Eversource/NPT Motion to Strike is Denied
Eversource/Northern Pass Transmission's attempt to quash certain testimony submitted to the Site Evaluation Committee hearing the Northern Pass application, including a video submitted by intervenors from New Hampshire's North Country, was rebuffed by the SEC.
The New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee issued an order this week denying a Motion to Strike testimony from intervenors in the Northern Pass hearing.
From the order:
"The Motion seeks to strike, in its entirety, the pre-filed testimony of the following witnesses in
this docket:
• Clarksville to Stewartstown Group of Intervenors (video);
• Abutting Property Owners Bethlehem to Plymouth (video);
• Bradley J. Thompson – November 15, 2016;
• Tim and Brigitte White – November 13, 2016;
• Carl Lakes – November 15, 2016;
• Mark and Susan Orzeck – November 15, 2016;
• Phil and Joan Bilodeau – November 15, 2016;
• Linda Lauer on behalf of the Grafton County Commissioners (supplemental testimony);
• Stephan T. Nix (supplemental testimony);
• F. Maureen Quinn (supplemental testimony);
• George E. Sansoucy (supplemental testimony);
• Carl Martland (supplemental testimony); and
• Linda Lauer (supplemental testimony).
The Motion also seeks to strike parts of the pre-filed testimony of the following
witnesses:
• George Sansoucy;
• Sharon A. Penney; and
• Will Abbott."
With regards to the videos, the Order concluded:
"While the videos will be admitted, it will be up to the Subcommittee to
determine the weight to accord the videos in the context of this proceeding. The Applicant’s
request to strike the videos filed by the Clarksville to Stewartstown Group of Intervenors and
Abutting Property Owners Bethlehem to Plymouth Group of Intervenors is denied."
Click here to watch one of the videos in question.
Northern Pass also sought to strike testimony regarding Alternative Routes. This motion, too, was denied by the SEC.
Again, from the SEC's order:
"As part of its consideration, the Subcommittee is required to decide whether construction
and operation of the Project will interfere with the orderly development of the region, is in the
public interest, and/or will have an unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites,
natural environment, and water and air quality. See RSA 162-H:16. At this juncture we cannot
say that all evidence of alternative routes or sites is irrelevant to these considerations. Evidence
of alternatives might be relevant to the statutory factors that must be considered by the
Subcommittee in granting or denying a Certificate or conditions that may be imposed if a
Certificate is granted. The Applicant’s request to strike portions of the pre-filed testimony
addressing alternative routes of the Project filed by George Sansoucy, Sharon A. Penney and
Will Abbott is denied."