Lakes Region senators in tug-a-war over Northern Pass

CONCORD — By raising the issue of eminent domain, Northern Pass has divided the Republican majority in the New Hampshire Senate with two Lakes Region Senators — Jeanie Forrester of Meredith and Jeb Bradley of Wolfeboro — as the the principal protagonists.

Last year, by an overwhelming majority of 317 to 51, the House of Representatives passed House Bill 648, which was intended to deny the power of eminent domain to developers of electric transmission lines in accord with Article 12-a of the New Hampshire Constitution. The Senate, by a 14 to 10 vote, chose delay the bill in lieu of further study.

Last month, the Senate Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to the bill sponsored by Bradley and fellow Republican Senator Sharon Carson of Londonderry that Forrester called "an artful dodge" that pretended to safeguard property owners but "but really enables utility companies to use eminent domain."

The Northern Pass project proposes to build 180 miles of power lines through the center of the state to bring hyrdo-generated electricity from Quebec for use in the United States. The plan has drawn strong support in Franklin, where a power conversion station would be located that would add perhaps $250-million to the city's tax base, but determined opposition from hundreds of North Country property owners, conservationists and outdoor recreationists.

Northern Pass is owned by Northeast Utilities (parent company of Public Service of New Hampshire), NSTAR and Hydro-Quebec.

With 19 of the 31 towns in her Senate district in the path of either or both the preferred or the alternate route of the transmission lines, Forrester has been a staunch opponent of the Northern Pass project and an equally staunch champion of private property rights. She co-sponsored HB-648 in the Senate and immediately challenged Bradley's attempt to amend it.

Together with Senate President Peter Bragdon (R-Milford), Forrester countered with an amendment stipulating that “no public utility may petition for permission to take private land or property rights for the construction or operation of an electric generating plant or for any private development, including but not limited to participant·funded projects.”

A "participant-funded" project is one, like Northern Pass, that is not funded by New Hampshire ratepayers.

Bradley then introduced a fresh amendment prohibiting public utilities from seeking the power of eminent domain to build electric transmission facilities unless the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) finds the project necessary to ensure the reliability of the transmission system or either lowers electric rates or provides environmental benefits.

Meanwhile, when pressed at a committee hearing, Donald Pfundstein, a lobbyist representing Northern Pass, for the first time indicated that while the company did not intend to petition the PUC to use eminent domain, if it did, the state would have to determine if the project conferred a compelling public benefit.

The revelation, together with Bradley's amendments, aroused suspicions that Northern Pass was seeking to circumvent the constitutional protection of private property

Yesterday Bradley introduced another amendment, adding Article 12-a to the statute governing eminent domain along with the statement "Therefore, no private development entity may petition the public utilities commission for the use of eminent domain." Together with Pfundstein's remark, some suggest that the amendment would allow Northern Pass to petition the PUC for designation as a "public utility," which in turn would entitle the company to seek power of eminent domain from the same agency.

However, Bradley yesterday insisted that "Northern Pass is not a public utility."

Bradley said that the Senate agrees that "private developers" cannot use eminent domain and also that "New Hampshire needs a reliable energy structure." He said that he sought "to make sure the language serves both these goals."

Asked how his position differs from that of Forrester and Bragdon, he replied "I don't have an answer for that."

Forrester insists that her overriding aim is to ensure that the constitutional prohibition against taking private property by eminent domain to serve private interests is upheld by statute. "The Constitution is the Constitution," she declared.

Bragdon agreed, noting that Bradley's position places the onus on property owners to assert their constitutional right while reaffirming Article 12-a in statute would afford property owners the protection of the state. Unlike Forrester, Bragdon is not opposed to the Northern Pass project, but he said was opposed to the use of eminent domain to pursue it and, like Forrester, seeks to foreclose that course with a binding statute.

"This is not about Northern Pass," Bragdon said. "It is a private property issue."

The Senate is scheduled to vote on HB-648 next week. One lobbyist familiar with the situation, suspected the Republican majority would remain divided, offering the five Senate Democrats an opportunity to decide the issue. The Democrats have been pressed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers to support Northern Pass for the employment it will generate while the environmental community is tugging them in the opposite direction.