Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
Donate your vehicle during the month of April or May and you'll be entered into a $500 Visa gift card drawing!
What Is Northern Pass? Northern Pass is a proposal to run 192 miles of new power lines from Canada, through northern New Hampshire, south to Concord, and then eastward to Deerfield. The project is a collaboration between Eversource (previously known as Public Service of New Hampshire) and Hydro-Quebec, which is owned by the provincial government of Quebec. The utilities say the $1.6 billion Northern Pass project would transport 1,090 megawatts of electricity from Quebec – which derives more than 90 percent of its power from hydroelectric dams – to the New England power grid.The ControversyNorthern Pass has proved an incredibly controversial issue in New Hampshire, especially in the North CountryThe project has generated considerable controversy from the beginning. Despite its statewide impacts, many of the projects most dedicated opponents come from the sparsely-populated and heavily forested North Country.Eversource says the new lines would bring jobs and tax revenue to this struggling part of the state. But opponents of the project say it would mean only temporary jobs for residents when it's under construction. They also say it will deface New Hampshire's forestland, hurting tourism and lowering property values. Depending on the location, developers say the project's towers will range from 85 to 135 feet tall.Polls have consistently found the public remains sharply divided on this issue.Some critics have pushed for the entire project to be buried. Politicians ranging from Sen. Maggie Hassan to former Sen. Kelly Ayotte to 2012 GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich have floated this move as having the potential to soften opposition. Eversource maintains this would be too expensive, and would effectively make the project impossible to pursue. The Route: Real Estate Chess Plays Out In The North Country Northern Pass and its opponents have been fighting over control of land along potential routesNorthern Pass has considered a number of routes for the project, but has publicly announced three. The first, unveiled in 2011, faced major backlash from North Country residents and environmental groups. Over the next couple of years, the project and its primary opponent the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests played a prolonged chess match over parcels of North Country land. Northern Pass ultimately spent more than $40 million purchasing acres of undeveloped land in the North Country. Meanwhile, the Forest Society undertook an aggressive fundraising campaign and sought a slew of conservation easements to block potential routes.This maneuvering narrowed the options for Northern Pass. One lingering possibility was exercising eminent domain. Northern Pass publicly stated it was not interested in pursuing eminent domain. But in 2012, in response to strong statewide opposition, the Legislature closed the option altogether, outlawing the practice except in cases where a new transmission line was needed to maintain the reliability of the electric system.By the spring of 2013, Northern Pass opponents believed the project was essentially "cornered" into trying to route the power line through a large conservation easement, called the Connecticut Lakes Headwaters. The governor at that time, Democrat Maggie Hassan, said she opposed such a move on the part of Northern Pass.Second Time Around: Northern Pass Announces Alternative RouteIn June of 2013, Northern Pass unveiled its second proposed route. Abandoning its previous strategy (and $40 million in land purchases) altogether, the project proposed building along existing state and local North Country roadways in Clarksville and Stewartstown. In a nod to project opponents, Northern Pass also said it will bury 7.5 miles of line in Stewartstown, Clarksville, and under the Connecticut River. That raised the price tag on the project from $1.2 billion as initially proposed to about $1.4 billion. While opponents said this move was progress, many – including the Forest Society – maintained that Northern Pass should be able to bury all 180 miles of power lines.Final Route: Burial through the White Mountains0000017a-15d9-d736-a57f-17ff8a620000 After years of continued opposition, Northern Pass made its final concession to critics. It downsized the powerline from an initial proposal of 1,200 megawatts to 1,090 to take advantage of a new technology, known as HVDC lite. This move made it more economical to bury portions of the line, and Eversource said it was now willing to bury 52 additional miles of the project. The new route would be alongside state roadways as the project passed through the White Mountain National Forest.While the governor called the change “an important improvement,” she also said “further improvements” to the project should be made. The partial burial did not placate the project’s fiercest opponents, but some speculated that it would help the project clear one significant hurdle: whether it would get approval to use public lands from the top official at the White Mountain National Forest. The move pushed the estimated price tag up again, to $1.6 billion, now for a project that would deliver less power.With its new route in hand, project officials filed to build the project in October of 2015.Before the Site Evaluation CommitteeThe application to state officials was likely the longest and most complicated in the state’s history, and 161 individuals, interest groups, and municipalities asked to be allowed to participate in the process to evaluate the merits of the project.Given the size and complexity of the project, many of the interveners pushed for a longer review than the standard one year that state law dictates. In May of 2016, those groups got their wish, and the decision was pushed back 9 months. The final deadline was set for September of 2017. However, once the proceeding got under way, it was clear that even this delay would not allow time to hear from all of the witnesses called by the various interveners. Early in September of 2017 it was delayed again, with a final decision set for February 2018.DeniedOn February 1st, 2018, the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee voted unanimously to deny the permit for Northern Pass, a decision that triggered an appeals process that was taken up by the New Hampshire Supreme Court in late 2018.In May of 2019, the court heard orgal arguments on the appeal.On July 19, 2019, the court issued its ruling. In a unanimous decision, the SEC's rejection of the project was upheld, likely marking the end of Northern Pass as it was proposed.

For Northern Pass Crossing Conservation Land Would Mean A Long And Rocky Legal Road

In 2003 state and federal officials, a private land owner and conservation groups created a conservation easement to protect about 146,000 acres in northern Coos County from development.

It is called the Connecticut Lakes Headwaters and some opponents of Northern Pass fear the utility hopes to cross it to send hydro-electric power south from its partner – Hydro-Quebec.

But getting permission to do that would be a complicated procedure with so many hurdles it would be the longest of long shots, according to those familiar with such easements.

Northern Pass officials won’t comment on their plans nor will they provide any details of what they say is a new route.

But even the idea of trying to cross the headwaters would be such a startling and unusual move that the possibility has the attention of conservation groups around the country, says Paul Doscher, an official with The Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

“Many would look at any attempt to cross that easement as a violation of the provisions of the easement and pose a substantial threat to not only that easement but to the integrity of all conservation easements,” says Doscher.

The 44-page easementthat governs the headwaters states goals including environmental education, maintaining open space, conservation and public recreation.

Page five has a key prohibition.

“It says without any residential, industrial or commercial activities," says Amy Manzelli, a Concord lawyer and part owner of BCM Environmental & Land Law.

The exception is sustainable forestry practiced by The Forestland Group, which owns the land.

But not everything is set in stone.

“There are provisions to change this easement. The easement itself says the parties to the easement can agree to change the easement,” says Manzelli.

However an amendment would have to justify having transmission towers cross the land with the conservation goals in the easement.

As an alternative to erecting towers on the headwaters tract, Northern Pass could propose trading a corridor for land it owns nearby. But there’s a legal argument to be made that a land swap is not amending the conservation easement, it is removing land from the easement.

For Northern Pass to cross the headwaters two things would have to happen.

First Northern Pass would have to convince the land’s North-Carolina-based owners – Forestland Group- to go along with it.

Then, it would have to persuade the state’s Department of Resources and Economic Development it is a good idea.

Because federal dollars helped fund the project, DRED alone controls the conservation easement.

And some Northern Pass opponents are worried about the new head of DRED, Jeffrey Rose,

During apublic hearing in February before the Executive CouncilRose was questioned by some councilors about newspaper stories suggesting he favored Northern Pass.

He said was not the case. There were some misunderstandings.

“I pledge to you that I do not have a position on the Northern Pass, councilor,” he said.

The executive council unanimously approved his appointment.

To move the amendment ahead DRED and Forestland would each have to agree it was a good idea.

Officials at Forestland didn’t return several calls from NHPR.

And it is not clear what DRED would do.

A spokeswoman for the agency had no comment, saying it would be speculation since such a request hasn’t been received.

If DRED rejected an amendment the proposal would be dead.

However, if DRED and Forestland agreed there would still plenty of obstacles.

The state might consider such a change to be “high-risk, says Manzelli, the environmental lawyer.

“And high-risk changes are very hard to get approved.”

Such changes have to be reviewed by the Attorney General’s Charitable Trust unit and its guidelines indicate that could be a long process.

There’s a good chance the unit would send the case to probate court in Lancaster, perhaps with a recommendation.

Another layer to this is that – because some federal funds were used fund the headwaters– the U.S. Forest service has to sign off on any deal.

Pulling all that off would be close to impossible, says Patrick Parenteau, environmental law professor at Vermont Law School.

“There is nothing in the four corners of the document that would suggest that a utility, power line crossing would comport with the terms of the easement or the intent.”

And even if Northern Pass got permission it is possible groups involved in the original deal would sue.

It’s a whole lot of conjecture at the moment and so far no request involving the headwaters has been made, according to a spokesman for Governor Hassan.

And all Northern Pass officials will say is that they have a new route but they won’t identify it until July – at the earliest.

Related Content

You make NHPR possible.

NHPR is nonprofit and independent. We rely on readers like you to support the local, national, and international coverage on this website. Your support makes this news available to everyone.

Give today. A monthly donation of $5 makes a real difference.