The U.S. Department of Energy released its draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Northern Pass Transmission line Tuesday and its conclusions back up some of the concerns by project critics about adverse impacts to landscapes, tourism and property values.
And while Northern Pass has stated full line burial would be "five to 10 times as expensive," costing between $7 billion and $14 billion, the DOE study states burial could be completed for $2 billion or less.
Northern Pass as well as stakeholders and critics of the proposed overhead lines were still digesting the 1,050-page draft EIS released Tuesday afternoon and did not have much to say regarding its specifics.
"It comes as no surprise to us that Northern Pass's preferred alternative, a largely overhead line, was determined to be the most environmentally damaging of the 11 alternatives that the EIS studied," Jack Savage, spokesman for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, which opposes an above-ground line, said in a statement. "It's also no surprise to us that in our view the EIS makes compelling arguments for burying the line along existing roads."
In a statement posted on their web site, Northern Pass spokespersons said the draft EIS represents a "key milestone in the permitting process."
They said, "Our team has begun to analyze the DEIS, and we encourage those who are interested to do the same. A little more than a year ago, the DOE released a list of alternatives it would evaluate as part of its review, which allowed us also to study some of those options. We've been considering these alternatives as we've continued to seek candid feedback about our proposed route from a range of stakeholders."
The Draft
DOE, which is required to review the project because it would cross the Canada-U.S. border, prepared the draft EIS to evaluate potential environmental impacts and present a range of alternatives that, in addition to the overhead line as proposed by Northern Pass, include several versions of line burial as well as taking no action.
The agency said it will use the draft EIS to inform its decision on whether to issue the required Presidential Permit.
Northern Pass, a subsidiary of Eversource Energy, is proposing its estimated $1.4 billion 187-mile line along 40 miles of new right-of-way in Coos County with 140 miles southward along the existing Public Service of New Hampshire right-of-way.
Except for a total of 7 1/2 miles that would be buried in Coos County, the 180 miles of above-ground line that would import Canadian hydro-power would go along steel towers about 100 feet high.
That route would generate nearly $10 billion in revenue for Eversource during the 40-year term of the line, according to company filings.
Northern Pass argues New Hampshire and New England are facing an energy crisis and its transmission line will provide clean, low-cost power.
Critics of the proposal contend Northern Pass is motivated by the profit to be gained by using the PSNH right-of-way, but say the line can be buried with existing technology along transportation corridors as is being done with similar projects in Vermont and New York.
In the 66-page summary of its draft EIS, DOE analyzed about a dozen alternatives that include the proposed above-ground line as well as full burial along the PSNH right-of-way, full burial along transportation corridors and a mix of burial and overhead lines that include a buried portion through the White Mountain National Forest.
The overhead lines would keep the company's proposed 1,200-megawatt capacity while the technology used with the underground alternatives would reduce that capacity to 1,000 megawatts.
Overhead v. Underground Lines
In its summary, the DOE concludes the overhead lines as proposed by Northern Pass "would impose the greatest environmental impacts as compared to the other action alternatives, primarily because of visual impacts, vegetation removal and ground disturbance required for the creation of a new 40-mile long, 150-foot wide route in the northern section of the project. It would also have the least cost of construction ($1.06 billion)."
The agency states the primary impact of above-ground lines "would be to visual resources. This could result in adverse impacts to tourism and recreation in the affected areas ... In addition, visual impacts may reduce some residential property values along the proposed transmission route, which could also result in lower residential property tax revenue collections as compared to the underground alternatives."
DOE concludes, "Decreases in residential property values would be greatest [with above-ground lines] compared to other action alternatives."
The agency also states overhead lines "would have an increased risk for operational hazards, such as damage from extreme weather or intentional destructive acts, but would present a lower risk of exposing contaminated soils or groundwater during construction as compared to the underground alternatives."
The DOE said lines "underground along existing roadways would impose the fewest environmental impacts due to the lack of visual impacts and the use of already disturbed roadway corridors."
In its document, the agency said, "Impacts to visual resources, tourism, recreation and historic architectural resources would be less for the fully/extensively underground alternatives as compared to the overhead alternatives ... For most of the fully/extensively underground alternatives, residential property values along the underground routes and associated residential property taxes would not be affected by these alternatives because long-term visual impacts would not occur."
The agency estimates the underground line alternatives would cost between $1.83 billion and $2.1 billion.
Since Northern Pass first proposed the project more than four years ago, it has advertised tax revenue and jobs as among the project benefits.
In its draft EIS, the DOE said overhead line are expected to create between 5,000 and 6,000 short-term jobs during a three-year period and approximately 900 permanent jobs while the underground alternatives would be expected to create 9,000 to 10,000 short-term jobs and between 1,300 to 1,500 permanent jobs.
The DOE also concludes that local tax revenue to communities would be higher through underground as opposed to above-ground lines.
Going Forward
Columbia resident Bob Baker, a member of Responsible Energy Action LLC, said his initial thoughts are, "The cost of total burial in N.H. is more than feasible" and "Northern Pass's prior estimates of burial costs are blown out of the water by the draft EIS."
Baker also said, "Of all the alternatives that the draft EIS studies, the project as proposed by NP is the worst one possible for the N.H. environment."
He did ask why there was no consideration of Vermont alternatives, such as the all-buried New England Clean Power Link transmission line, which is farther along in its permitting than Northern Pass.
Savage said, "The release of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the controversial Northern Pass transmission line proposal is the beginning of a long permitting process. The Draft EIS will be used in part to help New Hampshire decide what New Hampshire wants when it comes to large-scale transmission proposals."
The Forest Society is still reading and digesting the details of the comprehensive draft EIS and will likely have more comments about those details in the next day or two, he said.
Northern Pass representatives said they are optimistic that the draft EIS shares some of the same conclusions they have reached.
"We have spent the last two years listening to the people of New Hampshire, and we recognize the need to enhance the project in a way that will balance the economics of a large-scale energy project with the need to minimize impacts to New Hampshire's landscape," they said. "We look forward to completing our review of the DEIS ..."
The public will have have the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS during a 90-day comment period that begins when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice in the Federal Registry.
In October, DOE will conduct three public hearings throughout the state, including one in Whitefield, on Oct. 7, and one in Plymouth, on Oct. 8.
Comments will be accepted during the public hearings. Written comments must be received by Oct. 29.