10. Discussion of Routing and Substation Locations
We have found that a 230 kV transmission connection between the existing Vineyard Substation and the Contra Costa-Newark transmission line is required. We have found that a new Dublin substation and attendant transmission facilities are needed. We have concluded that, based on load and growth patterns in the Livermore area, a substation at North Livermore is not needed within the standard five year planning horizon. In addition, based on power flow modeling conducted by the ISO and other parties, we conclude that Phase 2 should not be adopted at this time. Therefore, our discussion of routing and substation locations focuses on the Pleasanton and Dublin areas.
10.1 Timing
PG&E urges us to adopt transmission line routings that it prefers because it argues that they are the only ones it can complete in time to meet its self imposed Summer 2002 deadline. PG&E argues that because a transmission capacity expansion project must be completed by Summer 2002, we must automatically reject any alternative that requires more undergrounding than its proposed project, any alternative that it has not already begun consultations with other permitting agencies, and any alternative for which it has not already begun detailed engineering plans. What PG&E fails to state is that the Tri Valley area has been in an overload situation for as much as ten years and in dire need of increased transmission capacity for a significant period of time. This situation is directly attributable to PG&E's decision not to construct the Vineyard 230 kV transmission project it received authorization for in 1988. The situation we find ourselves in is summed up by LARPD in its closing brief:
"P.G.&E. should not be allowed to benefit from an apparent "crisis" which it had a hand in "creating". P.G.&E. has argued long and hard through these proceedings that due to projected load demands, this project must be completed by summer, 2002. Yet, in the course of the hearings before Judge Cooke, it was disclosed that this is not the first time P.G.&E. has come to the Commission seeking a Certificate of Public Necessity & Convenience to expand the transmission facilities in the Tri-Valley area. As a matter of record, this present effort seems to be a duplicate of that initiated in 1986. That effort received as much public and regulatory attention as the present effort, and ultimately it seems that when the CPUC required P.G.&E. to construct the project in a fashion it did not like, it simply left the bride at the chapel. Now, more than ten years later, it comes before the Commission with essentially the same project but with much more actual development in place and with a much greater apparent immediate need. Resisting every temptation to look at the situation with a jaundiced eye, it takes no stretching of the imagination to find that P.G.&E. has been hoisted on its own petard and now comes to the Commission seeking immediate relief. P.G.&E. should not be "rewarded" for having recognized the problem more than ten years ago, and then when achieving an unsatisfactory result, allowing the problem to go unresolved. Even if you put aside the current "energy crisis", one still can't ignore the fact that P.G.&E. is a victim of its own making. Despite this fact, the Commission should approach the issues raised here with all necessary attention and deliberation. In other words, we should not be forced into bad choices because a "crisis" exists as a result of P.G.&E.'s past behavior." (pp. 3-4.)
We agree with LARPD that PG&E's past lack of action should not force us to accept only their preferred alternatives in order to meet a need that has been obvious for many years. We will consider timing in assessing the various alternative routes, but this factor will not be a primary driver in our decision regarding the routes we select. Therefore, we do not reject any alternatives, as PG&E has recommended, for the simple reason that they may take longer to construct than PG&E's proposed or preferred projects.
In addition, we note that PG&E has argued that we should select its proposed project because it has already prepared detailed engineering plans on that route, but it has not done so for the environmentally superior alternatives. PG&E admits that it has also begun engineering work on the S4 alternative but not on other alternatives (PG&E:Zischke/Kraska, RT 1749-1750). A similar situation exists with respect to consultations with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for both PG&E's proposed route and S4. PG&E has chosen to pursue this work only for its preferred outcomes, and not for any alternatives that it does not support. We should not be forced to adopt a particular route because PG&E assumed its preferred project would be adopted, and so developed certain alternatives more than others. As stated above, we will consider these issues in evaluating the alternatives, but we will not reject routes because of these issues.
10.2 Timing Tradeoffs of the Various Alternatives31
10.2.1 Pleasanton Area
PG&E's proposed project is the shortest route (5.5 miles) and contains a greater proportion of overhead versus undergrounding (2.8 miles: 2.7 miles) compared to several alternatives. Parties generally acknowledge that construction of underground transmission lines will take more time than constructing overhead lines. PG&E also supports S4 which has 3.7 miles of overhead and 2.9 miles of underground and S4/S5 which has 5.7 miles of overhead and 1.6 miles of underground construction. By comparison, the environmentally superior routes, S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5 have less overhead and more undergrounding than PG&E's preferred routes (0 miles: 5.9 miles and 2.1 miles: 4.3 miles respectively). The S1 alternative has the shortest amount of undergrounding with only 1.1 miles underground, but a total length of 6.6 miles. However, in assessing timing issues for construction, the length of the routes is not the sole factor. We must also look to the difficulty of the terrain and potential construction conflicts among other factors.
PG&E's proposed route begins at the Contra Costa-Newark line to the south and traverses overhead to the Pleasanton city limits. There it converts to an underground line and follows a ridgeline, heads down a hill and onto residential streets. PG&E will need to construct access roads in order to construct the overhead portion of the route. The overhead portion of S4 would be constructed in a similar setting. Once PG&E's proposed route converts to underground, it immediately follows a narrow ridgeline across an area that demonstrates evidence of past landslide activity. As it heads down hill next to the water tank, PG&E has indicated that it will likely need to perform some more extensive work in that area to ensure that the line does not slide. (PG&E: Johnson, RT 501-502.) Once the line reaches city streets it would be in a residential area. Several ninety-degree turns will be required for the line to follow the roadway. The record is clear that there is an extensive, preexisting, underground utility infrastructure in these streets (Exhibit 3, Tab A) that will require careful excavation work and possibly significant hand excavation so that existing utilities are not damaged. (PG&E: Johnson, RT 501-522.) In order to avoid existing utilities, it is possible that PG&E will be required to trench to a significant depth, (PG&E:Johnson, RT 485), which will require more extensive shoring of the trench under California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requirements. (Exhibit 204-A, p. 3-3.) At Bernal Avenue, many of the utility conflicts abate and the project should proceed more rapidly under those conditions. Because much of the underground work will take place in residential neighborhoods, it is likely that restrictions will be imposed regarding construction hours, limiting the speed at which construction can proceed.
The S4 route converts to underground in a hilly area which should present similar construction issues as PG&E's proposed route where it first transitions to underground. Once it reaches Vineyard Avenue, S4 would have similar construction conditions as the proposed route along Bernal Avenue. The S4/S5 alternative is the longest route at 7.3 miles. As described below, the S5 portion of the route should be relatively easy to construct.
In comparison to PG&E's proposed project, the underground routes followed by S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5 are generally flat and straight, without existing utility conflicts. Therefore construction should be able to proceed at a more rapid rate along these routes than the underground portion of PG&E's proposed project. Along New Vineyard Avenue, the route would be coordinated with construction of a new road and new development. Because of the long underground segments however, total construction time may be longer than PG&E's proposed project. The S2A/S2/S5 route contains an overhead portion that would allow it to be constructed in a shorter time frame than S2A/S2. Because the overhead portion traverses the gravel preserve and roads serving the quarry operations, which are well equipped to handle heavy equipment required for construction, construction of the overhead portion of this route should move more quickly than the overhead portion of PG&E's proposed project or S4.
The S1 alternative has the most overhead of the alternatives studied. Like the S5 alternative, S1 would have a portion of the route installed in the gravel preserve. However, compared to the S5 alternative, the construction would be more difficult because PG&E would need to construct roads within an active mining area in order to install and maintain the line. No new roads would have to be constructed to install the S5 portion of the project.
We cannot conclude definitively that any one route would be constructed most quickly. What we can conclude is that each route has tradeoffs with respect to difficulty of construction. Judging how long construction will take based on simply reviewing the length of underground construction as proposed by PG&E is not appropriate. We conclude that each of the alternatives studied by the FEIR for the Pleasanton area can be constructed in the same general timeframe as PG&E's proposed project and thus should be evaluated on their merits.
10.2.3 Dublin Area
PG&E's proposed Dublin transmission facilities would be located entirely above ground with a length of 6.9 miles. PG&E would be required to construct some access roads in order to construct the transmission facilities. The environmentally superior D1 would be only 3.1 miles total, with 0.8 miles underground. The D1 overhead route would be constructed over similar setting as S5 through quarry operations. The underground portion of D1 would require boring under I-580 and acquisition of an easement from CalTrans.
PG&E raises timing concerns regarding the environmentally superior D1 alternative because of mitigation measure L-11 which requires a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aeronautical study and submission of the project the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for determination of whether the alternative would create an obstruction to air navigation. Dublin raises concerns over acquisition of a transverse easement from CalTrans associated with construction of an underground portion under I-580. Both of these tasks could result in some construction delays compared to PG&E's proposed project in Dublin, however the shorter total miles of the D1 route could possibly offset some of that delay. We do not eliminate this alternative on this basis.
10.2.3 Summary
We do not reject any alternative because it might take longer to construct than PG&E's proposed project or might require additional engineering or consultations or permits from other agencies. If we were to adopt PG&E's argument that no alternative was acceptable if such work had not occurred, we would enter a self perpetuating circle whereby we would only be in a position to approve a project which the proponent had chosen to perform additional work on. This would be directly in conflict with CEQA's requirements that alternatives be studied. The fact that, in this case, PG&E has began engineering and permitting work only for its proposed and preferred routes, to the exclusion of all other alternatives, indicates the folly of this approach. In addition, the record is clear that the need for increased capacity in the Tri Valley area has been known for at least a decade. We should not be forced to select an alternative simply to meet a timing schedule that is of PG&E's own making.
We also note that although the need for additional capacity at the Vineyard substation is well demonstrated based on current load and the fact that San Ramon is currently serving Pleasanton loads, the current economic downturn and/or conservation efforts may have a more significant effect on future load growth in the Tri Valley area as a whole. We take official notice that actual metered peak demand for June 2001 was 8.8% lower than in June 2000. Similarly, monthly energy consumption for June 2001 was 8.3% lower than in June 2000. (See California Energy Commission analysis at www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/peak_demand/2001-06_demand_analysis. Pdf. While we cannot determine whether this trend will continue, this information indicates that aggressive assumptions about future growth may not materialize. This information further suggests that timing concerns raised by PG&E may be somewhat mitigated by the current economic and energy situation.
10.3 Constructability
The Pleasanton Parties attack PG&E's proposed route as infeasible to construct because of conflicts with existing utilities along residential streets and geologic issues. PG&E submitted engineering plans with its rebuttal testimony. (Exhibit 3, Tab A.) The FEIR concluded that PG&E's proposed route was feasible and could be constructed. However, as described above, the construction of PG&E's proposed underground project does present challenges due to the narrow streets, existing utility conflicts, and depth of trench.
Likewise, the FEIR only studied alternatives that were considered feasible and able to be constructed. Based on comments submitted on the DEIR, the FEIR reassessed the Pleasanton Parties Improved Isabel-Stanley route, and continued to conclude that construction of that route was not feasible. In fact, testimony by the Pleasanton Parties own geologist, Dr. Sage, indicated that there were significant problematic geological issues associated with constructing an underground transmission line on the west side of Isabel Avenue. (Pleasanton Parties: O. Sage, RT 806-807.) The FEIR likewise reassessed the feasibility of the S5 alternative, which had previously been eliminated. By moving the location of the transmission poles away from the cliff of Shadow Cliffs Recreation Area, the FEIR concluded that modification removed geologic instability concerns and that construction of S5 was feasible.
Thus we conclude that all alternatives studied in the FEIR can be constructed, and we do not eliminate any of the options before us on that basis.
10.4 Environmental Impacts
The FEIR studied the environmental impacts of all alternatives consistent with the requirements of CEQA. For purposes of this project, impacts were primarily in four areas: biological resources, visual resources, land use impacts, and construction impacts. We discuss each of these issues below, as well as growth inducing impacts.
10.4.1 Biological Impacts
10.4.1.1 Pleasanton Area
In the Pleasanton area, PG&E's proposed project and S4 traverse overhead through undeveloped ranch land. It is these areas, rather than portions of the route that would be constructed within city streets, that present biological resource issues. The FEIR identified seven seasonal wetlands along PG&E's proposed project. Numerous special status species were identified with a moderate or high potential to occur along the proposed project. PG&E's biologists describe the land traversed by PG&E's proposed project and S4 as providing habitat for California red-legged frogs, California tiger salamanders, and Alameda whipsnake, all of which are endangered, threatened, or protected species. PG&E witness Buck Jones described the land in the following manner:
"it's an amazing piece of almost wilderness. It's got rugged canyon terrain, very high ridgelines. It's oak studded. It has numerous drainages." (PG&E:Jones, RT 1043.)
In addition, the FEIR indicates that both of these routes could have impacts on heritage trees. The FEIR finds that impacts on the species and heritage trees can be mitigated to less than significant levels. However, the FEIR indicates that the impacts from these two routes, although less than significant, are greater than the impacts associated with S2A/S2, S2A/S2/S5, and S1. This is because the alternative routes are generally within or following existing roadways which do not provide suitable habitat for these threatened species. These routes avoid Alameda whipsnake critical habitat, proposed California red-legged frog habitat, and potential California tiger salamander habitat that would be encountered along PG&E's proposed project and S4. As explained in the FEIR, "avoidance is preferable to creating an impact (even those that are not considered significant) and subsequently mitigating the impact." (Exhibit 1003, p. H-98.)
In fact, the FEIR finds that the S4 alternative has greater potential impacts to special status species than PG&E's proposed project because it will be constructed through more Alameda whipsnake critical habitat and proposed California red-legged frog critical habitat than PG&E's proposed project. As part of its support for why its proposed project or S4 are preferred to other alternatives, PG&E argues that the area adjacent to Vineyard Avenue is California red-legged frog habitat, and thus, construction of the project along Vineyard would require a consultation with the USACE and USFWS regarding threatened species. PG&E's biologists did not study any of the Vineyard Avenue routes to determine whether suitable habitat exists along Vineyard Avenue. (PG&E:DiVittorio, RT 429-430.) PG&E relies on the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, identified as Reference Item 18 during this proceeding, as evidence that suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog exists along Vineyard Avenue.32 However, the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan DEIR indicates: "(N)o California red-legged frogs were observed in the Plan Area during field surveys, and this species is unlikely to occur because of the lack of adequate cover and the absence of perennial open water. The seasonal wetlands onsite appear to be unsuitable breeding habitat for this species because surface water is not present for sufficient periods to allow completion of larval development." (Reference Item 18, p. 4.4-10.) In addition, the FEIR concludes that because frogs would not likely survive road crossings, Vineyard Avenue is likely to be a barrier to dispersal, a critical element in the determination of whether California red-legged frog habitat exists pursuant to rules proposed by the USFWS at 65 Federal Register 54908 (2000) (to be codified at 50 C.F.R. §17.95 (d) (proposed Sept. 11, 2000) and as further described at 65 Federal Register 54896. (Primary Constituent Elements).
The S2A transition station is located within approximately 100 yards of a perennial creek with California red-legged frog habitat. There is the potential for some adverse impact to the frog due to construction and maintenance of the underground line in relatively close proximity to the perennial creek. However, these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measure B-9, which requires delineation of habitat, avoidance of this habitat during all construction and operations, and coordination with the USFWS. On brief, PG&E raises concerns about this transition station location and the possibility of required studies and consultations with the USACE and USFWS taking approximately one year to complete if they are required. We note that this mitigation measure is also required of PG&E's proposed route and S4.33
There are no significant and unavoidable biological impacts associated with the S1 alternative. Most impacts associated with the S1 alternative route are considered to be less than significant because much of the route would follow roadways. The S5 alternative would have an open cut crossing of Del Valle Creek and the transmission lines would be overhead through the quarry area along the western edge of Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area, which could increase the potential for bird strikes. However, the potential increase in bird strike impacts would be slight since the area is a highly disturbed industrial area with existing overhead lines. The open cut crossing of Arroyo del Valle Creek could potentially impact the quality of the aquatic habitat but implementation of a mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction survey of the area and the presence of a biological monitor during construction would ensure that impacts would not be significant.
We cannot conclude whether USFWS would require consultation were S2A/S2, S2A/S2/S5, or S1 selected, which seems to drive PG&E's concern over selection of S2A/S2, S2A/S2/S5, and S1. However we note that in the Methods section of the Supplementary Information of the USFWS proposed rule, related to proposed California red-legged frog habitat, it states:
"Areas of existing features and structures within the boundaries of the mapped units, such as buildings, roads, . . . other paved areas, lawns, and other urban landscaped areas, and uplands removed from suitable aquatic and dispersal habitat, will not contain one or more of the primary constituent elements. Federal actions limited to these areas, therefore, would not trigger a section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species and/or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat." (65 Federal Register 54898, emphasis added.)
This leads us to believe that, at least for routes travelling along established roadways and urban landscapes, consultation with USFWS will not present an impediment to the alternatives. The evidence supports a finding that there are more potential biological impacts, albeit, at a less than significant level, resulting from PG&E's proposed project and S4 than the S2A/S2, S2A/S2/S5, and S1 alternatives.
10.4.1.2 Dublin Area
PG&E's proposed Dublin substation would be located in an area zoned for agricultural uses. The transmission line would travel east from the substation for 6.9 miles until it reaches the Contra Costa-Newark transmission line. The route travels over non-native grassland areas that are interspersed with alkali-freshwater marshes and seasonal wetlands. The same types of species as occur in the Pleasanton area would generally be expected to be present along PG&E's proposed Dublin route along with some additional species. The FEIR identified potential impacts to biological resources along the proposed project, specifically to wetland and California red-legged frog habitat, but indicated that all impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. In addition, until a hydrologic study of the proposed substation is conducted, the DEIR concludes that the impacts of increased runoff and channel erosion, due to the substation, are considered significant. The DEIR concludes that it may be possible to mitigate these impacts to a less than significant level, but cannot determine this with certainty until a hydrologic analysis is conducted.
The D2 alternative would utilize the same substation location as PG&E's proposed project but the associated transmission facilities would travel west to connect with the existing San Ramon substation. Reconductoring of approximately 20 miles of the San Ramon-Pittsburg 230 kV line would also be required as part of this alternate. The FEIR finds that this alternative introduces more potential biological impacts compared to PG&E's proposed project in the Dublin area, although all impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels.
The D1 alternative substation location and attendant transmission facilities would generally traverse along developed, or soon to be developed areas. The D1 alternative would reduce potential impacts to all biological resources compared to PG&E's proposed project because of its use of already developed corridors.
10.4.2 Visual Impacts
Section C.12 of Exhibit 1000 and Section C of Exhibit 1003 describe the visual impacts of the proposed project and all alternatives studied. When assessing visual impacts we evaluate how a new structure would affect views in comparison to the existing visual setting, the public's exposure and sensitivity to views of a new structure, and the dominance of a new structure in the viewshed, among other factors. For these reasons, the impacts of new structures in undeveloped natural settings tend to have higher visual impacts than locating an additional structure in an already developed or industrial setting. We now describe the visual impacts of the various options studied and parties' positions on the significance of those impacts.
10.4.2.1 Pleasanton Area
In general, the DEIR finds visual impacts of routes in the Pleasanton area to be adverse, but not significant, or insignificant, given the existing visual settings, surrounding terrain, and viewer exposure. The exceptions are with respect to S1 and S2 where the routes are proposed to be located overhead within Sycamore Grove Park, and S4, prior to its transition to underground. S2A was developed to mitigate the visual impact to Sycamore Grove Park and locates the transmission facilities underground outside of the park boundaries. With the adoption of this mitigation measure, the potentially significant visual impact of this segment would be eliminated. With respect to S4, the DEIR adopts a mitigation measure that requires lowered transmission structure heights or additional undergrounding to minimize views of the S4 alternative from the Ruby Hills area. With the adoption of this mitigation measure, the potentially significant visual impact of this segment would be eliminated. However, if this mitigation measure is infeasible due to engineering or construction constraints, the S4 alternative would result in a significant visual impact.
The Foley Intervenors make much of the possibility that the overhead portion and the transition station of PG&E's proposed project and the S4 alternative may be visible to residents of Pleasanton and thus these routes should not be selected. The Foley Intervenors state that PG&E did not construct "story" poles to mimic the heights of the structures proposed, despite having been given permission to construct such poles by property owners. The Foley Intervenors assert that constructing story poles would have been the best evidence of whether the proposed project or S4 would have been visible to Pleasanton residents. The Foley Intervenors assert that since PG&E chose not to construct such poles, "a strong inference must be drawn that the proposed towers and line will in fact be visible from various residential areas and other well-traveled locations." (Foley Opening Brief, p. 4.) Additional evidence submitted during the hearings (Exhibit 304) and the DEIR analysis generally supports PG&E's argument that visibility of transmission structures will be very limited to Pleasanton residents.
Alternative S1 would require the installation of tubular steel poles along the west side of Isabel Avenue. Isabel Avenue is being widened by CalTrans to become a six-lane thoroughfare. There are currently electric distribution poles located on the east side of Isabel Avenue and gravel mining operations on the west side. Numerous residents spoke in opposition to locating poles on Isabel Avenue and expressed their opinions regarding the visual impact of the S1 route. Centex describes the setting as follows: "the homes along Isabel Avenue are in a valley so there is no natural screening, such as hills, to shield the residents from seeing the proposed ... poles and overhead lines." (Centex Opening Brief, p. 6.) The visual simulation prepared for the DEIR (Exhibit 1000, Figure C.12-5) makes clear that poles and overhead lines associated with S1 would be visible from residences along Isabel Avenue. Although the DEIR finds that these visual impacts are adverse, but not significant, S1 clearly has the most visual impact on the most residents of any other the Pleasanton area alternatives studied.
The S5 alternative would be located outside of parkland in an active quarry area but would result in the establishment of an overhead transmission line that would be visible to users of Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area. The FEIR provides a detailed description of its analysis of visual impacts on park users given the existing setting and why the visual impact does not reach the level of significance. (Exhibit 1003, p. 3C-8-c-9.) Although the S5 alternative travels through an industrial area, it is visible from the heavily used Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area. Thus this alternative would have more visibility, albeit at the less than significant level, than an all underground route like S2A/S2.
We need not find that the proposed project or alternatives will not be visible at all to agree with the findings in the DEIR and FEIR that visual impacts of the routes are less than significant or can be mitigated to be less than significant. The question is not whether the structures will be visible, but whether that visibility causes a significant impact that is important here. We agree with the DEIR and FEIR analysis that visual impacts along all routes studied will not be significant, or can be mitigated to be less than significant. Assuming Mitigation Measure V-2 (for the S4 alternative) can be implemented, all routes would result in impacts that are not considered significant. S4 would result in a significant impact if Mitigation Measure V-2 cannot be adopted because it would be more visible to Pleasanton residents than PG&E's proposed project, S2A/S2, or S2A/S2/S5. S1 would be visible to residents along Isabel Avenue and motorists traveling along Isabel Avenue. Although these impacts are considered to be less than significant, S1 would certainly be more visible than routes with significant portions of undergrounding or routes where overhead structures would be located in an area with limited viewers. In addition, although use of the S5 route would not result in a significant impact, it would be visible to users of Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area, and thus clearly has more impact than an all-underground route on the viewing public.
Thus, with respect to visual impacts, we find that S2A/S2 would result in the least impacts. PG&E's proposed project and S4, although containing significant portions of overhead facilities, have less potential viewers than S1 and S2A/S2/S5. S1 and S2A/S2/S5 would have the possibility to impact the most viewers, although at less than significant levels.
10.4.2.2 Dublin Area
PG&E's proposed Dublin substation would be located on the floor of a small canyon near existing ranch facilities in a generally undeveloped area. Locating an unscreened substation (as PG&E proposed) in such an area would have a high impact in terms of visual contrast to the existing setting. However, because of the lack of public access to the substation location, the DEIR concludes that the overall visual impact of PG&E's proposed Dublin substation location would be adverse but not significant. However, the DEIR concludes that there are significant, unmitigible visual impacts associated with the 6.9 miles of overhead transmission lines required to connect PG&E's proposed Dublin substation to the Contra Costa-Newark line.34
The D2 alternative, which utilizes the same substation location as proposed by PG&E would have substantially similar impacts, although reduced visual impacts along the transmission line route. The transmission line would convert to underground as it approaches populated areas of San Ramon, reducing the visual impacts to adverse but not significant.
For D1, the substation would be located in a commercially zoned section of the Dublin Ranch development. Although the area is currently undeveloped, this area zoned for office buildings, business and commercial services, some light manufacturing, warehousing and distribution activities, and other supporting business like restaurants, gas stations, or banking services. Conditional uses for the property include medium to high-density residential development and public and semi-public facilities, among other uses. (Dublin Opening Brief, Exhibit B.) Because substations can be screened by façade walls in a manner compatible with other development, the DEIR describes the visual impact of a substation in this location as adverse but not significant.35 (Exhibit 1000, C.12-34.) Additionally, the D1 substation would be served by an underground transmission line, further minimizing visual impacts on the developing areas of Dublin. South of I-580, the D1 transmission line would transition to overhead. Similar to S5, which would traverse active quarry operations, the overhead portions of D1 would primarily be located in quarry operations.
Dublin argues that the DEIR fails to adequately report on the visual impacts of the D1 substation location and fails to assess the potential impacts of a substation on the I-580 and Fallon Road scenic corridors. The FEIR addresses the comments raised by Dublin in detail (see Exhibit 1003, p. H-30-35). Given the high rates of speed of motorists on I-580 and the fact that the substation will likely be partially screened by other structures in the development, visual impacts of the substation from I-580 should be limited. In addition, Mitigation Measure L-14 specifies that PG&E is to work with Dublin to develop screening for the substation, including the use of façade walls, to ensure that the substation is visually consistent with other development. Thus, the environmentally superior D1 alternative substation location should appear to viewers as another building in the commercially zoned area. Given this requirement, it is difficult to see how the substation could be considered to have significant visual impacts.
Like PG&E's proposed substation, the visual impacts of the D1 substation would be adverse, but not significant. However, unlike PG&E's proposed transmission line to serve its proposed Dublin substation, the transmission line to serve D1 would not present any significant visual impacts because the overhead portion runs through disturbed corridors. We conclude that taken as a whole, D1 is superior to PG&E's proposed Dublin project with regard to visual impacts.
10.4.3 Land Use Impacts
10.4.3.1 Pleasanton Area
PG&E's proposed project in Pleasanton would travel overhead through land currently dedicated to cattle grazing in unincorporated Alameda County. From the transition station located near the Pleasanton city limits, the project moves underground where it runs along a water tank access road before entering city streets. Benedict Court, Smallwood Court, and Hearst Drive are located within a single-family residential subdivision and are generally bordered on at least one side by homes. The line then enters Bernal Avenue, also a residential street (single-family and condominiums), but with two travel lanes in each direction and a landscaped median. Bernal Avenue narrows to two lanes as it crosses Arroyo del Valle Creek and then enters a light industrial area.
The S1 alternative begins in Sycamore Grove Park. Once the line leaves the park it would travel along 20-acre vineyard estates. Before crossing Highway 84, the line would convert to underground and travel within a dirt access road beside vineyard acreage. The north side of this section of Vineyard Avenue is devoted to gravel mining. After transitioning to overhead, the line would head north on the west side of Isabel Avenue within property actively being mined for gravel. Gravel pits extend north to Stanley Boulevard and west along Stanley until reaching Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area. Additional gravel pits are also located on the north side of Stanley Boulevard, as well as railroad lines (active and inactive). Shadow Cliffs Regional Recreation Area was formerly a gravel mining operation and now provides lake swimming, fishing, and waterslides for recreation.
The S2A/S2 alternative would begin near Sycamore Grove Park on private property. The line would travel underground west of Foley Road within currently disturbed, vacant, unvegetated areas of private property adjacent to Vineyard estates. The area where the line would be located is currently restricted to agricultural uses. The line would continue to border vineyard estates, cross Highway 84 and travel along Vineyard Avenue, which is flanked by vineyards on the south and gravel operations to the north. The route would follow the path of New Vineyard Avenue, which is being rerouted to accommodate development as part of the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan. (This route allows further distance from the line and the new Neal Elementary School that is being constructed as part of the development project.) The line would be located underground, within or immediately adjacent to the road, in buffer land where construction of residences is prohibited. Once New Vineyard Avenue reconverges with Old Vineyard Avenue the line would be located within the roadway, a divided road with two travel lanes in each direction. Heading further west Vineyard Avenue remains as a divided road with two travel lanes each way and is bordered by residential housing (a motor home park, condominiums, and senior housing). Once the line turns onto Bernal Avenue, it covers the same area as PG&E's proposed project.
The S4 alternative is identical to PG&E's proposed project for 2 miles with the overhead component traveling through cattle grazing land the entire duration. Once it converts to underground it would continue through grazing land and open space until it connects with Vineyard Avenue. The remainder of the route would cover the same land uses as the S2A/S2 alternative.
The S5 alternative can be combined with either S2A/S2 or S4. It would begin along New Vineyard Avenue and head north where the existing 60 kV line crosses Arroyo del Valle Creek and enter gravel mining land. The line would then transition to overhead, still on quarry property, and head in a northerly direction along a road until reaching Stanley Boulevard where it would converge with the S1 alternative along the northern side of Stanley Boulevard.
PG&E's proposed project, S2A/S2, and S4/S2 border the most residential land uses. Residential areas would be somewhat less impacted by S2A/S2 and S4/S2 than PG&E's proposed project because of the larger streets utilized and the setbacks of residential uses from the roadways. S1 would have most impact on gravel mining operations, followed by the S5 alternative.
10.4.3.2 Dublin Area
Selection of PG&E's proposed Dublin substation location does not present any land use conflicts. However, the attendant transmission facilities would result in conflicts (and a significant impact) with the Alameda County Scenic Route and Open Space Policies unless an underground mitigation measure is adopted (which PG&E opposes). The D2 alternative would result in less land use conflicts than the eastward connection proposed by PG&E. The D1 substation location presents the possibility of visual intrusion on planned adjacent land uses. This would occur if the substation were conspicuous from the roadway and residential neighborhoods and appeared industrial in character. The DEIR recommends mitigation measure L-14 (enclosure by façade walls and screening) to reduce this potentially significant impact to less than significant. On balance, the DEIR finds that the D1 alternative, taken in total, has fewer conflicts with land use policies than PG&E's proposed project for Dublin.
The D1 alternative transmission line route would parallel approximately one mile of land designated by the State Department of Conservation as Prime Farmland (immediately south of the I-580 freeway). If the transmission towers were constructed within productive land, small areas of the land could be removed from potential production. Some of the designated farmland is currently being quarried for gravel. While there is currently agricultural land along the west side of El Charro Road for about one mile south of I-580, the transmission line support towers would be placed in the fire break along the edge of the roadway. Consequently, no active agricultural land is expected to be removed from production. No mitigation would be required.
PG&E, the City of Dublin, the Lin Family, and the City of Livermore all raise issues with respect to the compatibility of the environmentally superior D1 substation and attendant transmission facilities with local land use designations. First, the City of Dublin and the Lin Family argue that a substation is an incompatible or unpermitted use for the proposed location. Second, the City of Dublin argues that the loss of 5 acres of commercially zoned land will result in a loss of development fees which will in turn impact the services that can be offered by the City of Dublin to its residents. Third, the City of Dublin argues that the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan provides a balanced residential and employment development mix which is disrupted by the use of five acres for a substation. Fourth, the City of Livermore and PG&E argue that placement of overhead transmission towers/poles along El Charro Road would interfere with safety requirements for the Livermore Municipal Airport.
The City of Dublin states that extensive zoning and planning work has been conducted for the Dublin Ranch area where D1 would be located. Unlike the Dublin Ranch area, little planning has occurred for the land located where PG&E proposes to locate the Dublin substation. The City of Dublin argues that because little planning has occurred there, whereas much has occurred in Dublin Ranch, the substation should be located in PG&E's proposed location. The City of Dublin argues that the zoning for the D1 location would prohibit construction of a substation. We disagree. The City of Dublin specifically states that "the public and semi-public uses contemplated for Area C [where D1 is located] are supposed to be like office buildings, residences, and warehouses." (Dublin Opening Brief, p. 10.) Given that the substation would be served by an underground transmission line, a screened or enclosed substation would appear to be simply another commercial or warehouse building, making the substation consistent with the City of Dublin's requirements.
We agree that construction of a substation on the D1 location would remove five acres of commercially zoned land from that particular location. However, we disagree with the City of Dublin with respect to the deleterious impact to city services and the housing/employment mixture that this loss of commercially zoned property would have. According to the City of Dublin, the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan encompasses 4176 acres. (Dublin Opening Brief, p. 5.) Five acres represents only 0.12 % of the total acreage encompassed by the plan. While removal of this percentage of land from the jobs and residential mix could certainly change the mix in some manner, it is unlikely that such a small percentage change "undermines the Council's plans and conflicts with the community's values." (Dublin Opening Brief, p. 12.) In fact, such a change could easily be attributable to an economic downturn or numerous other reasons.
The potential conflicts with the Livermore Municipal Airport are more difficult to determine. The Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has a "west safety zone" for the Livermore Municipal Airport that extends 5300 feet from the end of the runway. (Reference Item 5, p. 9.) El Charro Road, where the D1 overhead segment is located, is located approximately one mile from the end of the airport runway. Based on the safety zone dimensions and a map prepared by the City of Livermore (Reference Item 13), D1 is located just outside of the designated safety zone. Safety zones are established to restrict population density and structural development in the area, in order to limit harm to people on the ground or in aircraft in the event of an accident. (Reference Item 5, p. 9.) The safety zone policies only describe height limitations within 1320 feet of the end of the runway.
The location of the D1 transmission line does fall within the Height Referral Area for the Livermore Municipal Airport. The purpose of the height referral area is to preserve unimpeded airspace required for safe air operation near the airport. The applicable policy is B7: "ALUC Height Referral Area Planning Boundaries". (Reference Item 5, p. 11.) The referral area encompasses the following airspace:
For an airport runway more than 3,200 feet in length, a sloping surface identifies the airspace above one foot in height for each 100 feet (100:1) horizontally from the nearest point of the nearest runway, up to 20,000 feet.
Because the transmission towers and lines would be approximately 80 feet tall and the west side of El Charro Road is approximately one mile west of the end of the runway, the D1 alternative would exceed the height referral guidelines and be subject to additional review.
The ALUC adopts height restriction policies on new structures and vegetation within the height referral boundary consistent with the standards set forth in 14 CFR 77, Subparts C and D. The FAA requires any sponsor who proposes to construct or alter any facility of a height greater than described above to alert the FAA by submitting FAA Form 7460-1 (14 CFR 77.13), which the FEIR proposes as Mitigation Measure L-11. Neither the FAA nor the ALUC establish specific height limitations for where D1 would be located, only the requirement that they submit forms for consideration. The City of Livermore does have a Planning and Zoning Code (Section 3-05-770 C) that limits the height of structures located within 5000 feet of an airport runway to 40 feet. (Reference Item 2.)36 Because D1 is more than 5000 feet from the airport runway, Section 3-05-770 C would not apply. However, based on our review of the relevant regulations, we cannot determine whether the FAA or ALUC would permit D1 to be constructed as proposed.
For this reason, Mitigation Measure L-11 was identified which would require PG&E to immediately initiate an FAA Aeronautical Study and comply with any requirements identified by the FAA, including those pertaining to the marking and lighting of transmission line support towers and submit the project to the Alameda County ALUC for review, and comply with the recommendations of that agency, including disapproval of the alternative if the ALUC determines that the alternative would create an obstruction to air navigation and no suitable mitigation is feasible.
If the ALUC says that a transmission line would be incompatible in that location, there are (at least) 2 feasible mitigation options: (a) shorten the transmission poles or (b) underground the northernmost 2000 feet along El Charro Road. Thus we cannot conclude that there is a conflict with the airport or not but it is clear that mitigation measures are possible to eliminate possible conflict. While we would prefer to know with certainty, it appears that no specific guidelines define whether a conflict would exist.
10.4.4 Construction Impacts
There is a range of construction impacts that would affect any alternative requiring underground construction within roadways. The following impacts are considered to be potentially significant, but mitigable to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation presented in the EIR:
· Potential impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions generated during construction activities;
· Road and lane closures;
· Physical damage to roads and sidewalks;
· Impaired property access;
· Increased traffic safety risks to pedestrians and bicyclists;
· Potential interference with emergency response vehicles;
· Use of public roads and parking for construction activities and interference with public transit; and
· Construction equipment utilized to construct transmission towers and/or underground segments could have adverse impacts on access roads not built to handle heavy trucks.
Other construction impacts were identified in the EIR, but were found to be less than significant. These impacts include:
· Short-term exhaust emissions from construction equipment;
· Intermittent and continuous noise levels during transmission line and substation upgrade construction;
· Noise associated with passing trucks and commuting worker vehicles during construction activities.
In comparison to an underground transmission line, construction impacts are substantially reduced for an overhead transmission line because construction occurs primarily at tower sites which are spaced about 1,000 feet apart.
10.4.4.1 Pleasanton Area
PG&E's proposed project includes a combination of overhead and underground construction. Because of the narrow streets utilized for the underground portion of PG&E's proposed project, the construction impacts for residents along that portion of the project would be magnified, although would still be considered mitigable to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation measures.
Types of construction impacts caused by all routes would be similar, the differences will occur in the duration and intensity of the impacts. Because the S1 alternative is primarily overhead (5.5 miles of the 6.6 mile long route), construction would occur more quickly and with less extensive impacts than PG&E's proposed project. Because alternative S1 would be constructed along major roadways (Isabel Avenue and Stanley Boulevard), there may be more traffic impacts than for the proposed project, but because these are overhead segments and there will be no construction within the roadway itself, impacts would be less than significant. Construction along Isabel Avenue may conflict with ongoing roadway construction. The installation of overhead transmission lines along the north side of Stanley Boulevard to the Vineyard Substation could interfere with passenger and freight train operations on the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) tracks but these impacts can be mitigated to less than significant levels.
The greater extent of underground construction for the S2A/S2 alternative (5.9 miles) would result in more extensive construction impacts (though impacts would still be less than significant with implementation of recommended mitigation). Underground construction activities involve earth-moving operations (e.g., trenching, augering, grading) and soil disturbance from construction equipment (especially over unpaved roads adjacent to Vineyard Avenue) that would generate dust (PM10 emissions). Exhaust emissions from construction equipment would also create adverse, but less than significant impacts.
Alternative S2A/S2 could potentially intensify the impacts associated with trenching and earth moving activities in the planned realignment of Vineyard Avenue between Clara Lane to east of the Ruby Hills area if the two projects coincide. These impacts are less than significant with implementation of mitigation. If Neal Elementary School is in operation at the time of construction, there could be temporary noise disturbance around the school. However, this disturbance would be reduced with the use of New Vineyard Avenue (located further from the school buildings) and with implementation of mitigation measures L-1 and L-2.
The trenching needed to construct the S2A/S2 alternative is expected to have an impact on the physical condition of the roadways and on traffic flows. Diversion of through traffic flows away from Vineyard Avenue and onto Stanley Boulevard and other streets could cause increased traffic delays and increase the potential for operational and safety problems.
Construction impacts of the S4 alternative would be similar to those of PG&E's proposed project to the point where the route meets Vineyard Avenue, and then similar to those of the S2A/S2 alternative along Vineyard Avenue and Bernal Avenue. Because the S4 alternative would require underground construction through 0.8 miles of open space south of Vineyard Avenue, resulting in construction traffic and disturbance of unpaved areas, air quality impacts would be greater than for construction along roadways (though still mitigable to less than significant levels). However, noise impacts may be reduced because of the lack of sensitive receptors along the underground portion of the route.
The S5 alternative would have the same types of construction impacts as the proposed route. However, because this alternative is nearly all overhead (so limited trenching would be required except for the creek crossing) and would pass through unpopulated areas (through the quarry and along Stanley Boulevard), fewer people would experience construction impacts and they would be less severe than those along Vineyard Avenue and Bernal Avenue.
10.4.4.2 Dublin Area
PG&E's proposed project for Dublin would require grading and leveling of the substation site, rebuilding of existing and construction of new roads to reach the substation site and transmission line facilities. These construction requirements will have some impact on hydrology because of the increased sedimentation in streams. Because the proposed Dublin transmission facilities are overhead, and located in remote areas, exposure to construction impacts will be limited. For the D1 alternative, the substation site is relatively flat, and is located in an area undergoing development. D1 contains some underground construction, in developing areas and near mining facilities and away from residential uses. The D1 alternative does require boring under I-580 which would result in construction of a bore pit and receiving pit adjacent to the freeway. There would be short-term noise and dust associated with these activities.
10.4.5 Growth Inducing Impacts
Although population and employment growth in the Tri Valley area is growing rapidly and is not driven by PG&E's proposed project, there is potential for PG&E's proposed project in Dublin and North Livermore to accommodate growth beyond levels currently permitted by local regional plans and policies. The FEIR finds that PG&E's proposed project locations in Dublin and North Livermore present a significant, unavoidable growth inducing impact. This conclusion is based on existing regional plans and policies, the location of development in these and surrounding areas, and PG&E's load projections.
The passage of Measure D prohibits intensive development of land in the North Livermore area because it is outside of the urban growth boundary. Given this prohibition, it makes minimal sense to site a substation in the North Livermore area unless the capacity resulting from the construction of the new substation and transmission lines is designed to induce growth beyond that which is already permitted.
Likewise, with respect to PG&E's proposed Dublin substation location, PG&E projects much higher distribution feeder costs for that location than for the D1 location. (Exhibit 2, p. 9.) These estimates indicate that the load expected to be served by the substation is located more remotely from PG&E's proposed Dublin substation than the D1 alternative. "The commercial and industrial growth in Dublin is concentrated along the I-580 freeway corridor, and the high-tech companies locating in this area have very high demands for electric power." (Exhibit 1000, p. B-55.)
Thus we agree with the FEIR analysis that PG&E's proposed Dublin and North Livermore substations, specifically at the proposed locations, present a growth inducing potential. By locating the substation closer to the planned and permitted load, the D1 alternative eliminates this growth inducing potential. With respect to North Livermore, it is not that load in the Livermore-Las Positas DPA is not growing or will not do so absent PG&E's proposed project, it is a matter of where the load is growing. North Livermore is not where the load growth is. This assessment is confirmed by the materials PG&E sought official notice of on June 6, 2001. Given the development projections, a growth inducing impact would occur if PG&E's proposed North Livermore substation and attendant transmission lines were constructed.
10.5 Health and Safety Issues
The prevalent concerns raised by parties and by the public at public participation hearings focused on two areas: electric and magnetic fields (EMF) and the safety of high-voltage electric facilities.
10.5.1 Electric and Magnetic Fields
Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are present in the existing environment both naturally and as a result of human activities that use electricity. According to the DEIR, research on ambient magnetic fields in homes in several western states found average magnetic field levels to be approximately 1 milligauss (mG), while in the immediate area of appliances, the measured levels ranged from 9 to 20 mG. Electric and magnetic fields above and beyond ambient levels will be generated as a result of the project. (Exhibit 1000, p. C.9-4.) The EMF levels from the project are within the range anticipated for power lines of this type and size. The fields from the project will be very localized since field strength attenuates rapidly as distance from the source increases.
Presently, there is no scientifically established cause and effect relationship between EMF exposure and health effects, although significant research and discussion continues on the subject. EMF levels from transmission lines are not regulated nationally although several states have established maximum electric and magnetic field levels, for transmission lines, maximum magnetic field exposure levels are generally 150 mG or greater at the edge of the right of way. (Exhibit 1000, C.9-8.) The Commission has not adopted any specific limits on EMF. Instead, we have directed the utilities to fund a research program on the health effects of EMFs, and we require utilities to adopt "low-cost" or "no-cost" EMF mitigation measures for transmission lines and substations such as those included in the proposed project and alternatives.
D.93-11-013 created the California Electric and Magnetic Fields Program to research and provides education and technical assistance on the possible health effects of exposure to electric and magnetic fields from powerlines and other uses of electricity. Ongoing research and policy analysis for this program is being led by the California Department of Health Services (DHS). In addition to funding research and policy analysis on this issue, the EMF program provides education and technical assistance to government agencies, professional organizations, businesses, and members of the general public.
During this case, there was extensive testimony and cross-examination regarding EMF issues. For example, the Pleasanton Parties recommend that the transmission line be sited away from residential areas as one means of mitigating EMF exposure, even if such transmission lines are located underground. The Pleasanton Parties argue that PG&E has not fully evaluated the EMF impacts of locating its proposed project in a residential neighborhood. The Pleasanton Parties stress that the neighborhood most affected by PG&E's proposed project, Kottinger Ranch, is home to numerous children, and that the children walk and ride their bicycles to the neighborhood school along the route the transmission line would traverse. PG&E Witness Herz described PG&E's EMF mitigation procedures during the design process (once a route is certified by the Commission), but indicated that EMF levels are not considered as part of the initial routing decisions by PG&E. (PG&E:Herz, RT 584.)
During cross-examination of PG&E witness Herz, the Pleasanton Parties introduced excerpts from a study prepared by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) entitled "Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields" as evidence that care should be given when siting transmission line near homes and children. The study concludes:
The scientific evidence suggesting that [extremely low frequency] ELF-EMF exposures pose any health risk is weak. The strongest evidence for health effects comes from associations observed in human populations with two forms of cancer: childhood leukemia and chronic lymphocytic leukemia in occupationally exposed adults... The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard. In our opinion, this finding is insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory concern. However, because virtually everyone in the United States uses electricity and therefore is routinely exposed to ELF-EMF, passive regulatory action is warranted .... The NIEHS does not believe that other cancers or non-cancer health outcomes provide sufficient evidence of a risk to currently warrant concern. (Exhibit 201, pp. ii-iii.)
The same study, in its recommended actions section, states:
The NIEHS suggests that the level and strength of evidence supporting ELF-EMF exposure as a human health hazard are insufficient to warrant aggressive regulatory actions; thus, we do not recommend actions such as ... a national program to bury all transmission and distribution lines. Instead the evidence suggest passive measures such as a continued emphasis on educating both the public and the regulated community on means aimed at reducing exposures. NIEHS suggests that the power industry continue its current practice of siting power lines to reduce exposures and continue to explore ways to reduce the creation of magnetic fields around transmission and distribution lines without creating new hazards. (Exhibit 201, pp. 37-38.)
Based on this paragraph, it appears that NIEHS considers a program of undergrounding of transmission lines as an aggressive regulatory response to the current scientific evidence regarding EMF exposure. From this language we conclude that NIEHS also would consider undergrounding transmission lines a means of minimizing EMF exposure. PG&E's proposed project and a number of the alternatives studied include the use of underground transmission construction. Although the use of underground transmission is not proposed to address EMF levels, placing transmission lines underground does reduce EMF levels. Where underground transmission is used in lieu of overhead, electric fields from the line would essentially be eliminated. In addition, undergrounding results in a substantial decrease in the magnetic field strength. For example, according to the DEIR, burying the underground portion of the Pleasanton area transmission segment 2 feet deeper reduces the magnetic field 21%, from 6.3 mG to 5.0 mG, at a cost of approximately $1.6 million. (Exhibit 1000, p. ES-23.)
The DEIR describes the expected magnetic field levels for the project. The magnetic field from the proposed overhead transmission lines is below 20 mG at the edge of the right-of-way, dropping to approximately 6 mG at 50 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. The magnetic field from the proposed underground transmission lines is 6 mG at the edge of the right-of-way, dropping to below 1 mG at 50 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. 37 (See Exhibit 1000, p. ES-23.) These levels are well within the maximum levels established by other states as maximum exposure levels.
For the overhead portions of PG&E's proposed project and all alternatives, with the exception of S1, the routes are located far more than 110 feet from residences, thus minimizing exposure. (The transmission line would be located in the center of the right of way of 120 feet, i.e., at 60 feet, plus the 50 foot buffer described above.) For S1, without a specific placement of tubular steel poles identified along Isabel Avenue, it is unclear the number of residences located within 110 feet of the S1 alternative route, but it is likely that this alternative would have more exposure, albeit at low levels, on residences than other overhead routes.
Because the underground portion of PG&E's proposed project in Pleasanton is located in relatively narrow residential streets with limitations on where it can be placed due to existing utilities, the possibilities for higher exposure levels are greater than on other underground alternatives. For example, the streets in the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood where PG&E's proposed project is located, are generally about 36 feet wide. (Exhibit 204-A, p. 3-2.) This means that the edge of a standard 40-foot right of way could easily be located within a residence in this neighborhood (depending on where the line is located within the street and the proximity of the home to the street).
In contrast, the routes that travel along the eastern portion of Vineyard Avenue are significantly more distant from residences. Even in the western portion of Vineyard Avenue (as it approaches Bernal Avenue) where residences are located along this street, they are located further from the possible transmission line routes than in PG&E's proposed project. The western portion of Vineyard Avenue has two lanes in each direction and a narrow median. Motor homes, condominiums, and senior housing units in a trailer park border this portion of the roadway with a small setback. (See generally, Exhibit 1000, p. C.7-7.) However, use of a wider road for this route results less exposure to EMFs from the underground transmission line than for PG&E's proposed project. Likewise, the underground transmission components of D1 would be located away from residences, thus minimizing exposure.
We cannot conclude, based on the scientific evidence, whether this level of exposure (approximately 6 mG) associated with PG&E's proposed project in the Pleasanton area would result in a health risk. Near appliances, the ambient magnetic level is higher than the level resulting from installation of the underground transmission line at the edge of the right of way. We can conclude however that PG&E's proposed project's underground portion through Pleasanton, and the S1 overhead alternative along Isabel Avenue, would result in the most exposure to magnetic fields, compared to other alternatives.
10.5.2 Safety of Solid Dieletric Cable Technology
As insulated cable technology has developed, placing electric power lines underground, either directly in the ground or in conduit systems, has become more common. At voltages under 50 kV, the cost differential between overhead and underground construction has decreased to a point where the use of underground distribution has become more prevalent. From a reliability perspective, distribution line failures typically affect only a relatively small number of customers and stocking spare distribution cable is not cost-prohibitive, so failure repair time can be kept to a minimum.
From a technical standpoint, improvements in underground cable insulation and use of concrete encased duct bank construction have both resulted in improved reliability for high-voltage underground lines. Unlike distribution failures, that loss of a transmission circuit can affect a very large number of customers. This fact, coupled with the longer repair time associated with more complex transmission systems, results in limited application of underground transmission lines. In addition, the cost differential between overhead and underground construction for transmission lines remains significant and is the primary reason that underground technology has not seen widespread use at transmission voltage.
Electricity, whether from house wiring, neighborhood distribution lines, or transmission lines, is a potential shock and fire hazard. Local, state, and national codes regulate the design, construction and operation of all electrical facilities. These codes include minimum insulation levels and clearances that needed to be provided for correct operation and to safeguard workers and the public. Overhead and underground lines each must meet different code requirements. Overhead lines typically use a bare overhead wire attached to insulators supported on wood or steel structures. For underground lines an insulated cable is used, which is either direct-buried or placed in ducts.
The primary differences between underground distribution lines, which are very common in cities and neighborhoods across the country, and underground transmission lines is the size of cable used and the type and amount of insulation on the cable. Underground transmission lines have been much less common because of their high relative cost and the time needed to develop insulation materials for higher voltages. However, experience with underground transmission lines covers over 30 years of installation in a range of land uses, from congested downtown areas, to commercial, residential, and even submarine environments. Within PG&E's service area there are several underground 230 kV segments. Sacramento Municipal Utility District's service area includes eight different underground transmission segments (between 115 kV and 230 kV) totaling 17.5 miles.
In the event of transmission line failures or cable faults, the public is protected from shocks through high speed relaying and circuit breakers that detect faults and de-energize the transmission line in fractions of a second. Further, for underground installations of the type proposed by PG&E, several feet of earth and concrete separate the public from the cables.
Underground power lines provide a reliable means to transmit power. A reliability benefit of underground lines is that they are protected from vehicle collisions or wind-blown debris, which both contribute to outages for overhead lines. Underground lines are susceptible to dig-in by construction contractor's equipment; however, in new transmission installations it is typical to place a concrete cap above the cables or to encase them in a concrete duct entirely (as proposed by PG&E) to protect from this type of outage. In the event of a transmission line outage, overhead facilities are typically quicker to repair since the materials needed are much more common.
PG&E has proposed to utilize solid dielectric cable for the underground portion of its proposed project. The cable would be placed in a concrete duct bank for protection. Because this project is a 230 kV double circuit transmission line, it would consist of 6 single-phase cables. Solid dielectric cables generally consist of a conductor (the energized part of the cable), a conductor shield (to reduce stress in the conductor-insulation interface), insulation, and outer shields. Solid dielectric cables use an extruded polyethelene material for insulation.38
In the United States, the most widely used underground transmission technology utilized has been high-pressure oil-filled pipe-type cable. (The underground transmission facilities PG&E currently operates are oil-filled.) In contrast, in Japan, solid dielectric cable is increasingly replacing existing oil-filled cable types. Technology developments over the past two decades have improved the costs and reliability of solid dielectric cable. (Exhibit 1002, p. F-3.) The main advantages of solid dielectric cables compared to oil-filled cables are a decrease in fire hazard, less maintenance, reduction in transition space requirements, easier and less expensive cable installation, and shorter repair time. The main disadvantage of this technology was seen in the 1970s when insulation deteriorated and caused an eventual breakdown of the cable as a result of "treeing".39 This treeing phenomenon has been greatly reduced by modern dry curing techniques resulting in reliable operation of solid dielectric cable operations in France and Japan at the 225 kV to 500 kV levels since the 1980s. (Exhibit 1002, p. 1-6.)
PG&E argues that solid dielectric cables are extremely reliable at the 230 kV voltage and includes failure statistics for installations in France and Japan. Relay, fault detection and protection equipment de-energize the system within milliseconds of a fault occurring, which virtually eliminates the possibility for damage to the cable system or other property. (Exhibit 1, p. 126.) In addition, installation of each cable in separate ducts encased in concrete prevents an electrical fault in one cable from damaging another cable. PG&E indicated that the first United States installation of 230 kV solid dielectric cable (1992) failed twice shortly after being energized due to inadequate electrical connections between the cable sheath and cable core, but that the problem was corrected and no failures have occurred in the United States since then. In addition, PG&E argues that solid dielectric cables, due to their lack of insulating oil, are environmentally superior to use of oil-filled cable types.
Witness Phil Richardson, for the Pleasanton Parties, testified that residents in his neighborhood (Kottinger Ranch) are worried about failure of underground transmission facilities endangering their families. The Pleasanton Parties included copies of newspaper articles about explosions and fires caused by PG&E electrical equipment as evidence of the validity of their fears. They indicate that although failure rates may be low, the impact of a catastrophic failure would be more significant within small residential streets than in open fields or industrial areas. The Pleasanton Parties indicate there is really no way to mitigate this risk other than by siting transmission lines in non-residential areas. The Pleasanton Parties also argue that since this is PG&E's first experience installing solid dielectric cable, additional caution is warranted with respect to safety concerns. (See generally Exhibit 204-A, pp. 3-16-18.)
PG&E counters that the fears expressed by the Pleasanton Parties are unfounded. PG&E argues that the news articles included by the Pleasanton Parties were not related to solid dielectric transmission lines or 230 kV facilities and thus are not relevant to the safety of this technology. In addition, PG&E argues that because the protection equipment PG&E will install will immediately de-energize the line, energy will not build up that could cause a fire or explosion as described in the Pleasanton Parties' articles.
We find that solid dielectric cable technology is safe for installation in all types of land uses, including residential areas, as long as it is protected by a concrete duct bank and appropriate relay, fault detection and protection equipment. Based on the record developed here, solid dielectric cable has significant advantages over oil-filled underground transmission cable types, both in terms of environmental and reliability impacts. The fears of the Pleasanton Parties about explosions and fire caused by solid dielectric cable do not have support in the record. Thus we find that no underground routes should be eliminated due to safety concerns associated with use of solid dielectric cable.
10.6 Cost
PG&E prepared cost estimates for its proposed project and all alternatives studied. (See Exhibits 2, 16, 17, C17, C306, and C307 and PG&E's June 4, 2001 Cost Information Filing.) For purposes of the cost estimates, two primary cost areas varied: transmission line construction and land costs. Each are addressed in turn.
10.6.1 Construction Costs
For purposes of its proposed project, PG&E developed "project specific unit cost estimates". PG&E developed detailed cost estimates for its proposed project in Pleasanton, Dublin, and North Livermore based on the proposed route specifics, terrain, and construction requirements. This approach resulted in a $/mile construction cost specific to PG&E's proposed project. For example, for PG&E's proposed project in Pleasanton, PG&E's unit cost for underground construction is $6,281,829/mile and for overhead construction is $1,146,051/mile. Overhead construction costs for PG&E's proposed project in Dublin and North Livermore are $824,581/mile and $788,006/mile for PG&E's Phase 2. These costs differ between phases and locations because of differing construction settings, the need to construct roads in order to build the project, and the difficulty getting materials to the site. PG&E then applied these "unit costs" to the alternatives developed in order to arrive at an estimate of construction costs for each alternative. PG&E did not adjust its estimates to account for construction in easier (or more difficult) terrain or other construction requirements. In addition, PG&E's cost estimates for construction costs include a 25% contingency factor to account for unforeseen construction costs. ORA raised issues with the contingency factor40 but no other party addressed PG&E's overhead construction cost estimates.
As we can see from PG&E's own estimates of overhead construction costs, the route selected can have a significant impact on construction costs. It stands to reason that if routing can result in a significantly different unit cost for overhead transmission line construction, such a result could also occur along an underground route. Thus to assess the validity of PG&E's cost estimates for underground alternatives we must compare the routes and the difficulty of construction. In the Pleasanton area , PG&E's proposed project travels underground along an area of some geologic instability, which PG&E admitted may require special excavation and construction techniques. (PG&E:Johnson, RT 501, 502, 506, 509.) Likewise, once PG&E's proposed project enters city streets it will be subject to work hour restrictions, narrow streets, and utility conflicts below the streets. Because of conflicts with existing utilities and the narrow area within which the duct bank can be located, hand excavation work will be required. (PG&E:Johnson, RT 486, 520-522.) In contrast, along the S2A/S2 alternative, trenching will occur along flat, easy to excavate routes that are not subject to the same work restrictions as PG&E's proposed route. Thus we conclude that PG&E's unit cost estimate likely overstates the per mile construction costs of the S2A/S2 alternative. Since the underground segments of S1 and S2A/S2/S5 correspond to the S2A/S2 route, overstatement of costs for these alternatives also results from use of PG&E's unit cost estimate.
In its reply brief PG&E argues that the S2A/S2 alternative shares similarities of terrain and construction impediments with PG&E's proposed route. Based on our review of the record developed in this case, we disagree, and find that PG&E's underground unit cost estimate overstates the cost per mile to construct the alternative Pleasanton area routes, except for S4. S4, like PG&E's proposed project, traverses a very hilly area once it converts to underground until it converges with S2. We conclude that PG&E's unit cost estimate is applicable to the S4 route until it reaches Vineyard Avenue and then we should adopt a reduced per mile cost for the remainder of the underground route.
We cannot conclude exactly what the appropriate cost per mile of underground construction is for the S2A/S2 route based on the record. The Foley Intervenors proposed an alternative cost per mile that is based on an estimated cost for undergrounding a single circuit made by one of PG&E's engineers (Exhibit 305) and then adding the cost of purchasing an additional circuit worth of cable. We do not adopt this methodology because it does not reflect certain key aspects of cable installation like splices and manholes and thus underestimates the cost per mile of underground construction. However, the Foley Intervenors are correct that PG&E's unit cost estimate includes items that are likely to be one time costs rather than recurring per mile costs.41 We conclude that it is appropriate to adjust the cost estimate for underground construction for S1, S2A/S2, and S2A/S2/S5 downward by 10%. The resulting cost estimate is $5,653,646/mile. This adjustment is well within the 25% contingency established by PG&E and still allows for a 15% contingency factor. For S4/S2, 0.8 miles of underground construction should be calculated at PG&E's unit cost rate42 and 2.1 miles at the lower cost described for S2A/S2. For S4/S5, 0.8 underground miles should be calculated at PG&E's unit cost rate and 0.8 miles at the lower S2A/S2 rate.
For the environmentally superior D1, we will rely on PG&E's underground unit cost estimate. Although the terrain is generally flat for this route, it requires an underground bore under I-580 that increases its complexity compared to typical flat routes. Therefore it appears comparable to PG&E's proposed project in Pleasanton in terms of difficulty of construction. However, we note that instead of using the overhead unit cost estimate it derived for its proposed Dublin substation to estimate construction costs for D1, PG&E instead utilized its Pleasanton area overhead unit cost. In addition, PG&E's cost estimate for its proposed project in Dublin only includes 4.9 miles of overhead construction. This would only bring the line to the intersection of North Livermore and Manning Road, to reach the Contra Costa-Newark line is another two miles. In comparing alternatives we will adjust PG&E's proposed project cost estimate to reflect construction costs for the entire length of the project (6.9 miles) using the same unit cost basis PG&E used in its estimate for D1. We also note that PG&E does not explain the cost differences for construction of the different Dublin substations or distribution feeder costs. However, based on the screening requirements for D1 compared to PG&E's proposed Dublin substation we find it reasonable to assume that the cost for D1 will be higher than for PG&E's proposed project. Likewise, given that D1 is much closer than PG&E's proposed project to the Dublin load it is designed to serve it also is reasonable to assume that the D1 distribution feeder costs will be less than for PG&E's proposed project. Therefore, we make no adjustments to PG&E's estimates for these two line items.
10.6.2 Land Costs
As part of its cost estimates, PG&E estimated the cost of acquiring easements along its proposed project and the alternatives studied. PG&E based the estimates on an appraisal of land values throughout the Tri Valley area. The appraisal developed cost ranges for various types of land uses, for example, agricultural, residential, gravel lands are each valued differently in the appraisal. PG&E then selected a cost for the easement acquisition based on the appraisal range and additional information it obtained through consultations with landowners, municipalities, and others. (Exhibit 3, p. 14.) PG&E states that its estimates include costs associated with eminent domain proceedings, if required. (Exhibit 3, p. 14.) PG&E's land cost estimates reflect its assessment of the current highest and best uses of the properties over which it would need to acquire an easement.43 PG&E's estimates include contingency costs, eminent domain payments, and filing fees in the event an eminent domain proceeding is necessary.
There was considerable dispute over the proper valuation of several portions of the Pleasanton area routes. For example, the Pleasanton Parties and the Foley Intervenors take issue with the value PG&E estimates for portions of its proposed project on Foley and other landowners' property. PG&E has valued the property as agricultural land. The Pleasanton Parties assert that the highest and best use of the property is as high-end residential development and should be valued at $100,000 per acre. (Exhibit 204-A, p. D-3.) In addition, the Pleasanton Parties argue that PG&E must calculate severance damages for EMF impairment and visual impairment. The Pleasanton Parties calculate EMF impairment by determining how much land outside of the actual easement would have EMF exposure levels above 1 mG. This amount of acreage is then multiplied by the $100,000 per acre land value to arrive at the severance damages for EMF impairment. A similar approach was used to calculate severance damages for visual impairment except that the Pleasanton Parties assumed that the loss in value per acre is only 15% of the $100,000 per acre value. PG&E calculated land costs of $2,097,000 for its proposed project in Pleasanton; the Pleasanton Parties calculate $4,073,000 for the value of the easement, $18,457,000 for EMF impairment, and $8,580,000 for visual impairment for a total of $31,110,000 for PG&E's proposed project. (Ex 204-A; p.D-10.)
The Foley Intervenors argue that it makes no sense for PG&E to assume that the cost of acquiring an underground easement along a fire break or dirt frontage road (like the S2A/SA alternative) is more than the cost of acquiring an easement for placement of overhead transmission facilities. (Foley Opening Brief, p.21.) Specifically the Foley Intervenors compare costs to acquire easements along the S2A/S2 route (all underground) to PG&E's proposed Project in Pleasanton.
The Foley Intervenors argue that set back requirements along Vineyard Avenue limit the ability of property owners to develop their properties along the S2A/S2 alternative (Exhibit 1000, C.7-7, PG&E:Jones, RT 1499.) Thus, the Foley Intervenors argue, there is no permanent effect associated with granting an easement underground along the S2A/S2 route. In contrast, the Foley Intervenors argue, overhead lines will permanently affect the development potential of the Foley property allowing a claim of severance damages. Therefore the Foley Intervenors argue that either the valuation of the right of way for PG&E's proposed project is too low, or the valuation is too high in the costs it assigns to the S2A/S2 alternative.
Centex offered testimony by an appraiser who valued the Foley property at between $12,000 and $40,000 per acre based on his assessment of the highest and most profitable use, current zoning, status of development efforts, and comparable properties. (Exhibit 701 at Exh A.)
It is not our role to assess the actual value of the easements PG&E must acquire for its proposed project or the alternatives studied. However, we engage in this discussion in order to assess the validity of the land cost estimates offered by PG&E in order to arrive at a legitimate cost estimate for each route under consideration. For this reason, we provide some brief background on assessing the fair market value of an easement.
First, the fee simple44 of the strip taken, before and after imposition of the easement, is valued. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., v. Hufford, 49 Cal. 2d 545, 553, 319 P.2d 1033 (1957). The difference in the before and after values is the value of the easement. Id. This computation is made based on the quantity and quality of the rights in the fee taken by the easement, equated to a percentage of the fee value. County Sanitation District No. 8 of Los Angeles County v. Watson Land Company, 17 Cal. App. 4th 1268, 22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 117 (1993). For example, a right to use the surface of the land takes essentially the entire fee interest, leaving the owner of the fee with only a nominal value or right of reverter. People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Works v. Schultz Co., 123 Cal. App. 2d 925, 268 P.2d 117 (1954). In such a case, the value of the easement may be 99 percent of the fee value. On the other hand, an underground sewer easement may leave the fee owner with substantial use of the strip. In such a case, the value of the easement may be a much smaller percentage of the fee value, e.g., 25 to 50 percent. Hufford, at 553.
BAJI No. 11.78 offers the following jury instruction on how to determine the fair market value of an easement:
In this proceeding the plaintiff seeks to acquire an easement in [a portion of the] land owned by the defendant. The term "easement" means a right to use the land of another for certain specific purposes. The defendant will retain the right to use this land in which the easement is sought for any and all purposes which are not inconsistent with the construction and maintenance thereon of a (highway, storm drain, power line, etc.).
If the land subject to the easement will still have some market value after the taking of the easement and the construction of the improvement in the manner proposed, the plaintiff is required to pay only the decrease in market value that results from the easement.
Thus, in determining the compensation to be awarded for taking the easement, you must first determine the fair market value of the land in which the easement is sought and then determine the value of the same land as it will be subject to the easement and the construction of the proposed improvement. The difference between these amounts will be the value of the easement.
Of the property types affected, gravel mining property has one of the highest values in PG&E's appraisal. Gravel is considered a mineral and "[i]n determining just compensation in eminent domain proceedings, the existence of valuable mineral deposits in the land taken constitutes an element which may be considered insofar as it influences the market value of the land." (26 Am.Jur.2d, Eminent Domain, § 338 p. 751.)
The Foley Intervenors' arguments about the relative value of land costs along Vineyard Avenue appear to be supported by the legal framework for valuing easements. The record demonstrates that the route that S2A/S2 would follow could not be developed to its full potential given existing setback requirements. Given this fact, the before and after value of the properties along Vineyard Avenue would appear quite similar, arguing for a easement cost well below the fee interest in the properties.
The Pleasanton Parties argue that the Foley, Lin, and General Electric Property should be valued based on residential uses rather than as agricultural land as PG&E has estimated. PG&E and Centex disagree, arguing that such a use is too speculative at this time for that use to be considered the highest and best use of the Foley property. PG&E has however valued the adjacent Lin property as residential potential. PG&E places a higher value on the Lin property because a development plan has been completed for the property, even though Pleasanton voters adopted a law prohibiting residential development proposed on the property. We cannot determine whether a jury in an eminent domain action would agree with PG&E's assessment of the highest and best use of the property along its proposed route.
Because alternatives that travel through gravel mining areas may impact the ability of the property owner to extract the gravel, the land costs associated with routes through these areas are high. However, PG&E has not adopted consistent values for gravel resources throughout its work papers, even for the same segment of a route.45 In the case of its gravel preserve cost estimates, PG&E does appear to have made some adjustment to its fee simple valuation, likely due to the fact that for the overhead portions of the project, gravel can still be mined throughout the majority of the easement without undermining the safety of the transmission facilities.
Based on a review of Exhibits C17, C307 and PG&E's June 4, 2001 Cost Information Filing prepared for this proceeding, it is clear that PG&E afforded a significantly higher easement value to the alternatives that pass underground along Vineyard Avenue than to its proposed project in the Pleasanton area. In addition, PG&E included not just one contingency allocation for land costs, but two.46 Rather than debate which specific land use should be applied for valuation purposes, we will rely on PG&E's assessment. However, we will adjust PG&E's estimates to remove the ED Contingency line item that appears on the Job Estimate - Detail Sheet.47 This is further justified because PG&E appears to have generally utilized a fee simple valuation for land over which it seeks an easement without adjustment for the limited decrease in value associated with underground easements. As a result of this adjustment, there is further change in the total land costs because PG&E's escalation, capital A & G, and contingency factors are applied to a new value.
PG&E summarized its estimates for alternatives analyzed in the FEIR in Exhibit A to its reply brief. Costs for alternatives are also found in PG&E's Exhibit 2. We summarize PG&E's estimates and our adjustments for the Pleasanton and Dublin area alternatives in Table 1 and 2. We have relied on the cost adjustments described herein to adjust all of PG&E's estimates for Dublin and Pleasanton.
Table 1
(See Hard Copy)
Table 2
(See Hard Copy)
10.7 Selected Routes
We concluded that the projects proposed by PG&E in North Livermore and Phase 2 are not needed at this time, based on forecasted growth and power flow modeling. However, we did conclude that a 230 kV transmission connection to the existing Vineyard Substation was needed, as well as a new substation and attendant transmission lines to serve Dublin. We have provided a detailed discussion of the environmental findings and community positions on them, cost, and timing issues for PG&E's proposed project and each of the alternatives studied.
Our job is to balance the need for additional facilities with their impact on the environment, the community, and ratepayers. In this case, the significant environmental impacts are limited. In the Pleasanton area, the only significant impact is the potential for flooding of the facilities due to a catastrophic break of the Del Valle Dam and it is shared equally by PG&E's proposed project and all alternatives. However, although environmental impacts are found to be adverse, but not significant, the various alternatives studied do have different degrees of adverse impact on the environment and the community. As a whole, we would prefer to avoid impacts, even less than significant impacts, when possible when selecting a project route. However, we must balance this interest in avoiding impacts with the cost impacts to ratepayers.
Based on our review of the environmental impacts, we eliminate the S4 and S1 alternatives. S4 has the most potential impact on biological resources of the Pleasanton area routes, without providing any appreciable advantage over PG&E's proposed project. In addition, the are potential visual impacts associated with the overhead portion of this alternative that make it inferior to PG&E's proposed project. S1 clearly has the most visual impacts, albeit at less than significant levels, of any of the Pleasanton area routes given its long overhead segment along Isabel Avenue and the proximity of residences along the roadway. Neither S1 nor S4 offer advantages from an environmental standpoint over PG&E's project and in fact, appear to result in more adverse impacts than PG&E's proposed project.
We then compare the remaining alternatives, S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5, to PG&E's proposed project. The FEIR finds these two alternatives to be the environmentally superior alternatives for the Pleasanton area. Our review of the record supports that conclusion. Because these alternatives travel in or along existing roadways and disturbed corridors, they result in less potential impacts to biological resources than PG&E's proposed project. Because both alternatives utilize wider streets with easy construction access and are located further away from residences, the construction impacts are less than for PG&E's proposed project. In addition, the routes for both alternatives, because of the use of wider roadways, have less potential utility conflicts, making construction along these alternatives easier. S2A/S2 will be entirely underground, eliminating any visual impacts, which is preferred over PG&E's proposed project. Both of these alternatives, because of their longer underground segments, will have more short-term negative impacts on air quality and traffic due to construction compared to PG&E's proposed project. S2A/S2 will travel along a divided four-lane street bordered by residential areas for a short distance. Although short term there will be some residential areas impacted from the construction, placement of S2A/S2 along this route would have fewer impacts than PG&E's proposed project because of the wider thoroughfare nature of the streets. S2A/S2/S5 would eliminate construction impacts to residential neighborhoods by converting to overhead and running within a gravel quarry operation and then along a heavily traveled industrial corridor. Thus S2A/S2/S5 would be preferred over both PG&E's proposed project and S2A/S2 from a standpoint of short term impacts on residents. However, S2A/S2/S5 would introduce a new long term visual impact, albeit not significant, along the overhead portion of the route. Compared to each other S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5 offer tradeoffs. S2A/S2 has more short-term impacts on residences because of construction along Vineyard Avenue. S2A/S2/S5 has more long-term impacts associated with visual impacts and less impact on residential neighborhoods. Each of the environmentally superior alternatives offers improvements over PG&E's proposed project.
The Pleasanton Parties support selection of S2A/S2/S5. They argue that this alternative is most consistent with the values of the community because it avoids locating a high voltage transmission line in residential areas. The Pleasanton Parties argue that the long term adverse visual impact associated with overhead transmission facilities from this route should be weighed against the impacts to residential areas of locating an underground line in the neighborhood.
PG&E argues that because its proposed project does not result in significant environmental impacts we need not adopt any alternative route. It argues that because its proposed project is the least expensive and has had the most engineering work conducted for it, it best meets the need for additional capacity in the Pleasanton area with the least impact to ratepayers. PG&E argues that there are no safety reasons not to locate a high voltage transmission line in residential areas and that the narrow streets of its proposed project do not represent an impediment to construction.
As described in Table 1, we have concluded that the cost to construct PG&E's proposed project in the Pleasanton area is $33,124,994. The cost to construct S2A/S2 is $51,138,614. The cost to construct S2A/S2/S5 is $57,677,355. We note that the adjustments we made to the undergrounding cost per mile for S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5 are conservative adjustments and likely overstate the actual construction costs given the differences in the difficulty of the construction work compared to PG&E's proposed project.
Although we have concluded that it is possible to construct PG&E's proposed project through narrow residential streets with significant existing utility conflicts and that the solid dielectric cable technology is safe, we will not authorize PG&E's proposed project route despite its cost advantages. First, PG&E's proposed project is not environmentally superior as described above. Second, this is PG&E's first experience installing solid dielectric cable at the 230 kV level. Both S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5 offer superior benefits in terms of ease of constructability over PG&E's proposed project. The routes the alternatives traverse are generally flat and straight without significant utility conflicts. Roads the alternatives travel on are wider or under development and thus will have many less impacts on residential neighborhoods. Although short term, the construction impacts to residents along Benedict Court, Smallwood Court, and Hearst Drive would result in major disruption. This disruption would be much more significant along PG&E's proposed route than on residences along Vineyard Avenue (S2A/S2) where traffic can be routed into other lanes along a much wider street.
Third, although the scientific evidence regarding EMFs is inconclusive and the level of magnetic fields generated from this project will be extremely low, given the other benefits associated with S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5, we feel it is prudent to adopt an alternative that avoids placement of a high voltage transmission line within narrow residential streets. This conclusion does not mean that high voltage transmission lines should never be placed underground in the vicinity of residential areas, but simply that given the facts presented here, PG&E's proposed project is inferior to other alternatives available. It is the narrowness of the street, the construction impacts on the neighborhood, the newness of the technology to PG&E, and the fact that it is not environmentally superior that together lead us to conclude that PG&E's proposed project should not be adopted.
Thus for the Pleasanton area we are left with S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5, the environmentally superior alternatives, to select between. The Pleasanton Parties support S2A/S2/S5 if the Commission does not select its "Improved Isabel-Stanley" route, which was rejected by the FEIR. The Pleasanton Parties argue that this route is preferred over S2A/S2 because of its avoidance of impacts on residential areas. PG&E supports S5, but only if it is combined with S4 which we have previously rejected. PG&E argues that both S2A/S2 and S2A/S2/S5 will require additional consultations with governmental agencies regarding species impacts which PG&E has already begun for its preferred route and S4 and thus are infeasible from a timing perspective. In addition, PG&E argues that both alternatives include significantly more undergrounding than its proposed project which will inevitably lead to delay. However, we would assume, given this concern by PG&E, that it would prefer S2A/S2/S5 over S2A/S2 because it contains only 4.3 miles of underground construction versus the 5.72 miles48 of undergrounding.
Despite the fact that S2A/S2/S5 includes less underground construction, PG&E estimates the cost to be higher for this alternative than S2A/S2. This is because the S5 portion of the route traverses gravel mining operations, which increases the land costs for this alternative compared to S2A/S2.
Thus we must evaluate whether the increased cost associated with the S2A/S2/S5 alternative provides sufficient benefits over S2A/S2 to justify its additional costs. We conclude that it does not. Unlike PG&E's proposed project, the S2A/S2 alternative does not involve narrow residential streets. Although there are residences bordering Vineyard Avenue, the construction project, and transmission line upon completion, will be much farther away from them than from residences along PG&E's proposed project, thus the impacts are diminished. The impacts of the S2A/S2 alternative on residential areas are all short term in nature. On the contrary, although not significant, the visual impact of the S5 portion of S2A/S2/S5 is long term. For these reasons, we select the S2A/S2 alternative for the Pleasanton area.
In the Dublin area, the FEIR concludes that there is a significant visual impact associated with PG&E's proposed project route. The FEIR proposes several undergrounding variants on PG&E's proposed project that could mitigate the significant visual impacts (all of which PG&E opposes). Although we have concluded that no project is required in North Livermore, this impact would remain because PG&E's proposed Dublin substation would be connected to the Contra Costa-Newark line to the east. The D2 alternative, which utilizes PG&E's proposed Dublin substation site would connect the substation to the 230 kV system to the west. However, the D2 alternative carries with it the most impacts on biological resources than any of the routes studied due to reconductoring. However, if reconductoring is not required the majority of D2's biological resource impacts would be eliminated, and D2 would present less overall environmental impacts than PG&E's proposed project for Dublin. PG&E's proposed Dublin substation also carries with it a significant impact of increased runoff and channel erosion due to its location. The FEIR found that locating the Dublin substation in the northern location (as proposed by PG&E) could also carry with it growth inducing impacts that would be mitigated by locating the substation closer to the already developing load it will serve. No significant environmental impacts were associated with the D1 alternative for either the substation location or transmission route.
From an environmental and need standpoint, the D1 substation location is the most logical. The D1 alternative avoids impacts to sensitive species and hydrological issues. The necessary D1 transmission line is much shorter than PG&E's proposed project (3.1 miles versus 6.9 miles). The load in Dublin is developing near I-580 and D1 is well situated to serve this known growth. The primary difference in the cost between PG&E's proposed project and the D1 alternative is a result of the D1 route passing through the gravel quarries.
PG&E argues that its proposed substation location will allow it to serve future growth in the Tassajara and Dougherty Valleys. As described in the FEIR, no development is currently planned for the Tassajara Valley due to the withdrawal of earlier development plans. Development is occurring in the Dougherty Valley but it is located within two miles of the San Ramon Substation and approximately four miles west of PG&E's proposed Dublin substation. (Exhibit 1003, p. H-35.) Thus by PG&E's own distribution planning guidelines, the San Ramon Substation, not a new Dublin substation, would serve this load. With expansion of the Vineyard Substation, San Ramon will easily have sufficient capacity to serve this growth.
The cities of Dublin and Livermore oppose the D1 substation location and attendant transmission facilities, as do PG&E and the Lin Family. The City of Dublin and the Lin Family argue that location of a substation in the D1 location would conflict with Dublin's community values as expressed by its planning documents for the area. Although it is clear that the City of Dublin officials oppose this location, construction of a substation would not be incompatible with the relevant land use designations in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. In addition, by adopting a mitigation measure that requires PG&E to consult with the City of Dublin to develop appropriate screening for D1, including the use of façade walls, Dublin will have the ability to influence the visual consistency of the substation with surrounding land uses. We do have some uncertainty about whether the FAA or Alameda County ALUC will find D1 consistent with their requirements at the standard 230 kV line height. However, we have adopted a mitigation measure, L-11, to allow this uncertainty to be resolved early on, and will consider appropriate modifications to the D1 alternative if required by FAA and Alameda County ALUC. Given the significant impacts associated with PG&E's proposed project for Dublin and the much greater impacts to biological resources of the D2 alternative, where the load is growing in this area, and the reduced length of this route, we conclude that the D1 alternative should be selected.
In summary we conclude that PG&E should be authorized to construct a 230 kV double circuit transmission line along the environmentally superior S2A/S2 alternative described herein, a new substation in Dublin at the environmentally superior D1 location, and a 230 kV double circuit transmission line connecting the D1 substation and Vineyard Substation along the D1 alternative described herein.
