|
For the last several years the Energy Conservation Council has been involved in opposition to Allegheny Energy’s TrAIL Project
Initially, a new Allegheny Energy company, Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company, (“TrAILCo”) proposed the construction of an approximately 240-mile line dubbed the “TrAIL” line.
The TrAIL line was actually two completely separate projects that just happened to intersect at a new proposed substation (the 502 Junction Substation). The “Prexy” portion of the project (the proposed 500 kV line running from 502 Junction to Prexy, and 3 new 138 kV lines emanating from Prexy) was allegedly required to address a “local reliability issue” in Washington County, Pennsylvania. TrAILCo alleged that the 500 kV line was needed to get power into the Prexy area.
The rest of the project, from the proposed 502 Junction Substation in Pennsylvania, running 1.2 miles to the West Virginia border and then approximately 238 additional miles to Loudoun, Virginia (outside of Washington, DC) was allegedly needed to address reliability issues in the Mid-Atlantic region. The portion of the line had nothing to do with the alleged local reliability issues in the Prexy area.
The Energy Conservation Council participated in the PUC proceedings to determine if TrAILCo had met its burden of proof with respect to either the proposed Prexy facilities or the 502-Loudoun line. After hiring world-renowned transmission expert George Loehr to evaluate TrAILCo’s alleged reliability needs, and after the review of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, expert evidentiary hearings, and public input hearings, we concluded that the line was definitely not needed for reliability reasons.
Two administrative law judges agreed. Administrative Law Judges Nemec and Hoyer (“ALJs”) issued a 364-page recommended decision asking the Public Utility Commission to completely deny all of TrAILCo’s application – for the Prexy facilities and for the 502-Loudoun line. The ALJs agreed with the ECC that TrAILCo did not prove that anything needed to be constructed - TrAILCo did not establish the existence of any reliability issues justifying the construction of any additional transmission facilities.
It is important to note that TrAILCo’s proposed justification for the 502-Loudoun line, and the Prexy facilities, was based entirely upon alleged reliability issues. But TrAILCo did not prove that reliability issues existed that justified the building of any new facilities.
The Public Utility Commission reviewed the ALJ’s 364-page recommended decision, and issued a “stay” with respect to TrAILCo’s application for the Prexy facilities – urging the parties to participate in a voluntary “collaborative” to determine (1) if reliability issues existed in the Washington County area; (2) whether the alleged reliability issues, if proven, required the construction of any new transmission lines or associated facilities; and (3) urged the parties to choose the least intrusive method of solving the alleged reliability issues. In other words, TrAILCo was told, with respect to the Prexy Facilities, to try and reach an agreement with all of the parties on a much smaller, less intrusive project.
In addition, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission ignored the ALJ’s recommendation, and approved 1.2 miles of 500 kV line that would allow the 502-Loudoun line to be constructed. Without this 1.2 mile connection, the 502-Loudoun line could not be constructed. The ECC has filed an appeal of this part of the PUC’s decision.
The construction of the 502-Loudoun line will have devastating impacts on Pennsylvania, including increased air pollution, additional coal-fired generation upwind of Pennsylvania, and, among many other impacts, approximately $35 Million per year in increased rates. Even though only 1.2 miles of the 240 mile 502-Loudoun line would be located in Pennsylvania, the cost of backbone transmission projects that are approved for reliability reasons are socialized throughout PJM. Thus, even though the line is located almost entirely outside of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania ratepayers will be burdened with an additional $35 Million per year of rate increases.
TrAIL – the real story
Decisions regarding the addition of new 500 kV lines start with PJM, a regional transmission organization made up of its member utilities. Almost all of the key members of PJM are transmission utilities. PJM’s transmission planning is, unfortunately, run differently than its day-to-day operation of the grid. As the ALJs concluded, PJM’s transmission planning is very different from the common-sense way PJM operates the system on a day-to-day basis. Instead, PJM’s planning process is designed to yield transmission solutions, which the ALJ’s called “an overly-conservative belt-and-suspenders approach.”
TrAIL Update
The proposed Prexy Facilities were to consist of a new 500kV substation in Washington County called “Prexy”, a new 500kV transmission line (36 miles long) in Washington and Greene counties, and three new 138kV lines (running 15 miles) to connect the proposed new substation to the existing transmission system.
The ECC hired experts to determine if the line was “needed.” It was not! After two administrative law judges rejected the Company’s arguments in favor of the line, the PA Public Utilities Commission ordered a “collaborative process” – to discuss different alternatives to the proposed facilities.
In the collaborative, the parties (including the ECC) agreed to a proposed settlement. The settlement will reinforce the electric grid without any new 500 kV lines, substations, or 138 kV lines.
Instead, it involves installing one new monopole on an existing utility right of way (to allow the connection of two existing lines), adding equipment (capacitors) at five existing substations, and replacing the conductors on 2.5 miles of existing 138 kV lines. The estimated cost for the agreed-upon fix is $11.6 million, instead of $213 million for the proposed Prexy Facilities. And the solution solves the exact same reliability issues that were “driving the need” for the previously proposed "Prexy Facilities.”
The Company has filed an amendment to its application at the PA PUC, seeking approval of the proposed settlement agreement. Surprisingly, Duquesne Light (who supported the settlement agreement) has asked the PUC for the opportunity to “present evidence” regarding the proposed settlement (because Allegheny Power and Duquesne Light have not yet agreed on cost allocation for the proposed fix). Allegheny Power filed a response objecting to this new “evidence”. It is unclear if the PUC will order a new hearing before ruling on the proposed settlement.
TrAILCo- Appeal
We appealed the PUC’s approval of the 1.2 miles of 500 kV line that will allow connection of the 240 mile long line “TrAIL” from the new 502 Junction substation in Greene County, PA to Loudoun, VA. Briefing has concluded.
The ECC has long-objected to this portion of the TrAIL line because it (i) is not needed for reliability reasons; and (ii) will cause increased pollution and greenhouse gas emissions upwind of Pennsylvania. And Pennsylvania residents will have to pay for a portion of this unnecessary line.
The portions of the line in WV and VA have been approved in those states, and all appeals exhausted in those states. Thus, we are the last remaining legal obstacle that can stop the project.
We attended oral argument on December 7th in Harrisburg at the Commonwealth Court. We are awaiting a decision from the Commonwealth Court. We do not know when the decision will be issued.
Two Other Lines That Are Not Needed
There are two other high-voltage transmission lines that were approved by the regional transmission organization PJM Interconnection in 2007. Regulatory approval of those lines is being sought now in several states - including Pennsylvania, New Jersey and West Virginia. Two of these lines are of particular concern to Pennsylvania: the PATH line, and the Susquehanna – Roseland line.
The PATH Project
The Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH) includes over 280 miles of 765-kV extra-high voltage transmission from American Electric Power’s (AEP) Amos substation by St. Albans, W.Va., to an as-yet-undetermined location for a new substation, and then continuing to a new substation to be built at Kemptown, located near Frederick, Md.
AEP and Allegheny Energy formed a joint venture to build PATH - at an estimated cost of $1.8 billion. The PATH project is desired for the exact same reasons as the TrAIL project: high guaranteed investment returns, and to subsidize additional coal-fired generation upwind of PA. Like the TrAIL project, it is not needed to address any reliability issues.
PATH Proceedings in WV, VA and MD
The PATH line is a proposed 765 kV transmission line that will extend hundreds of miles from the Amos power plant in West Virginia, through Virginia, to Kemptown, MD. Like the TrAIL line, which runs roughly parallel to PATH, the proposed PATH power line is not needed – and it will cause significant pollution and greenhouse gas emissions upwind of Pennsylvania. And, once again, Pennsylvania businesses and residents will have to pay for a portion of this billion dollar line.
The national Sierra Club has taken the lead, with help from Earthjustice, to fund the PATH litigations. 4 experts were retained, and testimony from these 4 experts was filed in Virginia. The experts are Chris James (air pollution impacts), and three “need” experts – George Loehr, Hyde Merrill, and Bob Fagan.
In VA and in WV, the Company filed motions seeking to “modify the procedural schedule” - to allow it to resubmit brand-new “need” testimony sometime next year. The Motion was granted in West Virginia – and the schedule was extended. The Company will submit brand-new need testimony by June 29, 2010.
A similar motion to extend the procedural schedule was denied in Virginia. However, the Company then filed a Motion to Withdraw its application in Virginia, admitting that the new modeling runs it was ordered to do (discussed below) showed that the PATH line was not needed by 2014, and that it might be needed by 2016 to resolve some potential voltage issues.
The Company was ordered, in Virginia, to do new “modeling” runs (to address the concerns of the experts), and filed the results of the modeling runs on the “need” for PATH on January 4, 2010. Although the Company will not admit it, the modeling runs show that the PATH line is not be needed until at least 2021.
Because the new modeling runs showed that there was not a need for the line, the Company could not support its application, and the Virginia hearing examiner recommended granting of the Withdrawal. He listed various conditions the Company would need to meet before re-filing an application for the PATH line in Virginia (including new evidence on “need”, analysis of demand side response and energy efficiency measures, etc.). The Virginia Commission agreed, and adopted the hearing examiner’s recommendation.
Despite the fact that the experts were right – the PATH line is not needed - the Company and PJM are continuing to try and get the PATH line approved in WV and MD, and will apparently be filing a new application in VA in July of 2010.
The Sierra Club and Earthjustice will need additional help funding the PATH litigations (because the Company will be filing brand new need testimony, and additional expert work will be needed) in all three states.
Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative
The ECC is seeking additional funding to participate in the newly-created Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative. The Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) was created by the transmission planning authorities in the Eastern Interconnection (which includes 31 states and much of Canada) and funded by the Department of Energy to conduct detailed modeling of potential resource scenarios and transmission needs for the next 10-20 years. The Department of Energy recently awarded $60 million to establish new regional transmission planning organizations in three different geographical areas – in the Western Interconnection, Texas, and the Eastern Interconnection.
The Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative was created to develop long-term interconnection-wide transmission expansion plans to encourage the development of “clean electricity”. Its studies are intended to influence future policy decisions as this country moves to “clean energy” – and will affect future decisions regarding specific generation and transmission projects.
This is a very important new planning group – it will try and evaluate and plan for large scale wind or solar electricity generation in the eastern interconnection. It is intended to help move this country to a cleaner future – with less pollution, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and more renewables.
Over 95% of the regional transmission planning authorities in the eastern interconnection have agreed to participate – including PJM, ISO NY, the Midwest Independent System Operators, and ISO NE. These four ISOs are all very active participants (they make up 4 of the 8 most active ISOs that will be involved in the planning project).
A number of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, NRDC, the Environmental Defense Fund, Union of Concerned Scientists, etc., asked the DOE for funding to participate in these interconnection-wide planning efforts. They received funding for travel, but not for experts.
It will be important to participate in this planning group to avoid biased or incomplete studies of “need”, and to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the analyses and conclusions because the EIPC’s ultimate conclusions will have significant effects on future transmission policy in the Keystone State.
Susquehanna to Roseland Project
Starting near Berwick Pennsylvania, a new 150 mile-long 500 kV transmission line has been approved by PJM, to be constructed by PPL and PSE&G if they can obtain state approvals in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The line will end near Roseland, New Jersey. PPL just filed an application for approval of this high voltage line with the PA PUC. This line is part of a plan to traverse Pennsylvania with unnecessary electric transmission lines, to transport electricity generated outside of Pennsylvania to eastern markets (New Jersey, New York, Washington, D.C., etc.). On February 27, 2009 , the Energy Conservation Council began its participation in this proceeding. Our intention is to be sure that all other avenues have been explored and that a reliability problem exists, before this project is allowed to commence especially given the potential for destruction to the lives of the citizens in the region and the environmental treasures in its path.
Susquehanna to Roselnd Project Update
We objected to PPL’s application seeking approval of the Susquehanna to Roseland line. However, despite significant and credible expert testimony indicating that PPL had not proven that the line was needed – and PPL used outdated load forecasts and ignored specific load-reducing programs already in place - the PUC voted in favor of the Susquehanna to Roseland line (4-1). Commissioner Christy (who is based in Pittsburgh) is the only one who voted against approval of the line.
The Commission retained (and slightly modified) two important conditions from the recommended decision, both of which the Company had objected to: (1) construction cannot start on at least one of the segments until the Company obtains a permit from the National Park Service to allow construction through the Delaware Water Gap; (2) and the approval will expire if the Company does not start construction within three years.
The Commission also added a new condition that was not mentioned in the administrative law judge’s recommended decision: PPL must report to the PUC within 30 days the results of PJMs 2010 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan as to whether the need for the line, or the date of need, has changed.
The Pennsylvania Consumer Advocate filed a motion for “reconsideration” of a portion of the decision. There is no timetable for a decision on that motion. However, even if the motion is granted, it will not prevent construction of the line – and the decision of the PUC will still need to be appealed. The ECC plans on appealing the PUC’s decision for numerous reasons, including the following:
PPL failed to adequately evaluate updated or current information;
The PUC did not require PPL to consider alternatives such as demand side management, energy efficiency, non-transmission alternatives, or improvements to existing facilities.
The PUC failed to require PPL to include an updated load forecast that reflected the current economic recession;
The PUC failed to require PPL to evaluate the significant quantities of Demand Response and Energy Efficiency resources that cleared in PJM Interconnection’s May 2009 RPM Auction; and
The PUC failed to require PPL to evaluate the effects of Pennsylvania’s Act 129, and New Jersey’s Energy Master Plan peak load reduction initiatives, which require the reduction of peak electrical usage.
Once the Petition for Reconsideration is decided, the ECC will file its appeal.
The ECC is also participating in the National Park Service’s permitting process under the National Environmental Policy Act. If the Park Service does not issue a permit, the proposed line cannot be built.
|
