April 6, 2012 1

CEQAEnergy Division First Friday Forum

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 6

El Casco Fossil Find

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 14

Agency Coordination

• 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 18

Two Parallel Review Processes

• Completeness review• Agency Consultation• Notice of Preparation• Public Scoping Meeting• Draft EIR• Public Meeting • Public Comments• Final EIR

CEQA Review

Proponent’s Environmental Assessment

• Protest/Responses Filed• Prehearing Conference• Public Participation Hearing• Scoping memo• Evidentiary hearings

CPUC Proceeding

Application (PTC or CPCN)

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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.

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 25

Atascadero

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

measures

April 6, 2012 26

Atascadero

April 6, 2012 27

Atascadero

April 6, 2012 28

Atascadero

April 6, 2012 29

Lockhart (Water Valley) Substation NTPs

• SCE Project• San Bernardino County• Interconnects the 250 MW Abengoa Mojave Solar

Project • 220kV switching station

April 6, 2012 30April 6, 2012 CEQA Team First Friday Forum

Lockhart (Water Valley) Substation NTPs

April 6, 2012 31

Major Projects

April 6, 2012 32

Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project

(TRTP)

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 34

April 6, 2012 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.

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 41

Tehachapi Wind Project

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 43

Sunrise Powerlink

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 45

Existing Conditions Through Anza Borrego

• Existing view along SR78 towards Narrows Substation. Wood poles from an existing 69 kV line are also visible.

April 6, 2012 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.

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 48

Approved Project Route

April 6, 2012 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

April 6, 2012 50

Construction Challenges

• Construction around cultural sites• Eagle nesting• Bighorn sheep lambing season

April 6, 2012 51

Construction Challenges• Construction in steep terrain• Helicopter construction for 237 out of 443 towers• 15-33 helicopters operating daily

Dropped tower outside of Plaster City Construction Yard during tower erection activities in Imperial County

April 6, 2012 52

Construction Challenges• Dropped air compressor near Kruetzkamp Construction

Yard. Hook system on the helicopter was found to be the cause of the incident and was removed from operation for evaluation

• Helicopter was fitted with an alternative hook system and continued operation the next day

April 6, 2012 53

Construction Challenges• 6 miles of 230 kV undergrounding in Alpine Blvd.

Business District

Vault excavation on Alpine Boulevard

April 6, 2012 54

Skycrane Tower Lift

April 6, 2012 55

Wire Installation Construction Activities

April 6, 2012 56

Conventional Tower Assembly in the Desert

April 6, 2012 57

Mountain Springs Grade (MSG) Construction

• MSG micropile drilling (left) and tower staging access pads (right) with barefoot banded gecko exclusionary fencing surrounding the temporary and permanent disturbance areas

April 6, 2012 58

Nighttime Construction at the S-2 Yard

April 6, 2012 59

Sunrise

Expected completion date: June 2012

April 6, 2012 60

For More Information on CEQA at the CPUC

• Public Utilities Code Section 1001• General Orders 131-D, 95-A, 96-B, 159-A, 69-C, 163-A• California Code of Regulations Title 14 section

15000 et seq.