NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as 

well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. 

Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme Court of New 

Hampshire, One Charles Doe Drive, Concord, New Hampshire 03301, of any 

editorial errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion goes 

to press. Errors may be reported by e-mail at the following address: 

reporter@courts.state.nh.us. Opinions are available on the Internet by 9:00 

a.m. on the morning of their release. The direct address of the court’s home 

page is: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme.

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

___________________________

Site Evaluation Committee

No. 2018-0468

APPEAL OF NORTHERN PASS TRANSMISSION, LLC & a.

(New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee)

Argued: May 15, 2019

Opinion Issued: July 19, 2019

McLane Middleton, Professional Association, of Manchester (Wilbur A. 

Glahn, III, Barry Needleman, and Jeremy T. Walker on the brief, and Mr. Glahn

orally), for the petitioners, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC, and Public 

Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy.

Gordon J. MacDonald, attorney general (Christopher G. Aslin, senior 

assistant attorney general, on the brief and orally), representing the public 

interest.

City Solicitor’s Office, of Concord (Danielle L. Pacik, deputy city solicitor, 

on the joint brief and orally), for intervenor City of Concord; Mitchell Municipal 

Group, P.A., of Laconia (Steven M. Whitley on the joint brief), for intervenors 

Towns of Deerfield, Littleton, New Hampton, and Pembroke; and Drummond 

Woodsum, of Manchester (C. Christine Fillmore on the joint brief), for 
2

intervenors Towns of Bethlehem, Bristol, Easton, Franconia, Northumberland, 

Plymouth, Sugar Hill, and Whitefield.

BCM Environmental & Land Law, PLLC, of Concord (Amy Manzelli on the 

brief and orally), for intervenor Society for the Protection of New Hampshire 

Forests.

Wadleigh, Starr & Peters, PLLC, of Manchester (Stephen J. Judge, Jeffrey 

Karlin, and Stephen Zaharias on the brief), for intervenor McKenna’s Purchase 

Unit Owners Association.

Foley & Lardner LLP, of Boston, Massachusetts (Courtney Worcester on 

the joint brief), for intervenors Ammonoosuc Conservation Trust and 

Appalachian Mountain Club, and Melissa E. Birchard, of Concord, on the joint 

brief, for intervenor Conservation Law Foundation.

Bernstein Shur, of Manchester (Andru Volinsky on the memorandum of 

law), for intervenors Bradley and Daryl Thompson and Jeanne Menard.

Richard J. Samson, Coos County Commissioner, District Three, and 

Stephen J. Ellis on the joint memorandum of law, for intervenors Towns of 

Pittsburg, Clarksville, and Stewartstown.

Philip Bilodeau and Joan Bilodeau joined in the brief for the Society for 

the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

F. Maureen Quinn joined in the brief for the Society for the Protection of 

New Hampshire Forests.

Dalton Whitefield Bethlehem Abutters joined in the brief for the Society 

for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.
3

Pemigewasset River Local Advisory Committee joined in the brief for the 

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

Dummer, Stark and Northumberland Abutters joined in the brief for the 

Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

Abutting Property Owners, Bethlehem to Plymouth joined in the brief for 

the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.

Non-Abutter Property Owners Stark to Bethlehem joined in the joint brief 

of the City of Concord and multiple towns.

Bethlehem to Plymouth Non-Abutters joined in the brief for the Society 

for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests.1

HANTZ MARCONI, J. The petitioners, Northern Pass Transmission, LLC 

and Public Service Company of New Hampshire d/b/a Eversource Energy

(PSNH), appeal the decision of the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee 

denying their application for a “Certificate of Site and Facility” (certificate) for

the siting, construction, and operation of a high voltage transmission line 

(HVTL) and associated facilities from Pittsburg to Deerfield (the project). We 

affirm.

I. The Project

The following facts either were found by the Site Evaluation Committee 

or are drawn from the contents of documents submitted as part of the 

appellate record. The petitioners’ application proposes to install a 192-mile 

HVTL to carry 1,090 megawatts of electricity from Canada into New England. 

The project’s transmission corridor would encompass 3,161 acres, including 

approximately 465 acres of new rights-of-way to be used for the overhead 

transmission corridor, 2,520 acres of existing rights-of-way to be leased from 

PSNH and used for the overhead transmission corridor, and approximately 176 

acres for the underground transmission corridor. The major components of the 

project include: a high-voltage direct current transmission line running from 

the Canadian border to a converter terminal in Franklin; a converter terminal 

 

1 Although the case docket identifies more than 100 intervenors, we list only those who filed a 

brief or a memorandum of law in the appellate proceedings.
4

to be constructed at South Main Street in Franklin; an alternating current 

overhead transmission line running from the converter terminal in Franklin to 

an existing substation in Deerfield; six high-voltage direct current overhead to 

underground transition stations to be located in Pittsfield, Clarksville, 

Stewartstown, Bethlehem, and Bridgewater; and “various access roads, 

laydown areas, staging areas and marshaling yards.” The approximately 10-to20 laydown areas would consist of open space areas ranging in size from five to 

50 acres, located off the right-of-way along the length of the project.

According to the petitioners’ application, approximately 60.5 miles of the 

transmission corridor would be located underground. For that portion of the 

HVTL using overhead transmission, the petitioners propose to use primarily 

lattice structures, with some tubular steel monopole structures. The lattice 

configuration would have an approximate base dimension of 30 feet by 30 feet 

and taper to a six foot by five foot column half way up the structure, anchored 

to four concrete foundations at the corners of the base approximately three to 

five feet in diameter. For the high-voltage direct current transmission portion 

of the project, the height of the structures would range from 60 to 135 feet. 

For the alternating current overhead transmission line portion of the project, 

the height of the structures would range from 48 to 160 feet.

The transmission line would cross existing substations in 

Northumberland, Whitefield, North Woodstock, Campton, Ashland, New 

Hampton, Franklin, Concord, and Deerfield. Overhead/underground 

transmission stations would be installed at each end of each underground 

segment of the line and occupy an area approximately 75 feet by 130 feet, 

enclosed with fencing. The Franklin converter terminal would include a variety 

of buildings occupying approximately 10 acres, enclosed with fencing. The 

Deerfield substation would be modified to include additional construction 

requiring the clearing of eight acres. Sixty-three miles of existing lines for the 

high-voltage direct current portion of the line, and 21 miles of existing lines for 

the alternating current portion of the line, would be relocated. These lines 

would remain within the boundaries of the existing right-of-way. A large 

number of structures associated with these existing lines would be replaced

with structures greater in height than currently existing structures.

II. Procedural Background

The petitioners filed their application with the Site Evaluation Committee 

in October 2015. Pursuant to RSA 162-H:9 (2014), the attorney general 

appointed a Counsel for the Public (CFP). In November, the chair of the Site 

Evaluation Committee appointed a Subcommittee. See RSA 162-H:4-a (Supp. 

2016).2 The Subcommittee sent notice to the municipalities affected by the 

 

2 Pursuant to RSA 162-H:4-a, I, the chairperson of the Site Evaluation Committee may establish a 

subcommittee “to consider and make decisions on applications, including the issuance of 
5

project and included procedures for intervening in the proceedings.3 Following 

a public hearing, the Subcommittee accepted the application, finding that it

“contained sufficient information to carry out the purposes of” RSA chapter 

162-H.

In January 2016, the Subcommittee held public information sessions in 

Franklin, Londonderry, Laconia, Whitefield, and Lincoln. See RSA 162-H:10, 

I-a (Supp. 2016) (amended 2017). In addition, the Subcommittee held seven 

public hearings between March and June of 2016 in Meredith, Colebrook, 

Concord, Holderness, Deerfield, Whitefield, and Plymouth. See RSA 162-H:10, 

I-c (Supp. 2016) (amended 2017, 2018). The Subcommittee received 160 

motions to intervene and, in May 2016, the Subcommittee combined the 

intervenors into groups by geography and areas of interest. Between March 

2016 and October 2017, the Subcommittee conducted seven days of site visits.

The Subcommittee held 70 days of adjudicative hearings between April 

and December 2017. It received testimony from 154 witnesses and received

2,176 exhibits. The evidentiary record closed on December 22, 2017. The 

Subcommittee commenced its deliberations on January 30, 2018, first 

addressing whether the petitioners had “adequate financial, technical, and 

managerial capability to assure construction and operation of the facility in 

continuing compliance with the terms and conditions of the certificate.” RSA 

162-H:16, IV(a) (Supp. 2016). Although the Subcommittee did not take a 

formal vote, it “informally agreed” that the petitioners have “sufficient financial 

capability to ensure construction and operation of the Project.” The 

Subcommittee also agreed that the petitioners demonstrated that their

“contractors and subcontractors have sufficient experience and resources 

required for construction of aboveground and underground transmission 

projects.” While the Subcommittee found that the petitioners “demonstrated 

that [they have] technical capacity to construct and operate the Project in 

compliance with the Certificate,” it did not “come to a clear consensus in 

determining whether [the petitioners have] sufficient managerial capabilities to 

manage the planning and construction of this Project given its size and effects 

on surrounding communities.”

The Subcommittee next deliberated on whether the “site and facility will 

not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region with due 

 

certificates.” The statute provides that “[f]or purposes of statutory interpretation and executing 

the regulatory functions of [RSA chapter 162-H], the subcommittee shall assume the role of and 

be considered the committee, with all of its associated powers and duties in order to execute the 

charge given it by the chairperson.” RSA 162-H:4-a, I.

3 The affected municipalities are Pittsburg, Clarksville, Stewartstown, Dixville, Millsfield, Dummer, 

Stark, Northumberland, Lancaster, Whitefield, Dalton, Bethlehem, Sugar Hill, Franconia, Easton, 

Woodstock, Thornton, Campton, Plymouth, Ashland, Bridgewater, New Hampton, Bristol, Hill, 

Franklin, Northfield, Canterbury, Pembroke, Allenstown, Deerfield, Chester, Raymond, 

Londonderry, and Concord.
6

consideration having been given to the views of municipal and regional 

planning commissions and municipal governing bodies.” RSA 162-H:16, IV(b)

(Supp. 2018). The Subcommittee voted unanimously that the petitioners 

“failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the Project will not 

unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region” and denied the

application on February 1, 2018.

The petitioners filed a motion for rehearing and a request that the 

Subcommittee vacate its February 1 decision and resume deliberations. 

Following a hearing, the Subcommittee voted to suspend its oral decision made 

during deliberations, and to deny the application pending the issuance of a 

written decision. The Subcommittee issued a 287-page written decision

denying the application on March 30, 2018. The petitioners then filed a second

motion for rehearing. Following deliberations, the Subcommittee denied the 

motion in a 72-page written order, and this appeal followed.

III. Statutory Framework

A. Purpose

The siting of energy facilities and the Subcommittee’s review of an 

application for a certificate is governed by RSA chapter 162-H. In the statute’s 

declaration of purpose, the legislature “recognizes that the selection of sites for 

energy facilities may have significant impacts on and benefits to”: (1) “the

welfare of the population”; (2) “private property”; (3) “the location and growth of 

industry”; (4) “the overall economic growth of the state”; (5) “the environment of 

the state, historic sites, aesthetics, air and water quality”; (6) “the use of 

natural resources”; and (7) “public health and safety.” RSA 162-H:1 (Supp. 

2018). Accordingly, the legislature stated that

it is in the public interest to maintain a balance among those 

potential significant impacts and benefits in decisions about the 

siting, construction, and operation of energy facilities in New 

Hampshire; that undue delay in the construction of new energy 

facilities be avoided; that full and timely consideration of 

environmental consequences be provided; that all entities planning 

to construct facilities in the state be required to provide full and 

complete disclosure to the public of such plans; and that the state 

ensure that the construction and operation of energy facilities is 

treated as a significant aspect of land-use planning in which all 

environmental, economic, and technical issues are resolved in an 

integrated fashion.

Id.
7

B. Required Findings

In furtherance of these objectives, the legislature established a procedure 

“for the review, approval, monitoring, and enforcement of compliance in the 

planning, siting, construction, and operation of energy facilities.” Id. In order 

to issue a certificate, the Subcommittee is required to find:

(1) That the applicant has adequate financial, technical, and 

managerial capability to assure construction and operation of the 

facility in continuing compliance with the terms and conditions of 

the certificate.

(2) That the site and facility will not unduly interfere with the 

orderly development of the region with due consideration having 

been given to the views of municipal and regional planning 

commissions and municipal governing bodies.

(3) That the site and facility will not have an unreasonable adverse 

effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, the 

natural environment, and public health and safety.

(4) That issuance of a certificate will serve the public interest.

RSA 162-H:16, IV(a)-(b), (c) (Supp. 2018), (e) (Supp. 2018). In addition to the 

statutory requirements, the Subcommittee’s review is governed by 

administrative rules adopted pursuant to RSA 162-H:10, VI (Supp. 2018). See

N.H. Admin. R., Site 100 et seq. In issuing or denying a certificate, the 

Subcommittee “shall make a finding regarding the criteria stated in RSA 162-

H:16, IV, and Site 301.13 through 301.17, and issue an order pursuant to RSA 

541-A:35.” N.H. Admin. R., Site 202.28. The Subcommittee has broad 

discretion in making a determination whether to issue a certificate and it may 

deny a certificate if it determines that the issuance of a certificate will not serve 

the “objectives” of RSA chapter 162-H after giving “due consideration” to all 

relevant information. RSA 162-H:16, IV (Supp. 2018).

C. Burden of Proof

For a certificate to issue, the burden of proof is on the applicant to make 

the necessary showings by a preponderance of the evidence. See N.H. Admin. 

R., Site 202.19(b) (stating that “[a]n applicant for a certificate of site and facility 

shall bear the burden of proving facts sufficient for the committee . . . to make 

the findings required by RSA 162-H:16”); see also N.H. Admin. R., Site 

202.19(a) (requiring that “[t]he party asserting a proposition shall bear the 

burden of proving the proposition by a preponderance of the evidence”).
8

D. Orderly Development of the Region

In determining whether a proposed energy facility will not unduly 

interfere with the orderly development of the region, the Subcommittee must 

consider: (a) “[t]he extent to which the siting, construction, and operation of the 

proposed facility will affect land use, employment, and the economy of the 

region”; (b) “[t]he provisions of, and financial assurances for, the proposed 

decommissioning plan for the proposed facility”;4 and (c) “[t]he views of 

municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies 

regarding the proposed facility.” N.H. Admin. R., Site 301.15.

IV. The Subcommittee’s Decision

The Subcommittee voted unanimously to deny the application, 

concluding that after considering “the extent to which the siting, construction, 

and operation of the Project would affect land use, employment, and the 

economy of the region,” the Subcommittee determined that the petitioners had

“failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the Project will not 

unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region.” In its written 

order, the Subcommittee detailed the parties’ positions and the evidence

submitted and set forth its deliberations on impacts of the project on orderly 

development including: (1) effects on land use during construction such as

impacts on traffic, utilities, vegetation along the right-of-way, road surfaces,

construction noise, the rights of private property owners, and access to private 

property during construction; (2) impact on employment in the region including 

establishment of the North Country Jobs Creation Fund — a $7.5 million fund 

to be spent on economic development and job creation in the region; (3) effects 

on the economy including wholesale electricity market savings, impacts on 

small businesses, effects on local real estate taxes, and establishment of the 

Forward New Hampshire Fund — to be funded with $10 million annually for 20 

years to support community betterment, clean energy innovation, tourism, and 

economic development; (4) effect on real estate values; (5) effect on tourism;

and (6) effect on current local land uses including forestry, agriculture, 

residential, commercial/industrial, transportation, institutional/government, 

recreation, and conservation, and historical and natural features such as 

rivers, wetlands and wildlife habitat. The order also summarized the evidence 

of the views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal 

governing bodies on the effect of the project on implementing local, regional 

and state-wide plans.

A. Construction Impacts

The Subcommittee concluded, among other things, that the “testimony 

and evidence demonstrated that construction of the Project would have an 

 

4 The Subcommittee determined that the project as proposed satisfied this criteria.
9

impact on traffic in affected communities and that the degree of the impact 

would vary,” noting an “area of particular concern is the impact of the traffic on 

orderly development of Plymouth.” The Subcommittee expressed concerns 

about construction impacts, such as “inadequate traffic management 

strategies, combined with a lack of communication and consideration of 

business access,” and found that the petitioners did not meet their burden of 

proof on “whether the degree of traffic interference caused by construction 

would not unduly interfere with orderly development of the region.”

In particular, the Subcommittee found that the petitioners did not 

provide a final survey of the right-of-way that was deemed acceptable by the 

New Hampshire Department of Transportation (DOT) and, therefore, neither 

the Subcommittee nor the petitioners could know the boundaries of the rightof-way or the precise location of each component of the underground section of 

the project, or determine the number and nature of exceptions to be filed with 

DOT. The Subcommittee concluded, however, that while not having this 

information was “problematic,” it did not necessarily preclude the

Subcommittee “from ascertaining the construction impacts on orderly 

development.”

The Subcommittee found that the “impacts associated with construction 

under and over locally-maintained roads present[ed] a greater problem.” It

found that the petitioners did not clearly identify crossings over locallymaintained roads, the petitioners’ evidence with respect to such roads did not 

include a traffic management plan, and that DOT had “raised significant 

concerns about usurping the authority of municipalities over locallymaintained roads.” The Subcommittee explained that it

needs to understand which roads and where the Applicant intends 

to cross. The Applicant failed to provide documentation that 

clearly identified crossings over locally-maintained roads and 

instead provided a list which did not differentiate between State 

and local roads. This oversight is consistent with the Applicant’s 

failure to provide serious consideration and planning with respect 

to the impact of the Project on local roads, especially in the 

northern portion of the State.

In addition, the Subcommittee stated that it was unclear whether the two-year 

limit petitioners proposed would be sufficient to correct “surface distortions” 

caused by the project to locally-maintained roads.

B. Employment Impacts

The Subcommittee acknowledged that it is “undisputed that construction 

of the Project would generate a significant number of new jobs” and that 

although “most of these jobs would be temporary in nature, they would have a 
10

positive effect on employment in the region during the construction period.” 

However, the Subcommittee found that after construction the number of new 

jobs estimated by the petitioners’ experts “is overinflated and does not reflect 

the actual number of jobs that would be created.” The Subcommittee

explained that “[a]fter construction direct jobs are estimated to be 2 per year, 

for employees working for Northern Pass” and that “[t]he remainder of jobs 

after construction is completed depends primarily on the amount of savings 

from the retail electricity market.”

C. Economic Impacts

The Subcommittee, noting that there is “no disagreement that the Project 

would generate energy savings,” found that it would “have a small, but, positive 

impact on the economy.” However, the Subcommittee found that that impact

on the economy would be “much less significant” than predicted by the 

petitioners. In reaching this finding the Subcommittee made several 

determinations, including that: it “cannot conclude there will be savings from 

the Capacity Market”; “no actual greenhouse gas emission reductions would be 

realized if no new source of hydropower is introduced” and the “record is 

unclear as to whether the hydropower is new or will be diverted from another 

region”; the project “would likely have a positive effect because of the 

substantial real estate taxes it would pay to the affected communities”; as to 

the impact on local businesses, “neither the Forward New Hampshire Fund nor 

the Job Creation Fund had a transparent structure of governance and were not 

associated with any economic or government entity that would be 

accountable”; and the petitioners “failed to account for negative impact on 

businesses that could be caused by construction of the Project.” Although the 

petitioners proposed to implement a “business loss compensation program,”

because the petitioners had not provided “an adequate assessment of the

negative impacts of the Project” with respect to construction-period business 

impacts, the Subcommittee found “it is impossible for anyone to know what 

level of compensation or mitigation would be appropriate.”

D. Property Value Impacts

The petitioners’ expert, James Chalmers, Ph.D., testified with respect to 

the “possible effects” of the project “on both property values and marketing 

times in local and regional real estate markets.” Although he acknowledged 

that he is not an expert on the New Hampshire real estate market or property

valuation in New Hampshire, he testified that the general literature and New 

Hampshire-specific studies support his opinion that “there is no evidence that 

HVTL[s] result in consistent measurable effects on property values, and, where 

there are effects, the effects are small and decrease rapidly with distance.” 

Chalmers testified that “even though the presence of a HVTL corridor is 

generally perceived to be a negative attribute of a property, the weight attached 

to this particular attribute compared to all the other considerations that go into 
11

market decisions is apparently too small to have any consistent measurable 

effect on the market value of real estate.” He concluded that “there is no basis 

in the published literature or in the New Hampshire-specific research 

initiatives . . . to expect that the Project would have a discernible effect on 

property values or marketing times in local or regional real estate markets.”

The CFP’s experts, Thomas E. Kavet and Nicolas D. Rockler, Ph.D., of

Kavet, Rockler & Associates, LLC (KRA), reviewed Chalmers’ analysis and

determined that his conclusion that the project will result in no measurable 

effects on the market value of residential real estate was not credible. 

According to KRA, Chalmers’ review of existing literature was “selective and 

incomplete” and his review of the local market and case studies was “flawed 

and unreliable.” KRA opined that

[p]erhaps most importantly the Chalmers’ analysis failed to 

examine the most important conduit for potential property 

valuation diminution in New Hampshire’s area of high recreational 

and scenic amenity values – visual property degradation. And the 

Chalmers’ analysis did not consider the impact on multi-family 

structures, such as the 148 townhouses in McKenna’s Purchase in 

Concord, commercial properties such as the Sherburne Woods 

Senior Living facility in Deerfield, or the impact on hotels, motels, 

resorts, campgrounds, restaurants, etc. that rely on tourists.

KRA utilized “viewshed data . . . to estimate how much residential property 

may have a view of the transmission line and its structures and then . . .

estimated the loss or gain in the value of that property using values from 

existing literature that were most relevant to the affected New Hampshire area.” 

KRA then “transformed the value of a one-percent change in the assessed value 

of that property into a flow of income,” and determined that “[e]very 1% decline 

in assessed property value potentially within the viewshed represents 

$11,628,154 in lost wealth by affected residential property owners.” That, in 

turn, KRA determined is the “equivalent annual loss in imputed rent income of 

$202,671 for 2015.”

Peter W. Powell, a realtor with over 40 years of experience “in all aspects 

of real estate sales and service” in northern New Hampshire, provided expert 

testimony on behalf of a group of intervenors who own property abutting the 

project in Dalton, Whitefield, and Bethlehem. Powell emphasized “the core 

values of view, location and the natural resources” that would be impacted by 

the project, noting that “[n]o study performed in any other location . . . can be 

used to fully explain or predict what may happen here” and that “[i]t is 

impossible to perform such a study here because to date, no HVTL comparable 

to that proposed by [the petitioners] exists here.” Powell testified that because 

“[n]o comparable can be found in this marketplace [given that] no such line, 

with towers and the scope of the project, exists here today, . . . no evidence 
12

exists to support a decision that the presence of [the project] would have no 

impact.” Powell provided five specific examples to demonstrate “why the 

dynamics of North Country real estate sales make the findings presented to the 

Committee by [the petitioners’ expert] to be misleading and contrary to 

experience on the ground here.” Those examples supported his conclusion that

the project already has negatively impacted the value of real estate in the 

region. In addition, Powell stated that, in his experience, “if indeed a property

tainted by [the project] is able to be sold at all, the loss in value due to [the 

project] can range from 35 or 40 percent to as high as 75 percent, the higher 

range primarily for raw land.”

The Subcommittee found Chalmers’ “report and testimony to be 

insufficient to demonstrate that the Project will not have an unreasonably 

adverse impact on real estate values throughout the region.” In reaching this 

finding, the Subcommittee made several determinations. First, the 

Subcommittee found that the literature reviews relied upon by Chalmers,

indicating that HVTLs have little discernible impact on residential property 

values, were contradicted by his own studies that demonstrated an impact on 

residential property values ranging from a one percent to six percent reduction 

in sale price attributable to HVTLs, a negative price effect that could be as high 

as 20 percent to 25 percent on residential properties in rural residential 

subdivisions near HVTLs, and that “affected properties also suffered extended 

times on the market.” Thus, the Subcommittee found that, “[i]n fact, the 

literature review . . . supports the intuitive position” that HVTLs have a

negative impact on real estate values.

Second, the Subcommittee found that the case studies performed by 

Chalmers were not persuasive because they “were based on retrospective 

appraisals of properties in proximity to other existing HVTLs” that “were not 

similar to properties along the Project route” and had “substantial differences

. . . especially with respect to the size of the proposed structures and the 

nature of the surrounding region.” In addition, the Subcommittee found many 

of the conclusions reached by Chalmers to be unreliable. The Subcommittee 

also found that the subdivision study undertaken by Chalmers “suffered from 

similar data related problems” as did the case studies.

Third, the Subcommittee identified several “significant gaps” in the 

research Chalmers performed, including that he “gave little, if any, 

consideration to commercial property, condominiums, multi-family housing, 

vacant land, second homes or to property along the underground portion of the 

route.” In addition, the Subcommittee rejected Chalmers’ opinion that no 

property beyond 100 feet from the right-of-way would be impacted, finding that 

“[n]either the research supplied by” the petitioners, nor Chalmers’ testimony,

“reasonably supports that conclusion.” The Subcommittee noted that there 

was a lack of evidence of how many properties outside of 100 feet from the 

right-of-way would experience a change in view if the project were constructed.
13

Accordingly, the Subcommittee concluded that the petitioners’ “data and 

analyses are insufficient” for it “to determine how far the impacts on property 

values will reach,” and that the petitioners did not meet their burden “in 

demonstrating that the Project’s impact on property values will not unduly 

interfere with the orderly development of the region.”

E. Tourism Impacts

The petitioners’ expert, Mitch Nichols, opined that the project “will not 

affect regional travel demand and it will not have a measurable effect on New 

Hampshire’s tourism industry.” Nichols noted that there is no quantitative 

research on the impacts of power lines on tourism. Thus, to formulate a 

conclusion about the effects of the project on tourism, he reviewed relevant 

literature, examined data provided by Plymouth State University, conducted 

“listening sessions” with New Hampshire tourism industry participants, looked 

at labor statistics, and conducted an electronic prospective visitor survey. 

Nichols submitted pre-filed testimony and a report, and testified for two days 

before the Subcommittee. Regarding the listening sessions, Nichols noted that 

while some of the participants “expressed concern about future potential 

impacts of Northern Pass, no one provided any specific foundation or empirical 

support for the concern.” Nichols reviewed labor statistics “to gauge whether 

there is evidence of actual business expansion or contraction in the tourism 

industry from existing large electrical transmission lines,” and found “no 

indication that the construction and operation of new transmission lines had 

any negative effect on the tourism industry.” Nichols acknowledged that he did 

not study or analyze the impacts of construction of the project on traffic 

closures and delays or on tourism in general.

The CFP’s expert, KRA, reviewed Nichols’ tourism impact analysis and

concluded that it was not “a reasonable or credible assessment of the Project’s 

potential impact on tourism.” According to KRA, the assessment was

based on faulty logic, methodological errors in the analysis of 

tourism data, four listening sessions with limited participants 

some of whose views were unreported and largely ignored, an 

attempt to examine two “similar” transmission projects by the use 

of flawed methodology that renders the analysis meaningless, and 

a web-based survey of paid respondents that failed to ask a single 

question that mentioned, provided a visual simulation, or 

described a high voltage transmission line.

The Subcommittee did not find the report and testimony submitted by 

Nichols to be credible for several reasons. The Subcommittee found that 

Nichols “did not exhibit familiarity with the New Hampshire tourism industry 

and tourism destinations in the North Country.” The Subcommittee noted

testimony from the CFP’s expert that Nichols did not study impacts on 
14

individual tourism destinations or any specific region through which the 

project would pass, but instead addressed generally New Hampshire tourism

without any reference to the specific characteristics of the project. The 

Subcommittee also found that the listening sessions conducted by and relied 

upon by Nichols were poorly designed, attended by only a limited number of 

people, and did not provide a variety of information and views on tourism and 

concerns about the project’s impact. The Subcommittee noted that its “own 

experience in conducting information sessions, public hearings and site 

inspections along the proposed route demonstrated that there was a lot of 

public interest in the Project.”

In addition, the Subcommittee found that the electronic surveys Nichols 

relied upon were “poorly worded,” “misleading,” failed to include “visitor 

intercept surveys,” and “[f]ailed to obtain and address the views of a 

substantial number of varied stakeholders.” By way of illustration, the 

Subcommittee described “but one” example of the misleading and poorly 

worded nature of the survey:

[A] survey question asked “[h]ow often have you made your

decision to visit the destination based primarily on each of the 

following factors?” One available answer to the question was “the 

destination has visible power lines in certain areas.” No survey 

participants indicated that they made their decision to visit a 

destination because the destination had visible power lines. From 

these answers, Mr. Nichols concluded that powerlines have no 

impact on a tourist decision to visit New Hampshire . . . .

(Emphasis added.) The Subcommittee found that Nichols’ conclusion that 

powerlines, therefore, have no impact on a tourist decision to visit New 

Hampshire is “illogical and does not readily follow from the question asked.”

The Subcommittee found Nichols’ comparison of the project to other 

existing HVTL projects flawed because those projects “are substantially 

different from” this project, “most notably because they were constructed fully 

within existing corridors, and the new structures remained below the tree 

canopy and were not plainly visible,” whereas “[t]he structures designed for this 

Project are considerably taller and will be seen above the tree canopy in most of 

the region.” In addition, the Subcommittee observed that those projects “are 

. . . located in areas that are substantially different from the Project’s location.” 

The Subcommittee noted that the CFP’s experts opined that “there is ample 

evidence that scenic beauty and a pristine wilderness experience is a primary 

destination attribute affecting tourist visitation to New Hampshire.” (Quotation 

omitted.) In addition, the Subcommittee found that Nichols “failed to address 

and analyze the impact that construction work over an extended period of time 

could have on tourism.”
15

F. Land Use Impacts and Municipal Views

The Subcommittee found that the petitioners “failed to demonstrate by a 

preponderance of evidence that proposed expansion of the right-of-way use 

would not interfere with the orderly development of the region.” The 

Subcommittee acknowledged the petitioners’ expert’s testimony that because 

the majority of the project would be constructed in an existing transmission 

right-of-way corridor, there would be no impact on the orderly development of 

the region and that construction of transmission lines in existing corridors is a 

sound planning principle. The Subcommittee stated, however, that the expert

“fails to note that it is not the only principle of sound planning nor is it a 

principle to be applied in every case.” Further, the Subcommittee noted that 

“the Project includes 32 miles of new aboveground right-of-way and 60 miles of 

underground installation in roads where there are no pre-existing transmission 

lines and certainly no existing corridor for transmission lines.”

The Subcommittee found that the petitioners did not sufficiently address 

the impact that the underground portions of the project would have on existing 

land uses. The Subcommittee stated that the petitioners “directed little, if any, 

attention to the effects that the underground portion of the Project may have 

on the surrounding land uses. It is possible that there would be no negative 

effect, but the record contains little to assist us in making that determination.” 

In addition, with respect to the northernmost communities, the Subcommittee 

found that the petitioners “did not provide any testimony indicating that the 

Project would be consistent with residential, agricultural, and commercial uses 

in these areas” and have “not provided a satisfactory means and method to 

regulate the construction, maintenance and operation of the parts of the 

Project proposed to be constructed underneath municipal roadways.”

After considering the evidence and the parties’ positions, the 

Subcommittee found that the petitioners: (1) failed to demonstrate “that the 

Project would not overburden existing land uses within and surrounding the 

right-of-way and would not substantially change the impact of the right-of-way 

on surrounding properties and land use”; (2) did not sufficiently demonstrate 

“the effect the Project would have on the economy,” including failing to provide 

“credible evidence regarding the negative impacts on tourism and real estate 

values” and failing “to provide a plan for construction of the Project that 

appropriately considered the Project’s effects on municipal roads and business 

in the northern part of the State”; and (3) failed to “adequately anticipate and 

account for the almost uniform view” of municipal and regional planning 

commissions and municipal governing bodies of the affected municipalities 

“that the Project, as planned and presented, would unduly interfere with the 

orderly development of the region.”
16

V. Issues on Appeal

The petitioners raise three main arguments on appeal. First, they assert 

that the Subcommittee violated RSA chapter 162-H by failing to: (1) consider all 

relevant information; (2) consider mitigating measures and conditions that 

could have reduced or eliminated project impacts; and (3) resolve the capacity 

market benefits or weigh the impacts and benefits of the project. Second, the 

petitioners argue that the Subcommittee’s application of the burden of proof 

constituted improper ad hoc decision making. Third, they assert that the 

Subcommittee’s finding that the project would unduly interfere with the orderly 

development of the region is arbitrary and unsupported.

VI. Standard of Review

Decisions by the Subcommittee are reviewed in accordance with RSA 

chapter 541. See RSA 162-H:11 (2014). We will not set aside the 

Subcommittee’s order except for errors of law, unless we are persuaded, by a 

clear preponderance of the evidence, that the order is unjust or unreasonable.

RSA 541:13 (2007). The Subcommittee’s findings of fact are presumed prima

facie lawful and reasonable. Id. In reviewing those findings, our task is not to 

determine whether we would have found differently or to reweigh the evidence, 

but, rather, to determine whether the findings are supported by competent 

evidence in the record. Appeal of Allen, 170 N.H. 754, 758 (2018). We review 

the Subcommittee’s rulings on issues of law de novo. See id.

We defer to the Subcommittee’s “judgment on such issues as resolving 

conflicts in the testimony, measuring the credibility of witnesses, and 

determining the weight to be given evidence.” In the Matter of Aube & Aube, 

158 N.H. 459, 465 (2009). The “trier of fact is in the best position to measure 

the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and is not compelled to believe 

even uncontroverted evidence.” DeLucca v. DeLucca, 152 N.H. 100, 102 (2005)

(quotation omitted). As the trier of fact, the Subcommittee “resolve[s] conflicts 

in the evidence” and could “accept or reject such portions of the evidence 

presented as [it] found proper.” Id. (quotation omitted). “It is not our task to 

determine whether we would have credited one expert over another, or to 

reweigh the evidence, but rather to determine whether the [Subcommittee’s]

findings are supported by competent evidence in the record.” Appeal of Allen, 

170 N.H. at 762. When faced with competing expert witnesses, “a trier of fact 

is free to accept or reject an expert’s testimony, in whole or in part.” Id.

(quotation omitted).

On appeal, the burden is on the petitioners to show that the 

Subcommittee’s order “is clearly unreasonable or unlawful.” RSA 541:13.
17

VII. Analysis

A. Violations of RSA Chapter 162-H

The petitioners first argue that the Subcommittee “violated RSA 162-H by 

failing to consider all relevant information, including mitigating measures and 

conditions and by failing to weigh potential impacts and benefits.” (Bolding 

and capitalization omitted.)

1. Consideration of all Relevant Information

The petitioners assert that the Subcommittee failed “to consider highly 

relevant information” on orderly development, thereby ignoring the legislature’s 

mandate in RSA 162-H:1 that “all environmental, economic, and technical 

issues [be] resolved in an integrated fashion.”5 They argue that this failure is 

exemplified by the fact that, in considering the project’s impact on land use,

the Subcommittee focused on “aesthetics,” despite it never having “deliberated 

on or decided aesthetic effects, or whether they were ‘unreasonably adverse,’ as 

required by RSA 162-H:16, IV(c).” The petitioners contend that if the 

Subcommittee “was going to improperly apply the aesthetic considerations of a 

separate statutory factor to the [orderly development] determination, it should 

have deliberated on aesthetics, and thus provided a framework for its 

consideration of aesthetics relative to” the orderly development of the region. 

They assert that the legislature “placed the consideration of aesthetics in the 

‘unreasonable adverse effect’ section of RSA 162-H:16, IV(c), not under” orderly 

development, and, if the legislature had intended aesthetics to be incorporated 

into orderly development, “it would have said so.” See RSA 162-H:16, IV(c) 

(requiring the Subcommittee to find that the site and facility “will not have an 

unreasonable adverse effect on aesthetics, historic sites, air and water quality, 

the natural environment, and public health and safety”); N.H. Admin. R., Site 

301.05 (requiring that each application include a visual impact assessment of 

the proposed energy facility), Site 301.14 (setting forth the criteria relative to 

findings of unreasonable adverse effects on aesthetics, including visual impact 

on scenic resources).

The petitioners’ argument, however, misconstrues the context of the 

Subcommittee’s discussions of “aesthetics.” Rather, in context, the 

Subcommittee discussed aesthetics as part of its consideration of the positions 

of the affected municipalities on the impact of the project on land uses in their 

communities — a consideration the Subcommittee must address in 

 

5 In their notice of appeal, the petitioners argued that it was error for the Committee to reach its 

decision without deliberating on each of the four criteria set forth in RSA 162-H:16, IV (Supp. 

2018). However, the petitioners concede that they have waived the issue “of whether the Statute 

or Rules require consideration of all the RSA 162-H:16, IV criteria as a matter of law.” 

Accordingly, we need not address it. See Sheehan v. N.H. Dep’t of Resources & Economic Dev., 

164 N.H. 365, 370 (2012).
18

determining whether the project will not unduly interfere with the orderly 

development of the region. See N.H. Admin. R., Site 301.15(a). The regulations 

require that each application for a certificate

include information regarding the effects of the proposed energy 

facility on the orderly development of the region including the 

views of municipal and regional planning commissions and 

municipal governing bodies regarding the proposed facility, if such 

views have been expressed in writing, and master plans of the 

affected communities and zoning ordinances of the proposed 

facility host municipalities and unincorporated places, and the 

applicant’s estimate of the effects of the construction and operation 

of the facility on . . . [l]and use in the region, including . . . (1) 

description of the prevailing land uses in the affected communities; 

and (2) description of how the proposed facility is consistent with 

such land uses and identification of how the proposed facility is 

inconsistent with such land uses.

N.H. Admin. R., Site 301.09(a).

The Subcommittee, in determining whether the project will not unduly 

interfere with the orderly development of the region, is required to consider the 

“views of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal 

governing bodies.” RSA 162-H:16, IV(b). In doing so in this case, the 

Subcommittee noted that the predominant position of local governing agencies 

“is quite clear” in that 30 of the 32 municipalities along the project’s route have 

“expressed an opinion that the Project will interfere with the orderly 

development of the region” and part of that concern was how the aesthetics of 

the project would influence land uses in its vicinity. Twenty-two of those 

communities “intervened in the process and presented evidence and cogent 

arguments” that the Subcommittee found to be “generally persuasive.”

For example, the witness for the Bethlehem Board of Selectmen 

explained that the construction and operation of the project is inconsistent 

with the goal set forth in the town’s Master Plan to “maintain the rural 

landscape,” and “would affect the wetlands, natural environment, its rural 

character and tourism.” The witness for the Whitefield Board of Selectmen and 

Planning Board testified about inconsistencies between the project and the 

town’s Master Plan, including the project’s “negative effect on special land uses 

by affecting the views from Mountain View Grand Resort,” and by adversely 

affecting the town’s “rural character and attractiveness, tourism, and 

businesses that depend on tourism.” The witness for the Planning Board for 

the Town of New Hampton testified that the project would be inconsistent with 

the goal in the town’s Master Plan to preserve the existing rural and small town 

character through “protection of the town’s aesthetic values.” In addition, he 

testified that the project would violate sections of the town’s Site Plan Review 
19

Regulations because “[c]onstruction of the towers within an existing right-ofway would cause expansion of use by reducing screening from residential areas

and expanding the scope and size of currently existing transmission 

infrastructure.” The witness for the Town of Bristol testified that the project 

would unduly interfere with development of the region because it would be 

inconsistent with provisions in the town’s Master Plan, including safeguarding 

“the rural quality of the Town, [and] building to create enduring value and 

beauty,” and that the project would violate the town’s Zoning Ordinance 

because it would “result in the widening of the current utility 

corridor/powerline clearcut, and would have a negative impact on the 

viewsheds and rural nature of the Town.” (Quotation and brackets omitted.) 

The witness for the City of Concord testified that construction and operation of 

the project would be inconsistent with several land use sections of the city’s 

Master Plan, including minimizing “undesirable impacts to adjacent land uses” 

and enhancing “the overall appearance and aesthetics of the community.”

Taking into consideration the views of these and other municipal and 

regional planning commissions and municipal governing bodies, the 

Subcommittee disagreed with the petitioners’ contention that their expert’s 

research, “consisting of a review of local land uses, master plans and some 

zoning ordinances, supports a conclusion that the Project will not adversely 

affect land uses in the region.” The Subcommittee determined that the expert

“did little in the way of applying the details of the Project” to relevant master 

plans and zoning ordinances and “diminished the importance of master plans 

because they contain ‘broad’ visions and goals with respect to community 

aesthetics and efforts to preserve the rural landscape.”

The Subcommittee reasoned that “master plans represent the considered 

views of the communities and should not be disregarded or minimized in 

importance,” and it agreed with the municipalities in this case that, “given the 

magnitude of this Project, more consideration of the provisions of master plans 

and ordinances was required.” As the Subcommittee noted, “The impact on 

aesthetics, agricultural uses, and the natural environment of the land directly 

relates to the ability of the parties to continue to use the land for its current 

purposes.” Based upon the evidence before it, the Subcommittee concluded 

that “[g]iven the nature of the master plans and local ordinances along the 

Project’s route, the Project would have a large and negative impact on land 

uses in many communities that make up the region affected by the Project.” 

Thus, we disagree with the petitioners’ assertion that the Subcommittee 

erroneously imported the aesthetic considerations from RSA 162-H:16, IV(c)

into its consideration of orderly development of the region.

The petitioners also contend that the Subcommittee failed to consider the 

testimony of the CFP’s expert on tourism and property values, and, had it done 

so, “it could have estimated the Project’s impacts on tourism and property 

values in order to make the ultimate finding on” orderly development of the 
20

region. They assert that the Subcommittee was “obligated to consider” the

CFP’s expert testimony “that offered an estimate of property value and tourism 

impacts that would have been useful in assessing undue interference” with 

orderly development. Contrary to the petitioners’ position, the record shows 

that the Subcommittee did consider the expert’s testimony as is reflected in its 

written order. The Subcommittee, however, was not obligated to rely upon that 

testimony any more than it was obligated to rely upon the testimony of any 

other witness. See Appeal of Allen, 170 N.H. at 762 (explaining that “a trier of 

fact is free to accept or reject an expert’s testimony, in whole or in part”

(quotation omitted)).

2. Mitigation and Conditions

The petitioners next argue that the Subcommittee failed to consider 

mitigating measures and conditions that could have reduced or eliminated 

project impacts. In doing so, the petitioners take issue with the 

Subcommittee’s determination that it was not required to consider conditions 

when a certificate is denied.

The regulations provide that

[i]n determining whether a certificate shall be issued for a proposed 

energy facility, the committee shall consider whether the following 

conditions should be included in the certificate in order to meet the 

objectives of RSA 162-H:

. . . .

(i) Any other conditions necessary to serve the objectives of RSA 

162-H or to support findings made pursuant to RSA 162-H:16.

N.H. Admin. R., Site 301.17(i). The Subcommittee stated that “Site 301.17(i) 

does not require [it] to consider conditions of a Certificate that is never issued,” 

and it rejected the petitioners’ interpretation that the regulation requires the 

Subcommittee “to draft . . . conditions that could cure the [petitioners’] failure 

to carry its burden of proof.” The Subcommittee reasoned that:

Reading the rule to require [it] to consider conditions not 

offered by the Applicant in order to cure the Applicant’s failure to 

carry its burden of proof would lead to an absurd result. RSA 162-

H:16, IV clearly and unambiguously states the findings the 

[Subcommittee] must make to issue a certificate and includes a 

finding that the Project will not unduly interfere with the orderly 

development of the region. The statute specifically and 

unambiguously requires the [Subcommittee] to deny an application 

if a determination cannot be made that the Project will not unduly 
21

interfere with the orderly development of the region. To read the 

rule and statute as proposed by the Applicant would mean that the 

[Subcommittee] cannot deny a certificate after it finds that an 

applicant did not satisfy the requirements of RSA 162-H:16, IV 

and, instead, should proceed to considering conditions that would 

render a project certifiable under RSA 162-H:16. Such a reading of 

the statute would render meaningless the criteria and the 

requirement to deny an application if such criteria are not 

satisfied.

(Citation omitted.)

The petitioners assert that this reasoning is flawed because “in 

permitting proceedings (like this one), mitigating measures and conditions are 

an integral part of the burden of proof, and cannot be divorced from it,” and 

that the Subcommittee “posits a counter-intuitive paradigm where mitigation is 

considered only after an applicant first demonstrates that a project would not 

unduly interfere with [orderly development of the region], independent of 

mitigation.” According to the petitioners, “[i]f this were true, no energy project 

requiring mitigation could be built—and every project requires mitigation.”

Because the Subcommittee found that the petitioners did not provide 

sufficient information for it to determine the extent of the project’s impact on 

orderly development, it was not possible for the Subcommittee to impose 

conditions that might lessen those impacts. As the Subcommittee stated, 

“without having information demonstrating the extent and nature of the 

Project’s interference with orderly development of the region, it could not decide 

which conditions would address such interference.”

Although the petitioners concede that “the ultimate decision of whether 

to impose specific mitigating measures as conditions rests with” the 

Subcommittee, they contend that “that does not mean that the [Subcommittee] 

was free to ignore measures the [petitioners] offered to reduce impacts, either 

as part of their burden of persuasion to estimate the Project’s effects, or their 

ultimate burden” on the orderly development finding. The record does not 

support the petitioners’ argument that the Subcommittee ignored mitigation 

measures offered by them. For example, the petitioners’ expert on property 

values determined that approximately six or nine properties along the project’s

route might experience a drop in value as a result of the project. As mitigation, 

the petitioners offered a “Guarantee Program” designed to ensure that owners 

of such properties “are not subject to an economic loss in the event of a sale of 

the property within 5 years after commencement of construction of the Project.” 

The Subcommittee stated that it “appreciat[ed] the attempt to mitigate the 

impact of the Project on property values.” However, the Subcommittee rejected 

the expert’s assessment that only six or nine properties “of the thousands 

along the 192 mile route” would be affected by the project, concluding that the 
22

petitioners’ “data and analyses are insufficient for the [Subcommittee] to 

determine how far the impacts on property values will reach.” Thus, the 

Subcommittee determined that because the petitioners’ “analysis of the effects 

[of the project on property values] was . . . inadequate, it was impossible for 

[the Subcommittee] to even begin to consider what an appropriate 

compensation plan might require.”

To the extent the petitioners imply that the Subcommittee itself is 

required to craft mitigation measures, we reject this position. The petitioners 

“bear the burden of proving facts sufficient for the [Subcommittee] to make the 

findings required by RSA 162-H:16.” N.H. Admin. R., Site 202.19(b); see N.H. 

Admin. R., Site 202.19(a). Mitigation measures proposed by an applicant in 

order to satisfy its burden of proof are part of the “facts sufficient” for the 

Subcommittee to make the required statutory findings under RSA 162-H:16, 

IV. To require the Subcommittee to craft its own mitigating measures in order 

to make up for an applicant’s failure to satisfy the statutory and regulatory 

criteria would shift the burden of proof to the Subcommittee, in contravention 

of the plain language of the regulations.

3. Weighing the Benefits and Impacts of the Project

Next, the petitioners assert that the Subcommittee “failed to decide the 

extent of capacity market benefits and how they would affect the region’s 

economy,” that the Subcommittee’s “job was to weigh the expert evidence and 

make a decision on this issue,” and that its failure to do so is “inexplicable and 

wrong.” The petitioners argue that “the record demonstrated approximately 

$1.5 billion in benefits” — benefits that the petitioners contend will accrue 

regardless of any capacity market savings — because “[t]hey include direct 

expenditures on taxes and the [Forward New Hampshire Fund], as well as 

[Gross State Product], from those and other expenditures and construction 

jobs.” According to the petitioners, “[h]ad the [Subcommittee] weighed the 

undisputed Project benefits against potential property value and tourism 

impacts, it could have readily found the Project would not unduly interfere 

with” orderly development of the region.

We disagree with the petitioners’ assertion that the Subcommittee failed 

to weigh the evidence and make a determination on the capacity market 

benefits. The Subcommittee acknowledged that the project “would have a 

somewhat positive effect” on the economy. However, it explained that

[t]he impact on the economy and employment during operations of 

the Project is largely dependent on savings from the wholesale 

electricity market. The Applicant has not demonstrated that 

savings from the Capacity Market will occur; or if they do occur, 

that they will be as large as the Applicant’s expert said they would 

be. While benefits to the economy and employment would be 
23

positive, we cannot find they would be as large as the Applicant 

predicts. The uncertainty regarding Market Capacity savings 

affects other parts of the economic analysis, because those savings 

are the basis for the Applicant’s projections about employment and 

other economic activity along the route of the Project and 

elsewhere in the State and the rest of New England.

(Emphases added.)

Moreover, even assuming, without deciding, that the $1.5 billion in 

benefits was “undisputed,” the record demonstrates that the Subcommittee

was unable to weigh those purported benefits against property value and 

tourism impacts. The Subcommittee explained that these parts of the 

economic analysis had “more profound problems” than uncertainty regarding 

savings from the capacity market. The Subcommittee reiterated that it did not 

find the petitioners’ expert regarding the effects of the project on tourism to be 

credible and that “[h]is report and testimony provided [the Subcommittee] with 

no way to evaluate the Project’s tourism effects and no way to fashion 

conditions that might mitigate those effects.” Similarly, regarding property 

values, the Subcommittee “did not find credible the Applicant’s expert’s opinion 

that there would be no discernible effect on property value.”

B. Improper Ad Hoc Decision Making

Next, the petitioners argue that the Subcommittee’s “flawed application 

of the burden of proof was improper ad hoc decision making.” (Bolding and 

capitalization omitted.)6 They contend that the Subcommittee measured the 

burden of proof “by wholly arbitrary standards that the [petitioners] could not 

predict or meet.” In support, they assert that the Subcommittee’s application 

of the orderly development standard was “both unlawful and unreasonable

under RSA 541:6, and unconstitutional” because: (1) the Subcommittee left key 

terms undefined and the regulations on orderly development provide “no 

guidance” as to the information that will be considered when determining 

whether the petitioners’ burden of proof has been satisfied; (2) the 

Subcommittee ignored its own precedent that construction in an existing rightof-way is consistent with existing land uses; and (3) the Subcommittee

erroneously imposed a new “affirmative burden” on the petitioners to address 

and resolve the views of municipal and regional planning commissions and 

municipal governing bodies.

 

6 To the extent that the petitioners imply that the Subcommittee’s decision was based upon 

personal feelings of the individual members rather than objective and discernible facts, we reject 

this implication. In this case, the record facts support the Subcommittee’s decision. Cf. Trustees 

of Dartmouth Coll. v. Town of Hanover, 171 N.H. 497, 512-13 (2018) (deciding that administrative 

board “unreasonably relied upon personal feelings and ad hoc decision-making”).
24

1. Statutory Terms and Regulatory Standards

The petitioners assert that the “vague Statute and Rules were applied in 

such an arbitrary manner as to violate [their] right to due process under the 

New Hampshire Constitution Part 1, Articles 12 and 15.” They contend that 

the Subcommittee left “key terms” such as “region” undefined, and that the 

regulations “provide no guidance as to the information that will be considered 

when determining whether the [petitioners] satisfied their burden of proof.” 

(Quotation and brackets omitted.) To the extent the petitioners are arguing 

that the statute and regulations are unconstitutionally vague, this argument is 

insufficiently developed for appellate review. See Keenan v. Fearon, 130 N.H. 

494, 499 (1988). To the extent that they are asserting that the statute and 

regulations lack guidance and were, therefore, applied arbitrarily, we address 

this argument.

The regulations identify the documents and information an applicant is 

required to provide in order to address the effect of the project on the orderly 

development of the region:

(a) Land use in the region, including the following:

(1) A description of the prevailing land uses in the affected

communities; and

(2) A description of how the proposed facility is consistent 

with such land uses and identification of how the proposed 

facility is inconsistent with such land uses;

(b) The economy of the region, including an assessment of:

(1) The economic effect of the facility on the affected 

communities;

(2) The economic effect of the proposed facility on in-state 

economic activity during construction and operation periods;

(3) The effect of the proposed facility on State tax revenues 

and the tax revenues of the host and regional communities;

(4) The effect of the proposed facility on real estate values in 

the affected communities;

(5) The effect of the proposed facility on tourism and 

recreation; and
25

(6) The effect of the proposed facility on community services 

and infrastructure;

(c) Employment in the region, including an assessment of:

(1) The number and types of full-time equivalent local jobs 

expected to be created, preserved, or otherwise affected by 

the construction of the proposed facility, including direct 

construction employment and indirect employment induced 

by facility-related wages and expenditures; and

(2) The number and types of full-time equivalent jobs 

expected to be created, preserved, or otherwise affected by 

the operation of the proposed facility, including direct 

employment by the applicant and indirect employment 

induced by facility-related wages and expenditures.

N.H. Admin. R., Site 301.09.

We agree with the Subcommittee that “[t]he statute and the rules 

provided the [petitioners] with a reasonable opportunity to know not only the 

standard to be considered, but also the information that would be considered 

when deciding whether the [petitioners] satisfied [their] burden of proof.” The 

Subcommittee explained:

The statute and the rules put the [petitioners] (like any other 

reasonable party) on notice that: (i) the Subcommittee could issue 

the Certificate only if the [petitioners] established that the Project 

would not unduly interfere with the orderly development of the 

region; (ii) when determining whether the Project would unduly 

interfere with the orderly development of the region, the 

Subcommittee would consider the effects of the Project on land 

use, employment, and the economy of the region; (iii) when 

determining the Project’s impact on land use, the Subcommittee

would consider the assessment that the [petitioners] filed pursuant 

to Site 301.09(a); (iv) when determining the Project’s impact on 

employment, the Subcommittee would consider the assessment 

that the [petitioners] filed pursuant to Site 301.09(c); and (v) when 

determining the Project’s impact on the economy, the 

Subcommittee would consider the reports addressing the Project’s 

impact on the economy, taxes, property values, and tourism filed 

by the [petitioners] pursuant to Site 301.09(b).

As the Subcommittee reasoned, it was “not necessary to specifically define 

‘undue,’ ‘interference,’ and ‘region’” because “(i) the statutory scheme provides 

. . . notice as to what will be considered by the Subcommittee; and (ii) such a 
26

decision is based on the facts supported by the record. The words in the 

statute are all understood to have a common meaning.” We agree with the 

Subcommittee that

RSA 162-H:16, IV, Site 301.09, and Site 301.15, provided the 

[petitioners] with . . . reasonable notice of the information that 

would be considered while deciding whether the Project would 

unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region. The 

record and the Decision clearly identify the facts the Subcommittee

relied on when determining that the [petitioners] failed to carry 

[their] burden of proof and failed to demonstrate facts sufficient for 

the Subcommittee to find that the Project would not unduly 

interfere with the orderly development of the region. The 

Subcommittee members specifically addressed the testimony and 

reports filed by the [petitioners’] experts, identified gaps and 

inaccuracies in the reports, identified the reasons why the 

testimony and reports were inadequate and not credible, and 

specifically stated why they could not be relied upon.

The Subcommittee based its denial of the petitioners’ application “on the 

record,” and rejected the petitioners’ characterization that it denied the project 

“on an ad hoc basis based on some vague, unarticulated concerns.”

The record supports this characterization as it shows that the

Subcommittee reviewed the report filed by the petitioners pursuant to Site 

301.09(a) and considered the petitioners’ expert’s testimony concerning the 

effects of the project on land use in the region. The Subcommittee found that 

the report and the expert’s testimony “were not credible and could not be relied 

upon in ascertaining the impact of the Project on land use.” The Subcommittee 

reviewed the reports and testimony provided by the petitioners pursuant to Site 

301.09(b) regarding the effects of the project on the economy of the region and

found they “were not credible” and, therefore, it “could not rely on them to 

ascertain the impact of the Project on real estate values and tourism.” The 

Subcommittee reviewed the reports and testimony submitted by the petitioners 

pursuant to Site 301.09(b) and (c), addressing the impacts of the project on the 

economy and employment, and found that the petitioners’ “assessment . . .

failed to account for the negative impacts on local business and employment” 

and that “[w]ithout having the information about the extent of the negative 

impacts of the Project, the Subcommittee determined that it could not truly 

ascertain the extent of the impacts.” The Subcommittee was “in the best 

position to measure the persuasiveness and credibility of evidence and [was] 

not compelled to believe even uncontroverted evidence.” DeLucca, 152 N.H. at 

102 (quotation omitted). We have reviewed the record and determine that the 

Subcommittee’s findings could reasonably be made based on the evidence 

presented. See Appeal of Allen, 170 N.H. at 762. Accordingly, we reject the 
27

petitioners’ assertion that the statute and regulations lack sufficient guidance

or were applied in an arbitrary manner.

The petitioners also argue that the regulations only require them “to 

provide ‘estimates’ of the effects in each area for the [Subcommittee] to use in 

deciding whether those effects, taken together, amounted to undue interference 

with” orderly development of the region. Accordingly, they contend that the 

Subcommittee’s order “mistakenly hinged on [its] finding” that the petitioners 

“had to meet a burden of proof on each subsection of Site 301.09, and then 

required a showing of the ‘type and extent of impacts’ and the ‘extent and 

nature of such interference’ for each one of those subsections.”

The Subcommittee rejected this argument, stating that it “did not” 

require the petitioners “to prove that there would be no impact or a positive 

impact on land use, the economy, employment, tourism, and property values.” 

Rather, the Subcommittee “specifically and clearly concluded” that the 

petitioners failed to carry their burden of proof — not because the evidence 

demonstrated no impact or did not demonstrate a benefit — but because they 

“failed to provide sufficient credible evidence that would allow the 

Subcommittee to determine the impact and the extent of the impact of the 

Project on the components of the orderly development of the region – land use, 

property values, tourism, local economy, and employment.”

For example, in considering the impact of the project on existing land 

use, the Subcommittee received “substantial testimony and evidence” 

indicating that, “due to its size and scope,” the project would “intensify and 

overburden the right-of-way to the extent that it would render it inconsistent 

with the existing land uses in the region.” The Subcommittee, however, did not 

find that the project would have a negative impact on land use because it 

would overburden the use of the right-of-way. Rather, because the petitioners 

had proceeded “on the sole premise that the Project would not impact land use 

so long as it is located within the existing right-of-way,” the Subcommittee 

determined that the petitioners “failed to provide sufficient credible evidence” 

for the Subcommittee to analyze the impact of the project on land use.

Similarly, in considering the impact of the project on tourism, the 

Subcommittee found that the petitioners’ expert’s “work in this area provided 

an inadequate basis upon which to form an opinion.” Likewise, in considering 

the impact of the project on the economy, the Subcommittee found that the 

petitioners “failed to provide credible information that would demonstrate the 

effect or the absence of effect” and that “[w]ithout this information,” the 

Subcommittee “could not ascertain the effect of the Project on the economy 

and, consequently could not determine the extent of the Project’s interference 

with the orderly development of the region, if any.”
28

Although the petitioners assert that the Subcommittee applied the 

burden of proof “using criteria that appear nowhere in the Statute or Rules,” 

and did not explain “what it required to meet that burden,” our review of the 

record shows that the Subcommittee made detailed findings regarding the 

credibility of the witnesses and the sufficiency of the evidence, consistent with 

the criteria the petitioners had notice they were required to meet.

2. Right-of-Way

The petitioners argue that because the Site Evaluation Committee has 

previously found that the “single most important fact bearing on” orderly 

development was “that the proposed line is constructed in an existing, 

occupied utility corridor,” its prior decisions “provide an administrative gloss” 

on the Subcommittee’s land use rule. Thus, the petitioners assert that the 

Subcommittee acted arbitrarily in this case by determining that that principle 

is “not . . . to be applied in every case.” We disagree.

“The doctrine of administrative gloss is a rule of statutory construction. 

Administrative gloss is placed upon an ambiguous clause when those 

responsible for its implementation interpret the clause in a consistent manner 

and apply it to similarly situated applicants over a period of years without 

legislative interference.” Petition of Kalar, 162 N.H. 314, 321 (2011) (citation 

and quotation omitted). “Lack of ambiguity in a statute . . . , however, 

precludes application of the administrative gloss doctrine.” Id. at 322. Here, 

the petitioners do not argue that either the statute or the regulations regarding 

the effect of the project on land use in the region are ambiguous and we 

determine, therefore, that the doctrine is not applicable. Furthermore, the 

statute expressly provides that the Subcommittee “shall consider, as 

appropriate, prior committee findings and rulings on the same or similar 

subject matters, but shall not be bound thereby.” RSA 162-H:10, III.

The petitioners also argue that the Subcommittee failed to make findings 

of fact or explain why “this” HVTL “actually impacts prevailing land uses in a 

manner that would justify jettisoning precedent.” We disagree with this 

characterization of the record. The petitioners’ expert testified that the project 

would be consistent with prevailing land uses because it would be constructed 

mostly within the existing right-of-way. The Subcommittee reasoned, however,

that requiring it to find that the project “would be consistent with prevailing 

use solely because it would be constructed within the existing right-of-way 

without analyzing the characteristics of the Project and its actual consistency 

with the prevailing land uses would render the requirement to assess the 

impact of each project on land uses meaningless.”

The Subcommittee explained why the principle did not apply to the 

project in this case:
29

Over-development of an existing transmission corridor can impact 

land uses in the area of the corridor and unduly interfere with the 

orderly development of the region. Increases in the use of a 

transmission corridor require increased maintenance 

requirements, increased access requirements, and increased 

readiness of emergency response personnel. Access to 

transmission corridors is ultimately obtained from publicly 

maintained roads and thoroughfares. Unsightly transmission 

corridors or infrastructure within corridors can impact real estate 

development in the surrounding area. Increased maintenance, 

repair and emergency operations require the use of heavy 

machinery and trucks placing the continued use of lands for 

agricultural purposes at risk. A highly developed corridor may 

discourage use of the corridor and surrounding lands for 

recreational purposes.

The Subcommittee rejected the petitioners’ characterization that it had

“created a new, vague standard,” reiterating that, to the contrary, it found that

the petitioners “failed to consider the land use impact, relied on a mistaken 

premise that as long as the Project is constructed within an existing right-ofway it will be consistent with prevailing land uses, regardless of its 

characteristics and nature of the land uses, and failed to analyze the actual 

consistency or inconsistency with land uses in the region.” The Subcommittee 

concluded that the project’s consistency with land uses in the region could not 

be determined because the petitioners failed to “actually address the impacts,” 

instead relying solely upon the rationale that the project “would be built within 

the existing corridor.” As the Subcommittee stated, “with the benefit of seven 

site visits, [it] determined that there are various places along the route where 

there could be significant impact. The Subcommittee might find that the 

project was or was not consistent with existing land uses at these locations, if 

the [petitioners] had actually addressed the impacts.” Contrary to the 

petitioners’ assertion that the Subcommittee “made no findings of fact”

explaining why, in this case, construction in an existing right-of-way would 

unduly interfere with orderly development of the region, the Subcommittee did 

not determine that construction in the right-of-way would overburden the 

existing corridor. Rather, given the petitioners’ steadfast position that there 

could never be an adverse effect on local land use, the Subcommittee 

determined that there was insufficient credible evidence before it to resolve the 

issue of impact on orderly development.

3. Views of Municipalities

The petitioners next contend that, “for the first time,” the Subcommittee 

“imposed an affirmative burden” on them to “address and resolve” the views or 

concerns of municipal and regional planning commissions and municipal 

governing bodies. The record does not support this contention.
30

The Subcommittee found that the petitioners’ assertion that the project 

is consistent with local, regional, and statewide long-range plans “is directly 

contradicted by the testimony of municipal officials” and it agreed with the 

municipalities that “given the magnitude of the Project, more consideration of 

the provisions of master plans and ordinances was required.” The 

Subcommittee expressed “concern” that the petitioners’ representatives “would 

take time to meet with local planning agencies and not solicit their views of the 

Project.” Taking into consideration all the relevant information, the 

Subcommittee found the testimony provided by the municipalities on the 

impacts of the project on them to be persuasive and, in the absence of evidence 

from the petitioners that the concerns raised by the municipalities were 

incorrect, the Subcommittee aptly found that the petitioners “failed to 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the Project would not 

unduly interfere with the orderly development of the region.”

C. Finding on Orderly Development

Finally, the petitioners assert that the Subcommittee’s “sole finding that 

the project would unduly interfere with [orderly development of the region] is 

arbitrary and unsupported.” (Bolding and capitalization omitted.) According to 

the petitioners, the “sole instance” where the Subcommittee “actually found 

undue interference” involved the short-term effects of “construction under 

approximately four miles of roads” and that finding “alone demonstrates the 

wholly arbitrary nature” of the Subcommittee’s order. As set forth above, 

however, the Subcommittee did not deny the petitioners’ application for a 

certificate because it found that the proposed project would unduly interfere 

with the orderly development of the region based in whole or in part on one 

evident short-term impact. Rather, the Subcommittee considered the 

competing evidence on each of the orderly development criteria and found that 

the quality of the petitioners’ evidence was insufficient for the Subcommittee to 

reach a determination on the project’s impact on the orderly development of the 

region.

VIII. Conclusion

“The legislature has delegated broad authority to the Committee to 

consider the ‘potential significant impacts and benefits of a project,’ and to 

make findings on various objectives before ultimately determining whether to 

grant an application.” Appeal of Allen, 170 N.H. at 762 (quoting RSA 162-H:16, 

IV). In this case, the Subcommittee considered and weighed extensive evidence 

including testimony from 154 witnesses and over 2,000 exhibits presented by 

the parties, including 160 intervenors, conducted seven site visits, and held 70 

days of adjudicative hearings.

Our review is limited to determining whether the Subcommittee’s 

findings are supported by competent evidence in the record and are not 
31

erroneous as a matter of law. In doing so, we defer to the Subcommittee’s 

resolution of conflicts in the testimony and its determination of the credibility 

of witnesses and the weight to be given evidence. We reiterate that it is not our 

task to reweigh the evidence or to determine whether we would have credited 

one expert over another.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the Subcommittee’s 

findings are supported by competent evidence and are not erroneous as a 

matter of law. Accordingly, we hold that the petitioners have not sustained

their burden on appeal to show that the Subcommittee’s order was 

unreasonable or unlawful. See RSA 541:3.

Affirmed.

LYNN, C.J., and HICKS, BASSETT, and DONOVAN, JJ., concurred.