HomeMy WebLinkAboutPSE Reply on Reconsideration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUGET SOUND ENERGY’S REPLY ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 1
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623 -9372
The Honorable Phil Olbrechts
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
In re: Renton Land Use Matter
LUA18-000055
Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
Energize Eastside Conditional Use Permit
File
No. Renton Land Use Matter
LUA18-000055
PUGET SOUND ENERGY, INC.’S
REPLY ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (“PSE”) proposes the construction of a 4-mile
transmission line upgrade (the “Project”) in the City of Renton (“City” or “Renton”),
which is one segment in the 16-mile Energy Eastside project.1 PSE submits this reply to
the two sets of arguments raised by the Coalition of Eastside Neighbors for Sensible
Energy (“CENSE”). For the reasons set forth in detail below, including the substantial
record rebutting their claims, PSE respectfully requests that its motion be granted in full
and that CENSE’s arguments be rejected.
///
1 PSE asks that its Request for Correction be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration. See
PSE’s Request for Correction at 1, n. 1 (citing RMC 4-8-100.H.7).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUGET SOUND ENERGY’S REPLY ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 2
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623 -9372
I. ARGUMENT
In our motion for reconsideration, PSE sought to clarify key aspects of the record
including the following:
1) That the Hearing Examiner correctly concluded that substantial record evidence
demonstrated that PSE’s Project, which includes operating both transmission
lines at 230kV from energization, “will not materially increase the risk of
unintentional pipeline release along the co-located Olympic Pipeline”2;
2) That the Hearing Examiner’s responsive clarifications were to issues not raised
prior to hearing;
3) That PSE completed and submitted geotechnical reviews to the City during its
conditional use permit (“CUP”) application review, which were submitted in full
by PSE to the Hearing Examiner at hearing; and
4) That the Hearing Examiner’s condition on voltage ratings requires that “PSE
shall operate both transmission lines at equivalent voltage ratings, except as
necessary to respond to emergency situations.”
These requests are pragmatic and, if adopted, would bring the Hearing Examiner’s
decision into consistency with other conditions that apply to the Project. CENSE,
however, responds by calling into question the degree of coordination between PSE and
the Olympic Pipeline Company (“OPL”) and the efficacy of a condition, originally drafted
by the Hearing Examiner, which requires operating the upgraded transmission lines at
equivalent voltage ratings except during “emergency situations.” For the reasons set forth
in detail below, these arguments should be rejected.
2 Revised Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Final Decision (HE Decision) at p. 4;
see also, HE Decision at 10 (finding that “[n]o increased risk was assigned to the 230/230kV
configuration because no AC interference was found to occur under this configuration as
determined in the DNV report.”).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUGET SOUND ENERGY’S REPLY ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 3
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623 -9372
a. PSE regularly coordinates with OPL on the Project.
On response, CENSE seeks to undermine the validity of PSE’s ongoing
coordination with OPL and to conflate OPL’s independent pipeline maintenance with
PSE’s Project. These arguments ignore the substantial record confirming that PSE and the
Partner Cities have thoroughly explored issues related to pipeline safety and have
concluded that 1) the Project will not increase potential interactions between PSE’s
transmission line and OPL’s pipelines3, 2) PSE has coordinated and will continue to
coordinate with OPL because it is responsible utility practice and Renton’s CUP requires
it and, 3) PSE and OPL are separate companies that independently operate their separate
utility facilities.4
As presented at hearing by Lowell Rogers, utility corridors throughout the United
States house both high voltage transmission lines and petroleum pipelines. This is
common practice and, with planning and coordination, collocation can be accomplished
without incident. Many jurisdictions, including Renton,5 encourage the collocation of
utilities. The collocation of utilities does not, however, bring the utilities into a single
3 See, e.g., HE Decision at p. 4; see also, HE Decision at 10 (finding that “[n]o increased risk was
assigned to the 230/230kV configuration because no AC interference was found to occur under
this configuration as determined in the DNV report.”).
4 See, e.g., Ex. 18 (Final Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) at 4.9-37 (“Olympic, as pipeline
operator, is responsible for operating and maintaining its pipelines in accordance with federal
standards. PSE, as project applicant, has responsibilities (some of which may be imposed by
jurisdictions with permit authority) to coordinate and cooperate with Olympic, but has limited
authority to influence specific mitigation measures undertaken by Olympic related to pipeline
operation or monitoring.”)).
5 Renton, Comprehensive Plan U-3 (“Promote the co-location of new utility infrastructure within
rights-of-way and utility corridors, and coordinate construction and replacement of utility systems
with other public infrastructure projects to minimize construction- related costs and disruptions.”).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUGET SOUND ENERGY’S REPLY ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 4
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623 -9372
company’s ownership; rather, each utility is required to monitor and maintain its facilities
and ensure compliance with applicable codes separately.6
PSE owns and operates its transmission lines in a corridor also used by OPL. As a
byproduct, the two companies regularly coordinate on maintenance and, as here,
construction projects.7 The record is replete with documentation of coordination between
PSE and OPL on this Project.8 This coordination will continue through Project
construction (and beyond) with or without permit conditions. Nonetheless, the Hearing
Examiner required, in five pages of conditions, extensive and continued documentation
and coordination with OPL. These conditions are set forth in full in pages 3-10—3-15 of
Renton’s EIS Consistency Review and include (among other conditions):
Developing a mutually agreed to construction and access plan with OPL’s
Damage Prevention Team;
Field verifying the location of the pipelines prior to construction9;
Having an OPL pipeline safety observer onsite at all time during construction;
Drafting of a mitigation and monitoring report;
Working with OPL to evaluate and implement appropriate mitigation measures
to reduce electrical interference with OPL’s system;
6 See, e.g., Ex. 18 at 4-37—38 (“To address concerns about potential interaction between the
Energize Eastside transmission lines and Olympic Pipeline system, PSE and Olympic have
coordinated regarding the project since 2012, and both have indicated they would continue their
coordination through final design and construction.”).
7 Id.
8 See, e.g., Testimony of David Kemp (explaining PSE’s proactive information exchange and
coordination with OPL, which enabled DNV-GL to ensure the accuracy of its modeling).
9 See also Testimony of Lowell Rogers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUGET SOUND ENERGY’S REPLY ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 5
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623 -9372
Providing OPL with as much advance notice as practical of when outages are
planned on the individual circuits in order to allow monitoring of the AC
induction effects on the pipeline; and
Providing OPL with data on anticipated peak loads during winter and other
information relevant to OPL’s pipeline maintenance.
OPL both shared data with PSE to enable the DNV-GL study10 and has, in writing,
acknowledged its review of the DNV-GL study.11 CENSE’s arguments are unfounded and
should be rejected.
b. The Hearing Examiner’s condition, as supplemented by PSE,
effectively ensures that the lines will be operated at equivalent voltages.
Finally, CENSE challenges the efficacy of the Hearing Examiner’s condition
requiring that both lines be operated at 230/230kV (in the Hearing Examiner’s revised
decision) or at equivalent voltage ratings (PSE’s proposed language). Both proposed
versions of the condition are consistent with DNV-GL’s recommendations on measures to
limit potential interactions between PSE’s transmission lines and the OPL pipelines. And,
even assuming highly conservative baseline parameters (i.e., that both transmission lines
would be run at maximum capacity 24-hours a day, which maximizes the potential for
A/C interference), DNV-GL concluded that the Project would not increase interactions
with the pipeline. Both versions of the condition also provide an exception to the
10 See Testimony of D. Kemp at 2 (“We worked not only with PSE but also with OPL to get actual
data about their pipelines, so that our AC interference assessment reflected actual conditions in the
ground for the existing facilities.”).
11 See Letter to J. Nedrud from M. Horn (Dec. 22, 2016), available at
http://www.energizeeastsideeis.org/uploads/4/7/3/1/47314045/marc_horn_to_pse_letter_12.22.20
16.pdf; see also, Ex. 17 (Draft Phase II EIS) at 8-16 (citing to Olympic (Olympic Pipeline
Company). 2016. Letter to Rich Crispo, Mayor of City of Newcastle (via Email) from Marc Horn,
President of Olympic Pipe Line Company. July 19, 2016).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUGET SOUND ENERGY’S REPLY ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 6
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623 -9372
requirement in the event of “emergency situations.” This gives the City certain assurances
while providing PSE with flexibility in operating and maintaining its transmission system.
Nonetheless, CENSE argues that the condition is insufficiently robust because “there is no
indication as to what is considered an ‘emergency situation.’”12
Where a term is not defined, it adheres to its dictionary definition.13 Here,
“emergency” is commonly understood to mean “an unforeseen combination of
circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action” or “an urgent need for
assistance or relief.”14 These definitions provide clear direction to PSE and ensure a
proper implementation of the condition. Moreover, any attempt to define and foresee all
possible “emergency situations” in the operation of a transmission system with greater
specificity is impracticable and could constrain PSE from properly maintaining its system.
CENSE’s arguments should be rejected.
///
12 CENSE, Response to PSE Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration at 3.
13 See generally, Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA, 188 Wn. 2d 421, 435, 395 P.3d
1031, 1038 (2017) (explaining that “we may discern the plain meaning of nontechnical statutory
terms from their dictionary definitions.”) (quoting State v. Cooper, 156 Wn.2d 475, 480, 128 P.3d
1234 (2006)).
14 See Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary available at https://www.merriam-webster.com/
(definition of “emergency”).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUGET SOUND ENERGY’S REPLY ON MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION - 7
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623 -9372
DATED this 16th day of March, 2020.
VAN NESS FELDMAN LLP
s/ Sara A. Leverette
Erin Anderson, WSBA #23282
Sara A. Leverette, WSBA #44183
719 Second Avenue, Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
Tel: (206) 623-9372
Fax: (206) 623-4986
E-mail: ela@vnf.com; sal@vnf.com
Attorneys for Puget Sound Energy, Inc.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE – 1
719 Second Avenue Suite 1150
Seattle, WA 98104
(206) 623 -9372
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, I’sha Wilis, declare as follows:
That I am over the age of 18 years, not a party to this action, and competent to be a
witness herein;
That I, as a Legal Assistant in the office of Van Ness Feldman, caused true and
correct copies of the following documents to be emailed to the Hearing Examiner and
counsel of record as set forth below:
1. Puget Sound Energy, Inc.’s Reply on Motion for Reconsideration;
2. Certificate of Service;
and that on March 16, 2020, I addressed said documents and deposited them for delivery
as follows:
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
Leslie Clark – lclark@rentonwa.gov
Jill Ding – jding@rentonwa.gov
Citizens for Sane Eastside Energy (CSEE)
Larry G. Johnson larry.ede@gmail.com
Coalition of Eastside Neighbors for Sensible Energy (CENSE)
Rick Aramburu rick@aramburu-eustis.com
Carol Cohoe carol@aramburu-eustis.com
I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Seattle, Washington on this 16th day of March, 2020.
s/ I’sha Willis
I’sha Willis, Declarant