Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations
Make a sustaining gift today to support local journalism!
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.

Northern Pass Foes Eye New Tactic: Attacking Corporate Power

Town meetings begin next month.

One issue some towns are looking at is a radical new tactic ultimately designed to challenge the legal power of corporations.

Opponents of the Northern Pass hydroelectric project are at the forefront of the move.

NHPR’s Chris Jensen reports.

 

Northern Pass opponents have won what they see they see as a victory in their fight against the huge hydro-electric project.

The legislature has now passed a bill that makes it hard if not impossible for Northern Pass to use eminent domain to take the land it needs for its transmission towers.

But some opponents aren’t stopping there.

“We really need to take care of our beautiful state and so we are just going to seek every way we can to do it and winning today on eminent domain does not mean that we are going to stop.”

That’s Dolly McPhaul of Sugar Hill, which continuing the fight.

“As it is right now if a corporation gets a permit from the state they can do anything they want to our town.”

Sugar Hill is among a handful of North Country towns considering what’s called a rights-based ordinance.

Such an ordinance declares that people have the right to say “no” to big corporations.

However, that’s a challenge to the U.S. Supreme Court’s acceptance of the idea - traced to 1886 -that under the 14thamendment corporations are people and guaranteed equal protection under the law.

“So, whether it is factory farms or Nestle Corporation taking water out from places in Maine and New Hampshire, whether it is fracking taking place in the Northeast and other places. It doesn’t matter what the issue is. What you have been is systematically divested of any authority at the local level to actually control the future of your own community.”

That’s attorney Thomas Linzey of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.

The organization is helping small communities fight big corporations.

Linzey met recently with about 150 North Country residents to talk about adoption of a rights-based ordinance.

Towns such as Sugar Hill and Lancaster are considering it.

The Sugar Hill articleis multi-pronged, with all of the points seemingly aimed at Northern Pass.

One part declares corporations do not have the same rights as people.

Another says state and federal officials can no longer overrule the wishes of the town’s residents.

One of those wishes includes the right to preserve the values of the town ranging from energy policy to “unspoiled vistas” needed for the tourism that sustains local businesses.

Typically town lawyers warn that such ordinances won’t succeed.

Linzey admits those communities challenging the system may wind up in court.

“Now going outside the box carries significant risk of being punished by the system that has been built over the last 100 years. This system has been concocted very carefully over the last 100 years to keep you in a subordinate position to the folks that want to use your community for something.”

But he says the upside is that those fights draw more attention to the issue.

And it is not unusual for Linzey and his colleagues to defend towns for free.

Linzey says about 130 towns nationwide have passed rights-based ordinances.

Corporations facing such laws typically argue they are unconstitutional, preempted by state laws and an impermissible exercise of a town’s authority.

A mining company involved in such a case in Pennsylvania told a federal judge that the law amounted to “an abuse of official power which shocks the conscience.”

The judge later ruled in favor of the mining company.

She noted the town’s law was, indeed, at odds with the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and she was bound by the high court.

Getting around the Supreme Court is the focus of Linzey’s overall campaign.

He says enough towns and people must become so upset that they demand changes in state and federal constitutions. That could over-rule the courts and end what he sees as corporate supremacy.

Linzey admits that’s a big deal, maybe the biggest of deals.

“So, what we’re talking about is a revolt in all sense of the word.”

Jules Lobelis a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who worked with Linzey on one case.

He says he thinks much of what Linzey is doing is “directed not simply towards the court but towards changing public awareness and public consciousness.”

Lobel says rights-based ordinances are seen by some – such as Linzey - as a kind of civil-rights battle with community rights facing off against corporate rights.

“Right now it is an uphill battle in the courts,” he said. “That is not to say it can’t be won. But many of the rights we now have started as uphill battles.”

Back in Sugar Hill Dolly McPhaul acknowledges if the ordinance passes there could be a legal challenge.

“But are we going to sit back and let them destroy our land? As I said the constitution has said that the government is to take care of us and if they’re not doing it is our job to change it.”

The towns will vote on these proposals early in March.

Advocates say in some cases such a law can dissuade a corporation from locating there simply by posing an additional hurdle.

The bigger question is not just will they pass but whether they can be more than a nuisance for the Northern Pass project.

A Northern Pass spokesman said he was not familiar enough with the ordinances to comment.

For NHPR News this is Chris Jensen

 

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.