Pass would have or will have on

property values in the North Country. When my

wife and I came to northern New Hampshire 20

years ago we looked at a beautiful ten-year-old

log house on a bluff with a glorious view north

up the Connecticut River. It had a large living

room with a view, the library, a large country

kitchen, three bedrooms, three baths, modern

oil, water heat, wood stoves to take the chill

off, a finished two-bay garage and walk-in



[email protected]

104

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


professional offices in the basement and sat on

three and a half choice acres. There was a

transmission line in the backyard. It was

nominally a 250 to $300,000 property at that

time. The house was then priced at 119,000

which is the only reason I was looking at it.

It sold a year or so later for 97,000. That's

substantial depreciation. It's a real house.

This is a real world experience. It isn't an

illusion. It's not a public relations

invention. It's fact, and it ain't deniable.

The true cost of Northern Pass cannot only

be measured in steel and wire and clearing and

paperwork. It is also to be found in the

catastrophically diminished value of all the

neighbors' properties along its route.

Anecdotally, Northern Pass has already caused a

profound slump in real estate north of Plymouth.

Unsalable is a word I have heard a number of

times. The environmental impact assessment of

Northern Pass has to include the comprehensive

study of the effect it has had and will have on

neighboring property values and the project must



[email protected]

105

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


have some mechanism to compensate damaged

property owners. In the absence of said

mechanism, it should be an automatic no-go. Of

course, it's possible that if PSNH and

Hydro-Quebec are forced to contemplate the real

costs of their joint venture they might decide

to do something different. The real cost of

overhead transmission lines might even make

burying their lines some in some more suitable

corridor economically attractive. Really cheap,

clean and renewable power from the sub-arctic of

Quebec, magically transported to southern New

England to run their air conditions and hair

dryers is a fairy tale. If the real cost was

calculated it always was. Quebec has chosen to

bury and eat the real social and environmental

cost of their hydro development. In New

Hampshire, that cost for this project as

presented would be borne by real people who have

invested and labored for what they have. They

don't deserve to have it taken away. That just

won't do.




[email protected]

106

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Jan. Judy Weisenberger.

JUDY WEISENBERGER: Hello. I had 8

questions. They've all been eloquently answered

so I'll skip to just the one that I hear about

the most. I'm yet another citizen of Sugar

Hill. One of the reasons I think there were so

many of us here from Sugar Hill is because we

represent many of the really tiny small towns in

New Hampshire that would be impacted by this

project. I ask you to please conduct an

independent study on the effects of this project

on the values and culture of the North Country,

not just the economics. Sugar Hill is a tiny

17-square-mile town. Retirees buy homes in our

town because of the landscape. Tourists come to

our towns because of the views. The landscape

is the tax basis of our town. Our citizens have

conserved a very large percentage of the town

for residents and visitors alike to use and

enjoy. We value the land and our scenic vistas

above all else. It is the reason we come and

the reason we stay on. I'm a flatlander from

Boston. It is the reason tourists have flocked



[email protected]

107

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


to our town for centuries. If you love northern

New Hampshire, it is because you get it. It is

about the land. You will never accept that

anyone has a right to destroy our constitutional

right to the happiness these beautiful vistas

give us when there are alternatives. People

talked about compromise. There's been no

compromise. People talk about facts. We can't

get the facts. We know they're there, but we

can't get them so how could there be a

compromise. To echo one of the speakers that

was in favor of Northern Pass I feel Northern

Pass is the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to

destroy the essence of northern New Hampshire.

And in our town, right away we're just

dismissed. We have no rights at all. Well, a

right-of-way is not the same as a right to

destroy. Finally, I would just like to say when

I began this project I began because I saw what

those towers were and I saw where they were

going to go. I did not know about any of the

alternatives. Lot of the things that people

said, Northern Pass said, sounded reasonable at



[email protected]

108

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


the time. I now know the difference. My main

concern for the epic time, money that I really

don't have that I put into this project is about

a concern I have with the kind of, after

watching this project what kind of democracy

we're passing onto our children is the reason

that motivates me now at this point. So,

please, do the right thing by you. At least

look at all the alternatives. There has to be a

better way. Thank you.


Judy. Andrew Smith.

ANDREW SMITH: Thank you and appreciate the

opportunity. My name is Andrew Smith. I live

in Franconia, New Hampshire. I'm a real estate

broker and have been for the last 25 years. I

have a company that has offices up and down 93

and basically up and down the Northern Pass

corridor. I think it was Mr. Jones who said

something like this should be a no-brainer. Is

real estate going to be impacted, is the value

of real estate going to be impacted. It should

be a no-brainer, but just in case there's any



[email protected]

109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


question at all, let me unequivocally tell you

that it is not only having a very negative

impact, it's having it right now every day,

every day in all of my offices. My agents are

dealing with this every day with clients that

either need to or have to or want to sell their

property and they just can't. They can't

because of the fear of the unknown or the fear

of the known that this is a no-brainer, that a

nice little 3-bedroom, two-bath ranch over here

with a view of the mountains or 3-bedroom,

two-bath ranch over here with 140 foot steel

tower in its backyard, this house is going to

sell. This one probably won't. If this one

will, it will sell at a discount, a big

discount. So Mr. Edick said yeah, these are

real life problems, real life people and they're

happening right now.

The unfortunate part is this hearing

probably shouldn't be happening because the

application is not complete, and these people

are being put in horrible positions and they

will be for years and years if this drags on



[email protected]

110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


until we just put it to bed. The people in this

room are not going to go away. This problem is

not going to go away. This is going to win and

these people are going to have spent three or

four or five years of diminished value.

I just want to share with you two very real

life situations. One is right down the road.

Jefferson Road in Whitefield. This is a house

that's currently on the market. Some folks came

up, looked at it twice with a broker from the

southern part of the state. The third time they

came up they just wanted to figure out where

their furniture was going to go, come back to

the office and make an offer. Instead we got

this email. This was about two weeks ago.

Hello. They're going to pass on this property.

They like the home and the land but further

investigation they saw that Northern Pass is

designed to come down Route 16 throughout

Whitefield. They were perplexed that this was

not discussed within the property documents.

Now, this is a property that's down the

road off 116. You can't see the current line



[email protected]

111

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


which you certainly, is right off Mountain View

Grand right now. You can't see anything. It's

not impacted by any power line now. But these

folks have just lost a very nice buyer for their

home because of just the concept that this power

line is going to come through Whitefield. I've

interviewed lots and lots of brokers. I talk to

them every day, and I think I can just summarize

it on what we're dealing with every day by a

quote by a broker it says, Andy, my own

experience has been the buyers would not even

look at the properties if they were near the

Northern Pass. I did have one sale fall through

on Tracker Road in Campton when it was

discovered that Northern Pass might impact the

property. Mostly buyers just stay away from any

properties that have any possibility of being

impacted. I respectfully ask that you do the

right thing and have Northern Pass stay away

also. Thank you.


Andrew. I was wondering if you wanted to leave

your papers.



[email protected]

112

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


ANDREW SMITH: I've already submitted.

Carl Martland. Also like to invite up Robert

Kruszyna, Jim Ramsdell, David Hill, Linda

Brownson.

CARL MARTLAND: Thank you. My name is Carl

Martland. I recently retired after 35 years in

the Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering at MIT. While there I developed and

taught a course on project evaluation. I wrote

a textbook. It's an expensive textbook, but you

can get it in Portuguese for half price. It

deals with the EPA process. We're all talking

about the scope of this statement. When the

statement is done, there's a draft and more

hearings and it will be reviewed by EPA. Yet

another organization, and I intend to save a lot

of my time and space for a long comment to have

100,000 words as I understand it at that time.

I would like to look at the options in the

impacts that must be included in this scoping of

this study in order to successfully go to EPA to

be accepted. First, does it include burial

along a route that is a reasonable efficient



[email protected]

113

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


route which may be railroads, rights-of-way,

highways. It's not necessarily I-93. Second,

does the analysis consider options for

transmission and generation. We received in the

mail yesterday something from the IBEW that said

if you don't have Northern Pass you'll need all

those power plants and millions of acres of

whatever. Transmission is not generating the

power. Wherever the power is coming from is

going through the lines and you're going to need

people to dig those ditches and put it in place

and move the cable there whether it's on towers

or whether it's in the ground. So the analysis

must be very careful not to make the mistakes

that IBEW did. For us and for the US in

general, the negatives relate to the towers. So

if you bury the pass, bury the lines, most of it

goes away. Timing is an issue. When is this

needed and when might it be done? I don't think

anybody has suggested. Maybe this is a project

for 2040 or 2060, and by that time there will be

more technological development and all such

projects will likely be underground. The no



[email protected]

114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


option will be considered because it's a law.

Impacts, we've talked about property values, the

property values include the future development

for second homes and tourists. It's not just

what's there today or what might happen over 20

years. Third, environmental justice. This is a

clear case where the people of northern New

Hampshire, economically challenged regions, are

being told give up your views, give up your

homes so that people down south can plug in

their long extension cord and run their air

conditioners. And I conclude, I don't really

want to make all these comments because if the

Draft EIS is deficient in these matters, it will

be rejected and will have more delay and we'll

come back for more of this in the future. Thank

you.


Carl. Paul Haslanger.

PAUL HASLANGER: I'm Paul Haslanger from

Lancaster. I'm going to start by telling

everybody in this room something that I don't

normally advertise, and that was that in my



[email protected]

115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


prior life I was an executive of a Fortune 500

company. So what I intend to do tonight is give

you the perspective of the people that you're

dealing with, what they're thinking and how they

work because I've been in the board room and

I've worked with people like that.

You've got to stop talking about PSNH.

PSNH is part of Northeast Utilities. It only

represents 25 percent of their business. They

have 2.1 million customers in their total

company. There are only 475,000 in New

Hampshire that belong to PSNH. The big dog is

in Hartford and it's Northeast Utilities. They

are making the decisions, they're right now

plotting the next 2 or 3 moves down the board.

They got the Wizard of Oz working there with

them, okay? Because they want this to go and

the reason is dollars and cents. This line will

produce ten billion kilowatt hours of

electricity down the pipeline. So let's say

they sell it for 20 cents, that's $2 billion

worth of cash. Northeast Utilities is an $8

billion company. They make $3 billion of gross



[email protected]

116

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


profit and a billion dollars of final profit

after the taxes are taken out and et cetera.

They are playing for real. They want the money.

Companies do not do things that are good. They

put a monetary value. They give to the United

Way, they figure out how they're going to get

their money back. They don't just wake in the

morning and say these are nice people. Let's do

something nice for them. Everything has a cost.

Everything has a value. The guy who had it

right earlier this evening had a sign that he

held up over there. Greed. This is what it's

all about. If we didn't learn anything in 2008,

2009, when the market crashed, you should have

learned it. I'm just telling you, they're not

nice people. They want the money. Thank you

for your time.


Paul. Julie Seely?

JULIE SEELY: My name is Julie Seely. I

live in Bethlehem, New Hampshire, and I'm an

elected member of the Profile School Board, and

I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the



[email protected]

117

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


entire Profile School Board of which I've been a

member of for what it's worth for four and a

half years. Profile School is a public regional

junior senior high school located in Bethlehem.

It serves four communities. The proposed route

of Northern Pass cuts directly through Profile

School property, very, very close to the school,

and our building and athletic fields would

literally be in the shadows of the towers if the

power line is approved as proposed. We're

blessed with a vibrant school community and a

very involved staff and student body. Between

classes, sports and other extracurricular

activities, it's not unusual for students and

staff to spend ten to twelve hours or more per

day at school. We are very concerned that the

environment remain safe.

The Profile School Board wrote a letter to

Mr. Mills at the Department of Energy back in

May of 2011 with several questions about the

project in an effort to learn more about this

and similar projects elsewhere. That was over

two years ago. We never received a reply and



[email protected]

118

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


our questions remain unanswered. The Profile

School Board has unanimously adopted the

following position regarding Northern Pass and

I'm quoting. Following the principle of prudent

avoidance with specific respect to the long-term

health effects of human proximity to high

voltage transmission lines, we, the Profile

School Board, take the position that if the

Northern Pass project is approved, the portion

of the transmission lines that is in close

proximity to the Profile School be buried to

eliminate the potential health risks to our

students and staff. Clearly, based on the route

that's being proposed in the far northern

reaches of the state, burial of the lines is

feasible and we thank you in advance for

requiring that the proposal if approved be

revised to include burial of the lines in the

vicinity of Profile School. Thank you.


Julie. Robert Kruszyna. Jim Ramsdell.

JIM RAMSDELL: Jim Ramsdell. My wife Judy

is here. My daughter Holly, we live in



[email protected]

119

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Whitefield. It's actually Dalton with just

across the town line. One mile out of

Whitefield on 142 and we live right next to the

existing right-of-way. We have a nice little

barrier of trees which shields us from that now.

It's never been an issue. And that right-of-way

is the preferred route for the Northern Pass to

go through and my wife was going to speak later

and she has something written out. I'll just go

through that and keep it focused.

In '08 we moved to North Carolina because

of economic reasons and employment and after we

were there for a year or two we thought we

probably want to settle in here and buy a home

and sell the house in New Hampshire. So in 2010

we listed the house with real estate. They came

and did their appraisal on the house and they

said that we would need to put a Disclosure

Statement in the listing saying that the

preferred route for Northern Pass may go next to

our house so we had to disclose that up front,

but they come up with a price to list it at and

we thought in light of the Northern Pass project



[email protected]

120

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


we will set the price 25,000 lower than what

they suggested to try to market it and get

attention. So we did that and the feedback that

we got from them was that we had done everything

to get the house ready. Everything looked nice.

We did carpets and wood floors and painted, made

everything look nice, new roof, and answered all

of the objections people might have. And they

said it was one of most turnkey-ready houses

that they had listed and they showed it they

said more than any others but every time there

was a potential buyer, anyone interested, the

Northern Pass always scared them off. We never

got an offer at all on the house.

In 2012 we decided we'd just need to come

back and live in the house because of the burden

of the expense that we had with it so ours is

not a hypothetical story. It's a real story,

we're a real family affected by the real estate

of this proposed project. And if Northern Pass

goes through, we'll be forced and you'll be

forced to contribute to a cause that devalues

our home and the beauty of the State of New



[email protected]

121

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Hampshire to a company which I don't support and

they will make a lot of money at my expense and

the expense of other property owners. I've

heard it said the costs are too high to bury the

lines. It would seem if the lines are buried

the Northern Pass development would bear the

cost and not the individual landowners who have

become investors in this project through no

choice of their own and great personal cost.

Northern Pass has a huge problem and they should

not be our problem. We ask you the DOE to

please deny Northern Pass to go through.


Jim. David Hill.

DAVID HILL: I'd like to thank you for your

endurance and for giving us all the opportunity

to speak and thanks to Mountain View for hosting

this meeting. My name is David Hill. I'm an

almost 30-year resident and businessman from

Lancaster. I'm also an instrument-rated private

pilot based at Mt. Washington Regional Airport

which is just down the hill here in Whitefield

although you can't tell that from the map in the



[email protected]

122

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


back because it's been kind of conveniently

obliterated by a label that says Whitefield

substation. That should give you all some idea

of how close the airport is to the existing

right-of-way and to the proposed higher towers.

I would like to formally request that part

of the EIS be a thorough and rigorous aviation

safety assessment along the entire route, and

more specifically, I would like part of the

assessment to study how the instrument

approaches into Whitefield and missed approach

procedures may be affected by the higher towers.

I know from personal experience that if you have

to fly the missed approach you're going to go

over those lines. And I know from being a past

chairman of the Mt. Washington Regional Airport

Commission that the FAA and the New Hampshire

Department of Transportation are very interested

in extending the runway. Ed Betz mentioned

this. He was like the second speaker. They're

very interested in extending the runway an

additional thousand feet to the east so I think

that those approach procedures also need to be



[email protected]

123

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


examined in the light of that possible runway

extension. And if anybody doesn't think that

that's a concern, we should go flying some time

in the clouds at night.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much for your

comments, David. Linda Brownson. Before Linda

starts, I'll give you some statistics. We had

11 elected officials speak. Linda is now our

42nd speaker, and I have a pile with 17

additional names.

So Linda, before you start, Sharon Currier,

Sherry Knierim, Barbara Enderson, Art Hammon,

Terry from 29 Colby Road.

LINDA BROWNSON: Good evening, gentlemen,

and greetings, everyone. I'm Linda Brownson,

Vice President of the New Hampshire Association

of Conservation Districts which is comprised of

our ten conservation Districts in the state, one

in each county, and since 1946 we have been

providing coordination, representation and

leadership for our individual Conservation

Districts to conserve, protect and promote the

responsible use of our natural resources. So



[email protected]

124

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


when this Northern Pass came up we definitely

studied it and after long deliberations we stand

united and opposed to the Northern Pass project

for several reasons. We have nine bullet points

that we're updating the new Governor on, but I

can only go through a few. Hundreds of farms in

our Conservation Districts across the state will

be adversely impacted, degraded and devalued. A

great number of these have been family farms for

generations and form part of the cultural

history of the state and the identity of its

people. The hydropower coming from Quebec

cannot be considered green by any interpretation

that we've ever used. As defined by our

Environmental Protection Agency, green power

represents, quoting them, those renewable

resources, solar wind, biogas, biomass, low

impact hydro that provides the highest

environmental benefit. We cannot ignore what

goes on at the source of this power even though

it's an international border because we are all

part of the northern forest region, and

ecological systems do not recognize political



[email protected]

125

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


boundaries. By signing on to this source of

power, we continue the deforestation of millions

of Canadian acres, the draining of rivers and

inundating thousands of miles of biologically

productive and diverse shoreline habitat

supporting a number of species such as the

woodland caribou, black bear, beaver, birds,

muskrat and moose. The impact of creating such

large areas of reservoirs on the water regime

and the land is tremendous as is the profound

impact on the nature communities. The

deforested areas will never again absorb carbon,

and decaying wood and debris will emit carbon

resulting in a net emission of global greenhouse

gases. Also, the Northern Pass project will

pass through thousands of acres of the highest

ranked wildlife habitat in New Hampshire as

identified by our New Hampshire Wildlife Action

Plan. These designated areas are critical

habitats for numerous threatened species of

wildlife as well as breeding grounds for the

highest concentration of neotropical birds in

the country and cannot sustain favorably such an



[email protected]

126

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


impact.

Any of these issues, I'm closing, any of

these issues alone should stand up to close

scrutiny by the Department of Energy but taken

all together as a group, and I only went through

a few, the conclusion we reach is that the

greater public benefit, health and welfare,

economy and environment for New Hampshire and

New England can be realized by not building the

Northern Pass.


Linda. Sharon Currier. Sherry Knierim.

SHERRY KNIERIM: Good evening. I'm an

award-winning watercolor artist and

photographer. I own ten plus acres which

includes wetland, vernal pools, two streams,

forest and glacial outcroppings. It borders

conservation land and abuts Route 93. I have

kept a wildlife diary for over a decade of all

the wildlife and vegetation I have seen. In

2010 the New Hampshire Department of

Transportation spent months cutting back trees

along Route 93 and repaving the highway. Before



[email protected]

127

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


this disruption, I had otters, moose, bear,

dear, snowshoe hare, hooded mergansers, wood

ducks, boreal chickadees, indigo buntings,

scarlet tanagers, owls and even timber

rattlesnakes. Since then, nothing. It has not

recovered. I do not even see common birds. I

have not even seen the New Hampshire state bird,

the purple finch. This is representative of

damage on a small scale. We cannot afford the

rape and devastation the Northern Pass will

cause to wildlife, vegetation, farms, tourism,

and the people of New Hampshire. This is my

impact study.


Sherry.

BARBARA ENDERSON: Hi. I want to thank

everybody that's spoken here and it seems like

the people who are in favor of Northern Pass,

their main reason is economically for the North

Country for the jobs. Won't they still have the

jobs if they find an alternative route or bury

it? And duh, listen to these people.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Barbara. Art



[email protected]

128

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Hammon.

ART HAMMON: Thank you. Art Hammon from

Whitefield. I'm a retired physics and chemistry

teacher. I taught at White Mountain Regional

High School. Whitefield Elementary School.

I've been an educator for NASA. I have a

doctorate in management, and so in that context

I want to look at the feasibility and the

physics of moving electrons through buried

lines. We're told that this is very expensive

and difficult and that it's not feasible, but

there's a proof of concept in our area. There

are three buried oil pipelines that pass through

northern New Hampshire. One of those was built

in the 1940s with a very different technology,

they didn't have as much earthmoving equipment

as we do today and so those pipelines were

buried and put in. Is there any reason why a

cable cannot be buried and put in? The

technology exists to bury the cable. It's

neither new nor impossible technology. In

addition, I spoke with one of the developer

representatives because I was concerned, can a



[email protected]

129

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


buried cable carry as much electricity as an

overhead line. I thought they might use that as

an argument, but the developer representatives

assured me that yes, the same quantity of

electricity can pass through a buried cable as

can pass across the tall towers. So if we can

bury oil lines, we can bury power lines. And I

think my recommendation would be to simply bury

along the entire route of this Northern Pass.

Thank you.


Art. Do we have Terry from 29 Colby Road?

TERRY LUFKIN: Terry Lufkin. I'm from

Whitefield. Local lands. Local does not always

pray. We tend to think the places that are

important, places to be protected, are the

places somewhere else. Places we have to go to.

Places out of town. Local suggests what is

ordinary and familiar. But what makes local

familiar may be what makes it matter. In each

of our communities there are places that have

special meaning for us. We are oddly agreed on

what they are. And in ways we may not speak of



[email protected]

130

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


we depend on them to tell us where we are and

who we are. We need places to breathe in,

places to pause for, to look at, to walk in,

places near where we live. Not places we have

to wait to go to or to vacation in. Places that

prompt us to say that's why I live here. These

are real places, places we feel part of, that

feel part of us. They may show the rubs and

marks that come from being lived in. They don't

have to be apart. They are places of essential

scenery that gives setting to our lives. There

is something in them we are aware of. Maybe we

can't name it or choose not to, but it would

feel its loss if it were not there. Mary Lyn

Ray, South Danbury.


Terry. I'd like to call Judy Ramsdell.

JIM RAMSDELL: She's not going to go. I

covered hers when I spoke.

MODERATOR: Thank you. Sean Sweeney. Doug

Evelyn. David Thurston.

DOUGLAS EVELYN: Douglas Evelyn. Sugar

Hill. And thank you for this opportunity and



[email protected]

131

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


thank you all for your patience. My wife and I,

my wife's roots go back to Bath Upper Village in

the 18th century. We're the third generation of

the family that has owned property in Sugar

Hill. We moved up here after retirement in the

mid-Atlantic 7 years ago. People asked why New

Hampshire. I said we love its beauty and its

elemental quality.

I didn't think that one of the elements we

would be dealing with would be Hydro-Quebec and

Northeast Utilities, but here we are, and we are

passionately opposed to this project for a

variety of reasons. I want to say something

about the beauty of this landscape. I think it

comes from the grandeur of the mountains and the

valleys and the hills, but it also comes from

the scale and the intimate qualities of our

built landscape and that is what makes it

particular. And I think that there are few

structures in that built landscape that rival

these towers. These towers exceed or certainly

challenge our church steeples, our town halls

and that will change. It will affect this whole



[email protected]

132

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


region. I find that we are the door mat to

Hydro-Quebec's markets to New England. The

Northern Pass pass-through will permanently

damage what I believe is an international

resource, these mountains. It's not just our

mountains. It's an international resource.

People come here from all over the world and two

weeks from now you're going to see the busloads

stopping with the photographers from Japan or

wherever photographing the trees.

This project will depress our tax base, our

tourist-based economy, incentives for regional

alternative investments. It will damage our

unique landscapes and our habitats. There's no

benefit to New Hampshire. We've talked about

the Weeks Act tonight, and what it did to

recover this landscape from the degradation of

corporate activity in the 19th century. We are

the stewards today for the next generation. I

ask that we get the national help that the Weeks

Act provided a century ago. We get it today to

stop this project at the border. It's a bad

project. Even if it's buried, it will come out



[email protected]

133

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


of the ground again. Given the disingenuousness

of the corporate proponents of this, I have no

doubt that in the future there will be some way

to bring those lines up out of the ground.

Thank you for listening.

MODERATOR: David Thurston. Howard Mitz.

I'll keep going, too. Margaret Seymour. Sandy

Bergquist. Hawk Metheny.

HOWARD MITZ: Howard Mitz. Sugar Hill, New

Hampshire. Gentlemen, thank you for your time.

You talk about human impact. Tonight there was

450 people, my count, that showed up. You guys

are used to thousands and thousands. This is a

low density population area. I've been here 17

years and I've not seen 450 people to anything.

Four-hundred-fifty people came here, and if you

look mostly everybody was in orange. That has

to tell you something. That the northern people

do not want this. You talk about impacts. This

will impact people, real people. We're people,

not props, so these people came here, spent

time, it's got to tell you something. There

will be an impact seen in property values, down.



[email protected]

134

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


Quality of life, down. There will be

degradation of the pristine ecology of the

Franconia Notch and points northward. This is

going to be, it's an obscenity, an obscenity to

the land to allow, even to think to allow this

to happen to our property. I don't know if

you've seen the area, but to put these towers

along this pristine property is just an

incredible insult to our land.

The energy doesn't appear to be green.

We've heard multiple people talk about that.

The energy is not green. People talk about all

uses, but it's not the expensive every other

use. Lastly, Northern Pass talks about jobs.

Really? If they really wanted to give maximum

jobs they would bury the whole line and that

would give maximum jobs because it would take

the maximum work but at the minimum impact

long-term and lastly, we are people, not props,

and I with the other 450 people or actually

three people out of the 74 that you talked about

have talked in favor. Everyone else here is

really against this. Most people have not



[email protected]

135

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


talked. And I thank you for your time and I

hope that you'll listen to the 447 people that

really do not want this. Thank you.


Howard. Margaret Seymour.

MARGARET SEYMOUR: It's a tough job

listening to all these comments and the

Moderator, I think, has done a great job. I'm

Margaret Seymour. Like a lot of people in the

North Country I wear a lot of hats and I look at

things from a lot of different perspectives. I

have a very sort of small and particular item

that I want to talk to Mr. Mills about, but

before I get there I just want to say that I'm a

Selectman in the town of Littleton. Littleton

has voted against the Northern Pass two

different years. The Board of Selectmen in

Littleton has voted to intervene when the time

comes to do so when if we haven't yet we will.

I also am a board member of the Ammonoosuc

Conservation Trust, and it's partly because of

that relationship, but also because I'm an

attorney, and I studied environmental law when I



[email protected]

136

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


was in law school and that brings me to my

particular concern.

The project as it has been presented to you

and apparently accepted by the DOE has sort of a

squishy area in the far north about exactly

where it's going to go, exactly how it's going

to get to its right-of-ways, and they're either

absurd or illegal. The notion that a

corporation can just decide any time it wants

anywhere it wants to just pass over a public

road is absurd. And the alternative which is to

breach the headwaters of the Connecticut River

by just disregarding a conservation easement is

particularly dangerous, and it's that that I

want you to think of in the environmental

assessment of this because it would not, if that

were ever to happen, it would not be just a

breach of that particular conservation easement,

it would be catastrophic for conservation

easements throughout the state and really

throughout the region and the country and that's

something that really has to be calculated when

looking at any sort of environmental impact from



[email protected]

137

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


some little move like that in the North Country.

So that's what I wanted to talk about. I agree

with a lot of other people who have orange on in

this room, and thank you all for coming out and

all of the time that you've put in fighting this

project.


Margaret. Sandy Bergquist. Is Hawk Metheny

still here? Excellent. Margaret Egan. Carol

and/or Joseph Coulombe. Paul Amey.

SANDY BERGQUIST: Good evening, and thank

you for listening. I know that what is

happening is protocol. I am not sure of how

effective we really are because the decisions

are ultimately made in boardrooms which we are

not invited to, but we all speak from the heart,

speak from our brain. A lot of highly educated

people have chosen to live here and we're

fortunate enough to have had their point of view

expressed to you. People who have come to these

meetings come not only because of their feelings

but because of their rational thinking, and we

expect that you respect that in your listening



[email protected]

138

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


now, but also when it comes time to make those

final decisions because there have been many

instances when requests are totally ignored and

then what recourse does the average citizen

have. We don't know where that request got

lost. So I ask that you please listen and that

you act on the request and that they not get

shuffled or set aside or ignored because that is

a disrespect, and that is a lack of formal

protocol. There have been a lot of issues that

border on illegality. We don't want to go down

that road, do we. There's a lot of orange out

in the audience, and I brought some myself. On

the way over here, I saw the beautiful leaves

that are just turning this particular shade. So

I think it's completely appropriate that we're

wearing orange. This signifies health, health

of our forest, health of our trees, health of

our people, health of our environment and a very

healthy economy because up here this is dollars.

We're also concerned not only about the health

but also the safety. As employees of our

government, ultimately of us, protecting the



[email protected]

139

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


safety of your citizenry is a very important

part of your job, and there's lots of studies

that say that these lines produce, can produce

leukemia in children. We have someone speaking

to that about the school. That should be a red

flag. A stop light, if nothing else. Nothing

is so important that you have to plant a power

line that's going to, that has a risk of giving

children leukemia. Now, how important are

dollars. That's just, that's nothing short of

criminal in my view. So I would just say that

you've had a handful of people, I don't even

think a handful because I've been here all

night, of people who have spoken in favor of

this project. I dare to say that they have a

little personal gain in it, and I will say no

further. I respect them and their opinions, but

the rest of us are here speaking from the law,

speaking from environmental concerns and also

speaking from the sentimental value that we have

about living in a place like this, and I urge

you not to ignore requests for studies, not to

ignore anything that would open up more



[email protected]

140

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


information because that is part of the

frustration with this. People are asking in a

very polite way and they're being ignored and

you'll see much more orange down the road

because this is not going away. People do not

want this and they do not trust what they're

being told. That's the truth.

MODERATOR: Thank you for your comments and

excellent use of props. Hawk Metheny.

HAWK METHENY: Good evening. My name is

Hawk Metheny, and I serve as the New England

Regional Director of the Appalachian Trial

Conservancy. We work in cooperation with

federal and state agencies and 31 trail clubs in

the maintenance, management and protection of

the Appalachian Trail. The Appalachian Trail,

also known the AT, runs 2189 miles from Georgia

to Maine and was designated a National Scenic

Trail by Congress in 1968 and is a unit of the

National park system.

ATC represents the interests of our 44,000

members, over 3000 here in New Hampshire, 6,000

trail maintaining volunteers and over two



[email protected]

141

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


million visitors who recreate on the AT

annually. Our New England office is responsible

for the section of trail from Connecticut to

Maine and here in New Hampshire the AT has a

southwest to northeast alignment and runs for

approximately 160 miles from Hanover to

Shelburne. Since the proposed Northern Pass DC

transmission line would run virtually north to

south through the state if built it would have

to cross the Appalachian Trial. The applicant's

proposed crossing of the AT is in the Kinsman

Range at a remote location near the Easton and

Lincoln town lines on an existing PSNH easement

and right-of-way. The section of the AT is

locally known as the Kinsman Ridge Trail and

several thousand visitors hike this section

annually. That's the background.

I have a specific request for something to

be analyzed in the environmental impact study.

The 2005 White Mountain National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan designated a specific

management area for Appalachian National Scenic

Trail, MA 8.3, which encompasses the lands half



[email protected]

142

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


mile either side of the Trail for a total of one

mile in width which extends beyond the current

PSNH 1948 easement. With that designation comes

a set of standards and guidelines. On pages

3-48 of the Forest Plan the language under Lands

and Special Uses for MA 8.3 list Standard 3

which states, new utility lines or rights-of-way

are prohibited unless they represent the only

feasible and prudent alternative to meet an

overriding public need.

Since ATC last provided public comment on

this project in 2011, we have learned the

Department of Energy has categorized this

proposal as a for-profit merchant project and

the developer has stated the project is not

necessary to meet current market demand or

system reliability.

While we recognize there may be some

societal and environmental benefits to

hydropower versus more carbon intensive methods

for producing electricity, we believe that the

Department of Energy, White Mountain National

Forest, SE Group and all others involved with



[email protected]

143

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


the EIS for this project, including ATC, should

very carefully analyze and interpret the

language of the Forest Plan, attempt to clarify

and if possible reconcile what appear to be

conflicting statements about what precisely is

an overriding public need.

The American people have investigated

through the authority of the National Park

Service and the U.S. Forest Service hundreds of

millions of dollars in securing a protected land

base for the 2100 mile Trail, and ATC is

concerned about the continued compromise of this

highly regarded public resource for what may not

necessarily be the only feasible and prudent

alternative to meet an overriding public need.

Thank you.


Hawk. Margaret Egan. Carol?

CAROL COULOMBE: Carol. Good evening. My

name is Carol Coulombe, and I live in

Clarksville, New Hampshire, and I'm here,

basically I am not much of a speaker so I'll

make this quick. I agree with everything that



[email protected]

144

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


everybody said against Northern Pass. Probably

values have depreciated. I just had mine

reappraised and it's half price now, and I'm

probably one of the few people who's going to

have a great view. It's going to go in front of

my house and up on the side because I live up in

a little corner up there where they have that

L-shaped so I'm right there. And if you don't

believe about the devastation that this project

can cause, take a ride, I invite you up to

Colebrook tomorrow night, the other scoping

meeting, come and see the devastation. We now

have less nice pretty leaves to look at because

Northeast Utilities has hired crews to clear the

lines this year to make way for Northern Pass

along the proposed route. They have taken a

bunch of beautiful old growth trees off the

river. Completely cut them right down, and you

know, I mean, I couldn't believe it even up

where I live on Wiswell Road they've taken up

big slashes of the trees and left devastations

like you wouldn't believe. I've never seen such

horrible logging. Id like to find out who the



[email protected]

145

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


operators are and put them out of business

because it's not even environmentally nice.

They left stumps that high all split and broken,

never, you know, they figure if the line's going

through so they'll just dig it all up anyway,

you know? It's the attitude of the Quebec

government towards the United States people, and

I say, I mean, there are some good Quebecois and

it's not all the French people that want this

because what they've done to the native people

in their own country is a filthy shame. When a

native from Canada cannot even go hunt without

getting permission to go through their

properties which have been gated by these dams,

it's incredible. I mean, I can't believe that

all these beautiful forests are under water so

that they can make more dams, and, of course,

the environmental devastation is unbelievable

because of the global warming, trees should

never be cut down. I mean, I'm against logging,

by the way, I'm not ashamed to say that. They

logged too many. Find another way to earn a

living. Become an environmentalist. Plant



[email protected]

146

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


trees. Stop cutting them. I mean, there's

plenty of work out there. The government has

allocated funding that's never been touched for

this whole area for environmental jobs and other

types of work that Northern Pass can't even

touch those grants. I mean, if people were

smart they'd look into it and they could see

that there is another way, and I'm not just

speaking for myself, I'm speaking for what I see

is already happening. Northern Pass, the

Canadian government, are so presumptuous to

think that they can just come across the border

and just take over and cut all the trees down

and the hell with the people. The hell with the

way the people of New Hampshire feel, but yet,

they send plenty of tourists down our way, too.

Why? Because there's nothing left for anybody

to see in Canada. They have to come to the

United States to do their hiking and their

camping. We've got more tourists from Canada.

If you lived up my way in Colebrook that's all

you see is cars from Quebec coming here so I

mean, why do they want to cut us down. Why do



[email protected]

147

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


they want to devastate our beautiful New

Hampshire. I'm ashamed of what's going on. I

mean, there's so many good people in Canada.

Why don't they stand up and speak up against

their government. I mean, it's not like they're

going to get shot for it. You know? I mean,

come on, Magog. Wake up and die right. That's

what they call themselves by the way.

Canadians. And they are definitely stepping on

our toes so I think it's time to tell them you

know, come on. Be reasonable. There is a

border.

MODERATOR: Are you wrapping up?

CAROL COULOMBE: Yup. I am. So I mean,

I'm not trying to start a war or anything. It's

obvious that they want one, but we're trying to

hold back. You know.

SPEAKER: How about spelling your last name

for us?

CAROL COULOMBE: C O U L O M B E. There

was once a realtor that was in the business of

selling properties which have now depreciated.

And another thing, too. I wish they'd stop



[email protected]

148

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


flying their helicopters over my property and

harassing me each day because it's a no-fly

zone. Okay. I have said my piece. Have a good

day.

MODERATOR: Do I have a Paul Amey? No.

Then it looks like Carol was our last speaker.

So consistent with what we've done every other

time, and noting that it is late, does anyone

want to give comments again? I'll take that as

a no. Does anybody want to sing again? No.

SPEAKER: I think we ought to thank our

stenographer.

COURT REPORTER: Well, thank you. That's

very nice.

MODERATOR: Is everybody in favor of

thanking the stenographer. (Applause)

Thank you all very much.

SPEAKER: What about questions?

MODERATOR: That request was for tomorrow.

SPEAKER: They're here now.

MODERATOR: I do believe they had to say,

Chris did say you could grab people afterwards

to talk.



[email protected]

149

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


HEARING ENDED AT 9:36 P.M.



[email protected]

150

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


C E R T I F I C A T E

I, Cynthia Foster, Registered Professional

Reporter and Licensed Court Reporter, duly authorized

to practice Shorthand Court Reporting in the State of

New Hampshire, hereby certify that I reported in

machine shorthand the above-entitled Public Scoping

Meeting held on September 25, 2013, for the Northern

Pass EIS and that the foregoing is a true, complete,

and accurate transcript of public comments as appears

from my stenographic notes so taken to the best of my

ability and transcribed by me.

I further certify that I am a disinterested

person in the event or outcome of this cause of

action.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I subscribe my hand and

affix my Certified Shorthand Reporter seal this 28th

day of September, 2013.

________________________________CYNTHIA FOSTER, LCR, RPR



[email protected]

151

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23


northern pass whitefield hearing

Documents