3. Scope of Issues
Pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1001 et seq., SCE may not construct its proposed project absent certification by the Commission that the present or future public convenience and necessity require it. In determining whether to certify construction of the project, the Commission must consider community values, recreational and park areas, historical and aesthetic values, and the influence on the environment. (Pub. Util. Code § 1002(a).) The review process established by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the primary vehicle for this consideration. CEQA requires the lead agency (the Commission in this case) to conduct a review to identify environmental impacts of the project and ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage. CEQA precludes the lead agency from approving a proposed project unless it requires the project proponent to eliminate or substantially lessen all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and determines that any unavoidable remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding considerations. CEQA requires that, prior to approving the project or a project alternative, the lead agency certify that the environmental review was conducted in compliance with CEQA, that it reviewed and considered the EIR prior to approving the project or a project alternative, and that the EIR reflects its independent judgment. (Pub. Res. Code § 21082.1(c)(3), CEQA Guidelines § 15090.)
In addition, pursuant to General Order 131-D and Decision (D.) 06-01-042, the Commission will not certify a project unless its design is in compliance with the Commission's policies governing the mitigation of electromagnetic field (EMF) effects using low-cost and no-cost measures.
Accordingly, the June 23, 2009, Scoping Memo and Ruling determined the following issues to be within the scope of the proceeding:
1. Does the proposed project serve a present or future public convenience and necessity? (Pub. Util. Code § 1001.)
2. What are the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project?
3. Are there potentially feasible mitigation measures that will eliminate or lessen the significant environmental impacts?
4. As between the proposed project and the project alternatives, which is environmentally superior?
5. Was the EIR completed in compliance with CEQA, did the Commission review and consider the EIR prior to approving the project or a project alternative, and does the EIR reflect the Commission's independent judgment? (CEQA Guideline § 15090.)4
6. Are the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible? (CEQA Guideline 15091(a)(3).) This issue includes consideration of community values pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1002(a)(1).
7. To the extent that the proposed project and/or project alternatives result in significant and unavoidable impacts, are there overriding considerations that nevertheless merit Commission approval of the proposed project or project alternative? (CEQA Guideline § 15093.)
8. Is the proposed project and/or project alternative designed in compliance with the Commission's policies governing the mitigation of EMF.
9. If a certificate is granted, what is the maximum cost of the approved project? (Pub. Util. Code § 1005.5(a).)
4 This issue was listed as no. 7, and other issues numbered accordingly, in the scoping memo.
