2. Procedural background

Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed Application (A.) 07-01-031, its application for a permit to construct the Valley-Ivyglen Subtransmission Line Project, on January 16, 2007, and filed A.07-04-028, its application for a permit to construct the Fogarty Substation Project, on April 30, 2007. The applications were consolidated by ruling of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on June 7, 2007. As proposed by SCE, the projects would consist of the construction of a new 25-mile 115 kilovolt (kV) subtransmission line to connect the existing Valley and Ivyglen Substations, the installation of a new telecommunications line alongside the subtransmission line, construction of the new Fogarty Substation, and improvements to the Valley and Ivyglen Substations in southwestern Riverside County. The subtransmission line would traverse the City of Perris (Perris), the City of Lake Elsinore (Lake Elsinore), and the Glen Ivy/Corona Lake area. The proposed Fogarty Substation would be located on approximately 6.6 acres in the northern portion of the City of Lake Elsinore across from the temporary Dryden Substation.

Protests were filed by Edward W. Singelyn and, jointly, by Mary Appleman-Thompson, Terrence Thomas Smith, and Valarie Fay McNeal Smith.

SCE's applications did not initially contain all information and studies required under the Commission's Information and Criteria List for applications subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (See Rule 2.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.) SCE ultimately satisfied the requirements of Rule 2.4, and the Commission's Energy Division deemed the consolidated applications complete for purposes of Rule 2.4 on December 21, 2007.

After the Commission's Energy Division noticed that it would prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on January 22, 2008 (see Section 2.3, below), the ALJ conducted a prehearing conference on February 6, 2008. After the Energy Division issued the Draft EIR on June 11, 2009, the assigned Commissioner issued the June 12, 2009, Scoping Memo and Ruling identifying the issues to be determined and schedule of the proceeding.

The Commission received 14 letters of protest from the public, a letter of interest from one member of the public, and a petition of protest signed by 15 additional members of the public. The letters and petition expressed concerns regarding the project's potential impacts on the environmental and property values.

A public participation hearing was held in Lake Elsinore on February 6, 2008. Seventeen people spoke identifying their concerns regarding the proposed project's potential impacts on health and safety, including interference with aviation fire protection; recreation, including interference with hang-gliding activities in the area; aesthetics, including night lighting during construction; noise; endangered biological species, including whether any required mitigation such as the purchase of conservation acreage would be local so as to benefit the local community; cultural resources; and property values and development. Most of the speakers urged consideration of alternatives to the proposed project, including other routes. One speaker urged the Commission to consider whether the proposed project is needed given the Commission's pending resolution of other transmission project applications including A.07-10-005, The Nevada Hydro Company's application to construct the Talega-Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500 kV Interconnect, and A.06-08-010, San Diego Gas & Electric Company's application to construct the Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project.

On January 22, 2008, Energy Division issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR and Notice of Public Scoping Meetings pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15082. The NOP was mailed to more than 500 individuals, groups, and agencies including federal, regional, and local government agencies; elected officials; property owners within 300 feet of the right-of-way and substation location for SCE's proposed and alternative routes; and other persons identified by Energy Division as having an interest in the project. In addition, notice of the public scoping meetings was published in three local newspapers.

Energy Division conducted public scoping meetings on February 6, 2008, in Lake Elsinore, and on February 7, 2008, in Perris, which were attended by approximately 22 members of the public and representatives from organizations and government agencies, and received 14 letters and emails from government agencies, Native American tribal groups and members of the public during the 30-day comment period on scope of the EIR. Energy Division issued its Scoping Report in March 2008.

Energy Division prepared and issued for comment the Draft EIR on June 15, 2009, and conducted public comment meetings on July 15, 2009, in Lake Elsinore, which was attended by approximately 30 people, and on July 16, 2009, in Perris, which no one attended. Energy Division received oral comments from 12 people at the public comment meeting, and written comments from 11 persons and/or organization during the 45-day comment period. Energy Division responded to all comments in the Final EIR, which it issued on May 26, 2010.

On June 12, 2009, the assigned Commissioner issued a scoping memo and ruling which noted issuance of the Draft EIR, 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.

SCE served its prepared testimony on all parties on July 10, 2009, pursuant to the schedule set in the scoping memo and ruling; no other party served prepared testimony. By motion filed July 28, 2009, SCE moved to admit its prepared testimony into evidence without evidentiary hearing; no party opposed the motion. Pursuant to the scoping memo and ruling, parties had the opportunity to file briefs on all issues other than the issue of whether the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA; no party offered briefs on those issues. By ruling dated June 1, 2010, the ALJ granted SCE's unopposed July 28, 2009, motion to admit its prepared testimony into evidence, admitted the Draft EIR and Final EIR into evidence, and set the time for opening and reply briefs on the issue of whether the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA. SCE filed an opening brief on the issue; no other briefs were filed on the issue, and the record was submitted on July 9, 2010.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page