Federal Power Line Plan

Posted on March 8, 2008 by Alan Ackerman

WASHINGTON (AP), March 6, 2008


New power line construction is more likely in the Mid-Atlantic States and the Southwest after the government on Thursday said it was pushing ahead with a plan to expand and modernize the electric grid in those areas.


The U.S. Department of Energy formally denied requests for a rehearing of a previous decision making it easier to build power lines in the designated areas, saying challenges by those who oppose new line construction were meritless.


The Energy Department has designated two "National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors" over the objections of many local and state officials.


The federal government's mid-Atlantic power corridor runs from Virginia and Washington, D.C., north to include most of Maryland, all of New Jersey and Delaware and large sections of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.


The Southwest corridor consists of seven counties in Southern California and three in Arizona.
In deciding to go forward with the two corridors, the department issued a statement Thursday saying the findings of energy congestion in the areas "are well-founded and based on data and studies."
In that event, a failure on transmission lines in Ohio set off a chain reaction that knocked the Canadian province of Ontario off the power grid, along with parts of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts.


If state authorities do not approve any construction after a year, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, may intervene and approve a grid project if the new line is deemed necessary to satisfy national power needs. Such approvals could, in theory, include the use of eminent domain law to compel private owners to sell their property.


-The US government now views electric capacity as a federal rather than State issue. As such, it is strenuously pursuing a course of developing major corridors for future utility utilization of gas and electric transmission lines.

Tags: , , ,

ITC Line: Genesee, Osceola, Hartland, Brighton, and Milford Townships

Posted on February 28, 2008 by Alan Ackerman

MPSC- Michigan Case No. U-14861, February 28, 2008

The MPSC issued an order denying a request by Hartland Township and several area homeowners for a rehearing in a case involving the construction of an overhead transmission line in Livingston and Oakland counties by ITC Transmission.

-An Opinion and Press Release, found under the MPSC filing, rejected the Hartland Township and owners’ challenge to the project. This is the final part of the proceeding with offers and the filing of the condemnation complaints for major transmission lines, which will destroy the aesthetic attractiveness to a number of communities in Livingston and Oakland Counties.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Detroit News Opinion

Posted on September 20, 2007 by Alan Ackerman

Detroit News, September 18, 2007

Hartland Township residents have enlisted state legislators in their battle against a plan to build overhead electric transmission lines through the county, but that's not an appropriate way to deal with the issue.

Officials in the Livingston County community and some residents have been protesting a state-approved plan for more than a year that allows ITC Transmission to install 95-foot tall power poles for the delivery of electricity to the growing area.

It is not, however, the state Legislature's job to micromanage the affairs of local communities or the companies that provide power and other services to meet their needs. That rests with the MPSC, which has already approved the project.

ITC addressed the issues and followed a MPSC request to change the route, which will add an estimated $2.2 million to the project. If forced to bury the lines, project costs will increase anywhere from $15 million to $40 million, ITC officials say. Those costs will be passed on to consumers.

-The author of this blog frequently agrees with the Detroit News Opinion page on land use. However, this time around, one is bound to disagree.

One of the few outlets we have to respond to land acquisitions is to seek relief via the legislative process. We should not be upset if the owners in this area are successful. The alternative would be no opportunity to respond to the actions taken by franchises granted by the government!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Power Line Opponents in Greene County have their Say

Posted on June 14, 2007 by Alan Ackerman

Pittsburgh Post Gazette, June 11, 2007

The NIETC designation is important to those property owners because of Allegheny Power's plan to construct a 37-mile, 500-kilovolt power line through Washington and Greene counties, to a power station to be built in Dunkard, Greene County.

When completed, the line would run for 240 miles, through West Virginia and Maryland, ending in Northern Virginia, an area which has been losing power plants. Allegheny Power officials say that the Pennsylvania portion would serve local residents only.

Part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 allows the DOE to designate critical areas as national interest corridors, and to seize private property if needed. Perhaps the most controversial provision locally is the federal government's right to override state permitting decisions for transmission lines.

If a state denies a permit, makes no decision on it within one year or places too many conditions on a power company permit, the federal government has backstop authority to grant construction permits, superseding state and local regulations.

..."This is power companies having the right to condemn private property for profits," he said. …

…At issue are right of way easements purchased by Allegheny Power three decades ago in anticipation of a power line that would serve the booming steel industry.

When that didn't materialize, property owners thought the company had abandoned the rights of way. Because those deals sometimes didn't make it onto the rural deeds, some owners were recently surprised to learn they were sharing property with the power company.  Read Full Article

- This article is one of the few that has dealt with the issue in an unemotional fashion, recognizing that local opposition, if irrational, may well be subordinated to future federal action in order to enhance interstate commerce.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Atlantic Coast Line

Posted on March 9, 2007 by Alan Ackerman

Charleston Post, November 5, 2007

The governors of South Carolina and Georgia are set to unveil a plan this month to create a new maritime agency to build a port along the Savannah River in Jasper County.


The agreement between the states would put an end to a long-running legal tussle over rights to develop the 1,800-acre property, regarded as one of the last available sites on the East Coast where a major container terminal could be built from scratch.


The announcement by Gov. Mark Sanford and Gov. Sonny Perdue could come as soon as next week. The Commerce Department in Columbia said Friday that negotiations had been finalized.

"I think it's an agreement the ports authority's board will approve," he said. .

People familiar with its findings but who are unauthorized to discuss them publicly said the task force is recommending:
--A new dual-state agency to build and operate the port.
--A six-member agency board, with two members from the S.C. State Ports Authority, two from the Georgia Ports Authority and one member appointed by each of the governors.
--Equal ownership of the site.
--An end to any efforts to acquire the land through government condemnation.
--Unwinding a deal that allows the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to use the property as a dredge- disposal site.

-This article resolves the substantial issue of a State controlling property within its own State. Georgia and South Carolina have been fighting for years over the ownership of a property to be condemned in the other State. Finally, they are reaching a position of working this out.

Tags: , , ,