State of New York Public Service Commission
______
Application of Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC for a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need Pursuant to Article VII of the Public Service Case 13-T-0585 Law For Approval of a New 345 kV Line From the Pleasant Valley Substation to the Cricket Valley Energy Center, LLC, and the Reconductoring of an Existing 345 kV Line, in the Town of Dover, Dutchess County.
______
Direct Testimony of Allan R. Page on behalf of Dutchess County New York & Cricket Valley Improvement Coalition
Dated: May 13, 2015
Allan R. Page Principal A. Page & Associates LLC 9 Vassar Street Suite 30 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 845-452-7455
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF ALLAN R. PAGE
CASE 13-T-0585
1 Q. Please state your name, title, and business address.
2 A. My name is Allan R. Page. I am a Principal in the Energy Consulting Firm of A.
3 Page & Associates LLC. My business address is 9 Vassar Street, Suite 30,
4 Poughkeepsie, New York 12601.
5
6 Q. Mr. Page, please briefly summarize your qualifications and employment background.
7 A. I received Bachelor of Science degrees in Physics and Civil Engineering from Union
8 College in Schenectady New York in 1970. In 1975 I received a Bachelor of
9 Science degree in Electrical Engineering and in 1983 a Master of Science Degree in
10 Industrial Administration both from Union College. After graduation from Union
11 College in 1970 I went to work for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation as a
12 Junior Engineer. I held various Transmission and Distribution (T&D) district and
13 staff engineering positions in the Customer Service Group between 1970 and 1979.
14 Between 1979 and 1984 I worked in district and divisional level manager positions
15 in T&D and Engineering. Between 1984 and 1999 I held various executive
16 positions with titles of Assistant Vice President of Engineering, Vice President of
17 Customer Services, Senior Vice President of Corporate Services, and Executive
18 Vice President of Energy Resources, Development, and Transition. Between 1999
19 and 2002 I held various CH Energy Group positions including President and CEO
20 of CH Resources, Griffith Energy Services, Scasco, Central Hudson Enterprises
21 Corporation. During the same period of time I held positions of Executive Vice ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 President and President of the CH Energy Group and President and Chief Operating
2 Officer of Central Hudson Energy Services. In June of 2002 I retired from Central
3 Hudson and the CH Energy Group and started an Energy Consulting Firm, A. Page
4 & Associates LLC. Since founding A. Page & Associates I have worked with
5 industrial, commercial and government clients advising and consulting on the
6 purchase of bulk electric, natural gas, propane, gasoline, and heating oil supplies. I
7 have worked with and advised attorneys and clients on power production and
8 NYISO market issues. I have provided energy forecasts and worked with
9 corporations on the development of strategic business plans. I have worked on the
10 development of renewable energy projects in the United States, Africa, the Middle
11 East, India, and China. Since 2004 Dutchess County Government has been a client.
12 In general, I provide energy policy advisory services for Dutchess County. I have
13 represented Dutchess County interests in Central Hudson’s rate proceedings most
14 recently Cases 14-E-0318/14-G-0319 in which Dutchess is an active party. I have
15 also represented Dutchess County as an active party in the Fortis/CH Energy Group
16 Merger Case 12-M-0192. Dutchess is an active party in the Energy Efficiency
17 Portfolio Standard Case 07-M-0548, and the AC Transmission Upgrades
18 Comparative Proceeding Case 13-E-0488 for which I provide representation. I am
19 also a licensed Professional Engineer in the State on New York.
20
21 Q. Mr. Page have you previously testified before the Public Service Commission?
22 A. While in the employ of Central Hudson I did previously testify in rate cases with my
23 testimony based upon supporting the Central Hudson line clearance programs. I
2 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 have also testified in the most recent Central Hudson Rate Cases.
2
3 Q. On whose behalf are you testifying?
4 A. I am testifying on behalf of Dutchess County New York within which the entire
5 project that is the subject of this Article VII Proceeding is sited. In addition based
6 upon the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge in awarding intervenor funding in
7 the Case on September 26, 2015, Dutchess County was directed to coordinate
8 efforts with the Towns of Pleasant Valley, Union Vale, Dover, and LaGrange and
9 Pleasant Valley Concerned Citizens (PVCC). A coalition was established to comply
10 with the Administrative Law Judges’s directive on coordination, which took the title
11 of the Cricket Valley Improvement Coalition (CVIC). I will also be testifying on
12 behalf of CVIC.
13
14 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony?
15 A. The purpose of the testimony is to address the project design proposed by the
16 applicant, the Cricket Valley Energy Center (CVEC) in this Article VII proceeding.
17 As may be appropriate in regard to the context of the testimony which follows,
18 CVEC will be used to denote the applicant as well as to note the applicant’s
19 generation facility to be constructed in Dover New York.
20
21 Q. Would you provide background on the Cricket Valley Improvement Coalition
22 (CVIC) on whose behalf you are testifying?
23 A. The CVIC was created at a meeting on November 7, 2014 held in the LaGrange
3 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 Town Hall in response to the Administrative Law Judge’s September 26, 2014 ruling
2 on intervenor funding directing parties receiving funding to coordinate efforts. The
3 meeting was called by Dutchess County and was attended in person by Town
4 Supervisors from LaGrange, Pleasant Valley, and Union Vale. Pleasant Valley
5 Concerned Citizens was represented in person by the Chairman of PVCC. Calling
6 into the meeting was the Supervisor from the Town of Dover. In total all
7 organizations receiving intervenor funding participated in the meeting either in
8 person or on the phone. Other parties affiliated with these intervening organizations
9 were also in attendance.
10
th 11 The first order of business at the November 7 meeting was to establish a name for
12 the organization consisting of Dutchess County, the Towns of Dover, LaGrange,
13 Pleasant Valley, Union Vale and Pleasant Valley Concerned Citizens. The
14 organization chose the name Cricket Valley Improvement Coalition because it
15 reflected the fact that all members of CVIC were of the opinion that improvements
16 could be made to CVEC’s filed application.
17
18 CVIC has met on nine occasions all in the Town of LaGrange Town Hall. Meetings
19 and discussions during the meetings and after the meetings have forged a consensus
20 on the part of CVIC on moving forward in the Article VII proceeding maximizing
21 limited resources by focus on critical issues in the proceeding.
22
23 CVIC’s central focus is to ensure that the right of way with existing transmission
4 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 facilities along with the proposed addition of new transmission facilities is a visual
2 improvement over the right of way as it exists today.
3
4 Q. Where do visual improvements need to take place on the transmission project
5 proposed by CVEC.
6 A. In siting the Cricket Valley generator off Route 22 in the Town of Dover New York
7 CVEC chose a location closest to the crossing of a high pressure gas transmission
8 line and an overhead 345,000 volt electric transmission line. The electric
9 transmission line runs from Pleasant Valley Substation in New York to the Long
10 Mountain Substation in Connecticut. The line runs between two states and is within
11 two transmission control areas, i.e., The New York Independent System Operator
12 (NYISO) and the Independent System Operator of New England ISO-NE. (This
13 transmission line is designated the 398 Line or the Long Mountain 345 Kv circuit.
14 The generating project is designed to interconnect into the 398 Line splitting the line
15 and allowing energy generated to flow east to Long Mountain Substation and/or west
16 to the Pleasant Valley Substation. ) This 345 Kv line in New York State is the basis
17 for this Article VII proceeding.
18
19 For the 398 Line heading east from the generating station, CVEC is seeking to
20 replace the existing line conductors with conductors of higher current carrying
21 capacity retaining and reusing existing lattice supporting structures. The
22 reconductoring on this section of the project in New York State will have minimal
23 impact on the view shed and CVIC is comfortable with the reconductoring as
5 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 proposed.
2
3 For the 398 Line heading west from the generating station the applicant is seeking to
4 build another 345 Kv line paralleling the existing lattice structure line. Thus for the
5 right of way heading west from the generating station, two circuits are proposed: one
6 an existing circuit on lattice structures which will be retained and the other a new
7 circuit proposed to be supported by monopoles generally situated along side of
8 existing lattice structures.
9
10 It is this part of the proposed project between the new generator and the Pleasant
11 Valley Substation, were new monopoles are proposed which will have a significant
12 negative visual impact on the communities through which the proposed additional
13 circuitry will be built. It is on this part of the proposed project where CVIC has
14 determined that a visual improvement to the design proposed by the applicant is
15 required.
16
17 Q. What are CVIC’s specific visual impact concerns for the project between the
18 Pleasant Valley Substation and the generating plant?
19 A. To start with at the location of the line terminal in Pleasant Valley, the area in and
20 around the Pleasant Valley Substation can best be termed visually congested. Wires,
21 poles, and other supporting structures are everywhere. The Pleasant Valley
22 Substation is one of the largest bulk transmission substations in New York State and
23 probably could rival some of the largest substations in the world. The vast majority
6 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 of wires and supporting structures are there not for the benefit of the local
2 communities or Dutchess County, but to support electric supply transmission to the
3 New York City metropolitan area and New England. Similarly the new generator
4 proposed by CVEC is not for the benefit of Dutchess and the surrounding
5 communities, but is for the benefit of New York State and New England.
6
7 The Towns of Pleasant Valley, LaGrange, Dover, Union Vale along with Dutchess
8 County have been good neighbors accepting the burden of electric transmission
9 inconvenience for the greater good of New York State and New England for many
10 decades. However, to the extent that additional circuitry needs to be added -- again
11 to the exclusive benefit of those outside of Dutchess County -- then CVIC asserts
12 that whatever is added needs to be a visual improvement to what currently exists. In
13 the applicant’s proposed design next to existing retained transmission lattice towers
14 will be situated new monopoles with varying heights and varying configurations,
15 grossly different from the lattice structures. What is currently being proposed has
16 been termed by CVIC as a “hodgepodge” design.
17
18 Q. As used to describe the applicant’s proposed design between the generator and
19 Pleasant Valley would you provide more definition as to the use and applicability of
20 the term hodgepodge?
21 A. Using the Merriam-Webster dictionary, “hodgepodge” is defined as a confused
22 mixture. A longitudinal or look down view of the right of way for the proposed
23 project between the Pleasant Valley Substation and the Cricket Valley Energy Center
7 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 provides a set of view-scapes that are graphically depicted in Exhibit__(ARP-1). As
2 depicted, there is no symmetry in the views. There are differing support structures,
3 differing types of insulation for separating conductors from grounded structures,
4 differing heights, differing density of view, and differing spacing between structures.
5 The exhibit provides good working graphics supporting the hodgepodge definition of
6 a confused mixture.
7
8 Q. Why is the design proposed by the applicant such a visual hodgepodge?
9 A. A visual hodgepodge is created because new transmission lines designed to current
10 electrical delivery standards are being shoehorned into an existing right of way with
11 50 year old lattice towers. The new transmission lines must be sandwiched onto the
12 right of way with existing circuitry but the new transmission lines must be
13 constructed in accordance with new standards for electric and magnetic fields and
14 the interconnection standards dictated overall by the NYISO Open Access
15 Transmission Tariff (OATT) interconnection requirements.
16
17 The NYISO interconnection process analyzes the New York State bulk transmission
18 and power delivery system with and without the proposed project and takes into
19 account the Connecting Transmission Owner’s (CTO) requirements for connecting
20 into its system. The CTO for the proposed project is Consolidated Edison. Under the
21 NYISO interconnection process, the project must meet the reliability standards of the
22 New York State Reliability Council (NYSRC), the Northeast Power Coordinating
23 Council (NPCC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC).
8 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 The NYSIO interconnection process determined that two circuits are required
2 between the Cricket Valley Switchyard and the Pleasant Valley Substation and the
3 single circuit from the Cricket Valley Switchyard to Long Mountain, Connecticut
4 should be reconductored. The visual hodgepodge is created by adding new
5 monopole structures next to 50 year old lattice structures that were designed to
6 different standards.
7
8 Q. How are the System Upgrade Facilities (SUF) necessary for connection of the
9 Cricket Valley Generating Plant to the New York State Transmission System
10 established?
11 A. The interconnection process performed under the NYISO FERC approved OATT
12 conducts studies which lead to the System Upgrade Facilities under what is termed
13 “Minimum Interconnection Standards.” The NYISO Minimum Interconnection
14 Standard is defined as follows:
15 “the reliability standard that must be met by any generation project or
16 merchant transmission project, under these rules, proposing to
17 connect to the New York State Transmission System or to the
18 Distribution System. The Standard is designed to ensure reliable
19 access by the proposed project to the New York State Transmission
20 System or to the Distribution System, as applicable. The Standard
21 does not impose any deliverability test or deliverability requirement
22 on the proposed project.”
23 As the title to the NYISO interconnection standard implies, the standard is a plain
9 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 vanilla, low cost, minimum standard that is exclusively focused on the reliability of
2 the New York State transmission system. The visual impact of the facilities that will
3 meet the Minimum Interconnection Standard is not a consideration.
4 The NYISO provides the following definition for the SUF.
5 “System Upgrade Facilities shall mean the least costly configuration
6 of commercially available components of electrical equipment that
7 can be used, consistent with good utility practice and Applicable
8 Reliability Requirements, to make the modifications to the existing
9 transmission system that are required to maintain system reliability
10 due to: (i) changes in the system including such changes as load
11 growth and changes in load pattern, to be addressed in the form of
12 generic generation or transmission projects; land (ii) proposed
13 interconnections. In the case of proposed interconnection projects,
14 System Upgrade Facilities are the modifications or additions to the
15 existing New York State Transmission System that are required for
16 the proposed project to connect reliably to the system in a manner that
17 meets the NYISO Minimum Interconnection Standard.”
18 An additional factor in determining the System Upgrade Facilities (SUF) is the
19 requirements of the Connecting Transmission Owner (CTO), which in this case is
20 Consolidated Edison, because it owns the Pleasant Valley Substation and the 398
21 Line from the Pleasant Valley substation to the New York/Connecticut border. The
22 SUF for CVEC developed in the interconnection process with the NYISO is the basis
23 for the instant Article VII application and as defined by the NYISO process is a least
10 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 cost minimum standard design interconnection requirement.
2
3 Q. Does the NYISO interconnection process take into account the visual impacts of the
4 proposed System Upgrade Facilities (SUF) required by the CTO to interconnect a
5 new generation project into the New York State bulk transmission system?
6 A. No. The SUF for CVEC developed in the interconnection process with the NYISO is
7 a least cost minimum standard design interconnection requirement; the visual impact
8 of the proposed SUF is not considered during the NYISO review. The conclusion
9 may be drawn that the hodgepodge design of the system between CVEC and the
10 Pleasant Valley Substation in the CVEC application came as a result of the NYISO
11 interconnection process which is not concerned with visual impacts but is concerned
12 exclusively with reliability and cost.
13
14 Q. Does CVIC agree that the System Upgrade Facilities needed to interconnect should
15 be least cost?
16 A. Yes, CVIC does believe that the SUF should be least cost with one proviso that the
17 least cost design should be developed for a system which takes visual impacts into
18 account and which results in a visual improvement over what is existing on a right of
19 way populated with another circuit. The Supervisors in the communities through
20 which the new circuit is proposed, Pleasant Valley, LaGrange, Union Vale, and
21 Dover as well as the Dutchess County Executive are all constantly working to
22 promote the well-being of the communities while maintaining a livable community
23 cost structure. Thus, CVIC is looking forward to a design that is least cost but which
11 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 is a visual improvement over the unacceptable hodgepodge proposed in the
2 application.
3
4 Q. Does CVIC agree that the System Upgrade Facilities needed to interconnect should
5 be reliable?
6 A. Yes, CVIC does believe that the SUF should provide reliability improvements over
7 what exists prior to interconnecting with the Cricket Valley Energy Center.
8
9 Q. Does the double circuit between CVEC and Pleasant Valley proposed by the
10 applicant result from NYISO interconnection reliability requirements?
11 A. Yes, as presented in the applicant’s engineering justification for the double circuit
12 running from CVEC to Pleasant Valley, the NYISO and the Class Year studies are
13 cited which required the double circuit. Con Ed, NPCC, and NERC reliability
14 standards that are an integral part of the NYISO interconnection process call for the
15 construction of two separate and distinct circuits supported by separate and distinct
16 structures.
17
18 Q. In the case of the Cricket Valley Energy Center Interconnection Application with the
19 NYISO could you briefly summarize the process used by the NYISO to develop
20 System Upgrade Facilities required to interconnect a project into the NYISO control
21 area? In the description could you also briefly explain how separate and distinct
22 circuits running from CVEC to Pleasant Valley Substation were justified by the
23 NYISO.
12 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 A. The process consists of three steps a System Feasibility Study, a System Reliability
2 Impact Study, and a Class Year Facility Study. The studies are meant to
3 progressively provide more and more detail as to the reliability impacts of a project
4 on the bulk transmission system in New York and on neighboring systems which
5 might be impacted. Ultimately the studies analyze system issues and problems or
6 contingencies, a sample of which include short circuits, loss of generation, instability
7 that could result in de-energizing parts or entire systems. In essence these studies
8 have the objective of identifying the means for protecting the system from any
9 adverse effects that might accrue from the installation of the project applying for
10 interconnection.
11
12 As originally contemplated by CVEC, the 398 Line would be split where the
13 generation plant would be built and circuit breakers would be installed on the line
14 segments emanating from the CVEC (generating plant) Substation or the
15 Developer’s Attachment Facilities looking back toward the Pleasant Valley
16 Substation and the Long Mountain Substation. Thus lines emanating from the
17 CVEC Substation would be protected between CVEC and the line terminals at
18 Pleasant Valley and Long Mountain Substations. Line contingencies such as short
19 circuits could then be isolated to individual line segments between CVEC and end
20 substations. For the CVEC interconnection the NYISO studies demonstrated that
21 for a direct interconnection into the 398 line without a second circuit installed from
22 CVEC to Pleasant Valley various overloads might be generated in Connecticut for
23 loss of the single circuit from CVEC to Pleasant Valley. The assumption in the
13 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 overloads detected in the studies was that the generating station continues to run at
2 full output of 1000 Mw causing New England to accept the entire power flow from
3 CVEC.
4
5 To address the issue of isolating 1000 Mw into ISO-NE a Special Protection Scheme
6 (SPS) was proposed by CVEC. With the SPS for loss of the circuit from CVEC to
7 Pleasant Valley, some of the generators at CVEC would be immediately tripped off
8 or taken out of service. The remaining generation left running, would have output
9 adjusted limiting the flows to acceptable loading levels into New England.
10
11 A complicating issue with isolating flows into New England is that the CVEC
12 generation is within the NYISO control area. An arrangement would need to be
13 worked out with ISO-NE to take over control from the NYISO of the generation
14 output flowing into New England for the loss of the line from CVEC to Pleasant
15 Valley Substation. Such an arrangement seems feasible.
16
17 The SPS was rejected by the NYISO with a preferred alternative being the second
18 circuit from CVEC to Pleasant Valley Substation. The second circuit option does
19 not appear to be a least cost alternative when compared to the SPS as required for the
20 SUF under the NYISO OATT. In addition to the preference for a second circuit
21 versus an SPS the NYISO viewed the design of the circuity going from CVEC to
22 Pleasant Valley in two fashions. The first is for two circuits on two sets of separated
23 structures and the second for a double circuit on one set of structures. The double
14 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 circuit on one set of structures is viewed for contingency modelling purposes as a
2 single line with the possibility of a single contingency causing both lines to de-
3 energize. As CVEC has pointed out in responses to interrogatories from CVIC the
4 NYISO has rejected the double circuit on a single set of towers as being equivalent
5 to a single circuit as originally proposed by CVEC.
6
7 For the proposed design with two circuits running in parallel but separated on the
8 right of way, both circuits being de-energized is considered a double or second
9 contingency requiring two short circuit events and is postulated in the reliability
10 studies to be less likely to occur.
11
12 Thus a double circuit on a single set of towers or monopoles has been rejected by the
13 NYISO for reliability purposes. Such first and second contingency assumptions on
14 the part of the NYISO for studies performed flies in the face of designs such as
15 represented in Exhibit__(ARP-1) Near Smith Road CV-27A. For the design of
16 structure CV-27A a single contingency failure of the monopole structure toppling the
17 structure toward lattice structure L-27 would certainly cause the loss of both
18 separated circuits on the common right of way as a single contingency event. Thus
19 the loss of two circuits on the common right of way between Pleasant Valley and the
20 generating station could happen as a single contingency event whether the circuits
21 are separated or not. The NYISO in the art and science of seeking to protect systems
22 makes the assumptions that support the ultimate designs chosen. In the view of
23 CVIC such assumptions, which granted need to improve overall system reliability,
15 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 also need to be seasoned with the requirement to provide designs that take into
2 account visual impacts.
3
4 From a system reliability standpoint a double circuit on a single set of towers is more
5 reliable that a single circuit. A double circuit on separate and distinct towers is more
6 reliable than a double circuit on a single set of towers. However, the improvement in
7 reliability of separated towers carrying two circuits versus single towers carrying two
8 circuits especially for line segments of short distance which is the case in this
9 application is probably too small to calculate with any degree of confidence.
10
11 Q. Do others parties aside from CVIC view the design proposed by the applicant as a
12 visual hodgepodge?
13 A. Yes, CVIC has asked for parties who live, work and have been involved
14 professionally in visual view scape analyses to provide their evaluation of the
15 proposed application design on the view shed from the perspective of whether a
16 visual improvement could be effected with another design. These professionals who
17 evaluated the proposed design by the applicant provide credible evidence that
18 improvement in the visual aspects of the design is a requirement for the project. The
19 credentials, analyses, and conclusions of these experts speak for themselves and
20 provide assurance that the hodgepodge characterization used by CVIC is aptly stated.
21 In addition these experts support the remediation positions taken by CVIC; as well
22 founded ways to address a design that is out of character with the view scape in
23 which the applicant’s proposed project would be sited.
16 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1
2 Those evaluations are presented in Exhibit___(ARP-2). Below the parties who have
3 volunteered to provide such evaluations are listed.
4
5 John Anzevino, AICP who is Director of Land Use Advocacy with Scenic Hudson.
6 John Clarke who is Development and Design Coordinator with the Dutchess County
7 Department of Planning and Development.
8 Art Collings who is a Vice President for Land Conservation with the Dutchess Land
9 Conservancy.
10 Noel Knille, AIA, ASLA who is Commissioner of Public Work with Dutchess
11 County New York.
12
13 Q. Mr. Page you have considerable experience in the electric power industry. Would
14 you like to provide an evaluation of the proposed design of the circuits between
15 CVEC and the Pleasant Valley Substation from a visual standpoint?
16 A. For some 45 years I have been viewing the design and construction of transmission
17 systems. I have walked on rights of ways simply to view construction of new
18 systems taking place. I have been involved as a construction manager on
19 transmission projects constructed by Central Hudson. I have been around the world
20 viewing generation sites and how the generation could be interconnected into
21 existing transmission systems. I have seen transmission systems which in my view of
22 the world are graceful and well integrated into the visual environment. I have also
23 seen transmission systems in countries like India which are well engineered and
17 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 functional but which are simply an eye sore. The bottom line is that siting of
2 transmission lines from a visual stand point can be done well especially with
3 architecturally sensitive structures and insulation.
4
5 I am not an architect and my background is in engineering. Thus I do not know of all
6 the architectural design options that are available which could lead to an improved
7 design from a visual impact standpoint. However, I do know that there are better
8 designs available that would be more visually sensitive than the one proposed in the
9 application. From a visual impact standpoint, better designs are certainly available
10 and for the parties involved in this proceeding from a visual standpoint we could do
11 better than agreeing to what is proposed in the application. I also believe that this
12 could be accomplished at no additional cost to the applicant.
13
14 Q. Would you briefly summarize the position CVIC is taking relating to the visual
15 impact of the proposed line design in the proceeding?
16 A. CVIC is taking the position that the design for the proposed double circuit portion of
17 the project needs to change and, as a consequence, the new design needs to be a
18 visual improvement over what currently exists. As proposed in the application the
19 double circuit portion of the project grossly deteriorates the view shed. Thus what
20 CVIC is proposing is a design improvement over what is proposed in the current
21 application required for the portion of the project from the Cricket Valley Energy
22 Center to the Pleasant Valley Substation. CVIC believes that the current
23 hodgepodge design deteriorates the view shed. CVIC is not in a position to nor is it
18 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 CVIC’s burden to design or propose a specific design. However, what CVIC is
2 proposing is that whatever design is approved for the project, it needs to improve the
3 view shed and not make it worse.
4
5 Q. Has CVIC investigated other potential designs which would be an improvement over
6 what is currently proposed?
7 A. CVIC has developed a listing of Options in the order of preference for the designs
8 that would be a visual improvement over the design in the application. The listing is
9 ordered based upon overall cost with the least costly improvement being given
10 preference to the most costly design.
11
12 Option 1: The design which is most preferered is the Special Protection Scheme
13 Design (originally proposed by CVEC as part of the NYISO interconnection
14 process). With the SPS, the design leaves a single circuit on the entire length of the
15 345 Kv Long Mountain line on existing towers. It is likely that with an SPS the
16 entire length of the line would require reconductoring which is much less costly than
17 reconductoring part of the Long Mountain Line with the addition of a second circuit.
18
19 Option 2: Rebuild the entire length of the line section between the Pleasant Valley
20 Substation and the Cricket Valley Energy Center on a single set of reduced height
21 monopoles carrying a double circuit. This would also entail removal of the existing
22 set of lattice structures.
23
19 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 Option 3: Rebuild the entire length of the line section between Pleasant Valley
2 Substation and the Cricket Valley Energy Center on two sets of visually attractive
3 and symmetric reduced height structures. The new double circuit on separate
4 structures would require the elimination of the existing lattice structures upon
5 construction of the new lines.
6
7 Option 4: On the right of way between the Pleasant Valley Substation and the
8 Cricket Valley Energy Center construct the second circuit underground.
9
10 Q. Option 1 of installing a Special Protection Scheme (SPS) has already been rejected
11 by the NYISO as being less reliable than the double circuit option currently in the
12 application. In addition isolating the generation even at reduced loading onto New
13 England creates operational concerns between two different Independent System
14 Operators. The Special Protection Scheme was proposed by CVEC in its original
15 NYISO Interconnection Request to the NYISO. If the SPS has been rejected by the
16 NYISO why is CVIC now proposing the SPS as a preferred option?
17 A. As previously described the NYISO in approving an SUF or System Upgrade
18 Facility to interconnect the Cricket Valley Energy Center, did not take into account
19 the environmental and visual impact of the SUF. The interconnection process is
20 exclusively interested in reliability and cost. As a consequence, the applicant is
21 forced into proposing a line design that is dictated by the NYISO interconnection
22 process. As previously discussed the proposed line design is a hodgepodge and
23 results in a degradation of the view shed. The NYISO has done its job under the
20 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 NYISO’s FERC filed open access tariff. The applicant’s proposal is least cost and is
2 reliable. However it is CVIC’s understanding that a least cost reliable
3 interconnection SUF resulting from the NYISO interconnection process does not
4 take precedence over the environmental review and certificate developed and
5 ordered by the Public Service Commission in an Article VII proceeding. The NYISO
6 cannot dictate to the PSC what is required in an Article VII proceeding leading to a
7 Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need. In addition the
8 development of the SUF for the project - assuming reliability standards are met - use
9 many good utility practices to form the basis for what is required in the SUF
10 approved for interconnection. Good utility practices which essentially are not
11 codified could allow for the development of the SUF to take into account good utility
12 practices that lead to a visual improvement in proposed designs. The SPS should be
13 revisited based upon the deleterious impact of the current design of the applicant on
14 the view shed.
15
16 As a final point to note on the single circuit SPS option, currently for a permanent
17 fault on the 398 line the 345 Kv circuit between Pleasant Valley Substation and the
18 Long Mountain Substation in Connecticut is de-energized until the fault is cleared.
19 The occurrence of such faults on the 398 Line is very infrequent. With the
20 interconnection of CVEC, transmission line protection could still continue as
21 currently exists which would allow for total circuit de-energizing for a permanent
22 fault anywhere on the 398 Line or on the CVEC attachment facilities. This scenario
23 is no better (or worse) than what currently exists on the system. With the
21 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 interconnection of CVEC, generation would be lost when the 398 Line was de-
2 energized but such loss of generation is always planned for and accommodated by
3 the control area with adequate operating reserve being in place.
4
5 A sensitivity to de-energizing the entire line for a fault on either segment connected
6 to the CVEC would be to de-energize the entire 398 Line for a permanent fault on
7 the line section between Pleasant Valley Substation and CVEC. For a permanent
8 fault on the line segment from CVEC to Long Mountain Substation line protection
9 would operate de-energizing the CVEC to Long Mountain line section isolating all
10 CVEC output onto the Pleasant Valley Substation. This sensitivity would constitute
11 an improvement over the current reliability of the system.
12
13 Q. Had the applicant previously asked the NYISO to reevaluate its position rejecting the
14 SPS originally proposed by the applicant?
15 A. Yes, the NYISO did reevaluate the SPS based upon the request of the applicant.
16 However, in light of a concern expressed by the PSC in this Article VII permitting
17 process and taking into account the process to make a determination by the NYISO
18 through its stakeholders, in the opinion of CVIC the possibility of a reevaluation
19 permitting an approval of an SPS is much more likely.
20
21 Q. For Option 2 proposed by CVIC, what is the advantage of a single set of monopoles
22 carrying two circuits from a visual standpoint?
23 A. I have personally travelled to view structures on an existing New York State 345 Kv
22 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 circuit outside of Middletown, New York on the Marcy-South Project. The
2 transmission system is owned by the New York Power Authority. A photo of the
3 circuit outside of Middletown is shown in Exhibit__ (ARP-3).
4
5 I have also personally travelled to view new structures recently constructed and
6 insulated for 345 Kv operations which cross the Delaware Water Gap National
7 Recreation Area in Pennsylvania. A photo of the line in Pennsylvania is also shown
8 in Exhibit__(ARP-3).
9
10 The photos demonstrate a clean double circuit line design which has symmetry to it
11 and monopole spacing allowing for reduced structure heights. Comparing the photos
12 in Exhibit__(ARP-3) to what is proposed in the application shows the difference
13 between a hodgepodge design and a design that is modern and attractive. These types
14 of modern 345 Kv double circuits on monopoles are in service throughout the United
15 States and demonstrate what can be done to improve the visual impact of designs
16 which were put in service decades ago.
17
18 Q. Was Option 2 proposed by CVIC also rejected by the NYISO based upon the fact
19 that a double circuit on a single set of towers is considered from a contingency
20 evaluation standpoint to be the same as a single circuit?
21 A. Yes, in the interrogatories posed to the applicant by CVIC the applicant has
22 responded that a double circuit on a single set of towers is considered the same from
23 a single contingency loss standpoint as a single circuit when performing reliability
23 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 modelling. The reasoning is that a single tower failure could de-energize both
2 circuits.
3
4 Q. Is such a single contingency loss of a double circuit on a common set of towers a
5 conservative assumption to make in modelling overall reliability for the project?
6 A. Yes, the assumption in my opinion is conservative. Without the data to support the
7 statement but for illustrative purposes I will assume the 398 Line, through protective
8 relay activation opening circuit breakers, has been de-energized for a permanent
9 contingency or fault on the line, 5 times in 50 years. Typically 345 Kv circuits
10 especially for segments of limited length (which the 398 circuit is) are very reliable
11 with reliability records for contingency loss being even better than 5 outages in 50
12 years.
13
14 Adding another circuit on common towers to the section of 345 Kv rights of way
15 between Pleasant Valley Substation and the Cricket Valley generator will cut down
16 on exposure to losing both circuits on common towers for various types of short
17 circuit events. Examples of such events only impacting one of the two circuits could
18 include insulator failure, conductor failure due to a gun shot, impact by animals, and
19 lightening. Add to improvement in reliability the reclosing of circuit breakers for two
20 circuits as opposed to one for transient faults.
21
22 In addition the new NERC trimming standards will cut down on tree related short
23 circuits. Splitting the 398 Line into shorter sections based upon the siting of CVEC
24 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 should reduce the probability of the incidents of permanent faults on a per linear foot
2 of exposure basis. In other words a longer line all other things being equal has a
3 greater contingency exposure than does a shorter line.
4
5 Based upon this reasoning a double circuit on one set of towers will be much more
6 reliable for maintaining a path of current flow between CVEC and the Pleasant
7 Valley Substation than is the case for the single circuit option on one set of towers.
8 For the NYISO to take the position that a double circuit on one set of towers versus a
9 single circuit on one set of towers is equivalent from a reliability standpoint for
10 maintaining current flow between two terminals is in fact a very conservative
11 approach for the NYISO to take.
12
13 Q. Is a single contingency loss of two separated circuits on a common right of way a
14 reasonable scenario to model in assessing the overall reliability for the project?
15 A. Modelling such a single contingency loss scenario is even more conservative than
16 modelling the single contingency loss of a double circuit on a common set of towers.
17 This single contingency separated structure loss scenario was, to the best of my
18 understanding not modelled in the reliability analysis performed by the NYISO
19 leading to the System Upgrade Facilities approved for the Cricket Valley Energy
20 Center interconnection. However, the decision not to model such a single
21 contingency is an assumption made by modelers and demonstrates some of the
22 liberties modelers can take with what is studied and what is not, ultimately leading to
23 the approved SUF.
25 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1
2 Q. For Option 2 what is CVIC recommending as an action?
3 A. To the extent that an SPS after reevaluation as previously suggested for Option 1 is
4 still considered unacceptable by the NYISO then consideration should be given to a
5 double circuit on one set of monopoles for the line segment from CVEC to Pleasant
6 Valley Substation. The feasibility of acquiring an exemption from reliability
7 guidelines should be sought from the NYISO and the connecting transmission owner
8 to accommodate a modern attractive line design allowing for a double circuit on one
9 set of monopoles.
10
11 Q. For Option 2 have you estimated the additional cost to affect a double circuit on one
12 set of monopoles?
13 A. No the cost has not been estimated for a double circuit on one set of monopoles .
14
15 Q. Is it reasonable to assign this additional cost over and above the cost identified in the
16 application to the developer to affect Option 2?
17 A. The incremental cost over and above the cost identified in the CVEC application
18 should, in the opinion of CVIC be assumed by Con Edison. The basis for Con Ed
19 assuming this additional cost is based upon the fact that the existing 398 circuit is
20 currently over 50 years old, is substantially depreciated, and should be rebuilt. A
21 rebuild would provide conductor sizing which would cut down on losses and overall
22 the new circuit would improve the reliability of the Con Ed system. Based upon the
23 benefits accruing to Con Ed and Con Ed customers the incremental costs should be
26 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 assumed by Con Ed.
2
3 Q. What are the circumstances in which Option 3 should be considered appropriate?
4 A. Essentially Option 3 becomes appropriate if Options 1 and 2 after additional review
5 by the NYISO are considered unacceptable by the NYISO. In the case of Option 3,
6 what is recommended is a complete rebuild of the right of way between Pleasant
7 Valley Substation and CVEC with two separate and distinct circuits designed to
8 reduce height and visual impairment. As discussed in the Option 2, based upon the
9 benefits of a new circuit for Con Ed customers, the cost of the rebuild of the existing
10 398 circuit between Pleasant Valley and CVEC would be shared between CVEC and
11 Con Edison.
12
13 Q. In regard to Option 4 what is CVIC’s position in recommending undergrounding?
14 A. CVIC has attempted to be reasonable in its proposals. The cost to underground a
15 single new 345 Kv line which parallels an existing circuit which will remain
16 overhead accomplishes an overall reduction in the visual impact of the new circuit.
17 However, there is no improvement in the view shed of the project area. Even though
18 undergrounding is better than the hodgepodge scenario, remaining is the existing 345
19 Kv lattice structures with two imposing transition stations being added, required to
20 convert the underground to overhead. . The undergrounding alternative is presented
21 as a last Option in the event that Options 1-3 prove unacceptable. From a view shed
22 standpoint Options 1 and 4 are quite similar but Option 1 while not promoting a
23 visual improvement still is less impactful overall and does not require transition
27 ALLAN R. PAGE CASE 13-T-0585
1 stations for terminating cabling. Nonetheless from a cost standpoint Option 1 is
2 vastly superior to Option 4.
3
4 Option 4 deserves serious consideration if Options 1-3 are deemed unacceptable.
5
6 Q. Could you summarize the CVIC position and proposal?
7 A. In this Article VII proceeding the PSC needs to protect the view shed and
8 environment of the impacted communities. The application in the words of CVIC
9 provides a hodgepodge design for the line segment between CVEC and the Pleasant
10 Valley Substation. All parties to this proceeding need to work to develop a design
11 which is a visual improvement to what is proposed. Only by compromise and
12 modern thinking may the parties to the proceeding and New York State wind up with
13 a design it can be proud to state was a visual improvement from what was proposed
14 and visually sensitive to communities impacted.
15
16 Under PSC leadership all parties having a say in a final design should be brought to
17 the table and a settlement worked out which accommodates the best interests of all
18 parties involved and meets the statutory requirements of this Article VII proceeding.
19
20 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?
21 A. Yes it does.
28
Exhibits
Exhibit__ (ARP-1) Look Down Transmission Line Crossings
Exhibit__(ARP-2) Letters Discussing Visual Impacts of Proposed Design by Applicant
Exhibit__(ARP-3) Photos Demonstrating a Clean Double Circuit Line Design
Exhibit__(ARP-1) Look Down Transmission Line Crossings CV-06 Near South Avenue/Route 44 CV-10 Near Traver Road CV-16 Near Taconic State Parkway CV-27A Near Smith Road
Exhibit__(ARP-2) Letters Discussing Visual Impacts of Proposed Design by Applicant
Parties Submitting Letters
John Anzevino, AICP-Director of Land Use Advocacy with
Scenic Hudson.
John Clarke-Development and Design Coordinator with the
Dutchess County Department of Planning and Development.
Art Collings-Vice President for Land Conservation with the
Dutchess Land Conservancy.
Noel Knille, AIA, ASLA-Commissioner of Public Work with
Dutchess County New York.
Letter From John Anzevino, AICP
Letter From John Clarke
Cricket Valley Energy Center Transmission Line and Re-Conductoring Project (2013-041.10M)
Proposed Condition FIGURE A2-B Photo Simulation Viewpoint #1 - New York State Route 22 (Aesthetic Resource #45) Town of Dover
Photo simulations should be viewed in full color and Visual Resource Assessment 11”x17” format . March 2014 Cricket Valley Energy Center Transmission Line and Re- Conductoring Project
Letter From Art Collings
Appendix 1: Inventoried Places
The following places within and near the Area of Impact of the Cricket Valley Energy Transmission Powerline Project are referenced by Dutchess Land Conservancy as having importance due to their scenic characteristics and their importance. Each such place has also been inventoried as an important scenic or natural place in one or more of the following public documents.
The New York State Open Space (2014 Draft)
Great Swamp Hudson Valley Foodshed: Dutchess County’s Important Agricultural Areas, as identified in the county’s Centers and Greenspace Guide (www.co.dutchess.ny.us/CountyGov/Departments/Planning/ggcag.pdf), and its Agricultural and Farmland Protection Plan. The Clove Valley in the Towns of Union Vale and Beekman The Great Swamp Taconic Ridge/Harlem Valley – “An area comprising the Taconic Mountain Ridge and its viewsheds … The viewshed includes the Taconic Ridge, Harlem Valley, Route 22 corridor, farmlands of central Dutchess County” Appalachian National Scenic Trail. “Both the Towns of Warwick and jointly, Pawling and Dover have been approved by the Appalachian Trail Conservancy to be ‘Appalachian Trail Communities’. That approval was due in part to their commitment to protect the Appalachian Trail from adverse development.”
Significant Areas of Dutchess County (Dutchess County EMC, 1985)
East and West Mountain Areas The Great Swamp Pond Gut, Rockefeller University Field Research Research Center and Innisfree West Mountain Clove Valley and Clove Mountain Appalachian Trail James Baird State Park Taconic Hereford State Forest / Multiple Use Area Tymor Park https://dutchessemc.wordpress.com/projects/dutchess-county-nri/1985-nri/ https://dutchessemc.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/c9significantareas.pdf
Dover Open Space Plan East and West Mountains designated as conservation areas Sharparoon Seven Wells White’s furnace Stone Church Nellie Hill http://townofdoverny.us/uploads/mOpen%20Space%20Plan000.pdf http://townofdoverny.us/Master_Plan.cfm
LaGrange Open Space Plan (2007)
Scenic Roads along Skidmore Road and Freedom Road The Sprout Creek North Core Farm Area, which includes the Pierson Farm (preserved with a conservation easement purchased with Town Funding) The Sprout Creek Greenway The Jackson Creek Greenway The Taconic Ridge The Taconic State Parkway (TSP) Route 82 Overlook Road Mountain Road Noxon Road Freedom Road Route 55 (east of the TSP)
Town of LaGrange Open Space Plan Available from Town Clerk http://www.lagrangeny.org/town_clerk.php
Town of Union Vale Comprehensive Plan
Waterbury Hill and Rickes Road Views from Town Hall View from Airport View from Blue Berry Hill View from Brush Hill View from Rt. 82 at Washington Town Line Clove Mountain Beaver Brook Clove Spring Willow Brook Clove Valley Jackson Creek Fishkill Creek Seeley Creek Gorge of Sprout Creek Sweezy Creek Blueberry Park Clove Brook Clove Spring Abel Tree Farm (Development Rights purchased with Town Funding, highly scenic) Tymor Park http://www.unionvaleny.us/MpMap2.htm
Town of Washingon Master Plan (1987)
Route 82 and Verbank Road north of Union Vale Chestnut Ridge Road and Hammond Hill Road http://www.washingtonny.org/Library/rfp/T-WA_MasterPlan_120dpi_1987.pdf
Town of Pleasant Valley Open Space Plan (2013)
Gretna Road / Salt Point Area Wappinger Creek Corridor Traver Road And Drake Road Area Taconic East Area http://pleasantvalley-ny.gov/resources/reports/Open-Space-and-Farmland-Plan- 2013/04_PriorityAreas.pdf
Appendix 2: Map of Conserved Lands
Appendix 3: Resume
Arthur M. Collings III Dutchess Land Conservancy, PO Box 138, Millbrook, NY Email: [email protected] Phone: (845) 677-3002
EDUCATION B.A., Colgate University, Mathematics (May 1981) M.A, The Conway School, Landscape Design and Planning (June 1995)
TECHNICAL SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE Digital cartography and analog mapping, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), site-based conservation planning, natural resource inventory and analysis, visual assessment, longstanding and in-depth knowledge of Dutchess County and its landscapes, grant writing, computer programming, graphic design.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Dutchess Land Conservancy (DLC) Millbrook, NY 1997 to present Vice President for Land Conservation (January 2005 to present) Oversee the DLC Conservation Easement Stewardship Program (which includes three full time staff, an intern, and 5-8 volunteers), with special responsibility to ensure the program remains in compliance with DLC’s status (2009-present) as an Accredited Land Trust. Manage and oversee DLC’s Geographic Information Systems program, including a staff of five conservation professionals. Have completed natural resource inventory projects on over 500 properties leading to acquisition of over 300 conservation easements on over 30,000 acres of land. Routinely complete visual analyses and assessments in association with planning the establishment of building envelopments for proposed conservation easements, as well as in relationship to granting approval of reserved rights (such as residences) under the terms of conservation easements. Frequently provide written comments to towns and agencies regarding the visual and natural resource impact of proposed developments, zoning changes, and master planning documents. Have written grant applications securing over $19,000,000 in federal, state, county, and municipal funding to purchase development rights on 22 farms totaling over 3,200 acres of farmland. Appointed by the Dutchess Legislature as Vice Chair of the County Farmland Protection Board.
Land Projects Manager / Director of Technology (January 2003 to December 2004), Land Projects Manager (April 1997 to December 2002), Part-Time Employee (November 1996-April 1997) Managed the Stewardship of DLC Conservation Easements, including aerial monitoring, landowner relations, and approval for the exercising of reserved rights. Responsible for the creation of map documents and PowerPoint Presentations, including conservation easement maps, natural resource maps, build out plans, and conservation options. Developed the DLC GIS Systems program. Acquired data from Dutchess County and NYS agencies. Developed automated scripting software in the Avenue programming language for ESRI’s ArcView 3 in order to automate the process of mapping and inventorying natural resources on individual properties, saving DLC hundreds of person hours every year.
Native Harvest Landscape Design Great Barrington, MA Consulting Planner (July 1995 to July 1996) Created natural resource inventory and master plan maps for large properties in the Hudson Valley.
Luff Tree Farm Gambrils, MD Manager (June 1992 – June 1994) Implemented timber stand improvement on 50 acre-wooded property in compliance with Maryland Tree Farm programs. Organized educational programs and managed rental units.
REFERENCES: Available upon request
Letter From Noel Knille, AIA, ASLA
NOEL H. S. KNILLE, AIA, ASLA 170 Hooker Ave, Poughkeepsie, New York 12603 USA 202-590-0137, [email protected]
Professional Licenses Professional Profile
Licensed Architect Extensive facilities and operations management experience New York including: master planning, project planning and construction management; planning and supervision of facility operations and Licensed Landscape Architect maintenance; departmental and project budgeting and tracking; New York procurement; events management; HSSE (health, safety, security and environment); sustainable initiatives; optimization of financial Education and human resources.
Masters in Museum Studies Planning, Management and Architectural Experience Johns Hopkins University 2010 - 2012 Commissioner of Public Works Dutchess County (New York) Masters of Public Administration Poughkeepsie, New York, USA University of New Mexico 2013 – Current 2005 – 2009 Director of Facilities and Operations Professional Development Program Washington International School Graduate School of Design Washington, DC, USA, 2012 – 2013 Harvard University 1996 - 2001 Director of Facilities and Procurement Virginia Commonwealth University Qatar Graduate Study – Landscape Architecture Doha, Qatar, 2008 - 2011 College of Environmental Science and Forestry Director of Planning, Design and Construction State University of New York Acting Executive Director of Facilities Management Syracuse University Charles Sturt University 1981-1982 Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia, 2007 - 2008
Graduate Study – Biological Anthropology Vice President for Facilities Durham University (England) New Mexico Military Institute 1979-1980 Roswell, New Mexico, USA 2004 - 2007
Bachelor of Arts District Architectural Engineer/Facilities Planner Vassar College Greece Central School District 1975-1979 Greece, New York, USA 1999 - 2004
Professional Affiliations/Honors Project Architect University Partners Group American Institute of Architects Rochester, New York, USA 1996 - 1999 American Society of Landscape Architects LEED Trained Project Manager/Facilities Planner BREEAM Certified Clark Patterson Mossien Society of Architectural Historians Rochester, New York, USA 1990 - 1996 Pi Alpha Alpha - Public Administration Honors Society Architectural Designer Maguire Fellow – Vassar College Lozier Architects-Engineers Pittsford, New York, USA 1988 - 1990 Computer Knowledge Assistant Landscape Architect AutoCad Central Park Conservancy Microsoft Office New York, New York, USA 1982 - 1983
1 NOEL H. S. KNILLE, AIA, ASLA
Responsibilities and Professional Achievements
Commissioner of Public Works for Dutchess County (New York): Responsible for all aspects of the County’s Public Works Department including: buildings, highways, bridges, parks and public airport.
Director of Facilities and Operations for Washington International School: Management of all aspects of facilities and operations for a two campus private school. Primary responsibilities include: oversight and implementation of new 10 year Master Plan for the school; construction coordination and oversight for annual construction projects; replacement of facilities maintenance, grounds maintenance and custodial outsourcing, with reorganization of entire facilities management operations; and creation of campus emergency preparedness plan and campus sustainability plan.
Annual Facilities Operating Budget: 2.5 million USD. 10 Year Master Plan Budget: 30 million USD.
Director of Facilities and Procurement for VCUQatar: Management of all aspects of VCUQatar’s facilities planning, operations and maintenance; construction management; procurement; security; food service and catering; shipping and receiving; events management; and HSSE. Specific accomplishments include review and partial redesign of new building expansion project recently completed; scoping of renovation work required for existing building related to new building expansion; departmental review and reorganization (Facilities, Procurement, Security and Events Management); Facilities, Security, Procurement and Events Management processes review with creation of policies and procedures; staff mentoring and development; student mentoring; general oversight of all aspects of VCUQ Facilities and Procurement for optimal functioning for faculty, staff and students.
Annual Facilities Operating Budget: NA. Expansion Budget: 11 million USD.
Director of Planning, Design and Construction for CSU: Management of all aspects of planning, design and construction for all buildings and grounds including: master planning (general, sustainable, accessible and heritage master planning); all new and renovation project planning and design; planning process development; construction process development; professional staff development; budget development and review for department; project budgeting and tracking. Acting Executive Director of Facilities Management for CSU: Management of all aspects of all facilities for CSU’s 5 primary campuses as well several ancillary campuses: including master planning; staff management of 120+; Operations and Maintenance oversight; Energy and Environmental Planning; Procurement and Risk Management; budget management and review for division.
Annual Facilities Operating Budget: 16 million USD. Annual Capital Budget: 30 to 50 million USD.
2 NOEL H. S. KNILLE, AIA, ASLA
CSU Projects Include:
Dentistry Program Building Development: New university dentistry program with design of educational/clinic facilities for two campuses and clinics for three other campuses. Construction Budget: 54.4 million USD total.
Campus Consolidation Project: Consolidation of one divided campus (1/3 city campus, 2/3 suburban campus) into one unified suburban campus including numerous project developments with several significant new buildings. Construction Budget: 30 million USD.
Learning Commons Developments: Innovative design and development of several Learning Commons projects to present a different approach to learning and libraries. Construction Budgets (vary): 7 million to 2.7 million USD.
Student Residential Development: Different approaches reviewed for development of residential development for student housing throughout the various campuses for optimization of investment for return. Construction Budgets: 33 million USD plus additional options.
Veterinary Program Building Development: Development of multi-phased veterinary program teaching and research facilities. Construction Budget: 24 million USD total
Vice President for Facilities for NMMI: Management of 65+ staff facilities department including: planning, design and management of renovation and new construction projects; facility assessment; safety and code compliance; long range planning and budgeting; operations and maintenance of all buildings and grounds; transportation/receiving department; human resource management.
Annual Facilities Operating Budget: 4 million USD. Special Construction Budgets: 10 to 20 million USD annually. Annual Capital Improvement Budget: 2 to 4 million USD.
NMMI Projects Include:
Leadership Development Center/Emergency Operations Center: 25,000 SF specialized building containing a large lecture hall with multi-media capabilities, a multi-media presentation space, a qualified Emergency Operations Center, classrooms, offices and support and circulation spaces. Construction Budget: 8 million USD total for two phases.
Museum/Enrollment and Development Complex: 18,000 SF dual-purpose historic building renovation containing a two-story reception area, offices, a small theater space, workrooms as well as a second story Institute multi-media actual and virtual museum. Construction Budget: 3.6 million USD.
3
Exhibit__(ARP-3)
Photos Demonstrating a Clean Double Circuit Line Design
First Photo Marcy South in New York
Second Photo Delaware Water Gap Pennsylvania
Marcy South Project Outside Middletown New York
New Line Through Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area Pennsylvania