Energize EastsideCommunity Advisory Group Meeting #3

Deputy Project Manager, P t S d E

Jens Nedrud

Puget Sound Energy

Communications Initiatives, Gretchen Aliabadi

,Puget Sound Energy

June 4, 2014

Presentation overview

Project overview and schedule

Community outreach update

Key questions and responses Key questions and responses

2

Energize Eastside overview

Growth is straining our region’s existing transmission systemtransmission system

Conservation alone is not enough We need to act now We are working with the community to identify g y y

solutions

Energize Eastside will build new electric transmission infrastructure to ensure

dependable power

3

Project schedule

4

Public outreach process

Since project launch in December 2013:179 ti ith i t k h ld 179 meetings with various stakeholders, ranging from one-on-one meetings to large

bli tpublic events Collecting, analyzing, and responding to more

than 950 communications from the public 2 Community Advisory Group and y y p

9 Sub-Area meetings to gather specific community feedbacky

2 open house community meetings to introduce the project 1 Q&A session.

5

introduce the project. 1 Q&A session.

Key questions and responses

Local need for electricityAlt ti l ti Alternative solutions

Undergrounding and submerging Seattle City Light corridor Olympic PipelineOlympic Pipeline Property values

El t ti fi ld (EMF) Electromagnetic fields (EMF)

6

Local need for electricitySource: Eastside Needs Assessment Report

PSE Area Winter Peak Load Forecast 2012-2022

PSE’s service territory

7

Local need for electricityEastside Load Forecast for Normal Winter Load

Forecast 2012-2023Source: Eastside Needs Assessment Report

Eastside area map

8

Customer demand

Power outages become more likely

9

Solutions reviewedSource: Eastside Transmission Solutions Report

10

Local vs. regional benefitLocal need The driver for the project The driver for the project Problem: Transformers serving the Eastside area are

overloadedoverloaded Solution: A new transformer and transmission line

Regional benefit Adding a transmission line to the system always changesAdding a transmission line to the system always changes

regional power flows – in this case, an ancillary regional reliability benefit 3-8% of the power flowing through the line will be used

regionally

11

Alternative solutions Request: Halt the Community Advisory Group

process to revisit the need and alternative solutions We thoroughly reviewed many potential solutions: Seattle City Light corridorSeattle City Light corridor Conservation only Batteries/Non-wiresBatteries/Non wires Transformer-only options/other locations Underground and submarineUnderground and submarine

What is still on the table? Overhead Overhead Underground/submarine

12

Undergrounding as an option Decision to underground is the

local community’slocal community s Requesting community pays

differencedifference Money paid up front for both

i i d t tiengineering and construction

13

Seattle City Light corridor PSE has reached out to

Seattle City Light (SCL)y g ( ) SCL uses their 230 kV

transmission lines to meet current and future operating needs

Seattle City Light Line

14

Olympic PipelineDemonstrated success with power lines and pipelines Replaced 300 poles in the

existing corridor

and pipelines

existing corridor In Snohomish County, PSE

installed 8 5 miles of 230 kVinstalled 8.5 miles of 230 kV transmission line along Olympic PipelineOlympic Pipeline

In Skagit County, Sedro-Woolley to Horse Ranch

230 kV transmission line in Everett, WA

Woolley to Horse Ranch project crossed Northwest Pipeline

15

Pipeline

Property valuesUsing property values to site electric infrastructureinfrastructure We do not use property values to site

infrastructure because of inequity issuesinfrastructure because of inequity issues.

Property value compensationProperty value compensation PSE does not compensate nearby property

f i d l f t l d towners for perceived loss of property value due to the installation of energy infrastructure. In this

t PSE i diff t th th blirespect, PSE is no different than any other public or private developer.

16

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) 45 years of research on EMF About 2,900 studies conducted to date related to cancer , World Health Organization in 2012 concluded that:

“The current evidence does not confirm the existence of any h lth f t l l l l t tihealth consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields”

The international public exposure limits:p p 2,000 mG - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation

Protection9 040 G I tit t f El t i l d El t i E i 9,040 mG - Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers

18.82 mG – Average 230 kV transmission line exposure when standing 50 feet away from centerlineg y

http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index.html

17

Questions

D h l if i tiDo you have clarifying questions about the information presented?p

18

Sub-Area WorkshopsWorkshop #1 Key Issues Key Issues Values Data requests

Workshop #2 Data Data Visualizations

S i Segment scoring Messages to the Sub-Area Committees

19

Sub-Area Committee Meetings

Observations from committee participantsK i t Key points

Topics for further exploration

20

Evaluation factorsEvaluation factor

Factors used during Sub-Area Meetings Sub-Area Committee

member suggestionsNorth Central SouthLeast proximity to sensitive

N/Ap ycommunity land uses N/A

Least proximity to sensitive

Consider that individual environmental factors, such as wildlife, wetlands and stream Least proximity to sensitive

environmental areas crossings may have different priority levels for different communities

Include impacts during constructionLeast proximity to residential areas N/AMost protective of health and safety Consider as the top factor

Least effect on aesthetics Consider undergrounding and

submergingLeast impact to mature vegetation Include vegetation restoration plans

Maximizes opportunity areas

While this factor was not originally identified as a top evaluation factor in the South, during the South Sub-Area Committee Meeting there was a request for this factor to be usedrequest for this factor to be used

Additional evaluation factorsFactors suggested during Sub-Area Meetings (but not used)

Sub-Area Committee member suggestionsNorth Central South

Include relative impacts between

21Least impact from construction

Include relative impacts between segments and construction time

Least effect on property values Consider property rights, inverse

condemnation and easements

Blind evaluation of route options

Evaluation of all 18 route optionsP f bli d l ti Purpose of blind evaluation

Access evaluation online Data table Evaluation factors Measurable data ExclusionsExclusions

Scoring Timeline: Please complete by June 16 Timeline: Please complete by June 16

22

Blind evaluation of route options

Factors from sub-area work Factors for blind evaluation

Least impact to residential areas Avoids residential areas

Least impact to community sensitive land uses

Avoids community sensitive land uses

Least proximity to sensitive Avoids sensitive environmentalLeast proximity to sensitive environmental areas

Avoids sensitive environmental areas

Least proximity to matureLeast proximity to mature vegetation Protects mature vegetation

Maximizes opportunity areas Utilizes opportunity areasMaximizes opportunity areas Utilizes opportunity areas

23

Blind evaluation of route options

Evaluation of all 18 route optionsP f bli d l ti Purpose of blind evaluation

Access online Data table Evaluation factors Measurable data ExclusionsExclusions

Scoring Timeline: Please complete by June 16 Timeline: Please complete by June 16

24

Blind evaluation preview

25

Public commentPublic comment

26

Upcoming meetings

Community Advisory Group Meeting #4aJune 25 from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Bellevue Hilton Hotel

Q&A SessionJuly 7, time and location to be determined

Community Advisory Group Meeting #4bJuly 9 from 5:30 to 8:30 p m at RentonJuly 9 from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Renton Technical College

27

Thank you!Thank you!

28