Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line (TrAIL)
Additional information on TrAIL is available at http://conserveland.org/pp/Transmission/proposedpowerline.
PUC Oks Portion of TrailCo Transmission Line (11/13/2008)
Briefs Filed in Response to Application of TrAIL Line
NEW Amicus Brief before Commonwealth Court (4/6/2009)
NEW Energy Conservation Council Brief on Amicus (4/6/2009)
NEW Energy Conservation Council Peition for Review before Commonwealth Court (1/12/2009)
Energy Conservation Council (May 5, 2008)
Office of Consumer Advocate
West Penn Power Industrial Intervenors
Public Utility Commission/ Office of Trial Staff
Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation
- "Economics, not reliability, is the impetus for both the original request for transmission proposals from PJM and the TrAIL proposal itself" [p112]
- "The original TrAIL project was proposed before any reliability criteria infractions were identified" [p113]
- "Project Mountaineer's goal was to transmist 5000 megawatts of new coal-fired generation from western to eastern PJM" and "According to Mr. Pfirrmann [PJM management in testimony to FERC], at least two extra high-voltage transmission lines were required to support the delivery of this much electricity." [p 113]
- "The RTEP modeling process used by PJM is an overly conservative, belt and suspenders approach to transmission planning" [ok we never asserted that], and
- "We conclude that the RTEP process is designed to yield transmission solutions." [p.115]
In short, the conceptual foundation of the Mid-Atlantic corridor as well as the case for this project are flawed and the pro-transmission arguments were developed to expand coal-fired power markets.
These conclusions deserve widespread attention and should be disseminated to constituents, media, and legislators.
Also very noteworthy is the seriousness of the Pennsylvania review process. Of particular note is the weight given to the importance of environmental impacts analysis in the application and review process. The Administrative Law Judges made plain their perspectives on what constitutes (or, more precisely, what does not) a reasonable effort to affirmatively and completely address environmental impacts.
This position not only proves that the Judges are taking seriously their responsibility in the area of assessing the environmental impacts of proposed projects, it also provides some guidance for future cases for those concerned with environmental impacts of other proposed projects. The decision considerations should be equally relevant in those cases.
In this ruling the ALJs faulted the incompleteness of the information developed on environmental impacts, in particular suggesting that better information is expected in:
- documenting the resources affected
- presenting a soil and sedimentation plan
- identifying locations of access roads
- detailing steps to be taken to protect ground and surface waters
- detailing a plan to minimize air and water pollution from construction, and, with special emphasis on
- providing a credible account of how alternative routes were seriously considered that had less environmental impacts than the 'preordained' route [their words]
Top of Page
PUC Staff Recommends TrAIL Line Be Turned Down
The Office of the Trial Staff (OTS), a part of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), recommended the Pennsylvania Commissioners turn down the proposed transmission line. The PUC will decide the fate of the transmission line proposal in Pennsylvania.
When asked whether the transmission proposal would "have minimum adverse environmental impact, considering the electric power needs of the public, the state of available technology and the available alternatives," the OTS replied:
“Since it appears that there is a reasonable question regarding the need for the project, or at least a question of whether there are reasonable alternatives to the proposed transmission lines, this question should be answered in the negative...Approval of the Application at this time, in my opinion, is premature at best.”
Read Entire Testimony
Top of Page
Testimony Before the PUC Regarding TrAIL
Top of Page
Petitions to PUC to Intervene
Top of Page
Motion for Injuctive Relief against Allegheny's subsidiary TrAILCo
TrAILCo makes a bad first impression in PA, where a state agency is seeking an injuction against the utility.
The Pennsylvania Office of the Consumer Advocate, an independent office within the Office of the Attorney General, has filed a Motion for Injuctive Relief against Allegheny's subsidiary TrAILCo:
"The OCA requests that TrAILCo and its land agents, acting on behalf of Allegheny Power, be enjoined from engaging in activities including misrepresentation of facts, coercive acts, or harassment of consumers, all of which violate Section 1501 of the Public Utility Code and pertinent regulations."
The Motion goes on to ask that TrAILCo be enjoined from stating that the proposed transmission line is a "done deal" and from disseminating inaccurate information about Damage Release Contracts and the proposed transmission line.
Read the PA Consumer Advocate's Motion for Injunctive Relief