Lansdowne Conservancy v. State Corporation Commission, et al.; Loudoun County, Virginia v. State Corporation Commission, et al.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed consolidated appeals challenging the State Corporation Commission’s approval of certificates of public convenience and necessity for VEPCO’s Aspen-Golden and Apollo-Twin Creeks transmission projects in Loudoun County. The appellants primarily argued that a portion of the Aspen-Golden transmission lines should be constructed underground and that the Commission failed to properly verify reliability data and consider statutory, scenic, historic, environmental, and comprehensive-plan concerns. The Court held that the Commission adequately verified the supporting information and reasonably determined that overhead construction was the feasible option, affirming the Commission’s judgments.

Holdings

1. The Commission satisfied Code § 56-46.1(B) by verifying the load-flow modeling, contingency analyses, and reliability needs supporting the Aspen-Golden Project and its proposed overhead installation method.
2. The Commission reasonably considered and rejected underground construction of a portion of the Aspen-Golden transmission lines because of increased cost, engineering challenges, analytical deficiencies, and impediments to timely completion.
3. The Commission adequately considered the Aspen-Golden Project's effects on the Belmont Scenic Viewshed Easement and reasonably determined that Route 1AA was the optimal route after weighing those effects with other statutory factors.
4. Code § 56-46.1(A) required the Commission to receive and give consideration to Loudoun County's comprehensive plan, but did not require a separate substantial-accord determination under Code § 15.2-2232.
5. The Commission reasonably determined that Route 1AA avoided or reasonably minimized adverse impacts to scenic assets, historic and cultural resources, and the environment to the greatest extent reasonably practicable.
6. The Commission did not abuse its discretion by declining to impose additional conditions addressing the visual impacts of the Aspen-Golden Project.
7. The Commission did not err by approving the Apollo-Twin Creeks Project without provisions accommodating underground construction of the Aspen-Golden transmission lines.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commission adequately verified the load-flow modeling, contingency analyses, and reliability needs supporting the Aspen-Golden Project and its proposed overhead installation method.
2. Whether the Commission reasonably rejected underground construction of a portion of the Aspen-Golden transmission lines based on cost, engineering challenges, analytical deficiencies, and potential impediments to timely construction.
3. Whether the Commission adequately considered the Belmont Scenic Viewshed Easement in selecting the Aspen-Golden route.
4. Whether the Commission was required to determine that the Aspen-Golden transmission lines were in substantial accord with Loudoun County's comprehensive plan under Code § 15.2-2232.
5. Whether the Commission adequately determined that the selected route would avoid or reasonably minimize adverse impacts to scenic, historic, cultural, and environmental resources.
6. Whether the Commission abused its discretion by declining to impose additional conditions proposed by Lansdowne Conservancy.
7. Whether approval of the Apollo-Twin Creeks Project required provisions accommodating underground construction of the Aspen-Golden lines.

Disposition

affirmed