The email at the bottom says, “The New York Attorney General's office spoke on our behalf.”  Do you think he could help us, also?

 

I didn’t realize that national had not approved our appeal of TrAIL or action on PATH.  Some of us spoke with Aaron Isherwood (or Erin Chalmers?) on a conference call not too long ago and I thought he had indicated his support.  Have we sent New Matter Forms on those?

 

 

From: ec-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of Jim Sconyers
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 9:50 AM
To: Paul Wilson; William V. DePaulo, Esq.
Cc: Abby Chapple; WV Chapter Energy Committee
Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Fw: Where the Transmission Line Case Stands

 

Excellent.

 

Jim Sconyers
jim_scon@yahoo.com
603.969.6712

Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

 

From: Paul Wilson <pjgrunt@gmail.com>
To: "William V. DePaulo, Esq." <william.depaulo@gmail.com>
Cc: Jim Sconyers <jim_scon@yahoo.com>; James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu>; WV Chapter Energy Committee <EC@osenergy.org>; Abby Chapple <abbychapple@aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 8:32:43 PM
Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Fw: Where the Transmission Line Case Stands

fyi: from the CAP (Citizens Against PATH) here in the EP.  cheers, paul

 

We attended the Jefferson Co. Comm. meeting this morning and they voted unanimously to file as an intervenor for PATH.  They are also going to re-do the map/numbers to expand the right-of-way to 400 feet, just to see what the effect will be if we end up with the "twin" parallel line.  We expect most of the numbers will at least double (number of properties affected, value of properties).

 

Keryn

 

From: ec-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of Jim Sconyers
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 2:47 PM
To: William V. DePaulo, Esq.; James Kotcon; WV Chapter Energy Committee
Subject: Re: [EC] Fwd: Fw: Where the Transmission Line Case Stands

 

OK Bill - I accept your wisdom on this.

 

Jim Sconyers
jim_scon@yahoo.com
603.969.6712

Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

 

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:29 PM, William V. DePaulo, Esq. <william.depaulo@gmail.com> wrote:

Jim

 

In some, maybe most, cases, I would agree.  I am hesitant to involve McGraw right now because I don't think that this Court will accord much, if any, weight to whatever he might say in his brief, and I have no reason to believe he'd file a particularly effective brief.  We're either going to win or lose on the merits of the administrative law issues presented or not, and the involvement of a highly political AG would constitute legal parsley at best, in my view.  And, worse, the Court might require us to reduce any argument time to accommodate the AG's argument, since he would be aligned with us.  I would not want to do that.

 

However, please note that San Francisco has, as of this date, not approved OUR participation in an appeal, or intervention in the PATH case that will be here shortly. I believe our "sales" efforts should focus on SF.

 

Bill

 

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Jim Sconyers <jim_scon@yahoo.com> wrote:

Excellent idea - TrailCo is as much a consumer issue as an environmental one. Shall we draft a letter?

 

Jim Sconyers
jim_scon@yahoo.com
603.969.6712

Remember: Mother Nature bats last.

 

From: James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu>
To: ec@osenergy.org
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 7:02:52 AM
Subject: [EC] Fwd: Fw: Where the Transmission Line Case Stands


A good review of the latest news in the TrAIL case from our friends in Virginia.

I am interested in the idea of asking the Attorney General to intervene/appeal in this case.  The AG has limited authority, but consumer protection is one of the areas he still controls.  It would, however, be a potential conflict of interest for him if it means he is appealing a state agency decision that the AG's Office may have to defend. 

Whaddya Tink?

JBK



-----Inline Message Follows-----
 

Where the Transmission Line Case Stands

Dear Rebecca,

A lot of you are asking me where the transmission line case stands --what does the Virginia decision mean? will there be an appeal? what's going on in Pennsylvania? what's going on with NIETC? and is there anything we can do to help? Here's my attempt at answering some of these questions:

VA Decision Puts Environment, Landowners and Ratepayers Last
I think the Virginia State Corporation Commission stuck their head in the sand on this one, ignoring alternatives, environmental concerns, and economic realities --placing the desires of a private company above the rights of Virginians. The SCC handed over their regulatory authority to PJM, a group of utilities that, by their own admission, can only propose transmission solutions.

In their decision, the Virginia Commissioners state that the current process "clearly tilts the field towards PJM recommending more and more new transmission lines when other options might be a more efficient use of capital and much less intrusive on the landscape." We think that their decision to approve the line does a disservice to Virginia and should be appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Urge the VA Attorney General to Appeal
Last week both Delegate Bob Marshall of Prince William and Congressman Wolf (R-10) contacted the Virginia Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, asking him to appeal the SCC Decision. We support Delegate Marshall and Congressman Wolf's call to action, and urge you to contact the Attorney General as well. Use the following link to access Congressman Wolf and Delegate Marshall's letter, and to send your own note to the Attorney General today!
Error! Filename not specified.

PA May Turn Down the Line, WV Approval Not Yet Final
The Virginia SCC conditioned their approval on approval from both West Virginia and Pennsylvania. West Virginia initially approved the line, but conditioned approval on a number of things (including approval in Pennsylvania). We put in a call to the staff of the West Virginia Public Service Commission on Tuesday, and they described the case as "still open".

The final decision in Pennsylvania is in the hands of the Pennsylvania Utility Commissioners, and they are reviewing the case now. TrAILCo has offered Greene County (Pennsylvania) money and returned right-of-ways in exchange for the County's support for a 1.2 mile segment of the line. Greene County accepted the offer. It is still unknown what, if any, effect this backroom deal will have on the PA Commissioners' decision. It doesn't look like Pennsylvania will be making any decision until the end of the month, at the earliest.

NIETC is Still Out There


If Pennsylvania turns their segment of the line down, it is likely that Dominion and Allegheny will try to use the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) process to get the line approved. They would do so by applying directly to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Piedmont Environmental Council has two separate federal appeals going on, one in the 4th circuit in Richmond contesting FERC's interpretation of the NIETC statute and another appeal in the 9th Circuit related to DOE's implementation of NIETC. I apologize for the number of acronyms in the previous sentence.

At the end of last month we went down to Richmond to hear oral arguments on our 4th Circuit case. The New York Attorney General's office spoke on our behalf. Initial briefs are due on our 9th Circuit case by the end of the year, with a decision expected sometime late next year. If you have questions about either of these cases, please contact Rob Marmet at rmarmet@pecva.org .


Please take a couple of minutes to send the Attorney General a quick email requesting his participation in an appeal. While PEC will be appealing, we could use a friend.


Best,

Bri West
Piedmont Environmental Council
bwest@pecva.org
1-540-347-2334

Please Support PEC with a Donation.