Opinion ID: 2794232
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rejection of Variation 4.1

Text: Second, the record was not without evidence to support the Commission's rejection of Variation 4.1. This is due, in large part, to evidence regarding the construction schedule risks associated with Variation 4.1. This evidence was introduced through the testimony of Elizabeth Harper, a Dominion siting and permitting specialist for electric transmission lines. According to her testimony, Variation 1 has the shorter construction schedule for addressing the urgent need to complete the Project. She stated that there was a greater risk with Variation 4.1 that construction of the Project would 29 not be completed in time to address the NERC violations. This risk was posed because Variation 4.1 had not yet undergone review by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which must be completed before Dominion can begin construction on the Project. Delay caused by this additional review could then result in Dominion having to request an unprecedented fifth-year extension from the EPA to delay shutting down certain of its Yorktown coal fired units. Harper stated that the parameters for obtaining such an extension are not fully known. Based on this evidence, the Commission found that, while there is no absolute schedule certainty for any route, approval of Variation 4.1 . . . would present for customers in the North Hampton Roads Area an increased and unreasonable risk, as compared to Variation 1, that the [c]ertificated Project would not be constructed in time to ensure reliable service to those customers. In light of this record, and in light of the fact that, as discussed in Part IV.A.2., supra, the Commission was permitted to consider the construction schedule in its evaluation, we cannot say the Commission's rejection of Variation 4.1 was without evidence to support it. 3. Selection of Variation 1 Despite Adverse Impact Finally, the record is not without evidentiary support for the Commission's approval of Variation 1 despite any adverse effect the route might have on future economic development of 30 BASF's property. Code § 56-46.1(A) expressly requires the Commission to consider among the other statutory factors the route's effect on economic development within the Commonwealth. Acting within this statutory authority, the Commission considered this factor in the broader context of Dominion's customers in the affected region, and found as follows: The timely construction of Variation 1 and the rest of the [c]ertificated Project are necessary to address significant reliability risks in the North Hampton Roads Area. Customers in these counties and cities include citizens, schools, local governments, and businesses that depend on reliable power for a variety of needs. As required by statute, we have considered the impact on economic development in the Commonwealth and . . . approve Variation 1. Both as a matter of law and as a matter of evidentiary inquiry, the Commission did not err by considering the impact of economic development on residents of the entire region and not simply to BASF.