Scoping Memo

This purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether or not PG&E should be granted a permit to construct the Atlantic-Del Mar Transmission Reinforcement Project. As we consider what issues are properly within the scope of this determination, some history of the permit to construct application process is in order.

Prior to the adoption of General Order (GO) 131-D, utilities were not required to submit applications for the construction of transmission projects of less than 200 kVs. The Commission conducted no environmental review of projects less than 200 kV. Those opposed to construction of a project under 200 kV could file a complaint with this Commission. Decision (D.) 94-06-014 concluded that the complaint procedure was inadequate to ensure proper environmental review of projects between 50 and 200 kV and adopted the permit to construct requirements, as set forth in GO 131-D. The Commission retained the complaint procedure for project less than 50 kV.

D.94-06-014 states that under the permit to construct process "our review focuses solely on environmental concerns, unlike the CPCN [Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity] process which considers the need for and economic cost of a proposed facility." (55 CPUC 2d 87, 92.) GO 131-D, Section IX.B.1.f echoes this language by stating that "an application for a permit to construct need not include either a detailed analysis of purpose and necessity, [or] a detailed estimate of cost and economic analysis..."

GO 131-D makes clear that if the Commission's initial study finds that there will not be a significant adverse impact on the environment, a negative declaration will be prepared. If the initial study identifies potentially significant adverse impacts, but the utility revises its proposed project to avoid those effects, then a MND is the proper environmental document to prepare. It is only if the initial study identifies potentially significant adverse impacts on the environment that cannot be mitigated that an environmental impact report will be prepared and alternatives considered. In assessing potential impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines instruct us to evaluate impacts compared to the existing environment, not against future use or development of the property, even if existing land-use designations allow for development.

As part of our decision on this project, we must determine whether the environmental document prepared by the Energy Division should be certified. Certification consists of two steps. First, the Commission must conclude that the document has been completed in compliance with CEQA, and second, the Commission must have reviewed and considered the environmental document prior to approving the project. Additionally, the lead agency must find that the environmental document reflects its independent judgment (Pub. Res. Code § 21082.1(c)(3).) The decision on this application will address these issues.

The environmental review process has concluded that no Environmental Impact Report is required, therefore, we will not explore alternatives. Thus, the primary question we must decide is whether or not to approve the project (including mitigation measures) or reject the project. GO 131-D does not provide us with leeway to adopt an alternative that has not been explored as part of the environmental review process.

The primary issues raised by the parties relate to visual and safety impacts of PG&E's proposed project, prior to mitigation measures adopted as part of the RMND/IS. In order to decide whether to grant the permit to construct we will balance the influence on the environment with non-environmental impacts of the project on the community so these types of issues are within the scope of this proceeding.

However, the purpose of GO 131-D, and the fact that the Atlantic-Del Mar project requires only a permit to construct, limits the issues before us. Although several parties expressed interest in presenting evidence regarding the cost differences of various alternatives, including the cost of undergrounding the proposed project, the economics of this project are not within the scope of the Commission's decision on whether to grant a permit to construct. (GO 131-D, Section IX.B.1.f.) Therefore, we will not take evidence or consider cost issues in deciding whether to grant a permit to construct. Likewise, the need for the project outside of the scope of this proceeding.