REPLY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) TO PROTESTS AND REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS

Julie A. Miller Senior Attorney Julie.Miller@SCE.com May 25, 2005 Docket Clerk California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 RE: A.05-04-015 Dear Docket Clerk: Enclosed for filing with the Commission are the original and five copies of the REPLY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E TO PROTESTS AND REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS in the above-referenced proceeding. We request that a copy of this document be file-stamped and returned for our records. A self-addressed, stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. Your courtesy in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, Julie A. Miller JAM:dcc:LW051430031.doc Enclosures cc: All Parties of Record (U 338-E

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In the Matter of the Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Concerning the Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project Application No. 05-04-015 (Filed April 11, 2005 REPLY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E TO PROTESTS AND REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to Rule 44.6 of the California Public Utilities Commission s (Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure, Southern California Edison Company (U 388-E (SCE responds to the protests and requests for hearings from Edward Sanford, Perry and Ellie Zabala, John D. and Mary P. Butler, Julian Veselkov, Orvett W. Shelby, Renee Switzky, Mission Development Company, Chaffin Farms, Granite Construction Company, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP, and 3M Composite Conductor Program (3M (collectively, the Protestors to the Application of Southern California Edison Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN Concerning the Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project (DPV2. 1

II. BACKGROUND SCE proposes to construct a 230-mile, 500 kilovolt (kv alternating current transmission line between California and Arizona connecting SCE s existing Devers 500 kv Substation (Devers near Palm Springs, California to the existing Harquahala Generating Company (HGC Switchyard (Harquahala, located approximately 49 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. 1 Additionally, upgrades to four of SCE s 230 kv transmission lines within California, west of Devers, and to certain existing electrical transmission facilities in California and Arizona, would be required. The four lines are located within an existing 47-mile transmission corridor from Devers to SCE s San Bernardino and Vista Substations. 2 Collectively, this proposed project is referred to as DPV2. On April 11, 2005, SCE filed Application No. 05-04-015 pursuant to General Order 131- D (GO 131D for a CPCN to construct DPV2. A Proponent s Environmental Assessment (PEA, which addresses each of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA factors for DPV2, was attached to the application. 3 SCE noticed the filing of the application to certain public agencies, legislative bodies and property owners located within 300 feet of the proposed DPV2 project area in accordance with GO 131D, Section XI.A. 4 Pursuant to GO 131D, Section XII, the public has 30 days to protest the application and request hearings. During the public notice period, which ended on May 16, 2005, SCE received 12 protests. Some of the Protestors allege 1 Generally, the proposed route between Devers and Harquahala runs parallel to SCE s existing Devers-Palo Verde 1 (DPV1 Transmission Line. The proposed route is 230 miles, of which 128 miles are in California and 102 miles are in Arizona. 2 SCE s San Bernardino and Vista Substations are located approximately two miles from the City of San Bernardino. 3 For purposes of the environmental analysis, the PEA divides DPV2 into two sections: (1 impacts that could occur with respect to the proposed Devers-Harquahala 500 kv transmission line (Devers-Harquahala 500 kv Transmission Line; and (2 impacts that could occur with respect to the upgrades to SCE s existing 230 kv transmission system west of Devers (West of Devers 230 kv Transmission Upgrade. SCE s Field Management Plan (FMP, attached as Appendix B to the application, also divides the DPV2 project into the above referenced sections for purposes of analysis. 4 Although not required by GO 131D, SCE kept the local area residents informed regarding DPV2 by sending fact sheets prior to filing the application with the Commission. 2

that aspects of DPV2 will have an adverse impact on (i health and safety, (ii aesthetics, and (iii property values. In addition, Chaffin Farms and Granite Construction Company would like additional information about DPV2 to determine the impacts, if any, the project may have on their existing operations. Moreover, Mission Development is in the process of developing a project located within the DPV2 area and is of the opinion that DPV2 will adversely affect its development. The LADWP protests SCE s right to construct DPV2. 3M filed a protest, not opposing the project, but suggesting that the 3M Brand Aluminum Matrix Composite Conductor known as Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced or ACCR be used as a conductor material. The ORA has informed the Commission that it intends to address the issues related to the cost-effectiveness of DPV2. SCE responds to the Protestors allegations below. III. DISCUSSION A. Health and Safety Some of the Protestors contend that DPV2 will increase health and safety risks. As required by the Commission, SCE designs and constructs its overhead transmission, subtransmission and distribution facilities to meet or exceed the requirements of General Order 95 (GO 95, Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction. GO 95 establishes the minimum design and construction requirements for overhead transmission, subtransmission and distribution facilities constructed within the State of California. In addition to the requirements of GO 95, SCE utilizes other applicable industry standards in the design of its overhead electric facilities. DPV2 will meet or exceed the requirements of GO 95 and other applicable industry standards. An integrated action plan has been developed in California in response to concerns about potential health impacts of power frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMF from electric utility facilities. This plan was established by the Commission in Decision No. 93-11-013, in which the Commission adopted a policy requiring investor-owned electric utilities operating 3

within the state to incorporate various no-cost and low-cost measures into the construction of new or upgraded power lines and substations, and requiring each utility to develop and publish guidelines to implement this policy. SCE also provides EMF information packages and EMF measurements upon customer request. In accordance with the Commission s Decision No. 93-11-013, SCE will implement, among other measures, the following no-cost and low-cost EMF reduction measures for DPV2: 5 Devers-Harquahala 500 kv Transmission Line: Utilize a typical horizontal 500 kv tower height of 150 feet. (Magnetic field models are based on 140-foot tower heights and the 150-foot towers would result in lower magnetic field strength at the edge of the right-of-way. Install 500 kv transposition towers near the same locations as existing transposition towers for the DPV1 500 kv transmission line. (Transposition towers are used to re-arrange the phase conductors on a transmission line, and they enable magnetic field reduction as well as phase impedance equalization across the line route. Use existing right-of-way. West-of-Devers 230 kv Transmission Upgrade: Replace single-circuit towers with double-circuit 230 kv towers, which are comparable to the existing double-circuit towers. Utilize a typical double-circuit 230 kv tower height of 150 feet. (Magnetic field models are based on 140-foot tower heights and the 150-foot towers would result in lower magnetic field strength at the edge of the right-of-way. 5 For further information see Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct the Devers-Palo Verde No. 2 Transmission Line Project, Appendix B. 4

Position similarly loaded circuits together on the same towers for enhanced magnetic field cancellation. Change phasing sequences for existing transmission and subtransmission lines to further reduce magnetic field levels. Use existing right-of-way. SCE s plan for reducing magnetic fields for the proposed project is consistent with the Commission s Decision No. 93-11-013 and also with recommendations of the National Institute of Health Sciences Electric and Magnetic Fields Research and Public Information Dissemination Program. B. Aesthetics and Property Valuation Some of the Protestors contend that DPV2 will have an impact on area aesthetics and will have the potential to impact the value of their properties. 1 Aesthetics Edward Sanford s protest letter stated that one of his two main concerns was with aesthetics. The issue of aesthetics is addressed in the PEA. See PEA, Section 5.1.11 (Devers-Harquahala 500 kv Transmission Line and Section 5.2.11 (West-of-Devers 230 kv Transmission Upgrade. Visual impacts are expected to be less than significant. 2 Property Values Electric utility transmission line corridors and substations are present in communities throughout Southern California. While there is a range of views about the pros and cons of these facilities from an aesthetic perspective, systematic impact on property value due to proximity to utility right-of-ways or utility facilities has not been established. The issue of aesthetics is analyzed in the PEA. See PEA, Section 5.1.11 (Devers-Harquahala 500 kv Transmission Line and Section 5.2.11 (West-of-Devers 230 kv Transmission Upgrade. The Commission has found, where, as here, the proposed project impacts are less than significant or have been mitigated to less than significant 5

levels, then any associated property value impacts are unlikely to be significant. See Jefferson-Martin 230 kv Transmission Line Project Final EIR, October 2003 pp. D13-24. Perry and Ellie Zabala s protest letter requested that they be compensated for any right-of-way at the present market value of the property. To the extent that additional right-of-way will need to be acquired for DPV2, SCE will pay fair market value for the additional property rights. C. Requests for Additional Information Chaffin Farms and Granite Construction Company have requested additional information about DPV2 to determine the impacts, if any, the project may have on their existing operations. In addition, Granite Construction Company has requested a meeting with SCE. SCE has contacted Chaffin Farms and Granite Construction Company to address the requests made in their protests. Although Mission Development Company s protest did not request additional information, SCE has also contacted Mission Development Company to discuss its statement that the DPV2 project will adversely affect its proposed development project. D. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LADWP protests SCE s application because the Department asserts that LADWP has the right to build DPV2 6 and that the issue of who builds DPV2 should be resolved, by settlement or through a lawsuit to be filed by LADWP, prior to the Commission proceeding with SCE s application. 7 SCE is well within its rights to proceed with its application, and if the Commission approves the application, construction. Whether SCE or LADWP builds DPV2, SCE will still need a CPCN from the Commission. SCE and LADWP are currently in negotiations to resolve LADWP s issues. 6 See LADWP Protest at p. 1. 7 See id. at 5 ( If [meet and confer] fails, LADWP is prepared to seek its remedy in state court for breach of contract, declaratory relief and injunctive relief.. 6

E. 3M Composite Conductor Program 3M filed a protest to SCE s application suggesting that the ACCR may provide valuable benefits for the West-of-Devers 230 kv Transmission Upgrade where extensive reconductoring work is contemplated. 8 To date, SCE has reviewed the use of ACCR and determined that SCE s proposed design is superior to 3M s proposal. SCE estimates that a 3M ACCR design for the West-of-Devers upgrades would result in a higher installed cost, higher life cycle cost, and higher transmission line losses. Nevertheless, SCE is willing to further discuss with 3M the possible benefits of using ACCR. F. Office of Ratepayer Advocates The ORA intends to address the issues related to the cost-effectiveness of SCE s proposed project and anticipates that it will need approximately three to six months to prepare its report. Additionally, ORA requests that a prehearing conference not be set until after June 27, 2005. SCE has no objection to holding a prehearing conference on, or shortly after June 27, 2005 or holding hearings on the cost-effectiveness of the project, provided the hearing schedule would allow the Commission to issue a final decision within the overall schedule proposed in SCE s application (which requests a final decision be issued by April, 2006. Although it may not be practical to expect parties to file testimony in May (as SCE requested when it filed its application on April 11, 2005, the testimony should be scheduled at the earliest date possible. Therefore, SCE urges the Commission to convene a prehearing conference in late June, and set a schedule that would lead to intervenor testimony no later than three months from now. IV. CONCLUSION All of the CEQA and EMF related issues raised by the Protestors have been completely addressed in the PEA or FMP. The PEA concludes that none of DPV2 s impacts are significant 8 See 3M Composite Conductor Program Protest at pp. 1-2. 7

under CEQA. The Protestors make no allegations or offer any evidence to the contrary. However, given the scope of DPV2, SCE has no objection to the Commission holding hearings on the application provided the hearing schedule would allow the Commission to issue a final decision within the schedule proposed in SCE s application, the timeline contained in the Commission s own rules, and the Permit Streamlining Act. Respectfully submitted, JULIE A. MILLER By: Julie A. Miller Attorneys for SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770 Telephone: (626 302-4017 Facsimile: (626 302-2610 E-mail:Julie.Miller@SCE.com May 25, 2005 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, I have this day served a true copy of REPLY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E TO PROTESTS AND REQUESTS FOR HEARINGS on all parties identified on the attached service list(s. Service was effected by one or more means indicated below: Transmitting the copies via e-mail to all parties who have provided an e-mail address. First class mail will be used if electronic service cannot be effectuated. Placing the copies in sealed envelopes and causing such envelopes to be delivered by hand or by overnight courier to the offices of the Commission or other addressee(s. Placing copies in properly addressed sealed envelopes and depositing such copies in the United States mail with first-class postage prepaid to all parties. Directing Prographics to place the copies in properly addressed sealed envelopes and to deposit such envelopes in the United States mail with first-class postage prepaid to all parties. Executed this 25th day of May, 2005, at Rosemead, California. Lizette Vidrio Project Analyst SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue Post Office Box 800 Rosemead, California 91770