XI. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the assigned Commissioner in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with § 311(d) and Rule 14.2 of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on March 5, 2007 by SCE, by Palmdale Hills Property, LLC (PHP), Anaverde LLC (Anaverde) and Marcy Watton, et al. (collectively, Leona Valley Residents).39 No reply comments were filed. All of the parties commenting on the proposed decision indicated general support for the recommendation in the proposed decision to approve the Project as proposed by SCE with the route deviation identified as "Option A."

PHP and Anaverde suggest that the proposed decision erred in finding Alternative 3 to be the "environmentally superior" alternative; however, in view of the proposed decision's finding that this alternative is infeasible, they characterize this error as harmless. We note that the EIR found Alternative 3 to be only nominally superior to SCE's proposed route because Alternative 3 was shorter and would pass through already disturbed land. We find that these minor advantages to Alternative 3 do not outweigh the adverse economic impacts to PHP and Anaverde if Alternative 3 were chosen. Finally, we note that the Commission is under no obligation under CEQA to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative if there are other compelling policy reasons not to do so. This decision explains, in Sections VII.A and VII.C, why we have determined that Alternative 3 is infeasible.

The Leona Valley Residents support the proposed decision's finding that Alternative 4 is infeasible and should not be selected. However, they claim that the Final EIR is defective because fails to explain all of the ways in which Alternative 4 is inferior, and they request the findings on this issue to be augmented. We are persuaded that some of the augmentation urged by the Leona Valley Residents is justified, and we have accordingly added text to Section VII.4 of Attachment B and revised Section VI.B.1 of this decision.

The Leona Valley Residents also claim that the environmental analysis for the Tehachapi Transmission Projects is improperly piecemealed, thereby preventing an adequate analysis of cumulative impacts. We disagree. All of the transmission projects previously proposed for the Tehachapi area have received full environmental review under CEQA through the preparation and circulation of an EIR (as is the case here for the Tehachapi-Vincent Transmission Project). Projects that are just now coming to fruition will be subjected to full environmental review once a CPCN application is filed with this Commission. While the future development of the Tehachapi area may appear to be a certainty today, it was a speculative venture when SCE submitted its application for this CPCN at the end of 2004, and no one could have predicted the configuration of the expansion that is now contemplated for the area. In addition, as noted above in Section III of this decision, the Tehachapi-Vincent Transmission Project has utility independent of any other planned transmission project that would accommodate the development of renewable energy resources in the Tehachapi area. Moreover, the EIR that we are approving in this decision incorporates a thorough analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, including a discussion of possible future energy and transmission projects. See, Section E.4 of the Final EIR. We accordingly conclude that there is no improper piecemealing of the environmental analysis associated with this project.

Finally, SCE's comments recommend minor changes to the proposed decision and to the mitigation measures set forth in Attachment A to the proposed decision. We shall address each of these recommendations separately.

A. Mitigation Measures V-16b, V-16c and V-16d

SCE has requested that these mitigation measures be deleted, because they are unnecessary in connection with the route being approved in this decision. We disagree with SCE's request, as the project does include substation construction, and these mitigation measures were developed to address potential visual impacts at or around such facilities.

B. Mitigation Measure V.1a

SCE has requested that this mitigation measure be modified because it is, in SCE's view, overly burdensome and could result in significant schedule delays. We agree with SCE that all reasonable steps need to be taken to move the construction of the project along once it is approved. We note that Mitigation Measure V-1a only requires the installation of tubular steel poles where they will reduce visual impacts and are feasible to construct without reducing reliability. With respect to the possible use of tubular steel poles, the CPUC is committed to work with SCE to accelerate its review of SCE's plans under this mitigation measure to the fullest extent possible. We accordingly do not believe that a change in the mitigation measure is needed.

C. Mitigation V-1e

This mitigation measure requires SCE to treat surfaces with appropriate colors, finishes and textures. The CPUC agrees with SCE that it would be best to avoid coating processes that must be re-applied over time or that could result in deterioration of the structure material. If SCE can demonstrate that the colors that can be produced in the galvanizing process (presumably darker colors) can accomplish the intent of Mitigation Measure V-1e, the CPUC will be satisfied. Accordingly, we do not believe that any change is required to this mitigation measure.

D. Mitigation Measure V-1f

This mitigation measure requires SCE to establish an evergreen vegetative screen around the substations that are part of the proposed project. SCE requests that this mitigation measure be modified because the desert terrain and vegetative types in the vicinity of the substations make the use of evergreens infeasible. We agree with SCE's concern and will modify the mitigation measure to delete the word, "evergreen."

E. Mitigation Measure V-5

This mitigation measure requires SCE to match existing structures and spans as closely as possible in order to reduce visual complexity. SCE requests that this mitigation measure be modified to limit its applicability to areas where there will be construction adjacent to existing towers. We agree with SCE that this is a reasonable request, and we shall clarify this mitigation measure accordingly.

F. Mitigation Measure AG-4

This mitigation measure requires SCE to site transmission towers and pulling/splicing stations in locations that minimize impacts to agricultural operations. SCE requests that this mitigation measure be modified to incorporate feasibility constraints. As to this "feasibility" language that SCE requests, we note that mitigation measures must, by definition, be feasible. Thus, if this measure cannot be feasibly implemented in certain locations, SCE should be able to present evidence supporting such a determination to CPUC staff. Thus, we see no need to change the mitigation measure to include "feasibility" language.

G. Mitigation Measure N-1

This mitigation measure requires that when using equipment within 600 feet of project construction, SCE must use temporary shields. SCE requests that this mitigation measure be clarified to apply 300 feet on either side of construction. We agree with SCE's requested clarification and will modify the mitigation measure accordingly.

H. Mitigation Measure N-3a

This mitigation measure requires advance notification to all single-family residences within 600 feet of project construction. SCE requests that this be modified to limit this notification to residences and businesses within 300 feet of project construction. We cannot grant SCE's request, because the language of this measure reflects the specific distance standards contained in Los Angeles County's noise ordinance.

I. Mitigation Measure H-1b

This mitigation measure limits slope gradients applicable to new roadways. SCE has requested a modification to allow a steeper gradient if it can be demonstrated to result in fewer impacts. We agree with SCE's request. If SCE can in fact demonstrate that a steeper gradient would result in fewer environmental impacts than a longer roadway with a gentler gradient, SCE should be able to use the steeper gradient. We note that this modification does not reduce the environmental benefits associated with the mitigation measure; to the contrary, the intent of the modification is to maximize the reduction in environmental impacts associated with road construction.

J. Other Requested Changes to the Proposed Decision

SCE has requested the addition of a Finding of Fact and a Conclusion of Law addressing the need to keep project construction on schedule. This Commission is as committed to the rapid implementation of the State's Renewable Portfolio Standards as is SCE, and, at various points in this decision, we have made statements indicating that we expect CPUC staff to undertake its best efforts to work with SCE to accelerate the review of any SCE plans and activities that are submitted for staff approval. We do not believe that any further findings or conclusions are needed as evidence of our expectations and commitment and accordingly will not grant SCE's request in this regard. Finally, SCE requests that we delete a sentence at page 22 of the proposed decision that refers to the value of future transmission projects associated with the development of the Tehachapi wind resource. We agree with SCE that this language does not relate to the issues in this proceeding and have modified it to delete the reference to specific future projects.

39 The Leona Valley Residents moved to intervene in this proceeding on October 5, 2006. That motion to intervene is hereby granted.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page