III. Routes at Issue

There are five possible routes at issue, as described in detail below. The EIR should add evaluations of the routes other than Option 3.

A. Option 3 - Already Evaluated in FMND

PacifiCorp prefers the Option 3 route alternative, illustrated in Appendix 2 to this decision. The FMND certified in D.06-10-047 evaluated Option 3 in full; to the extent possible that analysis should be incorporated into the EIR. As shown in Appendix 2, Option 3 begins at pole 15/44,⁹ which is located north of the home of protestants Len and Barbara Luiz (Luiz's), and heads south to pole 8/45. At pole 8/45, the new, most hotly disputed portion of the line begins on a corridor not currently used for transmission or other utility lines. There, the line as proposed under Option 3 would turn east, cross a pasture south of the Luiz's home and east of the Mackintoshes' proposed home, and continue to pole 15/48. At pole 15/48, the new line across the Homeowners' property would rejoin the existing line, and head northeast to the Weed Junction Substation.

B. Option 1 - Homeowners' Preferred Route

The Homeowners prefer the Option 1 route alternative, also illustrated in Appendix 2 to this decision. Option 1 would avoid the Homeowners' property and follow existing transmission corridors. While the FMND contains a "constraints analysis" comparing Option 3 to Option 1, it does not evaluate Option 1 in any detail because it concludes that "in [Commission consultant] ESA's professional judgment, the construction of the project along Option 3 is slightly less constrained by hydrology and water quality concerns compared to Option 1."¹⁰ The EIR should contain an analysis of Option 1 that is as detailed as the FMND's evaluation of Option 3.

As illustrated in Appendix 2 to this decision, Option 1 heads south at pole 15/44 and, instead of turning right across the Homeowners' land at pole 8/45, would continue along the existing transmission corridor to pole 19/45. At that point, located just north of the junction of Highway 97 and the existing route, the line would turn east, and follow Highway 97 in an east-northeasterly direction to pole 15/48, where it would proceed to Weed Junction Substation. By following the existing transmission corridor, Option 1 would avoid the Homeowners' property altogether.

Under Option 1, PacifiCorp would not remove the existing 69 kV line and upgrade it to a 115 kV line. Rather, it would place the new 115 kV line alongside (on the north side of) the existing 69 kV line from pole 19/45 to the Weed Junction Substation. This change would require PacifiCorp to expand the existing 50-foot right-of-way to 100 feet for approximately 1.6 miles to accommodate a new 115 kV transmission line.¹¹

C. Option 5 - Same Route as Option 1
Narrower Right-of-Way

Another alternative, known as Option 5, follows the same route as Option 1, but uses a different physical configuration. The Mackintoshes support this route, which would upgrade the existing 69 kV line along Highway 97 to 115 kV, rather than building a new 115 kV line alongside the existing 69 kV line and expanding the right-of-way.

Option 5 would also require PacifiCorp's Weed Substation to allow for power to flow to and from Weed Junction Substation.  (Weed Substation is located south of the Homeowners' property and south of the intersection of Highway 97 and the new 115 kV line; Weed Junction Substation is located east of the Homeowners' property.  PacifiCorp would need to either install a new 115/69/12 kV transformer or a 115/69 kV transformer, which would connect to the existing 69/12 kV transformer already in operation at Weed Substation.  Additionally, 115 kV switchgear would need to be installed.

D. Option 4

Option 4 would involve installing new double circuit structures to combine the new 115 kV line with the existing 69 kV line between the Weed Substation and the Weed Junction Substation. It would result in a widened right-of-way with larger structures parallel to Highway 97 for approximately 1 mile. While Option 4 would require a widening of the existing right-of-way, it would be considerably less than the doubling of the existing right-of-way width required under Option 1. The reason for this is that the existing 69 kV line would be removed after the 69 kV conductor was placed on the new poles under the new 115kV conductor. The new poles would, however, be approximately 20 feet taller than the existing 69 kV poles. Visual simulations completed as part of the MND indicate that the increased visual impact of the taller poles is insignificant. Furthermore, Option 4 has the benefit of not requiring transformer upgrades or lengthy outages, since the 69 kV line would be transferred to the new 115 kV poles hot.

E. Option 4 - ALJ3

This option was proposed in ALJ Data Request 3. It is a variation of Option 4, but instead of constructing the new double circuit line alongside the

existing 69 kV line, the 69 kV line would be demolished first and the new line built in its place. As with Option 5, PacifiCorp would need to either install a new 115/69/12 kV transformer or a 115/69 kV transformer, which would connect to the existing 69/12 kV transformer already in operation at Weed Substation. Additionally, 115 kV switchgear would need to be installed

⁹ The pole numbers in this decision (and Appendices) come from the project maps PacifiCorp submitted with its PEA in December 2005.

¹⁰ FMND, page A-7.

¹¹ See Testimony of Thomas N. Tjoelker, Hearing Exhibit 1 (Tjoelker Testimony), p. 6.