and community member comments at the public participation hearing (PPH) held in this proceeding, raised concerns about fire risks and the safety of the Facility. The environmental review undertaken in this proceeding is limited to the impacts created by the Project, and treats existing conditions as the “baseline” for measuring those impacts. The EIR for the Project does not evaluate ongoing (baseline) risks associated with the existing Facility that do not result from the Project or make recommendations to mitigate those risks. Because the existing fire risks and operational safety concerns raised by Rogers and Herman are not addressed in the EIR, these issues were considered in the CPCN portion of this proceeding. In particular, this proceeding considered whether rules adopted in Rulemaking (R.) 08-11-005 are adequate to ensure the safe operation of the Facility that is located in a Very High fire hazard severity zone, and whether any requirements (in addition to any mitigation measures that may be recommended in the EIR) should be imposed in order to improve the safety of the Facility’s operations and to reduce existing fire risks. Parties’ Positions The BCAP Phase 1 Settlement Parties filed a joint response recommending expeditious approval of the Application because, according to them, replacing the Aliso Canyon compressor station and adding storage injection capacity to meet increased demand during peak periods is consistent with SoCalGas’s obligation to serve its customers, increases reliability of the SoCalGas transportation system, and helps to reduce natural gas commodity cost volatility. The Rogers and Herman protests point to the Facility as the source of the 2008 Sesnon Fire and request, among other things, that conditions be imposed on
and community member comments at the public participation hearing (PPH) held in this proceeding, raised concerns about fire risks and the safety of the Facility. The environmental review undertaken in this proceeding is limited to the impacts created by the Project, and treats existing conditions as the “baseline” for measuring those impacts. The EIR for the Project does not evaluate ongoing (baseline) risks associated with the existing Facility that do not result from the Project or make recommendations to mitigate those risks. Because the existing fire risks and operational safety concerns raised by Rogers and Herman are not addressed in the EIR, these issues were considered in the CPCN portion of this proceeding. In particular, this proceeding considered whether rules adopted in Rulemaking (R.) 08-11-005 are adequate to ensure the safe operation of the Facility that is located in a Very High fire hazard severity zone, and whether any requirements (in addition to any mitigation measures that may be recommended in the EIR) should be imposed in order to improve the safety of the Facility’s operations and to reduce existing fire risks. Parties’ Positions The BCAP Phase 1 Settlement Parties filed a joint response recommending expeditious approval of the Application because, according to them, replacing the Aliso Canyon compressor station and adding storage injection capacity to meet increased demand during peak periods is consistent with SoCalGas’s obligation to serve its customers, increases reliability of the SoCalGas transportation system, and helps to reduce natural gas commodity cost volatility. The Rogers and Herman protests point to the Facility as the source of the 2008 Sesnon Fire and request, among other things, that conditions be imposed on
81838433.docx