Energy Division issued a Notice of Preparation of the EIR on May 6, 2015, the draft EIR was issued in April 2016, and the final EIR was issued in April 2017. A prehearing conference was conducted on June 5, 2017. Evidentiary hearing was held on October 17, 18, and 19, 2017. SCE, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Forest Residents Opposing New Transmission Lines (FRONTLINES), the City of Lake Elsinore (City), the Nevada Hydro Company (Nevada Hydro), and, jointly, Castle & Cooke California, Inc. and Castle & Cooke Alberhill Ranch, LLC (Castle & Cooke) filed opening briefs on November 30, 2017, and briefs on January 4, 2018, upon which this matter was submitted. Scope of Issues The assigned Commissioner’s June 19, 2017, Scoping Memo identifies the following issues to be determined: What are the significant adverse environmental impacts of the proposed projects? This issue encompasses consideration of whether the project designs comport with Commission rules and regulations and other applicable standards governing safe and reliable operations. Are there potentially feasible mitigation measures or project alternatives that will avoid or lessen the significant adverse environmental impacts? This issue encompasses consideration of how to design the proposed projects in a manner that ensures their safe and reliable operation. As between the proposed projects and the project alternatives, which is environmentally superior? Was the EIR completed in compliance with CEQA, did the Commission review and consider the EIR prior to approving the project or a project alternative, and does the EIR reflect our independent judgment?
Compliance Enforcement FRONTLINES argues that the EIR is legally deficient because it fails to require SCE to operate its construction activities in a manner consistent with the EIR’s assumptions. To the contrary, the EIR’s analysis is properly based on SCE’s expectations for its construction activities. If SCE requires a “Minor Project Refinement” to conduct greater activity than is assumed in the EIR, the Commission will review and approve it if there is no increase in the severity of the impact, or conduct additional environmental review if the impact would be severely increased. Indeed, SCE’s petition to modify D.1008009 to allow it to use helicopters in construction is an example of that process. Infeasibility Where construction of a project alternative would have significant environmental effects, the Commission may not approve the project without the mitigation identified to reduce or avoid those effects unless the Commission finds that the identified mitigation or project alternative is infeasible for specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations. (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3).) No party asserts that the environmentally superior project alternatives and associated mitigation measures are infeasible, and we find that they are not infeasible. Overriding Considerations, Including Project Need for Alberhill Project Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15093, the Commission may approve a project that results in significant and unavoidable impacts only upon a finding that there are overriding considerations. Section 15093(a) describes the analysis as follows: CEQA requires the decisionmaking agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including
the ability to interconnect the possible LEAPS project to SCE’s system is an overriding consideration meriting approval of the Alberhill project. CEQA and Pub. Util. Code § 1001 require us to weigh the uncertain and relatively modest projected need for the Alberhill project against its certain significant and unavoidable impacts on aesthetics. We also take note of the Alberhill project cost of $464 million or more. Because we find it likely that the Alberhill project will not be needed, at all or in any case by 2021, we do not find overriding considerations that merit its approval at this time. This decision denies the Alberhill project without prejudice. If new or updated information demonstrates a need for the Alberhill project, SCE may submit a new application for the development of the project, in compliance with Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure and General Order 131-D and other applicable regulations. In a new application, SCE should supplement the statement of facts and reasons why the public convenience and necessity require the proposed facilities including but not limited to: Load forecast including industry accepted methods for estimating load growth and incorporating load reduction programs due to energy efficiency, demand response, and behind-the-meter generation; Identification of all subtransmission planning areas in the SCE system with similar reliability issues; A planning study that supports the project need and includes applicable planning criteria and reliability standards; An analysis of several years of electric reliability performance for the Valley systems to demonstrate existing customer service level; An analysis of outages over the past 5 years by root cause for the Valley South systems in comparison to SCE system average and to other subtransmission radial systems;