HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200228 Appx.A (20200108 to Renton HE+att.) LAW OFFICES OF J. RICHARD ARAMBURU PLLC
720 Third Avenue, Suite 2000 www.aramburulaw.com
Seattle, WA 98104 www.aramburu-eustis.com
Telephone 206.625.9515
Facsimile 206.682.1376
January 8, 2020
Honorable Phil Olbrechts
Renton Hearing Examiner
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Re: Application of Puget Sound Energy for Conditional Use Permits for Four Miles of
230 kV Transmission Lines: Application LUA18-000055,CUP-H,SME
Dear Examiner Olbrechts:
This office represents the Coalition of Eastside Neighbors for Sensible Energy
(CENSE), a non-profit corporation formed on August 13, 2014, to foster and promote
the welfare and safety of communities on the Eastside, including the City of Renton,
impacted by the proposed construction and operation of new 230 kV electric
transmission lines by Puget Sound Energy (PSE). Approximately four miles of those
lines would be located in the City of Renton.
We write to the Examiner to recommend denial of the proposal as inconsistent with
applicable Renton code criteria. In the alternative, we ask that the Examiner remand
this matter to city staff for preparation of a supplemental draft and final environmental
impact statement because of the failure to consider the actual project proposal or
reasonable alternatives. The basis for this request is set forth herein.
1. PROJECT HISTORY.
Beginning in December, 2013, PSE began promoting its “Energize Eastside”
proposal. That proposal was for the installation and operation of new 230 kV
transmission lines running between two substations on the Eastside: the Sammamish
substation (in Redmond) and the Talbot Hill substation (in Renton), and connection with
a new substation to be constructed in Bellevue just north of I-90 (Richards Creek). A
drawing showing the PSE’s original plan is Figure 1-1, page 1-2 of the FEIS for the
project. A copy of that figure is Attachment A to this letter. The proposal included
approximately 16 miles of transmission lines running through five cities on the eastside,
Redmond, Kirkland, Bellevue, Newcastle and Renton, as shown on Figure 2-1 of the
January 8, 2020
Page 2
FEIS, at page 2-8. See Attachment B to this letter. This diagram shows about 7.24
miles of the proposed line north of the proposed Richards Creek substation and 8.78
miles to the south, a total of 16.02 miles. Id.
PSE claims that the “Energize Eastside” proposal is necessary to address
deficiencies in its electric system, principally the overloading or failures of the existing
Sammamish and Talbot Hill substations during times of peak demand on the PSE
system. The cost of the proposal, to be paid for entirely by ratepayers, is vague; PSE
indicates the cost as between $150,000,000 and $300,000,000.
In December, 2014, the five cities through which the transmission lines were
proposed entered into an “Interagency Agreement” (the “IAA”) regarding SEPA
compliance for the PSE proposal. See Attachment C. The Cities agreed that an EIS
would be prepared for the proposal (Section 1.2) with the City of Bellevue as the
“nominal lead agency” and the other cities as “co-lead agencies.” Each City, however,
would process an individual project application for the portion of the line within its
jurisdiction based on its own land use and environmental regulations. IAA at page 3. In
Attachment A to the IAA setting forth the “Project Description,“ the “New Transformer
and Transmission Line” was described as follows:
The most viable solution considered was a combination of adding a new
substation with a 230 kV transformer connecting it with the Talbot and
Sammamish substation (sic) via a new 230 kV transmission line.”1
In an unusual procedure, PSE and the Cities agreed to prepare two draft environmental
impact statements (Phases 1 and 2), solicit comments on each, and then prepare a
final EIS, each of which is part of the record here. Also in an unusual move, PSE did
not submit a permit application prior to the initial SEPA review; the DEISs were
prepared on a concept of a new substation plus the 16 miles of transmission.
The Phase 1 DEIS was issued in January 2016. On page 1-4 it stated that:
The Phase 1 Draft EIS broadly evaluates the general impacts and implications
associated with feasible and reasonable options available to address PSE ‘s
identified objectives for the proposal. The evaluations conducted during Phase 1
will be used to narrow the range of alternatives for consideration in the Phase 2
1Under the terms of the Energy Facilities Siting Act, chapter 80.50 RCW, adopted in 1970, the
Washington Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) has authority to act on PSE’s transmission
proposal under RCW 80.50.060(3) if PSE requests certification. PSE acknowledged the authority of
EFSEC to approve the project, but has not requested certification. See FEIS, Appendix J, page J1-11.
Even if one of the jurisdictions currently considering the PSE applications denies approval, PSE could still
seek EFSEC certification to override such disapproval.
January 8, 2020
Page 3
Draft EIS. The Phase 2 Draft EIS will be a project-level evaluation, describing
impacts at a site-specific and project-specific level.
On page 1-1 of the Phase 1 DEIS, the question was asked: “What is the Project
that is being evaluated in this draft EIS?” The answer was:
PSE is proposing to construct and operate a new 230 kV to 115 kV electrical
transformer served by approximately 18 miles of new high-capacity electric
transmission lines extending from Renton to Redmond.
At page 1-15, the “major steps to develop the Phase 1 DEIS” were described:
Programmatic alternatives were defined through an iterative process with input
by the EIS Consultant Team, PSE, City of Bellevue and other partner cities.
After examining the materials provided by PSE regarding its planning process for
the project, alternatives were selected that would broadly define different ways of
approaching the deficiency in transmission capacity, identified by PSE. One
approach would use 230 kV transmission as PSE proposes, one would use
alternative methods that would minimize the need for new transmission lines;
and one would use 115 kV transmission lines along with substation upgrades.
No alternatives were identified that might use a shorter 230 kV transmission line or
dead-end the line somewhere along its 16 mile length. There was certainly no
discussion of only a Talbot Hill to Richards Creek connection.
During scoping for the Phase 1 DEIS, comments were received under the
heading of “Upgrade/Adjust Existing Electrical System,” including: “Several changes
and adjustments to the electrical system were proposed as potential solutions.” Phase
1 DEIS at 2-50. One was the possibility of disconnecting the line in central Bellevue to
assure that the new lines would not be used to transmit power to Canada. At page 2-
51 the Phase 1 DEIS said such break in the lines was “not considered viable for several
reasons: . . .” One was:
Being interconnected also allows economies of scale of both transmission and
generation facilities. Finally, the solution could reduce the supply of power to the
Eastside, necessitating additional conservation, generation or storage beyond
that considered in other alternatives in the EIS.
The next bullet point on the same page said:
Disconnecting the north and south sections of the route at a central Bellevue
substation to prevent non-Eastside load from being carried on this line during
peak period of demand on the Eastside would deprive the Eastside of power
supply needed during these (peak) periods. Separating the system in central
January 8, 2020
Page 4
Bellevue from the regional grid would also not meet FERC mandatory reliability
standards.2
(Emphasis supplied.) Based on these statements, the alternative of separating the
north and south systems was not included in the Phase 1 DEIS. See page 2-50 in
Attachment D to this letter.
Following a comment period of the Phase 1 DEIS, the Phase 2 DEIS was issued
in May 2017. The project description was carried over, word-for-word, from the Phase
1 DEIS. See Fact Sheet, page 1. On page 1-1, the “Energize Eastside” project was
further defined as follows:
PSE’s analysis concluded that the most effective solution was to add a 230-115
kV transformer within the center of the Eastside to relieve stress on the existing
230-115 kV transformers that currently supply the area. This would need to be
fed by new 230 kV transmission lines from the north and south. By having lines
from two different directions, a substation can continue to be supplied even if
one line goes down.
(Emphasis supplied.) This exact language was carried over to the Final DEIS issued in
March, 2018. See page 1-3. As noted above, this was nearly the exact project
description found in the December, 2014 Interagency Agreement.
On page 1-4, the FEIS emphasized the importance of “ensuring that a proposal
that is the subject of environmental review is properly defined.” This page goes on to
say:
The process of defining the proposal includes an understanding of the need for
the project, to enable a thorough understanding of the project’s objectives (see
Section 1.8 of the Phase 1 DEIS) and technical requirements and to accurately
identify feasible and reasonable project alternatives for consideration in the EIS.
Section 1.8.2 of the FEIS stated that PSE’s “proposed project” includes two main
components, the first of which was:
New 230 kV overhead transmission lines, connecting the Sammamish
substation in Redmond and the Talbot Hill substation in Renton, a distance of
approximately 16 miles.
2In the past, PSE has contended that an Order from the Federal Agency Regulator Commission
dated October 13, 2015 approved the project as consistent with planning requirements. While that is
inaccurate, the proposal before FERC was the entire 16 miles proposal, not the current proposal that
dead-ends just north of I-90. See the letter from Pterra Consulting discussed later in this letter.
January 8, 2020
Page 5
At the same time the Phase 2 DEIS was being prepared, PSE also submitted an
“alternative siting analysis” to the City of Bellevue. In various places, this document
confirmed that the project under consideration was the 16 mile Sammamish/Talbot Hill
line and continuously asserted that this “bookend” connection was essential to the
project. The following are several references in that document to the 16 mile line:
Page 2:
After extensive study, PSE determined that the most effective solution to meet
increased electricity demand and to comply with federal performance
requirements is the addition of a 230 kV/115 kV substation in the center of the
Eastside load area – the Richards Creek substation – and the upgrading of 115
kV transmission lines with 230 kV transmission lines constructed between the
Sammamish (Redmond) and Talbot Hill (Renton) substations.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Page 3:
To limit the need to construct new facilities (and the associated environmental
impacts), when looking at the entirety of the Energize Eastside Project, all
transmission line route alternatives start at PSE’s Sammamish substation in
Redmond and end at the Talbot Hill substation in Renton. PSE considered
various routing options for the entire line, including five route options in the South
Bellevue Segment.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Page 5:
The Project is needed because cumulatively, demand on the Eastside is
increasing, including in areas along the South Bellevue Segment. The
transmission line component of the project must run between the Sammamish
and Talbot Hill substations. It must also connect with the proposed Richards
Creek substation.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Page 5:
Based on operational best practices, the ideal location for the new 230 kV
substation is located in close proximity to PSE’s existing 115 kV Lakeside
substation. In addition, operationally, the transmission line must transverse
through the City of Bellevue from the north to the south, making it impossible to
completely avoid areas of residential zoning.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Page 13:
Three 230-115 kV substation sites were considered for the Energize Eastside
Project - referred to as Westminster, Vernell, and Richards Creek. These sites
were selected for consideration because they are all owned by PSE; meet the
January 8, 2020
Page 6
objectives to site the 230 kV transformer at a central location between the
existing 230 kV power sources at Sammamish substation in Redmond and
Talbot substation in Renton; accommodate the necessary improvements to
serve the required 230 kV transmission lines to bring power to the centralized
transformer; and distribute power to the existing network of 115 kV transmission
lines.
Page 23:
The new 230 kV to 115 kV transformer is the principal component that will allow
the Eastside electrical system to reliably operate and meet Federal Planning
standards. To operate the new transformer it must be served by approximately
18 miles of new high-capacity electric transmission lines (230 kV) extending from
Redmond in the north and Renton to the south.
(Emphasis supplied.)
As noted above, the analysis contains multiple imperatives, i.e. that the proposal
“must” connect the bookend substations. There was no discussion, or even a passing
reference, to an alternative that would dead end in Bellevue and not complete the
“electrical circuit” between the Sammamish and Talbot Hill substations. The cited
pages are attached hereto as Attachment E.
2. APPLICATION FOR THE DEAD-END SOUTH SEGMENT.
As described above, in the period from December 2013 to August 2017, PSE
insisted in multiple forums that the project must include not only the new substation at
Richard Creek, but connections to the bookend substations at Sammamish and Talbot
Hill. Thus it was a surprise to all concerned, that when it actually filed an application in
Bellevue, it was only for the short, 3.3 mile segment from the proposed Richards Creek
substation south to the Newcastle city limits, a dead-end transmission line, the “South
Bellevue Segment” shown on Figure 2-1 (Attachment B). Applications for the lines in
Newcastle and Renton were also filed; the combined portion of the proposal between
the Richards Creek and Talbot Hill substation is referenced herein as the “South
Segment.”
The explanation offered for the shortened proposal was that PSE was intending to build
the line in segments and the South Segment was the first to be built. The application
was submitted after the comment period for the Phase 2 DEIS ended in July, 2017 so
there was no opportunity to provide comment on whether the SEPA analysis previously
prepared was sufficient for the South Segment.
In response to claims that it was seeking a strategic advantage by retreating to a
more bite-size, easy to swallow segment, PSE claimed that the application for the rest
of the project was coming along right away, i.e. by the end of the year (2017). But
when that time came and went, PSE backtracked and said the north application would
January 8, 2020
Page 7
be filed in early 2018. When no application was filed then, PSE finally stated that they
were busy with the south segment and that there was really no timetable at all for the
north application. To date, there has been no application for the North Segment in
Bellevue or otherwise and no indication when it might be submitted.
The application for the South Segment made to Bellevue did not provide any
analysis of how the abbreviated line would meet project objectives and needs that were
identified in the two DEISs that had been prepared.
The Final EIS was issued in March, 2018. However that document continued to
identify the proposal as the entire original project “connecting the Sammamish
substation in Redmond and the Talbot Hill substation in Renton, a distance of 16 miles.”
Page 1-10. The FEIS reiterated that the new substation “would need to be fed by new
230 kV transmission lines from the north and south.” See Pages 1-3 and 1-5.
Amazingly, the FEIS did not provide analysis of the South Segment, only mentioning
submission of “applications for the first phase of the project, including Renton,
Newcastle, and the southern portion of the project in Renton.” FEIS at page 1-11. That
information is repeated at FEIS page 2-5.
The South Bellevue Segment was reviewed by the Bellevue Development
Services Department during 2018 and into 2019. On January 24, 2019, Bellevue issued
its Staff Report dealing with what it called the “South Bellevue Segment,” the 3.3 mile
dead-end line. However, in response to a question of whether the South Segment
would be functional if only one (south) segment was permitted without the other (the
north) segment; the Staff Response was:
The south segment of the Project provides additional capacity that addresses the
Project need and could function whether or not the north segment is built. The
north segment would provide redundancy in the supply of 230 kV power to the
substation.
Staff Report at 100 (Attachment H hereto). On page 111, the Staff Report discusses the
3.3 mile South Bellevue Segment and states:
PSE’s analysis supported and demonstrated that operationally the Project must
include 230 kV lines connecting the Talbot Hill substation to the south to a new
transformer in central Bellevue. The full build out of the Energize Eastside
project will include a similar connection from the Sammamish substation in the
north to provide redundancy, but the south portion of the Project that is the
subject of PSE’s current proposal can function independently.
Attachment H (emphasis supplied). No citation or reference was provide to “PSE’s
analysis” discussed in the Staff Report.
January 8, 2020
Page 8
As described above, the conclusions reached by the Bellevue staff were at odds
with analysis that was previously prepared for the proposal. Both the Phase 1 DEIS
and Phase 2 DEIS were very clear that the project “must” include connections to the
north and south. Indeed, the Phase 1 DEIS made clear that a separation of the project
in central Bellevue “would not meet FERC reliability standards.” It appears that PSE
knew all along that a truncated version of its proposal would meet need and that the
portion of the project to the north was only redundant.
The South Bellevue Segment proceeded to hearing before the Bellevue Hearing
Examiner, who approved the South Bellevue Segment, which decision was affirmed by
the Bellevue City Council.
In making its Decision on appeal, the Bellevue council made it very clear that it
was not considering or approving future additions to the south segment, determining in
Ordinance 6494 that “the only conditional use permit before the Hearing Examiner was
for the South Bellevue Segment.” See Attachment G.
3. SEPA REVIEW INSUFFICIENT WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE SOUTH
SEGMENT AS A PROPOSAL OR ALTERNATIVE.
As described above, elaborate and expensive environmental review has taken
place over more than three years that identified the proposal as a 16 mile transmission
line. Moreover, PSE’s submissions insisted the project “must” provide connections
between the bookend substations at Sammamish and Talbot Hill and that anything less
than the full project would be unacceptable. On that basis, multiple alternatives
proposed by CENSE and others were rejected as not fulfilling the Project need.
Though PSE claimed that the South Segment is actually the first phase of its
proposal, that claim cannot be accepted. First, it has been two and a half years since
the South Bellevue Segment application was made, and there is still no application for
any other segment of the proposal. Indeed this delay indicates that PSE’s claim that
the full transmission corridor is urgently needed (as early as the winter of 2017-18 or by
summer of 2018, FEIS at 1-5) cannot be accepted.
Second, even if permit applications for the north segments are received
tomorrow, the fact remains that this connection is actually only for “redundancy.” That
the South Segment is an “independent” feature requires an inquiry into what features of
that project result in its independence, which features make the North Segment
“redundant” and whether additional alternatives exist. To answer this question, CENSE
has retained Pterra Consulting to review the transmission proposal made by PSE, and it
has provided a letter to the Examiner dated January 7, 2020 which is included as
Section 5.2 in the CENSE Notebook. As shown by its resume attached to its letter,
Pterra has over 35 years of experience in electric power transmission planning,
operation design and engineering.
January 8, 2020
Page 9
Pterra has been involved in the review of PSE's needs analysis using power flow
models. Letter at 1. However, Pterra notes that PSE has revised its project to upgrade
only the "South Segment" as previously described herein. Though noting the South
Segment will use some components of the original 16 mile proposal, Pterra concludes:
it is necessary to re-demonstrate performance since the electric grid operates in
an integrated fashion and removing one planned element (in this case the
northern section of EEP3) represents a different design with a unique set of
reliability impacts.
Furthermore, Pterra states:
Since the revised EEP plan include a single source of 230 kV power to
energize the proposed Richards Creek substation, any analysis should include
the alternative of energizing the new substation with new transmission from the
Sammamish substation to the north.
Indeed, Pterra concludes that the alternatives to transmission may be different between
the original EEP and the revised EEP, including possible non-wires alternatives or
"transformer replacements” rather than line upgrades. See page 2. As noted previously,
the existing record contains no power flow or other transmission analysis of the South
Segment or a possible "North Segment."
Relevant to review of the four miles of proposed transmission in Renton is
whether a connection from the Sammamish substation to the proposed new substation
at Richards Creek will resolve PSE’s transmission needs without construction in
Renton. Also relevant is whether the reduced scale of the project opens the opportunity
for other alternatives which do required new transmission. These would include energy
storage, demand response and other options that would focus new resources where
demand is increasing, the downtown areas of Bellevue.
The last minute disclosure that in fact project need could be met by a dead-end
line, with the remainder of full line providing “redundancy,” calls out for additional review
and analysis for two reasons.
A. NEW PROPOSAL.
As noted above, the requirement that a proposal be “properly defined” is a critical
element in the environmental review process under W AC 197-11-060(3)(a). See FEIS
at page 1-5: “the process of defining a proposal includes an understanding of the need
for the proposal, to enable a thorough understanding of the project’s objective and
3 “EEP” is the Energize Eastside full 16 mile proposal.
January 8, 2020
Page 10
technical requirements and to accurately identify feasible and reasonable project
alternatives for consideration in the EIS.” (Emphasis supplied.) The FEIS goes on to
say (page 1-5): “An understanding of the need for the project helps to clarify the
objectives used to develop project alternatives.”
In fact, the proposal has changed from that defined in December, 2014. The
four-mile Renton line is now part of the South Segment, which was never identified as
the proposal in the Phase 1 DEIS and Phase 2 DEIS. Interested citizens, public
agencies and others commented based on the proposal defined as: “a new 230 kV
transformer in the center of the Eastside, which would be fed by new 230 kV
transmission lines for the north and south (Stantec).” Importantly, none of the technical
reports cited by PSE considered, much less even mentioned, an independent South
Segment. As the Pterra letter indicates, the South Segment "represents a different
design with a unique set of reliability impacts" which has not been studied.
Remand for providing analysis of the South Segment should be ordered to
comply with SEPA.
Analysis of the actual proposal is critical for Renton as well. If there are
alternatives identified that do away with the need for the South Segment, the
environmental and community impacts of the four miles of line in Renton will be
eliminated.
B. NEW AND NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED ALTERNATIVE.
Even if remand is not necessary to analyze the proposal actually before the
Examiner, it is necessary to require SEPA analysis of a reasonable alternative not
previously disclosed by the applicant.
As stated very well in the FEIS:
The process of defining the proposal includes an understanding of the need for
the project, to enable a thorough understanding the project’s objectives (see
Section 1.8 of the Phase 1 Draft EIS) and technical requirements, and.
According to WAC 197-11-060(3)(a)(iii), proposals should be described in ways
that encourage considering and comparing alternatives, and agencies are
encouraged to describe proposals in terms of objectives rather than preferred
solutions. An understanding of the need for the project helps to clarify the
objectives used to develop project alternatives.
FEIS pages 1-4 and 1-5 (copies of these pages are Attachment F hereto).
Under SEPA, a "reasonable alternative" means:
January 8, 2020
Page 11
an action that could feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives, but at
a lower environmental cost or decreased level of environmental degradation.
Reasonable alternatives may be those over which an agency with jurisdiction has
authority to control impacts, either directly, or indirectly through requirement of
mitigation measures.
WAC 197-11-786. Indeed SEPA itself requires consideration of alternatives:
The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA) directs that "alternatives to
the proposed action" be included in an EIS. RCW 43.21C.030(c)(iii). Under the
Washington Administrative Code, consideration by the County Council of
reasonable alternatives is mandatory. WAC 197-11-440(5)(b). SEPA rules define
"reasonable alternatives" as less environmentally costly action that "could
feasibly attain or approximate a proposal's objectives." WAC 197-11-786.
King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd., 138 Wn.2d
161, 182, 979 P.2d 374 (1999) (emphasis supplied).
In this regard, the EIS Consistency Analysis prepared for the City does not
forestall the need for a remand. Though the purpose of that analysis is not clear, it does
not deal with the question of whether the South Segment is appropriate for analysis.
Indeed, it does not even recognize the South Segment, continuing the mantra that the
project is the entire original proposal:
The Renton PSE upgrade is part of the larger Energize Eastside Project
that would also occur in the cities of Bellevue, Redmond, and Newcastle,
and in unincorporated King County (see Figure 1-1,Regional Map, and
Figure 1-2, Entire Energize Eastside Project).
See page 1-1.
As described above, the PSE proposal, since its inception in 2013, has been the
construction of “a new 230 kV transformer in the center of the Eastside, which would be
fed by new 230 kV transmission lines from the north and south.” FEIS at page 1-5 (see
Attachment F). No shorter alternative was considered or included in any environmental
review.
However, during review in Bellevue, it was concluded by Bellevue staff that:
The south segment of the Project provides additional capacity that addresses the
Project need and could function whether or not the north segment is built.
Plainly this admission from the Lead Agency for the project indicating that the South
Segment would “attain or approximate [the] proposal’s objectives” accordingly makes
January 8, 2020
Page 12
the South Segment a “reasonable alternative.”
WAC 197-11-440(5)(c)(v)” requires the EIS to:
Devote sufficiently detailed analysis to each reasonable alternative to permit a
comparative evaluation of the alternatives including the proposed action.
As noted, it was never disclosed in the environmental impact statements prepared that
the South Segment as a standalone project could meet “Project need.” Important to
project review, as found in the “Proposal Description” in Attachment A to the IAA, is the
identification of “Viable Solutions” as follows:
Viable solutions have to solve the various power flow issues in the Eastside as
well as satisfying longevity criteria, be constructable, and cost effective. A ten
year study horizon was used between 2012 and 2022. To develop the potential
solutions, the following categories were identified: demand side reductions;
generation transformer additions with minimal reinforcement, and transformer
with new transmission line. Each solution type was then subjected to power flow
analysis using the base cases described in the Needs Report as well as an
extensive list of contingencies.
(Emphasis supplied.) However, as confirmed by Pterra, the “South Segment” has
never been “subjected to power flow analysis,” considered essential in the IAA. All of
the studies conducted by either PSE or the City of Bellevue have analyzed the entire 16
mile proposal, not the South Segment. “Power flow analysis” is one of the “technical
requirements” that the FEIS (at page 1.4) considers important to “accurately identify the
feasible and reasonable project alternatives for consideration in the EIS.” With
something substantially less than the full 16 mile project now able to “address project
need,” an understanding is needed of what changes have occurred in project analysis
and whether other non-wires alternatives might address project need.
4. A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SHOULD BE
ORDERED BY THE EXAMINER.
As described above, SEPA compliance to date is inadequate and incomplete
because of the failure to review the South Segment as either the proposed project or an
alternative. To resolve this insufficiency, a Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (SEIS) should be ordered.
Washington caselaw and regulations address when an SEIS is required:
WAC 197-11-600(3)(b) provides that a supplemental EIS is required if there are
either: "Substantial changes to a proposal so that the proposal is likely to have
significant adverse environmental impacts ...; or New information indicating a
January 8, 2020
Page 13
proposal's probable significant adverse environmental impacts. (This includes
discovery of misrepresentation or lack of material disclosure.)" (italics ours). See
also Citizens for Clean Air v. City of Spokane, 114 Wash.2d 20, 34, 785 P.2d
447 (1990); West 514, Inc. v. Spokane County, 53 Wash.App. 838, 845, 770
P.2d 1065, review denied, 113 Wash.2d 1005, 777 P.2d 1050 (1989).
Kiewit Const. Group Inc. v. Clark County, 83 Wn.App. 133, 142, 920 P.2d 1207, (Div. 2
1996). See also Citizens for Clean Air v. City of Spokane, 114 Wn.2d 20, 34, 785 P.2d
447 (“Substantial changes in a proposal or new information about adverse
environmental impacts may create a need for a SEIS. See WAC 197-11-600(4)(b).”).
Similarly in West 514, Inc. v. County of Spokane, 53 Wn.App. 838, 845, 770 P.2d 1065
(1989), the court addressed requirements for a supplemental EIS.
WAC 197-11-600(4)(d)(ii) states a supplemental EIS should be prepared if there
is "[n]ew information indicating a proposal's probable significant adverse
environmental impacts". (Italics ours.) While "probable" is used to distinguish
likely impacts from those that are remote or speculative, it "is not meant as a
strict statistical probability test". WAC 197-11-782. "Significant" involves context
and intensity. "An impact may be significant if its chance of occurrence is not
great, but the resulting environmental impact would be severe if it occurred."
WAC 197-11-794(2).
In Barrie v. Kitsap Cy. Boundary Review Bd., 97 Wash.2d 232, 235, 643 P.2d
433 (1982), the court noted that passage of time alone is not "significant new
information", and the lead agency must determine whether the new information
is significant. It quoted the discussion of what is significant contained in National
Indian Youth Coun. v. Andrus, 501 F.Supp. 649, 663-64 (D.N.M.1980), aff'd sub
nom. National Indian Youth Coun. v. Watt, 664 F.2d 220 (10th Cir.1981):
Any project ... will, undoubtedly, generate "information" as it progresses....
[I]n order for "new circumstances or information" to attain the status of
"significant" these must reach that level where, reasonably, it becomes
necessary to focus attention once more upon the environmental aspects
of a project.... An otherwise unguarded reading of this subpart could
unleash a procedural plague ...
Barrie, 97 Wash.2d at 235-36, 643 P.2d 433. Further, "every remote and
speculative consequence of an action [need not] be included in the EIS." Cheney
v. Mountlake Terrace, 87 Wash.2d 338, 344, 552 P.2d 184 (1976).
Is the change in the proposal from a 16 mile line to an 8.78 mile line a significant
change? Is the eleventh hour revelation that the South Segment can “operate
independently” and that the remainder of the line only provides “redundancy”
significant? These are major changes in the proposal requiring additional review.
There is a question of whether these circumstances amount to a “lack of material
&/E> /^W' ϭͲϮ
,Wd Zϭ/EdZKhd/KEΘ^hDDZzDZ,ϮϬϭϴ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗<ŝŶŐŽƵŶƚLJ͕ϮϬϭϱ͖ ĐŽůŽŐLJ͕ϮϬϭϰ͘
Figure 1-1. PSE 230 kV Transmission System in the Eastside
DSD 005411
005489
&/E> /^W' ϮͲϲ
,Wd ZϮWZK: d>d ZEd/s ^DZ,ϮϬϭϴ
^ŽƵƌĐĞ͗<ŝŶŐŽƵŶƚLJ͕ϮϬϭϱ͖ ĐŽůŽŐLJ͕ϮϬϭϰ͖KƉĞŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚDĂƉϮϬϭϲ͘
'JHVSF14&hT1SPQPTFE"MJHONFOUL75SBOTNJTTJPO-JOF$PSSJEPS4VNNBSZ
CZ
4FHNFOU $PODFQUVBM
DSD 005440
005518
Page 1
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITIES OF BELLEVUE, KIRKLAND,
NEWCASTLE, REDMOND, AND RENTON
REGARDING COORDINATED
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PUGET SOUND
ENERGY’S PROPOSED ENERGIZE EASTSIDE
230 kV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT
This INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT is entered into by the cities of Bellevue, Kirkland,
Newcastle, Redmond, and Renton (collectively “PRINCIPAL JURISDICTIONS”).
RECITALS
1.1 WHEREAS, Puget Sound Energy (“PSE”) has represented that there is a need to
construct a new 230 kV bulk electrical transmission corridor and associated electrical
substations (the “Proposal”) through the Principal Jurisdictions connecting two existing bulk
energy systems as necessary to supply future electrical capacity and improve eastside electrical
grid reliability; and
1.2 WHEREAS, preliminary discussion between the Principal Jurisdictions and PSE has
identified that the Proposal is likely to have probable significant adverse environmental impacts
and issuance of a State Environmental Policy Act (“SEPA”) Threshold Determination of
Significance (“DS”) is appropriate as outlined in WAC 197-11-360 ; and
1.3 WHEREAS, PSE has made application to Bellevue under file number 14-139122-LE
for review and processing of an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) under SEPA codified
at Chapter 43.21C of the Revised Code of Washington (“RCW”); and
1.4 WHEREAS, Bellevue was identified as the lead agency under section 197-11-932 of
the Washington Administrative Code (“WAC”), and issued a letter of lead agency status to the
Principal Jurisdictions on September 15, 2014; and
1.5 WHEREAS, the members of the Principal Jurisdictions are agencies as defined in
WAC 197-11-714 and 762. SEPA allows agencies to enter into interagency agreements to
share or divide responsibilities of the SEPA lead agency under WAC 197-11-944. The
Principal Jurisdictions desire to collaboratively manage environmental review of the Proposal
through the EIS process; and
1.6 WHEREAS, the Principal Jurisdictions have determined that it is in the best interest
of their respective jurisdictions to collectively study siting and development of the Proposal,
including determining if reasonable alternatives to the Proposal exist that may include, but are
not limited to different modes, alignments and infrastructure sites throughout the Principal
Jurisdictions; and
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 2
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and provision contained herein, the
Principal Jurisdictions agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1.0 Purpose of the Agreement
The purpose of this Agreement is to establish how the Principal Jurisdictions will work
cooperatively to review and respond to the Proposal under SEPA.
1.1 Cooperation and Good Faith Efforts
The Parties understand and agree that the processes described in this Agreement depend upon
timely and open communication and cooperation between the Parties. In this regard,
communication of issues, changes, or problems that arise with any aspect of the performance of
terms of this Agreement should occur as early as possible in the process rather than before explicit
due dates or deadlines. Each Party agrees to work cooperatively and in good faith toward
resolution of any such issues and agree that time is of the essence in resolving issues among the
Parties.
1.2 Production
The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement contemplates the execution and delivery of a
number of documents, the final form and contents of which are not presently determined. The
parties agree to provide the necessary resources and to work in good faith to diligently and timely
develop the final form and contents of such documents.
2.0 Associated Projects
The Principal Jurisdictions agree to work cooperatively and collaboratively towards processing of
an EIS and researching issues associated with the Proposal. To assist in this process, the Principal
Jurisdictions agree that it is in the best interests of their respective communities to collectively
engage consultants to assist with the research, development and analysis of an EIS addressing the
Proposal.
2.1 Processing of EIS
The Principal Jurisdictions will work together, under Bellevue’s lead, to complete the necessary
steps of a phased EIS as detailed in Chapter 197-11 WAC. The first phase of the Proposal to be
analyzed in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”) shall include analysis of the need,
methods, and general feasibility of the Proposal. The second phase of the Proposal to be analyzed
in a DEIS shall be the construction level impacts of the Proposal. Following the completion of
both phases of the DEIS, a Final Environmental Impact Statement shall be issued. The Principal
Jurisdictions shall cooperate jointly and with PSE to identify a reasonable number and range of
alternatives. The list of alternatives to be analyzed shall include those agreed to by PSE, as well
as those alternatives proposed by at least two Principal Jurisdictions.
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 3
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
After publication of the DEIS and the opportunity for public comment, the Parties shall consult
as to identification of a preferred alternative and as to the alternatives to be included in the FEIS.
Consensus shall be the preferred method to select a preferred alternative. Designation of a
preferred alternative shall require approval of (i) Bellevue and (ii) any other Principal
Jurisdiction where the preferred alternative would be located. If no proposed preferred
alternative obtains such approval, the FEIS may be issued without a preferred alternative.
3.0 Definitions
The following capitalized terms used in this Agreement have the meanings set forth in this
Section:
Co-Lead Jurisdiction: Each Principal Jurisdiction except the City of Bellevue.
Nominal Lead Jurisdiction: The City of Bellevue.
DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposal under SEPA.
FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposal under SEPA.
Principal Jurisdictions: All of the Jurisdictions listed on Exhibit A to this Agreement, which is
incorporated herein by reference. Principal Jurisdictions are generally known to be the cities of
Bellevue, Kirkland, Newcastle, Redmond, and Renton; provided the jurisdiction remains a
party to this Agreement.
Participating Jurisdiction: Any Principal Jurisdiction that is added to this Agreement by
amendment, so long as it remains a Party.
Parties or Party: The “Parties or Party” include all Principal Jurisdictions and any other
Jurisdictions that have become Participating Jurisdictions by amendment as provided in this
Agreement, except that “Parties or Party” shall not include any Principal Jurisdictions that have
withdrawn from this Agreement.
Proposal: The reasonable alternatives for the actions necessary to establish a new Puget Sound
Energy 230 kV electrical transmission corridor and associated electrical substation
infrastructure with capacity to serve the Principal Jurisdictions, within the range of alternatives
identified by the PSE and the Principal Jurisdictions for study under SEPA. A complete
description of the Proposal is included with this Agreement as Attachment A.
SEPA: The Washington State Environmental Policy Act and its implementing regulations.
Alignment: A potential location for the Proposal.
Site(s): The potential location(s) for the Proposal.
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 4
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
Working Day: A day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or City of Bellevue legal holiday.
4.0 Co-Lead Agencies
Each Principal Jurisdiction is a co-lead agency for the Proposal as permitted pursuant to WAC
197-11-944. Bellevue is designated the nominal lead agency for the Proposal. Each Principal
Jurisdiction shall have responsibility, in reliance on the work of consultants and experts retained
by Bellevue under this Agreement, for content of environmental documents. Bellevue’s “SEPA
responsible official” shall have the duty to determine the adequacy of the DEIS and FEIS under
SEPA.
4.1 Designated Representatives
A. Designated Representatives. Each Principal Jurisdiction shall designate the name, title,
address and electronic contact information for: (i) a staff representative who will serve as the
primary contact person for purposes of this Agreement; (ii) the official(s) authorized to approve
matters under this Agreement for that jurisdiction; (iii) the representatives who will serve on the
project EIS Steering Committee for that jurisdiction; and (iv) the representative who will serve on
the EIS Collaboration Team for that jurisdiction, subject to any limitations on authority imposed
by that jurisdiction. The designee for each Principal Jurisdiction is contained below as the
signatory to this Agreement. A Principal Jurisdiction may designate, by written notice to all
Parties, an alternate staff representative or official to act instead of the designated person if that
person is unavailable or if so desired by the Principal Jurisdiction. A Principal Jurisdiction may
designate the same person for different purposes as identified in this subsection. A Principal
Jurisdiction may change the designated person for these purposes by written notice to all Parties.
B. Committees. The following committees shall be formed and charters developed to assist with
processing the EIS:
(i) EIS Steering Committee
a. Purpose: Represent the respective jurisdiction by providing guidance to the EIS
Collaboration Team in the development of the project EIS and study of other
Proposal issues and topics.
b. Membership: Department Directors and management staff with appropriate level
of decision making authority, access to elected officials, and access to
jurisdiction resources
c. Responsibilities: Provide general project oversight, maintain communication
across jurisdictions, meet to address issues raised by the EIS Collaboration
Team, and report on EIS progress to elected officials, appointed officials, and
jurisdiction management.
d. Conflict Resolution: The EIS steering Committee will engage to resolve inter-
jurisdictional conflicts and conflicts with PSE in accordance with Section 10.0.
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 5
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
(ii) EIS Collaboration Team
a. Purpose: The purpose of the EIS Collaboration Team is inter-jurisdictional
collaboration in the development of the EIS under SEPA rules for the Proposal,
including information collection, scoping, consultant selection, consultant
management, document development and editing, process implementation,
public outreach, and quality control.
b. Membership: Senior level planning and development department or utilities and
engineering staff with experience in SEPA and EIS process and with knowledge
specific to the Proposal.
c. Responsibilities: EIS Collaboration Team members will commit time to regular
meetings and can oversee development of the EIS for their respective
jurisdiction, including information collection, scoping, consultant selection,
consultant management, document development and editing, process
implementation, public outreach, and quality control. Team members will
provide the necessary resources and to work in good faith to diligently and
timely develop the final form and contents of the Proposal EIS.
d. Conflict Resolution: Unresolvable conflicts identified by the EIS Collaboration
Team will be elevated to the EIS Steering Committee for resolution in
accordance with Section 10.0.
4.2 Bellevue Responsibilities
A. Bellevue shall designate a single staff person who will serve as the primary point of contact
between Bellevue and the other Primary Jurisdictions. Bellevue will also designate an alternate
staff person who will serve as the point of contact if the primary staff contact is unavailable.
B. As the nominal lead agency, Bellevue shall be responsible for the following SEPA
activities with respect to the Proposal:
(i) Providing all notices required by SEPA and Bellevue ordinances and regulations,
and any additional notice requirements under ordinances and regulations of the Co-
Lead Jurisdictions that are identified by Co-Lead Jurisdictions by written notice to
Bellevue;
(ii) Holding public meetings required by SEPA;
(iii) Providing required opportunities to comment on SEPA documents;
(iv) Causing the preparation of environmental documents required by
SEPA;
(v) Making all filings and publications required by SEPA;
(vi) Defending any administrative and/or court challenge to the adequacy of
the environmental documents, subject to the terms of this Agreement; and
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 6
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
(vii) Identifying the actions, as defined in SEPA that would be necessary to establish
the Proposal, except for actions under the planning documents, ordinances or
regulations of local jurisdictions other than Bellevue; and
(viii) General SEPA process administration, project management, and project
oversight.
C. Bellevue shall contract with consultants, environmental scientists, engineers, and others for
the preparation of the DEIS, FEIS, and related technical reports and for the other work
contemplated by the anticipated project scope. Bellevue shall solicit, consistent with State law,
the services of a qualified professional in the preparation of an EIS consistent with the
determinations as to the scope and coverage of the DEIS and FEIS. Bellevue shall also contract
with an independent third-party consultant for the completion of preliminary analysis supporting
the Proposal need and method in advance and parallel to the EIS work requested under this
Agreement.
D. Bellevue further agrees, regarding circulation of drafts of SEPA documents, to:
(i) Provide each Co-Lead Jurisdiction a draft of the scoping notice 15 working
days prior to issuance;
(ii) Issue the scoping notice only with the approval required in Section 5.0;
(iii) Provide the Parties with a draft of the proposed first and second phases of the
DEIS and supporting technical memoranda and discipline reports no less than 30
working days prior to scheduled issuance of each phase of the DEIS;
(iv) Coordinate any comments or requested changes to the proposed DEIS from the
Parties that are received within 20 working days after the proposed DEIS was sent to the
Parties, and bring the comments and requested changes to the Co-Lead Jurisdictions for
discussion and recommendation;
(iv) Issue the DEIS only after approval as required under Section 5.0 except that the
published DEIS may include corrections and changes not so approved and not previously
provided to the Parties if they do not fundamentally alter conclusions in the DEIS and do
not materially change information with respect to any Site;
(v) Provide the Parties with copies of comments received on the DEIS;
(vi) Provide the Parties a draft of the proposed FEIS, including its technical memoranda
and discipline reports and response to DEIS comments;
(vii) Coordinate any comments or requested changes to the proposed FEIS from the
Parties that are received within 15 Working days after the proposed FEIS was sent to the
Parties, and bring the comments and requested changes to the Co-Lead Jurisdictions for
discussion and recommendation; and
(viii) Determine adequacy and issue the FEIS, and any supplement or addendum to the
FEIS, only after approval under Section 5.0 provided that the published FEIS and any
supplement or addendum may include corrections and changes not so approved and not
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 7
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
previously provided to the Parties if they do not fundamentally alter conclusions in the
FEIS and do not materially change information with respect to any Site.
(ix) Bellevue reserves the right to issue any documents in electronic format.
E. Bellevue shall provide the Parties with an estimated schedule consistent with the time
periods identified in subsection D of this Section.
F. Bellevue shall be responsible for development of project messaging through development of
one common message regarding the status of the EIS process, including development of common
literature generic to the project.
G. Bellevue shall be responsible for development and maintenance of a consolidated website to
host the multijurisdictional EIS process. This website will serve as the primary portal to the
project for public information and project management, including information and document
sharing.
I. Bellevue shall be responsible for development of a project outreach strategy, including use of
consultants; and the number and location of open houses, community meetings, or other events.
4.3 Co-Lead Jurisdiction Responsibilities
Each Co-Lead Jurisdiction agrees that it shall:
A. Provide technical support and staff at a level sufficient to meet project deadlines;
B. Dedicate staff resources to regularly attend scheduled EIS Steering Committee and
EIS Collaboration Team meetings;
C. Review the draft scoping notice and provide comments or notify Bellevue of its
approval within 10 working days of receipt of the draft;
D. Review preliminary draft discipline reports and technical memoranda and provide comments
to Bellevue within 30 working days, the review time for subsequent drafts shall be 15 days;
E. Review preliminary drafts of the phases of a DEIS or portions thereof, and any supplement
or addendum thereto, and provide comments or approval within 30 working days, the review
time for subsequent drafts shall be 15 days;
F. Review drafts of a FEIS or portions thereof, and any supplement or addendum thereto, and
provide comments or approval within 30 working days, the review time for subsequent
drafts shall be 15 days;
G. Promptly provide access to data and studies reasonably available to the Co-Lead Jurisdiction
with respect to any Site within its boundaries, and promptly provide the cooperation of experts
on the staff of relevant Jurisdiction departments, to Bellevue and to consultants;
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 8
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
H. Identify, and consult with Bellevue and consultants with respect to, (i) all actions, within the
meaning of SEPA, that would be required of the Co-Lead Jurisdiction for purposes of
participating in the review of the Proposal that is included in the DEIS, and (ii) all notice
requirements under the ordinances and regulations of that Jurisdiction; and
I. Any other provision notwithstanding, if the Principal Jurisdictions determine that the FEIS
shall be part of a phased review, then the Co-lead Jurisdictions shall not have any obligations
under this Agreement for any phase after the FEIS.
5.0 Approvals
A. Except as otherwise stated in this Section, the approval of a majority of Principal
Jurisdictions, one of which must be Bellevue, is required and is sufficient for any of the
following:
(i) Issuance of the determination of significance and scoping notice;
(ii) Determination of whether and to what extent SEPA review for the Proposal will
be phased, and of the types of impacts to be analyzed in detail in the DEIS and FEIS;
(iii) Issuance of the DEIS, and any supplement or addendum to the
DEIS;
(iv) Issuance of the FEIS, and any supplement or addendum to the FEIS;
(v) Any decision with respect to the settlement of any appeal or with respect to action to
be taken upon any adverse decision or remand resulting from any appeal;
(vi) Amendments adding Participating Jurisdictions as Parties to the Agreement; and
(vii) Selection of a consultant or consultants to assist with the performance of this Agreement.
B. If at any time there shall be three or fewer Principal Jurisdictions that remain Parties to this
Agreement, the approval of two Principal Jurisdictions, one of which must be Bellevue, shall be
necessary and sufficient for any of the actions listed in subsection A of this Section.
C. Approval for designation of a preferred alternative in the FEIS is governed by subsections 2.1
and 5.0 of this Agreement.
6.0 Costs
A. Consultant costs associated with developing the EIS shall be funded by PSE and paid
through the City of Bellevue Development Services Department permit fee structure. The City of
Bellevue shall have the sole responsibility of negotiating PSE’s payment of EIS consultant and
processing costs.
B. Each Principal Jurisdiction shall have the responsibility of coordinating and negotiating
reimbursement from PSE for their own respective staff resource costs incurred with project and
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 9
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
EIS analysis.
7.0 Appeals
A. Unless otherwise provided by applicable law, timely appeals of the adequacy of the FEIS
and compliance with applicable SEPA procedural requirements shall be heard by the
Washington State Superior Court in accordance with Chapter 22.02 Bellevue City Code.
Bellevue shall have sole responsibility to defend the adequacy of the FEIS, as to the actions
covered by the FEIS, in any appeal before a court with jurisdiction, to the extent such appeal
relates to the adequacy of the FEIS or compliance with the applicable SEPA procedural
requirements.
B. The costs of such defense including any appeal of a decision by a court on the adequacy
of the FEIS, including without limitation costs of in-house attorneys, outside counsel if deemed
necessary by Bellevue, staff support and costs of experts, shall be considered costs allocable
hereunder.
C. Prior to the commencement of any appeal proceedings, the Principal Jurisdictions shall
enter into agreement stipulating proportional cost sharing related to legal defense not
recoverable from PSE. Costs shall be distributed among those Principal Jurisdictions to which
the issues raised in the appeal pertain. Where the issues pertain to more than one Principal
Jurisdiction, costs shall be distributed among the affected Principal Jurisdictions based on the
proportional distribution of EIS alternative alignments located within each Principal Jurisdiction
to which the issues raised in the appeal pertain.
D. Subject to the execution of a satisfactory common interests and confidentiality agreement,
Bellevue shall keep the Co-lead Jurisdictions reasonably informed of the status of the appeal and
shall consult with them regarding any major decisions.
E. Any administrative appeal or court challenge to a substantive action, including without
limitation a change in development regulations or project permit decision, whether or not joined
with a challenge to be defended under subsection A and whether or not involving issues of SEPA
compliance or exercise of SEPA authority, is outside the scope of this Agreement.
8.0 Effectiveness; Additional Parties; Termination; Withdrawal of a Party
A. Effective Date. This Agreement will become effective upon signing and delivery of the
Agreement by all Principal Jurisdictions.
B. Change of Party Status. Any Principal Jurisdiction may become a Participating
Jurisdiction under this Agreement by amendment approved under Section 12.0, without need
for action of the legislative bodies of the existing Parties. Participating Jurisdictions will not
have authority over decisions under this Agreement, but will have the same rights and
responsibilities for review and comment on draft documents as Co- Lead Jurisdictions.
C. Termination. This Agreement shall remain in effect until the FEIS, and any supplements or
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 10
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
addenda to the FEIS that may be required as a result of any appeal proceeding, have been issued,
and either the time for any appeal of Bellevue’s decision on the adequacy of the FEIS shall have
expired or a final decision on an appeal of that determination, in which Bellevue has
responsibility for defense under Section 7.0 of this Agreement, shall have been issued by a court
or other administrative tribunal with jurisdiction to hear an initial appeal on the adequacy of the
FEIS.
D. Withdrawal. Any Party, may, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other Parties,
withdraw from this Agreement without cause. If a Co-Lead Jurisdiction or Participating
Jurisdiction withdraws from this Agreement, then the Agreement shall remain in effect among
the remaining Parties.
(i) The withdrawing Party, as of the date of termination, shall not have any rights of a
Party, or of a Principal Jurisdiction or Co-Lead Agency, under this Agreement, and
no consent of that Party shall be required for any purpose under this Agreement. The
withdrawing Party is released from any obligation to perform its obligations pursuant
to the Agreement..
(ii) Any Party that withdraws from this Agreement shall remain obligated for its
share of costs allocable under this Agreement that are incurred through the date of
termination of this Agreement.
(iii) If a Co-Lead Jurisdiction withdraws from the Agreement, any Site in that
Jurisdiction shall remain among the alternatives for the Proposal unless and until
the remaining Parties unanimously agree otherwise, and the withdrawing Party
shall remain obligated to cooperate in providing information required for
environmental review with regard to that Site.
(iv) If Bellevue withdraws from this Agreement, then this Agreement shall terminate
on the effective date of withdrawal.
9.0 Remedies
Except as provided in Sections 7.0 above, this Agreement shall not result in any monetary
liability, in damages or otherwise, from any Party to another. No Party shall be liable for any
damages to, or costs incurred by, other Parties resulting from any actual or alleged error,
misstatement or omission in any SEPA document or related to any SEPA process, or any ruling
regarding failure to comply with SEPA, whether or not the result of the negligence of a Party.
Except for monetary obligations under Section 6.0 of this Agreement, any suit to enforce the
terms of this Agreement or any obligation under this Agreement shall be limited to equitable
remedies not involving payment of money.
10.0 Dispute Resolution
A. The Parties agree that cooperation and communication are essential to resolving issues
efficiently. The Parties agree to exercise their best efforts to resolve any disputes that may
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 11
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
arise through this dispute resolution process. In the event of a dispute between the Parties
regarding this Agreement, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute informally and
resolve potential sources of conflict at the lowest level. All parties to the dispute shall
participate in a good faith mediation effort to resolve their differences before bringing any
legal action.
B. The Parties agree to use their best efforts to resolve disputes arising out of or related to
this Agreement using good faith negotiations by engaging in the following dispute
escalation process should any such disputes arise:
(a) Level One – The EIS Collaboration Team designated representatives shall meet to
discuss and attempt to resolve the dispute in a timely manner. If they cannot resolve the
dispute within fourteen (14) calendar days after referral of that dispute to Level One,
either party may refer the dispute to Level Two.
(b) Level Two – The EIS Steering Committee shall meet to discuss and attempt to
resolve the dispute, in a timely manner. If they cannot resolve the dispute within
fourteen (14) business days after referral of that dispute to Level Two, either party may
refer the dispute to Level Three.
(c) Level Three – The services of an independent facilitator provided by the EIS
consultant shall be engaged to resolve or adjudicate the dispute in a timely manner.
C. If the dispute involves a claimed breach of this Agreement and the Parties are not able to
resolve the dispute informally, then the Party may bring suit against the other Party in King
County Superior Court.
D. As an alternative to the above, the Parties may agree in writing to mediation, or some other
alternative dispute resolution process.
E. If the dispute includes PSE, the issue(s) shall be taken to an independent project facilitator
provided by the EIS consultant who will seek resolution with PSE.
11.0 Notices
The Parties’ addresses for notices under this Agreement shall be the physical and electronic
addresses of the primary contacts as set forth below the signature of each Party on this
Agreement or on the amendment adding that Party, as the case may be, in each case until a Party
shall have provided written notice of substitute primary contact information to the other Parties
hereunder.
Notice and copies of documents may be provided by email, and if so provided shall be effective
on the day received if received on a Working Day by 5:00 PM Pacific time, and if later then
effective on the next Working Day. If provided by U.S. mail, any notice or other communication
shall be effective on the second Working Day after deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid,
addressed in accordance with this Section.
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Page 13
Energize Eastside
Interagency Agreement
Version Edited December 15, 2014
18.0 Miscellaneous
A. This Agreement is for the benefit only of the Parties, and shall not give rise to any claim or
remedy for any other person.
B. Nothing in this Agreement shall delegate, diminish or modify the statutory or regulatory
authority of the Parties.
C. Time is of the essence of the terms of this Agreement.
[signature pages follow]
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
—
-I
F
it,1
).Z
ni
(ID CD>
i
(D
s 1J (
CD
“
tE1
—o1•
0
N
1
C)
rt
z____________________
_______________________________________
CD CD
—.
CD
H (lEjD9:4
0
A
>‘.<
N
—
V.’—
CDCD
z
‘I’
H
CD
IFinal Executed Copy Effective February 20, 2015
ATTACHMENT A PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
Proposal Description
PSE has determined that projected electrical load growth in the Eastside area of Puget Sound
Energy’s operating system is outstripping the capacity to deliver reliable sources of electricity to
the region. This encompasses the area east of Lake Washington between the cities of Redmond and
Renton. A detailed description of the electrical system problem is provided in PSE’s Needs Report
(2012). PSE’s transmission system backbone in the Eastside area comprises four 230 kV – 115 kV
transformers. These transformers, under certain operational conditions (i.e., cold winter days), are
operating near capacity and system studies and models have shown that they are expected to exceed
that capacity as early as the winter of 2017/2018. In addition to these transformers at PSE’s Talbot
Hill and Sammamish substations, several 115 kV lines are also subject to overloading. These
overloads show that there is a need for additional 230 kV transmission supply to support the
Eastside area. This situation creates operational conditions that do not comply with mandatory
reliability requirements. Furthermore, electric generation facilities located in this area of King
County provide less than 10% of the peak electric load; therefore, the area is quite dependent on the
electric transmission system. Electrical system studies performed independently and by PSE have
demonstrated that different parts of the transmission system will not meet minimum mandatory
reliability requirements for given system conditions under contingent operation. These minimum
reliability requirements are mandated by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) and Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC).
A number of solutions were identified and analyzed to assess viable ways of solving the
transmission supply problem. Viable solutions have to solve the various power flow issues in the
Eastside area as well as satisfying longevity criteria, be constructible, and cost effective. A ten year
study horizon was used between 2012 and 2022. To develop the potential solutions, the following
categories were identified: demand side reductions; generation; transformer additions with minimal
reinforcement, and transformer with new transmission line. Each solution type was then subjected
to power flow analysis using the base cases described in the Needs Report as well as an extensive
list of contingencies. Based on the results of the power flow analysis, the most promising solutions
were further evaluated from the perspective of overall system performance, operational flexibility,
and longevity. Additional details regarding the solutions considered to solve the problem are
provided in PSE’s Solutions Report (2012) and other supporting documents.
Demand Side Reduction/Non-Wire Technologies
Description: The addition of demand side reduction or conservation measures was evaluated by
PSE’s Energy Efficiency Group. These include energy efficiency, demand response, and
distributed generation measures. Energy efficiency measures include things such promoting the
installation of more efficient appliances, changing out incandescent light bulbs for LED, updating
windows and insulation, as well as numerous others. PSE has extensive programs to promote such
efficiency improvements, but cannot require that customers implement them. Demand response
entails energy reduction programs where specialized devises are installed that can be used to
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
control users electrical uses to better accommodate and manage peak usage. PSE has run pilot
projects using this technology, but such programs have not been popular and cannot be required by
the utility. Installing roof top solar panels, small scale wind turbines, and waste digesters are all
forms of distributed generation, again all which cannot be required by a utility’s customers.
These solutions do not represent a permanent alternative to avoid the need for infrastructure
improvements and upgrades necessary to operate the system at the required reliability levels;
however they are a necessary component of the solution (PSE Screening Study 2014).
Generation
Description: It has been determined that a 300 MW natural gas fired power plant located within the
Eastside could potentially solve the identified problem. This size plant would be comparable to the
325 MVA nameplate capacities of PSE’s 230 kV – 115 kV transformers. In addition to the
construction of the power plant, more than 30 miles of new and upgraded 115 kV transmission lines
would be required as would possibly a new natural gas pipeline and/or water pipeline. The number
and length of supporting infrastructure transmission lines and pipelines would be dependent upon
where a generation facility could be developed. Other generation technologies were evaluated, but
determined to be inadequate or inappropriate for the project area. New generation would have to be
sited so that it could relieve the 230 kV – 115 kV substation transformers and 115 kV transmission
lines that were identified as being at risk of overload in the 2013 PSE Eastside Needs Assessment
Report.
New Transformer – Existing Substation
Description: The PSE planning team evaluated installing only a new 230 kV – 115 kV transformer
at an existing substation, such as the existing Sammamish substation, Talbot Hill substation, and
Lake Tradition substations. It is anticipated that this alternative would not require the installation
of new 230 kV transmission lines since all three sites considered currently have nearby 230 kV
sources. However, when electric system models and studies were performed, this scenario showed
numerous 115 kV transmission system overloads, which indicated that a substantial amount of new
115 kV lines would need to be constructed and still with less than ideal system operational results.
New Transformer and Transmission Line
Description: The most viable solution type considered was a combination of adding a new
substation with a 230 kV transformer and connecting it with the Talbot and Sammamish substation
via a new 230 kV transmission line. This solution would provide a new 230 kV transmission
source and improve reliability for the Eastside area. To provide the greatest system efficiency, the
new transformer would need to be located somewhere between SR520 and I-90.
No Action
Description: Under the SEPA rules, when evaluating alternatives, the “no action” alternative also
needs to be considered and compared to the other reasonable alternatives (WAC 197-11-
440(5)(b)(ii)). In this instance, the no action alternative equates to not making improvements to the
electrical transmission system. This would put the operation of the transmission system as risk and
PSE out of compliance with FERC and NERC requirements.
Final Executed Copy
Effective February 20, 2015
2.4 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT INCLUDED
The following alternatives were identified through scoping but are not included for analysis
in the Phase 1 Draft EIS for reasons explained below.
2.4.1 Use Existing BPA High-Power Transmission Line
Using the existing BPA line east of Lake Sammamish instead of installing a new 230 kV line
in the Eastside is not being included in the Phase 1 Draft EIS because this source is outside
the area that PSE has identified as being in need of more electrical power. To connect this
source to the deficiency area would require new 115 kV line construction to marginally
support the area. PSE considered several scenarios examining this potential solution. These
included the following:
x Tapping the BPA Maple Valley – Sammamish 230 kV line and the SCL SnoKing –
Maple Valley 230 kV line, and looping a new 230–115 kV Lakeside substation
between the tapped lines.
x Using the 230 kV BPA Maple Valley – Sammamish Line to loop into Lake Tradition
and installing a new 230–115 kV transformer at Lake Tradition to serve 115 kV load.
The solution also included re-conductoring the SCL Maple Valley – SnoKing 230 kV
with high-temperature conductors.
x Adding a 230–115 kV transformer at Lake Tradition and looping in BPA Maple
Valley –Sammamish 230 kV line. Adding a third 230–115 kV transformer at
Sammamish substation and assuming no new 115 kV lines are added to either
substation.
x Adding a 230–115 kV transformer at Lake Tradition, looping in BPA Maple Valley –
Sammamish 230 kV line, and adding a third 230–115 kV transformer at Talbot Hill
substation. It was assumed that no new 115 kV lines were added to either substation.
x Adding a 230–115 kV transformer at Lake Tradition, looping in BPA Maple Valley –
Sammamish 230 kV line, and adding a third 230–115 kV transformer at Sammamish
substation. This assumed new 115 kV lines would be constructed to both substations.
x Adding a 230–115 kV transformer at Lake Tradition and looping in BPA Maple
Valley –Sammamish 230 kV line, and adding a third 230–115 kV transformer at
Talbot Hill substation. This assumed new 115 kV lines would be constructed to both
substations.
All of these solutions were found to overload either transmission lines or transformers and
therefore would not address all relevant PSE equipment violations (electrical criterion #13).
See Eastside Transmission Solutions Report, October 2013 (updated February 2014), Tables
4.1 and 4.2, and Sections 4.6.3, 4.6.6, 4.6.8, 5.1.1, and 5.1.2 for more information (Gentile et
al., 2014).
2.4.2 Upgrade/Adjust Existing Electrical System
Several changes and adjustments to the electrical transmission system were proposed as
potential solutions. Several related to discontinuing the flow of electricity through the
CHAPTER 2 January 2016
2-50 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
CHAPTER 2 January 2016
2-50 PROJECT ALTLTTERNATATTIVES
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
DSD 011205
011283
Eastside to Canada during some peak demand periods. These were described in comments
received during scoping regarding renegotiation of the Columbia River Treaty (which relates
to river flows and electrical supply across the U.S. - Canada border), diverting power flowing
from the south toward Canada to other transmission lines, or simply cutting off power flow to
Canada altogether. Disconnecting the system from the region or not providing power to the
rest of the region during peak periods is not included as an alternative because it was not
considered viable for the following reasons:
x PSE has statutory and regulatory obligations that require being interconnected to the
electric grid and that cannot be violated without penalties. Those obligations are with
the FERC, NERC, WECC, ColumbiaGrid, and UTC (electrical criterion #1).
x This solution would also compromise PSE’s ability to supply power and maintain
reliability in an efficient and cost-effective manner; the generation that is owned and
contracted for by PSE is generally outside PSE’s service area and requires
transmission lines to transport that power to PSE’s service area. The diversity of the
generation mixture provides security in the event that one kind of generation becomes
limited (e.g., hydroelectricity in a year with low snowmelt or rainfall). Being part of
the regional grid allows the dispatch of the least costly generating units within the
interconnected area, providing an overall cost savings to PSE customers. Planned
outages of generating and transmission facilities for maintenance can be better
coordinated so that overall cost and reliability for the interconnected network is more
efficient. Being interconnected also allows economies of scale for both transmission
and generation facilities. Finally, this solution could reduce the supply of power to
the Eastside, necessitating additional conservation, generation, or storage beyond that
considered in the other alternatives in the EIS (electrical criteria #1 and 7).
x Disconnecting the north and south sections of the route at a central Bellevue
substation to prevent non-Eastside load from being carried on this line during peak
periods of demand on the Eastside would deprive the Eastside of power supply
needed during these periods. Separating the system in central Bellevue from the
regional grid would also not meet FERC mandatory reliability standards. This could
be a CAP, which is temporary in nature and not a long-term solution, and does not
bring a new source or new generation into the deficiency area (electrical criteria #1
and 7).
x Relying on BPA projects would not deliver the appropriate amount of power to the
Eastside area because the BPA sources are outside the deficiency area and would
address only wider regional problems, leaving a deficiency on the Eastside (electrical
criterion # 7).
x Renegotiating the Columbia River Treaty is outside the purview of PSE and the
Eastside Cities and would not help solve the problem as described previously
(electrical criterion #1).
Other suggested solutions made during scoping include converting an existing alternating
current (AC) line to a direct current (DC) power line, using “self-healing” lines, and changing
conductor types and sizes.
January 2016 CHAPTER 2
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2-51
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
January 2016 CHAPTER 2
PROJECT ALTLTTERNATATTIVES 2-51
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
DSD 011206
011284
Although switching to DC could potentially address the problem by marginally increasing the
capacity of the lines, it would add complexity to the system that would reduce operational
flexibility, which could have adverse impacts to the reliability and the operating
characteristics of PSE’s system. For example, if there was a problem within the DC portion
of the system, it would not be possible to switch among other sources, as it is when the entire
system is on AC. This alternative has not been included because avoiding such adverse
impacts to reliability is one of PSE’s stated electrical criteria (electrical criterion #1).
Suggested upgrades to the system (such as self-healing lines, up-conductoring, and installing
transformers and inductors) would not improve reliability but would shift electrical load onto
other components of the system, causing new deficiencies without addressing the
transmission problem. Self-healing lines are automated switching systems that are triggered
by adverse events in the system. They do not add capacity to the system, just speed in
recovery from an adverse event. Inductors perform similarly, shifting load but not adding
capacity. PSE examined up-conductoring in its solutions report and found that increasing
capacity of 115 kV conductors led to transformers being overloaded (Gentile et al., 2014).
Conversely, adding transformer capacity led to overloading lines. These solutions either do
not meet the project objectives, or they offer a short-term solution that would not meet PSE’s
performance criteria for serving 10 years or more after construction (electrical criterion #1).
2.4.3 Larger Generation Facilities
Adding a large generation facility is not included as an alternative. To be effective, PSE
found that the facilities would have to be located near the center of the Eastside area, such as
near the Lakeside substation. This alternative is not included because the Cities determined
that it does not meet SEPA requirements to provide a reasonable alternative that could
feasibly attain or approximate a proposal’s objectives at a lower environmental cost or
decreased level of environmental degradation (WAC 197-11-440(5)(b)). Such a facility
would likely have to be gas-fired to be capable of producing power reliably whenever it is
needed.
PSE determined that at least 300 MW of power generating capacity would be needed and the
most cost-effective way to generate that amount of power would be in a single plant. The
2013 Solutions Report (Gentile et al., 2014) found that small distributed generation and
energy storage would have little impact on the problem unless a large number were
developed, as described in Alternative 2, Integrated Resource Approach. Generation facilities
at the 300 MW size would require gas and/or water infrastructure that is presently
unavailable. These types of facilities also generate “atmospheric emissions and noise [that]
would be extremely challenging” to permit in a feasible location that would not also require a
significant new transmission line (Gentile et al., 2014).
Even if it were economically feasible to create multiple generation facilities of less than 300
MW, such as a series of plants generating 10 MW or more, they would need to be clustered
close to the center of the Eastside to be effective, and would likely impose noise, air, and
utilities impacts similar to or even greater than a single plant. Therefore multiple generation
facilities of greater than 10 MW were not included for the same reason a single large
generation plant was not included.
CHAPTER 2 January 2016
2-52 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
CHAPTER 2 January 2016
2-52 PROJECT ALTLTTERNATATTIVES
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
DSD 011207
011285
Smaller backup generators within the Eastside could potentially solve the peak demand;
however, PSE did not find that there are currently enough generator owners willing to
connect to the network to meet the project objectives (Gentile et al., 2014). PSE cannot
compel owners of generators to connect to a network. In addition, increased usage of diesel
generators would not meet present clean air regulations, and such facilities often have
considerable noise impacts. This is not included as a stand-alone alternative because it does
not meet PSE’s performance criteria of serving 10 years or more after construction (electrical
criteria #5, 6, and 15 and non-electrical criterion #3). However, providing a portion of the
projected load by this method is examined as part of the distributed generation component of
Alternative 2.
Generating more power outside of the Eastside area during peak periods, such as at PSE’s
existing peak generator plants, would not address the project objectives, because that would
still require transmission to deliver power to the load area without risking damage to
transmission equipment. This alternative is not included because it would not address the
deficiency in the Eastside (electrical criteria #5, 6 and 14). Peak generator plants providing a
portion of the projected load within the Eastside are considered under Alternative 2.
2.4.4 Submerged 230 kV Transmission Line in Lake Sammamish
The option of using a submerged line in Lake Washington is included in the Phase 1 Draft
EIS. Scoping comments also suggested using Lake Sammamish for a submerged line.
However, there are a number of technical issues that constrain the feasibility of a Lake
Sammamish submerged line. These include the following:
x Submerged cables are typically delivered to a site by ship or barge. Large barges
cannot access Lake Sammamish due to the weir at the outlet.
x Weight limits on highways would limit the length of cable reels to 1,100 feet, which
would mean approximately 34 splices to reach the length of the lake.
x Highway transport may also be limited due to the 14-foot reel diameter.
x Underwater splices increase the risk of cable failure, while splices on land require
construction of a vault at each splice. (Strauch, personal communication, 2015b)
Given these constraints, placing a cable in Lake Sammamish was deemed to not be a viable
option.
2.4.5 Other Approaches
An alternative addressing a phased approach is not included because it would not address the
quickly approaching transmission capacity deficiency during peak periods identified in the
Eastside (electrical criterion #10).
Combining alternatives that provide partial solutions was suggested during scoping.
Combinations of various solutions were considered. Alternative 2 includes suggested
components that would directly address the transmission capacity deficiency in the Eastside
that has been identified by PSE. Combinations with other components that would either
increase the problem or have little or no effect, such as those listed above, were not carried
forward.
January 2016 CHAPTER 2
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 2-53
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
January 2016 CHAPTER 2
PROJECT A LTLTTERNATATTIVES 2-53
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
DSD 011208
011286
Solving the Eastside deficiency requires a reliable alternative composed of one or more of the
following:
x A new high-voltage energy source from the outside brought into the deficiency area;
x A new generation source or energy storage of sufficient size and duration installed
within the deficiency area; and/or
x Reduction in electrical load during peak demand periods.
Alternatives that would violate PSE’s Planning Standards and Guidelines (such as changing a
transmission line from AC to DC) or that could harm other utilities in the region (such as
disconnecting the Eastside from the regional grid during peak periods) would not become
compliant by combining them with other alternatives (electrical criterion #1). Alternatives
that would reduce the availability of power to the Eastside (such as limiting the flow of
power from sources outside of the Eastside) would require even greater measures to
compensate for the reduced power supply to the Eastside (such as new generation or storage,
more conservation, or new transmission capacity) and as such would likely have greater
impacts than the alternatives that are evaluated in the EIS (electrical criteria #1, 5, 6, and 14).
Among the alternatives suggested, this leaves only the alternatives that will be studied and a
few alternatives that provide temporary solutions, such as increasing the capacity of wires
and transformers, or temporary rerouting of power during peak periods. Combining
temporary solutions with the alternatives included in the EIS does not materially change the
range of alternatives for the EIS, although such measures could reduce the severity or risk of
impacts under the No Action Alternative.
Reducing the scope to include only Bellevue would require a generation facility within the
Bellevue city limits, which is not included for the same reasons as indicated earlier under
Larger Generation Facilities, or a solution similar to the Integrated Resource Approach
(Alternative 2). Therefore, narrowing the scope to include only Bellevue will not be
considered as a separate alternative.
2.5 BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF DELAYING
THE PROPOSAL
Delaying the project would have the benefit of avoiding the impacts in the near future for the
action alternatives described in the EIS. It is possible that by delaying the project, some of the
expanded conservation measures described in Alternative 2 would be incorporated into
development, reducing energy demand further than PSE has projected. Additional
conservation could have the benefit of reducing greenhouse gas generation from electrical
consumption on the Eastside. Delaying the project could allow technological advancements
to occur in areas such as battery storage or generation, providing additional feasible
alternatives to increased transmission capacity in the near term.
The disadvantages of delaying the project are that the risks of power outages (described in
Chapter 1) that would be associated with the No Action Alternative could develop over time.
It is also possible that the awareness of such risks would discourage development within the
Eastside.
CHAPTER 2 January 2016
2 -5 4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
CHAPTER 2 January 2016
2 -5 4 PROJECT ALTLTTERNATATTIVES
PHASE 1 DRAFT EIS
DSD 011209
011287
Alternative Siting Analysis
So uth Bellevue Segment
LUC 20.20.225.D
September 2017
000222
September 2017 2
The Alternative Siting Analysis that follows summarizes the years of study (including dozens of
technical studies and two-phases of review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA))
required to reach a decision point on how to best meet growing demand and ensure PSE’s
compliance with federal performance standards.
PSE proposes the Energize Eastside Project--the upgrading of 115 kV transmission lines to 230
kV lines in an existing transmission line corridor and the construction of the Richards Creek
substation. In the Bellevue Comprehensive Plan, PSE’s proposed route is on a “sensitive site.”
See Map UT-7. For new or expanded utility facilities on sensitive sites, an Alternative Siting
Analysis is required in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit process. See LUC
20.20.255.D.
Under the City’s land use code, an Alternative Siting Analysis must: 1) identify, describe and
map three alternative site options; 2) analyze whether each alternative site is feasible; 3)
describe the technologies considered and how the proposed facilities will improve system
reliability; and 4) describe community outreach related to the new or expanded facilities. See
LUC 20.20.255.D. Where proposed sites are located within a Neighborhood Business or
Residential Land Use District, the applicant must 1) describe whether the proposed location is a
consequence of demands from customers within the district and 2) describe whether operational
need requires locating the proposed facility in the district. Id. Using the location selection
hierarchy, the applicant must then identify the preferred site alternative. Id. Finally, where the
preferred site is in a Residential Land Use District, the applicant must demonstrate that the
siting causes fewer site compatibility impacts than a nonresidential siting. Id.
2.0 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
After extensive study, PSE determined that the most effective solution to meet increased
electricity demand and to comply with federal performance requirements is the addition of a 230
kV/115 kV substation in the center of the Eastside load area -- the Richards Creek substation --
and the upgrading of 115 kV transmission lines with 230 kV transmission lines constructed
between the Sammamish (Redmond) and Talbot Hill (Renton) substations.1 These facility
upgrades, combined with continued aggressive conservation measures, is the Energize
Eastside Project.2 As confirmed by the City’s independent consultants, this Project will improve
1 The existing transmission lines were last upgraded in the 1960s and are located in
PSE’s Sammamish – Lakeside – Talbot Hill transmission line corridor, which was established in
the late 1920s and early 1930s.
2 Notably, the City’s Phase 2 DEIS concluded that “Under the No Action Alternative, PSE
would continue to manage its system in largely the same manner as at present. This includes
000227
September 2017 3
reliability for Eastside communities and supply the needed electrical capacity for growth and
development on the Eastside.
Siting of electrical transmission infrastructure through urbanized areas presents unique
challenges. Finding the best way to route a transmission line is complex, as dozens of
elements of both the natural and built environments need to be considered. This is especially
true here as the proposed Project traverses the City from north to south.
The Project will be constructed in two phases, with the southern phase of the transmission line
traversing 3.3 miles of the City. As a linear project, it necessarily travels through many land use
districts. To limit the need to construct new facilities (and the associated environmental
impacts), when looking at the entirety of the Energize Eastside Project, all transmission line
route alternatives start at PSE’s Sammamish substation in Redmond and end at the Talbot Hill
substation in Renton. PSE considered various routing options for the entire line, including five
route options in the South Bellevue Segment.
PSE determined that the best approach to route selection would be to use a modern tool that
employed a graphical information system (GIS)-based Linear Routing Tool (LRT) to conduct a
broad evaluation of possible transmission line routes.
To further evaluate the Transformer plus Transmission Line solution, PSE contracted Tetra
Tech, a consulting and engineering firm, who has developed an LRT. Details of the LRT
assessment can be found in the Eastside 230 kV Project Constraint and Opportunity Study for
Linear Site Selection (December 2013) (Attachment C). The LRT is a tool developed by Tetra
Tech based on commercially-available geospatial technology and Tetra Tech’s linear routing
experience. It is a collaborative process that combines powerful analytical software with project
experience, system planning, engineering, land use and local knowledge considerations. The
LRT’s innovative geospatial tool identifies the most suitable route alternatives based on
modeled environmental and infrastructure factors and constraints.
maintenance programs to reduce the likelihood of equipment failure, and stockpiling additional
equipment so that in the event of a failure, repairs could be made as quickly as possible.
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not meet PSE’s objectives for the proposed
project, which are to maintain a reliable electrical system and to address a deficiency in
transmission capacity on the Eastside. Implementation of the No Action Alternative would
increase the risk to the Eastside of power outages or system damage during peak power
events.” Phase 2 DEIS at 2-3.
000228
September 2017 5
Willow 1 route to limit environmental impacts and new impacts to adjacent uses. In addition,
pipeline safety experts concluded that the Willow 1 route gives PSE the greatest assurance that
the Energize Eastside Project will operate safely in the same corridor as BP’s Olympic Pipeline.
LUC 20.20.255D.2.a. Describe the sites identified in subsection D.1 of this section and the land
use districts within which the sites are located.
[...]
LUC 20.20.255D.2.c. Describe which of the sites analyzed are considered practical or feasible
alternatives by the applicant, and which of the sites analyzed are not considered practical or
feasible, together with supporting information that justifies that conclusions reached. For sites
located within a Neighborhood Business Land Use District, Residential Land Use District, and/or
Transition Area (including the Bel-Red Office/Residential Transition (BR-ORT), the applicant
shall:
i. Describe whether the electrical utility facility location is a consequence of needs
or demands from customers located within the district area; and
ii. Describe whether the operational needs of the applicant require location of the
electrical utility facility in the district or area.
The Energize Eastside Project serves all of the potentially impacted land uses as in general, all
land uses require electricity. The Energize Eastside Project will provide an upgraded, reliable
transmission system serving the Eastside generally and adjacent uses specifically. The Project
is needed because cumulatively, demand on the Eastside is increasing, including in areas along
the South Bellevue Segment. The transmission line component of the project must run between
the Sammamish and Talbot Hill substations. It must also connect with the proposed Richards
Creek substation. The location of the substation is not dependent on being sited in a specific
district; however, it does need to be situated in a location that the most reliable operation. Based
on operational best practices, the ideal location for the new 230 kV substation is located in close
proximity to PSE’s existing 115 kV Lakeside substation. In addition, operationally, the
transmission line must transverse through the City of Bellevue from the north to the south,
making it impossible to completely avoid areas of residential zoning. The existing corridor
(Willow 1) provides the shortest distance through the city and therefore, crosses the least
amount of residential zoning.
As required under LUC 20.20.255.D.1 and LUC 20.20.255.D.2.c.i-.ii, all siting alternatives are
located in land use districts served by the South Bellevue Segment. T he City of Bellevue's and
000230
September 2017 13
The subarea plan policies of each of the subareas within the Oak 1 Option support
growth in similar land use patterns as those that currently exist.
There are 212 single-family and 287 multi-family residences within this option.
Phase 2 DEIS at 3.1-13. Approximately 18% of the Oak 1 route would impact Single and
Multi-Family uses.
Consistent with the City’s Phase 2 DEIS, PSE considers this route to be feasible. See LUC
20.20.255.D.2.c. PSE ultimately eliminated this route from consideration, however, because
from a safety perspective, the Willow 1 route has the lowest potential AC interaction with the
petroleum pipelines that share the corridor. Additionally, the Willow 1 route requires the fewest
number of trees to be removed in order to comply with NERC standards and uses an existing
transmission line corridor. The use of an existing corridor does not impose a new transmission
line on new areas, does not require the acquisition of new easements, and is specifically
identified on Bellevue’s Comprehensive Plan UT-7 map as being expanded to 230 kV.
The substation yard needs to be large enough to accommodate a new 230 kV-115 kV
transformer and associated electrical equipment such as circuit breakers, electrical bus, and
connections to the new transmission lines. It is expected that the substation’s fenced yard will
be approximately 2 acres. The main function of the substation is to step down the 230 kV
voltage (bulk power) from the new transmission lines to 115 kV needed for use by the local
distribution system. All substation locations are considered to be feasible. LUC
20.20.255.D.2.c.
Three 230-115 kV substation sites were considered for the Energize Eastside Project - referred
to as Westminster, Vernell, and Richards Creek. These sites were selected for consideration
because they are all owned by PSE; meet the objectives to site the 230 kV transformer at a
central location between the existing 230 kV power sources at Sammamish substation in
Redmond and Talbot substation in Renton; accommodate the necessary improvements to serve
the required 230 kV transmission lines to bring power to the centralized transformer; and
distribute power to the existing network of 115 kV transmission lines.. Of the three substation
sites, only Richards Creek is located within the Southern Phase; however, since the primary
objective of the Energize Eastside Project is to install a new transformation source in the central
Bellevue area, their inclusion is relevant.
000238
September 2017 23
during PSE’s 2009 annual reliability assessment, that if one of the Talbot Hill Substation
transformers failed, it would significantly impair reliability on the Eastside. Replacement of a
failed 230 kV transformer can take weeks, or even months, to complete depending on the level
of failure and other site specific parameters. Since 2009, other reliability deficits have been
identified. These include concerns over the projected future loading on the Talbot Hill Substation
and increasing use of Corrective Action Plans (CAPs) to manage outage risks to customers in
this portion of the PSE system.
In total, since 2009, five separate studies6 (Attachment C) performed by four separate parties
have confirmed the need to address Eastside transmission capacity:
Electrical Reliability Study by Exponent, 2012 (City of Bellevue)
Eastside Needs Assessment Report by Quanta Services, 2013 (PSE)
Supplemental Eastside Needs Assessment Report by Quanta Services, 2015 (PSE)
Independent Technical Analysis by Utility Systems Efficiencies, Inc., 2015 (City of
Bellevue)
Review Memo by Stantec Consulting Services Inc., 2015 (EIS consultant).7
The studies performed by PSE in 2013 and 2015 confirmed that the Eastside’s existing grid will
not meet federal reliability requirements by the winter of 2017/2018 and the summer of 2018
without the addition of 230 kV to 115 kV transformer capacity in the Eastside area.
LUC 20.20.255.D.3c. Describe components of the proposed electrical utility facility that relate to
system reliability.
PSE’s proposal is to install and operate a new 230 kV to 115 kV electrical transformer in the
center of the Eastside load area. The ideal location for the new transformer is in close proximity
to PSE’s existing Lakeside 115 kV substation, which provides the connection to the existing 115
kV electrical system that serves the surrounding distribution substations. The new 230 kV to
115 kV transformer is the principal component that will allow the Eastside electrical system to
reliably operate and meet Federal P lanning standards. To operate the new transformer it must
be served by approximately 18 miles of new high-capacity electric transmission lines (230 kV)
extending from Redmond in the north and Renton to the south. The transformer would be
6 These studies provide evidence relevant to the City’s review under LUC 20.20.255.E.4
and LUC 20.20.255.D.3.b & c.
7 The City’s consultants evaluation concluded as follows: “...PSE[‘s] needs assessment
was overall very thorough and applied methods considered to be the industry standard for
planning of this nature. Based on the information that the needs assessment contains, I concur
with the conclusion that there is a transmission capacity deficiency in PSE’s system on the
Eastside that requires attention in the near future.” (DeClerck, Review Memo by Stantec
Consulting Services Inc., July 31, 2015).
000248
Energize Eastside Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement
VOLUME 1
MARCH 2018
PREPARED FOR:
The Cities of Bellevue, Newcastle,
Redmond and Renton
PREPARED BY:
ESA
DSD 005391
005469
&/E> /^W' ϭͲϰ
,Wd Zϭ/EdZKhd/KEΘ^hDDZzDZ,ϮϬϭϴ
7KH3KDVH'UDIW(,6 UHOHDVHGLQ-DQXDU\ EURDGO\HYDOXDWHGWKHJHQHUDOLPSDFWVDQG
LPSOLFDWLRQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKIHDVLEOHDQGUHDVRQDEOHDOWHUQDWLYHVDYDLODEOHWRDGGUHVV36(¶VLGHQWLILHG
REMHFWLYHVIRUWKHSURMHFW7KH3KDVH'UDIW(,6 UHOHDVHGLQ0D\ ZDVDSURMHFWOHYHO
HYDOXDWLRQGHVFULELQJLPSDFWVDWDVLWHVSHFLILFDQGSURMHFWVSHFLILFOHYHOIRUDJURXSRIVHJPHQWV
DQGRSWLRQVWKDWZRXOGPHHW36(¶VREMHFWLYHVDWDFRQFHSWXDOGHVLJQOHYHO7KLV)LQDO(,6IRFXVHV
RQDVLQJOHURXWHDOLJQPHQW 36(¶V3URSRVHG$OLJQPHQW LQIRUPHGE\WKHUHVXOWVRIWKH3KDVHDQG
3KDVHDQDO\VHV7KLVDSSURDFKLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHUHTXLUHPHQWVIRU3KDVHG5HYLHZRXWOLQHGLQ
:$& F 7KH3DUWQHU&LWLHVKDYHQRWLGHQWLILHGDSUHIHUUHGDOWHUQDWLYHQRUKDYHWKH\
PDGHDILQDOGHFLVLRQRQDQ\SRUWLRQRIWKHSURMHFW
7KLVSURMHFWOHYHO(,6EHJDQDWDQHDUO\VWDJHRIGHVLJQGHYHORSPHQWIRUWKHSURMHFW36(¶VSURMHFW
GHVLJQKDVEHHQUHILQHGVLQFHSXEOLFDWLRQRIWKH3KDVH'UDIW(,6LQFOXGLQJURXWHSUHIHUHQFHDQG
GHVLJQGHWDLOVVXFKDVSROHW\SHVORFDWLRQVYROWDJHFRQILJXUDWLRQDQGDVVRFLDWHGSURMHFW
FRPSRQHQWV7KLVLVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKUXOHVWKDWLQWHQGIRU6(3$WREH³integrated with agency
activities at the earliest possible time to ensure that planning and decisions reflect environmental
values, to avoid delays later in the process, and to seek to resolve potential problems´ :$&
,QIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKHSURMHFWLVDSSUR[LPDWHDQGVXEMHFWWRFKDQJHDQGUHILQHPHQWDVWKH
GHVLJQLVGHYHORSHGEXWLVDFFXUDWHHQRXJKWRGHWHUPLQHWKHLPSDFWVH[SHFWHGIURPWKHSURMHFW
:KHUHWKHUHLVXQFHUWDLQW\DERXWSRWHQWLDOLPSDFWVWKH)LQDO(,6XVHVFRQVHUYDWLYHO\KLJKLPSDFW
DVVXPSWLRQVWRHQVXUHWKDWDQ\SRWHQWLDOVLJQLILFDQWLPSDFWVDUHDGGUHVVHG
1.3APPLICANT’S OBJECTIVES FOR THE ENERGIZE
EASTSIDE PROJECT
36(KDVGHWHUPLQHGWKDWWKHUHLVDQHHGWRFRQVWUXFWDQHZN9EXONHOHFWULFDOWUDQVPLVVLRQOLQH
DQGDQDVVRFLDWHGHOHFWULFDOVXEVWDWLRQHDVWRI/DNH:DVKLQJWRQWRVXSSO\IXWXUHHOHFWULFDOFDSDFLW\
DQGLPSURYHWKHUHOLDELOLW\RIWKH(DVWVLGH¶VHOHFWULFDOJULG36(SUHSDUHGWZRVWXGLHVWKDWGHVFULEH
WKHQHHG WKHEastside Needs Assessment Report DQGWKH Supplemental Eastside Needs Assessment
Report *HQWLOHHWDO 7KHVHDUHUHIHUUHGWRFROOHFWLYHO\DV36(¶V(DVWVLGH1HHGV
$VVHVVPHQWDVGHVFULEHGLQPRUHGHWDLOLQWKH3KDVH'UDIW(,66HFWLRQ%DVHGRQ36(¶VQHHGV
DQDO\VLV36(HVWDEOLVKHGEURDGREMHFWLYHVIRUWKHSURMHFWDVIROORZV
x$GGUHVV36(¶VLGHQWLILHGGHILFLHQF\LQWUDQVPLVVLRQFDSDFLW\
x)LQGDVROXWLRQWKDWFDQEHIHDVLEO\LPSOHPHQWHGEHIRUHV\VWHPUHOLDELOLW\LVLPSDLUHG
x%HRIUHDVRQDEOHSURMHFWFRVW
x0HHWIHGHUDOVWDWHDQGORFDOUHJXODWRU\UHTXLUHPHQWV
x$GGUHVV36(¶VHOHFWULFDODQGQRQHOHFWULFDOFULWHULDIRUWKHSURMHFW
0RUHGHWDLOVRQWKHSURMHFWREMHFWLYHVLQFOXGLQJ36(¶VHOHFWULFDODQGQRQHOHFWULFDOFULWHULDDUH
GHVFULEHGLQGHWDLOLQ&KDSWHUVDQGRIWKH3KDVH'UDIW(,6
$VRXWOLQHGLQ:$& D WKHOHDGDJHQF\LVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUHQVXULQJWKDWDSURSRVDO
WKDWLVWKHVXEMHFWRIHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZLVSURSHUO\GHILQHG7KHSURFHVVRIGHILQLQJWKHSURSRVDO
LQFOXGHVDQXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHQHHGIRUWKHSURMHFWWRHQDEOHDWKRURXJKXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKH
SURMHFW¶VREMHFWLYHV VHH6HFWLRQRIWKH3KDVH'UDIW(,6 DQGWHFKQLFDOUHTXLUHPHQWVDQGWR
DFFXUDWHO\LGHQWLI\IHDVLEOHDQGUHDVRQDEOHSURMHFWDOWHUQDWLYHVIRUFRQVLGHUDWLRQLQWKH(,6
$FFRUGLQJWR:$& D LLL SURSRVDOVVKRXOGEHGHVFULEHGLQZD\VWKDWHQFRXUDJH
DSD 005413
005491
&/E> /^W' ϭͲϱ
,Wd Zϭ/EdZKhd/KEΘ^hDDZzDZ,ϮϬϭϴ
FRQVLGHULQJDQGFRPSDULQJDOWHUQDWLYHVDQGDJHQFLHVDUHHQFRXUDJHGWRGHVFULEHSURSRVDOVLQWHUPV
RIREMHFWLYHVUDWKHUWKDQSUHIHUUHGVROXWLRQV$QXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHQHHGIRUWKHSURMHFWKHOSVWR
FODULI\WKHREMHFWLYHVXVHGWRGHYHORSSURMHFWDOWHUQDWLYHV
7KLV)LQDO(,6ZLOOQRWEHXVHGWRUHMHFWRUYDOLGDWHWKHQHHGIRUWKHSURMHFW LWZLOOEHXVHGWRLQIRUP
GHFLVLRQPDNHUVUHYLHZLQJODQGXVHSHUPLWVWKDW36(ZLOOQHHGWRVHFXUHIURPHDFKDIIHFWHG
MXULVGLFWLRQWREXLOGWKHSURSRVHGVXEVWDWLRQDQGWUDQVPLVVLRQOLQH7KH(,6SURFHVVLVLQWHQGHGWR
LGHQWLI\UHDVRQDEOHDOWHUQDWLYHVWKDWFRXOGDWWDLQRUDSSUR[LPDWH36(¶VREMHFWLYHVDWDORZHU
HQYLURQPHQWDOFRVWDQGGLVFORVHSRWHQWLDOVLJQLILFDQWDGYHUVHHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVDVVRFLDWHGZLWK
WKHDOWHUQDWLYHVDQDO\]HG
7KHGHILFLHQF\LQWUDQVPLVVLRQFDSDFLW\RQWKH(DVWVLGHLGHQWLILHGE\36(LVEDVHGRQDQXPEHURI
IDFWRUV.H\IDFWRUVLQFOXGHJURZLQJSRSXODWLRQDQGHPSOR\PHQWLQWKH(DVWVLGHFKDQJLQJ
FRQVXPSWLRQSDWWHUQVDVVRFLDWHGZLWKODUJHUEXLOGLQJVPRUHDLUFRQGLWLRQHGVSDFHDQGFKDQJLQJ
XWLOLW\UHJXODWLRQVWKDWUHTXLUHDKLJKHUVWDQGDUGRIHOHFWULFDOV\VWHPUHVLOLHQFHWKDQZDVUHTXLUHGLQ
WKHSDVW+HLJKWHQHGFRQFHUQVDERXWUHVLOLHQFHWKDWXQGHUOLHWKHUHJXODWRU\FKDQJHVWUDFHEDFNWRDQ
$XJXVWEODFNRXWLQWKH0LGZHVWHUQDQG1RUWKHDVWHUQSRUWLRQVRI1RUWK$PHULFDWKDWDIIHFWHG
PLOOLRQFXVWRPHUV
36(KDVFRQFOXGHGWKDWWKHPRVWHIIHFWLYHDQGFRVWHIILFLHQWVROXWLRQWRPHHWLWVREMHFWLYHVLVWRVLWHD
QHZN9WUDQVIRUPHULQWKHFHQWHURIWKH(DVWVLGHZKLFKZRXOGEHIHGE\QHZN9
WUDQVPLVVLRQOLQHVIURPWKHQRUWKDQGVRXWK 6WDQWHF
7KH(DVWVLGHSRSXODWLRQLVH[SHFWHGWRJURZDWDUDWHRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWDQQXDOO\RYHUWKH
QH[WGHFDGHDQGHPSOR\PHQWLVH[SHFWHGWRJURZDWDQDQQXDOUDWHRIDSSUR[LPDWHO\SHUFHQWD
SURMHFWLRQEDVHGRQLQWHUQDOIRUHFDVWLQJFRQGXFWHGE\36(*LYHQWKHQDWXUHRIH[SHFWHG
GHYHORSPHQW36(KDVSURMHFWHGWKDWSHDNHOHFWULFDOGHPDQGZLWKLQWKH(DVWVLGHZLOOJURZDWDQ
DQQXDOUDWHRISHUFHQW7KLVIRUHFDVWLVEDVHGRQWKHFRQFHSWWKDWHFRQRPLFDFWLYLW\KDVD
VLJQLILFDQWHIIHFWRQHQHUJ\GHPDQG$VGHVFULEHGLQ36(¶VEastside Needs AssessmentWKLVJURZWK
UDWHWDNHVLQWRDFFRXQWSRSXODWLRQDQGHPSOR\PHQWJURZWKDVZHOODVH[SHFWHG³block load´JURZWK
WKDW36(LVDZDUHZLOOEHFRPLQJLQWKHQH[W\HDUV *HQWLOHHWDO
:LWKRXWDGGLQJWUDQVPLVVLRQFDSDFLW\IRUORFDOSHDNSHULRGVLQWKH(DVWVLGHDGHILFLHQF\FRXOG
GHYHORSDVHDUO\DVZLQWHURI±ZLWKSRWHQWLDOIRUload
shedding IRUFHGSRZHURXWDJHV E\VXPPHURI 36(
D 7RDGGUHVVWKLVULVNLQWKHQHDUWHUP36(ZRXOGFRQWLQXH
WRGHSOR\DQGH[SDQGWKHXVHRIDVHULHVRIRSHUDWLRQDOVWHSVWR
SUHYHQWV\VWHPRYHUORDGVRUODUJHVFDOHORVVRIFXVWRPHUV¶SRZHU
WKHVHVWHSVDUHUHIHUUHGWRDVCorrective Action Plans (CAPs).
&$3VJHQHUDOO\LQYROYHVKXWWLQJRIIRUUHGXFLQJORDGRQ
RYHUORDGHGHTXLSPHQWDQGUHURXWLQJWKHORDGWRRWKHUHTXLSPHQW
7KH&$3VDUHVHHQDVWHPSRUDU\PHDVXUHVWRNHHSWKHHQWLUH
V\VWHPRSHUDWLQJEXWWKH\FDQSODFHODUJHQXPEHUVRIFXVWRPHUV
DWULVNRIDSRZHURXWDJH HJUROOLQJEODFNRXWSODQ LIDQ\WKLQJ
HOVHRQWKHV\VWHPEHJLQVWRIDLO&$3VDUHGHVFULEHGLQPRUH
1 See U.S. - Canada Power System Outage Task Force Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United
States and Canada: Causes and Recommendations, April 2004.
2 PSE annually updates projected electrical demand systemwide; however, it does not develop annual estimates for
the Eastside only.
Block loads are substantial
increases in expected
electrical demand from
individual customers, typically
industrial, commercial, or
institutional customers. PSE
regularly communicates with
large customers to estimate
upcoming block load to
ensure that their supply and
distribution system will be
capable of serving the need.
DSD 005414
005492
1
Ordinance No. 6494
CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 6494
AN ORDINANCE denying appeals of the Hearing
Examiner’s decision approving a Conditional Use Permit
with conditions, on the application of Puget Sound Energy
for the South Bellevue Segment of the Energize Eastside
Project located at 13625 SE 30th Street and south to the
Bellevue city limits at 6927 128th Place SE, Application No.
17-120556-LB; approving said Conditional Use Permit;
and establishing an effective date.
WHEREAS, on September 8, 2017 Puget Sound Energy (PSE) submitted an
application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the construction of a new substation
and 230 kilovolt (kV) transmission lines located within the Bellevue City limits (the
“South Bellevue Segment of the Energize Eastside Project”); and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Application was published on October 12, 2017 and
public meetings were held on November 14, 2017 and September 6, 2018; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2019, the City’s Land Use Director recommended
approval of PSE’s CUP application; and
WHEREAS, on March 28, 2019, March 29, 2019, April 3, 2019, and April 8,
2019, the Bellevue Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the CUP
application, pursuant to notice as required by law; and
WHEREAS, on June 25, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued his Findings of
Fact, Conclusions, and Decision approving the CUP for the South Bellevue Segment
of the Energize Eastside Project with conditions , on July 3, 2019 issued an Errata
correcting typographical errors, and on August 13, 2019, issued an Errata Correcting
Exhibit List (hereafter collectively referred to as the “Hearing Examiner’s Decision”);
and
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2019 Citizens for Sane Eastside Energy (CSEE),
Coalition of Eastside Neighbors for Sensible Energy (CENSE), Norm Hansen, Lorretta
Lopez, and Warren Halverson filed appeals of the Hearing Examiner’s Decision; and
WHEREAS, following a limited appeal hearing in front of the City Council on
October 16, 2019, and further discussion and deliberation by Council, at its November
14, 2019 meeting, the City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance denying the
appeals, incorporating and adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law from
the Hearing Examiner’s Decision, and approving PSE’s CUP application, as approved
by the Hearing Examiner, now, therefore,
2
Ordinance No. 6494
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BELLEVUE, WASHINGTON, DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council concludes that appellants CSEE, CENSE, Norm
Hansen, Lorretta Lopez, and Warren Halverson have failed to meet their burden to
prove that the Hearing Examiner’s Decision was not supported by material and
substantial evidence in the record and their appeals are hereby denied.
Section 2. The City Council concludes it has no jurisdiction to decide the
constitutional due process claims, claims of bias by the Hearing Examiner, or
challenges to the adequacy of the SEPA Environmental Impact Statement raised in
the appeals.
Section 3. The City Council concludes that the City’s Land Use Code does not
require PSE to submit one CUP application for both the North and South segments
and that the only CUP application before the Hearing Examiner was for the South
Bellevue Segment.
Section 4. The City Council adopts the Hearing Examiner’s Findings of Fact
and Conclusions.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions, and as
conditioned by the Hearing Examiner, the City Council hereby approves the
Conditional Use Permit application of PSE for the South Segment of the Energize
Eastside Project, Application No. 17-120556-LB.
Section 6. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force five (5) days after
passage and legal publication.
3
Ordinance No. 6494
Passed by the City Council this _____ day of , 2019
and signed in authentication of its passage this ______ day of ,
2019.
(SEAL)
John Chelminiak, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Kathryn Gerla, City Attorney
Kathleen Kline, Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Charmaine Arredondo, City Clerk
Published
000001
000002
000100
000111