Bill, et al.:
I know Bill is out of town, but a couple items have appeared relative to TrAILCo on the PSC web page.
1) TrAILCO has also petitioned for reconsideration. They are focusing on two issues, one of which is pretty relevant and we should respond. First, they claim that the PSC's requirement that all approvals be in hand before they can start construction, will needlessly delay the project and threaten the very short time-frame for its "In-Service" date of 2011. I think we need to reply opposing this request for reconsideration and pointing out that the Commission correctly determined that beginning construction before all approvals are in hand places the ratepayers at a high risk for "stranded" costs. If part of the line is constructed, and another state requires a different route or denies the application, ratepayers could be stuck paying for hundreds of millions of dollars for transmission line construction that goes no where and will never be in service to anyone. The recommendation from Pennsylvania's Administrative Law Judges that TrAIL be denied is proof that TrAIL is not yet a done deal. As another example, the PSC was convinced by Longview to approve the start of construction before all the engineering blueprints were completed. Now Longview is asking the PSC for approval to completely revise the cooling water sources, a mistake that would never have been made if Longview had completed their homework before launching into an expensive construction phase. Utilities always insist that they are on an emergency schedule and need all approvals right now. The PSC should not be bullied or threatened into reconsidering its well-reasoned decision. The second issue that TrAILCo wants reconsidered is the requirement that Allegheny install a Static Var Compensator at the Meadowbrook substation. TrAILCo argues that this is a very expensive task, and if TrAIL is built, this work on the existing line would not be needed, so ratepayers should not be required to pay for it. They may or may not have a point here, and if I knew what a Static Var Compensator was, I might have an opinion on this issue. But I don't, so I don't.
2) TrAILCo has apparently applied to the Army Corps of Engineers for a 404 wetlands permit. Normally a wetlands permit is a minor issue for the Army Corps, but since this project is so large, we might be able to argue that issuing the wetlands permit is a "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment" and as such, the Corps should do a full EIS on the project before granting any such permit. At a minimum, this would be an opportunity to ask for an independent environmental review. The wetlands permit for the Mt Storm to Meadowbrook section has an anticipated approval date of Sept. 25, so we need to check this out ASAP.
3) In their Aug. 15 Reply brief to our Petition for Reconsideration, TrAILCo continues to assert that I had testified that the CO2 emissions were not at issue in the proceedings. That is incorrect. My testimony noted that the line had relatively few direct emissions of CO2, but that it would be responsible for a dramatic increase in emissions from power plants. These indirect emissions due to the line are clearly relevant, that is the whole issue, and I don't think I ever testified otherwise (but I better check the transcripts to verify this). TrAILCo continues to misconstrue my testimony and the Club's position on this critical issue. We need to Rebut their Reply Brief if we want this issue to be considered. I think it is important, because they never were able to rebut my testimony, they have no answer to it, and so they try to misconstrue it into not being an issue that the PSC should consider.
We may want to rebut some of the other arguments TrAILCo and CAD and WVEUG make in their replies as well.
Whaddya Tink?
JBK