12. Assignment of Proceedings
Dian M. Grueneich is the assigned Commissioner and Victoria S. Kolakowski is the assigned ALJ in these proceedings.
1. SCE filed an application for a CPCN for authority to construct the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, Segments 4-11 (Project), which included its PEA, on June 29, 2007.
2. Segments 1-3 of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project were approved in D.07-03-012 and D.07-03-045.
3. On August 27, 2007, ALJ Kolakowski held a PHC in Pasadena, California, with assigned Commissioner Dian M. Grueneich in attendance.
4. A Scoping Memo was issued on March 17, 2009 after the PHC. The Scoping Memo established the scope of this proceeding and the schedule, coordinating the CPCN review with the timeline for the concurrent, parallel track environmental review pursuant to the CEQA and NEPA. The Scoping Memo also designated ALJ Kolakowski as the presiding officer.
5. A PPH was held in Chino Hills on March 19, 2009, with 50 individuals presenting testimony and attended by approximately 400 people. Commissioner Grueneich attended, along with representatives of the other Commissioners.
6. The schedule was revised in a ruling on April 1, 2009 at the request of Chino Hills, to grant additional time to prepare for evidentiary hearings.
7. 10 days of evidentiary hearings were held in July 2009.
8. All of the elements of the Project comprise a connected whole, and all elements are necessary to the entire Project.
9. The Commission has approved nine RPS contracts that are estimated to produce a maximum of approximately 2300 MW of renewable energy to the grid. 1590 MW of renewable generation would otherwise be unavailable if the Project was not constructed.
10. The Commission already has determined that the TWRA plays a critical role in meeting the state's RPS goals by approving Segments 1-3 in D.07-03-012 and D.07-03-045. Both the net new delivery capacity (4,500 MW less 700 MW for Segments 1-3) and the net RPS contracts not served by Segments 1-3 (2290 MW less 700 MW) demonstrate that the incremental capacity plays a critical role in meeting the RPS goals.
11. The CAISO has approved the Project, the California Energy Commission's 2007 Strategic Transmission Investment Plan Commission Report found the Project to be one of five strategically important transmission projects, and the RETI Phase 1B Report showed the TWRA to be one of the most economically viable locations for providing new renewable resources with minimal environmental impacts.
12. Energy Division staff's "33% Renewables Portfolio Standard Implementation Analysis Preliminary Results" issued in June, 2009 identified the TRTP as one of four transmission projects needed to meet the state's existing 20% RPS goals.
13. DRA compared the costs of the Project to the Antelope Transmission Project and to SDG&E Sunrise Powerlink Transmission Project, and concluded that the Project was more cost effective on a dollar per MW basis.
14. The Garamendi Principles are statewide transmission siting policies that encourage the use of existing ROW by upgrading existing transmission facilities where technically feasible and economically justifiable. SCE followed the Garamendi Principles in siting the Project.
15. The transmission lines of Segments 6 and 11 at issue pass through the ANF. Construction in the ANF is particularly difficult due to terrain, requiring significant use of helicopters and potentially impacting biologically sensitive areas. Segments 6 and 11 will be built to 500 kV standards and mostly operated at 220 kV.
16. The Commission and the USFS prepared a joint Draft EIR/EIS.
17. Consistent with its normal protocols, USFS is conducting a detailed review of the impacts of the recent Station Fire in the ANF and will determine how to proceed upon completion of that review. The USFS will not issue its Final EIS or ROD until that review is complete.
18. For purposes of CEQA, the Project's three primary objectives are to:
(a) provide the electrical facilities necessary to reliably interconnect and integrate in excess of 700 MW and up to approximately 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned or expected in the future, thereby enabling SCE and other California utilities to comply with the California RPS goals in an expedited manner (i.e., 20 percent renewable energy by year 2010 per California Senate Bill 107); (b) further address the reliability needs of the CAISO-controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley; and (c) address the South of Lugo transmission constraints, an ongoing source of concern for the
Los Angeles Basin.
19. The 21st Century Proposal does not mitigate or avoid any significant adverse impacts caused by the implementation of the Proposed Project or by the implementation of the five versions of Alternative 4.
20. SCE is committed to removing the non-energized transmission lines in the CHSP.
21. The land acquisition proposed in the 21st Century Proposal is not needed to mitigate impacts on biological resources, which are not significant.
22. The habitat restoration proposed in the 21st Century Proposal would not reduce any impacts of either the Proposed Project or Alternative 4 as defined under the applicable thresholds of significance.
23. A set of CEQA Findings of Fact are attached as Attachment 1, and accurately reflect the independent analysis contained in the Final EIR and are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
24. The Final EIR was issued on October 30, 2009.
25. The Final EIR identified Alternative 2, the Proposed Project, as the environmentally superior alternative for all but two of the segments. For
Segment 4, it identified Alternative 3 (West Lancaster Alternative) as the environmentally superior alternative. For Segment 7, it identified Alternative 7 (66 kV Subtransmission Alternative) as the environmentally superior alternative.
26. For Segments 6 and 11, Alternative 6 (Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative) was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. Ultimately, however, the preferred method for construction in the ANF would be site-specific and would involve a balancing of the effects on helicopter construction against ground-based construction on sensitive resources. For instance, in areas where road construction would result in unacceptable impacts to sensitive species, such as in the Lynx Gulch area, helicopter construction would be preferred to the degree that it would avoid or minimize such impacts. In other locations, road construction to accommodate construction vehicle access would be preferred to avoid the impacts associated with the establishment of helicopter staging areas. Therefore, the environmentally superior alternative for Segments 6 and 11 is a combination of the helicopter construction and ground-based construction methods, with the total number of helicopter constructed towers falling within the range characterized by Alternative 2 and Alternative 6 (33 to 148 towers). The USFS will need to determine the specific combination of Alternative 2 and Alternative 6 features that provides the least overall impact to Forest resources. This is basically a decision as to which transmission structures would best be demolished and constructed by helicopter versus by conventional ground-based construction methods. As indicated in Final EIR Section 4.3.2, the environmentally preferable alternative will be identified by the Forest Service in its Record of Decision (ROD).
27. SCE's witnesses have more extensive experience with the design, construction and maintenance of 220 kV and 500 kV transmission lines than do Chino Hills' witnesses. SCE's witnesses' testimony is credible that the Environmentally Superior Alternative may be safely and effectively constructed within the existing ROW in Chino Hills.
28. The Environmentally Superior Alternative will be constructed with standards that meet or exceed General Order 95.
29. The Environmentally Superior Alternative can be safely and effectively operated.
30. The Environmentally Superior Alternative almost entirely replaces existing transmission lines with larger transmission structures, which will result in incremental impacts on fire prevention and suppression which do not render it infeasible.
31. The Environmentally Superior Alternative is feasible.
32. Construction of the Environmentally Superior Alternative is consistent with the language of the easement provision from Exhibit CH-54, which includes provisions regarding reconstruction, enlargement, and improvement of the transmission lines within the ROW.
33. Alternative 4CM would cost more than the Environmentally Superior Alternative if the 21st Century Proposal is also adopted.
34. The best case relative savings over the Environmentally Superior Alternative for adoption of Alternative 4CM without the 21st Century Proposal would be $14.9 million, which is less than 1% of the total cost of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Alternative 4CM could potentially cost over $69.3 million more than the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
35. The Final EIR was completed in accordance with CEQA.
36. The Final EIR was presented to the Commission, and the Commission has received, reviewed, and considered the information contained in the Final EIR.
37. The Final EIR reflects the Commission's independent judgment and analysis.
38. Significant and unavoidable environmental impacts will result from construction and operation of the Environmentally Superior Alternative; however, the Commission has adopted all feasible mitigation measures; adopted certain alternatives that reduce the impacts of the Environmentally Superior Alternative; recognized all significant, unavoidable impacts; and balanced the benefits of the Environmentally Superior Alternative against its significant and unavoidable impacts.
39. The benefits of the Environmentally Superior Alternative outweigh and override its significant and unavoidable impacts, for the reasons set forth in the statement of overriding considerations in Section 7.4 herein.
40. The proposed Mitigation Monitoring Plan in the Final EIR is designed to ensure compliance with the changes in the project and mitigation measures imposed on the authorized project during implementation and recommends a framework for implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan by this Commission as the CEQA lead agency.
41. Contingency costs are an appropriate element of the total estimated cost of Project.
42. A reasonable level of contingency costs for TRTP is 15% of the total estimated costs for Project excluding AFUDC, P&B, and A&G costs. SCE has not demonstrated that its requested contingency of 32% is reasonable.
43. The reasonable maximum cost for the Environmentally Superior Alternative pursuant to § 1005.5(a) is $1,522,920,000 (in 2009 dollars), excluding AFUDC. AFUDC is estimated at $261.82 million, for an estimated total project cost of $1,784,740,000.
44. The public interest and necessity require the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11).
45. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11) are planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
46. The properties sought to be acquired by SCE are necessary for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11).
1. The Commission has jurisdiction over the proposed transmission project pursuant to § 1001 et seq.
2. The preponderance of the evidence standard, the default standard in civil and administrative law cases, is the applicable standard of review here.
3. An element-by-element need determination is inappropriate in this case, as the Project comprises a connected whole project.
4. SCE's proposal to build Segments 6 and 11 to accommodate possible operation at 500 kV is reasonable and prudent in light of the costs and benefits of additional structures to ensure relatively simple access to additional transmission capacity to access the TWRA compared to the difficulties of tearing down and rebuilding lines.
5. A finding that the Project is necessary to achieve the state's RPS goals under § 399.2.5 will serve as a definitive determination of need under §§ 1001 et seq., and will render further consideration of need based upon reliability or economic factors moot.
6. The Commission considered the application of § 399.2.5 in D.07-03-012. Recognizing the extraordinary nature of the application of this provision, it established a three-prong need test for reliance upon § 399.2.5: "(1) that a project would bring to the grid renewable generation that would remain otherwise unavailable; (2) that the area within the line's reach would play a critical role in meeting the RPS goals; and (3) that the cost of the line is appropriately balanced against the certainty of the line's contribution to economically rational RPS compliance."
7. The Project will bring to the grid renewable generation that would remain otherwise unavailable.
8. The area within the Project's reach, the TWRA, will play a critical role in meeting California's RPS goals.
9. The cost of the Project is appropriately balanced against the certainty of its contribution to economically rational RPS compliance.
10. The Project meets the three-prong need test of D.07-03-012, as set forth in Conclusion of Law 6 herein.
11. Further review of post-fire conditions by the USFS should not need to delay the Commission's separate decision on the Project or issuance of the Final EIR.
12. Compensatory benefits unrelated to project benefits are outside of the scope of CEQA.
13. Habitat restoration below baseline conditions is not appropriate mitigation under CEQA.
14. Contributions of funds to unspecified future programs, improvements or actions is not appropriate mitigation under CEQA.
15. The 21st Century Proposal may not be legally imposed as mitigation for Alternatives 4A, 4B, 4C, 4CM or 4D.
16. Chino Hills' argument that selection of the Environmentally Superior Alternative will introduce undue delay should be rejected, as the delay would be due to its own litigation, and does not adequately consider the potential delays from adopting Alternative 4CM, including potential changes to the CHSP General Plan, obtaining clearances to build on the Aerojet property, or potential litigation by others.
17. There is no requirement that the Commission adopt the lowest cost alternative, without regard to environmental and other factors.
18. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and should be certified.
19. The CEQA Findings of Fact in Attachment 1 should be incorporated into this decision.
20. Section 1002 guides the Commission in selection of an appropriate alternative.
21. The community values of an individual community should not outweigh statewide values, including the RPS program.
22. Balancing the factors of § 1002, the Commission should select the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
23. The public interest and necessity require the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11).
24. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11) is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
25. The properties sought to be acquired by SCE are necessary for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11).
26. Once SCE has developed a final detailed engineering design-based construction estimate for the final route of the Project, SCE should, within 30 days, file with the Commission an advice letter with the revised cost estimate and seek an adjustment of the maximum reasonable and prudent costs pursuant to
§ 1005.5(b).
27. SCE should amend its EMF Management Plan as needed to apply its
no-cost EMF management techniques to the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
28. The Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final EIR should be adopted.
29. Consistent with our interpretation of § 625 in D.01-10-029, the appropriate standard of notice for Project is that prescribed by § 625(a)(1)(B), which only requires notice to the Commission Calendar.
30. The Commission has jurisdiction and responsibility pursuant to § 1005.5(a) to specify a "maximum cost determined to be reasonable and prudent" for the Project.
31. The Project is eligible for the backstop cost recovery mechanism of § 399.2.5(b)(4).
32. Acton has requested that the Commission condition construction of the Project with ensuring safe and reasonable residential access, certain local requirements such as equestrian trail easements, and removal of a billboard unlawfully constructed within the SCE ROW. The Commission should direct SCE to meet with Acton and to identify reasonable measures consistent with state law and Commission orders addressing these issues, and to file an advice letter setting forth these measures, if any, within six months.
33. SCE should meet and confer with the Department of Parks and Recreation, the CHSP, and with HFE to develop a plan for fulfillment of SCE's prior settlement obligations to remove transmission structures within the CHSP, and to report to the Director of Energy Division every six months regarding the progress of fulfillment of this obligation until its completion satisfactory to the Director of Energy Division.
34. Application 07-06-031 is closed.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The request of Southern California Edison Company for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to construct the proposed Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11) is granted for the routing alternative identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, subject to:
a) Southern California Edison Company amending its
Electro-magnetic Field Management Plan for the proposed Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
(Segments 4-11) to apply its no-cost Electro-magnetic Field management techniques to the Environmentally Superior Alternative.b) all feasible mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring Program being imposed upon construction of the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is adopted herein.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11) is certified.
3. We adopt as a reasonable maximum cost for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11) pursuant to § 1005.5(a) of $1,522,920,000
(in 2009 dollars), excluding allowance for funds used during construction. Allowance for funds used during construction is estimated at $261.82 million, for an estimated total project cost of $1,784,740,000.
4. Once Southern California Edison Company has developed a final detailed engineering design-based construction estimate for the final route of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11), Southern California Edison Company shall, within 30 days, file with the Commission an advice letter with the revised cost estimate and seek an adjustment of the maximum reasonable and prudent costs pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1005.5(b).
5. The California Environmental Quality Act Findings of Fact for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11) in Attachment 1 accurately reflect the independent analysis contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report and are supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record, and are incorporated as findings herein.
6. The documents that constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (Segments 4-11) are received as Reference Exhibits on the effective date of this decision, as follows:
(a) Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement - Reference Exhibit A; and
(b) Final Environmental Impact Report - Reference Exhibit B.
(c) Revisions to the Final Environmental Impact
Report - Attachment 3.
7. Southern California Edison shall meet with the Acton Town Council to identify reasonable measures consistent with state law and Commission orders addressing issues of residential access, equestrian trails and improper structures on existing rights of way, and shall file an advice letter setting forth these measures, if any, within six months.
8. Southern California Edison shall meet with the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Chino Hills State Park, and with Hills for Everyone to develop a plan for fulfillment of Southern California Edison Company's prior settlement obligations to remove transmission structures within the Chino Hills State Park, and shall report to the Director of Energy Division every six months regarding the progress of fulfillment of this obligation until its completion satisfactory to the Director of Energy Division.
9. Application 07-06-031 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated December 17, 2009, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
Commissioners
Concurrence of Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong
Decision Approving Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
Item 60
December 17, 2009
I am voting today to support the Proposed Decision in the Tehachapi Renewal Transmission Project matter. Approval of this large project is an important and necessary step towards achieving California's overall Renewable Portfolio Standard goals.
The importance of moving forward with the Tehachapi project was clearly proven in this proceeding's record, as reflected by the fact there was relatively little controversy regarding whether the project is needed, and that its primary objective is to support renewable generation development. Increased renewable energy generation is key to meeting our climate change goals under AB 32. It will also produce significant green jobs for the region.
In making my decision, I gave considerable consideration to the issue of how the transmission line should be routed in the Chino Hills area. I thank all the stakeholders who came to the public meetings on this project to express their views. I have heard the deep concern of the City of Chino Hills, its residents, and the local environmental groups. The majority of this project will be sited in existing right-of-ways, including the utility's proposed route through Chino Hills. While this is a difficult decision, I agree with the Proposed Decision's conclusion that the line should be sited in the existing utility right-of-way in Chino Hills, consistent with the Garamendi Principle.209
I am sympathetic to the fact that homeowners object to living near transmission right-of-ways and power lines. Having said that, I would have preferred a situation where a city had not chosen to permit homes to be built immediately abutting a transmission right-of-way. In short, the City of Chino Hills bears some responsibility for creating today's problem. Further, quizzically, the prime alternative (Alternative 4CM) suggested by the homeowners is to put the line through the nearby public Chino Hills State Park. This alternative raises new complications.
In view of the forgoing, my reasons for supporting the route under the Proposed Decision are threefold: First, State policy regarding transmission siting prioritizes the use of existing right-of-ways.
Second, I was persuaded that adopting Alternative 4CM through Chino Hills State Park would cause delays, or at the very least create unacceptable risk of delay, in the ability to timely achieve a 20% or 33%, RPS goal by 2020 for the utility at issue.
Of the multiple delays argued by some parties, those of most concern to me relating to Alternative 4CM are the time needed for the State Park to amend its general plan, and the time needed for Department of Toxic Substances Control to give its clearance on adjoining Aerojet property to be used for the construction of a new switching station and other facilities.
Third, I agree with the Proposed Decision and the final EIR, that the 21st Century Proposal component of Alternative 4CM does not appear to be a lawful imposition of mitigation under CEQA. Of the infirmities with the Proposal noted in the Proposed Decision, examples include mitigations which go further than to alleviate actual impacts caused by the project and mitigations which otherwise fail to meet the "nexus" requirements articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court and under CEQA.210
All this said, the process of considering Alternative 4CM did bring to light a here-to-fore unfulfilled 1982 commitment by Edison to remove certain out-of-service poles and equipment in Chino Hills State Park. I am glad to see that Southern California Edison has agreed it is long overdue in making good on its decades-old commitment. I urge Edison to move forward quickly on this. I am pleased to see that in the decision, the Commission will track Edison's progress until the removal of the utility facilities is complete.
Dated December 17, 2009, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ RACHELLE B. CHONG
Rachelle B. Chong
Commissioner
Concurrence by President Michael R. Peevey
A.07-06-031
The 5-0 vote by the Commission on Southern California Edison Company's application for a CPCN authorizing Segments 4 through 11 of the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project was an important milestone in moving this state closer to a greener future through the use of renewable energy resources and reductions in greenhouse gas. The 173 miles of new or improved infrastructure will allow up to 4,500 megawatts of potential wind, or other renewable generation, into the southern California area from the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area in Kern County. The approval of this project brings the state closer to achievement of its renewal power goals.
While this CPCN maximizes the use of existing right-of-ways (ROW), thereby minimizing effects on previously undisturbed land and resources and reducing environmental impacts, the use of the ROW was not without controversy. A portion of Segment 8A proposes to utilize a ROW that currently runs through a populated area of the City of Chino Hills. SCE intends to replace a currently existing, but de-energized, 220kV transmission line in this ROW with a double-circuit 500kV transmission line. The City of Chino Hills, along with other intervenors including Hills for Everyone and the Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat Preservation Authority, proposed an alternate route. This proposal, Alternate 4CM, reroutes the transmission line into Chino Hills State Park and obviates the need for using the ROW that runs between houses, schools, churches and parks in the City.
Alternate 4CM is a modification of Alternate 4C. As modified, Alternate 4C proposes a new 4.2 mile double-circuit 500 kV transmission line that would be placed parallel to an existing double-circuit 222 kV transmission line up to Chino Hills State Park (CHSP). This alternate route would then turn east for approximately 1.5 miles to a new 500 kV switching station. A portion of the existing single-circuit 500 kV transmission lines within CHSP would be re-routed to tie into the new switching station, which would allow the new double-circuit 500 kV transmission line to connect to these existing 500 kV transmission lines to allow power flow to the Mira Loma Substation. Alternate 4C was modified so that the new switching station would be located on Aerojet property approximately 2,500 feet northwest of the location proposed in Alternate 4C, and then the transmission lines and towers were altered to account for the relocation of the switching station.
The proponents of Alternate 4CM presented cogent and compelling arguments in support of re-routing the line away from the residential area of Chino Hills and into CHSP. However, utilizing the Aerojet property and running the new lines through CHSP presented vexing issues and complexities. The Aerojet property had previously been used for research and development of explosives and for loading, assembling and testing of ordnance for the U.S. Dept. of Defense from approximately 1954 to 1995. Therefore, the property is subject to regulations by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and DTSC has not definitely resolved the question of whether unexploded ordinance remains on the Aerojet property in the portions that would be used by Alternate 4CM. Parties offered differing opinions regarding how long it would take to receive clearances from DTSC necessary to construct the switching station. In addition, Alternate 4CM would impact the CHSP and there was substantial disagreement among the parties regarding whether the route was consistent with the CHSP General Plan and how long it would take to resolve this issue. Neither the Aerojet property issue nor the CHSP General Plan are within the jurisdiction of this Commission and therefore we have no say or control on how or when these complex issue might be addressed.
In balancing my sympathies for the residents of Chino Hills and their desire to re-route the transmission line and towers away from their homes and businesses, I also had to weigh the time vagaries associated with resolving the Aerojet property and CHSP general plan issues along with achievement of the state's renewable power goals. In the end, I cast my vote for approval of the CPCN using the existing ROW, the Environmentally Superior Alternative, to avoid delay and possible obstruction of the project's completion.
209 Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 20, § 2320.
210 See e.g., Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 391; Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) 483 U.S. 825, 834-35. See also CEQA Guidelines
§ 15126.4(a)(4)(B).
