Sayre points to TrAIL opposition across state lines
West Virginia PSC witnesses weigh in against power line plan
By Roger Bianchini
Warren County Report
At the Dec. 17 Front Royal Town Council meeting Tom Sayre pointed out serious questions about the Trans Allegheny Interstate Line (TrAIL) proposal are not isolated to opposition voices in Virginia.
Sayre quoted from a West Virginia newspaper indicating strong opposition to the joint Dominion and Allegheny Power project in that state. Some of the negative opinions expressed in West Virginia come from engineers and consultant to the state’s Public Services Commission for which Sayre worked as a staff attorney for two years between 1989 and 1991. Sayre said he wanted to read into the council record the substance and level of opposition the TrAIL project is facing across state lines.
The projected TrAIL path includes Frederick, Warren, Rappahannock and Fauquier Counties in northwestern Virginia. In West Virginia the TrAIL line would extend through parts of Monongalia, Preston, Tucker, Grant, Hardy and Hampshire Counties.
The controversial proposal has already galvanized public and political opposition in northwestern Virginia. The TrAIL project is designed to accommodate future energy needs along the urbanized east coast by extending a huge 500-kilovolt power line from already controversial coal-fired power plants in the Ohio Valley through Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Virginia to an Allegheny Power substation in Loudoun County.
During a series of public hearings held by Virginia’s State Corporation Commission in impacted communities, opponents pointed out the project is not designed to provide any power benefit to the communities along its path. Virginia opponents also asserted Dominion and Allegheny power, as part of the PJM (Pennsylvania-Jersey-Maryland) regional power conglomerate, are pursuing an economic path of least resistance for themselves, while imposing undue environmental burdens on the communities along the TrAIL path. The SCC is currently reviewing the information accumulated during its hearings.
As for opinions now being expressed during the review process in West Virginia, Sayre quoted from a West Virginia Gazette article by Ken Ward Jr.
“A $1.3 billion power line across northern West Virginia won’t help the state and probably won’t cure the energy crunch, according to experts from the state Public Service Commission staff. ‘Allegheny’s application does not comprehensively list many alternatives that could ameliorate or obviate the need for the proposed TrAIL line,’ ” Sayre quoted from Ward’s story, citing Ronald L. Klein, an engineer working for two Morgantown-area groups opposing the project.
“Nor does [the power company] evaluate the quantitative potential of many of those available alternatives to not only reduce the demand increases in and along the mid-Atlantic portion of the Eastern Seaboard, but also to eliminate the future forecast increases entirely. Klein urged the PSC to force Allegheny to fully examine improving existing power lines, reducing electricity demand, building new power plants closer to the East Coast demand, and storing power in high-tech batteries for use during peak demand,” Sayre continued, quoting the Gazette story.
Among those testifying against the TrAIL project before the PSC were two consultants and one PSC staff engineer. “The two PSC consultants agreed that Allegheny’s proposal is not ‘the most economical or cost-effective means’ to cure potential northeast power outages,” Sayre stated.
Sayre later noted that a formal PSC evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Jan. 9 in what is being called “one of the biggest and most controversial cases” to come before the West Virginia PSC in years.