Power Plant Study Fuels Debate Over Scrubber

This debate before lawmakers pits some labor unions and the state’s largest utility against environmentalists and consumer advocates.

A bill before the Senate calls for the Public Utilities Commission to analyze alternatives to the mercury scrubber project.

This effort began after ratepayers realized costs for the project had increased from 250 million dollars to 457 million.

But the bill doesn’t sit well with Republican Senator Bob Odell from Lempster.

He says when the legislature mandated the scrubber project nearly 3 years ago, it was addressing an emergency health concern.

1:46 we understood there would be new technology new advances but we didn’t want to do exactly what’s happening in this room today, consider putting it off one more time over and over again.

Hundreds of people on both sides of the argument packed Representatives Hall on Friday in a debate that lasted all day.

Bill Sponsor Senate Democrat Harold Janeway of Webster says the new bill would give the PUC a 90-day timeline to evaluate alternatives.

During that time construction could continue.

51 15:27 it’s a major project and it’s been a long time building and it’s underway but I feel very strongly that what we’re seeking here, which is a study, is necessary and that’s the least we can do for the ratepayers.

Because those customers, said Janeway, will be paying the 450 million dollar cost of the scrubber project.

But opponents of the study argue that any delay would increase costs and continue harmful mercury emissions.

PSNH President Gary Long.

68 6:23 the alternative to putting a scrubber in is not putting a scrubber in, and if you don’t have a scrubber you don’t have a power plant and that’s why we say so strongly that this is really a bill about closing the plant 6:32

About 150 trade union members attended the hearing wearing T-Shirts that said “Don’t scrub my job.”

Ed Foley, president of the state building and construction trade council asked what would happen if a study shows the scrubber project isn’t the best solution.

75 11:13 what do we tell the several hundred workers who are now trained and poised to begin installation of the scrubbers, and to pump their resulting good wages into the NH economy?

Proponents of the study argue that too much has changed since lawmakers approved the scrubber project three years ago.

They say federal regulations might soon require emissions controls that would make the new scrubbers obsolete.

And new technologies like low sulfur coal, and activated carbon injection systems may be less polluting and cheaper.

Environmentalists attended Friday’s hearing to support the study, as did the commercial ratepayers group led by Gary Hirshberg.

Hirshberg argued that only a new analysis of the scrubbers would determine whether the project is New Hampshire’s version of the Big Dig.

96 6:47 I do not know the alternative to the scrubber, but I know the alternative to not doing this study is to voluntarily choose to ignore an enormous data base of evidence that tells us this is going to cost far more than we’ve been told.”

Consumer Advocate Meredith Hatfield, who represents residential ratepayers says she’s surprised at the way the issue has been handled.

100 2:53 Our office very simply supports a review and I do have to say that I really do wish the review could have commenced last August when we first got the information, but we really do believe its appropriate to review a project when the cost increases by 83-percent.

The Senate committee will now make its recommendation to the full Senate.

It will likely take another two to three weeks before a full Senate vote.

For NHPR news, I’m Amy Quinton.