CCC PPPPP U U CCC N N EEEEE W W W SSS C C P p U U C C NN N E W W W S S C P P U U C N N N E W W W S C PPPPP U U C N N N EEE W W W W SSS C P U U C N N N E WW WW S C C P U U C C N NN E W W S S CCC P UUUU CCC N N EEEEE W W SSS CONTACT: Kyle DeVine April 10, 1996 CPUC - 512 213-897-4225 (A.91-10-013) CPUC APPROVES PACIFIC PIPELINE, CERTIFIES SEIR The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) today authorized the Pacific Pipeline System, Inc. (Pacific Pipeline) to obtain financing for a pipeline between Gaviota in southern Kern County, and refineries in the Los Angeles Basin. The Commission also certified the second environmental review document prepared for this project - the Environmental Impact Statement/Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (EIS/SEIR). Today's approval does not grant exclusive jurisdiction to Pacific Pipeline. The Commission recognizes that other carriers are competing or, after receiving necessary approval, may decide whether to build a pipeline in the future. Pacific Pipeline plans to develop a 132-mile pipeline to transport crude oil produced in the San Joaquin Valley and offshore Santa Barbara County to refineries in the Los Angeles Basin. It will use the All American Pipeline to transport oil from Santa Barbara to the Emidio Station in southern Kern County. From there a new 20-inch pipeline with a capacity of 130,000 barrels per day will extend along Interstate 5 to Castaic, crossing 20 miles of national forest. Then it will extend along the Southern Pacific Transportation Company right-of-way to refineries in Wilmington, El Segundo, and Carson. The estimated cost is $177 million. The National Environmental Policy Act required an EIS addressing environmental impacts on the Angeles National Forest. The California Environmental Quality Act required environmental impact studies in California. The Commission and the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Angeles National Forest jointly prepared the EIS/SEIR. Both the Angeles National Forest and the Commission have certified that the report thoroughly looks at environmental impacts and may be used by other agencies in exercising their authority over the project. -more- The EIS/SEIR found the project to be environmentally superior over the other three alternatives considered - the Mojave Alternate, the Cajon Pipeline Alternate and the No Project Alternate. Mitigation measures suggested in the report are adopted as conditions for approval of the project. They include emission control measures for construction equipment, replanting, avoiding sensitive plants and replacing topsoil, avoiding sensitive wildlife nesting sites, and avoiding or excavating archeological or historic resource sites. The only unavoidable significant adverse impacts for the project are those associated with oil spills and pipeline ruptures. The only way to avoid these impacts is to stop shipping oil. Potential benefits of the pipeline include, reduction of existing truck, rail and tank transportation of crude oil, reduction of cumulative emissions, cleanup of environmentally contaminated soils encountered along the route, increases in annual County General Fund and other public revenues from taxes, and local hiring. The Commission approved an EIR in September 1993, for the project's initial route which ran from Gaviota through Santa Barbara and Ventura to Castaic then along the Southern Pacific right-of-way to Wilmington and El Segundo. Later, when Pacific Pipeline modified its route to add refineries and use the All American Pipeline instead of constructing a new pipeline through Santa Barbara and Ventura, the EIS/SEIR was required. It included the portion of the EIR that had examined the route from Castaic to El Segundo and Wilmington refineries and examined impacts along the new construction route from Emidio to Castaic and the extensions to the new refineries. The EIS/SEIR also considered new information resulting from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, additional development projects and President Clinton's 1994 Executive Order to minimize the impacts of federal actions on minority and low-income communities. Public Hearings and workshops were held in sites along both routes. Numerous comments and 15 alternatives - which were later reduced to three - to the projects were discussed. Drafts of both reports were mailed to interested parties and made available for review. The draft EIS/SEIR was available on the Internet and at 45 public information centers such as libraries. During the comment period for the draft EIS/SEIR, more than 1,500 comments and 1,100 letters were received. The Commission and the Forest Service used all these comments and subsequent information about the revised Cajon Pipeline Alternate in preparing the Final EIS/SEIR. more- _______________________ CONTACT: Robert Lane 415-703-2692 Remarks of Commissioner Jessie J. Knight, Jr. on Pacific Pipeline, April 10, 1996 As you are all aware, this case has been a major issue in the communities where the company wants to build its pipeline for many years since 1991. I am very sensitive to the concerns that the residents and local officials have raised, and want to address them briefly. The press in Southern California has covered this case extensively, and I have followed it closely. First, concerns have been raised over possible impacts on the city water supply. Our analysis in the EIR weighed all of the tradeoffs, including the likelihood of accidents, and the effects accidents would have. Exhaustive reviews of these concerns convince me that all negative possibilities have been fully explored. Second, the claims that there are other existing pipelines that can be substituted are not workable. It is impossible to predict how these pipelines will be used in the future. Moreover, the Commission does not have authority to order these other pipelines to stand as alternatives. But even so, the Commission did study a project option owned by competitors of Pacific Pipeline, and found that project to be not as prudent. Last, one of my biggest concerns has been the need to ensure environmental justice to the communities where this project will be located. In terms of the route which was chosen, I think that it should be highlighted that other options were examined. The impact on low-income and minority communities was part of this analysis. Three alternatives were carefully scrutinized, after eleven were screened out. Of the alternatives considered, the option before us today was found to be the most viable. I am comfortable that in this case, we have seriously considered the potential impact of this project, and the other alternatives, on the local communities. In fact, as a condition of approval, the Commission is requiring the environmental justice program which Pacific Pipeline volunteered to institute. -more- A major construction project like the Pacific Pipeline carries with it some degree of opposition, and concern about potential impacts. I am pleased that our environmental review process has provided us with the information we need to ensure that the proposed project is approved with full knowledge of the benefits and costs associated with it. I would like to thank Martha Sullivan for the religious scrutiny that she has employed on this important case, which has extended well beyond its original timeline due to changes by the proponent. It is now time to move this case on. -###-