A Feb. 13 letter to the editor carried the headline “Energize Eastside project includes power to Canada.” The headline is technically correct for reasons I discuss below, but the content of the letter misrepresents the development of the proposed Energize Eastside project and does not correctly present its purpose and use.

Energize Eastside is, indeed, a branding of the Sammamish-Lakeside-Talbot project that PSE originally proposed to upgrade PSE’s service to its growing Eastside service area, but it is not a “rebranding.”

Any transmission line connected to the highly interconnected transmission network that includes transmission lines of the Bonneville Power Administration, PSE, Seattle City Light, Snohomish PUD and many other Pacific Northwest utilities, inherently carries some power from various sources — the amount of that power flow follows the laws of physics. After proposing the Sammamish-Lakeside-Talbot project to serve its local needs, the project was studied by the ColumbiaGrid organization, as it does all major new transmission projects, was found the have some benefits to the grid, and was, therefore, an acceptable project for the regional transmission system.

If it is constructed, under some conditions, some power will flow through the Sammamish-Lakeside-Talbot line to Canada, but most power to Canada will flow over the BPA system which has greater capacity and BPA is the primary entity responsible for delivering power to and from Canada under the Columbia River treaty.

It is clear that the Sammamish-Lakeside-Talbot project was never proposed to provide grid reinforcement, but would do so simply because of the nature of the interconnected electric system.

In a email dated June 12, 2014, to me from a member of the ColumbiaGrid staff, in response to a question I asked, he said “Originally we were looking at a SCL project to help solve the greater Puget Sound area problems. But later PSE brought the Eastside project to the ColumbiaGrid study as a load service project and we tested how it would fit within the these overall needs. PSE has been looking at a support project for the Bellevue area for years and they were just settling in on their preferred option to solve these problems. In our follow up study, we found that the PSE project would solve both area problems but the SCL project did not deal with the local load service issues in Bellevue. So the ColumbiaGrid study found that the PSE project was the better overall option for the area.”

The CENSE organization has had a copy of this email, which I had permission to share, from shortly after I received it. It is clear from this description, that the development of Energize Eastside initially and always was a PSE “load service project” and not a project “conceived to address needed transnational grid reinforcement” as stated in the letter of Feb. 13, 2015 from Mr. Borgmann.

Before retiring 21 years ago I was an electrical engineer specializing in electric utility generation, transmission and distribution planning. I live in Monthaven and neither favor or oppose Energize Eastside.

I fully understand the fundamental basis for the opposition to the project — environmental and property value concerns. But the notion of power flowing to Canada on some occasions because of the way an integrated transmission system works should not be one of them.

Hal Mozer, Bellevue