----- Original Message ----
From: James Kotcon <jkotcon@wvu.edu>
To: ec@osenergy.org
Cc: Frank Young <fyoung@wvhighlands.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 4:16:00 PM
Subject: [EC] Fwd: [MVCAC] Trail Is Dead

I certainly don't think the title is accurate.  Perhaps a better title would be: "Yet another backroom deal to sell out West Virginia".  I have not seen the deal, but it seems to me that Allegheny has presented yet another "offer" of using our own money to buy us off, while they still make a profit at our expense.


...and still build it through West Virginia.


JBK

>>> "Julieann F. Wozniak" <jwozniak@windstream.net> 9/23/2008 10:04 AM >>>

>Power line plan killed
>Allegheny Energy won't put it through Greene, Washington
>Tuesday, September 23, 2008
>By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
>
>Allegheny Energy is abandoning plans for a high-voltage line through Washington and Greene counties, according to the terms of a settlement agreement reached yesterday.
>
>The agreement between the Greensburg-based utility and Greene County officials halts plans for a controversial 37-mile, 500-kilovolt power line from North Strabane in Washington County, to Dunkard, Greene County.
>
>In exchange, Greene County commissioners have agreed to support a companion project which includes a new electric substation and a 1.2-mile transmission line from Greene County to West Virginia, where the line would continue 240 miles into Virginia.
>
>West Virginia has approved the $1 billion project, and Virginia is expected to do so as well.
>
>Terms of the agreement, hammered out last week, include a payment of $750,000 to Greene County and other provisions from the company, which sought a compromise after two state Public Utility Commission judges recommended against every phase of the proposal due to lack of need and other considerations.
>
>The agreement may end more than 18 months of bitter feuding that pitted property owners and officials against Allegheny Energy. The terms of the deal are contingent on final project approval by the PUC before Feb. 16, 2009.
>
>Along with the financial settlement to Greene County, the company has agreed to return easements to the dozens of property owners in both counties who would have been affected by the line, many of whom sued the company in recent months, claiming that the easements, obtained decades ago, were no longer valid.
>
>The agreement leaves out Washington County officials, who say they were presented with the pact on Friday, then asked to approve it by yesterday.
>
>Washington County commissioners Larry Maggi and J. Bracken Burns said they were left out of what they call the "backroom deal" and won't support the agreement, although they, too, were offered $750,000 for Washington County.
>
>They wonder why their counterparts in Greene County have so readily approved the agreement while the PUC judges harshly criticized the plan, calling the 1.2-mile segment in Greene County a profit-driven attempt to ship "cheaper coal-fired generation" along an "energy superhighway" to the east. The judges said they also saw no need for the 36-mile Pennsylvania segment of the line. With language like that, it's unclear whether the PUC will honor the settlement agreement.
>
>The commission will review the agreement to determine if it's in the public interest, said spokeswoman Jennifer Kocher.
>
>"It didn't smell right -- the whole deal," said Mr. Maggi, who said signing the agreement would have nullified the argument that the power line isn't needed either regionally or locally.
>
>"The agreement in essence says that the argument we've advanced for the past two years is wrong," Mr. Burns said.
>
>Allegheny Energy has said the Pennsylvania portion of the project is needed to avoid local power interruptions in the next few years, but a grass-roots citizens' group and other property owners were able to convince the PUC judges that it wasn't so.
>
>Other terms of the agreement require Greene County and other local officials to help form a study group to identify potential new alternatives to the high-voltage line, such as demand-side management, energy efficiency programs and physical upgrades to existing lines, including new substations, transmission infrastructure, and possibly up to 10 miles of new 500-kilovolt lines in Washington County. There would be no new lines in Greene County.
>
>The company also has agreed not to seek federal intervention for the project if the PUC denies its application. According to the Energy Act of 2005, the federal government has backstop authority to approve transmission projects even if they are denied by states.
>
>Members of the grass-roots Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania said they are still reviewing the agreement, of which they also were not a part.
>
>They have questioned the wisdom of entering into such a pact after the PUC judges gave them good reason to hope that the company's application would be denied. The five-member PUC panel may or may not adopt the recommendations of the judges.
>
>Mr. Burns said he saw nothing in the agreement that would preclude the company from proposing different high-voltage lines in Washington County. Under such circumstances, it's unfair to taxpayers to enter into such an agreement, he said.
>
>"My values aren't negotiable and my principles don't have a price tag," he said.
>Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton@post-gazette.com or 724-223-0156.
>First published on September 23, 2008 at 12:00 am



_______________________________________________
MVCAC mailing list
MVCAC@cheat.org
http://cheat.org/mailman/listinfo/mvcac

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
EC@osenergy.org
http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec