Capon Valley Coalition

From the Sept. 2 edition of the Charleston Gazette:

By Kellen Henry

Allegheny Power requested an 18 percent rate increase on Friday, which would be the largest electricity rate increase in the state’s history if approved, according to the state Public Service Commission. (Emphasis added)

“We’re still in shock because the increase is so large, but the cost of coal has gone up dramatically in the past year,” said Byron Harris of the PSC’s consumer advocate division.

The company wants to increase residential rates by 18 percent and some commercial and industrial rates by 20 percent, Harris said. The power company, part of Allegheny Energy Inc., serves about 490,000 customers in West Virginia, many in the state’s north-central region.

The consumer advocate division had not completed its review of the power company’s proposal on Friday, but said the major culprit is rising fuel costs.

With an 18 percent increase, customers who use an average of 1,000 kilowatts of power would go from paying about $70.50 to more than $83. (Emphasis added)

The proposed hike seeks to raise about $173 million to cover expenses, beating out the 17 percent request made in March by Appalachian Power and Wheeling Power to raise $156 million. (Emphasis added)

The PSC approved an 11.35 percent increase for those companies, which began affecting Charleston customers in July. The commission will review Allegheny Power’s increase proposal and decide whether to approve the rate increase in full or in part before Jan. 1.

“I certainly hope that this full amount also does not go into effect,” Harris said.

The last rate shift the PSC approved for Allegheny Energy was a rate decrease in May of 2007, saving consumers about $1 on their monthly bills. (Emphasis added)

With this possible rate increase on the heels of water and natural gas price hikes, consumer advocates encourage people to replace inefficient appliances try to cut down energy consumption.

Your Sept. 2 editorial “Across State Lines” is an inaccurate and incomplete analysis, with a questionable conclusion, of the recommendation of Pennsylvania administrative law judges to the state Public Utility Commission that the TrAIL power line not be approved.

You might as well have printed the press releases of Dominion and Allegheny Power, the companies which will reap huge profits from its construction. The judges concluded that “the proposed project is a grandiose answer to a minor or even non-existent problem”, that “the costs and adverse impacts” of the line “clearly outweigh the benefits”, and that “non transmission solutions” were not studied by TrAILCO. Of course they weren’t, since there are no profits for them in alternative solutions.

The power line, which as you stated does not serve West Virginia, was approved by the state Public Service Commission, after more than a year-long period of state-wide hearings and public comment. Thousands of citizens and many organizations protested by letters, petitions and public testimony, overwhelmingly opposing TrAIL.

The PSC staff concluded that Allegheny Power had failed to prove the stated need for the power line. This recommendation was then reversed, and approved by the Commission, not because Allegheny Power did prove their case, but because they contributed several million dollars to state programs, and promised to reduce rates to users affected by the line.

On Aug. 29 Allegheny Power requested from the PSC a $173 million rate increase. The Chairman of the Commission is a former partner in the law firm which represents Allegheny Power in this case, and was appointed last year by Governor Joe Manchin.

Another even larger and more destructive line, the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH), was applied for by Allegheny Power a few days before approval of the TrAIL line. Business as usual in West Virginia, with regard to the interests of the coal and power industries.

You failed to mention that people are having their property taken against their will, that property values and the environment are being destroyed, that Congressman Joe Wolf and many other officials, in Virginia and other affected states, vigorously oppose the line, and that there is ample evidence refuting its stated need.

The National Energy Policy Act, which allows the Federal government to overrule states opposing power lines, was written by the Bush Administration with the help of the Energy industry, and is the target of many congressional efforts to revise it.

It is surprising and disappointing to see the Washington Post taking the position stated in your editorial. I suggest a thorough study on your part of the many issues involved, and of the opinions and evidence of opponents of more reckless power line construction.

WILLIAM GOLEMON
Capon Valley Coalition
Yellow Spring, WV

Here’s a shock!

Released on the Friday before a three-day weekend. Hmm. Guess they didn’t want anyone to notice.

Allegheny Power, the electric delivery subsidiary of Allegheny Energy, Inc. AYE, today submitted a request to the Public Service Commission of West Virginia to recover an additional $173 million (annualized) in fuel and purchased power costs, effective January 1, 2009.

The proposed increase is largely due to the dramatic rise in coal prices, which is the single largest component of Allegheny’s cost of producing electricity. Since the company’s current rates went into effect in 2007, coal prices have more than tripled, rising 236 percent. Under a cost recovery clause established by the commission last year, customer bills are adjusted annually to reflect upward or downward changes in the cost of fuel and purchased power.

Allegheny’s rates in the state have been stable for many years. On January 1, 1998, the average residential 1,000 kilowatt-hour customer bill was about $70. Today it is about $73, which is among the lowest in the nation.

After the proposed rate increase, the monthly bill for a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt-hours will be approximately $86, an increase of about $13 compared to current rates. This is well below the regional average of $100 and the national average of $104.

The filing today was made jointly by Monongahela Power Company and The Potomac Edison Company, both subsidiaries of Allegheny Energy.

From the Post Gazette yesterday:

By Janice Crompton, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Allegheny Power is standing by its plans to construct a high-voltage power line through Washington and Greene counties despite a resolute recommendation against the project.

State Public Utility Commission administrative law judges Mark A. Hoyer and Michael A. Nemec gave a scolding rebuke to the utility over its plans for the 37-mile, 500-kilovolt power line, saying it wasn’t needed.

They added that a companion project for a power line from Greene County to Virginia was an effort to ship “cheaper coal-fired generation” along an “energy superhighway” to the east.

The judges, whose recommendation will be considered by the five-member PUC commission next month, also took issue with the power company over its wisdom to situate the massive power lines near so many residences, its lack of research on environmental impacts, and its disregard for the affects of electromagnetic fields.

The $1.1 billion project could be scuttled if the PUC denies the Greensburg-based company’s application to build the power lines in Pennsylvania, because even though West Virginia approved the project earlier this month — and Virginia is on track to do so, too — both states have said the project won’t get the final go-ahead until it’s been approved by all three states.

The 364-page recommendation released Aug. 21 was “very disappointing,” said company spokesman Doug Colafella.

It’s even more of a let-down, Mr. Colafella said, because the proposed rejection contrasts so much from the decision to approve the project in West Virginia and a recommendation to do so in Virginia.

“They agreed it’s needed — that’s why we’re so terribly disappointed in the Pennsylvania decision,” he said, referring to opinions from other states.

The judges even warned against approving the Allegheny Energy subsidiary, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Co., or TrAILCo as it is known, as a public utility, saying it was an out-of-state corporation with no full-time employees or discernible assets.

Allegheny Energy is the parent company of Allegheny Power, and the TrAILCo subsidiary was created to oversee and implement transmission line projects.

Although West Virginia Public Service Commission officials at first advised against the project with a long list of concerns, the state worked out an agreement with the company which called for changes in a portion of the selected route, up to 150 new jobs for the state, and certain other perks, like a seven-year reprieve from higher electric bills.

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin also has said he would like to find a way to tax the profits on the power line.

Locally, the proposed project would involve the construction of an electric substation in North Strabane called Prexy, which would connect transmission lines on massive towers to another new substation called the 502 Junction — 36 miles away in Dunkard, Greene County. The Prexy station also would include three smaller 138-kilovolt power lines to service local customers.

The second portion of the line would start at the 502 Junction, travel 1.2 miles to the West Virginia border, and continue about 240 miles through West Virginia and into Northern Virginia. The Virginia part of the line would be built by Dominion Virginia Power. The target completion date is 2011.

In its approval of the multistate project, the West Virginia PSC cites the regional nature of the venture — something not mentioned in the report by Mr. Hoyer and Mr. Nemec.

Mr. Colafella said the provincial attitude of the Pennsylvania judges shouldn’t stand in the way of the project.

“[West Virginia] agreed that you can’t look at a regional project in a vacuum,” he said.

Mr. Colafella may have a point, because if the PUC board denies the application — a decision is expected in late September or October — the company could lobby the federal government to approve the project anyway.

It’s part of the Energy Act of 2005, which includes a provision allowing the federal government to override state decisions regarding the location of transmission lines.

Spawned by the 2003 blackout in the Northeast, the Act also allows the federal government to seize private property by eminent domain. The U.S. Department of Energy designated a National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor over a large swath of the Northeast, including 52 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. It is within that corridor that the federal government is permitted to take action.

Lawmakers, including U.S. Sen. Bob Casey, have been trying to overturn that part of the Act for months, including during a recent hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, when Mr. Casey, D-Pa., targeted Allegheny Power for its tactics to sway homeowners to sell rights-of-way for the project.

Agents acting on the company’s behalf were accused of pressuring and misinforming homeowners about the project. Without admitting guilt, the company fired one of its land contractors after the charges came to light.

The PUC also has filed suit to reduce the size and scope of the corridors.

In their recommended denial of the project, Mr. Nemec and Mr. Hoyer called the proposed Prexy line “a grandiose answer to a minor or even non-existent problem,” saying the company’s claims that rolling brownouts and blackouts could occur within the next several years are exaggerated.

The four scenarios cited by the company which they said could lead to power failures are based on at least two things going wrong simultaneously, which is not a standard measure for reliability and could be addressed by far less drastic measures, the judges said.

“Based on our review of the entire record, we have concluded that little or no need for reinforcement …exists and/or non-intrusive options are available, and probably should have been put in place before now,” said the opinion.

As for the larger multistate project, the judges said a failure by Virginia to address a lack of power generation isn’t Pennsylvania’s problem.

“Granting approval of the 502 Junction [to Virginia] segment at this juncture rewards a lack of foresight and proper maintenance, and has policy implications for the location of future generation…” they said. “Non-transmission alternatives were not considered.”

Members of the grass roots Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania were happy with the recommendation.

“We are understandably pleased with the conclusion of the judges, who confirmed that these lines are not needed for reliability — and are not in the best interest of Pennsylvania,” the group said in a statement. “The future of Pennsylvania’s energy independence is dependent on forward-thinking, clear-eyed decisions such as this.”

The judges also were critical of the company’s selected route for the power line from Prexy to the 502 Junction, saying that among the four options considered, the route chosen contains the highest number of residences with 500 feet of the power line and would require the clearing of 448 acres of forest.

The company failed to consider using the Interstates 70 and 79 corridors and has not sought approval from other state agencies, such as the state Department of Environmental Protection.

In response to the numerous health concerns expressed by property owners, the judges discredited a TrAILCo expert who said that electromagnetic field evidence is insufficient to conclude that high-voltage power lines have any long-term health effects by pointing out that he was not an epidemiologist and therefore was unqualified to make such a determination.

They cited findings by the International Agency for Research and Cancer and the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences, which have said electromagnetic fields are considered to be possible carcinogens with respect to childhood leukemia.

The judges expressed concern about herbicides that would be used to control vegetation beneath the power lines, and questioned the company’s request to be exempt from local zoning regulations, saying that no detailed plans of the substations or transmission towers were submitted.

They also urged the PUC board not to allow the company the authority to seize private property for the project, as it had requested.

The company and other interested parties have the opportunity to file exceptions to the decision and then replies to those exceptions. Exceptions are due Sept. 10 and replies are due Sept. 22.

Mr. Colafella said the company is “intensely focused” on crafting its response, which will reiterate the need for the project.

“We stand by both projects because we feel they are needed,” he said. “We need new lines. That’s what it really comes down to, whether you want them in your backyard or not.”

Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton@post-gazette.com or 724-223-0156.

First published on August 31, 2008 at 12:00 am

CVC chairman Bill Golemon, along with many others in the Capon Valley Coalition, is carrying on the fight. This isn’t over yet.

Here is what Bill sent to the editors of The Hampshire Review on Aug. 25:

Editor: Members of the Capon Valley Coalition would like to compliment the Hampshire Review for its editorial cartoon of August 6th depicting the state of West Virginia as one big electrical outlet, with power coming from states to the west and going to states to the east.

Congratulations also to Abby Chapple and Ralph Wojtowicz for their letters to the editor on August 13 and 20, summarizing again the damage that the TrAIL and PATH power lines will do to our environment, property rights and values, and quality of life.

It’s shameful that the people and state of West Virginia continue to be exploited for the interests and profits of the electric and gas power industries. Governor Manchin and the state Public Service Commission will undoubtedly approve the PATH proposal, since they have shown that they put Allegheny Power’s interests above those of the thousands of citizens who have actively opposed them.

In Pennsylvania, state judges have recommended agaist TrAIL approval, on the grounds that it is not needed, and in Virginia the Piedmont Environmental Council continues to lead opposition to it. In West Virginia the Sierra Club plans to appeal the PSC approval to the State Supreme Court, and individuals like Thomas Hildebrand of Moorefield are filing petitions of appeal and questioning the procedures followed by the PSC.

Hampshire County Commissioners are to be commended for attempting to make Allegheny Power pay building permit fees before they destroy our property and environment. Needless to say Allegheny Power opposes this, and despite their “window-dressing” deal so proudly announced by Governor Manchin, they intend to continue to run roughshod over the citizens of Hampshire and neighboring counties.
Bill Golemon
Yellow Spring

Add your voice, too.