James City County v. SCC

PRESENT: Lemons, C.J., Millette, Mims, McClanahan, and Powell,
JJ., and Russell and Koontz, S.JJ.
BASF CORPORATION
v. Record Nos. 140462, 141009 & 141201
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
OPINION
JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR.
JAMES CITY COUNTY, ET AL. April 16, 2015
v. Record Nos. 140470 & 141010
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
FROM THE STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
These consolidated appeals of right by James City County,
Save the James Alliance Trust, and James River Association
(collectively, "JCC"), and BASF Corporation ("BASF") arise from
proceedings before the State Corporation Commission (the
"Commission").
By an initial Certificate Order and an Amending Order, the
Commission issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a
Dominion Virginia Power ("Dominion") certificates of public
convenience and necessity ("CPCNs") authorizing the construction
of electric transmission facilities (the "Project"). BASF
challenges the approval of the transmission line's route across
a sensitive environmental remediation site on its property along
the James River. JCC challenges the approval of two main
features of the Project: a new 500 kilovolt ("kV") overhead
transmission line that will cross the James River and an
associated switching station that will be located in James City
County. JCC argues that the switching station is a not a
"transmission line" under Code § 56-46.1(F), and therefore
subject to local zoning ordinances.
We conclude that the Commission did not err in its
construction or application of Code § 56-46.1's requirements
that Dominion "reasonably minimize adverse impact on scenic
assets, historic districts, and environment of the area
concerned," and that the record is not without evidence to
support its findings. We hold, however, that the Commission did
err in concluding that a switching station is a "transmission
line" under Code § 56-46.1(F). We will therefore affirm the
orders as to appellant BASF, and affirm in part, reverse in
part, and remand as to the JCC appellants.
I. PROCEEDINGS
In 2012, Dominion filed an application with the Commission
seeking the issuance of the CPCNs under Code § 56-265.2 of the
Virginia Utility Facilities Act, and approval under Code § 56-
46.1, to construct the Project.
Code § 56-265.2(A) provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful
for any public utility to construct . . . facilities for use in
public utility service . . . without first having obtained a
certificate from the Commission that the public convenience and
necessity require the exercise of such right or privilege."
2
This provision also requires compliance with the provisions of
Code § 56-46.1 for the issuance of a certificate to construct
overhead transmission lines of 138 kV or more.
Code § 56-46.1 directs the Commission to consider several
factors when reviewing the utility company's application for the
certificate. As relevant here, subsection (A) of the statute
provides: "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." Code § 56-46.1(A).
Here, the term "'environmental' shall be deemed to include in
meaning 'historic.'" Code § 56-46.1(D). Subsection (A) also
directs that "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(A).
Subsection (B) of Code § 56-46.1 then provides, in relevant
part: "As a condition to approval the Commission shall
determine that the [proposed transmission] 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."
3
Dominion's application addressed the need for the Project
and described its proposed features. Dominion represented that
the construction of this additional transmission capacity was
needed to assure continued reliable electric service to its
customers in the North Hampton Roads Area. 1 The Project,
according to Dominion, was the best means for meeting this need
while "reasonably minimiz[ing] adverse impact on the scenic
assets, historic districts and environment of the area
concerned," as required by Code § 56-46.1(B).
The Commission undertook an investigation, received public
comments and assigned a Hearing Examiner to conduct the
proceedings and issue a report on Dominion's application. Two
days of public witness hearings were then conducted, followed by
a nine-day long evidentiary hearing for the purpose of receiving
evidence offered by Dominion, respondents, including JCC and
BASF, and the Commission's staff. Following its receipt of the
Hearing Examiner's report, the Commission issued the first of
the orders challenged in this appeal.
1
The North Hampton Roads Area, as referred to in this case,
includes the following 14 counties and 7 cities: the counties of
Charles City, James City, York, Essex, King William, King and
Queen, Middlesex, Mathews, Gloucester, King George,
Westmoreland, Northumberland, Richmond, and Lancaster, and the
cities of Williamsburg, Yorktown, Newport News, Poquoson,
Hampton, West Point, and Colonial Beach.
4
A. Evidentiary Hearing
The record below is extensive, but included the following
basic facts.
Under federal law, Dominion must comply with North American
Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC") standards, which have
been adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
("FERC"). See Piedmont Envtl. Council v. Virginia Elec. & Power
Co., 278 Va. 553, 559-60, 684 S.E.2d 805, 808 (2009) (explaining
federal regulation of public utilities like Dominion that
operate "bulk electric transmission systems"). Dominion
presented evidence that, in order to monitor whether its
electric transmission system is in compliance with NERC
reliability standards, Dominion continually assesses the
system's future reliability using load flow modeling studies.
Based on the load flow modeling evidence in this case, previous
studies had indicated that normal load growth in the North
Hampton Roads Area would result in NERC reliability violations
by 2019. However, in order to comply with new regulations,
Dominion determined that six of its local coal-fired generation
units (two at the Yorktown Power Plant and four at the
Chesapeake Power Plant) would need to be shut down. According
to Dominion, the retirement of just one unit at Yorktown was
enough to cause reliability violations to begin in the summer of
2015.
5
To meet the above-stated need, Dominion proposed in its
application for the CPCNs that the Project include the
construction of (1) approximately seven to eight miles
(depending upon the specific route across the James River) of a
new 500 kV overhead transmission line (the "Surry-Skiffes Creek
Line"), (2) approximately 20 miles of a new 230 kV overhead
transmission line (the "Skiffes Creek-Whealton Line"), and (3) a
new switching station required to interconnect the 500 kV line
to the 230 kV line (the "Skiffes Creek Switching Station"). 2
Dominion's application, at issue in today's appeal,
presented the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line over the James River and
onto BASF's property, with several "Variations" as to the exact
route crossing the James River. As an alternative to the Surry-
Skiffes Creek Line, Dominion also offered for the Commission's
consideration a different route extending 38 miles from
2
The 500 kV Surry-Skiffes Creek Line would begin on Hog
Island at Dominion's existing Surry Switching Station near the
Surry Nuclear Power Station in Surry County and extend to the
south shore of the James River. The line would then cross the
James River and come ashore on BASF's property in a dormant
industrial area at one of two locations. The line would proceed
through BASF's property and beyond to the Skiffes Creek
Switching Station to be constructed on property owned by
Dominion in James City County, through which several
transmission lines currently cross. The 230 kV Skiffes Creek-
Whealton Line would then proceed for approximately 20 miles
along an existing Dominion right-of-way from the Skiffes Creek
Switching Station to the existing Whealton Substation located in
the City of Hampton.
6
Dominion's existing Chickahominy Substation in Charles City
County to the new Skiffes Creek Switching Station in James City
County (the "Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek Line"). However,
Dominion preferred the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line for the Project
based on significant differences as to adverse impact and cost:
the Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek Line would pass in close
proximity to more residences than the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line.
Dominion also stated that, because approximately 25 miles of the
right-of-way is unimproved, the Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek Line
"crosses significantly more forested land, open marshland,
wetland and perennial waterbodies and will require much more
forest land to be cleared and forested wetlands to be converted
to scrub shrub community." In addition, Dominion's estimated
cost of the Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek Line was more than $50
million above the estimated cost of the Surry-Skiffes Creek
Line. 3
Under Code § 56-46.1, as part of the evaluation process,
the Hearing Examiner and then Commission must determine whether
new Projects "reasonably minimize adverse impact on the scenic
assets, historic districts and environment of the area
concerned." Code § 56-46.1(B). Both BASF and JCC presented
3
The estimated total cost of the Project is approximately
$151 to $155 million dollars using the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line,
compared to $213 million using the Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek
Line.
7
evidence of adverse impacts caused by the proposed Surry-Skiffes
Creek Line.
The BASF property is a former manufacturing site undergoing
active remediation subject to both Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") and Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ")
corrective action. Dominion's preferred route of the Surry-
Skiffes Creek line ("Variation 1") crosses the middle of BASF's
property, the most sensitive area of environmental remediation,
containing zinc contaminants. This area is identified as Area
4C. The plans underway to remediate Area 4C contain three main
mitigation measures: a capped landfill, a bio-barrier trench,
and a phytoremediation plot of poplar trees. BASF offered
expert testimony that a transmission tower in this area would
interfere with the bio-barrier, that the transmission line will
render the phytoremediation plot ineffective, and that Variation
1 would generally threaten and delay successful remediation.
BASF's position was that, if the Surry-Skiffes Creek line
was selected, the route identified as Variation 4 was its
preferred route. Variation 4 crosses the northern boundary of
the property (approximately one half-mile north of Variation 1)
and thereby avoids Area 4C. In order for Variation 4 to be
viable, the James City County Economic Development Authority
(the "EDA") would have to agree to provide Dominion a right-of-
8
way easement, as Dominion determined that it does not have the
authority to exercise eminent domain over the property.
BASF has already spent over $15 million dollars in the
process of remediating the property and preparing it for
redevelopment. BASF presented testimony that Variation 1 could
delay remediation efforts and result in BASF failing to meet
its EPA-mandated remediation deadline in 2020, thereby
resulting in treble damages. Further, according to BASF
witnesses, a transmission line bisecting the property
substantially damages prospects for future development of the
property.
In addressing the issue of scenic and historic
preservation, JCC presented expert testimony that any overhead
transmission line would disrupt scenic vistas and historic
landmarks, and expressed its desire for an underground
transmission line. As the experts observed, the Surry-Skiffes
Creek Line would be located in the vicinity of the Historic
Triangle of Jamestown, Yorktown and Williamsburg. According to
the experts, a portion of the overhead line would be visible
from the Colonial National Historic Parkway. The line would be
most visible from Carter's Grove, a mid-eighteenth century
dwelling and a National Historic Landmark located on the north
shore of the James River, where the line would be located
between one-half mile to one mile south of Carter's Grove,
9
depending upon the line's route across the James River. As for
the James River itself, according to the experts, the line would
pass within a portion of the river that has been designated by
Code § 10.1-419 as a "[H]istoric [R]iver," and would be visible
from the Captain John Smith National Historic Water Trail. JCC
presented testimony that these sites have received state and
national recognition on historic registers and should be free
from such visual intrusion. JCC further presented testimony
that the historical, cultural, and ecological importance of the
area would be impacted by an overhead transmission line, and the
Project could potentially damage the ongoing attempt to have the
area designated as a World Heritage Site.
Dominion countered with its own experts, who argued that
while these adverse impacts do exist, they could be reasonably
minimized. The specific responses of these experts are
addressed in Parts IV.B. and V.B., infra, where we analyze the
evidentiary issues under Code § 56-46.1.
B. Hearing Examiner's Report
In August 2013, the Commission's Hearing Examiner issued a
178 page report that summarized the extensive record, analyzed
the evidence and issues, and made numerous findings and
recommendations for the Commission's consideration. As relevant
here, after finding a need to upgrade Dominion's electric
10
system, the Hearing Examiner's express findings and
recommendations included the following:
• The [p]roposed Project is the least cost[ly] viable
alternative for addressing the identified NERC
reliability violations presented in this case, can
be constructed in a timely manner, and is the best
alternative in this case;[ 4]
• The [p]roposed Project's overhead crossing of the
James River will have a limited visual impact on
one section of the Colonial Parkway and a very
limited impact on a small portion of Jamestown
Island. Overall, the [p]roposed Project will
reasonably minimize the adverse impacts on the
scenic assets, historic districts, and
environments;
• The route crossing the James River should follow
James River Crossing Variation 4 on the condition
that the [EDA] and Dominion . . . conclude a right-
of-way agreement within three weeks of the
Commission's final order. If such an agreement is
not [so] concluded . . . then the route crossing
the James River should be James River Crossing
Variation 1;
• The Commission may or may not decide to address
whether Skiffes Creek Switching Station is a
"transmission line" for purposes of [Code] § 56-
46.1[(F).]
4
In this regard, the Hearing Examiner found that "[t]he
[Chickahominy] [a]lternative [p]roject is a viable alternative,
is electrically equivalent to the [p]roposed Project and can be
constructed in a timely manner. However, the [Chickahominy]
[a]lternative [p]roject has a higher cost than the [p]roposed
Project and will have a greater impact on scenic assets,
historic districts and the environment." The Hearing Examiner
also found that "[a]dditional generation . . . resolve[s] the
identified NERC reliability violations, but at a significantly
higher price and at a greater risk of failing to be completed by
the date needed."
11
The Hearing Examiner therefore recommended that the Commission
adopt the findings of the Report and grant the Application
subject to the recommendations in the report.
C. Commission's Certificate Order
Based on its review of the record and the Hearing
Examiner's findings and recommendations, the Commission issued
the November 26, 2013 order (the "Certificate Order") granting
the CPCNs to Dominion. After evaluating numerous alternatives
offered for its consideration, the Commission found that "[t]he
engineering evidence in this case is overwhelming" in
establishing that the construction of an overhead 500 kV
transmission line is the best way to address the needed upgrade
to Dominion's electric system. The Commission then compared
Dominion's two alternative 500 kV proposals: the Surry-Skiffes
Creek Line and the Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek Line. The
Commission concluded that the record supported the Hearing
Examiner's findings that the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line "'is the
least cost[ly] viable alternative for addressing the identified
NERC reliability violations presented in this case, can be
constructed in a timely manner, and is the best alternative in
this case.'" Further, the Commission cited and agreed with the
Hearing Examiner's finding that the proposed Project "reasonably
minimize[ the] adverse impact on the scenic assets, historic
12
districts[,] and environment [in] the area concerned" in
accordance with Code § 56-46.1(B).
The Commission also agreed with the Hearing Examiner's
recommended approval of Variation 4 as the route for the Surry-
Skiffes Creek Line. The Commission found that "the
environmental and economic development considerations in
particular" favored Variation 4 over Variation 1. The
Commission declined, however, to adopt the Hearing Examiner's
recommendation for the contingency approval of Variation 1,
should Dominion's negotiations with the EDA over the right-of-
way prove fruitless. The Commission indicated that it fully
expected Dominion and the EDA to complete the negotiations
necessary for Variation 4.
As to whether the construction of the Skiffes Creek
Switching Station is subject to James City County's zoning
ordinances, the Commission addressed the issue and concluded
that the switching station constitutes a "transmission line" for
purposes of Code § 56-46.1(F), and is thus exempt from the
zoning ordinances. "From an engineering standpoint . . . the
Skiffes Creek Switching Station will be an electrically,
physically, and operationally inseparable part of several high
voltage transmission lines," the Commission explained. The
Commission reasoned, "[t]he Skiffes Creek Switching Station
enables a number of transmission circuits to be completed and
13
connected through transformers and other associated equipment."
The Commission thus concluded that the transmission line CPCNs
would include the Skiffes Creek Switching Station.
Accordingly, in the Certificate Order, the Commission
approved the Project for the construction of the 500 kV Surry-
Skiffes Creek Line with Variation 4, the Skiffes Creek Switching
Station and the 230 kV Skiffes Creek-Whealton Line.
D. Commission's Amending Order
Dominion was, ultimately, unsuccessful in negotiating a
right-of-way with the EDA, and thus could not comply with this
condition of the Certificate Order. Dominion sought to amend
the Certificate Order as Variation 4 was no longer viable. The
Hearing Examiner conducted a second evidentiary hearing to
determine if a portion of the approved route for the Surry-
Skiffes Creek Line must be modified in order to allow the
Project to be constructed. While continuing to prefer Variation
1, Dominion proposed in the alternative that the Commission
approve a limited adjustment to Variation 4, identified as
Variation 4.1. This route would bypass the EDA property but
would require Dominion to obtain new right-of-way easements from
other affected landowners. BASF recommended a similar
adjustment, identified as Variation 4.2, and continued to oppose
Variation 1. For reasons unrelated to the environmental
dispute, pertaining most prominently to the grade of the land,
14
it became apparent that Variation 4.2 was inappropriate, and
BASF altered its position to favor Variation 4.1 as between the
remaining options under consideration. After concluding
Dominion was not able to implement Variation 4, the Hearing
Examiner "found advantages and disadvantages to Variations 1 and
4.1, and recommended Variation 4.1."
Upon its review, the Commission instead found that
Variation 1 had "become the best variation to satisfy the Code." 5
The Commission approved Variation 1 based on the risk that
construction of the Project would not be completed in time to
address the NERC violations if it approved one of the adjusted
variations to Variation 4. The Commission found, among other
factors, that approval of one of the adjusted variations could
result in significantly delaying the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Project review, which had to be completed before
Dominion could begin construction.
Having previously approved Variation 4, the Commission
noted that "Variation 1 will impact certain properties
differently than Variation 4." However, the Commission found
that "Variation 1 allows Dominion to: (1) reasonably minimize
5
The Commission noted that in the Certificate Order it had
agreed with the Hearing Examiner's analysis of the various James
River crossing variations and findings that "the [c]ertificated
Project, regardless of which variation for the Surry-Skiffes
Creek Line is used, reasonably minimizes the adverse impacts on
the scenic assets, historic districts, and environment and
otherwise satisfies the Code."
15
adverse environmental impacts, including impacts to historic
resources and scenic assets; (2) cross the James River with less
visual impact to Carter's Grove . . . among other properties in
the area; (3) bypass the EDA property that has obstructed
Variation 4; and (4) address significant reliability risks to
the North Hampton Roads Area in a timely manner." By order
dated February 28, 2014 (the "Amending Order"), the Commission
amended the Certificate Order by authorizing Dominion to
construct the Project using Variation 1. On April 10, 2014, the
Commission entered an additional order denying BASF's petition
for reconsideration of the Amending Order.
II. MOTION TO DISMISS
Both BASF and JCC appeal from the Certificate Order and the
Amending Order, with BASF additionally appealing from the
Commission's order denying BASF's motion for reconsideration of
the Amending Order.
As a preliminary procedural matter, Dominion has filed a
motion to dismiss the JCC and BASF appeals challenging the
Certificate Order based on Dominion's interpretation of Rule
5:21, which governs appeals from the Commission. Dominion urges
the Court to dismiss BASF's appeal as to the Certificate Order
and JCC's appeal in its entirety on the ground that we lack
16
jurisdiction under Rule 5:21(a). 6 Dominion argues that it alone
filed a notice of appeal of the Certificate Order under Rule
5:21(a)(3); JCC and BASF merely filed notices of participation
under 5:21(a)(6). Because Dominion decided not to proceed with
its appeal, it reasons that the jurisdictional basis for the
appeals of all parties pertaining to the Certificate Order has
evaporated.
Dominion originally filed a notice of appeal from the
Certificate Order, pursuant to Rule 5:21(a)(3), because Dominion
had not been awarded its preferred route. JCC and BASF
subsequently filed notices of participation pursuant to Rule
5:21(a)(6). When the Commission then issued the Amending Order,
moving the route to Variation 1, Dominion determined that it
would not file a petition for appeal from the Certificate Order.
However, JCC and BASF proceeded to file petitions for appeal
from the Certificate Order, pursuant to Rule 5:21(a)(7).
Dominion argues that because it was the only party to file a
notice of appeal from the Certificate Order, the petitions for
appeal filed by JCC and BASF from that same order "were mooted"
when Dominion did not pursue its petition for appeal, as "there
6
The motion to dismiss pertains directly to the appeals
arising out of the Certificate Order, Record Numbers 140470 and
140462. Dominion also argues that, if granted, the motion would
render moot all issues not specifically relating to BASF's
Variation dispute arising from the Amending Order.
17
was no [Dominion] appeal in which they could participate." We
disagree.
"[B]oth the rules of this Court and of the Commission are
liberally applied and construed to the end that all parties
having an interest in any matter in controversy before the
Commission be permitted to intervene and to appeal." Blue Cross
of Virginia v. Commonwealth, 218 Va. 589, 597, 239 S.E.2d 94, 98
(1977).
Rule 5:21(a)(6) expressly provides, in relevant part, that
"each party who has not filed a notice of appeal and who intends
to participate in the appeal shall file in the office of the
clerk of the Commission and shall mail to every other party a
notice that he intends to participate as an appellant . . . .
Every party who seeks reversal or modification of the order
appealed from shall be deemed an appellant . . . ." JCC and
BASF were thus deemed appellants under the Rule in their
challenge to the Certificate Order, and the Rule contains no
provision for terminating that status by virtue of the party
that filed the notice of appeal opting to no longer pursue it.
The Rule does not state that jurisdiction ceases should the
party that originally noticed the appeal fail to proceed at some
juncture in the future. We thus find it appropriate to reach
the merits of the case.
18
III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
We are guided by well-settled principles in our review of
the Commission's decision. The Constitution of Virginia and
statutes enacted by the General Assembly give the Commission
"'broad, general and extensive powers'" in regulating public
utilities. Office of Attorney Gen. v. State Corp. Comm'n, __
Va. __, __, 762 S.E.2d 774, 778 (2014) (quoting Virginia Elec. &
Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 284 Va. 726, 735, 735 S.E.2d
684, 688 (2012)). This authority influences our standards of
review in this case.
In considering evidentiary findings of the Commission, this
Court is bound to a highly deferential standard. "The
Commission is charged with the responsibility of finding the
facts and making a judgment," Appalachian Voices v. State Corp.
Comm'n, 277 Va. 509, 516, 675 S.E.2d 458, 461 (2009) (quoting
Northern Virginia Elec. Coop. v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 265
Va. 363, 368, 576 S.E.2d 741, 743-44 (2003)), and its decision
comes to this Court with "'a presumption of correctness.'"
Office of Attorney Gen., __ Va. at __, 762 S.E.2d at 778
(quoting Appalachian Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 284 Va.
695, 703, 733 S.E.2d 250, 254 (2012)). This means "[w]e will
not substitute our judgment in matters within the province of
the Commission and will not overrule the Commission's findings
of fact unless they are contrary to the evidence or without
19
evidentiary support." Level 3 Commc'ns of Va., Inc. v. State
Corp. Comm'n, 268 Va. 471, 474, 604 S.E.2d 71, 72 (2004) (citing
Virginia Gas Distrib. Corp. v. Washington Gas Light Co. 201 Va.
370, 375, 111 S.E.2d 439, 443 (1959)).
This Court reviews matters of law de novo. Syed v. ZH
Techs., Inc., 280 Va. 58, 69, 694 S.E.2d 625, 631 (2010).
However, "the Commission's decision is entitled to the respect
due judgments of a tribunal informed by experience, and we will
not disturb the Commission's analysis when it is 'based upon the
application of correct principles of law." Appalachian Voices,
277 Va. at 516, 675 S.E.2d at 461 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Keeping these principles in mind, we proceed to the
merits.
IV. BASF'S APPEAL
In BASF's three assignments of error, BASF asserts, first,
that the Commission erred as a matter of law in finding
Variation 1 reasonably minimizes adverse impacts under Code
§ 56-46.1(B) based merely on the unavailability of Variation 4.
BASF further argues that the Commission erred as a matter of law
in determining whether Code § 56-46.1 was satisfied by weighing
of the transmission system reliability concerns together with
the adverse impacts, instead of as separate processes. Next,
BASF contends the Commission erred in approving Variation 1,
both by wrongly finding that Variation 1 reasonably minimizes
20
the adverse environmental impact to Area 4C, and by disregarding
Variation 1's destruction of the property's development
potential. Finally, BASF argues that the Commission erred in
rejecting the Hearing Examiner's recommendation in favor of
Variation 4.1 because it is the only available route that
reasonably minimizes adverse impacts.
A. Construction of Code § 56-46.1(B)
BASF's first assignment of error argues that the Commission
erred as a matter of law in approving Variation 1 in two ways.
As matters of law, the Court reviews these questions de novo.
Syed, 280 Va. at 69, 694 S.E.2d at 631.
1. Action by "Default"
First, BASF contends the Commission chose Variation 1 in
the Amending Order simply because it determined that Variation 4
was unavailable due to the EDA's failure to provide the
necessary easement. In doing so, the Commission, according to
BASF, arrived at Variation 1 by default. BASF argues that the
Commission stated that it met the requirements of the statute in
a conclusory manner and failed to rely on any actual analysis to
determine whether Variation 1 would in fact reasonably minimize
the adverse impacts as required under Code § 56-46.1(B).
The statute requires that the Commission "determine" that
the variation reasonably minimizes adverse impacts. Code § 56-
46.1(B). In the context of this statute, the Court has
21
previously quoted Webster's New International Dictionary to
define "determine" as "to fix conclusively or
authoritatively . . . to settle a question or controversy about
. . . to come to a decision concerning as the result of the
investigation or reasoning . . . to settle or decide by choice
of alternatives or possibilities." Board of Supervisors v.
Appalachian Power Co., 216 Va. 93, 103, 215 S.E.2d 918, 925
(1975) (emphasis added).
Had the Amending Order provided merely a conclusory
recitation of the statutory language, absent investigation or
reasoning, BASF would undoubtedly have grounds for complaint.
This, however, is not the record before us. The Amending Order
includes factors considered by the Hearing Examiner in comparing
Variation 1 to Variation 4.1, not Variation 4, indicating that
the Commission indeed undertook a comparison between Variation 1
and the new route. The Commission expressly considered many of
the same factors enumerated by the Hearing Examiner:
[T]he Commission agrees . . . that Variation 1 will have
less visual impact than Variation 4.1 on certain historic
resources, including Carter's Grove. . . . Variation 1
would be located farther than Variations 4.1 and 4.2 from
Carter's Grove and from other, more distant historic
resources. On the other hand, an environmental advantage
of Variations 4.1 and 4.2 is that these variations avoid
certain environmental remediation areas on the BASF
property which Variation 1 would cross.
The Commission ultimately weighed these competing claims
differently than the Hearing Examiner, granting visual impact
22
and construction schedule more relative weight. This is not
error as a matter of law, however. The Commission clearly
engaged in reasoning on the record evaluating relevant factors,
and concluded that "[b]ased on the record, the Commission finds
that the Certificated Project using Variation 1 would reasonably
minimize adverse impact to the scenic assets, historic
districts, and environment of the project area."
2. Process of Weighing Adverse Impact
Next, BASF argues that the Commission erred as a matter of
law by weighing the need to upgrade Dominion's transmission
system against the adverse impacts of Variation 1. According to
BASF, the statute requires the Commission to both establish need
and reasonably minimize adverse impacts, and by considering need
and the Project's construction schedule as a part of the impact
analysis, the Commission is accomplishing only the former.
"When construing a statute, our primary objective is to
ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, as expressed by
the language used in the statute." Cuccinelli v. Rector &
Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 283 Va. 420, 425, 722 S.E.2d 626,
629 (2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
(emphasis added). Code § 56-46.1 does not state the factors to
be considered in addressing the listed adverse impacts and does
not indicate whether these two tests must be undertaken
independently of each other. It merely states that adverse
23
impact should be "reasonably minimize[d]." Something is
"reasonable" when it is "[f]air, proper, or moderate under the
circumstances; sensible." Black's Law Dictionary 1456 (10th ed.
2014). The essence of reasonableness under the law is prudent
action in context; there can be no error in linking a
reasonability standard to the circumstances at large.
The Commission, pursuant to Code § 56-46.1(B), determines
whether a need for the proposed infrastructure exists. In doing
so, as explained in the Certificate Order, the Commission must
assess the magnitude and timing of any such need. The statute
specifically calls for "verif[ification of] the applicant's load
flow modeling, contingency analyses, and reliability needs
presented to justify the new line and its proposed methods of
installation," in determining need. Code § 56-46.1(B). Added
to these factors, along with minimizing adverse impacts under
subsection (B), are the costs of such construction. See Board
of Supervisors, 216 Va. at 104, 215 S.E.2d at 926 (Commission
properly considered, among other factors, "economic and
environmental factors," "reliability of electric service," and
"engineering feasibility" in approving route for transmission
line); Town of Mt. Crawford v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co.,
220 Va. 645, 650, 261 S.E.2d 311, 314 (1980) (affirming
Commission's rejection of locality's proposed alternative route
for new transmission line based on evidence showing that, among
24
other things, the "deviation would substantially increase the
cost of the entire line").
The adverse impacts of a proposed project are not to be
considered in a vacuum. When presented with an application for
transmission line construction, the Commission must "balance"
adverse impacts along with other "factors" and "traditional
considerations." Board of Supervisors, 216 Va. at 100, 215
S.E.2d at 923-24. Then the Commission, "as a tribunal informed
by experience," Appalachian Voices, 277 Va. at 516, 675 S.E.2d
at 461 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), must
decide within the parameters of the statute what best serves the
"total public interest." Board of Supervisors, 216 Va. at 104,
215 S.E.2d at 926. We conclude that the use of the word
"reasonably" demonstrates the General Assembly's recognition of
the multifactorial balancing that goes into such an
investigation, and we find that the Commission did not err.
B. Evidentiary Challenges Under Code § 56-46.1
BASF's second and third assignments of error are closely
related, so we will address them together. BASF challenges the
evidentiary support for the Commission's choice of Variation 1
over Variation 4.1. BASF contends that there is not sufficient
evidence to support the contention that Variation 1 would
reasonably minimize environmental impacts of the Surry-Skiffes
Creek Line; rather, Variation 4.1 is the only alternative that
25
would reasonably minimize the adverse environmental impacts by
traversing the northern boundary of BASF's property. Variation
1, according to BASF, would maximize those impacts and destroy
the property's developmental potential by bisecting the property
through Area 4C, that is, the portion of the property undergoing
environmental remediation. Thus, BASF concludes, the
Commission's approval of Variation 1 violates Code § 56-46.1(B).
As this portion of the appeal challenges the evidentiary
findings of the Commission, we must review the evidence in light
of our highly deferential standard of review. We find fault
with the Commission only if its findings are "contrary to the
evidence or without evidentiary support." Level 3 Commc'ns, 268
Va. at 474, 604 S.E.2d at 72.
1. Selection of Variation 1
First, a thorough review of the record shows that it is not
without evidence to support the Commission's finding that the
Project, using Variation 1, will reasonably minimize adverse
impacts as required by the statute.
The property was previously an industrial operations and
manufacturing site that caused substantial soil and groundwater
contamination. As part of the environmental remediation efforts
within the former main industrial area known as Area 4C,
consisting of approximately 30 acres, BASF excavated several
lagoons and surface impoundments and reinterred the materials
26
into a stabilized capped landfill. To capture additional
contaminants, BASF has developed plans to construct a permeable
reactive barrier ("bio-barrier") near the landfill. BASF is
also planning the creation of a phytoremediation plot on Area
4C. This involves selective plant growth on the property to
minimize the migration of contaminants by binding them in the
soil while lowering the water table.
The dispute over the Project's adverse environmental impact
to BASF's property centers on the Commission's approval of
Dominion's construction of a transmission tower in Area 4C for
the Surry-Skiffe's Creek Line, using Variation 1. BASF's
remediation specialist, Vernon Burrows, testified that the
placement of the tower in Area 4C conflicts with BASF's
remediation efforts, including the bio-barrier and the
phytoremediation plot, and would "result in serious
environmental damage to the BASF property."
Dominion, on the other hand, presented expert testimony
indicating that the construction of the tower in Area 4C will
have minimal environmental impact. One such witness was Mark
Allen, a Dominion civil engineer, who is responsible for the
management of all of the high voltage transmission designs in
Dominion's system. This includes assuring that all such designs
meet established standards for safety and reliability. Another
such witness was Cathy Taylor, director of Dominion's Electric
27
Environmental Services Department, whose responsibilities
include oversight of environmental compliance and remediation.
Allen submitted testimony that the only tower required in
Area 4C would not be located on the capped landfill. He also
stated that the landfill could successfully be spanned by the
transmission line proposed in Variation 1, such that no
construction activity would occur on the capped landfill. In
contrast to Burrows' statements that the foundations for the
tower would be installed by "drilled piles," a method that can
cause displacement of contaminates, Allen and Taylor both
testified that Dominion would use "pipe pile foundations" that
would be driven into the ground by vibration, resulting in
minimal disruption of surrounding soil and migration of
contaminated groundwater. Taylor testified that they would work
with BASF to reconfigure the location of the tower or bio-
barrier, if necessary, in order that the tower would not
interfere with the construction and operation of the bio-
barrier. Additionally, Taylor stated that there is "more than
enough space to safely place the tower [and bio-barrier] in
[Area 4C]." As to BASF's plan for phytoremediation, while BASF
will be unable to plant hybrid poplars in the right-of-way area
as it had planned, Taylor testified that there are numerous
alternative grasses and small plants that can be used for
28
phytoremediation that would be consistent with the mandatory
standards for transmission line right-of-way maintenance.
The DEQ, which is overseeing the remediation of Area 4C,
also submitted an extensive report to the Commission regarding
the proposed Project, including Variation 1. The DEQ, however,
did not indicate in the report that Variation 1 was incompatible
with BASF's remediation of Area 4C as claimed by BASF. Rather,
the DEQ recommended without preference that one of the proposed
routes for the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line be used, as opposed to
the route for the alternative Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek Line.
While vigorously contested, we cannot say that the
Commission's selection of Variation 1 was without evidence to
support it.
2. Rejection of Variation 4.1
Second, the record was not without evidence to support the
Commission's rejection of Variation 4.1.
This is due, in large part, to evidence regarding the
construction schedule risks associated with Variation 4.1. This
evidence was introduced through the testimony of Elizabeth
Harper, a Dominion siting and permitting specialist for electric
transmission lines. According to her testimony, Variation 1 has
the shorter construction schedule for addressing the urgent need
to complete the Project. She stated that there was a greater
risk with Variation 4.1 that construction of the Project would
29
not be completed in time to address the NERC violations. This
risk was posed because Variation 4.1 had not yet undergone
review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which must be
completed before Dominion can begin construction on the Project.
Delay caused by this additional review could then result in
Dominion having to request an unprecedented fifth-year extension
from the EPA to delay shutting down certain of its Yorktown coal
fired units. Harper stated that "the parameters for obtaining
such an extension are not fully known."
Based on this evidence, the Commission found that, "while
there is no absolute schedule certainty for any route, approval
of Variation 4.1 . . . would present for customers in the North
Hampton Roads Area an increased and unreasonable risk, as
compared to Variation 1, that the [c]ertificated Project would
not be constructed in time to ensure reliable service to those
customers." In light of this record, and in light of the fact
that, as discussed in Part IV.A.2., supra, the Commission was
permitted to consider the construction schedule in its
evaluation, we cannot say the Commission's rejection of
Variation 4.1 was without evidence to support it.
3. Selection of Variation 1 Despite Adverse Impact
Finally, the record is not without evidentiary support for
the Commission's approval of Variation 1 despite any adverse
effect the route might have on future economic development of
30
BASF's property. Code § 56-46.1(A) expressly requires the
Commission to consider among the other statutory factors the
route's effect "on economic development within the
Commonwealth." Acting within this statutory authority, the
Commission considered this factor in the broader context of
Dominion's customers in the affected region, and found as
follows: "The timely construction of Variation 1 and the rest
of the [c]ertificated Project are necessary to address
significant reliability risks in the North Hampton Roads Area.
Customers in these counties and cities include citizens,
schools, local governments, and businesses that depend on
reliable power for a variety of needs. As required by statute,
we have considered the impact on economic development in the
Commonwealth and . . . approve Variation 1." Both as a matter
of law and as a matter of evidentiary inquiry, the Commission
did not err by considering the impact of economic development on
residents of the entire region and not simply to BASF.
V. JCC'S APPEAL
In JCC's three assignments of error, JCC argues, first,
that the Commission erred as a matter of law in its construction
and application of Code § 56-46.1(A) and (B) by limiting its
consideration of routes for the transmission line to those
proposed by Dominion in its application. Like BASF, JCC argues
that the Commission erred as a matter of law by limiting its
31
inquiry to a one-step balancing process as opposed to a two-step
inquiry in which need is first established and that
reasonableness is evaluated separately from need. Second, JCC
contends the Commission erred in finding that the route of the
Surry-Skiffes Creek Line reasonably minimizes its adverse
impacts as required under Code § 56-46.1. Third, JCC argues the
Commission erred in its construction and application of Code
§ 56-46.1(F) in finding that the Skiffes Creek Switching Station
is a "transmission line" under this provision and thus exempt
from local zoning regulations.
A. Construction of Code § 56-46.1(A) and (B)
JCC's first assignment of error argues that the Commission
erred as a matter of law in its interpretation and application
of subsections (A) and (B) of Code § 56-46.1 when it approved
the overhead transmission line route. We review this issue of
law de novo. Syed, 280 Va. at 68, 694 S.E.2d at 631.
JCC argues that the approval of the overhead transmission
line's route "essentially ignor[ed] the statute's directive that
the impacts on historic assets of the Commonwealth be
minimized." The Commission did so, JCC contends, by limiting
its "application of impact minimization" under the statute to a
choice of routes presented by Dominion in its application for
the CPCNs. JCC argues this effectively reduced the Commission's
two-step mandate to establish need and minimize adverse impacts
32
to a "one-step process" by "us[ing] the determination of need to
override its statutory duty to minimize the adverse impacts of
the transmission line."
This argument is fundamentally the same as the argument
raised by BASF in Part IV.A.2., supra. We do note that JCC also
invokes Code § 56-46.1(A), which states that "[w]henever 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 . . . ." "Minimize" does not require no
impact, and the Commission is also required under subsection (A)
to consider the economic development of the Commonwealth and
service reliability. Thus, our analysis from Part IV.A.2.,
supra, is equally applicable here. For the reasons articulated
previously, we find no error in the Commission's interpretation
of the statute.
B. Evidentiary Support for Approved Route
JCC's second assignment of error argues that the Commission
erroneously found that the approved route for the Surry-Skiffes
Creek Line reasonably minimizes adverse impacts under Code § 56-
46.1. As with BASF's evidentiary challenge, we must review the
evidence with deference to the findings of the Commission,
reversing only if the findings are "contrary to the evidence or
33
without evidentiary support." Level 3 Commc'ns, 268 Va. at 474,
604 S.E.2d at 72.
JCC argues that, based on the testimony of expert
witnesses, the evidence before the Commission showed
"overwhelmingly" that the route would have significant negative
impacts on the historic assets in the Historic Triangle. JCC
points specifically to the Colonial Parkway, Jamestown Island,
the James River, the Captain John Smith National Historic Water
Trail, and Carter's Grove. As to Carter's Grove, JCC relies on
the testimony of expert witnesses who claimed that the impact
would be "severe" because the current view from this historic
home is "almost devoid of anything but river, as it was in
colonial days." The ultimate opinion from a number of these
witnesses upon which JCC relies is that there is no way to
minimize these adverse impacts of the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line's
James River crossing except to construct the line underground or
elsewhere.
Despite this evidence, JCC argues, the Commission accepted
Dominion's purported treatment of these adverse impacts as
"insignificant" and therefore determined that "mitigation
efforts and minimizing conditions were unnecessary." We
disagree. We conclude that the record is not without evidence
to support the Commission's determination that the selected
34
route reasonably minimizes adverse impacts to the above-stated
resources in the Historic Triangle.
As discussed in Part IV.A.2., supra, "reasonably
minimiz[ing] adverse impact[s]" involves weighing a multitude of
factors. Code § 56-46.1(B) (emphasis added). In this case, the
record shows that the Commission considered, in light of these
factors, numerous alternatives, proposed by not only Dominion,
but also James City County, BASF, environmental groups, the
Commission's staff, and the Hearing Examiner. These
alternatives included transmission in different locations, lower
voltage transmission, underground transmission, generation (that
is, power plant) options, combinations of generation and
transmission, and demand-side management (for example, lowering
electric demand by consumers).
The record reflects that Dominion presented testimony from
Peter Nedwick, a consulting engineer in electric transmission
planning strategic initiatives, and Elizabeth Harper, Dominion's
siting and permitting specialist. Both testified that Dominion
considered numerous generation alternatives before proposing the
500 kV Surry-Skiffes Creek Line. Both offered testimony that
the other proposed alternatives were inconclusive, insufficient
in terms of capacity and time of completion, and/or cost
prohibitive by comparison. Of particular significance to this
appeal is the evidence showing that (a) the inclusion of
35
anything less than a 500 kV line as part of a transmission
solution would provide insufficient voltage for ensuring system
reliability, and (b) constructing a 500 kV line underground at
the James River crossing is not viable.
The parties do not dispute the finding that, as between the
Surry-Skiffes Creek Line and the Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek
Line, the evidence supports the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line. We
nonetheless note that Harper testified that the Surry-Skiffes
Creek Line was chosen in large part because of the large degree
of wetlands and undeveloped land traversed by the Chickahominy-
Skiffes Creek Line. By contrast, she stated the area where the
Surry-Skiffes Creek Line would cross the James River is already
impacted by more modern developments.
Dominion presented testimony from Douglas Lake, Technical
Director of Natural Resource Group, LLC, which prepared
Dominion's Environmental Routing Study, stating that the
transmission line would not be visible from Williamsburg,
Yorktown or most of Jamestown Island, including the Jamestown
Settlement, the Jamestown Fort and visitor center areas. Where
the line would be visible from one location on Jamestown Island
and one location on the Colonial Parkway, it would be from three
to six miles away. Harper further testified and presented
evidence that the portion of the James River where the line
would cross already contains modern developments currently
36
visible from this part of the river including, among other
things, the Surry Nuclear Power Plant; Kingsmill, a resort
community with a marina and a riverfront golf course; the Ghost
Fleet, a collection of retired naval vessels anchored offshore
from Fort Eustis; theme park rides; water towers; and a sewage
treatment plant. Harper thus concluded that the line would not
substantially change the character of the James River.
Harper further testified that, while visible from Carter's
Grove, Variation 1 is located a mile offshore while Variations 4
and 4.1 are located approximately 1/2 mile offshore. Dominion
thus argues that Variation 1 therefore minimizes adverse impacts
as to Carter's Grove.
Considering this record, we cannot say that the Commission
erred in concluding that the proposed route for the Surry-
Skiffes Creek Line across the James River reasonably minimizes
the line's adverse impacts. As the Commission observed,
"[p]lacing a project in a particular location involves impacts
but also avoids impacts associated with a different location."
Here, the record is not without evidence to support the
Commission's choice of location for the route in light of all
competing considerations under the governing legal standards –
including but not limited to adverse impacts on the scenic
assets, historic districts and environment of the affected area.
37
C. Skiffes Creek Switching Station
We now turn to JCC's third assignment of error in which it
contends the Commission erred in its interpretation and
application of Code § 56-46.1(F).
Code § 56-46.1(F) states: "Approval of a transmission line
pursuant to this section shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of [Code] § 15.2-2232 and local zoning ordinances
with respect to such transmission line." The Commission
construed "transmission line," as used in this provision, to
include switching stations, so that Code § 56-46.1(F) exempted
the Skiffes Creek Switching Station from the requirements of
James City County zoning ordinances. This was error.
While it is true that this Court gives "great weight" to
"the practical construction given to a statute by public
officials charged with its enforcement," Commonwealth v.
Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 193 Va. 37, 45, 68 S.E.2d 122, 127
(1951), we are not inextricably bound to that construction. If
such a construction is based on a mistake of law, then this
Court will not hesitate to reverse the decision of the public
officials charged with the enforcement of the statute. See
Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 284 Va. 726,
736, 735 S.E.2d 684, 688 (2012).
This Court has recognized that, in determining whether
certain structures or uses are exempt from local zoning
38
ordinances, there must be a "manifest intention on the part of
the legislature" to do so. City of Norfolk v. Tiny House, Inc.,
222 Va. 414, 422-23, 281 S.E.2d 836, 840-41 (1981).
Although the Commission's position that switching stations
and transmission lines function together and should be governed
under the same authority is well-taken, the intention to exempt
switching stations from local zoning ordinances is not manifest
within Code § 56-46.1. Under the plain language of Code § 56-
46.1(F) the only structures or uses expressly exempt from local
zoning ordinances are transmission lines. Thus, because
switching stations are not expressly exempt under Code § 56-
46.1(F), the question before this Court is whether the term
"transmission lines" includes switching stations.
As stated previously, "[w]hen construing a statute, our
primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to legislative
intent, as expressed by the language used in the statute."
Cuccinelli, 283 Va. at 425, 722 S.E.2d at 629 (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). The
General Assembly's intent "is usually self-evident from the
statutory language," and we look first to the plain meaning of
the words used in the statute. Rutter v. Oakwood Living Ctrs.
of Va., Inc., 282 Va. 4, 9, 710 S.E.2d 460, 462 (2011) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). Title 56 of the Code of
Virginia, governing public utilities, does not define the term
39
"transmission line" as used in Code § 56-46.1(F). However,
determining the meaning of the term "transmission line" does not
require analysis "[f]rom an engineering standpoint" as the
Commission argues. A layperson can identify the plain meaning
of a transmission line: the wires used to transmit electric
current over great distances and the structures necessary to
physically support those wires. "Transmission line" does not
mean "switching station."
A switching station remains just that: a station. A
switching station is a facility, and thus is distinguishable
from and more intrusive to its surrounding environment than
transmission lines. It is reasonable for such facilities to be
subject to local zoning, while continuous transmission lines are
exempt because of the onerous nature of navigating local zoning
ordinances for all the acreage over which transmission lines
cross.
The application itself delineates Project components as
"lines" and a "station." The Commission noted that "[t]he
engineering evidence in this case also demonstrates that no
'transmission line' . . . will simply end at the property line
of the Skiffes Creek Switching Station." The fact that the
transmission line continues does not by necessity incorporate
the facility into the transmission line. The station remains a
40
facility, and the plain language of "transmission line" under
Code § 56-46.1(F) does not encompass a station facility.
We note the General Assembly has previously employed a
similar definition. In 2006, the General Assembly mandated that
the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission ("JLARC"), a
legislative oversight commission composed of nine members of the
House of Delegates and five members of the Senate, see Code
§ 30-56, evaluate "the feasibility of undergrounding
transmission lines in the Commonwealth." H. J. Res. 100, Va.
Gen Assem. (Reg. Sess. 2006). As part of its evaluation, the
JLARC conducted a comprehensive review of the Code and
Commission policies with regard to transmission lines. In its
subsequent report, the JLARC defined "transmission lines" as
"the conductors (wires or cables) which carry power at a high
voltage level from the plants to local substations some distance
away." Joint Legislative Audit and Review Comm’n, Report to the
Governor and General Assembly of Virginia: Evaluation of
Underground Electric Transmission Lines in Virginia, House Doc.
No. 87, at 4 (2006), available at
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/HD872006/$file/H
D87.pdf (last visited March 25, 2015).
The Commission's rationale for its construction of the
statute is that a switching station is "an electrically,
physically, and operationally inseparable part of several high
41
voltage transmission lines." Using this logic, an electrical
generating facility would likewise be a transmission line for
the purposes of Code § 56-46.1(F). Without an electrical
generating facility, a transmission line would be nonfunctioning
and incomplete; therefore, according to the Commission's
holding, the General Assembly also intended to regulate
electrical generating facilities as transmission lines. The
language of the statute makes it clear that this was not the
General Assembly's intent.
We also note the ease with which the General Assembly could
have included substations in Code § 56-46.1(F), as exempt from
local zoning ordinances, along with transmission lines, had that
been its intent. Code § 56-46.1(A) includes "any electrical
utility facility," whereas Code § 56-46.1(B) addresses only
"electrical transmission line[s]." Both terms are contemplated
under the same statute.
Here, the plain language of Code § 56-46.1(F) does not
reflect a manifest intent on the part of the General Assembly to
exempt switching stations from local zoning ordinances. The
Commission therefore committed a mistake of law. Accordingly,
we will reverse the decision of the Commission with regard to
the applicability of Code § 56-46.1(F) to the Skiffes Creek
Switching Station.
42
VI. CONCLUSION
The Project under consideration today is not without
weighty environmental and historical impacts to beloved areas of
the Commonwealth, as well as pressing power needs to the
residents of the Commonwealth. This Court appreciates the
contributions of all the parties in the lengthy deliberations
before the Commission and this tribunal. We make our decision
with deep respect for the long-held level of deference accorded
to the Commission, while recognizing our duty to uphold the law
of the Commonwealth as written.
For the reasons stated herein, we conclude the Commission
did not err in finding that Variation 1 reasonably minimizes
adverse impacts. We hold, however, that a switching station is
not a "transmission line" under Code § 56-46.1(F). Accordingly,
we will affirm the orders as to appellant BASF, and affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand as to the JCC appellants.
Record Nos. 140462, 141009 & 141201 - Affirmed.
Record Nos. 140470 & 141010 – Affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded.
JUSTICE MIMS, with whom CHIEF JUSTICE LEMONS and JUSTICE
McCLANAHAN join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the Court's analysis and conclusions regarding
Code § 56-46.1(A) and (B), and I join in those portions of the
opinion. However, because I conclude that the Commission's
43
construction and application of Code § 56-46.1(F) is correct, I
must respectfully dissent from Part V.C. of the Court's opinion.
We review the Commission's interpretation of a statute de
novo. Appalachian Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 284 Va. 695,
703, 733 S.E.2d 250, 254 (2012). However, "the practical
construction given by the Commission to a statute it is charged
with enforcing is entitled to great weight by the courts and in
doubtful cases will be regarded as decisive." Piedmont Envtl.
Council v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 278 Va. 553, 563, 684
S.E.2d 805, 810 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
The Hearing Examiner began his analysis with the statutory
text. See Appalachian Power Co., 284 Va. at 705, 733 S.E.2d at
255 ("In any case involving statutory construction we begin with
the language of the statute."). Because the term "transmission
line" is undefined, the Hearing Examiner turned to previous
decisions of the Commission, a decision of the Maine Public
Utilities Commission, the common dictionary definitions of
"transmission line" and "circuit," and the definition of
"transmission line" supplied by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation ("NERC"). 1 The Hearing Examiner properly
1
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") has
designated NERC as the Electric Reliability Organization for the
United States, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 made NERC's
44
considered these sources in reaching the conclusion that the
term "transmission line" includes facilities such as the Skiffes
Creek Switching Station.
Similarly, the Commission observed that the Code does not
define "transmission line." After reviewing the parties'
arguments, and noting the Hearing Examiner's "substantial
analysis," the Commission then relied on its expertise in such
matters to observe that the "Skiffes Creek Switching Station
will be an electrically, physically, and operationally
inseparable part" of the transmission facilities. The
Commission therefore concluded that the Skiffes Creek Switching
Station constitutes "a part of any transmission line for
purposes of Code § 56-46.1(F)."
In the Commonwealth, electrical power is supplied via a
three part system: generation, transmission, and distribution.
See Code § 56-576; Joint Legislative Audit and Review Comm'n,
Report to the Governor and General Assembly of Virginia:
Evaluation of Underground Electric Transmission Lines in
Virginia, House Doc. No. 87, at 2 (2006), available at
http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/HD872006/$file/H
D87.pdf (last visited April 7, 2015) ("JLARC Report"). In the
Virginia Electric Utility Regulation Act, the General Assembly
reliability standards mandatory, subject to FERC's oversight.
See Pub. L. No. 109-85, 119 Stat. 594, 941 (2005) (codified at
16 U.S.C. § 824o).
45
has defined the "[t]ransmission system" as "those facilities and
equipment that are required to provide for the transmission of
electric energy." Code § 56-576. In turn, "[t]ransmission"
refers to the "transfer of electric energy through the
Commonwealth's interconnected transmission grid from a generator
to either a distributor or a retail customer." Id. Meanwhile,
"generation" means "the production of electric energy," and
"distribution" refers to "the transfer of electric energy
through a retail distribution system to a retail customer." Id.
Thus, the General Assembly has defined the transmission system
to extend from the point of generation to the point of
distribution. As the statutory definitions demonstrate, there
is a functional distinction between these terms. An electrical
generating facility is not a transmission facility, and a
distribution facility is not a transmission facility. However,
each is a type of "electric utility facility." See Code § 56-
46.1; see also Code § 56-576 (defining "electric utility").
Transmission lines generally operate at high voltages —
considerably higher than distribution lines. See JLARC Report,
at 5 (noting that the "most common voltage for transmission
lines is 230 kilovolts (kV)" while distribution lines "generally
operate at lower voltages of 34.5 kV or less"). The record
indicates that the Skiffes Creek Switching Station will have the
capacity to step the voltage down from 500 kV to 230 kV and from
46
230 kV to 115 kV. It will also link 7.4 miles of new 500 kV
transmission line to 20.2 miles of new 230 kV transmission line,
thereby connecting the Surry Switching Station and Whealton
Substation. Nothing in the record indicates that the Skiffes
Creek Switching Station will step the voltage down to levels
associated with distribution. Therefore, the record reflects
that the Skiffes Creek Switching Station is functionally part of
the transmission system. See Code § 56-576.
Furthermore, JLARC recognized that the terms "circuit" and
"line" are "often used synonymously," but explained that a line
may have one or more circuits. JLARC Report, at 3. As the
Hearing Examiner recognized, the dictionary definition of a
"transmission line" refers to its function as a "circuit." 2 The
Hearing Examiner and the Commission reasoned that the purpose of
the Skiffes Creek Switching Station is to complete a
transmission circuit, the path between the Surry Switching
Station and the Whealton Substation. Thus, it is an integral
part of the transmission line.
2
A "transmission line" is "a metallic circuit of three or
more conductors used to send energy usu. at high voltage over a
considerable distance; specif : a usu. metallic line used for
the transmission of signals or for the adjustment of circuit
performance and often consisting of a pair of wires suitably
separated, a coaxial cable, or a wave guide." Webster's Third
New International Dictionary 2429 (1993). In turn, a "circuit"
is "the complete path of an electric current including any
displacement current." Id. at 408.
47
Finally, the fact that a transmission switching station is
a facility does not make it more reasonable for it to be subject
to a local zoning ordinance than the remainder of the
transmission line. Indeed, under the majority opinion, if an
electric utility obtains the Commission's approval under Code §
56-46.1(A) and (B) for the location of a transmission line, but
fails to obtain permission from local zoning authorities for
transmission switching stations, the approval under Code § 56-
46.1(A) and (B) would be meaningless. The electric utility
would have to adjust the route of the transmission line until
all local zoning authorities permit locations for all such
stations. Yet Code § 56-46.1(F) provides that the Commission's
approval of a transmission line satisfies local zoning
ordinances "with respect to" that transmission line. Clearly,
the Commission's approval of the line also must satisfy local
zoning ordinances with respect to everything necessary for the
transmission line to function as such.
For these reasons, I believe the relevant question is
whether a facility is designed to facilitate transmission or to
facilitate distribution or to facilitate generation of
electricity within the Commonwealth. See Code § 56-576.
Clearly, the Skiffes Creek Switching Station is designed to
facilitate, and in fact is integral to, the transmission of
electricity. The Commission's practical construction gives
48
effect to the function-based distinctions established by the
General Assembly. Moreover, it adheres to well-established
principles of statutory construction. For these reasons, I
would affirm the decision of the Commission with respect to its
interpretation and application of Code § 56-46.1(F).
49