[Company Logo Image] 

PEOPLE AGAINST THE TVA EXPANSION

Home Up Feedback Search Contents

 

 

 

There are a number of options, and combinations thereof, that would present a far more feasible solution to the situation.  We must encourage TVA to seriously look at them instead of taking the current route.

Energy Conservation and Green Resources

bulletOther than the other proposals described in the scoping document, TVA has done little to require their customers to reduce energy usage.  The Tennessee Legislature adapted a voluntary energy code based on ASHREA 90.1/1980.  Not only is this code outdated, it has not been enforced.  It is estimated that updated, enforced energy codes such as those mandated by the Federal Government could reduce urban energy usage by as much as 40%.  Wouldn’t it be more feasible for TVA to invest in community education, and encouraging local adaptation and enforcement of energy codes that to simply cave in to the demands of big business and developers?
bulletToday in Murfreesboro, numerous large mall and car dealership parking lots sit underneath burning lights in broad daylight, with no repercussions to the property owners.  Is this mentality why we are being asked to make such huge sacrifices?

 

Why were the more feasible options under consideration so quickly abandoned?

bulletThe first alternative was to construct a new substation in Brentwood. The project would require no additional transmission line easements, as it’s close to the Pinhook-Davidson transmission lines that are already in existence. Thus, it would have little effect on landowners. The capital costs for this would be 8% less than the Rutherford proposal and 3% less than the Pinhook proposal; however, the costs of possible power losses during transmission makes this proposal cost about $3 more than the Rutherford alternative solution. TVA argues that the line outages during construction are constraints that would possibly delay construction completion to 2011. This option was TVA’s first choice.
bulletThe second alternative to the Rutherford line was to expand the existing Pinhook substation. TVA’s argument against the Pinhook expansion is the possibility of damaging control equipment in the existing substation area, resulting in outages at the substation. This solution would be about 3% more than the Brentwood alternative and 6% less than the Rutherford alternative. Overall project costs are about $17 million more than the Brentwood alternative and $20 million more than the Rutherford alternative, but these are based on hypothetically damaged equipment.

 

Does the Rutherford alternative cause harm to the environment?

bulletOur option, the Rutherford alternative, involves the most destruction of and construction on Greenfield sites, resulting in greater environmental impacts as compared to the other two options.