Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05152001 - D.2 `ON BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '. Contra FROM: JOHN SWEETEN y,�.;�,,..::, .. , Costa COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR `._uN�:r` County DENNIS M. BARRY, AICP COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DATE: MAY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE BOARD REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RELATING TO PEAKER POWER PLANTS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPT the attached report and determine if further direction to staff on this subject area is warranted. FISCAL IMPACT The cost of this analysis will be included in the Departmentfunded ands re ort. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE �. RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD CO MITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): ACTION OF BOARD ON May 15, 2001 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER XX See attached addendum for Board's action and vote. VOTE:UNANI PERVI RS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND U (ABSENT ) CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYESOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSEA STAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Catherine Kutsuris(925)335-1210 ATTESTED May 15, 2001 JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF cc:Members, Board of Supervisors SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CAO Clerk of the Board County Counsel BY: Community Development Department Deputy Building Inspection Department Public Works Department BGO \ ) �I Date May 8, 2001 Board of Supervisors Report on Power Plants Page 2 BACKGROUND On March 20, 2001, the Board considered a report from Supervisors DeSaulnier and Glover on the feasibility for the placement of power plants on land subject to the land use authority of the County. The Board requested that the County Administrator and Community Development Director return with a report responding to a number of questions relating to the siting of peaker power plants. The attached report entitled "Power Plant Siting and Permiting—Report to the County Board of Supervisors" responds to the questions raised. Staff will highlight this report during the discussion on this item. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D.2 May 15, 2001 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered accepting the report from the County Administrator and Community Development Director on the Board's request for information relating to peaker power plants, and to determine if further direction to staff on this subject is warranted. Dennis Barry, Community Development Director and Mr. William deBoisblanc, Bay Area Air Quality Management District gave the staff report and recommendations. The Board discussed the matter, the public hearing was opened and no one appeared to speak. The Board continued their discussions. Supervisor Uilkema indicated that she would make the information in this report available in her office. She requested the Supervisors be notified when there are applications for future power plants permits in the County and include this when the motion is made. Supervisor Gioia requested staff to provide information regarding the proposed power facility in the City of Richmond in the upcoming report. Following further discussion, Supervisor DeSaulnier moved the staffs recommendations and included: that the Board be notified of any applications for power plants in the County; that he and Supervisor Uilkema work with the Bay Area Quality Management District on the issue of back-up generators; and the request for information on the proposed power facility as suggested by Supervisor Gioia. No one seconded the motion. Supervisor Gerber then recommended the Board approve an amendment to accept the report and concluded that based on the information supplied today, the County is doing more than its share to provide additional power plants, and should not add to the existing industrial load. Supervisor DeSaulnier stated he would accept the amendment, with the caveat that if new plants were to come on line, it would be a benefit versus the back-up generators. With the peaker plant, they might actually be able to identify the elimination of greater emissions from the back-up generators. Supervisor Glover seconded the amendment. °l:gji= The vote on the amendment was UNANIMOUS. The Chair then called for a vote on motion restated by SI -q»:Dervisor Gioia , seconded that motion. The vote on the motion was as follows: _ J AYES: SUPERVISORS GIOIA,GERBER,DeSAM WILLI M de NOES: NONE A Boise ABSENT: NONE Director OfPermitLANC,p.E. Services ABSTAIN: NONE B _ ******* 939 Eilis EA AfAQUALITy I Street • San FranciscoMMMAGEME (415) 749-4704,F , CaliforT DISTq�CT wdeboisblanc@X(415) 749 503a 9410y baagmd.9ov 0 I POWER PLANT SITING AND PERMITTING REPORT TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY 159 2001 On March 20, 2001, the Board discussed current power supply issues and requested information regarding the siting and permitting of power plant facilities. Specifically, this report addresses the following questions: • What power facilities are located in Contra Costa County; how does the County's use of power relate to the production of power? • What is the regulatory process of the California Energy Commission, what is the local regulatory process, and how are they different? r • What is a peaker power plant? • Are there potential locations for peaker power plants in the' unincorporated area? The staff of the California Energy Commission (CEC) prepared a very similar report for a Commission workshop held on March 8, 2001. The full text of that report, which provides an excellent overview of State and local siting issues, has been attached as Exhibit A. This report has been prepared to supplement this CEC analysis. I. POWER FACILTIES AND POWER PRODUCTION One of the questions raised by the Board at the March 20, 2001 meeting was the relationship between the County's consumption of power to its production. The answer has proved quite elusive. Neither the California Energy Commission (CEC) nor Pacific Gas and Electric were of assistance. The CEC response stated in part, "Unfortunately, the. notion of a county electricity supply demand balance is not one used in the electric generation sector operations or planning. Contra Costa County is one among hundreds of counties throughout the West that get their power from various sources throughout the interconnected western electricity grid. The design and operations of and planning for this system transcends county boundaries......demand forecasts by county are something the CEC demand forecasters do internally (because underlying economic input assumptions are available by county) but are not typically disclosed. " PG&E has responded that they will not provide this information due to proprietary restrictions. It is very reasonable to conclude from available information, however, that the County is a major supplier of electricity for the grid. Figure 1 shows the location of power plants in the State as of February 2001. As shown in this figure, the distribution. of oil/gas or coal power plants are concentrated within or near the major urban centers in the Bay Area, Los Angeles and San Diego. The major exception is the plants located in the Central Valley (e.g. Kings County where there are plentiful energy sources). ' Hydroelectric facilities, shown as blue- green triangles on Figure 1, are located in the State's mountain areas. The number and location of power plants located within and directly adjacent to Contra Costa County is shown on Figure 2. This figure reveals a significant number of power plants within Contra Costa County, primarily concentrating along the shoreline of the San Pablo and Suisun Bays. While some of these plants are tied to specific uses (e.g. those located at refineries), these facilities also provide excess power to the energy grid. A map, which identifies the megawatts generated by each facility, is currently being prepared in a large scale display format for the Board's May 15`" meeting. As shown on Figure 3, the CEC has within the last two years approved two more facilities within this County, and a third is under review. The Los Medanos Energy Center, a 500 megawatt facility, is being constructed within the City of Pittsburg. The facility is scheduled to begin operations in July 2001. The Delta Energy Center, 2 which is also under construction, is an 880 megawatt facility also located within the City of Pittsburg. That facility is expected to begin power generation in mid year 2002. The CEC is in the final stages of reviewing the proposed Contra Costa Power plant, a 530 megawatt facility located in the unincorporated Antioch area. That facility, if approved by the Energy Commission, would begin construction in June 2001, and be available for operation in.2003. Only Kings County, with its major energy resources, has more active plant facility proposals. Additionally, the City of Richmond is discussing the possibility of a City operated power plant on Chevron land. TO PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE! According to the 2000 Census, Contra Costa County contains 2.8% of the State's population. The County occupies one half of one percent of the State's land .area. The CEC estimates the current energy generation shortfall to be approximately 10,000 megawatts (MW). With the approval of the 500 MW Los Medanos Energy Center and the 880 MW Delta Energy Center both located in Pittsburg, these two plants will provide approximately 14% of the generation. shortfall. If the 530 MW Contra Costa Power Plant (in unincorporated east Antioch) currently under review is also approved, as requested, this would mean that 19 % of the statewide generating shortfall will be provided by these new facilities located within Contra Costa County. It should be understood that the addition of new power facilities is not only important for the residential population of our County, but is necessary in order to provide. for a stable business climate. In addition, most industrial businesses do not have independent power supplies. The loss of power during "rolling blackouts" raises both operational and safety issues. 3 Figure 3 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION Current and Approved Power Plant Licensing Cases Sonoma .. $tilarq ` aamento Los,Medanos . t-� Energy Cen �• wenn -' tra Three Mountain Power ^ ?,'i,`'. Co to 500 MW r. Canfm S �e y Delta Shasta County . ty Energy: mer.. . Ogden Power Pacific ' "'• son R �rx;.Potrero°' Joaquin Sutter Power ProjectGol' SOO MW „UnRed den= r ii nr�nede Sutter County �Gafe,Peaker;`7 ?. .�• `:.::f Zit: :.��-."d. Los Medanos Energy Center 500 MWson ... Proctor&Gamble1' i ;; °;p LS—Metca 44 MW Addition Contra Costa County py;±,a, . Calpine&Bechtel :,.i;µ' san:aClam Sacramento County � BAY.ARFJIENLARGEMENi:"::.�SanraCn:z SMUD Contra Costa 530 MW Potrero Contra Costa County 520 MW SoWiem Energy San Francisco County Southern Energy Delta Energy Center •1 880 MW United Golden Gale /ti Contra Costa County Elk Hills Power Project „ Peaker rrrfJJ Calpine&Bechtel 500 MW 51 MWfKent ty San Mateo County - 1 Sem ra&tOx EI Paso Merchant Energy 1 P y 1 1 Sunrise Power Project y ' Metcalf Energy Center 1 320 MW 600 MW 1 1 Kern County Santa Cara County 1 1 Texaco Global Gas and Power Calpine&Bechtel Moss Landing a• Passtor750 tia Energy Facility f 1,060 MW Kern County Monterey County Enron Duke Energy Hanford Energy Park \ 99 MW - Kings County GWF High Desert Power Plant Project Morro Bay 678 or 720 MW 1,200 MW San Bernardino County San Luis Obispo County Inland Energy and Constellation Energy Duke Energy Mountainview Power Project La Paloma Generating Project 1,056 MW 1,043 MW San Bernardino County Kern County Themro Ecotek PG&E Generating ,. Midway-Sunset West 500 MW Kern County Midway Sunset Cogeneration Co. .. El Segundo Repower 630 MW Los Angeles County - NRG&Dynegy Nueva Azalea 550 MW ® Los Angeles County Power Plant Approved Sunlaw Cogen Partners I by the Commission Blythe Energy Power Plant Project 520 MW Q Power Plant Licensing Huntington Beach Repower Riverside County Cases Currently 450 MW Wisvest Before the Commission Orange County AES Olay Mesa Power Plant TOTAL PROJECTS: 510 MW Approved Projects=10 San Diego County Current Projects =14 PG&E Generating Fuel type for all projects will be Natural Gas January 30,2001 California Energy Commission i ure Z F� � mem � � � ♦ ,� } ` ' � �� 2 io N N SO It ZZ.. oofL Ak At o '. ,'• �\ , 1\11 '�K; \' \ \v., ' \V K\\\ 011,1101,=0'\v?;\'C' \"i\iv'i•' GEOTHERMALNES mm �gg POWER PLANT TOTALS HYDROELECTRIC 3J> OILIGAS •y, ; S DIGESTER GAS { / 1 Zr �1 t1.: �1 • .� . .�14 � -. .1 1 1•. WIN ONE ME•]. ' , T?:::' ...}moi , H'is.�':ff.1:'• � .}+� 91, .:;;:i'i, - \ ` �\ ;,i�• .ten.«; ,if::�,�. 0 ; ��..�`^.tis✓' E ,��•aT�� '�\i", ..��%'G�,_#SY • ISI I • -•.� •�•4�'�d��d2' :aq>"'F .i-z '•'tom szk�4�. �'>�?� COMMERCIAL& I ® ✓. I-/••. � _ � !!•:.1� /• 717' ..• I � •.! I � •.! � .11' ��!• 7:•'. .1�1 TRANSMISSION GRID In the context of the power line transmission grid, it is clear that the County participates in terms of number of transmission corridors. The location of power lines is set, to a large degree, by the geography of the State. The large expanses of water that constitute the San Francisco and San Pablo Bays form a major barrier to electric transmission lines. Utilities need to concentrate power lines in locations where they can cross these bodies of water at narrow locations. Consequently there is a concentration of major north-south power lines crossing the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta. These lines and others, which run the length of the Central Valley, form the basis of the grid that brings power from distant locations to the population centers of the state. The issues related to the location of these lines (e.g. visual, concerns about electrical magnetic field. (EMF) safety, and the disruption of logical land use patterns) are becoming more contentious. The County has had an informal policy of encouraging new power line proposals to utilize existing transmission corridors wherever possible, so.as to not create new areas of incompatibility. 4 ('.EC Permitting Process Figure 4 Process Characteristics`:'�`.., ��'Potential Issues Process °Normal=li • All power Projects having • EIR type • Conditions 12-Month plant p types, p Construction, Application t es potential environment • especially • Public health al review operation, for those with • Safety • Multiple closure Certification " long fuel . nuSignificant worksho s i Override supply or Environ community authority if Transmission Impacts • Public appropriate , y , Hearings Compliance lines Electrical system • 30-day monitoring impacts public • Agency input Y' • Legal review of 180-days OU conformance proposed Vit.x = :�;,.. ;,_t_ issues decision Ezpe li ed` All power Projects with: Mitigated • Agency input 6-Month PE :pernut> -: plant types 1 , • No public Nem. Dec. within 100- Application health or Type of days for safety environmental • Override not Certification #,' ST!. concerns review expected `qf``r a'"'•''" �:�` • Mitigated EIR • Workshops/ • Conditions, ::. = • No electrical Public operation, impacts hearings in closure ry.�,t ' a{ • Conformance the with legal community requirements • 30-day ` '' • Little or no public .. .' y: ,¢'. public review of controversy propose decision 4Peaking Peaking power • Application by No public health, Workshops/Public 4-Month -., .-:_ ; power; ;k:; plants December safety, mitigated hearing for Application perput-,� „2 2001 environment co►rtmunity for 'Xg" Ar iN ':A • . Operational by impacts and little • 30-day public Certification 2002 to no controversy review of s , im ��" r` �;.:'' • 3-year propos— operating roose operating limit P '•'`" "� decision ,.,F�" • Peakingower Same as above • Exempt from 21-Da P P Y Emergency Peaking plants 2/ CEQA Emergency $' • ower lants2/ • �~� �""'emit;�� Operational by Fatal Flaw Permit Operational by July 2001 Analysis - . July 2001 3-year 2 Public �r;:':�::�;-�-: ���;t;:.::_:- • 3-year operating limit Hearings operating unit • Limited Public Yom([[ ..,3ii3:=.::_, Review („4:. '., 1. 'timelines are allowed to be waived for"restart"projects. 2. Peaking or renewable power plants less than 50 MVS' with an ISO contract may also apply. II. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE CEC AND THE COUNTY REGULATORY PROCESS THE WARREN-ALQUIST ACT Under the 1974 Warren-Alquist Act, the - California Energy Commission has the authority and exclusive power to certify all sites and related thermal power plants of 50 megawatts or more. The issuance of a Certificate by the Energy Commission is in lieu of any permit, certificate, or similar document required by any state, local, regional, or federal agency to the extent permitted by federal law. Power plants under 50 megawatts are directed to CalEPA for assistance through the permitting process, and are subject to the local zoning regulations of the land use jurisdiction in which the facility is to be located. The CEC is required by state law to make findings as to whether a proposed power plant complies with all applicable laws, ordinances and standards that would be enforced by other agencies. The Coininission is also directed by statute to consult with the responsible local, regional, state or federal agency to try to eliminate any non- compliance. The CEC's process does not include the preparation of environmental impact reports. Instead, the Commission process includes what is referred to as a "functional equivalent." The CEC has varied permitting processes based on the size of the proposed facility and the potential environmental impacts. The processes range from a 21- day "Emergency Permit" to the 12-month duration for the "Normal Permit." A summary of these four CEC permitting processes has been provided as Figure 4. THE COUNTY REGULATORY PROCESS The authority to regulate the location of power plants in the unincorporated area is as prescribed by the County Ordinance Code. A power plant, which would be considered a ".manufacturing" operation, could be located in the Heavy Industrial (H-1), the Light Industrial (L-I), and the Controlled Heavy Industrial (W-3) Zoning Districts. Power plants are not allowed within the Controlled Manufacturing Zoning District. 5 A power plant of less than 50 megawatts would require the approval of a land use permit.in the Light Industrial Zoning District. A land use permit would involve an environmental . review of the proposed facility in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Power plant proposals within H-I or W-3 zones (the latter only applies to 1 or 2 parcels within the County) may or may not require a land use permit. That determination is made through an analysis pursuant to Chapter 84-63 of the County Code (Land Use Permits for Development Projects Involving Hazardous Waste or Hazardous Materials). The determination of whether or not a land use permit is required is based on the "score" the project receives on a risk formula detailed in the County Code. It appears that power plants of under 50 megawatts may not use a sufficient quantity of hazardous materials which would require the facility to obtain a land use permit. If a facility does not trigger this requirement, they would be allowed to be located in the H-I and W-3 Zoning Districts as a "permitted" use, meaning one that may be establi.shed without obtaining a land use pernut. The County.process for facilities that require a land use permit is summarized in Figure 5. The information has been provided in a format consistent with the CEC information provided in Figure 4. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE CEC AND THE COUNTY PROCESS While Figures 4 and 5 outline the respective processes of the CEC and the County, there are additional substantive differences between the two agency reviews. Focus of Review. The state law that established the CEC was driven by the desire to ensure that an adequate power generation and transmission system would be in place to serve the needs of the state and its residents. The CEC process pre-empts local land use authority for thermal facilities that generate 50 or more megawatts. The Energy 6 Contra Costa County Permitting Process Figure 5 PROCESS CHARAC-tERIS-T'ICS���.-POTENTIAL . PROCESS TME ASSUES FEATURES . . :.. z aUse; Power plants within a Consistency Review Mitigation 3-6 Months Perriut` ...... Light Industrial with the application Monitoring depending on district (L-I) and a County a=.:.• for complete Program controversy f Heavy controlled General Plan documents and y ( 3) Staff Report _�°��:, • ; Industry W- 30-days environmental Consistency Preparation impacts with the Preparation Zoning of Negative Required l3= Ordinances Declaration, Findings and EIR, or Conditions .'{��µ''••'� _` = Public Health Mitigated and safety Negative Hearing and W.. : _. Declaration Decision on Significant Project by the Environmental Posting of Zoning Impacts Notice of Administrator rkFO °` - Intent •'' . � � Public Opportunity _ "" M; controversy Public for Appeal of ^:� .,;: s Y Review Decision 10- Hazardous Period of calendar days nA Material CEQA compliance or determination management 20-day-s '..., ., Copies (distributed to C ounty agencies, . nearby cities, local municipal advisory groups '- Site visit A �. ;K Commission review clearly considers a project's compliance with local and regional ordinances and standards. The Commission is prohibited, by state law, from certifying a facility when it finds that the-facility does not conform with applicable state, local or regional laws, ordinances or standards unless, "the Commission determines that such facility is required for public convenience and necessity and there are not more prudent and feasible means of achieving such public convenience and necessity" (reference: Public Resources Code 25523). While the CEC process focuses on ensuring that the statewide energy needs are met, a county or city land use. review process would place more Weight on the local land use issues and associated environmental impacts of such a project. From a county land use perspective, a policy.encouraging the establishment of new energy facilities would be one of many land use issues which require balancing. Environmental Review. The CEC process is based on a "functional equivalent" of an EIR or mitigated negative declaration. In contrast to the preparation of a CEQA document, the "functional equivalent" -process may include releasing and discussing issues by the CEC Hearing Officers-and Commission members one subject at a time. As the testimony proceeds, the functional - equivalent documents are modified. Ultimately, the conclusions on each subject tnay become part of the presiding member'.s report, which is subject to approval by the full CEC. Public Review. The Energy Commission process utilizes an "Intervenor" process in which participants may, upon the approval of the Energy Commission, become a formal party to a proceeding. The basis for intervention comes from California law requiring that the Energy Commission hold open meetings ,and afford an opportunity to receive testimony by any person on subjects before the Energy Commission (reference Public Resource Code 25214). While any interested person may, upon request, be granted an opportunity to speak before the Commission, intervenors go beyond informal participation by 7 becoming a party to the proceedings or case. Intervenors may present testimony, call witnesses, and question those that are providing testimony. Becoming an intervenor begins by filing a "petition" that is considered by a committee of two CEC Commissioners who are responsible for overseeing the process and making a recommendation to the full CEC. These are powerful committees that do much of the real work of the Commission. Energy Specialists on Staff. The CEC has a staff of experts on different engineering, energy forecasting, geological and social disciplines, which focus on the power plant siting issues. This expertise is directed toward the analysis of energy issues and does not rely on.the analysis of project proponents in their review. This level of independent expertise on power plant construction and operations is beyond the technical resources of most local agencies, who would instead rely on consultant assistance. What CEC staff lacks is familiarity with the local context and issues on which local government has great expertise. It is for this reason that the CEC will involve local governments in their review process. Summary of Difference. While some would advocate that one or the other process is better, it is not clear that, absent a "NIMBY" approach, the outcome would .be much different. We would expect that the "functional equivalent" would identify and suggest mitigation measures similar to that which would occur during a CEQA environmental review. Ultimately, a project approved by a local land use agency would likely have additional conditions responding to local land use incompatibilities and responding to concerns raised by nearby communities. 8 III. PEAKER POWER PLANTS There is much written on the possible location of new or proposed power plants in California. One particularly good summary is the February 23, 2001 CEC staff report which has been attached as Exhibit A. The report specifically references the relationship to local general plans and on ensuring sites are large enough such that adjacent land uses will be buffered. The California Energy Commission estimates this summer will bring an increase in electricity demands, exceeding the existing supply. Governor Gray Davis has authorized the Energy ' Commission to utilize their emergency power plant authority to permit and quickly process peaker plants. The Governor has established a goal of bringing 1000 additional megawatts of poNver generating capacity on line by the end of this summer. Peaker power plants are designed to be constructed in small areas, connected to existing transmission and natural gas systems, and to have minimal environmental .impacts. Because they do not require water for cooling, potential locations are less constrained than for a larger power facility. Executive Order D-26-01 directed the Energy Commission to develop a .report of potential sites where such plants can be developed without health, safety or other environmental impacts. Figure 6 shows the first page of the CEC's "Table 1 on Peaking Power Plant Sites Meeting Final Screening Criteria". It is included here because the screening criteria gives guidance on the relevant issues relating to the siting of these small facilities. Among the most critical siting issues are the proximity to adequate transmission lines and natural gas- supplies. In addition, facility sites must include adequate site acreage .(including any necessary buffer lands) and the absence of fatal flaws such as eridangered species, environmental justice or general plan nonconformity. 9 Figure 6 ...:::::.. M w V N U'O U O > > w c~Up N :CMm.:(D.: �:m (O w m O w m O c N m a� g� '.. U C7 c 0 tn::" a:,- (n xs Ln atS �n U U 2 ° U..��' U. ,'°' a m a. m d U E c O..0 .�+ CL W .l_ U^ F; OU CL.H U' C .. v....:.:. > O O 6 O- V C.. N t o www w a t— Lj-a- . i ... .... ....::.:..... cu 0C� U06Cl. ... W c w c Z Z ..':. Z ..."':::.':'::.. d O T d O T \V X (D y (C m y m a n �^� d dLO p y U'd U , V 0 0 UaQ c�a U �..E..z z I-- 'E'z`. z; CO vJ O Q L Q 0).t? O :..::::�: N.. :. :: _ f6 fn c9 (o Z Q m - < . Q,:; Q m'Z Q m Z Q m LL }� N o c I 0 ._ cu m YS W O O > O C O.OZ U = O oto V � .y d N `'��;.. � � C to a> n m U)y dining..'.:. - .:. Y m O y.. p O c c c. o > co > U - fSf oID c :r ::.:: g . a.+ L prn in O'-- n, (O'm'. (D .;:._ O O z O o Ci IL CL U (C In 2 .T > U MN�'�:N::' '7;_:;x:`::;:-:;:`;:i': r U7 U Co U M . 3 d U N 2 f2U E U 4.00.......:::..... ..%.%.Q CO min y Co CO v m O m m O LL x� ::':s'=: �:O':LL -- - u� 1� O (p R: o 7 m U 0 W d C7(n [L cn-`:: �:(n ='J U d > v3i �. ,,. It is with an eye toward these factors, the staff offers the following observations on power plant sites that MAY be appropriate for additional power plants in the short run. The Commission expects that some of these projects will be temporary; removed after three years. Other peaker plants are expected to remain as permanent peaking facilities or be converted into combined cycle or cogeneration power plants. Applications are accepted for all projects that can be on-line by the September 30, 2001 deadline. The California Energy Commission has approved 356 megawatts to date. 10 IV. POTENTIAL LOCATION FOR PEAKER POWER PLANTS In the unincorporated area, a cursory review of land which might fit within-the screening criteria of the CEC, indicates a clear preference for the placement of new power plants on underutilized or vacant land along the County's industrial shoreline. This includes the land up to four miles inland from the water, and land which has a General Plan designation for industrial use. Within the industrial land use categories, the staff preference is for lands designated Heavy Industry. Lands designated Light Industry were usually placed in this designation to serve as a transition to other uses, :and where the intent was to have land uses which have a minimal impact on adjacent areas. This would include uses such as warehousing or industry service uses. These Light Industrial areas form a secondary potential area to be considered for power plants. They could, however, generate substantial adjacent neighborhood concerns that might not be anticipated in the Heavy Industrial areas. Presently, pipelines move oil and natural gas along or near the railroad tracks that parallel the shoreline in the County from Richmond to Oakley. The entire industrial shoreline has nearby electrical transmission lines available. (The analysis of the capacity of these .lines is beyond the scope of the site screening.) With the incorporation of Oakley, the extent of unincorporated land along the shoreline has been further diminished. However, there is still substantial acreage in the unincorporated area. Most of this acreage is in large land holdings owned by oil or chemical companies. POTENTIAL SITES By using the concepts outlined in the CEC reports, staff has highlighted several locations in the unincorporated area where it might be possible to place additional power plants. The inclusion of areas on this .list does not imply that staff feels power plants are necessarily appropriate in these locations, but only that they seem to meet the initial screening criteria. The appropriateness of any of these areas can only be determined based on a more in depth review of site 11 - and project specifics. The general location of each area is shown on Figure 7. A. The North Richmond Industrial Area This long planned and zoned industrial area has . several moderate sized parcels which are vacant or are ready for redevelopment. While the parcels themselves are of modest size, this industrial area is slightly less than a square mile in size. When the North Richmond Specific Plan was being jointly approved by both the County and Richmond, the residents strongly supported industrial uses in this area. Their concern was that a certain number of jobs for facilities in this area be reserved for residents of the Richmond area. B. Tosco Lands - East of I-80 (Rodeo) The Tosco Refinery is located mostly to the west of 1-80. Their landholdings, however, extend east of the freeway where there is well "over one square mile of underutilized or vacant land. This area was originally acquired by Unocal (the prior owner) in case they wished to expand the throughput of their refinery. Given the shortage of refined gasoline in the state, that may yet come to pass. Oil refineries use substantial power for their operations and there is already one power plant on the refinery lands west of I-80. An additional power plant could be considered on the lands east of I-80. A newer, larger plant might provide for a more efficient option to meet both Tosco and the public's needs.. C. ACME Landfill Area This large industrially planned area was the home of the ACME Landfill. The actual areas, which were filled, have some restriction on their uses. There are, however, additional lands. which could be considered for reuse. A power plant might be compatible with such reuse concepts. The Foster-Wheler Martinez Cogeneration facility is located within the area. 12 Figure 7 � 7 04 s X00 0 vs v. 04 1 VI � 4 /f�'7, r% is 0. J' i //f l- u e D. Ultramar (The old Tosco Refiner This refinery still has adequate land area which is underutilized, and a new large more efficient power plant could possibly benefit their operation as well as the general energy supply. E. Naval Weapons Station — In Holding This in-holding within the Naval Weapons Stations Tidal area appears to have some land available which could be considered for power plant use. These federal lands provide a buffering from adjacent land uses and a facility in this area could be feasible. F. Pittsburg #8 & #9 Over a decade ago, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company began a process to add two more generation units to the seven they currently operate in the City of Pittsburg. PG&E suspended their application well into the process, citing the decision to cease approval as a "business decision". These plans could be reviewed and updated to see if these new units might make sense in light of today's realities. G. Old Lesher Property — (Unincorporated Concord) This Light Industrial designated area might be a possibility for receiving a small power plant. The current pi-operty owner is considering such a use for the site. H. Shell Oil Site (Unincorporated Martinez) The Shell 01.1 Refinery was included in the CEC report as meeting the preliminary siting criteria. Much of the portion of the site which is located in the unincorporated area is heavily utilized for refinery operations. Staff is uncertain whether there is sufficient land area in the unincorporated portion in which to support the siting of a facility. The refinery also has substantial 13 acreage located within the City of Martinez. However, this report is limited to potential sites in the unincorporated area. The CEC review process includes an Environmental Justice evaluation. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines, if 50% of the population affected by a project has minority or fow-income status it must be determined if those populations are exposed to disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental impacts. Staff has not applied this standard to the areas listed above as possible locations for additional power facilities. It would be a disservice to attempt such an analysis without a site plan, location and project specifics upon which the analysis could be based. 14 Attachment A LAND USE ISSUES THAT MAY AFFECT SITING NEW POWER PLANTS IN CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION This paper examines the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) land use review procedures, local land use plans, and local agency and public participation that affect proposals to construct and operate new power plants in California. The paper identifies issues regarding power plant siting constraints related to land use development policies and standards (LORS) and local agency and public participation that may constrain the process of siting of power plants. The information in this paper will be discussed at a workshop at the Energy Commission in Sacramento on March 8, 2001. The purpose of the workshop is to develop the information needed for the Siting Committee to identify appropriate actions, if any, needed to.avoid constraints to the licensing of-future power plants due to land use issues. OVERVIEW OF LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH POWER PLANT LICENSING AND REVIEW PROCESS The following information provides an overview of the current process of considering land use issues when evaluating power plant projects as well as a description of applicable provisions under state law associated with land use considerations and power plant facilities. LAND USE ANALYSIS OVERVIEW ASSOCIATED WITH APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION (AFC) AND SMALL POWER PLANT EXEMPTION (SPPE) PROCESSES The land use analyses conducted for AFCs and SPPEs involve several general steps that include, but are not limited to, the following: • Determining the data adequacy of the power plant project application (e.g., AFC) associated with providing enough land use information to process the application pursuant to Cal. Code of Regs., Tit. 20, Section 1704, Appendix B. • Compiling land use information on the subject power plant project typically involves review of all applicable land use plans and standards, consultations with the local land use agencies and field review of the power plant project site. • Requesting additional information on the power plant project associated with data requests and workshops. • Evaluating the power plant project's compatibility with adjacent land uses, as well as consideration of the project's consistency with applicable land use policies and standards (LORS). February 23, 2001 1 LAND USE • Recommending Conditions of Certification to ensure that the power plant project avoids land use compatibility issues and issues associated.with compliance with applicable LORS. In addition, the process involves participation of local land use agencies (typically cities and counties) in reviewing and commenting on the power plant application process. Often, the application review process conducted by the Energy Commission occurs in place of the normal development review and approval process that the local agency would typically require of an industrial land use in their jurisdiction; as provided under the Warren-Alquist Act. Exceptions to this are power plant projects that require local agencies to take discretionary actions regarding general plan amendments, rezones, or annexations. APPLICABLE STATE REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH POWER PLANT SITING AND LAND USE The Energy Commission land use review process requires that project compliance with the laws, ordinances, regulations, and statutes of local jurisdictions be evaluated and addressed. Public Resources Code Section 25525 states that the Energy Commission shall not certify any facility when if finds "that the facility does not conform with any applicable state, local, or regional standards, ordinances, or laws, unless the commission determines that such facility is required for public convenience and necessity and that there are not more prudent and feasible means of achieving such public convenience and necessity." When determining if a project is in conformance with state, local or regional ordinances or regulations, the Energy Commission typically meets and consults with the applicable agencies to determine conformity and, when necessary, "to attempt to correct or eliminate any noncompliance" (Public Resources Code Section 25523[d][11). In addition, the Warren-Alquist Act (Public Resources Code 25523[a]) requires specific provisions relating to the manner in which the proposed power plant facility is to be designed and operated in order to protect environmental quality. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 that requires federal agencies to adopt strategies to address environmental justice (EJ) concerns within the context of agency operations. Energy Commission staff evaluates proposed power plant projects for potential impacts on minority and low-income populations following the U.S. EPA's " Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA's NEPA Compliance Analyses". In short, Commission staff consider four things: whether there is a sufficient number of minority or low-income people to warrant an EJ analysis; whether there is a potential significant impact on the identified population; when there is such an impact, whether the impact falls disproportionately on the minority or low-income population, and identification of appropriate mitigation for the impact. If EF concerns are'identified, staff and the public advisor make additional outreach efforts to involve members of the community. LAND USE .2 February 23, 2001 LAND USE CONSTRAINTS LAND USE COMPATIBILITY Land use conflicts often occur where proposed land uses create physical impacts such as noise, dust, light and glare etc., which offend nearby sensitive land uses (e.g., residential, schools, recreation areas, hospitals, senior centers, etc.). Typically, avoidance of land use compatibility issues involves procuring sites that are large enough to provide an adequate buffer area, or locating within an existing industrial area, or that intervening uses in the area would minimize land use conflicts. Proposed new power plant projects may also be seen as counter to the economic development activities and goals of the local land use agency (cities or counties). For example, several cities and counties throughout California are actively pursuing large high technology employer-type uses (such as Hewlett Packard, NEC, Intel, etc) to locate facilities in their industrial designated areas. They may perceive a proposed new power.plant project as incompatible with these economic development goals. Other examples of this include perceived conflicts with the "quality of life" provided in a community. INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS Power plants require substantial physical infrastructure that has become difficult to provide at suitable new locations. Construction of extended new transmission facilities and other linear facilities usually raises environmental concerns that are time consuming, expensive and politically costly to deal with. A supply of natural gas for fuel, water for cooling and steam generation, electrical transmission lines, wastewater conveyance system, drainage facilities, roadways and disposal areas, are necessary. These must be extended from the nearest facility with available capacity and the shortest possible route is usually desirable. Generally the-longer the route to extend required infrastructure facilities, the more environmental impacts and land use conflicts encountered that need to be addressed. Land use conflicts often arise when power plant infrastructure requirements involve modification and/or expansion of existing facilities. For example, extension of underground infrastructure facilities (e.g., natural gas pipelines) can cause conflicts with local land use agencies street improvement programs, as well as result in significant (though temporary) land use conflicts with land uses along the route of the extension. As opposed to the challenges posed in identifying sites for new plants, existing power plants often have available infrastructure for natural gas and electrical transmission facilities, and are usually appropriately designated in community land use plans. Refurbishing and expanding existing power plants, therefore, may represent the path of least resistance when it comes to selecting a site to increase power generation, although this may not be true in all communities. The desirability of renovation may be enhanced through improvements to older technology, and possibly resulting in improvements in air quality and safety. February 23, 2001 3 LAND USE URBAN VERSUS RURAL AREAS While a majority of the state's power demand is associated with urban areas, power plants are not usually proposed to be located in those areas. Exceptions to this may occur when existing industrial land have been subject to urban encroachment. Generally, siting power plants in urban areas may be considered preferable because of the availability of required infrastructure facilities and public services, close proximity to power users (minimizing power loss from transmission), and general compatibility with urban land uses. However, land use conflicts are generally more of a problem in urban areas where intense land development with a variety of uses occurs in close proximity. In urban areas large vacant parcels, especially parcels that are appropriately designated as heavy industrial and are in reasonable proximity to required infrastructure, may be rare and land prices are relatively high. Urban sites are likely to be smaller, providing less space for needed equipment and infrastructure and less opportunity for physical separation from population area. Perhaps the best opportunities for power plant siting on large urban sites may occur where military base closure is occurring or on the fringe of urban areas where development has not yet occurred. The Crockett Cogeneration Project was constructed on a small site containing an existing heavy industrial facility, but still experienced significant challenges in designing and locating equipment to avoid or mitigate impacts on adjacent urban areas. The Crockett project demonstrated that smaller sites with suitable existing uses that act as buffers provide an opportunity for power plant siting in a more developed urban situation. Siting power plants in rural areas can provide several advantages over urban areas including proximity to the electrical transmission fuel supply and water supply lines, and the availability of large, and relatively inexpensive parcels of land that provide the greatest opportunity to avoid or reduce land use conflict through physical separation. However, siting power plants in rural areas can result in conflicts with agricultural operations, other rural land uses, and local agency policies that prohibit development in rural areas in order to preserve open space, agricultural lands and habitat areas. CONSTRAINTS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USE DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND STANDARDS (LORS) LOCAL AGENCY PARTICIPATION As provided in the Warren-Alquist Act, the Commission is identified as the sole permitting authority for power plant projects producing in excess of 50 megawatts of electrical energy. Given the provisions in the Warren-Alquist Act, local land use agencies sometimes have the impression that the review process is out of their jurisdiction and that they cannot obtain development review fees to fund their staffs involvement in the projects. However, the Energy Commission regulations do provide for reimbursement of local agencies. The regulations do not provide for reimbursement of state or federal agencies, or public participation. In some cases the local land use agency is in opposition to a power plant project, which can LAND USE 4 February 23, 2001 complicate receiving input from the-local land use agency because of their status as an intervener. While early consultation to solicit local land use agency participation is preferable, power plant applicants may be reluctant for fear of rallying early opposition to their projects. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL LAND USE CONTROL The primary responsibility for land use regulation development and control lies with local agencies. While there are several state laws associated with land use control (e.g., Planning and Zoning Law [Government Code Sections 65000 et al.], Subdivision Map Act [Government Code 66410 et al.], etc.), the state does not directly regulate land use. There is currently no state requirement that local agencies provide any land use designation that would clearly allow a power plant. As result, land use issues associated with power plant siting can vary significantly between local jurisdictions. For example, Sacramento County has an energy element as part of its general plan that generally acknowledges that the County will have an increased demand for power and provides guidance regarding consideration of future power facilities and conservation planning, while other communities provide little or no direction in their general plans and ordinances regarding the need for energy infrastructure. LOCAL AGENCY LAND USE ISSUES While some communities such as Sacramento County have been proactive in considering regional power needs and land uses, some local jurisdictions have chosen to preclude power plants in their planning efforts and land use plans due to public opposition. In these situations, local agency staff is sometimes hesitant to provide assessments of a power plant's consistency with land use plans due to the political nature of the ultimate interpretation of local development standards by elected officials. In addition, the application of local agency zoning ordinance provisions and development standards to,power plants is often unclear. Specific issues often include setback standards, lot coverage, outside storage, noise and height restrictions, and lot sizes. In order to resolve consistency issues, Conditions of Certification sometimes include requiring general plan amendments, rezones, variances or participation in the development review process of the local agency. Depending on the land use and the political setting of the local agency, this could result in further local opposition and denial of local standard amendments, which then result in power plant construction delays or cancellation of the project. REGIONAL AGENCY LAND USE PROVISION ISSUES As the environmental sensitivity of a site and associated linear corridors increases, the level of concern expressed by various agencies at the regional, state and federal level also increases. These agencies may include the U.S. Bureau of Land Management(BLM), Coastal Commission, Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs). Resolving concerns regarding stream crossing/disturbance, wetlands, air quality, sensitive species, local coastal program February 23, 2001 5 LAND USE and historical resource issues can be complicated and time consuming. This may involve multiple jurisdictions increase the need for early coordination to resolve issues. They also add complexity and can result in delays as each jurisdiction follows its own procedures. POWER PLANTAPPLICATION ISSUES There are occasions where the power plant application (AFC) may be considered data adequate, but fails to provide the necessary information in order to evaluate land use issues. This issue often arises in association with the proposed power plant site plan, which sometimes is missing information such as property line location, roadway right-of-way, a scale, relationship to other land uses and other associated material. This information sometimes remains ill-defined even after data requests and associated workshops, resulting in Conditions of Certification that require site plan review be performed by the local land use agency. There are delays that can occur when the power plant application does not have data readily available, where the applicant decides to alter aspects of the project to address concerns that arise in the process, or if the applicant does not clearly own or have authorization to use the site. The applicant may not be informed or may be incorrectly advised about local land use plans. The San Francisco Energy project is an example of a project where a privately owned site was proposed that was incompatible with existing land uses and general plan/zoning designations. The applicant ultimately withdrew the site after an extended public controversy, and requested certification for a different site, which was owned by the City/County of San Francisco. The Energy Commission certified the project at the second site, but the City/County would not provide a lease for the site. This site control issue resulted in the applicant eventually dropping the project, despite Energy Commission approval. CONCLUSIONS As described above, issues associated with land use constraints can vary substantially by jurisdiction. They generally involve determination of consistency with LORS and local land use agency participation in the process. Possible options for the Committee to consider to improve the consideration of land use issues include the following: • Establishing an early agency consultation process with local, regional, state and federal agencies potentially affected by a proposed power plant project in order to identify land use and LORS issues prior to completion of the data adequacy process for AFCs. This process could also be used to identify alternative power plant sites considered acceptable by the affected agencies. • Providing workshops or information sessions for affected land use agencies regarding how the Energy Commission power plant permitting process works and how the agency can provide input. LAND USE 6 February 23, 2001 • Offer assistance to local and regional agencies in the development of a programs that identify power needs on a regional basis (e.g., Sacramento Metropolitan area) as well as land areas appropriate for siting power plants and related linear facilities. Encourage local land use agencies to consider the power needs of the community in their land use and planning activities (e.g., general plan and specific plan development processes and associated zoning ordinances). • Evaluate local agency and public participation reimbursement regulations and/or guidelines to facilitate participation in the siting process. February 23, 2001 7 LAND USE