To the Editor:
I am writing to respond to a letter in the Islander authored by Ellen Pope. Her letter was quite critical of Elizabeth Caruso’s submission to the Islander, yet Ms. Pope commits the same “decontextualizing” about which she criticizes Ms. Caruso.
Pope discusses how the Clean Energy Corridor will deliver 10.5 terawatts of clean energy to the ‘shared New England’ grid. However, she neglects to inform the reader that this electricity will be re-routed and is not a new source. Hydro Quebec already delivers this power to the same grid via an already-existing route. The NECEC will simply provide HQ with an alternative so that it can maximize its profits by selecting the most profitable route. Even the Attorney General of Massachusetts questioned the contractual agreement with HQ, stating that nowhere did HQ expressly verify that energy provided to Massachusetts from HQ was from a new source – because it is NOT.
As for the PUC decision – the 18-month process of review did not include information from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) because, while one was done in both Vermont and New Hampshire for the NECEC, no EIS was implemented in Maine. How could anyone make an informed decision on the environmental costs without an EIS? Answer: They can’t. One should question the PUC for this oversight and question Maine’s DEP for not requiring an EIS. The environmental costs from this unnecessary and invasive project are huge and have not been appropriately calculated – or even calculated at all.
The HQ dam complexes emit massive amounts of methane, considerably more damaging to our planet’s changing climate than CO2. HQ has never gone on record for the official inquiry about the NECEC because they appear to fear being asked potentially damaging questions under oath. The NECEC is far from a “well-vetted” solution. It is simply a profit-providing cash cow for a Spanish company (Iberdrola) and its subsidiary ‘children’ Avangrid and CMP.