Proposal for Decision on Transmission Lines in west Frisco
Two administrative law judges have issued their recommendation to install a 138,000-volt transmission line above ground along Main Street in Frisco using the north substation location.
Content
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
APPLICATION OF BRAZOS
ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE,
INC. TO AMEND A CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR A 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE
IN DENTON COUNTY
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION..............................1
II.
JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY....................................2
III.
THE PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................3
IV.
APPLICATION..................................................................................................................3
V.
NEED..................................................................................................................................4
A. Necessary for Service..................................................................................................4
1.
2.
Reliability and Adequacy of the Interconnected Transmission
System............................................................................................................6
Facilitate Robust Wholesale Competition..................................................7
B. Recommendation from an Independent Organization...........................................7
C. Need to Interconnect to a New Transmission Customer.........................................7
D. Better Option to Meet Need.......................................................................................7
VI.
ROUTE...............................................................................................................................8
A. Background.................................................................................................................8
B. Best Alternative Route.............................................................................................10
1.
2.
3.
Summary of Parties’ Positions...................................................................10
Adequacy of Existing Service, Need for Additional Service, and
Effect of Granting the CCN on Oncor and any Electric Utility
Serving the Proximate Area.......................................................................13
Community Values......................................................................................15
a.
b.
c.
Property Values..................................................................................17
Safety...................................................................................................17
Frisco’s Development Plans..............................................................18
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
d.
e.
f.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
PAGE 2
Schools................................................................................................20
Habitable Structures..........................................................................21
Discussion...........................................................................................21
Recreational and Park Areas.....................................................................22
Historical and Aesthetic Values.................................................................23
Environmental Integrity.............................................................................24
Probable Improvement of Service or Lowering of Cost to Consumers
in the Area....................................................................................................24
Effect on the State’s Renewable Energy Goals........................................24
Factors in 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.101(b)(3)(B)...................25
a.
b.
c.
d.
10.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
Engineering Constraints...................................................................25
Costs....................................................................................................27
Compatible ROW, Property Boundaries, and Natural and Cultural
Features...............................................................................................28
Prudent Avoidance and Habitable Structures.................................28
Alternative Routes with Less Impact on Landowners............................31
a.
b.
Hybrid Route......................................................................................31
Additional Costs Associated with Landowner Preferences............31
i.
ii.
iii.
Parties’ Arguments................................................................31
Proposed Solutions.................................................................37
Discussion...............................................................................39
C. Demonstrated Efficiency..........................................................................................40
VII.
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT....................................................40
VIII. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................43
IX.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS
...........................................................................................................................................49
A. Findings of Fact........................................................................................................49
B. Conclusions of Law...................................................................................................59
C. Ordering Paragraphs...............................................................................................60
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
APPLICATION OF BRAZOS
ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE,
INC. TO AMEND A CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR A 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE
IN DENTON COUNTY
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
PAGE 3
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
This proposal for decision (PFD) recommends that Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.’s
(Brazos Electric) Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) be amended to construct a new 138kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Tap 1 to a new substation along Route 5, using Segments 8, 7, 5,
4, 3, 2, and ending at the north substation.
The proposed routes can be generally divided into four groups:
routes that run along
Stonebrook Parkway overhead; the same routes underground; routes that run along Main Street
overhead; and those same routes underground. There is also the possibility of a hybrid route with some
segments running above ground and others running below ground. In general, the Stonebrook Parkway
routes are longer and more expensive than the similarly-constructed Main Street routes. The primary
dispute in this case is whether the chosen route should run overhead or underground. The secondary
dispute concerns whether the substation should be located north or south of King Road. All parties
except Brazos Electric and the Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Staff/Commission)
support an underground line. Brazos Electric will build whichever line is ultimately approved.
All parties except Staff and Brazos Electric support the approval of Route 1, which runs
underground for almost its entire length along Main Street. The intervenors in this case submitted a
non-unanimous Stipulation (Stipulation) in support of Route 1 that was agreed to by all intervenors.
Neither Staff nor Brazos Electric joined the Stipulation.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 4
Staff opposes Route 1 because of the high cost of running a transmission line underground and
because an underground line is not necessary to accommodate any engineering or other constraints. 1
Staff is also opposed to the Stipulation due to the potential precedent-setting nature of this case. Staff
argues that Route 6, which runs overhead along Main Street and uses the south substation, is the most
compliant with the applicable law.
Brazos Electric is concerned about recovering the cost of
constructing a line underground and supports Route 5, which runs overhead along Main Street and uses
the north substation.
On January 15, 2015, Brazos Electric filed an application (Application) with the Public Utility
Commission of Texas (Commission) to amend its CCN for a 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line in
Denton County, Texas (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project contains 20 alternate routes. The
Commission has the authority to approve any single route or combination of segments. The facilities
include construction of new transmission facilities in the City of Frisco (Frisco) and Town of Little Elm
in Denton County. The new line would extend west from a tap point along an existing Oncor Electric
Delivery Company, LLC (Oncor) 138-kV transmission line located just west of the Dallas North
Tollway in southeastern Denton County to a new substation (Stonebrook Substation) to be sited near
Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 423 and King Road, just east of Lake Lewisville in southeastern Denton
County. If the Application is approved, the total length of the transmission line is estimated to be 2.9 to
4.5 miles in length, depending on the route chosen.
II. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Commission has jurisdiction and authority over this matter pursuant to the Public Utility
Regulatory Act (PURA), Texas Utilities Code §§ 32.001, 37.053, 37.056, and 37.057, and 16 Texas
Administrative Code § 25.101. The State Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction, pursuant
to Texas Government Code § 2003.049 and PURA §14.053, over all matters relating to the conduct of a
hearing in this matter. Notice and procedural history were not contested and are addressed without
discussion in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) Stephanie
Frazee and Wendy Harvel convened the hearing on July 27, 2015, and the record closed on September
1 Tr. at 186-87; Staff Ex. 1 at 20-21.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 5
11, 2015, following post-hearing briefing. The parties had the opportunity to submit by October 21,
2015, additional limited briefing responding to the proposal of a hybrid route.
III. THE PARTICIPANTS
This proceeding drew a large number of intervenors. In addition, thousands of comments were filed
prior to the hearing, and many continued to be filed after the conclusion of the hearing. At the hearing
on the merits, many intervenors actively participated by questioning witnesses, presenting evidence,
and raising objections.
Some intervenors participated less at the hearing but remained active
throughout the case and filed post-hearing briefs. The active intervenors included the Bury the Lines
(BTL) Intervenors, which group is comprised of approximately 700 members, most of whom are
homeowners: Frisco; CTMTG Frisco 122 LLC (Centurion); Frisco Chamber of Commerce (Chamber);
HT Stonebrook L.P.; Zarky Development, LLC; Staff; Sherrie Salas; and Jim Fox.
IV. APPLICATION
No party challenged the adequacy of the Application or requested a route adequacy hearing. 2
The Application contains 20 alternative routes for the Proposed Project, four possible tap locations, and
two possible substation locations. On February 12, 2015, Staff recommended that the Application be
deemed sufficient for review on the merits. The Commission ALJ issued Order No. 3 on February 17,
2015, deeming the Application “sufficient and materially complete.”3
Although they did not challenge the adequacy of the Application, the BTL Intervenors contend
in their briefing that the Application contains too few routing alternatives. However, the alternatives
were limited because of unusual constraints in the Study Area. The Study Area is east of Lake
Lewisville and west of the Dallas North Tollway, located within Frisco and the Town of Little Elm.
The land in the Study Area is primarily suburban development with single-family residential
neighborhoods and commercial developments along major roads, including planned neighborhoods
2 Preliminary Order Issue 1: Is Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.’s application to amend its
CCN adequate? Does the application contain an adequate number of reasonably differentiated
alternative routes to conduct a proper evaluation?
3 Commission Order No. 3 at 1 (Feb. 17, 2015).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 6
with dense housing and small neighborhood parks.4 Brazos Electric agrees that the Study Area was
constrained due to new and ongoing construction, planned commercial development, and school
development.5 There are large numbers of habitable structures along each potential route, varying
between 246 and 251, despite the relatively short length of the proposed routes.
Although Brazos Electric considered routing the line both across Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) land and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) land, both requests were refused. On
July 26, 2013, the Corps rejected any use of its land near Lake Lewisville. 6 TxDOT informed Brazos
Electric of its future plans to use the median along FM 423 to expand the road to eight lanes and its
policy of prohibiting poles from being placed in the median of the highway, and TxDOT indicated that
if the line were constructed, the poles would have to be moved when TxDOT used the median to
expand the highway.7
No party substantively challenged the adequacy of the Application or the adequacy of the
number of alternative proposed routes.
Therefore, the Application is adequate and provided an
adequate number of alternative routes to conduct a proper evaluation.
V. NEED
A.
Necessary for Service
Frisco argues that Brazos Electric should have planned better and earlier so that distribution
facilities could have been developed or so that the line could have been routed before there was so
much development on Stonebrook Parkway. Ms. Salas, a self-represented intervenor, participated in
the hearing and submitted post-hearing briefs. She disputes the need for the line. But no party
presented evidence regarding the need for the line. Frisco admits that it understands the need for the
4
5
6
7
Brazos Ex. 1 at 6.
Tr. at 66-67.
Brazos Ex. 1 at 131.
BTL Ex. 25 at 11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 7
line, although it wants the line to run underground. 8 The BTL Intervenors specifically state in their
initial brief that they do not contest need.9 Centurion recognizes the need for the line.10
The proposed facilities are necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, and safety
of the public within the meaning of PURA § 37.056(a), taking into account the factors set out in PURA
§ 37.056(c).11 Denton County, specifically in and around Frisco, has experienced a high level of load
growth over the past few years and is growing at a pace that will exceed the existing electric
distribution capacity.12 Load growth is expected to continue at a rapid pace, which will reduce the
capability of existing distribution feeders to provide reliable service.13 This rapid growth increases the
risk of outage to a significant population area without the addition of a new substation supply source. 14
The addition of the proposed facilities will serve the new load growth and increase reliability by
reducing the burden on existing substations and their feeders by adding another transmission source
and substation to the area.15 Upon review of the Application and other applicable materials, Staff
concluded the Proposed Project is “necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, and safety
of the public.”16 Additionally, neither Frisco nor the BTL Intervenors or other intervenors dispute the
need for service.17 Staff concurs that the line is necessary.18 Therefore, the ALJs find that the proposed
8 Frisco Ex. 1 at 21.
9 BTL Intervenors’ Initial Brief at 8.
10 Centurion Initial Brief at 4.
11 Preliminary Order Issue 2: Are the proposed facilities necessary for the service, accommodation,
convenience, or safety of the public within the meaning of PURA § 37.056(a) taking into account the
factors set out in PURA § 37.156(c)? In addition, a) How does the proposed facility support the
reliability and adequacy of the interconnected transmission system? b) Does the proposed facility
facilitate robust wholesale competition? c) What recommendation, if any, has an independent
organization, as defined in PURA § 39.151, made regarding the proposed facility? d) Is the proposed
facility needed to interconnect a new transmission service customer? Preliminary Order Issue 3: Is the
transmission project the better option to meet this need when compared to employing distribution
facilities? If Brazos is not subject to the unbundling requirements of PURA § 39.051, is the project the
better option to meet the need when compared to a combination of distributed generation and energy
efficiency?
12 Brazos Ex. 1 at 14-15.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 14.
15 Id. at 14-15.
16 Staff Ex. 1 at 10.
17 See e.g., Frisco Ex. 7 at 6 and Frisco Ex. 1 at 6.
18 Staff Initial Brief at 10-11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 8
facilities are necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public.
1. Reliability and Adequacy of the Interconnected Transmission System
Brazos Electric is a wholesale power and energy provider for its members, all of which are
Texas electric distribution cooperatives.19 CoServ Electric (CoServ) is one of the owners and member
cooperatives of Brazos Electric.20 CoServ has a franchise agreement with Frisco.21
No party challenged Brazos Electric’s evidence showing how the Proposed Project will support
the reliability and adequacy of the interconnected transmission system. 22 The Proposed Project will
provide service to the Stonebrook Substation, which is required to provide greater reliability and serve
load in a fast-growing area of Denton County. Rapid growth increases the risk of outage to a
significant population area without a new substation supply source. Additionally, the pace of load
growth will exceed CoServ’s ability to reliably meet the need with its existing distribution facilities. 23
The proposed transmission facility supports the reliability and adequacy of the interconnected
transmission system by providing necessary transmission support to alleviate capacity demands and
improve service reliability.24 The added transmission facilities will reduce the burden on existing
substations and distribution feeders, thereby benefitting the interconnected transmission system.
19 Brazos Ex. 2 at 5-6.
20 Id.
21 Staff Ex. 4.
22 See e.g., Frisco Ex. 7 at 6 (stating, “The City [of Frisco] takes no issue with the need for the line
and supports infrastructure improvements to the City.”)
23 Brazos Ex. 1 at 14-15.
24 Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 9
2. Facilitate Robust Wholesale Competition
The Proposed Project will have no significant effect on the wholesale power market and is
proposed to provide service to the Stonebrook Substation in order to adequately serve an everincreasing load in a fast-growing area of Denton County.
B.
Recommendation from an Independent Organization
No recommendation has been made by an independent organization regarding the Proposed
Project. The Proposed Project does not require approval by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT) Independent System Operator and, therefore, was not submitted to ERCOT for
recommendation.25
C.
Need to Interconnect to a New Transmission Customer
The Proposed Project is not needed to interconnect a new transmission service customer.
D.
Better Option to Meet Need
The rapid growth in the area of the Proposed Project has caused distribution facilities that are
already in use to be at or near maximum capacity.26 In addition, future load growth is expected to
continue at a rapid pace and requires a solution that is capable of keeping pace with and meeting
projected load growth. Brazos Electric’s consultant, C.H. Guernsey & Company (Guernsey), provided
an analysis of the options to meet the need, considering distribution facilities and a combination of
distributed generation and energy efficiency.27
According to Guernsey’s analysis, distribution
alternatives fail to provide an adequate long-term solution to meet future load growth. 28 Guernsey’s
study also indicated that distribution alternatives were not as reliable or efficient as a new substation
and transmission solution. The distribution alternatives required longer distribution feeders, which
25
26
27
28
Brazos Electric’s First Response to Order No. 1 at 1 (Jan. 20, 2015).
Brazos Ex. 1 at 15.
Id. at 15-16, 79-114.
Id. at 99, 104.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 10
causes distribution losses to increase and reliability of service to decrease. 29 In addition, longer feeders
have more exposure to outage and are, therefore, less reliable. The addition of distribution feeders to
existing substations that are already at or near maximum capacity complicates operations and further
reduces reliability.30
Lengthening distribution circuits is not cost-effective, as the construction would be nonstandard and routed through highly constrained areas of existing development. 31
distribution alternatives exceeded the cost of the Proposed Project in many cases.32
In fact, the
Ultimately,
Guernsey concluded that the distribution alternatives were not feasible as “no distribution option
[could] meet the projected demand within the Study Area” and “the load growth in the Study Area is
simply too great to be served by a distribution solution.”33
The Proposed Project is the best option when compared to employing distribution facilities,
distributed generation, or energy efficiency to meet the need. No party challenged Brazos Electric’s
evidence concerning this issue.34
VI. ROUTE
A.
Background
After weighing the factors, Route 5 is the best alternative because it best balances all of the
relevant criteria.35 Although Route 6 has slight environmental benefits, all parties except Staff support
Route 5, most of the intervenors strongly oppose Route 6 due to its use of the southern substation, and
Route 5 is less expensive than Route 6. Route 1 and the Hybrid Route are substantially more expensive
29 Id. at 93.
30 Id. at 16.
31 Id. at 15-16.
32 Id. at 92-93.
33 Id. at 99.
34 See e.g., Frisco Ex. 7 at 6.
35 See Preliminary Order Issue No. 4: “Which proposed transmission line route is the best alternative
weighting the factors set forth in PURA § 37.056(c) and [16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(b)(3)(B)]?
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 11
due to burial of the line or a portion of the line, and the costs have not been sufficiently justified or
offset by the parties that prefer burial of the proposed line.
The Application includes 20 route alternatives for the Proposed Project, four possible tap
locations, and two possible substation locations. 36 There are two kinds of proposed routes (overhead
and underground) in two locations (along the median of Main Street and along the median of
Stonebrook Parkway). No parties recommended any of the routes along Stonebrook Parkway.37 The
Main Street routes are shorter and less expensive and impact fewer parks, historic and archeological
sites, stream crossings, floodplains, and woodlands than the Stonebrook Parkway routes.38
Brazos Electric recommends use of Route 5 and generally recommends an overhead route. 39
However, Brazos Electric also proposes a hybrid overhead/underground route that would involve
burying only Segment 4 of the chosen route. 40 Staff supports an overhead line, specifically Route 6.
All intervenors support Route 1, which is the underground route along Main Street.
Due to the favorable characteristics of these preferred routes in comparison with the remaining
routes proposed, the ALJs concentrate their analysis on Routes 1, 5, and 6, as well as Brazos Electric’s
suggested Hybrid Route, described in the table below.41
ROUTE
TAP POINT–LINKS–SUBSTATION
DESCRIPTION
36 Brazos Ex. 1; see also Brazos Ex. 4 at 14.
37 The BTL Intervenors took no position on whether a Main Street or a Stonebrook Parkway route was
preferable; their position is that the only acceptable alternative is an underground route.
38 Staff Ex. 2 at 7. Additionally, the Stonebrook Parkway routes involve curved paths, impacts to
planned and existing Frisco ISD schools, and a private airstrip. Staff Ex. 2 at 7-8.
39 Brazos Electric stated that Route 1 would be the best underground route. Brazos Ex. 1 at 19.
40 In its Reply Brief, Brazos Electric reasoned that Segment 4, at 8,559 feet, is the longest segment in
the Main Street routes and passes through the most densely-populated residential area of Main Street.
Brazos Reply Brief at 4; Brazos Ex. 1 at 151, Attachment 2 at B-1. The remaining segments total 6,927
feet and primarily pass through commercial or undeveloped areas. Brazos Reply Brief at 4; Brazos Ex.
1 at 159-163; see also Order of Referral at 2 (“Any route presented in the application could, however,
be approved by the Commission. Any combination of routes or route links could also be approved by
the Commission.”).
41 Centurion prefers Route 1 but also supports Routes 5, 7, 9, and 11, which are Main Street routes
that use the north substation. No other parties support Routes 7, 9, or 11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
Route 1
Hybrid
Route
Route 5
Route 6
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–
Substation North
Tap 1—Segment 8—Segment 7—Segment 5
—Segment 4—Segment 3—Segment 242
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–
Substation North
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–Segment
1–Substation South
PAGE 12
Underground route along Main
Street median supported by
intervenors
Overhead route along Main Street
with burial of Segment 4 as
suggested by Brazos Electric
Overhead route along Main Street
supported by Brazos Electric; the
same as Route 1 except overhead
Overhead route along Main Street
supported by Staff; the same as
Route 5 except including Segment
1 and using Substation South
The statute and Commission’s rules governing CCN applications require the Commission to
consider a number of factors when choosing a route. Below, the ALJs discuss these factors and apply
them to the four routes under consideration.
B.
Best Alternative Route
1. Summary of Parties’ Positions
Staff’s opinion is that estimated construction cost, estimated length, and paralleling right-of-
way are three factors that should be given great weight in determining the best route. Considering
these factors, Staff argues that Route 6 is the best route because it is the second-least expensive route
and the shortest route, and it parallels compatible right-of-way for almost its entire length. Staff notes
that because this is a transmission line, all ratepayers in the ERCOT region will pay for the construction
costs of Brazos Electric’s proposed transmission line.43 Giving weight to construction costs, according
to Staff, would ensure that ratepayers in ERCOT are not unnecessarily paying underground
construction costs for reasons that benefit only local concerns. Staff argues that giving weight to length
and paralleling compatible right-of-way ensures that a proposed transmission line minimizes its impact
on the environment and utilizes potential routing corridors. Staff notes that Route 6, in addition to best
42 Brazos Electric’s proposed Hybrid Route could use either the north or the south substation
locations.
43 See generally Tex. Util. Code § 35.004(d); see also Tr. at 187.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 13
meeting these factors, also compares favorably to other proposed routes with regard to the number of
habitable structures that will be affected.44
According to Staff, the Commission should not approve any underground route for the proposed
transmission line. Staff asserts that there are no compelling circumstances that require burying the
proposed line and that doing so is unnecessary. Staff’s expert witness, John Poole, testified:
I cannot find any compelling circumstances presented by the City of Frisco, the BTL
Intervenors, or other intervenors to this proceeding that would justify building the
proposed transmission line on Routes 1 and 4 [the underground routes] in light of these
cost concerns, especially when other viable, less costly routes for Brazos Co-op’s
proposed transmission line are available.45
Staff also notes that the proposed line does not need to be buried from an operational standpoint
and that “[f]rom an electrical network point of view, [the overhead and underground routes are]
identical.”46 Additionally, Staff argues that the ERCOT ratepayers benefit equally from an overhead or
underground line, but the ratepayers in Frisco would benefit more than other ratepayers from an
underground line.47
According to Brazos Electric, Route 5 best meets the requirements of PURA and PUC’s
substantive rules.48 Brazos Electric also proposes the Hybrid Route as a compromise between the
desire of the intervenors for a buried line and Staff’s concerns regarding costs because that route would
involve burial of the most populated section of the route with a reduced incremental cost.
The intervenors in this case submitted a non-unanimous Stipulation that had been agreed to by
all intervenors. Neither Staff nor Brazos Electric joined the Stipulation. The Stipulation provides five
arguments for approval of Route 1:
44
45
46
47
48
Staff Ex. 1 at 30-31.
Id. at 21.
Tr. at 186-87.
Tr. at 187.
Brazos Ex. 4 at 16, 33.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 14
1. The above ground routes proposed by Brazos Electric conflict with previously planned
city infrastructure improvements and street widening.49 However, coordination of
construction between Brazos Electric and Frisco could lead to savings for the cost
estimate Brazos Electric has suggested for placement of transmission underground.50
2. Traffic congestion makes overhead use of the median on Main Street a significant safety
hazard.51
3. It is unusual to find a significant proposed transmission line corridor that has so many
habitable structures and that is opposed by all intervenors as well as the community
where the line is to be located.52
4. Contributions offered by Frisco and the opportunity for cooperation between Brazos
Electric and Frisco can neutralize any seeming cost advantage for an above ground
option over an underground option.53
5. Even if the incremental difference between underground and above ground options
(approximately $28 million) is accurate and there is no offset offered by Frisco, the
resulting impact on end use ratepayers within ERCOT is de minimis. The $28 million
would be lost in rounding on a monthly basis and would not meaningfully change the
cost responsibility of ratepayers within ERCOT.54
Ms. Salas argues in favor of Routes 1 or 5 because they use the northern substation. She cites
to the following testimony of Larry Cox of Brazos Electric: “The north alternative was slightly less
expensive. [Route] 5 was slightly less expensive than the one using the south substation route. And
south substation route has a small little piece of drainage and a potential little pond on it that was
quantified in the comparisons.”55 Ms. Salas states that the Stonewater Crossing community where she
lives would be impacted by the proposed south substation. The community consists of approximately
231 homes and 700 residents.56 Ms. Salas notes that Staff is the only party that supports the southern
substation.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Stipulation at 3.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 4-5.
Id. at 5.
Tr. at 142.
Salas Post-Hearing Brief at 2.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 15
Route 1, the underground Main Street route that was supported by the intervenors, is the same
length as Route 5 and is estimated to cost approximately $28 million more than Routes 5 and 6. 57 The
Hybrid Route is estimated to cost $21,267,362.81, which reduces the incremental cost of burial from
$28,646,402 to $15,638,764.81.58 However, the intervenors do not support the Hybrid Route as their
position is that the entire line should be buried.
2. Adequacy of Existing Service, Need for Additional Service, and Effect of Granting the
CCN on Oncor and any Electric Utility Serving the Proximate Area
The parties, with the exception of Ms. Salas, do not dispute the need for additional service.59
The projected load growth in the Study Area led to the need for the proposed transmission
line.60
Specifically, “[t]he Study Area’s historical growth rate indicates continued expansion of
residential housing developments, office building complexes, and retail/commercial complexes,” 61 and
“[p]eak demands are expected to grow annually between 6 percent and 10 percent.”62 As a result of this
anticipated growth, “the forecasted 2024 demand of 567.4 MW in the Study Area is 134.2 MW short of
57 Brazos Ex. 1, Attachment 2 at 150.
58 Brazos Electric Reply Brief at 4.
59 Ms. Salas offered the following argument regarding need in her post-hearing brief: Half of Roman
Juarez substation is being given to a single entity that will convert that energy to be resold as data energy.
At the very least this had to affect the poor planning by CoServ.
Roman Juarez was built for “us,” paid for by “us,” because we needed it.
Lastly I leave you with a quote occurring in many of the articles covering the new deal with this data
center.
The location has access to plenty of power. “A substation on site made it appealing, and
there’s capacity for up to 250 megawatts,” Carnes said. “We got the utility to commit
up to 50 megawatts for the site so far.”
250 MW is the complete amount available at Roman Juarez. Salas Brief at 4.
60 The Study Area is “bounded by Highway 121 on the South, the Dallas North Tollway on the East,
Highway 380 on the North, and Garza-Little Elm Reservoir (Lewisville Lake) on the West.” Brazos
Ex. 3 at 7.
61 Id.
62 Id. at 8.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 16
current capacity.”63 Thus, “[l]oad growth is occurring at a pace that will exceed [CoServ Electric’s]
ability to reliably meet the need with existing distribution facilities.”64
The proposed transmission line, rather than distribution solutions, will meet the need for
additional service in the Study Area. Brazos Electric determined that “[t]he load growth in the Study
Area is simply too great to be served by a distribution solution.” 65 The distribution solutions evaluated
by Guernsey on behalf of Brazos Electric were cost prohibitive, not feasible due to the existing
substations in the Study Area lacking sufficient capacity to supply the total projected demand in the
Study Area, or not operationally feasible. 66 Thus, “a transmission and substation option must be
considered to serve the anticipated load in the Study Area.” 67 Brazos Electric’s proposed transmission
line and the proposed additional Stonebrook Substation will meet the need for additional service in the
Study Area because they “will serve the forecasted load growth and reduce the burden on the existing
substations and their feeders.”68
3.Community Values
Although the term “community values” is not formally defined in Commission rules or in
PURA, the term has been described as “a shared appreciation of an area or other natural or human
resource by a national, regional, or local community. Adverse effects upon community values consist
63 Id.
64 Brazos Ex. 1 at 14. CoServ Electric is the electric provider in the Study Area. Id. at 86. The Study
Area is “currently served from feeders from [CoServ Electric’s] Bridges, Frisco, Hebron, Panther
Creek, and Roman Juarez Substations.” Brazos Ex. 3 at 7.
65 Brazos Ex. 1 at 8.
66 The ten distribution solutions are (1) distributed resources (cost prohibitive); (2) photo-voltaic
generation (cost prohibitive and untimely); (3) high voltage direct current express circuit (cost
prohibitive); (4) high-temperature conductor express circuit (cost prohibitive and existing substations
lack sufficient capacity); (5) conversion to 35-kV (cost prohibitive); (6) larger ASCR conductor express
24.9-kV circuit (existing substations lack sufficient capacity); (7) large storage battery installations
(cost prohibitive); (8) 46-kV sub-transmission construction (cost prohibitive); (9) continued distribution
service at 24.9-kV using current construction methods (existing substations lack sufficient capacity;
and (10) continued distribution at 24.9-kV using alternative construction methods (not operationally
feasible). Brazos Ex. 1 at 88-99.
67 Brazos Ex. 3 at 8.
68 Brazos Ex. 1 at 15.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 17
of those aspects of a proposed project that would significantly alter the use, enjoyment, or intrinsic
value attached to an important area or resource by a community.”69
To address and consider community values, Brazos Electric held a civic leader meeting and a
public open house meeting. Questionnaires and public comments, both written and verbal, were
accepted for consideration during and following the meetings. Based on the feedback that Brazos
Electric received, it delayed filing the Application by a year to work with Frisco to develop alternative
routes.70
The civic leader meeting was held on July 23, 2013, in Frisco, Texas. Invitations were mailed
to 41 people. Sixteen people attended the meeting, including representatives from Frisco, the City of
The Colony, Denton County, and various development companies.
The public open house meeting was held on August 17, 2013. The meeting was advertised in
three local newspapers. Landowners within 300 feet of the centerline of each alternative route segment
and substation location were notified by direct mail notices. A total of 619 notices were mailed.
Twenty-eight similar notices were mailed to public officials. A total of 612 people signed in at the
meeting. After the meeting, 517 letters were mailed to landowners who were notified of the meeting
but did not attend.
A total of 190 questionnaires were completed and submitted for consideration. 71 Seventy-three
other written comments were submitted and 34 phone inquiries and comments were received. 72
Additionally, by the date of the hearing, between 6,000 and 7,000 comments had been filed, with the
majority requesting that the transmission line be installed underground. 73 Comments continued to be
filed after the hearing.
69 Application of LCRA Transmission Services Corporation to Amend its Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity for a 345-Kilovolt Double-Circuit Line in Caldwell, Guadalupe, Hays, Travis and
Williamson Counties, Texas, Docket No. 33978, Order at Finding of Fact No. 118 (Oct. 10, 2008).
70 Tr. at 144-46.
71 This number represents the total as of October 10, 2014. Brazos Ex. 1 at 21.
72 Id.
73 Tr. at 109-10.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 18
Frisco and the other intervenors agree in their assertion that an overhead route would be
contrary to the community values of the west Frisco area. It is undisputed that residents of Frisco
would frequently encounter the overhead lines during everyday activities such as driving, biking, or
walking. The main community concerns that arose during the pendency of this case include perceived
negative impacts on property values; aesthetic concerns; interference with Frisco’s plans for street
expansion and additional water infrastructure; health risks, especially for children and the elderly;
proximity of the proposed line to schools; interference with views; thwarting of Frisco’s city planning
and beautification efforts; risk of lost revenue for local businesses and tax revenue for Frisco and Frisco
ISD; and impact on future land development.
The BTL Intervenors summarized their concerns74 as follows:
CONCERN
PERCENT OF BTL INTERVENORS
WITH CONCERN
Adverse impact on property values
Adverse impact on real estate-related borrowing
opportunities
Adverse impact on business revenue
Adverse impact on neighborhood safety (including
health concerns)
Adverse impact on children due to proximity to
schools
Adverse impact on future home sites
Adverse visual impacts (aesthetics)
Adverse impact on Frisco’s development plans
96.3
93.7
74 BTL Initial Brief at 4.
91.3
87.2
79.7
74.4
59.4
8.1
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 19
a. Property Values
The BTL Intervenors assert that although overhead routes may be the “low-cost” option for
Brazos Electric, they are the “high-cost” option in the larger picture because of the expected decrease in
property values associated with overhead routes.75 The BTL Intervenors provided testimony stating
that the installation of overhead lines would have a negative effect on homeowners’ abilities “to receive
a fair market value and a positive return on investment for their homes, should they wish to sell.” 76
They also submitted testimony that this decrease in property values would negatively affect city
services provided to enhance the quality of life in Frisco because of a diminished tax base. 77 The BTL
Intervenors also argue that overhead lines would cause millions of dollars of damages to Frisco due to
changes in its development plans and possible lost property tax revenues to Frisco ISD. The BTL
Intervenors assert that the only way to mitigate the damage to the community that would be caused by
the proposed transmission line is to bury it underground.
b. Safety
The BTL Intervenors and Frisco also have safety-related concerns regarding running an
overhead transmission line in the middle of Main Street, which is a heavily traveled road. 78 Frisco’s
witness Harold L. Hughes, Jr., an Executive Consultant with ReSolved Energy Consulting, LLC, stated
that “[i]t is asking for trouble to have thousands of cars traveling within inches of transmission
75 See BTL Ex. 6 at 10.
76 See, e.g., BTL Ex. 6 at 10; see also BTL Exs. 1-5, 8-11.
77 BTL Ex. 6 at 10; BTL Ex. 7 at 5-6; BTL Ex. 8 at 6; Direct Testimony of Jennifer Jackson at 6. The
intervening parties expressed frustration for “CoServ’s poor planning” throughout this proceeding,
attributing the need for a transmission line in a heavily populated area to a lack of planning on
CoServ’s part. According to Frisco, CoServ developed an expansion plan in 2007. However, that plan
was put on hold due to the national recession from 2008-2011. Development in Frisco and the
surrounding area continued despite the recession, and the areas that had been available for in-line
substations were lost to development. Frisco Reply Brief at 11. Brazos Electric countered that CoServ
planned appropriately and that, even if it had implemented a plan in 2007, the transmission line would
have impacted future growth of the Frisco area. Brazos Reply Brief at 13-14. The ALJs understand the
frustration of the parties regarding the location of the proposed transmission line but note that the
circumstances that led to the necessity of the proposed line being located on a developed street is
outside of the scope of inquiry before the ALJs.
78 Frisco Ex. 7 at 10-11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 20
structures that support a line that is providing a main source of power for the City and surrounding
communities. An underground line would not present these safety . . . concerns.”79
Additionally, Brazos Electric’s witness Erik Ruggeri, the engineer who will oversee
construction of the transmission line, testified that “[g]uard rails would be prudent in areas where the
median is narrow—less than 9 feet.”80 Frisco’s planned road expansion will narrow the median to three
feet in some areas.81 Thus, the BTL Intervenors are concerned that, even with guard rails installed,
placing a transmission line in the median of a busy road will unreasonably heighten the risk of traffic
accidents involving the poles.82 Frisco agrees that if transmission towers can be installed in the median,
they would create significant and potentially deadly traffic hazards.83
The BTL Intervenors also note the frequency of storms in North Texas as another source of
safety concerns. They assert that such storms can upend or collapse a transmission tower and that
exposing residents and commuters to a collapsed tower or downed transmission line is an unreasonable
risk. They view the risk as worse if the median in a six-lane roadway is only three feet wide.84
c. Frisco’s Development Plans
The BTL Intervenors also have concerns regarding the negative impact that an overhead line
would have on Frisco’s development plans; they “take great pride in what [their] City and its leaders
79 Frisco Ex. 1 at 21.
80 Brazos Ex. 6 at 8.
81 Stipulation at 4.
82 The BTL Intervenors also reference a TxDOT rule that states that “[p]oles shall not be placed in the
center median of any highway.” 43 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.41(d)(2). Although that rule is not
applicable to this case, the BTL Intervenors note that Staff witness Mr. Poole stated that it is proper to
extend by analogy certain regulations that are not directly applicable if the regulations are nonetheless
helpful to the Commission in reaching a routing decision. Tr. at 244.
83 Frisco also called into question the weight that should be given to Mr. Poole’s testimony on behalf
of the Commission, stating that he was hired in February of 2015 and assigned to this case in May
2015. Tr. at 217-18, 222, 225-26, 245-46.
84 Stipulation at 3.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 21
have been able to accomplish in turning Frisco into . . . the ‘crown jewel of Texas.’” 85 BTL Intervenor
witness Kendall Meade explained that
As a master planned community, Frisco has given much thought and taken great care in
the development of the city. Frisco’s leaders take calculated and well thought-out steps
to ensure that Frisco is a “premier” city. They have invested a great deal of taxpayer
dollars in making our City the best it can be. If the proposed overhead lines are allowed,
they will destroy all that our City and taxpayers have worked to create.86
The BTL Intervenors argue that the Commission should take into account the value the Frisco
community places on the careful planning of their city when determining which route is appropriate.
Because of the city’s growth and resulting traffic conditions on Main Street, Frisco has planned
to expand the street inward by decreasing the width of the median. Additionally, the need for water in
Frisco has resulted in plans to use the median of Main Street for underground placement of a 30-inch
water transmission pipe and a 20-inch water reuse pipe. According to the Stipulation, installing the
transmission line overhead in the median may prevent Frisco from completing its plans and expanding
the street inward. All intervenors view the inward expansion, as opposed to outward expansion that
would require condemnation of private property, as preserving community values on Main Street.
The intervenors also argue that the Application “ignores” Frisco’s plan to widen Main Street. In
some areas, the planned road expansion will narrow the median to three feet. According to the
intervenors, even if three feet is sufficient for the construction plans of Brazos Electric, such narrowing
would allow insufficient space for guard rails along the street where transmission poles are to be
located.87
In contrast, Staff argues that Route 6 will not affect Frisco’s plan to expand Main Street. Brazos
Electric witness Mr. Ruggeri confirmed that a transmission line on Main Street will not impact Frisco’s
plan.88 Mr. Ruggeri evaluated the feasibility of construction of an overhead route along Main Street
and Stonebrook Parkway in light of Frisco’s street expansion plans.
85
86
87
88
BTL Ex. 6 at 12.
Id. at 19-24.
Stipulation at 4.
Tr. at 150-52.
He found that there were
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 22
“sufficient, potential pole locations . . . that are seven to nine feet in width.” 89 Mr. Ruggeri concluded
that an overhead line was feasible on Main Street, even considering Frisco’s road expansion plans.90
According to Staff, placing a transmission line in the median of a roadway is not unusual. Staff
notes that the Study Area has a 345-kV transmission line located in the median of Legacy Drive, which
crosses Main Street.91 Frisco argues that Legacy Drive is less developed than Main Street. The
Application indicates that two housing developments as well as the entrance to Legacy Christian
Academy (an intervenor) are located on Legacy Drive.92 Although Legacy Drive is sparsely developed,
the fact that there is a utility line down the median of the road is an indication that running a
transmission line down the median is not absolutely prohibited.
d. Schools
The BTL Intervenors are also “outraged that Brazos [Electric] has proposed to install a
transmission line near so many schools.”93 According to Frisco witness Richard Wilkinson, the Deputy
Superintendent of Business Services for Frisco ISD, “Frisco ISD is one of the fastest growing public
school districts in the nation” with “over 50,000 students enrolled in seven high schools, 13 middle
schools, 37 elementary schools, and four special programs schools.”94 Due to the city’s growth, Frisco
ISD has opened several new schools recently, including two that began operation in August 2015. 95
According to the BTL Intervenors, there are thousands of children attending schools near one or more
of the proposed routes, and those numbers will only increase as the city grows. 96 The community
attracts families with children,97 and community members are concerned for the well-being of their
children. The BTL Intervenors believe that an underground route is the only reasonable alternative to
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Brazos Ex 6 at 5-6.
Id. at 6.
Tr. at 146-47, 194.
Brazos Ex. 1 at 159-60.
BTL Initial Brief at 12.
Frisco Ex. 6 at 4-5.
Id. at 5.
See BTL Ex. 21 (Frisco ISD Facility Map).
BTL Ex. 6 at 15.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 23
prevent the unknown health consequences of a child’s entire K-12 education taking place in the
proximity of the proposed line.
e. Habitable Structures
In the Stipulation, the intervenors assert that an above ground line will impact “a staggering
amount of habitable structures because this area is so developed,” whereas an underground line would
impact no habitable structures.98
The Chamber argues that an overhead line would directly impact both current and future
commercial properties along Main Street.
The Chamber described the commercial properties as
varying from small stand-alone retail stores, restaurants, and medical/office space to shopping centers
containing similar establishments.
Further development including multi-family/mixed-use, retail,
office, and outdoor mixed-use space is planned. Additional residential developments are planned as
well. Both Staff and Brazos Electric witnesses testified that they had never worked on any other case
in which the route would impact so much existing development.99
f. Discussion
Staff disputes the weight that should be afforded to the community values factor in this case.
Staff argues that Frisco and the BTL Intervenors have failed to present exceptional and compelling
circumstances for burying the transmission line, particularly when Frisco has not offered to guarantee a
financial contribution. Rather, Staff refutes the BTL Intervenors’ attempt to justify running the line
underground due to local concerns regarding the impact on future development and property values.
Staff asserts that neither future development nor property values are routing criteria listed in the
Commission’s substantive rules.100 According to Staff, these local concerns should be given little, if
any, consideration in determining the best route.
98 Stipulation at 4.
99 Tr. at 166.
100 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(b)(3)(B).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 24
According to the intervenors, the above ground alternatives are universally opposed by Frisco,
the Chamber, Frisco ISD, commercial establishments, homeowner associations, and individual
homeowners.101
Regardless of the weight given to this factor, community values heavily favor Route 1. Route 1
would not impact property values, safety, schools, Frisco’s development plan, or habitable structures.
Route 1 would preserve the use, enjoyment, and intrinsic value of the community of west Frisco.
4. Recreational and Park Areas
There are several parks and recreation areas located within 1,000 feet of the centerline of the
Main Street overhead routes that would be impacted by the proposed line.
The homeowners
association (HOA) intervenors are concerned about destruction of views from community parks by the
presence of overhead lines.
The following table shows the parks that would be affected by the four routes under
consideration:
NAME
Kings Garden Amenity
Center
McCord Park
OWNER
Kings Garden HOA
LOCATION
Approximately 921 feet north of
Segment 5 (All four routes)
Town of Little Elm
Approximately 842 feet north of
Substation North (Routes 1 and 5
and the Hybrid Route)
Waterford Falls Amenity
Waterford Falls Owners
Approximately 601 feet south of
Center
Association
Segment 4 (All four routes)
Westfalls Village Amenity
Westfalls Village HOA
Approximately 971 feet south of
Center
Segment 4 (All four routes)
Route 1 or a hybrid route that buried Segments 4 and 5 would have the least impact on recreational and
park areas. Additionally, a route that used the south substation would not impact McCord Park.
5. Historical and Aesthetic Values
101 Stipulation at 4.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 25
The BTL Intervenors are also concerned about the negative aesthetic impact that an overhead
transmission line would have on the west Frisco community. For instance, the tallest structure in the
area currently is the Embassy Suites, which is thirteen stories high. 102 The transmission lines, at 85-100
feet high, would be the second-tallest structure in Frisco and the tallest structure in west Frisco.103
According to the BTL Intervenors, many homeowners in Frisco were attracted to the city
because of its bucolic characteristics, and many of them would not have purchased their homes if an
overhead transmission line was present in the median of Main Street or Stonebrook Parkway.104
Moreover, they fear that overhead lines will fundamentally change the nature of the area and “destroy
their expectations.”105 The BTL Intervenors request that the Commission consider and protect those
expectations.
No historical or archeological sites are impacted by the four recommended routes.106
There is no impact on historical values among the routes. Route 1 is favored for aesthetic
values because it would have temporary aesthetic impact, whereas any overhead route would have a
permanent impact.
102
103
104
105
106
BTL Ex. 6 at 10.
Id. at 10.
Id. at 11-12.
BTL Initial Brief at 15.
Two archeological sites are located within 1,000 feet of Routes 3 and 4. Brazos Ex. 1.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 26
6. Environmental Integrity
Brazos Electric argues that an overhead route would have less impact on the environment
because it would span the environmental constraints such as creeks and floodplains. The intervenors
argue that a below ground line would have less environmental impact. Staff witness Larry Cox
testified that the primary environmental impacts of installing an underground line would be soil
disturbance and potential sedimentation and water quality impacts. 107 As discussed below, Brazos
Electric has agreed to implement many of the suggested changes recommended by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD), regardless of which line is ultimately constructed. Therefore, no route
along Main Street is significantly better than another when analyzing environmental integrity.
7. Probable Improvement of Service or Lowering of Cost to Consumers in the Area
As discussed above in the section on need, the new line is needed to improve service to serve
increasing demand and prevent outages. There are no cost savings to consumers anticipated as a result
of the Proposed Project. However, it is the best option to meet the service needs, taking into account
considerations of efficiency, reliability, costs, and benefits.
8. Effect on the State’s Renewable Energy Goals
The Proposed Project is a transmission line unrelated to the State of Texas’ renewable energy
goals.
107 Tr. at 154.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 27
9. Factors in 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.101(b)(3)(B)
a. Engineering Constraints
Mr. Ruggeri testified that there are no engineering constraints that prohibit an overhead
construction in the median of Main Street, even considering Frisco’s planned expansion. 108
Specifically, he testified that Main Street “provide[s] adequate space for the location of single-pole
structures necessary for the construction of an overhead line, if selected by the PUC. Even with the
reduced median width, there are ample locations wherein the median is wide enough to allow poles
within the 200-800 foot span range.”109
The BTL Intervenors and Frisco argue that there would be safety concerns with placing the poles in the
narrowed median because there would not be room for guard rails along the median in the narrow
areas. According to Frisco, after it expands Main Street, the median will be less than five feet wide in
some places.110 Frisco argues that the “industry standard” under the current AASHTO Roadside Design
Guide and the current TxDOT Roadway Design Manual is to provide an object-free clear zone of at
least four feet to six feet from the curb. 111 Guard rails are recommended if this condition cannot be met.
Frisco argues that approximately 18 inches is needed behind a curb to install a guard rail and posts,
which means that the available space in the median would be reduced by 18 inches on both sides (three
feet in total).112 Frisco further argues that Brazos Electric has previously indicated that it requires a 70foot easement to operate the transmission route safely, although Mr. Ruggeri testified that there will be
areas where the median measures between seven and nine feet.113 Frisco asserts that Brazos Electric
failed to reconcile this inconsistency.
Mr. Ruggeri’s testimony addressed each of these concerns. He testified that “while it is true that
there are areas . . . where the median [will be] too narrow for a transmission structure, we span
108
109
110
111
112
113
See Brazos Ex. 6 at 5-9; Tr. at 150-52.
Brazos Ex. 6 at 9.
Frisco Ex. 4 at 5 and Attachments NA-2 and NA-3.
Id. at 6.
Id. at 6.
Tr. at 159.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 28
anywhere from 200 feet to 800 feet. So we’re able to put them in the wider areas of the median . . . .” 114
He further stated that Brazos Electric would place the poles in areas of the median where there is
“sufficient width to do so, approximately 7 to 9 feet.”115 Mr. Ruggeri also testified that the transmission
line can be built on the Main Street median, that it would also be possible for Frisco to expand Main
Street inward by narrowing the median, and that Brazos Electric would need a 70-foot right-of-way for
construction and maintenance but not for safety or operational purposes.116 Similarly, construction of
an underground line would require a 20- to 70-foot right-of-way.117
Frisco also criticizes Mr. Ruggeri’s analysis because he relied on documents provided to him by
Frisco rather than conducting an independent analysis of how wide the median would be. Frisco does
not explain why reliance on its own information is unsatisfactory. Frisco also complains that, even if
the poles will fit in the median, Brazos Electric concedes that it would likely have to block a lane of
traffic for maintenance of the line.
However, Frisco does not explain why this is a reason for
undergrounding the line. Lanes of travel on many busy streets are often blocked for a variety of
maintenance activities, including for maintenance of underground infrastructure.
The ALJs find Mr. Ruggeri’s testimony to be credible and do not find that engineering
constraints require burying the transmission line. As Mr. Ruggeri testified, poles can be placed in the
wider parts of the median to allow space for guard rails where they are needed, and the line can span
the narrower areas of the median. The ALJs appreciate Frisco’s concerns for safety of commuters on
Main Street, but those concerns do not equate to engineering constraints that require burial of the line.
b. Costs
The parties dispute who should pay the cost difference of a buried route if the Commission
orders such a route. As further explored in this PFD, the intervenors argue that the incremental cost
should be paid by ERCOT ratepayers, whereas Staff argues that local parties requesting burial of the
line should pay for the burial. Additionally, the BTL Intervenors urge the Commission to consider not
114
115
116
117
Tr. at 156.
Tr. at 157.
Tr. at 157.
Brazos Ex. 1 at 7-8.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 29
just the “direct installation costs” but also the “true costs” to the community.118 They argue that this
case is unique and that the Commission must weigh the factors differently in this case than in the
“usual” case.119
Brazos Electric estimates that the cost difference between Routes 5 and 6 and Route 1 is
approximately $28 million and that the cost difference between Routes 5 and 6 and the Hybrid Route is
approximately $15,638,765. The estimated cost of each route is shown in the table below:
ROUTE
Route 1
Route 5
Route 6
Hybrid Route
ESTIMATED COST
$34,275,000
$5,628,598
$5,948,864
$21,267,363
Based on the cost factor alone, Route 5 is the preferable route. Route 6 is slightly more
expensive but also reasonable in terms of cost. The Hybrid Route and Route 1 are significantly more
expensive. In order to justify ordering Route 1 or the Hybrid Route, cost must be outweighed by other
factors.
118 BTL Initial Brief at 17.
119 Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 30
c. Compatible ROW, Property Boundaries, and Natural and Cultural Features
Routes 1, 5, and 6 all parallel compatible right-of-way for 98.95% of their lengths, as shown in
the table below.120 Therefore, the proposed routes are indistinguishable under this factor.
LAND USE
Total Length (feet)
Parallel Pipe Lines
(feet)
Parallel Roadways
(feet)
Percentage of Parallel
Right-of-Way
ROUTE 1
15,486
2,167
ROUTE 5
15,486
2,167
ROUTE 6
15,486
2,167
15,423
15,423
15,423
98.95
98.95
98.95
d. Prudent Avoidance and Habitable Structures
PURA § 37.056 and 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.101 routing factors require
conformance with the Commission’s policy of prudent avoidance. Prudent avoidance is defined as “the
limiting of exposures to electric and magnetic fields that can be avoided with reasonable investments of
money and effort.”121 Prudent avoidance is achieved by minimizing, “to the extent reasonable, the
number of habitable structures located in close proximity to the routes.” 122 There are 246 habitable
structures within 300 feet of the centerline of Routes 1 and 5 and 251 habitable structures within 300
feet of the centerline of Route 6. 123 Due to the highly developed nature of the Project Area, all of the
preferred routes impact a high number of habitable structures.
The following table shows how the four recommended routes compare with regard to impact on
habitable structures:
ROUTE
HABITABLE STRUCTURES
WITHIN 300 FEET OF
CENTERLINE
120 Because the Hybrid Route is a combination of Route 1 and Route 5 or Route 6, it also parallels
compatible right-of-way for 98.95% of its length.
121 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(a)(4).
122 Staff Ex. 1 at 30.
123 16 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 25.101(a)(4), (b)(3)(B)(iv); Brazos Ex. 1 at 39, 44-47.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
Route 1 (underground)
Route 5
Route 6
Hybrid Route
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 31
246
246
251
Either 246 or 251
The BTL Intervenors’ position is that only an underground route conforms with the PUC’s
policy of prudent avoidance by minimizing the number of habitable structures in close proximity to the
routes. The BTL Intervenors are concerned about the health risks posed by electromagnetic fields
(EMF) near so many homes and schools. Some residents with health concerns have stated that they
will move if an overhead route is approved.124
The BTL Intervenors are particularly concerned
regarding the effect the proposed line could have on the Frisco Lakes retirement community,
specifically that “the pacemakers and other highly sensitive medical devices used by numerous Frisco
Lakes residents may be interfered with by the electrical current carried by these high-voltage
transmission lines.”125
Staff witness Mr. Poole admitted that he was not aware of any other cases of this kind where so
many habitable structures would be affected by a transmission line that was recommended by PUC
Staff.126 Based on that testimony, the BTL Intervenors argue, the Commission should give greater
weight than usual to its policy of prudent avoidance and order that an underground route be
constructed.
The Chamber argues that the overhead routes do not conform to the Commission’s policy of
prudent avoidance because they will negatively impact both city planning and business development
that already exists or is currently underway. According to the Chamber, undergrounding is the only
acceptable way to protect Frisco’s residents and commercial property owners seeking the best use of
their private property.
Ms. Salas argues that, between Route 5 and Route 6, Route 5 is preferable under this factor
because it uses the northern substation, which impacts fewer habitable structures. Jennifer Jackson,
124 See BTL Ex. 6 at 14.
125 Id.
126 Tr. at 220.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 32
President of the Stonewater Crossing HOA, testified that the residents of Stonewater Crossing strongly
oppose the southern substation.127 John LeBeck, who serves on the Board of Directors for the Village
at Frisco Lakes HOA, supports the northern substation because the Village at Frisco Lakes is expanding
in the vicinity of the proposed southern substation.128
As shown in the Table, the number of habitable structures within 300 feet of the centerline of the
four preferred routes is similar. However, Route 1 would likely have a lesser impact on the habitable
structures because it would be located below ground. Therefore, Route 1 has a lesser impact under this
factor.129 The Hybrid Route would impact 210 fewer structures than Routes 5 or 6. 130 Routes 5 and 6
are substantially similar to each other on this factor, with Route 6 impacting only five additional
habitable structures. Those five structures are located near the southern substation.
The Commission’s policy of prudent avoidance involves not just the avoidance of habitable
structures but the minimization of impact to habitable structures that can be achieved with reasonable
investments of money and effort.131 No alternative overhead route in the project area avoids proximity
to numerous habitable structures. The intervenors argue that Route 1 is the only way to achieve
prudent avoidance because it will involve burial of the line, but that route is approximately $28 million
more expensive than Routes 5 or 6. Route 1 is only preferable under this factor if the extra cost of $28
million and the additional effort of burial can be viewed as reasonable. The ALJs do not find this
additional investment to be reasonable without a firm commitment to pay for a portion of the cost of
burial from the parties who will benefit from such burial.
10. Alternative Routes with Less Impact on Landowners
The intervenors assert that Route 1 is the only alternative route that would have less negative
127 Tr. at 212-13.
128 Tr. at 215-16.
129 No evidence was presented regarding the difference, if any, between the potential effects of EMF
for below-ground or above ground transmission lines. However, the intervenors argued that the
potential effects of EMF would be resolved by burying the proposed line.
130 Brazos Ex. 1, Attachment 2 at B-1. Segment 4, which would be buried if the Hybrid Route is
ordered, impacts 210 habitable structures.
131 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(a)(4).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 33
impact on landowners. The incremental cost of Route 1 is approximately $28 million.132
a. Hybrid Route
Brazos Electric offered the option of the Hybrid Route as a compromise to lower the
incremental cost of burial while burying only the most heavily populated route segment. The Hybrid
Route has an estimated incremental cost of $15,638,764.81. 133 Frisco agrees with the burial of Segment
4 as proposed in the Hybrid Route. However, Frisco contends that the entire route must be buried due
to its street expansion plans and the planned future development along the other segments. Similarly,
the BTL Intervenors maintain that the entire route must be buried and that the Hybrid Route option is
“no option at all.”134 Staff does not oppose the Hybrid Route as long as Frisco, the BTL Intervenors, or
parties other than the ERCOT ratepayers pay for the burial.
b. Additional Costs Associated with Landowner Preferences
i.
Parties’ Arguments
As an initial matter, the BTL Intervenors argue that PURA, not “landowner preference,”
requires burial of the proposed line. According to the BTL Intervenors, the ERCOT system, not the
local constituents, should bear the costs of burial of the line because the costs are driven by the density
of the study area, paucity of route choices, and the requirements of PURA. Specifically, the BTL
Intervenors cite to the following “unique facts and circumstances” to justify their position:
The unusually high density of the proposed routes;
The density cannot be avoided by selecting alternative routes;
Overhead installation of the line along those routes must be on monopoles located in
the median of very busy thoroughfares;
Overhead installation on monopoles would cause substantial damage to property
values in the community, change the character of the community, and unnecessarily
raise fears and perceptions of the safety and well-being of members of the
community;
132 Brazos Ex. 1 at 151.
133 Brazos Reply Brief at 4.
134 BTL Intervenors’ Response to SOAH Order No. 13 at 1.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 34
Overhead installation on monopoles would completely disrupt the well-established
uses and Frisco’s planned expansion of the roads and require Frisco to take more
land on the outside of the roadways to implement their plans;
Underground installation will eliminate all of the damages that would be caused by
overhead installations; and
Frisco and every other intervenor in this case have agreed to a plan that they state
will reduce the cost difference between underground and overhead to $500,000 or
less.135
Frisco offered what it argues are adequate contributions in support of an underground route,
including (1) an easement at no charge to Brazos Electric down the Main Street median for an
underground line, valued by Frisco at $17.86 million; and (2) savings of $10 million resulting from
coordinated construction costs paid directly by Frisco. Frisco argues that these contributions will cover
the approximately $28 million in incremental costs of undergrounding the line, thus nullifying the
incremental cost of burial.136
The first part of Frisco’s plan, “donation” of an easement to Brazos Electric only if the line is
run underground below the Main Street median, is subject to dispute. Frisco asserts that its “donation”
of the right-of-way along Main Street is worth $17.86 million. 137 Staff argues that Brazos Electric is
authorized to use the right-of-way along Main Street under PURA § 181.042 for no charge. Similarly,
Brazos Electric argues that it is not required to pay Frisco for use of the public right-of-way along Main
Street.
The Commission ordered that the appropriate compensation for right-of-way or condemnation
of property is not to be addressed in this proceeding because the Commission has no authority to set the
amount of compensation for right-of-way or condemnation of property.138 Therefore, the disputed issue
135 BTL Initial Brief at 18-19.
136 Frisco Initial Brief at 42.
137 Frisco asserted that, if Brazos Electric builds the transmission line above ground, Frisco will have
to expand Main Street outward rather than inward because there is not enough right-of-way behind the
curb to expand the roadway. Frisco claimed that such expansion will cost it an additional $11.7
million. According to Frisco, the only solution to this problem is undergrounding the line. However,
as noted above, installation of an overhead line will not prevent Frisco from expanding the street
inward.
138 Order of Referral at 5. Brazos Electric did not include cost of right-of-way acquisition from
Frisco in its cost estimates for any of the proposed routes. Brazos Ex. 1, Attachment 2, Table B.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 35
of whether Frisco is entitled to $17.86 million, or any other amount of compensation, for use of the
Main Street right-of-way is outside the scope of this proceeding.
The second part of Frisco’s plan is coordinating expansion of its roadways and infrastructure
with construction of an underground line. Frisco asserts that this coordination of construction would
result in savings of $10 million for Brazos Electric. 139 Frisco states that it will have to excavate up to
eight feet or more and perform trenching to install its planned water transmission line and reuse water
transmission line. Frisco proposes that it and Brazos Electric hire a single general contractor to
perform the work, and the city’s contractor can install all of the improvements, including the
transmission line conduit, at the same time. Frisco requests that, in evaluating its contribution to
incremental costs, the Commission consider that Frisco is willing to delay its project to coordinate with
Brazos Electric and that the impact to traffic will be shortened by eight months through this
coordination of efforts.
Brazos Electric concedes that, if Frisco pays the contractor directly for specific items of
construction, approximately $9.5 million could be saved. 140 However, Frisco represents that if the cost
savings associated with coordinating construction turn out to be less than $10 million, it would not
commit to making up the difference.141 Specifically, at the hearing, Frisco’s assistant manager Ben
Brezina testified that Frisco would not commit to making up any shortfall in the estimated $10 million
in savings.142
The BTL Intervenors also present several arguments for why adequate contributions have been
made to offset the costs of line burial. The BTL Intervenors argued that the Commission has approved
longer or more expensive route options under prudent avoidance or to preserve or protect wildlife. 143
139 Frisco Ex. 5 at 6-8; Frisco Ex. 7 at 16-17.
140 Brazos Ex. 6 at 28-29. Brazos Electric also estimated that if the Hybrid Route is ordered, the
savings from construction coordination would be approximately $4,157,063.72. Brazos Reply Brief at
4; Brazos Ex. 6 at 28, Attachment ER-4 at 1; Brazos Ex. 1 at 151, Attachment 2 at B-1, 142,
Attachment 2 at 16.
141 Tr. at 198.
142 Tr. at 197-98.
143 See Application of Electric Transmission Texas, LLC to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity for the Proposed Barney Davis to Naval Base 138-kV Single-Circuit Transmission Lines in
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 36
The BTL Intervenors recognize that the Commission did not intend for its prior orders to set precedent,
but they argue that those orders show that factors other than cost must be considered in this case. The
BTL Intervenors and Frisco also argue that allowing burial of the line in this case, and uplifting the
costs to the entire system, would not set precedent for future cases; rather, the Commission could
continue to approach these types of situations on a case-by-case basis.
The BTL Intervenors also argue that, even if the incremental cost of burying the line were the full
estimated $28 million, the resulting impact on ratepayers would be de minimis and lost in rounding
each month.144
If Frisco’s contributions (not charging for the right-of-way and coordinating
construction efforts) are taken into consideration, the impact on ratepayers would be even less,
according to the BTL Intervenors.145
The BTL Intervenors also assert that, as taxpayers of the city,
they are offering adequate contribution through Frisco’s contributions.
The BTL Intervenors view Staff’s position that the intervenors should pay a portion of the
incremental costs of undergrounding as fundamentally unfair. They state that
Expert testimony filed by the BTL Intervenors in this proceeding shows that each
homeowner may suffer as much as a 20 to 30 percent reduction in value of their
residence if the HTVLs are installed overhead. Using an average home price of
$300,000 as an example, that means that the damage caused to the homeowners by
overheading the lines could be as much as $60,000 to $90,000. Apparently staff wants
to know if the BTL Intervenors are willing to pay $40,000 to keep Brazos/CoServ from
making them lose $60,000 to $90,000. If that is truly what staff wants to know, the
answer is a resounding “No.”146
The BTL Intervenors also note that there are many more individuals beyond the intervenors who would
benefit from undergrounding the line, including the 6,000-plus commenters in this proceeding, the
28,000 residents of Frisco who have not joined this proceeding, and the residents of Little Elm,
Nueces County, PUC Docket No. 42467, Final Order at 13-15, 17-18 (May 28, 2015).
144 Frisco Ex. 2 at 13.
145 The BTL Intervenors noted that Frisco’s contributions represent far more than the 25%
contribution made by the City of Dallas when the Commission approved underground installation in
Dallas County. Application of TXU Electric Delivery Company to Amend a Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Within Dallas County, Docket No. 32455, Final Order
at 1 (June 7, 2007).
146 BTL Ex. 12 at 20.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 37
Hackberry, and The Colony who will receive power from the line. Therefore, they argue, expecting the
BTL Intervenors alone to pay a pro rata share is not fair.
Frisco agrees with the BTL Intervenors that the costs of burying the line should be spread out
over ERCOT’s ratepayers. Frisco also points to other cases in which that was done. 147 Frisco argues
that the line will serve the towns of Little Elm, Hackberry, and The Colony, as well as Frisco, and that
the line will preserve the integrity and reliability of the interconnected CoServ grid as a whole. 148
Additionally, residents of the Dallas metro area who travel down Main Street would benefit from the
safety of underground lines. Frisco suggests that overhead lines will have service outages that could
possibly trigger blackouts through the system such that an underground line would benefit the entire
grid.
Frisco further argues that Brazos Electric should bear the cost of underground construction
because (1) CoServ caused “this problem”; (2) the incremental cost is unknown because Brazos
Electric merely estimated it; and (3) requiring Frisco to pay the entire incremental cost sets a standard
that has not been applied in any other transmission case. 149 Frisco also argues that requiring it to pay
the incremental cost punishes Frisco for CoServ’s lack of foresight and prudent planning.150
Staff argues that, because a buried line is operationally unnecessary and will not benefit
ERCOT ratepayers, an underground route will impose unnecessary costs to the ratepayers in ERCOT.
Staff also argues that Frisco’s position that the $28 million difference will be lost in rounding is
irrelevant because the issue is not whether the unnecessary costs have a material impact on each
individual ratepayer in ERCOT but whether the ratepayers in ERCOT should pay for the cost of an
underground transmission line in the first place. Additionally, Staff argues, it should be up to the local
parties to pay for burying the line, not the ratepayers in ERCOT.
Staff witness William B. Abbott testified that cost allocation is based on cost-causation, not
147
148
149
150
See Docket Nos. 42467, 32455.
Frisco Ex. 1 at 18.
Id. at 15-16.
Id. at 21.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 38
simply receipt of benefit, and he noted that, in this case, the undergrounding costs are “caused by the
City of Frisco’s desire to underground the line.”151 Mr. Abbott also noted that operationally, the
transmission line would benefit all ratepayers whether it was above or below ground, but ratepayers
outside of Frisco would not benefit from the incremental costs of undergrounding. 152 Mr. Abbott’s
opinion was that “undergrounding does not benefit all customers within ERCOT, and the costs of
undergrounding should not be spread to all customers . . . [and] allowing the costs of undergrounding to
be recovered in wholesale transmission rates would have a significant detrimental impact on
ratepayers . . . .”153 Mr. Abbott further stated that the public interest as a whole could be harmed by the
approval of a project with costs greater than the benefits.154 Specifically,
Policies or projects that involved concentrated benefits and diffuse costs are highly
susceptible to producing outcomes that are harmful to social welfare and contrary to the
public interest. The concentration of benefits among a small group gives the members
of that group a strong private incentive to advocate for such a policy or project, as each
member can expect a relatively large share of the benefits. The diffusion of costs across
a larger group results in significantly weaker private incentives for the members of the
larger group to oppose the policy or project, as only a relatively small portion of the
costs would fall upon any individual member. The significant asymmetry involved in
such a situation makes it ripe for an outcome where the diffuse costs are greater than the
concentrated benefits – and the public interest is therefore harmed by the adoption of a
policy or project with costs greater than the benefits.155
Conversely, if the Frisco community values the benefits to undergrounding more than the costs, then
those who benefit “would come out ahead and should be willing to pay those costs.” 156 Further,
according to Staff, the problem of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs can be mitigated by requiring
that “a very high standard be met before allowing any costs to be uplifted or socialized.”157
Frisco argues that cost causation is an inappropriate focus in this proceeding, but, if it has any
merit, the true cause of the need for an underground transmission line is CoServ’s failure to implement
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
Staff Ex. 2 at 6.
Id. at 6.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 9.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 9.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 39
its 2007 plans to address load growth in the Frisco area. Frisco argues that CoServ’s poor planning is
relevant to this proceeding because Staff is arguing that Frisco and local constituencies are the cause of
the costs associated with undergrounding. Frisco also argues that Staff’s position on cost-causation
conflicts with Commission precedent.158 The BTL Intervenors agree that CoServ’s poor planning is the
major issue in this case because it is the direct cause of the controversy.
ii.
Proposed Solutions
Staff states that it would support an underground route along Main Street if the local
constituencies offered a local solution and guarantee to pay for the additional cost of burying the line.
Staff argues that the Commission could issue an order contemplating a solution that guaranteed that the
additional cost of burying the proposed transmission line would not be uplifted to the ratepayers in
ERCOT, should the parties come to an agreement regarding a local solution to pay for an underground
route.
The Commission could require that it approve the local solution prior to allowing an
underground transmission line.
Staff offers several solutions for paying for the additional cost of burying the transmission line
that do not involve uplifting the cost to all ratepayers in ERCOT. These options include (1) Frisco and
Frisco ISD, as taxing authorities, raising taxes or issuing bonds; (2) Frisco increasing the franchise fee
that it charges CoServ;159 (3) Frisco reducing or eliminating the franchise fee that it charges CoServ,
thus freeing up funds for CoServ to pay for the additional cost; (4) CoServ increasing its distribution
rates throughout CoServ’s service area, limited to Frisco or the Study Area; or (5) a combination of
these options.
158 Application of Southwestern Electric Power Company for Rate Case Expenses Severed from
Docket No. 40443, Docket No. 42370, Final Order at Findings of Fact Nos. 38, 40, and 41 (June 24,
2015); Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC to Amend a Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity for the Riley-Krum West 345-kV CREZ Transmission Line (Formerly Oklaunion to West
Krum) in Archer, Clay, Cooke, Denton, Jack, Montague, Wichita, Wilbarger, and Wise Counties, Texas,
Docket No. 38140, Order (Oct. 29, 2010). Frisco also cited to two Texas Railroad Commission cases,
R.R. Comm’n, TXU Gas Company Statement of Intent to Change Rates in the Company’s Statewide
Gas Utility System, Gas Utilities Docket No. 9400, Proposal for Decision at 251-253 (Apr. 23, 2004);
City of Dallas v. R.R. Comm’n of Texas, No. 03-06-00580-CV, 2008 WL 4823225, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Austin Nov. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).
159 See generally Staff Ex. 4.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 40
The BTL Intervenors offer the following solution: CoServ could implement a monthly charge to
its customers that would be used to pay the incremental costs as Brazos Electric repays its United
States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS) loan. The BTL Intervenors calculated
that, based on 218,236 customers and a $28.3 million cost difference, the total charge per
meter/customer would be $129.68. That amount would be divided by the number of months the RUS
loan is amortized. Assuming a term of 40 years and not accounting for interest, the monthly charge to
each customer would be $0.27.160 Including savings realized by construction coordination would
reduce this amount further.
Brazos Electric asserts that it would be inequitable and inappropriate to order CoServ to pay
the cost difference between an overhead and underground line. Additionally, it argues, PURA does not
contemplate that the Commission would order CoServ to include Brazos Electric’s transmission cost of
service in its retail rates. CoServ’s board of directors has “exclusive jurisdiction” to “set all terms of
access, conditions, and rates applicable to services provided by the electric cooperative.” 161 Brazos
Electric argues that there is no authority for the Commission to order a non-party distribution electric
cooperative to pay for a wholesale transmission provider’s transmission costs of service or the
additional costs for undergrounding the line.
Frisco argues that Staff’s suggestions were not addressed in evidence and asserts that several
are beyond the authority of the Commission to order.
The ALJs note that these options are outside the scope of the proceeding before them; therefore,
the ALJs make no recommendation on these options.
iii.
Discussion
The value of the Main Street right-of-way and whether Frisco is entitled to compensation for it
is disputed. Frisco claims that its “donation” of the right-of-way down the Main Street median is worth
160 Staff stated that it found this option to be acceptable. Staff Reply Brief at 12.
161 PURA § 41.055(1).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 41
$17.86 million and will reduce the incremental costs of burial by that amount. Staff and Brazos
Electric dispute that valuation as well as the assumption that Brazos Electric must pay for the use of the
right-of-way. Staff and Brazos Electric argue that, as an electric cooperative, Brazos Electric has a
statutory right to use the right-of-way along a municipality’s street under PURA § 181.042. They
further argue that there is no statutory provision requiring an electric cooperative to pay for such use.
Although this issue is one that is properly decided in a condemnation hearing, the ALJs allowed limited
evidence on it because the value of the right-of-way, if it can be charged against Brazos Electric, would
add a significant amount to the cost of each of the proposed routes and could show that Brazos
Electric’s cost estimates were inaccurate. However, the issue of the cost of purchasing the right-ofway, if any, is excluded from the issues the ALJs may consider. Because this issue is a legal question
for a condemnation proceeding and for litigation and appeal, should any party decide to engage in
litigation on the issue, the ALJs do not make a recommendation.
Frisco has also offered to coordinate construction with Brazos Electric, which could realize up
to $10 million in savings. However, Frisco is not willing to commit to contributing and guaranteeing
the full $10 million if those savings are not realized. It is also important to note that the BTL
Intervenors’ witnesses who testified at the hearing all stated that they would not contribute to the cost
of undergrounding the line.162
The intervenors believe that the ERCOT ratepayers should be required to pay the cost of burial.
The evidence established that there is no operational benefit to burial of the proposed line. Although
burial of the line has numerous local benefits, the local constituents are unwilling to pay any amount
towards burial. Frisco is willing to coordinate construction efforts with Brazos Electric, but it is
unwilling to commit to a set amount of cost-savings. Frisco’s unwillingness to commit to a specific
contribution conflicts with its representations regarding the importance of burying the line. The ALJs
share Staff’s concerns with uplifting the costs of burial of the line, which has only local benefits, to all
ratepayers, especially without any firm commitment from the local parties for payment of any of the
costs of burial. Therefore, the ALJs find that the local parties have not made adequate contributions to
the incremental costs of burial.
162 Tr. at 198, 200, 202, 209-11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
C.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 42
Demonstrated Efficiency
No party presented evidence substantively challenging the issues of diminished electric
efficiency or reliability. Frisco witness Mr. Hughes noted that the proposed transmission line would be
the same operationally whether it was built overhead or buried underground.163
VII. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
TPWD provided initial recommendations to Brazos Electric on September 16, 2013. 164 These
recommendations were provided before the time Brazos Electric filed the Application. TPWD later
provided comments in a letter dated March 17, 2015, after it had received the Application. In the
March 17 letter, TPWD acknowledged that Brazos Electric incorporated several of TPWD’s
recommendations into the Application, as well as including precautions with respect to avoiding
impacts to migratory birds during construction and operation.
Those recommendations included
routing the transmission line to avoid riparian areas, wetlands, and any open water habitat, as well as
installing bird diverters at water crossings to reduce potential bird collisions. TPWD recommended
using avian-safe designs to provide enough separation to avoid avian electrocution. Brazos Electric
agreed to design and construct the Proposed Project in accordance with Suggested Practices for Raptor
Protection on Power Lines, by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 165 Brazos
Electric also stated it is committed to following raptor protection procedures as outlined in Mitigating
Bird Collisions with Power Lines, a publication of APLIC for Edison Electric Institute.166
TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric consult with both the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and TPWD to determine whether there would be impacts to bald eagles or any federally-listed
species and if so, to take steps to minimize impact to the wildlife. Brazos Electric indicated that there
are no bald eagles or bald eagle habitats within the project area. With respect to other federally-listed
163
164
165
166
Tr. at 186-87.
Brazos Ex. 4 at 17.
Id.
Id. at 20.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
species, there are no such species or habitats within the project area. 167
PAGE 43
Thus, Brazos Electric
concluded there is no need to consult with either agency on this particular issue.168
TPWD also recommended consulting with the Regulatory Branch of the Corps if the Proposed
Project would impact waterways or wetlands. Specifically, TPWD recommends using erosion control
measures before and during construction, and then permanently re-vegetating the land with site-specific
native vegetation. 169 In a related recommendation, TPWD asked that Brazos Electric minimize impacts
to native vegetation to the extent feasible during project design and construction. In response, Brazos
Electric indicated it will make efforts to span all creeks as much as practicable to avoid impacting water
and wetlands. Any underground options would use boring and trenching. The trenching would impact
creeks. Once a route is selected, Brazos Electric will determine whether any permits are needed from
the Corps. Brazos Electric will also use erosion control measures, limited right-of-way clearing, and
chemicals only in areas designated for their use. Brazos Electric notes that the Proposed Project is
mainly in an urban area where existing and ongoing development has removed and fragmented wildlife
habitat. By routing the line parallel to or within existing rights-of-way, Brazos Electric will try to
reduce further fragmentation. Brazos Electric will also use native species to re-vegetate any disturbed
areas.170
TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric identify the state-listed species that may occur within
the Study Area and that the substation and transmission line be located to avoid occurrences of statelisted species and avoid habitats that may support unknown occurrences of state-listed species. 171 To
the extent there are state-listed species, TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric identify impact
avoidance and mitigation measures that would be employed to protect state-listed species. 172 Brazos
Electric is aware of four state-listed species that may occur in the area: Texas horned lizard, timber
rattlesnake, white-faced ibis, and wood stork. Brazos Electric notes that the Proposed Project will not
167
168
169
170
171
172
Id. at 20-21.
Id.
Id. at 22.
Id. at 23-24.
Id. at 24-25.
Id. at 26.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 44
cross any forests or riparian areas, the transmission line will run along and within existing rights-ofway for much of its length, and that it will take steps to reduce the possibility of avian collisions.173
To further protect natural resources, TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric avoid routing
through sites that are enrolled in conservation easements. 174 Additionally, TPWD recommended that
Brazos Electric take precautions to avoid impacts to species of the greatest conservation need,
including natural plants, special features, and native grasses. 175 Brazos Electric notes that none of the
routes cross land that is known to be in a conservation easement. 176 Brazos Electric did not observe any
rare vegetation types within the project area.177
TPWD also expressed a concern with avoiding impacts to recreation and visual obstruction with
a line across or near Lake Lewisville. Because Lake Lewisville will not be crossed by the Proposed
Project, this recommendation does not apply.178
To the extent that Brazos Electric cannot avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife habitats, TPWD
recommends a mitigation plan. Brazos Electric agrees to minimize impacts as much as possible.179
TPWD favors the Main Street routes. TPWD noted that the Main Street routes impact fewer
parks, historical and archeological sites, streams crossings, floodplains, and woodland areas. 180
Because the Main Street routes are already developed, wildlife habitat has been fragmented.
No party challenged Brazos Electric’s response to TPWD’s recommendations. Consequently,
no further modification or changes are required for the Proposed Project.
VIII. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
Id. at 25.
Id. at 26.
Id.
Id. at 27.
Id.
Id.at 27-28.
Id. at 29.
Staff Ex. 2 at 7.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 45
The primary dispute in this case is whether the line should be buried or run overhead. The
parties are in agreement that routes along Main Street are preferable to those along Stonebrook
Parkway. It is unusual but not unheard of for the Commission to order the burial of a line when there
are not construction constraints that require it.
In Docket No. 32455 (Trinity River Corridor Project), the Commission ordered burial of a 0.7mile segment of a 345-kV double-circuit transmission line in Dallas County, Texas. 181
The
Commission also ordered the City of Dallas to pay 25% of the incremental costs (an estimated $17
million) of burial of the line.182 The Commission found that burial of a portion of the line was justified
due to
the unique context of the Trinity River Corridor Project, an ambitious, multi-objective
project that is “intended to provide flood control, transportation improvements,
environmental restoration and preservation, recreational amenities, and urban economic
development to Dallas and the Dallas region.” The Trinity Project is the “largest public
works project ever undertaken by Dallas and [is intended] to expand the central business
district across the Trinity [River] and create a more densely populated city, while at the
same time re-creating in a ‘more naturalized’ way the Trinity River bed, banks, and
associated wetlands.” In short, the purpose of this project is to revitalize the city of
Dallas and provide an impetus for economic growth for the wider Dallas region.183
The Commission noted that
[h]istorically, power lines have been placed underground only in densely developed
downtown areas of large cities. Although the Canada Drive segment [that was ordered
to be buried] is not now a part of downtown Dallas, the Trinity River project will expand
the area of high-density development to the Canada Drive area. Concrete steps have
already been taken to realize this vision.184
181 Application of TXU Electric Delivery Company for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
(CCN) for a Proposed Transmission Line in Dallas County, Texas, Docket No. 32455, Order (June 7,
2007) at 1.
182 Id.
183 Id. at 2 (internal citations omitted).
184 Id. at 3. The “concrete steps” noted by the Commission included “ground has already been broken
for the $69.7 million Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge; Dallas residents have already committed $446 million
in bond money toward the larger Trinity River Corridor Project; and City of Dallas officials have been
cooperating for years with key state agencies, Dallas County, the North Texas Tollway, and the Corps
of Engineers to develop plans and secure funding for the project. In addition, over $26 million has
been raised through private donations.” Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 46
The Commission also noted that Dallas’s “agreement to pay for 25 percent of the line-burial
costs represents a meaningful contribution by the most directly ‘affected landowners.’” 185 Additionally,
the Commission disagreed “with the notion that it is establishing new precedent in this case by ordering
the undergrounding of the Canada Drive segment of this transmission line. Rather, this case presents
one of those very rare sets of circumstances in which undergrounding best serves the public interest.”186
Staff argues that this case contrasts with the Trinity River Corridor Project case because Frisco
has taken no concrete steps toward its project to install water lines under Main Street or to expand Main
Street.
According to Frisco’s witness L. Nathan Ante, the expansion project “[has not] been
designed.”187 Brazos Electric argues that Frisco’s claims regarding its street expansion plan are an
attempt to thwart Brazos Electric’s proposed overhead route.
The BTL Intervenors argues that Frisco’s contribution of its right-of-way and its offer to
coordinate construction with Brazos Electric exceeds the 25% contribution that Dallas was ordered to
make in the Trinity River Corridor Project case.
The ALJs find that this case is distinguishable from the Trinity River Corridor Project case in
several ways. The scale of the project in that case was much larger, totaling $1.4 billion in public
improvements for both the City of Dallas and the Dallas region as a whole. The project also involved
environmental improvements on a large scale. Frisco’s street expansion project is a multi-million
dollar project that involves improvements for the benefit of residents of Frisco and commuters who
may drive through Frisco’s Main Street. Although it is a large project, the scale does not match that of
the Trinity River Corridor Project. Moreover, the Trinity River Corridor Project was multi-faceted,
involved coordination of many entities, and was already in progress, whereas Frisco’s project involves
coordination of few, if any, entities beyond the city itself, and the project has not been designed yet.
More importantly, installation of an overhead line will not prevent Frisco from completing any aspect
of its project.
185 Id. at 3.
186 Id. at 4.
187 Tr. at 189-90.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 47
The Commission noted that burial of the line along Canada Drive was a unique situation that
best served the public interest. Arguably, burial of the line along Main Street would best serve the
interest of the residents and businesses of Frisco, but it would not best serve the public interest in the
region at large (or in ERCOT). Despite the localized benefit, Frisco, unlike Dallas, has not committed
to contributing any specific amount towards burial of the line. In contrast, Frisco and the other
intervenors will not commit to paying any portion of the cost of burial and argue that the ratepayers of
ERCOT should bear those costs. Thus, the ALJs do not find that the Trinity River Corridor Project
case supports burial of the line along Main Street.
The parties also cite to a case in which the Commission approved the most expensive route
option in order to avoid the Palo Duro Canyon (Palo Duro Canyon case). 188
In that case, the
Commission approved the route that (1) avoided the Palo Duro Canyon; (2) crossed open rangeland for
most of its length, which was consistent with the view expressed by the majority of landowners that the
transmission line should be constructed in less-developed areas; (3) affected no recreational areas; (4)
affected few habitable structures; (5) was relatively easy to construct from an engineering perspective;
and (6) paralleled existing compatible rights-of-way for approximately 44% of its length and existing
transmission-line rights-of-way for just under 20% of its length. 189
The route ordered by the
Commission was the second most expensive route at $190,503,197. The least expensive route in that
case was $156,245,322.
The Palo Duro Canyon case can also be distinguished from this case. The considerations that
led to the Commission ordering a more expensive route in that case involved engineering challenges
that would have required placing multiple towers in the Palo Duro Canyon. 190 Some of the proposed
routes also involved a TPWD-designated Ecologically Significant Stream Segment as well as a habitat
for federally-listed endangered species.191 The Palo Duro Canyon case also involved considerable
188 Application of Sharyland Utilities, L.P. to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for
the Hereford to White Deer 345-kV CREZ Transmission Line (Formerly Panhandle AB to Panhandle
BA) in Armstrong, Carson, Deaf Smith, Oldham, Potter, and Randall Counties, Docket No. 38290,
Order (Dec. 13, 2010) at Finding of Fact No. 33.
189 Id.
190 Docket No. 38290, Proposal for Decision at 53.
191 Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 48
concern for aesthetic impacts to a state park. In order to avoid these and other challenges, a more
expensive route was ordered. In contrast, there are no constraints that require the Commission to order
the more expensive route in this case. Community values and preferences, which favor the more
expensive route, are important considerations; but, they are part of a larger analysis and not
determinative of the outcome.192
Finally, the parties cited to an additional case in which the Commission ordered that a portion of
the line be buried (Airfield case).193 In that case, the Commission ordered burial of approximately 2.5
miles of the route “where it passes through a clear zone or accident potential zone 1 associated with
Waldron Field and NASCC Truax Field.” 194
The Commission noted that “[i]n the unique
circumstances of this case, such underground construction is reasonable”195 and that it was not “a case
in which underground construction is proposed for aesthetics . . .” 196 The proposed routes in that case
ranged in cost from $26,230,000 to $65,635,000.197
The ordered route was estimated to cost
$44,083,000, which the Commission found to be “within the mid to upper range of the costs estimates
for the alternative routes in the application.”198
Like the other cited cases, the Airfield case can be distinguished from the current one by the
routing constraints, route options, and costs involved. A majority of the study area was located in the
Flour Bluff peninsula in Corpus Christi and, as a result, the “water resources within the study area
pose[d] a significant constraint on construction of several of the proposed routes.” 199 The presence of
two nearby military airfields required burying portions of several of the proposed routes, pursuant to
192 The ALJs also note that the route chosen in the Palo Duro case was approximately 1.2 times more
expensive than the least expensive route in that case. In this case, Route 1 is approximately 6.1 times
more expensive than Route 5.
193 Application of Electric Transmission Texas, LLC to Amend its Certificates of Convenience and
Necessity for the Proposed Barney Davis to Naval Base 138-kV Single-Circuit Transmission Line in
Nueces County, Docket No. 42467, Order (May 28, 2015).
194 Id. at Finding of Fact No. 80.
195 Id.
196 Id. at 2.
197 Id. at Finding of Fact No. 113.
198 Id. at Finding of Fact Nos. 113-14.
199 Id. at 1-2.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 49
Federal Aviation Administration regulations and military regulations. 200 Additionally, the study area
“include[d] sensitive or environmentally significant sites, such as the Laguna Madre and Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department’s Redhead Pond Wildlife Management Area . . . .” 201 As a result of the
presence of these environmentally sensitive areas, an above ground route presented more risk to
wildlife.202 Again, analogous constraints are not present in this case.
Perhaps the most important takeaway from the cases cited by the parties is that the Commission
approaches these types of cases individually based on the various routing options, constraints, and
costs. In the current case, certain factors clearly favor Route 1, including community values. Other
factors are neutral for all four preferred routes, such as compatible right-of-way. Considerations of cost
heavily favor Route 5 or Route 6. The intervenors argue that they have made adequate contributions
towards the incremental costs of burial of the line along Main Street. Staff disputes that position, and
the evidence does not support it.
As noted above, the ALJs find that the intervenors have not made an adequate contribution
towards the cost of burial. Although Frisco asserts that it has a plan to coordinate construction with
Brazos Electric to save $10 million, Frisco will not commit to contributing that amount to the project
should the actual savings be less. Further, Frisco’s claim that its “donation” of the right-of-way along
the Main Street median will save $17.86 million is heavily contested by both Brazos Electric and Staff,
both of whom argued that Brazos Electric is entitled to use the right-of-way at no cost. Therefore,
Frisco’s addition of cost-free use of the right-of-way should not be considered to be a specific, definite
contribution towards the costs of burial. Despite the intervenors’ arguments regarding the importance
of burying the lines, none of the intervening parties are willing to commit to paying any amount
towards burial.
The ALJs agree with Staff that the ERCOT ratepayers should not be required to pay for the
entire cost of burial of the line. The evidence established that an above ground line and a buried line
would be operationally identical; thus, the ERCOT ratepayers will not benefit from a buried line.
Moreover, there are no engineering or other constraints that require burial of the line. The intervenors,
200 Id. at 2.
201 Id.
202 Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 50
as well as the non-party residents of Frisco and the immediately surrounding area, will benefit from
burial of the line, but the intervening parties have clearly stated that they will not contribute to the cost
of burial. The ALJs find that absent such a commitment from the parties that will benefit from burial of
the line, burial cannot be justified: an overhead route is preferable. If, however, the local parties that
will benefit from burial of the line can agree to make a significant, specific contribution to the
incremental costs, Route 1 or the Hybrid Route (or another hybrid route as ordered by the Commission)
would be preferable.
The differences between Routes 5 and 6 are few. Route 5 is $320,266 less expensive than
Route 6. Route 5 impacts five fewer habitable structures than Route 6. Route 6 would have slightly
less of an environmental impact since it would involve placing the substation in an already developed
area, whereas Route 5 would involve placing the substation in an undeveloped area.
Several
intervenors argued against Route 6 due to its use of the south substation because it would be located
adjacent to the Stonewater Crossing housing development as well as planned future development of the
Village at Frisco Lakes subdivision. Although the ALJs find that either Route 5 or 6 would be
acceptable under the factors outlined above, Route 5 is slightly preferable because it is less expensive
and impacts fewer habitable structures.
Therefore, the ALJs recommend Route 5. Route 6 is also acceptable. Route 1 or the Hybrid
Route would be preferable if the parties who would benefit from undergrounding the line make a
significant, concrete commitment to pay for at least a portion of the incremental costs of burial.
IX. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS
A.
Findings of Fact
Jurisdiction, Notice, and Procedural History
1.
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Brazos Electric) is a member-owned generation and
transmission electric utility providing service under Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
(CCN) No. 30016.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 51
2.
On January 15, 2015, Brazos Electric filed an application with the Public Utility Commission of
Texas (Commission) to amend its CCN to provide increased transmission service to Denton
County Electric Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a CoServ Electric (CoServ) by constructing a
transmission line and substation in Denton County, as shown on maps filed with the CCN
Application (Application).
3.
The Application requests approval to construct approximately 2.9 to 4.5 miles of a double
circuit 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line using new, single-pole steel or concrete structures
and a substation site of approximately five acres (Proposed Project). Brazos Electric seeks to
construct the proposed line to provide for rapid area load growth and development and
associated service reliability.
4.
On January 15, 2015, Brazos Electric provided, by first class mail, written notice of the
Application to: (a) the county government of Denton County, the Texas county in which the
proposed facilities are located; (b) the neighboring utilities within five miles of the proposed
facilities; (c) all municipalities within five miles of the proposed facilities; and (d) each
landowner, as stated on the county tax rolls, that will be directly affected by the Application.
5.
On December 8, 2014, Brazos Electric provided a copy of the Environmental Report and
Routing Study to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).
6.
The Commission provided notice of the Application to the Texas Register for publication on
January 30, 2015.
7.
On February 17, 2015, the Commission’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued Order No. 3,
deeming the Application sufficient and materially complete, approving the provision of notice,
and setting the deadline to intervene as March 2, 2015.
8.
On March 9, 2015, the Bury The Lines (BTL) intervenor group and the City of Frisco (Frisco)
filed requests for a hearing on the merits.
9.
On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued the Order of Referral and Preliminary Order,
referring the case to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to conduct a hearing
and prepare a proposal for decision, and established lists of issues to be addressed and issues
not to be addressed in this proceeding.
10.
On March 20, 2015, Commission Staff filed a letter from TPWD containing comments and
recommendations regarding the proposed transmission line.
11.
The hearing on the merits convened on July 27, 2015, in Austin, Texas, at the Red Oak
Conference Center, with SOAH ALJs Wendy Harvel and Stephanie Frazee presiding. The
hearing concluded that same day. The record closed on September 11, 2015, with the filing of
post-hearing briefing.
Application
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 52
12.
The Proposed Project consists of a new double-circuit 138-kV transmission line that will be
approximately 2.9 miles long extending from the new Stonebrook substation in Denton County,
Texas, to a tap point along an existing Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC 138-kV
transmission line (the Colony-Roman Juarez transmission line) in Denton County, Texas.
13.
Brazos Electric originally proposed 20 alternative routes in the Application.
14.
The Application’s 20 geographically diverse routes are an adequate number of reasonably
differentiated alternative routes to conduct a proper evaluation.
15.
The proposed transmission line will be built using primarily concrete or steel monopole
structures within new right-of-way of widths varying from 20 to 70 feet.
Need
16.
The proposed transmission line is needed to provide 138-kV electric transmission service to the
new Stonebrook Substation. The new distribution substation is needed to support rapid area
load growth and attendant service reliability.
17.
Brazos Electric demonstrated a reasonable need for the Proposed Project in order to meet the
expected load growth and provide reliable service. The need for the Proposed Project was not
disputed in this docket.
18.
Of the alternatives considered, including an expansion of current distribution facilities and
additional in-line substations, the Proposed Project is the most economical and is the only
option that meets expected load growth.
19.
There are no viable alternatives to constructing the Proposed Project.
Route
20.
The Application includes 20 route alternatives for the Proposed Project, four possible tap
locations, and two possible substation locations.
21.
There are two kinds of proposed routes (overhead and underground) in two locations: along the
median of Main Street and along the median of Stonebrook Parkway.
22.
No parties recommended any of the routes along Stonebrook Parkway.
23.
The routes along Main Street are shorter and less expensive and impact fewer parks, historic
and archeological sites, stream crossings, floodplains, and woodlands than the Stonebrook
Parkway routes.
24.
Brazos Electric recommends use of Route 5 and generally recommends an overhead route.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 53
25.
Brazos Electric also proposed a Hybrid Route, which would involve burial of only Segment 4 of
the proposed line. The Hybrid Route could follow either Route 5 or 6.
26.
Staff recommended Route 6. Staff does not support burial of any portion of the line.
27.
The intervenors entered a non-unanimous Stipulation in support of Route 1, an underground
route.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
28.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 54
The preferred routes are described as follows:
ROUTE
Route 1
Hybrid
Route
Route 5
Route 6
TAP POINT–LINKS–SUBSTATION
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–
Substation North
Tap 1—Segment 8—Segment 7—Segment 5
—Segment 4—Segment 3—Segment 2
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–
Substation North
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–Segment
1–Substation South
DESCRIPTION
Underground route along Main
Street median supported by
intervenors
Overhead route along Main Street
with burial of Segment 4 as
suggested by Brazos Electric; this
route could use the north or south
substation location
Overhead route along Main Street
supported by Brazos Electric; the
same as Route 1 except overhead
Overhead route along Main Street
supported by Staff; the same as
Route 5 except including Segment
1 and using Substation South
Community Values
29.
The term “community values” is not formally defined by statute or in Commission rules.
However, the Commission has viewed community values as a shared appreciation of an area or
other natural or human resource by members of a national, regional, or local community.
Adverse effects upon community values consist of those aspects of a proposed project that
would significantly alter the use, enjoyment, or intrinsic value attached to an important area or
resource by a community.
30.
Brazos Electric held a civic leader meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on July 23, 2013, in
Frisco, Texas.
31.
Invitations were mailed to 41 people. Sixteen people attended the meeting, including
representatives from Frisco, the City of The Colony, Denton County, and various development
companies.
32.
At the meeting, attendees were provided with informational handouts including project
descriptions, maps, flowcharts illustrating the Commission’s licensing process for transmission
facilities, and questionnaires. Various exhibits explaining the need for the project, typical
electrical substation and transmission structures, and detailed routing maps were available for
viewing, and staff members from Brazos Electric and Cox|McClain Environmental Consulting,
Inc. (Cox|McClain) were available to answer questions.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 55
33.
Communication with civic leaders and developers identified additional potential constraints for
transmission line routing and substation placement, including areas of new planned
development and information about potential utility conflicts in the median of Lebanon Road.
Suggestions were received to explore alternative routes.
34.
Brazos Electric also held a public open house meeting from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on August
27, 2013, in Frisco, Texas.
35.
The public open house meeting was advertised in three local newspapers. Landowners within
300 feet of the centerline of each alternative route segment and substation location were notified
by direct mail notices. A total of 619 notices were mailed. Twenty-eight similar notices were
mailed to public officials. A total of 612 people signed in at the meeting. After the meeting 517
letters were mailed to landowners who were notified of the meeting but did not attend.
36.
The meeting had the following objectives:
Promote a better understanding of the Proposed Project, including the purpose,
need, and potential benefits and impacts, and the Commission certification
process;
Inform the public with regard to the routing procedure, schedule, and route
approval process; and
Gather the values and concerns of the public and community leaders.
37.
At the meeting, attendees were provided with informational handouts including project
descriptions, maps, flowcharts illustrating the Commission licensing process for transmission
facilities, and questionnaires. Various exhibits explaining the need for the project, illustrating
typical electrical substation and transmission structures, and detailed routing maps were
available for viewing, and staff members from Brazos Electric and Cox|McClain were available
to answer questions.
38.
A total of 190 questionnaires were completed and submitted for consideration. Seventy-three
other written comments were submitted and 34 phone inquiries and comments were received.
Many respondents stated that they might be in favor of the project if the transmission lines were
placed underground (58). The most common response was a request for more information
(148). Many respondents indicated the desire to learn more about the Proposed Project,
including topics such as alternatives (42), procedures (20), and timelines (18).
39.
Additionally, between 6,000 and 7,000 comments were filed with the Commission.
majority of commenters requested that the transmission line be installed underground.
40.
After public input, Brazos Electric proposed 20 alternative routes in the Application.
The
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 56
41.
No Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-registered airports and no heliports are located
either within the Study Area, or in proximity to the Study Area. One private airstrip was
identified within 10,000 feet of the primary alternative route centerlines. No significant impacts
to these airports/airstrips are anticipated from construction of the Proposed Project.
42.
The Proposed Project does not cross any known cropland or pastureland irrigated by traveling
irrigation systems, either rolling or pivot type.
43.
The community concerns that arose during the pendency of this case include perceived negative
impacts on property values; aesthetic concerns; interference with Frisco’s plans for street
expansion and additional water infrastructure; health risks, especially for children and the
elderly; safety of commuters and residences and business located in the “fall zone”; proximity
of the proposed line to schools; interference with views; thwarting of Frisco’s city planning and
beautification efforts; risk of lost revenue for local businesses and tax revenue for Frisco and
Frisco Independent School District (ISD); and impact on future land development.
44.
Installation of an overhead line would not interfere with Frisco’s street expansion and water
infrastructure improvement plans.
45.
Route 1 would best preserve community values because it involves burying the line; therefore,
after installation, the line would have little to no impact on the use, enjoyment, and intrinsic
value attached to the community of west Frisco.
Recreational and Park Areas
46.
Parks and recreational areas are defined by the Commission in its application form as areas
being owned by a governmental body or an organized group, club, or church.
47.
The number of parks or recreational areas within 1,000 feet of the centerline of each of the
alternative routes was compared for the routes. The park and recreational area count for each
preferred route is:
Route
1
5
6
Hybrid Route
48.
Total Number of Parks or
Recreational Areas within
1,000 feet of the ROW
Centerline
4
4
3
3 or 4
No significant impacts, other than visual impacts, to the use or enjoyment of the parks and
recreation facilities located within the study area are anticipated from any of the preferred
routes.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
49.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 57
No adverse impacts are anticipated for any fishing or hunting areas from any of the preferred
routes.
Historical and Aesthetic Values
50.
Aesthetic impacts or impacts to visual resources exist when the right-of-way, lines and/or
structures of a transmission line system create an intrusion into, or substantially alter, the
character of the existing view. The significance of the impact is directly related to the quality of
the view in natural scenic areas, the importance of the existing setting in the use and/or
enjoyment of an area, and in valued community resources in recreational areas.
51.
The land in the Study Area is primarily comprised of suburban development with single-family
residential neighborhoods and commercial developments along major roads. The Study Area
includes planned neighborhoods with dense housing and small neighborhood parks.
Commercial developments in the area include restaurants, stores, auto repair shops, and similar
establishments. Churches and schools are also found in the vicinity. Development in the area is
ongoing. Terrain is mostly level to gently rolling.
52.
Construction of the proposed 138-kV transmission line overhead could have both temporary
and permanent aesthetic effects. Temporary impacts would include views of the actual
assembly and erection of the structures. Permanent impacts from the project would involve the
views of the structures and lines.
53.
Construction of the proposed 138-kV transmission line underground would have temporary
aesthetic effects due to assembly and erection of the structures and maintenance.
54.
There are no National Historic Landmarks, cemeteries, National Register-listed sites, State
Archaeological Landmarks, Texas Historical Markers, or archeological sites within 1,000 feet
of any of the route centerlines.
55.
Routes 5 and 6 would have similar aesthetic impacts. Route 1 would have only temporary
aesthetic impacts. The Hybrid Route would have more aesthetic impacts than Route 1 but less
than Routes 5 and 6.
Environmental Integrity
56.
Brazos Electric has agreed to implement many of the suggested changes recommended by
TPWD, regardless of which line is ultimately constructed. Therefore, no route along Main
Street is significantly better than another when analyzing environmental integrity.
Probable Improvement of Service or Lowering of Cost to Consumers in the Area
57.
The new line is needed to improve service to serve increasing demand and prevent outages.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
58.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 58
There is no cost savings to consumers anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. However,
the Proposed Project is the best option to meet the service needs based on an analysis taking
into account considerations of efficiency, reliability, costs, and benefits.
Engineering Constraints
59.
Based on the information currently available, Brazos Electric has determined that it can
construct and operate any of the proposed routes, including Routes 1, 5, or 6, or the Hybrid
Route.
60.
Brazos Electric has not identified any engineering constraints along any route that cannot be
resolved with additional consideration during the design and construction phase of the Proposed
Project.
Costs
61.
Brazos Electric’s estimated costs for each preferred route are as follows:
Route
1
Hybrid Route
6
5
62.
Total Cost Estimate
$34,275,000
$21,267,362.81
$5,948,864
$5,628,598
Route 5 is the least expensive preferred route.
Compatible Right-of-Way
63.
All of the preferred routes parallel compatible right-of-way for 98.95% of their lengths.
Prudent Avoidance
64.
People in a community and landowners or business owners may be concerned about
electromagnetic fields (EMF).
65.
The Commission’s rules define “prudent avoidance” as a means of limiting exposures to EMF
that can be avoided with reasonable investments of money.
66.
EMF exposure can be limited primarily by proposing alternative routes that would minimize, to
the extent reasonable, the number of habitable structures located in close proximity to the
routes.
67.
The number of habitable structures within 300 feet of the centerline of each of the alternative
routes was compared for the routes. The habitable structure count for each route is:
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
Route
1
5
6
Hybrid Route
PAGE 59
Total Number of Habitable
Structures within 300 feet
of the ROW Centerline
246
246
251
246 or 251
68.
The routes in Brazos Electric’s application reflect reasonable investments of money and effort
to limit exposure to EMF.
69.
The proposed transmission line has been routed in accordance with the Commission’s policy of
prudent avoidance.
70.
Due to the highly developed nature of the Study Area, all of the preferred routes impact a high
number of habitable structures.
71.
Route 1 would have less impact to habitable structures because it would involve burying the
line.
72.
Segment 4 impacts 210 habitable structures; therefore, the Hybrid Route would have less
impact to 210 fewer habitable structures than Route 5 or Route 6.
Incremental Costs of Alternative Routes or Facilities Configurations
73.
Route 1, the underground route along Main Street, costs approximately $28 million more than
Routes 5 and 6.
74.
The Hybrid Route, which involves burial of Segment 4, costs approximately $15.6 million more
than Routes 5 and 6.
Contributions to Offset the Additional Costs Associated with Burial of the Line
75.
Frisco has offered to coordinate construction with Brazos Electric by hiring a single contractor
to expand Main Street, install water use and water reuse pipes, and install the transmission line
conduit at the same time.
76.
Frisco estimates that this coordination will save $10 million of additional costs for burial of the
line.
77.
Frisco will not commit to making up the difference if the savings realized are less than $10
million.
78.
Frisco also stated that it will “donate” the right-of-way for Brazos Electric to use the Main
Street median to install an underground line. Frisco values the right-of-way at $17.86 million.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 60
79.
The value of the right-of-way is contested. Whether Brazos Electric is entitled to use the rightof-way at no charge is also contested.
80.
The other intervening parties stated that they will not contribute to the costs associated with
burying the proposed line.
81.
All intervening parties believe that all ratepayers within the Electric Reliability Council of
Texas (ERCOT) should share in the costs associated with burying the proposed line.
82.
An above ground or belowground line would be identical operationally.
83.
Residents and businesses in the Frisco area would benefit from an underground line but the
ERCOT ratepayers would not.
84.
Requiring ERCOT ratepayers to pay the entire cost associated with burying the line would be
inappropriate.
Probable Improvement of Service or Lowering of Cost to Consumers
85.
Construction of the Proposed Project is the best option to meet the service needs, taking into
account considerations of efficiency, reliability, costs, and benefits.
Renewable Energy Goals
86.
The Proposed Project is unrelated to the State of Texas’ renewable energy goals.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
87.
TPWD provided initial recommendations to Brazos Electric on September 16, 2013, before
Brazos Electric filed the Application.
88.
TPWD later provided comments in a letter dated March 17, 2015, after it had received the
Application.
89.
In the March 17 letter, TPWD acknowledged that Brazos Electric incorporated several of
TPWD’s recommendations into the Application, as well as including precautions with respect to
avoiding impacts to migratory birds during construction and operation.
90.
TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric consult with both the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and TPWD to determine whether there would be impacts to bald eagles or
any federally-listed species and if so, to take steps to minimize impact to the wildlife.
91.
There are no bald eagles or bald eagle habitat within the project area. With respect to other
federally-listed species, there are no such species or habitat.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 61
92.
TPWD recommends using erosion control measures prior to and during construction and then
permanently re-vegetating the land with site-specific native vegetation. It also recommends that
Brazos Electric minimize impacts to native vegetation to the extent feasible during project
design and construction.
93.
Brazos Electric will make efforts to span all creeks as much as practicable to avoid impacting
water and wetlands. Any underground options would use boring and trenching. The trenching
would impact creeks. Once a route is selected, Brazos Electric will determine whether any
permits are needed from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Brazos Electric will also use
erosion control measures, limited right-of-way clearing, and chemicals only in areas designated
for their use.
94.
There are four known state-listed species with the potential to occur within the Study Area:
Texas horned lizard, timber rattlesnake, white-faced ibis, and wood stork.
95.
The Proposed Project will not cross any forests or riparian areas and will run along and within
existing right-of-way for much of its length.
96.
No segments of the Proposed Project run across land subject to a conservation easement.
97.
There are no known rare vegetation types.
98.
Lake Lewisville will not be crossed by the Proposed Project.
99.
Brazos Electric will minimize impacts to wildlife as much as possible, as requested by TPWD.
100.
TPWD favors Main Street routes.
101.
No additional modifications recommended by TPWD are required for the Proposed Project.
B.
Conclusions of Law
1.
Brazos Electric is an electric utility. Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Tex. Util. Code §
37.001(2).
2.
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. PURA §§ 37.051, 37.053, and 37.056.
3.
SOAH has jurisdiction over this proceeding. PURA § 14.053 and Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.049.
4.
Brazos Electric provided adequate notice of the Application. PURA § 37.054 and 16 Tex.
Admin. Code § 22.52(a).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 62
5.
The Application was adequate, sufficient and materially complete, and provided an adequate
number of alternative routes to conduct a proper evaluation.
6.
This docket was processed in accordance with the requirements of PURA, the Administrative
Procedure Act in Texas Government Code sections 2001.001-.902, and 16 Texas Administrative
Code § 25.101.
7.
Brazos Electric is entitled to approval of the Application described in this Order, using Route 5,
having demonstrated that the proposed transmission line facilities are necessary for the service,
accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. PURA § 37.056(a); PURA § 37.056(c).
8.
Route 5 adheres to the requirements of PURA § 37.056(c) as well as the Commission’s policy
on prudent avoidance, as defined in 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.101(a)(4).
9.
The Application is reasonable and should be approved.
C.
Ordering Paragraphs
In accordance with these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission issues the
following Order:
1.Brazos Electric’s application to amend CCN No. 30016 is granted to include the construction of a
new double-circuit 138-kV transmission line and substation on Route 5 (segments Tap 1 –
Segment 8 – Segment 7 – Segment 5 – Segment 4 – Segment 3 – Segment 2 – Substation
North).
2.
Brazos Electric shall minimize the amount of flora and fauna disturbed during construction of
the proposed transmission line and re-vegetate using native species considering landowner
preferences. To the maximum extent practicable, Brazos Electric shall avoid adverse
environmental impacts to sensitive wildlife as identified by the TPWD and the USFWS.
3.
Brazos Electric shall conduct a cultural resource survey and submit the survey results to the
Texas Historical Commission (THC) and the Rural Utilities Service for review and approval
before construction begins. In the event Brazos Electric or its contractors encounter any
archaeological artifacts or other cultural resources during construction of the Proposed
Transmission Line, Brazos Electric shall cease work immediately in the vicinity of the resource
and report the discovery to the THC and take action as directed by the THC.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 63
4.
Brazos Electric shall implement erosion control measures as appropriate. Brazos Electric shall
return the construction site to its original contours and grades unless otherwise agreed to by the
landowners; however, Brazos Electric shall not be required to restore original contours and
grades where a different contour or grade is necessary to ensure the safety or stability of the
project’s structures or the safe operation and maintenance of the line.
5.
Brazos Electric shall follow the procedures for raptor protection outlined in the Suggested
Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art in 2006 (2006) and the
Avian Protection Plan Guidelines (April 2005), both published by the Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee. Also, Brazos Electric should consult Reducing Avian Collisions with
Power Lines: State of the Art in 2012. Brazos Electric shall take precautions to avoid disturbing
occupied nests and will take steps to minimize the impact of construction on migratory birds,
especially during nesting season.
6.
Brazos Electric shall exercise care to avoid affecting non-targeted vegetation or animal life
when using chemical herbicides to control vegetation within the right-of-way, and shall ensure
that such herbicide use complies with the rules and guidelines established in the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and with Texas Department of Agriculture
regulations.
7.
Brazos Electric shall use best management practices to minimize the potential impact to
migratory birds and threatened or endangered species.
8.
Brazos Electric shall cooperate with directly affected landowners to implement minor
deviations in the approved route to minimize the impact of the project. Any minor deviation in
the approved route shall only directly affect landowners who were sent notice of the
transmission line in accordance with 16 Texas Administrative Code § 22.52(a)(3) and shall
directly affect only those landowners that have agreed to the minor deviation, excluding public
rights-of-way.
9.
Brazos Electric shall be permitted to deviate from the approved route in any instance in which
the deviation would be more than a minor deviation, but only if the following two conditions
are met. First, Brazos Electric shall receive consent from all landowners who would be affected
by the deviation, regardless of whether the affected landowner received notice of or participated
in this proceeding. Second, the deviation shall result in a reasonable direct path towards the
terminus of the line and not cause an unreasonable increase in cost or delay the project. Unless
these two conditions are met, this paragraph does not authorize Brazos Electric to deviate from
the approved route except as allowed by the other ordering paragraphs in this Order.
10.
Brazos Electric shall update the reporting of this project on its monthly construction progress
report prior to the start of construction to reflect final estimated cost and schedule in accordance
with 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.83(b).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
11.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 64
All other motions, requests for entry of specific findings of fact or conclusions of law, and any
other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted, are denied.
SIGNED November 9, 2015.
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
APPLICATION OF BRAZOS
ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE,
INC. TO AMEND A CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR A 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE
IN DENTON COUNTY
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION..............................1
II.
JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY....................................2
III.
THE PARTICIPANTS.......................................................................................................3
IV.
APPLICATION..................................................................................................................3
V.
NEED..................................................................................................................................4
A. Necessary for Service..................................................................................................4
1.
2.
Reliability and Adequacy of the Interconnected Transmission
System............................................................................................................6
Facilitate Robust Wholesale Competition..................................................7
B. Recommendation from an Independent Organization...........................................7
C. Need to Interconnect to a New Transmission Customer.........................................7
D. Better Option to Meet Need.......................................................................................7
VI.
ROUTE...............................................................................................................................8
A. Background.................................................................................................................8
B. Best Alternative Route.............................................................................................10
1.
2.
3.
Summary of Parties’ Positions...................................................................10
Adequacy of Existing Service, Need for Additional Service, and
Effect of Granting the CCN on Oncor and any Electric Utility
Serving the Proximate Area.......................................................................13
Community Values......................................................................................15
a.
b.
c.
Property Values..................................................................................17
Safety...................................................................................................17
Frisco’s Development Plans..............................................................18
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
d.
e.
f.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
PAGE 2
Schools................................................................................................20
Habitable Structures..........................................................................21
Discussion...........................................................................................21
Recreational and Park Areas.....................................................................22
Historical and Aesthetic Values.................................................................23
Environmental Integrity.............................................................................24
Probable Improvement of Service or Lowering of Cost to Consumers
in the Area....................................................................................................24
Effect on the State’s Renewable Energy Goals........................................24
Factors in 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.101(b)(3)(B)...................25
a.
b.
c.
d.
10.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
Engineering Constraints...................................................................25
Costs....................................................................................................27
Compatible ROW, Property Boundaries, and Natural and Cultural
Features...............................................................................................28
Prudent Avoidance and Habitable Structures.................................28
Alternative Routes with Less Impact on Landowners............................31
a.
b.
Hybrid Route......................................................................................31
Additional Costs Associated with Landowner Preferences............31
i.
ii.
iii.
Parties’ Arguments................................................................31
Proposed Solutions.................................................................37
Discussion...............................................................................39
C. Demonstrated Efficiency..........................................................................................40
VII.
TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT....................................................40
VIII. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................43
IX.
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS
...........................................................................................................................................49
A. Findings of Fact........................................................................................................49
B. Conclusions of Law...................................................................................................59
C. Ordering Paragraphs...............................................................................................60
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
APPLICATION OF BRAZOS
ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE,
INC. TO AMEND A CERTIFICATE OF
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
FOR A 138-KV TRANSMISSION LINE
IN DENTON COUNTY
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
PAGE 3
BEFORE THE STATE OFFICE
OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION
This proposal for decision (PFD) recommends that Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.’s
(Brazos Electric) Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) be amended to construct a new 138kilovolt (kV) transmission line from Tap 1 to a new substation along Route 5, using Segments 8, 7, 5,
4, 3, 2, and ending at the north substation.
The proposed routes can be generally divided into four groups:
routes that run along
Stonebrook Parkway overhead; the same routes underground; routes that run along Main Street
overhead; and those same routes underground. There is also the possibility of a hybrid route with some
segments running above ground and others running below ground. In general, the Stonebrook Parkway
routes are longer and more expensive than the similarly-constructed Main Street routes. The primary
dispute in this case is whether the chosen route should run overhead or underground. The secondary
dispute concerns whether the substation should be located north or south of King Road. All parties
except Brazos Electric and the Staff of the Public Utility Commission of Texas (Staff/Commission)
support an underground line. Brazos Electric will build whichever line is ultimately approved.
All parties except Staff and Brazos Electric support the approval of Route 1, which runs
underground for almost its entire length along Main Street. The intervenors in this case submitted a
non-unanimous Stipulation (Stipulation) in support of Route 1 that was agreed to by all intervenors.
Neither Staff nor Brazos Electric joined the Stipulation.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 4
Staff opposes Route 1 because of the high cost of running a transmission line underground and
because an underground line is not necessary to accommodate any engineering or other constraints. 1
Staff is also opposed to the Stipulation due to the potential precedent-setting nature of this case. Staff
argues that Route 6, which runs overhead along Main Street and uses the south substation, is the most
compliant with the applicable law.
Brazos Electric is concerned about recovering the cost of
constructing a line underground and supports Route 5, which runs overhead along Main Street and uses
the north substation.
On January 15, 2015, Brazos Electric filed an application (Application) with the Public Utility
Commission of Texas (Commission) to amend its CCN for a 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line in
Denton County, Texas (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project contains 20 alternate routes. The
Commission has the authority to approve any single route or combination of segments. The facilities
include construction of new transmission facilities in the City of Frisco (Frisco) and Town of Little Elm
in Denton County. The new line would extend west from a tap point along an existing Oncor Electric
Delivery Company, LLC (Oncor) 138-kV transmission line located just west of the Dallas North
Tollway in southeastern Denton County to a new substation (Stonebrook Substation) to be sited near
Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 423 and King Road, just east of Lake Lewisville in southeastern Denton
County. If the Application is approved, the total length of the transmission line is estimated to be 2.9 to
4.5 miles in length, depending on the route chosen.
II. JURISDICTION, NOTICE, AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Commission has jurisdiction and authority over this matter pursuant to the Public Utility
Regulatory Act (PURA), Texas Utilities Code §§ 32.001, 37.053, 37.056, and 37.057, and 16 Texas
Administrative Code § 25.101. The State Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction, pursuant
to Texas Government Code § 2003.049 and PURA §14.053, over all matters relating to the conduct of a
hearing in this matter. Notice and procedural history were not contested and are addressed without
discussion in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) Stephanie
Frazee and Wendy Harvel convened the hearing on July 27, 2015, and the record closed on September
1 Tr. at 186-87; Staff Ex. 1 at 20-21.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 5
11, 2015, following post-hearing briefing. The parties had the opportunity to submit by October 21,
2015, additional limited briefing responding to the proposal of a hybrid route.
III. THE PARTICIPANTS
This proceeding drew a large number of intervenors. In addition, thousands of comments were filed
prior to the hearing, and many continued to be filed after the conclusion of the hearing. At the hearing
on the merits, many intervenors actively participated by questioning witnesses, presenting evidence,
and raising objections.
Some intervenors participated less at the hearing but remained active
throughout the case and filed post-hearing briefs. The active intervenors included the Bury the Lines
(BTL) Intervenors, which group is comprised of approximately 700 members, most of whom are
homeowners: Frisco; CTMTG Frisco 122 LLC (Centurion); Frisco Chamber of Commerce (Chamber);
HT Stonebrook L.P.; Zarky Development, LLC; Staff; Sherrie Salas; and Jim Fox.
IV. APPLICATION
No party challenged the adequacy of the Application or requested a route adequacy hearing. 2
The Application contains 20 alternative routes for the Proposed Project, four possible tap locations, and
two possible substation locations. On February 12, 2015, Staff recommended that the Application be
deemed sufficient for review on the merits. The Commission ALJ issued Order No. 3 on February 17,
2015, deeming the Application “sufficient and materially complete.”3
Although they did not challenge the adequacy of the Application, the BTL Intervenors contend
in their briefing that the Application contains too few routing alternatives. However, the alternatives
were limited because of unusual constraints in the Study Area. The Study Area is east of Lake
Lewisville and west of the Dallas North Tollway, located within Frisco and the Town of Little Elm.
The land in the Study Area is primarily suburban development with single-family residential
neighborhoods and commercial developments along major roads, including planned neighborhoods
2 Preliminary Order Issue 1: Is Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.’s application to amend its
CCN adequate? Does the application contain an adequate number of reasonably differentiated
alternative routes to conduct a proper evaluation?
3 Commission Order No. 3 at 1 (Feb. 17, 2015).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 6
with dense housing and small neighborhood parks.4 Brazos Electric agrees that the Study Area was
constrained due to new and ongoing construction, planned commercial development, and school
development.5 There are large numbers of habitable structures along each potential route, varying
between 246 and 251, despite the relatively short length of the proposed routes.
Although Brazos Electric considered routing the line both across Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) land and Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) land, both requests were refused. On
July 26, 2013, the Corps rejected any use of its land near Lake Lewisville. 6 TxDOT informed Brazos
Electric of its future plans to use the median along FM 423 to expand the road to eight lanes and its
policy of prohibiting poles from being placed in the median of the highway, and TxDOT indicated that
if the line were constructed, the poles would have to be moved when TxDOT used the median to
expand the highway.7
No party substantively challenged the adequacy of the Application or the adequacy of the
number of alternative proposed routes.
Therefore, the Application is adequate and provided an
adequate number of alternative routes to conduct a proper evaluation.
V. NEED
A.
Necessary for Service
Frisco argues that Brazos Electric should have planned better and earlier so that distribution
facilities could have been developed or so that the line could have been routed before there was so
much development on Stonebrook Parkway. Ms. Salas, a self-represented intervenor, participated in
the hearing and submitted post-hearing briefs. She disputes the need for the line. But no party
presented evidence regarding the need for the line. Frisco admits that it understands the need for the
4
5
6
7
Brazos Ex. 1 at 6.
Tr. at 66-67.
Brazos Ex. 1 at 131.
BTL Ex. 25 at 11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 7
line, although it wants the line to run underground. 8 The BTL Intervenors specifically state in their
initial brief that they do not contest need.9 Centurion recognizes the need for the line.10
The proposed facilities are necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, and safety
of the public within the meaning of PURA § 37.056(a), taking into account the factors set out in PURA
§ 37.056(c).11 Denton County, specifically in and around Frisco, has experienced a high level of load
growth over the past few years and is growing at a pace that will exceed the existing electric
distribution capacity.12 Load growth is expected to continue at a rapid pace, which will reduce the
capability of existing distribution feeders to provide reliable service.13 This rapid growth increases the
risk of outage to a significant population area without the addition of a new substation supply source. 14
The addition of the proposed facilities will serve the new load growth and increase reliability by
reducing the burden on existing substations and their feeders by adding another transmission source
and substation to the area.15 Upon review of the Application and other applicable materials, Staff
concluded the Proposed Project is “necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, and safety
of the public.”16 Additionally, neither Frisco nor the BTL Intervenors or other intervenors dispute the
need for service.17 Staff concurs that the line is necessary.18 Therefore, the ALJs find that the proposed
8 Frisco Ex. 1 at 21.
9 BTL Intervenors’ Initial Brief at 8.
10 Centurion Initial Brief at 4.
11 Preliminary Order Issue 2: Are the proposed facilities necessary for the service, accommodation,
convenience, or safety of the public within the meaning of PURA § 37.056(a) taking into account the
factors set out in PURA § 37.156(c)? In addition, a) How does the proposed facility support the
reliability and adequacy of the interconnected transmission system? b) Does the proposed facility
facilitate robust wholesale competition? c) What recommendation, if any, has an independent
organization, as defined in PURA § 39.151, made regarding the proposed facility? d) Is the proposed
facility needed to interconnect a new transmission service customer? Preliminary Order Issue 3: Is the
transmission project the better option to meet this need when compared to employing distribution
facilities? If Brazos is not subject to the unbundling requirements of PURA § 39.051, is the project the
better option to meet the need when compared to a combination of distributed generation and energy
efficiency?
12 Brazos Ex. 1 at 14-15.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 14.
15 Id. at 14-15.
16 Staff Ex. 1 at 10.
17 See e.g., Frisco Ex. 7 at 6 and Frisco Ex. 1 at 6.
18 Staff Initial Brief at 10-11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 8
facilities are necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public.
1. Reliability and Adequacy of the Interconnected Transmission System
Brazos Electric is a wholesale power and energy provider for its members, all of which are
Texas electric distribution cooperatives.19 CoServ Electric (CoServ) is one of the owners and member
cooperatives of Brazos Electric.20 CoServ has a franchise agreement with Frisco.21
No party challenged Brazos Electric’s evidence showing how the Proposed Project will support
the reliability and adequacy of the interconnected transmission system. 22 The Proposed Project will
provide service to the Stonebrook Substation, which is required to provide greater reliability and serve
load in a fast-growing area of Denton County. Rapid growth increases the risk of outage to a
significant population area without a new substation supply source. Additionally, the pace of load
growth will exceed CoServ’s ability to reliably meet the need with its existing distribution facilities. 23
The proposed transmission facility supports the reliability and adequacy of the interconnected
transmission system by providing necessary transmission support to alleviate capacity demands and
improve service reliability.24 The added transmission facilities will reduce the burden on existing
substations and distribution feeders, thereby benefitting the interconnected transmission system.
19 Brazos Ex. 2 at 5-6.
20 Id.
21 Staff Ex. 4.
22 See e.g., Frisco Ex. 7 at 6 (stating, “The City [of Frisco] takes no issue with the need for the line
and supports infrastructure improvements to the City.”)
23 Brazos Ex. 1 at 14-15.
24 Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 9
2. Facilitate Robust Wholesale Competition
The Proposed Project will have no significant effect on the wholesale power market and is
proposed to provide service to the Stonebrook Substation in order to adequately serve an everincreasing load in a fast-growing area of Denton County.
B.
Recommendation from an Independent Organization
No recommendation has been made by an independent organization regarding the Proposed
Project. The Proposed Project does not require approval by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT) Independent System Operator and, therefore, was not submitted to ERCOT for
recommendation.25
C.
Need to Interconnect to a New Transmission Customer
The Proposed Project is not needed to interconnect a new transmission service customer.
D.
Better Option to Meet Need
The rapid growth in the area of the Proposed Project has caused distribution facilities that are
already in use to be at or near maximum capacity.26 In addition, future load growth is expected to
continue at a rapid pace and requires a solution that is capable of keeping pace with and meeting
projected load growth. Brazos Electric’s consultant, C.H. Guernsey & Company (Guernsey), provided
an analysis of the options to meet the need, considering distribution facilities and a combination of
distributed generation and energy efficiency.27
According to Guernsey’s analysis, distribution
alternatives fail to provide an adequate long-term solution to meet future load growth. 28 Guernsey’s
study also indicated that distribution alternatives were not as reliable or efficient as a new substation
and transmission solution. The distribution alternatives required longer distribution feeders, which
25
26
27
28
Brazos Electric’s First Response to Order No. 1 at 1 (Jan. 20, 2015).
Brazos Ex. 1 at 15.
Id. at 15-16, 79-114.
Id. at 99, 104.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 10
causes distribution losses to increase and reliability of service to decrease. 29 In addition, longer feeders
have more exposure to outage and are, therefore, less reliable. The addition of distribution feeders to
existing substations that are already at or near maximum capacity complicates operations and further
reduces reliability.30
Lengthening distribution circuits is not cost-effective, as the construction would be nonstandard and routed through highly constrained areas of existing development. 31
distribution alternatives exceeded the cost of the Proposed Project in many cases.32
In fact, the
Ultimately,
Guernsey concluded that the distribution alternatives were not feasible as “no distribution option
[could] meet the projected demand within the Study Area” and “the load growth in the Study Area is
simply too great to be served by a distribution solution.”33
The Proposed Project is the best option when compared to employing distribution facilities,
distributed generation, or energy efficiency to meet the need. No party challenged Brazos Electric’s
evidence concerning this issue.34
VI. ROUTE
A.
Background
After weighing the factors, Route 5 is the best alternative because it best balances all of the
relevant criteria.35 Although Route 6 has slight environmental benefits, all parties except Staff support
Route 5, most of the intervenors strongly oppose Route 6 due to its use of the southern substation, and
Route 5 is less expensive than Route 6. Route 1 and the Hybrid Route are substantially more expensive
29 Id. at 93.
30 Id. at 16.
31 Id. at 15-16.
32 Id. at 92-93.
33 Id. at 99.
34 See e.g., Frisco Ex. 7 at 6.
35 See Preliminary Order Issue No. 4: “Which proposed transmission line route is the best alternative
weighting the factors set forth in PURA § 37.056(c) and [16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(b)(3)(B)]?
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 11
due to burial of the line or a portion of the line, and the costs have not been sufficiently justified or
offset by the parties that prefer burial of the proposed line.
The Application includes 20 route alternatives for the Proposed Project, four possible tap
locations, and two possible substation locations. 36 There are two kinds of proposed routes (overhead
and underground) in two locations (along the median of Main Street and along the median of
Stonebrook Parkway). No parties recommended any of the routes along Stonebrook Parkway.37 The
Main Street routes are shorter and less expensive and impact fewer parks, historic and archeological
sites, stream crossings, floodplains, and woodlands than the Stonebrook Parkway routes.38
Brazos Electric recommends use of Route 5 and generally recommends an overhead route. 39
However, Brazos Electric also proposes a hybrid overhead/underground route that would involve
burying only Segment 4 of the chosen route. 40 Staff supports an overhead line, specifically Route 6.
All intervenors support Route 1, which is the underground route along Main Street.
Due to the favorable characteristics of these preferred routes in comparison with the remaining
routes proposed, the ALJs concentrate their analysis on Routes 1, 5, and 6, as well as Brazos Electric’s
suggested Hybrid Route, described in the table below.41
ROUTE
TAP POINT–LINKS–SUBSTATION
DESCRIPTION
36 Brazos Ex. 1; see also Brazos Ex. 4 at 14.
37 The BTL Intervenors took no position on whether a Main Street or a Stonebrook Parkway route was
preferable; their position is that the only acceptable alternative is an underground route.
38 Staff Ex. 2 at 7. Additionally, the Stonebrook Parkway routes involve curved paths, impacts to
planned and existing Frisco ISD schools, and a private airstrip. Staff Ex. 2 at 7-8.
39 Brazos Electric stated that Route 1 would be the best underground route. Brazos Ex. 1 at 19.
40 In its Reply Brief, Brazos Electric reasoned that Segment 4, at 8,559 feet, is the longest segment in
the Main Street routes and passes through the most densely-populated residential area of Main Street.
Brazos Reply Brief at 4; Brazos Ex. 1 at 151, Attachment 2 at B-1. The remaining segments total 6,927
feet and primarily pass through commercial or undeveloped areas. Brazos Reply Brief at 4; Brazos Ex.
1 at 159-163; see also Order of Referral at 2 (“Any route presented in the application could, however,
be approved by the Commission. Any combination of routes or route links could also be approved by
the Commission.”).
41 Centurion prefers Route 1 but also supports Routes 5, 7, 9, and 11, which are Main Street routes
that use the north substation. No other parties support Routes 7, 9, or 11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
Route 1
Hybrid
Route
Route 5
Route 6
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–
Substation North
Tap 1—Segment 8—Segment 7—Segment 5
—Segment 4—Segment 3—Segment 242
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–
Substation North
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–Segment
1–Substation South
PAGE 12
Underground route along Main
Street median supported by
intervenors
Overhead route along Main Street
with burial of Segment 4 as
suggested by Brazos Electric
Overhead route along Main Street
supported by Brazos Electric; the
same as Route 1 except overhead
Overhead route along Main Street
supported by Staff; the same as
Route 5 except including Segment
1 and using Substation South
The statute and Commission’s rules governing CCN applications require the Commission to
consider a number of factors when choosing a route. Below, the ALJs discuss these factors and apply
them to the four routes under consideration.
B.
Best Alternative Route
1. Summary of Parties’ Positions
Staff’s opinion is that estimated construction cost, estimated length, and paralleling right-of-
way are three factors that should be given great weight in determining the best route. Considering
these factors, Staff argues that Route 6 is the best route because it is the second-least expensive route
and the shortest route, and it parallels compatible right-of-way for almost its entire length. Staff notes
that because this is a transmission line, all ratepayers in the ERCOT region will pay for the construction
costs of Brazos Electric’s proposed transmission line.43 Giving weight to construction costs, according
to Staff, would ensure that ratepayers in ERCOT are not unnecessarily paying underground
construction costs for reasons that benefit only local concerns. Staff argues that giving weight to length
and paralleling compatible right-of-way ensures that a proposed transmission line minimizes its impact
on the environment and utilizes potential routing corridors. Staff notes that Route 6, in addition to best
42 Brazos Electric’s proposed Hybrid Route could use either the north or the south substation
locations.
43 See generally Tex. Util. Code § 35.004(d); see also Tr. at 187.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 13
meeting these factors, also compares favorably to other proposed routes with regard to the number of
habitable structures that will be affected.44
According to Staff, the Commission should not approve any underground route for the proposed
transmission line. Staff asserts that there are no compelling circumstances that require burying the
proposed line and that doing so is unnecessary. Staff’s expert witness, John Poole, testified:
I cannot find any compelling circumstances presented by the City of Frisco, the BTL
Intervenors, or other intervenors to this proceeding that would justify building the
proposed transmission line on Routes 1 and 4 [the underground routes] in light of these
cost concerns, especially when other viable, less costly routes for Brazos Co-op’s
proposed transmission line are available.45
Staff also notes that the proposed line does not need to be buried from an operational standpoint
and that “[f]rom an electrical network point of view, [the overhead and underground routes are]
identical.”46 Additionally, Staff argues that the ERCOT ratepayers benefit equally from an overhead or
underground line, but the ratepayers in Frisco would benefit more than other ratepayers from an
underground line.47
According to Brazos Electric, Route 5 best meets the requirements of PURA and PUC’s
substantive rules.48 Brazos Electric also proposes the Hybrid Route as a compromise between the
desire of the intervenors for a buried line and Staff’s concerns regarding costs because that route would
involve burial of the most populated section of the route with a reduced incremental cost.
The intervenors in this case submitted a non-unanimous Stipulation that had been agreed to by
all intervenors. Neither Staff nor Brazos Electric joined the Stipulation. The Stipulation provides five
arguments for approval of Route 1:
44
45
46
47
48
Staff Ex. 1 at 30-31.
Id. at 21.
Tr. at 186-87.
Tr. at 187.
Brazos Ex. 4 at 16, 33.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 14
1. The above ground routes proposed by Brazos Electric conflict with previously planned
city infrastructure improvements and street widening.49 However, coordination of
construction between Brazos Electric and Frisco could lead to savings for the cost
estimate Brazos Electric has suggested for placement of transmission underground.50
2. Traffic congestion makes overhead use of the median on Main Street a significant safety
hazard.51
3. It is unusual to find a significant proposed transmission line corridor that has so many
habitable structures and that is opposed by all intervenors as well as the community
where the line is to be located.52
4. Contributions offered by Frisco and the opportunity for cooperation between Brazos
Electric and Frisco can neutralize any seeming cost advantage for an above ground
option over an underground option.53
5. Even if the incremental difference between underground and above ground options
(approximately $28 million) is accurate and there is no offset offered by Frisco, the
resulting impact on end use ratepayers within ERCOT is de minimis. The $28 million
would be lost in rounding on a monthly basis and would not meaningfully change the
cost responsibility of ratepayers within ERCOT.54
Ms. Salas argues in favor of Routes 1 or 5 because they use the northern substation. She cites
to the following testimony of Larry Cox of Brazos Electric: “The north alternative was slightly less
expensive. [Route] 5 was slightly less expensive than the one using the south substation route. And
south substation route has a small little piece of drainage and a potential little pond on it that was
quantified in the comparisons.”55 Ms. Salas states that the Stonewater Crossing community where she
lives would be impacted by the proposed south substation. The community consists of approximately
231 homes and 700 residents.56 Ms. Salas notes that Staff is the only party that supports the southern
substation.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
Stipulation at 3.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 4-5.
Id. at 5.
Tr. at 142.
Salas Post-Hearing Brief at 2.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 15
Route 1, the underground Main Street route that was supported by the intervenors, is the same
length as Route 5 and is estimated to cost approximately $28 million more than Routes 5 and 6. 57 The
Hybrid Route is estimated to cost $21,267,362.81, which reduces the incremental cost of burial from
$28,646,402 to $15,638,764.81.58 However, the intervenors do not support the Hybrid Route as their
position is that the entire line should be buried.
2. Adequacy of Existing Service, Need for Additional Service, and Effect of Granting the
CCN on Oncor and any Electric Utility Serving the Proximate Area
The parties, with the exception of Ms. Salas, do not dispute the need for additional service.59
The projected load growth in the Study Area led to the need for the proposed transmission
line.60
Specifically, “[t]he Study Area’s historical growth rate indicates continued expansion of
residential housing developments, office building complexes, and retail/commercial complexes,” 61 and
“[p]eak demands are expected to grow annually between 6 percent and 10 percent.”62 As a result of this
anticipated growth, “the forecasted 2024 demand of 567.4 MW in the Study Area is 134.2 MW short of
57 Brazos Ex. 1, Attachment 2 at 150.
58 Brazos Electric Reply Brief at 4.
59 Ms. Salas offered the following argument regarding need in her post-hearing brief: Half of Roman
Juarez substation is being given to a single entity that will convert that energy to be resold as data energy.
At the very least this had to affect the poor planning by CoServ.
Roman Juarez was built for “us,” paid for by “us,” because we needed it.
Lastly I leave you with a quote occurring in many of the articles covering the new deal with this data
center.
The location has access to plenty of power. “A substation on site made it appealing, and
there’s capacity for up to 250 megawatts,” Carnes said. “We got the utility to commit
up to 50 megawatts for the site so far.”
250 MW is the complete amount available at Roman Juarez. Salas Brief at 4.
60 The Study Area is “bounded by Highway 121 on the South, the Dallas North Tollway on the East,
Highway 380 on the North, and Garza-Little Elm Reservoir (Lewisville Lake) on the West.” Brazos
Ex. 3 at 7.
61 Id.
62 Id. at 8.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 16
current capacity.”63 Thus, “[l]oad growth is occurring at a pace that will exceed [CoServ Electric’s]
ability to reliably meet the need with existing distribution facilities.”64
The proposed transmission line, rather than distribution solutions, will meet the need for
additional service in the Study Area. Brazos Electric determined that “[t]he load growth in the Study
Area is simply too great to be served by a distribution solution.” 65 The distribution solutions evaluated
by Guernsey on behalf of Brazos Electric were cost prohibitive, not feasible due to the existing
substations in the Study Area lacking sufficient capacity to supply the total projected demand in the
Study Area, or not operationally feasible. 66 Thus, “a transmission and substation option must be
considered to serve the anticipated load in the Study Area.” 67 Brazos Electric’s proposed transmission
line and the proposed additional Stonebrook Substation will meet the need for additional service in the
Study Area because they “will serve the forecasted load growth and reduce the burden on the existing
substations and their feeders.”68
3.Community Values
Although the term “community values” is not formally defined in Commission rules or in
PURA, the term has been described as “a shared appreciation of an area or other natural or human
resource by a national, regional, or local community. Adverse effects upon community values consist
63 Id.
64 Brazos Ex. 1 at 14. CoServ Electric is the electric provider in the Study Area. Id. at 86. The Study
Area is “currently served from feeders from [CoServ Electric’s] Bridges, Frisco, Hebron, Panther
Creek, and Roman Juarez Substations.” Brazos Ex. 3 at 7.
65 Brazos Ex. 1 at 8.
66 The ten distribution solutions are (1) distributed resources (cost prohibitive); (2) photo-voltaic
generation (cost prohibitive and untimely); (3) high voltage direct current express circuit (cost
prohibitive); (4) high-temperature conductor express circuit (cost prohibitive and existing substations
lack sufficient capacity); (5) conversion to 35-kV (cost prohibitive); (6) larger ASCR conductor express
24.9-kV circuit (existing substations lack sufficient capacity); (7) large storage battery installations
(cost prohibitive); (8) 46-kV sub-transmission construction (cost prohibitive); (9) continued distribution
service at 24.9-kV using current construction methods (existing substations lack sufficient capacity;
and (10) continued distribution at 24.9-kV using alternative construction methods (not operationally
feasible). Brazos Ex. 1 at 88-99.
67 Brazos Ex. 3 at 8.
68 Brazos Ex. 1 at 15.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 17
of those aspects of a proposed project that would significantly alter the use, enjoyment, or intrinsic
value attached to an important area or resource by a community.”69
To address and consider community values, Brazos Electric held a civic leader meeting and a
public open house meeting. Questionnaires and public comments, both written and verbal, were
accepted for consideration during and following the meetings. Based on the feedback that Brazos
Electric received, it delayed filing the Application by a year to work with Frisco to develop alternative
routes.70
The civic leader meeting was held on July 23, 2013, in Frisco, Texas. Invitations were mailed
to 41 people. Sixteen people attended the meeting, including representatives from Frisco, the City of
The Colony, Denton County, and various development companies.
The public open house meeting was held on August 17, 2013. The meeting was advertised in
three local newspapers. Landowners within 300 feet of the centerline of each alternative route segment
and substation location were notified by direct mail notices. A total of 619 notices were mailed.
Twenty-eight similar notices were mailed to public officials. A total of 612 people signed in at the
meeting. After the meeting, 517 letters were mailed to landowners who were notified of the meeting
but did not attend.
A total of 190 questionnaires were completed and submitted for consideration. 71 Seventy-three
other written comments were submitted and 34 phone inquiries and comments were received. 72
Additionally, by the date of the hearing, between 6,000 and 7,000 comments had been filed, with the
majority requesting that the transmission line be installed underground. 73 Comments continued to be
filed after the hearing.
69 Application of LCRA Transmission Services Corporation to Amend its Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity for a 345-Kilovolt Double-Circuit Line in Caldwell, Guadalupe, Hays, Travis and
Williamson Counties, Texas, Docket No. 33978, Order at Finding of Fact No. 118 (Oct. 10, 2008).
70 Tr. at 144-46.
71 This number represents the total as of October 10, 2014. Brazos Ex. 1 at 21.
72 Id.
73 Tr. at 109-10.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 18
Frisco and the other intervenors agree in their assertion that an overhead route would be
contrary to the community values of the west Frisco area. It is undisputed that residents of Frisco
would frequently encounter the overhead lines during everyday activities such as driving, biking, or
walking. The main community concerns that arose during the pendency of this case include perceived
negative impacts on property values; aesthetic concerns; interference with Frisco’s plans for street
expansion and additional water infrastructure; health risks, especially for children and the elderly;
proximity of the proposed line to schools; interference with views; thwarting of Frisco’s city planning
and beautification efforts; risk of lost revenue for local businesses and tax revenue for Frisco and Frisco
ISD; and impact on future land development.
The BTL Intervenors summarized their concerns74 as follows:
CONCERN
PERCENT OF BTL INTERVENORS
WITH CONCERN
Adverse impact on property values
Adverse impact on real estate-related borrowing
opportunities
Adverse impact on business revenue
Adverse impact on neighborhood safety (including
health concerns)
Adverse impact on children due to proximity to
schools
Adverse impact on future home sites
Adverse visual impacts (aesthetics)
Adverse impact on Frisco’s development plans
96.3
93.7
74 BTL Initial Brief at 4.
91.3
87.2
79.7
74.4
59.4
8.1
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 19
a. Property Values
The BTL Intervenors assert that although overhead routes may be the “low-cost” option for
Brazos Electric, they are the “high-cost” option in the larger picture because of the expected decrease in
property values associated with overhead routes.75 The BTL Intervenors provided testimony stating
that the installation of overhead lines would have a negative effect on homeowners’ abilities “to receive
a fair market value and a positive return on investment for their homes, should they wish to sell.” 76
They also submitted testimony that this decrease in property values would negatively affect city
services provided to enhance the quality of life in Frisco because of a diminished tax base. 77 The BTL
Intervenors also argue that overhead lines would cause millions of dollars of damages to Frisco due to
changes in its development plans and possible lost property tax revenues to Frisco ISD. The BTL
Intervenors assert that the only way to mitigate the damage to the community that would be caused by
the proposed transmission line is to bury it underground.
b. Safety
The BTL Intervenors and Frisco also have safety-related concerns regarding running an
overhead transmission line in the middle of Main Street, which is a heavily traveled road. 78 Frisco’s
witness Harold L. Hughes, Jr., an Executive Consultant with ReSolved Energy Consulting, LLC, stated
that “[i]t is asking for trouble to have thousands of cars traveling within inches of transmission
75 See BTL Ex. 6 at 10.
76 See, e.g., BTL Ex. 6 at 10; see also BTL Exs. 1-5, 8-11.
77 BTL Ex. 6 at 10; BTL Ex. 7 at 5-6; BTL Ex. 8 at 6; Direct Testimony of Jennifer Jackson at 6. The
intervening parties expressed frustration for “CoServ’s poor planning” throughout this proceeding,
attributing the need for a transmission line in a heavily populated area to a lack of planning on
CoServ’s part. According to Frisco, CoServ developed an expansion plan in 2007. However, that plan
was put on hold due to the national recession from 2008-2011. Development in Frisco and the
surrounding area continued despite the recession, and the areas that had been available for in-line
substations were lost to development. Frisco Reply Brief at 11. Brazos Electric countered that CoServ
planned appropriately and that, even if it had implemented a plan in 2007, the transmission line would
have impacted future growth of the Frisco area. Brazos Reply Brief at 13-14. The ALJs understand the
frustration of the parties regarding the location of the proposed transmission line but note that the
circumstances that led to the necessity of the proposed line being located on a developed street is
outside of the scope of inquiry before the ALJs.
78 Frisco Ex. 7 at 10-11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 20
structures that support a line that is providing a main source of power for the City and surrounding
communities. An underground line would not present these safety . . . concerns.”79
Additionally, Brazos Electric’s witness Erik Ruggeri, the engineer who will oversee
construction of the transmission line, testified that “[g]uard rails would be prudent in areas where the
median is narrow—less than 9 feet.”80 Frisco’s planned road expansion will narrow the median to three
feet in some areas.81 Thus, the BTL Intervenors are concerned that, even with guard rails installed,
placing a transmission line in the median of a busy road will unreasonably heighten the risk of traffic
accidents involving the poles.82 Frisco agrees that if transmission towers can be installed in the median,
they would create significant and potentially deadly traffic hazards.83
The BTL Intervenors also note the frequency of storms in North Texas as another source of
safety concerns. They assert that such storms can upend or collapse a transmission tower and that
exposing residents and commuters to a collapsed tower or downed transmission line is an unreasonable
risk. They view the risk as worse if the median in a six-lane roadway is only three feet wide.84
c. Frisco’s Development Plans
The BTL Intervenors also have concerns regarding the negative impact that an overhead line
would have on Frisco’s development plans; they “take great pride in what [their] City and its leaders
79 Frisco Ex. 1 at 21.
80 Brazos Ex. 6 at 8.
81 Stipulation at 4.
82 The BTL Intervenors also reference a TxDOT rule that states that “[p]oles shall not be placed in the
center median of any highway.” 43 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.41(d)(2). Although that rule is not
applicable to this case, the BTL Intervenors note that Staff witness Mr. Poole stated that it is proper to
extend by analogy certain regulations that are not directly applicable if the regulations are nonetheless
helpful to the Commission in reaching a routing decision. Tr. at 244.
83 Frisco also called into question the weight that should be given to Mr. Poole’s testimony on behalf
of the Commission, stating that he was hired in February of 2015 and assigned to this case in May
2015. Tr. at 217-18, 222, 225-26, 245-46.
84 Stipulation at 3.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 21
have been able to accomplish in turning Frisco into . . . the ‘crown jewel of Texas.’” 85 BTL Intervenor
witness Kendall Meade explained that
As a master planned community, Frisco has given much thought and taken great care in
the development of the city. Frisco’s leaders take calculated and well thought-out steps
to ensure that Frisco is a “premier” city. They have invested a great deal of taxpayer
dollars in making our City the best it can be. If the proposed overhead lines are allowed,
they will destroy all that our City and taxpayers have worked to create.86
The BTL Intervenors argue that the Commission should take into account the value the Frisco
community places on the careful planning of their city when determining which route is appropriate.
Because of the city’s growth and resulting traffic conditions on Main Street, Frisco has planned
to expand the street inward by decreasing the width of the median. Additionally, the need for water in
Frisco has resulted in plans to use the median of Main Street for underground placement of a 30-inch
water transmission pipe and a 20-inch water reuse pipe. According to the Stipulation, installing the
transmission line overhead in the median may prevent Frisco from completing its plans and expanding
the street inward. All intervenors view the inward expansion, as opposed to outward expansion that
would require condemnation of private property, as preserving community values on Main Street.
The intervenors also argue that the Application “ignores” Frisco’s plan to widen Main Street. In
some areas, the planned road expansion will narrow the median to three feet. According to the
intervenors, even if three feet is sufficient for the construction plans of Brazos Electric, such narrowing
would allow insufficient space for guard rails along the street where transmission poles are to be
located.87
In contrast, Staff argues that Route 6 will not affect Frisco’s plan to expand Main Street. Brazos
Electric witness Mr. Ruggeri confirmed that a transmission line on Main Street will not impact Frisco’s
plan.88 Mr. Ruggeri evaluated the feasibility of construction of an overhead route along Main Street
and Stonebrook Parkway in light of Frisco’s street expansion plans.
85
86
87
88
BTL Ex. 6 at 12.
Id. at 19-24.
Stipulation at 4.
Tr. at 150-52.
He found that there were
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 22
“sufficient, potential pole locations . . . that are seven to nine feet in width.” 89 Mr. Ruggeri concluded
that an overhead line was feasible on Main Street, even considering Frisco’s road expansion plans.90
According to Staff, placing a transmission line in the median of a roadway is not unusual. Staff
notes that the Study Area has a 345-kV transmission line located in the median of Legacy Drive, which
crosses Main Street.91 Frisco argues that Legacy Drive is less developed than Main Street. The
Application indicates that two housing developments as well as the entrance to Legacy Christian
Academy (an intervenor) are located on Legacy Drive.92 Although Legacy Drive is sparsely developed,
the fact that there is a utility line down the median of the road is an indication that running a
transmission line down the median is not absolutely prohibited.
d. Schools
The BTL Intervenors are also “outraged that Brazos [Electric] has proposed to install a
transmission line near so many schools.”93 According to Frisco witness Richard Wilkinson, the Deputy
Superintendent of Business Services for Frisco ISD, “Frisco ISD is one of the fastest growing public
school districts in the nation” with “over 50,000 students enrolled in seven high schools, 13 middle
schools, 37 elementary schools, and four special programs schools.”94 Due to the city’s growth, Frisco
ISD has opened several new schools recently, including two that began operation in August 2015. 95
According to the BTL Intervenors, there are thousands of children attending schools near one or more
of the proposed routes, and those numbers will only increase as the city grows. 96 The community
attracts families with children,97 and community members are concerned for the well-being of their
children. The BTL Intervenors believe that an underground route is the only reasonable alternative to
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
Brazos Ex 6 at 5-6.
Id. at 6.
Tr. at 146-47, 194.
Brazos Ex. 1 at 159-60.
BTL Initial Brief at 12.
Frisco Ex. 6 at 4-5.
Id. at 5.
See BTL Ex. 21 (Frisco ISD Facility Map).
BTL Ex. 6 at 15.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 23
prevent the unknown health consequences of a child’s entire K-12 education taking place in the
proximity of the proposed line.
e. Habitable Structures
In the Stipulation, the intervenors assert that an above ground line will impact “a staggering
amount of habitable structures because this area is so developed,” whereas an underground line would
impact no habitable structures.98
The Chamber argues that an overhead line would directly impact both current and future
commercial properties along Main Street.
The Chamber described the commercial properties as
varying from small stand-alone retail stores, restaurants, and medical/office space to shopping centers
containing similar establishments.
Further development including multi-family/mixed-use, retail,
office, and outdoor mixed-use space is planned. Additional residential developments are planned as
well. Both Staff and Brazos Electric witnesses testified that they had never worked on any other case
in which the route would impact so much existing development.99
f. Discussion
Staff disputes the weight that should be afforded to the community values factor in this case.
Staff argues that Frisco and the BTL Intervenors have failed to present exceptional and compelling
circumstances for burying the transmission line, particularly when Frisco has not offered to guarantee a
financial contribution. Rather, Staff refutes the BTL Intervenors’ attempt to justify running the line
underground due to local concerns regarding the impact on future development and property values.
Staff asserts that neither future development nor property values are routing criteria listed in the
Commission’s substantive rules.100 According to Staff, these local concerns should be given little, if
any, consideration in determining the best route.
98 Stipulation at 4.
99 Tr. at 166.
100 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(b)(3)(B).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 24
According to the intervenors, the above ground alternatives are universally opposed by Frisco,
the Chamber, Frisco ISD, commercial establishments, homeowner associations, and individual
homeowners.101
Regardless of the weight given to this factor, community values heavily favor Route 1. Route 1
would not impact property values, safety, schools, Frisco’s development plan, or habitable structures.
Route 1 would preserve the use, enjoyment, and intrinsic value of the community of west Frisco.
4. Recreational and Park Areas
There are several parks and recreation areas located within 1,000 feet of the centerline of the
Main Street overhead routes that would be impacted by the proposed line.
The homeowners
association (HOA) intervenors are concerned about destruction of views from community parks by the
presence of overhead lines.
The following table shows the parks that would be affected by the four routes under
consideration:
NAME
Kings Garden Amenity
Center
McCord Park
OWNER
Kings Garden HOA
LOCATION
Approximately 921 feet north of
Segment 5 (All four routes)
Town of Little Elm
Approximately 842 feet north of
Substation North (Routes 1 and 5
and the Hybrid Route)
Waterford Falls Amenity
Waterford Falls Owners
Approximately 601 feet south of
Center
Association
Segment 4 (All four routes)
Westfalls Village Amenity
Westfalls Village HOA
Approximately 971 feet south of
Center
Segment 4 (All four routes)
Route 1 or a hybrid route that buried Segments 4 and 5 would have the least impact on recreational and
park areas. Additionally, a route that used the south substation would not impact McCord Park.
5. Historical and Aesthetic Values
101 Stipulation at 4.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 25
The BTL Intervenors are also concerned about the negative aesthetic impact that an overhead
transmission line would have on the west Frisco community. For instance, the tallest structure in the
area currently is the Embassy Suites, which is thirteen stories high. 102 The transmission lines, at 85-100
feet high, would be the second-tallest structure in Frisco and the tallest structure in west Frisco.103
According to the BTL Intervenors, many homeowners in Frisco were attracted to the city
because of its bucolic characteristics, and many of them would not have purchased their homes if an
overhead transmission line was present in the median of Main Street or Stonebrook Parkway.104
Moreover, they fear that overhead lines will fundamentally change the nature of the area and “destroy
their expectations.”105 The BTL Intervenors request that the Commission consider and protect those
expectations.
No historical or archeological sites are impacted by the four recommended routes.106
There is no impact on historical values among the routes. Route 1 is favored for aesthetic
values because it would have temporary aesthetic impact, whereas any overhead route would have a
permanent impact.
102
103
104
105
106
BTL Ex. 6 at 10.
Id. at 10.
Id. at 11-12.
BTL Initial Brief at 15.
Two archeological sites are located within 1,000 feet of Routes 3 and 4. Brazos Ex. 1.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 26
6. Environmental Integrity
Brazos Electric argues that an overhead route would have less impact on the environment
because it would span the environmental constraints such as creeks and floodplains. The intervenors
argue that a below ground line would have less environmental impact. Staff witness Larry Cox
testified that the primary environmental impacts of installing an underground line would be soil
disturbance and potential sedimentation and water quality impacts. 107 As discussed below, Brazos
Electric has agreed to implement many of the suggested changes recommended by the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD), regardless of which line is ultimately constructed. Therefore, no route
along Main Street is significantly better than another when analyzing environmental integrity.
7. Probable Improvement of Service or Lowering of Cost to Consumers in the Area
As discussed above in the section on need, the new line is needed to improve service to serve
increasing demand and prevent outages. There are no cost savings to consumers anticipated as a result
of the Proposed Project. However, it is the best option to meet the service needs, taking into account
considerations of efficiency, reliability, costs, and benefits.
8. Effect on the State’s Renewable Energy Goals
The Proposed Project is a transmission line unrelated to the State of Texas’ renewable energy
goals.
107 Tr. at 154.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 27
9. Factors in 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.101(b)(3)(B)
a. Engineering Constraints
Mr. Ruggeri testified that there are no engineering constraints that prohibit an overhead
construction in the median of Main Street, even considering Frisco’s planned expansion. 108
Specifically, he testified that Main Street “provide[s] adequate space for the location of single-pole
structures necessary for the construction of an overhead line, if selected by the PUC. Even with the
reduced median width, there are ample locations wherein the median is wide enough to allow poles
within the 200-800 foot span range.”109
The BTL Intervenors and Frisco argue that there would be safety concerns with placing the poles in the
narrowed median because there would not be room for guard rails along the median in the narrow
areas. According to Frisco, after it expands Main Street, the median will be less than five feet wide in
some places.110 Frisco argues that the “industry standard” under the current AASHTO Roadside Design
Guide and the current TxDOT Roadway Design Manual is to provide an object-free clear zone of at
least four feet to six feet from the curb. 111 Guard rails are recommended if this condition cannot be met.
Frisco argues that approximately 18 inches is needed behind a curb to install a guard rail and posts,
which means that the available space in the median would be reduced by 18 inches on both sides (three
feet in total).112 Frisco further argues that Brazos Electric has previously indicated that it requires a 70foot easement to operate the transmission route safely, although Mr. Ruggeri testified that there will be
areas where the median measures between seven and nine feet.113 Frisco asserts that Brazos Electric
failed to reconcile this inconsistency.
Mr. Ruggeri’s testimony addressed each of these concerns. He testified that “while it is true that
there are areas . . . where the median [will be] too narrow for a transmission structure, we span
108
109
110
111
112
113
See Brazos Ex. 6 at 5-9; Tr. at 150-52.
Brazos Ex. 6 at 9.
Frisco Ex. 4 at 5 and Attachments NA-2 and NA-3.
Id. at 6.
Id. at 6.
Tr. at 159.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 28
anywhere from 200 feet to 800 feet. So we’re able to put them in the wider areas of the median . . . .” 114
He further stated that Brazos Electric would place the poles in areas of the median where there is
“sufficient width to do so, approximately 7 to 9 feet.”115 Mr. Ruggeri also testified that the transmission
line can be built on the Main Street median, that it would also be possible for Frisco to expand Main
Street inward by narrowing the median, and that Brazos Electric would need a 70-foot right-of-way for
construction and maintenance but not for safety or operational purposes.116 Similarly, construction of
an underground line would require a 20- to 70-foot right-of-way.117
Frisco also criticizes Mr. Ruggeri’s analysis because he relied on documents provided to him by
Frisco rather than conducting an independent analysis of how wide the median would be. Frisco does
not explain why reliance on its own information is unsatisfactory. Frisco also complains that, even if
the poles will fit in the median, Brazos Electric concedes that it would likely have to block a lane of
traffic for maintenance of the line.
However, Frisco does not explain why this is a reason for
undergrounding the line. Lanes of travel on many busy streets are often blocked for a variety of
maintenance activities, including for maintenance of underground infrastructure.
The ALJs find Mr. Ruggeri’s testimony to be credible and do not find that engineering
constraints require burying the transmission line. As Mr. Ruggeri testified, poles can be placed in the
wider parts of the median to allow space for guard rails where they are needed, and the line can span
the narrower areas of the median. The ALJs appreciate Frisco’s concerns for safety of commuters on
Main Street, but those concerns do not equate to engineering constraints that require burial of the line.
b. Costs
The parties dispute who should pay the cost difference of a buried route if the Commission
orders such a route. As further explored in this PFD, the intervenors argue that the incremental cost
should be paid by ERCOT ratepayers, whereas Staff argues that local parties requesting burial of the
line should pay for the burial. Additionally, the BTL Intervenors urge the Commission to consider not
114
115
116
117
Tr. at 156.
Tr. at 157.
Tr. at 157.
Brazos Ex. 1 at 7-8.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 29
just the “direct installation costs” but also the “true costs” to the community.118 They argue that this
case is unique and that the Commission must weigh the factors differently in this case than in the
“usual” case.119
Brazos Electric estimates that the cost difference between Routes 5 and 6 and Route 1 is
approximately $28 million and that the cost difference between Routes 5 and 6 and the Hybrid Route is
approximately $15,638,765. The estimated cost of each route is shown in the table below:
ROUTE
Route 1
Route 5
Route 6
Hybrid Route
ESTIMATED COST
$34,275,000
$5,628,598
$5,948,864
$21,267,363
Based on the cost factor alone, Route 5 is the preferable route. Route 6 is slightly more
expensive but also reasonable in terms of cost. The Hybrid Route and Route 1 are significantly more
expensive. In order to justify ordering Route 1 or the Hybrid Route, cost must be outweighed by other
factors.
118 BTL Initial Brief at 17.
119 Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 30
c. Compatible ROW, Property Boundaries, and Natural and Cultural Features
Routes 1, 5, and 6 all parallel compatible right-of-way for 98.95% of their lengths, as shown in
the table below.120 Therefore, the proposed routes are indistinguishable under this factor.
LAND USE
Total Length (feet)
Parallel Pipe Lines
(feet)
Parallel Roadways
(feet)
Percentage of Parallel
Right-of-Way
ROUTE 1
15,486
2,167
ROUTE 5
15,486
2,167
ROUTE 6
15,486
2,167
15,423
15,423
15,423
98.95
98.95
98.95
d. Prudent Avoidance and Habitable Structures
PURA § 37.056 and 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.101 routing factors require
conformance with the Commission’s policy of prudent avoidance. Prudent avoidance is defined as “the
limiting of exposures to electric and magnetic fields that can be avoided with reasonable investments of
money and effort.”121 Prudent avoidance is achieved by minimizing, “to the extent reasonable, the
number of habitable structures located in close proximity to the routes.” 122 There are 246 habitable
structures within 300 feet of the centerline of Routes 1 and 5 and 251 habitable structures within 300
feet of the centerline of Route 6. 123 Due to the highly developed nature of the Project Area, all of the
preferred routes impact a high number of habitable structures.
The following table shows how the four recommended routes compare with regard to impact on
habitable structures:
ROUTE
HABITABLE STRUCTURES
WITHIN 300 FEET OF
CENTERLINE
120 Because the Hybrid Route is a combination of Route 1 and Route 5 or Route 6, it also parallels
compatible right-of-way for 98.95% of its length.
121 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(a)(4).
122 Staff Ex. 1 at 30.
123 16 Tex. Admin. Code §§ 25.101(a)(4), (b)(3)(B)(iv); Brazos Ex. 1 at 39, 44-47.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
Route 1 (underground)
Route 5
Route 6
Hybrid Route
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 31
246
246
251
Either 246 or 251
The BTL Intervenors’ position is that only an underground route conforms with the PUC’s
policy of prudent avoidance by minimizing the number of habitable structures in close proximity to the
routes. The BTL Intervenors are concerned about the health risks posed by electromagnetic fields
(EMF) near so many homes and schools. Some residents with health concerns have stated that they
will move if an overhead route is approved.124
The BTL Intervenors are particularly concerned
regarding the effect the proposed line could have on the Frisco Lakes retirement community,
specifically that “the pacemakers and other highly sensitive medical devices used by numerous Frisco
Lakes residents may be interfered with by the electrical current carried by these high-voltage
transmission lines.”125
Staff witness Mr. Poole admitted that he was not aware of any other cases of this kind where so
many habitable structures would be affected by a transmission line that was recommended by PUC
Staff.126 Based on that testimony, the BTL Intervenors argue, the Commission should give greater
weight than usual to its policy of prudent avoidance and order that an underground route be
constructed.
The Chamber argues that the overhead routes do not conform to the Commission’s policy of
prudent avoidance because they will negatively impact both city planning and business development
that already exists or is currently underway. According to the Chamber, undergrounding is the only
acceptable way to protect Frisco’s residents and commercial property owners seeking the best use of
their private property.
Ms. Salas argues that, between Route 5 and Route 6, Route 5 is preferable under this factor
because it uses the northern substation, which impacts fewer habitable structures. Jennifer Jackson,
124 See BTL Ex. 6 at 14.
125 Id.
126 Tr. at 220.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 32
President of the Stonewater Crossing HOA, testified that the residents of Stonewater Crossing strongly
oppose the southern substation.127 John LeBeck, who serves on the Board of Directors for the Village
at Frisco Lakes HOA, supports the northern substation because the Village at Frisco Lakes is expanding
in the vicinity of the proposed southern substation.128
As shown in the Table, the number of habitable structures within 300 feet of the centerline of the
four preferred routes is similar. However, Route 1 would likely have a lesser impact on the habitable
structures because it would be located below ground. Therefore, Route 1 has a lesser impact under this
factor.129 The Hybrid Route would impact 210 fewer structures than Routes 5 or 6. 130 Routes 5 and 6
are substantially similar to each other on this factor, with Route 6 impacting only five additional
habitable structures. Those five structures are located near the southern substation.
The Commission’s policy of prudent avoidance involves not just the avoidance of habitable
structures but the minimization of impact to habitable structures that can be achieved with reasonable
investments of money and effort.131 No alternative overhead route in the project area avoids proximity
to numerous habitable structures. The intervenors argue that Route 1 is the only way to achieve
prudent avoidance because it will involve burial of the line, but that route is approximately $28 million
more expensive than Routes 5 or 6. Route 1 is only preferable under this factor if the extra cost of $28
million and the additional effort of burial can be viewed as reasonable. The ALJs do not find this
additional investment to be reasonable without a firm commitment to pay for a portion of the cost of
burial from the parties who will benefit from such burial.
10. Alternative Routes with Less Impact on Landowners
The intervenors assert that Route 1 is the only alternative route that would have less negative
127 Tr. at 212-13.
128 Tr. at 215-16.
129 No evidence was presented regarding the difference, if any, between the potential effects of EMF
for below-ground or above ground transmission lines. However, the intervenors argued that the
potential effects of EMF would be resolved by burying the proposed line.
130 Brazos Ex. 1, Attachment 2 at B-1. Segment 4, which would be buried if the Hybrid Route is
ordered, impacts 210 habitable structures.
131 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 25.101(a)(4).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 33
impact on landowners. The incremental cost of Route 1 is approximately $28 million.132
a. Hybrid Route
Brazos Electric offered the option of the Hybrid Route as a compromise to lower the
incremental cost of burial while burying only the most heavily populated route segment. The Hybrid
Route has an estimated incremental cost of $15,638,764.81. 133 Frisco agrees with the burial of Segment
4 as proposed in the Hybrid Route. However, Frisco contends that the entire route must be buried due
to its street expansion plans and the planned future development along the other segments. Similarly,
the BTL Intervenors maintain that the entire route must be buried and that the Hybrid Route option is
“no option at all.”134 Staff does not oppose the Hybrid Route as long as Frisco, the BTL Intervenors, or
parties other than the ERCOT ratepayers pay for the burial.
b. Additional Costs Associated with Landowner Preferences
i.
Parties’ Arguments
As an initial matter, the BTL Intervenors argue that PURA, not “landowner preference,”
requires burial of the proposed line. According to the BTL Intervenors, the ERCOT system, not the
local constituents, should bear the costs of burial of the line because the costs are driven by the density
of the study area, paucity of route choices, and the requirements of PURA. Specifically, the BTL
Intervenors cite to the following “unique facts and circumstances” to justify their position:
The unusually high density of the proposed routes;
The density cannot be avoided by selecting alternative routes;
Overhead installation of the line along those routes must be on monopoles located in
the median of very busy thoroughfares;
Overhead installation on monopoles would cause substantial damage to property
values in the community, change the character of the community, and unnecessarily
raise fears and perceptions of the safety and well-being of members of the
community;
132 Brazos Ex. 1 at 151.
133 Brazos Reply Brief at 4.
134 BTL Intervenors’ Response to SOAH Order No. 13 at 1.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 34
Overhead installation on monopoles would completely disrupt the well-established
uses and Frisco’s planned expansion of the roads and require Frisco to take more
land on the outside of the roadways to implement their plans;
Underground installation will eliminate all of the damages that would be caused by
overhead installations; and
Frisco and every other intervenor in this case have agreed to a plan that they state
will reduce the cost difference between underground and overhead to $500,000 or
less.135
Frisco offered what it argues are adequate contributions in support of an underground route,
including (1) an easement at no charge to Brazos Electric down the Main Street median for an
underground line, valued by Frisco at $17.86 million; and (2) savings of $10 million resulting from
coordinated construction costs paid directly by Frisco. Frisco argues that these contributions will cover
the approximately $28 million in incremental costs of undergrounding the line, thus nullifying the
incremental cost of burial.136
The first part of Frisco’s plan, “donation” of an easement to Brazos Electric only if the line is
run underground below the Main Street median, is subject to dispute. Frisco asserts that its “donation”
of the right-of-way along Main Street is worth $17.86 million. 137 Staff argues that Brazos Electric is
authorized to use the right-of-way along Main Street under PURA § 181.042 for no charge. Similarly,
Brazos Electric argues that it is not required to pay Frisco for use of the public right-of-way along Main
Street.
The Commission ordered that the appropriate compensation for right-of-way or condemnation
of property is not to be addressed in this proceeding because the Commission has no authority to set the
amount of compensation for right-of-way or condemnation of property.138 Therefore, the disputed issue
135 BTL Initial Brief at 18-19.
136 Frisco Initial Brief at 42.
137 Frisco asserted that, if Brazos Electric builds the transmission line above ground, Frisco will have
to expand Main Street outward rather than inward because there is not enough right-of-way behind the
curb to expand the roadway. Frisco claimed that such expansion will cost it an additional $11.7
million. According to Frisco, the only solution to this problem is undergrounding the line. However,
as noted above, installation of an overhead line will not prevent Frisco from expanding the street
inward.
138 Order of Referral at 5. Brazos Electric did not include cost of right-of-way acquisition from
Frisco in its cost estimates for any of the proposed routes. Brazos Ex. 1, Attachment 2, Table B.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 35
of whether Frisco is entitled to $17.86 million, or any other amount of compensation, for use of the
Main Street right-of-way is outside the scope of this proceeding.
The second part of Frisco’s plan is coordinating expansion of its roadways and infrastructure
with construction of an underground line. Frisco asserts that this coordination of construction would
result in savings of $10 million for Brazos Electric. 139 Frisco states that it will have to excavate up to
eight feet or more and perform trenching to install its planned water transmission line and reuse water
transmission line. Frisco proposes that it and Brazos Electric hire a single general contractor to
perform the work, and the city’s contractor can install all of the improvements, including the
transmission line conduit, at the same time. Frisco requests that, in evaluating its contribution to
incremental costs, the Commission consider that Frisco is willing to delay its project to coordinate with
Brazos Electric and that the impact to traffic will be shortened by eight months through this
coordination of efforts.
Brazos Electric concedes that, if Frisco pays the contractor directly for specific items of
construction, approximately $9.5 million could be saved. 140 However, Frisco represents that if the cost
savings associated with coordinating construction turn out to be less than $10 million, it would not
commit to making up the difference.141 Specifically, at the hearing, Frisco’s assistant manager Ben
Brezina testified that Frisco would not commit to making up any shortfall in the estimated $10 million
in savings.142
The BTL Intervenors also present several arguments for why adequate contributions have been
made to offset the costs of line burial. The BTL Intervenors argued that the Commission has approved
longer or more expensive route options under prudent avoidance or to preserve or protect wildlife. 143
139 Frisco Ex. 5 at 6-8; Frisco Ex. 7 at 16-17.
140 Brazos Ex. 6 at 28-29. Brazos Electric also estimated that if the Hybrid Route is ordered, the
savings from construction coordination would be approximately $4,157,063.72. Brazos Reply Brief at
4; Brazos Ex. 6 at 28, Attachment ER-4 at 1; Brazos Ex. 1 at 151, Attachment 2 at B-1, 142,
Attachment 2 at 16.
141 Tr. at 198.
142 Tr. at 197-98.
143 See Application of Electric Transmission Texas, LLC to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and
Necessity for the Proposed Barney Davis to Naval Base 138-kV Single-Circuit Transmission Lines in
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 36
The BTL Intervenors recognize that the Commission did not intend for its prior orders to set precedent,
but they argue that those orders show that factors other than cost must be considered in this case. The
BTL Intervenors and Frisco also argue that allowing burial of the line in this case, and uplifting the
costs to the entire system, would not set precedent for future cases; rather, the Commission could
continue to approach these types of situations on a case-by-case basis.
The BTL Intervenors also argue that, even if the incremental cost of burying the line were the full
estimated $28 million, the resulting impact on ratepayers would be de minimis and lost in rounding
each month.144
If Frisco’s contributions (not charging for the right-of-way and coordinating
construction efforts) are taken into consideration, the impact on ratepayers would be even less,
according to the BTL Intervenors.145
The BTL Intervenors also assert that, as taxpayers of the city,
they are offering adequate contribution through Frisco’s contributions.
The BTL Intervenors view Staff’s position that the intervenors should pay a portion of the
incremental costs of undergrounding as fundamentally unfair. They state that
Expert testimony filed by the BTL Intervenors in this proceeding shows that each
homeowner may suffer as much as a 20 to 30 percent reduction in value of their
residence if the HTVLs are installed overhead. Using an average home price of
$300,000 as an example, that means that the damage caused to the homeowners by
overheading the lines could be as much as $60,000 to $90,000. Apparently staff wants
to know if the BTL Intervenors are willing to pay $40,000 to keep Brazos/CoServ from
making them lose $60,000 to $90,000. If that is truly what staff wants to know, the
answer is a resounding “No.”146
The BTL Intervenors also note that there are many more individuals beyond the intervenors who would
benefit from undergrounding the line, including the 6,000-plus commenters in this proceeding, the
28,000 residents of Frisco who have not joined this proceeding, and the residents of Little Elm,
Nueces County, PUC Docket No. 42467, Final Order at 13-15, 17-18 (May 28, 2015).
144 Frisco Ex. 2 at 13.
145 The BTL Intervenors noted that Frisco’s contributions represent far more than the 25%
contribution made by the City of Dallas when the Commission approved underground installation in
Dallas County. Application of TXU Electric Delivery Company to Amend a Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity for a Proposed Transmission Line Within Dallas County, Docket No. 32455, Final Order
at 1 (June 7, 2007).
146 BTL Ex. 12 at 20.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 37
Hackberry, and The Colony who will receive power from the line. Therefore, they argue, expecting the
BTL Intervenors alone to pay a pro rata share is not fair.
Frisco agrees with the BTL Intervenors that the costs of burying the line should be spread out
over ERCOT’s ratepayers. Frisco also points to other cases in which that was done. 147 Frisco argues
that the line will serve the towns of Little Elm, Hackberry, and The Colony, as well as Frisco, and that
the line will preserve the integrity and reliability of the interconnected CoServ grid as a whole. 148
Additionally, residents of the Dallas metro area who travel down Main Street would benefit from the
safety of underground lines. Frisco suggests that overhead lines will have service outages that could
possibly trigger blackouts through the system such that an underground line would benefit the entire
grid.
Frisco further argues that Brazos Electric should bear the cost of underground construction
because (1) CoServ caused “this problem”; (2) the incremental cost is unknown because Brazos
Electric merely estimated it; and (3) requiring Frisco to pay the entire incremental cost sets a standard
that has not been applied in any other transmission case. 149 Frisco also argues that requiring it to pay
the incremental cost punishes Frisco for CoServ’s lack of foresight and prudent planning.150
Staff argues that, because a buried line is operationally unnecessary and will not benefit
ERCOT ratepayers, an underground route will impose unnecessary costs to the ratepayers in ERCOT.
Staff also argues that Frisco’s position that the $28 million difference will be lost in rounding is
irrelevant because the issue is not whether the unnecessary costs have a material impact on each
individual ratepayer in ERCOT but whether the ratepayers in ERCOT should pay for the cost of an
underground transmission line in the first place. Additionally, Staff argues, it should be up to the local
parties to pay for burying the line, not the ratepayers in ERCOT.
Staff witness William B. Abbott testified that cost allocation is based on cost-causation, not
147
148
149
150
See Docket Nos. 42467, 32455.
Frisco Ex. 1 at 18.
Id. at 15-16.
Id. at 21.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 38
simply receipt of benefit, and he noted that, in this case, the undergrounding costs are “caused by the
City of Frisco’s desire to underground the line.”151 Mr. Abbott also noted that operationally, the
transmission line would benefit all ratepayers whether it was above or below ground, but ratepayers
outside of Frisco would not benefit from the incremental costs of undergrounding. 152 Mr. Abbott’s
opinion was that “undergrounding does not benefit all customers within ERCOT, and the costs of
undergrounding should not be spread to all customers . . . [and] allowing the costs of undergrounding to
be recovered in wholesale transmission rates would have a significant detrimental impact on
ratepayers . . . .”153 Mr. Abbott further stated that the public interest as a whole could be harmed by the
approval of a project with costs greater than the benefits.154 Specifically,
Policies or projects that involved concentrated benefits and diffuse costs are highly
susceptible to producing outcomes that are harmful to social welfare and contrary to the
public interest. The concentration of benefits among a small group gives the members
of that group a strong private incentive to advocate for such a policy or project, as each
member can expect a relatively large share of the benefits. The diffusion of costs across
a larger group results in significantly weaker private incentives for the members of the
larger group to oppose the policy or project, as only a relatively small portion of the
costs would fall upon any individual member. The significant asymmetry involved in
such a situation makes it ripe for an outcome where the diffuse costs are greater than the
concentrated benefits – and the public interest is therefore harmed by the adoption of a
policy or project with costs greater than the benefits.155
Conversely, if the Frisco community values the benefits to undergrounding more than the costs, then
those who benefit “would come out ahead and should be willing to pay those costs.” 156 Further,
according to Staff, the problem of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs can be mitigated by requiring
that “a very high standard be met before allowing any costs to be uplifted or socialized.”157
Frisco argues that cost causation is an inappropriate focus in this proceeding, but, if it has any
merit, the true cause of the need for an underground transmission line is CoServ’s failure to implement
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
Staff Ex. 2 at 6.
Id. at 6.
Id. at 4.
Id. at 9.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 9.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 39
its 2007 plans to address load growth in the Frisco area. Frisco argues that CoServ’s poor planning is
relevant to this proceeding because Staff is arguing that Frisco and local constituencies are the cause of
the costs associated with undergrounding. Frisco also argues that Staff’s position on cost-causation
conflicts with Commission precedent.158 The BTL Intervenors agree that CoServ’s poor planning is the
major issue in this case because it is the direct cause of the controversy.
ii.
Proposed Solutions
Staff states that it would support an underground route along Main Street if the local
constituencies offered a local solution and guarantee to pay for the additional cost of burying the line.
Staff argues that the Commission could issue an order contemplating a solution that guaranteed that the
additional cost of burying the proposed transmission line would not be uplifted to the ratepayers in
ERCOT, should the parties come to an agreement regarding a local solution to pay for an underground
route.
The Commission could require that it approve the local solution prior to allowing an
underground transmission line.
Staff offers several solutions for paying for the additional cost of burying the transmission line
that do not involve uplifting the cost to all ratepayers in ERCOT. These options include (1) Frisco and
Frisco ISD, as taxing authorities, raising taxes or issuing bonds; (2) Frisco increasing the franchise fee
that it charges CoServ;159 (3) Frisco reducing or eliminating the franchise fee that it charges CoServ,
thus freeing up funds for CoServ to pay for the additional cost; (4) CoServ increasing its distribution
rates throughout CoServ’s service area, limited to Frisco or the Study Area; or (5) a combination of
these options.
158 Application of Southwestern Electric Power Company for Rate Case Expenses Severed from
Docket No. 40443, Docket No. 42370, Final Order at Findings of Fact Nos. 38, 40, and 41 (June 24,
2015); Application of Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC to Amend a Certificate of Convenience
and Necessity for the Riley-Krum West 345-kV CREZ Transmission Line (Formerly Oklaunion to West
Krum) in Archer, Clay, Cooke, Denton, Jack, Montague, Wichita, Wilbarger, and Wise Counties, Texas,
Docket No. 38140, Order (Oct. 29, 2010). Frisco also cited to two Texas Railroad Commission cases,
R.R. Comm’n, TXU Gas Company Statement of Intent to Change Rates in the Company’s Statewide
Gas Utility System, Gas Utilities Docket No. 9400, Proposal for Decision at 251-253 (Apr. 23, 2004);
City of Dallas v. R.R. Comm’n of Texas, No. 03-06-00580-CV, 2008 WL 4823225, at *1 (Tex. App.—
Austin Nov. 6, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.).
159 See generally Staff Ex. 4.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 40
The BTL Intervenors offer the following solution: CoServ could implement a monthly charge to
its customers that would be used to pay the incremental costs as Brazos Electric repays its United
States Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS) loan. The BTL Intervenors calculated
that, based on 218,236 customers and a $28.3 million cost difference, the total charge per
meter/customer would be $129.68. That amount would be divided by the number of months the RUS
loan is amortized. Assuming a term of 40 years and not accounting for interest, the monthly charge to
each customer would be $0.27.160 Including savings realized by construction coordination would
reduce this amount further.
Brazos Electric asserts that it would be inequitable and inappropriate to order CoServ to pay
the cost difference between an overhead and underground line. Additionally, it argues, PURA does not
contemplate that the Commission would order CoServ to include Brazos Electric’s transmission cost of
service in its retail rates. CoServ’s board of directors has “exclusive jurisdiction” to “set all terms of
access, conditions, and rates applicable to services provided by the electric cooperative.” 161 Brazos
Electric argues that there is no authority for the Commission to order a non-party distribution electric
cooperative to pay for a wholesale transmission provider’s transmission costs of service or the
additional costs for undergrounding the line.
Frisco argues that Staff’s suggestions were not addressed in evidence and asserts that several
are beyond the authority of the Commission to order.
The ALJs note that these options are outside the scope of the proceeding before them; therefore,
the ALJs make no recommendation on these options.
iii.
Discussion
The value of the Main Street right-of-way and whether Frisco is entitled to compensation for it
is disputed. Frisco claims that its “donation” of the right-of-way down the Main Street median is worth
160 Staff stated that it found this option to be acceptable. Staff Reply Brief at 12.
161 PURA § 41.055(1).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 41
$17.86 million and will reduce the incremental costs of burial by that amount. Staff and Brazos
Electric dispute that valuation as well as the assumption that Brazos Electric must pay for the use of the
right-of-way. Staff and Brazos Electric argue that, as an electric cooperative, Brazos Electric has a
statutory right to use the right-of-way along a municipality’s street under PURA § 181.042. They
further argue that there is no statutory provision requiring an electric cooperative to pay for such use.
Although this issue is one that is properly decided in a condemnation hearing, the ALJs allowed limited
evidence on it because the value of the right-of-way, if it can be charged against Brazos Electric, would
add a significant amount to the cost of each of the proposed routes and could show that Brazos
Electric’s cost estimates were inaccurate. However, the issue of the cost of purchasing the right-ofway, if any, is excluded from the issues the ALJs may consider. Because this issue is a legal question
for a condemnation proceeding and for litigation and appeal, should any party decide to engage in
litigation on the issue, the ALJs do not make a recommendation.
Frisco has also offered to coordinate construction with Brazos Electric, which could realize up
to $10 million in savings. However, Frisco is not willing to commit to contributing and guaranteeing
the full $10 million if those savings are not realized. It is also important to note that the BTL
Intervenors’ witnesses who testified at the hearing all stated that they would not contribute to the cost
of undergrounding the line.162
The intervenors believe that the ERCOT ratepayers should be required to pay the cost of burial.
The evidence established that there is no operational benefit to burial of the proposed line. Although
burial of the line has numerous local benefits, the local constituents are unwilling to pay any amount
towards burial. Frisco is willing to coordinate construction efforts with Brazos Electric, but it is
unwilling to commit to a set amount of cost-savings. Frisco’s unwillingness to commit to a specific
contribution conflicts with its representations regarding the importance of burying the line. The ALJs
share Staff’s concerns with uplifting the costs of burial of the line, which has only local benefits, to all
ratepayers, especially without any firm commitment from the local parties for payment of any of the
costs of burial. Therefore, the ALJs find that the local parties have not made adequate contributions to
the incremental costs of burial.
162 Tr. at 198, 200, 202, 209-11.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
C.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 42
Demonstrated Efficiency
No party presented evidence substantively challenging the issues of diminished electric
efficiency or reliability. Frisco witness Mr. Hughes noted that the proposed transmission line would be
the same operationally whether it was built overhead or buried underground.163
VII. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT
TPWD provided initial recommendations to Brazos Electric on September 16, 2013. 164 These
recommendations were provided before the time Brazos Electric filed the Application. TPWD later
provided comments in a letter dated March 17, 2015, after it had received the Application. In the
March 17 letter, TPWD acknowledged that Brazos Electric incorporated several of TPWD’s
recommendations into the Application, as well as including precautions with respect to avoiding
impacts to migratory birds during construction and operation.
Those recommendations included
routing the transmission line to avoid riparian areas, wetlands, and any open water habitat, as well as
installing bird diverters at water crossings to reduce potential bird collisions. TPWD recommended
using avian-safe designs to provide enough separation to avoid avian electrocution. Brazos Electric
agreed to design and construct the Proposed Project in accordance with Suggested Practices for Raptor
Protection on Power Lines, by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 165 Brazos
Electric also stated it is committed to following raptor protection procedures as outlined in Mitigating
Bird Collisions with Power Lines, a publication of APLIC for Edison Electric Institute.166
TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric consult with both the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service and TPWD to determine whether there would be impacts to bald eagles or any federally-listed
species and if so, to take steps to minimize impact to the wildlife. Brazos Electric indicated that there
are no bald eagles or bald eagle habitats within the project area. With respect to other federally-listed
163
164
165
166
Tr. at 186-87.
Brazos Ex. 4 at 17.
Id.
Id. at 20.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
species, there are no such species or habitats within the project area. 167
PAGE 43
Thus, Brazos Electric
concluded there is no need to consult with either agency on this particular issue.168
TPWD also recommended consulting with the Regulatory Branch of the Corps if the Proposed
Project would impact waterways or wetlands. Specifically, TPWD recommends using erosion control
measures before and during construction, and then permanently re-vegetating the land with site-specific
native vegetation. 169 In a related recommendation, TPWD asked that Brazos Electric minimize impacts
to native vegetation to the extent feasible during project design and construction. In response, Brazos
Electric indicated it will make efforts to span all creeks as much as practicable to avoid impacting water
and wetlands. Any underground options would use boring and trenching. The trenching would impact
creeks. Once a route is selected, Brazos Electric will determine whether any permits are needed from
the Corps. Brazos Electric will also use erosion control measures, limited right-of-way clearing, and
chemicals only in areas designated for their use. Brazos Electric notes that the Proposed Project is
mainly in an urban area where existing and ongoing development has removed and fragmented wildlife
habitat. By routing the line parallel to or within existing rights-of-way, Brazos Electric will try to
reduce further fragmentation. Brazos Electric will also use native species to re-vegetate any disturbed
areas.170
TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric identify the state-listed species that may occur within
the Study Area and that the substation and transmission line be located to avoid occurrences of statelisted species and avoid habitats that may support unknown occurrences of state-listed species. 171 To
the extent there are state-listed species, TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric identify impact
avoidance and mitigation measures that would be employed to protect state-listed species. 172 Brazos
Electric is aware of four state-listed species that may occur in the area: Texas horned lizard, timber
rattlesnake, white-faced ibis, and wood stork. Brazos Electric notes that the Proposed Project will not
167
168
169
170
171
172
Id. at 20-21.
Id.
Id. at 22.
Id. at 23-24.
Id. at 24-25.
Id. at 26.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 44
cross any forests or riparian areas, the transmission line will run along and within existing rights-ofway for much of its length, and that it will take steps to reduce the possibility of avian collisions.173
To further protect natural resources, TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric avoid routing
through sites that are enrolled in conservation easements. 174 Additionally, TPWD recommended that
Brazos Electric take precautions to avoid impacts to species of the greatest conservation need,
including natural plants, special features, and native grasses. 175 Brazos Electric notes that none of the
routes cross land that is known to be in a conservation easement. 176 Brazos Electric did not observe any
rare vegetation types within the project area.177
TPWD also expressed a concern with avoiding impacts to recreation and visual obstruction with
a line across or near Lake Lewisville. Because Lake Lewisville will not be crossed by the Proposed
Project, this recommendation does not apply.178
To the extent that Brazos Electric cannot avoid or minimize impacts to wildlife habitats, TPWD
recommends a mitigation plan. Brazos Electric agrees to minimize impacts as much as possible.179
TPWD favors the Main Street routes. TPWD noted that the Main Street routes impact fewer
parks, historical and archeological sites, streams crossings, floodplains, and woodland areas. 180
Because the Main Street routes are already developed, wildlife habitat has been fragmented.
No party challenged Brazos Electric’s response to TPWD’s recommendations. Consequently,
no further modification or changes are required for the Proposed Project.
VIII. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
Id. at 25.
Id. at 26.
Id.
Id. at 27.
Id.
Id.at 27-28.
Id. at 29.
Staff Ex. 2 at 7.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 45
The primary dispute in this case is whether the line should be buried or run overhead. The
parties are in agreement that routes along Main Street are preferable to those along Stonebrook
Parkway. It is unusual but not unheard of for the Commission to order the burial of a line when there
are not construction constraints that require it.
In Docket No. 32455 (Trinity River Corridor Project), the Commission ordered burial of a 0.7mile segment of a 345-kV double-circuit transmission line in Dallas County, Texas. 181
The
Commission also ordered the City of Dallas to pay 25% of the incremental costs (an estimated $17
million) of burial of the line.182 The Commission found that burial of a portion of the line was justified
due to
the unique context of the Trinity River Corridor Project, an ambitious, multi-objective
project that is “intended to provide flood control, transportation improvements,
environmental restoration and preservation, recreational amenities, and urban economic
development to Dallas and the Dallas region.” The Trinity Project is the “largest public
works project ever undertaken by Dallas and [is intended] to expand the central business
district across the Trinity [River] and create a more densely populated city, while at the
same time re-creating in a ‘more naturalized’ way the Trinity River bed, banks, and
associated wetlands.” In short, the purpose of this project is to revitalize the city of
Dallas and provide an impetus for economic growth for the wider Dallas region.183
The Commission noted that
[h]istorically, power lines have been placed underground only in densely developed
downtown areas of large cities. Although the Canada Drive segment [that was ordered
to be buried] is not now a part of downtown Dallas, the Trinity River project will expand
the area of high-density development to the Canada Drive area. Concrete steps have
already been taken to realize this vision.184
181 Application of TXU Electric Delivery Company for a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
(CCN) for a Proposed Transmission Line in Dallas County, Texas, Docket No. 32455, Order (June 7,
2007) at 1.
182 Id.
183 Id. at 2 (internal citations omitted).
184 Id. at 3. The “concrete steps” noted by the Commission included “ground has already been broken
for the $69.7 million Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge; Dallas residents have already committed $446 million
in bond money toward the larger Trinity River Corridor Project; and City of Dallas officials have been
cooperating for years with key state agencies, Dallas County, the North Texas Tollway, and the Corps
of Engineers to develop plans and secure funding for the project. In addition, over $26 million has
been raised through private donations.” Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 46
The Commission also noted that Dallas’s “agreement to pay for 25 percent of the line-burial
costs represents a meaningful contribution by the most directly ‘affected landowners.’” 185 Additionally,
the Commission disagreed “with the notion that it is establishing new precedent in this case by ordering
the undergrounding of the Canada Drive segment of this transmission line. Rather, this case presents
one of those very rare sets of circumstances in which undergrounding best serves the public interest.”186
Staff argues that this case contrasts with the Trinity River Corridor Project case because Frisco
has taken no concrete steps toward its project to install water lines under Main Street or to expand Main
Street.
According to Frisco’s witness L. Nathan Ante, the expansion project “[has not] been
designed.”187 Brazos Electric argues that Frisco’s claims regarding its street expansion plan are an
attempt to thwart Brazos Electric’s proposed overhead route.
The BTL Intervenors argues that Frisco’s contribution of its right-of-way and its offer to
coordinate construction with Brazos Electric exceeds the 25% contribution that Dallas was ordered to
make in the Trinity River Corridor Project case.
The ALJs find that this case is distinguishable from the Trinity River Corridor Project case in
several ways. The scale of the project in that case was much larger, totaling $1.4 billion in public
improvements for both the City of Dallas and the Dallas region as a whole. The project also involved
environmental improvements on a large scale. Frisco’s street expansion project is a multi-million
dollar project that involves improvements for the benefit of residents of Frisco and commuters who
may drive through Frisco’s Main Street. Although it is a large project, the scale does not match that of
the Trinity River Corridor Project. Moreover, the Trinity River Corridor Project was multi-faceted,
involved coordination of many entities, and was already in progress, whereas Frisco’s project involves
coordination of few, if any, entities beyond the city itself, and the project has not been designed yet.
More importantly, installation of an overhead line will not prevent Frisco from completing any aspect
of its project.
185 Id. at 3.
186 Id. at 4.
187 Tr. at 189-90.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 47
The Commission noted that burial of the line along Canada Drive was a unique situation that
best served the public interest. Arguably, burial of the line along Main Street would best serve the
interest of the residents and businesses of Frisco, but it would not best serve the public interest in the
region at large (or in ERCOT). Despite the localized benefit, Frisco, unlike Dallas, has not committed
to contributing any specific amount towards burial of the line. In contrast, Frisco and the other
intervenors will not commit to paying any portion of the cost of burial and argue that the ratepayers of
ERCOT should bear those costs. Thus, the ALJs do not find that the Trinity River Corridor Project
case supports burial of the line along Main Street.
The parties also cite to a case in which the Commission approved the most expensive route
option in order to avoid the Palo Duro Canyon (Palo Duro Canyon case). 188
In that case, the
Commission approved the route that (1) avoided the Palo Duro Canyon; (2) crossed open rangeland for
most of its length, which was consistent with the view expressed by the majority of landowners that the
transmission line should be constructed in less-developed areas; (3) affected no recreational areas; (4)
affected few habitable structures; (5) was relatively easy to construct from an engineering perspective;
and (6) paralleled existing compatible rights-of-way for approximately 44% of its length and existing
transmission-line rights-of-way for just under 20% of its length. 189
The route ordered by the
Commission was the second most expensive route at $190,503,197. The least expensive route in that
case was $156,245,322.
The Palo Duro Canyon case can also be distinguished from this case. The considerations that
led to the Commission ordering a more expensive route in that case involved engineering challenges
that would have required placing multiple towers in the Palo Duro Canyon. 190 Some of the proposed
routes also involved a TPWD-designated Ecologically Significant Stream Segment as well as a habitat
for federally-listed endangered species.191 The Palo Duro Canyon case also involved considerable
188 Application of Sharyland Utilities, L.P. to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for
the Hereford to White Deer 345-kV CREZ Transmission Line (Formerly Panhandle AB to Panhandle
BA) in Armstrong, Carson, Deaf Smith, Oldham, Potter, and Randall Counties, Docket No. 38290,
Order (Dec. 13, 2010) at Finding of Fact No. 33.
189 Id.
190 Docket No. 38290, Proposal for Decision at 53.
191 Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 48
concern for aesthetic impacts to a state park. In order to avoid these and other challenges, a more
expensive route was ordered. In contrast, there are no constraints that require the Commission to order
the more expensive route in this case. Community values and preferences, which favor the more
expensive route, are important considerations; but, they are part of a larger analysis and not
determinative of the outcome.192
Finally, the parties cited to an additional case in which the Commission ordered that a portion of
the line be buried (Airfield case).193 In that case, the Commission ordered burial of approximately 2.5
miles of the route “where it passes through a clear zone or accident potential zone 1 associated with
Waldron Field and NASCC Truax Field.” 194
The Commission noted that “[i]n the unique
circumstances of this case, such underground construction is reasonable”195 and that it was not “a case
in which underground construction is proposed for aesthetics . . .” 196 The proposed routes in that case
ranged in cost from $26,230,000 to $65,635,000.197
The ordered route was estimated to cost
$44,083,000, which the Commission found to be “within the mid to upper range of the costs estimates
for the alternative routes in the application.”198
Like the other cited cases, the Airfield case can be distinguished from the current one by the
routing constraints, route options, and costs involved. A majority of the study area was located in the
Flour Bluff peninsula in Corpus Christi and, as a result, the “water resources within the study area
pose[d] a significant constraint on construction of several of the proposed routes.” 199 The presence of
two nearby military airfields required burying portions of several of the proposed routes, pursuant to
192 The ALJs also note that the route chosen in the Palo Duro case was approximately 1.2 times more
expensive than the least expensive route in that case. In this case, Route 1 is approximately 6.1 times
more expensive than Route 5.
193 Application of Electric Transmission Texas, LLC to Amend its Certificates of Convenience and
Necessity for the Proposed Barney Davis to Naval Base 138-kV Single-Circuit Transmission Line in
Nueces County, Docket No. 42467, Order (May 28, 2015).
194 Id. at Finding of Fact No. 80.
195 Id.
196 Id. at 2.
197 Id. at Finding of Fact No. 113.
198 Id. at Finding of Fact Nos. 113-14.
199 Id. at 1-2.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 49
Federal Aviation Administration regulations and military regulations. 200 Additionally, the study area
“include[d] sensitive or environmentally significant sites, such as the Laguna Madre and Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department’s Redhead Pond Wildlife Management Area . . . .” 201 As a result of the
presence of these environmentally sensitive areas, an above ground route presented more risk to
wildlife.202 Again, analogous constraints are not present in this case.
Perhaps the most important takeaway from the cases cited by the parties is that the Commission
approaches these types of cases individually based on the various routing options, constraints, and
costs. In the current case, certain factors clearly favor Route 1, including community values. Other
factors are neutral for all four preferred routes, such as compatible right-of-way. Considerations of cost
heavily favor Route 5 or Route 6. The intervenors argue that they have made adequate contributions
towards the incremental costs of burial of the line along Main Street. Staff disputes that position, and
the evidence does not support it.
As noted above, the ALJs find that the intervenors have not made an adequate contribution
towards the cost of burial. Although Frisco asserts that it has a plan to coordinate construction with
Brazos Electric to save $10 million, Frisco will not commit to contributing that amount to the project
should the actual savings be less. Further, Frisco’s claim that its “donation” of the right-of-way along
the Main Street median will save $17.86 million is heavily contested by both Brazos Electric and Staff,
both of whom argued that Brazos Electric is entitled to use the right-of-way at no cost. Therefore,
Frisco’s addition of cost-free use of the right-of-way should not be considered to be a specific, definite
contribution towards the costs of burial. Despite the intervenors’ arguments regarding the importance
of burying the lines, none of the intervening parties are willing to commit to paying any amount
towards burial.
The ALJs agree with Staff that the ERCOT ratepayers should not be required to pay for the
entire cost of burial of the line. The evidence established that an above ground line and a buried line
would be operationally identical; thus, the ERCOT ratepayers will not benefit from a buried line.
Moreover, there are no engineering or other constraints that require burial of the line. The intervenors,
200 Id. at 2.
201 Id.
202 Id.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 50
as well as the non-party residents of Frisco and the immediately surrounding area, will benefit from
burial of the line, but the intervening parties have clearly stated that they will not contribute to the cost
of burial. The ALJs find that absent such a commitment from the parties that will benefit from burial of
the line, burial cannot be justified: an overhead route is preferable. If, however, the local parties that
will benefit from burial of the line can agree to make a significant, specific contribution to the
incremental costs, Route 1 or the Hybrid Route (or another hybrid route as ordered by the Commission)
would be preferable.
The differences between Routes 5 and 6 are few. Route 5 is $320,266 less expensive than
Route 6. Route 5 impacts five fewer habitable structures than Route 6. Route 6 would have slightly
less of an environmental impact since it would involve placing the substation in an already developed
area, whereas Route 5 would involve placing the substation in an undeveloped area.
Several
intervenors argued against Route 6 due to its use of the south substation because it would be located
adjacent to the Stonewater Crossing housing development as well as planned future development of the
Village at Frisco Lakes subdivision. Although the ALJs find that either Route 5 or 6 would be
acceptable under the factors outlined above, Route 5 is slightly preferable because it is less expensive
and impacts fewer habitable structures.
Therefore, the ALJs recommend Route 5. Route 6 is also acceptable. Route 1 or the Hybrid
Route would be preferable if the parties who would benefit from undergrounding the line make a
significant, concrete commitment to pay for at least a portion of the incremental costs of burial.
IX. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS
A.
Findings of Fact
Jurisdiction, Notice, and Procedural History
1.
Brazos Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. (Brazos Electric) is a member-owned generation and
transmission electric utility providing service under Certificate of Convenience and Necessity
(CCN) No. 30016.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 51
2.
On January 15, 2015, Brazos Electric filed an application with the Public Utility Commission of
Texas (Commission) to amend its CCN to provide increased transmission service to Denton
County Electric Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a CoServ Electric (CoServ) by constructing a
transmission line and substation in Denton County, as shown on maps filed with the CCN
Application (Application).
3.
The Application requests approval to construct approximately 2.9 to 4.5 miles of a double
circuit 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission line using new, single-pole steel or concrete structures
and a substation site of approximately five acres (Proposed Project). Brazos Electric seeks to
construct the proposed line to provide for rapid area load growth and development and
associated service reliability.
4.
On January 15, 2015, Brazos Electric provided, by first class mail, written notice of the
Application to: (a) the county government of Denton County, the Texas county in which the
proposed facilities are located; (b) the neighboring utilities within five miles of the proposed
facilities; (c) all municipalities within five miles of the proposed facilities; and (d) each
landowner, as stated on the county tax rolls, that will be directly affected by the Application.
5.
On December 8, 2014, Brazos Electric provided a copy of the Environmental Report and
Routing Study to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).
6.
The Commission provided notice of the Application to the Texas Register for publication on
January 30, 2015.
7.
On February 17, 2015, the Commission’s Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued Order No. 3,
deeming the Application sufficient and materially complete, approving the provision of notice,
and setting the deadline to intervene as March 2, 2015.
8.
On March 9, 2015, the Bury The Lines (BTL) intervenor group and the City of Frisco (Frisco)
filed requests for a hearing on the merits.
9.
On March 16, 2015, the Commission issued the Order of Referral and Preliminary Order,
referring the case to the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) to conduct a hearing
and prepare a proposal for decision, and established lists of issues to be addressed and issues
not to be addressed in this proceeding.
10.
On March 20, 2015, Commission Staff filed a letter from TPWD containing comments and
recommendations regarding the proposed transmission line.
11.
The hearing on the merits convened on July 27, 2015, in Austin, Texas, at the Red Oak
Conference Center, with SOAH ALJs Wendy Harvel and Stephanie Frazee presiding. The
hearing concluded that same day. The record closed on September 11, 2015, with the filing of
post-hearing briefing.
Application
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 52
12.
The Proposed Project consists of a new double-circuit 138-kV transmission line that will be
approximately 2.9 miles long extending from the new Stonebrook substation in Denton County,
Texas, to a tap point along an existing Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC 138-kV
transmission line (the Colony-Roman Juarez transmission line) in Denton County, Texas.
13.
Brazos Electric originally proposed 20 alternative routes in the Application.
14.
The Application’s 20 geographically diverse routes are an adequate number of reasonably
differentiated alternative routes to conduct a proper evaluation.
15.
The proposed transmission line will be built using primarily concrete or steel monopole
structures within new right-of-way of widths varying from 20 to 70 feet.
Need
16.
The proposed transmission line is needed to provide 138-kV electric transmission service to the
new Stonebrook Substation. The new distribution substation is needed to support rapid area
load growth and attendant service reliability.
17.
Brazos Electric demonstrated a reasonable need for the Proposed Project in order to meet the
expected load growth and provide reliable service. The need for the Proposed Project was not
disputed in this docket.
18.
Of the alternatives considered, including an expansion of current distribution facilities and
additional in-line substations, the Proposed Project is the most economical and is the only
option that meets expected load growth.
19.
There are no viable alternatives to constructing the Proposed Project.
Route
20.
The Application includes 20 route alternatives for the Proposed Project, four possible tap
locations, and two possible substation locations.
21.
There are two kinds of proposed routes (overhead and underground) in two locations: along the
median of Main Street and along the median of Stonebrook Parkway.
22.
No parties recommended any of the routes along Stonebrook Parkway.
23.
The routes along Main Street are shorter and less expensive and impact fewer parks, historic
and archeological sites, stream crossings, floodplains, and woodlands than the Stonebrook
Parkway routes.
24.
Brazos Electric recommends use of Route 5 and generally recommends an overhead route.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 53
25.
Brazos Electric also proposed a Hybrid Route, which would involve burial of only Segment 4 of
the proposed line. The Hybrid Route could follow either Route 5 or 6.
26.
Staff recommended Route 6. Staff does not support burial of any portion of the line.
27.
The intervenors entered a non-unanimous Stipulation in support of Route 1, an underground
route.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
28.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 54
The preferred routes are described as follows:
ROUTE
Route 1
Hybrid
Route
Route 5
Route 6
TAP POINT–LINKS–SUBSTATION
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–
Substation North
Tap 1—Segment 8—Segment 7—Segment 5
—Segment 4—Segment 3—Segment 2
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–
Substation North
Tap 1–Segment 8–Segment 7–Segment 5–
Segment 4–Segment 3–Segment 2–Segment
1–Substation South
DESCRIPTION
Underground route along Main
Street median supported by
intervenors
Overhead route along Main Street
with burial of Segment 4 as
suggested by Brazos Electric; this
route could use the north or south
substation location
Overhead route along Main Street
supported by Brazos Electric; the
same as Route 1 except overhead
Overhead route along Main Street
supported by Staff; the same as
Route 5 except including Segment
1 and using Substation South
Community Values
29.
The term “community values” is not formally defined by statute or in Commission rules.
However, the Commission has viewed community values as a shared appreciation of an area or
other natural or human resource by members of a national, regional, or local community.
Adverse effects upon community values consist of those aspects of a proposed project that
would significantly alter the use, enjoyment, or intrinsic value attached to an important area or
resource by a community.
30.
Brazos Electric held a civic leader meeting from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on July 23, 2013, in
Frisco, Texas.
31.
Invitations were mailed to 41 people. Sixteen people attended the meeting, including
representatives from Frisco, the City of The Colony, Denton County, and various development
companies.
32.
At the meeting, attendees were provided with informational handouts including project
descriptions, maps, flowcharts illustrating the Commission’s licensing process for transmission
facilities, and questionnaires. Various exhibits explaining the need for the project, typical
electrical substation and transmission structures, and detailed routing maps were available for
viewing, and staff members from Brazos Electric and Cox|McClain Environmental Consulting,
Inc. (Cox|McClain) were available to answer questions.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 55
33.
Communication with civic leaders and developers identified additional potential constraints for
transmission line routing and substation placement, including areas of new planned
development and information about potential utility conflicts in the median of Lebanon Road.
Suggestions were received to explore alternative routes.
34.
Brazos Electric also held a public open house meeting from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on August
27, 2013, in Frisco, Texas.
35.
The public open house meeting was advertised in three local newspapers. Landowners within
300 feet of the centerline of each alternative route segment and substation location were notified
by direct mail notices. A total of 619 notices were mailed. Twenty-eight similar notices were
mailed to public officials. A total of 612 people signed in at the meeting. After the meeting 517
letters were mailed to landowners who were notified of the meeting but did not attend.
36.
The meeting had the following objectives:
Promote a better understanding of the Proposed Project, including the purpose,
need, and potential benefits and impacts, and the Commission certification
process;
Inform the public with regard to the routing procedure, schedule, and route
approval process; and
Gather the values and concerns of the public and community leaders.
37.
At the meeting, attendees were provided with informational handouts including project
descriptions, maps, flowcharts illustrating the Commission licensing process for transmission
facilities, and questionnaires. Various exhibits explaining the need for the project, illustrating
typical electrical substation and transmission structures, and detailed routing maps were
available for viewing, and staff members from Brazos Electric and Cox|McClain were available
to answer questions.
38.
A total of 190 questionnaires were completed and submitted for consideration. Seventy-three
other written comments were submitted and 34 phone inquiries and comments were received.
Many respondents stated that they might be in favor of the project if the transmission lines were
placed underground (58). The most common response was a request for more information
(148). Many respondents indicated the desire to learn more about the Proposed Project,
including topics such as alternatives (42), procedures (20), and timelines (18).
39.
Additionally, between 6,000 and 7,000 comments were filed with the Commission.
majority of commenters requested that the transmission line be installed underground.
40.
After public input, Brazos Electric proposed 20 alternative routes in the Application.
The
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 56
41.
No Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)-registered airports and no heliports are located
either within the Study Area, or in proximity to the Study Area. One private airstrip was
identified within 10,000 feet of the primary alternative route centerlines. No significant impacts
to these airports/airstrips are anticipated from construction of the Proposed Project.
42.
The Proposed Project does not cross any known cropland or pastureland irrigated by traveling
irrigation systems, either rolling or pivot type.
43.
The community concerns that arose during the pendency of this case include perceived negative
impacts on property values; aesthetic concerns; interference with Frisco’s plans for street
expansion and additional water infrastructure; health risks, especially for children and the
elderly; safety of commuters and residences and business located in the “fall zone”; proximity
of the proposed line to schools; interference with views; thwarting of Frisco’s city planning and
beautification efforts; risk of lost revenue for local businesses and tax revenue for Frisco and
Frisco Independent School District (ISD); and impact on future land development.
44.
Installation of an overhead line would not interfere with Frisco’s street expansion and water
infrastructure improvement plans.
45.
Route 1 would best preserve community values because it involves burying the line; therefore,
after installation, the line would have little to no impact on the use, enjoyment, and intrinsic
value attached to the community of west Frisco.
Recreational and Park Areas
46.
Parks and recreational areas are defined by the Commission in its application form as areas
being owned by a governmental body or an organized group, club, or church.
47.
The number of parks or recreational areas within 1,000 feet of the centerline of each of the
alternative routes was compared for the routes. The park and recreational area count for each
preferred route is:
Route
1
5
6
Hybrid Route
48.
Total Number of Parks or
Recreational Areas within
1,000 feet of the ROW
Centerline
4
4
3
3 or 4
No significant impacts, other than visual impacts, to the use or enjoyment of the parks and
recreation facilities located within the study area are anticipated from any of the preferred
routes.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
49.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 57
No adverse impacts are anticipated for any fishing or hunting areas from any of the preferred
routes.
Historical and Aesthetic Values
50.
Aesthetic impacts or impacts to visual resources exist when the right-of-way, lines and/or
structures of a transmission line system create an intrusion into, or substantially alter, the
character of the existing view. The significance of the impact is directly related to the quality of
the view in natural scenic areas, the importance of the existing setting in the use and/or
enjoyment of an area, and in valued community resources in recreational areas.
51.
The land in the Study Area is primarily comprised of suburban development with single-family
residential neighborhoods and commercial developments along major roads. The Study Area
includes planned neighborhoods with dense housing and small neighborhood parks.
Commercial developments in the area include restaurants, stores, auto repair shops, and similar
establishments. Churches and schools are also found in the vicinity. Development in the area is
ongoing. Terrain is mostly level to gently rolling.
52.
Construction of the proposed 138-kV transmission line overhead could have both temporary
and permanent aesthetic effects. Temporary impacts would include views of the actual
assembly and erection of the structures. Permanent impacts from the project would involve the
views of the structures and lines.
53.
Construction of the proposed 138-kV transmission line underground would have temporary
aesthetic effects due to assembly and erection of the structures and maintenance.
54.
There are no National Historic Landmarks, cemeteries, National Register-listed sites, State
Archaeological Landmarks, Texas Historical Markers, or archeological sites within 1,000 feet
of any of the route centerlines.
55.
Routes 5 and 6 would have similar aesthetic impacts. Route 1 would have only temporary
aesthetic impacts. The Hybrid Route would have more aesthetic impacts than Route 1 but less
than Routes 5 and 6.
Environmental Integrity
56.
Brazos Electric has agreed to implement many of the suggested changes recommended by
TPWD, regardless of which line is ultimately constructed. Therefore, no route along Main
Street is significantly better than another when analyzing environmental integrity.
Probable Improvement of Service or Lowering of Cost to Consumers in the Area
57.
The new line is needed to improve service to serve increasing demand and prevent outages.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
58.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 58
There is no cost savings to consumers anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project. However,
the Proposed Project is the best option to meet the service needs based on an analysis taking
into account considerations of efficiency, reliability, costs, and benefits.
Engineering Constraints
59.
Based on the information currently available, Brazos Electric has determined that it can
construct and operate any of the proposed routes, including Routes 1, 5, or 6, or the Hybrid
Route.
60.
Brazos Electric has not identified any engineering constraints along any route that cannot be
resolved with additional consideration during the design and construction phase of the Proposed
Project.
Costs
61.
Brazos Electric’s estimated costs for each preferred route are as follows:
Route
1
Hybrid Route
6
5
62.
Total Cost Estimate
$34,275,000
$21,267,362.81
$5,948,864
$5,628,598
Route 5 is the least expensive preferred route.
Compatible Right-of-Way
63.
All of the preferred routes parallel compatible right-of-way for 98.95% of their lengths.
Prudent Avoidance
64.
People in a community and landowners or business owners may be concerned about
electromagnetic fields (EMF).
65.
The Commission’s rules define “prudent avoidance” as a means of limiting exposures to EMF
that can be avoided with reasonable investments of money.
66.
EMF exposure can be limited primarily by proposing alternative routes that would minimize, to
the extent reasonable, the number of habitable structures located in close proximity to the
routes.
67.
The number of habitable structures within 300 feet of the centerline of each of the alternative
routes was compared for the routes. The habitable structure count for each route is:
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
Route
1
5
6
Hybrid Route
PAGE 59
Total Number of Habitable
Structures within 300 feet
of the ROW Centerline
246
246
251
246 or 251
68.
The routes in Brazos Electric’s application reflect reasonable investments of money and effort
to limit exposure to EMF.
69.
The proposed transmission line has been routed in accordance with the Commission’s policy of
prudent avoidance.
70.
Due to the highly developed nature of the Study Area, all of the preferred routes impact a high
number of habitable structures.
71.
Route 1 would have less impact to habitable structures because it would involve burying the
line.
72.
Segment 4 impacts 210 habitable structures; therefore, the Hybrid Route would have less
impact to 210 fewer habitable structures than Route 5 or Route 6.
Incremental Costs of Alternative Routes or Facilities Configurations
73.
Route 1, the underground route along Main Street, costs approximately $28 million more than
Routes 5 and 6.
74.
The Hybrid Route, which involves burial of Segment 4, costs approximately $15.6 million more
than Routes 5 and 6.
Contributions to Offset the Additional Costs Associated with Burial of the Line
75.
Frisco has offered to coordinate construction with Brazos Electric by hiring a single contractor
to expand Main Street, install water use and water reuse pipes, and install the transmission line
conduit at the same time.
76.
Frisco estimates that this coordination will save $10 million of additional costs for burial of the
line.
77.
Frisco will not commit to making up the difference if the savings realized are less than $10
million.
78.
Frisco also stated that it will “donate” the right-of-way for Brazos Electric to use the Main
Street median to install an underground line. Frisco values the right-of-way at $17.86 million.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 60
79.
The value of the right-of-way is contested. Whether Brazos Electric is entitled to use the rightof-way at no charge is also contested.
80.
The other intervening parties stated that they will not contribute to the costs associated with
burying the proposed line.
81.
All intervening parties believe that all ratepayers within the Electric Reliability Council of
Texas (ERCOT) should share in the costs associated with burying the proposed line.
82.
An above ground or belowground line would be identical operationally.
83.
Residents and businesses in the Frisco area would benefit from an underground line but the
ERCOT ratepayers would not.
84.
Requiring ERCOT ratepayers to pay the entire cost associated with burying the line would be
inappropriate.
Probable Improvement of Service or Lowering of Cost to Consumers
85.
Construction of the Proposed Project is the best option to meet the service needs, taking into
account considerations of efficiency, reliability, costs, and benefits.
Renewable Energy Goals
86.
The Proposed Project is unrelated to the State of Texas’ renewable energy goals.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
87.
TPWD provided initial recommendations to Brazos Electric on September 16, 2013, before
Brazos Electric filed the Application.
88.
TPWD later provided comments in a letter dated March 17, 2015, after it had received the
Application.
89.
In the March 17 letter, TPWD acknowledged that Brazos Electric incorporated several of
TPWD’s recommendations into the Application, as well as including precautions with respect to
avoiding impacts to migratory birds during construction and operation.
90.
TPWD recommended that Brazos Electric consult with both the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and TPWD to determine whether there would be impacts to bald eagles or
any federally-listed species and if so, to take steps to minimize impact to the wildlife.
91.
There are no bald eagles or bald eagle habitat within the project area. With respect to other
federally-listed species, there are no such species or habitat.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 61
92.
TPWD recommends using erosion control measures prior to and during construction and then
permanently re-vegetating the land with site-specific native vegetation. It also recommends that
Brazos Electric minimize impacts to native vegetation to the extent feasible during project
design and construction.
93.
Brazos Electric will make efforts to span all creeks as much as practicable to avoid impacting
water and wetlands. Any underground options would use boring and trenching. The trenching
would impact creeks. Once a route is selected, Brazos Electric will determine whether any
permits are needed from the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Brazos Electric will also use
erosion control measures, limited right-of-way clearing, and chemicals only in areas designated
for their use.
94.
There are four known state-listed species with the potential to occur within the Study Area:
Texas horned lizard, timber rattlesnake, white-faced ibis, and wood stork.
95.
The Proposed Project will not cross any forests or riparian areas and will run along and within
existing right-of-way for much of its length.
96.
No segments of the Proposed Project run across land subject to a conservation easement.
97.
There are no known rare vegetation types.
98.
Lake Lewisville will not be crossed by the Proposed Project.
99.
Brazos Electric will minimize impacts to wildlife as much as possible, as requested by TPWD.
100.
TPWD favors Main Street routes.
101.
No additional modifications recommended by TPWD are required for the Proposed Project.
B.
Conclusions of Law
1.
Brazos Electric is an electric utility. Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA), Tex. Util. Code §
37.001(2).
2.
The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter. PURA §§ 37.051, 37.053, and 37.056.
3.
SOAH has jurisdiction over this proceeding. PURA § 14.053 and Tex. Gov’t Code § 2003.049.
4.
Brazos Electric provided adequate notice of the Application. PURA § 37.054 and 16 Tex.
Admin. Code § 22.52(a).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 62
5.
The Application was adequate, sufficient and materially complete, and provided an adequate
number of alternative routes to conduct a proper evaluation.
6.
This docket was processed in accordance with the requirements of PURA, the Administrative
Procedure Act in Texas Government Code sections 2001.001-.902, and 16 Texas Administrative
Code § 25.101.
7.
Brazos Electric is entitled to approval of the Application described in this Order, using Route 5,
having demonstrated that the proposed transmission line facilities are necessary for the service,
accommodation, convenience, or safety of the public. PURA § 37.056(a); PURA § 37.056(c).
8.
Route 5 adheres to the requirements of PURA § 37.056(c) as well as the Commission’s policy
on prudent avoidance, as defined in 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.101(a)(4).
9.
The Application is reasonable and should be approved.
C.
Ordering Paragraphs
In accordance with these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Commission issues the
following Order:
1.Brazos Electric’s application to amend CCN No. 30016 is granted to include the construction of a
new double-circuit 138-kV transmission line and substation on Route 5 (segments Tap 1 –
Segment 8 – Segment 7 – Segment 5 – Segment 4 – Segment 3 – Segment 2 – Substation
North).
2.
Brazos Electric shall minimize the amount of flora and fauna disturbed during construction of
the proposed transmission line and re-vegetate using native species considering landowner
preferences. To the maximum extent practicable, Brazos Electric shall avoid adverse
environmental impacts to sensitive wildlife as identified by the TPWD and the USFWS.
3.
Brazos Electric shall conduct a cultural resource survey and submit the survey results to the
Texas Historical Commission (THC) and the Rural Utilities Service for review and approval
before construction begins. In the event Brazos Electric or its contractors encounter any
archaeological artifacts or other cultural resources during construction of the Proposed
Transmission Line, Brazos Electric shall cease work immediately in the vicinity of the resource
and report the discovery to the THC and take action as directed by the THC.
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 63
4.
Brazos Electric shall implement erosion control measures as appropriate. Brazos Electric shall
return the construction site to its original contours and grades unless otherwise agreed to by the
landowners; however, Brazos Electric shall not be required to restore original contours and
grades where a different contour or grade is necessary to ensure the safety or stability of the
project’s structures or the safe operation and maintenance of the line.
5.
Brazos Electric shall follow the procedures for raptor protection outlined in the Suggested
Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines, The State of the Art in 2006 (2006) and the
Avian Protection Plan Guidelines (April 2005), both published by the Avian Power Line
Interaction Committee. Also, Brazos Electric should consult Reducing Avian Collisions with
Power Lines: State of the Art in 2012. Brazos Electric shall take precautions to avoid disturbing
occupied nests and will take steps to minimize the impact of construction on migratory birds,
especially during nesting season.
6.
Brazos Electric shall exercise care to avoid affecting non-targeted vegetation or animal life
when using chemical herbicides to control vegetation within the right-of-way, and shall ensure
that such herbicide use complies with the rules and guidelines established in the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and with Texas Department of Agriculture
regulations.
7.
Brazos Electric shall use best management practices to minimize the potential impact to
migratory birds and threatened or endangered species.
8.
Brazos Electric shall cooperate with directly affected landowners to implement minor
deviations in the approved route to minimize the impact of the project. Any minor deviation in
the approved route shall only directly affect landowners who were sent notice of the
transmission line in accordance with 16 Texas Administrative Code § 22.52(a)(3) and shall
directly affect only those landowners that have agreed to the minor deviation, excluding public
rights-of-way.
9.
Brazos Electric shall be permitted to deviate from the approved route in any instance in which
the deviation would be more than a minor deviation, but only if the following two conditions
are met. First, Brazos Electric shall receive consent from all landowners who would be affected
by the deviation, regardless of whether the affected landowner received notice of or participated
in this proceeding. Second, the deviation shall result in a reasonable direct path towards the
terminus of the line and not cause an unreasonable increase in cost or delay the project. Unless
these two conditions are met, this paragraph does not authorize Brazos Electric to deviate from
the approved route except as allowed by the other ordering paragraphs in this Order.
10.
Brazos Electric shall update the reporting of this project on its monthly construction progress
report prior to the start of construction to reflect final estimated cost and schedule in accordance
with 16 Texas Administrative Code § 25.83(b).
SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-15-2855
PUC DOCKET NO. 44060
11.
PROPOSAL FOR DECISION
PAGE 64
All other motions, requests for entry of specific findings of fact or conclusions of law, and any
other requests for general or specific relief, if not expressly granted, are denied.
SIGNED November 9, 2015.
