4. Environmental Impact
SCE's Petition raises two issues which led us to question the need for additional environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).45 The first issue is the construction of the Midpoint Substation, which was not authorized in the Decision, and the second issue is the possibility that development of renewable resources in Blythe may constitute a connected action that would require a supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Both issues are addressed in this section.
The environmental impacts of two alternative substation locations - the Midpoint Substation and the Midpoint-Desert Southwest Substation - were fully evaluated in the Final EIR/EIS. The Final EIR/EIS concluded that either location was "equally environmentally superior/preferable."46 Hence, SCE may chose to pursue either of the studied locations for purposes of CEQA/NEPA, and our approval of construction of the Midpoint Substation does not trigger the need for additional environmental review.
The issue of whether development of renewable resources in Blythe constitutes a "connected action" within the CEQA framework is more complicated. CEQA § 21166 states three conditions that may require the issuance of a subsequent or supplemental EIR (SEIR):
a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the environmental impact report.
b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.
SCE argues that nothing in the Petition or Amendment rises to the level of requiring an SEIR, as the Project will be constructed in the same manner as studied in the Final EIR/EIS, any renewable resources anticipated to be constructed in the Blythe area are too speculative to allow for meaningful environmental review, and they will likely undergo thorough environmental review prior to their approval and construction.47 SCE also argues that requiring environmental review for what is essentially "mere `interconnection requests'" would create an extraordinarily burdensome standard for the Commission, which would hamper development of renewable resources system-wide and would extend the scope of the project description to include future actions overseen by other state agencies.48
To address the "connected action" issue, Energy Division staff (Staff) directed its environmental consultant to develop an Addendum to the Final EIR/EIS based upon the new information presented by the Petition, Amendment, and Supplemental Filing. The Addendum is attached hereto as Attachment 2. The Addendum explores the environmental impacts of renewable development in the Riverside East CREZ and concludes, and therefore we find, that "most of the future renewable energy projects that would interconnect to the California portion of DPV2 are in the preliminary planning stages and thus none of the projects are sufficiently detailed to allow meaningful, non-speculative review." Because the California-only Project remains the same as what was studied in the Final EIR/EIS and because performing any analysis beyond that contained in the Addendum would not provide meaningful information to the decision-making process, we conclude that undertaking an SEIR is unnecessary here.
Finally, the Decision recognized that significant and unavoidable impacts would result from construction of the Project, and made a finding pursuant to CEQA § 15093 that overriding considerations merited construction of the Project notwithstanding those impacts.49 Those considerations included the economic benefits originally contemplated by the Project's interconnection to Arizona and access to inexpensive generation resources. Those benefits will not be obtained from a California-only Project.
The California-only Project will play a valuable role in meeting the state's long-term renewable goals and thereby provides benefits that outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. Hence, we find that these benefits constitute an overriding consideration warranting approval of the California-only Project.
45 California Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.
46 Final EIR/EIS, Vol. 2, Section E.2.1.3, at E-12.
47 Amendment at 20-33.
48 Amendment at 21 and 31.
49 Decision at 99.
