Opinion ID: 2794232
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Commission's Amending Order

Text: 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, 14 it became apparent that Variation 4.2 was inappropriate, and BASF altered its position to favor Variation 4.1 as between the remaining options under consideration. After concluding Dominion was not able to implement Variation 4, the Hearing Examiner found advantages and disadvantages to Variations 1 and 4.1, and recommended Variation 4.1. Upon its review, the Commission instead found that Variation 1 had become the best variation to satisfy the Code. 5 The Commission approved Variation 1 based on the risk that construction of the Project would not be completed in time to address the NERC violations if it approved one of the adjusted variations to Variation 4. The Commission found, among other factors, that approval of one of the adjusted variations could result in significantly delaying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Project review, which had to be completed before Dominion could begin construction. Having previously approved Variation 4, the Commission noted that Variation 1 will impact certain properties differently than Variation 4. However, the Commission found that Variation 1 allows Dominion to: (1) reasonably minimize 5 The Commission noted that in the Certificate Order it had agreed with the Hearing Examiner's analysis of the various James River crossing variations and findings that the [c]ertificated Project, regardless of which variation for the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line is used, reasonably minimizes the adverse impacts on the scenic assets, historic districts, and environment and otherwise satisfies the Code. 15 adverse environmental impacts, including impacts to historic resources and scenic assets; (2) cross the James River with less visual impact to Carter's Grove . . . among other properties in the area; (3) bypass the EDA property that has obstructed Variation 4; and (4) address significant reliability risks to the North Hampton Roads Area in a timely manner. By order dated February 28, 2014 (the Amending Order), the Commission amended the Certificate Order by authorizing Dominion to construct the Project using Variation 1. On April 10, 2014, the Commission entered an additional order denying BASF's petition for reconsideration of the Amending Order.