COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 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 Huntley ^ 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 Huntley Meadows Park, 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 Thomson Francis Mason, grandson of national founding father George Mason 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.