In the wake of Edisonís decision to submit Route #1 as their preferred route for the San Joaquin Cross Valley Loop Project, locals were finally able to voice their concerns about the power line path.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) held two Public Scoping Meetings in order for the public and regulatory agencies to have an opportunity to ask questions and submit comments for consideration to be used in the draft Environment Impact Report (EIR) expected to be circulated in Jan. All comments will be used in a Public Scoping Meeting report, but not all information from residents will be included in the EIR.

The meetings, held at Freedom Elementary in Farmersville and the next night at the Woodlake Veteranís Memorial Building in Woodlake included a small overview of the project by the CPUC Project Manager, Jensen Uchida. After the presentation all interested parties were given an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments about the project.

From just simply aesthetics to their very livelihood a diverse group of residents from neighboring cities rouse to comment on the project at both meetings.

ìRoute #3 effects about nine property owners and passes over mostly cattle grazing lands,î said Exeter resident Ken Kling. ìRoute #1 effects over 200 property owners and destroys homers, prime agriculture lands, taking jobs from low income farm workers. How can SCEís preferred Route #1 be the logical choice?î

Lindsay resident Trudy Wischemann said the CPUC needs to examine ìthe impacts of the imposition of a highly industrial form across a relatively natural and holy landscape- the view shed of the Kaweahî as well as the ìgrowth-inducing impacts of the various routesî and the impacts on the rural smalltime farming economy.

In Woodlake agricultural was also in the spotlight.

ìFarm land is being loss to developers all over California, but Exeter has diligently worked to keep that from happening,î said Exeter resident Judy Fisher, who owns a 5 acre ranch upon which the lines impact. ìOur ability to continue our way of life is at stake. Route #3 seems less intrusive and already has substantial right of way.î

Rosemary Ward raised the issue of farm workers safety and health concerns. Ward whose son was just given a pace maker works on their two 20 acre parcels of prime citrus land.

From those who work on wells and pumps in the orchards to those who stand to those what small acreage they have, residents pleaded for the CPUC to change the route to the least intrusive route.

ìMany people feel like they donít have a say in this,î said Gail Kaulfuss of Lemoncove. ìI want to feel like I have a say and that someone is really listening.î

Southern California Edison submitted an application in May with Proposed Route #1 as their power line path.

Thus began whatís called a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity Process (CPCN).

The CPCN Review coincides with the California Environmental Quality Act Process (CEQA). While the CPCN Review focuses on rates, market competition and structure, needs of people and other economic factors, the CEQA looks only at environmental considerations such as mitigation measures and public awareness to environmental impacts, as well as other alternatives.

During the CEQA process Environmental Science Associates, the environmental consultant to the CPUC begins an environmental review.

At the end of the review they will circulate a draft EIR.

The EIR will address impacts of the construction, operation, and maintenance of the Proposed Project.

The EIR will also discuss and analyze alternatives to the Proposed Project.

Alternatives to be considered include alignment variations that would loop the existing Big Creek 3-Springville 220 kV transmission line into the Rector Substation.

Specific areas of analysis to be addressed in the EIR

Decision-makers, responsible and trustee agencies under the CEQA, property owners, and interested persons and parties will also have an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR after it is published and circulated for public review.

For additional information about the CEQA review of the Proposed Project, go to: www.cpuc.ca.gov/Environment/info/esa/sjxvl/index.html.

In January of next year a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be circulated for agency and public comment. Public comment meetings are scheduled for February.

The CPUC will consider and respond to comments and publish their final EIR in April. In May they will either approve the Project as filed, approve the project with modifications or deny the project. If approved, construction of the project is estimated for completion in 2011.

The CPUC is a state regulatory agency that sets electricity rates and issues permits for the construction of new and rebuilt transmission lines and substations. The CPUC will review the project in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and will seek public comment on the project.

The CPUC Pubic Advisorís Office provides procedural information and advice to groups and individuals who want to comment or advocate positions in the CPUCís formal proceedings. The Public Advisorís staff helps answer questions, locate information or refer callers to the appropriate staff person as well as attend community functions and assist the public in participating in town hall meetings, etc. The San Joaquin Valley Loop Project docket number is A0805039.

For more information call (866) 849-8390.

Please direct questions to Mr. Jensen Uchida, Project Manager, CPUC c/o Environmental Science Associates, (415) 962-8409, sjxvl@esassoc.com or

Ms. Judy Cooper, Public Advisors Office, CPUC, (415) 703-2188 or jms@cpuc.ca.gov.

Print this story

Email this story

Return to Index