Action to Oppose Power Lines

Two state Public Utility Commission administrative law judges have recommended against building the high-voltage Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line in Pennsylvania. Judges Michael Nemec and Mark Hoyer said Allegheny Energy's subsidiary TrAILCo has "failed to carry its burden of proof" in showing the power line is needed for the residents of Southwestern Pennsylvania.

The Administrative Law Judges stand reinforced exactly several of the points the conservation community has been articulating. Namely:

"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]

The full recommendation can be found at: http://www.puc.state.pa.us/PCDOCS/1019983.pdf.

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

Susquehanna-Roseland Line

Additional information on this line is available at http://conserveland.org/pp/Transmission/proposedpowerline.

Sierra Club, PA Chapter Testimony before PUC Public Hearing (March 20, 2009)

Intervening in a Transmission Application Proceeding

There are no intervention proceedings currently open.

The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) has oversight of the siting and construction of new electric transmission lines within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This process review includes public hearing(s) on the application. Affected parties can intervene in these proceedings, following the process laid out under the law. The review process begins with the transmission company submitting an application to the PUC.

The PUC will set the time and place for the public hearing or hearings. Notices of the public hearing will be published in newspapers serving each municipality in which the transmission line is to be sited. These notices are to be published in two consecutive weeks beginning no less than 45 days prior to the hearing date.

Parties interested in intervening must submit a written request for leave to intervene, identifying the objections they intend to raise. The Commission will accept comments and evidence relating to the following matters:

(1) The present and future necessity of the proposed High-Voltage line in furnishing service to the public.

(2) The safety of the proposed High-Voltage line.

(3) The impact and the efforts which have been and will be made to minimize the impact, if any, of the proposed High-Voltage line upon the following:

(i) Land use.
(ii) Soil and sedimentation.
(iii) Plant and wildlife habitats.
(iv) Terrain.
(v) Hydrology.
(vi) Landscape.

(vii) Archeologic areas.
(viii) Geologic areas.
(ix) Historic areas.
(x) Scenic areas.
(xi) Wilderness areas.
(xii) Scenic rivers.

(4) The availability of reasonable alternative routes.

Note that the transmission applicants are to have made efforts to identify and locate archaeologic, geologic, historic, scenic or wilderness areas of significance within 2 miles of the proposed right of way. And they are to have described reasonable alternative routes with a comparison of the merits and detriments of each route.

A different process applies if a proposed high voltage transmission line is proposed to be located entirely on an existing transmission route and if the proposed line does not substantially alter the right of way. In this event, the applicant may submit a letter of notification in lieu of application to the PUC and the PUC may approve the letter of notification without the full application process described above.

Full information on the requirements and process for intervening in a transmission application may be found on-line at this location:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/052/chapter57/subchapGtoc.html

Thank you to Lacawac Sanctuary Foundation for supporting our land conservation efforts.
© 2005 Pennsylvania Land Trust Association

webmaster@conserveland.org