STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
Item 2
8/23/2001
July 24, 2001
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 99-11-025
This is the proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cooke, previously designated as the principal hearing officer in this proceeding. It will be on the Commission's agenda at the next regular meeting, which is scheduled for August 23, 2001. This matter was categorized as ratesetting and is subject to Pub. Util. Code § 1701.3(c). Pursuant to Resolution ALJ-180 a Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting to consider this matter may be held upon the request of any Commissioner. If that occurs, the Commission will prepare and mail an agenda for the Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting 10 days before hand, and will advise the parties of this fact, and of the related ex parte communications prohibition period.
The Commission may act at the regular meeting on August 23, 2001, or it may postpone action until later. If action is postponed, the Commission will announce whether and when there will be a further prohibition on communications.
When the Commission acts on the proposed decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.
Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the proposed decision as provided in Article 19, attached, of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure." Pursuant to Rule 77.3 opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages. Finally, comments must be served separately on the ALJ and the assigned Commissioner, and for that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail, or other expeditious method of service.
/s/ LYNN T. CAREW
Lynn T. Carew, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
LTC: t93
ALJ/MLC/t93 DRAFT Item 2
8/23/2001
Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ COOKE (Mailed July 24, 2001)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 39 E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Construction of the Tri Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project |
Application 99-11-025 (Filed November 22, 1999) |
OPINION GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
1. Summary
This decision grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to construct 8.8 miles of new 230 kilovolt (kV) double-circuit transmission line, upgrade certain other transmission facilities, and construct a transmission/distribution substation to serve the Dublin area. The facilities we approve will be constructed in the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, and unincorporated areas of Alameda County, an area referred to as the Tri Valley.1
Demand in the Tri Valley area is projected to exceed supply as early as 2002. PG&E has demonstrated the need for a portion of the project it proposed in order to maintain the reliability of its electric system; however it did not demonstrate that all of the facilities it proposes are necessary to serve expected demand. We select one of the environmentally superior Pleasanton routes identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the Commission. We reject PG&E's proposed route and an alternative proposed by the City of Pleasanton and the Kottinger Ranch Homeowner's Association (jointly, Pleasanton Parties), although some of the route we adopt overlaps with portions of the route recommended by the Pleasanton Parties. Each of the routes we reject results in greater impacts on the environment and the local community than the route we select today.
Regarding the proposed substation in Dublin, the FEIR concludes that an alternative, more southerly, location for the Dublin substation is environmentally superior to PG&E's proposed substation. The FEIR concludes that, given forecasted load growth, slow growth measures in the North Livermore area, increased transmission capacity from the Tri Valley project as a whole, and the significant environmental impact of constructing a new substation in North Livermore, no substation should be constructed in North Livermore. After reviewing the question of need and weighing the environmental impacts, we grant a CPCN to PG&E to construct the FEIR's environmentally superior Dublin substation but deny PG&E's request for a CPCN for the North Livermore substation.
