Should utilities be allowed to build a Northern Pass?

Northern Pass is a proposed 180-mile transmission line which would bring electricity from Hydro-Quebec, a provincial government-owned utility which generates most of its power from hydroelectric dams, from the NH-Quebec border to a substation in Deerfield, where it would connect to the existing power grid.

_____

Update: On March 30, 2011 the NH House passed HB 648, which would prevent the project from taking land by eminent domain. But the NH Senate on June 3, 2011 decided to keep the bill in committee for further study.

_____

The project is a partnership between Hydro-Quebec, Northeast Utilities, and NSTAR. The latter two companies are privately-owned utilities which provide electricity and natural gas to customers in Massachusetts and Connecticut, as well as New Hampshire through the Northeast Utilities subsidiary Public Service of New Hampshire.

Proponents say that the project would benefit the state and the region on several levels: The electricity, they say, would be "clean," reducing greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise result from coal generation; the influx of new power would lower electricity prices overall; and the power would not be subject to the shortages and price spikes of the fossil fuel market. The partnership also says the project would benefit the state with 1,200 jobs per year over the three-year construction phase, and add new property taxes to state and local budgets.

But opponents say that these benefits are far outweighed by the negatives.

Much of the opposition centers on the northernmost part of Northern Pass's proposed route (view and download maps here).  While much of the line would follow existing transmission lines, the upper 40 miles would require new rights of way to be cut through forests and other undeveloped land, much of it privately owned, with many of the landowners and nearby residents saying that building the line would destroy the region's natural beauty, and would negatively impact both the quality of life and the economic benefits derived from tourism and agriculture.

A number of landowners say they simply won't sell their land to let the line go through, and both they and their supporters have become incensed that the project's backers want to use eminent domain to take the land. While the use of eminent domain to take away private property is controversial, Northern Pass has generated particularly strong public opposition.  Eminent domain, opponents feel, should only be used for government projects with a clearly-defined good for those affected. As a project of two private companies and a publicly-owned foreign utility, Northern Pass fails the first test; and in terms of public good, those most affected by the proposed land takings say that the damage to the places they live and work would not be offset by the benefits that the projects backers say it would provide.

Adding to the controversy is Northern Pass's recently-ended employment of a consulting firm to assess the project's environmental impact.  The agreement was terminated shortly after it became known that the consultant had worked for Northeast Utilities previously, creating concerns of a conflict of interest.

Currently, the project is facing opposition at all levels of government, from the grassroots on up to U.S. Senators Ayotte and Shaheen, both of whom have voiced concerns about how the project is being moved forward. Two bills relevant were introduced this past winter in the NH House: HB 648, which bars utilities from using eminent domain for private projects, and HB 649, which includes HB 648's eminent domain provision and adds a regional review process and a requirement that the public's needs be balanced by any public utility project.

Updates:

On March 30 the House passed HB 648, which would prevent the project from taking land by eminent domain. The bill now goes to the Senate.

On April 12, the project's managers announced that they would be dropping several proposed "alternate" routes for the line in response to public concerns, pledging to follow existing transmission line rights-of-way for most of the route. The dropped alternative routes were mostly along the southern 3/4 of the line, not the northernmost (and to many NH citizens, most controversial) 40 miles of the line, which does not have existing rights of way.

On June 3, in a 14-10 vote the Senate rereferred HB 648 to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is not expected to report on the bill until next January.

Rick Samson, an opponent of the 180-mile power line said, "The war is not over."

Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley said New Hampshire needs something that protects property rights and the energy future of the state. "We have the opportunity to create a win-win," the Wolfeboro Republican said, quoted in the Union Leader.

The LFDA is closely following this issue, and will update this page as well as our home page and Facebook site with new information as it becomes available. To go to the LFDA's issue page for Eminent Domain, click here.