HomeMy WebLinkAboutRevised Energizer Decision appendix A Temtimony Summary Email 2-11-2020 Cynthia Moya
From: Phil Olbrechts <olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2020 11:27 AM
To: Jill Ding; Cynthia Moya
Subject: Re: Revised Energizer Decision;Appendix A Testimony Summary
Attachments: CU -- Energize Eastside Revised Final.pdf; Energize Appendix A.pdf
That still wouldn't make it a scrivener's error unfortunately since that goes beyond a formatting error such as
forgetting to delete something.
Attached is the final (so far) decision wth corrections to internal page cross-references. I've also re-attached the
Appendix A testimony summary, although that hasn't changed since the first version I sent you.
On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 11:20 AM Jill Ding<JDing@rentonwa.gov>wrote:
Not sure if this makes a difference but I did request the change on the record at the hearing. I'm happy to submit a
request for reconsideration though.
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
From: Phil Olbrechts<olbrechtslaw@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2020 6:15 PM
To:Jill Ding<JDing@Rentonwa.gov>; Cynthia Moya<CMoya@Rentonwa.gov>
Subject: Revised Energizer Decision;Appendix A Testimony Summary
1
Hello,
Attached are a couple Energizer documents. The Revised decision needs.to replace the Final Energizer
decision posted on the City's website. The Appendix A also needs to be posted. The appendix is not part of
the Energizer decision but is referenced in that decision and can serve as a reference tool for those who need to
know what was said at the hearing.
; The revised decision is in response to Ms. Ding's email request to reconcile Conditions 3 and 10. As a result,
Condition 3 has been eliminated and replaced by Condition 10 (now Condition 9 in the revised decision). The
revision is construed as correcting a scrivener's error and therefore it is not found necessary to reissue the
decision or to address Ms. Ding's request via a motion for reconsideration. This is because the error would
become apparent to anyone reviewing PSE's request to modify what it terms condition "J3"in its Ex. 23
memo which was misread by the examiner as referencing a condition in the EIS consistency analysis. This
explains the reference to J3 in Condiiton No. 1 as well. Since the error was clearly unintentional and
remedying it does not prejudice any party, it is considered a scrivener's error.
•
The scrivener's correction is limited to eliminating Condition No. 3. Ms. Ding also requested that Condition
No. 10 be modified. This modification goes beyond correcting a scrivener's error as it goes beyond correcting
an unintentional error made by the examiner. Condition 10 was based upon the assurance in the PSE request in
its memo (Ex. 23) that the City agreed to the language. If the City wishes additional revision it will need to
request it in a request for reconsderation.
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
8
9 RE: Puget Sound Energize Eastside )
10 ) REVISED 'FINDINGS OF FACT,
Conditional Use Permit ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL
11 ) DECISION
LUA18-000055, CU-H, SME )
12 )
13
Summary
14
Puget Sound Energy ("PSE") has applied for a conditional use permit and a shoreline exemption for
15 the upgrade of 4 miles of two existing 115 kV transmission lines into two 230 kV transmission lines
16 beginning at the Talbot Hill substation, continuing north along the existing PSE transmission line
corridor to the northern City limits. The permit applications are approved subject to conditions.
17
The most time intensive and significant issue by far for this proposal was pipeline safety. This Decision
18 contains a detailed assessment of many of the public concerns raised over pipeline safety, because the
record does not contain such an applicant or staff response to many of the safety comments submitted
19 for conditional use permit review. The assessment of pipeline safety is addressed at Finding of Fact
20 ("FOF") 5A,p.4-17 of this Decision. The cities responsible for the environmental review of the project
wisely hired qualified independent professionals to evaluate the safety risks of the project. Contrary to
21 the opinion of some project opponents, the safety analysis prepared for the project was objective,
credible and competently produced given the limitations in available data and information on pipeline
22 operations. Several project commentators,at least two of which appear to be,engineers,provided highly
23 detailed and well-sourced critiques of the safety analysis produced by the city consultants. Most of the
24 ' The February 6, 2010 Final Decision was revised to correct a scrivener's error, removing Condition No. 3, which
had been replaced by Condition No. 10 of that decision (now Condition No. 9 in this Decision). Since retention of
25 Condition No. 3 was clearly an unintentional error as part of the response to the Applicant's request to modify
Condition No.3,the date of this Decision for purposes of appeal and reconsideration still remains as February 6,2020.
26 Condition No. 1 has also been slightly modified to be consistent with the elimination of former Condition No.3.
CONDITIONAL USE - 1
1 pipeline safety comments had already been duplicated .in prior stages of environmental review
conducted by the City of Bellevue. The Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS") contains
2 responses to many of these duplicated comments.However,several issues had not been addressed. FOF
3 5A provides a detailed response to both ensure that safety impacts are adequately addressed and to
provide a final2 opportunity for City and Applicant response through the reconsideration process should
4 project opponents find that their concerns still have not been fully addressed.
5 Perhaps the second most significant issue associated with the proposal is the need for the project. The
Coalition of Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy("CENSE")brought the need for the proposal
6
to the forefront by well organized and extensive documentation, qualified professionals, talented
7 presenters and a large number of concerned citizens living throughout the Eastside. PSE "opened the
door" on the issue by explaining why it needed to upgrade its project, i.e. to meet future electrical
8 demand and to avoid blackouts. For this reason, CENSE was allowed to make its argument that there
is no need and that alternative energy sources should be more effectively utilized. CENSE's
9 participation in the process has clearly been in the public interest and has served the public good by
10 bringing important energy issues into public debate. However, CENSE's need issues are not pertinent
to the review criteria of the conditional use permit under review. Conditional use permit review is
11 focused upon land use impacts such as traffic, noise and impacts to environmental resources such as
streams and wetlands. PSE's business plan and its affect on utility rates is not a land use impact. To the
12 extent that those issues could be framed as land use impacts,they are found to be adequately addressed
under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission("UTC"). The
13 UTC has direct oversight and regulatory authority over the type of issues raised by CENSE,i.e.efficient
14 use of energy resources and consideration of alternative energy sources in a manner that assures least
cost to utility rate payers. The relevancy of CENSE's need issue is resolved in Conclusion of Law No.
15 8, p. 34-36 of this Decision.
16 The other impacts of the proposal have largely been thoroughly addressed in the FEIS prepared for the
project as augmented by an EIS Consistency Analysis, Ex. 2. Those impacts are summarized in FOF
17 5B-N, p. 17-30 of this Decision.
18 Testimony
19 A summary of testimony, not a part of this decision, is appended as Appendix A.
20 2 At least one commentator was critical of the fact that in the Bellevue permitting review process there was no
21 opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses. No requests for cross-examination were made in this proceeding,so
any objections based upon cross-examination rights should be considered waived. However, in at least some types of
contested land use proceedings such as administrative appeals,hearing participants have a due process right to cross-
22 examine technical experts. See Chrobuck v. Snohomish County, 78 Wn.2d 858, 870 (1971). In the Renton PSE
hearing it would not have been feasible to grant the several dozen hearing participants the right to cross-examine all
23 City and PSE experts. The detailed assessment of pipeline safety of this Decision in conjunction with the
reconsideration process is intended to provide an avenue to question the reports of the technical experts in lieu of the
24 cross-examination process. In this respect, City and Applicant experts are expected to provide a response to any
motions for reconsideration filed on pipeline safety.- However, all reconsideration motions, responses and replies
25 cannot contain any new evidence,as that would violate the one-hearing rule imposed by the Regulatory Reform Act,
specifically the limitation imposed by RCW 36.70B.050. See the Reconsideration section of this Decision at p.40 for
26 reconsideration procedures.
CONDITIONAL USE - 2
1
Exhibits
2
3 Exhibits 1-18 identified at page 2 of the January 8, 2020 staff report. The following documents were
entered into the record during the January 8, 2020 hearing:
4
Exhibit 19 City PowerPoint
5 Exhibit 20 Google Maps
Exhibit 21 COR Maps
6 Exhibit 22 PSE Brief/Witness Statements
7 Exhibit 23 CENSE Notebook
Exhibit 24 CENSE PowerPoint
8
Findings of Fact
9
10 Procedural:
11 1. Applicant. Brad Strauch, Puget Sound Energy, PO Box 97034, EST-3, Bellevue, WA 98009-
9734
12
2. Hearing. The hearing on the application was held in the Renton City Council Chambers at 5:00
13 pm on January 8, 2020.
14 3. Project Description. The Applicant is requesting Hearing Examiner Conditional Use Permit
15 approval and a Shoreline Exemption for the upgrade of 4 miles of two existing 115 kV transmission
lines with two 230 kV transmission lines beginning at the Talbot Hill substation,continuing north along
16 the existing PSE transmission line corridor to the northern City limits. The proposed upgrade would
require the replacement of approximately 144 existing wood and steel poles (H-frame designs) with
17 approximately 41 steel monopoles of either single-circuit or double-circuit design. The height of the
18 proposed poles would vary by location but are estimated at an average height of between 85 and 95
feet. Within the Talbot Hill substation, additional breakers and associated controls will be added to
19 accommodate the new lines.
20 The Applicant requests approval of a shoreline exemption for the transmission line crossing of the
Cedar River. The project would include the replacement of aerial wire across the Cedar River, which
21 is classified as a Shoreline of the State. The project proposes the replacement of poles outside of the
22 200-foot shoreline jurisdiction and the aerial wire crossing would not require any disturbances within
the shoreline jurisdiction.
23
4. Environmental Review. The proposed transmission line upgrades will be installed through the
24 cities of Bellevue, Redmond, Newcastle and Renton through the existing PSE transmission corridor,
totaling 16-18 miles for the upgrade area. The City of Bellevue has assumed lead agency status over
25 the environmental review of the entire upgrade project to meet the requirements of the State
26 Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA"), Chapter 43.21C RCW. Bellevue required an environmental
impact statement ("EIS") to assess project impacts throughout all four affected cities. The four cities
CONDITIONAL USE - 3
1 along with Kirkland were all involved in preparation of the EIS and are referred throughout this
decision as the"EIS team" along with its consultants. The EIS was prepared in two phases, with Phase
2 1 issued in January 2016 addressing multiple design options and Phase 2 issued in May 2017 focusing
3 on the preferred option. A final EIS ("FEIS") was issued May 2018.
4 5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the proposal.
Pertinent impacts are more specifically addressed as follows;
5
6 A. Pipeline Safety. The proposal will not materially increase the risk of unintentional pipeline
release along the co-located Olympic Pipeline.
7
Pipeline safety is the greatest impact of concern and took up the most time to address in
8 preparation of this Decision. Several commentators, at least one of whom has an
engineering background, provided extensive comment on their safety concerns regarding
9 co-location of the Olympic Pipeline system, which runs parallel to the proposed
10 transmission lines for 1,200 feet in the City of Renton. See Rogers hearing testimony.
11 A risk assessment prepared by a contractor hired and supervised by the EIS team for the
Phase 2 EIS determined that the proposal would not increase the risk of pipeline
12 unintentional releases. EDM Services, Inc., a firm specializing in pipeline safety, prepared
the risk analysis. See Phase 2 EIS, p. 1-29. As shall be discussed, the EDM report3 found
13 that the proposed initial operation of the two transmission lines at 115kv and 230kv would
14 create a nominal increase in the risk of unintentional release. In response, PSE revised its
proposal to only operate both lines at 230kv.According to the risk study,operating at 230kv
15 would result in no increase over baseline pipeline incidents,which presumably would result
in no increase in risk caused by PSE's proposal.
16
The potential increase in pipeline incidents caused by operating the lines at 115kv/230kv is
17 instructive on the impact of the proposed transmission line over pipeline safety. The
18 increase in risk over current conditions by the 115kv/230kv proposal would result in a 1 in
51 million increase in risk to a total risk of one in 4.5 million in the chance that a person
19 living within proximity of the pipeline would be killed by an unintentional pipeline release.
See Figure 3.9-12 Phase 2 EIS. This represents a 9% increase over current conditions. In
20 terms of"societal risk" as identified in page 3-9-42 of the Phase 2 EIS, there is a one in 2
million probability of an event resulting in 17 fatalities occurring in any 1-year time period,
21 and a one in 60,000 probability of an event resulting in a single fatality occurring in any 1-
22 year period with the proposal. This represent an 8%increase in risk over current conditions.
These societal risks are above the thresholds for negligible impacts, and below the
23 thresholds for intolerable impacts as used by Santa Barbara County and the California
Department of Education for school siting purposes. By comparison, the annual risk of
24
25
3 References in this Decision to the"EDM report"pertain to the May 2017 study by EDM entitled "Energize Eastside
26 EIS Pipeline Safety Technical Report,"attached as Appendix I-5 to the Phase 2 EIS.
CONDITIONAL USE - 4
1 being struck by lightning is one in one million and being killed in a vehicle accident is one
in 47,718.
2
3 The only source of added risk of pipeline release attributable to the 115kv/230kv line in the
EDM report was AC interference. AC interference denotes an induced current along the
4 pipeline caused by an electric field generated by the proposed transmission lines. At certain
levels, this induced current can increase the rate of pipeline corrosion, which in turn can
5 result in unintentional pipeline releases. This AC interference was the only risk factor for
6 pipeline leak that EDM considered to change4 as a result of the colocation of the proposed
transmission lines in its risk factor analysis. Compare Figure 9.2.5-1 with Figure 9.3.5-1 of
7 EDM Report. EDM assumed in its risk analysis that corrosion leak incidents would be
increased by 50% for the currently existing transmission line over baseline conditions and
8 would increase by 100% for the proposed 115/230kv line arrangement, based upon the fact
that the 115/230kv line would induce a greater current density. See EDM report, p. 80 and
9 83. The EDM report also acknowledged that AC interference can increase pipeline voltage,
10 which can injure or kill people who touch the pipeline at high voltages.
11 The EDM study used the results of an AC interference study prepared by a PSE consultant
to address the added risk of AC interference. The AC interference study was prepared by
12 Det Norske Veritas (U.S.A.), Inc. ("DNV")5. From prior studies, DNV determined that an
induced current under 20 amperes per square meter will not increase corrosion. Industry
13 recognized standards also set 15v as the limit for safe induced voltage. The amount of
14 current induced by transmission lines is in part influenced by pole location and
configuration. DNV determined that all induced currents and voltages would be less than
15 the 20-ampere corrosion threshold and 15v voltage threshold when the two transmission
lines proposed by PSE are both operated at 230kv and the poles are located and configured
16 as recommended by DNV.
17 PSE had originally proposed to operate its two transmission lines at 115kv for one line and
18 230kv for the other line for the initial stages of operation but agreed to operate both lines at
230kv to avoid the corrosion and voltage risks identified in the DNV study. In the absence
19 of any increase in corrosion risk under 230kv/230kv conditions, employing the
methodology of the EDM study, there would be no increase in pipeline release incidents by
20 the proposed co-location of the transmission lines since there would be no addition to risk
21 4 The"change"is a change to the baseline data used in the EDM report.The baseline data of the report,as detailed in
Section 5 of the report,was based upon pipeline leaks reported to the United States Department of Transportation for
22 the years 2010 through 2015 for refined petroleum product pipeline releases.'See Figure 5.2-1. The releases were
broken into several categories, such as equipment failure, incorrect operation and external corrosion. The only
23 "change"to this baseline data was the addition of AC interference incidents to the external corrosion category.
24 5 References to the "DNV Report" in this Decision are to DNV's December 2016 report entitled "AC Interference
Analysis — 230 Kv Transmission Line Collocated With Olympic Pipelines Op116 & Op120." The report was not
25 actually entered into the record by the Applicant or City. However, it was extensively referenced by the project
opponents contesting pipeline safety as well as within the EDM report. For these reasons, the DNV report is
26 considered to be part of the record.
CONDITIONAL USE - 5
1 caused by AC interference. In fact, the risks under the EDM analysis would be lower for
the proposal since the currently existing transmission line creates AC interference whereas
2 the proposed transmission lines will not. From this information it must be concluded that
3 according to the methodology of the EDM risk assessment, operating the lines at
230kv/230kv will not increase risk of pipeline release.
4
EDM did a separate analysis for construction impacts, assuming that construction impacts
5 would increase release rate by 50%. That analysis concluded that the risk in creating 17
6 fatalities was one in 428 million and the maximum increased risk in individual fatality is
one in 58 million, both of which are below the Santa Barbara County and the California
7 Department of Education acceptable risk thresholds for school siting purposes. See EDM
report,p. 91 and 102.
8
It is recognized that despite the extensive numerical analysis that underlies the EDM study
9 and its reliance upon industry data, its core conclusions rely upon assumptions based
10 entirely upon unsupported professional judgment. These assumptions are (1) the only
significant impact attributable to the proposal beyond that already factored into the baseline
11 data is AC interference; and (2) AC interference results in a 50% increase in corrosion
release for current conditions above the baseline data and a 100% increase in corrosion
12 release above baseline data for the proposed 115kv/230kv transmission line configuration.
EDM provides no reasons, data or studies for these assumptions. Nonetheless, project
13 opponents have not provided any compelling evidence or argument to the contrary and there
14 is no reason to doubt EDM's competence or objectivity in making these judgement calls.
The preponderance of evidence in the record establishes that these judgment calls provide
15 for an accurate assessment of pipeline safety risk.
16 Given the nominal or potentially even reduced fatality risk associated with the project, in
conjunction with the extensive mitigation recommended by the EIS team as formulated by
17 its independent consultants, it is determined that the proposal will not create any significant
18 impacts to adjoining properties by virtue of pipeline safety impacts.
19 The EDM risk analysis was subject to extensive criticism by several project opponents, at
least a couple of whom appear to have engineering backgrounds and some experience in
20 pipe corrosion issues. Most of the concerns raised by those commentators were addressed
in the FEIS comment response section of the FEIS,Appendix K. However, some were not.
21 The major issues raised in the public comment letters are addressed below.
22 i. EDM/DNV Credibility. At least one commentator has challenged the credibility of
23 PSE, Olympic Pipeline and utilities in general based upon specific instances of past
conduct by PSE and utilities in general. The EDM report was prepared by a qualified
24 consultant with expertise in pipeline safety that was hired by the EIS team.See Phase
2 EIS,p. 1-29. DNV was retained by the PSE,but its study was subject to peer review
25 by Stantec Consulting Services Inc., which was hired and supervised by the EIS
26 team. Based on Stantec's experience and industry standards, it was Stantec's opinion
that the technical approach used by DNV to achieve an optimal transmission line
CONDITIONAL USE - 6
1 route and powerline conductor configuration to minimize the AC interference risks
on the Olympic Pipeline system is consistent with industry practice.See FEIS,p.4.9-
2 37. There is no reason to dispute the impartiality or competence of EDM or Stantec.
3 Although their services were paid for by PSE, their contractual responsibility for
preparing a competent and impartial report was to the EIS team. The EIS team had
4 no interest other than to protect the public from pipeline hazards in hiring and
supervising EDM and Stantec.
5
6 As further noted by the EIS team at p. k-591 of the Phase 2 EIS:
7 For specialized analysis related to electrical transmission and pipeline
safety, the EIS Consultant Team has involved engineers, scientists, and
8 scholars in appropriate fields. To evaluate changes in pipeline safety risk
that would occur as a result of the Energize Eastside project, EDM Services,
9 a firm specializing in pipeline risk and system safety, was retained to
10 conduct a probabilistic pipeline risk assessment. The EIS Consultant Team
also retained Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) to perform an
11 independent, technical review of the AC Interference Study prepared by
DNV GL. Based on Stantec's experience and industry standards, it is their
12 opinion that the technical approach used in the analysis is consistent with
industry practice.
13
14 One project opponent identified that DNV had been fired by the State of Michigan
for a conflict of interest and appearance of improper influence. See Elworth letter,
15 Ex. 6, p. 22. Mr. Elworth did not identify the circumstances of the Michigan
situation and there is no suggestion in the record of any actual bias in DNV's work
16 for Michigan or any error in its judgment or analysis. The Michigan situation,to the
extent disclosed in this administrative record, does not present grounds for
17 discounting the work of DNV given that its work was subject to peer review by
18 Stantec.
19 ii. AC Corrosion Threshold. The DNV report correctly concluded that AC interference
would not increase corrosion on the Olympic pipeline so long as the induced current
20 on the pipeline was less than 20 amperes per square meter.
21 As previously identified,the EDM risk analysis was based upon the conclusion that
22 AC interference was the only source of increased leak risk created by the proposal
beyond baseline data. The risk of AC interference, in turn was based upon the DNV
23 report. The DNV report identified that AC interference did not increase corrosion
so long as induced current on the pipeline does not exceed 20 amperes per square
24 meter. In a letter 38b of Ex. 6,Todd Anderson asserted that the 20-ampere threshold
is based upon a standard that hasn't been adopted by any jurisdiction, whereas the
25 European Union has a standard setting a threshold of 3 amperes per square meter.
26 Since AC interference is the primary source of added safety risk created by the
CONDITIONAL USE - 7
1 proposal and assessment of that risk is dependent upon the corrosion threshold, an
accurate corrosion threshold is critical to an accurate assessment of pipeline safety.
2
3 From the source material presented by Mr. Anderson, it is clear that his
understanding of the European Union standard is based upon a typographical error
4 in a pipe corrosion technical article that intended to reference the standard as 30
ampere per square meter as opposed to 3 amperes per square meter.
5
6 Mr. Anderson cites the basis for his assertion that the European standard is 3
amperes per square meter from the following reference in page 7 of the article
7 (admitted into Ex. 6), Strategy For Eliminating Risks Of Corrosion And
Overprotection For Buried Modern Pipelines, by Fumio Kajiyama:
8
ISO 155891 prescribes for the AC corrosion risk and CP as follows: If the
9 a.c. current density on a 100mm 2 bare surface (e.g. an external test probe)
10 is higher than 3 Alm 2 (or less, in certain conditions), there is a high risk
of corrosion. Risk of corrosion is mainly related to the level of a.c. current
11 density compared to the level of CP current density. If the a.c. current
density is too high, the a.c. corrosion cannot be prevented by CP.
12
(emphasis added).
13
14 The reference to 3 A/m2 is contradicted by other portions of the article. On the same
page,the article cites to a 1992 study that sets 30 A/m2 as the threshold. Page 10 of
15 the article again identifies 30 A/m2 as the threshold, citing to ISO 155891,the same
standard referenced in the quote above for the alleged 3 A/m2 threshold standard.
16 ISO 1558916 (the 2003 version as cited in the article) itself nowhere sets a threshold
of 3 A/m2. Instead, a "NOTE" at p. 33 of the standard identifies that there's a high
17 risk of corrosion above 30 A/m2. The ISO standard otherwise does not set a
18 threshold for AC induced current corrosion.
19 The DNV report derived its 20 A/m2 threshold from the results of an investigation
of a corrosion failure incident in Germany in 1986,where it was learned for the first
20 time that AC interference could corrode pipelines. The results of that investigation
revealed that corrosion could occur at current densities of 20 A/m2, that corrosion
21 may or may not occur at 20-100 A/m2 and that corrosion did occur for current
22 densities exceeding 100 A/m2. See DNV report, p. 10. The findings of the
23 6 ISO 155891 was not admitted as an exhibit. However,Mr.Anderson asserts that the 3 A/m2 is a standard adopted
by the European Union(EU).In the Volume 4 EIS comment responses,EDM stated it was not aware of any adopted
24 European Union A.C. interference risk standard,which was apparently a reference to Mr. Anderson's assertion that
the 3 A/m2 had been adopted by the EU. If Mr.Anderson was correct in his assertion,the Examiner can take judicial
25 notice of adopted EU standards.If ISO 155891 has not been adopted by the European Union or any other governmental
entity,judicial notice could not be taken but Mr.Anderson's argument that the standard should be applied would also
26 be rejected.
CONDITIONAL USE - 8
1 investigation were adopted into a 2010 report published by National Institute of
Corrosion Engineers (NACE) TG 327 International Report entitled "AC Corrosion
2 State of-the-Art: Corrosion Rate, Mechanism, and Mitigation Requirements". DNV
3 relied upon this NACE standard to assess the AC interference created by the
proposal.
4
Mr. Anderson didn't find the NACE standard used by DNV compelling, because it
5 has not been adopted by the American National Standards Institute or the
6 Department of Defense. Mr. Anderson also noted that the NACE website labels the
standard as inactive. See Letter 38b of Ex. 6. However, as noted in p. K-619 of the
7 FEIS, Stantec determined that the standards and references used in the DNV-GL
report are those used in the industry. Stantec noted that the 30 A/m2 corrosion
8 threshold is the standard used in Europe and the direction North America is also
moving to in a new NACE AC Corrosion Criteria Draft standard that is in the
9 process of being approved.
10 From the information above, it is clear that there is no 3 A/m2 corrosion threshold
11 standard adopted in Europe and that DNV's use of 30 A/m2 instead of 20 A/m2 was
a very conservative application of AC interference standards.
12
iii.Pipeline Incident Baseline. EDM's risk analysis was based upon pipe incident rates
13 collected by the United States Department of Transportation ("USDOT") for US
14 refined petroleum pipelines for the period between January 2010 and December
2015, which involved 805 unintentional pipeline leaks over a total of 379,086 miles
15 that were reported pursuant to the mandates of federal regulations, specifically 49
CFR 195.50. See EDM Report, Table 5.2-1. As previously discussed, EDM
16 augmented this data with the increased risk associated with AC interference from co-
located transmission lines. As augmented, the baseline data is found to provide an
17 accurate and appropriate bases for assessing increased pipeline incident risk created
18 by the proposal.
19 In Letter 76, p. 36 of Ex. 6, Todd Anderson asserts that the baseline data is not
appropriate because it only covers a six-year period, doesn't distinguish between
20 new and old pipes and doesn't distinguish between incidents involving pipelines co-
located with transmission lines and those that are not. As identified at Footnote 34
21 of the EDM report, the six-year timeframe was based upon the parameters of the
22 data base made available by USDOT.
23 The limited number of years involved in the baseline data is appropriate given the
evolving safety standards applicable to pipeline safety. USDOT creates a new data
24 base when there is a change in operator reporting requirements to ensure that all data
contained within the database is consistent. As noted at p. 3.9-18 of the Phase 2 EIS,
25 use of the relatively current data also assures that review of incidents is limited to
26 those governed by current safety standards, which are designed to prevent
occurrences that happened prior to 2010.As noted at p.k-212 of the FEIS,as a result
CONDITIONAL USE - 9
1 of the 1999 Bellingham release7 and other pipeline incidents, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) made a number of recommendations that
2 resulted in new pipeline regulations requiring improvements in pipeline integrity
3 management. Due to this new federal legislation, the State of Washington passed
the Underground Utilities Damage Prevention Act in 2011 that increased
4 requirements for pipeline operators operating in the State of Washington. Further,
even though the data base only covers six years of US pipelines, the pipeline data
5 covers 379,086 miles of pipe data as shown in Table 3.9-2 of the Phase 2 EIS,which
6 the Phase 2 EIS concludes "provides a large and appropriate sample size for
conducting a risk assessment". See p. 3.9-18, Phase 2 EIS.
7
As to the age of the pipelines and the number of lines co-located with transmission
8 lines, as noted in the EDM report, that type of information isn't available from the
USDOT baseline data.As previously noted,EDM accounted for the AC interference
9 by increasing the baseline external corrosion incidents by 50% for the existing
10 transmission line and 100% for the proposed 115kv/230kv line. No increase in risk
was assigned to the 230kv/230kv configuration because no AC interference was
11 found to occur under this configuration as determined in the DNV report.
12 EDM made no adjustment to the USDOT baseline data for the age of the PSE line,
but Mr.Anderson did not provide any bases for concluding that disparity in pipeline
13 age would be statistically significant. Instead, Mr. Anderson asserted that the
14 information was available in the industry and PSE simply chose to avoid using that
data since it would not serve its purposes. This contention misses the point that PSE
15 did not put the baseline data together. That task was done by EDM under the
supervision of the EIS team at the expense of PSE.
16
As previously noted, EDM has no reason to bias its results and EDM was qualified
17 to do its analysis. Given that EDM found the baseline data it used to be sufficiently
18 accurate for its statistical analysis and the absence of any compelling evidence it
was deficient, the data is found to be appropriate and accurate for assessing pipeline
19 safety risk.
20 iv.Stress Corrosion. As outlined above, the EDM risk analysis was premised on the
professional opinion that the only modification to operational baseline data necessary
21 to account for the impacts of the proposal was the incorporation of AC interference
22 impacts. In Letter 36b, Ex. 6, Todd Anderson devotes a significant amount of his
analysis to highlight the absence of any accommodation for stress corrosion in the
23 EDM risk analysis. Unfortunately, Mr. Anderson doesn't provide any clear
explanation of what stress corrosion is or present any evidence or explanation as to
24
25 7 The Bellingham incident was a release of 237,000 gallons of gasoline from an Olympic pipeline in Bellingham,
Washington on June 10, 1999 that resulted in a pool fire within a creek that killed three people. See Phase 2 DEIS,
26 Appendix I-1.
CONDITIONAL USE - 10
1 how the proposal would increase stress corrosion. In reviewing prior comments from
Mr. Anderson on the same subject, the EIS team noted the following in its Volume
2 4 EIS response to his stress corrosion concerns:
3
Regarding stress corrosion, the EIS Consultant Team could not find
4 information to suggest a direct relationship between topography (e.g., hilly
or flat land) or fault conditions and stress corrosion cracking occurrences
5 on pipelines. Stress corrosion cracking is a form of corrosion that
6 occasionally occurs as a result of the combined influence of pipeline stress
due to its pressurized contents and a corrosive medium. Due to the higher
7 pipeline temperatures, pipeline incidents attributed to stress corrosion
cracking are more common on natural gas pipelines than on hazardous
8 liquid pipelines (for additional information, see U.S. Department of
Transportation's 'Fact Sheet: Stress Corrosion Cracking'at:
9 https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/FactSheets/FSStressCorrosion.htmRef
10 er).
11 FEIS, v. 4, p. k-644
12 The EIS consultant team also noted at p. k-632 that AC interference and AC
corrosion do not cause stress corrosion cracking and that a Japanese article cited by
13 Mr. Anderson in his written comments (referenced in Finding of Fact No. 5Aii
14 above) was only referring to stress cracking caused by cathodic over-protection.
15 Given the lack of evidence and clarity in Mr. Anderson's concerns and the absence
of any evidence or reasonable inference in the record that the proposed transmission
16 lines would have any impact on stress corrosion cracking, stress corrosion serves as
no bases to overturn the professional judgment of EDM that the proposal will not
17 increase the risk of unintentional pipeline releases.
18 v. Holiday Current. The DNV estimates of induced current density from AC
19 interference take into account the high current densities associated with small
holidays (coating flaws).
20
Brian Elworth asserted in his Ex. 6 correspondence that the DNV analysis didn't
21 take into consideration the fact that current density at small holidays can be
22 magnified as much as 10,000 times, thus greatly exceeding the 20 Aim' corrosion
threshold applied in the DNV analysis. It is determined that the impacts of small
23 holidays have already been factored into the DNV analysis and that the presence of
small holidays on the Olympic pipelines will not undermine the accuracy of the
24 DNV analysis.
25 Page 11 of the DNV report identifies the formula used by DNV to estimate induced
26 current density on the Olympic pipeline. As is readily seen in the formula, holiday
diameter is factored into the formula. As revealed in the accompanying text, DNV
CONDITIONAL USE - 11
1 factored in the presence of one-centimeter holidays into the formula. DNV
referenced research that has found that holidays of one to three centimeters in
2 diameter create the highest corrosion rates. Addressing the one to three centimeter
3 holidays, DNV noted at Page 10 that "[hJoliday testing during installation of the
pipeline should catch all holidays of this magnitude, but in general smaller holidays
4 could be missed; so the smallest, or one square centimeter, is considered in
calculation of AC current density." The fact that DNV has taken small holiday size
5 into account in its induced current estimation was confirmed by the v4 FEIS
6 comment responses, which noted at page k-502:
7 In their analysis, DNV GL considered the current density on a worst case
one square centimeter coating holiday and the measured soil resistivity,
8 along with the induced AC potential from the model, which is consistent
with industry practice and very conservatively high for the age of the
9 Olympic pipelines. Thus, the small coating holiday is already used in this
10 calculation and the final number for current density.
11 It is also significant that DNV field tested its formula and found that it accurately
estimates induced current density. DNV applied its induced current formula to
12 existing conditions and then compared the modelled results to readings of current
density under existing conditions. The results of the modeling closely mirrored field
13 conditions. See Figure 8,p. 11 of DNV report. Given that the formula used by DNV
14 to estimate induced current density takes holiday size into consideration and that its
results are field tested as accurate, the evidence is clear that DNV induced current
15 estimates accurately account for small holiday size.
16 vi.Spacing/Amperage Guidelines. The spacing between transmission lines and power
lines,the amperage of the power lines and the width of the transmission corridor,has
17 been properly taken into account in assessing pipeline safety risk.
18 Sue Stronk in a letter in Ex. 6 identified industry guidelines that recommend a 25-
19 foot separation between parallel pipelines, a 50-foot separation between
transmission lines and pipelines and the transmission line corridors to be 120 to 150
20 feet in width. CENSE expressed similar concerns in Ex. 23. Actual spacing for the
proposed transmission line involves a corridor width of only 100 feet, minimum
21 spacing between pipeline and transmission lines of 13 feet and 14-foot separation
22 between power lines.
23 Along similar lines, Barbara Braun writes in Ex. 6 that a 2015 report from DNV
identifies the association of a high corrosion risk with pipelines that are closer than
24 100 feet to powerlines, with powerlines having currents greater than 1,000 amps
(PSE proposes approximately 1,500 amps) and colocation distances between
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 12
1 powerlines and pipelines of more than 5,000 feet(PSE's line will be collocated with
the pipeline for several miles).
2
3 The standards cited by Ms. Stronk are not mandatory, but rather are what should
govern the configuration of new transmission line corridors when there is a
4 reasonable opportunity to meet the standards.Those conditions are not present here,
• as the transmission line corridor goes through a heavily developed area where
5 numerous residences and other properties would have to be removed in order to
6 expand and/or realign the transmission corridor. In its report, EDM has taken into
consideration all the mitigation necessary to ensure that spacing of the pipeline from
7 the proposed transmission line facilities doesn't increase unintentional pipeline
release for factors such as minimum arc separation for lightning and separation
8 necessary for construction. Project opponents have not identified any other
compelling factors in need of additional mitigation to compensate for the nonideal
9 separation conditions present in the existing transmission line.
10 The high-risk factors identified by Ms. Braun have similarly been adequately
11 incorporated into EDM's pipeline risk assessment. As noted by the EIS response
team at p. k-499 of the FEIS in addressing the same comments made by Ms. Braun
12 in a prior comment letter:
13 The risk ranking referenced by this commenter attempts to assist with
14 identing the susceptibility of a pipeline to AC interference based on
several factors. Once identified as a potential risk, a detailed study
15 including modeling is required to determine the actual AC interference
levels the pipeline would be exposed to, to quantify the actual risks, and to
16 design required mitigation. The pipelines were identified as requiring a
detailed study, which was completed by DNV GL as part of the AC
17 Interference Study completed for the project.
18 vii. Earthquake Damage. The foundation depths for the proposed transmission poles
19 do not increase the risks of unintentional pipeline release due to earthquake damage.
20 PSE proposes to maintain a minimum of 13-foot separation between the
transmission poles and the pipeline in order to place the poles outside the maximum
21 arc distance as recommended in the DNV report. In Renton, the proposed pole
22 foundations are proposed to have depths of 13 to 46 feet. As noted by Todd
Anderson in one of his letters, a major earthquake could cause the foundation of a
23 downed pole to hit the pipeline and rupture it.
24 The concept of a pole foundation moving laterally in an earthquake to rupture the
pipeline has not been directly addressed by the EIS team or its consultants.
25 However, as noted at p. 309 of the FEIS, the American Society of Engineers found
26 that standards applicable to utility poles for wind/ice and broken wire forces exceed
those that apply to buildings to protect against earthquakes. The FEIS at p. 341 also
CONDITIONAL USE - 13
1 noted that PSE calculations showed that the poles will in any event meet
International Building Code seismic requirements. The EIS team also noted at p. k-
2 386, v4 of the FEIS that the risk of downed power lines will be lower with the new
3 transmission poles given the anticipated upgrades to PSE's infrastructure under the
project, including the use of steel versus wood poles and newer standards not
4 applicable during the installation of the existing poles. Perhaps, most important, P.
k-182 of the FEIS further notes that PSE retained a Washington licensed
5 geotechnical engineer to evaluate seismic hazards and compare the design of the
6 project facilities to withstand probable seismically induced ground shaking at each
location. It is anticipated that the poles would withstand such conditions and would
7 not fall as a result of an earthquake or other natural forces, including extreme
weather. On a final relevant point, it must also be recognized that the Renton
8 segment of the transmission line is outside the Seattle fault and no new poles are
proposed within any liquefaction hazard areas. See FEIS, Section 4.11.5.8.
9 However, the Renton segment intersects an identified landslide hazard area that
10 according to the FEIS has received geotechnical evaluation and appropriate design
measures by a Washington State licensed geotechnical engineer.
11
From the comments made by the EIS team as outlined above, it is clear that the
12 transmission poles have been designed to withstand earthquake events and that they
will not be located within any earthquake hazard area. However, earthquakes could
13 still trigger landslides in the project area and it's not clear from the record whether
14 the proximity of the pipeline was factored into the applicable regulations or
geotechnical analysis (the geotechnical report for the Renton segment was not
15 submitted into,the record).
16 Overall, the fact that the EIS team did not find any cause for concern over Mr.
Anderson's earthquake concern is sufficiently compelling to find no significant risk
17 of rupture due to seismic activity Other than identifying the pole depth exceeds
18 pipeline separation distance, Mr. Anderson provided no evidence that there was any
material chance that a pole foundation could damage a pipeline in an earthquake.
19 Relying upon simple common sense, which appears to be the entire basis of Mr.
Anderson's position, it appears that if an earthquake or landslide is strong enough
20 to upend a foundation more than 13 feet deep, that earthquake or landslide will be
rupturing the pipeline independently of the foundation in any event. These
21 circumstances, in conjunction with the fact that the poles are designed to withstand
22 earthquakes and are located outside of seismic fault and liquefaction areas provides
substantial evidence and establishes more likely than not that the foundation depths
23 for the proposed transmission poles do not increase the risks of unintentional
pipeline release due to earthquake damage.
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 14
1
viii. Size of Pool Fire. The pool fire modeled in the EDM report appropriately identifies
2 a worst-case scenario for purposes of assessing pipeline safety risk.
3
The FEIS pipeline risk analysis identifies that the most likely source of injury and
4 fatality from an unintentional pipeline release is a pool fire. Accurately modeling
the size of such a fire in highly populated areas such as Renton,therefore,is essential
5 to accurately assessing the number of persons that could be killed or injured in a risk
6 analysis. Section 7.1 of the EDM report models a pool fire for a "worst-case"
maximum release volume of 8,861 barrels(or 372,162 gallons).See v4 EIS,p.k322.
7 The assumptions used in the pool size modeling were questioned by numerous
project opponents, who noted that the modeling assumed flat terrain with no water
8 bodies. Without citation,Todd Anderson asserts in his Ex. 6 comments that only 1%
of the transmission corridor is flat. He also provided anecdotal evidence of a
9 waterline release in Bellevue that resulted in a water dispersion far more extensive
10 than that presented in the EDM model. CENSE points out that a hill near the Sierra
Elementary school undermines the accuracy of the pool fire assumptions. See Ex.
11 23,p. 13.
12 As detailed at v4 FEIS,p. k322,to estimate a reasonable "worst-case" or maximum
release volume, the risk assessment used USDOT hazardous liquid pipeline release
13 data, filtered to include only refined petroleum product releases in order to be as
14 directly applicable to the Olympic Pipeline system as possible, and then normalized
the data to the pipe diameter of the Olympic pipelines. The risk assessment used the
15 average of the largest spill size range(6,000 to 12,000 barrels)to arrive at an average
"maximum" spill size of 8,861 barrels(or 372,162 gallons).The risk assessment also
16 considered the maximum population density in estimating societal risk.
17 Project opponents present some compelling arguments on the deficiencies of the
18 "worst case" pool fire modelled by EDM. As is evident from the preceding
discussion, EDM's presentation of "worst-case" conditions isn't actually worst-
19 case,but"reasonable"worst case which assesses risks based upon the severe end of
the range of possible outcomes to unintentional pipeline releases. However, in the
20 professional assessment of acceptable risk,project opponents have not demonstrated
or even contended that in using reasonable worst-case analysis as opposed to the
21 worst possible outcome,EDM has failed to use proper risk assessment methodology.
22 There is nothing in the record to remotely suggest that a "reasonable" worst case
analysis approach is not required when evaluating whether a proposal meets
23 acceptable risk levels such as those set by the California Department of Education,
which were employed in the EDM risk assessment. In point of fact, absent any
24 evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to conclude that the risk levels created by
the professionals who set the California Department of Education were based upon
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 15
1 the expectation that risk assessment would be based upon the methodology of •
standard industry practices.
2
3 As identified at Finding of Fact 5Ai above, EDM is a firm specializing in pipeline
safety. EDM was hired by and subject to the supervision of the EIS team, not PSE.
4 EDM used CANARY software, specifically designed to model pool fires, to model
the size of a reasonable"worst-case"pool fire.The pool fire was based on the largest
5 releases that can be reasonably expected to occur from an unintentional release.
6 Project opponents gave examples of how the pool fire could be worse, but none
provided any evidence that the EDM risk assessment failed to meet industry
7 standards. For these reasons, it is concluded that the EDM modelled pool fire serves
as an accurate and appropriate bases for assessing pipe safety risk.
8
ix.Leak Detection. The general effectiveness (or lack thereof) of leak detection is
9 already factored into the EDM risk analysis and the EDM conclusion that the
10 proposal doesn't appreciably increase pipeline safety risk.
11 Mr. Elworth and Mr. Anderson both questioned the effectiveness of Olympic's leak
detection system, pointing out that the size of an unintentional pipeline spill is
12 directly linked to how quickly it is detected. As noted in a quote by Mr. Anderson
in one of his letters in Ex. 6: "According to a Reuters review of PHMSA data, since
13 2010, there have been at least 466 incidents in which a pipeline carrying crude oil
14 or refined products has leaked. Of those, only 105, or 22%, were identified by an
advanced detection system. " Mr. Ellsworth identifies that hearing materials suggest
15 that pipeline inspections only happen every five years and that corrosion leaks can
easily occur between inspections given corrosion rates of one millimeter per year
16 and the pipe depth of 0.250 inches. See Ex. 6.
17 There may very well be deficiencies in leak detection as identified by Mr. Anderson
18 and Mr. Elworth, but these deficiencies have already been factored into the baseline
data used for the rate study. See EDM study, Section 5. The baseline data is based
19 upon all reported leaks from refined petroleum product pipelines to the United States
Department of Transportation as required by 49 CRF 195.50. These leaks occurred
20 under the state and federally mandated leak detection systems of pipeline companies
throughout the United States from 2010 through 2015. Although Olympic Pipeline
21 has had its past problems with leak detection as identified by Mr. Anderson, there's
22 nothing in the record to suggest that Olympic's current leak detection system and
operation is any less effective than those of the other companies reporting pipeline
23 incidents for baseline data.
24 x. Lightning. The proposal adequately mitigates against lightning damage it may cause
to the pipeline.
25
26 In an Ex. 6 comment letter Brian Elworth succinctly expresses concern over
lightning damage as follows: The replacement of the insulting [sic] wood
CONDITIONAL USE - 16
1 transmission line support structure with tall conductive metal towers, essentially
lightning rods grounded near the hazardous liquid pipeline, while removing the
2 lightning dissipating natural tree canopy is a gross breach of safety common sense.
3
Mr. Elworth's concerns on lightning strikes has been fully addressed in the DNV
4 and associated Stantec review by implementing a minimum 13-foot separation (arc
distance) between transmission lines and pipelines, along with field verification
5 required to assure that the separation is sufficient to prevent lightning arcing. As
6 noted by the EIS team in v.4 FEIS, p. k-509:
7 As long as the pipeline is outside of the maximum calculated arcing distance
[13 feet], then the risk has been mitigated. The Canadian Energy Pipeline
8 Association (CEPA) published a report called A/C Interference Guideline
Final Report, which summarizes the use of the Sunde equation to calculate
9 the lightning arcing distance and a regression formula developed in
10 Canadian Electricity Association (CEA) report 239T817 to assess the arcing
distance due to a lightning initiated power arc (i.e., from powerline fault
11 current). The DNV report only uses the Sunde equation for this assessment,
while Stantec recommended that they also consider the CEA regression
12 formula. This recommendation is included as a mitigation measure in Section
4.9.8 of the Final EIS. Based on the DNV GL recommendations, PSE revised
13 the design from that presented in the Phase 2 Draft EIS to ensure that all
14 poles would be at least 13 feet from the pipelines, because this was the
maximum calculated arc distance necessary to prevent arcing between the
15 poles and the pipelines, based on soil conditions in the corridor. If the
modeled conditions are correct, there would be no risk of arcing damage.
16 However, soil conditions are quite variable; therefore, actual arc distances
could vary. Actual arc distances will be measured at each pole once the poles
17 are installed. Where necessary, pole grounds would be installed to provide
18 adequate separation from the pipelines. See Final EIS Section 4.9.8,
Mitigation Measures.
19
B. Visual and Aesthetic Impacts: As mitigated and conditioned, the Visual and Aesthetic
20 impacts of the project will not be significant.
21 The visual and aesthetic impacts of the project are related to several factors including the
22 appearance and form of the utility infrastructure itself;the impact on scenic views; and tree
removal. The EIS team characterized the existing aesthetic environment through an
23 assessment of the visual character in the built and natural environment, the effected
population, and the existing visual quality (FEIS, Appendix C, page C-6). Most views of
24 the project will be within a `/4 mile, most often when the view of the project is in the
foreground and the viewer is likely to experience the full scale of the project from close
25 proximity (FEIS, Appendix C, page C-3). The methodology used by the EIS team applied
26 parameters it entitled Natural Harmony, Built Order and Utility Coherence in the existing
and built out conditions. The most desirable features for each of these parameters included
CONDITIONAL USE - 17
1 undisturbed natural areas; planned urban areas; and the presence of the least feasible
number of small poles with few wires, which are consistent in height, and form and blend
2 into the surrounding environment.
3
For purposes of defining significant impact, the EIS team defined impacts with respect to
4 the general aesthetic environment and to scenic views. The most important aspect with
respect to aesthetic impact was the degree of contrast between the project and the existing
5 aesthetic environment. A substantial contrast, especially where viewer sensitivity is high,
6 was considered a significant aesthetic impact. Significant impacts to scenic views were
defined when the area with the scenic view is impacted and that impact includes many
7 sensitive viewers such as residential viewers, viewers from parks and trails and/or outdoor
facilities. The other important consideration is the degree of the additional obstruction of
8 scenic views compared to the existing view(FEIS Section 4.2.3.4,page 4.2-7 and Appendix
C,page C-24). The FEIS found"impacts to the scenic views and the aesthetic environment
9 in the Renton Segment would be less than significant"(FEIS Section 4.2.5.9). The rationale
10 is that there is a low contrast between the existing PSE facilities and the new project
facilities that would replace them with respect to use, form and function. The siting of the
11 new project in the existing right of way location accomplishes the mitigation goal of
decreasing the visual impact(FEIS, Appendix J, page J1-68).
12
The FEIS acknowledges that tree removal has the potential to create large visual impacts;
13 that the project height and scale may make it a dominant visual feature in the built
14 environment given it is much higher than the surrounding built features and different in
character from the surrounding uses; and that the project at build out could involve
15 significant changes from the existing character of the use over short distances in areas with
higher viewer sensitivity(FEIS,Appendix C,page C-9). It is these impacts the project must
16 minimize or mitigate to the extent feasible. The most significant areas of potential visual
and aesthetic impacts are related to the utility infrastructure itself and the loss of trees.
17
18 i. Compatibility of Utility Infrastructure. The Renton section of the project is
surrounded by a variety of uses including institutional and single-family residential
19 areas,sometimes in areas of high visibility(FEIS,Appendix C,page C-15).However,
of the 185 adjacent parcels, 42% of the corridor is currently vacant. The Renton
20 segment goes through several established single and multi-family residential
neighborhoods. Sunset(Renton Highlands) is one of the City's older developed areas
21 and is comprised of commercial and residential uses;it is currently being redeveloped
22 with new multi-family, parks, library, and commercial land uses. Several parks are
along the corridor, including May Creek Greenway,Honey Creek Greenway,and the
23 Cedar River Natural Zone (Exhibit 3, Finding of Fact No. 19d). The FEIS also
identified areas of high potential scenic view impacts in Renton between SR 169 and
24 SR 900 (FEIS, Appendix C, page C-22).
25 As noted by the staff report, and as a feature of the chosen alignment,the project will
26 be located within an existing PSE right of way that contains existing electrical utility
facilities. This use in this location has been established since the 1920s and early
CONDITIONAL USE - 18
1 1930s. All existing uses surrounding the project alignment were built around the
existing utility corridor. The utility corridor is part of the existing character of the
2 adjacent neighborhoods, which house many tall vertical structures including light
3 poles, street lights, electrical lines (including Seattle City Light's existing lattice
tower 230kV transmission lines), communication towers, buildings, and trees
4 (including Douglas fir, which have a mature height of 70 ft to over 300 ft) (Exhibit
3, Finding of Fact No. 19d).
5
6 The project design will involve increasing the height of-poles from around 55 feet for
the existing poles to up to 118 feet for the new poles(FEIS,Appendix C,page C-20).
7 The heights of the proposed poles would be increased to an average height of between
85 and 95 feet under the project proposal. However, there are 70% fewer poles
8 proposed in the after condition(Exhibit 3,Finding of Fact No. 19a).The transmission
line replacement would reduce the number of poles within the corridor from 144 to
9 41 poles. The proposed poles would be setback from the edge of the existing
10 easement area to provide adequate spacing between the poles and the edge of the
easement, and therefore create a sufficient setback to buildings and structures
11 (Exhibit 3, Finding of Fact No. 19b). This reduction in the number of poles within
the existing utility right of way could potentially improve the visual character of the
12 area, at least at the ground level.
13 Several members of the public expressed concern about the visual impacts of the new
14 utility infrastructure including concerns that the poles would "industrialize the
corridor" and are "looming" (Exhibit 6, Public Comments #8 DeMund and #18
15 Braun); would be much higher than the existing uses (Exhibit 6, Public Comment#9
CENSIE); and would be out of character for the neighborhood (Exhibit 6, Public
16 Comments #27 Pipkin, #67 Cieszlak, #72 Willis and Weir — comment submitted at
the hearing).Mitigation for these impacts needs to be evaluated from the ground level
17 and at the level of the poles and wires.
18 ii. Ground Level Mitigation. Ground treatment for mitigation of the utility infrastructure
19 includes screening and visual enhancement. Screening can be accomplished by
fencing and landscaping.
20
a. Landscaping. Vegetation in a transmission line corridor that has an operational
21 voltage of more than 200 kV must be managed in compliance with federal
22 requirements, resulting in limitations with regard to the type and scope of
landscaping that is allowable.Vegetation management standards vary depending
23 upon the location of vegetation management in relation to transmission wires.
Consistent with federal standards,vegetation in the wire zone (i.e., 10-ft outside
24 wires) must have a mature height of no greater than 15 feet, unless the local
topography is sufficient to allow a 20-foot vertical clearance between the power
25 lines and the mature height of trees under the power lines. Trees can be taller
26 outside the wire zone, but no more than 25-feet in height within the Managed
Right of Way (Exhibit 3,Finding of Fact No. 19h, FEIS, Appendix E,page E-1,
CONDITIONAL USE - 19
1 FEIS page 4.4-4, FEIS Appendix E, page E-6 and FEIS Appendix J, page Jl-
73). The deep ravine cut by the Cedar River allows retention of taller trees under
2 the upgraded transmission lines.
3
According to the submitted Vegetation Replacement Letter (Exhibit 8), PSE
4 proposes to mitigate impacts to trees that are necessary to meet federal
transmission line operational standards. To mitigate for loss of significant trees
5 in the transmission corridor, PSE is proposing mitigation ratios that would
6 exceed the City's adopted tree replacement standards as proposed in the
submitted Vegetation Replacement Letter(Exhibit 8).
7
The Applicant is proposing to work with individual property owners to restore
8 areas impacted during construction to its previous, or an improved, state. PSE
proposes to work with affected property owners to replace trees in the most
9 effective manner that meets the permit conditions. (Exhibit 3, Finding of Fact
10 No. 19h).
11 All applicable codes and standards will be followed during design and
construction,including electrical,stormwater and erosion control,tree protection,
12 and noise codes. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a
final Landscape and Tree Replacement Plan to the Current Planning Project
13 Manager at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval prior
14 to construction permit issuance. Maintenance of vegetation within the
transmission line corridor, shall be required to comply with the City's property
15 maintenance regulations as outlined under RMC 1-3-3.
16 b. Artwork. Several FEIS Mitigation measures deal with the siting, form and
materials of the proposed project. One of these measures includes specifying
17 poles with an aesthetic treatment, such as paint or a self-weathering finish, to
18 reduce contrast with the surrounding environment (FIES, Appendix M, page M-
20 and FEIS Table 4.2-3, page 4.2-53). The Applicant submitted renderings
19 including photo simulations of the different pole finishes (Exhibit 31) along the
project corridor. To further enhance the visual environment and to reduce the
20 visual impact, a mitigation measure was added to the EIS Consistency Analysis
(December 13, 2019, Exhibit 2) requiring that poles visible to the public be
21 treated with artwork(Exhibit 3, Finding of Fact No. 19d). The proposed concept
22 of adding artwork to the transmission line poles was approved by the City of
Renton Arts Commission on November 5, 2019. A condition of approval will
23 require that individual art wraps for the transmission line poles be submitted to
the Current Planning Project Manager for review and approval prior to the
24 issuance of a Construction Permit. This artwork shall be installed prior to the
energizing of the transmission lines.
25
26 c. Light and Glare. As the FEIS notes, loss of vegetation could also "result in less
screening of existing light sources, such as streetlights or lights from buildings"
CONDITIONAL USE - 20
1 (FEIS,Appendix J,page J1-75). The FEIS suggest an appropriate response would
be to ask other utility providers and owners of now visible adjacent buildings with
2 exterior lighting to provide shielding on the existing lighting. To the extent
3 practically feasible and consistent with utility regulations and safe practices, the
Applicant shall configure its tree replacement in a manner that minimizes
4 increased light exposure caused by the proposal.
5 iii. Above Ground Level Mitigation. With respect to above ground level visual impacts of
6 the utility infrastructure, other than providing artwork and appropriate coloration, the
other potential mitigation area is restricting the proliferation of co-located
7 telecommunications facilities,to the extent feasible under state and federal law.
8 a. Co-Location of Telecommunication Facilities. Todd Anderson (Exhibit 6, Public
Comment #76a & b), expressed concerns regarding the taller poles and the
9 potential for increased use for co-located telecommunications infrastructure.
10 Specifically, Mr. Anderson stated he was concerned that the new poles would be
used to site new 5G antennas on every pole, a technology that he states requires
11 a 100-fold increase in the number of antennas over 4G technology. Furthermore,
Mr. Anderson is concerned that new federal laws will mean the City of Renton
12 will have no local control over the aesthetics of these telecommunication
facilities.
13
14 It should be noted that the project results in 70% fewer poles than in the existing
condition, from 144 down to 41 poles. The City of Renton requires
15 telecommunication facilities to blend into the existing characteristics of the site
to the extent feasible, including non-reflective neutral paint to match the colors in
16 the immediate vicinity (RMC 4-4-140(F)(3)). In this case, that would mean to
match the tower the facilities are located upon. Any independent towers must
17 meet stealth tower standards and be disguised as or on faux trees,flagpoles,sports
18 field lights or freestanding signs (RMC 4-4-140(I)), while small cell (5G)
facilities will also require concealment(RMC 4-4-140(J)). The Renton standards
19 comply with Federal regulatory requirements.
20 Two adopted FEIS mitigation measures specifically address telecommunications
facilities. The first limits the number of telecommunication facilities that could
21 be installed on the 230kV poles to the number currently installed in the corridor
22 and proposed to be installed as part of the FEIS. The second FEIS mitigation
measure requires the re-installation of telecommunication facilities to be in the
23 same approximate locations as they were previously and to comply with the
requirements of Chapter 80.54 RCW, Chapter 480-54 WAC, and local
24 jurisdiction regulations. See Ex. 2, Environmental Consistency Analysis,p. 3-16.
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 21
1 The impact of co-location of telecommunications facilities is adequately
mitigated by the adopted FEIS mitigation measures.
2
3 C. Loss of Trees. The proposal will not create significant tree loss impacts.
4 Impacts related to the loss of trees will be mitigated to the extent feasible. Many members of
the public expressed concern over the potential loss of trees, many of which are old growth,
5 up to 250 years old, and located in critical areas or their buffers8. The FEIS states there is
6 little vegetation along the Renton Segment with the exception of near Honey,Creek and the
Cedar River. Tree removal will be required in the Honey Creek ravine but not in the Cedar
7 River Valley, though tree removal impacts to a tributary of the Cedar River are indicated
(FEIS, pages 4.2-22 and 4.2-44). There are 574 trees in the study area in Renton. Of these,
8 367 are significant trees pursuant to RMC 4-11-200 and seven are landmark trees pursuant
to RZC 21.78)9. Approximately 339 (57%) of the total trees in the segment will be removed,
9 including up to 242 significant trees. This is, overall, 5-10 trees per acre with five of them,
10 on average, being significant trees. 47 of the total removed trees are within critical habitats
buffers (22 trees from stream buffers and 25 trees from wetlands buffers (FEIS Figures 4.4-
11 4,4.4-5, 4.4-6,4.4-7, 4.4-8, Section 4.4.5.8,page 4.4-22 and Ex. 2,page 2-4 and 2-5). These
trees are all within the existing utility corridor.No City of Renton designated Landmark trees
12 will be removed (Ex. 2,page 2-15).
13 The FEIS states that all trees with a mature height of over 15-feet will be removed within a
14 67-92-foot wide corridor, depending on whether the pole configuration is monopoles or dual
poles (FEIS, Appendix E, page E-1-2). All trees with a mature height over 25-feet will be
15 removed within the Managed Right of Way (FEIS page 4.4-4, FEIS Appendix E, page E-6
and FEIS Appendix J,page J1-73).The FEIS and Tree inventory Reports analyzed the impact
16 on trees for most of the project, but specifically did not analyze the effects of tree removal in
Renton(FEIS, Appendix E,pages E-6-8).
17
18 The City of Renton requires tree retention at ratios dependent upon the underlying zone. The
Environmental Consistency Analysis includes a mitigation measure that requires trees to be
19 retained in accordance with the City's Tree Retention standards(Page 3-6).However,no tree
retention is required for this project based on the City's tree retention formulas (RMC 4-4-
20 130(H)) (Ex. 13). Mitigation required in the Environmental Consistency Analysis includes
compliance with the Vegetation Replacement Approach letter (Ex. 8). Additionally, the
21 Applicant has provided a Mitigation Plan which will include replanting of trees (Ex. 9 and
22 PSE Renton Mitigation Plan, The Watershed Company, January 2018). Mitigation will
happen on both private property and within the corridor. The Applicant will be required to
23
24 8 See Exhibit 6, Public Comments #1, 3, 7-18, 20-24, 26, 31-39,45, 68, 72 and the hearing testimony of Gillespie,
Weir,and Ossenkop.
25
9 City of Renton Tree Inventory, Puget Sound Energy—Energize Eastside Project, The Watershed Company, May
26 2016.
CONDITIONAL USE -22
1 submit a Final Tree Retention and Replacement Plan at the time of construction permit
review(Ex. 2, Pages 3-7 and 3-8).
2
3 With respect to the impact of tree removal on visual and aesthetics, the Environmental
Consistency Analysis contains several mitigation measures which require the retention or
4 replacement of trees to the greatest extent possible; the limiting of disturbance to what is
necessary for safety and maintenance of the transmission facilities with replanting of
5 vegetation that would be compatible with vegetation clearance requirements to prevent future
vegetation removal and maintenance in the future; the avoidance of removal of mature trees
6 in all construction areas, where possible; and the provision of mitigation monitoring for all
7 trees removed from critical areas (Ex. 2). A condition of approval will require project site
disturbance and tree replacement per the Vegetation Replacement Approach letter (Exhibit
8 8). As noted above in Finding of Fact No. 5Bii Ground Level Mitigation: Landscaping a
condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a final Landscape and Tree
9 Replacement Plan to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Construction
10 Permit review for review and approval prior to construction permit issuance. Maintenance of
vegetation within the transmission line corridor, shall be required to comply with the City's
11 property maintenance regulations as outlined under RMC 1-3-3.
12 D. Geologically and Seismically Hazardous Areas. As mitigated, no impacts from
geologically hazardous areas or seismic hazards are anticipated.
13
14 The only portion of the proposal that appears to involve construction in a geologically
hazardous area is within a landslide hazard area near the Honey Creek Open space. The
15 Renton segment of the project is outside of the Seattle Fault zone but still at risk of ground
shaking hazards in the northern portion of the Renton segment. In addition,the Honey Creek
16 landslide area could be triggered by a seismic event. Seismic risk is considered low in the
Renton segment of the project.
17
18 Though construction and operation of the project cannot completely avoid impacts to
geological areas,mitigation has been proposed to limit the impact of potential geological and
19 seismic events on the construction and operation of the project. The City of Renton allows
the overbuilding or replacement of existing utility systems in geologically hazardous areas if
20 the work does not increase the footprint of the structure or line by 10%and occurs within the
existing right of way or easement boundary (RMC 4-3-050). The project segment in Renton
21 is located entirely within the existing utility corridor and will involve the replacement of
22 existing poles. Most of the existing poles (70%) will be removed and not replaced as the
project allows for significantly fewer poles than in the existing condition. As mitigation,the
23 conditions of approval require geotechnical review of all proposed facilities to ensure that
the project meets Renton geologically hazardous area standards.
24
Implementation of NESC standards overseen by a Washington-licensed geotechnical
25 engineer will ensure that the geotechnical design of the new poles minimizes the seismic and
26 landslide hazards present. Since the project portion in Renton is not within the Seattle Fault,
the project is not anticipated to increase seismic risks as it will meet the most recent National
CONDITIONAL USE - 23
1 Electrical Safety Code design standards (FEIS, Chapter 4, Section 4.11.5.8). See Finding of
Fact No. 5Avii for additional discussion on seismic risks.
2
3 Best management practices (BMP) are required by the Renton Municipal Code (RMC 4-3-
050) and include the use of appropriate shoring during construction; the use of erosion and
4 runoff control measures(retention of vegetation where feasible,replanting,the use of ground
cover, etc.); the conduction of settlement and vibration monitoring during construction to
5 identify potential adverse conditions to critical areas and local facilities;and compliance with
6 the Renton critical areas codes (FEIS, Appendix M, page M-13). The Energize Eastside
Environmental Consistency Analysis also provided 21 mitigation measures related to the
7 topic. A condition of approval will require the Applicant to comply with the mitigation
measures set forth in the EIS Consistency Analysis / EIS Addendum, dated December 13,
8 2019 (Exhibit 2).
9 E. Streams and Wetlands. All impacts to streams and wetlands will be fully mitigated.
10 The Renton section of the project crosses four stream segments: Cedar River, Honey Creek,
11 Ginger River and an unnamed tributary of the Cedar River. Wetlands and the Zone 2
Wellhead Protection Areas are also in the project area.
12
The project is designed to avoid and minimize impacts to critical areas by utilizing the
13 existing transmission line corridor, limiting disturbance and implementing best management
14 practices (BMPs) when working in critical areas, and installing transmission lines between
poles with minimal site disturbance. No new poles are proposed in wetlands, streams or
15 stream buffers,flood hazard areas,or seismic hazard areas.New poles are proposed in habitat
conservation areas and wellhead protection areas.
16
The project proposes to impact a single wetland buffer for the placement of a utility pole.
17 The impacted wetland is a Category III slope wetland. Two existing poles will be removed
18 from and replaced outside of wetland and stream buffers resulting in a net increase of only
68 sf of permanent wetland buffer impact.
19
Vegetation community conversion impacts in wetland and stream buffers total 18,786 sf.
20 19,235 sf of temporary disturbance will occur. A total of 18 trees would be removed from
the Honey Dew Creek buffer and 11 trees would be removed within the Ginger Creek buffer
21 within the Lower Cedar River sub basin. No impacts are proposed within the 200-foot
22 shoreline jurisdiction of the Cedar River. Vegetation conversion impacts are also proposed
in wellhead protection areas. Post-construction, all disturbed areas will be re-vegetated, if
23 necessary,and left to return to their natural state,in accordance with the submitted mitigation
plans (Ex. 10).
24
The Critical Areas Mitigation plan provides for mitigation ratios for permanent impacts at a
25 ratio of 1:1.The mitigation of conversion buffer impacts will be a ratio of 0.5:1,which results
26 in a total of 9,500 sf of wetland buffer enhancement. Proposed mitigation activities include
invasive species removal and installation of native small trees, shrubs, and groundcover
CONDITIONAL USE - 24
1 plants (Ex. 10). In the Honey Creek buffer, snag creation will mitigate for some impacts to
habitat occurring within the May Creek sub-basin. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will
2 be used to minimize impacts resulting from pole replacement activities. No permanent
3 impacts to the wetland or streams and their buffers are anticipated. As mitigated, the impact
to the wetland buffer is adequately alleviated. Impacts to groundwater resources are
4 anticipated to be minimal and adequately addressed through the City's regulations and the
application of best management practices.
5
6 F. Plants and Animals. Impacts to protected plants and animals are not anticipated to be
significant.
7
In addition to salmonid species, the Critical Areas Report (Ex. 9) noted the presence of
8 several priority species including a pileated woodpecker, a bald eagle,and an active ospreys'
nest. The habitat in the study area is limited to forested patches in topographically low
9 (ravine) areas associated with Honey Creek and the Cedar River. Impacts to plants and
10 animals will occur during construction, mainly due to the loss of trees. For a discussion on
trees, see Finding of Fact No. 5C. During operation, there will be temporary and minor
11 disturbances to habitat due to tree trimming and maintenance activities. Though their
presence is noted in the Critical Areas Report, plants and animals (except trees) are not
12 mentioned in the staff report. Several mitigation measures will help to protect plants and
animals, including several that are related to minimizing impacts to streams, wetlands and
13 other water resources (Ex. 2). Additionally, the Applicant has provided a vegetation
14 replacement program (Ex. 8). A condition of approval will require compliance with the
Vegetation Replacement program. As mitigated, impacts to plants and animals should be
15 minimized or avoided.
16 G. Climate Change/Greenhouse Gas Emissions. No significant impacts from Greenhouse
Gases are anticipated.
17
18 The City of Renton does not have regulations that specifically limit greenhouse gas
emissions. The State of Washington has a reporting threshold of 10,000 metric tons of carbon
19 dioxide(CO2e)in a given year for project level long-term(operational) impacts to greenhouse
gases. The project would result in emissions of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) from the Richards
20 Creek and Talbot Hill substations and 7.5 metric tons of CO2e per year in sequestration losses
from the loss of trees. However, the losses are well below the Washington State reporting
21 threshold (FEIS, Chapter 4, Section 4.5.7.9). In addition,the Applicant will mitigate for the
22 loss of trees with tree replacement that exceeds City standards: the project plans to remove
a total of 212 regulated trees and 122 non-regulated (non-significant or landmark trees) and
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 25
1 replace them with 284 new trees (Ex. 8). With emissions below the reporting threshold, the
impact from greenhouse gas emissions is considered less than significant.
2
3 H. Land Use and Housing. The proposal is compatible with and will not adversely affect
Renton land use patterns. -
4
The project passes through 11 zoning districts and several neighborhoods as well as
5 Shoreline High Intensity and Urban Conservancy Environments along the Cedar River. The
6 predominant use adjacent to the project is residential. The King County Assessor describes
the mix of uses as 49%residential, 17%vacant,and 9%each industrial and institutional (Ex.
7 23, Section 9). The utility use is a permitted use in all zones with approval of a conditional
use permit. The Renton segment of the project will be located entirely within an existing
8 utility corridor. As noted in the Environmental Consistency Analysis (Ex. 2),the proposal is
consistent with City of Renton land use plans and will not impact future land use patterns
9 (Page 2-16). It will also not remove or impact existing housing beyond landscape impacts.
10 No poles will be placed in the shoreline (Ex 3). As noted in the Staff Report,the proposal is
consistent with the City of Renton Comprehensive Plan (See Ex. 3, Finding of Fact 15 and
11 16 adopted herein as if set forth in full).
12. In its testimony, CENSE notes impacts to land use and housing that are both financial and
aesthetic. For a discussion of the visual impacts, see Finding of Fact No. 5B. CENSE notes
13 the removal of mature landscaping could have a negative impact on property values (Ex. 23,
14 Section 9).As described in Findings of Fact No. 5B Visual Impacts and 5C Loss of trees,the
impact on landscaping will be mitigated to the extent feasible. All landscaping impacts,
15 though on the scale of decades for trees to mature, will be temporary.
16 CENSE also argues that properties next to high voltage transmission lines sell for less than
homes that are not adjacent to this use. The Phase 1 EIS relied on a study prepared by the
17 Electric Power Research Institute to answer this question. The study was an overview study
18 summarizing the results from 50 similar studies. The results of the study were inconclusive
as property values were found to decrease, stay the same or even increase. The EPRI study
19 found there was evidence that transmission lines have the potential to decrease nearby
property values by about 3-6%, with lots directly adjacent to the right of way tending to
20 benefit. The loss of property value was most significant in higher end properties. The effect
on sales prices was difficult to determine as no clear pattern emerged, except that the effects
21 of a transmission line on sales prices of properties diminish over time and all but disappear
22 in five years (Phase 1 EIS, Chapter 10, Section 10.7.1.4).
23 The Phase I EIS does not identify whether any of the studies apply to the impacts of upgrades
to existing power lines as they do for this project. Clearly, the impacts of an existing line on
24 the value of a new home or a new transmission line on an existing home would be
significantly greater than an upgrade to an existing line as is considered for PSE project. The
25 Renton segment of the project is located entirely within an existing electrical transmission
26 line corridor that has been in place since the 1920s with upgrades in the 1960s. Given the
minor effect that transmission lines have on property values overall and the relatively minor
CONDITIONAL USE - 26
1 change in transmission corridor specific to this project, impacts to property values are not
considered significant.
2
3 I. Transportation. The proposed transmission line upgrade is located within the existing
utility corridor. Because adjacent land uses and roads already integrate with the transmission
4 lines, once operational, the upgraded transmission lines would not disrupt vehicles or
pedestrians in the surrounding areas (Ex. 3, Finding of Fact No. 19f).
5
6 Temporary construction impacts may occur during project construction. Construction
vehicle access to pole replacement sites would be made from existing roads or newly
7 constructed temporary access roads. The project in Renton is located entirely within an
established and developed utility corridor with maintenance and access routes in place. The
8 proposed pole locations would be near existing accessible routes to minimize impacts to
traffic from project construction. The proposed transmission line upgrade does not require
9 the construction of walls, fences or screening vegetation, which further ensures that the
10 existing uses and circulation would not be disrupted.
11 Access to adjacent land uses would be maintained during construction. Informal recreational
activities occur throughout the project area. There are both formal and informal recreation
12 trails within and across several segments of the existing PSE transmission line corridor,
which is generally viewed as a green belt. Post-construction, neighboring properties will
13 have the same uses and circulation patterns as currently exist.
14 Conditions of approval will require the Applicant to submit a pedestrian and vehicular traffic
control plan at the time of Construction Permit for review and approval by the Plan Review
15 Section prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit and to provide a plan for any closures
to City Parks and/or trails. The park and trail closure plan will also be submitted to the
16 Community Services division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction
Permit.
17
18 The PSE easement bisects the City as a whole. The City needs to provide an interconnected
transportation grid and prevent dead end streets. Therefore,public roads will need to extend
19 through the corridor. To permit the construction of future City public street connections as a
result of future development, a condition of approval will require future public road
20 transportation connections within the transmission line corridor to be permitted when needed
to accommodate future development to the extent that PSE's easement does not preclude
21 said connections.No other transportation impacts are anticipated.
22 J. Noise. The proposed transmission line replacement will not result in any significant noise
23 impacts when completed and in use. Chapter 9 of the Phase I EIS contains an analysis of
potential operational and construction-related noise impacts. With respect to operational
24 impacts, the Phase I EIS states:
25 "Potential operational impacts from overhead transmission lines associated with any of
26 the transmission line alternatives would occur from corona discharge. The maximum
corona noise produced from 230 kV lines at ground level during wet weather conditions
CONDITIONAL USE - 27
1 [is] a relatively low noise level that would not be noticeable in most suburban
environments. . . Background ambient noise levels in suburban residential areas of King
2 County fall between 40 and 50 dBA during nighttime hours. Even in rural areas, corona
3 noise from 230 kV transmission lines would be unlikely to impact sensitive uses.
Consequently, audible corona noise would be a negligible operational noise impact... "
4 (Phase 1 EIS, Section 9.6.3.1).
5 The proposed transmission line replacement may have temporary construction-related noise
6 impacts on surrounding neighbors. Temporary construction impacts (consistent with the
limited durations described above) would terminate once construction is complete.
7
No significant excavation is required, and installation would not create significant noise.
8 Noise-generating activity during pole installation would occur for a relatively short period
of time and is likely to fall within the bounds of typical construction noise. The City requires
9 best management practices to minimize impacts from noise. (See RMC 4-4-060(J)(5-6)).
10 Some of the areas along the Renton segment are possible candidate locations for the use of
11 helicopters because of the complex terrain in the area. It is important to note that using a
helicopter is the last option utilized by a contractor due to costs and additional FAA
12 permitting (Ex. 3, Finding of Fact No. 19g). The use of helicopters is most likely for the
crossing over the Cedar River.
13
14 No noise impacts from the operational phase are anticipated. Noise from construction will
be temporary in nature and adequately mitigated.
15
K. Parking.No new parking spaces are proposed or necessary for the transmission line upgrade.
16
Parking for construction vehicles is proposed to be provided within the existing transmission
17 line corridor or adjacent street parking during active construction. In addition, it is possible
18 that recreation sites or facilities may be used for temporary construction staging. PSE
proposed to work with the City of Renton to identify suitable locations for construction
19 staging that would result in minimal impacts to parking. Such suitable locations may include
overflow parking areas or parts of the site that are underutilized. In order to ensure that
20 adequate parking is provided during project construction,a condition of approval will require
the Applicant to provide a construction staging and parking plan to the Current Planning
21 project manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of Construction Permits.
22
L. Historic and Cultural Resources. Historical and cultural resources in the Renton segment
23 include one archeological site, 117 individual historic inventory properties and one historic
district. No impacts to the archeological site are anticipated given all proposed pole
24 replacements will be located away from the site. Five of the 117 individual historic inventory
properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); however, the
25 transmission corridor predates each of these (Ex. 2, page 2-18). Poles would be located
26 within the existing transmission corridor, resulting in little change from existing conditions,
with the possible exception of visual impacts. For a discussion of the visual impacts, see
CONDITIONAL USE - 28
1 Finding of Fact No. 5B. Historic and cultural resource impacts were considered during the
design of the proposal. Design details for pole types and placement were created to reduce
2 impacts on historic and cultural resources.
3 The most significant potential historic property is the electrical transmission system itself
4 including the corridor, H-poles and the Talbot Hill substation(Phase 2 EIS, Section 3.7.2.1).
The other significant historical resource in the Renton segment is the Mt. Olivet Cemetery.
5 This cemetery has been in use since 1875, though it was not officially platted until 1891
6 (Phase 2 EIS, Section 3.7.2.7). Significant individuals here include notable members of the
Native American community and local pioneers. This cemetery in its modern form is likely
7 to have been built on a former Native American cemetery. There may be unmarked graves
beyond the current dedicated boundaries of the cemetery. This cemetery is not a listed
8 historical resource and is therefore not protected as an historical archeological resource.
However, it is still a protected cemetery pursuant to Chapters 68.60 RCW and 68.50 RCW.
9 Graves outside of the boundaries of the cemetery are protected under Chapters 68.60.010
10 RCW and 27.44 RCW. The nearest poles to the Mt. Olivet Cemetery will be approximately
750 feet and 900 feet southeast of the cemetery.
11
There are many regulatory requirements designed to protect Historic and Cultural resources.
12 The Environmental Consistency Analysis lists nine required regulatory mitigation measures
in this category (Ex. 1, Section 3.9). The Applicant will be required to work with the
13 Washington State Department of Archeological and Historic Preservation, affected tribes,
14 King County and all appropriate stakeholders to identify and protect historic and cultural
resources. As mitigated, impacts to historic and cultural resources will be avoided or
15 minimized to the extent feasible.
16 M. Recreation. The proposal will not adversely affect recreational resources. Recreational uses
will remain accessible. There will be both visual impacts and a loss of trees which could
17 affect the recreational experience. However, both types of impacts will be mitigated to the
18 extend feasible.
19 There are many recreational opportunities within the Renton segment of the project. The City
of Renton does not have regulations that require mitigation of project-related impacts to
20 recreational resources. Impacts to recreation sites in the Renton segment are anticipated to
be minimal because,vegetation clearing and changes to poles and wires would not affect the
21 use of these sites(Ex.2,page 2-18).Impacts to recreational areas may be visual and aesthetic.
22 For a discussion of visual and aesthetic impacts,see Finding of Fact No. 5B. For a discussion
regarding Loss of Trees, see Finding of Fact No. 5C. Recreation sites might be temporarily
23 closed during maintenance (FEIS, Chapter 4, Section 4.6.5.1). No recreation sites will be
permanently lost or substantially altered.
24
Three pairs of H-frames are located within the Sierra Heights Park. These would be replaced
25 by two 95-foot tall poles and two 50-foot tall poles at each pole site.The PSE corridor crosses
26 a portion of the Sierra Heights Elementary School campus. However, the school's sports
fields are separated from the transmission line corridor by a forested area. The poles will not
CONDITIONAL USE - 29
1 likely be visible from the school. The Honey Creek Open Space will see four H-frame poles
(two sets) replaced with two approximately 95-foot tall poles. Though the poles are taller,
2 there are fewer of them than in the existing condition. The vegetation in the deep ravine that
3 houses Honey Creek will be unchanged. However, 40-50 trees will be removed from the top
of the slopes,which will be visible to users on the trail. In the Cedar River Natural Zone,two
4 H-frames will be replaced with a single 100-foot tall monopole. Two poles will be located in
the natural area. Like at Honey Creek,the poles will be taller but there will be fewer of them
5 than in the existing condition. In this area 50-55 trees will be removed. Also, as in the case
6 of Honey Creek, only vegetation near the top of the slopes will be removed.No trees will be
removed from Riverview Park. Trail users will see the loss of trees and the new poles.
7 However, use of the trail will be unchanged.
8 N. Environmental Health: Electromagnetic Fields. The electromagnetic fields of the
proposal will not adversely affect public health.
9
10 Existing magnetic fields in the study area for the Renton segment are already associated with
PSE transmission lines and substations. The FEIS evaluated electromagnetic impacts for the
11 area immediately under and adjacent to the transmission lines, including areas within 250
feet from the centerline of the transmission line corridor (FEIS, Chapter 4, page 4.8-1).
12 Neither the City of Renton nor the State of Washington has adopted EMF guidelines or
standards for electric transmission lines. Exposure guidelines have been adopted by the
13 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the American
14 Council of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (FEIS, Chapter 4, Section 4.8.1, Page 4.8-5). Each agency has
15 different guidelines for safe exposure by the general public. These range from 1,000
milligauss(mG)to 9,040 mG over a 24-hour period of exposure. Given the operation period
16 (assumed 2027-2028), under existing conditions the maximum exposure in Renton is
between 177-219 mG in the worst-case scenario (FEIS, Chapter 4,Table 4.8-2). Because the
17 poles will be higher, relative to the existing circumstance, the exposure in Renton will
18 decrease from existing conditions to a maximum worst-case exposure of 34.5 mG (FEIS,
Chapter 4, Section 4.8.5.8). Therefore, no negative health impacts from electromagnetic
19 fields are anticipated.
20 Conclusions of Law
21 1. Authority. Hearing examiner conditional use permits qualify as Type III review pursuant to
22 RMC 4-8-080(G). As outlined in RMC 4-8-080(G), the Hearing Examiner is authorized to hold
hearings and issue final decisions on Type III applications subject to closed record appeal to the Renton
23 City Council. Shoreline exemptions qualify as Type I review pursuant to RMC 4-8-080(G). RMC 4-
8-080(C)(2)requires consolidated permits to each be processed under"the highest-number procedure".
24 The Type III review is the "highest-number procedure" and therefore must be employed for the
conditional use and shoreline exemption review.
25
26 2. Zoning/Comprehensive Plan Designations. The project site is located within multiple zoning
designations, including: Commercial Arterial (CA), Commercial Office Residential (COR), Center
CONDITIONAL USE - 30
1 Village (CV), Light Industrial (IL), Residential-1 (R-1), Residential-10 (R-10), Residential-14 (R-14),
Residential-4 (R-4), Residential-6 (R-6), Residential-8 (R-8), Resource Conservation (RC), and
2 Residential Multi-Family (RM-F).
3
3. EIS Adequacy. Several project opponents argued at hearing that the FEIS is inadequate because
4 PSE is only applying for a portion of the proposal as described in the FEIS. Specifically, project
opponents assert that PSE has only applied for the southern portion of the transmission corridor that
5 links the Talbot substation to the proposed Richards Creek substation as opposed to the transmission
line assessed in the FEIS which ran from the Talbot station all the way to the Sammamish substation.
6
The hearing examiner has no jurisdiction to address the adequacy of the EIS. Further, there is no
7 reasonable basis to conclude that PSE will not follow through on constructing the entire proposal.
8 The SEPA rules authorize administrative appeals of the adequacy of EISs. WAC 197-11-680(3)
authorizes cities to adopt administrative appeal procedures for the adequacy of EISs and importantly
9 only authorizes one such appeal of the SEPA Responsible Official's approval of the adequacy of an
10 EIS. As identified at p. FS-II of the FEIS, Carol Hellend from the Development Services Department
of the City of Bellevue served as the SEPA responsible official. As she testified at the Renton
11 conditional use permit hearing, the City of Bellevue has not elected to adopt an administrative appeal
process for the decision of the SEPA responsible official to approve or deny the adequacy of an EIS.
12 In the absence of available administrative appeal, the only forum for appealing the adequacy of the
FEIS is judicial. Ms. Hellend testified that such a judicial appeal has been filed against the City of
13 Bellevue. It might be the case, although unlikely10,that Renton's administrative SEPA appeals process
14 could have been used to challenge the adequacy of the FEIS as it applies to PSE's conditional use
permit application for Renton,but whether that appeal was available is a moot point because no timely
15 administrative appeal was filed.
16 In the absence of an administrative appeal the examiner has no authority to address the adequacy of the
FEIS. Approval of an FEIS is a separate decision made by the SEPA Responsible Official. See WAC
17 197-11-460. The validity of that decision cannot be attacked in another permit review absent a timely
18 appeal. See Wenatchee Sportsmen Ass'n v. Chelan County, 141 Wn.2d 169, 182 (2000), and Habitat
Watch v. Skagit County, 155 Wn.2d 397 (2005).
19
As opposed to arguing that the EIS is inadequate, the position could be taken that a decision can't be
20 issued on the conditional use permit yet because environmental review hasn't been completed on what
PSE is in fact proposing. WAC 197-11-070(1) prohibits the issuance of a land use decision prior to
21 issuance of a determination of non-significance or FEIS for the proposal. If PSE has sufficiently
22 changed its proposal such that it no longer bears any material resemblance to what was assessed in the
FEIS,then one could take the position that the proposal subject to the conditional use permit application
23 hasn't been subject to any environmental review and hence no conditional use permit decision can be
24
10It's unlikely that Renton's appeal process could be used to challenge the adequacy decision of Bellevue's SEPA
25 responsible official. It's unclear if Renton even has an appeal process for EIS adequacy. RMC 4-9-070M adopted WAC
197-11-680 by reference, which gives the City the option of adopting an administrative SEPA appeal process. However,
26 the RMC doesn't appear to anywhere expressly elect to exercise that option.
CONDITIONAL USE - 31
1 issued. However, that isn't the situation here. For one, there is no evidence that PSE will not follow
through on the complete transmission line between the Talbot and Sammamish substations. PSE is a
2 few years behind schedule in applying for the transmission lines north of the Richards Creek substation,
3 but delays in project implementation are hardly unique and, in any event, PSE is also behind schedule
in its application for the transmission line through Renton.
4
More pertinent for purposes of Renton's review of the project is whether limiting the project between
5 the Talbot and Richards Creek substations reduces the accuracy or utility of the environmental review
6 provided by the FEIS. As noted in Richard Aramburu's materials, the EIS team concluded that the
project could still operate and provide added power to the Eastside if the new-transmission line was
7 limited to the corridor between the Talbot and Richards Creek substations. A close review of the
environmental impacts assessed by the FEIS doesn't reveal any change in environmental impacts to
8 Renton residents that would be caused by cutting the proposal short at the Richards Creek substation.
The design and configuration of the transmission line would remain the same and the extensive amount
9 of colocation between pipeline and transmission line north of the Renton segment doesn't suggest any
10 change in AC interference impacts within Renton.
11 4. Review Criteria/Finding of Compliance with Shoreline Exemption Criteria. A conditional use
is required for the proposed expansion because "large utilities" are only authorized in all zoning
12 districts by RMC 4-2-0600 upon approval of a conditional use permit. RMC 4-11-210 specifically
includes 230kv transmission lines in its definition of large utilities. Conditional use criteria are
13 governed by RMC 4-9-030(D). The Applicant also requests approval of a shoreline exemption for its
14 proposed crossing of the Cedar River. RMC 4-9-190C.3 governs the criteria for shoreline exemptions
and the proposal satisfies that criteria for the reasons identified in Finding No. 18 of the staff report.
15 Applicable conditional use standards are quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding
conclusions of law.
16
Conditional Use Permit
17
18 RMC 4-9-030(D)(1): The proposed use shall be compatible with the general goals, objectives,policies
and standards of the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning regulations and any other plans,programs, maps
19 or ordinances of the City of Renton.
20 5. The criterion is met. The proposal complies with applicable zoning regulations, the
comprehensive plan and all other pertinent applicable ordinances for the reasons identified in Finding
21 No. 15, 16 and 17 of the staff report.
22 A comment letter from Seco Development (Ex. 6), notes that staff only checks off the comprehensive
23 plan policies and doesn't identify why the policies are met. The policies and goal cited in the staff
report, specifically Goal U-0, Policy U-67 and Policy U-68, in total encourage the availability of safe,
24 adequate and efficient electrical infrastructure within existing utility corridors when possible while
concurrently minimizing adverse impact on the environment and adjacent land uses. The proposal
25 meets all of these parameters. Seco identifies two additional policies, specifically U-1 and U-8, which
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 32
1 require utility services to be consistent with Comprehensive Plan growth projections and to encourage
the use of new technology to increase the quality and efficiency of utility services.
2
3 As noted in the Seco letter, the staff report doesn't provide any analysis as to why the comprehensive
plan goals and policies are met, but the reasons are fairly self-evident from the record. For the reasons
4 identified in Finding of Fact No. 5 of this decision, the proposal minimizes impacts to the
environmental and adjacent land uses and is overall safe.The proposal is limited to an existing corridor
5 as encouraged by Policy U-68. As to efficient use of utility services, the UTC ensures efficient use of
utility resources as outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 8 of this decision.Finally,on the issue of meeting
6
Renton growth targets,the preponderance of evidence and substantial evidence in the record establishes
7 that the proposed upgrade will meet Renton's future power needs. Section 1.3 of the Phase I EIS
identifies power demand analysis conducted by PSE that has been verified by EIS team peer review as
8 accurate. As identified in Conclusion of Law No. 8, PSE is required to put together an Integrated
Resource Plan that shows how the power company will meet projected demand in an efficient manner.
9 On the other side, CENSE has presented a significant amount of evidence that the proposed upgrades
10 are not necessary to meet projected demand. There is no evidence and no reasonable inference that can
be made from the evidence in the record that the upgrades will not be enough to meet future City of
11 Renton demand.
12 In addressing utility efficiency and quality, Policy U-8 encourages the use of new technology. The
Seco letter points out that the Richards Creek substation, to be placed in Renton, embraces such new
13 technology and that Renton has not benefitted from any similar facility. As far as can be ascertained
14 from the record, the Richards Creek substation is the only significant new PSE facility as part of the
overall Energize project that doesn't have a similar counterpart in the Renton segment. The Richards
15 Creek substation is located in a central part of the new corridor, which suggests this was simply the
most logical place to put the structure from an engineering standpoint, as opposed to any
16 accommodation made to the City of Bellevue. The Phase I EIS explores alternative forms of energy
technology and concludes that the proposal under consideration best meets the development objectives
17 of PSE. As outlined in Conclusion of Law No. 8, PSE must also consider strategies including new
18 technologies to assure that utility rates are kept to a minimum. Given all these considerations, it is
concluded that new technology has and will be considered in project design as required by Policy U-8.
19
RMC 4-9-030(D)(2): Appropriate Location: The proposed location shall not result in the detrimental
20 overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area of the proposed use.
The proposed location shall be suited for the proposed use.
21
22 6. The criterion is met. The project is located entirely within the existing electrical transmission
corridor. The transmission line replacement would reduce the number of poles within the corridor by
23 over 70% from 144 to 41 poles. The proposed poles would be setback from the edge of the existing
easement area to provide adequate spacing between the poles and the edge of the easement, and
24 therefore creating a sufficient setback to buildings and structures. The proposal to upgrade the
transmission line within PSE's existing electrical transmission line corridor would not result in a
25 detrimental overconcentration of a particular use within the City or within the immediate area. The
26 majority of the utility corridor does not currently house other electrical utilities. Thus, the proposed
project does not over concentrate the particular land use, which is already an existing utility corridor.
CONDITIONAL USE - 33
1 The utility corridor is part of the existing character of the area. By selecting this route through Renton,
PSE limits new impacts and ensures consistency with the existing uses,which already accommodate a
2 utility corridor. This criterion is satisfied.
3
RMC 4-9-030(D)(3): Effect on Adjacent Properties: The proposed use at the proposed location shall
4 not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
5 7. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no significant adverse impacts associated
6 with the proposal, so it will not result in substantial or undue adverse effects on adjacent property.
7 8. Project Need Not Relevant. The need for the transmission corridor upgrade is not relevant to
the criterion above, or in the alternative, is adequately addressed by the oversight and regulatory
8 authority of the Utilities and Transportation Commission.
9 A major concern for many hearing participants is the need for the proposal. Numerous project
10 opponents, in particular CENSE, believe that the power needs of the Eastside will not increase in any
appreciable manner to necessitate a transmission line upgrade (Ex 23,page 16).Project opponents also
11 believe that PSE should be looking to other forms of energy, such as solar and wind, to augment its
transmission grid supply so that the upgrades are not necessary.
12
The only criterion that could remotely require demonstration of need for the project is that quoted
13 above. Authorizing unnecessary transmission line upgrades could result in higher electrical rates for
14 Renton residents, which arguably qualifies as a substantial or undue adverse impact on adjacent
properties under the criterion quoted above. The failure to effectively use renewable energy sources
15 such as solar and wind likely could result in environmental impacts,but these impacts would be highly
attenuated and there is nothing to reasonably suggest that the environmental impacts of PSE's business
16 plan will affect"adjacent property"beyond the environmental impacts already exhaustively addressed
in this permit review process.
17
18 Potential rate increases are not the type of impacts contemplated within the scope of"adverse impacts"
contemplated in RMC 4-9-030(D)(3). Rate increases are not land use impacts within the purview of
19 zoning regulations. As noted within the purpose clause of the conditional use chapter,
20 "(cjonditional Use Permits allow for review of certain uses with special characteristics that
may not generally be appropriate within a zoning district, but may be permitted subject to
21 conditions and mitigation measures that protect public health, safety and welfare and ensure
22 compatibility with other uses in the district."
23 In short; conditional uses are uses that can't be permitted outright within a particular zoning district
without an assessment of its impacts and compatibility on adjoining uses. It's important to note that
24 conditional uses are uses that would otherwise be authorized within a specific zone if it weren't
otherwise for these impact issues. Utility rate increases have nothing to do with the suitability of a
25 proposed use within a particular zone. Compatibility is assessed on impacts that are considered when
26 placing a use within any zone,which are traditionally based upon land use impacts such as noise, light,
trip generation and the bulk and height of structures. The feasibility of a business plan and the wisdom
CONDITIONAL USE - 34
1 of its choices is not a factor considered in land use permit review, unless those choices result in
environmental as opposed to economic impacts.
2
3 Even if rate increases caused by unnecessary need were pertinent to Renton's conditional use review
process,those rate increases have been effectively and appropriately minimized by the oversight of the
4 Washington State Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC). RCW 80.01.040(3) empowers the
UTC to
5
6 "[rjegulate in the public interest, as provided by the public service laws, the rates, services,
facilities, and practices of all persons engaging within this state in the business of supplying
7 any utility service or commodity to the public for compensation."
8 Pursuant to this authority, the UTC adopted WAC 480-100-238, which requires electric utilities to
adopt an integrated resource plan ("IRP"), the purpose of which is to help meet an electric utilities
9 responsibility to meet future demand "with a least cost mix of energy supply resources and
10 conservation."See WAC 480-100-238(1). The plan must forecast demand, assess the availability and
feasibility of energy resources and adopt a capital facilities plan"that is designated to meet current and
11 projected future needs at the lowest reasonable cost to the utility and its ratepayers." See WAC 480-
100-238(3)(f). The plan serves as a tool in UTC evaluation and approval of PSE electrical rates. See
12 WAC 480-100-238(6). The IRP is subject to a public hearing before the UTC as well as a public
participation process. See WAC 480-100-238(5). A new IRP is required every two years. See WAC
13 480-100-238(5). The 2015 IRP includes the Energize Eastside project.
14 Through tools such as the IRP,the UTC is able to fulfill its mandate to ensure that capital improvements
15 are constructed in the public interest. As summarized in Section 2.2.2.4 of the Phase 2 EIS:
16 PSE has a legal obligation to deliver safe, dependable power, and an obligation to do so at a
reasonable cost. PSE continually balances these obligations in determining the best solutions
17 to solve problems facing the electric system. The Washington Utilities and Transportation
18 Commission(UTC) also has an obligation to review all PSE projects to determine if the solution
is reasonable and prudent. After a project is complete and before the costs are allowed to be
19 placed into the rate base, PSE must prove to the UTC that the cost to build a project is prudent
and reasonable to ratepayers. This means PSE must research and compare costs and benefits
20 of multiple alternatives that can accomplish the desired objectives. This is not a simple lowest
project cost test; it is a holistic review and analysis of factors such as projected duration of
21 solution, risk to the electric system associated with the type of solution (e.g., is the solution an
22 untested technology), and impacts to the community, as well as the dollar cost of the project.
PSE has completed some of this evaluation already and will continue to evaluate costs through
23 the design and permitting phase of the project.
24 In short,if the proposal is not needed,the UTC won't pass the costs of the proposal to adjacent property.
From the process outlined above, it is determined that the UTC review process adequately ensures that
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 35
1 adjacent property owners will not be adversely affected by rate hikes caused by any unneeded portions
of the PSE proposal.
2
3 RMC 4-9-030(D)(4): Compatibility: The proposed use shall be compatible with the scale and
character of the neighborhood.
4
9. The Renton section of the project is surrounded by a variety of uses including recreational,
5 institutional, commercial, industrial and residential areas, sometimes in areas of high visibility. As
noted by the staff report, and as a feature of the chosen alignment, the project will be located within an
6
existing PSE right of way that contains existing electrical utility facilities. This use in this location has
7 been established since the 1920s and early 1930s. All existing uses surrounding the project alignment
were built around the existing utility corridor. The utility corridor is part of the existing character of
8 the adjacent neighborhoods, which house many tall vertical structures including light poles, street
lights, electrical lines (including Seattle City Light's existing lattice tower 230kV transmission lines),
9 communication towers, buildings, and trees (including Douglas fir, which have a mature height of 70
10 ft to over 300 ft) (Exhibit 3, Finding of Fact No. 19d). See also Finding of Fact No. 5Bi.
11 The project design will involve increasing the height of poles from around 55 feet for the existing poles
to up to 118 feet for the new poles (FEIS, Appendix C, page C-20). The heights of the proposed poles
12 would be increased to an average height of between 85 and 95 feet under the project proposal. However,
there are 70% fewer poles proposed in the after condition (Exhibit 3, Finding of Fact No. 19a). The
13 transmission line replacement would reduce the number of poles within the corridor from 144 to 41
14 poles. The_proposed poles would be setback from the edge of the existing easement area to provide
adequate spacing between the poles and the edge of the easement, and therefore creating a sufficient
15 setback to buildings and structures (Exhibit 3, Finding of Fact No. 19b). This reduction in the number
of poles within the existing utility right of way could potentially improve the visual character of the
16 area, at least at the ground level. The project, given its location within an existing, long established
utility corridor, is determined to be compatible with the scale and character of the neighborhood.
17
18 RMC 4-9-030(D)(5): Parking:Adequate parking is, or will be made, available.
19 10. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5K, no new parking spaces are proposed for the
transmission line upgrade. Parking for construction vehicles is proposed to be provided within the
20 existing transmission line corridor or adjacent street parking during active construction. In addition, it
is possible that recreation sites or facilities may be used for temporary construction staging. PSE
21 proposed to work with the City of Renton to identify suitable locations for construction staging that
22 would result in minimal impacts to parking. In order to ensure that adequate parking is provided during
project construction, a condition of approval will require the Applicant to provide a construction
23 staging and parking plan to the Current Planning project manager for review and approval prior to the
issuance of Construction Permits.
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE - 36
1 RMC 4-9-030(D)(6): Traffic: The use shall ensure safe movement for vehicles and pedestrians and
shall mitigate potential effects on the surrounding area.
2
3 11. The proposed transmission line upgrade is located within the existing utility corridor. Because
adjacent land uses and roads already integrate with the transmission lines, once operational, the
4 upgraded transmission lines would not disrupt vehicles or pedestrians in the surrounding areas (Ex. 3,
Finding of Fact No. 19f).
5
Conditions of approval will require the Applicant to submit a pedestrian and vehicular traffic control
6
plan at the time of Construction Permit for review and approval by the Plan Review Section prior to
7 the issuance of a Construction Permit and to provide a plan for any closures to City Parks and/or trails.
The park and trail closure plan will also be submitted to the Community Services division for review
8 and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit.
9 The PSE easement bisects the City as a whole. The City needs to provide an interconnected
transportation grid and prevent dead end streets. Therefore, public roads will need to extend through
10
the corridor. To permit the construction of future City public street connections as a result of future
11 development, a condition of approval will require future public road transportation connections within
the transmission line corridor to be permitted when needed to accommodate future development to the
12 extent that PSE's easement does not preclude said connections. No other transportation impacts are
anticipated. (See also Finding of Fact No. 5I).
13
14 RMC 4-9-030(D)(7): Noise, Light and Glare: Potential noise, light and glare impacts from the
proposed use shall be evaluated and mitigated.
15
12. As described in Finding of Fact No. 5J, the proposed transmission line replacement will not
16 result in any significant noise impacts when completed and in use. No noise impacts from the
operational phase are anticipated.Noise from construction will be temporary in nature and adequately
17 mitigated.
18 Loss of vegetation could also "result in less screening of existing light sources, such as streetlights or
19 lights from buildings" (FEIS, Appendix J, page J1-75). The FEIS suggest an appropriate response
would be to ask other utility providers and owners of now visible adjacent buildings with exterior
20 lighting to provide shielding on the existing lighting. To the extent practically feasible and consistent
with utility regulations and safe practices,the Applicant shall configure its tree replacement in a manner
21 that minimizes increased light exposure caused by the proposal (See Finding of Fact No. 5Biic). No
22 significant impacts from light and glare are anticipated. This criterion is satisfied.
23 RMC 4-9-030(D)(8): Landscaping: Landscaping shall be provided in all areas not occupied by
buildings, paving, or critical areas. Additional landscaping may be required to buffer adjacent
24 properties from potentially adverse effects of the proposed use.
25 13. Landscaping will be provided to buffer properties from potentially adverse effects.As described
26 in Finding of Fact No. 5Biia, vegetation in a transmission line corridor that has an operational voltage
of more than 200 kV must be managed in compliance with federal requirements,resulting in limitations
CONDITIONAL USE - 37
1 with regard to the type and scope of landscaping that is allowable. Vegetation management standards
vary depending upon the location of vegetation management in relation to transmission wires.
2
3 According to the submitted Vegetation Replacement Letter (Exhibit 8), the Applicant proposes to
mitigate impacts to trees that are necessary to meet federal transmission line operational standards. To
4 mitigate for loss of significant trees in the transmission corridor,the Applicant is proposing mitigation
ratios that would exceed the City's adopted tree replacement standards as proposed in the submitted
5 Vegetation Replacement Letter(Exhibit 8).
6 A condition of approval will require the Applicant to submit a final Landscape and Tree Replacement
7 Plan to the Current Planning Project Manager at the time of Construction Permit review for review and
approval prior to construction permit issuance. Maintenance of vegetation within the transmission line
8 corridor,shall be required to comply with the City's property maintenance regulations as outlined under
RMC 1-3-3. As conditioned,this criterion is satisfied.
9
10 DECISION
11 As conditioned, the conditional use permit and shoreline exemption applications satisfy all applicable
review criteria for the reasons identified in the findings and conclusions of this decision.For that reason,
12 the conditional use permit and shoreline exemption applications are approved, subject to the following
conditions:
13
14 1. The Applicant shall comply with the mitigation measures set forth in the EIS Consistency
Analysis/EIS Addendum, dated December 13, 2019 (Exhibit 2).
15
2. Any project site disturbance and tree replacement shall occur as proposed in the Vegetation
16 Replacement Approach letter (Exhibit 8).
17 3. A construction staging and parking plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning project
18 manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of Construction Permits.
19 4. A pedestrian and vehicular traffic control plan shall be submitted at the time of Construction
Permit for review and approval by the Plan Review Section prior to the issuance of a
20 Construction Permit.
21 5. A plan shall be submitted for any closures to City Parks and/or trails. The park and trail closure
22 plan shall be submitted to the Community Services division for review and approval prior to
the issuance of a Construction Permit.
23
6. A final Landscape and Tree Replacement Plan shall be submitted to the Current Planning
24 Project Manager at the time of Construction Permit review for review and approval prior to
construction permit issuance. Maintenance of vegetation within the transmission line corridor,
25 shall be required.to comply with the City's property maintenance regulations as outlined under
26 RMC 1-3-3.
CONDITIONAL USE - 38
1 7. Future public road transportation connections within the transmission line corridor shall be
permitted when needed to accommodate future development to the extent that PSE's easement
2 does not preclude said connections.
3
8. In its tree replacement plan, the Applicant shall coordinate with adjoining property owners to
4 the extent practically feasible and consistent with utility regulations and safe practices to
minimize additional light spillage upon the property owners that may result from the clearing
5 done for the proposal.
6 9. Individual art wraps for the transmission line poles shall be submitted to the Current Planning
7 Project Manager for review and approval prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. PSE
will install art wraps at up to 12 transmission line pole locations (including those previously
8 discussed and identified by the City at the Renton Technical College and on publicly visible
PSE-owned property).Artwork shall be installed prior to the energizing of the transmission line,
9 or as otherwise approved by the Current Planning Project Manager, but at no point will art
10 installation delay the transmission lines from being energized. The Current Planning Manager
may require a cash security bond for completion of the artwork if it is not installed prior to
11 energizing.
12 10. The proposed transmission lines shall both be operated at 230kv at all times when not shut down
entirely, except as necessary to respond to emergency situations".
13
14 DATED this 6th day of February 2020.
15
16 City of Renton Hearing Examiner
17 Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
18
19 RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies the application(s) subject to this decision as Type III application(s)
subject to closed record appeal to the City of Renton City Council.Appeals of the hearing examiner's
20 decision must be filed with the Renton City Clerk within fourteen (14) calendar days from the
issuance of the decision as outlined in RMC 4-8-110C2. The appeal deadline for this Decision is
21
22
23
" The record does not identify whether in some circumstances the transmission lines will have to be operated at less than
24 230kv for maintenance or other reasons and also what corrosion impacts may occur when operating at lower levels for only
short periods of time.If this condition is not feasible for PSE,it should request reconsideration with alternative language that
25 ensures that temporary operation at less than 230kv does not materially increase corrosion via AC interference.One potential
resolution would be a condition authorizing operations pursuant to an addendum to the DNV report subject to Stantec peer
26 review that identifies under what conditions operating at less than 230kv would not materially increase corrosion risk.
CONDITIONAL USE - 39
1 5:00 pm,February 25,2020. All appeals must be received by the City Clerk's Office by this deadline
and be accompanied by the applicable appeal fee.
2
3 Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
4
Reconsideration
5
6 Motions for reconsideration must be filed with the Renton City Clerk by the 5:00 pm February 25,
2020 appeal deadline. All motions for reconsideration shall be posted at the City of Renton website
7 at
https://edocs.rentonwa.gov/DocumentsBrowse.aspx?id=8095664&dbid=0&repo=CityofRenton
8 (or go to: Rentonwa.gov — "How do I" — Contact — Hearing Examiner — Decisions — Land Use
Decisions—2020—Puget Sound Energy Energize Eastside folder). Motions for reconsideration
9 will not be mailed to hearing participants and it is their responsibility to check the website if they
10 wish to respond to any such motions. Responses to the motions from hearing participants shall be
filed with the City Clerk's Office by 5:00 pm March 6, 2020 and will be posted on the website
11 posting the motions for reconsideration. Replies from those who filed the motions for
reconsideration shall be due by 5:00 pm March 11, 2020. All motions for reconsideration must be
12 based upon evidence already admitted into the administrative record as exhibits or testimony. NO
NEW EVIDENCE IS ALLOWED.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CONDITIONAL USE -40
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.
1
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.
2
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
3
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
4
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
Staffs 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
5
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.
6
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
7
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
8
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
9
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.
10
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 P SE-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.
11
•
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
12
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-DI-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.
13
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.
14
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.
15