3. Scope of Issues

Pursuant to General Order 131-D, in order to issue a permit to construct, the Commission must find that the project complies with the CEQA. 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, for consideration in the determination of whether to approve the project or a project alternative. CEQA precludes the lead agency from approving a proposed project or a project alternative 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 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(c)(3), CEQA Guidelines § 15090.)

In addition, pursuant to General Order 131-D and Decision (D.) 06-01-042, the Commission will consider whether the project (or a project alternative) 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 12, 2009, Scoping Memo and Ruling identified the following issues in the proceeding:

1. What are the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project?

2. Are there potentially feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that will avoid or lessen the significant environmental impacts?

3. As between the proposed project and the project alternatives, which is environmentally superior?

4. Are the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible?

5. 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?

6. 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?

7. Is the proposed project and/or project alternative designed in compliance with the Commission's policies governing the mitigation of EMF effects using low-cost and no-cost measures?