Existing 115 kV to 138 kV Transmission Line Upgrade

There are many changes that impact all segments of the existing 115 kV to 138 kV transmission line upgrade. For example, between the existing Amado (Kantor) Substation and the two Rio Rico substations (Canez and Sonoita), one alternative has the new line going this entire distance alongside the River/Railroad corridor. Please see the attached which shows this in part "D" taken from this important Newsletter that can be found at:http://www.uesaz.com/Company/News/VVDocs/UES_V2V_3.pdf

NOW is the time to resolve differences, not in January! Thank, Marshall

From their announcement:PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND OPEN HOUSESAnother series of public open houses has been scheduled at the following locations, dates and times:

Nogales – Nogales High School Auditorium, 1905 N. Apache Blvd. – Dec. 2 , 2008, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m. Tucson – Holiday Inn Hotel & Suites, 4550 S. Palo Verde Rd. – Dec. 3, 2008, 5:30 - 7:30 p.m.

Green Valley – Joyner-Green Valley Library, 601 N. La Cañada Drive – Dec. 4, 2008, 5 - 7 p.m.

The open houses are designed to provide an informal forum in which the public may ask questions, receive answers, and provide comment regarding the siting process, the preliminary alternatives, or other issues. Comments will assist UES and the involved agencies to make informed decisions for the project.

We welcome your questions, comments and concerns regarding this proposed project. Please call the 24-hour toll-free Project Information Telephone Line at (866) 403-6358 or attend one of the open houses.

If you would like more information about the project, please visit http://uesaz.com/Company/News/VailValencia.asp PROJECT TIMELINE Once the final alternative routes have been defined, UES will submit to the ACC an application for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility (CEC) for the proposed project. The anticipated timeframe for submitting the application is January of 2009.

Hearings before the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee are anticipated to occur in March of 2009. If approved by the committee and the ACC, the project is due to begin construction in the summer of 2011 and scheduled for an in-service date in the summer of 2012.

Sahuarita-Nogales Transmission Line Project Proposal
Mar 27, 2008 11:06 PM

Tucson Electric Power (TEP) is working with the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) and federal agencies to improve electric reliability for Santa Cruz County residents served by TEP's sister company, UniSource Energy Services (UES) by proposing a new 345-kV transmission line.UES relies on a single 115-kV transmission line to feed a local distribution grid that serves more than 21,000 customers in Santa Cruz County.

When that line fails, county residents can be subject to potentially lengthy power outages until the line is restored to service. UES has taken significant steps to reduce the length of such outages, including the installation of a new gas turbine generator in Nogales and construction of an emergency backup link to TEP's system. Nevertheless, a second transmission line would allow UES to maintain continuous service under such circumstances while meeting Santa Cruz County's future power needs.To address this situation, TEP and UES have proposed building a new 345-kV transmission line from TEP's South Substation in Sahuarita to a proposed UES substation near Nogales, Arizona.

TEP also hopes to extend the new line into Mexico, enabling international energy exchanges while improving electric reliability on both sides of the border.The ACC authorized construction of such a line along the so-called Western Route in January 2002, but TEP and UES have not secured necessary federal permits for the project. Although federal agencies have not formally ruled on the proposal, a U.S. Forest Service official has said that agency would likely oppose construction along a portion of the ACC-route that passes through the Coronado National Forest.
In light of that conflict, the ACC has invited the U.S. Forest Service and other federal agencies to participate in a new review of the project, its proposed route and potential alternatives. That review is ongoing. Meanwhile, TEP filed a request on Feb. 2, 2006, for a new federal review of the project under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which sets a one-year deadline for such studies.

Based on the latest ACC to DOE letter on DV-2 dated 24 May (attached),
I am sure the 21 June DOE "Public Comments" meeting in Phoenix will be
mostly devoted to this important topic.

However, there is another issue that is of local concern here:

An earlier ACC to DOE letter (attached) on the National Corridors on
27 Feb stated the ACC considered the Tucson-Nogales-Mexico line as
having the highest priority in Arizona. This line was granted a CEC by
the ACC in January 2001, but the route approved by the Commission
(western route through the Coronado National Forest) was not approved
by the CNF in the Final EIS. Obviously, heavy pressure being applied
by TEP on USFS and TEP submitted a letter to DOE in Feb 2006
requesting that DOE employ its authority under EPAct 2005, Section
1221, so TEP can move on with their project and the 27 Feb comments.
Since TEP also has threatened to overturn the USFS by going to the CEQ
and have the President approved this project. As this could make a
molehill into a volcanic eruption, I am preparing a White Paper that
will show that

(1) TEP 345 kV line does not meet criteria for a National Corridor
(improve national energy independence, lower imported energy,
improve energy security, etc),

(2) EPAct is not designed to do an end run around NEPA (says it
does not change NEPA, etc),

(3) TEP's line does not meet the DOE criteria for a Presidential
permit, necessary to cross the border since it will negatively
impacts the reliability of the Western Interface (grid) power
through 13 states in US, 2 Canadian Provinces, and raises the
probability of cascading failures from British Columbia to New
Mexico and all points in between using the TEP approach, etc.
One thing we need to also watch is the SDG&E PowerLink proposal and
ensure our actions don't run counter to their plan.

Marshall

Sandy -

It was very informational to have listened to these historic
proceedings where the Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting
Committee were overturned based on the testimony and evidence
presented by the Sierra Club and other important intervenors. The ACC
Staff's recommendation to deny was especially rewarding, and the
impacts all made on the Commissioners was successful.

Tim Hogan's emphasis on Kofa Wildlife Refuge and the incomplete Siting
Committee review as required by ARS 40-360-06 may permanently change
the environmental emphasis required for an acceptable Certificate of
Environmental Compatibility (CEC), an Arizona permit to construct
power plants and/or transmission lines.

A consistent theme flowed through all comments, which you have also
summarized:

a. Why destroy Kofa and endanger the unique natural habitats used
for desert species?
b. Why pollute Arizona so California has less pollution?
c. Why should Arizonans pay $240 million so Californians save $1.2
billion in rates?
d. Why doesn't California develop local generation to meet its needs
(which means less power/energy transporting electricity hundreds of
miles, total loss)?
e. Why increase total water usage in Arizona 0.3% and increase 0.5%
NOx and other SOx, COx, Ozone, PM-2.5, PM-10, etc. air pollution
components in Arizona just to operate this electrical system so
rates are lower in California?

The recently-designated DOE Southwest National Corridor clearly
specified that non-transmission line alternatives can remove
congestion. These alternatives, local and distributed "clean"
generation by solar-electric resources on every rooftop or effective
home-wind generation can reduce peak demand, reduce electricity
infrastructure capital costs, increase reliability, and give local
control and independence from the predatory and inelastic electric
utilities concentration only on the bottom line. I expect this
decision to be a hot topic during the DOE's Phoenix "Public Comment"
session next month.

We are all happy, but lets keep supporting those involved in the
PowerLink opposition in San Diego. We definitely want Arizona's
new-found "energetic" freedoms to continue in San Diego to also stop
importing "cheap and dirty" electricity from Mexico just to
permanently ruin east San Diego County for exactly the same reasons
SCE was denied additional access to our state.

The hearing on Palo Verde 1 was also informative, with SCE being fined
$4.9 million for violation of a prior CEC and installing a
double-circuit line with only a permit for a single circuit. Chairman
Gleason successful amendment to remove one of the PV-1 circuits was a
major achievement.

Again, all Arizonans thank the "team" that keeps striving for energy
sustainability while preserving our natural environment and quality of
life.

Marshall Magruder

FYI - From Sandy Bahr (Sierra Club)

Arizona Corporation Commission Votes to Deny the Devers to Palo Verde 2
Power Line and to Protect the KOFA National Wildlife Refuge!

Today, we have some great news to share. The Arizona Corporation
Commission voted 5-0 to deny a Certificate of Environmental
Compatibility to Southern California Edison for the Devers-Palo Verde
No. 2 Transmission Line Project (DPV2), a 500 kV line proposed to run
230 miles between the Harquahala Generating Substation in Arizona and
the Devers Substation in California, including 97 miles in Arizona.
The identified route would have cut across important and sensitive
wildlife habitat, including the KOFA National Wildlife Refuge. The
denial of this certificate is great news for the Refuge and its
wildlife.

The Arizona Corporation Commission could affirm, deny, or approve with
conditions the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility which had
been issued by the Arizona Power Plant and Line Siting Committee. The
law requires that the Commission consider several factors in deciding
whether or not to issue the Certificate of Environmental Compatibility
and they must ". . . balance, in the broad public interest, the need
for an adequate, economical and reliable supply of electric power with
the desire to minimize the effect thereof on the environment and
ecology of this state." In doing so, they said no to the line and the
destruction of wildlife habitat in the KOFA.

This is really an unprecedented decision and a huge win for everyone who
cares about our wildlife refuges and other protected lands. Special
thanks to Tim Hogan and the Arizona Center for Law in the Public
Interest, who represented the Sierra Club in this process. Tim spent
countless hours before line siting and then at the Commission. We had
the best representation. Thanks also to the Arizona Corporation
Commission staff. They raised a lot of important issues and also asked
for the denial of this Certificate. Thanks to Don Begalke, who
intervened as an individual and worked very hard to present a strong
case against the line. Thanks to Ken Sweat for providing expert
testimony in the line siting process and helping us with our comments.
Thanks to Jon Findley for all his work and support through the process.
Thanks to Cary Meister and Yuma Audubon for stepping up once again to
protect those precious remote desert lands in western Arizona. Thanks
to Lon Stewart who helped with some early research to get us rolling on
this project and continued to comment throughout the process.
Thanks to all of you for caring, for writing, for emailing, and
continuing to fight to protect Arizona's wildlands and wildlife. We
sincerely appreciate it.

And a big thanks to the Arizona Corporation Commissioners, who today,
voted to do the right thing. Please take the time to send a quick note
to each of the Commissioners thanking them for their opposition to this
project. You can reach them at the address and emails below.

Arizona Corporation Commission
Commissioners Wing
1200 W. Washington - 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Chairman Mike Gleason Commissioner Jeff Hatch-Miller
gleason-web@azcc.gov hatch-web@azcc.gov

Commissioner Kris Mayes Commissioner Gary Pierce
mayes-web@azcc.gov pierce-web@azcc.gov

Commissioner Bill Mundell
mundell-web@azcc.gov

Sandy Bahr
Conservation Outreach Director
Sierra Club - Grand Canyon Chapter
202 E. McDowell Rd, Suite 277
Phoenix, AZ 85004
(602) 253-8633
fax (602) 258-6533
sandy.bahr@sierraclub.org

Tumacacori wilderness plan gets boost by Dems
Grijalva bill would protect 84,000 acres southwest of Tucson; TEP high-power line still an issue there, too

By Tim Ellis
Arizona Daily Star Tucson, Arizona
Published: 02.08.2007

Now that his party controls Congress, Rep. Raúl Grijalva says he finally may succeed in protecting the Tumacacori Highlands near Nogales. "It does make its chances of passage much better," the Tucson Democrat said last week of legislation he'll introduce in the next 30 days to designate as wilderness about 84,000 rugged, scenic acres 40 miles south of Sahuarita. That's good news to people who support the legislation, like Mike Quigley, wilderness campaign coordinator for the Sky Island Alliance. "We were optimistic before, and given the amount of support for the idea and quality of the land we're talking about, we're more optimistic than ever," he said. The rugged mountainous area surrounded by rolling grasslands is home to a wide diversity of plants and animals, including more than 70 species of rare animals and plants such as the jaguar, elegant trogon and Chiricahua leopard frog. The area also has numerous cultural and historic sites.

Designating it as wilderness would protect the scenic area and "its essential wildlife habitat and corridors," Quigley said. Grijalva said he's introduced the legislation in every session since he was elected in 2002, but because it wasn't favored by the Republican House leadership, that's about as far as it got.

This time, he said, "We're going to give it a full hearing — it's never had that before. It never went anywhere." The chances are even better since he was appointed last week as chairman of the House National Parks subcommittee, he said. On his first day in the new position, Grijalva introduced a bill to expand the boundaries of Saguaro National Park. But the Tumacacori wilderness proposal is nowhere near a done deal. Grijalva still must get his fellow lawmakers — and ultimately President Bush — to go along with designating the area as wilderness. That would prohibit mining and certain other uses, including operation of mechanized or motorized vehicles like mountain bikes and all-terrain vehicles.

Power line proposed

Many believe it also could complicate a proposal by Tucson Electric Power to build a big power line through the area to Nogales. The line would improve service to Nogales, which has been plagued in recent years by power failures and brownouts, said Joe Salkowski, TEP spokesman. Officials have proposed building the 345-kilovolt line with 140-foot-tall poles along one of two routes through the area, both of which would originate west of the mine-tailings piles west of Sahuarita and Green Valley. The proposals are now under review by state and federal officials, Salkowski said. Opponents of the proposed power line include environmentalists like Quigley, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors and many local residents like Ellen Kurtz, who's been fighting the proposal since 2001. The opponents say that's more electricity than Nogales would need for the foreseeable future. TEP wants the 345-kilovolt line only so the company can sell electricity to power-starved Mexico, Kurtz said.

That's true, Salkowski said — TEP has been proposing that since before its parent company, Unisource Energy, bought the Nogales utility and other electrical and natural-gas assets from Citizens Communications Co. in 2003. But it still makes sense to build the bigger line, he said, rather than building a smaller line initially and then coming back to build a bigger line as demand grows. Because the Arizona Corporation Commission ordered TEP to improve service to Nogales — and, "recognizing that this review is going to take some time" — TEP officials are upgrading an existing power line that roughly follows the Santa Cruz riverbed east of I-19, Salkowski said. The company also built a small backup electrical-generating station near Nogales, he said.

"A Dinosaur"

Kurtz — who lives in Amado, just north of Nogales on the Pima-Santa Cruz county line — said the proposal hasn't gone anywhere because state and federal regulators see that the big power line is unnecessary. "The wilderness designation is not the reason the power line has been denied," she said. "It's been denied because it's not necessary, it costs too much, it doesn't serve the consumers, and it'll be a dinosaur."

Kurtz had hoped the power-line proposal was dead after it ran into strong local opposition and a rebuff from the Arizona Corporation Commission. In a hearing held a year ago, corporation commissioners questioned the need for a bigger power line. And they urged TEP to come up with another solution to improve service for Nogales. Opposition also has been expressed by officials with the U.S. Forest Service, which administers most of the land that would become wilderness, and Bureau of Land Management, which oversees the Pajarita Wilderness along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Kurtz, who lives just off Arivaca Road between the two proposed power line routes, said she and other opponents want TEP to build the power line along the existing route near the Santa Cruz River. Salkowski said company officials think that's a bad idea. For a second power line to be a reliable backup, they say, it should be built away from an existing line so that it's less likely that to be damaged by wildfires, for example, or lightning strikes. TEP officials have tried to accommodate residents' and environmentalists' concerns, and have put together proposals that wouldn't greatly disrupt a wilderness area, he said That's why company officials think approval of the wilderness designation for the Tumacacori Highlands does not necessarily mean the power can't be built through that area. "As we have developed this line, we have taken pains to ensure its compatibility with the environment," Salkowski said.

Contact Tim Ellis at 807-8414 or at tells@azstarnet.com.

ACC Not Sold On Need For Power Line
By Tony Davis
Arizona Daily Star
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.10.2006

TEP asks for federal review while the state debates where to put a new power line.

The Tucson Electric Power Co. is asking the federal government to streamline its
decision-making on whether such a line could go in the Coronado National Forest.
On Feb. 2, TEP asked for an expedited federal review, which would mean that all federal agencies that have a say on whether the power line gets built west of the Tumacacori Highlands would try to wrap up all permitting work on the project in a year. The Forest Service has indicated it doesn't favor that route, but hasn't made a final decision on the issue. If the permits aren't granted in a year, TEP could consider them disapproved and appeal to the White House, under a new Federal Energy
Act that gives the president's office another 90 days to sign off on the
permit.

However, a presidential approval of that line would not override any decision on the line by the Arizona Corporation Commission, said Joe Salkowski, a TEP spokesman.
A separate provision in the new law does give the federal government the right to override state decisions in other circumstances. But TEP's application doesn't come under that law, he said. - Tony Davis

A majority of Arizona Corporation Commissioners signaled Thursday that after nearly five years of conflict and gridlock, it's time for Tucson Electric Power Co. to back off on its proposed large transmission line from Sahuarita to Nogales, Ariz.
But the commission didn't make a final decision on a route or size for a new 345-kilovolt power line. It directed its administrative law judge and
a committee to return with a proposed plan for how to make that decision.
Commissioners Kris Mayes, Bill Mundell and Marc Spitzer said, to varying degrees, they are growing weary or impatient with what Spitzer called TEP's "all or nothing" stance in favor of that line. Basically, the three commissioners of the five-member board said, TEP must be more convincing about the need for the big electricity line or come up with an alternative, said Chairman Jeff Hatch-Miller, who hasn't taken a
stance on the line.

"What you've done so far is not adequate," Mayes told utility officials near the end of a six-hour hearing. "You need to start looking at alternatives. You can push for the 345, but that's not where the majority is headed. There's a clear message that we want to move forward." Spitzer said it's time for TEP to "wake up and smell the coffee" that the 345,000-volt line for now isn't going anywhere.

Joe Salkowski, a utility spokesman, said afterward that company officials will take another look at options, but that he can't say what the odds are the company will return with another proposal.

"We'll continue to work on this issue to come up with a solution that's in the best interest of our customers and our region," Salkowski said. At the hearing in Downtown Tucson, speakers against the line represented two environmental groups, ranching landowners who plan development on their properties, area residents, and neighborhood and community associations.

The proposal sprang out of a 1998 complaint from Nogales-area residents of frequent outages and other problems in their electric service. Since then, the outages are generally considered to have dropped off in frequency. But TEP and its partner Citizens Utilities have said the new line is needed to ensure that the county's service is reliable and that its system will be able to handle growth in the area.

"I believe TEP is taking a look at the region's electricity system as a whole," Hatch-Miller said. "They need 345 (kilovolt), no doubt, but should it be this line? My sense is they want an interactive electric system with Mexico that can be brought into or added into the system for the Tucson area. "But we're also sensitive to the needs of these communities," he said. Most opponents have agreed that a second line is needed to supplement the existing line, running north-south along the east side of the Santa Cruz River. Few agree on where to put it.

Many residents also have contended that TEP is using the need for additional power in Santa Cruz County as a way to justify building this line to Mexico, where the utility would try to sell additional power. The commission has already voted to support a 345-kilovolt line running through national forest land, west of three mountain ranges in the Tumacacori Highlands. But the Forest Service has said its preferred route
is down the Santa Cruz River valley west of Interstate 19 - where residents have strongly opposed the line.

Commissioners also have discussed a smaller new line than the 345-kilovolt structure TEP favors through the forest or river valley. But many residents have opposed that one. It would require more - but lower - poles than the 345-kilovolt line.

Contact reporter Tony Davis at 520-806-7746 or tdavis@azstarnet.com.

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."

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.

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 "old-boy" network is alive and well with the Bush/Cheney administration (see below):

Question and Answer from UniSource 2003 Earnings Conference Call, 18 February
2004. See www.unisource.com under SEC reports, SEC 14A on 2/19/2003

> The below is from the above transcript. It seems that UniSource's CEO doesn't
> know what this is all about.

> Quote:
> Rob Howard, Prospector Partners
>
> Yeah. Okay. We'll, I'll have to wait until the SEC filing is there to dig in
> that a little more for me. And any update on the Nogales power line at all? Is
> that still -
>
> Jim Pignatelli, UniSource Energy
>
> It's going along, we finally got the attention of - we went to the White
> House Energy Task Force, and we finally got the attention of the Forestry
> Department. We anticipate - we filed our EIS. DOE has completed that. We
> anticipate that the Forest Department might request us to make some slight
> modifications in the route. But finally, the department, the governmental
> department, federal departments are starting to work together. We're in -
> hopeful we should hear something in the next three months.
>
> End Quote

Desert Homestead Column by Bart Santello (as Published in the Connection Newspaper, Nov 2003)

Public comment against Tucson Electric Power’s (TEP) proposed transmission line route through southern Arizona has grown to several thousand pages. The “Western Route” takes the power lines through roadless areas of the Coronado National Forest (east of Arivaca), where approximately 191 line-towers, and over 20 miles of new roads could be constructed in the forest for this project. Thanks to all those who responded to the newly-released Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) by letter, email and at the DOE public hearings last month in September. The DEIS is available at all local libraries. Our information web-site on this issue is www.StopTheWesternRoute.Blogspot.com.

The Department of Energy (DOE) must decide whether to issue a “Presidential Permit” that would allow TEP to erect 140’ line towers through the biologically-rich and wilderness-like Coronado National Forest south into Mexico; or, they can declare “No Action” effectively stopping the project. Likewise, the U.S. Forest Service can either approve the route and amend its ‘Land and Resource Management Plan’ accordingly, or, declare “No Action” and deny TEP a ‘Use Permit’ through the forest.

If we look back at the origins of this proposal, TEP found a way to slip-in a larger 345 kV transmission line from the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) Order 62011, which mandated that only a small backup 115 kV power line between Sahuarita and Nogales be provided to improve reliability. What ultimately transpired was that the ACC passed the (political) buck and handed the Department of Energy a can-of-worms, by approving a transmission line proposal larger than the ACC itself had asked for. Is it just coincidence that just after the ACC’s granted the route to TEP, the then Governor flew to Mexico with the state’s leading utility executives to promote a cross-border energy sale? To quote “The Arizona Republic” from January 17, 2002 (14 days after the ACC’s decision) “Gov. Jane Hull and a group of Arizona power executives will be in Mexico City next week to lobby for permission to build high-voltage connections on the border and sell electricity to the Mexican power grid.”

TEP’s transmission line scheme was proposed several years back during the ‘Enron era’, when the new excitement was to trade energy over the grid. Utilities with power lines can charge a toll for electricity transmission across the ‘grid’. To maximize the investment, the utility must encourage and promote electrical use. This is the most environmentally damaging consequence of the proposed subject transmission line, other than the construction itself. To quote the late Jacques Cousteau while he was studying effects of development in the Amazon: “Where power lines go, industry follows.” Power lines will lead to the eventual building of power plants and heavy industry across the Mexican border, which all will be connected. According to a Greenpeace study, the 600 megawatt Sempra Energy Mexican power plant now on-line in Baja, just south of the US border, will generate 180 tons of Carbon Monoxide emissions (Mexico has no Carbon Monoxide limits) and 200 tons of Sulfur Dioxide (Mexico allows twice the US levels) annually. In addition, there are approximately 20 other power plants being proposed along the US border along California, Arizona and Texas, encouraged by the current administration.

Should TEP provide power to Mexico as they propose, it would necessitate using resources (fuel, water, air emissions) from the United States, in order supply a foreign country with power. Thus, a corporation will profit from the use of US natural resources and impact our air quality. One corporation should not profit against the will of the people at the expense of the environment (which in this case includes our Coronado National Forest). If we look at the biggest companies from the industrial era, most have made their fortunes off America’s natural resources. Whether it was land grants to the railroads; mining claims on government owned land, or oil drilling in environmentally-sensitive areas. This process continues today, and is demonstrated in the fact that TEP can propose transmission line routes all over the map and then it becomes the annoying and unfair burden of the American citizen, to repeal or modify these damaging proposals. Industry access to America’s natural resources is treated by corporations, more like a ‘right’, than a ‘privilege’. This is because industry, over the years, has guided the pen of government legislation. The result is a pro-industry maze of laws, designed to wear-down the American citizen who tries to understand these laws, make changes and defend private property and public lands. Again; the current administration is now working to enact laws that restrict or remove public participation on these issues.

Many of the corporate officers that dream-up these projects (like building power lines), usually cash-in their chips and move-on, by the time these projects go online. Like professional stock traders, they buy on the rumor and sell on the news. It will be the people living around these power lines, or hiking in the spoiled forest areas that will have to live with the snap-crackle-and-pop, where they hoped would be silence. Back-country photographs will be marred by towers. Those who hiked the day to get-away will come across these power lines in the national forest and be sadly reminded that places of solitude are not respected.

The DOE, US Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management’s decision should be evident and clear: And that is to vote “No-Action” and reject the “Western Route.” The reason is simple: There are many other economically viable alternatives to provide backup power to Nogales and other more environmentally-friendly energy alternatives available. With regards to transmission lines into Mexico, TEP (a publicly-traded company) should not expect its rate-payers to finance high-risk explorations into foreign energy markets. TEP should not be allowed to profit at the expense of the public’s Coronado National Forest, simply to boost its stock price to satisfy shareholders. Further, the Mexican government has not even committed to any level of participation to this international interconnect concept.

We the American people really have no idea what’s going on nationwide with our energy and electrical systems. Vice President Dick Cheney has never released the documents containing backroom dealings behind the administration’s current National Energy Policy (even though at least three district and/or federal courts have ordered him to do so.) Also Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham has declared that investigation results into the cause of the recent blackouts in the northeast will be kept secret from the public. This is unprecedented and unconstitutional. Energy issues are directly related to the United States being involved in wars, and energy is the cornerstone of our foreign policy which comes back to haunt us in the form of terrorism.

Many citizens have expressed a sense that Washington’s decisions and actions on America’s energy future, are unfolding too fast; that there is no coherent plan; and the impact on future generations is not being considered. It is like someone else has hijacked our future. Whose dream are we living anyway?

Thanks to everyone who spoke at the hearings - You did great!!

Critics Denounce Power-Line Proposal
By Mitch Tobin
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Tucson, ArizonaFriday, 26 September 2003

GREEN VALLEY - Rare is the public hearing where ranchers, environmentalists and the world's largest maker of earth-moving equipment are on the same side. But when federal officials asked Thursday for comments on Tucson Electric Power's plan to run a power line from Sahuarita to Nogales, all they heard was criticism.
At the first of four hearings in Southern Arizona, all 17 speakers attacked the $75 million plan, which is meant to improve electric reliability in Santa Cruz County and let TEP sell and buy power in Mexico.

Past blackouts around Nogales prompted the Arizona Corporation Commission in 1999 to mandate the building of another link between the border city and the Western power grid. Because TEP wants to extend the line into Mexico, it also needs a "presidential permit" from the Department of Energy.

Nearly half of the 66-mile proposed route would run through the Coronado National Forest, where nearly 200 140-foot power poles, mostly slender "mono-poles," would be erected in the mountains west of Interstate 19. The Coronado must also bless the plan but has yet to weigh in. The only speakers who didn't condemn the plan outright were from Caterpillar Inc., which has a 6,000-acre proving ground west of Green Valley that the power line would cross. Manager Matt Turner said he didn't oppose the route, but if it isn't detoured around the $30 million facility, "it could seriously impact our business" and create safety risks.

TEP spokesman Joe Salkowski said opposition at the hearing didn't reflect that "there's plenty of people in Nogales who'd be happy to see this line built." Salkowski said the project would also help Tucson because it could buy power from the south, while the environment in Mexico would benefit if the power line
forestalled the building of generating plants there.

Although none spoke at the first of two meetings Thursday, some area residents support the proposed route - the westernmost of three options - since it would be farther from their homes than the other two.

Many speakers, however, said no new power line is needed and that Santa Cruz County can be served in other ways. An official with the Maestros Group said her company could build a power plant in Nogales to improve reliability there, and she faulted federal officials for not considering that option.

Critics also said federal officials were too vague in their draft environmental study, which is expected to be finalized in three or four months. Jim Webb of the Marley Cattle Co., one of Southern Arizona's largest working ranches, said he still can't tell where the line will go on the land, but it would surely attract more illegal border crossers.

"The disruption to our operation would be magnificent in its scope," he said. TEP has promised to revegetate disturbed areas and close one mile of road for every one mile it builds. But members of the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society and the Sky Island Alliance said the power line would mar scenery and fragment wildlife habitat for the sake of TEP profits. "We'd like to preserve at least a little bit of America the beautiful," said Phil Gray of the Green Valley Hiking Club.

* Contact reporter Mitch Tobin at 573-4185 or mtobin@azstarnet.com.

Reminder: Please try to attend and speak against the powerlines this week at one of the following hearings:

Dates for the public hearings are:

1. September 25, 2003, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Green Valley, Arizona
2. September 25, 2003, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Green Valley, Arizona
3. September 26, 2003, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Nogales, Arizona
4. September 26, 2003, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Nogales, Arizona

We still have a good chance to beat these power lines since the route through the forest is so destructive and the DEIS is not complete. There is a copy of the environmental impact statement in local libraries.

Even if you haven't read the Environmental Impact Statement, you can still get up, tell the DOE where you live and say you.......

"Recommend the Dept of Energy vote "NO ACTION" and REJECT the Western Route/Corridor."

See the weblog history below for further information

Here are the up-to-date "contacts" for the public to send comment on the recently issued Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and/or express your concern regarding the proposed transmission lines.

Sue Kosacek - Director
U.S. Forest Service
Coronado National Forest
300 W. Congress
Tucson, AZ 85701

Keith Moon
Bureau of Land Management
222 N. Central Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85004-2203
602-417-9345
keith_moon@blm.gov

Doug Echlin
International Boundary Commission
915-832-4741

Dr. Jerry Pell
Senior Environmental Scientist
Manager, Electric Power Regulation
Office of Coal and Power Import & Export
Fossil Energy, FE-27
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585-0000; USA
Telephone 202.586.3362
Fax 202.318.7761
email: Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov

To speak at the upcoming public hearings, you will need to contact Dr. Pell and get your name on the list. For dates, locations and times of the hearing, please see the August 28th Federal Register posting (below).

Dr. Jerry Pell
Senior Environmental Scientist
Manager, Electric Power Regulation
Office of Coal and Power Import & Export
Fossil Energy, FE-27
U.S. Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20585-0000; USA
Telephone +202.586.3362
Fax +202.318.7761
e-mail

Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Public
Hearings for the Proposed Tucson Electric Power Company
(TEP) Sahuarita-Nogales Transmission Line

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of availability and public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) announces the availability of the
``Tucson Electric Power Company (TEP) Sahuarita-Nogales Transmission Line Draft
Environmental Impact Statement'' (DOE/EIS-0336) for public review and comment.
DOE also announces four public hearings on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS was
prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA
regulations, 40 CFR parts 1500-1508, and the DOE NEPA regulations, 10 CFR part
1021. The Draft EIS evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action
of granting a Presidential permit for the proposed project and reasonable
alternatives, including the ``No Action'' alternative of denying the permit. The
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the U.S.
Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC) are
cooperating agencies in the preparation of this Draft EIS.

DATES: DOE invites interested Members of Congress, state and local governments,
other Federal agencies, American Indian tribal governments, organizations, and
members of the public to provide comments on the Draft EIS. The public comment
period started with the publication in the Federal Register by the Environmental
Protection Agency of the ``Notice of Availability'' of the Draft EIS on August
22, 2003, and will continue until October 14, 2003. Written and oral comments
will be given equal weight, and DOE will consider all comments received or
postmarked by that date in preparing the Final EIS. Comments received or
postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.

Dates for the public hearings are:

1. September 25, 2003, 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., Green Valley, Arizona
2. September 25, 2003, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Green Valley, Arizona
3. September 26, 2003, 1 p.m. to 3 p.m., Nogales, Arizona
4. September 26, 2003, 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Nogales, Arizona

Requests to speak at a specific public hearing should be received by Dr.
Jerry Pell as indicated in the ADDRESSES section below on or before September
15, 2003. Requests to speak may also be made at the time of registration for the
hearing(s). However, persons who have submitted advance requests to speak will
be given priority if time should be limited during the meeting.

ADDRESSES: Requests to speak at the public hearings should be addressed to: Dr.
Jerry Pell, Office of Fossil Energy (FE-27), U.S. Department of Energy,
Washington DC 20585, or transmitted by phone: 202-586-3362, facsimile:
202-318-7761, or electronic mail at Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov. Please be aware that
anthrax screening delays conventional mail delivery to DOE.
The locations of the public hearings are:

1. Both hearings on September 25, 2003, will be held at the Santa Rita
Springs Facility, Green Valley Recreation Department, 921 W. Via Rio Fuerte,
Green Valley, Arizona 85614-5711.

2. Both hearings on September 26, 2003, will be held in the County Board
Hearing Room, Santa Cruz County Office Building, 2150 N. Congress Drive,
Nogales, Arizona 85621.

Copies of the Draft EIS are available as (a) the Summary in paper format,
accompanied by a CD-ROM that includes the entire Draft EIS, (b) the entire Draft
EIS in paper format, accompanied by the CD-ROM, or (c) the CD-ROM only; requests
for any of these should be addressed to Dr. Pell at any of the addresses above.
Additionally, the Draft EIS is available on the Internet at
http://www.ttclients.com/tep.
Written comments on the Draft EIS may be addressed to Dr. Jerry Pell as
indicated in the ADDRESSES section of this notice or submitted on the project
Web site at http://www.ttclients.com/tep.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the proposed project or to
receive a copy of the Draft EIS, contact Dr. Pell as indicated in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.
For general information on the DOE NEPA process, contact:Carol M. Borgstrom,
Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-42), U.S. Department of
Energy, 1000

[[Page 51570]]

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, Phone: 202-586-4600 or leave a
message at 800-472-2756; Facsimile: 202-586-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Executive Order (E.O.) 10485, as amended by E.O. 12038, requires that a
Presidential permit be issued by DOE before electric
transmission facilities may be constructed, maintained, operated, or connected
at the U.S. international border. The E.O. provides that a Presidential permit
may be issued after a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the
public interest. In determining
consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the impacts of the project
on the reliability of the U.S. electric power system and on the environment. The
regulations implementing the E.O. have been codified at 10 CFR 205.320-205.329.
Issuance of the permit indicates that there is no Federal objection to the
project, but does not mandate that the project be completed.

On August 17, 2000, TEP, a regulated public utility, filed an application
for a Presidential permit with the Office of Fossil Energy
of DOE and, on May 18, 2001, supplemented its application with its March 1, 2001
application to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) for a Certificate of
Environmental Compatibility. TEP proposes to construct two 345,000-volt (345-kV)
transmission circuits on a single set of support structures across the U.S.
international border in the vicinity of Nogales, Arizona. Both circuits would
originate at TEP's existing South Substation located approximately 15 miles
south of Tucson in the vicinity of Sahuarita, Arizona, and 1.4 miles east of
Interstate Highway 19 (I-19), south of Pima Mine Road, in Pima County, Arizona.
Near the U.S. international border, the proposed transmission lines would
interconnect with the Citizens Communications system at the proposed Gateway
Substation that would be constructed just west of Nogales, Arizona. South of the
border, TEP would extend the line approximately 60 miles to the Santa Ana
Substation, located in the City of Santa Ana, Sonora, Mexico, and owned by the
Comisi[oacute]n Federal de Electricidad (CFE), the national electric utility of
Mexico.

On July 10, 2001, DOE published in the Federal Register (66 FR 35950) a
Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the proposed
project. The NOI informed the public of the proposed scope of the EIS, solicited
public participation in the scoping process, and announced public scoping
meetings that were held on July 30, 2001, in Sahuarita, Arizona, and on July 31,
2001, in Rio Rico, Arizona. The public scoping period initially closed on August
9, 2001, but then was extended to August 31, 2001 (Federal Register Notice of
July 27, 2001, 66 FR 39154). Comments received during the public scoping process
were used in preparing the Draft EIS.

Action Alternatives Considered

The action alternatives developed for the proposed project focus on
alternative routes to interconnect TEP's South Substation with the proposed
Gateway Substation. TEP's evaluation of interconnection schemes, scoping
comments, and discussions with DOE resulted in three potentially viable
alternative corridors for transmission interconnection in southern Arizona: the
Western Corridor (the applicant's Preferred Alternative), the Central Corridor,
and the Crossover Corridor. The Crossover Corridor was included for analysis in
this Draft EIS based on public and tribal input received during the public
scoping period and tribal consultations. Another alternative, the Eastern
Corridor, was originally proposed by TEP but was eliminated from analysis as a
reasonable alternative in this Draft EIS at TEP's request for reasons of
reliability, constructability, existing encroachment into the right-of-way, and
visual impacts.

NEPA requires the identification of the agency's preferred alternative or
alternatives in a Draft EIS if one or more exists or, if one does not yet exist
at the draft stage, in the Final EIS, 40 CFR part 1502.14(e). DOE reported in
the NOI (see above) that TEP's Preferred Alternative is the Western Corridor. In
light of TEP's preference and the ACC's decision to site TEP's proposed line
only along the Western Corridor, DOE has designated the Western Corridor as
DOE's preferred alternative at this time. DOE welcomes comments on this
designation. The cooperating agencies have not designated their respective
preferred alternatives at this time but will do so after their review of
environmental information is completed. Identification of a preferred
alternative in the Draft EIS does not preclude selection of a different or
modified preferred alternative in the Final EIS. The final selection of
preferred alternatives will be based on a balanced evaluation of the
environmental consequences, public comment, and consideration of national
policies.

No Action Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations require that an
agency ``include the alternative of no action'' as one of the alternatives it
considers, 40 CFR 1502.14(d). For DOE and the cooperating agencies, ``no
action'' means any one of the Federal agencies declining to grant approval for
their area of jurisdiction. Each agency will make its own decision
independently, so that it is possible that one or more agencies could grant
permission for the proposal while another could deny permission.

The Draft EIS analyzes the potential environmental effects, or impacts, of
TEP constructing and operating the proposed project in one of the three
alternative transmission corridors, and also analyzes the No Action Alternative.
CEQ's regulations require that an EIS contain a description of the environmental
effects (both positive and negative) of the proposed alternatives. The
regulations also distinguish between direct and indirect effects (40 CFR
1508.8). Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and
place as the action. Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable effects caused
by the action that occur later in time or farther in distance. Both direct and
indirect effects are addressed in the Draft EIS. CEQ's regulations also require
that an EIS contain description of the cumulative impacts of the proposed
alternatives (40 CFR 1508.7). CEQ's regulations define cumulative impacts as
those that result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what
agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts are addressed
in the Draft EIS.

The Draft EIS presents information on the potential environmental effects of
both the proposed transmission line construction and
subsequent operation on land use and recreation, visual resources, biological
resources, cultural resources, socioeconomics, geology and soils, water
resources, air quality, noise, human health and environment, infrastructure,
transportation, and minority and low income populations. The Draft EIS also
includes a Floodplains and Wetlands Assessment, in accordance with E.O. 11988,
Floodplain Management, and E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands.

Coronado National Forest Plan Amendment

The Coronado National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, has identified the need
for amendments to its Land and

[[Page 51571]]

Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) in order to implement any of the action
alternatives identified in the Draft EIS. The amendments needed are for segments
of all (three) action alternative corridor locations and for visual resources.
The public comment period for the amendments will coincide with DOE's comment
period. Comments on Forest Plan amendments should be sent to Mr. John M. McGee,
Forest Supervisor, U.S. Forest Service, 300 West Congress, Tucson, Arizona
85701. Any inquiries regarding the Forest Plan or the amendments should be
directed to the U.S. Forest Service.

Availability of the Draft EIS

DOE has distributed copies of the Draft EIS to appropriate Members of
Congress, state and local government officials in Arizona, American Indian
tribal governments, and other Federal agencies, groups, and interested parties.
Copies of the document may be obtained by contacting DOE as provided in the
section of this notice entitled

ADDRESSES. Copies of the Draft EIS and supporting documents are also available
for inspection at the locations identified below:

1. U.S. Department of Energy, Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room
1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585.
2. Coronado National Forest, Federal Building, 300 West Congress Street, 5th
Floor, Room 5H, Tucson, AZ 85701 (phone 520-670-4527).
3. Nogales Ranger District, 303 Old Tucson Road, Nogales, AZ 85621 (phone
520-281-2296).
4. Rio Rico Public Library, 1060 Yavapai Drive, Rio Rico, AZ 85648 (phone
520-281-8067).
5. Tubac Community Library, 50 Bridge Road, Tubac, AZ 85646 (phone
520-398-9814).
6. Conrad Joyner-Green Valley Branch Library, 601 North La Ca[ntilde]ada
Drive, Green Valley, AZ 85614 (phone 520-625-8660).
7. Nogales-Santa Cruz County Public Library, 518 North Grand Ave., Nogales,
AZ 85621 (phone 520-287-3343).

Comments on the Draft EIS may be submitted to Dr. Jerry Pell (see

ADDRESSES, above) or provided at the public hearings (see DATES, above). After
the public comment period ends on October 14, 2003, DOE will consider all
comments received, revise the Draft EIS as appropriate, and issue a Final EIS.
DOE will consider the Final EIS, along with other information, such as electric
reliability and national policy factors, in deciding whether or not to issue a
Presidential permit.

Issued in Washington, DC, this 20th day of August 2003.
Anthony J. Como, Deputy Director, Electric Power Regulation, Office of Coal and
Power Import/Export, Office of Coal and Power Systems, Office of Fossil Energy.
[FR Doc. 03-21885 Filed 8-26-03; 8:45 am]

Email comments by Marshall:

We need to meet NEPA criteria so that all inputs are reviewed and tabulated (just opposing really doesn't count with out a reason - so we tell that when we give out Post Cards). You know TEP will look at return addresses, so "closeness" will be essential; however, comments as "my favorite recreation place is ___ which will be ruined by the Western Route" could validate those from ones not living close. Other "comments" could be "need for this project was not established or was only a TEP statement in this EIS, which isn't valid, where is the project cost/benefit ratio?", "why build this before the Mexican Constitution is changed, because it's not even buildable until then" or "how can one propose to cross the roadless area (Central Route) or be near Sycamore Canyon (Western Route)?" or "why not have three 115 kV conductor lines with 60 feet H-frame telephone poles near present lines which costs about $20 million while this project costs over $85 million for its 12 conductor lines at 345 kV?" or "why 2,000 MW of power to support Nogales which has never used more than 57.8 MW?" or "justification for dual circuit never stated or assessed against single circuit," etc. - we could even have a list of a hundred or so they could chose which "short comment" they like.

What the serious replies by letters have to include are something like:

1. Summary.

2. Major Comments on the EIS. (major omissions, errors, corrections, deviations from ACC application, etc.)

3. Review Comments. An introductory and summary paragraph with an Attachment to contain all of the following, paragraph by paragraph, for entire document (including Harris Reports), in a simple format:
Para Number, title, page(s)
Comment:
Reference Source: (if applicable, especially for DEVIATIONS from the ACC Application which means there are "changes" to the present ACC CEC and the TEP Application) - thus such comments also need to go to Ms. Woodhall, Line Siting Chairman and the ACC Docket Control, Parties to Case 111, because it probably will need to be "re-reviewed" by her Committee and the Commissioners
Recommendation: (what DOE, other Federal Agencies, Tetra Tech should do, such as complete the pygmy owl assessment before publishing the Final EIS)

4. Other Comments. (typos, etc. just simple corrections)

5. Conclusions:

6. Recommendations with respect to the Alternatives:
NO ACTION, Western Route, Central Route, Cross-Over Route.

Thanks,
Marshall

For those who want to order a copy of the EIS; I you can contact Dr. Jerry Pell by email at Jerry.Pell@hq.doe.gov or by leaving a telephone number 800-430-4046 or 202-586-3362. Information on hearing dates on the EIS will also be available at http://www.ttclients.com/tep/

Here is a quick "cut-and-paste" action post card:
=======================================================
Dear Dr Pell (DOE address on other side) and Dear Mr. McGee (Coronado NF address on other side):
I have reviewed the TEP Transmission Line draft EIS enough to make my decision. I recommend the following Alternative be approved by the Coronado National Forest:

___ NO ACTION (which means no approval any proposed Alternative in the draft EIS)
___ Western Route
___ Central Route
___ Cross-Over Route
The reason(s) for my decision are ____________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
(__)or see attached statement or letter.
The following errors, omissions, or corrections are required to the Draft EIS:
________________________________________________________________
(__)or see attached statement or letter.

Name (please print)________________________________
Signature ________________________________________
Street Address ___________________________________
Post Office Box (if applicable) ______________
City _______________, State ____, Zip Code _________
================================================================

This would provide an individual input. If any comments or "omissions, errors" were included, then they have to have comments, including being printed, in the Final EIS.

Using this, or similar cards from various regions, in my opinion, would be better than to have everyone use the same "postcard" which would appear to be a "managed" campaign.

Mail postcards to :

Dr. Jerry Pell
Fossil Energy, FE-27
US Dept of Energy
Washington DC 20585

Comments on Forest Plan Amendments should be sent to:

Mr. John M McGee
Forest Supervisor
US Forest Service
300 West Congress
Tucson, Arizona 85701

Sources say that the draft is being mailed now (mid-August). The comment period for the EIS will officially begin on Aug. 22 when the EPA Federal Register notice of availability appears and will end on October 14 (2003).

Email from Marshall (6/26)

Lets get these transmission line facts straight:
1. The TEP 345,000 volt line is only a Backup line, never to be primary line for Nogales, but is proposed to sell electricity to Mexico. (it's too expensive for us to use but we still have to pay to reserve it for backup purposes, about $15/customer/month and another $15/customer/month for capital costs, and even more if we ever use the TEP line).
2. The TEP line has 8 to 10 times the amount of power (500 MegaWatts, MW) we need.
3. Reliability is equal with either Citizens paid-for 115 kV (60 foot H-frame) line or with TEP's 345 kV (145 foot towers) line and better if there is a local power plant (it'll have 2 lines).
4. Citizens upgraded its present 115 kV line to 100 MW (good until 2025 or so) and present generators in Nogales add another 48 MW capability. Only six times has the demand exceeded 50 MW. We now have 148 MW total, at least 48 MW at the times. We aren't out of power.
5. Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors approved only a 115 kV line in the county.
6. Cost for customers for new line is over $30/month/customer, about a 45% rate increase, which is NOT included in the present purchase power case.
7. TEP failed to complete its required draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) by April 2002, which is required, by law, for the DOE, DHS, DOS, DOD, DOI, USFS, and other federal agencies to make a record of decisions (RODs). Any of these agencies could kill this project if facts in the Final EIS result in significant negative impacts.
8. Arizona refused to require a completed EIS prior to issuing its permit to TEP.
9. AZ Line Siting Committee refused to "cooperate" with DOE in developing the EIS.
10. AZ Line Siting Committee and ACC approved the TEP permit with over 15 incomplete (most not started) and required environmental studies.
11. Statistically, over 55% of projects with an EIS (required for major environmental impacts) result in a major change to the project that must be accomplished before any agencies can issue their RODs. How can anyone decide what's best without the facts?
12. ACC prematurely issued its permit, a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility, before most of the "environmental facts" in the EIS were obtained.
13. As the Line Siting ACC hearings concluded, a Commissioner stated "and now its up to the feds to determine the environmental effects, we've done our part"

Powerline Summary:
Why should any ratepayer in Santa Cruz County pay over $85 million for a backup 345 kV TEP powerline when a $50 million local power station or $18-21 million for a second 115 kV (backup) line are far cheaper with less environmental impacts? This is our real "bottom line."

Something is wrong when our elected state officials interfere with the federal decision making process who are doing what is required by law for a commercial enterprise to meet federal property to sell electricity to Mexico.

The laws governing the Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee are A.R.S. 40-360, and can be viewed at "www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/40/title40.htm"

Notices of the committee's public meetings can be found on the Arizona Corporation Commission's website at "www.cc.state.az.us" Also, you can get addresses of each of the Commissioners if you want to write them on this matter.

Documents pertaining the transmisison line project can be viewed at Docket Control at the ACC's Tucson office (400 W. Congress St), or, Phoenix office (1200 West Washington St)

The Dept. of Energy's website is www.FE.DOE.gov. To view TEP's application for a presidential permit (to transmit electricity across the US border) click on "Electricity Regulation on the menu at the top of the page, then click on Pending Procedures on the menu at the right side of the page.

From Tucson Electric Power's "Energy Update" May 2003

"...TEP's Corporate Communications Department will act as a clearinghouse for inquiries at company offices. For more information about the transmission line project, call 520-884-3630 or TEP's website at www.tucsonelectric.com and select "Company," then "News," then "TEP-Citizens Transmisison Line." Send email queries to Translineinfo@tucsonelectric.com ..."

The transmission line project web-site maintained for the Dept.of Energy by Tetra Tech, Inc. is:
"www.ttclients.com/tep" This site will allow you to leave comments; order a copy of the draft EIS; get the latest news; obtain meeting transcripts; view government correspondence; read a fact sheet on the project; view notices in the Federal Register; obtain DOE contact information and link to websites relating to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

If you would like to write our elected officials on the proposed transmission lines, here are two of our 'house' representatives and their mailing addresses:

Representative Raul Grijalva
United States Congress, 7th District, Arizona
1440 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Representative Jim Kolbe
United States Congress, 8th District, Arizona
2266 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC, 20515

RE. Tucson Electric Power Company (“TEP”) – Citizens Utilities Company (“Citizens”) Transmission Line – Docket L-00000C-01-0111 and L-00000F001-0111)

......And remind them to call, email or write to Dr. Jerry Pell by 6 June to indicate if they want a copy of (1) CD-ROM, (2) 30-page summary, or (3) 350-page complete Draft EIS. If they don't contact or post mark by 6 June, they will be removed from DOE's mailing list.

Marshall

Arivaca'a Connection Newspaper has website with a "Forum" page where a topic has been started on the power line issue. This forum allows anyone to post comments. The website can be found at
http://soazconnection.com/forum/ then click on "The Connection Forum"

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for TEP's proposed Sahuarita-Nogales Transmission Line Project will be published soon. In order to receive a CD-ROM version of the complete EIS, you can contact Jerry Pell at the Department of Energy at (Jerry.Pell@HQ.DOE.GOV), or leave a message at 1-800-430-4046.

The draft EIS will also be available on the Internet at http://www.ttclients.com/TEP/

The company that is preparing and will be issuing the Draft EIS is:

Tetra Tech, Inc
Attn: TEP EIS
5205 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1400
Falls Church, VA 22041-9922

Edited version of a recent email from Marshall..

Please see "Holding the Line" at http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tw/current/feat2.html for some of the latest from TEP on its backup 345-kV powerline. As my Summary Brief indicated, UniSource stated there would be future ACC hearings (I count at least three - see attachment) that will have to deal with this issue:

a. Soon a hearing must be called by TEP/UniSource (they testified they were/are planning to). What needs to be explained to the public (not Commissioners in back rooms) includes:
1. Why will the line will not be operational by 31 Dec 2003 (a few weeks of restrictions in summer of 2002 fails as a valid excuse)
2. How the $30,000 penalty for being late is to be rebated by TEP to Citizens ratepayers starting in February 2004? (TEP assumed all responsibilities to provide this line to Citizens).
3. How TEP will compensate for economic impacts for being late (Nogales may plan to sue)?
4. What is the real status of the draft Environmental Impact Statement (TEP testified in January 2002, that the draft would be completed by April 2002, now is 18 months late and counting),
5. What is the status of the required Mexican Constitution change required to sell electricity to Mexico (345-kV line is no needed without this approval)?
6. How will TEP/UniSource containment of ongoing cost over-runs (cost to complete has increased from $78 to over $86 million), and
7. How can TEP now propose four routes, when only three were proposed to ACC/DOE and only one evaluated by ACC and only one approved by the ACC?
8. How will Santa Cruz County survive summer of 2004 without this line (ACC Staff said we'd not have enough power).
9. etc.[I don't think this should be a closed room issue.]

Now is the time to write, email, phone or fax your ACC Commissioners with our side of this story. See Update Two for addresses. Thanks, Marshall Magruder