VIII. EMF Issues

A. Background

The Commission first established EMF policies in D.93-11-013. In our recent review of EMF issues, the Commission stated in D.06-01-042 that, "at this time we are unable to determine whether there is a significant scientifically verifiable relationship between EMF exposure and negative health consequences." We affirmed in D.06-01-042 that the Commission's EMF policy is one of prudent avoidance, with application of low-cost/no-cost mitigation measures to reduce EMF exposure for new and upgraded utility transmission and substation projects. The Commission has adopted a benchmark of 4% of total project cost for low-cost EMF mitigation measures, with flexibility to allow expenditures above the 4% benchmark if justified by a project's unique circumstances. In D.06-01-042, the Commission stated that, as a guideline, low-cost EMF mitigation measures should reduce EMF levels by at least 15% at the utility right of way.

The Final EIR provides information regarding EMF associated with the proposed project. It does not consider magnetic fields³¹ in the context of CEQA and determination of environmental impact because there is no agreement among scientists that EMF creates a potential health risk, and there are no defined or adopted CEQA standards for defining health risk from EMF.

B. EMF Management Plan for the Tehachapi-Vincent Transmission Project

Consistent with its obligations under G.O. 131-D, SCE included an EMF Field Management Plan with its application. In accord with Commission policy, SCE proposes to incorporate "no-cost" and "low-cost" magnetic field reduction steps in the proposed transmission and substation facilities. The measures proposed by SCE that would reduce magnetic fields are as follows:

Segment 2

· Phasing the proposed Antelope-Vincent 500-kV transmission line for magnetic field cancellation with existing transmission lines and subtransmission lines;

· Constructing the relocated Antelope-Anaverde 66-kV line and the Antelope-Acton-Palmdale-Shuttle 66-kV on 75-foot-tall steel poles that are 5 feet taller than existing structures;

· Constructing the relocated Antelope-Anaverde 66-kV line and the Antelope-Acton-Palmdale-Shuttle 66-kV utilizing compact TO 352 construction meeting the preferred design specification for 66-kV lines as defined in SCE's EMF Design Guidelines;

· Phasing the relocated Antelope-Anaverde 66-kV line and the Antelope-Acton-Palmdale-Shuttle 66-kV for magnetic field cancellation with existing and proposed transmission lines;

· Widening the existing ROW by 180 feet;

· Routing portions of the proposed 500-kV transmission line further away from future residential development;

· Phasing the replacement for the Midway-Vincent 500-kV No. 3 transmission line for magnetic cancellation with existing transmission lines (Transpositions would be required to phase portions of the transmission line routes for field reduction. The cost for these transpositions would be below 4% of the project cost.); and

· Placing the replacement for the existing Midway-Vincent 500-kV No. 3 transmission line between the Sagebrush 220-kV transmission line ROW and the existing SCE 200-kV transmission lines for portions of the line route.

Segment 3

· Phasing the proposed Antelope-Substation One 500-kV transmission line for magnetic field cancellation with existing transmission lines and subtransmission lines;

· Utilizing compact conductor configuration (500-kV tubular steel poles) for portions of the line route;

· Routing the proposed Antelope-Substation One 500-kV transmission line and Substation One-Substation Two 220-kV transmission line away from residences;

· Phasing the proposed Substation One-Substation Two 220-kV transmission line for field cancellation with the existing Sagebrush-Skyriver 220-kV transmission line and subtransmission lines (Transpositions would be required to phase portions of the transmission line routes for field reduction. The cost for these transpositions would be low-cost);

· Widening existing subtransmission ROWs by 160 feet for the proposed Substation One-Substation Two 220-kV transmission line route;

· Locating transformers to maintain distances greater than 50 feet away from the substation property lines at Substation One and Substation Two; and

· Locating switchracks, capacitors and busses to maintain distances greater than 40 feet away from the substation property lines at Substation One and Substation Two.

SCE's plan for reducing magnetic fields for the proposed project is consistent with the CPUC's EMF policies and also with recommendations made by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. Furthermore, the recommendations above meet CPUC-approved EMF Design Guidelines as well as all national and state safety standards for new electric facilities. We hereby order SCE to construct the Tehachapi-Vincent Transmission Project consistent with the proposals in its EMF Field Management Plan.

³¹ Because electric fields are shielded effectively by materials such as trees and walls, the emphasis in the Commission's consideration of EMF is on exposure to magnetic fields.