U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–087 PDF 2012

THE IMPACT OF OVERHEAD HIGH 

VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION TOWERS 

AND LINES ON ELIGIBILITY FOR 

FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION (FHA) 

INSURED MORTGAGE PROGRAMS 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

INSURANCE, HOUSING AND 

COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 14, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 112–115 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama, Chairman 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas, Vice Chairman 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

MICHAEL G. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri 

BILL HUIZENGA, Michigan 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

NAN A. S. HAYWORTH, New York 

JAMES B. RENACCI, Ohio 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

DAVID SCHWEIKERT, Arizona 

MICHAEL G. GRIMM, New York 

FRANCISCO ‘‘QUICO’’ CANSECO, Texas 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

STEPHEN LEE FINCHER, Tennessee 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

JOHN C. CARNEY, JR., Delaware 

JAMES H. CLINGER, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, HOUSING AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois, Chairman 

ROBERT HURT, Virginia, Vice Chairman 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

SEAN P. DUFFY, Wisconsin 

ROBERT J. DOLD, Illinois 

STEVE STIVERS, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois, Ranking 

Member 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

April 14, 2012 ................................................................................................... 1 

Appendix: 

April 14, 2012 ................................................................................................... 43 

WITNESSES 

SATURDAY, APRIL 14, 2012 

Bennett, Hon. Art, Mayor, City of Chino Hills, California ................................... 5 

Borland, Bobbi, Acting Branch Chief, Santa Ana Homeownership Center, 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ..................................... 19 

Genis, Joanne, Chino Hills resident ....................................................................... 11 

Goodwin, Robert, President, Hope for the Hills .................................................... 8 

Henderson, James L., SRA, J.L. Henderson & Company, on behalf of the 

Appraisal Institute and the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural 

Appraisers ............................................................................................................. 33 

Kreger, Fred, CMC, President-Elect and Government Affairs Committee 

Chairman, California Association of Mortgage Professionals .......................... 30 

Proffitt, Marion, past President, Tri-Counties Association of REALTORS®, 

on behalf of the California Association of REALTORS® .................................. 31 

Starck, Leslie, Senior Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Southern California 

Edison, on behalf of the California Public Utilities Commission ..................... 29 

Tyrrell, Denise, on behalf of the California Public Utilities Commission ........... 20 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Bennett, Hon. Art ............................................................................................. 44 

Borland, Bobbi .................................................................................................. 49 

Genis, Joanne .................................................................................................... 52 

Goodwin, Robert ............................................................................................... 55 

Henderson, James L. ........................................................................................ 58 

Kreger, Fred ...................................................................................................... 60 

Proffitt, Marion ................................................................................................. 62 

Starck, Leslie .................................................................................................... 65 

Tyrrell, Denise .................................................................................................. 71 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Miller, Hon. Gary: 

Written statement of Stuart A. Gabriel, Professor of Finance and Arden 

Realty Chair; and Director, Richard S. Ziman Center for Real Estate 

at UCLA, UCLA Anderson School of Management .................................... 77 

Written comments from residents of Chino Hills .......................................... 85 

(1) 

THE IMPACT OF OVERHEAD HIGH VOLTAGE 

TRANSMISSION TOWERS AND LINES ON 

ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL HOUSING 

ADMINISTRATION (FHA) INSURED 

MORTGAGE PROGRAMS 

Saturday, April 14, 2012 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSURANCE, HOUSING

AND COMMUNITY OPPORTUNITY, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., at the 

City of Chino Hills Council Chambers, 14000 City Center Drive, 

Chino Hills, California, Hon. Gary Miller of California presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller of California, and Royce. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA [presiding]. This hearing will come to 

order. 

Before we start, I would like to make some announcements for 

those who are joining us in the audience. This is an official congressional hearing. This is not a town hall meeting. There is a protocol we have to follow. We are going to have to follow it. 

We would like to thank Financial Services Committee Chairman 

Bachus and Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community 

Opportunity Chairwoman Biggert for granting the request to have 

this hearing today, holding it in Chino Hills. 

This will be made a part of the congressional record. This issue 

will move forward in Congress as the issue is coming up throughout the State and throughout the country. 

We were granted permission to convene a very important hearing 

today, and we would like to obligate the order and the quorum of 

the committee here. It is as if we were holding this hearing in 

Washington, D.C. So it is not a hearing where people can just jump 

up and talk or raise questions. We have to follow a normal protocol 

and form, and that is what we are doing today. 

I know this issue is of great importance to the community here, 

and there are people in this hearing who are greatly impacted, and 

we want to let you know we understand that, but there are certain 

things we have to do today. 

The comment sheets that you have are provided to you so that 

if you do have a question, you can submit those questions. They 

will be responded to, and they will be made a part of the official 

congressional hearing record. Only those present at the hearing 

2 

today will be issued those forms, and only people here today will 

be responded to. 

So before the hearing proceeds, I would like to introduce a very 

good friend of mine with unanimous consent of the hearing. We 

would like to ask Assemblyman Curt Hagman to stand up. 

[applause] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Curt is a very good friend of ours. 

As you know, he has been a champion on this issue. If it was just 

a community hearing, he would be up here. It is not. It is Members 

of Congress only. 

I would like to have the Mayor stand up, and please give him 

a round of applause. 

[applause] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. The Mayor and the City Council 

have opened this great facility up to us and to the community to 

have this hearing. This is the first hearing of its type in the entire 

region. I am honored to have it here in my district in Chino Hills, 

and we would like to start the hearing. 

As protocol allows, I am going to introduce myself for 5 minutes 

for an opening statement. 

Today’s hearing is focused on the impact of the high voltage 

transmission towers and lines on eligibility for FHA insured finance mortgage programs. The committee granted my request to 

have a hearing today about FHA eligibility here in Chino Hills because of the concern raised by residents about the high voltage 

transmission towers and power line structures being erected within 

the utility right-of-way, but in close proximity to many homes here 

in Chino Hills. 

Homeowners have expressed their concern about how the new 

towers and power lines will negatively impact their home values, 

and their ability to access FHA mortgages. Under current California law, by the year 2020, electric utilities must produce 33 percent of the electricity they deliver to customers from renewable energy sources. In order to meet the State’s mandate, Southern California Edison must upgrade its power lines and substations south 

of the Tehachapi Wind Resources Area. The Tehachapi Renewable 

Transmission Project, TRTP, would interconnect renewable wind 

energy to the existing electricity system in order to meet the 

State’s renewable energy requirements. 

To comply with State law, Southern California Edison is upgrading its infrastructure in the region, including the installation of 

new high voltage lines, towers, and power line structures within 

Chino Hills and other communities. Residents of Chino Hills whose 

homes are adjacent to these new power line structures are rightfully concerned about the economic impact of these new towers on 

their home prices. In addition, they have raised concerns about 

whether the Federal Housing Administration would allow FHA financing for their homes as a result of proximity to the new transmission towers to their homes. 

Today’s hearing is important for the House of Representatives 

because we oversee the Federal Housing Administration’s Mortgage 

Insurance Program. The FHA is intended to be self-funded. Premiums paid by the homeowners for FHA mortgage insurance are 

used to pay for the cost of running the program and to cover losses 

3 

when homes default. The FHA guarantees nearly 40 percent of 

homes purchased and mortgages originated in the United States 

alone. The program currently issues more than $1 trillion worth of 

mortgages to more than 7 million homeowners. 

Given the taxpayers’ exposure to the FHA program, the Financial Services Committee is very concerned about the State’s mandate that negatively impacts home values. That is why we are here 

today. We are concerned about the impact on the FHA insurance 

fund should the FHA insurance home loss value due to this project, 

an impact on individuals whose homes are impacted by this project. 

We are also concerned about the impact on the fund if home values 

in the neighborhoods go down because FHA is not available to 

other communities on this option. 

The impact of FHA goes beyond those homes adjacent to the 

power lines. Lost value in the area could impact home values in the 

entire community. This could impact values on other FHA insured 

homes. 

Today’s hearing will give Congress the opportunity to hear from 

residents of Chino Hills, local elected officials, representatives from 

Southern California Edison, and the real estate industry about the 

FHA policies about insuring these homes, and we do look forward 

to their testimony today. They will give us understanding from industry professionals about the impact on FHA’s insurance fund if 

the State mandates cause home values to decrease, as many residents are concerned about. 

Originally, only witnesses who were invited today are here. We 

had communicated with the Public Utilities Agency, and until 

today we had not heard even a single comment. It was like a quiet 

radio. Multiple attempts were made from our office to invite them 

to the committee, and until this morning we didn’t know they were 

going to be here. 

In my opinion, this shows an arrogance from Sacramento. When 

Congress can approach an agency that they should respond to and 

we hear nothing until the day of the hearing, we don’t even have 

their prepared statement in advance to know what they are going 

to talk about, and we were going to subpoena them to this hearing 

if we had more time. It got to that degree. Everybody else was willing to work with us. This one agency, at the last minute, decided 

to show up. 

In conclusion, I want to make the point that this situation is another example of what happens when government runs amuck. We 

wouldn’t be here today if Sacramento had not set a mandate on renewable energy and the targets they placed on our community. 

While it sounds good and we all want to protect the environment, 

it is clear that adequate consideration was not made in Sacramento 

about the consequences of its mandate. Sure, we all want to protect 

the environment. Promoting renewable energy is a great talking 

point, but what about the impact on Californians and homeowners? 

What about their health, safety, and the impact on their pocketbooks? What about the economic impact that depressed home values have on local communities? These things were obviously not 

considered when they made this legislation intact. 

These towers are a direct result of dictates from Sacramento to 

electric providers and how they must provide energy to the area. 

4 

It is not surprising that these residents and these homes that are 

located on easements adjacent to these power lines are extremely 

concerned about the impact of these new towers on their home 

prices. 

Sacramento should have also been concerned when they passed 

the mandate in the first place, and Sacramento should be held basically accountable for what they have done to our communities. 

Further, U.S. taxpayers should be outraged because this misguided 

State action could impact home values that currently FHA is insuring, causing values to decrease below the amount of the loans. This 

would pose a great risk to the FHA fund, and we are here because 

Congress needs to think about what recourse we should use based 

on the impact placed upon you. 

And I yield 5 minutes to my dear colleague, Ed Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Chairman Miller. I appreciate that. 

I also would like to recognize Chairman Spencer Bachus for holding the hearing, and Subcommittee Chairman Gary Miller for 

chairing this hearing here today, and I certainly would like to welcome everyone here. 

I think the impact this has had on the community is of importance, and the input of the people here today on the topics that are 

going to affect this community are important. I would also say that 

we hold a number of different hearings every week in Washington 

that affect the economy of the States, but from time to time, we are 

able to have the opportunity to get out to these field hearings and 

hear about the real-world impact on families here in Southern California, and this is one of those occasions. 

I think the construction of the Chino Hills transmission lines has 

been devastating for the community. When you think about the reality of 200-foot towers, 60-feet wide, some of them 70 feet from 

people’s backyards, there are roughly 1,000 homes within 500 feet 

of this project—1,000 homes. That means there are 4,000 people 

who are within 500 feet of this project, and the property values, as 

a result, have suffered in this area. 

According to Mr. Bob Goodwin, a witness on the first panel 

today, property values throughout Chino Hills have dropped 17 

percent, on average. That is since May of 2011, since this project 

became a reality. That is 17 percent throughout the City, but for 

many people who live close, who live adjacent to the project, the 

impact has been far more devastating than just the 17 percent 

drop. 

Today, the government owns or guarantees 97 percent of all new 

mortgages throughout the country. With the government now playing such a large role in the mortgage market, it is critical that we 

understand the rules by which FHA and other government agencies underwrite these mortgages in areas like Chino Hills, which 

are located near high voltage transmission lines. 

These rules often vary from agency to agency. For instance, the 

FHA requires an underwriter to obtain a letter from the owner of 

a tower noting a given dwelling as not being within the engineered 

fall zone of a given tower. What is the justification for the varying 

rules among the different agencies? How do these rules impact the 

loans being insured? What are the options for homeowners and 

communities such as Chino Hills? How would alternative routes, 

5 

such as Chino Hills State Park, or burying the power lines underground, as is done in Europe, impact property values here in Chino 

Hills? 

I hope to raise these issues with Ms. Borland from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, who will present. She 

will be on the second panel here today, as well as with the other 

witnesses that we will hear from today. And in closing, I thank all 

of the members of the three panels for volunteering their time to 

be here today to present their case with us. 

Again, I thank Chairman Gary Miller for chairing this hearing, 

and we look forward to the discussion here. And I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Royce. 

Congressman Joe Baca was also invited to attend. His schedule 

did not allow him to be with us today, but he was originally scheduled to be at the hearing. 

I would like to recognize the first panel, if you would please come 

forward. 

First, we have the Honorable Art Bennett, Mayor of the City of 

Chino Hills. Mr. Bennett has over 40 years of experience as a property tax consultant and corporate tax manager. He has been an instructor and an appraiser of real estate for property tax purposes 

and has testified in the capacity of an expert witness in State and 

Federal court hearings. 

Second, Mr. Robert Goodwin is a resident of Chino Hills and 

president of Hope for the Hills, a nonprofit group of approximately 

100 members who organized a response to the 2009 approval of the 

Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project of the California Public 

Utility Agencies. 

Third, Mrs. Joanne Genis is a resident of the City of Chino Hills, 

also. Mrs. Genis was a founding member of the Citizens for Alternative Routing of Electricity, CARE. In August of 2011, CARE 

changed its name to Hope for the Hills. 

Your written statements will be made a part of the record, and 

you will each be recognized for 5 minutes to summarize your testimony. 

Mayor Bennett, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ART BENNETT, MAYOR, 

CITY OF CHINO HILLS, CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you, Congressman Miller, and Congressman Royce. I might add, thank you very much for succinctly mentioning and outlining what the major concern is of this community 

as a result of the placement of these TRTP Edison towers. 

Again, Chairman Miller, Congressman Royce, and members of 

the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity, thank you for the invitation to testify on behalf of the City 

of Chino Hills and our community. I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide our perspective on the impact of the overhead 

high voltage transmission lines and towers, as we will share on the 

active role the City of Chino Hills has played since 2007. 

A high voltage power line proposed in California must go through 

a transmission planning process whereby the California Independent System Operator, also known as CAISO, must analyze the 

6 

cost-effectiveness and impact on grid reliability of the proposed 

line. For the project to proceed, the CAISO must agree that it will 

accept the completed line into its control system grid. When the 

CAISO undertook this process for the TRTP line, it specifically 

noted that alternate routes would have to be considered in a portion of the route near the City of Chino Hills. 

The City of Chino Hills became aware of the TRTP project after 

Edison filed its application in June of 2007. The City immediately 

took a proactive approach in the CPUC siting process. We sought 

to explore the feasibility of alternate routes that would not involve 

towers nearly 200 feet tall in a narrow 150-foot-wide right-of-way, 

directly through the heart of the City of Chino Hills. The City did 

not oppose the green energy project itself, but instead attempted to 

develop a viable alternate route. 

The City of Chino Hills assembled a team of transmission, environmental, and regulatory experts to explore alternate routes at a 

cost to date of nearly $2.8 million. The City held dozens of hearings 

over a period of nearly 21⁄2 years with CPUC staff, SCE project personnel, numerous State agencies, landowners of property adjoining 

the various alternatives, and many environmental groups, particularly those with an interest in Chino Hills State Park. These meetings and the work of our own consultants enabled the City to propose several viable alternative routes for the CPUC’s consideration 

and environmental review. 

While our residents have been actively involved since the beginning of the process, only after SCE started putting up the towers 

did it become apparent the true enormous size and close proximity 

of the high voltage transmission towers. More and more people got 

involved, and they began a renewed campaign to stop the project’s 

construction through their City. This grassroots campaign appealed 

to SCE’s board of directors and to the CPUC commissioners directly. The City renewed its request to the CPUC to halt construction and filed a petition for modification with the CPUC, seeking 

to reopen the case. 

All five CPUC commissioners made personal visits to see the 

tower construction at the invitation of the City. We believe these 

visits were extremely important. The CPUC issued an order staying construction of the project. In addition, the president of the 

CPUC issued a ruling ordering SCE to reopen the proceeding and 

provide testimony re-examining whether or not other alternatives 

could satisfy the needs of the project without having the negative 

impacts on the City of Chino Hills. SCE submitted this additional 

testimony earlier this year. 

The City of Chino Hills and SCE engaged in a mediated alternative dispute resolution process to attempt to reach a settlement 

on a route design that would allow the project to proceed. The parties did not reach agreement. 

The City of Chino Hills strongly supports a single circuit underground transmission alternative and has asked the CPUC to allow 

the City to present evidence in support of its alternative in evidentiary hearings. 

The impact of the TRTP: The SCE transmission route places 195- 

foot-tall, 500kV towers in a narrow right-of-way, only 150 feet 

wide. This narrow right-of-way was designed for 75-foot-high, 

7 

230kV structures which have not been energized in decades. Nowhere else in the United States has a utility placed 500kV towers 

this tall in such a narrow right-of-way. 

Some homes along the right-of-way are located only 75 feet from 

these towers. SCE has seen a substantial number of 500kV transmission towers fail in the past, and the risk of personal or property 

damage if any of these towers were to fail is extremely high because the right-of-way is so narrow. Residents also feel very concerned by the high EMF levels, as well as the proximity of such 

tall and overhanging structures so close to their homes and backyards. 

The subcommittee is concerned about the impact of such transmission lines on property owners who may be ineligible for Federal 

loans if they are within a utility easement and within the ‘‘fall 

zone’’ of a tower. However, the towers SCE has built are so tall 

that many residents who are outside the easement are still in the 

‘‘fall zone’’ and still at risk from tower failure. 

The SCE towers increase the risk of fighting and suppressing 

fires as the height of the towers prevents firefighters from using 

helicopters or airplanes to drop fire retardant on residential and 

wildland fires near the transmission line route. 

Central to the character of Chino Hills are zoning and land use 

restrictions that avoid ridgetop development to preserve views of 

the many hills and ridges in the community. The TRTP towers violate this key land use principle, and have forever changed the characteristics of the community. 

In conclusion, the City of Chino Hills has participated constructively in the CPUC process for transmission line siting, but that 

process has failed the citizens of Chino Hills to date. No high voltage transmission towers as tall as 200 feet tall should be installed 

in such a narrow right-of-way in a densely populated community. 

The regulators should have adopted an alternative route, as they 

were warned from the very beginning of issues that would arise 

from trying to shoehorn a large high voltage line into a de-energized right-of-way intended for far smaller, lower voltage lines. 

We applaud the CPUC for reopening the proceeding and taking 

additional evidence on alternative routes, and we are very encouraged that it appears that there are feasible and cost-effective underground construction techniques that will promote national interests and green technology and could eliminate many of the negative impacts of the tall towers that have threatened our community. 

In closing, we urge the members of the subcommittee to express 

their views to the CPUC and help us convince the commissioners 

that an alternative route should be selected. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mayor Bennett can be found on page 

44 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mayor. 

You might notice the timing system has green, yellow, and red 

lights. 

[applause] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I don’t think you are liked very 

much here, are you? 

Mr. BENNETT. I was going to ask— 

8 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Because of the significance of this 

issue, we are going to be a little more generous with the time. 

Mr. BENNETT. I sincerely appreciate that. 

I was going to ask you, do you like my chair? 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I like your chair. 

[laughter] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. But neither one of us will run for 

your seat, so you are good. 

[laughter] 

Mr. BENNETT. Okay. I am very, very comforted by that. But you 

look very nice sitting in that chair. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BENNETT. And I love seeing Chino Hills behind you. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Goodwin, you are recognized for 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GOODWIN, PRESIDENT, HOPE FOR 

THE HILLS 

Mr. GOODWIN. Good morning. I would like to thank Chairwoman 

Judy Biggert, Congressman Gary Miller, Congressman Ed Royce, 

Congressman Luis Gutierrez, and the members of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity for 

this opportunity to address the serious matter we have developing 

in Chino Hills. 

My name is Bob Goodwin, and I speak on behalf of Hope for the 

Hills, a community group that was founded in May of 2011 to carry 

on the work of a previous organization, CARE, the Citizens for Alternative Routing of Electricity, which started in 2007 when this 

project was announced and unveiled. The purpose of both groups 

was and is to bring awareness to the tragedy unfolding in Chino 

Hills relative to the TRTP project being constructed by Southern 

California Edison. 

This project, planned and built under the disguise of ‘‘green energy,’’ is many things, but healthy and environmentally safe it is 

not. SCE promotes a policy of community partnership and caring, 

yet they have no problem with building and energizing 198-foot 

towers with 500,000-volt power lines within 70 feet of residences, 

and the lines as close as 40 feet in some cases. This is not only a 

safety matter. It also raises health concerns relative to EMF fallout 

and the consequences associated with prolonged EMF exposure. 

The consequences highlighted in a Department of Health Services 

report from October 2002 stated that, among other things, prolonged exposure to this type of an EMF field leads to an increased 

risk of developing brain tumors, childhood leukemia, ALS, more 

commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, and an elevated number 

of miscarriages. 

When asked about this study, SCE repeatedly states that there 

is no empirical data that supports this 100 percent. I find that 

rather insulting to anyone and everyone who may have to live with 

this 24/7/365 if SCE is allowed to complete this portion of construction through Chino Hills. 

One can argue that there is no empirical data that says it does 

not cause these health issues either. They even advised against 

9 

construction of our community center because cars would be parked 

under these very lines for extended periods, and they deemed that 

unsafe. Yet this company promotes ‘‘safety is top priority for our 

ratepayers.’’ 

How does this relate to why we are here today? To begin with, 

health and safety are directly related to property values. In Chino 

Hills alone, average property values are down 17 percent since this 

project started to become a reality in May of 2011. This number 

can be statistically proven by comparing the period 6 months prior 

to the towers going up, when there were 331 closed sales with an 

average sales price of $509,000. Since the towers went up, a total 

of 10 months, there have been 426 sales, with the average price of 

$421,452, or a loss of $87,549, a rate of 17.2 percent. In addition, 

the average number of sales has dropped from 55 to 42 per month. 

Many people have given up even trying to sell and some are just 

walking away from their homes. How is that possible in our society? How can a utility company not see that this is wrong? 

While it is true that SCE has owned this right-of-way since 1941, 

no one, not even SCE, envisioned 198-foot towers on a 150-foot 

right-of-way. Keep in mind, in 1941 there were cows and coyotes, 

bugs and bunnies living in this area. Homes were added after the 

fact; and yes, people bought them knowing the right-of-way (ROW) 

was there. But they were told, many by SCE themselves, that this 

ROW was dormant. With that knowledge, people purchased homes 

with peace of mind, never dreaming a few months or years later 

their homes would be deemed worthless when the poles went up. 

Today, we have several homes in the fall zone, where these towers have been erected. The average distance these homes sit from 

the towers is 71 feet. When you factor in the 60-foot cross arms, 

if the 500,000-volt lines are strung, these lines will be within 41 

feet of some homes, 24/7/365, no reprieve, no break, no relief to the 

worry and emotional toll they will take. 

It seems that the only agency with enough foresight to protect 

anyone is the Department of Education. They have specific guidelines that State towers of this magnitude must be a minimum of 

350 feet from a public school. Yet today, we find ourselves looking 

at towers as close as 71 feet to homes and children’s bedrooms. 

Again the question has to be asked, how is this possible? Who will 

ever buy our homes with a 198-foot power pole outside a bedroom 

window? In fact, FHA will not approve a loan for any of the homes 

inside the fall zone. They recognize the risk of having an investment so close to a safety hazard such as 500,000-volt power lines 

on 198-foot towers. 

Chino Hills is suffering from much more than property value 

loss. From personal strain and emotional worry to physical illness, 

SCE has created a community of fear and trepidation. Many residents do not know what the future brings. Many have lost their equity and peace of mind. Many are looking for answers and not finding much hope. 

If you were to simply ask each homeowner to speak, every one 

of them could tell you their personal story, from a daughter who 

begged her newly widowed mother to move to Chino Hills to be 

closer to her and her grandchild, only to finally move here and then 

shortly thereafter come home from surgery to see a monster power 

10 

pole going up outside their bedroom. Then there is the mother who 

spends every waking moment researching and fighting this while 

missing out on family outings, but not telling her children why because they are sick of her spending all her spare time on this fight 

instead of spending quality time with them, to the grandparents 

who have babysat their 18-month-old grandson only once since he 

was born because they have devoted every spare minute of their 

life to leading a group of dedicated, devoted citizens in this fight. 

We come here today to hopefully be heard and taken seriously. 

How can this be happening to our City? How could this be happening to anyone in this country? Corporate greed comes to mind, 

‘‘greed energy’’ versus ‘‘green energy.’’ The City had provided a perfectly sound alternative that would have avoided this travesty. Alternative 4CM would have eliminated the problem all parties have 

encountered, but SCE decided it was not convenient. Chino Hills 

also provided an underground alternative which SCE essentially 

tried to price out of consideration. We are still hopeful that commonsense will prevail and this solution, going underground, will be 

the acceptable alternative. 

SCE is adamant about going above ground at all cost. The 

amount of time, energy, cost, and legal fees they have spent to oppose the alternatives would have paid for the underground construction. We would also like to know, the estimated $3.6 million 

monthly SCE collects from just the Chino Hills residents, where is 

that money being spent? Why isn’t that portion of their income directly applied to remedy this matter? How can our utility dollars 

support a project that so adversely impacts our community? 

Since SCE’s position is now and always has been about the cost, 

there is one question they have never answered. The proposed alternative through the State park would have been 10.5 miles shorter. It would have saved 10.5 miles of construction costs. So why 

didn’t they consider this an acceptable alternative? 

The question has been raised regarding notification from SCE 

relative to this project. Yes, people were notified. The approximately 300 residents along the right-of-way were advised. Did SCE 

notify all impacted residents? No. Were public hearings held? Yes. 

Was the public allowed to speak? Yes. Were their concerns taken 

into consideration? I think the results answer that question loud 

and clear, a resounding ‘‘no.’’ 

I want to make one thing perfectly clear: this is not a NIMBY— 

not in my backyard—issue. We adamantly oppose any project such 

as this that rapes a community and imposes such hardships on 

residents. Any and all utility companies, especially SCE, should be 

held to a much higher standard when it comes to community and 

environment safety. Let us be responsible for setting the precedent 

that states people must come before profitability and growth. We 

are all in favor of green energy. However, green energy should not 

hurt, and this green energy project is killing the Chino Hills we 

have come to know and love, all at the expense of profits versus 

people. 

Why we are the only country that does not mandate projects 

such as this be required to go underground? Why does most every 

other civilized country construct high energy projects underground? 

Are they more technologically advanced than the United States? I 

11 

would think not. Why does it always come down to having to adopt 

a law to do the right thing? Why can’t companies like SCE do the 

right thing without being told? Whatever happened to commonsense? When something looks good on paper but takes a whole different perspective in real life, why doesn’t corporate America 

choose to do the right thing? We are better than that. We as a community are not afraid of taking on Goliath. Someone has to stand 

up and say this is flat out wrong and must be corrected. 

Please help us here today, once and for all, right this wrong and 

do what is right for Chino Hills and its residents. Let us show corporate America that people do matter. Let’s show the country that 

people and their elected officials can come together and make common-sense changes that will protect not only our future, but the future of our children and grandchildren. 

I thank you for your time this morning. It has been an honor and 

a pleasure to address this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goodwin can be found on page 

55 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. As you can see, we are being a little 

generous with protocol, but I think that it is appropriate. 

[laughter] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Goodwin. 

Mr. GOODWIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I appreciate it. Thsoe were very nice 

words. Ms. Genis, please. You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOANNE GENIS, CHINO HILLS RESIDENT 

Ms. GENIS. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Gary Miller, Congressman Ed Royce, and subcommittee staff, for the invitation to submit my testimony to the subcommittee on the subject of 

the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, also known as the 

TRTP, and referred to as ‘‘the project’’ throughout my testimony. 

My name is Joanne Genis. I am a mother, wife, and board member of Hope for the Hills, which is a community-based organization 

formerly known as CARE, Citizens for Alternate Routing of Electricity. I am a long-time resident of Chino Hills, and my husband 

and I moved here 23 years ago because we wanted to raise our 

family in a safe, friendly, youth-oriented City with a rural atmosphere. We love this City, and especially the beautiful view of the 

snow-capped mountains during the winter. 

This project has not only affected the City due to the aesthetics, 

property value loss, and safety and health issues, but has also affected my life emotionally. It will be 5 years next month that I 

have been fighting this injustice served upon our City, and I cannot 

count the hours of sleep I have lost over worrying about what is 

going to happen to my nest egg and the safety of my family. My 

stomach has been in knots, and I am keeping TUMS in business. 

It has been an emotional rollercoaster not only for myself, but for 

many others in this community. 

In April of 2007, SCE sent out notices to the residents within 250 

feet of the easement, informing them about the TRTP. They stated 

they would be removing the existing 98-foot towers, 220kV lines, 

which have been de-energized since the early 1970s, and replacing 

them with 198-foot towers, 500kV lines in an easement only 150 

12 

feet wide, which is too narrow for this size of a project. This will 

place the towers as close as 70 feet to many homes; and, yes, my 

home is in the fall zone of one of these towers. This is not safe, especially since they are near several earthquake faults. 

The DEIR/EIS’s visual impact assessment is fatally flawed. The 

visual simulation photographs of the project did not provide a fair 

representation of the neighborhoods that have been impacted by 

the poles. On November 10, 2011, the commission made a comment 

that the towers had a visual and economic impact far more significant than envisioned at the time the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity was issued. 

In May of 2009, the City of Chino Hills requested some data from 

SCE regarding the 195-foot TSP, which is the tubular steel poles, 

and the question was has SCE ever used 195-foot TSPs for the installation of a 500kV transmission line? Jerry Amalfitano, principal 

engineer at SCE, answered the question with ‘‘No.’’ So basically, 

SCE will use Chino Hills as their lab rats or a petri dish for the 

testing of their towers. 

In the final EIR, it concluded that there was no significant impacts on property values as the result of the construction of the 

project. It went on to state that the impact to nearby homes is very 

small and typically disappears within 5 years. I would like SCE to 

tell this to my neighbors, the Seagraves, who listed their immaculate and newly remodeled home in September of 2011 for $359,000, 

and after they had over 90 interested parties viewing the home and 

visually saw the tower directly behind it, these parties turned 

around and left. They have continued to drop the price, and the 

current listing is $317,000. According to the listing agent, it will 

probably drop down to the high $200,000s, which is about a 20 percent loss of value. And then there’s the problem of trying to finance 

the loan with FHA. 

As I am standing here, testifying before you today, the Seagraves 

are moving out. They are taking their two young children and 

walking away from their dream home that they have worked so 

hard for. The emotional toll has drained them beyond belief and 

they are done putting their lives on hold. How many more families 

are going through the same? I have documents I have submitted 

with my testimony that state where another neighbor’s house fell 

out of escrow because of the project. So for Edison to state there 

is no property loss, I beg to differ. 

I have addressed many more issues and concerns regarding 

EMFs, fire hazards, and additional property losses in the longer 

version of my testimony submitted to the committee. Yesterday, we 

had a terrific thunderstorm. It was reported by a reliable source 

that he actually saw the lightning strike the top of the tower behind Crossroads Park. Unfortunately, he did not catch it on film. 

Everything happened so fast. I have never seen a storm like this 

in Chino Hills. He was approximately 400 feet away from the 

tower, and he could feel the hair on his arms stand on end. What 

would happen if the lines had been strung? These monstrous towers are lightning rods and accidents waiting to happen. 

The talk of expanding the right-of-way is not an option. I do not 

have plans or wish to move. There are over 1,000 homes within 500 

feet of this project. So, if you buy out some, you are extending the 

13 

problem. The street I live on, Garden Court, has two ways in and 

out, and both of these roads will have 500kV lines run across them. 

We cannot avoid these lines. You might say we are trapped. When 

I entertain guests, this is usually the first words I am greeted with: 

‘‘What in the heck is that?’’ And then the story begins. It’s embarrassing to live near these towers. I see one right out my front door 

and a row of them out my upstairs bedroom window. I am surrounded. 

When the City of Chino Hills took their lawsuit to the Appeals 

Court, I still remember the comment that Judge Jeffrey King made 

to Edison’s lawyer. He told him that just because the CPUC gives 

you their blessings, you think you can do anything you want to? 

That judge got the picture. 

The damage cannot be mitigated, and the emotional turmoil that 

many of the residents are facing due to losing their nest eggs or 

worrying about their families’ health and safety is all due to SCE’s 

need to put profit over people. I have been fighting for years now 

to try and stop this project from ruining so many lives and mutilating this City. I have listened to their heartfelt stories. I have 

shared tears with them. I have encouraged them to fight this injustice. I am standing before you today representing not only myself, 

but all of them, too. One good thing that came out of SCE’s arrogance is that they truly have brought this community together. I 

am not against green energy, but when it’s about the type of green 

that lines someone’s pockets, that is the green I am against. Green 

energy shouldn’t hurt. 

I would like to thank the committee on behalf of the residents 

of Chino Hills for coming to California to hold this hearing and listen to our testimony, and I apologize for my emotions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Genis can be found on page 52 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

Members of the committee will each be recognized for 5 minutes 

for questions in the same order as opening statements. 

Mayor Bennett, can you please tell us how the City was involved 

in the process and the ultimate decision to build the power lines 

through Chino Hills? 

Mr. BENNETT. We have been involved since roughly 2007, shortly 

after we found out that the TRTP lines were going to be put into 

the—be extending that power, bring that power from the 

Tehachapi area down to Southern California. 

We initially responded to the fact that there had to be other alternatives. As both of these witnesses have spoken to, the existing 

right-of-way that they have chosen to put the power lines into contained roughly 75-foot-tall, 230kV lines that had been dormant for, 

as far as we could tell, around 30 years. No one who lived in that 

area ever thought that it would be any different. 

Back in 2009, we thought we had come up with a viable alternative, Route 4CM, which would have taken the lines and would 

actually have moved them, and I cut this from my earlier presentation, but the preferred alternative, which was 4CM, would have 

interconnected the TRTP line to an existing 500kV line that crosses 

through the center of Chino Hills State Park. But by more efficiently aligning the transmission grid, there would have been fewer 

14 

transmission lines within the park than there are today if 4CM 

had been built. 

This alternative would have also eliminated the need for all 

transmission towers within the City of Chino Hills. The City’s alternate 4CM was supported by a variety of environmental groups, 

including the Sierra Club and Hills for Everyone, the group responsible for the creation of Chino Hills State Park. 

So we tried, to no avail, to get an alternative that would have 

skirted the City of Chino Hills, and would have created far less 

transmission lines. The thought apparently—the feeling we received from that was there was more concern about animals in the 

State park than there was about the residents in the City of Chino 

Hills. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I’m well aware of that sentiment. 

Mr. BENNETT. So I hope that answers your question. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Some of the questions to the audience might appear repetitive based on the opening statements, but 

they are very important for us to have these for the record. 

Mr. Goodwin, what effect has the TRTP had specifically on your 

neighborhood? 

Mr. GOODWIN. My neighborhood is not directly impacted by these 

towers. From the street that I live on, the residents— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Associated neighborhoods that would 

be appropriate? 

Mr. GOODWIN. It has had a significant impact on the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods have become less visited, less—people 

are—to Joanne’s comment, when people come over, we end up 

spending the evening talking about the towers. Going around the 

neighborhoods visiting people, there are huge concerns—people 

aren’t finishing construction projects, people are not finishing upgrading or painting. They are not making their home a home. They 

don’t know what to expect. There is a fear of the uncertainty. 

The impact it has had on residents City-wide is one of fear and 

trepidation, as I mentioned. Anybody you talk to, anybody who 

lives along the right-of-way, anybody who is impacted by these 

lines, they really don’t know what to do. Their lives are virtually 

on hold. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Your opinion seems to be they realize the current impact placed upon them, and they are very concerned about putting any more money into their home because they 

don’t know what the impact in the future might be? 

Mr. GOODWIN. Exactly. That is a statement of fact. We know several friends and residents who had begun to remodel their homes, 

but they have stopped. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. They have stopped, yes. 

Mr. GOODWIN. And again, there are residents who have recently 

had—they refinanced their homes to find exactly what I stated in 

my testimony, that appraisals that they had done 12 to 18 months 

ago versus today are down 18 to 20 percent. That is a fact. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Ms. Genis, do you know individuals 

specifically who have been impacted in trying to sell their house 

based on the TRTP? 

Ms. GENIS. No. Well, I mentioned one, Tammy Seagraves, and 

my next-door neighbor who, actually the house sold for $283,000, 

15 

and it was originally—it was in my original testimony, I think, for 

$385,000. And now, actually, it is a rental. 

The gentleman who bought the home knew about the project, 

and that is why it took quite a while to sell, and he actually came 

in after he saw the tower and he came up to me and he said, ‘‘Joanne, what can I do to help to get that tower out of here?’’ And that 

is when I told him, ‘‘Just join us.’’ 

I am a fine example of not spending any money on my home. I 

have a water leak. Half of my floor is torn up in my kitchen. Why 

do I want to bother to put—what do I put in? A 5-year warranty? 

A 25-year warranty? 

Many other neighborhoods are the same as my neighbors. I am 

not going to Lowe’s. The money. It is the economy. It is affecting 

Lowe’s. I’m sure a lot of people are doing the same thing. They are 

holding onto the money, seeing what is going to happen here, do 

we want to invest any more, a dime? I don’t want to put another 

penny into my home until I find out what is happening here. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I understand. 

Mayor Bennett, for the record, what is the current status of the 

project, and what would you like to see done? 

Mr. BENNETT. The current status is I understand that there are 

going to be some meetings very soon, within the next couple of 

weeks. We will have some additional discussions with the CPUC 

staff, and hopefully with Southern California Edison. 

We have come to the conclusion that there is really only one viable solution at this point in time, and that is to go ahead and go 

single circuit, single cable, or possibly even two cables, but single 

circuit underground to take care of this. That way, we eliminate 

much of the scarring that has eventually happened in our City. 

We have a beautiful City. As I was mentioning about the hillsides and everything else, just envision a 150-foot-wide swath going 

31⁄2 miles right through the middle of our City, next to parks, 

churches, residences, and in each one of those cases, no one realized the severity and the enormity of this whole project until those 

first towers went up. 

And that is the other thing. Those towers went up in a very, very 

short span of time. We really believe that because we had a case 

pending in appeals court, the idea was, let’s get these towers up 

as quickly as we can before that decision comes down. And luckily 

we got one of the most hideous ones, which you can see right down 

the end of this street if you are going south on Peyton Drive, which 

is a lattice tower. That lattice tower is being put up on top of about 

a 60-foot knoll. So now, we are talking about 260 feet in the air 

if that thing were to be built, just because it is an angle point, because every time there is an angle in one of these lines, it has to 

have a lattice tower. It has totally not only physically but emotionally scarred this community. 

We feel at this point in time that the CPUC, when they made 

their original findings and said it was okay to put up these 200- 

foot towers, no one could have perceived what it was going to actually be, not just visually but the impact financially and, again, 

emotionally. They have torn up our community. 

We are really at the—right now, our future depends an awful lot 

on hearings like this and the CPUC to right this wrong. We are 

16 

not against green energy. We do not hate Southern California Edison. We know that they have to go and transmit this power. They 

have a mandate, as you mentioned in your opening statement. It 

is very unfortunate that a State can come in, create a mandate, 

and force a public utility. We have no choice in this area. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I know that. 

Mr. BENNETT. Southern California Edison is our provider. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I know. 

Mr. BENNETT. If we could put them in lieu of someone else, believe me, it would have happened a couple of years ago. But the 

reality is we need— 

[applause] 

Mr. BENNETT. No, no. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. We do need to have some protocol 

in the answer. I know you agree. We totally—and I am not trying 

to be rude. We really understand that, but we need to have some 

form of order in the audience. 

Mr. BENNETT. But in conclusion, it is really up to us. Our future 

is in the hands of the CPUC, and hopefully they will look at the 

reasonableness of what we believe is an alternative that will take 

away this unsightly scar that has affected us and go underground. 

So, that is our ultimate goal at this point in time. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. And many of us remember when the 

City had one way to get to the 60 freeway? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Plus Carbon Canyon Road, and we 

were higher back then, and how it has changed. I remember getting about $6.8 million to improve Peyton, and now you have a 

good view of a tower. 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. 

[laughter] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. That was really very nice. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you so much. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Congressman Royce, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Goodwin, Mayor Bennett testified as to the impact that this 

project has had in terms of lower home values, and one of the consequences of that, of course, is that it makes it very difficult, in 

some cases impossible, for people to refinance their homes, or even 

for some homeowners to sell their homes when you have that type 

of precipitous drop in value. 

The consequences of that are the consequences of a mandate that 

came from Sacramento and the way in which that mandate has 

been implemented. But we are hearing also from those who say 

that the proximity of a home to transmission lines rarely impacts 

the value. 

You have examined this issue, Mayor Bennett and Mr. Goodwin. 

I would like to give you the opportunity to respond for the record. 

When they argue that the effect on the value of homes is de minimis or tends to disappear over time, give me your observations on 

that. You have looked at the Tehachapi project. What do you say 

to that? 

We will start with Mr. Goodwin. 

17 

Mr. GOODWIN. I say immediately today, we know that is not true. 

We know that homes are down 17 percent in the 10 months since 

this project has been started. 

If you go back prior to the project starting, yes, home values 

were down because of the economy. Home values were down because of the market impact from 2008, I believe it was. But statistically, in the 10 months since the towers have been built, we know 

for a fact home values are down 17 percent. That is on average. We 

have some homes that would sell in the millions of dollars. We 

have some homes that would sell for $300,000, $400,000, $500,000. 

So, 17 percent is a relative number. But when you are talking 

about a family who has invested 20 years in the City, bought when 

the prices were lower, this was their retirement, and they they are 

now out of pocket an average of $85,000, that is a huge hit. 

Ultimately what happens in cities like this, if homeownership diminishes, if it is looked at as an investment community or an investment opportunity, we go from a City like we are today to a 

much lower economically scaled community. That not only impacts 

the City finances, it impacts local sales, it impacts local shopping 

areas, it impacts the entire county, and ultimately, there are less 

tax dollars for the State. 

So in the big picture, the perception that over time this goes 

away, this will not go away. You will not see a dramatic increase 

in property values if the market turns around, when the market 

turns around, to where it was 10 months ago, or even 18 months 

ago, before this project began. It is a huge impact. We see it. We 

talk to people. We know about it from personal stories. It is not pie 

in the sky science. It is factual situations that can be proven and 

shown. We have REALTORS® who can produce this data immediately. 

Mr. ROYCE. And I will ask Mayor Bennett, the assertion here, 

are homes nearest to the towers adversely impacted? Do you agree 

with the assessment there of your colleague? 

Mr. BENNETT. Yes. Most definitely, the properties that are adjacent to this right-of-way are most severely impacted. But as we 

have heard in the testimony so far today, this is a value issue that 

is actually going across-the-board, across our entire community. 

People are not going to want to live in an area, come to a new area 

that used to be able to entice so many people because of the rural 

atmosphere and all of the wonderful things that we have, the fine 

schools, the shopping, all of those issues. Many years ago, after incorporation, we were considered a bedroom community and we 

couldn’t get developers to come here. 

We subsequently—people woke up to the fact that our demographics, being the 6th highest median income in the United 

States, there are over 75,000 people, that we had the fiscal wherewithal to support most any business that wanted to come to town. 

With business, you usually add rooftops. Developers, not only 

just because of the economy right now, but no one is building in 

this area. That is one thing. So you would think, okay, if there is 

no building, and supply and demand, people still want to move into 

the community, you would think there would be a higher price that 

would be brought for any sale or any home that is selling. But that 

is not happening. 

18 

It is not just because of the economy. How many times—look 

back at the interest rates. I have been in the property tax field for 

41 years. Values right now should be on the rise because look at 

what has happened to the interest rates. We are at absolute historic low interest rates. People back in 1983 were paying 13, 15, 

16 percent interest rates. Obviously, that was an impact on people 

buying and selling homes. Right now, people who were in apartments are moving out again and buying houses because the interest rates are so low. 

So, yes, it is impacting not just the properties adjacent to the 

right-of-way. 

One thing I would like to do, if I may have liberty, Congressman 

Royce, is I will put on my professional hat for a moment. I have 

been doing property tax work for 41 years. I testify in State and 

Federal court dealing with property tax valuation. Property tax 

valuation and market value, we have to find what is the market 

value of each one of those lien dates. There are three ideals and 

three things that affect value of property. There is economic, there 

is functional, and there is physical deterioration. 

Economic obsolescence is factors outside of a property that have 

an adverse effect on the property. I am getting reductions from 

many of my clients right now. Because of the economy, their production is down based upon capacity. But in the case of single-family residential, things like this, anything that affects the value of 

a property or the perception, the perceived value of a property by 

virtue of the fact that this is a negative thing is economic obsolescence. Everybody knows it exists. The hard part is quantifying it. 

But the long answer to your question is most definitely that 

these towers have had a very, very negative impact on the values. 

Who knows just what the total quantification will be. Their values 

are not going to go up anytime soon. If those towers start being 

built again and lines go up, the value is going to be cut even worse. 

Mr. ROYCE. I have one last question for Mrs. Genis. Let me go 

back to your testimony. You mentioned that you were within the 

fall zone of the towers, and HUD says the engineered fall zone is 

not necessarily the height of the towers. Do you have a sense of 

whether your home is within the engineered fall zone of the towers? The reason it is important is because the potential fall zone 

can determine whether the FHA will— 

Ms. GENIS. This is my house. If this tower falls, it will land on 

my property. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. That answers the question. 

Mr. ROYCE. And how close is that tower to your house? 

Ms. GENIS. It is approximately 125 to 130 feet. 

Mr. ROYCE. And how tall is the tower? 

Ms. GENIS. Two hundred feet. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you, Mr. Royce. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to 

place their responses in the record. 

19 

I want to note that we do see the tears in the audience. So when 

we do try to preserve protocol, we want you to know that we do 

recognize that and we are not trying to be insensitive to that. 

I want to thank our first panel. 

Mr. BENNETT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOODWIN. Thank you. 

Ms. GENIS. Thank you. 

[applause] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Our second panel will please come 

forward. 

Ms. Bobbi Borland is the Acting Branch Chief of the Santa Ana 

Homeownership Center under the purview of the U.S. Department 

of Housing and Urban Development. She is a real estate appraiser. 

We had originally requested Mr. Paul Clanon, the executive director of the California Public Utilities Commission, to attend. He 

sent Denise Tyrrell as a representative to be with us today. 

I ask the witnesses to come forward. 

Ms. Borland, thank you for being with us today, and also Ms. 

Tyrrell. Without objection, your written statements will be made a 

part of the record. You will each be recognized for a 5-minute summary of your testimony. 

I recognize Ms. Borland for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BOBBI BORLAND, ACTING BRANCH CHIEF, 

SANTA ANA HOMEOWNERSHIP CENTER, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Ms. BORLAND. Representative Miller, Representative Royce, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the impact of overhead high voltage transmission towers and lines on eligibility for Federal Housing Administration 

(FHA) insured mortgage programs. 

I would like to take the opportunity to explain FHA’s guidelines 

regarding FHA insurance of single-family properties located near 

utility transmission lines. 

In this case, based on FHA’s current knowledge regarding the 

towers, and FHA’s requirements applicable to this matter, properties that are near or abut the high tower transmission line easements would be eligible for FHA insured financing. 

To the extent that homes are sited on or within the easement, 

the lender must obtain clearance from the utility that the home is 

not within the tower’s fall zone. 

The Homeownership Center Reference Guide provides the requirements which must be met in order to ensure eligibility for 

FHA mortgage insurance with regard to a number of issues, including proximity to overhead high voltage transmission towers and 

lines. 

It may be helpful for me to cite explicitly relevant sections. 

With regard to new FHA originations, the guide provides that 

‘‘the appraiser must indicate whether the dwelling or related property improvements are located within the easement serving a highvoltage transmission line, radio/TV transmission tower, cell phone 

tower, microwave relay dish or tower, or satellite dish,’’ which is 

radio, TV cable, etc. 

20 

‘‘If the dwelling or related property improvement is located within such an easement, the DE Underwriter must obtain a letter 

from the owner or operator of the tower indicating that the dwelling and its related property improvements are not located within 

the tower’s engineered fall distance in order to waive this requirement. 

‘‘If the dwelling and related property improvements are located 

outside the easement, the property is considered eligible and no 

further action is necessary. The appraiser, however, is instructed 

to note and comment on the effect of marketability resulting from 

the proximity to such site hazards and nuisances.’’ 

‘‘In addition, if a property already had an FHA-insured mortgage 

and high voltage towers were subsequently installed, FHA insurance of the mortgage would continue.’’ 

Within the 91709 zip code, which comprises most of Chino Hills, 

approximately 3 percent of homes have mortgages insured through 

FHA. We do not have data to indicate the proximity of these homes 

to the transmission towers. 

It has also been suggested that these transmission towers pose 

some risk to FHA. FHA insured mortgages are based on the appraised value of the property at the time of origination, as determined by an independent fee appraiser who appears on the FHA 

Roster and in accordance with FHA guidelines. And, as I noted, the 

appraiser must note whether the property is located within the 

transmission tower easement. 

FHA does collect a limited amount of appraisal data but does not 

track valuation or home price trends to the zip code level. 

In terms of assessing risks to FHA as a result of the transmission lines, it is important to note that payment default may 

have many causes, and there is simply no easy way to identify 

whether a default was driven by property value declines attributed 

to nearby transmission lines. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. FHA is 

pleased to serve as a resource to help homeowners and real estate 

professionals understand FHA policy in this area, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Borland can be found on page 49 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Ms. Tyrrell, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DENISE TYRRELL, ON BEHALF OF THE 

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

Ms. TYRRELL. Good morning. First of all, thank you very much 

for allowing us to participate. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Could you hold the microphone a little closer? I think we are having difficulty hearing you. 

Ms. TYRRELL. Is that better? 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Ms. TYRRELL. I wanted to apologize and explain for my organization. We did speak to a Mr. Chase Burgess at your office on April 

11th, and we did inform Mr. Burgess by email and phone that I 

would be coming in the executive director’s stead. 

21 

My name is Denise Tyrrell. I am a Southern California representative for the Public Utilities Commission, and I received this 

invitation on the 11th. The materials I have are dated the 11th of 

April. So I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have 

taken place. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. There must have been a communication error on your side because we have been repeatedly—I don’t 

want to take up your time, but we repeatedly requested. 

Ms. TYRRELL. I apologize for that, sir. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. That’s fine. I didn’t mean to interrupt you. 

Ms. TYRRELL. For my case, I found out about it on the 11th. So 

I am here, and I am gladly here, and I do agree that Chino Hills 

is an exceptionally beautiful community. 

I do need to point out to you that we have an application for rehearing, and several petitions for modification of D09–12044 have 

been filed with the Commission that seek changes in the portion 

of the line that runs through Chino Hills, and the commissioners 

have stayed construction of the segment of the transmission lines. 

I point this out to you because it restricts—I cannot speak to that 

area because it is still under consideration by the commissioners. 

I would like to give you a little background on what this whole 

entire project is about. The need for the transmission line arose 

from the mandates of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard, which at the time required investor-owned utilities to procure 

20 percent of their total retail sales from renewable energy. That 

has since gone up to 33 percent. 

New transmission facilities are required to interconnect remote 

areas of high renewable power generation, such as the Tehachapi 

Wind Resources Area, to areas of high load in order to assess the 

ability of the wind power to contribute toward meeting the State’s 

mandated RPS goals. 

The CPUC ordered the formation of the Tehachapi Collaborative 

Study Group to develop a comprehensive transmission plan. The 

decision also required SCE to file a certificate of public convenience 

and necessity. 

SCE identified a phased development plan, called the Tehachapi 

Transmission Project. The TTP was implemented in separate 

phases. The three primary objectives are to provide the electrical 

facilities necessary to reliably interconnect and integrate in excess 

of 700 megawatts and up to approximately 4,500 megawatts. To 

put that in perspective, that would be the equal of approximately 

nine power plants. Further, to address the reliability needs of the 

California Independent System Operator, CAISO, controlled grid 

due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley; and address 

the South of Lugo transmission constraints, an ongoing source of 

concern in the Los Angeles Basin. 

SCE’s application to the CPUC routed a portion of the segment 

through Chino Hills, taking advantage of an existing transmission 

right-of-way that traversed the City. The PUC worked diligently to 

develop and assess the alternatives, including a partial underground alternative through Chino Hills and various re-routes 

through Chino Hills State Park. 

22 

The EIR presented a clear comparison of these alternatives to 

SCE’s proposed project and formulated mitigation to reduce the impacts of each alternative. In reaching its decision, the CPUC considered all information presented in the EIR and information presented during the proceedings, including testimony provided by the 

City of Chino Hills and other parties to the proceeding. In addition, 

public comments, including opposition expressed by Chino Hills 

residents, were given thoughtful consideration by the PUC. 

The PUC’s decision followed a long and extensive investigative 

process and was based on the results of substantial data collection 

and analysis. The commissioners considered a wide range of issues, 

including technical, environmental, social, and economic factors. As 

commonly occurs, not everyone agreed with the decision, but it was 

clearly based on careful consideration of a significant amount of information, analysis, and testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tyrrell can be found on page 71 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

For the record, and to clear up any confusion, the staff started 

contacting the CPUC at the beginning of the month, and it has 

nothing to do with you, Ms. Tyrrell. You are just here to testify. 

We sent repeated emails. We never received a response. We even 

sent a formal letter. We never received the truth-in-testimony form 

to let us know who was going to testify before us, as required by 

the committee rules. So just for the record, I needed to state that. 

I have always had problems with unfunded mandates by government. That is when government passes a law or makes a rule or 

enforces some requirement on the private sector, whether it be a 

business or homeowners. When they do that, and they don’t bear 

the cost and the burden placed on those individuals, I know Congressman Royce and I both have a real, real problem with that. 

The question for FHA, Ms. Borland, we talked about the fall zone 

and the easement. If a home is outside of the easement area but 

within the fall zone, does that have an impact on FHA’s ability to 

loan? 

Ms. BORLAND. Our guidelines state that it does not impact the 

FHA loan. It would be up to the individual lender. We have our 

guidelines, and they have overlays that they may place on our 

guidelines. But as far as our guidelines, that would not— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. It doesn’t stop you from making the 

loan? 

Ms. BORLAND. Right. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. But in your testimony, I think the 

problem you have to acknowledge is the appraiser from FHA is 

going to go out there, and they have to recognize that tower, and 

they have to also recognize if it is in the fall zone, what impact 

that might have on the home. Is that a fair statement? 

Ms. BORLAND. That is a fair statement. It would be an FHA roster appraiser, and they would have to discuss in their appraisal report any and all impact that would have on the property. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. So even though there might not be 

a legal preclusion from FHA making a loan, there is most likely a 

high probability of it having an impact on the value of that home, 

and the impact then would transfer to the lender, who is also going 

23 

to look at that, and their appraisers might also place additional impact. That is not an attack. Is that a factual statement? 

Ms. BORLAND. I can’t really comment on the lender’s— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Is that a possible serious— 

Ms. BORLAND. It is possible. And I do want to clarify that FHA 

does not make loans. We insure loans. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I understand that. 

Ms. BORLAND. Okay. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You are insuring the loan that is 

made by a lender. 

Ms. BORLAND. Correct. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. But the process—perception becomes 

reality in many cases with an appraiser. So, an appraiser goes onsite, and they look at this monster that should be out of some 

science fiction movie behind a house, and they say that if something might occur—maybe it hasn’t, maybe they have no record of 

that ever in the past, but things do happen. If that monster were 

to tip over, or you had a high wind in an area that caused the line 

to detach and that would be also in the swing or fall zone, that 

probably is going to be taken into consideration by some appraiser 

if they are a qualified appraiser. Is that a fair assumption? 

Ms. BORLAND. That is a fair assumption. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Okay. So although we might say 

that FHA is trying to do their job because they are trying to service 

the citizens of this country, but also then they have a liability associated with any loss that might occur to the citizens who pay taxes, 

and if a loan defaults, the insurance has to come forward, and if 

there is a situation that is occurring today in the housing market 

where home buyers have gone down, and even though FHA has the 

lowest default rate of any institution, whether it is Fannie or 

Freddie, or the private sector, the default rate isn’t much lower, 

there still is an impact today occurring because of just the decline 

in the market. 

So it makes me believe that the individuals in this room and in 

many other cities around California and other States have also experienced a decline in their home values. Now, when we go out to 

have a lender make a loan, the lender goes out with their appraiser 

and they say this house has already lost ‘‘X’’ amount of value due 

to market decline, and then we are going to look at these towers 

and ask, what additional impact on the home value will that tower 

have on this home? Is that a fair statement, would you say? 

Ms. BORLAND. The appraiser would have to determine what type 

of impact the high tension towers would have on a home, or anything, backing into a railroad track, siting to a freeway, any external obsolescence they would have to comment on in their appraisal 

report. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Does FHA require more information 

about easements up-front to ensure that future changes don’t impact U.S. taxpayers? 

Ms. BORLAND. We do require that the appraiser specifically comment on whether or not the property is located within the easement. We do require that the appraiser comment on the impact. I 

am not sure how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are doing things, 

but I can only speak for FHA. 

24 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Yes. 

Ms. BORLAND. And we do. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You can only speak for FHA. I remember, Mr. Royce, when an individual from New York decided 

they wanted to change FHA standards, and I introduced an amendment in committee. We were in the Minority back then for a few 

years, and we lost, and it put a regional standard for appraisers 

where you really didn’t have any local appraisers. The banks were 

not allowed to use their appraisers, who really know an area. I 

think I introduced a bill 5 months later showing the disaster that 

had caused, and Ed and I, my good colleague, voted with me on 

that and we changed the law. 

But the problem you have is you have local appraisers who are 

qualified appraisers who understand the marketplace and who understand the individuals who own those homes and the value of 

that neighborhood. And the reason this room is full and the standing room outside is full is because those appraisers go out to these 

homes and the first thing they do is, like when you drive down 

Peyton and there is this monster tower and you say, oh my gosh, 

and an appraiser is going to go out to this home and they are going 

to stand in front of the house, and this tower is going to overpower 

the house that is right behind it, and I just don’t believe any reasonable person would assume that appraiser is not going to take 

that into consideration. 

That is not impugning FHA because you are trying to do your 

job, and you are trying to provide loans for these good people and 

make sure the economy can recover. Until the housing market in 

California starts to turn around, the economy in California is not 

going to turn around. 

So we are looking at an impacted economy, and we are looking 

at the individuals who have specifically been impacted—and I am 

going to use a little license here as Chair—by stupidity from individuals in Sacramento. That is my license, and that does not impugn my good friend, Mr. Curt Hagman. 

[applause] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. There are some champions out there 

like Curt. I am going to point him out. I have known this man 

since I endorsed him to run for City Council here in town, so he 

is a friend of mine, and I know his heart, and I know his actions 

and his deeds, and he is trying to help these people in the City. 

The reason Mr. Royce and I are here is that we feel the same way. 

I am not going to sit up here and bash Southern California Edison, although I don’t agree with what they are doing. But it is an 

unfunded mandate by government that forces the private sector to 

do something that impacts these good people, and I am sitting up 

here with Congressman Royce seeing the tears. I am seeing the 

passion, and I am seeing people try to control themselves in the 

hearing because they understand we are trying to deal with reasonable protocol, and it is very hard on them because it is a very 

passionate issue. 

I think it is appropriate that we have this on the record today 

that, yes, they can make a loan, but is the appraiser going to have 

an impact on the value? I think the conclusion is without a doubt. 

25 

I have far exceeded my 5 minutes, and I would be happy to yield 

to my colleague, Mr. Royce, for 5 minutes. 

[applause] 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to start with a question of Ms. Tyrrell. We heard the 

argument put forward by Mayor Bennett as he explained that the 

SCE transmission route places 195-foot towers—actually, I think 

198 was the figure I got from you in your testimony—in a narrow 

right-of-way that is set for 150 feet. Why was it set for 150 feet? 

Because the original towers, the 220kV towers, were 75 feet high. 

That is why the right-of-way was 150 feet, right? 

Ms. TYRRELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ROYCE. And so clearly in this case, if the right-of-way had 

followed previous protocol, that right-of-way would have been double 200 feet; it would have been 400 feet. It was not. 

I am going to go through the specific argument he made. He said 

the narrow right-of-way was designed for 75-foot-high, 230kV structures which have not been energized in this community in decades. 

No other utility in the United States has placed 500kV towers this 

tall in such a narrow right-of-way. Is that factually correct, to your 

knowledge? 

Ms. TYRRELL. My understanding is that there are towers of this 

nature in a smaller right-of-way in Georgia. 

Mr. ROYCE. In Georgia, there is a situation. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Another good State. 

Mr. ROYCE. With 500kV towers this close to people’s homes? 

Ms. TYRRELL. That is my understanding, yes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Okay. Let me ask you another question, because I 

am going to go to the testimony we just received, and you say in 

that testimony, ‘‘While many citizens of Chino Hills preferred the 

alternative 4C route, constructing the line to the park and through 

the park presented various challenges and environmental impacts. 

For example, the line would have had to depart from the project 

right-of-way and make use of a new right-of-way and cross several 

areas of sensitive animal and species habitat on its way to and 

through the park.’’ 

Let me ask you a question. Was there consideration of the impact 

on home values? We have the consideration here in terms of the 

impact on the species that would be underneath the power lines. 

Was there consideration of the impact on home values— 

[applause] 

Mr. ROYCE. —in this calculus? 

Ms. TYRRELL. The environmental impact report does take into account the impact on home values. 

Mr. ROYCE. It does? 

Ms. TYRRELL. Yes, it does. 

Mr. ROYCE. Let me ask you another question, then. Does it do 

a cost/benefit analysis in order to weigh what that impact would 

be on the community? We have heard the testimony as to the 17 

percent drop overall in the community in home values. The impact 

of that on the tax basis here, on the tax base in the City and what 

the consequences of that would be in terms of revenues into the 

coffers of the State and local government, as well as the impact on 

the citizens here, how is that cost/benefit analysis calculated when 

26 

you are taking the impact on the endangered species or, what did 

you say, on sensitive animal and species habitats, as opposed to 

people’s backyards on rights of way that were originally designed 

for towers which were 75 feet high? In case something happened 

to those towers, that right-of-way would be 150 feet high. Now, you 

have the right-of-way on towers which are 200 feet high. 

Ms. TYRRELL. Economic impacts in that detail are not part of the 

EIR. 

Mr. ROYCE. They are not part of the EIR. Then, let me ask you 

another question. Since we are going to cost, and you say cost was 

taken into account— 

Ms. TYRRELL. Yes. 

Mr. ROYCE. In order to avoid the principle that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, in order to avoid going 

through the State park, which, as I understand it, was donated 

originally by this City to be a State park, it then required an additional 10 miles in order to navigate through the community, an additional 10 miles. What would the cost be in totality for an additional 10 miles, not considering what the liability costs might be 

ultimately for such a decision? 

Ms. TYRRELL. I would like to point out to you further in the testimony that the line that would depart from the project west of 

Chino Hills is preferred by the Chino Hills population. It makes 

use of a new right-of-way across several areas of sensitive animal 

species habitat on its way through the park. The line would have 

to use a new right-of-way to cross private lands that contain hazardous and dangerous materials. That’s the Aerojet property. 

Mr. ROYCE. But there is a question, because in the totality of 

cost, the issue of addressing cleaning up the Aerojet property would 

seem to be de minimis relative to the cost of the impact on the community as a whole and the consideration that 1,000 homes are 

going to be within 500 feet. 

[applause] 

Mr. ROYCE. And that would be 4,000 people. So you would have 

on one hand the cost of cleaning up that site in order to go through 

that private property versus the impact on 4,000 people. 

Ms. TYRRELL. There is also the electrical switching station that 

would have to be located on the side of a hill and undergo significant engineering support for that structure. 

Mr. ROYCE. There probably are some engineering costs involved 

in putting something on the side of a hill. 

Ms. TYRRELL. Significant engineering costs, and the Aerojet property is a severe hazardous waste site. It has actual bombs on the 

property. 

Mr. ROYCE. It is time to clean it up, and it would be time to 

apply some of the savings— 

[applause] 

Mr. ROYCE. It would just seem logical. It could be considered that 

maybe for posterity, it would be time to address that and clean 

that up, and maybe in the interest of cost, even though it might 

cost more to engineer the power station on the slope on the hill, 

the resultant savings in not having to go through an additional 10 

miles with the attendant costs to the community and with the liability issues given the fact, again, to return to the fact that origiVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:12 Aug 24, 2012 Jkt 075087 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\75087.TXT TERRIE
27 

nally this right-of-way was 150 feet, now that would imply that the 

right-of-way should now be 400 feet. 

So to return to the Garamendi Principles, as you do in your testimony, and talk about use of existing right-of-way, I think the basic 

premise might be flawed here. The basic premise is that you had 

an existing right-of-way. You did, for a 75-foot tower. But the Commission approved it for a 200-foot or, to use your number, a 198- 

foot tower. 

Do you think that might be problematic? 

Ms. TYRRELL. My understanding is the engineering of the towers—I’m sure SCE can speak to this a little better than I can—is 

such that if the tower were to fail, the base of the tower goes 50 

feet into the ground. But if the tower were to collapse, it would collapse inward, and the engineering has improved since the original 

towers were built. 

Mr. ROYCE. I appreciate your testimony here. We will have an 

opportunity to ask about that. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I thank the witnesses for being here 

today. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Now that I know it is going to fall 

straight down, I feel a lot better. How about you, Congressman 

Royce? 

[laughter] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Ms. Tyrrell, none of my comments 

were personal to you. 

Ms. TYRRELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. We are all a little frustrated. 

Ms. TYRRELL. I appreciate the frustration, I really do. I am frustrated myself because I know that there are ongoing hearings that 

are taking place on this issue, and I can’t speak to it, and I wish 

that I could share that information with you. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Hopefully, you will go back and talk 

to people. Am I correct? 

Ms. TYRRELL. Yes, we will. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. You will maybe give them some kind 

of an idea of a concern that Members of Congress might have who 

have jurisdiction over certain things, and that we hope commonsense prevails. 

The frustration I have over dealing with the statement on the 

State park is that we have been trying for years to get the 71 connector to the 91 done. 

[laughter] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. We even snuck language in, and we 

can’t get the State to give us an easement on the edge of the park 

to just connect the 71 to a westbound connector to the 91. So when 

all of you get on the freeway and you wonder why is it all of a sudden a collector instead of a freeway with four lanes, two on each 

side, and a weird way to get onto the 91, thank the State of California, because the Federal Government was willing to fund it. 

Anyway, the Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in 

writing. And I would also ask that you submit your testimony electronically to us ASAP so we can make it a part of the record. That 

28 

is not impugning you. I am just officially requesting that to take 

place. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses, 

and I would like to thank all of you. 

Ms. Borland, you were very informative, and I think you have 

addressed some of the concerns that the community has, and 

maybe confirmed some of the concerns the community has, and the 

panel is dismissed. Thank you very much. 

Ms. BORLAND. Thank you, Congressman Miller and Congressman 

Royce. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Panel 3, would you please come forward? 

Before I introduce the witnesses on this panel, I would like to 

point out that there was one witness scheduled to testify who was 

unable to attend today. Unfortunately, Stuart A. Gabriel, professor 

of finance at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, will not 

be able to join us today. He had an accident. Professor Gabriel was 

going to present information on the recent trends in the Southern 

California housing market, potential adverse residential property 

values, and effects on proximity to high voltage transmission lines. 

We wish Professor Gabriel a speedy recovery. We really appreciate 

the time he spent, and he did prepare work for this hearing today. 

Without objection, I would like to insert Professor Gabriel’s written 

testimony in the record. 

Without objection, it is so ordered. 

I regret that he will not be here to testify. I know that Members 

would have really benefitted from his testimony. 

Ms. Les Starck, senior vice president of regulatory affairs for 

Southern California Edison, is with us. Ms. Starck represents 

SCE’s—pardon? Mr. Starck? You just cut your hair, didn’t you? 

[laughter] 

Mr. STARCK. Yes, I did. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Starck. I have been dealing with 

women all day. What can I tell you? I have them to the right of 

me, and two there. 

Anyway, first, Mr. Starck, senior vice president of regulatory affairs for Southern California Edison. Mr. Starck represents SCE 

before the Public California Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission. Mr. Starck has over 30 years professional experience with SCE, and I will state for the record that 

both Mr. Royce and I have had to call Southern California Edison 

in the past on issues in our districts that were important, and they 

have always been very timely and responsive to our concerns, and 

I am not trying to make them look good. I am just saying that 

when we called them, they have always been available. When we 

asked them to testify, they were absolutely forthright, and they returned a response immediately saying they would be here. 

Second, Mr. Fred Kreger, certified mortgage consultant, is a 

branch manager for American Family Funding. He is an active 

member of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, NAMB, 

as well as the California Association of Mortgage Brokers, CAMB. 

He is the president-elect and chairman of government affairs for 

CAMB. 

29 

Third, Ms. Marion Proffitt—I got that right this time—is the 

State director for the California Association of REALTORS® and 

past president of Tri-Counties Association of REALTORS®. Ms. 

Proffitt has over 20 years of professional experience in home office 

and ERA Prime Properties. 

And fourth, Mr. James L. Henderson is founder of J.L. Henderson and Company. Mr. Henderson has 20 years of professional appraisal experience. He holds an SRA designation from the Appraisal Institute. Mr. Henderson has given testimony in the field 

of real estate property valuation in both Federal and State court. 

Without objection, your written statements will be made a part 

of the record and we will recognize each of you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Starck, you are recognized first. 

STATEMENTS OF LESLIE STARCK, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT 

OF REGULATORY AFFAIRS, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, 

ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 

Mr. STARCK. Good morning, Chairman Miller and Congressman 

Royce. Thank you for inviting me to participate in today’s field 

hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to share Southern California 

Edison Company’s perspective on the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project, segments 4 through 11. My name is Les Starck, 

and I am senior vice president of regulatory affairs for SCE, an investor-owned utility that has been providing electric service to this 

region for 125 years. Edison serves nearly 14 million people and 

over 500,000 businesses in Southern and Central California. 

Edison’s investment in transmission facilities has increased significantly in recent years due to the need to improve system reliability 

and to increase access to clean, renewable energy resources, and 

this is expected to continue well into the future. 

The Tehachapi project is the Nation’s largest renewable-related 

transmission project. The approved route crosses through dozens of 

cities and numerous counties in Kern, Los Angeles, and San 

Bernardino Counties. The project, which is currently under construction, spans over 170 miles and will include approximately 850 

transmission towers or poles and 4 new substations. When complete, the project will be capable of delivering 4,500 megawatts of 

electricity, which is enough to power 3 million homes. 

My written testimony goes into great detail about the extensive 

outreach, planning, and CPUC approval process associated with 

the Tehachapi project. In the brief time that I do have, I would like 

to highlight a few key aspects of the outreach, the planning, and 

the approval process. 

First, consistent with State policy, this project utilizes alreadyexisting transmission corridors to the extent possible. In Chino 

Hills, transmission towers and lines have been in the right-of-way 

since the 1940s. 

Second, both Edison and the CPUC conducted extensive public 

outreach. The interests of communities like Chino Hills were carefully considered. In fact, the CPUC considered 11 alternatives for 

the project, and 6 of these related to the route in Chino Hills. 

And finally, the CPUC comprehensively assessed the impact on 

community and property values, they weighed environmental conVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:12 Aug 24, 2012 Jkt 075087 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\75087.TXT TERRIE
30 

siderations, including land use and safety, and considered the overall need for this project. The Commission found that the Tehachapi 

project was needed to make State goals and selected the current 

route as preferred and environmentally superior. 

FHA issues were not specifically addressed in the Tehachapi review process, and I will defer discussion on FHA policies to the 

FHA representative testifying before this subcommittee. However, 

it is important to understand that the Tehachapi project would not 

create a new impediment to FHA loan eligibility. Like the newlyconstructed towers, the height of the old transmission towers exceeded the distance between the base of the towers and the edge 

of the right-of-way. High voltage transmission lines and structures 

are routinely located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods throughout California. Chino Hills is no different. 

In closing, if we want to expand and modernize the existing electricity grid to ensure reliability, provide access to renewable energy 

and other forms of generation, and reduce reliance on foreign oil, 

we must have the transmission system needed to deliver the energy to customer load centers. In some cases, this means projects 

like Tehachapi must traverse urban areas, and not everyone will 

be happy with the choices that are necessary to make that happen. 

But we must ensure that when projects emerge from the rigorous 

approval process, transmission construction can promptly move forward to meet the energy needs of California’s rate payers. 

I am happy to take any questions that the subcommittee may 

have today. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Starck can be found on page 65 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Kreger, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF FRED KREGER, CMC, PRESIDENT-ELECT AND 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN, CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF MORTGAGE PROFESSIONALS 

Mr. KREGER. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Mr. 

Royce, and staff members. My name is Fred Kreger, and I am the 

president-elect and the Government Affairs Committee chair of the 

California Association of Mortgage Professionals, and a licensed 

mortgage loan originator in Santa Clarita, California. The California Association of Mortgage Professionals represents almost 

2,000 mortgage professionals throughout California. Because of the 

large impact that the Federal Housing Administration, or FHA, insured mortgage programs have on our profession and our customers, we take special interest in anything that may affect the eligibility of these mortgage programs. 

I was asked here today to address the impacts of high voltage 

transmission towers and lines on the eligibility of FHA insured 

mortgage programs. As background, the FHA loan limit in San 

Bernardino County is $500,000, and encompasses a large number 

of home mortgages within this particular region. 

To be specific, in Chino Hills, the median listing price is around $419,000. With that being said, if the eligibility for FHA insured 

mortgage programs were to be affected within the Chino Hills area, 

31 

the potential for a large impact to be felt within the real estate 

market could be great and worthy of discussion. 

However, through my 10 years of experience as a mortgage professional, I can safely say that the impact of high voltage transmission lines on property values and FHA eligibility has been 

somewhat minimal. On a monthly basis, I originate many loans 

within the surrounding cities and counties, of which FHA loans 

serve an important role for my particular clients. I have yet to have 

a customer encounter difficulties with their FHA eligibility due to 

high voltage power lines. 

The specific homes located near the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project are located outside of the project’s easement, which 

according to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Homeownership Center Reference Guide for new FHA mortgage originations, these properties are considered eligible and no 

further action is necessary. The appraiser, however, is instructed 

to note and comment on the effect on marketability resulting from 

the proximity to such sites and nuisances. 

In my experience, the appraisers will note the presence of high 

voltage transmission lines. However, the effect on the marketability of the home value is minimal, if any. Over years of research 

and study, I have concluded that although community members 

and homeowners have negative feelings towards high voltage 

power lines, their presence is apparently not given sufficient 

enough weight by buyers and sellers of real estate to have any consistent, material effect on market value. 

In fact, 20 years ago, I bought my first home in Santa Clarita 

that was located adjacent to power lines. I preferred this home to 

others because I was informed that the land surrounding the power 

lines could not be developed, meaning I had no neighbors in back 

of me or near the side of me. This opinion is also shared by some 

independent home appraisers who at times adjusted some of these 

property values up due to the undeveloped land that was adjacent 

to the buyer’s property. 

When discussing this issue with some home appraisers, I have 

learned about a study that was done actually in Santa Clarita of 

9 housing tracks stemming from 2004 to 2008, encompassing about 

864 homes that were sold within this time period. The study found 

that there were no valuation differences in those homes that were 

adjacent to the power lines from those that were not adjacent. 

In closing, I believe that there is a lot of concern out there, but 

I see no problems in terms of eligibility of FHA insured mortgage 

programs. Thank you for your time, and I am open to any questions that the committee has here. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kreger can be found on page 60 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Ms. Proffitt, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARION O. PROFFITT, PAST PRESIDENT OF 

TRI-COUNTIES ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®, ON BEHALF 

OF THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® 

Ms. PROFFITT. Chairman Miller, Representative Royce, and members of the subcommittee, my name is Marion Proffitt. I have been 

32 

a REALTOR® for 20 years. I am a broker associate for ERA Prime 

Properties here in Chino Hills, and I am past president of the TriCounties Association of REALTORS®. I am here to testify on behalf of the more than 150,000 members 

of the California Association of REALTORS® (CAR). We thank you 

for the opportunity to present our views at today’s hearing on high 

voltage transmission towers and Federal Housing Administration, 

FHA, financing. It is an honor to be able to testify to the subcommittee on this important issue that will have a profound impact 

on so many homeowners and home buyers here in Chino Hills. 

For 20 years, I have practiced real estate in this community, and 

while I do some work with investors, my primary clients are principal home buyers. This has provided me the opportunity to witness how the Chino Hills housing market is impacted by the availability and the absence of FHA financing. Over that time, I have 

also seen the impact that a home’s proximity to the power lines can 

have on marketability and price. 

I would like to start by addressing the question on what the impact would be if FHA financing were not available to certain neighborhoods in Chino Hills. Simply put, if FHA removes the ability of 

home buyers to utilize FHA financing on properties near the easements in question, those homes will be forced to sell at a discount 

to similar nearby properties that do qualify for FHA financing. My 

fellow agents and I know this to be a fact because we see it every 

day in the current condo market where many condo complexes 

have chosen not to become FHA approved because of burdensome 

and costly new FHA rules. The homeowners selling their condos in 

non-FHA approved complexes must sell their units for less than 

those in FHA approved complexes. Sellers of homes near these 

easements will face a similar fate should FHA remove eligibility. 

We also believe other homeowners and sellers will suffer because 

these non-FHA approved homes may now be used as comparables 

for all homes in the area. Other fallout from the removal of FHA 

financing on a property would be to all but eliminate the ability of 

first-time home buyers to purchase that property, as FHA loans are 

now the preferred choice of financing for first-time home buyers. 

A final point I would like to touch upon regarding FHA financing 

in Chino Hills is our loan limits. First, I would like to thank the 

Members here today and others in Congress for extending the FHA 

loan limits again. However, you may be surprised to know one of 

the struggles we face here in Chino Hills is our low FHA loan limit 

of $500,000. While more than adequate for some communities, the 

fact is home buyers looking in Chino Hills also look in Diamond 

Bar, located in Los Angeles County, and Brea, located in Orange 

County, and both benefit from a loan limit of $729,750. The higher 

loan limit is important because FHA is no longer just for first-time 

home buyers or people with less than stellar credit. Many move-up 

home buyers who otherwise would have used the equity in their 

current home as a downpayment on their next home now find 

themselves with little to no equity. FHA is the last safe and affordable low down-payment option for buyers. 

Lastly, while CAR does not possess statistics to show what the 

impact on pricing may or may not be due to a home’s proximity to 

the power lines, I can tell you from my 20 years of experience that 

33 

for some home buyers, it does matter. Just recently I took an investor to see a property that backed up to an easement, and its mere 

location next to that easement was enough for them to say no. 

However, this isn’t the case for every buyer. Many have no problem 

living next to the power lines, but there are many buyers I have 

worked with who require a discounted sales price or who will 

refuse to buy one of the properties. I have spoken with many other 

REALTORS® in Chino Hills and they have shared similar experiences to mine. 

I would like to close by emphasizing that Chino Hills is first and 

foremost a community that many families seek out because of its 

safe neighborhoods, excellent schools, and family-friendly atmosphere. My family has been fortunate to call Chino Hills home for 

the last 25 years, and we hope that the FHA and Congress will recognize how important safe and affordable home financing options 

like FHA are in maintaining this beautiful community. 

Thank you again for holding these hearings and for inviting me 

to speak. I look forward to answering any questions the subcommittee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Proffitt can be found on page 62 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

[applause] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Henderson, you are recognized 

for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES L. HENDERSON, SRA, J.L. HENDERSON 

& COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE 

AND THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF FARM MANAGERS AND 

RURAL APPRAISERS 

Mr. HENDERSON. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Congressman 

Royce, and members of the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing 

and Community Opportunity. I thank you for the opportunity to 

share the perspectives of professional real estate appraisers on the 

valuation issues relating to residential properties with high voltage 

transmission lines on behalf of the 25,000 members of the Appraisal Institute and the American Society of Farm Managers and 

Rural Appraisers. 

Appraisals of properties with transmission lines are similar to 

other appraisal assignments, but can be more complex. When an 

appraiser identifies and observes a high voltage transmission line, 

it is important to report to the client its existence and analyze any 

potential effects on value. This is consistent with the important 

role of real estate appraisers in assessing lender collateral risk. 

Like many factors in real estate, the proximity of the line to 

dwellings and the impact on view will be case-by-case and marketspecific. Proximity is a critical factor. When transmission lines are 

extremely close to the residence, the impact on marketability will 

be more severe. 

Alternatively, some markets may show little to no resistance at 

all, or even place a premium if it creates open space or a greenbelt 

in the backyard. In other situations, the resistance may depend on 

the type of power line corridor that is involved. There are many poVerDate Nov 24 2008 16:12 Aug 24, 2012 Jkt 075087 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\75087.TXT TERRIE
34 

tential factors such as the size and type of tower, and the line capacity, just to name a few. 

When analyzing potential market impacts, a common method is 

paired sales analysis. The paired sales approach attempts to match 

the characteristics of a subject property sold within a claimed area 

of impact, the subject area, with individual sales of similar properties sold outside the claimed area of impact, the control area. The 

issues here center on the availability of sales and the ability to 

identify sales that can be considered a match to the subject property. 

Other methods, such as multiple regression analysis, can be utilized by appraisers and may be well suited to identify the independent effect of transmission lines, holding the other value-determining factors constant. However, this is only possible with a relatively large number of subject area and control area sales, which 

is often not available. 

The Federal Housing Administration has specific policies relative 

to appraisals of properties with high voltage transmission lines. 

These policies are generally consistent with standard appraisal 

practices, but specifically require the appraiser to indicate whether 

the subject site, dwelling, or related improvements are located 

within the easement serving a high voltage transmission line. If 

the subject site, dwelling and improvements are located outside the 

easement, the property is considered eligible for funding and no 

further action is necessary. If the easement encroaches upon the 

subject property, it becomes the requirement of the lender to obtain 

a letter from the owner or operator of the tower stating that the 

subject improvements are not within the engineered fall distance 

of the tower. We note: this is not an appraisal issue, but one of 

agency policy and lender decision. 

In either case, the appraiser is instructed to note and comment 

on the effect on marketability resulting from the proximity to the 

hazard. The appraiser’s function is to provide information to the 

lender, and it is the lender and HUD that make the decision to reject if the situation warrants it. Otherwise, the appraiser accounts 

for the influence of the high voltage transmission line in the valuation of the property. 

Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will accept loans with 

transmission line proximity so long as the appraiser discloses the 

influence and provides comment if there is an adverse influence 

and loss in value. These policies are found in the Seller/Servicer 

Guidelines. However, one must also recognize that the FHA has a 

slightly different mission than Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that 

includes health and safety considerations. These policies can be 

found in Handbook 4150.2 and the agency’s Valuation Protocol, Appendix D. 

Lastly, in regards to the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission 

Project and the question of whether or not property values of 

homes near the project have decreased, I recommend hiring a local, 

professional, designated appraiser, specifically one with residential 

experience relative to properties that have transmission line influence, to determine how much of a loss in value there is as a result 

of the power lines. 

35 

It’s easy to assume that your property values will lose major 

value, but an unbiased, professional appraiser can analyze the 

market thoroughly to determine whether that is actually the case. 

I thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy 

to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson can be found on page 

58 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you very much. 

I’m going to recognize the members of the committee for 5 minutes each for questions based on the order of opening statements. 

Mr. Starck, I noticed the brevity of your statement. But I think 

your opening comments probably speak louder than anything else 

I could say. You said ‘‘consistent with State policy.’’ I think the 

Members attending this hearing need to understand what that 

really means. They don’t have a choice. But the difference in saying 

that there is a tower there now—and I acknowledge that, based on 

the base of the tower, if it did fall, it would hit outside the fall 

zone. But there is a difference between a tower hitting my rear 

wall and one falling on my home, ending up in my front yard, and 

I think you recognize that. 

I know you are stuck, and there is not much you can say. But, 

yes, the original tower might fall outside of the easement, and I 

might lose my rear fence, but I didn’t lose my house, and it doesn’t 

stare at me in my front yard when people across the street see it 

hitting. 

So that is a huge difference, in my opinion—75 feet versus 200 

feet is an enormous difference. 

I would like to ask you what led to the final determination to 

have these power lines located near the homes in Chino Hills. Was 

it the State mandate? Do you think you would be putting a 200- 

foot tower there right now if the State had not mandated that you 

bring the power from the Tehachapi? That is a pretty simple question. 

Mr. STARCK. Congressman Miller, the State adopted the 33 percent RPS standard. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I know that. I am saying, had they 

not done that, do you really think we would be putting 200-foot 

towers out there right now? You weren’t even using the 75-footers. 

Mr. STARCK. Please understand that this line, while it is required 

to deliver the renewable energy out of the Tehachapi area, is also 

needed to provide additional reliability to the grid. I think if you 

take a look at the record, we have a transmission—it is not a shortage so much, but we have some limits coming from our South of 

Lugo system that is down at Home Pass, and by putting in this additional double-circuit 500,000-volt line, that additional wire in the 

air provides a better— 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. No, I understand. 

Mr. STARCK. —better liability, and that is what one of the purposes of the project is. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I recall back in the legislature in the 

1990s, we discussed the cost of wind-generated power versus the 

cost of nuclear and other power and how much more expensive it 

was. Southern California Edison is a business, and no business is 

36 

going to go out and spend far more money for something that they 

could provide the same product for at a lesser rate. 

So to assume that you would be doing this—you are in a very 

bad position. I wouldn’t want to be in your chair right now, because 

you have those people in Sacramento listening to those people talking in Washington. That puts you in a very bad situation. So you 

don’t really want to necessarily sit out there and say, ‘‘The suckers 

made me do it.’’ That is really rather crude, but they made you do 

it. 

That is a fact of life, and it is really sad when I talked about unfunded mandates. It reminds me of what we did—we tried to extend the 241 toll road down to South County. It ends up right now 

in Rancho Santa Margarita, and we wanted to have it go to San 

Clemente and all the way down so we could remove the impact on 

the 5 freeway because there is a bottleneck when you have the 91 

and all these freeways leading into the 5. The lower you get down 

into San Diego and South County, if you are going in that direction 

from L.A., the easiest way is to go in that direction. But there is 

a huge bottleneck. 

What we did a few years ago is, because we owned a Marine base 

down there, the Federal Government, we thought it would be nice 

to give an easement to the State of California to have a State park 

down there. So when we wanted to run the 240 toll road down, 

guess who wouldn’t give us an easement through the State park 

that we let the State use? The State of California. 

And when it came to the Chino Hills Park, the Federal Government also funded that with a grant. So, we have been bit 2 times 

for trying to do the right thing in California, and the citizens of 

this State seem to be suffering for it, and it is a sad statement. 

But your opening statement speaks for itself and I will not question you any further because you are in a very difficult situation, 

consistent with State policy, and luckily we have an individual like 

Curt Hagman to fight for the people that they represent. 

Mr. Kreger, do the people adjacent to the overhead high voltage 

transmission lines have difficulty maintaining mortgages, particularly with FHA, compared to people who aren’t adjacent to those 

lines? 

Mr. KREGER. In my previous testimony, what I said is that according to FHA standards, as long as it is outside of the easement, 

they do not. But again, it is up to the appraiser to basically comment on the marketability aspect. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Don’t you think that appraiser is 

going to look at that and say, ‘‘Oh my gosh!’’ 

Mr. KREGER. Absolutely. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Okay, that is what I thought. 

Mr. KREGER. Right. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Because you got kind of hissed at a 

little bit when you were just trying to make a statement, and I 

don’t think we gave you enough time, but I think you were trying 

to get to that point, that there might not be a regulation against 

it or a requirement against it, but is there going to be an impact? 

Without a doubt. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. KREGER. Absolutely. 

37 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Okay, that is what I thought you 

might say. Thank you for that comment. 

Ms. Proffitt, describe your experience with FHA in Chino Hills 

and the California market in general. How does FHA insure individuals and take advantage of the FHA insurance mortgage program? Is it quite common? 

Ms. PROFFITT. I feel it is very common. I don’t have the facts and 

figures in front of me, but I would be happy to get back to you with 

that. 

In my personal experience, I work with a lot of first-time home 

buyers, and I am also currently working with parents who are 

helping their children buy homes, and many times that FHA financing is what is making the difference between them being able 

to buy and not being able to take advantage of today’s market. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. In today’s marketplace, it is absolutely crucial to have that available. 

Ms. PROFFITT. Absolutely. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Mr. Henderson, you go through processes in appraising homes that are located near overhead high voltage lines. A 75-foot tower versus a 200-foot tower, give me your 

opinion of what the difference would be. 

Mr. HENDERSON. I can’t really give you an opinion as to value, 

which is what my opinion would be worth. But unfortunately, without seeing the data, it would be very difficult to give an actual 

value opinion. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Let me make it easier for you. 

Mr. HENDERSON. But I would think that it would be significant. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. If you went out to appraise a home 

and you looked at a 150-foot right-of-way, and there was a 75-foot 

tower back there, and it is going to fall pretty much—the top of it 

might hit the back fence, but it is pretty much going to be where 

it’s at, and everybody knew that tower was there when they 

bought, and people coming in to buy probably have peace of mind 

that in their backyard, there is nobody looking over their fence, but 

the tower is at a safe distance. 

But if you look and you think there is a 200-foot monster staring 

at you, would that influence your appraisal in any way, do you 

think? 

Mr. HENDERSON. It would, yes, and let me try to—I have more 

than a minute, right? 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Go right ahead. 

[laughter] 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I was the Chair last time I checked, 

so we are good. 

Mr. HENDERSON. Okay. It would cause me to do more diligence 

on looking at the market to determine what the effect would be on 

that, probably more so than a 75-foot tower. I would do more research to see what the impact would be. I think any responsible appraiser would do that. 

As far as what the number would be, I have no idea. But obviously it would be—and it would probably be more prominent in my 

report than it might be if it is a 75-foot tower. I am going to tell 

somebody that it is there. I am going to show them in photographs 

that it is there so that they are aware of it. 

38 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I thank you for that. 

Congressman Royce, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you. I was going to ask Mr. Starck a question. 

Many have noted that under the current law, transmission 

lines—and we had that whole discussion that I brought up about 

the precedent of basically expanding an easement over the original 

150-foot easement, or utilizing that 150-foot easement. Many have 

noted that transmission lines of this magnitude are not allowed 

within, I think, 350 feet of a public school, and that may even be 

for 230kV that they are not allowed within 350 feet of a school. 

Is there conclusive evidence disproving any potential health risk? 

Mr. STARCK. Congressman, you mentioned the Department of 

Education’s guidelines. There is no mandate that schools need to 

be set back 350 feet away from a power line. They are merely 

advisories, okay? And, in fact, schools that do have sites that are 

near power lines are allowed to construct their schools there, but 

there are requirements that they have to go up and file electromagnetic field mitigation plans related to it, but there is no prohibition. 

Mr. ROYCE. I must have mis-read that in terms of the requirements. But you are saying that what they have to do instead is, 

if they are within 350 feet, they have to file these mitigation plans. 

Why do you think they have to file these mitigation plans? What 

is the point? 

Mr. STARCK. I think the PUC and other scientists are really having—there is no agreement, I guess I should say— 

Mr. ROYCE. I understand that. 

Mr. STARCK. On the scientific impact on people. 

Mr. ROYCE. There may not be here. In Europe, high voltage 

power lines are usually buried. Maybe certainly in communities 

this close to homes, I think they are always buried, which brings 

me to another point. When it came to Anza-Borrego Desert State 

Park and the question of what to do about the power lines there 

that would run through the park, the decision was made to bury 

the lines in some areas. What do you think the impact was on the 

local community and the home values as a consequence of that alternative of making the decision to bury the lines, because one of 

the questions that came up was the totality of the impact? 

This is the issue the City raises. What is the cost to the citizens 

in terms of the lost property value, to the City in terms of the lost 

revenue, to the State from the same calculus? 

At some point in time, you begin to understand why maybe the 

Europeans made the calculation that, in urban areas, we are going 

to do the tradeoff and bury the power lines because of the other 

costs that would need to be taken into account. 

Mr. STARCK. The Anza-Borrego project that was undergrounded 

is not a 500kV project. That is, I think, a 220kV project that was 

undergrounded. 

Mr. ROYCE. Okay. 

Mr. STARCK. I think it was in and around a State park, okay? 

But with respect to undergrounding 500kV lines here in Chino 

Hills, I would just like to add that there are no 500kV underground 

projects in the United States today. There are only two in the 

39 

world. One is in Shanghai, and the other is in Tokyo. Another is 

being built in Moscow. 

Mr. ROYCE. And what is being done with those lines? 

Mr. STARCK. Those are being undergrounded. 

Mr. ROYCE. So in Shanghai, they are going to underground this. 

And in Moscow, they are going to underground it. 

Mr. STARCK. Two are in operation, Shanghai and Tokyo, and 

Moscow is being built. 

Mr. ROYCE. I see. 

Mr. STARCK. We are not saying it can’t be done. It really can be 

done. 

Mr. ROYCE. Right. 

Mr. STARCK. The technology is there. 

Mr. ROYCE. Obviously, it has been done there. 

Mr. STARCK. Yes, it has been. 

Mr. ROYCE. And it has been done in Anza-Borrego. 

Mr. STARCK. And we are not going to say that it can’t be done. 

It would be something that would be a very expensive proposition 

for the State. And again, the thing that we have to worry about, 

I think, is in the future we believe there is going to be a lot of new 

transmission in Southern California. You take a look at the load 

growth in California, we believe there will be additional 500,000- 

volt lines coming in Southern California. And if the State decides 

to underground here in Chino Hills, then we believe it will be very 

likely that there will be other communities looking to underground, 

and it will result in millions and millions of extra dollars and— 

[applause] 

Mr. ROYCE. Let me ask you about that. What we are talking 

about is not undergrounding for the length of the project. Indeed, 

as it was discussed, there is a little over 10 miles that could have 

been saved had you gone directly through the State park here, in 

terms of construction cost. What we are talking about is in situations where the power lines are in people’s backyards. 

In those circumstances, where you are going to use an existing 

right-of-way and argue that though it was built for a 75-foot tower 

and you are now going to put up a 200-foot tower, we are talking 

about burying those lines given the fact that maybe the science is 

questionable. Maybe we give the benefit of the doubt here in terms 

of the impact. But what you are saying is that we have never had 

power lines carrying this amount of voltage, certainly not in the 

backyards of a community. There may be one in Georgia that has 

gone up, all right? 

What you are also saying is that in other countries, in Russia 

and China, the decision has been made to bury it in these circumstances. We are also hearing that in San Diego, the decision 

was made, given the impact that it would have, to go ahead and 

do the tradeoff and bury the lines. 

I just would ask you, what would the cost savings have been had 

you, for example, taken the 10 miles savings in distance and gone 

through the State park in terms of lower cost there? That would 

have been an alternative, an alternative that could have been 

maybe pushed more vigorously, or to go ahead with duplicating 

what is being done in Europe and elsewhere. 

40 

Mr. STARCK. We looked very hard at the State park alternatives. 

In fact, there were five alternatives evaluated. And under the commission’s rules and processes, we evaluated the environmental impacts of the State park alternative, and we looked at biological impacts. There were problems with the DTSC. That’s the Department 

of Toxic Substance Control. We reviewed the issues with respect to 

unexploded ordnance in the area. There were problems with the 

State park. We were concerned that we would not be able to get 

the State park to change the general plan. There were just a number of hurdles with this project. The geo-technical situation in that 

particular area, building the substation that was required, the 

switchyard, was going to be very challenging in this geological 

area. 

And the commission at the end, after evaluating cost, biological 

impacts, all of these various factors, decided that it was the environmentally inferior route and decided that going and using the existing right-of-way, which was an already disturbed corridor, that 

was the environmentally superior route. And so, it was a very thorough evaluation, and that is how it was decided. 

Mr. ROYCE. Let me just get back to the question I asked about 

the 10 miles. 

Mr. STARCK. Okay. 

Mr. ROYCE. How much would it have saved just in terms of construction cost, so I just have some idea of what I could weigh 

against the cost of the additional engineering for the power station 

on the hillside? 

Mr. STARCK. Our estimate at the time—I don’t have the numbers 

here in front of me, but when we estimated the cost of going 

through the State park, it was a higher cost than going with the 

existing right-of-way. The primary reason for that was you have to 

build that switchyard in the middle of the State park, and you 

were going to have to excavate tremendous amounts of dirt in 

building a GIS substation, that is a gas-insulated substation, which 

is very expensive, and that really increased the cost of the project. 

So it wasn’t a cost savings to go through the State park. 

Mr. ROYCE. This is interesting to me. The issue you make is 

about the property that had been contaminated and the cost that 

it would take. 

Mr. STARCK. Yes. 

Mr. ROYCE. I am certain that at the point in time that the decision was made not to do the due diligence that would have been 

required, maybe because of cost, in order to prevent that contamination, probably at that point in time not as much was known 

about the contamination of groundwater and everything else that 

can occur. 

I wonder if we are in potentially the same circumstance today, 

where just as several decades ago, several generations ago, we 

might not have anticipated the long-term costs that would accrue 

and would impact the society if we didn’t at the time put in place 

standards as to how we would handle hazardous waste. As a matter of fact, in this particular case we are saying just to go back and 

try to handle it and fix it today would be too costly. 

Is it possible that our friends in Europe or in Russia or in China 

are anticipating that maybe it is worth the tradeoff given what we 

41 

don’t know about electromagnetic fields and the consequences of 

that in the future? 

[applause] 

Mr. ROYCE. If we were just to weigh the scales here, looking back 

in time, thinking about what we didn’t anticipate in terms of that 

hazardous waste, and then looking at what we don’t know today 

about the science. As you say, it is arguable. But we do know that 

other societies are reaching a different conclusion than we are on 

this. Is it possible that should be weighed in the balance in order 

to protect and lower the costs long term? And could that still be 

done in consultation, mediation, and in an effort to work with the 

City in order to resolve the problem? 

Mr. STARCK. The commission evaluated a number of factors and 

came to the decision that it did. I would only add that with respect 

to undergrounding, if the State decides that undergrounding is the 

way to go, we would want them to recognize that the cost of doing 

that policy will not be restricted here to Chino Hills if we do it 

here. It will go in a lot of other places throughout Southern California, at great expense, and as you know, California— 

[applause] 

Mr. STARCK. California has some of the highest rates. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. I ask that you hold your applause. 

We will get it. 

Mr. STARCK. California has the highest electricity rates in the 

United States, and we believe prosperity in California is dependent 

upon affordable energy. And so, that is why we are concerned 

about doing things that will really raise rates. 

Mr. ROYCE. Let me just close with this. One of the reasons California has the highest electrical rates is because of mandates like 

the one that the chairman alluded to that have been imposed upon 

this State that requires that this be done in a manner which is so 

much more costly. I think that should be recognized as well. 

But at the end of the day, when we anticipate costs, I think we 

are failing to factor in an additional issue here that is going to 

make it, as we heard from the testimony here in terms of the home 

values, very difficult for people to get refinancing for their homes 

if they are proximate to these towers. We are going to have lower 

values there. 

But long term, we also have that cost of the potential liability, 

and that could be addressed today by burying the lines or running 

them through an uninhabited area where it does not impact the 

citizens here. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF CALIFORNIA. Thank you. 

Hopefully, based on the confusion we have had in the past, there 

has been some clarity on this issue. We have established a record, 

I believe, that hopefully will help resolve this issue in a positive 

way. 

I want to thank the City for opening their great City Hall up to 

us, and the City Council for the testimony and for your generous, 

generous help and contribution in this, and I want to applaud you 

for representing the City who elected you. 

The Chair notes that some Members may have additional questions for this panel, which they may wish to submit in writing. 

42 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 days 

for Members to submit written questions to these witnesses and to 

place their responses in the record. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

April 14, 2012 

44 


75087.001
45 


75087.002
46 


75087.003
47 


75087.004
48 


75087.005
49 


75087.006
50 


75087.007
51 


75087.008
52 


75087.009
53 


75087.010
54 


75087.011
55 


75087.012
56 


75087.013
57 


75087.014
58 


75087.015
59 


75087.016
60 


75087.017
61 


75087.018
62 


75087.019
63 


75087.020
64 


75087.021
65 


75087.022
66 


75087.023
67 


75087.024
68 


75087.025
69 


75087.026
70 


75087.027
71 


75087.028
72 


75087.029
73 


75087.030
74 


75087.031
75 


75087.032
76 


75087.033
77 


75087.034
78 


75087.035
79 


75087.036
80 


75087.037
81 


75087.038
82 


75087.039
83 


75087.040
84 


75087.041
85 


75087.042
86 


75087.043
87 


75087.044
88 


75087.045
89 


75087.046
90 


75087.047
91 


75087.048