Capon Valley Coalition

Charlie Winfree, a Realtor from Burlington, WV, told it like it is at the Public Service Commission hearing in Moorefield on Oct. 30.

How will Allegheny Power’s new power line affect your property? Not the way Allegheny says.

Here is Charlie’s statement, provided by CVC Chairman Bill Golemon.

My name is Charlie Winfree, from Burlington, WV. I’m a local Realtor and the #1 top-selling Realtor in this 5-county area of WV. I’ve been selling real estate here for almost 20 years. I know about real estate.

The power companies and PJM won’t fool me about these power lines and how they affect property values. The humiliating offers they’ve made to land owners for power line easements are shameful. Many owners seem to feel powerless to fight this and most have no idea what this does to them. Fact is, many homes and land parcels will be un-salable later, at any tolerable price whatsoever. How do you compensate an owner for that damage? Yes, many over-eager out-of-staters purchased local land with power lines already on them in the last few years. They are now learning first-hand that it may be unwise to build on them and that they’re about impossible to re-sell. And now they’re being told to accept more.

As a Realtor, I can tell you that property values for residential properties will plummet, nearby or in sight of these lines. You won’t see the market value effect for a long time because many impacted property owners will suffer more by being unable to sell at all. Running them parallel to an existing line doesn’t eliminate the impact; it just increases it in one spot already harmed once.

One highly motivated owner in nearby Ashton Woods now has his otherwise very nice 21 acre lot priced at just 40% of what identical non-power line lots have been reselling for. It still sits unsold, impacted by only the power line. Other similarly affected lots have simply failed to re-sell at all.

It’s virtually impossible to resell residential land or homes in nearby sight of them. Power companies don’t feel any need to compensate owner’s whose nearby or adjacent land is devalued, they only want to pay for the easements, yet the individual and cumulative impact along and in sight of each line is enormous. The toll on peoples’ finances and families is harming many owners. Just the uncertainty of this line is impacting sales of potentially affected and nearby properties.

These lines are the wrong thing, at the wrong time, and for the wrong reasons.

Bad for everyone but PJM, the coal companies and the power companies… representatives of the big industries who have raped WV’s landscape, health and property values for generations. Even the distant consumers who are proposed to benefit from these lines would be far better-served by local, cleaner, power facilities.

New technologies for local energy production and conservation are just around the corner. Some will no doubt be in place by the time these lines are proposed to be in service. The next occupant in the White House will certainly understand the need to turn this country’s energy choices around to something more sane than “use all you want and we’ll destroy the land and it’s people and even other countries, to bring it to you”.

The PSC should be demanding that the funds for this project should instead be spent on real conservation and energy efficiency efforts. Instead of politely asking consumers to conserve, we should be demanding and enforcing it. A few brownouts sound like a great wake-up call to me.

We should all be ashamed to even be considering more long-term heavy investment in coal when we now know it’s most likely the biggest culprit in changing our climate, our children’s climate and the extermination of many species, quite possibly our own. Yes, parts of the WV economy may seem to depend on it; just as parts of Columbia’s economy depends on cocaine and parts of Afghanistan’s economy depends on heroin poppies. There’s no big difference and we’re all just feeding an unhealthy addiction to cheap and dirty power with this power line. Shame on us.

There is NOT room for both the people and new high-voltage transmission lines in this state. PJM, whose only business is transmission lines, needs to sit this one out and just take care of the lines they have while the people, the PSC and the power companies find a smarter, longer-term solution.

The Public Service Commission is supposedly working for the public, at least if the name is correct. I ask you all to have the backbone to tell the power companies, AND the Feds, that their efforts concerning this line are NOT in the public’s long-term, best interests. Quit looking short-term, like 5 years and begin to look long-term, like 50-100 years and more. What ARE we going to do about ever-increasing energy consumption and waste, and faster and faster consumption of coal, right in the face of ample evidence that it’s the very stupidest thing we as humans can be doing to solve energy needs? Coal, and fossil fuels in general, may well turn out to be the big juicy apple in the Garden of Eden that we were well-warned not to consume.

Just say NO to these power lines. Nobody needs them.

The Cumberland Times covered the PSC meeting in Moorefield on Tuesday. Here’s the coverage:

MOOREFIELD - Citing health, environmental and private property issues, residents from Jefferson, Hardy, Grant, Mineral and Hampshire counties testified against Allegheny Power’s proposed Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line project Tuesday at a public hearing held by the West Virginia Public Service Commission.

The project proposed to be routed through those and other counties in northern West Virginia is currently before the PSC with the utility seeking permission to construct the 500-volt power line that will run some 240 miles across the state.

Ralph Wojtowice, a young professional who lives in Virginia, with plans to build his dream home in West Virginia, was the first to address Administrative Law Judge Keith A. George of the PSC, who was conducting the hearing and taking testimony.

Wojtowice said that the couple had sunk their entire life savings into their dream home project with an eye toward raising their family - twin boys born prematurely in February - in the picturesque setting that was to be their residence.

He said that he realized his family’s entire future could be jeopardized by this project in terms of their health and their finances.

“It is apparent that Allegheny Energy is more interested in profit than public service,” he said.

Wojtowice also pointed out that the project will boost the output of the oldest and dirtiest coal-fired electric generating plants in the state and added that his children are already at risk for environmental pollution and the project would only add to that.

He said that that utility’s advertising campaign that the project will be good for West Virginia and that it won’t cost its residents reminds him of a time when the tobacco industry tried to convince people smoking wasn’t dangerous either.

Wojtowice was one of 10 people who provided testimony that was recorded and will be transcribed by the PSC before a decision is made on granting a permit for the project.

Craig Etchison of Fort Ashby spoke of the concern about global warming and climate change that he said has been admitted by the Pentagon to be the single biggest issue facing the world.

He said that increasing the output of coal-fired generating plants will increase the burning of coal which produces greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

He said continuing on that course would create a potential for “catastrophe.”

Etchison said that Allegheny Energy’s plan to create expanding markets for coal is “insane.”

He said there are choices but the utility is not considering any of those, including conservation and variable pricing.

Henry Kopple of Lahmansville said that he would rather see the emphasis on reducing the need for additional power to the east by conservation or new power sources.

He suggested that the country needs to look at Denmark, which has doubled its gross national product while decreasing its energy usage.

David Fouts of Grant County said that the utility’s statement that there is no significant environmental impact to be noted from the project is “ludicrous.”

He called on the utility to consider three alternatives: Conservation, improving existing networks and utilizing the existing rights of way for any new power lines.

Thomas and Kathy Hildebrand, who live in Virginia with plans to move to a subdivision near Moorefield, also addressed the issue of need and the likely damage the project would cause to West Virginians.

Kathy Hildebrand said she noticed the number of large homes and businesses in Virginia that have lights on, both on the interior and exterior 24 hours a day.

She said that education is probably the most valuable tool the opponents have in the fight against TrAIL.

Her husband added that the coming together of people against the project in such force is probably the one positive of the proposed project.

Also addressing the hearing was David Reece of Germantown, Md., speaking on behalf of the Wratchford family of Old Fields. He said the family already gave a right of way in the 1970s, losing considerable property.

Darrell Kessell also said he was affected by the first power line project that went through and not only did he lose the right of way acreage but setbacks were imposed that took even more. He also said that you can feel the energy from the power lines when you stand near them.

Nina Mason of Rio said she sees people leaving the state to get away from the power lines because they believe their health is threatened by them.

Several public hearings have been scheduled throughout the region. George said when an individual testifies at one that is their only opportunity.

About 50 people attended Tuesday’s hearing in Moorefield.

CVC Chairman Bill Golemon represented us at the West Virginia Public Service Commission hearing on Allegheny Power’s TrAIL power line in Morgantown last Tuesday. He filed this report.

The hearing was very impressive. The opposition expressed was well-informed, eloquent and passionate.

Two men supported the power line, for a total of about five minutes. One was a shop steward for the electrical workers union, and the other a surveyor who does right-of-way work for AP. His argument was that it will provide 700 jobs and a lot of income for restaurants and motels.

One speaker took exception to this, saying that the majority of workers would be from out of state, the jobs would be temporary, and that the benefits would be far outweighed by the long term damage to the state and its citizens.

Speakers included about six state legislators, several college professors, a pathologist, and the deputy mayor of Morgantown. Morgantown has sent a protest letter to PSC, and the deputy mayor said their air quality measures 14.9 (on some scale) where 15 is unacceptably and officially polluted.

The legislators I could identify who spoke were Barbara Fleischauer (also speaking for Charlene Marshall); a spokesman for majority leader Joe DeLong; Alex Shook; and Robert Beach. They adamantly opposed the power line and asked PSC to deny it because it doesn’t meet the State Code requirement of “public convenience and necessity” and does not benefit WV.

The pathologist cited numerous studies claiming greater risk of cancer from power line radiation, particularly for children.

Many speakers called AP arrogant and dishonest, not informing communities of the facts and making”vague” statements in their offers and negotiations. Delegate Fleischauer and many other speakers said West Virginians are getting tired of being “ripped off for the almighty dollar”, and being exploited for generations by corporations owned out-of-state.

The lack of an adequate environmental impact study was cited. Many homeowners said their property would become useless and their homes unlivable; one man said he would just bull-doze his house. One speaker said he has a small airfield and the power line would go right across the flightpath of his runway, making it unusable, and that AP wouldn’t even discuss a feasible alternative route.

That’s a brief summary of a part of what was said, and only in the afternoon session. Every other argument we have made and heard was cited. The recent PEC paper “How Dominion and Allegheny Power Got It Wrong” was referred to and a copy given to the head table.

The interest and opposition from the state delegates was encouraging. I wish we knew how to get our legislators involved.

I hope the meeting in Moorefield tomorrow is as successful. Bill

Nancy Upshaw adds her impressions of the Wardensville meeting.

This is the last report we will have of the meeting. Now it’s time to act!

Here is Nancy’s report:

CALL & WRITE THE PSC, ALL YOUR LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVES, & THE GOVERNOR!! DO IT NOW AND KEEP DOING IT!!

That was the mantra of all the speakers on Tuesday night, September 11. The War Memorial Building in Wardensville, Hardy County was filled to capacity during a meeting hosted by the Capon Valley Coalition (CVC). The featured speaker, Billy Jack Gregg is the soon-to-retire Director of the Consumer Advocate Division of the West Virginia Public Service Commission. Other notable speakers included Bri West, a staff member of the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC) in Northern Virginia, Stan Shaver, WV state delegate for Preston and Tucker Counties, and State Senator Clark Barnes of the 15th District. The audience consisted mostly of residents of Hampshire and Hardy County, but a few were from other counties or organizations having an interest in the topic of the day. The subject under discussion was the proposed project (TrAIL) by Allegheny Power to construct high-voltage power transmission lines through the region.

The Capon Valley Coalition is a loosely knit group of property owners of the region who have come together to oppose the construction of the high-voltage power lines. This meeting was an important milestone in the development of a powerful argument against the Allegheny Power project.

Bill Golemon of the CVC opened the meeting with a moment of silence for the victims of September 11, 2001 and their families, and for all the service men and women now serving, or who have served, their country. He then introduced the first speaker, Bri West.

Ms. West, of the PEC, spoke briefly of the highlights of PEC’s arguments against the construction of the TrAIL power lines in Virginia. West stated that the studies provided by Allegheny Power in support of the project do not include the fact that new power plants in the states east of Virginia have been and are still being brought online to the power grid. None of the studies take this into account. Also, Allegheny Power and its associated companies primarily want to sell more electricity to the eastern states to continue to increase their revenues. Generating electricity from the coal of West Virginia and shipping it to the east coast over new high-voltage power lines is cheaper than generating power from a local plant, so once the infrastructure is in place, the likelihood of the cheaper electricity being purchased, rather than local electricity generated, is high. Combine this with the fact that power company customers will be paying the cost of the building of the infrastructure of the transmission lines, and this becomes a no-brainer goal for the power company. Building the TrAIL lines would discourage the building of local plants and cause the east coast to be even more dependent on the purchased long-distance electricity from the west. This does not truly enhance the reliability of the power grid for east coast customers. It only enhances Allegheny Power’s bottom line. Therefore, the reason why Allegheny Power wants to build the transmission line is primarily economical (for itself) and has nothing to do with grid reliability. This is an important argument when the question of eminent domain arises. The power of eminent domain cannot be used if the reason for a proposed project is primarily economic benefit for the company proposing the project. When the local formal hearings take place, scheduled for either November-December, or after New Years’, West urges opposers, even if they can’t speak in evidence, to speak with their presence in the room. Go to the hearings. Be there. Make your presence felt.

When Mr. Gregg took the podium he spoke for a few minutes about the proposed project, the process required for approval or denial, the current stage of the project, and how the public can express its views to the PSC. He then opened the floor for questions. In the course of Gregg’s statements and the following discussion, the complete picture of the situation slowly emerged. In March, 2007, Allegheny Power filed an application with the WV PSC for approval to build the transmission lines. By WV statute, a decision must be made within 400 days of the date of the filing, which puts the deadline at May 1, 2008. (West Virginia is the only state affected with a statutory deadline.) Since March, local meetings have been held by the PSC to obtain the opinions of the citizens. These meetings have now ended, and the project is in the formal “hearing” stage. Only registered “interveners” can testify at the hearings. Since the deadline for filing a request to be an intervener was August 22, no more will be accepted. There are 28 interveners registered, and all of them can provide evidence in the hearings, and challenge evidence produced by Allegheny or another intervener.

Two other states are affected by the project – Pennsylvania and Virginia – and must provide a decision of approval before the project can continue. The approval schedules of the three states coincide with each other, so decisions will be reached in all states at approximately the same time, though the order the decisions will occur is unknown. If the project is denied in Pennsylvania and Virginia, then the west Virginia portion cannot be built because the other two states contain the terminals of the project, West Virginia contains only the middle.

Gregg has a message for property owners affected by the project: At this stage of the process, Allegheny Power has no right to enter a property without the owner’s permission. The project is not approved. A certificate of approval for the project must exist before the company can enter a property without permission. That certificate will not exist until sometime next year, probably late April, if it happens at all.

The PSC’s decision, whether it be approval or denial, can be (and most likely will be) appealed to the WV Supreme Court by the losing side. However, if the project is approved, it may proceed on schedule during the appeal process, even though the decision could be overturned. This may take years. The project cost, whether or not finally denied, will be charged back to all the customers of the company.

Federal intervention is also possible. Under the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 over 40 counties in WV have been designated part of the National Interest Electrical Transmission Corridor, together with large areas in other Eastern states. The Department of Energy claims that if this power line project is denied by any state and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) decides that the project is essential for the reliability of the region’s power grid, FERC can override that state’s decision. The only way this can be avoided is if multiple states make the decision in a compact. How to get the states into this compact is not clear and needs more explanation. Legislation was introduced in the U.S. Congress to deny this power to FERC but was defeated. The Piedmont Environmental Council has petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals to review this interpretation by DOE, and Gov. Manchin has written to FERC disagreeing that they have the power to overrule a state’s decision.

One acronym that one may hear connected to this project is “PJM.” PJM is a regional energy market monitor with a supposedly independent board. Over time, several companies which once existed have merged into one – PJM. The salaries of the people working at PJM are paid by the power companies. PJM will be one voice heard in the arguments for or against the project in the upcoming hearings.
One point of discussion concerned alternate sources of power and new technology. Gregg pointed out that West Virginia has passed a law that allows homeowners to connect their solar panels to their power meter. In some situations this may make the meter actually run backwards, when the electricity generated is more then the electricity being consumed. If many people did this, the load on the grid would be lightened.

Many people do not know that West Virginia is the largest exporter of electricity in the U.S. Seventy percent of the electricity generated in WV goes elsewhere. The customers include China and Japan, the fastest-growing consumers of energy in the world.(?) Most of the new power plants being built in West Virginia are to supply China and Japan.(?) West Virginia derives most of its income from electricity generation, a prized commodity, and West Virginia citizens get some kickback on their rates from export; however, as one member of the audience pointed out, West Virginia is still in 49th position economically in comparison with other states. Why is this? Why doesn’t West Virginia have a better economy? Because most of the revenues from the sale of coal and the generation of electricity goes to entities owned outside the state of West Virginia. So West Virginia needs to be careful about depending on coal as a source of future income.

The cost of all new projects developed must be charged back to all the customers of a company, and not just to the customer directly benefiting from the project. Hence, the cost is “socialized” across the entire customer base. Rates will go up for everyone, no matter what Allegheny Power tries to say now.

The new Chairman of the PSC appointed by Gov. Manchin is a former partner in the law firm representing Allegheny Power, and has recused himself from the decision on this case, leaving the vote to the two remaing commissioners. Both commissioners must vote for approval before the application certificate can be issued. A tie vote is, in effect, a denial.

And oh, by the way, Hampshire citizens, there is another power line project waiting behind this one. Once the current project is approved, the next application will be submitted. If the current project is approved, this opens the gateway for the Hampshire region to be inundated with more and more power line right-of-ways. If the current project is denied, it will be harder for the next one to be approved.

After Gregg stepped down from the podium, State Delegate Stan Shaver stepped up to advise the audience of his experience with the Governor’s office about this matter. He explained that one day, all of a sudden, he began to be inundated with phone calls, letters and emails about the impact the project would have on his area (Preston/Tucker Counties.) So he began to investigate the matter. On April 24, 2007 he sent a letter to the Governor’s Office to communicate his concerns about the project. He received a reply April 27 (a pretty quick response, he thought!) which was signed by James Pritolo of the Governor’s staff. In essence the letter said that “it is inappropriate for the Governor to comment…due to the separation of powers between the Governor’s Office and the PSC.” Shaver was puzzled by this reply, considering that the PSC and the Governor’s Office operate out of the same branch of government. In June, state legislators from the northern and eastern West Virginia area met to discuss the issues of the proposed project. They invited the Governor to the meeting. His comments at that time indicated that “the growing population of eastern West Virginia must be reinforced in the near future.” Again, Shaver is puzzled by this response. What does this mean? Nothing, he decided – political smoke. Shaver says, now that the Governor has had time to absorb the serious political impact this may have among his eastern constituents, he wants to reassure the citizens of eastern WV that “the state of WV is still in control.” This last statement is in reference to the possibility of FERC overriding a WV PSC denial. Shaver wonders, how can the state still be in control when FERC can override our PSC’s decision? Shaver’s conclusion is that citizens need to continue to call and send letters and emails to the PSC, the Governor, and every other state and federal politician having anything to do with West Virginia.

State Senator Clark Barnes began by praising the audience. Of all the meetings he has attended on this issue all over eastern WV, Barnes said, this group conducted itself the best and asked the most intelligent questions of any group he has encountered thus far. No angry, emotional exchanges took place, and no irrational tirades. He went on to say that the Governor’s position that “the state is in control” is just that – a position – and not anything based in reality. Expect more changing positions in the future as the Governor tests the political winds. This group needs to be aware of the internal state tugs-of-war that take place on any issue like this. Since WV makes more money on its sale of coal than any other source of income, the influence of counties like Preston which contributes so much to the economy is very strong. Questions from the audience, however, accentuated again the fact that WV had too many eggs in one basket with the sale of coal and the production of power, and that tourism is the next best contributor of income to the state. Also, with the population of eastern WV growing, it will soon have more control over the powers in Charleston. This power line project, and others coming behind it, threaten the growth of tourism in counties like Hampshire and Hardy that need the new industry so badly, and the citizens of those counties will not be happy to have all their efforts stymied. Everyone in the room agreed that West Virginia needs to branch out and find more sources of income, and tourism is this state’s best hope of thriving and yet keeping the beauty of the state intact. In response to a question from the audience Senator Barnes said that he is opposed to the power line. There is still hope that the Governor will realize the importance of the negative effects on the area if the project is approved. Barnes’ final comment took a shot at the current state motto seen on welcome signs: “West Virginia is not ‘Open for Business’ – it’s ‘Hopin’ for Business’,” implying that West Virginia is not doing all that can be done to get new businesses to move into the state. Many in the audience expressed the hope that WV will return to “Wild and Wonderful” as the state motto.

Other members of the audience included Jim Kotcon, a Sierra Club representative who made the comment about the requirement of project cost distribution across the entire customer population, even if the project is ultimately denied in an appeal, Hardy County Commissioners Roger Champ, Stanley Moyers and J. R. Keplinger were in attendance, as were Hampshire County Commissioner Steve Slonaker and County Planner (correct title?) Charlie Baker.

Moorefield resident Tom Hildebrand has registered as an official “intervener” for the formal hearings to take place in the next few months. His issues with the project include the known medical effects of high-voltage lines on children and property. Other residents are encouraged to contact him with any evidence about the project that might be helpful for his testimony.

I’m not quite sure who took these photos of the Wardensville meeting on Sept. 11, but we thank that person.

Here’s what it looked like: