SEC Hearings Videos: Updated

December 19, 2017 | By | Reply More

SEC Hearings – December 14, 2017

Attorney Pappas talking to witness John Petrofsky, who owns property in the North Country and is opposed to the project. After roughly 25 minutes of background questions in which the attorney elicited several opinions from the witness, Commission Chair Martin Honigberg had had enough. The clip underscores that although passionate, there are experts presented by the opposition that have no formal background in reviewing projects like this, and whose data and research is curious at best.

​SEC Hearings – December 12, 2017

There are town leaders opposed to Northern Pass, but no organized review of town opinions – such as in Deerfield, where Commissioner Chris Way asked Deerfield’s Jo Anne Bradbury what evidence she has to make the claim that Northern Pass will threaten the future success of their annual town fair, which draws tens of thousands of people from around the region.

SEC Hearings – November 21, 2017

In this clip, Carl Martland, witness for Sugar Hill Historical Museum, explains he has no professional experience in preparing visual impact studies, and offers his perspective on the project impact from his personal perspective. In questioning, he talks about the visual report he compiled and recognizes that his view impact examples do not reflect the actual proposal in multiple locations.

SEC Hearings – November 20, 2017

This clip highlights a key exchange between Northern Pass Attorney Barry Needleman and George Sansoucy, a witness for the municipal group, opponent of Northern Pass and expert in land valuation. In the line of questioning, Attorney Needleman raises questions of Mr. Sansoucy’s credibility of claims related to property valuation impact of Northern Pass by citing a number of court cases in which Sansoucy lost rulings based on “pure speculation and no data to back up his claims. Here he is questioned about work done in Hampton.

SEC Hearing – November 8, 2017

In the clip below, Attorney Walker is questioning Grafton County’s Expert Witness, Linda Lauer, who opposes the project and believes it should have been placed along I-93, despite previous rulings from NH DOT that it was not an option. This exchange highlights the difference between opposition and evidence-based opposition to the project.

SEC Hearings – November 7, 2017

Attorney Walker, in questioning three representatives of Counsel’s for the Public Environmental Panel, asks the trio of experts about the project’s possible impact on wildlife such as the Karner Blue Butterfly, known as KBB.

SEC Hearings – November 3, 2017

View impacts of the Northern Pass proposal is central concern expressed by critics of the proposal, yet in the lengthy process of review of impacts, using a standard set previously by the state of New Hampshire, even critics admit the applicants followed the process and accurately reviewed potential impacts in an effort to mitigate them along the route. Here is an exchange between Attorney Barry Needleman and Harry Dodson of the Society for the Protection of NH Forests, who is asked about the process of reviewing the application regarding view impacts.

SEC Hearings – November 2, 2017

In an exchange between Attorney Walker and Counsel for the Public’s Cultural and Historical Resources Expert: Patricia O’Donnell, Attorney Walker asks her about her review of scenic and historic resources. Ms. O’Donnell explains that an “historic designation” of property in this process requires only someone calling to add their property to the list, and admittedly most of the properties on the list were not reviewed to confirm this status. It is important to see how both sides must agree upon the rules for review.

SEC Hearings – October 27

During testimony from Counsel for the Public’s Cultural and Historical Resources, Patricia O’Donnell was asked to critique the potential impact on cultural and historic resources along the Northern Pass route. She raised questions about impacts, but was also forced to admit the full detail of the project’s plan to mitigate impacts was submitted after she did her review, which was not as detailed as it normally would be conducted by her office.

SEC Hearings – October 26, 2017

This clip highlights an interesting exchange between Attorney Pappas, who serves as the council for the public, and members of the Brattle Group, a market economics panel of experts asked to examine the Northern Pass proposal. Attorney Pappas asks if the original review by company known as LEI missed anything in terms of possible savings to customers. Brattle Group members answered yes, and cited the recent price spike a few winters ago which triggered a major natural gas shortage and some of the highest power rates and inventory shortages our state has ever seen. Brattle Group believes this plan would decrease that risk in the future.

SEC Hearings – October 26, 2017

This clip highlights the difference between a following procedural surveying rules versus the wish that the state’s rules were different. In this symbolic exchange, Attorney Hodgdon asks Attorney Nix about the rules for how to survey the proposed route for Northern Pass, and whether the surveyors are following the state’s rules. Attorney Nix admits the rules are being followed, but he wishes a boundary survey was required, even though those are never required by law with regards to utility line proposals.

Tags:

Category: IBEW Local 104, New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee, Northern Pass, Site Evaluation Committee

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.