VIAE-MAIL

Honorable Kathleen Burgess Secretary State ofNew York

Public Service Commission Three Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223-1350

con Edison a con Edison, Inc. company

Peter P. Garam Associate General Counsel

March 10, 2014

Re: Case 13-T-0586 - Petition of Consolidated Edison Company ofNew York, Inc.

Dear Secretary Burgess:

for Approval of Environmental Management and Construction Plan for Sugarloaf to Rock Tavern Segment of the Second Ramapo to Rock Tavern 345 kV Transmission Line (Feeder 76) (Formerly Cases 25845 and 25741)

On March 3, 2014, Entergy1 submitted a party status request form in this proceeding.

Consolidated Edison Company ofNew York, Inc. ("Con Edison") objects to this request.

Entergy has not demonstrated any legitimate interest in this proceeding and its intervention

would be inappropriate. Its participation is likely to delay this proceeding and would be

prejudicial to Con Edison and the public interest because it would prevent Con Edison from

meeting the Commission's June 2016 in-service date for this project.

1 Entergy Nuclear Fitzpatrick, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC and Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (collectively referred to herein as "Entergy") submitted an intervention request pursuant to Section 4.3 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. 4 Irving Place New York NY 10003 212 460 2985 212 677 5850 fax garamp@coned.com

Entergy has failed to identify any interest it has that is at issue in this proceeding. It

offers only boilerplate of the most general sort in support of its proposed intervention:

. .. the Indian Point facilities may be impacted by . . . the actions that

may be taken in this proceeding ... . Moreover, [Entergy has] a

substantial interest in this proceeding that cannot be represented by

any other party.

There is no action the Commission could take in this proceeding that could possibly have

any impact on Entergy. This is not a certificate proceeding2 or a broad-based policy proceeding

(such as the IP Proceeding3 or the AC Proceeding4) where issues of need, reliability, economics

and the public interest may be involved that may arguably have an impact on Entergy. This is a

far narrower proceeding: it involves only the review of Con Edison's Environmental

Management and Construction Plan ("EM&CP") for the Sugarloaf to Rock Tavern segment of

Feeder 76 (the "Con Edison project"). It addresses only construction methods and local

construction impacts, 5 none of which could possibly have any impact on Entergy, whose

facilities are dozens, if not hundreds, of miles from the construction site.

2 The Company received its certificate for this project over 40 years ago. See Cases 25845 and 25741, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. -Southern Tier Interconnect, Opinion No. 72-2 (issued and effective January 25, 1972). 3 See Case No. 12-E-0503- Proceeding on Motion of the Commission to Review Generation Retirement Contingency Plans. 4 See Case No. 13-E-0488 -In the Matter of Alternating Current Transmission Upgrades- Comparative Proceeding. 5 The EM&CP provides details on the location of the Con Edison project, the manner in which it will be constructed, the environmental impacts of construction, and the environmental protection measures that will be implemented during construction to minimize environmental impacts. All of these issues concern the effects of the construction of the Con Edison project on the local communities. For instance, the EM&CP focuses on the impact construction of the line will have on such local issues as land use, visual resources, wetlands, cultural resources, endangered species, noise, and traffic, to name a few.

2

Entergy's apparent objective is to delay and obstruct any Commission action that may

result in perceived competition to its generation plants. 6

It has spent years fighting construction of a DC transmission line proposed by

Champlain-Hudson and certified by the Commission. It has opposed that project every step of

the way: in its comments, in a petition for rehearing, and now in a court appeal of the

Commission's order.7 In so doing, it mustered every argument it could, whether or not it had

any impact on Entergy. Thus, it assumed the role of champion of Con Edison's rate payers and

the protector of navigation, the Atlantic sturgeon, and state parks. In pursuing a court challenge,

Entergy has delayed the Champlain-Hudson project by complicating its financing.

Similarly, it has fought all attempts by the Commission in the IP Proceeding to select

alternatives to Indian Point in the event of the retirement of those facilities. It has opposed the IP

Proceeding every step of the way: it has submitted comments in opposition and not one, but two,

petitions for rehearing (both of which were denied by the Commission). Entergy sought to delay

that proceeding as well by urging that the Commission hold it in abeyance. 8

We have no doubt that, if permitted to intervene, Entergy would seek to delay this

EM&CP proceeding as well.9 Any such delay would be prejudicial to Con Edison and the public

6 It is clear that Entergy has no real interest in the impacts of construction of Feeder 76 since it made no attempt to intervene in the review process for the first segment of the line, Feeder 28, in 2010. Of course, that process occurred prior to the consideration of Feeder 76 by the Commission as possible replacements in the event of the retirement of the Indian Point facilities in Case No. 12-E-0503. The lack of participation by Entergy in the EM&CP proceeding for the first segment of Feeder 76 underscores the fact that it has no real interest in the construction impacts of the line; rather, it its apparent interest is to delay and obstruct these projects because it perceives it as a potential competitor to Indian Point. 7 See Case No. 10-T-0139; EntergyNuclear Power Marketing, LLC v. New York State Public Service Commission (App. Div. 3rd Dept.). 8 See Case No. 12-E-0503 . 9 Not surprisingly, in comments submitted on March 3, 2014, Entergy has proposed to delay this proceeding on the basis of a groundless argument about adequacy of service of Con Edison's application. In addition, Entergy professes concern over the size of the trucks used during construction. It is hard to discern what interest Entergy has in this matter.

3

interest because it would prevent Con Edison from meeting the Commission's June 2016 in-

service date.

Entergy has no legitimate interest in this proceeding. Therefore, its request for

intervention should be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

cc: Steven Blow, Esq. All parties in Case Nos. 13- T-0586 and 13-E-0488 (via e-mail)

4