COM/CXW/mnt Mailed 10/11/2001
Decision 01-10-029 October 10, 2001
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (U 39 E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Construction of the Tri Valley 2002 Capacity Increase Project |
Application 99-11-025 (Filed November 22, 1999) |
OPINION GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY
Title Page
OPINION GRANTING A CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY 1
1. Summary 2
2. Procedural History 3
3. Scope of Proceeding 5
4. Proposed Project 6
4.1 Pleasanton Area Proposed Project 6
4.2 Dublin/San Ramon and Livermore Area Proposed Project 8
4.3 Phase 2 Proposed Project 10
5. Description of Alternatives Studied 11
5.1 Pleasanton Area Alternatives 12
5.1.1 S1 (Vineyard-Isabel-Stanley) Alternative 12
5.1.1.1 "Improved Isabel-Stanley" 13
5.1.2 S2 (Vineyard Avenue) Alternative 13
5.1.3 S2A Alternative 14
5.1.4 S4 (Eastern Open Space) Alternative 15
5.1.5 S5 (Quarry) Alternative 15
5.1.6 Local Generation Alternative 16
5.2 Dublin/San Ramon Area Alternatives 16
5.3 North Livermore Area Alternatives 18
5.3.1 L1 (Raymond Road) Alternative 18
5.3.2 L2 (Hartman Road) Alternative 18
5.3.3 P1 (Variant on the Proposed Project) 19
5.3.4 P2 (Variant on the Proposed Project): 20
5.3.5 P3 (May School Road) 20
5.4 Phase 2 Alternatives 20
6. Results of Environmental Analysis 21
7. Parties Positions on Routing and Location of Substations 27
7.1 PG&E 27
7.2 ISO 30
7.3 Pleasanton Parties 30
7.4 Foley Intervenors 32
7.5 Lin Family 33
7.6 City of Dublin 34
7.7 The City of Livermore 35
7.8 City of San Ramon 36
7.9 Centex 37
7.10 LARPD 37
7.11 EBRPD 37
8. Project Need 38
8.1 Existing Capacity 39
8.1.1 Tri Valley 12 kV System 39
8.1.2 Vineyard Substation 39
8.1.3 San Ramon Substation 40
8.1.4 Las Positas Substation 40
8.2 New Capacity 41
8.3 Total Capacity Summary 41
8.4 Existing and Forecasted Demand 42
8.5 Existing and Forecasted Load Growth Summary 45
8.6 Positions of Parties 45
9. Discussion of Project Need 50
10. Discussion of Routing and Substation Locations 56
10.1 Timing 56
10.2 Timing Tradeoffs of the Various Alternatives 58
10.3 Constructability 63
10.4 Environmental Impacts 64
10.4.1 Biological Impacts 64
10.4.2 Visual Impacts 72
10.4.3 Land Use Impacts 80
10.4.4 Construction Impacts 89
10.4.5 Growth Inducing Impacts 93
10.5 Health and Safety Issues 94
10.6 Cost 104
10.7 Selected Routes 120
11. Consistency with Public Utilities Code Section 1002 130
12. Applicability of Section 625 131
13. Jurisdiction Over Costs 135
14. Project Cost Cap 136
15. Other Issues 139
16. Environmental Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations 140
17. Request to Intervene 143
18. Comments on Alternate Decision of Commissioner Wood 143
Findings of Fact 143
Conclusions of Law 146
ORDER 148
GLOSSARY 145
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
1. Summary
This decision grants a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to construct 8.8 miles of new 230 kilovolt (kV) double-circuit transmission line, upgrade certain other transmission facilities, and construct a transmission/distribution substation to serve the Dublin area. The facilities we approve will be constructed in the cities of Dublin and Pleasanton, and unincorporated areas of Alameda County, an area referred to as the Tri Valley.1
Demand in the Tri Valley area is projected to exceed supply as early as 2002. PG&E has demonstrated the need for a portion of the project it proposed in order to maintain the reliability of its electric system; however it did not demonstrate that all of the facilities it proposes are necessary to serve expected demand. We select one of the environmentally superior Pleasanton routes identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the Commission. We reject PG&E's proposed route and an alternative proposed by the City of Pleasanton and the Kottinger Ranch Homeowner's Association (jointly, Pleasanton Parties), although some of the route we adopt overlaps with portions of the route recommended by the Pleasanton Parties. Each of the routes we reject in the Pleasanton area results in greater impacts on the environment and the local community than the route we select today.
Regarding the proposed substation in Dublin, the FEIR concludes that an alternative, more southerly, location for the Dublin substation is environmentally superior to PG&E's proposed substation. The FEIR concludes that, given forecasted load growth, slow growth measures in the North Livermore area, increased transmission capacity from the Tri Valley project as a whole, and the significant environmental impact of constructing a new substation in North Livermore, no substation should be constructed in North Livermore. After reviewing the question of need and weighing the environmental impacts and other factors, we grant a CPCN to PG&E to construct both its proposed Dublin substation and its proposed North Livermore substation.
