Skip navigation.

Docket 6860

Vermont Department of Public Service

PSB Docket No. 6860: Petitions of Vermont Electric Power Company Inc. (VELCO) and Green Mountain Power Coroporation (GMP) for a certificate of public good, pursuant to 30 V.S.A. Section 248, authorizing VELCO to construct the so-called Northwest Reliability Project

Note: Some of the documents below are available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and require the Acrobat PDF reader which is free and can be downloaded from Adobe.

Electronic copies of documents forming the direct testimony of DPS in Docket 6860 are posted below.

DPS Direct Testimony Filed December 17, 2003
DPS Press Release on NRP Recommendations
DPS Reroute Testimony Filed May 20, 2004
DPS Rebuttal Testimony Filed July 2, 2004
DPS Surrebuttal Testimony Filed July 26, 2004
DPS Surrebuttal Testimony Filed September 3, 2004
DPS Design Detail and Supplemental Testimony Filed October 14, 2004
DPS Proposal for Decision
DPS Proposed Findings, Ferry Road
DPS Reply Brief
DPS Briefs to the Vermont Supreme Court
DPS Filings on Remand

DPS Direct Testimony Filed December 17, 2003

  • Prefiled testimony of Hans Mertens, DPS Director of Engineering and Chief Engineer. Mr. Mertens’ testimony summarizes the Department’s overall position, and also addresses several specific issues, including but not limited to: short-term reliability concerns until the proposed 2007 in-service date, reliability and cost issues concerning line burial, and compliance with the stipulation approved by the Board in Docket 6479.

Mertens Exhibit 1

  • Prefiled testimony of George Smith, DPS engineering consultant. Mr. Smith’s testimony describes his review and technical evaluation of VELCO’s proposed NRP from a transmission perspective and provides conclusions and recommendations resulting from this review.

Smith Exhibit 1
Smith Exhibit 2

  • Prefiled testimony of Dr. Jonathan A. Lesser, DPS Director for Regulated Utility Planning. Dr. Lesser's testimony addresses compliance of the proposed Northwest Reliability Project with 30 V.S.A. §§ 248(b)(2), 248(b)(4), 248(b)(6), 248(b)(7), and other related issues.

Lesser Exhibit 1
Lesser Exhibit 2
Lesser Exhibit 3
Lesser Exhibit 4
Lesser Exhibit 5
Lesser Exhibit 6
Lesser Exhibit 7
Lesser Exhibit 8
Lesser Exhibit 9

  • Prefiled testimony of Carole Welch, DPS Energy Policy & Program Analyst. Ms. Welch's testimony is addresses VELCO’s analysis of energy efficiency programs and measures and energy efficiency and load management measures as an alternative or partial alternative to the NRP.
  • Prefiled testimony of Vermont Health Department. Health Department witnesses sponsor the Vermont Department of Health’s Position Paper on Electric and Magnetic Fields (“EMF”) and the Vermont Electric Power Company Northwest Vermont Reliability Project. The VDH Position Paper (1) describes the current scientific view of human health effects related to EMF; (2) analyzes whether the projected EMF for the NRP will be less, the same, or greater than the existing VELCO lines are projected to produce; (3) analyzes whether the VELCO testimony corresponds with the current scientific view of human exposure to EMF; (4) provides VDH’s policy on prudent avoidance; (5) describes and discusses public comments posed at public hearings on the NRP; and (6) analyzes whether the NRP specifically poses any EMF concerns from VDH’s perspective.

VDH Exhibit 1
VDH Exhibit 2
VDH Exhibit 3

DPS Reroute Testimony Filed May 20, 2003

  • Prefiled testimony of Hans Mertens, DPS Director of Engineering and Chief Engineer. Mr. Merten's testimony summarizes the Department's overall position regarding the VELCO Rerouting Proposal, and addresses several related issues, including but not limited to reliability, and impacts of the proposed corridor changes.

  • Prefiled testimony of George E. Smith and W. Steve Litkovitz
    Mr. Smith's and Mr. Litkovitz's testimony: 1) addresses the effects of VELCO's proposed changes to the NRP, as provided in VELCO's supplemental filing dated February 6, 2004, with respect to the overall goals, reliability, and cost of the project; 2) considers the benefits and costs of VELCO's proposal to use a wider range of structure heights; 3) comments on the feasibility of a proposal by Department witness David Raphael regarding the routing of the proposed 115 kV line in the vicinity of the Waldorf school in Charlotte; 4) considers VELCO's estimates of certain undergrounding costs; and 5) addresses interests raised by the Board with respect to the use of alternate conductor types.

    Smith and Litkovitz Reroute Exhibit 1

  • Prefiled testimony of Carla A. White and Lawrence G. Crist
    The purpose of Ms. White's and Mr. Crist's testimony is to sponsor the Vermont Department of Health's Position Paper on Electric and Magnetic Power Frequency Fields and the Vermont Electric Power Company Northwest Vermont Reliability Project: Reroute Supplement. The VDH Reroute Supplement was developed to analyze the projected EMF for the NRP reroutes proposed in VELCO's February 6, 2004 filing.

    VDH Reroute Supplement

  • Prefiled Reroute Testimony of David Raphael
    Mr. Raphael's testimony addresses whether the Reroute Alternatives for the Northwest Reliability Project, as currently proposed, will have undue adverse effect on aesthetics and scenic beauty.

    Raphael Reroute Exhibit 10
    Raphael Reroute Exhibit 11

DPS Rebuttal Testimony Filed July 2, 2004

  • Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of Hans Mertens
    Mr. Mertens' testimony clarifies the DPS overall position and responds to factual disagreements regarding the VELCO NRP Proposal that surfaced during the hearing process.

  • Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of George E. Smith and W. Steven Litkovitz
    Mr. Smith's and Mr. Litkovitz's testimony: 1) discusses the question of whether NEPOOL and NPCC standards are commonly met in practice; 2) addresses the timing of the constuction of the proposed 345 kV line; 3) comments on the likelihood of using the New Haven to Queen City corridor in the future for transmission at 230 kV or 345 kV; 4) examines the suitability of utilizing 230 kV in place of the proposed 345 kV circuit in the West Rutland to New Haven corridor; 5) comments on the analysis and conclusions offered by Addison County Regional Planning Commission witness Dr. Edward Fagen; 6) discusses the occurrence and significance of certain transmission contingencies of the VELCO system in April 2004; 7) comments on certain exhibits in the testimony of Gail Henerson-King; and 8) addresses various Board inquiries and record requests.

  • Prefiled Rebuttal Testimony of Carla A. White and Lawrence G. Crist
    The purpose of Ms. White's and Mr. Christ's testimony is to sponsor the Vermont Department of Health's Position Paper on Electric and Magnetic Power Frequency Fields and the Vermont Electric Power Company Northwest Vermont Reliability Project: Underground Supplement.

    VDH Underground Supplement

DPS Surrebuttal Testimony Filed July 26, 2004

DPS Surrebuttal Testimony Field September 3, 204

  • Prefiled Surrebuttal Testimony of George E. Smith and W. Steven Litkovitz
    Mr. Smith's and Mr. Litkovitz's respond to testimony offered in rebuttal by Dr. Fagen concerning various aspects of VELCO's analysis; Scudder Parker concerning the reliability of phase angle regulators and the consistency of the proposed NRP with the 1994 Twenty Year Electric Plan; Jean Vissering concerning undergrounding portions of the proposed 345 kV line from West Rutland to New Haven; and Tom Dunn concerning the use of ACSS-TW wire and various aspects of the proposed Granite substation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Litkovitz also address a concern raised by the Board during rebuttal cross examination regarding an outage that occurred in New York City in 1999 and address a change in opinion on the reclosure of 115 kV hybrid lines.

    Smith and Litkovitz Exhibit 2

  • Prefiled Surrebuttal Testimony of David Raphael
    The purpose of Mr. Raphael's surrebuttal testimony is to respond to rebuttal testimony offered by Terry Boyle with respect to areas for which Mr. Raphael has previously determined VELCO's proposal to pose an undue adverse effect on aesthetics, and to respond to various points raised in the rebuttal testimony of Jean Vissering, James Donovan, and Gail Henderson-King.

    Raphael Surrebuttal Exhibit 12

  • Prefiled Surrebuttal Testimony of Jay Williams
    The purpose of Mr. Williams' testimony is to respond to testimony offered by Jean Vissering concerning burial of 345 kV line and by Torben Aabo regarding automatic reclosure and the 115 kV line configuration used by the Vermont Department of Health.

    Williams Surrebuttal Exhibit 1

DPS Design Detail and Supplemental Testimony Filed October 14, 2004

  • Prefiled Design Detail Testimony of George Smith
    Mr. Smith provides recommendations on VELCO's proposal for the Granite substation, discusses strategies for reducing the height of 115 kV structures, recommends the acquisition of a spare reactor for the New Haven substation, comments on VELCO's proposals for substation noise mitigation, and comments on VELCO's proposal for the Ferry Road crossing in Charlotte.

  • Prefiled Design Detail Testimony of David Raphael
    Mr. Raphael's testimony addresses whether the proposed project, if constructed consisten with the design detail provided by VELCO for selected sections of the Northwest Vermont Reliability Project, will have an undue adverse effect on aesthetics and scenic beauty.

DPS Proposal for Decision

DPS Proposed Finding, Ferry Road

DPS Reply Brief

DPS Briefs to Vermont Supreme Court

DPS Filings on Remand

112 State Street, Drawer 20, Montpelier, VT 05620-2601
Phone: 802-828-2811  |  Fax: 802-828-2342  |  Consumer Hot Line: 800-622-4496