Opinion ID: 2794232
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jcc's appeal

Text: In JCC's three assignments of error, JCC argues, first, that the Commission erred as a matter of law in its construction and application of Code § 56-46.1(A) and (B) by limiting its consideration of routes for the transmission line to those proposed by Dominion in its application. Like BASF, JCC argues that the Commission erred as a matter of law by limiting its 31 inquiry to a one-step balancing process as opposed to a two-step inquiry in which need is first established and that reasonableness is evaluated separately from need. Second, JCC contends the Commission erred in finding that the route of the Surry-Skiffes Creek Line reasonably minimizes its adverse impacts as required under Code § 56-46.1. Third, JCC argues the Commission erred in its construction and application of Code § 56-46.1(F) in finding that the Skiffes Creek Switching Station is a transmission line under this provision and thus exempt from local zoning regulations.
JCC's first assignment of error argues that the Commission erred as a matter of law in its interpretation and application of subsections (A) and (B) of Code § 56-46.1 when it approved the overhead transmission line route. We review this issue of law de novo. Syed, 280 Va. at 68, 694 S.E.2d at 631. JCC argues that the approval of the overhead transmission line's route essentially ignor[ed] the statute's directive that the impacts on historic assets of the Commonwealth be minimized. The Commission did so, JCC contends, by limiting its application of impact minimization under the statute to a choice of routes presented by Dominion in its application for the CPCNs. JCC argues this effectively reduced the Commission's two-step mandate to establish need and minimize adverse impacts 32 to a one-step process by us[ing] the determination of need to override its statutory duty to minimize the adverse impacts of the transmission line. This argument is fundamentally the same as the argument raised by BASF in Part IV.A.2., supra. We do note that JCC also invokes Code § 56-46.1(A), which states that [w]henever the Commission is required to approve the construction of any electrical utility facility, it shall give consideration to the effect of that facility on the environment and establish such conditions as may be desirable or necessary to minimize adverse environmental impact . . . . Minimize does not require no impact, and the Commission is also required under subsection (A) to consider the economic development of the Commonwealth and service reliability. Thus, our analysis from Part IV.A.2., supra, is equally applicable here. For the reasons articulated previously, we find no error in the Commission's interpretation of the statute.
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
We now turn to JCC's third assignment of error in which it contends the Commission erred in its interpretation and application of Code § 56-46.1(F). Code § 56-46.1(F) states: Approval of a transmission line pursuant to this section shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of [Code] § 15.2-2232 and local zoning ordinances with respect to such transmission line. The Commission construed transmission line, as used in this provision, to include switching stations, so that Code § 56-46.1(F) exempted the Skiffes Creek Switching Station from the requirements of James City County zoning ordinances. This was error. While it is true that this Court gives great weight to the practical construction given to a statute by public officials charged with its enforcement, Commonwealth v. Appalachian Elec. Power Co., 193 Va. 37, 45, 68 S.E.2d 122, 127 (1951), we are not inextricably bound to that construction. If such a construction is based on a mistake of law, then this Court will not hesitate to reverse the decision of the public officials charged with the enforcement of the statute. See Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. State Corp. Comm'n, 284 Va. 726, 736, 735 S.E.2d 684, 688 (2012). This Court has recognized that, in determining whether certain structures or uses are exempt from local zoning 38 ordinances, there must be a manifest intention on the part of the legislature to do so. City of Norfolk v. Tiny House, Inc., 222 Va. 414, 422-23, 281 S.E.2d 836, 840-41 (1981). Although the Commission's position that switching stations and transmission lines function together and should be governed under the same authority is well-taken, the intention to exempt switching stations from local zoning ordinances is not manifest within Code § 56-46.1. Under the plain language of Code § 5646.1(F) the only structures or uses expressly exempt from local zoning ordinances are transmission lines. Thus, because switching stations are not expressly exempt under Code § 5646.1(F), the question before this Court is whether the term transmission lines includes switching stations. As stated previously, [w]hen 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, 283 Va. at 425, 722 S.E.2d at 629 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis added). The General Assembly's intent is usually self-evident from the statutory language, and we look first to the plain meaning of the words used in the statute. Rutter v. Oakwood Living Ctrs. of Va., Inc., 282 Va. 4, 9, 710 S.E.2d 460, 462 (2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Title 56 of the Code of Virginia, governing public utilities, does not define the term 39 transmission line as used in Code § 56-46.1(F). However, determining the meaning of the term transmission line does not require analysis [f]rom an engineering standpoint as the Commission argues. A layperson can identify the plain meaning of a transmission line: the wires used to transmit electric current over great distances and the structures necessary to physically support those wires. Transmission line does not mean switching station. A switching station remains just that: a station. A switching station is a facility, and thus is distinguishable from and more intrusive to its surrounding environment than transmission lines. It is reasonable for such facilities to be subject to local zoning, while continuous transmission lines are exempt because of the onerous nature of navigating local zoning ordinances for all the acreage over which transmission lines cross. The application itself delineates Project components as lines and a station. The Commission noted that [t]he engineering evidence in this case also demonstrates that no 'transmission line' . . . will simply end at the property line of the Skiffes Creek Switching Station. The fact that the transmission line continues does not by necessity incorporate the facility into the transmission line. The station remains a 40 facility, and the plain language of transmission line under Code § 56-46.1(F) does not encompass a station facility. We note the General Assembly has previously employed a similar definition. In 2006, the General Assembly mandated that the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC), a legislative oversight commission composed of nine members of the House of Delegates and five members of the Senate, see Code § 30-56, evaluate the feasibility of undergrounding transmission lines in the Commonwealth. H. J. Res. 100, Va. Gen Assem. (Reg. Sess. 2006). As part of its evaluation, the JLARC conducted a comprehensive review of the Code and Commission policies with regard to transmission lines. In its subsequent report, the JLARC defined transmission lines as the conductors (wires or cables) which carry power at a high voltage level from the plants to local substations some distance away. Joint Legislative Audit and Review Comm’n, Report to the Governor and General Assembly of Virginia: Evaluation of Underground Electric Transmission Lines in Virginia, House Doc. No. 87, at 4 (2006), available at http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/HD872006/$file/H D87.pdf (last visited March 25, 2015). The Commission's rationale for its construction of the statute is that a switching station is an electrically, physically, and operationally inseparable part of several high 41 voltage transmission lines. Using this logic, an electrical generating facility would likewise be a transmission line for the purposes of Code § 56-46.1(F). Without an electrical generating facility, a transmission line would be nonfunctioning and incomplete; therefore, according to the Commission's holding, the General Assembly also intended to regulate electrical generating facilities as transmission lines. The language of the statute makes it clear that this was not the General Assembly's intent. We also note the ease with which the General Assembly could have included substations in Code § 56-46.1(F), as exempt from local zoning ordinances, along with transmission lines, had that been its intent. Code § 56-46.1(A) includes any electrical utility facility, whereas Code § 56-46.1(B) addresses only electrical transmission line[s]. Both terms are contemplated under the same statute. Here, the plain language of Code § 56-46.1(F) does not reflect a manifest intent on the part of the General Assembly to exempt switching stations from local zoning ordinances. The Commission therefore committed a mistake of law. Accordingly, we will reverse the decision of the Commission with regard to the applicability of Code § 56-46.1(F) to the Skiffes Creek Switching Station. 42