On Sept. 1st, LCRA’s Executive Manager, External Affairs, Becky Motal, sent a letter to David Armistead in Governor Perry’s office, in response to a letter from Don and LeNan Hancock. In the letter, Ms. Motal reviewed the CREZ transmission projects and the fact that LCRA was “ordered by the PUC to construct four CREZ electric transmission projects.” The letter explained that infrastructure projects such as these often create intense public scrutiny and interest, and these LCRA projects are no exception.”
LCRA has received hundreds of letters and emails about these projects. Ms. Motal claims that the Hancocks’ letter contains several inaccuracies and she feels that it is important to respond, at least in part. LCRA feels it is important that Mr. Armistead understand the nature of the projects, the scope of the task the PUC has entrusted to LCRA, and the manner in which LCRA has attempted to respond to the PUC’s order while addressing the concerns expressed by the thousands of people with whom LCRA has communicated over the past four months. The letter describes the “very aggressive” filing dates for the projects when compared to the time typically needed to prepare and file for certification of non-CREZ electric transmission line projects.
The letter discusses LCRA’s eleven public Open Houses across the Hill Country to give residents of the area an idea of the scope of the projects LCRA had been ordered to build. LCRA described the Open Houses and says they were “heavily attended.” “In fact, some were so well attended that LCRA was concerned about the well being of some of the attendees . . . .” The letter included photos from two Open Houses; one provides “an example of the crowds that attended the Open Houses.”
LCRA tells Mr. Armistead that, given the nature of the Open Houses, it was not possible or practical to provide a microphone or a stage where, “as apparently demanded by the Hancocks, ‘. . . you could give public input.’” LCRA defends its Open House format as “an effective means to receive input from the public by answering questions at the information stations and requesting attendees to complete a questionnaire that could provide LCRA vital information regarding the attendee’s respective property.” LCRA recommended that attendees and Mr. Armistead access LCRA’s web site to view the information that has been available to the public throughout this process.
The letter then defends LCRA employee Sara Morgenroth from the Hancocks’ statement that she was “someone who would ‘ . . . stand around and supposedly answer questions for you.’” Ms. Motal claims that Ms. Morgenroth, other LCRA representatives, and representatives from LCRA’s environmental routing consultants answered questions from literally hundreds of landowners at the Open Houses. Ms. Motal states that “we seriously attempt to be as helpful and respectful as possible. . . .” “With hundreds of people attending and requesting information at these Open Houses, LCRA and its representatives provided as much information as humanly possible in the time allotted.
It wasn’t enough for Ms. Motal to defend her co-worker, she also stated that two other points required a response. She addressed the Hancocks’ concerns about LCRA survey markers and then reminded Mr. Armistead that, “As you know, it is the PUC, not LCRA, that will ultimately decide which route will be chosen.”
Ms. Motal then addressed the Hancocks’ concerns about the presence of LCRA Rangers at the Open Houses. Ms. Motal confirms that the Rangers were present at every Open House for the safety of the public and LCRA’s representatives. These infrastructure projects, Ms. Motal states, are very visible to the public and very contentious. Ms. Motal claims that Ms. Morgenroth and other LCRA representatives received threats to their personal safety. Given these circumstances, LCRA made no apologies for putting the safety of its representatives and the public above any negative suspicions the Rangers’ appearance may have raised for some people.
Ms. Motal summarizes by saying that while LCRA understands the public’s apprehension at the proposed transmission lines crossing the Hill Country, the fact remains that LCRA is simply trying to carry out the orders of the PUC. It is LCRA’s intention to be as informative as it can be, consistent with its responsibility to prepare and file its CCN applications in the short amount of time ordered by the PUC. She then closes by saying that she hopes the “letter has been helpful to respond to some of the incorrect statements contained in the letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Hancock.”
The letter indicates that LCRA is loyal to its employees and concerned about their safety, but sending a letter to the Governor’s office to respond to a landowner is an unusual move. It is hard to imagine that LCRA intends to respond to every misstatement or offensive comment sent to the Governor or filed by landowners during this process.
Knowing the rapid schedule that will be required for these lines, LCRA asked to be designated a transmission service provider (TSP) and now tries to make it sound like the PUC drafted it to build the transmission lines on a schedule that limits LCRA’s ability to properly prepare its applications and take public input. If it had hundreds of people attending the meetings and the meetings were crowded, LCRA should have added more opportunities for comments and public review of its plans.
This letter is an early indication of the tumultuous process that can be expected during the next several months as the Commission decides the routes of the CREZ transmission lines through the Hill Country.