Background
On October 9, 2007, Nevada Hydro filed A.07-10-005 requesting that the Commission authorize the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the Talega-Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500-Kilovolt (kV) Interconnect Project (Project). In response to the assigned Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling dated December 30, 2008, Nevada Hydro filed an amended CPCN application with a supplemented Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA) on February 20, 2009. Consistent with the Chief ALJ's ruling of February 26, 2009, the amended application was given a new docket number, A.09-02-012, which is now the lead docket for this proceeding, and the proceedings were consolidated.
Nevada Hydro filed its original 2007 application without a PEA.1 The Commission's rules require that a PEA be submitted with an application for a CPCN. (See Rule 2.4(b).) Nevada Hydro subsequently filed a "draft" PEA and Staff reviewed that document.2 The Commission's Staff issued a review letter on November 16, 2007 to Nevada Hydro identifying and explaining the deficiencies in the Draft PEA (Attachment 1).
Nevada Hydro filed its Revised PEA on February 8, 2008. On March 6, 2008, Staff issued a second review letter concluding that the February 8, 2008 Revised PEA was incomplete based upon a number of factors, including inadequacies with the descriptions of the location of the Project, environmental setting and mitigation measures as those factors relate to required system upgrades, reasonably foreseeable future phases, and related projects (Attachment 2).
On July 29, 2008, Nevada Hydro filed a Second Revised PEA, and served a Notice of Availability to the service list in this proceeding.
On August 18, 2008, Staff issued a third review letter to Nevada Hydro noting that the Second Revised PEA was incomplete, in that it still lacked sufficient details to allow a clear and comprehensive understanding of all aspects of the Project, and that the Project description information was insufficient, vague, confusing or missing (Attachment 3). As a result, Staff requested that the deficient sections be replaced in a supplement, with the other sections remaining as filed.
While preparing its response to the August 18, 2008 Staff review letter, Nevada Hydro requested an informal review of work in progress and provided Staff with a hard copy of its work in progress on September 24, 2008. After review of this informal document, Staff provided comments in a letter dated October 20, 2008 outlining deficiencies in the document.
On November 12, 2008, Nevada Hydro filed a Supplement to its July 29, 2008 Second Revised PEA, and served a Notice of Availability to the service list in this proceeding. That Supplement included new elements to the Project, specifically both 115-kV and 12.5-kV lines, which were not part of the original application or Project described in the prior environmental documents.
On December 5, 2008, Staff issued a fourth review letter3 to Nevada Hydro noting that the PEA was still incomplete, still lacked sufficient details to allow a clear and comprehensive understanding of all aspects of the Project, and that the Project description was still insufficient, vague, confusing or missing (Attachment 4). To avoid confusion between the various submittals from Nevada Hydro, Staff recommended that the November 12, 2008 Supplement be modified and edited to address the deficiencies identified in that letter. Staff further recommended that the entire amended supplement be submitted, rather than providing a separate amendment to the Supplement.
On December 30, 2008, the ALJ issued a ruling ordering Nevada Hydro to either file by February 17, 2009 a full amended application with a complete PEA that complies with all of the requirements for conducting CEQA analysis; to provide in comments a compelling argument why the Commission should not dismiss the present application without prejudice; or to voluntarily request that the Commission dismiss the present application without prejudice. Interested parties were provided an opportunity to reply to Nevada Hydro's comments, if any.
Nevada Hydro filed its amended application on February 20, 2009 in compliance with the December 30 ruling.4 As noted above, the amended application was assigned a new docket number, A.09-02-012, and A.09-02-012 and A.07-10-005 are now consolidated. On March 12, 2009, after carefully reviewing the new PEA included with A.09-02-012, Staff issued yet another deficiency letter stating numerous reasons why the PEA remains incomplete. (Attachment 5.)
1 Nevada Hydro also filed a minor amendment to the application itself on November 2, 2007 to correct a typographical error.
2 This PEA was titled a "Draft PEA" by Nevada Hydro but was formally filed in the present proceeding, and hence is the first PEA.
3 Although the letter is titled as the third review, it is the fourth overall.
4 The Commission's Docket Office accepted the amended application for filing on February 20, 2009. We consider Nevada Hydro's filing to be timely.
