The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20200309 CENSE Response to PSE Reconsideration motion1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ln Re Puget Sound Energize Eastside Conditional Use Permit LUA1 8-OOOO55, CU-H, SME RESPONSE OF CENSE TO PSE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION - 1 Honorable Phil Olbrechts RESPONSE OF CENSE TO PSE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION LAw OFFtcEs oF J. RICHARD ARAMBURU, PLL('705 2ND AVE.. SUITF I 3OOSEATTLE qEto4.tzsT (206) 625.9515FAX (206) 6a2.13?6 BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON No. LUA18-000055 1. INTRODUCTION. on February 27,2020, Puget sound Energy ("psE") filed a "Request for Clarification" with the proviso that it should be construed as a motion for reconsideration if the Hearing Examiner did not resolve the "clarification" request before the deadline for reconsideration motions. As no action was taken by the Examiner, this response is provided to the reconsideration motion. Herein CENSE comments on the PSE motion and seeks further clarification of important public health and safety matters. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF OLYMPIC PIPELINE. At pages 4-5, the PSE Reconsideration request deals with the leak detection system operated by the owner of the petroleum pipes under consideration, the Olympic Pipeline Company ("OPC"). PSE requests that certain language in the decision be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 clarified to state that "substantial evidence in the record confirms that PSE's proposal does not increase pipeline leaks and that PSE bears no responsibility of Olympic Pipeline's facilities." /d. This request raises issues of responsibility for the petroleum pipelines at issue. While PSE has presented certain evidence, the record appears not to contain any statements or confirmation from OPC itself regarding PSE's studies or reports. pSE makes clear in its motion that it "has no legal authority to manage or operate Olympic Pipeline's facilities." As pointed out in the Phase 1 DEIS at page 16-31, with the change from 1 15 kV to 230 kV in the easement, "there may be a need for changes to the cathodic protection on natural gas pipelines and the Olympic Pipeline to address the change in EMF." That section indicates that such changes are the responsibility of the pipeline owner and "would be determined by the utility owner on a case-by-case basis." /d- The Examiner should insist on confirmation from OPC itself that the studies are acceptable to them, that they meet their own standards and will install such additional measures as necessary to protect public safety. 3. EQUIVALENT VOLTAGE. On page 5, the PSE requests a condition that "PSE shall operate both transmission lines at equivalent voltage ratings, except as necessary to respond to emergencv situations." (Emphasis supplied.) CENSE notes that for the first three years of the life of this project, pSE proposed to energize one transmission line at 1 1 5 kV and the other at 230 kV because there was not demand for the power from two 230 kV lines. As stated in the phase 1 DEIS at page 2-21: substation and the Talbot H ln the near term, one of the existing 11 ill substatio 5 kV lines between the Lakeside n may need to be rebuilt with a 1 1S kVline type 230 line RESPONSE OF CENSE TO PSE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION - 2 that provides a higher .(including size and ap kV line; therefore, thd capacity. There would be litfle difference in conductorpearance)1 15 kV line and asame line for a future 230 kV there are cost encles with insta rng a secon ctrcu it LAw OFFICES oF J. RIcHARD ARAMBURU, ptt( 705 2 "' AVE., SUITE I 3OOSEATTLE 9at0+.179?(206) 625.9sr5FAX (206) 6a2.t3?6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 transmissio.n facility in the-same corridor as the proposed 230 kV line. pSE willconsider this as part of efforts to identify the leait cbstly infrastructure to serve itscustomers. (Emphasis supplied.) CENSE recognizes that the operational regime of the project has changed because PSE overlooked, or ignored, the unacceptable risk to pipeline and public safety involving PSE's planned 1151230 kV operation. However, as demonstrated by CENSE at hearing, the need for power on the Eastside has actually declined since the Phase 1 DEIS was produced in 2016, resulting in even less need for two 230 kV lines. While it is understood that at most times, the two lines will operate at 230 kV, PSE seeks authority to operate at different voltage ratings "to respond to emergency situations." But there is no indication as to what is considerered an "emergency situation," nor how long operation at nonequivalent voltages would continue. The record indicates that PSE does not need full scale 230 kV + 230 kV operation to meet need, thus creating an incentive to operate at voltages consistent with current need. For example, if one line is out of service because of maintenance or other circumstances, presumeably one line would continue to operate, but how long would such operation exist? lf it takes a week or two weeks to repair the out-of-service lines, will there be a single 230 kV line operating during that extended period? These background circumstances support the need to establish much more definitive and rigorous conditions as to what is, or is not, an "emergency" rather than leaving it to PSE's discretion. Given the risk to public safety with high volume petroleum just a few feet from the new transmission, such conditions are appropriate to meet public health and safety requirements. 4. CONCLUSTON. The Examiner should carefully consider PSE's reconsideration requests and assure operation of its lines are consistent with public health and safety. The Examiner should require that the pipeline operator confirm PSE's studies and mitigations are RESPONSE OF CENSE TO PSE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION - 3 LAw OFFtcES oFRICHARD ARAMBURU, PLLc 7O5 2'D AVE,. SUITI I 3OOSEATTLE 9A104.1797 1206) 625.9s15FAX (206) 6A2,1376 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 consistent with their procedures. The Examiner should also require additional detail concerning "emergency] situations. DArED tnis thay of Ma rch,2020 J chard Aramburu,S #466 Attorney for Petitioner CENSE RESPONSE OF CENSE TO PSE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION - 4 LAw Orrrcrs or RTcHARD ARAMBURU, PLLC705 2^. AVE., SUITE 1300SEATTLD 9AtO4.t?97 12061 62s.9s15 FAX (206) 6A2.1376 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 I I 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I am an employee in the Law Offices of J. Richard Aramburu PLLC, over eighteen years of age and competent to be a witness herein. On the date below I e- mailed to counsel of record copies of the foregoing Motion, addressed as follows: City of Renton Hearing Examiner Phil Olbrechts, olbrechtslaw@gmail.com Renton City Clerk, Jason Seth, iseth@rentonwa.gov Jill Ding, Planner, Jding@Rentonwa.gov Larry Johnson larry.ede@gmail.com for CSEE Sara A. Leverette sleverette@vnf.com plus SAL@vnf.com, and Erin L. Anderson eanderson@vnf.com (PSE attorneys, Van Ness Feldman) I'sha M. Willis willis@vnf.com I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DATED this _ day of February, 2020. Law Offices of J. Richard Aramburu, PLLC &--( 4/-*-, Carol Gohoe, Legal Assistant RESPONSE OF CENSE TO PSE MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR RECONSIDERATION - 5 LAw OFFtcEs oF J. RIcHARD ARAMBURU, PLLc 705 2*'AVE., SUTTE 1300SEATTLE 9ar04,1797(206) 625,95t5rAX (206) 6A2.73?6