RE:  Forwarded message from Jim Kotcon.

 

 

1.  I make a motion that the Energy Committee of the Sierra Club of West Virginia

go on-record in opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer

Advocate and the TrAILCo.

 

2.  I make a motion that the Mon Valley Clean Air Coalition go on-record in

opposition to the Consent Agreement between the WV Consumer Advocate

and the TrAILCo.

 

Notes:

 

1.  This Agreement is a front page story in the Morgantown Dominion Post

today.   This Agreement was posted yesterday on the web site of the Public

Service Commission and is attached to this forwarded message; or, it can be

 found under Case 07-0508 at www.psc.state.wv.us

 

2.  It is particularly disturbing that the offer of free electricity will be available

only to a select group of people, not all those that are affected by the Line.

And, from an overall point-of-view, the cost of this free electricity will be

charged back to the customers of Allegheny Energy in West Virginia, as

I understand it.

 

3.  Herbicides could still be used, just not sprayed from aircraft.

 

4.  This Agreement reflects an arbitrary decision by the Consumer

Advocate, without consideration of whether it is fully supported

by the affected citizens, or the people of the State who will

need to pay the the proposed Line.

 

Duane Nichols, Member.

 

 

 

-----Inline Message Follows-----

I think we just got blind-sided by the Consumer Advocates Division. 

Billy Jack Gregg has signed a tentative agreement with TrAILCo in which he agrees not to oppose the Need for TrAILCo's line, agrees to the locaiton of certain portions of the line (although not the Grafton Area Route), agrees that TrAILCo is a public utility, and further agreed to support TrAILCo's requests for recovery of costs of payment of a Transmission Credit before FERC. 

In return, TrAILCo agrees to provide landowners with up to 12,000 kWh of electricity per year, and agrees to certain restrictions on herbicide use in the corridor.

There is a section that I am not entirely clear on.  Apparently the cost of this electricity is to be considered part of the "fair market value" for the rights of way.  I am not clear as to whether this means that the paymnt for the property is reduced proportionately, or if this only means that the electricity is an "add on" to the property value.  In either case, we the ratepayers will get gouged to pay the electric bills of the landowners, and I think we will also get gouged for an extra 14 % for the "incentivized rate of return" under the NIETC.

JBK

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

I think we just got blind-sided by the Consumer Advocates Division. 

Billy Jack Gregg has signed a tentative agreement with TrAILCo in which he agrees not to oppose the Need for TrAILCo's line, agrees to the locaiton of certain portions of the line (although not the Grafton Area Route), agrees that TrAILCo is a public utility, and further agreed to support TrAILCo's requests for recovery of costs of payment of a Transmission Credit before FERC. 

In return, TrAILCo agrees to provide landowners with up to 12,000 kWh of electricity per year, and agrees to certain restrictions on herbicide use in the corridor.

There is a section that I am not entirely clear on.  Apparently the cost of this electricity is to be considered part of the "fair market value" for the rights of way.  I am not clear as to whether this means that the paymnt for the property is reduced proportionately, or if this only means that the electricity is an "add on" to the property value.  In either case, we the ratepayers will get gouged to pay the electric bills of the landowners, and I think we will also get gouged for an extra 14 % for the "incentivized rate of return" under the NIETC.

JBK