美國新罕布夏州（New Hampshire）備受爭議的北方通行計畫（North Pass）若通過，當地的觀光勝地白山（White Mountains）將會有一大塊區域聳立著高低不齊的高壓電塔。
美國能源部早在環境影響評估公布前，提出可行的替代方案，除了把電線埋到地下，也不排除中止整個計畫。
電纜工程耗資330億 帶來就業與污染
北方通行是一條行經新罕布夏州3百多公里的電纜線，用以輸送加拿大水壩產生的12億瓦特電力，供新英格蘭地區使用。
從2011年原始計畫公佈以來，這項耗資11億美元（約新台幣330億）的工程一直備受爭議。
新罕布希爾森林保護公會（The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests）尤其反對架設1500座高壓線電塔，因為這會讓環境傷痕累累，特別是該州的3座森林保護區、數個保留緩衝區以及白山國家森林（White Mountain National Forest）。
反對這項工程的人更指出，這些就業機會只是短期的，而且傳輸的電大多非本州使用。
支持者多來自商業界，他們認為這項工程可以為增加當地就業機會、稅收與綠色能源，所以樂觀其成。但是當地居民、環保團體及保護組機對於傳輸線經過的路線感到憂心忡忡，所以持反對意見。
這項工程是由3家私人企業合營的計畫：東北公共事業公司 （North Utilities）、新罕布夏公服公司（Public Service of New Hampshire）、魁北克水電（Hydro-Quebec）。
替代方案多選擇 居民傾向地下化
如果這項工程還是得完成，許多人認為應該所有線路都要地下化。州議會對於此提議給予全力支持，因為新罕布希爾州已通過一項法案，要求所有新建的管線都應該地下化。
北方通行計畫的開發者確實有意修改其原計畫，埋設將近8哩的線路，但這安撫不了反對者的情緒。開發者也表示，若採用高壓線電塔，每哩只需300萬美元，但電線地下化的成本每哩高達1500~2000萬美元。
目前還不知道能源部會推薦那一種替代方案。眾多替代方案當中，都是地下化所有或部分的線路，或至少改變一條主要路徑。例如方案之一是把原先計畫的路徑全部都地下化；或者按照原先計畫的路徑，但只地下化行經白山國家森林區的40哩線路；還有一個方案是根據現有的道路規畫全新路徑，再地下化所有線路。
森林保護公會公會、阿帕拉契山社（Appalachian Mountain Club）、保護傳媒大隊（Conservation Media Group）以及一群資源保護者攜手合作，讓新罕布夏州更多人知道這些議題，同時也向州長哈斯桑（Hassan）陳情，希望地下化線路或停止北方通行計畫。
哈斯桑則回應：「我很高興美國能源部聽見本州公民所關心的問題，而且也同意考慮考慮各種地下化的替代方案。」
The U.S. Department of Energy has released a list of alternatives under consideration for the controversial Northern Pass transmission line project in New Hampshire. The choices range from scrapping the plan altogether to burying the entire power line underground.
The alternatives list comes in advance of the DOE’s environmental impact statement, due to be issued later this year. The list issued Friday was compiled from recommendations received during the public comment period last year.
Northern Pass is the name given to a proposed 1,200 megawatt transmission line that would carry hydroelectric power generated from dams in Canada through 187 miles of New Hampshire and add that electricity to the New England power grid.
It is a joint venture of three private companies: Northeast Utilities, Public Service of New Hampshire, and Hydro-Quebec.
The $1.1 billion project has provoked controversy ever since the original plan was unveiled in 2011.
The original proposal calls for cutting a 40-mile long, 100-foot wide swath through the scenic White Mountains, a tourist mecca. The lines would be supported by a series of pylons ranging from 85 feet to 135 feet in height, dominating the landscape.
Proponents – mostly from the business community – say it will bring much-needed jobs to the region, additional tax revenues, and environmentally-friendly energy.
Opponents, made up of a coalition of residents, as well as conservation and environmental organizations, are particularly concerned about the route of the transmission line.
The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests opposes the 1,500 planned pylons, saying they would create “a 187-mile scar across two-thirds of our state.”
The transmission line would impact three of the society’s Forest Reservations, dozens of conservation easements, and the White Mountain National Forest.
Opponents also point out that the jobs are only temporary, and that the power will mostly be distributed outside of New Hampshire.
Many say that if the project is to go through, the lines should be buried underground.
The New Hampshire legislature recently gave its support to this idea when it passed a bill requiring that all new utility lines in the state be buried underground.
The Northern Pass developers did modify their plans, offering to bury an eight-mile length of the line, but this did little to mollify opponents.
The developers argue that burying the lines is prohibitively expensive. Running the lines on pylons above ground costs roughly $3 million per mile, while the cost of burying the line is $15 to $20 million a mile, according to Northern Pass spokesperson Lauren Collins.
While the list issued Friday outlines 21 alternatives, it gives no indication of what the Energy Department’s final recommendation may be. However, both sides say they are pleased to see the range of alternatives being considered.
Among the alternative plans now under consideration are several that would involve burying all or large portions of the transmission line, and at least one major route change.
See a map of the proposed route on the Northern Pass website at: http://www.northernpass.us/assets/state_route%20map%208.5x11_8-28-13.pdf
One alternative would bury the entire length of the line along the original route – from the Canadian border that divides Chartierville, Quebec from Pittsburg, New Hampshire to a converter station at Franklin.
Another would follow the original route, burying only the 40-mile portion that runs through the White Mountain National Forest.
Still another would also bury the entire line, but it runs along a different route, using existing roadways.
Jack Savage, spokesman for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, said, “One can read from the tea leaves that this thing is headed toward far more burial than they are proposing.”
The society has teamed with the Appalachian Mountain Club and the Conservation Media Group, a nonprofit group of filmmakers and conservationists inform more people in New Hampshire about these issues and has mounted a petition to Governor Hassan to bury or stop Northern Pass.
New Hampshire Governor Maggie Hassan said, “I am encouraged that the U.S. Department of Energy has heard the concerns of New Hampshire citizens and has agreed to examine a wide range of options on the proposed Northern Pass project, including several underground options.”
※ 全文及圖片詳見：ENS
※ 本文為教育部科學人文跨科際人才培育計畫（簡稱SHS計畫）所屬南區區域推動中心，舉辦「環境新聞編譯工作坊」之成果展現，特別感謝《科學人》編輯群協助審校。
