WebHeader_Grove.png
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Available On Air Stations
Support local and independent journalism by making a gift to NHPR today.
North Country
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.

Evaluating The Site Evaluation Committee

Chris_Jensen_12.JPG

Morning Edition Host Rick Ganley: This week the public has a chance to weigh in on the future of the state’s Site Evaluation Committee.  The SEC reviews major utility projects, including proposed wind farms and the Northern Pass project. 

The concerns of opponents of those projects prompted Governor Hassan to sign Senate Bill 99.  It calls for a review of how the SEC works with a report due at the end of December. 

This week’s listening sessions and workshops include one tonight in Manchester.

Joining me now to talk more about the of the SEC is NHPR’s North Country reporter Chris Jensen.

The Site Evaluation Committee in its current form has been around since about 1991.  Who’s on it?

It has fifteen voting members, who are from eight state agencies including the Department of Transportation and the Department of Environmental Services.

It also includes all three commissioners from the Public Utilities Commission.  The chair right now is Tom Burack, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Services.

There are no citizen members.

What prompted this look at how the SEC operates?

Well, Jeanie Forrester, a Republican State Senator from Meredith, says several years ago, when Northern Pass came up, some people began wondering how the Site Evaluation Committee would handle it.

For Northern Pass to move ahead, it needs SEC approval.

At that time, Forrester said, one of the issues was that the SEC had never turned down an energy project.

Incidentally, that changed earlier this year when the Antrim wind project was rejected.

Forrester said there were also concerns about whether the SEC had enough experts to help it understand all the ramifications of an application such as Northern Pass.

That prompted her to introduce Senate Bill 99, which became law earlier this year.

It required the state’s Office of Energy and Planning to hire a consultant to study the SEC, how it compares with other states and to get a report back to the legislature by the end of this month.

Senate Bill 99 required the state to hire a consulting firm to look at the SEC.  What has it found so far?

The firm, Raab Associates of Boston - which is being paid almost $150,000 -  says the 15-member commission is “too large and cumbersome.”

This is a big concern of energy developers who say it takes too long and it’s expensive to take a project before the SEC.

Another issue is that there is no state money set aside for a dedicated staff to check the claims in the utility company’s application and consider wide-ranging issues.

Forrester notes if there was only one project coming before the SEC every couple of years maybe that wouldn’t be a big problem.

The idea is that various departments could pick up the slack.

But now it looks like the SEC may be looking at Northern Pass and a couple of wind projects, perhaps simultaneously.

Now the SEC does have the authority to make an applicant – a utility company or developer - pay for outside consultants to do research.

And Douglas Patch, a lawyer who was on the SEC for almost a decade, says that is a routine practice.

In the recent Antrim wind case, Patch says, three outside experts were hired.

But some critics think the SEC is still outgunned and needs more help to thoroughly handle increasingly complex and increasingly contentious cases that can have a huge impact on the state.

Are there other issues beyond staffing and resources?

There certainly are.

Ken Kimball, the director of research at The Appalachian Mountain Club, says a lack of specific standards for evaluating the impact and merits of projects is the biggest issue.

For example  one of the current guidelines simply says the project “ will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the natural environment, and public health and safety."

Kimball and others worry that is far too vague and open to interpretation by an SEC with a membership that constantly changes.

Douglas Patch, the former SEC member, agrees the standards are pretty broad and should be improved.

He says some SEC decisions did set precedents, helping to define what those guidelines meant.

But then in later decisions the SEC didn’t always follow those precedents.

He says makes it difficult for everyone because neither the developer nor opponents know what the standards really are.

So, the fact that the SEC decided the wind turbines in Antrim were found to have an "adverse" visual impact doesn’t really mean anything for future projects. 

That lack of specifics could make it easier for a utility turned down by the SEC to go to court and maybe win.

Or it could make it harder for a utility to get a fair deal because they don’t know how the project is to be judged.

And critics point to states like Maine that do a much better job spelling things out.

Is there any consideration of increasing public input?

Absolutely.

Currently residents or jurisdictions that can persuade the SEC that they have a special interest can be given intervener status.

And public hearings are required.

Anyone can submit written testimony which the SEC is required to consider.

But critics say there’s still plenty of room for improvement.

In 2011 New York did a couple of interesting things.

It has five permanent members of its site evaluation committee.

But now the state appoints two ad hoc members from the area in which the utility project is proposed and they have voting rights.

Another is that towns or organizations can apply to the state for money to help with legal expenses or to hire experts as part of their lobbying for – or against – the project.

That money comes from the utility company and recognizes the under-dog issue of little towns facing off against big corporations.

For example recently Cape Vincent, which has about 2,700 people and is on the St. Lawrence River, got $83,000 for its fight against a wind farm.

And, Sen. Jeanie Forrester says that kind of citizen funding is something she finds particularly interesting.

Are there any other major issues being considered.

Well, one thing that bothers some Northern Pass opponents is the amount of time the SEC has to consider a project.

Bob Baker is a lawyer from Columbia and he says big utility companies can take years to pull together very complicated and detailed applications supporting their case.

Hundreds of pages.

But for renewable energy projects the SEC is supposed to work through everything and make a decision within nine months.

Baker and some others just doesn’t see how – in the case of Northern Pass – there can be a thoughtful and thorough analysis in nine months.

The project stretches through the state.

Public hearings must be held in each county affected.

And there are going to be dozens of towns and hundreds of people and groups commenting.

Under the law their thoughts must be considered.

The current regulations do have a provision that allows the SEC to go beyond the nine months and the SEC has done that.

But then the current regulations also warn the SEC that the legislature feels “undue delay in the construction of needed facilities be avoided.”

How might these changes affect Northern Pass or new wind projects?

Well, that all depends on how quickly any changes are adopted by the legislature and or the SEC.

If applications are filed with the SEC before such changes that project would be considered under the old process.

So, what is happening this week?

Around the state there are going to be listening sessions and interactive workshops. 

The first workshop is tonight in Manchester.

The first listening session - basically an open microphone comment period - was Monday night in Colebrook.

All are open to the public but pre-registration is required for the workshops.

The final report to the legislature is due the end of this month.

For information about the meetings go here.

For an initial study by Raab Associates go here.

To see how some other states operate, go here.

For a study done by The Nelson A. Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College go here.

For information on Maine's standards go here or here.

Or here.

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.