FERC filing 20131230-4001 about a comment to FERC apparently at the Clyattville Sabal Trail Open House 16 December 2013. -jsq
Note to: FERC Docket No. PF14-1-000 Note from: John Peconom, Environmental Project Manager Date: December 27, 2013 Subject: Comments of Mrs. Carol Singletary
The attached comment letter from Mrs. Carol Singletary was received by FERC staff at a Sabal Trail Open House.
December 5, 2013 Docket # PF14-1
Ms. Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary
Federal Energy Regulatory Commissions
888 First Street, NE
Washington, DC 20426
Dear Ms. Bose,
I am requesting an opportunity to challenge with your organization claims made on the December 4″ letter submitted by Sabal Trail Transmission. If their ability to continue forward is based on these claims submitted in this document, I am requesting a moratorium on STT ability to continue to conduct business in pursuit of this objective. We the impact property owners are requesting a meeting as soon as possible to present our concerns to FERC to review what recourse is available to address these concerns.
In the Bi—WeekIy Teleconference notes from December 2nd, it was stated that STT is beginning to exercise statutory rights in all three states where access has not yet been granted. Please provide exactly what are STT statutory rights specifically. How those rights will be enforced and implemented. I am also requesting what rights the property owners have and a detailed description of what and how they can be exercised.
I am requesting that the teleconference session be made available to the public. In the spirit of full disclosure and due to the slow response rates to questions posed to Sabal Trail this will be the best venue for timely information about the project. This level of transparency will allow full disclosure. Could the meetings be available is real time and in a recorded format?
Ms. Bose, forcing dependence for information on the organization perpetrating this attack is unconscionable. What is the expectation by FERC of STT for an acceptable response timeframe to questions posed by property owners? Is there any consequence when they do not meet this standard? Can there be an addition of an independent third party who can act as a liaison to ensure accurate and timely responses? How much control does FERC have over the format of the “voluntary” meetings provided by SST? Are these meeting really voluntary if they are a commitment made in the pre-filing request. If these meeting have been insufficient in addressing the concerns of property owners, will STT be considered as meeting the pre-filing commitment?
I know some impacted property owners struggle to meet basic needs of food, shelter and medicine. The ability to retain an attorney is out of their reach. What can FERC make available regarding legal assistance for those who wish to challenge the demands of STT for their property?
This is such an overwhelming and confusing process. The questions listed above are just a small sampling of questions we have, albeit, the need for a meeting with FERC. The stress of waiting for over a year for the scheduled FERC meetings would have a negative impact on the targeted stakeholders. I hope you are willing to conduct FERC meetings as soon as possible.
I would like to acknowledge and thank John Peconom for the kindness he has show to us during these exceedingly difficult times.