Application for a Permit to Construct (PDF) - Southern California ...

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 Permit to Construct Electrical Facilities 

With Voltages Between 50 kV and 200 kV: 

Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission 

Line Relocation Project 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Application No.________ 

APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) FOR A 

PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT ELECTRICAL FACILITIES WITH VOLTAGES 

BETWEEN 50 KV AND 200 KV: SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL 66 KV 

SUBTRANSMISSION LINE RELOCATION PROJECT 

RUSSELL C. SWARTZ 

LINDA J. ANABTAWI 

JERED LINDSAY 

Attorneys for 

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue 

Post Office Box 800 

Rosemead, California 91770 

Telephone: (626) 302-6832 

Facsimile: (626) 302-1926 

E-mail:linda.anabtawi@sce.com 

Dated: November 9, 2012



BETWEEN 50 kV AND 200 kV: SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL 66 kV 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 

II. BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF REQUEST .................................................................... 2 

III. STATUTORY AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................... 3 

A. Applicant ...................................................................................................................... 3 

B. Articles Of Incorporation ............................................................................................. 5 

C. Balance Sheet And Statement Of Income .................................................................... 5 

D. Description of Southern California Edison Company ................................................. 6 

E. Service Territory .......................................................................................................... 6 

F. Location Of Items Required In A Permit To Construct Pursuant To 

G.O. 131-D, Section IX.B ............................................................................................ 7 

G. Compliance With G.O. 131-D, Section X ................................................................... 9 

H. Compliance With Rule 2.1(c) ...................................................................................... 9 

I. Statutory Authority .................................................................................................... 10 

J. Public Notice .............................................................................................................. 10 

K. Supporting Appendices And Attachment .................................................................. 11 

L. Compliance With Rule 2.5 ......................................................................................... 11 

M. Request For Ex Parte Relief ....................................................................................... 11 

N. Request For Timely Relief ......................................................................................... 12 

IV. CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................ 13 

-i-



BETWEEN 50 kV AND 200 kV: SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL 66 kV 



Section 

Page 

APPENDIX A: Balance Sheet and Statement of Income as of June 30, 2012 

APPENDIX B: List of Counties and Municipalities Served by SCE 

APPENDIX C: Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission Line Relocation 

Project Schedule 

APPENDIX D: Notice of Application for a Permit to Construct 

APPENDIX E: Certificate of Service of Notice of Application for a Permit to Construct 

APPENDIX F: Field Management Plan 

ATTACHMENT: 

Proponent’s Environmental Assessment 

-ii-

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 Permit to Construct Electrical Facilities 

With Voltages Between 50 kV and 200 kV: 

Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission 

Line Relocation Project 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Application No.________ 



BETWEEN 50 KV AND 200 KV: SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL 66 KV 


I. 

INTRODUCTION 

Pursuant to California Public Utilities Commission (Commission or CPUC), General 

Order 131-D (G.O. 131-D), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) respectfully submits 

this application (Application) for a permit to construct (PTC) authorizing SCE to construct the 

proposed project known as the Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission Line 

Relocation Project (Project). The Project consists of the following major components: (1) 

removal of two existing wood H-frame structures, one existing wood three pole structure, and 

approximately 4,200 feet of 336 aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) wire; (2) 

replacement of one lattice steel tower (LST) and one light weight steel (LWS) 3-pole structure 

with engineered tubular steel poles (TSPs); (3) installation of approximately 14 TSPs, ranging in 

1

height between 70 and 105 feet; and (4) installation of 954 ACSR wire on the new 

subtransmission poles. 

II. 

BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF REQUEST 

Browning Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (BFI), a California corporation, a wholly 

owned subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc. (Republic), has requested that SCE relocate a 

portion of its existing 66 kilovolt (kV) subtransmission line located in the center of the Sunshine 

Canyon Landfill to allow for development of the landfill in accordance with the approved facility 

permits. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill (landfill) is located at 14747 San Fernando Road, 

Sylmar, California. 

The purpose of the Project is to relocate the existing subtransmission line. The Project is 

needed to allow for the continued development of the landfill in accordance with Republic’s 

approved facility permits. The current alignment of the 66 kV line affects landfill operations. 

SCE has modified the line as much as possible but it is no longer feasible to keep the line in its 

current location without interfering with landfill operations. In addition, relocating the existing 

subtransmission line away from landfill activities would ensure continued consistency with 

CPUC General Order 95 clearance requirements. 

A Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) prepared for the Project is attached to 

this Application. The PEA will be referenced in this Application, where appropriate, as the 

source of the information required in an Application for a PTC pursuant to G.O. 131-D, Section 

2

IX.B. 1 A complete project description is located in Chapter 3 of the PEA. A statement of purpose 

and need is located in Chapter 1 of the PEA. 

Construction of the Project is scheduled to begin in January 2014 and is expected to be 

completed by June 2014. A schedule for the Project is included in this Application as Appendix 

C. The estimated total cost of the Project is approximately $4.2 million in 2012 constant dollars. 2 

Upon completion of its review of this Application and preparation of an initial study, 

SCE requests that the Commission issue and certify an appropriate environmental document and 

issue a PTC authorizing SCE to construct the Project described in this Application and the 

attached PEA within the timelines set forth in Section III.H. of this Application. 

III. 

STATUTORY AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 

A. Applicant 

The applicant is Southern California Edison Company, an electric public utility company 

organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. SCE’s principal place of 

business is 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Post Office Box 800, Rosemead, California 91770. 

1 Other required information for a PTC application (e.g. Balance Sheet, Articles of Incorporation, etc.) is contained 

in this Application or its appendices. 

2 This is a conceptual estimate, prepared in advance of final engineering and prior to CPUC approval. Pension and 

benefits, administrative and general expenses, and allowance for funds used during construction are not 

included in this estimate. 

3

Please address correspondence or communications in regard to this Application to: 

With a copy to: 

Linda Anabtawi 

Senior Attorney 

Southern California Edison Company 




Phone: (626) 302-6832 

Fax: (626) 302-1926 

linda.anabtawi@sce.com 

Case Administration 

Southern California Edison Company 




Phone: (626) 302-3101 

Fax: (626) 302-3119 

case.admin@sce.com 

4

B. Articles Of Incorporation 

A copy of SCE’s Restated Articles of Incorporation, as amended through June 1, 1993, 

and as presently in effect, certified by the California Secretary of State, was filed with the 

Commission on June 15, 1993, in connection with Application No. 93-06-022 3 and is 

incorporated herein by reference; pursuant to Rule 2.2 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice 

and Procedure. 

C. Balance Sheet And Statement Of Income 

Appendix A to this Application contains copies of SCE’s balance sheet and statement of 

income as of June 30, 2012. The balance sheet reflects SCE’s utility plant at original cost, less 

accumulated depreciation. 

Since 1954, pursuant to Commission Decision No. 49665 dated February 16, 1954, in 

Application No. 33952, as modified by Decision No. 91799 in 1980, SCE has utilized 

straightline remaining life depreciation for computing depreciation expense for accounting and 

ratemaking purposes in connection with its operations. 

Pursuant to Commission Decision No. 59926, dated April 12, 1960, SCE uses accelerated 

depreciation for income tax purposes and “flows through” reductions in income tax to customers 

within the Commission’s jurisdiction for property placed in service prior to 1981. Pursuant to 

Decision No. 93848 in OII-24, SCE uses the Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS) for 

federal income tax purposes and “normalizes” reductions in income tax to customers for property 

placed in service after 1980 in compliance with the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and 

also in compliance with the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Pursuant to Decision No. 88-01-061, dated 

3 Application No. 93-06-22, filed June 15, 1993, regarding approval of a Self-Generation Deferral Agreement 

between Mobile Oil Corporation Torrance Refinery and Southern California Edison Company. 

5

January 28, 1988, SCE uses a gross of tax interest rate in calculating the AFUDC Rate, and 

income tax normalization to account for the increased income tax expense occasioned by the Tax 

Relief Act of 1986 provisions requiring capitalization of interest during construction for income 

tax purposes. 

D. Description of Southern California Edison Company 

SCE is an investor-owned public utility engaged in the business of generating, 

transmitting, and distributing electric energy in portions of central and southern California. In 

addition to its properties in California, it owns, in some cases jointly with others, facilities in 

Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico, its share of which produces power and energy for the use of 

its customers in California. In conducting such business, SCE operates an interconnected and 

integrated electric utility system. 

E. Service Territory 

SCE’s service territory is located in 15 counties in central and southern California, 

consisting of Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Los Angeles, Madera, Mono, Orange, 

Riverside, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, Tulare, Tuolumne, 4 and Ventura Counties, and 

includes approximately 188 incorporated communities as well as outlying rural territories. A list 

of the counties and municipalities served by SCE is attached hereto as Appendix B. SCE also 

supplies electricity to certain customers for resale under tariffs filed with the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission. 

4 SCE provides electric service to a small number of customer accounts in Tuolumne County and is not subject to 

franchise requirements. 

6

F. Location Of Items Required In A Permit To Construct Pursuant To G.O. 

131-D, Section IX.B 

Much of the information required to be included in a PTC application pursuant to G.O. 

131-D, Section IX.B is found in the PEA. 

Required PTC application information has been cross-referenced to the PEA in the 

following text. The PTC application requirements of G.O. 131-D, Section IX.B are in bold 

italics, and the PEA references follow in plain text. 

a. A description of the proposed power line or substation facilities, including the proposed 

power line route; proposed power line equipment, such as tower design and appearance, 

heights, conductor sizes, voltages, capacities, substations, switchyards, etc., and a proposed 

schedule for authorization, construction, and commencement of operation of the facilities. 

Descriptions of the Project are found in the Executive Summary, Chapter 1, Chapter 2, 

Chapter 3, and throughout Chapter 4. 

The proposed power line route is described and illustrated in Section 3.3.1 and Figure 3- 

3. 

The physical characteristics of the Project’s components are described in Sections 3.3.1, 

3.3.2, and 3.3.3, and illustrated in Figure 3-4. 

The Project Schedule is attached to this Application as Appendix C. 

b. A map of the proposed power line routing or substation location showing populated areas, 

parks, recreational areas, scenic areas, and existing electrical transmission or power lines 

within 300 feet of the proposed route or substation. 

 

 

 

Regional (Figure 3-1) and Project area (Figure 3-3) maps are provided in the PEA. 

Maps of current land uses, including designation of parks and recreational areas are 

provided as Figures 4.9-1, 4.9-2, 4.9-3, and 4.14-1. 

Maps showing the location of the 66 kV subtransmission line route and its proximity to 

existing electrical transmission and power lines are provided as Figure 3-3. 

7

c. Reasons for adoption of the power line route or substation location selected, including 

comparison with alternative routes or locations, including the advantages and 

disadvantages of each. 

 

Reasons for the adoption of the 66 kV subtransmission line route including comparison 

with alternative routes are discussed in Section 2.6. As discussed therein, no alternative 

subtransmission line routings could reasonably be expected to allow for development of 

the Project as feasibly as the proposed route, while also reducing environmental impacts. 

d. A listing of the governmental agencies with which proposed power line route or substation 

location reviews have been undertaken, including a written agency response to applicant’s 

written request for a brief position statement by that agency. (Such listing shall include 

The Native American Heritage Commission, which shall constitute notice on California 

Indian Reservation Tribal governments.) In the absence of a written agency position 

statement, the utility may submit a statement of its understanding of the position of such 

agencies. 

 

 

SCE met and/or had conversations with representatives from the City of Los Angeles 

over the past several years, most recently in October 2012. These representative included: 

Nicole Bernson, Deputy Chief of Staff, City Council District 12; Megan Cottier, District 

Director, City Council District 12; Phyllis Winger, Chief Planning Deputy, City Council 

District 12; John Bwaire, Field Director, City Council District 12; and Semee Park, Field 

Deputy, City Council District 12. Project information, including the route of the 66 kV 

subtransmission line, locations where work would occur, and the regulatory approval 

process, was presented and discussed at these meetings. SCE believes the position of the 

City of Los Angeles to be neutral towards the Project. 

SCE met and/or had conversations with representatives from the County of Los Angeles 

over the past several years, most recently in October 2012. These representative included: 

Edel Vizcarra, Planning Deputy, Office of Supervisor Mike Antonovich; Jarrod DeGonia, 

Field Deputy, Office of Supervisor Mike Antonovich; Paul McCarthy, Division Chief, 

Department of Regional Planning; Martin Aiyetiwa, Civil Engineer, Department of 

Public Works; Jon Sanabria, Chief Deputy Director, Department of Regional Planning; 

Wesley Colvin, Biologist, Department of Regional Planning; Millie Jones, Senior Field 

Deputy, Office of Supervisor Mike Antonovich; Lori Wheeler, Senior Field Deputy, 

Office of Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky; Ben Saltsman, Deputy, Office of Supervisor Zev 

Yaroslavsky; and Paul Novak, Planning Deputy, Office of Supervisor Mike Antonovich. 

Project information, including the route of the 66 kV subtransmission line, locations 

where work would occur, and the regulatory approval process, was presented and 

discussed at these meetings. SCE believes the position of the County of Los Angeles to 

be neutral towards the Project. 

8

By letter dated August 13, 2012, SCE requested that the Native American Heritage 

Commission (NAHC) provide information regarding cultural resources that may be 

affected by the Project. In a reply letter dated August 15, 2012, the NAHC responded that 

a search of the Sacred Lands File revealed that no Native American cultural resources 

were identified within the immediate Project area or a half-mile radius. The NAHC also 

suggested that SCE consult with Native American tribes and communities and Native 

American individuals who hold special interest in the Project area, and provided a list of 

those contacts to SCE. On October 17, 2012, SCE mailed letters of inquiry to eight of the 

nine persons on NAHC’s list and emailed a letter to the ninth person on that list, for 

whom NAHC had provided no mailing address. Each letter provided a project 

description, with two figure attachments as illustration, and requested a response by 

November 30, 2012. As of the filing date of this Application, SCE has received two 

responses to its letters of inquiry. Mr. Johntommy Rosas (of the Tongva Ancestral 

Territorial Tribal Nation) returned an email stating that he has concerns regarding the 

Project. SCE is in the process of responding to Mr. Rosas’ questions and concerns. SCE 

also received a response from Andy Salas (Chairman Of Kizh/Gabrieleno Band Of 

Mission Indians of the Los Angeles Basin, Orange County, and the Channel islands). Mr. 

Salas recommended that Native American monitors be present on-site during all ground 

disturbing activities. SCE is in the process of responding to Mr. Salas’ request. Any 

additional responses received after the filing date of this Application, as well as SCE’s 

reply to these responses, will be forwarded to the Commission. 

e. A PEA or equivalent information on the environmental impact of the project in 

accordance with the provisions of CEQA and this Commission’s Rules of Practice and 

Procedure Rule 2.4 [formerly 17.1 and 17.3]. If a PEA is filed, it may include the data 

described in Items a. through d. above. 

 

A PEA is attached to this Application. 

G. Compliance With G.O. 131-D, Section X 

G.O. 131-D, Section X, requires applications for a PTC to describe measures taken to 

reduce potential exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) generated by the proposed 

facilities. A complete description of EMF-related issues is contained in SCE’s EMF Field 

Management Plan for the Project, which is attached as Appendix F to this Application. 

H. Compliance With Rule 2.1(c) 

In compliance with Rule 2.1(c) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure 

(California Code of Regulations, Title 20), SCE is required to state in this Application “[t]he 

9

proposed category for the proceeding, the need for hearing, the issues to be considered, and a 

proposed schedule.” SCE proposes to categorize this Application as a rate-setting proceeding. 

SCE anticipates that a hearing will not be necessary. This proceeding involves the 

Commission’s: (1) environmental review of the Project in compliance with the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code § 21000 et seq.) and the 

Commission’s G.O. 131-D; and (2) issuance of a PTC authorizing SCE to construct the Project. 

SCE suggests the following proposed schedule for this Application: 

November 2012 Application filed 

December 2012 Application accepted as complete 

January 2013 Initial Study issued 

June 2013 Draft CEQA document issued 

September 2013 Final CEQA document issued 

October 2013 Proposed Decision issued 

November 2013 Final Decision issued 

I. Statutory Authority 

This Application is made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA, G.O. 131-D, the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and prior orders and resolutions of the 

Commission. 

J. Public Notice 

Pursuant to G.O. 131-D, Section XI.A, notice of this Application shall be given: (1) to 

certain public agencies and legislative bodies; (2) to owners of property located on or within 300 

feet of the project area; (3) by advertisement in a newspaper or newspapers of general 

10

circulation; and (4) by posting a notice on-site and off-site at the project location. SCE has given, 

or will give, proper notice within the time limits prescribed in G.O. 131- D. A copy of the Notice 

of Application for a Permit to Construct and list of newspapers which will publish the notice are 

contained in Appendix D. A copy of the Certificate of Service of Notice of Application for a 

Permit to Construct and a service list are contained in Appendix E. 

K. Supporting Appendices And Attachment 

Appendices A through E and the attached PEA listed below are made a part of this Application: 

Appendix A: Balance Sheet and Statement of Income as of June 30, 2012 

 

 

Appendix B: List of Counties and Municipalities Served by SCE 

Appendix C: Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission Line Relocation Project 

Schedule 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D: Notice of Application for a Permit to Construct 

Appendix E: Certificate of Service of Notice of Application for a Permit to Construct 

Appendix F: Field Management Plan 

Attachment: Proponent’s Environmental Assessment 

L. Compliance With Rule 2.5 

In accordance with Rule 2.5 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, SCE 

is enclosing a deposit to be applied to the costs the Commission incurs to prepare a (mitigated) 

negative declaration or an environmental impact report for the Project. 

M. Request For Ex Parte Relief 

SCE requests that the relief requested in this Application be provided ex parte as 

provided for in G.O. 131-D, Section IX.B.6. 

11

N. Request For Timely Relief 

SCE requests the Commission to issue a decision within the time limits prescribed by 

Government Code Section 65920 et seq. (the Permit Streamlining Act) as provided for in G.O. 

131-D, Section IX.B.6. 

Moreover, as addressed in the same subsection of G.O. 131-D, SCE requests that the 

Commission refrain from assigning an ALJ to this proceeding, unless a valid protest is received 

by the Commission, and in the absence of any valid protest allow the Energy Division to process 

this Application. 5 

5 D.95-08-038, Appendix A, p. 25. 

12

IV. 

CONCLUSION 

SCE respectfully requests the Commission to issue a PTC authorizing SCE to construct 

the Project described in this Application and the attached PEA. SCE further requests that the 

relief be provided ex parte and within the time limits prescribed by the Permit Streamlining Act. 

Respectfully submitted, 


/s/Paul L. Multari 

By: Paul L. Multari 

Vice President 

/s/Linda Anabtawi 

By: 

Linda Anabtawi 

Attorney for 





Telephone: (626) 302-6832 

Facsimile: (626) 302-1926 

E-mail: linda.anabtawi@sce.com 

13

VERIFICATION 

I am an officer of the applicant corporation herein, and am authorized to make this 

verification on its behalf. I am informed and believe that the matters stated in the foregoing 

document are true. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this 9th day of November, 2012, at Rosemead, California. 

/s/ Paul L. Multari 

By: Paul L. Multari 

Vice President 


Telephone (714) 255-4894 

14

Appendix A 

BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AS OF JUNE 30, 2012


BALANCE SHEET 

JUNE 30, 2012 

CAPITALIZATION AND LIABILITIES 

(Unaudited) 

(Millions of Dollars) 

CAPITALIZATION: 

Common stock $2,168 

Additional paid-in capital 595 

Accumulated other comprehensive loss (24) 

Retained Earnings 6,282 

Common shareholder's equity 9,021 

Preferred and preference stock 1,795 

Long-term debt 8,827 

19,643 

CURRENT LIABILITIES: 

Short-term debt 300 

Accounts payable 1,070 

Accrued taxes 35 

Accrued interest 192 

Customer deposits 195 

Derivative liabilities 173 

Regulatory liabilities 721 

Other current liabilities 589 

3,275 

DEFERRED CREDITS: 

Deferred income taxes 6,339 

Deferred investment tax credits 81 

Customer advances 150 

Derivative liabilities 796 

Pensions and benefits 2,333 

Asset retirement obligations 2,691 

Regulatory liabilities 5,038 

Other deferred credits and other long-term liabilities 1,657 

19,085 

$42,003 

APPENDIX A A-2 

A-1


STATEMENT OF INCOME 

6 MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 

(Millions of Dollars) 

OPERATING REVENUE $5,063 

OPERATING EXPENSES: 

Fuel 138 

Purchased power 1,437 

Operation and maintenance 1,717 

Depreciation, decommissioning and amortization 788 

Property and other taxes 156 

Total operating expenses 4,236 

OPERATING INCOME 827 

Interest income 3 

Other income 67 

Interest expense (249) 

Other expenses (26) 

INCOME BEFORE INCOME TAX 622 

INCOME TAX EXPENSE 208 

NET INCOME 414 

Less: Dividends on preferred and preference stock 41 

NET INCOME AVAILABLE FOR COMMON STOCK $373 

APPENDIX A A-3 

A-2

Appendix B 

List of Counties and Municipalities

Citizens or some of the citizens of the following counties and municipal corporations will or may 

be affected by the changes in rates proposed herein. 

COUNTIES 

Fresno Kings Orange Tuolumne* 

Imperial Los Angeles Riverside Tulare 

Inyo Madera San Bernardino Ventura 

Kern Mono Santa Barbara 

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 

Adelanto 

Agoura Hills 

Alhambra 

Aliso Viejo 

Apple Valley 

Arcadia 

Artesia 

Avalon 

Baldwin Park 

Barstow 

Beaumont 

Bell 

Bell Gardens 

Bellflower 

Beverly Hills 

Big Bear Lake 

Bishop 

Blythe 

Bradbury 

Brea 

Buena Park 

Calabasas 

California City 

Calimesa 

Camarillo 

Canyon Lake 

Carpinteria 

Carson 

Catalina Island 

Cathedral City 

Cerritos 

Chino 

Chino Hills 

Claremont 

Commerce 

Compton 

Corona 

Costa Mesa 

Covina 

Cudahy 

Culver City 

Cypress 

Delano 

Desert Hot Springs 

Diamond Bar 

Downey 

Duarte 

Eastvale 

El Monte 

El Segundo 

Exeter 

Farmersville 

Fillmore 

Fontana 

Fountain Valley 

Fullerton 

Garden Grove 

Gardena 

Glendora 

Goleta 

Grand Terrace 

Hanford 

Hawaiian Gardens 

Hawthorne 

Hemet 

Hermosa Beach 

Hesperia 

Hidden Hills 

Highland 

Huntington Beach 

Huntington Park 

Indian Wells 

Industry 

Inglewood 

Irvine 

Irwindale 

Jurupa Valley 

La Canada Flintridge 

La Habra 

La Habra Heights 

La Mirada 

La Palma 

La Puente 

La Verne 

Laguna Beach 

Laguna Hills 

Laguna Niguel 

Laguna Woods 

Lake Elsinore 

Lake Forest 

Lakewood 

Lancaster 

Lawndale 

Lindsay 

Loma Linda 

Lomita 

Long Beach 

Los Alamitos 

Lynwood 

Malibu 

Mammoth Lakes 

Manhattan Beach 

Maywood 

McFarland 

Menifee 

Mission Viejo 

Monrovia 

Montclair 

Montebello 

Monterey Park 

Moorpark 

Moreno Valley 

Murrieta 

Newport Beach 

Norco 

Norwalk 

Ojai 

Ontario 

Orange 

Oxnard 

Palm Desert 

Palm Springs 

Palmdale 

Palos Verdes Estates 

Paramount 

Perris 

Pico Rivera 

Placentia 

Pomona 

Port Hueneme 

Porterville 

Rancho Cucamonga 

Rancho Mirage 

Rancho Palos Verdes 

Rancho Santa 

Margarita 

Redlands 

Redondo Beach 

Rialto 

Ridgecrest 

Rolling Hills 

Rolling Hills Estates 

Rosemead 

San Bernardino 

San Buenaventura 

San Dimas 

San Fernando 

San Gabriel 

San Jacinto 

San Marino 

Santa Ana 

Santa Barbara 

Santa Clarita 

Santa Fe Springs 

Santa Monica 

Santa Paula 

Seal Beach 

Sierra Madre 

Signal Hill 

Simi Valley 

South El Monte 

South Gate 

South Pasadena 

Stanton 

Tehachapi 

Temecula 

Temple City 

Thousand Oaks 

Torrance 

Tulare 

Tustin 

Twentynine Palms 

Upland 

Valencia 

Vernon 

Victorville 

Villa Park 

Visalia 

Walnut 

West Covina 

West Hollywood 

Westlake Village 

Westminster 

Whittier 

Wildomar 

Woodlake 

Yorba Linda 

Yucaipa 

Yucca Valley 

*SCE provides electric service to a small number of customer accounts in Tuolumne County and is not subject to franchise 

requirements.

Appendix C 

SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL 66 KV SUBTRANSMISSION LINE RELOCATION 

PROJECT SCHEDULE

Proposed Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission Line 

Relocation Project Schedule 

Date 

Event 

November 2012 

December 2012 

January 2012 

June 2013 

September 2013 

October 2013 

November 2013 

January 2014 

June 2014 

Application filed 

Application accepted as complete 

Initial Study issued 

Draft CEQA document issued 

Final CEQA document issued 

Proposed Decision issued 

Final Decision issued 

Commence construction 

Operating date

Appendix D 

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 

Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission Line Relocation Project 

Date: November 9, 2012 

Proposed Project: Southern California Edison (SCE), pursuant to a request by Browning Ferris Industries of 

California, Inc. (BFI), a California corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Republic Services, Inc., (Republic), 

has filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a Permit to Construct (PTC) 

for the Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission Line Relocation Project (Proposed Project). 

The purpose of the Proposed Project is to relocate a portion of SCE’s Chatsworth-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV 

Subtransmission Line, from the center of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill, to a new location along the perimeter of 

the disturbed area on the northern side of the landfill, to allow for development of the landfill in accordance with 

the approved facility permits. The Sunshine Canyon Landfill is located at 14747 San Fernando Road, in Sylmar, 

California. 

The Proposed Project includes the following elements: 

 

 

 

 

Removal of two existing wood H-frame structures, one existing wood three pole structure and 

approximately 4,200 feet of 336 aluminum conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) wire. 

Replacement of one lattice steel tower (LST) and one light weight steel (LWS) 3-pole structure with 

engineered tubular steel poles (TSPs). 

Installation of approximately 14 TSPs, ranging in height between 70 and 105 feet. 

Installation of 954 ACSR wire on the new subtransmission poles. 

Construction is scheduled to begin in early 2014. The Project is planned to be operational by mid-2014. 

EMF Compliance: The CPUC requires utilities to employ “no cost” and “low cost” measures to reduce public 

exposure to electric and magnetic fields (EMF) in accordance with EMF Design Guidelines. (Decisions 93-11- 

013 and 06-01-042.) The proposed project implements the following measures[s]: 

 

Utilize pole heights that meet or exceed SCE’s preferred EMF design criteria 

Environmental Review: SCE has prepared a Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) of potential 

environmental impacts created by the construction and operation of the proposed project. The PEA concludes 

that with the implementation of Applicant Proposed Measures (APMs), any potential significant environmental 

effects associated with the Project would be reduced to less than significant levels. Pursuant to the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CPUC’s Energy Division will conduct an independent review of the 

proposed project’s environmental impacts. Depending on the results of its review, the Energy Division will issue 

a Negative Declaration that the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, or an 

environmental impact report (EIR) identifying the significant environmental impacts and mitigation measures and 

alternatives to avoid or reduce them. 

1

Public Participation: 

 

 

 

 

The public may participate in the environmental review by submitting comments on the Notice of Intent to 

Approve a Negative Declaration, or on the Notice of Preparation of EIR and Draft EIR, and by participating 

in any scoping meetings or public meetings that may be conducted. For information on the environmental 

review, contact the CPUC’s Energy Division at enviro team@cpuc.ca.gov or (415) 703-2126. 

Persons wishing to present testimony in evidentiary hearings and/or legal briefing on all other issues, 

including EMF compliance; and, if one is prepared, whether the EIR complies with CEQA, require party 

status. 

Persons may obtain party status by filing a protest to the application by December 9, 2012 in compliance 

with Rule 2.6, or by making a motion for party status at any time in compliance with Rule 1.4, of the 

CPUC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (posted at www.cpuc.ca.gov). 

The public may communicate their views regarding the application by writing to the CPUC at 505 Van Ness 

Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, or by emailing the Public Advisor at public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov. In 

addition, the CPUC may, at its discretion, hold a public participation hearing in order to take oral public 

comment. 

Document Subscription Service: The CPUC’s free online subscription service sends subscribers an email 

notification when any document meeting their subscription criteria is published on the CPUC’s website, such as 

documents filed in a CPUC proceeding (e.g., notices of hearings, rulings, briefs and decisions). To sign up to 

receive notification of documents filed in this proceeding (or other CPUC matters), visit 

www.cpuc.ca.gov/subscription. 

Contacts: For assistance from the CPUC, please contact the Public Advisor in San Francisco at (415)703-2074 

(public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov ) or in Los Angeles at (213)567-7055 (Public.Advisor.LA@cpuc.ca.gov). 

To obtain a copy of SCE’s application, or to request further information about the proposed project, please 

contact: 

Benjamin Wong 

SCE Region Manager for Los Angeles County 

Montebello Service Center 

1000 Potrero Grande Dr. 

Monterey Park, CA 91754 

Phone: (323) 720-5292 

David Ford 

SCE Region Manager for City of Los Angeles 

Montebello Service Center 

1000 Potrero Grande Dr. 

Monterey Park CA 91754 

Phone: (323) 720-5290 

2

Daily News 

21860 Burbank Blvd., Suite 200 

Woodland Hills, CA 91367 

LIST OF NEWSPAPER(S) 

PUBLISHING THE NOTICE OF APPLICATION 

FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT

Appendix E 

Certificate of Service of Notice of Application for a Permit to Construct

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 NOTICE OF APPLICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 

COMPANY (U-338-3) FOR A PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT ELECTRICAL FACILITIES WITH 

VOLTAGES BETWEEN 50 KV AND 200 KV: SUNSHINE CANYON LANDFILL 66 KV 

SUBTRANSMISSION LINE RELOCATION PROJECT on all parties identified on the attached service 

list(s). Service was effected by one or more means indicated below: 

Placing copies in properly addressed sealed envelopes and depositing such copies in the United States mail 

with first-class postage prepaid to all parties. 

Executed this 9th day of November, 2012, at Rosemead, California. 

/s/Alejandra Arzola_____________________________ 

Alejandra Arzola 

Project Analyst 




Rosemead, California 91770

Sunshine Canyon: 300-foot Ownership Listing 

APN 

2601-011-013 

2826-027-016 

2826-028-033 

OWNER 

NAME 

MAILING 

ADDRESS 

MAILING 

CITY 

MAILING 

STATE 

MAILING 

ZIP 

CODE 

ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES 

INC PO BOX 460189 HOUSTON TX 77056 

BROWNING FERRIS 

INDUSTRIES OF CA INC PO BOX 460189 HOUSTON TX 77056 


INDUSTRIES OF CA INC PO BOX 460189 HOUSTON TX 77056 N/A 



2826-028-034 


2826-028-036 



2826-028-037 



2826-028-038 



2826-028-039 


500 W TEMPLE ST 

2826-028-905 LA COUNTY 

754 LOS ANGELES CA 90012 N/A 

PROPERTY 

ADDRESS 

PROPERTY 

CITY 

PROPERTY 

STATE 

PROPERTY 

ZIP CODE 

LANDUSE 

DESCRIPTION 

LANDUSE 

CATEGORY 

TOTAL 

AREA 

(ACREAGE) COUNTY 

14747 SAN 

FERNANDO 

RD SYLMAR CA 91342 MINE/QUARRY N/A 361.72 LOS ANGELES 

14747 SAN 

FERNANDO 

COMMERCIAL 

RD SYLMAR CA 91342 (NEC) N/A 53.14 LOS ANGELES 

STEVENSON 

VACANT LAND 

RANCH CA 91381 (NEC) N/A 118.86 LOS ANGELES 

STEVENSON 

RANCH CA 91381 

STEVENSON 


STEVENSON 


STEVENSON 


STEVENSON 


STEVENSON 


VACANT LAND 

(NEC) N/A 79.86 LOS ANGELES 

VACANT LAND 


VACANT LAND 


VACANT LAND 


VACANT LAND 


VACANT LAND 

(NEC) N/A 5.14 LOS ANGELES

Sunshine Canyon Landfill 66 kV Subtransmission Line Relocation Project 

Agency Service List 

Robert Oglesby 

Executive Director 

California Energy Commission 

1516 Ninth Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 

Michael Miles 

Director 

California Department of Transportation 

District 7 

100 S. Main Street 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

Mary D. Nichols 

Board Chairman 

California Air Resources Board 

1001 I Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

P.O. Box 2815 


Karen Miller 

Public Advisor 

California Public Utilities Commission 

California State Building 

505 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 

Edward Randolph 

Energy Division Director 


California State Building 

505 Van Ness Avenue 

San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 

Zev Yaroslavsky 

Chair 

Los Angeles County 

Board of Supervisors 

500 West Temple Street 


William Roschen 

President 

City Planning Commission 

City of Los Angeles 

200 North Spring Street 


Mitch Englander 

Council Member 


District 12 

200 North Spring Street, Room 405 


Malcolm Dougherty 



PO Box 942873 


John Laird 

Secretary 

Natural Resources Agency 


Suite 1311 


Thomas Howard 

Executive Director 

State Water Resources Control Board 

1001 I Street 


P.O. Box 100 


Curt Pedersen 

Chair 

Los Angeles County Regional Planning 

Commission 



Richard Bruckner 



Department of Regional Planning 


13 th Floor 


William Fujioka 

CEO 




Antonio Villaraigosa 

Mayor 




Toby Douglas 


California Department of Health Services 

1501 Capitol Avenue 

Suite 6001 


Charlton H. Bonham 


California Department of Fish and Game 

Headquarters 



Jeff Brown 

Division of Aeronautics Chief 


Division of Aeronautics, MS #40 

PO Box 952874 


Maria Mehranian 

Chair 

LA Regional Water Quality Control Board 

320 West Fourth Street 

Suite 200 


Barry R. Wallerstein 

Executive Officer 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District 

21865 Copley Drive 

Diamond Bar, CA 91765 

Michael LoGrande 

Planning Director 




Michael Antonovich 

Supervisor 

Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 


Room 869 

Los Angeles, CA 90012

Appendix F 

Field Management Plan


I. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1 

II. Background Regarding EMF and Public Health Research on EMF ................................... 4 

III. Application of the CPUC’s “No-Cost and Low-Cost” EMF Policy to This Project .......... 7 

IV. Project Description ............................................................................................................ 10 

V. Evaluation of “No-Cost and Low-Cost” Magnetic Field Reduction Design Options ...... 12 

VI. 

Final Recommendations for Implementing “No-Cost and Low-Cost” Magnetic Field 

Reduction Design Options ................................................................................................ 16 

VII. 

Appendix A: Two-Dimentional Model Assumptions and Year 2014 Forecasted Loading 

Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 17 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Summary of “No-Cost and Low-Cost” Magnetic Field Reduction Design Options ....... 3 

Table 2. A Comparison of Calculated Magnetic Field Levels for Segment 1 ............................. 15 

Table 3. Year 2014 Forecasted Loading Conditions for Proposed 66 kV Subtransmission Lines 

........................................................................................................................................... 18 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Project Area and Proposed 66 kV Subtransmission Line Relocation .......................... 11 

Figure 2. Proposed Chatsworth-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV Single-Circuit 

Subtransmission Line ...................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 3. Caculated Magnetic Field Levels for the Proposed Chatsworth-MacNeil-Newhall-San 

Fernando 66 kV Subtransmission Line ............................................................................. 15

List of Terms 

ACSR 

CDHS 

C/L 

CPCN 

CPUC 

ELF 

EMF 

FMP 

GO 

IARC 

kV 

LST 

LWS 

mG 

NIEHS 

NRPB 

PEA 

RAPID 

SCE 

TSP 

U.S. 

WHO 

aluminum conductor steel reinforced 

California Department of Health Services 

center line 

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity 


Extremely Low Frequency 

electric and magnetic fields 

field management plan 

General Order 

International Agency for Research on Cancer 

Kilovolt 

lattice steel tower 

light weight steel 

milliGauss 

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 

National Radiation Protection Board 

Proponents Environmental Assessment 

Research and Public Information Dissemination 

Southern California Edison 

tubular steel pole 

United States of America 

World Health Organization

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This document is South ern California Edison Company’s (SCE) Field Managem ent Plan 

(FMP) for the proposed Sunshine Canyon Landf ill 66 k V Subtrans mission Line Relocation 

Project (Proposed Project). At the request of Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), a California 

corporation, a wholly owned subs idiary of Republic Services, In c. (Republic), SCE proposes to 

relocate a portion of the Chatsworth-MacNei l-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV Subtransm ission 

Line th rough the Suns hine Canyo n Landf ill to allow f or deve lopment of the landf ill in 

accordance with the ap proved facility perm its. The Propo sed Project includes th e following 

components: 

 

Removal of a portion of the existing SC E Chatsworth-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 

66 kV Subtransmission Line that runs through the center of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill 

to the boundary between the County of Los A ngeles/City of Los Angeles boundary line. 

The portion of the line that traverses the landfill is approximately 4,200 feet in length. 

Relocation of a portion of the Chatswor th-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV 

Subtransmission Line from the current alignment to a new location along the perimeter of 

the disturbed area on the northern side of the landfill. It would be adja cent to and inside 

the permitted limit of the landfill, approximately 8,400 feet in length. 

SCE provides this FM P in order to inf orm the public, th e Calif ornia Public Utilities. 

Commission (CPUC), a nd other inte rested parties of its ev aluation of “no-cost and low-cost” 

magnetic field reduction design options for this pr oject, and SCE’s proposed plan to apply these 

design options to this project. This FMP has be en prepared in acco rdance with CPUC Decision 

No. 93-11-013 and Decision No. 06-01-042 relati ng to extremely low frequency (ELF) 1 electric 

and m agnetic fields (E MF). This FMP also provides background on the current status of 

scientific research related to possib le health e ffects of EMF, and a description of the CPUC’s 

EMF policy. 

The “no-cost and low-cost” m agnetic field redu ction design option th at is inco rporated 

into the design of the Proposed Project is as follows: 

 

Utilizing su btransmission stru cture heights that m eet or ex ceed SCE’s preferred EMF 

design criteria 

Table 1 on page 6 summ arizes “no-cost a nd low-cost” m agnetic field reduction design 

option(s) that SCE considered for the Proposed Project. 

1 The extremely low frequency is defined as the frequency range from 3 Hz to 3,000 Hz. 

1

SCE’s plan for applying the above “no-cost and low-cost” m agnetic field reduction 

design option for the Proposed Project is consis tent with CPUC’s EMF policy and with the 

direction of leading national and international health agencies. Furthermore, the plan com plies 

with the EMF Design Guideline s 2 , and with applicable national and state safety standards for 

new electrical facilities. 

2 EMF Design Guidelines, August 2006. 

2

Table 1. Summary of “No-cost and Low-cost” Magnetic Field Reduction Design Option 

Area 

No. 

Proposed 66 

kV subtransmission 

line 

Location 3 

Relocation begins on the east 

side of the BFI Sunshine 

Landfill near the L.A County 

and L.A. City boundary line, 

proceeds north around the 

landfill and then south to the 

existing line location; 

approximately 8,500 feet in 

length. 

Adjacent 

Land 

Use 4 

3,6 

 

MF Reduction Design 

Options Considered 

Utilizing pole heights that 

meet or exceed SCE’s 

preferred EMF design 

criteria 

Estimated Cost 

to Adopt 

Design 

Option(s) 

Adopted 

(Yes/No) 

No-Cost 5 Yes 

Reason(s) if not 

adopted 

3 This column shows the major cross streets, existing subtransmission lines, or substation name as reference points. 

4 Land usage codes are as follows: 1) schools, licensed day-cares, and hospitals, 2) residential, 3) commercial/industrial, 4) recreational, 5) 

agricultural, and 6) undeveloped land. 

5 Included in the preliminary design 

3

II. BACKGROUND REGARDING EMF AND PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCH ON 

EMF 

There are m any sources of power frequency 6 electric and m agnetic fields, including 

internal household and building wiring, electrical appliances, and electric power transm ission 

and distribution lines. There ha ve been num erous scientific st udies about the potential health 

effects of EMF. After m any years of research , the scien tific community has been unable to 

determine if exposures to EMF cause health haza rds. State and federal public health regulatory 

agencies have determined that setting numeric exposure limits is not appropriate. 7 

Many of the questions about possible connec tions between EMF expos ures and specific 

diseases hav e been successfully res olved due to an agg ressive international res earch prog ram. 

However, potentially important public health questi ons rem ain about whet her there is a link 

between E MF exposures and certain diseases , including childhood leukem ia and a variety of 

adult diseases (e.g., adult cancers and miscarriages). As a result , some health authorities have 

identified magnetic field exposur es as a possible hum an carcinogen. As summarized in greater 

detail below, these conclusions are consistent with the following published reports: the National 

Institute of Environm ental Health S ciences (NIEHS) 1999 8 , the Nation al Radiation Prote ction 

Board (NRPB) 2001 9 , the International Comm ission on non-Ionizing Radiation Protection 

(ICNIRP) 2001, the California Departm ent of Health Services (C DHS) 2002 10 , and the 

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2002 11 . 

The federal governm ent conducted EMF research as a part of a $45-m illion research 

program m anaged by the NIEHS. This progr am, known a s the EMF RAPID (Re search and 

Public Information Dissemination), submitted its fi nal report to th e U.S. Congress on June 15, 

1999. The report concluded that: 

 

 

“The scientific evidence suggesting that ELF -EMF exposures pose a ny health risk is 

weak.” 12 

“The NIEHS concludes that ELF-EMF exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe 

because of weak scientific evidence that exposure may pose a leukemia hazard.” 13 

6 In U.S., it is 60 Hertz (Hz). 

7 CPUC Decision 06-01-042, p. 6, footnote 10 

8 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ Report on Health Effects from Exposures to Power-Line 

frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, NIH Publication No. 99-4493, June 1999. 

9 National Radiological Protection Board, Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer, Report of an Advisory 

Group on Non-ionizing Radiation, Chilton, U.K. 2001 

10 California Department of Health Services, An Evaluation of the Possible Risks from Electric and Magnetic 

Fields from Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations, and Appliances, June 2002. 

11 World Health Organization / International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Monographs on the 

evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans (2002), Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1: Static and extremely lowfrequency 

(ELF) electric and magnetic fields, IARCPress, Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on 

Cancer, Monograph, vol. 80, p. 338, 2002 

12 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIEHS Report on Health Effects from Exposures to 

Power-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields, p. ii, NIH Publication No. 99-4493, 1999 

4

“The NIEHS suggests that the level a nd strength of eviden ce supporting ELF-EMF 

exposure as a hum an health h azard are insufficient to wa rrant aggressive regulatory 

actions; thus, we do not recomm end actions such as string ent s tandards on electric 

appliances and a national program to bury all transm ission and d istribution line s. 

Instead, the evidence suggests passive m easures such as a continued em phasis on 

educating both the public and the regulat ed community on m eans aimed at reducing 

exposures. NIEHS suggests that the power industry continue its current practice of 

siting power lines to red uce exposures and continue to exp lore ways to reduce the 

creation of magnetic fields around transmission and distribution lines without creating 

new hazards.” 14 

In 2001, Britain’s NRPB arrived at a similar conclusion: 

“After a wide-ranging and t horough review of scientific research, an independent 

Advisory Group to the Board of NRPB ha s concluded that the power f requency 

electromagnetic fields that exist in the va st majority of hom es are not a cause of 

cancer in general. However, som e epidemiological studies do indicate a possible 

small risk of childhood leukem ia associated with exposures to unusually high 

levels of power frequency magnetic fields.” 15 

In 2002, three scientists for CDHS concluded: 

“To one degree or another, all three of the [ C]DHS scientists are in clined to 

believe that EMFs can cause som e degree of increased risk of childhood 

leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and miscarriage. 

They [CDHS] strongly believe that EMFs do not increase the risk of birth defects, 

or low birth weight. 

They [CDHS] strongly believe that EMFs are not universal carcinogens, since 

there are a number of cancer types that are not associated with EMF exposure. 

To one degree or another they [CDHS] ar e inclined to belie ve that EM Fs do not 

cause an in creased risk of breast cancer, heart diseas e, Alzheim er’s disease, 

depression, or sym ptoms attributed by som e to a sensitivity to EMFs. However, 

all three scientis ts had judgm ents th at we re “ close to th e di viding line between 

believing and not believing” that EMFs cau se some degree of increas ed risk of 

suicide. 

13 Ibid., p. iii 

14 Ibid., p. 37 - 38 

15 NRPB, NRPB Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation Power Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and the 

Risk of Cancer, NRPB Press Release May 2001 

5

For adult le ukemia, two of the scientists are ‘close to the dividing line between 

believing or not believing’ and one was ‘pr one to believe’ that EMFs cause some 

degree of increased risk.” 16 

Also in 2002, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) IARC concluded: 

“ELF magnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans” 17 , based on consistent 

statistical associations of high-level residential magnetic fields with a doubling of 

risk of childhood leukem ia...Children who are exposed to residential ELF 

magnetic fields less th an 0.4 m icroTesla (4.0 milliGauss) have no increased risk 

for leukemia…. In contrast, “no consistent relationship has been seen in studies 

of childhood brain tum ors or cancers at other sites and reside ntial ELF electric 

and magnetic fields.” 18 

In June of 2007, the WHO issued a report on their m ulti-year investigation of EMF and 

the possib le health effects. After reviewing scientific data from num erous EMF and hum an 

health studies, they concluded: 

“Scientific evidence suggesting that everyday, chronic lowintensity 

(above 0.3-0.4 µT [3-4 mG]) power-frequency m agnetic 

field exposure poses a health risk is based on epidem iological 

studies demonstrating a consistent pattern of increased risk for 

childhood leukaemia.” 19 

“In addition, virtually all of the labo ratory eviden ce and the 

mechanistic evidence fail to suppo rt a relationship between lowlevel 

ELF m agnetic fields and ch anges in biological function or 

disease status. Thus, on balance, the evidence is not strong enough 

to be considered causal, but su fficiently strong to rem ain a 

concern.” 20 

“A num ber of other diseases have been investigated for possible 

association with ELF magnetic field exposure. These include 

cancers in both children and adults, depression, suicide, 

reproductive dysfunction, developmental disorders, immunological 

modifications and neuro logical dis ease. The s cientific ev idence 

supporting a linkage between ELF magnetic fields and any of these 

diseases is much weaker than for childhood leukem ia and in som e 

16 CDHS, An Evaluation of the Possible Risks From Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) From Power Lines, 

Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupations and Appliances, p. 3, 2002 

17 IARC, Monographs, Part I, Vol. 80, p. 338 

18 Ibid., p. 332 - 334 

19 WHO, Environmental Health Criteria 238, EXTREMELY LOW FREQUENCY FIELDS, p. 11 - 

13, 2007 

20 Ibid., p. 12 

6

cases (for example, for cardiovascular disease or breast cancer) the 

evidence is sufficient to give c onfidence that magnetic fields do 

not cause the disease” 21 

“Furthermore, given both the weakness of the evidence for a link 

between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukemia, 

and the limited im pact on public health if th ere is a lin k, the 

benefits of exposure reduction on health are unclear. Thus the costs 

of precautionary measures should be very low.” 22 

III. APPLICATION OF THE CPUC’S “NO-COST AND LOW-COST” EMF POLICY TO 

THIS PROJECT 

Recognizing the scientific uncertainty over the connecti on between EMF exposures and 

health effects, the CPUC adopted a policy th at addresses public concern over E MF with a 

combination of education, information, and precaution-based approaches. Specifically, Decision 

93-11-013 established a precautionary based “no-cost and low-cost” EMF policy for California’s 

regulated electric utilities based on recognition that scientific res earch had not demonstrated that 

exposures to EMF cause health hazards and that it was inappropriate to set num eric standards 

that would limit exposure. 

In 2006, the CPUC completed its review and update of its EMF Policy in Decision 06-01- 

042. This decision reaffirmed the finding that state and federal public health regulatory agencies 

have not established a direct link between exposure to EMF and hum an health effects, 23 and the 

policy direction that (1) use of numeric exposure lim its was not appropriate in setting utility 

design guidelines to address EMF, 24 and (2) existing “no-cost and low-cost” precautionary-based 

EMF policy should be continued for proposed electri cal facilities. The decision also reaffirm ed 

that EMF concerns brought up during Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) 

and Permit to Construct (PTC) proceedings for el ectric and transmission and substation facilities 

should be limited to the utility’s compliance with the CPUC’s “no-cost and low-cost” policies. 25 

21 Ibid., p. 12 

22 Ibid., p. 13 

23 CPUC Decision 06-01-042, Conclusion of Law No. 5, mimeo. p. 19 (“As discussed in the rulemaking, a direct 

link between exposure to EMF and human health effects has yet to be proven despite numerous studies 

including a study ordered by this Commission and conducted by DHS.”). 

24 CPUC Decision 06-01-042, mimeo. p. 17 - 18 (“Furthermore, we do not request that utilities include nonroutine 

mitigation measures, or other mitigation measures that are based on numeric values of EMF exposure, in 

revised design guidelines or apply mitigation measures to reconfigurations or relocations of less than 2,000 feet, 

the distance under which exemptions apply under GO 131-D. Non-routine mitigation measures should only be 

considered under unique circumstances.”). 

25 CPUC Decision 06-01-042, Conclusion of Law No. 2, (“EMF concerns in future CPCN and PTC 

proceedings for electric and transmission and substation facilities should be limited to the 

utility’s compliance with the Commission’s low-cost/no-cost policies.”). 

7

The decision directed regulated utilities to hold a workshop to develop standard 

approaches for EMF De sign Guidelines and su ch a workshop was held on February 21, 2006. 

Consistent design guidelines have been develope d that d escribe the routin e m agnetic f ield 

reduction measures that regulated California electric utilities consider for new and upgraded 

transmission line and transm ission substation projects. SCE filed its revised EMF Design 

Guidelines with the CPUC on July 26, 2006. 

“No-cost an d low-cost” m easures to reduce magnetic fields would be im plemented for 

this project in accordan ce with SCE’s EMF Desi gn Guidelines. In su mmary, the process of 

evaluating “no-cost and low-cost” magnetic field reduction m easures and prioritizing within and 

between land usage classes considers the following: 

1. SCE’s priority in the design of any elec trical facility is public and em ployee 

safety. W ithout exception, design and cons truction of an electric power system 

must com ply with all applicab le f ederal, state, and local re gulations, applicable 

safety code s, and each elec tric utility ’s cons truction s tandards. Furth ermore, 

transmission and subtransm ission lines and substations m ust be constructed so 

that th ey can operate reliab ly at thei r design capacity. T heir design must be 

compatible with othe r facilities in the area and the cos t to operate and m aintain 

the facilities must be reasonable. 

2. As a supplem ent to Step 1, SCE follows the CPUC’s dire ction to undertake 

“no-cost and low-cost” m agnetic field re duction measures for new and upgraded 

electrical facilities. Any proposed “no-cost and low-cost” m agnetic field 

measures, must, however, m eet the requirements described in Step 1 above. The 

CPUC defines “no-cost and low-cost” measures as follows: 

 

Low-cost measures, in aggregate, should: 

o 

o 

Cost in the range of 4 percent of the total project cost. 

Result in magnetic field reductions of “15% or greater at the utility 

ROW [right-of-way]…” 26 

The CPUC Decision stated, 

“We direct the utilitie s to us e 4 percent as a benchmark in 

developing their EMF m itigation gui delines. W e will no t es tablish 4 

percent as an absolute cap at th is tim e because we do not want to 

arbitrarily eliminate a po tential measure that m ight be available but costs 

more than the 4 percent figure. Conversely, the utilities are encouraged to 

use effective measures that cost less than 4 percent.” 27 

3. The CPUC provided further policy dire ction in Decision 06-01-042, stating 

that, “[a]lthough equal m itigation for an enti re class is a d esirable goal, we will 

not limit the spending of EMF m itigation to zero on the b asis that not all c lass 

26 CPUC Decision 06-01-042, p. 10 

27 CPUC Decision 93-11-013, § 3.3.2, p.10. 

8

members can benefit.” 28 While Decision 06-01-042 dir ects the utilities to favor 

schools, day-care facilities and hospitals over resident ial areas when applying 

low-cost magnetic field reduction measures , prioritization within a class can be 

difficult on a project case-by-case basis be cause schools, day-care facilities, and 

hospitals are often integrated into residential areas, and many licensed day-care 

facilities are housed in private hom es, and can be easily moved from one location 

to another. Therefore, it m ay be practi cal for public schools, licensed day-care 

centers, hospitals, and residential land us es to be grouped together to receive 

highest prioritization for low-cost magnetic field reduction m easures. 

Commercial and industrial areas may be grouped as a second priority group, 

followed by recreational and agricultural areas as the third group. Low-cost 

magnetic field reduction measures will not be considered for undevelo ped land, 

such as open space, state and natio nal parks, and Bureau of Land Managem ent 

and U.S. Forest Service lands. When spending for low-cost m easures would 

otherwise disallow equitable magnetic field reduction for all areas within a single 

land-use class, prioritization can be achieved by considering location and/or 

density of perm anently occupied structures on lands adjacent to the projects, as 

appropriate. 

This FMP contains descriptions of various magnetic field m odels and the calculated 

results of magnetic field levels based on those models. Th ese calculated resu lts are provid ed 

only for purposes of identifying th e relative differences in m agnetic field levels am ong various 

transmission or subtransm ission line design a lternatives under a speci fic set of m odeling 

assumptions and determining whether particular design alternatives can achieve m agnetic field 

level reductions of 15 percent or more. The calculated results are not intended to be predictors of 

the ac tual m agnetic f ield leve ls at any given tim e or at any spec ific location if a nd when the 

project is constructed. This is because magnetic field levels depend upon a variety of variables, 

including load growth, custom er electricity usage, and other factors beyo nd SCE’s control. The 

CPUC affirmed this in D. 06-01-042 stating: 

“Our [CPUC] review of th e modeling methodology provided in the utility [EMF] design 

guidelines indicates th at it accom plishes its purpose, which is to m easure th e re lative 

differences between a lternative m itigation measures. Thus, the m odeling indic ates 

relative differences in m agnetic fi eld reduc tions between different transm ission line 

construction methods, but does not measure actual environmental magnetic fields.” 29 



9

IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Southern California Edison Com pany (SCE) proposes to relocate the existing S CE 

Chatsworth-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV Subtransm ission Line (Proposed Project) 

that run s th rough the center of the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. The por tion of the line that 

traverses the landfill is approxim ately 4,200 feet in length, and is strung with 336 alum inum 

conductor steel reinforced (ACSR) wire. The P roposed Project w ould be constructed prim arily 

in unincorporated Los Angeles County, California, w ith one structure located in the City of Los 

Angeles. The portion of the Chatsw orth-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV 

Subtransmission Line, which traverses the landfill, will be relocated from the current alignm ent 

to a new location along the perim eter of the disturbed area on the northern side of the landfill. It 

would be adjacent to and inside the permitted limit of the landfill approved by the County of Los 

Angeles (Figure 1). 

The existing Chatsworth-MacNeil-Newhall- San Fernando 66 kV Subtransm ission Line 

consists of one lattice steel tower (LST), which is approxim ately 50 feet above ground. In 

addition, the existing line cons ists of two wood H-fra me stru ctures, one wood three-pole 

structure, and one LWS three-pol e structure, all of which are between 55 and 88 feet above 

ground. The Proposed Project will consist of a pproximately 14 new tubular steel p oles (TSPs) 

ranging in height between 70 and 105 feet above ground. In addition, one LWS three-pole 

structure and one LST tower would be replaced with two TSPs, f or a total of 16 TSPs. The 

average span between the poles will be approximately 560 feet. The relocated line will be strung 

with 954 ACSR, and will be approximately 8,400 feet in total length. 

10

Figure 1. Project Area and Proposed 66 kV Subtransmission Line Relocation 

11

V. EVALUATION OF “NO-COST AND LOW-COST” MAGNETIC FIELD 

REDUCTION DESIGN OPTIONS 

Please note that the following magnetic field models and the calculated results of 

magnetic field levels are intended only for purpos es of identifying the relative dif ferences in 

magnetic field levels among various subtrans mission line and subtransm ission line design 

alternatives under a specific set of modeling assum ptions (see §VII-Appendix A for m ore 

detailed information about the calcu lation assumptions and loading cond itions) and determining 

whether particular desig n alternatives can achie ve magnetic field level reductions of 15 percent 

or more. T he calculated results are not inten ded to b e predictors of the actual magnetic field 

levels at any given time or at any specific location when the Proposed Project is constructed. 

For the purpose of evaluating “no-cost and low-cost” m agnetic f ield reduction design 

options, the Proposed Project is divided into two parts: 

 

 

Part 1: Proposed Chatswor th-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV Subtransm ission Line 

Relocation 

Part 2: Project Alternatives 

Part 1: Proposed Chatsw orth-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV Subtransmissio n 

Line Relocation 

The proposed structural design used for the proposed subtransmission line is show n in 

Figure 2. T he proposed 66 kV Subtransm ission Line will be constructed as a single-circuit on 

double-circuit structures. Based on prelim inary design, the TSPs will be approxim ately 70 to 

105 feet in height. The poles will be located in an utility easem ent. For EMF analysis, field 

levels at 25 feet from the center line (C/L) of the structure were evaluated. Currently, there are 

no schools along the Proposed Route. Th e Proposed Route runs through m ostly 

commercial/industrial and undeveloped land with no residences nearby. 

12

Figure 2. Proposed Chatsworth-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV Single- 

Circuit Subtransmission Line 

(Looking West) 

13

No-Cost Field Reduction Measures: The proposed design for the relocated 66 kV 

Subtransmission Line includes the following no-cost field reduction measure: 

1. Utilize pole heights that meet or exceed SCE’s preferred EMF design criteria 

Low-Cost Field Reduction Options: Since the proposed design incorporates the above 

no-cost field reduction measure (utilize structure heights that meet or exceed SCE’s EMF 

preferred design criteria), no further low-cost reduction measures such a s utilizing ta ller 

structures were considered for the Proposed Project. 

Magnetic Field Calculations: Figure 3 and Table 2 show the calculated magnetic field 

levels for the proposed design. These cal culations were m ade using the m inimum 

proposed structure height of 70 feet. 

14

Figure 3. Calculated Magnetic Field Levels 30 for the Proposed Chatsworth- 

MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV Subtransmission Line 

(Looking West) 

Table 2. Calculated Magnetic Field Levels 31 for the Proposed Line 

Design Options 

Proposed Single-Circuit 66 

kV Design 

25 Feet Left of 

C/L (mG) 

% Reduction 

25 Feet Right of 

C/L (mG) 

% Reduction 

4.7 N/A 6.3 N/A 

Recommendations for P roposed 66kV Subtransmission Lin e: The p roposed des ign includ es 

no-cost field reduction measures. Because the proposed design already incorporates structures 

with heights meeting or exceedi ng SCE's preferred des ign criter ia, n o furth er lo w-cost field 

reduction measures are recommended. 

30 This table lists calculated magnetic field levels for design comparison only and is not meant to 

predict actual magnetic field levels. 

31 This figure shows calculated magnetic field levels for design comparison only and is not meant to 

predict actual magnetic field levels. 

15

Part 2: Project Alternatives 

This FMP includes only “no-cost and low- cost” magnetic field re duction design options 

for SCE’s Proposed Project. SCE’s Proponent’s Environm ental Assessm ent (PEA) contains 

various p roject alternatives. Comparable “n o-cost and low-cost” m agnetic field reduction 

options for the Proposed Project may be applied to al l alternative subtransmission routes. An 

Addendum to the FMP or a Final FMP will be prepared should an alternative route be approved. 

VI. FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING “NO-COST AND LOW- 

COST” MAGNETIC FIELD REDUCTION DESIGN OPTIONS 

In accordance with the “EMF Design Guidelin es”, filed with the CPUC in com pliance 

with CPUC Decisions 93-11- 013 and 06-01-042, SCE would im plement the following “no-cost 

and low-cost” magnetic field reduction design options for Proposed Project: 

For Proposed Chats worth-MacNeil-Newhall-San Fernando 66 kV Subtransmission 

Line Route: 

Utilize pole heights th at m eet or exceed SCE’s preferre d EMF design criteria: 

Proposed new TSPs will range between 70 and 105 feet in height. 

The recommended “no-cost and lo w-cost” magnetic field reduction design option listed 

above is based upon prelim inary engineering desi gns, and therefore, it is subject to change 

during the final engineering desi gns. If the final engineeri ng designs are different than 

preliminary engineering designs , SCE would im plement com parable “no-cost and low-cost” 

magnetic field reduction design options. If th e final engineering de signs are significan tly 

different (in the context of ev aluating and im plementing CPUC’s “no-cost an d low-cost” EMF 

Policy) than the preliminary designs, an Addendum to the FMP or a Final FMP will be prepared. 

SCE’s plan for applying the above “no-cost a nd low-cost” m agnetic field reduction design 

options uniformly for the Proposed Project is c onsistent with the CPUC’s EMF Decisions No. 

93-11-013 and No. 06-01-042, and also with reco mmendations m ade by the U.S. NIEHS. 

Furthermore, the recommendations above meet the CPUC a pproved EMF Design Guidelines as 

well as all applicable national and state safety standards for new electrical facilities. 

Design Options Not Recommended: 

The use of a com pact pole-head configur ation was no t cons idered becaus e this 

configuration is not used in TSP construction. 

16

VII. APPENDIX A: TWO-DIMENTIONAL MODEL ASSUMPTIONS AND YEAR 2014 

FORECASTED LOADING CONDITIONS 

Magnetic Field Assumptions: 

SCE uses a com puter program titled “MF ields” 32 to m odel the m agnetic f ield 

characteristics of various transm ission design s options. All m agnetic field m odels and the 

calculated r esults of magnetic f ield levels pre sented in th is docum ent are intend ed only f or 

purposes of identifying the relative differenc es in m agnetic field levels am ong various 

subtransmission line and subtransm ission line de sign alternatives under a specific set of 

modeling assum ptions and determ ining whether particular design alternatives can achieve 

magnetic field level reductions of 15 percent or more. The calcu lated results are not intended to 

be predictors of the ac tual magnetic field levels at any g iven time or at any specific location if 

and when the project is constructed. 

Typical two-dimensional magnetic field modeling assumptions include: 

The subtransmission line was modeled using forecasted peak load (see Table 3) 

 

 

 

All conductors were assumed to be straight and infinitely long 

Ground clearance was assumed to be a minimum of 35 feet above ground level 

Magnetic field strength (magnetic flux density) was calculated at a height of three feet above 

ground 

 

Resultant magnetic field values were presented in this FMP 

All line currents were assum ed to be balanc ed (i.e. neutral or ground currents are not 

considered) 

 

 

Terrain was assumed to be flat 

Project dominant power flow directions were used 

32 SCE, MFields for Excel, Version 2.0, 2007. 

17

Table 3. Year 2014 Forecasted Loading Conditions for Proposed 66 kV Subtransmission 

Line 

Circuit Name 

Proposed Chatsworth-MacNeil-Newhall-San 

Fernando 66 kV Subtransmission Line 

Current 

(Amp) 

175 

Notes: 

1. Forecasted loading data is based upon scenarios representing load forecasts for 2014. The 

forecasting data is subject to ch ange depe nding upon availability of g enerations, load 

increase, changes in load demand, and by many other factors. 

2. All existing line loading data is derived from historical data. 

3. Circuit loading of the existing and proposed line is the same. 

18

Application for a Permit to Construct (PDF) - Southern California ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?