Fyi...

Aaron Isherwood
Senior Staff Attorney
Sierra Club Environmental Law Program
85 Second Street, 2d Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
Phone: (415) 977-5680
Fax: (415) 977-5793

CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION/WORK PRODUCT
This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential attorney-client
communications and/or attorney work product.  If you receive this e-mail
inadvertently, please reply to the sender and delete all versions on your
system.
Thank you.
----- Forwarded by Aaron Isherwood/Sierraclub on 08/25/2008 11:02 AM -----
Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt@sierraclub.org>

08/25/2008 09:27 AM
Please respond to
Jeff Schmidt <jeff.schmidt@sierraclub.org>
To
Glen Besa <glen.besa@sierraclub.org>, Aaron Isherwood <aaron.isherwood@sierraclub.org>
cc
jeff tittel <jeff.tittel@sierraclub.org>
Subject
GOOD NEWS on PA Transmission line case





This might be useful to share with whomever at national Sierra Club  is working on NIETC / transmission line issues
 
Jeff Schmidt
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Ginny Kreitler
To: listserve
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 10:54 PM
Subject: [Pa-transmission] GOOD NEWS for conservation in the PA recommendation on TrAILCO

For those of you who have not read through the 364 pages (!) of the recommendation against TrAILCo in Pennsylvania last week, there is much to cheer. The Administrative Law Judges stand reinforced exactly several of the points the conservation community has been articulating. Namely:
1) "Economics, not reliability, is the impetus for both the original request for transmission proposals from PJM and the TrAIL proposal itself" [p112]
2) "The origianl TrAIL project was proposed before any reliability criteria infractions were identified" [p113]
3) "Project Mountaineer's goal was to transmist 5000 megawatts of new coal-fired generation from western to eastern PJM" and "According to Mr. Pfirrmann [PJM management in testimony to FERC], at least two extra high-voltage transmission lines were required to support the delivery of this much electricity." [p 113]
4) "The RTEP modeling process used by PJM is an overly conservative, belt and suspenders approach to transmission planning"  [ok we never asserted that], and
5) "We conclude that the RTEP process is designed to yield transmission solutions." [p.115]
In short, the conceptual foundation of the Mid-Atlantic corridor as well as the case for this project are flawed and the pro-transmission arguments were developed to expand coal-fired power markets.
 
These conclusions deserve widespread attention and should be disseminated to constituents, media, and legislators.
 
Also very noteworthy is the seriousness of the Pennsylvania review process. Of particular note is the weight given to the importance of environmental impacts analysis in the application and review process. The Administrative Law Judges made plain their perspectives on what constitutes (or, more precisely, what does not) a reasonable effort to affirmatively and completely address environmental impacts.
 
This position not only proves that the Judges are taking seriously their responsibility in the area of assessing the environmental impacts of proposed projects, it also provides some guidance for future cases for those concerned with environmental impacts of other proposed projects. The decision considerations should be equally relevant in those cases.
 
In this ruling the ALJs faulted the incompleteness of the information developed on environmental impacts, in particular suggesting that better information is expected in:
1) documenting the resources affected
2) presenting a soil and sedimentation plan
3) identifying locations of access roads
4) detailing steps to be taken to protect ground and surface waters
5) detailing a plan to minimize air and water pollution from construction,
and, with special emphasis on
6) providing a credible account of how alternative routes were seriously considered that had less environmental impacts than the 'preordained' route  [their words]
 
The full recommendation can be found at:
 http://www.puc.state.pa.us/PCDOCS/1019983.pdf.  
Again, please note that PALTA's site lists the environmental considerations to be detailed in transmission project filings. See:
http://conserveland.org/pp/Transmission/opposepowerline
 
Pennsylvania's state process is superior. Interested stakeholders should familiarize themselves with it. All parties concerned with responsible land use decisions and infrastructure siting should be concerned over the possibility of this state jurisdiction being usurped for an ill-defined and untested new federal process. This is a highly important precedent being set for our Commonwealth and for others.