[D]evelopers who want to run a major power line under Lake Champlain say they are being asked to make unnecessary upgrades to the Vermont grid that would drive up the cost.
According to the developers of the Vermont Green Line, the recommendation came in a study of the project’s impact on the grid. The study is required by ISO-New England, which oversees energy transmission in the region, and carried out by VELCO, the operator of power lines in Vermont.
The study is not being made public. The Public Service Board granted the developers’ request to seal it on the grounds that parts of it contain federally designated critical energy infrastructure information.
Vermont Green Line needs to reach an agreement with ISO-New England in advance of hearings on the request to build the project before the PSB. A prehearing conference was held last week.
According to Joe Rossignoli, spokesperson for National Grid, the lead developer, the system impact study broadly outlines two upgrades to the transmission system, one of which the developer disagrees with. Though he didn’t discuss the details of the study, Rossignoli said it “required some very aggressive assumptions around availability of resources in northwest Vermont.” Those assumptions would require unnecessary transmission system upgrades, Rossignoli said.
The study also recommended improvements to the VELCO substation in New Haven, which the developers do not take issue with. The currently proposed Vermont Green Line project would transmit 400 megawatts of wind and hydropower from northern New York and Canada to the New England market. The 60-mile cable would run from Beekmantown, New York, under Lake Champlain and end at a converter station in New Haven. Rossignoli said the cost is estimated at $650 million.
“The additional upgrade outside of the substation we deeply disagree with,” Rossignoli said. The disputed improvements could cost the developers more than $120 million, according to two sources familiar with the matter.
Though the entirety of the study does not fall within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s definition of critical infrastructure information, the Public Service Board approved the developers’ request that the document remain under seal. Vermont Green Line’s comments to the board on the study are also confidential.
According to the board’s protective order, the developers argued that the document meets guidelines for secrecy because it includes details about geographic locations, circuit identifiers, engineering notes and voltage levels affecting the proposed project. “Green Line maintains that the information could be used by a third party wishing to do harm or to severely damage critical electric system assets,” the Public Service Board wrote.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission imposed restrictions on information related to so-called critical infrastructure after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Critical energy infrastructure information is broadly defined and includes documents pertaining to proposed or existing infrastructure that may reveal details about energy transmission or distribution or that could be used by a person planning a terrorist attack. If documents meet the criteria they are exempt from mandatory disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.
Louise Porter, an attorney with the Department of Public Service, said requests to keep impact studies under seal for large energy projects are not uncommon. “It’s not unusual when you have a big transmission project like this,” she said.
Rossignoli acknowledged that not all the information in the system impact study would be considered sensitive. He said it’s possible at some point that parts of the document could be made public. “We wouldn’t want to nor would we have control over whatever’s made public through the FERC process,” Rossignoli said.
Richard Saudek, an environmental lawyer who represented the town of New Haven in its negotiations with the developers, said the energy transmission business has gotten much more secretive in recent years.
“With concerns about the threat of harm to electric transmission and generation systems, protective agreements have become more common,” Saudek said. “This sometimes limits the public’s knowledge of details in cases involving power facilities.”
In late October it was announced that Vermont Green Line had failed to win a major contract to supply energy to several New England states. National Grid says it will continue to pursue the project and that the lack of an end purchaser has not altered the development schedule.
With the exception of Ferrisburgh, the Vermont Green Line project has reached agreements with all of the towns through which the transmission line would run. Rossignoli said he expects negotiations with Ferrisburgh to be finalized within the first quarter of next year.
