Case Title: In re Vermont Electric Power Co., Inc.

Citation: 179 Vt. 370, 2006 VT 69, 895 A.2d 226

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
In Vermont Electric Power Co. (2005-164); 179 Vt. 370; 895 A.2d 226

2006 VT 69

[Filed 10-Mar-2006]

  NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2006 VT 21

                                No. 2005-164


In re Petitions of Vermont Electric Power Company, Inc.  Supreme Court
and Green Mountain Power Corporation
                                                         On Appeal from
                                                         Public Service Board


                                                         November Term, 2005 


  Michael H. Dworkin, Chair

  Joseph S. McLean and Robert E. Fletcher of Stitzel, Page & Fletcher, P.C.,
  and Thomas A. Little of Little & Cicchetti, P.C., Burlington, for Appellant
  Town of Shelburne.

  James A. Dumont, Bristol, for Appellants Town of New Haven, Town of
  Middlebury and  Addison County Regional Planning Commission.

  David L. Grayck of Cheney, Brock & Saudek, P.C., Montpelier, for Appellant
  Meach Cove Real Estate Trust.

  Aaron Adler and Dixie Henry, Special Counsel, Montpelier, for Appellee
  Department of Public Service. 

  Kimberly K. Hayden and Elijah D. Emerson of Primmer & Piper, P.C., St.
  Johnsbury, for Appellees Vermont Electric Power Company and Green Mountain
  Power Corporation.


  PRESENT:     Reiber, C.J., Skoglund and Burgess, JJ., and Gibson, J.
               (Ret.) and Bryan, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

        
       ¶  1.     SKOGLUND, J.   In this case we consider three appeals from a
  Public Service Board order granting a certificate of public good for a
  proposal by Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO) and Green Mountain Power
  (GMP) to construct a series of electric transmission upgrades known
  collectively as the Northwest Reliability Project.  Appellants the Town of
  New Haven, the Town of Middlebury, and the Addison County Regional Planning
  Commission (FN1) jointly contend the Board erroneously: (1) approved a
  345-kilovolt (kv) transmission line for a portion of the project instead of
  a less intrusive but allegedly adequate 115-kv line; (2) misstated and
  ignored relevant evidence concerning electromagnetic fields generated by
  the 345-kv transmission line; (3) failed to consider a proposal to
  underground the line in an environmentally sensitive location in the Town
  of New Haven; and (4) prejudiced landowners in future eminent domain
  proceedings by approving VELCO's specific plans. Appellant Town of
  Shelburne (Shelburne) claims that the Board improperly failed to: (1)
  identify a specific southerly route for the proposed transmission line
  through the Town; (2) address the aesthetic impacts of the proposed line;
  (3) consider land conservation measures in the Town plan; and (4) make a
  final determination of VELCO's responsibility to underground a portion of
  the line.  Appellant Meach Cove Real Estate Trust (Meach Cove) argues that
  the Board violated statutory requirements and settled case law by: (1)
  mandating a specific route for the proposed transmission line over its
  property; (2) depriving it of the opportunity to contest key issues in
  future eminent domain proceedings; (3) denying its request for a
  declaration that issuance of the certificate of public good will not have a
  preclusive effect in subsequent eminent domain proceedings; and (4) failing
  to consider alternative sites for construction of the proposed line.  For
  the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Board's decision.  
   
       ¶  2.     In June 2003, VELCO and GMP (hereafter, collectively
  "VELCO") filed petitions with the Board seeking a certificate of public
  good (CPG) for a set of transmission upgrades in the northwestern portion
  of the State.  See 30 V.S.A. § 248(a) (providing that no electric company
  may begin site preparation or construction of electric generation or
  transmission facility, or exercise the right of eminent domain in
  connection therewith, unless the Board "first finds that the same will
  promote the general good and issues a certificate to that effect").  In its
  petition, VELCO asserted that projected increases in electric demand in
  northwestern Vermont, measured against certain national and regional
  operating standards, made it imperative to strengthen the transmission grid
  serving the area in order to maintain desirable levels of reliability.  To
  this end, VELCO proposed five basic upgrades: (1) the construction of a new
  35.5-mile, 345-kv transmission line from West Rutland to New Haven,
  parallel to an existing 115-kv line passing through a number of towns,
  including appellants Middlebury and New Haven; (2) replacement of existing
  34.5-kv and 46-kv subtransmission lines with a new 27-mile, 115-kv line
  between New Haven and South Burlington passing though portions of several
  additional towns, including appellant Shelburne; (3) the reconductoring of
  VELCO's existing 5.6-mile, 115-kv transmission line between Williamstown
  and Barre; (4) upgrades to, or reconstruction of, a number of substations
  throughout the northwest region; and (5) construction of a new substation
  and associated 1.6-mile subtransmission line in Vergennes. 
   
       ¶  3.     During thirty-seven days of public and technical hearings
  that spanned most of a year, the Board took extensive and wide-ranging
  testimony and documentary evidence concerning the project from expert and
  lay witnesses representing several dozen parties.  See id. § 248(a)(4)
  (requiring the Board to hold both "nontechnical" public hearings in
  counties affected by the proposal and "technical" hearings at locations of
  its choice).  The hearings addressed both general and site-specific issues
  relating to the statutory criteria for issuance of a CPG under § 248(b),
  including the project's consistency with "land conservation measures"
  contained in local municipal plans, id. § 248(b)(1); its necessity to meet
  present and future demand for service that could not otherwise be met "in a
  more cost effective manner through energy conservation programs and
  measures and energy efficiency and load management measures," id. §
  248(b)(2); its "economic benefit to the state and its residents," id. §
  248(b)(4); and whether it would "have an undue adverse effect on esthetics,
  historic sites, air and water purity, the natural environment and the
  public health and safety, with due consideration having been given to"
  several of the statutory criteria for protection of the environment set
  forth in Act 250, id. § 248(b)(5).   Appellants participated actively in
  the hearings, offering evidence to support their views on the best means to
  protect the aesthetic, health, environmental, and economic interests of
  their communities.(FN2)
   
       ¶  4.     At the conclusion of the process, the Board issued a written
  order spanning over 240 pages, including appendices, and containing over
  640 findings in support of its conclusions.  In brief, the Board determined
  that: the current bulk transmission system fails to meet reliability
  standards; the proposed project will enable the system to satisfy Vermont's
  reasonably projected reliability needs; and "there is no cost-effective
  alternative to the proposed Project that is reasonably assured of timely
  implementation."(FN3)  While finding that the project will have adverse
  aesthetic impacts in certain areas, the Board concluded that mitigation
  measures, such as careful pole placement, screening, the relocation of the
  New Haven substation, and undergrounding the line in at least one location
  in Shelburne, will ensure that the impact is not undue.  With respect to
  health and safety concerns, the Board heard substantial testimony and
  reviewed numerous studies concerning electric and magnetic field (EMF)
  exposure.  The Board concluded that the scientific evidence of any health
  risk was weak to nonexistent and provided no justification for imposing
  significant mitigation measures, such as undergrounding the line. 
  Nevertheless, as part of the post-certification process, the Board ordered
  VELCO to identify areas of relatively high EMF levels near residences and
  propose measures to mitigate exposure at those locations, and to monitor
  and regularly report to the Board the scientific evidence regarding the
  health effects of EMF. 

       ¶  5.     In short, the Board concluded that, with certain enumerated
  conditions and alterations, the project would promote the general good of
  the State "without undue adverse impacts on Vermont's natural and built
  environment and without presenting a risk to Vermonters' health and
  safety."  Consistent with these findings, the Board issued a CPG containing
  twenty separate conditions, including a graduated post-certification
  process that will require: (1) the identification of areas of high EMF
  levels near residences, together with measures to mitigate the exposure of
  those residences; (2) the filing of detailed construction plans, with
  associated environmental mitigation measures as identified in the Board's
  order; (3) the filing of all required zoning, construction, and other
  permits with the Board; and (4) a showing that consideration has been given
  to all measures identified in the Board's order for the mitigation of
  adverse aesthetic impacts.  Meach Cove and New Haven filed separate motions
  to alter or amend the order, and VELCO filed a request for clarification. 
  The Board ordered several relatively minor language changes and
  clarifications to the decision, but otherwise denied the motions.  Separate
  appeals by New Haven, Shelburne, and Meach Cove followed.  We address each
  in turn.

                                     I.

   
       ¶  6.     We note at the outset the limited nature of our review.  "In
  a § 248 proceeding, the Board 'is engaged in a legislative, policy-making
  process.' " In re Twenty-Four Vt. Utils., 159 Vt. 339, 357, 618 A.2d 1295,
  1306 (1992) (quoting Auclair v. Vt. Elec. Power Co., 133 Vt. 22, 26,