Play Live Radio
Next Up:
Available On Air Stations
Donate your vehicle to NHPR today and support local journalism in the Granite State.
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.

N.H. Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments On Northern Pass

Annie Ropeik / NHPR

After nearly a decade of heated debate, the Northern Pass project is being argued Wednesday at the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The state's highest court will spend nearly two hours – 50 minutes per side, longer than in most cases – hearing arguments and asking questions of attorneys in the appeal by developer Eversource.

Oral arguments will be livestreamed beginning at 10 a.m. 

(Follow NHPR's Annie Ropeik on Twitter as she covers the proceedings.)

Eversource wants a new hearing and a chance to revive its 200-mile, Canadian-hydro-powered transmission line proposal, which has been in the works since 2011 and first went up for state approval in 2015.

Eversource contends that the state site evaluation committee, or SEC, broke its own rules in how it evaluated the project over the course of dozens of days of adjudicative hearings and deliberations.

Those deliberations ended in a denial that came sooner than expected in early 2018, when a subcommittee of the SEC voted that Eversource had not met its burden of proof to show the project would “not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region.”

That’s one of four main criteria the SEC has to find large-scale energy projects can meet.

The SEC had agreed Northern Pass met another criterion, on financial stability, but had not considered two other criteria, on environmental impacts and the public good, before voting the project down based on the development test.

Eversource says this means they didn’t get fair consideration by the SEC. (Click to read the utility's brief and its answer to opposing briefs in the Supreme Court appeal.) 

But a senior assistant state attorney general and lawyers for environmental groups and neighbors on the project's route disagree. These opponents will all argue Wednesday against giving the project a new hearing, asserting that the SEC did do everything required by law in reviewing Northern Pass. 

(Click to read briefs in the case by the counsel for the public, senior assistant AG Christopher Aslin, as well as municipal intervenors and environmental advocates.)

The justices could side with Eversource and order the SEC to re-hear the project, from the start or a mid-point. The court could also set new precedents for legal interpretations of the SEC’s rules by pointing out specific procedural errors in their decision.

Or, the high court could find that the SEC’s denial was legally valid. This would likely mark the end of the road for the currently proposed version of Northern Pass, which has already cost Eversource millions of dollars to defend.

Either way, it'll likely take at least three to six months, or as much as a year, for the justices to rule on the case.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story underestimated the time it will take for the Supreme Court to rule in the case, and mistated that Eversource ratepayers have helped fund the Northern Pass campaign. In fact, it has been funded entirely by shareholders.

Related Content