Tag Archives: nhpolitics

2017 NH Business Energy Education Series: Vol 4 – Will One New Transmission Line In NH Fix The Problem Of High Costs?

Will One New Transmission Line In NH Fix The Problem Of High Costs? Answer: NO  Think of it this way, if Disneyworld was located In Tilton, NH and you wanted a day of entertainment at Disneyworld and lived somewhere in New Hampshire, it would be a relatively short trip …. and by far your greatest cost for the day would be your entrance fee at the gate.  Put it a distance away, like Florida or even New Jersey, and the whole cost structure changes with transportation and other costs.  New Hampshire could choose to rely completely on power supplies located outside our borders, but don’t forget there is a significant fixed cost of  transportation in the form of monopolized transmission lines that come with the deal.


The currently proposed transmission line from Quebec, known by most everyone by now as Northern Pass (“NP”), is proposed to carry 1090 MW of hydropower through New Hampshire to Massachusetts load centers, of which only 100 MW would come back to our state in the form of an undisclosed (to the public) power purchase agreement (“PPA”) between NP and Eversource.  The current peak demand load on our NH grid is approximately 3000 MW, so 100 MW would be about 3.5% of our peak load requirements. As shown in the chart below, as of January 2016 ISO-NE report, there were eleven (11) proposed transmission projects competing to connect to the ISO-NE grid totaling more than 7,000 MW of potential capacity.  Simply put, the addition of 100 MW of new hydropower supply from Canada to New Hampshire is not going to fix the high cost of energy in New Hampshire no matter what price that energy is offered at, as your fixed (T&D) charges will remain the same or increase, and the size of the new supply is so small compared to the total load.  As outline in Vol 1, if we can’t change our location, which I’m pretty sure we can’t, we are never going to remove ourselves from one of the highest energy cost regions in the country.


Multiple transmission lines from the north (Canada) do have the potential of bringing in supplies to replace our aging fleet of existing power plants in New England, but the costs of transmission won’t be small, and the sellers of electricity usually figure out how to price themselves to the marketplace (aka-supply and demand, what the market will bear, etc.), which means that our existing high costs are likely to remain high costs on a regional basis as compared to other parts of the country.  As a system, our demand side is not growing due to new energy efficiency measures and distributed generation deployed within ISO-NE as shown below in ISO-NE’s January, 2016 report.  However, it will take new kinds of state initiatives to unlock New Hampshire’s ability to reduce our total system demands.  Another words, how the system will operate in the future won’t look like the past (see Vol 6 when posted), so solutions to the supply side of the equation have to change as well as solutions to the demand side.

There is some recent good news on the capacity front.  ISO-NE’s 2017 forward capacity auction was just completed (FCA#11) and system resources needed for 2020-2021 not only were easily filled, but the resulting system wide clearing price of $5.30 per kilowatt-month was lower than the previous year’s auction (FCA#10 @ of $7.03/kw-month), which is the lowest clearing price since the floor price was eliminated in the 2013 auction.  Just remember, those lower prices don’t start until sometime in 2020. Some of the key points from ISO-NE:

At $5.30/kW-month, the total value of the capacity market in 2020-2021 will be approximately $2.4 billion.

About 35,835 MW of capacity cleared the auction to meet the 34,075 MW net installed capacity target for 2020-2021.

o 31,389 MW of generation, including 264 MW new, in the form of increased generating capability added at existing power plants
o 3,211 MW of demand resources, including 640 MW that is new
o 1,235 MW of imports from New York, and Quebec and New Brunswick, Canada

Six megawatts of new wind and five megawatts of new solar resources cleared the auction; in all, 137 MW of wind and 66 MW of solar facilities cleared FCA #11 (most photovoltaic resources in New England are on the distribution system and don’t participate in the wholesale markets).

No large resources retired in FCA 11; a few small oil generators delisted during the auction, meaning they’ve dropped out of the capacity market for one year, but can sell energy during that time and can compete again in future auctions.

Of some significance is the fact that FCA#11 shows no indication of any potential generating capacity coming to ISO-NE from NP, which at 1090MW out of a capacity target of 34,075 MW, would represent about 3.2% of the ISO-NE system capacity.  Also of note is the fact that the latest 34,075 MW target was down from the previous year’s auction target of 34,151 MW, reflecting both increases coming from demand resources and behind-the-meter solar PV growth.


Possible State Initiatives: For example, currently the electrical energy output from all the qualifying facilities (QF) in the state have no access to sell power on the distribution system they are connected to, unless they are less than 1 MW in size and they can participate in net metering.  The multiple existing small QF projects that are hydropower, spread all over the state, total well over 50 MW alone.  When you add in the existing biomass fired and wind facilities, that number multiplies.  There has been no efforts from state leaders (as yet) to change that paradigm, which was created by “agreement” between the NHPUC and the state’s electric utilities during the deregulation restructuring of the late ’90’s. This agreement does not match with current state law in Chapter 362-A.   This situation will only grow larger when Eversource sells off its assets in 2017 under the NHPUC “divestiture order” and  another 66.2 MW of existing hydropower projects in New Hampshire will be added to the same “locked-out” bucket of QF projects, which will then total well over 100 MW of existing NH hydropower energy alone which will be forced out of the state.  Does 100 MW of hydropower sound like a familiar number? So will 100 MW of new hydropower from Canada via NP make any difference to New Hampshire when over 100 MW of existing New Hampshire based  hydropower is forced to ship out to ISO-NE (by agreement)? The obvious answer is NO, the current policies make no sense whatsoever, and state leaders have not seen fit to change them.  Why is that??


I’m not just picking on NP/Eversource.  I can perfectly understand why Eversource would want to build the proposed NP line……..especially when transmission line profits account for 38% of their total profits (see Vol 3).  I simply can’t agree, that at 3.5% of peak NH electricity demand, it has any merits as a game changing “energy project” for New Hampshire……and just “who” is going to see the mystical $80M ** energy savings each year when all our regulated electric utilities are going to function as distribution system monopolies in the future.  If all of these “savings” were real and dedicated to industrial class customers (who pay the 5th highest rates in the country) then it might make a difference to our economy.  Without large energy savings benefits targeted to the industrial class, it is at best simply an “economic development” project that may have difficulty meeting the SEC’s “public interest” criteria.  Other than it being mostly wires, Northern Pass is no different than other unpopular (to the general public) projects that have been proposed in the past in NH. What is the value of the permanent added tax base revenue to New Hampshire communities ($30M according to their website)….. and temporary construction jobs ….. along with millions of one time dollars promised to go to groups of people and special interest organizations in the state ($200M according to their website)…… in exchange for gaining favor to run a power line to MA?  All the hype is cloaked in “energy savings“, not economic development……. and the “energy savings” are neither guaranteed nor fully substantiated (see below).

If the state wants to approve it for the economic development benefits alone……. how much $$ do we get vs. how much $$ do we lose as a state, and judge it on that basis for its “public interest” value, I have no problem with it being proposed and promoted. Every business/developer should have the right to pitch an unpopular project …….. whatever it may be (ex.-casinos, nukes, oil refineries, private waste to energy, private landfills, etc. etc.), but it should be evaluated on its actual merits. Trying to wrap this project up in some “hybrid” North American flag as “cheap hydropower” from Canada; promoting “clean/renewable energy” in the US; and helping new Hampshire companies “grow/save jobs” with lower cost energy……. is pure marketing BS by a regulated public utility that has worked tirelessly to block other competing energy initiatives/solutions for years.  Let’s just call it what it is, and accept or reject it on its face value tax money and special fund $$ merits, unless it can 1) guarantee the long term energy cost savings ($80M/yr) it purports, and then 2) puts those savings in the industrial class rate payers where it can most benefit our economy by helping to expand well paying, stable, blue collar jobs in New Hampshire .  I don’t get a vote, but if I did it would certainly be NO on its merits as an energy project, unless they will guarantee the $80M/yr savings. As an economic development project, its above my pay grade to decide what’s best for New Hampshire’s total economy in the long run, especially not being a resident of the North Country, and doubly so for not being part of our tourism industry.  The SEC will need to find NP in the “public interest” for it to proceed, and if they can’t, it should die like so many other unpopular projects have in the past. I would love to see the politics surrounding NP set aside, as the public optics of this deal look worse and worse the longer it goes on.  The more money that gets spread around attempting to get a contested project approved, the more compromised our state government (and others) tends to look………. real or imagined.  Nothing ever stays hidden from the public forever, and once constructed, NP will remain a controversial feature of our state for a long time to come ………. especially after New Hampshire ratepayers figure out the NP projected energy savings haven’t materialized.  Also, lets not forget than NP isn’t going to produce anything on anyone’s electric bill until 2020 when it is projected to be on-line.


** $80,000,000/ (8760hrs x 100,000 kw) = 0.0913 $/kwh = 9.13 cents/kwh  ….which basically means that at current “energy supply” prices for Eversource, all the energy must be delivered free of charge to generate $80M/yr in savings, as all the fixed T&D costs will remain the same …or increase.  If you put all that free energy worth $80M/yr to our industrial base, then we might have something worth supporting.  Of course, most rate payers already buy their energy from 3rd party suppliers for far less than 9.13 cents/kwh, so the actual net benefits (if any) would fall far short of $80M…….not to mention that it won’t actually be offered free of charge.  Read the fine print from the NP fliers and you will find that the PPA is really only projected to produce “up to $100M” savings to Eversource customers over the 20yr life of the contract ($5M/yr ave)……and even that slim amount is not guaranteed.  The rest of the $80M/yr “energy savings” claim stems from the NP power entering ISO-NE and New Hampshire’s 9% (of ISO-NE) use of that energy, none of which is guaranteed in any way.  If you are buying all of this energy savings hype, I have some great land in Florida for you ……………

UPDATE 2-22-17: NP/Forward NH just updated their website and lowered the projected “savings” figure from $81-82.5 M/yr to $62.8M/yr  per new SEC testimony, almost a 25% reduction in one year. Prices that ISO will pay for guaranteeing power supply in 2020-21 is $5.30 per kilowatt-month, 25 percent lower than the price of $7.03 in the 2016 auction without NP.  Prices that ISO will pay for guaranteeing power supply in 2019-20 is $7.03 per kilowatt-month, 27 percent lower than the price of $9.55 in the 2015 auction without NP. In 24 months the auction clearing price dropped from $9.55 to $5.30, or about 45% total due to market forces without NP.

UPDATE 2-24-17:  Arguments to cancel proposed power projects begin due to latest Capacity Auction results

UPDATE 3-9-17: Not all is roses and buttercups in the deal with Hydro Quebec .  Who is paying for burying the line in NH? Canadians want to know.

UPDATE 4-28-17: Why so many people in NH say “no” to Northern Pass





2017 NH Business Energy Education Series: Vol 3- How Does ISO-NE Affect My Costs In NH?


How Does ISO-NE Effect My Costs In NH? Answer: More than you realize. I’ll let them explain it briefly below.


From their website:

Reliable Electricity, Competitive Prices

ISO New England is the independent, not-for-profit company authorized by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to perform three critical, complex, interconnected roles for the region spanning Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, and most of Maine. Together, these three responsibilities help protect the health of the region’s economy and the well-being of its people by ensuring the constant availability of competitively-priced wholesale electricity—today and for future generation.

Grid operation:

Every minute of every day, we coordinate and direct the flow of electricity over the region’s high-voltage transmission system.

Market administration:

We design, run, and oversee the billion-dollar markets where wholesale electricity is bought and sold.

Power system planning:

We do the studies, analyses, and planning to make sure New England’s electricity needs will be met over the next 10 years.


Sometimes FERC will take issue with how the a grid operator is conducting business if they see a problem., as they did last year regarding high transmission costs in ISO-NE:

“In an order issued on Dec. 28, FERC commissioners wrote that New England transmission rates appear to be “unjust, unreasonable and unduly discriminatory or preferential” and called for an investigation. – See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20160110/NEWS05/160119977#sthash.rMDJxD7R.dpuf”

In Vol 2 we made note of Eversource Energy’s recent Q3 2016 Earnings Call where they reported that their “primary driver of the earnings growth is a higher transmission rate base” which accounted for a total of $271 M of their $713 M earnings year to date ( approx 38%).  Clearly transmission costs have become very high in the ISO-NE region under ISO-NE’s watch ……. so much so that the FERC had to launch an investigation.  At the same time, income from transmission assets have added a significant increase to utility company net earnings.

It is not as if ISO-NE is a consumer driven operation, so don’t automatically think that the system operator’s mission is to just stand with the financial interests of electrical energy consumers on the grid.  That’s not to charge them with doing a bad job, just don’t confuse them with being a Consumer Advocate for the region.  After all, they are the New England Regional Operator, and as we outlined in Vol 2, New England has high energy costs by virtue of location and lack of natural resources.  Also, as we pointed out in Vol 1 of this series, ISO-NE has already baked increased energy capacity cost into the system operation through the forward capacity auction system that now extends as far out as 2020 and that will soon occur again in 2017 for 2020-2021.  The good news is the 2016 auction yielded better pricing for 2020 than it did for 2019.  The bad news is that the higher capacity prices in 2017-2019 are already fixed and won’t go away…… another reason for businesses to take action now (see Vol 1). The 2020 costs are lower than 2019, but not back down to 2016 levels, so I’m telling you right now that your total electrical energy costs over the next four years (2017-2020) are guaranteed to be higher than what you just spent in 2016 (subject to major weather differences and energy use) just due to capacity costs increases alone ….. and fuel costs in 2016 were low on a relative basis, so don’t look for relief on that side of the equation.

As consumers, businesses can shop for the best price on the supply of fuel and electricity (energy only).  However, when it comes to the delivery of it (we are talking about electricity and natural gas here) you are working with monopolies.  The higher the fixed costs of delivery (electrical transmission and distribution grids, and gas pipelines), the less you can lower the total cost of supply by only shopping the energy supply side.  Spend some time with your facilities manager and your energy providers to understand your bill and see what you are paying for ……… then look at options to reduce some of the fixed cost of delivery (see Vol 1) by using less of it or replacing some of it with your own.  Also, if you are a big natural gas consumer, explore options for winter use of on site LNG to combat fuel cost spikes.

If you want to know more about ISO-NE and what the status of the regional grid looks like, download their REO (2016 Regional Electricity Outlook) report and dive into it.  It is very informative.

UPDATED 2-14-17:  Good news on the capacity front.  ISO-NE’s 2017 forward capacity auction was just completed (FCA#11) and system resources needed for 2020-2021 not only were easily filled, but the resulting system wide clearing price of $5.30 per kilowatt-month was lower than the previous auction (FCA#10 @ of $7.03/kw-month), which is the lowest clearing price since the floor price was eliminated in the 2013 auction.  Just remember, those lower prices don’t start until sometime in 2020.



2017 NH Business Energy Education Series: Vol 2- High Electrical Energy Costs: How Did We Get Here?

High Electrical Energy Costs: How Did We Get Here? Answer: Where do I start? I suppose we could go all the way back to the 70’s and Seabrook, but today that would actually be unfair to Eversource in particular.  Most of all the nuke “stranded costs” were subsequently paid out by PSNH/Eversource ratepayers over the past 25 years. If it was just them, their rates would be dramatically higher than the other three in-state franchises (sometimes they are due to energy market fluctuations) all the time.  However, when the New England energy supply/demand curve is not in the consumer’s favor …. there is not a huge difference where your business is located.  For arguments sake, let’s just assume that Eversource is usually the highest of the four utilities, sometimes by a (relatively) small amount.  With the future divestiture of their electrical generating plants, they will look more like the other three wires companies, but a with another bag of “stranded costs” included in the rates for years to come.  It’s fair to say that, at least for the next decade or more, they will continue to have the highest rates of the four in-state electrical utilities.  The most important factor for all of them is location, location, location!  The chart below from the Forward//NH Plan (future discussion) offers a snapshot of the top 10 highest rates in the country.  Please note that all six New England states are in the top 10, and when you add in our big neighbor to the west (New York), it is 7 out of 10.  The high costs for isolated grid systems in Alaska and Hawaii are quite obvious, and then throw in the socialist country of California and you are now 10 out of 10.  So size doesn’t matter (in this case), but location and natural resources sure do.  Even Alaska, with all its crude oil resources can’t convert them into low electrical energy costs.  Yes, you can move your business or family to another state with lower energy costs, but why do that when you can avail yourself of technology to mitigate it? For the same reason I won’t move to Florida or South Carolina, I love where I am (new Hampshire) for everything it has to offer, and I am willing to invest in technology to mitigate the energy stuff…….. and make a reasonable financial investment at the same time.\


New Hampshire (and New England) has no coal; no oil; no natural gas; no propane production plants; and basically we are at the end of all the delivery lines (pipelines, rail lines, highways and ports) to bring us fossil fuel energy, to either generate power or fuel our heating & cooling equipment.  It is significant that, due to recent spikes in winter natural gas prices, new supplies of LNG now come into Boston ……. so that helps to mitigate that winter spike situation, but it doesn’t undercut the generally higher pipeline supplied gas prices the rest of the year. So please note that on a regional basis, barring the introduction of some breakthrough technology, our region will always have high fuel prices and high electricity prices.  We do have our own indigenous renewable supplies of sun, wind, water and geothermal energy, but even on those fronts, other parts of the country (and Canada) have them in more abundance than we do and that’s where you see large utility scale power plants built to take advantage of those resources.  Yes we have wood, but that has proven to be a much more cost effective distributed fuel source (cord wood or wood pellets) for making heat than for making electricity, although biomass fuel is a likely CHP and large boiler system candidate for on-site industrial and campus applications in New Hampshire.  Our older biomass fired electrical plants built in the 1980’s have proven not to be competitive cost alternatives to building natural gas fired plants today. We have limited amounts of methane gas (from landfills) to burn for making electricity and we have municipal waste-to-energy plants that have far more to do with the cost of disposing of waste than the economy of making electricity, not that they shouldn’t count too.  Let’s also not forget that we still have some existing nuclear plants that are important parts of the Northeast electrical energy supply, but some (like Seabrook) are going to price their output to the marketplace (like other commodities) so their output and pricing is already baked into the current cake.


Major new supplies of either electricity or fuel from outside the region (future topic) will require major new transmission lines and pipelines to bring it to the ISO-NE market.  These types of energy infrastructure projects are big, long term and expensive …….and involve both private and public property.  Some electric utilities even want you to pay utility rates in advance so they can reserve capacity in fuel pipelines in order to generate future electricity. That’s where the discussions about public benefit, costs and risks come into play ….. versus choosing an alternative way to accomplish the same goal of having affordable (relative term) and readily available energy supplies.  Any discussion about dramatically lowering energy costs in New Hampshire or New England (barring that new, yet to be revealed or discovered cost effective technology) is pure fiction IMO. I guess today we would call it “fake news”.  The real story is to trying to stabilize rates or have some impact on bending the costs curve down on expected future increases ….. but nothing is projected to actually LOWER electric rates or fuel costs from current levels. Fuel is priced and sold as a world wide commodity and New Hampshire is located at the tail end of the fuel/power supply highway …….unless we are talking about Northern Pass, where we would be just one skinny little (10%) 1-lane south bound exit ramp along its way to Boston….. but that topic comes later in Vol 4. Eversource Energy recently reported in their Q3 2016 Earnings Call, that their “primary driver of the earnings growth is a higher transmission rate base” which accounted for a total of $271 M of their $713 M earnings year to date ( approx 38%).  Its difficult to bring down the total cost of electrical energy when so much capital is flowing into transmission investments, even during the current period of low fuel prices.





2017 NH Business Energy Education Series: Vol 1- I’m A Business, What Can I do Immediately To Lower My Electrical Energy Costs?

Time is of the essence, what can I do immediately to lower my electrical energy costs? Answer: work with an expert like Usource. This is not a plug by any means to hire the unregulated arm of Unitil Electric.  But I’m not here to give you bad advice, so here is an example of someone (a company) who can help you lower your costs.  Their YouTube video will cover it very well.  The nutshell version goes like this:


1) The future increasingly high costs of electrical energy capacity (previously baked into the pie at ISO-NE) are coming for several years and there is NOTHING you can do to stop it short of using less power (or producing some yourself) and/or shifting the time of use.


2) There is no transmission line or pipeline in New Hampshire, or anywhere else for that matter, that is going to be here to save you in the short term, if ever (future topic).


3) Stop bitching about your high electrical costs in New Hampshire, and how you can’t grow jobs here, or have to go to Mexico or South Carolina or Arizona or whatever ……… and put your big boy pants on and DO something to help yourself ….. now!


4) Doing something yourself includes taking steps to use less power and/or generate some of your own.  The bigger you are (Big Manufacturer v. Small Manufacturer) the better economy of scale you have to install your own generation ……… the two most probable contenders of which would Solar PV and/or CHP (combined heat and power ….. a.k.a. co-generation or fuel cells).  Banks have lots of cheap money to loan ……and you can also explore other options like the CDFA for loan programs they offer.  Use a little capital, then do the math and see what kind of IRR you can generate. Leave the old corporate rule of thumb (2 year simple payback) analysis for companies that don’t know enough to leverage a little capital $$ into 25+ years of earnings for your stockholders.


5) Doing something yourself could also include lowering your demand profile (curve) during the exact period, and time of day, that your connected utility (distribution franchise) measures your electrical demand and then charges you for it 365 days a year!  There are technology companies out there like Sharp Electronics who have developed financing programs for “Commercial SmartStorage+Solar Hybrid Projects” to do this exact thing for companies like you.  Again, not a plug for Sharp, just the facts.


6) Complete doing #4 and #5 above and no matter what happens in the future, you will spend less on your electrical energy costs.  There will be other things you can do as well, that we can talk about later…….like adding in “efficiency” measures and new technologies.


We’ll get into more discussions in later posts that deal with ISO-NE, transmission lines and pipelines, etc. ……..and some actions New Hampshire government could do that might help you out.  But for now, in the famous words of former Celtics Coach  Rick Pitino: “Larry Bird is not coming through that door . … Robert Parish is not coming through that door”  Another words, nobody is coming to save us (you) soon, and it is what it is. Deal with it.



2017 NH Business Energy Education Series: Introduction

Energy Crisis or Leadership Crisis, which is it? New Hampshire media has bombarded us with countless stories over the past year about the high costs of energy in the state ….. and the effect that it has on the business community as a whole, and on the manufacturing sector in particular.  In light of the new Trump administration’s obvious goal of keeping jobs in America, new jobs and job retention will be in the news cycle for years to come.  What can New Hampshire do to keep and grow jobs in the state, especially manufacturing jobs that can be filled with less than a 4 year degree workforce training? If energy costs are truly a barrier to these goals, what can be done both short term and long term to to remove or lower this barrier.  More importantly, what can businesses do either on their own, or with the help of state “government”, to hurdle over this apparent problem.  Over the next 12 months we will endeavor to present a 24 part series of short articles (2/month) to facilitate that effort without reinventing the wheel.  Moreover, we will try to point you in the right (non-partisan) direction towards real solutions.  Unfortunately, “energy” is just one area of our economy that tends to be co-opted by both political parties towards one extreme solution or the other …… when in fact “all of the above” is the only solution that can achieve the most cost effective long term energy solution for New Hampshire.  As a volunteer effort, ………..don’t shoot the messenger.  However, constructive feedback is always welcome, both on this site and in our social media channels.  This is an aggressive schedule for meaningful content, so if somewhere along the way we fall behind when life gets in the way, we will try our best to get back on track. Cheers!

Volume 1 I’m a business, what can I do immediately to lower my electrical energy costs.
Volume 2 High electrical energy costs: how did we get here?
Volume 3 How does ISO-NE effect my costs in NH?
Volume 4 Will one new transmission line in NH fix the problem of high costs?
Volume 5 Why should I care about Net Metering of electricity?
Volume 6 How will the future electrical energy grid effect me?
Volume 7 Will one new Natural Gas Pipeline in NH fix the problem of high costs?
Volume 8 How do I develop my own company energy plan?
Volume 9 How do I incorporate “efficiency” measures in my energy plan?
Volume 10 Our 3 Energy Market Disruptors
Volume 11 NH’s Ten Year State Energy Strategy
Volume 12 Do my elected representatives have my back?
Volume 13 Biomass Heating Comes of Age
Volume 14 What are”emerging technologies”, and can they help me?
Volume 15 How can using solar PV panels help me?
Volume 16 HB1116- The PUC Order on Net Metering is delivered, and now what?
Volume 17 Energy Efficiency Benefits NH Businesses
Volume 18 Purchasing Electricity directly from ISO-NE
Volume 19 What are Zero Net Energy Buildings (ZNEB)?
Volume 20 It’s Lonely in Hearing Room A
Volume 21 Its time to Raise the Net Metering Project size limit to 5 MW in NH
Volume 22 “NH’s Energy Future is Now”: What did we learn?
Volume 23 Why All NH Energy Stakeholders should support Sen Innis’s proposed bill that keeps NH’s small power output inside NH (LSR 18-2720.0 )
Volume 24 A Final Word on the Albatross that is Northern Pass


THE END……………………..