mohave_summary_comments.html

Public Meeting Comments
The following comments were made at the public meetings held on February 9, 2000 in Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona.

Summary of Comment
Does environmental review include analysis of impacts on humans?

Response
Yes. Environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does consider the health and safety and physical impact of projects on humans and the environment.

Summary of Comment
Would the same environmental review required for this project be required for a project in California?

Response
Yes. The same environmental process would be followed in both states because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has jurisdiction over Southern California Edison (SCE) and would implement CEQA in both cases.

Summary of Comment
Will air quality be monitored by the same agency regardless of the owner?

Response
Yes. The State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, will monitor Mohave Generating Station (MGS) air emissions.

Summary of Comment
Are there any ways to ensure that new owners of the MGS will continue the community involvement efforts of the existing MGS owners?

Response
The new owners are not required to participate in community involvement in the area but it is in their best interests to do so. New owners will therefore be likely to have a community involvement program.

Summary of Comment
What is the least amount of time the entire divestiture process will take?

Response
An Administrative Law Judge who has not yet provided a schedule will determine the schedule.

Summary of Comment
Could the auction process take place during this CPUC process?

Response
The auction process has begun, but the CPUC will not finalize the sale until it has made a final decision.

Summary of Comment
Does Deregulation require SCE to sell the MGS?

Response
No. SCE is required to market value its share in the MGS and chose to do so by auctioning its share of the MGS.

Summary of Comment
When the sale of MGS is complete will the Nevada Public Utilities Commission [sic, actually the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, (PUCN)] control MGS?

Response
The CPUC will no longer have jurisdiction over the SCE portion of the MGS. The State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality will continue to monitor air quality and permit issues at the MGS and the United States Environmental Protection Agency will continue to have jurisdiction over environmental impacts, such as air quality, after the sale of the MGS. The PUCN currently has jurisdiction over the share of the MGS owned by Nevada Power. However this jurisdiction is constrained by the operating agreement between the owners of the MGS. PUCN jurisdiction over Nevada Power will not change unless Nevada Power sells its share of the MGS to a utility that does not currently operate in Nevada.

Summary of Comment
Is Nevada Power and their share of the MGS governed by the Nevada PUC [PUCN]?

Response
Yes. The PUCN currently has jurisdiction over the share of the MGS owned by Nevada Power.

Summary of Comment
Is this meeting part of the public benefit review process or public review process?

Response
The meeting was part of the public input process for the environmental review required by the CPUC.

Summary of Comment
When is the public benefit review and how does one become involved?

Response
Specific evidentiary hearings on public benefit review are not anticipated but can be requested by applying to the CPUC to become an interested party or information only party to the proceeding. More information on the process can be obtained from the CPUC Public Advisor’s Office. No benefit review public participation hearing is anticipated at this time.

Summary of Comment
Was the public benefit review noticed and if so where?

Response
Notice of the hearings related to this divestiture proceeding was posted on the CPUC web site and on the CPUC calendar but was not noticed outside of California.

Summary of Comment
Does the CPUC automatically approve the highest bid?

Response
The integrity of the auction process is extremely important and many factors go into the consideration of a bid and the integrity of the auction process. The CPUC will generally approve the highest bid received through a robust and competitive auction process. This ensures the highest returns for the ratepayers.

Summary of Comment
Does the CPUC have final approval on the final bidder?

Response
Yes, but the other owners of the MGS have the right of first refusal.

Summary of Comment
What happens if there are no bidders on the MGS?

Response
The possibility that there are no bids received is highly unlikely.

Summary of Comment
What will happen to the proposed swimming pool and senior center?

Response
The CPUC has no reason to believe that these plans will be affected by the sale. SCE and the other plant owners are currently negotiating an arrangement that will ensure these facilities will be available for Clark County use.

Summary of Comment
Is there anything to prevent the new owners from walking away from the current agreements between Clark County and SCE for the existing park?

Response
SCE is currently negotiating with Clark County to make sure that the new owners protect the park adjacent to the MGS. The owners of the MGS are not required to provide land to Clark County for park facilities. The three other part owners of the MGS involved are also parties to the agreement and their concurrence is required.

Summary of Comment
Is there any evidence that companies are less "good citizens" as a result of the deregulation process?

Response
There is no evidence that new owners are less "good citizens". Most of the companies that have purchased plants sold under deregulation have been large companies that generally understand the importance of maintaining a strong positive presence in adjacent communities.

Summary of Comment
Is there a possibility that the new owners would lay off employees who contribute to the local economy?

Response
SCE would continue to operate the MGS for 2 years after the sale to train new operators. Employment would not be likely to change during the 2-year transition period. The new owners would need to have labor to operate the MGS. It is possible that the new owners will lay off personnel and hire different personnel.

Summary of Comment
Could a new owner close the MGS, tear it down, and sell the land?

Response
A new owner, with the agreement of the other three owners, could close the MGS, tear it down, and sell the land. However, there appears to be little incentive to do this. SCE’s share of the MGS is likely to sell for a price that is higher than the land price alone because there are valuable transmission facilities in the area that only the MGS site can utilize. The generating facility already exists. Also, relatively cheap coal is available for energy production that provides a strong profit incentive to continue operation. There is unlikely to be sufficient water available to accommodate development of the MGS site in another use. Water used at the MGS is provided as long as coal is used as the principal fuel at the MGS. The right to use Colorado River Water would be eliminated if the MGS were to close.

Summary of Comment
Who will determine electricity rates in Laughlin? Can the CPUC dictate a 10% decrease in electricity rates on the MGS?

Response
The CPUC has no jurisdiction over future MGS rates. The CPUC will not determine rates for electricity from the MGS. Rates from utilities are frozen until March 2003 in Nevada. Sale of the MGS is not expected to have any direct effect on local electricity rates.

Summary of Comment
Has the CPUC monitored rates from the first divested plants since the new owners took over?

Response
In California there has been a 10% reduction in electricity rates and a rate freeze for a limited time period. The freeze is in effect no matter where the electricity comes from.

Summary of Comment
Where does the licensing agreement come from?

Response
The licensing agreement was originally issued in the 1960’s by the CPUC when the MGS was built.

Summary of Comment
Is the licensing agreement governed by the PUCN after the sale is complete?

Response
The licensing agreement is not governed by the PUCN.

Summary of Comments Received in Writing

This section provides a summary of written comments. Copies of the comment letters can be found by clicking here.

STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Colleen Cripps, Chief, Nevada Bureau of Air Quality, February 28, 2000.

Summary of Comment
The Division of Environmental Protection states that if proposed changes to the MGS meet the modification provisions of the Nevada Administrative Code including modification/reconstruction provisions of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). An increase in generation may be subject to review and appropriate permit revision procedures.

Response
The requirement for review and permit revision if improvements to the MGS are proposed provides an opportunity to ensure that emissions from the MGS are minimized.

CLARK COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Jacquelyne Brady, Laughlin Town Manager, February 28, 2000.

Summary of Comment
What are the potential impacts associated with the plant’s ability to produce and sell electricity?

Response
The MGS is expected to continue to produce electricity. This would mean that the environmental impacts that occur now would continue to occur in the future. The installation of a dry scrubber and bag house will result in a reduction in air emissions at the MGS.

Summary of Comment
What is the impact of the sale on whether long-term employees will be laid off or dismissed?

Response
SCE would continue to operate the MGS for 2 years after the sale to train new operators. Employment would not be likely to change during the 2-year transition period. The new owners would need to have labor to operate the MGS. It is possible that the new owners will lay off personnel and hire different personnel.

Summary of Comment
What impacts will the sale of the MGS have on the land under license and community use and the 4 acres under negotiation for a swimming pool and childcare center? Will the sale result in revocation or withdrawal of the licenses?

Response
SCE and the other three MGS owners are currently negotiating with Clark County to make sure that the new owners protect the park adjacent to the MGS.

Summary of Comment
Will the new owner invest in the surrounding community?

Response
The new owners are not required to participate in community involvement in the area but it is in their best interests to do so. New owners will be likely to continue community involvement programs.

Summary of Comment
What is the potential for significantly higher rates for local customers?

Response
Electricity rates in Nevada are frozen until March 2003. In California electricity rates have been reduced by 10% and are frozen for a limited period of time. The CPUC does not regulate, and has never regulated, rates in Laughlin.

Deregulation is expected to result in more competition in the utility industry. More competition is likely to result in increased efficiency as market forces provide incentives to increase economic efficiency.

UNSIGNED COMMENTS

Received and forwarded by SCE, Thomas Burhenn, Manager, Project and Environmental Regulation, SCE February 15, 2000.

Summary of Comment
How can we as a community be assured that the new MGS owner will continue good relations with Laughlin?

Response
The new owners are not required to participate in community involvement in the area but it is in their best interests to do so. New owners will be likely to have a community involvement program.

Summary of Comment
What assurances are there that electricity rates will remain low and greater operating efficiencies will result in the power industry due to deregulation?

Response
Electricity rates in Nevada are frozen until March 2003. The CPUC will no longer determine rates for electricity from the MGS. In California electricity rates have been reduced by 10% and have been frozen for a limited period of time.
Deregulation is expected to result in more competition in the utility industry. More competition is likely to result in increased efficiency as market forces provide incentives to increase economic efficiency.

Summary of Comment
What can the CPUC do that it has not done before to keep electricity rates down?

Response
In California electricity rates have been reduced by 10% and have been frozen for a limited period of time. The CPUC will continue to work towards increasing competition amongst utility generator, transmission and distribution companies.

Deregulation is expected to result in more competition in the utility industry. More competition is likely to result in increased efficiency as market forces provide incentives to increase economic efficiency.

Summary of Comment
How do we know that long term employees of the MGS will not be in unemployment lines as a result of the sale?

Response
SCE would continue to operate the MGS for 2 years after the sale to train new operators. Employment would not be likely to change during the 2-year transition period. The new owners would need to have labor to operate the MGS. It is possible that the new owners will lay off personnel and hire different personnel but there appears to be no incentive for the new owner to do so.

Summary of Comment
How can residents be assured that the land for the park, activity center, childcare center and swimming pool will be secured for long-term use and the new owner will be as cooperative as the old owner was?

Response
SCE and the other Mohave owners are currently negotiating with Clark County to make sure that the new owners protect the park adjacent to the MGS.

Summary of Comment
We realize that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has said there will not be any negative impacts. Why does the Mitigated Negative Declaration not address the questions posed in this set of responses?

Response
The Mitigated Negative Declaration does identify a potentially significant physical impact on Cultural Resources associated with construction of 500 feet of fence. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies other potential negative impacts that do not rise to the level of significance.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the CPUC using CPUC rules for implementing the CEQA. These rules focus on the physical impacts of a project on the environment and the physical effects of the environment on the project and people.

CEQA does not require that environmental documents address the issue of good relations between project proponents and area residents or institutions. CEQA does not require that the documents address economic impacts unless they have a clear physical impact; therefore, salaries and electricity rates are not addressed.

The issue of the existing park and the proposed new facilities is not addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration because the CPUC has no reason to believe that the new owners will be likely to change the relationship with Clark County regarding these issues.

LAUGHLIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PO BOX 77777, LAUGHLIN, NEVADA 89028
Jo Elle Hurns, Executive Director, March 6, 2000.

Summary of Comment
The Chamber of Commerce requests that long-term rights be secured by the CPUC for Clark County to continue to operate existing park facilities and to add 4 acres for a childcare center and a swimming pool. SCE, Clark County, and the new owner’s agreement to these provisions would be required.

Response
SCE is not the sole owner of the MGS. SCE owns 56% of the MGS. The agreement of the remaining owners will be required. SCE is working towards an agreement that will allow Clark County to continue to operate the existing park facilities and to add the 4 acres for the child care center and swimming pool.


	STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
		MOHAVE GENERATING STATION PROJECT APPLICATION #99-10-023
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Public Meeting Comments The following comments were made at the public meetings held on February 9, 2000 in Laughlin, Nevada and Bullhead City, Arizona. Summary of Comment Does environmental review include analysis of impacts on humans? Response Yes. Environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does consider the health and safety and physical impact of projects on humans and the environment. Summary of Comment Would the same environmental review required for this project be required for a project in California? Response Yes. The same environmental process would be followed in both states because the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has jurisdiction over Southern California Edison (SCE) and would implement CEQA in both cases. Summary of Comment Will air quality be monitored by the same agency regardless of the owner? Response Yes. The State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, will monitor Mohave Generating Station (MGS) air emissions. Summary of Comment Are there any ways to ensure that new owners of the MGS will continue the community involvement efforts of the existing MGS owners? Response The new owners are not required to participate in community involvement in the area but it is in their best interests to do so. New owners will therefore be likely to have a community involvement program. Summary of Comment What is the least amount of time the entire divestiture process will take? Response An Administrative Law Judge who has not yet provided a schedule will determine the schedule. Summary of Comment Could the auction process take place during this CPUC process? Response The auction process has begun, but the CPUC will not finalize the sale until it has made a final decision. Summary of Comment Does Deregulation require SCE to sell the MGS? Response No. SCE is required to market value its share in the MGS and chose to do so by auctioning its share of the MGS. Summary of Comment When the sale of MGS is complete will the Nevada Public Utilities Commission [sic, actually the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada, (PUCN)] control MGS? Response The CPUC will no longer have jurisdiction over the SCE portion of the MGS. The State of Nevada, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Quality will continue to monitor air quality and permit issues at the MGS and the United States Environmental Protection Agency will continue to have jurisdiction over environmental impacts, such as air quality, after the sale of the MGS. The PUCN currently has jurisdiction over the share of the MGS owned by Nevada Power. However this jurisdiction is constrained by the operating agreement between the owners of the MGS. PUCN jurisdiction over Nevada Power will not change unless Nevada Power sells its share of the MGS to a utility that does not currently operate in Nevada. Summary of Comment Is Nevada Power and their share of the MGS governed by the Nevada PUC [PUCN]? Response Yes. The PUCN currently has jurisdiction over the share of the MGS owned by Nevada Power. Summary of Comment Is this meeting part of the public benefit review process or public review process? Response The meeting was part of the public input process for the environmental review required by the CPUC. Summary of Comment When is the public benefit review and how does one become involved? Response Specific evidentiary hearings on public benefit review are not anticipated but can be requested by applying to the CPUC to become an interested party or information only party to the proceeding. More information on the process can be obtained from the CPUC Public Advisor’s Office. No benefit review public participation hearing is anticipated at this time. Summary of Comment Was the public benefit review noticed and if so where? Response Notice of the hearings related to this divestiture proceeding was posted on the CPUC web site and on the CPUC calendar but was not noticed outside of California. Summary of Comment Does the CPUC automatically approve the highest bid? Response The integrity of the auction process is extremely important and many factors go into the consideration of a bid and the integrity of the auction process. The CPUC will generally approve the highest bid received through a robust and competitive auction process. This ensures the highest returns for the ratepayers. Summary of Comment Does the CPUC have final approval on the final bidder? Response Yes, but the other owners of the MGS have the right of first refusal. Summary of Comment What happens if there are no bidders on the MGS? Response The possibility that there are no bids received is highly unlikely. Summary of Comment What will happen to the proposed swimming pool and senior center? Response The CPUC has no reason to believe that these plans will be affected by the sale. SCE and the other plant owners are currently negotiating an arrangement that will ensure these facilities will be available for Clark County use. Summary of Comment Is there anything to prevent the new owners from walking away from the current agreements between Clark County and SCE for the existing park? Response SCE is currently negotiating with Clark County to make sure that the new owners protect the park adjacent to the MGS. The owners of the MGS are not required to provide land to Clark County for park facilities. The three other part owners of the MGS involved are also parties to the agreement and their concurrence is required. Summary of Comment Is there any evidence that companies are less "good citizens" as a result of the deregulation process? Response There is no evidence that new owners are less "good citizens". Most of the companies that have purchased plants sold under deregulation have been large companies that generally understand the importance of maintaining a strong positive presence in adjacent communities. Summary of Comment Is there a possibility that the new owners would lay off employees who contribute to the local economy? Response SCE would continue to operate the MGS for 2 years after the sale to train new operators. Employment would not be likely to change during the 2-year transition period. The new owners would need to have labor to operate the MGS. It is possible that the new owners will lay off personnel and hire different personnel. Summary of Comment Could a new owner close the MGS, tear it down, and sell the land? Response A new owner, with the agreement of the other three owners, could close the MGS, tear it down, and sell the land. However, there appears to be little incentive to do this. SCE’s share of the MGS is likely to sell for a price that is higher than the land price alone because there are valuable transmission facilities in the area that only the MGS site can utilize. The generating facility already exists. Also, relatively cheap coal is available for energy production that provides a strong profit incentive to continue operation. There is unlikely to be sufficient water available to accommodate development of the MGS site in another use. Water used at the MGS is provided as long as coal is used as the principal fuel at the MGS. The right to use Colorado River Water would be eliminated if the MGS were to close. Summary of Comment Who will determine electricity rates in Laughlin? Can the CPUC dictate a 10% decrease in electricity rates on the MGS? Response The CPUC has no jurisdiction over future MGS rates. The CPUC will not determine rates for electricity from the MGS. Rates from utilities are frozen until March 2003 in Nevada. Sale of the MGS is not expected to have any direct effect on local electricity rates. Summary of Comment Has the CPUC monitored rates from the first divested plants since the new owners took over? Response In California there has been a 10% reduction in electricity rates and a rate freeze for a limited time period. The freeze is in effect no matter where the electricity comes from. Summary of Comment Where does the licensing agreement come from? Response The licensing agreement was originally issued in the 1960’s by the CPUC when the MGS was built. Summary of Comment Is the licensing agreement governed by the PUCN after the sale is complete? Response The licensing agreement is not governed by the PUCN. Summary of Comments Received in Writing This section provides a summary of written comments. Copies of the comment letters can be found by clicking here. STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Colleen Cripps, Chief, Nevada Bureau of Air Quality, February 28, 2000. Summary of Comment The Division of Environmental Protection states that if proposed changes to the MGS meet the modification provisions of the Nevada Administrative Code including modification/reconstruction provisions of New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). An increase in generation may be subject to review and appropriate permit revision procedures. Response The requirement for review and permit revision if improvements to the MGS are proposed provides an opportunity to ensure that emissions from the MGS are minimized. CLARK COUNTY, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Jacquelyne Brady, Laughlin Town Manager, February 28, 2000. Summary of Comment What are the potential impacts associated with the plant’s ability to produce and sell electricity? Response The MGS is expected to continue to produce electricity. This would mean that the environmental impacts that occur now would continue to occur in the future. The installation of a dry scrubber and bag house will result in a reduction in air emissions at the MGS. Summary of Comment What is the impact of the sale on whether long-term employees will be laid off or dismissed? Response SCE would continue to operate the MGS for 2 years after the sale to train new operators. Employment would not be likely to change during the 2-year transition period. The new owners would need to have labor to operate the MGS. It is possible that the new owners will lay off personnel and hire different personnel. Summary of Comment What impacts will the sale of the MGS have on the land under license and community use and the 4 acres under negotiation for a swimming pool and childcare center? Will the sale result in revocation or withdrawal of the licenses? Response SCE and the other three MGS owners are currently negotiating with Clark County to make sure that the new owners protect the park adjacent to the MGS. Summary of Comment Will the new owner invest in the surrounding community? Response The new owners are not required to participate in community involvement in the area but it is in their best interests to do so. New owners will be likely to continue community involvement programs. Summary of Comment What is the potential for significantly higher rates for local customers? Response Electricity rates in Nevada are frozen until March 2003. In California electricity rates have been reduced by 10% and are frozen for a limited period of time. The CPUC does not regulate, and has never regulated, rates in Laughlin. Deregulation is expected to result in more competition in the utility industry. More competition is likely to result in increased efficiency as market forces provide incentives to increase economic efficiency. UNSIGNED COMMENTS Received and forwarded by SCE, Thomas Burhenn, Manager, Project and Environmental Regulation, SCE February 15, 2000. Summary of Comment How can we as a community be assured that the new MGS owner will continue good relations with Laughlin? Response The new owners are not required to participate in community involvement in the area but it is in their best interests to do so. New owners will be likely to have a community involvement program. Summary of Comment What assurances are there that electricity rates will remain low and greater operating efficiencies will result in the power industry due to deregulation? Response Electricity rates in Nevada are frozen until March 2003. The CPUC will no longer determine rates for electricity from the MGS. In California electricity rates have been reduced by 10% and have been frozen for a limited period of time. Deregulation is expected to result in more competition in the utility industry. More competition is likely to result in increased efficiency as market forces provide incentives to increase economic efficiency. Summary of Comment What can the CPUC do that it has not done before to keep electricity rates down? Response In California electricity rates have been reduced by 10% and have been frozen for a limited period of time. The CPUC will continue to work towards increasing competition amongst utility generator, transmission and distribution companies. Deregulation is expected to result in more competition in the utility industry. More competition is likely to result in increased efficiency as market forces provide incentives to increase economic efficiency. Summary of Comment How do we know that long term employees of the MGS will not be in unemployment lines as a result of the sale? Response SCE would continue to operate the MGS for 2 years after the sale to train new operators. Employment would not be likely to change during the 2-year transition period. The new owners would need to have labor to operate the MGS. It is possible that the new owners will lay off personnel and hire different personnel but there appears to be no incentive for the new owner to do so. Summary of Comment How can residents be assured that the land for the park, activity center, childcare center and swimming pool will be secured for long-term use and the new owner will be as cooperative as the old owner was? Response SCE and the other Mohave owners are currently negotiating with Clark County to make sure that the new owners protect the park adjacent to the MGS. Summary of Comment We realize that the Mitigated Negative Declaration has said there will not be any negative impacts. Why does the Mitigated Negative Declaration not address the questions posed in this set of responses? Response The Mitigated Negative Declaration does identify a potentially significant physical impact on Cultural Resources associated with construction of 500 feet of fence. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies other potential negative impacts that do not rise to the level of significance. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by the CPUC using CPUC rules for implementing the CEQA. These rules focus on the physical impacts of a project on the environment and the physical effects of the environment on the project and people. CEQA does not require that environmental documents address the issue of good relations between project proponents and area residents or institutions. CEQA does not require that the documents address economic impacts unless they have a clear physical impact; therefore, salaries and electricity rates are not addressed. The issue of the existing park and the proposed new facilities is not addressed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration because the CPUC has no reason to believe that the new owners will be likely to change the relationship with Clark County regarding these issues. LAUGHLIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, PO BOX 77777, LAUGHLIN, NEVADA 89028 Jo Elle Hurns, Executive Director, March 6, 2000. Summary of Comment The Chamber of Commerce requests that long-term rights be secured by the CPUC for Clark County to continue to operate existing park facilities and to add 4 acres for a childcare center and a swimming pool. SCE, Clark County, and the new owner’s agreement to these provisions would be required. Response SCE is not the sole owner of the MGS. SCE owns 56% of the MGS. The agreement of the remaining owners will be required. SCE is working towards an agreement that will allow Clark County to continue to operate the existing park facilities and to add the 4 acres for the child care center and swimming pool.

MOHAVE GENERATING STATION PROJECT APPLICATION #99-10-023