Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnergize Appendix A1 Appendix A – Energize Eastside Hearing Summary (LUA18-000055, CU-H, SME) Note: This hearing summary is provided as a courtesy reference tool to persons who need a summary of hearing testimony. The summary is not a part of the Energizer Eastside Final Decision issued by the hearing examiner. No assurances are made as to completeness or accuracy. Nothing in this summary should be construed as a finding or legal conclusion made by the Examiner or an indication of what the Examiner found significant to his decision. Hearing Summary – City of Renton 01/08/2020 Puget Sound Energy High Voltage Transmission Lines Summary Staff Presentation Jill Ding gave the Staff presentation using a PowerPoint (Exhibit 19). Ms. Ding overviewed the Staff Report (Exhibits 1-18) and introduced the expert witnesses joining her at the hearing. The examiner asked Ms. Ding to clarify if Exhibit 17 in the Staff Report reflected both Phases I and II of the Environmental Impact Statement. Ms. Ding clarified that it represented Phase II. The examiner asked that Phase I and Phase II be included in Exhibit 17 which Ms. Ding stated was possible. Exhibit 17 was updated to represent both phases of the EIS. The examiner asked Ms. Ding if this project has been considered as an essential public facility. Ms. Ding responded that the project is considered a “large utility.” Ms. Ding expressed that this means the project is not subject to any essential public facility provisions. The examiner asked Ms. Ding what elements of this project Staff were most concerned with during their review. Ms. Ding responded that Staff was mainly interested in mitigating tree removal as well as the visual impacts created by implementing individual poles. The examiner asked Ms. Ding to address how the City of Renton plans on mitigating visual impacts to which she responded that the City has offered a condition of approval recommending that specific poles (which were described as “highly visible”) be given art wraps. Applicant Testimony Ms. Erin Anderson, representing Puget Sound Energy (PSE), gave the Applicant presentation. Ms. Anderson stated that all the testimony provided by herself—and the individuals from PSE accompanying her—can be found in PSE’s hearing memorandum (Exhibit 22). Ms. Anderson emphasized, in her presentation, that this application must be evaluated exclusively under Renton’s Municipal Code. 2 Ms. Anderson expressed that PSE would agree to have art wraps on fifteen poles as proposed by the City—this language supporting this agreement is identifiable in the memorandum. Ms. Anderson also hoped to re-emphasize the notion that there were no significant adverse environmental impacts found to visual aesthetics in Renton via the EIS. Ms. Anderson requested modification of staff recommended Condition No. 3 to prohibit delays in energizing the new lien caused by delays in installing the art wrap. Dan Koch, Director of Electric Operations at PSE, testified for the Applicant on electrical systems. Mr. Koch has worked at PSE for nine years but has worked as an electrical engineering for over 30 years. Mr. Koch holds a BS in Electrical Engineering and is a licensed engineer in both Washington and California. Mr. Koch spoke on PSE’s electric transmission grid and how this project fits within this system. Mr. Koch spoke to how PSE plans to manage and mitigate vegetation impacts. Mr. Koch also spoke briefly about the proposed pole art on the transmission poles. Mr. Koch provided a written copy of his testimony to the hearing examiner which is also contained in Exhibit 22. Lowell Rogers testified for the Applicant on project construction and compliance with safety regulations. Mr. Rogers identified himself as a licensed engineer in California and Washington with over 25 years of experience in transmission line site-work, design, and construction. (Mr. Roger’s qualifications are further noted in Exhibit B of the PSE Memorandum). Mr. Rogers’ written testimony can be found in Exhibit 22. David Kemp, a senior engineer at DNVGL testified on PSE’s management of AC-interference effects on pipelines. Mr. Kemp is a licensed engineer in Ohio and has a professional background in using advanced computational methods to solve engineering problems. Mr. Kemp spoke to the commonality of the project proposed by PSE. Mr. Kemp testified that there should be minimal AC-interference on pipelines produced by PSE’s proposed project and that PSE is taking the “ideal” route by looking to avoid AC-interference before construction of the project begins. Mr. Kemp noted that PSE had already run the AC-interference study that the City of Renton was requesting be done before submitting the Application as they wanted to “proactively optimize the design for safety.” Mr. Kemp’s testimony was also provided in written form to the hearing examiner as part of Ex. 22. The examiner asked Mr. Kemp about impacts from adjoining industrial uses. Mr. Kemp responded that AC interference only occurs for lengthy and proximate co-location of pipes with transmission lines, which usually is not the situation with industrial uses. Bradley Strauch, the program manager for Energize Eastside EIS, also gave testimony for the Applicant about tree removal. Mr. Strauch has a BS in Environmental and Systematic Biology and has worked for PSE for over 10 years. Mr. Strauch’s testimony was also provided in written form and provided within the Applicant’s memorandum. 3 Noting that Mr. Strauch had mentioned reaching out to about half of the impacted property owners, the examiner inquired with Mr. Strauch about when and how the Applicant was reaching out to the other half of affected property owners. Mr. Strauch responded that they had tried to contact all impacted parties but have only met with half of them so far because they are awaiting responses from the other half. Public Testimony Jim Walenczak, a representative of PACCAR Inc. began the public testimony in favor of the proposal. Mr. Walenczak’s submitted a written statement to the hearing examiner which was added to the public comments (City Exhibit 6). Jean DeMund gave public testimony critical of the proposed project and urged the examiner to deny the permit. Ms. DeMund expressed that despite the project having impacts in Renton—as well as the much larger region—it will provide little benefit to the city. Ms. DeMund criticized the EIS analysis and believed that the SEPA analysis was also incomplete due to the Applicant not taking accurate account of the project’s size. Ms. DeMund expressed concerns about cost- estimates which she believes have been unclear since 2014. Ms. DeMund voiced concerns about the “70 million dollars” that she noted was already spent on this project. She thinks PSE is not spending money wisely or in accordance with the interests of citizens. Ms. DeMund worries that this project could end up costing over a billion dollars. Ms. DeMund also expressed that citizens are going to end up having to cover the cost of this project and thus deserve more direct influence over the project’s approval, budget, and implementation. Christie Wier spoke critically about the potential adverse environmental impacts of the Applicant’s project. Ms. Wier expressed that her church maintains a strong belief in taking “good care of the Earth,” which motivates her to oppose this project. Ms. Wier supports ecologically-sound policy that does not contribute to adverse climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Ms. Wier believes that this project will increase greenhouse gas emissions and will abet the wasteful usage of fossil fuels. Ms. Wier took contention with the idea that demand for this project has increased by over 2.4 percent. Ms. Wier expressed that ecologically sustainable technology could be utilized to reduce adverse environmental impacts, especially those that contribute to climate change. Ms. Wier believes that alternative energy sources are what many citizens, like herself, would like to see implemented in their community and that these environmentally conscious routes should be thoroughly explored before approving of PSE’s application. Ms. Wier believes that removing trees will also have significant adverse environmental impacts that are not effectively ameliorated by the Applicant’s proposed mitigations. Ms. Wier thinks that Energize Eastside project will disproportionally favor and benefit communities like Bellevue while citizens of Renton (whose median home value is half of that of Bellevue) will take on the brunt of costs and experience more severe environmental impacts. Ms. Wier expressed that, as a project, Energize Eastside is, and will be, an example of economic and environmental injustice. Kathy Ossenkop, a Renton citizen of over 50 years, provided testimony about the importance of trees and how the mitigation chosen by PSE regarding trees is inadequate when considering 4 broader scientific, environmental research. Ms. Ossenkop has worked in health care sciences and research for over four decades. Ms. Ossenkop provided a document to the examiner, which she believes suggests that PSE is not taking adequate steps to repair or mitigate the destruction of trees. Ms. Ossenkop overviewed the benefits of mature evergreens to the local environment while adding that she believed the vegetation to be implemented by the Applicant will not sufficiently or expediently make up for the loss of the current trees that are proposed to be torn down. Ms. Ossenkop believes alternative sources of energy should be pursued instead of those submitted by PSE. Ms. Ossenkop believes that money is being wasted on “old” technology. Ms. Ossenkop’s document was added to the public comments. Eduardo Rodriquez testified in favor of the Energize Eastside project. Mr. Rodriquez works at Renton Technical College (RTC) as the Vice President of Administration and Finance and spoke on behalf of the technical college’s President. Mr. Rodriquez believes that this project will benefit RTC as well as the city. Mr. Rodriquez believes that transportation enhancements are necessary to meet to Renton’s population and economic growth in recent decades. Mr. Rodriquez expressed that PSE has adequately reached out to the community and he believes that many Renton citizens are in favor of the permit approval. Mr. Rodriquez expressed appreciation at PSE’s ability to work with RTC. Mr. Rodriquez thinks that the art installations are a great addition to the project. Mr. Rodriquez believes that the electrical improvements brought in by this project will also benefit RTC’s academic and campus climate. Dr. James Park and Liz Nolan from Valley Medical Center gave testimony in favor of the Energize Eastside project stating that it will have positive impacts for the health care industry. Ms. Nolan is Vice President of Marketing and Outreach for Valley Medical Center and Dr. Park is the hospital’s Chief Medical Officer. Together, along with an additional committee-member, Dr. Park and Ms. Nolan represented seven health care institutions including Evergreen Health, Overlake Hospital, Seattle Children’s Hospital, and others. Ms. Nolan described these seven groups coming together as “unprecedented,” which she believes signifies how ardently these organizations support Energize Eastside. Dr. Park read a letter—which was entered into the public comments—which asked for the approval of PSE’s permit request. Longtime Renton resident and healthcare professional Bernie Dochnehl testified in favor of the Energize Eastside project and supports approving the permit. Ms. Dochnehl believes that improving this line—which was last updated in the 1960s—is necessary, especially as the local economy continues to expand and must meet new demands. Ms. Dochnehl is pleased by the Staff Report and supports their findings. Ms. Dochnehl expressed that the project meets zoning codes and regulations and should thus be approved. Ms. Dochnehl expressed her fondness for Renton and hopes to continue seeing the city flourish. Kaija Caldwell—the External Relations Manager at the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties—spoke in favor of the Energize Eastside project. Ms. Caldwell expressed that improvements are necessary since the last updates to this area were made in the 1960s. Ms. Caldwell believes that as new homes and businesses move into the region, it is vital to have reliable 5 electricity which she believes the Energize Eastside project will provide to the area, including Renton. Ms. Caldwell’s letter was entered into public comments. Leslie Smith spoke in support of Energize Eastside. Ms. Smith, a lifelong King County resident, is currently the Director of Public Policy at Vulcan Inc. and represented this organization with her testimony. Ms. Smith expressed that the improvements offered by the Energize Eastside project are necessary for providing residents of King County exceptional quality of life amidst growth in population and industry. Ms. Smith believes that improvements to Renton’s infrastructure are necessary and urgent. Ms. Smith supports the Staff Report and believes the examiner should approve of the permit. Angela Laulanen expressed concerns over the Energize Eastside project. Ms. Laulanen had several concerns about safety, particularly regarding the proximity of the proposed line to a school where her children go and play sports. Ms. Laulanen does not think Renton Technical College will be appealing to students, like her son who is currently looking at colleges, if the lines are implemented. Ms. Laulanen worries about the impact of radiation from the lines and requested more information about how this will impact RTC. Ms. Laulanen wanted to know if PSE had established and disseminated information about how close members of the public could get to the poles if implemented. Ms. Laulanen also wanted to know if the digging into the ground to place the poles will create safety hazards for her children, other students, as well as faculty and staff. Ms. Laulanen works at a Middle School in Redmond where there are also nearby powerlines which she expressed has already been a pertinent safety hazard for students; she does not want similar problem to arise in Renton. Ms. Laulanen does not believe SEPA analysis has been fully completed and thinks this should be done before approval of any permits. Kevin Jones has a BA in Electrical Engineering and has worked at Boeing for over three decades. Mr. Jones is also involved in the advisory board of Puget Sound Energy. Mr. Jones was not paid to testify. Mr. Jones expressed that increasing numbers of homes and population doesn’t equate to growth in electrical demand. Mr. Jones believes that there is evidence to suggest that growth in electrical demand is decreasing. Mr. Jones does not believe PSE has given adequate reasoning to support claims that there is increasing demand and need for their proposed implementations. Mr. Jones expressed concerns over the cost of the project and thinks that electrical costs throughout Renton will increase if the project is approved. Mr. Jones believes that more individuals with varying expertise need to review this proposal, so it should not be approved at this point. Mr. Jones believes the examiner should deny approval of the permit. Shelly Thompson, the Senior Manager at Meryl Gardens, testified in favor of the Applicant and Staff’s Recommendation. Ms. Thompson believes the safety of the residents living at Meryl Gardens is crucial and for this to be ensured Renton needs adequate power which she thinks are attainable via advancements to the region’s electrical systems. Ms. Thompson believes that Renton’s continued economic expansion necessitates the implementation of plans to provide more energy to the region. Ms. Thompson mentioned that the average resident at Meryl Gardens is 88 6 years of age; many of these residents use oxygen masks and require ample electricity—and need to be prepared for emergencies in case of power outages. Pamela Nguyen, a resident of North Seattle, gave comments critical of Puget Sound Energy and the Energize Eastside project. Ms. Nguyen thinks that PSE has many “ill practices” and thinks gas prices will continue to skyrocket in the region due to PSE’s influence. Ms. Nguyen believes that PSE has a record of disregarding local permitting processes that reflect a lack of interest in the public good and community wellbeing. Ms. Nguyen thinks Tacoma can be looked at as a good example of PSE not carefully following code in implementing their projects. Ms. Nguyen is a PSE customer and is disappointed with their influence in the region. Ms. Nguyen thinks that the energy- demands of the health care industry, senior housing, and technical college industries mentioned in the hearing will not be remedied by the implementation of PSE’s proposed project. Ms. Nguyen thinks that there needs to be one hundred percent clean and renewable energy instead of the “dirty energy” used by PSE. Ms. Nguyen expressed that many people might begin to support PSE and this project if they redesigned it in a manner that makes a purposeful attempt to incorporate clean, renewable energy. Ms. Nguyen also agrees with the testimony of Mr. Jones. Catherina Shoreman from Health Point read a letter supporting the Energize Eastside project. Ms. Shoreman supports the staff report and commended the City of Renton’s efforts in implementing this project. This letter was added to Ex. 6. Ross Jacobson, a spokesperson from Citizens United for Reliable Energy (CURE), spoke in favor of the Energize Eastside project. Mr. Jacobson mentioned that CURE represents thousands of residents who would like to see the Energize Eastside project implemented as soon as possible. Mr. Jacobson’s letter was added to the public comments. Bob Gillespie testified in favor of the project. Mr. Gillespie recalled personal stories about power outages in the region, primarily caused by massive windstorms. Mr. Gillespie mentioned that power outages strain the community and create anxieties which PSE has been actively working to fix through the implementation of the Energize Eastside project. Mr. Gillespie’s written statement was added to Ex. 6. Reba Haas, a local resident for the past seven years, real estate agent, and member of the Board of the Renton Chamber and the Board of the Renton College Technical Foundation —gave several comments about how the project will impact the value of properties. Ms. Haas wanted to remind members of the public that property-owners needed to buy air rights (or view rights) if they wanted to be able to preserve their views. Ms. Haas believes that if properties in Renton can gain reliable power sources, this will benefit the value of real estate as well as the overall economy in the region. Ms. Haas mentioned that businesses looking to move to Renton will take power and energy dependability into account. Ms. Haas supports PSE and the Energize Eastside project and has for the last three years. 7 Russel Joe, a resident of Issaquah, who works for Public Works, and is member of CURE, read a letter which was then added into Ex. 6. Dianne Dobson, representing the Renton Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the Energize Eastside project. Ms. Dobson expressed that reliable power is essential for the success and maintenance of the business community in Renton. Ms. Dobson mentioned the importance of affordable rates. Ms. Dobson’s letter of support was added to the public comments. Mr. Allard commented in opposition of the Energize Eastside project. Mr. Allard mentioned that he has been following and studying this project for the past four years. Mr. Allard believes this project “is a sham… created by PSE only to benefit their shareholders.” Mr. Allard thinks that PSE is exploiting Washington’s weak utility regulations because there is a guaranteed return rate for PSE of over 9 percent on capital investment. Mr. Allard does not believe that a “truly unbiased third party” has been given an opportunity to express concerns over the project’s implementation and evaluate its impact on Renton. Mr. Allard expressed agreement with previous speakers Ms. Jean DeMund, Ms. Kathy Ossenkop, as well as the widespread concerns over safety alluded to by several other speakers. Regarding safety, Mr. Allard expressed heightened concern especially over the implementation of the project near petroleum lines, parks, and schools. Mr. Allard disagrees with most of the business-representatives who have spoken at the hearing. Mr. Allard believes that PSE has scripted many of the local and regional business responses and used scare tactics to support their case. Mr. Allard expressed doubt that any of the businesses who have provided testimony have done any research into their need for the Energize Eastside project. Mr. Allard does not believe that the EIS confirmed the need for the project and thinks that the EIS only addressed environmental impact and not public need. Mr. Allard agreed with Mr. Kevin Jones that growth in people does not equate to a need or growth in electrical demand. Mr. Allard hopes that the examiner will deny the permit. Lakshmi Venu, a resident of Bellevue, mother, Sunday School teacher, and entrepreneur in the field of artificial intelligence-business, identified herself as being in favor of business growth and reliable energy but wanted to offer several inquiries about the Energize Eastside project. Ms. Venu currently opposes the Energize Eastside project. Ms. Venu worries about the legacy Energize Eastside will leave for our future generations. Expressing concerns over cost which will impact the region in the long-term, Ms. Venu called this Energize Eastside a project without a price tag. Ms. Venu worries about a legacy of debt that will be the burden of citizens. Ms. Venu mentioned that many citizen’s overwhelming opposition to climate change, especially the children and young people this project will impact in the future, needs to be more thoroughly considered before any energy-project is implemented. Ms. Venu mentioned that there are a variety of alternative energy options that should have been, and still can be, explored. Ms. Venu believes that the local government should have a vested interest in the good of the people, especially children and that, in the future, “our children will ask us why did we approve of a project at this time when so many other options were available for reliable energy.” Ms. Venu also believes that it is the future generations of young people who will face the burden of paying of this project’s potential costs which could reach the billion-dollar threshold. Ms. Venu thinks a more critical evaluation of other 8 energy options needs to be supported. Ms. Venu believes a false argument is being presented, especially by the health care professionals, about reliability of energy. Ms. Venu believes members of the health care industry need to be looking toward solar power options, among other sources (many of which she expressed can “sell energy back to the grid,”). Ms. Venu expressed that alternative energy opportunities exist for the education industry, for local businesses, and senior care as well. Ms. Venu believes that a decision, in this case, should not be raced to and that there needs to be more community and stakeholder input on whether this project should move forward. Norm Hansen, a resident of Bellevue, expressed that PSE has been disseminating unnecessary fears into the business community causing them panic over energy supplies. Mr. Hansen mentioned that there is a fear of reliability when there is already a reliable energy system in place. Mr. Hansen believes that PSE’s financial interests are, without the proper presentation of data, superseding the interests of the public and other economic stakeholders. Mr. Hansen believes that there is a lack of education and awareness about methods of energy conservation and that discussions about renewable, clean energy should be held before this project proceeds. Mr. Hansen suggested that the hearing examiner should require the Applicant to supply more extensive data before approving any project. Mr. Hansen stated that “the only blackout we have is on the data that we need… from PSE.” Mr. Hansen thinks that PSE’s financial efforts, as well as other PSE investments, do not go back into the Renton community, or even the Western Washington region, but rather to Canada. Linda Baker also relayed concerns about the implementation of PSE’s project. Ms. Baker concurred with the testimonies of Mr. Hansen and Ms. Venu. Ms. Baker believes that PSE is negatively contributing to climate change and needs to be thinking of ways to shift away from the use of fossil fuels. Ms. Baker thinks alternative energies sources, like solar energy, need to be invested in for the sake of clean energy. Ms. Baker also worries about the costs of the project and is particularly concerned that PSE has not provided consistent, precise numbers to the public. Ms. Baker stated that “if Renton really wants to be ahead of the curve” (a reference to the city’s slogan) that they should be investing in the clean energy sources needed in the future. Phillip Schmidt-Pathmann spoke in favor of implementing clean, renewable energy. Mr. Schmidt- Pathmann identified himself as an expert in the energy industry as well as in resource management. Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann sympathized with local company’s concerns about the need for energy reliance but also expressed that moving into clean, renewable energy will be worthwhile and is a necessary that both Renton and PSE need to make. Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann thinks that there needs to be a balance between the capitalist interests of local businesses and large corporations and the individual and social necessities of the public. Mr. Schmidt-Pathmann thinks that conclusions should not be rushed to and that PSE should be providing more data about impacts, especially because there are “high power fuel lines at the bottom” of the electrical lines. Beth Asher gave comments that were critical of the proposed project. Ms. Asher stated that the EIS is based on a lot on information which is outdated, and there are quite a few holes in it. Ms. Asher asked the examiner to look through the EIS and highlight outdated elements if this was in 9 his power. Ms. Asher concurred with those testimonies that questioned the necessity of the project. Ms. Asher’s also expressed concerns about costs. Ms. Asher believes that PSE’s financial history of raising costs needs to be looked at because she thinks this project’s primary incentive appears to be profit masked under the guise of doing public good. Don Marsh, the President of CENS –the Coalition of Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy—gave testimony critical of the Applicant’s proposed project. Mr. Marsh presented a notebook with a summary of his organizations view of the project which was added to the record as Exhibit 23. Mr. Marsh disagreed with Ms. Ding’s comment that pole height would be between 50 ft. to 115 ft. Mr. Marsh expressed concerns over the low-hanging 50 ft. poles that would be implemented in the area, in particular making the space near the Olympic Pipeline Surface Station a safety concern. Mr. Marsh worries that PSE’s forecast of electrical demand increases is based on demand estimates made in 2015. He said that PSE would not provide data from prior to 2014. Mr. Marsh also mentioned that PSE would not identify the actual demand for 2014-2019 to verify the accuracy of the demand estimates made in 2015. Mr. Marsh stated that despite having clearance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, PSE still withheld information from Mr. Marsh. Mr. Marsh criticized this lack of transparency on behalf of PSE. Mr. Marsh mentioned that page 18 of Exhibit 23 showcases PSE’s mandatory reports to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of their annual peak demands. Mr. Marsh discussed that the numbers on this page, representing data from 2004 to 2018, are not indicative of a consistent increase in peak demand as estimated by PSE in 2015. Mr. Marsh believes that peak demand is going down at a steady rate. Mr. Marsh then highlighted page 19 of Exhibit 23 to criticize Mr. Koch’s statement that demand from the summers of 2017 and 2018 exceeded projections. Mr. Marsh stated that summer demand, as the data shows, is increasing at about the same rate as the population is growing. Mr. Marsh expressed a concern that the EIS did not consider technologies that could mitigate summer demands such as solar panels and battery power. Mr. Marsh also does not think the Energize Eastside project will solve problems relating to blackouts from windstorms. Mr. Marsh also encouraged the examiner to look at a graph on page 26 of Exhibit 23 which highlights projections for future electricity demands in Seattle, an area growing faster than the East Side. Mr. Marsh then read a presentation on behalf of CENSE. CENSE has over 1000 members. CENSE seeks to promote the use of clean, renewable energy. CENSE disagrees with PSE’s reliance on fossil fuels. Mr. Marsh’s presentation highlighted several safety concerns about the Energize Eastside project. CENSE expressed that PSE is not meeting professional and industrial standards set by the National Electric Safety Code for pole heights and right of way sizes. CENSE fears that, because PSE does not widen the corridor or condemn any of the houses nearby, the safety of children, churchgoers, students, and other Renton residents in proximity to the poles will be compromised. CENSE worries that citizens will be too close to poles that carry 230,000 volts, higher than most utilities would consider safe. CENSE believes PSE is cutting corners for the sake of cost-efficiency instead of looking into energy alternatives. CENSE believes there is good reason to explore fire safety concerns, especially regarding nearby schools to pipelines and energy lines (as well as potentially flammable trees). CENSE also believes that cutting down trees will make 10 Renton’s neighborhood seem more industrial and thus lower property values throughout the area. CENSE does not believe Renton is at high risk for rolling blackouts compared to the larger region; yet, Renton will suffer a great deal of the burden regarding costs to protect others from said blackouts. CENSE believes the option of only implanting parts of the PSE project in Bellevue and Redmond should be studied before the project proceeds in Renton. CENSE believes that there are many alternative, cost-effective pursuits that PSE needs to consider which are laid out in Exhibit 23. A paper copy of Mr. Marsh’s PowerPoint was entered into the record as Exhibit 24. Richard Aramburu, a land-use lawyer, spoke as counsel for CENSE. Mr. Aramburu spoke to several of the contents in Exhibit 23. Mr. Aramburu highlighted the significance of Chapter 2 in Exhibit 23 which contains a 14-page letter of legal analysis that identifies that the SEPA-analysis is both flawed and inadequate. Mr. Aramburu mentioned that this letter highlights alternatives and critiques to the project. Mr. Aramburu believes that the appropriate action for the examiner to take after reading this letter and its attachments would be to deny the proposal and remand it back for preparation of a supplemental environmental impact statement because of the inadequacy of the EIS. The examiner asked Mr. Aramburu how EIS adequacy can be addressed if the administrative appeal period has presumably expired. The examiner also asked if the proposal is in violation of WAC 197-11-070 which states that you cannot make a final decision until the relevant parties have completed the EIS and/or completed the threshold determination. Mr. Aramburu stated that his brief sheds light on the legal issues CENSE is concerned with and that CENSE is also unaware of any appeal periods that have expired on the adequacy of the EIS. CENSE believes that the current proposal represents a much shorter transmission line than what was originally proposed and that what is currently proposed has not been subjected to environmental review or been considered as one of the EIS alternatives. CENSE believes that if alternative is considered, as laid out and suggested in Exhibit 23, the need for line in Renton could be eliminated. Todd Andersen spoke about the aging of mechanical and fuel systems. Mr. Andersen is a former advisor to the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of Naval Operation’s Strategic Studies Group. Mr. Andersen was a mechanical engineer within the US Navy and identified himself as the Navy’s leading fuel-fire expert. Mr. Andersen holds a master’s degree in Electromagnetics from the Naval Postgraduate School and has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering. Mr. Andersen submitted a 42-page document expressing his interest and concerns with the project. Mr. Andersen expressed that Renton’s EIS consistency-analysis is incorrect as it is based on a fraudulent Energize Eastside environmental impact statement and is missing key information. Mr. Andersen suggested that the City of Renton and PSE are aware of this error but do not seem to care, in fact, he believes that they are proceeding on purpose. Mr. Andersen believes that Mr. Kemp’s testimonies is incorrect and suggested that his qualifications were also inadequate to be considered an expert. Mr. Andersen mentioned that the corrosion impacts and induced voltage of AC interference are more significant than what Mr. Kemp addressed in his testimony. 11 Mr. Andersen expressed that Navy experts would consider the work of PSE to be unsafe and negligent. Mr. Andersen accused PSE of using fossil-fuel industry propaganda-terminology to conduct their analysis, such as the term “holidays,” which are basically holes in the pipe coating. Mr. Andersen expressed concerns with the competence of Renton’s City attorneys and the qualifications and skill sets of various expert witnesses, particularly Mr. Kemp. Mr. Andersen’s 42-page document contains several quotes from PSE-agents in previous hearings and meetings, like those in Bellevue, that he believes calls their expertise into question. Mr. Andersen’s 42-page document also discusses relevant issues of safety especially in regard to the proposed project’s proximity to pipelines. Mr. Andersen expressed a belief in how PSE’s actions fit into a history of utility monopolization and propaganda in the United States. Brian Elworth gave testimony expressing concerns over the intentions and necessity of the Energize Eastside project. Mr. Elworth offered four basic questions regarding the Applicant’s proposal. Mr. Elworth wondered if there is valid proof of a shortfall in the region’s energy. Mr. Elworth also thinks the examiner should consider if Energize Eastside is an appropriate solution. Mr. Elworth believes that the reliability and safety of the Energize Eastside project are also crucial issues in front of the examiner. Mr. Elworth worries that safety and reliability were not a part of the Staff’s analysis and should have been a heightened element. Mr. Elworth believes numerous testimonies provided by the Applicant—and in support of the Applicant—contain baseless assertions and are heavily-biased toward corporate interest. Mr. Elworth thinks that, in particular, the EIS needs to be reconsidered and that the examiner should heavily scrutinize this document when preparing his decision. Mr. Elworth believes the current EIS presents conclusions that are faulty and based on “baseless assertions.” Mr. Elworth expressed that there is a great deal of “pseudo-science” presented in the Applicant’s proposal which the examiner should search for. Mr. Elworth thinks that there are critical omissions in the EIS and throughout the reports given to the examiner. Mr. Elworth believes the reports do not critically examine the issue of safety regarding the pipelines. Mr. Elworth believes the PSE is attempting to push off all liability regarding pipeline safety while they themselves are introducing a plethora of new safety issues into the community by building in their proposed proximity to these lines. Mr. Elworth raised a point that the Applicant does not seem to be fully aware of the status of the pipeline’s coating. Mr. Elworth supports the statements made by Mr. Marsh and Mr. Aramburu. Staff Rebuttal Ms. Ding began the Staff rebuttal by addressing comments pertaining to the EIS process. Ms. Ding had several members of team prepared to respond to questions “regarding the scope, adequacy, and process” of the EIS. The examiner mentioned that likely he, like the Bellevue hearing examiner, does not have jurisdiction on the adequacy of the EIS but also that SEPA rules state that he is not allowed to issue a ruling unless there is a finalized, complete EIS. The examiner thus asked Staff whether the proposal could be limited to the Talbot to Richards Creek substations as asserted by project opponents and still qualify as the Talbot to Sammamish proposal that was reviewed in the EIS. 12 Liz Stead, Land Use Director for the City of Bellevue, responded that the EIS looked at the potential and cumulative impacts associated with the construction and operation of the entire Energize Eastside Project. Ms. Stead believes that the EIS considered consequences like the potential for PSE only completing the southern leg of the project. Ms. Stead confirmed that Bellevue has no administrative appeal process for the adequacy of FEIS and that the adequacy of the EIS has been judicially challenged as part of the Bellevue decision approving the project. Ms. Ding brought the City’s EIS consistency analysis to the examiner’s attention mentioning that the analysis is a bridge between project impacts in Renton and the EIS. Safety was one of the issues assessed in the EIS consistency analysis. Ms. Ding responded to concerns about Mr. Marsh’s pole height stating that the Staff Report represents an estimate which allows for some outliers when needed. Ms. Ding wanted to note that there are other processes that PSE may have to go through that the City does not have jurisdiction over. For example, there is an IRP process which is governed by WAC 480-90 and 480-100. Ms. Ding also noted that the Renton Municipal Code does not require and analysis of project need, project cost, alternative, or demand to be evaluated. Ms. Ding expressed that the project was analyzed based solely off what the Renton Municipal Code required. Ms. Ding expressed concerns with PSE’s suggested condition pertaining to the art installations. Ms. Ding stated that Staff recommends that the condition be read as follows: individual art wraps for the transmission line poles shall be submitted to the current planning project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a construction permit. PSE will install art wraps at up to 15 transmission line pole locations. Artwork shall be installed prior to the energizing of the transmission line or as otherwise approved by the current planning manager. The examiner asked Ms. Ding about the fact that the Renton Code does not require that Staff consider what in the EIS was described as alternatives, such as requiring transmission lines to be built underground. He stated that sometimes the line between what is an alternative and what is mitigation seems kind of gray. The examiner wondered if undergrounding was ever considered as an option in this case to which Ms. Ding responded that this was not considered because of the cost. Applicant Rebuttal The Applicant then proceeded with closing arguments led by Ms. Erin Anderson. Ms. Anderson wanted to clarify the suggestion that PSE is not going to build the north half by Mr. Aramburu is unsubstantiated, lacking evidence in the record to clearly support this claim. Ms. Anderson stated that PSE needs to build the project in its entirety in order to address federal reliability criteria, [and] the entire Phase I of the DEIS talks about this. Ms. Anderson noted that 13 she is unable to bring an Application for Redmond or Bellevue to the hearing examiner of Renton. Ms. Anderson expressed that problems occur like this when pursuing linear projects. Ms. Anderson then addressed various concerns regarding SEPA. Ms. Anderson mentioned that, the entire CUP Application just for the Renton element is in the EIS.” Ms. Anderson believes the CUP should be overviewed by the examiner before making any decisions about the adequacy or thoroughness of the environmental review; however, Ms. Anderson believes that the examiner is not really dealing with the issue of EIS-adequacy in this case. Ms. Anderson stated that “this is not a project about generation of electricity from whatever source, it is a transmission project to address reliability and moving power to PSE’s customers.” Ms. Anderson hoped to clarify that PSE’s project is not a referendum on renewable energy and that if PSE produced 100 percent of its energy through renewable resources, it would still need wires to get it to people’s homes. The project is about moving bulk power instead of finding alternative sources to the norm. Ms. Anderson mentioned that undergrounding would not count as adequate mitigation because the UTC lays out that the company is responsible for choosing the method that produce the least cost. Ms. Anderson also pointed out that high voltage transmissions are different from those that would normally be undergrounded, this would also be prohibited because of regulations on the impacts to customers. Ms. Anderson stated that tariffs require cities that require undergrounding to pay for it and that undergrounding usually increases costs 4-10 times. Ms. Anderson reiterated that this case is a land-use proceeding and not an EIS adequacy challenge. Ms. Anderson recalled that a fundamental tenant in Washington land use planning is the compatibility of uses. Ms. Anderson believes that Renton is not getting the short end of the stick with something new, that the corridor has been in the same place for nearly 100 years. Ms. Anderson stated that there is absolutely no change to land use as a result of the proposal. Ms. Anderson stated that the proposal will advance many of the goals laid out in the Renton Comprehensive Plan which as outlined in Exhibit 22 (PSE notebook) as well as in the Staff Report. Ms. Anderson highlighted the significance of RMC 4-9-030-D1-8. Ms. Anderson expressed that the proposal is within resounding compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and that the Staff Report also attests to this fact. Ms. Anderson responded to comments about need and alternatives. Ms. Anderson noted that Phase I of the DEIS is all about need and alternatives and encouraged the examiner to look at this closely. Ms. Anderson believes this section will help rebuff claims made during the hearing that PSE has provided insufficient evidence of need. Ms. Anderson mentioned that the testimony of Mr. Marsh’s comments can be countered by overviewing memos identified in the EIS, particularly the Stantec Memo prepared in 2015. Ms. Anderson expressed that Renton consultants concluded that there was need for this project, not just PSE consultants. Ms. Anderson mentioned that most of Mr. Marsh’s statements were heard, considered, and rejected after the four-day hearing in Bellevue. 14 Ms. Anderson also responded to concerns about EMF safety and reliability. Ms. Anderson mentioned that these are addressed in the EIS, specifically regarding EMF which is addressed in Phase II of the DEIS Summary on Page 1-27. Likewise, a full EMF discussion is contained in Chapter 3.5F of that same document. Ms. Anderson mentioned that Renton’s own environmental consistency analysis prepared by EA also looked at this matter. Ms. Anderson addressed concerns over the proximity of PSE’s project to Seattle City Light. Ms. Anderson professed that the design complies with the National Electric Safety Code and PSE has already discussed this with Seattle City Light. Ms. Anderson touched on comments pertaining to the IRP. Ms. Anderson clarified that an IRP is a resource generation planning tool to look at the sources of generation that the company anticipates, in the coming years, to meet its power demands. Ms. Anderson stated that an additional letter was submitted into the record at the hearing which more thoroughly discussed what the functions of the IRP and why it is not a land-use jurisdictional element at the local level. Ms. Anderson mentioned that the IRP does not serve as an analysis of individual transmission projects. Ms. Anderson mentioned that Washington UTC is the economic regulator of PSE. Ms. Anderson responded to comments about trees given during the hearing. Ms. Anderson stated that PSE is not subject to Renton’s tree replacement requirements as shown in the materials put together by Ms. Ding. Ms. Anderson stated that PSE is still attempting to provide mitigation regarding trees voluntarily hoping to leave more trees in the region than the number that were there when the project began. PSE and the City are both heavily aware of the importance of trees and seek to mitigate this beyond the requirements of the Renton Code. Ms. Anderson overviewed elements of the case as represented in Exhibit 22 and closed the Applicant rebuttal. The examiner asked Ms. Anderson to address Mr. Marsh’s claims about the problems with projections made from 2015 about need. Ms. Anderson stated that projections about need look into the future and thus do not look backwards and instead depends on relevant information which is defined by outside regulatory forces. Ms. Anderson expressed that peak demand problems are more relevant than total need/uses as has been established by outside regulatory forces. Ms. Anderson disagrees with claims made by Mr. Marsh that PSE has not disclosed relevant information and that the Bellevue Hearing Record attests to this. In response to examiner questions about pipeline safety, Mr. Kemp responded that pipelines are coated to protect from general galvanic corrosion, so from an AC perspective the higher quality of that coating you expect fewer holidays. Mr. Kemp mentioned that “holidays” are an industry term to describe flaws in the coating. Mr. Kemp stated that the pipeline is older here and, in their analysis, they assumed good coating under worst case conditions. 15 The examiner also asked about the issue of two different voltages running at the same time, next to each other. Ms. Andersen expressed that PSE was never asked to “swear” that they would not run two units of differing voltages. Ms. Andersen expressed that she was surprised and unaware of the context from which Mr. Elworth spoke from about this issue. The Applicant expressed that Mr. Elworth’s understanding of these systems were inaccurate and that shutting down one circuit would lead to lower EMF. Mr. Kemp noted that circuits being shut down does not lead to appreciable AC corrosion. The emails Ms. Ding received during the hearing were entered into the record as public comments (City Exhibit 6). Mr. Marsh noted that the issue of the IRP considering transmission and generation has been a subject of debate for many years. Mr. Marsh noted that he thinks the IRP needs to consider transmission or else it will not consider the “need.” Mr. Marsh mentioned that this is also in Washington State Code. Mr. Marsh believes that this part of the code applies in this case. Mr. Marsh believes that PSE has been notoriously inaccurate in their forecasts as represented in IRPs. Mr. Marsh believes that PSE has left too many questions unanswered from Washington State regulators. The Applicant responded to Mr. Marsh’s claims saying it is not the City of Renton’s role to decide how much power goes to places outside of their locality or state. Ms. Anderson urged the examiner to read the letter from the UTC in the record. Ms. Anderson also encouraged the examiner to look over the Bellevue conditions as laid out in her memorandum pertaining to the issue of voltage.