Opinion ID: 2261600
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: applicants' evidence

Text: On the issue of the necessity of demolishing the present structures, applicant's evidence established that before deciding to demolish the present structure and build a replacement facility, applicant conducted an engineering study. [4] The following alternatives emerged as the result of the study: (1) DO NOTHING This option was rejected as being inconsistent with PEPCO's obligation as a public utility to provide reliable electric service to all of its customers, and safe equipment for its operating personnel. Further, load commitments could not be met by letting the substation continue to age and deteriorate. (2) TRANSFER LOAD TO ADJACENT SUBSTATIONS This option was rejected for several reasons. First, it would entail a great deal of disruption in the Georgetown area for street openings, cable relocations, and moving lines. Secondly, moving the Georgetown load to another facility (19th and I Streets) would overduty the transfer facility and eventually PEPCO would have to again relocate the Georgetown load. Transferring the load would involve a substantial cost; (3) REPLACE EQUIPMENT WITHIN EXISTING FACILITY PEPCO rejected this option for two primary reasons; (1) replacing equipment within the existing facility would entail an almost continuous building program at the Georgetown substation for ten years. Such a program would create an unwieldly risk to the reliability of service and a hazard to operating and construction personnel; (2) PEPCO could not completely turn off the existing substation when the transfer was taking place. It would have to shut down one-third of the substation at all times while the transfer was being made. This would further overduty the equipment which remained in use and tax it beyond its limit at peak load conditions, further jeopardizing service. The end result would be a substation which was still deficient according to modern standards; (4) BUILD A NEW FACILITY IN THE GEORGETOWN AREA ON A NEW SITE This option was attractive to PEPCO. It would enable the existing substation to remain in service until the new substation was completed. At that time, the electric load could be transferred to the new substation. The existing substation would be phased out of service at that time. The site of the existing substation would be declared nonutility property and sold. Despite the initial attractiveness of this alternative, it was ultimately rejected because no alternative sites were readily available in the Georgetown area nor were any such sites more suitable or centrally located for a substation than the existing site. Further, any new site would be more expensive than the existing facility, and relocating the feeders and cables cause disruption of traffic; (5) A NEW FACILITY ON THE PRESENT SITE This option is the one ultimately selected by PEPCO. It would entail constructing an entirely new facility on the site of the vacant Conduit Shop and yard. The new facility could be constructed without disrupting the operation of the existing substation, or disrupting traffic on the Georgetown streets. The new facility would be an enclosed building providing security for the public and decreasing noise. It would have new equipment expected to last until the turn of the century. When completed, the land outside of the facility would be declared nonutility and sold. This option would provide the most reliable and safe electric service to PEPCO's customers at a reasonable cost. The reliability of the plant, plus the reasonableness of the cost lead PEPCO to select this option. Applicant introduced evidence to show that adaptive reuse of the buildings is not feasible because of zoning, cost, and structural problems. Thought was given to using the Conduit Shop as part of the substation, but that too was rejected because experts found the building to be inadequate to serve a first-class substation. PEPCO ruled out housing parts of the substation in separate buildings or in separate areas of the site (and retaining the North Building and Conduit Shop) primarily because doing so is inconsistent with PEPCO substation designs. PEPCO consolidates its equipment within one structure to increase efficiency of the layout and cut down on the amount of circuiting and cable, therefore, reducing the possibility of failures and breakdowns. Having explored the above options, PEPCO decided that demolition of the North Building and Conduit Shop is necessary in the public interest.