Appeals Granted

Case

LOUDOUN LAND BAY D, LLC, v. STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, ET AL.
(Record Number 130674)

From

The State Corporation Commission.

Counsel

Jeffrey M. Mervis and T. Patrick Dulany (The Sack Law Firm P.C.) for appellant.

Frederick D. Ochsenhirt and Alisson O. Pouille (Office of General Counsel, State Corporation Commission) and Lisa S. Booth and Charlotte P. McAfee (Dominion Resources Services, Inc.) and Stephen H. Watts, II and Kristian M. Dahl (McGuire Woods LLP) for appellees.

Assignments of Error

The Commission's Order that the Waxpool Loop be constructed on Route D, and its rejection of the Hearing Examiner's detailed findings of fact and recommendation that the Waxpool Loop be constructed on Route F (over Route D), is contrary to the evidence. Specifically, the Commission erred in the Final Order by directing that the appellee electric company ("Company") construct the Waxpool Loop on Route D, contrary to the Hearing Examiner's detailed findings of fact and recommendation that were made after the Hearing Examiner observed the live witnesses and after he viewed each of the proposed line routes in person, that the comparison of the routes set forth by the Company "does not show the obvious harm Route D would bring to [Appellant's] property."
The Commission's Order that the Waxpool Loop be constructed on Route D, and its rejection of the Hearing Examiner's detailed findings of fact and recommendation that the Waxpool Loop be constructed on Route F (over Route D), fails properly to consider economic development in Loudoun County under Va. Code § 56-46.1A, in that the evidence shows (i) "[t]he single unspoiled property has every potential of having a significant positive economic impact on Loudoun County," (ii) "a transmission line bisecting this 123-acre property would reduce its desirability as a potential corporate office location, thereby having a negative impact on the local economy," (iii) "[t]he Properties as rezoned and improved, and if properly utilized, shall have a highly beneficial effect on area-wide economic development, including the furtherance of job creation and positive economic objectives within the Commonwealth," and (iv) "Route F has the same advantages as Route D in that it is also well positioned for potential future growth on the vacant parcels located near the intersection of Waxpool Road and Smith Switch Road."
The Commission erred in not remanding to the Hearing Examiner, pursuant to Va. Code § 12.1-31, to take additional evidence as to the loss in economic revenue (or as to the adverse effect on economic development) to Loudoun County that Route D would have as a result of bisecting Appellant's property and precluding its development as a single parcel.
The Commission's Order fails consistently to apply transmission line siting principles to Appellant as it applies them to other property owners, in that the record shows: "Route F, as does Route B, travels along the edge of parcels, ... , rather than cutting through them," while the route selected (Route D) bisects Appellant's property and results in Appellant's property being the only parcel bisected by any route proposed in the case.
The Commission erred in concluding that the Company should construct the Waxpool Loop on Route D, over the Hearing Examiner's recommendation that it be constructed on Route F, because of a distinction, not found in the applicable statute, that an adjoining landowner that has sought, but not received, local site plan approval should be favored over Appellant because Appellant had not yet applied for site plan approval for its Property.
The Commission erred in directing the Company to construct the Waxpool Loop on Route D, over the Hearing Examiner's recommendation that it be constructed on Route F, based upon facts or conclusions not in evidence, in holding that Route F would "be at the expense of the Loudoun Center project, a site under active development by DFD."
The Commission erred in directing the Company to construct the Waxpool Loop on Route D instead of on a modified Route F (a hybrid of Routes F and D), which the Company's line routing and siting witness acknowledged was feasible, that would not bisect Appellant's property or "be at the expense of the Loudoun Center project," and which would serve all of the stated interests of the Company.

Date Granted

05-21-2013