ADVERTISEMENT 2
ADVERTISEMENT 3
Error: No articles to display
ADVERTISEMENT 1
ADVERTISEMENT 4
AUSTIN, TEXAS, May 16, 2013 --The Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT) unanimously approved May 9 an application by Electric Transmission Texas, LLC (ETT) for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) to build a 345-kV transmission line from the Laredo area into the Rio Grande Valley.
The transmission project includes construction of approximately 156 miles of 345-kV transmission lines that will connect ETT’s Lobo Substation near Laredo with substations north of Edinburg and will add two new substations along the line route. The cost of the project is estimated at approximately $318 million.
In approving the CCN application, the PUCT also approved a unanimous settlement with nearly 100 landowners along the route, the PUCT staff and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The new transmission line from the Laredo to the Edinburg area will cross portions of Webb, Zapata, Starr and Hidalgo counties. ETT plans to construct the transmission line on steel single-pole structures, an approach overwhelmingly supported by landowners.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) determined Oct. 11, 2011, that the project is critical for the reliability of the ERCOT system and, specifically, the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Currently, there are only two 345-kV transmission lines serving the Valley. Both of the existing lines import power from the Corpus Christi area and run parallel to the Gulf Coast, which means both are vulnerable to hurricanes and other severe weather. Work to upgrade those two lines already is underway and should be complete this summer.
“I am very pleased that so many groups were able to reach the unanimous settlement regarding the route,” said ETT President Calvin Crowder. “Approval of the
CCN is a significant step to ensuring continued transmission reliability in the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo areas. We now will begin right-of-way acquisition and detailed engineering for the project, with actual construction anticipated to begin in 2014. Area residents will begin enjoying the benefits of the project in 2016.”
ETT is a joint venture between subsidiaries of American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) and MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. The joint venture acquires, constructs, owns and operates transmission facilities within ERCOT, primarily in and around the AEP Texas Central Company and AEP Texas North Company service territories.
AEP, headquartered in Columbus, Ohio, is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, delivering electricity to more than 5.3 million customers in 11 states. AEP (www.aep.com) has extensive experience building extra-high-voltage 765-kV transmission lines and owns the nation’s largest electricity transmission system, a nearly 40,000-mile network that includes 2,100 miles of 765-kV transmission lines, more than all other U.S. transmission systems combined. AEP’s transmission system directly or indirectly serves about 10 percent of the electricity demand in the Eastern Interconnection, the interconnected transmission system that covers 38 eastern and central U.S. states and eastern Canada, and approximately 11 percent of the electricity demand in ERCOT, the transmission system that covers much of Texas.
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company provides electric and natural gas service to more than 7 million customers worldwide, operates an extensive 18,000-mile electric transmission system, a natural gas local distribution system, and interstate natural gas pipeline systems totaling nearly 17,000 miles. Learn more at www.midamerican.com.
# # #
This report made by American Electric Power and its Registrant Subsidiaries contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although AEP and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries believe that their expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, any such statements may be influenced by factors that could cause actual outcomes and results to be materially different from those projected. Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are: the economic climate, growth or contraction within and changes in market demand and demographic patterns in AEP’s service territory; inflationary or deflationary interest rate trends; volatility in the financial markets, particularly developments affecting the availability of capital on reasonable terms and developments impairing AEP’s ability to finance new capital projects and refinance existing debt at attractive rates; the availability and cost of funds to finance working capital and capital needs, particularly during periods when the time lag between incurring costs and recovery is long and the costs are material; electric load, customer growth and the impact of retail competition, particularly in Ohio; weather conditions, including storms and drought conditions, and AEP’s ability to recover significant storm restoration costs through applicable rate mechanisms; available sources and costs of, and transportation for, fuels and the creditworthiness and performance of fuel suppliers and transporters; availability of necessary generating capacity and the performance of AEP’s generating plants; AEP’s ability to recover increases in fuel and other energy costs through regulated or competitive electric rates; AEP’s ability to build or acquire generating capacity and transmission lines and facilities (including the ability to obtain any necessary regulatory approvals and permits) when needed at acceptable prices and terms and to recover those costs (including the costs of projects that are cancelled) through applicable rate cases or competitive rates; new legislation, litigation and government regulation, including oversight of nuclear generation, energy commodity trading and new or heightened requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, carbon, soot or particulate matter and other substances, or additional regulation of fly ash and similar combustion products that could impact the continued operation and cost recovery of AEP’s plants and related assets; evolving public perception of the risks associated with fuels used before, during and after the generation of electricity, including nuclear fuel; a reduction in the federal statutory
tax rate that could result in an accelerated return of deferred federal income taxes to customers; timing and resolution of pending and future rate cases, negotiations and other regulatory decisions, including rate or other recovery of new investments in generation, distribution and transmission service and environmental compliance; resolution of litigation; AEP’s ability to constrain operation and maintenance costs; AEP’s ability to develop and execute a strategy based on a view regarding prices of electricity, coal, natural gas and other energy-related commodities; prices and demand for power that AEP generates and sells at wholesale; changes in technology, particularly with respect to new, developing or alternative sources of generation; AEP’s ability to recover through rates or market prices any remaining unrecovered investment in generating units that may be retired before the end of their previously projected useful lives; volatility and changes in markets for electricity, coal, natural gas and other energy-related commodities; changes in utility regulation, including the implementation of Electric Security Plans and the transition to market and expected legal separation for generation in Ohio and the allocation of costs within regional transmission organizations, including PJM and SPP; AEP’s ability to successfully manage negotiations with stakeholders and obtain regulatory approval to terminate the Interconnection Agreement; changes in the creditworthiness of the counterparties with whom AEP has contractual arrangements, including participants in the energy trading market; actions of rating agencies, including changes in the ratings of AEP debt; the impact of volatility in the capital markets on the value of the investments held by AEP’s pension, other postretirement benefit plans, captive insurance entity and nuclear decommissioning trust and the impact on future funding requirements; accounting pronouncements periodically issued by accounting standard-setting bodies; and other risks and unforeseen events, including wars, the effects of terrorism (including increased security costs), embargoes, cyber security threats and other catastrophic events.
AUSTIN, Texas (AP)
Local governments and school districts that offer marriage benefits to same-sex partners are violating the state constitution, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott stated in an opinion Monday. The cities of Austin, El Paso and Forth Worth already offer some benefits to domestic partners, while Pflugerville, outside Austin, became the state's first school district to extend similar benefits. Tea party-backed state Sen. Dan Patrick of Houston asked Abbott, a fellow Republican, to review the matter in November. Patrick argued that Texas amended its constitution in 2005 to define marriage as between one man and one woman, while prohibiting government entities from recognizing anything similar to marriage. In a six-page opinion, Abbott found that the constitution "prohibits political subdivisions from creating a legal status of domestic partnership and recognizing that status by offering public benefits based upon it." He said city governments and school districts constitute political subdivisions. In a statement, Patrick said the measure, known as the Marriage Amendment, was passed by "an overwhelming majority of the Texas Legislature and ratified by more than 75 percent of Texas voters. "This opinion clearly outlines that cities, counties and school districts cannot subvert the will of Texans," Patrick said. Amanda Brim, a spokesman for Pflugerville Independent School District, said of Monday's opinion, "We're just reviewing it and have no response at this point." Texas Values, a conservative advocacy group, claimed that Austin Independent School District was "attempting to be the second school district in Texas to give legal recognition to domestic partnerships." "General Abbott's opinion now makes it clear, Pflugerville ISD and other local governmental entities in Texas are in clear violation of the Texas Constitution," said the group's president, Jonathan Saenz. "Pflugerville ISD and Austin ISD are teaching their students a terrible lesson about the importance of following the law if these rogue school districts don't immediately end their unconstitutional policy." Saenz's group is backing House Bill 1568, a proposal that states that offering benefits to same-sex domestic partners "is essentially contrary" to the Marriage Amendment. It seeks to revoke accreditation status and even state funding to any school district that violates the constitution. No so fast, said Rebecca L. Robertson, legal and policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas. "The attorney general's opinion that government employers who offer domestic partner benefits are somehow in conflict with the Texas Constitution's definition of marriage is just that — an opinion — and we strongly disagree with him," Robertson said in a statement Monday. "Contrary to the AG's reasoning, giving an employee the ability to purchase insurance coverage for his or her family does not create a legal relationship even remotely similar to marriage."
JIM VERTUNO, Associated Press
AUSTIN, Texas (AP)
One of the top pro-gun bills before Texas lawmakers this session was green-lighted Monday for a House floor vote this weekend, and a top backer predicted approval there for the plan to allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry their handguns into college classrooms. The Calendars Committee scheduled the floor vote for Saturday in the House. Getting the bill even that far is a significant development for supporters of an issue that erupted into one of the most contentious of the session two years ago. In 2011, the issue died without a vote in the House despite a majority of member signing on in support. This year, the House version of the bill would eliminate the current ban on concealed weapons at colleges and universities, but it still allows public schools to ban weapons if they first meet with students, faculty and staff to consider their input. Private schools would be allowed to opt in. Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Van, one of the primary authors of the bill, said the opt-out language has softened opposition from higher education officials who worry that allowing guns on campus will increase campus violence and suicide. He said he expects the House will approve it but declined to discuss its prospects in the Senate. "I think it will pass," in the House, Flynn said Monday. "Texas is a rural state ... Most of the opposition has been in Austin." The Senate version of the bill has not been scheduled for a vote, and its prospects in the final month of the session in that chamber are uncertain. The Senate passed a similar version of the bill in 2011 after a vigorous debate, but only after it was added to another bill as an amendment. Doing that allowed supporters to bypass a Senate rule that requires at least 21 of 31 senators to agree to vote on a bill. University of Texas System Chancellor Francisco Cigarroa earlier this year wrote a letter to Gov. Rick Perry urging a guns on campus bill not pass. Cigarroa's letter said students, parents, faculty and campus police worry that allowing guns into classrooms will create a culture of fear among students and teachers. John Woods, a University of Texas graduate student whose girlfriend Maxine Turner was killed in a 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, called the bill part of "an ideological agenda having nothing to do with campus safety." "The bill authors cite Virginia Tech but refuse to hear the Virginia Tech survivors, all of whom are opposed to guns in classrooms," Woods said. Texas is one of the strongest gun-rights states in the country and has allowed concealed handgun licenses since 1995. License holders must be at least 21 years old and pass a training course. Texas has more than 500,000 concealed handgun license holders and they are allowed to carry their weapons many places, including the state Capitol where simply showing their license to security will allow them to bypass metal detectors.