XV. Categorization and Need for Hearings
The Commission preliminarily categorized this proceeding as quasi-legislative, and preliminarily determined that hearings were necessary. No party has requested hearings. Given this status public hearing is not necessary and the preliminary determination made with regard to hearings should be altered, but the categorization remains the same.
1. The purpose of this rulemaking was to determine if improvements should be made to existing Commission rules and regulations concerning EMF associated with transmission lines and other electric facilities.
2. Current Commission policy requires utilities to implement low-cost/no cost EMF mitigation measures to minimize public EMF exposure.
3. Low-cost measures have been defined as mitigation measures that cost 4% or less of the total project cost, which is also referred to as the 4% benchmark.
4. Although some parties have proposed that EMF mitigation costs may exceed the 4% benchmark, no party has recommended a specific alternate benchmark percentage.
5. As discussed in the rulemaking, a direct link between exposure to EMF and human health effects has yet to be proven despite numerous studies including a study ordered by this Commission and conducted by DHS.
6. EMF results from many electric sources outside of the control of the utilities.
7. PG&E, Edison and SDG&E each employ their own set of design guidelines for applying EMF mitigation measures to electric transmission, distribution and substation facilities.
8. No party has proposed evidentiary hearings.
9. Determining the future use of undeveloped land is speculative and difficult.
10. If an anticipated change in future land use does not occur, ratepayers could pay for unnecessary EMF mitigation costs.
11. Schools, day-care centers and hospitals can be identified in FMP at fixed locations.
12. Any proposed changes in guidelines should be consistent with the EMF policy established in this decision and in D.93-11-013.
13. Identifying residences in which children spend significant time is difficult and uncertain due to changing uses within houses and home sales.
14. Utility modeling methodology is intended to compare differences between alternative EMF mitigation measures and not determine actual EMF amounts.
15. EMF from underground transmission lines is usually less than overhead transmission line EMF.
16. A table listing the various EMF mitigation alternatives and costs is a useful tool for evaluating FMP.
17. The appropriate location for measuring EMF mitigation is the utility ROW as this is the location at which utilities may maintain access control.
18. Low-cost EMF mitigation is not necessary in agricultural and undeveloped land except for permanently occupied residences, schools or hospitals located on these lands.
19. People can make choices regarding new construction on undeveloped and agricultural land knowing that transmission lines either exist or are planned for those lands.
20. A 15% reduction in EMF is the current measure of significant EMF mitigation. No party has proposed a different measure of significant EMF mitigation.
21. No party provided new EMF scientific data or scientific research.
22. The Energy Division should monitor and report on new EMF related scientific data or research.
1. The Commission has exclusive jurisdiction over issues related to EMF exposure from regulated utility facilities.
2. EMF concerns in future CPCN and PTC proceedings for electric transmission and substation facilities should be limited to the utility's compliance with the Commission's low-cost/no-cost policies.
3. A utility EMF workshop should be held for the purpose of developing standard approaches for design guidelines including the development of a standard table showing EMF mitigation measures and costs.
4. Low-cost EMF mitigation should use four percent of total project cost as a benchmark.
5. Revisions to utility design guidelines should not compromise safety, reliability or the requirements of GOs 95 and 128, or apply to reconfigurations or relocations exempted under GO 131-D.
6. This proceeding should be closed.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Respondent electric utilities shall convene a utility workshop to develop standard approaches for design guidelines including the development of a standard table showing electromagnetic field (EMF) mitigation measures and costs as discussed in this order.
2. Respondent electric utilities shall implement low-cost/no-cost EMF mitigation measures in new and upgraded transmission line and substation projects as discussed in this order.
3. Respondent electric utilities shall file revised design guidelines as an advice letter within six months of the effective date of this order.
4. No hearings were necessary for this proceeding.
5. Respondent electric utilities shall file an advice letter showing any proposed changes in design guidelines after meeting with the California Department of Education as discussed in this order.
6. Rulemaking 04-08-020 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated January 26, 2006, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
Commissioners
