HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7900 Application 2•, t . ay ,
IP
1jJ a
f Y
Y' JI + • I f
• f / Yr Yr
� .■ ` iii
, 1 �• �J llj
� I J
,•r•rrW ■. rrrprrY,y w`+ - •_ l r,1,� _
I a L
_. INTERST4TE
430 4 • •
L
;wrrR,WF-aar,~
......."
,� - r 114 - a� r •r q�� - y-
ly'
w � I -• I
� •{
�....
� ._ �T _
_
GFS �„ �,�rlr
tl
r
�r.i f•�•
rr+ • \ �
•lYi �•
CD
i.., ,w.j c.., i
N
—I --_ RESERVOIR y
2 L y JOHNAARRpW
�CLMG 1ICOT
Ar
O m� R } !"y° MISSISSIPPI
_ ;EYER SPRiN_GS ' m UN�FpSrTy _
A
FAIR PARK r b
1 j Tiv."a'a'm VAN HLIREN r..
SaR��s ''��,-, 11 `•�nsm�
No
vv
O l
t
L •_ - cslgTER .
MAI
ks
� A ~ - ,TEMPLE
n
r. __. -in
;n
rn•,C4
COLNELMILLER,
f_-3
4
ti
,l
Q
ti
V_IMY RIDGE m
��
Li
~•�
��'-'a-^�^-�'�--w�i
NAPA VALLEY^ '
3 z
2
!��i
s, •-
'1
ERSiRTE 53rJ
-
/
INT_ERSfATE_
DOW N 1i
- ` •
z
RDDNEY PARHAM
rr
�^-`
u ,
430
- •-
SARDIS
1
—I --_ RESERVOIR y
2 L y JOHNAARRpW
�CLMG 1ICOT
Ar
O m� R } !"y° MISSISSIPPI
_ ;EYER SPRiN_GS ' m UN�FpSrTy _
A
FAIR PARK r b
1 j Tiv."a'a'm VAN HLIREN r..
SaR��s ''��,-, 11 `•�nsm�
No
vv
O l
t
L •_ - cslgTER .
MAI
ks
� A ~ - ,TEMPLE
4
ti
,l
ti
u u u u u �CD 0-�
0.5
o � CDCD
�'•
CD CD
CD CD ch st
CD
O N (D f7 CD p-•
CD r -L
O C -D . �D • CD Q.. ►--i C7 CD
C Q"'
CD
CD
O ��CD CD CD
C 9 CD
� o
CSD CD C -D
O -A CD
c`� 5 CD
0 �, crC
O CD N CD � • �
CD CL
O -A CD
C-DCD '� .
CD
O -A' n CD ~
CD . CSD
CD cpn
c7A r -L
CD
CD
CD
SD `p C`
CDD
�n
C CD
O �
cn
CD0
O
W
Substation information:
Perm its:
6602 Granada
1902 Leander
1910 Leander
1906 Leander
1904 Leander
House Sales:
411 Del Rio
308 Del Rio
209 Del Rio
611 Hall
612 Hall
601 Hall
6608 Granada
6605 Granada
602 Hall
506 Hall
6615 Granada
6700 Granada
Renovation permit
New construction
New Construction
New Construction
New Construction
WITS
3/06
10/06
10/06
10/06
10/06
6/06
5/06
7/05
3/05
4/04
10/03
9/00
8/88
11/87
1987
1970
$18,500
$120,000
2075 sf
$135,000
1885 sf
$135,000
1885 sf
$140,000
2131 sf
$140,000
1662
sf
$84
$128,000
1314
sf
$97
$184,000
2056
sf
$89
$135,000
1921
sf
$70
$180,000
2144
sf
$83
$135,000
1597
sf
$84
$147,000
2530
sf
$58
$102,000
1846
sf
$55
$114,000
3516
sf
$32
$95,000
2191
sf
$43
-OL
Pk
4h,����4�1.0,000OOOOOOOOOO
P.AA4�1
-N
-NAM
-PL
.P��
-OL
-9�
-OL
-OL
�
y
W
N
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
m
N
N
W
N
1
W
1
W
1
W
1
W
1
W
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cn
0
Cn
0
O
0
O
0
O
1
0
O
1
0
O
1
0
O
0
O
1
0
O
1
0
O
1
0�
N
v
1
0
Cn
1
0
Cn
1
0
co
1
0
Cn
0
O
1
0
O
1
0
O
1
0
N
1
0
N
0
O
1
0
Cn
0
O
0
N
0
N
0
O
0
O
0
-�
0
W
0
O
N
N
W
N
O
V
V
W
1'
Cn
�—
—
V�
1
1
1'
1
N
1
W
1
0
1
0
1
0
I
1
1
0
�
0
O
O
O
N
CO
n
CD
A
N
O
O
P-N�
4�-.A
-OL
000OOOOOOOOOO
-OL
�-P,
4P
��4�--
A
�
�
-A
�
A
�
-N
�
�
-P
�
�
A
A
.4-
-4L
N
N
W
W
W
W
W
W
N
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
N
W
W
0
1
0
0000000cnCn
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
�
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
OOOOOOOOON
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
0
00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O
r
Cn
Cn
c0
Cn
O
O
O
N
N
O
011
O
N
N
O
O
W
O
N
N
W
N
Cfl
V
V
il
W
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
cncnOcn�o00o
N
I
W
I
O
1
O
1
O
1
1
1
11
O
OOOoo0oo001
G
O
O
N
cn
�
N
O
O
n
OO
CA
A
�
C
0
w
r-
r
G)
�03
00
00
Z
r
Z
r-
Z�
00
m
Z
r
—
�
r-
wo
G)
G)
Z
m
m
cn
C
Z
z
r
co
O
O
D
K
K
r
r
�
O
Z
in(n(n(n(n(ncncni
N N N N j W N N N N O N N N N N�� N Cn
v v O O P O O CD N v Cn V N N N N W (b 41 -�
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nr -L
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CP Cn ���� A�� A� -4, -4, W W eD
r�
W —Cn�oo W W W0D�Cn—���aOW �WNM
� N UI m Cn cn N� P. W -N P., v.1�1 W o.- ? A W W
N W�-r�, W M N W W Cn Cn W W N N O N s v f
.r�, N M CD M W W CJI W W 'W W Cn O— CD W -I
00 W W 'n ao m �*
C7C)nnnv nnv nnnnnnC7(7sy tv sv (��
DDD D D D D D D �DD D D R DvIV
r.
C_noo<��C�T.
rC�000fnoo
Z
��-nG��_ G�
m
0 0 0
C C
N C L
Q
O O O O
(n n n
O? 7 7
W N° N Q O
Q mCc N
to 0
0. (n0
Ci p O j O
o ° r- CL 0
o
G7 CD �
D C ��
p- C1 C a
r, 6 D v,
O Ci) C1
D- N x -I CA D -
00 n
CD o Cpl
m j a 0 0 n
.moo
o =' � Q m
° Qom CL
QI vOi oo c m
� � CL
C
Cn
Q CD
CCDD CD T
- CD
0
0 (n C1 CD CD
G.
C1
�
CD y
_ �. ui
CD 7 0
N � T1
.� C <,
to -, [n
(O
CL —I -
0
O
O v
CD p p--@
CD
o
CL
Cu
0
CD CD
`< ��
0
'0
Q Cr CD 0
O CD N
m
N
CD
T 4
n
0-
CD :3 o'
Q- tin
Q (D
o Q U CD
h7
O
60
CD o C)_ �' v 0)
W O CL m
Cn
°
Cl)
0
1 R
1
o
(n
4
CO CA N
N N U1 N
W V -I 4�L W� v
(D
0
0
W O W N W O -1 O N N W
(n(nrr
0Z= Z
Z
�Z(nZo o m
m
0 0 0
C C
0) m 0
CD
O O O O
(n n n
M
=moo o
~ X
cn
O
0 7
00 n
-- O y m
-„v
-
O-gXX
0< m
:3.
c000c)CD
<N O O
— a Q
O Q co
C L
(�
O N G G •�
O: Cn <, �. �
(O
CL —I -
Q O 0
O
O v
CD p p--@
CD
o
c
Cu
0
CD CD
`< ��
0
Q Cr CD 0
O CD N
CD O Cp CL
Cn C2 CD
N
CD
�< Q_
CD N p = .� .Z7
n
0-
Q- tin
Q (D
o Q U CD
h7
O
60
CD o C)_ �' v 0)
W O CL m
Cn
°
Cl)
0
m
4
CO CA N
N N U1 N
W V -I 4�L W� v
(D
W O W N W O -1 O N N W
N N
CJI Cb CA 01 O 00 00
W
I I
I
W
?
CD
N
— �
O 00
M -4LW -• �
CO
-� O CD N
00
A,
CO V — 00 W v CO M :AL O :-400
:---4
Cb :4, -A L v -4
W
.R
W N N 0 WCbCACbW CbOCnc-n
0)00-4tQ O--
--1 N M W v W N N O v v W W W M -1 N W v v W tV
Entergy Su%stat'Ons in Little Rock
5
Substation Name
1 _
Mabelvale 500 kV
2 _
LR Alexander
3
LR Mann
4
LR Chicot
5
LR Hindman
6 _
LR West Markham
7
LR Kanis
8
LR Pinnacle
LR Walton Hei hts
9
LR Cammack
10
11 LR West
12 LR Bye Park
13 LR Rock Creek
14 !LR Industrial
15 LR South
16 LR 8th & Woodrow
17 LR Gaines
18
LR Garland
19
LR 23rd & Spring
20
LR Fourche
21
LR East
22
_
LR Port
LR 145th Street
23
31- �
r2
t
vw�,'l�. • � a
Enteip(
October 5, 2007
Re: (Proposed Construction of the Colonel Glenn Road 115/13.8 Substation)
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. FOR A
DECLARATORY ORDER THAT A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY IS NOT REQUIRED TO
CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE A
115 KV DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION AND
ASSOCIATED FACILITIES, ALL IN LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A CERTIFICATE
Dear City of Little Rock / Pulaski County Official:
Entergy
Transmission & Substation Construction
51 Thibault Road
Little Rock, AR 72206
Fax 501 490 4754
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
This is to advise you that Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) has proposed to construct an electrical
substation in the Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road areas that may affect certain property
owners near this location.
The Proposed Electrical Facilities are described as:
On approximately 3.5 acres of property at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road, to be
purchased by EAI, the Colonel Glenn Road 115/13.8 W Substation consists of the
installation of one power transformer and associated equipment to support the
distribution of electricity with plans to install a second power transformer and
associated equipment at a later date. The proposed project will be constructed
adjacent to the Company's existing 115 W transmission line which extends from
the Kanis Substation to the Mabelvale Switching Station.
On May 31, 2007, the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) held its public hearing on the
Petition filed by EAI for a declaration that a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(CCN) is not required to construct the 115/13.8 W Substation located near Colonel Glenn and
Lawson Roads in west Little Rock, or, alternatively, for a CCN. On September 27, 2007, the
Commission issued Order No. 5 granting EAI's Petition that a CCN is not required for the
construction project. Attached is a copy of APSC Order No. 5 for your information.
Sincerely yours,
Murry Witcher
CCN Coordinator - Transmission
Enclosures
ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ENTERGY }
ARKANSAS, INC. FOR A DECLARATORY ORDER }
THAT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC }
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IS NOT }
REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND )
MAINTAIN A 115 KV DISTRIBUTION )
SUBSTATION AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES, )
ALL IN LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, )
ARKANSAS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A )
CERTIFICATE )
,N
S t 3 49 Ph '07
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
ORDER NO. 5
On December 5, 2006, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI or the Company) filed a petition for a
declaratoryjudgment order (hereafter declaratoryjudgment) stating that anew 115/13.8 kilovolt (kV)
substation, proposed to be built in the western part of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas,' on a 3.5
acre site, does not require a new certificate of public convenience and necessity (CCN), because
under Arkansas statutory lav' and the rules and regulations of the Arkansas Public Service
Commission (Commission}' the proposed new substation is only a "distribution" facility, as
distinguished from a transmission facility, and as such does not require a new CCN for its
construction and operation.
Alternatively, the petition states that if the Company fails to obtain a favorable ruling on its
More particularly, the preferred location of this new 115/13.8 kV
substation would be approximately two miles west of interstate Highway I-430 and
between Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads.
2
Ark. Code Ann. 523-3-201(b).
3
Rule 7.02(a) of the Commiasion's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 81
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 2
request for a declaratory judgment, EAI applies for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
(CCN) pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. §23-3-201 et seq. and Rule 7.04(a) of the Arkansas Public
Service Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure requesting authority to
construct, operate and maintain a new 115113.8 kilovolt OX) substation and associated distribution
facilities and equipment on this proposed 3.5 acre site and connect it to an existing 115 kV electric
transmission line immediately above the proposed substation site. As indicated in the first paragraph
of this order and Footnote 1 thereto, this proposed substation is to be located in the western part of
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, approximately two miles west of Interstate 430
between Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads.
Order No. 2, filed March 1, 2007, scheduled a consolidated hearing on both the petition for
a declaratory judgment, the alternative request for a CCN, and for the purpose of hearing public
comments, on May 31, 2007, and established a procedural schedule for prefiling prepared testimony.
On May 3, 2007, Order No. 3 of this docket was issued ruling on several petitions to
intervene and on a motion by one set of intervenors for an indefinite continuance of the hearing set
for May 31, 2007. One petition to intervene was denied because of remoteness of the location of the
petitioner's property to that of the proposed substation," and one was denied because the petition
contained insufficient information from which to determine the exact proximity of the petitioner's
property to that of the proposed substation?
This was the petition of Jeff Stephens, a resident of Cabot, Arkansas.
This was the petition of Carolyn Jolley who lives nearby but how near the
location of the proposed substation site was not determinable from the petition.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 3
Order No. 3 granted the petition to intervene of Howard and Sue Ann Stephens, husband and
wife (Intervenors), who own and reside on property immediately adjacent to, and actually abutting,
the proposed substation site. However, the motion of these Intervenors for a continuance of the
hearing before the Commission, scheduled on May 31, 2007, because of the pendency of two
lawsuits in Pulaski County Circuit Court involving issues which these intervenors argue could
impact this docket, was denied.
On May 24, 2007, by Order No. 4, the renewed motion of the Intervenors for a continuance
was again denied. Also, two motions of a procedural nature filed by the General Staff of the
Arkansas Public Service Commission (Staff) were denied by Order No. 4.
This case was heard as scheduled on May 31, 2007, by the undersigned Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ).
Following opening statements by counsel for the three parties, EAT, Staff and the Intervenors,
oral public comments were received into the record. The first person to make a public comment was
Carolyn Jolley, whose petition to intervene was denied. Mrs. Jolley and her husband own property
and live north of Colonel Glenn Road from the proposed substation site, which is several hundred
yards south of Colonel Glenn Road. The Jolleys' driveway or entrance to their property is north off
of Colonel Glenn Road. The concerns expressed by Mrs. Jolley were primarily that the location of
the substation at the proposed site would exacerbate an already dangerous and annoying vehicular
traffic problem at this location along Colonel Glenn Road and that a creek flowing underneath
Colonel Glenn Road and across part of the Jolley property would be more apt to flood and run onto
the Jolley property because of the location of the substation.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 4
The next person to offer an oral public comment was Francis Jamell, a resident and property
owner on the north side of Colonel Glenn Road approximately 200 feet east ofthe proposed entrance
road south off of Colonel Glenn Road leading to the proposed 3.5 acre substation site. He stated that
he was in the construction business himself, and that although he knew that a new substation in
western Little. Rock was needed, he believed that Entergy was underestimating its probable costs for
constructing this substation and road at the proposed location by perhaps between two and three
million dollars.
Oral public comments were also offered by Tina Williams who owns and lives on property
that fronts on Colonel Glenn Road and is immediately adjacent to and north of the proposed
substation site. Ms. Williams' chief concern is the flooding problem which she fears would be
exacerbated by building a substation between 200 and 300 feet behind her property. She also has
concerns about increased vehicular traffic and related increased safety risks because of it if the
substation is sited at the proposed location.
Gary Brown made an oral public comment at the hearing. Mr. Brown lives and owns
property on Lawson Road generally south and east of the proposed substation site. His property also
floods when the nearby creek flows out of its banks in periods of heavy rain. He expressed concerns
about increased flooding, oil or chemical leakage or spillage from the substation transformers and
other equipment, an increased risk of fire at the substation site, and other safety hazards if the
substation were to be located at the proposed site.
The last person to make an oral public comment at the hearing was Cabot resident, Jeff
Stephens, the son of the Intervenors, who was delayed in arriving at the hearing because of a conflict
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 5
with a related case also being tried that day in Pulaski County Circuit Court.' Jeff Stephens is
naturally concerned over any possible negative impact the building of the proposed substation could
have on his parents' property. His chief concern was that the existing flooding problem in periods
of heavy rain would be greatly exacerbated by building a substation pad several feet higher than the
existing ground level on EAI's proposed site because it would inevitably cause the displacement of
more water. He also expressed doubts that the cost estimate for putting the substation at this location
was realistic.
Several additional public comments in e-mail or written form were received into the
Secretary of the Commission's office prior to the hearing. All such public comments were opposed
to the siting of the substation at the proposed location. Exacerbation of the existing flooding
problem and fire (from lightening strikes or other causes) were the primary reasons for the
opposition.
It is important to keep in mind that all of the public comments, addressing as they do, the
relative desirability or undesirability of EAI's proposed site, become virtually irrelevant in this
proceeding if it is found the Commission has no regulatory jurisdiction or authority over the
substation's siting. It is only if EAI is required to have a CCN that the Arkansas Public Service
Commission becomes called upon to determine the reasonableness or suitability of the location of
the proposed substation.
6
This was a quiet title action between two groups of property owners
involving a boundary line dispute in the vicinity of the proposed substation
site. There apparently is, or was, a disagreement about the precise location of
a boundary line, and EAI needed this resolved so it could acquire a good title
to the 3.5 acre site on which it proposed to locate its substation.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 6
EAI's first witness was George R. Bartlett, employed by an affiliate corporation of EAI,
Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), as the Director of Operations in ESI's Transmission Business Unit. He
is an electrical engineer. Mr. Bartlett discussed at some length the electric industry's definitions of
and distinctions between a transmission substation and a distribution substation. He also explained
that some substations are called dual function substations because they contain elements of both
transmission and distribution purposes. He discussed the industry standards and criteria for making
the determination of how to classify a dual function substation as either a transmission substation
or a distribution substation. In describing the distinction between transmission and distribution
facilities, Mr. Bartlett stated the following:
A transmission line transports energy from remote generation sites to local area
electrical load centers by delivery through transmission lines to distribution substations. The
transmission lines and related transmission facilities that operate at or above 69 kV voltage
levels, historically, have been booked to transmission plant accounts and characterized as
transmission assets using the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") Uniform
System of Accounts.
Distribution lines move energy from distribution substations to the local area
electrical loads. Based on FERC guidelines, the Company has classified as distribution those
lines that operate at voltage levels below 69 M Such lines, historically, have been booked
to FERC distribution plant accounts and characterized as distribution assets.
A switching station is a transmission facility containing breakers and/or switches, and
auto -transformers in certain applications, used for interconnecting elements of the
transmission system and operating at voltage levels at or above 69 W.
A substation is a facility that contains voltage transformation equipment, 1. e., changes
electricity from transmission voltage levels to distribution voltage levels for delivery of
electricity to customers!
In answer to the question whether any of the facilities he just described could be defined
Hearing Transcript (Tr.), pp. 61, 62.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 7
solely as transmission or distribution assets, Mr. Bartlett answered:
Yes. Transmission assets include equipment and devices that operate at 69 kV
voltage levels or higher and function as part of an integrated transmission system to deliver
bulk power to transmission customers and to distribution substations. Therefore,
transmission lines, switching stations and substations, which serve to interconnect only
transmission lines, are transmission facilities and provide benefit and support to the
transmission system exclusively. Substations in this category include transmission
substations.
Distribution assets include equipment and devices that operate below 69 kV voltage
levels or equipment and devices that are sourced by transmission lines at voltage levels of
69 kV or higher and which equipment and devices transform the transmission voltage to
distribution voltage levels of less than 69 W. Therefore, distribution lines, substations and
substation equipment, which serve to interconnect only distribution lines, are distribution
facilities. Additionally, substations in this category include dual -function substations that
are sourced by two or less transmission lines. These type facilities provide exclusive benefit
and support to the distribution system!
This witness goes on to discuss so-called "dual -function substations" as substations which
include both transmission and distribution elements and may benefit both the transmission and
distribution system. He states that they may be classified as either transmission or distribution
facilities.'
Finally, when asked how the proposed substation should be classified, he answered,
The Proposed Electrical Facilities exist only to serve a distribution need and will not
serve to benefit the transmission system. The substation will contain less than three
transmission lines and the transmission path will not be altered. The proposed Colonel
Glenn Substation is connected to a single transmission line and is being constructed to serve
expanding load via the distribution facilities of EAI. The only practical way to deliver
energy produced at various generating facilities to the expanding load is via a substation that
is connected to the transmission system and transforms the voltage to a distribution level.
Tr., pp. 62,63.
Tr., p. 63.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE S
The substation is properly classified as Distribution. 10
Mr. Bartlett then discusses at some length the FERC classification system as respects
transmission versus distribution facilities as well as EAI's classification criteria versus other regional
transmission entities and organizations; and he states unequivocally that EAI's classification of the
proposed Colonel Glenn Substation in this docket as a distribution substation is consistent with these
other classification systems."
Neither of the other two parties, Staff or the Intervenors, chose to cross-examine Mr. Bartlett.
The undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did ask the witness a series of questions which
elicited some elaboration of his prepared testimony which is consistent therewith.
EAI called three more witnesses to testify in the presentation of its case -in -chief. They were:
Steve VanNamen, an electrical engineer employed by EAI in its Distribution Asset Planning Group;
Michael P. Gravolet, an engineer employed by ESI; and Marc C. Johnson, an independently
employed water engineer and hydrologist. The testimony of these three witnesses, virtually all of
which addresses one or more aspects of the case relevant to the need for and siting of a transmission
facility where a CCN is legally required, will not be discussed in detail in this order because, as will
hereinafter be discussed, it is going to be determined by this order that EAI is entitled to its
declaratory judgment order in this case that a CCN is not legally required for this substation.
The General Staff of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (Staff) called one witness in
this matter, Clark D. Cotten, who is employed by the General Staff of the Commission and holds the
10
Tr., p.64.
11
Tr., pp. 64-69.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 9
title of Senior Electrical Engineer. Mr. Cotten first cites the applicable statutory law, Ark. Code
Ann. §23-3-201, and an applicable Commission rule, Rule 7.02(b) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure [Commission RPP 7.02(b)]. He then reviews the testimony ofEAI witness,
George R. Bartlett, discussing the distinction between a transmission facility and a distribution
facility and the factors governing the classification of each type of facility. Mr. Cotten states that
it is appropriate to consider both the physical and functional characteristics of a substation facility
in determining its classification; and he agrees with Mr. Bartlett's analysis and conclusion regarding
the substation proposed in this docket by EAI. Mr. Cotten states:
Based on the evidence presented in the [testimony] of EAI Witness Bartlett, the
proposed substation facilities appear to be properly classified as distribution facilities
because they provide exclusive benefit and support to the distribution system. The only
transmission function being provided at this location is standard isolation and protective
functions. This facility will not serve as a source for additional transmission service to other
areas, or for the interconnection of one transmission network with another network.12
Mr. Cotten further points out that it is Staffs position in this docket that the declaratory order
sought by EAI is "... consistent with Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201 and the Commission's RPP and
should be granted.""
Staff witness, Cotten, then discusses all of the considerations relevant to the alternative
request made in the petition seeking a CCN, but for the reasons already mentioned this testimony
will not be detailed in this order.
Intervenors called five witnesses. They are: Mike Tschiemer, a professional videographer;
12
Tr., p. 230.
13
Tr., p. 230.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 10
Carl Garner, a consulting engineer; Sherman Smith, a professional engineer and land surveyor, who
is the Public Works Director for Pulaski County and a certified Flood Plain Manager in the State of
Arkansas; and Mrs. Sue Ann Stephens, one of the adjacent property owners and one of the
Intervenors. Again, the testimony of these witnesses is not detailed in this order in the interest of
brevity because it all goes to the several issues surrounding site selection which becomes relevant
only in the event EAI is not entitled to a declaratory judgment order but must obtain a CCN for this
proposed substation. The testimony and documentary evidence introduced by Intervenors and their
witnesses goes to the issues of flooding, fire, ambient noise, potentially hazardous chemical spills,
increased vehicular traffic and other safety factors, but inasmuch as it is being decided that a CCN
is not legally required in this case the evidence going to these issues does not become a part of the
decisional process.
The basic statutory law governing new construction or operation of public utility facilities
or equipment is set forth in Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201.14 Sub -part (a)(1) of this statute reads:
No new construction or operation of any equipment or facilities for supplying a
public service or extension thereof shall be undertaken without first obtaining from the
Arkansas Public Service Commission a certificate that public convenience and necessity
require or will require the construction or operation.
Sub -part (b) of this statute reads:
If the construction or operation has been commenced under a limited or conditional
certificate or authority as provided in §§ 23-3-203-23-3-205, this section shall not be
construed to- require the certificate, nor shall the certificate be required for an extension
14
This is the older statute which applies to most new utility construction
unless the utility facility proposed to be built is large enough to fall under
the jurisdictional requirements of the newer statute, the Utility Facility
Environmental and Economic Protection Act, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 523-18-501
et seq., which is not applicable in this case.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE l l
within any municipality or district within which service has been lawfully supplied, or
for any extension within, or to territory then being served, or necessary in the ordinary
course. (emphasis supplied)
Rule 7.02 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a long standing
Commission rule; subtitled Allocated Area, provides as follows:
(a) Where the Commission has by its order authorized a public utility to serve within
a municipality, territorial district, or other geographic area (hereinafter called an allocated
area), such order shall be considered a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to
construct and operate within such allocated area all distribution facilities and equipment
necessary in the ordinary course to serve all consumers, both present and future,
located within such allocated area. (emphasis supplied)
(b) Where a utility is lawfully supplying service within any municipality, construction
or operation of any equipment or facilities or extensions thereof shall not require shall not
require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or an application therefor.
While the undersigned ALJ has not been cited to any Arkansas Public Service Commission
orders or appellate decisions in Arkansas specifically interpreting and applying the just quoted statute
or Commission rule in circumstances similar to the one presented by this case, and while
grammatical experts might argue and debate whether certain of the language used in both the statute
and the rule is as clear as might be desirable, it seems quite clear that the plain meaning of the statute
and rule together is that new electric distribution facilities, such as, a distribution substation, do not
require a new CCN if constructed and operated within an existing allocated area for which the
Commission has previously granted a CCN.
Clearly, the Commission, by the promulgation of Rule 7.02 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure has itself interpreted Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201 to except new electric
facilities which are for distribution purposes only, and which are necessary in the ordinary course
of providing a public service to its customers, in a previously allocated geographical area, from the
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 12
requirement of having to have a CCN from the Commission.
In the case before the Commission in this docket, there is no dispute in the evidence but that
the proposed Colonel Glenn Substation, at the location proposed by EAI, is only a distribution
facility. Although it is proposed to be located directly underneath and connected to a 1] 5 kV
transmission line, the outgoing voltage from the substation will only be distribution level voltage.
The transmission system will not benefit from this new substation, but only the distribution system
in the rapidly growing west Little Rock area will benefit. The testimony of the two witnesses who
testified, George R. Bartlett, for the Company, and Clark D. Cotten, for the Staff, on the question
of what type of facility this proposed new substation was, whether a distribution or transmission
facility, went essentially unchallenged. Each ofthem asserted their opinions that it was a distribution
and not a transmission facility, both in its physical and its functional characteristics.
The witnesses whose testimony addressed the factors regarding site selection, including both
Company witnesses, Staff witness Cotten, and the several well-qualified witnesses for the
Intervenors, raised serious and legitimate issues going to the question of how this proposed
substation, if built at the proposed location, would impact the immediate vicinity, especially with
respect to the exacerbation of the existing flooding problem during periods of heavy rainfall.
However, as earlier stated in this order, having decided that EAI is not legally required to obtain a
CCN for this substation because it is only a distribution and not a transmission facility and is to be
built in a previously allocated and certificated area, and in the ordinary course of its business, the
Commission is powerless to exert regulatory control or authority over its placement of this
substation. It simply does not have the,jurisdiction, that is, the legal power, under the law to require
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 13
EAI to satisfy the criteria which govern the siting of a transmission facility. Therefore, it is
unnecessary and would be purely academic to discuss in this order whether the evidence shows that
EAI would be entitled to a CCN for this substation in the location proposed.
In view of the foregoing discussion, it is ORDERED that the petition of EAI for a declaratory
judgment stating that its proposed new 115113.8 kV substation to be built in the western part of the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, on a 3.5 acre site approximately two miles west of
Interstate Highway 430, between Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road, be and is hereby, granted.
Because this proposed substation is a distribution facility, as distinguished from a transmission
facility, and is to be constructed in a previously allocated and certificated area, and in the ordinary
course of the Company's business of providing public utility service to its existing and future
customers, no CCN is by law required to be obtained for it from this Commission. It is further
ORDERED that the Intervenors' petition is dismissed.
BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE PURSUANT TO DELEGATION.
This day of September, 2007.
r
Diana K. Wilson
Secretary of the Commission
Z.4,00, -
-2J j:=::,t - --,
Burl C. Rotenberry
Administrative Law Judge
iivn 1,y � �•�•l i l•ti l ir,11 11+:• +i iillriti 11E, p]'iiCi d5511C�i
by ihQ Al:..:• + I+:I'. •::� y�f1 i�< [ .1l11liFl$Sithi
hwii IA:=15 tit'17,'.i 1?!1 ::ii i'•:}i'I!ti'. �+i Citi!'Tli i}!li
date bN. l 'N. Hari l « W1 lit _ r .,..,, ,•ici, using
thsr ltricill •; i+I c: +.'s1 istit• u, I}7u1�.1i��i is the
official 6W. �--.
^ r
svl8n^ �
7�
Scr:r+•t;+rig n� lkc ('t+nutt'tssion �^�
Pale — I
y that a 'icts upon
iho are "essentially,
to the litigation," ac -
to the majority opin-
en by Justice Stephen
id joined by Chief jus -
Roberts and justices
lito, Anthony Kennedy
I Souter.
Ling were justices Ruth
isburg, Antonin Scalia,
Stevens and Clarence
ljority "relies on a dis-
ietween taking third -
n into account in or-
tes lose
ati-terror act
Commissions Act,
ddent Bush pushed
)ngress last year to
!fense Department
>rosecute terrorism
ow, detainees must
ree-officer military
they don't pose a
t.
ie commissions act,
lent may indefinite-
reigners who have
;Hated as "enemy
' and authorizes the
ggressive but unde-
)gation tactics.
5 detainees are be-
te U.S. military base
mo Bay, Cuba. The
IETAINEES, Page 5A
atistics
eveals
data reported be-
uid 2005 were ac-
idit found.
ling, a justice
Jointed to figures
prosecutors in the
headquarters for
either accurately
aderreported their
rscoring what he
to avoid pumping
Tor statistics.
ers, used to mom-
ment's.progress in
rests, are reported
nd the public and
shape the depart .
lITISTICS, Page 5A
--- which is permitted — [and]
doing so in order to punish the
defendant directly' — which is
forbidden," Stevens wrote. "This
nuance eludes me."
The case was seen at the be-
ginning of the term as one of the
most important business deci-
sions the Roberts court would
make. It continues the reasoning
in the court's recent rulings that
punitive damages — aimed at
Punishing a company and deter-
ring future wrongdoing — must
be proportionate to the wrong
committed.
---C)---1--- 1 1 1-
gation, the justices sidestepped
a decision.that industry had
most wanted: whether to set a
solid cap on how much could be
awarded for punitive damages,
perhaps based on a specific ra-
tio to the actual damages done'
to the individual who brought
the suit.
Philip Morris Vice President
William ohlemeyer said the
decision gives the company "an
opportunity to fully and fairly
defend itself in this and other
cases."
"This is a really important
Fighting Baghdad security challenges
— aA'u a 019 win," saga Robin
Conrad, senior vice president
of the National Chamber Utiga-
tion Center of the U.S. Cham-
ber of Commerce. She said it
would be valuable to insurance
companies, automakers, phar-
maceutical manufacturers and
others who have been hit with
huge punitive damages awards
in recent years.
Robert Peck, the Washington
lawyer who represented the Or-
egon smoker's widow who filed
the suit, said the decision "slays
a dragon that didn't exist." He
See VERDICT, Page 5A
AP/SAMIR MIZBAN
An Iraqi soldier directs traffic Tuesday at a vehicle checkpoint in Baghdad. A string of blasts further rattled
officials marking the first week of'a security crackdown in the city. Article, 10A
substation plan earns L11DX'.s blessing
Entergy Arkansas gains city's OK despite neighbors' objections
HY MATTHEW S.L. CATE
ARKANSAS DEMOCRA '-c,9ZEM
Entergy Arkansas Inc. won
Little Rock approval Tuesday
night for its first new power
substation in nearly 30 years.
The city's Board of Directors
supported the project over A-
jections from the site's neigh-
bors, who called it an unsafe,
loud and ugly adition to their
Pastoral commul ty just outside
the city limits.
"You're asking us to hold a
gun to our head," said Roy Jol-
ley, who lives just dowel the road
from the substation site. "'This is
a monstrosity that is going in the
middle of our neighborhood."
He and others fear that af-
ter the site is built up, runoff
will lead to increased flooding
in their low-lying community.
about two miles west of inter•'•
state 430. They also worry it will
hurt property values.
Entergy must still clear sev-
eral county, state and probably
federal regulatory hurdles, some
of which deal with potential
flooding problems.
'The company hopes to build
the $5.6 million substation at
14250 Colonel Glenn Road to
meet the growing demand for
See SUHSTATION,!Oage 2A
Entergy
October 5, 2007
Re: (Proposed Construction of the Colonel Glenn Road 115/13.8 Substation)
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC. FOR A
DECLARATORY ORDER THAT A
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY IS NOT REQUIRED TO
CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND OPERATE A
115 KV DISTRIBUTION SUBSTATION AND
ASSOCIATED FACILITIES, ALL IN LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS, OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, FOR A CERTIFICATE
Dear City of Little Rock / Pulaski County Official:
Entergy
Transmission & Substation Construction
51 Thibault Road
Little Rock, AR 72206
Fax 501 490 4754
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
This is to advise you that Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) has proposed to construct an electrical
substation in the Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road areas that may affect certain property
owners near this location.
The Proposed Electrical Facilities are described as:
On approximately 3.5 acres of property at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road, to be
purchased by EAI, the Colonel Glenn Road 115/13.8 kV Substation consists of the
installation of one power transformer and associated equipment to support the
distribution of electricity with plans to install a second power transformer and
associated equipment at a later date. The proposed project will be constructed
adjacent to the Company's existing 115 kV transmission line which extends from
the Kanis Substation to the Mabelvale Switching Station.
On May 31, 2007, the Arkansas Public Service Commission (APSC) held its public hearing on the
Petition filed by EAI for a declaration that a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity
(CCN) is not required to construct the 115/13.8 kV Substation located near Colonel Glenn and
Lawson Roads in west Little Rock, or, alternatively, for a CCN. On September 27, 2007, the
Commission issued Order No. 5 granting EAI's Petition that a CCN is not required for the
construction project. Attached is a copy of APSC Order No. 5 for your information.
Sincerely yours,
C,
Murry Witcher
CCN Coordinator - Transmission
Enclosures
ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF ENTERGY )
ARKANSAS, INC. FOR A DECLARATORY ORDER }
THAT A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC }
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY IS NOT }
REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND )
MAINTAIN A 115 KV DISTRIBUTION )
SUBSTATION AND ASSOCIATED FACILITIES, )
ALL IN LITTLE ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, )
ARKANSAS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A )
CERTIFICATE )
�
Ef Z l 3 49 Ph 107
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
ORDER NO. 5
On December 5, 2006, Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI or the Company) filed a petition for a
declaratoryjudgment order (hereafter declaratoryjudgment) stating that anew 115/13.8 kilovolt (kV)
substation, proposed to be built in the western part of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas,' on a 3.5
acre site, does not require a new certificate of public convenience and necessity (CCN), because
under Arkansas statutory lave' and the rules and regulations of the Arkansas Public Service
Commission (Commission)' the proposed new substation is only a "distribution" facility, as
distinguished from a transmission facility, and as such does not require a new CCN for its
construction and operation.
Alternatively, the petition states that if the Company fails to obtain a favorable ruling on its
2.
More particularly, the preferred location of this new 115/13.8 kv
substation would be approximately two miles west of Interstate Highway I-430 and
between Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads.
2
3
Ark, Code Ann. 123-3-201(b).
Rule 7.02(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 2
request for a declaratory judgment, EAI applies for a certificate of public convenience and necessity
(CCN) pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. §23-3-201 et seq. and Rule 7.04(a) of the Arkansas Public
Service Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure requesting authority to
construct, operate and maintain a new 115113.8 kilovolt (kV) substation and associated distribution
facilities and equipment on this proposed 3.5 acre site and connect it to an existing 115 kV electric
transmission line immediately above the proposed substation site. As indicated in the first paragraph
of this order and Footnote 1 thereto, this proposed substation is to be located in the western part of
the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, approximately two miles west of Interstate 430
between Colonel Glenn and Lawson Roads.
Order No. 2, filed March 1, 2007, scheduled a consolidated hearing on both the petition for
a declaratory judgment, the alterative request for a CCN, and for the purpose of hearing public
comments, on May 31, 2007, and established aprocedural schedule for prefiling prepared testimony.
On May 3, 2007, Order No. 3 of this docket was issued ruling on several petitions to
intervene and on a motion by one set of intervenors for an indefinite continuance of the hearing set
for May 31, 2007. One petition to intervene was denied because of remoteness of the location of the
petitioner's property to that of the proposed substation," and one was denied because the petition
contained insufficient information from which to determine the exact proximity of the petitioner's
property to that of the proposed substation'
This was the petition of Jeff Stephens, a resident of Cabot, Arkansas.
This was the petition of Carolyn Jolley who lives nearby but how near the
location of the proposed substation site was not determinable from the petition.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 3
Order No. 3 granted the petition to intervene of Howard and Sue Ann Stephens, husband and
wife (Intervenors), who own and reside on property immediately adjacent to, and actually abutting,
the proposed substation site. However, the motion of these Intervenors for a continuance of the
hearing before the Commission, scheduled on May 31, 2007, because of the pendency of two
lawsuits in Pulaski County Circuit Court involving issues which these intervenors argue could
impact this docket, was denied.
On May 24, 2007, by Order No. 4, the renewed motion of the Intervenors for a continuance
was again denied. Also, two motions of a procedural nature filed by the General Staff of the
Arkansas Public Service Commission (Staff) were denied by Order No. 4.
This case was heard as scheduled on May 31, 2007, by the undersigned Administrative Law
Judge (ALJ).
Following opening statements by counsel for the three parties, EAI, Staffand the Intervenors,
oral public comments were received into the record. The first person to make a public comment was
Carolyn Jolley, whose petition to intervene was denied. Mrs. Jolley and her husband own property
and live north of Colonel Glenn Road from the proposed substation site, which is several hundred
yards south of Colonel Glenn Road. The Jolleys' driveway or entrance to their property is north off
of Colonel Glenn Road. The concerns expressed by Mrs. Jolley were primarily that the location of
the substation at the proposed site would exacerbate an already dangerous and annoying vehicular
traffic problem at this location along Colonel Glenn Road and that a creek flowing underneath
Colonel Glenn Road and across part of the Jolley property would be :more apt to flood and run onto
the Jolley property because of the location of the substation.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 4
The next person to offer an oral public comment was Francis Jamell, a resident and property
owner on the north side of Colonel Glenn Road approximately 200 feet east ofthe proposed entrance
road south off of Colonel Glenn Road leading to the proposed 3.5 acre substation site. He stated that
he was in the construction business himself, and that although he knew that a new substation in
western Little. Rock was needed, he believed that Entergy was underestimating its probable costs for
constructing this substation and road at the proposed location by perhaps between two and three
million dollars.
Oral public comments were also offered by Tina Williams who owns and lives on property
that fronts on Colonel Glenn Road and is immediately adjacent to and north of the proposed
substation site. Ms. Williams' chief concern is the flooding problem which she fears would be
exacerbated by building a substation between 200 and 300 feet behind her property. She also has
concerns about increased vehicular traffic and related increased safety risks because of it if the
substation is sited at the proposed location.
Gary Brown made an oral public comment at the hearing. Mr. Broom lives and owns
property on Lawson Road generally south and east of the proposed substation site. His property also
floods when the nearby creek flows out of its banks in periods of heavy rain. He expressed concerns
about increased flooding, oil or chemical leakage or spillage from the substation transformers and
other equipment, an increased risk of fire at the substation site, and other safety hazards if the
substation were to be located at the proposed site.
The last person to make an oral public comment at the hearing was Cabot resident, Jeff
Stephens, the son of the Intervenors, who was delayed in arriving at the hearing because of a conflict
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 5
with a related case also being tried that day in Pulaski County Circuit Court.' Jeff' Stephens is
naturally concerned over any possible negative impact the building of the proposed substation could
have on his parents' property. His chief concern was that the existing flooding problem in periods
of heavy rain would be greatly exacerbated by building a substation pad several feet higher than the
existing ground level on EAI's proposed site because it would inevitably cause the displacement of
more water. He also expressed doubts that the cost estimate for putting the substation at this location
was realistic.
Several additional public comments in e-mail or written form were received into the
Secretary of the Commission's office prior to the hearing. All such public comments were opposed
to the siting of the substation at the proposed location. Exacerbation of the existing flooding
problem and fire (from lightening strikes or other causes) were the primary reasons for the
opposition.
It is important to keep in mind that all of the public comments, addressing as they do, the
relative desirability or undesirability of EAI's proposed site, become virtually irrelevant in this
proceeding if it is found the Commission has no regulatory jurisdiction or authority over the
substation's siting. It is only if EAI is required to have a CCN that the Arkansas Public Service
Commission becomes called upon to determine the reasonableness or suitability of the location of
the proposed substation.
6
This was a quiet title action between two groups of property owners
involving a boundary line dispute in the vicinity of the proposed substation
site. There apparently is, or was, a disagreement about the precise location of
a boundary line, and EAI needed this resolved so it could acquire a good title
to the 3.5 acre site on which it proposed to locate its substation.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 6
EAI's fust witness was George R. Bartlett, employed by an affiliate corporation of EAI,
Entergy Services, Inc. (ESI), as the Director of Operations in ESI's Transmission Business Unit. He
is an electrical engineer. Mr. Bartlett discussed at some length the electric industry's definitions of
and distinctions between a transmission substation and a distribution substation. He also explained
that some substations are called dual function substations because they contain elements of both
transmission and distribution purposes. He discussed the industry standards and criteria for making
the determination of how to classify a dual function substation as either a transmission substation
or a distribution substation. In describing the distinction between transmission and distribution
facilities, Mr. Bartlett stated the following:
A transmission line transports energy from remote generation sites to local area
electrical load centers by delivery through transmission lines to distribution substations. The
transmission lines and related transmission facilities that operate at or above 69 kV voltage
levels, historically, have been booked to transmission plant accounts and characterized as
transmission assets using the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC') Uniform
System of Accounts.
Distribution lines move energy from distribution substations to the local area
electrical loads. Based on FERC guidelines, the Company has classified as distribution those
lines that operate at voltage levels below 69 M Such lines, historically, have been booked
to FERC distribution plant accounts and characterized as distribution assets.
A switching station is atransmission facility containing breakers and/or switches, and
auto -transformers in certain applications, used for interconnecting elements of the
transmission system and operating at voltage levels at or above 69 W.
A substation is a facilitythat contains voltage transformation equipment, t. e., changes
electricity from transmission voltage levels to distribution voltage levels for delivery of
electricity to customers.'
In answer to the question whether any of the facilities he just described could be defined
Hearing Transcript (Tr.), pp. 61, 62.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 7
solely as transmission or distribution assets, Mr. Bartlett answered:
Yes. Transmission assets include equipment and devices that operate at 69 kV
voltage levels or higher and function as part of an integrated transmission system to deliver
bulk power to transmission customers and to distribution substations. Therefore,
transmission lines, switching stations and substations, which serve to interconnect only
transmission lines, are transmission facilities and provide benefit and support to the
transmission system exclusively. Substations in this category include transmission
substations.
Distribution assets include equipment and devices that operate below 69 kV voltage
levels or equipment and devices that are sourced by transmission lines at voltage levels of
69 kV or higher and which equipment and devices transform the transmission voltage to
distribution voltage levels of less than 69 W. Therefore, distribution lines, substations and
substation equipment, which serve to interconnect only distribution lines, are distribution
facilities. Additionally, substations in this category include dual -function substations that
are sourced by two or less transmission lines. These type facilities provide exclusive benefit
and support to the distribution system.'
This witness goes on to discuss so-called "dual -function substations" as substations which
include both transmission and distribution elements and may benefit both the transmission and
distribution system. He states that they may be classified as either transmission or distribution
facilities.'
Finally, when asked how the proposed substation should be classified, he answered,
The Proposed Electrical Facilities exist only to serve a distribution need and will not
serve to benefit the transmission system. The substation will contain less than three
transmission lines and the transmission path will not be altered. The proposed Colonel
Glenn Substation is connected to a single transmission line and is being constructed to serve
expanding load via the distribution facilities of EAI. The only practical way to deliver
energy produced at various generating facilities to the expanding load is via a substation that
is connected to the transmission system and transforms the voltage to a distribution level.
Tr., pp. 62,63.
Tr., p. 63.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 8
The substation is properly classified as Distribution.10
Mr. Bartlett then discusses at some length the FERC classification system as respects
transmission versus distribution facilities as well as EAI's classification criteria versus other regional
transmission entities and organizations; and he states unequivocally that EAI's classification of the
proposed Colonel Glenn Substation in this docket as a distribution substation is consistent with these
other classification systems."
Neither of the other two parties, Staff or the Intervenors, chose to cross-examine Mr. Bartlett.
The undersigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did ask the witness a series of questions which
elicited some elaboration of his prepared testimony which is consistent therewith.
EAI called three more witnesses to testify in the presentation of its case -in -chief. They were:
Steve VanNamen, an electrical engineer employed by EAI in its Distribution Asset Planning Group;
Michael P. Gravolet, an engineer employed by ESI; and Marc C. Johnson, an independently
employed water engineer and hydrologist. The testimony of these three witnesses, virtually all of
which addresses one or more aspects of the case relevant to the need for and siting of a transmission
facility where a CCN is legally required, will not be discussed in detail in this order because, as will
hereinafter be discussed, it is going to be determined by this order that EAI is entitled to its
declaratory judgment order in this case that a CCN is not legally required for this substation.
The General Staff of the Arkansas Public Service Commission (Staff) called one witness in
this matter, Clark D. Cotten, who is employed by the General Staff of the Commission and holds the
10
Tr., p. 64.
11
Tr., pp. 64-69.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 9
title of Senior Electrical Engineer. Mr. Cotten first cites the applicable statutory law, Ark. Code
Ann. §23-3-201, and an applicable Commission rule, Rule 7.02(b) of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure [Commission RPP 7.02(b)]. He then reviews the testimony of EAI witness,
George R. Bartlett, discussing the distinction between a transmission facility and a distribution
facility and the factors governing the classification of each type of facility. Mr. Cotten states that
it is appropriate to consider both the physical and functional characteristics of a substation facility
in determining its classification; and he agrees with Mr. Bartlett's analysis and conclusion regarding
the substation proposed in this docket by EAI. Mr. Cotten states:
Based on the evidence presented in the [testimony] of EAI Witness Bartlett, the
proposed substation facilities appear to be properly classified as distribution facilities
because they provide exclusive benefit and support to the distribution system. The only
transmission function being provided at this location is standard isolation and protective
functions. This facility will not serve as a source for additional transmission service to other
areas, or for the interconnection of one transmission network with another network."
Mr. Cotten further points out that it is Staff s position in this docket that the declaratory order
sought by EAI is "... consistent with Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201 and the Commission's RPP and
should be granted."13
Staff witness, Cotten, then discusses all of the considerations relevant to the alternative
request made in the petition seeking a CCN, but for the reasons already mentioned this testimony
will not be detailed in this order.
Intervenors called five witnesses. They are: Mike Tschiemer, a professional videographer;
17
Tr., p. 230.
13
Tr., p. 230.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 10
Carl Gamer, a consulting engineer; Sherman Smith, a professional engineer and land surveyor, who
is the Public Works Director for Pulaski County and a certified Flood Plain Manager in the State of
Arkansas; and Mrs. Sue Ann Stephens, one of the adjacent property owners and one of the
Intervenors. Again, the testimony of these witnesses is not detailed in this order in the interest of
brevity because it all goes to the several issues surrounding site selection which becomes relevant
only in the event EAI is not entitled to a declaratoryjudgment order but must obtain a CCN for this
proposed substation. The testimony and documentary evidence introduced by Intervenors and their
witnesses goes to the issues of flooding, fire, ambient noise, potentially hazardous chemical spills,
increased vehicular traffic and other safety factors, but inasmuch as it is being decided that a CCN
is not legally required in this case the evidence going to these issues does not become a part of the
decisional process.
The basic statutory law governing new construction or operation of public utility facilities
or equipment is set forth in Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201.14 Sub -part (a)(1) of this statute reads:
No new construction or operation of any equipment or facilities for supplying a
public service or extension thereof shall be undertaken without first obtaining from the
Arkansas Public Service Commission a certificate that public convenience and necessity
require or will require the construction or operation.
Sub -part (b) of this statute reads:
If the construction or operation has been commenced under a limited or conditional
certificate or authority as provided in §§ 23-3-203-23-3-205, this section shall not be
construed to- require the certificate, nor shall the certificate be required for an extension
14
This is the older statute which applies to most new utility construction
unless the utility facility proposed to be built is large enough to fall under
the jurisdictional requirements of the newer statute, the Utility Facility
Environmental and Economic Protection Act, codified as Ark. Code Ann. 923-18-501
et seq., which is not applicable in this case.
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 11
within any municipality or district within which service has been lawfully supplied, or
for any extension within, or to territory then being served, or necessary in the ordinary
course. (emphasis supplied)
Rule 7.02 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a long standing
Commission rule; subtitled Allocated Area, provides as follows:
(a) Where the Commission has by its order authorized a public utility to serve within
a municipality, territorial district, or other geographic area (hereinafter called an allocated
area), such order shall be considered a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to
construct and operate within such allocated area all distribution facilities and equipment
necessary in the ordinary course to serve all consumers, both present and future,
located within such allocated area. (emphasis supplied)
(b) Where a utility is lawfully supplying service within any municipality, construction
or operation of any equipment or facilities or extensions thereof shall not require shall not
require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or an application therefor.
While the undersigned ALJ has not been cited to any Arkansas Public Service Commission
orders or appellate decisions in Arkansas specifically interpreting and applying the just quoted statute
or Commission rule in circumstances similar to the one presented by this case, and while
grammatical experts might argue and debate whether certain of the language used in both the statute
and the rule is as clear as might be desirable, it seems quite clear that the plain meaning of the statute
and rule together is that new electric distribution facilities, such as, a distribution substation, do not
require a new CCN if constructed and operated within an existing allocated area for which the
Commission has previously granted a CCN.
Clearly, the Commission, by the promulgation of Rule 7.02 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure has itself interpreted Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-201 to except new electric
facilities which are for distribution purposes only, and which are necessary in the ordinary course
of providing a public service to its customers, in a previously allocated geographical area, from the
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 12
requirement of having to have a CCN from the Commission.
In the case before the Commission in this docket, there is no dispute in the evidence but that
the proposed Colonel Glenn Substation, at the location proposed by EAI, is only a distribution
facility. Although it is proposed to be located directly underneath and connected to a 1 l S kV
transmission line, the outgoing voltage from the substation will only be distribution level voltage.
The transmission system will not benefit from this new substation, but only the distribution system
in the rapidly growing west Little Rock area will benefit. The testimony of the two witnesses who
testified, George R. Bartlett, for the Company, and Clark D. Cotten, for the Staff, on the question
of what type of facility this proposed new substation was, whether a distribution or transmission
facility, went essentially unchallenged. Each ofthem asserted their opinions that it was a distribution
and not a transmission facility, both in its physical and its functional characteristics.
The witnesses whose testimony addressed the factors regarding site selection, including both
Company witnesses, Staff witness Cotten, and the several well-qualified witnesses for the
Intervenors, raised serious and legitimate issues going to the question of how this proposed
substation, if built at the proposed location, would impact the immediate vicinity, especially with
respect to the exacerbation of the existing flooding problem during periods of heavy rainfall.
However, as earlier stated in this order, having decided that EAI is not legally required to obtain a
CCN for this substation because it is only a distribution and not a transmission facility and is to be
built in a previously allocated and certificated area, and in the ordinary course of its business, the
Commission is powerless to exert regulatory control or authority over its placement of this
substation. It simply does not have the,jurisdiction, that is, the legal power, under the law to require
DOCKET NO. 06-162-U
PAGE 13
EAI to satisfy the criteria which govern the siting of a transmission facility. Therefore, it is
unnecessary and would be purely academic to discuss in this order whether the evidence shows that
EAI would be entitled to a CCN for this substation in the location proposed.
In view ofthe foregoing discussion, it is ORDERED that the petition of EAI for a declaratory
judgment stating that its proposed new 115113.8 kV substation to be built in the western part of the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, on a 3.5 acre site approximately two miles west of
Interstate Highway 430, between Colonel Glenn Road and Lawson Road, be and is hereby, granted.
Because this proposed substation is a distribution facility, as distinguished from a transmission
facility, and is to be constructed in a previously allocated and certificated area, and in the ordinary
course of the Company's business of providing public utility service to its existing and future
customers, no CCN is by law required to be obtained for it from this Commission. It is further
ORDERED that the Intervenors' petition is dismissed.
BY ORDER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE PURSUANT TO DELEGATION.
This day of September, 2007.
Diana K. Wilson J
Secretary of the Commission
Burl C. Rotenberry
Administrative Law Judge
issued
by the A+:-:::; �:. I';t'•::� war■}�. l'.1ttlmissinn
hus Ixxit Nv1%1:1 +,=t ,:11 patrtw:, Aa ,:orti this
date hN' t'.S. is;aI V,is'i I ; c !� '! ='.�I, itsing
tltsr ttdtlr� .; :,l �: �.;t I�.tll! �., ulwi..u�.l „t the
official +lovvet fi,L:,
i)MIM Wilson
Jon
Plate
�r
Plate I
Page 1 of 1
Carney, Dana
From: Fields, Amy
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:09 AM
To: Carney, Dana
Cc: Bozynski, Tony
Subject: McClain v. CLR (Entergy Substation case)
Hi, Dana
I had given you the trial date of October 9 & 10 for this case (the one where they're appealing the CUP for
Entergy's substation). Judge Fox was the judge assigned to this case and he recused on Friday when it was
discovered that Entergy's consulting engineer who testified in front of the Planning Commission is Judge Fox's
brother. So, the bottom line is - no trial on Oct. 9 & 10. The case has been reassigned to Judge Kilgore & I'll let
you know when we have a new trial date.
Thanks, Dana
Amy
Amy Beckman Fields
Deputy City Attorney
(501) 371-6892
9/17/2007
_,
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
PRESENTATION
TO
LITTLE ROCK CITY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ENTERGY SUBSTATION
J
+` ` Entergy
Customer Service
4-0
E
L
0
n
0
cn
D
m
0
0
A-�
U)
}� p L
QL O
U 'ca
.
MU) }'
U c/)
0 ca o c: c
-+--a L cu p C/)'U)
Co Cu cn -1--i L- ->
-4-jU)Ca
U)
4-0
CU
Fn
4-0 U
CO � i
m o U o °'
v) T > cu
4] -0 o O m
Z -� °' }' 0L
U)
-+--a 4-0C: -- Co
U N
COU
�Q- -1.-1 o
-+-j
C) Q U W oo
cn
O
O
O
C
vi
M
0
LO
a)
cr
cu
U
co
0-
E
a)
E
0
a)
cm
N
O
cn
a)
0
O
cn
a)
a)
U
X
W
I
C6
a)
L
'N
.E
.X
m
E
.cn
O
O
cn
a)
m
cn
m
O
4-0
cn
cn
cm
L
0
a)
o L
�0
Q U
O
cn cn
O
O O
> cn
Om
L
E
O
cn
U
Q
W
a)
a)
cn
0
cn
O
U
a)
O
cn
a)
N
.E
.C:
2
t
W
-0
0
co
L
.0
a)
U
0
�..,
O
C:
0
O
O
4-0
C/)�
O
O
L
U
=
O
0
0
a)
>>
O
cn
cn
-t
3
�E
'E
(D
a)
�
�
`�
cu
cu
s...
U
ca
ca
O
O
O
cu
O
cu
O
�
�
Z
Z
—
O
3:
43
CL
co
00J
a)
cr
cu
U
co
0-
E
a)
E
0
a)
cm
N
O
cn
a)
0
O
cn
a)
a)
U
X
W
I
C6
a)
L
'N
.E
.X
m
E
.cn
O
O
cn
a)
m
cn
m
O
4-0
cn
cn
cm
L
0
a)
o L
�0
Q U
O
cn cn
O
O O
> cn
Om
L
E
O
cn
U
Q
W
a)
a)
cn
0
cn
O
U
a)
O
cn
a)
N
.E
.C:
2
t
W
c
O
cu
U
O
J
i
L
4_
W
L-
0— ^
0—
O
W
cu
El
w _
ti
j
NJ
A-Ij
7
CU
U
O
♦--
to
to.
�O
C
cu
O
U
+�
O
+�
- U
C:
O
c
C`7
>>
O
CU
N
C6
`�
+=
N
E
O
+�
`o
IL
E
O
CU
E
O
�
O
>,-�
�
O
p
'�N
>
cN
>%
0
C:
-a
O
cu
CU
0_
>,
CU
>m
0
a
cnN_
p
-�
O
O
�
E
O
U
ca
O
O
}'
�'
v
NO
C:
0
U
O
CU
1
cu
c
0)�
�
U
o
O
s=
a��
�a�CUa)
'�
Co"
w
ca
U
a--0
U)
a
0
o
o
O
ccu
v
O
-P-0
C :
o
Ca
U
CU
_0
'gin
o
U)
CZ
LL
7
M**
MIJ
0
t
W
O
O
_
N
Ocu
O
>+
�
W
v
�
+�
�
/1
L.I.J
�
CU
(L)
W
_0
4-j
0
0
Lo
cu
-0
.E
j
LO
aQ
O�
O
U
Ca
-0O
N
C/)c
O
m
U
N-1.-i
-C
0CD-N
},
+�
0
C:C
�
c
E
O
L
V
c
Cam
�
�
0
cn
CL-�
O
O
N
CU
-0
-0U
>
(�
O
V
0��
E
—
-
L
Ca
:3
�i
cn
cn
O
.
L
cn
cm
E
0
U
N
U
CO
0
C
0
O
>_
H
Oco
O
to
U
c6
O
'�
-�-�
O
.i
—
r
J
L
O
cn
O
O
N
_
�cn
a
}'
W
0
Cu
N
a.
U)
ca
cu
U
O
4-/
O
U
U
C:
_
�
>,
cu�,
cn
a�
0
cu
Q
'a
z
Cl)
0
t
W
E }' ROMEMCL 0 03 �i
� 00 r MOMEN
0
�. � m 0 IMEMEM
�>:E ��I-W 0 a
MOORE
a 0 SEEMS
�. 0
.20
_
L � 00
._ y-- 0
0 I -W
0 E
0 m
--��
y- o
JOEMEN0_
0 4a >
tnMENEM
p "'
a > E r-
0
_0 0 0
c.�0 SOMME
a 0 sMMONEW�
0 M 0 a
OVEME (n X 0 r 0 BEEMS o
ROMEN . '@
s ROMER 00
Ic -W 0 *.,
0
O� ��i0 L. 0 U Cr WOn_'
.
t3 J
_ � i i �
W
cup.doc 2
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PFIUMT
07/21/03
Zoning Case File No. Z -
Planning Commission Meeting docketed for January 19, 2006
,
at
4 p.m.
Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Act
186 of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, as amended, and Chapter 36 of Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code (1988), as
amended, requesting a Conditional Use Permit on the following property:
Address: 14250 Colonel Glenn Road
Approx. 1.5 miles west of Lawson cutoff. Property is located
GeneralLOCat0n: approx 650 feet south of Colonel Glenn (no frontage)
Legal Description
See Attached
Minton, LLC
Title to this property is vested in: Q.D. Minton ,
C/o Q.D. Dan Minton
582 Channing Road
Na sh•,� • i
(Address)
Thomas M. Minton, Billie Jo Yoing
(Name)
870-845-3770, 870-845-8896 (cell
(Telephone)
If an individual other than the title-holder files this application, attachment of a completed
affidavit is required authorizing this person to act on behalf of the title-holder.
Subject Property is Presently zoned:
Residential
A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow use of the property for:
Electric Utility Substation
There ** (are not) private restrictions pertaining to the proposed use.
It is hereby agreed that the required filing fee will be paid immediately and the g of the sign
furnished will be accomplished as required.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Applicant (owner or authorized agent): by = B i 11 Stephens , Contr ROW Agent
(Signature and printed name)
Address: 7 Wingfield Circle Telephone: 227-7504 837-0953
Planning Commission Approved:
Conditions of Approval:
Legal Description
TRACT 3
A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, T -1-N, R -13 -West, Pulaski County,
Arkansas, and being more fully described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast
Comer of said Northeast Quarter of Section 19 and run thence North 88 deg. 19 min. 03
sec. West along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of Section 19 for a distance of
393.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the land herein described: thence continuing
North 88 deg. 19 min. 03 sec. West along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of
Section 19 for a distance of 355.66 feet; thence North 01 deg. 54 min. 41 sec. East for a
distance of 401.80 feet; thence South 88 deg. 19 min. 01 sec. East for a distance of
356.27 feet; thence South 01 deg. 59 min 55 sec. West for a distance of 401.80 feet
returning to the Point of Beginning, containing (143,027 sq. ft.) 3.28 acres, more or less.
Acquisition Services Group
#7 Wingfield Cir. Little Rock AR 72205
501-127-7504 ofc 501-837-0953 mbl
stephens@comcast.net
November 14, 2005
Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning & Subdivision Manager
Department of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Carney;
On behalf of my client, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., I am submitting the enclosed application for a Conditional
Use Permit on a 3.28 acre tract at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. This property is currently zoned for
residential use. It is in Pulaski County but within the city of Little Rock's planning jurisdiction. Planned
commercial and residential development in the surrounding area necessitates Entergy's expansion of their
facilities to adequately serve this area in the future.
The property is located along an existing Entergy 11 5k transmission line approximately 650 feet south of
Colonel Glenn Road and approximately the same distance north of Lawson Road. It has no frontage and
minimal, if any, visibility from either road. Access will be by private drive off of Colonel Glenn Road. A
portion of the site falls within the 100 year Flood Plain. Base flood elevation for the site is 355 feet. The
lowest point on the property is 353 feet and the highest is 359 feet. The subject property is not located
within a subdivision where a bill of assurance would be applicable.
All concerned with this proposed project feel that this is an excellent location because of it's proximity to
the existing transmission facility and it's minimal impact on the aesthetics of the area.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
Bill Stephens
Project ROW Agent
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
Bill Stephens
A uisition Services Grou
#7 Wingfield Circle
Little Rock, AR 72205
Date: January 20, 2006
Dear Mr. Stephens:
Case No. Z-7980
Location: 14250 Colonel Glenn Road
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
This is to advise you that in connection with your application for a conditional use permit, the Planning
Commission at its meeting on January 16, 2006,
Approved your application as submitted.
Denied your application as submitted.
X Deferred action to the May 11, 2006 Meeting.
Approved your application with the following
conditions:
If you have any questions, please call me at 371-6817.
Sincerely,
Dana Carney, Zoning and St
Department of Planning and
DC:aa
Manager
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
SUBDIVISION HEARING
SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD
MAY 11, 2006
4:00 P.M.
Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A Quorum was present being eleven (11) in number.
II. Members Present: Pam Adcock
Gary Langlais
Lucas Hargraves
Robert Stebbins
Troy Laha
Mizan Rahman
Jeff Yates
Jerry Meyer
Fred Allen, Jr.
Darrin Williams
Chauncey Taylor
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Cindy Dawson
III. Approval of the Minutes of the March 30, 2006 Meeting
of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The Minutes were
approved as presented.
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K Cont. FILE NO.: Z-7980
The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved for deferral to the
May 11, 2006 Agenda. The vote was 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MAY 11, 2006)
The applicants were present. There were several objectors present. Sixteen
persons submitted registration cards in opposition. Many letters of opposition
and other items of information had been submitted to staff and forwarded to the
Commission. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of approval,
subject to compliance with the conditions noted in the "Staff Recommendation"
above.
James Jones, of Entergy, spoke on behalf of the application. He cited the new
development in the area as prompting the need for the substation. He stated it
had been 26 years since a new substation had been built in the Little Rock area.
Mr. Jones stated the substation that currently served this area was operating at
capacity. He stated Entergy had identified 5 potential locations. Mr. Jones
described a feasibility study, which had been done of the 5 sites with this site
being chosen as the best. He referred to a written report, which had been
distributed to the Commissioners when speaking of the reasons why this site was
chosen. Mr. Jones cited the lack of clear -cutting, reduced cost in transmission
lines, the property being for sale, better distribution routes, good access and the
overall reduced cost to Entergy customers.
Stephen Giles, attorney representing the objectors, stating adding a substation to
the site was adding a new use that was not compatible with the area. He stated
a substation was an industrial use. He asked those present who were in
opposition to stand. Approximately 20 persons stood. Mr. Giles referred to
letters of opposition from area property owners and a letter from an appraiser
stating the substation would have a negative impact on property values. Mr.
Giles stated the ordinance required conditional uses to be compatible with uses
in the area. He stated the area residents were asking for protection under the
City's extraterritorial zoning. He concluded by stating there was also a property
line dispute.
Sue Ann Stephens, of 14075 Colonel Glenn Road, spoke in opposition. She
played a tape of noise she had recorded at the Entergy substation on Vimy Ridge
Road. Ms. Stephens voiced concerns about access, fire, gas lines and flooding.
She stated there were other sites that were better suited, specifically an inactive
quarry site on Lawson Road. Ms. Stephens stated the substation was an
industrial structure that was dangerous in nature and hideous in appearance.
Roy Jolley, of 14300 Colonel Glenn Road, spoke in opposition. He described the
9
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K (Cont.
UW41LOINVA• :1
beauty of the valley. He stated the substation would be located in a bowl and all
those around would be looking at it. Mr. Jolley stated there would be light
pollution and noise pollution. He stated he had seen this area flood and he
surmised this development would increase flooding in the area. He referred to a
letter from a realtor in which he predicted the substation would decrease
surrounding property values by 50%. Mr. Jolley voiced concern about fire danger
and noted the local volunteer fire department did not support the development.
He referred to the number of neighbors in opposition and noted the quarry site
was only 7/10 of a mile down the road. Mr. Jolley stated there would be a
negative environmental impact.
Carolyn Jolley, of 14300 Colonel Glenn Road, spoke in opposition and stated
there had not been enough time for opposition.
Stephen Giles showed a power point presentation with photographs of the area,
flooding, the Vimy Ridge Substation, traffic on Colonel Glenn Road and the
quarry site.
James Jones responded that there were 53 substations in the Little Rock area
and 490 in Arkansas. He stated several were located in floodplain areas. Mr.
Jones stated the flood photographs shown by the opponents were of the property
on the opposite site of the creek from the proposed substation site. He
addressed the issue of a possible fire at the site by stating the substation could
be de -energized within seconds. He stated surrounding properties would be
protected and the fire department and Entergy personnel would respond in an
emergency. Mr. Jones stated substations do not necessarily devalue properties.
He stated there would be no noise beyond 200 feet away from the substation.
He stated Entergy had looked at the quarry site but had determined it would add
3 million dollars to the cost and would involve clear -cutting an 80 -foot by 1 -mile
path for a new transmission line.
In response to questions from Commissioner Laha, Mr. Jones stated both this
site and the Vimy Ridge site were 115 KVA, the added cost of locating at the
quarry site would be borne by rate payers, the substation would be low -lighted
with flood lights used only when needed for work at the site and the site did need
to be filled.
In response to questions from Commissioner Yates, Mr. Jones stated access
over the creek had not yet been designed but would be designed to comply with
regulations and Entergy and the fire department would respond to any
emergency at the site.
10
May 11, 2006
SUBDIVISION
ITEM NO.: K(Cont.)FILE NO.: Z-7980
In response to questions from Commissioner Meyer, Jim Lovell of Entergy
discussed the various types of transmission and distribution lines.
Commissioner Taylor asked, of the 490 substations in Arkansas, how many per
year have explosions or fires. Mr. Jones responded there had been only two
since 1990. In response to additional questions, Mr. Jones stated there would be
only ambient noise at 200 feet from the substation and the substation site
needed to be built-up rather than constructed on piers for safety reasons.
In response to questions from Commissioner Rahman, Mr. Jones stated the
substation was needed to serve the area west of 1-430 and Entergy hoped to
have it operational by late 2007 or early 2008.
A motion was made to approve the C.U.P. subject to all staff comments and
conditions. The motion was seconded and approved by a vote of 9 ayes, 1 noe,
0 absent and 1 recusing (Adcock).
11
�Ente�gy
March 6, 2006
[ Name J
[ Address J
[ State/Zip J
Re: Open House — Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Dear Landowner:
Entergy Customer Service
Ninth & Louisiana
P.O. Box 551
Little Rock, AR 72203
Tel 501 396 4337
James Jones
Regional Customer Service Manager
You are cordially invited to a drop-in Open House to discuss an electrical substation that is
being planned by Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) for the west Little Rock area. The new
substation is needed to accommodate load growth and ensure continued reliable electric
service for the city of Little Rock in the Col. Glenn Road and Lawson Road areas. EAI has
evaluated several sites in west Little Rock for the new substation, all of which were evaluated
in an effort to have as little impact on surrounding landowners as possible while keeping
construction costs at a reasonable level.
The Company would like to show you detailed maps of the substation sites that were
identified as potential site locations and our evaluations of those locations, as well as provide
other information about the project at the drop-in Open House which will be held in the
Family Life Center at Crystal Hill Baptist Church, located at 18823 Crystal Valley Road, from
4:00-7:00 p.m. on Monday evening, March 20, 2006. I hope that you can spend a few minutes
with us during that evening.
The Open House will give you an opportunity to provide feedback concerning Entergy's
selection of its substation site and to ask questions about the project. Several Company
representatives will be on hand to answer your questions and to show you maps and
photographs of the project area.
The enclosed map portrays the approximate locations of the alternative substation sites. Our
records indicate that your property may be at or near one of the proposed sites that were
evaluated.
If you have any questions about the Open House, please give us a call at (501) 490-4752 or
(501) 490-4749. I am looking forward to seeing you at the open house on March 20, 2006.
Sincerely,
ames E. Jones
Manager, Regional Customer Service
Enclosure
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
ALTERNATIVE SUBSTATION SITES
C-� �-_. - _ .i ;:cz. !. �,� ' _ ` �.�� �`� c-� l :her � ..` r L � �%• ..
.. ."ice'-- •. �.::. - - - . � L 1: � '' ti.. , _ .
Existing 115 kV ' ♦ �"• _ Y .} _ . ` _. �...r�Y.~ --.;i 7�
`-.
Transmission Line _ ..:�, _ h'�-Alternative E - Located 1.2 Miles
• r'!�L North of Col. Glenn Road at -
{ ti
�vr ' • - Existing 115 kV Transmission Line - : 'I} "",�;yam �,`,.,• -` ..i
" •` : - - _ _ »is�n' r1;. ..�•"vL.. ilii
lie a
_ "
Alternative A - Located 1.7 Miles � _ G'
East of Existing 115 kV _
�' -- Transmission Line Near 1-430 and
J
—•s�.. R.yf_. _ .,:,:� ~ - COI. Glenn Road
JV i
�� �- �'i ti.1 �i_ .. •" - `_. U.
F ., � _�r 4r.. ^[���'^. _, - .._~�• l�l ~_'_ y 7p "-.: v.`,� Imo• I - -� --..''�••�
'- tiiVa"ae; • Y -T [j pYJAQ• �.1� f (�{ _. _ •�, j - I•+
4, _*.� moi• V �� � 1,`.
ow -
CIO Seh
! '�\ � ��=��N�-� � I. •,� "_ � � .�• •t.:''' int •� �. . �:
7�r-' m Rul Cl
�i���" _ ', :r', - - r - 'I r+�r•.• �rcem I' + it ul-
r ...E i.,;. ;,. �� V v i .I♦ ._ � , . ! 1� ' '11} � , J N�
_! '- 1 is}•� ' �; Alternative B - Located Between ?;
- �_+ •I: _ Col. Glenn Road and Lawson Road - (' • • : �� - -
! " • =f . �'T f ♦ L- at Existing 115 kV Transmission
•', ..... "-.;� _ Line 5
n r- ♦ , Y,
t
Alernative C -Located 0.7 Miles - ,
rx_ West of Existing 115 kV 1 - A' ! ❑
Transmission Line on Lawson `; -' D60a ';f.y.L•'n��
^ Road Rock Qua
14
:"-] _^� 1• c "A{Y.FP ,say '. "' DAV - Alternative D -Located 1.5 Miles ,
l - -" •T"`C-. aav _ - r - South of Lawson Road at Existing . i .
ry" c, i -
115 kV Transmission Line
Existing 115 kV
MAI
r [
• I,r� Transmission Line .0 �� ay j °•i 'j :r2.�� '
l• `.r Valley
pulrin.[ nervi
.i •'5 ' J-'_ - ••$iL ',1T ~ . �.� 16 N - .1 �(([[ .:,_, ����."J{�'��+ tiw-`-k.•ryl
l" Ty X , 4C. �I, Cia+irll J]7J •f `� "•
S dla* 51 s
(Red Lined Areas Denote Potentially Impacted Landowners and/or Residents)
DIVISION 2. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
requirements of this zone:
Page 3 of 18
a. Facilities and storage incidental to a construction project and located on the
Project site. When such facilities or storage are used for construction on lots
other than the lots used for such facilities or storage, such use shall maintain the
setbacks required in this zone.
b. Model home or subdivision sales offices when located in model homes
subject to the approval of the planning director, and subject to the following
provisions:
1. Such model homes or subdivision sales offices shall be located in a
subdivision which is owned by or held in trust with the subdivision
developer proposing to erect a model home or proposing to operate the
sales office.
2. Subdivision sales offices or model homes shall be permitted not to
exceed thirty-six (36) months from the granting of such temporary use by
the planning director.
3. The board of adjustment may grant not more than one (1) use permit
to extend the time limit allowed in item 2, above, not to exceed an
additional thirty-six (36) months.
4. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as a model home on or before the termination date
set forth in item 2, above or upon expiration of the extension granted by
the board of adjustment pursuant to item 3, above, or after six (6) months
following sale or occupancy of all lots in the subdivision other than the
model homes, whichever occurs first.
5. For the purpose of items 1, and 4, above, "subdivision" means all land
included within a plat submitted to the city.
c. Garage sales (not to exceed two (2) a year and two (2) days for each event).
(4) Conditional uses. The following uses may be permitted in this zone subject to the
approval of a condition use permit and all required showings and conditions thereof:
a. Churches and other religious institutions and their accessory buildings and
uses.
b. Educational institutions, including but not limited to colleges, universities,
public and private elementary, junior or senior high schools and their accessory
buildings and uses.
C
. Public utility buildings and facilities when necessary for serving the
surrounding area, provided that no public business office and no repair or
forage facility are maintained therein.
d. Municipal or governmental recreation use, including public parks,
playgrounds, tennis courts, golf courses, community centers, fire stations,
museums, libraries and other similar uses.
e. Country club, golf course, swimming pool or other private recreational uses
usually associated with or incidental to a social country club or subdivision
association operated for mutual recreation for the members, and not as a
business for profit.
f. Group care facilities.
g. Fire station.
http://libraryl.municode.com/mcc/DocView/I 1170/1/291/301/303 2/19/2007
�EnteW
April 20, 2006
Chief Gary Boyle
Crystal Valley Fire District #24
P.O. Box 45125
Little Rock, AR 72214
Dear Chief Boyle
Entergy Customer Service
Ninth & Lcuisiana
R.O Box 551
Little Rock, AR 7220
Tel 501 396 433
James Jones
Ragicnel Cusicmer Se*`.nCe Managw
Thank you for taking the time to share with Entergy Arkansas personnel the concerns
you expressed in a letter sent to the City of Little Rock Planning Staff regarding possible
locations for a new electrical substation in the Colonel Glenn area. I appreciate you
taking time to raise pertinent issues and questions which we hope to answer to the
complete satisfaction of all emergency response personnel.
It is my understanding that you, officials of the Little Rock Fire Department, and Pulaski
County Department of Emergency Services had a recent meeting held on April 4'h with
Entergy personnel Greg Joslin, Customer Service Manager and Jeff Spillyards,
Environmental Management Service Specialist to discuss the issues expressed in your
letter. During that meeting Mr. Joslin provided a general overview of the project while
Mr. Spillyards discussed Entergy's contingency response plan in the unlikely event of a
substation mishap.
Hopefully this meeting provided a better understanding and expectation of how Entergy
and emergency responders would need to handle either a fire or a Haz-Mat event.
As a follow-up to that meeting I would suggest several things Entergy would like to do to
ensure the safety and well-being of residents near a substation site that may eventually
be located the in the volunteer Crystal Fire District # 24.
1 Entergy would like to provide a training video and arrange for periodic
safety/refresher training. This training would be provided by trained Entergy
Safety personnel for the Volunteer Fire District.
2 Entergy would like to host officials of the Crystal Fire District, Little Rock Fire
Department and Pulaski County Department of Emergency Services to tour the
Entergy Distribution and Transmission Operations Centers located at 9th &
Louisiana Streets in downtown Little Rock. This tour will provide a better
understanding of how Entergy handles electrical outages, storm situations and
any catastrophic electrical events. Included would be detailed discussion of
procedures on how Entergy de -energizes transmission and distribution lines
entering/leaving a substation, plus explanation of the 24/7 monitoring equipment
Chief Boyle
Page 2
installed in the substation. Afterward it is suggested the group meet to develop
mutually agreed upon lines of communication and clear understanding of
roleslresponsibiIities for all parties arising in a contingency situation.
3. Entergy will work with Central Arkansas Water to determine if a fire hydrant with
sufficient flow is close to the proposed substation site and if one is not available
within a quarter mile of the proposed site, Entergy will pay up to the estimated
cost of $2,500 to have one installed. This would be to provide sufficient
protection for the neighboring properties.
4. 1 would like to offer on-site briefings to the Crystal Fire District and other
interested emergency response personnel conducted by Entergy Environmental
Management staff. These briefings will be used to communicate the potential
environmental issues associated with dielectric fluid releases and how pre -
positioning of Haz-Mat materials by Entergy reduces response times to releases
and the chances for runoff from any spills that might occur with a substation
mishap.
It is Entergy's sincere desire to be as forthcoming about risks and potential hazards any
electrical substation in the Crystal Fire District might present. Hopefully, the discussions
and meetings that have already taken place, suggested steps outlined in this letter, and
future communications will alleviate any fears and concerns about this electrical
substation.
City Planning staff requested Entergy provide written documentation of its
communications with Fire District officials and have a letter from the Crystal Valley Fire
District confirming a working agreement with Entergy. Please submit your response to
my attention. The City would like to have this letter by April 28`h for inclusion of materials
for the May 11 l Planning Commission meeting.
If you think of anything else that Entergy needs to address, please feel free to contact
me at 501-396-4337.
Sincerely, /
J mes Jones
Regional Customer Service Manager
Entergy Arkansas
Acquisition Services Group
#7 Wingfield Cir. Little Rock AR 72205
501-227-7504 oft 501-837-0953 mbl
stephens@comcast.net
April 26, 2006
Ms. Donna James, Subdivision Administrator
Department of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Minton Dairy Subdivision (formerly Minton Subdivision)
Dear Ms. James;
On behalf the owner, Minton LLC, and its members, I am submitting the enclosed four copies of the
subdivision plat revised as per the planning staff's recommendations at the Subdivision Committee
meeting on April, 20'h
We are also requesting the following:
• A variance to allow for a lot without street frontage (Lot 3).
• A variance to allow for a lot that does not meet depth/width ratio requirements (lot 2).
• A waiver to allow for gravel surface beyond the city's required hard surface "tracking
distance area" on the access easement.
• A variance from the city's standard for the access/utility easement.
• A waiver for the sidewalk requirement.
• A deferral for the design and construction of one half of the street improvements conforming
to the Master Street Plan.
Please note that the required official notification went out to the adjacent landowners on Friday March,
20. Also note that there will be no landlocked lots abutting or within the platted area. Please advise if you
need any additional information or clarification.
Sincerely,
Bill Stephens
enclosure
-,
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
T Entergy
PRESENTATION
TO
LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION
APPLICATION FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
ENTERGY SUBSTATION
MAY 11, 2006
Customer Service
0
E
W
a.
cn
O
N
I1
�+
L
0)
4-0
Q
O
C6
�
`v
U)
C)
m
U)M
. _
d-
O
O
0
Cu
U
�_
U)
c
03
L.cu
.�+
cu
0
O
U)
4-a
C/)
-f--j
U)
C:0
-I--&
►�►a)4-a
3:
0
U)
a)Cf)
X
�-=+
is0)
�--+
-0
a)
c
a
CU
0
U)
O
4-
c�
MO
N
U
N
=
N
CU
O
O3
cn
Oa)
O
�
Z
O
-1--i
CL
U)
cu
(D-0
C=
O
�
O
—
O
O
�--'
C:
„�
'V
'�
cu
U
O
�c:
O
,E
U
v
Q
U
w
oo
cn
O
N
M
U) co
C �1
U o �, v
-- ° N
L C/)aD M C/)C o �5 ° c
0 2:N 0
W� 0 E
4-0 U U
0}' E
0 0
( C .��_ -0
�M c�JJ->-0 o
C: o "- c U)
— o ° � a� --
cn
°6 � -� cn � °
>> 0 U) � � Q
cn ° ° 0 w O c
03 LO >, �
0 C C M J �
_O _O 7 O -�
- --
- O O O O
> Z 75 cy) (o Co
M
I I I I I= I I LL
t
W
W
U)
O �—
L-
A
L cu
n v♦
.o
cn o
0 a� cn
.� Q —
c o
43 CL C:
c� cn
CC U C:.__ O
U)
4-a cn U .E O
O "X ca — C: cn
N O V m cn t6 :3
U -)O O E c� .o
a> >, >, �, E .— — >
0 4-a 'E E >, o o o
o •X .X c� o
o o �� `� �> " o 0
� Ci U) w Q U U
O I I I I I I I I
C]
m
c�cn
+� E
O },
cn� O
cn
cn U —
p 4-04-0m —
O U •� O U p W
m O O
O C CDL4-0
= O > ,E to O L O
� O — � cnO to
O O
a� C:0 0
O L N �p -P cn
'� •� o E C:O
N cn cn C:O _ O U
-1-1 4-0 C:> •� O
C� cn cn
cn c c n O 0)N O
U-0 O O_ cn L- N O
'E E
.0 'E
O z z D W E CD Ocn
c�
CU>>
CL CU
O
W
4 -10_
t
W
ti
y
TOR
A
K
4-0
4-0
M
Q
cn
N
O
0
CY)
U)
C\1
Q
Q
N\
O
O
cn
E
c
4-0
O
O
Q
p
0
E
0
CIO
cr
C
(Do��
c�
U
E
o
N
C:
-
2_
..
O
Q
o
�
4—
cn
(I5
4-0
O
w3:
O
O
>
o
.-
Ua_
U)
�C:
0
O
o
L
4)
C/)
-1-a
�
�,
o
O
O
+�
�
�
�
O
U
�
0-
Q
U)
U)
O
�
LL
LL
K
LJ
0
Ir-
QU
O
�
>
U
0O
�
O
...
O
�
O
cu
0
C:E
J
Q
-0
O
O
'�
+�
0
�
O
E
u-).�
O
O
ca
c:
cn
c�
:
p
N
��
U
C:
O
N
—
U
cu
O
CL
0
0��-0
cn
0
T
._U.E
o
E
U�
0
O
C:C6
'v
'F
(�
o
O
C
C
C:—
�
cn
�
—
p
>CU
(D>
O
O
+
N
,a
_'
CU
�
cu
M
0-0
cn
>�
N
E
—i
o
f—
o
E
a)
(�
co
O
C:
W
co
W
U
m
a
0
cn
cn
co
cm
i
�
O
U
},
C
N
N
U
.Co
-0
C
'O
cu
Q
'Q
I z
U)
0
Ir-
QU
CL M M
0 0
0 M _ _� —
6 M U)
T
��S E O os =
sz = .2 _ CL 0
M M 00
0
o
jn7 U > 0
O)o M
ULJ
Jc a (1) 0 CL 0
0 tM
•U) _ rx 0 M M
AW L. o
— •C 0
� N C
L •0 L L � a•••
• J
�U Mo
*3 'a r
_ 0 0
ULMW
cup.doc 2
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Zoning Case File No. Z -
Planning Commission Meeting docketed for January 19, 2006
at
P.m.
07/21/03
Application is hereby made to the Little Rock Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Act
186 of 1957, Acts of Arkansas, as amended, and Chapter 36 of Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code (1988), as
amended, requesting a Conditional Use Permit on the following property:
Address: 14250 Colonel Glenn Road
Approx. 1.5 miles west of Lawson cutoff. Property is located
General Location: a rox 650 feet south of Colonel Glenn (no frontage)
Legal Description
See Attached
Minton, LLC
Title to this property is vested in: Q.D. Minton, Thomas M. Minton, Billie Jo Yoi
C/o Q.D. Dan Minton (Name)
582 Channing Road
Na 52 870-845-3770, 870-845-8896 (cell
(Address) (Telephone)
If an individual other than the title-holder files this application, attachment of a completed
affidavit is required authorizing this person to act on behalf of the title-holder.
Subject Preppy is presently zoned:
Residential
A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow use of the property for:
Electric Utility Substation
There (ew° (are not) private restrictions pertaining to the proposed use.
It is hereby agreed that the required filing fee will be paid immediatel*and g of the sign
fin fished will be accomplished as required.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Applicant (owner or authorized agent): bys Bill Stephens, ConROW Agent
(Signature and printed name)
Address: 7 Wingfield Circle
Planning Commission Approved:
Conditions of Approval:
Telephone: 227-7504 837-0953
Legal Description
TRACT 3
A part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 19, T -1-N, R -13 -West, Pulaski County,
Arkansas, and being more fully described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast
Comer of said Northeast Quarter of Section 19 and run thence North 88 deg. 19 min. 03
sec. West along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of Section 19 for a distance of
393.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of the land herein described: thence continuing
North 88 deg. 19 min. 03 sec. West along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of
Section 19 for a distance of 355.66 feet; thence North 01 deg. 54 min. 41 sec. East for a
distance of 401.80 feet; thence South 88 deg. 19 min. 01 sec. East for a distance of
356.27 feet; thence South 01 deg. 59 min. 55 sec. West for a distance of 401.80 feet
returning to the Point of Beginning, containing (143,027 sq. ft.) 3.28 acres, more or less.
Acquisition Services Group
#7 Wingfield Cir. Little Rock AR 72205
501-227-7504 ofc 501.-837-0953 mbl
stephens@comcast.net
November 14, 2005
Mr. Dana Carney, Zoning & Subdivision Manager
Department of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Application for Conditional Use Permit
Dear Mr. Carney;
On behalf of my client, Entergy Arkansas, Inc., I am submitting the enclosed application for a Conditional
Use Permit on a 3.28 acre tract at 14250 Colonel Glenn Road. This property is currently zoned for
residential use. It is in Pulaski County but within the city of Little Rock's planning jurisdiction. Planned
commercial and residential development in the surrounding area necessitates Entergy's expansion of their
facilities to adequately serve this area in the future.
The property is located along an existing Entergy 11 5k transmi ssion line approximately 650 feet south of
Colonel Glenn Road and approximately the same distance north of Lawson Road. It has no frontage and
minimal, if any, visibility from either road. Access will be by private drive off of Colonel Glenn Road. A
portion of the site falls within the 100 year Flood Plain. Base flood elevation for the site is 355 feet. The
lowest point on the property is 353 feet and the highest is 359 feet. The subject property is not located
within a subdivision where a bill of assurance would be applicable.
All concerned with this, proposed project feel that this is an excellent location because of it's proximity to
the existing transmission facility and it's minimal impact on the aesthetics of the area.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information.
Sincerely,
Bill Stephens
Project ROW Agent
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6663 Subdivision
Bill Stephens
Acquisition Services Grou
#7 Wingfield Circle
Little Rock, AR 72205
Date: January 20, 2006
Dear Mr. Stephens:
Case No. Z-7980
Location: 14250 Colonel Glenn Road
This is to advise you that in connection with your application for a conditional use permit, the Planning
Commission at its meeting on January 16, 2006,
Approved your application as submitted.
Denied your application as submitted.
X Deferred action to the May 11, 2006 Meeting.
Approved your application with the following
conditions:
If you have any questions, please call me at 371-6817.
Sincerely,
Dana Carney, Zoning and Si
Department of Planning and
DC:aa
Manager
AN
�Entergy
March 6, 2006
[ Name J
[ Address J
[ State/Zip J
Re: Open House — Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Dear Landowner:
Entergy Customer Service
Ninth & Louisiana
P.O. Box 551
Little Rock, AR 72203
Tel 501 396 4337
James Jones
Regional Customer Service Manager
You are cordially invited to a drop-in Open House to discuss an electrical substation that is
being planned by Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (EAI) for the west Little Rock area. The new
substation is needed to accommodate load growth and ensure continued reliable electric
service for the city of Little Rock in the Col. Glenn Road and Lawson Road areas. EAI has
evaluated several sites in west Little Rock for the new substation, all of which were evaluated
in an effort to have as little impact on surrounding landowners as possible while keeping
construction costs at a reasonable level.
The Company would like to show you detailed maps of the substation sites that were
identified as potential site locations and our evaluations of those locations, as well as provide
other information about the project at the drop-in Open House which will be held in the
Family Life Center at Crystal Hill Baptist Church, located at 18823 Crystal Valley Road, from
4:00-7:00 p.m. on Monday evening, March 20, 2006. I hope that you can spend a few minutes
with us during that evening.
The Open House will give you an opportunity to provide feedback concerning Entergy's
selection of its substation site and to ask ' questions about the project. Several Company
representatives will be on hand to answer your questions and to show you maps and
photographs of the project area.
The enclosed map portrays the approximate locations of the alternative substation sites. Our
records indicate that your property may be at or near one of the proposed sites that were
evaluated.
If you have any questions about the Open House, please give us a call at (501) 490-4752 or
(501) 490-4749. I am looking forward to seeing you at the open house on March 20, 2006.
Sincerely,
ames E. Jones
Manager, Regional Customer Service
Enclosure
ENTERGY ARKANSAS, INC.
ALTERNATIVE SUBSTATION SITES
+{'-r�^ll•� _ ._ rte' it r--�� y''_[�wQg1�i���9V••-�.'--hi-�1�• 5y1'�!-^if• J - •�Lp'.il'_r?:�'7' F. -
ip
4. 1
.f .. _�.. _ � f .. � .3_ Imo` . •-•• _ , 'i• r: - _...t, ..'�.
Existing 115 kV _ �. j 4� 3 . - f Rte.']'.• �_ _� I l' {
Transmission Line Alternative E - Located 1.2 Miles �� !!' .i;�_�)• ,
'`� i> r.•�� North of Col. Glenn Road at
Existing 115 kV Transmission Line _;;`-;, '�.,.•,_, •�
7 `
Alternative A- Located 1.7 Miles
East of Existing 115 kV yd + -
- Transmission Line Near 1-430 andI . _ _ j, • "•�.
Col. Glenn Road
.� - t . 'L - �,-• .-LtilC4: .-. - .mc ,.., cif
•�. _ '� - . l`�i � _ Fi' � ` �`�_::' !+,j�`- :,.-_ • -- :.` . --moi ' - .. 'I r �__r- 'Cµ'�A
ftp- �� �� r�i � '.•` I - --- _ ' •
- f '�C]F�<<:lrs.-1 r1f"�.,� "y ._ _-_— •�Y f+�d• ���� riC w•ry.��••�;' IiFir .._ �- ,t_
_ ,. .. Jd- '4 ^agM1 �._,r' = 3. V.a �. r" 1I '` '.4' -•i +It :• i 1. �. '•. - X11\1l l.,
fir'.^• 1l d; �: `! r s •16, + i n
y. .k -. \: Hsro�naG Cli"rrr 1 � •t` y- s),'
- •::� .• ".,' Alternative B - Located Between
•li - '�_.- _ ___ Col. Glenn Road and Lawson Road — ' ( 'j- !{) _ 1, �•
�� _ .i '� •. \ - at Existing 115 kV Transmission n '� 1 . ,�,f _• II
.. .� Line
Alternative C - Located 0.7 Miles i�� b +�� r•� _ -. i • f�
West of Existing 115 kV �" ti�--"�•+� c •li • ' 1 ! '.
i Transmission Line on Lawson
Road (Rock Quarry) I.: - •,h .l _ _ . ! • �� �. •4
:`mac', � � . `• �, ¢ � ><.: .� n
•7 __ _+.,+1ClkS' a �l ' [1A.d Alternative D -Located 1.5 Miles
�' �� ,• ^� .. law - South of Lawson Road at Existing
�'l•a".,'� • 1 - 'i j �- _ 115 kV Transmission Line
1^:] I .. [ � 1 - tri �r_, � . !r t"'� ;��•• � `1F.r• _ ' �`i
.�
Existing 115 kV '�• .(� e. ) ,'� i
Transmission Line `;' -
w w, rk ,1 i
Valy Pi
_ `� t _ LIQ]
y
}:I --- -- -- __ _- • -���" 'N. . _ ri Rdf�.l,•ntl�w.1 •,, � 29: �h,:._Si�G -
�� � r` {AUC '� •". ?Rr
. _ .0-.��.� .•Lrr_dl�� • 5tr •7 I -
` .. � f •� �� fl w '`� -S
(Red Lined Areas Denote Potentially Impacted Landowners and/or Residents)
��-,Entergy
April 20, 2006
Chief Gary Boyle
Crystal Valley Fire District #24
P.O. Box 45125
Little Rock, AR 72214
Dear Chief Boyle:
Entergy Customer Service
Ninth & Louisiana
P.O. Box 551
Little Rock, AR 72203
Tel 501 396 4337
James Jones
Regional Customer Service Manager
Thank you for taking the time to share with Entergy Arkansas personnel the concerns
you expressed in a letter sent to the City of Little Rock Planning Staff regarding possible
locations for a new electrical substation in the Colonel Glenn area. I appreciate you
taking time to raise pertinent issues and questions which we hope to answer to the
complete satisfaction of all emergency response personnel.
It is my understanding that you, officials of the Little Rock Fire Department, and Pulaski
County Department of Emergency Services had a recent meeting held on April 4th with
Entergy personnel Greg Joslin, Customer Service Manager and Jeff Spillyards,
Environmental Management Service Specialist to discuss the issues expressed in your
letter. During that meeting Mr. Joslin provided a general overview of the project while
Mr. Spillyards discussed Entergy's contingency response plan in the unlikely event of a
substation mishap.
Hopefully this meeting provided a better understanding and expectation of how Entergy
and emergency responders would need to handle either a fire or a Haz-Mat event.
As a follow-up to that meeting I would suggest several things Entergy would like to do to
ensure the safety and well-being of residents near a substation site that may eventually
be located the in the volunteer Crystal Fire District # 24.
1. Entergy would like to provide a training video and arrange for periodic
safety/refresher training. This training would be provided by trained Entergy
Safety personnel for the Volunteer Fire District.
2. Entergy would like to host officials of the Crystal Fire District, Little Rock Fire
Department and Pulaski County Department of Emergency Services to tour the
Entergy Distribution and Transmission Operations Centers located at 9th &
Louisiana Streets in downtown Little Rock. This tour will provide a better
understanding of how Entergy handles electrical outages, storm situations and
any catastrophic electrical events. Included would be detailed discussion of
procedures on how Entergy de -energizes transmission and distribution lines
entering/leaving a substation, plus explanation of the 24/7 monitoring equipment
Chief Boyle
Page 2 J
installed in the substation. Afterward it is suggested the group meet to develop
mutually agreed upon lines of communication and clear understanding of
roles/responsibilities for all parties arising in a contingency situation.
3. Entergy will work with Central Arkansas Water to determine if a fire hydrant with
sufficient flow is close to the proposed substation site and if one is not available
within a quarter mile of the proposed site, Entergy will pay up to the estimated
cost of $2,500 to have one installed. This would be to provide sufficient
protection for the neighboring properties.
4. 1 would like to offer on-site briefings to the Crystal Fire District and other
interested emergency response personnel conducted by Entergy Environmental
Management staff. These briefings will be used to communicate the potential
environmental issues associated with dielectric fluid releases and how pre -
positioning of Haz-Mat materials by Entergy reduces response times to releases
and the chances for runoff from any spills that might occur with a substation
mishap.
It is Entergy's sincere desire to be as forthcoming about risks and potential hazards any
electrical substation in the Crystal Fire District might present. Hopefully, the discussions
and meetings that have already taken place, suggested steps outlined in this letter, and
future communications will alleviate any fears and concerns about this electrical
substation.
City Planning staff requested Entergy provide written documentation of its
communications with Fire District officials and have a letter from the Crystal Valley Fire
District confirming a working agreement with Entergy. Please submit your response to
my attention. The City would like to have this letter by April 28th for inclusion of materials
for the May 11 ', Planning Commission meeting.
If you think of anything else that Entergy needs to address, please feel free to contact
me at 501-396-4337.
Sincerely,
J6mes Jones
Regional Customer Service Manager
Entergy Arkansas
Acquisition Services Group
#7 Wingfield Cir. Little Rock AR 72205
501-227-7504 oft 501-837-0953 mbl
stephens@comcast.net
April 26, 2006
Ms. Donna James, Subdivision Administrator
Department of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: Minton Dairy Subdivision (formerly Minton Subdivision)
Dear Ms. James;
On behalf the owner, Minton LLC, and its members, I am submitting the enclosed four copies of the
subdivision plat revised as per the planning staff's recommendations at the Subdivision Committee
meeting on April, 20`j'.
We are also requesting the following:
• A variance to allow for a lot without street frontage (Lot 3).
■ A variance to allow for a lot that does not meet depth/width ratio requirements (lot 2).
• A waiver to allow for gravel surface beyond the city's required hard surface "tracking
distance area" on the access easement.
• A variance from the city's standard for the access/utility easement.
• A waiver for the sidewalk requirement.
• A deferral for the design and construction of one half of the street improvements conforming
to the Master Street Plan.
Please note that the required official notification went out to the adjacent landowners on Friday March,
21St. Also note that there will be no landlocked lots abutting or within the platted area. Please advise if you
need any additional information or clarification.
Sincerely,
Bill Stephens
enclosure
DIVISION 2. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Sec. 36-251. General purpose.
Page 1 of 18
The residential districts established by this chapter are designated to promote and protect the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and other aspects of the general welfare. These
general goals include, among others, the following more specific purposes:
(1) To provide sufficient space at appropriate locations for residential developments to
adequately meet the housing needs of the present and expected future population of the
metropolitan area, with due consideration to the need for a variety of choices in site
selection.
(2) To permit improved movement on the public street system and efficiently utilize
existing public streets, and, as far as possible, to mitigate the effects of heavy traffic and
more particularly all though traffic, in residential areas.
(3) To protect residential areas against undue congestion, as far as possible, by
regulating the density of population, intensity of activity, and the bulk of buildings in
relation to the surrounding land and to each other.
(4) To provide for access of light and air to windows and for privacy, as far as possible,
by controls of the height of buildings and other structures.
(5) To promote the most desirable use of land and building development, to protect the
character of each district and its suitability for particular uses and to conserve the value
of land and buildings.
(Code 1961, Ch. 43, § 7-101)
Sec. 36-252. Accessory buildings in certain districts.
(a) [Area requirements] Accessory dwellings within the R-2, R-3, R-4 and R -7A districts shall
conform to the following area requirements:
(1) No accessory dwelling shall exceed the permitted height of the district.
(2) In no instance shall the floor area of the accessory dwelling exceed that of the
principal dwelling.
(3) In the R-2 and R-3 districts, one (1) of the dwelling units must be occupied by the
landowner.
(4) In the R-4 district, an accessory dwelling is expressly prohibited when a duplex
exists on the lot.
(5) In R-2, R-3, R-4 and R -7A districts, a single-family dwelling or manufactured home
must be on the site prior to approval of location of an accessory dwelling.
(6) The two-story type of construction may be allowed for accessory dwellings when the
ground floor is occupied as an automobile garage or accessory storage for the dwelling
units on the lot.
(b) Accessory buildings. An accessory building shall be a constructed edifice designed to
stand alone, more or less permanently. Only those buildings specifically designed and
constructed for the purpose of serving as an accessory building shall meet the definition of an
http://Iibrary I.municode.com/mcc/DocView/I 1170/1/291/301/303 2/19/2007
DIVISION 2. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Page 2 of 18
accessory building. The use of items such as cargo containers, truck boxes and trailers, train
cars and cabooses, mobile homes, manufactured homes and recreational vehicles or trailers
shall not be deemed appropriate to serve as an accessory building in a residentially -zoned
district. Such items shall not be deemed to be nonconforming structures under article 111 of this
chapter. Any such item not deemed by the planning director to be appropriate that was being
used prior to the effective date of this ordinance as an accessory structure in a residentially -
zoned district shall be removed within six (6) months from notification by the city of the property
owner.
(Code 1961, Ch. 43, § 5-102(f); Ord. No. 15,247, § 1, 2-17-87; Ord. No. 15,438, § 1, 2-16-88; 18,682, §
1(d), 5-21-02; Ord. No. 18,902, § 1(s), 7-15-03; Ord. No. 15,052, § 2, 2-3-04)
Sec. 36-253. R-1 Single-family district.
(a) Purpose and intent. The R-1 single-family district is established in order to provide areas in
the city for development of single-family residences on lots not less than fifteen thousand
(15,000) square feet in area. This section applies to such district. This district shall be located so
as to facilitate the economical provision of appropriate urban services and to provide for the
orderly expansion and maintenance of urban residential development throughout the
metropolitan area. The R-1 district shall also be applied to areas where, because of topography
or other physical constraints, lots larger than permitted in the R-2 and R-3 districts would be
appropriate. The R-1 district is not intended to be subject to major alteration by future
amendment except at the fringe of such district, where minor adjustment may become
appropriate to permit the reasonable development of vacant tracts for gradual transition from
other districts. Within the R-1 district, all buildings, structures or uses having commercial
characteristics shall be excluded whether operated for profit or otherwise. Conditional uses and
home occupations expressly provided for in this chapter, however, shall be allowed, provided
they do not have objectionable characteristics and provided further that they otherwise conform
to the provisions of this chapter.
(b) Use regulations.
(1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are one (1) single-family dwelling on any lot or
parcel.
(2) Accessory uses. The following accessory structures and land uses shall be
permitted only where clearly incidental to the permitted primary use, except as otherwise
permitted herein:
a. Servants' quarters, provided said quarters are used only by persons
employed on the premises and not for commercial purposes.
b. Accessory buildings, including private garages, storage facilities and
children's playhouses.
c. Private greenhouses and horticultural collections.
d. Flower and vegetable gardens.
e. The keeping of animals for private, noncommercial use in accordance with
chapter 6.
f. Home occupations in compliance with this chapter.
g. Signs in compliance with chapter 36, article X.
h. Swimming pools, tennis courts and similar recreational facilities.
(3) Temporary uses. The following temporary buildings, structures and uses shall be
permitted where such building, structure or use conforms to the height and yard
http://library I.municode.com/mcc/DocView/ I 1170/1/291/301/303 2/19/2007
�� ��Y.�
'y�f+ir�� ��
3.
�t.
��� � � • .. -tom Tep •'�
!. '- _ .-moi
• • "- :tip::: iy�q�i
1
4:06pm
4is
11 4.08 PH
Yi•
t � to
t
y��, �r q f� �~rlW7•
I � ' y �
��'
} m.
-
11 4.08 PH
EAI PROPOSED ELECTRIC SUBSTATION
14250 COLONEL GLENN ROAD
"TO BE BUILT IN A FLOOD PLAIN"
Charles T. Steuart
And
Ashley Hendricks
Tributary to McHenry Creek Flowing East to and Across Proposed Site