V. Tehachapi-Vincent Transmission Project and Route Alternatives
As the Final EIR notes, an important aspect of the environmental review process is the identification and assessment of a reasonable range of alternatives. The State CEQA Guidelines, at § 15126.6(d), require the selection of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed Project, including a No Project alternative. At the same time, CEQA does not require an EIR to consider every conceivable alternative to a project. See, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a).
In its application and PEA, SCE identified several alternative routes for portions of the Tehachapi-Vincent Transmission Project. During the EIR scoping process, additional alternatives to the proposed project were identified, including minor routing adjustments, alternative energy technologies, and non-wires alternatives. The initial 10 suggested alternatives were then screened according to CEQA guidelines to determine which alternatives to carry forward for analysis in the EIR. The methodology used for screening these alternatives is described in detail at pages D-1 to D-21 of the Final EIR. It was determined that 4 of these alternatives met the applicable CEQA criteria for analysis. A detailed discussion of the results of this screening analysis and of the alternatives that were eliminated from further review is set forth at pages B-53 to B-66 of the Final EIR. The Final EIR provides a detailed analysis of these 4 alternatives to portions of the proposed Tehachapi-to-Vincent route.
Based on comparison of the environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives, the Final EIR identifies Alternative 3, the Antelope-Vincent Re-route 1, to be the environmentally superior alternative by a narrow margin. However, we find that this "environmentally superior" alternative creates a number of very serious adverse economic impacts, which, in the aggregate, far outweigh its limited environmental advantages over the route proposed by SCE.19 Accordingly, we approve the project route proposed by the Applicant, SCE. However, in order to eliminate the need for SCE to condemn three existing homes, we also direct SCE to implement the minor route deviation described as "Option A."
In the following subsections, we address the route proposed by SCE as well as the various alternative routes that were studied in detail in the Draft and Final EIR.
A. Description of Proposed Route
The proposed project includes Segments 2 and 3 of the Antelope Transmission Project, which were addressed together in SCE's CPCN application. The proposed project would involve construction of a new transmission line and related infrastructure between the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area, located in southern Kern County, California, and SCE's existing Vincent Substation, located near Acton in unincorporated Los Angeles County, California. The proposed Project would connect through SCE's existing Antelope Substation in the City of Lancaster, with Segment 2 consisting of the portion of the proposed Project south of Antelope Substation and Segment 3 consisting of the portion of the Project north of Antelope Substation.
The proposed Project would consist of the following major components:
· Substation Two, a 500/220/66-kV substation located near SCE's existing Monolith Substation, northwest of SCE's existing Cal Cement Substation in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area, which has been designated by Kern County as the Eastern Wind Resource Area (Segment 3);
· A 220-kV transmission line from Substation Two, traveling 9.6 miles southeast to Substation One in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area of southern Kern County (Segment 3). This portion of the proposed Project would require 1.7 miles of entirely new ROW and 7.9 miles of adjacent ROW;
· Substation One, a 500/220/66-kV substation located near Cal Cement Substation in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (Segment 3A);
· A 500-kV transmission line, initially energized to 220 kV, from Substation One in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area, traveling 25.6 miles south to the existing Antelope Substation in the City of Lancaster (Segment 3). This portion of the proposed project would require 23.1 miles of entirely new right of way (ROW) and 2.5 miles of adjacent ROW;
· A 500-kV transmission line from Antelope Substation in the City of Lancaster, traveling approximately 21.1 miles south towards the Vincent Substation near Acton in unincorporated Los Angeles County (Segment 2), initially energized to 220 kV. Two routing options (Options A and B) were also considered for this portion of the alignment. These routing options are discussed in Section B below. The 500-kV portion (energized at 220 kV) would require approximately 2.5 miles of entirely new ROW and 18.5 miles of adjacent ROW;
· A 0.6-mile 220-kV transmission line providing electrical interconnection of the 500-kV line (energized at 220 kV) to Vincent Substation (Segment 2). The 220-kV line connecting to Vincent Substation would be constructed within an existing, adjacent ROW;
· Installation of associated telecommunication infrastructure (Segments 2 and 3); and
· Establishment of 27.3 miles of new utility ROW and 29.5 miles of adjacent utility ROW.20
A detailed discussion of the proposed facilities and modifications associated with the entire proposed project can be found at pages B-7 to B-19 of the Final EIR. See also Figure B.2-1 in the Final EIR for a detailed graphic representation of the proposed route. A detailed description of the various components of the proposed project is set forth at pages B-2 to B-4 of the Final EIR. Furthermore, a detailed description of project construction activities is set forth at pages B-19 to B-47 of the Final EIR.
B. Alternatives Presented in the Draft EIR
The Final EIR presents detailed information on two minor re-routes, referred to as "Option A" and "Option B," both of which were included in SCE's filings with the Commission, as well as four specific alternative routes that were identified during the EIR scoping process.
This option was included in SCE's Amended PEA as Antelope-Vincent 1 (AV1). Option A is identical to the proposed project except between approximately Mile S2-5.7 and Mile S2-7.87, where the alignment deviates from the proposed ROW to avoid three existing homes located north of Elizabeth Lake Road. As shown in Figure B.2-24 of the Final EIR, Option A deviates from the proposed project at Mile S2-5.7 by proceeding east for approximately 0.15 miles, crossing the existing transmission line corridor, including two 66-kV lines, the Antelope-Mesa 220-kV line, the Antelope-Vincent 220-kV line, and Midway-Vincent No. 3,500-kV line, before turning southeast paralleling the proposed project route until Mile S2-7.6. At this point, the transmission line turns south, again crossing the existing transmission line corridor, rejoining the proposed project route at Mile S2-7.8 (proposed project Mile S2-7.7). This minor re-route is 2.1 miles in length and increases the alignment of Segment 2 by 0.1 miles. In other regards, Option A is identical to the proposed project.
A detailed discussion of the facilities needed to construct the project under Option A is included with the discussion of the facilities needed to construct the project itself at pages B-7 to B-47 of the Final EIR.
This option was the proposed Segment 2 route in SCE's December 2004 CPCN filing, and is included in SCE's Amended PEA as Antelope-Vincent 2 (AV2). Option B is identical to the proposed project except between Mile S2-8.1 and Mile S2-14.9.
As shown in Figure B.2-25 of the Final EIR, Option B deviates from the proposed project at Mile S2-8.1 by continuing in a southeasterly direction parallel to the existing Antelope-Vincent corridor through the Ritter Ranch and Anaverde community development areas, rejoining the proposed project route at Mile S2-11.2 (proposed Project Mile S2-14.9). Option B would also connect to the existing Midway-Vincent No. 3 transmission line and use the existing Midway-Vincent No. 3 infrastructure that travels towards Vincent Substation beginning at approximately Option B-Mile S2-10.0, as well as cut east on new infrastructure, traveling underneath the existing transmission lines in the existing Midway-Vincent ROW, and run parallel and east of its former alignment to Vincent Substation (see Figure B.2-21).
This minor re-route is 3.1 miles in length and decreases the Segment 2 alignment by approximately 3.7 miles. In other regards, Option B is identical to the proposed project.
A detailed discussion of the facilities needed to construct the project under Option B is included with the discussion of the facilities needed to construct the project itself at pages B-7 to B-47 of the Final EIR.
3. Alternative 1: Substation 2C to Substation One via Cameron Canyon Road (Segment 3B)
This alternative was included in SCE's Amended PEA as Alternative C (Substation One to Substation Two), except instead of starting at alternative Substation 2B north of Tehachapi Boulevard, this alternative would start at alternative Substation 2C located immediately north of Substation Two.
As shown in Figure D.3-1 in the Final EIR, this alternative begins at Alternative Substation 2C and continues south and east to Substation One paralleling the existing Cal Cement-Goldtown-Monolith-Windlands 66-kV line, which runs through the hills within an existing wind farm and then along Cameron Canyon Road. Alternative 1 heads south from Substation 2C (Mile 0.0) for approximately 0.2 miles, then east-southeast for 1.5 miles, and then turns generally south for the next 3.7 miles, rejoining the proposed project route at Mile S3-5.3 (proposed project Mile S3-5.2).
This re-route is 5.3 miles in length and increases Segment 3B by 0.1 miles (9.7 miles total), resulting in one additional 500-kV single-circuit transmission tower. From Substation One to Vincent Substation (southern termination point), Alternative 1 is identical to the proposed project.
A detailed discussion of the facilities needed to construct the project under Alternative 1 is set forth at pages D-34 to D-53 of the Final EIR.
4. Alternative 2: Substation 1B to Antelope via 100th Street (Segments 3A/3B)
This alternative generally follows the proposed Segment 3 route from SCE's December 2004 CPCN filing, which is included in SCE's Amended PEA as Alternative A (Antelope to Substation One); however this alternative would utilize alternative Substation 1B and would be re-routed south of Truman Road to avoid homes.
Alternative 2 is identical to the proposed project, except between Mile S3-9.5 and S3-22.1 and between Mile S3-25.3 and S3-30.6. As shown in Figure D.3-2 of the Final EIR, Alternative 2 deviates from the proposed project at Mile S3-9.5 by continuing east 0.5 miles and then south 0.1 miles to connect to alternative Substation 1B. Segment 3B increases by 0.5 miles. From alternative Substation 1B (Mile S3-10.1) the transmission line would continue south approximately 0.9 miles and then southwest for approximately 2.8 miles, crossing the private Sagebrush 220-kV transmission line at approximately Mile S3-12.4. At Mile S3-13.8, Alternative 2 would turn south paralleling 100th Street West for approximately 8.5 miles (Mile S3-22.3). Between Mile S3-13.8 and Mile S3-16.9 the transmission line would be placed adjacent to an existing 66-kV line (3.1 miles adjacent ROW). Between Mile S3-22.1 and S3-22.3 (near Truman Road), Alternative 2 would turn southwest and run parallel and east of a LADWP Easement for 0.5 miles before rejoining the proposed project at Mile S3-22.8 (proposed project Mile S3-22.1).
Alternative 2 would follow the proposed project alignment within the LADWP Easement for an additional 1.1 miles (Total of 1.6 miles adjacent ROW). At Mile S3-23.9, Alternative 2 (and the proposed project) would leave the LADWP Easement and turn south along 107th Street West for approximately 2.1 miles, again crossing the private Sagebrush 220-kV transmission line at approximately Mile S3-25.1. At Mile S3-26.0 (proposed project Mile S3-25.3), the transmission line would again deviate from the proposed project. Alternative 2 would turn east, following Hawk Avenue for approximately 0.7 miles, before turning south and once again realigning itself with 100th Street West. The transmission line would then travel south along 100th Street for 5.3 miles (Mile S3-32.0), before turning west along West Avenue F for 0.6 miles, rejoining the proposed project route at Mile S3-32.6 (proposed project Mile 30.6). Segment 3A would increase by 1.5 miles.
This re-route, including the portion that follows the proposed project route, is 23.1 miles in length and would increase the overall Segment 3 (3A+3B) alignment by approximately 2.0 miles (37.2 miles total). In other regards, Alternative 2 is identical to the proposed project.
A detailed discussion of the facilities needed to construct the project under Alternative 2 is set forth at pages D-53 to D-68 of the Final EIR.
This alternative is similar to a combination of Options A and B of the proposed project, except the transmission line would remain east of the existing Antelope-Vincent transmission corridor. Alternative 3 is identical to the proposed project, except between Mile S2-5.7 and Mile S2-14.8.
As shown Figure D.3-3 of the Final EIR, Alternative 3 deviates from the proposed project at Mile S2-5.7 by proceeding east for approximately 0.15 miles, crossing the existing transmission line corridor, including two 66-kV lines, the Antelope-Mesa 220-kV line, the Antelope-Vincent 220-kV line, and Midway-Vincent No. 3 500-kV line, before turning southeast, paralleling the proposed project route for approximately 2.3 miles. Alternative 3 would continue to remain east and parallel to the existing Antelope-Vincent corridor through the Ritter Ranch and Anaverde Ranch community development areas, rejoining the proposed project route at Mile S2-11.2 (proposed project Mile S2-14.8).
This re-route is 5.5 miles in length and decreases the Segment 2 alignment by approximately 3.6 miles (18.0 miles total). In other regards, Alternative 3 is identical to the proposed project.
A detailed discussion of the facilities needed to construct the project under Alternative 3 is set forth at pages D-68 to D-81 of the Final EIR.
This alternative re-routes the transmission line between the Antelope and Vincent Substations to avoid both the northern portion of the Ritter Ranch community development area, where a proposed school site is located, and homes along the proposed project route.
As shown in Figure D.3-4 of the Final EIR, Alternative 4 deviates from the proposed project at Mile S2-3.4 and heads south for approximately 1.9 miles, crossing the California Aqueduct and the Portal Ridge mountain range, and then continues southwest 0.6 miles, crossing Elizabeth Lake Road in Leona Valley. This alternative would continue south 0.5 miles, remaining west of Bouquet Canyon Road and east of 86th Street West, then southwest for 0.6 miles, and south again for 1.2 miles, crossing Bouquet Canyon Road. At this point, the transmission line would turn east paralleling the Midway-Vincent No. 1 corridor for 2.0 miles (2.0 miles adjacent ROW) to rejoining the proposed project at Mile S2-10.2 (proposed Project Mile S2-10.7).
This re-route is 6.8 miles in length and decreases the Segment 2 alignment by approximately 0.5 miles (21.1 miles total). In other regards, Alternative 4 is identical to the proposed project.
A detailed discussion of the facilities needed to construct the project under Alternative 4 is set forth at pages D-81 to D-96 of the Final EIR.
19 These adverse economic impacts are explained in detail in section VIII.A below.
20 As described above, Segment 2 includes the portion of the proposed project located south of Antelope Substation and Segment 3 includes the portion located north of Antelope Substation. In order to more specifically distinguish different aspects of the proposed project, the northern portion of Segment 3, which includes Mile S3-0.0 to Mile S3-9.6 (including Substation Two), is referred to as Segment 3B. Segment 3B is a proposed 220-kV line. The southern portion of Segment 3, from Mile S3-9.6 to Mile S3-35.2, is referred to as Segment 3A (including Substation One). Segment 3A is a proposed 500-kV line.
