I believe that New Hampshire municipalities should be free to choose where they purchase their electricity. Right now, every municipality in the state is essentially limited to purchasing electricity from a public utility monopoly.
RSA 53-E, signed into law by Gov. Chris Sununu, makes it possible for New Hampshire towns to aggregate their residential, municipal and business accounts, thereby creating a new buying entity with greater purchasing power and granting them access to a wide range of energy suppliers.
The Environmental Protection Agency states that community choice is “an attractive option for communities that want more local control over their electricity sources, more green power than is offered by the default utility, and/or lower electricity prices.”
“Local control” — isn’t that the New Hampshire way?
Our price per kilowatt-hour is higher than in Maine and Vermont, both of which are transitioning to cleaner sources. Massachusetts has made significant strides in moving to more clean energy.
Dozens of large companies have publicly committed to obtaining their electricity from renewable energy. A business with a choice of where to locate will consider both the cost and source of electricity.
To attract businesses and jobs, we must catch up with the rest of New England, which is transitioning to a new business model for electric production and distribution.
Community power also allows a wider range of pricing options, such as time-of-use pricing or real-time pricing, not currently available to residents.
The New Hampshire Municipal Association said RSA 53-E allows our communities “to work with regulators, utilities and competitive businesses to modernize our electrical grid and market infrastructure.”
Urge your legislators to vote “no” on HB 315, which is now before the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee. Say no to the monopoly model that has been in place for decades and is no longer suited to today’s technology and possibilities.
MARJORIE ROGALSKI
Hanover
As a third-generation resident and property owner in Woodstock and Bridgewater, I support the work of the Faulkner Park Group. The terms of the Marianne G. Faulkner Will and Trust should be followed and, accordingly, the park should remain in the trust or be transferred to a Vermont nonprofit, charitable corporation.
Faulkner Park should remain, as the will specified: A privately owned and funded, tax-exempt, admission-free park used for quiet enjoyment and open to and maintained for the benefit of the public.
Payments to the town in lieu of taxes should continue.
I oppose town ownership of the park because the town would assume additional administrative, financial and personnel burdens it can ill afford at a time when the local and national economies are volatile, experiencing the uncertainties of the impact of COVID-19, major capital projects are underway (the sewage treatment facility in South Woodstock), committed to (renovating Town Hall), or being planned (a new school).
Adding another park would require adding town personnel, such as a park manager and others
The numbers in the proposal by the Faulkner Trust trustee significantly underestimate the costs of running Faulkner Park (only historic costs are included; the proposal omits costs likely to arise in the future and costs associated with town ownership that do not arise if the park remains in private hands.)
Finally, the $850,000 of the trust principal proposed to be transferred to the town will run out in a matter of years, and taxes will increase.
STACEY GERRISH
Woodstock
How many times has anyone thought and wondered, “If I had a second chance to make that decision, I would have chosen differently?” I wonder if any Republican senators have had this thought any time in the last year.
If so, they do have that chance now. They have another chance to vote for impeachment and have myriad reasons to do so.
Let’s look at what has happened, or might have occurred, since they voted wrong last year:
■Vice President Mike Pence did not take over as president and therefore was not put in a position to remove the divisiveness and incompetence rampant in the running of the nation.
■ Republicans might actually have a platform to stand on. At last year’s Republican National Convention, they simply stated that they support Trump’s agenda. (Lloyd Bunten, in his Feb. 7 Forum letter “Republican allegiance is to Trump,” clearly pointed this out).
■ Perhaps under better leadership, this country would not have lost more than 470,000 lives to COVID-19.
■ The horrific raiding and desecration of our nation’s Capitol may not have happened on Jan. 6.
■ And finally, Republican voters would not be leaving the party in increasing numbers after observing a landslide Democratic victory by more than 7 million popular votes and the reckless and treasonous post-election behavior of Donald Trump.
Fortunately, they do have a second chance. There are already five Republican senators who appear ready to vote for impeachment this time. If only 12 more can muster up the courage to vote correctly this time, justice can be served and Trump can be prevented from ever holding office again.
It is time for the members of the Republican Party to return to more honorable principles.
Given this second chance, they need to choose wisely.
EDWARD RIPPE
Enfield
Two recent Forum submissions highlight the contrast between “cancel culture” and freedom of speech.
Alice Morrison (“Media spews lies with impunity,” Jan. 26), claims that certain views espoused by Fox News “should no longer be allowed.” She seems to be advocating selective censorship of conservative views, giving the leftist media free rein to be the exclusive voice heard and printed in America.
Countering that view is Patrick O’Connor (“Falling into trap on FCC regulation,” Jan. 30), who claims that since only TV and radio stations are licensed by the Federal Communication Commission, cable and satellite networks and social media platforms would escape regulation. I agree with him in opposing reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine,” which would hit religious broadcasters particularly hard, since they would have to air views that violate their doctrinal tenets.
If the Equality Act is passed, traditional religious views on sanctity of life, marriage and sexuality could be persecuted and prosecuted as “hate speech.” Former U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, has shown keen appreciation and understanding of constitutional freedoms of speech, religion and the media that’s woefully lacking in Democratic leadership. At last, a sane Democrat whom I would consider voting for if she again ran for national office, which she’s unlikely to do as a Democrat given the way she was snubbed by her party.
The 74-plus million Americans who voted for Donald Trump didn’t do so because of his charisma or out of cultic loyalty, but because his policies and programs resonated with their values, which are being trampled by Democrats.
There may be no need to vote for him in 2024, when he’d be 78 — like, who in their right mind would vote for a 78-year-old man for president? There are fresh faces and voices who can competently fill that void, such as former U.N. Ambassador and South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem.
It was never all about Trump, but about the kind of America half of Americans aspire to preserve. Trump is not indispensable to bringing it about.
WILLIAM A. WITTIK
Hartford
At a recent New Hampshire House Education Committee hearing about a bill allowing school nurses to have associate degrees rather than bachelor’s degrees, Rep. Linda Tanner, D-Georges Mills, sneered at the idea. “When I’m in the hospital and a nurse walks in the room, I don’t want just some ‘Jeannie Smith off the sidewalk’ that’s maybe taken two years at a community college with basic education and I have something that’s very technical.”
People involved with community colleges and nurse training were insulted by the comment and surprised by the elitist attitude.
Susan D. Huard, interim chancellor of the Community College System of New Hampshire responded: “First, our nurses take the exact same tests as those with bachelor’s degrees, the NCLEX, so they are qualified. And if this legislator has ever been cared for in a local hospital, chances are extremely high she did have a nurse with a community college degree from right here in New Hampshire.”
Does Tanner look down on everyone who has less than a four-year degree? Would she be OK with having her life saved by an EMT who had zero years of college? Would she trust her life in a car serviced by a non-degreed mechanic?
Elitists like Tanner judge people by their credentials, not by their demonstrated ability and knowledge.
It won’t be enough for Tanner to apologize. She should vote to open up more opportunities for people to employ their skills regardless of where learned — whether at a community college, at a trade school, in the military, or through an apprenticeship. What should matter is the ability to do a job, not a college diploma.
SPEC BOWERS
Grantham
In the spirit of President John F. Kennedy’s lofty words inspiring Americans to ask not what the country can do for them, but what they can do for the country, I propose challenging retired dentists to step up and help ameliorate the slow pace of administering COVID-19 vaccines.
As a retired periodontist, I’m part of that cohort of dental school alums who have already given thousands of injections as part and parcel of our careers. We can be mobilized to ask “can you roll up your sleeve” rather than “can you open wide, please.”
Currently working medical professionals are already at the breaking point caring for the critically ill, and their hospitals are at or beyond capacity. Dental schools can reach out to their graduates who have the medical background and experience to comprise this “Vaccination Corps.”
This model applies just as well for retired physicians, veterinarians and other health care professionals. Under schools’ administration and supervision, the group could be operational in short order.
Boards of registration would need to cooperate and grant emergency temporary licenses to those whose licenses have expired. It would be a timely opportunity for the members of this new Corps to give back to their country, especially at a time when the demand for vaccinators will soon spike as more of the public becomes eligible for its shots.
If this concept can be brought to fruition, JFK would be proud to know that 60 years after his 1961 inaugural charge, the words still resonated today at a time of need. They would come on the heels of President Joe Biden’s inspirational message in his inaugural address.
DAVID GREENFIELD
Grantham