IV. Environmental Analysis and Mitigation Measures

A. The Final MND

The Commission published the Final MND and Initial Study to consider whether to approve the project. The final MND and Initial Study include all elements required by CEQA. Based on the Initial Study, the environmental impacts associated with the project proposed by SCE may be mitigated so that they are less than significant as that term is used in CEQA. As part of its PEA, SCE proposed Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs) to reduce potentially significant impacts to a level that is less than significant. These measures have been incorporated into the project description of the final MND. SCE has also agreed to include the staff's recommended mitigation measures. The Commission staff has prepared a Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan to ensure that SCE implements the mitigation measures prescribed. The mitigation measures required by the FMND are included as Section C to the FMND and attached to this order.

In response to comments on the MND, the Commission's consultants worked with Commission staff to analyze several project options, among them, (1) undergrounding the entire project along the existing right-of-way, (2) undergrounding the entire project through city streets and (3) partial undergrounding for approximately 2 miles through Mission Viejo, an option referred to by NOPE as "over-under." Appendix 8 of the final MND summarizes these options and associated potential impacts and mitigations.³

The FMND finds the two options for undergrounding the entire project are not feasible because the associated environmental impacts could not be readily mitigated. The FMND finds the partial undergrounding option, which was included in SCE's PEA, is feasible and would eliminate visual impacts of the proposed project along certain critical portions of the project path, namely, in recreational and residential neighborhoods of Mission Viejo that are the subjects of much public concern. Although the FMND finds that partial undergrounding is feasible, it does not analyze the environmental impacts of that undergrounding option to the extent required by CEQA. We would be within our authority to direct staff to conduct such an analysis for our consideration and to modify the MND accordingly. We decline to do so, however, because we are not convinced that this option would provide benefits to offset associated costs. The existing lattice towers and monopoles running along the relevant right of way present substantial visual blight in a neighborhood that is considered a model of good community planning and is exceptionally well-maintained. These facilities predated the construction of the community of Mission Viejo and are not the subject of this proceeding. Because those lattice towers are not the subject of this proceeding, ordering partial undergrounding for the Viejo System project would eliminate the need for the existing monopoles and the new, larger H-frame towers - but the existing lattice towers would remain. While undergrounding portions of the project would improve the visual blight along the right of way compared to the proposed project, that improvement would be marginal considering the visual impact of the remaining facilities. On the other hand, the cost of undergrounding could be substantial and the delay associated with CEQA review and more complicated project construction could compromise the reliability of electrical service in the area in the intervening period. Accordingly, we do not order additional environmental review of this project.

Based on the analysis of the Initial Study, the Draft, Revised, and Final MND, and the mitigation measures identified therein and incorporated into the project, the Commission finds that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment if constructed and operated consistent with the findings of, and mitigations described in, the FMND.

B. Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs)

Several parties in Mission Viejo raised concerns regarding the potential health risks associated with EMFs. The Commission currently does not consider EMFs in the context of CEQA because the scientific community has not resolved the extent to which EMF exposure creates human health risks. Analysis of the risks posed by EMFs by specific facilities is difficult because neither scientists nor public decision-makers have developed standards for EMF exposure. However, recognizing the public's concern regarding potential health effects from exposure to EMFs, the final MND for the Viejo System project provides information, if not risk analysis, regarding EMF exposure associated with that project.

Although the Commission has not adopted any specific limits on EMF and does not analyze EMF impacts as part of the CEQA process, the Commission requires electric utilities to implement low-cost EMF mitigation measures for transmission lines and substations, up to approximately 4% of total project cost. It created the California Electric and Magnetic Fields Program in the California Department of Health Services (DHS) to conduct research and policy analysis on EMF exposure. (See Decision (D.) 93-11-013). A recent report funded by the Commission and conducted by DHS suggests that EMFs may present risks to the general public of various types of cancer and other serious health conditions. In light of these concerns, the Commission is considering whether to reevaluate its current policies and practices.

Generally, the magnetic field levels for the existing Viejo System transmission lines are substantial, up to 45 milligauss from 150 feet of the lines. Because of low-cost mitigations proposed by SCE, the new facilities would reduce existing EMF substantially except in areas within 60-110 feet of the lines, as the FMND describes. Although this decision does not require SCE to underground the Viejo System project, placing transmission lines underground could reduce EMFs beyond the reductions estimated for the project as proposed and adopted herein, depending on their location and configuration. The FMND speculates as to how undergrounding might affect EMF exposure generally, but does not provide detailed analysis of EMF impacts associated with the underground options reviewed in its Appendix 8.