EC September 2007

ec@lists.wvsierraclub.org

13 participants
50 discussions

Re: [EC] ...no new towers .........
by Grubb, Karen 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

I prefer keeping "WV is ours, no new towers at the end", but the beginning can be altered to clarify its meaning, such as "Stop Alleheny's TrAIL from gouging the ratepayers" or "Stop Allegheny Power from gouging the ratepayers." We could use the rhyme between power, towers and ours somehow. ________________________________ From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of duane330(a)aol.com Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2007 10:49 AM To: ec(a)osenergy.org Subject: [EC] ...no new towers ......... "Stop Allegheny from Gouging the Ratepayers. WV is Ours, No New Towers" This is good. However, since there are a number of companies with Allegheny in the title, including Allegheny Wood Products with whom we are now working, so could we use the word TrAIL instead of Allegheny................ Might we consider the following modification.... "No New TrAIL Towers, WV Is Ours, Stop Ratepayer Gouging"

1 0

Status Hearing on Friday, Sept 14
by duane330＠aol.com 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

To:? Energy Committee. I have just reviewed the proposed Schedule of the Staff of the PSC, dated September 11th.? This is to be reviewed and acted upon this Friday. Two major comments, that I put into a motion for our Energy Committee, to be acted upon by Bill DePaulo: 1.? We support the addition of 35 days to the original proposed schedule, to provide that the Evidentiary Hearings in Charleston take place after the holiday months of November and December of 2008, the new dates becoming January 9th thru January 18th. 2.? We take exception to the proposal that Reply Briefs be due on February 26, 2008, just 11 days after the due date of February 15th for the Initial Briefs.? We believe that an additional 6 days is appropriate for the due date of the Reply Briefs, as this is an extremely complex and extensive case, and because for the most part the intervenors are relying upon volunteer or part-time assistance in their legal preparations.? This would still leave 60 days for the PSC to render their decision. Respectfully submitted,?? Duane Nichols ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

3 2

...no new towers .........
by duane330＠aol.com 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

"Stop Allegheny from Gouging the Ratepayers.? WV is Ours, No New Towers" This is good.? However, since there are a number of companies with Allegheny in the title,? including Allegheny Wood Products with whom we are now working, so could we use the word TrAIL instead of Allegheny................ Might we consider the?following modification.... "No New TrAIL Towers, WV Is Ours,?Stop Ratepayer Gouging" ________________________________________________________________________ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

1 0

Fwd: RE: PEC Position statement
by James Kotcon 13 Sep '07

13 Sep '07

Attached is the Piedmont Environmental Council Position Paper mentioned yesterday. It is loaded with good stuff that helps overcome the reliability arguments. It is 24 pages, but I recommend that everyone on the Energy Committee read it. JBK >>> "Bri West" <bwest(a)pecva.org> 9/12/2007 1:28 PM >>> Here it is! -----Original Message----- From: James Kotcon [mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 10:31 AM To: bwest(a)pecva.org Subject: PEC Position statement Brie I did not get a copy of the Position Statement you mentioned last night. Could you send me an electronic copy? JBK

1 0

article on NY power line
by Grubb, Karen 12 Sep '07

12 Sep '07

New York Regional Interconnect has sued NY state legislators for passing a law that prevents energy companies such as NYRI from using eminent domain to seize private property. http://www.pressconnects.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070911/NEWS01/ 709110330/1006 Cuomo wants NYRI lawsuit dismissed By Nancy Dooling Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is seeking dismissal of a lawsuit filed against state Assemblywoman Donna A. Lupardo, D-Endwell, and others by an energy company that wants to develop a power line through upstate New York. New York Regional Interconnect filed suit earlier this year against Lupardo as the author of a new state law that prevents energy companies such as NYRI from using eminent domain to seize private property. The lawsuit also names state Sen. John Bonacic, R-Mt. Hope, who sponsored the legislation in the state Senate. State lawmakers have fought NYRI by enacting legislation. Lupado cited the potential environmental and economic damage the project would do to the upstate counties through which the proposed power line would be constructed. The project would supply power only to the New York City area. NYRI is claiming it has been harmed by the state law sponsored by Lupardo and Bonacic. Cuomo is expected to argue that NYRI has not been harmed because its application is still pending before a federal agency. Also named in the NYRI lawsuit is Gov. Eliot Spitzer, former Gov. George E. Pataki, several state officials, and other upstate elected officials including state Sen. Thomas W. Libous, R-Binghamton. Lupardo said a court hearing on the matter has been scheduled for Nov. 11 in Albany's federal court before Senior U.S. District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy. Sens. Charles E. Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, both D-NY, are also seeking to restrict the exercise of eminent domain by energy companies, Lupardo said. Earlier this month, a similar amendment sponsored by Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica, and Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey, D-Hurley, died in the House of Representatives.

1 0

Re: [EC] Status Hearing on Friday, Sept 14
by Grubb, Karen 12 Sep '07

12 Sep '07

I vote yes. ________________________________ From: ec-bounces(a)osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of duane330(a)aol.com Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 2:55 PM To: ec(a)osenergy.org Cc: Duane330(a)aol.com Subject: [EC] Status Hearing on Friday, Sept 14 To: Energy Committee. I have just reviewed the proposed Schedule of the Staff of the PSC, dated September 11th. This is to be reviewed and acted upon this Friday. Two major comments, that I put into a motion for our Energy Committee, to be acted upon by Bill DePaulo: 1. We support the addition of 35 days to the original proposed schedule, to provide that the Evidentiary Hearings in Charleston take place after the holiday months of November and December of 2008, the new dates becoming January 9th thru January 18th. 2. We take exception to the proposal that Reply Briefs be due on February 26, 2008, just 11 days after the due date of February 15th for the Initial Briefs. We believe that an additional 6 days is appropriate for the due date of the Reply Briefs, as this is an extremely complex and extensive case, and because for the most part the intervenors are relying upon volunteer or part-time assistance in their legal preparations. This would still leave 60 days for the PSC to render their decision. Respectfully submitted, Duane Nichols ________________________________

2 1

Re: [EC] How high
by Barbara Fallon 12 Sep '07

12 Sep '07

Thanks Will. I got info from JBK on this. He said 142' -150' towers. These are the numbers i will use. Thanks for getting back with me.. ----- Original Message ---- From: Will Reilly <wjreilly99(a)yahoo.com> To: Barbara Fallon <brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com>; ec(a)osenergy.org Cc: Will Reilly <wjreilly99(a)yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:51:28 AM Subject: Re: [EC] How high Barbara: This is a direct quote from a TRailCo FAQ Q: Rather than placing a 500kV transmission line on 125-foot towers, wouldn't it be better just to bury it underground where nobody sees it? So it's probably at least 125 foot if this is a hypothetical question. Will The link is TrAILCo http://www.aptrailinfo.com/index.php Includes maps of route, as well as links to the WV, PA and VA applications. Barbara Fallon <brbr_fallon(a)yahoo.com> wrote: Does anyone know how high the proposed Allegheny towers will be? Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids._______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC(a)osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545433

1 0

How high
by Barbara Fallon 12 Sep '07

12 Sep '07

Does anyone know how high the proposed Allegheny towers will be? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&…

2 1

Fwd: RE: Allegheny transmission line
by James Kotcon 10 Sep '07

10 Sep '07

Bad news! Who will address the costs of greenhouse gases? JBK >>> "Richard Rosen" <rrosen(a)tellus.org> 9/10/2007 1:10 PM >>> Jim, Sorry that I have not gotten back to you with a proposal since we spoke. But this delay illustrates my problem. I am really too busy to take on your case...I think I would be irresponsible to do so. So, upon further thought, I have to decline being a consultant to the Sierra Club. Sincerely, Rich Rosen -----Original Message----- From: James Kotcon [mailto:jkotcon@wvu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:02 PM To: Richard Rosen Subject: Allegheny transmission line A "status hearing" is scheduled on Sept. 14, at which time we expect some sort of definitive schedule for filing direct testimony, rebuttal testimony, and finally an evidentiary hearing. I agree that the primary issues we would like addressed would include "reliability" (have they made their case, and even if they have, is the line the most reasonable approach) and the issue of the effect of future carbon costs on electric rates and the demand for transmission of electricity from Allegheny versus sources with lower carbon emissions.I believe that the primary driver for this line is Allegheny's desire to sell their "low-cost" electricity to eastern markets, but if their electricity is no longer "low cost" will the line be "used and useful" Thank you again for your call, and we look forward to receiving your letter outlining services and costs. Feel free to contact me if I can provide more information Jim Kotcon 304-293-8822 (office) 304-594-3322 (home)

1 0

NIETC issues.
by Duane330＠aol.com 09 Sep '07

09 Sep '07

To: Energy Committee. It occurs to me that the NIETC components of the US Energy Policy Act of 2005 may be unconstitutional given that this act provides powers to the federal government that are in the domain of "state's rights". Consider that the federal government has apparently backed off of requiring the State of Nevada to accept the long-term storage of radioactive wastes from the nuclear power plants. Does anyone know whether the Sierra Club or others are intending to challenge this part or other parts of the Energy Policy Act of 2005? p.s. Now that Allegheny Energy is intending to use federal authority to charge back costs for planning the TrAIL line, we have a much larger set of issues to face, and more outrage on the part of the general public. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

EC September 2007