Forest Society Asks DOE to Reject Northern Pass Based on Public Input

Forest Society Asks DOE to Reject Northern Pass Application Based on Public Input

Overwhelming Opposition Shows Project is Not In Public Interest

"Time for DOE to declare Northern Pass DOA"

Concord --In the wake of the overwhelming public opposition expressed this week regarding the  proposed Northern Pass transmission project, the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests (Forest Society) called on the Department of Energy (DOE)  to reject the Presidential Permit application.

"The primary purpose of a Presidential Permit is to make a determination that a project crossing an international border actually serves the public interest," testified Jack Savage, vp for communications, at the last of four scoping hearings held by the DOE in Colebrook. "A strong argument can be made today that based on these hearings there has been a overwhelming expression by the public that it is not in their interest. We believe the DOE should consider, based on public input, a conclusion that the public interest will not be served by granting a Presidential Permit for this project as proposed.  If the DOE reaches such a conclusion, it should reject the application and cease any further work on the EIS."

"In a democratic society, the opinions of the people affected by government action, such as a Presidential Permit or WMNF Special Use permit, should count for something," Savage said. "The DOE should declare the Northern Pass application DOA," he concluded.

An estimated 2000 people attended four public hearings held this week in Concord, Plymouth, Whitefield and Colebrook, the vast majority of whom indicated their opposition to the project by wearing orange. A total of 223 people spoke at the hearings, with 188 speaking in opposition to Northern Pass and 35 in favor, a 5-1 margin.

Savage also delivered to the DOE 1,100 cards addressed to the DOE from people in 115 different towns all expressing their opposition to Northern Pass. 

"We believe the voice and will of the people matter  when it comes to decision-making and permitting," said Savage in presenting the cards. "Though there is no binding popular vote on Northern Pass, our opinions need to count and be acknowledged in the Environmental Impact Statement for Northern Pass.

"To be fair, we also received cards from those who support Northern Pass. Their opinions matter, too. For the record, there are 22," Savage said, presenting those cards as well. "That's a a 50-1 margin against Northern Pass, by the way."

"It's clear the outcome of these hearings is no different that two and a half years ago, when New Hampshire citizens made it clear at similar hearings that Northern Pass was not in the public interest and is not needed or wanted," Savage said. "They are back to square one."

Comments at 9.26.2013 DOE Scoping Hearing, Colebrook, NH,  from Society for the Protection of NH Forests, Jack Savage, VP Communications/Outreach

Good evening, Mr. Mills and Mr. Wagner. Thank you for listening this week.

My name is Jack Savage. I have the privilege of serving as the VP for Communications and Outreach for The Society for the Protection of NH Forests. As you know, the Forest Society filed as an intervener in opposition to the original Northern Pass application, and we remain opposed to the Northern Pass application as amended. On Monday we additionally suggested that the DOE thoroughly study multiple alternatives that would completely bury the Northern Pass transmission line.

You may have observed this past week that New Hampshire residents and landowners value our landscape and the economy it supports. In fact, you might even say we’re a little crazy about it. Our collective passion for the mountains, lakes, rivers and views where we live has been on display.

We believe the voice and will of the people matter  when it comes to decision-making and permitting. We would ask you to include as part of the EIS some measure of the overwhelming objection to Northern Pass as proposed, and some measure of what the impact would be if a permit were granted despite those overwhelming public objections. Though there is no binding popular vote on Northern Pass, our opinions need to count and be acknowledged in the EIS.

To that end, I bring to you tonight 1100 cards from residents and landowners from across New Hampshire, all addressed to the Department of Energy expressing opposition to Northern Pass. Each card includes the name and address of the person, and their reasons for objecting to Northern Pass.

We also received cards from those who support Northern Pass. Their opinions matter too, and so I bring to you tonight those cards, as well. For the record, there are 22.

In a democratic society, the opinions of the people affected by government action, such as a Presidential Permit or WMNF Special Use permit, should count for something. We ask to make sure that the EIS for Northern Pass, and this permitting process, does exactly that.

In a democratic society, the opinions of the people affected by government action, such as a Presidential Permit or WMNF Special Use permit, should count for something. We ask to make sure that the EIS for Northern Pass, and this permitting process, does exactly that.

The primary purpose of a Presidential Permit is to make a determination that a project crossing an international border actually serves the public interest.  A strong argument can be made today that based on these hearings there has been a strong expression by the public that it is not in their interest. We believe the DOE should consider, based on public input, a conclusion that the public interest will not be served by granting a Presidential Permit for this project as proposed.  If the DOE reaches such a conclusion, it should reject the application and cease any further work on the EIS.

The DOE should declare Northern Pass application DOA.

Thank you.