Control Number: 51568 Item Number: 58 Addendum StartPage: 0

Control Number: 51568

Item Number: 58

Addendum StartPage: 0

SOAH DOCKET NO. 473-21-1431 PUC DOCKET NO . 51568 2021 H .., t V U '# - 1 l ' ~ . $, i

APPLICATION OF CENTERPOINT § BEFORE THE STATE 0*Acid; ENERGY HOUSTON ELECTRIC, LLC § TO AMEND A CERTIFICATE OF § OF ' CONVINIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR § A PROPOSED 345-KV TRANSMISSION § ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS LINE WITHIN COUNTY §

V'~

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF

RAMYA RAMASWAMY

INFRASTRUCTURE DIVISION

PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF TEXAS

JUNE 1, 2021

r

(7\.

SOAH Docket No. 473-21-1431 PUC Docket No. 51568 Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS 3

II. SCOPE OF TESTIMONY... 3

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 9

IV. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 13

A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT.... 13

B. TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.............. 14

C. NEED FOR THE PROJECT 14

D. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 15

V. ROUTING 15

A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION . 15

B. COMMUNITY VALUES. ........ 16

C. RECREATIONAL AND PARK AREAS 17

D. HISTORICAL VALUES .., 17

E. AESTHETIC VALUES 18

F. ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY 18

G. ENGINEERING CONSTRAINTS 20

H. COSTS. 21

I. MODERATION OF IMPACT ON THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY AND LANDOWNERS 22

J. RIGHT-OF-WAY ..... 23

1. Use and Paralleling of Existing, Compatible Right-Of-Way (Including Apparent Property Boundaries)

23

2. Paralleling ofNatural or Cultural Features 24

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RAMYA RAMASWAMY June 1,2021


K. PRUDENT AVOIDANCE 24

VI. CONCLUSION.................................................................. 26

ATTACHMENTS

RR-1 Qualifications of Ramya Ramaswamy

RR-2 List of Previous Testimony

RR-3 Letter from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department dated February 18,2021



1 I. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS

2 Q. Please state your name, occupation and business address.

3 A. My name is Ramya Ramaswamy. 1 am employed by the Public Utility Commission of

4 Texas (Commission) as a Senior Engineering Specialist within the Infrastructure

5 Division. My business address is 1701 North Congress Avenue, Austin, Texas 78701.

6 Q. Please brielly outline your educational and professional background.

7 A. I have a Master of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering. I completed my degree

8 in May 2003, and 1 have been employed at the Commission since May 2019. A more

9 detailed summary of my experience is provided in Exhibit RR-1.

10 Q. Are you a registered professional engineer?

11 A. No.

12 Q. Have you previously testified as an expert before the Commission?

13 A. Yes. A list is provided in Exhibit RR-2.

14

15 II. SCOPE OF TESTIMONY

16 Q. What is the purpose of your testimony in this proceeding?

17 A. The purpose of my testimony is to present recommendations on behalf of Commission

18 Staff concerning the application of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC

19 (CenterPoint) to amend its certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) to construct

20 a new double-circuit capable 345-kilovolt (kV) single-circuit electric transmission line.

21 The transmission line would be constructed between the existing CenterPoint-owned

22 345-kV Hillje Substation and the planned EDF Renewables Development, Inc. (EDIF

23 Renewables) Space City Interconnection Substation (Proposed Project).1 The Proposed

Application at 6 (Dec 17,2020).



1 Project is needed to provide direct interconnection for EDF Renewables' new

2 generation facility known as Space City Solar.2 The Proposed Project will be

3 approximately 3.5 to 8.0 miles long depending on the route selected.·3

4 Q. What is the scope of your testimony?

5 A. The scope of my testimony is to provide Commission Staff's recommendation

6 regarding the need for the project and regarding selection of routes from among the

7 alternative routes presented by CenterPoint.

8 Q. What are the statutory requirements that a utility must meet to amend its CCN

9 to construct a new transmission line?

10 A. Section 37.056(a) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act (PURA)4 states that the

11 Commission may approve an application for a CCN only if the Commission finds that

12 the CCN is necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience, or safety of the

13 public. Further, PURA provides that the Commission shall approve, deny, or modify a

14 request for a CCN after considering the factors specified in PURA § 37.056(c), which

15 are as follows:

16 (1) the adequacy of existing service;

17 (2) the need for additional service;

18 (3) the effect ofgranting the certificate on the recipient ofthe certificate and

19 any electric utility serving the proximate area; and

20 (4) other factors, such as:

21 (A) community values;

2 Application at 11 (Dec 17,2020),

3 Id.

4 Public Utility Regulatory Act, Tex. Util. Code Ann. §§ 11.001-66.016 (PURA).



1 (B) recreational and park areas;

2 (C) historical and aesthetic values;

3 (D) environmental integrity;

4 (E) the probable improvement of service or lowering of cost to

5 consumers in the area ifthe certificate is granted; and

6 (F) to the extent applicable, the effect of granting the certificate on

7 the ability of this state to meet the goal established by PURA

8 § 39.904(a).

9 Q. Do the Commission's rules provide any instruction regarding routing criteria?

10 A. Yes. 16 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) § 25.101(b)(3)(B) requires that an

11 application for a new transmission line address the criteria in PURA § 37.056(c), and

12 that upon considering those criteria, engineering constraints and costs, the line shall be

13 routed to the extent reasonable to moderate the impact on the affected community and

14 landowners, unless grid reliability and security dictate otherwise. The following factors

15 shall be considered in the selection of CenterPoint's alternative routes:

16 (i) whether the routes parallel or utilize existing compatible rights-of-way

17 for electric facilities, including the use of vacant positions on existing

18 multiple-circuit transmission lines;

19 (ii) whether the routes parallel or utilize existing compatible rights-of-way,

20 including roads, highways, railroads, or telephone utility rights-of-way;

21 (iii) whether the routes parallel property lines or other natural or cultural

22 features; and

23 (iv) whether the routes conform with the policy of prudent avoidance.

24 Q. What issues identified by the Commission must be addressed in this docket?



1 A. In the Order of Referral and Preliminary Order issued on February 22, 2021, the

2 Commission identified the following issues that must be addressed:

3 1. Is CenterPoint's application to amend its CCN adequate? Does the application

4 contain an adequate number of reasonably differentiated alternative routes to

5 conduct a proper evaluation? In answering this question, consideration must be

6 given to the number of proposed alternatives, the locations of the proposed

7 transmission line, and any associated proposed facilities that influence the

8 location of the line. Consideration may also be given to the facts and

9 circumstances specific to the geographic area under consideration, and to any

10 analysis and reasoned justification presented for a limited number of alternative

11 routes. A limited number of alternative routes is not in itself a sufficient basis

12 for finding an application inadequate when the facts and circumstances or a

13 reasoned justification demonstrates a reasonable basis for presenting a limited

14 number of alternatives. If an adequate number of routes is not presented in the

15 application, the ALJ must allow CenterPoint to amend the application and to

16 provide proper notice to affected landowners; if CenterPoint chooses not to

17 amend the application, the ALJ may dismiss the case without prejudice.

18 2. Are the proposed facilities necessary for the service, accommodation,

19 convenience, or safety of the public within the meaning of PURA § 37.056(a)

20 taking into account the factors set out in PURA § 37.056(c)? In addition,

21 a) How does the proposed facility support the reliability and adequacy of

22 the interconnected transmission system?

23 b) Does the proposed facility facilitate robust wholesale competition?

24 c) What recommendation, if any, has an independent organization, as


SOAH Docket No. 473-21-1431 PUCDocket No. 51568 Page 7

1 defined in PURA § 39.151, made regarding the proposed facility?

2 d) Is the proposed facility needed to interconnect a new transmission

3 service customer?

4 3. Is the transmission project the better option to meet this need when compared

5 to employing distribution facilities? If CenterPoint is not subject to the

6 unbundling requirements of PURA § 39.051, is the project the better option to

7 meet the need when compared to a combination of distributed generation and

8 energy efficiency?

9 4. Which proposed transmission line route is the best alternative weighing the

10 factors set forth in PURA § 37.056(c) and 16 TAC § 25.101(b)(3)(B)?

11 5. Are there alternative routes or facilities configurations that would have a less

12 negative impact on landowners? What would be the incremental cost of those

13 routes?

14 6. If alternative routes or facility configurations are considered due to individual

15 landowner preference:

16 a) Have the affected landowners made adequate contributions to offset any

17 additional costs associated with the accommodations?

18 (b) Have the accommodations to landowners diminished the electric

19 efficiency ofthe line or reliability?

20 7. On or after September 1,2009, did the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

21 (TPWD) provide any recommendations or informational comments regarding

22 this application in accordance with Section 12.0011(b) of the Texas Parks and

23 Wildlife Code? If so, please address the following issues:



1 a) What modifications, if any, should be made to the Proposed Project as

2 a result of any recommendations or comments?

3 b) What conditions or limitations, if any, should be included in the final

4 order in this docket as a result of any recommendations or comments?

5 c) What other disposition, if any, should be made of any recommendations

6 or comments?

7 d) If any recommendation or comment should not be incorporated in this

8 project or the final order, or should not be acted upon, or is otherwise

9 inappropriate or incorrect in light ofthe specific facts and circumstances

10 presented by this application or the law applicable to contested cases,

11 please explain why that is the case.

12 8. Are the circumstances for this line such that the seven-year limit discussed in

13 section III ofthis Order should be changed?

14 Q. Which issues in this proceeding will you address in your testimony?

15 A. I will address all eight of the issues from the Preliminary Order and the requirements

16 of PURA § 37.056 and 16 TAC § 25.101.

17 Q. What have you relied upon or considered to reach your conclusions and make

18 your recommendation?

19 A. 1 have relied upon my review and analysis of the data contained in CenterPoint's

20 application , including the attachments such as the Environmental Assessment and

1 \ Route Analysis ( EA ) 5 prepared by POWER Engineers , Inc . ( POWER ). I have also

22 relied upon my review of the statement of position filed in this proceeding by an

23 intervenor, responses to requests for information (It.FI), and the letter from the Texas

5 Application, Attachment 1 (Dec 17,2020).

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RAMYA RAMASWAMY June 1, 2021


1 Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) to Ms. Rachelle Robles, filed February 26,

2 2021.6

3

4 III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5 Q. Based on your evaluation of CenterPoint's application and other relevant

6 material, what conclusions have you reached regarding the application and the

7 Proposed Project?

8 1. I conclude that the application is adequate and that CenterPoint's proposed

9 routes are adequate in number and geographic diversity.

10 2. I conclude that CenterPoint complied with the notice requirements in 16 TAC

11 § 22.52(a).

12 3. Iconcludethat, takingintoaccountthefactorssetoutin PURA §37.056(c),the

13 Proposed Project is necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience and

14 safety ofthe public.

15 4. I conclude that the Proposed Project is the best option to meet the need when

16 compared with other alternatives.

17 5. I conclude that Alternative Route 3 (Segments B-C-G-K-O-P) is the best route

18 when weighing, as a whole, the factors set forth in PURA § 37.056(c)(4) and in

19 16 TAC § 25.101(b)(3)(B).

20 6. I conclude that concerns regarding the environmental impact of the Proposed

21 Project are sufficiently addressed by TPWD's mitigation measures, the

22 mitigation measures recommended on pages 10 through 12 of my testimony,

23 and the mitigation measures recommended in the environmental integrity

6 Exhibit RR-3.



1 section of my testimony on pages 19 through 20. I also conclude that the

2 CenterPoint has the resources and procedures in place in order to accommodate

3 the mitigation recommendations.

4 Q. What recommendation do you have regarding CenterPoint's application?

5 A. I recommend that the Commission approve CenterPoint's application to amend its

6 CCN in order to construct a new double-circuit capable 345-kilovolt (kV) single-circuit

7 electric transmission line within Wharton County. I also recommend that the

8 Commission order CenterPoint to construct the Proposed Project on Alternative Route

9 3 (Segments B-C-G-K-O-P) as described in the application. In order to mitigate the

10 impact of the Proposed Project, I further recommend that the Commission include the

11 following paragraphs in its order approving CenterPoint's application:

12 1. CenterPoint shall conduct surveys, if not already completed, to identify

13 pipelines that could be affected by the transmission lines and coordinate with

14 pipeline owners in modeling and analyzing potential hazards because of

15 alternating-current interference affecting pipelines being paralleled.

16 2. If CenterPoint encounters any archeological artifacts or other cultural resources

17 during project construction, work must cease immediately in the vicinity ofthe

18 artifact or resource, and the discovery must be reported to the Texas Historical

19 Commission. In that situation, CenterPoint must take action as directed by the

20 Texas Historical Commission.

21 3. CenterPoint must follow the procedures to protect raptors and migratory birds

22 as outlined in the following publications : Reducing Avian Collisions - with

13 Power Lines : The State of the Art in 2012 , Edison Electric Institute and Avian

24 Power Line Interaction Committee , Washington , D . C . 2012 ; Suggested



1 Practices.for Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006,

2 Edison Electric Institute, Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, and the

3 California Energy Commission, Washington, D.C. and Sacramento, CA 2006;

4 and Avian Protection Plan Guidelines , Avian Power Line Interaction

5 Committee and United States Fish and Wildlife Service, April 2005.

6 CenterPoint must take precautions to avoid disturbing occupied nests and take

7 steps to minimize the burden of construction on migratory birds during the

8 nesting season of the migratory bird species identified in the area of

9 construction.

10 4. CenterPoint must exercise extreme care to avoid affecting non-targeted

11 vegetation or animal life when using chemical herbicides to control vegetation

12 within rights-of-way. CenterPoint must ensure that the use of chemical

13 herbicides to control vegetation within the rights-of-way complies with rules

14 and guidelines established in the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide

15 Act and with Texas Department of Agriculture regulations.

16 5. CenterPoint must minimize the amount of flora and fauna disturbed during

17 construction ofthe transmission line, except to the extent necessary to establish

18 appropriate right-of-way (ROW) clearance for the transmission lines. In

19 addition, CenterPoint must revegetate, using native species and must consider

20 landowner preferences and wildlife needs in doing so. Furthermore, to the

21 maximum extent practical, CenterPoint must avoid adverse environmental

22 influence on sensitive plant and animal species and their habitats, as identified

23 by the TPWD and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

24 6. CenterPoint must implement erosion control measures as appropriate. Erosion



1 control measures may include inspection of the ROW before and during

2 construction to identify erosion areas and implement special precautions as

3 determined necessary. CenterPoint must return each affected landowner's

4 property to its original contours and grades unless otherwise agreed to by the

5 landowner or the landowner's representative. CenterPoint is not required to

6 restore the original contours and grades where a different contour or grade is

7 necessary to ensure the safety or stability of the project' s structures or the safe

8 operation and maintenance ofthe lines.

9 7. CenterPoint must use best management practices to minimize the potential

10 impacts to migratory birds and threatened or endangered species.

11 8. CenterPoint must cooperate with directly affected landowners to implement

12 minor deviations from the approved route to minimize the burden of the

13 transmission line. Any minor deviations from the approved route must only

14 directly affect landowners who were sent notice of the transmission line in

15 accordance with 16 TAC § 22.52(a)(3) and landowners that have agreed to the

16 minor deviation.

17 9. CenterPoint must report the transmission line approved by the Commission on

18 its monthly construction progress reports before the start of construction and to

19 reflect the final estimated cost and schedule in accordance with 16 TAC

20 § 25.83(b).

21 Q. Does your recommended route differ from the route that CenterPoint believes

22 best addresses the requirements of PURA and the Commission's rules?

23 A. No. My recommended route is the same as CenterPoint's recommendation. CenterPoint

24 also believes that Alternative Route 3 best meets the requirements of PURA and the



1 Commission's rules.

2

3 IV. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

4 A. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

5 Q. Please describe the Proposed Project.

6 A. The Proposed Project is a new single-circuit transmission line to be constructed on

7 double-circuit capable structures and operated at 345-kV in Wharton County, Texas.

8 The Proposed Project would connect the existing Hillje Substation located

9 approximately 1.7 miles west of State Highway 71 to the EDF Renewables' planned

10 Space City Solar Interconnection Substation located at the northeast corner of the

11 intersection of Farm-to-Market 3086 and County Road 434.7 The length of the

12 Proposed Project varies from 3.5 to 8.0 miles.8

13 Q. Does CenterPoint's application contain a number of alternative routes sufficient

14 to conduct a proper evaluation?

15 A. Yes. CenterPoint's application identified 7 potential alternative routes (Alternative

16 Routes 1 -7) that utilize all of the 16 primary alternative route segments and provide

17 geographic diversity.9

18 Q. Were any additional routes suggested by intervenors?

19 A. No.

20 Q. Is any part of the Proposed Project located within the incorporated boundaries of

7 Application Attachment 1 at 1-1 (Sep 25,2020).

8 Application at 11 (Dec 17,2020)

9 Direct Testimony of Lisa B. Meaux on Behalf of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC at 27

(Mar. 17,2021).



1 any municipality?

2 A. No.10

3

4 B. TEXAS COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

5 Q. Does any part of the Proposed Project lie within the Texas Coastal Management

6 Program (TCMP) boundary?

7 A. No. The Proposed Project is not located, either in whole or in part, within the TCMP

8 boundary. 11

9

10 C. NEED FOR THE PROJECT

11 Q. Please summarize the need for the Proposed Project as described by CenterPoint.

12 A. The proposed 345-kV Space City Solar Project is needed to provide direct

13 interconnection for EDF Renewables' new generation facility. 12 The Space City Solar

14 Generation Facility will consist of 175 photovoltaic solar inverters with an aggregated

15 total output of 610.64 MW.13 The Proposed Project is a new double-circuit capable

16 345-kilovolt (kV) single-circuit electric transmission line that will connect the Hillje

17 Substation in Wharton County to the EDF Renewables' planned Space City

18 Interconnection Substation in Wharton County. 14

19 Q. Has an independent organization, as defined in PURA § 39.151, determined that


" /d at 32. 12 Icl at 14.

13 Id

14 Direct Testimony of Lesli Cummings on Behalf of CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC at 6 (Mar. 17,2021).



1 there is a need for the Proposed Project?

2 A. No. The Proposed Project is for interconnection of a new generation facility.

3 Q. Are the proposed facilities necessary for the service, accommodation, convenience,

4 or safety of the public within the meaning of PURA § 37.056(a)?

5 A. Yes. In my opinion, based on the data provided by CenterPoint, it is evident that this

6 project is necessary within the meaning of PURA § 37.056(a).

7

8 D. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

9 Q. Did CenterPoint consider distribution alternatives to the Proposed Project?

10 A. The Proposed Project is needed to provide direct interconnection of a generation

11 facility. Distribution alternatives were not analyzed because the generation facility is

12 too large to be reliably served from existing or new distribution feeders.15 Also,

13 upgrading volage, bundling of conductors, or adding transformers are not feasible

14 alternatives for CenterPoint.'6

15 Q. Do you agree that the Proposed Project is the best option when compared to other

16 alternatives?

17 A. Yes.

18

19 V. ROUTING

20 A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION

21 Q. What route do you recommend upon considering all factors, including the factors

22 in PURA § 37.056(c) and 16 TAC § 25.101(b)(3)(B)?

15 Application at 17 (Dec 17,2020).

\6 Id,

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RAMYA RAMASWAMY Junel,2021

SOAH Docket No. 473-2 I -1431 PUC Docket No. 51568 Page 16

1 A. Based on my analysis ofall the factors that the Commission must consider under PURA

2 § 37.056 and 16 TAC § 25.101, I recommend Alternative Route 3 be approved for the

3 Proposed Project. The basis for my recommendation is discussed in more detail in the

4 remainder of my testimony.

5 Q. Which route did CenterPoint select as the route that it believes best meets the

6 requirements of PURA and the Commission's rules?

7 A. CenterPoint also selected Alternative Route 3 as the route that it believes best meets

8 the requirements of PURA and the Commission's rules. 17

9

10 B. COMMUNITY VALUES

11 Q. Has CenterPoint sought input from the local community regarding community

12 values?

13 A. Typically, CenterPoint hosts a public open-house within the community to solicit

14 comments, concerns, and input from residents, landowners, public officials, and other

15 interested parties. 18 Seventeen landowners were impacted by the proposed routes. 19

16 According to 16 TAC § 22.52(a)(4), a public meeting must be held if twenty five or

17 more persons would be entitled to receive direct mail notice of the application. Hence,

18 CenterPoint mailed out notices to the affected landowners and did not host a public

19 open-house. CenterPoint also provided written notice of the Proposed Project to the

20 Department of Defense Siting Clearing House, county and municipal officials as

21 required by 16 TAC § 22.52(a)(2), and to directly affected landowners as required by

17 /d at 20.

18 Application, Attachment 1 at 3-13.




1 16 TAC § 22.52(a)(3). I conclude that CenterPoint provided adequate means by which

2 members of the community could express concerns.

3 Q. Are impacts of the Proposed Project on property values and future/potential

4 development factors considered by the Commission in a CCN proceeding under

5 PURA § 37.056(c)(4) or in 16 TAC § 25.101(b)(3)(B)?

6 A. No. PURA and the Commission's rules do not list these two issues as factors that are

7 to be considered by the Commission in a CCN proceeding. However, the rules do

8 require consideration of using or paralleling existing ROW, which may minimize

9 concerns about these impacts.

10

11 C. RECREATIONAL AND PARK AREAS

12 Q. Are any parks or recreational areas located within 1,000 feet of the centerline of

13 any of the alternative routes?

14 A. There are no parks or recreational areas located within 1,000 feet of the centerline of

15 any of the proposed alternative routes listed in the route data provided by the

16 Applicant.20

17

18 D. HISTORICAL VALUES

19 Q. Are there possible impacts from the Proposed Project on archeological and

20 historical values, including known cultural resources crossed by any of the

21 proposed alternative routes or that are located within 1,000 feet of the eenterline

22 of any of the alternative routes?

23 A. There are no archeological sites crossed by any of the alternative routes, but there is

10 / d at 30 .



1 one known archeological site located within 1,000 feet of the centerline of two

2 alternative routes, Alternative Routes 3 and 4.21

3 There are no National Register of Historic Places (-NRHP)-listed properties or

4 cemeteries crossed by or located within 1,000 feet of any alternative route ROW

5 centerlines. I conclude that Alternative Route 3 is acceptable from a historical values

6 perspective. If any further archeological or cultural resources are found during

7 construction of the proposed transmission line, CenterPoint should immediately cease

8 work in the vicinity of the archeological or cultural resources and immediately notify

9 the Texas Historical Commission.

10

11 E. AESTHETIC VALUES

12 Q. In your opinion, which of the proposed routes would result in a negative impact

13 on aesthetic values, and which portions of the study area will be affected?

14 A. In my opinion, all of the proposed alternative routes would result in a negative impact

15 on aesthetic values, some routes more than others, depending on the visibility from

16 homes and public roadways. Temporary effects would include views of the actual

17 transmission line construction (e.g. assembly and erection of the structures) and of any

18 clearing of ROW. Permanent effects would involve the visibility of the structures and

19 the lines. Therefore, I conclude that aesthetic values would be impacted throughout the

20 study area, and that these temporary and permanent negative aesthetic effects will occur

21 on any proposed alternative routes for the Proposed Project approved by the

22 Commission.

23

21 Id. at 31.



1

2

3 F. ENVIRONMENTAL INTEGRITY

4 Q. Please provide a general description of the area traversed by the proposed

5 alternative routes.

6 A. The study area terrain is located within the Coastal Prairies sub-province of the Gulf

7 Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. 22 The Coastal Prairies landscape is nearly level

8 with the deltaic sand and mud bedrock types, with elevations ranging from sea level to

9 300 feet above mean sea level. 23 Numerous abandoned and plugged oil/gas well

10 locations are mapped throughout the study area, with the majority occurring in the

11 northwest corner.24

12 Q. Based on your review, in your opinion, will the Proposed Project present a

13 significant negative impact to environmental integrity?

14 A. No. According to the EA and CenterPoint, the Proposed Project is expected to cause

15 only short-term effects to water, soil, and ecological resources during the initial

16 construction phase.

17 Q. What route did TPWD recommend?

18 A. TPWD considers Alternative Route 4 to be the route having the least possible impact

19 on fish and wildlife resources.25

20 Q. In your opinion, how would construction of the Proposed Project on Alternative

22 Application, Attachment 1 at 2-24 (Dec 17,2020).

23 1d

24 Ici 25 Exhibit RR-3.

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RAMYA RAMASWAMY June 1,202 [


1 Route 3 compare from an environmental perspective to construction on the other

2 routes?

3 A. Alternative Route 3 is the shortest route among the all the alternative routes suggested

4 in the application. Alternative Route 3 is tied with one other route as having the third-

5 longest length of ROW paralleling existing transmission line ROW and is tied with one

6 other route as having the second-longest length of ROW paralleling other existing

7 ROW, thereby minimizing fragmentation of intact lands and having the least adverse

8 impact to natural resources. Alternative Route 3 does not parallel streams and has the

9 least number of stream crossings. There are no known occupied habitats or federally-

10 listed endangered or threatened species along Alternative Route 3.

11 Q. Do you conclude that Alternative Route 3 is acceptable from an environmental

12 and land use perspective?

13 A. Yes.

14

15 G. ENGINEERING CONSTRAINTS

16 Q. Are there any possible engineering constraints associated with this project?

17 A. There are no specific engineering constraints that are not present in a usual transmission

18 line project and to the extent that constraints exist, they can be addressed by established

19 practices used in the electric utility industry.

20 Q. Are there any special circumstances in this Proposed Project that would warrant

21 an extension beyond the seven-year limit for the energization of the lines?

22 A. No, CenterPoint has not described any special circumstances that would merit an

23 extension of this limit for this Proposed Project.

24


SOAH Docket No. 473-21-1431 PUC Docket No. 51568 Page 2 I

2

3 H. COSTS

4 Q. What are CenterPoint's estimated costs of constructing the Proposed Project on

5 each of the proposed alternative routes?

6 A. Attachment 2 of the application lists CenterPoint's total estimated project costs of

7 constructing each alternative route proposed in the application. The substations

8 associated with the Proposed Project are the planned EDF Renewables Space City Solar

9 Interconnection and the CenterPoint-owned Hillje Substation that will be utilized to

10 add new 345-kV terminal positions associated with the proposed new transmission line.

11 No cost was provided for substation improvements.

12 The table below shows the total estimated cost of the transmission lines, exclusive of

13 station costs, for all the alternative routes proposed, from the least expensive to the

14 most expensive proposed alternative route:

15

Alternative Route Estimated Total Proiect Cost 3 $22,956,000 4 $24,709,000 2 $30,546,000 1 $33,694,000 5 $61,249,000 6 $64,128,000 7 $70,506,000

16

17 As the table illustrates, Alternate Route 3 is the least expensive proposed alternative

18 route. Total estimated costs for the transmission line portion of the Proposed Project

19 range from $22,956,000 to $70,506,000.



1 Q. Does CenterPoint's estimated cost of constructing the Proposed Project appear to

2 be reasonable?

3 A. After reviewing CenterPoint's estimates, the estimated costs for the proposed

4 alternative routes appear to be reasonable. However, the reasonableness of the final

5 installed cost ofthe completed project will be determined at a future date in the course

6 of a rate proceeding.

7

8 I. MODERATION OF IMPACT ON THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY AND

9 LANDOWNERS

10 Q. Do the Commission's rules address routing alternatives intended to moderate the

11 impact on landowners?

12 A. Yes. Under 16 TAC § 25.101(b)(3)(B), "the line shall be routed to the extent reasonable

13 to moderate the impact on the affected community and landowners unless grid

14 reliability and security dictate otherwise."

15 Q. Subsequent to filing its application, has CenterPoint made or proposed any

16 routing adjustments to accommodate landowners?

17 A. No, not to my knowledge.

18 Q. Has CenterPoint proposed any specific means by which it will moderate the

19 impact of the Proposed Project on landowners or the affected community other

20 than adherence to the Commission's orders, the use of good utility practices,

21 acquisition of and adherence to the terms of all required permits, and what you

22 have discussed above?

23 A. No, not to my knowledge.

24

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RAN/[YA RAMASWAMY June 1, 2021


1

2

3 J. RIGHT-OF-WAY

4 Q. Do the Commission's rules address routing along existing corridors?

5 A. Yes. The following factors are to be considered under 16 TAC § 25.101(b)(3)(B):

6 (i) whether the routes utilize existing compatible rights-of-way, including the use

7 of vacant positions on existing multiple-circuit transmission lines;

8 (ii) whether the routes parallel existing compatible rights-of-way;

9 (iii) whether the routes parallel property lines or other natural or cultural features;

10 and

11 (iv) whether the routes conform with the policy of prudent avoidance.

12

13 1. Use and Paralleling of Existing, Compatible Right-Of-Way (Including Apparent

14 Property Boundaries)

15 Q. Describe how CenterPoint proposes to parallel existing or compatible ROW for

16 the Proposed Project.

17 A. Each proposed alternative route parallels apparent property boundaries, and parallels

18 or utilizes existing compatible ROW. The percentage of Alternative Route 3's length

19 that parallels or utilizes existing transmission or distribution line ROW, other existing

20 compatible ROW (highways, roads, railways, etc.), and apparent property boundaries

21 is approximately 64% of its length. The table below summarizes the overall length of

22 the proposed alternative routes, the length utilizing existing transmission or distribution

23 line ROW, and total percentage of parallel ROW used by the proposed alternative



1 routes.26

Length Alternative (Miles)

Route

Total Length Parallel and

Utilizing Existing ROW Miles %

3 3.5 2.2 64% 4 3.6 3.3 92% 2 4.1 3.0 73% 1 4.2 3.5 84% 5 6.2 3.8 605% 6 6.9 4.4 64% 7 8.0 4.8 59%

2

3 As the chart shows, 64% of Alternative Route 3's length parallels and utilizes existing

4 compatible ROW.

5

6 2. Paralleling of Natural or Cultural Features

7 Q. Describe how CenterPoint proposes to parallel natural or cultural features for the

8 Proposed Project.

9 A. The only natural features identified in the EA that will be paralleled are streams. In

10 general, paralleling of streams can be undesirable from an environmental perspective,

11 thus paralleling of that feature has not been included in my assessment of compatible

12 paralleling.

13

14 K. PRUDENT AVOIDANCE

15 Q. Define prudent avoidance.

26 Application Attachment 1 at 93 (Dec 17,2020)



1 A. Prudent avoidance is defined by 16 TAC § 25.101(a)(6) as follows: "The limiting of

2 exposures to electric and magnetic fields that can be avoided with reasonable

3 investments of money and effort."

4 Q. How can exposure to electric and magnetic fields be limited when routing

5 transmission lines?

6 A. Primarily by proposing alternative routes that would minimize, to the extent reasonable,

7 the number of habitable structures located in close proximity to the routes.

8 Q. How many habitable structures are located in close proximity to each of the

9 proposed alternative routes?

10 A. The table below ranks the number of habitable structures that are within 500 feet of the

11 centerline ofthe proposed routes in this project.27

Alternative Route

Number of habitable structures within 500 feet of

the route centerline

3 0 1 0 2 1 4 1 6 1 7 1 5 2

12

13 There are no habitable structures that are within 500 feet ofthe centerline of Alternative

14 Route 3 and Alternative Route 1. This makes Alternate Route 3 ranked first among all

15 the proposed alternative routes.

16 Q. Do you conclude that the CenterPoint's proposed alternative routes have

17 minimized, to the extent reasonable, the number of habitable structures located

21 Id. DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RAMYA RAMASWAMY June 1,2021


1 in close proximity to the routes?

2 A. Yes.

3

4 VI. CONCLUSION

5 Q. In your opinion, is any one of the proposed alternative routes better than all of the

6 other routes in all respects?

7 A. No.

8 Q. If no proposed alternative route is better than all of the others in all respects, why

9 have you recommended Alternate Route 3 instead of the other proposed

10 alternative routes?

11 A. In summary, after analyzing all the factors that the Commission must consider under

12 PURA § 37.056 and 16 TAC § 25.101, I conclude that Alternative Route 3 best meets

13 the criteria of PURA and the Commission's rules because it:

14 • Is the shortest route (3.5 miles);

15 • Is the least expensive ($22,956,000);

16 • Has no habitable structures within 500 feet;

17 • Has approximately 64% of its length paralleling existing transmission ROW

18 and other existing compatible ROW;

19 • Is tied for the lowest number of stream and canal crossings (7) along with one

20 other proposed alternative route.

21 Overall, I consider Alternative Route 3 to have the most advantages and to be superior

22 to the other proposed alternative routes.

23 Q. In your opinion, if the Commission considered the criteria of PURA and the

24 Commission's rules in a way that favored any of the other proposed routes over

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RAMYA RAMASWAMY Junel,2021


1 Alternative Route 3, do you believe those other proposed alternative routes are

2 viable?

3 A. Yes.

4 Q. Does this conclude your testimony?

5 A. Yes.


SOAH Docket No. 473-21-1431 PUCDocketNo. 51568 Page 28

ATTACHMENT RR-1

Qualifications of Ramya Ramaswamy

In May 2000 I received a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Bharathiyar

University in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. In December 2004, I earned my Master of Science

degree in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M University in College Station, Texas. My

Master's thesis focused on loss of bone density and mechanical strength of bones due to

osteoporosis, weightlessness in space, and during prolonged bedrest.

Upon completion of my Masters, I worked for Thermo Fisher Scientific for more than twelve years

in the Research and Development (R&D) division. My primary duties included designing

analyzers for coal, cement, nuclear, and oil industries. I was responsible for identifying and

analyzing design issues, designing the analyzer, planning, and sourcing materials and vendors that

would best suit my design. I was also tasked with identifying new national and international

vendors to manufacture various parts of the analyzers, assembling and testing the analyzer in-

house and in the field to meet customer and company standards and releasing it to manufacturing and the market. Additionally, I provided engineering support to the field team, to the marketing

and manufacturing teams with regards to any technical issues related to the design and assisted

with the installation and mechanical aspects of the analyzers.

Prior to accepting my current role at the Public Utility Commission of Texas, I worked as a

Manufacturing Engineer at Applied Materials and as a Senior Consultant at a supply chain

consulting firm. I joined the Public Utility Commission of Texas in May 2019 as an Engineering

Specialist in the Infrastructure Division.



ATTACHMENT RR-2

List of Previous Testimony

Docket No . 49603 - Application of Upshur Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessityfor a 138-kV Transmission Line in Harrison County (Hallsville - Gum Spring)

Docket No . 50714 - Application of Entergy Texas , Inc . to Amend its Distribution Cost Recovery Factor

Docket No . 50669 - Application of Southwestern Electric Power Company to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for the SWEPCO Morton Cut-In to the Wood County Electric Cooperative E Burges Cut-In 138-kV Transmission Line in Van Zandt County

DocketNo. 50410 - Joint Application of Wind Energy Transmission Texas, LLC and Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC to Amend their Certificates of Convenience and Necessityfor the Bearkat Switching Station-to-Longhorn Switching Station 345-kV Transmission Line in Glasscock and Howard Counties.

Docket No . 50830 - Application of Guadalupe Valley Electric Cooperative , Inc . to Amend its Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a 138-kV Transmission Line in Caldwell and Gonzales Counties (Delhi-to-Bluestem 138-kV Transmission Line).

Docket No . 51415 - Application of Southwestern Electric Power Company for Authority to Change Rates.



ATTACHMENT RR-3

Letter from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department dated February 18, 2021

TEXAS February 18,2021

WILDLIFE

2021 FEB 26 AM 9: 4 i t 0 ::.,. I ''"

Fh :'9..-c/A

Life's better outside."

Comrri.sicr,eri

S. Reed Morian Chairman Houston

Arch '·Beaver" Apln. Ill VIce·Chairman Lalte Jackson

Ms. Rachelle Robles Public Utility Commission P.O. Box ]3326 Austin, TX 78711-3326

RE: PUC Docket No. 51568 Application ofCenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC to Amend a Certificate of Convenience and Necessity for a Proposed 345-kilovolt Transmission Line within Wharton County, Texas

James E. Abill Kilgore Dear Ms Robles·

Oliver J. letl Clevelind

Anna O. Gaio Laredo

Jeffery D. Hildebrand Houston

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) has received the Environmental Assessment and Alternative Routes Analysis (EA) regarding the above-referenced proposed transmission line proJect. TPWD offers the following recommendations and comments concerning this project.

Jeanne W. L,timer San Antonio

Robert L. -Bobbr Patten. Jr. Fort Worth

Dick Scott Wimber Iey

L- M. Bass

Please be aware that a written response to a TPWD recommendation or informational comment received by a state governmental agency may be required by state law. For further guidance, see the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code (PWC), section 12.00!1. For tracking purposes, please refer to TPWD project number 45799 in any return correspondence regarding this project

Chairman-Emeritus Fort Worth Proiect Description

T. Dan Frledkln Chairman-Emeritus

Houston

Carter P Smith Executr,e Director

CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC (CenterPoint Energy) proposes to construct a new 345-kilovolt (kV) single-circuit transmission line on double-circuit capable structures located m Wharton County, Texas, that would connect EDF Renewables Development Inc.'s planned Space City Solar Interconnection Substation located at the northeast corner ofthe intersection of Farm-to-Market Road (FM) 3086 and County Road (CR) 434 to the existing Hillje Substation located approximately 1.7 miles west of State Highway (SH) 71

The proposed transmission line will extend approximately 3.5 to 8.0 miles, depending on the route approved by the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC). The new transmission line will be supported by a combination ofstructures dependent upon the route selected by the PUC The structures considered include double-circutt capable vertical lattice steel towers, double-circuit capable delta lattice steel towers, and double-circuit capable and single-circuit tubular steel poles. The structures will be ereeted within a right-of-way (ROW) that will be 181-feet, 180-feet, or 65-feet wide depending on the support structure utilized.

CenterPoint Energy retained POWER Engineers ]nc. (POWER) to prepare an EA. The EA supports CenterPoint Energy's application for Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CCN) for this project. The EA was prepared to provide information and address the requirements of Section 37.056(«4)(A)-(D) of the Texas Utilities Code, PUC Procedural

•200 SMITH SCHOOL ROAD AUSTIN. TEXAS 78744·3291

512 389.•800

www.tpwd.texas.gov To manage and Conw,VC the naturai Rnd culturalreiources of I cra, and to prowdc huntmg, fishing

and outdoor recreation opporlunilics for the use and enioymen, of present and Amire generations

=SS



Rules Section 22.52(a)(41 PUC Substantive Rules Section 25.101, and the PUC CCN application form for the proposed transmission line.

Previous Coordination

TPWD provided information and recommendations regarding the preliminary study area for this project to POWER on October 22,2020. According to the materials submitted to TPWD for review, there are three appendices, one of which (Appendix A) presents agency correspondence; TPWD did not receive any ofthe noted appendices for review,

Recommendation: To facilitate PUC review ofprevious TPWD correspondence with POWER, TPWD has attached its response on October 22,2020, to POWER to this letter. Please review the TPWD correspondence and consider the recommendations provided, as they remain applicable to the project as proposed.

Proposed Alternative Routes

CenterPomt Energy's Recommended Route

CenterPoint Energy and POWER developed 16 primary alternative segments and identified seven priinary alternative routes with each primaty alternative segment incorporated in at least one route, All primary alternative routes were carried forward to be analyzed in thc EA. The consensus opinion of the CenterPoint Energy and POWER evaluators was that alternatjvc Route 3 best meets the requirements of the Texas Utilities Code and the PUC's Substantive Rules. According to CenterPoint Energy and POWER:

Route 3: • Is the shortest route (3.5 miles) • Is tied with one other route as having the third-longest length (0.6 mile) of ROW

paralleling existing transmission line ROW • Is tied with one other route as having the second-longest length (1.6 miles) of

ROW paralleIing other existing ROW • Has thc third- fewest number of pipeline crossings • Is tied with one other route as having the shortest length (0.01 mile) across

bottomland/riparian woodlands • Is tied with three other routes as having the shortest length (0.004 mile) aciosb

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapped wetlands

• Is tied with one othei route for having the fewest number of stream and canal crossings

• Has the shortest length (0.2 mile) of ROW across places of high archaeological/historic site potential

• Has no habitable structures within 500 feet ofthe ROW centerlinc • Crosses no land irrigated by traveling systems • Has no oil and gas wells within the ROW • Has no length parallel to streams • Crosses no 100-year floodplains


SOAH Docket No. 473-21-1431 PUCDocket No. 51568 Page 32

Recommendations: Please review the TPWD RTEST rare and protected species lisl for Wharton County since species in addition to those discussed lil this letter could be present within the project area depending upon habitat availability Please note that the TPWD RTEST application undergoes regular updates Please routinely review the RTEST county species lists for this and all other proposed projecls. The USFWS should be contacted foi species occurrence data, guidance, permitting, survey protocols, and mitigation for federally listed species.

Determining the actual presence of a species in an area depends on many variables including daily and seasonal activity cycles, environmental activity cues, preferred habitat. transiency, and population density (both wildlife and human). The absence of a species can be demonstrated only with great difficulty and then only with repeated negative observations, taking into account all the variable factors contributing to the lack of detectable presence. If encountered during construction, TPWD recommends that measures be taken to avoid impacting all wildlife, regardless of federal or state listing status.

Vegetation

The EA presents no discussion or environmental commitments regarding revegetation practices or mitigation for impacts to native habitats

Recommendations: TPWD recommends CenterPoint Energy reduce the amount of vegetation proposed for clearing and minimize clearing of native vegetation, particularly mature native trees, riparian vegetation, and shrubs to the greatest extent piacticable. TPWD also recommends CenterPoint Energy prepare a site reclamation plan if one has not been prepared to date. PPWD recommends off-site mitigation for removed trees. For losses determined to be unavoidable, TPWD recommends a 1: 1 acreage replaccnient of high-quality habitat lost or a replacement ratio of three trees for every mature tree lost. For trees in the pro)ect area determined to be old timber (100+ years and/or with a diameter breast height >25 inches) the value of each tree should be estimated using current insurance schedules or replaced at a ratio of 10 trees for each tree lost. A three to five-yeat maintenance plan that ensures an 85 percel~t survival rate should be developed for the replacement vegetation.

Mitigation should be planned for the unavoidable loss of native vegetation disturbed by project activities and should be developed in coordination with TPWD. TPWD recommends utilizing online resources concerning vegetation, clearing, and revegetation, available at the TPWD Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program: Planning Tools and Best Management Practices webpage. Specific requirements apply to impacts to wetlands; please reference the above Stafe Law. Aqumie Resources section and the attached previous correspondence (October 2020) for information on coordination for wetland mitigation with federal and state agencies.

Alternatively, mitigation could be coordinated with a local land trust or other conservation organization.



remainder of the year, this species hibemates only a few inches underground and they will be much more susceptible to earth moving equipment and compaction. Construction in these areas could harm hibernating lizards, Texas horned lizards are active above ground when temperatunes exceed 75 degrees Fahrenheit If hortied Iizaids (nesting, gravid females, hatchhngs, or individuals lethargic from cool temperatures or hibernation) cannot move away from the noise and approaching construction equipment in time, they could be affected by construction activities.

Recommendation: 'IPWD recommends CenterPolnt Energy survey the project area to determine the potential of the site to support state-listed species or their habitat, including the Texas horned lizard. Surveying the site prior to construction would aid in plotectlng state-listed species from potential impacts. Please be aware that species not occurring during site surveys may utilize the habitat within the project area at times beyond those during which the survey was conducted, such as seasonally or nocturnall>.

Recommendation: TPWD iecoinmends avoiding disturbance of the Texas horned lizard, its burrows, and colonies of its primary food source, the harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex spp.), during clearing and construction TPWD recommends providing contractor training where feasible to enable the contractor to identify protected species and to be on the lookout for them during construction.

Recommendation: A mixture of cover, food sources, and open gi·ound are important to the Texas horned lizard Disturbed areas should be re-vegetated with site-specific native, patchy vegetation rather than sod-forming grasses.

Recommendation: TPWD recommends a biological monitor be present during construction to try to relocate Texas horned lizards or other state-listed species if found If the presence of a biological monitor during construction LS not feasible, state-listed threatened species observed during construction should be allowed to safely leave the site or be relocated by a permitted individual to a nearby area with a similar habitat that would not be disturbed during construction. TPWD recommends that any translocations of reptiles be the minimum distance possible no greater than one mile, preferably within 100-200 yards from the initial encounter ]ocation.

Recommendation: hnplementation of the General Construction Recommendanons, discussed above, would serve To minimize risk to Texas horned lizard and other small species of wildlife.

Other Species ofGreatesi Conservation Need

In addition to state and federally protected species, TPWD tracks special features, natural communities, and rare species that are not listed as threatened or endangered but are considered to be species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). TPWD actively promotes theit conservation and considers it important to evaluate and, if necessary, minimize impacts to SGCN and their habitat to reduce the likelihood of endangerinent and preclude the need to list. These species and communities are tracked in the TXNDD.



surveys, jnonitoring, and research, state-listed species may only be handled by persons with the appropnate authonzatlon obtained through the TPWD Wildlife Permits Program. For more information on this authorization. please contact the Wildlife Permits Office at (512) 389-4647.

TPWD provides online access to state-listed species information through the TPWD Rare, Ihreatened, and Endangered Species of Texas by County (RTEST) application. This application provides county-level information regarding the occurrence of protected species (federal or state-listed threatened or endangered) and may be utilized to inform development project planning. The RTEST application underwent a maior update in 2019. Additionally, records of occurrence for these protected species are tracked within the Texas Natural Diversity Database GXNDD) and are publicly available by request.

Section 4.4.4.4 of the EA does acknowledge potential habitat for multiple state-listed species as occumng within the project area. The EA states that "If federally or state-listed species are observed during construction, they would be allowed to leave the area of their own accord. State-listed species can be relocated by a TPWD permitted bio] ogist to suitable habitat outside of the Project workspaces."

Recommendation: TFWD recommends that if a federally listed species is observed within the pioject area, work should immediately cease and the USFWS should be contacted for further guidance. Slate threatened species should be allowed to leave the area unharmed or be relocated by a permitted individual (as noted in the EA) For purposes of relocation, surveys, monitoring, and research, terrestrial state-listed species inay only be handled by persons permitted through the TPWD Wildlife Permits Office.

The proJect is located within the Central Flyway Migratory Corridor for migratory birds and could negatively impacl the following state-threatened bird species:

• reddish egret (Egretta rufeseem) • swallow-tailed kite (Elanoidesfbdieatw) • white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) • white-tailed hawk (Buieo albkaudatus) • wood stork (Mvcteria americana)

Recommendation: Please review the Federal Law Ahgratory Btrd 7'reaty Act section above for recommendations as they will aid in the minimization of impacts to state-listed birds.

Additionally, the state threatened Texas horned lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) appears to have habitat available within the study area [f prebent in the project area, the'l exas horned lizard could be impacted by ground disturbing activities dunng construction. A useful indication that the Texas horned lizard may occupy the site is the presence of harvester ant (Pogonommnex spp ) nests slnee harvester ants are the primary food source of l'exas horned lizards

Texas horned lizards are generally active during spring through fatl. At that time of ye~, they may be able to avoid slow (less than 15 miles per hour) moving equipment. For the

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RAMYA RAMASWAMY Junel, 2021


The PWC authorizes the departinent to investigate fish kills and any type of pollution that may cause toss of fish or wildlife resources, estimate the monetary value of lost resources, and seek restitution or restoration froni the party responsible for the fish kill or pollution through suit in county or district court. The TAC requires the department to actively seek full rest,tution for and/or restoration of fish. wildlife, and habitat loss occurring as a result of human activities. The restitution palue of lost resources can be significant, in particular for species Clabsified as threatened or endangered. Restitution for each individual of a threatened species is at least $500 and for each individual of an endangered species is at least $1,000 in addition, the PWC makes it a criminal offense to kill any fish or wildlife resources classified as threatened or endangered.

Recommendation: If construction or maintenance related activities within water resources are anticipated to occur, then TPWD recommends CenterPoint Energy coordinate with TPWD Kills and Spills Team (KAST) to develop a plan to avoid impacts to aquatic i esour¢es and, in some instances, relocate aquatic resources outside of the project area. The coordination process should include the development of a written Aquatic Resources Relocatlon Plan (ARRP) to control and limit the impacts of construction, operation or maintenance related projects on aquatic resources An ARRP for this project can be submitted to Mr. Paul Silva ([email protected]) with the TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division.

Recommendation: lf construction occurs during times when water is present in streams and dewatering activities or other harmful construction activities are involved, then TPWD recommends relocating potentially impacted native aquatic resources in conjunet\on w\~h the Permit to Introduce Fish, Shelwsh, or Aquatic Plants into Public Waters and an ARRP. The A RRP should be completed and approved by the department 30 days prior to dewatering and/or resource relocation and submitted with the apphcahon for a no-cost Permit to Introduce Fish. Shelljish, or Aquatic Plants in{o Pubhc Waters. Center Point Energy must receive fonnal approval of the ARRP by TPWD prior io initiating dewatering, maintenance, or construction-related activities

Recommendations: TPWD recommends the use of BMPs for riparian areas to minimize potential impacts to sensitive aquatic orgamsms. BMPs would include measures such as avoiding construction during spawning periods and use of double silt fences and doubling soil stabilization measures along the banks to avoid increasing the turbidity of the creek. ffdewatering activities and otl~er project-related activities cause mortality to fish and wildlife species, then the responsible party ~ould be subject to investigation by the TPWD EAST and will be liable for the value of the lost iesources under the authority of PWC sections 12.0011 (b)(1) and 12.301.

State Law Parks and Wildlife Code, Section 68015

PWC section 68.015 regulates state-listed threatened and endangered animal species Please note that there is no provision for the capture, trap, take, or killing (incidenta] or otherwise) of state-listed threatened and endangered animal species ib unlawful unless expressly authorized under a permit issued by the USFWS or TPWD A copy of TPWD Protection of State-Listed Species Guidelines. which includes a list of penalties for take of species, can be found online at the TPWD Wildlife Habitat Assessment Program. Laws and Regulattons Applicable to TPWD Review webpage. For purposes of relocation,


SOAH Docket No. 473-2 I -1431 PUC Docket No. 51568 Page 36

are known to be year-round or seasonal residents or seasonal migrants through the proposed project area.

Recommendation: Please review the Federal Law Migratory Bird Treaty Act section above for recommendations as they are also applicable for chapter 64 of the PWC compliance.

State Law. Aquatic Resources

PWC section 1.011 grants TPWD authority to iegulate and conserve aquatic animal life of public waters. Title 31, chapter 57, subchapter B, section 57.157 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) regulateb take ofmussels and dams, and section 12.301 of the PWC identifies tiabihty for wildlife taken in violation of PWC or a regulation adopted under PWC

Intertnittent streams and smaller pcrennial streams provide important habitats for fish by pioviding spawning and nursery habitat as well as providing invertebiate, detritus, and other organic matter to downstream food webs Fish also serve as hosts for mussei larvae and are essential in completing the mussel life cycle. Because the waters of the project area may provide important fish habitat, avoiding impacts to stream habitat, fish, musseIs, and other aquatic life during construction is encouraged

Section 1 3 3 of the EA notes that a Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SW1'PP) may be requited and such a plan would be implemented prior to tree and shrub clearing. No details are provided on what specific measures the SWPPP would include Section 4 4.3. 1 of the EA states that transmission line structures would be located outside of lhe ordinary high-water mark for any surface water and that none of the water features within the project area exceed the typical span width of the project. No details are provided regarding the crossing of surface waters by equipment, dewatering, or similar activities.

Recommendation: To avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts to aquatic species, TPWD recommends implementing additional construction methodologies and beneficial inanageinent practices (BMPs), including constructing stream crossings that do not obstruct flow and ensuring that permanent or temporary fills do not smother freshwater m ussels

Recommendation: To minimize disturbance to streams and to minimize impacts to aquatic life, TPWD recommends allowing personnel and equipment to enter streams only when essential to the work being done If work would be conducted within riparian areas, only vegetation impeding construction should be removed, equipment should not be driven over vegetation when it is wet, and heavy machinery should not be stored on the vegetative cover for long periods of time. Protective mats should be utilized during construction to reduce the amount of soil and root disturbance and aid in the recovery of plants,

Dewatering, maintenance, and construction-related activities in rivers, creeks, streams, lakes, sloughs, reservoirs, bays, estuaries, stilling basins, and other flood control structures may negatively impact fish, shellfish, and other aquatic resources. TPWD is the state agency with primary responsibility for protecting tile state's fish and wildlife resources.



156 to September 156), ifpractical. If clearing occurs during the bird nesting season, nest surveys completed ahead of construction would facilitate identification and avoidance of active bird nests."

Recommendation: TPWD supports thls commitment. TPWD recommends any PUC certificate precludes vegetation clearing activities during the general bird nesting season, March 15 through September 15. to avoid adverse impacts to birds If clearing vegetation during bird nesting season is unavoidable, TPWD recommends Centei·Point Energy survey the proposed route for active nests (nests wtlh eggs or young) TPWD recommends that a minimum 150-foot buffer of vegetation remain around any nests that are observed prior to disturbance and occupied nests and buffer vegetation not be dtsturbed until the eggs have hatched and the young have fledged.

Section 4.4.4.3 also states that electrocution hazards to birds would be low, because the distance between conductorb or conductor and ground wire exceeds the wlngspan of birds in the area. Further. the EA states, "CenterPoi nt Energy has an estabJ ished avian protection plan program implemented through the CenterPoint Energy's Environmental Departinent. Once a PUC approved route js selected, CenterPoint Energy will evaluate avian habitats, and potential high use avian flyways along the route and identify mid implement appropriate avian protection measures, where necessary "

Recommendation: TPWD Iecomntends minimizing ele¢trocutlon hazards to perching birds and marking lines in areas of high bird ilse to minimize collision risks, For additional information, please see the guidelines published by USFWS and the Avian Power Lines Interaction Committee (APLIC) in the updated guidance document Reducing Avian Colhsions with Power Lines: State oj the Art in 2012. This manual, released on December 20,2012, identifies beneficial practices and provides specific guidance to help electric utilities and cooperatives reduce bird collisions with power lines A companion document Suggested Practices for Avian Protection on Power Lines, was published by APLIC and the USFWS tn 2006

Federal Law Endangered Specres Act

Federally listed animal species and their habitat are protected from take on any property by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 'lake of a federalty listed species can be allowed if it is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity and must be permitted in accordance with Section 7 or 10 ofthe ESA Any take ofa federally listed species or its habitat without the iequired take permit from the USFWS is a violation ofthe ESA

Recommendation: The USFWS should be contacted for species occurrence data, guidance, permitting, survey protocols, and mitigation for federally listed species.

State Law Parks and Wildlife Code - Chapter 64, Birds

PWC section 64.002, iegarding the protection of nongame birds. provides that, no person may catch, kill, injure, pursue, or possess a bird that is not a game bird. PWC section 64.003, regarding destroying nests or eggs, provides that no person may destroy or take the nests, eggs, or young and any wild game bird, wild bird, ot wild fowl. Many bird species that arc not listed as threatened or endangered are protected by chapter 64 ofthe PWC and



be maintained for the life of the project and only removed after the construction is completed and the disturbed site has been revegetated.

Recommendation: For soil stabilization and/or revegetalion of all disturbed areas within the project area, TPWD recommends erosion and seed/mulch stabilization materials that avoid entanglement hazards to wildlife species. Because the mesh found in many et·osion control biankets or mats poses an entanglement hazard to wildlife, TPWD recommends the use of no-till drilling, hydromulching and/or hydroseeding rather than erosion control blankets or mats due to reduced risk to wildlife. If erosion control blankets or mats will be used, the product should contain no netting or contain loosely woven, natural fiber netting in which the mesh design allows the threads to move, therefore allowing expansion of the mesh openings. Plastic mesh matting and hydromulch containing microplastics should be avoided.

Recommendation: Any mulched vegetation left in place to provide soil remediation should be Iess than 2 Inches thick. The mulch that is left in place should not inhibit revegetation of the right-of-way (ROW).

Recommendation: Inappropriately timed trimming and/or clearing can contribute to oak wit a disease that has killed over 1 million trees in Texas TPWD advises against vegetation clearing between February 1 and June ! 5, which is the highest risk season for oak wilt. The use of a rotary mower along ROW borders leaves splintered, jagged cuts and adjacent vegetation communities become vulnerable to disease and infestations (e.g. oak wilt. oak decline). Regardless of the season, all trimming cuts or other wounds to oak trees, including freshly cut stumps and damaged surface roots, should be treated immediately with a wound or latex paint to prevent exposure to co,itaminated insect vectors 7PWD's pritnary recommendation is to avoid impacts to native woodIands; if impacts are unavoidable, '[PWD recommends hand-clearing within areas of native oaks.

Recommendation: Maintenance ROW mowing should be timed to occur between September and December If the conditions are too dry and pose a fire or other safety hazard, mowing should be postponed until conditions allow for safe mowing

Recommendation: During construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facility, TPWD recommends observing slow (25 miles per hour, or less) speed limits within the project site. Reduced speed limits would allow personnel to see wildlife in the vehicle path and avoid harming them

Federal Law Migratory Bird Treaty Act

'fhe Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits direct and affirmative purposeful actions that reduce migratory birds, their eggs, or their nests, by ki I I ing or capturing, to human control, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. This protection applies to most native bird species, including ground nesting species.

Section 4.4.4.3 of the EA states, "CenterPoint Energy proposes to complete all ROW clearing and all construction activities in compliance with the MBTA to avoid or minimize potential impacts. ROW clearing wotild occur outside of the bird nesting season (March



16. Length of route across known habitat of federal endangered/threatened species of plants or animals

17. Length of route across open water (lakes or ponds) 18. Number of stream or river crossings 19. Length of route parallel (within 100 feet) to streams or rivers

'fPWD typically recommends that transmission line routes be located adjacent to previously disturbed areas sucb as existing utility or transportation ROWs and discourages fragmenting habitat or locating in areas that could directly impact wildlife, including federally and state-listed species. After careful evaluation ofthc seven routes filed with the CCN application, TPWD considers Route 4 lo be the route having the least potential to impact fish and wildlife resources. The decision to recommend Route 4 was based primarily on the following factors:

• Is the second shortest route at 3 6 miles. • Utilizes or parallels existing transmission/distribution lines, other existing

compatible ROW, or apparent property lines or other natural or cultural features for approximately 92 percent of its length (highest among all seven routes);

• Is among the routes with lower impacts to upland woodlands, bottomland/riparian woodlands, and NWI wetlands;

• Has no length parallel to streams; and • Crosses no 100-year floodplains.

The EA failed to provide sufficient infoiniatton based on suneys (aerial or field), remote sensing, modeling, or other available analysis techniques to determine which route would best minimize impacts to Important, rare, and protected species Therefore, TPWD's routing recommendation is based solely on the natural resource information provided in the CCN application and the EA, as u ell as publicly available information examined in a Geographic Information System (GIS).

Recommendation: Of the seven routes evaluated in the EA. Route 4 appears to be the route that causes the least adverse impacts to natural resources. 'rPWD's primary recommendation to the PUC is to select a route that minimizes the fragmentation of intact lands because such a route should have the least adverse impacts on natural resources. TPWD believes the Stale's long-term interests are best served when new utility lines and pipelines are sited where possible in or adjacent to existing utility corridors, roads, or rail lines instead o f fragmenting intact lands.

Construction Recommendations

General Construction Recommendations

Recommendation: TPWD recommends the judicious use and placement of sediment control fence to exclude wildlife from the construction area where practical In many cases, sediment control fence placement for the purposes of controlling erosion and protecting water quality can be modified minimally to also provide the benefit of excluding wildlife access to construction areas For linear projects, fencing can be limited to active-construction areas within the project site. The exclusion fence should be buried at least six inches and be at least 24 inches high. The exclusion fence should



And like each of the other alternative routes, Route 3

• Crosses no parksh·ecrcatlona! areas • Has no additional parks/recieational areas within 1,000 feet of the ROW

centerli ne • Crosses no IJS Highways or SHs • Crosses no FM roads • Has no heliports within 5,000 feet of its ROW centerline • Has no FAA registered airports with at least one runway more than 3,200 feet in

length within 20,000 feet of lhe ROW centerline • Has no FAA registered airports with a runway more than 3,200 feet in length

within 10,000 feet of the ROW centerlule • Has no AM radio transmissions within 10,000 feet of the ROW centerline • Has no length within the foreground visual zone of US Highways oi State

Highways • Has no length within the foreground visual zone of parks/recreational areas • Has no length across critical habitat of federally listed threatened or endangered

species • Has no cenieterles within 1,000 feet ofthe ROW centeiline • Crosses no recorded archeological sites • Crosses no National Register of Historic Places (NR-HP) sites and is not located

within 1,000 feet of any additional NRHP sites

TPWD's Recommended Roule

To evaluate the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources, 19 critena from Table 4-! in the EA were used The criteria PPWD used to evaluate potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources include:

1. Length of alternative route 2. Length of routc utilizing existing electric facility ROW (transmission) 3. Length of route utilizing existing electi ic facility ROW (distribution) 4. Length o f route parallel to existing electric facility ROW (transmission) 5. Length of route parallel to existing electric facility ROW (distribution) 6. Length of route parallel to other existing compatible ROW (highway, roads,

railway, etc.) 7. Sum of criteria 2 through 6 above 8. Percent of route length for evaluation criteria 2 through 6 above 9. Length of route parallel to apparent property lines (or other natural or cultulal

features) 10. Length of route across parks/reor¢ational areas 1 1 Number of additional parks/recreational areas within 1,000 feetofthe route

ccntcrline 12 Estimated length of route within foreground visual zone of parks/recreational

areas 13. 1.ength of route across upland woodlands t 4. Length of route across bottomland/riparian woodlands 15. Length of route across NWI mapped wetlands


SOAH Docket No. 473-21-1431 PUC DocketNo. 51568 Page 41

Data Reporting and the Texas Natural Diversitv Database

As mentioned earlier in this letter, TPWD maintains records of occurrence for SGCN within the TXNDD and these data are publicly available by request. The TXNDD is intended to assist users in avoiding harm to rate species or significant ecological features. The TXNDD iS updated continuously and relies partially on information submitted by private parties, such as developers ortheir consultants. Given the small proportion of public versus private land in Texas, the TXNDD does not include a comprehensive inventory of rare resources in the state. The absence of information in the database does not imply that a species is absent from that area A Ithough it is based on the best data available to TPWD regarding rare species and communities, the data from the TXNDD do not provide a definitive statement as to the presence, absence or coiidition of special species, natural communities, or other significant features within your project area. 'rhey represent species that could potentially be in your project area. This information cannot be substituted for field surveys. For questions regarding a record or to request the most recent data, please contact TexasNatural DiversityDatabase@tpwd texas.gov.

Recommendation: The TXNDD is updated continuously based on new or updated records, therefore, TPWD recommends requesting the most recent TXNDD data on a regular basis.

Recommendation: To aid in the scientific knowledge of a bpecies' status and current range, TPWD encourages reporting encounters of protected and rare species to the ['XNDD accordingtothe datasubmittal instructions found at the TPWD Texas Natural Diversity Database: Submit Data webpage.

TPWD appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this EA. If you have any questions, please contact Wildlife Habitat Assessment Biologist Ms Rachel Lange by email at rachel [email protected] gov or by phone at (979) 732-4213 Thank you for your favorable consideration.

Sincerely,

14#»»\-L2 John Silovsky

Wildlife Division Director

JS:RL:bdk

cc: Mr. Robert W Jackson


Control Number: 51568 Item Number: 58 Addendum StartPage: 0

Documents

Transcript of Control Number: 51568 Item Number: 58 Addendum StartPage: 0