HomeMy WebLinkAboutC_Public_Comment_31.b_191127From:Warren Raven
To:Jill Ding
Subject:Re: Energize Eastside, LUA18-000055
Date:Wednesday, November 27, 2019 7:48:22 AM
Dear Jill,
Thank you for your response. As you stated. "Lower Cost Alternatives: The City’s CUP process
does not require that the applicant identify alternatives to the project proposal. " This is
where the you as the government are wrong.
As you know the Supreme Court held that on Feb 7, 1919 Companies only have to have
interests for its shareholders, rather than its customers.
It is your duty to protect the shareholders. PSE is wasting money buy building an expensive
project that can be done with solar and batteries now. It is an easy expense report that shows
PSE is spending more money then they should wasting profits that could go to the
shareholders.
The math is:
PSE wants 1,000,000 watts of new energy. $1 Billion.
1M watts divided by 10,000 watts average home with solar. $30,000, 100 homes. BUT we
have to triple it because the sun is not around all the time, SO, 300 homes.
300 times $30,000 equals $9,000,000 for the same project PSE wants to do for $1 BILLION.
Now lets add batteries to each home for $20,000.
300 times $50,000 equals $6,000,000 plus the $9,000,000 is $15,000,000.
Still way less than what PSE wants to charge VOTERS and Shareholders of the area.
$1,000,000,000 minus $15,000,000 equals...
The elected officials just saved the VOTERS and Shareholders $985,000,000.
Identifying 300 homes in Renton, Bellevue, New Castle area that could put solar and batteries
on will achieve what PSE corporate wants to do and save the shareholders millions in profit.
Warren Raven
Kirkland, WA
425-766-5041
From: Jill Ding <JDing@Rentonwa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 12:27 PM
To: 'Warren Raven' <wrenfoto@hotmail.com>
Subject: Energize Eastside, LUA18-000055
Dear Warren,
Thank you for your comments on Puget Sound Energy’s Energize Eastside Conditional Use Permit
Application, your comments have been included in the official file for consideration by the decision
maker. In addition, you have been added as a party of record for this project, as a party of record,
you will receive copies of correspondence from the City on this project. Your original email to me
included concerns related to project need, safety concerns with respect to pole proximity to the
Olympic pipeline, tree removal, and other less costly options for energy reliability. My responses to
your comments are provided below:
1. Project Need: The proposed transmission line upgrade is permitted within the City of
Renton subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by the Hearing Examiner.
The City’s regulations do not require that the applicant demonstrate that the project in
needed in order for a Conditional Use Permit to be granted. However, PSE has conducted
studies regarding the need of the project and has made those studies available for City staff
and the public to review. Links to submitted studies have been provided at the end of this
email.
2. Pipeline Safety: Safety concerns regarding transmission line pole proximity to the Olympic
Pipeline is a concern that is shared by the City and was studied extensively during the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. Appendix J of the Final EIS addresses many of
these comments (see page J1-28 and J1- 51). In addition, sections 4.9, 5.9, 6.12, 7.9, 8.9, and
Appendix I of the FEIS address pipeline safety. The EIS established potential mitigation
measures that would be adopted as project conditions focused on project safety in proximity
to the Olympic Pipeline.
3. Tree Removal: The City will review the proposal for compliance with the adopted Tree
Retention and Land Clearing Regulations. As the proposed transmission line upgrade is
proposed within PSE’s existing transmission line corridor, fewer trees will be required to be
removed than if PSE were proposing a new corridor. Although vegetation will be removed
within the corridor as part of the project, PSE is proposing to replace removed trees with
transmission line compatible species. Outside of the corridor, opportunities exist to replace
removed trees with taller growing species.
4. Lower Cost Alternatives: The City’s CUP process does not require that the applicant identify
alternatives to the project proposal. However, as part of the EIS process PSE was required to
study other alternatives, including conservation/energy efficiency, new generation, and
batteries. These alternatives were eventually eliminated because they did not solve the
problem, did not meet federal planning standards, and would be difficult to permit, or rely
on voluntary participation. Here is a link to the submitted Eastside System Energy Storage
Alternatives Assessment submitted by PSE:
https://edocs.rentonwa.gov/Documents/DocView.aspx?
id=1338646&dbid=0&repo=CityofRenton
A public hearing on the proposal has been tentatively scheduled for December 17th at 9:00 am in the
City Council Chambers located on the 7th floor of City Hall, you may wish to attend and testify.
Please let me know if you have additional questions regarding this project.
Thank you,
Jill Ding
Senior Planner
City of Renton
Community and Economic Development
6th floor
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6598
jding@rentonwa.gov