New Hampshire Gets It Right and Gets It Wrong
Last Wednesday the New Hampshire State Senate made a respectable show of political will and passed a resolution legalizing gay marriage 14-10. The freedom of same-sex couples in New Hampshire to marry is now in the hands of John Lynch, the historically wishy-washy Democratic Governor. If Lynch lets the bill pass, it will make New Hampshire the sixth state to legalize gay marriage. I ask in light of this, if New Hampshire's legislature can be ahead of 44 other states on social issues, how can they be dead last on energy? They are, and the very same Senators who showed the courage to stand up to bigotry and prejudice displayed an inchworm's spine as they let big coal interests run them over, back their big trucks full of coal up, and run them over again.
Here's the story so far:
New Hampshire, like many places, has a gargantuan fossil-fuel burning, greenhouse gas emitting coal plant. Like many coal plants, Merrimack Station in Bow emits ton upon ton of mercury and by law must undergo expensive upgrades to meet new regulations. In 2006, the New Hampshire legislature voted (unanimously) to authorize the installation of a mercury "scrubber" which will reduce the plant's mercury emissions. It was a good idea at the time and everyone rightfully patted themselves on the backs for it. The cost was estimated at $250 million.
Last summer, however, Public Service of New Hampshire (PSNH), the utility, suddenly needed $457 million to complete the project, and have staunchly refused to provide an accounting of the new costs -- the kind of accounting-free, oversight-devoid spending that would later enrage America when it found out about the excessive AIG bonuses that were paid for with taxpayer money. They vaguely chalked the increase up to an increase in transportation, steel and labor costs -- remember the summer of 2008 when everyone had a job and gas costs four dollars? The price of scrap steel was nearly double what it is now too -- but those times are over, and if that's the reason for the cost increase, the cost that should be over too. Still, PSNH is insisting that it needs $457 million to complete the project.
If that's not enough, studies that take actually take into account the implied costs of the scrubber -- near-future modifications to meet regulations on additional mercury reduction, water pollution and carbon emissions (which the scrubber will do nothing to reduce) estimate that the actual cost of keeping this plant up to code is somewhere between 1 and 3 billion dollars. New Hampshire State Senator Harold Janeway, a guy sensible enough to think "we said yes to $250 million, not $3 billion" introduced a bill that would require a study of the costs to determine if the project is still worthwhile. (If you agreed to take someone on a blind date, then found out dinner would cost $300, you might want to see a picture first, no?) All the bill asked for was a 90-day pause in construction while the new costs were being reviewed.
Anyway, the State Senate just voted 22-1 against this cost review, leaving Janeway as the lone Yea and bearer of good sense.
Here's their convergence of political impotence, retrograde policy and straight-up bad math. Merrimack Station employs 1,200 people. The installation of the scrubber will add 300 temporary jobs to the plant. That's 1,500 jobs, 1,200 of them permanent -- or as permanent as a job can be at an institution that is likely to be illegal in six years. If we take the medium estimate of 2 billion dollars that would be required in improvements, that comes out to 1.3 million dollars per employee. I'm as big a champion for handsome compensation for jobs in this sector as anyone, but 1.3 million per employee could be spent on transitioning these workers to clean energy solutions with cash to spare for infrastructure and development. When we talk about green-collar jobs, we're talking about getting out of these situations that are bad for our planet and pocketbooks alike.
Nonetheless, management claimed that even a 90-day pause would lead to immediate job losses -- a scare tactic designed to get labor on board together and form this alliance that could best reason and logic in the legislature -- and as planned, 13 of the 14 Senators progressive enough to vote to recognize same-sex marriage in New Hampshire voted to turn a blind eye to backward energy and fiscal policy.
There are two lawsuits pending against PSNH on behalf of ratepayers, and the EPA just launched an investigation into PSNH mandating that they reveal many of the expenditures relating to the scrubber -- but construction still continues on it.
The time will come when all states recognize gay marriage, and the time will come when carbon-belching plants like Merrimack Station are left behind for solutions that lead to a healthy planet and healthy profits. New Hampshire should reverse course on the scrubber and lead the way on both.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
There is nothing more hilarious than the contortions of a self proclaimed small government loving Republican explaining how and why the government needs to intrude upon a personal decision. Republicans have a published record of interjecting themselves into every Americans life, whether its drugs, prohibition, a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, stem cell and other medical issues they always support our government becoming larger and more intrusive while they're PR department scrambles to continue to convince us that they are the true champions of freedom.
On this upcoming Mother's day I hope that each and every American takes time to thank the Republicans for being the true mommy party.
Now be sure to dry your hair before you go out today or you'll get the flu.
How can NH get it right on marriage equality and wrong on energy? Spend some time here.
Even when this was still a republican dominated state there was sympathy for gay rights issues. We have libertarian leanings. That means we have a tendency to believe in minding our own business when it comes to what our neighbors do. We also currently do not require motorcycle helmets or the wearing of seatbelts. Because of the lack of a seatbelt law we don't get a big chunk of fedral funds for our highways that neighboring states receive. We have no income or sales tax. But that means our property taxes are choking folks here on fixed or lower incomes. We highly prize our clean air and wilderness areas and yet we have this coal plant.
I am not defending these positions, just pointing out that thes things exist in NH.
Robinshood-thanks for a thoughtful summary.
It does seem consistent with the Granite State's generally Libertarian approach to all things. None of govt's business on marriage, nor on private industry.
The apolitical notion has costs and benefits, and the citizens seem capable of living with both.
Gayness is not a Civil Rights issue. Once someone realizes they were born or became gay, it becomes their CHOICE to remain gay. They simply lack the mental fortitude to overcome their gayness because they cannot overcome their revulsion to the idea of sleeping with someone of the opposite sex.
I don't think the Founding Fathers intended for the Constitution to protect your right to a choice of lifestyle if it infringes on others. They did intend, and we have corrected for, discrimination against traits you cannot choose such as ethnicity and sex. Of course your rights to freedom of religion, creed, speech, and thought are protected attributes, and they cost nothing to allow, thus do not infringe on others.
Gay marriage, however, infringes on us all through the added cost of tax incentives, wage/insurance compensation for spouses, all costs that are passed on to taxpayers and consumers. We of course invest willingly in wage compensation to opposite sex married spouses with things such as medical coverage in the work place in exchange for the opposite sex married couple's potential to breed and produce the next generation of worker/consumer, as well as carrying our genetic code into the future ensuring our survival as a species.
Only liberal judges and politicians afraid of losing a few votes see this as a Civil Rights issues, "The People" do not and instinctively keep voting it down.
ok, then as proof, document your choice to be gay on Youtube.
go on!
show us all that it's just a choice...
oh, and be sure to tell us how you know that your straight and explain why you're attracted to the opposite sex before you choose to have the same sex arouse you!
and don't get me started on religion - it's a HUGE drain on our country those litigious freaks and they don't pay taxes but essentially control their herds' voting... just burns my whiskers!
Cknapp has stated the matter succinctly. I'd just add that society benefits from the gender complementarity of child-rearing, because the lack of that complementarity creates social instability, as witnessed by the inner-city chaos in the absence of fathers.
as a teacher some of the best students I've ever had came from same-sex family homes and I've yet to have a kid cause any trouble what-so-ever who came from a same-sex family home.
also I have never had a gay student who was the child of a same-sex couple.
on the other hand I have had many gay students who have overbearing and near violently defensive bigoted parents.
just the data in front of me.
The government should not be in the marriage regulation buisness in any way, shape or form. Let people make their own relationship decisions, all must be treated equally under the law. End of story, end of problems. If you don't approve of gay marriage, don't marry a gay.
Something has got to be done. If your thinking of doing a little trout fishing this summer in New England it better be catch and release. Even in the extreme northern wilderness the fish are loaded with mercury. Warnings against eating fresh water fish have been issued across Northern New England.
By social issues, do you mean that they now allow poligamy? I want to have about 10 wifes. Then, I want to marry a couple of my dogs, pigs, and cows. It is my history and self expression.
Same-sex marriage advocates aren't advocating polygamy or bestiality and, as far as I know, no one is except for you.
Why aren't they? I want to be in a community where polygamy is allowed. If gays have the right to marry, I want the right to marry as many women as I want. There is a long history of polygamy - it has been around as long as people have been around. I will pass on the dogs and pigs though.
Gay marriage is an oxymoron.
Sticks and stones.
Who says they are ahead on social issues (besides you)? They are not worried about the 300 temporary jobs that will be added, they are worried about how they can pay for their utilities if they add the temporary jobs. We need measured, reasonable conversion to cleaner alternatives and improved technology, not knee jerk reaction..
there are years of mounting fuel costs and environmental impact data that if it were a doctor checking knee-jerk she would be seriously concerned about the complete lack of reaction in the patient.
44 Other states, not 45.
"if New Hampshire's legislature can be ahead of 45 other states on social issues, how can they be dead last on energy?"
-------
Just ask some of the posters on HuffPo. Apparently they don't think that legislatures and governor's are completely unable to multi-task (at least that is the excuse they give about Obama not addressing LGBT issues.)
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
