1. No project specifics

• No route chosen
• No pole locations or final pole designs
• No list of trees to be removed

Can we accurately evaluate the environmental impact when there is no specific proposal?

2. No data supporting need

Recent data shows declining electricity usage. The EIS contains no chart clearly demonstrating the need.

3. No reduction in power outages

By what metrics will reliability be improved? PSE has stated that power outages will not be reduced!

4. Pipeline safety report ignored

The DNV-GL pipeline safety report says that PSE’s preferred route has “unpredictable risk range.”

5. Skewed risk assessment

The EIS must realistically compare the risk of a brief power outage with increased risk of a pipeline explosion.

6. Insufficient earthquake analysis

What could happen if the Seattle Fault slips up to 10 feet and ruptures the Olympic Pipelines with increased voltage overhead?

7. Alternatives dismissed with outdated data

Battery storage now protects customers in Southern California from rolling blackouts. Why wouldn’t that work for the Eastside?

8. Electricity to Canada?

PSE assumes 1,500 MW must be exported to Canada at the same time the Eastside is experiencing a major grid failure. This export is not required, not realistic, and would cause problems for the regional grid.

9. Electricity to California?

PSE assumes 2,850 MW must be exported to California during a major grid failure. But BPA just canceled a big transmission line that would increase service to California because better alternatives are feasible.

10. “Less-than-significant” trees

Energize Eastside may remove up to 5,400 valuable urban trees. That is not a “less-than-significant” impact for our community.

Feel free to mention any of these issues in your comments. There are many other topics to discuss. Every comment matters, and the EIS consultants must respond to each comment. If you have any questions or want some advice, please contact CENSE at [email protected].