BASF Corp. v. State Corp. Comm'n
| Citation | 289 Va. 375,770 S.E.2d 458 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | 141201,140470,141010.,Record Nos. 140462,141009 |
| Parties | BASF CORPORATION v. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, et al. James City County, et al. v. State Corporation Commission, et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Michael J. Quinan (E. Ford Stephens ; Christian & Barton, Richmond, on briefs), for appellant BASF Corporation.
Andrew R. McRoberts (Leo P. Rogers, County Attorney; Sands Anderson, on briefs), for appellants James City County, James River Association, and Save the James Alliance Trust.
John F. Dudley (Alisson P. Klaiber, on brief), for appellee State Corporation Commission.
Joseph K. Reid, III (Lisa S. Booth ; Charlotte McAfee ; Stephen H. Watts, II ; Vishwa B. Link ; Robert W. Loftin ; Richard D. Gary ; Timothy E. Biller ; McGuireWoods, Richmond; Hunton & Williams, on brief), for appellee Virginia Electric and Power Company.
National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Parks Conservation Association, Preservation Virginia, Scenic Virginia, and Garden Club of Virgina (Norman A. Thomas, on briefs), in support of amicus curiae appellants.
Present: LEMONS, C.J., MILLETTE, MIMS, McCLANAHAN, and POWELL, JJ., and RUSSELL and KOONTZ, S.JJ.
These consolidated appeals of right by James City County, Save the James Alliance Trust, and James River Association (collectively, “JCC”), and BASF Corporation (“BASF”) arise from proceedings before the State Corporation Commission (the “Commission”).
By an initial Certificate Order and an Amending Order, the Commission issued to Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power (“Dominion”) certificates of public convenience and necessity (“CPCNs”) authorizing the construction of electric transmission facilities (the “Project”). BASF challenges the approval of the transmission line's route across a sensitive environmental remediation site on its property along the James River. JCC challenges the approval of two main features of the Project: a new 500 kilovolt (“kV”) overhead transmission line that will cross the James River and an associated switching station that will be located in James City County. JCC argues that the switching station is a not a “transmission line” under Code § 56–46.1(F), and therefore subject to local zoning ordinances.
We conclude that the Commission did not err in its construction or application of Code § 56–46.1's requirements that Dominion “reasonably minimize adverse impact on scenic assets, historic districts, and environment of the area concerned,” and that the record is not without evidence to support its findings. We hold, however, that the Commission did err in concluding that a switching station is a “transmission line” under Code § 56–46.1(F). We will therefore affirm the orders as to appellant BASF, and affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand as to the JCC appellants.
In 2012, Dominion filed an application with the Commission seeking the issuance of the CPCNs under Code § 56–265.2 of the Virginia Utility Facilities Act, and approval under Code § 56–46.1, to construct the Project.
Code § 56–265.2(A) provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any public utility to construct ... facilities for use in public utility service ... without first having obtained a certificate from the Commission that the public convenience and necessity require the exercise of such right or privilege.” This provision also requires compliance with the provisions of Code § 56–46.1 for the issuance of a certificate to construct overhead transmission lines of 138 kV or more.
Code § 56–46.1 directs the Commission to consider several factors when reviewing the utility company's application for the certificate. As relevant here, subsection (A) of the statute provides: “Whenever 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.” Code § 56–46.1(A). Here, the term “ ‘environmental’ shall be deemed to include in meaning ‘historic.’ ” Code § 56–46.1(D). Subsection (A) also directs that “the Commission (a) shall consider the effect of the proposed facility on economic development within the Commonwealth ... and (b) shall consider any improvements in service reliability that may result from the construction of such facility.” Code § 56–46.1(A).
Subsection (B) of Code § 56–46.1 then provides, in relevant part: “As a condition to approval the Commission shall determine that the [proposed transmission] line is needed and that the corridor or route the line is to follow will reasonably minimize adverse impact on the scenic assets, historic districts and environment of the area concerned.”
Dominion's application addressed the need for the Project and described its proposed features. Dominion represented that the construction of this additional transmission capacity was needed to assure continued reliable electric service to its customers in the North Hampton Roads Area.1 THE PROJECT, ACCORdiNG to dominion, was the best means for meeting this need while “reasonably minimiz[ing] adverse impact on the scenic assets, historic districts and environment of the area concerned,” as required by Code § 56–46.1(B).
The Commission undertook an investigation, received public comments and assigned a Hearing Examiner to conduct the proceedings and issue a report on Dominion's application. Two days of public witness hearings were then conducted, followed by a nine-day long evidentiary hearing for the purpose of receiving evidence offered by Dominion, respondents, including JCC and BASF, and the Commission's staff. Following its receipt of the Hearing Examiner's report, the Commission issued the first of the orders challenged in this appeal.
The record below is extensive, but included the following basic facts.
Under federal law, Dominion must comply with North American Electric Reliability Corporation (“NERC”) standards, which have been adopted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). See Piedmont Envtl. Council v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 278 Va. 553, 559–60, 684 S.E.2d 805, 808 (2009) (). Dominion presented evidence that, in order to monitor whether its electric transmission system is in compliance with NERC reliability standards, Dominion continually assesses the system's future reliability using load flow modeling studies. Based on the load flow modeling evidence in this case, previous studies had indicated that normal load growth in the North Hampton Roads Area would result in NERC reliability violations by 2019. However, in order to comply with new regulations, Dominion determined that six of its local coal-fired generation units (two at the Yorktown Power Plant and four at the Chesapeake Power Plant) would need to be shut down. According to Dominion, the retirement of just one unit at Yorktown was enough to cause reliability violations to begin in the summer of 2015.
To meet the above-stated need, Dominion proposed in its application for the CPCNs that the Project include the construction of (1) approximately seven to eight miles (depending upon the specific route across the James River) of a new 500 kV overhead transmission line (the “Surry–Skiffes Creek Line”), (2) approximately 20 miles of a new 230 kV overhead transmission line (the “Skiffes Creek–Whealton Line”), and (3) a new switching station required to interconnect the 500 kV line to the 230 kV line (the “Skiffes Creek Switching Station”).2
Dominion's application, at issue in today's appeal, presented the Surry–Skiffes Creek Line over the James River and onto BASF's property, with several “Variations” as to the exact route crossing the James River. As an alternative to the Surry–Skiffes Creek Line, Dominion also offered for the Commission's consideration a different route extending 38 miles from Dominion's existing Chickahominy Substation in Charles City County to the new Skiffes Creek Switching Station in James City County (the “Chickahominy–Skiffes Creek Line”). However, Dominion preferred the Surry–Skiffes Creek Line for the Project based on significant differences as to adverse impact and cost: the Chickahominy–Skiffes Creek Line would pass in close proximity to more residences than the Surry–Skiffes Creek Line. Dominion also stated that, because approximately 25 miles of the right-of-way is unimproved, the Chickahominy–Skiffes Creek Line “crosses significantly more forested land, open marshland, wetland and perennial waterbodies and will require much more forest land to be cleared and forested wetlands to be converted to scrub shrub community.” In addition, Dominion's estimated cost of the Chickahominy–Skiffes Creek Line was more than $50 million above the estimated cost of the Surry–Skiffes Creek Line.3
Under Code § 56–46.1, as part of the evaluation process, the Hearing Examiner and then Commission must determine whether new Projects “reasonably minimize adverse impact on the scenic assets, historic districts and environment of the area concerned.” Code § 56–46.1(B). Both BASF and JCC presented evidence of adverse impacts caused by the proposed Surry–Skiffes Creek Line.
The BASF property is a former manufacturing site undergoing active remediation subject to both Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Department of Environmental Quality (“DEQ”) corrective action. Dominion's preferred route of the Surry–Skiffes Creek line (“Variation 1”) crosses the middle of BASF's property, the most sensitive area of environmental remediation, containing zinc contaminants. This area is identified as Area 4C. The plans underway to remediate Area 4C contain three main mitigation measures: a capped landfill, a bio-barrier trench, and a phytoremediation plot of poplar trees. BASF offered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Supervisors of Loudoun Cnty. v. State Corp. Comm'n
...case, the decision is “ ‘entitled to the respect due judgments of a tribunal informed by experience,’ ” BASF Corp. v. State Corp. Comm'n , 289 Va. 375, 391, 770 S.E.2d 458, 467 (2015) (quoting Appalachian Voices v. State Corp. Comm'n , 277 Va. 509, 516, 675 S.E.2d 458, 461 (2009) ), and thu......
-
Wal-Mart Stores E., LP v. State Corp. Comm'n
...Commission's findings contrary to the evidence," City of Alexandria , 296 Va. at 102, 818 S.E.2d 33 (citing BASF Corp. v. State Corp. Comm'n , 289 Va. 375, 397, 770 S.E.2d 458 (2015) ). "The Commission is entitled to interpret the conflicting evidence and to decide the weight to afford it."......
- Bartolomucci v. Fed. Ins. Co.
-
City of Alexandria v. State Corp. Comm'n
...bound" by it and "will not hesitate to reverse" it if we find that it "is based on a mistake of law," BASF Corp. v. State Corp. Comm’n , 289 Va. 375, 403, 770 S.E.2d 458, 473 (2015). A different paradigm governs the SCC’s findings of fact. We may not "overrule the Commission’s findings of f......