West Virginia Blue
The Best Blogging Community in West Virginia Democratic politics, progressive policies, the good life and free living in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia.
I can't believe I'm going to say this, but ... PATH is on life support! It actually may be dead, but the companies are trying to maintain the fiction just a little longer.
The Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) was a 765-kV line that would have run from the John Amos coal-fired generation plant in Putnam County all the way to Frederick County, MD - 275 miles, three states, destroying 7,000 acres of forest, and affecting the homes and land of thousands of West Virginians.
Opponents of PATH - and I am very proud to count myself as one of them - have been pointing out for more than two years that the project was not needed. We've documented many ways that the power companies were distorting the truth, and we've had some victories along the way.
But now! PJM, the regional transmission overseer, decided Friday to "suspend" the project, and AEP and FirstEnergy/Allegheny have now filed motions to withdraw their applications in all three states.
The public reason for the change? The drop in electricity demand forecasts because of the Great Recession - that's just one of the reasons we've been shouting for the past two years.
Less visible, but just as much a reason, is the change in national energy policy. Now that we actually have grown-ups in charge, building more transmission lines doesn't seem like the best way to address U.S. energy needs. And the success and spread of demand management programs in many states has helped immensely.
I say that PATH is on life support because the companies are reserving the right to re-file an application some time in the future. But the rules will be different this time around - they will have to formally notify EVERY SINGLE LANDOWNER that would be affected by a proposed new line. And instead of having 250 or so intervenors (still the greatest number ever to file in a PSC case), we will have a thousand!
Sorry to go on so long - though I've barely scratched the surface of everything I could say!
But one last thing: I am so proud of the hundreds of citizens who worked hard, contributed money and time, and STOOD UP! This is how we change things, by working for the change we believe in.
Before I get into the exciting news, an apology: I have been sorely remiss in keeping folks up to date on developments w/r/t the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH). And there have been lots of developments!
Rather than exhaust you with a complete recap, I'll concentrate on the highlights.
Yesterday (Dec. 20), PATH filed a request with the WV Public Service Commission, asking that the application process be delayed ("tolled") 194 days; that's more than six months!
PATH also said it will be asking for the same delay in the Maryland and Virginia application processes. Here's a link to their request: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scr...
Why such a humongous delay? Well, PATH (which is a partnership of convenience and necessity between AEP and Allegheny Power) sez there's a NEW 2011 "load forecast" coming that "may have an impact on the current in-service date for PATH."
Putting that into normal English: There's a new forecast coming that will show PATH isn't needed by 2015 after all. Good thing that needed-by date is moving, since PATH didn't stand a snowball's chance of getting done by then!
But here's the real story: On Dec. 10, the PSC staff filed a motion asking the commission to dismiss or significantly toll the application because
It is ludicrous to continue to move forward with the PATH project while major changes are being contemplated for critical transmission infrastructure that should be factored into assessment of the need for PATH. (emphasis added)
Any time the word "ludicrous" is used in a legal document, you know the other side has screwed up! (Here's the link to the staff motion: http://www.psc.state.wv.us/scr...
The staff of the West Virginia Public Service Commission filed a motion today that either (1) the PSC dismiss the PATH application, or (2) the applicants agree to "tolling" (putting it on hold) until two conditions are met:
- that the companies file an application in Maryland (where it already was dismissed because of "a technicality"); and
- that the companies provide new economic and electricity demand forecasts, plus the 2010 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan now being worked on.
First came a significant change in the Maryland situation. In early September the commission in that state dismissed the application without prejudice - meaning it can be re-filed - because the PATH companies do not meet the Maryland definition of an "electric utility." The original application had been filed by Potomac Edison "on behalf of" the PATH companies. PotEd does meet the definition, but wasn't supposed to be doing any of the work or providing any of the services. When the application was dismissed, the various PATH spokesmen waved it off as a technicality and said it would be re-filed.
But the Maryland PSC gave them a 30-day deadline to re-file, or at least provide a time line for when it would be re-filed. On the 30th day, the companies submitted a letter basically saying, "We're thinking, we're thinking." (I keep hearing Jack Benny's voice in my head...) No specific information was provided.
So then in early October the staff of the Virginia State Corporation Commission filed a motion to dismiss in that state, arguing that as long as there is no application in Maryland, they couldn't evaluate the Virginia application because the line has no terminus.
The companies filed a response to the Virginia motion that said, "No, no, don't do that, and if you do it we'll go nuclear - we'll ask the federal government to step in and take over."
[BTW, that's fine with us - to do that they'll have to appeal to the Supreme Court, since the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Virginia and West Virginia, already rejected the provision in the 2005 energy act that gave the feds jurisdiction. Talk about tying it up in litigation for years!]
Today the staff of our own PSC not only echoed the argument of the Virginia staff in their motion, they actually stepped up the heat on the companies by pointing out that new forecasts for the economy and energy demand may show there's no need for PATH at all!
The staff also pointed out the possible farce that might ensue if the WV application is allowed to stand, with "stale" and "outdated" forecasts, while any new application in Maryland will have to include the new forecasts.
And they even offered a defense of the intervenors in West Virginia, who would be required to spend scarce resources analyzing and arguing the merits of out-of-date information. (Thank you, staff, for looking out for us!)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - PATH is in trouble here ...
It seems that PATH (the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline) is not exactly experiencing a smooth road to approval.
The staff of the Virginia State Corporation Commission, counterpart to our own Public Service Commission, filed a motion today to dismiss the PATH application, because:
[T]here now exists such a level of uncertainty as to the termination point of the PATH Project that the Staff cannot discharge its duty to analyze the application and to advise the Commission on whether the project should be approved and, if approved, where it should be routed.
What could possibly have caused such a roadblock? The rejection of the PATH application by the Maryland Public Service Commission in early September, followed by PATH's failure to re-file the application - or at least make its intentions known - within 30 days.
The staff motion points out that the SCC is spending scarce resources trying to process the application, that Frederick and Loudoun counties are spending scarce resources preparing for hearings, and that citizens are spending scarce resources trying to fight it. In other words, lots of money on something that's becoming more uncertain by the day.
Now let's see if our own PSC staff will take any action.
Back in July, there was big news in one of PATH's sister power line cases in Maryland, MAPP or Mid-Atlantic Power Pathway (Power company PR people love those cute acronyms.). To quote the MD PSC's Hearing Examiner ruling dated July 15, 2009 in case number 9179:
The applicants, Potomac Electric Power Company ("Pepco"), Delmarva Power and Light Company ("Delmarva"), and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company ("BGE"), have filed a Motion to Amend the Procedural Schedule entered in this proceeding on April 15, 2009. That motion has been opposed by various parties or subject to a request that the Procedural Schedule be suspended. After considering the motion and the responses thereto, it is determined that the Procedural Schedule should be suspended. The parties are hereafter directed to engage in consultations to prepare and propose another mutually agreed upon schedule that leads to the resolution of this proceeding.
Why was the case suspended? Here is what the MD DNR's Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) (Yes, MD actually has a government agency that studies whether investment in electrical power systems is needed and what its impact will be.) said in its motion to suspend the case:
Applicants' motion also acknowledges that PJM staff recently concluded that a segment of the MAPP project is no longer required (Indian River to Salem), but then attempts to downplay the elimination of that segment by asserting, without explanation, that the eliminated segment was not the "focus" of their application, and that their request for a determination of need focuses on the Possum Point to Indian River portion of the line. Contrary to Applicants' assertion, however, it is not clear whether or not the representations as to need that have been made thus far go to the project in its original entirety or remain valid for the now reduced scope of the project.
And:
Because of the significant uncertainties that currently exist with the proposed project, PPRP moves for a suspension of the procedural schedule until the Applicants have filed their supplemental materials, and the parties have had a reasonable opportunity to conduct a preliminary review regarding the scope and character of the new materials and changes to the project. PPRP cannot continue to expend significant State time and resources to evaluate a potentially changing project.
Maryland actually has state government agencies that are trying to figure out if new power lines are actually needed. Those agencies aren't just willing to accept whatever the power companies tell them without question.
What does the MAPP case on the eastern shore of Maryland have to do with PATH? For one thing, WV rate payers are going to pay for MAPP, just as MD rate payers will pay for PATH.
Whether the PATH line gets built or not depends on many factors, not just the WV PSC's decision on a WV certificate of need.
One of the most important factors is whether or not PJM Interconnection's engineers claim there is a need for PATH. MAPP is in such trouble now because early in 2009, PJM's engineers ran their numbers and decided that a big chunk of MAPP in Delaware was no longer needed. At the same time, PJM's engineers pushed the "needed" start up date for PATH back another year to 2014.
PJM will do another revision of its need calculations for PATH in January 2010, based on actual experience in PJM Interconnection in 2009. It is likely that the startup date for PATH could be pushed back another year or that the need for PATH, according to PJM's calculations could disappear.
It is not likely that PJM would recommend a total scrapping of PATH. It is more likely that PJM's engineers would postpone the project or eliminate a section of the line.
It may very well happen that when the WV PSC evidentiary hearings begin in February 2010, intervenors in the case will have the opportunity to make a motion to suspend or drop the case because of a decision that PJM renders in early 2010.
There is a deadline of 400 days in the WV law that does not allow the PSC to delay a decision. That does not mean that the PSC has to approve PATH. They could decide that, as the MD DNR said, the PSC "cannot continue to expend significant State time and resources to evaluate a potentially changing project" and reject the current application, telling AEP/Allegheny to re-apply when they have a project that is ready to be built.
Yesterday the first public PATH hearings were held in Jefferson County. So far the news coverage is limited. (I expect this will change tomorrow as only one of the three local hearings had occurred before yesterday's news deadline.)
The public hearings on the proposed Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline, PATH, will continue in Jefferson County on Wednesday morning before moving to other parts of West Virginia starting next week.
Members of the state Public Service Commission are hearing public comments about the 765 kilovolt power line project ahead of a formal evidentiary hearing which will start in February in Charleston.
About 100 people from Maryland, Virginia and all across West Virginia were on hand for the first public hearing on Tuesday afternoon at the Frank Arts Center at Shepherd University in Shepherdstown.
American Electric Power and Allegheny Energy must be very pleased with MetroNews coverage. The article says the power line will end at "a proposed Kemptown site near New Market", but fails to mention that Maryland rejected the PATH application.
The MetroNews reinforces the "not in my backyard" concerns of residences with this quote:
State Consumer Advocate Byron Harris was on hand to listen. He says a lot of useful comments were made. However, he says, the specific comments about people's homes are especially important.
"You want to make sure all of your information is correct. So those kinds of specific comments are very helpful," Harris said.
What The State Consumer Advocate Should Be Saying
Now, I have no way of knowing what else Byron Harris might have said. This is just one single quote in what may have been a much longer interview. But... if this quote is in any way representative of the State Consumer Advocate's primary concerns, we have a big problem.
The State Consumer Advocate seems interested only in whether or not individual property owners are justly compensated for a loss of property value. That's a very narrow concern--one that AEP and Allegheny Energy will just throw more rate-payer money at.
The real issue the State Consumer Advocate should be concerned about is if all of the consumer is the state--each and every one of us--need this power line or not. What compelling public interest does this power line meet?
Concerns about PATH
From what I've read about PATH, there are a number of legitimate concerns the Public Service Commission needs to take serious consideration of in decided if this project should be approved at all. The more people who raise these concerns in public meetings, the more seriously the PSC will consider them:
*Is it necessary? Since the PATH project was originally envisioned major changes have occurred in the East Coast electricity market. Some of these changes are cyclical--the recession dramatically reduced demand for electricity. Other changes are structural--nationally, we have made major investments in efficiency; much of that demand will never return. Even more important for this project the states to the East of W.Va. are making commitments to cleaner energy sources. The demand for electricity from the coal plants near the start of PATH is dropping and will continue to drop.
*How will it benefit West Virginia consumers? The power companies have provided no compelling rationale for how this power line will help West Virginia consumers. They have no evidence it will help with power line congestion or reliability. They do have strong evidence that it will increase the cost of our electricity. As a West Virginia rate payer, I think that's a really raw deal.
Finally, the State Consumer Advocate also wants to hear from individual property owners about their concerns about how the project will impact them. Be aware, though, this will do nothing to stop PATH from being built.
If you make enough noise about the value of, say, timber on your property the best you can hope for is the line will move elsewhere. If you believe PATH is unnecessary and not in the public interest, make that your first argument to the Public Service Commission, the State Consumer Advocate, the Governor, and your state representatives.
(Bumped for reminder of informational meeting Sunday afternoon. - promoted by Clem Guttata)
by blonde moment
The roadshow is hitting Shepherdstown next week, folks!
The WV Public Service Commission has scheduled two days of hearings in the Eastern Panhandle - the Frank Arts Center on the campus of Shepherd University, to be exact - for Tuesday, Sept. 22 (12:30 and 6:30 p.m.) and Wednesday, Sept. 23. (8:30 a.m.) on the power companies' application to build the Potomac Appalachian Transmission Highline.
The approximately 140 intervenors out of Jefferson County, including the Jefferson County Commission, are not allowed to testify, according to the PSC. (I guess they believe the intervenors already have a place in the process, even though the procedures do not allow us any opportunity to speak directly to the commission. Go figure...)
That means it's imperative that as many citizens as possible show up to speak! Please, please, please consider taking off Tuesday afternoon or Wednesday morning to come testify. I ask for those times because the evening session is likely to be the most popular - and it does no good to have hundreds of people show up if they're not all going to get time to speak or the hearing drags on until the wee hours of the morning.
Important: If you think you don't know enough about PATH to testify, we're holding a Citizens Information Meeting on Sunday, Sept. 20, from 3-5 p.m. at the Sam Michaels Park community center. We will have maps of the PATH route through Jefferson County and other materials available, and folks involved in the fight to answer your questions.
American Electric Power thinks so. They have asked the Federal government for stimulus funds to help them buy the additional coal they need to burn once they start carbon capture and storage (CCS) in September at Mountainer Power Plant in New Haven, W.Va.
Unless AEP pledges to buy coal only from companies who mine underground, those Federal stimulus dollars will be going to perpetuate mountain top removal.
AEP/Allegheny say we need PATH to stop brownouts and blackouts. Is this true? Will PATH prevent blackouts?
The simple answer is "no."
In fact, if PATH were to be built, the likelihood that West Virginia electrical consumers would be part of the kind of massive blackout that hit Ontario, Ohio and the Northeast in 2003 would rise dramatically. Why? Because PATH would be a huge conduit for waves of unstable current flows if a massive event began in the eastern section of the PJM Interconnection. Right now, without PATH, West Virginia power users are relatively isolated from these cascading blackout events on the east coast.
Electrical engineer George Loehr is Chair of the Executive Committee of the New York State Reliability Council and has been deeply involved in analyzes of most of the major blackouts in the Northeast since 1965. Here is what this national expert on blackouts has to say:
Blackouts are usually caused by contingencies more severe than standards/criteria, by equipment failures, control system problems, human error, or by some combination of these. They always involve a break-up of the bulk power transmission system. Blackouts are not caused by shortages of generating capacity. Nor are they caused by an inability to transfer as much power as some might wish from remote locations to load centers. Blackouts can rarely be anticipated. They are almost always unexpected, and can happen at any time - few have occurred at or near peak load, for example, or coincident with a shortage of generating capacity. They develop in seconds or fractions of seconds rather than hours or days. [emphasis mine]
In their justification for PATH and TrAIL, PJM engineers have created computer models that stress the PJM system under peak load conditions and simulate loss of power plants from the system. These models generate problems, but those problems have nothing to do with blackouts and little to do with real world operating conditions.
Note what Mr. Loehr said in his Senate testimony last year, quoted above. Blackouts rarely happen under peak load conditions. They are never caused by generating plants dropping off the system. Blackouts can rarely be anticipated. In other words, you can't model real world blackouts on computers. Blackouts are not caused by problems with transmitting enough power from one place to another.
In his Senate testimony, Mr. Loehr stated that
[S]ome misguided proposals have been made to advance corporate agendas rather than serve the well-being of ordinary customers - mainly by trying to get proposed high voltage transmission lines approved as essential to reliability.
He identified one of those "misguided proposals" as
Blackout "scare tactics" intended to frighten customers and public officials, compelling them to endorse the construction of facilities or implementation of policies which are not required to preserve or enhance reliability.
So, what about these "brownouts" that are mentioned by power company PR people? Brownouts are not "little blackouts."
In his responses to further questions from Senators in last year's hearing, Mr. Loehr shed some light on brownouts:
"Rolling blackouts" are not blackouts in the sense of November 9, 1965, or August 14, 2003. They involve rotating feeder outages, voltage reductions ("brownouts"), and public appeals; they do not involve instability, system separations, and total loss of power supply over large geoelectrical areas. Also, "rolling blackouts" are caused by inadequate generating and related resources (DSM etc.), not by a lack of transmission. Of course, insufficient transmission can sometimes contribute to a resource availability problem, but in recent years I have seen very few examples.
And
NERC Standards permit controlled load shedding for unlikely combinations of contingencies and operating conditions. Some refer to these as "rolling blackouts," a scare technique. The significant difference between controlled load shedding and a cascading failure (blackout) is that controlled load shedding is normally done for only short periods, after which service is restored.
Brownouts are voltage reductions that are created by system operators in response to a variety of problems. Brownouts are accepted operating procedure as allowed under NERC standards that govern allowable operator behavior. They are caused by a number of factors but, Mr. Loehr says "not by a lack of transmission."
So, what do blackouts and brownouts have to do with the need for PATH? In a word -- nothing. As Mr. Loehr says, they are only used as scare tactics by power companies trying to get electricity rate payers and regulators to support their latest profit making ventures.
Talk of brownouts and blackouts has a lot to do with AEP/Allegheny's economic wants, but nothing to do with the electrical grid's needs.
Doug Kaplan, president of the Sugarloaf Conservancy in Maryland, gave me permission to post the summary prepared by the group's attorney about the hearing last Friday before the Maryland Public Service Commission.
Members of the Sugarloaf Conservancy, Inc., as well as interested citizens and property owners from Urbana and Mt. Airy, principally, attended the hearing before the Public Service Commission ("PSC") today on the application of Potomac Edison on behalf of PATH (a conglomerate of various transmission companies and groups, including Allegheny Power and AEP) which seeks to build transmission lines and a substation near Mt. Airy.
The hearing commenced at 10:00 AM with four of the five commissioners present. The hearing was focused on four questions which the PSC had requested the parties to brief, dealing with procedural and jurisdictional issues to determine if they would accept the application for filing. Presentations were made by the attorneys for the several parties, including the Applicant, Frederick County, the Sierra Club, Office of Peoples Counsel, Staff of the Public Service Commission and Jim Thompson, attorney for the Sugarloaf Conservancy, Inc. In addition, individual presentations were made by eight to ten citizen / intervenors addressing a variety of issues including the lack of notice the Applicant had given to citizens.
As a result of the hearing, it appears that the PSC will issue a decision within the next two weeks with several of these findings:
1. AEP/Allegheny are losing customers in their former industrial consumer base in IN, WV, OH and western PA. Recent wholesale prices for AEP electricity in the western section of the PJM region were just over 1.6 cents per kilowatt hour.
2. AEP/Allegheny are trying to gain access to new customers in "load pockets" in NJ, eastern MD and eastern PA where wholesale prices for purchased power ran as high as 22 cents per kilowatt hour in the most recent PJM auction. Here is a link to the PJM press release on recent prices.
3. AEP/Allegheny stockholders and highly paid executives do not want to pay for the construction of the power lines needed for them to reach these high profit markets, so they lobbied for, and got, the power of the federal government to force all electric rate payers in the PJM region to buy these power lines for them, plus extra high profit rates, also paid for by rate payers.
4. Even with the rate payers paying the full cost of power line construction, AEP/Allegheny must still "persuade" landowners to give up land for the power lines. In a free market, AEP/Allegheny would have to offer to pay enough money to landowners to get them to voluntarily sell their land.
5. AEP/Allegheny do not want to pay the free market price for land, so they lobbied Congress, and got, federal eminent domain powers, if state regulators do not cooperate. (Fortunately, the federal court in Richmond stopped this federal subsidy of the power companies for the time being.) AEP/Allegheny also want a certificate of convenience and necessity from the WV PSC, because with that, the power companies will have state eminent domain power to force WV landowners to sell their land at below market prices. Remember, eminent domain proceedings price land at its "fair market price" for general sales of land, not sales of land for power line projects. A land owner faced with eminent domain is no longer in a free market, because he has lost the right to say "no" to any deal.
6. When the power companies need land, they run to federal and state governments for the power to force landowners to sell at low prices. When electricity consumers buy electricity, we do it in the "free" electricity markets, where the power companies make the rules. So much for the free market in real estate.
7. AEP/Allegheny want a free ride from rate payers, landowners and the government, because they want to stomp out the operation of the free market in the eastern "load zones." The high price of electricity in the eastern PJM market is a "market signal" that people in those areas have to do something new. They have to innovate. They could import electricity from AEP/Allegheny, but if AEP/Allegheny had to build their own long distance power lines without government help and forcing landowners to give away their land, the price of this electricity would be astronomical.
8. As an alternative to importing electricity from WV and OH, the people in the eastern "load zones" could innovate by reducing the demand for electricity at peak times through better managing demand and efficiency, or they could build new electrical generating plants to supply their power needs. This innovation is happening anyway, which is why PJM has reluctantly moved back the start up date for PATH two years to 2014.
9. PJM's rules actively discourage new investment in innovative power generation in east coast markets. PJM's (very unfree) market rules and processes are rigged to favor power from AEP/Allegheny's bulk power plants in the western end of the PJM region.
10. All of the NERC violations and possibilities of "brownouts and blackouts" that AEP/Allegheny/PJM claim are the reasons for PATH, would disappear if free market forces in east coast markets were allowed to operate without interference from government regulators and power company lobbyists. There would be no need to transmit power from the Ohio River valley to the east coast and stresses on the power grid in eastern WV and western VA and MD would never happen.
The solution is simple. Allow the market to work without government subsidies or interferance. AEP/Allegheny should pay whatever it takes to get landowners along PATH to freely part with their land without confiscation through government eminent domain. If that costs too much money, then the AEP/Allegheny stockholders can decide if PATH will be profitable or not.
At the same time, the true cost of importing electricity into the east coast will encourage innovation in power conservation and new power generating technologies. If the market is allowed to operate without interferance, it will be clear that increasing efficiency, conservation and new generation on the east coast are much cheaper than importing power from WV.
We have already seen that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, PJM Interconnection, AEP and Allegheny Energy do not believe in the free operation of markets. Will the WV Public Service Commission allow the free market to operate by denying a certificate of need to AEP/Allegheny? Will the WV PSC allow the free market to operate by denying AEP/Allegheny the ability to use government to confiscate land using eminent domain?
Now that the PATH application has been filed in all three states - Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia - citizens in the tri-state region opposed to the project are planning a demonstration this Sunday, May 31.
The demonstration will be held on the stretch of U.S. Route 340 near Harpers Ferry, WV. Demonstrators will be on the westbound (river) side of the highway, from the Virginia/West Virginia state line to the turn for Chestnut Hill Road. This location, between the bridges over the Shenandoah and Potomac rivers, is where the three states all converge, and represents our region's commitment to a sensible national energy policy that ends the destructive commitment to King Coal.
(It's also where there is a major traffic jam every Sunday afternoon as visitors to the area head back to the D.C. metropolitan region. We won't be causing the traffic jam, but we can make use of it to reach people who don't understand they, too, will be affected by higher rates, more pollution, more environmental destruction, and more coal.)
The demonstration will take place from 3-5 p.m., rain or shine. Supporters are meeting in Brunswick and Charles Town at 2 p.m., to take shuttle transportation to and from the site. On-site parking is limited, and participants are asked not to bring any children younger than 16.
The Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) project is intended to carry electricity generated at the John E. Amos coal-fired generation plant ultimately to New Jersey. While AEP and Allegheny Energy claim the project is necessary to prevent blackouts and brownouts in five years, numerous citizens, environmental groups and "green" energy advocates point to declines in electricity usage, changes in national energy policy, and concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal as reasons to scrap this high-voltage extension cord.
The governors of ten Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states have asked Congress to create an energy policy that supports local generation of electricity using on- and off-shore wind resources. That includes the governors of Maryland and Virginia - two states PATH is supposed to cross. This project violates everything these states are looking to accomplish in their own energy policies.
If anyone is interested in joining us, please let me know.
Both the Sierra Club and the Piedmont Environmental Council have notified numerous people that AEP and Allegheny Power intend to file their application for the Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline this Friday, May 15.
Once notification of the application is declared in newspaper ads - I do not know what the requirements are for the number or location of newspapers, frequency (or if it's just once) - individuals, businesses, and any other affected entities have 15 days to file to be an intervenor in the application process.
The Calhoun Power Line blog (http://calhounpowerline.wordpress.com/) has a number of comprehensive entries regarding the PSC process and being an intervenor. If you live in any of the 17 counties PATH will run through, you can apply to be an intervenor. (Personally I think anyone in West Virginia has standing, since every ratepayer in the state will be paying for this.)
The PSC's toll-free number is 800-344-5113; you can call and ask questions.
There will be numerous meetings in the affected counties over the next few weeks to work out ways to respond.
The issue of these high-voltage transmission lines has been elevated on the national stage. Ten governors of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states (VT, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, DE, MD and VA) just sent a letter to the congressional leadership asking that the entire planning process for transmission be restructured, to include more objective analysis of need, more inclusive incorporation of renewable sources, and priorities given to local generation making use of renewables, especially on- and offshore wind power.
And 35 national and regional environmental and conservation organizations (including the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Fund) jointly sent a letter to the EPA, then to senators asking that energy legislation place far greater emphasis on developing renewable sources.
This project is going to be the first test of the state and federal governments' policies during the Obama Administration. I would like to believe that the hope and excitement I felt when he was elected - that there will be a responsive government that addresses its citizens' concerns and priorities - will be justified. Even if it takes years.
Update: This morning I spoke with John Auville, a staff attorney with the Public Service Commission, about how much time intervenors will have to file. He said, and this is a quote:
You're certainly going to have more than 15 days to file to intervene...
Oct 14 is proposed last day to intervene if filing is May 15. My guess is they'll file a proposed procedural schedule when or shortly after their filing; then [it's]ordered by the PSC. Anybody who's a party can make a comment on [the proposed schedule]. I'm pretty sure that when they file on Friday, if they do file on Friday, that proposed schedule may be in there.
I emailed Auville and asked him to confirm the accuracy of my transcription of his comments. He replied by email:
I would say that is a correct representation of our conversation, especially the part about having more than 15 days to file for intervenor status.
Last night, NBC Nightly News aired a story that I found absolutely shameful - one-sided, biased, and shallow. Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30...
It concerns the electrical industry's goal of creating a national transmission grid to carry electricity.
NBC wrapped this story in the "green" mantle, accepting the industry's argument that new lines are needed to carry the power generated by green sources such as wind.
That may be. But the reporter, Anne Thompson, completely ignored the human side of the equation. Here's an excerpt from the heated email I sent the program:
Copyright 2011 West Virginia Blue
Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified.
This site exists thanks to financial support from BlogPAC, dedicated volunteers and participation by members of this community. The views expressed at West Virginia Blue belong solely to their respective authors.
