Status from Bill Kurtz
"Here is how I believe the situation is: The final EIS is at the printers and should be published in the Federal Record by the end of the month. Than there is a thirty day period for the Government agencies to issue their final record of decision(ROD). The Forest Service, we have heard, will deny the western route within the Forest upholding the letter Ms. Derby sent to the ACC(last June-July?). The Forest Service will, we have heard, approve as in Ms Derby's letter, the existing utility corridor within the Forest and will approve a slight deviation from that to accommodate the Central Route as it appears in the EIS. Again this approval is for land only within the National Forest. The DOE only issues a presidential permit for crossing into Mexico and their decision does not hinge on the Forest Service's decision. At the January 11, 2005 ACC Open Meeting the commissioners ordered that the reliability issue(the old order for second line to Nogales) be heard before an Administrative Law Judge to determine if a solution other than the 345 could be feasible(but no guarantee it would be ordered and approved by the ACC). In addition at the Jan 11 meeting the ACC ordered Case 111 (the Line Siting Case for the 345-kV line) be reopened to study and present facts for alternatives to the ACC approved Western route."
Follow-up Comments by Marshall Magruder:
"Only minor change was an amendment to the Order that required the "reliability" or quality of service in Santa Cruz County to be resolved by the Commission (with an Order) prior to any decisions by the Line Siting Committee. The Line Siting Committee ONLY has legal authority to cover the "environmental" issues in the statutes while the Judge can do other things. Attached in my presentation (unfortunately interrupted, as usual, by the Commissioners so I mailed it to them) that cover 8 issues that are not directly relevant to the Line Siting Committee. The statutes also permit the ACC to appoint the Line Siting Committee to act as their "hearing officer" which means the ALJ might be Ms Woodall. We've asked for hearings to be in Tucson or south due to high public interest."
Thursday, January 13, 2005
Paraphrased email from Marshall 1/12/05:
Background to this update: On January 11th, the Arizona Corporation Commission took action on TEP’s request to "Extended the time and re-opened" the Line Siting Committee Case No. 111 for TEP's 345 kV project between Sahuarita, Arizona and the US-Mexico border and Santa Ana, Mexico.
Present Status: The existing ACC Line Siting Committee Certification of Environmental Compatibility (CEC), or permit to build, is only valid for the Western Route. The CEC expires 15 January 2005. Yesterday, it was agreed to extend this CECone year until after all approvals have been obtained. TEP also requested to review the alternative routes. The question is: “Are any Routes in the CEC Valid?” There are three routes described in this CEC (permit) Application. 1 & 2) The Eastern and Central Routes were specifically denied by the Commissioners in the CEC issued on 15 January 2002. 3) The US Forest Service has already announced it will deny the Western Route after the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is made available for public review. Is the CEC (permit) now Valid? Without any approved routes, the CEC permit has no meaning. The statutes require a new CEC Application with a new round of hearings if major changes are made (a new route is a major change). Also, Condition 30 in the existing CEC does not permit changes and if any changes are made, it will be declared null and void. In fact, the extension might even nullify this permit. No one wants to address Santa Cruz County’s urgent electricity needs. However, we need reliable electricity in Santa Cruz County and many other options are available, including much smaller power lines (a 46-kV line has been proposed) and/or a local combined cycle (natural gas) generator plant to provide us adequate electricity. The current four substations that constrict the existing 115-kV line have limited by their poor functionally obsolescent condition. Both Rio Rico substations may not have backup power on hot days if we lose the existing 115 kV line (the 46-kV option provides this) and no action has been taken to rectify that situation. Why is the ACC not addressing these Needs? If they are solved, then there is NO justification for a 345 kV line.
Background to this update: On January 11th, the Arizona Corporation Commission took action on TEP’s request to "Extended the time and re-opened" the Line Siting Committee Case No. 111 for TEP's 345 kV project between Sahuarita, Arizona and the US-Mexico border and Santa Ana, Mexico.
Present Status: The existing ACC Line Siting Committee Certification of Environmental Compatibility (CEC), or permit to build, is only valid for the Western Route. The CEC expires 15 January 2005. Yesterday, it was agreed to extend this CECone year until after all approvals have been obtained. TEP also requested to review the alternative routes. The question is: “Are any Routes in the CEC Valid?” There are three routes described in this CEC (permit) Application. 1 & 2) The Eastern and Central Routes were specifically denied by the Commissioners in the CEC issued on 15 January 2002. 3) The US Forest Service has already announced it will deny the Western Route after the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is made available for public review. Is the CEC (permit) now Valid? Without any approved routes, the CEC permit has no meaning. The statutes require a new CEC Application with a new round of hearings if major changes are made (a new route is a major change). Also, Condition 30 in the existing CEC does not permit changes and if any changes are made, it will be declared null and void. In fact, the extension might even nullify this permit. No one wants to address Santa Cruz County’s urgent electricity needs. However, we need reliable electricity in Santa Cruz County and many other options are available, including much smaller power lines (a 46-kV line has been proposed) and/or a local combined cycle (natural gas) generator plant to provide us adequate electricity. The current four substations that constrict the existing 115-kV line have limited by their poor functionally obsolescent condition. Both Rio Rico substations may not have backup power on hot days if we lose the existing 115 kV line (the 46-kV option provides this) and no action has been taken to rectify that situation. Why is the ACC not addressing these Needs? If they are solved, then there is NO justification for a 345 kV line.
Monday, January 03, 2005
Email from Marshall (12/31/04):
The ACC Open Meeting hearings in Phoenix on 11/12 January 2005 are to establish hearings and should NOT resolve any issues other than a permit extension.
(The Second hearing has to determine what to do with the nearly expired Siting Committee Certification for Environmental Compatibility (CEC), or, permit for the TEP 345 kV line between Sahuarita and Mexico. With a 345/115 kV substation (called Gateway), and a 115 kV line between this substation and the Valencia Substation on Grand Avenue.) This permit (the CEC) expires on 15 January 2005; however, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and associated Records of Decision (which reflect the actions to be taken by various federal land managers and the DOE are based on the EIS) will not be available by that date. The recommended Order for the 11/12 January hearing will extend this CEC for 12 months.
The Line Siting Committee is NOT responsible to determine the "need" or requirements for solving quality of service in this service area. Thus, any possible action by the Siting Committee requires the decision (likely an ACC Order) based on the First hearings before anything can happen, other than extending the expiring permit (which is allowed) at this time or until the first hearings are completed. Condition 32 in this CEC prohibits any changes (other than allowing a request to extend the permit) in the original CEC. If there are changes, the entire CEC will be "null and void." A new Application will be required. On 28 July, it was clear that any changes to the existing Application will require a "re-start" of the whole Line Siting process. The Statutes also prohibit changes to an Application without new Line Siting hearings.
Another factor to consider is that the Eastern route was withdrawn by the Applicants, the Central route not evaluated nor deemed viable after the 18 June 2001 Line Siting hearing, and only the Western route was evaluated after that date by the Line Sighting Committee. No Line Siting Committee discussions or decisions have involved the new "cross over" route in Hells Canyon. The CEC prohibits both the Central and Eastern routes. Further, the draft EIS has many errors, such as a significant error in the Central route in the vicinity of Tubac, that was challenged as being a deviation from the CEC Application. These and the another 2,000+ comments on the draft EIS must be resolved in the Final EIS. No meaningful Line Siting Committee discussions can occur before the EIS and associated RODs are issued. The US Forest Service reviewed these Draft EIS comments and testified its preliminary decision prohibits the Western Route and saw not way to mitigate this. The Arizona State Land Department did not approve any of these routes on their lands.
The Draft EIS, in Table 9-1, has a partial list of over 38 other permits and approvals before the 345 kV line could commence construction. Some involve public hearings that have not been announced. Further, a legal challenge by the Defenders of Wildlife has not been resolved. There are dozens of other problems that need resolution before the 345 kV could start. These will be presented at the appropriate venue..
The ACC Open Meeting hearings in Phoenix on 11/12 January 2005 are to establish hearings and should NOT resolve any issues other than a permit extension.
(The Second hearing has to determine what to do with the nearly expired Siting Committee Certification for Environmental Compatibility (CEC), or, permit for the TEP 345 kV line between Sahuarita and Mexico. With a 345/115 kV substation (called Gateway), and a 115 kV line between this substation and the Valencia Substation on Grand Avenue.) This permit (the CEC) expires on 15 January 2005; however, the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and associated Records of Decision (which reflect the actions to be taken by various federal land managers and the DOE are based on the EIS) will not be available by that date. The recommended Order for the 11/12 January hearing will extend this CEC for 12 months.
The Line Siting Committee is NOT responsible to determine the "need" or requirements for solving quality of service in this service area. Thus, any possible action by the Siting Committee requires the decision (likely an ACC Order) based on the First hearings before anything can happen, other than extending the expiring permit (which is allowed) at this time or until the first hearings are completed. Condition 32 in this CEC prohibits any changes (other than allowing a request to extend the permit) in the original CEC. If there are changes, the entire CEC will be "null and void." A new Application will be required. On 28 July, it was clear that any changes to the existing Application will require a "re-start" of the whole Line Siting process. The Statutes also prohibit changes to an Application without new Line Siting hearings.
Another factor to consider is that the Eastern route was withdrawn by the Applicants, the Central route not evaluated nor deemed viable after the 18 June 2001 Line Siting hearing, and only the Western route was evaluated after that date by the Line Sighting Committee. No Line Siting Committee discussions or decisions have involved the new "cross over" route in Hells Canyon. The CEC prohibits both the Central and Eastern routes. Further, the draft EIS has many errors, such as a significant error in the Central route in the vicinity of Tubac, that was challenged as being a deviation from the CEC Application. These and the another 2,000+ comments on the draft EIS must be resolved in the Final EIS. No meaningful Line Siting Committee discussions can occur before the EIS and associated RODs are issued. The US Forest Service reviewed these Draft EIS comments and testified its preliminary decision prohibits the Western Route and saw not way to mitigate this. The Arizona State Land Department did not approve any of these routes on their lands.
The Draft EIS, in Table 9-1, has a partial list of over 38 other permits and approvals before the 345 kV line could commence construction. Some involve public hearings that have not been announced. Further, a legal challenge by the Defenders of Wildlife has not been resolved. There are dozens of other problems that need resolution before the 345 kV could start. These will be presented at the appropriate venue..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)