Capon Valley Coalition

From CVC Chairman Bill Golemon in July.

Note the point we highlighted in bold: The people who benefit from TrAIL will NOT pay for it; YOU WILL.

Chairman Joseph T. Kelliher
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20426

Re: Docket Nos. EL05-121-000; EL05-121-002; RM06-12-001

Dear Commissioner Kelliher:

As you are well aware, the United States Department of Energy (DOE) currently is seeking public comment on its two draft National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) designations, the Mid-Atlantic Area National Corridor and the Southwest Area National =Corridor. The former corridor would encompass thirty-eight West Virginia counties and two proposed transmission line projects — Allegheny Power’s Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line (TrAIL) and AEPs’ Amos-Kemptown-Deans 765-kV (I-765) proposal — significant portions of which would be in West Virginia.

In light of the severe electric transmission congestion in the Mid-Atlantic area, the threat that congestion poses to the economy and security of West Virginia and her neighbors, and the ability of additional transmission facilities to alleviate that congestion while economically benefiting West Virginia, I wrote to Energy Secretary Bodman in October of 2006 urging that any corridor designation include the two above-mentioned projects. Unfortunately, since my letter, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“the Commission” or “FERC”) has issued two orders that now raise grave concerns about how West Virginians will be affected by these projects and the draft corridor.

First, on April 19, 2007, the Commission issued an Order on Initial Decision in Docket Nos. EL05-121-000 and EL05-121-002. In the Order on Initial Decision, the Commission held, in part, that the cost of new transmission facilities that operate at or over 500 kV, such as Allegheny’s TrAIL and AEP’s I-765 projects, will be rolled-in and allocated to all customers in a region according to each customer’s share of the region’s load, rather than on a “beneficiary pays” basis where the cost is borne by customers to whom the facilities carry the electricity.

With respect to the two abovementioned transmission projects, the practical effect of the Order on Initial Decision would be to unduly shift a disproportionate share of the cost of those projects away from those customers receiving the electricity in the greater-Washington, D.C. area to ratepayers in West Virginia where those lines will be predominantly sited. West Virginians have always been proud to take the lead in powering this country, but to expect them to do the heavy-lifting of generating and delivering so much of America’s power and then pay for others’ use of the power is simply unfair. Indeed, the Commission should reconsider its decision, as West Virginia’s Public Service Commission (WVPSC) has recently requested, and adopt a cost allocation methodology founded on the just and reasonable concept that beneficiaries of transmission facilities should pay for those facilities.

Second, on May 17, 2007, the Commission issued an Order Denying Rehearing in Docket No. RM06-12-001. Among other things in the Order Denying Rehearing, the Commission determined how it would interpret language in the federal legislation enabling the NIETC, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (“the Act”), authorizing the Commission to issue a permit for construction of transmission facilities in a national corridor if it finds that a state commission that has authority to approve the siting of the facilities has “withheld approval for more than one year after the filing of an application seeking approval pursuant to applicable law or one year after the designation of the relevant [national corridor], whichever is later;…”

As you are aware, the Commission interpreted the phrase “withheld approval” to include a state’s lawful denial of an application to site transmission facilities. This interpretation, however, flies in the face of the plain language of the Act and threatens the critical balance between state sovereignty and national interests. The WVPSC is currently reviewing the above-mentioned projects and I have complete confidence it will reach a timely decision that is in the best interest of West Virginia as both an individual state and a member of a larger regional electric transmission grid. Any attempt to void a valid and soundly reasoned decision by the WVPSC would run counter to the intent of the Act, the principles of our federal system and, in short, would be untenable from my perspective.

For the foregoing reasons, I strongly urge the Commission to re-evaluate its decisions in the aforementioned proceedings and arrive at more just and reasonable outcomes that will equitably distribute the sacrifice, as well as the benefits, of future electric transmission projects among the people of the Mid-Atlantic region.

Sincerely,
Joe Manchin III
Governor

Law allows them in ‘national interest’ corridors in Northeast, Southwest

Still catching up. This news was reported July 16.

GETTYSBURG, Pa. - Apple trees have been planted, wood fences restored and power lines buried in recent years to transform the Civil War battlefield in Gettysburg to the way it looked when Union and Confederate forces clashed on farmers’ fields in 1863.

But preservationists now worry that the national military park in Pennsylvania’s picturesque fruit belt soon may be in the shadow of high-powered transmission lines.

It is not just Gettysburg that worries them as a result of a 2005 law that gave federal regulators new authority over where power lines are built. They fear the law could place hundreds of national and state parks and other protected sites in the Northeast and Southwest in or near the path of massive power lines.

“They’re not little modest poles that you wouldn’t notice,” said Joy Oakes, senior regional director at the National Parks Conservation Association.

The law was enacted in response to power companies’ complaints that local and state authorities, which historically have decided where power lines go, were reluctant to approve them — often because of residents’ opposition. The stalemate, according to the companies, contributed to blackouts such as the one in 2003 that swept from Ohio to New York City.

Using the law, the Energy Department this year proposed making two large swaths of land in the Northeast and Southwest “national interest” corridors. If the corridors are approved by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, federal regulators can order power lines built in them, regardless of state and local opposition.

The Wilderness Society estimates that millions of acres of wildlife refuges, cemeteries, national seashores, protected wilderness, national parks and other types of protected land are within the proposed corridors.

Too broad to monitor?
Environmental activists contend the corridors were drawn broadly to make it difficult to tell where the power lines would go. They say the department should have done a thorough environmental analysis and declared protected areas off limits before proposing them.

The department is proposing an “overbroad solution” that “bypasses important legal and procedural safeguards,” said Nada Culver, the Wilderness Society’s senior counsel.

If a protected area is in the planned path of a power line, she said, the agency with jurisdiction could be forced or pressured into allowing the line to be constructed. But there is no guarantee a utility company could put lines in such an area.

The Energy Department says it would require a full environmental and cultural review before federal regulators could order a line built and alternatives would have to be considered.

Just because a power company seeks permission from federal regulators, that “doesn’t mean they automatically get what they want,” said Barbara Connors, a spokeswoman for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That agency would have the final say about where lines could run in the corridors.

Power companies contend the large corridors would give them more flexibility to avoid protected areas. They would have to work with state regulators for a year before going to federal regulators as a last resort.

“We do have to build infrastructure through areas and at some point people do have to choose if they want reliable, affordable electricity, but you also have to balance all of those issues, protected sites being one of them,” said Ed Legge, a spokesman for Edison Electric Institute, the association of U.S. shareholder-owned electric utilities.

Backlash in Virginia, New York
Opposition to the proposed corridors has been particularly strong in Virginia and New York. Utility companies have proposed building lines in the scenic Piedmont area of Virginia and New York’s Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River Park. Opponents say the law could make it easier for the utility companies to get their way eventually.

Governors from the two states were among at least five last month that supported a House amendment sponsored by Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., that would have delayed the law from taking effect. The amendment was rejected 257-174.

The Energy Department, which estimates electricity demand will grow 39 percent from 2005 to 2030 in the residential sector and 63 percent in the commercial sector, may propose other high priority corridors elsewhere. An estimated $31.5 billion will be spent to improve the nation’s transmission system from 2006 to 2009, according to the Edison Electric Institute.

The proposed East Coast corridor would run north from Virginia, and include most of Maryland, all of New Jersey and Delaware and large sections of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The Southwest one would stretch from Southern California into Arizona and Nevada.

The comment period on the proposed corridors ended July 6. Julie Ruggiero, an Energy Department spokeswoman, said Bodman will determine whether to approve the corridors as proposed, reject them or order changes. She said there is no deadline but the agency is “eager … to get this process moving.”

In Gettysburg, a private foundation already spent about $1.5 million to bury more than 3 miles of utility lines. It is raising an additional $400,000 to place 1.4 more miles of lines underground — some of which came into view when trees were removed as part of the park’s restoration.

“We are bringing back all these features that are really improving not just the preservation of the battlefield, but the public’s understanding, which included putting many of the smaller scale power lines underground,” said Katie Lawhon, a park spokeswoman at Gettysburg. “It’s just so ironic that there would be this proposal to put these massive power lines in, potentially impacting the battlefield.”

See the original on MSNBC.

Ralph W. reports:

The WV Public Service Commission has been receiving a small but
increasing number of letters of SUPPORT for the proposed transmission
line that cuts through the Capon Valley, including River Ridge.

See www.psc.state.wv.us/, click on the “Transmission Line” link as it scrolls through the “HOT TOPICS”, then click on “activities”.

If you have not sent a protest letter (or have not sent one recently), it might be useful to send
one.

I have a sample posted at www.adjoint-functors.net/RR/

Ralph W. reports:

Allegheny Energy (AYE 52.60, +0.45, +0.9% ) posted a second-quarter profit of $77 million, or 45 cents a share, up from $31.1 million, or 18 cents a share, a year ago, due to higher prices and cost cutting. Operating revenue rose to $826.5 million from $722.2 million a year earlier.

By the way, you are the ones paying the higher prices.

CVC Chairman Bill Golemon filed the following report in mid-July. We have been derelict in getting it on the Web site:

We have not been able to intervene at the WV PSC. I believe the cost was prohibitive, probably over $20,000 plus the cost of expert witnesses. The deadline is July 22. There are a dozen or more organizations and individuals who have filed already. I have suggested to some of them and to PEC that perhaps PEC could give them some advice or assistance for their appearance at the hearings.

The PSC was not able to find a suitable outside firm to do an Environmental Impact Study and will be doing their own with state assets. I don’t know the status of that. Perhaps one of you could call Caryn Short at the PSC (lead attorney on the case) and ask her. As of last week they were planning regional meetings probably in Sep or Oct, with the hearing in Oct or Nov. I have asked that one be held in Romney.

I attended a meeting in Preston County on July 9 called by their County Commission, similar to the one in Monongalia County earlier. Billy Jack Gregg, head of the PSC Consumer Advocate Division, spoke and answered questions. Over a dozen people spoke out very passionately in opposition to the power line(s) and the NIETC designation. There were two state Senators and two delegates who spoke in opposition. We (and many others) are making headway!

A group of legislators met with Governor Manchin, and he has since written a letter to DOE changing his position, somewhat, on NIETC (influenced also, I believe, by the meeting he had in Romney with CVC members on May 14).

(We will get a copy of that letter online soon.)

Numerous state legislators are on the bandwagon, and hopefully we can get some of ours to support their efforts. I believe a couple may be involved, Ruth Rowan and Sen. Walt Helmick, but I don’t know for sure.

I have asked our Commissioner, Steve Slonaker, to arrange a similar meeting in Hampshire County and invite Mr. Gregg, along with Hardy County and any other Commissioners, and all of our local state legislators. I hope this comes about.

The thing to do now is to write more protest letters to PSC, write, call and e-mail all state and federal legislators, Gov. Manchin, other appropriate state agencies and anyone else we can think of.

Manchin may call a special legislative session, and we should make every effort to get this on their agenda. The Pennsylvania legislature has done that, even testified in congress, Gov. Kaine and the Attorney General in VA have written to DOE opposing the NIETC designation, and we need to do that in WV.

We are having an impact!
Bill