II. Procedural Background
The Commission opened R.04-08-020, on August 26, 2004, to address public concern regarding exposure to EMF,3 an issue that has consistently generated strong public opinion in recent transmission and substation projects.4 The rulemaking identified three issues to explore:
1. The results of the Commission's current "low-cost/no-cost" mitigation policy and the need for modifications.
2. Improvement in the implementation of the existing "low-cost/no-cost" mitigation policy.
3. As new EMF-related scientific data becomes available, new or revised Commission EMF mitigation policies.
On October 28, 2004, a prehearing conference (PHC) was held to identify parties and establish a service list, to consider whether hearings or workshops should be held, and to establish a schedule. At the PHC, parties requested an opportunity to provide comments on the scope of the issues to be considered in the proceeding, whether hearings were necessary, and a proposed schedule.
On December 31, 2004, comments were received from Leeka Kheifets (Kheifets), Sierra Pacific Power Company (Sierra), Citizens Concerned About EMFs (CCAE) and Fund for the Environment (FUND),5 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens Group (280 Citizens), The Concerned Residents of Burlingame (CRB), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (Edison), The California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and PacifiCorp.6 Reply comments were received on January 28, 2005, from Edison, PG&E, SDG&E, CCAE and FUND, Sierra, and PacifiCorp.
CRB, CCAE and FUND, and 280 Citizens requested that the scope include utility information regarding EMF design guidelines, consideration of whether the 4% benchmark is sufficient for EMF mitigation, and inclusion of electric distribution lines in the proceeding. CRB, CCAE and FUND and 280 Citizens recommended formal consideration of the Department of Health Services (DHS) Final Report issued June 2002,7 consideration of EMF impacts on property values including appropriate compensation, inclusion of EMF measures adopted in D.04-08-046, and the appearance of Dr. Raymond Neutra, the lead author for the DHS Report.
Utility parties, including PG&E, Edison, SDG&E, PacifiCorp, and CMUA recommended against expanding the scope of the proceeding, inclusion of distribution lines as an issue, reexamination of the DHS Report, establishment of numeric EMF standards, and any consideration of EMFs as an element in the Commission's California Environmental Qualify Act (CEQA) reviews. Utility parties generally requested that the scope of the proceeding include Commission guidance on engineering options for EMF mitigation, the 4% benchmark, and use of a 15% EMF mitigation target at the utility right of way (ROW).
After consideration of the parties' comments, the Assigned Commissioner issued a Scoping Memo and Ruling on March 1, 2005 (Scoping Memo). The Scoping Memo focused the proceeding on the issues identified in R.04-08-020, and denied requests to consider extraneous issues. The Scoping Memo also provided parties an opportunity to review and comment on respondent utilities' design guidelines,8 and consider new scientific information such as an anticipated World Health Organization (WHO) study.
On April 4, 2005, a PHC was held to discuss the process for resolving Scoping Memo issues. At the PHC, the utilities were directed to provide their design guidelines for EMF mitigation and following receipt of the guidelines, to provide representative field management plans (FMP) for transmission line projects. Parties would review the FMP and consider how the utilities applied their respective design guidelines. Parties could then recommend improvements or changes in the design guidelines.
Design guidelines and FMP9 were provided by PG&E, Edison and SDG&E on April 11, 2005 and May 26, 2005, respectively. Comments were received from 280 Citizens, CCAE and FUND, ORA, and Kheifets on July 26, 2005; reply comments were received from SDG&E, PG&E, Edison, CCAE and FUND, and Kheifets on August 26, 2005.
No party has proposed evidentiary hearings, although 280 Citizens proposed a workshop to discuss standardizing utility design guidelines. As we are ordering the utilities to hold a workshop to standardize design guidelines, no other workshops or evidentiary hearings are necessary. Therefore, this proceeding is deemed submitted on August 26, 2005.
3 R.04-08-020 (pp. 6-7) explains why the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over issues related to EMF exposure from regulated utility facilities.
4 Id., p. 1.
5 CCAE and FUND submitted joint comments.
6 PacifiCorp requested authorization to file late-filed comments on January 4, 2005; its motion is unopposed and is granted.
7 The DHS report was ordered by Decision (D.) 93-11-013.
8 PG&E, SDG&E and Edison are named as respondent utilities.
9 PG&E and Edison provided five plans each. SDG&E provided three plans.
