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.

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.

CLF, with the Appalachian Mountain Club and Coos Community Benefits Alliance, has filed an objection with the US Department of Energy (DOE) challenging the DOE’s selection of a contractor to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Pass electric transmission project. The objection comes out of concern that the contractor chosen will not be able to provide an objective, unbiased analysis, in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

“The preparation of an objective Environmental Impact Statement is a core requirement of the public review and fully-informed decision making mandated by NEPA,” said Tom Irwin, director of CLF New Hampshire.  “DOE’s selection of a contractor—one that simultaneously owes a duty to the project applicant to help obtain state-level permits—flies in the face of this objectivity requirement and will undermine the legitimacy of the NEPA review process from day one.” More >