Title: BASF Corp. v. State Corp. Comm’n

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

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 
 
2 
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."  
 
3 
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." 
 
4 
 
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. 
 
5 
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. 
 
6 
 
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. 
 
 
7 
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. 
 
8 
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-
 
9 
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, 
 
10 
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 
 
11 
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." 
 
12 
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 
 
13 
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 
 
14 
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, 
 
15 
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." 
 
16 
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 
 
17 
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. 
 
18 
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. 
 
 
19 
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 
 
20 
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 
 
21 
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 
 
22 
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 
 
23 
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 
 
24 
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 
 
25 
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 
 
26 
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 
 
27 
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 
 
28 
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 
 
29 
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 
 
30 
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 
 
31 
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 
 
32 
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 
 
33 
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 
 
34 
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 
 
35 
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 
 
36 
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 
 
37 
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. 
 
 
38 
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 
 
39 
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 
 
40 
"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 
 
41 
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 
 
42 
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. 
 
 
43 
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 
 
44 
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 
 
45 
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). 
 
46 
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 
 
47 
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. 
 
48 
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 
 
49 
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).