CEQA Energy Division First Friday Forum

1. CEQAEnergy Division First Friday Forum

2. What Does the CEQA Team Do? Environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Transmission | Telco | Water/Sewer |Natural Gas Storage | Section 851 Divestitures Construction monitoring after projects are approved Interagency initiatives Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Renewable Energy Policy Group

3. What is CEQA? CEQA requires state and local agencies to: evaluate and disclose to decision makers and the public the environmental impacts of their actions; and avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible CEQA is triggered when a public agency must take discretionary action when reviewing a proposed project CPUC CEQA cases are challenged at the CA Supreme Court

4. CEQA Objectives • Make public and disclose environmental impacts of projects • Mitigate or avoid environmental damage • Encourage public participation • Disclose reasons for project approval if the project creates unavoidable impacts

5. CEQA Impact Areas Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality (GHG) Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Social and Economic

6. El Casco Fossil Find

7. Impacts of the “Whole of the Action” • Environmental review must consider impacts of related or connected actions that could result from approval of the proposed project • For example: If a utility proposes a substation that could result in additional power plants, the Commission must assess the impacts from the power plants at the level of detail available • Although the Commission may assess impacts from connected actions, it does not permit the power plants

8. Mitigation Measures BIO – California Tiger Salamander Exclusion Fencing • Work sites are surveyed for CTS • Exclusion fencing is installed to prevent CTS from entering and provides an exit if trapped within the fencing

9. Mitigation Measures AIR – Fugitive Dust Control • Rumble strips prevent work trucks from tracking dirt onto roadways and spreading noxious weeds into other areas • Other measures include wash stations between the working area and the road and spraying the roads with a water truck

10. Environmental Documents • Findings from the Initial Study of environmental impacts determines the type of document • Negative Declaration (ND) • The project creates no significant impacts • Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) • The project creates significant impacts, but the impacts can be avoided or mitigated

11. Environmental Documents • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) • The project may cause significant impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated to a level that is less than significant • Includes alternatives analysis • The environmentally superior alternative must be chosen if feasible • Cost is not a factor unless economically infeasible

12. Joint Federal/State Documents The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) applies to Federal agencies The CPUC frequently produces joint CEQA/NEPA documents with federal agencies Memorandums of Understanding define each agency’s duties Agencies together produce a joint EIR/EIS but only make decisions for projects within their respective jurisdiction

13. Public Participation • Scoping meetings allow the public to raise issues before environmental review begins • Public notice is required when an application is filed and at important milestones • The public has the opportunity to comment • CPUC responds to all public comments

14. CA Dept. of Fish and Game US Fish and Wildlife Service US Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Caltrans Air Quality Management Districts CA Coastal Commission Army Corps Of Engineers Department of Water Resources State Historic Preservation Office Native American Heritage Commission State Water Resources Control Board State Lands Commission Agency Coordination

15. CEQA at the CPUC Two stages: • Project review and approval • 6-12 months for Mitigated Negative Declaration • 1-2 years for Environmental Impact Report • Sunrise and Tehachapi: 2.5 years (both joint CEQA/NEPA documents) • Construction Monitoring • 1-5 years • Sunrise 6 years, Tehachapi 5+ years

16. Section 851 Divestures • Sales, leasing, and transfer of utility assets • Divestiture of power plants; ownership interest in shared facilities; watershed conservation lands; surplus property • Entering into leases and granting easements -residential and commercial • Streamlined Advice Letter pilot program for certain types of transactions

17. Transmission Project Review and Approval Types of Applications Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) Transmission lines greater than or equal to 200 kV Requires a review of need and cost Permit to Construct (PTC) Power lines greater than 50kV and less than 200 kV Substations greater than 50kV and less than 200 kV Does not require a review of need and cost Need may become an issue if there are overriding considerations

18. Two Parallel Review Processes CEQA Review Proponent’s Environmental Assessment CPUC Proceeding Application (PTC or CPCN) • Completeness review • Agency Consultation • Notice of Preparation • Public Scoping Meeting • Draft EIR • Public Meeting • Public Comments • Final EIR • Protest/Responses Filed • Prehearing Conference • Public Participation Hearing • Scoping memo • Evidentiary hearings

19. One Final Approval Process • Proposed and Alternate Decisions • Public Comment on PD and APD • CPUC vote to certify the environmental document and approve the project • The document certification and project approval can be done separately, but this is rare at the CPUC and common at other agencies

20. Mitigation Monitoring After project approval, staff manages construction monitoring through Environmental Monitors Mitigation Monitoring, Reporting and Compliance Program Mitigation measures Applicant proposed measures Communication protocols

21. Mitigation Monitoring Staff grants a Notice to Proceed for each stage of construction Staff first ensures compliance with all permits, plans, mitigation measures, and applicant proposed measures Staff can issue a stop work order if a utility is out of compliance

22. Worker Environmental Awareness Program • Anyone on the project site must first attend a WEAP training. • Once trained, personnel place stickers on their hard hats to show compliance with WEAP.

23. Atascadero PG&E project in San Luis Obispo County Replaces existing 70kV line with new conductor Replaces light duty steel poles and lattice steel towers 15.5 miles

24. Atascadero • Draft Environmental Review - 7 Months • PG&E filed application and Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) • Application and PEA deemed complete • Initial Study to determine MND or EIR • Public Review, Final Document - 6 Months • CPUC released Draft IS/MND and Notice of Intent to adopt MND • Public review and comment • Final IS/MND

25. Atascadero • Construction – Approximately 2.5 years • Notice to Proceed with approved work plans • Monitoring implementation of mitigation measures

26. Atascadero

27. Atascadero

28. Atascadero

29. Lockhart (Water Valley) Substation NTPs SCE Project San Bernardino County Interconnects the 250 MW Abengoa Mojave Solar Project 220kV switching station

30. CEQA Team First Friday Forum Lockhart (Water Valley) Substation NTPs April 6, 2012

31. Major Projects

32. Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP)

33. Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project • Connects Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA) in Kern County to Los Angeles Basin • Most of project is an upgrade of the 220 kV system to 500kV • Only 1 new right of way (ROW) • Potential - 4500 MW, maybe more • 173 miles • 3 new substations and upgrades/work at 6 other substations • 3 counties, 21 cities, multiple jurisdictions

35. Project Objectives • Connect renewable energy (mostly wind) to the grid. • Kern County has applications for 1,000 MW of solar in the western Mojave.

36. Application and Environmental Review • SCE filed application in June 2007 • Joint EIR (CEQA)/EIS (NEPA) with US Forest Service • Line goes through Angeles Forest triggering NEPA • Draft EIR/EIS released February 2009 • Over 2,000 comments and 15 public meetings • Final EIR/EIS released October 2009 • 2 years, 4 months after application was filed

37. Alternative Analysis • EIR/EIS considered 29 alternatives • Various routes • Different technologies • Different construction technologies • While the proposed project went through the City of Chino Hills, at the request of the City, an alternative route was designed to avoid the city by going through Chino Hills State Park

38. CPCN DECISION • CPUC Decision December 2009 • 2.5 years after application was filed • Decision did not approve the Chino Hills State Park alternative, but chose the proposed route along the existing Right of Way through the City of Chino Hills • There was considerable opposition from the City of Chino Hills which filed an Application for Rehearing (appeal) to the decision • No resolution yet

39. Chino Hills • City of Chino Hills filed suit against SCE stating the ROW was “overburdened” • Suit failed in Superior Court and was rejected by Court of Appeals and State Supreme Court

40. Construction • Construction started in April 2010 and is about 50% complete at this time, mostly in the north • Estimated completion Summer 2015 • Originally 2013 • Wind generators are starting to connect to northern section of project • SCE began building towers through Chino Hills, until the CPUC stopped construction in Chino Hills in November 2011 in response to community concerns

41. Tehachapi Wind Project

42. Chino Hills • SCE and Chino Hills entered into an unsuccessful Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) process February 2012 • The Commission stay on construction in Chino Hills remains in effect while the Commission considers other possibilities • Completion date may suffer more delay based on possible new alternatives for Chino Hills

43. Sunrise Powerlink

44. Sunrise In 2006, SDG&E proposed the Sunrise Powerlink 150 miles from Imperial County to San Diego County through Anza Borrego Desert State Park 500/230 kV line 500/230 kV substation Controversial project with 52 unmitigable significant impacts Required an extensive public engagement process

45. Existing Conditions Through Anza Borrego Existing view along SR78 towards Narrows Substation. Wood poles from an existing 69 kV line are also visible.

46. Simulation of Proposed Route Through ABDSP Visual simulation along SR78 towards Narrows Substation in ABDSP. The project would be located north of SR78 and the existing 69 kV line would be relocated underground.

47. Sunrise The CPUC prepared an 11,000 page joint EIR/EIS with BLM 27 fully analyzed alternatives, including non-park routes and non-wires In December 2008 the CPUC approved Environmentally Superior Southern Alternative 123 miles 127 mitigation measures Route avoids Anza Borrego Desert State Park Overall, less impactful than original proposal Project costs – $19 million environmental review, $1.9 billion to construct by June 2012

48. Approved Project Route

49. Construction • 77 notices to proceed • 67 variances • SDG&E cited 11 times for non-Compliance • 2 Stop Work Orders Issued– 1 by CPUC and 1 by USFS

50. Construction Challenges Construction around cultural sites Eagle nesting Bighorn sheep lambing season