BLOG

Updates and Commentary on Wrongview

Now Longview wants more

It's not enough that Longview Power, LLC received a tax break and is not giving the Public Service Commission all the information it requested. Now in late 2007 they want to submit a Letter of Credit, that must be renewed every year and becomes the PSC's responsibility (in other words, the public's responsibility), instead of the agreed-upon escrow account. They aren't satified with getting away with disregarding the PSC's Orders; they always ask for more more more... The PSC has so far told them they must stick with the original agreement, but Longview Power continues to push the Letter of Credit issue. When will the PSC finally tell Longview to obey their Orders or have the permit rescinded?

The Real Cost of Electricity from Coal

The people at ilovemountains.org have used Google Earth in a creative way. See their photo gallery, slideshows, and videos.

Marsh Fork Elementary School
(click image for link)

What's Left of Kayford Mountain

Coal is a dinosaur; can the proposed Longview survive in an age of carbon caps?

With all the talk about global warming and carbon storage/sequestration, will the coal-fired Longview Power plant be financially viable?

Construction Trailers and Temporary Structures

have been built on the property for the proposed Longview power plant. So far, none of the permanent structures are in place. Construction seems to be moving slowly (November 2007).

Longview gets slapped by the PSC for calling everything a "trade secret"

"Staff believes Longview needs to provide more information than the above filings are trade secrets as Staff believes these filings do not contain any specialized knowledge.

...

... Longview should have been much more diligent prior to filing its documents. The Public Service Commission should rarely protect information so as to keep the information away from the public. Thus, the Commission should not be put in a position of holding information while Longview takes its time to decide what information is in the public domain and what information is not. More importantly, Longview should NOT file information under seal and simply wait for another party or a member of the public to “catch” Longview and note a document is in the public domain or does not otherwise fall within an exemption of FOIA or meet the test set forth above for determining whether a document should be accorded protective treatment. ... Longview should also provide a more detailed description of the items that are being filed under seal.

Thus, Staff recommends that the Commission direct Longview to clean up the March, April, and May 2007 filings within ten days of a Commission order as recommended above by Staff. If Longview does not resubmit the information under Longview’s revised approach within ten (10) days of a Commission order, then the Commission should return all documents filed under seal in March, April and May 2007.

The Staff is aware that the Commission stated in its June 26, 2006 order on page 131 at footnote 23 :
For the purposes of this Commission Order only, the following site activities are not considered ‘commencement of construction’ : siting clearing and grading activities, geotechnical investigations, environmental investigations, or installation of site fencing and construction trailers. However, prior to beginning any site activities, Longview shall comply with all pre-construction and construction noise conditions.

If Longview is engaging in other activities than those listed above and if the Commission returns all filings made under seal in March, April and May 2007, then Staff recommends that the Commission order Longview to cease and desist from any construction activities (other than those listed in footnote 23 quoted above) until it is able to refile the information required in Condition 1.j. of the Commission’s June 26, 2007 order. Additionally, given the issues being raised by Longview and the Born Intervenors, Longview should be required to file a verified statement that all preconstruction conditions set forth in the Commission’s June 26, 2006, and August 27, 2004 orders have been met. Lastly, Longview should be required to file a motion with each filing that it seeks protective treatment. Staff continues to believe that the Commission cannot provide protective treatment to future filings without having knowledge of what information those filings will contain.

May Longview make monthly filings to meet Condition I.j.?
... The Commission in its June 26, 2006 order stated as Condition 1.j. (a preconstruction condition): At least 120 days prior to beginning construction Longview shall provide detailed blueprints for the EWG project. What Longview is requesting is a modification of the condition. Staff has no objection to Longview’s request as Staff believes that Longview must design and build a plant that meets the conditions and requirements of the Commission’s June 26, 2006, and August 27, 2004 orders. Otherwise, Longview risks the Commission directing Longview to take actions, which could include, not operating the plant, until an issue is addressed. However, Staff believes it would have been more appropriate for Longview to have filed a motion with the Commission requesting that the Commission modify Condition 1.j. instead of just filing the documents and explaining why it was filing those documents in that manner."

Hearing Goes Well for NoLongview Plaintiffs in Federal Court

Opponents to Longview get a fair hearing in Federal court on February 23, 2007. Longview is left scrambling and resorts to threats against Plaintiffs' attorney.

Legal Complaint against Longview and others filed in Federal Court

USEPA also notified that Air Permit is invalid

A Complaint was filed yesterday, February 13, 2007, in the United State District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Clarksburg) on behalf of the Plaintiffs Jarrett F. Jamison III, the Fort Martin Community Association, and the Forks of Cheat Forest Property Owners Association.

This is Civil Action No. 1:07-cv-20, and names Longview Power, LLC and six other Defendants. This citizen legal suit alleges that the Air Quality Permit R14-0024 for the proposed 600 MW power plant in the Cass District of Monongalia County expired on September 2, 2005. The legal suit seeks a restraining order and injunction to stop actual construction until the Defendants have a valid permit from the WV Division of Air Quality.

Longview Power, LLC is owned by GenPower Holdings, LP, which is jointly owned by GenPower, LLC and the First Reserve Corporation. These latter companies along with three other companies intending to provide equipment and construction services were named in the Complaint. Each of the seven Defendants is being served with notice of the Complaint, and each will have 30 days in which to reply.

Representatives of the Plaintiffs appeared before the Monongalia County Commission earlier today to inform the Commissioners of this action and to explain and review details of this Complaint. These same Plaintiffs had filed an Appeal of this Air Permit with the WV Air Quality Board in the Spring of 2003.

LONGVIEW WANTS TO INCREASE IN SIZE! Says permit modification not necessary... December 2006

In a letter to the WV Public Service Commission, Longview says it wants to increase in size another 95 megawatts, but does not need to modify its permit! How can an almost 16% increase in electricity generation not result in an increase noise and air pollution emissions? Longview admits it will need more cooling water and larger buildings, but says nothing else will change. The PSC did not permit a 695 MW facility; it permitted a 600 MW facility.

Longview should not be granted this waiver!

Please write a quick note to the PSC asking them not to grant Longview a waiver for this increase in size! You may know the address by heart by now, but here it is again. Please include the Case Numbers in your letter:

Public Service Commission of West Virginia
c/o Ms. Sandra Squire, Executive Secretary
PO Box 812
Charleston WV 25323

Case Numbers 05-1467-E-CN and 03-1860-E-CS-CN Longview Power

November 2006: Community of Fort Martin Appeals Longview Stormwater Permit

The Fort Martin Community Association appealed the flawed stormwater permit granted to the proposed Longview project by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).The appeal includes some of the following issues:

The permit was granted despite the fact that the Longview provided incomplete, incorrect, and misleading information on its applications and supporting documentation. The financing of the proposed power plant is uncertain, the ownership of the proposed plant is uncertain, the design of the proposed plant is uncertain, and the “factual information” about the plant is still evolving, yet DEP issued a permit.

Missing or incomplete information includes incorrect names of receiving streams, ignoring streams that would be destroyed by the proposed power plant, if built, the presence of old wells acting as conduits between land surface and ground water, and general disregard for and destruction of historic sites and springs. Erosion and sedimentation runoff were inadequately characterized and provided for in the application and permit.

The claim of “ZERO DISCHARGE” is impractical. The proposed Longview will supposedly have 14…, 18…, who-knows-how-many cooling towers, flue-gas desulfurization unit(s), and multiple chemical processing steps with over 80 distinct chemical substances, ye it claims it will discharge no fluids.

The permit provides inadequate information regarding the partially remediated water proposed to come by pipeline from underground coal mines in Pennsylvania into West Virginia to the proposed plant. Another pipeline is proposed to transport contaminated water back into Pennsylvania after it has been run through the proposed power plant. No discussion of water quality for either of these flows is presented and no consideration of the proposed pipeline transporting the water is included in the permit. If the pipelines rupture, pumps fail, or some other accident causes a discharge of this untreated and partially treated water, local streams will be substantially impacted.

Contaminated runoff from coal, ash, limestone, flue-gas desulfurization, and other wastes was not addressed and the amount of runoff not specified. The ground-water protection plan is inadequate, and sanitary sewer wastes were not adequately addressed in the permit.

No systematic permitting process exists for this type of permit. The public comment process and the public hearing responses were inadequate. DEP provided poor public access to information at its offices and its files were poorly organized. Making copies of large-format maps is impractical (digital copies were supposedly “lost”), and the Freedom of Information Act conditions have been used to deter public access to files.

The proposed power plant must also deal with issues of wetlands preservation, historic sites, archaeological assets, streambed preservation and protection, rare and endangered species protection, air-quality maintenance, and others, yet no coordination with other State agencies, neighboring states, or the federal government was conducted to ensure the interests of the public are protected.

Longview recently proposed major changes to the project AFTER the permit was issued. These changes include foreign ownership and an increase in power output from 600 to 695 megawatts, with the plant using about 12% more water than previously estimated. This would increase the size of some building and cause other significant changes. None of this was addressed in the application or the permit.

State Supreme Court Chooses not to Hear Appeal, Oct. 24, 2006

Concerned Citizens, CALP, CLEAR, CRD and other challenge the Public Service Commissions conditional Siting Certificate and Transmission Line permit.

Allegheny Power says electricity rates will increase because of Longview!

Read Allegheny's legal brief to the PSC here.

LONGVIEW IN TROUBLE! February 24, 2006: PSC Staff Rips Longview!

In a response to Longview, the PSC Staff lets Longview have it for late filings and other bad behavior. Read it here.

Show Me the $$$ ...

One of the PSC's requirements that Longview still refuses to address is proof that the Longview project is financially viable. Read the full story here.

March 21, 2006: Public Service Commission will hold a Court Hearing in Charleston

The PSC is tired of Longview late and incomplete answers. Contact us if you would like to attend and need a ride to Charleston.

February 21, 2006: PSC's Public Hearing in Morgantown

December 23, 2005: Longview re-files map to WV Public Service Commission for transmission-line permit. Says original map had power line in wrong place.

Your letters are needed. See right sidebar for links to talking points.

October 13, 2005: Longview applies to WV Public Service Commission for transmission-line permit.

Longview also says it has met the information requirements for a final Siting Certificate. CALP disagrees.

August 2005: CALP Appeals Circuit Court Ruling over the Longview Power Plant's Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) Agreement to the WV Supreme Court

A diverse group of citizens' organizations and individuals appeals the local court's decision to the State Supreme Court.

SITE CHOSEN FOR NEW UNIVERSITY HIGH SCHOOL

The Monongalia County (West Virginia) Board of Education (BOE) recently announced its preferred location for the new University High School. The new school will have an incredible view of the Longview Power Plant, a project it unanimously endorsed at its June 18, 2003 meeting.

Below is a suggestion for the new school's design: