STL in the news!
June 12th, 2010
Stop The Lines! has appealed the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities’ determination on the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line, I’ve been representing them in this fracas, and from the news reports below, it looks like we’ve hit all the bases!
The Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line is absurd — they’re tearing down an existing low capacity line and putting up towers twice as high with … well… imagine this, QUAD bundled 500 kV line. Really… that is what they applied for, but midway through the hearing, they admitted that the structures couldn’t handle that and reduced it to TRI-bundled 500kV. ACSR at that, could it be more primitive? It’s absurd, if they 190 foot towers fell, with a 75 foot Right of Way, that’s 115 feet that it could extend beyond the Right of Way. It’s beyond absurd — it’s insane, and earth to mars, there are people right there, RIGHT THERE, don’t they care?
Plus it’s not needed, the Marketing Analytics report says it all:
Here’s the BPU order that we’ve challenged:
This is from the Pocono Record — be sure to click on the linkedarticle below to get to the Pocono Record comment section:
Power line fight heads to NJ court
For the Pocono Record
June 11, 2010New Jersey activists fighting proposed increases in the voltage and tower height of the Roseland-to-Susquehanna power lines are taking their battle to appeals court.
Four environmental groups and one onf the two private organizations made up of concerned homeowners filed court papers this week against the state’s Board of Public Utilities and utility company PSE&G. The papers charge that BPU, which approved the plan unanimously without comment in February, did not exercise due diligence in properly reviewing the proposal.
Stop the Lines, based in Fredon, N.J., has filed suit. It is one of two active private organizaitions in New Jersey opposing the project, along with the recently established Save the Park group in Hardwick Township, N.J., which has a sign advertising its cause on Hollow Road in Smithfield Township.
The suit contends the review lacked a proper analysis of the need for the project, failed to consider the environmental impacts of construction or weigh the secondary impacts of importing coal energy from Pennsylvania.
The existing 47-mile link of the 145-mile route, which extends through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and specifically through Saw Creek Estates in Lehman Township, would add 500,000 kilovolts and raise towers to 195 feet. It is under the auspices of the PJM Interconnection, which includes PPL on the Pennsylvania side and PSE&G, which is looking to recoup $3 billion in costs stemming from the deregulation of the energy sector in New Jersey.
The project still awaits approval by the National Park Service. New Jersey Sen. Bob Menendez recently sent a letter to park Superintendent John Donahue asking him and the National Park Service to exercise due diligence in its decision, which is due in 2012.
PSE&G spokesman Karen Johnson defended BPU’s decision, saying PSE&G is aware of the appeal and believes there is “ample evidence” to support its decision.
And from the Daily Record:
Morris area citizens group sues over power line plan
BY COLLEEN O’DEA • STAFF WRITER • June 10, 2010The citizens group Stop The Lines has filed an appeal challenging the state Board of Public Utilities’ approval of Public Service Electric and Gas Co.’s transmission line expansion through Morris, Sussex and Warren counties.
Stop The Lines’ appeal of the BPU’s January decision permitting the upgrade on PSE&G’s Susquehanna-Roseland power line is the second filed in appellate court in the last week. Four environmental groups that like Stop The Lines also had intervened in the proceedings filed an appeal last Friday.
The Stop the Lines appeal will focus on the lack of need for the expanded transmission line, which would add 500-kilovolt lines to towers as high as 195 feet along the 47 miles in New Jersey. The group also faults the BPU’s refusal to consider information on a possible decreased demand, health and safety impacts on landowners, residents and the environment and economic impacts ranging from loss of property value and tax revenue to inability of homeowners to obtain mortgages.
“Building 195-foot high towers within a 150-foot wide right-of-way is simply unreasonable,” said David Slaperud, a Stop The Lines trustee.
“We believe the ample evidence in the case fully supports the BPU decision that this line is needed for reliability,” said PSE&G spokeswoman Karen Johnson.
PSE&G is awaiting final environmental permits to begin working on the eastern half of the $750 million project, from Hopatcong to Roseland. It hopes to begin work this summer. The western portion, from Hopatcong to the Delaware River, has to await the completion of a National Park Service review because the line runs through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area. That is expected to take until 2012.
The project was challenged in the BPU by citizen and environmental groups, several municipalities and the Montville School District. Ratepayers would foot the bill.
The line crosses from Pennsylvania at the Delaware Water Gap and proceeds through Warren and Sussex Counties. More than half the line would traverse Morris County, through Jefferson, Rockaway Township, Kinnelon, Boonton Township, Montville, Parsippany and East Hanover before ending in Roseland.
And in the New Jersey Herald:
Activists appeal state’s power line approval
Stop the Lines, the activist group that has been the most vocal and omnipresent adversary to the PSE&G line since its proposal in 2008, is appealing the Board of Public Utilities approval issued in February.
The appeal focuses on the need of the 500kV line, running 146 miles from the Poconos across northwestern New Jersey and into the heart of the Garden State. They will also question the economic impacts to property owners and municipalities along the line — which will double the height and triple the power of the existing 1920s-era transmission towers.
“Building 195-foot-high towers within a 150-foot wide right-of-way is simply unreasonable,” said David Slaperud, a Stop the Lines Trustee.
Four state environmental groups also appealed the BPU decision by the June 7
deadline.PSE&G has maintained brownouts could roll down the line as early as 2012 if the upgrade is not complete. However, the National Park Service blessing to cross the Delaware Water Gap will not be available until that year — and PSE&G put off seeking final environmental permits for the 20-mile Sussex County stretch of the line last month.
Time to change channels…
June 3rd, 2010
It’s all been happening over at NoCapX 2020 — there’s exciting news to publish here on other things, but no time until after tomorrow at 4:30!!
PSEG withdraws part of application!
May 23rd, 2010
It was one of those weeks. First CapX 2020 provides official notice that the Brookings-Hampton transmission line is delayed. [Motion to Suspend Proceedings!]
Hot in the heels of CapX 2020’s notice of “delay” of the Brookings-Hampton transmission line, PSEG provides official notice that it is withdrawing their NJ DEP permit for the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line:
Please take notice in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:A12.6(f). Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) is hereby amending the above-referenced permit applications submitted to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). PSE&G is withdrawing the applications for the section of the Project located to the west of the proposed Hopatcong Switching Station. The municipalities west of the Hopatcong Switching Station include Sparta Township, Byram Township, Andover Township, the Town of Newton, Fredon Township, Stillwater Township and Hardwick Township The company may resubmit a new application or applications to NJDEP for the western section of the Project at a later date.
It’s all here in their Notice to affected towns:
And here’s the real deal:
The funniest part is this — AS IF!!!
We know that they’ve got a problem at the Delaware Water Gap… we know they’ve got a problem at the NJ DEP… Now I wonder… how much of the Pennsylvania part is withdrawn???
Just like the CapX 2020 transmission project, the Susquehanna-Roseland transmission project was approved as a whole, the studies used to justify it were on the project as a whole, the BPU decision approving the project was on the project as a whole… so what, now they can say they just don’t need that part??? I don’t think so…
Park Service releases EIS Scoping Report
April 29th, 2010
Imagine 190 foot transmission towers through the Delaware Water Gap, between Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
That’s what’s proposed by PSE&G for its Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line. This quad/tri bundled 500kV line is HUGE, ugly beyond belief, and it’s just so big that I can hardly comprehend, there’s nothing that large that I’ve found. Others like it are being cancelled by PJM due to lack of demand, and this one should be too…
From the Pocono Record:
Anyway, the National Park Service is doing an Environmental Impact Statement, and leading up to that is “scoping,” which, as Grant Stevenson noted yesterday at the Task Force meeting, is THE most misunderstood term. I agree. It just zooms over people’s heads, and comments end up being of the “I hate this project because___” and nothing that relates to what the scope of the environmental review should be. Utter waste of time, and something to be mindful of with the CapX 2020 transmission scoping meetings coming up.
SCOPE: Range, area of coverage, breadth
So “scoping” in this sense is the range, area of coverage, and breadth of environmental review.
We had comments on the scope a few months ago, and there were something like 6,500 comments. Yes, that’s right, SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED! At the meetings I went to, it was standing room only and the comments were notably on point, they were profound examples of those rare uplifting meetings. Facilitation of the meetings was so good it felt like they really were interested in what we had to say. It was all taken down by a court reporter. THAT level of attention and appreciation is SO rare… and dig this … afterwards I RECEIVED A THANK YOU NOTE FOR PARTICIPATING. That is a first, I’ve never gotten a thank you note from an agency for showing up and speaking out. I’m thinking of framing it (after sending it to MN’s Dept. of Commerce).
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE – SUSQUEHANNA-ROSELAND 500kV TRANSMISSION LINE PAGE
Here’s their report:
The next step?
We’ll keep you posted.
Terrorist activity and electric infrastructure?
April 24th, 2010
Xcel Energy”s Hiawatha Transmission Project is sticking in my craw again. I’m having one of those “Xcel is evil” kind of days. Xcel is hiding reliability information under a claim of “Security.” How absurd can they get? Don’t they get that if I was going to blow up substations, a) I don’t need their stupid info to do it, and b) I would have done it a long time ago? Earth to Mars, that’s not my M.O. But noooooooooo…
I’ve been looking at Xcel’s SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI distribution reliability reports, one of the things I’m happiest about in the 2001 legislative session. Minn. Stat. 216B.029. Why? Because Xcel’s Scott Zima testified at the public hearing for the Hiawatha Transmission Line Project that the claimed “reliability” problems did not show up in their SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI reports. WAS ANYONE LISTENING?
What is SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI? They’re distribution reliability indices. Here are definitions stolen from Rochester Public Utilities 2009 Electric System Engineering & Operations Report:
- SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION DURATION INDEX – SAIDI
SAIDI is defined as the average duration of interruptions for customers served during a specified time period. Although similar to CAIDI, the average number of customers served is used instead of number of customers affected.
The unit of SAIDI is minutes. A common usage of SAIDI is: “If all the customers on the distribution system were without power the same amount of time, they would have been out for _________ minutes”.
- SYSTEM AVERAGE INTERRUPTION FREQUENCY INDEX – SAIFI
SAIFI described the average number of times that a customer’s power is interrupted during a specified time period. “SAIFI-short” is calculated using the number of customers affected by momentary interruptions (such as brief breaker or recloser operations). “SAIFI-long” is calculated using the number of customers affected by sustained interruptions.
The units for SAIFI are “interruptions per customer”. A common usage of SAIFI is: “On the average, customers on the distribution system experienced _______ interruptions”.
- CUSTOMER AVERAGE INTERRUPTION DURATION INDEX – CAIDI
CAIDI is the weighted average length of an interruption for customers affected during a specified time period.
The unit of CAIDI is minutes. A common usage of CAIDI is: “The average customer that experiences an outage on the distribution system is out for ___________ minutes.”
Here’s some background info about SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI reports from Edison Institute:
Here’s the Minnesota rule about reporting SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI:
7826.0500 RELIABILITY REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
Xcel has to file these reports annually. And since Xcel’s Mr. Zima’s testimony that the reliability problems they claim as the basis for need for the Hiawatha Project are NOT reflected in the SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI reports (WAS ANYONE LISTENING?), I spent some time looking at the annual reports filed this year:
Xcel’s Initial Filing – Docket 10-310
Xcel’s Initial Filing – Docket 10-310 – Attachment D – Part 1
Xcel’s Initial Filing – Docket 10-310 – Attachment D – Part 2
And there’s another older docket where similar information was recently filed:
Xcel’s Annual Filing – 02-2034 – Part 1
To search these dockets,go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “Search eDockets” and then plug in the docket numbers.
And here’s an example of what’s wrong with this picture – look at the crudely whited-out Feeder Line column:
Who cares? Well, I do… why? Because when they say that the distribution system is such a problem that they need a big honkin’ shiny new transmission line, and then one of their engineers testifies that this distribution “reliability problem” they’re whining about and inflicting an oversized transmission “solution” on a community about ISN’T showing up in the SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI distribution reliability reports, that’s a problem. IS ANYONE TRACKING THIS? It’s not rocket science, it’s basic vetting of their claims!
Looking at their letter in the filing in Docket 02-2034, there’s this amazing statement:
Security Data
The raw reliability data provided with this filing includes “security data” as
defined by Minn. Stat. § 13.37, subd. 1(a). Xcel Energy believes that some of the
raw data on the disks and/or that has been eFiled could be manipulated to reveal
the location and size of certain facilities that have been summarized in the
Monthly Report. The public disclosure or use of this information creates an
unacceptable risk that those who want to disrupt the electrical grid for political
or other reasons may learn which facilities to target to create the greatest
disruption. For this reason, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13.37, subd. 2, we have
excised this data from the public version of our filing.p. 5, Xcel’s Annual Filing – 02-2034 – Part I (emphasis added).
Excuuuuuse me?
The public disclosure or use of this information creates an unacceptable risk that those who want to disrupt the electrical grid for political or other reasons may learn which facilities to target to create the greatest disruption.
What a load o’ crap. It is so illogical — those they’re having problems with aren’t necessarily, and probably just AREN’T, the ones to target to create the greatest disruption!
So I calls up Xcel, I do… and leave a message with Bria Shea because Jody Londo who signed the cover letter with the “Security” note was not in, explaining what info in what dockets I’m looking for and that I’m wanting to sign a confidentiality agreement to get it.
But noooooooooooo, guess again. I get a call back from someone in “Legal” (I didn’t know they had an Illegal department) and here they are making a bogus argument about PUBLIC disclosure, and I’m asking for disclosure with a confidentiality agreement. She wants to know if I’m a party, which I’m not, there are no parties in these dockets. And even if a party, even with a confidentiality agreement, no, because it’s a SECURITY issue. Oh, yeah… right… I’m a terrorist, wanting their “feeder line” information to take out electricity to some select target… Guess she’s been talking to Mike Krikava, thinking only a terrorist would want to enter a 2005-MAPP map into a transmission proceeding. That’s as wacky as a judge thinking it’s appropriate to do a transmission proceeding without a map entered in as evidence!
So now I get to “evaluate my options.” It’s possible to do some triangulation with the reports and with the Attachments to Xcel’s Hiawatha Project Application, but… sigh… we all know what their concern is — that someone might read it and make some sense of it, and understand what it means.
