Developers behind $1.5B plan to put power line under Columbia River make case to regulators, minimal public at Washougal hearing

WASHOUGAL — The developers behind a $1.5 billion project to bury a 100-mile-long transmission line under the Columbia River made their case to state permitters Monday night in Washougal.

The Cascade Renewable Transmission System project has faced pushback from Native groups and environmental advocates for the harm it stands to cause the already struggling river. But that did not translate into much pushback at the first hearing for the project in Washington. Monday’s meeting was sparsely attended.

Teryn Yazdani of Columbia Riverkeeper and other critics suggested that could be due to the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s decision to host the meeting far from Interstate 5 population centers. The council provides an expedited one-stop shop for needed Washington permits.

Sonia Bumpus, the council’s executive director, said the choice boiled down to event space availability and the fact that the proposed line would be close to Washougal.

“It is nearing the holidays,” she said, “and we also have a statutory requirement to have the hearing within 60 days of receiving the application. So there’s a clock that’s ticking.”

About a dozen members of her staff and the agency’s counsel were present at the meeting — roughly equal to the number of members of the public who showed up.

The case for the project

Chris Hocker of PowerBridge, the company behind the project, made the case for the transmission line.

“Its purpose is to help Washington and Oregon achieve, at least partially, their clean energy goals,” he said, “and to try to lift some of the very serious constraints on the regional transmission system.”

The project would increase transmission between where electricity is generated east of the Cascades and where it’s consumed, which is in population centers along the I-5 corridor. It would also move power past transmission bottlenecks in Portland to an important north-south high-voltage transmission route, and to data centers on the city’s west side.

Indeed, if the region continues to grow, build data centers and buy electric vehicles, reports show it will need more power and more transmission infrastructure. And that’s just to avoid blackouts, let alone meet lofty clean energy goals.

Hocker said the project would take as long as 3½ years to construct, given that work can only occur during winters to avoid disrupting fisheries. He stressed this type of underwater transmission project is not unusual in other parts of the country, pointing out his company has built two already.

“Why use the river?” Hocker asked. “Aren’t there other alternatives? We looked at other alternatives very, very carefully.”

He said permitting and environmental issues have stopped above-ground transmission projects. The Oregon and federal departments of transportation won’t let PowerBridge put the line under Interstate 84.

“Like 300 and something man-made obstacles or natural obstacles” make it impossible for the company to build under state Highway 14 or the railroad tracks, Hocker added.

Hocker said the project would be built using a “hydroplow” that would move about a mile a day. The tool uses high-pressure water to carve a 10- to 15-foot-deep channel for the 1-foot cable bundle.

“We have an awful lot of studies, either underway or completed, including ‘What happens to the sediment if it’s stirred up?’ ” Hocker said. “So there are many, many studies, most of them will be included in one form or other in the permit documents.”

Hocker said his company expects to submit Oregon permits by the end of the year and is in talks with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has asked for more information.

Hocker finished by noting the project will create construction jobs, and “there’s a potential for property tax base increases.”

Minimal scrutiny

Hocker brought a slice of cable and explained the core is copper, there would be “various kinds of metals that shield” it and the outer skin is “a synthetic.” He said the cable has a lifespan of 40 years, according to its manufacturer.

“The reality is, we think longer than that, just because there’s really nothing to wear out,” Hocker said.

Kate Murphy of Columbia Riverkeeper pressed Hocker about the project’s effects on the environment.

“Since we have advisories for the mid-Columbia for things like PCBs and mercury, what type of modeling and research have you done around stirring up those potential contaminants?” she asked.

Hocker said the route will avoid heavy contamination.

“We have done what’s called sediment transport modeling to indicate, you know, is there a lot of stuff, whatever it is, stirred up and taken down the river? The answer is very little,” he said.

Over decades, the river has been tainted by heavy metals from smelters, toxic chemicals from Bonneville Dam and radioactive material from Hanford.

But officials with the state and cities along the river have long said the mid- and lower Columbia are mostly safe because those toxins were either carried to sea or are buried in the sediment. And virtually no one opposes routine dredging activities to maintain the shipping channel’s depth.

Murphy asked that the company make the studies cited throughout the hearing available to the public.

Hocker and his colleagues provided detailed descriptions of the proposed transmission line’s route, noting it would only be in the water as it passed through Clark County.

Friends of the Columbia Gorge attorney Nathan Baker registered objections to the project, especially its short comment window.

Critics have argued the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council is little more than a rubber stamp for projects.

Baker asked that the council keep the record open for another month after Wednesday’s hearing in Klickitat County.

“I don’t think we’ll be in a position to do that here live in the hearing tonight,” council Chair Kurt Beckett said, adding he appreciated the question and will address the public comment period this week.