Posted on May 11th, 2015 by

route wrong

Incorrect map used in Fundraising letter: Chichester not on route

route correct

Actual map of proposed route: See full map on project website

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some New Hampshire residents recently received a letter from the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (the Forest Society) asking them to “give generously” to fight the current Northern Pass transmission line project. This campaign aims to raise $475,000 to fund further opposition to the project.

There is inaccurate information about the project that we felt an obligation to clarify so that residents can fully evaluate the facts associated with Northern Pass.

This recent fundraising letter misrepresents the actual Northern Pass route and leaves out important details about the project:

  • According to the Forest Society map included in the letter, the town of Chichester is on the proposed route. Chichester is not along the proposed route and hasn’t been since 2013.
  • The letter states that the project wants to “build more than 40 miles of new transmissionline in northern New Hampshire,” but fails to mention that 8 miles of this section will be constructed underground, under public roadways, and that the remaining miles are on land either owned by Northern Pass or leased from willing landowners.
  • The fundraising letter states that the project wants to “cross three conserved Forest Society Reservations,” but does not tell the reader that those are areas where an electric transmission or transportation corridor already exist today.
  • The letter states that the project poses a “threat to property rights,” but also explains (correctly) that Northern Pass “cannot use the state’s power of eminent domain to take land…,” a contradiction that the Forest Society has repeated on numerous occasions.
  • The letter states that the project as proposed would “build more than 1,500 towers as high as 145 feet…” yet fails to provide any context, leaving readers with a skewed vision of what the project may look like. Along the entire 187 miles of the proposed route, the project includes four (4) structures at 145 feet, and one (1) structure at 155 feet. The majority of the structures in the current proposal are between 85 and 95 feet. Missing, too, is a reminder that almost 80 percent of the proposed route is located along existing transmission corridors, where other power lines already exist.

While we are disappointed that the public is receiving inaccurate information about this important clean energy project, we appreciate the opportunity to correct these misrepresentations via our website, Facebook page, and the many face-to-face meetings we are having across New Hampshire. A comprehensive public permitting process is underway at the federal level, and a state process will soon begin here in New Hampshire. Both of these review processes will consider the facts associated with the proposed project, solicit public input, and determine whether the Northern Pass project satisfies the siting requirements outlined by the Department of Energy and the New Hampshire siting laws governing new energy projects.


Posted on May 11th, 2015 by

Posted In: Uncategorized

Tags: , , , , ,


Posted on April 22nd, 2011 by

Some of you may have noticed that we recently enabled comments on the Project Journal. Yesterday, we upgraded the commenting software to one that uses Disqus, a popular online commenting system.

As we move forward with the project, we’ll continue to use this Project Journal to provide news, opinion, FAQs, and other project updates. We look forward to your comments and questions about these posts. We cannot respond to each and every one of these comments, but encourage discussion among community members. We will review all comments before they are posted. While we’ll try to do this as quickly as possibly, it may take a day or two for your comment to appear on the page.

Please keep your comments on-topic and civil. Those that use profanity or abusive language, engage in personal attacks, or are otherwise off-topic aren’t likely to be approved. Disagreements are fine, but we expect everyone to treat each other with mutual respect.

Please do not include information that you would not want to be made public on the Internet. Those with questions and concerns that are specific to personal property or individual needs should call or email the project team directly.

We look forward to the ongoing discussion and hope you do too.


Posted on April 22nd, 2011 by

Posted In: Website

Tags: , , , ,


Posted on February 17th, 2011 by

A couple of notable updates to the website:

Maps

We’ve redesigned the website’s Maps page so that it is clearer which towns are on the Preferred or Alternative routes (or in some cases, both). The page now also explains what these terms mean. Lastly, Northwood (Alternative) was added to the list of towns. As always, clicking on a town’s name links to a PDF map.

Documents

We’ve also replaced the Filings page with a new Documents page, which will include filings, reports, and other major documents. This includes the recent addendum to the project’s DOE application, as discussed at Monday’s meetings in Pittsburg and Clarksville. There, you’ll also find the border crossing map that was included.


Posted on February 17th, 2011 by

Posted In: Website

Tags: , , , ,