Print
Comment
Rate
Hotly debated power-line issue heats up
Dana Cole/Wick Communications
Arizona Corporation Commissioner Paul Newman is calling for "SSVEC and all interested parties to lay down arms and commit to a more productive dialogue" regarding a hotly debated power line.
In a letter by Newman, docketed with the Arizona Corporation Commission on Feb. 5, the commissioner is requesting Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative to respond to a number of questions about the controversial 69kV line which, if approved for construction by the commission, will be built on easements that run through the Babocomari Ranch as it extends from Whetstone to Sonoita. The easements are owned by SSVEC, purchased by the utility in 1982 in anticipation of future growth.
SSVEC is proposing to construct the 24-mile power line to improve service to the Elgin, Sonoita and Patagonia areas. Those opposing the line are concerned about the potential environmental impact it could have on the region's rolling grasslands and biodiversity.
Central to the line's most recent controversy is an e-mail that Jack Blair, SSVEC's member services manager, sent to SSVEC employees, asking them to contact the commission to complain about construction delays to the line. The delays were implemented by the commission in response to public outcry against the power line's route through the ranch.
In his letter to SSVEC, Newman attached Blair's e-mail and questioned his reason for asking employees to contact the commission about the proposed line. "Why did you send an e-mail to your employees asking them to call and write the ACC to complain about the delay in the 69kV line, and to do so from personal e-mail accounts rather than work e-mail accounts?" Newman asked. "And why did you ask them to have friends and family from outside of SSVEC territory do the same?"
People in the Sonoita area had similar questions when they learned about Blair's letter, which had been sent to the ACC, where it was docketed on Jan. 25. Newman also wants more information about a public opinion survey conducted by RBI Strategies and Research and compiled by Severson and Associates, an independent poll designed to measure customers' opinions about the line and SSVEC's service. The phone survey interviewed 600 of the utility's customers and was performed from Jan. 18 through Jan. 20. It showed that the majority of SSVEC's members support the power line. Newman asked know how much the poll cost the utility and whether the sampling was statistically valid.
SSVEC claims that constructing the line and substation are necessary infrastructure up-grades for improving service in the affected communities of Elgin, Sonoita and Patagonia. The utility cites frequent, longer-lasting outages than what other communities in its service area are currently experiencing. Opponents of the Sonoita Reliability Project argue that problems with the existing line are infrequent and that SSVEC is exaggerating outages and other service issues in their area. The opponents appeared before the commission during an SSVEC rate case hearing last summer and argued that the line's construction should be stopped until an independent, third-party feasibility study could be conducted, where alternative energy options and a different route for the line could be examined. "This independent study, which SSVEC conducted per our opponents' request, showed that the power line is the most efficient and cost effective solution for improving service in those areas," Blair said.
But opponents view the study differently. Along with 16 questions that he has submitted, Newman has asked that SSVEC respond to 27 points posed by Marshall Magruder, a resident of Tubac who has been following the line issue in Sonoita and questioned the outages cited by SSVEC.
"The study says that the outages are mostly caused by lightning and animals, and that the large majority of outages affect less than three-to-five- customers," Magruder states in the list of questions that Newman included in his letter. "How would a 69kV line affect outages caused by lightning and animals?"
Magruder questions what he views as discrepancies in the feasibility study's cost, another point that Newman wants SSVEC to address. Blair says the study's cost is $360,000, while "other articles say the study cost about $160,000. Why are there large differences in the cost?" Magruder asked.
Deborah White, SSVEC's right of way services, answered the question. The difference in cost is because the study involved two separate entities, she explained. "TRC was obtained to assist SSVEC to facilitate the feasibility study. TRC met with SSVEC and facilitated the bidding and award process for the study. Navigant Consulting was the company that TRC chose and awarded the bid. "TRC coordinated all data requests, meeting arrangements, analysis inquiries and evaluations ... SSVEC never spoke to them" during the entire process, White said. "It needed to be a truly independent study without bias input."
The cost of Navigant's role in the study was merely a portion of its total cost.
A letter addressed to Newman, written by SSVEC's Chief Executive Officer Creden W. Huber, addressed that same issue. "Since the conclusion of SSVEC's rate case in August 2009, and the commission's decision prohibiting the construction of the 69kV line, it has already cost SSVEC and its ratepayer-members approximately $500,000 in additional expenses to conduct the commission-mandated independent study and for legal fees," the CEO says.
Huber also argues that many of the questions in Newman's letter "are irrelevant, improper and/or violate due process."
Between Newman and Magruder, SSVEC received 65 questions or points that the commissioner wants addressed. At the conclusion of his letter, Newman states that for the sake of disclosure and full knowledge by all parties, transparency is in order. "I further suggest that we agree to hold a work session in Sonoita before we continue these highly-charged discussions."
In addition, Newman requests that all interested persons contact his office if they wish to participate in a work session "to get to the bottom of these critical issues." Those interested should call his office (602) 542-3682 or e-mail pnewman@azcc.gov.
Huber, however, does not believe the sessions are warranted. In his response to Newman, he states that based on previous public statements concerning SSVEC and issues cited in the dockets, "... SSVEC is very concerned that you may have prejudged the issues in these matters. Although I do not make this request lightly, and with all due respect, in order to ensure the integrity of the commission and this process, the cooperative requests that under the circumstances, you seriously consider whether it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself from any further participation in these dockets."
Dana Cole is a reporter at the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review.
Arizona Corporation Commissioner Paul Newman is calling for "SSVEC and all interested parties to lay down arms and commit to a more productive dialogue" regarding a hotly debated power line.
In a letter by Newman, docketed with the Arizona Corporation Commission on Feb. 5, the commissioner is requesting Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative to respond to a number of questions about the controversial 69kV line which, if approved for construction by the commission, will be built on easements that run through the Babocomari Ranch as it extends from Whetstone to Sonoita. The easements are owned by SSVEC, purchased by the utility in 1982 in anticipation of future growth.
SSVEC is proposing to construct the 24-mile power line to improve service to the Elgin, Sonoita and Patagonia areas. Those opposing the line are concerned about the potential environmental impact it could have on the region's rolling grasslands and biodiversity.
Central to the line's most recent controversy is an e-mail that Jack Blair, SSVEC's member services manager, sent to SSVEC employees, asking them to contact the commission to complain about construction delays to the line. The delays were implemented by the commission in response to public outcry against the power line's route through the ranch.
In his letter to SSVEC, Newman attached Blair's e-mail and questioned his reason for asking employees to contact the commission about the proposed line. "Why did you send an e-mail to your employees asking them to call and write the ACC to complain about the delay in the 69kV line, and to do so from personal e-mail accounts rather than work e-mail accounts?" Newman asked. "And why did you ask them to have friends and family from outside of SSVEC territory do the same?"
People in the Sonoita area had similar questions when they learned about Blair's letter, which had been sent to the ACC, where it was docketed on Jan. 25. Newman also wants more information about a public opinion survey conducted by RBI Strategies and Research and compiled by Severson and Associates, an independent poll designed to measure customers' opinions about the line and SSVEC's service. The phone survey interviewed 600 of the utility's customers and was performed from Jan. 18 through Jan. 20. It showed that the majority of SSVEC's members support the power line. Newman asked know how much the poll cost the utility and whether the sampling was statistically valid.
SSVEC claims that constructing the line and substation are necessary infrastructure up-grades for improving service in the affected communities of Elgin, Sonoita and Patagonia. The utility cites frequent, longer-lasting outages than what other communities in its service area are currently experiencing. Opponents of the Sonoita Reliability Project argue that problems with the existing line are infrequent and that SSVEC is exaggerating outages and other service issues in their area. The opponents appeared before the commission during an SSVEC rate case hearing last summer and argued that the line's construction should be stopped until an independent, third-party feasibility study could be conducted, where alternative energy options and a different route for the line could be examined. "This independent study, which SSVEC conducted per our opponents' request, showed that the power line is the most efficient and cost effective solution for improving service in those areas," Blair said.
But opponents view the study differently. Along with 16 questions that he has submitted, Newman has asked that SSVEC respond to 27 points posed by Marshall Magruder, a resident of Tubac who has been following the line issue in Sonoita and questioned the outages cited by SSVEC.
"The study says that the outages are mostly caused by lightning and animals, and that the large majority of outages affect less than three-to-five- customers," Magruder states in the list of questions that Newman included in his letter. "How would a 69kV line affect outages caused by lightning and animals?"
Magruder questions what he views as discrepancies in the feasibility study's cost, another point that Newman wants SSVEC to address. Blair says the study's cost is $360,000, while "other articles say the study cost about $160,000. Why are there large differences in the cost?" Magruder asked.
Deborah White, SSVEC's right of way services, answered the question. The difference in cost is because the study involved two separate entities, she explained. "TRC was obtained to assist SSVEC to facilitate the feasibility study. TRC met with SSVEC and facilitated the bidding and award process for the study. Navigant Consulting was the company that TRC chose and awarded the bid. "TRC coordinated all data requests, meeting arrangements, analysis inquiries and evaluations ... SSVEC never spoke to them" during the entire process, White said. "It needed to be a truly independent study without bias input."
The cost of Navigant's role in the study was merely a portion of its total cost.
A letter addressed to Newman, written by SSVEC's Chief Executive Officer Creden W. Huber, addressed that same issue. "Since the conclusion of SSVEC's rate case in August 2009, and the commission's decision prohibiting the construction of the 69kV line, it has already cost SSVEC and its ratepayer-members approximately $500,000 in additional expenses to conduct the commission-mandated independent study and for legal fees," the CEO says.
Huber also argues that many of the questions in Newman's letter "are irrelevant, improper and/or violate due process."
Between Newman and Magruder, SSVEC received 65 questions or points that the commissioner wants addressed. At the conclusion of his letter, Newman states that for the sake of disclosure and full knowledge by all parties, transparency is in order. "I further suggest that we agree to hold a work session in Sonoita before we continue these highly-charged discussions."
In addition, Newman requests that all interested persons contact his office if they wish to participate in a work session "to get to the bottom of these critical issues." Those interested should call his office (602) 542-3682 or e-mail pnewman@azcc.gov.
Huber, however, does not believe the sessions are warranted. In his response to Newman, he states that based on previous public statements concerning SSVEC and issues cited in the dockets, "... SSVEC is very concerned that you may have prejudged the issues in these matters. Although I do not make this request lightly, and with all due respect, in order to ensure the integrity of the commission and this process, the cooperative requests that under the circumstances, you seriously consider whether it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself from any further participation in these dockets."
Dana Cole is a reporter at the Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Daily Review.
 |
 |
|
| Market primed for investing, says Witt | Former county attorney's office secretary enters plea |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
