Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project

1
Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project
Public Draft EIR/EIS

• Web Seminar
• March 12, 2009
• Aspen Environmental Group

• Lead Agencies
• California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
• USDA Forest Service, Angeles National Forest
  (ANF)

2
Dial-in Number 800-550-8104Participant ID
2345678

• Web Seminar
• Host Jon Davidson, Aspen Environmental Group
• Schedule This web seminar is scheduled for one
  hour the PowerPoint presentation is 45 minutes
• Q A Questions will be answered after the
  presentation in the order received.
• Please submit questions during the presentation
  using the Instant Messaging feature in the
  toolbar.
• For questions that cannot be answered in the
  time allotted, we will follow up with you
  individually.

3
Agenda

• Overview of the Project and Alternatives
• Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS
• Major Conclusions
• How to Submit Comments

4
Agenda

• Overview of the Project and Alternatives
• Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS
• Major Conclusions
• How to Submit Comments

5
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Southern California Edisons (SCE) proposed
  Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP)
  includes new and upgraded transmission line and
  substation infrastructure along approximately 173
  miles of new and existing rights-of-way (ROW) in
  portions of Kern County, Los Angeles County, and
  San Bernardino County.
• Project Alternatives include
• Alternative 1 No Project/Action Alternative
• Alternative 2 Proposed Project
• Alternative 3 West Lancaster Alternative
• Alternative 4 Chino Hills Alternative Routes A
  D
• Alternative 5 Partial Underground Alternative
• Alternative 6 Maximum Helicopter Construction in
  the ANF Alternative and
• Alternative 7 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative.

6
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Purpose and Need
• California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS)
  goal
• Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA) in southern
  Kern County expected to provide up to 4,500 MW of
  new wind generation
• Antelope Transmission Project (ATP) previously
  approved to provide 700 MW of transmission
  capacity
• Project Purpose
• Provide transmission capacity for planned wind
  energy projects in the Tehachapi/Mojave area of
  southern Kern County.
• Eliminate transmission constraints when
  transmission lines need to be shut down in the
  Cajon Pass.
• Enhance the reliability of the transmission grid
  in the Antelope Valley where power load is
  growing.
• Executive Order 13212
• Expedite the completion of energy-related projects

7
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Alternative 2 Proposed Project
• Project Segments in Geographical Order, from
  North to South
• Segment 10 (North Region Kern County)
• New 500-kV single-circuit transmission line (T/L)
  in new ROW for 17 miles between Windhub and
  Whirlwind Substations
• Segment 4 (North Region Kern County, Los Angeles
  County City of Lancaster)
• Two new 220-kV single-circuit T/Ls in new ROW for
  4 miles between Cottonwind and Whirlwind
  Substations
• New 500-kV single-circuit T/L in new ROW for 16
  miles between Whirlwind and Antelope Substations
• Segment 5 (North Region Los Angeles County City
  of Lancaster, City of Palmdale)
• Rebuild existing 220-kV T/Ls (two) to 500-kV
  standards for 18 miles between Antelope and
  Vincent Substations

8
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Alternative 2 (continued)
• Segment 11 (Central Region Los Angeles County
  Angeles National Forest)
• Rebuild existing 220-kV T/L to 500-kV standards
  for 19 miles between Vincent and Gould
  Substations, traversing USDA Forest Service lands
  in the Angeles National Forest (ANF)
• Segment 6 (Central Region Los Angeles County
  Angeles National Forest )
• Rebuild existing 220-kV T/L to 500-kV standards
  for 32 miles between Vincent Substation and the
  southern boundary of the ANF
• Segment 11 (South Region Los Angeles County
  Cities of La Cañada Flintridge, Pasadena,
  Temple City, Rosemead, Monterey Park)
• New 220-kV circuit on the vacant side of existing
  220-kV double-circuit structures between Gould
  and Mesa Substations
• Segment 7 (South Region Los Angeles County
  Cities of Duarte, Irwindale, Baldwin Park,
  City of Industry, South El Monte,
  Montebello, Monterey Park)
• Rebuild existing 220-kV T/L to 500-kV standards
  for 16 miles between the southern boundary of the
  ANF and Mesa Substation

9
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Alternative 2 (continued)
• Segment 8 (South Region)
• Rebuild existing 220-kV T/L to 500-kV standards
  for 33 miles between the San Gabriel Junction
  and Mira Loma Substation
• Rebuild existing 220-kV T/L from single-circuit
  to double-circuit structures for 7 miles
• Segment 9 (Substations)
• New Whirlwind Substation (500/220-kV), located 4
  - 5 miles south of Cottonwind Substation in Kern
  County
• Upgrade five existing substations to accommodate
  new T/L construction and system compensation
  elements
• Antelope Substation (Segments 4 and 5)
• Vincent Substation (Segments 5, 11, and 6)
• Mesa Substation (Segments 11 and 7)
• Gould Substation (Segment 11)
• Mira Loma Substation (Segments 8)

10
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Alternative 3 West Lancaster Alternative
• Suggested by members of the public prior to the
  scoping period, due to potential land use
  conflicts in west Lancaster
• Deviates from the Alternative 2 alignment for 3.4
  miles along Segment 4
• At Segment 4, Mile 14.9, the Alternative 3
  alignment turns south down 115th Street West,
  versus 110th Street West under Alternative 2
• The new 500-kV T/L continues for 2.9 miles then
  turns east for 0.5 mile
• Alternative 3 rejoins the Alternative 2 alignment
  at Segment 4, Mile 17.9
• Increases the overall length of Segment 4 by 0.4
  mile
• Requires one less transmission structure due to
  greater spacing between towers along Segment 4

11
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Alternative 4 Chino Hills Route Alternatives
• Suggested by the City of Chino Hills during the
  scoping period to avoid the proximity of T/L
  infrastructure to existing residences
• Avoids the construction of 16 miles of Segments
  8A, 8B, and 8C through Chino Hills
• Includes four routing options that deviate from
  the Alternative 2 alignment at Segment 8, Mile
  19.2 and continue southeast, terminating within
  or near Chino Hills State Park

12
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Alternative 5 Partial Underground Alternative
• Developed to avoid impacts of overhead T/Ls to
  residential areas in the City of Chino Hills
• Follows the same alignment of Alternative 2, with
  3.5 miles of the T/L installed underground along
  Segment 8 between Mile 21.8 and Mile 25.4
• Primary components of the underground segment
  include
• An underground tunnel with vertical access shafts
• Circular tunnel with a 16-foot internal diameter
  and 18-foot external diameter
• Monitoring systems, ventilation systems, lighting
  system, communication system, power source,
  electrical distribution system, and telemetry
  will be included during tunnel construction
• Western access shaft is 420 feet deep, 75 feet
  long, 20 feet wide eastern access shaft is 100
  feet deep, 75 feet long, 20 feet wide
• Two aboveground transition stations (one at each
  end of the underground segment)
• Gas Insulated Line (GIL) system infrastructure

13
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Alternative 6 Maximum Helicopter Construction
• Requested by the Forest Service to reduce ground
  disturbance within the ANF by minimizing new road
  construction through use of helicopters during
  construction
• Requires the construction of eleven 4-acre
  helicopter staging areas throughout the ANF
• Avoids the need to construct or improve 42 miles
  of access and spur roads in the ANF that are
  required under Alternative 2

14
Overview of the Project and Alternatives

• Alternative 7 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative
• This alternative re-routes and/or places the
  existing 66-kV subtransmission line underground
  in three locations to avoid or minimize Project
  impacts
• Segment 7, Mile 8.9 9.9
• 66-kV line is placed underground
• Requested by the Los Angeles County Board of
  Supervisors
• Minimizes impacts to passive recreation
  opportunities in the planned River Commons at the
  Duck Farm Project
• Segment 7, Mile 11.4 12.0
• 66-kV line is re-routed and placed underground,
  as identified by SCE
• Provides habitat enhancement for least Bells
  vireos in the Whittier Narrows Recreation area
• Segment 8 Mile 2.2 3.8
• 66-kV line is re-routed, as identified by SCE
• Provides habitat enhancement for least Bells
  vireos in the Whittier Narrows Recreation area

15
Agenda

• Overview of the Project and Alternatives
• Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS
• Major Conclusions
• How to Submit Comments

16
Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS

• Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS
• Executive Summary
• Chapters
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Alternatives, including the Proposed
  Project ROW cross sections
• 3 Affected Environment and Environmental
  Consequences
• 4 Comparison of Alternatives
• 5 Other Required NEPA and CEQA Considerations
• 6 Development of the Tehachapi Wind Resource
  Area (TWRA)
• 7 Consultation and Coordination
• 8 References
• 9 Glossary and Acronyms
• 10 Index
• Technical Appendices
• A Alternatives Screening Report
• B Notice of Preparation, Notice of Intent, and
  Federal Register Notice
• C Air Pollutant Emissions Calculations
• D Project Road Crossings
• E Summary of the PdV Wind Energy Project EIR

17
Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS

• Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental
  Consequences
• Section 3.X-1 Introduction
• Describes the resource/issue area addressed and
  identifies issues raised during scoping
• Section 3.X-2 Affected Environment
• Includes an in-depth description of existing
  conditions relevant to the identified
  resource/issue area
• Section 3.X-3 Applicable Laws, Regulations, and
  Standards
• Section 3.X-4 Impact Analysis Approach
• Presents the Applicant-Proposed Measures (APMs)
  identified by SCE for the resource/issue area
• Lists the Significance Criteria that will be used
  to determine environmental impacts
• Section 3.X-5 3.X-11 Analysis of Alternatives
• Includes full environmental impact analyses for
  the proposed Project and all alternatives, as
  determined by the resource/issue area-specific
  Significance Criteria. Also includes discussion
  of cumulative effects.
• Section 3.X-12 Impact Significance Summary
• Provides a summary of all identified
  environmental impacts, including direct,
  indirect, and cumulative impacts, as relevant to
  the resource/issue area

18
Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS

• Chapter 3 (continued)
• Significance Criteria
• Environmental impacts of the Project would be
  significant if they meet any of the identified
  Significance Criteria for the applicable
  resource/issue area
• CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G, Environmental
  Checklist Form, Section IX) are commonly used to
  identify Significance Criteria
• Impact Statements
• For each resource/issue area, each identified
  impact has a unique number and title, followed by
  a full discussion/analysis of the impact
• For example, the first impact identified in the
  Agricultural Resources analysis is
• Impact AG-1 Construction activities would
  temporarily preclude the agricultural use of some
  Farmland
• Many impact discussions address the north,
  central, and south regions of the Project Area
  separately due to substantial differences in how
  impacts occur within each region

19
Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS

• Chapter 3 (continued)
• Mitigation Measures
• As feasible and applicable, mitigation is
  identified following each impact discussion
• For each resource/issue area, each identified
  mitigation measure has a unique number and title,
  followed by a full discussion of the required
  action(s)
• For example, the first mitigation measure for
  Impact AG-1 is, Mitigation Measure AG-1
  Coordinate construction activities with
  agricultural landowners.
• Mitigation measures would be applied in addition
  to Applicant-Proposed Measures (APMs) and Best
  Management Practices (BMPs) included as part of
  the Project
• CEQA Significance Conclusions
• Provided for each identified impact, following
  the presentation of all applicable mitigation
• Class I Significant and unavoidable impact
• Class II Less than significant impact with
  implementation of mitigation
• Class III Less than significant impact with no
  mitigation required
• Class IV Beneficial impact

20
Agenda

• Overview of the Project and Alternatives
• Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS
• Major Conclusions
• How to Submit Comments

21
Major Conclusions

• Impact Overview
• Most impacts of the proposed Project and
  Alternatives would be construction related and
  temporary in nature
• Significant long-term impacts include
• Adverse visual changes associated with new
  transmission infrastructure
• Increased corona noise levels
• Constraints to aerial suppression of wildfires
• Land disturbance in the ANF, particularly as
  related to road construction, would result in
  temporary impacts that would be of longer
  duration than most
• Implementation of a multi-year mitigation and
  monitoring plan would be required to facilitate
  re-vegetation and prevent the establishment of
  invasive species
• Visual scars from hillside road improvements
  would be apparent until Forest Service standards
  associated with relevant Operation Maintenance
  Levels (OMLs) are restored

22
Major Conclusions

• Significant and Unavoidable Impacts (Class I)
• Air Quality
• Class I impacts would occur under Alternatives 2
  - 7
• Construction emissions exceed daily significance
  thresholds in the South Coast Air Quality
  Management District and the Antelope Valley Air
  Quality Management District
• Biological Resources
• Class I impacts would occur under Alternatives 2
  - 7
• Construction activities would disrupt vegetation
  and wildlife in a variety of ways
• Cultural Resources
• Class I impacts would occur under Alternative 2 -
  7
• Construction may have direct effects to National
  Register of Historic Places (NRHP) properties, or
  to NRHP-eligible properties
• Land Use
• Class I impacts would occur under Alternative 4
  (Chino Hills Route Alternatives) and Alternative
  5 (Partial Underground Alternative)
• Alternative 4 would not be consistent with the
  Chino Hills State Park General Plan
• Alternative 5 would require the take of property
  and businesses through eminent domain

23
Major Conclusions

• Significant and Unavoidable Impacts (continued)
• Noise
• Class I impacts would occur under Alternatives 2
  7
• Construction activities would substantially
  increase ambient noise conditions for sensitive
  receptors within 200 feet of construction
  activities
• Permanent noise levels along the ROW would
  increase due to corona noise from operation of
  the transmission lines and substations in the
  vicinity of sensitive receptors
• Corona noise would not be in compliance with
  noise standards of Los Angeles County or the
  Cities of Chino, Monterey Park, and Whittier
• Visual Resources
• Class I impacts would occur under Alternatives 2
  7
• Construction would result in visual impacts on
  landscape character and visual quality of
  landscape views as seen from various vantage
  points
• Wildfire Prevention and Suppression
• Class I impacts would occur under Alternatives 2
  7
• Potential failure of Project components could
  result in wildfire ignitions and damage to homes
  from Project-related wildfires

24
Agenda

• Overview of the Project and Alternatives
• Organization of the Draft EIR/EIS
• Major Conclusions
• How to Submit Comments

25
How to Submit Comments

• Submit Comments on the Public Draft EIR/EIS
• Email
• TRTP_at_AspenEG.com
• Voicemail/Fax
• [phone]
• Postal Service
• John Boccio / Justin Seastrand
• CPUC / USDA Forest Service
• c/o Aspen Environmental Group
• 30423 Canwood Street, Suite 215
• Agoura Hills, CA 91301
• Attend a Public Meeting

26
How to Submit Comments
27
Questions / Comments