 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Witness Testimony
Mr. Jeffrey A. Donahue
Regional Energy Reliability and Security: DOE Authority to Energize the Cross Sound Cable
I.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the many benefits the Cross Sound Cable electric transmission project provides to Connecticut, New York, and the Northeast. My name is Jeffrey A. Donahue, and I am Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Cross-Sound Cable Company, LLC ("CSC LLC"). A summary of my experience and qualifications is attached as Exhibit JAD-1. While the Cross Sound Cable ("CSC" or "Project") has been the subject of considerable controversy over the last few years, one point is incontrovertible - the CSC is the first major interstate electric transmission project to be built in the Northeast in more than a decade. For better or worse, the CSC has been used as a "poster child" for many purposes: as the first market-based transmission link in the U.S.; as the first application in the U.S. of advanced high voltage direct current transmission technology and advanced underground cable installation techniques; and, perhaps most widely, as a symbol of what is wrong with our Nation's framework for siting needed electric transmission infrastructure. Rather than add to the political rhetoric you may have heard regarding the CSC, my testimony today seeks to provide the Subcommittee with the facts regarding this important infrastructure project. Specifically, my testimony makes the following three key points:
With this testimony, I intend to provide the
Subcommittee with the facts and background necessary to gain a better
understanding of the CSC and the need for its immediate re-energization and
placement into regular commercial service through the enactment of Federal
legislation. II.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CROSS SOUND CABLE The CSC is a 330 megawatt bi-directional, high
voltage direct current and fiber optic cable system that runs under Long Island
Sound and can transmit electricity in either direction between New Haven,
Connecticut and Brookhaven, Long Island, New York. CSC LLC commissioned
the Project in August 2002. CSC LLC is a joint venture between TransÉnergie
U.S. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hydro-Québec, and United Capital
Investments, Inc., a non-regulated business unit of UIL Holdings, Inc., which
owns the United Illuminating Company, a regulated utility in Connecticut. III.
HISTORY OF THE CROSS SOUND CABLE My October 2003 affidavit to the Department of Energy, attached as Exhibit JAD-2, provides a complete history of the permitting of the Project. For ease of reference, I have summarized this history below. On June 1, 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") granted the CSC project sponsors the first-of-its-kind authorization to make sales of electric transmission capacity in interstate commerce at negotiated rates. TransÉnergie U.S. Ltd., 91 FERC ¶ 61,230 (2000). FERC granted this authorization because the full financial risk for the project costs is borne by the developer (i.e., CSC LLC) rather than captive ratepayers, and because the project "enhances competition and market integration by expanding capacity and trading opportunities between the New England and New York markets." Id. at 61,838. Pursuant to an "open season" auction process, the Long Island Power Authority ("LIPA") subscribed to the full capacity of the CSC. CSC LLC then began the process to obtain the required state and federal permits. The New York State Public Service Commission ("NYPSC") granted a certificate of environmental compatibility and public need on June 27, 2001, finding that the CSC will "enhance regional and local competition in the electric power industry and [] improve system reliability." (NYPSC Article VII approval at 12.) The Connecticut Siting Council ("Siting Council") followed suit on January 3, 2002, finding that "the proposed project would enhance the inter-regional electric transmission infrastructure and improve the reliability and efficiencies of the electric system here in Connecticut as well as in New York." (Siting Council Decision and Order at 1.) As the Siting Council recognized, "recent events have demonstrated that preparedness and cooperation [among the states] are in the best interest of the State, region, and the nation." Id. Then, in March 2002, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Army Corps") and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") issued the necessary permits for CSC LLC to install the Project. The permits each included an identical condition that, within the Federal Navigation Channel ("Federal Channel") in New Haven Harbor, the Project's cable system must be buried to a depth no less than the deeper of six feet below the seabed or 48 feet below mean lower low water. The reason for this requirement was to accommodate the possible future deepening of the Federal Channel by the Army Corps, although the Army Corps currently has no plans to deepen the Federal Channel. Significantly, the DEP and Army Corps permits each grant CSC LLC a period of years for the completion of all installation work for the CSC, including meeting the burial depth requirement.[1] For the areas outside the Federal Channel, the Army Corps and DEP permits required cable system burial depths of at least 4 feet and 6 feet, respectively, below the seabed of the Sound. In May 2002, CSC LLC substantially finished
installation of the cable system in accordance with its permits. However,
when burying the cable system, CSC LLC encountered previously undiscovered
hard sediments and bedrock protrusions along portions of the route within the
Federal Channel. CSC LLC immediately notified DEP and Army Corps that it
was unable to achieve the permitted burial depth in all locations. The CSC
is buried to the permit depth along 98 percent of the entire span, and over 90%
of the route within the Federal Channel to an average of 50.7 feet below mean
lower low water, well below the required level of minus 48 feet. IV.
OPERATION OF THE CSC PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS TO
CONNECTICUT, NEW YORK AND THE REGION A. The
CSC Significantly Improves the Reliability of the Connecticut and New York Grids Upon being energized pursuant to the Secretary of
Energy's orders in the wake of the August 2003 blackout, the CSC assisted in
restoring power to and stabilizing the transmission system in the northeastern
United States. The Secretary's order allowed the CSC to transmit and
deliver power and to provide critical voltage support and stabilization services
to the transmission systems in Connecticut and New York. 1.
Voltage Support for the Connecticut and Long Island Electric Grids Since September 1, 2003, the CSC has been operating with excellent consistency and has been recognized for its value in ensuring a reliable power supply in both Connecticut and New York.[2] ISO-New England (the independent operator of the New England transmission system) directs the operators of the CSC when to transmit power over the CSC and when to provide (simultaneously or separately) voltage support to the neighboring transmission systems. The inherent capability of the high voltage direct current cable system allows it to act immediately and automatically to help smooth out the aftershocks of electric system spikes and other disturbances in Connecticut and New York, which in turn lowers the risk of other transmission lines switching off and magnifying a system problem. While the CSC operated full time pursuant to the DOE order, CSC LLC responded to 108 requests by ISO-New England and 9 requests by the New York Independent System Operator ("NYISO") to help maintain a steady operating voltage on the Connecticut and New York transmission systems, respectively. Importantly, the CSC's capability to respond to these grid operators' requests for voltage stabilization not only provides reliability benefit, but also provides environmental benefit, as it reduces the need to start up less efficient and dirtier power plants (including plants in New Haven) that would otherwise be needed to provide the same level of service. In addition to
responding to requests by ISO-New England or NYISO to forestall anticipated
difficulties, the CSC also responds automatically to unanticipated system
disturbances. During operation pursuant to the DOE order, the CSC
responded 18 times to reduce system disturbances caused by lightning strikes,
transformer failures, transmission line faults and unknown events. Twelve
of these responses (two-thirds) were to disturbances on the Connecticut grid.[3]
2. The CSC Provides Another Critical Path for Emergency Energy and Reserves In addition to stabilizing the regional transmission system, the CSC has been used as an operating reserve in times of power scarcity. In fact, when Connecticut's energy supply was at dangerously low levels during an extreme cold spell in January 2004, the CSC was on standby at ISO-New England's request to export 200 megawatts over the CSC from Long Island to Connecticut. During this period, the CSC (while it did not ultimately have to export any power from New England to New York) remained on standby in anticipation of an order to transmit power from Long Island to Connecticut. Southwest Connecticut has been widely identified as one of the most transmission-deficient and capacity-constrained areas in the U.S. transmission system. Long Island has exported power to Southwest Connecticut many times in the past, including during the July 2, 2002 heat wave, using the existing "1385" submarine cable between Norwalk, Connecticut and Northport, New York. Last fall, ISO-New England and NYISO coordinated a successful test that sent power from New England over the Cross Sound Cable to Long Island while simultaneously returning power from Long Island over the 1385 cable to Connecticut. Energy
exports out of New England have no impact on the reliability of the New England
system. In fact, ISO-New England will not schedule any exports out of New
England if the transfer of such power would degrade the reliability of the New
England system. Energy flows over the CSC are jointly controlled by the
NYISO and ISO-New England under the same reliability rules applied to all other
interconnections between New York and New England. Under those rules,
energy flows over any transmission line will only occur if such flows do not
jeopardize the electric system of the exporting region. B. The
CSC Provides Valuable Economic Benefits to Connecticut and New York Operation of the CSC benefits Connecticut electricity consumers. The affidavit submitted to DOE by my colleague Dr. Raymond L. Coxe (attached as Exhibit JAD-3) provides a full discussion of the CSC's numerous economic and reliability benefits to Connecticut. Specifically, Dr. Coxe found that for the years of 2004 and 2005, the CSC is expected to provide reliability and economic benefits of approximately $40 million per year to electricity market participants in New York and New England.[4] Failing to operate the CSC during this period would forego those benefits, thus unnecessarily increasing costs to consumers in both regions. In any evaluation of the public interest regarding the operation of the CSC, the potential loss of these benefits must be considered. Clearly, the public interest benefits of the continued operation of the CSC are tangible and substantial. Independent analyses of the impact of discontinuing operation of the CSC confirm our internal analyses. On October 24, 2003, one of the world's leading energy research and consulting firms, Cambridge Energy Research Associates ("CERA") published an analysis on the impact of the CSC. This report, CERA Alert: Effect of the Cross Sound Cable, describes CERA's simulation of the operation of the electricity markets in Connecticut and Long Island for 2004 and 2005, for the following two cases: · A Base Case which reflected the operation of the CSC during those years; and · A Change Case in which the CSC was not available for operation. In these simulations, CERA used the same base case assumptions that CERA is using for its other work on transmission congestion and generation asset valuation. The CERA Alert summarizes CERA's analysis of wholesale electricity market prices in Connecticut and on Long Island. The CERA Alert notes that failure to continue operation of the CSC would raise average annual wholesale spot electricity prices on Long Island by between 4% and 5%, with no corresponding reduction in average annual wholesale electricity prices in Connecticut. Regulatory agencies with direct responsibility and jurisdiction over the CSC have recognized the significant economic benefits to Connecticut provided by the CSC. These independent agencies include the Connecticut Siting Council, the FERC, and the NYPSC. The Connecticut Siting Council, after a full consideration and review, unanimously concluded that the CSC would provide a public benefit to Connecticut. Specifically, the Siting Council found that "the wholesale price of electricity in New England should not increase with the export of up to 330 MW of electricity from Connecticut to Long Island." (Findings of Fact No. 23). The Siting Council further found that the CSC "could increase the competition and markets available to electric generators in New England and Long Island" (Findings of Fact No. 15) and that "an open competitive market for electricity, enhanced by the increased capability for trade [provided by the CSC], will result in increased private investment in infrastructure, and lower electricity costs for the region." (Siting Council Decision and Order at 1.) Further
evidence of the CSC's benefits to Connecticut is the FERC's approval of the
CSC. In its order approving rates for the CSC, FERC stated that the CSC
"enhances competition and market integration by expanding capacity and trading
opportunities between the New England and New York markets." (FERC order
at 7.) FERC further found that the CSC "will provide benefits to
electric consumers and producers in both markets while imposing no risk or cost
on captive customers in any market." Id. V.
OPERATION OF THE CSC HAS NO ENVIRONMENTAL OR NAVIGATIONAL IMPACT
A. Agency
Findings of No Harm to Operate Cable As Is Both Federal and State agencies have confirmed that operation of the CSC 'as is where is' neither causes any harm to the environment nor poses any threat to navigation. Specifically, neither the Army Corps nor the DEP have raised any environmental or substantive objection to operating the CSC at its current depth. DEP itself describes its objection as procedural, driven by a concern about the scope of Connecticut's legislative moratorium on Long Island Sound energy projects, not by environmental issues.
1. Army Corps
Finding of No Harm to Environment or Navigation The Army Corps has determined that operation of the cable as installed would cause no environmental harm or interference with navigation. Accordingly, the Army Corps has expressly authorized operation of the CSC while CSC LLC continues work toward attaining the required depth. On December 30, 2002, the Army Corps issued a letter to CSC LLC confirming that operation would not pose navigational or environmental harm and stating that the Army Corps had no objection to present cable operation at the current depth while CSC LLC sought to work with the DEP to obtain necessary approvals to reach the authorized depth. The letter stated: The Corps of
Engineers, in consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service, has
determined that there will be no undue short-term environmental harm or
interference with navigation with the cable in its present location until full
burial depth can be achieved. Since you are working in good faith to reach the
required burial depth, the Corps of Engineers has no objections to you operating
the cable at this time. 2.
DEP Finding of No Threat to Fisheries Resources from Operation at Present Depth The DEP made a similar determination of no environmental harm from operation of the cable system as installed. Shortly after CSC LLC notified DEP that the cable could not buried to the permitted depth in a few locations, DEP Commissioner Arthur J. Rocque responded in a June 13, 2002 letter to a letter from Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, by placing the environmental impacts in appropriate perspective and expressing his concern about the "published rhetoric" about such impacts: I would be remiss if I did not note my
disappointment in your characterization of the impacts associated with both the
installation of the cable and the failure to attain greater depths in part of
the federal channel as serious, critical and devastating environmental impacts.
. . . From an environmental perspective, this cable project pales in
comparison to even maintenance dredging of the federal navigational channel in
New Haven Harbor. . . . [P]ublished rhetoric has eclipsed facts on this project,
at least from an environmental impact standpoint. However, in contrast to the Army Corps, the DEP stated that, as a matter of procedure, it would not permit operation of the CSC while CSC LLC was endeavoring to meet the burial depth requirements. Nor would the DEP permit CSC LLC to work to meet the burial depth requirement. According to the DEP, the Connecticut legislative moratorium on agency consideration of proposed crossings of Long Island Sound by utility projects (including interstate transmission lines) prevents DEP from allowing CSC LLC (by permit modification or by new permit) either to continue working to meet the burial condition or to allow operation of the CSC in its current location - effectively denying CSC LLC any recourse to the gradual loss of its permit rights. The CSC had by this time become a highly politicized project in Connecticut. As a result, while construction was completed and there remained no substantive objections to operation of the CSC, the CSC had not operated for an entire year until directed to do so by DOE's post-blackout orders. 3.
Chronology of Correspondence with DEP and Specific DEP Findings On July 22, 2002, the DEP wrote to CSC LLC stating that while cable system operation was not specifically within its jurisdiction, the environmental impact of operation was within its jurisdiction. The DEP therefore requested additional information about the environmental impact of operation as installed. The DEP also confirmed that the cable system's current location did not constitute a permit violation because the permit's installation work period to achieve the authorized depth had not yet expired (and does not expire until March 17, 2005). CSC LLC responded to the DEP by letter dated July 24, 2002, with supporting documentation demonstrating that operation at the current depth would pose no adverse environmental or navigational risks. On November 18, 2002, CSC LLC submitted a request to DEP to further bury the cable system to the required depth in the several locations within the Harbor where the cable system did not rest on rock, by using alternate installation tools and methods. On December 23, 2002, the Director of the DEP Office of Long Island Sound Programs ("OLISP") denied CSC LLC's request to further bury the cable system to the permitted depth but responded to CSC LLC's July 24, 2002 report of no impacts from operation in the current location. In its response, DEP agreed with the demonstration in CSC LLC's July 24, 2002 letter with respect to environmental impacts, and specifically that the electromagnetic field ("EMF") and temperature variations associated with operation at the current depths "would not be expected to impact fisheries resources." The DEP stated that the permit depth requirement was specified by the Army Corps as the requisite depth to accommodate navigational concerns and deferred to the Army Corps regarding those concerns. On January 6, 2003 DEP wrote to CSC LLC that: "[w]hile we may not have any environmental concerns with the operation of the cable in its current condition, we do have significant procedural concerns." The DEP objected to operation during the time required for the CSC to reach authorized depth in those limited areas where the cable system requires further burial. The DEP's objection is based on its interpretation of the depth requirement of its permit as prohibiting operation of the cable system at any other depth, notwithstanding the absence of environmental harm from operation. The DEP referred to this barrier to operation of the cable system in its current location as a "procedural" obstacle to operation and has informed CSC LLC that a new permit would be needed in order for CSC LLC to operate before further burial work is performed. Furthermore, under Connecticut's moratorium, DEP is precluded from considering any new permits for energy projects crossing Long Island Sound. B.
Post-Installation Monitoring Studies Indicate No Significant Impact Pursuant to the conditions of state and federal permits for the CSC, a survey program was developed to monitor the sea bottom under New Haven Harbor and Long Island Sound in connection with the cable system's operation. Survey procedures were developed in conjunction with the Army Corps, DEP, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Connecticut Bureau of Aquaculture. The program consists of four monitoring surveys, at 6 months, 12 months, 18 months and 30 months after initial cable system installation in May 2002. The first two surveys, conducted in fall 2002 and spring 2003, were reviewed by Charles H. Evans, the Director of DEP's Office of Long Island Sound Programs, who stated: "what we are seeing is within the range we had expected, which are really very minor effects."[5] The 18-month survey, conducted in November and December 2003, was the first survey performed during cable system operation. The report with the results of this survey is attached to my testimony as Exhibit JAD-4. This report concludes that the installation and operation of the CSC has resulted in only minor and short-term effects on bottom-dwelling organisms. More specifically, the recently released report includes scientific data and analysis demonstrating that:
A May 13, 2004 study released by the Bureau of Aquaculture of the Connecticut Department of Agriculture summarizes their pre- and post-installation shellfish analysis program within New Haven Harbor. The Bureau of Aquaculture report suggests that the cable system installation, among other possible sources during the same time period such as effects from parasites or shellfish spawning processes, potentially affected some of the sampling population. Post-installation samples also indicate that these effects have since subsided. The report does not take into consideration, however, the significant effects of sediment dispersed by the first stage (Winter 2002-2003) of the major maintenance dredging project conducted by the Army Corps that took place between the Bureau of Aquaculture's sampling stages. This Bureau of Aquaculture report, along with the benthic monitoring studies, further confirms that the effects of the cable system installation have been minor and short-lived. C. New
Haven Harbor Maintenance Dredging Completed over Cable System Further evidence of the CSC's lack of impact on navigational needs in New Haven Harbor is provided by the Army Corps' recently completed maintenance dredging of the Federal Channel, the first such dredging performed in over a decade. This dredge project took place in stages over the past two winters and required the mechanical dredging of over 650,000 cubic yards of sediment from the Federal Channel and its side slopes. At the same time, several facilities along the harbor coastline are dredging out their berths to remove another 80,000 cubic yards of sediment. CSC LLC worked very closely with the Army Corps while dredging activities were accomplished near and directly above the cable system in several locations, including dredging over the section of cable resting atop unforeseen bedrock. At no time did the cable system pose an obstacle to the dredging, or prevent authorized channel depths from being restored. While this dredging took place, the CSC was fully available and continued to operate under the direction of ISO-New England. CSC LLC appreciated the opportunity to contribute to this successful Army Corps dredge project, and is pleased with the confirmation that the cable system poses no impediment to the maintenance of this important shipping lane. According to the Army Corps permit application to
the DEP, dredging the Federal Channel affected approximately 157 acres of the
harbor bottom. By way of comparison, that area is thirty-one times greater
than the approximate 5 total acres affected by installation of the cable system.
In addition to the much smaller area of impact, installation of the CSC's
cable system was performed by means of a minimally intrusive low-impact water
jetting tool, which placed the cable system to an average depth of over 10 feet
beneath the channel seabed, rather than a mechanical dredge using a large
clamshell bucket. VI.
CONNECTICUT'S 'CATCH-22' EFFECTIVELY BLOCKS OPERATION OF THE CSC WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE PROJECT'S SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS, LACK OF IMPACTS, AND CSC LLC'S
RIGHTS UNDER THE PROJECT'S PERMITS A.
CSC LLC Has Made Repeated Requests to DEP to Either Further Bury or Operate the
CSC CSC LLC has submitted five (5) separate proposals to DEP to either bury the cable to its permitted depth or operate the CSC in its current location with no environmental impact. Despite acknowledging the lack of environmental impacts from operation, DEP has refused to let CSC LLC either bury the cable system deeper or operate, thus creating the classic "Catch 22" situation in which CSC LLC finds itself, as outlined below. Connecticut enacted legislation specifically targeted to prevent CSC from complying with its permits and block the Project from operating. While preventing CSC LLC from complying with or seeking waiver from its permits, Connecticut contemporaneously authorized a major dredging project in the same harbor (New Haven) with exponentially larger environmental impacts, and supports a plan to dump dredge spoils in Long Island Sound. 1.
Connecticut's Moratorium on Energy Projects Crossing Long Island Sound In the spring of 2002, while the Connecticut Attorney General's appeal of the Siting Council approval of the CSC was pending (and ultimately dismissed), the Connecticut legislature passed Public Act 02-7 ("P.A. 02-7"), which enacted a moratorium on the consideration of new applications for electric transmission cables and gas pipelines crossing the Sound and, moreover, retroactively voided permits already granted for electric transmission cables (but not gas pipelines) that had not yet been installed - which was Cross Sound Cable's situation at that time. The class of entities affected by the retroactive provision was a class of one: Cross Sound Cable. The Governor of Connecticut vetoed P.A. 02-7 on April 19, 2002, recognizing in his formal veto message the grave constitutional infirmities of "unfairly penaliz[ing] a company that has followed the [agency approval] process set up by the General Assembly." (April 19, 2002 veto message at 2.) The legislature sustained the veto on April 24, 2002. The legislature then revised the vetoed act and passed a new bill, now Public Act 02-95 ("P.A. 02-95" or the "Moratorium Law"). The Governor signed P.A. 02-95 on June 3, 2002, and the law went into effect on that date, after CSC LLC had obtained all necessary permits to install and operate the cable, and after its initial burial of the cable was completed on May 28, 2002. The Moratorium Law forbade state agencies from "consider[ing] or render[ing] a final decision for any applications relating to electric power line crossings, gas pipeline crossings or telecommunications crossings of Long Island Sound" for one year from the effective date of the statute, during which period a task force was to complete a comprehensive environmental assessment and plan. The law provided that after the task force completed its work, "[a]ny application for an electric power line . . . crossing of Long Island Sound that is considered by any state agency" is to be additionally evaluated based on the results of the task force's study. The task force released its report on June 3, 2003 - the day the moratorium was set to expire. On June 26, 2003, Connecticut enacted legislation that extended the original one-year duration of the moratorium another full year to June 2004. In September 2003, subsequent to the energization of the CSC pursuant to the Secretary of Energy's orders after the August 14, 2003 blackout, Connecticut Governor Rowland called for an evaluation of the impacts of operating the CSC in its present location. DEP responded on October 31, 2003 by issuing a request for proposals from consulting firms to provide an evaluation of the impacts of operating the CSC in its present location. The deadline for responses to this solicitation was December 2003; however, to our knowledge DEP has yet to select a consultant to perform this evaluation. Finally, just this month (May 5), the Connecticut legislature again extended the moratorium by another full year, to June 2005. The Connecticut legislature approved extension of the moratorium is spite of the opposition from both the DEP and the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control ("DPUC"). In testifying on the effects of extending the moratorium on March 12, 2004, DEP Commissioner Rocque indicated that as both Chairman of the Connecticut Energy Advisory Board ("CEAB") and DEP Commissioner, both DEP and CEAB opposed extension of the moratorium. Chairman Downes of the DPUC further testified: I'd
like to stress to you in the strongest possible terms that a continuing
moratorium here is -- has very bad effects, it has immediately bad electrical
effects, it has immediately bad financial effects, and over the long term, we'll
lose any opportunity at all to control these issues. (Transcript
of March 12, 2004 public hearing before the Environment Committee of the
Connecticut General Assembly, page 16.) 2.
CSC LLC's Petitions to DEP The permits issued by the DEP and the Army Corps grant CSC LLC a period of time to complete installation work. CSC LLC has submitted a total of five separate requests to either perform further burial work or operate the CSC in its present location. DEP has rejected four of these petitions, and has not acted on CSC LLC's fifth request for almost one year. · REQUEST #1: On November 18, 2002, CSC LLC submitted a request to DEP to bury the cable to the required depth in the several locations within the Federal Channel where the cable system did not rest on bedrock, using installation techniques appropriate for those locations. In its letters dated December 23, 2002 and January 6, 2003, the DEP interpreted the Moratorium Law as prohibiting the agency from issuing a decision on an application to modify the permit conditions. On January 6, 2003 DEP reiterated that "[w]hile we may not have any environmental concerns with the operation of the cable in its current condition, we do have significant procedural concerns." · REQUEST #2: On January 15, 2003, CSC LLC filed a request with the DEP to modify its DEP permit to allow operation of the cable in its current location without any additional environmental impact from further construction or from cable operation, while CSC LLC completed a work plan and obtained necessary authorizations to reach the required burial depth during the life of the permit. That modification would harmonize the permit with the position of the Army Corps, which had stated no objection to operation in these circumstances. While CSC LLC believed that the DEP could grant this request under the existing permit terms, without applying for a certificate of permission ("COP"), CSC LLC included with its request the forms to obtain a COP under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-363b, which, among other things, allows the DEP to approve "minor alterations or amendments to permitted activities consistent with the original permit." DEP again rejected CSC LLC's request by issuing a letter on January 17, 2003 stating that a COP would be needed for CSC LLC to obtain the requested permit modification but that the Moratorium Law prevented the DEP from considering or deciding the merits of an application for a COP relating to a utility crossing of the Long Island Sound.
This
continued pattern of rejection and delay by DEP demonstrates that CSC LLC is
simply not being afforded a fair opportunity to either further bury the cable
system or demonstrate that a waiver of the burial condition, and allowing
operation 'as is where is,' creates no impact to the environment or
navigation. VII.
CONCLUSION CSC
LLC was surprised with Secretary Abraham's decision to rescind his order
authorizing operation of the Cross Sound Cable. As a result, the CSC's
many benefits to Connecticut, New York, and the region are no longer being
realized. The substantial economic benefits and improved reliability
provided by the CSC come at no cost to Connecticut and without any harm to the
environment or threat to navigation in New Haven harbor or elsewhere in Long
Island Sound. Instead of enjoying the CSC's benefits to Connecticut,
Connecticut insists on maintaining a 'Catch-22' under which Connecticut
precludes operation of the CSC on the grounds that certain permit conditions
have not been met (despite acknowledging the lack of impacts from operation)
while at the same time refusing to consider CSC LLC's requests to either
comply with or waive the subject permit conditions. I respectfully urge
the Subcommittee to address this situation by approving legislation that allows
the CSC to resume full commercial operation and provide its substantial benefits
to Connecticut, New York and the Northeast. TABLE OF EXHIBITS Exhibit JAD-1 Summary of Qualifications of Jeffrey A. Donahue Exhibit JAD-2 Affidavit and Exhibits of Jeffrey A. Donahue, submitted to U.S. Department of Energy proceeding on rehearing of Secretary of Energy Order No. 202-03-02; October 27, 2003 Exhibit JAD-3 Affidavit and Exhibits of Dr. Raymond L. Coxe, submitted to U.S. Department of Energy proceeding on rehearing of Secretary of Energy Order No. 202-03-02; October 27, 2003 Exhibit JAD-4 Eighteen Month Post-Installation Benthic Monitoring Survey for the Cross Sound Cable Project; Ocean Surveys, Inc. Report No. 02ES020.4; March 8, 2004
[1]
The DEP permit requires compliance with the permit conditions within 3 years
from the date of issuance of the permit. The Army Corps has, by letter,
authorized operation of the CSC for an indefinite period of time while CSC
works in good faith to address the permit depth requirements.
[2]
ISO-New England, Inc. has stated that the CSC "offers an overall benefit to
New England" because the facility is a "valuable tool" in case the
system faces any additional system instability. Blackout Fails to Subdue
Connecticut's Opposition to Activation of Cross Sound, Power Daily
Northeast, August 20, 2003.
[3]
In Connecticut, automatic CSC responses were on September 2, 15, 23; October
1, 10, 14, 17, 31 (twice); January 6, February 3 and March 5. In New
York, automatic CSC responses were on August 17, September 4, October 14,
March 3 and 5, and May 3.
[4]
This figure does not include the cost of emergency generating facilities that
LIPA has announced will be required to replace the power transmitted by Cross
Sound Cable this summer.
[5]
"Cross-Sound Cable Effects Unclear", Hartford Courant Online (ctnow.com),
November 22, 2003.
Related Documents |
|||||||||||
|
