State of New York Public Service Commission Opinion

STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

OPINION NO. 95-6

CASE 91-E-0529 - Application of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need in Connection with the Reconstruction of the Existing P and MK Transmission Lines and Associated Substation Facilities in Ulster County.

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC NEED

Issued and Effective: May 23, 1995 CASE 91-E-0529

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPEARANCES INTRODUCTION 1 THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 4 THE RECOMMENDED DECISION 8 NEED FOR THE FACILITY - POST-RECOMMENDED DECISION REQUEST FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY HEARING 9 HERBICIDE APPLICATION 10 Historic District 11 Town of Rosendale 11 Minnewaska State Park 12 O&W RAILROAD TRESTLE IMPROVEMENTS 13 REVISED STORM WATER POLLUTION REGULATIONS 14 LINE ROUTING ISSUES NOT RESOLVED BY THE STIPULATION 14 Introduction 14 Rosendale, New York 15 1. Route 32 Crossing and Cornell Hill - The Wallkill Alternative 16 2. Joppenbergh Mountain 17 3. Historic District 18 4. Conclusion as to Routing Recommendations at Rosendale 19 Routing in the Carlson/ Sheeley/Taussig-Moore Area 20 CONCLUSION 22 ORDER 24

ATTACHMENTS CASE 91-E-0529 Page 1 of 4

APPEARANCES FOR CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORPORATION: Gould & Wilkie (by Robert J. Glasser, Esq. and Eric O. Costello, Esq.), One Chase Manhattan Plaza, New York, New York 10005.

FOR NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE: Saul A. Rigberg, Esq., Staff Counsel, Three Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223.

FOR OFFICE OF Parks, RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Lloyd Adams, III, Esq., Assistant Counsel for Historic Preservation, One Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12238.

FOR NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION: Keith J. Silliman, Esq., 50 Wolf Road, Room 608, Albany, New York 12233.

FOR NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND MARKETS: Diane B. Smith, Esq., One Winners Circle, Capital Plaza, Albany, New York 12233.

FOR ASSEMBLYMAN MAURICE HINCHEY: John J. Mavretich, Burroughs Drive, Box 36, West Park, New York, New York 12493.

FOR WALLKILL VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY: Marvin Beatty, Wallkill Valley Railroad Company, P.O. Box 460, Rosendale, New York 12472.

FOR JOPPENBERGH MOUNTAIN CORPORATION: Ernest DeWitt, P.O. Box 57, Rosendale, New York 12472.

FOR NEW YORK Parks AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION: Richard White-Smith, Executive Director, 35 Maiden Lane, Albany, New York 12201. CASE 91-E-0529 Page 2 of 4

FOR ROSENDALE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION: Frederick R. Fritschler, P.O. Box 159, Rosendale, New York 12472.

FOR SUE ELLEN SHEELEY: Cohen, Dax, Koenig & Wiles (John Dax, Esq. and Joshua Noah Koenig, Esq.), 126 State Street, Albany, New York 12207.

FOR THE TOWN OF ROSENDALE: Beatrice Havranek, Rosendale Town Supervisor, P.O. Box 423, Rosendale, New York 12472. Edward J. Carroll, Esq., Rosendale Town Attorney, 2733 Route 209, Kingston, New York 12401.

FOR CENTURY HOUSE HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Gayle Grunwald, President, Route 213, P.O. Box 150, Rosendale, New York 12472.

FOR IRON MOUNTAIN RECORDS MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND CRITERION ATLANTIC PROPERTIES, INC: Don Hughes, P.O. Box 86, Rosendale, New York 12472.

FOR PALISADES INTERSTATE Park COMMISSION: Robert O. Binneweis, Executive Director, Bear Mountain, New York 10911.

FOR THE TOWN OF WAWARSING: Joseph P. Stoechler, Jr., Supervisor, Town of Wawarsing, Town Hall, 108 Canal Street, Ellenville, New York 12420

FOR THE TOWN OF SHAWANGUNK: Kevin V. Hunt, Supervisor, Wallkill, New York 12859.

FOR THE TOWN OF CRAWFORD: Robert P. Adams, Chairman of Town Planning Board, P.O. Box 367, Pine Bush, New York 12566. CASE 91-E-0529 Page 3 of 4

FOR THE TOWN OF PLATTEKILL: Jacobowitz & Gubits (Douglas Zamelis, Esq.), P.O. Box 367, Walden, New York 12586.

FOR THE TOWN OF MONTGOMERY: Carl Helstrom, Supervisor, Montgomery Town Hall, 74 Main Street, Walden, New York 12586.

FOR ULSTER COUNTY PLANNING BOARD: Herbert Hekler, Director, County Office Building, 244 Fair Street, Kingston, New York 12401.

FOR THE SIERRA CLUB: James T. Mays, Representative, 2545 Samsonville Road, Oliverbridge, New York 12461.

FOR NEW YORK FARM BUREAU: Paul McDowell, Local Issues Specialist, P.O. Box 992, Glenmont, New York 12077.

FOR RIDGE AND VALE ALLIANCE: Bruce Mardiney, Representative, 147A Mountain Road, Rosendale, New York 12472.

FOR FRIENDS OF SHAWANGUNK OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE: Robert K. Anderberg, Esq., Route 1, Box 400A, High Falls, New York 12440.

FOR D&H CANAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY: Dr. Robert McBride, President, Rural Route 1, P.O. Box 147A, Kerhonkson, New York 12466.

PRO SE: Michael T. Taussig and Rachel Moore, Fairview Avenue, P.O. Box 211, High Falls, New York 12440. Manna Jo Greene, 41 Cottekill Road, Cottekill, New York 12419. CASE 91-E-0529 Page 4 of 4

Harry A. Carlson and Phyllis C. Carlson, 46 Fairview Avenue, High Falls, New York 12440. Joseph Esposito, P.O. Box 406, Rosendale, New York 12472. Dietrich Werner, P.O. Box 212, Rosendale, New York 12472. James Schaeffer, Route 32, Rosendale, New York 12472. Harold Hanig and Dorothy Hanig, P.O. Box 70, Rosendale, New York 12472. STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS: Harold A. Jerry, Jr., Chairman Lisa Rosenblum William D. Cotter Raymond J. O’Connor John F. O’Mara

OPINION NO. 95-6 OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY AND PUBLIC NEED (Issued and Effective May 23, 1995)

BY THE COMMISSION:

INTRODUCTION On May 28, 1991, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson, the applicant, or the company) filed an application pursuant to Article VII of the Public Service Law (PSL) for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need authorizing the company to reconstruct, replace, and upgrade from 69 kV design to 115 kV design, two existing transmission CASE 91-E-0529 lines ("P" and "MK"), both located in Ulster County, and to modify six substations serving these lines.1 Notwithstanding repairs and replacements, the lines have suffered physical and technical obsolescence. Central Hudson regards them as outdated and in need of replacement. Studies conducted by the company have shown the need to upgrade the lines to operate at 115 kV in the future. In its Article VII application, Central Hudson proposed to use the existing right- of-way as its preferred route, together with some improvements in existing easements, to provide a wider, uniform right-of-way for the single circuit segments. In addition, a wider right-of-way was proposed for the double-circuit segment between Kerhonkson and Honk Falls. The estimated cost of the proposed transmission lines, including right-of-way acquisition, is $15,832,000 (in 1991 dollars). Construction would be phased over a ten-year period.2 The estimated cost of the proposed substation

1 Built in stages during the 1920’s and 1930’s, the P- Line extends from an interconnection at the existing Sturgeon Pool Substation in the Town of Rosendale to interconnections with the existing Rosendale, High Falls, and Accord Substations, from which the line continues to an interconnection with the existing Kerhonkson Substation in the Town of Wawarsing, and thence to the interconnection at the existing Honk Falls Substation in the Town of Wawarsing. Local loads are served from the above Substations. The P-Line routing follows, in part, the abandoned Delaware and Hudson Canal ("D&H Canal") in the segment between the New York State Thruway to the High Falls Substation and in segments to the west of the Kerhonkson Substation. The MK-Line extends from an interconnection at the existing Modena Substation in the Town of Plattekill through the existing Galeville Substation in the Town of Gardiner, from which it traverses what is now Minnewaska State Park, to an interconnection at the existing Kerhonkson Substation in the Town of Wawarsing, and thence to an interconnection at the existing Honk Falls Substation, also in the Town of Wawarsing. In the Kerhonkson-Honk Falls segment, the P and MK-Lines have been constructed in double-circuit configuration. 2 Latest estimates indicate that construction would be phased over a five-year period. -2- CASE 91-E-0529 construction is $17,238,000 (in 1991 dollars). Public statement hearings were held between August 20, 1991 and September 23, 1993. At these sessions, topics discussed included routing and construction within Minnewaska State Park (Minnewaska or the Park); potential health hazards associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF); routing segments of the P-Line within various portions of the Town of Rosendale and High Falls, in the Snyder Estate Natural Cement Historic District (Historic District), along the D&H Canal, in the Cornell Hill area east of Route 32 (Cornell Hill), and on Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore’s property; and the use of herbicides in the Town of Rosendale. Active parties in this proceeding are the applicant, staff of the Department of Public Service (staff), Office of Parks, Recreation and Historical Preservation (OPRHP), Assemblyman Maurice Hinchey,3 New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (Ag. & Markets), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Wallkill Valley Railroad Company, Inc. (Wallkill Railroad), Joppenbergh Mountain Corporation (Joppenbergh), New York Parks and Conservation Association (Parks and Conservation), Rosendale Environmental Commission (Environmental Commission), Delaware and Hudson Canal Historical Society (D&H Canal Society), Town of Rosendale (Rosendale), Century House Historical Society (Century House), Iron Mountain Records Management Company (Iron Mountain), Palisades Interstate Park Commission (Palisades Commission), Town of Wawarsing (Wawarsing), Town of Shawangunk (Shawangunk), Town of Crawford (Crawford), Town of Plattekill (Plattekill), Town of Montgomery (Montgomery), Sierra Club, Ulster County Planning Board (Ulster County), New York Farm Bureau (Farm Bureau), Ridge and Vale Alliance (Ridge and Vale), Open Space Institute (Open Space), Sue Ellen Sheeley, Michael T. Taussig and Rachel O. Moore (Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore), Manna Jo Greene (Ms. Greene),

3 Although a New York State Assemblyman at the time of the institution of this proceeding, Mr. Hinchey was later elected to the United States House of Representatives, where he now serves. -3- CASE 91-E-0529

Harry A. and Phyllis C. Carlson (Mr. and Mrs. Carlson), Joseph Esposito, Dietrich Werner, Harold and Dorothy Hanig (Mr. and Mrs. Hanig), and James Schaeffer. The parties participated in more than two dozen field inspections between November 5, 1991 and September 23, 1993. Additionally, some 15 technical conferences have been convened out of which eventual consensus emerged on all issues, with the notable exception of routing in Rosendale and High Falls, leading to the execution and filing of a settlement agreement. Administrative Law Judge John T. Vernieu presided at eight days of evidentiary hearings at Rosendale, Kingston, and Albany between October 13, 1992 and April 14, 1993. Also, on March 16, 1995 the Commission conducted, after notice to all parties, a site inspection of the disputed routing segments in Rosendale and High Falls. A group, including two Commissioners, advisory staff of the Public Service Commission, and representatives of the interested parties, inspected each of the alternatives involved in the routing disputes.

THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT All of the active parties and other interested entities participated in one or more of the numerous settlement discussions, which culminated the execution of a stipulation dated July 3, 1992 (Stipulation).4 It resolved issues including routing for the entire project other than in the Town of Rosendale and in the Village of High Falls within the Town of Marbleton, as well as required construction and mitigation procedures. A modification to the stipulated route in the Historic District appears in the Addendum to Stipulation (Addendum), which was prepared in December 1992.5

4 See Attachment A. The proposed ordering clauses, which are a part of the Stipulation, have not been included in Attachment A. Instead they were incorporated in the ordering clauses in this Opinion and Order. 5 See Attachment B. -4- CASE 91-E-0529

Finally, the additional negotiations on routing modifications at Joppenbergh Mountain resulted in a January 19, 1993 Amendment to the Stipulation (Amendment).6 Therein, staff, Central Hudson, and OPRHP agree, inter alia, to a further line revision within the Village of Rosendale, identified as the Revised Stipulated Rosendale Alternative. All of the issues advanced by the parties pertinent to the MK-Line are resolved by the Stipulation. Almost all of the issues regarding the P-Line are similarly resolved; the exceptions are: (1) routing in Rosendale between the New York State Thruway and Cottekill Road, a distance of approximately two and one-half miles; (2) routing in the vicinity of the Roebling Abutment and the Taussig/Moore-Sheeley-Carlson properties in the Village of High Falls, a distance of approximately a quarter- mile; (3) considerations pertaining to sub-surface geology and use of herbicides in the Historic District; and (4) replacement of a trestle for rail use on the abandoned Ontario and Western ("O&W") Railroad roadbed. There are 46 proposed ordering clauses and 10 attachments to the Stipulation, which provide the basis for resolution of the majority of issues pertinent to the following signatory parties: Central Hudson, staff, Ag. & Markets, Palisades Commission, OPRHP, DEC, Sierra Club, Farm Bureau, Open Space, Ulster County, the Towns of Crawford, Montgomery, Plattekill, Shawangunk and Wawarsing, and Mr. Esposito. Several of these signatory parties endorsed only that part of the stipulation that pertained to their interests. OPRHP supported the routing and associated matters regarding the MK-Line, but objected to the stipulated route in the Historic District, as well as the wording of the proposed archaeology ordering clauses. However, it gave full support to the subsequent Addendum and Amendment, which satisfied its concerns. The Stipulation resolved numerous environmental issues, including local routing modifications to the company’s preferred

6 See Attachment C. -5- CASE 91-E-0529 routes as proposed in its application; construction, restoration, herbicide use and other mitigation measures in Minnewaska; protection of endangered species; geological surveys in the Historic District to determine soil types and subsurface geology for herbicide use and structure locations; and recommended ordering clauses and EM&CP guidelines. Particular note should be given to the Stipulation’s resolution of the difficult issues posed by continued placement of a transmission electric line in Minnewaska, a 11,630-acre, multi-use area in the Shawangunk Mountains. The Park, which encompasses a variety of resources and natural habits including pitch pine barrens, timber rattlesnake and eastern wood rat habitat, Lakes Minnewaska and Awosting and an extensive network of carriage ways and hiking trails, is considered by the Palisades Commission to be the "uncut jewel" of its entire system of 23 parks and historic sites. Two major routing alternatives as well as several system-related alternatives were considered by the parties to avoid reconstructing the MK-Line within Minnewaska. The first appears in the company’s Article VII application. This alternative avoids the Park by skirting around its western boundary, traversing an area deemed equally as environmentally- sensitive as Minnewaska itself and that the Palisades Commission would someday like to purchase and incorporate into the Park. During the course of the collaborative process, the parties rejected this alternative because, in comparison to the Minnewaska route, it would require more clearing of forested land; cross more streams and a greater area of erodible soils; and be more expensive. In a further effort to avoid the Park, staff investigated other routes that would avoid Minnewaska as well as the surrounding sensitive areas of the Shawangunk Mountains designated for public use. Staff developed an alternative that would completely bypass the Mohonk Mountain House, the Mohonk Preserve, the Park, and lands (including the Ellenville Watershed area) that the Palisades Commission hopes to purchase for an -6- CASE 91-E-0529 addition to the Park. Preliminary reconnaissance surveys, along with information provided by state agencies and affected municipalities, revealed that this alternative would cross five protected wetlands; fourteen protected streams; the Shawangunk Mountains; steep, erodible soils; managed timber stands; and several proposed subdivisions in Orange County. In addition, this route would cross five state highways, including one designated state and county scenic highway. The line would create a new visual intrusion in the populated towns of Orange County and the remote, pristine areas of the Shawangunk Mountains. Although construction along this route would be easier than along the preferred route, the distance would be much greater, 29.2 miles (of all new right-of-way) versus 19 miles (of existing right-of-way), and the cost would be considerably higher, $18,413,000 versus $7,373,000. For these compelling reasons, the parties rejected this route as an alternative to reconstructing the P-Line in the Park. The parties also properly rejected various system-related alternatives to placing the line in the Park for reasons of practicality. As indicated by either their signatures on the Stipulation document, supporting testimony and/or their failure to oppose the stipulated route, the parties most affected by construction in Minnewaska, namely the Palisades Commission, OPRHP, DEC, the Sierra Club, the Open Space Institute and Friends of the Shawangunks, agreed with staff and the company that with careful construction and mitigation measures use of the existing right-of-way would have the least environmental impact. Prominent among these measures are restrictions concerning the construction schedule, use of helicopters to fly in material and work crews, pole height restrictions, movement of several structures to reduce visibility, improved maintenance of carriage roads, removal of unused distribution lines, and use of staff as environmental monitors. This creative, well considered approach to Minnewaska -7- CASE 91-E-0529 is but one example of the benefit of the conscientious commitment shown by staff and the other parties in this protracted proceeding in devoting their time and expertise to resolving difficult, complex issues to the satisfaction of competing interests. These parties are commended for their efforts.

THE RECOMMENDED DECISION Judge Vernieu’s June 23, 1994 Recommended Decision concluded that the record supports all of the required findings pursuant to §126(1) of Article VII of the Public Service Law (PSL) and that Central Hudson should be granted a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (Certificate). The Judge recommended approval of the foregoing Stipulation and the Addendum and Amendment thereto, together with a line routing specifically described in Attachment D and illustrated in the maps contained in Attachment E.7 The Judge also recommended that the Certificate include the specific terms, provisions, and conditions set forth in his recommended ordering clauses. These clauses, modified to the extent necessary to conform to this decision, are set forth below. Briefs on exceptions, dealing primarily with aspects of line routing,8 were filed by staff, Central Hudson, Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore, Century House, Dietrich Werner, Ms. Greene, Mr. and Mrs. Carlson, Assemblyman Hinchey, Wallkill Railroad, Ulster County, Parks and Conservation, Mr. and Mrs. Hanig, and

7 These maps also illustrate the Central Hudson preferred line routing per its application, the routing stipulated to, the MK-Line preferred and alternative routes, and the various P-Line routings proposed within the Town and Village of Rosendale and at High Falls. 8 No exceptions have been taken to the final recommended routing for the MK-Line, illustrated in Attachment E. -8- CASE 91-E-0529

Rosendale.9 Other issues raised on exceptions concerned the need for the facility, use of herbicides, railroad trestle improvements and maintenance responsibility, and revised storm water pollution regulations. Also, post-recommended decision motions were made pertaining to further evidentiary hearings, oral argument before the Commission, and site visitations.

NEED FOR THE FACILITY - POST-RECOMMENDED DECISION REQUEST FOR FURTHER EVIDENTIARY HEARING Staff concurred with Central Hudson that a rebuilt 69 kV facility would become inadequate to serve projected load near the mid-point of its projected life; whereas a 115 kV line would be adequate for the entire 40-year period encompassed by Central Hudson’s planning analysis. Based on this evaluation, the Judge recommended that the existing power line be replaced by one with a 115 kV capacity, but that the line be initially operated at 69 kV level.10 Ms. Greene, without citing any empirical evidence to support her contention, questions the sufficiency of the record to support the Judge’s recommendation. Ms. Greene also requests that any certificate be conditioned so that before the line could be operated at 115 kV, a further hearing be required for a demonstration of the need to operate at the higher voltage level. Both staff and Central Hudson oppose Ms. Greene’s motion, arguing that the current record contains overwhelming support of the need for the project and that there is no justification for additional Commission review of actual operating voltage levels.

9 Briefs Opposing Exceptions were filed by staff, Central Hudson, Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore, Mr. and Mrs. Carlson, Ulster County, Century House, Dietrich Werner, Parks and Conservation, Mr. and Mrs. Hanig and Rosendale. OPRHP filed a letter generally supporting the Recommended Decision. 10 R.D., pp. 14-17. Also all signatories to the Settlement affirm the need for reconstruction of the entire P and MK routings. -9- CASE 91-E-0529

A line with 115 kV capacity will be certified because there is substantial evidence supporting the need for a line with a 115 kV capacity. For example, Exhibit 13 demonstrates that system reliability would be greatly enhanced, with no voltage or thermal problems projected through 2028, if the P- and MK-Lines are reconstructed and operated (when required) at 115 kV. In contrast, replacement at 69 kV would only alleviate problems temporarily, and require undesirable supplemental voltage support as loads continue to grow in Ulster County. Furthermore, both company and staff witnesses noted that a rebuild of the 69 kV facilities would become inadequate sometime near the midpoint of their expected life, whereas a 115 kV line would be adequate for the 40-year period encompassed by the planning analysis. With respect to the authorization to operate the line at 115 kV, that point in time will be determined by the company’s load requirements. The pertinent decisional elements, whether engineering and/or economic, are within the expertise of Central Hudson, and it would be inappropriate to micro-manage Central Hudson with regard to the exact timing of the commencement of the increased voltage level. In all events, and perhaps of controlling consideration, the prudence of the company’s ultimate decision to upgrade remains subject to our review. In these circumstances, Ms. Greene’s request is denied.

HERBICIDE APPLICATION Central Hudson’s long-range right-of-way management plan has, as one of its major goals, the development of compatible plant communities on rights-of-way, and provides for controlled periodic cutting and trimming techniques to encourage minimal use of herbicides. The plan received the support of staff and most signers of the Stipulation, except as noted below. Judge Vernieu recommended its adoption and implementation. However, there are several exceptions.

-10- CASE 91-E-0529

Historic District Within the Historic District, there exists the inactive cement mines, an area of particular sensitivity and vulnerability regarding herbicide usage. The company, staff, and numerous intervenors supported proposed ordering clause no. 22 which, among other things, provides for a comprehensive study of soils and subterranean conditions by Central Hudson to provide data to determine migration of herbicides, the potential for soil attenuation of herbicide residuals, and groundwater contamination. If the study were to indicate a meaningful potential for groundwater contamination in the mines, Central Hudson has agreed to describe proposals for addressing the problem in its EM&CP. However, Century House and Ms. Greene fault the recommended decision for not setting forth more particular and explicit provisions on herbicide usage in the Historic District. The exceptions are denied. All aspects of the analytical herbicide study provided for in ordering clause no. 22 of the Stipulation, including its recommendations for remedial action, will be subject to further analysis and comment by all parties as part of the EM&CP process. Parties will have a clear opportunity to recommend ameliorating techniques in the event of substantial deficiencies in the ultimate company proposal. This procedure maximizes the prospect for fashioning techniques based on facts and circumstances identified in the study. It will better protect the public interest than the immediate imposition of rigid requirements that may not adequately address legitimate concerns.

Town of Rosendale Ms. Greene objects generally to all herbicide usage within the Town of Rosendale. She and Rosendale town representatives urge that decisions regarding herbicide usage in the town await the adoption of a comprehensive town ordinance, currently under consideration. This exception is also denied. Major elements of the -11- CASE 91-E-0529

P- and MK-Line reconstruction project are within the Town of Rosendale. Efficient operation of the lines requires a reasonable program of right-of-way management that may include use of herbicides especially in areas of dense, persistent vegetation. Ordering clauses nos. 27 and 41 (agreed to by most parties to the Stipulation) ensure, inter alia, that herbicide- free buffer zones will be established around waterbodies and wetlands, and require Central Hudson to submit a long-term management plan for both the P and MK-Lines. Thus, the town’s interest will be adequately protected.

Minnewaska State Park Ms. Greene excepts generally to Central Hudson’s limited right to use herbicides within the parameters of the company’s long-range plan for right-of-way management in Minnewaska. This exception is denied. There is a lengthy record demonstrating that the controls on the use of herbicides will adequately protect the Park and its resources. For example, the threshold test for herbicide use described in the Stipulation will ensure that herbicides will be used only if undesirable vegetation on the right-of-way reaches "moderate" levels as described in the company’s long-range vegetation management plan,11 thereby minimizing the use of herbicides in the Park without completely ruling them out. Moreover, the parties most concerned with the protection of the Park, namely, Palisades Interstate Park Commission, DEC, the Sierra Club, and the Friends

11 An electric transmission right-of-way long-range vegetation management plan is required by the Commission’s decision in Case 27605 - The Role of Herbicides in Managing Vegetation on Electric Transmission Rights-of-Way, Opinion No. 80-15 (issued April 18, 1980), Appendix A. The plan provides for the practice of economically and environmentally sound, system-wide vegetation management designed to ensure reliable transmission of electric energy as well as the long-term development of relatively stable, compatible plant communities. -12- CASE 91-E-0529 of the Shawangunks, have agreed to the Stipulation’s provisions on herbicide use.

O&W RAILROAD TRESTLE IMPROVEMENTS Parks and Conservation advocated that Central Hudson fund the construction of a railroad trestle on the abandoned O&W Railroad right-of-way along a segment of the P-Line between Routes 213 and Lucas Avenue in Rosendale, which would then be developed for recreational usage. Purchase of a pedestrian bridge is estimated to cost $11,500 with additional installation costs approximating $15,000. Judge Vernieu recommended that any certificate issued in this proceeding include as a condition that Central Hudson be responsible for construction, installation, and maintenance of the proposed railroad trestle. Ulster County, Dietrich Werner, Parks and Conservation, and Rosendale support the recommendation. Staff and Central Hudson except, citing administrative and liability constraints. Both staff and Central Hudson point out that under the terms of the Stipulation, the P-Line routing in the specific area involved depends upon the execution of an agreement between Ulster County, the owner of the O&W railbed, and Central Hudson. Under such agreement, the company would be allowed access rights to the railbed for construction and maintenance of the line at a cost not to exceed fair market value of the O&W railbed. Judge Vernieu observed during an on-site visit at the location that a trestle bridge would be a benefit to Central Hudson in maintaining the P-Line in this particular area, while at the same time greatly enhance the recreational value of the O&W right-of-way by maximizing the ultimate purpose and effect of the agreed-upon line relocation. He found and we concur that the cost is well worth the benefit. We conclude Central Hudson should be required to fund the construction of the trestle subject to a maximum cap of $25,000 and the following conditions: the agreement with Ulster County must relieve Central Hudson and its ratepayers of any responsibility and/or liability in this matter, and instead place -13- CASE 91-E-0529 legal responsibility for the construction, installation, and maintenance of the trestle on Ulster County, as the owner of the railbed. Unless such conditions are met, Central Hudson will not be required to fund any trestle construction.

REVISED STORM WATER POLLUTION REGULATIONS In other cases, we have taken measures to ensure compliance with revised storm water pollution regulations promulgated by DEC.12 In order to follow that precedent in this case, staff proposed the following additional ordering clause: The EM&CP prepared by Central Hudson shall include a storm water pollution prevention plan for the project, prepared in accordance with good engineering practices, identifying potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges, and describing and ensuring the implementation of practices which will be used to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges, and to assure compliance with the substantive standards of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities that are Classified as "Associated with Industrial Activity." This requirement provides clear guidance for Central Hudson, but should not be burdensome because the stipulated ordering clauses suggest that this material would likely be contained in the EM&CP in any event. Central Hudson, in its brief opposing exceptions, has indicated that it does not object to this additional ordering clause. It is included as ordering clauses no. 50.

LINE ROUTING ISSUES NOT RESOLVED BY THE STIPULATION Introduction The Settlement resolved all routing issues for the MK-Line, particularly in the Minnewaska State Park and in the agricultural districts affected by the line. The contested

12 See for instance Case 92-T-0252, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation - Gas Transmission Article VII Proceeding - Phoenix to Scriba, Order Approving EM&CP for a Portion of Segment Two (issued April 29, 1994). -14- CASE 91-E-0529

issues pertain to segments of the P-Line routing within Rosendale and along the D&H Canal at the Taussig and Moore/Sheeley/Carlson properties. These areas are identified on the attached maps.13

Rosendale, New York Several routes were considered in Rosendale. The final two in contention are the Revised Stipulated Rosendale Alternative (Rosendale Alternative)14 and the Wallkill Valley Railroad Alternative (Wallkill Alternative).15 After comparing and contrasting the Rosendale Alternative and the Wallkill Alternative, the Judge concluded that the Rosendale Alternative provides a better balancing of the many competing factors presented in the case, and recommended its certification. The Rosendale Alternative was also supported by staff, the company and several of the other signatories to the Stipulation, the Addendum, and the Amendment. The Wallkill Alternative is supported by Wallkill, Rosendale, Century House, and Dietrich Werner. They argued primarily that the Wallkill Alternative would (1) remove the facility from the Route 32/Creek Locks Road intersection; (2) remove about 1,000 feet of line from Route 213 in Rosendale where there are a number of businesses and homes; and (3) eliminate problems at the Historic District. The following discussion relates the parties’ exceptions to segments of the P-Line routing in Rosendale.

13 See Attachment E. 14 The Revised Stipulated Rosendale Alternative (Rosendale Alternative) is the "green line" routing depicted on the attached map (page 3 of Attachment E), including the Joppenbergh Mountain and Historic District modifications. 15 The Wallkill Alternative and its revisions, affecting the Cornell Hill segment are identified as the "blue" and "red" line routings on the attached map (page 3 of Attachment E). -15- CASE 91-E-0529

1. Route 32 Crossing and Cornell Hill - The Wallkill Alternative The existing P-Line crosses Routes 32 at the intersection with Creek Locks Road and runs parallel to Main Street in Rosendale. It is uncontested that the Route 32/Creek Locks Road intersection is visually congested, burdened with a substantial volume of traffic, various roads and commercial enterprises. The Wallkill Alternative would shift the route north onto Cornell Hill, and would create a new line crossing over Route 32 approximately one-fourth mile north of the existing P-Line. Judge Vernieu concluded that on balance the Wallkill Alternative would not result in an overall improvement because the revised Wallkill Alternative would, among other things, adversely affect an existing subdivision with approximately 15 residences on Cornell Hill. The Judge found it compelling that the residents of the Cornell Hill subdivision who appeared in the proceeding vigorously opposed the Wallkill Alternative whereas there was scant opposition to the Rosendale Alternative in its area. On exceptions, the Wallkill proponents point to an inconsistency in the recommended decision which found the Wallkill Alternative over Cornell Hill unacceptable, in part, because it would place the line about 200 feet from residences, but recommended the Rosendale Alternative even though it would place the line within 100 feet of residences along Main Street and Creek Locks Road. In their briefs opposing exceptions, staff and the parties supporting the Rosendale Alternative point out the negative impacts of the Wallkill proposal in the Cornell Hill area and at the northern crossing of Route 32, most notably the environmental and visual impact of creating a new right-of-way. The Rosendale Alternative is located in the flood control area near the crossing of Route 32 in Rosendale, as compared to the hilly, erosion prone, wooded, residential Cornell Hill area. In addition, removal of the line from the Route 32/Creek Locks Road intersection--an alleged benefit of the

-16- CASE 91-E-0529

Wallkill proposal--would not meaningfully reduce the visual congestion at that overcrowded intersection. Furthermore, in all cases west of the Route 32 crossing, the centerline of the Rosendale Alternative is an improvement over the existing line by being at least 50 feet further from houses, stores, and trailers than the existing line. We recognize that the Rosendale Alternative would place the line closer to residences than the Wallkill Alternative. However, on balance, we prefer the Rosendale Alternative in this area because it more closely follows the current right-of-way, and the abutting landowners have accommodated to the existing line, whereas the Wallkill Alternative will create a new corridor with significant impacts on residents on Cornell Hill and will require more clearing with potential erosion control problems.

2. Joppenbergh Mountain The Rosendale Alternative also crosses Joppenbergh Mountain in proximity to an abandoned ski jump. To accommodate the express concerns of intervenor Joppenbergh Mountain Corporation, the line was routed around the mountain in a configuration that avoids the old ski jump, its parking facilities, and other major landmarks. The recommended decision supported the Rosendale Alternative at this location because the transmission facility would be screened as it crosses the shoulder of Joppenbergh Mountain at an abandoned ski jumping facility located behind the firehouse in Rosendale. On exceptions, the Wallkill proponents argued that the Wallkill Alternative by virtue of its crossing the Cornell Hill area is preferable because the line would have less impact on the ski facility. Mr. Beatty also asserted that the Wallkill Alternative would require less clearing of mature trees then the Rosendale Alternative. These exceptions are denied because the Wallkill Alternative would require a new corridor through a heavily forested region of substantially greater length to avoid the Joppenbergh Mountain. On the other hand, the Rosendale -17- CASE 91-E-0529

Alternative, by crossing at the shoulder of the Joppenbergh Mountain, would take advantage of favorable screening and would require less new right-of-way clearing. It is also significant that the Joppenbergh Mountain Corporation, the promoter of the abandoned ski jump facility on the side of Joppenbergh Mountain, and an active intervenor in the proceeding, has not excepted to the Judge’s recommendation.

3. Historic District The recommended decision acknowledged the historical and archaeological value of the cement mines and the unique geology of the Historic District in Rosendale, but concluded that the record supported placing the power line at approximately the mid-point within the Historic District near the abandoned cement- processing facilities. Judge Vernieu concluded that to move the line farther north within the Historic District, as proposed by the Wallkill proponents, would have a greater adverse impact on the Iron Mountain property.16 This finding is supported by Central Hudson, staff, and the other signatories of the Stipulation, particularly the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation.17 The Wallkill proponents, Century House and Dietrich Werner except. Collectively, these parties argue that only the Wallkill line routing complies with the PSL Article VII mandate to certificate a line routing that minimizes adverse environmental impacts. They contend that the recommended decision fails in one way or another to address the sensitivity of critical structures and land features within the Historic District, such as the Beach Kilns, the cement mine entrances, the

16 Iron Mountain Records Management Company, the operator of the Iron Mountain Records Storage Vaults, is the largest affected landowner within the Historic District. It opposes the Wallkill Alternative and favors the Rosendale Alternative routing. 17 This was the lead agency in negotiating the revised line routing through the Historic District. -18- CASE 91-E-0529

Delaware & Hudson feeder reservoir, and the abandoned cement processing facilities. In addition, Century House dismisses staff’s visual analysis supporting the Rosendale Alternative by attacking staff’s routing methodology and the credibility of its witness. The record demonstrates that the Rosendale Alternative would not affect the mining structures nor be readily visible from Century House in the Historic District. Although this route represents an intrusion further north on Iron Mountain’s property, this route continues to protect Iron Mountain’s interests by accommodating and respecting its plans for its property. In addition, the revised route is intended to better protect the historical integrity of the District because it places the transmission facility closer to the cement plant, a 20th century facility, and further from the mines, which are 19th century facilities. Also, Central Hudson noted that it would be possible to construct the line per the revised routing by using relatively tall structures, up to 70 feet, to span the valley. Staff testified that even though it is doubtful that 70-foot poles would be needed, there would not be much difference from a visual impact perspective between 55-foot poles and 70-foot poles. Moreover, any impacts on the general public would be reduced because the line would be moved further from existing land uses. Finally, there is no basis for the attack on the credibility of staff’s witness. Accordingly, these exceptions are denied.

4. Conclusion as to Routing: Recommendations at Rosendale Notwithstanding the opposition of the Wallkill proponents, the Rosendale Alternative is best adapted to the topography and vegetative screening available along the route. In contrast, the Wallkill Alternative would require the removal of a very substantial number of trees from its right-of-way, thereby creating a permanent swath across a heavily forested area and a new intrusion in the lives of dozens of area residents, as

-19- CASE 91-E-0529 well as upon the Iron Mountain property. As set forth above, the line routing adjustments of the Rosendale Alternative will best meet the requirements of the Public Service Law regarding minimization of environmental impacts. The exceptions are denied.

Routing in the Carlson/ Sheeley/Taussig-Moore Area A major portion of the initially stipulated route located in Rosendale and High Falls is on the site of the former D&H Canal. Since the time of the original P-Line’s construction, also on the canal site, the movement of vehicles and the placement of poles and equipment has resulted in the injury or collapse of towpath, locks, and other canal features. OPRHP opines that reconstruction of the P-Line along the company’s initially preferred route would physically threaten remaining historic canal features such as towpaths, locks, etc. and would degrade the integrity of the resources by increasing the height of poles and the amount of land which must be cleared to accommodate and maintain the new and larger line structures. Conservation and historic preservation groups have been actively planning to protect the canal and expand recreational opportunities along its corridor. Consequently, staff, along with Central Hudson and intervenors DEC, Century House, the D&H Canal Society, Hinchey, Parks and Conservation, and Messrs. Werner and Taussig would relocate the existing P-Line away from the canal, to preserve the historic, archeological, and recreational integrity of this Registered National Historic Landmark. The specific area in question includes a one-third mile section of the D&H Canal on the property of Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore. Most of the interested parties have now agreed to relocate the new P-Line right-of-way from in front of to behind the Taussig and Moore house. Judge Vernieu recommended adoption of staff’s revised Alternative "F" identified on Attachment E, Sheet 4, in an

-20- CASE 91-E-0529 attempt to balance impacts on land use, cultural and historical resources, viewsheds in the area, and to make use of an old roadbed on Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore’s property. Staff also considered the concerns of Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore and adjoining property owners Sheeley and Mr. and Mrs. Carlson, all of whom desired not to have their properties affected by the proposed line. Staff’s Alternative F and its revision would require some clearing on the Carlson and Sheeley properties to accommodate the 100-foot right-of-way, but the centerline will be located entirely on Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore’s property in a manner that avoids bisecting their parcel or traversing another lot known as the "Myles Gordon" lot. Central Hudson has not excepted to the Judge’s recommendations, but the Carlsons, Mrs. Sheeley and Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore have all excepted, arguing that the line should be shifted away from any possible intrusion on their lands. Mr. and Mrs. Carlson and Mrs. Sheeley point out the visual disadvantage of the routing recommendation to parallel property lines of Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore. The Carlsons also assert that the recommended routing will further damage the historic remains of the Roebling abutment along the Rondout Creek. Finally, many factual findings in the recommended decision supporting the routing recommendation are attacked for accuracy and relevance. Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore, in their exceptions, have noted that all of the proposed routes in the area fall within a one-fourth-mile corridor, and they have suggested that it may be appropriate to restrict the corridor in this area or, in the alternative, to designate certain points in the area as "sanctuaries." Staff expresses support for this approach, but has not identified any precise locations. Staff’s revised Alternative F balances the following interests: Mrs. Sheeley’s wish to ensure safe operation of an airfield located on her property; Mr. and Mrs. Carlson’s desire to minimize to the greatest degree possible the amount of right-

-21- CASE 91-E-0529 of-way and danger tree18 clearing on their property, especially where the terrain is suitable for construction of houses; Dr. Taussig and Ms. Moore’s wish to have the transmission line located along the northern and western boundaries of their property so that the facility does not bisect their property and is as far away from their house as possible for health and safety reasons, while at the same time not interfering with the suitability of the "Myles Gordon" lot as a building site; and the desire of various governmental and non-profit agency parties to preserve the historic, archeological, and recreational integrity of the D&H Canal, which has been designated a Registered National Historic Landmark. The exceptions to the recommended decision’s endorsement of staff’s route in the canal area are denied. Finally, all landowners affected in this vicinity could be put more at ease if they were to know precisely where the centerline will be located without restricting the corridor to the degree that unreasonable engineering constraints result. Thus, staff’s suggestion will be adopted because of the sensitivity of this relatively narrow strip of land. In this particular area, the transmission line should be located on the exact certified centerline, except that deviations from the certified centerline no greater than 100 feet may occur during the EM&CP phase, but only for compelling engineering reasons.

CONCLUSION As noted above, §126 of the Public Service Law sets forth the findings required for a project certified under Article VII. The Stipulation, Addendum, and Amendment reached in this proceeding through negotiations among Central Hudson, staff, and other signatory parties meet the statutory requirements. These requirements have been considered and addressed in the proposed ordering clauses and EM&CP guidelines attached to the

18 Danger trees are trees that are located outside the established clearing lines and whose retention would jeopardize line reliability. -22- CASE 91-E-0529 settlement documents. The threshold issue of need has been satisfied by the record demonstration that a rebuilt 115 kV electric transmission facility and modifications to six substations are necessary to correct physical and technical obsolescence of the existing 69 kV line, and that the replacement will be adequate for their entire 40-year life. Although upgraded to 115 kV capability, the line will be initially operated at a 69 kV level and upgraded to 115 kV when conditions warrant it. The route agreed upon in the Stipulation, together with the line routings within the Town of Rosendale and in the Village of High Falls herein approved, as well as required construction and mitigation procedures, are superior to all other route proposals. Therefore, the foregoing routings, along with the protection measures set forth in the adopted ordering clauses and EM&CP guidelines, represent the minimum adverse environmental impact for this project. Construction and operation of Central Hudson’s proposed facilities in Case 91-E-0529 will serve the public interest, convenience and necessity; these facilities are needed; they represent the minimum adverse environmental impact considering the state of available technology and the nature and economics of the various alternatives and other pertinent considerations including but not limited to the effect on agricultural lands, wetlands, Parklands, and river corridors traversed; the locations of the facilities will not pose undue hazards to persons or property along the area traversed by the facilities; and the locations of the facilities conform to applicable state and local laws and regulations issued thereunder, which have not been waived herein under PSL §126(1)(f). Finally, Central Hudson’s requests for waivers of Commission filing requirements for the submittal of information regarding location of cleared areas, structures and access and maintenance routes on DOT maps, aerial photographic mosaics and construction drawing under 16 NYCRR Part 86 are granted. Central Hudson is directed to provide this information and set forth the -23- CASE 91-E-0529

timetable for restoration of the facilities’ rights-of-way in the EM&CP.

The Commission orders: 1. The Stipulation dated July 3, 1992 set forth in Attachment A, together with the Addendum to Stipulation dated November 9, 1992, set forth in Attachment B, and the Amendment to the Stipulation dated June 23, 1993, set forth in Attachment C, are approved. 2. Subject to the conditions set forth in this Order, Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation (Central Hudson) is issued a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need (Certificate) authorizing the company to reconstruct and replace two existing transmission lines, identified in the proceeding as the "P" and the "MK" lines, both located in Ulster County, from 69 kV design to 115 kV design, together with revisions at the existing Sturgeon Pool, High Falls, Kerhonkson, Honk Falls, Modena and Galeville Substations. The P-Line is to extend from an interconnection at the existing Sturgeon Pool Substation in the Town of Rosendale, to interconnections with the High Falls and Accord Substations,19 from which the line continues to an interconnection with the existing Kerhonkson Substation in the Town of Wawarsing, and thence to the interconnection at the Honk Falls Substation in the Town of Wawarsing. Local loads are to be served from the above substations. The P-Line routing is to follow, in part, the abandoned Delaware and Hudson Canal ("D&H Canal"), in the segment between the N.Y.S. Thruway to High Falls Substation and in segments to the west of the Kerhonkson Substation. The MK-Line is to extend from an interconnection at the existing Modena Substation in the Town of Plattekill through the Galeville Substation in the Town of Gardiner, from which it will traverse the Minnewaska State Park, to an interconnection at the

19 The Accord Substation will be removed when the line is upgraded to 115 kV. -24- CASE 91-E-0529 existing Kerhonkson Substation in the Town of Wawarsing, and thence to an interconnection at the Honk Falls Substation, also in the Town of Wawarsing. In the Kerhonkson-Honk Falls segment, the P and MK-Lines are to be constructed on two single-circuit structures on the same rights-of-way. The line described above will require permanent rights- of-way up to 150 feet in width where right-of-way property is not already owned by Central Hudson unless otherwise specified in the EM&CP. The precise centerline will be finally located within a quarter mile corridor on either side of the centerline described in Attachment D, except as the centerline and deviations from it are described and set forth in ordering clause no. 10, infra, with respect to specifically delineated areas. 3. Within 30 days after the issuance of the Certificate, Central Hudson shall submit to the Public Service Commission (Commission) a verified statement that it accepts and will comply with the Certificate. Failure to comply with this condition shall invalidate the Certificate. 4. (a) Central Hudson shall not begin site preparation or construction (except for surveying, boring, and such other related activities as are necessary to prepare an Environmental Management and Construction Plan (EM&CP), before it has submitted to the Commission, and the Commission has approved, an EM&CP consistent with the EM&CP Guidelines included in Attachment A. (b) Central Hudson shall not commence any proceeding under the Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL), or begin site preparation or construction (except for surveying, boring, and such other related activities as are necessary to prepare final design plans) before it has submitted to the Commission and the Commission has approved, an EM&CP consistent with the EM&CP Guidelines in Attachment A and covering the portion of the project for which the activities are necessary. To calculate the three-year period for acquisition of property pursuant to the EDPL, the date of Commission approval of an EM&CP covering the affected parcel shall be regarded as the date on -25- CASE 91-E-0529 which this Article VII proceeding was completed. Exercise by Central Hudson of the right to survey and inspect property provided under the EDPL shall not be deemed to constitute commencement of site preparation or construction for purposes of this paragraph. 5. Before or at the time Central Hudson or its representative contacts landowners in the project area to conduct engineering surveys or environmental studies on their land, the company shall provide each landowner with a letter that shall include, at a minimum: background information on the proceeding; a statement that the project is under the jurisdiction of the Commission and that the Commission has issued a Certificate; an explanation of why engineering surveys and environmental studies are needed; a listing of precautions and protective measures to be used during the surveys and studies to minimize damage to the owner’s property; and explanation of the EM&CP preparation and approval process; a statement that owners of record for property required for rights-of-way will receive notice of the filing of EM&CP and will have the right to comment upon it; and the name and toll-free or local telephone number of an employee or agent of the company who will answer questions or complaints. Before the letter is provided to landowners, Central Hudson shall confer with staff concerning its contents. A copy of the letter and the names and addresses of those to whom it was provided shall be submitted to the Secretary either contemporaneously or as a part of any filed EM&CP. 6. (a) Central Hudson shall submit four copies of the EM&CP to the Commission and shall serve one copy on the Commissioner of Office of Parks and Recreation and Historic Preservation, at least one copy on any other New York State agency (and its relevant regional offices) which requests the documents, except that three copies will be served on the Department of Environmental Conservation and one copy on other signatory parties to the Stipulation who request it. Central Hudson shall also place copies for inspection by the public in at least one public library or other convenient location in each -26- CASE 91-E-0529 municipality in which construction will take place. (b) Contemporaneously with the submission and service of the EM&CP, Central Hudson shall serve written notice(s) of the filing of the EM&CP on all active parties to this proceeding and on each other person on the Commission’s service list considered by the company to be potentially affected by the subject matter of the EM&CP. Central Hudson shall also attempt to serve similar written notice(s) on each person from whom right-of-way to be used for the certified facility will be obtained. A copy of the notice shall also be attached to each copy of the EM&CP. Further, Central Hudson shall publish the notice(s) in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the vicinity of the facility. The written notice(s) and the newspaper notice(s) shall contain, at a minimum, the following: a statement that an EM&CP has been filed; a general description of the EM&CP; a listing of the locations where the EM&CP is available for public inspection; a statement that any person desiring additional information about a specific geographical location or specific subject may request it from the company; the name, address, and toll-free or local telephone number of the company’s representative; the address of the Commission; and a statement that any person may comment on the EM&CP by filing written comments with the Commission and Central Hudson within 30 days of the filing date of the EM&CP (or within 30 days of the date of newspaper notice, whichever is later). Proof of service indicating upon whom all EM&CP notices and documents were served and a copy of the written notice shall be submitted to the Commission at the time an EM&CP is filed and shall be a condition precedent to approval of the EM&CP. 7. After Commission approval of the EM&CP, but before commencing site preparation, Central Hudson shall provide a notice(s) to local officials and emergency personnel. The company shall also provide such notice(s) for public display or dissemination to local media and places (such as general stores, post offices, community centers and sites with conspicuous community bulletin boards). The notice(s) shall contain a map -27- CASE 91-E-0529 and description of the project in the local area, the anticipated date for start of construction and the name, address and local or toll-free telephone number for the company. The notice(s) shall also contain a statement that the project is under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission which is responsible for enforcing compliance with environmental and construction conditions, the staff of which may be contacted (at an address and telephone number to be provided). Upon distribution, a copy shall be submitted to the Secretary. 8. Central Hudson shall report any proposed changes in the approved EM&CP to staff. Staff shall refer to the Secretary reports of any proposed changes that do not cause substantial change in the environmental impact or are not related directly to contested issues decided during the proceeding. Staff shall refer all other proposed changes to the Commission for consideration. Upon referral to the Commission, Central Hudson shall notify all parties and attempt to notify all affected property owners. The notice shall describe the requested change, state that documents supporting the request are available for inspection at specified locations, and state that persons may comment by writing to the Commission within 10 days of the issuance of the notice. Central Hudson shall not execute any proposed change to the approved EM&CP until it receives written or oral approval from staff or the Commission. 9. Except where the Certificate requires otherwise, the terms of the Stipulation and the environmental protection measures contained in the application (as modified by the Stipulation) shall be applied during preparation of the EM&CP and during construction, operation, and maintenance of the certified facility. 10. Deviations from the certified center line, to the minimum degree necessary, shall be allowed for appropriate environmental or engineering reasons, except where a conflict with a provision of the Stipulation or this Order would be created. In view of the significant field investigations conducted by the parties in the course of the development of the -28- CASE 91-E-0529

Stipulation, deviations shall generally be limited to 100 yards in either direction but shall be allowed upon a showing of need to a maximum of 220 yards in either direction, with the following exceptions: (a.) in Minnewaska State Park the existing centerline of the existing right-of-way shall be utilized; (b.) in the vicinity of the gravel mining operation west of State Route 55/U.S. Route 209 and east of Continental Road, deviations of up to 300 yards in either direction shall be allowed; (c.) the centerline deviations allowed above shall not be applicable within 100 yards of the Roebling abutment referred to in Attachment A, page 6, item "5" of the Stipulation; and (d.) for that portion of the P-Line that lies between the points marked as "A" and "B" on the map annexed to the Addendum to Stipulation the deviation limits set forth in Paragraph 13 of the Addendum to Stipulation shall apply, i.e. the distance between the abandoned cement processing plant and the abandoned house (office) shall be approximately 470 feet, less the distance needed to assure that neither structure will be within the right of way of the P-Line. 11. Central Hudson shall establish a procedure for receiving and responding to any complaint concerning the construction and operation of the certified facilities. Central Hudson shall report to staff every complaint that cannot be resolved after reasonable attempts to do so, or within 30 days after receipt of the complaint (whichever comes first). 12. Within ten days after each segment of the facility is in service, Central Hudson shall notify the Commission. In addition, Central Hudson shall notify staff and other interested parties within ten days after restoration of a given segment is

-29- CASE 91-E-0529 complete. 13. If construction of this project is not commenced within two years following Commission approval of the EM&CP, this Certificate may be vacated without further notice.

ROADS AND HIGHWAYS 14. (a) In preparing the EM&CP, Central Hudson shall consult with each local department or agency normally having jurisdiction over the roads in the project vicinity that would be crossed by the certified facilities or used for direct access to the right-of-way. If the access road lies in the limits of such roads or takes direct access therefrom, Central Hudson shall notify each such department or agency of the approximate date work will begin. (b) All work within State Highway rights-of-way shall be performed according to the traffic and safety standards and other requirements contained in 17 NYCRR Part 131, entitled "Accommodation of Utilities Within State Highway Right-of-Way." The detailed manner of State highway crossings shall be developed by Central Hudson in consultation with the appropriate road authority and the information responding to the requirements of 17 NYCRR Part 131 shall be included by Central Hudson in the EM&CP. If Central Hudson and the highway officials cannot agree on the details of work within a State highway right-of-way or if those officials fail to respond in a timely fashion, Central Hudson shall notify the Commission in its EM&CP filing and describe fully the disagreements. Nothing in this paragraph alters the Commission’s jurisdiction as the ultimate decision- making authority with respect to the siting of major utility transmission facilities.

RIGHTS-OF-WAY CLEARING 15. Central Hudson shall inform Commission staff before commencing construction or clearing of each segment on this project. 16. Central Hudson shall make reasonable efforts to -30- CASE 91-E-0529 avoid house and structure taking. Where structure taking is appropriate, Central Hudson shall make reasonable efforts to have the building relocated and thereafter inhabited, rather than demolished or abandoned. Such efforts shall be commenced at least 60 days prior to demolition (120 days if any of the 60-day period would fall within winter). If a dwelling unit must be removed from the right-of-way, Central Hudson shall notify its owners, in writing, prior to any initial or further negotiation for the dwelling unit, that they may, instead of selling the dwelling unit, request that it be moved to another site. The notice also shall state that Central Hudson will provide reasonable assistance in the relocation efforts and will pay the cost of such move to the extent it does not exceed the appraised market value of the dwelling unit or (if higher) such other value as may be agreed between the parties. At least one week before a dwelling unit is demolished or moved, Central Hudson shall submit to the Commission a copy of such notice and verified list of the persons to whom it was sent. 17. Other than danger trees, neither Central Hudson nor any contractors in its employ shall clear or alter any areas outside the boundaries of the certified facility or not shown on the EM&CP. 18. All trees over two inches diameter breast height (DBH) or shrubs over four feet in height damaged or destroyed by Central Hudson’s activities during construction, operation, or maintenance, regardless of where located, shall be replaced within the following year by the company with the equivalent type trees or shrubs, except if: (a) permitted by any approved EM&CP; (b) equivalent-type replacement trees or shrubs would interfere with the proper clearing, construction, operations, or maintenance of the certified facility; (c) replacement would be contrary to sound right- of-way management practices or to any approved long-range right- of-way management plan applicable to the project; or (d) the owner on whose land the damaged or -31- CASE 91-E-0529 destroyed trees or shrubs were located (or other recorded easement or license holder with the right to control replacement) declines replacement; provided, however, that the Company may not decline to replace trees or shrubs on its property where required by the EM&CP. 19. Subject to the provisions of the Stipulation, neither Central Hudson nor any contractors in its employ shall construct any new, or improve any existing, access roads not located on the rights-of-way authorized as part of this project or on other utility rights-of-way to be utilized in the construction or operation and maintenance of the certified facilities or not described in the EM&CP. Should the need arise for additional off right-of-way access Central Hudson shall submit a request to staff who will examine the request consistent with the minor and major change concepts of ordering clause no. 8 and, when a facility approved or eligible for the National or State Register of Parks and Historic Places would be affected, consult with Parks, and forward a recommendation to the Secretary.

CONSTRUCTION 20. By noon on the first working day of each week during the construction period, Central Hudson shall provide by telephone to staff, a report for each active construction spread, summarizing the previous week’s construction and the work to be carried out during the current week. 21. Central Hudson shall take reasonable measures to minimize fugitive dust and airborne debris from the construction activity. Any dust palliatives used shall be consistent with any applicable regulations. The company shall also exercise reasonable precautions and take prompt and effective action to prevent or minimize stream turbidity and sedimentation and water- and wind-caused soil erosion in work areas and on the right-of- way. 22. (a) Central Hudson shall study the soils and subterranean conditions for that portion of the certified P-Line -32- CASE 91-E-0529 right-of-way between Binnewater and Cottekill Roads in the Town of Rosendale in accordance with the following scope of work and procedures. The study will consist of two phases. (b) Phase I will be an evaluation of available literature on the soils and subsurface geology (including mine maps and surveys), together with soils sampling in the field. The purpose of Phase I is to characterize the soils types and depths relative to potential use of herbicides for right-of-way maintenance purposes and to assist in the selection of the study techniques to be employed in Phase II. The results of the Phase I study will be provided by Central Hudson to all parties for comment and all comments shall be returned to Central Hudson within three weeks of the date of mailing of the Phase I study report by Central Hudson. If the study indicates a meaningful potential for groundwater contamination in the mines, the company shall describe in the EM&CP its proposal for addressing that potential contamination. (c) Phase II will be an evaluation of the suitability of pole locations and appropriate techniques for construction in light of information developed in Phase I, and the supplemental investigations in Phase II. The methods to be employed in the Phase II study will be developed on the basis of the Phase I study. The results of the Phase II study, including pole locations and construction methods, will be reported by Central Hudson in the EM&CP.

WATERBODIES AND WETLANDS 23. Central Hudson shall minimize any disruption to any DEC regulated wetlands encountered along the certified route. 24. As part of the EM&CP, Central Hudson shall provide staff with a list of streams, wetlands, and significant habitat crossing locations and site-specific crossing techniques for construction of access roads. Within 100 feet of regulated wetlands and 50 feet of other water bodies, Central Hudson shall remove only the minimum vegetation necessary to allow construction and operation of the facility. -33- CASE 91-E-0529

25. Central Hudson shall not wash equipment or machinery in any watercourse or wetland and shall not permit run-off resulting from washing operations to directly enter any watercourse or wetland. 26. Central Hudson shall not store mix or load pesticides, chemicals labeled toxic, or petroleum products or refuel equipment within 100 feet of a watercourse. 27. Central Hudson shall incorporate into the EM&CP its intention to maintain a 30-foot horizontal no herbicide buffer around water bodies other than wetlands. The EM&CP shall show that only basal or cut and stump herbicide application may be conducted between 30 and 50 feet around water bodies other than wetlands. Also, Central Hudson shall include in the EM&CP its intention to maintain a 100 foot horizontal no herbicide buffer around regulated wetlands. The rationale for any proposed variance from these buffers shall be explained in the EM&CP on a site specific basis.

EROSION CONTROL 28. All areas with erodible soils cleared of vegetative cover shall be stabilized through the use of temporary erosion control devices and measures promptly after clearing. These temporary erosion control devices and measures shall be maintained throughout the period of active construction until restoration.

CHEMICAL SPILLS 29. Central Hudson shall provide a spill response and emergency plan as a portion of its EM&CP. This plan shall detail the proposed methods of handling spills of petroleum products and any hazardous or controlled substance which may be stored or utilized during construction, operation or maintenance of this facility.

-34- CASE 91-E-0529

ENVIRONMENTAL SUPERVISION 30. (a) Central Hudson shall regard the specifically authorized officer(s) or employee(s) of the Department of Public Service as the Commission’s designated representative(s) in the field for the purpose of monitoring construction and restoration activities (hereinafter "Staff Monitor(s)"). The Staff Monitor(s) shall have authority, limited to situations constituting a significant environmental threat requiring immediate action, to stop environmentally harmful construction activity or to direct implementation of specific measures contemplated by the EM&CP to the extent necessary to protect the environment. The name(s) and telephone number(s) of the Staff Monitor(s) will be provided to all parties before construction begins and will be updated as necessary. (b) The authority described in ordering paragraph 30 shall be exercised sparingly and with due regard to the potential economic costs involved and the possible impact of construction activities. Before exercising such authority, the Staff Monitor(s) shall consult (wherever practicable) with representatives of Central Hudson who possess comparable authority to urge them to act. Within reasonable time constraints, all attempts shall be made to address any issue and resolve any dispute in the field. In the event a dispute cannot be resolved, the matter shall immediately be brought to the attention of Central Hudson’s Project Manager and the Department of Public Service’s Environmental Compliance and Operations Chief. The Staff Monitor(s) may, in his/her sole discretion, stop work or direct implementation of measures, as described below, during the pendency of these discussions. (c) If a Staff Monitor(s) discovers a specific activity that is a significant environmental threat that is or may imminently become a violation of the Certificate or any other Order in this proceeding, the Staff Monitor(s) may--in the absence of responsible Central Hudson supervisory personnel or in the presence of such personnel who, after consultation with the Staff Monitor(s), refuse to take appropriate action--direct the -35- CASE 91-E-0529 field crews to stop the specific environmentally harmful activity immediately. If responsible Company personnel are not on site, the Staff Monitor(s) shall immediately thereafter inform Central Hudson’s Construction Supervisor and/or Environmental Coordinator of the action taken. The stop-work directive may be lifted by the Staff Monitor(s) if the situation prompting its issuance is resolved. The stop-work directive will expire within 24 hours unless confirmed by a single Commissioner. If the stop-work directive is confirmed, Central Hudson may seek reconsideration from such Commissioner or the Commission. If the situation prompting the issuance of the stop-work order is resolved to the satisfaction of such Commissioner or the Commission, the confirmed stop-work directive will be lifted. If the situation has not been satisfactorily resolved, the stop-work directive will remain in effect. (d) If the Staff Monitor(s) determines that a significant threat exists such that protection of the environment at a particular location requires the immediate implementation of specific measures, the Staff Monitor(s) may--in the absence of responsible Central Hudson supervisory personnel, or in the presence of such personnel who, after consultation with the Staff Monitor(s), refuse to take appropriate action--direct Central Hudson or its contractors to implement the corrective measures identified in the EM&CP. The field crews shall comply with the Staff Monitor(s)’ directive immediately. The Staff Monitor(s) shall immediately thereafter inform Central Hudson’s Construction Supervisor and/or Environmental Coordinator of the action taken. At the request of the Company the Staff Monitor(s) shall provide to Central Hudson within twenty-four hours written justification for the measures implemented. 31. Central Hudson shall provide at least one qualified environmental monitor per spread. Each monitor shall be equipped with sufficient transportation and communication equipment to monitor effectively compliance with the provisions of this Order, applicable sections of the Public Service Law, and -36- CASE 91-E-0529 the Commission approved EM&CP. Each monitor shall be vested with stop/start work authority. As a minimum requirement this environmental monitor shall have good communication skills, advanced education in biology, botany, environmental studies, forestry or landscape architecture, and at least one construction season experience in oversight, compliance or inspection in parts of the world which experience temperature climate with pronounced seasonal precipitation differences and mixed vegetation type. The environmental monitor shall, as a minimum, review construction procedures with on-site personnel and verify that protection measures are properly installed prior to the start of construction in sensitive resources (i.e. streams, wetlands, waterbodies, rare, threatened and endangered species habitat, old growth forests, officially-designated scenic areas and officially-designated historic and cultural resources), shall check on construction progress at least once daily and be in radio or phone contact with on-site personnel at all other times during construction and shall, promptly after taking the necessary steps on site to secure compliance with this Order, report to Staff any violations of the EM&CP. In Minnewaska State Park and in the Snyder Estate Natural Cement historic district in Rosendale, and wherever the right-of-way or an access road would occupy the D&H Canal, the environmental monitor shall be on-site at all times during demolition, clearing, construction, pole removal, and restoration. 32. Central Hudson shall develop a training program for environmental inspection. In addition, Central Hudson shall provide an opportunity for its environmental inspectors to meet with appropriate State agency personnel prior to construction. 33. Central Hudson shall organize and conduct, with staff in attendance, site compliance audits during the clearing, construction, and restoration phases of the project. A maximum of two post-operational meetings per annual segment shall be called periodically by staff at a mutually convenient time. The audit agenda shall include an office review of the status of all -37- CASE 91-E-0529 certification conditions, requirements, and commitments, as well as a field review of the project. The agenda shall also include: (a) reviews of all complaints received, and their proposed or actual resolutions; (b) reviews of any significant comments, concerns or suggestions made by the public, local governments, or State agencies; (c) reviews of the status of the project in relation to the overall schedule established prior to the commencement of construction; and (d) any other items Central Hudson or staff consider appropriate. 34. Within thirty days after each audit, Central Hudson shall submit to the Secretary of the Commission a brief report, verified by one of the staff members in attendance at the audit, describing the results of the audit and any actions planned to remedy any problems or deficiencies noted.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL 35. In preparing the EM&CP, Central Hudson shall obtain an archaeological survey of those portions of the present and/or proposed right-of-way and associated sites which will be disturbed by construction or pole removal. The archaeologist selected by Central Hudson to perform this survey must meet the Professional Qualifications and Standards for Archaeologist set forth in 36 CFR 61 (Appendix A). Disturbed areas which must be surveyed include, but are not limited to, pole locations, access road locations, company storage or fabrication sites, and substation locations. The purpose of this survey is to facilitate consultation between Central Hudson and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) regarding identification and protection of archaeological resources. Consultation between OPRHP, Central Hudson and its archaeologist shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of 9 NYCRR 428 and the document entitled "Major Stages of Cultural Resource -38- CASE 91-E-0529

Investigation." The archaeologist may, as part of consultation with OPRHP, use professional judgment to limit the areas to be physically surveyed, decide which sections of the right-of-way should receive particular attention or decide not to physically survey areas which have been substantially disturbed by prior construction or other activities. In the consultation with OPRHA, the archaeologist shall give due regard to any area likely to contain archaeological resources, as identified by OPRHP or in the literature or by means of other recognized techniques such as predictive modeling. The archaeologist shall prepare a final report describing the survey, the basis for decision concerning the design and extent of the survey, along with any findings, which Central Hudson shall submit to the Commission as part of its proposed EM&CP. Upon completion of the survey, Central Hudson will consult with OPRHA, to determine whether it is necessary to avoid or mitigate the impact of the project on the resources identified by the survey and, if so, to take appropriate actions. The results of this consultation shall be embodied in the EM&CP. The Commission may require Central Hudson to modify a facility to avoid archaeological resources or to salvage any such resource. Any salvage operation shall be performed by persons qualified under 36 CFR 61 (Appendix A). 36. If a lock or other D&H Canal-related structures such as waste weirs, snubbing posts, canal basins or dry docks lie in or are discovered within the potential area of construction activity, Central Hudson shall shift any proposed pole location so as to avoid physical impacts to or long-term destabilization of such canal lock or canal-related structures. If a lock or other D&H Canal-related structures such as waste weirs, snubbing posts, canal basins, abutments or dry docks lie or are discovered within the potential area of pole removal activities, Central Hudson in consultation with OPRHP shall develop a proposal which will avoid or mitigate the impact of such activity on any such resources. The EM&CP shall not be approved for the location until such a proposal has been -39- CASE 91-E-0529 submitted to and approved by the Commission. 37. Prior to the initiation of construction, Central Hudson shall ensure that its environmental inspectors receive basic one-day cultural resource management training either directly from OPRHP or from a training program approved by OPRHP. At a minimum, this training shall include the identification and recognition of archaeological resources under construction conditions, resource protection measures and agency notification procedures. 38. If, during construction, Central Hudson or its contractors encounter what may be evidence of a human burial, Central Hudson shall immediately cease work at the site of the potential burial and notify the Commission and OPRHP within 24 hours. No construction activities may continue in the vicinity of the burial until the site has been evaluated by an archaeologist qualified under 36 CFR 61 (Appendix A) and any necessary salvage or protection plan has been developed by Central Hudson in consultation with OPRHP. Until such a plan has been approved by the Commission, Central Hudson shall protect the resources in question from damage. If during construction, Central Hudson or its contractors encounter what may be other archeological resources, Central Hudson shall: (1) notify the Commission and OPRHP within 24 hours; (2) be under a duty to protect such potential resources from damage; (3) proceed with appropriate care pending evaluation of the site and resource by an archaeologist qualified under 36 CFR 61 (Appendix A) and; (4) where necessary, consult with OPRHP to develop a plan which will avoid or mitigate the impact of the project on such resources.

RIGHTS-OF-WAY RESTORATION 39. Central Hudson shall, on completion of each segment of the project, assess the need for vegetation planting to screen or landscape the facility with respect to road, carriageway and substation crossings, and prepare plans for any visual rehabilitation found necessary. In seeking to effectively -40- CASE 91-E-0529

integrate the facility to its surroundings, removal, rearrangement and supplementation of existing plantings should be considered. The company shall consult with staff on the content and execution of its assessment, resultant planting plan, specifications and materials list. Plans for the entire effort for a given segment shall be presented for staff’s review within six months after each segment of the facility is placed in- service. 40. Disturbed areas will be restored to original grades and conditions. Disturbed pavement, curbs and sidewalks shall be restored to their original preconstruction condition or better, if necessary to comply with any applicable published state or local regulations.

RIGHTS OF WAY MAINTENANCE AND VEGETATION CONTROL 41. Central Hudson shall submit to the Commission for approval, and provide a copy to any party so requesting, a long-term right-of-way management plan for a particular segment prior to performing vegetation maintenance on a given segment. The plan shall: (a) contain a list of environmentally significant features (including as a minimum any stream-crossings, wetlands, vegetation planting areas, important wildlife habitats, parks, officially-designated trails and visual screens) and provisions to minimize maintenance impacts on them; (b) contain a vegetation and land-use inventory for the first and each subsequent treatment (the vegetation inventory shall include the right-of-way location, vegetation type, height, density and treatment technique); (c) contain a list of potential undesirable joint right-of-way uses (e.g., trash dumping and trespass) and policies to remedy or control such uses; (d) describe the treatment techniques and chemicals proposed for use, and limit chemical use to approved usages and dosages; and

-41- CASE 91-E-0529

(e) contain the company’s policy on surveillance, posting and installation of deterrents to access.

PROJECT SPECIFIC CLAUSES 42. Central Hudson’s petition for waiver of the filing requirements found in 16 NYCRR Parts 86.3(a)(1)(ii), (a)(2)(ii), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(1)(iii), (b)(1)(iv) and Part 86.6(c) is granted. 43. (a) No State or local legal provision purporting to require any approval, consent, permit, certificate or other condition for the construction or operation of the facility authorized by the Certificate shall apply, except those of the Public Service Law and regulations and Orders adopted thereunder, and those provided by otherwise applicable State law for the protection of employees engaged in the construction and operation of the facility. (b) The local legal provisions, as set forth in Exhibit 7A of the Application and Appendix H of the recommended decision in Case 91-E-0529, that are procedural and inapplicable under §130 of the Public Service Law and those regulations that contain substantive requirements or prohibitions that are unreasonably restrictive under §126(1)(f) of the Public Service Law shall not be applied in this proceeding. 44. Central Hudson shall obtain copies of the Floodway Hazard Boundary Maps published by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each affected municipality and shall show the location of designated floodways on the EM&CP construction plans. 45. Central Hudson shall obtain copies of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by FEMA for each affected municipality and shall show the location of designated areas of special flood hazard on the EM&CP construction plans. 46. The location of transmission towers or structures and permanent access roads in areas of special flood hazard shall be avoided where possible. To the extent that structures or access roads must be located in areas of special flood hazard, they should be so located so that the cumulative effects of such structures and access roads, when combined with all other -42- CASE 91-E-0529 existing and anticipated development, shall not increase the water surface elevation of the 100 year flood more than one foot at any point. When the EM&CP is submitted, Central Hudson shall submit a certification, accompanied by workpapers, if requested, from a licensed professional engineer that the construction plans as set forth in the EM&CP complies with the above condition. 47. No transmission towers or structures shall be located in a designated floodway. 48. No access roads shall be located in designated floodways except crossings which shall be permitted only if there is no feasible alternative to provide reasonable access. To the extent that designated floodways must be crossed to provide access, the lowest part of any spanning member, or in the case of culverts, the top rim, shall be no lower than one foot above the highest elevation of the 100 year flood. Bridge spans between abutments, or culverts, shall be sized so as to allow discharge of the 100 year flood without impedance. At-grade fords may be permitted as an alternative to bridges and culverts. Anchoring and rip-rap shall be provided as appropriate. 49. Central Hudson shall fund the construction of the O&W trestle subject to a maximum cap of $25,000 and procurement of an agreement with Ulster County relieving Central Hudson and its ratepayers of any responsibility and/or liability in this matter, and placing legal responsibility for the construction, installation, and maintenance of the trestle on Ulster County, as the owner of the railbed. Unless such conditions are met, Central Hudson will not be required to fund any trestle construction. 50. The EM&CP prepared by Central Hudson shall include a storm water pollution prevention plan for the project, prepared in accordance with good engineering practices, identifying potential sources of pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges, and describing and ensuring the implementation of practices which will be used to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges, and to assure compliance with the substantive standards of the New York State -43- CASE 91-E-0529

Department of Environmental Conservation SPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Activities that are Classified as "Associated with Industrial Activity." 51. To the extent it is consistent with this Opinion and Order, the Recommended Decision of Administrative Law Judge John T. Vernieu, issued June 23, 1994, is adopted as part of the Opinion and Order. Except as here granted, all exceptions to that Recommended Decision are denied. 52. This proceeding is continued. By the Commission,

(SIGNED) JOHN C. CRARY Secretary

-44-