5. Environmental Matters

C. Background

As the agency responsible for regulation of public utilities in the State of California, the California Public Utilities Commission is the lead agency responsible for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance in evaluation of the proposed program. CEQA requires that before a decision can be made to approve a project with potentially significant environmental effects, an EIR must be prepared that fully describes the environmental effects of the project. The EIR is a public informational document for use by governmental agencies and the public to identify and evaluate potential environmental consequences of a proposed project, to recommend mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate adverse impacts, and to examine feasible alternatives to the project. The information contained in the EIR is reviewed and considered by the governing agency prior to the ultimate decision to approve, disapprove, or modify the proposed project. Under CEQA requirements, the Commission will determine the adequacy of the EIR once it is finalized and, if adequate, will certify the document as complying with CEQA.

An Initial Study was prepared by the Commission to assess which environmental issues would potentially be affected by the Applicants' proposal. The Initial Study evaluated potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed program and identified mitigation measures which, when incorporated into the program, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Commission initially determined that a mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was the appropriate document for the proposed program under Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. An MND was prepared and circulated for public and agency comment from November 7, 2002 to December 9, 2002.

However, following circulation and prior to adoption of the MND, the Commission determined that although potentially significant impacts identified as consequences of the FIG proposal could be reduced to levels of insignificance, the size of the study area and also the conceptual nature of the new service and technology warranted preparation of a Draft Program EIR. In addition the Commission revisited issues and concerns regarding public safety. Additional information on the required testing and development of safety standards for the FIG technology that was not available at the time of the MND was circulated, was disclosed in the Draft Program EIR. The Draft Program EIR identified the environmental consequences associated with the construction, operation and implementation of the program and recommended mitigation measures to reduce significant and potentially significant impacts. It was circulated for public and agency comment from May 2, 2003 to June 16, 2003.

Concerns expressed in comments to the Draft Program EIR have been addressed in the Final Program EIR, which was released on September 6, 2003. The Final Program EIR consists of the Draft Program EIR as well as the Responses to Comments Document. It is identified as Exhibit 1 and received as of September 8, 2003 for the Commission to consider in determining whether to approve the Utilities' request.

D. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts

As a result of the FIG program, the Draft Program EIR identified potential effects on aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, hazards and public safety, traffic and transportation, and utilities and services that may occur. The majority of the program impacts result from construction activities. They are temporary impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the mitigation measures identified in the Draft Program EIR. Operational impacts were also identified as potentially significant effects to public safety and operational pipeline capacity. These operational impacts were also determined to be mitigable. Mitigation proposed as part of the program, as well as measures identified in the Final Program EIR, would avoid or reduce all of the impacts to a less than significant level.

E. Cumulative Impacts

CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. A cumulative impact is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated together with other projects causing related impacts. The purpose of this analysis is to disclose potential significant cumulative impacts resulting from the new service and FIG installation in combination with other comparable projects. The Draft Program EIR states that it is anticipated that the construction associated with FIG installation could potentially overlap with other public or private utility projects during the same timeframe. Such overlap would likely be identified during the Utilities' process of obtaining encroachment permits for proposed FIG installations and would be properly addressed by the local planning agency at that time. The Draft Program EIR analyzed potential cumulative impacts specifically related to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, public safety, transportation and public services, and utilities and service systems and determined that the program would not result in any significant cumulative impact for any of the categories.

F. Growth Inducing Impacts

The Draft Program EIR determined that there are no distinguishable effects caused by the FIG regarding population growth, new demand for public services and new demand for utilities and service systems. The report also indicates that indirect impacts on growth, such as the availability of high speed, high volume communications as a factor in the decision by people and businesses to locate in California, are highly speculative and concludes that a less than significant impact to growth inducement would occur.

G. Alternatives

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA guidelines (Section 15126.6(a)), an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The Utilities' primary objective is to request Commission authorization to implement a new service allowing any Carriers to place fiber optic cable in conduit installed in the Utilities' active gas pipelines in compliance with tariffed rates and terms and conditions under new Schedule No. G-FIG. Secondary objectives would be to provide a less environmentally invasive method for the installation of fiber optic cable for commercial and residential consumers and to deploy fiber optic cable and networks more rapidly, thereby reducing costs.

The Draft Program EIR discusses three alternatives to the proposed program: (1) a No Project Alternative; (2) standard Fiber Optic Cable Installation Alternative; and (3) Use of Existing Infrastructure Alternative. As gas corporations and not telecommunications carriers, SoCalGas and SDG&E would not currently be in a position to implement Alternatives Two and Three. However, these alternatives were included because the Carriers that would utilize the new service as proposed by the Utilities could potentially employ these alternative approaches to install fiber optic cable not using the FIG technology or the Utilities' gas pipelines for fiber optic cable deployment.

The Draft Program EIR concluded that the alternatives analyzed do in some cases either reduce impacts or result in impacts greater than those associated with the proposed program. However, none of the proposed alternatives would meet the basic objectives of the program as proposed by the Utilities.

H. Comments on the Draft Program EIR

As described in the Responses to Comments Document, certain modifications have been made to the program and project description. The Draft Program EIR analyzed potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project to install fiber optic cable in the existing conduit of the Utilities' active gas pipelines. As a programmatic document, it established a process by which all subsequent activities that fall under the scope of the Draft Program EIR may be submitted for approval by the CPUC. Several comment letters expressed concerns that they would not have the opportunity to review the specific details of individual activities as they are submitted to the CPUC, and the proposed project would thereby require local CEQA review prior to implementation. To respond to theses concerns, the process proposed in the Draft Program EIR has been revisited and revised to include a notification process whereby agencies are informed of the Utilities' planned construction and may provide comment on the scope of the specific fiber in gas installation activities proposed by the utilities' in compliance with the Program EIR.

The Utilities are not requesting to provide telecommunications services or to become a licensed telecommunications provider; therefore, the fiber optic cable would be owned by the Carrier for whom the conduit is installed. The Carrier would be responsible for installation of the fiber optic cable within the conduit and constructing the handholes used for installation and future access to its fiber optic network or cable system. Although the handholes would be installed and owned by the Carrier, because the conduit system would not be complete without handhole access for installation of fiber optic cable, the project as proposed in the Final Program EIR now includes handhole installation under the purview of the program proposed by the Utilities. The potential environmental effects of the handhole installation was therefore analyzed to ensure the severity of impacts would not increase and that no new mitigation measures would be required to lessen any potential impacts of significance. As discussed in the Responses to Comments Document, no new potential impacts are anticipated and therefore no new mitigation measures are proposed at this time.

A number of comments addressed two specific issues and were addressed in master responses. The first master response clarified the applicability of a program EIR. The second response indicated that franchise agreements are not environmental issues required for evaluation or review under CEQA.

Other verbal and written comments were received and addressed as described in the Responses to Comments Document. Where appropriate changes to the text of the Draft Program EIR were made.

Attachment A to this decision presents a summary of the impacts and mitigation measures identified for the FIG program, as a result of the program EIR process.

I. Certification of the EIR

The Commission must conclude that the EIR is in compliance with CEQA before any final approval can be given to the application. This is to ensure that the environmental document is a comprehensive, accurate, and unbiased tool that the lead agency and other decisionmakers can use in addressing the merits of the project.

We find that this EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and that it reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis. We will therefore certify the Final Program EIR.

We have reviewed and considered the information in the Final Program EIR in formulating today's decision. The FIG program, as proposed by the Utilities and conditioned with the Final Program EIR mitigation measures, notification requirements and reporting requirements, will not have a significant effect on the environment.