2. Procedural Background
2.1. Application and Protests
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed this application on May 30, 2008. As proposed by SCE, the San Joaquin Cross Valley Loop would consist of the construction of a new 19 mile double-circuit 220 kilovolt (kV) transmission line, beginning at Rector Substation located southeast of Visalia, and running east until the line intersects with the Big Creek 3-Springville 220 kV transmission line located east of Lemon Cove and Highway 198 (Alternative 1). SCE also identified several project alternatives including Alternative 2, under which the transmission line would turn east starting approximately 10 miles north of Alternative 1's easterly turn, and Alternative 3, which would turn east starting approximately 13.5 miles north of Alternative 1's easterly turn.
Protests were filed by the City of Visalia (Visalia); the City of Farmersville (Farmersville); the Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District; the Tulare County Farm Bureau; Protect Agriculture Communities Environment (PACE); Merryman Ranch Corporation, Sierra View Ranch and Valley View Ranch (jointly); Barbrae Lundberg; Kenneth Fitzgerald and Susan Fitzgerald (jointly); Gayle Mosby; Eric Quek; John O. Kirkpatrick and Shirley B. Kirkpatrick (jointly, Kirkpatricks); William F. Pensar; Mary Amanda Gorden; and George A. McEwen.
The California Farm Bureau Federation's unopposed motion for party status was granted by oral ruling at the prehearing conference on November 19, 2008.
The Paramount Citrus Association's (Paramount Citrus) unopposed motion for party status, filed August 31, 2009, was granted by ruling dated September 15, 2009.
2.2. Public Participation
The Commission received over 1,200 letters from the public objecting to the proposed project. Most of the letters expressed opposition to Alternative 1 on the basis of its impacts on agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, property values and economic development in the City of Farmersville, and preference for Alternative 3 on the basis that it would impact the fewest residents.
Approximately 300 people attended the public participation hearing held in Visalia on November 19, 2008. Fifty-nine people spoke regarding the proposed project's impacts on agricultural resources, aesthetic resources, economic development, property values and impact on the community.
Approximately 25 speakers objected to the proposed project's aesthetic impacts by interfering with views of the Sierra Nevada and creating blight. Most of them raised concerns specific to Alternative 1 for its adverse aesthetic impacts in and about the towns of Exeter and Lemon Cove, along State Route 198, and on the private residential development of Badger Hill, and its potential interference with the future development of a retail site in Farmersville, which has the potential to bring economic opportunities to the community.
Nearly 20 speakers addressed agricultural concerns. They noted Tulare County's agricultural tradition and range of crops that contribute to making it the second-leading agricultural producing area in California. The speakers urged the Commission to consider the project's impacts on the area's agricultural tradition, productivity and employment. The proposed project will require not only the removal of trees in walnut and citrus orchards, but also the relocation of wells and rerouting and rebuilding of irrigation systems. These impacts would extend up to 100 feet beyond both sides of the right of way due to the inability to operate the necessary construction and maintenance machinery close to the transmission lines. Seven speakers stated their preference for Alternative 3 on the basis that it would impact the fewest people, cross less valuable land, and be the shortest route, while two speakers raised concerns that Alternative 3 would adversely impact their own farming operations.
Several other speakers raised various other concerns including the proposed project's impacts on air quality, cultural resources including Native American paintings and spiritual sites, biological resources including shrimp and migrating birds, and public safety resulting from electromagnetic fields. One speaker urged the Commission to consider the potential for alternative tower configurations to reduce adverse impacts, and another speaker urged the Commission to consider the potential for solar development to replace the need for this project.
2.3. Environmental review
On August 22, 2008, the Commission's Energy Division staff issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed project. The NOP described the proposed project, solicited written and oral comments on the EIR's scope, and gave notice of the public scoping meetings to be held on September 17, 2008, in Farmersville, California, and on September 18, 2008, in Woodlake, California. Energy Division received 44 oral comments at the public scoping meetings and 96 letters or electronic mails during the 30-day comment period. Energy Division issued the draft EIR on June 16, 2009,1 and conducted a public comment meeting on July 23, 2009, in Visalia, California, which was attended by approximately 500 people. Energy Division received oral comments from 37 people at the public comment meeting, and written comments from 129 persons and/or organizations during the 45-day comment period. Energy Division responded to all comments in the final EIR, which it issued on February 23, 2010.
2.4. Evidentiary Hearings and Briefing
On June 23, 2009, the assigned Commissioner issued a scoping memo and ruling which noted issuance of the draft EIR on June 16, 2009, identified the issues to be determined by the Commission in resolving the proceeding (see Section 3, below), and set a schedule for addressing those issues. In particular, the scoping memo determined that the proposed project's significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures to eliminate or lessen those impacts, and identification of the environmentally superior alternative are within the scope of the CEQA review, and that factual evidence regarding those issues would be admitted into the evidentiary record through the EIR; evidence regarding all other issues would be taken through evidentiary hearing.
Evidentiary hearing was conducted on August 31, 2009.2 The final EIR was received into the evidentiary record by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling on February 25, 2010.
SCE, the City of Visalia, the City of Farmersville, California Farm Bureau Federation and Tulare County Farm Bureau (jointly, Farm Bureau), and PACE filed opening briefs on all issues on March 11, 2010; Paramount Citrus filed its opening brief on March 12, 2010.3 The record was submitted upon the filing of reply briefs on March 25, 2010, by SCE, Farm Bureau, PACE, Farmersville, and the Kirkpatricks.
1 The draft EIR was received into evidence at the evidentiary hearing on August 31, 2009.
2 The unopposed October 2, 2009, motion of SCE to correct the transcript of the August 31, 2009, evidentiary hearing is hereby granted.
3 The unopposed March 31, 2010, motion of Paramount Citrus to accept its late-filed opening brief is hereby granted.
