Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-01-1997 - 4a 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Action Agenda Item No. 4-a ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: December 1, 1997 SUBJECT: Manager's Report on Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation Distribution Line DEPARTMENT: County Manager PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) BUDGET AMENDMENT: (Y/N) ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Study Area Map and Alternative Routes John M. Link, Jr. November 14 Letter from PEMC to Residents TELEPHONE NUMBERS: --ext. 2300 November 20 PEMC News Release Hillsborough 732-8181 November 24 PEMC Letter Responding to Chapel Hill 968-4501 Questions Durham 688-7331 Overview and Map of Rural Buffer Mebane 227-2031 Map of Service Area Response to Additional Questions PURPOSE: To receive a Manager's report with regard to Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation's (PEMC)planned 100 kv distribution line and substation in the vicinity of NC 86 and New Hope Church Road. BACKGROUND: On November 19, 1997, a number of concerned citizens were present at the Board of Commissioners meeting to voice opposition to an overhead electricity distribution line planned by PEMC. At that time, four potential routes were being studied. PEMC has since selected route C as the preferred option. In the letter dated November 24 (Attachment 4) PEMC has responded to the questions conveyed to the Board of Commissioners by concerned citizens at the November 19 meeting. A related item on this agenda is information concerning the history and purpose of the Joint Planning Area and Rural Buffer. The selected route is located within the Rural Buffer,near its northern boundary. RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive as information. Attachment 1 Swdy 2 AT=Buundary �...r�. ;.� 3wxgdm Amu O i ' r .� •• .♦-60M s 0 YAWL ftib 't PROPERTY BOUNDARIES TAKEN FROM ORANGE COUNTY TAX MAPPING. PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION MAKES NO REPRESENTATION REGARDING Piedmont Electric ITS ACCURACY. THEREFORE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MORE OR FEWER PROPERTIES MAY BE Membership Corporation CROSSED BY ANY ROUTE SHOWN. Attachment 2 3 Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation , FI 0—.0M,0" LED General Office:P.O.Drawer 1179 • Hillsborough,N.C.27278 • (919)732-2123 • N.C.WATS: - 22-3107-• Fax- 919)644-1030 Branch Office:P.O.Box 1327 • Roxboro,N.C.27573 (910)599-0151 • Fax:(910)597-9w : RAJ November 14 1997 BY Dear New Hope Residents: Thank you for participating in our New Hope Project siting process. We appreciate your comments and want you to know that we have heard your concerns. As a result of input from residents in the study area, we are carefully reviewing all route evaluation factors which will help identify our final preferred route. This review is to ensure that maximum appropriate importance is given to all factors relating to homes and neighborhoods. Please remember, though, we must consider a vast array of factors dealing with both the environment and land uses — both private and public. We have an obligation to private homeowners and the community at-large to be good stewards of the land. And, we take that obligation seriously. We are diligently working to ensure that every factor is weighed carefully in the decision. The selection process has our full attention, and we hope to select the preferred route before the beginning of the year. Of course, we will notify those directly affected first, then everyone else shortly thereafter. Again, thank you for your interest in the project. Please be assured that your input is being given every consideration. Sincerely, z R. G. Brecheisen General Manager Serving Orange, Person,Caswell, Alamance, Durham, and Granville Counties Attachment 3 4 NEWs LEASE Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation Post Of tce Drawer 1179 For additional Infiorn adon,Contact: Hillsborough,North Carolina 27278 R G.Brechelsen,General Manager Telephone: (919) 732-2123 For Inunediate Release Fax: (919)684-1030 Noveneber 20,1997 Piedmont EMC Selects Route for Transmission Line HILLSBOROUGH—Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) has selected a route (Route"C) which runs east to west, crossing both University Station and Murphy School roads, to connect its proposed substation to an existing transmission line, according to Richard Mabbott, Manager of Energy Services. The decision was made after eight months of gathering data, requesting input from the community and working with experts in related fields. "Our primary goal is to balance environmental factors with engineering and real estate considerations," Mr. Mabbott explains, adding the siting process was developed and carried through by professionals from Duke Engineering& Services. The factors thoroughly examined during the siting process were: cultural and natural resources, land cover, property ownership, land use, occupied buildings, public visibility, residential visibility and water quality. (see sidebar information) When the public data gathering process began in July, questionnaires were sent to 860 New Hope Community residents and landowners requesting input on their primary concerns. Residents in the area were invited to attend a public workshop to discuss these concerns and to answer questions they had. (More) f I J Piedmont EMC Page 2 Using input from the community as well as established siting criteria, Piedmont EMC and its consulting firm narrowed the selection to four routes and invited those in the area to a second public meeting. "Piedmont EMC takes its responsibilities very seriously. We asked for input, we listened to what the public said and we have responded with the selection of a route that satisfies both the concerns of the majority of the community as well as the engineering needs of the Cooperative," Mr. Mabbott says. The Orange County Board of Commissioners had requested Piedmont EMC to postpone the selection of the route until its December meeting. "We wanted to balance the wishes of the Board with the wishes of the community. But, to be responsive to the county commissioners' desire for a delay, we felt we would be extending the anxiety of the residents in the New Hope Community by withholding the route we have selected," said the Cooperative's spokesperson, adding that Piedmont EMC will make a presentation on the transmission project at the December Orange County Board of Commissioners meeting as requested. The actual decision on the route was made November 17, and a process was put in motion to announce the decision by the end of the week. A November 21 deadline for receiving additional questionnaires from the public and adequate time to contact landowners along the selected route dictated the timing of the announcement. "We appreciate the input from the community as we went through the siting process. We honestly asked for comments from the residents, and we listened to what they had to say. This is the way the siting process is designed to work, and I'm glad to see that it does," Mr. Mabbott said. The initial decision to locate a substation in the New Hope Community came after concentrated study on the requirements needed to continue to provide quality electric service to the member-consumers of Piedmont EMC. (More) Piedmont EVC Page 3 6 "Central Orange County is growing in population. In fact, this area's annual growth rate continues to be significantly higher than the state's average. Because of this growth-6.5 percent annually—Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) must upgrade existing electrical facilities or add a new substation and transmission line in the area of Interstate 40 and Highway 86 to be able to meet our customers' future power needs," explains David Obenshain, Manager of Engineering. An economic analysis determined it would be more cost effective to build the substa- tion and transmission line now rather than postpone construction of new facilities and upgrade existing facilities. The substation location was based on where the greatest electric load is located. (Load center is defined as the area where an approximate equal amount of load is on all sides of the substation and where natural circuit feeders exist or can be developed.) The two areas with the most load which helped define the load center are north of New Hope Church Road on Highway 86 and the area around Arthur Minnis, Kimbro, Borland and Union Grove Church roads. Work is scheduled to begin on the line in early 1998, and should be completed by the end of next year, according to Piedmont EMC's spokesperson. 7 ol; NEWS WLEASE Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation Post Offlce Drawer 1179 For Additional Information,Contact. HillsboroKgh,North Carolina 27278 R. G. Brechelsen,General Manager Telephone. (919) 732-2123 For Immediate Release Fax: (919)"4-1030 November 20,1997 Siting Process for Piedmont EMC Transmission Line The following factors were considered in the siting process of Piedmont EMC's New Hope Transmission line, as defined by the Cooperative's consultant, Duke Engineering & Services: (T) cultural and natural resources—archaeological sites, natural heritage sites and historic buildings; (2) land cover—types of forests, cropland, pasture, etc.; (3) property ownership—recognition of public and privately held land and its use; (4) land use—agricultural, residential, recreational, educational, commercial, etc.; (5) occupied buildings—residences, community buildings, schools, churches, commercial, as well-as buffer zones drawn around them; (6) public visibility—the degree to which a future line would be seen from public roads (7) residential visibility—the degree to which a future line would be seen from residents (8) water quality—effects of line on streams and wetlands. 94 factors were weighted within these eight categories to represent their degree of influence on line routing. The weights were determined by balancing the requirements of environmental regulations, sensitivity to impacts and responses from the community. 8 SQxW Area Bounda n. j F v , ,r Nw Hope Submdon�+ ;_ •sue ee ' , -• fie:_, • y. i PROPERTY BOUNDARIES TAKEN FROM ORANGE COUNTY TAX MAPPING. PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION MAKES NO REPRESENTATION REGARDING Piedmont Electric ITS ACCURACY. THEREFORE, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MORE OR FEWER ES MAY BE Membership Corporation CROSSED BY ANY ROUTE SHOWN Attachment 4 9 �! Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation loF—�MA- General Office:P.O.Drawer 1179 • Hillsborough,N.C.27278 • (919)732-2123 • N.C.WATS: 1-800-222-3107 Fax: (919)644-1030 Branch Office:P.O.Box 1327 • Roxboro,N.C.27573 • (910)599-0151 • Fax:(910)597-9088 November 24, 1997 Mr. William L. Crowther Chairman, Orange County Commissioners P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough,North Carolina 27278 Dear Mr. Crowther: Thank you for your letter of November 20, 1997. I am sorry to read of your disappointment in the announcement of Piedmont Electric Membership Corporation's selection of Route C for our transmission line project. You may recall that I spoke with you by telephone the day of the County Commissioners' Meeting regarding this issue. I understood that siting of our transmission line route was not an agenda item for your meeting. Piedmont EMC anticipated that citizens who came to the meeting to speak on the siting process would be allowed to do so in accordance with your practice of allowing concerned citizens to speak their mind on any issue that they found important whether it was an agenda item or not. Richard Mabbott from Piedmont EMC attended the meeting primarily to respond to any questions that the County Commissioners might have had. Thus, we were surprised that the County Commissioners took any action. Piedmont EMC had anticipated announcing a decision regarding a preferred transmission route around the first of the year. We were able to accelerate that decision thanks to the rapid response from the public once the four alternate routes were proposed. A significant portion of the work required to evaluate the four proposed routes was completed prior to our public workshop on November 6. The purpose of that meeting was to gain additional public comment on the four alternatives. I would remind you that all of the County Commissioners were invited not only to that meeting, but to the earlier meeting on July 31. When you held your meeting on November 18, 1997, we had already made the decision to choose Route C as our preferred route and we were in the process of implementing our communication plan to announce the selection of our preferred route. On November 19, we were in the process of notifying landowners along Route C to discuss the purchase of the necessary right of way, and once we had done that, our intent was to announce the decision to all the landowners in the study area. This was accelerated only when it became clear that there was nothing to be gained from any further delay in the decision; to do so only keeps all of the potentially affected land owners in abeyance as to any prospective plans regarding their property and further heightens their anxiety. It would be disingenuous and perhaps even deceptive for Piedmont to postpone a decision that it already had reached only to present the appearance that we were pondering that decision as we awaited the December 1 meeting. Serving Orange, Person,Caswell, Alamance, Durham, and Granville Counties 2 10 Despite the characterization of our process by the concerned citizens as being too fast, this decision was reached only after an extremely comprehensive process conducted over an eight month study period beginning in April, 1997, and including ample opportunities for input from the public. Although we are not governed by the procedures set forth in NCGS 62-100 giving the Utilities Commission authority to regulate this process, we have been guided by them; our process has integrity. Attached are answers to the questions you asked us to respond to in your November 20 letter. We stand at your disposal to explain the need for our substation and the process that was used to select our preferred transmission route. To that end we look forward to having the opportunity to make a presentation to you at your December 1, 1997 County Commissioners' meeting. Sincerely, PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION /?-11 10�e� R. G. Brecheisen Executive Vice President and General Manager RGB:rh c: Dr. Stephen Halkiotis Ms. Margaret Brown Mrs. Alice Gordon Mr. Moses Carey 11 November 24, 1997 Response to Orange County Board of Commissioners Questions Reference letter of November 20, 1997 Question 1: Does Piedmont EMC fully accept and appreciate and understand that the residents and property owners affected by proposed routes A and B are unanimous in opposing these routes? Yes. Piedmont EMC received numerous calls, letters, and a petition signed by approximately 125 residents and property owners along proposed routes A and B expressing opposition to the selection of these routes. Question 2: Given the fact that the residents and property owners have expressed their unified opposition to proposed routes A and B,why does Piedmont persist in maintaining that all four proposed line routes are still under consideration and are"in areas where the effect would be minimal?" Piedmont EMC understands and appreciates the opinions and views which have been expressed publicly by people who live in the vicinity of the proposed routes (A, B, C, and D). Many issues have been voiced including concerns about property values, aesthetics and electric and magnetic fields. PEMC has executed a comprehensive siting process that is regarded to be the standard for the electric utility industry. The siting process meets the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act which requires the complete consideration and analysis of alternate routing opportunities. PEMC is under the jurisdiction of NEPA through the Rural Utilities Services which is a federal agency. The process is designed to thoroughly investigate, analyze and account for the full array of issues and factors which must have influence on transmission line routing decisions. A community survey was conducted and the results were analyzed, tabulated, and organized for the purpose of inclusion in the siting process. Moreover,PEMC conducted two community workshops where every landowner and resident in the study area,the County Board of Commissioners, and representatives of the N. C. Utilities Commission were invited to discuss, offer comments and to fully inform themselves about the project. All routes (A, B, C, and D)were shown because they are all located in relatively low constraint regions of the project study area and to stimulate and invite open, constructive dialogue regarding all routes. 12 Based on the array of factors considered (93 factors within 8 evaluation categories), comments received from the public, the results of a community survey and the application of a comprehensive siting process by experienced professionals, Piedmont is confident that all routes (A ,B, C and D) were viable routes when compared to any other possible routing opportunity in the study area. Question 3: Why does the study area constrain the investigation to routes from the south and east only, and not the north or west? At the beginning of the routing study in April, 1997, Piedmont EMC assumed that possible routing opportunities existed to the north where existing Duke Power transmission 100,000 and 44,000 volt lines could be tapped to provide bulk power to the proposed substation. Additionally, PEMC believed that an existing Duke 230,000 volt line north of the electrical load center(the substation site) could serve as a source of bulk power. PEMC instructed its siting consultant to simultaneously study routing opportunities from these Duke lines and to open discussions with Duke regarding their possible use as sources of bulk power. Three developments occurred which ruled out the practicality of a supply from the north: 1. Duke would not allow use of the 230 kV or 44 kV lines as a power source because of electrical capacity and reliability reasons 2. Duke indicated that the fee associated with tapping the 100 kV line would be an amount that would be unreasonable to recover from our consumers; and 3. Our siting consultants, Duke Engineering & Services, determined that intense development between the Duke 230, 100, 44 kV lines, and the load center would rule out any routing opportunities which would minimize effects on the environment and people when compared to routing opportunities to the east and south. There were no bulk power sources to the west, and therefore no alternate routes. Question 4: Will Piedmont agree to connect power to the new substation from a source to the north of the substation? If the answer is no, please explain your reasoning. See response to question 3. 2 13 Question 5: Once Piedmont establishes a new power line,what is the probability that the capacity of the line will be increased in the future? Piedmont EMC has no plans to ever increase the voltage or capacity of the line. Our long range plans show that the line will be capable of meeting our load projections throughout the 20-year planning period. Question 6: Before making a decision,will Piedmont demonstrate and clearly explain to the public the criteria, data, reasoning and analyses it used to determine best placement of substations and the power lines? Piedmont EMC has conducted two community workshops to involve the public in the siting process and to demonstrate how the process is executed in a fair, balanced, comprehensive manner. Piedmont will be available to conduct a third public disclosure at the Orange County Commissioners meeting on December 1, 1997, if requested. Question 7: If,as Piedmont's surveys indicated,the company wishes to avoid densely populated areas,why has it directed proposed routes A and B through the populous part of the study area? Proposed Routes A, B, C, and D attempted to avoid population centers to the maximum extent possible. 3 Attachment 5 14 AN OVERVIEW OF THE RURAL BUFFER On October 13, 1986, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Chapel Hill Town Council adopted the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan; the Town of Carrboro adopted the plan the following year. The plan identified Transition areas where urban development was to occur as well as a Rural Buffer where very low density residential development was permitted. The Rural Buffer is located adjacent to the planning jurisdictions of the towns.It contains approximately 38,000 acres and is bounded by the New Hope Creek drainage basin to the north, the University Lake watershed to the west, and the area known as the "Southern Triangle" to the south. The Rural Buffer is defined as being a low-density area consisting of single- family homes situated on large lots having a minimum size of two (2) acres. The Rural Buffer is further defined as land which, although adjacent to an Urban or Transition Area, is rural in character and will remain rural, contain low-density residential uses, and not require urban services (public utilities and other town services). The Rural Buffer consists of the following Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan categories: Rural Residential; Agricultural; Public-Private Open Space; Resource Conservation; New Hope Creek Corridor Open Space; Extractive Use; and the overlay category designated University Lake Watershed Area. To conform the Zoning Ordinance/Atlas with the adopted Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, a public hearing was held on November 24, 1986. Amendments proposed included a new zoning district classification, Rural Buffer (RB), the rezoning of approximately 38,000 acres to the new district designation, and a schedule of dimensional requirements applicable within the district. The most significant change proposed was an increase in the minimum residential lot size requirement from 40,000 square feet (0.92 acre) to two (2) acres. On January 5, 1987, the Board of County Commissioners approved the proposed Zoning Ordinance/Atlas amendments. The University Lake Watershed Study prepared in 1989, resulted in a new overlay zoning district (for the University Lake Watershed portion of the Rural Buffer) which,permits the first five lots of a development (on a lot of record) to be two acres , but requires all lots in excess of five to be a minimum of five acres in size. As a component of the Joint Planning Area, the Rural Buffer is governed by the terms of the Joint Planning Agreement. Orange County is responsible for administration of land use ordinances in the Rural Buffer, although the towns are granted courtesy review of proposed developments in the Joint Courtesy Review Area and their respective joint development review areas as depicted in the attached map from the agreement. .......... JOINT ............ `irr::•:}rr�}. ::•s:•,.Ss'':�:i:'r.'•:�::}i:•:�{.2•:i:frr:t•:•ii:•:�•?•}: :•: ''•' v is ! ::::.. ..... ........... }S.h, :�::ii::•,iii>:{tivC;i::vi}....{.:•.: E.i..$:;.a •:Y .:•Y.:w. ?.if}Z•Y.. k• .......................... }:?iV,;:;::; .............. ::: .......... :}{}:;.}• M.vr??;}:?v :}Y •`:'':1}�'ii'::4:Z•.r �F'.: �f v...:. "K4'.rr....'i:L:;i r,: v}{: w �ir••n••i'::%:iii} S;:-} r I::'}'•'}5}}: ..C:. �.::!f.:r•' . '.F`r Y.fY nrcc'': ::::.�:::.�:........:::::.5'•i}}:n•S:v:•� .. ....... ...:;i..;JK.{.r Y{Ci::•y} :::. i::•^ •';}:r ::{l.. ,fr:/��{..{: .Ff:•}}}:4:- ::K{;f::: ::•%!.^tf:/r. ,•SY.N :..I ':•�M.1* ••�r(Sf:::•.v:•:v. ........... :}:4:??4:•?i:•i:itiv}::+:?{{f:•}i:�;:%Y^i�r ..vv::::x. :vi.•:•,I,.,.:::•v:•: •:v :i.;.. :ti{titi;i':�r y:;::•:y•7:.:i::}:: :iD i:•f r •:r :>r.,•ys::Y: :: y,.!- is .,•:::'•.r .. 4R. ; 4•w,':�,+��%i'f;,.�., •..a:....�� ;r•.r,.. ......auwr!Mr.�,,. ...:::r::: ;..•• •irirrr. '`�r'i;� ::: .N}i:i}:-:{}.. f..,�.�. �lE:�•�'; }•:.`r`::.• •:.�::::::::.... . rY..i:_....:::•.::••. v.:ik:::::.;•:.;;,k':.>,.:::. .;...: �!!::;1a1[, :•:.• .:x'.••:;:•:}:•}: •:?.fi: :•i::{•:�` 7�,�,:{ :;s*iit�•t;!:!�N. . M' v.::..,,.•r r..::.. }r •:?{v:fi;ir.:.:••.::: .::: :• :::., :w: ..;. iii.•: ++}:::}...+ , {rte•::f••{?•:.: .•: r:.f yv.::•• :r:.: ... ... ,;i.,, ... r��rY.i}}�•{: ►.� {•:f} .•{{' :' {:•:Fr/rr..r�fil•}"�- {?;?:•f��:Ywii:Yr.:;.:. >y x :•:?;�•.�... •::•.:..ter:.::.:{.s:•}: ': .:::;+i:?•::... .:}.;::.ter?.}:...:.;. •>•.•:•s:??•:::.s!{;,}•:.}: r::::�:�': .. .:::::.. Q .:1 aat . s: :•: :v' ... "::•v: .::::v:.v:.: w::... ... .:::!i:};?:?}:ism:;i::::;:;::.:;�;:$::}}:{{:?�{• •i A .i �•�,i�•'� r C r Ki 2 •� ::..... . . T- ............ r r or •o r is t •ir .. ti r :. ::•: . /.. 7 : • •:: ::i�::: P'•. y vi .•9 C.,. �.. 9 '' O. ... • T T CHAPEL•H L B.T'. A ' ' o. 0 iw�aw v h ................... •v. i o� h. t 2 • y . . O .N : . .Iw • •• �: • CHATHAM CO sc.L[ • —�� University Lake Watershed CHJDA Chapel Hill Joint Planning T in Orange County Development Review Area Carrboro Transition Area 1 in Lake Watershed ,.= Carrboro Transition Area 2 in Carrboro E.T.J. CJDA Carrboro Joint Planning Chapel Hill Transition Area :.::; Chapel Hill/Carrboro Corporate Development Review Area Limits ••••-•••• Carrboro/Chapel Hill Joint Planning Boundary ® JoInt Courtesy- Review Area I Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Existing) Rural Buffer Attachment 6 16 PIEDMONT ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION NEW HOPE SUBSTATION SERVICE TERRITORY \ �♦ 70 �G�G� ♦ I SUBSTATION 4f N PROPOSED I TRANSMISSION , LINE : o — — — — � �, — INTERTIE BORLAND RD. INTERTIE I I ` ; —-' ff.SINAI RD- 1-J. _� -- J- A THUR MINNIS RD ( -} 'I I'W f EUBANKS �! SUBSTATION ' 1 � INTERTIE Z op U / j I / -- EXISTING O / CID TRANSMISSION U i Q7 LINE O If C7 1-40 INTERTIE ' `♦ 00 400 00 Attachment 7 17 Piedmont EMC - New Hope Project What is the New Hope Project? Piedmont EMC needs to build a new substation and transmission line in the New Hope area to provide continued reliable and affordable service to current and future customers. Why does Piedmont EMC need to build this project? Over the last five years demand for electricity in the area has grown at an average of 11.5 % per year. Demand for electricity is expected to continue to grow. We need to build a new substation and transmission line to enable us to continue delivering reliable electric service now and in the future. Once the need to upgrade service was determined,what options did Piedmont EMC consider to accomplish that goal? We examined three possible options: 1. We could add capacity to our existing circuits by increasing the size of the wires. 2. We could increase the voltage of the existing lines. 3. We could build a new substation and transmission line. After careful study, we determined that options 1 and 2 were temporary solutions that would only briefly delay the need for the new substation and transmission line. We selected Option 3 because it was the least-cost solution to handle the load growth and provide the highest reliability to our customers. Was the zoning of the service area considered in the electrical growth projections? Yes. We used zoning data provided to us by Orange County. This particular service area, which is zoned primarily rural buffer, contains 100 vacant lots in existing subdivisions. These lots, coupled with 3,200 acres of undeveloped land, represent the potential for 600- 1,600 additional residential services. Where will the substation be located? The substation will be located just south of the intersection of New Hope Church Road and NC-86. This location is in the center of the affected service area and is convenient to our existing circuits. How will power get to this new substation? We intend to build a transmission line to connect the new substation and our existing transmission line which runs to the south and east of the supply area. We examined alternatives to this plan, including connecting to Duke Power transmission lines in the area. These alternatives were determined to be either too intrusive or not technically feasible. 18 How was the transmission line route determined? An extensive eight-month study indicated the least intrusive and most cost effective route is a 2 `/2 -mile line running east to west, crossing University Station and Murphy School roads. The study sought to balance environmental, engineering and real estate considerations. Was an underground transmission line considered? An underground transmission line was considered, but because it would cost from 6-8 times more than an overhead line, it was not economically feasible. We will make every effort to make the overhead line as compatible as possible with the natural setting. How much will this project cost? We estimate the total project cost will be about $1.8 million. Why was the preferred transmission line route announced on Thursday,November 20? On Monday,November 17, we completed our extensive routing study and identified our preferred route. Before we could announce our decision, we felt obligated to identify and notify the affected property owners along this route. We completed these notifications on Thursday,November 20, which allowed us to make a public announcement. Why did Piedmont EMC not inform the Orange County Commissioners on Wednesday,November 19 that a decision had been made? We felt an obligation to inform the affected property owners along the preferred route first. Why did Piedmont not delay the decision as requested by the Orange County Commissioners? We did not wish to prolong the anxiety voiced by residents along the other proposed routes. How long will the project take? Once construction begins, we estimate the project will take about nine months. We hope to have it completed and energized by the end of 1998.