PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

              ENERGY DIVISION                                           RESOLUTION E-3668 
                                                                                         APRIL11, 2000

R E S O L U T I O N    

RESOLUTION E-3668, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S ORDER DISMISSING PROTESTS BY BRUCE A. BETTS, DONALD EDWARD HEIDENREICH, J. DESMOND, AND DAVID AND DIANNA HILLYER TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S CLAIM OF EXEMPTION FROM GENERAL ORDER 131-D PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF GOLD HILL CLARKSVILLE POWER LINE

BY ADVICE LETTER 1950-E FILED ON January 5, 2000.

SUMMARY 

Pacific Gas and  Electric Company (PG&E) plans to reconstruct approximately five miles of the existing Gold Hill-Martell 60 kilovolt single circuit power line to a double-circuit 115 kilovolt power line, between Gold Hill Substation in the City of Folsom and Clarksville Substation in the El Dorado Hills area of El Dorado County. As part of the same project, PG&E will install a new 115 kilovolt breaker and capacitor bank at Gold Hill Substation. The project is needed to provide adequate power line capacity and voltage support to the area. This will allow PG&E to continue to provide safe and reliable electric service to the existing and planned customers of western El Dorado County. The new double-circuit 115 kilovolt power line will be constructed in the same alignment as the existing 60 kilovolt power line. The line begins at PG&E’s Gold Hill Substation, located near the corner of East Bidwell Road and Nesmith Court in the City of Folsom and runs east across East Bidwell Road, along Clarksville Road, through the planned developments of Broadstone and Empire Ranch in the City of Folsom. The line then continues into El Dorado County running through the La Cresta and Crestridge developments, across Highway 50, through the Town Center West development, across Latrobe Road, adjacent to White Rock Road before reaching PG&E’s Clarksville Substation. Also, approximately 1,700 feet of power line will be relocated to accommodate the future widening of White Rock Road. One pole will be relocated approximately 40 feet north of its current location. 

The installation of substations and power line facilities is governed by the California Public Utilities Commission’s General Order (GO) 131-D,  which requires either an application for a Permit to Construct or an informational advice letter if the project qualifies for an exemption, as specified in GO 131-D, Section III.B.1.  PG&E filed Advice Letter 1950-E to claim exemption from the requirement to file for a Permit to Construct, as prescribed by GO 131-D, Sections XI.B and C.  PG&E’s claim of exemption is based on GO 131-D, Section III.B.1.(c) and (g), which exempts “the minor relocation of existing power line facilities up to 2,000 feet in length, or the intersetting of additional supporting structures,” and construction of “power line facilities or substations to be located in an existing franchise, road widening setback easement, or public utility easement; or in a utility corridor designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies for which a final Negative Declaration or EIR finds no significant unavoidable environmental impacts.” 

David and Dianna Hillyer protested this advice letter, disputing the application of the exemptions to the project, but the project  falls within the exemptions cited by PG&E. Bruce A. Betts, Donald Edward Heidenreich, J. Desmond, and the Hillyers protested this advice letter, raising several questions which do not bear on PG&E’s application of the specific exemptions to this project. Therefore, these protests are dismissed for failure to state a valid reason. 

BACKGROUND

Electric utilities proposing to construct new substations and transmission lines must comply with GO 131-D which, among other things, provides for filing an application for a Permit to Construct unless the project is exempt for certain reasons specified in Section III.B. of the GO.

In Section XIII, GO 131-D provides that any person or entity may protest a claim of exemption for one of two reasons: 1) that the utility incorrectly applied a GO 131-D exemption, or 2) that any of the conditions exist which are specified in the GO to render the exemption inapplicable.  GO 131-D, Section III.B.2 states that an exemption shall not apply to a construction project when: 1) there is reasonable possibility that the activity may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies; or 2) the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type, in the same place, over time, is significant; or 3) there is reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.  If a timely protest is filed, construction shall not commence until the Executive Director has issued an Executive Resolution either requiring the utility to file an application for a Permit to Construct or dismissing the protest.

In Advice Letter 1950-E PG&E plans to reconstruct approximately five miles of the existing Gold Hill-Martell 60 kilovolt single circuit power line to a double-circuit 115 kilovolt power line, between Gold Hill Substation in the City of Folsom and Clarksville Substation in the El Dorado Hills area of El Dorado County. As part of the same project, PG&E will install a new 115 kilovolt breaker and capacitor bank at Gold Hill Substation. The project is needed to provide adequate power line capacity and voltage support to the area. This will allow PG&E to continue to provide safe and reliable electric service to the existing and planned customers of western El Dorado County. The new double-circuit 115 kilovolt power line will be constructed in the same alignment as the existing 60 kilovolt power line. The line begins at PG&E’s Gold Hill Substation, located near the corner of East Bidwell Road and Nesmith Court in the City of Folsom and runs east across East Bidwell Road, along Clarksville Road, through the planned developments of Broadstone and Empire Ranch in the City of Folsom. The line then continues into El Dorado County running through the La Cresta and Crestridge developments, across Highway 50, through the Town Center West development, across Latrobe Road, adjacent to White Rock Road before reaching PG&E’s Clarksville Substation. Also, approximately 1,700 feet of power line will be relocated to accommodate the future widening of White Rock Road. One pole will be relocated approximately 40 feet north of its current location. 

NOTICE

PG&E distributed a Notice of Proposed Construction in accordance with Section XI.B. and C. of GO 131-D, including the filing and service of Advice Letter No. 1950-E in accordance with Section III of GO 96-A.

PROTEST

The twenty-day protest period ended January 25, 2000.  Bruce A. Betts filed a protest dated January 8, 2000.  Donald Edward Heidenreich filed a protest dated January 19, 2000.  J. Desmond filed a protest  which was a photocopy of the protest filed by Mr. Betts. David and Dianna Hillyer filed a protest dated January 25, 2000.   It appears that all the protests were timely filed.

David and Dianna Hillyer claimed that PG&E did not provide adequate notice of the project. In particular they noted that PG&E did not publish notices in newspapers read by residents of El Dorado Hills.  The Hillyers also claimed that PG&E’s notice did not allow adequate time to contact neighbors, research issues and respond regarding the project. Mr. Betts, J. Desmond and Mr. Heidenreich argued that PG&E should have provided more information about the project. 

PG&E argued that it provided an informational number for those interested in learning more about the project, and that it followed the notice requirements in GO 131-D XI.B., which requires the utility to provide notice by:

1. 	Direct mail to the planning director for each county or city in which the proposed facility would be located and the Executive Director of the Energy Commission; and

2. 	Advertisement, not less than once a week, two weeks consecutively, in a newspaper or newspapers of general circulation in the county or counties in which the proposed facility would be located, the first publication to be not later than 45 days before the date when construction is intended to begin; and

3. 	By posting a notice on-site and off-site where the project would be located.

4. 	Filing an informational advice letter with the CACD in accordance with General Order 96-A, which includes a copy and distribution list of the notices required by items 1-3 herein.  On the same day, a copy of the advice letter must be delivered to the CPUC Public Advisor.

All of the protestants were concerned about the possible negative effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) emanating from the lines after construction.  PG&E argued that it will employ “no cost” and “low cost” measures to reduce exposure to EMF as required in a previous Commission Decision (D.93-11-013).  PG&E also pointed out that the new power lines will be moved closer to the existing 115kV tower in some places, and placed on taller poles, so that the community would actually experience lower exposure to EMF than under the current configuration.

Mr. Betts and J. Desmond expressed concern the larger lines may adversely impact the neighborhood and the environment, and that PG&E’s reason for the exemption does not account for the fact that capacity of the power line will be doubled. PG&E argued that the proposed reconstruction would be an improvement over the existing facilities, because it will replace the twelve existing poles with five tubular steel poles.  The use of tubular steel poles would allow the new poles to move 20 feet closer to the existing double circuit PG&E 115kV tower line, and away from the protestants.  In addition, PG&E stated that the additional capacity provided by the proposed reconstruction would improve the reliability of electrical power in the area.

David and Dianna Hillyer argued that PG&E’s proposed project did fall within the  CPUC exemptions from the requirement to obtain a Permit to Construct.  The Hillyers noted that Section II.B.1 exempts only “the minor relocation of existing power line facilities up to 2,000 feet in length, or the intersetting of additional supporting structures,” and that the PG&E project would reconstruct approximately five miles.  PG&E responded that only a small part of the five-mile project falls within the exemption cited by the Hillyers and contained in Section II.B.1(c). PG&E notes that at the request of El Dorado County, it will relocate about 1700 feet of power line to permit future road improvements.  The 1700 feet that would be relocated is within the 2,000 foot exemption contained in Section II.B.1(c).  PG&E noted that the remainder of the project is covered by a separate exemption.

The Hillyers also claimed that PG&E’s assertion that the project will be located within a “public utility easement …for which a final Negative Declaration or EIR find no significant unavoidable environmental impact” is incorrect.  PG&E noted that GO 131-D, Section II.B.1(g) contains two exemptions. The first part of Section II.B.1(g) exempts “power line facilities or substations to be located in an existing franchise, road widening setback easement, or public utility easement..”  The second part of Section II.B.1(g) exempts power line facilities or substations “in a utility corridor designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies for which a final Negative Declaration or EIR finds no significant unavoidable environmental impacts.”  PG&E stated that it relied on the first part of Section II.B.1(g) for exempting construction in an existing utility easement.

PG&E responded to the protests of Bruce A. Betts and Donald Edward Heidenreich on January 21, 2000.  On February 1, 2000, PG&E responded to the J. Desmond’s protest  and separately to David and Dianna Hillyer’s protest.

PG&E’s responses argue that all of the protests should be dismissed because they fail to state a valid reason why PG&E should be required to apply for a Permit to Construct the proposed transmission line project or why PG&E has incorrectly applied the exemption from the permit requirement provided in GO 131-D, Section III.B.1.g. 

DISCUSSION

The protestants are concerned about the scope of PG&E’s notice as well as the notification procedures PG&E employed. Protestants are concerned about EMF exposure that may result from the proposed reconstruction.  Some of the protestants are concerned that PG&E did not adequately address the impact of the proposed reconstruction on the neighborhood. Some of the protestants believe that PG&E did not properly apply the exemptions in Go 131-D from obtaining a Permit to Construct. 

PG&E followed the notification procedures required in GO 131-D for this project.  PG&E addressed the issue of EMF exposure and its Commission-ordered procedures for reducing EMF exposure.  PG&E explained that the proposed reconstruction would result in some improvements over the current configuration of lines and wires on its existing easement.  PG&E explained that it correctly applied exemptions for obtaining a permit to construct set forth in GO 131-D, Section III.B.1.(c) and (g).

None of the protestants have shown that PG&E incorrectly applied a GO 131-D exemption.  Nor have any of the protestants shown that any of the conditions specified in GO 131-D, Section III.B.2 exist.  Because those are the only two valid reasons for sustaining a protest, the protests should be dismissed.

FINDINGS

1. 	PG&E plans to reconstruct approximately five miles of the existing Gold Hill-Martell 60 kilovolt single circuit power line to a double-circuit 115 kilovolt power line, between Gold Hill Substation in the City of Folsom and Clarksville Substation in the El Dorado Hills area of El Dorado County. As part of the same project, PG&E will install a new 115 kilovolt breaker and capacitor bank at Gold Hill Substation. The project is needed to provide adequate power line capacity and voltage support to the area. This will allow PG&E to continue to provide safe and reliable electric service to the existing and planned customers of western El Dorado County. The new double-circuit 115 kilovolt power line will be constructed in the same alignment as the existing 60 kilovolt power line. The line begins at PG&E’s Gold Hill Substation, located near the corner of East Bidwell Road and Nesmith Court in the City of Folsom and runs east across East Bidwell Road, along Clarksville Road, through the planned developments of Broadstone and Empire Ranch in the City of Folsom. The line then continues into El Dorado County running through the La Cresta and Crestridge developments, across Highway 50, through the Town Center West development, across Latrobe Road, adjacent to White Rock Road before reaching PG&E’s Clarksville Substation. Also, approximately 1,700 feet of power line will be relocated to accommodate the future widening of White Rock Road. One pole will be relocated approximately 40 feet north of its current location
 
2. 	As its grounds for an exemption from a Permit to Construct, PG&E cites GO131-D, Section III.B.1.(c) and (g), which exempts “the minor relocation of existing power line facilities up to 2,000 feet in length, or the intersetting of additional supporting structures,” and the construction of “power line facilities or substations to be located in an existing franchise, road widening setback easement, or public utility easement; or in a utility corridor designated, precisely mapped and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies for which a final Negative Declaration or EIR finds no significant unavoidable environmental impacts.” 

3. 	PG&E distributed a Notice of Proposed Construction in accordance with Section XI.B and C. of GO 131-D, including the filing and service of Advice Letter No. 1950-E in accordance with Section III of GO 96-A.
 
4. 	The twenty-day protest period ended January 25, 2000.  Bruce A. Betts filed a protest dated January 8, 2000.  Donald Edward Heidenreich filed a protest dated January 19, 2000.  J. Desmond filed a protest  which was a photocopy of the protest filed by Mr. Betts. David and Dianna Hillyer filed a protest dated January 25, 2000.   It appears that all the protests were timely filed.

5. 	The protestants are concerned about PG&E’s notification regarding the proposed reconstruction, EMF exposure, the potential negative effect of the proposed reconstruction, and dispute the application of the  exemptions from the permit requirement provided in GO 131-D, Section III.B.1 (c) and (g) to the proposed reconstruction. 

6. 	PG&E responded to the protests of Bruce A. Betts and Donald Edward Heidenreich on January 21, 2000.  On February 1, 2000, PG&E responded to the protest of J. Desmond, and responded separately to David and Dianna Hillyer’s protest.  PG&E’s contends that all of the protests should be dismissed because they fail to state a valid reason why PG&E should be required to apply for a Permit To Construct the proposed transmission line project or that PG&E has incorrectly applied the exemptions from the permit requirement provided in GO 131-D, Section III.B.1 (c) and (g). 

7. 	PG&E followed the notification procedures required in GO 131-D for this project.  PG&E has addressed the issue of EMF exposure and its Commission-ordered procedures for reducing EMF exposure.  PG&E addressed the issue of the project’s impact on the area cited by protestants.

8. 	 PG&E pointed out that it will relocate about 1700 feet of power line to permit future road improvements.  The 1700 feet that would be relocated is within the 2,000-foot exemption contained in Section II.B.1(c). PG&E noted that the project will be constructed within a existing utility easement, and therefore falls within the first of the two exemptions from the Permit to Construct Requirement in GO 131-D II.B.1(g), for  “power line facilities or substations to be located in an existing franchise, road widening setback easement, or public utility easement.”

9. 	GO 131-D provides that any person or entity may protest a claim of exemption for one of two reasons: 1) that the utility incorrectly applied a GO 131-D exemption, or 2) that any of the conditions exist which are specified in the GO to render the exemption inapplicable.

10. 	None of the protestants have shown that PG&E incorrectly applied a GO 131-D exemption.  Nor have any of the protestants shown that any of the conditions specified in GO 131-D, Section III.B.2 exist. 

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. 	The protests to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Advice Letter No. 1950-E are dismissed.

2. 	This Resolution is effective today.

						PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
						STATE OF CALIFORNIA

						____________________________
						WESLEY M. FRANKLIN
						Executive Director