'Glaring' problem with Northern Pass article
To the Editor:
What is one to think of your January 21st article (Northern Pass Argues Against Alternative Routes) that breathlessly reveals that the writer has conducted a "review" of our amended project application-- an application that was filed six months ago and that the same writer reported on at that time? (Northern Pass Files Amended Application - July 6, 2012.)
The amended application has been posted since July on our website for anyone to examine, at www.northernpass.us. Just as the original Northern Pass application did in 2010, it describes the project's proposed route; and, it acknowledges alternative routes and describes why we believe they are not practical.
We responded last Friday to your reporter's question of whether or not the project has studied alternative routes by reminding him of the amended application that he previously reported on and directly linking him to the specific section regarding the study of alternatives. To have that exchange morph into his "review" revealing that we are "...using legal and other arguments against (the alternatives)..." strikes us as highly questionable journalism.
The article also incorrectly states that our Congressional delegation has requested that the Department of Energy study alternatives to the project's proposed route. In fact, a report on alternatives is a routine part of the work the DOE has undertaken as part of its forthcoming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The members of the delegation have asked the DOE to provide a "preliminary report" in advance of the EIS. While this may appear to some to be a nuanced reporting misstep, we believe it further illustrates a glaring lack of understanding of the process by the writer in his reporting on this important project.
Lauren Collins, the Northern Pass Project