Capon Valley Coalition

Here are links to the last three days of hearings on the Allegheny Power TrAIL power line:

Day 8 — Jan .17

Day 9 — Jan .18

Day 10 — Jan. 19

With the evidentiary stage of hearings on Allegheny Power’s TrAIL application set to start Wednesday (Jan. 9), the staff of the West Virginia Public Service Commission says the plan comes up short in five areas: Need, reliability, economic benefits, line routing and regulatory obligations.

The staff laid out their objections in an opening statement made public on Friday (Jan. 4).

Here are excerpts:

After reviewing the Company’s March 30, 2007 application and pre-filed direct testimony; the Company’s August 10,2007 supplemental materials and testimony; the prefiled
direct and rebuttal testimony of the Staffs own expert witnesses; as well as the Intervenors pre-filed direct and rebuttal testimony in response to the Company’s case in chief, the Staff recommends the filed certificate application by TrAILCo be denied. The Company has failed to meet its State statutory requirement of evaluating the need for action, balanced with environmental impacts and economic benefits, at the expense, at least in part, of West Virginia ratepayers and landowners in accordance with the statutory provisions of West Virginia Code f 24-2-1 la (d)( 1) and (2). The Staff finds that the application is deficient in these significant areas:

I. Need - 1) Lack of showing of the reasonableness of the PJMRTO load forecasts underlying the claimed need for TrAIL in 201 1. 2) Insufficient demonstration that TrAIL serves as a most economical or cost-effective means of resolving the outages that PJM reports are likely to occur in 201 1 in the absence of TrAIL. In particular including a failure (I) to evaluate the ability to reduce end-use power demands responsible for the overloads; (ii) to evaluate additions of new generation; and (iii) most significantly to evaluate upgrading existing transmission facilities.

II. Reliability - 1) Lack of showing of necessity of TrAIL for reliability purposes in West Virginia and PJMRTO in 201 1. 2) Insufficient analysis of benefits of upgrading existing facilities. 3) Insufficient analysis of impacts of major planned transmission facilities in West Virginia e.g., PATH. (This is the planned joint venture 765kV transmission line of Allegheny Energy, Inc. and American Electric Power, that is known as Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline, L.L.C., consisting of 290-miles of extra-high voltage line to be constructed primarily in West Virginia.)

III. Economic Benefits - 1) Failure to utilize the requirements of integrated resource planning in evaluating need for action. 2) Failure to demonstrate the reasonableness of the load forecasts on which the claimed need for TrAIL is based. 3) The magnitude of the economic benefits of TrAIL remain insufficiently documented by calculation and the corresponding results are not
reasonably supported. In particular the Staff witnesses take issue with the Company’ s calculation of the localized project expenditure amounts claimed to be made in the geographic area, the reasonableness of the ‘multipliers’ implicitly incorporated in the spillover analysis and the adverse property impacts calculated by TrAILCo.

IV. Line Routing - 1) TrAILCo’s filing does not demonstrate that the route referred to as ‘Preferred Route’ for which the Company is seeking approval presents an acceptable balance between reasonable power needs and reasonable environmental impacts for the affected population. In particular the Staff witness’ testimony will demonstrate that Route A has significantly less impacts. 2) TrAILCo has not committed to reasonable mitigation measures associated with line routing, including: purchase of properties within an adequate buffer zone (Staffs witness proposes 400 feet of centerline), a prohibition of aerial spraying in the maintenance of this line, adoption of ommission previously stated conditions in Appalachian Power Company case, Case No. 9003, Commission Order entered May 18, 1979.

V. Regulatory Compact Obligations - Under the TrAILCo proposal the regulatory compact obligations of a utility operating in the State of West Virginia have not been fulfilled, specifically: 1) TrAILCo has not committed to recognizing this Commission’s exclusive ratemaking authority over the recovery of transmission costs from retail customers in West Virginia. 2) TrAILCo has not committed to recognizing the Commission’s authority for jurisdictional allocation of transmission costs to West Virginia retail customers. 3) TrAILCo has not demonstrated the flow through benefits to West Virginia ratepayers in dollars for off system sales transactions.

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.

The West Virginia Public Service Commission has ordered that another hearing on Allegheny Power’s plans to build the TrAIL power line be held in Preston County, to the northwest of us, on Monday, Nov. 26.

The hearings are open to the public; anyone can speak. All you have to do is say you are opposed. You don’t need to be a lawyer to express your opinion.

The hearings will be held at 1:30 p.m. and again at 6:30 p.m., at the Kingwood Volunteer Fire Department and Community Building, 2nd Floor, Buckwheat Room, 115 Brown Avenue,
Kingwood, West Virginia.