XIII. Assignment of Proceeding
Loretta M. Lynch is the Assigned Commissioner and Charlotte F. TerKeurst is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.
1. The draft EIR described the route of the Collocation Alternative and identified and discussed its possible environmental impacts at length. Parties were able to, and did, submit extensive and substantive comments on the Collocation Alternative.
2. The route options for the Collocation Alternative added in the FEIR do not constitute significant new information for which recirculation is required.
3. The project alternatives considered in the FEIR constitute a reasonable range of feasible alternatives, as required by the CEQA Guidelines.
4. It is reasonable to use PG&E's March 2003 load forecast in assessing need for the Jefferson-Martin project.
5. Hunters Point should be closed at the earliest possible date.
6. The ISO has established that Hunters Point Unit and 1 and 4 are beyond their useful lives and are highly likely to suffer a forced outage.
7. The ISO expects that Hunters Point would require significant and increasing investment to continue operation.
8. Hunters Point Unit 4 must comply with stricter emission limits at the beginning of 2005.
9. There are several environmental benefits that will occur when Hunters Point is decommissioned such as reduced air, noise, and thermal pollution.
10. We find that both Hunters Point units should be excluded from the supply forecast because it is consistent with a past Commission decision, local government and community interests, and because of environmental as well as operational considerations.
11. To meet the forecasted demand, the Jefferson-Martin project, along with other transmission reinforcements, will need to be online prior to decommissioning Hunters Point.
12. The Jefferson-Martin project is needed in order to allow PG&E to continue to reliably meet electric demand in the San Francisco Peninsula Area beginning in mid-2006.
13. The Jefferson-Martin project has diversification, economic, and environmental benefits that warrant its construction.
14. It is reasonable to expect the Jefferson-Martin project to be completed by mid-2006.
15. The environmentally superior alternative for the Jefferson-Martin project based on the FEIR consists of Route Option 1B in the southern segment, with one of three acceptable crossings of the Crystal Springs Dam, in conjunction with either the Proposed Project's underground segment or the Collocation Alternative in the northern segment.
16. For the southern portion of the Jefferson-Martin project, the hybrid alternative using Route Option 1B between the Jefferson substation and a new transition tower replacing tower 11/70 west of Trousdale Drive, and PG&E's proposed overhead route north of the transition tower provides the best balance among competing considerations. In particular, it will minimize visual and biological impacts south of the transition tower, avoid impacts on Edgewood Park and the Pulgas Ridge Natural Preserve, avoid Route Option 1B's effects on residences and businesses along Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real and seismic concerns in that area.
17. It is reasonable to allow PG&E to determine which of five options for crossing Crystal Springs Dam to utilize, based on the timing of project construction and the preferences of the SFPUC, USFWS and the County of San Mateo.
18. The environmentally superior route consisting of Route Option 1B in the southern segment in conjunction with the Proposed Project's underground northern segment modified to include Route Option 4B rather than Route Option 4A poses less harm to the environment than do the other routes proposed by PG&E and other parties to this proceeding.
19. The Proposed Project's underground northern segment is preferable to the Collocation Alternative because of the risks associated with the Collocation Alternative's construction through contaminated areas and along the Bay and the loss of diversification due to its collocation with the existing underground 230 kV line.
20. Route Option 4B is preferable to Route Option 4A because it will avoid construction impacts to residences along Hoffman and Orange Streets.
21. The route consisting of the hybrid alternative using Route Option 1B and PG&E's Proposed Project in the southern segment in conjunction with the Proposed Project's underground segment reflects community values more accurately than does the environmentally superior route.
22. We are not obligated to choose the least costly route if that route causes greater environmental harm than more costly routes or if some other route most closely reflects the prevalent community values.
23. The Commission has reviewed and considered the information in the FEIR before approving the project.
24. The FEIR identifies significant environmental effects of the route we approve that can be mitigated or avoided to the extent that they become not significant. The FEIR describes measures that will reduce or avoid such effects.
25. The environmental mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, with modifications in Appendix A and Appendix B, are feasible and will avoid significant environmental impacts.
26. As lead agency under CEQA, the Commission is required to monitor the implementation of mitigation measures adopted for this project to ensure full compliance with the provisions of the monitoring program.
27. The Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Plan in Section G of the FEIR conforms to the recommendations of the FEIR for measures required to mitigate or avoid environmental effects of the project that can be reduced or avoided.
28. The Commission will develop a detailed implementation plan for the Mitigation Monitoring, Compliance, and Reporting Plan.
29. The FEIR identifies no significant environmental impact of the approved route that cannot be mitigated or avoided.
30. We have considered and approve of the discussion in the FEIR covering parks and recreation, cultural and historic resources, environmental impacts generally, and the public comment and response section.
31. The maximum cost identified as reasonable and prudent for the approved project is $206,988,000.
1. The Commission has jurisdiction over the proposed project pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1001 et seq.
2. Recirculation of the FEIR is not required by CEQA because no "significant new information" is contained in the FEIR, as that term is used in CEQA.
3. The motion by the City of South San Francisco and CBE-101 requesting recirculation of the FEIR should be denied.
4. Because the FEIR considered a reasonable range of feasible alternatives, it is not necessary to amend the FEIR as Daly City suggests or to recirculate the FEIR for comments on Daly City's suggested alternative.
5. The Commission has authority to specify "a maximum cost determined to be reasonable and prudent for the project pursuant to § 1005.5.
6. The Commission should approve a maximum cost of $206,988,000 for this project.
7. This maximum cost established pursuant to § 1005.5 has bearing on the amount of cost recovery PG&E may seek from the FERC.
8. Commission approval of PG&E's application, as modified herein, is in the public interest.
9. The environmental mitigation measures in the FEIR, as modified in Appendix A, should be adopted and made conditions of project approval
10. Project approval should be conditioned upon construction according to the hybrid route in the southern segment consisting of Route Option 1B in the southernmost segment, transitioning at existing tower 11/70 to PG&E's Proposed Project, and terminating at a new Glenview Drive transition tower, where it will connect to the underground northern segment.
11. Project approval should be conditioned upon construction according to PG&E's Proposed Project route in the northern segment modified to include Route Option 4B and with use of Mitigation Measure T-9a at the discretion of the City of San Bruno.
12. Project approval should be conditioned upon the completion of the mitigation measures identified in the FEIR, as modified in Appendix A. The mitigation measures are feasible and will minimize or avoid significant environmental impacts. Those mitigation measures should be adopted and made conditions of project approval.
13. After considering and weighing the values of the community, benefits to parks and recreational areas, the impacts on cultural and historic resources, and the environmental impacts caused by the project, we conclude that the CPCN for the Jefferson-Martin project as described in this decision should be approved.
14. In D.98-10-029, the Commission approved a settlement agreement between PG&E and the CCSF which allows PG&E to shut down Hunters Point as soon as it is no longer needed to sustain electric reliability in San Francisco and surrounding areas.
15. In concert with legislative action (Budget Act of 1998), a City of San Francisco resolution (98-0181) and community interests, we find that with the addition of Jefferson Martin and other transmission reinforcements, Hunters Point will no longer be needed for reliability purposes.
16. Based on the completed record before us, we conclude that other alternatives identified in the FEIR are infeasible, pose more significant environmental impacts, or are less consistent with community values than the route we select in this decision.
17. Pub. Util. Code § 625(a)(l)(A) does not apply to this project. However, PG&E must provide notice pursuant to § 625(a)(l)(B) if and when it pursues installation of facilities for purposes of providing competitive services.
18. The July 1, 2004 motion of 280 Citizens that the record be reopened for receipt of five photographs which it included in its comments on the proposed decision should be denied.
19. This order should be effective today so that PG&E may proceed expeditiously with construction of the authorized project.
