APPENDIX D
Alternatives Screening Report
717 Market Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94103 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
Riverside Transmission
Reliability Project
Alternatives Screening Report
August April 2018
717 Market Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94103 650-373-1200 www.panoramaenv.com
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION
Riverside Transmission
Reliability Project
Alternatives Screening Report
August April 2018
Prepared for:
Jensen Uchida, Project Manager
California Public Utilities Commission, Energy Division 505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102
Prepared by:
Panorama Environmental, Inc.
717 Market Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94103
650-373-1200
[email protected]
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING REPORT
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of Alternatives Screening Report .................................................................................... 1 Revised Project Overview................................................................................................................. 1 SCE Project Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2 Overview of Screening Process ....................................................................................................... 2 Overview of Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................ 3 Summary of Alternatives Carried Forward .................................................................................... 6 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose.......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Summary of Revised Project ..................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Additional Project Impacts Considered in Subsequent EIR ................................................ 3
1.4 Summary of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 3 2 Background and Previous Documents ...................................................................................... 6
2.1 2013 RTRP EIR ................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Settlement Agreement .............................................................................................................. 7
2.3 SCE Lower Voltage and Other Design Alternatives Report ................................................ 7 3 Methodology for Identifying and Screening Alternatives ....................................................... 9
3.1 Identification of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Alternatives Screening Methodology ..................................................................................... 9
3.3 CEQA Requirements for Alternatives....................................................................................... 9
3.4 Public Utilities Code Considerations for Alternatives .......................................................... 14 4 Alternatives Descriptions and Determinations ........................................................................ 15
4.1 Summary of Alternatives Screening Analysis ....................................................................... 15
4.2 Alternatives Retained ............................................................................................................... 30
4.3 Alternatives Eliminated ............................................................................................................. 39 5 References .................................................................................................................................. 88
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ii
List of Tables
Table ES-1 Alternatives Considered in Screening Analysis ...................................................... ES-3 Table 1.4 1 Alternatives Considered in Screening Analysis ........................................................... 4 Table 4.1 1 Summary of Alternatives Screening Analysis ............................................................. 16 Table 4.3 1 Alternative 28 - New 66-kV Power Line Segments ...............................................78 77 Table 4.3 2 Alternative 29 – New Power Linea and Transmission Line Segments ...............80 79 List of Figures
Figure ES-1 Proposed Alternative Routes for Subsequent EIR ............................................... ES-7 6 Figure 4.2-1 Alternative 1: Bellegrave – Pats Ranch Road Underground .............................31 30 Figure 4.2-2 Alternative 2: Wineville – Limonite Underground .................................................33 32 Figure 4.2-3 Alternative 3: Relocate Northern Riser Poles ........................................................35 34 Figure 4.2-4 Alternative 4: Wineville - Landon Underground ...................................................37 36 Figure 4.3-1 Eliminated Transmission Route Alternatives ...........................................................41 39 Figure 4.3-2 Substation Locations .................................................................................................54 53 Figure 4.3-3 Lower Voltage Alternative A ...................................................................................77 76 Figure 4.3-4 Lower Voltage Alternative B ....................................................................................82 81 Figure 4.3-5 Lower Voltage Alternative C ...................................................................................86 85
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF ALTERNATIVES SCREENING REPORT
The California Independent System Operators (CAISO) directed Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) to construct the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project (RTRP) in 2006. The City of Riverside certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the RTRP in 2013. Southern California Edison (SCE) submitted an application (A.15-04-013) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to construct and operate the RTRP on April 15, 2015. SCE then revised the location and configuration of a portion of the 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line within the City of Jurupa Valley in September 2016. The revised portions of the project, herein referred to as the Revised Project, were not analyzed in the 2013 RTRP EIR, and alternatives to the Revised Project were not previously evaluated pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Alternatives Screening Report (ASR) documents the screening process that was conducted by the CPUC to identify potentially feasible alternatives that would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project.
REVISED PROJECT OVERVIEW
Relocated Overhead 230-kV Transmission Line
Approximately 0.5 mile of the 230-kV overhead transmission line would be relocated to the west side of Wineville Avenue within the City of Jurupa Valley between Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road (adjacent to the tie-in to Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line) and Landon Drive.
Underground 230-kV Transmission Line
The Revised Project would include the construction of approximately 2 miles of underground transmission line located within private property, City of Jurupa Valley franchise right-of-way (ROW), and the Goose Creek Golf Club. Two new riser poles, approximately 165 feet in height, would be installed on either end of the underground transmission line segment (a total of four riser poles) to transition the line from an overhead position to underground and from the underground position back to overhead.
Distribution Line Modifications
To accommodate the proposed 230-kV transmission line, existing distribution lines located along the south side of the Santa Ana River would require relocation to comply with clearance requirements. Distribution line modifications are being considered in the Subsequent EIR where
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-2
refinements would result in an expanded or different footprint from what was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR.
SCE PROJECT OBJECTIVES
SCE has identified the following objectives of the project:
• Increase capacity to meet existing electric system demand and anticipated future load growth
• Provide an additional point of delivery for bulk power into the Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) electrical system, thereby reducing dependence on Vista Substation and increasing overall reliability
CPUC reviewed the project objectives and revised the second project objective to more broadly reflect providing a second source of bulk power into RPU system. The basic project objectives are considered in the screening of alternatives.
OVERVIEW OF SCREENING PROCESS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), an EIR must describe a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project, that would (1) feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives1 and (2) avoid or reduce any of the significant effects of the project. CEQA also requires consideration of a No Project Alternative (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). The No Project Alternative is included in the Subsequent EIR and is therefore not addressed further in this screening process.
Each alternative was clearly defined before it was evaluated to allow a comparative evaluation of the alternative and the Revised Project. To comply with CEQA requirements, each alternative was then evaluated in three ways:
1. Meets Most of the Basic Project Objectives. The basic project objectives are to (i) increase capacity to meet existing and future load growth and (ii) provide an additional point of delivery for bulk power into the RPU electrical system. If an alternative did not meet at least one of the basic project objectives, it was rejected from further analysis.
2. Potentially Feasible. Feasibility considers factors such as limitations to permitting a high-voltage transmission line and other required electrical infrastructure, lands with legal protections, consistency with regulatory standards, whether the cost of the alternative would be prohibitive, and the consideration of available
1 The basic project objectives are those objectives that meet the underlying fundamental purpose of the project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-3
technology. Alternatives that were not potentially feasible were rejected from further analysis.
3. Avoid or Reduce Significant Environmental Impacts. Potentially significant impacts of the Revised Project include aesthetic impacts from the riser poles proposed at Limonite Avenue and the relocated overhead alignment along Wineville Avenue, and noise and traffic impacts from construction of the underground transmission line. Alternatives that would not avoid or reduce any significant impacts of the Revised Project or that would create or substantially increase significant impacts compared to the Revised Project were rejected from further analysis.
OVERVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatives Analyzed in 2013 RTRP EIR
SCE’s Revised Project is a component of the larger RTRP, which was jointly planned by SCE and the City of Riverside’s RPU. The City of Riverside prepared and certified the Final EIR for the RTRP on February 5, 2013. As part of the 2013 RTRP EIR, the City of Riverside conducted a siting study in 2006 to evaluate three potential corridors for the 230-kV transmission line.
Specific alternatives were considered within each corridor, including routes on Limonite Avenue, Bain Street, Van Buren, Interstate 15 (I-15), and along the Santa Ana River. None of these alternatives were considered further in this ASR because they were previously eliminated from further consideration due to environmental impacts and potential feasibility constraints.
Several alternatives considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR were reevaluated in this ASR, including distributed generation, energy conservation, and demand response, because (1) technology and systems operations have changed since the 2006 siting study and (2) CPUC code requires consideration of these alternatives.
Alternatives Considered
The alternatives screening process culminated in the identification and screening of 30 potential alternatives, or combinations of alternatives, identified (1) during the 2017 public scoping process, (2) by SCE in response to CPUC request for a low-voltage alternative, and (3) by the CPUC. Alternative types include overhead and underground transmission route alternatives to SCE’s proposed transmission line route and electrical system alternatives such as upgrades to other parts of the electrical system, distributed generation, energy conservation, and expansion of the low-voltage system. Four alternatives were retained for analysis in the Subsequent EIR, and 26 alternatives were eliminated from further analysis. Table ES-1 lists each project alternative included in this ASR. Figure ES-1 shows the routes for the proposed alternatives.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-4
Table ES-1 Alternatives Considered in Screening Analysis Alternative Type Rationale for Rejection
Alternatives Retained
Alternative 1: Bellegrave – Pats Ranch Road
Underground
Source: SCE and 2017 Scoping
Transmission Route/
Underground
Alternative Retained
Alternative 2: Wineville – Limonite
Underground
Source: CPUC
Transmission Route/
Underground
Alternative Retained
Alternative 3: Relocate Northern Riser Poles
Source: CPUC
Pole Relocation Alternative Retained
Alternative 4: Wineville – Landon
Underground
Source: CPUC
Transmission Route/
Underground
Alternative Retained
Alternatives Rejected
Alternative 5: Wineville Underground
Source: SCE and 2017 Scoping
Transmission Route/
Underground
Results in greater environmental
impacts and may not substantially
conform to Settlement Agreement
between SCE and developers.
Alternative 6: Mira Loma Substation – Van
Buren in Railroad ROW
Source: 2017 Scoping and 2013 RTRP EIR
Transmission Route Not feasible. Neither SCE nor Union
Pacific would allow transmission
line to be located within railroad
ROW.
Alternative 7: Eastern Alignment in Riverside
Source: 2017 Scoping and 2013 RTRP EIR
Transmission Route Results in greater environmental
impacts.
Alternative 8: All Underground Transmission
Line (Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV
Transmission Line to Wildlife Substation)
Source: 2017 Scoping
Underground Results in greater environmental
impacts.
Alternative 9: Limonite – Van Buren
Underground
Source: 2017 Scoping
Transmission Route/
Underground
Results in greater environmental
impacts and does not reduce any
impacts of the Revised Project.
Alternative 10: Idyllwild Lane, Julian Drive,
and Bradford Street Underground
Source: 2017 Scoping
Transmission Route/
Underground
Results in greater environmental
impacts and does not reduce any
impacts of the Revised Project.
Alternative 11: I-15 South to SR-91 East
Underground
Source: 2017 Scoping
Transmission Route/
Underground
Not regulatorily feasible. Caltrans
does not allow installation of
underground utilities beneath
Caltrans-operated highways.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-5
Alternative Type Rationale for Rejection
Alternative 12: Mountain View Substation –
Agua Mansa – Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV
Transmission Line Interconnect
Source: 2017 Scoping
System Alternative May not be technologically
feasible. Insufficient space is
available at Mountain View
Substation for 230-kV substation
equipment. Results in greater
environmental impacts along the
Santa Ana River.
Alternative 13: Battery Storage
Source: 2017 Scoping
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives and is not
technologically or economically
feasible.
Alternative 14: Additional Transformer
Capacity at Vista Substation
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR; CPUC
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 15: Additional Transformer
Capacity at Mira Loma Substation
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR; CPUC
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 16: Expansion of Riverside
Energy Resource Center
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR; CPUC
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 17: Expansion of Electrical
Equipment at Mountain View Substation
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 18: Shift Load at Vista Substation
Source: CPUC
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 19: Additional Generation
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 20: Use of Internal RPU
Generation
Source: CPUC
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 21: Distributed Generation
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR and CPUC; Public
Utilities Code § 1002.3
Non-Wire Cannot be implemented at a
scale to meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 22: Energy Efficiency and
Conservation
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR and CPUC; Public
Utilities Code § 1002.3
Non-Wire Cannot be implemented at a
scale to meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 23: Demand Response
Source: CPUC; Public Utilities Code § 1002.3
Non-Wire Does not meet basic project
objectives.
Alternative 24: Consolidate the RTRP and
Circle City Project, and consolidate the
Valley Ivy Glen and Alberhill System Project
Source: Office of Ratepayer Advocates
(ORA) Comment Letter
System Does not meet basic project
objectives, is not regulatorily
feasible, and does not reduce any
impacts of the Revised Project.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-6
Alternative Type Rationale for Rejection
Alternative 25: Consolidate the Circle City
Project, RTRP, Valley Ivy Glen, and Alberhill
System Projects
Source: ORA Comment Letter
System Does not meet basic project
objectives, is not regulatorily
feasible, and does not reduce any
impacts of the Revised Project.
Alternative 26: Modify the Circle City
Project to Replace the Proposed Circle
City, RTRP, Valley – Ivyglen, and Alberhill
System Projects
Source: ORA Comment Letter
System Does not meet basic project
objectives, is not regulatorily
feasible, and does not reduce any
impacts of the Revised Project.
Alternative 27: Deliver 66-kV Power to
Riverside from multiple SCE sources and
install metering
Source: CPUC
System Does not meet basic project
objectives and does not reduce
any impacts of the Revised Project.
Alternative 28: SCE Low-Voltage
Alternative A – Single Source
Source: SCE
System Results in greater environmental
impacts than the Revised Project.
Alternative 29: SCE Low-Voltage
Alternative B – Three Sources
Source: SCE
System Results in greater environmental
impacts than the Revised Project.
Alternative 30: SCE Low-Voltage
Alternative C – Single Source with Solar PV
and Battery Energy Storage
Source: SCE
System Results in greater environmental
impacts than the Revised Project.
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES CARRIED FORWARD
Alternative 1: Bellegrave – Pats Ranch Road Underground The Bellegrave — Pats Ranch Road Underground Alternative route would begin and transition to an underground position immediately adjacent to the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230- kV Transmission Line. The transmission line would travel south within Wineville Avenue for approximately 0.7 mile, west within Bellegrave Avenue for approximately 0.2 mile, and south within Pats Ranch Road for approximately 1.2 miles. At the intersection of Pats Ranch Road and Limonite Avenue, the alternative route would follow the same underground alignment as the Revised Project.
Alternative 1 was retained for full analysis in the Subsequent EIR because it meets the basic project objectives, is feasible, would avoid the Revised Project’s significant aesthetic impact from riser poles at Limonite Avenue and the placement of overhead transmission poles along Wineville Avenue, and would avoid the Revised Project’s significant agricultural impact north of Limonite Avenue. Pats Ranch Road north of Limonite has not yet been constructed, and limited utilities are present in the area that could conflict with the transmission line. Bellegrave
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-7
Figure ES-1 Proposed Alternative Routes for the Subsequent EIR (esri 2017, SCE 2017, CDFW 2016)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-8
Avenue and Wineville Avenue are sufficiently wide to accommodate the underground transmission line and duct banks within the ROW. The alternative may result in additional construction noise and traffic impacts, increased pollutant emissions, and greater induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) than the Revised Project.
Construction noise and traffic impacts from the Revised Project would not be avoided.
Alternative 2: Wineville – Limonite Underground
The Wineville – Limonite Underground Alternative route would begin and transition to an underground position immediately adjacent to the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line. The transmission line would travel south for approximately 2 miles within Wineville Avenue before reaching the intersection with Limonite Avenue. At this intersection, the alternative route would turn west within Limonite Avenue for approximately 1,000 feet before turning south within Pats Ranch Road to follow the same underground alignment as the Revised Project.
Alternative 2 was retained for full analysis in the Subsequent EIR because it meets the basic project objectives, is feasible, would avoid the Revised Project’s significant aesthetic impacts from riser poles at Limonite Avenue and the relocated overhead transmission alignment along Wineville Avenue, and would avoid the Revised Project’s significant agricultural impact north of Limonite Avenue. Wineville Avenue is sufficiently wide to accommodate the underground transmission line and duct banks within the ROW. The alternative may result in additional construction noise and traffic impacts, increased pollutant emissions, and greater induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) than the Revised Project.
Construction noise and traffic impacts from the Revised Project would not be avoided.
Alternative 3: Relocate Northern Riser Poles
Under Alternative 3, the northern riser poles adjacent to Limonite Avenue would be relocated within the Revised Project alignment to approximately 0.25 mile north-northwest of the Revised Project’s riser pole positions. The transmission line would follow the Revised Project alignment underground from the relocated riser poles. Under this alternative, the riser poles would be set back from Limonite Avenue and would be located directly adjacent to the I-15 freeway.
Alternative 3 was retained for full analysis in the Subsequent EIR because it meets the basic project objectives, is feasible, and would avoid the Revised Project’s significant aesthetic impact from riser poles at Limonite Avenue. The alternative would not result in any new or more severe significant environmental effects. Aesthetic impacts from placement of overhead transmission poles along Wineville Avenue as well as construction noise and traffic impacts would not be avoided.
Alternative 4: Wineville – Landon Underground
The Wineville – Landon Underground Alternative would begin and transition to an underground position immediately adjacent to the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line. The transmission line would travel south underground in Wineville Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-9
for approximately 0.4 mile before turning west to continue underground in Landon Drive for approximately 0.4 mile. At the terminus of Landon Drive, the transmission line would transition from underground to an overhead position and follow SCE’s proposed overhead alignment south along I-15 to the Revised Project alignment.
Alternative 4 was retained for full analysis in the Subsequent EIR because it meets the basic project objectives, is feasible, would avoid the Revised Project’s significant aesthetic impact from relocation of the overhead transmission alignment along Wineville Avenue, and would avoid the Revised Project’s significant agricultural impact north of Limonite Avenue. Wineville Avenue and Landon Drive are sufficiently wide to accommodate the underground transmission line and duct banks within the road ROW. The alternative may result in additional construction noise and traffic impacts, increased pollutant emissions, and greater induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) than the Revised Project. Construction noise and traffic impacts from the Revised Project would not be avoided.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 ES-10
This page is intentionally left blank.
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 1 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE
The California Independent System Operators (CAISO) directed Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) to construct the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project (RTRP) in 2006. The City of Riverside certified a Final Environmental Impact Report (2013 RTRP EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2007011113) for the RTRP in 2013. Southern California Edison (SCE; the Applicant), a regulated California utility, filed an application (A.15-04-013) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for the RTRP on April 15, 2015. In September 2016, SCE revised the location and configuration of a portion of the 230-kilovolt (kV) transmission line within the City of Jurupa Valley (Revised Project). The Revised Project was not analyzed in the 2013 RTRP EIR, and alternatives to the Revised Project were not previously evaluated pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This Alternatives Screening Report (ASR) documents the alternatives screening process that was conducted by the CPUC to identify alternatives that would avoid or reduce significant environmental impacts of the Revised Project.
Alternatives to the Revised Project include:
• Underground alternatives identified by SCE in their CPCN application • Alternatives identified during the 2017 CEQA public scoping process • Alternatives identified by the CPUC EIR team as a result of the independent review of the Revised Project impacts and meetings with affected agencies and interested parties
The alternatives screening analysis was completed to identify potentially feasible alternatives that will be carried forward in the Subsequent EIR.
This report documents:
1. The range of alternatives that was suggested and evaluated
2. The approach and methods used to screen the feasibility of these alternatives according to guidelines established under CEQA
3. The results of the alternatives screening process (i.e., which alternatives will be analyzed in the Subsequent EIR)
The ASR is incorporated as Appendix B to the Subsequent EIR to provide the basis and rationale for whether an alternative has been carried forward for full evaluation in the Subsequent EIR. For each alternative that was eliminated from further consideration, this document provides a detailed explanation of the rationale for elimination. Since full consideration of the No Project Alternative is required by CEQA, this report does not address 1 INTRODUCTION
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 2 this alternative; rather, the No Project Alternative is defined in Chapter 3: Alternatives and assessed in Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis of the Subsequent EIR.
1.2 SUMMARY OF REVISED PROJECT
1.2.1 Revised Project Overview
The Revised Project is described in detail in Chapter 2: Project Description of the Subsequent EIR. The project revisions include:
• Relocation of an overhead 230-kV transmission line segment within the City of Jurupa Valley
• Replacement of an overhead 230-kV transmission line segment with an underground 230-kV transmission line within Jurupa Valley • Distribution line modifications
1.2.2 Relocated Overhead 230-kV Transmission Line
Approximately 0.5 mile of the 230-kV overhead transmission line would be relocated within the City of Jurupa Valley between Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road (adjacent to the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line) and Landon Drive. The transmission line would be relocated to the west side of Wineville Avenue to avoid routing conflicts with the Harmony Trails Subdivision and William Lyons TurnLeaf developments. The Revised Project would then follow the same alignment as the originally proposed RTRP route between Wineville Avenue at Landon Drive to just north of Limonite Avenue.
1.2.3 Underground 230-kV Transmission Line
The Revised Project would include the construction of approximately 2 miles of underground transmission line and telecommunication lines located within private property, City of Jurupa Valley franchise right-of-way (ROW), and the Goose Creek Golf Club. The transmission line and telecommunication lines would transition underground north of Limonite Avenue and head east for approximately 1,000 feet and then turn south and follow Pats Ranch Road to 68th Street. The line would then turn east and continue underground within 68th Street to Lucretia Street, where it would turn south and continue underground within the Goose Creek Golf Club for approximately 1,000 feet. Two new riser poles, approximately 165 feet in height, would be installed on either end of the underground transmission line segment (a total of four riser poles). The riser poles would be installed at either end of the underground alignment to transition the lines from an overhead position to underground and from the underground position back to overhead.
1.2.4 Distribution Line Modifications
As described in the 2013 RTPR EIR, the proposed 230-kV transmission line would cross SCE- owned existing low voltage local overhead distribution lines creating clearance or reliability 1 INTRODUCTION
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 3 issues2 that could not be addressed through simple realignment of the proposed transmission line. To accommodate the proposed 230-kV transmission line, the distribution lines would require relocation to comply with clearance requirements. Distribution line modifications were identified in the 2013 RTRP EIR; however, further design refinements have been completed since that time. Distribution line modifications are being considered in the Subsequent EIR where refinements would result in an expanded or different footprint from what was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR.
At Distribution Line Relocations #7 and #8, eleven existing wood distribution poles would be removed, and four new steel distribution riser poles would be installed. Approximately 2,800 feet of new underground duct bank would be installed.
1.3 ADDITIONAL PROJECT IMPACTS CONSIDERED IN SUBSEQUENT EIR Portions of the project as originally proposed may result in new significant or more severe impacts on the environment than those considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR. Impacts related to shock hazard to address new information that was not available at the time the 2013 RTRP EIR was published, and tribal concerns in response to the change in regulations (Assembly Bill 52), will be analyzed for the full project.
1.4 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives screening process culminated in the identification and screening of 30 potential alternatives or combinations of alternatives. Alternative types include overhead and underground transmission route alternatives to SCE’s proposed transmission line route and electrical system alternatives, such as upgrades to other parts of the electrical system, distributed generation, and energy conservation. Four alternatives were retained for analysis in the Subsequent EIR, and 26 alternatives were eliminated from further analysis. The rationale for screening each of these alternatives is presented in detail in this ASR in Section 4: Alternatives Descriptions and Determinations.
Table 1.4-1 lists each project alternative included in this ASR, the source recommending each alternative, and the type of alternative.
2 Minimum horizontal and vertical clearances between transmission and power lines are required for safety purposes. Contact between two energized lines can result in electrical arcing, which could re sult in damage to the electrical infrastructure, possible power outages, and potential ignition of nearby vegetation that may lead to a wildfire.
1 INTRODUCTION
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 4 Table 1.4-1 Alternatives Considered in Screening Analysis Alternative Source Type
Bellegrave – Pats Ranch Road Underground SCE/2017 Scoping Transmission Route Wineville – Limonite Underground CPUC Transmission Route Relocate Northern Riser Poles CPUC Riser Poles Relocation Wineville – Landon Underground CPUC Transmission Route
Wineville Underground SCE/2017 Scoping Transmission Route Mira Loma Substation – Van Buren in Railroad
ROW
2017 Scoping Transmission Route
Eastern Alignment in Riverside 2017 Scoping Transmission Route All Underground Transmission Line 2017 Scoping Transmission Route Limonite – Van Buren Underground 2017 Scoping Transmission Route Idyllwild Lane, Julian Drive, and Bradford Street
Underground
2017 Scoping Transmission Route
Interstate 15 (I-15) South, State Route 91 (SR-91)
East Underground
2017 Scoping Transmission Route
Mountain View Substation – Agua Mansa – Mira
Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line
Interconnect
2017 Scoping Transmission Route
Battery Storage 2017 Scoping Non-Wire
Additional Transformer Capacity at Vista
Substation
CPUC Non-Wire
Additional Transformer Capacity at Mira Loma
Substation
CPUC Non-Wire
Expansion of Riverside Energy Resource Center
(RERC)
CPUC Non-Wire
Expansion of Electrical Equipment at Mountain
View Substation
CPUC Non-Wire
Shift Load at Vista Substation CPUC Non-Wire
Additional Generation CPUC Non-Wire
Use of Internal RPU Generation CPUC Non-Wire
Distributed Generation Riverside/CPUC Non-Wire
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Riverside/CPUC Non-Wire Demand Response Riverside/CPUC Non-Wire
Consolidate the RTRP and Circle City Projects, and
consolidate the Valley – Ivyglen and Alberhill System
Projects
Office of Ratepayer
Advocates (ORA)
System
Consolidate the Circle City, RTRP, Valley – Ivyglen,
and Alberhill System Projects
ORA System
1 INTRODUCTION
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 5 Alternative Source Type
Modify the Circle City Project to Replace the
Proposed Circle City, RTRP, Valley – Ivyglen, and
Alberhill System Projects
ORA System
Deliver 66-kV Power to Riverside from Multiple SCE
Sources and Install Metering
CPUC System
Low-Voltage Alternative A – Single Source RPU and SCE System Low-Voltage Alternative B – Three Sources RPU and SCE System Low-Voltage Alternative C – Single Source with Solar
PV and Battery Energy Storage System
RPU and SCE System
2 BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 6 2 BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
This section describes the history of the RTRP and the previous evaluation of alternatives conducted by the City of Riverside and SCE.
2.1 2013 RTRP EIR
SCE’s proposed transmission line is a component of the larger RTRP. The RTRP is an electrical reliability project that was jointly planned by SCE and the RPU. The RTRP would be owned and operated by both RPU and SCE. The City of Riverside, as the lead agency responsible for compliance with CEQA, determined that the RTRP could have significant impacts on the environment and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for an EIR on November 18, 2009. The City of Riverside responded to public comments on the Draft EIR and certified the Final EIR on February 5, 2013 (SCH# 2007011113).
The City of Riverside conducted a siting study in 2006 that evaluated three potential corridors for the 230-kV transmission line including a western corridor, central corridor, and eastern corridor (refer to Appendix D of the 2013 RTRP EIR). Within each corridor, the City of Riverside defined specific alternatives for evaluation. The City of Riverside considered the following transmission line routing alternatives in Chapter 6: Project Alternatives of the 2013 RTRP EIR:
• Limonite Avenue Route
• Bain Street Route
• Van Buren “Offset” Route
• Eastern Route
• I-15 Route
The Van Buren “Offset” Route was evaluated in detail in the EIR, and the remaining routing alternatives were eliminated from further consideration due to environmental impacts and potential feasibility constraints; therefore, none of these alternatives are considered further in this ASR unless the alternative was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period. The 2013 RTRP EIR also considered and eliminated alternatives of lower voltages; non-wire alternatives, such as new and distributed generation and energy conservation; and alternative technologies including underground lines, direct current transmission systems, and alternative conductors. Distributed generation, energy conservation, and demand response alternatives are reevaluated in this ASR in Section 4: Alternatives Descriptions and Determinations because (1) technology and system operations have changed since the initial siting study and evaluation were conducted in 2006, and (2) the CPUC code requires consideration of these alternatives. 2 BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 7 2.2 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
After the RTRP was approved by the City of Riverside in 2014, the City of Jurupa Valley approved the development of residential communities and commercial developments within the proposed RTRP ROW. These developments include the Lennar Homes’ Riverbend Residential Community and Vernola Marketplace Apartments. Lennar Homes commenced construction in 2015. The Riverbend Residential Community includes 464 homes and a 10-acre park located on 211 acres of land east of I-15 and south of 68th Street in the City of Jurupa Valley. Construction of the Vernola Marketplace Apartments has not yet occurred. The Vernola Marketplace Apartments include 397 multifamily residential units on approximately 17.4 acres of land east of I-15 and north of 68th Street in the City of Jurupa Valley. Construction of the original RTRP transmission line route would have required SCE to claim eminent domain through these recently entitled developments to acquire the necessary ROW.
The developers of the Riverbend Residential Community and Vernola Marketplace Apartments entered into legal agreements with SCE and the City of Riverside in July and August of 2016, referred to herein as the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement included an alternative to the original alignment analyzed in the 2013 RTRP EIR, referred to as the Hybrid Route. The Hybrid Route relocated the conflicting overhead transmission line alignment into an underground duct bank in public road ROWs along the border of both developments, thereby resolving the present conflicts with these approved entitlements. As a condition of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agreed not to take any action challenging and/or opposing the Hybrid Route or Riverside and SCE’s construction of the Hybrid Route; however, if the CPUC were to select a route that does not substantially conform to the Hybrid Route, the participating parties reserve the right to challenge and oppose the CPUC’s selection. As defined by the Settlement Agreement, a project would “substantially conform” with the Hybrid Route if the underground portions of RTRP’s transmission line were to include, but not extend beyond, 68th Street, Pats Ranch Road, and Limonite Avenue in the City of Jurupa Valley, immediately adjacent to the Riverbend Residential Community, Vernola Marketplace Apartments, and Vernola Marketplace. Minor variations in the placement, configuration, and/or design of the transmission line route north of Limonite Avenue in the City of Jurupa Valley and/or south and east of 68th Street in the Cities of Jurupa Valley and/or Riverside would “substantially conform” with the Hybrid Route under the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Revised Project was designed by SCE to substantially conform with the Hybrid Route as described in the Settlement Agreement.
2.3 SCE LOWER VOLTAGE AND OTHER DESIGN ALTERNATIVES REPORT CPUC Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hallie Yacknin issued a Ruling on August 15, 2017, directing SCE, RPU, and CAISO to prepare a joint report to the CPUC Energy Division 2 BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 8 identifying lower voltage designs or other interim design remedies to the Proposed Project. The Ruling required the joint report to identify:
1. “lower voltage design alternative(s) to meet the project objectives, either in full or in part”
2. “any other interim solutions available to RPU that would mitigate the electrical system impacts until technological advancements in battery storage and distributed solar are feasible at the project scale”
RPU and SCE, with the help of RPU’s consultant, POWER Engineers Inc. (POWER), and guidance from CAISO, developed the RTRP Lower Voltage and Other Design Alternatives Report (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018) in response to the ALJ’s Ruling. RPU and SCE identified three potential 69-kV alternatives to the RTRP Hybrid Route that would, if found feasible, potentially meet, in whole or in part, most of the project objectives. These 69-kV alternatives are evaluated in this ASR.
3 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND SCREENING ALTERNATIVES Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 9 3 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND SCREENING
ALTERNATIVES
3.1 IDENTIFICATION OF ALTERNATIVES
The range of alternatives in the screening report was identified through the CEQA scoping process and through supplemental studies and consultations that were conducted during this analysis and the preliminary environmental impact analysis for the Subsequent EIR.
The CPUC identified and assessed 30 alternatives that were suggested by the public and agencies, developed by RPU and SCE in response to the CPUC’s request for a low-voltage alternative, or developed by the CPUC to reduce or avoid impacts of the Revised Project.
As discussed above, alternatives that were evaluated by the City of Riverside in the 2013 RTRP EIR and Routing Report were not reconsidered in this ASR unless the alternative was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period. Alternatives previously considered by the City of Riverside are described in the 2013 RTRP EIR, Chapter 6: Project Alternatives, and Appendix D:
Siting Study (Riverside Public Utilities, 2012). No subsequent evaluation of alternatives considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR is required because those alternatives have already been considered within the context of CEQA.
The alternatives in this ASR were defined and evaluated by the CPUC to avoid and/or reduce the new significant impacts that would result from the Revised Project and to consider any change in circumstances since publication of the 2013 RTRP EIR.
3.2 ALTERNATIVES SCREENING METHODOLOGY
The alternatives were evaluated using a screening process consisting of three steps:
Step 1: Clearly define each alternative to allow comparative evaluation.
Step 2: Evaluate each alternative in comparison with the Revised Project using CEQA criteria (defined below).
Step 3: Based on the results of Step 2, determine the suitability of each alternative for full analysis in the EIR. If the alternative is unsuitable, eliminate it from further consideration.
3.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATIVES
CEQA provides guidance on selecting a reasonable range of alternatives for evaluation in an EIR. This alternatives screening and evaluation process satisfies CEQA requirements. The CEQA requirements for selection of alternatives are described below. 3 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND SCREENING ALTERNATIVES Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 10 An important aspect of EIR preparation is the identification and assessment of reasonable alternatives that have the potential for avoiding or minimizing the impacts of a project. The CEQA Guidelines require consideration of the No Project Alternative (Section 15126.6[e]) and selection of a range of reasonable alternatives (Section 15126.6[d]). The EIR must adequately assess these alternatives to allow for a comparative analysis for consideration by decision makers. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) state that:
An EIR shall describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.
To comply with CEQA requirements, each alternative that has been suggested or developed for the Revised Project has been evaluated in three ways:
3. Does the alternative accomplish all or most of the basic project objectives?
4. Is the alternative potentially feasible (from economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological standpoints)?
5. Does the alternative avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the Revised Project (including consideration of whether the alternative itself could create significant environmental effects potentially greater than those of the Revised Project)?
Each of these criteria is described in more detail in the following sections.
3.3.1 Basic Project Objectives
SCE Project Objectives
The purpose of the project is to provide RPU and its customers with adequate transmission capacity to serve existing and projected load, provide for long-term system capacity for load growth, and provide needed system reliability. SCE has identified the following objectives of the project:
• Increase capacity to meet existing electric system demand and anticipated future load growth
• Provide an additional point of delivery for bulk power into the RPU electrical system, thereby reducing dependence on Vista Substation and increasing overall reliability
CPUC’s Evaluation of SCE Project Objectives
Having taken into consideration the objectives set forth by SCE above, the CPUC evaluated whether the project objectives proposed by SCE are the basic objectives of the project (i.e., meet the underlying fundamental project purpose). The evaluation of alternatives in this ASR 3 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND SCREENING ALTERNATIVES Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 11 provides information on whether each alternative could feasibly accomplish the basic project objectives. Each SCE project objective is discussed below.
SCE Objective #1: Increase capacity to meet existing electrical system demand and anticipated future load growth. (CPUC Basic Project Objective) SCE Objective #1 reflects the goal of meeting RPU’s projected future demand for electricity.
SCE’s Vista Substation is currently the primary source of electrical energy supply for RPU electric customers. RPU receives 557 megawatts (MW) of electricity from the Vista Substation.
RPU demand exceeded the capacity at Vista Substation beginning in 2006, requiring local power generation to meet demand during peak load conditions. In late August 2017, a 6-day heat wave produced consecutive maximum daily temperatures in excess of 105˚F in the Riverside service area, resulting in a new Riverside peak load of 639 MW. SCE and RPU anticipate that Riverside’s peak loads will continue to increase at approximately 0.5 percent per year for the next 20 years, driven by load growth in commercial and industrial uses. Riverside has an estimated 1-in-20 peak load of 669 MW by 2023, 689 MW by 2029, and 734 MW by 2038 (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018).
The Riverside Energy Resource Center (RERC) and the Springs Generating Project (Springs) were constructed within the City of Riverside to supplement the power supply from Vista Substation by generating and supplying power locally through generators. RERC hosts four gas-fired turbines, and each unit is rated at 48 MW (for a total of 192 MW). Springs hosts four 9 MW units (36 MW) that are rarely dispatched due to start-up limitations (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018). Riverside’s internal generating units are brought on-line as needed (1) to support Riverside’s load requirements during extreme weather conditions to provide additional capacity, (2) to prevent overload conditions on the lines and transformers, and (3) for other contingencies such as unplanned equipment, transformer, and/or line outage occurrences. While these generation resources reduce the amount of power that must flow through the transformers at Vista Substation to Riverside by generating and supplying power locally, they are “peaker” units. Permits obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) limit the number of hours the RERC units can operate to 1,200 hours per year and no more than two starts per day. These units are typically run less than 4 hours per day. The Springs generating units are also subject to start-up and use restrictions.
Due to the limitations in use of these “peaker” units, they cannot be considered part of the base power supply for Riverside, and additional capacity is needed to meet the existing and future demand for system reliability.
SCE Objective #2: Provide an additional point of delivery for bulk power into the RPU electrical system, thereby reducing dependence on Vista Substation and increasing overall reliability. (CPUC Revised Basic Project Objective)
SCE Objective #2 reflects the goal of improving reliability by creating a secondary source of power to RPU. RPU currently receives all its power from the Vista Substation. A second source of power is required to create redundancy in the system in case there is damage to RPU’s dedicated transformer banks at Vista Substation. In October 2007, service from Vista Substation to the City of Riverside was interrupted and all RPU customers, including government, school, 3 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND SCREENING ALTERNATIVES Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 12 university, and hospital facilities within the City lost power for up to 4 hours. A secondary source of power would substantially reduce the impact of an outage at Vista Substation on the RPU customers. The CPUC revised the SCE objective #2 to reflect a broader goal of providing a second source of bulk power instead of an additional point of delivery for bulk power.
3.3.2 CPUC Guiding Principles
In addition to CEQA Guidelines and the basic project objectives as listed above, the CPUC uses the following guiding principles when considering the appropriate criteria for selecting alternatives for evaluation in an EIR:
Public Utilities Code § 1002.3 requires CPUC to “...consider cost-effective alternatives to transmission facilities that meet the need for an efficient, reliable, and affordable supply of electricity. . .”, and the CPUC’s Information and Criteria List for project applications requires discussion of “. . .alternatives capable of substantially reducing or eliminating any significant environmental effects, even if these alternatives substantially impede the attainment of the project objectives, and are more costly.”
The determination of whether to eliminate or retain alternatives in the Subsequent EIR was based on each alternative’s ability to meet the basic project objectives as defined by CPUC, and whether the respective alternatives follow the above guiding principles.
3.3.3 Feasibility
CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 define feasibility as “...capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” The alternatives screening analysis is largely governed by what CEQA terms the “rule of reason,” meaning that the analysis should remain focused not on every possible eventuality but rather on the alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives that are potentially feasible, while still meeting the basic project objectives, will be fully analyzed in the Subsequent EIR.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1), the factors that may be considered when addressing the potential feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or other regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and the project proponent’s control over alternative sites.
For the screening analysis, the potential feasibility of alternatives was assessed by considering the following factors:
• Legal Feasibility. Does the alternative have the potential to avoid lands that have legal protection that may prohibit or substantially limit the feasibility of permitting a high-voltage transmission line? Lands that are afforded legal protections that would prohibit the construction of the project, or require an act of Congress for permitting, are considered less feasible locations for the project. These land use designations include wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, restricted military 3 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND SCREENING ALTERNATIVES Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 13 bases, airports, and Indian reservations. Information on potential legal constraints of each alternative has been compiled from laws, regulations, and local jurisdictions, as well as a review of federal, state, and local agency land management plans and policies.
• Regulatory Feasibility. Do regulatory restrictions substantially limit the likelihood of successful permitting of a high-voltage transmission line? Is the alternative consistent with regulatory standards for transmission system design, operation, and maintenance?
• Technical Feasibility. Is the alternative potentially feasible from a technological perspective, considering available technology? Are there any construction, operation, or maintenance constraints that cannot be overcome? • Economic Feasibility. Is the alternative so costly that implementation would be prohibitive? CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b) require consideration of alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing significant environmental effects even though they may “impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” The Court of Appeals determined in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors “. . .The fact that an alternative may be more expensive or less profitable is not sufficient to show that the alternative is financially infeasible. What is required is evidence that the additional costs or lost profitability are sufficiently severe as to render it impractical to proceed with the project” (Citizens of Goleta Valley vs. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, 1988).
• Environmental Feasibility. Would implementation of the alternative cause substantially greater environmental damage than the Revised Project, thereby making the alternative clearly inferior from an environmental standpoint? Would the alternative reduce any significant impact of the Revised Project? This issue is primarily addressed in terms of the alternative’s potential to eliminate significant effects of the Revised Project only. The 2013 RTRP EIR included alternatives to the RTRP, including the Wildlife Substation. Alternatives that would only reduce impacts of portions of the RTRP that were not revised would not meet the screening criteria for environmental feasibility.
3.3.4 Potential to Eliminate Significant Environmental Effects A key CEQA requirement for an alternative is that it must have the potential to “avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). At the screening stage, it is not possible to evaluate all the impacts of the alternatives in comparison to the Revised Project with absolute certainty, nor is it possible to quantify impacts. It is possible to identify elements of an alternative that are likely to be the sources of impacts and to relate them, to the extent possible, to general conditions in the subject area.
The Revised Project’s significant environmental impacts were identified and evaluated to develop alternatives and determine whether an alternative would meet CEQA Guidelines 3 METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND SCREENING ALTERNATIVES Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 14 Section 15126.6 requirements. The potentially significant impacts of the Revised Project are described in the Subsequent EIR Sections 4.1 through 4.13, and include:
• Aesthetic impacts from the riser poles proposed on the north side of Limonite Avenue and the lattice steel tower at the intersection of Landon Drive and Wineville Avenue
• Loss of Prime Farmland within the underground alignment north of Limonite Avenue
• Noise and traffic impacts from construction of the underground transmission line on Pats Ranch Road and 68th Street
Findings in Sections 4.1 through 4.13 of the Subsequent EIR show that impacts on aesthetics, agricultural resources, noise, and traffic would be significant and unavoidable even after applying mitigation.
3.4 PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVES In considering SCE’s application for a CPCN, the CPUC will be guided by the Public Utilities Code in addition to the requirements of CEQA. Public Utilities Code § 1002 states:
(a) The commission, as a basis for granting any certificate pursuant to Section 1001 shall give consideration to the following factors:
(1) Community values.
(2) Recreational and park areas.
(3) Historical and aesthetic values.
(4) Influence on environment, except that in the case of any line, plant, or system or extension thereof located in another state which will be subject to environmental impact review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Chapter 55 (commencing with Section 4321) of Title 42 of the United States Code) or similar state laws in the other state, the commission shall not consider influence on the environment unless any emissions or discharges therefrom would have a significant influence on the environment of this state.
The CPUC will consider the “community values” as expressed in the CPUC’s proceeding on the project and in comments on the Draft Subsequent EIR. The CPUC anticipates that the final decision will represent a reasonable balancing of community interests, the need to protect environmental resources in the area, and the need for the project. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 15 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
The alternatives described in detail in this section include transmission line routing alternatives, underground alternatives, and electrical system and non-wire alternatives. Each alternative was evaluated using considerations described in Section 3 of this ASR.
If a potential alternative would be unable to meet the basic project objectives, would be infeasible, or would not reduce or avoid significant impacts of the Revised Project, it was eliminated from further evaluation. Alternatives that were determined to meet the CEQA alternatives screening criteria were retained for full analysis in the Subsequent EIR.
This ASR has been prepared to evaluate the impacts of the Revised Project. Alternatives to the RTRP were considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR, and only alternatives that were suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period are considered further in the Subsequent EIR.
Alternatives that are carried forward in the Subsequent EIR are limited to those that would reduce the potentially significant impacts of the Revised Project, described above in Section 3.3.4.
Alternative underground transmission line routes south of Limonite Avenue were considered; however, the underground portion of the Revised Project was defined through a Settlement Agreement, and alternative routes in this area could conflict with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 below include a description of each alternative, the consideration of CEQA criteria, and the conclusions for alternative elimination or retention. Retained alternatives are addressed in Section 4.2. Eliminated alternatives are addressed in Section 4.3. The No Project Alternative is required to be considered in an EIR by CEQA; as such, it is described in Chapter 3: Alternatives and Chapter 4: Environmental Analysis of the Subsequent EIR. The No Project Alternative is not discussed further in this ASR. Information presented is based on preliminary engineering, as final engineering has not been completed for the alternatives.
4.1 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES SCREENING ANALYSIS
Four of the 30 alternatives are recommended for further analysis in the Subsequent EIR. Table
4.1-1 summarizes the results of the screening analysis presented in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 16 Table 4.1-1 Summary of Alternatives Screening Analysis Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
Alternatives Retained
Alternative 1: Bellegrave – Pats
Ranch Road Underground
This alternative would begin and
transition to an underground
position immediately adjacent to
the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista
#1 230-kV Transmission Line. The
line would travel south along
Wineville Road to Bellegrave
Avenue. From this intersection, the
alternative would proceed west
along Bellegrave Avenue to Pats
Ranch Road. At Pats Ranch Road,
the line would turn south to
Limonite Avenue. This alternative
would follow the same
underground alignment as the
Revised Project from Pats Ranch
Road at Limonite Avenue.
Source: SCE and 2017 Scoping
Meets basic project
objectives.
Meets all feasibility
criteria.
Meets criteria. Would
reduce potentially
significant aesthetic
impacts from the riser
poles on Limonite Avenue
and the lattice steel tower
at the intersection of
Landon Drive and
Wineville Avenue and
reduce significant
impacts on agricultural
resources north of
Limonite Avenue.
Transmission
Route/
Underground
Retained
Alternative 2: Wineville – Limonite
Underground
This alternative would begin and
transition to an underground
position immediately adjacent to
the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista
#1 230-kV Transmission Line. The
line would travel south along
Wineville Road to Limonite
Avenue. The alternative would
turn west and remain
underground within Limonite
Avenue to Pats Ranch Road. This
alternative would follow the same
Meets basic project
objectives.
Meets all feasibility
criteria.
Meets criteria. Would
reduce potentially
significant aesthetic
impacts from the riser
poles on Limonite Avenue
and lattice steel tower at
the intersection of Landon
Drive and Wineville
Avenue and reduce
significant impacts on
agricultural resources
north of Limonite Avenue.
Transmission
Route/
Underground
Retained
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 17 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
underground alignment as the
Revised Project from Pats Ranch
Road at Limonite Avenue.
Source: CPUC
Alternative 3: Relocate Northern
Riser Poles
This alternative would relocate the
riser poles at Limonite Avenue to
approximately 0.25 mile north of
Limonite Avenue adjacent to I-15.
The additional segment of
underground transmission line
would follow the Revised Project
alignment.
Source: CPUC
Meets basic project
objectives.
Meets all feasibility
criteria.
Meets criteria. Would
reduce potentially
significant aesthetic
impacts from the riser
poles on Limonite Avenue
by relocating the poles
further from viewers at
Limonite Avenue.
Pole
Relocation
Retained
Alternative 4: Wineville – Landon
Underground
This alternative would begin and
transition to an underground
position immediately adjacent to
the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista
#1 230-kV Transmission Line. The
line would travel south under
Wineville Avenue and west under
Landon Drive. At the western end
of Landon Drive, the alternative
would transition to an overhead
position.
Source: CPUC
Meets basic project
objectives.
Meets all feasibility
criteria.
Meets criteria. Would
reduce potentially
significant aesthetic
impacts from the
relocated lattice steel
tower at the intersection
of Landon Drive and
Wineville Avenue and
reduce significant
impacts on agricultural
resources north of
Limonite Avenue.
Transmission
Route/
Underground
Retained
Alternatives Eliminated
Alternative 5: Wineville
Underground
This alternative would begin and
transition to an underground
Meets basic project
objectives.
Potentially meets
feasibility criteria.
Would reduce potentially
significant aesthetic
impacts from the riser
poles on Limonite Avenue
Transmission
Route/
Underground
Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 18 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
position immediately adjacent to
the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista
#1 230-kV Transmission Line. The
line would travel south on
Wineville Avenue to 68th Street.
This alternative would follow the
same underground alignment as
the Revised Project from 68th
Street and Wineville Avenue.
Source: SCE and 2017 Scoping
and the relocated lattice
steel tower at the
intersection of Landon
Drive and Wineville
Avenue; however, the
segment south of Limonite
would result in greater
traffic impacts and utility
conflicts.
Alternative 6: Mira Loma
Substation – Van Buren in Railroad
ROW
This alternative would travel east
from the Mira Loma Substation to
Van Buren Boulevard. It would
extend overhead along the east
side of Van Buren Boulevard within
the Union Pacific Railroad ROW.
The alternative would transition to
underground just north of the
Riverside Airport and extend
underground to Wildlife
Substation.
Source: 2017 Scoping and 2013
RTRP EIR
Meets basic project
objectives.
Does not meet
feasibility criteria due
to induced current
effects on railroad.
Furthermore, both
SCE and Union
Pacific do not allow
transmission lines in
railroad ROW.
Potentially meets
environmental criteria;
would result in greater
impact on hazards from
induced current; would
avoid the significant
aesthetic impacts in
Jurupa Valley, but would
result in aesthetic impacts
along Van Buren
Boulevard and land use
conflicts with the railroad.
Transmission
Route
Eliminated
Alternative 7: Eastern Alignment in
Riverside
This alternative would tie-in to the
Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV
Transmission Line at one of five
locations near Agua Mansa Road
between the City of Jurupa Valley
and the City of Colton. This
alternative would travel southwest
from the tie-in, following the Santa
Meets basic project
objectives.
Potentially meets
feasibility criteria.
Does not meet criteria.
Would result in significant
impacts on hydrology,
geology, special-status
species and habitats,
aesthetics, and recreation
from placement of
structures along the Santa
Ana River corridor and
within a 100-year flood
Transmission
Route
Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 19 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
Ana River for approximately
8 miles. Several routing options
include routes on both the
northern/western and
southern/eastern sides of the
Santa Ana River. All routes would
follow the boundary of the 100-
year floodplain of the river
southwest toward Wilderness
Substation.
Source: 2017 Scoping and 2013
RTRP EIR
plain. Would involve a
much longer alignment
than the Revised Project.
Alternative 8: All Underground
Transmission Line (Mira Loma –
Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line
to Wildlife Substation)
This alternative would follow the
Revised Project route north of the
Santa Ana River and would follow
the approved 2013 RTRP route
south of the river but would locate
the transmission line underground
in all areas. The segment of the
alternative that crosses the Santa
Ana River would also be located
underground.
Source: 2017 Scoping
Meets basic project
objectives.
Potentially meets
feasibility criteria.
Does not meet criteria.
Would result in
substantially greater
biological, cultural
resource, air quality, and
greenhouse gas impacts
than the Revised Project.
Furthermore, an
underground transmission
line installation south of
the Santa Ana River
would not reduce any
impacts of the Revised
Project, which are north of
the river.
Underground Eliminated
Alternative 9: Limonite – Van
Buren Underground
This alternative would follow the
Revised Project alignment to
Limonite Avenue. From Limonite
Avenue, the line would transition
underground and travel east
within Limonite Avenue to Van
Buren Boulevard. At Van Buren
Meets basic project
objectives.
Potentially meets
feasibility criteria.
Does not meet criteria.
The underground
transmission line extending
east on Limonite Avenue
and South on Van Buren
Boulevard would not
reduce a significant
environmental impact of
the Revised Project. This
Transmission
Route/
Underground
Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 20 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
Boulevard, the line would travel
south within Van Buren Boulevard
and cross the Santa Ana River
within Van Buren Boulevard. The
alternative would transition to an
overhead position on the south
side of the Santa Ana River and
travel east into the substation
along the 2013 alignment route.
Source: 2017 Scoping
alternative is much longer
than the Revised Project
segment from Limonite to
the Goose Creek Golf
Course. The longer
underground transmission
route on major roadways
would result in
substantially greater
traffic, air quality, and
potential hazards
impacts.
Alternative 10: Idyllwild Lane,
Julian Drive, and Bradford Street
Underground
This alternative would follow the
Revised Project alignment south
from the Mira Loma — Vista #1
230-kV Transmission Line tie-in and
then follow the approved 2013
RTRP route. The alternative would
transition to an underground
position north of Tyler Street in the
City of Riverside and continue
underground behind the homes
on Auld Street, Julian Drive,
Idyllwild Lane, Rutland Avenue,
and Bradford Street. It would
return to an overhead position
before crossing Van Buren
Boulevard and following the
approved 2013 RTRP route to
Wilderness Substation.
Source: 2017 Scoping
Meets basic project
objectives.
Potentially meets
feasibility criteria.
Does not meet criteria.
Idyllwild Lane, Julian Drive,
and Bradford Street are
located south of Santa
Ana River. Underground
construction in this area
would not reduce impacts
of the Revised Project,
which would occur on the
north side of the river. The
alternative would also
result in significant
aesthetic impacts due to
the need for four riser
poles to accommodate
transitions between an
underground and
overhead position.
Transmission
Route/
Underground
Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 21 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
Alternative 11: I-15 South to SR-91
East Underground
This alterative would follow the
Revised Project alignment south
from the Mira Loma – Vista #1
230-kV Transmission Line tie-in
along Wineville Avenue until 68th
Street. At 68th Street, the
alternative would diverge from
the Revised Project alignment,
following the I-15 corridor south
approximately 6 miles until I-15
intersects with SR-91. The
alternative would turn east to
follow SR-91 for approximately 6.5
miles before turning north to follow
Van Buren Boulevard for
approximately 3.5 miles. The
alternative would follow the
approved 2013 RTRP route near
the Santa Ana River, following the
alignment east to the Wildlife
Substation.
Source: 2017 Scoping
Meets basic project
objectives.
Does not meet
regulatory feasibility
criteria. Caltrans does
not allow
construction of
transmission lines
within Caltrans-
operated highways.
Does not meet criteria.
The route would be
substantially longer than
the Revised Project and
would result in increased
air quality, greenhouse
gas, traffic, biological,
and cultural resource
impacts as well as
potential land use
conflicts.
Transmission
Route/
Underground
Eliminated
Alternative 12: Mountain View
Substation – Agua Mansa – Mira
Loma – Vista #1 230-kV
Transmission Line Interconnect
This alternative would tie in to the
Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV
Transmission Line approximately
2.25 miles northeast of the
intersection of Agua Mansa Road
and Market Street in the City of
Jurupa Valley. The alternative
would run southwest parallel to
Agua Mansa Road before turning
Meets most project
objectives.
May not meet
technical feasibility
criteria. Adequate
space is not
available at
Mountain View
Substation for
additional
transformers
associated with a
new 230-kV
transmission line.
This alternative would
avoid the impacts of the
Revised Project but only
by relocating the impacts
to a different area;
additionally, this
alternative could result in
greater aesthetic, water
resource, biological
resource, and cultural
resource impacts than the
Revised Project.
System
Alternative
Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 22 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
south to parallel Market Street and
crossing the Santa Ana River
adjacent to the Market Street
bridge. The alternative would then
follow an existing 69-kV power line
in a southwesterly direction until it
reaches Mountain View
Substation located at Mountain
View Avenue and Sheppard
Street in the City of Riverside.
Source: 2017 Scoping
Alternative 13: Battery Storage
This alternative would add battery
storage facilities at existing
substations in Riverside to increase
Riverside’s internal capacity in the
event of the loss of power at Vista
Substation.
Source: 2017 Scoping
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
Would not add a
second source of
bulk power to
Riverside at the scale
that is needed to
address the loss of
power at Vista
Substation. Would not
provide sufficient
capacity to support
existing and future
load growth.
Does not meet
feasibility criteria at
the scale that the
alternative would be
needed to address
the loss of power at
Vista Substation.
Meets environmental
criteria. Battery storage
involves a limited
disturbance area and
would not be expected to
result in significant
environmental impacts.
Non-Wire Eliminated
Alternative 14: Additional
Transformer Capacity at Vista
Substation
The expansion of Vista Substation
would involve addition of a third
230/69-kV transformer bank at the
substation.
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR; CPUC
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
Would not provide a
second source of
bulk power delivery
to Riverside. Would
not increase delivery
of power to Riverside
to meet demand
and projected load
growth.
Meets feasibility
criteria.
Meets environmental
criteria. Adding
transformers at an existing
substation would not result
in significant
environmental impacts.
Non-Wire Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 23 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
Alternative 15: Additional
Transformer Capacity at Mira
Loma Substation
The expansion of Mira Loma
Substation would involve addition
of a fourth 230/69-kV transformer
bank at the substation.
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR; CPUC
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
Would not provide a
second source of
bulk power delivery
to Riverside. Would
not increase delivery
of power to Riverside
to meet demand
and projected load
growth.
Meets feasibility
criteria.
Meets environmental
criteria. Adding
transformers at an existing
substation would not result
in significant
environmental impacts.
Non-Wire Eliminated
Alternative 16: Expansion of RERC
The expansion of RERC would
involve adding additional energy
generation capacity at RERC.
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR; CPUC
Meets most basic
project objectives.
Would add
additional capacity
to meet existing
demand and future
load growth. Would
not provide a second
source of bulk power
delivery to Riverside.
Does not meet
regulatory feasibility
criteria due to
inability to permit
additional gas-fired
power plants in the
area.
Meets environmental
criteria. Would avoid
impacts of the Revised
Project but would result in
greater potential long-
term air quality and
greenhouse gas impacts
from energy generation.
Non-Wire Eliminated
Alternative 17: Expansion of
Electrical Equipment at Mountain
View Substation
The expansion of Mountain View
Substation would involve the
addition of new electrical
substation equipment at the
substation.
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
Would not provide a
second source of
bulk power delivery
to Riverside. Would
not increase delivery
of power to Riverside
to meet demand
and projected load
growth.
Meets feasibility
criteria.
Meets environmental
criteria. Adding electrical
equipment to an existing
substation would not result
in significant
environmental impacts.
Non-Wire Eliminated
Alternative 18: Shift Load at Vista
Substation
This non-wire alternative would
shift the RPU load to Vista
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
Would not provide a
second source of
Meets feasibility
criteria.
Meets environmental
criteria; avoids all impacts
associated with the
Revised Project.
Non-Wire Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 24 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
Substation transformers to free up
capacity on transformer banks 1A
and 2A.
Source: CPUC
bulk power delivery
to Riverside. Would
not increase delivery
of power to Riverside
to meet demand
and projected load
growth.
Alternative 19: Additional
Generation
This alternative would involve the
construction of additional RPU
generation plants in the City of
Riverside.
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR
Meets most basic
project objectives.
Would provide
additional generation
to meet current
demand and
projected load
growth. Would not
provide a second
source of bulk power
delivery to Riverside.
Does not meet
regulatory feasibility
criteria due to
inability to permit
additional gas-fired
power plants in the
area.
Does not meet
environmental criteria.
Avoids significant impacts
associated with the
Revised Project but would
result in long-term air
quality and greenhouse
gas impacts for
construction and use of
additional gas-fired plants
in an air basin that does
not meet air quality
standards.
Non-Wire Eliminated
Alternative 20: Use of Internal RPU
Generation
This alternative would involve
using RPU existing generation
during peak periods to mitigate
high loading on the Vista
Substation transformers.
Source: CPUC
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
The existing RPU
generation may not
be available to meet
project demand and
load growth due to
operating limitations.
Would not provide a
second source of
bulk power delivery
to Riverside.
Would not meet
feasibility criteria due
to SCAQMD
operational
limitations on the use
of “peaker” plants.
Does not meet
environmental criteria.
Avoids significant impacts
associated with the
project but would result in
long-term air quality and
greenhouse gas impacts
from additional use of
peaking units in an air
basin that is not currently
meeting air quality
standards.
Non-Wire Eliminated
Alternative 21: Distributed
Generation
This alternative would involve
generating renewable power to
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
Would not provide a
second source of
bulk power delivery
Meets feasibility
criteria.
Meets environmental
criteria; avoids all impacts
associated with the
project.
Non-Wire Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 25 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
offset peak loading and improve
reliability.
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR and CPUC;
Public Utilities Code § 1002.3
to Riverside. Would
not provide sufficient
power to meet
demand and
projected load
growth.
Alternative 22: Energy Efficiency
and Conservation
This alternative would increase
energy efficiency and
conservation to reduce system
loading and demand for power.
Source: 2013 RTRP EIR and CPUC;
Public Utilities Code § 1002.3
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
Would not provide a
second source of
bulk power delivery
to Riverside.
Meets feasibility
criteria.
Meets environmental
criteria; avoids all impacts
associated with the
project.
Non-Wire Eliminated
Alternative 23: Demand Response
This alternative would reduce
demand/electricity use during
periods of peak energy use.
Source: CPUC; Public Utilities
Code § 1002.3
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
Would not provide a
second source of
bulk power delivery
to Riverside. Would
not provide sufficient
capacity to meet
demand and
projected load
growth.
Meets feasibility
criteria.
Meets environmental
criteria; avoids all impacts
associated with the
project.
Non-Wire Eliminated
Alternative 24: Consolidate the
RTRP and Circle City Project, and
consolidate the Valley Ivy Glen
and Alberhill System Project
This alternative would consolidate
the RTRP with the Circle City
Project and consolidate the
Valley-Ivyglen Project with Alberhill
System Project.
Source: ORA Comment Letter
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
The alternative would
not provide power to
the City of Riverside.
Does not meet
feasibility criteria. The
CPUC is required to
respond to the utilities
applications for each
project and does not
have a mechanism
to require the
consolidation of
multiple projects that
have been
Does not meet
environmental criteria.
The alternative would
result in substantially
greater environmental
impacts than the Revised
Project due to the need
for much longer
transmission lines.
System Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 26 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
recommended by
the CAISO. The
alternative does not
meet regulatory
feasibility criteria
because it would not
be feasible to obtain
the necessary
approvals from the
CPUC and other
agencies to install the
needed power lines
within the timeframe
that the project is
required.
Alternative 25: Consolidate the
Circle City Project, RTRP, Valley Ivy
Glen, and Alberhill System Projects
This alternative would consolidate
multiple RPU projects by
constructing a loop in at Alberhill
Substation to the Valley – Serrano
500-kV line. The alternative would
also include the construction of
Circle City Substation, which
would be connected to Alberhill
Substation with approximately 15
miles of 220-kV line.
Source: ORA Comment Letter
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
The alternative would
not provide power to
the City of Riverside.
Does not meet
feasibility criteria. The
CPUC is required to
respond to the utilities
applications for each
project and does not
have a mechanism
to require the
consolidation of
multiple projects that
have been
recommended by
the CAISO. The
alternative does not
meet regulatory
feasibility criteria
because it would not
be feasible to obtain
the necessary
approvals from the
CPUC and other
agencies to install the
needed power lines
Does not meet
environmental criteria.
The alternative would
result in substantially
greater environmental
impacts than the Revised
Project due to the need
for much longer
transmission lines.
System Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 27 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
within the timeframe
that the project is
required.
Alternative 26: Modify the Circle
City Project to Replace the
Proposed Circle City, RTRP, Valley
– Ivyglen, and Alberhill System
Projects
This alternative would construct
Circle City Substation as a
220/115/66-kV Substation and
interconnect it to Mira Loma
Substation with approximately 11
miles of 220-kV lines using existing
and new ROW. Approximately 27
miles of 115-kV lines along I-15
freeway would be constructed to
interconnect Ivyglen and Fogarty
115-kV Substations to the Circle
City 220-kV Substation.
Source: ORA Comment Letter
Does not meet basic
project objectives.
The alternative would
not provide power to
the City of Riverside.
Does not meet
feasibility criteria. The
CPUC is required to
respond to the utilities
applications for each
project and does not
have a mechanism
to require substantial
modifications of
another project. The
alternative does not
meet regulatory
feasibility criteria
because it would not
be feasible to obtain
the necessary
approvals from the
CPUC and other
agencies to install the
needed power lines
within the timeframe
that the project is
required.
Does not meet
environmental criteria.
The alternative would
result in substantially
greater environmental
impacts due to the
construction of
substantially longer
transmission and power
lines than the Revised
Project.
System Eliminated
Alternative 27: Deliver 66-kV Power
to Riverside from multiple SCE
sources and install metering
This alternative would use SCE’s
existing 66-kV power line network
surrounding Riverside to provide
power to Riverside. SCE would
build points of interconnection to
Riverside and use metering to
monitor power delivery from SCE
to Riverside.
The alternative would
potentially meet
project objectives
assuming SCE builds
new power lines to
interconnect with
Riverside.
Does not meet
regulatory feasibility
criteria. The
alternative would
require new legal
agreements between
SCE and Riverside to
change the way the
utilities operate. The
alternative would
take many years to
The alternative would
require additional power
line infrastructure into
Riverside, resulting in
greater environmental
impacts due to additional
power lines in a number of
areas.
System Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 28 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
Source: CPUC implement an
agreement and
define and construct
the best points of
connection.
Alternative 28: Lower Voltage
Alternative A – Single Source
This alternative would involve a
single substation interconnection
(Mira Loma), with up to three 280
MW transformers. The alternative
includes installation of three
double-circuit 69-kV lines and one
single-circuit line for a total of
seven 69-kV circuits.
Source: RPU and SCE
The alternative would
potentially meet
project objectives by
providing additional
interconnection
points for bulk power
delivery to Riverside.
The alternative is
potentially
technically feasible.
The alternative does
not meet regulatory
feasibility criteria
because it would
take substantial time
to obtain approvals
for the new power
lines in three new
power line corridors.
The alternative would
also be significantly
more expensive to
implement.
The alternative would
result in greater
environmental impacts
due to a substantial
increase in project length
for overhead and
underground power lines.
System Eliminated
Alternative 29: Lower Voltage
Alternative B - Three Sources
The alternative would add 280-
MW transformers at three
interconnective substations (Mira
Loma, Etiwanda, and Circle City)
and three double-circuit 69-kV
lines for a total of six 69-kV circuits
(two circuits from each
substation).
Source: RPU and SCE
The alternative would
potentially meet
project objectives by
providing additional
interconnection
points for bulk power
delivery to Riverside.
The alternative would
not meet technical
feasibility criteria
because it would be
infeasible to fit to the
230/69-kV
transformers within
the planned Circle
City Substation. The
alternative would not
meet regulatory or
financial feasibility
due to the need to
modify a substation
that is currently in the
CPUC approval
The alternative would
result in greater
environmental impacts
due to a substantial
increase in project length
for overhead and
underground power lines
and transmission lines.
System Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Subsequent EIR Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 29 Description of Alternative Project Objective Potential Feasibility Avoid/Reduce
Environmental Effects
Alternative
Type Conclusion
process and the
expense in excess of
$1 billion.
Alternative 30: Lower Voltage
Alternative C – Single Source with
Solar PV and Battery Storage
The alternative would have a
single interconnection at the Mira
Loma Substation with two 280-MW
transformers and two double-
circuit 69-kV lines for a total of four
69-kV circuits. This alternative
includes a 60-MW photovoltaic
(PV) solar facility and a
240-megawatt hours battery
energy storage system.
Source: RPU and SCE
The alternative would
potentially meet
project objectives by
providing additional
interconnection
points for bulk power
delivery to Riverside
and additional power
generation to meet
projected load
growth.
The alternative is
potentially
technically feasible.
The alternative does
not meet regulatory
feasibility criteria
because it would
take substantial time
to obtain approvals
for the new power
lines and solar PV
battery energy
storage, which would
result in significant
delays to the project.
The alternative would
also be more
expensive to
implement.
The alternative would
result in greater
environmental impacts
due to a substantial
increase in project length
for overhead and
underground power lines
and area required for a
solar PV and battery
energy storage facility.
System Eliminated
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 30 4.2 ALTERNATIVES RETAINED
4.2.1 Alternative 1: Bellegrave – Pats Ranch Road Underground Description
The Alternative 1 route would begin and transition to an underground position immediately adjacent to the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line. The transmission line would travel south along Wineville Avenue for approximately 0.7 mile, west on Bellegrave Avenue for approximately 0.2 mile, and south on Pats Ranch Road for approximately 1.2 miles.
At the intersection of Pats Ranch Road and Limonite Avenue, the alternative route would connect with and follow the same underground alignment as the Revised Project. The Alternative 1 route is shown on shown on Figure 4.2-1. SCE proposed the original concept for this alternative in response to CPUC Deficiency Report #1. Several public comments requested analysis of this alternative.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 1 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line and Wildlife Substation, thereby supplying additional power to meet current demand and projected load growth and providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 1 is technically feasible. Pats Ranch Road north of Limonite Avenue has an existing easement but has not yet been constructed. While there may be future utility line construction in this alignment, limited utilities are present in the area that would conflict with the underground transmission line. Bellegrave Avenue and Wineville Avenue are sufficiently wide to accommodate the underground transmission line duct banks.
Alternative 1 meets the criteria for legal and regulatory feasibility. The transmission line would be located within city streets within franchise ROW. The alternative would not conflict with any laws or regulations regarding utility locations.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 1 would avoid the impacts associated with construction of the overhead transmission line and riser poles in Jurupa Valley and permanent agricultural impacts from construction of the underground transmission line north of Limonite Avenue. Potential environmental advantages include:
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 31 Figure 4.2-1 Alternative 1: Bellegrave – Pats Ranch Road Underground Source: (esri 2017, SCE 2017, CDFW 2016)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 32 • Aesthetics. Avoids installation of two large riser poles at Limonite Avenue and associated significant aesthetic impacts; reduces community visual impacts near residences that have been constructed on Wineville Avenue after the 2013 RTRP EIR.
• Agricultural Resources. Avoids significant impacts on Prime Farmland within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 1 would increase the length of the underground transmission line. Potential environmental disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Greater air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line.
• Noise. Greater construction noise impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line. • Traffic. Additional traffic impacts due to underground construction on Wineville Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue.
• Utilities and Hazards. Potentially greater utility conflicts and induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) from installation of the underground transmission line in roadways with existing utility pipelines.
Conclusion
RETAINED FOR ANALYSIS. Alternative 1 would meet the basic project objectives and is feasible. It has been retained because it would offer substantial avoidance of visual effects and permanent agricultural resource impacts in the City of Jurupa Valley.
4.2.2 Alternative 2: Wineville – Limonite Underground
Description
The Alternative 2 route would begin and transition to an underground position immediately adjacent to the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line. The transmission line would travel south for approximately 2 miles on Wineville Avenue before reaching the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Wineville Avenue. At this intersection, the transmission line would turn west, following Limonite Avenue for approximately 1,000 feet before turning south on Pats Ranch Road to follow the same underground alignment as the Revised Project.
The Alternative 2 alignment is shown on Figure 4.2-2.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 2 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line and Wildlife Substation; thereby supplying additional power to meet current electrical system demand and projected load growth and providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 33 Figure 4.2-2 Alternative 2: Wineville – Limonite Underground Source: (esri 2017, SCE 2017, CDFW 2016)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 34 Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 2 is technically feasible. Wineville Avenue is sufficiently wide to accommodate the underground transmission line duct banks within the ROW.
Alternative 2 meets the criteria for legal and regulatory feasibility. The transmission line would be located within city streets within franchise ROW. The alternative would not conflict with any laws or regulations regarding utility locations.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 2 would avoid impacts associated with the overhead transmission line and riser poles in Jurupa Valley and impacts on agricultural resources north of Limonite Avenue.
Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids installation of two large riser poles at Limonite Avenue and associated aesthetic impacts; reduces community visual impacts near residences that have been constructed on Wineville Avenue after the 2013 RTRP EIR. • Agricultural Resources. Avoids impacts on Prime Farmland north of Limonite Avenue.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 2 would increase the length of the underground transmission line. Potential environmental disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Greater air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line. • Noise. Greater construction noise impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line. • Traffic. Additional traffic impacts due to underground construction on Wineville Avenue. • Utilities and Hazards. Potentially greater utility conflicts and induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) from installation of the underground transmission line in roadways with existing utility pipelines.
Conclusion
RETAINED FOR ANALYSIS. Alternative 2 would meet the basic project objectives and is feasible. It has been retained because it would offer substantial avoidance of visual effects and agricultural land use conflicts in the City of Jurupa Valley.
4.2.3 Alternative 3: Relocate Northern Riser Poles
Description
Alternative 3 involves relocation of the northern riser poles adjacent to and north of Limonite Avenue, approximately 0.25 mile north-northwest of the Revised Project’s riser pole positions, to a location adjacent to the I-15 ROW. The Alternative 3 transmission line would be located underground in the same alignment as the Revised Project overhead alignment. Alternative 3 would connect to the Revised Project underground alignment directly north of Limonite Avenue. Alternative 3 is shown on Figure 4.2-3.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 35 Figure 4.2-3 Alternative 3: Relocate Northern Riser Poles Source: (esri 2017, SCE 2017, CDFW 2016)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 36 Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 3 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line and Wildlife Substation, thereby supplying additional power to meet current demand and projected load growth and providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 3 meets technical, legal and regulatory feasibility criteria. The relocation of the riser poles would simply extend the underground duct banks by 0.25 mile to the north of Limonite Avenue within undeveloped property within the Revised Project alignment. There are no underground utility conflicts within the underground alignment, and the underground route would be located outside of the proposed Caltrans I-15/Limonite Avenue interchange improvements.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 3 would relocate the large riser pole structures 0.25 mile away from Limonite Avenue. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. The relocation of the riser poles would reduce the visual dominance of the structures for motorists along Limonite Avenue and exiting the I-15 freeway at the entrance to Jurupa Valley.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 3 would relocate the riser poles and extend the underground duct banks by
0.25 mile. Environmental disadvantages of this alternative include additional impacts on Prime Farmland from the underground duct banks and manholes.
Conclusion
RETAINED FOR ANALYSIS. Alternative 3 would meet the basic project objectives and is feasible. It has been retained because it would reduce potentially significant visual effects at Limonite Avenue.
4.2.4 Alternative 4: Wineville – Landon Underground
Description
The Alternative 4 route would begin and transition to an underground position immediately adjacent to the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line. The transmission line would travel south under Wineville Avenue for approximately 0.4 mile before turning west to continue underground within Landon Drive for approximately 0.4 mile. At the terminus of Landon Drive, the transmission line would transition to an overhead position on two new riser poles where it would follow SCE’s proposed overhead alignment south along I-15 to the Revised Project alignment. The Alternative 4 alignment is shown on Figure 4.2-4. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 37 Figure 4.2-4 Alternative 4: Wineville - Landon Underground Source: (esri 2017, SCE 2017, CDFW 2016)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 38 Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 4 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line and Wildlife Substation, thereby supplying additional power to meet current electrical system demand and projected load growth and providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 4 is technically feasible. Wineville Avenue and Landon Drive are sufficiently wide to accommodate the underground transmission line duct banks within the ROW.
Alternative 4 meets the criteria for legal and regulatory feasibility. The alternative would locate the transmission line within city streets within franchise ROW. The alternative would not conflict with any laws or regulations regarding utility locations.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 4 would avoid installation of the lattice steel tower at the intersection of Landon Drive and Wineville Avenue. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Locating the transmission line underground on Wineville Avenue would reduce community visual impacts near residences that have been constructed along Wineville Avenue after the 2013 RTRP EIR.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 4 would involve more underground transmission line construction than the Revised Project. Potential environmental disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Greater air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line.
• Noise. Greater construction noise impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line. • Traffic. Additional traffic impacts due to underground construction on Wineville Avenue and Landon Drive.
• Utilities and Hazards. Potentially greater utility conflicts and induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) from installation of the underground transmission line in roadways with utilities lines.
Conclusion
RETAINED FOR ANALYSIS. Alternative 4 would meet the basic project objectives and is feasible. It has been retained because it would offer substantial avoidance of visual effects in the City of Jurupa Valley.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 39 4.3 ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED
The routing alternatives that were eliminated (Alternatives 5 through 12) are shown on Figure 4.3-1.
4.3.1 Alternative 5: Wineville Underground
Description
The Alternative 5 route would begin and transition to an underground position immediately adjacent to the tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line. The transmission line would travel south on Wineville Avenue to 68th Street. This alternative route would then follow the same underground alignment as the Revised Project from 68th Street and Wineville Avenue east and south through the Goose Creek Golf Course. This alternative was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 5 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between Mira Loma Substation and Wildlife Substation, thereby providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside and increasing capacity to meet current and projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 5 potentially meets the technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility criteria; however, Alternative 5 would potentially conflict with the Settlement Agreement, which stipulated that parties to the agreement agreed to an underground transmission line from Limonite Avenue within Pats Ranch Road and 68th Street. Because Alternative 5 would locate the underground transmission line within Wineville Avenue south of Limonite Avenue, Alternative 5 may not “substantially conform” with the Hybrid Route included in the Settlement Agreement.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids installation of the large riser poles at Limonite Avenue and associated aesthetics impacts; reduces community visual impacts near residences that have been constructed on Wineville Avenue after the 2013 RTRP EIR.
Environmental Disadvantages
Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Noise. Greater construction air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line.
• Traffic. Additional traffic impacts due to underground construction on Wineville Avenue, which has a greater traffic volume than Pats Ranch Road.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 40 • Utilities and Hazards. Potentially greater utility conflicts and induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) resulting from proximity to existing underground utilities.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 5 creates potentially greater environmental impacts related to construction noise, traffic, and utilities and hazards than the Revised Project underground alignment on Pats Ranch Road. The alternative may not “substantially conform” with the Settlement Agreement and could present legal conflicts. Alternative 5 has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.2 Alternative 6: Mira Loma Substation – Van Buren in Railroad ROW Description
The Alternative 6 route would start at the Mira Loma Substation and then travel east for 2 miles to Van Buren Boulevard as an overhead line. At Van Buren Boulevard, the alternative route would turn southeast, remaining overhead and running along the east side of Van Buren Boulevard within the Union Pacific Railroad ROW for approximately 5 miles. The transmission line would transition to an underground position after crossing the Santa Ana River. The underground alignment would turn east after the river crossing, following the approved 2013 RTRP alignment to reach Wildlife Substation. This alternative was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR and was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
The Mira Loma Substation – Van Buren in Railroad ROW alternative would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between Mira Loma Substation and Wildlife Substation, thereby providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside and increasing capacity to meet current and projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 6 does not meet legal and regulatory feasibility criteria. Transmission lines produce induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard) when located near railroad operations. For that reason, both SCE and Union Pacific do not allow transmission lines in a railroad ROW.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids installation of two large riser poles at Limonite Avenue and associated aesthetic impacts; reduces community visual impacts near residences that have been constructed on Wineville Avenue after the 2013 RTRP EIR. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 41 Figure 4.3-1 Eliminated Transmission Route Alternatives
Source: (esri 2017, SCE 2017)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 42 This page is intentionally left blank.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 43 Environmental Disadvantages
Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. Overhead alignment along Van Buren Boulevard could have potentially significant aesthetic impacts.
• Land Use. Railroad ROW is not suitable for overhead transmission construction and operation.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 6 is not legally feasible because neither SCE nor Union Pacific Railroad would allow the transmission line to be located within the railroad ROW. Alternative 6 has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.3 Alternative 7: Eastern Alignment in Riverside
Description
The Alternative 7 route would begin and tie-in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line at one of five locations near Agua Mansa Road between the City of Jurupa Valley and the City of Colton. The transmission line would travel southwest from the tie-in, following the Santa Ana River south for approximately 8 miles. Several routing options would be available for this alternative, including routes on both the northern/western and southern/eastern sides of the Santa Ana River. All routes would follow the boundary of the 100- year floodplain of the river southwest toward the Wilderness Substation. This alternative was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR and was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 7 would meet the basic project objectives by providing a new 230-kV transmission source between Mira Loma Substation and Wildlife Substation, thereby providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside and increasing capacity to meet current and projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 7 potentially meets technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility criteria.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 7 would avoid the environmental impacts of the Revised Project within Jurupa Valley by relocating those impacts. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 7 has substantial environmental disadvantages as described in Chapter 6 of the 2013 RTRP EIR. These environmental disadvantages exceed the environmental advantages, and the 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 44 alternative does not meet environmental screening criteria. Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. The overhead transmission line would be visible along a significant portion of the Santa Ana River, which could significantly impact viewsheds. • Biological Resources. Santa Ana River habitat would be impacted by the construction and operation of the transmission line. Significant impacts on riparian and other sensitive habitats, as well as impacts on special-status species that may be present along the river, could occur that would exceed the impacts of the Revised Project.
• Geology. Floodplain geology would require additional engineering and foundational shoring of overhead transmission structures, which could represent a significant impact.
• Hazards. This alternative would be constructed within the 100-year floodplain of the Santa Ana River, exposing the transmission line to significant risk in the event of a flooding event.
• Hydrology. The alignment would be within a 100-year floodplain and create ground disturbance that could impact hydrological resources. • Recreation. The Santa Ana River represents a major recreational resource, which could be significantly impacted by construction of an overhead line.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 7 was previously considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR (see Chapter 6 and Appendix D, Siting Study in the 2013 RTRP EIR); further evaluation of this alternative is not needed. This alternative would result in greater environmental impacts than the Revised Project and does not meet the environmental screening criteria. Alternative 7 has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.4 Alternative 8: All Underground Transmission Line
(Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line Interconnect to Wildlife Substation)
Description
The Alternative 8 route would begin and transition to an underground position immediately adjacent to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line interconnect. The transmission line would follow the Revised Project route from the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line interconnect to Wildlife Substation, but all segments of the transmission line would be located underground, including the crossing of the Santa Ana River and segments south of the Santa Ana River. This alternative was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 8 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between Mira Loma Substation and Wildlife Substation, thereby providing a 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 45 second source of bulk power to Riverside and increasing capacity to meet current and projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 8 potentially meets the technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility criteria.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 8 has potentially significant environmental disadvantages, specifically in areas south of the Santa Ana River where the alternative does not reduce or avoid any significant impact of the Revised Project. The alternative does not meet the environmental screening criteria. Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Greater air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line.
• Biological, Cultural, and Paleontological Resources. Underground transmission line construction requires open trench construction methods, which could have significant impacts on habitat, special-status species, cultural resources, and paleontological resources because the proposed alignment extends along the Santa Ana River corridor in undisturbed areas. Therefore, the impact on plants, wildlife, habitat, and previously undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources would be significant.
• Geology. An increased potential for soil loss and erosion and an increased potential for dewatering due to open trench construction methods along the entire alignment, especially along the south side of the Santa Ana River corridor in undisturbed areas, exists along this alignment.
• Hydrology. Underground construction across the Santa Ana River would require a horizontal directional drill installation or installation of water diversion and/or coffer dam, which would be a potentially significant impact. • Recreation. Increased temporary recreation conflicts from underground transmission line construction adjacent to and within trails along the Santa Ana River.
• Traffic. Increased traffic and transportation impacts from additional road closures at the location of underground construction.
• Utilities and Hazards. Potentially greater utility conflicts and induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) from installation of the underground transmission line in roadways with existing utility pipelines. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 46 Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 8 achieves the basic project objectives and potentially meets criteria for technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility. The alternative would result in substantially greater environmental impacts than the Revised Project because the underground transmission line would be much longer than the Revised Project. Portions of the underground transmission line route located south of the Santa Ana River would not avoid or reduce any new significant effects of the project and would result in potentially significant impacts. Alternative 8 does not meet environmental screening criteria and has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.5 Alternative 9: Limonite – Van Buren Underground
Description
The Alternative 9 route would follow the Revised Project alignment to Limonite Avenue. At Limonite Avenue, the transmission line would transition underground and travel east within Limonite Avenue to Van Buren Boulevard. At Van Buren Boulevard, the transmission line would travel south within Van Buren Boulevard and cross the Santa Ana River within the Van Buren Boulevard bridge. The transmission line would transition back to an overhead position on the south side of the Santa Ana River and travel east to the Wildlife Substation along the 2013 approved RTRP alignment. This alternative was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 9 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between Mira Loma Substation and Wildlife Substation, thereby providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside and increasing capacity to meet current and projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 9 may be technically feasible. Construction of the underground transmission line within Van Buren bridge would require further engineering evaluation to verify that sufficient space is available for two double 230-kV transmission circuits within the bridge. If there is insufficient space within the bridge, the transmission line could not be located underground within Van Buren Road at the crossing of the Santa Ana River.
Alternative 9 meets the criteria for legal and regulatory feasibility. The alternative would locate the transmission line within city streets within franchise ROW. The alternative would not conflict with any laws or regulations regarding utility locations. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 47 Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Relocation of the underground transmission line from Pats Ranch Road and 68th Street to Limonite Avenue and Van Buren Road would not reduce any significant environmental impact of the Revised Project.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 9 has substantial environmental disadvantages compared to the underground transmission line within Jurupa Valley. Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Greater air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. The increased length of underground transmission line construction would increase the potential to disturb buried cultural and paleontological resources.
• Noise. Greater construction noise impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line. • Traffic and Traffic Hazards. Additional traffic impacts due to underground construction along Limonite Avenue and Van Buren Boulevard, which have substantially higher traffic volumes and greater vehicle speeds than roadways within the Revised Project underground alignment.
• Utilities and Hazards. Potentially greater utility conflicts and induced current effects (i.e., shock hazard, corrosion of adjacent buried utilities) from installation of the underground transmission line in roadways with existing utility pipelines.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 9 achieves the basic project objectives and may be feasible. This alternative does not reduce any significant impact of the Revised Project and has the potential to create new significant impacts. The alternative does not meet the environmental screening criteria. Alternative 9 has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.6 Alternative 10: Idyllwild Lane, Julian Drive, and Bradford Street Underground
Description
The Alternative 10 route would follow the approved 2013 RTRP alignment and Revised Project alignment except for a 1-mile segment that would be located underground southeast of the Revised Project on the south side of the Santa Ana River. The transmission line would transition to an underground position north of Tyler Street in the City of Riverside and continue underground north of the homes on Auld Street, Julian Drive, Idyllwild Lane, Rutland Avenue, and Bradford Street. It would return to an overhead position before crossing Van Buren Boulevard, and follow the approved 2013 RTRP route to Wildlife Substation. This alternative 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 48 was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period. This alternative would not modify the Revised Project.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 10 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between Mira Loma Substation and Wildlife Substation, thereby providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside and increasing capacity to meet current and projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 10 potentially meets the technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility criteria; however, further design would be required to identify a path to the suggested roads for the underground transmission line.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 10 would not reduce any potentially significant environmental impact of the Revised Project because the Revised Project would not be affected by the alternative.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 10 would result in additional, potentially significant impacts. The potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. The addition of four 165-foot tall riser poles along the Santa Ana River corridor and within the Santa Ana River landscape would significantly impact aesthetics for recreational trail users and residents along the river corridor. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Greater air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line.
• Biological Resources. Underground construction of the line near the Santa Ana River could result in a potentially significant impact on riparian, other sensitive habitats, and special-status species.
• Cultural Resources. Construction of the underground transmission line near the Santa Ana River could result in potentially significant impacts on cultural resources due to the increased area of surface disturbance in an area that is sensitive to cultural resources.
• Noise. Potentially greater construction noise impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 10 achieves the basic project objectives and potentially meets the criteria for technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility. This alternative would not reduce any impacts of the Revised Project, and it has the potential to create significant additional environmental impacts including significant aesthetic, biological resource, cultural resource, 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 49 and noise impacts. The alternative does not meet environmental screening criteria. Alternative 10 has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.7 Alternative 11: I-15 South to SR-91 East Underground Description
The Alternative 11 transmission line would be entirely underground from the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line interconnect to Wildlife Substation. The transmission line would follow the Revised Project alignment south from the Mira Loma tie-in at Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road and Wineville Avenue until 68th Street. At 68th Street, the transmission line would diverge from the Revised Project alignment, following the I-15 corridor south approximately 6 miles until I-15 intersects with SR-91. The transmission line would turn east and follow SR-91 for approximately 6.5 miles before turning north to follow Van Buren Boulevard for approximately 3.5 miles. The Alternative 10 route would reconnect with the approved 2013 RTRP alignment at its intersection with Van Buren Boulevard and follow the approved alignment to Wildlife Substation. This alternative was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 11 would meet the basic project objectives by constructing a new 230-kV transmission line between the Mira Loma Substation and Wildlife Substation, thereby providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside and increasing capacity to meet current and projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
This alternative has the potential to be technically and legally feasible.
Caltrans’ general policy on use of its controlled access roadways does not permit longitudinal encroachments (Caltrans, 2013). SCE would have to show that there are no other potential alignment options, in which case Caltrans would work with the applicant through the Exception Permit Process. However, because other alignment options exist (as described in this ASR), Caltrans would not allow an Exception Permit for this alternative. Thus, this alternative does not pass the regulatory feasibility screening criteria.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 11 has the potential to reduce potentially significant impacts from the Revised Project overhead transmission line in Jurupa Valley. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 50 Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 11 involves a substantially larger underground transmission line than the Revised Project and presents significant environmental disadvantages, including:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Greater air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line. This alternative is significantly longer than the revised alignment, and increased emissions would significantly increase existing impacts. • Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Potentially increased impacts on cultural and paleontological resources from a substantial increase in ground disturbance. • Noise. Greater construction noise impacts from increased construction vehicle activity to construct the underground transmission line. • Traffic and Hazards. Substantial traffic impacts and hazards due to underground construction in a major highway system.
• Utilities and Public Services. Substantial increase in water required and soil excavation and removal.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 11 would be technically feasible and achieves the basic project objectives; however, it does not meet the regulatory feasibility criteria. Caltrans does not allow installation of underground utilities beneath Caltrans-operated highways. The alternative would also result in substantially greater environmental impacts than the Revised Project.
Alternative 11 has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.8 Alternative 12: Mountain View Substation – Agua Mansa – Mira Loma – Vista 230-kV #1 Line Interconnect
Description
The Alternative 12 route would begin and tie in to the Mira Loma – Vista #1 230-kV Transmission Line interconnect approximately 2.25 miles northeast of the intersection of Agua Mansa Road and Market Street in the City of Jurupa Valley. The transmission line would run southwest parallel to Agua Mansa Road before turning south to parallel Market Street for approximately 1 mile. The transmission line would cross the Santa Ana River adjacent to the Market Street bridge. After crossing the river, the transmission line route would follow an existing 69-kV power line in a southwesterly direction, following the Santa Ana River Trail for approximately 4.25 miles and crossing Jurupa Avenue. The transmission line would then tie in to Mountain View Substation located at Mountain View Avenue and Sheppard Street in the City of Riverside. This alternative was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 12 could meet the basic project objectives. This alternative could provide a second source of bulk power to RPU by providing 230-kV power into the existing RPU-owned 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 51 Mountain View Substation as well as increase the power capacity to meet the current and projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 12 potentially meets the technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility criteria. Mountain View Substation is not a 230-kV substation, and substantial expansion would be required to accommodate a new 230-kV transmission line. The CPUC did not assess the expansion of Mountain View Substation in this ASR; however, the siting study conducted by the City of Riverside (Appendix D of the 2013 RTRP EIR) included this alternative and described constraints to substation expansion.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 12 would relocate the project and impacts of the transmission line. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 12 is substantially longer than the Revised Project alone and would relocate the transmission line impacts to areas northeast of Mountain View Substation. Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics and Recreation. The Santa Ana River represents a major recreational resource. Recreational uses and viewsheds along the Santa Ana River could be significantly impacted by construction of an overhead transmission line. • Biological Resources. This alternative would require construction in potentially sensitive habitat areas along the Santa Ana River and the vicinity of Mt. Rubidoux, potentially causing significant impacts on riparian and other sensitive habitats and special-status species.
• Cultural Resources. Construction of the transmission line within areas that are highly sensitive for cultural resources along the Santa Ana River could result in greater impacts on cultural resources.
• Geology and Hydrology. This alternative would be constructed within the 100- year floodplain of the Santa Ana River, exposing the transmission line to significant risk in the event of a flooding event.
• Hazards. The overhead transmission line would be located within an airport land use zone and could present a significant hazard to air traffic.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 12 was previously considered by the City of Riverside in the 2006 Siting Study (Appendix D of the 2013 RTRP EIR). This alternative may not meet feasibility criteria due to insufficient space within the Mountain View Substation for a 230-kV transmission line. The alternative would avoid significant visual impacts within Jurupa Valley 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 52 but would relocate those impacts and would result in greater environmental impacts along the Santa Ana River. The alternative does not meet the environmental screening criteria. Alternative 12 has been eliminated from further consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.9 Alternative 13: Battery Storage
Description
Alternative 13 involves adding battery storage systems in Riverside to improve reliability in lieu of a new 230-kV transmission line. This alternative was suggested by the public during the 2017 scoping period to offset the need for an additional high voltage transmission line into Riverside.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 13 would not meet the basic project objectives of providing a second source of bulk energy delivery to Riverside and increasing capacity to sufficiently meet existing and projected electrical load. Riverside currently receives approximately 560 MW of electric delivery from Vista Substation (280 MW of capacity in each transformer bank A and B). If one of RPU’s transformer banks at Vista Substation or the transmission line carrying electricity from Vista Substation to RPU were to be damaged, RPU would suffer the immediate loss of 280 MW or more of electricity. To meet the basic project objective, the alternative would have to deliver 280 MW of electricity to Riverside. Battery storage technology is still in its infancy. Utility scale battery storage projects that have been deployed to date include a 20 MW battery storage facility at Mira Loma Substation and 30 MW in the Imperial Energy Storage Center. Two hundred and eighty MW of battery storage is nearly ten times the capacity of the largest battery storage projects that have been deployed. Riverside could not reasonably install enough battery storage to meet the basic project objectives within a reasonable timeframe.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Battery storage technology has advanced rapidly in the last few years, and the first utility scale battery storage projects have been deployed. It may one day be feasible to employ battery storage at the scale needed for the project (280 MW or more), but the scale of the project needs substantially exceeds the scale of current battery storage projects. The largest battery storage systems deployed to date are 30 MW. It is not technically feasible to implement 280 MW of battery storage because the largest project that has ever been constructed is 250 MW short of the target. Battery storage is also expensive, and Alternative 13 could involve costs potentially greater than $500 million. In addition, the alternative may not meet regulatory feasibility criteria because jurisdictional authority over battery storage options remains undefined.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 13 would avoid all impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 53 • Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previously undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Battery storage located within an existing substation would have limited environmental disadvantages due to the limited size and profile of battery storage projects. Pilot battery storage projects have experienced high incidence of combustion, which could present a potential fire hazard.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 13 does not meet the basic project objectives, it is not technically feasible, and it may not be economically feasible. Alternative 13 has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.10 Alternative 14: Additional Transformer Capacity at Vista Substation Description
Alternative 14 would involve expanding Vista Substation with the addition of a third 230/69-kV transformer bank at the substation. Refer to Figure 4.3-2 for the location of Vista Substation.
This alternative was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 14 would not add a secondary source of bulk power; therefore, the alternative would not meet this basic project objective. The alternative would also not achieve the basic project objective of increasing capacity to meet existing and projected electrical load because 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 54 Figure 4.3-2 Substation Locations
Source: (esri 2017, SCE 2017)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 55 capacity would still be limited by the capacity of the existing transmission line from Vista Substation.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Expansion of the existing substation may be potentially infeasible. SCE has stated that expansion of the Vista Substation is not feasible due to short circuit duty limitation. This alternative was previously evaluated by the City of Riverside in the 2013 RTRP EIR and is documented in Appendix D of the 2013 RTRP EIR.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 14 would avoid all impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 14 would have the following environmental disadvantages:
• Cultural and Biological Resources. Expansion of Vista Substation could result in impacts on cultural and biological resources within the expanded substation footprint.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 14 does not meet the basic project objectives; therefore, the alternative has been eliminated from full consideration in the Subsequent EIR. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 56 4.3.11 Alternative 15: Additional Transformer Capacity at Mira Loma Substation Description
Alternative 15 would involve expanding Mira Loma Substation by adding a fourth 230/69-kV transformer bank at the substation. Mira Loma Substation is shown on Figure 4.3-2. This alternative was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 15 would not add a secondary source of bulk power; therefore, the alternative would not meet this basic project objective. Additionally, the alternative would not achieve the basic project objective of increasing capacity to meet existing and projected electrical load because capacity would still be limited by the capacity of the existing transmission line from Vista Substation.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 15 is technically feasible and likely meets the criteria for legal and regulatory feasibility. Expansion of the transformer capacity would likely require expanding the footprint of the substation.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 15 would avoid all impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 57 • Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 15 could have several environmental disadvantages associated with expansion of the substation, if required, such as impacts on cultural and biological resources within an expanded substation footprint.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 15 does not meet the basic objectives; therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.12 Alternative 16: Expansion of Riverside Energy Resource Center Electrical Generation Capacity
Description
Alternative 16 would involve expanding electrical generation capacity at RERC. RERC currently has a generating capacity of 192 MW. Expansion of the RERC facility may require expanding the footprint of RERC to accommodate another gas fired power plant. RERC is shown on Figure
4.3-2. This alternative was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 16 would provide supplemental power to Riverside but would not provide sufficient power to achieve the basic project objectives. RPU current receives 560 MW of power from two transformer banks at Vista Substation. If one of those transformer banks or if the transmission line were damaged, RPU would need to make up at least 280 MW of power. The existing RERC facility generates 192 MW of electricity. Power plants typically add up to 50 MW of power; RPU would need at least six power plants to make up for the loss of 280 MW of power from Vista Substation. The RERC facility does not have sufficient capacity to supply 280 MW of power even with addition of a power plant.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 16 is technically and legally feasible; however, the addition of six power plants within Riverside may not meet regulatory feasibility. Each power plant would require permits from SCAQMD and the California Energy Commission. It is infeasible to permit this many additional power plants because the air basin is not currently meeting air quality standards.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 16 would avoid all impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 58 • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trail and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 16 would have the following environmental disadvantages:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Additional energy generation during peak periods would result in long-term air quality and greenhouse gas impacts.
Riverside is located within an air basin that is not in attainment of air quality standards, and the additional air quality emissions could have a significant individual and cumulative impact on air quality.
Alternative 16 could have several additional environmental disadvantages associated with RERC expansion or the construction of additional power plants elsewhere, including impacts related to land use, aesthetics, traffic, noise, geology, hydrology, cultural resources, and biological resources.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 16 does not meet the basic project objectives; therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.13 Alternative 17: Expansion of Electrical Equipment at Mountain View Substation
Description
Alternative 17 would involve adding transformer capacity at Mountain View Substation, which is managed by RPU. Mountain View Substation is shown on Figure 4.3-2. This alternative was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 59 Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 17 does not meet the basic project objective of providing a second source of bulk power to Riverside. Although the alternative increases transformer capacity at Mountain View Substation, Riverside would continue to be limited by the transmission capacity of the existing transmission lines. This alternative would not meet the project objective of increasing capacity to meet current electrical system demand and projected load growth.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 17 may meet technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility criteria; however, additional analysis would be required to identify whether sufficient space is available to add transformer capacity and to evaluate the permitted limits of the substation.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 17 would avoid all impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural resources and paleontological within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 17 would have no environmental disadvantages unless the additional transformers necessitated expansion of the substation. Substation expansion, if required, could have several 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 60 environmental disadvantages, such as impacts on cultural and biological resources within an expanded substation footprint.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 17 does not meet the basic project objectives; therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.14 Alternative 18: Shift Load at Vista Substation
Description
Alternative 18 would shift the RPU load to Vista Substation transformers to free up capacity on transformer banks 1A and 2A.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 18 does not meet the basic project objectives. The alternative would not provide a secondary source of bulk power to Riverside. The alternative would still provide power from Vista Substation and would not improve reliability in the case of damage to the transformer banks at Vista Substation or damage to the existing 230-kV transmission line. Additionally, due to existing transmission line capacity limitations, the alternative would not increase capacity to meet current and future load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 18 may be technically feasible if there is spare capacity in transformer banks 1A and 2A at Vista Substation. The alternative meets legal and regulatory feasibility criteria; however, it may require a new legal agreement between RPU and SCE regarding the use of Vista Substation.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 18 would avoid all impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue, and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 61 • Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 18 would not require any construction and would have no environmental disadvantages.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 18 does not meet the basic project objective of providing a secondary source of bulk power or increasing capacity to meet existing and future demands; therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.15 Alternative 19: Additional Generation
Description
Alternative 19 would involve the construction of additional RPU power plants in the City of Riverside. This alternative is substantially similar to Alternative 16; however, the alternative is not physically limited to the RERC area. This alternative could include additional power generation anywhere within RPU’s territory. This alternative was considered in the 2013 RTRP EIR.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 19 would not provide a secondary source of bulk power to RPU. As described in Alternative 16 (above), the electrical capacity needed to provide reliability in the event of loss of one of RPU’s transformer banks at Vista Substation is equivalent to multiple power plants.
Electrical generation could not be reasonably deployed at a scale sufficient to meet this basic project objective. The alternative may meet the project objective of increasing capacity to meet existing and future demand.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
As described in Alternative 16 (above), it is technically and legally feasible to construct power plants; however, due to existing air quality violations, it would be infeasible to permit the number of power plants that would be required under Alternative 19 to offset the loss of transformers at Vista Substation or to adequately produce the needed power during peak demand conditions.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 62 Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 19 would avoid all impacts of the Revised Project in Jurupa Valley. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural resources and paleontological within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 19 would have the following environmental disadvantages:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Additional energy generation during peak periods would result in long-term air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from additional energy generation. Riverside is located within an air basin that is not in attainment of air quality standards, and the additional air quality emissions could have a significant individual and cumulative impact on air quality.
Alternative 19 could have several additional environmental disadvantages associated with the construction of additional power plants elsewhere, including impacts related to land use, aesthetics, traffic, noise, geology, hydrology, cultural resources, and biological resources.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 19 does not meet regulatory feasibility criteria. The existing gas- fired generation in the Riverside area has operational limitations due to air quality restrictions in the SCAQMD air permit. It is not feasible to permit substantial additional gas-fired generation in the basin. This alternative has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 63 4.3.16 Alternative 20: Use of Internal RPU Generation Description
Alternative 20 would use existing RPU generation during peak periods to mitigate high loading on Vista Substation transformers.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 20 would not meet the basic project objectives because it would not create a second source of bulk power to RPU and it would not increase capacity to meet existing and future load. Existing RPU generation is already considered when evaluating system needs and reliability.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 20 meets the criteria for technical and legal feasibility. Riverside’s internal generating units are brought on-line as needed to support Riverside’s load requirements. While these generation resources reduce the amount of power that must flow through the transformers at Vista Substation to Riverside by generating and supplying power locally, they are “peaker” units. The number of hours the RERC units can operate is limited to 1,200 hours per year and no more than two starts per day by SCAQMD permits. These units are typically run less than 4 hours per day. The Springs generating units are also subject to start-up and use restrictions. Due to the limitations in use of these “peaker” units, they cannot be considered part of the base power supply for Riverside, and additional capacity is needed to meet the existing and future demand for system reliability. The alternative would not meet regulatory feasibility because use of the Riverside “peaker” units in excess of the currently permitted capacity would not be allowed by SCAQMD.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 20 would avoid all impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue, and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 64 • Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 20 would have the following environmental disadvantages:
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Additional energy generation during peak periods would result in long-term air quality and greenhouse gas impacts from additional energy generation. Riverside is located within an air basin that is not in attainment of air quality standards and the additional air quality emissions could have a significant cumulative impact on air quality.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 20 does not meet the basic project objectives. This alternative is part of the baseline condition. This alternative has been eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.17 Alternative 21: Distributed Generation
Description
Alternative 21 would involve deployment of distributed (less than 20 MW) renewable energy projects within the City of Riverside. The Revised Project is needed to supply at least 557 MW to offset the transmission line from Vista Substation and at least 140 MW of power to meet current demand and expected load growth. This alternative would require at least 28 separate renewable energy projects at 20 MW each to provide the level of energy generation comparable to the Revised Project.
Distributed generation is electricity production that is on-site or close to the load center that it is intended to serve. Distributed renewables refer to the use of renewable energy resources in distributed energy generation. The generating capacity of a distributed generation source is significantly smaller than those of centrally located utility-scale energy generation sources and can range from generation at a single residence to larger installations for commercial or multi- unit housing applications.
Examples of distributed renewable generation include small-scale PV, wind, biomass, and combined cooling and/or heat and power (also known as cogeneration) systems that use renewable-based fuels, as well as fuel cells produced from renewable energy resources.
Distributed renewable generation does not include utility-scale PV, solar thermal, biomass, or wind energy power stations, or hydroelectric, geothermal, and non-combined heat and power- 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 65 related waste-to-energy systems (including digester gas, landfill gas, and municipal solid waste) as load is typically not close to generation, and onsite load is negligible.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 21 would not meet the basic project objective of providing a secondary source of bulk power. Distributed generation would provide additional power but not at a level comparable to the total size of the project or the level needed to offset the loss of a transformer bank at Vista Substation (280 MW). The alternative would also fail in achieving the basic project objective of increasing capacity for current and future demand due to similar scaling challenges.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 21 meets the criteria for technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility. As described above, CPUC policy allows for distributed generation, and there are several federal and state incentive programs designed to encourage implementation of distributed generation.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 21 would avoid all environmental impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue, and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 66 Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 21 has no environmental disadvantages. Rooftop solar is widely encouraged due to its environmental advantages over traditional energy generation.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Small-scale distributed renewable generation, such as rooftop solar panels, has the potential to appreciably reduce demand on the electrical system; however, Alternative 21 could not be feasibly deployed at a scale equivalent to the project need. The alternative does not meet the basic project objectives. Alternative 21 is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.18 Alternative 22: Energy Efficiency and Conservation Description
Alternative 22 would implement programs to increase energy efficiency and conservation to reduce system loading and demand for power. Energy efficiency is using less energy to perform the same service or task. Energy conservation is the act of reducing, or going without a service or task, to save energy. For example, turning off a light is energy conservation; replacing an incandescent light bulb with a different type of light bulb that uses less energy to produce the same amount of light is energy efficiency. Both conservation and efficiency can reduce the amount of energy used.
Energy efficiency and conservation programs are designed to reduce customer energy consumptions. CPUC regulatory requirements dictate that supply-side and demand-side resource options should be considered on an equal basis in a utility’s plan to acquire lowest-cost resources.
These programs are designed to either reduce the overall use of energy, or to shift the consumption of energy to off-peak times. Programs include the installation of high-efficiency appliances (e.g., efficient heating and cooling systems and energy efficient lighting), the installation of insulation and weatherization, and customer behavior changes (e.g., customers that turn off lights more frequently because of increased customer awareness of their electrical usage).
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 22 does not achieve the basic project objectives of providing a secondary source of bulk power to RPU. The alternative would not be implemented at a scale that would achieve the project objectives.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Energy efficiency and conservation programs are currently in place. These programs meet the criteria for technical, legal, and regulatory feasibility; however, it is not technically possible to implement Alternative 22 at the scale equivalent of the project need. Energy efficiency and conservation could not be deployed at sufficient scale to offset the loss of a transformer bank (280 MW) at Vista Substation.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 67 Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 22 would avoid all environmental impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue, and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
• Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 22 has no environmental disadvantages.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 22 cannot be implemented at a scale that would achieve the basic project objectives; therefore, this alternative is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.19 Alternative 23: Demand Response
Description
Demand response is end-use electric customers reducing their electricity usage in a given time period or shifting that usage to another time period in response to a price signal, a financial incentive, an environmental condition, or a reliability signal. Demand response is among the CPUC’s top energy priorities because it provides numerous economic and environmental benefits for California ratepayers.
Demand response enables utilities to avoid building new power plants that are used only during the peak hours of the day (typically late afternoon to early evening). Building and 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 68 operating plants that are used only on occasion (also known as “peaker plants”) is expensive, and those costs are eventually passed on to utility ratepayers. Demand response also enables utilities to avoid purchasing high-priced wholesale energy by reducing the demand for that energy at particular times of the day. Wholesale energy costs are also eventually passed on to ratepayers. To the extent that those costs can be lowered by demand response, ratepayers benefit. Demand response also provides system and local reliability benefits because they enable utilities to avoid the use of rolling blackouts when there is not enough generation to satisfy demand. Finally, demand response provides environmental benefits by enabling the utilities to avoid the use of peaker plants. Peaker plants typically have higher greenhouse gas and other criteria pollutant emissions. Demand response also has the potential to integrate more renewable energy (wind, solar, etc.) into the grid.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 23 does not meet the basic project objective of providing a second source of bulk power to RPU.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Demand response programs are currently in place. These programs meet the criteria for technical, legal and regulatory feasibility; however, it is not feasible to deploy demand response at a scale equivalent to the project within RPU territory.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 23 would avoid all environmental impacts of the Revised Project. Potential environmental advantages include:
• Aesthetics. Avoids visual impacts from the overhead transmission line along Wineville Avenue, and from the riser poles at Limonite Avenue. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Avoids criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions from construction of the Revised Project.
• Biological Resources. Avoids wetland and riparian impacts from underground transmission line construction in the Goose Creek Golf Course and within the Santa Ana River floodplain.
• Cultural and Paleontological Resources. Avoids potential impacts on previous undiscovered cultural and paleontological resources within the Revised Project alignment.
• Geology and Hydrology. Avoids topsoil loss and impacts within the floodplain of the Santa Ana River.
• Land Use. Avoids potential land use conflicts within the property north of Limonite Avenue.
• Recreation. Avoids impacts on recreational use of trails and the Goose Creek Golf Course.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 69 • Traffic. Avoids traffic impacts associated with construction of the underground transmission line in roadways.
• Utilities. Avoids potential utility conflicts and induced current impacts from the underground and overhead transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 23 has no environmental disadvantages from demand response programs.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 23 does not meet the basic project objectives; therefore, this alternative is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.20 Alternative 24: Consolidate the RTRP and Circle City Project, and Consolidate the Valley – Ivyglen and Alberhill Substation Projects Description
Alternative 24 would involve consolidation of multiple SCE projects. The alternative would include construction of the 220/66-kV Circle City Substation in the City of Corona. Mira Loma Substation would be connected to Circle City Substation with approximately 10 miles of 220-kV line that would be located within existing and new ROW. Circle City Substation would supply power to Corona, Pedley, Data Bank, Chase, Jefferson, Cleargen, and Delgen Substations and provide part of RPU’s load. This alternative would also include construction of the Alberhill 500/115-kV Substation, looping the substation in to the Valley – Serrano 500-kV line. Alberhill Substation would supply power to the five 115-kV substations (Ivyglen, Fogarty, Elsinore, Skylark, and Newcomb). The Alberhill Substation Project would eliminate the construction of the transmission line segment from Valley Substation to the tap point between Fogarty and Elsinore substations of the Valley – Ivyglen line. Circle City and Alberhill Substations are shown on Figure 4.3-2. This alternative was provided for consideration by the ORA.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 24 does not meet the basic project objective of providing a second source of bulk power to RPU. The alternative would create an additional power source at Vista Substation, which is the main existing bulk power source to the RPU. The alternative does not supply power to Riverside and would not increase capacity for existing demand or projected load.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 24 may meet technical and legal feasibility criteria; however, engineering design issues need to be resolved to determine a specific transmission route. The first design issue is the route of a 220-kV transmission line between Mira Loma Substation and Circle City Substation. The proposed Circle City Project alignment is a lower-voltage alignment that would travel through residential, commercial, and industrial areas along existing streets within franchise, SCE ROW, and private property. To accommodate a 220-kV overhead circuit, the proposed Circle City Project pole structures would need to be taller and have larger 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 70 foundations than those of the currently proposed subtransmission line. Additional design engineering would be required to determine if there would be sufficient franchise space adjacent to city streets for a 220-kV overhead alignment with larger pole structures, particularly in residential areas. Where insufficient space exists, the transmission line would need to be located underground in city streets.
The second design issue is how to supply RPU with power from the proposed Circle City Substation. To meet the basic project objective of a second reliable source of bulk energy, a 220-kV transmission line would need to be routed from Circle City Substation in the City of Norco to the proposed Wildlife Substation in the City of Riverside. There is no existing ROW connecting these locations, and most of the land uses between these locations are residential.
The most reasonable assumption for how this would be accomplished would be via an underground alignment in surface streets (e.g., Magnolia Avenue to Van Buren Boulevard). It is estimated that an underground alignment would be approximately 9 to 10 miles long, depending on the engineered route.
In lieu of routing a 220-kV transmission line to Wildlife Substation, it may be possible to supply a limited quantity of lower voltage subtransmission to parts of Riverside via other subtransmission stations connected to Circle City Substation; however, this would not represent sufficient megawatts to meet the basic project objective of providing secondary bulk power to cover an outage at Vista Substation.
This alternative does not meet regulatory feasibility criteria. because it would not be feasible to obtain the necessary approvals from the CPUC and other agencies to install the needed power lines within the timeframe that the project is required. The CPUC is required to respond to the utilities’ applications for each project and does not have a mechanism to require the consolidation of multiple projects that have been recommended by the CAISO, other than denial of all of these project applications. These projects are being independently evaluated under CPUC General Order 131-D.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 24 would avoid all impacts in the Revised Project alignment area.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 24 doubles the length of the 220-kV transmission line needed to support the RPU (20 miles versus 10 miles). Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. Creates additional aesthetic impacts by placing more transmission structures within residential communities over a longer alignment. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Creates additional criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions due to increased length of transmission line, particularly from underground duct bank construction.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 71 • Cultural Resources. Creates additional impacts by increasing the length of the transmission line needed to meet the project objective, increasing the area of disturbance and thus increasing potential impacts on cultural resources. • Geology and Hydrology. Potentially creates additional topsoil loss and impacts within adjacent streams and floodplains.
• Land Use. Potentially creates additional land use impacts by requiring construction of a longer transmission line that may conflict with existing land uses, particularly in residential areas.
• Noise. Construction noise impacts would be greater due to the longer overhead transmission line in residential areas.
• Recreation. Potentially creates impacts on recreational resources where such resources occur along the significantly longer transmission alignment. • Traffic. Creates additional traffic impacts by requiring additional road closures to support the construction of an increased length of underground transmission line.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 24 does not meet any of the screening criteria. The alternative does not meet the basic project objectives, does not meet regulatory feasibility, and would result in substantially greater environmental impacts. Alternative 24 is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.21 Alternative 25: Consolidate the Circle City, RTRP, Valley – Ivyglen, and Alberhill System Projects
Description
Alternative 25 would involve consolidating multiple SCE projects. The Alberhill 500/220/115-kV Substation would be constructed with a loop-in to the Valley – Serrano 500-kV line in unincorporated Riverside County, northwest of the City of Lake Elsinore. Alberhill Substation would supply power to five 115-kV substations (Ivyglen, Fogarty, Elsinore, Skylark, and Newcomb), as well as to Circle City Substation in the City of Corona.
The alternative would also include the construction of the Circle City 220/66-kV Substation, which would be connected to Alberhill Substation with approximately 15 miles of 220-kV line.
The connecting transmission line would be built within a new ROW along the I-15 freeway.
Circle City Substation would supply power to Corona, Pedley, Data Bank, Chase, Jefferson, Cleargen, and Delgen Substations and would also provide part of RPU’s load. Circle City and Alberhill Substations are shown on Figure 4.3-2. This alternative was provided for consideration by the ORA.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 25 does not meet the basic project objective to provide a second source of bulk power delivery to RPU. Alternative 25 would not supply any power to Riverside and would not increase capacity to meet existing electrical system demand and future load growth. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 72 Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 25 may meet technical and legal feasibility criteria; however, engineering design issues need to be resolved to determine a specific transmission route. Supplying RPU with power from the proposed Circle City Substation under Alternative 25 would require the same design considerations and have the same feasibility issues as those described for Alternative 24 above. To meet the basic project objective of a second reliable source of bulk energy, a 220-kV transmission line would need to be routed from Circle City Substation to the proposed Wildlife Substation in Riverside. It is estimated that an underground alignment would be approximately 9 to 10 miles long, depending on the engineered route.
The new 15-mile long ROW between the proposed Circle City and Alberhill Substations would most likely require a combined overhead and underground alignment, given land use and property ownership constraints (e.g., residential communities, Caltrans I-15 ROW). It is possible that most of the alignment could be underground in franchise ROW within Temescal Canyon Road, which parallels I-15.
The alternative does not meet regulatory feasibility criteria because it would not be feasible to obtain the necessary approvals from the CPUC and other agencies to install the needed power lines within the timeframe that the project is required.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 25 would avoid all significant impacts within the Revised Project alignment.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 25 more than doubles the length of the 220-kV transmission line needed to support the RPU (25 miles versus 10 miles). Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. Creates additional aesthetic impacts placing more transmission structures within residential communities over a longer alignment. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Creates additional criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions due to increased length of transmission line, particularly from underground duct bank construction.
• Cultural Resources. Creates additional impacts by increasing the length of the transmission line needed to meet the project objective, increasing the area of disturbance and thus increasing potential impacts on cultural resources. • Geology and Hydrology. Potentially creates additional topsoil loss and impacts within adjacent streams and floodplains.
• Land Use. Potentially creates additional land use impacts by requiring construction of a longer transmission line that may conflict with existing land uses, particularly in residential areas.
• Noise. Construction noise impacts would be greater due to the longer overhead transmission line in residential areas.
• Recreation. Potentially creates impacts on recreational resources where such resources occur along the significantly longer transmission alignment. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 73 • Traffic. Creates additional traffic impacts by requiring additional road closures to support the construction of an increased length of underground transmission line.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 25 does not meet any of the screening criteria. The alternative does not meet the basic project objectives, does not meet regulatory feasibility, and would result in greater environmental impacts than the Revised Project. Alternative 25 is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.22 Alternative 26: Modify the Circle City Project to Replace the Proposed Circle City, RTRP, Valley – Ivyglen, and Alberhill System Projects Description
Alternative 26 involves modifying the Circle City Project in the City of Corona to replace a number of SCE projects. The alternative would construct Circle City Substation as a 220/115/66- kV substation and interconnect it to Mira Loma Substation in the City of Ontario with approximately 11 miles of 220-kV lines using existing and some new ROW. Approximately 27 (17+10) miles of 115-kV lines along I-15 would be constructed to connect Ivyglen and Fogarty 115-kV Substations to the Circle City 220-kV Substation.
Circle City Substation would supply power to the Corona, Pedley, Data Bank, Chase, Jefferson, Cleargen, and Delgen Substations as well as provide part of the RPU’s load. Circle City Substation would also supply power to Ivyglen and Fogarty Substations. Circle City Substation is shown on Figure 4.3-2. This alternative was provided for consideration by the Office of Ratepayer Advocates.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 26 does not meet the basic project objectives. The alternative would not provide a second source of bulk power to RPU. Alternative 26 would not supply any power to Riverside and would not or increase capacity to meet existing electrical system demand and future load growth.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 26 may meet technical and legal feasibility criteria; however, engineering design issues need to be worked out to determine a specific transmission route. Supplying RPU with power from the proposed Circle City Substation under Alternative 26 would require the same design considerations and have the same feasibility issues as those described for Alternative 24 above. Alternative 26 as proposed does not meet the basic project objective of supplying a second source of bulk power to RPU. This alternative would only meet the basic project objective if it were modified to include a new 220-kV power line from Circle City Substation to Wildlife Substation in Riverside. It is estimated that an underground alignment would be approximately 9 to 10 miles long depending on the engineered route. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 74 The alternative does not meet regulatory feasibility criteria because it would not be feasible to obtain the necessary approvals from the CPUC and other agencies to install the needed power lines within the timeframe that the project is required.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 26 would avoid all significant impacts within the Revised Project alignment.
Environmental Disadvantages
Alternative 26 doubles the length of the 220-kV transmission line needed to support the RPU (20 miles versus 10 miles). Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. Creates additional aesthetic impacts placing more transmission structures within residential communities over a longer alignment. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Creates additional criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions due to increased length of transmission line, particularly from underground duct bank construction.
• Cultural Resources. Creates additional impacts by increasing the length of the transmission line needed to meet the project objective, increasing the area of disturbance and thus increasing potential impacts on cultural resources. • Geology and Hydrology. Potentially creates additional topsoil loss and impacts within adjacent streams and floodplains.
• Land Use. Potentially creates additional land use impacts by requiring construction of a longer transmission line that may conflict with existing land uses, particularly in residential areas.
• Noise. Construction noise impacts would be greater due to the longer overhead transmission line in residential areas.
• Recreation. Potentially creates impacts on recreational resources where such resources occur along the significantly longer transmission alignment. • Traffic. Creates additional traffic impacts by requiring additional road closures to support the construction of an increased length of underground transmission line.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 26 does not meet any of the screening criteria. The alternative does not meet the basic project objectives, does not meet regulatory feasibility, and would result in substantially greater environmental impacts. Alternative 26 is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.23 Alternative 27: Deliver 66-kV Power to Riverside from Multiple SCE Sources and Install Metering
Description
Under Alternative 27, SCE’s existing 66-kV power line network surrounding Riverside would be used to provide power to Riverside. SCE would build points of interconnection to Riverside and use metering to monitor power delivery from SCE to Riverside. This alternative would 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 75 likely involve expansions at multiple SCE substations, such as Pedley (66-kV), Chase (66-kV), Lake Mathews (66-kV), Cajalco (115-kV), and Maxwell (66-kV). Additionally, multiple new distribution, and some 60-kV power lines, would be needed to tie-in the SCE system to the RPU system in a reliable manner. This alternative essentially integrates RPU load with the SCE system at lower voltages as opposed to the current arrangement of an isolated RPU with single or double tie-in (e.g., the Proposed Project) to SCE.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 27 potentially meets the project objectives, assuming SCE provides additional 66-kV power lines and sources of power into Riverside.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Alternative 27 is potentially feasible. This alternative would likely involve expansions at multiple SCE stations, such as Pedley (66-kV), Chase (66-kV), Lake Mathews (66-kV), Cajalco (115-kV), and Maxwell (66-kV). Additionally, multiple new distribution, and some 60-kV power lines would be needed to tie-in the SCE system to the RPU system in a reliable manner. This alternative essentially integrates RPU load with the SCE system at lower voltages as opposed to the current arrangement of an isolated RPU with single or double tie-in (Proposed Project) to SCE.
The alternative would require new legal agreements between SCE and Riverside to change the way the utilities operate. The alternative may take many years to implement an agreement and define and construct the best points of connection.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 27 would avoid all significant impacts within the Revised Project alignment.
Environmental Disadvantages
Potential environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. Creates additional potential aesthetic impacts due to the need to construct multiple power lines in new areas to deliver adequate capacity. • Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Creates additional criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions due to the need to construct multiple new power lines. • Biological and Cultural Resources. Creates additional impacts due to the need to construct multiple power lines, increasing the area of disturbance and thus creating potential impacts on biological and cultural resources. • Geology/Hydrology. Creates additional impacts due to the need to construct multiple power lines.
• Land Use. Creates additional land use impacts due to the need to construct multiple power lines.
• Noise. Construction noise impacts would be created due to the need to construct multiple power lines.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 76 • Recreation. Creates potential impacts on recreational resources due to the need to construct multiple power lines that may conflict with existing recreational uses. • Traffic. Creates additional traffic impacts by requiring additional road closures due to the need to construct multiple power lines.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 27 would meet the basic project objectives but does not meet regulatory feasibility criteria due to the need to permit multiple power lines into Riverside and change the operating agreement between SCE and Riverside. Alternative 27 would result in greater environmental impacts than the Revised Project due to construction of multiple new power lines from SCE to RPU. Alternative 27 is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.24 Alternative 28: Lower Voltage Alternative A – Single Source Description
Alternative 28 would supply electricity from SCE’s Mira Loma Substation to Riverside as a single substation interconnection point. The initial design for this alternative includes installation of two additional 230/69-kV 280-MW transformers at Mira Loma Substation with a total capacity of 560 MW. A third 230/69-kV 280-MW transformer could be added in the future for a total capacity of 840 MW. Seven 69-kV circuits would be installed from Mira Loma Substation to Riverside. The Alternative 28 design includes three double-circuit 69-kV structures and one single-circuit 69-kV line for a total of seven 69-kV circuits. Seven 69-kV circuits are needed to have enough line capacity to meet project objectives using emergency condition ratings under single-contingency events. In the event of a single contingency event3 that would remove two 69-kV circuits from service, the remaining five in-service 69-kV circuits would operate at their emergency ratings for a total of 840 MW of capacity (five 69-kV circuits at 168 MW).
The Alternative 28 design consists of four routes (A1, A2, A3, and A4) from Mira Loma Substation to the Riverside service territory that include both overhead and underground lines, as shown on Figure 4.3-3. The alternative includes a total of 44 miles of new power line, as shown in Table 4.3-1. Routes A1, A2, and A3 would terminate at a new Riverside 69-kV switching station located adjacent to Riverside’s RERC facility. This location was selected for the RTRP Wildlife and Wilderness Substations and would be suitable for Alternative 28. Route A4 would terminate at Riverside’s Harvey Lynn Substation.
3 An example of a single contingency event would be an unplanned outage of two 69-kV circuits due to a single double-circuit structure failure either overhead or underground. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 77 Figure 4.3-3 Lower Voltage Alternative A
Source: (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 78 Table 4.3-1 Alternative 28 - New 66-kV Power Line Segments Alternative Segment Overhead (miles) Underground (miles) A1 7.8 2.7
A2 7.7 2.1
A3 9.1 1.0
A4 0.3 13.3
Total 24.9 19.1
Source: (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018) Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 28 would potentially meet the project objectives by providing a second source of power to Riverside and providing redundancy for the Vista Substation connection to support load growth through planning year 2038.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
The alternative interconnection at Mira Loma Substation was determined to be technically feasible only by extending the 230-kV switchrack at Mira Loma Substation to the east and relocating existing facilities.
The alternative involves installation of underground and overhead transmission lines within franchise ROW, Union Pacific Railroad ROW, and private parcels. Installation of the power line likely meets legal feasibility criteria; however, the alternative would be substantially more expensive to implement. The alternative does not meet regulatory feasibility criteria because it would not be feasible to obtain the necessary approvals from the CPUC and other agencies to install the needed power lines within the timeframe that the project is required.
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
The alternative would reduce significant visual, noise, and traffic impacts in the Revised Project area by using lower voltage and lower profile 69-kV overhead power lines in the Revised Project alignment instead of the Revised Project’s 230-kV transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Potential environmental disadvantages would result from installation of power lines in three new corridors in addition to the power line in the Revised Project area. These environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. Alternative 28 would require construction of 18 miles of new overhead power lines in new corridors in addition to installation of overhead power line in the Revised Project corridor. The additional overhead lines and structures would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the Revised Project. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 79 • Biological and Cultural Resources. Alternative 28 would require approximately 34 miles more new power line construction than the Revised Project. The additional length of power line would result in greater impacts on habitat for special-status species and greater potential impacts on significant cultural resources.
• Traffic. The additional segments of underground power line within roadways and longer stretch of overhead power line construction adjacent to roadways would have greater traffic impacts than the Revised Project.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. The substantially longer power line (additional 34 miles) is expected to require increased vehicle activity and earth disturbance, resulting in potentially greater criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Noise. The alternative would result in greater noise impacts due to the substantially longer segment of new power line and construction adjacent to three schools.
• Geology and Hydrology. The additional length of new power lines would result in greater ground disturbance and potential for sedimentation and topsoil loss.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 28 would meet the basic project objectives. The alternative is potentially feasible but would conflict with substation planning criteria, would be more expensive, and would require more time to implement than the Revised Project. The alternative would result in greater environmental impacts due to the additional 34 miles of new power line required to support the alternative. Alternative 28 is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.25 Alternative 29: Lower Voltage Alternative B – Three Sources Description
Alternative 29 would modify the design for a proposed SCE distribution substation (Circle City) to add a 230-kV interconnection and 230/69-kV transformer. A double-circuit 69-kV power line would be installed between Circle City Substation and Freeman Substation. Alternative 29 would also require new double-circuit 69-kV power lines to interconnect between Mira Loma Substation and Harvey Lynn Substation, and Mountain View Substation and Etiwanda Substation. A single circuit would be installed between Kaiser Substation and Harvey Lynn Substation. Alternative 29 would add seven 69-kV circuits to Riverside.
Alternative 29 would also require the construction of a new 230-kV transmission line feed to the proposed Circle City Substation similar to the 230-kV line included in the Revised Project. The 230-kV feed necessary for Alternative 29 is not included in the currently proposed plan for Circle City Substation. The 230-kV interconnection to Circle City Substation would be a minimum of 2 miles longer than the 230-kV line included in the Revised Project. An alignment and detailed design for the 230-kV interconnection to Circle City Substation has not been developed for this ASR. The discussion of potential environmental impacts from Alternative 29 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 80 includes typical impacts to be expected from installation of a 230-kV transmission line and level of magnitude of those impacts for comparison to the Revised Project.
The miles of new 66-kV and 230-kV circuits required for Alternative 29 are summarized in Table 4.3-2. The locations of the Alternative 29 additional power line segments are shown on Figure 4.3-4.. Alternative 29 would require approximately 30 miles of new 66-kV power line and more than 11 miles of new 230-kV transmission line.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objectives
Alternative 29 would potentially meet the project objectives by providing a second source of 230-kV power from Circle City to Riverside and providing redundancy for the Vista Substation connection to support current and project load. However, Alternative 29 presents significant reliability constraints by reducing the number of source lines to some substations and the creation of radial load pockets that cannot be paralleled. Alternative 29 would supply sufficient power to meet existing and project load growth.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
The alternative does not meet technical feasibility criteria. Alternative 29 would require upgrading the proposed Circle City Substation from a distribution substation to a 230-kV substation. The alternative would also require installation of 230/69-kV transformers. Sufficient space does not exist within the planned footprint of Circle City Substation to accommodate the required upgrades for a 230-kV transmission line. The alternative would also require modifications to Mira Loma and Etiwanda Substations, and the alternative would present significant logistical constraints due to limited space at both substations. These constraints are substantial enough that the modifications may not be technically feasible.
The alternative would likely meet legal feasibility for installation of the new 230-kV and 66-kV circuits but would require new ROW and easements. The alternative would not meet regulatory feasibility criteria because it would require CPUC approval to modify and upgrade a substation that has not yet been approved by the CPUC. Due to the long-term planning process Table 4.3-2 Alternative 29 – New Power Linea and Transmission Line Segments Segment Line Voltage Overhead (miles) Underground (miles) B1 66-kV 4.5 5.8
B2 66-kV 8.2 4.7
B3 66-kV -- 7.1
Subtotal New 66-kV Circuits 12.7 17.6
Circle City Substation 230-kV >11 miles
Source: (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 81 Figure 4.3-4 Lower Voltage Alternative B
Source:
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 82 Figure 4.3-4 Lower Voltage Alternative B
Source: (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 83 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 84 for substations, the upgrade of the Circle City Substation is likely infeasible within the timeframe that the project is required. While not expressly considered in this ASR, this alternative would exceed financial feasibility criteria because it would cost more than $1 billion (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018).
Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
The alternative would reduce significant visual, noise, and traffic impacts in the Revised Project area by using lower voltage and lower profile 66-kV overhead power lines in the Revised Project alignment instead of the Revised Project’s 230-kV transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Potential environmental disadvantages would result from installation of a longer 230-kV transmission line than the Revised Project, and installation of power lines in two new corridors in addition to the power line in the Revised Project area. These environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. Alternative 29 would require 12.7 miles of new overhead power lines and more than 11 miles of new transmission lines in new corridors in addition to installation of overhead power line in the Revised Project corridor. The additional overhead lines and structures would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the Revised Project.
• Biological and Cultural Resources. Alternative 29 would require approximately 32 miles of new power line and transmission line in new areas in addition to the power line segment in the Revised Project area. The additional length of power line would result in greater impacts on habitat for special-status species and greater potential impacts on significant cultural resources. • Traffic. The additional segments of underground power line within roadways and longer stretch of overhead power line construction adjacent to roadways would have greater traffic impacts than the Revised Project.
• Hazards. The longer 230-kV transmission line to Circle City Substation would have a greater potential for conflicts with air traffic hazards and would have a greater potential to result in shock hazards.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. The substantially longer power and transmission lines (additional 32 miles) would require increased vehicle activity and earth disturbance, resulting in greater criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions.
• Noise. The alternative would result in greater noise impacts due to the substantially longer segment of new power line and construction adjacent to more sensitive receptors, including schools.
• Geology and Hydrology. The additional length of new power lines would result in greater ground disturbance and potential for sedimentation and topsoil loss. 4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 85 • Recreation. The additional power and transmission lines would result in greater potential conflicts with recreational uses and impacts to recreational areas.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 29 potentially meets project objectives but does not meet technical or regulatory feasibility criteria and would be financially infeasible. The alternative would result in greater impacts than the Revised Project and would not meet environmental screening criteria due to the installation of a longer 230-kV transmission line and approximately 30 miles of new power lines. Alternative 29 is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR.
4.3.26 Alternative 30: Lower Voltage Alternative C – Single Source with Solar PV and Battery Energy Storage
Description
Alternative 30 would provide electrical power from a single 230/69-kV substation (Mira Loma) source with two double-circuit 69-kV lines to Riverside in the same locations as routes A1 and A2 in Alternative 28, above. The locations of these two circuits are shown on Figure 4.3-5.
Alternative 30 would install a total of 20.3 miles of new power lines. The total firm delivery capacity from SCE to Riverside under Alternative C would be 500 MW. Large-scale utility solar generation, including battery storage, would provide up to 60 MW of non-firm capacity. This would bring the total capacity of Alternative C to 560 MW, but the additional 60 MW would provide substantially less capacity than its rated capability for serving load and for peak shaving purposes.
A detailed description of the necessary supplemental internal generation (large-scale utility solar and battery energy storage) associated with this alternative is not included because the siting for such a large-scale project is likely infeasible in the Riverside area.
Consideration of CEQA Criteria
Project Objective
Alternative 30 would potentially meet project objectives by providing a second source of power to Riverside and providing increased capacity to support current and projected load growth.
Technical, Legal, and Regulatory Feasibility
Installation of the two double-circuit power lines is likely technically feasible. It is also likely technically feasible to construct 60 MW of solar PV and battery storage, but this installation would require substantial time for planning and engineering, which would not be feasible within the time constraints of the project. The solar PV and battery storage would likely need to be located outside of Riverside territory due to the space required for 60 MW of solar PV generation and limitations on available land in the City of Riverside. The import of solar PV power would still require additional electrical transmission to get the power into Riverside. The alternative therefore does not meet regulatory feasibility. Alternative 30 would also result in greater expense than the Revised Project.
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 86 Figure 4.3-5 Lower Voltage Alternative C
Source: (City of Riverside and Southern California Edison, 2018)
4 ALTERNATIVES DESCRIPTIONS AND DETERMINATIONS
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 87 Environmental Feasibility
Environmental Advantages
Alternative 30 would reduce significant visual, noise, and traffic impacts in the Revised Project area by using lower voltage and lower profile 69-kV overhead power lines in the Revised Project alignment instead of the Revised Project’s 230-kV transmission lines.
Environmental Disadvantages
Potential environmental disadvantages would result from installation of power lines in new corridors in addition to the power line in the Revised Project area. These environmental disadvantages include:
• Aesthetics. Alternative 30 would require construction of more than 10 miles of new overhead power lines in a new corridor in addition to installation of the overhead power line in the Revised Project corridor. The additional overhead line and structures would result in greater aesthetic impacts than the Revised Project. • Biological and Cultural Resources. Alternative 30 would require approximately 10 more miles of new power line construction than the Revised Project. The solar PV facility and battery energy storage would result in greater land disturbance.
The additional length of power line and area required for the solar PV facility and battery energy storage system would result in greater impact on habitat for special- status species and greater potential impacts on significant cultural resources. • Traffic. The additional segments of underground power line within roadways and longer stretch of overhead power line construction adjacent to roadways would have greater traffic impacts than the Revised Project.
• Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. The longer power line and additional construction for the solar PV facility and battery energy storage system is expected to require increased vehicle activity and earth disturbance, resulting in potentially greater criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions. • Noise. The alternative would result in greater noise impacts due to the substantially longer segment of new power line and construction adjacent to schools.
• Geology and Hydrology. The additional length of new power lines would result in greater ground disturbance and potential for sedimentation and topsoil loss.
Conclusion
ELIMINATED. Alternative 30 potentially meets project objectives. Alternative 30 does not meet regulatory feasibility criteria because it would require substantial time to permit the additional power line segments and solar PV and battery energy storage system. The alternative would also require transformer capacity in excess of planning criteria for Mira Loma Substation.
Alternative 30 would not meet environmental screening criteria due to greater environmental impacts from the increased length of required power lines and need for a solar PV and battery energy storage system. Alternative 30 is eliminated from consideration in the Subsequent EIR. 5 REFERENCES
Riverside Transmission Reliability Project Alternatives Screening Report ● August April 2018 88 5 REFERENCES
AECOM. (2016, November). Noise Technical Report. Riverside Transmission Reliability Project (RTRP). Riverside, California.
Caltrans. (2013). Encroachement Permits Manual. Exceptions to Policy. Retrieved from http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ep/docs/Chapter_3.pdf
Citizens of Goleta Valley vs. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, 197 (California Court of Appeals January 22, 1988).
City of Riverside and Southern California Edison. (2018). Riverside Transmission Reliability Project (A.15-04-013) Lower Voltage and Other Design Alternatives Report. RPU and SCE.
CPA, CEC, and CPUC. (2003, May 8). Energy Action Plan. Retrieved April 25, 2016, from California Energy Commission: http://www.energy.ca.gov/energy_action_plan/2003-05- 08_ACTION_PLAN.PDF
CPUC. (2012, November 8). Decision Approving 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budgets.
Retrieved April 25, 2016, from California Public Utilities Commission:
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M034/K299/34299795.PDF Riverside Public Utilities. (2012, October 23). Final Environmental Impact Report Riverside Transmission Reliability Project SCH #2007011113.