NORWICH – Despite a recent legal setback and the release of two energy reports that claim its $1.6 billion power line “need not be implemented” to prevent future black-outs and high electricity bills, New York Regional Interconnect officials say the company will continue to pine for state approval of the project.
NYRI aims to begin its permit review with the Public Service Commission (PSC), the state’s power line authority, in “a matter of a few weeks,” spokesman David Kalson said Thursday, and has no plans of side-stepping Albany for what’s perceived as more a more favorable process in Washington.
The PSC rejected the company’s first permit application in July 2006. NYRI has since missed several dates it gave for re-filing, the latest being the end of summer.
Kalson could not give a specific date for its completion, but says the revised application, known as the Article VII, will comply with PSC guidelines – unlike the first attempt.
“The supplemental filing will include, as requested by the PSC, more extensive studies of alternative routes as well as detailed economic and environmental impact studies,” he said.
NYRI is proposing to build a 190-mile-long power line from Utica to Orange County to relieve energy constraints downstate. The project would split 44 miles of Chenango County, upsetting its rural identity and depressing already struggling local economies, local opponents say.
Communities Against Regional Interconnect (CARI), an anti-power line group made up of officials and citizens from the eight counties the power line would encroach, will ask the federal government this week to reconsider its recent approval of “National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors.” Inside the corridors – which cover 10 states in all, including most of New York – company’s like NYRI could gain approval and eminent domain rights from Washington despite being denied at the state level. CARI Attorney John Kluscik says if the feds don’t reconsider, it may take the corridor fight to the Supreme Court.
“We’re going to request that the Department of Energy review it’s policy of National Interest corridors,” he said. “If it chooses not to, we’ll strongly consider taking action at the next level.”
Kalson, however, says NYRI has no plans to seek approval in Washington.
“NYRI’s long-stated goal is to engage in and support the state regulatory process,” he said. “NYRI actually agrees...New York should be deciding on infrastructure projects, yet many people and media accounts perpetuate the myth that NYRI wants to go around the state process. It does not.”
New York state has not appeared to be receptive to the power line as of late. In October 2006, legislators successfully altered a long-standing utility law to specifically block NYRI from taking private property needed to secure its route. Some have questioned the amendments constitutionality. In federal district court last week, a judge upheld the law when he tossed out a lawsuit brought by NYRI challenging its legality under the 14th amendment; equal protection under the law.
Earlville resident and power line opponent Eve Ann Shwartz said the decision was “one more nail in the NYRI project’s coffin.”
Kalson pointed out that the lawsuit was dismissed on a technicality related to the defendants named in the suit, and not on constitutional grounds.
“The lawsuit was dismissed on procedural grounds,” he said, “meaning that the judge’s decision didn’t speak at all to the constitutionality of the law at issue.”
National and state electricity grid operators have also issued reports in the last two months that claim while energy demands will rise significantly and have the potential to create problems over the next 10 years, NYRI’s proposal will not be needed if existing utilities follow-though with planned upgrades.
“Unfortunately, the New York Independent System Operator report has been selectively read by some people. In fact, the report does not say that NYRI isn’t needed,” Kalson contended.
According to NYISO, the state’s grid operator, NYRI’s project was listed as one of three “alternative regulated solutions” that “New York (state) need not implement.” It also did not include the project as a one of the immediate alternate options if the current solutions fail. Kalson argues that the report is developed under “strict” and “narrow” guidelines that favor utilities. NYISO officials agree that the report favors utilities; because those companies will not pass along upgrade costs to consumers, unlike private “merchants” like NYRI.
Overall, Kalson says the outcome will depend on the PSC in Albany.
“The main reason for NYRI’s transmission project is the fact that it addresses the very real reliability issues New York faces, and the article VII process has to establish public need,” he said. “We’re confident that when the PSC considers NYRI’s full proposal that the need for the project and its benefits will be further confirmed.”