PSC Meets to Discuss TrAIL Line: Hears Comments on Proposed Agreement (Dominion Post)
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.