[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 210 (Thursday, October 30, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61796-61799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-27234]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[FE Docket Nos. PP-234 and PP-235]


Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and 
To Conduct Public Scoping Meetings and Notice of Floodplain and 
Wetlands Involvement; Baja California Power, Inc., and Sempra Energy 
Resources

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) and to conduct public scoping meetings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Baja California Power, Inc. (BCP) and Sempra Energy Resources 
(SER) were issued Presidential permits by DOE to separately construct 
double-circuit 230,000-volt (230-kV) electric transmission lines across 
the U.S. border with Mexico. In addition, right-of-way grants were 
issued to each company by the Department of the Interior's Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM) for construction of the domestic portion of both 
transmission lines on Federal land. The transmission lines originate at 
new powerplants in Mexico, pass west of Calexico, California, and 
terminate at San Diego Gas & Electric Company's (SDG&E's) Imperial 
Valley Substation near El Centro, California. Under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), DOE and its cooperating agency 
in that proceeding, BLM, prepared an environmental assessment (EA) and 
findings of no significant impact (FONSIs) prior to issuance of the 
Presidential permits and right-of-way grants. On May 2, 2003, the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of California 
held that the EA and the FONSI did not comply with NEPA, and, on July 
8, 2003, the court sent the matter back to the respective agencies for 
additional NEPA review.
    The purpose of this notice of intent is to inform the public that 
DOE will now prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing 
BCP's and SER's projects and conduct two public scoping meetings. 
Although the two transmission lines have been constructed and are in 
service, DOE will, in accordance with the court's July 2003 order, 
conduct this NEPA review as if the transmission lines did not exist. 
BLM will be a cooperating agency.
    DOE and BLM invite public participation in the scoping process and 
solicit public comments for consideration in establishing the scope and 
content of the EIS. Because the projects involve action in a 
floodplain, the EIS will include a floodplain assessment and floodplain 
statement of findings in accordance with DOE regulations for compliance 
with floodplain and wetlands environmental review (10 CFR part 1022).

DATES: DOE and BLM invite interested agencies, organizations, and 
members of the public to submit comments or suggestions to assist in 
identifying significant environmental issues and in determining the 
appropriate scope of the EIS. The public scoping period starts with the 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue 
until December 1, 2003. Written and oral comments will be given equal 
weight, and DOE will consider all comments received or postmarked by 
December 1, 2003, in defining the scope of this EIS. Comments received 
or postmarked after that date will be considered to the extent 
practicable.
    Public scoping meetings will be held on November 20, 2003, in El 
Centro, California, from 12 p.m. until 3 p.m. and in Calexico, 
California, from 5 p.m. until 8 p.m.
    Requests to speak at a public scoping meeting(s) should be received 
by Mrs. Ellen Russell at the address indicated below on or before 
November 13, 2003. Requests to speak may also be made at the time of 
registration for the scoping meeting(s). However, persons who submitted 
advance requests to speak will be given priority if time should be 
limited during the meeting.

ADDRESSES: One copy of written comments or suggestions on the scope of 
the EIS and requests to speak at the scoping meeting(s) should be 
addressed to: Mrs. Ellen Russell, Office of Fossil Energy (FE-27), U.S. 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0350, Phone 202-586-9624, facsimile: 202-287-5736, or electronic 
mail at [email protected].
    The scoping meetings will be held at the City Hall of El Centro, 
located at 1275 W. Main Street, and the City of Calexico City Hall, 
located at 608 Heber Street.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the proposed 
projects or to receive a copy of the Draft EIS when it is issued, 
contact Mrs. Russell at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of 
this notice or:
Lynda Kastoll, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the 
Interior, 1661 South Fourth Street, El Centro, CA 92243, Phone: 760-
337-4421, facsimile: 760-337-4490, or electronic mail at 
[email protected].

    For general information on the DOE NEPA review process, contact: 
Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance (EH-
42), U.S. Department of Energy, 1000

[[Page 61797]]

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0119, Phone: 202-586-
4600 or leave a message at 800-472-2756; facsimile: 202-586-7031.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background on Transmission Projects

    Executive Order 10485, as amended by Executive Order 12038, 
requires that a Presidential permit be issued by DOE before electric 
transmission facilities may be constructed, operated, maintained, or 
connected at the U.S. international border. The Executive Order 
provides that a Presidential permit may be issued after a finding that 
the proposed project is consistent with the public interest. In 
determining consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the 
impacts of the project on the reliability of the U.S. electric power 
system and on the environment in the United States. The regulations 
implementing the Executive Order have been codified at 10 CFR 205.320-
205.329.
    On February 27, 2001, BCP, a special purpose company and wholly-
owned subsidiary of InterGen Aztec Energy V, B.V., and an indirect 
subsidiary of InterGen N.V., a Dutch limited liability company, filed 
an application with the Office of Fossil Energy (FE) of DOE for a 
Presidential permit. BCP proposed to construct a double-circuit 230-kV 
transmission line across the U.S.-Mexico international border. In a 
separate but similar proceeding, SER applied to DOE for a Presidential 
permit on March 7, 2001. SER, a non-regulated generating company, also 
proposed to construct a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line across 
the U.S.-Mexico international border.
    In each of these projects, the applicants proposed to use the 
international transmission lines to connect separate powerplants 
located in Mexico to the SDG&E Imperial Valley Substation. Within the 
United States, both transmission lines were proposed to be constructed 
on BLM land parallel to an existing SDG&E 230-kV transmission line 
(IV--La Rosita line) connecting the Imperial Valley Substation with 
Mexico's La Rosita Substation. BCP and SER both also applied to BLM for 
right-of-way grants in order to be able to construct their respective 
projects on this Federal land.
    BCP Powerplant and Transmission Line Project. In its application, 
BCP proposed to construct and operate a double-circuit 230-kV 
transmission line that would originate at the La Rosita Power Complex 
(LRPC), located 10 miles west of Mexicali, Mexico, and extend north for 
approximately 3 miles where it would cross the Mexico-U.S. border west 
of Calexico, California. From the border, the line would extend 
approximately 6 miles on Federal land managed by BLM and terminate at 
the SDG&E Imperial Valley Substation. The LRPC contains four generating 
units that total 1060 megawatts (MW) of generating capacity. Two 250-MW 
generating units were developed at the request of the Mexican national 
electric utility, Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE), and the 
electrical output of those two units is designated for use within 
Mexico. The electrical output (560 MW) of the two remaining generating 
units is designated for export to the United States. The electrical 
output (250 MW) of one of these generating units, owned by Energia 
Azteca X, S. de R.L. de C.V., could be exported to the U.S. over either 
the pre-existing IV--La Rosita line or the new BCP 230-kV line that is 
the subject of this EIS. The electrical output (310 MW) of the other 
unit designated for export to the U.S., owned by Energia de Baja 
California, could only be exported to the U.S. over the proposed BCP 
230-kV line. The BCP application, including associated maps and 
drawings, can be downloaded in its entirety from the FE Web site 
(http://www.fe.doe.gov; choose ``Electricity Regulation,'' then 
``Pending Proceedings'').
    SER Powerplant and Transmission Line Project. In its application, 
SER proposed to construct a double-circuit 230-kV transmission line 
that would originate at a 500-MW electric powerplant being developed by 
Termoelectrica de Mexicali (TDM) near Mexicali, Mexico, and extend 
north approximately 3 miles to the Mexico-U.S. border. From the border, 
the transmission line would extend approximately 6 miles on Federal 
land managed by the BLM and terminate at the SDG&E Imperial Valley 
Substation. The SER application, including associated maps and 
drawings, also can be downloaded in its entirety from the FE Web site 
given above.

Background on Prior NEPA Review

    DOE and BLM originally determined the appropriate level of NEPA 
environmental review for both the BCP and SER proceedings to be an 
environmental assessment (EA). DOE and BLM prepared a single EA that 
assessed the potential environmental impacts that would accrue in the 
United States from the two transmission lines and from the operation of 
the two related Mexican powerplants. In December 2001, DOE and BLM 
issued the ``Environmental Assessment for Presidential Permit 
Applications for Baja California Power, Inc. and Sempra Energy 
Resources'' (DOE/EA-1391). DOE relied on this EA to issue, on December 
5, 2001, a FONSI and Presidential permits to both BCP and SER 
authorizing each to construct, operate, maintain, and connect electric 
transmission facilities crossing the international border between the 
United States and Mexico. BLM issued two FONSIs based upon the EA for 
the projects on December 19, 2001, and two Decision Records to grant 
the rights-of-way on December 20, 2001. The text of the EA and the DOE 
FONSI based upon it may also be found on the FE Web site listed above.
    After the filing of the two Presidential permit applications, the 
maximum capacity of the TDM powerplant was increased from 500 MW to 600 
MW. The analysis contained in the EA reflected this higher capacity. 
Subsequent to the issuance of the FONSIs, the two Presidential permits, 
and the two right-of-way grants, the two 230-kV transmission lines were 
placed into operation. Also, since issuance of the FONSIs, the 
developers of the LRPC powerplant have committed to install selective 
catalytic reduction technology on the remaining two units of the 
facility, the portion designated to generate power for Mexico. The 
equipment, which has been already ordered, is scheduled to be installed 
by the first quarter of 2006.
    BCP completed construction of its transmission lines in September 
2002 and placed the Mexican powerplants in commercial operation to 
export electricity to California on July 25, 2003. SER completed 
construction of its transmission lines in February 2003 and placed the 
Mexican powerplant in commercial operation to export electricity to 
California in July 2003.
    On March 19, 2002, the Border Power Plant Working Group (Border 
Power) sued the DOE and BLM in the United States District Court for the 
Southern District of California (Case No. 02-CV-513-IEG (POR)) alleging 
violations of NEPA and the Administrative Procedure Act. Border Power 
sought to have the EA, DOE FONSI, Presidential permits, and right-of-
way grants determined to be illegal and requested an injunction 
forbidding the use of the transmission lines to import electricity from 
the powerplants into California. After briefing and argument, the court 
issued two Orders. On May 2, 2003, the court held that the EA and the 
FONSI did not comply with NEPA. On July 8, 2003, the court sent the 
matter back to DOE and BLM for additional NEPA review consistent with 
the May and July

[[Page 61798]]

Orders. The court declined to enjoin operation of the transmission 
lines immediately, but instead deferred the setting aside of the 
Presidential permits and the FONSI until July 1, 2004, or until such 
time as superseding NEPA documents and permits are issued, whichever is 
earlier. (Material related to the Federal suit and the court's orders 
can be found on the FE Web site given above.)
    In light of the concerns raised by the court in its decisions, and 
to increase opportunities for public and stakeholder participation in 
the environmental review of this proposal, DOE and BLM have decided to 
prepare an EIS.

Agency Purpose and Need, Proposed Action, and Alternatives

    An agency's analysis of the proposed action and alternatives to 
that proposal is said to be the heart of an EIS. The analysis is 
intended to present the environmental impacts of the proposal in the 
United States and the alternatives in comparative form, thereby 
sharpening and defining the issues and providing a clear basis for 
choice by the decision maker and the public. The agency's alternatives 
should reflect the range of reasonable decisions consistent with the 
purpose and need for action. DOE and BLM also desire to comply with the 
court's orders. In its July 8, 2003, Order remanding this matter back 
to the respective agencies for additional NEPA review, the court 
stated:

    Finally, the court PROHIBITS the federal defendants from 
considering the interim operation of the transmission lines, the 
completion of the construction, or this Court's equitable analysis 
of the environmental impacts of the proposed actions as part of the 
NEPA analysis and determination process on remand. Cf. Northern 
Cheyenne Tribe v. Hodel, 851 F.2d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 1988). 
(Emphasis in original.)

    DOE and BLM have interpreted this language to require that they are 
to conduct their NEPA review from a fresh slate, i.e., as if the 
transmission lines did not exist. Accordingly, DOE and BLM will base 
their EIS analysis on the same purpose and need as they did originally: 
whether to grant or deny Presidential permits and rights-of-way to BCP 
and SER.
    In order to consider the complete range of reasonable alternatives, 
DOE and BLM propose the following preliminary alternatives:
    1. No Action Alternative: Deny both permit and corresponding 
rights-of-way applications. This will present the environmental impacts 
in the United States as if the lines had never been constructed and 
will provide a baseline against which the impacts in the United States 
of the action alternatives can be measured in the absence of 
Presidential permits and corresponding rights-of-way.
    2. Grant one or both permits and corresponding right(s)-of-way. 
This will set forth the impacts in the United States of constructing 
and operating the line(s) from Mexican powerplants, as those plants are 
presently designed. This is DOE's and BLM's preferred alternative.
    3. Alternative technologies: Grant one or both permits and 
corresponding right(s)-of-way to authorize transmission lines that 
connect to powerplants that employ more efficient emissions controls 
and alternative cooling technologies, such as ``dry cooling'' or a 
combination of wet and dry cooling that will minimize environmental and 
health impacts in the United States.
    4. Mitigation measures: Grant one or both permits and corresponding 
right(s)-of-way to authorize transmission lines whose developers employ 
off-site mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in the 
United States. (For example, off-site mitigation could include off-
sets, such as paving roads and retiring older automobiles.)
    DOE and BLM also propose to consider alternative routes for the 
transmission lines within the United States under the action 
alternatives described above.
    Because DOE and BLM have proceeded here from the assumption that no 
lines now exist, this EIS will not address the environmental impacts in 
the United States of removing the existing transmission lines and poles 
from BLM lands. Should permits and rights-of-way not be granted, the 
issue of whether to remove the existing lines from BLM lands will arise 
and the impacts in the United States from that action would have to be 
considered in appropriate future NEPA review.
    DOE and BLM invite all stakeholders and the public to comment on 
these alternatives during the scoping period and to offer other 
alternatives for consideration. DOE and BLM can and have in the past 
added to their list of alternatives in an EIS if they deem that review 
of an alternative brought to their attention during scoping is 
reasonable, appropriate, and furthers the purposes of NEPA review, that 
is, produces useful information for the decision maker and the public.

Identification of Environmental Issues

    One purpose of this notice is to solicit comments and suggestions 
for consideration in the preparation of the EIS. In addition to the 
issues identified by the court ((1) the potential for public 
controversy; (2) water impacts; (3) impacts from ammonia and carbon 
dioxide; (4) the range of alternatives; and (5) cumulative impacts), 
DOE and BLM propose to analyze the following potential environmental 
issues:
    1. Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive 
species of animals or plants, or their critical habitats in the United 
States (e.g., the Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard);
    2. Impacts on floodplains and wetlands in the United States;
    3. Impacts on cultural or historic resources in the United States;
    4. Impacts on human health and safety in the United States;
    5. Impacts on air, soil, and water resources in the United States 
(e.g., the Salton Sea and the New River);
    6. Visual impacts in the United States; and
    7. Disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and low-
income populations in the United States.
    This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or to imply any 
predetermination of impacts, and we invite interested parties to 
suggest other issues to be considered.
    DOE and BLM welcome and invite Border Power and all who 
participated in the litigation to participate in scoping to assist DOE 
and BLM in identifying issues that they believe the agencies should 
address in their EIS.

Scoping Process

    Interested parties are invited to participate in the scoping 
process both to refine the preliminary alternatives and environmental 
issues to be analyzed in depth, and to eliminate from detailed study 
those alternatives and environmental issues that are not feasible or 
pertinent. The scoping process is intended to involve all interested 
agencies (Federal, State, county, and local), public interest groups, 
Native American tribes, businesses, and members of the public. Both 
oral and written comments will be considered and given equal weight by 
DOE and BLM.
    Public scoping meetings will be held at the locations, dates, and 
times indicated above under the DATES and ADDRESSES sections. These 
scoping meetings will be informal. The presiding officer will establish 
procedures to ensure that everyone who wishes to speak has a chance to 
do so and that DOE and BLM understand all issues and comments. Speakers 
will be allocated approximately 10 minutes for their oral statements. 
Depending upon the number of persons wishing to speak,

[[Page 61799]]

the presiding officer may allow longer times for representatives of 
organizations. Consequently, persons wishing to speak on behalf of an 
organization should identify that organization in their request to 
speak. Persons who have not submitted a request to speak in advance may 
register to speak at the scoping meeting(s), but advance requests are 
encouraged. If a speaker wishes to provide for the record further 
information that cannot be presented within the designated time, such 
additional information may be submitted in writing by the date listed 
in the DATES section. Meetings will begin at the times specified and 
will continue until all those present who wish to participate have had 
an opportunity to do so.

Draft EIS Schedule and Availability

    In its order, the court stated that it would defer until July 1, 
2004, the setting aside of the Presidential permits and the FONSI, and 
has ordered DOE and BLM to seek a hearing date on or before May 15, 
2004, to brief these issues. DOE and BLM intend to prepare and issue a 
final EIS before May 15, 2004, so that it is available for the court's 
review.
    The Draft EIS is presently scheduled to be issued by early 2004, at 
which time its availability will be announced in the Federal Register 
and local media, and public comments will be solicited on the Draft.
    People who do not wish to submit comments or suggestions at this 
time but who would like to receive a copy of the Draft EIS for review 
and comment when it is issued should notify Mrs. Russell at the address 
in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. DOE and BLM will publish the 
Draft both on paper and as a compact disc. In addition, DOE will make 
the Draft available on the World Wide Web at http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/documentspub.html.
    The Draft EIS will be made available for public inspection in 
several locations in the vicinity of the project. A notice of these 
locations will be provided in the Federal Register and local media at a 
later date.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 24, 2003.
Beverly A. Cook,
Assistant Secretary, Environment, Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 03-27234 Filed 10-29-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P