4. Environmental Review
Pursuant to GO 131-D, in order to issue a permit to construct, the Commission must find that the project complies with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).1 CEQA requires the lead agency (the Commission in this case) to conduct a review to identify environmental impacts of the project, and ways to avoid or reduce environmental damage, for consideration in the determination of whether to approve the project or a project alternative. CEQA precludes the lead agency from approving a proposed project or a project alternative unless it requires the project proponent to eliminate or substantially lessen all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and determines that any unavoidable remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding considerations. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15090, 15091, 15093, 15126.2, 15126.4, and 15126.6.)
Because it would be located primarily on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm project requires the BLM's authorization of a right of way and approval of a resource management land use plan amendment to the California Desert Conservation Area Plan. The BLM's decision to grant the right of way and amend the California Desert Conservation Area Plan will be based in part on the BLM's evaluation of the project's environmental effects pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Where, as here, the project requires compliance with both CEQA and NEPA, CEQA encourages the state agency to use the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if that document is prepared before the state agency would otherwise prepare its own environmental impact report (EIR) so long as the EIS complies with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines and is supplemented to include certain CEQA requirements that are not required pursuant to NEPA. (CEQA Guidelines § 15221; Pub. Resources Code § 21083.7.)
The BLM published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS on January 13, 2010, while SCE did not file this application until November 17, 2010, at which time the Commission would otherwise have initiated its environmental review.
The BLM noticed and conducted a public scoping meeting that was held on January 28, 2010, in Palm Desert, California. The proponent of the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm project engaged in additional public outreach including meetings held with individuals and groups that commented on the scope of the project, additional workshops held in the local community, and discussions with local, state and federal government officials. The BLM produced a scoping report in February 2010 which identified the issues and concerns received during the scoping period.
The BLM issued the draft EIS for public review and comment on August 27, 2010.2 During the comment period, the BLM conducted three public meetings on October 20, 2010, in Palm Desert; on October 21, 2010, in Desert Center; and on November 4, 2010, in Joshua Tree. The BLM received 147 comment letters during the 90-day comment period ending November 26, 2010, and responded to them in the final EIS which it issued on April 15, 2011.
Pursuant to the BLM's planning regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations 1610.5-2, participants in the BLM's planning process for the California Desert Conservation Area Plan amendment who have an interest that is or may be adversely affected by that planning decision may protest approval of that planning decision within 30 days after issuance of the EIS. The BLM received seven protests during this period.
On June 1, 2011, the Commission's Energy Division gave notice, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15225(a), that the Commission will use the final EIS in the place of an EIR. By memo to the Administrative Law Judge and served on the official service list in this proceeding on June 7, 2011, the Energy Division informed the Administrative Law Judge that, after reviewing the protests submitted to the BLM, it continues to believe that the final EIS meets the requirements of CEQA. Accordingly, the June 7, 2011, memo is hereby identified as Exhibit 3 and the final EIS is hereby identified as Exhibit 4, and both are received into the evidentiary record.
1 Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.
2 The scoping memo and ruling received the draft EIS into the evidentiary record as Exhibit 1.
