#

The AP’s Amy Taxin and Holly Ramer broke the story:

A New Hampshire state lawmaker producing and starring in a porn film assaulted his business partner in California after he felt his scenes didn’t go well, according to a civil lawsuit filed by the partner.

Jonathan Carter filed the suit Friday in Southern California, seeking unspecified damages following a June incident that he claims involved state Rep. Frank Sapareto.

Sapareto denied the allegations or knowing Carter or having any business involvement with the adult film industry.  “I don’t know what you’re talking about,” Sapareto said in a phone interview.

“I don’t know what you’re talking about,” Sapareto said in a phone interview.

“Wow, that’s a great story,” he said, laughing. “I haven’t heard that one. I thought we were all done going after men.”

Now anyone can file a civil suit alleging anything, so the part of the AP story that makes this interesting is that there’s a police report from Simi Valley, CA involved:

“In the police report, authorities say Sapareto told them that he met Carter online while seeking a business partner to make an adult film and that he went to his home to return camera equipment. According to the police report, he denied assaulting him…

When asked about the police report, Sapareto said that he was stopped for a traffic violation. In a follow-up email, he said police didn’t find the allegation credible and that he has not been accused of anything.”

So we’ve gone from “what police report?” to “I was stopped for a traffic beef” to “Ah, the police didn’t believe it anyway…”  Yeah, not a good look for the Republican from Derry. And it’s not the first time he’s been accused of assault.  Sapareto was convicted on multiple counts of simple assault in 2013, involving an ex-girlfriend and some of her family members. Rep. Sapareto was sentenced to 30 days (suspended) a $500 fine and anger management classes.

Apparently he didn’t study….

The question now is how his GOP colleagues will respond on the eve of the midterm elections. Unlike the Sen. Jeff Woodburn case, the details here are sketchy (for the moment) and Sapareto doesn’t face any criminal charges.  Voters and Republican leaders are left with a civil lawsuit and some vague details.

Oh–and PORN.  

If this were about a shoving match at a bar or baseball game, it could be shrugged off. But when the guy you punched was in charge the camera crew zooming in on your actions areas during a steamy scene in “Lascivious Legislators IV,” that’s a political problem.

What are Democrats going to say about it? Thanks to Sen. Woodburn, not much.  The Democratic state senator is charged with a crime and, unlike Rep. Sapareto, we’ve all seen the photos. (And please, Frank–let’s keep it that way!).

Best guess is Sapareto is re-elected, but he can pull down his page promoting his election as House Speaker down now. That dream is over.

Baseball fans love to argue who has the strongest team, the best pitching, and fiercest lineup. And they make their case by using stats: winning record, ERA, batting average.

At the State House, many of the players say they’ll support legislation that promotes a healthy climate for job creation and a strong New Hampshire economy. Because businesses are the number one payer of state taxes, legislators often say they’ll get behind efforts that help businesses thrive. But when they finally get their turn at the plate, some just leave the bat on their shoulder and watch pitches go by.

BIA recently published its fourteenth annual Legislative Scorecard and fifth annual Victories & Defeats for New Hampshire Businesses. (Access the publication on our website, BIAofNH.com.) The companion pieces track how all Senators and House members voted on legislation of keen interest to the business community and summarizes the outcome of a wide variety of bills in a mix of policy areas.

The Scorecard section is easy to follow. Individual scores are based on roll call votes only (those in which lawmakers’ votes are recorded by the clerk), not up-or-down voice votes in which a Senator’s or Representative’s position is difficult, if not impossible, to identify. Selected legislation (ten bills for the Senate, eleven bills in the House) covers a variety of issue areas.

BIA is a nonpartisan advocate for our members – leading employers in every corner of the state. Business-friendly legislation sometimes falls on the political left and sometimes falls on the political right. Not everyone agrees with BIA on every vote; however, 141 Senators and Representatives – both democrats and republicans – scored high enough to warrant special recognition.

Those scoring between 86-100% on selected legislation received the honor, “Champion of Business.” Those who scored between 70-85% are recognized as “Friend of Business.” If you meet a state legislator running for re-election over the next few weeks, ask them what their BIA Scorecard percentage was (or look it up yourself online).

While the Scorecard is intended to hold legislators accountable for their response to business issues, the Victories & Defeats portion of the publication reports on the legislature’s efforts to enhance New Hampshire’s climate for job creation. By extension, the publication is a reflection of BIA’s efforts to influence public policy. As New Hampshire’s leading business advocate, our members expect us to communicate their concerns to elected officials. No one bats a thousand, but looking back at the 2018 session, BIA did well.

For example, in the area of employment law, we flashed some Gold Glove-caliber defense on a flurry of bills that would have allowed state government to intrude on private business decisions in everything from hiring practices to scheduling to benefits administration. We think employers know better than politicians how to run their businesses. Most lawmakers agreed with us, and all bills of this type, which are listed in the document, were defeated.

Another area where legislators heard us was on environmental policy. Most thoughtful business leaders agree the issue of emerging contaminants, such as PFOS and PFOA, should be taken seriously and thoughtfully addressed. Throughout the 2018 session however, we saw an overreaction to this issue. Although modern technology can now detect the presence of chemicals at increasingly smaller concentrations (parts-per-trillion), science around health impacts of smaller concentrations is lagging.

We saw lawmakers attempt to address this conundrum by tasking the state to do something the federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency, academia, and industry scientists have yet to do: establish new standards for a cornucopia of compounds in the air, groundwater, and surface water. Then legislators proposed taking existing standards and unilaterally change them to arbitrary levels – levels not based on science, just numbers that would show their constituents they’re “doing something.” After articulating the folly of this approach, these bills were defeated.

We had a mixture of wins and losses in the areas of tax policy, economic development, health care, and education. For example, the House and Senate missed opportunities to put downward pressure on New Hampshire electricity prices, which are already 50-60% higher than the national average year-round. They instead listened to special interests that wanted ratepayer subsidies for unprofitable power generators.

The season at the State House is over and we spectators are already thinking about the next season coming up in January. BIA’s Legislative Scorecard and Victories & Defeats publication is a stat sheet for voters to evaluate their elected officials and determine who’s an MVP and who should ride the bench.

Having been forced out of her position as Coos County Democratic Party chairwoman, the former domestic partner of State Sen. Jeff Woodburn–and the alleged victim of his violence–wants her fellow Democrats to know: She’s not the problem.

“My client did not report [Woodburn’s attacks],” her attorney Patricia LaFrance told NHJournal.com “She was contacted by the authorities who asked her if something was wrong, and who told her they had reason to believe something was happening to her. She didn’t bring this. They [the authorities] brought it to her.”

LaFrance pointed out that this information was made public during the recent court hearing on Sen. Woodburn’s criminal domestic violence case, and yet her client is still being punished by the community. “She got an email, sort of like a friendly warning, that her own party was planning–and these were the exact words–“a political lynching” for her,” LaFrance told NHJournal.

“I spent 18 years in a prosecutor’s office, and I know from experience it’s hard enough getting victims of domestic and sexual violence to come forward. To see a woman treated like this…in 2018? It’s unbelievable.”

LaFrance’s client was allegedly forced from her county leadership position over Facebook postings on the Coos County Democratic Party page highlighting the issue of domestic violence and violence against women–a problematic issue when the party’s nominee for state senate is facing criminal charges for allegedly punching and repeatedly biting his former domestic partner.

At an August meeting of the Coos County Democratic Committee after Woodburn’s arrest, his fellow Democrats rejected a motion to call for his resignation. And the New Hampshire Democratic Party says it stands behind their decision to oust his victim from her county chairmanship.

“Let me be clear: The party maintains its decision to withdraw support for the District One nominee (Woodburn),” NH Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley said in a statement. However, Buckley denied that he or the state Democratic Party had any knowledge of the harassment or threats she has received from local Woodburn supporters.  “Whoever did this was not acting on behalf of, or authorized by, the New Hampshire Democratic Party. We do not support these actions, and as soon as we learn of more details regarding this, we will address them immediately,” Buckley said in his statement.

The NH GOP wasted no time responding.  “The intimidation tactics by Ray Buckley and the Democrat political leadership against this individual are reprehensible,” GOP state party chair Wayne MacDonald said in a statement. The NHGOP also released a series of Facebook screen grabs showing prominent state Democrats like Rep. Steve Shurtleff (D-Penacook) and Sen. Martha Fuller Clark (D-Portsmouth) celebrating Woodburn’s victory over his female opponent in the September 11th Democratic primary.

Woodburn’s case–which involves multiple accounts of domestic assault and violence— comes at an unfortunate time for New Hampshire Democrats, who have been working hard to increase their support among women, have nominated a woman gubernatorial nominee (former state senator Molly Kelly), and have repeatedly attempted to link incumbent Gov. Chris Sununu and the NHGOP to allegations of misogyny and anti-woman attitudes from President Trump and the national GOP.  The tacit support for Woodburn’s candidacy feeds charges of hypocrisy from their GOP counterparts.

Molly Kelly, a political ally of Woodburn’s in the past, hasn’t helped her party’s cause. Though she offered a pro forma call for Woodburn to resign when he was first arrested, she refused to join other Democrats in endorsing or campaigning for Woodburn’s primary opponent.

At a forum in Concord, NH, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform warned Granite State lawmakers and business owners that the Wayfair decision isn’t about adding an online sales tax. It’s about taking away New Hampshire’s ability to stop any and all out-of-state taxes at the border.

“New Hampshire has the most to lose because it doesn’t have a personal income tax or sales tax,  And the Supreme Court ruling that you don’t have to have a physical nexus in order to impose a tax allows other states to export their income taxes and sales taxes into New Hampshire,” Norquist told NHJournal. “It’s bad news for all 50 states, but New Hampshire is most at risk and hopefully it will take a leading role in fighting back.”

Norquist was a panelist at a forum organized by former NH Republican Speaker of the House Bill O’Brien, featuring analysis by New Hampshire Attorney General Gordon MacDonald; John Formella, legal counsel to Gov. Chris Sununu; and Andrew Cline, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy. And they all echoed Norquist’s fundamental message: There is far more at stake than just online sales taxes for internet purchases.

At issue is the Supreme Court’s Wayfair decision that overturned 50 years of Supreme Court precedent requiring businesses to have a “physical nexus” in a state before that state could require it to collect sales taxes on its behalf. However, as the panelists repeatedly noted, the ruling does not restrict its new standard to sales taxes alone.

“Wayfair was not about balancing taxes between online and brick-and-mortar businesses. It’s about expanding the reach of high-tax states,”  Cline told the audience. “Massachusetts sent state troopers to our liquor stores to try to collect their sales taxes. Do you really think they won’t use this new ruling to try and collect every state tax?”

Gov. Sununu’s legal counsel, John Formella, recounted the infamous story of Town Fair Tire, and the attempt by the state of Massachusetts to force stores located in New Hampshire to collect Bay State sales taxes on its behalf. “The state of New Hampshire passed legislation to block them, but it was eventually the Massachusetts Supreme Court who stopped this effort.”

Formella urged New Hampshire to pursue a two-pronged approach, “legislation and litigation,” passing laws that will protect state businesses from out-of-state tax-collection requirements and eventually taking “the right case” to court to force the Supreme Court to address the issue again.  “Wayfair raised more questions than it answered,” Formella said.

And this, Norquist argues, is why New Hampshire must act aggressively and quickly to place roadblocks to Wayfair.  High-tax states were already trying extend their taxing authority on residents before the Wayfair decision and they’re going to step up these efforts now that the door has been opened.

“In Ohio, if you leave and go to Florida for example, they check to see if you still contribute to any local charities. If you do, that  will be used to say you really haven’t left and so you still must pay Ohio taxes,” Norquist told the audience. That effort was eventually turned back, but “it shows how vicious and how serious they are about chasing after that money.”

“These high-tax states are like East German border guards. If they think you’re fleeing they’ll shoot you in the back.”

O’Brien expressed his concern that the proposal that died in the New Hampshire House this summer was fundamentally flawed. It was a wall, O’Brien said, “but we need a minefield. We need as many laws as possible so that, if one of these states gets over our wall, they find a minefield of legislation waiting for them.”

One “mine” would be a state law making it illegal for New Hampshire businesses to release information about its customers for the purposes of tax collection.  “If this law applies to all New Hampshire businesses without disadvantaging any one and treating all customers the same, no state could claim we were treating them unfairly, and we could invoke our right under the ‘Full Faith and Credit’ clause of the Constitution for the other 49 states to respect our laws,” O’Brien argued.

While Gov. Sununu bemoaned the fact that the legislature failed to pass his proposal in special session over the summer, his counsel said that the effort wasn’t wasted.  For one thing, it re-focused attention on the need not to put any existing protections for in-state businesses at risk.

For example, the proposal called for other states who wanted to collect taxes from local businesses would have to register, which would then give the state Department of Justice 120 days to review that state’s laws and perhaps find legal grounds to refuse their request. “The intent of the registration requirement was to really be a deterrent, but I think there was another way to look at that and that it could be more of an invitation,” Formella said.

The big takeaway, however, is that the door to out-of-state taxation in the Granite State is wide open and it’s imperative that the state act, and act aggressively.

“At least 32 states are acting to require out-of-state tax collections by vendors,” New Hampshire AG Gordon MacDonald told the audience. “It hasn’t happened yet, but it’s just a matter of time.”

Last June, just five months into his presidency, Donald Trump was underwater with New Hampshire voters by -10 in Morning Consult’s monthly state-by-state polling.

After a year of Mueller investigations, the Stormy Daniels sturm und drang, and Trump’s torrential tweet storms, what’s happened to the president’s approval rating in the Granite State?

They’ve gone from underwater by 10 points to…underwater by 11.  In the updated Morning Consult polling released today, Trump’s popularity (or lack thereof) is virtually unchanged–43 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove–after a year of presidential soap opera and anti-Trump media coverage.

The June number is  a recovery from where Trump was in the winter (-17 in February), but he’s still down over the course of his presidency. It’s hard to remember, but when President Trump first took office, more New Hampshire voters approved of him than disapproved,  45-44 percent.

Is his baseline permanently below 50 percent because he’s a Republican?  Or because voters are just in anti-incumbent mood? Apparently not, based Morning Consult polling of Republican Gov. Chris Sununu.

Last March, Sununu’s ratings were a solid 57 percent approve, 23 percent disapprove. In March 2018, the most recent update from Morning Consult, Sununu’s approval advantage had grown to 63-21–in a state whose entire D.C. delegation is Democratic and that Hillary carried (albeit narrowly) in 2016.

As a recent Concord Monitor story put it: “Four Months To Election Day, Sununu Has History and Poll Numbers On His Side.”

Donald Trump… not so much.

The good news for Republicans is that Trump doesn’t have to face the New Hampshire voters again for another two years. The bad news is that presidential approval ratings tend to be a significant predictor of midterm performance.

Can Trump narrow this gap between now and November? Absolutely. And if Democrats keep up the extreme rhetoric on issues like abortion, or Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court, they may give the GOP a boost.

But when the Trump trend is essentially flat over the previous year, it’s hard to imagine a big 1o-point breakout in the next four months.

Tom Steyer wants you to know that he is not an extremist.

He demands that President Trump be impeached immediately;  believes Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court is part of a plan for Trump to evade prosecution; supports free college and healthcare for all; He says “there has been a hostile corporate takeover of our country,” and that our democracy is at an end.

But he’s not an extremist.

Just ask him.

“Since when is standing up for the rights of citizens ‘progressive’ or ‘extreme?” Steyer asked a crowd of 200 or so people in Bow, N.H. Wednesday night. “It’s not extreme. It’s American!”

Billionaire liberal Tom Steyer and his group Next Generation have made New Hampshire one of 10 states they are targeting in the 2018 midterm elections, which is why he brought his #SteyerTownHall road show to the suburbs of Concord.  Steyer has talked about spending some $1 million to influence New Hampshire’s elections, particularly in the contested First Congressional District race, in order to promote his issues. Which—based on the conversation at Fieldhouse Sports Wednesday night–are (in no particular order):

• Impeachment
• Impeachment
• And, if he has any extra time, Impeachment.

Steyer says the evidence of Trump’s criminal behavior is blatant, obvious and indisputable. He claims Trump is guilty of violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution by running businesses like hotels and golf courses that take money from foreign governments. Steyer said Trump was also clearly guilty of obstruction of justice for firing former FBI Director Jim Comey. (No mention of the independent Inspector General’s report that found multiple examples of improper behavior by Comey).

“We need to impeach President Trump for the sake of the rule of law,” Steyer said. “It’s not politics.”

Steyer was annoyed by suggestions from prominent Democrats and pundits that pushing for Trump’s impeachment was politically counter-productive.

“There are people complaining that by bringing up impeachment we are ‘normalizing’ impeachment. Well, if you permit a president to break the law every single day; if you permit a president to lie, if you permit a president to commit torture, to obstruct justice—you’re ‘normalizing’ that behavior,” Steyer said.

A friendly crowd listens to Tom Steyer speak at his town hall event in Bow, NH on Wednesday July 11th.

Despite Steyer’s claims that his Next Generation organization was making real progress with young people, the crowd was mostly made up of the “Matlock and Metamucil” demographic. They asked questions about current events like President Trump’s pick of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Steyer, who comes across on stage like a cross between Steve Jobs and Mr. Rogers, was happy to comment.

He called Judge Kavanaugh “the perfect stooge,” and repeated the now-debunked canard that the Judge believes Presidents can’t be prosecuted or deposed while in office—thus giving President Trump a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card.

“Trump nominated someone to the Supreme Court who he knew would push to hide hi from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits,” Steyer said of Kavanaugh. “We’re seeing something really wrong here.”

When asked about the current trade kerfuffle between America, Europe and China, Steyer launched a personal attack on President Trump.

“Everyone’s focused on the fact that he’s lawless and reckless and dangerous, but I want to point out another thing: He’s dumb,” Steyer said to raucous applause. “People keep saying he’s a good negotiator because he keeps telling them he’s a good negotiator. He’s not. He hasn’t gotten one negotiation right.   This is a guy who’s’ a dummy.”

This inspired a response by a member of the audience, Brandon from Concord, who bemoaned the current “tribalism” in American politics and complained that the way Steyer was talking about President Trump and Judge Kavanaugh made things worse. “You’re pushing people on the fence away from what you and I are trying to do.”

Steyer would have none of it.

“Do I want to get to a place,  which I would say is the traditional American place, of telling the truth? Of put the country first? Of Agreeing to disagree as long as we both put do those two things. Absolutely,” Steyer said. “But that’s not happening.”

“I’m tired of the false equivalency, that ‘both parties are extreme.’ That’s not true,” Steyer said. “The [Republicans] have gone off the rails. They’re extreme, not us.”

Steyer hasn’t always had Election Day success. In 2014, for example, he spent $74 million trying to make climate change a core issue. Instead, the GOP took the U.S. Senate.  And his complaints about “Trump meeting alone with Putin” are ironic given his problematic past with the former Soviet Union. As InsideSources.com reported:

Critics of Steyer do not go so far as to make accusations of nefarious goals, but they actively take note of Steyer’s close connections to Russia, a settlement he reached with the U.S. government over questionable Russian investments, and the profits he’s earned from ties to Putin’s inner circle.

However, for New Hampshire politicos who doubt the impact that Steyer and his millions can have on local races, Steyer claimed Wednesday night that the NextGen-inspired 2016 increase in turnout among college students at UNH alone was larger than the margin Maggie Hassan had over incumbent US Senator Kelly Ayotte.  Steyer said he has NextGen organizations on every college campus in the Granite State.

Despite the lack of a youth presence at Wednesday night’s events, Steyer said that he had actually cracked the code for getting college students to vote: Puppies.

“You know what works? Puppies at the polls. It turns out that if you bring puppies to the polls, young people will show up, and then they will vote.”

Election outcomes swayed by kids who come to the polls just to pet a cocker spaniel? Not particularly extreme. But in its own way—extremely terrifying.

At an Independence Day celebration, a Republican friend asked me about our starting a third party. Then he said it might not work because we disagree on one big issue…abortion.

Surprised, I asked, “You are pro-choice?”  He replied, “Yes, I don’t think we should take a right to abortion away, but I don’t think we should pay for it.” He clarified his position further by declaring his support both for parental consent and for a ban on abortion after 12 weeks. So, while he considers himself pro-choice, his clarifications show that “pro-choice” doesn’t always mean what you think.

In many ways, my friend represents the voters of New Hampshire, which is called a pro-choice state, but when you look deeper, the views on abortion are not so clear. The majority may not want abortion to be illegal, but many people support regulation.

The nuances of abortion are not stopping gubernatorial candidate Steve Marchand from taking one of the most extreme positions in the nation.

Marchand’s extremism contrasts with moderate New Hampshirites’ positions on life. His plan promotes abortion through nine months (most of Europe restricts abortion after the early second trimester), eliminates the Hyde Amendment (which prohibits federal funding of abortion), and abolishes reasonable restrictions of abortion.

Marchand advocates overturning a 2017 law that recognizes children at 20 weeks of pregnancy as eligible to be considered victims of crime. Ask any mother or father who has lost a preborn child as a result of a crime, and she or he will tell you that this law is a good thing. The law has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with justice for grieving families.

The hostility of Marchand’s plan is frightening and will not win against a Republican incumbent who in recent polls showed a 25-point lead.

To win, Marchand should expand his base of support and recognize that abortion-on-demand is not what most women want. Most women who seek an abortion feel as if they have no choice. They are most often poor, in unhealthy relationships, and/or pressured to abort their unborn children by the fathers or other family members.

Marchand should replace his abortion-expansion plan with a woman-centered plan that whole-life voters would support.

First, he should advocate for paid maternity leave, so that a woman doesn’t have to choose between an abortion and keeping a job she needs.

Second, Marchand should support the thirty-plus pregnancy centers in New Hampshire, which provide diapers, cribs, strollers, clothing, and other necessities for mothers, free of charge.

Third, Marchand should promote perinatal hospice, which supports mothers and families who receive a diagnosis that the child in utero has a life-threatening disease and will likely not survive.

It matters that New Hampshire, which carries symbolic weight when it comes to picking the leader of the country, is seeing a frightening hostility to life in its gubernatorial race.

New Hampshire prides itself for being “first in the nation.” But will it lead the way for life or for hostility?

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has ended her drought in New Hampshire’s First Congressional District. As reported here at NHJournal, for weeks not a single one of the eleven (count ’em, 11!) Democratic candidates in the primary would commit on the record to supporting Pelosi for Speaker of the House.

Not anymore! Thursday night at a candidate event hosted by the Hampton, NH Democrats, one of the candidates came out of the Pelosi closet.  Meet N.H. State Representative and candidate for Congress, Mark MacKenzie, who issued this statement to NHJournal:

Nancy Pelosi has served with distinction in the United State Congress for over 30 years. She was the first woman in US history to be elected as the Speaker. She has supported countless Democrats in this country helping them get elected.  The role Representative Pelosi will play in the future will be decided by the new Congress. Nancy Pelosi deserves the respect of this nation for her faithful service to this country.  My focus is on getting elected to represent the first CD and this is where my attention is focused.

So there you go, Ms. Former Speaker–you’ve got a supporter!  Interestingly, none of the three women running in the Democratic primary have endorsed Pelosi for Speaker. One of them, Rep. Mindi Messmer, has said explicitly that it’s time for Democrats to make a change.

Watch for yourself courtesy of the twitter feed of intrepid NH political reporter Paul Steinhauser:

In the politically divided purple state of New Hampshire, getting 22 of the legislature’s 24 state senators to agree on anything is nearly impossible. Maple syrup, the Red Sox, sure. Maybe motherhood and apple pie (depending on where the apples are from)…but a utility company’s natural gas pipeline?

No way.

Except that’s exactly what happened. In May, all but two members of the New Hampshire state Senate—including all 10 Democrats–endorsed Liberty Utilities’ “Granite Bridge” pipeline project. Support from Republicans like Senate President Chuck Morse and Majority Leader Jeb Bradley for this 27-mile natural gas pipeline from Stratham to Manchester is hardly a surprise. But when a liberal environmental activist like Sen. Martha Fuller Clark is on board, that’s definitely news.

“Granite Bridge will make it possible to store and deliver natural gas to a greater number of New Hampshire customers, especially during a cold snap like we experienced this past winter, at a lower cost and with fewer greenhouse gas emissions than home heating oil, the current alternative,” Sen. Clark said in a press release endorsing Granite Bridge. 

Though it’s years away from final approval, the broad, bipartisan support for Granite Bridge stands in stark contrast to the reaction to most of the energy infrastructure projects in the past few months. Even renewable energy projects like Northern Pass (hydro-electric), NextEra (solar) and Spruce Ridge (wind) have been shot down in recent weeks—a fact that makes Liberty’s steady progress on Granite Bridge even more surprising.

It is also a cautionary tale for Green-action groups, showing how they can find themselves fighting alone out on the political fringe. There are still many Public Utility Commission filings, hearing and debates yet to come, but it’s not too early to ask: How did Liberty Utility and Granite Bridge come so far with so little opposition?

IT’S THE WEATHER, STUPID.

 The first thing to remember about New Hampshire and energy policy is this: It’s cold.  Really cold. Too cold, in the opinion of many homeowners, to rely on electricity for heat. In places like Florida, electric heat is fine. But at the border of Canada, many believe…not so much.

The most common home heating fuel is heating oil, used in more than 44 percent of New Hampshire homes. Propane, another carbon-based energy source, heated another 15 percent.

Heating oil is both relatively expensive and emits a relatively high CO2 output. Not only is it used to heat homes, but it also plays a significant role in providing electricity when demand is unusually high.

“During the two weeks of Arctic cold [in 2017], New England generators burned through about 2 million barrels of oil. That’s about 84 million gallons. That’s more than twice as much as all the oil used by New England power plants during the entire year of 2016,” according to ISO New England CEO Gordon van Welie. Even worse, during that cold snap, energy from coal or oil shot up from about 2 percent of New England’s grid total to 33 percent.

All this is bad news for climate activists and energy customers. How can New Hampshire, which has committed to reducing its carbon footprint even as the state’s economy continues to grow, turn this around and still meet its energy needs? One potential solution is natural gas.

While it’s not carbon neutral, burning natural gas for fuel generates less CO2 than any of the carbon-based fuel sources like coal, heating oil or propane. It’s also significantly cheaper to heat your home with natural gas than heating oil.

Which explains why even progressives like President Obama’s Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz say “Natural gas has shown itself to be an important bridge to a clean energy future.” New Hampshire state senator Clark echoed that sentiment in her statement supporting Granite Bridge:

“Increasing access to natural gas will reduce air emissions and help to fight climate change, as well as lowering our high energy costs in the short term while we work to create an energy future that will rely solely on true renewables, including solar and wind.”

The opportunity to get more New Hampshire households off heating oil and onto natural gas would seem like a win for the green movement. And yet, as Mark Perry of the American Enterprise Institute notes, “the trouble is there isn’t enough pipeline capacity to bring in natural gas from the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania to New England in times of high demand. Even as America’s natural gas production has soared, the pipeline capacity to get it to where it’s needed hasn’t kept up.”

Holman Jenkins of The Wall Street Journal makes the same point: “New England is in the worst shape [in the nation], having killed multiple projects for new pipelines and even a transmission line to bring hydropower from Canada. Local electric prices are 50% higher than the national average. Every winter, thanks to an overtaxed pipeline network, the six-state region descends into a ‘precarious position,’ according to New England’s grid manager.”

And a 2018 report from ISO-New England is filled with references to “fuel shortages” and “fuel availability” (not to mention the possibility of brown outs and load shedding in harsh winter weather 10 years from now), all of which translates to “customers who need natural gas, but there’s not enough pipeline capacity to get it to them.”

How did New England become America’s energy-grid basket case? “Political obstacles driven by environmental groups,” says Perry.

“THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD”

“There are just so many reasons why a pipeline is just not the right choice.” So says Stephanie Scherr, founder and director of EchoAction.org, a self-described “environmental justice” organization in New Hampshire.  At a public hearing in Epping earlier in the year,  Scherr said “when we choose gas we are complicit in what happens to other people.”

In a statement to NHJournal, The Conservation Law Foundation calls Granite Bridge “a bad deal for New Hampshire residents.”

When asked about the argument made by people like Secretary Moniz and Sen. Clark that natural gas should be a bridge to renewables, Scherr bristles. “I have nothing to say about Senator Clark’s decision. I think it was a most unfortunate decision and we were very disappointed,” Scherr said.

Patricia Martin, EchoAction’s Energy Policy Coordinator, is even more direct. “I am actually quite upset that Liberty lobbyists manipulated these senators into ENDORSING [emphasis in original] the project before they’ve heard any good arguments against it or probing questions about it,” she told NHJournal via email. “Now their egos and reputations will be tied to being named in that press release as endorsing the project.”

EchoAction is part of a broader environmental movement across New England, including the Conservation LAW Foundation, Citizens Climate Lobby and others who oppose virtually all pipelines—period. “They’ve decided to make the perfect the enemy of the good, which is a shame because Granite Bridge can do a lot of good,” a source close to the project told NHJournal.

The strategy is simple: Oppose any expansion of the carbon-energy infrastructure and force New Hampshire to expand renewable energy to meet future needs.

‘I oppose any expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure,” Martin says. “If we want to transition away from fossil fuels, we need to stop expanding its usage as a first step. If you know there’s a stop sign coming up, do you step on the gas and then brake hard at the last moment?”

Echo Action plans to protest outside the New Hampshire Democratic state convention on Saturday, June 23 in response to the Democrats’ lack of fealty to their zero-carbon-infrastructure stance.

The problem is that renewables are nowhere close to covering the region’s energy needs. In a statement, the CLF says of Granite Bridge:

“Rather than lining the pockets of another utility, New Hampshire should support the many small businesses providing low-cost clean technologies like heat pumps for heating and cooling.”

But even if New Hampshire were somehow converted to an “electric heat” state like South Carolina or Virginia (remember the “it gets really cold here” part?), in 2016 the state got a mere 2.3 percent of its electricity from wind—one-tenth the amount of electricity generated from natural gas. While renewables are close to providing 20 percent of total energy consumed in New Hampshire (a figure that excludes nuclear—which makes no sense, but that’s a topic for another day), by far the largest source isn’t wind, solar or geothermal. It’s biomass. Biomass generates three times more electricity than the other three sources combined.

Not to mention the fact that these “many small businesses” all get subsidies for their biomass/electric/wind from current ratepayers, pushing the cost of electricity in one of the most expensive states in the country even higher.

The reality is that New Hampshire businesses and homeowners aren’t going to sit in dark, unelectrified buildings and wait for wind and solar technology to catch up with current demand. The lights are going to come on, the stoves are going to be lit.  Opposing smart pipeline projects won’t stop that from happening. It just means the natural gas will get to New England in dumb ways.

Like tanker ships from Russia.

Earlier this year, the left-leaning Boston Globe  ran an editorial decrying “pipeline absolutism” and urging the region’s environmentalists to end their knee-jerk opposition to all projects.

Their coverage included the story of a Russian tanker bringing liquified natural gas 4,500 miles from the Arctic to Boston because of a lack of pipelines in New England.

“Climate advocates have put short-term tactical victories against fossil fuel infrastructure ahead of strategic progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They’ve obsessed over stopping domestic pipelines, no matter where those pipes go, what they carry, what fuels they displace, and how the ripple effects of those decisions may raise overall global greenhouse gas emissions,” the Globe argued. [emphasis added]

Why would environmentalists support shipping LNG (via diesel-powered tanker) through the pristine Arctic region when there’s plenty of home-grown natural gas in North America? According to the Globe, a lawyer for the anti-pipeline Conservation Law Foundation “shrugged off” the issue of Russian gas being transported to New England.

“On the plus side, though, they didn’t offend Pittsfield or Winthrop, Danvers or Groton, with even an inch of pipeline,” the Globe noted wryly.

A good way to avoid New England NIMBYism. But how is that a smart strategy for the environment?

THE GRANITE BRIDGE PROJECT

Enter Liberty Utilities and Granite Bridge. On paper, it appears to be a no-brainer. Taking advantage of the state’s “Energy Infrastructure Corridor” program, the pipeline’s 27 miles are mostly located in the Route 101 right-of-way and buried underground, thus avoiding many of the NIMBY issues that have plagued other projects.

And the pipeline will serve a densely populated area from Stratham to Manchester, where natural gas demand is going to climb with or without a new pipeline. Liberty currently serves 90,000 customers from Laconia to Nashua with a single pipeline that is nearing capacity. And that’s a problem.

“Look at what’s happened in California when you refuse to invest in infrastructure,” former New Hampshire Speaker of the House Bill O’Brien told NHJournal. “Energy, water, whatever. You can refuse to build it, but demand is going to rise. In California, they’ve got water shortages, brownouts—it’s a disaster. New Hampshire environmentalists should learn that lesson and support the right projects, not just oppose everything,” the Republican said.

And Granite Bridge also fits in with the new 10-year Energy Strategy released by Gov. Chris Sununu, which prioritizes lower rates for businesses and consumers. The project also includes a large LNG tank in an abandoned quarry near Epping. According to John Shore, senior manager of marketing and communications for Liberty Utilities, this approach will let Liberty to buy natural gas during the summer when prices tend to be low, store it, then use that cheap, stored gas to save customers money in the winter when prices inevitably spike.

“We know the price patterns in the industry and, with this storage capacity, we can use that knowledge to save our customers money,” Shore told NHJournal. If the Granite Bridge pipeline had been in place starting in 2013, this “buy gas when it’s cheap” strategy would have saved Liberty Utilities customers more than $100 million by now, according to Shore. It also provides a cushion against price instability in the natural gas market for Liberty’s customers.

Plus, Liberty is putting the LNG tank in an old quarry, where it’s both safer and out of sight.

Lower CO2 emissions, lower prices, more price stability and all hidden underground on a highway right of way.  And green activists at CLF and Echo Action are against it? To the average New Hampshire consumer, ratepayer and voter—this opposition makes little sense.

By opposing projects that have a demonstrable environmental benefit in the name of still-unavailable levels or wind and solar, the anti-pipeline forces have pushed themselves to the political fringe.

And once they’ve marginalized themselves as the “We’d rather see tankers from Russia than a pipeline from Pennsylvania” movement, how much clout with they have in Concord? Won’t it be easier for utility companies to convince lawmakers to shrug off their objections, the way the New England CLF attorney “shrugged off” the impact of their anti-pipeline stance on the pristine Arctic environment?

Granite Bridge could be a turning point for the region’s environmental stakeholders, a path for the energy and environmental movements to find common ground going forward—avoiding clearly-unpopular projects like Kinder Morgan while supporting “win/win” infrastructure proposals.

Or it could be a breaking point, driving moderate voices away from the Granite State’s environmental movement.

As first exclusively reported here at NHJournal, Gov. Chris Sununu vetoed two energy bills this morning that would have put upward pressure on energy prices in the Granite State.

“Senate Bills 365 and 446 combined would cost New Hampshire electric ratepayers approximately $100 million over the next three years,” Sununu said in his veto message.  “New Hampshire has some of the highest electric rates in the country, placing financial strain on the elderly, those on fixed incomes and the business community.  These bills send our state in exactly the wrong direction.”

SB 446 raises the limit on “net metering” of power from solar generators covered by a state buy-back mandate from one megawatt to five.  “While I agree that expanding net metering could be a benefit to our state, Senate Bill 446 would cost ratepayers at least $5 to 10 million annually and is a handout to large scale energy developers. These immense projects should use incentives already available and compete on their own merits,” Sununu said.

The other bill vetoed by Gov. Sununu Tuesday morning,  SB 365, requires utilities to buy the entire output from a group of older biomass generators at above-market rates. “It would cost New Hampshire ratepayers approximately $25 million a year over the next 3 years, on top of the subsidy for these plants that already became law last year through Senate Bill 129,” Gov. Sununu said.  “It harms our most vulnerable ratepayers and our job creators for the benefit of a select few.”

“Consistent with our state’s 10 Year Energy Strategy, I am committed to working to encourage and advance renewable energy generation and fuel diversity without unjustly burdening the ratepayers of New Hampshire,” Sununu said.

Given that both of these bills passed the New Hampshire legislature with large, bipartisan majorities,  there was some question about whether Gov. Sununu–who is up fo re-election this November–would veto them or let them become law without his signature.  For Republicans in states carried by Hillary Clinton in 2016 (like New Hampshire), the current political environment is challenging.  Vetoing bills with a green/progressive constituency carries risk, particularly given the political turmoil of the Trump era and its impact on the Republican Party’s standing.

At the same time, the Cook Political Report just revised their analysis of the NH Governor’s race from “Leans Republican” to Likely Republican.” Sununu is one of the five most popular governors in the US and he’s taken steps–like signing the transgender bill two weeks ago–to show he’s not a movement ideologue.  As Saint Anselm College political science professor Christopher Galdieri said when he signed the transgender rights bill, “He feels like he is comfortably ahead enough that he can afford to lose a few social conservative votes.”

By vetoing these energy-subsidy bills, Sununu is both advancing his administration’s pro-ratepayer approach to energy policy and reminding a traditional Republican constituency–businesses–that he’s an ally.

The only question remaining is what Sununu will do about a third bill, SB 577, which extends existing (and expensive) subsidies to the Burgess BioPower plant in Berlin. Unlike the other two subsidy bills, this one has a strong constituency of hundreds of jobs directly tied to the facility and powerful political interests like Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley.

Multiple sources close to the governor and familiar with his thinking believe Sununu will likely let SB 577 become law without his signature, as he did with last year’s expensive energy-subsidies bill, SB 129. This will placate the Burgess backers–the most passionate supporters of these bills–and make it less likely they will mount a successful veto override.

For opponents of “picking winners and losers,” as the Sununu administration’s 10-Year Energy Strategy puts it, these vetoes are two-thirds of a loaf. But after last year’s legislation and in the current political climate, free market energy advocates will take it.