Fwd: Senate to weigh DOE's power to overrule states; Law allows agency to dictate placement of power - EC

10 Mar 2008


      I think it may be important to send more letters to the Senators on this committee (see below).  It should also be important to find out if the Manchin Administration will offer testimony in opposition to NIETC.
JBK
...
...
...
"Vivian Stockman" vivian@ohvec.org 3/10/2008 10:32 AM >>>
Senate to weigh DOE's power to overrule states
Law allows agency to dictate placement of power lines
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08069/863024-58.stm
Sunday, March 09, 2008
By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Opponents of a high-voltage power line project in Washington and Greene
counties have received encouraging news.
Last week, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said it
would hold hearings to review how the U.S. Department of Energy is
implementing its controversial transmission corridor program.
The program allows the federal government to overrule state decisions about
placement of electric transmission lines. It allows property to be taken for
the lines using eminent domain, and has faced harsh criticism in recent
months.
Also new on the power line front, the state Public Utility Commission will
begin evidentiary hearings March 24 on the application of Greensburg-based
Allegheny Power to build the Pennsylvania portion of a proposed 240-mile,
500-kilovolt transmission line. The line would extend from Washington and
Greene counties in Pennsylvania to existing substations in West Virginia and
end in northern Virginia.
Allegheny's 210-mile portion of the line would cost $820 million to build,
with the total project estimated at more than $1 billion. The smaller
portion of the line would be constructed and paid for by Dominion Virginia
Power, which serves customers in Virginia.
Allegheny Power, calling the project the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line
Project, or TrAIL, has already provided the PUC with testimony from 19
witnesses, while a local opposition group, the Energy Conservation Council
of Pennsylvania, has responded with three experts.
The company is facing challenges from more than just local groups, though.
Company testimony regarding the need for the power line so far has been
rebutted by two witnesses for the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate,
and from a supervisor from the PUC Office of Trial Staff, who called the
application "premature at best."
PUC Supervisor Gary Yocca questioned Allegheny Power's application after
analysis, testifying that the company had not yet done enough to merit
approval of the application.
Mr. Yocca said that while the company says the new power line is needed to
address anticipated local system failures and brownouts within the next
several years, he questioned whether there could be less costly and
intrusive methods.
He said the company failed to follow through on an assessment of the
environmental impact of the project and apparently no federal or state
agency examined the project. Mr. Yocca said there are questions about the
effects on farmland, forest land, plants and wildlife, and the significance
for historic and archaeological sites.
Other consequences loom
And, while he took note of local residents' objections to the scenic dilemma
presented by high-voltage transmission towers, Mr. Yocca warned of far more
serious consequences.
In his testimony, Mr. Yocca reminded PUC board members of the longwall coal
mining operations peppering Washington and Greene counties and of the
susceptible limestone ground structure.
He said the 125-foot to 150-foot transmission towers could be affected by
future mining operations or mine subsidence.
"If subsidence occurs under a [high voltage transmission line] tower, the
results could be catastrophic," he said.
Allegheny Energy spokesman David Neurohr said the company will address
rebuttal testimony from the PUC and other sources during the evidentiary
hearings.
"That will be the process," he said. "That is what they are for."
Will Burns, a lawyer with the Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania,
said his group is gearing up for the fight against the power company and
said he appreciates the work by Pennsylvania's state and national
legislative delegations.
He said the decision by the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee to hold hearings "was indicative of how important Pennsylvania
legislators think this is."
A team of 38 Democratic state legislators, led by state House Majority
Leader Bill DeWeese, recently urged the Senate committee to investigate the
implementation of a provision in the Energy Act of 2005 that gives the
federal government jurisdiction over what has traditionally been state
land-use decisions.
Mr. DeWeese's letter to the committee came on the heels of one sent by U.S.
Sen. Bob Casey earlier last month.
Energy law at issue
Pennsylvania, along with a number of states, has objected to the Department
of Energy designating a large swath of the Northeast and parts of the
Southwest as a national interest electric transmission corridor -- or NIETC.
The Mid-Atlantic designation in the Northeast, which encompasses eight
states, the District of Columbia, and 50 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties,
means the federal government will have the right to overrule state decisions
involving the location of electric transmission lines and to take private
property through eminent domain for such projects.
If a state denies a construction permit to a power company, makes no
decision within a year, or places too many restrictions on the company, it
would have the right to seek a permit from the federal government if the
project is within a NIETC.
Already, Southern California Edison has asked federal regulators to approve
the siting of a 500-kilovolt electric transmission line through Arizona
after that state denied approval last year, saying it didn't want to be an
"extension cord for California."
Late last month, a vice president for Dominion Virginia Power testified that
the company would not rule out seeking federal intervention if state
approval is denied.
Mr. Casey has become the national voice against the large regional
corridors, which critics say defy the intent of the law -- to address
electric reliability and congestion after the 2003 blackout in the northeast
U.S.
Senators, governors and others have proposed that the corridors be of
reasonable size and include critically congested areas in need of
transmission and new generation. Local groups have expressed concern that
Western Pennsylvania's relatively cheap coal-fired electricity will be
shipped to the power-starved East Coast.
Senate to air concerns
Mr. Casey and other legislators have tried obstructing and amending the law
to no avail. Mr. Casey even threatened to delay the renomination of Joseph
Kelliher, Federal Energy Regulatory Committee chairman, to block
implementation of the NIETC.
The most serious concerns raised by officials include the failure by the DOE
to consult with states before the final NIETC designation and to assess
transmission needs and alternatives.
Another major concern was the lack of alterations to the draft NIETC
proposals last year. After more than 2,000 comments from the public, along
with state and local officials, the DOE published the final designation with
only token changes.
Last month, Mr. Casey sent a letter signed by 14 other senators to the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, urging Chairman Jeff
Bingaman, D-New Mexico, ranking member Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, to delve
further into how the transmission corridor program is being administered.
Last week, Leon Lowery, a member of the professional staff for the
committee, said there would be a hearing on the NIETC issues.
"There will be a number of hearings on electricity issues," he said. "Among
those things are the corridor issues."
Mr. Lowery said there has been no schedule set yet for the hearings, but
that the transmission corridors would likely not receive a separate hearing.
Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton@post-gazette.com or
724-223-0156.
First published on March 9, 2008 at 12:00 am