Opinion ID: 2794232
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Support for Approved Route

Text: 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 § 5646.1. 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 33 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 34 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 35 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 36 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. 37