Capon Valley Coalition

David versus Goliath hearings begin Jan. 4

Because of the holidays, we are late in reporting that The Hampshire Review carried a long story about Allegheny Power’s TrAIL power line and the Capon Valley Coalition’s efforts (among others) to stop it.

The article by Marla Pisciotta appeared in the Dec. 19 issue on page 2A.

CVC President Bill Golemon was quoted extensively. Thanks, Bill.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission has scheduled a series of “evidentiary” hearings on Allegheny Power’s TrAIL power line in Charleston next month.

The hearings will take place in the Public Service Commission Building at 201 Brooks Street on Jan. 9-12 and Jan. 14-19. If more time is needed, they will continue Feb. 12-15.

These hearings are open to the public, but are not for taking public comment.

You can keep track of the Allegheny Power case (#07-0508-E-CN) via the PSC Web site, including this running log of all documents filed in the case. All documents must be made public.

Among the documents available are complete transcripts of the public hearing held Oct. 30 in Moorefield:

• Transcript No. 1 of the afternoon session runs 53 pages.
• Transcript No. 2 of the evening session runs 76 pages.

West Virginia Public Broadcasting reports good news, but notes the fight is far from over.

Opponents of a proposed power line through West Virginia have gained a new ally – the staff of the state Public Service Commission.

Allegheny Energy and its subsidiary, TrailCo, want the line to connect coal plants in West Virginia with the cities of the East Coast. The proposed line would run through Monongalia, Preston, Tucker, Grant, Hardy and Hampshire counties.

But first, the company needs approval from the West Virginia Public Service Commission. The PSC asked its staff and two independent consultants to study the project. They all came to the same conclusion: the data doesn’t justify building a new power line.

They’re telling the Public Service Commission to reject the proposed power line. That’s according to testimony posted last week on the PSC’s Web site.

Opponents are thrilled. But Allegheny Energy says the fight is far from over.

Lew, one of our supporters and correspondents, reviewed the document this story refers to and filed these notes:

My take on the documents:

The initial consultant, William Lewis, indicates that while additional transmission capacity may be needed, it is not needed by 2011. Given more time, other alternatives exist that may delay the need for several years. TrailCO did not give serious consideration to these alternatives. In any case, WV will not benefit from additional capacity nor be threatened by the lack thereof for the forseeable future.

Ellers, a PSC staff engineer, recommends the line application not be approved. Based on testimony of TrailCO’s witnesses, the TrAIL application does not appear to have been based on a comprehensive planning process, its demand forecasts appear suspect, its preferred route does not afford the least impact on WVirginians. And “it appears that TrailCo’s preferred route is not likely to provide the least impact to the environment and its citizens over other route alternatives. It appears that TrailCo’s desire to remain outside the State of Maryland has forced the citizens of West Virginia to bear the brunt of the impacts for no obvious siting reasons. (Emphasis added.)

Finally, as stated in Staff witnesses Lewis’ and Ileo’s testimony, the transmission line offers no substantive permanent gain for the citizens of West Virginia in terms of electric reliability or economic benefits.” Ileo takes on the financial implications and comes to this summary: “Viewed solely from an economic perspective, the information and data presented by Allegheny in this proceeding do not provide sufficient justification for the Commission to approve TrAIL. In large part, this finding stems from the failure of the Company to demonstrate the reasonableness of the load forecasts on which the claimed need for TrAIL is based, as well as the lack of a showing that TrAIL constitutes an economical (costeffective) deployment of resources.” (Emphasis added)

You can review the 187-page document Lew referred to yourself on the PSC Web site.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin sent out the following article to constituents on Friday.

It’s a reasonable piece with reasoned arguments: In a nutshell, he says we need more electricity and we need coal plants to provide it but we also need to clean them up. Reasonable people can agree with that.

Where Manchin is totally off the map — and maybe that’s the problem, maybe he can’t read a map — is that he simply will not stand up and tell the East Coast states to build the coal-powered electric plants in their states, in their communities, in their neighborhoods. They need the electricity; they should put the plants right there!

We will be happy to sell them all the West Virginia coal they need to produce the power that they use.

We just don’t want our neighborhoods and mountains and valleys trashed up to provide profits for electric utilities headquartered in other states and selling coal — again — to other states.

It’s not that hard a concept, Joe. We assume you would not like one of your neighbors running a bunch of those bright orange electric cords through your living room, dining room and kitchen and out the back door to provide power to a neighbor on the other side of your house. Right? It’s that simple.

We don’t benefit. And right now, Allegheny Power wants us to pay higher electric rates to run the bright orange cable through our bedroom. Can you see why we are more than a little mad at your weasel words? Governors in other states get it. Why don’t you?

Go sell all the West Virginia coal you can, Governor. But keep power lines that do not benefit West Virginians out of our West Virginia communities.

Here’s the Manchin piece:

Dec. 7, 2007

Greening Coal for a Bright America
An Opinion Article by Gov. Joe Manchin, Joined by Kentucky Gov.-elect Steve Beshear

Contact: Lara Ramsburg, 304-558-2000

As the governor of the second-largest coal producing state in our nation, and as chair of the regional interstate compact Southern States Energy Board (SSEB), I would like to offer some insight into the importance of greening of coal for a bright future in America.

Today, we hear the terms energy security and climate change spoken almost in the same breath. Those two key issues are running up against a third, less-spoken concern that is surely as certain to require our attention in the near future. Simply put, we are faced with shortages of electrical generating capacity and we need to act to maintain economic prosperity and to grow the economy. One of the critical responses to this national situation is for those with a stake in the solutions — Congress, governors, legislators, regulators, the utility industry — to start a serious dialogue to develop solutions to ensure an ongoing, reasonably priced, green and reliable energy supply.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) projects electrical system reserve margins will continue to shrink, indicating projected increases in peak demands continue to exceed projected committed resources beyond the next few years. To meet these shortfalls, the country needs a portfolio of electrical generating options that include new, cleaner, green coal-fueled generators as well as gas-fired generation; renewable energy resources including wind, solar and biomass; and a strong emphasis on energy efficiency in buildings.

As we plan for a bright future fueled by our own indigenous resources, the mission of the SSEB comes to mind: “Through innovations in energy and environmental policies, programs and technologies, the Board enhances economic development and the quality of life in the South.”

As we consider how we provide an adequate energy supply that is environmentally acceptable, we must recognize the critical role of technology in this three-fold discussion. Because of its wide availability, versatility and reasonable cost, clean coal technologies will be of strategic importance in the future.

How can we utilize these plentiful indigenous coal resources in a green way to meet the future needs of our citizens? Coal currently is the fuel source for almost half of the electricity generated in the United States. Carl Bauer, director of the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, testified at a recent congressional hearing that the United States has some 250 years of coal available given current technology, prices, and coal consumption. What actions are necessary to lead us toward a sustainable future, environmentally and economically, using these coal resources?

While coal is expected to remain a major fuel for electricity generation for the foreseeable future, recent decisions by state public service commissions and utilities show a clear movement away from the resource due, primarily, to CO2 emissions. Fifteen coal plants have been canceled in Florida and 10 in Texas the past two years.

Regulators require some utilities planning to build a coal plant to have a carbon plan projecting the lifetime emissions of the plant. The most promising opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions is carbon capture and sequestration (CCS), which traps CO2 and stores it underground, uses it for enhanced oil and coal bed methane recovery, or feeds CO2 to algae for biofuels production.

Potential storage solutions include depleted oil and gas reservoirs, saline-filled formations or unmineable coal seams. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has formed seven regional partnerships that are testing technologies for large scale CCS.

There are signs that advanced, clean coal technologies are making an impact on the nation’s electrical capacity. Indiana utility regulators recently approved Duke Energy’s proposed 630-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle coal-fired power plant, equipped with advanced pollution controls. Duke Energy Indiana President Jim Stanley suggested that finding ways to burn plentiful, low-cost Midwest coal cleanly is fundamental to meeting customers’ demand for power at “one of the cleanest, coal-fired power plants in the world when it’s completed.” Duke will complete an engineering and design study to potentially capture up to 18 percent of the plant’s CO2 emissions and will design the plant so that CCS equipment could be added in the future.

The DOE has a major research and development project under way, called FutureGen, which uses technology developments from a number of core R&D programs in providing near-zero atmospheric emissions from the clean power plant. This plant will be the cleanest fossil-fuel-fired power plant in the world. The project will use coal gasification technology integrated with combined cycle electricity generation and capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide.

DOE will announce its final site selection for the FutureGen project in December, following a November release of the final environmental impact statement for all four candidate sites (Mattoon and Tuscola, Illinois and Odessa and Jewett, Texas). A report by the Electric Power Research Institute earlier this year recognizes the potential for FutureGen to fundamentally change our nation’s electricity infrastructure. The report acknowledges the importance of testing and proving the concepts so the combined technology can be made commercially cost-effective. FutureGen has the potential to be a major solution in the quest for green coal technologies.

The real key to a successful future in the energy sector is sustainability. We need to keep learning how to optimize the use of our resources, become more energy efficient, and minimize waste. Sustainability is achieved when we incorporate a balance of environmental, economic and energy security goals to maintain a reliable and efficient power sector in our economy. We can implement demand reduction programs such as switching to compact fluorescent bulbs, installing high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, set back thermostats, insulation and storm doors. We can also provide incentives and promote renewable energy and energy efficiency, especially in our building designs. But we simply must invest in improving thermal efficiency at existing coal plants, begin construction of a new generation of clean, supercritical coal and integrated gasification combined cycle plants, and implement other advanced designs.

Not since the 1970s have we seen so much discussion about the role of energy and how it is produced and used. Concerns about global warming and greenhouse gases, rising fossil energy costs, nuclear waste, summer blackouts and instability in energy rich regions of the world have led to intense debate in the United States over our energy future.

Leadership and dialogue throughout the industry and at the national and state level is needed now more than ever. DOE Undersecretary of Energy Bud Albright recently described the “energy chaos” currently plaguing our country relative to the future role of coal. He said, “On one hand, the coal industry hears congressional leaders say they must reduce carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, without specific plans. On the other hand, state regulators are turning down proposals for more efficient coal plants that produce less CO2 emissions.”

This is a conundrum that must change if electric utilities are to preserve their reserve margins and if we are to continue our economic prosperity. Technological solutions leading to the greening of the coal industry hold the key to that promise for a bright future for America.

This opinion article was jointly signed by Kentucky Gov.-elect Steve Beshear.

The Washington Post reports today:

The Energy Department announced yesterday that it will reconsider its decision to designate a portion of the mid-Atlantic region — including the District, most of Maryland and Northern Virginia — as a priority area for the placement of new power lines.

Saying they want to listen more closely to opponents’ concerns, federal authorities will reconsider their October decision to declare two areas of the country as “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors,” broad swaths of land across several states designated to allow for more power line construction.

“To give these requests full consideration, [the Energy Department] will take additional time to thoroughly evaluate the basis of their requests,” agency spokeswoman Julie Ruggiero said in a statement.

Federal authorities had ruled that energy companies would be able to submit power-transmission expansion plans to federal agencies for the mid-Atlantic region over the wishes of state and local officials. A successful application to federal authorities would allow the companies to make use of the government’s condemnation powers to obtain a right of way.

Battles have been waged in many places over proposals for power lines that advocates say are necessary to avoid future blackouts as the nation’s energy grid ages and demand for electricity rises.

Opponents have called the proposed power lines environmentally damaging and unsightly. Environmentalists and local activists, for instance, have opposed a 300-mile line proposed by Pepco Holdings that would stretch from Virginia through Maryland to New Jersey, as well as a 240-mile line sought by Dominion Virginia Power that would extend through parts of Warren, Fauquier, Loudoun and Prince William counties.

Both high-voltage lines would pass through parks and near Civil War battlefields.

The government will also reconsider its decision for another targeted area in the Southwest, which includes seven counties in Southern California and three in Arizona.

Virginia’s top officials, including Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and Attorney General Robert F. McDonnell (R), have said that the state’s inclusion in the proposed corridor was unnecessary and did not comply with federal law.

Yesterday both men said that the Energy Department’s decision would give them another opportunity to state their case.

Virginia’s power in deciding such matters should not be usurped because such decisions have been made “by the State Corporation Commission and similar bodies in other states,” Kaine said in a brief interview. “And the notion that the feds would preempt states’ action, take away our land-use powers and even use eminent domain to grab property is a bad idea.”

McDonnell said in a statement: “The inclusion of Virginia . . . fails to consider a number of local environmental, cultural, historical and aesthetic considerations. During the formal rehearing we will make this case again, and I look forward to a full and fair hearing from the Department of Energy.”

But opponents of the high-voltage power line that Dominion Virginia Power has planned for rural Northern Virginia said they were far from celebrating. As federal officials take another look at the program, energy companies can still apply for the special rights the program offers, threatening property rights and natural and historic resources, said Robert W. Lazaro Jr., spokesman for the Piedmont Environmental Council. “We were hoping that they would just put in a stay and say, ‘We’re not moving forward with any NIETC,’ ” he said, referring to the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors. “We’re not popping any champagne bottles yet.”

A spokesman for Dominion said the company had no intention of subverting the state’s wishes. “We do not intend to use the federal process,” she said. “This is a state decision.”

Since announcing the project in the summer, Dominion has encountered well-organized, sometimes emotional opposition from landowners, conservationists and others who say the line would scar the landscape and encourage the construction of polluting coal plants.