O R D E R
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The motion by the City of South San Francisco and Concerned Businesses East of Highway 101 requesting recirculation of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is denied.
2. Official notice is taken of information on the website of the California Energy Commission (CEC) indicating that the City and County of San Francisco filed an Application for Certification on March 18, 2004 (CEC Docket No. 04-AFC-1) for three combustion turbines.
3. A Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity is granted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to construct a 230 kV transmission line in the County of San Mateo from PG&E's existing Jefferson substation to its existing Martin substation and associated substation upgrades.
4. PG&E shall, as a condition of approval, build the project in accordance with the hybrid southern route 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 that transition tower to another transition tower at Glenview Drive. PG&E shall determine which of five identified options for crossing Crystal Springs Dam to utilize.
5. PG&E shall, as a condition of approval, build the project in accordance with the Proposed Project in the northern segment, utilizing Route Option 4B rather than Route Option 4A, and with use of Mitigation Measure T-9a at the discretion of the City of San Bruno.
6. PG&E shall, as a condition of approval, comply with all applicable mitigation measures specified in the FEIR as modified by Appendix A attached hereto, as directed by the Commission's Executive Director or his designee(s). PG&E shall work with the Commission's Energy Division to create detailed maps for use in construction and mitigation monitoring of the selected route.
7. As part of their EMF Mitigation Plan, PG&E is directed to use an EMF mitigation benchmark of 4% for the entire project, use triangular configuration, strategically place the line along the entire route, locate the line a maximum distance from the edge of the right of way (all of which where feasible and cost-effective). Additionally, as part of its low-cost and no-cost EMF mitigation, PG&E should lower trench depths to the greatest extent possible near schools and other high priority customers.
8. The maximum project cost determined to be reasonable and prudent for the authorized project is $206,988,000.
9. Once PG&E has developed a final detailed engineering design-based construction estimate for the adopted route, if this estimate is one percent or more lower than the adopted maximum project cost, PG&E must, within 30 days, show cause why the Commission should not lower the Pub. Util. Code § 1005.5 maximum project cost to reflect the final estimate.
10. The Executive Director shall supervise and oversee construction of the project insofar as it relates to monitoring and enforcement of the mitigation conditions described in the FEIR as modified by Appendix A to this decision. The Executive Director may delegate his duties to one or more Commission staff members. The Executive Director is authorized to employ staff independent of the Commission staff to carry out such functions, including, without limitation, the on-site environmental inspection, environmental monitoring, and environmental mitigation supervision of the construction of the project. Such staff may be individually qualified professional environmental monitors or may be employed by one or more firms or organizations. In monitoring the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures described in the FEIR as modified by Appendix A, the Executive Director shall attribute the acts and omissions of PG&E's employees, contractors, subcontractors, or other agents to PG&E. PG&E shall comply with all orders and directives of the Executive Director concerning implementation of the environmental mitigation measures described in the FEIR as modified by Appendix A and Appendix B.
11. PG&E's right to construct the project as set forth in this decision shall be subject to all other necessary state and local permitting processes and approvals.
12. PG&E shall file a written notice with the Commission, served on all parties to this proceeding, of its agreement, executed by an officer of PG&E duly authorized (as evidenced by a resolution of its board of directors duly authenticated by a secretary or assistant secretary of PG&E) to acknowledge PG&E's acceptance of the conditions set forth in the Ordering Paragraphs of this decision. Failure to file such notice within 75 days of the effective date of this decision shall result in the lapse of the authority granted by this decision.
13. The Final Environmental Impact Report and the Addendum in Appendix A for the Jefferson-Martin project are certified.
14. The Executive Director shall file a Notice of Determination for the project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act and the regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
15. Upon satisfactory completion of the project, a notice of completion shall be filed with the Executive Director by the Energy Division.
16. PG&E shall file their EMF Management Plan, thirty days prior to the start of construction of the Jefferson-Martin project.
17. The July 1, 2004 motion by 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens to reopen the record is denied.
18. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated ________________________, at San Francisco, California.
Stephan C. Volker |
Pamela Thompson |
Louis G. Leonard III |
Zachary R. Walton |
(END OF ATTACHMENT A)
APPENDIX A
(See ALJ TerKeurst's PD)
APPENDIX B
(See ALJ TerKeurst's PD)
