Took me longer than I thought to hear back from SWEPCO. Below is - TopicsExpress

Took me longer than I thought to hear back from SWEPCO. Below is the e-mail from Swepco to me answering some of my questions. Some of the answers are pretty weak. I will keep you posted as I get more information. Dear Mr. Kalagias: I appreciate the opportunity for Jeff Milford and I to meet with you recently regarding the Shipe Road-Kings River project and provide further information. As I mentioned that evening in Rogers, there are many acronyms used as we discuss the project. As a refresher, I’ll list them again: • AEP – American Electric Power, SWEPCO’s parent company • AECC – Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation, the generation and transmission organization for the 17 electric cooperatives in Arkansas • APSC – Arkansas Public Service Commission • FERC – Federal Energy Regulatory Commission • RTO – Regional Transmission Organization • STO – Save the Ozarks • SPP – Southwest Power Pool – the multi-state regional transmission organization in which SWEPCO’s service area lies • SWEPCO – Southwestern Electric Power Company – the investor-owned electric utility subsidiary of AEP with service area in western Arkansas, northwest Louisiana, northeast Texas, and the panhandle area of Texas You mentioned having reviewed the docket, and I hope you were able to review the testimony of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) and Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation (AECC) witnesses, along with that of SWEPCO. The role of the Regional Transmission Organization in planning for reliable electric service for the region is not well understood but underlies the identification of the need for this project to benefit the region. While SWEPCO is the transmission-owning SPP member directed to build the facilities, the project is intended to benefit electric consumers throughout the region, including cooperatives served by AECC. Additional information on the project, including a fact sheet and map, can be found on our web site at: aeptransmission/arkansas/ShipeRoad-KingsRiver/ Of course, having reviewed the docket you now know that the APSC has directed SWEPCO and SPP to update all studies to determine whether the originally proposed 345 kV project is needed and whether transmission requirements in the region might be met by alternative options, such as expanding, upgrading, or building lower capacity facilities, including 161 kV lines, and if not why not. The APSC has requested an analysis of the comparative costs, environmental impact, and long term sufficiency of any alternative options. That study is being conducted by SPP and the results are anticipated in late January, 2015. I’ve included the following responses to your additional questions: Why can the new lines not follow the same exact path that the current lower voltage lines use? Would you even need the comissions approval to upgrade that line to a higher voltage if you are using the existing right of way? The possibility of doing as you suggest is being considered in the SPP study. Factors such as engineering for different voltages, wider rights-of-way for higher voltage, the locations of existing homes and other structures or adjacent development all impact and possibly limit the ability to use or parallel existing right-of-way. Why did the proposal only have one line, when the plan calls for a loop of two lines? The Southwest Power Pool determined the scope of the project when it identified the project and issued a Notification To Construct to SWEPCO. Why did SWEPCO have a problem with the ALJs order restricting the use of herbicides? SWEPCO outlined its request for clarification of the herbicide provision (paragraph “j”) in its Petition for Limited Rehearing. See pages 17-19: apscservices.info/pdf/13/13-041-U_430_1.pdf As SPP/AEP/SWEPCO re-examine the study used to pick route 33, wouldnt it be easier to close this docket and open a new one, so that you could propose a better/modified route not constrained by the variance limit for the already judged unsuitable route 33? There is no need to close this docket and open a new one. The additional study being conducted by SPP concerns the need for the proposed facilities. Depending upon the outcome of the SPP study SWEPCO is authorized by the Commission to propose modifications to its proposed routes with proper notice to all affected landowners. In its order granting rehearing, the Commission has specifically directed the parties to provide evidence whether existing 161 kV lines could be upgraded or existing rights-of-way used or expanded so as to limit adverse environmental impacts. SWEPCO will follow the directives of the APSC to determine whether existing 161 kV lines could be upgraded or existing rights-of-way used and will make any required adjustments to its proposed route as necessary and feasible.