CPUC Archives » Dr. Jonathan L. Kramer on Wireless Siting & Law

Just issued about 15 minutes ago (9:14 a.m. PDT)

To the Parties of Record in Rulemaking (R.) 06-10-006:

On May 16, 2013, the City and County of San Francisco on behalf of the League of California Cities, the California Association of Counties, and SCAN NOTOA (Joint Parties) requested a 90-day extension to file comments on the May 2, 2013 Joint Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge Ruling. The Ruling requested parties to comment on five questions regarding the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act for telecommunications providers. The Joint Parties explain that such additional time is necessary to perform the depth of careful analysis needed to adequately and meaningfully respond to the five questions.

It is reasonable to provide an extension of time to file comments, given the amount of time that has elapsed between the order for rehearing and this Ruling. However, we find that a 90-day extension is not warranted given that there are only five questions and one of the questions asks to provide the party’s position. With this in mind, I grant a 45-day extension for comments.

The deadline for opening comments to the May 2, 2013 Ruling is July 15, 2013. Reply comments are due August 1, 2013.

Thank you.

Kelly A. Hymes
Administrative Law Judge
California Public Utilities Commission

The additional time should be put to good use to gather facts and respond to the Commission’s questions regarding CEQA analysis of telecom facilities that are regulated by the CPUC.

-Jonathan

What agency should evaluate compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it applies to telecom firms: Local governments or the CPUC? That burning question is at the heart of what agency is best able to protect the public by evaluating CEQA considerations related to telecom construction.

Historically, the California Public Utilities Commission has generally issued blanket CEQA exemptions to telecom firms, without public notice, for project that scope from one street corner to hundreds of miles of construction in the public right of way.

In December 2010, the CPUC issued General Order 170, that purported to grant itself specific rights related to CEQA reviews of telecom projects. A year later, in December 2011, responding to various petitions for rehearing, the Commission rescinded GO170.

Late today, the Commission issued a ruling (attached at the bottom of this post) to rehear the matter, and to take additional evidence from the public. The CPUC’s ruling setting a new hearing cycle, albeit it a very short cycle, is attached to this post. The current schedule is at opening responses are due on May 31, 2013, with reply comments due on June 14, 2013. The Commission plans to issue a decision in this case sometime during the Summer of 2013.

If you represent a local government, or you are a citizen with an interest in preserving CEQA review of telecom projects with the local government agency closest to the issues underpinning environmental protection, then you should focus your attention on this proceeding. The Commission has asked the public to evaluate and respond to five specific questions set out in the document.

I’ll have more on this in the coming days.

Jonathan

CLICK HERE: Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission’s own motion into the application of the California Environmental Quality Act to applications of jurisdictional telecommunications utilities for authority to offer service and construct facilities.

Category: CPUC

Rulemaking in CPUC General Order 170: Comments, Replies pushed back 45 days

CPUC General Order 170 Redux