FR 2025-00231

Overview

Title

Southern California Edison Company; San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District; Notice of Application of Transfer of Licenses and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

Agencies

ELI5 AI

Southern California Edison wants to give its water energy projects to another company, and people have 30 days to say if they think it's a good idea or not. Anyone can share their thoughts with the people in charge, but they need to make sure to do it in the way asked.

Summary AI

Southern California Edison Company is transferring its licenses for the Santa Ana River 1 & 3 Hydroelectric Project and the Mill Creek Hydroelectric Project to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. These projects are located in San Bernardino County, California, on federal land within the San Bernardino National Forest. The transfer requires approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the public is invited to submit comments or protests about this transfer within 30 days of the notice's issue date. Contact information for both applicants and FERC is provided for those who wish to engage in the process.

Type: Notice
Citation: 90 FR 1478
Document #: 2025-00231
Date:
Volume: 90
Pages: 1478-1479

AnalysisAI

The notice from the Federal Register concerns the application filed by Southern California Edison Company to transfer its licenses for the Santa Ana River 1 & 3 Hydroelectric Project and the Mill Creek Hydroelectric Project to the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District. These energy projects are located on federal land within the San Bernardino National Forest in San Bernardino County, California. The document invites public participation in a review process overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), offering parties the option to submit comments, motions to intervene, or protests within 30 days of the notice's issuance.

Summary of the Document

The primary focus of the notice is to inform the public and relevant stakeholders about the proposed transfer of licenses for specific hydroelectric projects. The transfer is contingent on approval from FERC, ensuring adherence to regulatory processes. Contact information for both the transferring and receiving parties is provided, alongside guidance on how to participate in the public review process.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Despite its informative purpose, the document raises several concerns:

  1. Lack of Financial Details: There is no information about the financial implications or costs associated with the transfer. This omission may raise concerns regarding transparency and the potential for wasteful spending.

  2. Absence of Rationale for Transfer: The document does not provide an explanation or justification for the transfer of licenses. This gap may lead to skepticism or perceptions of undue favoritism toward the parties involved.

  3. Complex Language: The document is written in legal and regulatory jargon, which may hinder understanding among the general public. This complexity could limit effective public engagement, particularly for those without legal expertise.

  4. Disjointed Contact Information: While contact details are present, the necessity for separate contacts for different stakeholders might complicate communication, calling for a more streamlined approach.

  5. Burdensome Submission Procedures: The procedures for electronic and paper submissions are detailed but could be seen as burdensome due to the multiple steps involved. This complexity may deter individuals unfamiliar with regulatory processes from participating.

  6. Unclear Deadline: The deadline for submitting comments or protests is set at 30 days from the notice issuance, yet the document does not clearly specify this issuance date in the text, which could create confusion.

Broad Impact on the Public

The notice serves to engage the public in a regulatory process that affects the management of energy resources and federal lands. However, without detailed financial and rationale disclosures, the public might feel disconnected from the substantive implications of this transfer. By not simplifying language and procedures, the document may inadvertently diminish public participation.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

Energy Consumers and Environmentalists: These groups might be interested in the potential effects of the transfer on energy production and environmental stewardship. Lack of transparency might cause concern regarding energy policies and their implications for climate and resource management.

Local Communities: Residents in and around San Bernardino County may experience localized impacts from the projects and would benefit from clear, accessible information to assess potential changes in energy operations or environmental management.

Regulatory Bodies and Legal Professionals: These stakeholders are directly impacted by the procedural and regulatory aspects. A transparent and justified transfer could streamline operations, but the current lack of detailed rationale might complicate oversight responsibilities.

Overall, while the notice is a critical tool for monitoring regulatory compliance and ensuring public involvement, it highlights areas where improvements in transparency and accessibility could enhance stakeholder engagement and satisfaction.

Issues

  • • The document does not provide specifics on the financial implications or costs related to the transfer of licenses, which could be needed to assess potential wasteful spending.

  • • There is no detailed justification or rationale provided for the transfer of the licenses, which may lead to perceptions of favoritism towards Southern California Edison Company or San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District.

  • • The document uses standard legal and regulatory language, which might be complex for the general public without legal or regulatory expertise to understand, potentially hindering public engagement.

  • • The contact information is clearly presented, but the necessity of separate contacts for various stakeholders could be streamlined for efficiency.

  • • The procedure for electronic and paper submissions is thorough but might be viewed as burdensome due to the multiple steps and addresses involved, especially for those unfamiliar with the regulatory process.

  • • The deadline for comments, motions to intervene, and protests is set at 30 days from the issuance of the notice without specifying the issuance date clearly within the document text, which might lead to confusion.

Statistics

Size

Pages: 2
Words: 670
Sentences: 24
Entities: 93

Language

Nouns: 273
Verbs: 35
Adjectives: 16
Adverbs: 2
Numbers: 49

Complexity

Average Token Length:
5.21
Average Sentence Length:
27.92
Token Entropy:
5.04
Readability (ARI):
20.30

Reading Time

about 2 minutes