Public Utilities Code Sections 1001 and 10023 set the basic scope of this proceeding. PG&E cannot begin construction of the electric transmission line at issue here until it has "[O]btained from the commission a certificate that the present or future public convenience and necessity require or will require such construction." (Section 1001.) In essence, the Commission must determine if the project is needed. PG&E and other parties have correctly indicated that any need for the project may be based upon system reliability, economics, or both. Accordingly, parties should address the need for the project, and in doing so should discuss how the project would affect transmission system reliability and the economics of the California electricity market. This second consideration is a broad one, and parties should address it expansively enough to provide the Commission a clear and comprehensive context for its decision in this proceeding.
In addition, Section 1002 provides (in pertinent part) that the Commission, as a basis for granting any certificate pursuant to Section 1001, shall give consideration to the following factors: (1) Community values; (2) Recreational and park areas; (3) Historical and aesthetic values; and (4) Influence on environment. Influence on the environment will be addressed through the Commission's CEQA review process. Parties who have an interest in environmental issues relating to this project should participate in the Commission's CEQA review process.4 The Commission's General Order (GO) 131-D further prescribes that prior to issuing a CPCN, the Commission must find that the project promotes the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of the public. Accordingly, each of these issues identified by Section 1002 and GO 131-D is within the scope of this proceeding.
Parties have also raised issues that are properly within the scope of this proceeding. Some of these issues, such as those identified by the ISO and Edison, generally fall within the need-related issues discussed above.5
Some of the issues identified by ORA in its Protest similarly fall within the issue of need. ORA includes within the issue of need several considerations or sub-issues, specifically: in evaluating the need for and value of the project, the focus should be on the time period after the project is completed; the cost of the project, and the evidentiary support for those costs; alternatives to the project; and the cost-effectiveness of the project.6 ORA additionally identifies the issues of the source and cost of PG&E's funding for the project, and whether an entity other than PG&E should build the project.7
Roy E. Lompa and Rita K. Lompa (Lompa), landowners and walnut growers in the route of the existing 500 kV lines, request that the project should bypass their property, or in the alternative, utilize taller towers than those on the existing lines.
PG&E inquired as to the proper scope of its testimony, expressing a desire for only addressing its preferred western route, rather than having to address a plethora of alternatives prior to the issuance of the DEIR. At the same time, however, siting and consideration of alternatives is something that the Commission will need to do in this proceeding, even though the bulk of the analysis will be performed in the CEQA process. We note that the Proponent's Environmental Assessment (PEA) filed by PG&E with its Application addressed quite a few alternatives, including multiple route segments. Given the expedited schedule of this proceeding, and the fact that alternatives analysis is properly part of the CEQA process, PG&E's testimony may focus primarily upon its preferred route. PG&E should, however, also provide the Commission and the parties with sufficient information about the relevant cost and reliability differences between the western corridor, where its preferred route is located, and the eastern corridor, which PG&E indicates is favored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
3 All statutory references are to the Public Utilities Code unless otherwise indicated. 4 The Commission's CEQA process may generate alternative routes or plans for the Commission's consideration. 5 The ISO has indicated that it wishes to participate on the issues of the need for the project and the ability of identified alternatives to meet grid reliability requirements, while Edison may want to address the reliability and economic benefits of the project. 6 ORA identifies these as areas where it believed that PG&E's filed application was deficient. We are assuming that this means ORA considers these to be topics that would be appropriate for the Commission to address. 7 ORA identifies Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) and the Transmission Agency of Northern California (TANC) as two potential alternative builders of the project. While it is appropriate for ORA to raise this issue, the Commission may be hindered in its examination of the issue by the apparent unwillingness of WAPA and TANC to actively participate in this proceeding.