COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION '0'r-U;i-flTr>ain-rs CGNTrtUt CCNrCtf m® 2A20SEP-2 P 5 3b. © APPLICATION OF S

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER CASE NO. PUR-2019-00215 COMPANY

For approval and certification of electric Transmission facilities: Lockridge 230 kV Line Loop and Lockridge Substation

REPORT OF MARY BETH ADAMS. HEARING EXAMINER

September 2, 2020

This case involves the Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company (“Dominion Energy” or “Company”) for approval to construct a new: (a) approximately 0.6 mile long 230 kilovolt (“kV”) double circuit transmission line loop, supported by eight double circuit, single shaft galvanized steel poles from a tap point located on the existing 230 kV Roundtable- Shellhorn Line #2188 between the proposed Lockridge Substation and a proposed junction located northeast of the Shellhorn Substation (“Lockridge Loop”), and (b) 230-34.5 kV substation located on land owned by a customer requesting service (“Customer”) along Lockridge Road in Loudoun County, Virginia (“Lockridge Substation”) (collectively, “Project”).1 The Project would be constructed on new right-of-way (“ROW”) in Loudoun County. The record of this case supports a finding that the Project satisfies tire legal requirements for approval.

HISTORY OF THE CASE

On December 17, 2019, Dominion Energy filed with the State Corporation Commission (“Commission”) an application for approval and for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (“CPCN”) to construct and operate electric transmission facilities in Loudoun County, Virginia (“Application”). The Application initially included five routes (“Originally Proposed Routes”) for the Commission’s consideration. The Originally Proposed Routes consisted of Routes 1A, IB, and 1C (collectively, “Option 1 Routes”) and Routes 2A and 2B (collectively, “Option 2 Routes”).2

On February 11, 2020, the Company filed an Unopposed Motion of Virginia Electric and Power Company for Leave to Withdraw Routes from Notice and to Submit Updated Notice (“Motion”). In its Motion, the Company stated that four of the five routes initially proposed in the Application cross lands managed by the United States Postal Service (“USPS”) and that, despite initial positive indications in its communications with USPS, the Company was informed by USPS on January 3, 2020, that it opposed proposed routes requiring the placement of

1 See e.g.; Exhibit No. 2, Application at 2; Exhibit No. 9, Supplemental Direct Schedule 2, at 1; Tr. at 5. 2 As will be explained below, the Company eventually added Route 2C and 2D to the Option 2 Routes. structures on USPS property.3 The Company further stated that, without the ability to use condemnation as an assurance to securing the necessary ROW, and based on USPS’s opposition to Routes 1A, IB, 1C, and 2A, those routes are no longer viable for the Project.4 Therefore, the Company requested leave to withdraw the non-viable routes. This request left only one of the Originally Propose Routes, Route 2B, for the Commission’s consideration. Additionally, the Company requested leave to submit a revised notice and overview map, which it attached to the Motion.5

On March 4, 2020, the Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) filed its report on Dominion Energy’s Application (“DEQ Report”).6

On March 5, 2020, the Commission issued an Order for Notice and Hearing (“Procedural Order”) that, among other things, directed the Company to provide notice of its Application; directed the Staff of the Commission (“Staff’) to investigate the Application and file testimony and exhibits summarizing Staffs investigation; established a procedural schedule, including a hearing at the Commission on July 28, 2020, to receive public witness testimony and the evidence of the parties and Staff; provided opportunities for interested persons to intervene and participate hi this case; and appointed a Hearing Examiner to conduct all further proceedings in this matter on behalf of the Commission and to file a report. In its Procedural Order, the Commission granted the Company’s Motion. Thus, the only route offered for Commission consideration at that time was Route 2B.

On March 25, 2020, pursuant to Paragraph (9) of the Procedural Order, the Company filed its Proof of Notice and Certificate of Mailing advising that it had mailed property owner notice letters on March 19, 2020, pursuant to Paragraph (5) of the Procedural Order.

On April 9, 2020, the Company filed a Motion for Entry of a Protective Ruling, and on April 13, 2020,1 entered a Protective Ruling setting forth procedures for the filing, exchanging, and handling of confidential information in this case.

On April 29, 2020, the Company filed its Proof of Notice advising that, pursuant to Paragraphs (6) and (7) of the Procedural Order, it had published notice of the Application and served notice of the Application on all officials required by the Procedural Order, and on May 11, 2020, Dominion Energy filed a corrected Proof of Notice.

On May 15, 2020, Dominion Energy filed a Motion for Leave to Submit Corrected and Additional Notice and Submit Supplemental Direct Testimony (“Motion to Correct and Supplement”). In its Motion to Correct and Supplement, the Company requested leave to submit: (i) supplemental direct testimony and associated revised portions of the Appendix presenting alternative transmission line routes, Route 2C and Route 2D, to address the concerns raised by an impacted property owner (“Property Owner”) and other affected stakeholders; and

3 Motion at 2. 4 Id. at 3. 5 Id. 6 The DEQ Report provided recommendations for the Project, irrespective of the alternative selected, should the Commission grant the CPCN. See Exhibit No. 12, at 6. 2 (ii) corrected and additional notice to rectify a typographical error in the original notice and for notice of two additional alternative routes.7 While the supplemental testimony offered two additional routes for the Commission’s consideration, Routes 2C and 2D, the Company continued to support Route 2B as its preferred route in its Supplemental Testimony. A Ruling granting the Motion to Correct and Supplement was entered on May 19, 2020 (“May 19, 2020 Ruling”).

On June 4, 2020, the Company filed its Proof of Notice to Landowners and Certificate of Mailing to Officials, as required by the May 19, 2020 Ruling.8

No notices of participation were filed in this proceeding. Staff filed its testimony on June 30, 2020.

On July 13, 2020, the Company filed a Motion for Extension requesting that the deadline for the filing of its rebuttal testimony be extended until July 28, 2020, and that the evidentiary hearing be rescheduled. The Company advised that the originally scheduled July 28, 2020 hearing date could be maintained for the purpose of taking public witness testimony. On July 15, 2020,1 issued a Ruling granting the Company’s Motion for Extension and rescheduling the evidentiary hearing for August 12, 2020 (“July 15, 2020 Ruling”). In the July 15, 2020 Ruling, I also directed that the public witness hearing be held telephonically, rather than in- person and that the evidentiary hearing be held via Skype for Business (“Skype”).9

No public witnesses pre-registered to testify at the public witness hearing, as required by the July 15, 2020 Ruling. Therefore, the public witness hearing was cancelled.

On July 28, 2020, the Company filed its rebuttal testimony.

The evidentiary hearing convened via Skype, as scheduled on August 12, 2020. Vishwa B. Link, Esquire, Lisa R. Crabtree, Esquire, Jennifer D. Valaika, Esquire, and David J. DePippo, Esquire, appeared on behalf of the Company. Frederick D. Ochsenhirt, Esquire, and M. Aaron Campbell, Esquire, appeared on behalf of Staff.

No public comments were filed in this proceeding.

7 Motion to Correct and Supplement at 1. 8 The Proofs of Notice and Certificates of Mailings filed on March 25, 2020; April 29,2020; May 11,2020; and June 4, 2020; were collectively marked as Exhibit No. 1, in this proceeding. 9 In the July 15, 2020 Ruling, 1 converted the in-person hearings to virtual hearings in consideration of the Commission’s Order Regarding the State Corporation Commission’s Revised Operating Procedures During COVID-19 Emergency entered on March 19, 2020, and extended on May 11, 2020, wherein the Commission took judicial notice of the ongoing public health emergency relating to the spread of the coronavirus, or COVID-19, and state and federal declarations of emergency. See Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. State Corporation Commission, Ex Parte: Revised Operating Procedures During COVID-19 Emergency, Case No. CLK-2020-00005, Order Regarding the State Corporation Commission’s Revised Operating Procedures During COVID-19 Emergency (March 19, 2020) and (May 11,2020). SUMMARY OF THE RECORD

Dominion Energy’s Direct Testimony

Dominion Energy’s Application, Appendix, and DEQ Supplement were sponsored by Harrison S. Potter, Engineer III - Electric Transmission Planning for the Company; David M. Burnam, Consulting Engineer - Distribution Planning for Dominion Energy; Rebecca A. Suther, Engineer III - Electric Transmission Line Engineering for the Company;10 Mohammad M. Othman, Engineer III - Substation Engineering for Dominion Energy; Nancy R. Reid, Siting and Permitting Specialist for the Company;11 and Jon M. Berkin, PhD, Partner, Environmental Resource Management.

Mr. Potter sponsored or co-sponsored, among other things, parts of the Appendix describing the Company’s electric transmission system and the justification for, and benefits of, the proposed Project.12

Mr. Burnam sponsored or co-sponsored portions of the Appendix describing the Company’s electric distribution system and the need for, and benefits of, the proposed Project.13

Ms. Suther sponsored or co-sponsored portions of the Appendix providing an overview of the design characteristics of the transmission facilities for the proposed Project and discussing electric and magnetic field levels (“EMF”).14

Mr. Othman sponsored or co-sponsored portions of the Appendix describing the substation work to be performed for the proposed Project, including an estimated total cost of the proposed Project.15 Ms. Reid sponsored or co-sponsored portions of the Appendix providing an overview of the design of the route for the proposed Project and related permitting.16

Dr. Berkin sponsored or co-sponsored, among other things, the Environmental Routing Study.17

10 Ms. Suther adopted the pre-filed direct testimony of Company witness Tyler G. Hock. 11 Ms. Reid adopted the pre-filed direct testimony of Company witness Laura P. Meadows. 12 Mr. Potter sponsored or co-sponsored the following parts of the Appendix: Sections I.J-M; Sections II.A.3 and 10; and Sections l.A-E, G-I, and N. Exhibit No. 3 at 2. 13 Mr. Burnam sponsored or co-sponsored the following parts of the Appendix: Sections I.A-E, G-H, and N. Exhibit No. 4 at 2. 14 Ms. Suther sponsored or co-sponsored the following parts of the Appendix: Section l.F; Section I1.A.5; Section 1I.B.1-11.B.5; Section IV; Section I.I; and Section I1.B.6. Exhibit No. 5 at 2. 15 Mr. Othman sponsored or co-sponsored the following parts of the Appendix: Section I.I and Section U.C. Exhibit No. 6 at 2. 16 Ms. Reid sponsored or co-sponsored the following parts of the Appendix: Section H.A.1-2, 4, 6, 9, II, and 12; Section II.B.6, Section III; and Section V. Ms. Reid co-sponsors with Dr. Berkin the DEQ Supplement filed with the Application. Exhibit 7 at 2, Section LI.5.6. 17 Dr. Berkin sponsored or co-sponsored the following parts of the Appendix: Section I I.A. 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11; Section III; and Revised Appendix Section V.A. Dr. Berkin co-sponsored with Ms. Reid the DEQ Supplement filed with the Application. 4 Project Description 0

In order to provide service requested by the Customer; to maintain reliable service for the overall growth in the area; and to comply with mandatory North American Electric Rehability Corporation (<£NERC”) Reliability Standards, the Company is proposing to construct the Project.18 Consistent with the Motion to Correct and Supplement described above, the Company offers three routes - Route 2B, 2C, and 2D - for the Commission’s consideration.

The Company stated that the Customer is developing a data center campus on 28.4 acres centrally located along Lockridge Road in Loudoun County’s Data Center Alley and is developing two additional data center campuses in the Project area.19

The map below illustrates the Shellhom-Lockridge Load Area.

18 Exhibit No. 3, atl. 19 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 3. 5 According to the Company, the Customer has requested retail electric service, totaling 306 MVA of power, from the Company to support the future build out of the three campuses. The Company indicated that there are additional data center projects in various stages of development in the area and the existing Shellhom Substation and the proposed Lockridge Substation would be used to serve them.20

The Company asserted that the Project is needed to meet the load requirements of the Customer’s planned data center campuses and future load growth in the Lockridge-Shellhom Load Area, which, according to the Company, will facilitate economic growth in the Commonwealth.21

The Company estimated that the cost for the Project utilizing Route 2D is approximately $36.6 million, of which approximately $15.7 million is for transmission-related work22 and $20.9 million is for substation-related work.23 The Company advised that, should the Commission issue a final order in this case by November 30, 2020, the Company could begin construction by October 4, 2021, and complete the Project by the desired in-service date of July 31, 2022.24

20 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 3. 21 Id. at 4. 22 Exhibit No. 9, at 5. 23 See e.g., Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 32; and Tr. at 7-8. 24 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 31. 6 Lockridge Substation

The Company will obtain an easement from the Customer for the proposed Lockridge Substation, which will be located on the Customer’s 28.4-acre data center campus.25 The proposed Lockridge Substation will be constructed initially with four 230 kV breakers in a ring bus arrangement, two 84 MV A, 230-34.5 kV transformers, nine 34.5 kV distribution circuits, and other associated equipment.26 In total, it will be designed to accommodate future growth in the area with a build-out of six 230 kV breakers in a ring bus arrangement, five 84 MVA, 230- 34.5 kV transformers, and up to twenty-five 34.5 kV distribution circuits.27

Proposed Route 2D and Alternative Routes 2B and 2C

According to Company witness Berkin, all three routes would start at the proposed Lockridge Substation and end at a proposed junction site along Line #2188, 0.41 miles east of the Shellhom Substation.28 The routes would differ only in the area of the proposed Prentice Drive and Shellhorn Road intersection, as shown in the map above.29 Dr. Berkin testified that the differences in alignment between Routes 2C and 2D were designed to accommodate the

23 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at ii. 16 Id. at 4-5. 27 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 5. 28 Exhibit No. 9, at 4. 29 Id to m m installation and maintenance of a traffic signal at the planned intersection of Prentice Drive and ^ Shellhom Road, which will be installed after the Project is constructed.30 According to

The table below illustrates some of the differences between the various routes:32

2B 2C 2D Total route length (miles) 0.65 0.63 0.63 New ROW needed (acres) 11.15 10.83 10.79 Number of structures needed 8 Structure Height (Min./Max./Avg. ft.) 95/115/105 95/130/110 95/130/109 Number of parcels crossed (private/federal) 3/0 3/1 3/1 Length of collocation opportunities (miles) 0.27 0.29 0.29 Amount of developable property impacted 1.87 1.11 1.11 Cost in millions (2019 dollars) $15.4 $15.4 $15.7

Three-phase twin-bundled 768.2 aluminum conductor coated steel (“ACSS/TW”) type conductors and a fiber optic shield wire would be used for the Project.33

The picture below illustrates the structures proposed for the Project.34

2223 LINE 2188 LINE

PROPOSED CONFIGURATION

30 Id. at 5. 31 W. 32 Id., Supplemental Schedule 2, at 1-2; Exhibit No. 10, at 5. 33 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 71. 34 ExhibitNo. 11, Appendix A at Attachment II.B.S.d. 8 Dominion Energy estimated that the acreage of wetlands in the ROW for Route 2D is 10.79 acres.35 The Company anticipates that following construction of the Project the vegetation within the ROW would be allowed to revert to pre-construction conditions.36 Therefore, the Company expects there would be no net loss of wetlands within the transmission line ROW for Route 2D or any of the three routes.37 Dominion Energy indicated that the Project would have minimal visual impact on one architectural resource that is considered potentially eligible for listing in the Virginia Department of Historic Resources’ (“VDHR”) Virginia Landmarks Register, National Register of Historic Places (“NRHP”).38 That resource. Broad Run Ford and Ox Road, is located north of Route 2D, but the line would be screened by existing vegetation.39

DEQ Report

In the DEQ Report, DEQ advised that the Project would likely require the following permits and approvals:40

1. Water Permits:

a. Section 404 permit (e.g., Nationwide Permit 12, if appropriate). Required pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) for impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and/or waters of the United States.

b. Virginia Water Protection Permit (9 VAC 25-210 et seq.) issued by DEQ for impacts to waters and jurisdictional wetlands, including isolated wetlands.

2. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan:

a. General erosion and sediment control specifications pursuant to Code § 62.1-44.15:55. General erosion and sediment control specifications are subject to annual approval by DEQ.

b. Erosion and sediment control plans for construction of facilities not covered under Code § 62.1-44.15:55 are subject to approval by the appropriate plan approving authority.

3. Stormwater Management Permit:

Virginia Stormwater Management Program General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater from Construction Activities (9 VAC 25-880-70 et seq.) of the Virginia Stormwater Management Program Permit Regulations (9 VAC 25-870 et seq.) involving land disturbance of one acre or more. Coverage under this general permit is approved by the locality.

35 Exhibit No. 17, at 1. 36 Id. ” Id 38 See e.g. ; Exhibit No. 2, Environmental Routing Study at 57-58; Exhibit No. 9, Supplemental Schedule 2 at 2. 39 See e.g.; Exhibit No. 2, Environmental Routing Study at 57-58; Exhibit No. 12, at 20-21. 40 Exhibit No. 12, at 3-5. 9 a a (Q 4. Floodplain Management: {=* The conditions set out in the local floodplain management ordinance at Article 4-1500, m Floodplain Overly District. »

5. Ah Quality Permits or Approvals:

a. Open Burning Permit (9 VAC 5-130 et seq.). For open burning involving vegetative and demolition debris.

b. Fugitive dust emissions (9 VAC 5-50-60 et seq.). Governs abatement of visible emissions.

c. Asphalt paving (9 VAC 5-40-5490), for driveways and site pads, if applicable.

6. Solid and Hazardous Waste Management:

a. Applicable state laws and regulations include: • Virginia Waste Management Act (Code § 10.1-1400 et seq.)-, • Virginia Hazardous Waste Management Regulations (9 VAC 20-60 et seq.)-, • Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations (9 VAC 20-81); and • Virginia Regulations for the Transportation of Hazardous Materials (9 VAC 20-110).

b. Applicable federal laws and regulations include: • Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 etseq., and the applicable regulations contained in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and • U.S. Department of Transportation Rules for Transportation of Plazardous Materials (49 C.F.R. Part 107).

7. Historic and Archaeological Resources:

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and its implementing regulation 36 C.F.R. 800 requires that federally licensed and permitted projects consider its effects on properties that are listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Section 106 applies if there is federal involvement such as the issuance of a § 404 Clean Water Act permit, including Nationwide Permits. The applicability of § 106 to the entire project or any portion thereof must be determined by the responsible federal agency.

8. Aviation Requirements:

Federal Aviation Administration Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, to ensure compliance with Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77.

9. Transportation:

10 Permits for construction in the state-maintained ROW.

The DEQ Report also contained recommendations based on information and analysis submitted by reviewing agencies. DEQ’s recommendations, which are in addition to requirements of federal, state or local law or regulations listed above, are summarized below.

• 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.41

• Take all reasonable precautions to limit emissions of oxides of nitrogen and volatile organic compounds, principally controlling or limiting the burning of fossil fuels.42

• Reduce solid waste at the source, reuse it and recycle it to the maximum extent practicable, and follow DEQ’s recommendations regarding the evaluation of waste sites.43

• Coordinate with the Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (“DCR”) Division of Natural Heritage (“DNH”) regarding the development of an invasive species plan 44

• Coordinate with DCR for updates to the Biotics Data System database during the final design stage of engineering and upon any major modifications of the project construction to avoid and minimize impacts to natural heritage resources.45

• Coordinate with the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries regarding its general recommendations to protect aquatic resources.46

• Coordinate with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation should the project change or if construction does not begin within 24 months of the response contained in the DEQ Report.47

• Employ best management practices for the protection of water supply sources.48

• Follow the principles and practices of pollution prevention to the extent practicable.49

41 Id. at 6, 8-10. A wetland impact consultation provided by DEQ’s Office of Wetlands and Stream Protection is also attached to the DEQ Report. n Id. at 6, 14. 43 Id. at 6, 16. 44 Id. at 6, 18. 45 Id. 46 Id. at 6, 19-20. 47 Id. at 6, 22. 48 Id. at 7, 23. 49 Id. at 7, 23-24. 11 © • Limit the use of pesticides and herbicides, to the extent practicable.50 IQ p © Staffs Testimony & Staff presented its findings and recommendations through the testimony of Armando J. I Pi de Leon, Senior Utilities Engineer in the Commission’s Division of Public Utility Regulation. Mr. de Leon evaluated, among other things, the need asserted for the Project, alternative projects considered by the Company, and the routes for the Project.

Mr. de Leon identified the existing transmission facilities owned by the Company in the Shellhom-Lockridge Load Area and attached to his testimony a map of the facilities.5051 Mr. de Leon discussed the data center load request; service reliability, load growth, and NERC reliability violations; substation transformer overloads; substation transformer contingency plan overloads; and NERC transmission system reliability criteria violations.52 Additionally, he verified the results of the power flow studies and confirmed overloads occur under various contingencies.53 He found that, with the Project in place, the issues discussed would be resolved and capacity at the Shellhom and Lockridge Substations would be available to serve future load growth.54

Mr. de Leon identified the amount of existing demand-side management (“DSM”) resources deployed by Dominion Energy, the amounts of DSM required to impact the need for the Project, and the amount of projected DSM incorporated in Dominion Energy’s planning studies.55 He concurred with the Company that the impact of DSM is insufficient to address the projected reliability criteria violations and that the impact of DSM does not alter the need for the Project.56

After discussing the Proposed Routes and the Alternative Routes, Mr. de Leon agreed with the Company’s position as of the filing of the supplemental testimony that Route 2B best addresses the needs of the Project while also addressing operational and safety considerations.57

Mr. de Leon also addressed the five alternative projects the Company considered for serving the Customer’s needs, two of which were distribution-related and three of which were transmission-related.58 Mr. de Leon agreed with the Company’s assessment regarding these alternatives.59

50 Id. at 7,24. 51 Exhibit No. 11, at 2, Attachment 1. 52 [d. at 6-13. 53 Id at 13. 54 7^. at 11-12. 55 Id. at 12, Appendix A Company responses to Staff Interrogatory Nos. 1-10(a), (c), and (d). 56 Id at 12. 57 Id. at 14-19. At the hearing, Staff advised that it did not oppose Route 2D. Tr. at 15. 58 Exhibit No. 11, at 22-23. 59 Id. 12 Mr. de Leon reported that Staff believes that the Project would support economic development in Loudoun County.60

Based on Staffs investigation, Mr. de Leon concluded that Dominion Energy reasonably demonstrated the need for the Project and stated that Staff, therefore, does not oppose the Project.61

Dominion Energy’s Rebuttal Testimony

Dominion Energy offered its rebuttal through the testimony of Mr. Jonas, Ms. Suther, Ms. Reid, and Rachel M. Studebaker, Environmental Specialist II for the Company.

Mr. Jonas provided an overview of the routes considered in this proceeding. He discussed the Company’s engagement with the Property Owner and other interested stakeholders since the filing of the Application and the supplemental testimony.62 In particular, he discussed concerns the Property Owner expressed regarding proposed Route 2B, the traffic signal computer added design (“CAD”) file provided to the Company, and the potential for future electric infrastructure in the proposed Lockridge Loop Area.63 In conclusion, Mr. Jonas stated that the Company no longer believes that there are operational and safety concerns regarding Routes 2C and 2D and now supports Route 2D.64 Mr. Jonas advised that the Company informed Loudoun County Department of Transportation and Capital Infrastructure (“DTCI”) and Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”) of its support for Route 2D.65

Ms. Suther provided an engineering analysis of certain CAD fdes provided to the Company and testified that the traffic signals are outside of the ROW of all three routes.66 She testified that, from an engineering perspective, all three routes are acceptable to the Company and do not present the safety and operational concerns the Company originally believed.67 She concluded that Route 2D is located furthest from the traffic signals under both normal and maximum blow-out conditions and encroaches on less road ROW than the physical footprint of the conductors on a 60-degree day than either Routes 2B or 2C.68

Ms. Reid responded to recommendations in the DEQ Report as they pertain to permitting and/or routing concerns. Ms. Reid advised that the Company does not object to the “Summary

60 Id. at 25. 61 Id. at 26. 62 Exhibit No. 13, at 2-3. 63 Id at 3-7. 64 Id. at 7. 65 Id. at 7-8. At the hearing, the Company provided the responses it received from DTCI and VDOT. DTCJ confirmed that Route 2D should not have any conflicts with signal equipment, and VDOT agreed with the Company that Route 2D is the best alternative. The DTCI and VDOT responses were admitted into the record as Exhibits 18 and 19, respectively. 66 Exhibit No. 14, at 1-4. 67 Id. at 4. 68 Id. at 4-5. At the hearing, counsel for the Company explained that a 60-degree day is meant to represent normal weather conditions or a “zero wind ... day.” She further advised that the Company has been using this measurement since the 1960’s. Tr. at 24-25. 13 of Recommendations” in the DEQ Report, except as discussed in her rebuttal testimony and the rebuttal testimony of Company witness Studebaker.69

Specifically, the Company requested that the Commission reject the recommendations by DCR related to development and implementation of an invasive species management plan and the recommendations by DCR-DNH related to minimizing fragmentation of ecological cores C4 and C5. Additionally, Ms. Reid stated that the Company seeks to clarify the following: recommendations by the DEQ Office of Wetlands and Stream Protection (“OWSP”) related to the Option 1 Routes; recommendations by the VDHR related to the minimal impacts of the Option 2 Routes70 on historic architectural resources; and recommendations by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (“VMRC”) related to whether a VMRC permit will be required for the Project.71

Ms. Reid addressed the OWSP and VDHR recommendations. Specifically, she advised that the Environmental Routing Study contained in the Application included the results of the environmental constraint identification and routing study conducted by Environmental Resources Management for the Originally Proposed Routes.72 Additionally, the Environmental Routing Study contained information designed to facilitate review and analysis by DEQ and other relevant agencies of the proposed facilities along all five of the Originally Proposed Routes.73 Ms. Reid noted that Routes 2C and 2D (neither of which are one of the Originally Proposed Routes) predominately follow the Route 2B alignment (one of the Originally Proposed Routes).74 She referenced Company witness Jonas’ testimony and noted that the impacts of the variations between Routes 2B, 2C, and 2D are overall “immaterial.”75 She also highlighted Dr. Berkin’s opinion that each route would reasonably minimize adverse impacts associated with the construction of the Project.76

Ms. Reid testified that the Originally Proposed Routes - including Route 2B, which is similar in alignment and environmental impacts to Routes 2C and 2D - were presented to DEQ for the coordinated agency review.77 She reported that the Company reached out to DEQ and advised it of the three routes now proposed and explained the similarities of the those routes in terms of alignment and environmental impacts.78 She testified that the Company will work with OWSP and all agencies in the normal permitting processes following route approval by the Commission to obtain any necessary permits and authorizations.79 Lastly, Ms. Reid noted VDHR’s preference for Option 2 Routes versus Option 1 Routes and reiterated that the Option 1

69 Exhibit No. 15, at 2. 70 At the time VDHR conducted its review there were two Option 2 Routes: Route 2A, which was withdrawn, and Option 2B. After VDHR’s review, the Company developed and proposed two additional Option 2 Routes: Route 2C and 2D. 71 Exhibit No, 15, at 2-3. 71 Id. at 3. 73 Id. at 3-4. 74 Id. at 4. 75 Id 16 Id. 11 Id. nId 19 Id. 14 Routes have been withdrawn and that the Option 2 Routes, including Route 2C and 2D, would be expected to have similar impacts to one another.80

Ms. Studebaker sought to clarify one recommendation in the DEQ Report and requested that the Commission reject two recommendations in the DEQ Report.

First, Ms. Studebaker noted that the DEQ Report states that VRMC determined that the Project is outside of the agency’s jurisdictional areas and will not require a permit because the proposed route does not cross any waterbodies.81 She further noted, however, that the Option 1 Routes were withdrawn, and that the remaining routes, including Route 2D, cross Broad Run.82 Therefore, the Company sought to clarify that the Project is within the VRMC’s jurisdiction.83 Ms. Studebaker testified that the Company will coordinate with VRMC and will follow the normal permitting process to obtain all appropriate permits.84

Next, Ms. Studebaker requested that the Commission reject DCR-DNH’s recommendation regarding ecological cores C4 and C5.85 She testified that, given the ongoing and proposed development of roads and data centers in the Project area and the construction impact of that development (most of which will occur prior to the Company’s construction of tire Project), the Company requests that the Commission reject the recommendation as unnecessary.86 She further noted that the impacted ecological cores (C4 and C5) are the lowest relevant cores on the scale; tire Company has made reasonable efforts to minimize fragmentation, as practicable, in designing the routes for the Project; and no species of concern have been identified in the area.87 Nonetheless, Ms. Studebaker testified that Dominion Energy will work with DCR-DNH to minimize fragmentation, as practicable.88

Lastly, Ms. Studebaker requested rejection of OCR’s recommendation that Dominion Energy develop and implement an invasive species management plan, with an invasive species inventory for the Project area, to be included as ROW maintenance practices.89 She requested rejection of this recommendation because Dominion Energy already has a comprehensive integrated vegetation management plan for controlling vegetation, including invasive species, that is consistent with the standards for utility ROW developed by the American National Standards Institute and NERC for all regions in Dominion Energy’s service territory.90

80 Id. at 5. 81 Exhibit No. 16, at 3. Route 1A, an Option 1 Route, was the proposed route at the time the VRMC determined that the Project was outside the agency’s jurisdictional areas and would not require a permit. 82 Exhibit No. 16, at 3. * Id. M Id. 85 Id. at 4. 86 Id 91 Id. m Id at 4-5. 89 Id. at 5. 90 Id. at 5-6. 15 w © DISCUSSION m © Code © A Dominion Energy filed its Application pursuant to the Utility Facilities Act91 and Code tR § 56-46.1. Code § 56-265.2 A 1 of the Utility Facilities Act provides that “it shall be unlawful for any public utility to construct. . . facilities for use in public utility service, except ordinary extensions or improvements in the usual course of business, without first having obtained a certificate from the Commission that the public convenience and necessity require the exercise of such right or privilege.” For the construction of any overhead transmission line of 138 kV or more that requires a CPCN, the Code also requires compliance with Code § 56-46.1.92

Code § 56-46.1 A 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 economic development within the Commonwealth . . . and (b) shall consider any improvements in service reliability that may result from the construction of such facility.

Code § 56-46.1 B further provides, in part, that:

As a condition to approval the Commission shall determine that the line is needed and that the corridor or route chosen for the line will avoid or reasonably minimize adverse impact to the greatest extent reasonably practicable on the scenic assets, historic resources recorded with the Department of Historic Resources, and environment of the area concerned. ... In making the determinations about need, corridor or route, and method of installation, the Commission shall verify the applicant’s load flow

91 Code § 56-265.1 etseq. 92 Code §§ 56-265.2 A 1 and 56-46.1 J. 16 modeling, contingency analyses, and reliability needs presented to justify the new line and its proposed method of installation. . . ,93

In addition, the Code requires consideration of existing right-of-way when siting transmission lines. Code § 56-46.1 C provides that “[i]n any hearing the public service company shall provide adequate evidence that existing rights-of-way cannot adequately serve the needs of the company.” In addition, Code § 56-259 C provides that “[pjrior to acquiring any easement of right-of-way, public service corporations will consider the feasibility of locating such facilities on, over, or under existing easements of rights-of-way.”

Need

The Company identified the load requirements of the Customer and future load growth in the Lockridge-Shellhorn Load Area as the driving need for the Project.94 The Customer is developing a data center (“Campus A”) along Lockridge Road in Loudoun County’s Data Center Alley.95 The Customer is also developing a second data center campus along Broderick Drive (“Campus B”) and a third data center campus along Shellhom Road (“Campus C”). The Customer is requesting a total of 306 MVA of power with both normal service feeds and full capacity alternative feeds. The Company plans to serve the Customer’s Campus A and Campus B from the Lockridge Substation and Campus C from the Shellhom Substation (with additional necessary equipment to build out the Shellhom Substation).96 Additional load growth is expected in the area resulting from construction of other data centers.97 The Company’s analysis shows that adding the load from the Customer’s campuses and the other forecasted load growth to the existing load at the Shellhom Substation would create transformer overloads,98 and Staff concurred with the Company’s assessment.99 Staff also concurred with the Company’s assertion that, based on forecasted data provided, the load served by the Shellhom Substation would be approximately 305.9 MW in summer 2026 resulting in a violation of the NERC 300 MW criteria.100 I find that the Company has demonstrated reliability needs justifying a transmission system project to address the projected load growth in the Project area.

As part of its investigation. Staff obtained information regarding the amount of DSM on Dominion Energy’s Virginia system. Staff reported that, in its Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Report, the Company shows 210 MW of DSM on its Virginia system and noted that approximately 5.5 MW of the DSM is in the Project area.101 Staff further stated that the load at the Shellhom Substation is reduced by approximately 1 MW as the effects of peak load reduction

93 Code § 56-46.1 provides that unless the context requires a different meaning, the term “environment” or “environmental,” which, as shown above, are used in Code §§ 56-46.1 A and B, “shall be deemed to include in meaning ‘historic,’ as well as a consideration of the probable effects of the line on the health and safety of the persons in the area concerned.” Code § 56-46.1 D. 94 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 1. 95 Id. at 3. 96 Id. 97 Id at 4. 98 Id at 3. 99 Exhibit No. 11, at 13. 100 M m Id. at 12. 17 related to energy efficiency programs are incorporated into the PJM Load Forecast.102 Staff concurred with the Company that a 1 MW reduction in load, attributed to the impact of DSM, is insufficient to address the projected reliability criteria violations.103 Therefore, Staff believes that the DSM impact does not alter the need for the Project.104 Based on the record, I find the need for the Project is unaffected by DSM investment by the Company.

Additionally, the Company considered two distribution alternatives and three transmission alternatives to the originally proposed project.

The distribution alternatives considered included feeding the Lockridge/Shellhorn Load Area growth from Pacific Substation and feeding the Lockridge/Shellhorn Load Area growth from the future Global Plaza Substation. Both of these alternatives were rejected by the Company for a variety of reasons, including potential capacity issues and distribution circuit construction issues.105

Transmission Alternatives (2) and (3) were rejected by the Company because anN-1-1 contingency scenario on these alternatives revealed violations occuring in 2022 and 2023, respectively. However, the Company determined that Transmission Alternative (1) was a feasible alternative to the originally proposed project and the Option 1 Routes, thus the Company developed the Option 2 Routes and presented Transmission Alternative (1) as Option 2 in its Application and provided notice thereof.106

Staff reviewed the alternatives proposed by the Company and agreed with the Company’s assessment of the alternatives.

Based on the foregoing, I find a demonstrated need for the Project.

Cost

The estimated total cost of the proposed Project is approximately $36.6 million. Of this total estimated cost, approximately $15.7 million is for transmission-related work and $20.9 million is for substation-related work.107 The reasonableness of the cost of the Project was not disputed by any participant.

Route and Environmental Impact

The Company ultimately offered three routes for the Commission’s consideration: Routes 2B, 2C, and 2D, and in its rebuttal testimony the Company supported Route 2D as its proposed

102 Id. 103 Id. 104 Id. 105 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 19-20. m Id. at 20-21. As noted previously in this Report, the Company withdrew Option 1 and the associated Option 1 Routes and one of the Option 2 Routes, Route 2A, from its Application. Thus, the Project proposed in the Application is Transmission Alternative (1), also referred to as Option 2. 107 See e.g., Exhibit No. 9, at 5; Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 32; and Tr. at 7-8. 18 route. Route 2D, would traverse 0.63 miles through Loudoun County in an area that is largely undeveloped forest with plans for eventual data center development. It is surrounded by existing data centers and scattered light industrial and other business and commercial land use.108

According to Loudoun County CIS parcel and zoning data and aerial photo analysis, there are no dwellings located within 500 feet, 250 feet, or within the ROW of the three routes.109 Route 2D would require the Company to obtain 10.79 acres of new ROW;110 would have collocation opportunities with the existing TC Energy-owned Columbia Gas Transmission natural gas pipeline ROW (“Pipeline ROW”) for 0.29 miles; would impact the Property Owner’s developable building area by 1.11 acres, an impact equal to Route 2C and less than Route 2B; would require the clearing of 3.70 acres of forested land, the least of the three routes; and would cross Broad Run and an unnamed tributary to Broad Run, approximately 1.21 acres of palustrine emergent wetlands, the same as Routes 2B and 2C.111

The record shows that all three of the offered routes are similar in terms of costs and overall environmental impacts'12 and that Route 2D will not interfere with traffic signals at the Shellhom Road/Prentice Drive intersection once energized.113 Additionally, the Company indicated that the Property Owner prefers Route 2D,114 and at the hearing, Staff represented that it did not oppose Route 2D.115

Based on the preliminary design of the Project, Route 2D will require eight structures, approximately half of which will be collocated along the Pipeline ROW for 0.29 miles of the 0.63-mile line.116 The proposed structure heights would range from 95 to 130 feet, with an average structure height of 109 feet.117 Additionally, the proposed location of Route 2D is furthest from the proposed traffic signals at the Shellhorn Road/Prentice Drive intersection under both nonnal and maximum blow-out conditions.118

Based on the record of this case - including, but not limited to, the preliminary design heights and the collocation of a portion of the route along the Pipeline ROW -1 conclude that the route of the Project would reasonably minimize adverse impact on the scenic assets, historic districts, and environment of the area concerned.

I also conclude that there are no adverse environmental impacts that should prevent the construction of the Project. Dominion Energy should be required to obtain all necessary environmental permits and approvals that are needed to construct and operate the Project.

108 See e.g., Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 86; and Exhibit No. 9, at 6. 109 Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 46-47. 110 Exhibit No. 9, Supplemental Schedule 2, at 1. 111 Exhibit No. 9, at 7, and attached Supplemental Schedule 2. u2 See e.g., Exhibit No. 10, at 5; and Exhibit No. 9, at 3. 113 See e.g.. Exhibit No. 13, at 6-7; and Exhibit No. 14, at 3-4. 114 Exhibit No. 13, at 6. 115 Tr. at 15. 116 Exhibit No. 9, Supplemental Schedule 1, and Supplemental Schedule 2, at 1-2. 1,7 See e.g., Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 157; and Exhibit No. 9, Supplemental Schedule 2, at 1. 118 See e.g., Exhibit No. 13, at 6; Exhibit No. 14, at 4. 19 DEQ Report

I recommend that Dominion Energy comply with the summary recommendations of the DEQ Report, with the exception of the two contested recommendations. Specifically, I do not recommend requiring Dominion Energy to develop and implement an invasive species management plan specific to the Project area that is different than the Company’s existing comprehensive integrated vegetation management plan for controlling vegetation, including invasive species, throughout the Company’s service territory.119 Further, based on the Company’s representations that it will work with DCR-DNH to minimize fragmentation, as practicable, I do not recommend requiring the Company to comply with DCR-DNH’s recommendation regarding ecological cores C4 and C5.120

Additionally, based on the record of this case, I find reasonable Dominion Energy’s commitments to coordinate with VRMC and follow the normal permitting process to obtain all appropriate permits121 and work with OWSP and all agencies in the normal permitting processes following route approval by the Commission to obtain any necessary permits and authorizations.122

Economic Development

The Project will maintain transmission system reliability by meeting the load requirements of the Customer’s planned data center campuses and future load growth in the Lockridge-Shellhom Load Area. As such, the Project promotes economic development.123

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on applicable law and the record in this proceeding, I find that:

1. The Project is needed to address load growth in the Project area and to maintain electric transmission system reliability;

2. The Project, including Route 2D, would reasonably minimize adverse impact on the scenic assets, historic districts, and environment of the area concerned;

3. The unopposed recommendations in the DEQ Report should be adopted by the Commission as conditions of approval;

4. Dominion Energy should (1) coordinate with VRMC and follow the normal permitting process to obtain all appropriate permits; (2) work with DCR-DNH to minimize fragmentation, as practicable; and (3) work with OWSP and all agencies in the normal permitting processes

119 Exhibit Mo. 16, at 5-6. 120 Exhibit No. 16, at 4. 121 Wat 3. 122 Exhibit No. 15, at 4. 123 See e.g., Exhibit No. 2, Appendix at 4; and Exhibit No. 11, at 25. 20 M m following route approval by the Commission to obtain any necessary permits and authorizations; m and m m 5. The Project would support economic development. & i/i Accordingly, I RECOMMEND the Commission enter an order that:

1.. ADOPTS the findings in this Report;

2. AUTHORIZES the Company to construct and operate the Project, subject to the findings and conditions recommended herein;

3. ISSUES an appropriate CPCN for the Project; and

4. 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, on or before September 9, 2020. If not filed electronically, the mailing address to which any such filing must be sent is Document Control Center, P.O. 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 counsel of record and any such party not represented by counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Beth Adams Hearing Examiner

Document Control Center is requested to send a copy of the above Report 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, Tyler Building, First Floor, Richmond, VA 23219.

21