Andy Martin raises questions about New Hampshire DRED nominee Jeffrey Rose: Is Rose’s nomination DOA?

Andy Martin asks the New Hampshire State Executive Council to hold an evidentiary hearing on the nomination of Jeffrey Rose to head the state’s Department of Resources and Economic Development (“DRED”). Andy is one of New Hampshire’s leading opponents of both Northeast Utilities’ proposed Northern Pass high voltage transmission line and the expansion of unnecessary wind turbine electric power on scenic ridge lines. He has been “walking the lines,” in opposition to “power lines” (electric) and now “ridge lines” (wind power) since 2011.

The People of New Hampshire

and New Hampshire’s Leading

Corruption Fighter Andy Martin

PRESENT:

Stop the Northern Pass Power Line

Operation Walk The Lines

(From power lines [electric] to ridge lines [wind turbine]

we Walk The Line for the People of New Hampshire)

Andy Martin, J. D.

Adjunct professor of law

executive director

you can call Andy:

 (603) 518-7310

you can email Andy:

andynewhampshire@aol.com

you can write Andy at:

fax (866) 214-3210, or

144 W. Webster, #1E

Manchester, NH 03104

Blogs/web sites (partial):

www.StopNorthernPass.blogspot.com

www.StopNorthernPass.wordpress.com

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

February 21, 2013

Hon. Raymond S. Burton,

Hon. Colin Van Ostern,

Hon. Christopher T. Sununu,

Hon. Christopher C. Pappas,

Hon. Debora B. Pignatelli,

Re: Appointment of Jeffrey Rose to

Department of Resources and Economic Development

Dear Members of the Council:

Earlier this week I testified in support of a proposed statute to place a one-year moratorium on new wind and electrical power systems. Rather than repeat my earlier comments in this letter, I am sending you a copy of my prior remarks by separate email.

It is sufficient to summarize my view that issues raised by new electrical transmission systems (Northern Pass) and wind turbine systems raise serious questions concerning the economic future of our state. In this letter I would like to suggest why the Council should place a hold on Mr. Rose’s nomination and appoint a special committee to take testimony under oath from Mr. Rose.

1. My own qualification and background in environmental law

I was “present at the creation” of the modern environmental movement and have litigated cases under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). When I returned to New Hampshire two years ago, people brought environmental concerns to my attention. I began “Operation Walk The Line” to “walk the line” of the Northern Pass high voltage transmissions system. I have walked from the northern border into the central part of the state and will resume my statewide march when the weather improves. I oppose the Northern Pass as currently proposed. Recently I have broadened the scope of Operation Walk The Line to encompass opposition to “walking the ridge lines” in opposition to the untrammeled expansion of wind turbine power.

2.  Mr. Rose’s right to fair treatment and due process

I start with the obvious view that whatever Mr. Rose’s positions on wind power and electrical transmission, his nomination should be treated fairly by all sides. There is no avoiding the fact that a sharp cleavage has developed in the state concerning whether to permit Northern Pass and whether to expand wind turbine power. But whether we are “for” or “against” (as I am) we should treat Mr. Rose and each other with civility and fairness.

3. The need to order an evidentiary hearing

There are sharply conflicting views on what Mr. Rose believes about Northern Pass, and apparently a gap in public knowledge about his position on wind turbine power. Asking the council to vote on his nomination without taking testimony under oath from Mr. Rose as to his prior statements and current views would by buying the proverbial pig in a poke. When the U. S. Senate exercises its power to “advise and consent” it always hears the nominee under oath, and subjects a nominee to searching inquiry before making a decision.

Has Mr. Rose opposed Northern pass? Has he supported Northern Pass? Has he sponsored meetings pro or con? There is no sworn record. Mr. Rose has a right to be judged fairly on his record, and both the Council and New Hampshire citizens have a right to know what that record is so that the Council may make an informed decision on his nomination. Unlike the federal level, where a president is given a presumption of choice, New Hampshire constitutional history is clear that the Council and the Council’s powers are a “negative” check on gubernatorial authority and not merely a rubber stamp.

4. The power to order a limited evidentiary hearing

I did some legal research before preparing this letter and while there are several dozen cases discussing the Council none of the Supreme Court’s decisions explicitly discuss the inherent powers of the Council. However, the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is extensive on the inherent authority of the various branches of New Hampshire government. Because the Council is a creature of the Constitution, I believe it has inherent power to conduct evidentiary hearings in appropriate circumstances. I believe the need to unquestioningly establish what Mr. Rose believes, and what actions he has taken in the past, support the appointment of a special committee or other appropriate person to conduct a hearing for the Council. Alternatively the Council could convene a hearing itself and sit en banc for the purpose of taking testimony from Mr. Rose under oath. If today’s hearing is limited merely to statements pro and con, the Council will only have the views of the proponents and opponents, and not the sworn testimony of Mr. Rose on which to make an informed decision.

5. My unavailability today and continuing cooperation

I regret that due to previously scheduled investigatory commitments I am unable to be present today. However, you may feel free to call on me for whatever opinions I may express or experience I can impart. And, if the Council decides to hold an evidentiary hearing, I would like to conduct part of the examination (or cross-examination) of Mr. Rose.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN

AM:sp

By separate email: Statement of February 19, 2013

Andy Martin questions New Hampshire's energy policies as he testifies before the State House of Representatives

News from:

The People of New Hampshire

and New Hampshire’s Leading

Corruption Fighter Andy Martin

PRESENT:

Stop the Northern Pass Power Line

Operation Walk The Line

Andy Martin, J. D.

Adjunct professor of law

executive director

you can call Andy:

 (603) 518-7310

you can email Andy:

andynewhampshire@aol.com

you can write Andy at:

fax (866) 214-3210, or

144 W. Webster, #1E

Manchester, NH 03104

Blogs/web sites  (partial):

www.StopNorthernPass.blogspot.com

www.StopNorthernPass.wordpress.com

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

Re: House Bill 580, Moratorium on wind turbine plants and electric transmission lines

House hearing Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Statement of Andy Martin, executive director, Stop Northern Pass

1. Introduction

Chairman Borden and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear and speak on behalf of HB 580, which seeks to impose a temporary moratorium on the construction of new wind turbine plants and electric transmission lines.

While I have primarily been identified as a leader of opposition to the Northern Pass electric transmission line, what I have to say is equally applicable to wind turbine operations. There is no doubt in my mind that the environmental and aesthetic issues raised by Northern Pass are also triggered by efforts to cover New Hampshire with wind turbine sites.

2. My background in environmental and utility law and litigation

I first became involved with environmental protection shortly after the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). I filed one of the early NEPA cases to block a utility from erecting a high voltage power line a short distance from the runway of a local airport. I also participated as a party in regulatory proceedings at the Federal Power Commission, which was then chaired by a New Hampshire native. Technology has changed a great deal in forty-three years, but the underlying issues of environmental protection and reasonable regulation have not.

3. Northern Pass

After I came back to New Hampshire in 2011 the Northern Pass proposal was brought to my attention by local residents from the North Country all the way down to Epping where Northern Pass would terminate. I launched “Operation Walk the Line,” and began marching across the state, starting in Pittsburg, to dramatize my opposition to Northern Pass. (The march will resume once the weather is more favorable.)

Northern Pass is a massive project with little discernable benefit for New Hampshire. The construction jobs would go largely to out-of-state employees who are experienced in building electric transmission systems. The tax payments to local governments would start falling as soon as the project was completed, as Northeast Utilities asked for depreciation write-downs of its investment.

So why are Northeast Utilities and Hydro Quebec so insistent on building Northern Pass? I am not sue we have the answer. But I have a very real hypothesis. I now turn to my hypothesis, which I emphasize is a theory not a proven fact at this point.

4. Local vs. regional

The most important issue New Hampshire must debate, determine and decide is whether New Hampshire will develop locally-based power sources for local use, or whether New Hampshire will see an economic benefit from acting as an “energy colony” on a regional basis. Today New Hampshire generates more power than it consumes, so there is no urgency to adopt massive new energy initiatives.

Other states in our region, however, have limited their own power plant and power line construction for varying reasons ranging from the “NIMBY” movement (“not in my backyard”) to general anti-utility agitation. These states would be only too happy to see New Hampshire trampled to preserve their own aesthetics and environments. I am not anti-energy and anti-utility. I am pro-New Hampshire, pro-environment, pro-forest and, on the other hand, pro-growth. I am for full disclosure, and informed decision-making with maximum public input.

Many interests in New York State want to shut down the Indian Point nuclear generating stations at Buchanan, New York. Indian Point generators keep the lights on in New York City. Where would the alternative power come from if Indian Point is shuttered? I have no proof that Northern Pass is an anticipatory gesture to prepare for a potential shutdown of Indian Point reactors. But it sure looks that way.

Quebec Hydro is hungry to expand its power operations. But because both New York and Vermont do not look kindly on new transmission systems, Northeast Utilities could “wheel” power through New Hampshire on the Northern Pass system and provide a very real alternative for New York. In other words, New Hampshire would receive a paltry payment for locating the Northern Pass system here, but Northeast Utilities could make a bonanza by selling power to New York State to replace Indian Point. Is there a formal deal in place today? No, I don’t think so. But New Hampshire should not be played for a sucker by Northeast Utilities or New York State. We should receive fair pay for fair service. Or no pay for no service.

Today Northern Pass favors Northeast Utilities, not New Hampshire. I favor a balanced solution. I strongly support the efforts of the Society for the Preservation of New Hampshire Forests (please see link #1 below) to delay Northern Pass.

Turning from Northern Pass to wind turbines, are taxpayer-subsidized wind turbine plants being used to support New Hampshire’s energy needs or are they merely generating power that is ultimately resold for use elsewhere? The photograph in the Union Leader Monday of the Groton wind farm was a chilling one (please see link #2 below).

Because New Hampshire has an ideal “small government” structure we do not have a massive bureaucracy to sit in judgment on utility proposals. That is why citizen input is so crucial, and why I am here today.

I ask the General Court to “listen to the people,” and to adopt sound, sensible energy plans based on an overall view of what is in the best interests of New Hampshire today and tomorrow.

5. Policy vs. ad hoc decision-making

HB 580 is essential because it seeks to prompt a review of the state’s overall energy policies and economic policies. I have no quarrel with the state being used as an “energy colony” by other states, if New Hampshire is compensated fairly and if the people willingly adopt such an approach after being fully informed. (I personally disagree with such an approach, but the majority probably rules in that instance.)

What I strongly oppose is ad hoc decision-making, where powerful unities, corporations, economic interests and political players seek to change the environmental equilibrium of New Hampshire on an ad hoc basis.

Uncontrolled electrical and wind power development would sound the death knell for New Hampshire tourism, and New Hampshire’s quality of life. These are paramount considerations. There are tradeoffs to be made, but they should be informed tradeoffs, not stealth tradeoffs.

What we have today amounts to “stealth” regulation. We have policies in place, but they have not been updated and reviewed in light of current circumstances.

HB 580 would impose a temporary moratorium on new wind turbine operations and electric transmission lines unless and until the state conducts a comprehensive review and adopts a reasoned energy policy based on full and open debate and discussion of the alternatives.

I support adoption of HB 580 by the House and also by the Senate.

-------------

Links

#1

http://www.forestsociety.org/

#2

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20130218/

NEWS05/130219178/-1/news

Andy Martin asks to testify at "Northern Pass hearing

The People of New Hampshire

and New Hampshire’s Leading

Corruption Fighter Andy Martin

PRESENT:

Stop the Northern Pass Power Line

Operation Walk The Line

Andy Martin, J. D.

adjunct professor of law

executive director

you can call Andy:

 (603) 518-7310

you can email Andy:

andynewhampshire@aol.com

you can write Andy at:

fax (866) 214-3210, or

144 W. Webster, #1E

Manchester, NH 03104

Blogs/web sites  (partial):

www.StopNorthernPass.blogspot.com

www.StopNorthernPass.wordpress.com

www.AndyMartin.com

www.FirstRespondersOnline.us

February 14, 2013

Hon. David Borden

Chairman

Science Technology Energy Committee

107 N. Main Street

Concord, NH 03301

via: david@oursustainablenh.com

Dear Chairman Borden:

I would like to speak in support of HB 580 on February 19th at 1:00 P.M. I will fill out the speaker card. If there is any other requirement for speaking, please let me know.

I have been a leading opponent of the Northern Pass proposal since 2011 and have walked across a good part of the North Country as part of “Operation Walk the Line” to dramatize opposition to the proposed power line. While I respect that reasonable people can differ over Northern Pass, my research, my experience and my strong support for the preservation of New Hampshire’s forests and environment lead me to be a committed opponent of the project. That’s why HB 580’s moratorium offers time for a reasoned debate and discussion.

Northeast Utilities recognizes me as the de facto leader of the anti-Northern Pass movement and regularly monitors my activity, as well as having created a cartoon – since removed from the Internet – spoofing my efforts to block the project. So I command not only the expertise but the respect to address the proposed law.

HB 580 obviously concerns Northern Pass.

I look forward to meeting you and making my presentation next week.

Respectfully submitted,

ANDY MARTIN

AM:sp

cc: Hon. Harold Reilly via pegskip05@hughes.net