I use to live out in Western Loudoun and want to return one of these days. I will fight to keep it rural and keep it beautiful. There are other ways that the need for electricity can be reduced. I do not believe that Dominion really needs the line.

Posted by jziska (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

Posted by Wooden_U_Lykteneau (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 9:09 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"I think I join with thousands of Virginians in being slightly outraged today," said Chris Miller, president of the Piedmont Environmental Council. "Obviously, the law is broken if you get this kind of result, and we certainly are going to be raising some issues on appeal."

Memo to Mr. Miller and PEC: it is not an "obvious" breach of law to come to a conclusion different than the one desired by you and your membership.

That sounds like the head of the Citizens' Committee for the Historic Creatively Re-Imaged Cavalry Battles of Aldie, Middleburg and Upperville, when an archaeological review of land in the Middleburg agricultural district turned up no artifacts: "Then they didn't look hard enough!"

The PEC and those whose environment they represent (their own) have every right to lobby the pants off of any and every agency to attempt to keep the low density area looking as if it hadn't progressed a day since the Civil War (another wonderful quote of yore, referencing Route 50--"if a Civil War soldier were to walk down it today..."--And the likelihood of that happening is? By all means, let's devote a boatload of government money to making sure, just in case!).

However, to be honest, then none should commute off of their land except by horse, foot or bicycle.

None should use any power other than solar, wind, hydro or geothermal (most of which did not exist in their current form in the period worshipped).

None should haul large animals around in heavy vans or trailers pulled by large trucks to sporting events far away.

If many (who pay ALL of their taxes on their non-"open space" property and businesses) are to do without power for the sake of the private and protected environment of a small portion of wealthy people, then those opposing power should absolutely walk the walk instead of just wear the outfits when they happen to be in town (for a lobbying visit).

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Those pesky power lines. Would like to type more but I need to drive to my home in Western Loudoun to stoke my wood stove before it goes out and make sure my solar and wind power systems are running fine. Oh, whats that you say; I have a 200AMP Dominion power service to my house? Foiled by technology and time again.

Get over it people. New power, water, gas, and hopefully soon in the future Nuclear is coming. You can't stop time and you can't stop progress. We need to ensure these are done in safe ways but time does not stop nor does progress. Until its only the cockroach on the planet we need power.

Posted by lewandow (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lewandow, when this was first being opposed, a woman from the Prince William Rural Crescent affiliate of PEC did a presentation to the PWC BoS on the need to mandate conservation measures so the line would be unecessary, and as evidence that she was practicing as well as preaching, testified that she personally had replaced ALL 100 LIGHTBULBS in her home with compact fluorescent.

ALL 100? Sounds like a modest rural self-sustaining farm cottage to me!

When a PEC Board member recently flew his new helicopter around the world, he had diesel FLOWN IN to a tiny rural airport in PRISTINE Alaska to keep to his speed schedule.

Conservation is to be mandated for little people. Like taxes.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

p.s. to lewandow--did you ever read Tom Robbins' "Another Roadside Attraction"?

He has a very funny discussion of the probable survivors of nuclear war (or perhaps our ought-age boogeyman version, "global warming...er..cooling...no, warming! Wait! CLIMATE CHANGE!"), and predicts it will be the cockroach, and gonorrhea.

He then asks, what if the cockroach contracts gonorrhea? Will it be a case of the irresistible force meeting the immovable object?

And concludes: "Now THERE'S your Armageddon!"

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It would be different if Dominion was willing to pay the landowners anything remotely like what the cost will turn out to be for the landowner, but they don't. Dhey take an "easement" which means the landowner still owns and pays taxes on land he can no longer use. Then, there are zoning setbacks from the easement where the land also cannot be used, for which Dominion pays nothing.

The additional power means that mre developent can take place - everywhere except in the easement, so it is a boon to other landowners at the expense of those whose land is taken.

The power line may cross directly in front of your home, costing you thousands in value, but if it does not cross your land, you get nothing.

The amount you will be paid is set by the same three judge panel, under eminent domain rules, that approves the power line, and the route. If you sue for a larger settlement, your legal costs are your own - even if you win the suit.

PEC would have done far better with their three million dollars if they had worked to get stronger rules passed to protect landowner values under eminent domain. Their effort was a loser from the start, and it has engendered bad feelings toward all of their efforts, as indicated by some of the remarks here.

This will be a travesty for th elandowners affected, and those that receive the electricity will not be paying its full cost.

Posted by hydra (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

hydra, wasn't it already conceded that the line would follow existing easements as much as possible?

IOW, the conservation easements of some trumped the land value of others now affected?

Yes, the PEC screwed up. They usually do.

Not that they are not eminently successful! As one of their own founding members (later chased out and reviled as a "greedy developer" after the group became little more than a way for fantasy-seeking groupies to protect their own self interest) said: "They are the most effective political force in Virginia."

Unfortunately, as with many "greater good" organizations pontificating from beneath the sacred mantle of "the environment", it is all about self interest, and as such usually ends up harming more people than they help.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want your internet, you'll vote yes.

The datacenters in ashburn, including teh AOL building and other IT powerhouses in the surrounding area, pull a lot of power.

Until we start building and zoning upwards versus the current sprawl method, we will continue to have more usage per person.

Or even better, lets put a nuclear power plant in manassas.

Posted by bradmoser (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wooden... seeing that it isn't in your back yard... I'm SO not surprised by your comment.

As for several of you others that are posting that this or that regarding similar subjects (either for or against), lets talk about reality here and get this discussion back onto where it should be and out of PJM’s closet.

Dominion, et al didn't even entertain the possibility of burying the power lines along route 66. The argument they used when asked was that it wasn't cost effective; there was no real study, it was just something that they threw out there when cornered on the subject.

If one of you that would rather fire off NIMBY comments or snipe at those who're supposedly against progress were to ever bother to follow the money, you would find quite quickly that PJM needs this line so that they can sell the cheaper power out west of us to the northeast where the REAL money is. You (and I) get to help pay for it along with the rest of the PJM customers so that they can make money off of areas farther up the coast. I'm not one of those who care too much for, or against, capitalists, but I do have to give PJM the wink for their ability to mix this up so much that we "little people" argue points so far off the mark; they're literally laughing themselves to sleep at night.

This has been going on for years. Dire need? No. Dire GREED. This is being forced on us and I'm sure if you check Tim Kaine's pockets, you'll find a little extra in the clip too; with PJM prints all over it... check the recent legislation.

But what do I know; I just sing in a rock band...

Posted by robbfoster (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

One more thing:

I still think conservation is the way to go. Data centers all consolidate and limit their power distribution, but, they are still large in overall size.

Some people don't understand that some of datacenters in Ashburn are the East Coast hub of the U.S. internet.

Maybe if some policticians used their powers for good, they would provide more subsidy, etc, for homes trying to install solarpower. the initial cost is what a lot of people can't get past.

Posted by bradmoser (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by bradmoser
"teh AOL building"

The AOL campus is almost empty at this point.

Posted by croaker69 (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

robbfoster, don't forget the needy greed of the supposed "greens".

You are entitled to believe whatever you like, but don't forget either that the cost of burying the lines means everybody pays for that too whether it is their private "viewshed" or not, and it is often none too kind to the "environment" itself.

When Loudoun was fighting a line on the existing easement of the W&OD trail, they wanted it all buried to save the environment, even though there are EXISTING power towers along the trail already on that existing easement.

The trees everyone was keening over (which also seem to cause a lot of accidents when people forget they are not in the wilderness and careen out into a public road and are hit by cars, and sadly, often killed) would have their root systems destroyed by the trenching to bury, and have died by that method.

As expected, after a titanic battle with multiple suing groups railing about "greed", a small portion of the line was buried as a pilot project, saving the land of a very few "farms" (but not the trail, which still has the existing towers!), and a small modest community will now have towers marching right on through.

Not historic or environmentally sensitive enough, I guess.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

croaker, not the data centers. They perk right along. You're posting, aren't you?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 11:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Good job VA and Dominion it was very much needed.

Posted by Woodbridgeboy (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If anyone bothered to read the SCC decision, then one would be enlightened with the fact that the Commissioners recognized that the opponents to the line brought up reasonable alternatives, but that the State's hands are allegedly tied by VA's involvement with PJM. In plain english, yes, there are alternatives, but we are not allowed to consider them anyway. This is bad for anyone regardless if they live in the country or in a suburban neighborhood. It also demonstrates the VA is way behind the curve with respect to an energy policy that puts conservation and efficiency at the head of the list. The cheapest watt of energy produced is the one that is conserved. The decision paves the way for higher electricity costs for all consumers.

Posted by LoudounModerate (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

Moderate, that is a version.

The state is required to be part of a multistate planning process (i.e. PJM), regulated by the fed through FERC. That's what they said.

They also said that while they were "sympathetic" to PEC, Dominion had demonstrated a clear need.

Yes, conservation puts electricity to better use than simply wasting it (with 100 lightbulbs, even if they are swirly savers?).

The miser's gold keeps him well fed and warm, too, right?

Seriously, I see your point and agree.

What I don't agree with is the "specialness" doctrine of the hypocrites.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I realize all too well that life is not ever going to be fair.

But, the areas that will have a so called "need" for this power are under no obligation to conserve. Why would they start meaningful conservation? Apparently, inter state lines are free a plenty. There has to be enhanced building codes, micro power, plain old conservation, negawatts in these high power areas before we start running lines through the rural landscape.

"Way to Uncle Leo, sticking it to the man"

Posted by UncleLeo (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 12:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara Munsey obviously has a personal issue with PEC, which is fine, but it does not excuse her from actually reading the decision and understanding the repercussions of the current energy non-policy in Virginia. I am not a member of PEC, but it is clear that Virginia needs a comprehensive policy and strategy for future energy use and production. One not influenced by Dominion's money.

Also, by the way, I was thinking Nuclear was a good choice until I learned that the supplies of uranium are limited and an increased market for uranium will lead to higher costs and eventually difficulty in getting uranium.

Posted by melanite (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If Pennsylvania doesn't approve their portion, the project is dead. And the Administrative Law Judges in the PA Public Utility Commission have recommended disapproval, stating that it's clear the project is a ploy to move coal-fired power from Ohio and West Virginia to the east.

But not to worry. If the project is killed here, then Virginia can build their own power plants locally. What's wrong with that?

Posted by July41944 (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's all about money and corporate greed. Dominion wants to sell power out of state Eron style- the line has nothing to do with providing power to Virginians.
.
Pennsylvania doesn't like how this project is shaping out. It ain't over 'till the fat lady sings.....and I'm not talking about Barbara Munsey.
.
Keep fighting the good fight PEC- simple economics are on your side.

Posted by AFF3 (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama said we need more power, but it has to be green. So bury the power lines underground and that will make Obama Happy.

Posted by Funnyguyva (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've read the decision, and yes I do have an issue with a political lobby and money laundry masquerading as an environmental group (which also opposes power plants, by the way. They'll oppose this line on the grounds that power should be produced locally, and if it goes down they'll be back to oppose local power plants--as they've done before).

AFF, I know you have a personal issue with me, which is interesting if we've never met, but do you think commenting on my personal appearance strengthens your arguments?

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Barbara, I was using the fact that they didn't even entertain burying the lines along route 66. They looked back with blank stares and said, rather off balance, that it wasn't cost effective. Yes, there maybe trees who's roots will be damaged and will later end up dead, but it's a far cry better than allowing them to litterally rape the land so that they can sell cheaper power to the north east from Ohio, etc.

So, we end up with this huge line of power towers so that they can get the cheaper power that they "need" and buy their outright lie that PJM and Kaine's people are shoving down our throats... or... we make them realize that we aren't stupid and give them a choice. Bury the lines along 66 if you really think we need the power or forget it. I pretty sure that another study will end up getting done and show that. Wow... we were wrong with that last study and it doesn't look like we need it after all...

But what do I know...

Posted by robbfoster (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm torn on these topics...

Sure, I would rather not see power towers, but here I am using electricity and the Internet. Do I want to give up electricity - not really? They have to get it here some how. I don’t produce much electricity myself.

More effective, higher capacity roads that result in more effective traffic movement - probably a good thing. Route 15 goes from a choked two-lane artery to four lanes, why not, if the existing traffic moves better and reduces peoples commute time and stress levels - OK.

Is a highway through "hallowed ground" less historic on four lanes than on two?

I appreciate the desire to maintain the environment and the beauty of the Virginia countryside, but both sides get pretty rabid over any attempt to accomplish anything.

Everyone wants progress without change...

It's a real exercise in frustration.

Posted by SSColorado (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 9:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

robbfoster, bury the lines along 66 or forget it?

Wow, lots of middle ground there.

I know some people consider Route 66 the Middleburg Bypass, but it isn't always the best way to get anywhere, even if it IS the ONLY local major road that hasn't been the victim of historification.

I was talking about the fight to bury another line along the W&OD. Which would have killed the trees lining the trail, which were held up as the reason needed for burial.

And around and around it goes.

Interesting article at Leesburg Today:
http://leesburg2day.com/articles/2008/10...

The SCC noted that if federal law needs changing with regard to power planning (and the kind of planning the opponents want done isn't enabled under fed law), then maybe that's what Congress should be doing instead of individual members trying an end-run on this line.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 8, 2008 at 11:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wooden - at some point, do you ask yourself this question: If I yell longer and louder than you, will I win?

As per the usual, the extremists on both sides have sufficiently muddied the waters for all of us. On the one hand, the need for greater amounts of power is really hard to argue. On the other hand, destroying scenery for the sake of progress seems absurd. I suspect that the truth and the optimal solution lie somewhere between.

So, VA Power, think about this: imagine a world where you, as a good corporate citizen, are not afraid to spend a little more for a project. Imagine that by doing so, you generate massive amounts of goodwill in the community, because we get to continue to live in a beautiful area AND we get to enjoy the modern luxuries in life. In the end, we will use the power. In the end, you will get your money. But, we will all have lived a little bit nicer because of it.

Ok, maybe I live in a fantasy land. Perhaps I'll just SHOUT MY OPINION so I can win the argument.

Posted by teden (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 9:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Teden, unfortunately you've pretty much nailed it: whoever shouts loudest wins.

That is my main problem with the "greater good" political lobbies. They pay community organizers to be "concerned citizens", and they are amazingly effective in this busy area that YES does need more power.

More people means more services, of all kinds.

Most of us (who will pay the cost of a utility being a "good corporate citizen") don't live in the low density area that will be affected by the line. Yet many (who themselves have increased the demand for power!) seem to feel a stakeholder kinship, as if it is our own secret garden.

It isn't.

And the cost to make us all feel better about it is not something a business just gives away--they pass on the cost.

The people without conservation easements (and the attendant tax breaks) will suffer the most, but we are all told we collectively suffer if someone else even needs to look at it.

And we all use power!

The convenience of cell phones comes with towers! and they have to go somewhere.

The convenience of our computers and other appliances come with electricity! and even if it comes from a windfarm, the turbines have to go somewhere! (Look up the opposition to a West Virginia project that's been stewing for a few years now--the same names fighting this line are opposing the windfarm).

How do the Civil War reenactors get to the encampments (which must not even be within view of anything anachronistic to the War period--no lines, towers, paved roads, etc) in order to play living history, without burning fossil fuel on a paved highway to bring themselves, and their horses, in cars, trucks, vans, trailers?

A clear need has convinced the SCC.

It remains to be seen who will shout the loudest in PA.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

We need to focus on local, clean, renewable sources of energy- like solar panels on rooftops and wind, not dirty power plants and power lines. We need to reject the paradigm that electricity must be generated en masse by big dirty power plants and then transported to customers via lines- that poses a HUGE national security risk. If a terrorist takes out one of them out, electricity flows will be disrupted, but if you have a solar panel on your house then it doesn't really matter what goes on in WV or PA. We need to use energy efficiently instead of wasting it like we do now. And Barbara, how about doing something proactive instead of going into a tizzy about the PEC? We're all in this energy mess together.

Posted by jchristopher42 (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

jchris, that's why I'm glad that HOAs can no longer ban solar--they can only talk about placement and appearance.

Much like ol' tizzified PEC, which cares so very much about how things look that they don't seem to care whether they actually work or not.

Yes, we are all in this together, and until the paradigm shifts and the stars align and the new age dawns, economies and homes need power.

Right now, it is generated in somebody else's backyard for sure, and if possible, transmitted through somebody else's backyard.

But read the Loudoun local papers whenever there's a storm and power goes out: some of the most protected places lose it for days, and the outcry is enormous.

Funny how electricity is supposed to be so reliable without any infrastructure!

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dominion exaggerated the need for the line by skewing their data, and PA's commissioners are the only ones with the guts to call them out on it. The electricity isn't intended for us, it's for New York, and I don't think Virginians should have to pay that price. Homes and economies have so much power available as it is that they WASTE IT. How about instead of calling for more generation, we improve efficiency and increase conservation? And your point about the storms just proved mine - when your system relies on moving electricity from one place to another, you are more vulnerable to problems like outages. It's like a string of Christmas lights - if one burns out far down the line, then they all go out. If you had your own solar panel, wind turbine, geothermal pump, or whatever your flavor then you are not at the mercy of what happens miles away. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a greenie by any means, I just think that we need to have REAL solutions to our energy dilemma. Building more power plants, more power lines, increasing dependency on fossil fuels, and increasing reliance on remotely generated electricity just exacerbates the problem, not solves it.

Posted by jchristopher42 (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 5:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I wholeheartedly agree with more generation, and much more of solar, wind, hydro etc.

I have none too sanguine hopes that the organization protesting this primarily on how their fragile and special backyard will be visually impacted will support turbines, panels dams etc anywhere but some mythical place else.

Out west, hydroelectric dams are being challenged as interfering with fish. Shouldn't we have the technology to accommodate the fish AND produce clean power with the water? I read not long ago that a dam had actually been torn out. What a stupid step backwards.

I am not in the rural area--my powerlines ARE buried, because the evil greedy developer who built the community I live in made it part of the infrastructure. Consequently I seldom lose power--I've lived here more than eleven years now and still am not out of fingers and toes in counting the times it's gone out. We don't leave things running, are frugal with our lights, and have WAY fewer than 100 bulbs total in the home!

My community was and still is protested by the very same folks.

I am not so quick to believe that the power is all for New York. The facile disinformation that circulates in NoVA makes for good email soundbites, but often has little substance when the selective information is read in full context.

Posted by BarbaraMunsey (anonymous) on October 9, 2008 at 5:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

We all need to convert to Amish

Posted by bigbill20176 (anonymous) on October 16, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)