Articles (some of them long and windy) follow this index:
1. The PSC sent NYRI back to the drawing board – again. It rejected the corporation’s latest application as “incomplete.” So: the clock that gives the state one year to decide before FERC moves in isn’t ticking yet. (a) (b)
2. Environmental and states’ rights individuals and groups (including Sen. Hillary Clinton) are trying to block EPACT 2005 from giving the federal government what could be absolute power over transmission line siting. (a) (b) (c)
3. The town of Utica petitions the FERC to refuse a profit guarantee of over 13% to NYRI’s investors. Amazingly, such a deal is in the offing to encourage the company to take the “risk” of building a line. (This is an entirely new definition of investor risk.)
4. Regional groups remain steadfastly opposed to NYRI’s “new” proposal, saying it isn’t needed: “A $300 million solution to a $25 million a year problem.” says one guy. (As you’ll see below, the actual budget of NYRI’s power line has now doubled — to $2 billlion (two thousand million $$$) (a) (b)
5. The DOE refuses petitions from a multitude of organizations and individuals to reconsider its designation of most of the east and west coasts as “National Interest Energy Transmission Corridors” (NIETCs). The designation lasts 12 years and grants the federal government (at its discretion) absolute power over the location of transmission lines if states don’t agree with its analysis of “need” or meet the guidelines and timelines it sets. (a) (b)
6. In its massive new filing, NYRI’s budget tops $2bil but it promises energy savings for all. Well, ALMOST all. (And we can use our savings to pay its 13% guaranteed profit, plus whatever enterprise or development zone grants it manages to squeeze out the state once we’re dependent on it.)
7. New technologies like superconductors that increase energy efficiency for transmission need more R&D funding. The promise they hold can’t be unlocked in the current financial environment where massive subsidies go to conventional and already profitable energy solutions.
8. A Citizen argues against Marcy South. There are backyards there too.
9. Acuri writes the NY PSC asking it to press NYRI to evaluate the thruway route, which it dismissed too readily – and perhaps unnecessarily — as illegal.
10. Opposition to FERC’s overreaching and to EPACT’s potential impact is nationwide. (a) (b) (I know, we covered that already — but if you’re still reading, you’re an info glutton, and I will feed you.
After these articles are links to all the PSC and FERC documents you can eat.
So here we go, readers and readettes:
ONE (A)
03/24/2008 (our case number is ) 06-T-0650
NY PSC Notices — Transmission
File Size: 15952
View Document
New York Regional Interconnect Inc., Notice to Parties
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 03/24/2008
Letters Transmission
File Size: 51371
View Document
New York Regional Interconnect Inc. - Letter to Leonard H. Singer, Esq., Couch White, LLP and Chris Thompson, President, New York Regional Interconnect Inc. from Jaclyn A. Brilling, Secretary, regarding application deficiencies
View All Documents with this Case Number
View All Documents issued on 03/24/2008
One (B)
Source unknown:
New York Regional Interconnect, or NYRI applies, for a second time, to run a power line from the Utica area downstate, and for the second time the application is sent back.
The Public Service Commission says it wants revisions.
Among the cited deficiencies:
–A study of how the line would impact the statewide electrical system is missing.
–Aerial photos of the route don’t give enough information.
The formal review process for the application can’t begin until the PSC says the applications complete. PSC spokesman James Denn said applications are sometimes returned more than once, and companies can resubmit as many times as they want.
TWO (a):
From the 2/13/2008 Radio Free Hamilton.
Sen. Clinton Joins Others Asking for Corridor Hearings
Presidential Candidate and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton has joined a bipartisan group
Senators calling on the Energy Committee to hold hearings on National Interest
Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC). Created by the Energy Policy Act of
2005, NIETC bypass state siting authority for projects like the New York Regional
Interconnect, Inc. project. More
_______
February 12, 2008
Clinton Calls on Energy Committee to Hold Hearings on Proposed Power Line Corridor
Department of Energy Plan Would Allow NYRI to Bypass New York State Siting Process
Washington, DC—Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today joined Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) and a bipartisan group of Senators in calling on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold hearings on the Department of Energy’s (DoE) National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) program. In a letter to the Committee’s chairman and ranking member, Clinton and 13 other Senators highlighted that the current NIETC plan fails to comply with existing federal laws protecting environmental quality and public lands, and that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) plan bypasses states’ siting authority for power corridors.
“NYRI’s proposed power corridor would cut a swath through numerous New York communities over New Yorkers’ strong objections. I urge my colleagues who sit on the Energy Committee to investigate the way that the full implications of the 2005 law that would enable the federal government to override New York and a number of other states in siting power lines,” said Senator Clinton.
Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT), Congress authorized the DoE to designate “national interest electric transmission corridors” in congested areas of the high-voltage power grid. Last year, the DoE designated such a corridor that stretches along the East Coast and encompasses a large chunk of New York State, running from Oneida County to Orange County and cutting through federally protected parks and scores of local communities. Under EPACT, FERC was given the authority to override state denials of applications to build power lines under certain conditions.
Senator Clinton has long been a vocal and tireless advocate for those New Yorkers who are opposed to New York Regional Interconnect’s (NYRI) proposed power line route. Recently, Senator Clinton praised the decision of a federal judge in U.S. District Court in Albany to dismiss a lawsuit brought by NYRI that challenged a state law protecting homeowners from the use of eminent domain by private power companies. She has also joined with Senator Schumer to introduce legislation to fix the law in order to give the State of New York the final say on the siting of power lines.
The text of the letter follows:
Dear Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Domenici:
The energy bill recently approved by both the Senate and House of Representatives makes important advances for our nation’s energy independence and security with increased efficiency and alternative energy development. We are concerned, however, that the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor (NIETC) program authorized under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and implemented by the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) does not fully take into account other important options to our national grid such as investments in advanced electrical grid technologies, local generation of clean alternatives, and energy efficiency.
When Congress authorized Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, its intent was not to include such large swaths of land as were recently designated by DOE. Rather, the purpose was to ensure the grid’s reliability to prevent potential blackouts in heavily congested regions. Only recently have the impacts become evident with DOE’s final designation of the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest Corridors, which include portions of ten states, 220 congressional districts, and affect more than 72 million people.
Broad state and local opposition has arisen, in part, because some assert that DOE has failed to implement the NIETC program in accordance with the statutory requirements of Section 1221 to consult with states prior to designation, assess and evaluate transmission needs and non-transmission alternatives, and comply with existing federal laws protecting environmental quality and public lands. In addition, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued a NIETC ruling that reverses long-standing policy and allows federal preemption of the states’ transmission siting authority within the designated Corridors.
Despite receiving more than 2,000 comments of concern, DOE published its final designation of the two Corridors, covering over 116,000 square miles, on October 5, 2007 with only minor changes to the draft proposals. Private citizens, elected officials, public utilities commissions, and groups representing historic, land, and environmental interests have filed petitions in opposition to DOE’s NIETC designation process. On December 5, 2007, DOE agreed to reconsider these comments. However, they did not stay the implementation of the program to allow for this substantive review.
In order to avoid continued conflict and adverse consequences, we urge you to take timely action to allow full consideration of the significant national and state implications of the NIETC program. Congressional oversight is needed now because many of the ten designated states currently have applicable transmission projects pending before their public utility commissions with less than a year for final action before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may intervene. We strongly believe that the Energy and Natural Resources Committee must hold hearings and bring all pertinent information to bear on the broad implications of the NIETC.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our request. We cannot overstate the importance of the impact of the NIETC program on our constituents and states.
Sincerely,
Robert P. Casey Jr. (D-PA)
Arlen Specter (R-PA)
Ben Cardin (D-MD)
George Voinovich (R-OH)
Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
John Warner (R-VA)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Jim Webb (D-VA)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Tom Carper (D-DE)
TWO (b):
From the 3/15/2008 Mid-Hudson News.
Weekend March 15-16, 2008
Lawsuit filed over Energy Department’s transmission corridor designations
DENVER, CO – A lawsuit filed in a federal court could have ramifications on New York Regional Interconnection’s planned 190 mile long power line from Oneida County to Orange County.
Three groups, California Wilderness Coalition, Natural Resources Defense Council and The Wilderness Society Thursday filed the suit in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, contending the Energy Department violated the law when it designated National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors across huge areas of land in the Mid-Atlantic and Southwest.
Wilderness Society Senior Counsel Nada Culver said the lawsuit was filed after the federal agency denied a rehearing into the designation.
“We feel that the Department of Energy had a clear direction from Congress and also had a clear obligation to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act,” she said. “In both situations, the agency really should have looked at the actual effects of these designations on the ground and a real alternative to doing what they’ve done prior to just abrogating everyone’s authority over to the Department of Energy and to FERC to allow federal projects on all of our lands.”
The Mid-Atlantic NIETC would impact lands in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia and Washington, DC.
There is widespread opposition to the NYRI project.
TWO (c):
From the 2/12/2008 Land Trust Alliance website.
http://www.lta.org/conservation_defense/utility_corridor.html
Utility Corridors Threaten Extraordinary Public Land
2/11/08 Update:
Eleven environmental organizations sued the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in January over DOE’s designation of an eight-state area where federal eminent domain can be used to fast track new high-voltage transmission lines. Led by the National Wildlife Federation and the Piedmont Environmental Council, the groups filed suit because of DOE’s failure to study potential environmental impacts.
The Alliance is assisting by hosting this conservation defense section of the website and discussion group. Also see an article from the new Exchange on tactics to fight condemnation.
Recent articles:
THREE:
From the 3/28/2008 Times Herald-Record.
Utica tells feds to refuse NYRI filing for big return
By Steve Israel
March 28, 2008 6:00 AM
UTICA — The feds should refuse a request for a 13.5 percent return for investors of the huge power line that would cut through our region, the upstate City of Utica said in a motion recently filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
New York Regional Interconnect, which hopes to build a 190-mile-long power line from Utica to New Windsor, has asked FERC to reimburse it for the cost of the $2 billion line, as well as the 13.5 percent return for investors.
Both costs would be passed along to ratepayers.
sisrael@th-record.com
FOUR (a)
NYRI Opponents Optimistic
Optimism among opponents of NYRI, that their efforts to slow and eventually block the 190-mile long power line are working.
Topple the towers was the rallying cry at this meeting Friday night in Sherburne.
At first, NYRI conceded that shipping hyrdropower to New York City would raise electric rates upstate.But in it’s amended application to the PSC, NYRI did a 180, saying the power line would stimulate new generation capacity, and cut costs.
Ken Johnson of Earlville says NYRI’s economic case doesn’t make sense.”We get painted as being NIMBYs. You know, Not In My Back Yard. But it’s not about that at all. It’s really about something that just isn’t needed. It makes no economic sense at all. It’s only going to make a few people very wealthy. It’s a 300 million dollar solution to a 25 million dollar a year problem.”
The fact that 2 years after being proposed, the project is still mired in regulatory reviews is seen as good news, by Eve Ann Shwartz, co chair of Stop NYRI. “The longer it takes for them, the harder they have to fight, the greater likelihood that we will win eventually because their investors are going to realize that’s it’s just too costly to achieve their goal of making profit off of us* Shwartz says she expects the Public Service Commission to reject NYRI’s application, about one year from now.
(*I agree that buying time is our best bet — but not for this reason — LP)
FOUR (b)
From the 3/9/2008 Times Herald-Record.
Power-line foes pack meeting
By Steve Israel
Times Herald-Record
March 09, 2008
OTISVILLE — So what if a new route of the massive power line proposed for our region slices under this western Orange County village, and not above it, as first planned?
Folks are so dead set against New York Regional Interconnect, even a church graveyard has a red anti-NYRI sign.
Yesterday, two weeks after NYRI submitted new alternative routes to the state Public Service Commission, about 100 Orange and Sullivan residents braved sheets of rain to hear why the 190-mile-long power line is still wrong.
“We don’t need this; we don’t want this regardless of where it goes,” SayNo2NYRI’s Gail Heatherly of Otisville told the firehouse full of red anti-NYRI signs and shirts. “It’s going to lower our property values, increase our taxes and have a negative effect on the environment and tourism.”
And then SayNo2NYRI’s Nina Neighmond of the Town of Wallkill ticked off a slew of reasons why going underground in Otisville or building 10-story-high towers anywhere along the route from Utica to New Windsor is bad. NYRI would have to blast land it doesn’t yet own to dig beneath the village, she said. Zoning laws would have to be waived and access roads and storage areas would be carved in fields and forests.
“And they’re only going to tell us exactly where they’ll build once they get (approved),” she said.
That’s why an alternative route the PSC forced NYRI to examine — alongside the existing Marcy-South power line route — might be the lesser of evils, said Heatherly. But that would still mean taking land next to those lines that cuts through Sullivan and Orange counties. So power line foes want NYRI to explore building along the New York State Thruway — which NYRI says is prohibited by law if another route is “feasible.”
But even here in this hot spot of NYRI opposition, folks know fighting the $2 billion power line is a tall order — especially since the federal government could eventually approve it regardless of what the PSC rules.
So the opposition leaders urged these regular folks to turn out to the public hearings that should be scheduled in the next few months.
“Our voices have to be heard,” said Neighmond. “This is not over. This is just beginning.”
sisrael@th-record.com
FIVE (a):
From the 3/7/2008 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Foes of power line corridors lose again
Energy Department affirms October ruling
Friday, March 07, 2008
By Don Hopey, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The U.S. Department of Energy has cleared the way for construction of a high-voltage electric transmission line in Washington and Greene counties and through wide corridors in the northeastern and southwestern United States.
The DOE announced yesterday that it was affirming its October decision to designate 52 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties and broad swaths of seven other northeastern states as part of a national interest electric transmission corridor, or NIETC. It also reaffirmed a southwestern corridor in southern California and Arizona.
Authorized by a 2005 federal energy law, such corridor designations make it easier to build power lines in those areas by giving the federal government the power to approve such projects over the objections of local and state officials.
The DOE ruling denied 71 requests for a rehearing from citizens groups and state agencies, including the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and the state Department of Environmental Protection, saying the challenges were “without merit.”
Allegheny Power’s plan to construct 37 miles of a 240-mile, 500-kilovolt power line through Washington and Greene counties must still get PUC approval, but the DOE decision announced yesterday provides a “backstop” should the state commission balk.
Doug Colafella, a spokesman for Allegheny Power, said the transmission line to carry power from southwestern Pennsylvania through West Virginia into northern Virginia is needed to prevent electric supply problems that studies show could occur by 2011.
“The DOE decision underscores the importance and need for enhanced transmission in this country. Our transmission system is not keeping pace with demand,” he said.
Pennsylvania’s PUC will hold hearings on the project during the last week of this month in Pittsburgh. Public hearings are taking place this week in Virginia, and a decision by the Public Service Commission of West Virginia is due May 2.
Mr. Colafella said the company is committed to working through the state agencies and commissions to get approval for the project. That might be tough in Pennsylvania, where the PUC, the DEP and Gov. Ed Rendell have opposed the corridor designations and the transmission line.
“We’re disappointed with the DOE ruling. This transmission line is only going to depreciate property values and offer no real benefit to Pennsylvania citizens,” said Neil Weaver, a DEP spokesman, adding that the department is reviewing the decision and weighing an appeal.
Greene County Commissioners Chairwoman Pam Snyder said the power line project adds a health risk to a county already living with pollution from dirty coal-fired power plants.
“It’s a sorry day when our federal government takes the word of the power company over the interests of its citizens and allows something like this to be shoved down our throats,” she said. “We will continue to hope and fight.”
Denise DiNunzio, a spokeswoman for the state Public Utility Commission, declined comment, saying the commission had not yet reviewed the 48-page decision.
Don Hopey can be reached at dhopey@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1983.
First published on March 7, 2008 at 12:00 am
FIVE (b):
From the 3/7/2008 Electric Light & Power.
DOE denies rehearing request for transmission corridor designations
Washington, D.C., Mar. 7, 2008 — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) denied requests for rehearing of the Mid-Atlantic and the Southwest Area National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (National Corridors) designated by DOE in October 2007 as areas of significant electricity congestion and constraint. The designation of national corridors was made in accordance with the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). In affirming the National Corridor designations, the DOE dismissed as being without merit challenges raised by the applicants for rehearing, citing data analysis conducted in its 2006 National Interest Electric Transmission study, opportunity for public review and comment, and other reasons.
DOE reviewed the specific issues raised by applicants for rehearing and cited reasons for denying the requests in an order sent to the Federal Register. The DOE said that the findings of congestion in the designated areas are well-founded and based on data and studies as required by statute, and were based on analysis demonstrating that persistent transmission congestion that adversely affects consumers exists in these two areas. The DOE also highlighted that its approach to defining the geographic boundaries of the affected areas is consistent with the statutory requirements.
The DOE also said it is not required by statute to analyze non-transmission alternatives for relief of congestion prior to issuing a National Corridor designation. The DOE also said federal statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act are not applicable to the DOE’s designation of national corridors. Reviews under those statutes would be conducted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission before Federal approval could be granted under the Federal Power Act for the construction of a transmission project.
SIX:
From the 2/21/2008 Associated Press.
Feb 21, 6:09 PM EST
AP Newsbreak: NYRI costs rise but cheaper power predicted upstate
By DEVLIN BARRETT
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — The total cost of the proposed NYRI power line in central New York has jumped to more than $2 billion, according to new documents that include the company’s prediction the project will lower long-term electricity prices across the state.
New York Regional Interconnect, Inc. delivered a massive supplemental filing to the state’s Public Service Commission late Thursday. A copy of the filing was obtained by The Associated Press.
In the documents, the company specifically rejects the possibility of building the power line along the New York State Thruway, as some elected officials, including Gov. Eliot Spitzer, have suggested. NYRI said the route is “not a feasible alternative” due to federal law.
NYRI contends a 190-mile, 1,200 megawatt direct current line running from the Utica area to Orange County is needed to improve the state’s aging power grid and reduce the threat of blackouts like the one that struck the state in 2003. But the project has generated intense opposition from residents along the proposed path who say it will harm their communities and lead to higher costs for power.
“I believe we’ve addressed all of the major issues, all of the Public Service Commission’s requests,” said NYRI president Chris Thompson. “I think a lot of the opposition comes from misinformation and we believe this filing will clarify and correct the record on that by getting out the actual facts.”
The company submitted three thick binders of documentation to the PSC, hoping to win state approval for the project. As part of the submission, NYRI commissioned an outside company, CRA International, to analyze the project’s impact on power costs around the state.
Statewide, power costs would decline by 4.7 percent in 2012, the first expected year of operation, although in the Mohawk Valley, those costs would rise by 2.9 percent, according to CRA. Over the long term, the company predicted, consumer costs would decline everywhere except for the Capital District. By 2018, the analysts predict, statewide consumer costs would drop 5.7 percent.
Most of the opposition to NYRI has come from those who say building power lines and towers will despoil their communities. The company has sought to win approval for the line to run largely along old railroad rights of way, but the state agency asked NYRI to consider alternate routes.
In the supplemental filing, NYRI for the first time proposes burying the line underground in the most densely populated section near Utica, but the company says doing so for the entire length of the project, as some have suggested, would be too expensive to build and maintain.
Burying the line through the Utica area is the main reason the total cost of the project has risen from $1.6 billion to $2.1 billion, said Thompson.
The company also offered an alternate route along an existing power line called Marcy South, as well as numerous short-distance variations along the original proposed route.
“There are a total of 15 or 16 alternate routings or options,” said Thompson.
The Thruway, they say, is not one of them.
Elected officials, from the governor to Utica-area congressman Michael Arcuri, have suggested the possibility of running NYRI along the Thruway. But the company said federal law only allows such construction if there are no other viable alternatives. Since the company contends that its original proposed route - as well as others - are viable, it argues the Thruway isn’t really an option.
The NYRI bid will now likely lead to formal hearings, and a final decision could still be a year away.
The NYRI project aims to address a perennial state energy issue: how to get power flowing cheaply and easily from its generation sources upstate to meet the ever-growing demands of the New York City area.
NYRI has also become part of a broader argument about the nation’s electric grid and whether the federal government should step in and approve such lines over the objections or local and state authorities.
Most of New York is now part of a federally designated “national interest electric transmission corridor” which would allow Washington officials to step in and approve a power line project if state authorites fail to act. While the law is new, NYRI could end up being its first test, should the company fail to win approval from the state.
SEVEN:
Ken Silverstein EnergyBiz Insider Editor-in-Chief Read Ken’s Blog
The so-called high-temperature superconducting cable must actually be super-cooled. That will virtually eliminate the resistance to electricity flow, thereby greatly increasing the efficiency of the wire. The second-generation technology is one solution to the challenging task of providing sufficient electric power to densely populated areas. Burying cable and acquiring rights-of-way is prohibitively expensive, often representing three-quarters the cost of such projects. With their greater capacity, however, superconducting cables hold lots of promise.
“High-temperature superconductivity has repeatedly demonstrated that it has the potential to play a pivotal role in modernizing our electric infrastructure and ensuring the stable and affordable delivery of electricity to our homes, businesses, and industry,” says Kevin Kolevar, director of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability for the U.S. Department of Energy. “As the nation’s demand for electricity continues to grow, so too do the pressures on our electric utilities to continue to provide the reliable electric service that is so important to our economy and way of life.”
Part of the Energy Department’s role is to provide funds for research and development into promising new technologies, all to plant the seeds for the time they might become commercially available. The agency justifies its foray into superconducting cables, noting that more than 7 percent of the electricity transported across the wires is lost because of resistance in current copper technologies. At a time when the nation is concerned about fuel supplies and air quality, it is a good investment and would ultimately result in $16 billion a year in savings, it says.
Superconductivity power equipment is not only half the size but it is also far more resourceful than conventional copper technologies. The Energy Department says that about 2,200 miles of existing underground cables are quickly becoming outdated and could be replaced with high-temperature superconductive lines that are less invasive.
Besides the National Grid project in Albany, the agency also has partnerships with American Electric Power in Columbus, Ohio and the Long Island Power Authority in New York. Meantime, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is working with Consolidated Edison to install those cables in Lower Manhattan.
In the case of Albany, a 350-meter modern cable will run between two substations. The project will cost about $27 million, of which the Energy Department will pick up half. It actually got its start in 2001 with a $6 million grant from a New York State energy agency, with some initial installation back in 2006.
“National Grid has been pleased with the performance of the high-temperature superconducting cable during Phase 1 of this program,” says William Flaherty, regional executive director of National Grid. “We are happy to have it back online now .The project has demonstrated that high-temperature superconducting cable works as expected, is reliable, and has posed no problems to National Grid’s system.”
High Cost
To be sure, the cost must still drop considerably for the technology to become widespread. But the good news is that increasing investment into the field is spawning newer prototypes. Once the technology reaches a critical mass, commercialization will start to occur and the price tag will come down.
Intensified research efforts are largely the result of increased attention to the reliability of the nation’s transmission grid. Efforts are also underway, for example, to develop cheaper wire that does not contain silver, called a coated conductor. But such wires have a long way to go before they would be practical. Altogether, the Energy Department has allocated $57 million for research and development for such projects while industry has agreed to put up $60 million.
The agency is now partnering with AEP in a two-year, $9 million project that is testing second-generation superconducting cable. It runs 200 meters and delivers 50 megawatts of power to 8,600 industrial, commercial and residential customers. It is also joining forces with the Long Island Power Authority by allocating $15 million of the $30 million cost of a project there. It is a 138 kilovolt cable system that is nearly a half mile in length. It is the first high-temperature superconductor cable at a transmission site. Other such wires have been used at distribution sites, which are characterized as lines that are 60 kilovolts or less.
The Department of Homeland Security, meanwhile, says that part of its role is to ensure the electricity keeps flowing in major commerce centers. To that end, it is funding $25 million of the $39 million price tag for such technology in New York’s financial district. Con Edison will install the first 50 meters of a 300 meter project by year-end. If all goes well, the full project is expected to be complete in 2010.
“The U.S. power grid is one of our most valuable assets, and we are taking the steps necessary — through the use of our most advanced technologies — to ensure its safety,” says Jay Cohen, under secretary for science and technology with Homeland Security. “As we saw with the August 2003 blackout and in incidents since, disruptions to the power grid have far-reaching effects and a tremendous economic impact.”
High-temperature superconducting cables can increase national and economic security by modernizing the grid. And while the technology is now expensive, government agencies are pitching in and trying to get those next generation wires into the mainstream. In time, it will succeed. The demand for power will not abate and will therefore necessitate the deployment of cutting-edge tools to enhance grid security.
More information is available from Energy Central:
Superconducting Sizzle - A New Cable Technology, EnergyBiz, Nov/Dec 2006
Secure Super Grid Debuts: ConEd Turns to Superconducting Cables, Energy Biz, July/Aug 2007
The Future of Superconducting Transmission, Energy Biz, July/Aug 2007
——————————————————————————- ——————–
Republished with permission from CyberTech, Inc. EnergyBiz Insider is published three days a week by Energy Central. For more information about Energy Central, or to subscribe to EnergyBiz Insider, other e-newsletters and EnergyBiz magazine, please go to http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_list.cfm/
EIGHT:
Letter to the Editor from the 3/31/2008 Times Herald-Record.
Don’t follow Marcy-South
The front page of today’s Times Herald-Record reads, “Marcy-South Route for NYRI?” Everyone seems to be leaning toward the Marcy-South route being the lesser of two evils; however, there is NO room for the new power lines.
As per NYRI’s documentation, there needs to be a 150-foot center line-to-center-line distance from the existing Marcy-South power-line towers to any new power-line towers constructed next to them. NYRI would still need to purchase property and/or pursue eminent domain from residents adjacent to the existing Marcy-South lines.
You can barely see the tops of the existing Marcy-South towers from most of the homes in our area. If NYRI constructs the new power lines adjacent to the existing Marcy-South power lines, they will potentially end up in the backyards of many residents.
Please don’t support the Marcy-South route as the easy alternative.
I can see it now: All of the NYRI foes will declare victory and move on and we (residents adjacent to Marcy-South) will be left with the new NYRI lines literally in our backyards.
Brian Gilligan
Campbell Hall
NINE:
From the 2/26/2008 Utica Observer-Dispatch.
Arcuri: NYRI can’t ignore Thruway
By ELIZABETH COOPER
Observer-Dispatch
Posted Feb 26, 2008 @ 09:15 PM
Last update Feb 26, 2008 @ 09:17 PM
AT A GLANCE
NYRI’s supplemental application filed Thursday with the Public Service Commission included possible alternate routes for its proposed power line, but excluded following the New York State Thruway.
If the Public Service Commission determines NYRI’s application is complete, it will begin the process to decide whether to approve the line through the area.
U.S. Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-Utica, said Tuesday he plans to send a letter to the Public Service Commission urging the agency to consider the Thruway route for the proposed power line.
TEN (A):
3/12/2008 Center for Biological Diversity news release
| For Immediate Release, March 12, 2008
Energy Department Fails to Consider Environmental Impacts of
Southwest Energy Corridor on at Least 95 Endangered and Threatened Species;
Conservation Group Amends Lawsuit Over Corridor Designation
LOS ANGELES— The Center for Biological Diversity today amended its federal district court lawsuit challenging the Department of Energy’s October 2007 designation of the Southwest National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor — a sweeping, 45-million-acre area that includes seven southern California and three Arizona counties — for failing to analyze the environmental impacts of the corridor to at least 95 species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act.
“The Energy Department has turned a blind eye to the impact of federally siting electric transmission lines and facilities in this huge area,” said Amy Atwood, staff attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. “There are dozens of endangered species in the area that are already suffering the effects of habitat loss and degradation and will only be pushed further toward the brink of extinction as the result of huge transmission projects designed to serve southern California’s energy demands.”
The Department of Energy designated the Southwest Corridor pursuant to the Energy Policy Act of 2005, allowing for “fast-track” approval of utility and power line projects within the corridor, nullifying state and federal environmental laws, and enabling energy companies to condemn private land for new high-voltage transmission lines.
“The areas DOE included within the Southwest Corridor are incredibly rich in species, including the center of an internationally recognized biodiversity hotspot,” said Megan Anderson of the Western Environmental Law Center, lead attorney on the case. “However, far too many of the species that inhabit this area are already endangered or threatened with extinction. For DOE to completely refuse to consider the impact of its action on these species is not only illegal, it is irresponsible given the uphill battle these species already face.”
The 45-million-acre electric transmission corridor includes millions of acres of protected federal and state lands in California and Arizona and at least 95 species that are listed as threatened or endangered with extinction under the Endangered Species Act.
The Center is being represented by Anderson and Matt Kenna of the Western Environmental Law Center and Atwood and Jonathan Evans of the Center for Biological Diversity. The suit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the central district of California.
Background
Section 1221 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required the Department of Energy to analyze and report to Congress on areas experiencing electric transmission “congestion” and designate such areas as “national interest electric transmission corridors.”
On October 5, 2007, the Department of Energy designated two such corridors, one of which was the Southwest Corridor. This corridor includes southern California’s Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties, as well as Arizona’s La Paz, Maricopa, and Yuma counties.
As a result of the Department of Energy’s designation, proposed projects in the Southwest Corridor are subject to an abridged permitting process orchestrated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which includes opportunities to override state agency decisions denying a project, use eminent domain to obtain rights-of-way across private lands, appeal federal agency denials of permits, and short-cut environmental reviews.
On December 21, 2007, the Center filed a formal notice of intent to sue the Energy Department over the Southwest Corridor for failing to analyze the impacts of the corridor on the at least 95 endangered and threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The Center filed a complaint alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act and Energy Policy Act of 2005 on January 10, 2008. Today’s amended complaint adds violations of the Endangered Species Act to the federal district court challenge. |
From the 3/31/2008 Boston Globe.
Federal power corridors prompt a backlash
Opposition rises to US grid policy; 2005 act cites national interests
By Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times | March 31, 2008
WASHINGTON - There is wide agreement that the nation needs to upgrade the aging system that delivers electricity from power plants to consumers - a grid that already is overtaxed and facing a 43 percent increase in demand over the next two decades.
But opposition is growing to the way the Bush administration has interpreted Congress’s instructions to improve it.
The Department of Energy is making it easier to build high- voltage transmission lines in vast tracts of the country, raising objections among environmentalists, lawmakers, and states that would lose the right to veto power lines within their borders.
The 2005 energy act gave the Energy Department the right to designate national-interest electric transmission corridors, where the federal government can step in to permit transmission towers and wires that have been rejected or delayed by states. In these corridors, the federal government can condemn private land along a power-line route.
Now the department has set up two corridors that cover huge swaths of territory. The western zone includes Southern California and western Arizona. The eastern zone cuts from New York to Virginia and inland across large sections of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Ohio.
Transmission of electricity is critically congested at the core of each zone, the Energy Department says. The new federal authority in the corridors is attracting interest from utilities.
But critics say the zones are too large and were drawn to favor power from plants that run on fossil fuels instead of cleaner sources such as wind, solar, and heat from the Earth’s interior, which also would need transmission if they were to be part of the energy mix.
The chosen contours of this plan, they say, will exacerbate global warming and pollution.
They have cited the potential effect on farmland and natural habitats. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has listed the eastern zone as one of its “11 most endangered places” because of Civil War battlefields, stretches of the Appalachian Trail, designated historic districts, and scenic rivers that could fall within power-line paths.
Bush administration officials like to compare their initiatives to President Eisenhower’s creation of the interstate highway system, and they say it will help keep energy prices down.
“The grid is the ultimate balancing act. The larger the grid is, the easier it is to balance,” said Kevin Kolevar, an assistant secretary of Energy who directs the three-year-old Office of Electricity Delivery and Reliability.
More than 157,000 miles of high-voltage wires in the United States send electricity to where it is needed. But the electrical grid as currently constituted is four separate regional sets of wires, with few connections between them.
Additions to this infrastructure have been slow, with 668 miles of interstate transmission built since 2000. Each state makes a separate decision on its part of the route.
Kolevar said the new zones were large to allow for flexibility in determining the sites for the lines, so that sensitive areas could be avoided. As for fossil fuels versus alternatives, the department is “generation-neutral. We really are,” he said.
The crux of the problem lies with proposals for power lines that cross state borders, Kolevar said. States, he said, “can’t take a Confederate point of view and not consider the needs of their neighbors.”
There is one escape hatch for states in the corridors, he added: When three or more states form a compact for transmission planning, the federal government will cede its authority to that group. “We need to see these states coming together, binding themselves to one another,” he said.
Environmental groups have filed separate federal lawsuits against the designation of each national interest corridor. Virginia recently sued the Energy Department in the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee plans to hold hearings on transmission, and Chairman Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said he expects the corridors issue to come up.
The corridors were “the best thing we could think of,” Bingaman said. “We’re just now learning how it’s going to work. We will look to see whether it’s being implemented the way we intended.” 
Some said it was inevitable; some said it was impossible, but we’ve forced NYRI to drop its original plan to run its towering power line along the Delaware River.