Dear Ms. Bedwell,

I am very concerned about Puget Sound Energy's “Energize Eastside” project, which proposes to build 18 miles of high-voltage transmission lines through four Eastside cities (Alternative 1A).

PSE tries to justify the need for the project using an impossible scenario that would cause regional blackouts, according to the Lauckhart-Schiffman Load Flow Study, available at CENSE.org.

Alternative 1A would place new lines and poles much too close to aging petroleum pipelines. Responsible safety standards require at least a 50 foot separation. A construction or operational accident could cause a catastrophic pipeline explosion like the one that killed three Bellingham residents in 1999. This risk is not adequately addressed in the EIS.

Alternative 2, the Integrated Resources Approach, is a safer and less costly alternative. But the solution described in the EIS was not developed or reviewed by independent experts that have suitable experience with modern electrical grid technologies, including Demand Side Management and Distributed Energy Resources. The costs and capabilities are based on inaccurate and obsolete studies. As the Northwest Power Council’s Seventh Power Plan makes clear, a carefully developed plan would easily beat alternative 1A in cost, safety, and support for the environment.

The other transmission line options (1B, 1C, 1D and Alternative 3) are not practical for financial or political reasons.

Ratepayers are asked to spend more than a billion dollars over the lifetime of PSE’s transmission line. The Draft EIS must answer these basic questions in order to convince residents that we are getting the best possible plan for our energy future.