Opinion ID: 2261600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: parties in opposition

Text: An expert in design of electrical substations testified on behalf of the petitioners, on the issue of necessity. The expert studied PEPCO's preliminary plans, layout of the equipment; single-line drawings, and current architectural drawings, as well as the site itself, and concluded that a building, meeting all of the requirements of the PEPCO substation, could be built farther west of the existing site without demolishing the Conduit Shop. (This plan would necessitate demolishing a small house on the site of the Conduit Shop). The petitioners' expert prepared a concept drawing of the substation he proposed. It would be basically identical to the one proposed by PEPCO, but would be housed in a new building built on open space thereby preserving the historical buildings. Though conceptualized, this alternative was not developed. The witness was not certain how long it would take to convert the concept into a final design, but proffered that he thought it could be accomplished in two or three months. The plan had not been presented to a structural engineer, or an architect, or PEPCO. Cost was not considered, nor was consideration given to whether this plan would comply with the District of Columbia Building Code. Physical arrangement was the sole consideration which lead to this alternative. Because of the foregoing, and the fact that the witness testified that, at a minimum, the project would cost 10 to 15 percent more than the PEPCO plan, this plan was likewise rejected.