West Virginia Highlands Voice

UNHAPPY TrAILS TO YOU

By Frank Young
(This article developed from sources including WV Sierra Club, WV Public Service Commission web site, and e-mail communications among interested parties.) Contact: fyoung@wvhighlands.org

Background
On March 30, 2007, the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company (AKA TrAILCo, aka Allegheny Energy) filed an application with the West Virginia Public Service Commission (PSC) for approval to construct a 500 kV transmission line through 114 miles of West Virginia, crossing Monongalia, Preston, Tucker, Grant, Hardy and Hampshire Counties. The new line originates in Pennsylvania, and would terminate in northern Virginia. The line is intended to provide additional transmission capacity to allow Allegheny Energy to transmit power from its plants in WV, PA and OH, to East Coast customers.

Hampshire, Hardy and Monongalia County Commissions, several watershed organizations, and various individuals and homeowners have expressed opposition. Reportedly, intense opposition is also developing in Pennsylvania and Virginia.

And some West Virginia Highlands Conservancy members are affected parties, and are suggesting that the Highlands Conservancy become a party in official opposition to the power line.

The Process
The Public Service Commission is made up of three Commissioners and a Staff that includes engineers and lawyers. The Commission will soon issue a schedule with deadlines to intervene, dates for public hearings, and dates for evidentiary hearings. Parties who “intervene” may represent themselves or may be represented by an attorney. Organizations must be represented by an attorney. But any interested party may file a public comment, or Letter of Protest with the PSC at any time before a final decision is issued.

WV PSC web site: www.psc.state.wv.us Search for case number 07-0508-E-CN

The Commission will hold public hearings, and will also take formal “evidence” (studies and testimony filed by expert witnesses). The application and evidence will be reviewed by PSC Staff, and Staff may file their own evidence, or retain outside experts. Ultimately, this evidence will be presented to the Commissioners, and there will be an opportunity to file legal briefs or cross-examine witnesses. Ultimately, the PSC will issue a decision to grant or deny a certificate of need.**

Impacts:
Direct adverse impacts from the proposed transmission line include, but are not limited to, the following:

• permanent compromise of an extended swath of mostly natural landscape across the state
• loss of use of private property along the path of the line,
• noise and disturbance during construction,
• cultural and aesthetic impacts and loss
• of scenic values forever,
• water quality impacts,
• electrical interference with electronic devices near the line,
• loss of wildlife habitat and threat to biodiversity,

Indirect adverse effects of the line will stem from increased demand for coal to generate power, including:

• increased mountaintop removal leading to
• increased flooding and cultural debilitation or other coal mining leading to mine subsidence, acid mine drainage
• increased air pollution, including acid rain, ozone, mercury and particulate pollution, especially as power from old dirty coal plants displaces cleaner natural gas plants,
• increased emissions of greenhouse gases for the life of the line (30-50 years+),
• increased electricity costs to local customers who will pay a portion of the construction and operation costs.

Alternatives
1. Invest in energy conservation and “demand- side management” to reduce the need for new capacity. This would be the cheapest for consumers, avoid adverse environmental impacts, and would occur more quickly than any construction option. The only adverse effect is that Allegheny Energy does not currently make any money by investing in conservation.

2. Improve existing transmission networks. This would avoid many costs, certainly more than the temporary cost associated with any shut down of the existing corridor during construction.

3. Build additional transmission lines on existing rights-of-way. This would avoid the direct impacts on new lands- even though indirect environmental impacts would remain. Allegheny and FERC oppose this option due to purported “security concerns”, arguing that an incident that takes out an existing line might also take out the new line. The corresponding security offset is that no new land owners would be placed in the target of a potential terrorist.

4. Locate the proposed line to other locations where necessary to preserve unique pristine areas.

Top Seven Reasons to Deny the Certificate of Need for the TrAILCo Allegheny Power Line
1. Significant Environmental Impacts Exist! Allegheny’s application states that no significant environmental impacts are expected. This
statement is ludicrous! No competent environmental assessor would make such a claim. The PSC should reject the application and require that an accurate and truthful review of the environmental impacts be submitted.

2. The Transmission line offers no benefit to West Virginia customers! The transmission line is intended to deliver power to East Coast urban centers. No West Virginia citizens will benefit.

3. The Transmission line could be costly to West Virginia ratepayers. Allegheny has told the PSC that a portion of the costs of this new power line would be borne by West Virginia ratepayers.

4. Better alternatives exist to relieve transmission congestion.

Allegheny wants us to believe that new transmission capacity is the best way to relieve projected transmission congestion. However, numerous independent experts have concluded that energy conservation could reduce demand more quickly, more cheaply, and more safely than construction of new capacity.

5. The transmission line is a bad investment, and would increase emission of greenhouse gases indefinitely.

Virtually all of Allegheny’s electricity generation is from coal-fired power plants. The primary purpose of this line is to enhance transmission of this electricity to East Coast markets. This electricity would displace generation of new and cleaner but more expensive plants in those areas. When coupled with the inefficiencies of electricity transmission, this would significantly increase the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. While slowing global warming is not going to be cheap or easy, making bad investments in fossil-fuel capacity now is a major step in the wrong direction, and is an expensive approach to reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

6. The transmission line would take private property solely for the benefit of another private company. Many landowners along the route, those directly crossed by the line and those nearby, would suffer a loss of property value. In many cases, the compensation offered would not fully offset the perceived loss of value to the local property owners.

7. The transmission line would support increased emissions of air pollution, resulting in adverse direct health effects on West Virginia residents. Allegheny’s power plants are among the largest emitters of sulfur dioxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and mercury in West Virginia. Our air already exceeds EPA pollution limits in many areas. Increased generation resulting from this line would make air quality worse.
————————————
** On April 26, the US Dept. of Energy announced a 60-day comment period on their intent to designate a “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor” under the authority of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The corridor cuts across northern West Virginia. This would allow the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to authorize a transmission corridor if the state PSC does not approve one within one year of the application. However, the US DOE designation also encourages consideration of a full range of alternatives, including local generation and energy conservation measures, to meet electricity demands