Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Notices 36519 

send you a Grant Award Notification 

(GAN). We may notify you informally, 

also. 

If your application is not evaluated or 

not selected for funding, we notify you. 

2. Administrative and National Policy 

Requirements: We identify 

administrative and national policy 

requirements in the application package 

and reference these and other 

requirements in the Applicable 

Regulations section of this notice. 

We reference the regulations outlining 

the terms and conditions of an award in 

the Applicable Regulations section of 

this notice and include these and other 

specific conditions in the GAN. The 

GAN also incorporates your approved 

application as part of your binding 

commitments under the grant. 

3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a 

grant under this competition, you must 

ensure that you have in place the 

necessary processes and systems to 

comply with the reporting requirements 

in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive 

funding under the competition. This 

does not apply if you have an exception 

under 2 CFR 170.110(b). 

(b) At the end of your project period, 

you must submit a final performance 

report, including financial information, 

as directed by the Secretary. If you 

receive a multi-year award, you must 

submit an annual performance report 

that provides the most current 

performance and financial expenditure 

information as directed by the Secretary 

under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary 

may also require more frequent 

performance reports under 34 CFR 

75.720(c). For specific requirements on 

reporting, please go to www.ed.gov/ 

fund/grant/apply/appforms/ 

appforms.html. 

4. Performance Measures: Under the 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA), the Department has 

established a set of performance 

measures, including long-term 

measures, that are designed to yield 

information on various aspects of the 

effectiveness and quality of the 

Technical Assistance and Dissemination 

to Improve Services and Results for 

Children with Disabilities program. For 

purposes of this priority, the Center will 

use these measures which focus on the 

extent to which projects provide highquality products and services, the 

relevance of project products and 

services to educational and early 

intervention policy and practice, and 

the use of products and services to 

improve educational and early 

intervention policy and practice. 

Grantees will be required to report 

information on their project’s 

performance in annual reports to the 

Department (34 CFR 75.590). 

5. Continuation Awards: In making a 

continuation award, the Secretary may 

consider, under 34 CFR 75.253, the 

extent to which a grantee has made 

‘‘substantial progress toward meeting 

the objectives in its approved 

application.’’ This consideration 

includes the review of a grantee’s 

progress in meeting the targets and 

projected outcomes in its approved 

application, and whether the grantee 

has expended funds in a manner that is 

consistent with its approved application 

and budget. In making a continuation 

grant, the Secretary also considers 

whether the grantee is operating in 

compliance with the assurances in its 

approved application, including those 

applicable to Federal civil rights laws 

that prohibit discrimination in programs 

or activities receiving Federal financial 

assistance from the Department (34 CFR 

100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23). 

VII. Agency Contact 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Allen, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 4105, Potomac Center Plaza (PCP), 

Washington, DC 20202–2600. 

Telephone: (202) 245–7875. 

If you use a TDD or a TTY, call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

VIII. Other Information 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document 

and a copy of the application package in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) by 

contacting the Grants and Contracts 

Services Team, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 5075, PCP, Washington, DC 

20202–2550. Telephone: (202) 245– 

7363. If you use a TDD or a TTY, call 

the FRS, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. 

At this site you can view this 

document, as well as all other 

documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Dated: June 14, 2012. 

Alexa Posny, 

Assistant Secretary for Special Education and 

Rehabilitative Services. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14944 Filed 6–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Amended Notice of Intent Modifying 

the Scope of the Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Hydrogen Energy 

California’s Integrated Gasification 

Combined Cycle Project, Kern County, 

CA 

AGENCY: Department of Energy, DoE. 

ACTION: Amended Notice of Intent and 

Notice of Potential Floodplain and 

Wetlands Involvement. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE or the Department) is 

publishing this Amended Notice of 

Intent to inform the public of changes in 

the scope of an ongoing environmental 

impact statement (EIS). In this EIS, DOE 

will assess the potential environmental 

impacts of a project proposed by 

Hydrogen Energy California, LLC, 

(HECA) pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500– 

1508), and DOE’s NEPA regulations (10 

CFR Part 1021). DOE’s proposed action 

is to provide financial assistance for the 

construction and operation of HECA’s 

project, which would produce and sell 

electricity, carbon dioxide and fertilizer. 

DOE selected this project for an award 

of financial assistance through a 

competitive process under the Clean 

Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) program. 

This Amended Notice of Intent provides 

information about changes to the 

project’s design, HECA’s ownership, 

and DOE’s plans for completing the 

NEPA process that occurred after 

publication of the original Notice of 

Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on 

April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17397–401). 

HECA’s project would demonstrate 

integrated gasification combined cycle 

(IGCC) technology with carbon capture 

in a new electricity generating plant in 

Kern County, California. The plant 

would use a blend of 75 percent coal 

and 25 percent petroleum coke 

(petcoke) and would capture, sell and 

sequester carbon dioxide on a 

commercial scale. It would also produce 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
36520 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Notices 

1 DOE anticipates that, pursuant to Cal. Pub. Res. 

Code § 21000 et seq., California agencies will 

impose mitigation measures to address potential 

impacts and project design elements to verify the 

sequestration of CO2 injected for EOR. 

and sell fertilizer and other nitrogenous 

compounds. 

The project would gasify the coal and 

petcoke to produce synthesis gas 

(syngas), which would then be purified 

to produce a hydrogen-rich fuel for a 

combustion turbine that would generate 

electricity while minimizing emissions 

of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

mercury, and particulates compared to 

conventional coal-fired power plants. In 

addition, the project would achieve a 

carbon dioxide (CO2) capture efficiency 

of approximately 90 percent at steadystate operation. The captured CO2

would be compressed and transported 

via pipeline to the adjacent Elk Hills Oil 

Field (owned and operated by 

Occidental of Elk Hills, Inc. (OEHI)) for 

injection into deep underground oil 

reservoirs for enhanced oil recovery 

(EOR), resulting in geologic 

sequestration. 

The EIS will inform DOE’s decision 

on whether to provide financial 

assistance under its CCPI Program to 

HECA’s project, which has an estimated 

capital cost of $4 billion. DOE’s 

financial assistance (or ‘‘cost share’’) 

would be limited to $408 million, about 

10 percent of the project’s total cost. 

DOE’s financial assistance is also 

limited to certain aspects of the power 

and manufacturing plants, carbon 

capture, and sequestration. The EIS will 

evaluate the potential impacts of DOE’s 

proposed action, the project proposed 

by HECA and any connected actions, 

and reasonable alternatives to DOE’s 

proposed action. The purposes of this 

Amended Notice of Intent are to: (1) 

Inform the public about DOE’s proposed 

action and HECA’s proposed project, 

including information on features of the 

project that have changed since 

publication of the first NOI; (2) describe 

how DOE intends to coordinate its 

NEPA review with the California Energy 

Commission’s process for deciding 

whether to certify the project; (3) solicit 

comments for DOE’s consideration 

regarding the scope and content of the 

EIS; (4) invite those agencies with 

jurisdiction by law or special expertise 

to be cooperating agencies in 

preparation of the EIS; and (5) provide 

notice that the proposed project may 

involve potential impacts to floodplains 

and wetlands. 

DOE does not have regulatory 

jurisdiction over the HECA project. Its 

decisions are limited to whether and 

under what circumstances it would 

provide financial assistance to the 

project. There are a number of state and 

federal agencies that do have regulatory 

authority over the project; one of them 

is the California Energy Commission 

(CEC), which is responsible for power 

plant licensing under the WarrenAlquist Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 25500 

et seq.). This licensing process (referred 

to as ‘‘certification’’) is established by 

California law and will consider all 

relevant environmental aspects of 

HECA’s proposed project. Under state 

law, the certification process fulfills the 

requirements of the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Cal. 

Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.). CEC 

will hold public meetings, issue a final 

staff assessment, conduct evidentiary 

hearings, and issue a decision based on 

the hearing record, which will include 

the CEC’s and other parties’ 

assessments. The CEC conducts an 

independent analysis of the proposed 

project and prepares an assessment of 

its potential environmental impacts, 

potential conditions of certification (e.g. 

mitigation measures), and reasonable 

alternatives. The CEC also consults with 

interested Native American tribes and 

local, regional, state, and federal 

agencies, and will coordinate its 

environmental review with other 

agencies, including the California 

Department of Conservation, Division of 

Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources 

(DOGGR). Pursuant to California law 

and a grant of primacy from the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency 

regarding Class II wells under section 

1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

DOGGR has responsibility for 

permitting EOR injection and extraction 

wells and will separately permit the 

OEHI EOR project. DOGGR will 

coordinate with the CEC.1

DOE intends to coordinate its NEPA 

review of the HECA project with the 

environmental review conducted by the 

CEC as lead agency under CEQA. DOE 

will work closely with the Commission 

throughout its regulatory processes in 

order to integrate the NEPA and CEQA 

processes in an efficient and 

expeditious manner. It is likely that 

DOE and the CEC will issue joint 

documents comprising DOE’s NEPA 

analyses and CEC’s environmental and 

other analyses conducted for its 

certification process. 

DATES: DOE and CEC will hold a joint 

meeting on July 12, 2012 at the Elk Hills 

Elementary School, 501 Kern Street, 

Tupman, CA 93276. For CEC, this 

meeting will constitute its Site Visit and 

Informational Hearing, which provide 

an opportunity for members of the 

community in the project vicinity to 

obtain information about the project, to 

offer comments, and to view the project 

site. Anyone may present oral 

comments at the Informational Hearing 

and no advance notice is needed. HECA 

LLC (referred to as the Applicant in the 

certification process) will explain its 

plans for developing the project and the 

related facilities and the CEC will 

explain the licensing process and its 

role in reviewing the amended 

Application for Certification. More 

information about the site visit, 

informational hearing and the CEC’s 

certification process for this project can 

be found at http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 

sitingcases/hydrogen_energy/ 

index.html. The CEC docket number for 

this project is 08–AFC–08A. 

For DOE, this joint meeting will 

constitute the public scoping meeting 

for DOE’s NEPA review. The purpose of 

the scoping process is to establish the 

alternatives, potential environmental 

impacts, and other issues DOE should 

analyze in the EIS. Individuals, 

businesses, government agencies, and 

other entities may submit comments via 

letters, facsimiles, emails and telephone 

calls (see ADDRESSES below) to DOE 

regarding the alternatives, impacts and 

issues DOE should consider in its EIS. 

The public is also invited to attend the 

scoping meeting and present oral 

comments and suggestions on these 

topics. DOE will accept comments on 

the scope of the EIS until July 27, 2012; 

it will consider comments submitted 

after this date to the extent practicable. 

Additional information about DOE’s 

NEPA review of this project can be 

found at http://www.netl.doe.gov/ 

publications/others/nepa/index.html. 

The CEC and DOE will provide more 

information about the joint meeting at a 

later date through their Web sites, 

mailings and public notices. The Site 

Visit will start at the Elk Hills 

Elementary School at 5:00 p.m. PDT; 

buses will take anyone wishing to visit 

the site from the school to the site and 

then return them to the school by 6:00 

p.m. for the start of the Informational 

Hearing and Public Scoping Meeting. 

You need not participate in the site visit 

to participate in the hearing and scoping 

meeting. The hearing and meeting will 

start with presentations by the CEC’s 

hearing officer, the Applicant, CEC staff, 

DOE, and others. A period for questions 

and comments will begin after these 

presentations. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

scope of the EIS and requests to 

participate in the public scoping 

meeting should be addressed to: Mr. 

Fred Pozzuto, U.S. Department of 

Energy, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory, 3610 Collins Ferry Road, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Notices 36521 

P.O. Box 880, Morgantown, WV 26507. 

Individuals who would like to provide 

oral or electronic comments should 

contact Mr. Pozzuto directly by 

telephone: 304–285–5219; toll-free 

number: 1–866–269–6493; fax: 412– 

386–6127; or electronic mail: 

heca.eis@netl.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about this project or to 

receive a copy of the draft EIS when it 

is issued, contact Mr. Pozzuto as 

described above. For general 

information on the DOE NEPA process, 

contact Ms. Carol M. Borgstrom, 

Director, Office of NEPA Policy and 

Compliance (GC–54), U.S. Department 

of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20585–0103; 

telephone: 202–586–4600; fax: 202– 

586–7031; or leave a toll-free message at 

1–800–472–2756. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Since the early 1970s, DOE and its 

predecessor agencies have pursued 

research and development programs 

that include large, technically complex 

projects in pursuit of innovation in a 

wide variety of coal technologies 

through the proof-of-concept stage. 

However, helping a technology reach 

the proof-of-concept stage does not 

ensure its continued development or 

commercialization. Before a technology 

can be considered seriously for 

commercialization, it must be 

demonstrated at a sufficient scale to 

prove its reliability and economically 

competitive performance. The financial 

risk associated with such large-scale 

demonstration projects is often too high 

for the private sector to assume in the 

absence of strong incentives. 

The CCPI program was established in 

2002 as a government and private sector 

partnership to implement the 

recommendation in President Bush’s 

National Energy Policy to increase 

investment in clean coal technology. 

Through cooperative agreements with 

its private sector partners, the program 

advances clean coal technologies to 

commercialization; these technologies 

often involve combustion 

improvements, control systems 

advances, gasifier design, pollution 

reduction (including greenhouse gas 

reduction), efficiency increases, fuel 

processing, and others. 

The Congress established criteria for 

projects receiving financial assistance 

under this program in Title IV of the 

Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L.109– 

58) (EPACT 2005). Under this statute, 

CCPI projects must ‘‘advance efficiency, 

environmental performance, and cost 

competitiveness well beyond the level 

of technologies that are in commercial 

service’’ (Pub. L. 109–58, § 402(a)). In 

February 2009, the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. 

111–5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009)) 

(ARRA) appropriated $3.4 billion to 

DOE for ‘‘Fossil Energy Research and 

Development;’’ the Department intends 

to use a significant portion of these 

funds to provide financial assistance to 

CCPI projects. 

The CCPI program selects projects for 

its government-private sector 

partnerships through an open and 

competitive process. Potential private 

sector partners may include developers 

of technologies, utilities and other 

energy producers, service corporations, 

research and development firms, 

software developers, academia and 

others. DOE issues funding opportunity 

announcements that specify the types of 

projects it is seeking, and invites 

submission of applications. 

Applications are reviewed according to 

the criteria specified in the funding 

opportunity announcement; these 

criteria include technical, financial, 

environmental, and other 

considerations. DOE selects the projects 

that demonstrate the most promise 

when evaluated against these criteria, 

and enters into a cooperative agreement 

with the applicant. These agreements 

set out the project’s objectives, the 

obligations of the parties, and other 

features of the partnership. Applicants 

must agree to provide at least 50 percent 

of their project’s cost; for most CCPI 

projects, the applicant’s cost share is 

much greater. 

To date the CCPI program has 

conducted three rounds of solicitations 

and project selections. The first round 

sought projects that would demonstrate 

advanced technologies for power 

generation and improvements in plant 

efficiency, economics, and 

environmental performance. Round 2 

requested applications for projects that 

would demonstrate improved mercury 

controls and gasification technology. 

Round 3, which DOE conducted in two 

phases, sought projects that would 

demonstrate advanced coal-based 

electricity generating technologies 

which capture and sequester (or put to 

beneficial use) carbon dioxide 

emissions. DOE’s overarching goal for 

Round 3 projects was to demonstrate 

technologies at commercial scale in a 

commercial setting that would: (1) 

Operate at 90 percent capture efficiency 

for CO2; (2) make progress towards 

capture and sequestration at less than a 

10 percent increase in the cost of 

electricity for gasification systems and a 

less than 35 percent increase for 

combustion and oxycombustion 

systems; and (3) make progress toward 

capture and sequestration of 50 percent 

of the facility’s CO2 output at a scale 

sufficient to evaluate the full impacts of 

carbon capture technology on a 

generating plant’s operations, 

economics and performance. The HECA 

project was one of two selected in the 

first phase of Round 3. DOE entered into 

a cooperative agreement with HECA on 

September 30, 2009, and began the 

NEPA process. HECA continued to seek 

the regulatory authorizations needed for 

the project, including certification by 

the CEC and environmental permits 

from federal, state and other agencies. 

On September 2, 2011, SCS Energy 

California LLC (SCS Energy) acquired 

HECA from BP Alternative Energy North 

America Inc., and Rio Tinto Hydrogen 

Energy LLC. Because SCS Energy 

intended to make several modifications 

to the project—including the addition of 

fertilizer production capabilities—the 

NEPA and regulatory processes were 

suspended until HECA submitted an 

Amended Application for Certification 

(AFC) to the CEC on May 2, 2012. 

Purpose and Need for DOE Action 

The purpose and need for DOE 

action—providing limited financial 

assistance to HECA’s project—remain 

the same after the change in HECA’s 

ownership: To advance DOE’s CCPI 

program by funding projects that have 

the best chance of achieving the 

program’s objective as established by 

the Congress. The objective of the CCPI 

program is the commercialization of 

clean coal technologies that improve 

efficiency, environmental performance, 

and cost competitiveness well beyond 

those of technologies that are currently 

in commercial service. 

Site of the Project Proposed by HECA 

The location of the project remains 

the same with only minor changes in 

the size of the project site. HECA would 

construct its electricity and fertilizer 

production facility on a site currently 

used for agriculture in Kern County, 

California. The 1,106 acre site (453 acres 

of which would be used for the project 

and 653 acres for a controlled buffer 

area) is in south-central California near 

the unincorporated community of 

Tupman, approximately 7 miles west of 

the city of Bakersfield. The site’s 

topography is characterized by 

relatively flat, low-lying terrain that 

slopes very gently from southeast to 

northwest. The site and surrounding 

areas are used for agricultural purposes, 

including cultivation of cotton, alfalfa, 

and onions. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
36522 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Notices 

HECA modified the project’s design to 

better meet market demands. This new 

design resulted in changes to the 

project’s plot plan and footprint within 

the site (including the addition of the 

fertilizer manufacturing plant and the 

possible addition of a rail loop), but as 

mentioned above, the size of the site 

and buffer areas remain nearly 

unchanged. Unless otherwise noted 

below, the design is not appreciably 

different from that set out in the 

previous NOI and regulatory filings. The 

basic components and attributes of the 

project that remain unchanged include: 

• The use of IGCC technology, the 

basic components of which are 

feedstock delivery, handling, and 

storage; gasification unit; sour gas shift, 

low temperature gas cooling, and 

mercury removal units; acid gas removal 

unit; sulfur recovery and tail gas 

compression; CO2 compression; and 

combined cycle power block equipment; 

• The project’s location; 

• Capture of 90 percent of the CO2

generated by the facility; 

• Transportation of the CO2 to the Elk 

Hills Oil Field for use in EOR and 

resulting sequestration; 

• Advanced air emissions controls; 

• Use of brackish water (supplied by 

the Buena Vista Water Storage District); 

and 

• Zero liquid discharge. 

There are some modifications to the 

project: 

• The project will include an 

integrated manufacturing plant 

producing approximately 1 million tons 

per year of nitrogenous compounds 

such as urea, urea ammonium nitrate 

(UAN) and anhydrous ammonia to be 

used in agricultural, transportation and 

industrial applications. 

• A single Mitsubishi Heavy 

Industries’ (MHI) oxygen-blown dry 

feed gasifier and an MHI 501 

GAC copy; combustion turbine will be 

used. The original project planned to 

use three gasifiers from a different 

manufacturer. 

• While most of the captured CO2

(about 87 percent of the amount 

captured) would continue to be used for 

EOR at the nearby Elk Hills Oil Field, 

about 13 percent of the captured CO2

would be beneficially used to produce 

urea. The project would provide 

approximately 3 million tons per year 

for EOR, rather than the approximately 

2 million tons anticipated under the 

previous design as a result of the change 

in the gasifier the project now intends 

to use. The resulting increase in 

hydrogen production accounts for the 

additional 1 million tons of CO2 per 

year when the project was originally 

envisioned. 

• The facility would use a blend of 75 

percent coal and 25 percent petcoke as 

fuel throughout the life of the facility 

(previously, HECA planned to use this 

fuel blend only during the 

demonstration phase of operation). 

• Natural gas would be used for startup, shut down and equipment outages 

only, not for routine operation of the 

turbine as originally planned. A natural 

gas interconnection would be made to 

an existing PG&E pipeline 

approximately 13 miles north of the site, 

rather than the eight miles originally 

estimated. 

• Potable water would be delivered to 

the project site from a new West Kern 

Water District facility located less than 

one mile away via a new water pipeline, 

rather than the 7 miles originally 

anticipated. 

• An approximately 2-mile electrical 

transmission line, rather than the 8-mile 

line originally anticipated, would 

connect with a future PG&E switching 

station east of the project site. 

• HECA is considering two 

alternatives for coal transportation to 

the site: Alternative 1 would involve a 

new approximately 5-mile railroad spur 

that would connect the site to the 

existing San Joaquin Railroad 

Buttonwillow line; alternative 2 would 

involve the previously proposed truck 

transport of the coal from an existing 

transloading facility. 

Proposed Generating Plant 

The HECA project would demonstrate 

IGCC and carbon capture technology on 

a commercial scale in a new power 

plant consisting of a single gasifier with 

gas cleanup systems, a gas combustion 

turbine, a heat recovery steam generator, 

a steam turbine, and associated 

facilities. 

The plant proposed by HECA would 

gasify coal and petcoke to produce 

syngas, which would then be processed 

and purified to produce a hydrogen-rich 

fuel. The hydrogen would be used to 

drive the gas combustion turbine. Hot 

exhaust gas from the gas combustion 

turbine would generate steam from 

water in the heat recovery steam 

generator to drive the steam turbine; 

both turbines would generate electricity. 

At full capacity, the plant is expected to 

use about 4,580 short tons of coal and 

about 1,140 short tons of petcoke per 

day (about 162 million short tons and 

400,000 short tons per year, 

respectively). 

Combined, the gas combustion and 

steam turbines would have the capacity 

to generate 405 MW gross 

(approximately 300 MW nominal) of 

low-carbon electricity, slightly more 

than the 390 MW gross and 288 MW net 

originally anticipated. This combinedcycle approach of using gas and steam 

turbines in tandem increases the 

amount of electricity that can be 

generated from the feedstock. 

The plant would include a system 

capable of capturing about 90 percent of 

the CO2 generated during steady-state 

operation. Most of the captured CO2

would be used for EOR at the Elk Hills 

Field, located approximately three miles 

southwest of the project’s location. This 

use of captured CO2 would result in the 

sequestration of more than 3 million 

tons per year. Some of the captured CO2

would be beneficially used to 

manufacture urea rather than for EOR. 

The proposed plant would minimize 

sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 

mercury, and particulate emissions as 

compared to conventional coal-fired 

power plants. The project would 

incorporate state-of-the-art emissions 

controls that reflect or exceed Best 

Available Control Technology to reduce 

air emissions. The actual removals are 

expected to be similar to those stated in 

the original NOI. 

Solids generated by the gasifier would 

be accumulated onsite and made 

available for appropriate recycling or 

beneficial use, and if these options are 

not available, disposed of in accordance 

with applicable laws. Unlike the 

gasifiers that HECA originally planned 

to use, the MHI gasifier does not 

produce solids with fuel value, and 

therefore solids would not be returned 

to the gasification process as HECA had 

originally planned. 

In addition to the gasifier and 

turbines, the power plant’s equipment 

would include stacks, a mechanicaldraft cooling tower, syngas cleanup 

facilities, and particulate filtration 

systems. The height of the tallest 

proposed structure would be 

approximately 305 feet above ground 

rather than 260 feet as originally 

proposed. The plant would also require 

systems for feedstock handling and 

storage, as well as on-site roads, 

administration buildings, water and 

wastewater treatment systems, and 

management facilities for handling 

gasification solids. 

Proposed Fertilizer Production 

Facilities 

A portion of the clean hydrogen-rich 

fuel would be used as a feedstock for the 

ammonia synthesis unit, which would 

have a capacity of 2,000 short tons per 

day. The ammonia is used as an 

intermediate for the production of urea. 

The project is designed so that it can 

sell urea, ammonia, and perhaps other 

nitrogenous compounds. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Notices 36523 

2Because of the requirements of California law, 

DOE expects that the HECA project would continue 

sequestering CO2 throughout the operational life of 

the plant. 

The project’s urea production unit 

would use pastillation technology, 

which converts urea melt into high 

quality urea pastilles (small solid pellets 

of urea). The unit would have a capacity 

of about 1,700 short tons per day. The 

urea, along with other intermediates 

produced by the plant, could also be 

used by the urea ammonia nitrate unit 

to produce 1,500 short tons per day of 

UAN. 

Proposed Linear Facilities 

Linear facilities are the pipelines, 

electrical lines and rail lines used to 

transport materials and power to and 

from the plant. The source of process 

water for the plant would be brackish 

groundwater supplied by the Buena 

Vista Water Storage District; 

approximately 4,600 gallons per minute 

(average annual basis) would be 

required for cooling water makeup, 

steam cycle makeup, and other 

processes. The process water pipeline 

would be approximately 15 miles in 

length. Potable water for drinking and 

sanitary use would be supplied by the 

West Kern Water District. The potable 

water line would be approximately 1 

mile in length. The project would 

recycle water and would incorporate 

zero liquid discharge (ZLD) technology 

for process and other wastewater from 

plant operations. Therefore, there would 

be no industrial wastewater discharge. 

Sanitary wastewater would be disposed 

of in an onsite leach field (e.g., a septic 

system) in accordance with applicable 

law. 

HECA would connect to the PG&E 

Midway Substation via a 230 kV 

Midway-Wheeler Ridge transmission 

line and a new PG&E switching station. 

A 230 kV, single pole, double circuit 

capacity transmission line would be 

built to provide transmission service for 

the plant’s electricity output. The line 

would be approximately 2 miles in 

length. 

An approximately 13-mile natural gas 

supply pipeline would connect with an 

existing PG&E pipeline north of the 

project site, and an approximately 3- 

mile CO2 pipeline extending from the 

site to the Elk Hills Oil Field would be 

used to transport the CO2 for use in EOR 

and resulting geologic sequestration. 

HECA has proposed two alternatives for 

coal transportation to the site: 

alternative 1 would involve an 

approximately 5-mile new industrial 

railroad spur that would connect the 

site to the existing San Joaquin Railroad 

Buttonwillow line; alternative 2 would 

involve the previously proposed 27-mile 

route for truck transport of the coal from 

an existing transloading facility. 

Proposed Use of CO2 for EOR and 

Sequestration 

The project would result in the 

sequestration of about three million tons 

of CO2 per year, rather than the two 

million tons originally proposed, during 

the demonstration phase that would be 

funded in part by DOE. HECA 

anticipates this rate of sequestration 

would continue for the operational life 

of the power plant. The captured CO2

would be compressed and transported 

via pipeline to the Elk Hills Oil Field 

approximately 3 miles from the power 

plant. The CO2 would enhance domestic 

oil production, contributing to the 

nation’s energy security. An additional 

small amount of the CO2 produced by 

the facility would be used to 

manufacture urea. 

The EOR process involves the 

injection and reinjection of CO2 to 

reduce the viscosity and enhance other 

properties of trapped oil in order to 

facilitate its flow through the reservoir, 

improving extraction. During EOR 

operations, the pore space left by the 

extracted oil is occupied by the injected 

CO2, sequestering it in the geologic 

formation. EOR operations would be 

monitored to ensure the injected CO2

remains in the formation. 

Proposed Project Schedule 

The project proposed by HECA 

includes engineering and design, 

permitting of the plant and associated 

facilities, equipment procurement, 

construction, startup, operations, and 

demonstration of the IGCC technology 

and CO2 sequestration through use in 

EOR operations. HECA anticipates that 

it would take about four years to 

construct, commission, and commence 

operation of the plant. It plans to start 

construction by June 2013 and 

commence commercial operation by 

September 2017. This schedule is 

contingent upon HECA receiving the 

necessary regulatory authorizations 

(which would be preceded by the 

hearings and other events mandated by 

the regulatory agencies’ procedures) and 

upon DOE deciding to provide financial 

assistance for the construction and 

demonstration phases of the project (a 

decision that would occur after 

completion of the EIS). 

Connected and Cumulative Actions 

Under the cooperative agreement 

between DOE and HECA, DOE would 

share the costs of the gasifier, syngas 

cleanup systems, combustion turbine, 

steam generator, steam turbine, fertilizer 

production facilities, supporting 

facilities and infrastructure, and a 

demonstration phase in which the 

project would use captured CO2 for 

EOR.2 Under this agreement, DOE 

would not share in the cost of the air 

separation unit, CO2 EOR and 

sequestration facilities, or certain other 

facilities. Accordingly, the EIS will 

evaluate the potential impacts of these 

aspects of HECA’s project as connected 

actions. 

DOE will also analyze the cumulative 

impacts of both the proposed project 

and any connected actions. The 

cumulative impacts analysis will 

include analysis of greenhouse gas 

emissions and global warming, other air 

emissions, and other incremental 

impacts that, when added to past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable 

impacts, may have significant effects on 

the human environment. 

Alternatives 

NEPA requires that an EIS evaluate 

the range of reasonable alternatives to 

an agency’s proposed action. The range 

of reasonable alternatives encompasses 

those alternatives that would satisfy the 

underlying purpose and need for agency 

action. The purpose and need for DOE 

action—providing limited financial 

assistance to the HECA IGCC project— 

are to advance the CCPI program by 

selecting projects that have the best 

chance of achieving the program’s 

objective as established by the Congress: 

the commercialization of clean coal 

technologies that advance efficiency, 

environmental performance, and cost 

competitiveness well beyond the level 

of technologies that are currently in 

service. DOE’s purpose and need, as 

well as the range of reasonable 

alternatives, will differ from those of the 

CEC. 

DOE’s NEPA regulations include a 

process for identifying and analyzing 

reasonable alternatives in the context of 

providing financial assistance through a 

competitive selection of projects 

proposed by entities outside the federal 

government. The range of reasonable 

alternatives in competitions for grants, 

loans and other financial support is 

defined in large part by the range of 

responsive proposals DOE receives. 

Unlike projects undertaken by DOE 

itself, the Department cannot mandate 

what outside entities propose, where 

they propose to do it, or how they 

propose to do it beyond establishing 

requirements in the funding opportunity 

announcement that further the 

program’s objectives. DOE’s decision is 

limited to selecting among the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
36524 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 118 / Tuesday, June 19, 2012 / Notices 

3HECA initially selected another site; it 

subsequently decided to move the project when it 

discovered the existence of sensitive biological 

resources at the initial site. 

4No threatened or endangered species have been 

identified at the proposed plant site; three listed 

plant species and nine listed wildlife species (rather 

than the eight as stated in the original NOI) have 

the potential to occur in the ROWs of the linear 

facilities. 

applications submitted by project 

sponsors that meet CCPI’s goals. 

Recognizing that the range of 

reasonable alternatives in the context of 

financial assistance and contracting is in 

large part determined by the number 

and nature of the proposals submitted, 

section 216 of DOE’s NEPA regulations 

requires the Department to prepare an 

‘‘environmental critique’’ that assesses 

the environmental impacts and issues 

relating to each of the proposals that the 

DOE selecting official considers for an 

award. See 10 CFR 1021.216. This 

official considers these impacts and 

issues, along with other aspects of the 

proposals (such as technical merit and 

financial ability) and the program’s 

objectives, in making awards. DOE 

prepared a critique of the proposals that 

were deemed suitable for selection in 

this round of awards for the CCPI 

program. 

Once DOE selects a project for an 

award, the range of reasonable 

alternatives becomes the project as 

proposed by the applicant, any 

alternatives still under consideration by 

the applicant or that are reasonable 

within the confines of the project as 

proposed (e.g., the particular location of 

the generating plant on the 1,106-acre 

site or the rights-of-way (ROWs) for 

linear facilities), and a no action 

alternative. Regarding the no action 

alternative, DOE assumes for purposes 

of the EIS that, if it were to decide to 

withhold financial assistance from the 

project, the project would not proceed. 

DOE currently plans to analyze the 

project as proposed by HECA (with and 

without any mitigating conditions that 

DOE or the CEC may identify as 

reasonable and appropriate); 

alternatives to HECA’s proposal that it 

is still considering (e.g., the ROWs for 

linear facilities); and the no action 

alternative. 

As noted above, DOE will analyze any 

‘‘project-specific’’ alternatives that 

HECA is still considering such as the 

coal delivery alternatives, and other 

reasonable alternatives that may be 

suggested during the scoping period. 

HECA is no longer considering other 

project-specific alternatives identified in 

the original NOI (i.e., the location of the 

facility within the site boundaries, 

alternative routes for the process water 

supply pipeline, CO2 pipeline and 

transmission line). 

Under the no action alternative, DOE 

would not provide funding to HECA. In 

the absence of financial assistance from 

DOE, HECA could reasonably pursue 

two options. It could build the project 

without DOE funding; the impacts of 

this option would be essentially the 

same as those of DOE’s proposed action. 

Or, HECA could choose not to pursue its 

project, and there would be no impacts 

from the project. This option would not 

contribute to the goal of the CCPI 

program, which is to accelerate 

commercial deployment of advanced 

coal technologies that provide the 

United States with clean, reliable, and 

affordable energy. However, as required 

by NEPA, DOE analyzes this option as 

the no action alternative in order to 

have a meaningful comparison between 

the impacts of DOE providing financial 

assistance and withholding that 

assistance. 

Alternatives considered by HECA in 

developing its proposed project will be 

discussed in the EIS. Differences 

between DOE’s range of reasonable 

alternatives and those considered by the 

CEC will also be delineated. HECA 

analyzed several alternative sites and 

determined that the only reasonable site 

alternative was its proposed site based 

on, among other things, the presence or 

absence of sensitive resources; the 

availability of land; and the site’s 

proximity to the brackish groundwater 

supply, to electric transmission and 

natural gas facilities, and to a CO2

storage reservoir.3 The EIS will describe 

HECA’s site selection process. However, 

DOE does not plan to analyze in detail 

the alternatives sites considered by 

HECA because HECA is no longer 

considering these sites, they were not 

part of HECA’s proposal, and therefore 

they are no longer reasonable 

alternatives. 

Floodplains and Wetlands 

The footprint of the proposed IGCC 

and manufacturing facility and carbon 

capture facility would not affect any 

wetlands or floodplains. Wetland and 

floodplain impacts, if any, from the 

construction of pipelines would be 

avoided by the use of horizontal 

directional drilling. In the event that the 

EIS identifies that wetlands or 

floodplains on the surface would be 

affected by the project (including its 

linear facilities) or connected actions, 

DOE will prepare a floodplain and 

wetland assessment in accordance with 

its regulations at 10 CFR Part 1022 and 

include the assessment in the EIS. 

Preliminary Identification of 

Environmental Issues 

The original NOI contained a 

preliminary list and description of 

potential environmental issues (75 FR 

17397–401); the list of issues would 

remain the same for the project as 

modified after SCS Energy’s acquisition 

of HECA. The list includes those 

impacts and resource areas typically 

addressed in an EIS for a project of this 

type: Atmospheric resources; water 

resources; infrastructure and land use; 

solid waste; visual resources; 

floodplains and wetlands; ecological 

resources; safety and health; 

construction-related impacts; 

community impacts; cultural and 

archaeological resources; threatened and 

endangered species; 4 and cumulative 

effects. Currently, no threatened or 

endangered species have been identified 

at the proposed plant site; three listed 

plant species and nine listed wildlife 

species (rather than the eight as stated 

in the original NOI) have the potential 

to occur in the ROWs of the linear 

facilities. 

Additions to or deletions from the list 

may occur as a result of this scoping 

process. The level of analysis of issues 

in the EIS will be in accordance with 

their level of importance. The most 

detailed analyses are likely to focus on 

potential impacts to air, water, and 

ecological resources. 

Issued in Pittsburgh, PA, this 12th day of 

June 2012. 

Anthony V. Cugini, 

Director, National Energy Technology 

Laboratory. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14867 Filed 6–18–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

[Project No. 14421–000] 

Freedom Falls, LLC; Notice of 

Application Tendered for Filing With 

the Commission and Soliciting 

Additional Study Requests 

Take notice that the following 

hydroelectric application has been filed 

with the Commission and is available 

for public inspection. 

a. Type of Application: Exemption 

from Licensing. 

b. Project No.: 14421–000. 

c. Date filed: June 1, 2012. 

d. Applicant: Freedom Falls, LLC. 

e. Name of Project: Freedom Falls 

Hydroelectric Project. 

f. Location: On Sandy Stream, in the 

Town of Freedom, Waldo County, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES