# Question 1 & the CMP Corridor

:::warning
Conclusion: **Vote No** on Question 1 to prevent 3.5 to 4.1 megatons of net CO~2~ emissions annually, at the cost of 963 acres (1.5 square-miles) of forest.
:::

## Motives

I am put-off by the fear-mongering, xenophobia, and green-washing from all sides of this issue. As a voter, I concerned with longterm environmental preservation. I am willing to sacrifice some natural areas, if it means broader protections for the environment, and I'm not motivated by "not-in-my-backyard" complaints.

That means the terms of comparison here are in units of electricity production and consumption and carbon production and sequestration.

## Question 1

[Details from Ballotpedia](https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Question_1,_Electric_Transmission_Line_Restrictions_and_Legislative_Approval_Initiative_(2021))

- A “yes” vote blocks construction
- Q1 would prohibit the construction of high-impact electric transmission lines in the Upper Kennebec Region (Segment 1)
- Supporting Q1 / Opposing the Corridor: [Natural Resources Defense Counsel of Maine](https://www.nrcm.org/programs/climate/proposed-cmp-transmission-line-bad-deal-maine/), Food & Water Watch, several natural gas and solar companies in Maine, 11 state reps from both parties,
- Opposed to Q1 / Promoting the Corridor: Hydro-Quebec, CMP, Maine Chamber of Commerce, Bangor Daily News Editorial Board

## Project details

### Lines
- New lines: 145 miles ([Ballotopedia]((https://ballotpedia.org/Maine_Question_1,_Electric_Transmission_Line_Restrictions_and_Legislative_Approval_Initiative_(2021)))), 53 miles through previously undeveloped forest, west northwest from The Forks ([NRDC](https://www.nrcm.org/programs/climate/proposed-cmp-transmission-line-bad-deal-maine/))
- Upgrade of existing lines between Lake Moxie and Lewiston (~100 miles) and between Windsor and Wiscasset (35 miles). New substations near Lewiston and Pownal. ([NECEC](https://www.necleanenergyconnect.org/about-the-project))


### Electricity
- Plans to transmit 1200 MW to Massachusetts ([NECEC](https://www.necleanenergyconnect.org/about-the-project))
- Hydro-Quebec generates 99% of its power from renewable sources ([Hydro-Québec](https://web.archive.org/web/20160306031755/http://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/pdf/energy-supplies-and-air-emissions-2013.pdf)). 61 hydro stations on 26 reservoirs. Also imports hydro power from Churchill Falls, Labrador. Some wind, biomass, thermal.
- Hydro-Québec retail rates are among the lowest in North America (WikiPedia)
- Hydro-Québec has a generating capability of 37,370 MW ([Hydro-Québec](https://www.hydroquebec.com/generation/)). However, they actually produce only about 25,000 MW each year ([Hydro-Québec](https://www.hydroquebec.com/documents-data/open-data/)). Of this, about 19,000 MW is used within Quebec, and 4200 MW is exported to other provinces or e.g. the US state of New York. About 1100 to 1300 MW goes unused. This means the 1200 MW planned for the NECEC project could be met with little or no additional production. Although if needed, Hydro-Québec could provide nearly 50% more elecrity than it currently generates simply by allowing more water through its turbines.
- Electricity generation in Massachusetts has declined for the last 20 years. In 2019, the state generated 2456 MW of electricty, mostly from natural gas ([source](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11)). The same year, it consumed 5860 MW ([source](https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/Massachusetts/)), meaning it must import electricity.

## Carbon balance
- The [US Energy Information Administration](https://www.eia.gov/) estimates emission of 920 lbs CO~2~ per megawatt-hour of electricity generation, averaged across all states and power sources for 2019 ([source](https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11)).
- Electricity production in Massachusetts in 2019 was 2456 MW, from 84% natural gas, and produced 8.5 million metric tonnes of CO~2~. That's 3469 metric tons of CO~2~ per MW.
- For context, EPA estimates that in 2019, the US emitted 1639.5 million metric tons of CO~2~ from electrity generation ([source](https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#electricity)). Global emissions were 33.1 billion metric tons ([source](https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-much-carbon-dioxide-does-united-states-and-world-emit-each-year-energy-sources?qt-news_science_products=0#qt-news_science_products)).
- **At Massachusetts' 2019 rate of emissions, the 1200 MW at issue with the NECEC would produce 4.16 million metric tons of CO~2~ annually.**
- Hydropower produces 35 times less green house gases than a natural gas generation ([source](https://www.hydroquebec.com/sustainable-development/specialized-documentation/ghg-reservoir.html)). Hydro-Quebec produces 334 times less CO~2~ than comparable electric utilities in northeast North America ([source](https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/developpement-durable/pdf/etiquette-metrique2020-an.pdf)). Total annual CO~2~ emissions from HydroQuebec's electricity generation was 447,000 metric tons in 2019 (0.5 kg/MWh [source](https://www.hydroquebec.com/data/developpement-durable/pdf/co2-emissions-electricity-2020.pdf)).
- **At this rate of emissions, the 1200 MW at issue with the NECEC would produce 5,256 metric tons of CO~2~ annually.**

### Carbon impact of loosing the 53 miles of forest
- The width of the corridor was originally to be 150 feet, but a court order has limited it to 54 feet ([source](https://downeast.com/issues-politics/cmp-corridor/)). But I'll be cautious and keep the 150-feet number. That's an area of 963.6 acres. (It's 347 acres if it's 54 ft wide.)
- The emissions from forestry (cutting down the trees) is estimated to be 5.553 kg per cubic meter of lumber ([source](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10342-016-1015-2/tables/2)). An acre of forest yeilds approximately 2000 cubric feet of lumber ([source](https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_rp288.pdf)). So emissions from the clearing of one acre is roughly 392.2 metric tons CO~2~ per acre.
- It's estimated that an acre of spruce-fir forest in the Northeast stores the equivalant of 291 metric tons of CO~2~ (source [1](https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo059.pdf) [2](https://fpr.vermont.gov/sites/fpr/files/Forest_and_Forestry/Forest%20Carbon-Nov2016.pdf)).
- These facts mean the **clearing of the forest for the NECEC will produce a one-time release of 658,644 metric tons of CO~2~.**
- Exactly how much carbon is removed by an acre of forest is a debated question. Estimates range from *net emissions* due to decomposition, fire, etc. ([source](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00976-6)), 1.83 metric tons sequestered annualy for northeast forests from a 1992 Forest Service study ([source](https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/gtr/gtr_wo059.pdf)), to 13.6 metric tons per year for mature oak forest in a poorly cited New York Times column ([source](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/04/science/how-many-pounds-of-carbon-dioxide-does-our-forest-absorb.html)). I will use a [2021 study in *Nature Climate Change*](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00976-6) that looked at global forest carbon flux. I believe northern Maine falls into "old secondary temperate" forest, which has one of the highest rates of sequestration in their analysis, netting 2.53 metric tons sequestered per acre per year ([source](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-00976-6/tables/1)).
- At that rate, **the NECEC Segment 1 forest might otherwise sequester 2437 metric tons of CO~2~ annually**.

## Conclusions

- NECEC would **destroy up to 963 acres** of undeveloped forest.
- In it's first year of full operation, it would result in the **net reduction of 3.5 million metric tons of CO~2~** that would otherwise be emitted. Over time, the net annual reductions rise to over 4.15 million metric tons. This represents **0.253% of CO~2~ emission from electrical generation in the US** in 2019.