Proposed transmission
corridor brings more than 100 to meeting
May 16, 2007 - Knight Ridder Tribune Business
News
Author(s): Liz Mitchell
May 16--ARLINGTON -- For the most part, a three-person energy panel
stared icily, took occasional notes and rarely smiled at clever remarks
from a room of mostly angry citizens questioning the timing,
environmental impact and placing of federally propos d national electric
corridors.
Panelist Poonum Agrawal couldn't help but crack a smile, however,
when a stay-at-home mom brought her own kitchen timer to keep track of
her two minutes. Or when a Madison County supervisor came to the
microphone with a power line tower glued to the top of his plastic hard
hat. Tuesday's public meeting, sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Energy, brought more than 115 residents from Virginia, West Virginia,
New York and Pennsylvania. Together, they voiced concerns about federal
corridors that could give electric utility compan es eminent domain
authority. That power would be allocated to solve electricity
reliability problems only after utility companies go through the state
process.
Dominion Virginia Power, for example, recently filed an application
with the State Corporation Commission to build a 500-kilovolt-power line
through Culpeper, Fauquier and Rappahannock counties. The Richmond-based
company says the new line, totaling 240 miles, is needed to prevent
rolling blackouts that could occur by 2011 without the capacity for more
power. If the corridors are established and the state denies Dominion's
request, it could then refile with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission within one year of the corridors' establishment. At Tuesday's
meeting, each person was allowed two minutes to speak, facilitated by an
independent third party.
Congressmen were given up to 15 minutes. Reps. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and
Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., urged the DOE to allow the public more say in
the process. They are working on legislation that would help guide the
corridor establishment. Hinchey is hosting his own public hearing for
New York next month and invited the DOE to attend. You're on the clock!
With only an agenda to "do the right thing," Haymarket resident Donna
Widawski held her kitchen timer in hand, which she said represented the
marginalization of citizens' input regarding the corridor designations.
Many speakers expressed their frustration regarding a lack of public
meetings to voice concerns.
Some traveled between two and six hours to attend Tuesday, which was
one of seven public meetings that will be held in various locations in
the 11 affected tates. The DOE set the timeline and does not intend to
add more public hearings. "This draft proposal is an insult to all
hard-working citizens and reeks of influence," Widawski said. "It's the
large electric companies and lobbyists with cash and connections who
have been given preferential treatment with this corridor proposal. They
are the ones who have turned government into a game only they can afford
to play." None of the panelists responded to public comments and
concerns.
Agrawal and David Meyer represented the DOE's Office of Electricity
Delivery and Energy Reliability on the panel. Mary Morton represented
the DOE's Office of General Counsel. Bob Burnett, of the nonprofit
government watchdog Concerned Culpeper Citizens, said the general public
can see shortcomings in the department's analysis. Specifically, he
referred to the 2011 deadline for more transmission and a lack of
leadership in creating a better energy policy. "We respectfully suggest
there is a lot more homework to be done," Burnett told the panel. "These
questions demand more specific answers, and additional public
participation is required." Role of the Energy Dept.
In an interview separate from the meeting, Marshall Whitenton of the
DOE said it's not the department's job to determine which solution is
appropriate. That responsibility lies with the state siting authority,
which could shift to the FERC if the corrid rs are established and
utility companies have exhausted the state process. "Our job was to
raise to the national interest the finding that we've got a real
problem," Whitenton said. "Frankly, it's pretty clear that transmission
has to be among the solutions, but demand response does too and so does
conservation and high techno ogy. The whole idea is to get your system
with enough cushion that citizens don't have to worry in July and August
whether they will have electricity." In response to concerns that the
DOE has not conducted a full analysis of alternatives to new
transmission or an environmental impact study, Whitenton said those
things are not required of the department and would be meaningless since
the geographic are s identified cover large areas over 11 states.
If the corridors are established, the FERC would conduct a full study
and identify alternative solutions, he added. For Chris Miller,
president of the Piedmont Environmental Council, the federal
government's process and policy is not enough for the vast effects the
proposed corridors would have on the Piedmont and 10 other states. "The
designation of corridors is the first step toward the taking of private
property, and those rights are unique to American democracy," he said at
the meeting. "It differentiates us from every other country. And without
the process that we've asked f r, as an unacceptable use of public
power, it will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court." Liz
Mitchell can be reached at 825-0771 ext.
110 or
emitchell@starexponent.com
© Copyright 2007 NetContent, Inc.
Duplication and distribution restricted.
The POWER REPORT
PowerMarketers.com · PO Box 2303 · Falls Church · VA ·
22042
To subscribe or
visit go to: PowerMarketers.com
PowerMarketers.com@calcium.netcontentinc.net
|