Gov. Manchin’s June 16 Letter to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
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