CO · 6 A2. The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor the Staff Report on the Application of 7...

p CO

STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION

DIVISION OF PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA SCC-CLERK'S OFFICE © DOCUMENT CONTROL CENIftR

A 2018 APR 21 P 12- Og

KJ 0>

PREFILED TESTIMONY OF

NEIL JOSHIPURA

ON THE

APPLICATION OF

VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY

FOR APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF

ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES:

IDYLWOOD-TYSONS 230 kV SINGLE-CIRCUIT UNDERGROUND

TRANSMISSION LINE, TYSONS SUBSTATION REBUILD, AND RELATED

TRANSMISSION FACILITIES

CASE NO. PUR-2017-00143

April 27, 2018

H1

S0

EFILED TESTIMONY ® &

OF

NEIL JOSHIPURA c<)

APPLICATION OF


CASE NO. PUR-2017-00143

1 Ql. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND POSITION AT THE VIRGINIA

2 STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION.

3 Al. My name is Neil Joshipura. I am a Senior Utilities Engineer in the Division of Public

4 Utility Regulation.

5 Q2. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF YOUR TESTIMONY?

6 A2. The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor the Staff Report on the Application of

7 Virginia Electric and Power Company to (i) construct the proposed

8 Idylwood-Tysons 230 kV underground transmission line; (ii) rebuild the Tysons

9 Substation using Gas Insulated Substation equipment; (iii) install new Gas Insulated

10 Line terminal equipment at Idylwood Substation; and (iv) perform relay work at

11 Reston Substation. The Staff Report is attached to this testimony.

12 Q3. DOES THIS CONCLUDE YOUR TESTIMONY?

13 A3. Yes.

©9

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA %

STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION i

DIVISION OF PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATION W ©

STAFF REPORT

ON THE

APPLICATION OF


FOR APPROVAL AND CERTIFICATION OF

ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION FACILITIES:

IDYLWOOD-TYSONS 230 kV SINGLE-CIRCUIT UNDERGROUND

TRANSMISSION LINE, TYSONS SUBSTATION REBUILD, AND RELATED

TRANSMISSION FAdLITIES

PREPARED BY

NEIL JOSHIPURA

CASE NO. PUR-2017-00143

April 27, 2018

§9

SUMMARY Si

1 This Commission Staff ("Staff') Report presents the results of Staffs investigation of the y 2 application ("Application") of Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Company") to the State y 3 Corporation Commission ("Commission") requesting a certificate of public convenience and ^ 4 necessity ("CPCN") to construct and operate (i) a new underground Idyl wood-Tysons 230 kilovolt 5 single-circuit transmission line; (ii) a rebuild of Tysons Substation using Gas Insulated Substation 6 ("GIS") equipment; (iii) related transmission facilities at Idylwood and Reston Substations 7 (collectively, the "Project"). In the Application, the Company considered ten route alternatives for 8 the Project - four overhead routes and six underground alternatives. The following is a summary 9 of the Staff Report:

10 • Based on the projected load, the Staff agrees with the Company that an N-1 -1 event would 11 result in a load loss exceeding 300 megawatts, triggering a North American Electric 12 Reliability Corporation ("NERC") violation. Accordingly, the Staff believes the Company 13 has reasonably demonstrated the need for the proposed Project and does not oppose the 14 issuance of a CPCN.

15 • The Staff agrees with the Company that the proposed route (Underground Alternative 05) 16 provides the most optimal route for the proposed Project because it (i) is the shortest route, 17 (ii) crosses the least amount of private land, (iii) requires no additional clearing of forested 18 lands, (iv) has low impact on the Washington & Old Dominion Park Trail and vehicular 19 traffic, (v) has no residences within 60 feet, and (vi) is the lowest cost option when 20 compared to the other underground alternatives.

21 • The Staff disagrees with the Company's ranking of the remaining five underground 22 alternatives and believes the decreasing order of recommendation after the proposed route 23 should be Underground Alternative 04, Underground Alternative 06, Underground 24 Alternative 03, Underground Alternative 02, and then Underground Alternative 01.

25 • The Company rejected the overhead route options due to their significant environmental 26 impacts, the Company's reduced ability to construct these routes, and high cost. Based on 27 the facts presented by the Company, the Staff believes the overhead alternatives proposed 28 by the Company are inferior to the underground options and should be rejected.

29 *1x1 addi t ion to the proposed Project , the Company requests the Commission 's approval to 30 replace the existing lattice tower 2097/177 located just south of Idylwood Substation 31 property ("Replacement Tower Proposal"). It is Staffs position that because the 32 Replacement Tower Proposal is unrelated to the Company's request for a CPCN for the 33 proposed Project, it appears to be beyond the scope of this proceeding.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING FACILITIES 2 NEED FOR THE PROJECT 5 TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES 8

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 12 RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS AND LINE MATERIALS 13 SUBSTATION WORK 15 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD 16 PROJECT COST 16 UNDERGROUND ROUTE ALTERNATIVES 16 COMPARISON OF THE UNDERGROUND ALTERNATIVES 22 OVERHEAD ROUTE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT 28 COMPARISON OF OVERHEAD ROUTES 30 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 34

COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 35 WETLAND IMPACTS CONSULTATION 35 REPLACEMENT OF TOWER 2097/177 35 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37 APPENDIX A: TRANSMISSION PLANNING STANDARDS 39 APPENDIX B: COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES 41

Attachments:

Attachment 1 - Map of existing facilities Attachment 2 - Map of existing facilities with proposed Project Attachment 3 - Cross-section view of open trenching and horizontal directional drilling Attachment 4 - Map of underground alternatives Attachment 5 - Map of overhead routes

m 1 INTRODUCTION %

& 2 On November 8, 2017, Virginia Electric and Power Company, d/b/a Dominion y

3 Energy Virginia ("Dominion" or "Company") filed its Application No. 284 and supporting ^

4 documents ("Application") with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission")

5 requesting a certificate of public convenience and necessity ("CPCN") for the proposed

6 underground Idylwood-Tysons 230 kilovolt ("kV") single-circuit transmission line.

7 Specifically, according to the Application, the Company proposes to:

8 • Construct a new single circuit 230 kV underground transmission line,

9 designated 230 kV Idylwood-Tysons Line #2175, to run approximately

10 4.3 miles from the Company's existing Idylwood Substation to the

11 Company's existing Tysons Substation;1

12 • Rebuild the Tysons Substation using Gas Insulated Substation ("GIS")

13 equipment to accommodate a six-breaker 23 0 kV ring bus within the existing

14 property boundaries;2

15 • Install new Gas Insulated Line ("GEL") terminal equipment at Idylwood

16 Substation for the new Line #2175 installation;3 and

17 • Perform relay work at the Reston Substation (collectively, the "Project").4

18 The Project is located entirely in Fairfax County. The proposed Project is estimated

19 to cost $121.8 million with an expected in-service date of June 2022.5

1 Application at 2. 2 Id. 3 Id. 4Id 5 Wat 5-6.

© 1 Dominion states that the proposed Project is necessary to ensure that the Company ^

€3 2 can maintain and improve reliable electric service to its customers within the growing ^

3 Tysons and McLean area of Fairfax County and to address potential violations of the North ^

4 American Electric Reliability Corporation ("NERC") Reliability Standards for

5 transmission facilities.6 A detailed description of the need for the Project is provided later

6 in this Report.

7 On December 8,2017, the Commission issued an Order for Notice and Hearing that,

8 among other things, docketed the Application as Case No. PUR-2017-00143, directed the

9 Commission's Staff ("Staff") to investigate the Application and file its testimony and

10 scheduled hearings to receive public comment and evidence on the Company's Application.

11 A subsequent procedural ruling altered the original schedule.

12 Notices of participation were filed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and

13 Old Dominion Electric Cooperative ("ODEC").

14 EXISTING FACILITIES

15 There are nine Dominion substations within the vicinity of the proposed Project

16 (CIA, Clark, Hunter, Idylwood, Reddfield, Reston, Sunset Hills, Swinks Mill, and Tysons)

17 that are networked by lines from three overhead 230 kV transmission corridors.7 The

18 Company plans to add a future substation (Spring Hill) between approximately 2020 and

i

6 Wat 3-4. 7 Application Appendix at 39.

2

@9 ^-3

1 2022. An aerial schematic of the existing facilities is shown in Attachment 1 to the Staff &

2 Report. ^

3 Reston Substation is the terminus for five 230 kV transmission lines (Line #264 to ^

4 Hunter Substation, Line #2010 to Tysons Substation, Line #2015 to Dulles Substation,

5 Line #2043 to Discovery Substation, and Line #2062 to Dranesville Substation) that are

6 networked in a five-breaker 230 kV ring arrangement at this substation.9 It also contains

7 one 84 megavolt-ampere ("MVA") 230-34.5 kV transformer, two 75 MVA 230-34.5 kV

8 transformers, and nine 34.5 kV distribution circuits.10

9 Sunset Hills Substation is tapped off the 230 kV Clark-Sterling Park Line #2033

10 and contains a single 84 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformer and four 34.5 kV distribution

11 circuits.11

12 Hunter Substation is the terminus for two 230 kV transmission lines (Line #2005 to

13 Clark Substation and Line #264 to Reston Substation) that are networked through a single

14 tie-breaker.12 It also contains two 75 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformers and six 34.5 kV

15 distribution circuits.13

16 Clark Substation is the terminus for three 230 kV transmission lines (Line #202 to

17 Idylwood Substation, Line #2005 to Hunter Substation, and Line #2033 to Sterling Park

18 Substation) that are networked in three-breaker 230 kV ring arrangement.14 It also contains

* id. 9 Wat 40. 10 Id. 11 id. 12id. ald. 14 Id.

3

©

1 one 84 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformer, two 75 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformers, and eleven ^

2 34.5 kV distribution circuits.15 ic! M

3 Idylwood Substation is the terminus for five 230 kV transmission lines (Line #207 ®

4 to Braddock Substation, Line #202 to Clark Substation, Line #251 to Glen Carlyn

5 Substation, Line #2097 to Ox Substation, and Line #2035 to CIA Substation).16 It currently

6 contains one 168 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformer, two 84 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformers,

7 and fourteen 34.5 kV distribution circuits.17 A conversion from a straight-bus arrangement

8 to a breaker-and-a-half configuration was recently approved by the Commission in Case

9 No. PlJR-2017-00002,18 with an expected in-service date of May 31, 2020.19 The new

10 breaker-and-a-half configuration will add three 23 0 kV line terminals: two to accommodate

11 a cut into the existing 230 kV Clifton-Glen Carlyn Line #266 and the third for the proposed

12 230 kV Idyl wood-Tysons Line #2175.20

13 Reddfield Substation is tapped from the 230 kV CLA-Idylwood Line #2035 and

14 contains one 84 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformer and three 34.5 kV distribution circuits.21

15 CIA Substation is the terminus for two 230 kV transmission lines (Line #2035 to

16 Idylwood Substation and Line #2029 to Swinks Mill Substation) that are networked

15Id. i6ld. 17 Id. 18 Application of Virginia Electric and Power Company d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power, For approval and certification of electric transmission facilities: Idylwood Substation Rebuild and Rearrangement of230 kV Transmission Lines #202, #207, #251, #266, #2035, and #2097, Case No. PUR-2017-00002, Final Order (Sept. 8, 2017). 19 Application Appendix at 40. 20 Id. 21 Wat 41.

4

pi m, C3

1 through a single tie-breaker.22 It also contains one 84 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformer, one A.

2 45 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformer, two 45 MVA 230-13.2 kV transformers, and five y y

3 34.5 kV distribution circuits.23 Two of five 34.5 kV distribution circuits serve as the source ^

4 for the Company's 34.5-12.5 kV Chesterbrook and McLean Substations.24

5 Swinks Mill Substation is the terminus for two 230 kV transmission lines (Line

6 #2029 to CIA Substation and Line #2108 to Tysons Substation) that are networked through

7 a single tie-breaker.25 It also contains one 75 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformer, one 45 MVA

8 230-34.5 kV transformer, and five 34.5 kV distribution circuits.26

9 Tysons Substation is the terminus for two 230 kV transmission lines (Line #2108 to

10 Swinks Mill and Line #2010 to Reston Substation) that are separated by two 230 kV

11 breakers.27 It also contains one 84 MVA 230-34.5 kV transformer, three 75 MVA

12 230-34.5 kV transformers, and fourteen 34.5 kV distribution circuits.28

13 NEED FOR THE PROJECT

14 According to the Application, the proposed Project is needed to address potential

15 NERC violations projected to occur under certain contingency conditions, along a section

16 of the Company's transmission system described as the Tysons Loop. The Tysons Loop is

17 approximately 20.8 miles in length, consisting of four substations (Tysons, Swinks Mill,

18 CIA, Reddfield) connected by four 230 kV single circuit transmission lines: Line #2010

22 id. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 id. 26 id. 21 id. 2*ld.

5

1

2

3

4

5 6

7

8

9

10

11

12 13

14

15

16

17

18

from Reston Substation to Tysons Substation, Line #2108 from Tysons Substation to

Swinks Mill Substation, Line #2029 from Swinks Mills Substation to CIA Substation, and

Line #203529 from CIA Substation to Idylwood Substation. A one-line diagram of Tysons

Loop is provided below.

Diagram 1: Existing Tysons Loop

According to the Company, the Tysons Loop had a combined load of 307.7 MW in

2016.30 The Company further states that in the contingency event of an N-l-1 loss of

Line #2010 between Reston Substation and Tysons Substation, and Line #2035 between

Idylwood Substation and Reddfield Substation, there would be a loss of the load associated

with the four substations within the Tysons Loop.

Diagram 2: N-l-1 contingency on Tysons Loop

The combined load loss exceeds the 300 MW load drop threshold set forth in the

Company's Transmission Planning Criteria,31 which is included as Appendix A to my

testimony.32 According to the Company, two potential mitigation strategies are available

to reduce the load loss: (i) using existing automated switch schemes ("Loop Schemes") at

the distribution level to transfer approximately 40.5 MW of load to adjacent substations33

•Jfei

£ €3

29 Reddfield Substation is tapped off Line #2035. 30 Attachment l.B.l to the Appendix of the Application. 31 In order to comply with the NERC mandatory transmission planning reliability standards, the Company maintains NERC-compliant "Facility Connection Requirements," which include the Company's Planning Criteria. 32 Appendix A provides a brief description of Virgima Power's transmission planning standards and the related NERC compliance standards as they apply to the Idyl wood-Tysons Project. 33 Company's Response to Fairfax County Interrogatory No. 1-7 provides a breakdown of the load transfers to adjacent Clark, Hunter, and Idylwood Substations. (Refer to Appendix B for all interrogatories.)

f""1

€3 1 located outside the Tysons Loop; and (ii) using manual switching to reduce the Tysons

2 Loop load by approximately 9.5 MW.35 The Company represents that only automated load y iv Si is /

3 shifts count as acceptable strategies toward reducing load-loss to levels below the 300 MW ®

4 threshold that triggers a NERC criteria violation.36

5 According to the Company, by 2023, the projected loading on the Tysons Loop is

6 expected to reach approximately 343.4 MW,37 triggering a NERC violation if that load is

7 lost under the N-1 -1 contingency. At that projected loading level, the allowable automated

8 Loop Scheme would be an inadequate strategy toward resolving the NERC event described

9 above, because the effective load lost on the Tysons Loop would remain above the

10 300 MW threshold.38

11 As previously mentioned, the proposed Project would construct a new 230 kV

12 transmission line between Idylwood and Tysons Substations.39 Accordingly, the proposed

13 Project would split the load on the Tysons Loop such that Swinks Mill, CIA, and Reddfield

14 Substations would be sourced from the loop that starts at Tysons Substation and ends at

15 Idylwood Substation (the "Swinks Mills Loop") and the future Spring Hill Substation

16 would be sourced from the Loop that begins at Reston Substation and ends at Tysons

17 Substation (the "Spring Hill Loop").40 As a result, under the aforementioned N-l-1 event,

18 the total load lost within the Tysons Loop would be reduced below the 300 MW threshold,

^ Sending personnel to the field to transfer load between circuits by manually opening and closing switches. 35 Application Appendix at 4-5. 36 Company's response to Fairfax County Interrogatory No. 1-6. 37 Attachment I.B.2 to the Appendix of the Application. 38 Application Appendix at 5. The projected load lost would be 343.4 MW - 40.5 MW = 302.9 MW, which exceeds the 300 MW threshold. 39 Map of existing facilities with the proposed Project is shown in Attachment 2. 40 Application Appendix at 42.

7

m 1 avoiding a NERC violation. The proposed Project would also network the Tysons %

k 2 Substation with three transmission lines, thus yielding a more robust substation. j^j

3 Based on the information provided by the Company, the Staff agrees that the ®

4 proposed Project is needed for NERC compliance and to serve the Tysons and McLean

5 load areas in a manner consistent with the Company's Transmission Planning Criteria.

6 TRANSMISSION ALTERNATIVES

7 In addition to the proposed Project, the Company considered three transmission

8 alternatives, discussed further below.

9 Construct a 230 kV single circuit line from Idylwood Substation to a proposed Scott's 10 Run Substation, located between Tysons Substation and Swinks Mill Substation, and 11 cut into Tysons-Swinks Mill Line #2108 (Idylwood-Scott's Run Alternative).41

12 For this alternative, the Company would construct a new 230 kV Scott's Run

13 Substation between Tysons Substation and Swinks Mill Substation. The Tysons-Swinks

14 Mill Line #2108 would be cut and tied into the new Scott's Run Substation, creating a new

15 Tysons-Scott's Run line and a new Scott's Run-Swinks Mill line. A new single-circuit

16 230 kV line would be constructed from Idylwood Substation to the new Scott's Run

17 Substation.

18 From an electrical perspective, this alternative eliminates the aforementioned

19 N-l-1 contingency. However, the Company identifies one drawback of this alternative.

20 Per the Company, a majority of the load growth in the Tysons area would be served from

21 the existing Tysons and a future Spring Hill Substation.42 While no timeframe is provided,

41 Idzt 46-47. 42 Company's response to Staff Interrogatory No. 1-2.

8

©a •a

1 the Company expects that the combined, future load on the Tysons and Spring Hill •£> ,!& is

2 Substations will grow to exceed 300 MW.43 Under that load scenario, an N-l-1 y

3 contingency involving the loss of the line between Reston and Spring Hill Substations and ®

4 the line between Scott's Run and Tysons Substations would drop the loads at Tysons and

5 Spring Hill Substations, which may result in a combined load-loss that exceeds 300 MW

6 at some point in the future, thus triggering a new NERC violation. An additional project

7 would be necessary to resolve this new N-l-1 contingency.

8 According to the Application, the Company purchased the Scott's Run Substation

9 site in the summer of 2015.44 After purchasing the property, the Company states that it

10 found constraints on the site that made it problematic to construct the substation.45

11 According to the Company, the site was found to be located adjacent to a flood plain and

12 a potential substation would have been constrained by wetlands located on the property.46

13 Additionally, the site was zoned for residential use, and a special exemption from Fairfax

14 County would have been required prior to construction.47 The special exemption would

15 require the approval of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which the Company

16 claims it is unlikely to be approved by Fairfax County.48 Accordingly, due to these siting,

17 zoning, and permitting issues, the Company sold the Scott's Run Substation site subsequent

18 to the filing of the Application.49

43 Application Appendix at 47. 44Id. 43 Id. 46/d. 47Id. 48/fit 49 Company's response to Staff Interrogatory No. 1-6.

9

£3 1 For the foregoing reasons, the Company rejected the Idylwood-Scott's Run ^

& © 2 Alternative. Without a site for the proposed substation, the Staff believes that this f^

3 alternative is no longer constructible. Furthermore, the Staff agrees with the Company that ^

4 this would have been a relatively short-term alternative, providing a less optional solution

5 than the proposed Project.

6 Construct an overhead 230 kV line from Reston Substation to Tysons Substation 7 (Reston-Tysons Alternative).50

8 This alternative would construct a new overhead 230 kV line approximately

9 7.0 miles long from the existing Reston Substation to Tysons Substation. In addition to

10 the conversion of Tysons Substation to GIS technology, as part of the proposed Project,

11 this alternative would also require conversion of Reston Substation from an air insulated

12 station to GIS. The new line would exit Reston Substation and follow the Washington &

13 Old Dominion ("W&OD") Park Trail and the Dulles Toll Road ("DTR") before reaching

14 the rebuilt Tysons Substation. According to the Company, this route would require seven

15 crossings of a Metropohtan Washington Airport Authority ("MWAA") managed, limited-

16 access roadway.51 Additionally, it would require extensive tree removal along the DTR,

17 eliminating a visual screen and sound buffer between adjacent residential neighborhoods,

18 Wolf Trap National Park, and the toll road and/or sound wall.52 Three residences would

19 be located within 60 feet of the edge of the right-of-way53 which may invoke the provisions

20 of Virginia Code § 56-49.

50 Application Appendix at 47-48. 51 Wat 48. 52 Id. 53 Id.

10

m 1 The total estimated cost of the Reston-Tysons Alternative is approximately ^

& 2 $172.0 million,54 which is approximately $50.2 million higher than the proposed Project. ^

3 Due to the higher costs and impacts along the DTR and W&OD Park Trail, the ®

4 Company rejected this alternative. The Staff agrees that this alternative should be rejected.

5 Construct an underground single circuit 230 kV line from Idyhvood Substation to 6 Tysons Substation primarily along 1-495 (1-495 Underground Alternative).55

7 This alternative would construct a new underground single-circuit 230 kV line

8 approximately 5.4 miles long from Idylwood Substation to Tysons Substation. This

9 alternative would follow the Company's existing Line #2035 out of the Idylwood

10 Substation, continuing north across Shreve Road. The route would then turn west at the

11 W&OD Park Trail and follow Line #202 along the park, crossing under 1-66 and 1-495.

12 The route would then turn north and be installed within new right-of-way along 1-495. The

13 route would first follow the west side of 1-495 for about 0.6 mile and then cross over to the

14 east side of 1-495 and continue north for about 2.5 miles. The route would then cross the

15 DTR at the DTR/I-495 interchange. From there, the route would turn west, crossing 1-495

16 to parallel Line #2108 along the north side of DTR for about 1.5 miles. After crossing

17 Spring Hill Road, the route turns south, crossing the DTR and terminating at the rebuilt

18 Tysons Substation.

19 According to the Company, this alternative would require two crossings of a

20 MWAA managed roadway (DTR) and six crossings of a Virginia Department of

34 id. 55 Id at 48-49.

11

[=3

m

1 Transportation ("VDOT") managed roadway (I-495).56 Accordingly, this alternative ^

2 would require 12 horizontal directional drilling ("HDD") segments.57 The route would

3 require tree removal within limited access rights-of-way associated with 1-495 and the ®

4 DTR, which is restricted by VDOT regulations.58 Additionally, there would be three

5 residences located within 60 feet of the edge of the right-of-way59 which may invoke the

6 provisions of Virginia Code § 56-49.

7 The total estimated cost of the 1-495 Underground Alternative is approximately

8 $179.5 million,60 which is approximately $57.7 million higher than the proposed Project.

9 Due to the higher costs and impacts along 1-495 and the DTR, the Company rejected

10 this alternative. The Staff agrees that this alternative should be rejected.

11 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

12 In order to resolve the potential NERC violations described earlier, the Company

13 proposes to construct a new 230 kV transmission line between its Idylwood Substation and

14 Tysons Substation. In the Application, the Company presents a proposed route for the new

15 transmission line (Underground Alternative 05) ("Proposed Route") and five alternative

16 underground routes for the Commission's consideration. The length of the Proposed Route

17 is 4.3 miles, and the lengths of the five underground alternatives vary from 4.5 to

18 5.0 miles.61 Four additional overhead routes were identified and considered by the

56 Id at 49. 57Id. 38 Id. "Id. 60Id. 61 Wat 59.

(§3 1 Company.62 A detailed description of the various underground and overhead routes is ^

2 provided later in this Report. ^

3 RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTIONS AND LINE MATERIALS m

4 The Company states that the Proposed Route would be constructed within the

5 Company's existing transmission right-of-way or within road right-of-way belonging to the

6 VDOT or the County of Fairfax.63 According to the Company, the Project would be

7 constructed using open trenching and HDD technology.64 The line would be constructed

8 in new 30-foot-wide right-of-way permanent easements, transportation rights-of-way of

9 varying width obtained through permit, and on the Company's existing right-of-way.65

10 Cross-sectional views depicting the proposed configuration of the proposed 230 kV cross-

11 linked polyethylene ("XLPE") cable system using open trenching and HDD are provided

12 as Attachment 3.

13 For the Proposed Route, the open trenching segments of the line (approximately

14 3.7 miles long) would use six 3500 thousand circular mil ("kcmil") copper conductor,

15 XLPE solid dielectric cables (two cables per phase), with all pipes and conduits encased in

16 an approximately 4.5-foot-wide concrete duct bank.66 Each cable would be installed in a

17 polyvinyl chloride ("PVC") conduit, with eight 8-inch conduits total, including two spare

62 Id at 69. 63 Application at 6; Application Appendix at 105. 64 Application Appendix at 1. 65 Wat 1. 66 Wat 2.

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

conduits.67 In addition, two 2-inch PVC conduits would be installed for sheath bonding

cables and two 2-inch PVC conduits would be installed for protective relaying.68

The HDD segments of the line (approximately 0.6 mile long) would consist of six

5000 kcmil copper conductor, XLPE solid dielectric cables (two cables per phase), with

each HDD segment requiring two parallel drill paths.69 For these segments of the line,

each of the two parallel drill paths would contain three cables in 10-inch high-density

polyethylene ("HDPE") conduits, with four 10-inch HDPE conduits total, including one

spare conduit, in each of the two parallel drill paths.70 In addition, each of the two parallel

drill paths would install one 4-inch HDPE conduit for sheath bonding cables and one 4-

inch HDPE conduit for protective relaying.71

While installation depths would vary, open trenching would install the line

approximately 3.5 feet from the top of the duct bank to the surface of the ground, and HDD

would install the line between five and 50 feet from the top of the borehole to the surface

of the ground.72 The proposed 230 kV underground transmission line would have a

continuous rating of 950 MVA.73

67Id. 6*id. 69 Id. 70 id. 71id. 72 Id. 73 Wat 1-2.

14

a m

1 SUBSTATION WORK &>

2 Work at Idylwood Substation y

3 At the Idylwood Substation, new 23 0 kV GIL terminal equipment would be installed

4 to create a terminal point for the new Line #2175.74 Minor work for the installation of a

5 protective line relay panel would be required as well.75

6 Work at Tysons Substation

7 The current configuration of the Tysons Substation would be modified to accept a

8 third 230 kV line into the station. The Tysons Substation would be constructed with six

9 230 kV, 3000 ampere ("A") GIS circuit breakers in a ring bus configuration, three 230 kV

10 line terminals, and a new 230 kV variable shunt reactor.76 A total of four single-circuit

11 backbones would be installed.77 Additionally, a new control enclosure would be installed

12 to accommodate the communications and protective relays cabinets for the new

13 equipment.78 This installation would require a fence expansion within the existing property

14 line.79

15 Work at Reston Substation

16 Minor work would be required to install a protective line relay panel at the

17 Company's existing Reston Substation.80

74 Wat 101. "Id. 76 Id at 102. 77Id. 78Id. 79Id. 80 Id.

15

© 1 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD £>

=5))

2 The Company states that the Project requires 36 months for engineering, material y

3 procurement, permitting, and constructions, based on the Company's ability to obtain

4 outages.81 The proposed in-service date is June 2022.82

5 PROJECT COST

6 The total estimated construction cost of the proposed Project utilizing the Proposed

7 Route is approximately $121.8 million, which includes the following:

8 • Approximately $89.4 million for the new 230 kV XLPE underground transmission

9 line.83

10 • Approximately $31.5 million for conversion of the existing Tysons Substation to

11 GIS.84

12 • Approximately $790,000 for station work at the existing Idylwood Substation.85

13 • Approximately $ 118,000 for relay work at the existing Reston Substation.86

14 UNDERGROUND ROUTE ALTERNATIVES

15 As previously mentioned, for the Project's single-circuit 230 kV transmission line

16 proposed to be constructed between Idylwood Substation and Tysons Substation, the

17 Company considered ten route alternatives - six underground route alternatives

18 ("Underground Alternatives"), the Proposed Route and five underground alternatives, and

m

81 Id at 55. 82 M 83 Id at 56. 84 M. *sId . *6Id.

16

r-m o

1 four overhead route alternatives. The four overhead route alternatives will be discussed ^

2 later in this report. A map of depicting the Underground Alternatives is provided in y

3 Attachment 4. Each of these Underground Alternatives will be discussed below. ^

4 Underground Alternative 05 (Proposed Route) - 230 kV line along the W&OD Park 5 trail and Gallows Road West of the Tysons Corner Center87

6 The Proposed Route is approximately 4.3 miles long. The route would extend north

7 from Idylwood Substation, using of open trenching technology, for approximately 0.3 mile,

8 crossing Shreve Road. The route would then turn west at the W&OD Park and follow Line

9 #202 along the park, crossing under 1-66, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

10 Authority ("WMATA") Orange Line and 1-495 until reaching Gallows Road through

11 means of HDD for approximately 0.6 miles. The route would then turn north at Gallows

12 Road, where the remainder of the route would be constructed within public road rights-of-

13 way for approximately 3.4 miles by means of open trenching. The route would follow

14 Gallows Road and cross Leesburg Pike, just before Gallows Road intersects with Old

15 Courthouse Road. After crossing under Leesburg Pike, where Gallows Road transitions

16 into International Drive, the route would then turn northwest, crossing under Chain Bridge

17 Road and the WMATA Silver Line, and then continue along International Drive. The

18 Route then turns east onto Spring Hill Road, west along Tyco Road, and end at Tysons

19 Substation.

20 This option would require a total of one HDD segment, which would extend

21 approximately 0.6 mile under areas of 1-66, 1-495, and the W&OD Park trail. The

87 Wat 70.

17

1 remaining 3.7 miles of the route would be constructed through open trenching. The cost

2 of the Proposed Route is estimated to be approximately $89.4 million.88 y

3 Underground Alternative 06 - 230 kV line along the W&OD Park trail and Gallows ® 4 Road East of the Tysons Corner Center89

5 Underground Alternative 06 is approximately 4.7 miles long. This route follows

6 the same path as the Proposed Route until a point after crossing under Leesburg Pike, where

7 Gallows Road transitions into International Drive. At this point, the route then turns

8 northeast following Tysons One Place. The route then crosses Chain Bridge Road and

9 continues northward along Tysons Boulevard. The route then makes a northward turn onto

10 Park Run Drive and then a westward turn onto Jones Branch Drive. The route proceeds

11 along Jones Branch Drive by crossing under International Drive onto Spring Hill Road and

12 Tyco Road, before ending at Tysons Substation.




16 of Underground Alternative 06 is estimated to be approximately $99.6 million.90

17 Underground Alternative 04 - 230 kV line along the W&OD Park trail and Gallows 18 Road91


20 the same path as the Proposed Route until a point where Gallows Road meets Old

88 Transmission line work only (i.e. exclusive of substation work). 89 Application Appendix at 71-72. 90 Transmission line work only (i.e. exclusive of substation work). 91 Application Appendix at 72.

18

1 Courthouse Road. The route then proceeds northwest along Old Courthouse Road, ^ &

2 crossing under Chain Bridge Road, where Old Courthouse Road transitions into Gosnell

3 Road. The route continues northwest along Gosnell Road to a point at the intersection of

4 Gosnell Road and Leesburg Pike. After crossing under Leesburg Pike, where Gosnell Road

5 transitions into Westpark Drive, the route then turns northwest along Greensboro Drive.

6 The route ends along this path following both Spring Hill Road and Tyco Road, before

7 ending at Tysons Substation.





12 Underground Alternative 01 - 230 kV line along the W&OD Park trail93


14 the Proposed Route along the W&OD Park trail until Gallows Road. At Gallows Road,

15 the route would continue westward along the W&OD Park trail and would be installed

16 through means of open trenching for approximately 1.1 miles. Once exiting the W&OD

17 Park trail, the remainder of the rout would be installed through means of open trenching

18 for approximately 3.0 miles. The route would follow behind the Navy Federal Credit

19 Union Campus before turning northward on Electric Avenue, just beyond Northside Park.

20 The remainder of the route would be constructed within road right-of-way. The route then

92 Transmission line work only (i.e. exclusive of substation work). 93 Application Appendix at 73.

19

1 rims northeast along Woodford Road to a point at the intersection of Woodford Road and ® s 2 Old Courthouse Road. The route continues northwest Old Courthouse Road and follows ®

IKsJ

3 the same path as Underground Alternative 04 to the Tysons Substation.





8 Underground Alternative 03 - 230 kV line along Gallows Road and not along the 9 W&OD Park trail95

10 Underground Alternative 03 is approximately 4.6 miles long. The route would leave

11 Idylwood Substation northward through means of open trenching for approximately

12 0.2 mile, crossing Shreve Road. The route would then cross under 1-66, before resurfacing

13 in Idylwood Park through means of HDD for approximately 0.1 mile. The route continues

14 through means of open trenching for approximately 0.6 mile. This section of the route

15 crosses through the gravel parking lot at Idylwood Park then runs northeast along Hurst

16 Street to a point at the intersection of Hurst Street and Idylwood Road. The route continues

17 a short distance westward along Idylwood Road before making a shift northeast along

18 Helena drive. Here the route stays on Helena Drive before crossing under 1-495 through

19 means of a liner plate tunnel installation96 for approximately 0.1 mile. On the west side of

94 Transmission line work only (i.e. exclusive of substation work). 95 Application Appendix at 74-75. 96 A 2 to 3-foot tunnel is first excavated and then a 2-foot section of steel plate is installed. This process is repeated with each new section of liner plate bolted onto the previously installed section until the crossing is completed creating a solid tunnel lining. As with the HDD segments, the liner plate tunnel segments would be comprised of six 5000 kcmil copper conductor, XLPE solid dielectric cables (two per phase).

20

(=*

m

1 1-495, the route transitions into Railroad Street, where the route would proceed westward j)* A m

2 via HDD for approximately 0.3 mile. At this location, the remainder of the route would be ^ y

3 constructed within road right-of-way through means of open trenching for approximately

4 3.3 miles. The route would continue along Railroad Street, making a northward turn up

5 Gallows Road. From there, the route follows same path as Underground Alternative 04 to

6 the Tysons Substation.

7 This option would require a total of two HDD segments and one liner plate tunnel

S segment. The first HDD segment would travel approximately 0.1 mile under 1-66 before

9 resurfacing in Idylwood Park. The one liner plate tunnel would be approximately 0.1 mile

10 between Helena Drive and Railroad Street, under 1-495. The second HDD segment would

11 travel approximately 0.3 mile beginning at Railroad Street, westward to South Railroad

12 Street Park. The remaining 4.1 miles of the route would be constructed through open

13 trenching. The cost of Underground Alternative 03 is estimated to be approximately

14 $90.9 million.97

15 Underground Alternative 02 - 230 kV line to the west but not along the W&OD Park 16 trail98

17 Underground Alternative 02 is approximately 5.0 miles long. This route would

18 follow the same path as Underground Alternative 03 until the intersection of Gallows Road

19 and Railroad Street. The route would diverge from Underground Alternative 03 and

20 continue along Railroad Street, crossing Gallows Road to a point where Railroad Street

97 Transmission Line work only (i.e. exclusive of substation work). 98 Application Appendix at 75-76.

21

p fit) 0

1 transitions into Electric Avenue. From there, the route would maintain a northwest track ^

O 2 and follow the same path Underground Alternative 01 to Tysons Substation.

3 By following the same path as Underground Alternative 03 for a portion of the route,

4 this route also requires the same two HDD segments and one liner plate tunnel segment as

5 Underground Alternative 03. The remaining 4.5 miles of the route would be constructed

6 through open trenching. The cost of Underground Alternative 02 is estimated to be

7 approximately $96.5 million."

8 COMPARISON OF THE UNDERGROUND ALTERNATIVES

9 In the Order for Notice and Hearing, the Commission presented all six Underground

10 Alternatives for notice to the public. Because the routes are all substantially located within

11 existing roadbeds or along the Company's existing right-of-way along the W&OD Park

12 Trail, their environmental impacts are limited. However, there are some factors that

13 differentiate the routes. The Staff compared the six Underground Alternatives on the bases

14 of: (i) length; (ii) private lands crossed; (iii) forested lands crossed; (iv) impacts to the

15 W&OD Park Trail; (v) impacts to residences; (vi) traffic impact; and (vii) cost. A

16 comparison table of the six Underground Alternatives is provided below:

99 Transmission line work only (i.e. exclusive of substation work).

22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

P rJj

Underground (UG) Alternatives (Alt) Unit

UG Alt. 05 (Proposed

Route)

UG Alt 06

UG Alt 04

UG Alt 01

UG Alt 03

C3 UG Alt. -£

02 ^ &

Transmission Line Cost $ (million) $89.4 $99.6 $89.7 $102.2 $90.9 $96.5 b' Total Cost100 $ (million) $121.8 $132 $122.1 $134.6 $123.3 $128.9

-0

Length miles 4.3 4.7 4.5 5.0 4.6 5.0 Open Trench miles 3.7 4.1 3.9 4.4 4.1 4.5 Liner Plate Tunnel miles 0.1 0.1 HDD miles 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4

HDD Segments number Private Land Crossed101 miles 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 Forested Land

Crossed102 acres <0.1 2.1 1.0 1.5 Dwellings within 500

feet103 number 387 395 427 798 496 843 Dwellings within 100

feet104 number 49 45 44 127 78 170 Dwellings within 60

feet105 number 0 0 0 Table 1: L nderground Alternatives - Summary Table

Length

At 4.3 miles in length, the Proposed Route is the shortest route. This is followed by

Underground Alternative 04 at 4.5 miles, Underground Alternative 03 at 4.6 miles,

Underground Alternative 06 at 4.7 miles, and then Underground Alternatives 01 and 02 at

5.0 miles each, respectively.

Private Land Crossed

At 0.2 mile, the Proposed Route and Underground Alternative 04 would cross the

least amount of private land. Underground Alternative 02 would cross 0.3 mile of private

land and Underground Alternatives 01, 03, and 06 would cross 0.4 mile of private land.

100 All the Underground Alternatives would require similar work at each of the substations. The estimated cost for substation work is $32.4 million. Total cost = Transmission line cost + substation work cost ($32.4 million). 101 Table 4-1 of the Environmental Routing Study at 49. 102 Wat 50. 103 Multi-family and single-family residences. Id. 104 Multi-family and single-family residences. Id. 105 Multi-family and single-family residences. Id.

23

ita

1 Forested Land Crossed ^

2 The Proposed Route and Underground Alternative 06 would not require the clearing j®

3 of any forested land outside of the existing right-of-way. There would be some minor tree ^

4 clearing for Underground Alternative 04, but it would be limited to less than 0.1 acre in

5 areas of new right-of-way. The three remaining Underground Alternatives 03, 02, and 01

6 would require greater clearing of forested lands at 1.0 acre, 1.5 acres, and 2.1 acres,

7 respectively.

8 W&OD Park Trail Impacts

9 The construction of the Proposed Route, Underground Alternative 04, and

10 Underground Alternative 06 would have no direct impacts on the W&OD Park Trail, since

11 the portion of the transmission line that would be located along the trail would be installed

12 by HDD under the Trail. Underground Alternatives 02 and 03 would also avoid any

13 potential disturbance to the W&OD Park Trail but would impact Idylwood Park.106 As a

14 result, the Company would have to obtain permission from the Fairfax County Park

15 Authority (the "Park Authority"), which has stated that Underground Alternatives 02 and

16 03 are the least preferable of the Underground Alternatives and are not recommended.107

17 Underground Alternative 01 would have the most significant impact to the W&OD Park

18 Trail because an approximately 1.1-mile section, located along the trail, would be installed

106 Environmental Routing Study at 67-68. 107 Id.

24

@3 1 by open trenching.108 This would result in the temporary closure of segments of the trail ^

a 2 during construction, and may require some clearing of trees along the trail.109 ®

r5 3 Impacts on Residences ^

4 While still disruptive during construction, the use of underground construction

5 would minimize the visual impact on the existing multi-family and single-family

6 residences in this area. As such, the impact to the dwellings located within 500 feet and

7 100 feet would be limited to the construction period. However, there is one single family

8 home located within 60 feet of the right-of-way for Underground Alternatives 02 and 03,

9 which may invoke the provisions of Virginia Code § 56-49.

10 Traffic Impacts

11 In response to Fairfax County Interrogatory No. 2-17, the Company provided a

12 Traffic Engineering Review conducted by Dewberry Engineers Inc. for the proposed

13 Underground Alternatives. According to the Traffic Engineering Review, Underground

14 Alternative 01 has the most length along the W&OD Trail, which does not carry any

15 vehicular traffic impact. Among the alternative routes, it also has the fewest total number

16 of vehicles that travel on impacted roads. While there is a greater number of vehicles that

17 travel on the roads along the Proposed Route, due the wider roads, the Proposed Route is

18 expected to have lowest time-delay impact out of all the routes. Underground Alternatives

19 01 and 02 traverse more suburban, residential areas, whereas the Proposed Route and

20 Underground Alternatives 04 and 06 traverse a more urban, commercial corridor.

108 Id at 67. mId .

25

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Cost

At $89.4 million, the Proposed Route is the least expensive route compared to all

the other routes. This is followed by Underground Alternative 04 at $89.7 million,

Underground Alternative 03 at $90.9 million, Underground Alternative 02 at $96.5 million,

Underground Alternative 06 at $99.6 million, and Underground Alternative 01 at

$102.2 million. While Underground Alternative 06 is only 0.4 miles longer than the

Proposed Route, it is the second highest estimated cost option (approximately $10.2 million

more than the Proposed Route), due to the extended route length through the Tysons Comer

Center and Tysons Galleria areas and the crossing of a private road.110

Staff Analysis of Underground Alternatives

The Proposed Route is the shortest route and the least expensive alternative. It

would cross the least amount of private land and would not require the clearing of any

forested land outside of the existing right-of-way. During construction, the Proposed Route

would have the lowest time-delay impact to vehicular traffic and no direct impact on the

W&OD Park Trail. Additionally, there would be no residential homes within 60 feet of

the right-of-way for the Proposed Route. For these reasons, the Proposed Route is the

Company's preferred alternative. The Staff agrees with the Company's assessment.

The Company's second choice, Underground Alternative 06, is only 0.4 mile longer

than the Proposed Route and is largely located on public roads via permit and crosses fewer

residential areas than Underground Alternative 04.111 The Company's third choice is

110 Application Appendix at 71. 111 Id at 71-72.

26

(59 m

1 Underground Alternative 04. These choices are followed by Underground Alternative 01, ^

2 Underground Alternative 03, and then Underground Alternative 02. For reasons discussed ^ y

3 below, the Staff disagrees with the Company's ranking of the five remaining Underground ^

4 Alternatives after the Proposed Route.

5 Comparing the Underground Alternatives 04 and 06, Underground Alternative 04

6 is shorter than Underground Alternative 06 by 0.2 mile and less expensive by $9.9 million.

7 Additionally, Underground Alternative 04 would clear fewer acres of forested land. Both

8 alternatives would have a similar impact on the W&OD Park Trail. While Underground

9 Alternative 04 has more residences located within 100-500 feet of the right-of-way, visual

10 impact to those residences would be limited to the construction period. As such, the Staff

11 disagrees with the Company's second and third choices after the Proposed Route and

12 believes Underground Alternative 04 should be the next preferred option followed by

13 Underground Alternative 06.

14 The remaining three Underground Alternatives are a balance between

15 environmental impacts, cost, and ease of permitting. Underground Alternatives 02 and 03

16 have more impacts on residences (including one residence within 60 feet of the right-of-

17 way) and Idyl wood Park, which requires permission from the Park Authority, but are less

18 costly than Underground Alternative 01 and even Underground Alternative 06.

19 Conversely, Underground Alternative 01 has no impact on Idylwood Park but has

20 significant impact on the W&OD Trail and is the most expensive option. As such,

21 contingent upon the Company's ability to obtain permission from the Park Authority, the

22 Staff believes that the ranking of the remaining three alternatives should be Underground

27

m 1 Alternative 03, Underground Alternative 02, and then Underground Alternative 01. ^

Jab 2 Underground Alternative 03 is ranked higher because a larger portion of the route follows

3 the same route as Underground Alternative 04 when compared to Underground

4 Alternative 02.

5 OVERHEAD ROUTE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT

6 As previously mentioned, in addition to the six Underground Alternatives, four

7 overhead routes ("Overhead Routes") were considered by the Company.112 A map

8 depicting the Overhead Routes is provided in Attachment 5, and the routes are described

9 further below.113

10 Overhead Route 01

11 Overhead Route 01 is 12.9 miles long and comprises of a wreck and rebuild for the

12 entirety of the route along the Company's existing Lines #2035, #2029, and #2108.114

13 From the Company's Idyl wood Substation, Overhead Route 01 follows Line #2035

14 for about 6.3 miles to the CIA Substation. Leaving the CIA Substation, the route follows

15 Line #2029 for 3.9 miles until reaching the Swinks Mill Substation. From the Swinks Mill

16 Substation, the route follows Line #2108 for the remaining 2.7 miles before terminating at

17 the Tysons Substation.


19 Overhead Route 02 is 6.1 miles long that includes both a wreck and rebuild route

20 section (3.5 miles), where it follows the Company's existing Lines #2035 and #2108 and a

112 The Overhead Routes were not noticed to the public in the Commission's Order for Notice and Hearing. 113 More detailed descriptions of each route are provided in Appendix A to the Application at 7-9. 114 Appendix A to Environmental Routing Study at 7.

28

© M

©

m 1 new build route section (2.6 miles), where the route follows the DTR VDOT right-of- ^

& 2 way."5 g

3 From the Company's Idylwood Substation, Overhead Route 02 follows Line #2035 ®

4 for about 2.3 miles before it diverges from the existing route and continues to parallel the

5 DTR within VDOT right-of-way for approximately 2.6 miles. The route then follows Line

6 #2108 for the remaining 1.2 miles before terminating at the Tysons Substation.

7 Overhead Route 03

8 Overhead Route 03 is 5.2 miles long and is comprised of a new build route section

9 (3.4 miles), where the route follows 1-495 within VDOT right-of-way and wreck and

10 rebuild route sections (1.8 miles), where it follows the Company's existing Lines #2035,

11 #202, and #2108.116

12 From the Company's Idylwood Substation, Overhead Route 03 follows Line #2035

13 for about 0.2 mile before reaching the W&OD Park Trail. From there, the route turns west

14 and follows Line #202 for about 0.4 mile. The route then diverges from the Line #202

15 right-of-way and turns north following 1-495 for approximately 3.4 miles, primarily within

16 VDOT right-of-way. The route then follows Line #2108 for approximately 1.2 miles

17 before terminating at the Tysons Substation.


19 Overhead Route 04 is 7.2 miles long and includes a wreck and rebuild of the entirety

20 of the route along the Company's existing Lines #2035, #202, and #2010.117

115 Id at 8. "6ld. 117 Id at 9.

29

1 From the Company's Idylwood Substation, Overhead Route 03 follows Line #2035 ^

2 for about 0.2 mile before reaching the W&OD Park Trail. From there, the route turns west ^3

3 and follows Line #202 and parallels the W&OD Park Trail for about 4.0 miles. The route ®

4 then turns northeast and follows Line #2010 for approximately 2.9 miles before terminating

5 at the Tysons Substation.

6 COMPARISON OF OVERHEAD ROUTES

7 All four Overhead Routes would involve a wreck and rebuild of multiple existing

8 transmission lines for at least a portion of the route. Line #202 is 50 years old, Line #2035

9 is 40 years old, and Lines #2029, #2108, and #2010 are 37 years old.118 However,

10 according to the Company, no issues have been identified to warrant rebuilding any of

11 these lines due to condition.119

12 Right-of-way Width Impacts

13 Dominion maintains pole line easements along portions of each of the existing

14 overhead transmission line routes considered for the Project. A pole line easement is not

15 a conventional right-of-way owned by the Company, but rather a more limited easement

16 or right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a line of poles, wires, attachments,

17 ground connections, accessories, and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing

18 electric power. The pole line easement typically restricts the physical location of the

19 facilities and often includes rights for the Company to clear and maintain the right-of-way

20 as well as operate and maintain its facilities. The existing easement widths maintained via

118 Company's Response to Staff Interrogatory No. 1-7. 1,9/rf.

30

sg ©

1 the pole line easements vary depending on the location.120 In addition to the pole line ^ & fffli

2 easements, the widths of existing designated rights-of-way vary between 27 feet and ^

3 100 feet.121 According to the Company, an 80-foot-wide right-of-way would be utilized

4 where a single circuit 230 kV line is constructed (i.e., new build right-of-way) and a

5 100-foot-wide right-of-way would be required where a double circuit 230 kV is constructed

6 (i.e., wreck and rebuild along existing right-of-way).122 As such, even though portions of

7 the Overhead Routes include existing transmission lines, the varying width of the existing

8 easements and rights-of-way mean that each route would require new rights-of-way to be

9 obtained and developed, with associated impacts on cost as well as additional

10 environmental impact.

11 Impacts on Residents

12 Overhead Route 01 crosses 11.2 miles of land zoned for residential use.123

13 Overhead Route 02 crosses 2.9 miles of land zoned residential.124 Overhead Route 03

14 crosses 2.1 miles of land zoned residential.125 Overhead Route 04 crosses 6.7 miles of land

15 zoned residential.126 Accordingly, residences will be impacted by the new right-of-way

16 requirement for the construction of all of the Overhead Route alternatives. A table that

120 Company's Response to Staff Interrogatory No. 2-14. 121 Table 4-1 in Appendix A to Environmental Routing Study at 61. 122 Appendix A to Environmental Routing Study at 9. 123 Id at 63. 124 Id at 64. 125 Id at 64. 126/rfat 64.

31

(=3

1 compares the impacts to residences associated with the Overhead Routes is provided

2 below:127

Impact of Residences — Overhead Routes Single-family w/in 500 ft. Multi-family w/in 500 ft.

Single-family w/in 100 ft. Multi-family w/in 100 ft.

Single-family w/in 60 ft. New or Expanded ROW Multi-family w/in 60 ft. New or Expanded ROW

Single-family in New or Expanded ROW Multi-family in New or Expanded ROW

OH Route 1

1154 15

107

100

13

OH Route 2

738 19 40

26

OH Route 3

374

18

12

OH Route 4

1225

157

108

51

3 Table 2: Overhead Routes - Impact on Residences

4 Due to the densely populated residential areas surrounding the four overhead routes,

5 there are a significant number of dwellings128 within 500 feet and 100 feet of each of the

6 overhead routes. More importantly, the new and expanded rights-of-way would require

7 the removal of 51 dwellings for Overhead Route 04, 15 dwellings for Overhead Route 01,

8 and 10 dwellings for Overhead Route 02. Additionally, there would be 108 homes within

9 60 feet of the new and expanded right-of-way required for Overhead Route 04, 102

10 dwellings for Overhead Route 01, 28 dwellings for Overhead Route 02, and 12 dwellings

11 for Overhead Route 03. As previously stated, the development of new right-of-way within

12 60 feet of a residence would invoke the provisions of Virginia Code § 56-49.

13 Visual Impacts

127 The impacts to residences, among other things, associated with the four overhead routes were identified by Environmental Resources Management ("ERM") and summarized in Table 4-1 of Appendix A "Overhead Route Descriptions and Analysis" to the Application. 128 Multi-family and single-family residences.

32

fr*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

According to the Company, the Company would use monopole structures for the

transmission lines constructed along the Overhead Routes.129 The poles would range

between 87 and 101 feet tall on average.130 Accordingly, due to the erection of above-

ground structures, the Overhead Routes would have significant long-term visual impact to

the surrounding area when compared to the underground options, which would be limited

to the construction period.

Cost Impacts

Due to the developed nature of the area surrounding the Overhead Routes, right-of-

way acquisition required for the Overhead Routes drastically increases the estimated costs

for constructing each of the Overhead Routes. In response to Staff Interrogatory No. 1-10,

the Company provided several tables that included a cost breakdown of the transmission

line work associated with each Overhead Route, itemizing the cost of right-of-way

acquisition, among other things. A cost comparison table is provided below.

Proposed Underground (UG)

Route and Overhead (OH) Routes Cost

Real Estate Cost131

Transmission Line

Cost132

Substation Work

Cost133

Total Cost134

Tab

Unit $ (million)

$ (million)

$ (million $ (million)

Proposed UG Route

$89.4

$32.4 $121.8

OH Route 01

$244.6

$301.1

$25.5 $326.6

OH Route 02

$72.2

$100.2

$25.6 $125.8

OH Route 03

$76.7

$98.5

$25.6 $124.1

OH Route 04

$133.4

$164.9

$25.6 $190.5

e 3: Proposed Underground Route and Overhead Routes - Cost

& m y M

129 Appendix A to the Environmental Routing Study at 9. 130 Id at 9. 131 Right-of-way acquisition is identified as "Real Estate." 132 Total, including right-of-way acquisition costs. 133 Total cost minus transmission line cost. 134 Company's Response to Staff Interrogatory No. 2-13.

33

t-s

© 1 Based on the estimates provided by the Company, the right-of-way acquisition costs ^

A

2 account for more than 70% of the costs associated with the transmission line work for the

3 Overhead Routes. All of the Overhead Routes would require similar work at each of the

4 substations. This work would provide a cost savings of approximately $6.8 million135 when

5 compared to the substation work required for the Underground Alternatives.

6 Consequently, the Company estimates that the Overhead Routes would be between

7 $2.3 and $204.8 million136 more expensive than the proposed Project if constructed along

8 the Proposed Route.

9 The Company rejected the Overhead Routes due their significant environmental

10 impacts, the Company's ability to construct these routes, and cost.137 Due to the long term

11 environmental impacts and because the costs of the Overhead Routes are either comparable

12 to or significantly more expensive than the Underground Alternatives, in Staffs opinion,

13 the overhead alternatives proposed by the Company are inferior to the underground options

14 and, consequently, should be rejected.

15 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

16 By assuring continued reliable bulk electric power delivery, the proposed Project

17 facilitates economic development in Fairfax County, specifically in the Tysons and

18 McLean areas.

135 Reference "Substation Work Cost" line item from Table 2. $32.4 million - $25.6 million = $6.8 million 136 Reference "Total Cost" line item from Table 2. Total cost of each Overhead Route minus total cost of Proposed Underground Route. 137 Application Appendix at 69.

34

@@

1 There would be minimal additional work associated with maintaining and operating &

© 2 the underground transmission line; therefore, a negligible impact on long-term job creation {vj bS

3 may be expected after the Project is completed. ®

4 COORDINATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

5 At the request of the Staff,138 the DEQ coordinated an environmental review of the

6 Application. The results of DEQ's review are summarized in a report dated January 25,

7 2018 ("DEQ Report"). The DEQ Report identifies permits and approvals that are likely to

8 be required, lists findings of potential impacts on natural and historic resources, gives

9 recommendations for mitigating and avoiding those impacts, and outlines the Company's

10 responsibilities with regard to applicable laws and regulations.139

11 WETLAND IMPACTS CONSULTATION

12 Pursuant to § 62.1-44.15:21 D 2 of the Code of Virginia and the DEQ-Commission

13 Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Wetland Impacts Consultation dated July 11,2003,

14 and at the request of the Staff,140 the DEQ Office of Wetland and Stream Protection

15 ("OWSP") performed a Wetland Impacts Consultation for the Project.

16 REPLACEMENT OF TOWER 2097/177

17 In addition to the proposed Project, the Company requests the Commission's

18 approval to replace the existing lattice tower 2097/177 ("Tower")141 located just south of

138 Letter from William H. Harrison IV, State Corporation Commission, dated November 13, 2017, to Bettina Sullivan, Program Manager, Environmental Impact Review, DEQ, filed in Case No. PUR-20] 7-00143. 139 The DEQ Report reviews the six Underground Alternatives only. 140 Letter from William H. Harrison IV, State Corporation Commission, dated November 13, 2017, to David L. Davis, Director, Office of Wetlands & Stream Protection, DEQ, filed in Case No. PUR-2017-00143. 141 Constructed in 1960.

35

1 Idylwood Substation property ("Replacement Tower Proposal"). The Company states that

2 Fairfax County Staff recommended, as a condition of approval of the Company's Special ^

3 Exception Amendment appli cation to permit redevelopment of the Idylwood Substation,142 ®J

4 that the Tower be replaced in order to minimize visual impacts on neighboring properties.

5 The Company further states that the Replacement Tower Proposal is not a component of

6 the proposed Project and that the estimated $433,000 cost for replacement of the Tower

7 has not been included in the total estimated costs for the proposed Project. According to

8 the Company's response to Staff Interrogatory No. 2-15, the cost for the Replacement

9 Tower Proposal would be recovered through the FERC formula rate, and ultimately, Rider

10 Tl .

11 In regard to the current condition of the Tower, the Company states that all

12 components of Tower were inspected in January 2018 and determined to be in good

13 condition.143 Accordingly, the Company states that the tower has not reached the end of

14 its service life and currently requires no structural maintenance or replacement.144 In

15 addition to the good condition of the Tower, the Company has not identified any future,

16 planned projects at this time that involve Line #2097 or otherwise that might necessitate

17 the removal or replacement of the Tower.145 As such, at this time, the Company indicates

18 that the Replacement Tower Proposal is only for visual mitigation purposes.146

142 The Company indicates that the redevelopment of the Idylwood Substation was previously approved by the Commission in Case No. PUR-2017-00002. 143 Company's response to Staff Interrogatory No. 2-15. 144 Id. 145 Company's response to Staff Interrogatory No. 3-17. 146 Application Appendix at 3.

36

@3

1 In response to Staff Interrogatory No. 3-17, the Company states that replacement of ^

2 the Tower does not qualify as an ordinary extension or improvement because it is not ^ M

3 needed based on the Company's engineering judgement and reiterates the Company's belief ®

4 that Commission approval is necessary.147 The Company has not, however, requested a

5 CPCN for the Replacement Tower Proposal or asked for modification of a previously-

6 issued CPCN. As such, it is unclear what type of approval the Company is requesting for

7 the Replacement Tower Proposal. Moreover, because the Replacement Tower Proposal is

8 unrelated to the Company's request for a CPCN for the proposed Project, it appears to be

9 beyond the scope of this proceeding.

10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

11 The Staff concludes that the Company has reasonably demonstrated the need for the

12 proposed Project and Staff does not oppose the issuance of the requested CPCN.

13 Based on the facts presented by the Company, the Staff believes the overhead

14 alternatives proposed by the Company are inferior to the underground options and should

15 be rejected under the circumstances of this case. In regard to the Underground Alternatives,

16 the Proposed Route (i) is the shortest route, (ii) crosses the least amount of private land,

17 (iii) requires no additional clearing of forested lands, (iv) has low impact on the W&OD

18 Park Trail and vehicular traffic, (v) has no residences within 60 feet, and (vi) is the least

19 costly option when compared to the other underground alternatives. Therefore, the Staff

20 agrees that the Proposed Route provides the most optimal route for the proposed Project.

147 Company's response to Staff Interrogatory No. 3-17.

37

In regard to the Replacement Tower Proposal, it is Staffs position that because the

Replacement Tower Proposal is unrelated to the Company's request for a CPCN for the

proposed Project, it appears to be beyond the scope of this proceeding.

38

(59

1 APPENDIX A: TRANSMISSION PLANNING STANDARDS f

2 Dominion plans the expansion of its transmission system in response to forecasted ® M t\3

3 load growth and other system conditions in a manner that assures compliance with the 0

4 NERC transmission planning standards, as mandated by FERC in accordance with the

5 Energy Policy Act of 2005. As a member of PJM Interconnection, LLC ("PJM"),

6 Dominion transmission planning is conducted in concert with PJM's planning. The PJM

7 Regional Transmission Expansion Plan combines the PJM planning criteria with the

8 planning criteria of each Transmission Owner and conducts one assessment that is

9 measured against the NERC transmission planning reliability standards.

10 NERC requires that the interconnected transmission system be studied for reliability

11 compliance from the perspective of two time horizons, near term (years 1-5) and long term

12 (years 6-10). When planning studies reveal a NERC planning standard violation for a future

13 year within the Company's planning horizon, Dominion initiates the process to build and

14 operate a suitable bulk power reinforcement, which may take the form of a new

15 transmission circuit, an upgraded transmission circuit, a new large power transformer at a

16 substation, a new substation, or a combination Of these.

17 Key to NERC's standards is that a transmission system be planned to operate within

18 an acceptable voltage range, without damage to equipment from overloading, and with

19 specified limited dropping of load, following system contingencies. A contingency is the

20 unexpected failure of a critical component of the bulk power system, such as a transmission

21 circuit, a double-circuit transmission line, a large power transformer, or a generating unit.

22 NERC standards also permit a utility to add system stressors to the contingency. In the

39

S3

1 case of Dominion, a typical system stressor is the unavailability of the largest generating & (§3 2 unit located electrically near the contingency.

3 The NERC standards require that under a Category A condition (no contingency), ©

4 or base line case, and under a Category B condition (single contingency), which is the loss

5 of a single component such a generator, transmission circuit, or transformer (commonly

6 referred to as an n-1 condition), the system is expected to remain stable and that both

7 thermal and voltage limits remain within applicable ratings. The system must also be

8 analyzed for Category C conditions, which are contingencies resulting from the failure or

9 faulting of multiple elements. A Category C condition may also occur by the loss of a

10 single component, followed by manual system adjustments, and then followed by the loss

11 of another single component, which is commonly referred to as an n-1-1 condition.

12 Following a Category C condition, the Company's planning criteria permit a controlled

13 dropping of no more than 300 MW of load. For either a Category B or Category C

14 condition, the bulk power system must remain stable and have no cascading outages.

15 Category D conditions, which are extreme, may include, among other things, the following

16 types of losses: a triple-circuit towerline, all transmission lines on a common right-of-way,

17 a substation, a switching station, or a generating station. Category D conditions may result

18 in the loss of substation customer load and must be evaluated for risks and consequences.

40

@8

1 APPENDIX B: COMPANY'S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES % &

2 Fairfax County Interrogatories ^ bS

3 Set 1 Question 6 Q

4 Set 1 Question 7

5 Set 2 Question 17

6 Staff Interrogatories

7 Set 1 Question 2

8 Set 1 Question 6

9 Set 1 Question 7

10 Set 1 Question 10





41

Fairfax County Set 1 Question 6^ <S5 <«

m Virginia Electric and Power Company

Case No. PUR-2017-00143 Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Countv. Virginia

First Set &

The following response to Question No. 6 of the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by the Boatd of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia received on January 9, 2018 has been prepared under my supervision.

Question No. 6

Referring to Attachment I.B.2 of Vol. 1 of the Appendix showing projected loads without the proposed project, please discuss whether and to what extent the existing 40.5 MW automated switching scheme and the and [szc] 9.5 MW manual switching scheme would reduce the projected load in 2024 below 300 MW. •

As identified in the Company's Application, the approximately 40.5 MW of automated switching scheme ("Loop Scheme" or "LS") load will'be inadequate to contain loading on the Tysons Loop below 300 MW, for the loss of the Reston and Idylwood ends of the loop, by 2023. Since only automated load shifts count toward reducing load-loss below the 300 MW threshold that would trigger a NERC criteria violation, the approximately 9.5 MW of manual switching would involve sending a construction person to the field to manually transfer load between circuits ahead of the summer season (June 1 to September 1). While this could be used as a temporary solution to relieve the Tysons Loop in conjunction with the Loop Schemes, it creates an abnormal condition on the distribution circuits receiving the transfen-ed load. As discussed in the Company's response to Question No. 9 of this set, an abnormal condition can affect reliability by limiting a circuit's tie capability with other circuits. Relying on the use of manuial switching for extended periods (e.g. a summer season) would not solve the need identified in the Application over the long term.

Mark R. Gill Consulting Engineer Dominion Energy Virginia

Response:

Fairfax County Set 1 Question 7

89 FJ

ft n

Virginia EIectric and Power Company tsj Case No. PUR-2017-00143 ^

Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Cotintv. Virginia ® First Set

The following response to Question No. 7 of the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for \ Production of Documents Propounded by the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia 1

received on January 9,2018 has been prepared under my supervision. :

<c_ Jerry JBspigh Technical Specialist in Dominion Energy Virginia

Question No. 7

Regarding the 40.5. MW automated switching scheme described on page 4 of the Application, please discuss the scheme, including.i) the MW transferred from each substation in tire Tysons Loop and ii) the substation to which'each MW of load transfer is sent to.

: * «

Response: r

The automated switching-scheme referred to in the application is a Reclpser Loop Scheme, which utilizes both Sectionalizing and Tie electronic reclosers with timing circuitry and voltage sensing that are designed to minimize the effects of outages on the circuit.

• The Sectionalizing Recloser, usually closest to the substation, is normally closed. After losing voltage from voltage-sensing transformers, the Sectionalizing Recloser trips and locks out after a pre-programmed time (usually 55 seconds).

. • The Tie Recloser, located at the tie point between two circuits, is normally open. After losing voltage from the voltage sensing transformers, the Tie Recloser closes after a pre-programmed time (usually 65. seconds).

i


A typical Recloser Loop Scheme one-line is shown below with the switch positions indicated after the scheme has operated for a fault or loss of source:

BREAKER LOCKOUT CIRCUIT BREAKER

FAULT' =K=

SOURCE 1

CIRCUIT BREAKEff

tecLoseyK.o.:

SOURCE II J,0F

=5 ijfl •;?) i^i ,r® p its f *3

See below for i) the MW transferred from each substation in the Tysons Loop and ii) the substation to which each MW of load transfer is sent to:

• Tysons Substation transfers approximately 3.6 MW to Hunter Substation. . • Swinks Mill Substation transfers,a total of approximately 23.4 MW between Clark, ,

Hunter, and Idylwopd Substations. • Reddfield Substation transfers approximately 14 MW to Idylwood Substation,

i


m © i&i Virginia Electric and Power Company ^

Case No. PUR-2017-00143 . <& Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia ^

Second Set ^ ©

The following response to Question No. 17 of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Virginia received on February 12, 2018 has been prepared under my supervision.

latthew Thomas Project Manager Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Question No. 17

Please provide a detailed description of the results of the Traffic Review (including any summary reports) described on page 63 of the Application, including any determinations of whether variations in the Proposed Route and the Underground Alternatives are necessary.

Response:

See Attachment Fairfax Set 2-17(1) for an updated report (executive summary) that Dewberry prepared for presentation in response to concerns raised during local meetings. Attachment Fairfax Set 2-17(2) is the final deliverable ("traffic review").

The traffic review was designed to assess the current traffic flow and capacity on the roadways of the potential underground routes. An analysis was performed to estimate traffic impacts along those transmission corridors assuming one lane shut down for electric transmission construction. Projected degradation in flow indicates more traffic impacts during construction, and the potential underground routes were scored based on those impacts. The traffic review assigned lower scores to the least impactful routes.

The traffic review is not designed to determine siting modifications to the underground routes. Once the route has been approved by the State Corporation Commission, more detailed engineering of the line will advance and a final detailed alignment will be determined using any updated transmission corridor information available, detailed survey data, existing utility mapping, construction methods, and known constraints. At that time, minor modifications of the route may be appropriate. As of now, however, the Company is not aware of any necessary variations in the Proposed Route or the Underground Alternatives.

Attachment Fairfax Set 2-17(1) Page 1 of 6

804.290.7957 804.290.7928 fax www.dewberrv.com

AMrViAvwr* Dewberry Engineers Inc. MJVSlMMJVSK ty 4805 Lake Brook Drive, Suite 200

Glen Allen, VA 23060

December i, 2017 y y

Dominion Energy © Attn: Amanda Mayhew, Senior Siting and Permitting Specialist 701 East Cai^ Street Richmond, Virginia 23219

RE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Traffic Engineering Analysis for Underground Routing Study.

Dear Ms. Mayhew,

Dewberry has assembled for your consideration a ranking of the underground routes between the Idylwood to Tysons substations. The routes have been scored based solely on their traffic impacts and color coded for darity. A detailed summary of these scores can be found on the attached chart titled

"Route Scores". Green represents the preferred route, Yellow a more moderate route, and Red represents the least preferable route. The routes were ranked based on delay, segment length, total vehides in the

segments, density, major route crossings, and minor route crossings. The ranks were given a specific

weight based on their importance (these weights are detailed on the attached chart).

With the current weighting, routes Underground 01, Underground 04 and Underground 05 have an

advantage over the others. Underground 01 has the most length along the W&OD Trail, which does not carry any delay. Underground 01 also has the fewest total number of vehicles out of any other route.

Underground 04 does not generally out perform in any of the categories but achieves it high ranking

because it also does not underperform in any categories. Route Underground 05 has the lowest delay out

of all the routes except for Underground 007. Underground 01 is generally characterized by a more suburban, residential path, however Underground 04 and 05 are generally characterized as being in a

more urban, commercial corridor. Routes Underground Ol and 04 run parallel from the intersection of Woodford Road and Old Courthouse Road to Tysons Substation.

Additionally, a summary of each route segment has been provided. The routes have been segmented

according to two factors; where the VDOT AADT segments begin and end, and wherever there is a change

in the sharing of routes on a particular segment. Travel times and level of service (LOS) were analyzed for

each of the segments. Segments that stayed the same level of service under temporary traffic control (TTC) during construction have been coded in Green which represents a segment with sufficient capacity

for construction activities; segments coded in Yellow dropped one level of service; segments coded in Red dropped two levels of service or have a Level of Service of "E" or lower representing insufficient capacity

for construction activities. Additionally, segments which have no direct impacts on traffic have been coded in Blue because they have a neutral traffic impact. Segments that consist of two-lane road which will have

to operate under a flagging operation during construction have been coded in Purple because they require further consideration beyond the limits of this analysis. However, all segments characterized by a two-lane road have a normal level of service of B or better and will likely have an adequate capacity during construction.

Page 1 of 2


An exhibit of the existing, 2017 pedestrian and bike peak hour volumes has been included. The counts

were conducted on Saturday September 16th between the hours of 11:00 am and 2:00 pm. The weekend was chosen to be the peak period for travel along the route because of historical data and correspondence with the NOVA Parks. Previous counts have shown that weekend traffic is typically higher than weekday

when the study area is located west of I-495 or "outside the beltway". As the majority of this project's study area was outside the beltway, the weekend was considered to be the peak time for traffic along the

W&OD trail. The counts displayed that pedestrian and bicycle traffic is consistent throughout the study area. The majority of traffic along the W&OD trail was through traffic and there were not significant

numbers of pedestrians or bicycles entering the facility at the intersections of interest within the study

area. However, some traffic was entering the facility to get to Tysons Woods Park and some traffic was existing to get to Dunn Loring Park.

Sincerely, Dewberry Engineers Inc.

Matt C. Thomas, PE Project Manager

Attachments: Route Scoring Segment Information Segment Map Pedestrian and Bike Volume W&OD Trail Exhibit

Dewberry Page 2 of 2

©

a © k3 y m


Route Scoring

No. ofSTDDEVs from the Mean

Rank X 2

Rank XI

Rank XX

Rank X 3

TABLE A


Segment Informatton

003HR3T OCKHEIN 07.03

OVttAO 4,Q3,0CI07

VOOT Functtoml

Urban Minor Antrial

DMdttl / UndMM/ twin

AAOT (2016)

AvtTnfflc Ofl-Nab

I™6) MOT

(2DU)»

A<r(Trafnc Off-fall AAOT

(1021)'

AvgTraffk Off-fak

Hour

_J222U_ 60

Tnwol Tin* P«4

Trawl Tim*

ParatWI F*dlltln Com bln*0 AAOT

4 A HOT » Aampal

OOTWOOT

006WOOT

009W001

OIQAAU

OllQAll

OWGAU

0190AU

OlAOAU

015CAU

016GAU

OlTELfC

OUCLEC

019CIIC

OIOWOTO

021W0F0

02201 DC

02301DC

Q35GOSN

OSBSOSM

027G03H

miWK*

02S1NT\

OMum

031INTI

032IHU

(OJTYON

osattsn

01 SCAM

oafifnm OJTPftXA

0361 BOA

OlSfCH

0391»>GH

(MOTTCO

01^4^0

ML i"10footwtdamto*dui

„ ^ uron,iotraow

WlOO TnS Syntm mi, iQtr aow 4iii WAOOTma9rn*m

02,03 _A*fcp»dar** OattomAoad

(South cf lOiAweod M) Urban Minor

Artarfal 02J23.OM3

6.06 GaSowtAoarf

[IdfArood A6 to AalWoaJ St) Urban Minor

Arttftal 02.03,04,0 ml

01O3.OAO LSL

Gatowi Asad (AaUmad St to Oak St)

SaboonAoad (Oat St 10 GaAoara Bra nth)

Urban Minor ArtaHat

02,0X04.0 Sfit

CalowaAoad (Galom Branch Ad to Otd

Court how Adl

Urban Minor Ariartal

(OM CourtW* Ad to Aouto 7) Urban Minor

Artcrftl

CltctrlcAvomi* fWwt of Woodford Ad)

Urban Major Collxtor

CJoctrkArrtnua (Woodford Ad to Cadarln)

Urban Major Collocior

tlaork Avanua (tan of C*darUr)

Urban Ma)or Coiactor

{South of Wotftrap Ad) Woodford Aood

{Worth of Wotftrao Ad) Urban Major

Coflattor Urban Miner

Artflal

Old Court hout* Aood Urban Minor Art trial

CoaaadAoad (Aauta mtowaa)

Urban Minor An trial

GoaaoBRoad [Wifl St 10 Tyi prir St)

Urban Minor Art trial

OoantUAoad (Tytprin|S<toAour*7)

Urban Minor Arttrtal

(Aoutt 7 to Tyiem On a Pf)

{TVMto OM PI to Aoutt 121) Urban Minor

Arterial

Imtmat tonal Ortro (Aouta 123 to Watt Park Or)

Urban Minor Arurtal

(W«t Port Or to Sprbif Htf Ad) Urban Minor

Arttrtal

Urban Muuv fnllrrrnt

Tyaons Boutovard Urban Ma^or Cotttttor

Urban Major CoAtctor

Park Aim Qrtvo fTYMm Br to Wart Part Or)

ParfcAunDrfrt (WtM fork Or to font* Branch

20 Zona Branch Drtvo Urban Ma)or

CoAtctor

Urban Major CoAattor

OXOXQXQ *1°^ Urban Major CoAtctor

Aoutt 267 (CKiAo Tol Road) Other Fratwor Or Exprtliway

iParalltl PtcfWIti iComblntd AADT (IGP + a Acrtti Ad • Aamo»);Thbbooaol tho bmtoit lacttom of it ha DTR In FFC

— tntntato — 00m Fraowar or

Other PrirtdptiAAertal

HtoorArtarUl

Major CoAattor

-MbfffCcOMttr

Coopor Contar Proftcts for tho pi Ftlrf at County In tha yi

in of htnorical VDOT AADT and UVA Oi.-.l;, ..low

Noutral • MttdofunharCoo

TABLES


TYSON 3p SUBSTATION |'

r\CRESTVJOCO«.

WwnSk

IDYLWOOD TO TYSONS PROJECTED TEMPORARY TRAFFIC IMI

SCHOOLS, PARKS, AND TRAILS

I Dewberry g jay ^


0' 750* 1500'

GRAPHIC SCALE 1" = 1500'

LEGEND

O UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION

# SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION

—+• TRAVEL MOVEMENT

50

EXISTING ROAD/TRAIUSIDEWALK

PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC

Dewberry ^ Energy-EXISTING (2017) RED. AND BIKE VOLUMES

W&OD TRAIL


@9

Idylwood to Tysons Transmission Line Traffic Engineering Review for Underground Routing Study.

©

1.0 Introduction and Background ©

Dewberry Engineers Inc. (Dewberry), on behalf of Dominion Energy Virginia (Dominion), conducted a review of the traffic impacts during construction of a proposed 230 kV transmission line from Dominion's existing Idylwood Substation to the existing Tysons Substation in Fairfax County, Virginia (Study Area). Within the Study Area, seven (7) underground routes were initially identified. Dewberry analyzed these seven routes more in depth to provide input on the viability due to impacts to the traffic during construction.

The purpose of the study was to analyze each route as it related to traffic impacts during construction. It is understood that construction methods and construction times may vary within each route. For example, the construction will likely take place in residential areas during the day to avoid impacting residents at night and construction at night may be more beneficial for commercial areas. In order to review the routes only on the basis of traffic, all routes were analyzed using available traffic data and projecting to peak hour traffic to have a uniform basis for comparison.

Dewberry collected available information on the existing roadways following each of the seven routes identified. A review of the traffic data available from VDOT provided the 2016 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and was divided into varying segments along each route. Using these segments, Dewberry further reduced the segments such that additional data points were created at the logical splits in the routes. From there, each segment was reviewed to add factors, where available, relating to traffic such as the roadway functional classification, speed limits, number of lanes, segment length, and AADT. After compiling the data, the AADT was projected to the anticipated construction year of 2019 using a one percent growth rate. Reviewing the past five years of traffic data, a one percent growth was viewed as a conservative growth rate as the change in traffic was closer to zero percent because the study area is already developed and fully built-out. Using the 2019 traffic data a base travel time and level of service for each segment was determined to be used as comparison to the travel time and level of service during construction in the analysis.

Generally all seven routes follow along established roadways throughout the Tysons area, but each route navigates through several different crossing roadways. Depending on the complexity of the intersection, a value was given to major and minor crossings. Major crossings were identified when the route crossed limited access highways such as 1-495,1-66, and Route 267. Additional critical intersections were identified as major crossings based on feedback from VDOT to include the intersections found in Table 2.01.

2.0 Basis for Analysis

Page 1


Table 2.01 Idylwood Substation to Tysons Substation

Critical Intersections Intersection Impacted Underground Route

International Drive and Jones Branch Drive/Spring Hill Road Jones Branch Drive and Park Run Drive Route 7 (Leesburg Pike) and Gosnell Road/Westpark Drive Route 7 (Leesburg Pike) and Gallows Road/International Drive Route 123 (Chain Bridge Road) and Gosnell Road/Old Courthouse Road Route 123 (Chain Bridge Road) and International Drive Route 123 (Chain Bridge Road) and Tysons Boulevard Gallows Road and Old Courthouse Road/Aline Avenue Gallows Road and Electric Avenue/Railroad Street Gallows Road and W&OD Trail

005, 006 006 001,002, 003, 004 005, 006 001,002, 003, 004 005 006 003, 004, 005, 006 002, 003, 004, 005, 006 001,004, 005, 006

The assumption for the analysis is that major crossings will be drilled/bored across, thus reducing traffic 'impacts. Conversely, minor crossings would likely be open-cut or trenched which will have a greater traffic impacts.

During a focus group meeting, a concern was raised for impacts during construction to the pedestrian and bicycle users of the Washington & Old Dominion (W&OD) trail. Quality Counts, the traffic counting vendor used by Dewberry, collected user counts at three separate locations along the trail on September 16th, 2017. The trail is utilized for both commuters and recreational users. Commuters primarily use the trail on the week days to travel to and from work. The trail is used for recreation on the weekend. In order to capture the peak usage times in the counts, Dewberry worked with NOVA Parks and discussed the previous studies that had been performed to determine whether counting the weekend or weekdays would be most appropriate. The previous studies reflected that weekend traffic is typically higher than weekday when the study area is located west of 1-495 or "outside the beltway." As the majority of this project's study area is outside the beltway, the weekend is considered to be the peak time for traffic along the W&OD trail. The count locations and summary of the user counts can be found in the Appendix.

3.0 Analysis of Alternatives The analysis of the alternatives continued through each of the seven underground route alternatives that were identified for the Idylwood to Tysons transmission line. Table 3.01 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each route, relative to the traffic impacts of the other alternatives. Further review of Underground Route 007 has been eliminated from considerations based on reviews of constructability and costs associated with the required trenchless crossings of 1-495,1-66, and Route 267.

Based on the above discussion, considerations relevant to selecting a proposed route from the six alternatives, as it relates to traffic, are presented below.

Page 2



Summary of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Each of the Routes Relative to Traffic Impacts Advantages Disadvantages Underground Route 01

• Has the most length along the W&OD Trail • Lowest number of total vehicles • Second lowest number of total road crossings

Second longest route More residential route creates impacts to work hours, noise, and schedule Creates high impact to traffic congestion at Gosnell Road

Underground Route 02 • Second lowest number of total vehicles More residential route creates impacts to work hours, noise,

and schedule Highest number of total road crossings Follows two narrow streets, Railroad Street and Helena Drive Creates high impact to traffic congestion at Gosnell Road

Underground Route 03 • Least traffic volume through the residential areas;

least localized traffic impacts. More residential route creates impacts to work hours, noise, and schedule Travel along two high impact hotspots, Gosnell Road and Gallows Rd Second highest number of total road crossings

Underground Route 04 • Second shortest route Creates high impact to traffic congestion at Gosnell Road and

Gallows Road Second highest total number of vehicles

Underground Route 05 • Shortest route • More commercial route lessens impacts to work

hours, noise, and schedule

Crosses an underground section of Metro Rail Creates high impact to traffic congestion at Gallows Road

Underground Route 06 • More commercial route lessens Impacts to work

hours, noise, and schedule Crosses Chain Bridge Rd (Rte 123) at a Metro Stop Creates high impact to traffic congestion at Gallows Road

Underground Route 07 (Route eliminated by other factors) • Lowest number of total road crossings < • Work will be primarily outside roadway <

Limited Access Route Highest number of major road crossings Highest number of total number of vehicles Longest route

m m

& <0

U

Using the AADT data projected to the construction year (2019) based on the available information from VDOT, roadway classifications, and roadway sections, a base travel time and level of service along the roadways were created for each route. From there, the potential traffic control options were identified from flagging operations, shoulder closures, and lane closures and applied throughout the routes. A proposed lane closure reduces the capacity of the roadway, thus increasing the travel time through a section adding to the travel delay. A level of service was established based on the travel time during

Page 3

Attachment Fairfax Set 2-17(2) Page 4 of 6 p m

fei lane closures. Table 3.02 below summarizes the calculated base travel time, base level of service, travel ^ time resulting from traffic control, and overall route travel delay caused by closures. A complete <§3 summary table of the data used to determine the travel times and levels of service can be found in the ^ Appendix. ^


Route Travel Times and Delays

Unit UG 01 UG 02 UG 03 UG 04 UG 05 UG 06 UG 07

Base Travel Time seconds 332 470 381 347 319 362 282

Travel Time w/ Closure seconds 436 625 495 449 403 462 322 Route Delay seconds 104 155 114 102 84 100 40

The travel times and delays were used along with the segment length, total number of vehicles along the routes and the number/types of crossings were combined to develop a route score. This information was input into a weighted formula to establish a neutral and fair analysis of the impacts.

When combining all traffic factors and weights, a route score was determined and the results can be seen in Table 3.04 below.

Table 3.04

PROPOSED ROUTES

Route UG001

Route UG002

Route UG003

Route UG004

Route UG005

Route UG006

Route UG007

Base Travel Time (sec.) 332 470 381 347 319 362 282

TTC Travel Time (sec.) 436 625 495 449 403 462 322

Route Delay (sec.)

104 155 114 102 84 100 40

Length along Roadway (ml.) 4.97 4.08 3.58 4.15 4.1 4.35 4.69

Total Vehicles in Segment (AADT)

5160 5530 8290 10670 10400 8910 11710

Major Route Crossings

(to be BORED) 14

Minor Route Crossings

(to be open cut / TRENCHED)

Score:

23

24

37

36

31

33

24

31

25

32

27

39 31

Page 4

Attachment Fairfax Set 2-17(2) Page 5 of 6 P @8 © &

4.0 Conclusions and Recommendation & ©

Figure A has been included in the appendix that reflects the impacts to the level of service based on lane ^ closures during construction. A low impact is identified as no drop in level of service and a moderate P impact is identified as a reduction of one level of service. A high impact is identified as either a ® reduction of two or more levels of service or is at a level of service "E" or less.

During the analysis, it became apparent that some segments would need further evaluation should they become the preferred route. These segments generally relate to two lane narrow roadways. Further analysis would be needed as the traffic control would require either flagging or complete closures with detours. These would be major impacts to the routes, but generally would take place off peak so quantifying the impacts at this stage would be difficult. In Figure A, these areas were identified in purple as needing further consideration meaning a more in depth study will be required to evaluate the potential impacts. Also included in the figure are areas labeled as "Neutral/Not applicable" and colored in blue. These highlights reflect portions of the routes that fall along areas where determining traffic impacts become difficult due to two reasons;

• Vehicular traffic is not present, as is the case with the W&OD trail and thru Idylwood Park. • Constraints in constructability well outweigh traffic impacts, as in crossing of I-66,1-495, and

Route 267 are required to be trenchless and no impacts to traffic would be present.

Other factors that weighed into the traffic impact scoring were the amount of vehicles using the roadway and the number of roadway crossings. With the current weighting, routes Underground 01, Underground 04 and Underground 05 have an advantage over the others based on the following observations;

• Underground 01 has the most length along the W&OD Trail, which does not carry any vehicle delay.

• Underground 01 also has the fewest total number of vehicles out of any other route. • Underground 01 is generally characterized by a more suburban, residential path • Underground 04 does not generally out perform in any of the categories but achieves it high

ranking because it also does not underperform in any categories. • Underground 05 has the lowest delay out of all the routes except for Underground 007. • Underground 04 and 05 are generally characterized as being in a more urban, commercial

corridor.

Pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the W&OD trail was also reviewed as part of this study and as the majority of this project's study area was outside the beltway, the weekend was considered to be the peak time for traffic along the W&OD trail. The counts displayed that pedestrian and bicycle traffic is consistent throughout the study area. The majority of traffic along the W&OD trail did not stop at the parks located within the study area but traveled through to access other parts of the trail. There were not significant numbers of pedestrians or bicycles entering the facility at the intersections of interest within the study area. Construction activities such as drilling are being considered that would significantly reduce impacts to the trail. Diversions and/or detours will be provided when working during usable hours on the trail to reduce the impacts to users as much as possible.

PageS


TYSONS < SUBSTATION ' S^OHeawwcHQR

| HEKUfroro 1 I&'V^

!SAWi< I'M

r\. \ —-^s <y

l5W^ m/ < m m

/y/x,r>w.v-sa

ei^>;-

-v =<-

"^w

v :• r N1

.'II ./S5/1 "BAaioim rr

r^\l

8. LOW IMPACT MOOEAATE IMPACT MOHBIPACT

Si** *. .'^ I"

VA

PECKBIKE CO<J NT LOCATION # TOTAL WEfiKEKO PEAK HOimntAPnC — (USCRS

•ti m sysc / /•/r e ZZ3FC. IDYLWOOD TO TYSONS

PROJECTED TEMPORARY TRAFFIC IMPACTS; SCHOOLS, PARKS, AND TRAILS

© Dewberry* i Dominion Energy" / jd

FIGURE-A

Staff Set 1 Question 2 [

§8 «3

Virginia Electric and Power Company Case No. PUR-2017-00143 @

Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff ivj First Set

The following response to Question No. 2(a-c) of the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on February 6, 2017 has been prepared under my supervision as it pertains to transmission planning

Mark R. Gill ' Consulting Engineer Dominion Energy Virginia

The following response to Question No. 2(a-b) of the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on February 6,2017 has been prepared under my supervision as it pertains to distribution planning.

f~o K Jerry Espigh Technical Specialist m Dominion Energy Virginia

Question No. 2

Throughout the appendix to the application, the Company describes a future Spring Hill Substation which will relieve load from Tysons Substation. (a) Please provide a projected load table for the Spring Hill Substation between 2020 and 2026. (b) Excluding Tysons Substation, does the Company expect the Spring Hill Substation to relieve

load from any other area substations? (c) In reference to the description provided on page 41 of the appendix to the application, please

provide the Company's reasoning behind providing space for two additional 230 kV line terminations at the Spring Hill Substation.

Response:

(a) As discussed in the Appendix on page 42, loading on the future Spring Hill Substation, including load transfers associated with the relief of Tysons Substation to the future Spring Hill Substation, has not yet been determined. It is anticipated that Spring Hill Substation will not be constructed until the Idylwood-Tysons Project is complete since it is likely that 230 kV Line #2010 between Reston and Tysons Substations, which will be

Staff Set 1 Question 2 p m €)

cut to feed Spring Hill Substation, will have to be taken out of service while Spring Hill Substation is constructed.' Cutting Line #2010 would leave the CIA Substation fed from ^ a radial transmission source for an extended period of time, possibly a year or more, y which is not acceptable from an operational perspective. Further, construction timelines y have not been provided by developers for specific projects in the area south of Rt. 7 © which Spring Hill Substation will serve. At this time, the Company expects that the three Tysons Substation circuits that serve load south of Rt. 7 will be transferred to Spring Hill Substation when it is constructed. Presently, combined summer peak loading on those three Tysons circuits (#369, #374, and #468) is approximately 60 MVA.

(b) The Company expects that Spring Hill Substation will only relieve load from Tysons Substation and serve new load growth on the south side of Rt. 7, as discussed in subpart (a) above.

(c) Due to the dynamic nature of growth in the Tysons area and the uncertainty surrounding the Company's ability to develop needed transmission resources, the two additional 230 kV line terminations planned at Spring Hill Substation are intended to provide future transmission flexibility.

Staff Set 1 Question 6

@3 ©

•J Virginia Electric and Power Company ^ Case No. PUR-2017-0Q143

Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff First Set

The following response to Question No. 6(a), (c), and (d) of the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on February -6,2017 has been prepared under my supervision.

yj ^ .M j/ZZ. ^

Amanda M. Ms^hew // Senior Siting and Permitting Specialist Dominion Energy Services, Inc.

Questipn No. 6

On pages 46-47 of the appendix to the application, the Company discusses the Idylwood-Scott's Run Alternative. (a) Pfoyide an aerial map depicting the Scott's Run Substation site that the Company purphased

in 2015 and residential parcels in the surrounding area of the proposed Scott's Run Substation site.

(b) For this alternative, would the Scott's Run Substation utilize conventional (air-insulated) substation equipment or gas-insulated substation ("GIS") equipment?

(c) For this alternative, what type of construction (i.e., overhead, underground, or hybrid) Would be utilized for the single circuit 230 kV Idylwood-Scott's Run transmission line?

(d) What is the estimated length, in circuit miles, of the single circuit 230 kV Idylwood-Scott's Run transmission line?

(e) What is the estimated cost for the Idylwood-Scott's Run Alternative?

Response:

As it pertains to each subpart of this question, the Company notes that, due to siting, zoning and permitting issues, as well as wetlands and flood plain constraints On the site discussed on page 47 of the Appendix, the Company sold the Scott's Run Substation site subsequent to the filing of the Application.

(a) See Attachment Staff Set 1-6 for an aerial map depicting the Scott's Run Substation site as it existed prior to sale.

(c) As with all projects, the Company started its routing process looking at overhead line options. The overhead options were limited and the Company began to look at part overhead and part underground options (hybrid). After fiirther conversations with Fairfax County, it was Company's opinion that obtaining county permits for a Scott's Run Substation site would not be possible and no additional routing was pursued.

(d) The shortest overhead route, which was along 1-495, would have been approximately 4.3 miles and the hybrid option would have been approximately 4.8 miles.


m a

Virginia Electric and Power Comnanv ^ Case No. PUR-2017-00143 ^

Virginia State Cornoration Commission Staff M First Set M

m

The following response to Question No. 6(b) of the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on February 6,2017 has been prepared under my supervision.

Dominion Energy Virginia

Question No. 6

On pages 46-47 of the appendix to the application, tire Company discusses the Idylwood-Scott's Run Alternative. (a) Provide an aerial map depicting the Scott's Run Substation site that the Company purchased



(c) For this alternative, what type of conshuction (i.e., overhead, underground, or hybrid) would be utilized for the single circuit 230 kV Idylwood-Scott's Run transmission line?

(d) What is the estimated length, in circuit miles, of the single cir cuit 230 kV Idylwood-Scott's Run transmission line?

(e) What is tire estimated cost for the Idylwood-Scott's Run Alternative?

Response:

As it pertains to each subpart of this question, the Company notes that, due to siting, zoning and permitting issues, as well as wetlands and flood plain constraints on the site discussed on page 47 of the Appendix, the Company sold the Scott's Run Substation site subsequent to the filing of the Application.

(b) For this alternative, Scott's Run Substation would have used gas-insulated substation ("GIS") equipment.


0@ Ci

Virginia Electric and Power Company ^ Case No. PUR-2017-00143 g

Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff y First Set ^

© The following response to Question No. 6(e) of the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on February 6, 2017 has been prepared under my supervision.

Mark R. GiU Consulting Engineer Dominion Energy Virginia

Question No. 6

On pages 46-47 of the appendix to the application, the Company discusses the Idylwood-Scott's Run Alternative. (a) Provide an aerial map depicting the Scott's Run Substation site that the Company purchased



(c) For this alternative, what type of construction (i.e., overhead, underground, or hybrid) would be utilized for the single circuit 230 kV Idylwood-Scott's Rim transmission line?

(d) What is the estimated length, in circuit miles, of the single circuit 230 kV Idylwood-Scott's Run transmission line?

(e) What is the estimated cost for the Idylwood-Scott's Run Alternative?

Response:

As it pertains to each subpart of this question, the Company notes that, due to siting, zoning and permitting issues, as well as wetlands and flood plain constraints on the site discussed on page 47 of the Appendix, the Company sold the Scott's Run Substation site subsequent to the filing of the Application.

e) The estimated cost of the original proposed overhead solution for this alternative, as shown on Pages 29 and 35 of the Appendix, is $32 million. This cost was developed during the feasibility phase of the project and is considered a Feasibility Estimate. See Attachment Staff Set l-6(e) which is a discovery response provided in Case No. PUE-2016-00135 and includes further discussion of how feasibility and conceptual costs are developed during the project process. See also the Company's Response to No. 6(c) of Staff's First Set for a discussion of the lack of overhead options.


Virginia Electric and Power Comnany Case No. PlJR-2017-00143

Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff First Set

@9 «a)

& #i M y

The following response to Question No. 7 of the First Set of Interrogatories arid Requests for Production of Dpcuments Propounded by Virgiriia State Corporation Commission Staff received on February 6, 2017 has been prepared under my supervision.

Question No. 7

Provide the age, expected end of life, and current physical condition for Lines #2035, #2029, #2108, #202, and #2010. Please provide details of any planned work to be performed by the Company on such lines.

There are currently no major rebuild projects planned for any of the listed lines above. No conditidrial issues have been identified on these lines during recent inspecfidris to warrant rebuilding due to. condition. Industry guidelines estimate service life for wood structures are 35 to 55 years, steel structures are 40 to 60 years, and concrete structures are greater than 50 years. See Attachment Staff Set 1-7 for additional information on each specific line.

Lori Schuelke Manager Transmission Line Engineering Dominion Energy "Technical Solutions, Inc.

Response:

C^j S3 G

€3

M


&

Virginia Electric and Power Company Case No. PUR-2017-00143 4^

Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff ^ First Set ^ fcj

© The following response to Question No. 10 of the First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on February 6,2017 has been prepared under my supervision.

. _ ./ Elizabeth KricoriahrGStlin Engineer III Dominion Energy Technical Solutions, Inc.

Question No. 10

Please provide a breakdown of the estimated costs of construction for the four overhead routes described in Appendix A (Overhead Route Description and Analysis) of the Environmental Routing Study. Please show engineermg, material costs, and labor costs for the construction of each route. The following items should be among those individually subtotaled: project management, structures, conductor, right-of-way acquisition, and right-of-way clearing.

Response:

See Attachments Staff Set l-10(l)-(4) for the breakdown of conceptually estimated costs of construction for Overhead Routes 01-04 (respectively) described in Section II.A.7 of the Appendix and Appendix A.

Right-of-way acquisition is identified in the attachments under Project Management and Support as Subcategory "Real Estate".

Right-of-way clearing is defined by the Company as the contractor services to clear trees from the project corridor in preparation for construction of the transmission line; this cost is included in the attachments under Construction Labor and Materials in Subcategory "Forestry" which also includes other costs such as access and rehab, therefore the estimated cost for right-of -way clearing is provided separately by Route in the chart below.

Right-of-Wav Clearing VP/DTECH

Labor VP

Material VP/DTECH Equipment

Contractor Services

Other Costs

Markup Costs Total Cost

Overhead Route 01 $ $2,514,828 $ 773,482 $3,288,310 Overhead Route 02 $ $ 1,189,044 $ 365,713 $ 1,554,757 Overhead Route 03 $ 443,120 $ 136,290 $ 579,410 Overhead Route 04 $ 1,403,072 $ 431,541 $ 1,834,613

i

L

& <89 a M & C M y

Dominion Energy

Project Namo 9924S8_TL217S IDYL WOOD-TYSONS OHQ1_Trans Unes_A_1 Revision 1

Project ID 992466 Option A

Project Type Capllal Project Business Unit Trans Lines

Attachment Staff Set 1-10(1)

Site Summary Report

Estimate Date

Prepared By

10/17/2017

Elizabeth Kricorian

DESCRIPTION VP/DTECH LABOR

VP MATERIAL

VP/DTECH EQUIPMENT

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

OTHER COSTS

MARKUP COSTS

TOTAL COST

Transmission Lino 1

Englntorlng

IransmlsBion Engineering

Stnjetural Engineering

Tolecommunicotlons

$150,326 $111,105

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0 $0 $0

$0 $107,404 $10,840

$0 $0 $0

$89,407 $00,200

$3,334

$238,823 $317,808 $14,174

EnglitMring

Project Manegoment A Support

$261,431 $0 $118,334 $192,040 $571,806

Permitting

Reel Estate

Project Morketlng Managers

Project Managers

Survey

$85,943 $285,740 $191,073 $330,934

$58,150

$0 $0 $0 $2,161,000 $418,536 $2,665,479 $0 $0 $0 $208,715,484 $35,569,317 $244,570,741 $0 $0 $0 $337,677 $116,173 $644,923 $0 $23,563 $0 $0 $210,097 $593,314 $0 $0 $313,290 $0 $131,102 $702,541

Project Managomtnt & Support

Construction Labor & Materials

$971,841 $25,583 $513,290 $211,214,181 $36,452,325 $249,177,199

Retirement

Construction Mansgemont

Wires

Structures

Forestry

Contractor Mobilization

$0 $0 $0 $0 so so

$-128,507 $0

$1,574,542 $12,319,281

$0 $0

$0 $29,720

$0

SO

$0

$0

$1,405,438 $381,798

$3,109,706 $12,036,627 $8,225,933

$666,000

$0 $0 $0 $0

$98,013 $0

$432,275 $122,481

$1,501,344 $6,828,246 $2,343,173

$205,436

$1,700,226 $534,000

$6,335,591 $31,184,134 $10,669,121

$873,450 Construction Labor & Matartata $13,765,318 $29,720 $25,917,522 $98,015 $11,494,876 $51,305,547

Transmission Line 1 1,233,272 13,765,316 55,303 26,649,145 211,312,170 48,139,340 301,054,552 Site Summary Report

2/8/2018 11:36:44AM

Pago 1 of 2

m © A A m w

©

Dominion Energy

Project Name 992466_TL2175 IDYLWOOD - TYSONS OH01_TfBns Llnes_/\_1 Revision 1


Project Type Capital Project Business Unit Trans Unas

Site Summary Report

Estimate Date

Prepared By

10/17/2017

Elizabeth Krtcorian


VP MATERIAL

VP/DTECH EQUIPMENT

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

OTHER COSTS

MARKUP COSTS

TOTAL COST

Site Summary Report

2/8/2016 11:36:44AM

Pope 2 of 2

N3

m €S A A ©


Dominion Energy Site Summary Report

Project Name 992468_7L2175 IDYLWOOD -TYSONS OH02_Trans Unes.BJ Revision 1 Estimate Dato 10/17/2017

Project ID 992466 Option B Prepared By Elizabeth KrlcoHsn

Project Typo Capital Project Business Unit Trans Unes


VP MATERIAL

VP/DTECH EQUIPMENT

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

OTHER COSTS

MARKUP COSTS

TOTAL COST

Transmission Lino 1

Englnoerlng

Transmission Engineering

Structural Engineering

Telecommunications

$07,663 $65,691

$0

$0

$0 $0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$59,281 $10,840

$0

$0

$0

$52202 $57,283 $3,334

$139,866 $182,158 $14,174

Englnoorlng

Project Managemont & Support

$153,274 $70,121 $0 $112,820 $336218

PermltUng

Real Estato

Project Marketing Menegers

Project Menagera

Survey

$0

$285,740 $90,342

$165,926 $36,218

$0 $0

$0

$0 so

$0 so so

$12,096 $0

$0 $0 so $0

$322,093

$2,054,700 $61,400,303

$159,658 $0 $0

$349,299 $10,525,936

$34,928 $102,598 $81,796

$2,403,998 $72,211,079

$304,026 $260,621 $442,107

Project ManagomontA Support

Construeiton Labor S Materials

$880,227 $12,098 $322,093 $63,014,681 $11,114,659 $75,643,635

Contractor Moblfization

VUros

Structures

Retirement

Construction Management

Forestry

$0 $0 $0 SO

$0 $0

so $634,626

$5,845,440 $-33,039

$0 $0

$0 $0 $0 $0

$16,390 $0

$186,000

$1,730,654 $5,864,576

$411,287 $210,558

$3,689,330

$0

$0 SO

$0 $0

$46,343

$57,208 $764,508

$3,296,329 $126,493

$07,547 $1,106,626

$243,206 $3,130,008

$15,009,352 $504,720 $294,463

$5,044,502 Construction Labors Matorlels $6,447,033 $16,360 $12,292,584 $40,343 $5,423,993 $24,226,343

Transmission Line 1 733,501 6,447,033 12,684,797 63,681,004 18,651,371 100.206,193

Site Summary Report

2/8/2018 1:1S:62PM

Pogo 1 of 2

Jut) 09 <y a

p ©

Dominion Energy

Projoct Nomo 992466_TL2175IDYLWOOD-TYSONS OH02_Tran3 Llne3_B_1 Revision 1

Project ID 992466 Option 6

Project Type Capital Project Business Unit Trans Lines

Site Summary Report

Estimate Date

Prepared By

10/17/2017

Elizabeth Kricorlan


VP MATERIAL

VP/DTECH EQUIPMENT

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

OTHER COSTS

MARKUP COSTS

TOTAL COST

Slta Summary Raport

2/8/2018 1:18:82PM

Pfipe 2 of 2

(59

&

a

Dominion Energy

Project Nomo 992466_TL2175 IDYLWOOD - TYSONS OH03_Tran3 Unes_C_2 Revision 2

Project 10 992466 Option C



Site Summary Report

Estimato Date

Prepared By

10/19/2017

Elizabeth Kricortan


VP MATERIAL

VP/DTECH EQUIPMENT

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

OTHER COSTS

MARKUP COSTS

TOTAL COST

Transmission Line 1

Englnoorlng

Tranamitalon Engineering

Stmctural Engineering

Teieeonvnunlcations

$67,503

$46,407

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$0

$43,750

$6,000

$0

SO

$0

$40,168

$42,275

$2,461

$107,691

$134,432

$10,461

Englnoorlng

Projoct Manogoment & Support

$115,910 $51,750 $0 $04,924 $252,584

Project Manegere

Projoct Morfceting Managers

Survey

Permitting

Real Estate

$165,826

$90,342

$31,787

$52,688

$285,740

$0

$0 $0 SO

$0

$12,096

SO

$0

$0

$0

SO

$0 $260,500

$0 $0

SO

$159,656

SO

$1,371,400

$65,219,705

$102,599

$54,926

$65,913

$264,625

$11,176,235

$260,821

$304,026

$358,210

$1,686,913

$76,680,660

Projoct Monagomont & Support

Construction Labors Matortats

$626,694 $12,096 $260,500 $66,700,763 $11,663,300 $79,313,353

Contractor Mobilization

Wlms

Structures

Retirement

Conslmction Management

Forestry

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$54,406

$0 $477,253

$4,996,128

$-23,443

$0 $686,400

$0 $0 $0 $0

$12,096

$0

$186,000

$1,524,661

$4,042,742

$268,567

$135,392

$1,392,845

SO

$0

$0

$0

SO

$9,171

$57,208

$643,040

$2,794,011

$62,603

$49,850

$592,669

$243,206

$2,045,173

$12,732,881

$327,727

$217,338

$2,735,491

Construction Labors Matortats $54,406 $6,136,338 $12,096 $8,470,427 $9,171 $4,210,360 $18,901,617

Transmission Line 1 797,009 6,136,338 24,192 8,782,877 66,759,934 16.967,604 98.467,764

Slto Summary Report

2/8/2016 1:19:52PM

Page 1 of 2

«9 a

JiSi

fsJ y m

Dominion Energy

Projoct Namo 992466_TL2175 IDYLWOOD - TYSONS OH03_Trans Lln8s_C_2

Project ID 992466

Project Type Capital Project

Revision

Option

Business Unit

2

C

Trans Lines

Site Summary Report

Estimate Date

Prepared By

10/19/2017

Elizabeth KHcorian


VP MATERIAL

VP/O TECH EQUIPMENT

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

OTHER COSTS

MARKUP COSTS

TOTAL COST

Site Summary Report

2/8/2018 1:1Q:S2PM

Peg*2 of 2

&

Dominion Energy

Projoct Name 992166_TL2175IOYLWOOO-TYSONS OHMJTrans UnBS_A_0 Revision 0



Attachment Staff Set 1-(4)

Site Summary Report

Estimate Date

Prepared By

10/23/2017 Elizabeth Kricorian


VP MATERIAL

VP/DTECH EQUIPMENT

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

OTHER COSTS

MARKUP COSTS

TOTAL COST

Transmission Line 1

Engtnoorfng

Transmission Engineering

Structural Engineering

Telecommunications

187,633 $105,527

$0

$0 so so

so

so

so

so $95,375 $10,840

SO SO

so

$52,202 $92,160 $3,334

$139,886 $293,062 $14,174

Engtnooring

Project Management & Support

1193,210 $106,218 $147,697 $447,122

Real Estate

Project Mariteting Managers

Projeel Managers

Survey

Permitting

$285,740 $90,342

$165,926 $53,140 $69,283

$0 $0 $0 $113,877,730 $19,413,090 $133,376,569 $0 $0 $0 $159,656 $54,928 $304,928 $0 $12,096 $0 $0 $102,599 $280,621 $0 $0 $465,230 $0 $116,708 $637,078 $0 $0 $0 $1,790,534 $346,659 $2,212,476

Project Managomont & Support

Construction Labor & Matertala

$664,432 $12,096 $469,230 $115,633,922 $20,039,993 $138,611,673

Contractor Mobtttzatfon

Structures

Retirement

Construction Management

Forestry

$0 $0 $0 $0

$0

so

$0 $847,815

$0,564,042 $-73,137

$0

$0

$0 so so $0

$26,006 $0

$186,000 $1,761,211 $6,496,692

$667,274 $334,093

$4,569,409

$0 $0 $0 $0 $0

$54,685

$57,208 $852,247

$3,085,317 $205,233 $107,178

$1,308,418

$243,208 $3,461,072

$10,746,051 $769,366 $407,277

$5,952,512 Construction Labor & Matartals $0 $7,338,920 $26,006 $14,034,679 $94,689 $6,219,599 $27,61

Tranamlsslon Line 1 697,642 7,338,920 38,102 14,606,124 115,688,607 26,399,269 164,928,284

Site Summary Report

2/8/2018 1:23:16PM

Pago 1 of 2

I* m

r!^ <&

©

Dominion Energy

Project Namo 992466_TL2175IDYLWOOD -TYSONS OH04_Trans Llne3_A_0 Revision 0


Project Type CapKel Project Business Unit Trans Lines

Site Summary Report

Estimate Date

Preporod By

10/23/2017

Elizabeth Kricorian


VP MATERIAL

VP/DTECH EQUIPMENT

CONTRACTOR SERVICES

OTHER COSTS

MARKUP COSTS

TOTAL COST

Site Summary Report

2/8/2018 1:23:15PM

Papo 2 of 2


Virginia Electric and Power Comnanv Cage No. PtJR-2017-00143

Virginia State Cornoration Commission Staff gecop<I Set

The following response to Question No. 13 of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on April 3,2018 has been prepared under my supervision as it pertains to substation costs.

Wit Engineer HI Dominion Energy Technical Solutions, Inc.

The following response to Question No. 13 of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on April 3,2018 has been prepared under my supervision as it pertains to transmission line costs.

m m & & €0 M M m

z Elizabe^EKrlcorian Gatlin Engineer III Dominion Energy Technical Solutions, Inc.

Question No. 13 /

In the Compan/s response to Staff interrogatory No. 1-10, the Company provided the estimated costs (transmission line only) for constructing the four overhead routes. Please provide the estimated total costs for each of the four overhead routes, including substation costs as well.

Response:

See the chart below for total estimated cost for each of the four overhead routes, including substation costs. The values reported are in millions.

Overhead Route OH 01 OH 02 OH 03 OH 04

Total Estimated Cost $326.63 $125.83 $124.13 $190.53


m €1

Virginia Electric and Power Company Case No. PUR-2017-00143

Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff , Second Set

a

bS y &

The following response to Question No. 14 of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on April 3,2018 has been prepared under my supervision as it pertains to the Environmental Routing Study.

The following response to Question No. 14 of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on April 3,2018 has been prepared under my supervision as it maintains to maintenance and clearing.

Question No. 14

Table 4-1 of Appendix A (Overhead Route Description and Analysis) of the Environmental Routing Study states that "ftjhe existing easement widths vary depending on the location." For each of the lines (Lines #2035, #2029, #2108, #202, and #2010) included in the four overhead routes, please provide a range of easement widths maintained by the Company via pole line easements. Specifically, provide the minimum, maximum, and average width.

As discussed on page 55 of Appendix A of the Environmental Routing Study, a pole line easement is an easement or right-of-way to construct, operate, and maintain a line of poles, wires, attachments, ground connections, accessories, and appurtenances for transmitting and distributing electric power which typically restricts the physical location of the facilities and often includes rights for the Company to clear and maintain die right-of-way as well as operate and maintain its facilities. The easement typically includes all existing wires, structures, attachments, ground connections, accessories, and appurtenances, but is not for a designated right-of-way width like a typical right-of-way.

Transmission Forestry Coordinator Dominion Energy Virginia

Response:


P ®9 <&

The widths of the pole line easements for Lines #2035, #2029, #2108, #202, and #2010 are ^ variable. This is because the width at any given point along the lines depends upon, among other things, the location and type of poles or facilities, the Company's maintenance and clearing in y relationship to those facilities, the nature of the surroundings and vegetation, and the terms of the pole line easements, which themselves are variable. With respect to average widths, the ® Company strives to obtain a minimum clearance distance of 25 feet between vegetation and 230 kV conductor. The Company currently is unable to provide more specific width information for each line without physically walking, measuring, and/or surveying the pole line easements in the field.


©a

& Virginia Electric and Power Company Jg

Case No. PUR-2017-00143 ^ Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff W

Second Set

The following response to Question No. 15(a)-(d) of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Coiporation Commission Staff received on April 3,2018 has been prepared under my supervision.

•°C3 Elizabeth Kriconan Gatlin Engineer HI Dominion Energy Technical Solutions, Inc.

Question No. 15

On pages 3 and 4 of the Appendix to the Application, the Company discusses the structure replacement of an existing Tower 2097/177. Please answer the foUowing questions related to Tower 2097/177.

(a) What is the age of Tower 2097/177?

(b) Describe the current physical condition of Tower 2097/177.

(c) Provide the 10-year maintenance history of Tower 2097/177.

(d) Has Tower 2097/177 reached the end of its service life? If not, when does the Company expect Tower 2097/177 to reach its end of life?

(e) Please provide the anticipated cost recovery mechanism for the estimated replacement cost of $433,000.

Response:

(a) Tower 2097/177 was constructed in 1960 and has been in service for 59 years.

(b) All components of Tower 2097/177 were inspected on January 27,2018 and determined to be in good condition with neither structural maintenance nor replacement necessary at this time.


m

(c) The archived maintenance reports for Tower 2097/177 do not extend past 2011. See the ^ following: ^

Closed Maintenance inspections/reports: gji 03/09/2011 Foot Patrol: No issues identified. 11/29/2011 Conductor: Hot jumper on top right phase identified. 07/17/2013 Aerial Patrol: Broken Jumper identified. 07/18/2013 Foot Patrol: Re-inspection of broken jumper fiom Aerial report. 09/04/2014 Routine Line Patrol: No issues identified. 03/03/2017 Routine Line Patrol: No issues identified. 01/27/2018 Special Structure Inspection: No structural issues identified. Temporary jumpers identified for removal.

Open Maintenance insnections/renorts: 02/12/2018 Conductor: Remove temporary jumpers.

(d) Tower 2097/177 has not reached the end of its service life as indicated by the response for item (b). Industry guidelines estimate service life for steel structures are 40 to 60 years; however, the condition of structure 2097/177 currently does not warrant replacement.


00

Virginia Electric and Power Company Case No. PUR-2017-00143

Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff Second Set

© £ 0

The following response to Question No. 15(e) of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests 'for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff received on April 3,2018 has been prepared under my supervision.

Question No. 15

On pages 3 and 4 of the Appendix to the Application, the Company discusses the structure replacement of an existing Tower 2097/177. Please answer the following questions related to Tower 2097/177.

(a) What is the age of Tower 2097/177?

(b) Describe the current physical condition of Tower 2097/177.

(c) Provide the 10-year maintenance history of Tower 2097/177.

(d) Has Tower 2097/177 reached the end of its service life? If not, when does the Company expect Tower 2097/177 to reach its end of life?

(e) Please provide the anticipated cost recovery mechanism for the estimated replacement cost of $433,000.

e) The anticipated cost recovery mechanism for the estimated replacement cost of $433,000 is through the FERC formula rate, and ultimately, Rider Tl, like other transmission mitigation-related costs, such as costs related to pre-dulling galvanized towers.

Mark R. Gill Consulting Engineer Dominion Energy Virginia

Response:

I


09 ©

Virginia Electric and Power Company Case No. PUR-2017-00143 g

Virginia State Corporation Commission Staff M third Set 13

The following response to Question No. 17 of the Third Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents Propounded by Virginia. State Corporation Commission Staff received on April 18, 2018 has been prepared under my supervision.

lA. CPuJms AS

David J. DePippo ® D Senior Counsel Dominion Energy Services, Inc.

Question No. 17

Referencing the Company's proposal to replace lattice tower 2097/177, is it the Company's position that a certificate of public convenience and necessity is required in order for the Company to replace the tower?

Response:

The Company believes that Cornmissioh approval is necessary in Order for the Company to replace Structure 2097/177 for visual impact minimization reasons. Generally, under the Code of Virginiaj the Company must obtain approval from the Commission to construct and operate transmission facilities, including structure replacements, unless those activities are ordinary extensions or improvements in the Company's usual course of business. In order to perform Commission-approved construction or construction that, qualifies as ordinary extensions or impjcpvemenfs in, the Company's usual, course of business, the work must be necessary and supported by the .Company's engineering judgment.,

Based on the Company's inspection and review of Structure 2097/177, the structure is in good condition and does not need to be replaced for operational or maintenance reasons at this time. It also is not at its end of life, or part of a larger line (i. e., Line #2097);'that is at its end of life and in need of replacement at this time. Finally, the Company did not identify any future, planhed projects at this time that involve. Line #2097 or Otherwise that might necessitate the removdl Or replacement of Structure 2097/177. Accordingly, since the replacement of Structure 209.7/177 is for visual impact mitigation reasons and not needed based on engineering judgment, the Company believes that Commission approval is required.to replace Structure 2097/177.

Attachment 1

Map of Existing Facilities

EXISTING SYSTEM

A CI M y

Attachment 2

Map of Existing Facilities with Proposed Project

' V, . . /v / i \

' i p • • - " f ' • . r # - •T--.LTmsm

&:V i v. ••, •; ;• 'I ••. . • ? • • i - . . ' i . t o ' • • ^ v ' . ^ k w . I f \ , - l > v . - ' i/ e:"; yy1 Afc S Af•fsjiii fev ••'.

SfS' >•>" .... •'P'Tq

"; i ? j - A

' • • v " • . ' V • • > ' . ; / . . • w B ' * • ; • • *® • i.: • s* .... ****-;.?*?• •-! ••; •••• .»::-*&<? : s-••#-**<, .••.•.,: *• >'•••.•% a-v*. „ • ':- rC/U::•?.-j?y::F''' Sg..."v-^M

-•. p \ ^^

PI''; y f 1 •' ji^f?

.'V.' ^

m:: ^

& A f- •

• X * ' ^ s 1

11 f&:US

K - ' • i».:>v P5) 10 :

'• x- •

• \

\m> -•VJgjg-,'--. •.1.ii.) .• •

""''' . y <': '<*•'.-• 1 §} ^ i '-^' .'• y ..•v''' V'|-"i..j ]§ ll Si

•':1 S t 1 ibr '" .yW" •'i ^ ^ i'•^

. "• ' '• i i 11-" • • • , Au- •» :.: wa &s i

V&

. *•• '>.-w.. If ML - . i'VrlJ.! cAa't J:&2S

'.a U 11 <1 P- /•« 's 'K.

§0 43

<0

kS ffi!

Attachments 3

Cross-sectional views of Open Trenching and Horizontal Directional Drilling

H

Idylwood - Tysons Proposed 230 kV XLPE Cable System

Open Trench (Horizontal Configuration) §

Ul LD a UJ

VARIES BY ROW EASEMENT VS. BY PERMIT

3! £

a a UJ

(Si

(O

(SI

ASPHALT / NATIVE BACKFILL

FLUIDIZED THERMAL BACKFILL

CONCRETE DUCTBANK ~ 3000 PSI

B

B

4*6"

to •

% n o u

to • un

UJ i-o z UJ UJ in

$ 2 INCH PVC CONDUIT FOR SHEATH BONDING CABLE

A 2 INCH PVC CONDUIT FOR PROTECTIVE RELAYING

8 INCH PVC CONDUIT FOR ENERGIZED 230KV CABLE WITH PHASE POSITION

8 INCH PVC CONDUIT FOR SPARE

NQTESs 1. THIS DIMENSION WILL VARY DEPENDING ON CLEARANCES NEEDED WHEN CROSSING OTHER FACILITIES. 2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION METHOD FOR APPROXIMATELY 3.7 MILES. 3. LETTERS A.B. & C ADJACENT TO CONDUITS DENOTE CABLE PHASING 4. INFORMATION IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING

Idylwood - Tysons Proposed 230kV XLPE Cable System

Horizontal Directional Drill

SURFACE GRADE

10 & I

SEE NOTEi3

B C C B

-10'- -3' MIN1- -10' tMINJ- -3* (MIN)- -10--

-36' IMIN) •

4 INCH HOPE CONDUIT FOR SHEATH BONDING CABLE

4 INCH HOPE CONDUIT FOR PROTECTIVE RELAYING

10 INCH HOPE CONDUIT FOR ENERGIZED 230KV CABLE WITH PHASE POSITION

10 INCH HOPE COHJUIT FOR SPARE

NOTESi

1. LETTERS A3, ft C ADJACENT TO CONDUIT DENOTE CABLE PHASING 2. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION METHOD FOR APPROXIMATELY 3 MILE 3. BOREHOLE (SIZE TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR) 4. INFORMATION IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO FINAL ENGINEERING

Attachment 4

Map of Underground Alternatives

tyaofia T^AA '' t '' ***%

J r " * - . ' 9 • , i

r%^ t-vf- •%•. - >v^s^ v

fck;,;' ; i

' ••4\ ::; l \ r. ' ' * ', A* '

'Vsohi 1. V

ls«m) '.• r. •?

p-tW W : t*A \ '• •; i Sr' >

i ' ^ n Pocib D," . '.

. •' V •

<U.

»./= •V,.'.'¥-r|

jm:;?^ww*d fc >V^S&L^ .4 Jfcto ^ .•»•';•.• .•.>%„ .y v ,r *

..••&, •&»**$

T - i i V,

k • ^ • • K - ' " •• }.%. . .•

- ••; .-^ 4' ^ • & . . . : • • i

M

t ^ •. I- •'i-.; . • • :•. ' i \ •

• r ^ ' • * ' ' ' * -\ '«'

•'•'• • ' .'irt ' "5#•' ', '• .'•' .*

-V

y p K

wsr\> v* ' ;:i _ vT •' ^ i"

•••: , ,<?'•'"' /

••:x-

V";^05 ' '

•SS-WS ^S^br85®? r5^*"

•. Su

Mou^> • CHURTI, •0a' issa . -_, -»*.«/ ERftf %^s>«

^ttzchment 5

^aP of Overhead Routes ! Ik fyi

CO · 6 A2. The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor the Staff Report on the Application of 7...

Documents

Transcript of CO · 6 A2. The purpose of my testimony is to sponsor the Staff Report on the Application of 7...