COMMONWEALTH OF p STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION O APPLICATION OF & a w VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY CASE NO. PUE-2015-00133 p. Un For approval and certification of § o electric transmission facilities: transmission f crco line rebuild of Belvoir-Gum Springs double circuit --c?nio 230 kV lines #204 and #220 JS ^<2 NO oruj O" OKI REPORT OF HOWARD P. ANDERSON. JR.. HEARING EXAMINER "0 oo UJ oZ! mo July 26, 2016 o 5™ en Fn 33 This case-involves the request of Dominion Virginia Power for approval to rebuild certain transmission facilities in Fairfax County. The record of this case supports approval of the rebuild of the facilities with certain modifications. A Stipulation was reached by the parties resolving engineering, environmental, and cost issues and is attached to this Report.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

On December 16, 2015, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Dominion Virginia Power" or "Company") filed with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") an application ("Apphcation") for approval and for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the proposed transmission line rebuild of 230 kV double circuit lines. Dominion Virginia Power filed the Application pursuant to § 56-46.1 of the Code of Virginia ("Code") and the Utility Facilities Act, § 56-265.1 etseq.

Pursuant to the Application, the Company proposes to rebuild, entirely within existing right- of-way, approximately 2.6 miles of existing 230 kV transmission lines: Jefferson Street-Gum Springs Line #204 and Ox-Gum Springs Line #220, located entirely within Fairfax County, Virginia (the "Rebuild Project"). Dominion Virginia Power states in its Application that the Rebuild Project is necessary for the Company to maintain the structural integrity and reliability of its transmission system. The Company further states that the Rebuild Project is necessary to maintain reliable electric service to its customers in the area and to perform needed maintenance on its existing facilities.1

On February 11, 2016, the Commission issued an Order for Notice and Hearing ("Order") that, among other things: (1) docketed the Application; (2) directed the Company to publish notice of the Application; (3) established a procedural schedule; (4) scheduled a local public hearing for March 23, 2016, and a public evidentiary hearing on the Apphcation for June 15,2016; and (5) assigned a Hearing Examiner to conduct all further proceedings in this matter on behalf of the Commission.

'Ex. No. 4, at 2. m m NO Timely Notices of Participation were filed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, The ^ Friends of Pluntley Meadows Park ("FOHMP"), The Friends of Historic Huntley2 ("FOHH"), Old ® Dominion Electric Cooperative, Angela F. Hofmann, and the Board of Directors for the ^ Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, FOHMP, and w FOHH filed testimony in this matter.

Public Comments

The Commission received a total of seven public comments generally addressing the environmental and visual impacts of the Company's proposed Rebuild Project. Requests were made that the lines be redesigned to protect wildlife and, in particular, birds. Other comments requested that a balloon test be performed to evaluate the visual impact of the taller towers proposed by the Company.

SUMMARY OF THE HEARING RECORD

Ten public witnesses testified at the public hearings held in Alexandria, Virginia, on March 23,2016.

Todi S. Carnes spoke as a public witness at the hearing on March 23, 2016. Ms. Games also presented testimony at the hearing in Richmond on June 15, 2016, that was marked as Exhibit No. 17 and entered into the record therefore her remarks at the public hearing will be excluded.

Catherine Ledee also spoke as a public witness at the hearing on March 23, 2016, and presented testimony at the hearing on June 15, 2016, that was marked as Exhibit No. 15 and entered into the record therefore her remarks at the public hearing will be excluded.

Susan Hafeli, a senior utility analyst with Fairfax County, stated that she was present to listen to residents' concerns and to inform the Commission that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors had authorized its staff to participate in this case.

Elizabeth H. Anderson, stated that, as a resident of Fairfax County who has derived many hours of benefit, pleasure and enjoyment from Historic Huntley and , she was concerned about damage to the Huntley Meadows Park from the Company's proposed Rebuild Project. Ms. Anderson explained that Huntley Meadows Park is a unique biological asset (a "jewel") that attracts avid bird watchers, like her sister, who comes from Florida to watch birds in the Park. Ms. Anderson described Historic Huntley and Huntley Meadows Park as two extraordinarily valuable and unique cultural assets that deserve to be protected.3

2 Historic Huntley is a federal period villa with multiple dependent structures located at 6918 Harrison Lane in Alexandria. Historic Huntley was built circa 1824 by , grandson of national founding father IV. Historic Huntley was built on a steep hillside that slopes to the south to take advantage of the view across Hybla Valley toward the Potomac River. Historic Huntley was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. Huntley Meadows Park is located directly in front of Historic Huntley and provides 1200 acres of open space within the Historic Huntley viewshed. Ex. No. 17, at 1, 2. 3 Tr. at 27, 28.

2 © Gail Dickert, executive director of the Frog Pond Early Learning Center ("Frog Pond"), a ^ nature based pre-school located adjacent to Huntley Meadows Park, explained that the children at <3 Frog Pond visit Huntley Meadows Park with a science teacher on a weekly basis to experience W unimpeded views of nature. Ms. Dickert urged that the physical integrity of Huntley Meadows Park ^ be preserved.4

Sarah Glassco testified that she conducted walks for the children at Frog Pond to teach young children to love and protect the earth by showing them the diversity and complex ecosystem that is present in Huntley Meadows Park. Ms. Glassco explained that hundreds of school children come from other areas to enjoy the resources found at Huntley Meadow Park. Ms. Glassco described Huntley Meadow Park as an irreplaceable resource that should be protected.5

Jim Shine, a resident of Fairfield West neighborhood located just south of the power lines, expressed concern about the visual impact on his neighborhood from the 123-foot tower structures proposed by the Company. Mr. Shine explained that, while the existing 60-foot structures are shielded by trees, the proposed 123-foot structures would tower above the tree-line. Mr. Shine also complained about the heavy machinery used by the Company to construct tower footings on the right-of-way.6

Yemane Mehari, a resident of the Huntley Meadow neighborhood, testified that one of the proposed poles would be located only 30-feet from the boundary of his back yard. In addition to concerns about the tall pole falling onto his house, Mr. Mehari expressed regret that deer no longer frequent his back yard because their habitat has been destroyed. Mr. Mehari opposed the Rebuild Project and recommended the line be placed underground to protect the environment and their property values.7

J. C. Harrington, a local resident for over thirty years, expressed concern about the impact of the Company's proposed Rebuild Project on Historic Huntley and Huntley Meadows Park which he described as a "gem" that is greatly enjoyed by local residents. In addition to the proposed Rebuild Project's impact on the view from Historic Huntley, Mr. Harrington voiced concern over the historic ditches created by George Washington to mark the boundaries of his land, as they are close to the proposed path of the transmission line construction.8

Suzanne Lepple, a visitor to Huntley Meadows Park for almost four decades, expressed support for the people who had previously requested that Huntley Meadows Park and its rare plants, birds, and wetlands be protected.9

4 Id. at 29-31. 5 Id. at 42-44. 6 Id. at 33-35. 7 Id. at 36-38. 8 Id. at 39-41. 9 Id. at 44-45.

3 K» © m

Company Direct Testimony and Exhibits ® y In support of its Application, the Company provided the testimony of Dennis D. Kaminsky, ^ consulting engineer in the electric transmission planning department for the Company; Jacob G. Heisey, transmission line engineer II in the electronic transmission line engineering department for the Company; and Benjamin A Saunders, senior siting and permitting specialist in the electric transmission right-of-way department for the Company.

Mr. Kaminsky provided an overview of the Company's Rebuild Project which is to be constructed entirely within existing right-of-way. Mr. Kaminsky stated that the Rebuild Project will meet an immediate operational need by replacing aging transmission facilities that are approaching

the end of their service lives. Mr. Kaminsky noted that the 2.6 mile section of Lines #204 and #220 was constructed with double circuit weathering steel towers and double circuit three-pole wooden H-ffames.10

Mr. Kaminsky explained that the original wooden section of the line between Belvoir Substation and Gum Springs Substation was built in the late 1960's and that the double circuit three-pole H-frame was a non-standard design used to accommodate an adjacent U.S. Naval facility. Due to the limitations imposed, Mr. Kaminsky stated that the structures lacked a shield wire for lightening fault protection. Although not a code violation, Mr. Kaminsky noted that the lack of a shield wire is not typical of the Company's practices."

In the late 1990's, Mr. Kaminsky reported that most of the wooden cross-arms on Line #220 were replaced with steel cross-arms. Further, some of the remaining wooden cross-arms on Line #204 were replaced. In 2014, Mr. Kaminsky testified, the Company performed emergency repairs on the line to address broken cross-arms which provided a temporary solution.12

Mr. Kaminsky explained that the existing structures have been inspected and maintained according to Company schedules, however, inspection records confirm that the existing structures need to be replaced, as reports describe them as being "rotten," "hollow," "leaning," "decaying," and, with a "split top of pole."13

Mr. Kaminsky reported that, because the existing corridor is adequate for construction of the proposed Rebuild Project, the Company did not consider alternate routes or new right-of-way. Further, Mr. Kaminsky explained that the Company rejected placing the new lines underground due to significantly greater costs, environmental impacts, and added construction time in light of the immediate need to replace the existing lines.14

10 Ex. No. 6, at 4. 11 Id. 12Id. 13 Id. at 5. "Id.

4 p © © V] Jacob Heisey described the Company's proposed Rebuild Project in detail &

A total of 21 existing wooden H-frame structures, 21 wooden two- fed p pole braced post structures, four double circuit weathering steel towers, y and two double circuit three-pole wooden H-frames will be removed within the scope of this proposed Rebuild Project. Replacing these structures will be 15 weathering steel double circuit monopole structures, two weathering steel double circuit two-pole structures, and one galvanized steel double circuit guyed two-pole structure. In total, 48 existing structures consisting of 90 individual poles and four towers will be removed, and 18 new structures consisting of 21 individual poles will be erected within the scope of the Rebuild Project.

In addition to the structure replacement, approximately 2.6 miles of double circuit, three-phase 1109 AGAR (24/13) conductor will be replaced with approximately 2.6 miles of double circuit, three-phase twin- bundled 636 ACSR (24/7) conductor. Both the structure and conductor replacement will take place between Belvoir Substation and Gum Springs Substation.15

Mr. Heisey explained that the Company chose the proposed tower structures for the Rebuild Project because: (i) the proposed structures would allow the installation of two circuits on a single structure in the existing right-of-way, thereby minimizing the footprint of the new lines; (ii) the taller structures would allow for longer span lengths thereby requiring fewer structures that would, in turn, require less operation and maintenance expense; and (iii) the taller towers would minimize the probability of a line outage caused by danger trees. In addition to the engineering benefits of the taller structures, Mr. Heisey noted that the proposed structures would offer environmental and recreational benefits. Mr. Heisey explained that the existing right-of-way traverses Huntley Meadows Park which contains a significant amount of wetlands and that the reduced number of tower structures would minimize the disturbance to the wetlands.16

Mr. Heisey reported that no new structures would be installed inside the Belvoir or Gum Springs Substations. However, new conductor and fiber optic shield wire will be installed from the existing backbone structure inside the Belvoir Substation to the existing backbone structure inside die Gum Springs Substation. New fiber optic wire will be installed in each substation's control house through conduits from the backbone structures. In addition, Mr. Heisey stated that the wire connecting the transmission line conductor to substation bus work, or "riser," will be replaced inside each of the substations.17

Mr. Heisey stated that the estimated cost for the Rebuild Project is approximately. $10.4 million and that there is an immediate need for the Rebuild Project. Mr. Heisey anticipated the

15 Ex. No. 7, at 4.

16 Id. at 4,5.

17 Id. at 6. H m m ss Rebuild Project could be in service by December 2016, as the estimated construction time is four & months.18 a p Mr. Heisey provided the following electro-magnetic field ("EMF") data for the proposed v Rebuild Project:

• Magnetic field levels ranging from 18.782 milligauss ("mG") to 80.777 mG were calculated for existing lines at the edges of the right-of-way based on historical average and peak loading; and • Magnetic field levels ranging from 5.552 mG to 44.029 mG were calculated for the proposed Rebuild Project at the edges of the right-of-way based on average historical loading in 2014 and peak loading expected to occur in 2020 with the Rebuild Project in service.

Mr. Heisey explained that magnetic field strength diminishes rapidly as distance from the source increases. The decrease is proportional to the inverse square of the distance. For example, a hypothetical magnetic field strength of 10 mG at the edge of the right-of-way (defined as 50 feet from the centerline) would decrease to 2.5 mG at a point 50 feet outside of the right-of-way.19

Benjamin Saunders testified that the existing right-of-way is primarily 145 feet wide and that because the new structures will be located entirely within the existing right-of-way, no new easements will be required for the Rebuild Project. Moreover, since the existing right-of-way is adequate for the Rebuild Project, the Company did not consider any alternate routes.20

Mr. Saunders reported there are 304 single family homes and 18 multi-family residences located within 500 feet of the centerline of existing Lines #204 and #220 and there are 6 permanent residences located within 100 feet of the centerline of the Rebuild Project.21

Mr. Saunders noted that Dominion Virginia Power held one public information open house at Mount Vernon High School in Fairfax County to inform the public about the Rebuild Project and approximately 900 letters went out to area property owners crossed by or adjacent to the existing right-of-way that will be used for the Rebuild Project.22

Mr. Saunders described the general character of the Rebuild Project area as a conserved wetland and forested park bordering a densely populated suburban residential area. Mr. Saunders noted that the existing right-of-way is beheved to include Mount Vernon property boundary marking ditches noted in George Washington's will. An archeological study of the ditches, dated October 28, 2015, was completed by the Fairfax County Park Authority ("Park Authority") and is included in the Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") Supplement (Attachment 2.H.3). Mr. Saunders stated that, based on the Park Authority study and subject to final engineering design, it does not appear that construction of the Rebuild Project will have an impact on the remnants of

18 Id. at 6, 7.

19 Id. at 7, 8. 20 Ex. No. 8, at 2, 4. 21 Id. at 6. 22 Id. at 7, 8. Hi @ the boundary marking ditches. Mr. Saunders maintained that the Company would coordinate with & the Park Authority to avoid or preserve artifacts mentioned in the study as they are fully delineated by the Park Authority.23 y=3 The Department of Environmental Quality Coordinated Review

As directed by the General Assembly and pursuant to its Memorandum of Agreement regarding Coordination of Reviews of the Environmental Impact of the Proposed Electric Generating Plants (August 2002), the Virginia DEQ coordinated a review of the proposed Rebuild Project by a number of governmental agencies and prepared the DEQ Report ("Report").24 In the DEQ Report, DEQ indicated that the following entities either joined in the review or were invited to provide comments:

• DEQ • Department of Conservation and Recreation • Department of Game and Inland Fisheries • Department of Historic Resources • Department of Health • Marine Resources Commission • Department of Aviation • Virginia Outdoors Foundation • Fairfax County • Department of Forestry • Department of Transportation • Northern Virginia Regional Commission25

At the beginning if its Report, DEQ also listed the permits or approvals that "are likely necessary" in connection with the Rebuild Project and made various recommendations associated with the Rebuild Project which were based on the information and analyses submitted by the reviewing agencies. Specifically, DEQ recommended that the Company engage in the following activities relative to the Rebuild Project:

• Conduct an on-site delineation of all wetlands and stream crossings within the project area with verification by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, using accepted methods and procedures, and follow DEQ's recommendations to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams; • Follow DEQ's recommendations regarding air quality protection, as applicable; • Reduce solid waste at the source, reuse it and recycle it to the maximum extent practicable; • Coordinate with the Department of Conservation and Recreation's Division of Natural Heritage regarding its recommendations to protect natural heritage resources, including its recommendation to conduct plant surveys for rare species in the project area, as well

23 Id. at 3,4. 24 Ex. No. 19. 25 Id at 1.

7 © © as for updates to the Biotics Data System database if six months have passed before the ^ project is implemented; © Coordinate with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as necessary regarding protected species and its recommendation to minimize adverse impacts to wildlife ^ resources; Coordinate with the Department of Historic Resources regarding its recommendations to protect historic and archaeological resources; Coordinate with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation for further review if the project area changes or if the project does not begin within twenty-four (24) months; Follow the principles and practices of pollution prevention to the maximum extent practicable; Limit the use of pesticides and herbicides to the extent practicable; and

Coordinate with Fairfax County regarding its concerns related to visual impacts to historic properties, potential impacts to migratory birds and rare plant species, and recommendations to protect wetlands.26

Company Supplemental Direct Testimony

On May 11, 2016, the Company filed the supplemental direct testimony of Benjamin A. Saunders regarding a balloon test performed at the request of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors to assess the potential visual impacts to Historic Huntley as a result of the proposed Rebuild Project. Mr. Saunders provided the following conclusions of the Company resulting from the balloon test:

At the existing Belvoir-Gum Springs 230 kV transmission lines' closest point, it is approximately 1.2 miles south of Huntley. Distance, topography, and vegetation will largely obscure the Rebuild Project. At the time of the balloon flights, vegetation was nearly fully leafed out and representative of foliage from April through October. Though some towers may be minimally visible from the front of Huntley, as evidenced by the balloon tests, these towers will rise only slightly above the tree line but remain well below the distant horizon line. It is possible and likely that the towers will blend with the horizon line and existing radio/cell towers and not be visible by visitors to Huntley unless they are explicitly looking for the towers. The tower closest to Huntley will be replacing a tower of similar height that is already visible, again only if one is explicitly looking for the tower.

Given the distance and presence of existing vegetation between the proposed Belvoir-Gum Springs 230 kV transmission line Rebuild Project and Huntley, the proposed towers will only be minimally visible if one is looking specifically for a tower structure.27

26 Id. at 5, 6. 27 Ex. No. 9, Schedule l,at39.

8 © <© Respondents Testimony and Exhibits ^ m Carolyn Gamble, a former Huntley Meadows Park assistant park manager, presented W testimony regarding the historic double ditch remains in Huntley Meadows Park which she ^ described as two parallel ditches thirty (30) feet apart that, at one time, ran along the entire southern boundary of what is now Huntley Meadows Park. Ms. Gamble noted that George Washington referred to the double ditches in his will. Ms. Gamble stated that work already completed by Dominion Virginia Power on the Rebuild Project has had an impact on the double ditches and may have negatively impacted surface or subsurface historic resources. Ms. Gamble maintained that the

Company, Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and the Fairfax County Park Authority cultural resource staff should work together to identify and evaluate cultural resources along the entire Rebuild Project area.28

Catherine Ledec, president of FOHMP, stated that she first learned of the Company's plans to replace the existing transmission line structures with 125 foot poles and larger concrete bases at the Company's open house held on December 1, 2015. At the Company's open house, Ms. Ledec explained that she spoke with Company representatives about the potential for bird collision impacts due to the taller poles. In particular, Ms. Ledec expressed concern about bald eagles, vultures, hawks, herons and egrets among other birds. Key mitigation measures, according to Ms. Ledec, include lower pole height, bird flight diverters, and post-construction monitoring of bird fatalities.29

Ms. Ledec testified that the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation has identified a large coastal plain depression swamp with rare birds and plants in the southern area of Huntley Meadows Park that is on and adjacent to the Company's ROW. Ms. Ledec stated that the Company should give careful consideration to pole placement in this area. Another concern cited by Ms. Ledec was the leaching of toxins into the wetlands from the concrete used to construct tower foundations. Ms. Ledec expressed further concern regarding concrete spoils left in sensitive wetlands by the Company's contractors. Ms. Ledec recommended a damage assessment pertaining to the Company's previous work on the ROW and that a Dominion staff person with knowledge of "all sensitive natural, cultural, historical and archaeological resources in the easement... be on-site every day, all day while this work is being implemented . . ."30

George Ledec, lead ecologist in the Africa region of The World Bank, stated that he has worked on environmental impact assessments of large scale civil works projects including, but not limited to, electric power transmission line projects. Mr-. Ledec noted that he and his wife, Catherine Ledec, are life members of FOHMP and FOHH and have been participants in the Audubon Society sponsored Christmas Bird Count since 2004. Mr. Ledec focused his testimony on the increased potential for bird collisions if the power lines were raised above the height of the adjoining tree line. Mr. Ledec recommended that the power lines remain below adjoining tree levels to avoid potential bird collision risks or, if the power lines are raised above tree level, that bird flight diverters be installed. Mr. Ledec noted that the Company's right-of-way includes high quality habitat including vernal pools, other wetlands, and patches of rare plants such as Purple

28 Ex. No. 14, at 1-4. 29 Ex. No. IS.at 1-3. 30 Id. at 3-5.

9 © Milkweed. Mr. Ledec stated that it is important to ensure that each new pole foundation does not ^ damage these sensitive resources found within the Company's easement. 1 0

Todi Carnes, president of FOHH, described Historic Huntley (or the "villa") as a federal ^ period villa with multiple dependent structures constructed circa 1824 on a hillside steeply sloping to the south to take advantage of the view across Hybla Valley toward the Potomac River. Ms. Carnes noted that the site was placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1972. Ms. Games explained that the 1200 acre Huntley Meadows Park is located to the front of the villa and protects the view from the villa.32 Ms. Games referred to the balloon test conducted by Dominion Virginia Power on April 20, 2016, in which she stated a balloon was clearly visible almost directly in front of Historic Huntley, as an example of the potential harm resulting from the Company's proposed Rebuild Project.33

Ms. Games concluded that FOHH does not believe adequate consideration has been given to alternative engineering designs that might avoid potential adverse impacts to the view from the Historic Huntley villa. Ms. Games proposed two alternatives to the Company's proposed design for the Rebuild Project: (i) placing the line underground, or (ii) substituting 90 foot towers for the proposed 123 foot towers.34

Staff Report

The Staff provided a detailed overview of the Rebuild Project including its major components. Staff also analyzed the need for the Rebuild Project and concluded that it would increase reliability in the Alexandria-Arlington Load Area. Staff addressed the impact of the Rebuild Project on economic development and the environment. Based on its investigation, Staff concluded that the Rebuild Project, as proposed by the Company, or, with a plan utilizing structures of decreased height, are viable options to address the need for the proposed Rebuild Project.35

Company Rebuttal

The Company presented the rebuttal testimony of Fredrick H. Harmeling, electric transmission & distribution projects manager II for Dominion Technical Solutions, Inc., Benjamin A. Saunders, and Jacob G. Heisey.

Mr. Harmeling addressed concerns that the Company engaged in constmction or rebuild activities to Lines #204 and #220 prior to filing its Application in this proceeding. Mr. Harmeling reported that, in March and July of 2014, Lines #204 and #220 experienced two critical structure failures that required emergency temporary repairs. Mr. Harmeling explained that the emergency

31 Ex. No. 16, at 1-3. 32 In between the public hearings held on March 23, 2016,1 went to Historic Huntley and observed the viewshed from the villa toward and beyond Huntley Meadows Park. The Company's right-of-way is located on the far side of Huntley Meadows Park thereby currently blocking the view of the line from the villa. 33 Ex. No. 17, at 1,2. 34 Id. at 4. 35 Ex. No. 18, at 13, 14.

10 repairs were completed in September of 2014, and shortly thereafter the Company notified Fairfax County that permanent maintenance replacements for the wood pole structures were forthcoming.36

Between November 2014 and February 2015, the Company began planning a design for permanent repairs. Mr. Harmeling stated that the Company realized that it could reduce the number of tower structures by over 50% if the height of the towers was increased. Mr. Harmeling noted that on several occasions the Company met with Huntley Meadows Park staff and local officials for an on-site review of the Rebuild Project design and construction sequence. On July 28, 2015, the Company mailed more than 900 letters to landowners adjacent to the right-of-way advising them of the upcoming construction work. By July of 2015, the Company had obtained a Work Maintenance Work Permit from the Fairfax County Park Authority and a Nationwide Permit from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction work in the right-of-way corridor. However, during August of 2015, the Company requested and received guidance from Commission Staff on the need for a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the Rebuild Project. At this point, Mr. Harmeling stated that the Company stopped construction in order to pursue the current Application.37

Mr. Harmeling testified that the Company was first informed about the potential existence of the boundary ditches in September of 2015. Mr. Harmeling maintained that the boundary ditches were not mentioned in either work permit or by the Huntley Meadows Park staff. Further, Mr. Harmeling noted that, according to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the boundary ditches were not located within the Company's right-of-way.38

Mr. Saunders rebuttal testimony addressed:

• The DEQ Report; • Pre-Application activities; • Fairfax County Historic Overlay District Regulations and Review; • Environmental, Cultural and Historic Impacts; and • Impacts of options proposed by Respondents.

These topics are addressed in the Stipulation and Recommendation.39

Mr. Heisey addressed the Company's concerns with placing the transmission lines underground and why it would not be a good solution for the proposed Rebuild Project. Mr. Heisey pointed out that the purpose of the Rebuild Project is to improve reliability of the transmission line. Mr. Heisey explained that an underground line is not comparable to an equivalent overhead line due to the time it takes to locate and repair an underground fault. Second, Mr. Heisey pointed out that the cost of an underground line is ten times the cost of the same line constructed in a conventional overhead manner. Third, the length of time required to construct an underground line would be approximately five times longer than the Company's proposed overhead construction. Finally,

36 Ex. No. 10, at 3, 4. 37 Id. at 4-6. 38 Id. at 6, 7. 39 Ex. No. 11; Ex. No. 1.

11 H6 (Si

Mr. Heisey explained that placing the lines underground would involve draining wetlands and drilling under creeks.40

In response to utilizing 90-foot towers, Mr. Heisey testified that this option would result in increased visual and environmental impact in the right-of-way and surrounding area, increased costs, and added construction obstacles. Mr. Heisey explained that only one of the two circuits feeding Gum Springs Substation can be taken out at a time and, therefore, it is crucial to design the Rebuild Project so that new overhead structures are placed near existing structures in order to allow for the construction and stringing of one circuit and also reduce the potential for "blowout" from the nearby energized circuit.41 While the 90-foot tower option may be physically feasible, Mr. Heisey explained that the Company did not consider or design such an option due, in part, to (i) increased environmental impacts resulting from a greater number of new structures;42 (ii) the need for temporary structures to prevent an energized conductor from hitting the construction equipment; and (iii) increased construction costs43 and timeline for completion (approximately 12 months as opposed to four months for the Rebuild Project as proposed by the Company).44

DISCUSSION

Applicable Statutory Provisions

Section 56-265.2 of the Code provides that "it shall be unlawful for any public utility to construct. . . facilities for use in the public utility service ... without first having obtained a certificate from the Commission that the public convenience and necessity requires the exercise of such right or privilege." Furthermore, § 56-46.1 A of the Code states, in part, as follows:

Whenever the Commission is required to approve the construction of any electrical utility facility, it shall give consideration to the effect of that facility on the environment and establish such conditions as may be desirable or necessary to minimize adverse environmental impact... In every proceeding under this subsection, the Commission shall receive and give consideration to all reports that relate to the proposed facility by state agencies concerned with environmental protection; and if requested by any county or municipality in which the facility is proposed to be built, to local comprehensive plans that have been adopted pursuant to Article 3 (§ 15.2-2223 et seq.) of Chapter 22 of Title 15.2. Additionally, the Commission (a) shall consider the effect of the proposed facility on

40 Ex. No. 12, 313,4. 41 While the proposed Rebuild Project places structures near existing structures to reduce blowout from the energized circuit, the 90-foot structure option does not allow for that protective structure placement in all pole locations due to the reduced span lengths. Ex. No. 1.2, at 7. 42 The Rebuild Project as proposed by the Company would require the installation of 18 structures consisting of 21 individual poles. The 90-foot tower option would require 53 structures consisting of 56 individual poles. The existing line consists of 48 structures, 90 poles and four towers. Ex. No. 12, at 6. 43 Construction of the 90-foot tower option would increase the cost of the Rebuild Project by approximately $7.7 million. Ex. No. 12, at 7. 44. Ex. No. 12, at 5-8.

12 economic development within the Commonwealth ... and (b) shall consider any improvements in service reliability that may result from the construction of such facility.

Specifically applicable to transmission lines, § 56-46.1 B of the Code requires the Commission to "determine that the line is needed and that the corridor or route the line is to follow will reasonably minimize adverse impact on the scenic assets, historic districts and environment of the area concerned" as a condition of approval.

Need

No one questioned the need for the Rebuild Project. The Rebuild Project involves the replacement of aging transmission facilities that are reaching or have reached the end of their service lives. The existing wooden sections of the line between Belvoir Substation and Gum Springs Substation were built in the late 1960s. Most of the wooden cross-arms on Line #220 were replaced with steel cross-arms in the late 1990s. At the same time, some of the remaining wooden cross-arms on Line #204 were also replaced. Even with maintenance to the lines, the Company continued to experience significant reliability events. Early in 2014, one of the wooden cross-arms on Line #204 broke and the line should have automatically shut down. However, the line's protective devices failed to trip the line out of service leaving the damaged transmission line energized, thereby creating a dangerous situation. In the summer of 2014, another wooden cross- arm on Line #204 broke causing the line's protective device to engage and de-energize the line.45

The existing 230 kV Jefferson Street - Gum Springs Line #204 and Ox - Gum Springs Line #220 provide service to the Company's Franconia, Belvoir and Gum Springs Substations, which serve more than 36,000 customers including the Fort Belvoir Army Base. During the ten-year period from 2004 to 2014, the coincident summer peak load in the Company's Alexandria - Arlington Load Area46 grew from 1,547 megawatts ("MW") to 1,771 MW, an increase of approximately 14.5%. During the same period of time, the coincident summer peak for the Franconia, Belvoir and Gum Springs Substations grew from 258 MW to 278 MW, an increase of approximately 7.8% 47

I find the Company has sustained its burden of proof that the proposed Rebuild Project is required by public convenience and necessity. The Company stated there is an immediate need for the Rebuild Project and that it will begin construction once approved by the Commission.

Use of Existing Right-of-Way

Federal and state guidelines and § 56-259 of the Code state a preference for the use of existing right-of-way wherever possible. The existing right-of-way is currently cleared and maintained for transmission operation. Further, this is a rebuild project and the terminal points will not change. Therefore, I find that the Company correctly decided to utilize the existing right-of- way and not consider alternative routes.

45 Ex. No. 18, at 5, 6. 46 The Company's Alexandria - Arlington Load Area includes the Franconia, Belvoir and Gum Springs Substations. 47 Ex. No. 4, Appendix, at 2.

13 (=a © ©

Economic Development ^

I find the Rebuild Project will have a positive impact on economic development in the ^ Alexandria -Arlington Load Area by increasing the reliability of the Company's electric system. Company witness Kaminsky pointed out that the Rebuild Project will replace aging infrastructure that is at the end of its service life, thereby enabling the Company to maintain the overall long-term reliability of its transmission system. Mr. Kaminsky explained that, based on the 2015 PJM Load Forecast, the Dominion Zone is expected to be one of the fastest growing zones in PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. ("PJM")with an average growth rate of 1.7% over the next 10 years compared to the PJM average of 1.0% over the same period.48

Underground

I find that the Company correctly rejected constructing the Rebuild Project underground due to significantly greater costs, environmental impacts, and added construction time. The Company's right-of-way traverses sensitive wetlands that would have to be drained and may contain historic ditch remnants that could be destroyed by placing the lines underground.

EMF

From August 15, 1984, to October 31, 2000, the Virginia Department of Health ("VDH") monitored the ongoing research on the possible health effect of EMF and ultimately concluded there was no causal connection between EMF and cancer or other detrimental health effects in humans.49 As noted by Company witness Heisey in his direct testimony, the magnetic fields at the edge of the right-of-way are projected to significantly decrease from historical levels with the Rebuild Project.50

Stipulation and Recommendation

At the hearing on June 15, 2016, the Company, Fairfax County, and FOHH/FOHMP (collectively, the "Stipulating Participants") presented a Stipulation and Recommendation51 resolving the contested issues between the Stipulating Participants. In pertinent part, the Stipulation and Recommendation set forth that:

1. The Company will utilize 100-foot towers; 2. The Company will obtain all necessary environmental permits for the Rebuild Project consistent with the use of 100-foot towers; 3. The Company will prepare (or have prepared) detailed alignment sheets showing the wetlands, rare plants, and George Washington boundary ditches for use by contractors and will identify on site "no-go zones" (i.e. areas to avoid where contractors are alerted by some type of marking);

48 Ex. No. 6, at 3. 49 Virginia Department of Health, Monitoring of Ongoing Research on the Health Effects of High Voltage Transmission Lines, Final Report, at 20 (Oct. 31, 2000). 50 Ex. No. 7, at 7. 51 Ex. No. I.

14 4. The Company shall prepare (or have prepared) a detailed analysis of historic resources, which would include detailed mapping, document research and historic plat analysis, in particular, the George Washington boundary ditches in the *4 approximately 2,500 feet of easement between the western end of Welford Street where it intersects with Grimsley Street down to the turn to the north in the line just before Dogue Creek and the Belvoir Substation. The Stipulating Participants acknowledge that this analysis is necessary to determine the best location of timber matting for heavy equipment and pole foundations to avoid the George Washington boundary ditches to the greatest extent possible; 5. If two or more bird52 fatalities are documented to occur in any calendar quarter (measured over the course of any year in four three month increments) and are found to be caused by the rebuild section of the transmission line using an established scientific methodology with independent third-party verification, and upon notice to the Commission, then the Company will install, as a cost of the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-foot structure option, bird diverters along the entire rebuild section of the transmission line within Huntley Meadows Park and then pay for a monitoring program to report on bird fatalities along the easement. The Company agrees that any monitoring reports and/or data collected as a result of such study will be made available to the public. Disputes arising under this paragraph may be submitted to the Commission for resolution; 6. Concrete washouts for the Rebuild Project shall utilize leak proof matting under the concrete washout pit to prevent all concrete residue from leaching into the soil or surface or subsurface water; and 7. The parties to the Stipulation and Recommendation acknowledge that Fairfax County and the Fairfax County Park Authority are distinct legal entities and that, while Fairfax County is a participant in this proceeding and a signatory of the Stipulation and Recommendation, the Fairfax County Park Authority is not. Therefore, the Stipulation and Recommendation is in no way binding on the Fairfax County Park Authority.53

52 Birds are defined as those species listed under the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 668-668c, as amended), and non-migratory game birds. If, however, the bird species are listed under the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as nuisance birds, the applicable threshold will be 10 bird fatalities per calendar quarter and then the Company will provide as a cost of the Rebuild Project a study of the possible need for bird flight diverters. See Va. Code § 29.1-100. 53 Ex. No. 1, at 4-8.

15 &

&

A comparison of the options for the Rebuild Project is set forth below:54

Existing Segment Rebuild Project 100 foot 90 foot as proposed by overhead overhead the Company Cost (approximate) $10.4 million $12.9 million $18.2 million Number of Overhead Structures 48 Structures 18 Structures 30 Structures 53 structures Number of Poles 90 poles, 4 towers 21 poles 33 poles 56 poles

Permanent 3 wetlands 8 wetlands 17 wetlands Wetland Impact (84.79 feet) (226 feet) (540 feet) Time to Construct 4 months 8 months 12 months Temporary Temporary Construction No temporary No temporary construction Requirements construction construction needed; needed needed requires installation of approximately 20 temporary steel poles to prevent blowout during construction

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the evidence in this case, I FIND that:

1. The Stipulation and Recommendation is a reasonable compromise of the issues in this proceeding and should be accepted; 2. There is a need for the proposed Rebuild Project; 3. The proposed Rebuild Project is justified by the public convenience and necessity; 4. A certificate of public convenience and necessity should be issued for the Company's proposed Rebuild Project; 5. The proposed Rebuild Project is not suitable for underground construction;

54 Ex. No. 1, Ex. B, at 1.

16 m

Accordingly, I RECOMMEND the Commission enter an order that:

1. ADOPTS the finding in this Report;

2. GRANTS the Company's Application; and

3. DISMISSES this case from the Commission's docket of active cases.

COMMENTS

The parties are advised that pursuant to Rule 5 VAC 5-20-120 C of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, any comments to this Report must be filed with the Clerk of the Commission in writing, in an original and fifteen copies, within ten days from the date hereof. The mailing address to which any such filing must be sent is Document Control Center, P. 0. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218. Any party filing such comments shall attach a certificate to the foot of such document certifying that copies have been mailed or delivered to all other counsel of record and to any party not represented by counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

Howard P. Anderson, Jr. Hearing Examiner

A copy hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to all persons on the official Service List in this matter. The Service List is available from the Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, 1300 East Main Street, First Floor, Tyler Building, Richmond VA 23219.

17 ATTACHMENT N5 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA £ STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION W N" Application of

Virginia Electric and Power Company Case No. PUE-2015-00133 For approval and certification of electric transmission facilities: transmission line rebuild of Belvoir-Gum Springs double circuit 230 kV lines #204 and #220

STIPULATION AND RECOMMENDATION

WHEREAS, pursuant to § 56-46.1 of the Code of Virginia ("Va. Code") and the Utility

Facilities Act, § 56-265.1 et seq., Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Dominion Virginia

Power" or the "Company") filed with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") an application on December 16, 2015,1 for approval and for a certificate of public convenience and

necessity for the proposed transmission line rebuild of approximately 2.6 miles of existing 230 kV double circuit Lines #204 and #220 entirely within existing right-of-way (the "Rebuild

Project"); and

WHEREAS, there is an immediate and current need for the Rebuild Project, which will replace aging infrastructure at the end of its service life, thereby enabling the Company to maintain the overall long-term reliability of its transmission system; and

WHEREAS, as proposed within the scope of the Rebuild Project, a total of 48 existing structures consisting of 90 individual poles and four towers will be removed and replaced as proposed in the Application with 18 new structures consisting of 21 individual poles, and 2.6 miles of existing double circuit, three-phase 1109 AGAR (24/13) conductor will be replaced with

1 The Company's application included an Appendix, DEQ Supplement and supporting testimony. Subsequently, the Company filed on January 14, 2016 an errata to the application (collectively, with the application filed on December 16, 2015, the "Application"). m m double circuit, three-phase twin-bundled 636 ACSR (24/7) conductor; and ^ m WHEREAS, as supported by its Application, the Company selected the proposed m structures for the Rebuild Project, the majority of which are approximately 125 feet in height

(excluding approximately 1.5-foot foundations) in order to reduce impacts to the wetland habitat

by minimizing the footprint of the existing facilities, to increase reliability by adding superior

static wire lightning protection, and to minimize the probability of a line outage caused by

danger trees by mounting the conductors at a greater elevation and in a more central location in

the right-of-way than the existing structures; and

WHEREAS, the Company expects its Rebuild Project as proposed in the Application

would have a minimal to non-existent impact on migratory birds; and

WHEREAS, the Company believes that its Rebuild Project as proposed in the

Application meets the identified need and reasonably minimizes adverse impact on the scenic

assets, historic districts, and the environment of the area concerned at a reasonable cost; and

WHEREAS, the Commission issued an Order for Notice and Hearing on February 11,

2016 ("Procedural Order"), which, among other things, established a procedural schedule for the

case, docketed the matter for hearing to commence on June 15, 2016, and assigned a Hearing

Examiner to conduct all further proceedings in this matter on behalf of the Commission;

WHEREAS, notices of participation were timely filed by the Fairfax County Board of

Supervisors ("Fairfax County"), the Friends of Historic Huntley and Friends of Huntley

Meadows Park ("FOHH/FOHMP"), Old Dominion Electric Cooperative ("ODEC"), Ms. Angela

F. Hofmann, and the Board of Directors of Huntley Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc.

(the "HOA"); and

WHEREAS, respondent testimony was pre-flled by Fairfax County and FOHH/FOHMP,

2 and on May 4, 2016;2 and in letter form by the HOA, supplemental direct testimony was pro­ filed by the Company on May 11, 2016; a report was filed by Commission Staff ("Staff') on

May 12, 2016 ("Staff Report" or "Report"); and rebuttal testimony was pre-filed by the

Company on May 27, 2016; and

WHEREAS, Staff states in its Report on the Rebuild Project that it agrees that continued operation of Lines #204 and #220 is necessary for maintaining electric reliability and further believes the Company has adequately demonstrated that, due to the age and condition of the structures, both Lines need to be rebuilt, and no other respondent to this proceeding has questioned the need for the Rebuild Project; and

WHEREAS, the Staff Report acknowledges that the route proposed for the Rebuild

Project is in existing right-of-way, and reasonably minimizes adverse impact on existing residences, scenic assets, historic districts, and the environment, and neither Staff nor any respondent to this proceeding has recommended an alternate route; and

WHEREAS, Fairfax County and FOHH/FOHMP have expressed a desire to shorten the height of the majority of the structures from approximately 125 feet (excluding approximately

1.5-foot foundations) as proposed by the Company for the proposed Rebuild Project, to approximately 100 feet (excluding approximately 1.5-foot foundations) along the same route as the Rebuild Project, primarily to reduce viewshed impacts to Historic Huntley; and

WHEREAS, the Company has analyzed a 100-foot structure option (excluding approximately 1.5-foot foundations) along the same route as the Rebuild Project ("Rebuild

Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option" or "100-Foot Structure Option"), replacing the existing facilities with 30 new structures consisting of 33 individual poles, and 2.6 miles of

2 The deadline for filing respondent testimony was extended from the schedule established in the Procedural Order to May 4, 2016 pursuant to the April 25, 2016 Hearing Examiner's Ruling and the April 26, 2016 Hearing Examiner's Clarifying Ruling. double circuit, three-phase twin-bundled 636 ACSR (24/7) conductor. Exhibit A hereto identifies the 100-Foot Structure Option's structures and heights; and

WHEREAS, the Company has provided in Exhibit B (attached hereto) information comparing certain characteristics and impacts of the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot

Structure Option with the Rebuild Project, the 90-Foot Option3 contained in the Company's

Rebuttal Testimony, and the existing line; and

WHEREAS, the Company believes the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure

Option, subject to final engineering, is a viable alternative to meet the identified need and reasonably minimizes adverse impact on the scenic assets, historic districts, and the environment of the area concerned at a reasonable cost; and

WHEREAS, the Company, Fairfax County, and FOHH/FOPIMP (collectively, the

"Stipulating Participants") now hereby stipulate, agree and recommend that the Hearing

Examiner issue a report recommending approval of this Stipulation and Recommendation

("Stipulation") and that the Commission issue an order approving this Stipulation as follows:

(1) The Rebuild Project shall utilize the 100-Foot Structure Option for the 230 kV transmission facilities and that it should be approved pursuant to Va. Code § 56-46.1 and a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the 230 kV transmission facilities be issued pursuant to Va. Code § 56-265.1 et seq. (Utility Facilities Act). The Company has demonstrated:

(a) Need. Consistent with Va. Code §§ 56-265.2 and 56-46.1 B, and

consistent with Staffs analysis set forth in the Staff Report, the Application demonstrates

that the proposed Rebuild Project is needed. As described in the Apphcation, the Rebuild

Project is necessary to maintain the structural integrity and reliability of its transmission

3 The Company does not support the 90-Foot Option for the reasons stated in Rebuttal Testunony. © a system and perform needed maintenance on its existing facilities, which serve over ^ m 36,000 customers including the Fort Belvoir Army Base and are important components to M

the Company's electric transmission grid for providing reliable electric transmission

service to its territory in Virginia and North Carolina. The Rebuild Project utilizing the

100-Foot Structure Option will serve this need;

(b) Economic Development. Consistent with Va. Code § 56-46.1 B, the

Application provides that the proposed Rebuild Project will promote economic

development in the area of the Rebuild Project as well as in the Commonwealth of

Virginia by replacing aging infrastructure at the end of its service life, thereby enabling

the Company to maintain the overall long-term reliability of its transmission system. The

Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option will promote economic

development;

(c) Routing and Right-of-Wav. Given that the Rebuild Project is proposed to be installed within the existing transmission corridor entirely within existing right-of- way, and that neither Staff nor any respondent to this proceeding has proposed an alternate route, the Company's proposed route for the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-

Foot Structure Option is the appropriate route;

(d) Scenic Assets and Historic Districts. Consistent with Va. Code § 56-46.1

B, the proposed Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option will be located entirely within existing right-of-way and reasonably minimizes impacts on scenic assets and historic districts; and

5 m m (e) Environmental Impacts. Consistent with the requirement in Va. Code § ^

. a 56-46.1 A and B, the Application details that the proposed route reasonably minimizes M K1 adverse environmental impacts. The Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure

• Option will be along the same route. The Company will obtain all necessary

environmental permits for the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option.

Furthermore, the Company makes additional commitments to minimize environmental

impacts as set forth below.

(2) Concrete washouts for the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure

Option shall utilize leak proof matting under the concrete washout pit to prevent all concrete residue from leaching into the soil or surface or subsurface water. (See the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency ("EPA") EPA Stormwater Best Management Practice: Concrete Washout

Document, EPA 833-F-l 1-006 (Feb. 2012) which states that leak proof matting should be underneath the concrete washout pit.)

(3) The Company shall prepare (or have prepared) detailed alignment sheets showing the wetlands, rare plants and George Washington boundary ditches for use by contractors and identify on site "no-go zones" (i.e. areas to avoid where contractors are alerted by some type of marking).

(4) The Company shall prepare (or have prepared) a detailed analysis of historic resources, which would include detailed mapping, document research and historic plat analysis, in particular, the George Washington boundary ditches in the approximately 2,500 feet of easement between the western end of Welford Street where it intersects with Grimsley Street down to the turn to the north in.the line just before Dogue Creek and the Belvoir Substation. This detailed analysis will be completed before any rebuild work for the 100-Foot Structure Option

6 & © N§ located in the above described area within the easement at Huntley Meadows Park is undertaken ^ by the Company. This analysis is necessary to determine the best location of timber matting for ^ to heavy equipment and pole foundations to avoid the George Washington boundary ditches to the greatest extent possible. This analysis would not require work stoppage on other parts of the easement. (See attached six (6) photographs of the area in question taken by FOHH/FOHMP

(Exhibit C hereto) and overall map of the area identifying the location the photos were taken provided by FOHH/FOHMP /Exhibit D hereto).

(5) If two (2) or more bird4 fatalities are documented to occur in any calendar quarter

(measured over the course of any year in four three month increments) and are found to be caused by the rebuild section of the transmission line using an established scientific methodology with independent third party verification, and upon notice to the Commission, then the Company will install, as a cost of the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option, bird diverters

(see Exhibit E hereto for possible examples) along the entire rebuild section of the transmission line within Huntley Meadows Park and then pay for a monitoring program to report on bird fatalities along the easement. The Company agrees that any monitoring reports and/or data collected as a result of such study will be made available to the public. Disputes arising under this paragraph may be submitted to the Commission for resolution.

(6) The FOHH/FOHMP will not oppose and will support the Company's request to use or extend its existing Fairfax County Park Authority ("FCPA") Maintenance Work Permit

MWP-04-15 ("MWP-04-15") under the terms and conditions as issued (however, the Company

4 Birds are defined as those species listed under the U.S. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. 703-712 (the December 2, 2013 list, as amended), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c, as amended), and non-migratory game birds. If, however, the bird species are listed under the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries as nuisance birds, then the applicable threshold will be 10 bird fatalities per calendar quarter and then the Company will provide as a cost of the Project a study of the possible need for bird flight diverters. See Va. Code § 29.1-100.

7 1^ m m shall also comply with the additional items in the Stipulation), for the duration of construction ^ © for the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option; or, if necessary, the ^ H1 tn FOHH/FOHMP will not oppose and will support the Company's application for a new Fairfax

County Park Authority Maintenance Work Permit under the under the terms and conditions as the MWP-04-15 for the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option (however, the

Company shall also comply with the additional items in the Stipulation).

(7) Fairfax County and the FCPA are separate and distinct legal entities. Fairfax

County is a participant in this proceeding, but FCPA is not. This Stipulation is in no way binding on FCPA. Fairfax County will not oppose and will take no role in the Company's request to use or extend its existing FCPA MWP-04-15 under the terms and conditions as issued

(however, the Company shall also comply with the additional items in the Stipulation), for the duration of construction for the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option; or, if necessary, Fairfax County will not oppose and will take no role in the Company's application for a new Fairfax County Park Authority Maintenance Work Permit under the under the terms and conditions as the MWP-04-15 for the Rebuild Project utilizing the 100-Foot Structure Option

(however, the Company shall also comply with the additional items in the Stipulation).

(8) Based on the foregoing, subject to final engineering by the Company, the contested issues among the Stipulating Participants in this proceeding have been resolved. The evidentiary hearing scheduled for June 15, 2016 was convened to receive public witnesses. At the direction and timing required by the Hearing Examiner the Stipulating Parties will present evidence in support of the Stipulation, enter into evidence the Company's pre-filed Application, and direct, supplemental direct and rebuttal testimony; pre-filed respondent testimony; and the

Staff Report, without cross by any of the Stipulating Participants.

8 m SjJ WHEREFORE, the undersigned parties agree that the Stipulation represents a ^ © compromise for the purposes of settlement of the contested issues among the Stipulating

Participants in this case and balancing of many interests, and none of the signatories to this

Stipulation necessarily agrees with the treatment of any particular item, any procedure followed, or the resolution of any particular issue in agreeing to this Stipulation other than as specified herein, except as required to implement the provisions of this Stipulation, and the parties agree that the resolution of the issues herein, taken as a whole, and the disposition of all other matters set forth in this Stipulation are in the public interest. In the event the Hearing Examiner does not recommend approval of all material aspects of this Stipulation or the Commission does not accept and approve all aspects of this Stipulation, the undersigned parties respectfully request notice allowing them 10 business days within which to attempt to reach a modified stipulation that addresses the Hearing Examiner's or the Commission's concerns. If no such modified stipulation is reached within 10 days, the Stipulation shall terminate and the signatories shall reserve their rights to participate fully in all relevant proceedings notwithstanding their agreement on the tenns of this Stipulation.

9 Respectfully submitted, & €3 VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY M p yi

Charlotte P. McAfee Legal Department Dominion Resources Services, Inc. 120 Tredegar Street, RS-2 Richmond, Virginia 23219

Bernard L. McNamee Vishwa B. Link Jennifer D. Valaika McGuireWoods LLP Gateway Plaza 800 East Canal Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA

Susan E. Cooke Assistant County Attorney Corinne N. Lockett Senior Assistant County Attorney Office of the Fairfax County Attorney 12000 Government Center Parkway, Suite 549 Fairfax, Virginia 22035 FRIENDS OF HISTORIC HUNTLEY FRIENDS OF HUNTLEY MEADOWS PARK

Diane L. Donley Diane L. Donley, PLC 3508 Riverwood Road Alexandria, Virginia 22309 June 15, 2016

10 p Stipulation Ex. A Page 1 of 1 m 100 Foot Option Structure Numbers and Heights &

Str. Line 220 Structure 1,2 1/1 Structure Height (ft) Count Number

220/86 100 220/87 100 220/88 100 220/89 100 220/90 100 220/91 100 220/92 100 220/93 100 220/94 100 10 220/95 100 _11 220/96 100 JL2 220/97 100 JL3 220/98 100 JL4 220/99 100 _15 220/100 100 JL6 220/101 100 _17 220/102 100 _18 220/103 100 220/104 100 ^0 220/105 100 _21 220/106 100 _22 220/107 100 _23 220/108 100 _24 220/109 100 _25 220/110 100 _26 220/111 100 27 220/112 100 _28 220/113 100 29 220/114 100 "30 220/115 145

Notes: 1. These structure heights are approximate and subject to increase (5% or less) based on final engineering. 2. The structure heights do not include foundation reveal, which are typically 1.5' but subject to final engineering. Stipulation Ex. B p (Si Page 1 of I a COMPARISON OF OPTIONS TO REBUILD PROJECT jb EXISTING REBUILD "100FT." I'1 "90 FT." 12 a SEGMENT PROJECT OVERHEAD OVERHEAD hi p Cost $10.4 million $12.9 million $18.2 million (approximate)

Number of Overhead 48 Structures 18 Structures 30 Structures 53 Structures Structures

90 individual Number of poles; 21 individual poles 33 individual poles 56 individual poles Poles 4 towers

Number of 21 individual 33 individual 56 individual 16 Foundations foundations foundations foundations

Substation Minimal, some Minimal, some Minimal, some Work hardware hardware hardware Required replacement replacement replacement

Two Circuits- Two Circuits - Two Circuits - Two Circuits - Three-Phase Twin Three-Phase Twin Three-Phase Twin Cable Three-phase 1109 Bundled 636 ACSR Bundled 636 ACSR Bundled 636 ACSR AGAR (24/13) (24/7) "Rook" (24/7) "Rook" (24/7) "Rook" Permanent 3 wetlands 8 wetlands 17 wetlands Wetland (84.79 ft2) (226 ft2) (540 ft2) Impact

Time to Construct 4 months 8 months 12 months (approximate)

Temporary construction needed; requires installation Temporary No temporary No temporary of approximately 20 Construction construction needed construction needed temporary steel Requirements poles to prevent blowout during construction

Notes:

1. These structure heights are approximate and subject to increase (5% or less) based on final engineering. 2. The structure heights do not include foundation reveal, which are typically 1.5' but subject to final engineering. no LO o TO "a cn c cn QJ o CD o CD X! i C rtJ oo JZ LO u •M rsi 10 b rsj ro r-i O) sz on t 00 o c

«*& & <© M p i/i Stipulation Ex. E ^ Page 1 of 2 © m Sample Bird Diverters M

m hi Stipulation Ex. E