4/28/2022
1 RiversideCA.gov
1 RiversideCA.gov
RIVERSIDE TRANSMISSION AND
RELIABILITY PROJECT (RTRP)
City Council
May 10, 2022
Public Utilities Department
RiversideCA.gov
2 1
2 4/28/2022
2 RiversideCA.gov
3 SCE’s Portion - Elements of Approved Alternative
Approximately
5.9 miles of new
overhead 230-kV
transmission line
Approximately 4.1
miles of new
underground
230-kV
transmission line
New 230-kV
Wildlife
Substation
Modifications of
existing overhead
distribution lines
Modifications
at existing
substations
Telecommunication
facilities between the
existing Mira Loma
and Vista Substations,
and the proposed
Wildlife Substation
RiversideCA.gov
4 Increase electricity capacity and improve electricity reliability in the City of Riverside
1. City experienced complete blackout in 2007
2. RTRP provides a second connection to the State’s
grid
3. California Independent System Operator (CAISO)
ordered RTRP be built in 2009 for the benefit of
Riverside
WHY WAS RTRP PLANNED
3 4
4/28/2022
3 RiversideCA.gov
5 2005
SCE conducts system
and facilities studies
January 2006
Riverside Public Utilities
Board approves RTRP
February 2013
Riverside City Council
certifies RTRP EIR
(2013 RTRP EIR)
April 2015
SCE submits RTRP
CPCN application
to CPUC
December 2004
Riverside submits
application to SCE for a
second interconnection
point to the CAISO grid
June 2006
CAISO Board of Governors
approves RTRP and directs
SCE to complete RTRP
September 2016
SCE revises RTRP CPCN
application to underground
a portion of the transmission
line (the “Hybrid Project”)
January 2018
Joint RTRP Lower Voltage
and Other Design
Alternatives Report filed
with the CPUC
March 2020
CPUC issues CPCN for
RTRP
October 2007
Loss of transmission
from Vista causes
Citywide blackout
RTRP HISTORY
October 2018
CPUC issues the Final
Subsequent EIR (FSEIR)
2006 - 2013
Project Scoping,
Design and
Community Outreach
for 2013 RTRP EIR
RiversideCA.gov
6 1. What was the extent of community outreach and communication about the project?
2. Why was Chino Hills and Jurupa Valley granted undergrounding for portions of projects through their communities and not Riverside?
3. What other project alternatives were considered?
4. What is the process to consider a reques t to modify the approved project at the CPUC including underground the remainder of the project through the City of Riverside?
5. Is there consideration by SCE to underground, change or remove existing low voltage lines through Bradford Street?
6. Are there health impacts of the approv ed electric transmission power lines?
7. How were impacts on environment and disadvantage communities considered?
8. What are the wildfire risks from the project and safety measures planned? APRIL 5, 2022 CITY COUNCIL QUESTIONS
5 6
4/28/2022
4 RiversideCA.gov
7 2006 through 2013: Project scoping, project design and EIR by RPU and Riverside.
1. Project newsletters mailed to 20,000 to 30,000 recipients
2. Display advertisements in multiple news publications in English and Spanish language
3. Press releases
4. Project website in English and Spanish
5. Telephone hotline
6. Public Open Houses loca ted near the project area
7. Coordination with multiple ag encies, cities, and organizations
8. Coordination with American Indi an Tribes including project walks
9. Extended public review of all project and environmental projects
1. COMMUNITY OUTREACH
RiversideCA.gov
8 1. 2013 through 2018 : SCE and RPU Prepared a Lower Voltage and Alternatives Study and the CPUC prepared the Subsequent EIR a. Informational workshops
b. Mailed notifications and project website were in English and Spanish
2. 2015 through 2020: The CPUC conducted and completed their review of the SCE application for the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) through a public process
3. Ongoing: RPU and the City have continued to meet with community members, held a workshop on December 12, 2020, and conducted tours of the RTRP route
1. COMMUNITY OUTREACH (CONT.)
7 8
4/28/2022
5 RiversideCA.gov
9 1. CPUC ordered undergrounding for portions of SCE Transmission Projects a. Chino Hills – Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) b. Jurupa Valley – RTRP
2. Key points
a. Both cities filed timely challenges during the CPCN processes b. Both cities bore significant direct impacts without direct benefit c. Both cities justified their challenges with thorough analysis and documentation of impacts to their communities
3. CPUC Findings
a. The need for the overall project outweighed the unavoidable impacts on aesthetics and other environmental factors
b. Undergrounding specific segments of the project was granted to reduce aesthetic (visual) impacts and avoid impacts to agricultural and forest resources in Jurupa Valley
2. UNDERGROUNDING IN CHINO HILLS AND JURUPA VALLEY
RiversideCA.gov
10 RTRP Lower Voltage and Other Design Alternatives Study (Completed in 2018)
1. Undergrounding
2. Changes in the route alignments in Jurupa Valley and Riverside
3. Battery storage solutions
4. Expansion of the existing SCE Vista Substation
5. Expansion of existing Riverside peaker plants
6. Distributed energy generation
7. Utility scaled solar
8. Energy efficiency/conservation programs
9. Demand response programs
10. Lower voltage transmission line options
3. 30 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES REVIEWED BY CPUC
9 10
4/28/2022
6 RiversideCA.gov
11 1. Four alternatives in Jurupa Valley selected for detailed review in the Subsequent EIR
a. Alternative 1 deemed as the environmentally superior alternative b. Included undergrounding portions in Jurupa Valley
2. Even though alternatives for the section of the project in Riverside were considered in the Lower Voltage report, no project modifications in Riverside were proposed by the CPUC
3. ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR CPUC EIR REVIEW
RiversideCA.gov
12 1.Partial and full
undergrounding
analyzed
2.Determined to have
greater environmental
impacts than the
overhead transmission
line construction and
operation
3.CPUC concurred with
these findings in 2018
3. UNDERGROUNDING ALTERNATIVE
1. Reduce visual impacts, including in open-space
2. Reduce land use and community impacts
3. Reduce the Rights-of-Way width requirements
4. Reduce wildfire risk
Advantages
1. Increase land disturbances during construction
2. Poor accessibility to maintain facilities after construction
3. Increased use of hazardous materials in the cooling systems required
4. Increased air quality and biologic al impacts during construction
5. Increased potential to damage other existing utilities during operations and maintenance
6. Increase time required to repair equipment resulting in longer outages to customers
7. Higher costs associated with installation and repair of the transmission lines
Disadvantages
11 12
4/28/2022
7 RiversideCA.gov
13 1. CPUC Rule 16.4, Petition
for Modification (PFM),
governs the rules and
requirements for changes
to an issued decision
2. A PFM can be filed by
anyone affected by the
decision
3. The petitioner has the
responsibility to provide
the information in
justification for the
request
4. PROCESS AND FEASIBILITY OF CHANGES
Required Contents for a Petition for Modification (PFM) a. Must concisely state the justification for the requested relief b. Must propose specific wording to carry out all requested modifications to the decision
c. Support factual allegations to specific citations in the record of the proceedings d. Support allegations of new or changed facts by appropriate declaration or affidavit
e. Must be filed within one year of the effective date of the decision f. If PFM filed after one year, PFM must explain why petition could not have been presented within one year of the effective date of the decision g. PFM must be filed and served on all parties to the proceeding, and others as determined by the Administrative Law Judge if filed after one year h. Petitioner of the PFM that was not original party to the proceeding must state specifically how the petitioner is affected by the decision and why petitioner did not participate in the earlier proceeding
i. Parties to the proceeding may take a position in support or opposition to the PFM j. Filing a PFM does not stay or excuse compliance with the approved order of the decision proposed to be modified
k. The decision remains in effect until a decision modifying the decision is made RiversideCA.gov
14 1. To pursue a PFM, City Council would need to determine new findings of omitted or erroneous information, or changed conditions exist which render the certified environmental analysis incomplete for the RTRP and support it to be modified.
2. An adequate, proper, and thorough evaluation of the undergrounding and/or alternate options for RTRP are paramount to support future City Council consideration of a PFM.
3. Procurement process for selection of an independent consultant(s) could take 90 days or longer to complete
4. Topical areas for which independent consultants may be necessary in order to submit an effective Petition for Modification may include identification and documentation of omitted or erroneous information or changed conditions; undergrounding the currently above-grou nd portions; environmental impacts; and others.
5. Timeline, scope and price for each type of each consulting service needed would be determined through the procurement process.
4. PROCESS AND FEASIBILITY OF CHANGES
13 14
4/28/2022
8 RiversideCA.gov
15 As of the publishing of this report, SCE continues to review the request by Riverside Public Utilities Department to analyze the possibility to underground, relocate or remove the existing SCE low voltage sub transmission line on Bradford Street or the entire line which originates on the west end of the Hidden Valley Wildlife Area and extends east through Bradford Street to Jurupa Avenue and north through a corridor between Peyton Rd. and Wilderness Rd.
5. PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
RiversideCA.gov
16 1. Possible exposure to
Electromagnetic Fields (EMF)
from high voltage transmission
lines evaluated or addressed in
both environmental reviews
a. CPUC does not consider EMFs in
CEQA review
2. CPUC General Order 131 D,
Section X.A places requirements
on all facilities over 50 kV
3. RTRP as approved complies with
the General Order
6. EIR REVIEW OF HEALTH IMPACTS
1. Double-circuit construction that reduces
spacing between circuits compared to
single-circuit construction;
2. Conductors and cables arranged in a
manner designed to reduce magnetic
fields;
3. Lowest conductor ground clearance
raised from SCE design standard by 10
feet near residential,
commercial/industrial or recreational
areas where feasible
4. New substation electrical e quipment
placed away from the substation property
lines closest to populated areas
Design Features of RTRP to Reduce EMF
15 16
4/28/2022
9 RiversideCA.gov
17 1. Jurupa Valley challenged the feasibility of Alternative 1 in the SEIR on the basis of environmental and social justice
2. CPUC determined that the project and Alternative 1 were consistent with the CPUC’s Environmental and Social Justice Plan and its goals as well as State law a. SCE and Riverside in the 2018 Joint Alternatives re port, EIR and SEIR diligently analyzed potential line route alternatives [including undergrounding options] b. “There is no evidence that the revised project or its overhead facilities placement are unfairly designed to be focused on Jurupa Valley’s or any other Disadvantaged Community.” (D. 20-03- 001, page 20)
c. Process by Riverside and CPUC was open and inclusive to all potentially impacted communities d. Would expand Riverside’s access to clean renewable energy and decrease reliance on internal gas-fired generation
e. Unavoidable visual impacts were outweighed by the need for the project f. Consistently confirmed that the selected route is likely to pose fewer environmental impacts than dozens of other routing concepts
7. ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL JUSTICE
RiversideCA.gov
18 1. Both the EIR and SEIR evaluated wildfire risks
2. CPUC evaluated the analysis of the wildfire risks when making its decision in 2020
3. Fire related impacts from the RTRP were determined
in both documents to be less than significant
4. SCE will comply with its Wildfire Mitigation Plan
8. WILDFIRE RISKS
17 18
4/28/2022
10 RiversideCA.gov
19 1. SCE’s maximum approved project cost for the RTRP is $521 million
2. The Federal Energy Commission approved the
project costs as part of the Statewide Transmission
Access Charge (TAC)
3. Riverside’s share of the TAC is 1.759%
4. Estimated maximum cost to Riverside ratepayers is
$9.2 million
9. TRANSMISSION ACCESS CHARGE
RiversideCA.gov
20 1. Undergrounding costs for lines in Chino Hills and Jurupa Valley ranged from $51.8 M to $98.3 M per circuit mile
2. Gross estimate for undergrounding in Riverside
a. $75 M per circuit mile x 5 miles = $375 M
b. Increases the cost of the RTRP by 72%
3. If all cost is responsibility of Riverside assuming a 30-year financing rate of 4%
a. Annual costs added to electric budget for 30 years = $21.5 M b. Reliability Charge increase = $16.25 per month per customer (assuming costs on a straight-line basis)
c. Represents a 100-150% increase in the reliability charge d. Electric rates would also need to be adjusted to establish the revenue capacity to fund the additional debt and other
growing capital needs of the utility
4. If City receives grants or other funding, it could reduce the potential cost of the project to Riverside
9. ILLUSTRATIVE COST OF UNDERGROUNDING
Ungrounding
Total Cost
$375 million
Increase
Reliability Charge
~$16.25 / month
19 20
4/28/2022
11 RiversideCA.gov
21 1. The City Council may consider taking no action and continue with the project as designed and approved.
-or-
2. The City Council may direct staff to research the legal, financial, and operational feasibility for project modification.
This will require:
a. Hiring additional independent consultants will be necessary to fully explore, assess, and determine options moving forward. (i.e. process, price, timeline). b. This consideration could take place at a future meeting in concurrence with City purchasing policies.
10. NEXT STEPS
RiversideCA.gov
22 Strategic Priority No. 6 - Infrastructure, Mobility & Connectivity Goal 6.2. - Maintain, protect and improve assets and
infrastructure withing the City’s built environment to ensure and enhance reliability, resiliency, sustainability and facilitate connectivity
Cross-Cutting Threads
STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT
21 22
4/28/2022
12 RiversideCA.gov
23 That the City Council:
1. Receive a report on the responses to questions and
comments at the April 5, 2022 City Council meeting
regarding RTRP.
2. Consider a City Council action for City of Riverside to conduct due diligence activities for purpose of determining the legal, financial and operational feasibility to consider potential project modifications to Southern California
Edison’s portion of the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project.
RECOMMENDATIONS
23