8. Comments on Proposed Interim Decision

The proposed interim decision of ALJ Hallie Yacknin in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311 and comments were allowed pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. BAD, the District, and Iberdrola Renewables, LLC (Iberdrola)⁶ filed opening comments. BAD and SDG&E filed reply comments.⁷

In its opening comments, BAD repeats the arguments that it previously made in its opening and reply briefs in support of its assertion that the EIR/EIS does not comply with CEQA. The proposed decision addressed and properly disposed of BAD's arguments.

In its opening comments, the District urges the Commission to require modification of the EIR/EIS to provide for the upfront payment of the total fire mitigation fee obligation (annual fee multiplied by the number of projected years of project operation). While we note the District's dissatisfaction, the District does not identify any legal, factual or technical error in the proposed decision's conclusion that the EIR/EIS complies with CEQA.

In its opening comments, Iberdrola asks the Commission to edit the proposed decision to explicitly state that the Tule Wind Project's (as distinct from the project as a whole) fire and fuels management impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. We decline to do so because, as Iberdrola acknowledges, the proposed decision does not commit any legal, factual or technical error on this point that requires modification.

In its reply comments, BAD argues that the proposed decision errs in certifying the EIR/EIS because the EIR/EIS violates CEQA by impermissibly finding that the Tule Wind Project's fire and fuels management impacts can be mitigated to less than significant. Specifically, BAD asserts that, as the EIR/EIS acknowledges, the potential for the Tule Wind Project's infrastructure to significantly impede aerial firefighting efforts in the area is not reduced by the implementation of Mitigation Measure FF-2. To the contrary, the EIR/EIS finds that the combination of Mitigation Measures FF-2, FF-3, FF-5 and FF-6 (which provide funding, staffing, equipment, training, additional water tanks on site, warning and suppression systems, and de-energization provisions, among others) reduces this potential to less than significant. (See Exhibit 11 at D.15-71 through D.15-72.)

⁶ Iberdrola's concurrent motion for party status was granted by informal ALJ ruling on April 12, 2012, and we affirm it here.

⁷ SDG&E does not assert any factual, legal or technical error.