exhibit j: special factors - tep

Tucson Electric Power Company CEC Application Irvington to Kino 138 kV Transmission Line Project April 2018

J‐1

EXHIBIT J: SPECIAL FACTORS

Describe any special factors not previously covered herein, which applicant believes to

be relevant to an informed decision on its application.

J.1 Introduction

A public involvement program was initiated in August 2016 and continued through March 2018 to notify

and inform the public, agencies, community leaders, and other affected stakeholders about the Project.

J.2 Public Involvement Program Summary

Public participation is an important part of TEP’s environmental planning process. Public involvement and

communications activities were conducted as part of the Project to inform the public of the need and

benefits of the Project, and to solicit public input.

The public planning process was intended to ensure effective and timely communication among TEP staff,

the public, agencies, and stakeholders. TEP used several different public outreach efforts to inform the

affected members of the community in the study area. Those efforts included:

Briefings with community leaders, agencies, and jurisdictions

Two stakeholder workshops

Individual stakeholder meetings

Three newsletter mailings, including comment forms

Two public open house meetings

Project telephone information line

Project email address

Project‐specific webpage on TEP’s Internet website, including an online comment form

Social Pinpoint page with ability to comment

The outreach effort was designed to offer interested parties an opportunity to gain information and

provide input. The public was provided the opportunity to review and comment on the Project. The

various methods of communication and public interaction listed above are explained below.

J.2.1 Stakeholder Briefings and Workshops

In order to introduce the proposed Project, gauge the level of stakeholder concern, and identify potential

issues, individual briefings were conducted with key individuals within the various jurisdictions and

agencies. At these briefings, the Project’s team members explained the purpose and need of the Project,

provided the Project’s description and the environmental siting process, and asked for suggestions and

opinions. In return, the community leaders provided TEP with their input on public concerns and sensitive

resource areas within the study area.


J‐2

In addition, TEP held two stakeholder workshops with stakeholders that had a higher interest in the

Project. The first stakeholder meeting was held on October 23, 2017 at TEP. Fifty‐two (52) individuals were

invited, and 15 agency and organization representatives attended (see Exhibit J‐1.1 for the Stakeholder

Meeting #1 sign‐in sheets). The first stakeholder meeting covered an overview of the project, the role of

the Arizona Corporation Commission and Line Siting Committee in the process, and the results of TEP’s

initial research and results of the Geographic Information System (GIS) macro‐spatial analysis. The group

discussed opportunities and constraints for the project (see Exhibit J‐2.1 for the PowerPoint presentation

that was used). Notes from Stakeholder Meeting #1 are located in Exhibit J‐3.1.

The second stakeholder meeting was held on December 11, 2017 at TEP. Eighty‐four (84) individuals were

invited and 19 agency and organization representatives attended, as well as 12 students from Southside

Community School (see Exhibit J‐1.2 sign‐in sheets). The second stakeholder meeting covered an

overview of the project, the stakeholder role, results of the GIS micro‐spatial analysis, and next steps (see

Exhibit J‐2.2 for the PowerPoint presentation that was used). Notes from Stakeholder Meeting #2 are

located in Exhibit J‐3.2.

Community leaders and other stakeholders are listed in Table 9.

Table 9. Stakeholder List and Participation Level

AGENCY/ORGANIZATION NAME AREA OF

INTEREST/TITLE Level of

Participation

US Elected Officials/Staff

US Senator Flake (c/o Bob Brubaker)

Briefed

US Senator John McCain (c/o Shay Saucedo

Briefed

US Congresswoman Martha McSally (c/o CJ Karamargin)

District #2 (Congressional district)

Briefed

US Congressman Raul Grijalva (c/o Ruben Reyes)

District #3 (Congressional district)

Briefed

Federal Agencies

Department of Defense Davis Monthan Air Force Base Bonnie Kacey Carter

Base Community Planner

Email newsletters

USFWS Jean Calhoun Asst Field Director for So. Arizona

Email newsletters

State Elected Officials/Staff

Arizona Senator Andrea Dalessandro District 2 Briefed

Arizona Representative Daniel Hernandez District 2

Briefed


J‐3



Participation

Arizona Representative Rosanna Gabaldón District 2 Briefed

State Agencies

Arizona Department of Transportation Rod Lane District Engineer

Email newsletters

Arizona Department of Transportation Rudy Perez

Planning Program Manager Major Projects Group

Email newsletters

Arizona Department of Transportation

Priscilla F. Thompson, PE

Utility Engineering Coordinator Utility and Railroad Engineering

Workshop 1, email newsletters

Arizona Department of Transportation Richard LaPierre

I‐10, SR 210 expansion

Workshop 1

Arizona Game and Fish Department Kristin Terpening Habitat Specialist


County Elected Officials/ Staff

Pima County Chuck Huckleberry (c/o Diana Durazo) Administrator

Briefed, email newsletters

Pima County Richard Elias Chair Briefed

Pima County Board of Supervisors Ramon Valadez

District #2 Supervisor

Briefed

Pima County Board of Supervisors Steve Christy

Briefed

Pima County Public Works Carmine DeBonis, Jr. Deputy County Administrator

Email newsletters

Pima County Real Property Services Tim Murphy

Supervisor, Property Management Section

Briefed

Pima County Diana Durazo Special Projects Manager

Coordination meetings, email newsletters

Pima County Sandi Garrick Utility Liaison

Workshop 1 & 2, coordination meetings

Pima County Department of Transportation Ana Olivares

Pima County roadways

Email newsletters

Pima County Department of Transportation Robert Johnson

Pima County roadways

Workshop 1

Pima County Department of Transportation Ellen Alster

Pole finish, landscaping

Workshop 1 & 2

Pima County Development Services Carla Blackwell Land use, zoning

Email newsletters


J‐4



Participation

Pima County RWRD Jackson Jenkins Wastewater facilities

Email newsletters

Pima County RWRD Rogelio Flores II Wastewater facilities Workshop 1 & 2

Pima County Parks Robert Padilla Parks

Coordination meetings, email newsletters

Pima County Jenny Neeley Workshop 2

Pima County Courtney Rose Workshop 2

City Elected Officials / Staff

City of Tucson Jonathan Rothschild Mayor Briefed

City of Tucson Michael Ortega City Manager Email newsletters

City of Tucson Richard Fimbres Ward #5 Councilman Individual briefings

City of Tucson Guadalupe Robles Ward 5 Representative


City of Tucson Matt Pate Ward 5 representative

Workshop 2

City of Tucson Daryl Cole Transportation

Email newsletters

City of Tucson Jim Rossi

Real Estate Services, Division Administrator

Email newsletters, coordination meetings

City of Tucson Scott Clark Interim Development Services Director

Email newsletters

City of Tucson Steve Shields Land Use, zoning

Workshop 1

City of Tucson Andy Squire Economic Initiatives Workshop 2

City of Tucson John Beall Land Use, zoning Workshop 2, email newsletters

City of Tucson Mike Graham Public Information Email newsletters

Tucson Water Dean Trammel Water facilities

Workshop 1 & 2

Tucson Water Kathryn Gerber Workshop 2

Tucson Water Fernando Molina Public Information Officer

Email newsletters

Stakeholder Organizations

Metropolitan Pima Alliance Amber Smith Community

Email newsletters

Union Pacific Railroad Renay Robison & Brandon Block Real Estate Manager

Email newsletters


J‐5



Participation

Kinder Morgan/EL Paso Natural Gas Randy Kimbell

Natural gas and petroleum pipelines

Workshop 1

El Paso Natural Gas Kelley Sims Right‐of‐way

Email newsletters

Kinder Morgan A. Dianne Sidorewicz Engineering

Email newsletters

Sunland Deonissa Canez‐Anderson

Representing Sunland

Workshop 1&2

Southwest Gas Erika Fund Natural gas facilities

Workshop 2

Southside Community School Health and Safety

Email newsletters, select teachers and students attended Workshop 2

Pima Association of Governments Sheila Storm Community

Email newsletters

Neighborhood/Community Associations

South Park Neighborhood Association

Sara O’Neil Community impacts Email newsletters, Workshop 1 & 2


Earl O’Neil Community impacts Workshop 1 & 2

Western Hills II Becky Ybarra‐Flores Community impacts Email newsletters

Pueblo Gardens Cynthia F.H. Ayala Community impacts Email newsletters

Sunnyside Yolanda Herrera Community impacts Email newsletters

Mortimore Patricia Smith Community impacts Email newsletters

Millville George Kalil Community impacts Email newsletters

Las Vistas Christine Curtis Community impacts Email newsletters

Julia Keen Mark Mayer Community impacts Email newsletters

Fairgrounds Roy Garcia Community impacts Email newsletters

Cherry Avenue Cheryl Strickland Community impacts Email newsletters

Bravo Park Lane Paul Fimbres Community impacts Email newsletters


J‐6



Participation

Barrio Santa Rita Park Angela Quiroz Community impacts Email newsletters

J.2.1.1 Department of Defense Davis Monthan Air Force Base

TEP met with DMAFB on September 19, 2017. DMAFB indicated that their main concern would be whether

the project would be within DMAFB’s Inner Horizontal Surface, which has a 150‐foot ceiling that should

not be penetrated by structures. DMAFB reviewed the three alternatives in this application and indicated

that none of the three alternatives impacted DMAFB (see correspondence in Exhibit J‐4).

J.2.1.2 Arizona Department of Transportation Meeting

TEP met with ADOT on October 12, 2017. Meeting minutes are located in Exhibit J‐5. ADOT noted that

Alvernon Way would become an extension of SR 210, therefore TEP excluded Alvernon Way from SR 210

to I‐10 from the alternatives analysis. ADOT also indicated that I‐10 improvements would require

additional right‐of‐way acquisition. The future ADOT plans were considered in the development of all

three alternatives. ADOT reviewed the three alternatives in this application and indicated that they will

submit their preferences and concerns following completion of their Design Concept Report (see

correspondence in Exhibit J‐6).

J.2.1.3 Arizona Game and Fish Department

Kristin Terpening of AZGFD attended the October 23, 2017 stakeholder meeting and was also given an

opportunity to review the three alternatives in this application. AZGFD has not formally commented on

the Project at this time.

J.2.1.4 Pima County

TEP met with Pima County on March 13, 2017, October 18, 2017, and November 1, 2017 and numerous

Pima County staff attended the stakeholder workshops. Pima County was also given an opportunity to

review the three alternatives in this application and indicated that Alternative B was preferred, although

they also recommended that Alternative B be revised to continue on I‐10 to Park and continue to the Kino

Substation from there as for Alternative A, thereby not using Campbell Avenue. Pima County also

expressed concerns related to TEP’s standard self‐weathering steel pole finish (see correspondence in

Exhibit J‐7 for detailed comments).

TEP responded to Pima County that it had completed its alternatives analysis and concluded that

Alternative A was TEP’s preferred Alternative for the following reasons:

It has the least impact on residential development Is entirely in an existing corridor (road right‐of‐way) Has superior access for construction and maintenance Has greater room for separation from existing utilities Is less expensive than Alternative B


J‐7

In response to Pima County’s suggested modification of Alternative B, TEP responded that this option was

reviewed early on in the alternative analysis and found to be too difficult to construct. Due to the amount

of existing underground utilities (4‐inch and 6‐inch gas lines, 6‐inch petroleum line, 16‐inch potable water

main, a wastewater line, and electric distribution) located between the Costco and Walmart buildings and

the I‐10 right‐of‐way, it would not be physically possible to locate the transmission line structures and

maintain the required clearances to the buildings. Furthermore, the height of the Kino overpass (which is

also part of the gateway route from the airport to the City Center) and the distance of the span required

to cross I‐10, would require the transmission line poles to be taller in height than any other poles in the

area.

Lastly, in response to Pima County’s concerns related to pole finish, TEP responded that it is TEP’s standard

to use self‐weathering steel structures for the many reasons that have been stated in previous projects.

Most importantly, are the additional costs associated with galvanized or painted finishes. The material

cost of galvanized over self‐weathering steel poles would be $350,000 to $400,000 more, depending on

the alternative approved plus the additional labor costs of assembling the galvanized poles. Painted

finishes also do not last indefinitely and have additional maintenance costs to repaint which can cost

$6,800‐$14,000 per pole not including the costs to take the line out of service in order to safely paint the

poles.

J.2.1.5 City of Tucson

Three City of Tucson (COT) departments reviewed the project and provided a response (see Exhibit J‐8).

Planning and Development Services indicated that TEP would need to apply for a land use permit for the

project. Tucson Water indicated the need for the transmission line to remain as distant as possible from

their 48” water main. The Tucson Department of Transportation (TDOT) indicated a preference for

Alternative B, as that route had the least impact to pedestrian facilities on current roadways, and provided

the fewest sight conflicts at driveways and sidewalks.

TEP responded to the COT that it had completed its alternatives analysis and concluded that Alternative

A was TEP’s preferred Alternative for the reasons stated above in the Pima County response. TEP also

stated that if Alternative A is approved by the ACC that TEP will be able to avoid impacts to the Tucson

Water facilities and will also coordinate closely with TDOT on the placement of poles so as not to obstruct

line of sight or impact sidewalks and driveways (see Exhibit J‐8).

J.2.1.6 Other Stakeholders

Kinder Morgan/EPNG

Kinder Morgan/EPNG participated in the stakeholder workshops, provided facility data and mitigation

requirements, and reviewed the three alternatives in this application. They indicated that they prefer

Alternative A or B because Alternative C parallels three SFPP petroleum products pipelines for the entire

stretch along Ajo Way. Such parallelism in proximity would require an induction study to determine if

there could be any negative impacts of the proposed powerline on those pipelines and/or their cathodic

protection systems, and designing and installing appropriate mitigation (see correspondence in Exhibit J‐

9).



J‐8

At the request of South Park Neighborhood Association, TEP also presented the project at their monthly

meeting on January 8, 2018. The presentation materials are located in Exhibit J‐10.

J.2.2 Newsletters/Fact Sheets

TEP prepared and mailed three newsletters that included comment forms throughout the course of the

project. Newsletter #1 was mailed on August 15, 2017 to 14,111 residents, business owners, landowners,

and agency/organization representatives in the study area (Exhibit J‐11.1).

Newsletter #2 was mailed on January 15, 2018 to 12,866 residents, business owners, landowners, and

agency/organization representatives in the study area (Exhibit J‐11.2).

Newsletter #3 was mailed on March 12, 2018 to 12,735 residents, business owners, landowners, and

agency/organization representatives in the study area (Exhibit J‐11.3).

The first two newsletters were sent to provide current project information, status, and to announce

upcoming public meetings. The third newsletter provided specific information regarding the three

alternatives that TEP had selected to carry forward in its application, and requested input and preferences

related to the alternatives.

All newsletters were provided in both English and Spanish.

J.2.3 Public Open House

A public open house was held at Mulcahy YMCA (2805 E Ajo Way, Tucson, Arizona 85713) on August 30,

2017.

Eighteen (18) members of the public and one (1) agency/organization representative attended the open

house meeting. Questions asked at the meeting were in relation to the Project need, substation siting,

health effects, and visual effects. In addition, two written comments were received and are included in

Exhibit J‐18 and Exhibit J‐19. The sign in sheet is included as Exhibit J‐12.1.

A second public open house meeting was held at the same location on January 24, 2018, and was attended

by twenty‐five (25) members of the public and three (3) agency/organization representatives. Questions

asked at the meeting were in relation to the Project need, substation siting, health effects, and visual

effects. In addition, two written comments were received and are included in Exhibit J‐18 and Exhibit J‐

19. The sign in sheet is included as Exhibit J‐12.2.

A project fact sheet and an EMF fact sheet were prepared for additional distribution at the open houses

and at stakeholder meetings (Exhibits J‐13 and J‐14 respectively). See Exhibit J‐15.1 for copies of posters

on display at the first Open House meeting and see Exhibit J‐15.2 for Open House meeting #2 posters.

TEP published newspaper notices of all public meetings in the Arizona Daily Star (English) and La Estrella

(Spanish). Copies of the public notices and affidavits of publication are included in Exhibits J‐16.1 and J‐

16.2.

J.2.4 Telephone Information Line

A toll‐free telephone information line was established for the Project. The automated message, in English

and Spanish, provided basic information and encouraged callers to leave a message requesting more

information or a return call. The Project webpage address was also provided for the public to access


J‐9

updated Project information. The telephone number was advertised in the newsletters and on the Project

website. The information line voicemail was checked regularly (and more frequently following newsletter

mailings and public open houses); all messages that required a response were answered by one of the

appropriate project team members. To date a total of twelve (12) voicemails were received. All messages

received were entered into the comment tracking database.

J.2.5 Internet Website

The Internet has evolved into a primary source of information, therefore TEP maintains a website

featuring their various projects throughout southeastern Arizona. The site address is

http://www.tep.com. A page devoted to the Project was added to the TEP website before other public

participation activities commenced, and was updated throughout the planning process. The specific

Project page is https://www.tep.com/irvington‐to‐kino/.

The Project webpage was updated regularly to include both general and specific information on the

Project, including the latest maps and the Project newsletters. After the public open house, the displays

and graphics presented were added to the Project webpage. The webpage also allowed people to submit

comments via an online public comment form, or to request more information, and provided the toll‐free

project information line number.

The online public comment form offered another method for the public to provide comments, along with

a mechanism to track and trend all comments received. The automated comment tracking database

served as a platform and universal location for storage of all Project comments. To date TEP has received

a total of 44 comment form responses and 13 online responses. Comments submitted through the

website were entered into the database (discussed below).

J.2.6 Social Pinpoint

Social Pinpoint is an online interactive tool that enables the community and stakeholders to give feedback

using digital mapping. The map displayed individual route segments that could be linked together to

provide a transmission line route to connect the existing Irvington Substation to the proposed Kino

Substation. Users were asked to drag a “pin” to points on the route alternatives that they felt should be

considered or avoided, and asked to provide comments about their chosen location.

The tool was originally launched on January 9, 2018 and the tool was updated on March 12, 2018 with the

three alternative routes. An email was sent out at this time to encourage those that had previously

commented and who were on the stakeholder list to use Social Pinpoint to comment on the alternatives

(see Exhibit J‐17 for a copy of the email). The site was closed for comment on March 28, 2018.

Eleven (12) comments were received and are included in Exhibits J‐18 and J‐19.

J.2.7 Comment Tracking Database (Exhibit J‐19)

At the time of preparation of the application, 84 public comments were received regarding the proposed

Project from the various sources discussed above.

Through the comment database, comments were sorted by jurisdiction, agency, etc., as well as by issue

area/concern (e.g. health and safety, project cost, appearance, location, and miscellaneous). This


J‐10

information was used to better understand the concerns of the community in regard to the Project and

incorporate the concerns into TEP’s plans where possible.

J.3 Public Comments Received

A total of 84 comments were received and categorized. The topics covered health, cost, appearance,

location, and other. Figure 2‐5 shows the percent of each type of comment received. Respondents

frequently indicated that location was of interest to them, with location being relevant to 40% of

responses from the public.

Figure 2‐5. Public Comments and Concerns by Topic

TEP also kept track of the public’s preferred alternatives. Of the 84 land owners, business owners and area

residents who provided public comment for the Project, 27% of respondents elected to vote for a

preferred alternative route. Figure 2‐6 depicts the alternative route preferences indicated by

respondents. Alternative Route A garnered the most support, with a 52% share of the votes while

Alternative Rout B received 44% of the votes, respectively.

24%

5%

17%

40%

14%

Health

Cost

Appearance

Location

Other


J‐11

Figure 2‐6. Alternative Routes Preferred by the Public

See Exhibit J‐18 for table of comments received and proposed resolutions and Exhibit J‐19 for copies of

comments received from the public.

52%

44%

4%

Figure 2‐4. Alternative Routes Preferred by the Public

A

B

C


EXHIBIT J‐1


EXHIBIT J‐2

TitleStakeholder WorkshopIRV-Kino 138-kV Transmission Line Project

October 23, 20171:00-5:00 p.m.

• Introductions• Project Overview• Role of the Arizona Corporation Commission• TEP’s Design Philosophy• TEP’s Line Siting Process and the Stakeholder Role• GIS Spatial Analysis Overview• GIS Spatial Analysis Results

– Review of data– Results of preliminary internal modeling– Group discussion of opportunities and

constraints

Workshop Agenda

Introductions

Project Background• Annual load studies.

– Project (substation and line) need first identified in 2007.

– Included in TEP’s 10-year plan since 2007.– Now identify need for infrastructure to be in place

by 2021.• Substation site selection study started in 2016.• Bridges DRC meeting held July 26, 2017.• Public meeting held August 2017.• COT minor PAD amendment for substation site

received September 2017.• Transmission line siting study started September 2017

with collection of data and internal spatial analysis.

Project Purpose and Need• Growing demand for power in the Kino

Substation Study Area requires new substation.• New 138-kV transmission line from nearest

generation source (Irvington) to serve substation.

• Maintain reliable electric service.

• Meet future capacity requirements.

• Funding support for the Pima County Natural Open Space Park

• Ability to retire at least two lower-capacity substation in the future

Additional Project Benefits

• Approx. 4 mile long 138-kV transmission line between the new Irvington 138-kV Substation and the new Kino 138-kV Substation.

• New Kino Substation located at the southeast corner of Kino Boulevard and 36th Street.

Project Description

Focus of today’s meeting

Multiple methods of public involvement – to date • Project newsletter # 1 – mailed August 11, 2017• Newspaper advertisements – August 11 & 14• Public meeting # 1 – August 30, 2017• Project website at tep.com/projects - ongoing

Upcoming public involvement opportunities• Project newsletter #2 – December 2017• Public meeting # 2 – January 2018• Online comment tool – Social Pinpoint• Project website at tep.com/projects• Public hearing – Spring 2018

Public Outreach Methods

• Comments were received in various methods: phone calls, voicemail messages, in-person and online.

• Comments received to date: 39• Comment topics included:

– Location– Health/EMF– Appearance/Design– Cost– Other/Not identified

• The complete commentspreadsheet can be viewed at tep.com/projects

Public Comments

Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) Line Siting Process

• The ACC sites and certificates electric transmission lines greater than 115-kV.

• Line Siting Committee reviews application and makes recommendation to the ACC.

• Project requires a Certificate of Environmental Compatibility.• ACC Responsible for reviewing:

– Total environment (fish, wildlife, plants)– Existing state, local government, and private development plans– Noise– Recreational impacts– Scenic areas, historic sites & structures, archaeological sites– Interference with communication facilities– Technical aspects– Costs– Other applicable federal and state laws

• Work within or next to existing infrastructure and corridors where practical.

• Work with landowners and stakeholders to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive areas.

TEP’s Design Philosophy

TEP’s Line Siting Process• Identify the need for the Project.• Identify the Preliminary Study Area.• Prepare Public Notification Plan/Identify stakeholders.• Collect baseline data/conduct internal macro-level analysis.• Conduct first public/stakeholder outreach.• Identify & analyze opportunities and constraints.• Develop links and conduct micro-level analysis.• Conduct second public/stakeholder outreach.• Connect viable links into alternative routes.• Conduct impact assessment/engineering & constructability

assessment/route comparison.• Identify alternative routes to carry forward in ACC application

for a CEC.• Prepare and file ACC application.

We are here

• Review information provided.• Assist in identification of opportunities and

constraints.• Provide data if requested.• Attend stakeholder meetings.• Consult and collaborate, as needed.• Identify and explain your preferred alternative.

Stakeholder Role

GIS Spatial Analysis Overview

• Incorporates multiple weighted perspectives of influence.

• Least biased method.• Inputs data based on the perspectives of society, the

environment, and construction feasibility.• Ultimately generates optimal route corridors

graphically.• Macro-level and micro-level analysis to be

conducted.

“The process of examining the locations, attributes, and relationships of features in spatial data through overlay and other analytical techniques in order to address a question or gain useful knowledge”

GIS Spatial Analysis Overview• Collected baseline data for macro analysis including zoning, sensitive

receptors, building density, information from initial public/stakeholder outreach (such as exclusion areas).

• Conducted Preliminary engineering/constructability analysis of existing utility and transportation corridors in and near the preliminary study area and ranked the segments “1” to “4”, where “1” is worst and “4” is best. Based on:– Degree of difficulty– System constraints– Cost– Relocation/reconstruction of existing facilities– Construction timeframe

• Grouped sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, churches, day care facilities, etc.) together and ranked as “2”.

• Grouped like zoning together and ranked:– Residential “1”– Multi Use & Planned Area Developments “2”– Commercial “3”– Industrial “4”


• Macro-level data converted to GIS raster (surface) files to 10 x 10 meter squares (pixel size).

• Macro-level data processed to produce 3 models:– Utility-Road Scenario– Built Environment Scenario– Combined Scenario

• Included preliminary engineering/constructability (E/C) segment analysis, zoning, and sensitive receptors.

• E/C segments weighted 50%.• Sensitive receptors and zoning weighted 50%.• Result: Sensitive receptors and zoning influence

E/C segments.

Utility-Road Scenario

Utility-Road Scenario

• Previously ranked zoning categories weighted 50%.

• Land use density weighted 50%.• Result: Identification of potential corridor

opportunities in lower density areas.

Built Environment Scenario

Built Environment Scenario# Proposed Substations

Study Area

Exclusion Areas

Building Density-Zoning

Higher Corridor Potential

Lower Corridor Potential

• Validates results of two previous scenarios.• Utility-Road and Built Environment scenarios

combined to create a composite view.• E/C segments weighted 50%.• Built environment data weighted 50%.

Combined Scenario

Combined Scenario

Discussion of Opportunities

• Focus on opportunities.• Review E/C segments in relation to models.• Document stakeholder input.

Additional Discussion

• Unidentified opportunities or constraints?• Likes/dislikes?

What’s Next?• Incorporate stakeholder comments.• Obtain additional data from stakeholders, if

needed.• Develop links and conduct micro geospatial

analysis.• Stakeholder Workshop #2 - December 2017.• Identify alternative routes.• Public Meeting #2 – January 17, 2018.• File ACC CEC Application Spring 2018.

TitleStakeholder Workshop #2IRV-Kino 138-kV Transmission Line Project

December 11, 20171:00-3:00 p.m.

• Introductions• Project Overview• Stakeholder Role• GIS Spatial Analysis Overview• GIS Spatial Analysis Results

–Review of data–Results of micro analysis–Group discussion of links

• Next Steps

Workshop Agenda

Introductions

Project Background• Annual load studies.

– Project (substation and line) need first identified in 2007.– Included in TEP’s 10-year plan since 2007.– Now identify need for infrastructure to be in place by

2021.• Substation site selection study started in 2016.• Bridges DRC meeting held July 26, 2017.• Public meeting held August 2017.• COT minor PAD amendment for substation site received

September 2017.• Transmission line siting study started September 2017 with

collection of data and internal spatial analysis.– Stakeholder Meeting #1 held October 2017

Project Purpose and Need• Growing demand for power in the Kino

Substation Study Area requires new substation.• New 138-kV transmission line from nearest

generation source (Irvington) to serve substation.

• Maintain reliable electric service.

• Meet future capacity requirements.

• Funding support for the Pima County Natural Open Space Park

• Ability to retire at least two lower-capacity substation in the future

Additional Project Benefits

• Approx. 4 mile long 138-kV transmission line between the new Irvington 138-kV Substation and the new Kino 138-kV Substation.

• New Kino Substation located at the southeast corner of Kino Boulevard and 36th Street.

Project Description

Focus of today’s meeting

• Review information provided.• Provide data if requested.• Attend stakeholder meetings.• Consult and collaborate, as needed.• Discuss Link preferences.• Identify and explain preferred alternative.

Stakeholder Role


• Incorporates multiple weighted perspectives of influence.

• Least biased method.• Inputs data based on the perspectives of society,

the environment, and construction feasibility.• Ultimately generates optimal route corridors

graphically.• Macro-level and micro-level analysis conducted.

“The process of examining the locations, attributes, and relationships of features in spatial data through overlay and other analytical techniques in order to address a question or gain useful knowledge”

GIS Spatial Analysis Overview• Collected baseline data for macro analysis including zoning, sensitive

receptors, building density, information from initial public/stakeholder outreach (such as exclusion areas).

• Conducted Preliminary engineering/constructability analysis of existing utility and transportation corridors in and near the preliminary study area and ranked the segments “1” to “4”, where “1” is worst and “4” is best. Based on:– Degree of difficulty– System constraints– Cost– Relocation/reconstruction of existing facilities– Construction timeframe

• Grouped sensitive receptors (schools, hospitals, churches, day care facilities, etc.) together and ranked as “2”.

• Grouped like zoning together and ranked:– Residential “1”– Multi Use & Planned Area Developments “2”– Commercial “3”– Industrial “4”


• Macro-level data converted to GIS raster (surface) files to 10 x 10 meter squares (pixel size).

• Macro-level data processed to produce 3 models:– Utility-Road Scenario– Built Environment Scenario– Combined Scenario

• Scenarios presented at Stakeholder Meeting #1.– Input received– Data collected

• Micro-level data: cultural resources, drainage features, locations of other utilities, utility & road standards, stakeholder preferences.

• Micro analysis ranks segments in the utility-road scenario.

• Design engineer reviewed analysis and identified Links that are constructible and ranked from engineering perspective.

• Some segments are removed.

Micro Spatial Analysis

Discussion of Links

• Focus on opportunities.• Review Links.• Document stakeholder input & Link preferences.

Additional Discussion

• Unidentified opportunities or constraints?• Likes/dislikes?

What’s Next?• Incorporate stakeholder comments.• Obtain additional data from stakeholders, if

needed.• Identify alternative routes.• Public Meeting #2 – January 24, 2018.• File ACC CEC Application Spring 2018.


EXHIBIT J‐3

Tucson Electric Power Stakeholder Meeting Irvington to Kino 138kV Transmission Line Siting and Kino Substation

Projects

TEP Headquarters, 88 E. Broadway Blvd October 23, 2017

Meeting began with Renee Darling, TEP senior environmental and land use planner, providing background on the study using a PowerPoint presentation. Attendees had large scale maps available to look at findings of a land-use analysis of the study area. Dean Trammel of Tucson Water asked who did the initial analysis of the study area. Renee Darling said TEP staff worked on the analysis using engineering standards and then modified the findings to include “sensitive receptors” and other societal factors. Earl O’Neil of the South Park Neighborhood Association, asked if there are legal constraints on what choices TEP can make. Renee Darling said policy restrictions by agencies and stakeholders – such as the Arizona Department of Transportation and Union Pacific Railroad – preclude transmission lines from running parallel to highways or railroad tracks. Dean Trammel of Tucson Water asked if the lines would be aerial or below ground. They will be an average of 100 feet above ground, with flexibility to go higher where necessary. The base of power poles is below ground, with footprints approximately 10 feet in diameter. Deonissa Cañez-Anderson, an attorney with Southern Arizona Legal Aid who was retained by Sunland Garden Neighborhood Association, asked if the Kino Substation would be surrounded by a wall. Renee Darling confirmed that there will be a 10-foot wall around the facility that will feature colors and themes associated with The Bridges development where it will be located. She said the final site plan will include details of the design elements.

Ellen Alster of Pima County Department of Transportation asked how tall the structures associated with the transmission line will be. TEP said poles will be 100 feet tall while other associated structures will be approximately 60 feet high. Randy Kimbell of Kinder Morgan/El Paso Natural Gas noted that there is a 10-inch natural gas pipeline below ground at Country Club and Michigan Street. Roy Flores of Pima County Wastewater added that his agency has facilities below ground throughout the study area, some located on the centerline of roads, others on roadway shoulders and on private property. PC Wastewater will share information with the TEP study team. Robert Johnson of Pima County Department of Transportation asked if the line will allow for other utility uses or solely be for the electrical transmission line. TEP said that, unlike lower voltage lines, the 138kV line is not required to share with other utilities such as cable, but can allow it on a case-by-case basis. Deonissa Cañez-Anderson noted a study that indicated pregnant women should not be exposed to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) generated by high-power transmission lines. TEP responded that “thousands of studies” have been conducted on the health effects of EMFs and that there is no conclusive evidence of harmful effects. All electrical devices emit EMFs and their strength diminishes to “zero” depending on how much is being emitted and how far they travel before reaching people. The 138kV lines are 100 feet above ground to eliminate concern about ill effects. Earl O’Neil asked how TEP can traverse “prohibitive areas” noted on the study area map, including interstates and railroad tracks. TEP noted that crossings of highways and railroad tracks are allowed, but running lines parallel to them is not. Mr. O’Neil noted that 36th Street is used by oversized and over-height vehicles that are required to exit I-10 to avoid low overpasses and that some vehicles require traffic signals and other overhead utility lines to be lifted. He suggested that TEP’s line should not interfere with that use of 36th Street.

Steve Shields of the Tucson Planning and Development Services Department, noted that residential development is planned for the area southwest of Kino Parkway and Park Avenue. Question was asked about the value of avoiding circuitous routes for the transmission line. Ed Beck of TEP said that the Arizona Corporation Commission, which must approve the line siting plan, does consider the cost associated with less-direct routes to prevent those expenses from being passed on to rate payers. Roy Flores suggested to other stakeholders that they drive routes followed by existing 138kV lines to see what visual impacts those lines have. Earl O’Neil asked where lines taking energy from the substation to customers would be aligned. TEP said that is not yet known because the data to determine those routes would come out of decisions made in this study.

Opportunities/Constraints

Country Club/Michigan – Kinder Morgan has natural gas pipe (Kinder Morgan can send information)

Pima County Wastewater facilities located throughout study area (Roy Flores, PCWW to send files)

Keep in mind roads used for “heavy loads” and oversized trucks – along 36th

Vertical clearance of poles – Run by ADOT

Ajo – Need to follow-up with City of Tucson Department of Transportation to see if any constraints along Ajo

Park/36th is residential area

Kino Sports Park has plans for expansion

Questions

Was a sensitivity analysis done? Are there legal constraints? Tucson Water: Will the t-line be above ground or below? Will there be a wall around the substation? What is the pole diameter? How do you cross “grey” areas? -90 degree crossings OK

What options are there other than road right-of-way? Would underground be considered? Existing 138kV’s near residential area? When will the preliminary design be ready to share?

Parking Lot

Siting of Kino substation

10-year plan

DRC/monumentation/design

EMF

Phase II of project

Diagram of existing 138kV, etc.

Tucson Electric Power Stakeholder Meeting 2 Irvington to Kino 138kV Transmission Line Siting and Kino Substation

Projects

TEP Headquarters, 88 E. Broadway Blvd December 11, 2017

Meeting began with Renee Darling, TEP senior environmental and land use planner, providing background on the study using a PowerPoint presentation. Attendees had large scale maps available to look at the proposed links. Discussion of Links - All Deonissa: Is the transmission line going to go through any residential areas? Renee: We are trying to figure that out today. This is why we meet with stakeholders and host public meetings. With their help we decide which pieces of the puzzle we use. At some point the line will go through a residential area. We are working with Pima County to purchase the land for the substation. We look at analytics to come up with options. Deonissa: Is the substation going to be the same size as the Irvington substation? Renee: No, it won’t be as large. The Irvington substation has multiple components that this new substation will not have. The poles will be no higher than 14’ tall. D: Is there a substation of similar size I can drive by to compare? R: The one of similar size is currently being built at Orange Grove and La Canada on the southwest corner. Christina (engineer for project): The new substation will only take 3 to 5 acres while the Irvington substation is over 400 acres. R: We can provide model/simulation. There will be a decorative wall, landscaping, nice entrance that matches the Bridges development. Ellen Alster, Pima County: Will they be galvanized poles? Ed Beck: Inside the substation would be galvanized but others are self-weathering steel. Deonissa: What is galvanized? Renee: Not shiny. D: Can they be galvanized as to not create an eye sore? R: Self-weathering steel is preferred because it is low cost and low maintenance, however, comments will be taken into consideration when submitting to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). Courtney Rose, Pima County: How is this project being funded? Joe Barrios: Rates are included in monthly bill as part of scheduled maintenance. Before moving forward everything must be approved by ACC.

Deonissa: Requested teacher from Southside Community School speak. Renee: Accepts. Anjelica: 5th grade teacher at Southside Community School brought her two daughters Jackie (Kinder) and Jasmine (3rd grade). School is right across from proposed substation. Most students reside east of proposed substation. Worried about potential harm of substation. Daughter has brain tumor and has received the maximum amount of radiation allowed. Worried about radiation. Very opposed to substation and transmission lines going through school and neighborhoods. Renee: We will do an EMF (electromagnetic field) study after we have defined a proposed transmission line. A: When will the EMF study take place? R: Once we have defined a proposed transmission line route. School is about 1000 feet from substation. The substation will be about 300x500 feet total. All information is disclosed in ACC report. Deonissa: Is it feasible for 36 and 37 to connect by I-10 to avoid residences? Renee: Yes, these are options. 39 up to 40 have been excluded due to ADOT construction Jenny Neeley: So there is a 46kV on the north side just across from new substation? Renee: Jenny Neeley: Can we do the transmission line on 36? Renee: There are a lot of residences, we would have to bury the distribution on 36th and have to allow users (cable, etc.) to use 46kV. Transmission line cannot be buried. There would be a double circuit line a lot closer to residences. Burying distribution is more expensive. Line 1: Residents would prefer buried line Ed Beck: We would have to dig up the road. Depending on input from stakeholders, cost, construction, etc. sometimes it makes more sense to co-locate. Renee: Macro and Micro analysis are broken down by side of the road. We can put back options we’ve eliminated at this stage if necessary. Line 2: What about street lights and the new development in that area? Renee: These have been considered and are in conversation. There is a 15” and 8” clay line in the road Right of Way. R: May require an easement but we aren’t at that point yet. Line 3: Red area least preferred. Goes by the ball fields, hospital and Kino Sports Complex. Garrick: How high is pedestrian bridge? Renee: I’m not sure. Line 36-39: ADOT does not allow lines parallel to Right of Way North side of I-10.

Anjelica: Isn’t that the best option since there are no residences? Renee: Yes. Earl: What are you considering private property (on map)? Renee: businesses, not residential. This would affect parking lots, minor effects which would require an easement application. ###: What is the probability of going west on Ajo? Renee: Adds 2 miles to length of line but not impossible. Ellen: Why is Kino Blvd eliminated? Renee: It considered scenic. 41: Following off-ramp, hard to obtain. ADOT is OK with crossings but not parallels. Ed Beck: Costs is considered upon approval. Deonissa: What is TEP’s preference in the transmission line route? Renee: None. Ed Beck: If we could, it would be the straightest and cheapest route but that isn’t practical or possible. D: What is the best method for comment? R: Written comment is best because there is no interpreting. D: Is the AZ Corp. Comm. application due in January? R: No, that is the 10-year plan which doesn’t affect this project. This project will need to be completed by 2021 to meet demand of growth in area. D: Is Kino/36th placement of substation set in stone? R: Waiting for minor PAD approval, substation approval waiting for local jurisdiction Andrew: Irvington 21, 22, 24, 10, 9, 12, 33, 2, Why are we not talking about these links? Renee: We are working our way down the map and not there yet. Renee: There is no federal nexus required. Ellen: Repairian disruption for substation? R: minimal disruption, maybe 2-3%. Pima County is planning on building a park with STEM playground, trails, etc. but there is no funding for that right now. Teacher: If substation is built, will there be a park there? R: Yes. Deonissa: Question about substation size in relevance to land. Renee: The land is from the Kino ROW to edge of dense green area. Can send footprint. Approx 3.5 acres. Large dirt area (on map) are for new developments: Kino park expansion, gateway from airport, commercial development. Which will create significant increase in power needs

Deonissa: Line 22, 25, 24, 10, 9, 32, 33 are a good option R: adds 2 miles but not impossible Teacher: Why pick route 13 if it’s right through the park? Renee: It’s on the edge of the park Teacher: Most of our residents are in that area a lot Is it easier to make curved lines or right angles? Ed: Right angles, fewer poles What is the approximate cost of each pole? Tangents are $10-15k, depending on height others can be $20-50k. Ellen: Have you thought of colored poles. BLM did a study regarding cost-effectiveness of colored poles. Renee: Can you send me that study? (Ellen to send) Ed: In the past, painted poles don’t hold up in Tucson. They fade or paint peels off and cost to paint over is expensive. Ellen: They used a powder-coated paint. Deonissa: Do you have a cost of powder-coated poles? Ellen: No. Earl: What is the height of these poles? Ed: 75-80 ft Courtney Rose: Are the alternative routes surveyed? Renee: Yes, Class 1. Can send those maps.

LINK

1. Power lines on both sides—is there another option? Co-location opportunity? Bury lines?

2. New development on west side Street lights P.C. WW existing facilities

3. Height of pedestrian bridge?

36, 37, 38, 39 – Good option to go along freeway (I10) 41 – Why not go through Kino? Has been identified as “scenic” 21, 22, 25, 24 – Makes sense 32, 33 – Development plan could change Power-coated poles (Ellen, Pima County to share info from BLM) Cultural info (send to Courtney, Pima County)


EXHIBIT J‐4

From: CARTER, BONNIE K CIV USAF ACC 355 CES/CENPPTo: Darling, Renee; Aguda, CeliaCc: [email protected]; GERMANOS, NICHOLAS M GS-13 USAF ACC 355 CES/CEN; FROSCH, JARED C GS-12

USAF ACC 355 CES/CENP; TORIELLO, MICHAEL R GS-13 USAF ACC 355 CES/CDSubject: [EXTERNAL E-Mail] RE: Irvington to Kino Newsletter #3 and Alternatives Map for reviewDate: Thursday, March 8, 2018 6:03:43 PM

Ms. Darling

We have reviewed the TEP proposed 130KV transmission line routes from the new substation at Kino and 36th . They are not within or adjacent to our installation boundary. Therefore, we find all three routes to have no negativeimpact on DMAFB mission. We are curious, will the transmission line be buried or overhead lines?

V/r

B. Kacey Carter, Civ USAF = =Base Community Planner355th Civil Engineer Squadron/CENPPDavis-Monthan AFB [email protected]

-----Original Message-----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 1:42 PMTo: [email protected]; [email protected]: [email protected]: [Non-DoD Source] Irvington to Kino Newsletter #3 and Alternatives Map for review

Hello,

Tucson Electric Power (TEP) is encouraging stakeholders to help identify the preferred route for the proposedIrvington to Kino 138 kV transmission line to connect the Irvington Substation located at East Irvington Road andSouth Contractor’s Way to the planned Kino Substation at South Kino Parkway and East 36th Street. TEP has completed its alternatives analysis and selected 3 alternative routes. Attached is the final project newsletter thatincludes the 3 alternative maps. Please review this information and let us know:

1. Any issues that are important to you in evaluating the transmission line alternatives.

2. Whether there is an alternative you prefer and why.

TEP will use additional input received by March 28, 2018 to select a preferred route from these alternatives. TEPwill include all three alternatives and all input received from public meetings, in writing, and through onlinecomment tools, in its application to the Arizona Corporation Commission for a Certificate of EnvironmentalCompatibility, which we expect to file in April 2018.

Additional information is available at TEP’s website at: https://www.tep.com/irvington-to-kino/

mailto:[email protected]








https://www.tep.com/irvington-to-kino/

<https://www.tep.com/irvington-to-kino/>

Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Thank you,

Renee Darling

Senior Environmental & Land Use Planner Tucson Electric Power Company Land Resources – RC131

3950 E. Irvington Road

Tucson, AZ. 85714-2114

520-884-3642 Fax [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

https://www.tep.com/irvington-to-kino/


exhibit j: special factors - tep

Documents