Hearing Updates

It is the intent of the Woodlands Coalition to provide here brief synopsis of each days hearings. we will have the updates in place by 9 PM each evening. Please keep in mind that this process is, if nothing else, a roller coaster. Each day is different, with its own successes and setbacks. How things are going can change moment to moment. We hope that you will be able to come to a day or 2 of the hearings, even if it is only for a brief stay. It is the best way to really understand the process and its outcomes. We also understand it isn't easy to get to New Britain and that is why we provide these updates.

As you know, the Connecticut Siting Council rendered their decision on April 7, 2005 on Docket 273, the proposed transmission upgrade for a 345kV line from Middletown to Norwalk. We are now in the D&M phase or the Design and Management Phase, where the actual line is being designed.

There are many steps that will be taken before the construction for this line will actually begin. You will find on this page "next steps". Pasted below is the procedures that will take place with ISO-NE. We thank ISO for providing this information to us in concise terms.

Connecticut Light & Power and United Illuminating (“Utilities”) must file what is referred to as an I.3.9 Application.[1] Under Section I.3.9 of the ISO Tariff, any Transmission Owner must notify the ISO of its plan to install any transmission facility that is greater than 69kV.

This application is for what is informally referred to as the reliability design determination. Generally, the ISO has 60-90 days to make its determination after the Transmission Owner files its application. The ISO makes its determination after receiving the advisory input of the NEPOOL Reliability Committee.

The purpose of this notification is to the provide the ISO with information to allow the ISO to determine whether the project will have a “significant adverse effect upon the reliability or operating characteristics of the Transmission Owner’s transmission facilities, the transmission facilities of another Transmission Owner, or the system of a Market Participant, the Market Participant or Transmission Owner.”

Until the ISO makes that determination, the Utilities may not take any significant action (other than preliminary engineering action) to install the transmission facility.

If the ISO determines that the project will have such a significant adverse effect, then the Transmission Owner shall not proceed to implement the project unless the Transmission Owner takes such action or constructs at its expense such facilities as the ISO determines to be reasonably necessary to avoid such adverse effect.

After receiving a determination that a proposed transmission project will have no significant adverse effect, the Transmission Owner may obtain a decision from the ISO under Section II, Schedule 12C[2] of the ISO tariff to include the costs of the transmission project into the regional transmission service rates. The ISO makes its determination after receiving the advisory input of the NEPOOL Reliability Committee.

The NEPOOL Reliability Committee, and the ISO, may ask the Transmission Owner for additional information to assist them in making the determination. Typically, the NEPOOL Reliability Committee will meet 1-2 times for simple projects, and can meet more than three times for complex and large additions of transmission facilities. There is no deadline by which the NEPOOL Reliability Committee must provide its advisory input, and the process can take several months to complete

The Schedule 12C Application provides the details of the costs of the project, and the Transmission Owner must identify any significant additional proposed regionally supported costs that are introduced as a result of local or state regulatory and/or legislative requirements. In reviewing the Application, the NEPOOL Reliability Committee may advise, and the ISO may decide, that certain of the costs should be excluded from regional transmission service rates.

Excluded costs are referred to as “Localized Costs” under the ISO Tariff, and are those costs which exceed those requirements that the ISO deems to be reasonable and consistent with Good Utility Practice and the current engineering design and construction practices in the area in which the Transmission Upgrade is built. In making the determination of whether Localized Costs exist, the ISO will consider the reasonableness of the proposed engineering design and construction method with respect to alternate feasible Transmission Upgrades and the relative costs, operation, timing of implementation, efficiency and reliability of the proposed Transmission Upgrade.

[1] This used to be referred to as the “Section 18.4 Application,” which referred to the Section of the Restated NEPOOL Agreement that applied. With ISO-NE’s commencement of RTO operations on February 1, 2005, the provisions of Section 18.4 of the Restated NEPOOL Agreement were transferred to Section I.3.9 of the ISO New England Transmission, Markets and Services Tariff, which is available at:

http://www.iso-ne.com/FERC/filings/tariff/

Today, the Siting Council voted 9-0 to certify the proposal by Northeast Utilities and United Illuminating to upgrade the transmission lines: 345kV from Middletown to Norwalk.

Connecticut Siting Council Meeting Today the Siting Council reviewed the revisions to its Findings of Fact, and then its draft Decision and Opinion. The Chair put some test questions to the members as a straw vote to gauge opinion on some matters still unresolved in the opinion. Consensus has already gathered around 24 miles underground from East Devon to Norwalk. Now, consensus is gathering around the ROW as a buffer zone; prudent avoidance to reduce mG levels per designs offered by the applicants; a chance for the towns to suggest preferences on tower heights and other variables before the Council during the D&M phase; and the following local actions: a) the bypass option around Royal Oaks; b) at the JCC in Woodbridge, the proposed route—no change; c) at Ezra Academy in Woodbridge, a “jog” on the existing ROW, no bypass to nearby property. However, this report is provisional only. Some Council members were not present for the straw vote, and others wanted to discuss each matter further.

Royal Oaks: Leave the 115kVs where they are now, and put the new 345kV lines onto the supported bypass. JCC: no change.

Ezra Academy: move the line to reduce mG levels on the present. There was no disagreement on any of these points.

Today, the Siting Council heard oral arguments from all Parties and Intervenors in Docket 272. Since time was limited, Siting Council Chairman Pam Katz asked all speakers to address only major points or issues regarded as particularly unclear or controversial. Following the mostly brief presentations, Council

1.Applicants. Attorneys for the Applicants dealt mostly with underground technology; EMF, especially the meaning of “prudent avoidance”; and a request for construction guidelines to be used in negotiations with DOT. A variety of questions were asked on these issues. Answering one added question about the applicability of PA 04-246 to Docket 272, the attorneys said the Applicants don’t intend to claim the PA 04-246 is unconstitutional.

2. Attorney General. The Attorney General argued for setting “safe” standards to protect public health, with Department of Public Health to be used as the authority. He suggested that the public should be involved in the D&M phase of Docket 272 following the April 7 decision, perhaps through special public hearings, perhaps through elected officials; he said condemnation of properties might be an “available” remedy to satisfy a buffer extending beyond the ROW, even though a last resort; he thought costs should not be an issue, as he expects costs to be regionalized; he acknowledged that a buffer might be required for underground as well as overhead installation; and, pointing out that today’s questions showed the Council’s decision is still “a work in progress”, he suggested the Council could delay its decision past April 7 to “get it right.”

3A.Municipalities, General Points. Several municipalities’ attorneys appeared as a group, first giving general arguments they’d agreed upon and previously written in their briefs. Their general arguments were that: 1) more of the line should be put underground—this will be possible through technological innovation ; 2) where the line can’t be put underground, a buffer zone should be established at 3 mG; 3) the line loadings used to calculate mG levels are unreasonable; 4) the establishment of buffer zones can’t result in any property condemnations; 5) buffer zones should be applied to underground portions of the route as well as overhead; 6) the Council’s BMPs, especially not the ones improperly upgraded in 2004, but even the ones written in 1993, are not adequate to protect public health and safety; 7) related to deficiencies in the BMPs,(best management practices) the companies have not complied with the Act; 8) because of the BMP deficiencies and other points, the Council does not have the authority to certificate Docket 272.

3B. Municipalities, Particular Points. Each of the municipality’s lawyers went on to address particular needs.

[Milford]: a) Only 3.5 miles of undergrounding would be necessary to protect Milford, and so far no one knows that this isn’t possible, as no one has studied it; b) Milford’s issues haven’t been given due consideration by the Council.

[Woodbridge]: a) C-filters can be used to achieve more undergrounding [this argument included a review of KEMA’s change in position]; b) applicant has admitted a “porpoise” could be constructed through Woodbridge; c) the same standard of protection can’t be used for all municipalities, so large congregations of children should be given precedence, thus institutions in Woodbridge.

[Cheshire]: a) Old Farms residential district in Cheshire is the classic sort of case meant to be protected by the Act, therefore the supported change here is welcome, but more can be done, since b) applicant hasn’t shown further undergrounding is infeasible; c) the Act doesn’t authorize takings in connection with buffers.

[Durham-Wallingford]: a) Docket 217 should be re-opened so as to allocate appropriate underground mileage to Docket 272; b) build the supported bypass around the Royal Oaks neighborhood, and put both the 115 kV lines and the 345 kV lines into it.

[Middlefield]: a) congratulates Council on not preferring the northerly bypass; b) supports the Royal Oak bypass, but gives some history about the 3 towns’ agreement on the matter; c) urges no prohibitions on activities in the ROW, per Lyman Orchards golf course; d) points out that the undergrounding is being proposed for the system where it is weakest (Fairfield County), as opposed to where it is strongest (New Haven and Middlesex counties).

[Westport]: a) Supports proposed route; b) supports a mG buffer for underground portions of the line.

[Orange]: a) Supports a 6 mG buffer recommended by DPH, with a balancing test done for 3-6 mG during the D&M phase; b) buffers can’t result in takings; c) wherever a buffer gets set outside of the ROW, the consequences are up to local zoning boards.

4. Further matter. During the Q & A after the munis’ attorneys spoke, a question came up about a meeting that had taken place between Woodbridge officials and the head of the CT DEP, Gina McCarthy. Few facts were available for the onlookers to understand this matter.

5. Debate with munis. As has been mentioned, the Council put a number of questions to the munis’ attorneys. The central issue seemed to be how much flexibility the Council might have in setting up buffer zones, or in enforcing restrictions on homes nearby or in buffer zones exceeding the ROW: the attorneys argued “very little”, based on the Act. On one new point, the munis agreed that public health considerations should be put above aesthetic ones (the visibility of high poles), though Orange’s advocacy for a different EMF standard in many places allowed for shorter poles. The Durham-Wallingford attorney reminded the Council about the environmental consequences of high poles.

6. OCC. The Office of Consumer Counsel argued for Alternative A, the 13-mile proposal, on the basis of its greater reliability. He also mentioned that least-cost, resource-neutral planning should have been done prior to the Docket, but came back, in the end, to the idea that a conservative approach to Docket 272, in terms of reliability, now is necessary.

7. DOT. The DOT attorney responded to the UI attorney (see above #1) on detailed points. At the end of the discussion, the Council had heard assurances that parts of the agreement for Docket 217 could be applied to Docket 272.

9. PSE&G. PSE&G supported the relocation of the proposed new Singer Substation in Bridgeport.

10. Royal Oaks Neighborhood. A resident of Royal Oaks spoke about the character of the 100-family neighborhood, residents’ fear of more than 3mG exposure, and their support for a bypass holding both the 115kV and 345kV lines. Questions from the Council focused on existing and proposed EMF levels.

11. Owners of Property Included in Proposed Royal Oaks Bypass. An attorney expressed the opposition of these property owners to the proposed Royal Oaks Bypass. He also addressed other issues mentioned by his fellow attorneys, such as EMFs, re-opening Docket 217, and the definition of “residential areas”—sometimes agreeing with his colleagues, sometimes not. He advocated adherence to the Act through use of a (trenched) gas-insulated transmission line, in some locations.

12. Woodbridge Educational Organizations. The attorney for this group presented the reasons for 2 proposed local re-routings in Woodbridge, and was questioned about them. He also argued in favor of more undergrounding in general, doubting the companies’ and ISO’s argument of unreliability.

13. Applicants’ Rebuttal. The first attorney to speak dealt with details of the 3 local bypasses proposed (Royal Oaks, and 2 in Woodbridge). The second dealt with the DOT’s presentation, saying she was “heartened” by what she had heard today; and on reliability issues. Questions to the two focused on the DPH’s authority on EMF; the definitions of “residential areas”; the applicants’ ability to work out a “prudent avoidance” plan for EMF while they were at the D&M phase; local bypass matters; the point made about deficiencies in the BMPs; and, finally, the issue of opening up Phase I again so as to “re-allocate” additional miles of undergrounding to Phase II.

In the morning, the Siting Council finished reviewing its Findings of Fact. In the afternoon, Council members reviewed a preliminary draft of their final decision, but without signaling what its decision would be on some of the more controversial issues. Instead, they suggested these subjects would be especially suitable for oral argument.

1. Siting Council Findings of Fact. The Siting Council’s Findings of Fact (FOF), drafted by staff, includes some 800 findings culled from the hearings. Council members were asked to comment on them item by item: not for wording, but for general concepts. Starting in the morning, and continuing until lunch, the Council began where they had stopped on 3-23, and covered #632-the end. Each Council member offered comments, which the staff will incorporate. The main content of these findings were EMF and associated matters, such as mitigation, buffer zones, international standards, etc.

2. Review of preliminary final draft. This preliminary draft wasn’t a complete document, and didn’t even include some of the points agreed upon in the last meetings “test” statements. Instead, it presented some of the general language necessary to include in the final decision about the Siting Council’s legal mandates; such introductory subjects as “Need and Reliability”, with a thumbnail sketch of transmission in CT; and the question of how to define “residential areas.” The draft also discussed the main proposed solutions (or alternatives) that the applicant or the Council has considered and rejected. The last general background subject covered was EMF. All of these sections were commented on and revised extensively, with many references to and citation of PA 04-246, as now codified.

Finally, the draft dealt with the three most controversial local route changes in what will likely be the overhead portion of the line—leaving each one open. The three local changes are at: 1) Royal Oaks neighborhood ( Durham ); 2) B’Nai Jacob Congregation/Ezra Academy ( Woodbridge ); Jewish Community Center ( Woodbridge ). The draft presented separate “straw” paragraphs in favor of the route changes, against them, or alternatives, so that Council members could discriminate clearly among their choices. Meanwhile, oral arguments were invited on each choice.

--The definition of a residential area, including an operative date. (The definition favored in the draft is simply “an area where people live”, as opposed to an area where no one lives, but this leaves open the question of “where people live as of when?”)

--A framework to guide the final decision regarding EMF (mG) levels, consisting of 4 possible standards: 1) the (low) standard; 2) the (high) European standard; 3) the “no net increase” standard; and 4) the so-called “Lincoln Rd.” standard suggested by a Council member on 3-23 (see notes), which uses the mG level from underground transmission lines as a benchmark.

--The meaning of “prudent avoidance”, particularly the extent to which it should involve cost.

3. Costs. A supplemental sheet regarding costs for various alternatives in Docket 272 was reviewed and revised, similarly to the other FOF.

4. Oral Arguments. A schedule has been sent out from the Siting Council, giving the general rules for the day of oral arguments on 3-31.

Connecticut Siting Council Meeting The Siting Council rescinded its Best Management Practices document of December 2004, per the request of the Attorney General, and replaced that document with 1993 version. Further, the Council reviewed its Findings of Fact re Docket 272. It also made a start on its decision for Docket 272: it signaled only 24 miles of underground, per the proposed route, with the rest overhead.

As to issues of the nature of a buffer zone, the precise definition of statutory facilities, and others—no consensus was evident; it was the same on some of the proposed town-specific variations along the route. All of these matters will be debated during oral argument on March 31. A schedule was outlined leading up to the final decision on April 7.

1. Best Management Practices (BMPs). Discussion on rescinding the BMPs, which had been suggested by the Attorney General, focused on two points. Presuming that the 1993 BMPs will be replaced during some future open hearing process, which BMPs—2004 or 1993—will be applied to the D&M portion of Docket 272. Moreover, which BMPs are meant to apply in the case of other dockets the Council considers? Without resolution on these questions, the December 2004 BMPs were unanimously rescinded, and the 1993 BMPs accepted in their place.

2. Siting Council Findings of Fact. The Siting Council’s Findings of Fact (FOF), drafted by staff, includes some 800 findings culled from the hearings. Council members were asked to comment on them item by item: not for wording, but for general concepts. Starting at 11 a.m., and going until 4 p.m., with a lunch break, the Council covered 631 of these findings, leaving the rest until March 29. Each Council member offered comments, which the staff will incorporate.

3. Initiation of preliminary final draft. Declaring that “every decision has to start from somewhere”, Chairman Katz posed a list to Council members of 26 “test” position statements re Docket 272. She proposed to go through these “test” statements seriatim, with members responding, “Agree”, “Disagree’, or “Discuss.” She said the purpose was not to move any decision right now, but just to focus members’ attention and establish a preliminary direction for a decision. Also, the “test” exercise would help attorneys focus their oral arguments on March 29. The list of questions follows, with brief notes on the discussion.

3. The primary route proposed by the applicants is the best route, as opposed to any of the alternative routes. (All agreed)

4. Railroad, submarine, and state highway (e.g. Route 15) routes are not feasible. (All agreed)

5. The “ East Shore Route ” is not feasible, and requires expansion of an existing ROW. (All agreed, but members also pointed out that more than an expanded ROW would be needed.)

7. Underground construction at a distance of 24, 13, and 4 miles is minimally reliable. (All agreed)

8. 13 miles is more reliable than 24, but PA 04-246 requires maximum UG, and 24 miles is feasible. (Discuss: A member raised a question as to whether PA 04-246 even applies to Docket 272, since the Act post-dates the application. Assistant Attorney General Robert Marconi remarked that no brief had challenged the Act’s applicability.) Oral argument was requested on the applicability point.

9. No more than 24 miles of UG is technically feasible. (All agreed) Oral argument was requested on the location of any added UG, should any further miles be judged feasible.

10. The buffer zone should be considered the width of the ROW. (Discuss). Oral argument was requested on this point.

11. The goal for mG near statutory facilities should be 3-6mG at the edge of the ROW. (All disagree) This was the statement that generated the most discussion, with the issue being the level of mG specified. Broadly speaking, 4 positions were voiced. 1) The level should be 3-6mG. 2) The level should be “no-net-increase.” 3) No level should be specified. 4) The level should be the same as the mG associated with UG cable, given that PA 04-246 makes UG an “absolute” standard. Oral argument was requested on these points.

12. Where no statutory facilities are located, low-magnetic-field design is not necessary. (Discuss)

13. Residential areas (as statutory facilities) should be defined as 1) existing residences, 2) approved building lots, and 3) planned subdivisions. (Discuss) It was agreed that some cut-off date for the existence of a residence, approval of a building lot, or plan for a subdivision needed to be specified, and the general sentiment was that the date should be the date of the application, but oral argument was requested on the point.

15. Split phasing, tower height, or tower placement may be used to mitigate EMFs. (Discuss) One member pointed out that this statement may or may not be relevant for the decision, depending on whether a mG buffer is established.

16. During the D&M phase, town officials may negotiate with the applicant re split phasing, tower heights and placement, depending on local needs and circumstances. (All agree)

17. Although a link has not been proven between EMF and childhood leukemia, prudent avoidance of EMFs is advisable. (Discuss) Members pointed out that the 1993 BMPs newly re-accepted recommend prudent avoidance; but they wanted to hear oral arguments on what “prudent avoidance” should mean, and, in particular, whether it should be defined around cost.

a. At Royal Oak , the line goes along the bypass/along the existing ROW. (All disagree) Members were split as to whether the line should go along the northerly bypass or stay in the existing ROW with a low-magnetic-field design.

c. In Woodbridge , the line jogs on the grounds of Ezra Academy . (All agree—but feel the re-routing should be handled during the D&M phase)

d. In Woodbridge , the line jogs on the grounds of B'nai Jacob. (All agree—but feel the re-routing should be handled during the D&M phase)

f. In Westport , the line jogs at the historic district. (All agree, after some discussion)

20. We recognize that the costs of Phase Two may not be socialized but could be borne alone by CT ratepayers. (Discuss) Some members felt that the decision should not include any statements on cost socialization.

21. Statements re the locations of sub-stations (proposed for straw vote by Ashton):

4. Schedule. Comments on the Siting Council’s FOF are due by March 29. When the Council meets on that day, they’ll finish #632 to the end of their FOF. They’ll also discuss further their preliminary draft decision, after which that preliminary draft will be forwarded to all parties and intervenors. The meeting on March 31 will be the time for oral arguments on the preliminary draft. On April 1, Council members will receive an updated draft of their FOF for further annotation. At a meeting on April 5, the FOF will be finalized, and any changes in the draft opinion will be made, based on the March 31 oral arguments. On April 7, the Council will take its final vote on Docket 272.

At a regular meeting, the Siting Council voted to take into the record for Docket 272 a letter from the Attorney General to the Council, and Chairman Katz’s response. Also discussed was the schedule for Docket 272 at the end of March. [The Council still expects to make its decision on Docket 272 on April 7, 2005.]

1.Attorney General’s Letter and Response. The letter from the Attorney General is dated March 8, 2005, and deals with two matters: 1) certain alleged ex parte conversations between the companies’ employees and the Siting Council about its “Electric and Magnetic Field Best Management Practices” guide (December 2004); and 2) KEMA’s change of opinion about the feasibility of putting more than 24 miles of Phase Two underground. Chairman Katz’s reply, dated March 14, 2005, responds in detail to these two matters, and includes signed affidavits from Siting Council staff.

2. Schedule. Three meetings will be held at the end of March concerning Docket 272. On March 23, the Council will deliberate their findings of fact, and give directions to the staff concerning the proposed final decision. The staff will write up a draft. On March 29, the Council will complete deliberation on their findings of fact, and look over the draft, after which they’ll circulate it to the service list. On March 31, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., the Council will hear oral arguments on their proposed final decision from any attorneys representing Parties and Intervenors who wish to speak. Those will be the final events preparatory to the decision on April 7.

The day began with testimony and cross-examination on Monday’s technical meeting, further consolidating the technical evidence around a route with 24 miles max underground. Next came a brief “clean-up” re 3 town-specific issues and questioning of the companies by the attorney for DOT. The last item on the agenda was two Council votes on motions from Wallingford/Durham 1) to rescind the Best Management Practices (BMPs) drafted by the Council last year; and 2) to dismiss the application altogether: the first motion was tabled; the second was denied. At that point, shortly after 5 p.m., the record for DOCKET 272 was closed.

1. Testimony and cross on Monday’s technical meeting. At Monday’s technical meeting, the KEMA, ROC, and Dr. Boggs [re GITL]) had been asked to file statements with the Council outlining their agreement or disagreement with the other groups. These statements Links on this page at February 15 entry) were entered as testimony, and each group was cross-examined on its position. KEMA said that it now agrees 24 miles of underground is max: they no longer believe even 5 extra miles are feasible. Although Dr. Boggs continued to argue for GITL, he was pressed on its safety and reliability for long lengths in public roadways. He also continued to assert that XLPE was less reliable than GITL, because of special problems with XLPE’s manufacture and testing. He recommended diversifying vendors and even suppliers to vendors. He did not, however, recommend abandoning XLPE for underground purposes entirely. ISO and the companies reiterated that they will not be comfortable with more than 24 miles underground, and ISO seemed to imply that any further distance could not be “socialized”, meaning, costs shared around New England .

2. Meriden , Woodbridge , Wallingford/Durham. Meriden did not testify, but submitted an affidavit that the Council will take up “in-house.” Woodbridge citizens testified about how they would like the line to be relocated around the JCC and Ezra Academy , if the line should go overhead. Finally, evidence was presented about the height of towers in the Valley View section of Wallingford , per different scenarios, and EMF levels at the Royal Oak neighborhood of Durham were discussed, per different scenarios. One citizen brought out the fact that what the companies call “existing” EMF levels calculated anywhere along Phase 2 are actually “future” levels, because it’s assumed in the current flows used for the calculation that Phase 1 has been completed.

3. DOT. The DOT’s attorney focused his questioning on the “avalanche effect”, an acceleration in the normal “creeping” of underground cable, which can sometimes cause cable failure. The companies asserted this is not a large problem, and they expected the normal maintenance schedule for underground cable to be about 2 years.

4. Wallingford/Durham Motion. Wallingford/Durham made a motion with two parts, amounting to two separate motions. The first was to rescind the BMP’s drafted by the Council last year; the second was to dismiss the application altogether. Both procedural and substantive arguments were made in favor of the motions, and also against them. The Council came to a vote on the dismissal motion first, and denied it without prejudice. The rescission motion was tabled. Council chair Katz asked for briefs to be submitted on various points brought up for and against the motions, so these could be dealt with at the time of the final decision. She emphasized, in particular, that while the attorneys had argued against reserving substantive matters for the D&M phase, she saw such a reservation as giving the towns more chance to participate, not less, and, in the end, as leading to a “customized” route.

5. Close of record. The evidentiary phase of Docket 272 has ended. Next steps will be for all parties to file briefs, as necessary, and for the Council staff to present the record’s findings of fact. A schedule for all those dates, and others, will be outlined on the Council website. The date for the Council’s final decision is still set for April 7, 2005.

Today’s technical meeting was called to allow KEMA and the ROC group to have the opportunity to find a reconciliation between the conclusions of the ROC group and the assertions of the final KEMA White Paper. [The ROC Report argues that only 24 miles of Phase 2 can be constructed underground, while KEMA, the Siting Council’s consulting expert, has argued that up to 20 more miles more are feasible.] The overall conclusion, essentially, was that the ROC Report stands: in terms of feasibility, 24 miles of underground is max.

1. Format. The ground rules for this meeting were not the usual Evidentiary Hearing format. The facilitator was the Executive Director of the Siting Council, Derek Phelps. No Siting Council members were present: only the KEMA experts, power company experts, and other. Ideas were exchanged directly, not through attorney mediators. A tape was kept, and a transcript will be made, but none of the data or the discussion automatically became part of the evidentiary record. The effort was to identify precisely where the experts can agree on feasibility issues re Phase 2, and where they still disagree.

2. New Data. In a white paper originally responding to the ROC Report, KEMA argued that C-type filters could mitigate harmonics problems identified by ISO-NE, and justify more than 24 miles underground; they further pointed out that the data so far reported by GE did not prove more than 24 miles underground would be infeasible; and they demonstrated that in rejecting a C-type filter solution the ROC Report had offered no hard evidence. Today, GE consultants offered detailed transient studies to justify their rejection of a C-type filter solution; moreover, the companies cited EnerNex studies circulated last week that also provided further evidence against the feasibility of more than 24 miles. Thus, quite a bit of new data was on the table. Most of the discussion about the new data centered on whether filtering could be designed so as to make more than 24 miles of underground feasible.

3. Areas of Agreement. KEMA all along has agreed with the companies that 4, 13, and 24 miles of underground are feasible, and that the HVDC option may not be operable, nor does it allow sufficiently for new generation to come into SWCT. Faced with the new GE and EnerNex studies from last week and today, KEMA agreed that up to 20 more miles of underground is not feasible. They also agreed that “trading” segments of the proposed 24 miles to achieve some undergrounding north of the Housatonic would not be feasible.

4. Areas of Disagreement. KEMA maintained that 5 additional miles is a “gray area”, and may still be possible, although they understand that the companies may not want to take the risk. KEMA also felt that some filtering should be done at certain sub-stations to mitigate predicted high voltages there. The companies and ISO-NE refused to consider more than 24 miles, saying the system is already at the edge of inoperability with that length. They did move toward some filtering at certain sub-stations, saying they might try it and see how it worked in non-critical situations. KEMA expressed satisfaction that this testing, so to speak, might open the door to further use of filtering for system reliability, but the companies did not particularly second this optimism.

5. An Outlier Opinion. Although the main discussion today was between KEMA and the power companies, another pair of experts also participated, and they advocated an entirely different solution involving another technology, namely, GITL (Gas Insulated Transmission Line). Pointing out that the 24 miles of underground is not a distance problem, per se, but a problem of how much capacitance is in the system, they said the basic solution would be to reduce the amount of capacitance. GITL, they stated, is a type of line with very little capacitance, so if GITL were used, the underground portion of the line could extend much farther than 24 miles. This opinion has been testified to earlier, and the companies responded similarly today. They said: 1) that this technology has not been used for bulk transmission before; 2) that it would be difficult to construct and maintain for long distances. The other experts argued that GITL was at least as established

1. EMFs. The morning began with a cross-examination of Drs. Bailey and Cole, regarding their comments on the most recent testimony about EMFs by the Drs Bell and Rabinowitz.

The discussion moved on to the issue of how a buffer zone to mitigate EMFs should be established. Questions were first raised about the way in which the Applicants take MF field readings (registered in milligauss, or mG), and how they calculated the current on the line (load). Drs. Bailey and Cole were asked if there were any scientifically-based way to set a buffer zone, as opposed to a judgment-call based on “prudent avoidance.” In their opinion, there’s no scientifically-based number of “unsafe” milligauss from which to calculate a buffer zone. They believe the international safety codes used by transmission engineers to set ROW boundaries are the only universally-accepted standard. Council members spoke of their concern about having to make recommendations about involuntary exposure to EMFs (via transmission lines), while voluntary exposure to EMFs (via appliances and other electronic devices) also are potentially harmful.

2. Costs. The OCC (Office of Consumer Counsel, the State agency that serves as the consumer watchdog) is concerned about the reliability of the Applicants’ most recent cost estimates, which they have presented in ranges, as opposed to single figures. The OCC’s attorney asked the Applicants to come up with further detail about these ranges and asked what will determine whether the final costs will be at the low or high end of the range. The Applicants answered that the major drivers are: 1) the change in cable type (original proposal vs. ROC report) from HPFF to XLPE; 2) the price of steel and other materials to be used in construction; 3) the currency exchange rate (given that many of the materials are obtained overseas); and the extent of the new equipment (surge arresters, etc.) that will have to be added to strengthen the system’s reliability.

3. Buffers. The Applicants first displayed, onscreen, updated aerial maps of the 6 mG buffer option all along the portion of the route currently proposed to be overhead: Middletown to East Devon. The maps were drawn incorporating low magnetic-field design for each section of the route. Each statutory facility was indicated on the maps, with its distance from the line, and cross-sections of the tower designs, plus heights, were interspersed as necessary. The group viewed each town’s portion of the route in detail, with the Council and attorneys asking questions along the way. In some cases, alternative routes have been suggested by towns; and these alternatives were also shown and discussed, with the focus on which ones the Applicants currently support.

Buffer discussions have come up in response to the public’s health concerns and the relevant Public Act passed during the last session; however, today certain environmental issues were discussed also, such as the impact of low-magnetic-field design on trees, wetlands, and underlying hydrology. A crucial summary question from Council chair Katz was this: if the Council were to order a buffer zone defined as giving no more than a 6mG magnetic field at either edge of the ROW, could the Applicants’ design mitigation techniques (tower heights, tower distances, etc.) to meet that order? Prete answered “yes” for UI. For CL&P, Bartosewicz answered, “We’ll look at that and get back to you.”

The Applicants next displayed similar updated aerial maps of the proposed underground portion of the line: East Devon to Norwalk. These maps also showed statutory facilities. The Applicants stated that wherever statutory facilities were near the line for short stretches it would be possible to install steel plates as shielding. Not as many questions were asked about this portion of the route, but some testing and negotiations are still ongoing about whether or where the line will cross the Norwalk River; and the DOT underlined its objection to the full 24-mile underground route, on account of construction issues.

Today's hearings were focused on continued testimony on the issue of EMF. There was a brief meeting of the Council (this is not a hearing, it is a meeting of the Council to decide specific issues, as happens every month).

1. First Selectman Amey Marrella, Woodbridge, made a brief statement of limited testimony.

2. The Woodbridge Educational Institutions testified on issues of EMF levels at their institutions and routing to protect the children that attend this locations.

3. The panel on EMF was again cross examined by the Applicants and the Siting Council as to safe levels of EMF and how guidelines should be established.

4. The meeting of the Council concluded that there will be a hearing (EMF continued) on February 1. There will be an announcement early next week as to further dates. There is a proposal on the table for a technical session for KEMA and the experts involved in the ROC report to take place on February 14. There would then be a hearing for a follow up to that session on February 17. We will report that information as it arrives.

Today’s hearings brought more statements from elected officials. These statements were followed by presentation and cross of information about the proposed “Durham Bypass:. The day ended on cross of the Applicants about anticipated failure rates for the underground portion using XLPE (cross link polyethylene solid dielectric cable).

KEMA, the consulting hired by the Siting Council to advise on this docket issued their observations on the ROC report. You may use this link to read that report: KEMA: Observations on ROC Final Report

1. The day began with statements of limited testimony by Representative Ray Kalinowski, Durham, Mayor Bill Dickinson, Wallingford and First Selectman Ken Flatto of Fairfield.

2. There was discussion about Linda Wilson of Middletown, being able to change her status from Intervenor to Party. She was granted this status and became a Party called “The Wilsons”. The Wilsons presented their expert witness regarding the so-called Durham Bypass: what it would do to their properties and their suggestion as to technology to be used if the bypass proposal is used. There was cross examination about this technology (GITL or gas insulated transmission line) and how it would work with the bypass.

3. The Siting Council had a number of technical questions about the technology, the differences between this type of underground cabling and the XLPE that is currently proposed for use in the Segments Three and Four undergrounding.

4. The rest of the day was focused on the questions raised in previous hearings regarding failure rates of the XLPE cabling. It was established by Roger Zak, transmission services, NU, John Prete, project director, of UI and Anne Bartosewicz, project director, NU that they are comfortable with the fault or failure rates as they project them. They were closely questioned about that issue and there was discussion about the provision of documents to support their contentions.

A schedule was proposed by the Siting Council, going forward. Legislators came to speak on their constituents' views. Testimony in the morning addressed concerns about the proposed route through Milford and Meriden; in the afternoon, testimony addressed the issue of costs and of underground cable reliability.

PPPPPP

1. Siting Council Chairman, Pam Katz, presented her ideas about the schedule for the final decision. The towns will not ask for any more technical studies, nor will the Siting Council. KEMA, the Council's technical consultant, is preparing a white paper on technical issues. Having read a draft, Chairman Katz feels that when the KEMA report is completed, Applicants' technical experts and KEMA should sit down and talk: she envisions a technical summit in early February. Although parties may observe, this will be a working session only. If more studies are requested after that, they'll be quick and focused. If the Siting Council is comfortable with closing the record by mid-February, they'll issue a decision by April 7, their current deadline. If they don't feel comfortable closing the record by mid-February, they'll issue a final decision by April 7 that will serve as a marker for a "replacement" decision to be issued soon thereafter. (While this may sound complicated, the decision for Phase 1 went through a similar process.)

2. Legislators who gave statements during the day were Senators Herlihy and Fasano as well as Representatives DelGobbo, Adinolfi, and Klarides. Both Herlihy and DelGobbo expressed strong reservations about costs, saying that the relevant legislation does not require the Siting Council to ignore costs, and noting the very large increase in cost estimates surrounding different buffering techniques, including underground. Fasano, Adinolfi and Klarides stressed that the law requires citizens to be protected adequately, and questioned whether that was being done to the full extent. Saying that they were not opposed to the Siting Council, but trying to do their best for the people of the state, they urged the Siting Council not to be "bullied" by ISO or by the companies into a restricted amount of undergrounding.

3. The City of Milford presented a panel of witnesses who were cross-examined re: the number of properties that would be adversely affected in Milford under various buffer scenarios. Also discussed were the placement of the proposed East Devon transition station, and the impact of various buffers on Eisenhower Park.

4. City of Meriden also presented witnesses who proposed an alternative route within Meriden on property owned by the city.

5. On costs, company witnesses were cross-examined by counsel for OCC, DOT, and various Towns. Some of the questions covered how the companies had come up with the estimates. Mainly, the worries are that costs may grow even larger than the now estimated $900 million plus dollars. A great deal of the discussion referred to the growth in costs for Phase 1. The Applicants' witnesses generally answered that they don't expect costs to escalate greatly, because they've gained experience from Phase 1, and because they've already done some of the detailed tests that had not been done early in Phase 1. When asked to put a number on his confidence that the costs would not increase substantially, United Illuminating's project manager, John Prete said 80%, and when asked to quantify the level of design work that had been completed, he said 30%.

6. Mr. Roger Zak, Transmission Services, Northeast Utilities, presented a table of calculations regarding failure rates in underground XLPE cable. He testified, in summary, that these failure rates represented an acceptable level of risk.

The main agenda today was further testimony on the ROC Report, cross-examination, and redirect. Almost all of it had to do with technical engineering matters.

1. Pam Katz, the Siting Council chair, asked everyone to concentrate on “two simple truths”: 1) that the law requires the Council to site the maximum length feasible in Phase 2 underground; and 2) that buffers must be provided to protect public health. She said she would do her utmost to develop the record on these simple truths. She emphasized that ISO’s recommendations do not determine the Siting Council’s process and decision: the Siting Council has its decision-making job and the ISO has theirs. (Theirs comes in a regulatory proceeding known as “18.4”).

2. Questioning began with the Siting Council’s staff and members putting tough questions to the experts and ISO officials about certain omissions or confusing points in the ROC Report, and attempting to elicit brief answers, rather than long, complicated justifications. Questions were pursued about whether the proposal’s 24 miles of underground could be divided into 2 segments; about what kind of underground cable should be used; about why the ROC Report rejects the ABB proposal for a DC solution; about why the ROC Report rejects the KEMA proposal for using C-type filters as a mitigation to achieve further miles of underground; and about whether the 24 miles recommended by ROC could be stretched any further, even slightly.

3. One matter came up outside of Phase 2, but related. A federal group’s recommendations have resulted in a White House executive order regarding the environmental and public health impacts of energy projects. A Council member moved that the Council write to this group and ask for certain guidance regarding environmental and public health standards to be applied in Phase 2. This motion was rejected, however, because the group has not yet published its report, and also because it will disband on January 20.

4. The cross-examination by attorneys from various municipalities was exclusively technical. Questions were pursued further about whether the 24 miles of underground could be located all at the eastern end of Phase 2; about whether the assumptions used by the experts for modeling were realistic or reasonable; about what kind of underground cables should be used; about details of the planned mitigations; about whether shorter lengths of underground (4 miles and 13 miles—both alternatives supported by ROC, though not recommended) would meet Phase 2 objectives other than reliability; and about how certain features of Phase 1 affect current options for Phase 2. One new set of questions was raised about how certain features of another transmission project, a proposed upgrade from Norwalk to Stamford, would affect Phase 2.

5. On re-direct, the companies’ and ISO’s attorneys asked questions allowing the experts to clarify or expand upon some of their earlier answers that appeared to raise problems with ROC Report conclusions.

Tuesday, January 11, 2005 Evidentiary Hearings

The main agenda today was testimony on the ROC Report. Almost all of it had to do with technical engineering matters pertaining to the Report’s recommendations.

PPPPPP

1. Most readers of these notes know that the ROC (Reliability and Operability Committee) Report (December 21, 2004) recommends building Phase Two with 24 miles underground from Norwalk to East Devon, proceeding on from there to Middletown overhead: in other words, more or less the same as the original application. Changes from the original include a different kind of cable, some minor route adjustments, and a “massive” (ROC report language) upgrade of surge arresters, transformers, and switching equipment to ensure reliability.

2. The ROC Report is accompanied by several appendices, some of which have appendices of their own: in other words, the report depends on a lot of data. Some seven consultant groups carried out these studies, and many of those experts were testifying today on their work.

3. All of the questions today came from the Siting Council members: there was no cross-exam.

4. Some lead-off questions asked about the procedures of the ROC Committee: who chaired each day, whether minutes were taken, how long sessions lasted, which consultants did what, etc. The answers to these indicated a team approach and many hours of hard work, with certain reports coming out of it attached to the Report, but with little to no working record.

5. The rest of the questions were technical, and asked about all aspects of the ROC Report: what assumptions were used in the computer models of the system; whether or not the proposed system would encourage new generation; whether or not the 24 miles of underground could be split into pieces and still keep the system reliable; how KEMA’s suggested use of C-type filters to extend the length of undergrounding was eliminated from consideration; how the margins of safety regarding temporary over-voltages were calculated; why “extra” miles of underground would not work, etc. Quite a few of the answers overlapped with testimony heard much earlier in Docket 272. Given the technical nature of the subjects, the experts sometimes were hard-pressed to explain their rationale for certain conclusions.

6. Cross-exam on the ROC Report will be conducted next week.

As promised in October, FERC returned for a follow up visit to monitor progress on the proposed transmission upgrade for a 345kV line in SWCT. This session was much shorter and more focused on the immediate issue of the upgrade without the attention to alternative energy, renewable energy or distributive generation as in the first session.

There was a brief introduction by NU's VP, Dave Boguslawski. Ths was followed by more in-depth explanations of the ROC report, the KEMA report, cost of the project, cost allocations (potential) and next steps.

The primary presenters were United Illuminating, Northeast Utilities and ISO-NE. Questions were asked of them by panel members, with closest scrutiny coming from Attorney General Blumenthal and Senator Tom Herlihy, ranking member of the Energy and Technology Committee.

Questions from FERC questioned focused on the why for demand of undergrounding, costs, the impact of PA 04-246, the cost to the rate payer of the delays caused by those against the transmission upgrade and the need for solutions being implemented as soon as possible.

Derek Phelps, executive director of the Connecticut Siting Council gave a progress report on the evidentiary hearings and stated the siting would be made in 2005.

FERC Chairman, Pat Wood concluded the technical session stating there were no plans at this time for FERC's return but they would indeed, be watching closely.

The Siting Council rejected the towns’ request for an immediate delay in the hearing schedule, which they argued was necessary for them to evaluate the ROC Report of December 12, ’04. The Council instead set out an ambitious schedule to meet the current January 20, ‘05 deadline for ending the hearings, but they also indicated that on the afternoon of January 20 they will discuss how to go forward with the docket. Thus, although an open-ended delay was rejected at this point, a door was opened to slide the schedule backwards from the currently-planned April decision.

The main agenda for the day concerned testimony on EMF from underground cables: particularly what the health effects are, what shielding options are available, and which of those would be practical to construct.

b. By January 11, KEMA should submit a list of the studies they want to do in order to evaluate adequately the ROC Report, and an estimate of how much time the studies will take.

c. By January 18, KEMA should submit a white paper responding to the ROC Report.

d. By noon on January 18, the towns should file briefs specifying what studies they need to do in order to respond to the ROC Report, and estimating how much time the studies will take.

e. By noon on January 19, the ISO and the companies should respond to the towns’ briefs.

f. On January 20, currently planned to be the last day of hearings, a hearing will be held, but the Siting Council will then meet on the afternoon of January 20 to decide on how to proceed further with the docket.

a. The discussion started with testimony about EMF/DC in underground cables. The companies’ experts said that since EMF/DC operates differently from EMF/AC, one cannot assume that EMF/DC will have the same health effects as EMF/AC. Consequently, they said, the health effects of EMF/DC have been studied separately from the health effects of EMF/AC, with some overlapping results in biological studies, but no overlapping results in epidemiological studies.