6. EMF
The Commission has examined EMF impacts in several previous proceedings.4 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 permit to construct 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).
SDG&E filed a Magnetic Field Management Plan (MFMP) as an attachment to its August 10, 2009, application, based on its preferred project alternative and, pursuant to order of the administrative law judge, supplemented the MFMP to address the environmentally superior alternative identified in the draft EIR/EIS and impacts on 25 identified residences within 1,000 feet of the project route. The MFMP provides that the project will use phasing to reduce magnetic field levels. Undergrounding of portions of the 138 kV transmission line under the environmentally superior alternative would further reduce magnetic fields in the vicinity of 19 of the 25 residences identified in the draft EIR/EIS by reducing conductor spacing and arranging the underground conductors to use cancellation as an additional reduction measure. While also a low-cost measure, raising structures' heights in the vicinity of the remaining six residences along the entire project length (e.g., at the Southwest Powerlink crossing and at the east end of a private air strip) does not appear to be feasible and could potentially necessitate the installation of marker balls and lights, which might create additional environmental impacts. There are no further feasible low-cost field reduction measures that can be implemented on this project. This design complies with the Commission's EMF decisions.
No party challenged SDG&E's supplemental MFMP on compliance with the Commission's EMF decisions. Although BAD presented evidence challenging the sufficiency of the original August 10, 2009, MFMP (Ex. 3), it did not submit testimony in response to SDG&E's supplemental MFMP as permitted by the administrative law judge's ruling at the May 2, 2011, evidentiary hearing (Tr. 105) or raise the issue in closing briefs.
4 See D.06-01-042 and D.93-11-013.
