Opinion ID: 2794232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: basf's appeal

Text: In BASF's three assignments of error, BASF asserts, first, that the Commission erred as a matter of law in finding Variation 1 reasonably minimizes adverse impacts under Code § 56-46.1(B) based merely on the unavailability of Variation 4. BASF further argues that the Commission erred as a matter of law in determining whether Code § 56-46.1 was satisfied by weighing of the transmission system reliability concerns together with the adverse impacts, instead of as separate processes. Next, BASF contends the Commission erred in approving Variation 1, both by wrongly finding that Variation 1 reasonably minimizes 20 the adverse environmental impact to Area 4C, and by disregarding Variation 1's destruction of the property's development potential. Finally, BASF argues that the Commission erred in rejecting the Hearing Examiner's recommendation in favor of Variation 4.1 because it is the only available route that reasonably minimizes adverse impacts.
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.
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 § 5646.1(B). In the context of this statute, the Court has 21 previously quoted Webster's New International Dictionary to define determine as to fix conclusively or authoritatively . . . to settle a question or controversy about . . . to come to a decision concerning as the result of the investigation or reasoning . . . to settle or decide by choice of alternatives or possibilities. Board of Supervisors v. Appalachian Power Co., 216 Va. 93, 103, 215 S.E.2d 918, 925 (1975) (emphasis added). Had the Amending Order provided merely a conclusory recitation of the statutory language, absent investigation or reasoning, BASF would undoubtedly have grounds for complaint. This, however, is not the record before us. The Amending Order includes factors considered by the Hearing Examiner in comparing Variation 1 to Variation 4.1, not Variation 4, indicating that the Commission indeed undertook a comparison between Variation 1 and the new route. The Commission expressly considered many of the same factors enumerated by the Hearing Examiner: [T]he Commission agrees . . . that Variation 1 will have less visual impact than Variation 4.1 on certain historic resources, including Carter's Grove. . . . Variation 1 would be located farther than Variations 4.1 and 4.2 from Carter's Grove and from other, more distant historic resources. On the other hand, an environmental advantage of Variations 4.1 and 4.2 is that these variations avoid certain environmental remediation areas on the BASF property which Variation 1 would cross. The Commission ultimately weighed these competing claims differently than the Hearing Examiner, granting visual impact 22 and construction schedule more relative weight. This is not error as a matter of law, however. The Commission clearly engaged in reasoning on the record evaluating relevant factors, and concluded that [b]ased on the record, the Commission finds that the Certificated Project using Variation 1 would reasonably minimize adverse impact to the scenic assets, historic districts, and environment of the project area.
Next, BASF argues that the Commission erred as a matter of law by weighing the need to upgrade Dominion's transmission system against the adverse impacts of Variation 1. According to BASF, the statute requires the Commission to both establish need and reasonably minimize adverse impacts, and by considering need and the Project's construction schedule as a part of the impact analysis, the Commission is accomplishing only the former. When construing a statute, our primary objective is to ascertain and give effect to legislative intent, as expressed by the language used in the statute. Cuccinelli v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 283 Va. 420, 425, 722 S.E.2d 626, 629 (2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). Code § 56-46.1 does not state the factors to be considered in addressing the listed adverse impacts and does not indicate whether these two tests must be undertaken independently of each other. It merely states that adverse 23 impact should be reasonably minimize[d]. Something is reasonable when it is [f]air, proper, or moderate under the circumstances; sensible. Black's Law Dictionary 1456 (10th ed. 2014). The essence of reasonableness under the law is prudent action in context; there can be no error in linking a reasonability standard to the circumstances at large. The Commission, pursuant to Code § 56-46.1(B), determines whether a need for the proposed infrastructure exists. In doing so, as explained in the Certificate Order, the Commission must assess the magnitude and timing of any such need. The statute specifically calls for verif[ification of] the applicant's load flow modeling, contingency analyses, and reliability needs presented to justify the new line and its proposed methods of installation, in determining need. Code § 56-46.1(B). Added to these factors, along with minimizing adverse impacts under subsection (B), are the costs of such construction. See Board of Supervisors, 216 Va. at 104, 215 S.E.2d at 926 (Commission properly considered, among other factors, economic and environmental factors, reliability of electric service, and engineering feasibility in approving route for transmission line); Town of Mt. Crawford v. Virginia Elec. and Power Co., 220 Va. 645, 650, 261 S.E.2d 311, 314 (1980) (affirming Commission's rejection of locality's proposed alternative route for new transmission line based on evidence showing that, among 24 other things, the deviation would substantially increase the cost of the entire line). The adverse impacts of a proposed project are not to be considered in a vacuum. When presented with an application for transmission line construction, the Commission must balance adverse impacts along with other factors and traditional considerations. Board of Supervisors, 216 Va. at 100, 215 S.E.2d at 923-24. Then the Commission, as a tribunal informed by experience, Appalachian Voices, 277 Va. at 516, 675 S.E.2d at 461 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), must decide within the parameters of the statute what best serves the total public interest. Board of Supervisors, 216 Va. at 104, 215 S.E.2d at 926. We conclude that the use of the word reasonably demonstrates the General Assembly's recognition of the multifactorial balancing that goes into such an investigation, and we find that the Commission did not err.
BASF's second and third assignments of error are closely related, so we will address them together. BASF challenges the evidentiary support for the Commission's choice of Variation 1 over Variation 4.1. BASF contends that there is not sufficient evidence to support the contention that Variation 1 would reasonably minimize environmental impacts of the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line; rather, Variation 4.1 is the only alternative that 25 would reasonably minimize the adverse environmental impacts by traversing the northern boundary of BASF's property. Variation 1, according to BASF, would maximize those impacts and destroy the property's developmental potential by bisecting the property through Area 4C, that is, the portion of the property undergoing environmental remediation. Thus, BASF concludes, the Commission's approval of Variation 1 violates Code § 56-46.1(B). As this portion of the appeal challenges the evidentiary findings of the Commission, we must review the evidence in light of our highly deferential standard of review. We find fault with the Commission only if its findings are contrary to the evidence or without evidentiary support. Level 3 Commc'ns, 268 Va. at 474, 604 S.E.2d at 72.
First, a thorough review of the record shows that it is not without evidence to support the Commission's finding that the Project, using Variation 1, will reasonably minimize adverse impacts as required by the statute. The property was previously an industrial operations and manufacturing site that caused substantial soil and groundwater contamination. As part of the environmental remediation efforts within the former main industrial area known as Area 4C, consisting of approximately 30 acres, BASF excavated several lagoons and surface impoundments and reinterred the materials 26 into a stabilized capped landfill. To capture additional contaminants, BASF has developed plans to construct a permeable reactive barrier (bio-barrier) near the landfill. BASF is also planning the creation of a phytoremediation plot on Area 4C. This involves selective plant growth on the property to minimize the migration of contaminants by binding them in the soil while lowering the water table. The dispute over the Project's adverse environmental impact to BASF's property centers on the Commission's approval of Dominion's construction of a transmission tower in Area 4C for the Surry-Skiffe's Creek Line, using Variation 1. BASF's remediation specialist, Vernon Burrows, testified that the placement of the tower in Area 4C conflicts with BASF's remediation efforts, including the bio-barrier and the phytoremediation plot, and would result in serious environmental damage to the BASF property. Dominion, on the other hand, presented expert testimony indicating that the construction of the tower in Area 4C will have minimal environmental impact. One such witness was Mark Allen, a Dominion civil engineer, who is responsible for the management of all of the high voltage transmission designs in Dominion's system. This includes assuring that all such designs meet established standards for safety and reliability. Another such witness was Cathy Taylor, director of Dominion's Electric 27 Environmental Services Department, whose responsibilities include oversight of environmental compliance and remediation. Allen submitted testimony that the only tower required in Area 4C would not be located on the capped landfill. He also stated that the landfill could successfully be spanned by the transmission line proposed in Variation 1, such that no construction activity would occur on the capped landfill. In contrast to Burrows' statements that the foundations for the tower would be installed by drilled piles, a method that can cause displacement of contaminates, Allen and Taylor both testified that Dominion would use pipe pile foundations that would be driven into the ground by vibration, resulting in minimal disruption of surrounding soil and migration of contaminated groundwater. Taylor testified that they would work with BASF to reconfigure the location of the tower or 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 28 phytoremediation that would be consistent with the mandatory standards for transmission line right-of-way maintenance. The DEQ, which is overseeing the remediation of Area 4C, also submitted an extensive report to the Commission regarding the proposed Project, including Variation 1. The DEQ, however, did not indicate in the report that Variation 1 was incompatible with BASF's remediation of Area 4C as claimed by BASF. Rather, the DEQ recommended without preference that one of the proposed routes for the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line be used, as opposed to the route for the alternative Chickahominy-Skiffes Creek Line. While vigorously contested, we cannot say that the Commission's selection of Variation 1 was without evidence to support it.
Second, the record was not without evidence to support the Commission's rejection of Variation 4.1. This is due, in large part, to evidence regarding the construction schedule risks associated with Variation 4.1. This evidence was introduced through the testimony of Elizabeth Harper, a Dominion siting and permitting specialist for electric transmission lines. According to her testimony, Variation 1 has the shorter construction schedule for addressing the urgent need to complete the Project. She stated that there was a greater risk with Variation 4.1 that construction of the Project would 29 not be completed in time to address the NERC violations. This risk was posed because Variation 4.1 had not yet undergone review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which must be completed before Dominion can begin construction on the Project. Delay caused by this additional review could then result in Dominion having to request an unprecedented fifth-year extension from the EPA to delay shutting down certain of its Yorktown coal fired units. Harper stated that the parameters for obtaining such an extension are not fully known. Based on this evidence, the Commission found that, while there is no absolute schedule certainty for any route, approval of Variation 4.1 . . . would present for customers in the North Hampton Roads Area an increased and unreasonable risk, as compared to Variation 1, that the [c]ertificated Project would not be constructed in time to ensure reliable service to those customers. In light of this record, and in light of the fact that, as discussed in Part IV.A.2., supra, the Commission was permitted to consider the construction schedule in its evaluation, we cannot say the Commission's rejection of Variation 4.1 was without evidence to support it. 3. Selection of Variation 1 Despite Adverse Impact Finally, the record is not without evidentiary support for the Commission's approval of Variation 1 despite any adverse effect the route might have on future economic development of 30 BASF's property. Code § 56-46.1(A) expressly requires the Commission to consider among the other statutory factors the route's effect on economic development within the Commonwealth. Acting within this statutory authority, the Commission considered this factor in the broader context of Dominion's customers in the affected region, and found as follows: The timely construction of Variation 1 and the rest of the [c]ertificated Project are necessary to address significant reliability risks in the North Hampton Roads Area. Customers in these counties and cities include citizens, schools, local governments, and businesses that depend on reliable power for a variety of needs. As required by statute, we have considered the impact on economic development in the Commonwealth and . . . approve Variation 1. Both as a matter of law and as a matter of evidentiary inquiry, the Commission did not err by considering the impact of economic development on residents of the entire region and not simply to BASF.