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 SurrySkiffes 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 CreekWhealton 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 SurrySkiffes 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 rightof-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 SurrySkiffes 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-ofway 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 SurrySkiffes 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 SurrySkiffes 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 biobarrier, if necessary, in order that the tower would not 

interfere with the construction and operation of the biobarrier. 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 ChickahominySkiffes 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 SurrySkiffes 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).