To meet CEQA's requirements, the EIR identified 19 potential alternatives, and subjected them to a screening analysis. This analysis evaluated the potential alternatives according CEQA's criteria. The alternatives considered in an EIR should be designed to avoid or substantially lessen the impacts of a project. (Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (b).) Alternatives are to be developed and evaluated by considering: (i) the formal objectives that must be stated in an EIR `s project description; (ii) the alternative's technical, legal and economic feasibility; and (iii) the alternative's ability to avoid a project's impacts. (Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).)

In order to fully explain its approach to selecting alternatives, the EIR includes an alternatives "Screening Report" as Appendix A-1. That report determined that seven alternatives were feasible and met the project's objectives. Those seven alternatives were analyzed in the EIR. The remaining 12 potential alternatives were not carried forward, and the EIR's conclusions regarding each of these alternatives are contained in the Screening Report.

Both WWP and CBD assert that this approach is not legally proper. According to WWP, the EIR improperly failed "to consider alternative methods of producing renewable energy, for example using distributed P[hoto] V[oltaic]" solar generation. (WWP Rehrg. App., p. 5.) CBD, more generically, alleges error based on a "failure to adequately address alternatives to the EITP that would avoid or substantially reduce impacts" and error "in finding alternatives infeasible." (CBD Rehrg. App., p. 6.)

Although WWP's claim is specific, it is not accurate. The Screening Report identified and analyzed a "Non-Transmission" alternative that directly considered "alternative methods of producing renewable energy[.]" (Compare EIR, Appendix A-1 at p. Ap.1-14 with WWP Rehrg. App. at p. 5.) This Non Transmission alternative was broken down into two different scenarios: (i) developing renewable energy sources in the Los Angeles Basin, close to electricity customers, and (ii) reducing the demand for electricity and employing small-scale "demand-side generation." WWP's rehearing application does not explain why the two scenarios considered under this alternative failed to properly consider alternative means of producing renewable energy, especially distributed PV. Both scenarios considered alternate renewable generation sources and the demand side alternative specifically included small-scale solar generation.

CBD claims, without providing any explanation, that the EIR improperly determined certain alternatives to be infeasible. We assume this refers to the demand-side scenario, which was found to be infeasible. However, CBD's claim takes this matter out of context. The demand-side alternative was not carried forward for full analysis in the EIR for three distinct reasons. First, the EIR determined that this alternative scenario did not meet one of the objectives of the EITP: to supply renewable power that would allow SCE to meet state-mandated Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) objectives. Second, the EIR found that both demand-side approaches (including distributed generation) and the use of industrial-scale renewable generation would need to be employed if SCE was to meet Legislatively-mandated renewable power goals. The demand-side scenario could not, therefore, be adopted in lieu of the EITP. Third, the EIR found that the demand-side alternative was speculative and technically infeasible. For these three reasons the Screening Report concluded that the demand-side alternative should not be considered in more detail in the EIR. (EIR, Appendix A-1, at p. Ap.1-43.)

These are all valid reasons. As SCE points out, case law supports agency decisions to screen out alternatives that do not achieve a project's fundamental purpose. (See In Re Bay Delta Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165.) The EITP is SCE's project, submitted to us for our approval. As discussed above, we evaluated that project by determining whether SCE's proposal had merit and should be carried out-but this proceeding is not being conducted for the purpose of second-guessing SCE's objectives for proposing the project. The EIR was also correct to find that California utilities will need to rely on both demand-side solutions and the addition of larger-scale renewable energy to a utility's portfolio if they are to achieve the RPS goals. The EIR relies on reports that were available when it was under development to calculate that the EITP and the demand-side scenario will contribute approximately 5% and 10%, respectively, to the RPS goals. (EIR, Appendix A-1, at p. Ap.1-17.) This information shows that these two approaches must be seen as complementary efforts that need to be developed together, rather than alternatives that we may choose between. Neither CBD nor WWP make any attempt to discuss the record or the EIR's explanation of this factor in their rehearing applications.

CBD does, however criticize the EIR because it determined that the demand-side scenario should not be carried forward for further analysis in because it was infeasible. The EIR made this determination by relying on studies available during its development period. The EIR found these materials stated it was speculative whether or not enough locations could be found to house widespread small-scale solar facilities and weather enough trained workers were available to install such facilities. Further it was unclear whether or not the programs designed to facilitate and subsidize small-scale facilities were sufficiently effective, or whether the California grid was sophisticated enough to operate reliably with a large portion of its power coming from numerous, small-scale faculties whose capacity varied based on climate and other factors. The EIR noted that it also could not determine how well small-scale distributed generation would function, because studies indicated that this approach would, preferably, require a "market transformation" to be effective. (EIR, Appendix A-1, at p. Ap.1-17.) Based on this information, the EIR concluded that the demand-side scenario of the Non Transmission alternative was too "speculative and technically infeasible" to be carried forward for further study. (EIR, Appendix G, at p. G-54.)

As a result, the EIR fully explained how it reached its conclusions and what material it relied upon when it evaluated the demand-side alternative. The EIR's findings are based on specific factors, derived from relevant studies and reports. The rehearing applications make no attempt to analyze or refute this data, relying instead on vague claims of "failure to adequately address alternatives" or failure to consider distributed PV. (CBD Rehrg. App., p. 6; WWP Rehrg. App., p. 5.) When a project opponent "fail[s] to lay out the evidence favorable to the other side and show why it is lacking[,]" its claims do not demonstrate that an EIR's approach is inadequate. (Environmental Council of Sacramento v. City of Sacramento, supra, at p. 1028.)

Finally we wish to note that the EIR carried forward seven alternatives for detailed study, all of which were feasible and met SCE's objectives. The rehearing applications do not address any of the alternatives that were actually considered in the EIR or attempt to suggest that those alternatives failed to present us with a reasonable range of options. "The discussion of alternatives need not be exhaustive, and the requirements as to the discussion of alternatives is subject to a standard of reasonableness. The statute does not demand what is not realistically possible given the limitation of time, energy and funds." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Committee v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 286.) Because no party claims that the alternatives set forth in the EIR did not represent a reasonable range, and because the demand-side scenario of the Non Transmission alternative was examined and the reasons for screening it out were explained, the rehearing applications allegations are without merit.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page