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…)

At the end of the day Wednesday, Attorney General William Schneider sent a response to the Emily Cain, Democratic minority leader, declining her request that the Attorney General prepare an opinion regarding the continued authority and eligibility of Darryl Brown to serve as Commissioner of the DEP.  The Attorney General stated that because his office was involved in the preparation of the response by Commissioner Brown to the EPA with respect to federal law and that “[a]ny final response to the EPA will be made through this office,” it was not appropriate for the AG’s office to issue a separate opinion.

It’s difficult to ascertain what the Attorney General actually is saying here.  If he is saying that the AG’s office will be independently reviewing Commissioner Brown’s response, and particularly the facts as to whether more than 10 percent of Brown’s income over the past two years was derived from work for clients under the Clean Water Act, before it goes to the EPA in order to determine compliance with Maine law, then we applaud him for finally addressing this issue.  If, as suggested in yesterday’s article in the Portland Press Herald, he is saying that the Attorney General’s office will be acting as Mr. Brown’s lawyer in responding to the petition filed with the EPA, then we strongly disagree with that course of action.  At a minimum, the Attorney General should clarify exactly what role his office will play.

It is our opinion that the proper course for the Attorney General is to conduct a detailed analysis of the facts that Mr. Brown collects and presents concerning his income sources over the last two years.  If that review indicates that he has not exceeded the 10 percent threshold, then Mr. Brown should continue with the important work of the DEP.  But if the data shows that he crossed that threshold, then Mr. Brown should resign.  In either case, a speedy and transparent resolution of this issue is paramount.

ME DEP Commissioner Darryl Brown (Photo credit: maine.gov)

CLF is once again calling for increased transparency from the LePage Administration, this time with regard to whether or not Darryl Brown, who was confirmed by the Senate last month as Governor LePage’s appointment to be commissioner of Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is eligible to stay in his current position according to State and federal law.

Brown is the founder and remains the sole shareholder of an engineering and land-use planning firm that assists developers and industry obtain permits from the DEP and EPA.   At his confirmation hearing in January, Brown said that between 25 and 35 percent of his firm’s work involved DEP permitting.  Under state law, (38 MRSA $ 341-A(3)(B)), anyone who has received at least 10 percent of their income in the last two years directly or indirectly from projects permitted under the Clean Water Act are not eligible to serve as DEP commissioner.

The question of Mr. Brown’s eligibility to serve as Commissioner was first raised by former CLF staff attorney Steve Hinchman on behalf of the Androscoggin River Alliance in a February 7 petition filed with the EPA under a CWA provision that is similar, although not as broad, as the Maine statute.  Importantly though, both provisions use the same 10 percent threshold test.  EPA has requested that Mr. Brown provide information by April 15 to determine whether that threshold has been crossed.  Maine’s Attorney General and the Governor’s office have refused to say whether they have even met to discuss the situation, never mind how they intend to resolve it.  As an independent Constitutional officer, CLF has called upon the Attorney General’s office to provide a formal opinion as to how the law applies to Commissioner Brown and whether he has crossed the 10 percent threshold in the last two years, a call formally echoed by the House Democrats on April 5.

CLF will continue to push for a fair and speedy resolution of the issue, whatever that resolution might be.  CLF is not pushing this issue in order to disqualify Commissioner Brown nor to make a statement as to his performance as Commissioner.  Rather, we’re pushing to make sure that the law is interpreted and applied correctly.

It is possible that even though 25-35 percent of Brown’s was related to DEP permitting work but only 10 percent of his work was related to Clean Water Act permits.  But there will be no confidence in such a conclusion until a transparent and thorough analysis is conducted by the lawyers for all of Maine’s people, the Attorney General.

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.

On Wednesday, CLF received some welcome, high-profile help in its effort to ensure that the Department of Energy’s environmental review of the Northern Pass electric transmission project is unbiased, objective, and legitimate.

As noted in the Concord Monitor, Senators Shaheen and Ayotte joined CLF, its partners the Appalachian Mountain Club and Coos Community Benefits Alliance, and others, in questioning the Department of Energy’s selection of Normandeau Associates, the same consulting firm that project proponent Northern Pass Transmission, LLC has engaged to obtain other permits for the project, to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement or “EIS” for the project.

Both New Hampshire Senators sent letters to Secretary Chu (Senator Shaheen’s is here and Senator Ayotte’s should be posted here soon) demanding an explanation for Normandeau’s selection.  As Senator Shaheen put it:

In order for the public and those affected by the proposed transmission project to have confidence in the DOE permitting process, it is essential that there be no conflict of interest in the approval process. While DOE, Normandeau and Northern Pass LLC have sought to address the potential conflict of interest by separating the employees and teams working on their respective aspects of the project, even the perception of a conflict is problematic given the significance of this project.

Senator Shaheen attached CLF’s and its partners’ formal objection filed with the Department of Energy to her letter.  As our objection made clear, Normandeau’s conflict of interest is both clear as a matter of common sense and forbidden by the federal regulations governing the environmental review process.

The Department of Energy has not said when (or even if) it will rule on CLF’s and others’ objections to Normandeau’s selection. It is critical that it do so soon, as the EIS “scoping” process is about to kick off with a series of scheduled public meetings throughout New Hampshire in mid-March.

CLF will be an active participant throughout the environmental review process for the Northern Pass project, and an overview of the project and CLF’s concerns is here.  As the process moves forward, we will be posting additional resources on the project, its impacts, and the permitting process on CLF’s website.