DANIEL P. DUTHIE Attorney and Counselor at Law P.O. BOX 8 BELLVALE, NY 10912
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DANIEL P. DUTHIE Attorney and Counselor at Law P.O. BOX 8 BELLVALE, NY 10912 845-988-0453 Fax 845-988-0455 [email protected] December 29, 2014 Kathleen H. Burgess, Secretary Public Service Commission !3 Empire State Plaza! Albany, New York 12223-1350 Re: Case 14-E-0454 -- Comments by the Town of Milan, Farmers and Friends for Livingston and the Town of Pleasant Valley in response to the NYS Register Notice Concerning the Proposed Public Policy Transmission Needs/Public Policy Requirements, as Defined Under the NYISO Tariff (I. D. No. PSC-45-14-00002- P) and in connection with the Alternating Current Transmission Proceeding 13-E- 0488 Case No. 12-T-0502 – Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Examine Alternating Current Transmission Upgrades Case No. 13-E-0488 – In the Matter of Alternating Current Transmission Upgrades - Comparative Proceeding Case No. 13-T-0454 - Application of North America Transmission Corporation and North America Transmission, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article VII of the Public Service Law for an Alternating Current Transmission Upgrade Project Consisting of an Edic to Fraser 345 kV Transmission Line and a New Scotland to Leeds to Pleasant Valley 345 kV Transmission Line Case No. 13-T-0455 – Part A Application of NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc. for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article VII of the Public Service Law for the Marcy to Pleasant Valley Project Case No. 13-T-0456 - Part A Application of NextEra Energy Transmission New York, Inc. for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article VII for the Oakdale to Fraser Project Case No. 13-M-0457 - Application of New York Transmission Owners Pursuant to Article VII for Authority to Construct and Operate Electric Transmission Facilities in Multiple Counties in New York State Case No. 13-T-0461 - Application of Boundless Energy NE, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article VII for Leeds Path West Project Dear Secretary Burgess: This letter is being submitted on behalf of the following members of the Hudson Valley Smart Energy Coalition (“HVSEC”) Town of Milan Farmers and Families for Livingston Town of Pleasant Valley to evidence support for the comments submitted by Scenic Hudson, another leading member of HVSEC. Since the New York Transmission Owners (“NYTO”) filed comments on December 24, 2014, these comments will also address that filing. Scenic Hudson makes three points: 1. There is no public policy requirement as defined by the NYISO’s OATT. 2. Congestion costs are declining and a transmission solution as proposed by the NYTOs produces a revenue requirement that is more costly than bearing the current and declining cost of congestion. 3. The proposed NYTOs (and some of the other) AC transmission lines represent an affront to many federal and state policies designed to protect and enhance the Hudson Valley. NYISO’S OATT REQUIRES A FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW OR REGULATION TO TRIGGER A PUBLIC POLICY REQUIREMENT TO SUPPORT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRANSMISSION LINE The FERC approved OATT defines a public policy requirement as follows: Public Policy Requirement: A federal or New York State statute or regulation, including a NYPSC order adopting a rule or regulation subject to and in accordance with the State Administrative Procedure Act, any successor statute, or any duly enacted law or regulation passed by a local governmental entity in New York State, that may relate to transmission planning on the BPTFs. NYISO OATT, Attachment Y, Section 31.1. None of the submissions have been able to meet this definition. HQUS 2 The submission of HQUS states that “[t]he overarching Public Policy Requirement driving the need for Transmission is the Public Service Law which requires the provision of adequate service at just and reasonable rates for ratepayers—and authorizes” long term planning. This generalized reference to the Public Service Law is hardly sufficient to come within the definition of a Public Policy Requirement (“PPR”) as contemplated by the OATT. HQUS also references Governor Cuomo’s Energy Highway Initiative and the New York State Transmission Assessment and Reliability Study. Neither document is a federal, state or local law or regulation. It should be noted that HQUS has no transmission line proposal in Case 13-E-0488 – the Competitive AC Transmission Line Upgrades proceeding. NAT North America Transmission, LLC (“NAT”) claims that the mere institution of Case 12-T-0502 meets the definition of PPR. Case 12-T-0502 has now morphed into Case 13-E-0488 with entirely new procedures as articulated in the December 16, 2014 procedural Order that will result in a Technical Conference on Need in June of 2015 subject to further comment thereafter. NAT’s claim is a bootstrap of the first order and an illogical one at that. Obviously there is no “NYPSC order adopting a rule or regulation” that triggers the PPR definition. NextEra NextEra Energy Transmission New York (“NextEra”) urges the PSC to “identify the relief of congestion on the UPNY-SENY and Central East interfaces as a PPR for which transmission solution should be solicited.” Once again, the only documents NextEra points to, are not laws or regulations, but studies. Studies cannot meet the specific definition of PPR in the FERC approved OATT. NYTOs and NYPA The New York Transmission Owners and NYPA, like NAT, point to the institution of Case 12-T-0502 as meeting the definition of PPR. Again there is no citation to a federal, state or local law or regulation. Since that case is still in progress, there is yet to be a final PSC order. How could there be since the Commission has decided to have a robust investigation of whether there is any need for additional transmission? National Grid National Grid adds some creativity to the mix by urging that the New York State Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (“RGGI”) is a PPR. National Grid’s “logic” is that more transmission in the western part of the state will reduce Greenhouse gases. RGGI is a mitigation mechanism to monetize greenhouse gases. It is not a federal, state or local law or regulation that relates “to transmission planning on the BPTFs.” NYPA 3 NYPA also urges the Commission to find that the western part of the State qualifies for PPRs and cites Article 6 of the New York Energy Law (that requires the preparation of an energy plan), GRRI, NYS Renewable Portfolio Standards and the Niagara Redevelopment Act. None of these provisions directly relate “to transmission planning on the BPTFs.” To state that the Energy Law requires an energy plan and, therefore, it triggers a PPR is such an extreme leap as to require no further comment. But such leaps of illogic do underscore how tortured NYPA’s and the other commenters’ arguments have become to “justify” PPR transmission. Iberdrola Iberdrola, like NAT and the NYTOs, claims that the mere institution of Case 12- T-0502 and its continuation via Case 13-E-0488 is a PPR and claims that the SAPA notices associated with these cases, along with the Generation Retirement Contingency proceeding and the Energy Highway Blueprint constitute the requisite activities to trigger PPR. What Iberdrola misses, as Scenic Hudson has pointed out, is that the February 20, 2013 notice in the State Register related solely to procedural issues in the evaluation of the alternative proposals. Not one of the cited cases are substantive laws or regulations that relate “to transmission planning on the BPTFs.” Iberdrola, like HQUS, does not have a horse in the Competitive AC Transmission Line case. NYTOs Comments On December 24, 2014, the “indicated New York Transmission Owners (NYTOs)” offered comments (“NYTOs Comments”). The NYTOs continue to support Case 13-E- 0488, as a PPR “driving the need for transmission improvement.” The NYTOs have the chutzpah to state “there is a clear need for alternating current transmission improvements to address public policy goals established by the Commission’s AC Proceeding and the Governor’s Energy Highway Blueprint.” Perhaps they have not yet caught up with the Commission’s December 16, 2014 Order in Case 13-E-0488. A number of the comments question the need for a transmission solution to the identified congestion. The Commission responds to those concerns by expanding the process to address the issue of basis of the need before proceeding to a full Article VII review. Included in the approved process are requirements that Trial Staff prepare a report addressing the question and present its findings in a technical conference open to all the parties so that there can be a full airing and discussion among the stakeholders of the basis of the need for transmission facilities and the viability of potential alternatives. (emphasis added). Order Establishing Modified Procedures for Comparative Evaluation (Issued and Effective December 16, 2014) at 2-3. While continuing to promote new transmission, it is noted with appreciation that the NYTOs have committed to no “new Rights-of-Way and in a manner that reduces rather than increases visual impacts when compared with the existing transmission system.” 4 Nevertheless the NYTOs continue to rely on Energy Highway Blueprint of 2012. We are now in a new regulatory environment and planning cycle that is substantially changed from 2012. The last several years has seen the continuing decline in electricity usage in New York City (Zone J) “is growing at an annual average rate of -0.18%.” NYISO Gold Book at page 7. The rate of increase of the peak demand has been declining (1.18% in 2013 to 1.13% in 2014).