Capon Valley Coalition

CVC Cochairman Bill Golemon reports:

Gov. Joe Manchin

Governor Manchin came to Romney on Monday afternoon, May 14, to make some scholarship awards and meet with some citizens’ groups. Grady Bradfield, Jim Matheson, Steve Slonaker and I spoke with him and detailed our opposition to the proposed power lines and the NIETC designation by DOE, and of the great amount of opposition to it, including our petitions and the letters of protest and filings with the PSC.

I made the point that there is now proposed legislation in Congress to repeal the NIETC designation provisions of the National Energy Policy Act and asked him to reconsider his position and withdraw his support of NIETC expressed in his letter of last year. His response was noncommittal, and I don’t think he’s interested in our cause. He did ask his aide to make a note to suggest that Billy Jack Gregg at the WVPSC get in touch with us and perhaps meet with our group.

U.S. Department of Energy

I did attend the DOE hearing in Arlington on Tuesday, May 15, and spoke for our group for my allotted two minutes, along with many dozens of other people. I didn’t see anything about it in the Washington Post the next day. I called them and asked why but didn’t get an answer, other than that they couldn’t report everything.

PEC (Piedmont Environmental Council, an ally) had several speakers and did a very good job. They have a good report of it on their Web site.

Virginia Congressmen Wolf and Davis spoke, and Congressman Hinchey of New York made a great speech, ignoring the moderator’s efforts to limit his time. Their testimony is available on PEC’s Web site, along with Wolf’s letter, supported by over forty other congressmen, asking DOE to extend the hearing time-period and increase the locations.

(I made the point that there were no meetings in WV, which of course they already know).

WV PSC

I spoke on the phone with Caryn Short, the lead PSC attorney on the case. They have not had an acceptable proposal from a consulting firm to do an Environmental Impact Study, and may have to do it themselves with the help of the appropriate WV state agencies.

The ending date to intervene hasn’t been determined yet. I will continue to try to find an attorney, and I do realize the clock is ticking.

Rick Stouffer reported yesterday in The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

The rolling hills, mature trees and alfalfa fields on Bill Pollock’s century-old farm camouflage a growing battle pitting landowners against Allegheny Energy Inc. over a proposed $1.3 billion high-voltage power line that would run through three states.

Pollock’s farm in Somerset, Washington County, lies at the nexus of existing 138,000-volt and smaller transmission lines, and by 2011 could have the proposed 500,000-volt line consuming about 18 acres of the property.

It may become the focus of a test of new federal authority to site power lines granted by Congress in 2005. Opponents say Allegheny Energy’s plan will bring higher electricity rates — eliminating one of the region’s attractions for business.

“If I thought this project was needed — I wouldn’t like it cutting across my property — but I wouldn’t fight it,” Pollock said. “But when you look at the details, that’s when I decided to really get involved.”

Supporters of the project are Allegheny Energy and PJM Interconnection LLC, the regional transmission organization that coordinates the movement of wholesale electricity in all or parts of 13 states, including Pennsylvania.

They say the project is designed to bring stability and solve reliability problems regionally, and to carry badly needed, low-cost power produced regionally to the East Coast.

“Real reliability problems were coming,” said David E. Flitman, president of Allegheny Energy’s Allegheny Power utility. “There is real potential for brownouts and blackouts within PJM, and they could happen in 2009, 2010.”

The project — formally the Tran-Allegheny Interstate Line — would stretch 240 miles from Southwestern Pennsylvania, through West Virginia before ending in Loudoun County, Va., near Washington, and link with Dominion Virginia Power.

Three smaller 138,000-volt lines totalled 15 miles in length will be constructed — two running east and west from a substation in North Strabane to connect with existing lines, and a third paralleling the larger line and running south.

Allegheny Energy’s portion of the total cost is about $850 million, with the project slated for completion by 2011.

Public opposition to the Pennsylvania portion of Trans-Allegheny is growing and with it, political resistance.

“I’ve been in this office now for about 12 years, and I’ve never seen such an outcry by residents,” said Washington County Commissioner Diana L. Irey, who said she and fellow commissioners Lawrence O. Maggi and J. Bracken Burns Sr. oppose the project. All are preparing testimony for upcoming state Public Utility Commission hearings. Dates and locations have not been announced.

The PUC must approve the project for it to move forward.

In Western Pennsylvania, Flitman said PJM and Allegheny Energy have identified electricity reliability problems in Washington and Greene counties if the 500,000-volt line isn’t constructed.

“A blackout here is a possibility,” Flitman said. “The upgrading of the 138 kilovolt (one kilovolt equals 1,000 volts) lines — we need them today.”

Pollock and a growing group of opponents, known as “Stop the Towers,” or the Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania, oppose the project on aesthetic grounds, over privacy rights and possible health issues. Some studies suggest electromagnetic waves from power lines can cause cancer.

They point to security concerns — vandalism or even terrorist actions — at the 190 power line towers, up to 175 feet tall, that the 500,000-volt line will require in Pennsylvania alone.

More than 4,000 people have signed a Stop the Towers petition, said Willard R. Burns, a leader of the non-profit group and an attorney in the Pittsburgh office of Pepper Hamilton LLP.

Pollock has worked in the power industry since the 1970s, including the last 12 years as head of his own energy-environmental consulting firm. He’s worked on power generation and transmission projects, he said.

“There currently are more than enough transmission lines in place to handle power needs in Washington and Greene counties,” he said. “There is a need for upgrades to some facilities, but there is no need to bring … the new 500,000 volt line into Washington County.”

He pointed to Allegheny Energy’s 1,710-megawatt Hatfield’s Ferry power plant in Cumberland, Greene County, as having more than enough generating capacity to handle all of Washington and Greene counties’ needs, which he estimated are growing at 3 percent a year.

Flitman said customer power needs in Washington County alone over the last six to eight years have been growing at about 4 percent annually. And with new commercial development around the Meadows race track, and other projects — such as the $404 million Victory Centre, including a Bass Pro Shop and Tanger Outlets, planned or under way along Interstates 70 and 79 and Route 19 — “the current system wasn’t built to handle the growth.”

There’s the question of who pays for the power line project, Pollock says. Transmission of power is a state-regulated business, so all work performed within Pennsylvania would be paid for by Allegheny Energy customers, Flitman said.

Transmission costs comprise about 5 percent of an average customer’s bill. That would increase. And Allegheny Energy would benefit by selling its low-cost power into high-cost areas to the east, said Richard Tabors, vice president with consulting firm CRA International, Boston.

And there is the question of who will have the final say on the project — state or federal regulators.

Many opponents fear Allegheny Energy will appeal a PUC ruling against the project to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave FERC what’s referred to as “backstop” authority to overrule a state if national power grid security and reliability are in jeopardy.

“This was a bipartisan agreement to give the federal government some additional power in these situations,” said Elliot Roseman, a transmission expert and vice president with ICF Consulting Group, Fairfax, Va. “The power was given as a catalyst, not a big stick to hit states over the head. FERC becomes the arbiter of last resort.”

Allegheny Energy’s Flitman said his company doesn’t want the federal government involved. “We intend to work closely with the PUC,” he said.

“We think when the PUC gets the details of the project, they will say ‘no’,” Pollock said.

Rick Stouffer can be reached at rstouffer@tribweb.com or 412-320-7853.

You can find the original online.