Hydreopower from Quebeck would help mitigate global warming by replacing fossil fuewl power generation. Meanwhile the herd of cows is belching methane, and adding to global warming gases.  Which party is on the side of the environment?

We need lots of electricity to run the MBTA and recharge electric cars and iPhones.  Where will we get this electricity?  Not from natural gas because greenies like Matt Damon (famous physicist) fear fracking.  Not from Nantucket Sound windmills if some locals have their way.  Not from solar panels during dark winter days in New England.  Cheap renewable hydro power from Quebec would make a lot of sense.  But, no, I guess that we need to ride our bikes through the snow and sleet and put our dead smartphones to rest.

I believe the power is intended for Connecticut. Why is the route secret if everything is on the level?

This is a weak article.

A classic case of NIMBY. With such a self-serving position, New Hampshire residents would never be the beneficiaries of Rt. 93. For groups like the Conservation Law Foundation , maintaining memberships, government and foundaton grants are crucial to their survival even though "success" may mean higher energy costs for those who can least afford it. To get residents to dig into their pockets, a doomsday sencario is presented so immense it cannot be ignored, abetted by too many reporters (unlike Daley who presents both sides) acting like stenographers. There is nothing to be gained from moderation.

The NIMBY charge doesn't fit this situation.  Northern Pass is not a public project but merely another proposed for-profit development, and the "backyards" in question (NH's most beautiful areas, including the White Mountain National Forest) are assets of New England-wide if not national importance.  The public/private distinction is critical.  Unlike the ongoing transmission upgrades visible around New England (which are the result of a careful multi-year regional planning process focusing on the reliability of the electric grid), Northern Pass is not "needed" for purposes of keeping the lights on in New England.  Northern Pass is not a public transmission project but rather a wholly private one that was proposed by the sponsors (Hydro-Quebec and Northeast Utilities) just to make money.  In regulatory terms, Northern Pass is what is called an "optional, elective project".  It is proposed as a private transmission line built by Northeast Utilities exclusively for the use of Hydro-Quebec.  In substance it's just a long generator "lead line" that runs from the generators in Quebec to the grid connection in Deerfield.  The project is therefore entirely outside the needs-based planning process conducted by ISO-New England to ensure reliable electric service to the public.  No national, regional or state regulator has asked for Northern Pass to be built or determined that its satisfies any need.  For these reasons, Route 93 is not an apt analogy for Northern Pass.  There was a public need for Route 93.  A better transportation analogy would be a private toll road.  If a small group of wealthy individuals proposed a private toll road through New Hampshire for their own exclusive use, one wouldn't think of using the "NIMBY minimization" for opponents.  A core principle of the New Hampshire opposition is that a private, for profit, non-need project should not be allowed to damage public assets such as the White Mountain National Forest or private assets such as property values or business opportunities.  Just as we would oppose a new Walmart store in the middle of an important viewshed in the WMNF (because it would be a private use impairing a public asset and adjacent private assets), we oppose Northern Pass's proposal to string visually jarring transmission towers through some of the state's most pristine areas.  And remember that the "backyards" at issue here have a much broader significance than just New Hampshire.  The WMNF, the viewscapes along Route 93 and the unspoiled areas of Coos and Grafton Counties are part of the heritage and cultural identity of New England.  These places are enjoyed by literally millions of people from outside New Hampshire when they come to our state to walk, hike, ski, bike, snowshoe, snowmobile, birdwatch, leaf-peep, or visit the Grand Hotels.  We hope the people across New England will join this battle to preserve the beauty of New Hampshire.

The project is destructive to the economy of the North Country - impacting 93,000 acres of great forests and mountains.  It will badly impact the attractive qualities of the area, harming the tourism industry - an economic sector in which we share our beloved country side with folks who want to love it too.

Not only that, our beautiful area will be greatly blemished, with no positive impact for our region at all.  The building phase will be short-lived and far outweigh the permanent negative impact.  Very few workers wil be local; we will simply house and feed the workers, have very short term tax benefit, which will be then written down as the lines depreciate - yes they indeed do set their own appraisal rates.  Also they will not pay half the taxes - the school taxes, only paying the town & county taxes. Then there is the negative impact on local property values as million dollar views become a tangle of wires. We will have involuntary loss of residential tax revenue as well as local enjoyment of property.

The supposed gain for the North is so short lived that it is not a consideration at all in balance with the tremendous negatives of terrible impact and permanence.

People all over New England who love the North Country as your refuge in the wild - please contact Northeast Utilities, PSNH, HydoQuebec, and the Governor of NH to registor your objection to this horrible undertaking. 

Tell Northeast Utilities you will boycott their power if they pursue this project.  We look forward to seeing you on your next trip North.