Protesters against Keystone XL - November 6, 2011 (photo credit: flickr/tarsandsaction)

Last week, a major disaster for our climate and our nation’s clean energy future was averted – at least for now – when the Obama administration announced that it won’t consider approving the Keystone XL pipeline’s border crossing permit before it reconsiders the Keystone XL pipeline’s environmental impacts and the potential alternatives to the proposal on the table.  For all the reasons that my colleague Melissa Hoffer articulated in her post last week, the Keystone XL victory was a resounding, if limited, triumph with important lessons for environmental and climate advocates across the country as we confront, one battle at a time, the seemingly overwhelming challenge of solving the climate crisis.

The Keystone XL decision also hits home in another way. It sends an unmistakable signal that the federal government’s review process for New England’s own international energy proposal – the Northern Pass transmission project – needs the same type of new direction.

The parallels between the State Department’s Keystone XL environmental review and the mishandled first year of the U.S. Department of Energy’s review of Northern Pass are striking. In both cases, we saw:

• Troubling, improperly close relationships between the developer and the supposedly independent contractors conducting the environmental review, with unfair and inappropriate developer influence on the review’s trajectory, undermining the public legitimacy of the review process;
• An extraordinary grassroots uprising against the proposal from diverse groups of residents, landowners, communities, businesses, and conservation and environmental groups;
• Massively expensive lobbying and public relations campaigns by proponents designed to confuse and mislead lawmakers and the public
• Repeated failures by permitting agencies to ensure fair, open, and truly comprehensive review of the full range of impacts, including climate impacts, and the reasonable alternatives for meeting our energy needs in other, less environmentally damaging ways.

With all the legal, procedural, and substantive deficiencies our national advocate colleagues have been pointing out for years, the Keystone XL review (before last week) is a dramatic example of what we can’t allow to happen with Northern Pass. Right now, things don’t look good – it appears that the Department of Energy is engaging in an “applicant-driven,” narrow review of a few potential project routes, not the broad, searching analysis CLF and many others have demanded again and again (and again).  Last week’s decision to conduct a wide-ranging new review of Keystone XL shows that there is still the opportunity (and now a clear precedent) for the Department of Energy to bring the same spirit of renewed scrutiny and public responsiveness to its review of Northern Pass.

New Hampshire and New England deserve an impartial, comprehensive, and rigorous review of the Northern Pass project – and all reasonable alternatives – by the permitting agencies entrusted with protecting the public interest. Indeed, what we need now is a serious regional plan that addresses whether and how best to import more Canadian hydropower into New England and the northeastern U.S. With huge projects like Keystone XL and Northern Pass on the table, our nation’s energy future is at stake, and it has never been more important – for our communities, economy, natural environment, and climate – to get it right.

For more information about Northern Pass, sign-up for our monthly newsletter Northern Pass Wire, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass), and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

Are you concerned about the Northern Pass transmission project? Do you want to learn more about what it could mean for New Hampshire and New England’s energy future, for our climate, for energy rates, and for the communities and natural environment of New England and Québec? Do you want to keep up with the latest developments as the project progresses through the permitting process?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you’ll want to sign up for CLF’s new email newsletter – Northern Pass Wire.  In a concise format, Northern Pass Wire will provide the latest news and analysis regarding the Northern Pass project direct from CLF advocates, with links to additional resources from CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center, our latest Northern Pass posts here on CLF Scoop, and CLF’s recent legal filings. Northern Pass Wire will also keep you informed about ways you can get involved and make your voice heard as the permitting process for the Northern Pass project continues. We expect to publish Northern Pass Wire about once a month, and perhaps more frequently when events warrant. The first edition can be previewed here, and you can sign up to get Northern Pass Wire here.

Please sign up and encourage your family, friends, and colleagues to do the same!

Click on the image to preview the first edition of CLF's Northern Pass Wire

photo credit: Hope Abrams/flickr

Here in New Hampshire, the leaves have turned.  What hasn’t changed is that the environmental review of the Northern Pass proposal remains stalled while the project developers – Northeast Utilities (and its subsidiary Public Service Company of New Hampshire) and NSTAR – seek a new route for the northernmost 40 miles of the project.  It’s a disgrace that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has so far refused to use the developers’ significant delay to assess the nature and extent of New England’s need for Canadian hydropower and to develop an appropriate plan to bring that power into the region, as CLF and others have been requesting since April.

While DOE is in a holding pattern, CLF is continuing to fight for a fair and comprehensive environmental review of the Northern Pass project.  Earlier this month, CLF filed new comments with DOE, supplementing the detailed comments we filed in April.  Our new comments address:

• Why CLF has renewed concerns about DOE’s control over its new environmental review contractors.  Based on our review of the Memorandum of Understanding between Northern Pass, DOE, and its new contractors, posted here (PDF), we explain that Northern Pass could still have an unfair and inappropriate influence on the content of the environmental impact statement and the schedule for completing it.
• What the Northeast Energy Link proposal means for the Northern Pass environmental review.  The recently announced Northeast Energy Link proposal, along with the Champlain Hudson Power Express project, makes it clearer than ever that we need a regional assessment of our energy needs.  These other two transmission projects also show that burying transmission lines in transportation rights-of-way is an abundantly reasonable alternative to overhead lines.
• How Northern Pass hasn’t clearly disclosed the source of power for the project.  We bring to DOE’s attention important information, obtained by CLF through its cross-examination of an executive of Northeast Utilities before Massachusetts regulators, that the source of Northern Pass’s power is likely to be new hydroelectric projects that Hydro-Québec is now in the process of designing and building.  CLF is especially troubled by the new information because the impacts of the project are much more significant if it causes the construction of new dams and the associated negative environmental impacts, including well-documented spikes in early greenhouse gas emissions from flooded land.  Northern Pass and its parent companies have consistently failed to acknowledge that these emissions undermine their claims about the reductions in emissions the project will supposedly provide.

A copy of our new comments is available here.  We also filed a Freedom of Information Act request with DOE, seeking to obtain a copy of the “Consulting Services Agreement” between Northern Pass and the environmental review contractor team.  The Memorandum of Understanding suggests that this separate contract includes important information on the budget and schedule for the environmental review, and the public deserves to know these details.

With the permitting process due to continue when Northern Pass announces a new northernmost route, CLF will be launching new ways to keep you informed about the latest Northern Pass news and the best ways for you to get involved and make your voice heard. Please stay tuned!

For more information about Northern Pass, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass) and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

Last Friday, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced in the Federal Register that it’s extending to June 14, 2011 the deadline for submitting scoping comments on the proposed Northern Pass electric transmission project.

UPDATE:  As of June 15, 2011, DOE has again reopened the comment period – this time indefinitely – pending the submission of updated route information from Northern Pass.  See more here.

This extension of the public comment period comes on the heels of huge turnouts at DOE’s seven public meetings in March and the news (noted on NHPR here and in the Concord Monitor here) that the developer of the project wants DOE to stop considering several alternative routes for the project in favor of its original preferred route.

DOE’s extension means that you still have an important opportunity to help shape the environmental impact statement (EIS) and influence DOE’s decision on the project.  The EIS will be a detailed statement of the environmental, social, and economic impacts of the Northern Pass proposal and alternatives.

What Should I Address in My Comments?

CLF encourages you to raise any reasonable concern or question about the proposed Northern Pass project and alternatives:

• Describe how the project could affect the natural resources that you value.
• Explain your concerns about the potential impacts of the project on scenic landscapes, communities, wildlife, forest resources, wetlands, recreation areas, the energy sector, and the local economy.
• Demand that DOE analyze the environmental impacts associated with generating the hydroelectric power that the project will transmit.
• Insist that DOE rigorously examine all reasonable alternatives to the project, including alternative project designs (like burying the lines in railroad or highway rights of way) and options that would generate or save the same amount of power here in New England (like local renewable energy, energy efficiency, or conservation programs).
• Join CLF’s request for a comprehensive EIS that assesses New England’s need for Canadian hydropower and develops a more holistic, proactive plan for addressing any such need (as opposed to reacting to project-specific proposals such as Northern Pass)

How Do I Submit Comments?

To comment, email DOE at Brian.Mills@hq.doe.gov or use DOE’s Northern Pass EIS web form by June 14, 2011.  UPDATE: As mentioned above, the deadline for comments has been extended again – to a date yet to be determined.

For More Information

• Visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center at http://www.clf.org/northernpass, and download CLF’s detailed written comments to DOE.
• Check out project maps and Northern Pass’s application filings (available at http://www.northernpasseis.us, under “Document Library”).
• Contact me at ccourchesne@clf.org.
• Become a member of CLF here, to support us in our work.

Daniel Johnson Dam, north of Baie-Corneau, Québec

Last night, CLF filed detailed written comments with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regarding the scope of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Northern Pass project. (A PDF of our comments is here.)   First and foremost, our comments urge DOE to stay the Northern Pass proceeding and instead conduct a comprehensive, regional analysis (a comprehensive EIS) of the region’s need for Canadian imports, to enable sound planning as opposed to the piecemeal, project-by-project approach DOE is currently taking by simply reacting to the permit applications of private entities like Northern Pass.   

Our comments expand on the remarks (PDF) I made at the Pembroke scoping meeting last month and come on the heels of yesterday’s major news that (1) Northern Pass wants DOE not to consider some alternative routes it included in its Presidential Permit application and also needs more time to discuss additional potential routes through the North Country (a PDF of Northern Pass’s filing is here and coverage on NHPR here) and (2) DOE is reopening the scoping public comment period through a date to be determined in June.  The fact that Northern Pass itself has asked for a delay to reconsider aspects of its project is an even stronger indication that DOE can and should take the time it needs to undertake a full regional analysis through an open, and collaborative public process.   

(more…)

If the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) does its job right, the environmental review of the Northern Pass project – the largest infrastructure project in recent New Hampshire history – will be a massive and complex undertaking, analyzing all alternatives to the current proposal and describing the many social and environmental impacts of the project.  That’s why it’s critical that DOE begin its work with the right plan – one that takes into account the tremendous public input DOE has received during the ongoing scoping process and that also reflects DOE’s technical expertise, especially regarding the possible technological alternatives to the current proposal.  (Information on the scoping process and how to submit comments to DOE is here – the deadline for written comments is April 12.)

Today, in a joint letter to DOE, CLF and several partners renewed their request (also made at the mid-March scoping meetings) for DOE to release a report – before it begins work on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – identifying the alternatives DOE plans to study in depth, the alternatives it plans to exclude from the analysis, and the categories of social and environmental impacts that it will consider.  We believe that DOE should not only prepare such a report, but also provide the public the opportunity to comment on it.

The report on the scoping process that DOE currently intends to issue – one that simply summarizes public input – is not enough, especially for this project.  The project application provided almost no information on alternatives and environmental impacts (something CLF and others vehemently objected to months ago), and that lack of information has undermined the public’s ability to provide meaningful feedback during the scoping process as a result.

Before DOE and the EIS contractor it ultimately selects to replace its original contractor begin studying the project and its alternatives behind closed doors, the public deserves to know DOE’s plan and to have the chance to suggest changes to that plan. Otherwise, DOE may “re-emerge” from its work months from now with a document that misses important alternatives and will be very challenging to change – a result that would be problematic for DOE and the public alike.  DOE needs to get it right the first time, and the public should be invited to help ensure that DOE has the right plan to do so.

For more information about Northern Pass, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass) and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

As reported in the Concord Monitor and the Manchester Union-Leader and on WMUR, the public was out in force last night at the first of seven public scoping meetings kicking off the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) environmental review of the Northern Pass project. More than 400 attended, and about 50 people expressed their views on the project and the issues that should be addressed in DOE’s environmental impact statement (EIS).  It was a testament to the value of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which requires that federal agencies encourage and consider public input on the environmental and other effects of agency decisions and potential alternatives to those decisions.  It was also clear that the proposal, as currently presented and described by the developer Northern Pass Transmission, LLC, has very little public support; dozens of speakers from up and down the proposed route expressed opposition to the current proposal.

During the formal commenting session, I made brief remarks to insist that DOE conduct a wide-ranging and rigorous NEPA process, and I also requested that DOE provide more opportunities for public input by (1) extending the period for public comments on the scope of the EIS to May 3, and (2) releasing a proposed EIS scope and outline for public review and comment, before major efforts are undertaken to draft the EIS, to ensure that DOE is considering all relevant impacts and alternatives.  CLF’s press release about the meeting is here, and my prepared remarks are here.  CLF will be following up my remarks at the meeting last night with written comments as well.

If you have concerns about the project, know of environmental and community impacts that you think DOE should consider, or alternatives to the project that DOE should analyze, you can participate in the scoping process by speaking at one of the remaining meetings, or by submitting written comments to DOE by the deadline (currently April 12).  All the details you need are in CLF’s one-page handout on the scoping process.

For more information about Northern Pass, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass) and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

This week, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) is conducting seven “public scoping meetings” in different communities in New Hampshire as part of the scoping process for the Northern Pass Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).  A one-page summary of the scoping process, suitable for printing, is here, and more detailed context is here.

This is a critical, early part of the review process, and an important opportunity to explain your concerns about the project to DOE officials. If you did not reserve a spot in advance, you should be able to sign up to speak when you arrive at the meetings. I’ll be presenting brief remarks at tonight’s meeting in Pembroke. The schedule is:

• Monday, March 14 (TONIGHT), 6-9 pm, Pembroke, Pembroke Academy cafeteria, 209 Academy Road  (map | directions)
• Tuesday, March 15, 6-9 pm, Franklin, Franklin Opera House, 316 Central Street (map | directions)
• Wednesday, March 16, 6-9 pm, Lincoln, The Mountain Club on Loon, Hancock Room, 90 Loon Mountain Road  (map | directions)
• Thursday, March 17, 6-9 pm, Whitefield, Mountain View Grand Hotel and Resort, Presidential Room, 101 Mountain View Road (map | directions)
• Friday, March 18, 6-9 pm, Plymouth, Plymouth State University, Silver Center, 114 Maine St. (map | directions)
• Saturday, March 19, 1-4 pm, Colebrook, Colebrook Elementary School, 27 Dumont Street  (map | directions)
• Sunday, March 20, 1-4 pm, North Haverhill, Haverhill Cooperative Middle School, 175 Morrill Drive (map | directions)

Each meeting will include both an “informal workshop” and a more formal session for the public to present information regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project.  The formal portion of the meeting will be transcribed by a stenographer, and all public testimony will be included in the official administrative record of DOE’s review of the project.

CLF is working to secure a clean energy future for New Hampshire and New England – one in which our energy system (1) is cleaner and less carbon-intensive, (2) provides reliable power with minimal environmental impact and at reasonable cost, and (3) is supported by a robust, local clean-energy economy built on energy efficiency and renewables.  CLF is working to ensure that the Northern Pass project moves us toward – and not away from – this future.  We are dedicated to promoting fair, well-informed, and rigorous environmental permitting processes to achieve:

• A solution with minimal impact on the environment and communities;
• Equitable sharing of benefits and burdens;
• Displacement of dirty power; and
• A market that encourages energy efficiency and provides a level playing field for local renewable energy.

Read the full news release >>

UPDATE:  Check out my post on the first meeting in Pembroke.

For more information about Northern Pass, visit CLF’s Northern Pass Information Center (http://www.clf.org/northernpass) and take a look at our prior Northern Pass posts on CLF Scoop.

(image credit: flickr, cannuckshutterer, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

CLF and all stakeholders concerned about the fairness and objectivity of the environmental review process for the proposed Northern Pass electric transmission project scored an important victory today.  Responding to concerns raised by CLF and others, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC has today formally requested termination of an agreement with the Department of Energy that tasked Northern Pass’s contractor, Normandeau Associates, with preparing the federal Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed project.  Northern Pass Transmission, LLC has requested that the Department of Energy, which is administering the environmental review as part of its Presidential Permit process, select a new contractor to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement.

In filings with the Department of Energy last month, CLF and other parties sounded the alarm about the Department of Energy’s choice of Normandeau on the grounds that Normandeau was also working for the project applicant, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC and demanded that the Department of Energy retain a different contractor without a conflict of interest.  More recently, New Hampshire’s two U.S. Senators added their voices to the chorus questioning the selection of Normandeau to prepare the EIS.  With the pressure mounting and scoping meetings for the EIS scheduled to take place next week, Northern Pass’s action today means that the Department of Energy should now move forward with the environmental review of the Northern Pass project with the objectivity and independence that federal law requires.

As the process gets underway and a new contractor is selected, CLF will continue to advocate for an open, fair and rigorous environmental review of this transmission project, its many significant potential impacts and all possible alternatives to the current proposal.