Powerline EIS upheld on appeal

A Methow Valley News article on how the Environmental Impact Statement was upheld for the Pateros-Twisp transmission line.

The Environmental Impact Statement for the Pateros-Twisp transmission line contained an adequate discussion of environmental consequences and the PUD commissioners did not act arbitrarily in selecting that route, found three judges of the Washington Court of Appeals in Spokane last Thursday (May 1). 

Because the purpose of an EIS is "to facilitate the decision-making process, it need not list every remote, speculative or possible effect or alternative," they declared in their opinion.

The ruling came in an appeal of the adequacy of the environmental analysis prepared by the Okanogan County Public Utility District for its Methow Transmission Project. The appeal was brought by rancher, orchardist and businessman Daniel Gebbers; People for Alternatives, Conservation and Education; and the Methow Valley Citizens’ Council, both not-for-profit citizen-action groups.

The plaintiffs had argued that the EIS was deficient because it failed to include the economic and environmental costs of rebuilding the existing Loup Loup transmission line in evaluating the Pateros-Twisp alternative. They contended that the PUD’s declared purpose – to achieve redundancy through a looped system – meant rebuilding the 60-year-old Loup line was integral to the project.

The judges noted that the state Environmental Policy Act does not define "cumulative impacts" and that additional projects do not require review if they are "substantially independent." The PUD has maintained that with the construction of the Pateros-Twisp line it can continue to use the Loup line as a backup through ongoing maintenance. 

"Citizens mistakenly reason that constructing the new line irretrievably commits the PUD to building and maintaining two transmission lines," concluded the judges in their 26-page opinion. 

"The courts said the PUD has the right to build a new line and maintain the old one into the future. We tried to argue that they chose a new line because they wanted two lines for the Methow Valley," said plaintiffs’ attorney Peter Goldman. "The court is saying that the PUD has the discretion to adopt the most expensive and environmentally harmful alternative," he said.

The judges cited many examples from the voluminous EIS and its seven appendices to demonstrate its adequacy. They rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the road system presented in the EIS is "vague" and "unquantified," noting that it contains maps "clearly showing the approximate locations of existing roads."

Maeyowa, a spokesperson for PACE, said plaintiffs were disappointed that the judges had dismissed what they pointed to as discrepancies in the EIS; for example, by not addressing their claim that the EIS underestimated the cost of the Pateros-Twisp powerline by basing calculations on only 21 poles in a five-mile stretch while elsewhere saying that 17 to 18 are needed per mile. 

The judges addressed one such inconsistency, saying that the plaintiffs "erroneously assume that the existing transmission line has a 35 MW [megawatt] capacity, but it is 45 MW," then conceding in the next sentence that the EIS appendix upon which they relied contains "an admitted typographical error."

"At the end of the day, courts are very deferential to public agencies about EISes," said Goldman. "They are loath to second-guess elected officials."

The plaintiffs have not decided on their next step. They have 30 days from the date of the opinion to file an appeal with the state Supreme Court, which would decide within six to nine months whether to hear the case, said Goldman.

"But this case is far from over," he said. "They’re going to have to condemn property and will need 12 miles of easements from the Department of Natural Resources." 

"It’s a little too early for us to respond since there is an appeal process underway," said PUD general manager John Grubich. "The opposition has 20 days to ask the court to reconsider and 30 days to appeal. We’re just waiting until the time frame expires before we decide what to do." 

The plaintiffs had appealed the November 2006 decision by Okanogan County Superior Court Judge Jack Burchard that the EIS contained adequate information to support a "reasonably informed decision" on the powerline.