ALJ/CAB/avs DRAFT Agenda ID #4650
Ratesetting
6/30/2005 Item 35
Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ BROWN (Mailed 5/27/2005)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the San Diego Gas and Electric Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Construction of the Otay Mesa Power Purchase Agreement Transmission Project. |
Application 04-03-008 (Filed March 8, 2004) |
OPINION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE OTAY MESA POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT TRANSMISSION PROJECT
Table of Contents
Title Page
OPINION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE OTAY MESA POWER PURCHASE
AGREEMENT TRANSMISSION PROJECT 22
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) 1212
Areas of Known Controversy 1717
Transmission System Alternatives 2121
Alternative 7 PVI (Alternative 7 PV1) 2121
Alternatives Eliminated from Full EIR Evaluation 2222
SDG&E System Alternative 1 2222
SDG&E System Alternative 2 2222
SDG&E System Alternative 3 2222
SDG&E System Alternative 4 2222
SDG&E System Alternative 6 2323
Table of Contents
Title Page
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures 2424
Summary Comparison of the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3434
Environmentally Superior Alternative 3535
Responses to Alternative 7 PV1 3838
Adequacy and Certification of the FEIR 4040
Recommended Mitigation Measures 4141
Statement of Overriding Considerations 4242
Comments on Draft Decision 6363
OPINION CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE
AND NECESSITY FOR THE OTAY MESA POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT TRANSMISSION PROJECT
This decision grants the amended application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the Otay Mesa Power Purchase Agreement (OMPPA) Transmission Project (Proposed Project). The CPCN is for the construction of two new 230 kilovolt (kV) electric transmission circuits to connect SDG&E's Miguel Substation with both the Sycamore Canyon Substation and the Old Town Substation in San Diego County. The combined route length for both circuits is approximately 52 miles.
This decision also certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Proposed Project which is the subject of this amended application and is certified for use by responsible agencies in considering subsequent approvals for the project, or for portions thereof. SDG&E's amended application is granted after weighing the need for the two new electric transmission circuits and the outcome of the EIR. This decision conditions the CPCN on implementation of any mitigation measures set forth in the EIR that are applicable to the CPUC approved project.
On March 8, 2004, SDG&E filed an application for a CPCN for the proposed OMPPA Transmission Project to construct two new 230 kV electric transmission circuits to connect SDG&E's Miguel Substation with both the Sycamore Canyon Substation and the Old Town Substation in San Diego County. In accordance with the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)1 and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Commission determined that an EIR needed to be prepared to evaluate the project in accordance with the criteria, standards and procedures of the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR proceeded on a parallel track with the application.
On May 4, 2004, the City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista) filed a late-filed protest to the application and since then, SDG&E and Chula Vista successfully negotiated a resolution of the disputed issues concerning SDG&E's Proposed Project and entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). On October 18, 2004, Chula Vista moved to modify its protest and support the Project pursuant to the MOU. On November 18, 2004, SDG&E filed an amended application to modify the Proposed Project and to identify an alternative along the Chula Vista Bayfront as suggested by the Chula Vista and supported by SDG&E. The amended application states that it does not modify the proposed route for the project, or the purpose and need for the Project. In summary, the amendment proposes undergrounding a short portion of the segment traversing the Chula Vista Bayfront as part of the Proposed Project in the draft EIR instead of the original overhead design which was then analyzed in the EIR as an alternative.
On November 17, 2004, the California Independent System Operator Corporation (CAISO) submitted testimony reporting on its analysis of the Proposed Project and indicating its support.
On January 21, 2005, an Assigned Commissioner Ruling and Scoping Memo (ACR/Scoping Memo) issued establishing dates for submission of testimony and reply testimony and scheduling Evidentiary Hearings (EH). The ruling also granted Chula Vista's motions to intervene and to modify its protest.
Pursuant to the ACR/Scoping Memo, Chula Vista and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) submitted testimony on February 22, 2005, and on March 4, 2005, SDG&E and Calpine Corporation (Calpine) submitted reply testimony.
The ACR/Scoping Memo specified that since the project EIR would cover all aspects of the OMPPA Transmission Project and the EIR process afforded interested parties and the public an opportunity to comment on the EIR findings and recommendations, any issue covered in the EIR would not be the subject of EHs.
The remaining issues for consideration in the EHs would be the CPCN aspects that include the need and cost for the Proposed Project. SDG&E scheduled a telephonic pre-EH conference on March 3, 2005, and the parties stipulated that EHs were not necessary and that the parties would submit the CPCN issue on the briefs.
On April 15, 2005, opening briefs were filed by SDG&E, Calpine, CAISO, Chula Vista, and OR Application (A.) On April 29, 2005, reply briefs were filed by SDG&E, Calpine, CAISO, ORA and Rohr, Inc., operating as Goodrich Aerostructures Group (Rohr). Pursuant to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling, SDG&E was allowed to file a response to Rohr's reply.
SDG&E filed and served its application on March 8, 2004, and its amended application on November 18, 2004, with the prepared direct testimony of Robin Manuguid, Victor J. Kruger and Linda P. Brown. On November 15, 2004, CAISO served the prepared testimony of Irina Green. On February 22, 2005, Chula Vista served the testimony of Michael Meacham and ORA served the testimony of Scott Logan. On March 4, 2005, Calpine served the prepared reply testimony of Steven S. Schleimer, CAISO served the prepared reply testimony of Irina Green and SDG&E served the prepared reply testimony of Linda P. Brown.
The only testimony currently in the record of the proceeding is the prepared direct testimony filed as part of SDG&E's application. In the normal course of the proceeding, the remainder of the prepared direct and reply testimony would be moved into the record following cross-examination of the witnesses during the EHs. However, since EHs are not necessary to address any material fact in dispute, the prepared direct and reply testimony will be marked as exhibits and received into the record as marked.
On March 8, 2005, Rohr filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding on the ground that a portion of the proposed transmission line traverses the real property owned by Rohr. On March 22, 2005, SDG&E filed a response to the motion asking that if Rohr was allowed to intervene, that the intervention not expand the scope of the proceeding. Specifically, SDG&E wanted to ensure that Rohr's involvement did not necessitate EHs.
Since Rohr articulated a direct and substantial interest in the proceeding which cannot be represented by any other party, Rohr's motion to intervene is granted with the following limitations: no party, including applicant SDG&E shall be prejudiced by Rohr's intervention and the intervention shall not delay the schedule, necessitate EHs or expand the scope of the proceeding.
Rohr did not file an opening brief, but did file a lengthy reply brief on April 29, 2005. SDG&E filed a motion to strike Rohr's reply, or in the alternative to be allowed to file a response to the reply. On May 15, 2005, pursuant to an ALJ ruling, SDG&E's motion to file a response to the reply was granted, and the response that was attached to the motion was accepted for filing.
If there are any outstanding motions that have not yet been addressed in this proceeding they are deemed denied.
By this application, SDG&E seeks a CPCN to construct and operate the OMPPA Transmission Project. If approved, the Proposed Project would install (1) a new 230 kV electric transmission circuit that would connect under SDG&E's Miguel Substation with SDG&E's existing Sycamore Canyon Substation; and (2) a new 230 kV electric transmission line that would connect the Miguel Substation to SDG&E's existing Old Town Substation.2 Additional Project components would include a new transition station and modifications to the existing Sycamore Canyon, Miguel and Old Town Substations, and two new overhead to underground transition cable poles. The new transition lines would be approximately 52 miles in length, with 42 miles overhead and 10 miles underground.
The Proposed Project can be divided into six different segments:
Segment # 1
Sycamore Canyon Substation to the Fanita Junction: a four mile segment where a new 230 kV electric transmission line will be installed on a vacant position on existing towers between the Substation and the Junction, along with the reconductor of an existing 138 kV line, replacement of nine two-pole wood structures to facilitate the 138 kV reconductor, replacement of two existing lattice towers with two tubular steel poles, installation of three new wood poles at Fanita Junction and installation of a fiber optic line on the existing 230 kV towers.
Segment #2
Fanita Junction to Miguel Substation: a 24-mile segment where a new second 230 kV electric transmission line will be installed between the Junction and the Substation in a vacant position on the 230 kV transmission structures approved as part of SDG&E's Miguel-Mission 230 kV #2 Project, that was reviewed under a separate CPCN and EIR analysis in A. 02-07-022. On July 8, 2004, the Commission certified the Miguel-Mission 238 kV #2 Project FEIR, including environmental review, but not CPCN authorization, of this second circuit.
Miguel Substation to South Bay Power Plant: a ten-mile segment where a new ten-mile overhead 230 kV electric transmission line from the Substation to the Power Plant will be installed on approximately 63 new steel tubular poles, 3,000 feet of an existing 139 kV wood pole line leading into the Substation will be realigned and a fiber optic line will be installed atop the existing 230 kV structures.
Segment #4
South Bay Power Plant to Sweetwater River: a three-mile segment where a new underground 230 kV cable and fiber optic line will be installed primarily within SDG&E's right-of-way (ROW) from an overhead to underground transition cable pole located near the Power Plant to an underground to overhead transition cable pole located on the south side of the Sweetwater River. Modification or replacement of up to two existing bridge structures to accommodate the overhead positioning of the new 230 kV line is also proposed.
Segment #5
Sweetwater River to Sicard Transition Area: a four-mile segment where the project will modify approximately 30 existing bridge tower structures to accommodate a new overhead 230 kV electric transmission line from just south of the River to the Sicard Street Transition Area, where the line would transition from overhead to underground. Upgrades to an existing 138 kV twinned line on one side of the existing bridge structures to a 230 kV line, reconductor of an existing 138 kV line on the existing bridge structures to accommodate a reconfiguration of the existing 138 kV lines, and installation of fiber optic lines on the existing bridge structures are also proposed.
Segment #6
Sicard Street Transition Area to Old Town Substation: a seven-mile segment that includes the installation of a new underground 230 kV cable in the city streets from Sicard Street to the Substation, construction of a new 0.1 acre transition station and installation of fiber optic line within the underground duct bank.
In addition to the new 230 kV electric transmission lines and new overhead to underground transition station and cable poles, there are proposed changes to the Sycamore Canyon, Miguel and Old Town Substations, within the existing substation properties, to accommodate the new 230 kV lines.
The Proposed Project would cross the cities of San Diego, Chula Vista, National City and unincorporated areas in the eastern portion of San Diego County, as well as the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Miramar (MCAS) and is adjacent to the U.S. Navel Station San Diego and the Sweetwater Marsh Natural Wildlife Refuge. The Proposed Project follows an existing SDG&E ROW from Fanita Junction to the Miguel Substation through rough foothills, mesas, steep valleys and ravines. From the Miguel Substation to the South Bay Power Plant, the Proposed Project continues within the SDG&E ROW through residential and urban areas of Chula Vista, where a wide range of land uses are near or adjacent to the Proposed Project route, including commercial and industrial uses, residential developments and parks. From the South Bay Power Plant to the Sicard Street Transition area, the Project continues with the SDG&E ROW near the San Diego Bayfront. Land uses near or adjacent to this segment of the route include commercial, industrial and the Sweetwater Marsh Natural Wildlife Refuge. From the Sicard Street Transition Area to the Old Town Substation, the Project is located underground within the City of San Diego roadways primarily within commercial and industrial uses.
The CPCN/CEQA Process
Two different regulatory schemes define this Commission's responsibilities in reviewing SDG&E's request for approval of this application: Pub. Util. Code § 1001 et seq., require that before SDG&E can proceed with the OMPPA Project, the Commission must grant a CPCN on the grounds that the present or future public convenience and necessity require, or will require, construction of the project. Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq. (CEQA) require that the Commission, as lead agency for this project, prepare an EIR or negative declaration assessing the environmental implications of the project for its use in considering the request for a CPCN.3
Generally the CPCN requirements in the Public Utilities Code include a determination of whether the project is necessary. Also, before granting a CPCN, the Commission generally considers an analysis of the financial impacts of the Proposed Project on the utility's ratepayers and shareholders. The Commission reviews the expected cost of the project and for those projects estimated to cost more than $50 million, it sets a cap, or a maximum amount which can be spent by the utility on the project without seeking further Commission approval.
CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR where there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) is the State lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA and it is its responsibility to determine whether or not to prepare an EIR, and in this case determined it was necessary to prepare an EIR.
In preparing the EIR, the lead agency must consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the Proposed Project, including the "No-Project" alternative. The lead agency must identify all significant and potentially significant environmental impacts expected to result from the Proposed Project, and must identify mitigation measures which if adopted by the CPUC or other responsible agencies could avoid or lessen those impacts. If the EIR concludes that the Project will still have a significant and unavoidable impact on the environment even after all reasonable mitigation measures are applied, any CPCN must be accompanied by a statement of overriding considerations explaining why the project should still be approved by the Commission. In any event, the lead agency cannot approve the CPCN until it has certified that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. The CPCN that is finally issued must be conditioned on completion of any adopted mitigation measures applicable to the approved project.
In conjunction with its application, SDG&E filed a Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA). The Commission, as lead agency, then retained outside consultants, Dudek & Associates, to prepare an EIR for the Proposed Project as required by CEQA, and to examine alternatives, including the "No-Project" alternative. The Commission's Energy Division (ED) oversaw the consultant's work.
1 The CEQA statute appears at Cal. Pub. Res. Code Section 21000 et seq. 2 Overview of Proposed Project is attached as Attachment A. 3 See generally Re Southern California Edison Company, D. 90-09-059, 37 CPUC 2d 413, 421.
