Capon Valley Coalition

The Pittsburgh Tribune Review reported today that Allegheny Power will build a new operations center near Morgantown as part of an effort to win approval for the TrAIL power line in West Virginia.

The story follows:

Allegheny Energy Inc. within three years will build a $50 million operations center in the Morgantown, W.Va., area for its power transmission business and staff it with up to 150 engineers, planners, siting experts and administrators.

An undetermined number of the staff will come from the company’s operations in Greensburg, Westmoreland County, a spokesman said.

Agreeing to build the center is a major piece of a settlement pact between the Greensburg-based energy company, the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission and a group of large West Virginia electricity users known as the West Virginia Energy Users Group.

The pact is part of Allegheny Energy’s efforts to gain a go-ahead for its proposed $1.2 billion, 500-kilovolt, 240-mile power line called the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line, or TrAIL, between Washington County and Loudoun County, Va. Most of it would pass through West Virginia.

“The agreement would bring additional jobs to West Virginia, shield our West Virginia customers from project-related costs for seven years, provide funding for conservation and low-income energy assistance programs, and address many issues raised by the commission’s staff,” David Flitman, president of Allegheny Energy’s transmission and distribution unit, Allegheny Power, said in a statement.

Building a facility consolidating transmission-related personnel now located in Greensburg and throughout Allegheny Energy’s service territory isn’t new, said spokesman Doug Colafella. It’s part of the company’s long-range plan. It’s not known how many Greensburg personnel would be relocated. Allegheny Energy has about 1,000 employees in Greensburg.

While a specific site for the operations center hasn’t been selected, Colafella said more than likely property near Morgantown would be chosen, saying the area already contains a number of Allegheny Energy transmission lines.

“Our long-term plan was to build an operations center near where most of our transmission lines are, and where TrAIL and PATH will run, and that’s West Virginia,” Colafella said.

PATH, the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, is a $1.8 billion joint venture between Allegheny Energy and American Electric Power of Columbus, Ohio. It will span about 290 miles beginning at American Electric’s John Amos coal-fired power plant near St. Albans, W.Va., and run northeast through West Virginia carrying 765 kilovolts, the highest-voltage power line in use, before changing to twin 500-kilovolt lines for the path through rural central Maryland to a substation to be built near Frederick, Md.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission is expected to make a decision by June 2, with Allegheny Energy also needing approvals from the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the Virginia State Corporation Commission to construct the entire Trans-Allegheny transmission line.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported Saturday on hearings about Allegheny Power’s TrAIL plan that will start on Monday:

Forces that have debated the merits for nearly two years of Allegheny Energy Inc.’s 240-mile, $1.2 billion power transmission line proposed for Southwestern Pennsylvania and two other states are set for three weeks of high-voltage testimony.

On Monday, the state Public Utility Commission is scheduled to begin all-day, evidentiary hearings on the proposal at the state office building, 300 Liberty Ave., Downtown.

Administrative Law Judges Michael A. Nemec and Mark Hoyer have been assigned to hear detailed, in many cases highly technical, testimony for and against the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line, known by the acronym TrAIL.

“This evidentiary hearing will give us the opportunity to demonstrate the careful evaluation undertaken to address reliability issues in Southwestern Pennsylvania,” said David E. Flitman, president of Allegheny Power, the power transmission-distribution unit of Greensburg-based Allegheny Power Inc.

The Trans-Allegheny project includes one primary 500-kilovolt line stretching from near Eighty Four, Washington County, into West Virginia, then east to Loudoun County, Va., about 35 miles west of Washington, D.C.

In addition, three smaller 138-kilovolt lines are in the Pennsylvania portion of the project.

Allegheny Energy’s share of the total bill is about $850 million.

“We believe the reliability issues that Allegheny Energy says are the reasons for building the project are not supported in the data,” said Willard Burns, an attorney in the Pittsburgh office of Pepper Hamilton LLP, which represents the Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania in fighting the project.

Allegheny Energy contends that except for a 1.2-mile section of the line from the so-called 502 Junction power substation to the West Virginia border, the project within Pennsylvania addresses local electricity reliability needs.

Not everyone agrees with the company’s appraisal.

“We believe that the 500-kilovolt line through Washington and Greene counties isn’t necessary,” said Irwin “Sonny” Popowsky, the state’s consumer advocate. “Our expert witness believes that construction of smaller transmission lines on existing company rights-of-way would be less costly and cause less environmental impact.”

Public Utility Commission Office of Trial Staff analyst Gary Yocca previously testified he doesn’t believe Allegheny Energy has satisfied all applicable statutes and regulations regarding the new transmission line.

Attorney Burns said the PUC’s administrative law judges will make their recommendations on the project to the full commission sometime in June, with PUC decision to come later this year.

The Trans-Allegheny hearings come days after the U.S. Department Energy announced it wouldn’t hold additional hearings concerning its National Electric Transmission Corridor report and order.

The corridors are areas of the country the Energy Department determined as experiencing power transmission congestion, and which offer a wide variety of potential sources of electric generation.

The order forming the corridors was announced last year and immediately was criticized by a variety of politicians, including Gov. Ed Rendell, landowners and environmentalists as overly broad, including huge geographic areas in the Northeast and Southwest.

The Northeast corridor, for example, includes 52 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, with Allegheny Energy’s proposed Trans-Allegheny project included within the corridor’s boundaries.

Rick Stouffer can be reached at rstouffer@tribweb.com or 412-320-7853.

From today’s editions of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Law allows agency to dictate placement of power lines

Opponents of a high-voltage power line project in Washington and Greene counties have received encouraging news.

Last week, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said it would hold hearings to review how the U.S. Department of Energy is implementing its controversial transmission corridor program.

The program allows the federal government to overrule state decisions about placement of electric transmission lines. It allows property to be taken for the lines using eminent domain, and has faced harsh criticism in recent months.

Also new on the power line front, the state Public Utility Commission will begin evidentiary hearings March 24 on the application of Greensburg-based Allegheny Power to build the Pennsylvania portion of a proposed 240-mile, 500-kilovolt transmission line. The line would extend from Washington and Greene counties in Pennsylvania to existing substations in West Virginia and end in northern Virginia.

Allegheny’s 210-mile portion of the line would cost $820 million to build, with the total project estimated at more than $1 billion. The smaller portion of the line would be constructed and paid for by Dominion Virginia Power, which serves customers in Virginia.

Allegheny Power, calling the project the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Project, or TrAIL, has already provided the PUC with testimony from 19 witnesses, while a local opposition group, the Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania, has responded with three experts.

The company is facing challenges from more than just local groups, though.

Company testimony regarding the need for the power line so far has been rebutted by two witnesses for the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate, and from a supervisor from the PUC Office of Trial Staff, who called the application “premature at best.”

PUC Supervisor Gary Yocca questioned Allegheny Power’s application after analysis, testifying that the company had not yet done enough to merit approval of the application.

Mr. Yocca said that while the company says the new power line is needed to address anticipated local system failures and brownouts within the next several years, he questioned whether there could be less costly and intrusive methods.

He said the company failed to follow through on an assessment of the environmental impact of the project and apparently no federal or state agency examined the project. Mr. Yocca said there are questions about the effects on farmland, forest land, plants and wildlife, and the significance for historic and archaeological sites.
Other consequences loom

And, while he took note of local residents’ objections to the scenic dilemma presented by high-voltage transmission towers, Mr. Yocca warned of far more serious consequences.

In his testimony, Mr. Yocca reminded PUC board members of the longwall coal mining operations peppering Washington and Greene counties and of the susceptible limestone ground structure.

He said the 125-foot to 150-foot transmission towers could be affected by future mining operations or mine subsidence.

“If subsidence occurs under a [high voltage transmission line] tower, the results could be catastrophic,” he said.

Allegheny Energy spokesman David Neurohr said the company will address rebuttal testimony from the PUC and other sources during the evidentiary hearings.

“That will be the process,” he said. “That is what they are for.”

Will Burns, a lawyer with the Energy Conservation Council of Pennsylvania, said his group is gearing up for the fight against the power company and said he appreciates the work by Pennsylvania’s state and national legislative delegations.

He said the decision by the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold hearings “was indicative of how important Pennsylvania legislators think this is.”

A team of 38 Democratic state legislators, led by state House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, recently urged the Senate committee to investigate the implementation of a provision in the Energy Act of 2005 that gives the federal government jurisdiction over what has traditionally been state land-use decisions.

Mr. DeWeese’s letter to the committee came on the heels of one sent by U.S. Sen. Bob Casey earlier last month.

Energy law at issue

Pennsylvania, along with a number of states, has objected to the Department of Energy designating a large swath of the Northeast and parts of the Southwest as a national interest electric transmission corridor — or NIETC.

The Mid-Atlantic designation in the Northeast, which encompasses eight states, the District of Columbia, and 50 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties, means the federal government will have the right to overrule state decisions involving the location of electric transmission lines and to take private property through eminent domain for such projects.

If a state denies a construction permit to a power company, makes no decision within a year, or places too many restrictions on the company, it would have the right to seek a permit from the federal government if the project is within a NIETC.

Already, Southern California Edison has asked federal regulators to approve the siting of a 500-kilovolt electric transmission line through Arizona after that state denied approval last year, saying it didn’t want to be an “extension cord for California.”

Late last month, a vice president for Dominion Virginia Power testified that the company would not rule out seeking federal intervention if state approval is denied.

Mr. Casey has become the national voice against the large regional corridors, which critics say defy the intent of the law — to address electric reliability and congestion after the 2003 blackout in the northeast U.S.

Senators, governors and others have proposed that the corridors be of reasonable size and include critically congested areas in need of transmission and new generation. Local groups have expressed concern that Western Pennsylvania’s relatively cheap coal-fired electricity will be shipped to the power-starved East Coast.

Senate to air concerns

Mr. Casey and other legislators have tried obstructing and amending the law to no avail. Mr. Casey even threatened to delay the renomination of Joseph Kelliher, Federal Energy Regulatory Committee chairman, to block implementation of the NIETC.

The most serious concerns raised by officials include the failure by the DOE to consult with states before the final NIETC designation and to assess transmission needs and alternatives.

Another major concern was the lack of alterations to the draft NIETC proposals last year. After more than 2,000 comments from the public, along with state and local officials, the DOE published the final designation with only token changes.

Last month, Mr. Casey sent a letter signed by 14 other senators to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, urging Chairman Jeff Bingaman, D-New Mexico, ranking member Pete Domenici, R-New Mexico, to delve further into how the transmission corridor program is being administered.

Last week, Leon Lowery, a member of the professional staff for the committee, said there would be a hearing on the NIETC issues.

“There will be a number of hearings on electricity issues,” he said. “Among those things are the corridor issues.”

Mr. Lowery said there has been no schedule set yet for the hearings, but that the transmission corridors would likely not receive a separate hearing.

Janice Crompton can be reached at jcrompton@post-gazette.com or 724-223-0156.
First published on March 9, 2008 at 12:00 am

This was passed on to us by one of our friends in River Ridge. There is not date on it.

Energy Washington Week

“Senate Panel To Hold Oversight Hearing On Transmission Corridors”

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee has indicated it plans to hold an oversight hearing on the DOE’s implementation of the transmission corridor program, which permits the federal government to overrule state concerns in siting transmission lines in certain circumstances. The hearings are being prompted by a bipartisan coalition of 14 senators who say DOE has exceeded its authority in establishing high-priority transmission areas and has infringed on state rights.

DOE received widespread condemnation after issuing a final rule last October that designated large swaths of land in the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest as corridors. Environmentalist and state officials charged DOE with ignoring state concerns and flouting environmental protection obligations. The corridor designations are an early step in a process that may lead to the federal government siting transmission lines, a program supported by utilities due to needed transmission infrastructure upgrades in the nation’s most populous regions.

Speaking at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) winter meeting Feb. 19 in Washington, Leon Lowery, who is on the committee’s Democratic staff, said that the committee needs to have a variety of hearings on past pieces of legislation, one of which is the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) program authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

“There are a number of areas that we feel that we need [to have] hearings” on, he said. “There’s the siting authority we need to look at it and see how it’s working.”

Lowery also referenced a letter that 14 senators sent to Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Ranking Member Pete Domenici (R-NM), requesting that the committee hold oversight hearings on DOE’s implementation of the program. The comments appeared to come in response to the letter, which requested the hearing to “bring all pertinent information to bear on the broad implications of the NIETC.” The legislation directed DOE to determine the areas of the country with a high level of electricity congestion and to designate those areas as “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.” Once designated, transmission line applications in those corridors that languish at the state level or are rejected can be appealed to FERC for siting authority. The program has been very controversial, leading to multiple lawsuits against DOE and numerous outcries by affected law makers.

NARUC had opposed the legislation in 2005, hoping to keep the siting control at the state level.

Lawmakers opposed to the DOE designations have sought to change or obstruct the policy numerous times over the past year. Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) threatened to hold the re-nomination of FERC Chairman Joseph Kelliher over the program, and also offered an amendment to the farm bill, which would have blocked some of the legislation. The amendment was defeated.

Environmentalists have sued DOE over the program, alleging that the department violated National Environmental Policy Act and other statutory obligations for failing to conduct an environmental impact statement and failing to adequately consult with states.

The groups also plan on filing for a preliminary injunction which would delay applicants’ time line for appealing to FERC. As it stands now, applications filed before Oct. 5, 2007 can be appealed to FERC on Oct. 5, 2008. Criteria for appealing to FERC includes the application pending at the state level for over one year.

Lowery also said that the committee plans on having an oversight hearing on RTO electricity markets, focusing on “accountability” to discern whether customers are “getting what they pay for.” — Will Harrington

The Washington Post reported today on the TrAIL battle on the other side of the state line:

RICHMOND — Dominion Virginia Power, the state’s largest power company and a major force in the General Assembly, is facing what might be an unprecedented challenge to one of its planned transmission lines.

Starting Monday, the company and its opponents will square off at hearings in Richmond over a proposal to erect a 65-mile power line, carried atop 15-story steel towers, that would send electricity surging east across farms and forests in Northern Virginia.

Dominion Virginia Power says the line is needed to feed a voracious appetite for energy in the Washington area. Opponents say that the utility has exaggerated the need for the line and that the project would spoil a historic landscape and contribute to global warming.

The hearings mark a new phase in a two-year battle that has galvanized landowners, local officials and environmental groups throughout Northern Virginia, many of whom campaigned to defeat a proposal in 1994 by the Walt Disney Co. to build a theme park in Prince William County.

Over the next few weeks, engineers and industry specialists are expected to testify before the State Corporation Commission about the need for the $243 million project. Dominion officials say it would buttress an ailing electrical grid and help avoid the threat of blackouts, expected to start in 2011.

John D. Smatlak, Dominion’s vice president for electric transmission, characterized the opponents’ efforts as perhaps the greatest test Dominion has faced over a transmission line. But he said there also have been supporters, including Northern Virginia businesses.

“We’ve gotten hundreds of letters of support,” he said. “They see the amount of growth happening in Northern Virginia. They see that they are using more power than they used to. And they know it has to come from somewhere.”

But opponents of the proposal, which would connect power plants in western Pennsylvania to a substation in Loudoun County, have been campaigning against the project since it was announced.

“We have been preparing for this for two years,” said Chris Miller, executive director of the nonprofit Piedmont Environmental Council, which has raised more than $3 million to fight the project. Miller said no group has ever raised that much to oppose the utility. “We want to do the best job we can in presenting a factual case to the State Corporation Commission that demonstrates this project is a power line searching for a purpose,” Miller said.

It will be months before the three-judge commission, which regulates utilities and businesses, decides whether the project can go forward. It is a complex case with dozens of participants, and it may finally be decided by the Virginia Supreme Court or federal regulators.

The power line battle resembles others around the nation. Utilities in New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have introduced a flurry of power plant and transmission line projects in recent years. The utilities say the projects are needed to feed growing energy demands and fend off massive failures such as the one that plunged the Northeast into darkness for a day in August 2003.

Two other large power lines have been proposed for the Washington area. One would start in West Virginia and end close to the Montgomery County border. The other would begin in Prince William, extend through Southern Maryland and then cross the Chesapeake Bay to the Eastern Shore.

“We are in a mode today where there’s an urgent need to beef up our energy delivery system, and transmission is part of that,” said David Owens, executive vice president of the Edison Electric Institute, a trade association. “Even if you have the most aggressive energy-efficiency program, there is still the need to build new power facilities as well as transmission facilities in order to maintain the reliability we are accustomed to.”

The reliance on long-distance transmission lines worries environmentalists who say the lines and steel towers would ruin the landscape and spur the construction of large power plants that emit greenhouse gases and hasten global warming.

Opponents also argue that the Dominion line is not needed for Virginia. Experts for the opposition are expected to testify during the hearings that the company has exaggerated the region’s energy needs and that the company’s true purpose is to sell electricity to lucrative markets in New York.

“If you look at the size of this line, the capacity of the line, and you compare that to the expected growth in the whole Northern Virginia area over the next decade, the line is grossly out of proportion,” said Mitchell S. Diamond, a former energy official at Booz Allen Hamilton. “There are other solutions that would be better.”

Foremost among the opponents is the Warrenton-based Piedmont Environmental Council, which has helped shape outlying parts of Northern Virginia with its anti-sprawl efforts, which have included the Disney fight.

Among the group’s high-profile supporters are the Mars family, founders of the candy company, and actor Robert Duvall, who hosted a fundraiser for the group last year on his 360-acre farm in Fauquier County. The organization has hired several legal and environmental experts to represent them for the power line hearings, including Jeffrey D. Watkiss, a partner in the law firm of former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

But opponents face a formidable foe. Dominion is one of the state’s largest business taxpayers and an influential player in Richmond, with 16 registered lobbyists.

Last year, Dominion’s political action committee donated more than $775,000 to political campaigns, split about evenly between Democrats and Republicans. The company was the largest business donor to state campaigns in 2007, data from the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project show.

The Dominion project is part of a 300-mile project planned with Allegheny Power. Dominion would be in charge of the eastern stretch, which would begin in Frederick, Va., and end in Loudoun, slicing through parts of Fauquier, Rappahannock, Culpeper, Warren and Prince William counties.