Briefs filed by SCE, DRA and CEERT argue that Chino Hills has failed to meet the procedural requirements of Rule 16.4 and that we should deny Chino Hills’ petition on those procedural grounds. DRA sums up these parties’ arguments that Chino Hills does not show new facts: Chino Hills [petition] appears to argue that it is one thing to read the description of the project in a report and a completely new and different “fact” to see the towers installed. By this rationale, every city TRTP passed through has a reasonable basis for seeking modification of D.09-12-044 and requesting that the line be placed underground as it passes through those cities as well.” (DRA opening brief at 8.) As various briefs note, since the filing of Chino Hills’ petition, all sitting Commissioners have visited the ROW at issue; these visits were reported in the notices of ex parte contact filed and served pursuant to §1701.3(c). Many, though not all, of the letters and emails sent to the Commission or our Public Advisor from members of the public and from elected officials have urged us to examine this matter further. Essentially, we are asked to do these things—to review the visual impacts objectively; to review Chino Hills’ claim that those visual impacts unfairly impose on the City too large a burden for the new transmission infrastructure that is being installed to benefit all Californians; and to review whether undergrounding using XLPE technology could and should be done instead. Review of prior decisions indicates that the Commission has not applied the justification and timing requirements of Rule 16.4 and its predecessor, Rule 47, in a mechanical way if that would thwart justice. Though we find no reported case identical to the matter before us, precedent is clear that even where the Commission has determined that a petition was not the appropriate
Briefs filed by SCE, DRA and CEERT argue that Chino Hills has failed to meet the procedural requirements of Rule 16.4 and that we should deny Chino Hills’ petition on those procedural grounds. DRA sums up these parties’ arguments that Chino Hills does not show new facts: Chino Hills [petition] appears to argue that it is one thing to read the description of the project in a report and a completely new and different “fact” to see the towers installed. By this rationale, every city TRTP passed through has a reasonable basis for seeking modification of D.09-12-044 and requesting that the line be placed underground as it passes through those cities as well.” (DRA opening brief at 8.) As various briefs note, since the filing of Chino Hills’ petition, all sitting Commissioners have visited the ROW at issue; these visits were reported in the notices of ex parte contact filed and served pursuant to §1701.3(c). Many, though not all, of the letters and emails sent to the Commission or our Public Advisor from members of the public and from elected officials have urged us to examine this matter further. Essentially, we are asked to do these things—to review the visual impacts objectively; to review Chino Hills’ claim that those visual impacts unfairly impose on the City too large a burden for the new transmission infrastructure that is being installed to benefit all Californians; and to review whether undergrounding using XLPE technology could and should be done instead. Review of prior decisions indicates that the Commission has not applied the justification and timing requirements of Rule 16.4 and its predecessor, Rule 47, in a mechanical way if that would thwart justice. Though we find no reported case identical to the matter before us, precedent is clear that even where the Commission has determined that a petition was not the appropriate
71423831.docx