9. Infeasibility of Environmentally
Superior Alternative
SCE argues that all of the alternatives except Alternative 1 are infeasible in terms of being able to meet the project objectives in the necessary timely fashion. SCE asserts that there is an urgent need to address current reliability issues in the electrical service area. The Big Creek 3-Rector 220 kV transmission line's maximum allowable capability under base-case conditions is 700 megawatts (MW), and the recorded peak load at Rector Substation was 701 MW on July 10, 2008. Under the worst-case single-contingency outage scenario (one transmission line out of service), the Big Creek 1-Rector 220 kV could exceed its emergency rating of 106%. The worst-case double-contingency outage scenario (two transmission lines out of service) could result in the need for rolling outages and/or customer blackouts in the area served by Rector Substation.
SCE asserts that all of the alternatives except Alternative 1 risk significant delay. First, all of the alternatives except Alternative 1 cross critical biological habitat, requiring environmental surveys that, according to SCE, could take two years to conduct. Furthermore, if the surveys determine listed species are present, SCE states that permitting could take an additional one to two years if a federal nexus establishes U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, or an additional five to 10 years if there is no federal nexus. Second, based on SCE's proposed labor resources and work schedule for the initial demolition and construction associated with the replacement of existing transmission infrastructure north of Rector Substation, Alternative 1 would involve approximately three months of outages as compared to 10, 13 and 8 months, respectively, for Alternatives 2, 3 and 6. In turn, these longer construction durations create a greater risk of further delay as the result of mitigation requiring SCE to avoid interfering with raptor nesting and optimum crop growing seasons. SCE testified that, while it might be possible to shorten the duration of construction activities by increasing the labor crews and extending the work schedule, this increase in construction activity may impact SCE's ability to successfully implement some of the necessary mitigation measures.
On the other hand, peak demand load has dropped since 2007, and the California Energy Commission's most recent adopted forecast of California energy demand projects SCE's per capita peak demand to remain relatively flat through the 2018 horizon without returning to the 2007 levels.13 While the risk that construction will be delayed to the extent SCE speculates is possible, it is also possible that any incremental delay will be much more modest. For example, as SCE notes, it is possible to accelerate construction by increasing labor crews and work schedules. Furthermore, it is possible and, according to SCE, even likely that permitting for Alternative 2 will be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,14 which would not implicate the five to 10 year delay that SCE suggests might otherwise be required.
While "sooner" is certainly "better" with respect to addressing our current reliability concerns, we are keenly aware that, for practical purposes, a transmission line "is forever." On balance, we find that the need to address current reliability concerns does not render any of the alternatives infeasible.15
Farm Bureau asserts that the strong value that the community places on its high value orchard crops is cause to select the route alternative that minimizes impacts to those crops. To the extent that Farm Bureau means to suggest that the Commission should consider Alternative 2's economic impacts to the agricultural community, Farm Bureau does not assert, and we do not find, that the project's economic impact to orchard growers renders Alternative 2 infeasible. To the extent that Farm Bureau means to suggest that the community's relative support of an alternative is cause to select it, we do not view Pub. Util. Code § 1002(a)(1) as authorizing the selection of a project alternative on the basis of popularity. To the contrary, the issue is whether the project's impact will damage the community's character and identity. (See, e.g., Lodi Gas Storage, D.00-05-048 at 31-32, considering whether the presence of a natural gas storage facility would damage the community's winegrape growing reputation.) In this case, Farm Bureau does not assert, and we do not find, that Alternative 2 will damage community's character and identity as an agricultural community.
Farmersville objects to Alternative 1 because of its potential adverse impact on property values; its displacement of land designated for urban development that, in turn, would potentially be replaced with agricultural land; and its interference with the recreational opportunity afforded by a park and pond located along the transmission line route. Because we select Alternative 2, we do not reach this issue.
9.2. Additional Mitigation
Visalia and Farm Bureau invoke Pub. Util. Code § 1002(a)(1) as a basis to condition project certification on additional mitigation measures, regardless of the selected project alternative. Visalia recommends that, in consideration of the community's concerns regarding the proposed project's impact on Visalia's open-space values, recreation and aesthetics, the Commission should require SCE to develop and dedicate to the City a landscaped open space pathway under the transmission line; form a conjunctive use committee to identify landscaping and other measures for SCE to implement; and develop, in consultation with a designated visual specialist and Visalia, a visual relief plan that would specify appropriate structure surface treatments and vegetative screening. Similarly, Farm Bureau requests that, in consideration of the agricultural community's concerns, the Commission require the establishment of an agricultural advisory committee to provide input into the details of implementing the agricultural mitigation measures identified in the EIR.
We deny these requests. Visalia and Farm Bureau do not demonstrate and we do not find that Alternative 2, or any of the alternatives, damages the community's agricultural, recreational or aesthetic character. To the extent that it would be located in Visalia, the proposed project would lie within an existing transmission right of way, and the EIR appropriately determines that, with mitigation, the project's impacts to recreational and aesthetic resources are less than significant. While Alternative 2 will convert 25.6 acres of farmland to non-agricultural use, this cannot reasonably be found to thereby damage Tulare County's agricultural character.
Farm Bureau asserts that the mitigation monitoring, reporting and compliance program requires greater transparency, and recommends that it be revised to provide that all landowners impacted by the project will be provided a copy of the dispute resolution procedures, compliance requirements, and SCE's plans and documentation submitted to the Commission. While Farm Bureau's further recommendation is unduly burdensome, it is reasonable to provide the impacted landowners with a copy of the mitigation monitoring, reporting and compliance plan. We direct Energy Division to serve the mitigation monitoring, reporting and compliance program on all landowners within 300 feet of Alternative 2, as identified in Attachment 2 to this decision.
13 We grant PACE's request for official notice of the California Energy Demand 2010-2020 Adopted Forecast, California Energy Commission, CEC-200-2009-012 (December 2, 2009).
14 "Although uncertain at this time, impacts to vernal pool habitats or jurisdictional drainages resulting from construction of Alternative 2 would likely [be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]." (Application 08-05-039, Proponent's Environmental Assessment, Section 4.4 at 4-118.)
15 SCE suggests that Alternative 1's significantly lower cost as compared to Alternative 2 is an important consideration to the identification of the environmentally superior alternative. To the contrary, economic impacts of a proposed project are not by themselves environmental impacts (CEQA Guideline § 15131) and therefore not relevant to the determination of the environmentally superior alternative. The appropriate context for consideration of this cost difference is with respect to project feasibility. (CEQA Guideline § 15091(a)(3).) However, SCE does not assert, and we do not find, that Alternative 2 is economically infeasible.
