Bow News : power plant

Power plant upgrade may get second look

Goffstown Editor — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:41:00 GMT

BY MATT SCHOOLEY

Sen. Harold Janeway has filed a bill that he hopes will force the Public Utilities Commission to review a planned upgrade on PSNH’s Bow coal power plant.

Janeway filed the bill on Monday, Jan. 12, hours before the 4 p.m. deadline, and will now look to overturn the PUC’s decision that it would not look into the project because lawmakers already decided it was in the best interest of the state.

The $457 million upgrade includes a scrubber that is designed to cut emissions of mercury after the Legislature mandated the environmental regulation in 2006.

However, since regulation was passed, the cost of the project has increased significantly, one of the reasons behind Janeway’s bill.

“The investment deserves careful analysis,” said Janeway. “So much has changed in the energy and utility area in the past two or three years and the cost of the project has roughly doubled since that action was taken.”

Janeway also said the state is at a crossroads between the old way that the industry operated and the new way, and it is time to look closely at the use of fossil fuels.

“It doesn’t seem sensible to me to commit to a $450 million investment based on what was common knowledge when the bill was passed,” said Janeway. “You wouldn’t do that when you make other investments, you consider all the conditions that prevail.”

The upgrade would be paid for by ratepayers, and recently a group of businesses that had asked the PUC to look at the project filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

With the bill filed, Janeway knows he has work ahead of him.

“I can’t predict the outcome,” said Janeway. “There’s a lot of persuading to be done because it’s revisiting something a lot of people would prefer not be revisited. We have an obligation to give it another go and go over it again.”

If the bill passes, Janeway said he doesn’t want the review to take up years and resources, but a quick-paced, thorough review. In the end, Janeway hopes to find a solution best for both sides.

“We want to end up with something fair and right to the company, and to the stakeholders,” said Janeway.

Bow scrubber project on schedule

Bow Editor — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:20:00 GMT

BY MATT SCHOOLEY

PSNH officials are prepared to move forward with their mercury scrubber project at its Bow plant, while the state’s Public Utilities Commission hears arguments on the subject.

On Sept. 19, the PUC gave a go-ahead to the project, which is designed to lower emissions of mercury and sulfur by 2013.

The state Legislature mandated in 2006 that PSNH install the wet scrubber to cut down on harmful emissions by 2013, but the high price tag had the New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission – the authoritative force in such endeavors – debating whether it was in the public’s best interest.

After the commission investigated its authority in superseding the Legislature’s decision, they found it was above their call to do so.

TransCanada Hydro Northeaster Inc. and three commercial ratepayers have submitted paperwork asking the commission to hold a rehearing on the topic.

“(The PUC) suspended the order pending further reconsideration,” said Martin Murray, a PSNH spokesman. “What that really did is provide the commission with more time to formally decide to grant the motions or deny them. In the meantime, nothing changes from PSNH’s perspective concerning our schedule.”

Murray said PSNH will continue to install the scrubber, which is scheduled to begin with early preparation work in November.

“The next step is up to the commission. In the meantime, nothing changes regarding our schedule,” said Murray. “We’re still moving ahead, and have to move ahead. It’s kind of a unique circumstance.”

While the deadline to have the system installed is July 1, 2013, Murray said PSNH is on schedule to finish it about a year before the deadline.

“There are incentives for the company to have the system in place earlier in order to further reduce customer costs,” said Murray.

The PUC had 10 days after the last day for petitions could be filed, which was Oct. 24, to decide whether to hold new hearings. If the PUC makes the decision to rehear the groups’ arguments, it may not change PSNH’s plans.

“They would then set a schedule that would open up a process that could be rather lengthy, but it’s not clear that our work would halt during that process because we do have a law in place that requires us to do the work,” said Murray. “The order they would be rehearing isn’t an order regarding stopping or starting the project, it focuses on whether the commission has the authority to halt the project.”

The benefit of having the plant in Bow is lowering prices for PSNH customers, said Murray.

“It’s an economic plant, a reliable plant, and while it meets all current emissions regulations, with the operation of a scrubber, it will be one of the cleanest plants in all of the New England,” said Murray. “If we can keep this plant running economically, it’s a real win for the state.”

Bow power plant emissions called safe

Bow Editor — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 20:31:00 GMT

BY NICHOLAS BROWN

After a two-year study in the Suncook Village area, the state Department of Environmental Services reported that a nearby coal power plant is not causing air pollution that would cause health problems.

The study was sparked by a 2001 petition submitted to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry by a Suncook Village resident, and concluded that the area’s ambient air quality continuously met national quality standards.

Of concern was the Merrimack Station coal power plant in Bow, which sits in the western banks of the Merrimack River, about a mile away from the Suncook Village. The plant, which kicked off operations in 1968 and is now operated by Public Service of New Hampshire, is the largest of its kind in the state, the DES study said.

Based primarily on readings from an air monitoring point on Exchange Street, the DES concluded that the air in the village routinely had safe levels of three pollutants: sulfur dioxide, ozone and fine particulate matter.

This most recent study, released on Thursday, March 8, in a 74-page report, follows a 2003 study which determined that levels of sulfur dioxide and coarse particulate matter were “unlikely to result in significant adverse health effects.”

The recent study did find specific times when outdoor pollutants did reach levels that could affect asthmatics or other “sensitive groups.”

Sulfur dioxide levels were highest in the Village when strong northwest winds would blow in the winter months, and “ozone events” and fine particulates were most noticeable in the summer months during times of southerly winds.

When ozone levels are high, the DES study suggests, “Active children and adults, and people with lung disease, such as asthma, should reduce prolonged or heavy exertion outdoors.”