Other Approaches
I have considered other approaches than the one proposed here. For example, one possibility would be to do a tiered system, roughly analogous to the approach taken for electric projects under our General Order (GO) 131-D. Under GO 131-D, electric transmission projects above 200 kV require the utility to obtain a CPCN from the Commission, projects between 50 kV and 200 kV require a simpler Permit to Construct, while projects under 50kV do not require Commission approval.
While I have borrowed aspects of GO 131-D for this proposal (such as its use of public notice and the permit-to-construct concept), its basic structure is less suitable for telecommunications than for electric transmission and distribution, as the physical size (and corresponding environmental impact) of telecommunications infrastructure does not vary the same way that electric infrastructure does.
Proxies for environmental impact, such as length of fiber laid, or other linear measurements, are not a good measure of environmental impact, as they ignore the nature of the environment through which the fiber passes. Similarly, categorizations based on the general nature of the environment have proved problematic as well, with registered cultural heritage sites being found in existing utility rights of way and urban roadways. Considering both aspects at an appropriate level of detail would require analysis not too different from a CEQA document, such as an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND).
Some parties may argue that for the Commission to develop a tiered approach applicable to telecommunications projects (e.g. some activities are exempt, some get standardized mitigations, some require specific environmental review), the Commission would need to prepare a program-level EIR.19 A program-level review could have several benefits. It would provide a more complete review of potential effects (including cumulative impacts) and alternatives than an individual review of each carrier's construction activities, and could avoid some duplication of efforts that would occur under individual review of each carrier.
While this approach may have some merit, it does not appear to be appropriate for the current environment of rapidly changing technologies and markets. A program EIR would be quite complex, and would require a significant amount of time and effort to prepare; given the shifting context and complexity of the process, the end product may or may not ultimately prove to be useful. Such a lengthy approach of such uncertain value simply does not provide a prompt answer to the pressing problems facing both this Commission and the participants in California's rapidly changing telecommunications market. If there is strong and broad-based support expressed for a program EIR, the Commission may consider preparing one in the future, but it does not appear to be a feasible alternative at this time.
Another possible approach would be to essentially eliminate all discretionary review by the Commission of telecommunications infrastructure construction. This approach would level the playing field by equalizing environmental review at the lowest possible level, which is currently available only to the incumbent local exchange carriers. This approach would result in a radical decrease in our level of environmental review of telecommunications projects in California. Such an evisceration of environmental review is inconsistent with our obligations under CEQA.
19 According to the CEQA Guidelines, "A program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project...." (14 CCR 15168(a)) Generally, these actions are related either geographically or as logical parts of a chain, but they could also be related "in connection with the issuance of rules or regulations governing the conduct of a continuing program,..." (14 CCR 15168(a)(3))
