Proposal for Decision on Transmission Lines in west Frisco

8/20/2019 Proposal for Decision on Transmission Lines in west Frisco

1/64

SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855

PUC DOCKET NO. 44060

APPLICATION OF BRAZOS

ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIE!

INC. TO A"END A CERTIFICATE OF

CONENIENCE AND NECESSIT#

FOR A 138-K TRANS"ISSION LINEIN DENTON COUNT#

$

$

$

$

$$

$

BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE

OF

AD"INISTRATIE HEARIN%S

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION AND SU""AR# OF RECO""ENDATION..............................1

II. &URISDICTION! NOTICE! AND PROCEDURAL HISTOR#....................................2

III. THE PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................3

I. APPLICATION..................................................................................................................3

. NEED..................................................................................................................................4

A. N'('))*+, + S'+/('..................................................................................................4

1. R'*, * A'*(, ' I'+('(' T+*)9))

S,)'9............................................................................................................6

2. F*(*' R) W')*' C9:'..................................................7

B. R'(99'* +9 * I':'' O+;*


2/64

SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PA%E 2


. S()................................................................................................20

'. H**' S+(+')..........................................................................21

. D)())...........................................................................................21

4. R'(+'** * P*+> A+'*).....................................................................22

5. H)+(* * A')'( *').................................................................23

6. E/+9'* I';+,.............................................................................24

7. P+*' I9:+/'9' S'+/(' + L='+; C) C)9'+)

' A+'*....................................................................................................24

8. E'( ' S*'?) R''=*' E'+;, %*)........................................24

. F*(+) 16 T'@*) A9)+*/' C' $ 25.1013B...................25

*. E;''+; C)+*)...................................................................25

. C))....................................................................................................27

(. C9:*' ROW! P+:'+, B*+')! * N*+* * C+*F'*+')...............................................................................................28

. P+' A/*(' * H**' S+(+').................................28

10. A'+*/' R') = L')) I9:*( L*='+)............................31

*. H,+ R'......................................................................................31

. A* C)) A))(*' = L*='+ P+''+'(')............31

. P*+')? A+;9')................................................................31

. P+:)' S).................................................................37

. D)())...............................................................................3

C. D'9)+*' E('(,..........................................................................................40

II. TEAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPART"ENT....................................................40

III. ANAL#SIS AND RECO""ENDATION.....................................................................43

I. FINDIN%S OF FACT! CONCLUSIONS OF LAW! AND ORDERIN% PARA%RAPHS

...........................................................................................................................................4

A. F;) F*(........................................................................................................4

B. C()) L*=...................................................................................................5

C. O+'+; P*+*;+*:)...............................................................................................60

SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855



3/64



APPLICATION OF BRAZOS

ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIE!

INC. TO A"END A CERTIFICATE OF

CONENIENCE AND NECESSIT#

FOR A 138-K TRANS"ISSION LINE

IN DENTON COUNT#

$

$$

$

$

$

$

BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE

OF

AD"INISTRATIE HEARIN%S

PROPOSAL FOR DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION AND SU""AR# OF RECO""ENDATION

This proposal for decision (PFD) recommends that Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.s

(Brazos Electric) Certificate of Convenience and !ecessit" (CC!) #e amended to constr$ct a new %&'

ilovolt (*) transmission line from Tap % to a new s$#station alon+ o$te -, $sin+ e+ments ', /, -,

0, &, 1, and endin+ at the north s$#station.

The proposed ro$tes can #e +enerall" divided into fo$r +ro$ps2 ro$tes that r$n alon+

tone#roo Parwa" overhead3 the same ro$tes $nder+ro$nd3 ro$tes that r$n alon+ 4ain treet

overhead3 and those same ro$tes $nder+ro$nd. There is also the possi#ilit" of a h"#rid ro$te with some

se+ments r$nnin+ a#ove +ro$nd and others r$nnin+ #elow +ro$nd. In +eneral, the tone#roo Parwa"

ro$tes are lon+er and more e5pensive than the similarl"constr$cted 4ain treet ro$tes. The primar"

disp$te in this case is whether the chosen ro$te sho$ld r$n overhead or $nder+ro$nd. The secondar"

disp$te concerns whether the s$#station sho$ld #e located north or so$th of 6in+ oad. 7ll parties

e5cept Brazos Electric and the taff of the P$#lic 8tilit" Commission of Te5as (taff9Commission)

s$pport an $nder+ro$nd line. Brazos Electric will #$ild whichever line is $ltimatel" approved.

7ll parties e5cept taff and Brazos Electric s$pport the approval of o$te %, which r$ns

$nder+ro$nd for almost its entire len+th alon+ 4ain treet. The intervenors in this case s$#mitted a

non$nanimo$s tip$lation (tip$lation) in s$pport of o$te % that was a+reed to #" all intervenors.

!either taff nor Brazos Electric :oined the tip$lation.


4/64



taff opposes o$te % #eca$se of the hi+h cost of r$nnin+ a transmission line $nder+ro$nd and

#eca$se an $nder+ro$nd line is not necessar" to accommodate an" en+ineerin+ or other constraints.%

taff is also opposed to the tip$lation d$e to the potential precedentsettin+ nat$re of this case. taff

ar+$es that o$te ;, which r$ns overhead alon+ 4ain treet and $ses the so$th s$#station, is the most

compliant with the applica#le law. Brazos Electric is concerned a#o$t recoverin+ the cost of

constr$ctin+ a line $nder+ro$nd and s$pports o$te -, which r$ns overhead alon+ 4ain treet and $ses

the north s$#station.

>%, &/.>-&, &/.>-;, and &/.>-/, and %; Te5as

7dministrative Code A 1-.%>%. The tate >&.>0@ and P87 A%0.>-&, over all matters relatin+ to the cond$ct of a

hearin+ in this matter. !otice and proced$ral histor" were not contested and are addressed witho$t

disc$ssion in the findin+s of fact and concl$sions of law. 7dministrative ?aw =$d+es (7?=s) tephanie

Frazee and end" arvel convened the hearin+ on =$l" 1/, 1>%-, and the record closed on eptem#er

% Tr. at %';'/3 taff E5. % at 1>1%.


5/64



%%, 1>%-, followin+ posthearin+ #riefin+. The parties had the opport$nit" to s$#mit #" %-, additional limited #riefin+ respondin+ to the proposal of a h"#rid ro$te.

III. THE PARTICIPANTS

This proceedin+ drew a lar+e n$m#er of intervenors. In addition, tho$sands of comments were filed

prior to the hearin+, and man" contin$ed to #e filed after the concl$sion of the hearin+. 7t the hearin+

on the merits, man" intervenors activel" participated #" $estionin+ witnesses, presentin+ evidence,

and raisin+ o#:ections. ome intervenors participated less at the hearin+ #$t remained active

thro$+ho$t the case and filed posthearin+ #riefs. The active intervenors incl$ded the B$r" the ?ines

(BT?) Intervenors, which +ro$p is comprised of appro5imatel" />> mem#ers, most of whom are

homeowners2 Frisco3 CT4T Frisco %11 ??C (Cent$rion)3 Frisco Cham#er of Commerce (Cham#er)3

T tone#roo ?.P.3 ar" Development, ??C3 taff3 herrie alas3 and =im Fo5.

I. APPLICATION

!o part" challen+ed the ade$ac" of the 7pplication or re$ested a ro$te ade$ac" hearin+.1

The 7pplication contains 1> alternative ro$tes for the Proposed Pro:ect, fo$r possi#le tap locations, and

two possi#le s$#station locations. %-, deemin+ the 7pplication Gs$fficient and materiall" complete.H&

7ltho$+h the" did not challen+e the ade$ac" of the 7pplication, the BT? Intervenors contend

in their #riefin+ that the 7pplication contains too few ro$tin+ alternatives. owever, the alternatives

were limited #eca$se of $n$s$al constraints in the t$d" 7rea. The t$d" 7rea is east of ?ae

?ewisville and west of the Dallas !orth Tollwa", located within Frisco and the Town of ?ittle Elm.

The land in the t$d" 7rea is primaril" s$#$r#an development with sin+lefamil" residential

nei+h#orhoods and commercial developments alon+ ma:or roads, incl$din+ planned nei+h#orhoods

1 Preliminar"


6/64



with dense ho$sin+ and small nei+h#orhood pars.0 Brazos Electric a+rees that the t$d" 7rea was

constrained d$e to new and on+oin+ constr$ction, planned commercial development, and school

development.-

There are lar+e n$m#ers of ha#ita#le str$ct$res alon+ each potential ro$te, var"in+

#etween 10; and 1-%, despite the relativel" short len+th of the proposed ro$tes.

7ltho$+h Brazos Electric considered ro$tin+ the line #oth across 7rm" Corps of En+ineers

(Corps) land and Te5as Department of Transportation (T5D


7/64



line, altho$+h it wants the line to r$n $nder+ro$nd.' The BT? Intervenors specificall" state in their

initial #rief that the" do not contest need.@ Cent$rion reco+nizes the need for the line.%>

The proposed facilities are necessar" for the service, accommodation, convenience, and safet"

of the p$#lic within the meanin+ of P87 A &/.>-;(a), tain+ into acco$nt the factors set o$t in P87

A &/.>-;(c).%% Denton Co$nt", specificall" in and aro$nd Frisco, has e5perienced a hi+h level of load

+rowth over the past few "ears and is +rowin+ at a pace that will e5ceed the e5istin+ electric

distri#$tion capacit".%1 ?oad +rowth is e5pected to contin$e at a rapid pace, which will red$ce the

capa#ilit" of e5istin+ distri#$tion feeders to provide relia#le service. %& This rapid +rowth increases the

ris of o$ta+e to a si+nificant pop$lation area witho$t the addition of a new s$#station s$ppl" so$rce. %0

The addition of the proposed facilities will serve the new load +rowth and increase relia#ilit" #"

red$cin+ the #$rden on e5istin+ s$#stations and their feeders #" addin+ another transmission so$rce

and s$#station to the area.%- 8pon review of the 7pplication and other applica#le materials, taff

concl$ded the Proposed Pro:ect is Gnecessar" for the service, accommodation, convenience, and safet"

of the p$#lic.H%; 7dditionall", neither Frisco nor the BT? Intervenors or other intervenors disp$te the

need for service.%/ taff conc$rs that the line is necessar".%' Therefore, the 7?=s find that the proposed

' Frisco E5. % at 1%.@ BT? Intervenors Initial Brief at '.%> Cent$rion Initial Brief at 0.%% Preliminar" -;(a) tain+ into acco$nt thefactors set o$t in P87 A &/.%-;(c) In addition, a) ow does the proposed facilit" s$pport therelia#ilit" and ade$ac" of the interconnected transmission s"stem #) Does the proposed facilit"facilitate ro#$st wholesale competition c) hat recommendation, if an", has an independentor+anization, as defined in P87 A &@.%-%, made re+ardin+ the proposed facilit" d) Is the proposedfacilit" needed to interconnect a new transmission service c$stomer Preliminar"


8/64



facilities are necessar" for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safet" of the p$#lic.

1. R'*, * A'*(, ' I'+('(' T+*)9)) S,)'9

Brazos Electric is a wholesale power and ener+" provider for its mem#ers, all of which are

Te5as electric distri#$tion cooperatives.%@ Coerv Electric (Coerv) is one of the owners and mem#er

cooperatives of Brazos Electric.1> Coerv has a franchise a+reement with Frisco.1%

!o part" challen+ed Brazos Electrics evidence showin+ how the Proposed Pro:ect will s$pport

the relia#ilit" and ade$ac" of the interconnected transmission s"stem.11 The Proposed Pro:ect will

provide service to the tone#roo $#station, which is re$ired to provide +reater relia#ilit" and serve

load in a fast+rowin+ area of Denton Co$nt". apid +rowth increases the ris of o$ta+e to a

si+nificant pop$lation area witho$t a new s$#station s$ppl" so$rce. 7dditionall", the pace of load

+rowth will e5ceed Coervs a#ilit" to relia#l" meet the need with its e5istin+ distri#$tion facilities. 1&

The proposed transmission facilit" s$pports the relia#ilit" and ade$ac" of the interconnected

transmission s"stem #" providin+ necessar" transmission s$pport to alleviate capacit" demands and

improve service relia#ilit".10 The added transmission facilities will red$ce the #$rden on e5istin+

s$#stations and distri#$tion feeders, there#" #enefittin+ the interconnected transmission s"stem.

%@ Brazos E5. 1 at -;.1> Id.1% taff E5. 0.11 See e.g., Frisco E5. / at ; (statin+, GThe Cit" Jof FriscoK taes no iss$e with the need for the lineand s$pports infrastr$ct$re improvements to the Cit".H)1& Brazos E5. % at %0%-.10 Id.


9/64

SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855 PROPOSAL FOR DECISION PA%E


2. F*(*' R) W')*' C9:'

The Proposed Pro:ect will have no si+nificant effect on the wholesale power maret and is

proposed to provide service to the tone#roo $#station in order to ade$atel" serve an ever

increasin+ load in a fast+rowin+ area of Denton Co$nt".

B. R'(99'* +9 * I':'' O+;*


10/64



ca$ses distri#$tion losses to increase and relia#ilit" of service to decrease. 1@ In addition, lon+er feeders

have more e5pos$re to o$ta+e and are, therefore, less relia#le. The addition of distri#$tion feeders to

e5istin+ s$#stations that are alread" at or near ma5im$m capacit" complicates operations and f$rther

red$ces relia#ilit".&>

?en+thenin+ distri#$tion circ$its is not costeffective, as the constr$ction wo$ld #e non

standard and ro$ted thro$+h hi+hl" constrained areas of e5istin+ development.&% In fact, the

distri#$tion alternatives e5ceeded the cost of the Proposed Pro:ect in man" cases.&1 8ltimatel",

$ernse" concl$ded that the distri#$tion alternatives were not feasi#le as Gno distri#$tion option

Jco$ldK meet the pro:ected demand within the t$d" 7reaH and Gthe load +rowth in the t$d" 7rea is

simpl" too +reat to #e served #" a distri#$tion sol$tion.H&&

The Proposed Pro:ect is the #est option when compared to emplo"in+ distri#$tion facilities,

distri#$ted +eneration, or ener+" efficienc" to meet the need. !o part" challen+ed Brazos Electrics

evidence concernin+ this iss$e.&0

I. ROUTE

A. B*(>;+

7fter wei+hin+ the factors, o$te - is the #est alternative #eca$se it #est #alances all of the

relevant criteria.&- 7ltho$+h o$te ; has sli+ht environmental #enefits, all parties e5cept taff s$pport

o$te -, most of the intervenors stron+l" oppose o$te ; d$e to its $se of the so$thern s$#station, and

o$te - is less e5pensive than o$te ;. o$te % and the "#rid o$te are s$#stantiall" more e5pensive

1@ Id . at @&.&> Id . at %;.&% Id . at %-%;.&1 Id . at @1@&.&& Id . at @@.&0 See e.g., Frisco E5. / at ;.&- ee Preliminar" -;(c) and J%; Te5. 7dmin. Code A 1-.%>%(#)(&)(B)K


11/64



d$e to #$rial of the line or a portion of the line, and the costs have not #een s$fficientl" :$stified or

offset #" the parties that prefer #$rial of the proposed line.

The 7pplication incl$des 1> ro$te alternatives for the Proposed Pro:ect, fo$r possi#le tap

locations, and two possi#le s$#station locations.&; There are two inds of proposed ro$tes (overhead

and $nder+ro$nd) in two locations (alon+ the median of 4ain treet and alon+ the median of

tone#roo Parwa"). !o parties recommended an" of the ro$tes alon+ tone#roo Parwa".&/ The

4ain treet ro$tes are shorter and less e5pensive and impact fewer pars, historic and archeolo+ical

sites, stream crossin+s, floodplains, and woodlands than the tone#roo Parwa" ro$tes.&'

Brazos Electric recommends $se of o$te - and +enerall" recommends an overhead ro$te. &@

owever, Brazos Electric also proposes a h"#rid overhead9$nder+ro$nd ro$te that wo$ld involve

#$r"in+ onl" e+ment 0 of the chosen ro$te.0> taff s$pports an overhead line, specificall" o$te ;.

7ll intervenors s$pport o$te %, which is the $nder+ro$nd ro$te alon+ 4ain treet.

D$e to the favora#le characteristics of these preferred ro$tes in comparison with the remainin+

ro$tes proposed, the 7?=s concentrate their anal"sis on o$tes %, -, and ;, as well as Brazos Electrics

s$++ested "#rid o$te, descri#ed in the ta#le #elow.0%

ROUTE TAP POINTLINKSSUBSTATION DESCRIPTION

&; Brazos E5. %3 see also Brazos E5. 0 at %0.&/ The BT? Intervenors too no position on whether a 4ain treet or a tone#roo Parwa" ro$te was prefera#le3 their position is that the onl" accepta#le alternative is an $nder+ro$nd ro$te.&' taff E5. 1 at /. 7dditionall", the tone#roo Parwa" ro$tes involve c$rved paths, impacts to planned and e5istin+ Frisco ID schools, and a private airstrip. taff E5. 1 at /'.&@ Brazos Electric stated that o$te % wo$ld #e the #est $nder+ro$nd ro$te. Brazos E5. % at %@.0> In its epl" Brief, Brazos Electric reasoned that e+ment 0, at ',--@ feet, is the lon+est se+ment inthe 4ain treet ro$tes and passes thro$+h the most densel"pop$lated residential area of 4ain treet.Brazos epl" Brief at 03 Brazos E5. % at %-%, 7ttachment 1 at B%. The remainin+ se+ments total ;,@1/feet and primaril" pass thro$+h commercial or $ndeveloped areas. Brazos epl" Brief at 03 Brazos E5.% at %-@%;&3 see also


12/64



o$te % Tap %Me+ment 'Me+ment /Me+ment -M e+ment 0Me+ment &Me+ment 1M $#station !orth

8nder+ro$nd ro$te alon+ 4aintreet median s$pported #"intervenors

"#rido$te

Tap %Ne+ment 'Ne+ment /Ne+ment - Ne+ment 0Ne+ment &Ne+ment 101

>0(d)3 see also Tr. at %'/.


13/64



meetin+ these factors, also compares favora#l" to other proposed ro$tes with re+ard to the n$m#er of

ha#ita#le str$ct$res that will #e affected.00

7ccordin+ to taff, the Commission sho$ld not approve an" $nder+ro$nd ro$te for the proposed

transmission line. taff asserts that there are no compellin+ circ$mstances that re$ire #$r"in+ the

proposed line and that doin+ so is $nnecessar". taffs e5pert witness, =ohn Poole, testified2

I cannot find an" compellin+ circ$mstances presented #" the Cit" of Frisco, the BT?Intervenors, or other intervenors to this proceedin+ that wo$ld :$stif" #$ildin+ the proposed transmission line on o$tes % and 0 Jthe $nder+ro$nd ro$tesK in li+ht of thesecost concerns, especiall" when other via#le, less costl" ro$tes for Brazos Coops proposed transmission line are availa#le.0-

taff also notes that the proposed line does not need to #e #$ried from an operational standpoint

and that GJfKrom an electrical networ point of view, Jthe overhead and $nder+ro$nd ro$tes areK

identical.H0; 7dditionall", taff ar+$es that the EC


14/64



%. The a#ove +ro$nd ro$tes proposed #" Brazos Electric conflict with previo$sl" planned

cit" infrastr$ct$re improvements and street widenin+.0@ owever, coordination of

constr$ction #etween Brazos Electric and Frisco co$ld lead to savin+s for the cost

estimate Brazos Electric has s$++ested for placement of transmission $nder+ro$nd.->

1. Traffic con+estion maes overhead $se of the median on 4ain treet a si+nificant safet"

hazard.-%

&. It is $n$s$al to find a si+nificant proposed transmission line corridor that has so man"

ha#ita#le str$ct$res and that is opposed #" all intervenors as well as the comm$nit"

where the line is to #e located.-1 0. Contri#$tions offered #" Frisco and the opport$nit" for cooperation #etween Brazos

Electric and Frisco can ne$tralize an" seemin+ cost advanta+e for an a#ove +ro$ndoption over an $nder+ro$nd option.-&

-. Even if the incremental difference #etween $nder+ro$nd and a#ove +ro$nd options

(appro5imatel" O1' million) is acc$rate and there is no offset offered #" Frisco, the

res$ltin+ impact on end $se ratepa"ers within EC


15/64



o$te %, the $nder+ro$nd 4ain treet ro$te that was s$pported #" the intervenors, is the same

len+th as o$te - and is estimated to cost appro5imatel" O1' million more than o$tes - and ;.-/ The

"#rid o$te is estimated to cost O1%,1;/,&;1.'%, which red$ces the incremental cost of #$rial from

O1',;0;,0>1 to O%-,;&',/;0.'%.-' owever, the intervenors do not s$pport the "#rid o$te as their

position is that the entire line sho$ld #e #$ried.

2. A'*(, E@); S'+/('! N'' + A* S'+/('! * E'( %+*; '

CCN O(+ * *, E'(+( U, S'+/; ' P+@9*' A+'*

The parties, with the e5ception of 4s. alas, do not disp$te the need for additional service.-@

The pro:ected load +rowth in the t$d" 7rea led to the need for the proposed transmission

line.;> pecificall", GJtKhe t$d" 7reas historical +rowth rate indicates contin$ed e5pansion of

residential ho$sin+ developments, office #$ildin+ comple5es, and retail9commercial comple5es,H;% and

GJpKea demands are e5pected to +row ann$all" #etween ; percent and %> percent.H;1 7s a res$lt of this

anticipated +rowth, Gthe forecasted 1>10 demand of -;/.0 4 in the t$d" 7rea is %&0.1 4 short of

-/ Brazos E5. %, 7ttachment 1 at %->.-' Brazos Electric epl" Brief at 0.

-@ 4s. alas offered the followin+ ar+$ment re+ardin+ need in her posthearin+ #rief2 alf of oman=$arez s$#station is #ein+ +iven to a sin+le entit" that will convert that ener+" to #e resold as data ener+".7t the ver" least this had to affect the poor plannin+ #" Coerv.

oman =$arez was #$ilt for G$s,H paid for #" G$s,H #eca$se we needed it.

?astl" I leave "o$ with a $ote occ$rrin+ in man" of the articles coverin+ the new deal with this datacenter.

The location has access to plent" of power. G7 s$#station on site made it appealin+, and

theres capacit" for $p to 1-> me+awatts,H Carnes said. Ge +ot the $tilit" to commit$p to -> me+awatts for the site so far.H

1-> 4 is the complete amo$nt availa#le at oman =$arez. alas Brief at 0.

;> The t$d" 7rea is G#o$nded #" i+hwa" %1% on the o$th, the Dallas !orth Tollwa" on the East,i+hwa" &'> on the !orth, and arza?ittle Elm eservoir (?ewisville ?ae) on the est.H BrazosE5. & at /.;% Id.;1 Id. at '.


16/64



c$rrent capacit".H;& Th$s, GJlKoad +rowth is occ$rrin+ at a pace that will e5ceed JCoerv ElectricsK

a#ilit" to relia#l" meet the need with e5istin+ distri#$tion facilities.H;0

The proposed transmission line, rather than distri#$tion sol$tions, will meet the need for

additional service in the t$d" 7rea. Brazos Electric determined that GJtKhe load +rowth in the t$d"

7rea is simpl" too +reat to #e served #" a distri#$tion sol$tion.H;- The distri#$tion sol$tions eval$ated

#" $ernse" on #ehalf of Brazos Electric were cost prohi#itive, not feasi#le d$e to the e5istin+

s$#stations in the t$d" 7rea lacin+ s$fficient capacit" to s$ppl" the total pro:ected demand in the

t$d" 7rea, or not operationall" feasi#le.;; Th$s, Ga transmission and s$#station option m$st #e

considered to serve the anticipated load in the t$d" 7rea.H ;/ Brazos Electrics proposed transmission

line and the proposed additional tone#roo $#station will meet the need for additional service in the

t$d" 7rea #eca$se the" Gwill serve the forecasted load +rowth and red$ce the #$rden on the e5istin+

s$#stations and their feeders.H;'

3.C99, *')

7ltho$+h the term Gcomm$nit" val$esH is not formall" defined in Commission r$les or in

P87, the term has #een descri#ed as Ga shared appreciation of an area or other nat$ral or h$manreso$rce #" a national, re+ional, or local comm$nit". 7dverse effects $pon comm$nit" val$es consist

;& Id.;0 Brazos E5. % at %0. Coerv Electric is the electric provider in the t$d" 7rea. Id. at ';. The t$d"7rea is Gc$rrentl" served from feeders from JCoerv ElectricsK Brid+es, Frisco, e#ron, PantherCree, and oman =$arez $#stations.H Brazos E5. & at /.;- Brazos E5. % at '.;; The ten distri#$tion sol$tions are (%) distri#$ted reso$rces (cost prohi#itive)3 (1) photovoltaic+eneration (cost prohi#itive and $ntimel")3 (&) hi+h volta+e direct c$rrent e5press circ$it (cost prohi#itive)3 (0) hi+htemperat$re cond$ctor e5press circ$it (cost prohi#itive and e5istin+ s$#stationslac s$fficient capacit")3 (-) conversion to &-* (cost prohi#itive)3 (;) lar+er 7C cond$ctor e5press10.@* circ$it (e5istin+ s$#stations lac s$fficient capacit")3 (/) lar+e stora+e #atter" installations(cost prohi#itive)3 (') 0;* s$#transmission constr$ction (cost prohi#itive)3 (@) contin$ed distri#$tionservice at 10.@* $sin+ c$rrent constr$ction methods (e5istin+ s$#stations lac s$fficient capacit"3and (%>) contin$ed distri#$tion at 10.@* $sin+ alternative constr$ction methods (not operationall"feasi#le). Brazos E5. % at ''@@.;/ Brazos E5. & at '.;' Brazos E5. % at %-.


17/64



of those aspects of a proposed pro:ect that wo$ld si+nificantl" alter the $se, en:o"ment, or intrinsic

val$e attached to an important area or reso$rce #" a comm$nit".H;@

To address and consider comm$nit" val$es, Brazos Electric held a civic leader meetin+ and a

p$#lic open ho$se meetin+. $estionnaires and p$#lic comments, #oth written and ver#al, were

accepted for consideration d$rin+ and followin+ the meetin+s. Based on the feed#ac that Brazos

Electric received, it dela"ed filin+ the 7pplication #" a "ear to wor with Frisco to develop alternative

ro$tes./>

The civic leader meetin+ was held on =$l" 1&, 1>%&, in Frisco, Te5as. Invitations were mailed

to 0% people. i5teen people attended the meetin+, incl$din+ representatives from Frisco, the Cit" of

The Colon", Denton Co$nt", and vario$s development companies.

The p$#lic open ho$se meetin+ was held on 7$+$st %/, 1>%&. The meetin+ was advertised in

three local newspapers. ?andowners within &>> feet of the centerline of each alternative ro$te se+ment

and s$#station location were notified #" direct mail notices. 7 total of ;%@ notices were mailed.

Twent"ei+ht similar notices were mailed to p$#lic officials. 7 total of ;%1 people si+ned in at the

meetin+. 7fter the meetin+, -%/ letters were mailed to landowners who were notified of the meetin+ #$t did not attend.

7 total of %@> $estionnaires were completed and s$#mitted for consideration./% event"three

other written comments were s$#mitted and &0 phone in$iries and comments were received./1

7dditionall", #" the date of the hearin+, #etween ;,>>> and /,>>> comments had #een filed, with the

ma:orit" re$estin+ that the transmission line #e installed $nder+ro$nd./& Comments contin$ed to #e

filed after the hearin+.

;@ Application of LCRA Transmission Services Corporation to Amend its Certificate of Convenienceand Necessity for a 345!ilovolt "o#$leCirc#it Line in Cald%ell, adal#pe, 'ays, Travis and

(illiamson Co#nties, Te)as, Docet !o. &&@/', Tr. at %000;./% This n$m#er represents the total as of , 1>%0. Brazos E5. % at 1%./1 Id ./& Tr. at %>@%>.


18/64



Frisco and the other intervenors a+ree in their assertion that an overhead ro$te wo$ld #e

contrar" to the comm$nit" val$es of the west Frisco area. It is $ndisp$ted that residents of Frisco

wo$ld fre$entl" enco$nter the overhead lines d$rin+ ever"da" activities s$ch as drivin+, #iin+, or

walin+. The main comm$nit" concerns that arose d$rin+ the pendenc" of this case incl$de perceived

ne+ative impacts on propert" val$es3 aesthetic concerns3 interference with Friscos plans for street

e5pansion and additional water infrastr$ct$re3 health riss, especiall" for children and the elderl"3

pro5imit" of the proposed line to schools3 interference with views3 thwartin+ of Friscos cit" plannin+

and #ea$tification efforts3 ris of lost reven$e for local #$sinesses and ta5 reven$e for Frisco and Frisco

ID3 and impact on f$t$re land development.

The BT? Intervenors s$mmarized their concerns/0 as follows2

CONCERN PERCENT OF BTL INTERENORS

WITH CONCERN

7dverse impact on propert" val$es @;.&

7dverse impact on real estaterelated #orrowin+opport$nities

@&./

7dverse impact on #$siness reven$e @%.&

7dverse impact on nei+h#orhood safet" (incl$din+

health concerns)

'/.1

7dverse impact on children d$e to pro5imit" toschools

/@./

7dverse impact on f$t$re home sites /0.0

7dverse vis$al impacts (aesthetics) [email protected]

7dverse impact on Friscos development plans '.%

/0 BT? Initial Brief at 0.


19/64



*. P+:'+, *')

The BT? Intervenors assert that altho$+h overhead ro$tes ma" #e the GlowcostH option for

Brazos Electric, the" are the Ghi+hcostH option in the lar+er pict$re #eca$se of the e5pected decrease in

propert" val$es associated with overhead ro$tes./- The BT? Intervenors provided testimon" statin+

that the installation of overhead lines wo$ld have a ne+ative effect on homeowners a#ilities Gto receive

a fair maret val$e and a positive ret$rn on investment for their homes, sho$ld the" wish to sell.H /;

The" also s$#mitted testimon" that this decrease in propert" val$es wo$ld ne+ativel" affect cit"

services provided to enhance the $alit" of life in Frisco #eca$se of a diminished ta5 #ase. // The BT?

Intervenors also ar+$e that overhead lines wo$ld ca$se millions of dollars of dama+es to Frisco d$e to

chan+es in its development plans and possi#le lost propert" ta5 reven$es to Frisco ID. The BT?

Intervenors assert that the onl" wa" to miti+ate the dama+e to the comm$nit" that wo$ld #e ca$sed #"

the proposed transmission line is to #$r" it $nder+ro$nd.

. S*',

The BT? Intervenors and Frisco also have safet"related concerns re+ardin+ r$nnin+ an

overhead transmission line in the middle of 4ain treet, which is a heavil" traveled road. /' Friscos

witness arold ?. $+hes, =r., an E5ec$tive Cons$ltant with eolved Ener+" Cons$ltin+, ??C, stated

that GJiKt is asin+ for tro$#le to have tho$sands of cars travelin+ within inches of transmission

/- See BT? E5. ; at %>./; See, e.g., BT? E5. ; at %>3 see also BT? E5s. %-, '%%.// BT? E5. ; at %>3 BT? E5. / at -;3 BT? E5. ' at ;3 Direct Testimon" of =ennifer =acson at ;. Theintervenin+ parties e5pressed fr$stration for GCoervs poor plannin+H thro$+ho$t this proceedin+,attri#$tin+ the need for a transmission line in a heavil" pop$lated area to a lac of plannin+ onCoervs part. 7ccordin+ to Frisco, Coerv developed an e5pansion plan in 1>>/. owever, that planwas p$t on hold d$e to the national recession from 1>>'1>%%. Development in Frisco and thes$rro$ndin+ area contin$ed despite the recession, and the areas that had #een availa#le for inlines$#stations were lost to development. Frisco epl" Brief at %%. Brazos Electric co$ntered that Coerv planned appropriatel" and that, even if it had implemented a plan in 1>>/, the transmission line wo$ldhave impacted f$t$re +rowth of the Frisco area. Brazos epl" Brief at %&%0. The 7?=s $nderstand thefr$stration of the parties re+ardin+ the location of the proposed transmission line #$t note that thecirc$mstances that led to the necessit" of the proposed line #ein+ located on a developed street iso$tside of the scope of in$ir" #efore the 7?=s./' Frisco E5. / at %>%%.


20/64



str$ct$res that s$pport a line that is providin+ a main so$rce of power for the Cit" and s$rro$ndin+

comm$nities. 7n $nder+ro$nd line wo$ld not present these safet" . . . concerns.H/@

7dditionall", Brazos Electrics witness Eri $++eri, the en+ineer who will oversee

constr$ction of the transmission line, testified that GJ+K$ard rails wo$ld #e pr$dent in areas where the

median is narrowNless than @ feet.H'> Friscos planned road e5pansion will narrow the median to three

feet in some areas.'% Th$s, the BT? Intervenors are concerned that, even with +$ard rails installed,

placin+ a transmission line in the median of a #$s" road will $nreasona#l" hei+hten the ris of traffic

accidents involvin+ the poles.'1 Frisco a+rees that if transmission towers can #e installed in the median,

the" wo$ld create si+nificant and potentiall" deadl" traffic hazards.'&

The BT? Intervenors also note the fre$enc" of storms in !orth Te5as as another so$rce of

safet" concerns. The" assert that s$ch storms can $pend or collapse a transmission tower and that

e5posin+ residents and comm$ters to a collapsed tower or downed transmission line is an $nreasona#le

ris. The" view the ris as worse if the median in a si5lane roadwa" is onl" three feet wide.'0

(. F+)(?) D'/':9' P*)

The BT? Intervenors also have concerns re+ardin+ the ne+ative impact that an overhead line

wo$ld have on Friscos development plans3 the" Gtae +reat pride in what JtheirK Cit" and its leaders

/@ Frisco E5. % at 1%.'> Brazos E5. ; at '.'% tip$lation at 0.'1 The BT? Intervenors also reference a T5D%-. Tr. at 1%/%', 111, 11-1;, 10-0;.'0 tip$lation at &.


21/64



have #een a#le to accomplish in t$rnin+ Frisco into . . . the Qcrown :ewel of Te5as.H '- BT? Intervenor

witness 6endall 4eade e5plained that

7s a master planned comm$nit", Frisco has +iven m$ch tho$+ht and taen +reat care inthe development of the cit". Friscos leaders tae calc$lated and well tho$+hto$t stepsto ens$re that Frisco is a GpremierH cit". The" have invested a +reat deal of ta5pa"er dollars in main+ o$r Cit" the #est it can #e. If the proposed overhead lines are allowed,the" will destro" all that o$r Cit" and ta5pa"ers have wored to create.';

The BT? Intervenors ar+$e that the Commission sho$ld tae into acco$nt the val$e the Frisco

comm$nit" places on the caref$l plannin+ of their cit" when determinin+ which ro$te is appropriate.

Beca$se of the cit"s +rowth and res$ltin+ traffic conditions on 4ain treet, Frisco has planned

to e5pand the street inward #" decreasin+ the width of the median. 7dditionall", the need for water in

Frisco has res$lted in plans to $se the median of 4ain treet for $nder+ro$nd placement of a &>inch

water transmission pipe and a 1>inch water re$se pipe. 7ccordin+ to the tip$lation, installin+ the

transmission line overhead in the median ma" prevent Frisco from completin+ its plans and e5pandin+

the street inward. 7ll intervenors view the inward e5pansion, as opposed to o$tward e5pansion that

wo$ld re$ire condemnation of private propert", as preservin+ comm$nit" val$es on 4ain treet.

The intervenors also ar+$e that the 7pplication Gi+noresH Friscos plan to widen 4ain treet. In

some areas, the planned road e5pansion will narrow the median to three feet. 7ccordin+ to the

intervenors, even if three feet is s$fficient for the constr$ction plans of Brazos Electric, s$ch narrowin+

wo$ld allow ins$fficient space for +$ard rails alon+ the street where transmission poles are to #e

located.'/

In contrast, taff ar+$es that o$te ; will not affect Friscos plan to e5pand 4ain treet. Brazos

Electric witness 4r. $++eri confirmed that a transmission line on 4ain treet will not impact Friscos

plan.'' 4r. $++eri eval$ated the feasi#ilit" of constr$ction of an overhead ro$te alon+ 4ain treet

and tone#roo Parwa" in li+ht of Friscos street e5pansion plans. e fo$nd that there were

'- BT? E5. ; at %1.'; Id. at %@10.'/ tip$lation at 0.'' Tr. at %->-1.


22/64



Gs$fficient, potential pole locations . . . that are seven to nine feet in width.H '@ 4r. $++eri concl$ded

that an overhead line was feasi#le on 4ain treet, even considerin+ Friscos road e5pansion plans.@>

7ccordin+ to taff, placin+ a transmission line in the median of a roadwa" is not $n$s$al. taff

notes that the t$d" 7rea has a &0-* transmission line located in the median of ?e+ac" Drive, which

crosses 4ain treet.@% Frisco ar+$es that ?e+ac" Drive is less developed than 4ain treet. The

7pplication indicates that two ho$sin+ developments as well as the entrance to ?e+ac" Christian

7cadem" (an intervenor) are located on ?e+ac" Drive.@1 7ltho$+h ?e+ac" Drive is sparsel" developed,

the fact that there is a $tilit" line down the median of the road is an indication that r$nnin+ a

transmission line down the median is not a#sol$tel" prohi#ited.

. S()

The BT? Intervenors are also Go$tra+ed that Brazos JElectricK has proposed to install a

transmission line near so man" schools.H@& 7ccordin+ to Frisco witness ichard ilinson, the Dep$t"

$perintendent of B$siness ervices for Frisco ID, GFrisco ID is one of the fastest +rowin+ p$#lic

school districts in the nationH with Gover ->,>>> st$dents enrolled in seven hi+h schools, %& middle

schools, &/ elementar" schools, and fo$r special pro+rams schools.H@0 D$e to the cit"s +rowth, Frisco

ID has opened several new schools recentl", incl$din+ two that #e+an operation in 7$+$st 1>%-. @-

7ccordin+ to the BT? Intervenors, there are tho$sands of children attendin+ schools near one or more

of the proposed ro$tes, and those n$m#ers will onl" increase as the cit" +rows. @; The comm$nit"

attracts families with children,@/ and comm$nit" mem#ers are concerned for the well#ein+ of their

children. The BT? Intervenors #elieve that an $nder+ro$nd ro$te is the onl" reasona#le alternative to

'@ Brazos E5 ; at -;.@> Id. at ;.@% Tr. at %0;0/, %@0.@1 Brazos E5. % at %-@;>.@& BT? Initial Brief at %1.@0 Frisco E5. ; at 0-.@- Id. at -.@; See BT? E5. 1% (Frisco ID Facilit" 4ap).@/ BT? E5. ; at %-.


23/64



prevent the $nnown health conse$ences of a childs entire 6%1 ed$cation tain+ place in the

pro5imit" of the proposed line.

'. H**' S+(+')

In the tip$lation, the intervenors assert that an a#ove +ro$nd line will impact Ga sta++erin+

amo$nt of ha#ita#le str$ct$res #eca$se this area is so developed,H whereas an $nder+ro$nd line wo$ld

impact no ha#ita#le str$ct$res.@'

The Cham#er ar+$es that an overhead line wo$ld directl" impact #oth c$rrent and f$t$re

commercial properties alon+ 4ain treet. The Cham#er descri#ed the commercial properties as

var"in+ from small standalone retail stores, resta$rants, and medical9office space to shoppin+ centers

containin+ similar esta#lishments. F$rther development incl$din+ m$ltifamil"9mi5ed$se, retail,

office, and o$tdoor mi5ed$se space is planned. 7dditional residential developments are planned as

well. Both taff and Brazos Electric witnesses testified that the" had never wored on an" other case

in which the ro$te wo$ld impact so m$ch e5istin+ development.@@

. D)())

taff disp$tes the wei+ht that sho$ld #e afforded to the comm$nit" val$es factor in this case.

taff ar+$es that Frisco and the BT? Intervenors have failed to present e5ceptional and compellin+

circ$mstances for #$r"in+ the transmission line, partic$larl" when Frisco has not offered to +$arantee a

financial contri#$tion. ather, taff ref$tes the BT? Intervenors attempt to :$stif" r$nnin+ the line

$nder+ro$nd d$e to local concerns re+ardin+ the impact on f$t$re development and propert" val$es.

taff asserts that neither f$t$re development nor propert" val$es are ro$tin+ criteria listed in the

Commissions s$#stantive r$les.%>> 7ccordin+ to taff, these local concerns sho$ld #e +iven little, if

an", consideration in determinin+ the #est ro$te.

@' tip$lation at 0.@@ Tr. at %;;.%>> %; Te5. 7dmin. Code A 1-.%>%(#)(&)(B).


24/64



7ccordin+ to the intervenors, the a#ove +ro$nd alternatives are $niversall" opposed #" Frisco,

the Cham#er, Frisco ID, commercial esta#lishments, homeowner associations, and individ$al

homeowners.%>%

e+ardless of the wei+ht +iven to this factor, comm$nit" val$es heavil" favor o$te %. o$te %

wo$ld not impact propert" val$es, safet", schools, Friscos development plan, or ha#ita#le str$ct$res.

o$te % wo$ld preserve the $se, en:o"ment, and intrinsic val$e of the comm$nit" of west Frisco.

4. R'(+'** * P*+> A+'*)

There are several pars and recreation areas located within %,>>> feet of the centerline of the

4ain treet overhead ro$tes that wo$ld #e impacted #" the proposed line. The homeowners

association (% feet so$th of e+ment 0 (7ll fo$r ro$tes)

estfalls *illa+e 7menit"

Center

estfalls *illa+e


25/64



The BT? Intervenors are also concerned a#o$t the ne+ative aesthetic impact that an overhead

transmission line wo$ld have on the west Frisco comm$nit". For instance, the tallest str$ct$re in the

area c$rrentl" is the Em#ass" $ites, which is thirteen stories hi+h.%>1

The transmission lines, at '-%>>

feet hi+h, wo$ld #e the secondtallest str$ct$re in Frisco and the tallest str$ct$re in west Frisco.%>&

7ccordin+ to the BT? Intervenors, man" homeowners in Frisco were attracted to the cit"

#eca$se of its #$colic characteristics, and man" of them wo$ld not have p$rchased their homes if an

overhead transmission line was present in the median of 4ain treet or tone#roo Parwa". %>0

4oreover, the" fear that overhead lines will f$ndamentall" chan+e the nat$re of the area and Gdestro"

their e5pectations.H%>- The BT? Intervenors re$est that the Commission consider and protect those

e5pectations.

!o historical or archeolo+ical sites are impacted #" the fo$r recommended ro$tes.%>;

There is no impact on historical val$es amon+ the ro$tes. o$te % is favored for aesthetic

val$es #eca$se it wo$ld have temporar" aesthetic impact, whereas an" overhead ro$te wo$ld have a

permanent impact.

%>1 BT? E5. ; at %>.%>& Id. at %>.%>0 Id. at %%%1.%>- BT? Initial Brief at %-.%>; Two archeolo+ical sites are located within %,>>> feet of o$tes & and 0. Brazos E5. %.


26/64



6. E/+9'* I';+,

Brazos Electric ar+$es that an overhead ro$te wo$ld have less impact on the environment

#eca$se it wo$ld span the environmental constraints s$ch as crees and floodplains. The intervenors

ar+$e that a #elow +ro$nd line wo$ld have less environmental impact. taff witness ?arr" Co5

testified that the primar" environmental impacts of installin+ an $nder+ro$nd line wo$ld #e soil

dist$r#ance and potential sedimentation and water $alit" impacts. %>/ 7s disc$ssed #elow, Brazos

Electric has a+reed to implement man" of the s$++ested chan+es recommended #" the Te5as Pars and

ildlife Department (TPD), re+ardless of which line is $ltimatel" constr$cted. Therefore, no ro$te

alon+ 4ain treet is si+nificantl" #etter than another when anal"zin+ environmental inte+rit".

7. P+*' I9:+/'9' S'+/(' + L='+; C) C)9'+) ' A+'*

7s disc$ssed a#ove in the section on need, the new line is needed to improve service to serve

increasin+ demand and prevent o$ta+es. There are no cost savin+s to cons$mers anticipated as a res$lt

of the Proposed Pro:ect. owever, it is the #est option to meet the service needs, tain+ into acco$nt

considerations of efficienc", relia#ilit", costs, and #enefits.

8. E'( ' S*'?) R''=*' E'+;, %*)

The Proposed Pro:ect is a transmission line $nrelated to the tate of Te5as renewa#le ener+"

+oals.

%>/ Tr. at %-0.


27/64



. F*(+) 16 T'@*) A9)+*/' C' $ 25.1013B

*. E;''+; C)+*)

4r. $++eri testified that there are no en+ineerin+ constraints that prohi#it an overhead

constr$ction in the median of 4ain treet, even considerin+ Friscos planned e5pansion.%>'

pecificall", he testified that 4ain treet GprovideJsK ade$ate space for the location of sin+lepole

str$ct$res necessar" for the constr$ction of an overhead line, if selected #" the P8C. Even with the

red$ced median width, there are ample locations wherein the median is wide eno$+h to allow poles

within the 1>>'>> foot span ran+e.H%>@

The BT? Intervenors and Frisco ar+$e that there wo$ld #e safet" concerns with placin+ the poles in the

narrowed median #eca$se there wo$ld not #e room for +$ard rails alon+ the median in the narrow

areas. 7ccordin+ to Frisco, after it e5pands 4ain treet, the median will #e less than five feet wide in

some places.%%> Frisco ar+$es that the Gind$str" standardH $nder the c$rrent 77T< oadside Desi+n

$ide and the c$rrent T5D' See Brazos E5. ; at -@3 Tr. at %->-1.%>@ Brazos E5. ; at @.%%> Frisco E5. 0 at - and 7ttachments !71 and !7&.%%% Id. at ;.%%1 Id. at ;.%%& Tr. at %-@.


28/64



an"where from 1>> feet to '>> feet. o were a#le to p$t them in the wider areas of the median . . . .H%%0

e f$rther stated that Brazos Electric wo$ld place the poles in areas of the median where there is

Gs$fficient width to do so, appro5imatel" / to @ feet.H%%-

4r. $++eri also testified that the transmission

line can #e #$ilt on the 4ain treet median, that it wo$ld also #e possi#le for Frisco to e5pand 4ain

treet inward #" narrowin+ the median, and that Brazos Electric wo$ld need a />foot ri+htofwa" for

constr$ction and maintenance #$t not for safet" or operational p$rposes.%%; imilarl", constr$ction of

an $nder+ro$nd line wo$ld re$ire a 1> to />foot ri+htofwa".%%/

Frisco also criticizes 4r. $++eris anal"sis #eca$se he relied on doc$ments provided to him #"

Frisco rather than cond$ctin+ an independent anal"sis of how wide the median wo$ld #e. Frisco does

not e5plain wh" reliance on its own information is $nsatisfactor". Frisco also complains that, even if

the poles will fit in the median, Brazos Electric concedes that it wo$ld liel" have to #loc a lane of

traffic for maintenance of the line. owever, Frisco does not e5plain wh" this is a reason for

$nder+ro$ndin+ the line. ?anes of travel on man" #$s" streets are often #loced for a variet" of

maintenance activities, incl$din+ for maintenance of $nder+ro$nd infrastr$ct$re.

The 7?=s find 4r. $++eris testimon" to #e credi#le and do not find that en+ineerin+

constraints re$ire #$r"in+ the transmission line. 7s 4r. $++eri testified, poles can #e placed in the

wider parts of the median to allow space for +$ard rails where the" are needed, and the line can span

the narrower areas of the median. The 7?=s appreciate Friscos concerns for safet" of comm$ters on

4ain treet, #$t those concerns do not e$ate to en+ineerin+ constraints that re$ire #$rial of the line.

. C))

The parties disp$te who sho$ld pa" the cost difference of a #$ried ro$te if the Commission

orders s$ch a ro$te. 7s f$rther e5plored in this PFD, the intervenors ar+$e that the incremental cost

sho$ld #e paid #" EC


29/64



:$st the Gdirect installation costsH #$t also the Gtr$e costsH to the comm$nit".%%' The" ar+$e that this

case is $ni$e and that the Commission m$st wei+h the factors differentl" in this case than in the

G$s$alH case.%%@

Brazos Electric estimates that the cost difference #etween o$tes - and ; and o$te % is

appro5imatel" O1' million and that the cost difference #etween o$tes - and ; and the "#rid o$te is

appro5imatel" O%-,;&',/;-. The estimated cost of each ro$te is shown in the ta#le #elow2

ROUTE ESTI"ATED COST

o$te % O&0,1/-,>>>

o$te - O-,;1',-@'o$te ; O-,@0',';0

"#rid o$te O1%,1;/,&;&

Based on the cost factor alone, o$te - is the prefera#le ro$te. o$te ; is sli+htl" more

e5pensive #$t also reasona#le in terms of cost. The "#rid o$te and o$te % are si+nificantl" more

e5pensive. In order to :$stif" orderin+ o$te % or the "#rid o$te, cost m$st #e o$twei+hed #" other

factors.

%%' BT? Initial Brief at %/.%%@ Id.


30/64



(. C9:*' ROW! P+:'+, B*+')! * N*+* * C+* F'*+')

o$tes %, -, and ; all parallel compati#le ri+htofwa" for @'.@-R of their len+ths, as shown in

the ta#le #elow.%1> Therefore, the proposed ro$tes are indistin+$isha#le $nder this factor.

LAND USE ROUTE 1 ROUTE 5 ROUTE 6

Total ?en+th (feet) %-,0'; %-,0'; %-,0';

Parallel Pipe ?ines(feet)

1,%;/ 1,%;/ 1,%;/

Parallel oadwa"s(feet)

%-,01& %-,01& %-,01&

Percenta+e of Parallel

i+htofa"

@'.@- @'.@- @'.@-

. P+' A/*(' * H**' S+(+')

P87 A &/.>-; and %; Te5as 7dministrative Code A 1-.%>% ro$tin+ factors re$ire

conformance with the Commissions polic" of pr$dent avoidance. Pr$dent avoidance is defined as Gthe

limitin+ of e5pos$res to electric and ma+netic fields that can #e avoided with reasona#le investments of

mone" and effort.H%1% Pr$dent avoidance is achieved #" minimizin+, Gto the e5tent reasona#le, the

n$m#er of ha#ita#le str$ct$res located in close pro5imit" to the ro$tes.H %11 There are 10; ha#ita#le

str$ct$res within &>> feet of the centerline of o$tes % and - and 1-% ha#ita#le str$ct$res within &>>

feet of the centerline of o$te ;.%1& D$e to the hi+hl" developed nat$re of the Pro:ect 7rea, all of the

preferred ro$tes impact a hi+h n$m#er of ha#ita#le str$ct$res.

The followin+ ta#le shows how the fo$r recommended ro$tes compare with re+ard to impact on

ha#ita#le str$ct$res2

ROUTE HABITABLE STRUCTURES

WITHIN 300 FEET OF

CENTERLINE

%1> Beca$se the "#rid o$te is a com#ination of o$te % and o$te - or o$te ;, it also parallelscompati#le ri+htofwa" for @'.@-R of its len+th.%1% %; Te5. 7dmin. Code A 1-.%>%(a)(0).%11 taff E5. % at &>.%1& %; Te5. 7dmin. Code AA 1-.%>%(a)(0), (#)(&)(B)(iv)3 Brazos E5. % at &@, 000/.


31/64



o$te % ($nder+ro$nd) 10;

o$te - 10;

o$te ; 1-%

"#rid o$te Either 10; or 1-%

The BT? Intervenors position is that onl" an $nder+ro$nd ro$te conforms with the P8Cs

polic" of pr$dent avoidance #" minimizin+ the n$m#er of ha#ita#le str$ct$res in close pro5imit" to the

ro$tes. The BT? Intervenors are concerned a#o$t the health riss posed #" electroma+netic fields

(E4F) near so man" homes and schools. ome residents with health concerns have stated that the"

will move if an overhead ro$te is approved.%10 The BT? Intervenors are partic$larl" concerned

re+ardin+ the effect the proposed line co$ld have on the Frisco ?aes retirement comm$nit",

specificall" that Gthe pacemaers and other hi+hl" sensitive medical devices $sed #" n$mero$s Frisco

?aes residents ma" #e interfered with #" the electrical c$rrent carried #" these hi+hvolta+e

transmission lines.H%1-

taff witness 4r. Poole admitted that he was not aware of an" other cases of this ind where so

man" ha#ita#le str$ct$res wo$ld #e affected #" a transmission line that was recommended #" P8C

taff.%1; Based on that testimon", the BT? Intervenors ar+$e, the Commission sho$ld +ive +reater

wei+ht than $s$al to its polic" of pr$dent avoidance and order that an $nder+ro$nd ro$te #e

constr$cted.

The Cham#er ar+$es that the overhead ro$tes do not conform to the Commissions polic" of

pr$dent avoidance #eca$se the" will ne+ativel" impact #oth cit" plannin+ and #$siness development

that alread" e5ists or is c$rrentl" $nderwa". 7ccordin+ to the Cham#er, $nder+ro$ndin+ is the onl"

accepta#le wa" to protect Friscos residents and commercial propert" owners seein+ the #est $se of

their private propert".

4s. alas ar+$es that, #etween o$te - and o$te ;, o$te - is prefera#le $nder this factor

#eca$se it $ses the northern s$#station, which impacts fewer ha#ita#le str$ct$res. =ennifer =acson,

%10 See BT? E5. ; at %0.%1- Id .%1; Tr. at 11>.


32/64



President of the tonewater Crossin+ ha#ita#le str$ct$res.%&% %; Te5. 7dmin. Code A 1-.%>%(a)(0).


33/64



impact on landowners. The incremental cost of o$te % is appro5imatel" O1' million.%&1

*. H,+ R'

Brazos Electric offered the option of the "#rid o$te as a compromise to lower the

incremental cost of #$rial while #$r"in+ onl" the most heavil" pop$lated ro$te se+ment. The "#rid

o$te has an estimated incremental cost of O%-,;&',/;0.'%.%&& Frisco a+rees with the #$rial of e+ment

0 as proposed in the "#rid o$te. owever, Frisco contends that the entire ro$te m$st #e #$ried d$e

to its street e5pansion plans and the planned f$t$re development alon+ the other se+ments. imilarl",

the BT? Intervenors maintain that the entire ro$te m$st #e #$ried and that the "#rid o$te option is

Gno option at all.H%&0 taff does not oppose the "#rid o$te as lon+ as Frisco, the BT? Intervenors, or

parties other than the EC


34/64



•


35/64



of whether Frisco is entitled to O%/.'; million, or an" other amo$nt of compensation, for $se of the

4ain treet ri+htofwa" is o$tside the scope of this proceedin+.

The second part of Friscos plan is coordinatin+ e5pansion of its roadwa"s and infrastr$ct$re

with constr$ction of an $nder+ro$nd line. Frisco asserts that this coordination of constr$ction wo$ld

res$lt in savin+s of O%> million for Brazos Electric.%&@ Frisco states that it will have to e5cavate $p to

ei+ht feet or more and perform trenchin+ to install its planned water transmission line and re$se water

transmission line. Frisco proposes that it and Brazos Electric hire a sin+le +eneral contractor to

perform the wor, and the cit"s contractor can install all of the improvements, incl$din+ the

transmission line cond$it, at the same time. Frisco re$ests that, in eval$atin+ its contri#$tion to

incremental costs, the Commission consider that Frisco is willin+ to dela" its pro:ect to coordinate with

Brazos Electric and that the impact to traffic will #e shortened #" ei+ht months thro$+h this

coordination of efforts.

Brazos Electric concedes that, if Frisco pa"s the contractor directl" for specific items of

constr$ction, appro5imatel" [email protected] million co$ld #e saved.%0> owever, Frisco represents that if the cost

savin+s associated with coordinatin+ constr$ction t$rn o$t to #e less than O%> million, it wo$ld not

commit to main+ $p the difference.%0% pecificall", at the hearin+, Friscos assistant mana+er Ben

Brezina testified that Frisco wo$ld not commit to main+ $p an" shortfall in the estimated O%> million

in savin+s.%01

The BT? Intervenors also present several ar+$ments for wh" ade$ate contri#$tions have #een

made to offset the costs of line #$rial. The BT? Intervenors ar+$ed that the Commission has approved

lon+er or more e5pensive ro$te options $nder pr$dent avoidance or to preserve or protect wildlife. %0&

%&@ Frisco E5. - at ;'3 Frisco E5. / at %;%/.%0> Brazos E5. ; at 1'1@. Brazos Electric also estimated that if the "#rid o$te is ordered, thesavin+s from constr$ction coordination wo$ld #e appro5imatel" O0,%-/,>;&./1. Brazos epl" Brief at03 Brazos E5. ; at 1', 7ttachment E0 at %3 Brazos E5. % at %-%, 7ttachment 1 at B%, %01,7ttachment 1 at %;.%0% Tr. at %@'.%01 Tr. at %@/@'.%0& See Application of *lectric Transmission Te)as, LLC to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for t+e roposed -arney "avis to Naval -ase 3/01 SingleCirc#it Transmission Lines in


36/64



The BT? Intervenors reco+nize that the Commission did not intend for its prior orders to set precedent,

#$t the" ar+$e that those orders show that factors other than cost m$st #e considered in this case. The

BT? Intervenors and Frisco also ar+$e that allowin+ #$rial of the line in this case, and $pliftin+ the

costs to the entire s"stem, wo$ld not set precedent for f$t$re cases3 rather, the Commission co$ld

contin$e to approach these t"pes of sit$ations on a case#"case #asis.

The BT? Intervenors also ar+$e that, even if the incremental cost of #$r"in+ the line were the f$ll

estimated O1' million, the res$ltin+ impact on ratepa"ers wo$ld #e de minimis and lost in ro$ndin+

each month.%00 If Friscos contri#$tions (not char+in+ for the ri+htofwa" and coordinatin+

constr$ction efforts) are taen into consideration, the impact on ratepa"ers wo$ld #e even less,

accordin+ to the BT? Intervenors.%0- The BT? Intervenors also assert that, as ta5pa"ers of the cit",

the" are offerin+ ade$ate contri#$tion thro$+h Friscos contri#$tions.

The BT? Intervenors view taffs position that the intervenors sho$ld pa" a portion of the

incremental costs of $nder+ro$ndin+ as f$ndamentall" $nfair. The" state that

E5pert testimon" filed #" the BT? Intervenors in this proceedin+ shows that eachhomeowner ma" s$ffer as m$ch as a 1> to &> percent red$ction in val$e of their

residence if the T*?s are installed overhead. 8sin+ an avera+e home price of O&>>,>>> as an e5ample, that means that the dama+e ca$sed to the homeowners #"overheadin+ the lines co$ld #e as m$ch as O;>,>>> to O@>,>>>. 7pparentl" staff wantsto now if the BT? Intervenors are willin+ to pa" O0>,>>> to eep Brazos9Coerv frommain+ them lose O;>,>>> to O@>,>>>. If that is tr$l" what staff wants to now, theanswer is a reso$ndin+ G!o.H%0;

The BT? Intervenors also note that there are man" more individ$als #e"ond the intervenors who wo$ld

#enefit from $nder+ro$ndin+ the line, incl$din+ the ;,>>>pl$s commenters in this proceedin+, the

1',>>> residents of Frisco who have not :oined this proceedin+, and the residents of ?ittle Elm,

N#eces Co#nty, P8C Docet !o. 010;/, Final %-).%00 Frisco E5. 1 at %&.%0- The BT? Intervenors noted that Friscos contri#$tions represent far more than the 1-Rcontri#$tion made #" the Cit" of Dallas when the Commission approved $nder+ro$nd installation inDallas Co$nt". Application of T2 *lectric "elivery Company to Amend a Certificate of Convenienceand Necessity for a roposed Transmission Line (it+in "allas Co#nty, Docet !o. &10--, Final >/).%0; BT? E5. %1 at 1>.


37/64



ac#err", and The Colon" who will receive power from the line. Therefore, the" ar+$e, e5pectin+ the

BT? Intervenors alone to pa" a pro rata share is not fair.

Frisco a+rees with the BT? Intervenors that the costs of #$r"in+ the line sho$ld #e spread o$t

over EC


38/64



simpl" receipt of #enefit, and he noted that, in this case, the $nder+ro$ndin+ costs are Gca$sed #" the

Cit" of Friscos desire to $nder+ro$nd the line.H%-% 4r. 7##ott also noted that operationall", the

transmission line wo$ld #enefit all ratepa"ers whether it was a#ove or #elow +ro$nd, #$t ratepa"ers

o$tside of Frisco wo$ld not #enefit from the incremental costs of $nder+ro$ndin+.%-1 4r. 7##otts

opinion was that G$nder+ro$ndin+ does not #enefit all c$stomers within EC


39/64



its 1>>/ plans to address load +rowth in the Frisco area. Frisco ar+$es that Coervs poor plannin+ is

relevant to this proceedin+ #eca$se taff is ar+$in+ that Frisco and local constit$encies are the ca$se of

the costs associated with $nder+ro$ndin+. Frisco also ar+$es that taffs position on costca$sation

conflicts with Commission precedent.%-' The BT? Intervenors a+ree that Coervs poor plannin+ is the

ma:or iss$e in this case #eca$se it is the direct ca$se of the controvers".

. P+:)' S)

taff states that it wo$ld s$pport an $nder+ro$nd ro$te alon+ 4ain treet if the local

constit$encies offered a local sol$tion and +$arantee to pa" for the additional cost of #$r"in+ the line.

taff ar+$es that the Commission co$ld iss$e an order contemplatin+ a sol$tion that +$aranteed that the

additional cost of #$r"in+ the proposed transmission line wo$ld not #e $plifted to the ratepa"ers in

EC, and 0% (=$ne 10,1>%-)3 Application of ncor *lectric "elivery Company LLC to Amend a Certificate of Convenienceand Necessity for t+e Riley!r#m (est 34501 CR*6 Transmission Line 78ormerly 0la#nion to (est !r#m9 in Arc+er, Clay, Coo0e, "enton, :ac0, ;ontag#e, (ic+ita, (il$arger, and (ise Co#nties, Te)as,Docet !o. &'%0>, ). Frisco also cited to two Te5as ailroad Commission cases, R.R. Comm, Proposal for Decision at 1-%1-& (7pr. 1&, 1>>0)3City of "allas v. R.R. Comm&>;>>-'>C*, 1>>' ? 0'1&11-, at S% (Te5. 7pp.N 7$stin !ov. ;, 1>>', no pet.) (mem. op.).%-@ See generally taff E5. 0.


40/64



The BT? Intervenors offer the followin+ sol$tion2 Coerv co$ld implement a monthl" char+e to

its c$stomers that wo$ld #e $sed to pa" the incremental costs as Brazos Electric repa"s its 8nited

tates Department of 7+ric$lt$re $ral 8tilities ervice (8) loan. The BT? Intervenors calc$lated

that, #ased on 1%',1&; c$stomers and a O1'.& million cost difference, the total char+e per

meter9c$stomer wo$ld #e O%1@.;'. That amo$nt wo$ld #e divided #" the n$m#er of months the 8

loan is amortized. 7ss$min+ a term of 0> "ears and not acco$ntin+ for interest, the monthl" char+e to

each c$stomer wo$ld #e O>.1/.%;> Incl$din+ savin+s realized #" constr$ction coordination wo$ld

red$ce this amo$nt f$rther.

Brazos Electric asserts that it wo$ld #e ine$ita#le and inappropriate to order Coerv to pa"

the cost difference #etween an overhead and $nder+ro$nd line. 7dditionall", it ar+$es, P87 does not

contemplate that the Commission wo$ld order Coerv to incl$de Brazos Electrics transmission cost of

service in its retail rates. Coervs #oard of directors has Ge5cl$sive :$risdictionH to Gset all terms of

access, conditions, and rates applica#le to services provided #" the electric cooperative.H %;% Brazos

Electric ar+$es that there is no a$thorit" for the Commission to order a nonpart" distri#$tion electric

cooperative to pa" for a wholesale transmission providers transmission costs of service or the

additional costs for $nder+ro$ndin+ the line.

Frisco ar+$es that taffs s$++estions were not addressed in evidence and asserts that several

are #e"ond the a$thorit" of the Commission to order.

The 7?=s note that these options are o$tside the scope of the proceedin+ #efore them3 therefore,

the 7?=s mae no recommendation on these options.

. D)())

The val$e of the 4ain treet ri+htofwa" and whether Frisco is entitled to compensation for it

is disp$ted. Frisco claims that its GdonationH of the ri+htofwa" down the 4ain treet median is worth

%;> taff stated that it fo$nd this option to #e accepta#le. taff epl" Brief at %1.%;% P87 A 0%.>--(%).


41/64



O%/.'; million and will red$ce the incremental costs of #$rial #" that amo$nt. taff and Brazos

Electric disp$te that val$ation as well as the ass$mption that Brazos Electric m$st pa" for the $se of the

ri+htofwa". taff and Brazos Electric ar+$e that, as an electric cooperative, Brazos Electric has a

stat$tor" ri+ht to $se the ri+htofwa" alon+ a m$nicipalit"s street $nder P87 A %'%.>01. The"

f$rther ar+$e that there is no stat$tor" provision re$irin+ an electric cooperative to pa" for s$ch $se.

7ltho$+h this iss$e is one that is properl" decided in a condemnation hearin+, the 7?=s allowed limited

evidence on it #eca$se the val$e of the ri+htofwa", if it can #e char+ed a+ainst Brazos Electric, wo$ld

add a si+nificant amo$nt to the cost of each of the proposed ro$tes and co$ld show that Brazos

Electrics cost estimates were inacc$rate. owever, the iss$e of the cost of p$rchasin+ the ri+htof

wa", if an", is e5cl$ded from the iss$es the 7?=s ma" consider. Beca$se this iss$e is a le+al $estion

for a condemnation proceedin+ and for liti+ation and appeal, sho$ld an" part" decide to en+a+e in

liti+ation on the iss$e, the 7?=s do not mae a recommendation.

Frisco has also offered to coordinate constr$ction with Brazos Electric, which co$ld realize $p

to O%> million in savin+s. owever, Frisco is not willin+ to commit to contri#$tin+ and +$aranteein+

the f$ll O%> million if those savin+s are not realized. It is also important to note that the BT?

Intervenors witnesses who testified at the hearin+ all stated that the" wo$ld not contri#$te to the cost

of $nder+ro$ndin+ the line.%;1

The intervenors #elieve that the EC


42/64



C. D'9)+*' E('(,

!o part" presented evidence s$#stantivel" challen+in+ the iss$es of diminished electric

efficienc" or relia#ilit". Frisco witness 4r. $+hes noted that the proposed transmission line wo$ld #e

the same operationall" whether it was #$ilt overhead or #$ried $nder+ro$nd. %;&

II. TEAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPART"ENT

TPD provided initial recommendations to Brazos Electric on eptem#er %;, 1>%&.%;0 These

recommendations were provided #efore the time Brazos Electric filed the 7pplication. TPD later provided comments in a letter dated 4arch %/, 1>%-, after it had received the 7pplication. In the

4arch %/ letter, TPD acnowled+ed that Brazos Electric incorporated several of TPDs

recommendations into the 7pplication, as well as incl$din+ preca$tions with respect to avoidin+

impacts to mi+rator" #irds d$rin+ constr$ction and operation. Those recommendations incl$ded

ro$tin+ the transmission line to avoid riparian areas, wetlands, and an" open water ha#itat, as well as

installin+ #ird diverters at water crossin+s to red$ce potential #ird collisions. TPD recommended

$sin+ aviansafe desi+ns to provide eno$+h separation to avoid avian electroc$tion. Brazos Electric

a+reed to desi+n and constr$ct the Proposed Pro:ect in accordance with S#ggested ractices for Raptor

rotection on o%er Lines, #" the 7vian Power ?ine Interaction Committee (7P?IC).%;- Brazos

Electric also stated it is committed to followin+ raptor protection proced$res as o$tlined in ;itigating

-ird Collisions %it+ o%er Lines, a p$#lication of 7P?IC for Edison Electric Instit$te.%;;

TPD recommended that Brazos Electric cons$lt with #oth the 8nited tates Fish and ildlife

ervice and TPD to determine whether there wo$ld #e impacts to #ald ea+les or an" federall"listed

species and if so, to tae steps to minimize impact to the wildlife. Brazos Electric indicated that there

are no #ald ea+les or #ald ea+le ha#itats within the pro:ect area. ith respect to other federall"listed

%;& Tr. at %';'/.%;0 Brazos E5. 0 at %/.%;- Id.%;; Id. at 1>.


43/64



species, there are no s$ch species or ha#itats within the pro:ect area.%;/ Th$s, Brazos Electric

concl$ded there is no need to cons$lt with either a+enc" on this partic$lar iss$e.%;'

TPD also recommended cons$ltin+ with the e+$lator" Branch of the Corps if the Proposed

Pro:ect wo$ld impact waterwa"s or wetlands. pecificall", TPD recommends $sin+ erosion control

meas$res #efore and d$rin+ constr$ction, and then permanentl" reve+etatin+ the land with sitespecific

native ve+etation. %;@ In a related recommendation, TPD ased that Brazos Electric minimize impacts

to native ve+etation to the e5tent feasi#le d$rin+ pro:ect desi+n and constr$ction. In response, Brazos

Electric indicated it will mae efforts to span all crees as m$ch as practica#le to avoid impactin+ water

and wetlands. 7n" $nder+ro$nd options wo$ld $se #orin+ and trenchin+. The trenchin+ wo$ld impact

crees.

TPD recommended that Brazos Electric identif" the statelisted species that ma" occ$r within

the t$d" 7rea and that the s$#station and transmission line #e located to avoid occ$rrences of state

listed species and avoid ha#itats that ma" s$pport $nnown occ$rrences of statelisted species.%/% To

the e5tent there are statelisted species, TPD recommended that Brazos Electric identif" impact

avoidance and miti+ation meas$res that wo$ld #e emplo"ed to protect statelisted species.%/1 Brazos

Electric is aware of fo$r statelisted species that ma" occ$r in the area2 Te5as horned lizard, tim#er

rattlesnae, whitefaced i#is, and wood stor. Brazos Electric notes that the Proposed Pro:ect will not

%;/ Id. at 1>1%.%;' Id.%;@ Id. at 11.%/> Id. at 1&10.%/% Id. at 101-.%/1 Id. at 1;.


44/64



cross an" forests or riparian areas, the transmission line will r$n alon+ and within e5istin+ ri+htsof

wa" for m$ch of its len+th, and that it will tae steps to red$ce the possi#ilit" of avian collisions.%/&

To f$rther protect nat$ral reso$rces, TPD recommended that Brazos Electric avoid ro$tin+

thro$+h sites that are enrolled in conservation easements.%/0 7dditionall", TPD recommended that

Brazos Electric tae preca$tions to avoid impacts to species of the +reatest conservation need,

incl$din+ nat$ral plants, special feat$res, and native +rasses.%/- Brazos Electric notes that none of the

ro$tes cross land that is nown to #e in a conservation easement.%/; Brazos Electric did not o#serve an"

rare ve+etation t"pes within the pro:ect area.%//

TPD also e5pressed a concern with avoidin+ impacts to recreation and vis$al o#str$ction with

a line across or near ?ae ?ewisville. Beca$se ?ae ?ewisville will not #e crossed #" the Proposed

Pro:ect, this recommendation does not appl".%/'

To the e5tent that Brazos Electric cannot avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife ha#itats, TPD

recommends a miti+ation plan. Brazos Electric a+rees to minimize impacts as m$ch as possi#le.%/@

TPD favors the 4ain treet ro$tes. TPD noted that the 4ain treet ro$tes impact fewer

pars, historical and archeolo+ical sites, streams crossin+s, floodplains, and woodland areas.%'>

Beca$se the 4ain treet ro$tes are alread" developed, wildlife ha#itat has #een fra+mented.

!o part" challen+ed Brazos Electrics response to TPDs recommendations. Conse$entl",

no f$rther modification or chan+es are re$ired for the Proposed Pro:ect.

III. ANAL#SIS AND RECO""ENDATION

%/& Id. at 1-.%/0 Id. at 1;.%/- Id .%/; Id. at 1/.%// Id.%/' Id.at 1/1'.%/@ Id. at 1@.%'> taff E5. 1 at /.


45/64



The primar" disp$te in this case is whether the line sho$ld #e #$ried or r$n overhead. The

parties are in a+reement that ro$tes alon+ 4ain treet are prefera#le to those alon+ tone#roo

Parwa". It is $n$s$al #$t not $nheard of for the Commission to order the #$rial of a line when there

are not constr$ction constraints that re$ire it.

In Docet !o. &10-- (Trinit" iver Corridor Pro:ect), the Commission ordered #$rial of a >./

mile se+ment of a &0-* do$#lecirc$it transmission line in Dallas Co$nt", Te5as.%'% The

Commission also ordered the Cit" of Dallas to pa" 1-R of the incremental costs (an estimated O%/

million) of #$rial of the line.%'1 The Commission fo$nd that #$rial of a portion of the line was :$stified

d$e to

the $ni$e conte5t of the Trinit" iver Corridor Pro:ect, an am#itio$s, m$ltio#:ective pro:ect that is Gintended to provide flood control, transportation improvements,environmental restoration and preservation, recreational amenities, and $r#an economicdevelopment to Dallas and the Dallas re+ion.H The Trinit" Pro:ect is the Glar+est p$#licwors pro:ect ever $ndertaen #" Dallas and Jis intendedK to e5pand the central #$sinessdistrict across the Trinit" JiverK and create a more densel" pop$lated cit", while at thesame time recreatin+ in a Qmore nat$ralized wa" the Trinit" iver #ed, #ans, andassociated wetlands.H In short, the p$rpose of this pro:ect is to revitalize the cit" of Dallas and provide an impet$s for economic +rowth for the wider Dallas re+ion.%'&

The Commission noted that

JhKistoricall", power lines have #een placed $nder+ro$nd onl" in densel" developeddowntown areas of lar+e cities. 7ltho$+h the Canada Drive se+ment Jthat was orderedto #e #$riedK is not now a part of downtown Dallas, the Trinit" iver pro:ect will e5pandthe area of hi+hdensit" development to the Canada Drive area. Concrete steps havealread" #een taen to realize this vision.%'0

%'% Application of T2 *lectric "elivery Company for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity7CCN9 for a roposed Transmission Line in "allas Co#nty, Te)as , Docet !o. &10--, >/) at %.%'1 Id.%'& Id. at 1 (internal citations omitted).%'0 Id. at &. The Gconcrete stepsH noted #" the Commission incl$ded G+ro$nd has alread" #een #roenfor the O;@./ million 4ar+aret $nt ill Brid+e3 Dallas residents have alread" committed O00; millionin #ond mone" toward the lar+er Trinit" iver Corridor Pro:ect3 and Cit" of Dallas officials have #eencooperatin+ for "ears with e" state a+encies, Dallas Co$nt", the !orth Te5as Tollwa", and the Corpsof En+ineers to develop plans and sec$re f$ndin+ for the pro:ect. In addition, over O1; million has #een raised thro$+h private donations.H Id.


46/64



The Commission also noted that Dallass Ga+reement to pa" for 1- percent of the line#$rial

costs represents a meanin+f$l contri#$tion #" the most directl" Qaffected landowners.H%'-

7dditionall",

the Commission disa+reed Gwith the notion that it is esta#lishin+ new precedent in this case #" orderin+

the $nder+ro$ndin+ of the Canada Drive se+ment of this transmission line. ather, this case presents

one of those ver" rare sets of circ$mstances in which $nder+ro$ndin+ #est serves the p$#lic interest.H %';

taff ar+$es that this case contrasts with the Trinit" iver Corridor Pro:ect case #eca$se Frisco

has taen no concrete steps toward its pro:ect to install water lines $nder 4ain treet or to e5pand 4ain

treet. 7ccordin+ to Friscos witness ?. !athan 7nte, the e5pansion pro:ect GJhas notK #een

desi+ned.H%'/ Brazos Electric ar+$es that Friscos claims re+ardin+ its street e5pansion plan are an

attempt to thwart Brazos Electrics proposed overhead ro$te.

The BT? Intervenors ar+$es that Friscos contri#$tion of its ri+htofwa" and its offer to

coordinate constr$ction with Brazos Electric e5ceeds the 1-R contri#$tion that Dallas was ordered to

mae in the Trinit" iver Corridor Pro:ect case.

The 7?=s find that this case is distin+$isha#le from the Trinit" iver Corridor Pro:ect case in

several wa"s. The scale of the pro:ect in that case was m$ch lar+er, totalin+ O%.0 #illion in p$#lic

improvements for #oth the Cit" of Dallas and the Dallas re+ion as a whole. The pro:ect also involved

environmental improvements on a lar+e scale. Friscos street e5pansion pro:ect is a m$ltimillion

dollar pro:ect that involves improvements for the #enefit of residents of Frisco and comm$ters who

ma" drive thro$+h Friscos 4ain treet. 7ltho$+h it is a lar+e pro:ect, the scale does not match that of

the Trinit" iver Corridor Pro:ect. 4oreover, the Trinit" iver Corridor Pro:ect was m$ltifaceted,

involved coordination of man" entities, and was alread" in pro+ress, whereas Friscos pro:ect involvescoordination of few, if an", entities #e"ond the cit" itself, and the pro:ect has not #een desi+ned "et.

4ore importantl", installation of an overhead line will not prevent Frisco from completin+ an" aspect

of its pro:ect.

%'- Id. at &.%'; Id. at 0.%'/ Tr. at %'@@>.


47/64



The Commission noted that #$rial of the line alon+ Canada Drive was a $ni$e sit$ation that

#est served the p$#lic interest. 7r+$a#l", #$rial of the line alon+ 4ain treet wo$ld #est serve the

interest of the residents and #$sinesses of Frisco, #$t it wo$ld not #est serve the p$#lic interest in the

re+ion at lar+e (or in EC,->&,%@/. The least e5pensive ro$te in that

case was O%-;,10-,&11.

The Palo D$ro Can"on case can also #e distin+$ished from this case. The considerations that

led to the Commission orderin+ a more e5pensive ro$te in that case involved en+ineerin+ challen+es

that wo$ld have re$ired placin+ m$ltiple towers in the Palo D$ro Can"on. %@> ome of the proposed

ro$tes also involved a TPDdesi+nated Ecolo+icall" i+nificant tream e+ment as well as a ha#itat

for federall"listed endan+ered species.%@%

The Palo D$ro Can"on case also involved considera#le

%'' Application of S+aryland tilities, L.. to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity fort+e 'ereford to (+ite "eer 34501 CR*6 Transmission Line 78ormerly an+andle A- to an+andle

-A9 in Armstrong, Carson, "eaf Smit+, ld+am, otter, and Randall Co#nties, Docet !o. &'1@>,%>) at Findin+ of Fact !o. &&.%'@ Id.%@> Docet !o. &'1@>, Proposal for Decision at -&.%@% Id.


48/64



concern for aesthetic impacts to a state par. In order to avoid these and other challen+es, a more

e5pensive ro$te was ordered. In contrast, there are no constraints that re$ire the Commission to order

the more e5pensive ro$te in this case. Comm$nit" val$es and preferences, which favor the more

e5pensive ro$te, are important considerations3 #$t, the" are part of a lar+er anal"sis and not

determinative of the o$tcome.%@1

Finall", the parties cited to an additional case in which the Commission ordered that a portion of

the line #e #$ried (7irfield case).%@& In that case, the Commission ordered #$rial of appro5imatel" 1.-

miles of the ro$te Gwhere it passes thro$+h a clear zone or accident potential zone % associated with

aldron Field and !7CC Tr$a5 Field.H%@0 The Commission noted that GJiKn the $ni$e

circ$mstances of this case, s$ch $nder+ro$nd constr$ction is reasona#leH%@- and that it was not Ga case

in which $nder+ro$nd constr$ction is proposed for aesthetics . . .H%@; The proposed ro$tes in that case

ran+ed in cost from O1;,1&>,>>> to O;-,;&-,>>>.%@/ The ordered ro$te was estimated to cost

O00,>'&,>>>, which the Commission fo$nd to #e Gwithin the mid to $pper ran+e of the costs estimates

for the alternative ro$t

Proposal for Decision on Transmission Lines in west Frisco

Documents

Transcript of Proposal for Decision on Transmission Lines in west Frisco