Application to run massive power line through Va. withdrawn

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/29/AR2009122902973.html

By David A. Fahrenthold Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, December 30, 2009

The backers of a proposed electricity-transmission line from West Virginia to Maryland have asked to withdraw their application to run parts of it through Virginia, citing a study that shows its power will not be needed as soon as they had predicted.

That request is the latest setback for the proposed Potomac-Appalachian Transmission Highline (PATH), a joint venture of Pennsylvania-based Allegheny Energy and Ohio-based American Electric Power. . .

"We remain committed to the project," said David Neurohr, a spokesman for Allegheny Energy. "We're saying we'd better have the full-blown, comprehensive . . . information in our hands before we go forward."

. . . In a series of public hearings -- in Loudoun County and other places in the line's path -- residents had criticized it as an unnecessary blight on rural areas and scenic views. . .

Earthjustice staff attorney Abigail Dillen said her group had contended that, because of a declining economy and improvements in energy-efficiency, the East Coast did not need the line's power. She said the line would have high environmental costs, because it would bring in energy from coal-burning power plants in the Ohio River Valley.

"We feel really vindicated" by the new data about electrical demand, Dillen said. "Because this is precisely what we've been saying."

South PAT Meeting #4: Preliminary Routes

As I was told by a patient man attending the PAT meetings, Idaho Power's efforts in its community advisory process may be more clumsy than cynical. Perhaps he is right.

Tuesday's meeting included a discussion of why the route following Idaho Power's Treasure Valley Electrical Loop (submitted last February) involves engineering constraints and unacceptable risks and must be abandoned, and why Idaho Power's pre-defined Study Area (the limits in which they wish to keep all route boundaries) also precludes the two Idaho routes drawn outside of it. Which means three Idaho routes were taken off the map before any analysis began. Exception to the limits was taken and noted.

This information would have been helpful a long time ago, before it could be construed that cynicism or double-dealing has been driving decision-making, and the not-so-subtle impression of metaphysical certitude that this will end up mostly in Oregon. It would have been helpful to be able to contribute to the constraints under which Tetra Tech formulated its original proposed Red Route, which precipitated last year's uproar in the first place, until many months had passed and we were finally considered worthy of engagement.

Tuesday's meeting presented thorough and helpful material and addressed a year's worth of questions. As rocky and fraught with misunderstanding as this community process has been, at least we are closer to understanding one another, and if we do not agree, we have stayed engaged.

There was even preliminary agreement among the Oregon and Idaho groups on what routes would eventually be acceptable, and which will most likely be abandoned. One of the biggest causes of resentment in this process has been routes being drawn by out-of-county NIMBY proponents, leading to some wild or erroneous lines obviously headed for abandonment. It might have helped to request that all Oregon and Idaho groups draw at least one route they could live with inside their own county lines.

It was announced that analysis for all remaining routes was necessary to proceed. Some lobbied for an immediate conclusive route vote, which, as the same patient man warned, would be a mistake in the counter-regulatory climate of Idaho, which stands to benefit most from the power supplied and where the political pull operates most locally, and Oregon, with the stronger legal position when it comes to the placement of utility corridors even as its farmers have far less freedom to do what they want with their property.

So we will meet again following more route analysis, in a stronger position to be able to defend the routes that seem to be headed for approval. Rosemary and her group have been dogged in their facilitation and appear to be earning whatever they are getting paid. I suppose being a facilitator would be a good way to lose weight through enormous stress, but it's one method I wouldn't want to try.

Idaho Power schedules public meeting for Dec. 17

by Ed Merriman Dec. 4, 2009 http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Idaho-Power-schedules-public-meeting-set-for-Dec-17

After a series of fall meetings in Grant and Harney counties, Idaho Power officials are preparing to resubmit plans to the Bureau of Land Management for building a 500-kilovolt transmission line with proposed routes across Baker County.

Kent McCarthy, Idaho Power’s community advisory process leader, said meetings in Grant and Harney produced no new or alternative routes for building the proposed Boardman to Hemingway transmission line through those counties.

“These weren’t routes that were proposed by Idaho Power. They were proposed by a central project team representing Baker and Union counties, and the southern team in Malheur County,” said Piper Hyman of Idaho Power corporate communications.

McCarthy said meetings were held over the past two months in Burns, John Day and Mount Vernon after the central and southern project teams made a proposal in September to shift the proposed transmission line from Malheur, Baker and Union counties to an alternate route across Harney and Grant counties.

He said the meetings were well attended (a total of about 25 people at Burns and 70 at the John Day and Mount Vernon meetings), but instead of presenting alternative routes, residents of Harney and Grant counties presented arguments against putting the proposed transmission line across their counties.
Due to the higher projected cost and greater length for a transmission line across Harney County, McCarthy said locals felt it would be better to pursue a shorter and less costly route across Malheur and Baker counties.

McCarthy said locals argued that the potential environmental damage, including damage to wildlife habitat, should rule out any route across Grant County.

“I don’t want to say they said ‘not in my county,’ ” McCarthy said. “We are not trying to pit county against county. They gave us some very well thought out reasons” for opposing building the transmission line across Grant and Harney counties.

“We don’t know what to do next over there, since there were no routes or route adjustments” proposed by representatives of the local government, landowners, community members and environmental groups who attended the meetings in Grant and Harney counties, McCarthy said.

Idaho Power cancelled a Wednesday meeting in Baker City and rescheduled it for 4 p.m. Dec. 17 at the Best Western Sunridge Inn.

That meeting will update Baker-area residents on the Grant and Harney meetings, and provide details of an analysis being completed by TetraTech engineering consultants on some 45 potential segments for the proposed Boardman to Hemingway transmission line.

“The analysis hasn’t been completed yet, but we didn’t want the (Baker-area) team members to go a long time without knowing what the status was,” McCarthy said. “We will have some analysis to present on each individual section of the transmission line.”

“We invite people to the team meetings, but anybody who shows up is welcome. We put the names on the list of anyone who shows up at a meeting, and send them notices and invitations to future meetings, so the teams tend to grow,” he said.

In addition to information on siting the transmission line, McCarthy said TetraTech has also collected the data and has completed much, but not all, of its analysis of the northern route through Umatilla and Morrow counties.

Due to opposition that surfaced last spring, Idaho Power withdrew its original transmission line application with BLM in May, as well as a National Environmental Protection Act review.

McCarthy said the original transmission line application was withdrawn in part to consider suggestions from the counties.

Idaho Power has approximately 470,000 customers in Idaho and 19,000 customers in Eastern Oregon, mostly in Malheur County and the southern part of Baker County as far north as Durkee.

McCarthy said the transmission line has been proposed to bring energy from the Boardman area and other parts of the Northwest into the Boise area and southern Idaho, and to increase the electricity carrying capacity of the Northwest power grid, which carries power back and forth between the California/Nevada region and the Northwest.

“I can’t say we aren’t building this transmission line to transmit energy to California,” McCarthy said.

He said the transmission line is needed to accommodate energy transmission both ways, since power from California is transmitted to the Northwest during those seasons when demand in this region is higher, and in turn power generated in the Northwest during the spring and summer is transmitted to California.

McCarthy said the power grids that allow the transmission of power along that route and into Southern Idaho are nearing full capacity, and the proposed Boardman to Hemingway line is needed to accommodate projected growth in energy demand.

Getting residents and project teams from different areas to agree on where the transmission lines should be routed, however, has cost the company millions of dollars and taken longer than expected. McCarthy said Idaho Power has had to extend it’s projected completion timeline from 2013 to 2015.

With a tentative goal of resubmitting the transmission line route applications to BLM, the Oregon Energy Facilities Siting Council and to a NEPA review, Hyman said Idaho Power is planning to present route analysis and mapping information to local project teams during January.

The goal is hone in on a primary route and a secondary route by the end of January, and then submit new applications on those routes in February, if possible.

She said the purpose of the local project teams is to “leverage the expertise and knowledge of people living in these areas, who know where farmland and environmentally sensitive areas, and wildlife habitat are, so we can adjust the (proposed transmission line routes) to accommodate that.”

Hyman said this is the first time she is aware within the current environmental era where a project of the scope of the proposed Boardman to Hemingway transmission line has been proposed.

“People weren’t as outspoken in the past as they are now,” Hyman said. “It’s a different world, and probably better for that.”

South PAT Meeting #4: Ethical Considerations

From the Powerpoint Presentation for South PAT Meeting #3 on Sept 30, Slide #22: "The TEAMS will begin revising and eliminating routes."

IPCo did not list any specific "Engineering Constraints" until Nov. 3o, after 44 routes were drawn based on existing constraints at the time. It is not ethical to eliminate routes based on unknown constraints.

IPCo needs to read and FOLLOW its own process outlined in Meeting #3, or admit that Tuesday's Meeting #4 will simply be a rubber stamp process, without validity when it comes to community input.

Boardman to Hemingway Project South Project Advisory Team Meeting #4

December 8, 2009 • 4 p.m. to 9 p.m.

Four Rivers Cultural Center 676 SW 5th Ave, Ontario, Oregon 97914

AGENDA

Meeting objectives:

• Present analysis methods

• Present analysis conducted to date of each PAT proposed route (44 routes proposed)

4:00 p.m.

Welcome – Kent McCarthy, Idaho Power, CAP Leader

4:10 p.m.

Team Business – Rosemary Curtin, Facilitator

4:20 p.m.

Idaho Power recommendations – Dave Angell, Idaho Power, Manager of Delivery &

Kent McCarthy, Idaho Power, CAP Leader

• Routes not to be advanced

• November 30 meeting

5:00 p.m.

Grant and Harney input - Kent McCarthy, Idaho Power, CAP Leader

5:15 p.m.

Presentation of how analysis was conducted – Tetra Tech

• Tables of opportunities, constraints and rating

Initial analysis of PAT proposed routes – Tetra Tech

• Overview of opportunities, constraints and rating for each route

6:30 p.m.

Dinner

7:00 p.m.

Revised PAT proposed routes – Tetra Tech

• Adjustments made to improve routes

Comparison of PAT proposed routes (geographic grouping) – Tetra Tech

• Likelihood of being permitted

• Ease of construction

• Cost

PAT input

8:45 p.m.

Next steps

• Discuss further detailed analysis

• Select proposed and alternative routes to submit to BLM

The Devil's Invitation

Power company needs to give county a chance to think
From the Blue Mountain Eagle. http://eastoregonian.com/main.asp?SectionID=14&SubSectionID=50&ArticleID=100906

Message to Idaho Power: slow down.

Grant County only recently was drawn into the fray over a new mega-transmission line, and we deserve time to sort out our concerns and document our stand.

Not decades, but a reasonable amount of time. At least as much time as the utility gave to our neighbors to the east - the ones who said "put it in Grant County." That little bit of NIMBY aside, it's only fair to allow us to catch our breath before the decision is made for us.

Idaho Power officials have suggested Grant County has always been in the loop for this project. They say we were included when they divvied up the territory for their north, central and south project advisory teams.

That suggestion begs credulity, however, as Idaho Power's original route proposal was down Interstate 84. Neither the publicity for the team meetings nor the Idaho Power Web site gave any hint a route could touch Grant County. It's not reasonable to suggest Grant County residents would turn out in droves for meetings in Baker City and Ontario that ostensibly had nothing to do with Grant County.

Yet here we are today, being asked to chart a route for this monstrosity through our county. (And do it quick - so Idaho Power can present its own recommendation in January or February. . . )

Forgive some of us in Grant County for feeling we haven't been given a chance to decline the devil's invitation. Idaho Power already has drawn up our dance card and we are left to wonder whether the consequences will be worse if we take to the floor or sit this one out . . .

We want that time, Idaho Power. It's only fair.

Note to Grant County: "Fair" and "Idaho Power" are mutually exclusive concepts. They've already thrown out three Project Advisory Team proposed routes through Idaho with no valid reason why. If you live in Idaho, money and political clout have their advantages.

The 2009 IRP Draft Load Forecast

From a letter to Barton L. Kline, senior attorney for Idaho Power Company, from the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power, dated November 20, 2009:

I write on behalf of the Industrial Customers of Idaho Power ("ICIP") to comment on Idaho Power's November 2009 Draft Sales and Load Forecast ("Draft Load Forecast"), which Mark Stokes provided to the Integrated Resources Plan Advisory Council ("IRPAC") on November 4, 2009. . .

Although the Draft Load Forecast is preliminary and may not be technically subject to any formal discovery requirements, it is useful to keep in mind the right of interested parties to review pertinent data and models underlying an electric utility's IRP prior to its acceptance or acknowledgement by a state's utility commission. . .

Without convincing data, ICIP is skeptical the economy will recover as rapidly as the Company expects. The Draft Load Forecast expects the economy to recover rapidly to the levels experienced in the 1993 to 2003 period in the next few years. We expect the economy to recover more slowly and do not expect the near-term growth rate will increase as rapidly as the Company predicts. . .

In sum, ICIP is skeptical of the accuracy of the Draft Load Forecast's projected growth rates without access to additional supporting data and models. We hope that Idaho Power will provide . . . access to the underlying data and models for its final load forecast so that ICIP and others may adequately participate and comment in the IRP process. . .