By ALLIE MORRIS

Monitor staff

To bury or not to bury. That was the question yesterday at a Senate hearing on a bill that says the burial of electric transmission lines is preferred.

The legislation that has already passed in the House would cover future projects, including Northern Pass, which would run transmission lines through the state to bring hydropower from Canada.

During the two-hour public comment session, opponents and supporters disagreed on the feasibility and aesthetics of burying the lines.

“It provides a layer of protection for the tourism industry,” said Grafton County Commissioner Linda Lauer, who supports the legislation. She said she doesn’t want to see her scenic region overtaken by power lines, and she said she believes the state needs the bill to protect power lines from ice and wind damage.

Arielle Wolfe, with 6-year-old daughter Hazel at her side, said she doesn’t want future generations to face economic hardships brought on by the loss of tourism. “It’s pretty simple. Bury the lines, you can still get the power through the state,” she said.

But it may not be so easy.

Tiler Eaton, a representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said the state’s rocky, mountainous terrain makes this type of burial project ill-suited.

“Underground transmission projects in places like New Hampshire are rare precisely because of the engineering challenges they present.” Burial can multiply costs anywhere from three to 30 times, he said.

Supporters asserted the technology is accessible and already used in similar environments.

Northern Pass critic Nancy Martland, a resident of Sugar Hill, said several extensive underground projects have already been proposed in New England and New York. “States on either side of us have materially same conditions as we have,” she said. “If they can bury their lines as it appears they can, why can’t we?”

The House passed the bill in January. It directs the state Site Evaluation Committee, a body that approves energy projects, to give preference to plans that bury transmission lines and build them along public rights of way. Last week the Senate tabled a similar bill that would have mandated burial of the lines.

The House bill “represents suggestions, not a mandate,” said its sponsor Rep. Laurence Rappaport, a Colebrook Republican, at the start of the hearing. It’s “not trying to mandate outcomes, only to provide guidance.”

Under the legislation, any transmission line “not required to system reliability and not proposed to be substantially buried will have an unreasonably adverse effect on aesthetics.”

At the hearing, some opponents said that language makes the bill problematic.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” said Rep. Robert Backus, a Manchester Democrat. It “would be a very difficult thing for the committee to administer.”

Sen. Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that held yesterday’s hearing, said after the meeting that he will take a second look at his tabled Senate bill. “We’re probably not going to be able to get a mandate through,” he said. “What the people in this room are looking for us to do is find a way to mitigate the damage. And so I want to try to create a win-win that allows the power to come into New Hampshire . . . but doesn’t harm these good folks.”

(Allie Morris can be reached at 369-3307 or at [email protected].)

CONCORD — The state Senate Thursday adopted legislation setting up specific standards and requirements for the siting of wind turbines in New Hampshire. Passage came on a voice vote.

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, said SB 281 provides the state Site Evaluation Committee with criteria for siting wind turbines to “protect those who may be negatively impacted.”

“It sets up the process and criteria for the SEC to judge applications, which is something we do not have today,” he said. “This language will give guidance to the SEC overall above and beyond” broader legislation that was passed last year.

“It is not intended to block projects, but it’s meant to allow for the protection of neighbors of wind projects,” Bradley said.

Under the bill, the SEC must consider “the visual impact” of wind turbines at least in a 10-mile radius of the facility, as well as the “cumulative impacts to natural, scenic, recreational and cultural resources.”

The SEC must consider “set-back requirements to protect property owners from undue health and safety impacts such as noise, shadow flicker and ice throw.”

The bill says the SEC must also come up with standards for sound generated by the facility and must weigh impacts on plants and other natural resources and wildlife. It must also ensure the applicant has a fire protection plan.

The SEC must also ensure the prospective project has developed a “site decommissioning and restoration plan” before it receives approval.

And, under the bill, the SEC must ensure “mitigation measures” are in place to minimize “aesthetic, ecological, health and property value impacts.”

The Senate adopted an amendment removing a provision of the original bill that would require a developer to provide a “property value guarantee” to nearby property owners.

N.H. Senate to consider bill allowing for to-go beer sales

By KATHLEEN RONAYNE

Monitor staff

“All we’re trying to do is get it straight before we do it,” said Scott Schaier, executive director of Beer Distributors of New Hampshire. “When we do it, it’s going to be our reputation on the line for the industry.”

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, introduced the bill on behalf of a constituent who runs a small beer store. Originally, it would have allowed markets and stores that sell beer but don’t have on-premises serving licenses to sell tap beer in sealed to-go containers known as growlers. But the committee introduced an amendment that would extend the sale of to-go containers to establishments with licenses to sell on premises, such as restaurants and bars. There are roughly 4,000 of these licensed premises in the state, according to a memo on the bill written by Schaier. The bill would not go into effect until July 2015, and the amendment would also create a study committee to recommend rules that could range from container specifications to health and safety regulations.

The commerce committee unanimously supported the amendment and has placed the bill on the Senate’s consent calendar, which means it won’t get a debate on the Senate floor tomorrow unless another senator pulls it off the consent calendar.

Under current state law, establishments that produce their own beer may sell their product in growlers for customers to take with them. This applies to nanobrewers, licensed brew pubs and regular beverage manufacturers, such as Redhook or Smuttynose, Schaier said. If the bill and amendment pass, it would expand these sales to beer retailers, such as specialty beer stores with kegs on the premises, bars and restaurants. There are between 20 and 30 licensed breweries in the state that can sell growlers now, but this bill could open that up to thousands of establishments, Schaier wrote in a memo highlighting what he sees as the bill’s problems.

Schaier’s group is urging senators to either cut out the provision allowing establishments with on-premises licenses and keep only the study commission, or to kill the bill and start from scratch next year. There is a difference between a nanobrewery that sells its own product to go and a late-night restaurant selling to-go beers to young customers on their way out the door, Schaier said.

“The addition of this amendment complicates the equation further by raising even more public safety challenges,” his memo says.

But Sen. Andy Sanborn, a Bedford Republican and chairman of the commerce committee, said the bill sets up a commission specifically to address health and safety concerns. The study commission will be made up of one senator, two House members, someone from the state liquor commission, a wholesale distributor licensee appointed by the Beer Distributors of New Hampshire and a beverage manufacturer licensee appointed by Granite State Brewers Association. The committee will recommend rules by December, then the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules will decide whether to approve them.

“Before we just allow it to happen, there needs to be some discussion,” he said. “There (are) really no rules or protocol on how selling beer in growlers should be done.”

Dave Currier, co-founder of Henniker Brewing Co., said he’d like to see the commission establish more uniform standards for use of growlers. Most establishments sell their beer to go in half-gallon containers, he said, but there is no rule governing that. There should also be rules in place for proper labeling of the growlers and how late establishments can sell them, he said.

The New Hampshire Liquor Commission did not respond to requests for comment on this bill.

Sanborn owns a sports bar and restaurant in Concord, The Draft, but said selling beers to go is probably not something he would do there. To him, allowing restaurants and other establishments to sell beer to go if they choose is a matter of fairness. Patrons can take home unfinished bottles of wine under current law, and breweries are already allowed to sell growlers full of tap beer.

“If we’re allowing the process to happen with other types of alcohol, shouldn’t we be consistent?” he asked.

(Kathleen Ronayne can be reached at 369-3309 or [email protected] or on Twitter @kronayne.)