Capon Valley Coalition

New route runs 475 feet from nearest structure at Buddhist monastery

The Northern Virginia Daily reported on May 30 via its online news service, nvdaily.com:

By Robert King — Daily Staff Writer

In advance of a hearing in West Virginia today, utilities behind a power line that would go through the Northern Shenandoah Valley have agreed to move the line’s path farther away from a Buddhist monastery near Gore.

But the monastery feels the agreement is just a ploy from the utilities to avoid a less obtrusive way to build the line.

The Bhavana Society, located in High View, W.Va., roughly six miles from Gore, has fervently opposed the line. The society fears the line would affect its livelihood.

Allegheny Power and Dominion Virginia Power are among the utilities looking to build the 240-mile, 500-kilovolt power line. The line would carry power generated in the Midwest to Northern Virginia.

The utilities say without the line, the Northern Virginia area could suffer rolling blackouts by 2011.

Opponents counter the line isn’t needed and would scar the landscape.

A 65-mile stretch of the line would go from a Frederick County substation to a Loudoun County facility. That segment of the line would go through Warren, Rappahannock, Prince William, Fauquier and Culpeper counties.

Another 114-mile segment would go through parts of Monongalia, Preston, Tucker, Grant, Hardy and Hampshire counties in West Virginia.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission and the Virginia State Corporation Commission will decide on the line segments in their respective states.

A portion of the line may be built near the Bhavana Society, which has a dormitory, dining and meditation halls, offices and a collection of meditation huts called “kutis” scattered throughout the 48-acre property.

The society practices an ancient form of Buddhism that uses the surrounding forest to meditate.

It offers free room and board to anyone who wishes to meditate, and relies on donations to survive.

On its original route, the power line would not have traversed the monastery’s property, but would have been less than 150 feet from the nearest kuti.

Bhante Rahula, the mona-stery’s vice abbot, has said the close proximity of the line could disrupt the meditation process, which requires a peaceful atmosphere. The crackling of the power line, and its very construction, could disrupt that atmosphere, he has said.

Rahula is also concerned about the effects of radiation generated by the line’s electro-magnetic fields.

The society fears the power line will drive away visitors, thus affecting donations.

The utilities filed the motion last week to revise the line’s route.

The new routing has the line crossing a nearby junkyard, putting it 475 feet away from the nearest monastery structure.

The society also wants the utilities to double-circuit the line, which means building it on top of an existing one. An existing power line lies roughly a quarter of a mile away from the monastery.

The utilities are “trying to force this modified route on us, while making it sound like that is the best solution,” a response from the society says.

The utilities argue in the motion if the line were double-circuited, it would be “within 400 feet of approximately 15 homes.”

Rahula countered 11 of the property owners that would be affected by the double-circuiting signed letters of support for the method. “[The utilities] are trying to make it act as all those people are against it,” he said.

Rahula wrote in a letter that the utilities should meet with residents living near the line to find a solution.

“Would they prefer the double [circuiting] even though it would mean taller towers, or would they prefer being sandwiched between two lines?” he writes.

The staff of the West Virginia commission has opposed the line, saying it wasn’t needed.

Yet the staff brokered an agreement with the utilities last month. The staff recommended approval of the line, while the utilities proffered money toward energy conservation programs and other programs.

The utilities also agreed to use double-circuiting, but only for a total of three miles for the entire 114-mile West Virginia segment.

Rahula has said the three-mile limit is arbitrary.

The commission will hold a hearing today on the agreement between the utilities and commission staff.

The Charleston Gazette reported on Saturday:

By Ken Ward Jr.
Staff writer

Opponents of a new power line across northern West Virginia tried on Friday to chip away at a settlement they worry may have paved the way for the $1.3 billion project.

Environmentalists and area residents quizzed developers during a state Public Service Commission hearing on the settlement between Allegheny Energy and the PSC’s staff and consumer advocate division.

Sierra Club lawyer Bill DePaulo acknowledged there are an “increasingly smaller number” of opponents, but said questions remain about the need for and possible impacts of the transmission line.

Commissioners are considering how much - if any - weight to give the settlement when deciding whether to approve construction of the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line, or TrAIL. While PSC staff agreed to the settlement, as did the agency’s consumer advocate, the settlement does not bind the commissioners themselves.

Allegheny Energy is seeking PSC approval to build the 500-kilovolt line that would carry electricity from southwestern Pennsylvania through West Virginia and into northern Virginia.

Power company officials say the line is needed to provide cheap and reliable power to big Eastern cities and their growing suburbs. But the project has drawn intense opposition from hundreds of West Virginians, who fear it will mar scenic views, lower their property values, and continue what they say is an environmentally damaging reliance on coal-fired power.

As originally proposed, the West Virginia portion of the transmission line would run about 114 miles through six counties, from north of Morgantown, through Monongalia, Preston and Tucker counties, and then across Grant, Hardy and Hampshire counties into Virginia.

Commissioners have set Aug. 2 as the deadline for issuing a ruling in the case.

In mid-April, Allegheny delivered a major blow to its opponents when it convinced the PSC staff and agency consumer advocate Byron Harris to drop their opposition and criticism of the project.

Under the settlement, Allegheny agreed to use an alternate route proposed by the consumer advocate, avoiding areas southwest of Morgantown where opposition has been concentrated. Allegheny also promised to move a transmission operations center in West Virginia and save customers more than $40 million in industry rate reductions, low-income assistance and conservation plans, and deferments of rate hikes to fund transmission line construction.

At the start of Friday’s hearing, a lawyer for a natural-gas power plant developer announced that his company was dropping its opposition to PSC approval for TrAIL.

Competitive Power Ventures Inc. lawyer Bob Rodecker did not explain the move, and PSC hearing chairman Jon McKinney refused to allow questions about the issue.

In March, CPV also dropped its opposition to Virginia’s approval of that state’s portion of the TrAIL project. The move came just before Dominion Resources, one of Allegheny’s partners in TrAIL, bought CPV’s proposed gas-fired plant in Warren County, Va.

One project opponent, Thomas Hildebrand, questioned whether Allegheny plans to use about $5 million in new federal grant money the company received for the $5 million in energy conservation program assistance promised under the settlement.

The amounts were nearly identical, Hildebrand said, and descriptions of the grant and the settlement sounded similar.

David Flitman, president of TrAIL, insisted there was no connection.

“They are separate projects,” Flitman testified. “We have a lot of projects. We fund a lot of things.”

A lawyer for the Bhavana Society Forest Monastery and Retreat Center said Allegheny’s plans to route the transmission line around his group’s facility is not satisfactory. Justin St. Clair said the Bhavana Society prefers its proposal for the company to instead use existing power line rights-of-way for that portion of the project.

Opposition has also surfaced to the settlement’s plan to reroute the project so that it runs along existing power lines farther south and from Pruntytown and Mount Storm.

Brad Swiger of Fairmont said that route would place his family’s property - and that of his neighbors’ - between two high-voltage transmission lines.

The Cumberland Times-News reported on Saturday:

Mona Ridder
Cumberland Times-News

While the West Virginia Public Service Commission is still considering a compromise plan offered by Allegheny Energy for its TrAILCo high voltage power line construction, Gov. Joe Manchin has provided a counter offer that calls for a tax, rate reductions for residents and other concessions by the utility conglomerate.

The governor’s proposal is in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Sierra Club of West Virginia, according to a press release from his office.

In it, Manchin says that he intends to pursue a transmission tax should either the federal government or the state Public Service Commission approve the project.

The governor said that it has been a concern “primarily because of the possibility of the federal government superseding any decision that may be made at the state level.”

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order a year ago interpreting the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to give the energy commission the power to issue a permit for construction of a new power line even if a state lawfully denied a site transmission application.

And while the feds have since said they want to think about that a bit more, the threat of eminent domain over the state still exists, not just for West Virginia, but all states through which such proposed high voltage power lines could be built.

Manchin’s proposal includes four components:

• Rate reductions for West Virginia’s citizens so that they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line.

• Extra revenue for the counties that house the line.

• Extra revenue for the state that will allow it to provide additional services to all its citizens.

• Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line.

The governors of Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia have already gone on record saying they would fight the federal government on the issue of overruling the states’ right to deny permits for the project.

TrAIL, also known as the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line, to be constructed by Allegheny Energy is not the only high voltage line being considered for construction in the region.

TrAIL is proposed to go from Virginia through West Virginia and Pennsylvania to improve transmission within the PJM grid to the Eastern Seaboard.

Likewise, PATH, the American Electric Power proposed high-voltage Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, is also to be constructed in the region. This approximately 290-mile, extra-high voltage transmission line would go from West Virginia into Maryland also with the participation of Allegheny Energy.

The citizen protest against the TrAIL project has been considerable with county and state officials in the region voicing their opposition as well.

In an effort to obtain the permit it seeks from the West Virginia Public Service District, Allegheny offered a compromise which included that its West Virginia utilities (Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company) and TrAILCo will locate 100 to 150 managerial, professional, technical and administrative jobs in north-central West Virginia as well as construction of a new facility in the state with an estimated cost of $50 million. Annual payroll and benefits associated with the jobs at this facility are estimated at $12 million.

Monongahela Power and Potomac Edison will not seek recovery in West Virginia of the transmission charges associated with TrAIL (estimated to be more than $31 million) for seven years.

The proposal also calls for TrAILCo to contribute $5 million to fund energy conservation programs and assistance plans for low-income customers in the state over a five-year period.

Monongahela Power and Potomac Edison will provide rate relief in the form of credits totaling approximately $5.7 million to industrial customers for the years 2010 and 2011.

Allegheny has steadfastly argued that the TrAIL project is necessary to prevent future electric transmission failures in the form of blackouts and other problems.

The Dominion Post reported today:

By J. Miles Layton, The Dominion Post, Morgantown, W.Va.

Jun. 2–Morgantown City Council has sent a letter to the state’s Public Service Commission expressing its opposition to the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line.

“Collectively we felt we must speak up because of the impact it could have on the area surrounding Morgantown,” Mayor Ron Justice said. “Council wanted to be able to go on record with a position and felt this was not in the best interest of Morgantown.”

Allen Staggers, Allegheny spokesman, said the city is entitled to its opinion.

“We’re disappointed,” he said. “Their letter will be on the record and the commissions will give some consideration to it.”

If approved by the PSC, the project would start in Pennsylvania, pass through West Virginia and continue to northern Virginia.

The letter said TrAIL is wrong for West Virginia and Monongalia County.

“The City urges you to defer TrAIL planning for further consideration and creative revamping,” wrote Dan Boroff, city manager, in the letter dated May 12. “In today’s world, building a bigger road rarely solves a transportation problem. In the same vein, building a larger transmission system will not make West Virginia’s problems more manageable. On the contrary, it will make living in the area more unsafe, more unhealthy, more costly, and less beneficial.”

Staggers countered that the power line by itself will not create a power-generating ghetto in the region.

“There’s no evidence that that approval of the line will prompt the location of coal generation power production in the Monongahela Valley,” he said.

The letter said council believes the TrAIL plan is ill-advised for the following reasons:

Allegheny officials recognize that TrAIL will allow their company to raise rates on West Virginia customers to levels consistent with rates charged to customers throughout the power market in which their energy is sold.

Concentrating the production of coal-generated power production in the Monongahela Valley, primarily in locations 25 miles or less from Morgantown, will create a power ghetto in the area with increased air pollution, water pollution and health problems for area residents. The air quality in this area is already near or at nonattainment levels.

The construction of TrAIL and the increased power production in the valley will diminish property values and diminish the attractiveness of the area to businesses, services and institutions seeking a quality of life for their employees.

The TrAIL plan will relieve East Coast metropolitan areas from sharing the responsibility for their own power generation and conservation. This point has been repeatedly made during TrAIL hearings, and it is an important consideration for the future well-being of the economy.

The TrAIL plan also creates a power delivery system to multiple destinations that is vulnerable at any single point along the transmission lines to terrorist activity.

Staggers said the line is good for West Virginia and is a necessary part of the nation’s electricity grid. The company has a legal responsibility to maintain reliability and deliver electricity to its customers, he said. Infrastructure additions are part of that obligation.

West Virginia and other states in the region could see blackouts and brownouts as early as 2011 if the line is not built, Staggers said.

The Dominion Post reported today:

By J. Miles Layton, The Dominion Post, Morgantown, W.Va.

Jun. 2–The West Virginia Public Service Commission continues to meet to hear from supporters as well as opposition to Allegheny Energy’s plans to build a 500-kiloVolt power line though six counties in the state.

The PSC again met last week to listen to comments concerning a proposed agreement among some of the major parties involved in Allegheny’s plans.

Though the commission has yet to approve or deny the power line, its staff and consumer advocate division, Allegheny Energy and the West Virginia Energy User’s Group agreed in April on a proposed route, financial incentives and other perks if the line is approved.

The commission did not make any decision regarding the agreement.

“This is a chance for all of the parties to present evidence why they support the agreement or crossexamine the parties to the case to demonstrate why they oppose the settlement agreement,” said Allen Staggers, Allegheny spokesman. “We hope the outcome is that the body of evidence supports the agreement and it is in the best interest of all the parties who signed the agreement — all the people in West Virginia.”

The Sierra Club has opposed the line from the start and was not a party to the agreement. Jim Kotcon, Sierra Club spokesman, said the group sought answers about why other opponents of the power line changed their minds after saying weeks earlier that the line was unnecessary.

“The Sierra Club pointed out that the PSC still has no credible evidence that the line is needed,” he said. “Under our questioning, PSC staff witness Earl Melton acknowledged that their own analysis still shows no need for the line before 2014, and that a route through Maryland would be cheaper and environmentally preferable compared to either route proposed in West Virginia.”

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from the Sierra Club, the governor’s office released information on a proposed transmission tax that Gov. Joe Manchin intends to pursue should either the federal government or the state PSC approve the TrAIL project.

Kotcon said the Sierra Club sought the records to nail down what Manchin’s position is on TrAIL.

“The Sierra Club submitted FOIA requests to the governor for documents regarding TrAILCo because Gov. Manchin has been very inconsistent in his position,” he said. “He appears to have been for the line before he was against it, and now claims to be opposed, but still tells TrAILCo we will benefit from it. We want to see if these or other statements influenced PSC staff to reverse their previous opposition to the line.”

The governor’s proposed plan comprises four components:

Rate reductions for West Virginia’s citizens so they will pay less, not more, for the power they will receive from the line.

Extra revenue for the counties that house the line.

Extra revenue for the state that will allow it to provide additional services to all its citizens. Free electricity for all landowners who are affected by the placement of the line.

Should the project be approved, Manchin wants the communities along the power line’s 114-mile route to receive some benefit.

“If the TrAIL line is approved, either by the PSC or the federal government, we will stand ready to make sure that our citizens aren’t taken advantage of and instead receive a benefit from its placement in West Virginia,” Manchin said.

In May 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order interpreting the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to say that FERC had the power to issue a permit for construction of a power line even if a state lawfully denied a site transmission application.

John Balasko, vice president of the Halleck Community Association, said any plans or proposals regarding TrAIL are shortsighted.

“All of these settlement agreements and ideas for resolution of the TrAIL case that have been authored by TrAILCo, and discussed and amended by the PSC Consumer Advocate Division, PSC staff, the West Virginia Energy User’s Group and the governor are too late in the procedural process, too rushed, too one-sided, without equal input of affected state residents and intervenors, and lack the in-depth and thorough cost/benefit analysis required,” he said. “TrAILCo should be required to go back to the drawing board and consider less expensive alternatives.”

Staggers said the need for the TrAIL facilities is driven by load growth in the Mid-Atlantic and northern Virginia areas, as well as the southwestern Pennsylvania portion of Allegheny Power’s zone, including the ever-expanding Pittsburgh suburbs. The company has a legal responsibility to maintain reliability and deliver electricity to its customers, he said, and that infrastructure additions — such as the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line project — are part of that obligation.