5. Overriding Considerations

Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15093, the Commission may only approve a project that results in significant and unavoidable impacts upon a finding that there are overriding considerations.

The ECO Substation project will enable the Tule Wind Project and other wind projects to interconnect to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO)-controlled transmission grid, aiding in progress towards federal and state greenhouse gas reduction and renewable electricity goals, including the requirements set forth in the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program,³ Assembly Bill (AB) 32 (Stats.2006, Ch. 488) (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), the Governor's Executive Order S-14-08 to increase the state's Renewable Energy Standard to 33% renewable energy by 2020, and Title XVII, Section 1705, of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (authorizing a new program for rapid deployment of, among other things, renewable energy projects).

In addition, the ECO Substation project will improve the reliability of electric service to SDG&E's customers in the local communities of Bankhead Springs, Boulevard, Jacumba, Manzanita, and the Campo, La Posta, and Manzanita Indian Reservations. These communities have experienced five to 30 outages per year in the past ten years with the longest outage being three hours and 50 minutes. (Exhibit 2 at 6.) The ECO Substation project would improve reliability by upgrading existing infrastructure and providing a second source for the southeastern 69 kV transmission system. (Id. at 6 and 7.)

SDG&E touts the project's creation of hundreds of green jobs and injection of approximately $36 million into the local economy as an additional benefit that supports a finding of overriding consideration. The Commission's responsibility is to ensure safe and reliable utility service at just and reasonable rates. While the ECO Substation project may provide these benefits, it is not evident that we have the authority to approve it, notwithstanding its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts, on the basis of its jobs creation and economic stimulus.

We find that the ECO Substation Project's contribution to California's progress toward federal and state greenhouse gas reduction and renewable electricity goals, and the increased reliability of electric service to the local communities, are overriding considerations that support our approval of the ECO Substation project, configured as the ECO Substation Alternative combined with the ECO Partial Underground 138 kV Transmission Route Alternative, despite its significant and unavoidable impacts on biological resources, visual resources, cultural resources, noise, air quality, and fire and fuels management.

5.1. San Diego Rural Fire
Protection District

The District argues that the record does not support a finding of considerations that override the project's significant and unavoidable impacts because, when implemented, Mitigation Measures FF-3 and FF-4 may lessen the fire and fuels management impacts to less than significant. We disagree. As discussed previously, the EIR/EIS appropriately determines that, notwithstanding Mitigation Measures FF-3 and FF-4, there may be unavoidable fire and fuels management impacts. Accordingly, it is appropriate for the Commission to consider those potential impacts in weighing whether to approve the project.

5.2. Public Comment

We acknowledge the many public comments addressing the merits of the project. Specifically, at the public participation hearing conducted on January 24, 2012, in Jacumba, California, seventeen people spoke, and one person submitted a written statement, in opposition to the project, while 16 people spoke, and one person submitted a written statement, in support of the project. Most of the speakers opposing the project raised objections on the basis of the project's environmental impacts on recreation (camping, hiking, and off-road vehicle), scenic vistas, biological resources (in particular, golden eagles), fire safety (prevention and fire-fighting), noise and vibration (construction and operational), public health and safety (EMF effects, shadow flicker and light) and well water. Ten of the speakers opposing the project raised objections that the project benefits urban and corporate interests at the expense of local property values and quality of life. Six of the speakers opposing the project challenged the need for the project on the basis of electrical demand, the availability of distributed generation as an alternative to the project, and/or the inefficiency of wind power due to the requirement for back-up power. Sixteen people spoke, and one person submitted a written statement, in support of the project, commenting on the role of the project in enabling the deployment of wind and solar energy resources; three speakers commented on the need to reduce global warming; and five speakers commented on job creation attributable to the project.

We are mindful of the environmental cost of this project. Nevertheless, on balance, and for all the reasons discussed above, we find that there are overriding considerations that merit project approval despite its environmental impacts.

³ The California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program was established by Senate Bill (SB) 1078 (Stats. 2002, Ch. 516, Sec. 3, codified as Pub. Util. Code §§ 399.1 et seq., effective January 1, 2003). The Renewables Portfolio Standards Program or related elements have been amended several times, including by SB 107 (Stats. 2006, Ch. 464), AB 1969 (Stats. 2006, Ch. 731), SB 1036 (Stats. 2007, Ch. 685), SB 380 (Stats. 2008, Ch. 544), SB 32 (Stats. 2009, Ch. 328), SB 695 (Stats. 2009, Ch. 337), and SB 2 (2011-12 First Extraordinary Session, Stats. 2011, Ch. 1).