7. Environmental Review

CEQA requires that the Commission consider the environmental consequences before acting upon or approving the Proposed Project.¹² Under CEQA, the Commission must act as either the Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency for project approval. The Lead Agency is the public agency with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the Proposed Project as a whole.¹³ Here, the Commission is the Lead Agency. The actions and steps taken for environmental review of the Proposed Project, in accordance with GO 131-D and CEQA, are discussed below.

7.1. Proponent's Environmental Assessment

SCE included its PEA with the Application, pursuant to GO 131-D, Section IX.B.1.e.¹⁴ The PEA evaluates the environmental impacts that may result from the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. SCE's PEA contains a project description in Section 3.0, and maps and diagrams in Figures 1.1 through 4.15.

The PEA concludes that the Proposed Project will have less than significant, or no impact, to all environmental resource categories. Although SCE does not anticipate significant impacts to any resource category, where potentially adverse impacts may occur, SCE incorporates specific procedures into the project construction plans (Applicant's Proposed Measures) to minimize the environmental impacts.¹⁵

We adopt the Applicant's Proposed Measures (APMs) as part of our approval of the Proposed Project, and require SCE to comply with the APMs and the other mitigation measures contained in the Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Plan discussed below.

7.2. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration

As the next step in the environmental review, the Commission's Energy Division (Energy Division) reviewed the PEA. On December 23, 2009, the Energy Division informed SCE by letter that the Application and the PEA were deemed deficient and requested additional information. SCE provided additional data on February 4, 2010 in response to the Energy Division's request. On March 2, 2010, after reviewing the additional data, the Energy Division informed SCE by a letter that the Application and the PEA were complete for purposes of reviewing environmental impacts, and began preparing an Initial Study (IS). The IS determined the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, conditioned on certain mitigation measures.

On August 30, 2010, the Energy Division released for public review a Draft IS/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Proposed Project. The Draft IS/MND found that approval of the Proposed Project will have no environmental impact in the areas of air quality, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, mineral resources, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities and service systems, and geology, soils and seismicity. The Draft IS/MND also determined that, with mitigation incorporated, approval of the Proposed Project will result in less than significant impacts in the areas of aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, noise, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation and traffic.

7.3. Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting
and Compliance Plan

As required by CEQA, the Draft IS/MND included a Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Plan (MMRCP). The MMRCP describes the mitigation measures, specifically details how each mitigation measure will be implemented, and includes information on the timing of implementation and monitoring requirements. The Commission also uses the MMRCP as a guide and record of monitoring the utility's compliance with its provisions.  SCE has agreed to and shall comply with each measure and provision of the MMRCP. The Commission adopts the MMRCP as part of its approval of the Proposed Project.¹⁶

7.4. Electric and Magnetic Fields

The Commission has examined EMF impacts in several previous proceedings.¹⁷ We found the scientific evidence presented in those proceedings was uncertain as to the possible health effects of EMFs and we did not find it appropriate to adopt any related numerical standards. Because there is no agreement among scientists that exposure to EMF creates any potential health risk, and because CEQA does not define or adopt any standards to address the potential health risk impacts of possible exposure to EMFs, the Commission does not consider magnetic fields in the context of CEQA and determination of environmental impacts.

However, recognizing that public concern remains, we do require, pursuant to GO 131-D, Section X.A, that all requests for a PTC include a description of the measures taken or proposed by the utility to reduce the potential for exposure to EMFs generated by the Proposed Project. We developed an interim policy that requires utilities, among other things, to identify the no-cost measures undertaken, and the low-cost measures implemented, to reduce the potential EMF impacts. The benchmark established for low-cost measures is 4% of the total budgeted project cost that results in an EMF reduction of at least 15% (as measured at the edge of the utility right-of-way).

The Field Management Plan (FMP) contained in the Application,¹⁸ and included as Appendix A in the Draft IS/MND, addresses the EMF measures that will be taken in connection with the Proposed Project.  As no-cost and low-cost options, SCE will utilize subtransmission structure heights that meet or exceed SCE's preferred EMF design criteria. SCE will also use subtransmission line construction that reduces the space between conductors. In addition, SCE will arrange conductors of proposed subtransmission line for magnetic field reduction, place major substation electrical equipment away from the substation property lines, use double-circuit construction that reduces spacing between circuits, and configure the transfer and operating buses with the transfer buses closest to the nearest property line. We adopt the FMP for the Proposed Project and require SCE to comply with it.

7.5. Public Notice and Review

On August 30, 2010, the Energy Division published a Notice of Intent to Adopt a MND (NOI), and released the Draft IS/MND for a 30-day public review and comment period.

The Draft IS/MND was distributed to federal, state and local agencies; property owners within 300 feet of the Proposed Project; and other interested parties (identified in the Draft IS/MND). A Public Notice of the Proposed Project also was published in the local newspaper, announcing the availability of the Draft IS/MND. The 30-day public review and comment period ended on September 30, 2010.

Comment letters on the Draft IS/MND were received from The California Department of Fish and Game, the San Joaquin valley Air Pollution Control District, District 6 Office of the Department of Transportation, and SCE. Those comments and the Commission's responses to those comments are contained in the Final MND.

Although not within the scope of the environmental review, one issue raised at the public meeting held on September 9, 2010, merits noting. At the public meeting, two property owners commented that they were concerned about the possibility of condemnation of their property as part of the land acquisition process for the project site. If it is necessary for SCE to seek temporary or permanent use of these properties for the projects, SCE is expected to follow appropriate procedures prior to instituting court proceedings, including meeting and negotiating with property owners for right-of-way acquisition as indicated in Appendix F of the PEA.

7.6. Final MND

A Final MND was prepared pursuant to CEQA guidelines, and released by the Energy Division on November 1, 2010. The Final MND addresses all aspects of the Draft IS/MND, includes the comments received on the Draft IS/MND and the responses to those comments by the Lead Agency (Energy Division), and includes a final version of the MMRCP.

Although a few revisions were made to clarify and revise certain mitigation measures described in the Draft IS/MND, the Final MND does not identify any new significant environmental impacts, and does not omit any existing mitigation measures, from those identified in the Draft IS/MND. In addition, in response to comments, only a minor change was made to mitigation measure 3.4-4 of the MMRCP.

Before granting the Application, we must consider the Final MND.¹⁹ We have done so and find that the Final MND (which incorporates the Draft IS/MND) was prepared in compliance with and meets the requirements of CEQA. We further find that on the basis of the whole record, there is no substantial evidence that the Proposed Project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Final MND reflects the Commission's independent judgments and analysis.²⁰ We adopt the Final MND it in its entirety, and incorporate it by reference in this decision approving the Proposed Project.

The Final MND concludes that the Proposed Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, because the mitigation measures described therein, and agreed to and incorporated by SCE into the Proposed Project, will ensure that any potentially significant impacts that have been identified with the Proposed Project will remain at less than significant levels.

The IS/Draft MND and the Final MND are identified as reference exhibits A and B, respectively, and will be received into the record of this proceeding. The Final MND is available for inspection on the Commission's website at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Environment/.

¹² CEQA Guidelines, Section 15050(b).

¹³ CEQA Guidelines, Section 15051(b).

¹⁴ The PEA was prepared by SCE with assistance from several consultants as listed in Appendix B of the PEA.

¹⁵ PEA, Table ES.1.

¹⁶ CEQA Guideline Section 15074(d).

¹⁷ See D.06-01-042 and D.93-11-013.

¹⁸ Appendix F.

¹⁹ CEQA Guideline Section 15004(a).

²⁰ CEQA Guideline Section 15074(b).