Energize EastsideCommunity Advisory Group Meeting #3
Deputy Project Manager, P t S d E
Jens Nedrud
Puget Sound Energy
Communications Initiatives, Gretchen Aliabadi
,Puget Sound Energy
June 4, 2014
Presentation overview
Project overview and schedule
Community outreach update
Key questions and responses Key questions and responses
2
Energize Eastside overview
Growth is straining our region’s existing transmission systemtransmission system
Conservation alone is not enough We need to act now We are working with the community to identify g y y
solutions
Energize Eastside will build new electric transmission infrastructure to ensure
dependable power
3
Project schedule
4
Public outreach process
Since project launch in December 2013:179 ti ith i t k h ld 179 meetings with various stakeholders, ranging from one-on-one meetings to large
bli tpublic events Collecting, analyzing, and responding to more
than 950 communications from the public 2 Community Advisory Group and y y p
9 Sub-Area meetings to gather specific community feedbacky
2 open house community meetings to introduce the project 1 Q&A session.
5
introduce the project. 1 Q&A session.
Key questions and responses
Local need for electricityAlt ti l ti Alternative solutions
Undergrounding and submerging Seattle City Light corridor Olympic PipelineOlympic Pipeline Property values
El t ti fi ld (EMF) Electromagnetic fields (EMF)
6
Local need for electricitySource: Eastside Needs Assessment Report
PSE Area Winter Peak Load Forecast 2012-2022
PSE’s service territory
7
Local need for electricityEastside Load Forecast for Normal Winter Load
Forecast 2012-2023Source: Eastside Needs Assessment Report
Eastside area map
8
Customer demand
Power outages become more likely
9
Solutions reviewedSource: Eastside Transmission Solutions Report
10
Local vs. regional benefitLocal need The driver for the project The driver for the project Problem: Transformers serving the Eastside area are
overloadedoverloaded Solution: A new transformer and transmission line
Regional benefit Adding a transmission line to the system always changesAdding a transmission line to the system always changes
regional power flows – in this case, an ancillary regional reliability benefit 3-8% of the power flowing through the line will be used
regionally
11
Alternative solutions Request: Halt the Community Advisory Group
process to revisit the need and alternative solutions We thoroughly reviewed many potential solutions: Seattle City Light corridorSeattle City Light corridor Conservation only Batteries/Non-wiresBatteries/Non wires Transformer-only options/other locations Underground and submarineUnderground and submarine
What is still on the table? Overhead Overhead Underground/submarine
12
Undergrounding as an option Decision to underground is the
local community’slocal community s Requesting community pays
differencedifference Money paid up front for both
i i d t tiengineering and construction
13
Seattle City Light corridor PSE has reached out to
Seattle City Light (SCL)y g ( ) SCL uses their 230 kV
transmission lines to meet current and future operating needs
Seattle City Light Line
14
Olympic PipelineDemonstrated success with power lines and pipelines Replaced 300 poles in the
existing corridor
and pipelines
existing corridor In Snohomish County, PSE
installed 8 5 miles of 230 kVinstalled 8.5 miles of 230 kV transmission line along Olympic PipelineOlympic Pipeline
In Skagit County, Sedro-Woolley to Horse Ranch
230 kV transmission line in Everett, WA
Woolley to Horse Ranch project crossed Northwest Pipeline
15
Pipeline
Property valuesUsing property values to site electric infrastructureinfrastructure We do not use property values to site
infrastructure because of inequity issuesinfrastructure because of inequity issues.
Property value compensationProperty value compensation PSE does not compensate nearby property
f i d l f t l d towners for perceived loss of property value due to the installation of energy infrastructure. In this
t PSE i diff t th th blirespect, PSE is no different than any other public or private developer.
16
Electromagnetic fields (EMF) 45 years of research on EMF About 2,900 studies conducted to date related to cancer , World Health Organization in 2012 concluded that:
“The current evidence does not confirm the existence of any h lth f t l l l l t tihealth consequences from exposure to low level electromagnetic fields”
The international public exposure limits:p p 2,000 mG - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection9 040 G I tit t f El t i l d El t i E i 9,040 mG - Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
18.82 mG – Average 230 kV transmission line exposure when standing 50 feet away from centerlineg y
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/index.html
17
Questions
D h l if i tiDo you have clarifying questions about the information presented?p
18
Sub-Area WorkshopsWorkshop #1 Key Issues Key Issues Values Data requests
Workshop #2 Data Data Visualizations
S i Segment scoring Messages to the Sub-Area Committees
19
Sub-Area Committee Meetings
Observations from committee participantsK i t Key points
Topics for further exploration
20
Evaluation factorsEvaluation factor
Factors used during Sub-Area Meetings Sub-Area Committee
member suggestionsNorth Central SouthLeast proximity to sensitive
N/Ap ycommunity land uses N/A
Least proximity to sensitive
Consider that individual environmental factors, such as wildlife, wetlands and stream Least proximity to sensitive
environmental areas crossings may have different priority levels for different communities
Include impacts during constructionLeast proximity to residential areas N/AMost protective of health and safety Consider as the top factor
Least effect on aesthetics Consider undergrounding and
submergingLeast impact to mature vegetation Include vegetation restoration plans
Maximizes opportunity areas
While this factor was not originally identified as a top evaluation factor in the South, during the South Sub-Area Committee Meeting there was a request for this factor to be usedrequest for this factor to be used
Additional evaluation factorsFactors suggested during Sub-Area Meetings (but not used)
Sub-Area Committee member suggestionsNorth Central South
Include relative impacts between
21Least impact from construction
Include relative impacts between segments and construction time
Least effect on property values Consider property rights, inverse
condemnation and easements
Blind evaluation of route options
Evaluation of all 18 route optionsP f bli d l ti Purpose of blind evaluation
Access evaluation online Data table Evaluation factors Measurable data ExclusionsExclusions
Scoring Timeline: Please complete by June 16 Timeline: Please complete by June 16
22
Blind evaluation of route options
Factors from sub-area work Factors for blind evaluation
Least impact to residential areas Avoids residential areas
Least impact to community sensitive land uses
Avoids community sensitive land uses
Least proximity to sensitive Avoids sensitive environmentalLeast proximity to sensitive environmental areas
Avoids sensitive environmental areas
Least proximity to matureLeast proximity to mature vegetation Protects mature vegetation
Maximizes opportunity areas Utilizes opportunity areasMaximizes opportunity areas Utilizes opportunity areas
23
Blind evaluation of route options
Evaluation of all 18 route optionsP f bli d l ti Purpose of blind evaluation
Access online Data table Evaluation factors Measurable data ExclusionsExclusions
Scoring Timeline: Please complete by June 16 Timeline: Please complete by June 16
24
Blind evaluation preview
25
Public commentPublic comment
26
Upcoming meetings
Community Advisory Group Meeting #4aJune 25 from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Bellevue Hilton Hotel
Q&A SessionJuly 7, time and location to be determined
Community Advisory Group Meeting #4bJuly 9 from 5:30 to 8:30 p m at RentonJuly 9 from 5:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Renton Technical College
27
Thank you!Thank you!
28