The fight over Energize Eastside is far from over.

Bellevue City Hall was a battleground on March 1, as more than 200 people gathered at a public hearing to voice concerns and complaints about Bellevue’s draft environmental impact statement to power the Eastside.

Of these, dozens donned the searingly orange t-shirts of Coalition of Eastside Neighborhoods for Sensible Energy (known as CENSE) and the vast majority were in opposition to the proposed plan to put a 230-kilovolt line 18 miles through Bellevue from Redmond to Renton.

Warren Halverson, a Bellevue resident representing a homeowners association, decried the Puget Sound Energy plan as unnecessary and purposely obfuscated.

“Would you purchase an item if you didn’t need it and didn’t know what it would cost?” he asked. “Don’t be surprised then, if you have to pay more than you are being told.”

Energize Eastside’s estimated costs range from $150 to $300 million depending on the alternative Puget Sound Energy (PSE) selects, representing $1 to $2 of the average monthly bill for residential customers.

This number, opponents of the project claim, is purposely misleading and far undercuts the true cost of Energize Eastside.

CENSE commissioned an independent load-flow study to investigate claims that Energize Eastside was even necessary. The utility claims the power grid on the Eastside could see rolling blackouts by as early as the winter of 2017-2018. The Lauckhart-Schiffman load-flow study CENSE paid to have done claims the number is close to 2050 before the system is truly threatened.

The authors of the study, Richard Lauckhart and Roger Schiffman, have decades of experience in the energy industry. Lauckhart worked for Puget Sound Power and Light (PSE’s predecessor) for 22 years before leaving in 1997.

“PSE has done nothing to refute the claims of the study, but instead has said it does not meet the standards of [the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission],” said CENSE President Don Marsh.

He went on to cite another study done independently that purportedly states the case for non-intervention.

Puget Sound Energy claims the brief study is simplistic at best, and could give false information to residents when providing comment.

The utility company, owned by Australian investment bank Macquarie Group Limited, provided multiple alternatives to a city of Bellevue team representing Eastside municipality interests. That team returned the Phase 1 draft environmental impact statement looking at how each alternative could meet the power needs on the Eastside.

The first alternative — to do nothing — is a nonstarter, the company said. The second is the preferred 18-mile 230-kV power line which would follow another utility corridor (one shared, controversially among Energize Eastside opponents, with a Olympic Pipeline petroleum-product pipeline) and add several transformers to provide Downtown Bellevue with the power the company claims it desperately needs.

The third alternative is one members of CENSE are hoping PSE will take into consideration —integrated resource conservation. This plan would require Eastside residents to increase conservation by three times its current amount, said Jens Nedrud, engineer on Energize Eastside.

Tom Anderson, one of those speaking at the public hearing, said some simple fixes such as cold-weather windows and LED lights would reduce the demand on the grid by more than enough.

“Bellevue City Hall alone uses 20 kilowatts of incandescent lights,” he said, gesturing to the lights above him. “LED lights alone would save 97 percent of energy in this building.”

Nedrud and Energize Eastside Communications Manager Gretchen Aliabadi have said previously that PSE would love to use the conservation method, but said it is 100 percent mandatory, and the power grid cannot depend on the whims of a few residents.

Each point at the public hearing which met with audience approval was greeted by silent “jazz hands,” creating an eerie wave across the chamber usually reserved for City Council meetings.

The public comment period on the Phase 1 draft environmental impact statement extends to March 14. Comments can be made electronically.