Franklin Countys First News

Letter to the Editor: Bravo to Stop the Corridor

Bravo to the Stop the Corridor folks. Their success in getting enough signatures is a testament to the commitment of a concerned citizenry. It gives us an opportunity to put a stop to CMP’s effort to run through Maine a powerline extension cord from the “dirty” Hydro-Quebec mega-dam projects to Massachusetts. I have been involved in numerous referenda efforts. I must say I have never witnessed such passion as in this statewide grassroots effort to stop the CMP Corridor. The fact that they collected tens of thousands of signatures in the heart of a Maine winter is phenomenal. Standing outside of Reny’s in Farmington with a clipboard in Jan. is no small task!
Now that the signatures have been submitted, the Stop the Corridor Campaign will focus on getting it enacted into law. The legislature will have the first crack at passing it. While they have shown some spine in passing previous bills to stop the corridor, all their efforts have been vetoed by Janet Mills who seems to be disconnected from the pulse of the people on this issue. I can only speculate that the Democratic Party power brokers and money folks have got her ear.
It is most probable that the legislature will decide to put it out to referendum for a vote. The campaign developing around this eventuality is intriguing. The next stage of the campaign is going to be hard fought.

In recent years we have heard a lot about foreign interference in our elections. Avangrid, the Spanish Company that owns CMP, is funding a PAC "Clean Energy Matters" in opposition to the Stop the Corridor effort. Hydro-Quebec, the Canadian mega-dam company, has also registered a PAC. We are up against big money from foreign corporations.  One has to wonder why they have a right to spend millions – much of it paid by ratepayers – to determine the outcome. Is this not foreign interference?

We need to expose the disingenuous claim of these foreign corporations that this corridor is about clean energy and reducing greenhouse gases. Destroying tens of thousands of acres of carbon sequestering boreal forest, reversing the course of rivers, displacing native Canadians from traditional hunting and fishing grounds, disrupting Caribou migrations, increasing mercury contamination, and slicing through the boreal forest and Maine Woods with massive powerline corridors, in my book, doesn’t make for “clean” energy. I call Hydro-Quebec’s mega-dam projects – Canadian Tar Sands East. These dams are huge ecological disasters.

The energy is not clean and the huge reservoirs are producing massive amounts of greenhouse gases – mostly methane which is 30 times more impacting as a greenhouse gas.

A PAC has also been formed called, “Mainers For Local Power”. Paradoxically, it is funded by two Texas-based companies, Calpine and Vistra. Calpine owns a natural gas electricity generation plant in Westbrook, and Vistra owns one in Veazie. These out of state corporations are fighting the Corridor because they see it as a threat to their bottom line.

Politics certainly makes odd bedfellows. Fossil fuel energy generators are not “clean” either. Some studies have shown that “leakage” from the wellhead to the generators makes natural gas worst than coal as a greenhouse gas producer.

It is important for the Stop the Corridor grassroots effort to lead the way as the big out of state and foreign corporations duke it out. For those of us who understand that stopping the Corridor is not about earnings reports, but far more importantly about saving the planet from annihilation from climate change. Forests due to their huge carbon sequestration capacities are the key to mitigating the climate change extremes. They offer us a bit of hope for a future habitable planet. We need to start putting the planet in front of profit.

I have great confidence that Mainers will, in the final analysis, vote for hope by stopping this CMP Corridor. They will vote for the planet over profit.

Jonathan Carter, Dir. Forest Ecology Network
Former Green Candidate for Gov
Lexington TWP

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

32 Responses »

  1. Where to begin...

    To be fair, there is no such thing as "clean energy", wind mills require metals that are mined by huge house sized equipment that uses high sulfur content off road diesel, a single dump truck burns 100 gallons an hour, most homes use 300-400 gallons for heat all winter. Carbon fiber used in expensive wind turbines is a petroleum product, petroleum is a fossil fuel that is refined by burning fossil fuels.
    Solar panels are made with pretty much the same materials.

    Avangrid is not a Spanish company, it's an American company headquartered in CT and employs 7000 Americans.

    The claim "Well, the ratepayers will pay for it." doesn't hold water either because that is how business works, a company sells something, and people buy it, and the company turns a profit and keeps putting out the product so people can buy it, if people think something. costs too much, they have the freedom to not buy that product.

    And no, it isn't foreign interference, there are no laws as to who can or can't start or donate to a PAC that is not connected to a candidate's campaign, A referendum question is fair game.

    And a gubernatorial candidate who needed at least 2000 signatures to make the ballot in 2002 and then only got what, 1600 total votes if memory serves, doesn't really lend much credibility to the anti-corridor cause.

  2. OK, Avangrid is from Connecticut, but its parent company Iberdrola is from Spain. Are we really committed to increasing the profits of wealthy Spaniards? And really, why should Iberdrola or Hydro Quebec be permitted to attempt to influence voters in Maine? Asking for a friend...

  3. A few decades ago, I would oppose this project as it would certainly be a simple profit-making scheme.But, two decades ago, the electric industry went through drastic changes when utilities had to sell off all their generation resources and do business as a transmitter of electricity, only. The other huge change  was the formation of an agency to arrange how the generation assets, no longer in control of the utility, would operate to assure electric service was uninterruptible throughout all six New England States. A significant change from the days when local utilities with over site from the PUC served areas totally within state borders. 

    Electricity service is now a New England thing. Electricity service crosses state borders even outside of New England with connections to New York and crosses international borders as power flows to and from Canada with lines into Maine, Vermont and through New Hampshire to Massachusetts ( this line is properly defined as an extension cord because it starts at point "A' in Canada and terminates at point "B" in Massachusetts.

        Another massive change taking place within the operations of the grid concerns the type of generation being pushed by all states in New England. Wind power and solar power are being subsidized by state policies. They are so well paid by ratepayer money, they now displace the forms of generation that two decades ago electrified Maine ( oil and hydro) and as more and more renewable generation is added to the grid, a corresponding amount of natural gas-fired generation is displaced. As a matter of fact, wind and solar accounts for 83% of proposed new generation for New England, storage accounts for 11% and natural gas, only 5%.

         Three major changes: 1. the shedding of utility ownership of generation, 2. the creation of an agency to oversee the process of utilizing generation and 3. the changing types of generation used to provide power.

           So, what makes this hydro power from Canada so purposeful for Maine ? 1. It will displace more expensive generation. It, like wind and solar, is state sponsored and subsidized, but, unlike Maine state sponsored generation which incurs extra direct costs to Maine ratepayers, this Canadian hydro is sponsored and subsidized by Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island utilities. The generation component of the NECEC in Maine will be competitively priced within the market operated by the agency overseeing the utilization of generation. It will lower costs for everyone in New England, but for the ratepayers of the sponsoring utilities in Mass., Conn., and R.I. They will pay a contracted price.

        What else makes good purpose for this Canadian hydro power ? It will enter the grid at 1040 megawatts 24/7/364. Consistency matters with electricity. Ever had your electric service interrupted ?  With 95% of new, proposed generation of the inconsistent type,( the wind blows radically and the sunshine conversion to power is at the mercy of cloud and snow cover and batteries do discharge to zero), the requirement for consistent power is critically important. The grid operator explains that wind, solar and natural gas are " just-in-time" energy sources. The grid requires resources that can be stored for use when a lot of electricity is needed.quickly. Canadian hydro, with it's immense capacity, is such an energy source.

        Why can't Canadian power go through Vermont ? It could and, in time, it probably will, in addition to NECEC. Vermont actually has a line from Canada, already. But, to explain why NECEC is meaningful beyond it's ratepayer and consumer benefits, let's go back to the major change that brought about a New England grid replacing local, in-state grids. We share all our instate generation with all of New England and, at times, with New York and Canada. This is conducive to assuring there will always be plenty of power for everyone. If one, two or more generation plants go down, there is always many other plants to compensate for the loss. All states  share their generation and transmission assets and have pledged to work together to keep the electricity flowing, while advancing renewable, fossil-free resources. Would we sacrifice this compact and be willing to have the other states refuse to share their local generation and transmission assets with us ? Contrary to public opinion, Maine is a net importer and any given time during the day electricity flows both ways across our borders, but at an annual consumption, we are delivered more electricity than in-state generation delivers to outside the state.

        Our electric market is not as simple as it was when a locally owned company (actually investor owned ), both supplied and delivered our electricity. But, remember, Maine once had a nuclear power plant that brought about  two referendum votes to decide it's fate, Mainers elected to keep the power from the Maine Yankee flowing as a result of both votes.
        Keep Maine Powered with reliable, consistent, clean hydro. What Maine doesn't use of this power entering in Lewiston, Maine will share with other states and Canada, when they need it. It all about cooperation.

  4. Mr. Carter brings at least as much credibility to the Anti corridor side as Hrtlss lends to the Pro corridor folks..probably a bit more if I am being honest.

    Just for example, conflating foreign interference with the laws surrounding the formation of a PAC. Just because there is no law against it, does not mean that it is not foreign interference. The two are not mutually exclusive, No matter how much you may want it to fit into your narrative. At least Hrtlss's prolific comments are good for a chuckle as one reads between the lines.

  5. Perhaps, someone can explain more carefully the ownership of the grid as the energy system is financed not by CMP, or its parent company? But is purportedly financed by a group, or consortium of Boston based, New England investors? Isn't that something of a unique arrangement for CMP to allow the build out of the energy grid; when only to further allow a competitive bidding process to build the system? (Cianbro, IBEW) As essentially the owner is the group of financier's? Further, why no word on the litigation involving Nextera, FPL and CMP? Apparently, FPL as owners of the Wyman dam hydro-station along with Nextera, are petitioning for equal access to the corridor in which they have established transmission rights. Only hampered and subject to ISO_NE penalty rules for under-performance issues for which CMP as does the PUC agree?

    The term corridor is a simple one. Much like extension cord. Or spiking trees with metal stakes so as to harm machinery that harvest timber.(the green party) Sure, emotion and our wondrous cause for nature is fulfilling. Much like Noah's arc. Until one questions but where are the fish? Why aren't they on board?

    Quebec, has 550,000 lakes, and 4500 rivers. Excluding: the Hudson Bay, the Great Lakes, and Saint Lawrence Seaway. The permafrost in Siberia is melting and the level of methane is so far much greater than anything mankind produces it isn't worth the comparison. There, the ground bubbles.

    In nearly a years time (as of springtime 2019) 4 next generation earth monitoring satellites have been deployed. Some are replacements, like that of the system mounted to ISS. The replacement set of, two units that fly in parallel detecting surface anomalies. A stand alone which measures sea temperature, waves and current at any depth. A Google owned, (think, google earth) satellite system that monitors pollution from every power station around the world. Again, (U.S.) based systems used to measure climate change. Factor, land, sea, and aircraft terrestrial instrumentation systems working in concert with newly dedicated computer systems, and a field of science emerges that does not rely on emotion, or second guessing the intent of governments, corporations, nor your own political party's. Yet, derives scientific measurement forming calculation to determine the precise cause an effect to the environment, our ecology, and if only to interject. A best practice to approach the needs of the future. A look at our past. The second largest producer of hydro-electricity on earth is our backyard. The call is for one of calculation, understanding, and to form knowledge as is always the responsibility it shares.

    MIT study: Quebec hydro reservoirs provide valuable energy storage for U.S. northeast

    The Quest for Self-Determination (Study in Political Science)

  6. Wow, a lot of sour grapes out there. It happened, we got the signatures and they were verified. Be happy for us and for following the correct procedure. The people have spoken. Jeez, go cry in your beer if you can't 'man it up'. Have a nice weekend.

  7. It amuses me that some of you actually write insulting things about Jonathan Carter. At least he TRIED to do something other than sit at home and write negative comments on the Daily Bulldog. I don't know whether to simply laugh or become angry with the people who do nothing gut criticize or complain. Nice life - I choose to just to laugh and shake my head. No wonder this place is swirling down the drain.

  8. Geeze, i thought hydro power was clean?and runs until you have to maintain it. In the old days a lot of small town had a hydro powered dam, it gave local people a job, dam builders, carpenters, engineers, linemen, and more, then the dirty nrc comes to town, no more dams. I liked the old small local dams, there are thousands of places for a small dam, hold back water, deeper water, bigger fish, fish ladders, i wish we would bring them back, but big business says no way. It’s not right for big business to have all the power (pun intended) to force small folks out like they did. New generating devices have come a long ways since the last dams were here, let our children have a good place to work, that brings local power to local folks, ran by locals. The river is still running that my grandpa used to work on, now thats a lot of power! Then we wouldn’t be running a 5-600 mile extension cord. It could be a network system if the neighboring towns need power, we could send it. BRING BACK THE DAMS!

  9. Ozerki, while many of us were logging so we all could wipe our butts and have a home to do it in this idiot and his cronies were chaining themselves to skidders and hugging trees. These people procreated thus causing the swirl down the drain today you speak of.

  10. I've seen experts fooled before. In the early 90's I watched politics begin to interfere with work done by the national security experts tasked with carrying out the first Bush administration's containment strategy for Iraq. As their work evolved politicians seeking advantage in elections began to apply political labels to the opinions of those experts. As time wore on many of those experts were convinced to make statements that provided credibility to opinions held by political leaders. I think the most memorable example was the testimony Colin Powell gave before the United Nations in support of Iraq invasion, a decision he has voiced regret over since.

    I see experts in the argument over NECEC being similarly manipulated. That isn't hard to do with experts because their knowledge is focused. Ask them to delve into their area of expertise for answers and they will deliver a response that focuses on their area of expertise. You'll find experts on both sides of any complex problem because of this. Those experts provide input, all of which must be carefully considered to get at the truth.

    Truth can be elusive. If you think it can be identified in confident statements made you leave yourself vulnerable to good actors. I know I've encountered enough of them to know I can't rely on instinct. The only way to really know is to study all sides of the debate yourself.

    My own research, which is informed by an understanding of the factors affecting climate change gained while working on a Master's Degree at Brown University alongside experts in the field, leads me to believe that NECEC will prove beneficial to the cause. While research suggests that forestland flooded by hydroelectric projects initially results in an increased release of greenhouse gases, it appears that those emissions fall to levels far lower than those produced by fossil fuels acquisition and combustion as the decay of flooded vegetation subsides. In that case we stand to see a greater release of greenhouse gases from the continued use of fossil fuels driven power generation. The same appears to be true for other pollutants because the effort required to maintain hydroelectric facilities is less substantial than the effort to acquire, transport, and combust fossil fuels for energy production is.

  11. Since Carter appears to blame the decline of Caribou herds throughout Quebec on habitat lost to Hydro-Quebec facilities I thought it was a good idea to dig a little deeper. As it turns out the decline of caribou, that will travel as much as 1,000 kilometers a year in search of the lichen it depends on for survival, is not the result of any specific development project in Canada, but is instead caused by widespread habit loss due to global warming. His attempt to convince Mainers that Quebec's caribou would not be in decline if not for Hydro-Quebec development is extremely dishonest. He likely introduced the issue in an attempt to spark an emotional response in those who would not delve further into the topic.

    I'll leave you with this:

    "More often than not, the grim reaper for Canada’s caribou is the loss of habitat from industrial development such as forestry, mining and oil and gas extraction."

    https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-reindeer-at-risk-of-extinction/

  12. Since Carter appears to blame the decline of Caribou herds throughout Quebec on habitat lost to Hydro-Quebec facilities I thought it was a good idea to dig a little deeper. As it turns out the decline of caribou, that will travel as much as 1,000 kilometers a year in search of the lichen it depends on for survival, is not the result of any specific development project, but is instead the result of widespread habit loss due to global warming and industrial development attributed to forestry, mining, and oil and gas extraction. In point of fact caribou herds throughout Canada are in decline for the same reason.

    Carter's attempt to convince Mainers that Quebec's caribou would not be in decline if not for Hydro-Quebec development is extremely dishonest. He likely introduced the issue in an attempt to spark an emotional response in those who would not delve further into the topic.

    I'll leave you with two sources on the topic and these excerpts:

    "Climate change is posing a significant threat to the woodland caribou’s persistence. The expansion of the white-tailed deer population northward is seeing it expand into boreal caribou ranges, increasing predator populations and predation of boreal caribou, and facilitating the spread of pathogens and disease."

    http://www.cariboufacts.ca/climate-change

    "More often than not, the grim reaper for Canada’s caribou is the loss of habitat from industrial development such as forestry, mining and oil and gas extraction."

    https://thenarwhal.ca/canadas-reindeer-at-risk-of-extinction/

  13. Laughable, There are plenty of things that are legal simply because there is no law that says there can't be that thing. For example there are no laws legalizing abortion, there is just laws removing all penalties for doing them and limiting the term of gestation that they can be performed. but no laws at the federal or state level that actually says they are legal, so by your rationale, they should be illegal(I can support that) And PAC laws say that anybody can start one or fund one as long as it isn't tied to a candidate, that's the law, if that hurts your feelings, take it up with your congressman.

    Ozerki, Please don't tell people not to complain or criticize people, while you are complaining or criticizing people, it is unbecoming.

  14. Hrtlss,

    I was just pointing out how lacking in substance your copious comments are. For example, your reply to me was a lot to type out to avoid admitting that your original comment was just more of the same condescending/biased/hot air that you display on a regular basis. Feel free to continue along with it by all means, simply be aware that what may appear sharp and witty on your screen, falls pretty flat on many others.

    Sorry if that hurt your feelings.

  15. While all of New England shares the electric grid, and we all share power across the grid, this proposed corridor will NOT benefit or serve ratepayers in Maine. This corridor will bring power into Massachusetts so that they can meet a legislative mandated percentage of power from renewable sources. Their plan is to shut down existing power plants using fossil fuels once this power line is sending electricity to their state. Maine is unlikely to receive any of the power sent to the grid from this corridor because they will be producing less electricity.

    Several times I have posted suggestion for alternatives to this route. I’m not going to repost this here, but I think that careful consideration should be given to which route will have the least impacts, especially to the states that are not benefiting from this project.

  16. Laughable, I simply stated facts, if you have a problem with that, then I don't know what to tell you. Nothing hurts my feelings more than people who make false statements and then wallow in their own ignorance. And pointing out the obvious "flaws" in a person's puff piece or outright disagreeing with them is hardly condescending, and posting a little bit about how I arrived at my conclusions, just makes more sense to me than simply saying, "I disagree" with no explanation given, why, because information matters.

  17. I know it is a hard concept to understand the physical, dynamic nature of electricity within a grid ( a system of wires, poles and substations ) So think of it this way. Say there exists an agency in charge of electricity from Maine to Rhode Island, including every state in between. Suppose there was just one generation source. One generation source is hardly enough to power all of New England, but it would create a flicker of power shared among all customers in New England at the same meager, useless amount. Many generation resources are needed to power New England in order to maintain the correct amount of "oomph" to run the many electrical devices at once.  

       When a generation source is added to the grid, it's success depends on it's ability to supply power at a price lower than the other generators.With the huge upfront money required to add generation and transmission, the project developer has to feel certain the project will come to market. This lower priced power will displace other generation output and if it provides consistent electricity, it will supply when wind and solar isn't. This is so critically important because the states are calling for more fossil free generation of electricity to displace natural gas-fired generation, which presently supplies 50% of New England electricity.      So, when electricity enters the grid anywhere in New England, it is merged into all other generation to provide the exact strength of force to match consumption demand. 

         Does New England need consistent capable generation and soon ? YES. Before the end of the decade, the states of New England have set goals to close a considerable number of natural gas-fired plants and add a considerable amount of inconsistent solar, wind and battery storage to the generation fleet. 

        Can the NECEC project re-route ?  As a matter of economics, NO. The costs to do so would preclude the ability to compete in the market financially. 

     Is Massachusetts screwing Maine with this project ? NO, Maine lawmakers are screwing Maine.Their zest to sponsor inconsistent renewables is making it imperative to add, yes ADD some type of consistent power to match, YES MATCH, the inconsistent output of wind and solar and batteries.

        Maine is going to lose much of it's gas-fired plant generation, leaving only solar, wind, instate hydro and biomass to try and keep up. If the people of Maine are unwilling to provide a relatively small pathway for consistent electricity that all of New England will need within a short amount of time, then Maine may find itself at the mercy of the weather, while other New England states become uncooperative to Maine's needs as retribution to our contempt. 

         Now, wouldn't it be wonderful to have a reliable, consistent electricity source entering the Maine grid in the event Maine is still considered a grid partner and especially, in the event, Maine is not considered a grid partner ?

  18. Hrtlss,

    Condescending: Having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority. Overwhelmingly evident in every comment you post.

    Criticism can be hard to handle, but no one grows with out it.

  19. Clayton the biomass plants will be forced out if the corridor goes through. They are already being forced to run less than capacity because of the windmills and solar. Verso is constantly being told they can’t feed the grid because it’s the governments turn to pay for subsidized power.
    Maine produces enough power so why not get in touch with our state leaders and demand we withdraw from the power grid and we can be self sufficient without the other states using our beautiful state to make up for their greediness? Let the other states learn how to use less energy for when they shut down their efficient power supplies. These clowns with their green energy are going to ruin our economy and our environment by flattening our mountains for wind why don’t they put this crap in their own states ?

  20. Laughable, I am not going to agree with wrong information just because somebody thinks it's condescending not to agree with wrong information. And posting opposing views is how dialogs and debates happen. Carter wrote his views, I posted a rebuttal, it is nothing more complicated than that.

    Every time Trump says some non fact based foolishness, somebody is always quick to point out the folly of his words, is that person being condescending because they don't take the President's words at face value?

  21. Hrtlss,

    I never said that you shouldn't post your thoughts or disagree with another point of view. I was trying to make you aware that your manner of delivery severely detracts from any point you may be trying to make. If you prefer to comes across like a condescending blow hard, that's your choice. However, It is quite possible to disagree and present a opposing view with out being perceived in that manner.

  22. To Awwww
    I blame HB as the reason Mass isn't willing to put windmills and transmission lines thru their beautiful Berkshires.

    If they have people in a Maine willing to ruin Maines Land for Massachusetts benefit,,, why not ruin Maine!!!

    Well, , HB is on a different page about what's most important in life than I am.
    And that's ok.

    Let's see what there vote says.
    If we end up getting the vote that is
    (I see CMP is up to more shady tricks ,,, "Surprise"!!!(.

    No to CMP CORRIDOR.
    NO TO the YIMBY crowd.

  23. Clayton - Good argument until it went off the rails. You are correct, investors are reluctant to add power plants to the existing grid unless they can demonstrate that they will be profitable. Investors in the NECEC have dealt with that problem by transmitting energy from an existing hydroelectric facility because it is far less expensive than building a new one.

    They are also working to ensure that New England does not emit 3 times their average level of greenhouse gases as they are currently forced to do when demand is high forcing them to fire up dirty fuel oil driven facilities. Hydro-Quebec's facilities are in place and will emit what greenhouse gases they do whether additional transmission capacity is added to get it to New England or not. Might as well use the energy produced in that case, particularly since hydroelectric facilities are most efficient when run at capacity.

    The only scenario in which cheaper energy from hydroelectric facilities drives fossil fuels plants out is if they can meet market demands. At present the capacity is not there, requiring fossil fuels driven plants to remain online. They aren't entirely reliable, breaking down or requiring maintenance on occasion as they have more moving parts than hydro, solar, or wind driven facilities do, but what are gonna do? Ensure the capacity exists to deal with periodic shutdown.

  24. Maine taxpayers are not being screwed by a proposal that promises to add revenue in exchange for a transmission line that allows power to be transmitted from Hydro-Quebec to an electric grid that serves most of New England. Maine is not going to shut down natural gas driven facilities that provide power needed in the state unless that demand can be met with another reliable source. If those facilities are in Maine, polluting our air just to add power for export to another state they may well be shut down to reduce unnecessary environmental damage. I would expect that to happen given that most involved in this debate have expressed interest in reducing environmental impact.

  25. Why would those concerned with the environment want to shut down natural gas fired electric facilities in addition to other fossil fuels driven power plants? Because observation reveals that greenhouse gas emissions from the acquisition and combustion of natural gas are more damaging than those produced by the acquisition and combustion of coal. The problem is methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide which escapes from the well head as natural gas is extracted from the earth.

  26. RealityBites - I'd put money on your receiving $$ from CMP (or making something from the Corridor). Very similar arguments as put by CMP and Avangreed. And by posting 6 times! Who wants to take the time to refute so much that we've heard before. Reminds me of the old saying: If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS. Keep it simple. We don't need this power, it's intended for MASS. This is a commercial - for profit line and NOT an essential service to Maine. We would needlessly pay a significant environmental cost to forests, landscapes, trout streams, animal habitat, viewsheds and be complicit in Quebec's destruction of their lands and native populations. This is NOT a good deal for Maine or Mainers.

  27. Could we please build four massive megadams on the Kennebec River and remove the four that HQ is building on the Romaine River on the north shore of the Saint Lawrence River over the opposition of the Innu community?

    Do a little research on that then explain how "renewable" the Romaine River is and try to promote those dams in Maine.

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/02/05/canada-green-energy-hydropower-first-nations-environmental/?fbclid=IwAR3CCv3T3pAAlKpbIAzv8HVg4zgKiQzO81XhkxcpwyhXJPF46efg2UwAMQw

  28. I recently read that New York City officials determined that HQ did not have the hydro capacity to meet a proposed contract between NYC and HQ. Mass Atty. General Maura Healy's office came to the same conclusion regarding the power they would have (yes past tense) received over NECEC. But yet NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and Mass Governor Charlie Baker still would like to move ahead. Our Governor Mills also. The Montreal Gazette published in article January 2019 outlining HQ's request that consumers reduce usage during a cold snap. HQ also published a short video on the same consumer reduction request a month or so ago.

    For me there is enough question on current contracts, future contracts, current HQ capacity, and future HQ capacity that I am not convinced HQ is spilling as Eric Martel claims.

    Let Mass burn fossil fuels in MA as opposed to HQ burning fossil fuels in Quebec and sending to Southern New England through Maine.

    And for those that continue to say Maine will get the power since it being dropped in Lewiston, That is not how it works. Metered when injected and metered when withdrawn.

    Will it suppress prices? It looks like the opposite would occur with NECEC. The folks in Mass using the free market are paying a higher cost for the "clean" natural gas that would be burned in Quebec and sent south to them.

    And I do not trust a word CMP, Avangrid, Iberdrola, or HQ say. Or any of their PACS and PUC interveners.

    Just my opinions based on what I see. See you at the polls. Vote early and often.

  29. At this point the ecological damage done by the construction of hydroelectric facilities and transmission lines is preferable to the continued use of fossil fuels. Where climate change and the global warming responsible for it are concerned, the need to curb greenhouse gas emissions is paramount. Though natural gas was once considered a low greenhouse gas emitter that would provide a bridge to a fossil fuel free future, research now shows that so much methane is released in acquisition and storage it is now considered at least as damaging as coal.

    The government currently uses a 100 year equivalency to compare the warming potential of methane with carbon dioxide. Those with expertise in climate science suggest this underrepresents the impact that natural gas has on the environment. They believe a 20 year equivalency makes more sense because we are concerned with what rising levels of methane emissions from the acquisition and use of natural gas will do over the coming decades, not centuries. The difference is substantial with the 100 year equivalency showing methane about 30-times more potent than carbon dioxide and the 20 year equivalency showing it to be about 80-times more potent. Even using the 100 year equivalency some researchers have concluded that natural gas projects currently permitted for development could contribute a level of emissions equivalent to that of 50 coal plants.

    Parties interested in seeing their investments pay off are willing to do what damage they must while asking others to make the sacrifice. The argument on the proposed transmission line has been heavily funded by at least two fossil fuels interests with assets in Maine. They influenced opinions before anyone was able to respond. It was a good strategy, but it ultimately left many I'll informed. The oil and gas industry still receives 15 billion dollars in government subsidies annually. That money buys a ton of influence before they even have to consider using their own money.

  30. Reality you should get with reality here. The dark money theory is in itself a lie. We have all seen the grassroots efforts here. Secondly Mass is building natural gas plants and want the corridor just for the green credits to offset the natural gas plants. What they should be doing is finding a way not to use so much energy ! With some more research you would find that the methane from natural gas can be reduced by capturing it and sending it back through the plant therefore cutting their emissions to almost zero. You will have to research sites not belonging too CNN or Fox to get this information. Good luck it is out there.

  31. I heard CMP was going forward? Is that true?
    How many time will we have to say No before this goes thru?

    Pine Tree..Nice! More proof that the climate change initiatives are a political money grab. Wake up people!

Categories

Archives