2. Procedural Background
By this application, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) seeks a permit to construct the East County Substation (ECO Substation) Project, which includes a new 500/230/138 kilovolt (kV) electric substation, a new 500 kV transmission line of approximately 3,065 feet to loop the substation into the existing 500 kV Southwest Powerlink transmission line, rebuild of the Boulevard Substation to operate at 138/69/12 kV on a new parcel adjacent to the existing substation, a new 138 kV transmission line of approximately 13.3 miles from the ECO substation to the rebuilt Boulevard Substation, and a microwave communication relay system.
Pursuant to General Order 131-D, the Commission must find that the project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).1 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 Guidelines §§ 15090, 15091, 15093, 15126.2, 15126.4 and 15126.6.) Because the project also requires approval from the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), it is also subject to environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act, which requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Under these circumstances, CEQA encourages the state agency to conduct its environmental review jointly with the federal agency. (CEQA Guidelines § 15222.)
In addition, pursuant to General Order 131-D and Decision (D.) 06-01-042, the Commission will not certify a project unless its 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 scoping memo and ruling determined the following issues to be within the scope of the proceeding:
1. What are the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project?
2. Are there potentially feasible mitigation measures that will eliminate or lessen the significant environmental impacts?
3. As between the proposed project and the project alternatives, which is environmentally superior?
4. Was the environmental impact report (EIR) (in this case, the combined EIR/EIS) completed in compliance with CEQA, did the Commission review and consider the EIR/EIS prior to approving the project or a project alternative, and does the EIR/EIS reflect the Commission's independent judgment?
5. Are the mitigation measures or project alternatives infeasible?
6. 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?
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?
The Commission's Energy Division and the BLM issued the draft EIR/EIS on December 24, 2010, identifying the significant environmental impacts of the proposed project, the potentially feasible mitigation measures and alternatives that would eliminate or lessen the significant environmental impacts, and the environmentally superior project alternative (issues 1 through 3). Evidentiary hearing was held on May 2, 2011. The final EIR/EIS was received into the evidentiary record by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling on October 31, 2011. SDG&E, Backcountry Against Dumps (BAD) and the San Diego Rural Fire Protection District2 filed opening briefs on all issues on November 7, 2011, and reply briefs on November 17, 2011. A public participation hearing was conducted on January 24, 2012, in Jacumba, California, after which the record was submitted. Submission was subsequently set aside to admit Exhibit 13, containing errata to the final EIR/EIS, and the proceeding was re-submitted as of February 27, 2012.
By ruling dated March 19, 2012, the assigned Commissioner amended the schedule to provide for the issuance of an interim decision resolving issues 1 through 4 (including certification of the EIR/EIS), to be followed at a later date with a decision resolving the remaining issues in the proceeding. By D.12-04-022 issued April 19, 2012, the Commission certified the EIR/EIS as having been completed in compliance with CEQA and affirmed the EIR/EIS as reflecting the Commission's independent judgment.
1 Public Resources (Pub. Res.) Code Section 21000 et seq.
2 The San Diego Rural Fire Protection District's unopposed September 27, 2011, motion for party status was granted by ALJ ruling dated October 31, 2011.
