XII. Comments on the Proposed Alternate Decision

The proposed alternate decision of President Michael Peevey in this matter was served to the parties in consistent with Rule 2.3(b) and in accordance with Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure on June 22, 2004. Comments were filed on June 30, 2004, and reply comments were filed on July 5, 2004.

Numerous parties filed timely comments and reply comments to the proposed alternate decision. Comments were filed by Pacific Gas and Electric, the County of San Mateo, 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens, Genentech, Inc., Daly City, City and County of San Francisco, Office of Ratepayer Advocates, CalISO, City of Burlingame, and CARE. We have considered the parties' views in light of the requirement that comments must focus on factual, legal, or technical errors in the proposed alternate decision, and that comments merely re-arguing party's positions will be accorded no weight (See Rule 77.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures).

Consistent with Rule 77.3, and based on the current state of the record, we have made various changes to the proposed alternate decision. The edits range from the correction of minor typographical errors to more detailed revisions that either enhance or clarify an existing position, as described in the body of the decision. Numerous parties filed comments that stated that for reliability purposes Jefferson-Martin is needed by 2006 instead of 2007. Additionally, comments filed by various parties requested a statement in the decision which affirms that constructing Jefferson-Martin will lead to the shutdown of the Hunters Point power plant. Finally, several parties asked for additional EMF mitigation measures.

We address the date in service issue and the shutdown of Hunters Point together. PG&E and the ISO continue to maintain that the Jefferson-Martin project is needed for reliability purposes by 2006 rather than by 2007. They take issue with the proposed alternate decision's inclusion of Hunters Point in the resource mix. In concert with legislative action (Budget Act of 1998), a City of San Francisco resolution (98-0181) and community interests, we find that the addition of Jefferson Martin and other transmission reinforcements should facilitate the closure of the Hunters Point power plant. We agree with PG&E and the ISO that Hunters Point should be closed at the earliest possible date. In order to meet this goal, we find that Jefferson Martin should be online at the earliest possible time. The evidentiary record establishes that construction time for this transmission project will be approximately two years. Assuming that Jefferson-Martin is approved by August 19, 2004, then we anticipate that the Jefferson-Martin project could be online by mid-2006. With other transmission reinforcements in place, we believe that the sooner Jefferson Martin is operational the sooner PG&E will be able to retire and decommission Hunters Point.

The City of Burlingame, and 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens found that the proposed alternate decision failed to properly address their concerns regarding EMF. The City of Burlingame suggests that the proposed alternate decision ignores the extensive record evidence devoted to the value that impacted communities place on protecting resident's health and safety and therefore the decision commits legal error. We have revisited the EMF sections of this decision to enhance the decision and to clarify that we require that PG&E implement vibrant, but feasible EMF mitigation measures. Based upon comments, we have incorporated additional mitigation measures to reduce the health and safety impacts to residents from exposure to EMF. For example, we require that PG&E use a triangular configuration to reduce EMF levels as a zero-cost mitigation measure (where feasible). Additionally, we instruct PG&E to utilize strategic line placement along the entire route (again where feasible) and to maximize the distance of the underground transmission line from the edge of the right of way (where feasible). We would like to reiterate that we define "low-cost" to be in the range of 4% of the total project cost but specified that this 4% benchmark is not an absolute cap. We believe that these and other changes to the proposed alternate decision addresses many of the concerns expressed by 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens and the City of Burlingame regarding adopting additional mitigation measures in the Jefferson-Martin project for EMF related impacts.