Permitting Process and Timeline

The Basics

  • The Northern Pass project requires numerous federal, state, and local approvals, including:
    • A Presidential Permit from the United States Department of Energy authorizing construction, connection, operation, and maintenance of a new electric transmission line across the United States-Canada border;
    • Approvals to operate as a public utility and of project financing from New Hampshire Public Utilities Commission; and
    • A Certificate of Site and Facility from the New Hampshire Energy Facility Site Evaluation Committee.
  • Depending on its final route and configuration, the Northern Pass project also may require other approvals, including:
    • A Special Use Permit from the United States Forest Service authorizing construction, operation, and maintenance of a new electric transmission line in the White Mountain National Forest;
    • A Special Use Permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service authorizing construction, operation, and maintenance of a new electric transmission line in the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge; and
    • Permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Army Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into lakes, rivers, or streams.

Department of Energy Presidential Permit

  • For the Department of Energy (DOE) to issue a Presidential Permit, DOE must find that the project is “consistent with the public interest.”
  • DOE’s determination of whether a project is “consistent with the public interest” depends on:
    • The potential environmental impacts of the project, as documented and evaluated during National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review;
    • The impacts of the project on electric system reliability; and
    • Any other factors DOE views as relevant to the public interest.
  • Before the final permit can be issued, the United States Departments of State and Defense must agree with DOE’s decision to issue the permit.

Federal Environmental Review (NEPA)

  • NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider the potential environmental impacts of their actions and to identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to proposed actions and those alternatives’ environmental impacts.
  • Specifically, for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” the agency must prepare “a detailed statement” regarding “(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action, (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, (iii) alternatives to the proposed action,  (iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and (v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.”  This “detailed statement” is known as an Environmental Impact Statement or EIS.  NEPA envisions that the public will play a vital role in preparation of any EIS.
  • The requirements for a DOE Presidential Permit directly reference the proposed project’s environmental impacts as a criterion for DOE’s determination of whether or not the proposed project is “in the public interest” and should therefore receive a permit.  Given the importance of DOE’s NEPA review to its ultimate decision on the Presidential Permit application, it is absolutely crucial that DOE’s NEPA review of the Northern Pass Project be conducted in an open, objective, fair, and scientifically rigorous manner.  In an early victory on this front, CLF succeeded in preventing DOE from using Northern Pass’s permitting consultant, Normandeau Associates, as its contractor to prepare the EIS.

Scoping

  • As a first step in the preparation of the EIS, DOE must engage in a “scoping” process, which is intended to define the environmental issues and the range of project alternatives to be studied in the EIS.
  • The scoping process determines the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an EIS. “Scoping” must be “open,” and DOE must invite other federal, state, and local agencies, any affected Indian tribe, and “other interested persons” to participate.
  • During March 2011, DOE held a series of scoping meetings throughout New Hampshire.  (See CLF one-page summary (PDF), and CLF Scoop posts about the meetings here and here.)  CLF was among the many people and organizations to provide testimony to DOE; CLF Staff Attorney Christophe Courchesne’s remarks are here.
  • DOE is accepting written public comments as part of the scoping process. The comment period was recently extended indefinitely, pending the applicant’s submission of new information on the proposed route. File your written scoping comments with DOE via email to brian.mills@hq.doe.gov.  There is no limit to the number of comments you can file, so you can submit additional comments or requests even if you have already filed comments.
  • On April 12, 2011, CLF filed detailed scoping comments, available for download in PDF here.
  • DOE has indicated it will prepare a written report summarizing all public comments. CLF and several partners have requested that DOE do more and issue and accept public comments on a report that clarifies which alternatives and categories of impacts the EIS will address in detail.
  • Any reasonable concern or question about the proposed Northern Pass project and alternatives is relevant to the scoping process and will help inform DOE’s decision-making.  As a starting point, it may be helpful to review the maps of the preferred and alternative transmission routes identified by the applicant, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC, in its permit application and addendum (and associated maps). Consider submitting comments on the potential impacts of the project on scenic landscapes, communities, wildlife, forest resources, wetlands, recreation areas, the energy sector, and the local economy.  Both construction-related impacts and permanent, post-construction impacts are relevant.  Requests for DOE to evaluate project alternatives and project impacts not identified by Northern Pass in its application will help ensure that DOE adopts an appropriate scope of review.  Note that the alternative routes proposed by Northern Pass are not the only potential alternatives – DOE must conduct a rigorous review of all reasonable alternatives, including not building the project, and alternative routes and project designs that may have fewer impacts.

Assessing Alternatives

  • The evaluation of alternatives is the “heart” of the EIS.  The EIS must “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives.”  This standard requires that the EIS “devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail,” and it requires that DOE justify the elimination of potential alternatives from detailed study.
  • Northern Pass and DOE have identified a preferred and alternative routes for the project, including three alternative border crossings, three alternative routes for the northern section of the project in the North Country, two alternative routes for the central section of the project between the North Country and the proposed converter station in Franklin, and three alternative routes for the southern section of the project between Franklin and the substation in Deerfield.
  • CLF will advocate that DOE’s alternatives analysis must also include a robust and comprehensive analysis of the “no build” alternative, of alternative project designs that would substantially reduce the terrestrial environmental impacts of the project including the use of underground cable in existing railroad rights of way, and other less-impactful routes entirely within existing transmission corridors.

Permitting Process and Timeline

2011-2012 (end date TBA):

Public comment period for scoping of United States Department of Energy (DOE) Environmental Impact Statement

2013 (projected):

DOE issues Draft Environmental Impact Statement and sets public hearings and comment period

2013-2014 (projected):

DOE issues Final Environmental Impact Statement

2014 (projected):

DOE issues final decision on Presidential Permit for the project

2014 (projected):

United States Forest Service (White Mountain National Forest), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Silvio O. Conte Fish and Wildlife Refuge), and Army Corps of Engineers issue final decisions on permit applications (if applicable) for the project

2012 (exact dates unknown):

Northern Pass Transmission, LLC applies for approvals to operate as a public utility in New Hampshire and to the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee for a certificate of site and facility for the project; public proceedings and hearings follow.

Additional Resources

Northern Pass Wire

Sign Up For Northern Pass Wire: Timely news and analysis regarding the Northern Pass project in New Hampshire direct from CLF’s advocacy team

Get Informed

Get Involved

Northern Pass