V. Prioritizing Land Use
Parties generally agree on the following group prioritization for land use categories in determining how mitigation costs will be applied:
1. Schools and licensed day care14
2. Residential
3. Commercial/industrial
4. Recreational
5. Agricultural
6. Undeveloped land
However, parties request guidance on aspects affecting these priority groups including: (a) when to consider an area as residential;15 (b) whether residential land should be in the same category as schools, (c)whether utilities should investigate potential future uses of undeveloped land, (d) whether mitigation measures should be limited or not applied if it is not possible to provide equal treatment to all members within a priority group, and (e) whether to address separately within priority (1) public schools under California Department of Education (CDE) EMF reduction policies.
We begin by noting that determining the future use of undeveloped land is both speculative and difficult. While 280 Citizens argues that EMF mitigation should be undertaken where development "is reasonably foreseeable,"16 it is apparent that such a task requires many assumptions and is likely to lead to substantial disputes. Planning agencies frequently change land use designations, and it is unlikely that parties to future designs of transmission lines could agree on the location and boundaries of schools, residences, or commercial properties many years in the future. In addition, if the anticipated change in land use does not occur, utility ratepayers could end up paying for unnecessary mitigation costs. Accordingly, we will not require utility design guidelines to include low-cost EMF mitigation for undeveloped land. Utility design guidelines should consider EMF mitigation at the time the FMP is prepared, although mitigation may be justified for those portions of undeveloped land on which people reside and permanently occupy structures.
We are sensitive to CCAE and FUND's argument that children may spend more time at home than in schools,17 and therefore, residences should have the same priority as schools. However, schools, licensed day-care centers, and hospitals (which we have added to the first priority) can be specifically identified in FMP at fixed locations, while identifying those residences in which children might spend significant time is uncertain given the changing uses within houses and as a result of home sales. Furthermore, the application of low-cost options to entire residential areas in order to accommodate the potential that some homes house children may disfavor spending EMF mitigation funds for schools, day-care centers and hospitals where children are known to be present. Therefore, we will maintain our priority of schools, day-care centers, and hospitals over residences.
We agree with Edison that the CDE and our EMF reduction policies should be consistent,18 although we are concerned that applying low-cost options to the portions of transmission lines near existing schools will consume a disproportionate share of low-cost funds. It is unclear how this alignment of policies can occur, although utilities should meet with CDE and develop additional design guideline criteria. Any proposed changes in guidelines should be provided through an advice letter process and should be consistent with the EMF policy established in this decision and in D.93-11-013.19
In A.02-09-043, PG&E proposed not to adopt mitigation measures in residential areas unless equal mitigation could be provided for the entire priority group, and the cost of the mitigation was within the 4% benchmark. Although equal mitigation for an entire class is a desirable goal, we will not limit the spending of EMF mitigation to zero on the basis that not all class members can benefit. We expect that utilities will modify their design guidelines so that those residences most impacted by EMF will receive some mitigation within the 4% benchmark. As a guideline for accomplishing this task we expect that EMF reductions will be 15% or greater at the utility ROW as further discussed below.
14 As an additional fixed location of young children, we will add hospitals to this category.
15 Edison asks whether an area should be considered residential when the FMP is prepared or at the time of construction.
16 280 Citizens Comments, July 26, 2005, p. 14.
17 Joint Comments of CCAE and FUND, July 26, 2005, p. 4.
18 CDE requires minimum distances between new schools and transmission lines.
19 This advice letter may be separate from the advice letter requested as a result of the utility workshop ordered later in this decision.
