LYN/CFT/avs 3/19/2003
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Authorizing the Construction of the Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Project.
Application 02-09-043
(Filed September 30, 2002)
SCOPING MEMO AND RULING OF ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER
Pursuant to Rules 6(a)(3) and 6.3 of the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 this ruling establishes the category, sets forth the scope and procedural schedule, and assigns the principal hearing officer for this proceeding following a prehearing conference (PHC) held on January 10, 2003. It also addresses discovery, service, and other procedural issues for the proceeding. This ruling is appealable only as to category of this proceeding under the procedures in Rule 6.4.
Under Rule 6.1, on October 3, 2002, the Commission preliminarily categorized this application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) filed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) as ratesetting as defined in Rule 5(c) and determined that the matter should be set for hearing. (Resolution ALJ 176-3096.) In finalizing this determination and in delineating the scope of this proceeding, I have considered PG&E's application; the protests filed by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), the Town of Hillsborough (Hillsborough), the 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens Group (280 Citizens Group), Dr. Cheol Hoon Lee, and Dr. Mario Rabinowitz and Laverne Rabinowitz; the numerous informal letters and e-mails2 received regarding the project; PG&E's consolidated reply to the protests; PHC statements filed by PG&E, Hillsborough, 280 Citizens Group, and the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF); and discussion at the PHC.
Background
PG&E seeks a CPCN authorizing the construction of the Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Project. The proposed project would be located in San Mateo County. A new transmission line would be constructed in two primary portions: the 14.7-mile Overhead Rebuild Portion, which would extend from the Jefferson Substation north to the intersection of San Bruno Avenue and Glenview Drive; and the 12.4-mile Underground Portion, which would extend north from the San Bruno Avenue/Glenview Drive intersection to the Martin Substation. The project would also include modifications at several substations and one switching station, and the installation of fiber optic communications facilities between the Jefferson Substation and the Martin Substation.
PG&E asserts that the proposed project is necessary for four reasons: (1) to reliably meet projected electric demand in the cities of Brisbane, Burlingame, Colma, Daly City, Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco, and the City and County of San Francisco (the Project Area); (2) to satisfy applicable planning criteria; (3) to diversify the transmission system serving the Project Area; and (4) to implement the California Independent System Operator (ISO) Board of Governors' April 2002 Resolution approving the proposed Jefferson-Martin Project for addition to the ISO-controlled grid. PG&E asserts that the Commission must defer to the ISO's determination of need and that the Commission's authority under Pub. Util. Code § 10013 is limited to a determination of the best route for the project.
CCSF supports the proposed project for reliability and economic reasons.
In its protest, ORA contests PG&E's assertion that the Commission has no authority to make findings regarding the need for the project in light of the ISO's determination. ORA raises questions regarding the need for the project, the respective roles of the Commission and the ISO in determining need, and the Commission's role in ratemaking for the project.
The remaining protests and the informal e-mails and letters variously question the need for and timing of the proposed project; raise concerns regarding electric and magnetic fields (EMFs), visual impacts, construction impacts, property values, and community values; and ask for consideration of alternatives such as undergrounding the transmission lines or relocating the transmission towers farther west. The 280 Citizens Group asserts that a five-year planning horizon should be used consistent with Decision (D.) 02-12-066.
In its PHC conference statement, PG&E reiterates its position regarding the scope of Commission jurisdiction and argues that the issue of ratemaking should be excluded on the basis that the Commission has no authority to set transmission rates.
At the PHC, the ISO emphasized its view that the Jefferson-Martin project is very important for maintaining reliability in the area, and stated that it would assist the Commission by presenting the information that was the basis for its determination.
At the PHC, the United States Department of the Interior (DOI) stated its position that the proposed project is subject to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because a portion of the project would traverse National Park Service easements on San Francisco watershed land. As the lead federal agency for NEPA, DOI stated its preference that the Commission prepare a joint environmental document, combining NEPA review with the Commission's review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.). PG&E and CCSF stated that they do not believe that DOI has approval authority over the project or that NEPA compliance is required.
The Commission has not taken a position regarding whether DOI has federal jurisdiction over the proposed project. However, after meetings with DOI and other parties, both before and after the PHC, Commission staff informed DOI on January 24, 2003 that it would not be feasible for the Commission to undertake the preparation of a joint CEQA/NEPA environmental document for the Jefferson-Martin project. At least three factors contributed to this decision: the ongoing dispute about whether the DOI has any federal jurisdiction related to the proposed project; the fact that DOI has not yet determined the scope or form of a federal NEPA document for the project; and the fact that expanding the scope of the CEQA document to comply with NEPA requirements would result in substantial delay in this proceeding.
1 All citations to Rules refer to the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, which are codified at Chapter 1, Division 1 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 The Commission has received numerous letters and e-mails regarding the proposed project that do not meet the formal filing requirements in Article 2 of the Rules and which have been placed in the proceeding's correspondence file.
3 All citations to Sections refer to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated.
