A1007001 Nevada Hydro CPCN - SCE Protest to Application & PEA.pdf

Page 1

DM1734747

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Application of the Nevada

Hydro Company for a Certificate of Public

Convenience and Necessity for the Talega-

Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500-kV Interconnect

A.10-07-001

PROTEST OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E)

CONCERNING THE PROPONENT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

SUBMITTED BY THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY, INC.

JENNIFER R. HASBROUCK

ROBERT J. KANG

LAURA B. RENGER

Attorneys for

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

Post Office Box 800

Rosemead, California 91770

Telephone: (626) 302-6012

Facsimile:

(626) 302-2610

E-mail:

robert.kang@sce.com

Dated: July 6, 2010

Page 2

- 1 -

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of the Application of the Nevada

Hydro Company for a Certificate of Public

Convenience and Necessity for the Talega-

Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500-kV Interconnect.

A.10-07-001

PROTEST OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E)

CONCERNING PROPONENT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED BY

THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY, INC.

INTRODUCTION

Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) respectfully submits its protest to The

Nevada Hydro Company, Inc.’s Proponent’s Environmental Assessment, filed on July 6, 2010

(“TNHC,” “2010 PEA,” respectively).

Similar to previous TNHC PEAs found deficient by the

Commission,

TNHC seeks a certificate of public convenience and necessity for a high-voltage

transmission line extending from SCE’s existing 500 kV transmission system in western

Riverside County to San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (“SDG&E”) existing 230 kV

transmission system in northern San Diego County, the Talega-Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500

kV Interconnect (“TE/VS Project” or “Project”). TNHC also seeks Commission permission to

construct 115 kV elements to purportedly serve that region. Like TNHC’s previously submitted

SCE’s protest relates to the following: Application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity;

Proponent’s Environmental Assessment, In the Matter of the Application of The Nevada Hydro Company for a

Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Talega-Escondito/Valley Serrano 500-kV Interconnect

Project, No. A.10-07-001 (filed July 6, 2010)(“hereinafter “Application” and “2010 PEA,” respectively).

See Decision Dismissing Application Without Prejudice, Decision No. 09-04-006, Proceeding No. 09-02-012 &

No. 07-10-005, In the Matter of the Application of the Nevada Hydro Company for a Certificate of Public

Convenience and Necessity for the Talega-Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500-kV Interconnect, Public Utilities

Commission of California (issued April 17, 2009) (hereinafter “Order Dismissing Application” or “Order”), at

passim (discussing TNHC’s prior filing history).

Page 3

- 2 -

PEAs, the instant PEA remains critically incomplete, and it continues to include project elements

that are not needed to accomplish TNHC’s stated goals. SCE, thus, respectfully urges the

Commission to deem TNHC’s PEA incomplete and/or overbroad, as follows:

TNHC did not cure specific deficiencies identified by the Commission in the

Commission’s April 16, 2009 Order dismissing TNHC’s previous application and

PEA. In that Order, the Commission instructed TNHC to cure specific deficiencies

should TNHC file a new application.

For example, the Commission ordered

TNHC to include written confirmation from the United States Marine Corps

confirming that Marine Corps property would be made available to TNHC.

However, the 2010 PEA does not contain any such communication. Similarly, the

Commission instructed TNHC to provide certain details about its proposed 115 kV

project elements in order to allow for a meaningful review.

TNHC’s PEA is still

missing crucial detail.

TNHC did not adequately address environmental concerns relating to TE/VS

previously identified by SCE to the Commission. For example, SCE previously

informed the Commission that TNHC’s proposed Lake substation rests on a buried

fault, and that it lies adjacent to a FEMA-designated 500-year flood zone. TNHC did

not adequately respond to SCE’s concerns about the risks posed by siting a load-

serving substation at that location.

TNHC did not adequately study the potential impacts and risks posed by its 115 kV

and 500 kV project elements to SCE, California ISO or WECC systems. For

example, since TNHC did not initially include the 115 kV elements of its project in

its interconnection application to SCE, there have been no studies performed by SCE

Order Dismissing Application, supra note 2, at 9.

Order Dismissing Application, supra note 2, at 9 (instructing TNHC to cure deficiencies listed in Staff’s March

12, 2009 Deficiency Letter); see also Deficiency Letter from CPUC Staff to TNHC, dated March 12, 2009

(attached as Attachment 5 to Order Dismissing Application)(hereinafter “Staff Letter”), at 2.

Staff Letter, supra note 4, at 4-5; Order Dismissing Application, supra note 2, at 9.

Page 4

- 3 -

to determine the impact those 115 kV elements would have on SCE’s systems.

Notably, TNHC’s Federal Final Environmental Impact Study (“FEIS”), which

features prominently in TNHC’s CPCN application materials, also does not analyze

TNHC’s 115 kV project elements. Similarly, neither SCE, the California ISO nor

WECC, have conducted studies determining the impact that a stand-alone 500 kV

transmission line in this region would have on their respective systems. There are

also no studies confirming that such a line is, in fact, needed or cost effective.

Commission approval for the TE/VS Project should be made contingent on the

development of TNHC’s “LEAPS” Project – a proposed hydro pumped storage

facility that TNHC is concurrently pursuing at the Federal level. If the LEAPS

project is denied at the Federal level, then many aspects of TE/VS become

unnecessary. Therefore, SCE does not believe the Commission should review the

TE/VS project on a “stand-alone” basis as requested by TNHC.

Interconnection to both SCE’s and SDG&E’s systems is unnecessary to satisfy

TNHC’s stated goal of interconnecting LEAPS to the CAISO-controlled grid.

II.

TNHC HAS NOT CURED THE DEFICIENCIES PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED BY THE

COMMISSION IN THE COMMISSION’S APRIL 16, 2009 ORDER

TNHC’s PEA remain incomplete because TNHC did not cure specific deficiencies

previously identified by the Commission.

In its April 16, 2009 Order, the Commission

instructed TNHC to cure several deficiencies, including those referenced in a deficiency letter,

dated March 12, 2009, from Commission Staff to TNHC.

In that letter, Staff identified two

major problems with Nevada Hydro’s PEA: (1) the PEA did not contain written confirmation

Order Dismissing Application, supra note 2, at 5; Staff Letter, supra note 4, at passim.

Order Dismissing Application, supra note 2, at 9 (referring to Staff Letter, supra note 4).

Page 5

- 4 -

from the United States Marine Corps that the Marine Corps would make available a specific site

for a proposed TNHC substation; and (2) the PEA’s proposed 115 kV project elements did not

contain sufficient detail about those elements for the Commission to engage in meaningful

review.

These deficiencies remain uncorrected in TNHC’s current PEA. For example, TNHC’s

application states that interconnection with SDG&E will take place at a “new substation in the

vicinity of United States Marine Corps Camp Joseph H. Pendleton,” thereby confirming that

TNHC still seeks to include a substation on Marine Corps property.

However, TNHC did not

provide written proof that the Marine Corps identified a substation site, or that such a site would

be made available to TNHC.

Since TNHC’s 2010 PEA lacks written confirmation from the

Marine Corps about the use of its property, Staff’s first concern remains unresolved.

Staff’s second concern remains equally unresolved. In its deficiency letter to TNHC,

Staff revealed the following problems about TNHC’s last PEA:

There is no information provided about where these [115 kV] project

elements and activities would be located. There is no information provided

in the PEA about where proposed and existing lines would share the rights-

of-way and poles, where lines would be underground, where street closures

would be required for construction, and where new poles would be required

and of what type, spacing and height. The text does not explain how 115 kV

transmission lines would be accommodated on existing local distribution

poles.

TNHC’s current PEA is still missing critical information required by Staff and the

Commission to conduct a meaningful review. For example, the PEA contains minimal

information about rights-of-ways. And as demonstrated by a vague reference to 115 kV line

extensions from the Lake site, the PEA does not provide meaningful detail about the 115 kV

lines coming from the Lake site.

Instead, to the extent TNHC provides information, it is both

Staff Letter, supra note 4, at passim.

Application, at 4.

2010 PEA, at 3-77 (Section 3.1.1.4) and 3-79 (table 3.1.1-1)(noting that TNHC may require approval from the

United States Marine Corps for use of Marine Corps real property).

Staff Letter, supra note 4, at 5.

2010 PEA, at 3.95.

Page 6

- 5 -

inconsistent and unclear. For example, on page 3.95 of the PEA, TNHC lists “attendant 500/115

kV transformers and 115 kV line extensions” as part of its Lake site. However, this equipment is

not listed in the more detailed description of the Lake site beginning on page 3.111. Thus, it is

unclear how those 115kV components will be used.

TNHC’s failure to resolve the concerns raised in Staff’s 2009 deficiency letter, combined

with TNHC’s use of inconsistent and unclear information, prevents the Commission from

meaningfully reviewing TNHC’s application and PEA. For these reasons, TNHC’s PEA should

be deemed incomplete by the Commission.

III.

TNHC’S PROPOSED “LAKE” SITE CONTINUES TO RAISE SERIOUS

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

TNHC’s PEA is also incomplete because it fails to adequately address environmental

deficiencies previously identified by SCE relating to the proposed location of its Lake substation.

These deficiencies arise out of the “combined” nature of TNHC’s proposed Lake

substation. TNHC is pursuing two actions in parallel: it is seeking Federal permission to develop

a hydroelectric pump storage facility titled “LEAPS” (Lake Elsinore Advanced Pump Storage

facility), and Commission permission to construct the allegedly “stand alone” TE/VS

transmission line.

TNHC first sought to interconnect its proposed LEAPS hydro facility to

SCE’s systems, and proposed siting a 500 kV switchyard at TNHC’s preferred Lake site. SCE

later informed TNHC that SCE would be developing a new 500/115 kV substation on an

approximately 50-acre site in the Glen Ivy/Alberhill area of unincorporated Riverside County

(the Alberhill site).

This substation is needed to address SCE’s load-serving needs, and thus

has independent utility from TNHC’s interconnection needs. TNHC responded by seeking

2010 PEA, at 1-1 (explaining TNHC’s filing posture).

SCE has since filed for a CPCN to construct this substation. See Amendment to the Application of Southern

California Edison Company (U 338-E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity; Alberhill System

Project, No. 09-09-022 (original application filed Sept. 30, 2009; amended application filed March 15, 2010).

Page 7

- 6 -

Commission permission to build a combined facility purportedly capable of serving both

TNHC’s interconnection needs, and SCE’s load-serving needs, at the Lake site. However, as

SCE has previously indicated in response to past TNHC filings, TNHC’s proposal does not

adequately address a large number of environmental concerns.

For example, TNHC’s 2010

PEA:

Does not adequately address the concealed or buried fault lying directly beneath the

proposed Lake site, or how TNHC will adequately mitigate the risks posed by that

fault to a load-serving substation. The western-most portion of TNHC’s proposed

site is also crossed by a Late Quaternary age fault, but the PEA still does not

adequately evaluate fault rupture hazards at the Lake site.

Does not adequately address flood hazards, such as the fact that the proposed site is

adjacent to a FEMA-designated 500-year flood hazard zone, or the fact that the site is

immediately adjacent to a substantial active drainage channel which poses potential

flooding and erosion hazards.

TNHC has not adequately addressed the above environmental concerns. Until TNHC

does so, TNHC’s PEA should be deemed deficient by the Commission.

IV.

CRUCIAL ELEMENTS OF TNHC’S PROJECT HAVE NOT BEEN STUDIED; HAVE

NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE NEEDED; AND HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE COST-

EFFECTIVE

TNHC’s PEA is also incomplete because crucial elements relating to both the 115 kV and

500 kV elements of its Project remain unstudied. Without these studies, none of the interested

parties, nor the Commission, are capable of determining the impacts that TNHC’s project poses

Protest of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) Concerning the Revised Proponent’s Environmental

Assessment Submitted By the Nevada Hydro Company, In the Matter of the Application of the Nevada Hydro

Company for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Talega-Escondido/Valley-Serrano 500-

kV Interconnect, Proceeding No. A07-10-005 (filed Dec. 15, 2008), at passim.

Page 8

- 7 -

to SCE, California ISO or WECC systems. For example, since TNHC did not include 115 kV

elements in its initial LGIA application, SCE did not initiate any studies to determine the impact

those elements would have on SCE’s systems. However, load flow, short-circuit duty, and

contingency condition analyses must be performed before any definitive statements can be made

about such impact, and before TNHC’s PEA can be deemed complete. The PEA also does not

contain enough detail to determine the potential impacts should TNHC’s proposed 115 kV lines

between Santa Rosa Substation and the Elsinore and Skylark Substations be constructed and put

on-line; to determine whether the routes for those lines are feasible; or to determine whether

TNHC adequately evaluated alternative routes for its 115 kV project elements. Notably,

TNHC’s own FEIS, which TNHC relies upon in its request to obtain a CPCN, does not analyze

TNHC’s 115 kV project elements.

SCE is particularly concerned about the lack of these

studies, since TNHC’s project, if allowed to proceed, will affect SCE’s systems in ways

currently unknown to SCE.

TNHC’s 500 kV project elements remain similarly unstudied. For example, although the

2010 PEA describes the TE/VS Project as “part of the transmission grid,” the TE/VS Project has

only been studied as a gen-tie and the CAISO has not reviewed or approved of the Project as a

network addition.

WECC also did not perform a path rating study on the TE/VS Project.

Finally, TNHC itself did not include a study, pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1002.3,

demonstrating that the proposed line is cost effective.

In summary, the 115 kV project elements were not part of TNHC’s interconnection

request, and thus were not studied by SCE. Nor are they part of TNHC’s FERC FEIS.

Important aspects of TNHC’s 500 kV elements remain similarly unstudied. TNHC’s project will

affect SCE’s systems in as-yet unknown ways. There is also no indication that TNHC’s various

E.g., Application, at 9 (relying on FEIS); Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License, Lake

Elsinore Advanced Pumped Storage Project FERC Project No. 11858 (Docket No. P-11858) (issued for public

comment on Jan. 30, 2007), at passim.

Application, at 2.

Page 9

- 8 -

elements are needed, or that they are cost-effective. For these reasons, TNHC’s PEA should be

deemed incomplete by the Commission.

THE PROJECT SHOULD BE COORDINATED WITH, AND MADE

CONTINGENT UPON, TNHC’S LEAPS PROJECT

As stated earlier, TNHC is concurrently pursuing FERC permission to develop its

LEAPS hydro pump facility and Commission permission to construct the “stand alone” TE/VS

transmission line.

However, these two projects are intertwined: one of the primary purposes

stated by TNHC of TE/VS is to interconnect LEAPS to the transmission systems of SCE and

SDG&E and the CAISO grid.

Accordingly, the Commission should not approve the TE/VS Project in isolation, or as a

stand alone project, separate from the LEAPS hydro facility, since the TE/VS Project is

dependent on LEAPS. If TNHC is unable to obtain Federal permission to construct LEAPS,

then many, if not all, aspects of the TE/VS project will not be needed to further those stated

goals. If the CPUC grants a CPCN for the TE/VS Project, it should be made contingent on the

construction of the LEAPS hydropower generation plant in order to satisfy the PEA-stated

primary purpose project goals. Construction should be consistent with the operating date of the

hydro facility.

E.g., 2010 PEA, at 1-1 (stating that TNHC’s project consists of two parts, and that TNHC only seeks CPUC

permission to construct the transmission portion), 3-74 (describing TE/VS as a “stand-alone” action).

E.g., 2010 PEA, at 2-5.

If the TE/VS Project were, in fact, a stand-alone transmission project, then it should have been reviewed under

the CAISO’s transmission planning process.

Page 10

- 9 -

VI.

THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR INTERCONNECTION TO THE CAISO-

CONTROLLED GRID CAN BE MET WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE PART

OF THE PROJECT – THE CONNECTION TO EITHER SCE’S SYSTEM OR SDG&E’S

SYSTEM

One of the objectives of TNHC’s TE/VS Project, as stated in its PEA, is to take

advantage of water/geography features in the region, and by interconnecting LEAPS to the

CAISO grid to meet power needs in both San Diego and Los Angeles.

However, this objective

can be satisfied with the construction of one radial interconnection: connecting to either SCE’s

network or SDG&E’s network will provide the plant with access to the CAISO grid. By

contrast, constructing two radial interconnections that would connect the Project to both

networks are unnecessary, as a single radial interconnection to one system would be adequate for

a generation project the size of LEAPS. Once the LEAPS Project is interconnected to the

CAISO grid through either SCE’s or SDG&E’s system, the stored power will be capable of

being used in both regions. Two interconnections are not necessary to achieve this goal.

VII.

CONCLUSION

TNHC’s PEA should be deemed incomplete or overbroad on multiple grounds. First and

foremost, the PEA is incomplete because TNHC did not cure the specific deficiencies identified

by the Commission in its April 16, 2009 Order. TNHC has also not adequately addressed

preexisting concerns raised by SCE. TNHC’s PEA is also incomplete because TNHC did not

adequately study the potential impacts posed by its Project to SCE, California ISO and WECC

systems.

2010 PEA, at 2-4.

Page 11

- 10 -

Additionally, TNHC’s request to treat TE/VS as a stand-alone project is overbroad: the

Project, or some portion of it, is only needed if TNHC’s LEAPS Project is constructed. Thus the

CPCN should be contingent on the construction of LEAPS in order to satisfy the PEA-stated

primary project goals. Also, two generation tie lines are unnecessary to satisfy TNHC’s

interconnection goals. A single radial interconnection to either SCE or SDG&E is sufficient.

SCE reserves the right to raise further objections if additional details about the Project

and its intended use are provided. SCE intends to participate fully in the hearings on the TE/VS

Project.

Respectfully submitted,

JENNIFER R. HASBROUCK

ROBERT J. KANG

LAURA B. RENGER

/s/ Robert J. Kang

By: Robert J. Kang

Attorneys for

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

Post Office Box 800

Rosemead, California 91770

Telephone: (626) 302-6012

Facsimile:

(626) 302-2610

E-mail:

robert.kang@sce.com

Dated: July 6, 2010

Page 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure,

I have this day served a true copy of the PROTEST OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E) CONCERNING THE PROPONENT’S

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SUBMITTED BY THE NEVADA HYDRO

COMPANY, INC., on all parties identified on the attached service list(s). Service was effected

by one or more means indicated below:

Transmitting the copies via e-mail to all parties who have provided an e-mail

address. First class mail will be used if electronic service cannot be effectuated.

Executed this 6th Day of July, 2010, at Rosemead, California.

__________________/s/ Alejandra Arzola________

Alejandra Arzola, Case Analyst

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

Post Office Box 800

Rosemead, California 91770

Page 13

PROCEEDING: A0902012 - THE NEVADA HYDRO CO.

FILER: THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY

LIST NAME: LIST

LAST CHANGED: JUNE 14, 2010

DOWNLOAD THE COMMA-DELIMITED FILE

ABOUT COMMA-DELIMITED FILES

Back to Service Lists Index

ARNOLD B. PODGORSKY MICHAEL J. THOMPSON

WRIGHT & TALISMAN, P.C. ATTORNEY AT LAW

1200 G STREET, N.W., SUITE 600 WRIGHT & TALISMAN, P.C.

WASHINGTON, DC 20005 1200 G STREET, N.W., SUITE 600

FOR: THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY WASHINGTON, DC 20005

FOR: THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY

JOHN BUSE JENNIFER HASBROUCK

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

5656 S. DORCHESTER AVE. NO 3 PO BOX 800

CHICAGO, IL 60637 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, PO BOX 800

FOR: CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

JENNIFER R. HASBROUCK LAURA B. RENGER

ATTORNEY AT LAW SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE

PO BOX 800 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

REXFORD WAIT PAUL A. SZYMANSKI

THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY ATTORNEY AT LAW

2416 CADES WAY SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

VISTA, CA 92081 101 ASH STREET HQ 12

FOR: THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY SAN DIEGO, CA 92101

FOR: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC CO.

AUTUMN DEWOODY GENE FRICK

PROGRAMS DIRECTOR 4271 BAGGETT DR

INLAND EMPIRE WATERKEEPER RIVERSIDE, CA 92505

CPUC Home

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Service Lists

Parties

Page 1 of 5

CPUC - Service Lists - A0902012

7/6/2010

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/service_lists/A0902012_78210.htm

Page 14

3741 MERCED DRIVE, UNIT F2 FOR: SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS TASK FORCE OF

RIVERSIDE, CA 92503 THE SIERRA CLUB, AND FRIENDS OF THE

FOR: INLAND EMPIRE WATERKEEPER FOREST (TRABUCO DISTRICT) AND THE SANTA

ROSA PLATEAU

JOHN PECORA RUTH ATKINS

16336 GRAND AVENUE PRESIDENT

LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 LAKE ELSINORE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

FOR: JOHN PECORA

15237 LAKE TRAIL CIRCLE

LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530

FOR: LAKE ELSINORE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

RONALD E YOUNG, P.E., DEE DOUGLAS PINNOW

GENERAL MANAGER 7 VIA DEL LAGO

ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92532

31315 CHANEY STREET FOR: DOUGLAS PINNOW

LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92531-3000

FOR: ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER

DISTRICT

GREGORY HEIDEN STEPHEN E. VELYVIS

CALIF PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION MILLER STARR REGALIA

LEGAL DIVISION 5TH FLOOR

ROOM 5039 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD

505 VAN NESS AVENUE WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3214 FOR: FRIESEN FOCUS, FERNANDEZ TRUST,

FOR: DRA JOSEPH FERNANDEZ & JOAN FERNANDEZ

MRW & ASSOCIATES, LLC GREGORY M. MURPHY

EMAIL ONLY BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN, LLP

EMAIL ONLY, CA 00000 444 SOUTH FLOWER STREET, SUITE 2400

FOR: MRW & ASSOCIATES INC. LOS ANGELES, CA 90071

CASE ADMINISTRATION JANE LEE COLE, ESQ.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

LAW DEPARTMENT, ROOM 370 PO BOX 800 / 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE

2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, ROOM 370 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770

ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 FOR: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

FOR: SOUTHERN CALFORNIA EDISON COMPANY

DAVID KATES DONALD C. LIDDELL, PC

THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY DOUGLASS & LIDDELL

2416 CADES WAY 2928 2ND AVENUE

VISTA, CA 92083 SAN DIEGO, CA 92103

FOR: THE NEVADA HYDRO COMPANY FOR: DOUGLAS & LIDDELL

KEVIN O'BEIRNE JOHN BROWN

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY BEST BEST & KRIEGER

8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32D 3750 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 400

SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 RIVERSIDE, CA 92502

FOR: SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY

LINDA RIDENOUR RICHARD LEE

33628 BRAND AVE 555 BIRCH STREET

LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530 LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530

FOR: LAKE ELSINORE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

GAYLE LARSSON ANNE STRUM

RANCHO CAPISTRANO 23863 NUTWOOD WAY

17721 RODEO ROAD MURRIETA, CA 92562

LAKE ELSINORE, CA 92530-7527

Information Only

Page 2 of 5

CPUC - Service Lists - A0902012

7/6/2010

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/service_lists/A0902012_78210.htm

Page 15

ANNIE & ALAN OMENS BOB & MARY BOEM

41955 AVENIDA LA CRESTA 42890 AVENIDA PERRIS