HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200316 CENSE Reply PSE-CoB Responses--Reconsideration1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Honorable Phil Olbrechts
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER
FOR THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
In Re
Puget Sound Energize Eastside
Conditional Use Permit
LUA18-000055, CU-H, SME
No. LUA18-000055
CENSE REPLY TO RESPONSES
OF PSE AND BELLEVUE TO
CENSE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
1. INTRODUCTION.
On February 28, 2020, CENSE filed with the City of Renton its Motion for
Reconsideration as permitted by the Examiner. The CENSE motion addressed several
portions of the Examiner's decision, including assertions regarding project completion,
impacts on the City of Renton, the authority of the Examiner to order additional review
under SEPA and whether proceedings before the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission ("WUTC") addressed specific project concerns.
The City of Bellevue and PSE dispute the content of the CENSE motion. For the
reasons stated herein, the Examiner should modify his decision consistent with the
CENSE motion.
LLLL A W OOOO F F I C E S O F
J .J .J .J . RRRR I C H A R D A A A A R A M B U R U ,,,, P L L C
705 2 N D AVE., SUITE 1300
SEATTLE 98104-1797
(206) 625-9515
FAX (206) 682-1376
CENSE REPLY TO RESPONSES OF PSE AND BELLEVUE
TO CENSE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1
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
26
27
28
2. PROJECT COMPLETION AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE DEADEND LINE.
PSE vigorously asserts that it will really, really complete the entire 18 or 16 mile
transmission line from the Talbot Hill substation in Renton to the Sammamish
substation in Redmond. See PSE Response at page 2. However, there has been no
application for the north segment and PSE declines to say when it might apply for the
rest of the proposal. The applications for approval of the subject South Segment were
made in September, 2017, with commitment that the North Segment application would
be filed before the end of the year. Of course no application was made in 2017, 2018,
2019 or so far in 2020; the proposal before the Examiner remains only the South
Segment.
Both PSE and Bellevue studiously avoid any mention of the conclusions in the
Bellevue staff report that the south segment "can function independently" and the
connection to the north is to "provide redundancy." Importantly, neither PSE nor any of
the cities involved have ever identified the segment from the Richards Creek substation
north as one that exists to simply "provide redundancy." PSE says nothing about the
"redundancy" of that line in its response.
Bellevue references "redundancy" in a footnote of its response to CENSE's
motion (Number 4) on page 7, as a feature that "provides a very important tool to
protect system reliability." For this proposition, the City provides three cites from the
record, but none of them address the north segment referenced in its own staff report.
The reference to "redundancy" on page 6-18 of the FEIS under the heading "Utility
disruptions caused by terrorism or natural hazards" is only related to "long term
planning efforts." The reference to page 2-37 of the Phase 1 DEIS is to distributed
generation: "a substantial degree of redundancy is needed in distributed generation
resources." No mention of transmission. Neither are redundancy or transmission
mentioned in the City's citation to page 16-25 of the Phase 1 DEIS. If this is all the city
can muster for the analysis of north segment redundancy, it certainly demonstrates the
LLLL A W OOOO F F I C E S O F
J .J .J .J . RRRR I C H A R D A A A A R A M B U R U ,,,, P L L C
705 2 N D AVE., SUITE 1300
SEATTLE 98104-1797
(206) 625-9515
FAX (206) 682-1376
CENSE REPLY TO RESPONSES OF PSE AND BELLEVUE
TO CENSE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2
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
26
27
28
complete lack of analysis. Since it was Bellevue that indicated that it was "PSE's
analysis [that] supported and demonstrated . . . that the south segment could function
whether or not the north segment is built" one would expect citation to this "analysis" by
Bellevue, but none is forthcoming.
There is a real difference between a line that is redundant and a line that is "a
must." Moreover, the references in Bellevue's staff report state that the
redundant/independent dichotomy comes from "PSE's analysis. . ." Again PSE refuses
to address what was in their analysis, seemingly distancing itself from the statement.
Keep in mind that these references and distinctions were not generated by CENSE, but
by the City of Bellevue.
For a $150,000,000 to $300,000,000 project that runs through four miles of
Renton, more analysis is required before a final decision can be made. Why does the
public find out now that one portion of this project is characterized as "redundant" and
the other can operate independently? As described in its motion, CENSE requests the
appropriate supplemental SEPA analysis, either in the form of a supplemental EIS or an
addendum to the FEIS to address this subject. Further review is certainly appropriate.
3. SEPA ISSUES.
Bellevue rises to the defense of PSE claiming that the issues raised by CENSE
are covered by the discussion of "phased construction" in project and SEPA
documents. Page 2. It is certainly understood that PSE will install the new towers and
lines in a manner that will continue to energize the new Richards Creek substation while
the other segment is built. But the issue is not construction phasing, but evaluation of
"new information" under WAC 197-1-600(3)(b)(ii), which supports a supplemental EIS.
Under the rule, "new information" includes a "lack of material disclosure." If the only
references to the redundancy of the north segment are those cited by the City of
Bellevue above (PSE's response does not even contain the word "redundancy"), there
does appear to be a lack of material disclosure.
LLLL A W OOOO F F I C E S O F
J .J .J .J . RRRR I C H A R D A A A A R A M B U R U ,,,, P L L C
705 2 N D AVE., SUITE 1300
SEATTLE 98104-1797
(206) 625-9515
FAX (206) 682-1376
CENSE REPLY TO RESPONSES OF PSE AND BELLEVUE
TO CENSE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3
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
26
27
28
The record supports additional environmental review as requested by CENSE.
4. OLYMPIC PIPELINE ISSUES.
At page 11 of its motion, CENSE requests reconsideration of issues related to
pipeline safety.
PSE contends that "pipeline safety has been extensively studied" and that
"PSE's proposal has eliminated the risk of causing additional interaction between PSE's
transmission lines and Olympic's pipelines" such that "no more is required." Response
at 10, lines 12-14. But PSE freely admits it does not operate, control or have any
authority over the pipeline. The issue here is simple: if the pipeline has been
"extensively studied", and the studies suggest that all problems have been "eliminated,"
where is the evidence that the pipeline operator agrees with PSE's representations and
will abide by conditions?
As with the redundant/independent dichotomy, PSE begs the question on
pipeline safety. It says again that it regularly meets with Olympic and coordinates with
them, yet the record contains no independent verification from Olympic on any of these
issues. The best evidence of the studies and mitigation measures for the pipeline
appears to be affirmation from the pipeline owner, OPL. It should be made a condition
of approval.
DATED this 16th day of March, 2020.
__/s/________________________________
J. Richard Aramburu, WSBA #466
Attorney for Petitioner CENSE
LLLL A W OOOO F F I C E S O F
J .J .J .J . RRRR I C H A R D A A A A R A M B U R U ,,,, P L L C
705 2 N D AVE., SUITE 1300
SEATTLE 98104-1797
(206) 625-9515
FAX (206) 682-1376
CENSE REPLY TO RESPONSES OF PSE AND BELLEVUE
TO CENSE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4
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
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
I am an employee in the Law Offices of J. Richard Aramburu PLLC, over
eighteen years of age and competent to be a witness herein. On the date below I e-
mailed to counsel of record copies of the foregoing Motion, addressed as follows:
City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts, olbrechtslaw@gmail.com
Renton City Clerk, Jason Seth, jseth@rentonwa.gov
Jill Ding, Planner, Jding@Rentonwa.gov
Larry Johnson larry.ede@gmail.com for CSEE
Sara A. Leverette sleverette@vnf.com plus SAL@vnf.com, and
Erin L. Anderson eanderson@vnf.com (PSE attorneys, Van Ness Feldman)
I'sha M. Willis willis@vnf.com
City of Bellevue attorneys mmcfarland@bellevuewa.gov,
kgerla@bellevuewa.gov, czakrzewski@bellevuewa.gov
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
DATED this 16th day of March, 2020.
Law Offices of J. Richard Aramburu, PLLC
__/s/__________________________
Carol Cohoe, Legal Assistant
LLLL A W OOOO F F I C E S O F
J .J .J .J . RRRR I C H A R D A A A A R A M B U R U ,,,, P L L C
705 2 N D AVE., SUITE 1300
SEATTLE 98104-1797
(206) 625-9515
FAX (206) 682-1376
CENSE REPLY TO RESPONSES OF PSE AND BELLEVUE
TO CENSE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 5