Michael Roston

BIO

Michael Roston

The Huffington Post

Crossed Power Lines: Clinton Opposes Energy Project Promoted By Top Strategist's Firm

October 18, 2007 04:12 PM


stumbleupon :Crossed Power Lines: Clinton Opposes Energy Project Promoted By Top Strategist's Firm   digg: Crossed Power Lines: Clinton Opposes Energy Project Promoted By Top Strategist's Firm   reddit: Crossed Power Lines: Clinton Opposes Energy Project Promoted By Top Strategist's Firm   del.icio.us: Crossed Power Lines: Clinton Opposes Energy Project Promoted By Top Strategist's Firm

2007-10-18-clintontower08.jpgHillary Clinton's top strategist Mark Penn gave his candidate a black eye after it was revealed that the public relations firm he heads helped Blackwater officials prepare for recent congressional hearings. While the campaign may have controlled any damage from the revelation, Penn's firm continues to assist an energy corporation closer to home that citizens in Pennsylvania accuse of using strong-arm tactics to promote a controversial 240-mile long extension of electricity lines through their communities.

Allegheny Energy is seeking to build 210 miles of 500-kilovolt transmission lines from southwestern Pennsylvania through West Virginia, where they will connect with a related expansion effort planned by Dominion Power of Virginia. Community activists and political leaders in the states have strongly objected to the power line route, known as the Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line, or TrAIL.

In the hopes of managing the opposition so that the massive infrastructure project can move forward, Allegheny boasts that it "signed a contract in September [2006] with Burson-Marsteller, a major public relations firm with offices in the U.S. and Canada....[to] assist the company on a number of fronts, including preparation of materials for the public and conducting research." Clinton's strategist Penn has served as worldwide CEO of Burson since December 2005.

Allegheny Energy was not eager to speak with the Huffington Post about its relationship with the PR company. "That's not a concern of yours," David Neurohr, a spokesman at Allegheny Energy, tersely answered when asked Friday about the nature of the relationship between the two companies.

The project is part of a proposed Mid-Atlantic corridor within the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, a federal effort to avert a future blackout like the one that turned off the lights across much of the country's northeast in 2003.

The proposed power line corridors have provoked controversy across the region. After the Energy Department proposed a route through her state, Clinton spoke out strongly against the establishment of the so-called New York Regional Interconnect.

"I and my constituents have repeatedly voiced our concerns regarding the economic and environmental impact of the proposed New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) route," she wrote in a letter to Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman in May. "I continue to oppose the proposed NYRI route. I support the ongoing review process within New York State and will continue to push the DOE and FERC to respect it. NYRI should not be allowed to short-circuit the state's rigorous review and citing process."

But the Clinton campaign didn't see any reason for concern about Penn's firm representing Allegheny Energy.

"Mark has never worked on this account," said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in a Tuesday e-mail. "Obviously our position has not been impacted in any way by Burson's role."

The National Interest Electric Transmission Corridor was a policy response to the 2003 blackout that pitched large portions of the U.S. northeast into darkness. Various corridors have been designated for power line expansions in the context of the NIETC. Under the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which Senator Clinton voted against, energy companies can file eminent domain claims in federal courts if states refuse to approve proposed power line expansions. This authority was originally called for in Vice President Dick Cheney's controversial 2001 Energy Task Force report.

The TrAIL project seeks to play an important role in the proposed Mid-Atlantic Corridor. If completed, it will provide energy from power plants in Pennsylvania to customers in Virginia and other parts of the eastern seaboard (another part of the project will also provide power locally over smaller lines in Pennsylvania).

But the company still needs to persuade the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to approve the program. And after months of advertisements, public testimony, and company-sponsored open houses, whether or not construction will go forward still remains up for grabs. Driven by local outrage, Pennsylvania politicians have backed strong opposition to Allegheny Energy's plans.

Senators Arlen Specter (R) and Bob Casey (D) sent a letter on October 2 to the Energy Secretary objecting to the placement of new power lines in 50 of the state's 67 counties.

"This is very damaging to Pennsylvania," Specter added in a small handwritten note to Bodman in the margin of the letter.

While touring counties where Allegheny Energy's proposed route would pass last week, Senator Casey also pledged to support his constituents in their efforts to block construction of the TrAIL.

"This will be a long, tough fight, but we are going to keep fighting," he told a local paper, the Uniontown Herald-Standard.

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), whose district will be affected by the project, said in September that he "remains concerned about the potential hazards of locating these high-power lines close to existing homes and communities, as well as the impact the lines will have on property values."

While state politicians and the senators wouldn't directly comment on the efforts of Allegheny Energy to promote the program, county-level politicians and community activists are sharply critical.

"They're sending out propaganda in every electric bill on how this line is needed," said Pam Snyder, the Chairwoman of the Washington County Commission in Pennsylvania. "They say that you better build this if you want the lights to come on when you flick the switch. They're using fear tactics, and all I know is that there is no need for this line locally, this is about generating power to DC and Virginia, it's about putting electricity on national grid and making a buck."

Energy Firm Accused Of Pollution, Strong Arm Tactics To Build Line

Allegheny Energy's background makes the company's quest for help in strategic communications understandable.

First, though dealing in a state with a Democratic governor and route proposed that primarily runs through Democratic-represented congressional districts, Allegheny's political giving trends Republican. While the company's political action committee has backed both Democrats and Republicans in Congressional elections, the company's executives collectively gave $5,500 to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in June. The Allegheny PAC also gave $5,000 President George W. Bush's election in 2000.

The publicly traded utility earns $3 billion in annual revenues, supplying power to parts of Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Maryland, and Virginia.

Allegheny produces 95% of its power via the 19 million tons of coal it burns every year. Its heavy use of coal has resulted in criticisms of the company, such as its inclusion on the Political Economy Research Institute's Toxic 100 list. Based on 2002 Environmental Protection Agency data, Allegheny Energy was ranked the 82nd highest corporate air polluter, and data published at Allegheny's own website shows that its annual toxic releases have increased since that time.

Still, the environmental and health costs of the project are difficult to measure in any way that isn't speculative. Some residents along the route fear the clearing of forest and the use of herbicides to control vegetation underneath the towers, some of which will be 160 feet tall. The towers would also obstruct rural scenery. Others worry that the electromagnetic fields from the wires will make them sick. But the final route is not yet set in place, so the real environmental impact cannot yet be assessed.

2007-10-18-greenecotrailroute.jpgIn the meantime, citizens in the path of the TrAIL worry about the economic impact of the project.

"What will happen in our particular community if the towers come is that some families will be trapped because they cannot afford to move," said Laurie Nicholl of Eighty Four, Pennsylvania. She helped start the group Stop The Towers.

Other families will move and try to sell their homes, and they'll take incredible losses to do it," she says. "We've talked to real estate agents, and property values will plummet if this thing goes through."

In addition to their fears about property values, activists are chagrined about paying for the costs of constructing towers that will send electricity to other states via hikes in their monthly electricity rates. Allegheny Energy acknowledges this fact at their website, stating that, "All electricity consumers ultimately pay for transmission services."

Allegheny is quick to point out that they own 90% of the rights of way contemplated for the project. But the other 10% still needs to be surveyed and purchased, and the communities feel that the energy company's tactics to achieve this end have been too aggressive.

For instance, property owners accuse contract-based land agents working for the company of ignoring their objections to their surveying efforts.

"They send land agents out to people who have existing rights of way or are in the way of this line, and they throw out half truths," Nicholl said, adding that her family members were threatened with losing their homes. "'If you don't deal with us, we'll take the property through eminent domain and you'll get nothing,' they say. To me, it's unconscionable that a company is allowed to operate like this in 2007 in the United States."

Her colleague Rick Layton, also described the Allegheny land agents sneaking onto his land, and both he and Nicholl described neighbors returning home to find surveying stakes mysteriously left on their property.

"They tried to survey my land," said the former high school math teacher, who says that a tower will come within 300-500 feet of his home. "They showed up one day at my house, and I happened to see them on my way out, and I confronted them, and made clear that I don't want them on my property."

Allegheny Energy's spokesman replied that he was not aware of the company's land agents trespassing, and added that "opinions vary" on their conduct. He also insisted that the company was not threatening the pursuit of federal eminent domain cases.

"We are working through the state regulatory process in order to have this project approved," Neurohr explained. "This has nothing to do with the Energy Policy Act of 2005, these are state regulatory proceedings that we are continuing with."

Strong Promotional Strategy Used By Allegheny To Overcome Objections

The company has engaged in a fierce PR effort to make its case for building the towers. Spokesman David Neurohr believed that these promotional efforts have been 'open.'

"We've hosted public open houses, which are not required by any regulatory body whatsoever," the Allegheny Energy spokesman said. "We've brought outside experts from PJM Interconnection to answer any questions the public would have."

Allegheny has put up a website, APTrAILInfo.com, to provide information on the project. It has sent e-mails to interested parties, and inserted literature on the project in customers' monthly bills. It has also run a series of radio and print advertisements promoting the completion of TrAIL. Laurie Nicholl, the Stop The Towers organizer, estimated that a series of ads in one local paper would have cost around $12,400.

2007-10-18-billshanead.jpgA centerpiece print advertisement involved Bill Shane, a retired Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission who has spoken out in favor of the project.

"I strongly believe that the energy needs will go up about 30% over the next 25 years," Shane told the Huffington Post on Thursday. "We need all five legs of the stool, i.e. conservation, renewable energy, clean coal, nuclear power, and we need better infrastructure. It's as simple as that."

Allegheny Energy insists that it didn't pay Shane any money to speak out on the company's behalf in its print advertisements and at public hearings on the TrAIL project.

"We didn't a pay him a thing," spokesman Neurohr said when asked how much the company had offered him.

But Shane presented a different picture.

"They asked me to help," Shane said of Allegheny. "They offered to pay me, but I said no, because I knew it would destroy my credibility totally, and I believe in the project, so I said I would come and testify for free."

While Neurohr would not confirm that the company offered him money, he also did not deny it.

"That's not a concern of yours," he again said.

However, Neurohr did state that the firm did not pay other citizens who spoke out in favor of the company at PUC hearings.

The company has also engaged in efforts to persuade reporters that its construction plans are responsible. In August, the company flew reporters in Pennsylvania over part of the route in a helicopter, resulting in headlines that declared that blithely declared the planned construction locations "mostly rural."

Clinton Pollster's Firm's Role In Promotion Remains A Mystery

2007-10-18-aptrailmap.jpgAllegheny Energy was unwilling to speak to the precise role played by Burson-Marsteller in its promotion of TrAIL. While it claimed much of the content for its ads and mailed and e-mailed literature was generated internally, an online map of the transmission line's route is hosted on Burson-Marsteller's website for its clients.

Burson-Marsteller wouldn't offer any additional insight into how much of Allegheny's PR efforts, from the ads to the offers to pay Bill Shane to the website, originated in its offices.

"As per our firm's policy, we do not discuss our clients past or present," said Paul Cordasco, Burson-Marsteller's director of Global Media Relations.

But the PR firm did agree with the Cilnton campaign that its CEO, the pollster for Hillary Clinton, did not have his fingerprints on the client's promotional efforts.

"Mark has never worked for this client," Cordasco added.

As for the Clinton campaign, they argue that the senator's opposition to projects like TrAIL is unwavering.

"We oppose the project," campaign spokesman Singer noted. "In fact, Sen. Clinton introduced legislation, S. 1972, that would specifically strike the eminent domain authority from [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] so that they could not overturn state rules and build transmission lines against a state's wishes."

But that might not be enough for the citizens who could be affected by the TrAIL project. At least one supporter of Senator Clinton said that if the company run by her top strategist is really helping Allegheny Energy make its case to build the towers, she might have to rethink her vote.

"You know, I've been supportive of Hillary Clinton, but anybody that's using a company that's helping Allegheny Energy build these lines, I would have to think twice about," Washington County Commissioner Pam Snyder said.

Comments for this post are now closed

 
Comments
31
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

What real environmentalist need to realize is that transmission lines are a GREAT thing because it allows you to make energy where it can be made then move it to where it's needed.

If you are going to put in solar plants, wind plants, etc, you are going to need new transmission lies from the places where the energy is made to get it to where it's needed.

Look at it this way, one area has more energy than it needs. Another area not enough to meet future demand. they are forced to put in more coal, oil, and gas plants to create energy...unless transmission lines are installed to relieve the congestion on existing lines and bring more energy in.

We need to get beyond radicalism that always paints the people that provide us with our energy as "bad guys" and "conspirators". That sort of view is as moronic as can be.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:34 PM on 10/19/2007
photo

Guess you're not familiar with DG theory. Generate power at the point of use. It's less expensive than losing 10% of capacity or fighting line congestion.

Increasing line capacity is a subsequent requirement for increasing generating capacity. PA does not have excess generating capacity. Additional capacity will result from additional plants and plant expansions. Increased generating capacity will result in additional air pollutants (PEMS, Nox, SO2, CO2, and heavy metals like Hg). Elliot Spitzer and Andrew Cuomo continue to successfully sue generating states for fallout pollution in NY. PA will be liable for any new generation as well.

Why should residents of PA be subjected to higher energy prices, increased pollution, loss of property value, and loss of their homes only to primarily benefit industry and residents of another area and state (DC and Virginia)?

This issue is about the coal industry getting coal power plants (dirty as opposed to IGCC with sequestration) built to ensure future demand for coal before federal legislation forces cleaner generation. There are powerful and influential coal interests in PA and WV controlling the political process in those states to permit construction and expansion of new and existing power plants. In order to sell the additional capacity, the generators are looking for a "pipeline".

Finally, if DC and Virginia need additional power, build the power plants in Virgina. This will limit transmission line requirements and place both benefits and liabilities with Virginians. I got a feeling though that this would not be a popular proposition in Virginia, you know, the not in my backyard mentality. Fortunately for them though, coal representatives are not as popular there as they are in PA and WV.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:58 AM on 10/20/2007

No, this is about getting energy from where it is to where people don't have it and are unwilling to put their own generators in their own backyard.

Much like Kennedy refusing to have wind power windmills in site of his backyard.

One day you are out there trying to beat a transmission line, the next you will fight the generator they want to put in your backyard. All while insisting on having your flat pannel TV, Diswasher, Stove, lighting, and computers.

And if we go to things like Solar, wind, etc we will need to move it from where people will allow us to put it in there backyard to places like the Kennedys where they would rather have some transmission lines than power generating plants of any kind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 AM on 10/20/2007

Why do the people of PA refuse to build the generators they need? Sit in the dark, fine by me. But your fellow citizens will eventually force the radial left to accept the power plants or the lines because they will NOT go sit in the dark or burn down the nearby forest to keep some heat and light in the aparment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 AM on 10/20/2007

""We oppose the project," campaign spokesman Singer noted. "In fact, Sen. Clinton introduced legislation, S. 1972, that would specifically strike the eminent domain authority from [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission] so that they could not overturn state rules and build transmission lines against a state's wishes."" ... pretty much sums up Hillary's stand ...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:02 AM on 10/22/2007

Hey senseless is your problem with a limited vocabulary and a limited view on the real world related to one of the following reasons:
#1 A botched lobotomy?
#2 A TBI (traumatic Brain injury)?
#3 Inbreeding?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 10/22/2007

check out this article about the Clintons/Bush's ties

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071105/baker_federman

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 10/22/2007

This six degrees of separation phenomena between candidates and those who sometimes work at cross-purposes is going to happen oh ... 100% of the time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:45 PM on 10/19/2007
photo

Mr. Roston:

Thank you for your detailed report. These types of projects are often difficult to accurately cover as there is soooo much propaganda to filter through, especially as energy companies tend to utilize manipulated and confounding data as well as twist the presentation in their favor. Additionally, digging through cryptic information from energy companies and the various filings and processes regulated by state public service commissions and FERC/DOE/EIA can be arduous. Environmental Impact Statements alone can be voluminous (1,000+ pages) and require a team of advanced degrees to decipher.

I sympathize with the citizens impacted by this project. It is often a difficult and frustrating fight. However, perhaps they can take some solace in the following information:

1. Estimates of future power requirements (30%) are often overinflated by energy companies in comparison to historic trends. It's frequently more about profits than energy requirements.

2. Concern over Global Climate Change is becoming more prominent and difficult to ignore, especially with increasing public awareness and perception. This is often useful in commanding the attention and intervention of state public service commissions as well as federal regulatory bodies.

3. I'm surprised you did not make a connection between PA, WV, Allegheny Energy, and coal producers. Coal producers are pushing new power plant initiatives in an effort to beat future air emission regulations. The big worry: CO2 emission regulations by the EPA.

4. The playing field will change after 2008 in favor of the public and environment. Improved energy efficiency to reduce load and demand and use of alternative energy sources will be emphasized.

5. Hillary has not been helpful in opposing coal fired power plant initiatives in NYS and I know this on a firsthand basis.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 PM on 10/19/2007

How many HalliCheney shares does Billary have?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:11 PM on 10/19/2007

Fewer things raise credibility issues as getting facts wrong, which you managed to do here:

1. "The project is part of a proposed Mid-Atlantic corridor within the National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors, a federal effort to avert a future blackout like the one that turned off the lights across much of the country's northeast in 2003."

Mistake No. 1: This project - as well as NYRI's - have nothing to do with the Corridors. The Corridor designation allows FERC to commence review of a project within a Corridor if the state(s) agecy(ies)fail to approve the project within one year, or no earlier than one year after the Corridor designation is finalized.

Mistake No. 2: There's a heck of a lot more to the Corridor designation than "avoiding a blackout." That's severely oversimplifying the issue. In fact, the 2003 blackout had more to do with human error than transmission constraints.
http://pulpnetwork.blogspot.com/2007/04/federal-transmission-corridor.html

Mistake No. 3: The corridors are no longer proposed. They were approved on October 2 and published on the Federal Register on October 5.
http://nietc.anl.gov/documents/docs/FR_Notice_of_5_Oct_07.pdf

B. "The TrAIL project seeks to play an important role in the proposed Mid-Atlantic Corridor. . .But the company still needs to persuade the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission to approve the program."

And here, one of the biggest omissions in your entry: if the Corridors are Federal, why do these projects need local approval? Because they are not Federal projects but they COULD be in a year. Now that the Corridors are approved, TrAIL or NYRI can try to get the project approved by the state's agencies or request to have it removed to FERC.

Listen, I think the Corridor designations and everything that came with it is a really bad idea. But you've got to get your facts right. Otherwise, everyone will doubt what you say.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:15 AM on 10/19/2007

It sounds like Mccarthyism is live and well at Huffpost. Guilt by association with a PR firm? What is next? Have you no shame sir?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:26 AM on 10/19/2007

Under corporate "Personhood" they are the People and we're dog shit..!

Hillary is a tyrant in the making...

She's a zealot..

Fascism, Corporatism has overtaken America...

Do not Vote for This Woman...

Free America from the corporate Fascists..!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 AM on 10/19/2007



Passionate!

Nice mix of slogans!

I like the beat... easy to dance to.

Suggest you NOT read the article... you'll feel like a complete fool.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:44 AM on 10/19/2007

.

this is what happens when you're too busy shoving payoffs into your pocket Hillary..

next time get the name of the guy bribing you.. then you won't be embarrassed with these kinds of things happening to you..

.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 PM on 10/18/2007



Someday, you'll learn to read. The only 'payoffs' went to Republicans.

... and, imbecile, Clinton OPPOSES the project.

Having trouble keeping track of akk the moving parts?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:22 AM on 10/19/2007

I read elsewhere that Blackwater was created during the Clinton administration, and that Cofer Black, the current current vice chairman served in the CIA for Clinton.

Is there confirmation on this?

Also, as for repping any company or person--I believe we all have a moral duty to associate only with those who obey the law, especially if we are running for a public office and hold the public trust.

It would be cleaner for Hillary to find another adviser without this in his book. She doesn't need the additional baggage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:33 PM on 10/18/2007

I still think this is a neurotic and tyrannical way to try to assess any candidate. She doesn't support that company. She doesn't support Blackwater. People associated with her do. Isn't the message that she's NOT machine, if she takes money and help and then doesn't vote their way? You guys think this stuff is hurting her. It's not. Nobody cards about your guilt by association. You just make your candidates look small.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:30 PM on 10/18/2007

Much as I dislike Hillary, I don't get what a PR firm's clients have to do with HER. She has no control over who they represent, nor should she.

To me that's like saying that the ACLU cannot defend Rush's rights.

Is this a free country or not? Are lawyers, PR firms, advertising firms, etc. to choose which clients they'll represent? What's next? If a restaurant serves someone we don't like should we get all upset about it and refuse to eat there even though the food is terrific?

Burson-Marsteller has had plenty of clients over the decades and I'm sure there are plenty that have agendas we don't agree with for one reason or another. Does that mean that candidates shouldn't hire the best PR firm for their needs?

I don't support Allegheny Energy's plans but I don't see how Burson-Marsteller representing both Allegheny and Hillary is relevant.

Let's stick to the real issues. There's plenty to get upset with Hillary about. This seems rather petty to me. But then again, maybe I'm missing something. Could someone can help me understand what the uproar is about?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:23 PM on 10/18/2007

Agreed. I can't stand Hillary as a candidate and I think she would be a disaster for the country and the party. However, it would be hypocritical and even obnoxious to pile on her for this story.
Besides, there are plenty of other things about Hillary that should keep us from voting for her. The war, the lobbyists, the business connections, the galvanization of the Republicans,...

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:46 PM on 10/18/2007

.

perhaps Hillary should be more careful as to who she associates with..

she takes payoffs from corporations and then gets upset when it gets noticed..

count on these things..

1. Hillary will keep killing our soldiers in profit motivated excursions around the world..

2. Hillary will not give every poor American health care.. at best she will force every American to buy Insurance company profit oriented claim denying health care..

3. Hillary will keep on piling up the debt and handing out tax cuts to rich people while borrowing from China and putting our debt even higher..

4. not much difference will be seen from the last 7 years to what Hillary provides..
.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:31 PM on 10/18/2007
- loki I'm a Fan of loki permalink
photo

The more I learn about her, the more I see why Bill doesnt want to be with her in private. She is enough to make any person look outside the marriage if they cant dissolve the marriage.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:58 PM on 10/18/2007

You little jackass. I hope the person in your life know what a low-life you are. I doubt anyone wants to be around a little weasel like you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:07 PM on 10/18/2007
- loki I'm a Fan of loki permalink
photo

You cant give Hillary a black eye. Here eyes are permanently blackened. She would be just as bad for the US as president as Bush is.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:57 PM on 10/18/2007



Birds of a feather.....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:35 PM on 10/18/2007

If Hillary supports centralized coal power plants, she must also support the power lines that carry it to users.

If Hillary does not want high volatage power lines she needs to support distributed systems like solar and wind.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:50 PM on 10/18/2007

No ticky, no seatie at the Hillary table.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:41 PM on 10/18/2007

What part of "I and my constituents have repeatedly voiced our concerns regarding the economic and environmental impact of the proposed New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) route [and] I continue to oppose the proposed NYRI route. I support the ongoing review process within New York State and will continue to push the DOE and FERC to respect it. NYRI should not be allowed to short-circuit the state's rigorous review and citing process."

She's against it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:09 PM on 10/18/2007

What part of ""I and my constituents have repeatedly voiced our concerns regarding the economic and environmental impact of the proposed New York Regional Interconnect (NYRI) route [and] I continue to oppose the proposed NYRI route. I support the ongoing review process within New York State and will continue to push the DOE and FERC to respect it. NYRI should not be allowed to short-circuit the state's rigorous review and citing process" do you not understand.

She is public against it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:12 PM on 10/18/2007
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect

 

Send us tips and comments:

huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com
GTalk/AIM: NicoPitneyIM


2007-09-27-feed.jpg FEED

HuffPost Reporters
Nico Pitney is National Editor at the Huffington Post.
Read More

Thomas B. Edsall is the Political Editor of the Huffington Post. He is also Joseph Pulitzer II and Edith Pulitzer Moore Professor at the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism.
Read More

Sam Stein is the White House correspondent for the Huffington Post. Previously he worked for Newsweek Magazine, the New York Daily News and the investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity.
Read More

Ryan Grim is the senior congressional correspondent for the Huffington Post. He is a former staff reporter with Politico.com and Washington City Paper.
Read More

Jason Linkins is editor of Huffington Post's media commentary blog Eat the Press. He is based in Washington, DC, and previously contributed to DCist and Wonkette.
Read More

Rachel Weiner is Associate Politics Editor at the Huffington Post.
Read More

Katharine Zaleski is the Senior News Editor at the Huffington Post. She is based in New York.
Read More