The Governor, Public Service of New Hampshire, some state environmental groups, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers say they've agreed on a plan to reduce air pollution. With such a broad coalition many predict the plan will likely win passage in the legislature, but as NHPR's Josh Rogers reports, some critics charge it doesn't go far enough.
'Were all very excited to be here this morning to announce that consensus has been reached on the amendment on the clean power act that will lead to the passage of this landmark legislation.'
Remarks like the Governor?s were the order of the day as various stakeholders touted a plan that would make New Hampshire the first state to legislatively reduce four major pollutants from its fossil fuel burning power plants. Under the agreement, PSNH power plants in Bow, Newington, and Portsmouth would reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide ? the chief cause of acid rain; of nitrogen oxide, which creates smog; carbon dioxide; which hastens global warming; and less explicitly, mercury. Public service of NH President Gary Long says the plan is ambitions, but worth the sacrifice.
'From a business point of view this bill provides the flexibility that businesses need to achieve emission reductions. It will cost money to implement this and achieve reductions but we believe it is this right balance.'
That right balance will cost PSNH five million dollars per year ? which works out to a one percent increase to an average customers bill. That?s substantially less costly than the plan the company successfully fought last spring. That proposal called for greater cuts to co2 output. It would have also mandated a 75% reduction in Mercury emissions by 2006 -- a non-requirement this time around. State environmental groups admit they?re not necessarily wild about such changes. But Richard Moore of the New Hampshire Audubon society says he can live with the compromises.
'This bill is not perfect. It will be criticized for not reducing pollutants far enough, and for the mechanisms used to achieve these reductions, but sometimes the possible is preferable to the perfect.'
Moore?s pragmatism is shared by Representative Jeb Bradley, a sponsor of the plan. Bradley says the plan will help the environment, without upsetting what he says it a necessary regional reliance on a diverse power mix that includes the burning of fossil fuels.
'We need reliable energy in New Hampshire to have economic prosperity in New Hampshire. This amendment recognizes that it achieves air quality goals, but it doesn?t go so far to shut down those power plants and then have a crippling energy effect in the future.'
But some chafe at what they see as an opportunity for PSNH to avoid making more substantive changes that state?s like Massachusetts and Connecticut require of their power plants. Steve Blackledge of New Hampshire public interest research group says the plan is too lenient in allowing PSNH to buy pollution credits from other power plants that emit fewer toxins.
'The state of Connecticut is forcing their power plants to reduce pollution. As a result power plants in Ct will have more credits to sell to PSNH. PSNH may then buy credits from Connecticut that doesn?t result from the New Hampshire legislation it results from the legislation in Connecticut, it s a complicated way of saying that it?s not the New Hampshire law that gets us the reduction it?s the Connecticut law that gets us the reduction.'
The House science, technology and energy committee will hold public hearing on the plan next Wednesday.
