From:
wvec-board@yahoogroups.com [mailto:wvec-board@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Carol
Warren
Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 11:47 AM
To: wvec-board@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [wvec-board] TrAIL trials in PA --- Allegheny Energy
remains on course with plan for power line in Washington, Greene counties
Well, thank goodness somebody
has the guts to stand up to them. I can't believe WV caved in after such a good
start!
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:36 AM, cindyrank <clrank@hughes.net> wrote:
How
gross that WV gets to be the leader in this debacle !
Allegheny
Power spokesman:
It's even more of a let-down, Mr. Colafella said, because the proposed rejection
contrasts so much from the decision to approve the project in West Virginia and
a recommendation to do so in Virginia.
"They agreed it's needed -- that's why we're so terribly disappointed
in the Pennsylvania decision," he said, referring to opinions from other
states
------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy remains on course with plan for power
line in Washington, Greene counties
Sunday, August 31, 2008
By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Allegheny
Power is standing by its plans to construct a high-voltage power line through
Washington and Greene counties despite a resolute recommendation against the
project.
State
Public Utility Commission administrative law judges Mark A. Hoyer and Michael
A. Nemec gave a scolding rebuke to the utility over its plans for the 37-mile,
500-kilovolt power line, saying it wasn't needed.
They
added that a companion project for a power line from Greene County to Virginia
was an effort to ship "cheaper coal-fired generation" along an
"energy superhighway" to the east.
The
judges, whose recommendation will be considered by the five-member PUC
commission next month, also took issue with the power company over its wisdom
to situate the massive power lines near so many residences, its lack of
research on environmental impacts, and its disregard for the affects of
electromagnetic fields.
The
$1.1 billion project could be scuttled if the PUC denies the Greensburg-based
company's application to build the power lines in Pennsylvania, because even
though West Virginia approved the project earlier this month -- and Virginia is
on track to do so, too -- both states have said the project won't get the final
go-ahead until it's been approved by all three states.
The
364-page recommendation released Aug. 21 was "very disappointing,"
said company spokesman Doug Colafella.
It's
even more of a let-down, Mr. Colafella said, because the proposed rejection
contrasts so much from the decision to approve the project in West Virginia and
a recommendation to do so in Virginia.
"They
agreed it's needed -- that's why we're so terribly disappointed in the
Pennsylvania decision," he said, referring to opinions from other states.
The
judges even warned against approving the Allegheny Energy subsidiary,
Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co., or TrAILCo as it is known, as a public utility,
saying it was an out-of-state corporation with no full-time employees or
discernible assets.
Allegheny
Energy is the parent company of Allegheny Power, and the TrAILCo subsidiary was
created to oversee and implement transmission line projects.
Although
West Virginia Public Service Commission officials at first advised against the
project with a long list of concerns, the state worked out an agreement with
the company which called for changes in a portion of the selected route, up to
150 new jobs for the state, and certain other perks, like a seven-year reprieve
from higher electric bills.
West
Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin also has said he would like to find a way to tax the
profits on the power line.
Locally,
the proposed project would involve the construction of an electric substation
in North Strabane called Prexy, which would connect transmission lines on
massive towers to another new substation called the 502 Junction -- 36 miles
away in Dunkard, Greene County. The Prexy station also would include three
smaller 138-kilovolt power lines to service local customers.
The
second portion of the line would start at the 502 Junction, travel 1.2 miles to
the West Virginia border, and continue about 240 miles through West Virginia
and into Northern Virginia. The Virginia part of the line would be built by
Dominion Virginia Power. The target completion date is 2011.
In
its approval of the multistate project, the West Virginia PSC cites the
regional nature of the venture -- something not mentioned in the report by Mr.
Hoyer and Mr. Nemec.
Mr.
Colafella said the provincial attitude of the Pennsylvania judges shouldn't
stand in the way of the project.
"[West
Virginia] agreed that you can't look at a regional project in a vacuum,"
he said.
Mr.
Colafella may have a point, because if the PUC board denies the application --
a decision is expected in late September or October -- the company could lobby
the federal government to approve the project anyway.
It's
part of the Energy Act of 2005, which includes a provision allowing the federal
government to override state decisions regarding the location of transmission
lines.
Spawned
by the 2003 blackout in the Northeast, the Act also allows the federal
government to seize private property by eminent domain. The U.S. Department of
Energy designated a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor over a
large swath of the Northeast, including 52 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties. It is
within that corridor that the federal government is permitted to take action.
Lawmakers,
including U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, have been trying to overturn that part of the
Act for months, including during a recent hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, when Mr. Casey, D-Pa., targeted Allegheny Power
for its tactics to sway homeowners to sell rights-of-way for the project.
Agents
acting on the company's behalf were accused of pressuring and misinforming
homeowners about the project. Without admitting guilt, the company fired one of
its land contractors after the charges came to light.
The
PUC also has filed suit to reduce the size and scope of the corridors.
In
their recommended denial of the project, Mr. Nemec and Mr. Hoyer called the
proposed Prexy line "a grandiose answer to a minor or even non-existent
problem," saying the company's claims that rolling brownouts and blackouts
could occur within the next several years are exaggerated.
The
four scenarios cited by the company which they said could lead to power
failures are based on at least two things going wrong simultaneously, which is
not a standard measure for reliability and could be addressed by far less
drastic measures, the judges said.
"Based
on our review of the entire record, we have concluded that little or no need
for reinforcement ...exists and/or non-intrusive options are available, and
probably should have been put in place before now," said the opinion.
As
for the larger multistate project, the judges said a failure by Virginia to
address a lack of power generation isn't Pennsylvania's problem.
"Granting
approval of the 502 Junction [to Virginia] segment at this juncture rewards a
lack of foresight and proper maintenance, and has policy implications for the
location of future generation..." they said. "Non-transmission
alternatives were not considered."
Members
of the grass roots Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania were happy with
the recommendation.
"We
are understandably pleased with the conclusion of the judges, who confirmed
that these lines are not needed for reliability -- and are not in the best
interest of Pennsylvania," the group said in a statement. "The future
of Pennsylvania's energy independence is dependent on forward-thinking,
clear-eyed decisions such as this."
The
judges also were critical of the company's selected route for the power line
from Prexy to the 502 Junction, saying that among the four options considered,
the route chosen contains the highest number of residences with 500 feet of the
power line and would require the clearing of 448 acres of forest.
The
company failed to consider using the Interstates 70 and 79 corridors and has
not sought approval from other state agencies, such as the state Department of
Environmental Protection.
In
response to the numerous health concerns expressed by property owners, the
judges discredited a TrAILCo expert who said that electromagnetic field
evidence is insufficient to conclude that high-voltage power lines have any
long-term health effects by pointing out that he was not an epidemiologist and
therefore was unqualified to make such a determination.
They
cited findings by the International Agency for Research and Cancer and the
National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, which have said
electromagnetic fields are considered to be possible carcinogens with respect
to childhood leukemia.
The
judges expressed concern about herbicides that would be used to control
vegetation beneath the power lines, and questioned the company's request to be
exempt from local zoning regulations, saying that no detailed plans of the substations
or transmission towers were submitted.
They
also urged the PUC board not to allow the company the authority to seize
private property for the project, as it had requested.
The
company and other interested parties have the opportunity to file exceptions to
the decision and then replies to those exceptions. Exceptions are due Sept. 10
and replies are due Sept. 22.
Mr.
Colafella said the company is "intensely focused" on crafting its
response, which will reiterate the need for the project.
"We
stand by both projects because we feel they are needed," he said. "We
need new lines. That's what it really comes down to, whether you want them in
your backyard or not."
Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton@post-gazette.com
or 724-223-0156.
__._,_.___
Change
settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch
delivery to Daily Digest | Switch
format to Traditional
Visit
Your Group | Yahoo! Groups
Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
.
__,_._,___