Northern Pass ‘shocked and outraged’ by application denialBy MICHAEL COUSINEAU
New Hampshire Union Leader
February 01. 2018 4:26PM
CONCORD — A state committee unanimously voted Thursday to deny an application for Northern Pass.
All seven members of the Site Evaluation Committee agreed that Northern Pass had not met its burden to show the proposed transmission line would not “unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region.”
“This is a big victory for the state and for all the people who have been fighting these last seven-plus years against it,” said Judy Reardon, senior adviser to Protect the Granite State, a group opposing the project.
The next step will be for the committee to issue a written decision by March 31.
Northern Pass then can request a motion for rehearing before the committee. If that is denied, then project officials could appeal to the state Supreme Court.
“We are shocked and outraged by today’s SEC outcome,” said Northern Pass spokesman Martin Murray. “The process failed to comply with New Hampshire law and did not reflect the substantial evidence on the record.”
Murray said $3 billion in jobs, taxes and other benefits are now in jeopardy.
“Clearly, the SEC process is broken and this decision sends a chilling message to any energy project contemplating development in the Granite State,” Murray said. “We will be seeking reconsideration of the SEC’s decision, as well as reviewing all options for moving this critical clean energy project forward.”
The committee was deliberating whether to approve the $1.6 billion project, which would transmit hydroelectric power from Quebec into New England. The line would go in service by late 2020. The 192-mile route, which runs through more than 30 communities from Pittsburg to Deerfield, includes 60 miles of buried lines.
Some committee members debated whether it was better to stop the proceedings immediately or continue deliberations with the possibility that the project could end up in the courts.
“As it stands right now, it’s a much easier case to bring to the Supreme Court,” chairman Martin Honigberg said. “But it does run the risk if there’s a reversal having to do a lot of things when they’re not fresh in our minds.”
Committee member Pat Weathersby was reluctant to halt the proceedings.
“If the expediency is at all a rationale for stopping now, I think that without too many more days we can be done and have addressed all of the topics,” she said. “I think there’s some risk in not addressing them that we should consider if for some reason, I can’t imagine how, but if we ever got reversed on an appeal, would that mean to consider everything and with the passage of time our memories perhaps would fade or make up different members of the committee and I think that that’s a pretty big risk.”
Last week, Eversource New Hampshire President Bill Quinlan said he was confident the project would receive the SEC certificate, but he wouldn’t rule out a court appeal if the project got rejected.
Eversource through Sept. 30 had spent $249 million related to Northern Pass, which was publicly announced in October 2010.
The news comes a week after Northern Pass celebrated being chosen over more than 40 others to negotiate a contract for providing renewable energy to the Bay State. It wasn’t immediately known how the vote would affect those negotiations.
Committee member Craig Wright cited the work ethic of the New England Patriots coach.
“I’m really, really conflicted on this to be honest with you,” said Wright. “On one hand, I can hear Bill Belichick telling me to do my job and finish what you started. I also am an engineer too and I’m a realist. We essentially have a four-legged stool. .. As of this morning, I think we all know how we feel about at least one of those legs and you need four legs to stand up in this case.”
The committee Thursday morning informally polled members about orderly development. Committee members outlined concerns over how the project would affect property values, tourism and businesses.
Member Christopher Way said he wasn’t sure he accepted the project expert’s argument that there would be no impact to property values.
“It doesn’t make any sense to me,” Way said. “I just don’t think it passes the straight-face test that there will be none. I think we’ve heard some good testimony to suggest it could be just the opposite.”
The committee has four criteria it needed to consider: the project will serve the public interest; will not have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the natural environment, and public health and safety; will not unduly interfere with the region’s orderly development; and the applicant has adequate financial, technical and managerial capability to assure construction and operation.