Appellants tell court commission failed to verify reliability needs and properly consider undergrounding for Loudoun transmission line

Adam B. Winston, counsel for Loudoun County, told the Supreme Court that the State Corporation Commission erred by failing to "verify" the assumptions that produced the project's asserted need and by effectively shifting the burden of proposing underground routes onto localities.

Winston said staff's work "verified the power flow models" mathematically but did not "verify the reliability needs" that underlie the in-service date and project justification. "The point of a verification is to find the truth of the matter," Winston said, arguing that without independent review of inputs such as future interconnection forecasts the commission could not properly assess need and timing. He asked the court to vacate the commission's order and remand for further proceedings.

Brian S. Turner, counsel for the Lansdowne Conservancy, pressed a related statutory claim under Code section 56-46.1(a), saying that the commission failed to impose conditions to minimize environmental impacts and that "the obligation is on the commission, not the county." Turner urged the court to address assignment of error 7 on that basis.

Responding for Vepco, Brian D. Schmalzbach said the commission made three factual findings now on appeal: "the threat to reliability is real and imminent," the company's proposed overhead line "reliably neutralizes that threat," and an underground route "would not resolve that threat because it cannot reliably be constructed before the deadline." Schmalzbach pointed to staff's report and testimony and said contingency analyses (including n-minus-1 stress testing and generation deliverability) were performed and available for cross-examination.

John F. Dudley, counsel for the State Corporation Commission, told the court the commission "took all the actions that are required by statute" and that the record supports the commission's decision not to order undergrounding for the particular 500 kV/230 kV circuits at issue.

During argument the justices pressed both sides. One justice asked whether staff's verification of power-flow models would answer the county's concern; Winston agreed the models were verified mathematically but said that did not reach the statute's requirement to verify the underlying reliability needs. The court also questioned whether conclusory testimony that checks were performed would bind the factfinder when other evidence disputed the inputs.

Winston further argued a structural problem: he said the company's position that it will not propose underground options when an overhead route exists leaves localities responsible for designing underground alternatives, which in practice makes the statutory "consideration" of undergrounding empty. The company responded that the commission did consider cost, benefits and impediments, and that there are precedents where the commission required or the company proposed undergrounding when appropriate.

The argument centered on statutory interpretation of verification and the scope of the commission's obligation under the electric-utility code; counsel for the parties differed on whether the record shows an adequate, independent review of the assumptions that produced the asserted reliability need and whether undergrounding was meaningfully considered. The court heard rebuttal from Winston and reserved decision.

The court did not issue a decision at argument. A ruling will follow after the justices consider the parties' briefs and the oral argument.