As has been repeatedly demonstrated[1], it is the presence of new, large consumers that drives down the cost of bulk power by amortizing the infrastructure investments.

Maine voters are, of course, notorious bozos in this field, having voted in a plebiscite in 2021 to cancel the link to Quebec Hydro, which was already substantially completed.

1: For example LBNL's latest banger: Factors influencing recent trends in retail electricity prices in the United States, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S104061902...

▲

unclad5968 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is so ignorant it hurts. The same exact proposition was voted down in New Hampshire years earlier, because the transmission line goes straight through natural forests, to Massachusetts, and has little to do with the state other than chopping down a bunch of trees. Neither Maine nor New Hampshire have an extra $1 billion to waste on enhancing the grid mainly for the benefit of southern New England states.

Neither Maine nor New Hampshire voters are "bozos" for voting it down. The whole ordeal even prompted Maine voters to establish a new law to stop foreign investors from influencing local referendums because Hydro Quebec spent so much money trying to sway the vote.

▲

pj_mukh 2 hours ago | parent [-]

"Neither Maine nor New Hampshire voters are "bozos" for voting it down. "

I mean yes, that is how the Tragedy of the Commons works. Everyone individually makes the optimal decision for themselves but in effect you've basically hamstrung green sources of energy around the country by being very smart for your own state.

The question is, should you be allowed to this.

	▲	nradov an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Maybe Massachusetts should have offered Maine some incentive for running the power line through their territory. States make agreements like that all the time.
	▲	simoncion 29 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> in effect you've basically hamstrung green sources of energy around the country by being very smart for your own state. > The question is, should you be allowed to this. "...you've basically hamstrung green sources of energy"? Well, after we stop growing corn to feed exclusively to cars and start using solar panels deployed on that land to harvest electricity for cars and houses and everything else that runs on electricity [0], if we're still short on power we can have the discussion you're itching to have. [0] The immediately relevant discussion starts here <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtQ9nt2ZeGM&t=1930s> and runs through to about 38:29, but the entire video is very, very well worth watching.

▲

rangerelf 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you have any links to support this? Because the commonality of all arguments _against_ has been that they make water and power crazy expensive for everyone that has to live close to the newly opened datacenters, while the DC operator enjoys subsidized land use tax, water and power.

▲

jph00 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"already substantially completed" isn't accurate. $450m of the eventual $1.65b cost had been spent at that point - so less than half.

▲

hatthew 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I'd call that substantial

	▲	jeffbee 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Indeed, considering the much of the cost in the end consists of carrying costs, litigation, and year-of-expenditure overruns that were caused by the delay.

▲

nutjob2 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why on earth did they do that? Linking to a power station you didn't have to build seems like a no brainer. Was the deal that bad?