COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
AT RICHMOND, SEPTEMBER 30,2015
APPLICATION OF
. 'A
"
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
( CCE
;
;:
CASE NO. PUE-2014-00115
For approval and certification of electric transmission
facilities: Pacific 230 lcV Double Circuit
Transmission Line and 230-34.5 kV Pacific Substation
ORDER
On November 19, 2014, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Dominion Virginia
Power" or "Company") filed with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") an
application ("Application") for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Pacific
230 kilovolt ("kV") double circuit transmission line and 230-34.5 kV Pacific Substation
("Project"). Dominion Virginia Power filed the Application pursuant to § 56-46.1 of the Code of
Virginia ("Code") and the Utility Facilities Act, § 56-265.1 etseq.
According to the Application, the Company proposes to construct the new overhead
230 kV double circuit transmission line by cutting into existing 230 kV Brambleton-BECO Line
#2137 approximately 100 feet south of where Line #2137 crosses Waxpool Road, and extending
the new double circuit line approximately 1.8 miles to a new 230-34.5 kV Pacific Substation to
be constructed in Loudoun County.1 The proposed in-service date for the proposed Project is
summer of 2016.2 Dominion Virginia Power asserts that the proposed Project is necessary to
ensure that the Company can continue to provide reliable electric service to its customers served
in the Sterling Park Area of Loudoun County, consistent with the Company's distribution
' Ex. 2 at 3.
2
Id. at 5.
reliability planning criteria and to maintain and improve reliability of the existing 230 kV system
in the Sterling Park area.3
On January 23, 2015, the Commission entered an Order for Notice and Hearing that,
among other things, established a schedule for the filing of notices of participation and the
submission of prefiled testimony; scheduled this matter for local public hearings in Loudoun
County on March 18, 2015; scheduled a public evidentiaiy hearing in Richmond, Virginia, on
June 9, 2015, at 10 a.m. in the Commission's Courtroom; and appointed a Hearing Examiner to
conduct all further proceedings in this matter on behalf of the Commission.
The local hearings were held as scheduled on March 18, 2015.
As noted in the Scheduling Order, the Commission Staff ("Staff) requested that the
Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") coordinate a review of the proposed Project by
state and local agencies and file a report thereon. DEQ filed its report on February 9, 2015.
DEQ recommended the selection of either the Company's alternative Route A-2 or
alternative Route B "because they have the least potential impacts to wetlands."4 Furthermore,
DEQ made various recommendations associated with the Project which were "[bjased on the
information and analysis submitted by reviewing agencies."5 Specifically, DEQ recommended
that the Company engage in the following activities relative to the Project:
(1) Conduct an on-site delineation of all wetlands and stream crossings within the Project
area with verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, using accepted methods and
procedures, and follow the DEQ recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands
and streams;
3
Id. at 2-3.
4
Ex. 10 at 6.
5
Id,
2
(2) Follow DEQ's recommendations regarding air quality protection, as applicable;
(3) Reduce solid waste at the source, reuse and recycle it to the maximum extent
practicable, as applicable;
(4) Coordinate with DCR's Division of Natural Fleritage regarding its recommendations
to protect natural heritage resources as well as for updates to the Biotics Data System database if
six months have passed before the Project is implemented;
(5) Coordinate with DGIF regarding its recommendations for wildlife resources;
(6) Coordinate with DHR regarding its recommendations to protect historic and
archaeological resources;
(7) Contact VDOT regarding its recommendation to coordinate with VDOT offices prior
to construction;
(8) Follow the principles and practices of pollution prevention to the maximum extent
practicable;
(9) Limit the use of pesticides and herbicides to the extent practicable; and
(10) Coordinate with Loudoun County regarding its recommendations.6
Loudoun County expressed its preference for the Company's alternative Route B in its
n
t
comments included within the DEQ Report. In contrast, VDOT expressed its preference for the
• Route C.8
Company's alternative
On March 24, 2015, Dulles Gateway Associates, LLC, and TAB I Associates, LLC
(collectively, "Respondents"), filed a notice of participation in this case. Two people filed
written comments relative to the Project. Mrs. Leslie Campbell suggested that notice of the
6
Id. at 6-7.
7
Id. at 23-24.
8
Id. at 20.
3
Project was not prominently displayed in the Washington Post. Mr. John A. McEwan expressed
concern regarding the proximity of the Project to his satellite receiver business, Technology
Advancement Group, Inc. ("TAG").
On April 21, 2015, the Respondents filed the testimony of Christopher Antigone. Mr.
Antigone testified that Routes B and C would run through the Respondents' property and would
greatly interfere with the Respondents' development plans.9 The Respondents do not oppose
Routes A-l and A-2 but do oppose Routes B and C.
On May 5, 2015, Staff filed its testimony and exhibits summarizing the results of its
investigation of the Company's Application. The Staff concluded that the Company
demonstrated a need for the Project, and did not oppose the Company's Proposed Route A-l.
Staff suggested, however, that Route A-2 is a reasonable alternative, given its comparable cost
and shorter length.10
On May 19, 2015, the Company filed the Rebuttal Testimony of Courtney Fisher. Ms.
Fisher responded to the written public comments, the testimony of Staff and the Respondents,
and the DEQ Report. Among other things, she testified that the Company does not object to
most of the recommendations in the DEQ Report, but stated that while the Company was
prepared to coordinate with Loudoun County relative to the proposed substation, it opposed such
coordination for the entire transmission line.11
The Commission held an evidentiary hearing as scheduled on June 9, 2015. Counsel for
the Company, the Respondent, and the Commission Staff appeared at the hearing.
9 Ex.
9 at 1-7.
10.Ex.
11.
" Ex. 12.
4
On July 2, 2015, Hearing Examiner A. Ann Berkebile issued her report ("Hearing
Examiner's Report") setting forth the procedural history of the case; summarizing the record;
analyzing the evidence and issues in this proceeding; setting forth her findings and
recommendations; and advising the case participants of their opportunity to comment on the
Hearing Examiner's Report.
The Hearing Examiner recommended that the Commission grant the requested certificate
of public convenience and necessity to construct and operate the proposed transmission facilities
using Proposed Route A-1 based on the following findings:
(1) The Project is justified by the public convenience and necessity;
(2) The Commission should approve the Company's Proposed Route (Route A-1) for the
Project;
(3) The Commission should issue a Certificate for the completion of the Project;
(4) The Company should be required to work with Mr. McEwan, to the greatest extent
possible, during the construction of the Project to minimize the obstruction of TAG's sky views;
(5) The Company should be required to comply with the following recommendations in
the DEQ Report:
(a) Conduct an on-site delineation of all wetlands and stream crossings within the
Project area with verification by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, using
accepted methods and procedures, and follow the DEQ recommendations to avoid
and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams;
(b) Follow DEQ's recommendations regarding air quality protection, as applicable;
(c) Reduce solid waste at the source, reuse and recycle it to the maximum extent
practicable, as applicable;
(d) Coordinate with DCR's Division of Natural Heritage regarding its
recommendations to protect natural heritage resources as well as for updates to
the Biotics Data System database if six months have passed before the Project is
implemented;
5
(e) Coordinate with DGIF regarding its recommendations for wildlife resources;
(f) Coordinate with DHR regarding its recommendations to protect historic and
archaeological resources;
(g) Contact VDOT regarding its recommendation to coordinate with VDOT offices
prior to construction;
(h) Follow the principles and practices of pollution prevention to the maximum extent
practicable;
(i) Limit the use of pesticides and herbicides to the extent practicable; and
(j) Coordinate with Loudoun County regarding the Pacific Substation.12
On July 22, 2015, Verisign, Inc. ("Verisign"), filed a Motion for Leave to File Objection
to the Hearing Examiner's Report ("Verisign Motion") and an Objection ("Verisign Objection").
Verisign states that it owns property through which the Proposed Route would pass and that it
has specialized equipment on its property, critical to Verisign's operations and infrastructure, that
the Company must avoid during its project.13 Verisign further stated that it became aware of this
proceeding for the first time well after the deadline for participation had passed,
On July 23, 2015, Respondents and the Company each filed comments in support of the
Hearing Examiner's Report. On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a Response objecting to
Verisign's Motion.
NOW THE COMMISSION, upon consideration of this matter, is of the opinion and finds
that the public convenience and necessity require that the Pacific 230 kV double circuit
transmission line and 230-34.5 kV Pacific Substation be constructed as proposed in the
Company's Application and that certificates of public convenience and necessity should be
issued authorizing the Project.
12 Hearing
13 Verisign
Examiner's Report at 11-12.
Objection at 2.
6
Verisign's Motion for Leave to File Objection is denied. Verisign did not file a timely
notice of participation and is not a party to this proceeding. In its response to the Motion,
Dominion Virginia Power states that "Verisign received notice in accordance with statute, both
by publication in accordance with the Procedural Order, and by U.S. mail...,"14 As we have
heretofore explained, "the Commission has previously found - on multiple occasions - that a
non-party does not have a right to file comments on a hearing examiner's report."15 Furthermore,
we find that Verisign has "not established that good cause exists to accept new notices of
participation at this stage of the proceeding, nor that granting such motion[] is necessary under
Rule 10 [of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure] to serve the ends of justice,"16
and that Verisign has "not established that accepting [its Objection] to the Hearing Examiner's
Report is necessary to serve the ends of justice in this particular case."17
In its response to the Motion, Dominion Virginia Power also states as follows:
[T]he Company would note that, if the certification of electric
transmission facilities sought herein is approved by the
Commission and to the extent the Company would ever need to
condemn or otherwise work with Verisign on the Project i n c l u d i n g
through the development and construction of such facilities, the
Company would provide the type of information requested by
Verisign and coordinate with that customer on locations of the
power lines and related support poles within prudent engineering
practices.18
14 Dominion
Virginia Power Response at 2.
15
Application of Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative, For approval of a general increase in base rates and a
plan to migrate transitioning customers to its modified legacy rates, andfor approval of revisions to rate schedules
for electric service, Case No. PUE-2013-00132, Order at 6 (January 26, 2015).
16
Id. at 7.
17
Id.
18 Dominion
Virginia Power Response at 3, fh. 4.
7
Having approved the transmission facilities sought herein, the Commission hereby directs
Dominion Virginia Power to comply with the above.
Approval
The statutory scheme governing the Company's Application is found in several chapters
of Title 56 of the Code.
Section 56-265.2 A of the Code provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any public utility
to construct. .. facilities for use in public utility service, . . ., without first having obtained a
certificate from the Commission that the public convenience and necessity require the exercise of
such right or privilege."
Section 56-46,1 of the Code further directs the Commission to consider several factors
when reviewing the Company's Application.19 Subsection A of the statute provides that:
Whenever the Commission is required to approve the construction
of any electrical utility facility, it shall give consideration to the
effect of that facility on the environment and establish such
conditions as may be desirable or necessary to minimize adverse
environmental impact.... In every proceeding under this
subsection, the Commission shall receive and give consideration to
all reports that relate to the proposed facility by state agencies
concerned with environmental protection; and if requested by any
county or municipality in which the facility is proposed to be built,
to local comprehensive plans that have been adopted . . . .
Additionally, the Commission (a) shall consider the effect of the
proposed facility on economic development within the
Commonwealth,. .., and (b) shall consider any improvements in
service reliability that may result from the construction of such
facility.
Section 56-46.1 B of the Code further provides, in part, that:
As a condition to approval the Commission shall determine that the
line is needed and that the corridor or route the line is to follow
will reasonably minimize adverse impact on the scenic assets,
19 Subsection
D of the statute provides that "[a]s used in this section, unless the context requires a different meaning:
'Environment' or 'environmental' shall be deemed to include in meaning 'historic,' as well as a consideration of the
probable effects of the line on the health and safety of the persons in the area concerned."
8
historic districts, and environment of the area concerned.... In
making the determinations about need, corridor or route, and
method of installation, the Commission shall verify the applicant's
load flow modeling, contingency analyses, and reliability needs
presented to justify the new line and its proposed method of
installation.... Additionally, the Commission shall consider, upon
the request of the governing body of any county or municipality in
which the line is proposed to be constructed, (a) the costs and
economic benefits likely to result from requiring the underground
placement of the line and (b) any potential impediments to timely
construction of the line.
The Code further requires the Commission to consider existing right-of-way easements
when siting transmission lines. Section 56-46.1 C of the Code provides that "[i]n any hearing the
public service company shall provide adequate evidence that existing rights-of-way cannot
adequately serve the needs of the company." In addition, § 56-259 C of the Code provides that
"[pjrior to acquiring any easement of right-of-way, public service corporations will consider the
feasibility of locating such facilities on, over, or under existing easements of rights-of-way."
Need
The need for the Project is unchallenged.20 We agree with the Hearing Examiner that
load growth in the area requires transmission improvements, and that the Project will provide
reliability benefits as described in the Application.21
Route
As discussed above, the Hearing Examiner recommended Route A-l, finding it to be "the
route that most reasonably avoids and minimizes adverse impacts on developed areas, scenic
20 See,
21
e.g., Ex. 11 at 18.
See, e.g., Hearing Examiner's Report at 9; Ex. 4 at 2-8; Ex. 5 at 2-5.
9
assets, historic resources and the environment."22 We agree with the Hearing Examiner that
Proposed Route A-l is preferable to the alternatives proposed in this proceeding.
Economic Development and Service Reliability
We agree with the Hearing Examiner that "[t]he Project will have a positive impact on
Virginia's economy by facilitating reliable electric service at an economical cost."23 We find
that by assuring continued reliable bulk electric power delivery, the Project benefits economic
development in Loudoun County.
Scenic Assets, Historic Districts, and the Environment
We agree with the Hearing Examiner that the Project reasonably avoids and minimizes
adverse impacts on developed areas, scenic assets, historic resources and the environment
consistent with § 56-46.1 B of the Code. We further agree with the Hearing Examiner that,
although the Project will require acquisition of new transmission easements because there is no
existing right-of-way in the area, the Project constitutes "the superior alternative for addressing
expected load growth (as compared to the transmission and distribution alternatives considered
by the Company)."24
Environmental Impact
Sections 56-46,1 A and B of the Code require the Commission to consider the proposed
Project's impact on the environment and to establish such conditions as may be desirable or
necessary to minimize adverse environmental impact. Section 56-46.1 A of the Code further
provides that the Commission shall receive, and give consideration to, all reports that relate to
the proposed Project by state agencies concerned with environmental protection. We agree with
22
Hearing Examiner's Report at 11.
23 See,
e.g., Hearing Examiner's Report at 9; Ex. 11 at 17.
24 See,
e.g., Hearing Examiner's Report at 9; Ex. 4 at 7-8.
10
the Hearing Examiner and find that "the recommendations in the DEQ Report for the
minimization of environmental impacts - which were not opposed by the Company - are
reasonable and should be adopted by the Commission as conditions of approving the Project."25
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The Company is authorized to construct and operate the proposed Pacific 230 kV
double circuit transmission line and 230-34,5 kV Pacific Substation on Route A-l as proposed in
the Company's Application subject to the findings and conditions imposed herein.
(2) Pursuant to §§ 56-46.1, 56-265.2, and related provisions of Title 56 of the Code, the
Company's Application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct and
operate the Project is granted, as provided for herein, and subject to the requirements set forth in
this Final Order.
(3) Pursuant to the Utility Facilities Act, Chapter 10.1 (§ 56-265.1 etseq.) of Title 56 of
the Code, the Company is issued the following certificate of public convenience and necessity:
Certificate No. ET-91z, which authorizes Virginia Electric and
Power Company under the Utility Facilities Act to operate
certificated transmission lines and facilities in Loudoun County, all
as shown on the map attached to the certificate, and to construct
and operate facilities as authorized in Case No. PUE-2014-00115,
cancels Certificate No. ET-91y, issued to Virginia Electric and
Power Company on June 15, 2015, in Case No. PUE-2014-00086.
(4) The Commission's Division of Energy Regulation forthwith shall provide the
Company copies of the certificates issued in Ordering Paragraph (3) with the detailed map
attached.
(5) The transmission line and associated substation work approved herein must be
constructed and in service by June 1, 2016; provided, however, the Company is granted leave to
apply for an extension for good cause shown.
25 Hearing
Examiner's Report at 11.
11
(6) The Motion for Leave to File Objection of Verisign, Inc., is denied.
(7) As there is nothing further to come before the Commission, this matter is dismissed,
and the papers filed herein shall be placed in the file for ended causes.
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to:
Kristian M. Dahl., Esquire, McGuire Woods LLP, Gateway Plaza, 800 E. Canal Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219-3916; Charlotte P. McAfee, Esquire, Dominion Resources Services,
Inc., Law Department, 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219; Michael J. Quinan,
Esquire, and Cliona M. Robb, Esquire, Christian & Barton, 909 East Main Street, Suite 1200,
Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095; Michael J. Coughlin, Esquire, Walsh, Colucci, Lubeley &
Walsh, P.C., 4310 Prince William Parkway, Suite 300, Woodbridge, Virginia 22192; and C.
Meade Browder, Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Division
of Consumer Counsel, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
12