III. Discussion

A. Proposed Project Warrants a Categorical Exemption Under CEQA

CEQA exemptions should be interpreted narrowly, in order to ensure that the environment is protected to the maximum extent possible.⁵ We find that the installation on existing electric transmission facilities of telecommunications fiber that allows for telecommunications service in addition to the electric utility's own internal communications use is a "minor alteration of an existing facility" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. In particular, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 grants a categorical exemption to the following class of existing facilities:

Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that existing at the time of the lead agency's determination. The types of "existing facilities" itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing use.

 The guidelines proceed to cite examples. The guidelines state as follows:

Examples include but are not limited to:

(b) Existing facilities of both investor and publicly-owned utilities used to provide electric power, natural gas, sewerage, or other public utility services;

Thus, CEQA guidelines establish a categorical exemption for the minor alteration of existing facilities of utilities used to provide utility service, the exact situation that we have here.

The intent of that CEQA guideline is captured in Rule 17.1(h), which in the relevant parts notes the categorical exemption for:

2. The operation, repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing facilities used to convey or distribute electric power, natural gas, water, or other substance.

Thus, the Commission's rules conform to CEQA and track the CEQA guidelines under which other state agencies also operate. We note, however, that a grant of categorical exemption has limits. In particular, pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15300.2 and G.O. 131-D parameters for electric utilities, categorical exemptions shall not apply when any of the following conditions occur:

1) there is a reasonable possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern;

2) the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant; or

3) there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

We note, however, that Conclusion of Law 1 in D.03-05077 states:

1. The BCDC's determination, coupled with PG&E's contacts to the other agencies we list above, ensured that no environmental harm would come from the fiber optic cable's installation on the San Mateo Bridge.

This conclusion of law, coupled with BCDC `s own grant of a categorical exemption under CEQA, indicates that none of these three situations apply.

PG&E notes in its comments that the only area of any sensitivity along the project route, the San Mateo Bridge and its surroundings, is within the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which reached the same conclusion. PG&E notes that the BCDC finding was made pursuant to section 11501 of the California Code of Regulations, and that Section 11501, subd. (b), in turn, provides:

Projects for which the Commission issues administrative permits pursuant to [Section 10601 sections relevant here] are usually categorically exempt under subdivision (a) of this section, provided that such projects will not be categorically exempt when the either (1) may have an adverse impact on an environmental resource involve a hazard of critical concern or (2) may have a cumulatively adverse impact when considered with successively similar projects. (Cal. Codes of Regs., § 11501, subd. (b) (emphasis added.))

We also note that Conclusion of Law 1 in D.03-05077 states:

1. The BCDC's determination, coupled with PG&E's contacts to the other agencies we list above, ensured that no environmental harm would come from the fiber optic cable's installation on the San Mateo Bridge.

This conclusion, coupled with BCDC `s own grant of a categorical exemption under CEQA, indicates that we and the BCDC have found that none of these three disqualifying situations apply.

Furthermore, if the electric infrastructure upon which a fiber optic installation may be made was originally installed pursuant to an environmental review, there may be mitigation measures regarding on-going operations, maintenance, and other potentially ground-disturbing activities which were originally imposed upon the construction of the electric infrastructure. The application of certain of these mitigation measures may be warranted on an on-going basis when there are construction-related activities being conducted in, on, or around the electric infrastructure. Therefore, the installation of fiber optic facilities (and any associated equipment) must be conducted pursuant to and consistent with such previously established mitigation measures.

B. The Installation of Fiber Optics Serves a Utility Purpose

In addition, we note that this minor modification of a utility tower contemplated here is for utility service. PG&E's agreement with MFNS allows PG&E to use a portion of the new fiber to reinforce its existing telecommunications system, thereby providing improved support to its existing electrical transmission system. Indeed, it is a common practice for electric utilities to establish communications systems in conjunction with electricity transmission. This particular application supplements and enhances PG&E's existing communications system used to support PG&E's utility operations. Thus, this installation constitutes a utility purpose relating to PG&E's existing facilities. Furthermore, we note that MFNS is itself a telecommunications utility, and its use of the transmission towers for its own purposes is also a utility purpose. Thus, under either consideration, the installation is consistent with CEQA guidelines that require a utility purpose for granting a categorical exemption.

C. This Categorical Exemption is Consistent with Commission Precedent, Policy, and Environmental Concerns

The Commission has repeatedly found that installing fiber optic cable on existing utility structures is categorically exempt form CEQA - regardless of purpose. In particular, the Commission has repeatedly recognized that shared-use arrangements, such as the one here, are categorically exempt from CEQA. D.92-07-007 approved a shared-use arrangement like that approved here for MFNS (45 CPUC 2d at 34, O.P. 1.) Similarly, D.00-01-014 approved a shared-use agreement and found that installing fiber optic cable on overhead transmission lines was categorically exempt from CEQA because it could "be seen with certainty that no significant effect on the environment would result from our granting the requested authorization." These decisions rightly focus on the physical nature of the work proposed.

Moreover, long-standing Commission policies and precedents have supported such joint use of utility facilities by electric utilities and telecommunications utilities for both economic and environmental reasons. The joint use of utility facilities means that telecommunications utilities will not need to construct separate overhead structures or underground conduits for telecommunications networks. The Commission has previously found that the environmental benefits of shared use of utility facilities is a significant and important public benefit that prompts the Commission to approve optical fiber installations such as those in the application.⁶ Such joint use of utility facilities minimizes the environmental impacts of two utilities having to construct duplicative facilities. Requiring CEQA review of the installation of telecommunications facilities to provide external telecommunications service in this case would run counter to our policy that we should encourage joint use of electric facilities with telecommunications providers.

D. The County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency is Inapposite

Based on the facts of this case, our grant of a categorical exemption is readily distinguishable from County of Amador v. El Dorado County Water Agency.⁷ That case involved the sale of a hydroelectric project as part of a plan to increase water supply. The court found that a Class 1 CEQA exemption did not apply because a shift in the project from non-consumptive to consumptive water use was a change in project function and purpose, and not a negligible expansion of current use. Given the substantial physical changes that occur from this new "massive consumptive use" when no water had been permanently diverted before, the court found that no categorical exemption applied to the sale. (76 Cal.App.4^th 931, at 967.)

In this case, MFN proposed no such change in use that might trigger physical changes to the environment. On the contrary, MFN's minor installation would have no impact whatsoever on the existing use of the transmission line structures. The function of the utility towers - to hold wires that provide both electric and telecommunications transmission - remains unchanged. Thus, there in no change in the function or the purpose of the transmission towers.

E. The Lead Agency, Acting Under CEQA, Found the Project Categorically Exempt

We have noted above that BCDC acted as Lead Agency and did make its own determination under CEQA. D.03-05-077 notes that BCDC found that "the project authorized by this amended permit is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report." Although we have conducted our own analysis, we reach the same conclusion as BCDC - that this project was categorically exempt under CEQA. Indeed, BCDC's analysis, which is conducted under the same statutory framework as our own (and explicitly cited above), reinforces the conclusion we reach here, that the work proposed by MFN - placing wires on existing structures that hold wires - is a minor alteration that is categorically exempt from CEQA.