BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E for a Permit to Construct Electrical Facilities With Voltages Between 50 kv and 200 kv: El Casco System Project Application No (Filed February 16, 2007 COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E ON PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ KOLAKOWSKI STEPHEN E. PICKETT RICHARD TOM LINDA ANABTAWI Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Dated: December 5, 2008

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. III. IV. STATEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED DECISION REGARDING THE EIR SHOULD BE REVISED FOR CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACY...2 THE IMPOSITION OF AN INFEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURE IS NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER CEQA AND THIS MEASURE SHOULD BE MODIFIED...3 CONCLUSION...4 -i-

3 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E for a Permit to Construct Electrical Facilities With Voltages Between 50 kv and 200 kv: El Casco System Project Application No (Filed February 16, 2007 COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E ON PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ KOLAKOWSKI I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the California Public Utilities Commission s (Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Southern California Edison Company (SCE files its comments on the proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ Kolakowski, which was issued on November 18, 2008, granting SCE a Permit to Construct the El Casco System Project (Proposed Decision. SCE fully supports the conclusion of the Proposed Decision authorizing SCE to construct the El Casco System Project, as proposed by SCE (Proposed Project, subject to the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Plan (MMRCP included as part of the Recirculated Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR prepared for the project. However, as discussed below, the Proposed Decision contains certain errors of fact and law that should be corrected in the Commission s final decision. In accordance with the Commission s rules, SCE s comments focus on factual, legal, or technical errors in the Proposed Decision. SCE requests that the Commission adopt the Proposed Decision, with SCE s proposed modifications, certify the Recirculated Final EIR, and issue a Permit to Construct for the El Casco System Project. 1

4 II. STATEMENTS IN THE PROPOSED DECISION REGARDING THE EIR SHOULD BE REVISED FOR CONSISTENCY AND ACCURACY The Proposed Decision contains two inaccurate statements regarding the EIR. As a matter of fact, these statements should be revised to ensure that the Proposed Decision is consistent and accurate. First, Findings of Fact No. 10 states that [t]he Recirculated Final EIR... conforms to the requirements of CEQA. However, on page 2, the Proposed Decision states that the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA]. For consistency and accuracy, page 2 of the Proposed Decision should be amended to refer specifically to the Recirculated Final EIR. Second, the Proposed Decision inaccurately summarizes the Draft EIR s conclusions regarding the significant impacts of the Proposed Project and alternatives. For example, according to the Proposed Decision, the Draft EIR found that the Proposed Project would result in significant impacts that could not be mitigated in the areas of air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and visual resources. (Proposed Decision, p. 10. This statement is not entirely accurate. Specifically, the Draft EIR found that the Proposed Project itself would result in significant impacts only in the areas of air quality and noise. (Draft EIR, pp. ES-13 to ES-40. The Draft EIR further found that the Proposed Project would result in significant cumulative impacts in the areas of air quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, and visual resources. (Draft EIR, pp. ES-13 to ES-40. Therefore, for complete accuracy, in summarizing the Draft EIR s findings, the Proposed Decision should differentiate between those impacts which are individually significant and those which are cumulatively significant. 2

5 III. THE IMPOSITION OF AN INFEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURE IS NOT APPROPRIATE UNDER CEQA AND THIS MEASURE SHOULD BE MODIFIED The Proposed Decision adopts the MMRCP in its entirety (Conclusions of Law No. 11 and Order No.10; however, the MMRCP includes an infeasible mitigation measure, HAZ-10. This is not appropriate under CEQA, which states that [a]n EIR shall describe feasible mitigation measures. (State CEQA Guidelines, 14 Code of Regs (a(1 (emphasis added. As a matter of law, the Proposed Decision should be amended to include a modified version of this mitigation measure, which is infeasible as currently written. Mitigation measure HAZ-10 is infeasible because SCE cannot technically comply with all of its requirements. This measure, in part, requires SCE to notify all affected property owners 30 days prior to the date that the subtransmission line is to be energized. SCE cannot comply with this measure because HAZ-10 is apparently based on the inaccurate premise that the line is not currently energized. In fact, the existing line, in its entirety, is continuously energized although current does not flow over the line on a regular basis. As such, SCE cannot give property owners prior notice of an event that has already occurred and whose impact is currently being experienced. HAZ-10 is presumably intended to give notice to property owners that induced voltage conditions will change once the new double-circuit line is placed in service and is carrying load. However, the existing induced voltage conditions in the right of way will not change once the new line is placed in service. Because induced voltage is a function of voltage, not of current, adding an additional 115 kv subtransmission line to an existing 115 kv subtransmission line does not increase the existing induced voltage conditions. The existing line is already energized and will not be de-energized except on a temporary basis to enhance worker safety during construction. Consequently, once the second line is energized, there is no additional impact to induced voltage conditions that would be mitigated by HAZ-10. Therefore, the Proposed 3

6 Decision should be modified to revise HAZ-10 to eliminate the requirement that nearby property owners be notified prior to energizing the line. IV. CONCLUSION The Proposed Decision appropriately concludes that the Recirculated Final EIR should be adopted and that SCE should be authorized to construct the Proposed Project. However, the Proposed Decision should be modified in accordance with SCE s comments, set forth herein. The Commission should then adopt the Proposed Decision and issue a Permit to Construct for the El Casco System Project. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY /s/ Linda Anabtawi By: Linda Anabtawi Attorney for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California Telephone: ( Facsimile: ( Dated: December 5,

7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of COMMENTS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U- 338-E ON PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ KOLAKOWSKI on all parties identified on the attached service list(s. Service was effected by one or more means indicated below: Placing copies in properly addressed sealed envelopes and depositing such copies in the United States mail with first-class postage prepaid to all parties. Executed this 5th day of December, 2008, at Rosemead, California. /s/ Raquel Ippoliti RAQUEL IPPOLITI Project Analyst SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770

8 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 1 of 3 12/5/2008 CPUC Home CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION Service Lists PROCEEDING: A EDISON - TO CONSTRUC FILER: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U338E LIST NAME: LIST LAST CHANGED: NOVEMBER 19, 2008 DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES Back to Service Lists Index Parties LINDA ANABTAWI EDWARD H. LEONHARDT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 4837 MISSION HILLS DRIVE 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE BANNING, CA ROSEMEAD, CA FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY HENRY TAPPATA MARVIN FRIEDMAN 6328 BARDMOOR AVENUE 5136 BRECKINRIDGE AVENUE MILTON BRACY RON DOMME 5058 SINGING HILLS DR TREVINO WAY VIRGIL BARHAM RAMADA LN. YUCAIPA, CA Information Only GREGORY M. MURPHY NEGAR VAHIDI BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN, LLP SENIOR ASSOCIATE 444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 2400 ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LOS ANGELES, CA CANWOOD STREET, SUITE 215 FOR: CITY OF BANNING AGOURA HILLS, CA SANDRA ALARCON-LOPEZ CASE ADMINISTRATION

9 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 2 of 3 12/5/2008 ASPEN ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY CANWOOD STREET, SUITE 215 LAW DEPARTMENT, ROOM 370 AGOURA HILLS, CA WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD, CA ALLEN A. DUNN ANN & JOHN WATSON 4957 RIO BRAVO DR BIRDIE DRIVE BRUCE AND LORNA ANDERSON DIANE STONE 4825 CRENSHAW CIRCLE 1800 LITCHFIELD COURT DICK/SONJA THORNE EDWARD MILLER PMB 6C/ BRECKENRIDGE AVE 300 SO HIGHLANDS SPRING AVE BANNING, CA BANNING, CA GORDON & WANDA YOUNG HARRIET & RAY BRIANT 5419 BRECKENRIDGE AVENUE 5387 BRECKENRIDGE AVENUE JAMES D. EARHART JERRY FARRAR CITY OF BANNING HIGHLAND HOME ROAD 176 E. LINCOLN STREET BANNING, CA BANNING, CA JIM BROWN MARVIN HAAS 1444 FAIRWAY OAKS AVE OAK TREE AVENUE MARY BAINES MIKE FARRAR 2308 BIRDIE DR HIGHLAND HOME ROAD NANCY DARLING PAT MALBERG 4979 SINGING HILLS DR INDIAN CANYON DR. PHYLLIS ENET ROBERT ROBLES 5018 SINGING HILLS DR. 434 E. BARBOURI STREET State Service JURALYNNE MOSLEY TRACI BONE CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ENERGY DIVISION LEGAL DIVISION AREA 4-A ROOM VAN NESS AVENUE 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA VICTORIA S KOLAKOWSKI CLARE LAUFENBERG CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION STRATEGIC TRANSMISSION INVESTMNT PROGRAM DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION ROOM NINTH STREET, MS VAN NESS AVENUE SACRAMENTO, CA SAN FRANCISCO, CA

10 CPUC - Service Lists - A Page 3 of 3 12/5/2008 TOP OF PAGE BACK TO INDEX OF SERVICE LISTS