FINAL COMMISSION DECISION

Application For Certification (08-AFC-1)

Kings County

CALIFORNIA

ENERGY

COMMISSION

AVENAL ENERGY

DECEMBER 2009

(08-AFC-1)

CEC-800-2009-006-CMF
1516 9th Street

Sacramento, CA 95814

www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/avenal/index.html

CALIFORNIA ENERGY

COMMISSION

JEFFREY BYRON

Presiding Committee Member

KAREN DOUGLAS

Associate Committee Member

GARY FAY

Hearing Officer

ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD, Ph. D.

Commissioner

JEFFREY D. BYRON

Commissioner

JULIA LEVIN, J.D. 

Commissioner

JAMES D. BOYD

Vice Chair

KAREN DOUGLAS, J.D.

Chair

COMMISSIONERSFINAL COMMISSION DECISION

Application For Certification (08-AFC-1)

Kings County

CALIFORNIA

ENERGY

COMMISSION

AVENAL ENERGY

DECEMBER 2009

(08-AFC-1)

CEC-800-2009-006-CMF
BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 

1-800-822-6228 – WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV

DOCKET NO. 08-AFC-1 

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR THE

AVENAL ENERGY PROJECT ORDER NO. 09-1216-04 

COMMISSION ADOPTION ORDER

This Commission Order adopts the Commission Decision on the Avenal Energy Project. It 

incorporates the Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (PMPD) in the above-captioned matter 

and the Committee Errata. The Commission Decision is based upon the evidentiary record of 

these proceedings and considers the comments received at the December 16, 2009, business 

meeting. The text of the attached Commission Decision contains a summary of the proceedings, 

the evidence presented, and the rationale for the findings reached and Conditions imposed. 

This ORDER adopts by reference the text, Conditions of Certification, Compliance Verifications, 

and Appendices contained in the Commission Decision. It also adopts specific requirements 

contained in the Commission Decision which ensure that the proposed facility will be designed, 

sited, and operated in a manner to protect environmental quality, to assure public health and 

safety, and to operate in a safe and reliable manner. 

FINDINGS

The Commission hereby adopts the following findings in addition to those contained in the 

accompanying text: 

1. The Avenal Energy Project will provide a degree of economic benefits and electricity 

reliability to the local area. 

2. The Conditions of Certification contained in the accompanying text, if implemented by the 

project owner, ensure that the project will be designed, sited, and operated in conformity 

with applicable local, regional, state, and federal laws, ordinances, regulations, and 

standards, including applicable public health and safety standards, and air and water 

quality standards. 

3. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification contained in the accompanying text will 

ensure protection of environmental quality and assure reasonably safe and reliable 

operation of the facility. The Conditions of Certification also assure that the project will 

neither result in, nor contribute substantially to, any significant direct, indirect, or 

cumulative adverse environmental impacts. 

1 
2 

4. Existing governmental land use restrictions are sufficient to adequately control population 

density in the area surrounding the facility and may be reasonably expected to ensure 

public health and safety. 

5. The project is subject to Fish and Game Code section 711.4 and the project owner must 

therefore pay an eight hundred fifty dollar ($850) fee to the California Department of Fish 

and Game. 

6. Construction and operation of the project, as mitigated, will not create any significant 

adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, the evidence of record also establishes that no 

feasible alternatives to the project, as described during these proceedings, exist which 

would reduce or eliminate any significant environmental impacts of the mitigated project. 

7. The evidence of record does not establish the existence of any environmentally superior 

alternative site. 

8. The evidence of record establishes that an environmental justice screening analysis was 

conducted and that the project, as mitigated, will not have a disproportionate impact on 

low-income or minority populations. 

9. The Decision contains a discussion of the public benefits of the project as required by 

Public Resources Code section 25523(h). 

10. The Decision contains measures to ensure that the planned, temporary, or unexpected 

closure of the project will occur in conformance with applicable laws, ordinances, 

regulations, and standards. 

11. The proceedings leading to this Decision have been conducted in conformity with the 

applicable provisions of Commission regulations governing the consideration of an 

Application for Certification and thereby meet the requirements of Public Resources Code 

sections 21000 et seq. and 25500 et seq. 

ORDER

Therefore, the Commission ORDERS the following: 

1. The Application for Certification of the Avenal Energy Project as described in this Decision 

is hereby approved and a certificate to construct and operate the project is hereby granted. 

2. The approval of the Application for Certification is subject to the timely performance of the 

Conditions of Certification and Compliance Verifications enumerated in the accompanying 

text and Appendices. The Conditions and Compliance Verifications are integrated with this 

Decision and are not severable therefrom. While the project owner may delegate the 

performance of a Condition or Verification, the duty to ensure adequate performance of a 

Condition or Verification may not be delegated. 

3. This Decision is adopted, issued, effective, and final on December 16, 2009. 
4. Reconsideration of this Decision is governed by Public Resources Code, section 25530. 

5. Judicial review of this Decision is governed by Public Resources Code, section 25531. 

6. The Commission hereby adopts the Conditions of Certification, Compliance Verifications, and 

associated dispute resolution procedures as part of this Decision in order to implement the 

compliance monitoring program required by Public Resources Code section 25532. All 

conditions in this Decision take effect immediately upon adoption and apply to all construction 

and site preparation activities including, but not limited to, ground disturbance, site 

preparation, and permanent structure construction. 

7. This Decision licenses the project owner to commence construction on the project within five 

years of this Decision date. Subject to the provisions of California Code of Regulations, title 

20, section 1720.3, this license expires by operation of law when the project’s start-ofconstruction deadline passes with no construction. 

8. The project owner shall provide the Executive Director a check in the amount of eight 

hundred fifty dollars ($850), payable to the California Department of Fish and Game. 

9. The Executive Director of the Commission shall transmit a copy of this Decision and 

appropriate accompanying documents, including the Department of Fish and Game fee, as 

provided by Public Resources Code, section 25537, California Code of Regulations, title 20, 

section 1768, and Fish and Game Code, section 711.4. 

10. We order that the Application for Certification docket file for this proceeding be closed 

effective the date of this Decision, with the exception that the docket file shall remain open 

for 30 additional days solely to receive material related to a petition for reconsideration of 

the Decision. 

Dated December 16, 2009, at Sacramento, California. 

 KAREN DOUGLAS JAMES D. BOYD 

Chairman Vice Chair 

 

 ARTHUR H. ROSENFELD JEFFREY D. BYRON 

Commissioner Commissioner 

 JULIA LEVIN 

Commissioner 

3 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 

A. SUMMARY .... . .............................................................................................. 1 

B. SITE CERTIFICATION PROCESS ...................................................................... 3 

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................................................................................. 4 

D. COMMISSION OUTREACH ............................................................................... 6 

E. PUBLIC COMMENT......................................................................... 7 

 

I. PROJECT PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION ........................................ 9 

II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................ 16 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ....................................... 16

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................... 23 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................... 24

 

III. COMPLIANCE AND CLOSURE ....................................................... 25 

 SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................................. 25

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................... 26 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................... 26 

 GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ......................................... 27 

IV. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT ....................................................... 47 

 A. FACILITY DESIGN ................................................................ 47 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ....................................... 47

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................... 49 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................... 49 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ........................................................ 50

B. POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY ................................................ 69 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ....................................... 69

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................... 71 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................... 72

 C. POWER PLANT RELIABILITY ............................................... 73 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE .............................................. 73 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................... 76

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................... 77 

D. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING ............................ 78 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE .............................................. 79 

FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................... 82 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................... 84 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ........................................................ 84 

i 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 

PAGE

E. TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND NUISANCE .................. 91 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE .............................................. 91 

FINDINGS OF FACT .......................................................................... 94 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ..................................................................... 95 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ........................................................ 96

V. PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ...................................................... 98 

 A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................... 98 

 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .................................................................... 98 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 111 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 113 

 B. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................... 115 

 SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE ..................................................................... 115 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 131 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 132 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 132 

 C. PUBLIC HEALTH ................................................................ 168 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 168 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................ 172 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 173 

D. WORKER SAFETY/FIRE PROTECTION ............................... 174 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 174 

FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 178

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 179 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 179 

 E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ......................... 183 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 183 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 192 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 193 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 194

F. WASTE MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 206 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 206 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 212 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 213 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 213 

VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............................................ 218 

A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................. 218 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 218 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................ 230 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 231 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 231 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 

PAGE

 B. SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES ......................................... 244 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 244 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 258 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 261

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 261

C. CULTURAL RESOURCES .................................................... 268 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 269 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 276 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 276 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 277 

D. GEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 289 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 289 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 291 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 292 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 292 

VII. LOCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT .................................................... 301 

 A. LAND USE.......................................................................... 301 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 301 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 307 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 309 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 309 

B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION............................................. 312 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 312 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 321 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 321 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 321

C. SOCIOECONOMICS ............................................................ 324 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 324 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................ 332 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 333

 CONDITION OF CERTIFICATION ........................................................ 334 

 D. NOISE AND VIBRATION ..................................................... 336 

 SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE ..................................................................... 336 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ........................................................................ 340 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 341 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 342

E. VISUAL RESOURCES ......................................................... 347 

 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE ............................................ 347 

 FINDINGS OF FACT ......................................................................... 367 

 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ................................................................... 368 

 CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION ...................................................... 368 

iii 
iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 

APPENDIX A: LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS

APPENDIX B: EXHIBIT LIST 

APPENDIX C: PROOF OF SERVICE LIST
INTRODUCTION 

A. SUMMARY OF THE DECISION

This Decision contains the Commission’s rationale in determining that the 

proposed Avenal Energy Project will, as mitigated, have no significant impacts on 

the environment and complies with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, 

and standards (LORS). The project may therefore be licensed. Our Decision is 

based exclusively upon the record established during this certification proceeding 

and summarized in this document. We have independently evaluated the 

evidence, provided references to the record1 supporting our findings and 

conclusions, and specified the measures required to ensure that the Avenal 

Energy Project is designed, constructed, and operated in the manner necessary 

to protect public health and safety, promote the general welfare, and preserve 

environmental quality. 

This Decision also assesses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are likely 

to result from the construction and operation of the Avenal Energy Project. We 

conclude that the Avenal Energy Project’s GHG emissions will comply with all 

applicable LORS and will not result in any significant, adverse, unmitigated 

environmental impacts. We also conclude that the Avenal Energy Project will be 

consistent with California’s ambitious GHG goals and policies. 

On February 21, 2008, Avenal Power Center, LLC (Avenal Power or Applicant) 

filed an Application for Certification (AFC) for the Avenal Energy Project with the 

Energy Commission seeking approval to construct and operate a 600-megawatt 

(MW) power plant in the City of Avenal in Kings County. The project would be 

built on approximately 34 acres of a 148-acre site that is just south of the Fresno 

County line, and approximately two miles east of Interstate 5. Although the 

proposed project is within City of Avenal town limits in an area zoned for 

industrial use, it is located approximately six miles from the city's residential and 

commercial districts. Current land use at the project site is irrigated agriculture, 

as is the surrounding land use. (Ex. 200, p. 3-2.) The Energy Commission has 

exclusive jurisdiction to license this project and is considering the proposal under 

a review process established by Public Resources Code section 25540.6. The 

 

1

 The Reporter’s Transcript of the evidentiary hearings is cited as “date of hearing RT page __.” 

For example: 7/07/09 RT 77. The exhibits included in the evidentiary record are cited as “Ex. 

number.” A list of all exhibits is contained in Appendix B of this Decision. 

1
Energy Commission began review of the Avenal Energy Project on April 16, 

2008. 

The proposed Avenal Energy Project would be a combined cycle generating 

plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with 

Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam 

Turbine. Oxidation catalysts would also be located within each heat recovery 

steam generator to reduce carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) in the exhaust gases exiting the stack. 

Natural gas would be provided via a 2.5-mile, 20-inch underground pipeline 

interconnection to Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) natural gas 

pipeline transmission system at the Kettleman compressor station. The City of 

Avenal would provide water to the proposed project from the City's water 

treatment plant adjacent to the site. Groundwater from three local wells would 

provide a back-up water source to the project via two separate pipelines, totaling 

less than 1.4-miles. The proposed project would use a dry cooling process and 

recycling equipment to reduce water use. The use of a zero liquid discharge 

system would further minimize water consumption and eliminate waste water 

discharge. The project would be connected to the PG&E transmission grid via a 

6.4-mile single-circuit 230 kV transmission line, traversing agricultural land to the 

Gates substation in Fresno County. 

Avenal Power proposes to initiate the construction of the Avenal Energy Project 

in April of 2010. Construction is expected to take approximately 27 months. 

Assuming there are no unanticipated delays, commercial operation would begin 

in June of 2012. The greatest number of construction workers would occur in the 

19th and 20th month of construction, with the number of construction workers 

ranging from approximately 58 in the first month of construction to 550 workers at 

peak construction. There would be an average of 326 workers per month during 

construction. (Ex. 200, 4.8-4.) 

Avenal Power anticipates that once completed, the facility will be operated up to 

7 days per week, 24 hours a day, employing up to 25 full-time employees. 

Applicant estimates capital costs associated with the project to be approximately 

$530 million. (Ex. 200, p. 4.8-11.)

2
B. SITE CERTIFICATION PROCESS

The Avenal Energy Project and its related facilities are subject to Energy 

Commission licensing jurisdiction. (Pub. Res. Code, § 25500 et seq.). During 

licensing proceedings, the Commission acts as lead state agency under the 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 25519(c), 

21000 et seq.) The Commission’s regulatory process, including the evidentiary 

record and associated analyses, is functionally equivalent to the preparation of 

an Environmental Impact Report. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.5.) The process is 

designed to complete the review within a specified time period when the required 

information is submitted in a timely manner; a license issued by the Commission 

is in lieu of other state and local permits. 

The Commission's certification process provides a thorough review and analysis 

of all aspects of a proposed power plant project. During this process, the Energy 

Commission conducts a comprehensive examination of a project's potential 

economic, public health and safety, reliability, engineering, and environmental 

ramifications. 

Specifically, the Commission's process allows for and encourages public 

participation so that members of the public may become involved either 

informally or on a formal level as intervenor parties who have the opportunity to 

present evidence and cross-examine witnesses. Public participation is 

encouraged at every stage of the process. 

The process begins when an Applicant submits an AFC. Commission staff 

reviews the data submitted as part of the AFC and makes a recommendation to 

the Commission on whether the AFC contains adequate information to begin the 

certification process. After the Commission determines an AFC contains 

sufficient analytic information, it appoints a Committee of two Commissioners to 

conduct the formal licensing process. This process includes public conferences 

and evidentiary hearings, where the evidentiary record is developed and 

becomes the basis for the Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (PMPD). The 

PMPD determines a project's environmental impact and conformity with 

applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards and provides 

recommendations to the full Commission. 

The initial portion of the certification process is weighted heavily toward assuring 

public awareness of the proposed Project and obtaining necessary technical 

information. During this time, the Commission staff sponsors public workshops 

3
at which Intervenors, agency representatives, and members of the public meet 

with Staff and Applicant to discuss, clarify, and negotiate pertinent issues. Staff 

publishes its initial technical evaluation of the Project in its Preliminary Staff 

Assessment (PSA), which is made available for a 30-day public comment period. 

Staff’s responses to public comment on the PSA and its complete analyses and 

recommendations are published in the Final Staff Assessment (FSA, also Exhibit 

200). 

Following this, the Committee conducts a Prehearing Conference to assess the 

adequacy of available information, identify issues, and determine the positions of 

the parties. Based on information presented at this event, the Committee issues 

a Hearing Order to schedule formal evidentiary hearings. At the evidentiary 

hearings, all formal parties, including intervenors, may present sworn testimony, 

which is subject to cross-examination by other parties and questioning by the 

Committee. Members of the public may offer oral or written comments at these 

hearings. Evidence submitted at the hearings provides the basis for the 

Committee’s analysis and recommendations to the full Commission. 

The Committee’s analysis and recommendations appear in the PMPD, which is 

available for a 30-day public comment period. Depending upon the extent of 

revisions necessary after considering comments received during this period, the 

Committee may elect to publish a revised version. If so, the Revised PMPD 

triggers an additional public comment period. Finally, the full Commission 

decides whether to accept, reject, or modify the Committee's recommendations 

at a public hearing. 

Throughout the licensing process, members of the Committee, and ultimately the 

Commission, serve as fact-finders and decision-makers. Other parties, including 

the Applicant, Commission staff, and formal intervenors, function independently 

with equal legal status. An "ex parte" rule prohibits parties in the case, or other 

persons with an interest in the case, from communicating on substantive matters 

with the decision-makers, their staffs, or assigned hearing officer unless these 

communications are made on the public record. The Office of the Public Adviser 

is available to assist the public in participating in all aspects of the certification 

proceeding. 

C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Public Resources Code, sections 25500 et seq. and Energy Commission 

regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1701, et seq.) mandate a public review 

4
process and specify the occurrence of certain procedural events in which the 

public may participate. The key procedural events that occurred in the present 

case are summarized below. 

On February 21, 2008, Avenal Power filed an AFC for the Avenal Energy Project 

with the Energy Commission seeking approval to construct and operate a 600-

MW power plant in the City of Avenal in Kings County. On April 16, 2008, the 

Energy Commission deemed the AFC data adequate (sufficient data to proceed) 

and assigned a Committee of two Commissioners to conduct proceedings. 

The formal parties included the Applicant, the Energy Commission staff (Staff), 

Intervenors: California Unions for Reliable Energy (CURE); the Center on Race, 

Poverty and the Environment; Rob Simpson; and the Tehipite Chapter of the 

Sierra Club. 

On April 30, 2008, the Committee issued a Notice of "Informational Hearing and 

Site Visit". The Notice was mailed to local agencies and members of the 

community who were known to be interested in the project, including the owners 

of land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Avenal Energy Project. The Public 

Adviser’s Office prepared a bilingual Notice about the public hearing and site visit 

and distributed it to local officials and sensitive receptors surrounding the project 

site.2

 The Notice was also published in the Avenal Chimes, a weekly newspaper 

with the highest circulation in the area. 

On Tuesday, May 20, 2008, the Committee conducted a Site Visit to tour the 

proposed Avenal Energy Project site and then convened a public Informational 

Hearing at the Avenal Recreation Center in Avenal. At that event, the 

Committee, the parties, interested governmental agencies, and other public 

participants discussed issues related to development of the Avenal Energy 

Project, described the Commission's review process, and explained opportunities 

for public participation. On May 27, 2008, the Committee issued an initial 

Scheduling Order and on April 24, 2009, the Committee issued a Revised 

Scheduling Order. 

In the course of the review process, Staff conducted public workshops on July 1, 

2008 and on February 18, 2009, to discuss the resolution of issues and concerns 

 

2

 Sensitive receptors are people or institutions with people that are particularly susceptible to 

illness, such as the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by illness (e.g., 

asthmatics), and persons engaged in strenuous exercise. 

5
with the Applicant, governmental agencies, and interested members of the 

public. 

On March 23, 2009, the Committee conducted a Status Conference in 

Sacramento at the Energy Commission’s headquarters, to consider the progress 

of the AFC, hear comments on status reports filed by the parties, allow the 

Committee and parties to discuss ways in which the case may most efficiently 

proceed to evidentiary hearings, and to discuss other matters relevant to the 

application. 

Staff issued its Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) on February 2, 2009 and on 

February 18, 2009, Staff conducted a public workshop to discuss the topics of Air 

Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, Land Use, and Traffic and Transportation. 

Staff issued its Final Staff Assessment (FSA) on June 5, 2009, and held a 

workshop on June 23, 2009 in Avenal, California, to accept comments. 

On June 15, 2009, the Committee issued a Notice of Prehearing Conference and 

Notice of Evidentiary Hearings. The Prehearing Conference was held at the 

Energy Commission headquarters in Sacramento, on June 30, 2009. The 

Evidentiary Hearing was conducted in the City of Avenal on July 7, 2009. The 

Committee directed parties to submit opening briefs by August 12, 2009 and 

reply briefs by August 24, 2009. 

The Committee published the PMPD on November 10, 2009, and held a 

Committee Conference in Sacramento at the Commission Headquarters on 

Wednesday, December 2, 2009. At the hearing, the parties had the opportunity 

to comment on the PMPD. The 30-day comment period on the PMPD expired 

on December 10, 2009. Written comments were submitted by December 10, 

2009. A Notice of Availability was published in the Avenal Chimes, a general 

circulation publication. The Commission considered, and approved the PMPD at 

a regularly scheduled Business Meeting held on December 16, 2009. 

D. COMMISSION OUTREACH

Several entities within the Energy Commission provide various notices 

concerning power plant siting cases. Staff provides notices of staff workshops 

and the release of the Preliminary and Final Staff Assessments. The Hearing 

Office notices Committee-led events such as the informational hearing and site 

visit, status conferences, the prehearing conference, and evidentiary hearings. 

The Public Adviser’s Office provides additional outreach for critical events and 

6
provides information to interested persons that would like to become more 

actively involved in a power plant siting proceeding. (7/7/09 RT 55-59.) Further, 

the Media Office provides notice of events to local and regional press through 

press releases. The public may also subscribe to the proceeding's e-mail List 

Server offered on the web page for each project which gives an immediate 

notification of documents posted to the project web page. Through the activities 

of these entities, the Energy Commission has made every effort to ensure that 

interested persons are notified of activities in this proceeding. (Ex. 200, pp. 1-2 

to 1-3; 7/7/09 RT 53-60.) 

In addition to sending notices to residents and entities in Avenal, the noticing 

efforts included outreach to entities and residents in Kettleman City and Huron as 

well as including notices of key hearings in the local newspapers in both English 

and Spanish. (7/7/09 RT 47, 57-58.) Additionally, an informational sheet 

describing the proposed project was provided in Spanish and a Spanish 

interpreter was present at most staff workshops and at the evidentiary hearing to 

provide interpretation for those that preferred Spanish-English translation. (7/7/09 

RT 57-58.) An informational sheet describing the project was provided in 

Spanish and the Public Adviser, who speaks Spanish, on several occasions 

offered to help members of the public to participate more actively in the 

proceeding. (7/7/09 RT 58-59.) Finally, a Spanish-English interpreter was 

available to assist at the December 16, 2009 Commission Business Meeting. 

E. PUBLIC COMMENT

The record contains public comments from concerned individuals and 

organizations. Throughout these proceedings, as reflected in the transcribed 

record, the Committee provided an opportunity for public comment at each 

Committee-sponsored conference and hearing. The following table shows the 

names of those offering public comments at the Evidentiary Hearing on July 7, 

2009. 

Additional comments were received on December 2, 2009, when the Committee 

held a conference to receive comments on the PMPD. Intervenor Rob Simpson 

made numerous oral comments including comments related to land use, air 

quality, GHG, and water resources. These are essentially concerns that Mr. 

Simpson has previously raised during this proceeding and which have been 

addressed as part of the record of this case. In addition, Ray Leon commented 

as a member of the public. He voiced his opinion that the City of Avenal has not 

7
8

taken into account local concerns about the Avenal Energy Project. His other 

remarks repeated comments he made at the evidentiary hearing. (7/7/09 RT 

341-346.) 

When the full Commission considered adoption of the PMPD on December 16, 

2009, all written comments received within the 30-day comment period were 

considered and discussed on the record. These included comments filed by 

Intervenors Rob Simpson, and CRPE, as well as comments filed by Pacific 

Environment, and by Earth Justice. 

Public Comment 

Evidentiary Hearing, July 7, 2009 

Avenal Superior Court 

501 E. Kings Street 

Avenal, California 

Name and Organization 

Gabriela Torres, Interpreter 

Jim Swaney, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Harlan Casida, Mayor, City of Avenal 

Melissa Whitten, City Manager 

Sid Craighead, City Council Member, City of Avenal 

Dagoberto Ovalle, City Council Member, City of Avenal 

Shelley Buranek (via teleconference), United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Jay Salyer, Kings County Economic Development Corporation 

Tom Frantz, Association of Irritated Residents 

Shawn Smith, Carpenters Local 1109 

Miguel Rodriguez 

Ken Lavinder 

Carolyn Shaffer 

Santano Rios 

John Moreno 

Charles Adams 

Tony Castillo 

Gloria Preciado 

Gilbert Garza 

Donna Curty 

Ismael Vitela 

Jeannie Tillotson 

Miguel Aluniz 

Maria Elena Aluniz 

Pedro Mora 

Manuel Villa 

Ray Leon, Latino Policy Project 
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Avenal Power Center, LLC, wholly-owned subsidiary of Macquarie Energy North 

America Trading Inc, filed an Application for Certification (AFC) with the 

California Energy Commission on February 21, 2008, to construct and operate a 

combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plant. The proposed Avenal Energy 

project site is located on approximately 34 acres of land in a predominantly 

agricultural region of the southwestern San Joaquin Valley within the City of 

Avenal in western Kings County, just south of the Fresno County line, and two 

miles east of Interstate 5. While the site is within the city limits of Avenal, it is 

separated from the business, commercial development, and residential districts 

of the city by the Kettleman Hills and approximately six miles of rolling, open 

agricultural lands. See Regional Local Map Figure 1 and Site Location Map

Figure 2. (Ex. 200, p. 3-1.) 

The proposed project would consist of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA 

gas turbines with heat recovery steam generators and one General Electric 

steam turbine, would utilize dry cooling, and would be nominally rated at 600 

megawatts (MW). 

Project construction, from the site preparation through commercial operation, will 

take about twenty-seven months. Operation is anticipated by 2012. Construction 

is expected to cost approximately $530 million. (7/7/09 RT 26.) 

1. Project Objectives

According to the AFC, Avenal Energy’s project objectives are: 

• To construct and operate a cost-effective, environmentally sound, and 

efficient natural gas-fired, combined-cycle merchant generating facility to 

provide 600 MW of power generation to California’s energy market; 

• To minimize or eliminate the length of any new project linear facilities, 

including gas and water supply lines, discharge lines, and transmission 

interconnections by using existing infrastructure where feasible; and 

• To develop a site consistent with community planning and existing zoning 

at a location that is supported by the local community. 

9
Regional Location Map – Figure 1 

Source: Ex. 200. 

10
Site Location Map – Figure 2 

Source: Ex. 200 

11
2. Site Conditions 

The approximate 34-acre project would include the power plant footprint and 

ancillary infrastructure including 1.2 acres of permanent disturbance resulting 

from tower footing for an electrical transmission line and approximately 1.3 acres 

to be used for an access road. The construction phase would require a 24-acre 

temporary laydown area also within the 148-acre parcel. The geographical 

location of the site is Section 19, Township 21 south, and Range 18 east of the 

Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian, Assessor’s Parcel No. 36-170-035. (Ex. 200, p. 3-

2.)3

The proposed Avenal Energy Project site is zoned M-2 Industrial. City of Avenal 

zoning ordinance section 9.31 specifies that an electric power generating plant is 

an allowable use in the M-2 zone. The northernmost backup water supply well 

and a portion of the transmission line are located in Fresno County on land 

designated for agricultural use. However, the county does permit transmission 

lines on agricultural land. (Ex. 200, pp. 3-2 to 3-3) 

3. Power Plant Features 

The primary features of the proposed Avenal Energy Project would be placed 

both within and outside of the 34-acre site. Features within the 34-acre fenced 

area are: 

• Two combustion turbine generators/heat recovery steam generators to 

one steam turbine generator (two-on-one configuration); 

• Natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA model PG7241 combustion turbine 

generators, equipped with dry low-nitrogen oxide (NOx) combustors and 

inlet-air mechanical chillers; 

• Selective catalytic reduction and oxidation catalysts in the heat recovery 

steam generator; and 

• Oxidation catalysts located within each heat recovery steam generator 

 

3 On August 25, 2009, City of Avenal Community Development Director Steven Sopp sent a letter to the 

Hearing Officer in an effort to answer any questions regarding the address of the Avenal Energy Center. He 

stated that when the AFC process began the address, 33119 Avenal Cutoff, Avenal, CA, was assigned by 

City Staff. However, the address was not registered at the U.S. Post Office as an official address. There is 

no mail box on the site and the Kings County Assessor does recognize it as the official site address. The 

City assumes the address will be registered when the plant is approved or starts construction. At that time it 

will become the official address of the plant. (Letter from Steven Sopp, City of Avenal to Gary Fay, California 

Energy Commission, dated August 25, 2009.) 

12
Elements that will be located outside the fenced area include: 

• Backup water supply from new underground raw, recycled, potable and 

waste water pipelines connecting to the city of Avenal water treatment 

plant and additional underground pipes from existing agricultural wells; 

• A plant access road and turn around to connect to the Avenal Cutoff Road 

(a county road); 

• A 20-inch, 2.5-mile long underground gas pipeline tie-in to the PG&E 

Kettleman Compressor Station; and 

• A 6.4-mile, single-circuit, 230-kV transmission line connecting the on-site 

switchyard to the existing PG&E Gates Substation. (Ex. 200, p. 3-2.) 

Avenal Power anticipates that Avenal Energy Project will be operated up to 7 

days per week, 24 hours a day, employing up to 25 full-time employees. Overall 

annual availability of the project is expected to be approximately 90 percent or 

greater. The project capacity factor would depend upon the demand for 

electricity and ancillary services. (Ex. 1, p. 1-8.) 

4. Associated Facilities 

Transmission Lines: Electricity generated by the proposed project would be 

delivered by 6.4 miles of new, single circuit, 230-kV transmission line extending 

from the onsite switchyard to the existing PG&E Gates Substation. The new line 

would be located within a 120 foot-wide right-of-way. 

Roads: Access to the proposed Avenal Energy Project would be provided by a 

road and turn-around on the project site that would connect to the Avenal Cutoff 

Road. 

Gas Line: Natural gas would be conveyed by a new 20-inch diameter, 2.5-mile 

long underground pipeline interconnection from existing lines at the PG&E 

Kettleman compressor station, located approximately 7,000 feet southwest of the 

proposed Avenal Energy Project site. 

Water Supply and Turbine Cooling: The project turbines will require an 

estimated 20 acre-feet of water in a typical year and 104 acre-feet of water in a 

maximum use year. To minimize water consumption, the project will incorporate 

dry cooling, zero liquid discharge (ZLD) resulting in no wastewater disposal 

needs, dry low-NOx reduction, and closed loop inlet air chillers to minimize water 

use. 

13
The primary water source identified in the AFC is the City of Avenal turnout on 

the California Department of Water Resources’ San Luis Canal (located adjacent 

to the site). The City of Avenal has provided a will-serve letter for the use of the 

San Luis Canal water. An on-site Service Water/Firewater Storage Tank, 

providing up to 750,000 gallons of water storage, would be provided on-site in 

the event that water sources are temporarily interrupted or water quality is 

temporarily degraded. Domestic water, supplied by the City of Avenal, would be 

treated onsite and used for toilets, showers, emergency eyewash, and shower 

stations. Bottled water would be used for drinking. Additional backup water 

supplies would come from nearby agricultural wells, requiring several new 

pipelines. (Ex. 200, p. 3-3.) 

5. Facility Closure 

The Avenal Energy Project would be designed for a 30-year operating life. At 

some point in the future, the project would cease operation and shut down. At 

that time, it would be necessary to ensure that the closure occurs in a manner 

that protects public health and safety and the environment from adverse effects. 

Decommissioning activities would be designed to optimize the recycling of facility 

components. Unused chemicals would be returned to suppliers or sold to other 

users. Equipment containing chemicals would be drained and shut down in a 

manner to assure public health and safety and protect the environment. 

Nonhazardous wastes would be collected and disposed of in licensed landfills or 

recycled at licensed waste collection facilities. Hazardous wastes would be 

disposed of according to applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. 

The site would be secured 24 hours per day during the decommissioning 

activities. 

FINDINGS 

Based on the evidentiary record, we find as follows: 

1. Avenal Power Center, LLC, will own and operate the Avenal Energy 

Project. 

2. The Avenal Energy Project involves the construction and operation of a 

nominal 600 MW natural gas-fired, combined-cycle electrical generating 

facility on approximately 34 acres of land in the City of Avenal, Kings 

County, California. 

14
15

3. The project includes associated transmission, gas supply, and water 

supply lines. 

4. The project and its objectives are adequately described by the relevant 

documents contained in the record. 

CONCLUSION 

We therefore conclude that the Avenal Energy Project is described at a level of 

detail sufficient to allow review in compliance with the provisions of both the 

Warren-Alquist Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. 
II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the Energy 

Commission’s regulations require an evaluation of the comparative merits of a 

range of feasible site and facility alternatives which meet the basic objectives of 

the proposed project but would avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant 

environmental impacts. [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15126.6(c) and (e); tit. 20, § 

1765.] 

The range of alternatives, including the “No Project” alternative, is governed by 

the “rule of reason” and need not include those alternatives whose effects cannot 

be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. 

[Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6(f).] Rather, the analysis is necessarily limited 

to alternatives that the “lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the 

basic objectives of the project.” (Id.) 

In addition, state policy favors a “loading order” for meeting electricity needs: first 

in this order is a preference for adding energy efficiency and demand response, 

followed by renewables and distributed generation, combined heat and power 

(cogeneration) and then fuel efficient fossil-fueled generation and infrastructure 

development. 

Applicant provided an alternatives analysis in the Application for Certification 

(AFC) (Ex. 1, Vol. I, § 5.0), describing the site selection process and project 

configuration in light of project objectives. Staff included a similar analysis in the 

Final Staff Assessment (FSA). (Ex. 200, p. 6-1 et seq.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

Energy Commission staff used the following methodology to analyze project 

alternatives: 

• identified basic objectives of the project and its potentially significant 

adverse impacts (which are discussed by topic in this Decision); 

• identified and evaluated alternative sites to determine whether an 

alternative site would mitigate impacts of the proposed site and whether 

an alternative site would create impacts of its own; 

• identified and evaluated technology alternatives, including conservation 

and other renewable sources; and 

16
• evaluated consequences of not constructing the project, i.e., the “No 

Project” alternative. (Ex. 200, p. 6-4.) 

1. Project Objectives 

The evidentiary record establishes that the project objectives are: 

• To construct and operate a cost-effective, environmentally sound, and 

efficient merchant generating facility to provide power generation to 

California’s energy market; 

• To minimize or eliminate the length of any project linear facilities, including 

gas and water supply lines, discharge lines, and transmission 

interconnections; 

• To deliver electricity to the California transmission system backbone; and 

• To develop a site consistent with community planning and existing zoning at 

a location that is supported by the local community. (Ex. 200, p. 6-5.) 

2. Alternative Sites 

Energy Commission staff’s review of alternative sites was based on the following 

criteria: 

• Avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the potential significant effects 

of the project; 

• Site size of approximately 40+ acres, to accommodate both the actual 

project site and any temporary construction areas; 

• Compliance with general plan designation and zoning classification; 

• Within a reasonable distance of the electric transmission system, natural 

gas supply, and water supply; 

• Available for lease or purchase; and 

• Not adjacent to moderate or high density residential areas, sensitive 

receptors (such as schools and hospitals), or recreation areas. (Ex. 200, p. 

6-9.) 

The evidence of record shows that Staff initially identified several alternative sites 

to which it applied the above screening criteria. After rejecting those sites which 

17
did not meet the screening criteria, Staff conducted a detailed evaluation of five 

remaining options. These include two site alternatives proposed by the Applicant 

in the AFC, one site alternative proposed by Staff in the FSA, one project 

alternative, and the “No Project” alternative. (Ex. 200, pp. 6-11 to 6-17.) 

Avenal Power Alternative Site A is located within the City of Avenal near the 

Kettleman compressor station, approximately one mile southwest of the Avenal 

Energy site. The site is between 341⁄2 Avenue and 34th Avenue, north of 

Plymouth Avenue. This site is also within the City of Avenal's industrial park, and 

zoned for heavy industry. 

Avenal Power Alternative Site B is located near the PG&E Gates Substation in 

Fresno County, approximately three miles north of the Avenal Energy site. The 

site is near the corner of Jayne Avenue and Lassen Avenue (Route 269). This 

site is outside the City of Avenal's industrial park, and is zoned for agriculture. 

Staff Alternative Site A is located on the southern side of the San Ardo Oil Field, 

a large oil field in the upper Salinas Valley of Monterey County, about five miles 

south of the town of San Ardo, and about 20 miles north of the City of Paso 

Robles. The PG&E San Ardo Substation is located adjacent to the San Ardo 

Fields and would be the logical connection point for this alternative site. 

3. Generation Technology Alternative 

Commission staff also analyzed the alternative of reducing the size of the project 

in order to reduce its impacts. The proposed project would consist of two natural 

gas-fired combustion turbines with inlet-air mechanical chillers, each generating 

approximately 172 MW of gross power at 101°Farenheit ambient temperature. 

All of the steam exiting the two heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) would 

be directed to the one steam turbine generator (STG), which would generate 

approximately 291 MW of gross power with duct burners in service. Under these 

conditions, the power plant would produce approximately 636 MW of gross 

power; however, for the purposes of analyzing the smaller power plant project, 

Staff used the net output of 600 MW (project operating with both inlet air chillers 

and duct burners) as the standard. 

The smaller power plant project alternative is based on the construction of one 

GE 7FA 180 MW natural gas-fired combustion turbine with inlet air chilling and 

an appropriately sized STG with duct burners. The efficiency of operating two 

combustion turbines into one STG is approximately equal to operating one 

18
combustion turbine into a proportionally smaller STG. This translates into a 300 

MW power plant with approximately half the air emissions of the proposed 600 

MW project. 

Intervenor Rob Simpson suggests three alternative generation technologies. 

First, Mr. Simpson urges the Commission to explore the possibility of developing 

solar photovoltaic (PV) resources over the State Water Project. (Simpson 

Opening Brief at 6.) Second, he suggests the development of solar PV 

generation on farmland. (Id.) Third, Mr. Simpson suggests the installation of PV 

resources on rooftops. (Id.) 

Regarding the proposal to install PV generation over the State Water Project, Mr. 

Simpson cites recent legislation allowing the Department of Water Resources 

(DWR) to establish a program to allow this type of development. (Water Code § 

141[a].) However, Mr. Simpson provides no evidence that DWR has established 

such a program. He further offers nothing to establish the feasibility of installing 

PV over the SWP. Due to the large area of solar panels required, the evidence 

shows there could be substantial disruption not only to biological resources, but 

also to operations access for the SWP and local agriculture. (7/7/2009 RT 

415:18-416:12, 427:4-16, 430:22-431:3.) 

Mr. Simpson neither established the feasibility of placing PV on local farmland, 

nor demonstrated any reduction of significant impacts over those of the proposed 

project. In fact, Staff’s examination of a solar alternative had revealed substantial 

impacts related to that alternative. (Ex. 200 p. 6-20; 7/7/09 RT 423-424.) 

As to Mr. Simpson’s proposal for a rooftop solar alternative to the Project, Staff 

examined that alternative, stating that “[p]hotovoltaic arrays mounted on buildings 

generally require about 4 acres per MW.” (Ex. 200 at 6-20.) To generate 600 

MW, therefore, 2400 acres of solar photovoltaic arrays would be needed. As a 

practical matter, the quantity of suitable structures required for placement of 

large-scale photovoltaic generation is found almost exclusively in urban or 

suburban areas where the roofs of factories and warehouses, and vehicle 

shelters over parking lots, provide an opportunity for installation of solar arrays 

without occupying otherwise useful space. The evidence shows that there are 

very few rooftops or parking lots in the project vicinity. (Ex. 1, figure 2.1-5A.) Staff 

ultimately concluded that alternative generation technologies such as solar PV do 

not present feasible alternatives for this and other reasons, including 

development uncertainties, the fact that renewable generation may not be 

available on demand, particularly in a base load situation, and the fact that such 

19
alternatives do not meet the project objectives. (Ex. 200 p. 6-21; 7/7/2009 RT 

434:21 to 435:3.) 

Alternatives Table 1, below, summarizes the Staff analysis of the site and 

project alternatives in terms of impact relative to the proposed site. This analysis 

shows that none of the alternative sites is environmentally superior to the 

proposed site. Although some air quality benefits could be derived from halving 

the size of the project, the environmental impacts in other areas would be 

reduced very little, if at all. The acreage needed to place the 300 MW project 

and the associated facilities would be considerably greater than half of the 40 

acres of the proposed Avenal Energy project. Most other impacts would also be 

very similar to the full project. 

In light of the evidence of record as summarized herein, we find that none of the 

alternative sites, nor the 300 MW alternative, is environmentally superior to the 

proposed project. 

ALTERNATIVES TABLE 1 

Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives to the Proposed Avenal Energy* 

Issue Area 

Avenal Power 

Alternative 

Site A 

Avenal Power 

Alternative Site B

Staff Alternative 

Site A 

Staff Alternative B -

300 MW Project 

Air Quality Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Less than proposed 

project 

Biological 

Resources 

Less than 

proposed site 

Less than 

proposed site 

Greater than 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Cultural 

Resources 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Greater than 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Hazardous 

Materials 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Land Use Similar to 

proposed site 

Greater than 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Noise and 

Vibration 

Greater than 

proposed site

Greater than 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Public Health Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Socioeconomic 

Resources 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Soil and Water 

Resources 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

20
Avenal Power Avenal Power Staff Alternative Staff Alternative B - Issue Area Alternative 

Site A Alternative Site B Site A 300 MW Project 

Traffic and 

Transportation 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Visual 

Resources 

Greater than 

proposed site 

Greater than 

proposed site 

Greater than 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Waste 

Management 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Worker Safety Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Geology, 

Mineral 

Resources, 

and 

Paleontology 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

Transmission 

System 

Engineering 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Similar to 

proposed site 

Greater than 

proposed site 

Similar to proposed 

project 

*Gray shaded cells identify impacts greater or less than the proposed project

Source: Ex. 200, p. 6-16. 

4. No Project Alternative 

CEQA requires an evaluation of the “No Project” alternative “... to allow decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the 

impacts of not approving the proposed project.” [14 Cal. Code Regs., § 

15126.6(e)(1).] 

The “No Project” analysis assumes: 

• That baseline environmental conditions would not change because the 

proposed project would not be installed; and 

• That the events or actions reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable 

future would occur if the project were not approved. 

If the “No Project” alternative were selected, the construction and operational 

impacts to biological resources and prime farmland from the proposed Avenal 

Energy Project would not occur. However, proposed mitigation in the LAND 

USE and BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES sections of this Decision will reduce 

potential impacts to biological resources and prime farmland to a less than 

significant level. 

21
Furthermore, all of the Avenal Energy Project’s impacts to air quality, both local 

and regional, have been mitigated to less than significant levels. Additionally, we 

have concluded that the Avenal Energy Project would displace and facilitate the 

replacement of some older, less-efficient power plants, thus providing a reduction 

in overall greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, substantial evidence establishes 

that the “No-Project” alternative is not environmentally superior to Avenal Energy. 

The “No Project” alternative would neither facilitate the possible closure of older, 

less efficient existing generation facilities nor provide competitively priced power 

to the California electricity market to help meet the state's growing demand for 

electricity. (Ex. 1, p. 5-2; Ex. 200, p. 6-21.) 

5. Alternative Fuels and Technologies 

Applicant presented evidence on alternative fuels, including nuclear, 

hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, solar, and wind energy. (Ex. 1, § 5.6.) 

However, Applicant and Staff agreed that none of these alternatives is feasible 

due to unavailability at the proposed site (hydro, geothermal), lack of suitable 

space at or near the proposed site (wind, biomass, and solar), environmental 

impacts (biomass), and/or legal prohibitions (nuclear). (Ex. 200, p. 6-20.) 

Applicant also reviewed alternative technologies for air pollution control and 

combustion modification, including the XONON catalytic combustor and 

SCONOx. None of the alternative pollution control technologies is more effective 

than the Selective Catalyst Reduction (SCR) system proposed for the project. 

(Ex. 1, pp. 5-19 to 5-20.) Applicant also considered the option of using a ureabased system to generate ammonia on-site, which would eliminate the need for 

transport and storage of ammonia used in the SCR system. However, urea has 

not been commercially demonstrated for use with SCR on gas turbines 

attempting to meet the extremely low NOx levels proposed for the project. (Id.) 

Therefore, the evidence shows that none of the alternative fuels or technologies 

is a feasible option. 

6. Arguments of Intervenors 

Intervenors Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment (CRPE) and Rob 

Simpson attack the Applicant’s and Staff’s alternatives analyses for their alleged 

failure to analyze alternatives that avoid or lessen the proposed project’s 

significant environmental impacts, and alleged failure to adequately analyze 

22
renewable energy alternatives. As noted above, the primary goal of an 

alternatives analysis is to avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant 

effects of the project. However, in this case these Intervenors appear to overlook 

the fact that the proposed project, as mitigated by the conditions of certification in 

this Decision, does not have any significant environmental impacts. (Ex. 200 at 

1-4.) When a proposed project has been shown under CEQA to be lacking any 

significant environmental impacts, it may not be necessary to analyze the 

feasibility of alternatives. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assoc. v. City Council 

(1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521.) (“...if the feasible mitigation measures 

substantially lessen or avoid generally the significant adverse environmental 

effects of a project, the project may be approved without resort to an evaluation 

of the feasibility of various project alternatives contained in the environmental 

impact report.”) Nevertheless, the record shows that both Staff and Applicant 

presented evidence analyzing a reasonable range of alternative sites and 

generation technologies, none of which proved superior to the proposed Avenal 

Energy Project. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based upon the evidence of record, including that presented on each subject 

area described in other portions of this Decision, we find and conclude as 

follows: 

1. The evidence of record contains an acceptable analysis of a reasonable 

range of site location and generation alternatives to the project as proposed. 

2. None of the site location and generation alternatives to the project offer a 

superior alternative in terms of feasibly meeting project objectives or of 

reducing any significant potential environmental impacts. 

3. The evidentiary record contains an adequate review of alternative linear 

facility routings, fuels, technologies, and the “No Project” alternative. 

4. Alternative fuels and technologies are not capable of meeting project 

objectives. 

5. The “No Project” alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen 

potentially significant environmental impacts since no unmitigable impacts 

have been found. 

6. The “No Project” alternative would not provide electrical system benefits 

such as the likely displacement of greenhouse gas emissions from older, 

less efficient power plants. 

23
24

7. If all Conditions of Certification contained in this Decision are implemented, 

construction and operation of the Avenal Energy Project will not create any 

significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse environmental impacts. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The evidence of record contains a sufficient analysis of Alternatives and 

complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, 

the Warren-Alquist Act, and their respective regulations. 

2. The proposed project’s potential adverse environmental impacts will be 

mitigated to a level below the threshold of significance; therefore detailed 

analysis of the feasibility of the alternatives discussed in the record is not 

necessary. 

No Conditions of Certification are required for this topic. 
III. COMPLIANCE AND CLOSURE 

Public Resources Code section 25532 requires the Commission to establish a 

post-certification monitoring system. The purpose of this requirement is to 

assure that certified facilities are constructed and operated in compliance with 

applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, standards, as well as the specific 

Conditions of Certification adopted as part of this Decision. 

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

The evidence of record contains a full explanation of the purposes and intent of 

the Compliance Plan (Plan). The Plan is the administrative mechanism used to 

ensure that the Avenal Energy Project is constructed and operated according to 

the Conditions of Certification. It essentially describes the respective duties and 

expectations of the Project Owner and the Staff Compliance Project Manager 

(CPM) in implementing the design, construction, and operation criteria set forth in 

this Decision. 

Compliance with the Conditions of Certification contained in this Decision is 

verified through mechanisms such as periodic reports and site visits. The Plan 

also contains requirements governing the planned closure, as well as the 

unexpected temporary and unexpected permanent closure, of the Project. 

The Compliance Plan is composed of two broad elements. The first element 

establishes the "General Conditions," which: 

• Set forth the duties and responsibilities of the Compliance Project 

Manager (CPM), the Project Owner, delegate agencies, and others; 

• Set forth the requirements for handling confidential records and 

maintaining the compliance record; 

• Set forth procedures for settling disputes and making post-certification 

changes; 

• Set forth the requirements for periodic compliance reports and other 

administrative procedures necessary to verify the compliance status of all 

Commission imposed Conditions; and 

25 
• Set forth requirements for facility closure. 

The second general element of the Plan contains the specific “Conditions of 

Certification.” These are found following the summary and discussion of each 

individual topic area in this Decision. The individual Conditions contain the 

measures required to mitigate potentially adverse Project impacts associated 

with construction, operation, and closure to levels of insignificance. Each 

Condition also includes a verification provision describing the method of assuring 

that the Condition has been satisfied. 

The contents of the Compliance Plan are intended to be implemented in 

conjunction with any additional requirements contained in the individual 

Conditions of Certification. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

The evidence of record establishes: 

1. Requirements contained in the Compliance Plan and in the specific 

Conditions of Certification are intended to be implemented in conjunction 

with one another. 

2. We adopt the following Compliance Plan as part of this Decision. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The compliance and monitoring provisions incorporated as a part of this 

Decision satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code section 

25532. 

2. The Compliance Plan and the specific Conditions of Certification 

contained in this Decision assure that the Avenal Energy Project will be 

designed, constructed, operated, and closed in conformity with applicable 

law. 

26 
GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

DEFINITIONS 

The following terms and definitions are used to establish when Conditions of 

Certification are implemented. 

PRE-CONSTRUCTION SITE MOBILIZATION 

Site mobilization is limited preconstruction activities at the site to allow for the 

installation of fencing, construction trailers, construction trailer utilities, and 

construction trailer parking at the site. Limited ground disturbance, grading, and 

trenching associated with the above mentioned pre-construction activities is 

considered part of site mobilization. Walking, driving, or parking a passenger 

vehicle, pickup truck and light vehicles is allowable during site mobilization. 

CONSTRUCTION 

Onsite work to install permanent equipment or structures for any facility. 

Ground Disturbance

Construction-related ground disturbance refers to activities that result in the 

removal of top soil or vegetation at the site beyond site mobilization needs, and 

for access roads and linear facilities. 

Grading, Boring, and Trenching

Construction-related grading, boring, and trenching refers to activities that result 

in subsurface soil work at the site and for access roads and linear facilities, e.g., 

alteration of the topographical features such as leveling, removal of hills or high 

spots, moving of soil from one area to another, and removal of soil. 

Notwithstanding the definitions of ground disturbance, grading, boring and 

trenching above, construction does not include the following: 

1. The installation of environmental monitoring equipment; 

2. A soil or geological investigation; 

3. A topographical survey; 

4. Any other study or investigation to determine the environmental acceptability 

or feasibility of the use of the site for any particular facility; and 

5. Any work to provide access to the site for any of the purposes specified in 

“Construction” 1, 2, 3, or 4 above. 

27 
START OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION 

For compliance monitoring purposes, “commercial operation” begins after the 

completion of start-up and commissioning, when the power plant has reached 

reliable steady-state production of electricity at the rated capacity. At the start of 

commercial operation, plant control is usually transferred from the construction 

manager to the plant operations manager. 

COMPLIANCE PROJECT MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES 

The Compliance Project Manager (CPM) shall oversee the compliance 

monitoring and is responsible for: 

1. Ensuring that the design, construction, operation, and closure of the project 

facilities are in compliance with the terms and Conditions of this Decision; 

2. Resolving complaints; 

3. Processing post-certification changes to the Conditions of Certification, 

project description (petition to amend), and ownership or operational control 

(petition for change of ownership) (see instructions for filing petitions); 

4. Documenting and tracking compliance filings; and 

5. Ensuring that compliance files are maintained and accessible. 

The CPM is the contact person for the Energy Commission and will consult with 

appropriate responsible agencies, and Energy Commission staff when handling 

disputes, complaints, and amendments. 

All project compliance submittals are submitted to the CPM for processing. 

Where a submittal required by a Condition of Certification requires CPM 

approval, the approval will involve all appropriate Energy Commission staff and 

management. All submittals must include searchable electronic versions (pdf or 

Microsoft WORD files). 

PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-OPERATION COMPLIANCE MEETING 

The CPM usually schedules pre-construction and pre-operation compliance 

meetings prior to the projected start-dates of construction, plant operation, or 

both. The purpose of these meetings is to assemble both the Energy 

Commission’s and project owner’s technical staff to review the status of all preconstruction or pre-operation requirements, contained in the Energy 

Commission’s Conditions of Certification. This is to confirm that all applicable 

Conditions of Certification have been met, or if they have not been met, to ensure 

that the proper action is taken. In addition, these meetings ensure, to the extent 

possible, that Energy Commission Conditions will not delay the construction and 

operation of the plant due to oversight and to preclude any last minute, 

unforeseen issues from arising. Pre-construction meetings held during the 

28 
certification process must be publicly noticed unless they are confined to 

administrative issues and processes. 

ENERGY COMMISSION RECORD 

The Energy Commission shall maintain the following documents and information 

as a public record, in either the Compliance file or Dockets file, for the life of the 

project (or other period as required): 

• All documents demonstrating compliance with any legal requirements relating 

to the construction and operation of the facility; 

• All monthly and annual compliance reports filed by the project owner; 

• All complaints of noncompliance filed with the Energy Commission; and 

• All petitions for project or Condition of Certification changes and the resulting 

staff or Energy Commission action. 

PROJECT OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES 

The project owner is responsible for ensuring that the compliance Conditions of 

Certification and all other Conditions of Certification that appear in the 

Commission Decision are satisfied. The compliance conditions regarding postcertification changes specify measures that the project owner must take when 

requesting changes in the project design, Conditions of Certification, or 

ownership. Failure to comply with any of the Conditions of Certification or the 

compliance conditions may result in reopening of the case and revocation of 

Energy Commission certification; an administrative fine; or other action as 

appropriate. A summary of the Compliance Conditions of Certification is included 

as Compliance Table 1 at the conclusion of this section.

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

Unrestricted Access (COMPLIANCE-1)

The CPM, responsible Energy Commission staff, and delegated agencies or 

consultants shall be guaranteed and granted unrestricted access to the power 

plant site, related facilities, project-related staff, and the records maintained onsite, for the purpose of conducting audits, surveys, inspections, or general site 

visits. Although the CPM will normally schedule site visits on dates and times 

agreeable to the project owner, the CPM reserves the right to make 

unannounced visits at any time. 

Compliance Record (COMPLIANCE-2)

The project owner shall maintain project files on-site or at an alternative site 

approved by the CPM for the life of the project, unless a lesser period of time is 

specified by the Conditions of Certification. The files shall contain copies of all 

“as-built” drawings, documents submitted as verification for Conditions, and other 

project-related documents. 

29 
Energy Commission staff and delegate agencies shall, upon request to the 

project owner, be given unrestricted access to the files maintained pursuant to 

this condition. 

Compliance Verification Submittals (COMPLIANCE-3)

Each Condition of Certification is followed by a means of verification. The 

verification describes the Energy Commission’s procedure(s) to ensure postcertification compliance with adopted Conditions. The verification procedures, 

unlike the Conditions, may be modified as necessary by the CPM. 

Verification of compliance with the Conditions of Certification can be 

accomplished by the following: 

1. Monthly and/or annual compliance reports, filed by the project owner or 

authorized agent, reporting on work done and providing pertinent 

documentation, as required by the specific Conditions of Certification; 

2. Appropriate letters from delegate agencies verifying compliance; 

3. Energy Commission staff audits of project records; and/or 

4. Energy Commission staff inspections of work, or other evidence that the 

requirements are satisfied. 

Verification lead times associated with start of construction may require the 

project owner to file submittals during the certification process, particularly if 

construction is planned to commence shortly after certification. 

A cover letter from the project owner or authorized agent is required for all 

compliance submittals and correspondence pertaining to compliance matters. 

The cover letter subject line shall identify the project by AFC number, the 

appropriate condition(s) of certification by condition number(s), and a brief 

description of the subject of the submittal. The project owner shall also 

identify those submittals not required by a Condition of Certification with a 

statement such as: “This submittal is for information only and is not required by a 

specific Condition of Certification.” When submitting supplementary or corrected 

information, the project owner shall reference the date of the previous submittal 

and CEC submittal number. 

The project owner is responsible for the delivery and content of all verification 

submittals to the CPM, whether such condition was satisfied by work performed 

by the project owner or an agent of the project owner. 

30 
All hardcopy submittals shall be addressed as follows: 

Compliance Project Manager 

Docket No. 08-AFC-1C 

California Energy Commission 

1516 Ninth Street, MS-2000 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Those submittals shall be accompanied by a searchable electronic copy, on a 

CD or by e-mail, as agreed upon by the CPM. 

If the project owner desires Energy Commission staff action by a specific date, 

that request shall be made in the submittal cover letter and shall include a 

detailed explanation of the effects on the project if that date is not met. 

Pre-Construction Matrix and Tasks Prior to Start of Construction 

(COMPLIANCE-4)

Prior to commencing construction, a compliance matrix addressing only those 

Conditions that must be fulfilled before the start of construction shall be 

submitted by the project owner to the CPM. This matrix will be included with the 

project owner’s first compliance submittal or prior to the first pre-construction 

meeting, whichever comes first. It will be submitted in the same format as the 

compliance matrix described below. 

Construction shall not commence until the pre-construction matrix is submitted, 

all pre-construction Conditions have been complied with, and the CPM has 

issued a letter to the project owner authorizing construction. Various lead times 

for submittal of compliance verification documents to the CPM for Conditions of 

Certification are established to allow sufficient staff time to review and comment 

and, if necessary, allow the project owner to revise the submittal in a timely 

manner. This will ensure that project construction may proceed according to 

schedule. 

Failure to submit compliance documents within the specified lead-time may result 

in delays in authorization to commence various stages of project development. 

If the project owner anticipates commencing project construction as soon as the 

project is certified, it may be necessary for the project owner to file compliance 

submittals prior to project certification. Compliance submittals should be 

completed in advance where the necessary lead time for a required compliance 

event extends beyond the date anticipated for start of construction. The project 

owner must understand that the submittal of compliance documents prior to 

project certification is at the owner’s own risk. Any approval by Energy 

Commission staff is subject to change, based upon the Commission Decision. 

31 
COMPLIANCE REPORTING 

There are two different compliance reports that the project owner must submit to 

assist the CPM in tracking activities and monitoring compliance with the terms 

and conditions of the Energy Commission Decision. During construction, the 

project owner or authorized agent will submit Monthly Compliance Reports. 

During operation, an Annual Compliance Report must be submitted. These 

reports, and the requirement for an accompanying compliance matrix, are 

described below. The majority of the Conditions of Certification require that 

compliance submittals be submitted to the CPM in the monthly or annual 

compliance reports. 

Compliance Matrix (COMPLIANCE-5)

A compliance matrix shall be submitted by the project owner to the CPM along 

with each monthly and annual compliance report. The compliance matrix is 

intended to provide the CPM with the current status of all Conditions of 

Certification in a spreadsheet format. The compliance matrix must identify: 

1. The technical area; 

2. The condition number; 

3. A brief description of the verification action or submittal required by the 

condition; 

4. The date the submittal is required (e.g., 60 days prior to construction, after 

final inspection, etc.); 

5. The expected or actual submittal date; 

6. The date a submittal or action was approved by the Chief Building Official 

(CBO), CPM, or delegate agency, if applicable; and 

7. The compliance status of each condition, e.g., “not started,” “in progress” or 

“completed” (include the date). 

8. If the condition was amended, the date of the amendment. 

Satisfied conditions shall be placed at the end of the matrix. 

Monthly Compliance Report (COMPLIANCE-6)

The first Monthly Compliance Report is due one month following the Energy 

Commission business meeting date upon which the project was approved, 

unless otherwise agreed to by the CPM. The first Monthly Compliance Report 

shall include the AFC number and an initial list of dates for each of the events 

identified on the Key Events List Form, found at the end of this section. 

32 
During pre-construction and construction of the project, the project owner or 

authorized agent shall submit an original and an electronic searchable version of 

the Monthly Compliance Report within 10 working days after the end of each 

reporting month. Monthly Compliance Reports shall be clearly identified for the 

month being reported. The reports shall contain, at a minimum: 

1. A summary of the current project construction status, a revised/updated 

schedule if there are significant delays, and an explanation of any significant 

changes to the schedule; 

2. Documents required by specific conditions to be submitted along with the 

Monthly Compliance Report. Each of these items must be identified in the 

transmittal letter, as well as the conditions they satisfy and submitted as 

attachments to the Monthly Compliance Report; 

3. An initial, and thereafter updated, compliance matrix showing the status of all 

Conditions of Certification (fully satisfied conditions do not need to be 

included in the matrix after they have been reported as completed); 

4. A list of conditions that have been satisfied during the reporting period, and a 

description or reference to the actions that satisfied the condition; 

5. A list of any submittal deadlines that were missed, accompanied by an 

explanation and an estimate of when the information will be provided; 

6. A cumulative listing of any approved changes to Conditions of Certification; 

7. A listing of any filings submitted to, or permits issued by, other governmental 

agencies during the month; 

8. A projection of project compliance activities scheduled during the next two 

months. The project owner shall notify the CPM as soon as any changes are 

made to the project construction schedule that would affect compliance with 

Conditions of Certification; 

9. A listing of the month’s additions to the on-site compliance file; and 

10. A listing of complaints, notices of violation, official warnings, and citations 

received during the month, a description of the resolution of the resolved 

actions, and the status of any unresolved actions. 

All sections, exhibits, or addendums shall be separated by tabbed dividers or as 

acceptable by the CPM. 

Annual Compliance Report (COMPLIANCE-7)

After construction is complete, the project owner shall submit Annual Compliance 

Reports instead of Monthly Compliance Reports. The reports are for each year of 

commercial operation and are due to the CPM each year at a date agreed to by 

33 
the CPM. Annual Compliance Reports shall be submitted over the life of the 

project unless otherwise specified by the CPM. Each Annual Compliance Report 

shall include the AFC number, identify the reporting period and shall contain the 

following: 

1. An updated compliance matrix showing the status of all Conditions of 

Certification (fully satisfied conditions do not need to be included in the matrix 

after they have been reported as completed); 

2. A summary of the current project operating status and an explanation of any 

significant changes to facility operations during the year; 

3. Documents required by specific conditions to be submitted along with the 

Annual Compliance Report. Each of these items must be identified in the 

transmittal letter, with the condition it satisfies, and submitted as attachments 

to the Annual Compliance Report; 

4. A cumulative listing of all post-certification changes approved by the Energy 

Commission or cleared by the CPM; 

5. An explanation for any submittal deadlines that were missed, accompanied 

by an estimate of when the information will be provided; 

6. A listing of filings submitted to, or permits issued by, other governmental 

agencies during the year; 

7. A projection of project compliance activities scheduled during the next year; 

8. A listing of the year’s additions to the on-site compliance file; 

9. An evaluation of the on-site contingency plan for unplanned facility closure, 

including any suggestions necessary for bringing the plan up to date [see 

Compliance Conditions for Facility Closure addressed later in this section]; 

and 

10. A listing of complaints, notices of violation, official warnings, and citations 

received during the year, a description of the resolution of any resolved 

matters, and the status of any unresolved matters. 

Confidential Information (COMPLIANCE-8)

Any information that the project owner deems confidential shall be submitted to 

the Energy Commission’s Dockets Unit with an application for confidentiality 

pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 2505(a). Any 

information that is determined to be confidential shall be kept confidential as 

provided for in Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 2501 et. seq. 

34 
Annual Energy Facility Compliance Fee (COMPLIANCE-9)

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 25806(b) of the Public Resources Code, 

the project owner is required to pay an annual compliance fee, which is adjusted 

annually. The amount of the fee for FY2007-2008 was $17,676. The initial 

payment is due on the date the Energy Commission adopts the final decision. 

You will be notified of the amount due. All subsequent payments are due by July 

1 of each year in which the facility retains its certification. The payment 

instrument shall be made payable to the California Energy Commission and 

mailed to: Accounting Office MS-02, California Energy Commission, 1516 9th St., 

Sacramento, CA 95814. 

Reporting of Complaints, Notices, and Citations (COMPLIANCE-10)

Prior to the start of construction, the project owner must send a letter to property 

owners living within one mile of the project notifying them of a telephone number 

to contact project representatives with questions, complaints or concerns. If the 

telephone is not staffed 24 hours per day, it shall include automatic answering 

with date and time stamp recording. All recorded complaints shall be responded 

to within 24 hours. The telephone number shall be posted at the project site and 

made easily visible to passersby during construction and operation. The 

telephone number shall be provided to the CPM who will post it on the Energy 

Commission’s web page at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/power_plants_contacts.html 

Any changes to the telephone number shall be submitted immediately to the 

CPM, who will update the web page.

In addition to the monthly and annual compliance reporting requirements 

described above, the project owner shall report and provide copies to the CPM of 

all complaint forms, including noise and lighting complaints, notices of violation, 

notices of fines, official warnings, and citations, within 10 days of receipt. 

Complaints shall be logged and numbered. Noise complaints shall be recorded 

on the form provided in the NOISE Conditions of Certification. All other 

complaints shall be recorded on the complaint form (Attachment A). 

FACILITY CLOSURE 

At some point in the future, the project will cease operation and close down. At 

that time, it will be necessary to ensure that the closure occurs in such a way that 

public health and safety and the environment are protected from adverse 

impacts. Although the project setting for this project does not appear, at this time, 

to present any special or unusual closure problems, it is impossible to foresee 

what the situation will be in 30 years or more when the project ceases operation. 

Therefore, provisions must be made that provide the flexibility to deal with the 

specific situation and project setting that exist at the time of closure. Laws, 

Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS) pertaining to facility closure are 

35 
identified in the sections dealing with each technical area. Facility closure will be 

consistent with LORS in effect at the time of closure. 

There are at least three circumstances in which a facility closure can take place: 

planned closure, unplanned temporary closure and unplanned permanent 

closure. 

CLOSURE DEFINITIONS 

Planned Closure

A planned closure occurs when the facility is closed in an anticipated, orderly 

manner, at the end of its useful economic or mechanical life, or due to gradual 

obsolescence. 

Unplanned Temporary Closure

An unplanned temporary closure occurs when the facility is closed suddenly 

and/or unexpectedly, on a short-term basis, due to unforeseen circumstances 

such as a natural disaster or an emergency. 

Unplanned Permanent Closure

An unplanned permanent closure occurs if the project owner closes the facility 

suddenly and/or unexpectedly, on a permanent basis. This includes unplanned 

closure where the owner implements the on-site contingency plan. It can also 

include unplanned closure where the project owner fails to implement the 

contingency plan, and the project is essentially abandoned. 

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS FOR FACILITY CLOSURE 

Planned Closure (COMPLIANCE-11)

In order to ensure that a planned facility closure does not create adverse 

impacts, a closure process that provides for careful consideration of available 

options and applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, standards, and 

local/regional plans in existence at the time of closure, will be undertaken. To 

ensure adequate review of a planned project closure, the project owner shall 

submit a proposed facility closure plan to the Energy Commission for review and 

approval at least 12 months (or other period of time agreed to by the CPM) prior 

to commencement of closure activities. The project owner shall file 120 copies 

(or other number of copies agreed upon by the CPM) of a proposed facility 

closure plan with the Energy Commission. 

The plan shall: 

1. Identify and discuss any impacts and mitigation to address significant adverse 

impacts associated with proposed closure activities and to address facilities, 

equipment, or other project related remnants that will remain at the site; 

36 
2. Identify a schedule of activities for closure of the power plant site, 

transmission line corridor, and all other appurtenant facilities constructed as 

part of the project; 

3. Identify any facilities or equipment intended to remain on site after closure, 

the reason, and any future use; and 

4. Address conformance of the plan with all applicable laws, ordinances, 

regulations, standards, and local/regional plans in existence at the time of 

facility closure, and applicable Conditions of Certification. 

Prior to submittal of the proposed facility closure plan, a meeting shall be held 

between the project owner and the Energy Commission CPM for the purpose of 

discussing the specific contents of the plan. 

In the event that there are significant issues associated with the proposed facility 

closure plan’s approval, or the desires of local officials or interested parties are 

inconsistent with the plan, the CPM shall hold one or more workshops and/or the 

Energy Commission may hold public hearings as part of its approval procedure. 

As necessary, prior to or during the closure plan process, the project owner shall 

take appropriate steps to eliminate any immediate threats to public health and 

safety and the environment, but shall not commence any other closure activities 

until the Energy Commission approves the facility closure plan. 

Unplanned Temporary Closure/On-Site Contingency Plan (COMPLIANCE12)

In order to ensure that public health and safety and the environment are 

protected in the event of an unplanned temporary facility closure, it is essential to 

have an on-site contingency plan in place. The on-site contingency plan will help 

to ensure that all necessary steps to mitigate public health and safety impacts 

and environmental impacts are taken in a timely manner. 

The project owner shall submit an on-site contingency plan for CPM review and 

approval. The plan shall be submitted no less than 60 days (or other time agreed 

to by the CPM) prior to commencement of commercial operation. The approved 

plan must be in place prior to commercial operation of the facility and shall be 

kept at the site at all times. 

The project owner, in consultation with the CPM, will update the on-site 

contingency plan as necessary. The CPM may require revisions to the on-site 

contingency plan over the life of the project. In the annual compliance reports 

submitted to the Energy Commission, the project owner will review the on-site 

contingency plan, and recommend changes to bring the plan up to date. Any 

changes to the plan must be approved by the CPM. 

37 
The on-site contingency plan shall provide for taking immediate steps to secure 

the facility from trespassing or encroachment. In addition, for closures of more 

than 90 days, unless other arrangements are agreed to by the CPM, the plan 

shall provide for removal of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, draining 

of all chemicals from storage tanks and other equipment, and the safe shutdown 

of all equipment. (Also see specific Conditions of Certification for the technical 

areas of Hazardous Materials Management and Waste Management.) 

In addition, consistent with requirements under unplanned permanent closure 

addressed below, the nature and extent of insurance coverage, and major 

equipment warranties must also be included in the on-site contingency plan. In 

addition, the status of the insurance coverage and major equipment warranties 

must be updated in the annual compliance reports. 

In the event of an unplanned temporary closure, the project owner shall notify the 

CPM, as well as other responsible agencies, by telephone, fax, or e-mail, within 

24 hours and shall take all necessary steps to implement the on-site contingency 

plan. The project owner shall keep the CPM informed of the circumstances and 

expected duration of the closure. 

If the CPM determines that an unplanned temporary closure is likely to be 

permanent, or for a duration of more than 12 months, a closure plan consistent 

with the requirements for a planned closure shall be developed and submitted to 

the CPM within 90 days of the CPM’s determination (or other period of time 

agreed to by the CPM). 

Unplanned Permanent Closure/On-Site Contingency Plan (COMPLIANCE13)

The on-site contingency plan required for unplanned temporary closure shall also 

cover unplanned permanent facility closure. All of the requirements specified for 

unplanned temporary closure shall also apply to unplanned permanent closure. 

In addition, the on-site contingency plan shall address how the project owner will 

ensure that all required closure steps will be successfully undertaken in the event 

of abandonment. 

In the event of an unplanned permanent closure, the project owner shall notify 

the CPM, as well as other responsible agencies, by telephone, fax, or e-mail, 

within 24 hours and shall take all necessary steps to implement the on-site 

contingency plan. The project owner shall keep the CPM informed of the status 

of all closure activities. 

A closure plan, consistent with the requirements for a planned closure, shall be 

developed and submitted to the CPM within 90 days of the permanent closure or 

another period of time agreed to by the CPM. 

38 
Post Certification Changes to the Energy Commission Decision: 

Amendments, Ownership Changes, Staff Approved Project Modifications 

and Verification Changes (COMPLIANCE-14)

The project owner must petition the Energy Commission pursuant to Title 20, 

California Code of Regulations, section 1769, in order to modify the project 

(including linear facilities) design, operation or performance requirements, and to 

transfer ownership or operational control of the facility. It is the responsibility of 

the project owner to contact the CPM to determine if a proposed project change 

should be considered a project modification pursuant to section 1769. 

Implementation of a project modification without first securing Energy 

Commission, or Energy Commission staff approval, may result in enforcement 

action that could result in civil penalties in accordance with section 25534 of the 

Public Resources Code. 

A petition is required for amendments and for insignificant project changes as 

specified below. Both shall be filed as a “Petition to Amend.” Staff will determine 

if the change is significant or insignificant. For verification changes, a letter from 

the project owner is sufficient. In all cases, the petition or letter requesting a 

change should be submitted to the CPM, who will file it with the Energy 

Commission’s Dockets Unit in accordance with Title 20, California Code of 

Regulations, section 1209. 

The criteria that determine which type of approval and the process that applies 

are explained below. They reflect the provisions of Section 1769 at the time this 

condition was drafted. If the Commission’s rules regarding amendments are 

amended, the rules in effect at the time an amendment is requested shall apply. 

Amendment 

The project owner shall petition the Energy Commission, pursuant to Title 20, 

California Code of Regulations, Section 1769(a), when proposing modifications 

to the project design (including linear facilities), operation, or performance 

requirements. If a proposed modification results in deletion or change of a 

Condition of Certification, or makes changes that would cause the project not to 

comply with any applicable laws, ordinances, regulations or standards, the 

petition will be processed as a formal amendment to the final decision, which 

requires public notice and review of the Energy Commission staff analysis, and 

approval by the full Commission. The petition shall be in the form of a legal brief 

and fulfill the requirements of Section 1769(a). Upon request, the CPM will 

provide you with a sample petition to use as a template. 

Change of Ownership 

Change of ownership or operational control also requires that the project owner 

file a petition pursuant to section 1769 (b). This process requires public notice 

and approval by the full Commission. The petition shall be in the form of a legal 

brief and fulfill the requirements of Section 1769(b). Upon request, the CPM will 

provide you with a sample petition to use as a template. 

39 
Staff Approved Project Modifications 

Modifications that do not result in deletions or changes to Conditions of 

Certification, and that are compliant with laws, ordinances, regulations, and 

standards may be authorized by the CPM as an insignificant project change 

pursuant to section 1769(a) (2). This process usually requires minimal time to 

complete, and it requires a 14-day public review of the Notice of Staff Approved 

Project Modification that includes staff’s intention to approve the modification 

unless substantive objections are filed. These requests must also be submitted in 

the form of a “petition to amend” as described above. 

Verification Change 

A verification may be modified by the CPM without requesting an amendment to 

the decision if the change does not conflict with the Conditions of Certification 

and provides an effective alternate means of verification. 

CBO DELEGATION AND AGENCY COOPERATION 

In performing construction and operation monitoring of the project, Energy 

Commission staff acts as, and has the authority of, the Chief Building Official 

(CBO). Energy Commission staff may delegate CBO responsibility to either an 

independent third party contractor or the local building official. Energy 

Commission staff retains CBO authority when selecting a delegate CBO, 

including enforcing and interpreting state and local codes, and use of discretion, 

as necessary, in implementing the various codes and standards. 

Energy Commission staff may also seek the cooperation of state, regional and 

local agencies that have an interest in environmental protection when conducting 

project monitoring. 

ENFORCEMENT 

The Energy Commission’s legal authority to enforce the terms and conditions of 

its Decision is specified in Public Resources Code sections 25534 and 25900. 

The Energy Commission may amend or revoke the certification for any facility, 

and may impose a civil penalty for any significant failure to comply with the terms 

or conditions of the Energy Commission Decision. The specific action and 

amount of any fines the Energy Commission may impose would take into 

account the specific circumstances of the incident(s). This would include such 

factors as the previous compliance history, whether the cause of the incident 

involves willful disregard of LORS, oversight, unforeseeable events, and other 

factors the Energy Commission may consider. 

NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES 

Any person or agency may file a complaint alleging noncompliance with the 

Conditions of Certification. Such a complaint will be subject to review by the 

Energy Commission pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 

1237, but in many instances the noncompliance can be resolved by using the 

40 
informal dispute resolution process. Both the informal and formal complaint 

procedure, as described in current State law and regulations, are described 

below. They shall be followed unless superseded by future law or regulations. 

Informal Dispute Resolution Process

The following procedure is designed to informally resolve disputes concerning 

the interpretation of compliance with the requirements of this compliance plan. 

The project owner, the Energy Commission, or any other party, including 

members of the public, may initiate an informal dispute resolution process. 

Disputes may pertain to actions or decisions made by any party, including the 

Energy Commission’s delegate agents. 

This process may precede the more formal complaint and investigation 

procedure specified in Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1237, but 

is not intended to be a substitute for, or prerequisite to it. This informal procedure 

may not be used to change the terms and Conditions of Certification as approved 

by the Energy Commission, although the agreed upon resolution may result in a 

project owner, or in some cases the Energy Commission staff, proposing an 

amendment. 

The process encourages all parties involved in a dispute to discuss the matter 

and to reach an agreement resolving the dispute. If a dispute cannot be resolved, 

then the matter must be brought before the full Energy Commission for 

consideration via the complaint and investigation procedure. 

Request for Informal Investigation 

Any individual, group, or agency may request the Energy Commission to conduct 

an informal investigation of alleged noncompliance with the Energy 

Commission’s terms and Conditions of Certification. All requests for informal 

investigations shall be made to the designated CPM. 

Upon receipt of a request for informal investigation, the CPM shall promptly notify 

the project owner of the allegation by telephone and letter. All known and 

relevant information of the alleged noncompliance shall be provided to the project 

owner and to the Energy Commission staff. The CPM will evaluate the request 

and the information to determine if further investigation is necessary. If the CPM 

finds that further investigation is necessary, the project owner will be asked to 

promptly investigate the matter. Within seven working days of the CPM’s request, 

provide a written report to the CPM of the results of the investigation, including 

corrective measures proposed or undertaken. Depending on the urgency of the 

noncompliance matter, the CPM may conduct a site visit and/or request the 

project owner to also provide an initial verbal report, within 48 hours. 

41 
Request for Informal Meeting 

In the event that either the party requesting an investigation or the Energy 

Commission staff is not satisfied with the project owner’s report, investigation of 

the event, or corrective measures proposed or undertaken, either party may 

submit a written request to the CPM for a meeting with the project owner. Such 

request shall be made within 14 days of the project owner’s filing of its written 

report. Upon receipt of such a request, the CPM shall: 

1. Immediately schedule a meeting with the requesting party and the project 

owner, to be held at a mutually convenient time and place; 

2. Secure the attendance of appropriate Energy Commission staff and staff of 

any other agencies with expertise in the subject area of concern, as 

necessary; 

3. Conduct such meeting in an informal and objective manner so as to 

encourage the voluntary settlement of the dispute in a fair and equitable 

manner; and 

4. After the conclusion of such a meeting, promptly prepare and distribute 

copies to all in attendance and to the project file, a summary memorandum 

that fairly and accurately identifies the positions of all parties and any 

understandings reached. If an agreement has not been reached, the CPM 

shall inform the complainant of the formal complaint process and 

requirements provided under Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 

1230 et seq. 

FORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE-COMPLAINTS AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

Any person may file a complaint with the Energy Commission’s Dockets Unit 

alleging noncompliance with a Commission decision adopted pursuant to Public 

Resources Code section 25500. Requirements for complaint filings and a 

description of how complaints are processed are in Title 20, California Code of 

Regulations, section 1237. 

42 
KEY EVENTS LIST 

PROJECT: 

 

DOCKET #: 

COMPLIANCE PROJECT MANAGER: 

EVENT DESCRIPTION DATE 

Certification Date 

Obtain Site Control 

Online Date 

POWER PLANT SITE ACTIVITIES 

Start Site Mobilization 

Start Ground Disturbance 

Start Grading 

Start Construction 

Begin Pouring Major Foundation Concrete 

Begin Installation of Major Equipment 

Completion of Installation of Major Equipment 

First Combustion of Gas Turbine 

Obtain Building Occupation Permit 

Start Commercial Operation 

Complete All Construction 

TRANSMISSION LINE ACTIVITIES 

Start T/L Construction

Synchronization with Grid and Interconnection 

Complete T/L Construction 

FUEL SUPPLY LINE ACTIVITIES 

Start Gas Pipeline Construction and Interconnection 

Complete Gas Pipeline Construction 

WATER SUPPLY LINE ACTIVITIES 

Start Water Supply Line Construction 

Complete Water Supply Line Construction 

43 
Compliance Table 1 

Summary of Compliance Conditions of Certification 

CONDITION 

NUMBER SUBJECT DESCRIPTION 

COMPLIANCE-1 Unrestricted 

Access 

The project owner shall grant Energy Commission 

staff and delegate agencies or consultants 

unrestricted access to the power plant site. 

COMPLIANCE-2 Compliance 

Record 

The project owner shall maintain project files onsite. Energy Commission staff and delegate 

agencies shall be given unrestricted access to the 

files. 

COMPLIANCE-3 Compliance 

Verification 

Submittals 

The project owner is responsible for the delivery 

and content of all verification submittals to the 

CPM, whether such condition was satisfied by 

work performed or the project owner or his agent. 

COMPLIANCE-4 Pre-construction 

Matrix and Tasks 

Prior to Start of 

Construction 

Construction shall not commence until the all of 

the following activities/submittals have been 

completed: 

 property owners living within one mile of the 

project have been notified of a telephone 

number to contact for questions, complaints or 

concerns, 

 a pre-construction matrix has been submitted 

identifying only those conditions that must be 

fulfilled before the start of construction, 

 all pre-construction conditions have been 

complied with, 

 the CPM has issued a letter to the project 

owner authorizing construction. 

COMPLIANCE-5 Compliance 

Matrix 

The project owner shall submit a compliance 

matrix (in a spreadsheet format) with each 

monthly and annual compliance report which 

includes the status of all compliance Conditions of 

Certification. 

COMPLIANCE-6 Monthly 

Compliance 

Report including 

a Key Events 

List 

During construction, the project owner shall 

submit Monthly Compliance Reports (MCRs) 

which include specific information. The first MCR 

is due the month following the Energy 

Commission business meeting date on which the 

project was approved and shall include an initial 

list of dates for each of the events identified on the 

Key Events List. 

44 
CONDITION 

NUMBER SUBJECT DESCRIPTION 

COMPLIANCE-7 Annual 

Compliance 

Reports 

After construction ends and throughout the life of 

the project, the project owner shall submit Annual 

Compliance Reports instead of Monthly 

Compliance Reports. 

COMPLIANCE-8 Confidential 

Information 

Any information the project owner deems 

confidential shall be submitted to the Energy 

Commission’s Dockets Unit with a request for 

confidentiality. 

COMPLIANCE-9 Annual fees Payment of Annual Energy Facility Compliance 

Fee 

COMPLIANCE-10 Reporting of 

Complaints, 

Notices and 

Citations 

Within 10 days of receipt, the project owner shall 

report to the CPM, all notices, complaints, and 

citations. 

COMPLIANCE-11 Planned Facility 

Closure 

The project owner shall submit a closure plan to 

the CPM at least 12 months prior to 

commencement of a planned closure. 

COMPLIANCE-12 Unplanned 

Temporary 

Facility Closure 

To ensure that public health and safety and the 

environment are protected in the event of an 

unplanned temporary closure, the project owner 

shall submit an on-site contingency plan no less 

than 60 days prior to commencement of 

commercial operation. 

COMPLIANCE-13 Unplanned 

Permanent 

Facility Closure 

To ensure that public health and safety and the 

environment are protected in the event of an 

unplanned permanent closure, the project owner 

shall submit an on-site contingency plan no less 

than 60 days prior to commencement of 

commercial operation. 

COMPLIANCE-14 Post-certification 

changes to the 

Decision 

The project owner must petition the Energy 

Commission to delete or change a Condition of 

Certification, modify the project design or 

operational requirements and/or transfer 

ownership of operational control of the facility. 

45 
46 

ATTACHMENT A 

COMPLAINT REPORT/RESOLUTION FORM 

PROJECT NAME: 

AFC Number: 

COMPLAINT LOG NUMBER ____________

Complainant's name and address: 

Phone number: 

Date and time complaint received: 

Indicate if by telephone or in writing (attach copy if written): 

Date of first occurrence: 

Description of complaint (including dates, frequency, and duration): 

Findings of investigation by plant personnel: 

Indicate if complaint relates to violation of a CEC requirement: 

Date complainant contacted to discuss findings: 

Description of corrective measures taken or other complaint resolution: 

Indicate if complainant agrees with proposed resolution: 

If not, explain: 

Other relevant information: 

If corrective action necessary, date completed: 

Date first letter sent to complainant: (copy attached) 

Date final letter sent to complainant: (copy attached) 

This information is certified to be correct. 

Plant Manager's Signature: Date: 

 (Attach additional pages and supporting documentation, as required.) 
IV. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT 

The broad engineering assessment conducted for the Avenal Project consists of 

separate analyses that examine facility design, engineering, efficiency, and 

reliability aspects. These analyses include the on-site power generating 

equipment and project-related linear facilities. 

A. FACILITY DESIGN 

This review covers several technical disciplines including the civil, electrical, 

mechanical, and structural engineering elements related to project design and 

construction. The evidentiary presentations were uncontested. (7/7/09 RT 446-

48; Exs. 1; 25(q); 200, § 5.1.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

The Application for Certification (AFC) describes the preliminary facility design. 

In considering the adequacy of the plans, the Commission reviews whether the 

power plant and linear facilities are described with sufficient detail to assure the 

project can be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable 

engineering laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). The review 

also includes, as appropriate, the identification of special design features that are 

necessary to deal with unique site conditions which could impact public health 

and safety, the environment, or the operational reliability of the project. (Ex. 200, 

pp. 5.1-1 to 5.1-2.) 

Staff proposed several Conditions of Certification, which we have adopted, that 

establish a design review and construction inspection process to verify 

compliance with applicable standards and special requirements. (Ex. 200, pp. 

5.1-2, 5.1-5.) The project will be designed and constructed in conformance with 

the latest edition of the California Building Standards Code (currently the 2007 

CBSC) and other applicable codes and standards in effect at the time design 

approval and construction actually begin. (Ex. 200, p. 5.1-3.) Condition of 

Certification GEN-1 incorporates this requirement. 

We considered potential geological hazards and reviewed the preliminary project 

design with respect to grading, flood protection, erosion control, site drainage, 

and site access in addition to the criteria for designing and constructing related 

linear facilities such as the natural gas pipeline and the transmission 

interconnection facilities. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.1-2 to 5.1-3; see also, the GEOLOGY 

47 
AND PALEONTOLOGY section of this Decision.) The evidence establishes that 

the project will incorporate accepted industry standards. This includes design 

practices and construction methods for preparing and developing the site. (Ex. 

200, p. 5.1-3.) Conditions CIVIL-1 through CIVIL-4 ensure that these activities 

will be conducted in compliance with applicable LORS. 

Major structures, systems, and equipment include those structures and 

associated components necessary for power production and facilities used for 

storage of hazardous or toxic materials, as well as those capable of becoming 

potential health and safety hazards if not constructed properly. (Ex. 200, p. 5.1-

3.) Table 1, contained in Condition GEN-2, lists the major structures and 

equipment included in the initial engineering design for the project. Conditions 

GEN-3 through GEN-8 require that qualified individuals oversee and inspect 

construction of the facility. Similarly, Conditions MECH-1 through MECH-3

address compliance of the project’s mechanical systems with appropriate 

standards, and a quality assurance/quality control program assures that the 

Avenal Project will be designed, procured, fabricated, and installed as described. 

Condition ELEC-1 provides that design and construction of major electrical 

features will comply with applicable LORS. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.1-3 to 5.1-4.) 

Compliance with design requirements will be verified through specific inspections 

and audits. 

The power plant site is located in Seismic Risk Zone 4. (Ex. 200, p. 5.4-5.) The 

2007 CBC requires specific “dynamic” lateral force procedures for certain 

structures to determine their seismic design criteria; others may be designed 

using a “static” analysis procedure. To ensure that project structures are 

analyzed appropriately, Condition STRUC-1 requires the project owner to submit 

its proposed lateral force procedures to the Chief Building Official (CBO)4

 for 

review and approval prior to the start of construction. (Ex. 200, p. 5.1-3.) 

The evidentiary record also addresses project closure, which may range from 

“mothballing” the facility to removing all equipment and restoring the site. (Ex. 

200, p. 5.1-5.) To ensure that decommissioning of the facility will conform to 

 

4

 The Energy Commission is the CBO for facilities we certify. We may delegate CBO authority to 

local building officials and/or independent consultants to carry out design review and construction 

inspections. When CBO duties are delegated, we require a Memorandum of Understanding with 

the delegate entity to outline respective roles, responsibilities, and qualifications of involved 

individuals such as those described in Conditions of Certification GEN-1 through GEN-8. (Ex. 

200, p. 5.1-4.) The Conditions further require that every appropriate element of project 

construction be first approved by the CBO and that qualified personnel perform or oversee 

inspections. 

48 
applicable LORS and be completed in a manner that protects the environment 

and public health and safety, the project owner is required to submit a 

decommissioning plan which will identify: decommissioning activities; applicable 

LORS in effect when decommissioning occurs; activities necessary to restore the 

site, if appropriate; and decommissioning alternatives. (Id.) Related 

requirements are described in the general closure provisions of the Compliance 

Monitoring and Closure Plan. See GENERAL CONDITIONS in the Compliance 

section of this Decision. 

Overall, the evidentiary record conclusively establishes that the project will be 

designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable LORS, and that these 

activities will not negatively impact public health and safety. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Commission makes the following 

findings and reaches the following conclusions: 

1. The Avenal Project is currently in the preliminary design stage. 

2. The evidentiary record contains sufficient information to establish that the 

proposed facility can be designed and constructed in conformity with the 

applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) set forth 

in the appropriate portion of Appendix A of this Decision. 

3. The Conditions of Certification set forth below provide, in part, that 

qualified personnel will perform design review, plan checking, and field 

inspections of the proposed project. 

4. The Conditions of Certification set forth below are necessary to ensure 

that the project is designed and constructed both in accordance with 

applicable law and in a manner that protects environmental quality as well 

as public health and safety. 

5. The GENERAL CONDITIONS, included in a separate section of this 

Decision, establish requirements to be followed in the event of facility 

closure. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW 

1. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification listed below will ensure that 

the Avenal Project will be designed and constructed in conformance with the 

applicable laws pertinent to the engineering aspects summarized in 

Appendix A of this Decision.

49 
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

GEN-1 The project owner shall design, construct, and inspect the project in 

accordance with the 2007 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), 

also known as Title 24, California Code of Regulations, which 

encompasses the California Building Code (CBC), California 

Administrative Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical 

Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California 

Fire Code, California Code for Building Conservation, California 

Reference Standards Code, and all other applicable engineering laws, 

ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) in effect at the time 

initial design plans are submitted to the chief building official (CBO) for 

review and approval. The CBSC in effect is the edition that has been 

adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and 

published at least 180 days previously. The project owner shall ensure 

that all the provisions of the above applicable codes are enforced 

during the construction, addition, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, 

or maintenance of the completed facility (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 

1, § 101.2, Scope). All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, 

switching stations, and substations) are covered in the Conditions of 

Certification in the TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING section 

of this Decision. 

In the event that the initial engineering designs are submitted to the 

CBO when the successor to the 2007 CBSC is in effect, the 2007 

CBSC provisions shall be replaced with the applicable successor 

provisions. Where, in any specific case, different sections of the code 

specify different materials, methods of construction, or other 

requirements, the most restrictive shall govern. Where there is a 

conflict between a general requirement and a specific requirement, the 

specific requirement shall govern. 

The project owner shall ensure that all contracts with contractors, 

subcontractors, and suppliers clearly specify that all work performed 

and materials supplied comply with the codes listed above. 

Verification: Within 30 days following receipt of the certificate of occupancy, 

the project owner shall submit to the compliance project manager (CPM) a 

statement of verification, signed by the responsible design engineer, attesting 

that all designs, construction, installation, and inspection requirements of the 

applicable LORS and the Energy Commission’s Decision have been met in the 

area of facility design. The project owner shall provide the CPM a copy of the 

certificate of occupancy within 30 days of receipt from the CBO (2007 CBC, 

Appendix Chapter 1, § 110, Certificate of Occupancy). 

Once the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the project owner shall inform 

the CPM at least 30 days prior to any construction, addition, alteration, moving, 

50 
demolition, repair, or maintenance to be performed on any portion(s) of the 

completed facility that requires CBO approval for compliance with the above 

codes. The CPM shall then determine if the CBO needs to approve the work. 

GEN-2 Before submitting the initial engineering designs for CBO review, 

the project owner shall furnish the CPM and the CBO with a 

schedule of facility design submittals, master drawings, and master 

specifications lists. The schedule shall contain a list of proposed 

submittal packages of designs, calculations, and specifications for 

major structures and equipment. To facilitate audits by Energy 

Commission staff, the project owner shall provide specific packages 

to the CPM upon request. 

Verification: At least 60 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall 

submit to the CBO and to the CPM the schedule, the master drawing, and master 

specifications lists of documents to be submitted to the CBO for review and 

approval. These documents shall be the pertinent design documents for the 

major structures and equipment listed in Facility Design Table 1, below. Major 

structures and equipment shall be added to or deleted from the table only with 

CPM approval. The project owner shall provide schedule updates in the monthly 

compliance report. 

// 

// 

// 

51 
Facility Design Table 1 

Major Structures and Equipment List 

Equipment/System Quantity 

(Plant) 

Combustion Turbine & Generator (CTG) Foundation and 

Connections 2 

Steam Turbine & Generator (STG) Foundation and Connections 1 

Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) & Stack Structure, 

Foundation and Connections 2 

CTG Main Transformer Foundation and Connections 2 

STG Main Transformer Foundation and Connections 1 

CTG Air Inlet Structure, Foundation and Connections 2 

CTG Inlet Air Chiller Foundation and Connections 4 

Electrical Auxiliary Transformers Foundation and Connections 2 

CEMS Enclosure Structure, Foundation and Connections 2 

Air Cooled Condenser Structure, Foundation and Connections 1 

Auxiliary Boiler Structure, Foundation and Connections 1 

Boiler Feed Water Pump Foundation and Connections 4 

Fuel Gas Separator and Heating Foundation and Connections 2 

CTG Support Skid Foundation and Connections 2 

Power Distribution Center Foundation and Connections 5 

Demineralized Water Storage Tank Structure, Foundation and 

Connections 1 

Fire Water Pump Skid Foundation and Connections 1 

HRSG Blowdown Tank and Sump Structure, Foundation and 

Connections 2 

Gas Metering and Regulating with Fuel Gas Filter/Separators 

Foundation and Connections 2 

Water Treatment Area Structure, Foundation and Connections 1 

Ammonia Storage Tank, Foundation and Connections 1 

Ammonia Transfer Pumps Foundation and Connections 3 

Raw/Firewater Tank Structure, Foundation and Connections 1 

Septic Tank Structure, Foundation and Connections 1 

Storage Building Structure Foundation and Connections 2 

Condensate Tank and Pumps Foundation and Connections 1 

Closed Loop Cooling Water Pumps Foundations and 

Connections 2 

Fin Fan Coolers Structure, Foundation and Connections 2 

Ammonia Dilution Skid Foundation and Connections 2 

STG Electrical Equipment Foundation and Connections 1 

Switchgear Building Structure, Foundation and Connections 1 

Unit Auxiliary Transformer Foundation and Connections 2 

52 
Quantity Equipment/System (Plant) 

Generator Breaker Foundation and Connections 2 

Air Compressor Skid Foundation and Connections 2 

Backup Generator Foundation and Connections 1 

Hydrogen Storage Area Tank Structure, Foundation and 

Connections 1 

Phosphate Feed Skid Foundation and Connections 2 

Sample Panel Foundation and Connections 2 

Auxiliary Cooling Water Pumps & Heat Exchanger Foundation 

and Connections 1 

Oil/Water Separator Foundation and Connections 1 

Control Room/Administration Building Structure, Foundations 

and Connections 1 

STG Lube Oil Skid Foundations and Connections 1 

Switchyard Control House Structure, Foundation and 

Connections 1 

Drainage Systems (including sanitary drain and waste) 1 Lot 

High Pressure and Large Diameter Piping and Pipe Racks 1 Lot 

HVAC and Refrigeration Systems 1 Lot 

Temperature Control and Ventilation Systems (including water 

and sewer connections) 1 Lot 

Building Energy Conservation Systems 1 Lot 

Switchyard, Buses and Towers 1 Lot 

Electrical Duct Banks 1 Lot 

Zero Liquid Discharge System Structures, Foundation and 

Connections 1 

GEN-3 The project owner shall make payments to the CBO for design 

review, plan checks, and construction inspections based upon a 

reasonable fee schedule to be negotiated between the project 

owner and the CBO. These fees may be consistent with the fees 

listed in the 2007 CBC (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 108, 

Fees; Chapter 1, Section 108.4, Permits, Fees, Applications and 

Inspections), adjusted for inflation and other appropriate 

adjustments; may be based on the value of the facilities reviewed; 

may be based on hourly rates; or may be otherwise agreed upon by 

the project owner and the CBO. 

Verification: The project owner shall make the required payments to the CBO 

in accordance with the agreement between the project owner and the CBO. The 

project owner shall send a copy of the CBO’s receipt of payment to the CPM in 

the next monthly compliance report indicating that applicable fees have been 

paid. 

53 
GEN-4 Prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall assign a 

California registered architect, structural engineer, or civil engineer as 

the resident engineer in charge of the project (2007 California 

Administrative Code, § 4-209, Designation of Responsibilities). All 

transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and 

substations) are addressed in the Conditions of Certification in the 

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING section of this Decision. 

The resident engineer may delegate responsibility for portions of the 

project to other registered engineers. Registered mechanical and 

electrical engineers may be delegated responsibility for mechanical 

and electrical portions of the project, respectively. A project may be 

divided into parts, provided that each part is clearly defined as a 

distinct unit. Separate assignments of general responsibility may be 

made for each designated part. 

The resident engineer shall: 

1. Monitor progress of construction work requiring CBO design review 

and inspection to ensure compliance with LORS; 

2. Ensure that construction of all facilities subject to CBO design 

review and inspection conforms in every material respect to 

applicable LORS, these Conditions of Certification, approved plans, 

and specifications; 

3. Prepare documents to initiate changes in approved drawings and 

specifications when either directed by the project owner or as 

required by the conditions of the project; 

4. Be responsible for providing project inspectors and testing agencies 

with complete and up-to-date sets of stamped drawings, plans, 

specifications, and any other required documents; 

5. Be responsible for the timely submittal of construction progress 

reports to the CBO from the project inspectors, the contractor, and 

other engineers who have been delegated responsibility for 

portions of the project; and 

6. Be responsible for notifying the CBO of corrective action or the 

disposition of items noted on laboratory reports or other tests when 

they do not conform to approved plans and specifications. 

The resident engineer shall have the authority to halt construction and 

to require changes or remedial work if the work does not meet 

requirements. 

54 
If the resident engineer or the delegated engineers are reassigned or 

replaced, the project owner shall submit the name, qualifications, and 

registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for 

review and approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the 

CBO’s approval of the new engineer. 

Verification: At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall 

submit to the CBO, for review and approval, the resume and registration number 

of the resident engineer and any other delegated engineers assigned to the 

project. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approvals of the 

resident engineer and other delegated engineer(s) within five days of the 

approval. 

If the resident engineer or the delegated engineer(s) is subsequently reassigned 

or replaced, the project owner has five days to submit the resume and 

registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and 

approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the 

new engineer within five days of the approval. 

GEN-5 Prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall assign at 

least one of each of the following California registered engineers to the 

project: a civil engineer; a soils, geotechnical, or civil engineer 

experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering; 

and an engineering geologist. Prior to the start of construction, the 

project owner shall assign at least one of each of the following 

California registered engineers to the project: a design engineer who is 

either a structural engineer or a civil engineer fully competent and 

proficient in the design of power plant structures and equipment 

supports; a mechanical engineer; and an electrical engineer. 

(California Business and Professions Code section 6704 et seq., and 

sections 6730, 6731 and 6736 require state registration to practice as 

a civil engineer or structural engineer in California.) All transmission 

facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are 

addressed in the Conditions of Certification in the TRANSMISSION 

SYSTEM ENGINEERING section of this Decision. 

The tasks performed by the civil, mechanical, electrical, or design 

engineers may be divided between two or more engineers as long as 

each engineer is responsible for a particular segment of the project (for 

example, proposed earthwork, civil structures, power plant structures, 

equipment support). No segment of the project shall have more than 

one responsible engineer. The transmission line may be the 

responsibility of a separate California registered electrical engineer. 

The project owner shall submit to the CBO, for review and approval, 

the names, qualifications, and registration numbers of all responsible 

55 
engineers assigned to the project (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 

104, Duties and Powers of Building Official). 

If any one of the designated responsible engineers is subsequently 

reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall submit the name, 

qualifications, and registration number of the newly assigned 

responsible engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project 

owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer. 

A. The civil engineer shall: 

1. Review the foundation investigations, geotechnical, or soils 

reports prepared by the soils engineer, the geotechnical 

engineer, or by a civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable 

in the practice of soils engineering; 

2. Design (or be responsible for the design of), stamp, and sign all 

plans, calculations, and specifications for proposed site work, 

civil works, and related facilities requiring design review and 

inspection by the CBO. At a minimum, these include: grading; 

site preparation; excavation; compaction; and construction of 

secondary containment, foundations, erosion and sedimentation 

control structures, drainage facilities, underground utilities, 

culverts, site access roads and sanitary sewer systems; and 

3. Provide consultation to the resident engineer during the 

construction phase of the project and recommend changes in 

the design of the civil works facilities and changes to the 

construction procedures. 

B. The soils engineer, geotechnical engineer, or civil engineer 

experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering 

shall: 

1. Review all the engineering geology reports; 

2. Prepare the foundation investigations, geotechnical or soils 

reports containing field exploration reports, laboratory tests, and 

engineering analysis detailing the nature and extent of the soils 

that could be susceptible to liquefaction, rapid settlement, or 

collapse when saturated under load (2007 CBC, Appendix J, § 

J104.3, Soils Report; Chapter 18, § 1802.2, Foundation and 

Soils Investigations); 

3. Be present, as required, during site grading and earthwork to 

provide consultation and monitor compliance with requirements 

set forth in the 2007 CBC, Appendix J, section J105, 

Inspections, and the 2007 California Administrative Code, 

section 4-211, Observation and Inspection of Construction 

56 
(depending on the site conditions, this may be the responsibility 

of either the soils engineer, the engineering geologist, or both); 

and 

4. Recommend field changes to the civil engineer and resident 

engineer. 

This engineer shall be authorized to halt earthwork and to require 

changes if site conditions are unsafe or do not conform to the predicted 

conditions used as the basis for design of earthwork or foundations 

(2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 114, Stop Orders). 

C. The engineering geologist shall: 

1. Review all the engineering geology reports and prepare a final 

soils grading report; and 

2. Be present, as required, during site grading and earthwork to 

provide consultation and monitor compliance with the 

requirements set forth in the 2007 California Administrative 

Code, section 4-211, Observation and Inspection of 

Construction (depending on the site conditions, this may be the 

responsibility of either the soils engineer, the engineering 

geologist, or both). 

D. The design engineer shall: 

1. Be directly responsible for the design of the proposed structures 

and equipment supports; 

2. Provide consultation to the resident engineer during design and 

construction of the project; 

3. Monitor construction progress to ensure compliance with 

engineering LORS; 

4. Evaluate and recommend necessary changes in design; and 

5. Prepare and sign all major building plans, specifications, and 

calculations. 

E. The mechanical engineer shall be responsible for, and sign and 

stamp a statement with, each mechanical submittal to the CBO 

stating that the proposed final design plans, specifications, and 

calculations conform to all of the mechanical engineering design 

requirements set forth in the Energy Commission’s Decision. 

F. The electrical engineer shall: 

1. Be responsible for the electrical design of the project; and 

57 
2. Sign and stamp electrical design drawings, plans, specifications, 

and calculations. 

Verification: At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall 

submit to the CBO, for review and approval, resumes and registration numbers of 

the responsible civil engineer, soils (geotechnical) engineer, and engineering 

geologist assigned to the project. 

At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved alternative time 

frame) prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall submit to the 

CBO, for review and approval, resumes and registration numbers of the 

responsible design engineer, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer 

assigned to the project. 

The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approvals of the responsible 

engineers within five days of the approvals. 

If the designated responsible engineer is subsequently reassigned or replaced, 

the project owner has five days in which to submit the resume and registration 

number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The 

project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer 

within five days of the approval. 

GEN-6 Prior to the start of an activity requiring special inspection, the project 

owner shall assign to the project qualified and certified special 

inspector(s) who shall be responsible for the special inspections 

required by the 2007 CBC, Chapter 17, Section 1704, Special 

Inspections; Chapter 17A, Section 1704A, Special Inspections; and 

Appendix Chapter 1, Section 109, Inspections. All transmission 

facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are 

addressed in Conditions of Certification in the TRANSMISSION 

SYSTEM ENGINEERING section of this Decision. 

A certified weld inspector, certified by the American Welding Society 

(AWS) and/or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) as 

applicable, shall inspect welding performed on-site requiring special 

inspection (including structural, piping, tanks, and pressure vessels). 

The special inspector shall: 

1. Be a qualified person who shall demonstrate competence, to the 

satisfaction of the CBO, for inspection of the particular type of 

construction requiring special or continuous inspection; 

2. Observe the work assigned for conformance with the approved 

design drawings and specifications; 

58 
3. Furnish inspection reports to the CBO and resident engineer. All 

discrepancies shall be brought to the immediate attention of the 

resident engineer for correction then, if uncorrected, to the CBO 

and the CPM for corrective action (2007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 

1704.1.2, Report Requirements); and 

4. Submit a final signed report to the resident engineer, CBO, and 

CPM stating whether the work requiring special inspection was, to 

the best of the inspector’s knowledge, in conformance with the 

approved plans, specifications, and other provisions of the 

applicable edition of the CBC. 

Verification: At least 15 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of an activity requiring special inspection, 

the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, with a copy to 

the CPM, the name(s) and qualifications of the certified weld inspector(s) or other 

certified special inspector(s) assigned to the project to perform one or more of 

the duties set forth above. The project owner shall also submit to the CPM a copy 

of the CBO’s approval of the qualifications of all special inspectors in the next 

monthly compliance report. 

If the special inspector is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner 

has five days in which to submit the name and qualifications of the newly 

assigned special inspector to the CBO for approval. The project owner shall 

notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the newly assigned inspector within five 

days of the approval. 

GEN-7 If any discrepancy in design and/or construction is discovered in 

any engineering work that has undergone CBO design review and 

approval, the project owner shall document the discrepancy and 

recommend required corrective actions (2007 CBC, Appendix 

Chapter 1, § 109.6, Approval Required; Chapter 17, § 1704.1.2, 

Report Requirements). The discrepancy documentation shall be 

submitted to the CBO for review and approval. The discrepancy 

documentation shall reference this Condition of Certification and, if 

appropriate, applicable sections of the CBC and/or other LORS. 

Verification: The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO’s approval of 

any corrective action taken to resolve a discrepancy to the CPM in the next 

monthly compliance report. If any corrective action is disapproved, the project 

owner shall advise the CPM, within five days, of the reason for disapproval and 

the revised corrective action necessary to obtain the CBO’s approval. 

GEN-8 The project owner shall obtain the CBO’s final approval of all 

completed work that has undergone CBO design review and 

approval. The project owner shall request that the CBO inspect the 

completed structure and review the submitted documents. The 

project owner shall notify the CPM after obtaining the CBO’s final 

59 
approval. The project owner shall retain one set of approved 

engineering plans, specifications, and calculations (including all 

approved changes) at the project site or at an alternative site 

approved by the CPM during the operating life of the project (2007 

CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 106.3.1, Approval of Construction 

Documents). Electronic copies of the approved plans, 

specifications, calculations, and marked-up as-builts shall be 

provided to the CBO for retention by the CPM. 

Verification: Within 15 days of the completion of any work, the project owner 

shall submit to the CBO, with a copy to the CPM, in the next monthly compliance 

report: (a) a written notice that the completed work is ready for final inspection; 

and (b) a signed statement that the work conforms to the final approved plans. 

After storing the final approved engineering plans, specifications, and 

calculations described above, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a letter 

stating both that the above documents have been stored and the storage location 

of those documents. 

Within 90 days of the completion of construction the project owner, at its own 

expense, shall provide to the CBO three sets of electronic copies of the above 

documents. These are to be provided in the form of “read only” files (Adobe .pdf 

6.0), with restricted (password-protected) printing privileges, on archive quality 

compact discs. 

CIVIL-1 The project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the 

following: 

1. Design of the proposed drainage structures and the grading plan; 

2. An erosion and sedimentation control plan; 

3. Related calculations and specifications, signed and stamped by the 

responsible civil engineer; and 

4. Soils, geotechnical, or foundation investigation reports required by 

the 2007 CBC, Appendix J, section J104.3, Soils Report, and 

Chapter 18, section 1802.2, Foundation and Soils Investigation. 

Verification: At least 15 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of site grading the project owner shall 

submit the documents described above to the CBO for design review and 

approval. In the next monthly compliance report following the CBO’s approval, 

the project owner shall submit a written statement certifying that the documents 

have been approved by the CBO. 

CIVIL-2 The resident engineer shall, if appropriate, stop all earthwork and 

construction in the affected areas when the responsible soils 

engineer, geotechnical engineer, or the civil engineer experienced 

and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering identifies 

60 
unforeseen adverse soil or geologic conditions. The project owner 

shall submit modified plans, specifications, and calculations to the 

CBO based on these new conditions. The project owner shall 

obtain approval from the CBO before resuming earthwork and 

construction in the affected area (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, 

§ 114, Stop Work Orders). 

Verification: The project owner shall notify the CPM within 24 hours when 

earthwork and construction is stopped as a result of unforeseen adverse 

geologic/soil conditions. Within 24 hours of the CBO’s approval to resume 

earthwork and construction in the affected areas, the project owner shall provide 

to the CPM a copy of the CBO’s approval. 

CIVIL-3 The project owner shall perform inspections in accordance with the 

2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, section 109, Inspections, and Chapter 

17, section 1704, Special Inspections. All plant site-grading operations 

for which a grading permit is required shall be subject to inspection by 

the CBO. 

If, in the course of inspection, it is discovered that the work is not being 

performed in accordance with the approved plans, the discrepancies 

shall be reported immediately to the resident engineer, the CBO, and 

the CPM (2007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 1704.1.2, Report Requirements). 

The project owner shall prepare a written report, with copies to the 

CBO and the CPM, detailing all discrepancies, non-compliance items, 

and the proposed corrective action. 

Verification: Within five days of the discovery of any discrepancies, the 

resident engineer shall transmit to the CBO and the CPM a non-conformance 

report (NCR) and the proposed corrective action for review and approval. Within 

five days of resolution of the NCR, the project owner shall submit the details of 

the corrective action to the CBO and the CPM. A list of NCRs for the reporting 

month shall also be included in the following monthly compliance report. 

CIVIL-4 After completion of finished grading and erosion and sedimentation 

control and drainage work, the project owner shall obtain the CBO’s 

approval of the final grading plans (including final changes) for the 

erosion and sedimentation control work. The civil engineer shall 

state that the work within his/her area of responsibility was done in 

accordance with the final approved plans (2007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 

1703.2, Written Approval). 

Verification: Within 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) of the completion of the erosion and sediment control 

mitigation and drainage work, the project owner shall submit to the CBO, for 

review and approval, the final grading plans (including final changes) and the 

responsible civil engineer’s signed statement that the installation of the facilities 

and all erosion control measures were completed in accordance with the final 

61 
approved combined grading plans and that the facilities are adequate for their 

intended purposes, along with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM. The 

project owner shall submit a copy of the CBO's approval to the CPM in the next 

monthly compliance report. 

STRUC-1 Prior to the start of any increment of construction of any major 

structure or component listed in Facility Design Table 1 of 

Condition of Certification GEN-2, above, the project owner shall 

submit to the CBO for design review and approval the proposed 

lateral force procedures for project structures and the applicable 

designs, plans, and drawings for project structures. Proposed 

lateral force procedures, designs, plans, and drawings shall be 

those for the following items (from Table 1, above): 

1. Major project structures; 

2. Major foundations, equipment supports, and anchorage; and 

3. Large field-fabricated tanks. 

Construction of any structure or component shall not begin until the 

CBO has approved the lateral force procedures to be employed in 

designing that structure or component. 

The project owner shall: 

1. Obtain approval from the CBO of lateral force procedures proposed 

for project structures; 

2. Obtain approval from the CBO for the final design plans, 

specifications, calculations, soils reports, and applicable quality 

control procedures. If there are conflicting requirements, the more 

stringent shall govern (for example, highest loads, or lowest 

allowable stresses shall govern). All plans, calculations, and 

specifications for foundations that support structures shall be filed 

concurrently with the structure plans, calculations, and 

specifications (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 109.6, Approval 

Required); 

3. Submit to the CBO the required number of copies of the structural 

plans, specifications, calculations, and other required documents of 

the designated major structures prior to the start of on-site 

fabrication and installation of each structure, equipment support, or 

foundation (2007 California Administrative Code, § 4-210, Plans, 

Specifications, Computations and Other Data); 

4. Ensure that the final plans, calculations, and specifications clearly 

reflect the inclusion of approved criteria, assumptions, and methods 

used to develop the design. The final designs, plans, calculations, 

62 
and specifications shall be signed and stamped by the responsible 

design engineer (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 106.3.4, 

Design Professional in Responsible Charge); and 

5. Submit to the CBO the responsible design engineer’s signed 

statement that the final design plans conform to applicable LORS 

(2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 106.3.4, Design Professional in 

Responsible Charge). 

Verification: At least 60 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of any increment of construction of any 

structure or component listed in Facility Design Table 1 of Condition of 

Certification GEN-2, above, the project owner shall submit to the CBO the above 

final design plans, specifications, and calculations, with a copy of the transmittal 

letter to the CPM. 

The project owner shall submit to the CPM, in the next monthly compliance 

report, a copy of a statement from the CBO that the proposed structural plans, 

specifications, and calculations have been approved and comply with the 

requirements set forth in applicable engineering LORS. 

STRUC-2 The project owner shall submit to the CBO the required number of 

sets of the following documents related to work that has undergone 

CBO design review and approval: 

1. Concrete cylinder strength test reports (including date of testing, 

date sample taken, design concrete strength, tested cylinder 

strength, age of test, type and size of sample, location and quantity 

of concrete placement from which sample was taken, and mix 

design designation and parameters); 

2. Concrete pour sign-off sheets; 

3. Bolt torque inspection reports (including location of test, date, bolt 

size, and recorded torques); 

4. Field weld inspection reports (including type of weld, location of 

weld, inspection of non-destructive testing procedure and results, 

welder qualifications, certifications, qualified procedure description 

or number (ref: AWS); and 

5. Reports covering other structural activities requiring special 

inspections shall be in accordance with the 2007 CBC, Chapter 17, 

section 1704, Special Inspections, and section 1709.1, Structural 

Observations. 

Verification: If a discrepancy is discovered in any of the above data the 

project owner shall, within five days, prepare and submit an NCR describing the 

nature of the discrepancies and the proposed corrective action to the CBO, with 

63 
a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM (2007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 1704.1.2, 

Report Requirements). The NCR shall reference the Condition(s) of Certification 

and the applicable CBC chapter and section. Within five days of resolution of the 

NCR, the project owner shall submit a copy of the corrective action to the CBO 

and the CPM. 

The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO’s approval or disapproval of 

the corrective action to the CPM within 15 days. If disapproved, the project owner 

shall advise the CPM, within five days, of the reason for disapproval and the 

revised corrective action necessary to obtain the CBO’s approval. 

STRUC-3 The project owner shall submit to the CBO design changes to the 

final plans required by the 2007 CBC, including the revised 

drawings, specifications, calculations, and a complete description 

of, and supporting rationale for, the proposed changes, and shall 

give to the CBO prior notice of the intended filing (2007 CBC, 

Appendix Chapter 1, § 106.1, Submittal Documents; § 106.4, 

Amended Construction Documents; 2007 California Administrative 

Code, § 4-215, Changes in Approved Drawings and Specifications). 

Verification: On a schedule suitable to the CBO, the project owner shall notify 

the CBO of the intended filing of design changes and shall submit the required 

number of sets of revised drawings and the required number of copies of the 

other above-mentioned documents to the CBO, with a copy of the transmittal 

letter to the CPM. The project owner shall notify the CPM, via the monthly 

compliance report, when the CBO has approved the revised plans. 

STRUC-4 Tanks and vessels containing quantities of toxic or hazardous 

materials exceeding amounts specified in the 2007 CBC, Chapter 

3, Table 307.1(2) shall, at a minimum, be designed to comply with 

the requirements of that chapter. 

Verification: At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternate time frame) prior to the start of installation of the tanks or vessels 

containing the above specified quantities of toxic or hazardous materials, the 

project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and approval final 

design plans, specifications, and calculations, including a copy of the signed and 

stamped engineer’s certification. 

The project owner shall send copies of the CBO approvals of plan checks to the 

CPM in the following monthly compliance report. The project owner shall also 

transmit a copy of the CBO’s inspection approvals to the CPM in the monthly 

compliance report following completion of any inspection. 

MECH-1 The project owner shall submit, for CBO design review and approval, 

the proposed final design, specifications, and calculations for each 

plant major piping and plumbing system listed in Facility Design 

Table 1, Condition of Certification GEN-2, above. Physical layout 

64 
drawings and drawings not related to code compliance and life safety 

need not be submitted. The submittal shall also include the applicable 

QA/QC procedures. Upon completion of construction of any such 

major piping or plumbing system, the project owner shall request the 

CBO’s inspection approval of that construction (2007 CBC, Appendix 

Chapter 1, § 106.1, Submittal Documents; § 109.5, Inspection 

Requests; § 109.6, Approval Required; 2007 California Plumbing 

Code, § 301.1.1, Approvals). 

The responsible mechanical engineer shall stamp and sign all plans, 

drawings, and calculations for the major piping and plumbing systems, 

subject to CBO design review and approval, and submit a signed 

statement to the CBO when the proposed piping and plumbing 

systems have been designed, fabricated, and installed in accordance 

with all of the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and industry 

standards (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 106.3.4, Design 

Professional in Responsible Charge) which may include, but are not 

limited to: 

• American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B31.1 (Power Piping 

Code); 

• ANSI B31.2 (Fuel Gas Piping Code); 

• ANSI B31.3 (Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping Code); 

• ANSI B31.8 (Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code); 

• Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5 (California Plumbing 

Code); 

• Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6 (California Energy 

Code, for building energy conservation systems and temperature 

control and ventilation systems); 

• Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2 (California Building 

Code); and 

• Kings County codes. 

The CBO may deputize inspectors to carry out the functions of the 

code enforcement agency (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 103.3, 

Deputies). 

Verification: At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of any increment of major piping or 

plumbing construction listed in Facility Design Table 1, Condition of Certification 

GEN-2, above, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and 

approval the final plans, specifications, and calculations, including a copy of the 

signed and stamped statement from the responsible mechanical engineer 

65 
certifying compliance with applicable LORS, and shall send the CPM a copy of 

the transmittal letter in the next monthly compliance report. 

The project owner shall transmit to the CPM, in the monthly compliance report 

following completion of any inspection, a copy of the transmittal letter conveying 

the CBO’s inspection approvals. 

MECH-2 For all pressure vessels installed in the plant, the project owner shall 

submit to the CBO and California Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (Cal/OSHA), prior to operation, the code certification 

papers and other documents required by applicable LORS. Upon 

completion of the installation of any pressure vessel, the project owner 

shall request the appropriate CBO and/or Cal/OSHA inspection of that 

installation (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 109.5, Inspection 

Requests). 

The project owner shall: 

1. Ensure that all boilers and fired and unfired pressure vessels are 

designed, fabricated, and installed in accordance with the 

appropriate section of the American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, or other 

applicable code. Vendor certification, with identification of 

applicable code, shall be submitted for prefabricated vessels and 

tanks; and 

2. Have the responsible design engineer submit a statement to the 

CBO that the proposed final design plans, specifications, and 

calculations conform to all of the requirements set forth in the 

appropriate ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code or other 

applicable codes. 

Verification: At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of on-site fabrication or installation of any 

pressure vessel, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and 

approval the above-listed documents, including a copy of the signed and 

stamped engineer’s certification, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM. 

The project owner shall transmit to the CPM, in the monthly compliance report 

following completion of any inspection, a copy of the transmittal letter conveying 

the CBO’s and/or Cal/OSHA inspection approvals. 

MECH-3 The project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and 

approval the design plans, specifications, calculations, and quality 

control procedures for any heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) 

or refrigeration system. Packaged HVAC systems, where used, shall 

be identified with the appropriate manufacturer’s data sheets. 

66 
The project owner shall design and install all HVAC and refrigeration 

systems within buildings and related structures in accordance with the 

CBC and other applicable codes. Upon completion of any increment of 

construction, the project owner shall request the CBO’s inspection and 

approval of that construction. The final plans, specifications, and 

calculations shall include approved criteria, assumptions, and methods 

used to develop the design. In addition, the responsible mechanical 

engineer shall sign and stamp all plans, drawings, and calculations and 

submit a signed statement to the CBO that the proposed final design 

plans, specifications, and calculations conform with the applicable 

LORS (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 109.3.7, Energy Efficiency 

Inspections; § 106.3.4, Design Professionals in Responsible Charge). 

Verification: At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of construction of any HVAC or 

refrigeration system, the project owner shall submit to the CBO the required 

HVAC and refrigeration calculations, plans, and specifications, including a copy 

of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible mechanical engineer 

certifying compliance with the CBC and other applicable codes, with a copy of 

the transmittal letter to the CPM. 

ELEC-1 Prior to the start of any increment of electrical construction for all 

electrical equipment and systems 480 Volts or higher (see a 

representative list, below), with the exception of underground duct 

work and any physical layout drawings and drawings not related to 

code compliance and life safety, the project owner shall submit for 

CBO design review and approval the proposed final design, 

specifications, and calculations (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 

106.1, Submittal Documents). Upon approval, the above-listed plans, 

together with design changes and design change notices, shall remain 

on the site or at another accessible location for the operating life of the 

project. The project owner shall request that the CBO inspect the 

installation to ensure compliance with the requirements of applicable 

LORS (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 109.6, Approval Required; § 

109.5, Inspection Requests). All transmission facilities (lines, 

switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are addressed in 

Conditions of Certification in the TRANSMISSION SYSTEM 

ENGINEERING section of this Decision. 

A. Final plant design plans shall include: 

1. one-line diagrams for the 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV, and 480 V systems; 

and 

2. system grounding drawings. 

B. Final plant calculations must establish: 

1. short-circuit ratings of plant equipment; 

67 
68 

2. ampacity of feeder cables; 

3. voltage drop in feeder cables; 

4. system grounding requirements; 

5. coordination study calculations for fuses, circuit breakers, and 

protective relay settings for the 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV, and 480 V 

systems; 

6. system grounding requirements; and 

7. lighting energy calculations. 

C. The following activities shall be reported to the CPM in the monthly 

compliance report: 

1. Receipt or delay of major electrical equipment; 

2. Testing or energization of major electrical equipment; and 

3. A signed statement by the registered electrical engineer 

certifying that the proposed final design plans and specifications 

conform to requirements set forth in the Energy Commission 

Decision. 

Verification: At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved 

alternative time frame) prior to the start of each increment of electrical 

construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and 

approval the above-listed documents. The project owner shall include in this 

submittal a copy of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible 

electrical engineer attesting compliance with the applicable LORS, and shall 

send the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the next monthly compliance 

report. 
B. POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY 

The Avenal Project will use substantial amounts of natural gas for its fuel. 

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), we must determine 

whether the consumption of this non-renewable form of energy will result in 

substantial impacts upon energy resources. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 

15126.4(a)(1), App.F.) 

The evidence of record on this matter is uncontested and examines the project’s: 

energy requirements and energy use efficiency, effects on local and regional 

energy supplies and resources, requirements for additional energy supply 

capacity, and compliance with applicable energy standards. In addition, the 

evidence of record addresses whether there are feasible alternatives which 

would reduce any wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption 

attributable to the project. (7/7/09 RT 446-448; Exs. 1; 25(s); 200, § 5.3.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

The project objectives include providing approximately 600 MW of steady 

electrical power and enhancing power supply reliability in the California electricity 

market. The Avenal facility will operate in a combined cycle mode, utilizing two 

General Electric (GE) frame 7FA combustion turbine generators (CTGs) with 

mechanical inlet air chillers, two multi-pressure heat recovery steam generators 

(HRSGs) with duct burners, and one reheat steam turbine generator (STG) with 

an air cooled condenser for exhaust steam cooling. (7/7/09 RT 24; Ex. 200, p. 

5.3-1.) The CTGs will be equipped with dry low-NOx combustors and the HRSGs 

with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.3-1 to 5.3-2.) 

The project will burn natural gas at a rate of approximately 3,236 million Btu 

(British Thermal Units) per hour, lower heating value (LHV), during base load 

operation at average ambient conditions. With duct firing, fuel consumption 

increases to 4,055 million Btu per hour. Under expected conditions, Avenal will 

generate electricity at a full load efficiency of approximately 50.5 percent, LHV. 

(Ex. 200, p. 5.3-2.) Project fuel efficiency, and therefore its rate of energy 

consumption, is determined by the configuration of the power producing system 

and by the selection of equipment used to generate power. 

The Avenal Project will be configured as a combined cycle power plant in which 

electricity is generated by two gas turbine generators and additionally by a reheat 

steam turbine generator that operates on heat energy recovered from the gas 

69 
turbines’ exhaust. By recovering this heat which would otherwise be lost up the 

exhaust stacks, the efficiency of any combined cycle power plant is increased 

considerably from that of either gas turbines or a steam turbine operating alone. 

(Ex. 200, p. 5.3-3.) 

The project will incorporate mechanical inlet air chillers, HRSG duct burners (reheaters), multi-pressure HRSGs, and a steam turbine unit with an air cooled 

condenser to cool steam exhaust. (Id.) The evidence shows that these features 

contribute to meaningful efficiency enhancement. The two-train CTG/HRSG 

configuration allows for high efficiency during unit turndown because one CTG 

can operate at a more efficient full load while the other is shut down, rather than 

operating two CTGs at an inefficient 50 percent load. The project includes 

HRSG duct burners to augment heat to the STG cycle during high ambient 

temperatures when CTG capacity drops and for added power output. Duct firing 

also provides a number of operational benefits such as load following, as well as 

balancing and optimizing the operation of the STG cycle. The evidence 

establishes that Avenal’s configuration is well-suited to large, steady loads met 

by a base load power plant intended to supply energy efficiently for long periods 

of time. (Id.) 

Modern gas turbines embody the most fuel-efficient generating technology 

currently available. The turbines can be grouped into three categories: 

conventional; advanced; and next generation. The evidence of record contains 

an analysis of equipment proposed for the project. The alternatives to the GE 

Frame 7FA, i.e. the Siemens SCC6-5000F and the Alstom KA24-2, present no 

significant improvements in actual operating efficiency. (Ex. 200, p. 5.3-4.) 

Similarly, the evidence indicates that next generation machines such as the 

Siemens-Westinghouse 501G and the Frame 7H have not yet been shown to 

possess significant energy efficiency improvements over the Frame 7FA. (Ex. 

200, p. 5.3-5.) The evidence also establishes that the use of a mechanical 

chiller, as proposed, is appropriate since the alternative – the evaporative cooler 

– possesses no real efficiency benefit. (Id.) 

The fuel will be delivered via a new 2.5 mile long, 20 inch diameter, underground 

natural gas pipeline which will interconnect with the existing Pacific Gas and 

Electric (PG&E) lines. The evidence conclusively establishes that PG&E’s 

present fuel supply capacity is sufficient to meet the demands of the Avenal 

Energy Project. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.3-2 to 5.3.-3.) Moreover, the evidence shows 

that only natural gas burning technologies are feasible for this project. Other 

technologies such as nuclear, solar, biomass, hydroelectric, wind and geothermal 

70 
were all considered but cannot meet project objectives or are simply not feasible 

or are unavailable in the area. (Ex. 200, p. 5.3-4.) The evidence addressing 

these other technologies is discussed further in the Alternatives section of this 

Decision.5

In conclusion, the uncontradictated evidence of record convincingly shows that 

the Avenal Project will benefit the State’s electrical system by enhancing power 

supply reliability and displacing operation of older, less efficient power plants. 

(7/7/09 RT 72.) It will provide this benefit in the most fuel efficient manner 

practicable, without creating adverse effects on energy supplies or resources. 

The project will not require additional sources of energy supply or consume 

energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner. (Ex. 200, p. 5.3-6.) 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence of record, we make the following findings 

and reach the following conclusions: 

1. The Avenal Project will provide approximately 600 MW of electrical power, 

operate in combined cycle mode, and utilize two GE Frame 7FA gas 

turbines. 

2. Under average annual ambient conditions, Avenal will generate electricity 

at a full load efficiency of approximately 50.5 percent, LHV. 

3. The project’s combined cycle configuration incorporates HRSG duct 

burners and a mechanical chiller. This configuration is well suited to the 

large steady loads met by a base load plant to efficiently supply energy for 

long periods of time. 

4. Use of the GE Frame 7FA is appropriate for the Avenal Project. 

5. The Avenal Project will not require the development of new fuel supply 

resources. 

6. The Avenal Project will consume natural gas in as efficient a manner as 

practicable. 

 

5

 See the Alternatives section of this Decision for a discussion of why rooftop solar is not a 

feasible alternative to the Avenal Energy Project. 

71 
72 

7. The evidence of record contains a comparative analysis of alternative fuel 

sources and generation technologies, none of which is superior to the 

proposed project at meeting project objectives in an efficient manner. 

8. The Avenal Project will benefit the State’s electrical system as a whole by 

enhancing power supply reliability and displacing the operation of older, 

less efficient power plants. 

9. No Federal, State, or local laws, ordinances, regulations, or standards 

apply to the efficiency of this project. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW 

1. The Avenal Project will not create adverse effects upon energy supplies or 

resources, require additional sources of energy supply, or consume 

energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner. No Conditions of Certification 

are required for this topic area. 
C. POWER PLANT RELIABILITY 

We must determine whether the project will be designed, sited, and operated to 

ensure safe and reliable operation. [Pub. Res. Code, § 25520(b); Cal. Code 

Regs., tit. 20 § 1752(c)(2).] However, there are no LORS that establish either 

power plant reliability criteria or procedures for attaining reliable operation. 

Therefore, we look to typical industry norms for reliability of power generation as 

a benchmark against which to evaluate this proposal. Where a power plant 

compares favorably to industry norms, it is not likely to degrade the overall 

reliability of the electric system it serves. (Ex. 200, p. 5.4-3.) 

The CAISO has begun to establish specific criteria for each load-serving entity 

under its jurisdiction to help the entities decide how much generating capacity 

and ancillary services to build or purchase. Load serving entities then issue 

power purchase agreements to satisfy these needs. Avenal must satisfy these 

criteria, which include maintaining a 15 percent reserve margin and increasing 

local generation to reduce reliance on imported power. (Ex. 200, p. 5.4-2.) The 

Applicant has elected to pursue a power purchase agreement with Pacific Gas 

and Electric (PG&E) and other potential off takers after this licensing process 

concludes. (7/7/09 RT 79-80, 102 – 03.) 

The CAISO criteria are designed to maintain system-wide reliability. However, it 

is possible that, if numerous power plants operated at reliability levels sufficiently 

lower than historical levels, the assumptions used by CAISO to ensure system 

reliability would prove invalid. As a result, the Commission must ensure that 

individual power plant owners continue to build and operate their projects to the 

traditional level of reliability reflected in the power generation industry. The 

evidence presented was uncontested. ( 7/7/09 RT 446 - 48; Exs.1; 25 (t); 200, § 

5.4.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

Applicant expects an availability factor of 92-96 percent for the Avenal Project.6

 

The availability factor for a power plant is the percentage of time that it is 

available to generate power. Both planned and unplanned outages subtract from 

a plant’s availability. For practical purposes, a reliable power plant is one that is 

available when called upon to operate. The evidence of record shows that 

delivering acceptable reliability entails: 1) adequate levels of equipment 

 

6

 The project is expected to operate at a capacity factor of 80 percent, with 25 percent duct firing 

each year of its operating life. 

73 
availability; 2) plant maintainability with scheduled maintenance outages; 3) fuel 

and water availability; and 4) resistance to natural hazards. 

 

Commission staff evaluated the proposed project against typical industry norms 

as a benchmark for assessing plant reliability. If the factors mentioned above 

compare favorably to industry norms, then the power plant will be at least as 

reliable as other power plants on the electric system and will therefore not 

degrade overall system reliability. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.4-2 to 5.4-3.) 

1. Equipment Availability 

Equipment availability will be ensured by use of appropriate quality 

assurance/quality control (QA/QC) programs during design, procurement, 

construction, and operation of the plant and by providing adequate maintenance 

and repair of the equipment and systems. The project owner will use a QA/QC 

program typical in the power industry. Equipment will be purchase from qualified 

suppliers and the project owner will perform receipt inspections, test 

components, and administer independent testing contracts. To ensure these 

measures are taken, we have incorporated appropriate Conditions of Certification 

in the FACILITY DESIGN section of this Decision. (Id.) 

2. Plant Maintainability 

A generating facility called upon to operate in base load service for long periods 

of time must be capable of being maintained while operating. A typical approach 

for achieving this is to provide redundancy for those pieces of equipment most 

likely to require service or repair. (Ex. 200, p. 5.4-4.) 

The evidence shows that the project incorporates an appropriate redundancy of 

function. It consists of two combustion turbine generators operating in parallel as 

independent equipment trains. A single equipment failure cannot disable both 

trains; this allows the plant to continue to generate at reduced output. In 

addition, all plant ancillary systems are designed with adequate redundancy to 

ensure continued operation in the face of equipment failure. (Id.) 

The project owner will establish a maintenance program typical of the power 

generation industry and based on recommendations from the various equipment 

manufacturers. This will encompass both preventive and predictive maintenance 

techniques. Maintenance outages will be planned for periods of low electricity 

74 
demand. The evidence establishes that the planned maintenance measures will 

ensure acceptable reliability. (Id.) 

3. Fuel and Water Availability 

For any power plant the long-term availability of fuel, and water for cooling or 

process use, is necessary to ensure reliability. The Avenal Project will burn 

natural gas supplied by PG&E. This fuel will be supplied via a new 20 inch, 2.5 

mile long underground pipeline which will connect to the existing system near the 

Kettleman compressor station. (7/7/09 RT 25; Ex. 202, p. 2.) The line offers 

access to adequate supplies of gas to meet the project’s needs. (Ex. 200, p. 5.4-

4.) 

The project will obtain untreated fresh water from the City of Avenal’s water 

treatment facility, supplied by the San Luis Canal, and treat the raw water on the 

project site to suit project needs for steam cycle makeup water and fire and 

service water. The City will also supply potable water which will be used as 

domestic water including drinking water. The water supply plans include a 

backup source of raw water which, if needed, will be obtained from existing 

agricultural wells. A 750,000 gallon raw water/firewater storage tank will allow 

plant operations to continue if the primary water supply is interrupted. Use of an 

air cooled condenser and a zero liquid discharge system minimize water usage. 

(Exs. 200, pp. 5.4-4 to 5.4-5; 202, pp. 2-3.) 

4. Natural Hazards 

The site lies in Seismic Risk Zone 4. The project will be designed and 

constructed to the Seismic Zone 4 standards of the latest appropriate LORS. By 

implementing these seismic design criteria, this project will likely perform at least 

as well as, and perhaps better than, existing plants in the electric power system. 

We have adopted Conditions of Certification in the FACILITY DESIGN section to 

ensure this occurs. 

The site does not receive stormwater runoff nor does it lie within a 100-year 

floodplain. The record establishes that there should be no significant concerns 

with power plant functional reliability due to flooding. (Ex. 200, p. 5.4-5.) 

75 
5. Comparison to Industry Norms 

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) maintains statistics 

for availability factors and other related reliability data. NERC currently reports 

summary generating unit statistics for the years 1999 through 2003 for combined 

cycle units of all sizes; these statistics demonstrate an availability factor of 89 

percent. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.4-5 to 5.4-6.) Since the project’s Frame 7FA machines 

will outperform many of the various gas turbines that make up the NERC figure, 

we are persuaded that the Avenal Project will likely exceed industry norms in this 

regard and reach its predicted annual availability factor of 92-96 percent. 

Finally, the evidence shows that the Avenal Project will enhance the reliability of 

California’s electricity supply, contribute to electricity reserves in the region, and 

provide operating flexibility, load following capability, and spinning reserve. 

(7/7/09 RT 76 – 77, 93-94.) The evidence of record characterizes these factors 

as “noteworthy projects benefits.” (Ex. 200, p. 5.4-6.) 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontested evidence, we make the following findings: 

1. No federal, state, or local/county LORS apply to the reliability of the 

Avenal Project. 

2. A project’s reliability is acceptable if it does not degrade the reliability of 

the utility system to which it is connected. 

3. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reports that 

for the years 1999 through 2003 combined cycle units of all sizes 

exhibited an availability factor of 89 percent. 

4. Undisputed evidence indicates that an availability factor of 92-96 percent 

is achievable by the Avenal Project. 

5. Implementation of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) programs 

during design, procurement, construction, and operation of the plant, as 

well as adequate maintenance and repair of the equipment and systems, 

will ensure the project is adequately reliable. 

6. Appropriate Conditions of Certification included in the FACILITY DESIGN

portion of this Decision ensure implementation of the QA/QC programs 

and conformance with seismic design criteria. 

76 
77 

7. The project’s fuel and water supply will be reliable. 

8. The project will meet or exceed industry norms for reliability, including 

reliability during seismic events, and will not degrade the overall electrical 

system. 

9. The Avenal Project is expected to operate at an annual capacity factor of 

80 percent, with 25 percent duct firing. 

10. The use of two combustion turbine generators, configured as independent 

equipment trains, provides the Avenal Project inherent reliability. 

11. The Applicant intends to procure a power purchase agreement with Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company and other potential off takers following 

completion of this licensing proceeding. 

12. The project will enhance California’s power supply reliability, contribute to 

electricity reserves in the region, and provide operating flexibility. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW 

1. The project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the 

typical power industry norms for reliable electricity generation and will not 

degrade overall system reliability. No Conditions of Certification other 

than those included in the FACILITY DESIGN portion of this Decision are 

required for this topic. 
78 

D. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 

The Commission’s jurisdiction includes “... any electric power line carrying 

electric power from a thermal power plant ... to a point of junction with an 

interconnected transmission system.” (Pub. Res. Code § 25107.) The 

Commission assesses the engineering and planning design of new transmission 

facilities associated with a proposed project to ensure compliance with applicable 

law. The record indicates that the Applicant in this case has adequately 

identified all necessary interconnection facilities based on the information 

currently available. 

The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) is responsible for ensuring 

electric system reliability for participating entities, and determines both the 

standards necessary to achieve system reliability and whether a proposed project 

conforms to those standards. The Energy Commission works in conjunction with 

the CAISO in assessing a project. Commission Staff normally relies on the 

interconnecting authority, CAISO, or the interconnecting utility (in this case PG&E) 

for the analysis of impacts on the transmission grid as well as the identification and 

approval of required new or modified facilities downstream from the proposed 

interconnection. 

However, the CAISO’s generator interconnection process is transitioning from a 

queue or serial study process to a cluster window process for Phase 1 and Phase 2 

Interconnection studies. This transition has also caused significant delays in the 

interconnection studies for several projects. As a result, the Energy Commission is 

allowing Applicants to file “third party” or non-CAISO or utility studies during the 

CAISO’s transition period in order to allow the AFC process to continue throughout 

the CAISO’s transition period. The third party System Impact Study (SIS) must be 

sufficient for the Energy Commission to determine whether or not a proposed 

project interconnection would comply with reliability LORS and allow the 

identification of any additional or modified downstream facilities that might be 

required to ensure compliance with the CEQA. The Applicant has provided a third 

party SIS for the Avenal Energy Project. 

The Avenal Project will not be allowed to interconnect to the CAISO controlled 

grid without completion of the CAISO Large Generator Interconnection Process 

(LGIP) and the execution of a Large Generator Interconnection Agreement 

(LGIA). Both PG&E and the CAISO would review Phase 1 and Phase 2 

Interconnection studies to be carried out for the Avenal Project. Condition of 

Certification TSE-5 F requires that the project owner provide the executed LGIA 
79 

to the Energy Commission before starting construction on any transmission 

facilities. 

The analysis of record evaluated the power plant switchyard, outlet line, 

termination, and downstream facilities identified by the Applicant. The record 

also includes Conditions of Certification to ensure the project complies with 

applicable laws during the design review, construction, operation, and potential 

closure of the project. No evidence of record disputes these matters. (Exs. 1, 

3(e),(u),(v),(w), 7(g), 13, 17(d), 19(e), 20, 21(l), 22, 24, 25(u); 200; 7/7/09 RT 

447-448) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Transmission Facilities Description 

Each of the project’s two combustion turbine generators (CTGs) unit rated at 205 

megavolt ampere (MVA), 18-kV would be connected through an 8,000-ampere 

segregated bus duct and a 7,500-ampere, 18-kV breaker to the low voltage 

terminal of a dedicated 132/176/220 megavolt ampere (MVA), 18/230-kV 

generation step-up (GSU) transformer with a specified impedance of 9.00 

percent at 132 MVA. The steam turbine generator (STG) unit rated 373 MVA, 

18-kV would be connected through a 13,000-ampere bus duct to the low voltage 

terminal of a dedicated 234/312/390 MVA, 18/230-kV GSU transformer with a 

specified impedance of 9 percent at 234 MVA. (Ex. 1, § 1.5, p. 1-6; § 2.3.6, pp. 

2-13 to 2-15; Fig. 2.3-6.) 

The new Avenal Energy 230-kV switchyard would be interconnected to PG&E’s 

Gates substation 230-kV bus by building a new 6.4-mile long single circuit 

overhead line with a bundled 954 thousand circular mil (kcmil) aluminum cable 

steel reinforced (ACSR) conductor on 120-foot high tubular steel poles within a 

new 120-foot right-of-way on public and private lands adjacent to existing PG&E 

230 and 500-kV transmission lines. The Applicant will build, own and operate the 

Avenal Energy 230-kV switchyard and the overhead tie line. (Ex. 1, § 2.4, pp 2-

53 to 2-55, Figs. 2.4-3 & 2.4-4.) PG&E would build and operate the terminating 

facilities at the Gates substation. 

Construction of the new additional switching bays at the Gates substation would 

involve extension of the substation fence line on the east side by approximately 

240 feet west-east and 360 feet north-south. Evidence of record establishes that 

the likely expansion area is owned and maintained by PG&E and is considered 
80 

 

disturbed land. The expansion area was analyzed under parameters for soils, 

water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological 

resources and land use. (Ex. 24.) The results of the facilities study will be 

updated in the Phase 1 Interconnection study currently being performed by 

PG&E for CAISO. The evidence establishes high probabilities the proposed 

interconnection is feasible with expansion of the Gates substation 230-kV bus. 

The Interconnection Feasibility study 7

 dated March 24, 2008, performed by 

CAISO and PG&E also had identified the proposed interconnection as feasible. 

Any changes to the interconnection could be identified in the CAISO Phase 1 

Interconnection study. The Applicant has agreed to provide timely information in 

case the interconnection to the PG&E system changes from the Gates substation 

to a different location. Notification is required in Condition of Certification TSE-5. 

2. Transmission System Impacts Analysis 

For Avenal Energy, PG&E and CAISO are responsible for ensuring grid 

reliability. In accordance with the FERC/CAISO/Utility Tariffs, the Interconnection 

Feasibility study (IFS), SIS, and Facilities Study (FS) are normally conducted by 

the participating transmission owner (PTO), in this case PG&E, and CAISO to 

determine the preferred and alternate interconnection methods to the grid, the 

downstream transmission system impacts, and the mitigation measures needed 

to ensure system conformance with reliability criteria of the local utility, North 

American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) planning standards, Western 

Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) reliability criteria, and CAISO reliability 

criteria. In this case, the SIS was performed by a third party (Navigant 

Consulting, Inc.) at the request of the Applicant. The Avenal Energy Project will 

still be required to complete the CAISO Large Generator Interconnection Process 

(LGIP) before being allowed to connect to the CAISO controlled grid. (Ex. 200, p. 

5.5-6.) 

The SIS and Facilities Study (FS) analyze the grid with and without the proposed 

project under conditions specified in the planning standards and reliability criteria. 

The standards and criteria define the assumptions used in the study and 

establish the thresholds by which grid reliability is determined. If the studies 

show that the interconnection of the project causes the grid to be out of 

compliance with reliability standards, the study will then identify mitigation 

7

 The Interconnection Feasibility Study conducted by the participating transmission owner (here 

PG&E) and CAISO is primarily intended to evaluate alternate interconnection points in the system 

and determine a preferred point which is feasible to minimize interconnection facilities and 

downstream system impacts. 
81 

alternatives or ways in which the grid could be brought into compliance with 

reliability standards. If the interconnecting utility determines that the only feasible 

mitigation includes transmission modifications or additions which require CEQA 

review as part of the “whole of the action,” the Energy Commission must analyze 

those modifications or additions according to CEQA requirements. 

The September 18, 2008 SIS and November 11, 2008 supplemental SIS were 

prepared by Navigant Consulting at the request of the Applicant to evaluate 

impacts of the proposed Avenal Energy Project’s generation on the PG&E 

transmission system. The SIS cases were prepared with and without Avenal 

Energy Project’s 600 MW generation output assuming June 1, 2012, operation 

date: 

• A 2013 summer peak base case was developed from PG&E 2007 base 

case series and has 1-in -10 year extreme weather load level (PG&E load 

28,118 MW) for the greater Fresno area; 

• A 2013 summer off-peak base case with the load in the greater Fresno 

area at 50 percent of the summer peak load level (PG&E load 13,995 

MW) and two units at the Helms pump storage plant in pumping mode; 

and 

• A 2013 spring peak base case developed with typical spring season load 

conditions (PG&E load 22,792 MW) and high hydro generation available. 

In each of the cases Northern California generation and critical seasonal power 

flows in WECC Paths 15, 26, 65 and 66 were maintained within limits. Each of 

the cases included planned CAISO-approved transmission upgrades that would 

be operational by 2013. 

The SIS performed for the Applicant by Navigant Consulting demonstrates that 

the addition of the Avenal Energy Project would cause some adverse impacts on 

the PG&E’s system for new overloads on nine transmission lines during 

emergency contingency conditions for which the Avenal Energy Project should 

be responsible. The Commission staff’s analysis identified the lines potentially 

impacted and summarized the recommended mitigation approaches. (Ex. 200, 

pp. 5.5-8 to 5.5-9.) Depending on the line impacted, mitigation steps include: rerating the line for higher emergency rating, or installing a special protections 

system (SPS) operations procedure for curtailing the Avenal Energy Project 

generation output. Commission staff found the applicant’s mitigation 

recommendations to be reasonable. (Id.) However, Staff noted that the SIS is 

valid only for the AFC process for interconnection of the Avenal Energy Project at 
82 

the PG&E Gates substation. Thus, the analysis would not apply if the 

interconnection of the project changes from the Gates substation to a different 

location. (Ex. 200, p. 5.5-10.) Condition of Certification TSE-5 requires the 

Applicant to provide timely information in case the interconnection to the PG&E 

system changes from the Gates substation to a different location. 

Staff analysis also determined that the Avenal Energy Project will have no 

unmitigated significant impacts concerning short circuits, transient stability, posttransient voltage, reactive power deficiencies, or downstream facilities. (Ex. 220. 

pp. 5.5-10 to 5.5-11.) 

3. Cumulative Impacts 

Because Avenal Energy is proposed to be connected to the Gates 500/230/115-

kV substation, which is an important junction of Northern California bulk power 

system, the project could create some cumulative effects in the CAISO network. 

However, the evidence shows that cumulative impacts identified in the SIS as 

attributable to the Avenal Energy Project would be mitigated to a less than 

significant level. (Exs. 20; 200, p. 5.5-11.) In addition, the evidence establishes 

that interconnecting the project at the Gates substation would result in some 

positive impacts. This is because the Avenal Energy Project’s generation would 

meet the increasing load demand in the Fresno and Kings Counties areas, would 

provide additional reactive power and voltage stability support in the network, 

enhance reliability, and may reduce system losses in the PG&E system. (Id.) 

The evidence also contains an examination of potential alternative transmission 

routes. Applicant’s proposed route was deemed superior because it would 

minimize environmental impacts and be an extension of the existing transmission 

corridor. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence of record, the Commission makes the 

following finding: 

1. The proposed interconnection facilities including the Avenal Energy 230-kV 

switchyard, the generator overhead 230-kV tie line to the existing PG&E 

Gates substation and its terminating facilities, are adequate in accordance 

with NESC standards, GO-95 Rules and good utility practices, and are 

acceptable according to engineering LORS contained in Appendix A. 
83 

2. Construction of the new additional switching bays at the Gates substation 

would involve extension of the substation fence line on the east side by 

approximately 240 feet west-east and 360 feet north-south. 

3. The likely substation expansion area is owned and maintained by PG&E 

and is considered disturbed land. The expansion area was analyzed under 

parameters for SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES, BIOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES, CULTURAL RESOURCES, PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES and LAND USE. 

4. Evidence of record found in Exhibit 22 establishes that potential 

environmental impacts of the anticipated expansion of the Gates substation 

related to the Avenal Energy Project have been analyzed and are not 

significant. 

5. The record includes a System Impact Study (SIS) which analyzes potential 

reliability and congestion impacts that could occur when the Avenal Energy 

Project interconnects to the grid. 

6. The System Impact Studies performed by Navigant Consulting demonstrate 

that the addition of the Avenal Energy Project would cause some adverse 

impacts on the PG&E’s system for new overloads on nine transmission lines 

during emergency contingency conditions. 

7. The System Impact Studies conclude that according to PG&E re-rating 

guidelines, re-rating the lines with identified overloads during 2013 summer 

peak system conditions for higher ampere ratings based on higher wind 

speed is a feasible mitigation option and preferable to the alternate option of 

reconductoring the lines. 

8. Re-rating the lines is valid for summer daylight hours only and would be 

subject to PG&E re-rate study guidelines including detailed study and cost 

estimates. 

9. The mitigation plan identified in Exhibits 20 and 200 would be adequate to 

eliminate the adverse impacts from the project. For single (N-1) contingency 

overload violations on three transmission lines, the mitigation option 

includes re-rating two 230-kV and one 70-kV transmission lines for higher 

emergency ampere ratings. The System Impact Studies also identified six 

lines that overload under double or category B contingency (N-2 or more) 

conditions. 

10. The evidence contains mitigation options which include re-rating for higher 

emergency rating or installing Special Protection System (SPS) for curtailing 

Avenal Energy generation for two 230-kV and one 115-kV lines, SPS or 

operation procedure for two 230-kV lines, and operation procedure for one 

70-kV line. 

11. PG&E has indicated some uncertainty about interconnecting the Avenal 

Energy Project at the PG&E Gates substation due to potential lack of room 

in the substation. However, in the absence of written confirmation from 
84 

PG&E or the CAISO about any change in the interconnection point, 

consideration of changes to the proposed interconnection would be 

speculative and premature at this time. 

12. Testimony of record establishes high probabilities exist that the proposed 

interconnection is feasible through expansion of the Gates substation 230-

kV bus. The Interconnection Feasibility Study dated March 24, 2008 

performed by the CAISO and PG&E also identified the proposed 

interconnection as feasible. 

13. Condition of Certification TSE-5 requires the Applicant to provide timely 

information in case the interconnection to the PG&E system changes from 

the Gates substation to a different location. 

14. On completion of the Phase 1 & Phase 2 Interconnection Studies, the 

CAISO would execute a LGIA with the Applicant before interconnecting the 

Avenal Energy Project to the CAISO grid. 

15. The Avenal Energy Project, as local generation, would meet the increasing 

load demands in the Fresno and Kings Counties, provide additional reactive 

power and voltage support in the local network, enhance reliability in the 

grid and may reduce system losses in the PG&E system. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. With the implementation of the various mitigation measures specified in this 

Decision, and the Conditions of Certification which follow, and assuming 

interconnecting directly into PG&E Gates substation, the proposed 

transmission interconnection for the project will not contribute to significant 

adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. 

2. The Conditions of Certification below ensure that the transmission-related 

aspects of the Avenal Energy Project will be designed, constructed, and 

operated in conformance with the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, 

and standards identified in the appropriate portion of Appendix A of this 

Decision. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

TSE-1 The project owner shall furnish to the CPM and to the CBO a schedule 

of transmission facility design submittals, a Master Drawing List, a 

Master Specifications List, and a Major Equipment and Structure List. 

The schedule shall contain a description and list of proposed submittal 

packages for design, calculations, and specifications for major 

structures and equipment. To facilitate audits by Energy Commission 

staff, the project owner shall provide designated packages to the CPM 

when requested. 
85 

Verification: At least 60 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to 

by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of construction, the project 

owner shall submit the schedule, a Master Drawing List, and a Master 

Specifications List to the CBO and to the CPM. The schedule shall contain a 

description and list of proposed submittal packages for design, calculations, and 

specifications for major structures and equipment (see a list of major equipment 

in Table 1: Major Equipment List below). Additions and deletions shall be made 

to the table only with CPM and CBO approval. The project owner shall provide 

schedule updates in the Monthly Compliance Report.

Table 1: Major Equipment List

Breakers 

Step-up Transformer 

Switchyard 

Busses 

Surge Arrestors 

Disconnects and Wave-traps 

Take off facilities 

Electrical Control Building 

Switchyard Control Building 

Transmission Pole/Tower 

Insulators and Conductors 

Grounding System 

TSE-2 Prior to the start of construction the project owner shall assign an 

electrical engineer and at least one of each of the following to the 

project: A) a civil engineer; B) a geotechnical engineer or a civil 

engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils 

engineering; C) a design engineer, who is either a structural engineer 

or a civil engineer fully competent and proficient in the design of power 

plant structures and equipment supports; or D) a mechanical engineer. 

(Business and Professions Code Sections 6704 et seq., require state 

registration to practice as a civil engineer or structural engineer in 

California.) 

The tasks performed by the civil, mechanical, electrical or design 

engineers may be divided between two or more engineers, as long as 

each engineer is responsible for a particular segment of the project 

(e.g., proposed earthwork, civil structures, power plant structures, 

equipment support). No segment of the project shall have more than 

one responsible engineer. The transmission line may be the 

responsibility of a separate California registered electrical engineer. 

The civil, geotechnical or civil and design engineer assigned in 

conformance with Facility Design condition GEN-5, may be responsible 

for design and review of the TSE facilities. 

The project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, the 

names, qualifications and registration numbers of all engineers 
86 

assigned to the project. If any one of the designated engineers is 

subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall submit 

the name, qualifications and registration number of the newly assigned 

engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project owner shall 

notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer. This 

engineer shall be authorized to halt earthwork and to require changes 

if site conditions are unsafe or do not conform with predicted conditions 

used as a basis for design of earthwork or foundations. 

The electrical engineer shall: 

1. Be responsible for the electrical design of the power plant 

switchyard, outlet and termination facilities; and 

2. Sign and stamp electrical design drawings, plans, specifications, 

and calculations. 

Verification: At least 30 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to 

by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of rough grading, the project 

owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, the names, qualifications 

and registration numbers of all the responsible engineers assigned to the project. 

The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approvals of the engineers 

within five days of the approval. 

If the designated responsible engineer is subsequently reassigned or replaced, 

the project owner has five days in which to submit the name, qualifications, and 

registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and 

approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the 

new engineer within five days of the approval. 

TSE-3 If any discrepancy in design and/or construction is discovered in any 

engineering work that has undergone CBO design review and 

approval, the project owner shall document the discrepancy and 

recommend corrective action (1998 CBC, Chapter 1, Section 108.4, 

Approval Required; Chapter 17, Section 1701.3, Duties and 

Responsibilities of the Special Inspector; Appendix Chapter 33, 

Section 3317.7, Notification of Noncompliance). The discrepancy 

documentation shall become a controlled document and shall be 

submitted to the CBO for review and approval and shall reference this 

Condition of Certification. 

Verification: The project owner shall submit a copy of the CBO’s approval or 

disapproval of any corrective action taken to resolve a discrepancy to the CPM 

within 15 days of receipt. If disapproved, the project owner shall advise the CPM, 

within five days, the reason for disapproval, and the revised corrective action 

required to obtain the CBO’s approval.

TSE-4 For the power plant switchyard, outlet line and termination, the project 

owner shall not begin any increment of construction until plans for that 
87 

increment have been approved by the CBO. These plans, together 

with design changes and design change notices, shall remain on the 

site for one year after completion of construction. The project owner 

shall request that the CBO inspect the installation to ensure 

compliance with the requirements of applicable LORS. The following 

activities shall be reported in the Monthly Compliance Report: 

A. receipt or delay of major electrical equipment; 

B. testing or energization of major electrical equipment; and 

C. the number of electrical drawings approved, submitted for approval, 

and still to be submitted. 

Verification: At least 30 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to 

by the project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of each increment of 

construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval 

the final design plans, specifications and calculations for equipment and systems 

of the power plant switchyard, outlet line and termination, including a copy of the 

signed and stamped statement from the responsible electrical engineer attesting 

to compliance with the applicable LORS, and send the CPM a copy of the 

transmittal letter in the next Monthly Compliance Report. 

TSE-5 The project owner shall ensure that the design, construction and 

operation of the proposed transmission facilities will conform to all 

applicable LORS, including the requirements listed below. The project 

owner shall submit the required number of copies of the design 

drawings and calculations to the CBO as determined by the CBO. 

A. The power plant switchyard and outlet line shall meet or exceed the 

electrical, mechanical, civil and structural requirements of CPUC 

General Order 95 or National Electric Safety Code (NESC), Title 8 

of the California Code and Regulations (Title 8), Articles 35, 36 and 

37 of the “High Voltage Electric Safety Orders”, California ISO 

standards, National Electric Code (NEC) and related industry 

standards. 

B. Breakers and busses in the power plant switchyard and other 

switchyards, where applicable, shall be sized to accommodate full 

output from the project and to comply with a short-circuit analysis. 

C. Outlet line crossings and line parallels with transmission and 

distribution facilities shall be coordinated with the transmission line 

owner and comply with the owner’s standards. 

D. The project conductors shall be sized to accommodate the full 

output from the project. 

E. Termination facilities shall comply with applicable PG&E 

interconnection standards. 

F. The project owner shall provide to the CPM: 
88 

1. Confirmation that Avenal Energy will be interconnecting directly 

into the PG&E Gates substation. 

2. The Special Protection System (SPS) sequencing and timing if 

applicable, 

3. A letter stating that the mitigation measures or projects selected 

by the transmission owners for each criteria violation are 

acceptable, 

4. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 interconnection study reports from the 

California ISO and/or PG&E, and 

5. A copy of the executed LGIA signed by the California ISO and 

the project owner. 

Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of construction of transmission 

facilities (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and 

CBO), the project owner shall submit to the CBO for approval: 

A. Design drawings, specifications and calculations conforming with CPUC 

General Order 95 or NESC, Title 8, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the “High 

Voltage Electric Safety Orders”, NEC, applicable interconnection standards 

and related industry standards, for the poles/towers, foundations, anchor 

bolts, conductors, grounding systems and major switchyard equipment. 

B. For each element of the transmission facilities identified above, the submittal 

package to the CBO shall contain the design criteria, a discussion of the 

calculation method(s), a sample calculation based on “worst case conditions”8

and a statement signed and sealed by the registered engineer in responsible 

charge, or other acceptable alternative verification, that the transmission 

element(s) will conform with CPUC General Order 95 or NESC, Title 8, 

California Code of Regulations, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the, “High Voltage 

Electric Safety Orders”, NEC, applicable interconnection standards, and 

related industry standards. 

C. Electrical one-line diagrams signed and sealed by the registered professional 

electrical engineer in responsible charge, a route map, and an engineering 

description of equipment and the configurations covered by requirements 

TSE-5 A) through F) above. 

D. Confirmation that Avenal Energy will be interconnecting directly into the 

PG&E Gates substation. 

E. The Special Protection System (SPS) sequencing and timing if applicable 

shall be provided concurrently to the CPM. 

F. A letter stating that the mitigation measures or projects selected by the 

transmission owners for each criteria violation are acceptable. 

 

8

 Worst case conditions for the foundations would include for instance, a dead-end or angle pole. 
89 

G. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 interconnection study reports from the California 

ISO and/or PG&E. 

H. A copy of the executed LGIA signed by the California ISO and the project 

owner. 

TSE-6 The project owner shall inform the CPM and CBO of any impending 

changes that may not conform to requirements TSE-5 a) through f), 

and have not received CPM and CBO approval, and request approval 

to implement such changes. A detailed description of the proposed 

change and complete engineering, environmental, and economic 

rationale for the change shall accompany the request. Construction 

involving changed equipment or substation configurations shall not 

begin without prior written approval of the changes by the CBO and the 

CPM. 

Verification: At least 60 days prior to the construction of transmission 

facilities, the project owner shall inform the CBO and the CPM of any impending 

changes that` may not conform to requirements of TSE-5 and request approval 

to implement such changes. 

TSE-7 The project owner shall provide the following Notice to the California 

Independent System Operator (California ISO) prior to synchronizing 

the facility with the California Transmission system: 

1. At least one week prior to synchronizing the facility with the grid for 

testing, provide the California ISO a letter stating the proposed date 

of synchronization; and 

2. At least one business day prior to synchronizing the facility with the 

grid for testing, provide telephone notification to the California ISO 

Outage Coordination Department. 

Verification: The project owner shall provide copies of the California ISO 

letter to the CPM when it is sent to the California ISO one week prior to initial 

synchronization with the grid. The project owner shall contact the California ISO 

Outage Coordination Department, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 

0700 and 1530 at (916) 351-2300 at least one business day prior to 

synchronizing the facility with the grid for testing. A report of conversation with 

the California ISO shall be provided electronically to the CPM one day before 

synchronizing the facility with the California transmission system for the first time.

TSE-8 The project owner shall be responsible for the inspection of the 

transmission facilities during and after project construction, and any 

subsequent CPM and CBO approved changes thereto, to ensure 

conformance with CPUC GO-95 or NESC, Title 8, CCR, Articles 35, 36 

and 37 of the, “High Voltage Electric Safety Orders”, applicable 

interconnection standards, NEC and related industry standards. In 

case of non-conformance, the project owner shall inform the CPM and 
90 

CBO in writing, within 10 days of discovering such non-conformance 

and describe the corrective actions to be taken. 

Verification: Within 60 days after first synchronization of the project, the 

project owner shall transmit to the CPM and CBO: 

A. “As built” engineering description(s) and one-line drawings of the electrical 

portion of the facilities signed and sealed by the registered electrical engineer 

in responsible charge. A statement attesting to conformance with CPUC GO95 or NESC, Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of 

the, “High Voltage Electric Safety Orders”, and applicable interconnection 

standards, NEC, related industry standards, and these conditions shall be 

provided concurrently. 

B. An “as built” engineering description of the mechanical, structural, and civil 

portion of the transmission facilities signed and sealed by the registered 

engineer in responsible charge or acceptable alternative verification. “As built” 

drawings of the electrical, mechanical, structural, and civil portion of the 

transmission facilities shall be maintained at the power plant and made 

available, if requested, for CPM audit as set forth in the “Compliance 

Monitoring Plan”. 

C. A summary of inspections of the completed transmission facilities, and 

identification of any nonconforming work and corrective actions taken, signed 

and sealed by the registered engineer in charge. 
E. TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND NUISANCE 

The Avenal Project’s transmission line must be constructed and operated in a 

manner that protects environmental quality, assures public health and safety, and 

complies with applicable law. This portion of the Decision assesses the potential 

impacts of the transmission line on aviation safety, radio frequency interference, 

audible noise, fire hazards, and hazardous and nuisance shocks. It also 

examines any risks arising from electric and magnetic field (EMF) exposure, as 

well as whether mitigation measures are required to reduce any potential impacts 

to insignificant levels. The evidence submitted by Applicant and Staff was 

uncontested. (7/7/09 RT 446-48; Exs. 1; 25(m); 200, § 4.11.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

The Avenal Project’s associated transmission tie-line will extend from its 

switchyard to Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) Gates Substation. The single 

circuit, 230 kV line will be approximately 6.4 miles long. Conductors will be 

standard low-corona aluminum steel reinforced cables erected on new single 

tubular support structures. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-4.) It will be located within a 120 

foot wide right-of-way as it runs adjacent to the existing PG&E transmission 

corridor. The line will traverse land which is largely agricultural, with no 

residences nearby. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.11-1, 4.11-3.) Since the tie-line will be 

operated in the PG&E service area, its design, erection, and maintenance will 

conform to standard PG&E practices. This, in turn, assures compliance with 

applicable LORS. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-1.) 

The potential impacts from the project’s transmission line involve aircraft 

collisions, interference with radio frequency communication, audible noise, 

hazardous shocks, nuisance shocks, fire danger, and EMF exposure. Regarding 

each of these potential impacts, the evidence of record conclusively establishes 

the following:9

• Aviation Safety

Any potential hazard to area aircraft would relate to the potential for collision in 

the navigable airspace and the need to file a “Notice of Proposed Construction or 

Alteration” with the FAA. The project site is located more than six miles from the 

 

9

 The evidence also considered whether the transmission line would cause disproportionate 

impacts to minority and low-income populations. (Staff’s Opening Brief, at 12.) 

91 
nearest population centers, and there are no nearby airports; this alleviates 

concern over a collision hazard to aircraft from the presence of the project and 

related facilities. The nearest airport, the Avenal Airport, is more than seven 

miles southwest of the site. Thus, it is too far according to FAA distance 

specifications for the project’s transmission line to pose a collision hazard to 

aircraft utilizing that airport. Furthermore, the maximum height of the supporting 

structures would, at 120 feet, be much less than the 200 feet regarded by the 

FAA as posing a potential impact to aviation safety. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.11-4 to 4.11-

5.)

• Interference with Radio-Frequency Communication 

This potential impact arises from corona discharge and is primarily a concern for 

lines larger than 345 kV. The project’s 230 kV line will be built and maintained 

according to standard PG&E practices aimed at minimizing any interference. 

Moreover, there are no nearby residential receptors. If interference should occur, 

however, Condition of Certification TLSN-2 requires the project owner to mitigate 

these effects as feasible. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-5.) 

• Audible Noise 

This is typically perceived as a characteristic crackling, hissing, or frying sound or 

hum, especially in wet weather. The noise level depends upon the strength of 

the line’s electric field, and is a concern mainly from lines of 345 kV or higher. 

The project line (230 kV) will embody a low corona design to minimize field 

strengths. It is not expected that the line will add significantly to the current 

background noise levels. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.11-5 to 4.11-6.) 

• Hazardous Shocks 

These could result from contact between an individual and the energized line. 

Compliance with the CPUC’s GO-95, as required in Condition of Certification 

TLSN-1, will ensure that adequate measures are implemented to mitigate this 

potential impact. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-6.) 

• Nuisance Shocks 

Nuisance shocks are typically caused by direct contact with metal objects 

electrically charged by fields from the energized line. They are effectively 

minimized through grounding procedures for all metallic objects within the right92 
of-way as specified in Condition of Certification TLSN-5. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.11-6 to 

4.11-7.)

• Fire Hazards 

Fire can be caused by sparks from the line’s conductors or by direct contact 

between the line and nearby trees or other combustible objects. PG&E’s 

standard fire prevention and suppression measures, and compliance with the 

clearance-related aspects of GO-95 as required in Condition of Certification 

TLSN-4, ensure that appropriate fire prevention measures are implemented. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.11-6.) Furthermore, the line will traverse an agricultural area with no 

trees of sufficient size to pose a contact-related fire hazard. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-6.) 

• Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields 

Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) occur whenever electricity flows. The 

possibility of deleterious health effects from exposure to EMF has raised public 

health concerns about living and working near high-voltage lines.10 Due to the 

present scientific uncertainty regarding potential health effects from EMF 

exposure, CPUC policy requires reduction of such fields, if feasible, without 

affecting the safety, efficiency, reliability, and maintainability of the transmission 

grid. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-7.) 

The CPUC requires each new transmission line in California to be designed 

according to the EMF-reducing guidelines of the electric utility in the service area 

involved. EMF fields produced by new lines must be similar to the fields of 

comparable lines in that service area. To comply with CPUC requirements for 

EMF management, PG&E’s specific field strength-reducing measures will be 

incorporated into the project line’s design and include (Ex. 200, pp. 4.11-8 to 

4.11-9.): 

• Increasing the distance between the conductors and the ground to an 

optimal level; 

• Reducing the spacing between the conductors to an optimal level; 

 

10 While scientific research has not established a definitive correlation between EMF exposure 

and adverse health effects, the potential for EMF-related health hazards remains at issue. In this 

regard, the CPUC requires the regulated utilities, including PG&E, to incorporate EMF-reducing 

measures in the design, construction, and maintenance of new or modified transmission facilities 

within their service areas. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-7.) 

93 
• Minimizing the current in the line; and 

• Arranging current flow to maximize the cancellation effects from the 

interacting of conductor fields. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-9.) 

The evidentiary record contains an estimation of the field strengths for specific 

points along the line’s 120 foot wide right-of-way to reflect the interactive effects 

of all conductors.11 Condition of Certification TLSN-3 requires that actual field 

strengths are measured, according to accepted procedures, before and after 

energization of the line. These measurements will be used to assess any 

contribution the project may make to cumulative area exposures. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.11-9.) 

Since there are no residences in the vicinity of the proposed project line, there 

would not be the long-term human residential EMF exposures primarily 

responsible for the health concern of recent years. The only project-related EMF 

exposures of potential significance are the short-term exposures of plant 

workers, regulatory inspectors, maintenance personnel, visitors, or individuals in 

the immediate vicinity of the line. These types of exposures are well understood 

as not being significantly related to the perceived health effect. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-

8.) 

Overall, the evidence shows that the project will be designed, constructed, 

operated, and maintained in compliance with applicable LORS. Implementation 

of the Conditions of Certification will ensure that any impacts are reduced to less 

than significant levels. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-11.) 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence of record, we make the following findings 

and conclusions: 

1. The Avenal Project will interconnect to the existing PG&E Gates 

Substation via a new 230-kV single circuit overhead outlet line 

approximately 6.4 miles long. 

 

11 The magnetic field intensity within the route would decrease from a maximum of 217 mG to 49 

mG depending on the distance from the centerline. The maximum electric field strength was 

calculated to vary from 0.1 kV/m to 3.8 kV/m. The evidence indicates that these field strengths 

reflect the effectiveness of PG&E’s field-reducing designs. These field strengths are similar to 

those of other PG&E lines. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-9.) 

94 
2. The evidentiary record includes analyses of potential impacts from the 

project’s transmission line involving aircraft collisions, interference with 

radio frequency communication, audible noise, hazardous shocks, 

nuisance shocks, fire danger, and EMF exposure. 

3. The new interconnection line will traverse land primarily used for 

agriculture. 

4. The available scientific evidence does not establish that EMF fields pose a 

significant health hazard to humans. 

5. There are no residences along the route of the project’s transmission line. 

6. The electric and magnetic fields generated by the project’s transmission 

line will be managed to the extent the CPUC considers appropriate, based 

on available health effects information. 

7. The Avenal transmission line will comply with existing LORS for public 

health and safety. 

8. The Avenal transmission line will incorporate standard EMF-reducing 

measures established by the CPUC and used by PG&E. 

9. The project owner will provide field intensity measurements before and 

after line energization to assess EMF contributions from the projectrelated current flow. 

10. The Avenal transmission line will not result in significant adverse 

environmental impacts to public health and safety or cause significant 

direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts in the areas of aviation safety, radio 

frequency communication, fire hazards, nuisance or hazardous shocks, or 

electric and magnetic field exposure. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, will ensure that 

the Avenal Project’s outlet line complies with all applicable laws, 

ordinances, regulations, and standards relating to transmission line safety 

and nuisance as identified in the pertinent portion of Appendix A of this 

Decision. 

2. The Avenal Project’s transmission outlet lines will have no significant 

impact on the environment related to transmission line safety or nuisance. 

95 
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

TLSN-1 The project owner shall construct the proposed transmission line 

according to the requirements of California Public Utility Commission’s 

GO-95, GO-52, GO-131-D, Title 8, and Group 2, High Voltage 

Electrical Safety Orders, Sections 2700 through 2974 of the California 

Code of Regulations, and Pacific Gas and Electric’s EMF-reduction 

guidelines. 

Verification: At least thirty days before starting construction of the 

transmission line or related structures and facilities, the project owner shall 

submit to the Compliance Project Manager (CPM) a letter signed by a California 

registered electrical engineer affirming that the lines will be constructed 

according to the requirements stated in the Condition. 

TLSN-2 The project owner shall ensure that every reasonable effort will be 

made to identify and correct, on a case-specific basis, any complaints 

of interference with radio or television signals from operation of the 

project-related lines and associated switchyards. The project owner 

shall maintain written records for a period of five years of all complaints 

of radio or television interference attributable to line operation together 

with the corrective action taken in response to each complaint. 

Verification: All reports of line-related complaints shall be summarized for the 

project-related lines and included during the first five years of plant operation in 

the Annual Compliance Report. 

TLSN-3 The project owner shall use a qualified individual to measure the 

strengths of the electric and magnetic fields from the line at the points 

of maximum intensity identified by the Applicant in Exhibit 1, Table A6.18-1. The measurements shall be made before and after 

energization according to the American National Standard 

Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (ANSI/IEEE) 

standard procedures. These measurements shall be completed not 

later than six months after the start of operations. 

Verification: The project owner shall file copies of the pre-and postenergization measurements with the CPM within 60 days after completion of the 

measurements. 

TLSN-4 The project owner shall ensure that the right-of-way for the project’s 

transmission line is kept free of combustible material, as required 

under the provisions of Section 4292 of the Public Resources Code 

and Section 1250 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 

Verification: During the first five years of operation, the project owner shall 

provide a summary of inspection results and any fire prevention activities carried 

out along the right-of-way and provide such summaries in the Annual 

Compliance Report. 

96 
97 

TLSN-5 The project owner shall ensure that all permanent metallic objects 

within the right-of-way of the project-related lines are grounded 

according to industry standards regardless of ownership. 

Verification: At least 30 days before the lines are energized, the project 

owner shall transmit to the CPM a letter confirming compliance with this 

Condition. 
V. PUBLIC HEATH AND SAFETY 

Operation of the Avenal Energy Project will create combustion products and 

utilize certain hazardous materials that could potentially cause adverse health 

effects to the general public and to the workers at the facility. The following 

sections describe the regulatory programs, standards, protocols, and analyses 

that address these issues. 

A. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS

1. Introduction and Summary 

The generation of electricity using fossil fuels, such as the natural gas that 

Avenal will consume, produces both “criteria pollutants” and greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions. Criteria pollutants are emissions that are known to adversely 

affect public health and for which regulatory agencies have established legal 

“criteria,” which limit both the amount of the pollutants that may be emitted as 

well as the concentrations of the pollutants in the air. Avenal’s criteria pollutant 

emissions, and the project’s compliance with applicable air quality laws, are 

discussed in the Air Quality section of this Decision. 

This part of the PMPD assesses the GHG emissions that are likely to result from 

the construction and the operation of the Avenal facility. 

The greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane 

(CH4), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and perflurocarbons 

(PFC). CO2 emissions are far and away the most common of these emissions; 

as a result, even though the other GHGs have a greater impact on climate 

change on a per-unit basis, GHG emissions are often expressed in terms of 

“metric tons of CO2-equivalent” (MTCO2e) for simplicity. (See, 7/7/09 RT 191: 19 

to 192: 4; Ex. 200, p. 4.1-76 - 4.1-77.) 

Prevailing scientific opinion considers GHG emissions to be the cause of 

significant changes in climate over the past several decades, and that such 

emissions “if not sufficiently curtailed, are likely to contribute further to continued 

increases in global temperatures.” (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-73.) Adding GHG to the 

atmosphere increases the insulating power of the air and thereby traps more 

heat at and near the earth’s surface. The California Legislature has declared that 

“[g]lobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public 

98 
health, natural resources, and the environment of California.” (Health & Saf. 

Code, § 38500.) 

 

In this part of the PMPD we determine that: 

• The Avenal Energy Project’s GHG construction emissions will be 

insignificant; 

• from a physical standpoint, the GHG emissions from a power plant’s 

operation should be assessed not by inaccurately treating the plant as 

a standalone facility operating in a vacuum, but rather in the context of 

the operation of the entire electricity system of which the plant is an 

integrated part; 

• from a policy and regulatory standpoint, the GHG emissions from a 

power plant’s operation should be assessed in the context of the 

state’s GHG laws and policies, such as AB 32; and 

• Avenal’s operation will be consistent with the state’s GHG policies and 

will help achieve the state’s GHG goals, by (1) causing a decrease in 

overall electricity system GHG emissions; and (2) fostering the addition 

of renewable generation into the system, which will further reduce 

system GHG emissions. 

As a result we conclude that the Avenal Energy Project’s GHG emissions will 

comply with all applicable LORS and will not result in any significant, adverse, 

unmitigated environmental impacts. We also conclude that the Avenal Energy 

Project will be consistent with California’s ambitious GHG goals and policies. 

2. Policy and Regulatory Framework 

 We begin with the simple observation that, as the Legislature stated 35 

years ago, “it is the responsibility of state government to ensure that a reliable 

supply of electrical energy is maintained at a level consistent with the need for 

such energy for protection of public health and safety, for promotion of the 

general welfare, and for environmental quality protection.” (Pub. Resources 

Code, § 25001.) Today, as a result of legislation, the most resent aspect of 

“environmental quality protection” is the reduction of GHG emissions. Several 

laws and statements of policy are applicable. 

a. AB 32 

The organizing framework for California’s GHG policy is set forth in the California 

Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. [Assembly Bill 32, codified in Health & 

99 
Saf. Code, § 38560 et seq. (hereinafter AB 32).] AB 32 requires the California 

Air Resources Board (“CARB”) to adopt regulations that will reduce statewide 

GHG emissions, by the year 2020, to the level of statewide GHG emissions that 

existed in 1990. Gubernatorial Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005) requires a 

further reduction, to a level 80 percent below the 1990 GHG emissions, by the 

year 2050. 

Along with all other regulatory agencies in California, the Energy Commission 

recognizes that meeting the AB 32 goals is vital to the state’s economic and 

environmental health. While AB 32 goals have yet to be translated into 

regulations that limit GHG emissions from generating facilities, the scoping plan 

adopted by ARB relies heavily on cost effective energy efficiency and demand 

response, renewable energy, and other priority resources in the loading order to 

achieve significant reductions of emissions in the electricity sector by 2020. 

Even more dramatic reductions in electricity sector emissions would likely be 

required to meet California’s 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goal. Facilities 

under our jurisdiction, such as the Avenal Energy Project, must be consistent 

with these policies.12 

In addition to AB 32, are several other important components of the GHG policy 

and regulatory structure. 

 b. Renewable Portfolio Standard 

California statutory law requires the state’s utilities to be providing at least 20 

percent of their electricity supplies from renewable sources by the year 2020. 

(Pub. Util. Code, § 399.11 et seq.) Recent gubernatorial Executive Orders 

increase the requirement to 33 percent and require CARB to adopt regulations to 

achieve the goal. [Governor’s Exec. Orders Nos. S-21-09 (Sept. 15, 2009), S14-08 (Nov. 17, 2008).] 

c. Emissions Performance Standard 

Senate Bill (SB) 1368 of 2006, and regulations adopted by the Energy 

Commission and the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to the bill, prohibits 

utilities from entering into long-term commitments with any base load facilities 

 

12 Of course, the Avenal Energy Project and all other stationary sources will need to comply with 

any applicable GHG LORS that take effect in the future. 

100 
that exceed an Emission Performance Standard (EPS) of 0.500 metric tonnes of 

CO2 per megawatt-hour (this is the equivalent of 1100 pounds CO2/MWh). (Pub. 

Util. Code, § 8340 et seq.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 2900 et seq.; CPUC 

D0701039.) Currently, the EPS is the only LORS that limits power plant 

emissions. 

 d. Loading Order 

In 2003 the Energy Commission and the CPUC agreed on a “loading order” for 

meeting electricity needs: the first resources that should be added are energy 

efficiency and demand response (at the maximum level that is feasible and costeffective); followed by renewables and distributed generation, and combined heat 

and power (also known as cogeneration); and finally efficient fossil sources and 

infrastructure development.13 CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan reflects these policy 

preferences. (California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, 

December 2008.) 

3. Construction Emissions 

Power plant construction involves vehicles and other equipment that emit GHG. 

The Avenal Energy Project’s construction emissions are likely to be between 

3,000 and 7,000 metric tons of CO2-equivalent GHG during the 27-month 

construction period. (7/7/09 RT p. 176; Ex. 200, p. 4.1-76.) On an annual basis, 

this is between 1333 and 3111 metric tons of CO2-equivalent GHG per year. (By 

way of comparison, as discussed in the next section, Avenal’s GHG emissions 

from operations could be well over a million Metric Tons annually.) 

There is no adopted, enforceable federal or state LORS applicable to the Avenal 

Energy Project’s construction emissions of GHG. Nor is there a quantitative 

threshold over which GHG emissions are considered “significant” under CEQA. 

Nevertheless, there is guidance from regulatory agencies on how the significance 

of such emissions should be assessed. 

Thus, for example, the most recent guidance from CARB staff recommends a 

“best practices” threshold for construction emissions. (CARB, Preliminary Draft 

Staff Proposal, Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance 

Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality 

Act (Oct. 24, 2008), p. 9 [available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ -

ceqa/meetings/102708/prelimdraftproposal102408.pdf, last visited Oct. 26, 

 

13 California Energy Commission 2008, 2008 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update, (IEPR) 

(CEC-100-2008-008-CMF.) 

101 
2009].) Such an approach is also recommended on an interim basis, or 

proposed, by major local air districts. (See, e.g.: 

www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/oct22mtg/GHGguidance.pdf [last 

visited Oct. 26, 2009]; www.valleyair.org/Programs/CCAP/06-30-

09/DRAFT%20CCAP%20GHG%20staff%20report_June%2030,%202009.pdf

[last visited Oct. 26, 2009].) 

We understand that “best practices” includes the imposition of all feasible 

methods to control construction-related GHG emissions. As the “best practices” 

approach is currently recommended by the state agency primarily responsible 

not only for air quality standards but also for GHG regulation, we will use it here 

to assess the GHG emissions from Avenal’s construction. 

In order to limit vehicle emissions of both criteria pollutants and GHG during 

construction, the Avenal Energy Project project will use (1) operational 

measures, such as limiting vehicle idling time and shutting down equipment when 

not in use; (2) regular preventive maintenance to prevent emission increases due 

to vehicular engine problems; and (3) use of low-emitting diesel engines meeting 

federal emissions standards for construction equipment, whenever available. 

(Ex. 200 at 4.1-15.) These are the current “best practices” for limiting emissions 

from construction equipment; no party suggested otherwise. (Ex. 200 at 4.1-88 

to 4.1-89; 7/7/2009 RT 147:3-148:7, 173:22-175:20.) 

CRPE, however, recommends that we find any increase in GHG emissions to be 

“significant” – in effect, a “one-molecule” theory (the theory that an increase of 

one molecule of an air pollutant constitutes a significant increase). We reject this 

notion and CRPE offers no legal support for the proposition. In addition, even if 

we were to adopt CRPE’s threshold of significance, we would still find that the 

project’s GHG emissions are more likely than not insignificant. That is because, 

when the project is viewed as a whole – both its construction and its operation – 

overall GHG emissions from electricity generation will likely decline as a result of 

the project. The next part of this chapter explains why. 

 

4. Emissions During Operation of the Facility 

 a. The Avenal Energy Project’s Emissions

The primary sources of GHG emissions during the Avenal Energy Project’s 

operation will be from the natural gas-fired combustion turbines. There will also 

be a small amount of GHG emissions from the auxiliary boiler, diesel-fueled fire 

pump engine, emergency generator, and electrical equipment. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-

102 
77.) If the Avenal Energy Project operated for one year (assuming 7,960 hours 

at 500 MW during normal operation, plus 800 hours at 600 MW during duct 

firing), it would be expected to produce 1,712,224 metric tons of CO2 equivalent 

annually. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-77; Ex. 1 Table 6.2-41 and Appendix Table 6.2-1.8.) 

 

The Avenal Energy Project’s annual GHG emissions from operation equate to an 

emissions performance factor of 0.383 metric tons of CO2 per megawatt hour. 

This is less than the Emission Performance Standard of 0.500 metric tons of CO2

per megawatt-hour described above. (See Ex. 200, p. 4.1-78.) Therefore, under 

SB 1368 California utilities will be allowed to purchase power from Avenal under 

long-term contracts (five or more years). 

As we also noted above, the EPS is the only GHG LORS currently applicable to 

the Avenal Energy Project and determining compliance was easily calculated. 

Assessing whether the Avenal Energy Project’s operational emissions are 

“significant” under CEQA is a more complicated matter. 

b. Determining Significance: the Necessity of a System Approach 

The process of electricity generation, production, and consumption has a unique 

physical reality. As a result, assessing the GHG impacts of power plants 

requires an approach that is different from the approach taken to analyze any 

other type of project, whether the analysis is scientific or legal. 

 

In general, when an agency conducts a CEQA analysis of a proposed factory, 

shopping mall, or residential subdivision, it does not need to analyze how the 

operation of the proposed project is going to affect the entire system of factories, 

malls, or houses in a large multistate region. Rather, analyses of such projects 

are generally on a stand-alone basis. Power plants are different. 

California’s electricity system – which is actually a system serving the entire 

western region of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico – is large and complex. 

Hundreds of power plants, thousands of miles of transmission and distribution 

lines, and millions of points of electricity demand operate in an interconnected, 

integrated, and simultaneous fashion. Because the system is integrated, and 

because electricity is produced and consumed instantaneously, and will be 

unless and until large-scale electricity storage technologies are available, any 

change in demand and, most important for this analysis, any change in output 

from any generation source, is likely to affect the output from all generators. 

(7/7/09 RT 83 - 84, 139 - 142; Ex. 203, pp. 8, 23, 28, 47, 86, 98 - 99; Ex. 200, pp. 

4.1-75, 4.1-79 - 4.1-86, 6-8; Ex. 19(a), Resp. 1; Ex. 23, pp. 10-14; Committee 

103 
CEQA Guidance (Committee Guidance on Fulfilling California Environmental 

Quality Act Responsibilities for Greenhouse Gas Impacts in Power Plant Siting 

Applications, CEC-700-2009-004, pp. 20 to 22.)14 

Not only is the electricity system integrated physically, but it is also operated as 

such. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) is responsible for 

operating the system so that it provides power reliably and at the lowest cost. 

Thus the CAISO dispatches generating facilities generally in order of cheapest to 

operate (i.e., typically the most efficient) to most expensive (i.e., typically the 

least efficient). (Committee CEQA Guidance, p. 20.) Because operating cost is 

correlated with heat rate (the amount of fuel that it takes to generate a unit of 

electricity), and, in turn, heat rate is directly correlated with emissions (including 

GHG emissions), when one power plant runs, it usually will take the place of 

another facility with higher emissions that otherwise would have operated. (See 

7/7/09 RT 72, 84, 92:9-17, 150; Ex. 200, pp. 4.1-79 - 4.1-80; Committee CEQA 

Guidance, p. 20; 2007 IEPR, p. 63.) 

In sum, the unique nature of how power plants operate in an integrated system 

means that we must assess their operational GHG emissions on a system-wide 

basis. 

 

We now turn to the specifics of the Avenal Energy Project’s operation. 

c. The Avenal Energy Project’s Effects on the Electricity System 

(1) Providing Capacity and Ancillary Services 

 

Power plants serve a variety of functions. Most obviously, they provide energy to 

keep lights shining and machinery working (typically referred to as “load”). But in 

order to keep the system functioning properly, they must also meet local needs 

for capacity and for the “ancillary services” of regulation, spinning reserve, nonspinning reserve, voltage support, and black start capability. (7/7/09 RT 140 - 

142; Ex. 200, p. 4.1-75.) 

Even as more renewable generation is introduced into the system, gas-fired 

power plants such as the Avenal Energy Project will be necessary to provide 

intermittent generation support, grid operations support, extreme load and 

system emergencies support, and general energy support, as well as meet local 

capacity requirements. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.1-76, 4.1-79.) At this time, gas-fired 

 

14 The report was issued in March 2009 and is found on the Commission website at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-700-2009-004-CEC-700-2009-004.PDF

104 
plants are better able to provide such services than are most renewables 

because they can be called upon when they are needed (dispatchable). (7/7/09 

RT 74 - 75, 140; Ex. 203, pp. 47, 93.) 

(2) Displacement of More-Costly, Less-Efficient, 

 and Higher-Emitting Power Plants 

The Avenal Energy Project will have a heat rate between 6,800 and 7,400 

Btu/kWh, depending on local climatic conditions and whether duct firing is being 

used. This heat rate is lower than the heat rates of most other generating units in 

the area. (Ex. 200, Table 3, p. 4.1-80.) Therefore, when the Avenal Energy 

Project operates, it will most likely displace one or more of those plants and 

reduce the GHG emissions that would otherwise occur. (7/7/09 RT 92:9-17, 150; 

Ex. 200, pp. 4.1-79 - 4.1-80.) Indeed, the project’s “worst-case” impact on GHG 

would likely be when it was not operating (e.g., when it is down for maintenance), 

because during those times other plants with higher costs (and thus higher heat 

rates and higher emissions) would have to run. (7/7/09 RT 72, 84.) 

Parties in the AFC proceeding challenge several aspects of the system approach 

and the ways in which Applicant and Staff recommended that it be applied to the 

Avenal Energy Project (which we have generally adopted here). 

First, CRPE claims that the Avenal Energy Project would displace more efficient

generators because, CRPE says, the project’s heat rate is higher than the 

California system average. (CRPE Opening Brief, citing PSA p. 4.1-71.) But the 

system-wide heat rate reflects much non-fossil generation, such as nuclear and 

renewables, with lower heat rates or lower running costs, that the Avenal Energy 

Project would never displace. (7/7/09 RT 74, 148–149; Ex. 26, p. A10; Ex. 203, 

p. 28.) Indeed, subject to a few narrow exceptions, the Avenal Energy Project 

will never run at all unless it can displace other less desirable generation. 

Therefore, what matters is whether there is enough less efficient (fossil) 

generation in the system so that the Avenal Energy Project is likely to displace 

that generation when it runs. The record shows that there is more than enough. 

(E.g., 7/7/09 RT 72-73, 84, 92, 114–115, 143–144, 148, 150; Ex. 26, p. A11; Ex. 

200, pp. 4.1-71 to 4.1-72; Ex. 203, pp. 8, 28.) 

CRPE also challenges the conclusion that electricity from the project will 

permanently displace electricity from less efficient sources, particularly if 

inefficient generators that may be displaced in the short term are brought back 

online or ramped up in the long term. (See Opening Brief of CRPE pp. 16–17; 

CRPE Reply Brief, p. 4.) It is quite possible, indeed practically certain over the 

105 
lifetime of a facility such as the Avenal Energy Project, that another generator 

displaced by the Avenal Energy Project on one day will operate on another day. 

But that is not the point. The point is that whenever the Avenal Energy Project 

operates, it will take the place of a less-efficient plant that otherwise would have 

operated. One day the displaced generation might be from plant A, another day 

from plant B, and so on. It is not necessary, as CRPE asserts, that there be 

evidence “showing that aging power plants are decommissioned as a 

consequence of new power plant approval” (CRPE Reply Brief, p. 5, italics 

added) in order to conclude that the Avenal Energy Project’s operation will 

reduce GHG emissions. Such an approach would require us to ignore “physical 

changes to the environment [that] are a reasonably foreseeable result” of a 

project, which CRPE correctly instructs us we cannot do. (CRPE Reply Brief, p. 

4 [quoting Davidon Homes v. City of San Jose (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 106, 119].) 

Here, is it “reasonably foreseeable” – in fact, highly likely – that whenever the 

Avenal Energy Project runs, the “physical changes to the environment” will be an 

overall reduction in emissions from the electricity system compared to the same 

system operating without the Avenal Energy Project. 

CRPE’s fundamental concern, however, is valid: “Taken to its logical conclusion, 

under [the displacement theory] one could add an infinite number of power plants 

to the system without any present or future impact on greenhouse gas production 

. . . .” (CRPE Reply Brief, p. 4.) There are indeed limits to the number of naturalgas-fired power plants that should be added to the system. We are confident 

that the Avenal Energy Project does not run up against that limit (see, e.g., 

7/7/09 RT 90 - 91, 188), but in order to ensure that the limit is not crossed we 

describe analytic and decision-making principles for future fossil plants below, in 

part 4.d. of this chapter, “The Limited Benefits Effects of Natural Gas 

Powerplants.” 

CRPE also contends that the system-wide approach incorporates an 

inappropriate “future baseline” for assessing a project’s impact. (7/7/09 RT 162 - 

163.) Not so. When assessing the impacts of any proposed project, an agency 

necessarily must analyze what is likely to happen in the future as the project is 

constructed and operates. The starting point for the analysis is “normally” the 

“environmental setting” at the time the agency begins analysis. (CEQA 

Guidelines, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15125.) The agency then assesses what 

the impacts of the project (necessarily, again, impacts in the future) will be to that 

existing, current, environment. What we are determining here is that with the 

operation of the Avenal Energy Project, the GHG impacts to the current

environment will most likely be beneficial – in other words, all else being equal, 

there will be fewer GHG emissions from the electricity system than there are 

106 
now. (Of course, all else will not be equal – there will be many other changes to 

the electricity system besides the addition of the Avenal Energy Project – but the 

basic point remains: during the foreseeable lifetime of the project, at any 

particular time the electricity system is likely to have fewer, not more, GHG 

emissions as a result of the Avenal Energy Project’s operation.) 

CRPE next contends that the system approach fails to account for “how 

increasing energy capacity in the State of California may have a growth inducing 

effect.” (CRPE Opening Brief, p. 19.) This ignores the legal reality that utilities 

are obligated to meet whatever demand exists; therefore, additional demand is 

not going to be created simply as a result of building more capacity.15 

(Moreover, no matter what the demand is, the most efficient plants will generally 

be dispatched first. (7/7/09 RT 114.) Intervenor Rob Simpson takes the 

argument further by asserting that by increasing generation capacity, the project 

could drive down the price of electricity and thereby increase demand. (Simpson 

Reply Brief p. 6; 7/7/2009 RT 110–112.) While this argument has some merit in 

abstract economic theory, Mr. Simpson offered no evidence to support his 

theoretical contention (for example, an analysis of the Avenal Energy Project’s 

price versus system prices and the price elasticity of electricity demand), so we 

cannot consider it here. 

CRPE’s final contentions about the system approach concern alleged 

“mitigation.” CRPE suggests that approval of the project would be premised on 

mitigation that is not legally enforceable, i.e. the future displacement of electricity 

from less efficient sources, and that taking into account the GHG reductions from 

less efficient displaced generation could result in double-counting of mitigation if 

a cap and trade system goes into effect. (CRPE Opening Brief, pp. 19, 22.) 

These contentions are based on an erroneous view of mitigation. Evidence from 

the Applicant and Staff that the Avenal Energy Project would displace other 

generation was a description of the project’s impacts, not a description of 

recommended mitigation. That evidence indicated, and we conclude, that 

mitigation is unnecessary because the project will not cause a significant GHG 

impact (and would in fact cause a net reduction of GHG emission). CRPE also 

states that because of the importance of reducing GHG emissions, “the CEC 

cannot afford to squander any opportunity to adopt feasible mitigation and 

alternatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the proposed project.” 

(CRPE Reply Brief, p. 5.) However, because there is no significant impact from 

 

15 California's electric utilities must serve their customers on demand. (Pub. Util. Code, § 451 

[investor-owned utilities]; Hotchkiss v. Moran (1930) 109 Cal.App. 321, 324 [same]; see Nourse 

v. City of Los Angeles (1914) 25 Cal.App. 384, 385-386 [municipally-owned utilities].) 

107 
the operation of the Avenal Energy Project, we are precluded from adopting any 

“mitigation” or “alternatives” to reduce impacts from power plant operation. We 

agree, however, with CRPE’s main point, that it is critically important to reduce 

the GHG emissions of our electricity generation system. As the foregoing 

discussion indicates, we believe that the Avenal Energy Project will help meet 

that goal. 

(3) Replacement of Generation from Out-of-State Coal 

Powerplants and In-State Once-Through-Cooling 

Powerplants 

The Avenal Energy Project’s role in displacing higher-GHG-emitting powerplants 

will be accentuated by the future unavailability of tens of thousands of megawatts 

of generation. 

The State Water Resources Control Board has proposed significant curtailment 

or retirements of dozens of coastal power plants that use environmentallythreatening once-through cooling systems, which in 2008, collectively produced 

around 58,000 GWh, with average GHG emissions of approximately 0.75 

MTCO2/MWh. Ex. 200, pp. 4.1-83 to 4.1-84.) This is about two times more 

than the Avenal Energy Project. (Ibid. p. 4.1-84.) In addition, coal-fired power 

plants located out of state that are currently selling power to California are 

effectively prohibited from entering into new long-term contracts for California 

deliveries as a result of the EPS adopted under SB 1368. Thus between now 

and 2020, more than 18,000 GWh of energy now supplied to California utilities 

under existing long-term contracts with out-of-state coal plants will have to be 

replaced, as the contracts expire. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-82.) Those coal plants 

average around 1.0 MTCO2/MWh of GHG emissions, almost three times more 

than new natural gas-fired combined-cycle projects like the Avenal Energy 

Project. This will likely result in a significant net reduction in GHG emissions for 

the California electricity sector. (7/7/09 RT 76- 8, 82-83, 108:5-9; Ex. 200, pp. 

4.1-71-4.1-72, 4.1-83.) 

CRPE raises a concern related to the Avenal Energy Project’s ability to displace 

generation from out of state facilities. It contends that if the project exports 

power outside of California, then the emissions that are consequentially 

displaced should not count toward “offsetting the project’s impacts.” (CRPE 

Reply Brief, p. 4.) While CEQA analyses might ordinarily distinguish between instate and out-of-state impacts, doing so would be improper for the GHG impacts 

of an electrical system that serves the entire western region of the United States, 

Canada and Mexico. The impacts of GHGs are global rather than local, so a ton 

108 
of CO2 emitted in Nevada or Utah contributes to global warming, and thus to 

global warming’s impacts in California, as much as does a ton emitted within 

California. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-82.) Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the 

market-based system approach analysis described above is unique to California. 

Thus, the project would only export electricity outside of California if, and to the 

extent that, it is more efficient than the resources available out-of-state. 

Consequently, the operation of the project will result in a net GHG benefit, 

irrespective of where its power is ultimately consumed and the consequential 

displacement of less-efficient generation occurs. 

 

 (4) Fostering Renewables Integration 

Most new renewable generation in California will be wind and solar generated 

power. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-81.) Unfortunately, the wind does not blow, nor does 

the sun shine, around the clock. As a result, in order to rely on such intermittent 

sources of power, utilities must have available other generating resources or 

significant storage that can fill the gap when renewable generation decreases 

(Id., citing CAISO, Integration of Renewable Resources, November 2007). 

Indeed, because of this need for backup generation, or if and when utility-scale 

storage becomes feasible and cost-effective, nonrenewable generation will have 

to increase in order for the state to meet the 20 percent renewable portfolio 

standard. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-82.) 

The Avenal Energy Project is such a resource. Because it can ramp quickly 

(greater than 10 MW/minute), it will provide flexible, dispatchable power 

necessary to integrate some of the growing generation from intermittent wind and 

solar generation. (7/7/09 RT 194: 19 to 195: 25; Ex. 200, p. 4.1-71.) It is true 

that the Avenal Energy Project will not be able to support or firm up intermittent 

renewables as well as a simple-cycle, combustion-turbine-only facility, at least 

when it is ramping up from a cold start. (7/7/09 RT 93 - 95, 177, 201 - 202; Ex. 

200, pp. 4.1-81, 4.1-87.) However, it will still provide some of the necessary 

backup. In addition, because the Avenal Energy Project will be more efficient 

than simple cycle power plants, it will produce fewer GHG emissions per MW. 

(7/7/09 RT 86.) 

The precise degree to which the Avenal Energy Project will back up new 

renewable generation is uncertain, because the project does not yet have a 

power purchase agreement specifying its contractual obligations to generate. 

(7/7/09 RT 143: 20 to 144: 3, 167.) The uncontroverted evidence does, however, 

establish that addition of the project to the system is likely to displace less 

109 
efficient plants and facilitate the addition of renewable resources. (7/7/09 RT 72: 

10–21, 81– 82, 182: 5–11; Ex. 200, pp. 4.1-71 to 4.1-72.) 

The concern of Mr. Simpson – that “[a] built or even an approved fossil fuel fired 

plant could ‘crowd out’ new renewable facilities” (Simpson Reply Brief, p. 5) – 

has no support in the record, and the record actually demonstrates the contrary, 

for several reasons. First, most renewable energy facilities have contracts 

requiring utilities to take all the electricity they can generate (7/7/09 RT 149, 194-

95), which eliminates the possibility of those facilities getting “crowding out.” 

Moreover, the recent executive order increasing the RPS target to 33 percent by 

2020 ensures that electricity from renewable energy generation will have priority 

for at least the next decade, and a state or federal cap-and-trade program (or 

similar mechanism for pricing GHG emissions) would likewise ensure that 

electricity from non-GHG emitting renewable resources receives priority over 

fossil sources such as the Avenal Energy Project. Finally, renewable generation 

facilities are generally able to sell their power at a lower cost than gas-fired 

facilities because they need not purchase fuel; therefore electricity from 

renewable facilities would likely be utilized first even without the must-take and 

RPS policies. (7/7/09 RT 88–89, 149, 195.) Consequently, the concern that the 

Avenal Energy Project could crowd out generation from renewable resources is 

not supported. 

d. The Limited Benefits of Natural Gas Power Plants 

The previous discussion reflects a basic fact about the California electricity 

system at this time: it needs new efficient gas-fired generation to displace and 

replace less efficient generation, and to help integrate additional intermittent 

renewable generation. But as new gas plants are built to meet those needs, the 

system will of course change; moreover, the specific location, type, operation, 

and timing of each plant will be different. As a result, each plant will have 

somewhat different impacts. Furthermore, future implementation of efficiency 

and demand response measures, and new technologies such as storage, smart 

grid, and distributed generation, may also significantly change the physical needs 

and operation of the electrical system. 

Therefore, although the parties disagree about the extent to which new gas-fired 

generation is appropriate, they all agree that we cannot and should not continue 

adding gas-fired plants ad infinitum. (See, e.g., 7/7/09 RT 187-188.) First, of 

course, we must ensure that all feasible, cost-effective efficiency and demand 

response, and other priority resources in the loading order, are implemented. 

Then, to the extent that new gas-fired plants are proposed, we must ensure that 

110 
they support the goals and policies of AB 32 and the related parts of California’s 

GHG framework. To do so, we intend to require that any new natural-gas-fired 

plant certified by the Energy Commission will likely: 

 (1) not increase the overall system heat rate for natural gas plants; 

(2) not interfere with generation from existing renewable facilities nor 

with the integration of new renewable generation; and 

(3) take into account the factors listed in (1) and (2), reduce system-wide 

GHG emissions and support the goals and policies of AB 32. 

This part of the Decision (section A.4.d. of this chapter) is a “precedent 

decision” under section 11425.60 of the Government Code.16

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The GHG emissions from the Avenal Energy Project construction are 

likely to be 3000 - 7000 MTCO2 equivalent (“MTCO2E”) during the 27-

month construction period, which is the annual equivalent of 1333 – 3111 

MTCO2E. 

2. There is no numerical threshold of significance under CEQA for 

construction-related GHG emissions. 

3. Construction-related GHG emissions are less than significant if they are 

controlled with best practices. 

4. The Avenal Energy Project will use best practices to control its 

construction-related GHG emissions. 

5. State government has a responsibility to ensure a reliable electricity 

supply, consistent with environmental, economic, and health and safety 

goals. 

6. California utilities are obligated to meet whatever demand exists from any 

and all customers. 

 

16 “An agency may designate as a precedent decision or part of a decision that contains a 

significant legal or policy determination of general application that is likely to occur.” [Gov. Code, 

§ 11425.60, subd. (b).] Once an agency has adopted a precedent decision, it may rely in future 

proceedings on the rule, guideline, or other general principle in the decision, even though the 

principle has not been adopted in a rulemaking proceeding. (Ibid.) 

111 
7. Under SB 1368 and implementing regulations, California’s electric utilities 

may not enter into long-term commitments with base load power plants 

with CO2 emissions that exceed the Emissions Performance Standard 

(“EPS”) of 0.500 MTCO2 / MWh. 

8. The maximum annual CO2 emissions from the Avenal Energy Project’s 

operation will be 1,712,224 MTCO2, which constitutes an emissions 

performance factor of 0.383 MTCO2 / MWh. 

9. The SB 1368 EPS is the only LORS applicable to the Avenal Energy 

Project’s GHG emissions. 

10. AB 32 requires CARB to adopt regulations that will reduce statewide GHG 

emissions, by the year 2020, to the 1990 level. Executive Order S-3-05 

requires a further reduction, by the year 2050, to 80 percent below the 

1990 level. 

11. The California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requires the state’s 

electric utilities obtain at least 33 percent of the power supplies from 

renewable sources, by the year 2020. 

12. California’s power supply loading order requires California utilities to 

obtain their power first from the implementation of all feasible and costeffective energy efficiency and demand response, then from renewables 

and distribution generation, and finally from efficient fossil-fired generation 

and infrastructure improvement. 

13. Even as more renewable generation is added to the California electricity 

system, gas-fired power plants such as the Avenal Energy Project will be 

necessary to meet local capacity requirements and to provide intermittent 

generation support, grid operations support, extreme load and system 

emergencies support, and general energy support. 

14. There is no evidence in the record that construction or operation of the 

Avenal Energy Project will be inconsistent with the loading order. 

15. When it operates, the Avenal Energy Project will have a heat rate between 

6,800 - 7,400 Btu/kWh. 

16. When it operates, the Avenal Energy Project will displace generation from 

less-efficient (i.e., higher-heat-rate and therefore higher-GHG-emitting) 

power plants. 

112 
17. In addition, the Avenal Energy Project will probably replace power from 

two types of power plants that are less-efficient (and therefore higherGHG-emitting): coal-fired power plants that are unable to sell to California 

utilities under the SB 1368 EPS, and power plants that must be retired 

because they currently use once-through cooling. 

18. The Avenal Energy Project operation will reduce overall GHG emissions 

from the electricity system. 

19. Intermittent solar and wind generation will account for most of the 

installation of renewables in the next few decades. 

20. Intermittent generation needs dispatchable generation, such as the Avenal 

Energy Project, in order to be integrated effectively into the electricity 

system. 

21. The Avenal Energy Project operation will foster the addition of renewable 

generation into the electricity system, which will further reduce system 

GHG emissions. 

22. The Avenal Energy Project will not have a growth-inducing impact. 

23. The addition of some efficient, dispatchable, natural-gas-fired generation 

will be necessary to integrate renewables into California’s electricity 

system and meet the state’s RPS and GHG goals, but the amount is not 

without limit. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The Avenal Energy Project’s construction-related GHG emissions will not 

cause a significant adverse environmental impact. 

2. The GHG emissions from a power plant’s operation should be assessed in 

the context of the operation of the entire electricity system of which the 

plant is an integrated part. 

3. The Avenal Energy Project’s operational GHG emissions will not cause a 

significant adverse environmental impact. 

4. The Avenal Energy Project’s GHG emissions will comply with the SB 1368 

EPS. 

5. The Avenal Energy Project’s operation will help California utilities meet 

their RPS obligations. 

113 
114 

6. The Avenal Energy Project’s construction and operation will not be 

inconsistent with California’s loading order for power supplies. 

7. The Avenal Energy Project’s operation will foster the achievement of the 

GHG goals of AB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05. 

8. The GHG emissions of any power plant must be assessed within the 

system on a case-by-case basis. 

9. Any new natural-gas-fired power plant that we certify must: 

• not increase the overall system heat rate for natural gas plants; 

• not interfere with generation from existing renewables or with the 

integration of new renewable generation; and 

• take into account the two preceding factors, reduce system-wide 

GHG emissions. 
B. AIR QUALITY 

This section examines the potential adverse impacts of criteria air pollutant 

emissions resulting from project construction and operation. In consultation with 

the local air pollution control district, the Commission determines whether the 

project will likely conform with applicable LORS, whether it will likely result in 

significant air quality impacts, including violations of ambient air quality 

standards, and whether the project’s proposed mitigation measures will likely 

reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels. 

Applicant and Staff reached agreement on all relevant issues, including the 

Conditions of Certification following this narrative. Intervenors Rob Simpson and 

Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) argued that some aspects 

of the air quality analysis were incorrect, but introduced no evidence in support of 

those claims. 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for 

seven air contaminants identified as “criteria air pollutants.” These include sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead 

(Pb), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and particulate 

matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The review of potential 

impacts also includes the precursor pollutants for ozone, which are nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), and the precursors for 

PM10 and PM2.5, which are primarily NOX, sulfur oxides (SOX), and ammonia 

(NH3). Sulfur oxides (SOX) react in the atmosphere to form particulate matter and 

are major contributors to acid rain. 

Both the U.S. EPA and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have 

established allowable maximum ambient concentrations for the criteria pollutants 

identified above. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) are 

more stringent than federal standards. Federal and State ambient air quality 

standards are shown below in AIR QUALITY Table 1 of this Decision. 

115 
AIR QUALITY Table 1 

State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standard 

Ozone (O3) 

1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m3

) None 

8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m3) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m3) 

Respirable 

Particulate Matter 

(PM10) 

24 Hour 50 μg/m3 150 μg/m3

Annual 20 μg/m3 None 

Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5) 

24 Hour None 35 μg/m3

Annual 12 μg/m3 15 μg/m3

Carbon Monoxide 

(CO) 

1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 

8 Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 

Nitrogen Dioxide 

(NO2) 

1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m3

) None 

Annual 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m3) 

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2) 

1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m3) None 

3 Hour None 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m3) 

24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m3) 

Annual None 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m3) 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.1-7. 

In general, an area is designated as “attainment” if the concentration of a 

particular air contaminant does not exceed the standard. Likewise, an area is 

designated as "non-attainment” for an air contaminant if that contaminant 

standard is violated. Where not enough ambient data are available to support 

designation as either attainment or non-attainment, the area can be designated 

as unclassified. An area could be attainment for one air contaminant while nonattainment for another, or attainment for the federal standard and non-attainment 

for the state standard for the same air contaminant. 

The Avenal Energy Project is located within the San Joaquin Valley and under 

the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District). 

Violations of Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards for O3, particulate 

matter, and CO have occurred historically throughout the region. Since the early 

1970s, substantial progress has been made toward controlling these pollutants. 

Although air quality improvements have occurred, violations of standards for 

particulate matter and ozone persist. 

116 
Air Quality Table 2 

Attainment Status of San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification 

Ozone (1-hr) No Federal Standard Nonattainment (Severe) 

Ozone (8-hr) Nonattainment (Serious) a Nonattainment 

PM10 Attainment b Nonattainment 

PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment 

CO Attainment Attainment 

NO2 Attainment Attainment 

SO2 Attainment Attainment 

 Source; Ex. 200, p. 4.1-8 

a

 In April 2007, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) 

Governing Board proposed to re-classify the region as “extreme” nonattainment, 

and the U.S. EPA is reviewing the request. 

b

 In November 2008, EPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to attainment for 

the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and approved the 

PM10 Maintenance Plan. 

The local and recent ambient air quality data show existing violations of ambient 

air quality standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Staff used the highest locallymeasured (Hanford or Corcoran) background ambient air concentrations as the 

baseline in its analysis of potential ambient air quality impacts for the proposed 

Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-12.) Data from the nearest sites in 

Hanford, Visalia, and Sacramento are used for CO, NO2, and SO2, respectively. 

The highest concentrations are shown in Air Quality Table 3. 

117 
Air Quality Table 3 

Highest Local Background Concentrations Used in Staff Assessment 

(μg/m3

) Shown in Micrograms Per Cubic Meter 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 

Background Limiting 

Standard 

Percent of 

Standard 

PM10

24 hour 351 50 702 

Annual 59.5 20 298 

PM2.5

24 hour 75.0 35 214 

Annual 18.4 12 153 

CO 

1 hour 4,222 23,000 18 

8 hour 2,900 10,000 29 

NO2 

1 hour 137.2 339 40 

Annual 22.6 57 40 

SO2 

1 hour 47.2 655 7 

24 hour 7.9 105 8 

Annual 2.6 80 3 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.1-12 

The Avenal Energy Project would include the following stationary sources of 

emissions: two stationary natural gas-fired combustion turbine generators 

(CTGs) in a combined-cycle configuration. Each rated at 180 MW each, 

consisting of General Electric Model PG7241FA (Frame 7FA) combustion turbine 

with a heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) and a duct burner of 562 million 

British thermal units (Btu) per hour (MMBtu/hr) heat input, with duct firing up to 

800 hours per year per CTG; one condensing steam turbine generator (STG) 

rated at 300 MW shared between the two CTGs; one natural gas-fired auxiliary 

boiler to provide steam that facilitates startup of the combined-cycle turbine 

system, with a maximum firing rate of 37.4 MMBtu/hr heat input, operating up to 

1,248 hours per year; one 288 bhp diesel fuel oil-fired emergency fire water 

pump engine, Cummins model CFP83-F40 or Clarke model JW6H-UF40, that 

would be either U.S. EPA Tier 2 certified or Tier 3, depending on purchase date 

(Ex. 1, p. 6.2-31 and Appendix 6.2-1.4). This emergency-use engine would use 

ARB ultra-low-sulfur (0.0015 percent or 15 ppm sulfur by weight) diesel fuel; and 

one nominal 550 kilowatt (kW) Caterpillar model G3512LE, natural gas-fired 

emergency engine-generator set, rated at 860 bhp. 

118 
1. Proposed Construction Emissions 

Construction of Avenal Energy is expected to take about 27 months. On-site 

construction activities include clearing of agricultural vegetation, grading, hauling 

and layout of equipment, materials and supplies, facility construction and testing 

(Ex. 1, § 2.3.18). During the construction period, air emissions would be 

generated from the exhaust of off-road/non-road construction equipment and onroad vehicles and fugitive dust from activity on unpaved surfaces and material 

handling. Construction activities would occur during an approximate 8-hour day 

staggered over multiple shifts (Ex. 1, § 2.3.18). Construction of the gas pipeline 

and transmission system interconnections and water pipelines would also occur 

for three to five months, during which the emissions would occur along the length 

of the linear facilities. 

Fugitive dust emissions would result from: 

• dust entrained during preparation and grading/excavation at the 

construction site and along linear facilities; 

• dust entrained during on-site travel on paved and unpaved surfaces; 

• dust entrained during aggregate and soil loading and unloading 

operations; and 

• wind erosion of soil at areas disturbed during construction activities. 

Combustion emissions during construction would result from: 

• exhaust from the diesel construction equipment used for site preparation, 

grading, excavation, and construction of on-site structures; 

• exhaust from water trucks used on-site and along linear facilities to control 

construction dust emissions; 

• exhaust from use of diesel-powered welding machines, electric 

generators, air compressors, water pumps, etc.; 

• off-site exhaust from on-road diesel trucks used to deliver concrete, fuel, 

and construction supplies to the construction site; and 

• off-site exhaust from on-road automobiles and trucks used by workers to 

commute to the construction site. 

Estimates for the highest daily emissions and total annual emissions over the 27-

month construction period are shown in Air Quality Table 4. 

119 
Air Quality Table 4 

Avenal Energy, Estimated Maximum Construction Emissions 

Activity NOX VOC PM10/PM2.5 CO SOx

On-site Construction Equipment 

(lb/day) 181.5 25.5 7.7 230.1 0.4 

On-site Fugitive Dust 

(lb/day) --- --- 5.9 --- --- 

Off-site (On-road) Worker Travel 

(lb/day) 357.5 99.0 25.2 2,740 2.6 

Off-site (On-road) Truck 

Deliveries 

(lb/day) 

157.8 8.7 7.1 34.8 0.2 

Off-site Linear Construction 

Equipment 

(lb/day) 

43.1 4.8 1.9 32.6 0.1 

Off-site Linear Fugitive Dust 

(lb/day) --- --- 5.4 --- --- 

Off-site Linear (On-road) 

Deliveries 

(lb/day) 

53.9 3.0 2.4 11.9 0.1 

Maximum Daily Emissions 

(lb/day, excluding off-site 

linear) 

697 133 46.0 3,005 3.2 

On-site Construction Equipment 

(tpy) 14.1 2.2 0.7 22.3 0.03 

On-site Fugitive Dust 

(tpy) --- --- 0.4 --- --- 

Off-site (On-road) Worker Travel 

(tpy) 24.6 6.8 1.7 188.7 0.18 

Off-site (On-road) Truck 

Deliveries 

(tpy) 

9.2 0.5 0.4 2.0 0.01 

Total Annual Emissions (tpy) 47.9 9.5 3.2 213.0 0.2 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.1-15. 

The Applicant proposes to reduce construction emissions with the following 

measures to control exhaust emissions from the diesel heavy equipment used for 

construction (Ex. 1, Appendix 6.2-3.3): 

• Operational measures, such as limiting engine idling time and shutting 

down equipment when not in use; 

• Regular preventive maintenance to prevent emission increases due to 

engine problems; 

120 
• Use of low sulfur and low aromatic fuel meeting California standards for 

motor vehicle Diesel fuel; and 

• Use of low-emitting Diesel engines meeting federal emissions standards 

for construction equipment if available. 

The Applicant proposes to implement the following measures to control 

construction-related fugitive dust emissions (Ex. 1, Appendix 6.2-3.3): 

• Use either water application or chemical dust suppressant application to 

control dust emissions from unpaved surface travel and unpaved parking 

areas; 

• Use vacuum sweeping and/or water flushing of paved road surface to 

remove buildup of loose material to control dust emissions from travel on 

the paved access road (including adjacent public streets impacted by 

construction activities) and paved parking areas; 

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all 

trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; 

• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved surfaces to 25 mph; 

• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to 

roadways; 

• Re-plant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; 

• As needed, use gravel pads along with wheel washers or wash tires of all 

trucks exiting construction site that carry track-out dirt from unpaved 

surfaces; and 

• Mitigate fugitive dust emissions from wind erosion of areas disturbed from 

construction activities (including storage piles) by application of either 

water or chemical dust suppressant and/or use of wind breaks. 

The Applicant proposes to reduce emissions of particulate matter, particulate 

matter precursors, and ozone precursors by implementing measures consistent 

with local air district recommendations, soil erosion control requirements, and 

nuisance prohibitions. 

Additional measures recommended by Staff would reduce construction-phase 

impacts to a less than significant level by further reducing construction emissions 

of particulate matter and combustion contaminants. The evidence shows that the 

use of oxidizing soot filters is a viable emissions control technology for all heavy 

diesel-powered construction equipment that does not use an ARB-certified low 

emission diesel engine. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-23.) In addition, we will require through 

the adoption of Conditions of Certification that, prior to beginning construction, 

the Applicant shall provide an Air Quality Construction Mitigation Plan (AQCMP) 

121 
that specifically identifies mitigation measures to be employed by the Applicant to 

limit air quality impacts during construction. We adopt Conditions of Certification 

AQ-SC1 through AQ-SC5 to implement these requirements. These Conditions 

are consistent with both the Applicant’s proposed mitigation and the Conditions 

of Certification adopted in similar prior licensing cases. Compliance with these 

Conditions would substantially reduce the potential for significant air quality 

impacts during construction of the Avenal Energy Project. 

Initial Commissioning Emissions

New electrical generation facilities must go through initial commissioning phases 

before becoming commercially available to generate electricity. During this 

period, initial firing causes greater emissions than those that occur during normal 

operations because of the need to tune the combustor, conduct numerous 

startups and shutdowns, operate under low loads, and conduct testing before 

emission control systems are functioning or fine-tuned for optimum performance. 

The Applicant identifies the series of commissioning tests and expects that up to 

408 hours of operation would be needed for each CTG to complete initial 

commissioning, and the Applicant proposes to conduct initial commissioning on 

each CTG sequentially so that both CTGs would not undergo commissioning 

simultaneously (Ex. 1, Appen. Table 6.2-1.9). We adopt Condition of 

Certification AQ-SC9 to ensure that initial commissioning would occur on each 

CTG sequentially. 

Operation emissions 

Particulate matter emissions from routine operation would cause a significant 

impact because they will contribute to existing violations of PM10 and PM2.5 

ambient air quality standards. The predicted maximum concentrations of nonreactive pollutants are summarized in Air Quality Table 5. 

// 

// 

122 
Air Quality Table 5 

Avenal Energy, Routine Operation Maximum Impacts (μg/m3) 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 

Modeled 

Impact Background Total Impact 

Limiting 

Standard 

Percent of 

Standard 

PM10 

24 hour 2.9 351 353.9 50 708 

Annual 0.8 59.5 60.3 20 302 

PM2.5 

24 hour 2.9 75.0 77.9 35 223 

Annual 0.8 18.4 19.2 12 160 

CO 

1 hour 2,175 4,222 6,397 23,000 28 

8 hour 337 2,900 3,237 10,000 32 

NO2 

1 hour 190.0 137.2 327.2 339 97 

Annual 0.5 22.6 23.1 57 41 

SO2

1 hour 9.7 47.2 56.9 655 9 

24 hour 1.5 7.9 9.4 105 9 

Annual 0.1 2.6 2.7 80 3 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.1-24 

The project’s gaseous emissions of NOX, SOX, VOC, and ammonia are precursor 

pollutants that can contribute to the formation of the secondary pollutants ozone, 

PM10, and PM2.5. Gas-to-particulate conversion in ambient air involves 

complex chemical and physical processes that depend on many factors, 

including local humidity, pollutant travel time, and the presence of other 

compounds. Currently, there are no agency-recommended models or procedures 

for estimating ozone or particulate nitrate or sulfate formation from a single 

project or source. However, because of the known relationships of NOX and 

VOC to ozone and of NOX, SOX, and ammonia emissions to secondary PM10 

and PM2.5 formation, it can be said that unmitigated emissions of these 

pollutants would contribute to higher ozone and PM10/PM2.5 levels in the region. 

Significant impacts of ozone and PM10/PM2.5 precursors would be mitigated 

with SJVAPCD offsets in accord with Condition of Certification AQ-SC7 which we 

hereby adopt. 

Ammonia is a particulate precursor but not a criteria pollutant. Reactive with 

sulfur and nitrogen compounds, ammonia is especially abundant in the San 

Joaquin Valley from natural sources, agricultural sources, and as a byproduct of 

tailpipe controls on motor vehicles. Ammonia particulate forms more readily with 

sulfates than with nitrates, and particulate formation in the San Joaquin Valley 

123 
has been found to be limited by the availability of SOX and NOX in ambient air, 

rather than the availability of ammonia. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-25.) Off-setting SOX and 

NOX emissions would both avoid significant secondary PM10/PM2.5 impacts and 

reduce secondary pollutant impacts to a less than significant level. 

Energy Commission staff recommends limiting ammonia slip emissions to the 

extent feasible. The evidence of record supports our adoption of Condition of 

Certification AQ-SC10 establishing an ammonia slip limit for each combustion 

turbine at 5 ppmvd. (Id.) 

The evidence shows that impacts during fumigation conditions, impacts from 

commissioning-phase operations, and visibility impacts were evaluated by the 

Applicant and that there would either be no significant impact or that any impacts 

would be reduced below the level of significance by the mitigation measures we 

are adopting in this Decision. (Ex. 200, pp 4.1-25 to 4.1-26.) 

The Applicant has proposed emission control devices for the project. Those, 

along with the use of the latest clean-burning equipment and emission reduction 

credits (ERCs) would reduce the air quality impacts below the level of 

significance. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-26) 

The proposed combustion turbines would limit NOx formed during combustion 

using dry low-NOX (DLN) combustors. (Id.) To further reduce the emissions from 

the combustion turbines before they are exhausted into the atmosphere, flue gas 

controls, primarily catalyst systems, will be installed in the HRSG. The Applicant 

proposes two catalyst systems for each combustion turbine: the SCR system to 

reduce NOX; and the oxidation catalyst system to reduce CO and VOC. The 

exclusive use of pipeline-quality natural gas, a relatively clean-burning fuel, 

would further limit the formation of VOC, PM10, and SO2 emissions. (Id.) 

The project’s dry cooling design would eliminate the use of a wet cooling tower, 

which would otherwise be a source of particulate matter drift or mist. The 

auxiliary boiler would include ultra low-NOX burners to achieve the District’s 

limits. The fire pump engine would achieve the equivalent of U.S. EPA Tier 2 or 

Tier 3 standards, depending on purchase date, and the emergency standby 

generator would include a non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) system for 

exhaust control. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-27.) 

In addition to emission control strategies included in the project design, 

SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires the Applicant to provide ERCs to offset the new 

124 
emissions of NOX, VOC, and PM10. Air Quality Table 6 summarizes the 

emissions as viewed by the District, assuming a distance-based (greater than 15 

miles) offset ratio of 1.5-to-1. The standard offset ratios of either 1.0-to 1 or 1.3-

to-1 would not apply to Avenal Energy because all of the off-sets are likely to 

originate more than 15 miles away from the new sources at Avenal. The District 

conducted a case-by-case analysis of offset requirements and distance ratios 

depending on the specific ERCs held by the Applicant and set forth its findings in 

the Final Determination of Compliance (FDOC, Ex. 58). 

The evidence shows that the Applicant holds sufficient NOX and VOC ERCs that 

it will use to fully satisfy the District’s NOX and VOC offset requirements (Ex. 200, 

p. 4.1-28 and 4.1-29.) These offsets will also satisfy the CEQA mitigation 

requirements for ozone impacts. 

The evidence also shows that the Applicant holds SOX and PM10 ERCs 

sufficient to fully satisfy the District offset requirements for PM10. This will be 

accomplished through the use of interpollutant trading ratios established by the 

District on a case-by-case basis. Since SOX is accepted as one of the major 

precursors of PM10 and PM 2.5 through reaction with ammonia, reductions in 

SOX can reduce particulate formation. The District’s case-by-case analysis of the 

interpollutant ratio for Avenal Energy resulted in a ratio of one-to-one based on a 

consideration of the shared emission inventory and local concentrations within 

Kings and Tulare counties (Ex. 58); the District notes that this is the “minimum 

technical value” due to a small inventory of local SOX sources in Kings and 

Tulare counties. In early 2009, the SJVAPCD recalculated the ratio and 

confirmed the one-to-one ratio as being appropriate throughout the entire air 

basin. (Id.) 

// 

// 

125 
Air Quality Table 6 

Avenal Energy, SJVAPCD Offset Determination and Requirements (lb) 

Source NOX VOC PM10/ 

PM2.5 CO SOX

Combustion Turbine #1 143,951 34,489 80,656 601,810 16,694 

Combustion Turbine #2 143,951 34,489 80,656 601,810 16,694 

Auxiliary Boiler 513 201 233 1,727 132 

Fire Pump Engine 108 12 2 14 0 

Emergency Standby Generator 95 31 3 57 1 

Potential to Emit 288,618 69,222 161,550 1.2x106 33,521 

Offset Requirements 

Offset Threshold 20,000 20,000 29,200 200,000 54,750 

Offsets Triggered? Yes Yes Yes Noa No 

Emissions Over Threshold 268,618 49,222 132,350 --- --- 

Offsets Required a 268,415 49,179 132,345 --- --- 

Offsets Required (lb/quarter) 67,104 12,295 33,085 --- --- 

Offsets Required (lb/quarter) 

at Avenal Energy b 100,656 18,442 49,629 --- --- 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.1-27. 

a

 Emission offsets are not required for CO since the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Air Pollution 

Control Officer (APCO) that the ambient air quality standards are not violated in the areas to be affected, and such 

emissions will be consistent with Reasonable Further Progress, and will not cause or contribute to a violation of the 

standards. 

b

 Does not include emergency equipment which is exempt from District offset requirements. 

c

 Includes a distance ratio factor of 1.5 based on assumption that all ERCs are obtained from sources more than 15 

miles away. 

We note, however, that the District’s use of a 1-to-1 interpollutant ratio for Rule 

2201 compliance leads to fewer SOX reductions for particulate matter than ratios 

used by the District on some other recent power plant projects. For example, the 

interpollutant ratio for the Panoche Energy Center in western Fresno County was 

1.867-to-1 (06-AFC-5). Furthermore, the Avenal Energy Applicant showed that 

1.4 tons of SOX reductions would be needed to offset each new ton of PM10 

emissions. (Ex 1, Table 6.2-39.) Nonetheless, the 1-to-1 interpollutant ratio 

would provide the minimum level of offsets required by the Commission for 

PM10/PM2.5 precursors and the Applicant’s ERCs would satisfy the CEQA 

mitigation requirements for particulate matter impacts. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-31.) The 

District issued its FDOC (Ex. 58), which finds the project in compliance with 

District rules and regulations. 

126 
We therefore find that the proposed emission offset package, along with the 

emissions controls described above, would mitigate all project air quality impacts 

to a less than significant level. We adopt Conditions of Certification AQ-SC6 and 

AQ-SC8 to ensure ongoing compliance through quarterly reports. 

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation 

“Cumulative impacts” are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when 

considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other 

environmental impacts.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15355.) Such impacts can be 

relatively minor yet still be significant when combined with other closely related 

past, present, and known or reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Criteria pollutants have impacts that are usually cumulative by their nature. Even 

if a project would not, by itself, cause a violation of a federal or state criteria 

pollutant standard, it may contribute to violations of criteria pollutant standards 

because of pre-existing elevated background conditions. Air districts attempt to 

reduce background criteria pollutant levels by adopting attainment plans, which 

are multi-faceted programmatic approaches to attainment. Attainment plans 

typically include new source review requirements that provide offsets and use 

Best Available Control Technology (BACT), combined with more stringent 

emissions controls on existing sources. 

The Avenal Energy Project is subject to SJVAPCD rules and regulations that 

specify performance standards, offset requirements, and emission control 

requirements for stationary sources. The regulations also include requirements 

for obtaining Authority to Construct (ATC) permits and subsequent operating 

permits. 

The evidence discussed in this section shows that the Avenal Energy Project 

would contribute to existing exceedances of the ozone, PM10, and PM2.5 

standards. The District has developed the 2007 Ozone Plan to attain the federal 

8-hour ozone standard; it was approved by ARB on June 14, 2007. (Ex. 200. p. 

4.1-33.) According to the 2007 Ozone Plan, the SJVAPCD would need to revise 

its New Source Reduction (NSR) rule to increase the standard offset ratio to 1.5-

to-1 from the current one-to-one ratio that would be required for Avenal Energy. 

(Id) The Avenal Energy Project would not be subject to the more stringent offset 

requirements because the revisions to the 2007 Ozone Plan were not adopted at 

the time the Avenal Energy Project filed its application. Because the project 

would use BACT to control ozone precursor emissions and ERCs to fully offset 

127 
ozone precursors as required by the then existing rules and regulations, we find 

that the project would not be likely to conflict with the District’s 2007 Ozone Plan 

or regional ozone attainment goals. 

The District’s 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan illustrates how the SJVAPCD has 

implemented aggressive PM10 controls in the region, including Reasonably 

Available Control Measures (RACM) for large existing sources of PM10 and 

fugitive dust. The 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan includes a request for 

reclassification to “attainment” for the federal PM10 standard, and it provides for 

continued attainment for 10 years from the designation. In November 2008, the 

U.S. EPA redesignated the SJVAPCD to attainment for the federal PM10 

standard. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-34.) 

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan was adopted by the SJVAPCD Governing Board on April 

30, 2008 and adopted by ARB on May 22, 2008, and the plan was subsequently 

submitted to U.S. EPA. However, there has been no U.S. EPA action on the 

PM2.5 plan. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-35.) The 2008 PM2.5 Plan includes measures for 

attaining the 1997 and 2006 federal PM2.5 standards. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan 

shows that emission reductions of NOX, directly emitted PM2.5, and SO2 are 

needed to demonstrate attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin 

Valley. The Applicant relied on data from 1997 and 1998 to show that 1.4 tons of 

SOX reductions would be needed to offset each new ton of PM10 emissions (Ex. 

1, Table 6.2-39), but the FDOC in Attachment H shows that the minimum ratio of 

one-to-one would apply to Avenal Energy. Although there is no formal federal 

endorsement of the District’s interpollutant trading approach, Energy Commission 

staff concluded that the Avenal Energy Project would not be likely to conflict with 

regional particulate matter attainment goals. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-35.) Furthermore, 

the SJVAPCD has determined in the FDOC (Ex. 58, p. 45) that the interpollutant 

trading ratio for Avenal Energy is appropriate. 

CRPE raised questions about an EPA rulemaking requiring offsets for PM2.5 

emissions. However, the triggering threshold used in that rulemaking is 100 tons 

per year. The evidence establishes that the project’s direct emissions of PM2.5 

are 80.78 tons per year. Since that level is below the regulation threshold, the 

emission offset requirements in the EPA rulemaking would not apply to the 

Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-20.) On the basis of the evidence of 

record, therefore, we find that the Applicant’s proposed 1:1 interpollutant trading 

ratio for PM10 and SOX will not have any significant adverse environmental 

impact, and will comply with applicable LORS. 

128 
Cumulative Impacts 

The proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable projects could cause 

impacts that would be locally combined if present and future projects would 

introduce stationary sources that are not included in the “background” conditions. 

The evidence shows that there are no known or reasonably forseeable future 

projects that would have emissions sufficient to contribute to a cumulatively 

considerable future adverse impact. (Ex.1, Appendix 6.2, Table 6.2.) 

Compliance With LORS 

The FDOC was issued by the SJVAPCD dated October 30, 2008. (Ex. 58.) 

Compliance with all District Rules and Regulations was demonstrated to the 

District’s satisfaction in the FDOC, and the FDOC conditions are presented in the 

Conditions of Certification. 

40 CFR 52.21, Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

The U.S. EPA has not yet issued a preliminary Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit for the project17. The project is not allowed to 

commence construction until the PSD permit is issued. The District FDOC would 

likely serve as the basis for the PSD permit for this project, and to ensure that the 

Applicant amends the Energy Commission license as necessary to incorporate 

changes triggered by the PSD permit, if any, we adopt Condition of Certification 

AQ-SC6. 

40 CFR 60, NSPS Subpart KKKK 

The CTGs proposed for Avenal Energy are likely to comply with the applicable 

emission limits by achieving a NOX emission rate of 2.0 ppmvd over any onehour period except during startup and shutdown periods. 

40 CFR 60, NSPS Subpart IIII 

 

17 On September 11, 2009 Region 9 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

issued notice of an October 15, 2009 hearing in Avenal on the proposed Avenal Energy Center 

PSD permit: ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST FOR 

PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSED PERMIT TO REGULATE THE EMISSION OF AIR 

POLLUTANTS PERMIT NO. SJ 08-01. EPA Region 9 also held public hearings on the matter on 

September 30, and October 1, 2009, in Avenal. 

129 
It is not clear if the emergency fire water pump engine would be required to meet 

the currently-applicable U.S. EPA Tier 2 standards or the future Tier 3 standards 

which would be applicable if the engine is purchased in 2012. (Ex. 1 p. 6.2-31.) 

We adopt Condition of Certification AQ-103 to ensure that the Applicant has the 

appropriate federal operating permits for this engine. Conditions of Certification 

AQ-110 and AQ-111 set forth maximum allowable operating emissions existing 

as of the date of this decision for this engine. Any applicable future standard 

which is more stringent shall supercede these minimum requirements. 

The Applicant has demonstrated that the project would comply with Section 

41700 of the California State Health and Safety Code, which restricts emissions 

that would cause nuisance or injury. Compliance with the FDOC and the 

Conditions of Certification in this Decision support our affirmative finding. 

LOCAL 

The District issued the FDOC stating that the proposed project is expected to 

comply with all applicable District rules and regulations. The District rules and 

regulations specify the emissions control and offset requirements for new 

sources such as Avenal. The project would use the Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) as defined by the District, and ERCs, proposed by the 

Applicant and approved and certified by the District, would fully mitigate project 

nonattainment pollutant (including precursors) emissions so that they would be 

consistent with District rules and regulations. 

SJVAPCD Rules 2201, 4001 and 4703 

We adopt Conditions of Certification AQ-26 through AQ-33 to ensure compliance 

with the District’s emissions limits. 

Response to Agency and Public Comments 

Energy Commission staff received comments on air quality from the Center on 

Race, Poverty, and the Environment (CRPE) and the Kings County Department 

of Public Health. These comments, and Staff’s responses, are summarized in 

the FSA. 

In addition, the Committee heard public comments at different times during the 

July 7, 2009 evidentiary hearing in Avenal. Comments were made in equal 

numbers by people for and against the project. However, many of those who 

spoke in opposition noted their concern that the project would contribute to 

130 
existing air pollution in the area18. Several people voiced their concern that the 

project would worsen existing asthma conditions among their family members 

and in the community19. 

In preparing this Decision, we have considered these comments, as well as the 

comments previously submitted in writing by public agencies and by members of 

the public on this matter. All such comments are part of the record in this 

proceeding. We believe that the implementation of the Conditions of Certification 

sufficiently mitigates all air quality impacts. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the evidence, we find as follows: 

1. The proposed Avenal Energy Project is located within the jurisdiction of the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 

2. The District is classified as non-attainment for the state 1-hour and federal 

8-hour ozone, the state 24-hour and annual PM10, standards and the state 

and federal PM2.5 standards. The District meets applicable standards for 

all other criteria pollutants. 

3. The project will employ the best available technology (BACT) to control 

emissions of criteria pollutants. 

4. Project nonattainment and nonattainment precursor criteria pollutant 

emissions will be fully offset. 

5. Use of emission reduction credits in this case is appropriate, and is 

consistent with applicable federal and state emission control strategies. 

6. The proposed emission offset package, along with the proposed emissions 

controls, will mitigate all project air quality impacts to a less than significant 

level. 

7. The District issued a Final Determination of Compliance that finds the 

Avenal Energy Project will comply with all applicable District rules for 

project operation. 

 

18 Those expressing concerns about air pollution included Tom Frantz, Dagoberto Ovalle, Chip 

Ashley, Maria Elena Alunez, Pedro Mora, Manual Villa,and Ray Leon. 

19 Miguel Rodriguez, Gloria Preciado, and Ray Leon. 

131 
8. The Commission has properly considered the analysis and comments of the 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District in an area in which the 

SJVAPCD has demonstrated expertise and jurisdiction. 

9. The record establishes that Commission staff has independently evaluated 

the SJVAPCD analysis and determined that it is accurate. 

10. The project’s construction-related impacts are temporary and short-term in 

nature. They are mitigated to below a level of significance by measures 

identified in the Conditions of Certification. 

11. The record contains an adequate analysis of the project’s contributions to 

cumulative air quality impacts. 

12. The project’s offset package complies with Public Resources Code, Section 

25523(d)(2). 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The mitigation measures imposed are sufficient to ensure that the Avenal 

Energy Project will conform with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, 

and standards relating to air quality. 

2. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification listed below ensures that 

the Avenal Energy Project will not result in any significant direct, indirect, or 

cumulative impacts to air quality. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

AQ-SC1 Air Quality Construction Mitigation Manager (AQCMM): The project 

owner shall designate and retain an on-site AQCMM who shall be 

responsible for directing and documenting compliance with conditions 

AQ-SC3, AQ-SC4 and AQ-SC5 for the entire project site and linear 

facility construction. The on-site AQCMM may delegate 

responsibilities to one or more AQCMM delegates. The AQCMM and 

AQCMM delegates shall have full access to all areas of construction 

on the project site and linear facilities, and shall have the authority to 

stop any or all construction activities as warranted by applicable 

construction mitigation conditions. The AQCMM and AQCMM 

delegates may have other responsibilities in addition to those 

described in this Condition. The AQCMM shall not be terminated 

without written consent of the construction project manager (CPM). 

132 
Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the 

project owner shall submit to the CPM for approval the name, resume, 

qualifications, and contact information for the on-site AQCMM and all AQCMM 

delegates. The AQCMM and all delegates must be approved by the CPM before 

the start of ground disturbance. 

AQ-SC2 Air Quality Construction Mitigation Plan (AQCMP): The project owner 

shall provide, for approval, an AQCMP that details the steps to be 

taken and the reporting requirements necessary to ensure 

compliance with Conditions of Certification AQ-SC3, AQ-SC4 and 

AQ-SC5. 

Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance, the 

project owner shall submit the AQCMP to the CPM for approval. The CPM will 

notify the project owner of any necessary modifications to the plan within 30 days 

from the date of receipt. The AQCMP must be approved by the CPM before the 

start of ground disturbance. 

AQ-SC3 Construction Fugitive Dust Control: The AQCMM shall submit 

documentation to the CPM in each monthly compliance report (MCR) 

that demonstrates compliance with the following mitigation measures 

for purposes of preventing all fugitive dust plumes from leaving the 

project site and linear facility routes. Any deviation from the following 

mitigation measures shall require prior CPM notification and approval. 

A. All unpaved roads and disturbed areas in the project and linear 

construction sites shall be watered as frequently as necessary to 

comply with the dust mitigation objectives of AQ-SC4. The 

frequency of watering may be either reduced or eliminated during 

periods of precipitation. 

B. No vehicle shall exceed 15 miles per hour within the construction 

site. 

C. The construction site entrances shall be posted with visible speed 

limit signs. 

D. All construction equipment vehicle tires shall be inspected and 

washed as necessary to be free of dirt prior to entering paved 

roadways. 

E. Gravel ramps of at least 20 feet in length must be provided at the 

tire washing/cleaning station. 

F. All unpaved exits from the construction site shall be graveled or 

treated to prevent track-out to public roadways. 

G. All construction vehicles shall enter the construction site through 

133 
the treated entrance roadways unless an alternative route has been 

submitted to and approved by the CPM. 

H. Construction areas adjacent to any paved roadway shall be 

provided with sandbags or other measures as specified in the 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent run-off 

to roadways. 

I. All paved roads within the construction site shall be swept at least 

twice daily (or less during periods of precipitation) on days when 

construction activity occurs to prevent the accumulation of dirt and 

debris. 

J. At least the first 500 feet of any public roadway exiting from the 

construction site shall be swept at least twice daily (or less during 

periods of precipitation) on days when construction activity occurs 

or on any other day when dirt or run-off from the construction site is 

visible on the public roadways. 

K. All soil storage piles and disturbed areas that remain inactive for 

longer than 10 days shall be covered or treated with appropriate 

dust suppressant compounds. 

L. All vehicles that are used to transport solid bulk material on public 

roadways and that have the potential to cause visible emissions 

shall be provided with a cover, or the materials shall be sufficiently 

wetted and loaded onto the trucks to provide at least two feet of 

freeboard. 

M. Wind erosion control techniques (such as windbreaks, water, 

chemical dust suppressants, and/or vegetation) shall be used on all 

construction areas that may be disturbed. Any windbreaks installed 

to comply with this condition shall remain in place until the soil is 

stabilized or permanently covered with vegetation. 

Verification: The project owner shall include in the MCR: (1) a summary of all 

actions taken to maintain compliance with this condition; (2) copies of any 

complaints filed with the air district in relation to project construction; and (3) any 

other documentation deemed necessary by the CPM and AQCMM to verify 

compliance with this Condition. Such information may be provided via electronic 

format or disk at the project owner’s discretion. 

AQ-SC4 Dust Plume Response Requirement: The AQCMM or an AQCMM 

delegate shall monitor all construction activities for visible dust 

plumes. Observations of visible dust plumes with the potential to be 

134 
transported off the project site, 200 feet beyond the centerline of the 

construction of linear facilities, or within 100 feet upwind of any 

regularly occupied structures not owned by the project owner indicate 

that existing mitigation measures are not providing effective mitigation. 

The AQCMM or delegate shall then implement the following 

procedures for additional mitigation measures in the event that such 

visible dust plumes are observed. 

Step 1: The AQCMM or delegate shall direct more intensive application 

of the existing mitigation methods within 15 minutes of making such a 

determination. 

Step 2: The AQCMM or delegate shall direct implementation of 

additional methods of dust suppression if Step 1 specified above fails 

to result in adequate mitigation within 30 minutes of the original 

determination. 

Step 3: The AQCMM or delegate shall direct a temporary shutdown of 

the activity causing the emissions if Step 2 specified above fails to 

result in effective mitigation within one hour of the original 

determination. The activity shall not restart until the AQCMM or 

delegate is satisfied that appropriate additional mitigation or other site 

conditions have changed so that visual dust plumes will not result upon 

restarting the shutdown source. The owner/operator may appeal to the 

CPM any directive from the AQCMM or delegate to shut down an 

activity provided that the shutdown shall go into effect within one hour 

of the original determination, unless overruled by the CPM before that 

time. 

Verification: The AQCMP shall include a section detailing how additional 

mitigation measures will be accomplished within specified time limits. 

AQ-SC5 Diesel-Fueled Engine Control: The AQCMM shall submit to the CPM, 

in the MCR, a construction mitigation report that demonstrates 

compliance with the following mitigation measures for purposes of 

controlling diesel construction-related emissions. Any deviation from 

the following mitigation measures shall require prior CPM notification 

and approval. 

A. All diesel-fueled engines used in the construction of the facility shall 

have clearly visible tags issued by the on-site AQCMM showing 

that the engine meets the conditions set forth herein. 

B. All construction diesel engines with a rating of 100 hp or higher 

shall meet, at a minimum, the Tier 2 California Emission Standards 

for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines, as specified in 

California Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1), unless 

certified by the on-site AQCMM that such engine is not available for 

135 
a particular item of equipment. In the event that a Tier 2 engine is 

not available for any off-road engine larger than 100 hp, that engine 

shall be equipped with a Tier 1 engine. In the event a Tier 1 engine 

is not available for any off-road engine larger than 100 hp, that 

engine shall be equipped with a diesel particulate filter (DPF) 

unless certified by engine manufacturers or the on-site AQCMM 

that the use of such devices is not practical for specific engine 

types. For purposes of this Condition, the use of such devices is 

“not practical” for the following, as well as other, reasons. 

1. There is no available DPF that has been verified by either the 

California Air Resources Board or U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency for the engine in question; or 

2. The construction equipment is intended to be on site for 10 days 

or less; 

3. The CPM may grant relief from this requirement if the AQCMM 

can demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with this 

requirement and that compliance is not possible. 

C. The use of a soot filter may be terminated immediately if one of the 

following conditions exists, provided that the CPM is informed 

within 10 working days of the termination: 

1. The use of the soot filter is excessively reducing the normal 

availability of the construction equipment due to increased down 

time for maintenance, and/or reduced power output due to an 

excessive increase in back pressure. 

2. The soot filter is causing or is reasonably expected to cause 

significant engine damage. 

3. The soot filter is causing or is reasonably expected to cause a 

significant risk to workers or the public. 

4. Any other seriously detrimental cause which has the approval of 

the CPM prior to implementation of the termination. 

D. All heavy earth-moving equipment and heavy duty constructionrelated trucks with engines meeting the requirements of (b) above 

shall be properly maintained and the engines tuned to the engine 

manufacturer’s specifications. 

E. All diesel heavy construction equipment shall not idle for more than 

five minutes, to the extent practical. 

136 
Verification: The project owner shall include in the MCR: (1) a summary of all 

actions taken to maintain compliance with this Condition; (2) a list of all heavy 

equipment used on site during that month, including the owner of that equipment 

and a letter from each owner indicating that the equipment has been properly 

maintained; and (3) any other documentation deemed necessary by the CPM 

and AQCMM to verify compliance with this Condition. Such information may be 

provided via electronic format or disk at the project owner’s discretion. 

AQ-SC6 The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval 

any modification proposed by the project owner to any project air 

permit. The project owner shall submit to the CPM any modification to 

any permit proposed by the District or U.S. EPA, and any revised 

permit issued by the District or U.S. EPA, for the project. 

Verification: The project owner shall submit any proposed air permit 

modification to the CPM within five working days of its submittal either by: 1) the 

project owner to an agency, or 2) receipt of proposed modifications from an 

agency. The project owner shall submit all modified air permits to the CPM within 

15 days of receipt. 

AQ-SC7 The project owner shall provide emission reductions in the form of 

offsets or emission reduction credits (ERCs) as calculated per 

SJVAPCD Rule 2201 to offset NOX, VOC, PM10, and SOX emissions. 

The project owner shall demonstrate that the reductions are provided 

in the form and amount required by the District. The project owner 

shall surrender the ERCs from among those that are listed in the Final 

Preliminary Determination of Compliance Conditions (SJVAPCD 

2008b) or a modified list, as allowed by this Condition. If additional 

ERCs are submitted, the project owner shall submit an updated table 

including the additional ERCs to the CPM. The project owner shall 

request CPM approval for any substitutions, modifications, or 

additions to the listed credits. 

The CPM, in consultation with the District, may approve any such 

change to the ERC list provided that the project remains in 

compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and 

standards, and that the requested change(s) will not cause the project 

to result in a significant environmental impact. The District must also 

confirm that each requested change is consistent with applicable 

federal and state laws and regulations. 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM records showing that 

the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to initiating construction. If 

the CPM approves a substitution or modification to the list of ERCs, the CPM 

shall file a statement of the approval with the project owner and Commission 

137 
docket. The CPM shall maintain an updated list of approved ERCs for the 

project. 

AQ-SC8 The project owner shall submit to the CPM quarterly operation reports 

that include operational and emissions information as necessary to 

demonstrate compliance with the Conditions of Certification. The 

quarterly operation report shall specifically note or highlight incidences 

of noncompliance. 

Verification: The project owner shall submit quarterly operation reports to the 

CPM and APCO no later than 30 days following the end of each calendar 

quarter. This information shall be maintained on site for a minimum of five years 

and shall be provided to the CPM and District personnel upon request. 

AQ-SC9 The facility shall be operated such that simultaneous commissioning 

of the two combustion turbines without abatement of nitrogen oxide 

and CO emissions by its SCR system and oxidation catalyst system 

will not occur. Operation of a combustion turbine during 

commissioning without abatement shall be limited to discrete 

commissioning activities that can only be properly executed without 

the SCR or Oxidation Catalyst Systems fully operational. 

Verification: The project owner shall submit a monthly compliance report to 

the CPM during the commissioning period demonstrating compliance with this 

condition. 

AQ-SC10 The ammonia (NH3) emissions from each combustion turbine shall 

not exceed 10 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 averaged over one hour. The 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system catalyst shall be replaced, 

repaired, or otherwise reconditioned within 12 months if the ammonia 

slip exceeds 5 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 over a 24 hour rolling 

average. The SCR ammonia injection grid replacement, repair, or 

reconditioning scheduled event may be cancelled if the owner or 

operator can demonstrate that, subsequent to the initial exceedance, 

the ammonia slip consistently remains below 5 ppmvd at 15 percent 

O2 averaged over 24 hours, and that the initial exceedance does not 

accurately indicate expected future operating conditions. 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-SC11 While either combustion turbine is in start-up or shutdown, the 

combined emission rates of the two combustion turbine exhausts 

shall not exceed 240 lb/hr of NOX (as NO2). 

138 
Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

DISTRICT FINAL DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS 

The SJVACPD permits each device separately, which causes duplication of 

conditions. Staff has compiled the SJVAPCD conditions to eliminate this 

duplication, with the conditions first for each of the two units in the combinedcycle system (AQ-1 to AQ-56) and facility-wide conditions (AQ-57 to AQ-66), 

followed by the conditions for the auxiliary boiler (AQ-67 to AQ-102), the fire 

pump engine (AQ-103 to AQ-115), and the emergency standby generator engine 

(AQ-116 to AQ-131). 

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION, UNIT C-3953-10-0 

180 mw nominally rated combined-cycle power generating system #1 consisting 

of a General Electric Frame 7 model PG7241FA natural gas-fired combustion 

turbine generator with dry low NOX combustor, a selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) system, an oxidation catalyst, heat recovery steam generator #1 (HRSG) 

with a 562 mmbtu/hr duct burner and a 300 mw nominally rated steam turbine 

shared with C-3953-11 

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION, UNIT C-3953-11-0 

180 mw nominally rated combined-cycle power generating system #2 consisting 

of a General Electric Frame 7 model PG7241FA natural gas-fired combustion 

turbine generator with dry low NOX combustor, a selective catalytic reduction 

(SCR) system, an oxidation catalyst, heat recovery steam generator #2 (HRSG) 

with a 562 mmbtu/hr duct burner and a 300 mw nominally rated steam turbine 

shared with c-3953-10 

AQ-1 Permittee shall submit an application to comply with SJVUAPCD 

District Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits within 

twelve months of commencing operation. [District Rule 2520] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

Operating Permit application after completing commissioning. 

AQ-2 Permittee shall submit an application to comply with SJVUAPCD 

District Rule 2540 – Acid Rain Program. [District Rule 2540] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

Acid Rain Program application after completing commissioning. 

AQ-3 Prior to initial operation of C-3953-10-0, C-3953-11-0, and C-3953-12-

0, permittee shall provide NOX (as NO2) emission reduction credits 

for the following quantities of emissions: 1st quarter – 67,103 lb; 2nd 

quarter – 67,104 lb; 3rd quarter – 67,104 lb; and 4th quarter – 67,104 

139 
lb. Offsets shall be provided at the appropriate distance ratio 

specified in Rule 2201. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM 

records showing that the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to 

initiating operation. 

AQ-4 Prior to initial operation of C-3953-10-0, C-3953-11-0, and C-3953-12-

0, permittee shall provide VOC emission reduction credits for the 

following quantities of emissions: 1st quarter – 12,294 lb; 2nd quarter 

– 12,295 lb; 3rd quarter – 12,295 lb; and 4th quarter – 12,295 lb. 

Offsets shall be provided at the appropriate distance ratio specified in 

Rule 2201. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM 

records showing that the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to 

initiating operation. 

AQ-5 Prior to initial operation of C-3953-10-0, C-3953-11-0, and C-3953-12-

0, permittee shall provide PM10 emission reduction credits for the 

following quantities of emissions: 1st quarter – 33,085 lb; 2nd quarter 

– 33,085 lb; 3rd quarter – 33,085 lb; and 4th quarter – 33,085 lb. 

Offsets shall be provided at the appropriate distance ratio specified in 

Rule 2201. SOX ERC's may be used to offset PM10 increases at an 

interpollutant ratio of 1.0 lb-SOX : 1.0 lb-PM10. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM 

records showing that the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to 

initiating operation. 

AQ-6 ERC certificate numbers (or any splits from these certificates) C-897-

1, C-898-1, N-724-1, N-725-1, S-2812-1, S-2813-1, S-2817-1, C-899-

2, C-902-2, N-720-2, N-722-2, N-726-2, N-728-2, S-2814-2, S-2321-

2, C-896-4, N-721-4, N-723-4, S-2791-5, S-2790-5, S-2789-5, S2788-5, or N-762-5 shall be used to supply the required offsets, 

unless a revised offsetting proposal is received and approved by the 

District, upon which this determination of compliance (DOC) shall be 

reissued, administratively specifying the new offsetting proposal. 

Original public noticing requirements, if any, shall be duplicated prior 

to reissuance of the DOC. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM 

records showing that the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to 

initiating operation. 

140 
AQ-7 No air contaminant shall be discharged into the atmosphere for a 

period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one 

hour which is as dark as, or darker than, Ringelmann 1 or 20 percent 

opacity. [District Rule 4101] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-8 No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere which 

causes a public nuisance. [District Rule 4102] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-9 Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.1 grains/dscf in 

concentration. [District Rule 4201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the results of source tests to both 

the District and CPM in accordance with AQ-42. 

AQ-10 The CTG shall be fired exclusively on PUC-regulated natural gas with 

a sulfur content of no greater than 1.0 grains of sulfur compounds (as 

S) per 100 dry scf of natural gas. [District Rule 2201 and 40 CFR 

60.4330(a)(2)] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-11 Annual average of the sulfur content of the CTG shall not exceed 

0.36 grain of sulfur compounds (as S) per 100 dry scf of natural gas. 

[District Rule 2201] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-12 The owner or operator shall install, certify, maintain, operate and 

quality-assure a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) 

which continuously measures and records the exhaust gas NOX, CO 

and O2 concentrations. Continuous emissions monitor(s) shall be 

capable of monitoring emissions during normal operating conditions, 

and during startups and shutdowns provided the CEMS passes the 

relative accuracy requirement for startups and shutdowns specified 

herein. If relative accuracy of CEMS cannot be demonstrated during 

startup conditions, CEMS results during startup and shutdown events 

141 
shall be replaced with startup emission rates obtained from source 

testing to determine compliance with emission limits contained in this 

document. [District Rules 1080 and 4703 and 40 CFR 60.4340(b)(1)] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission to verify the continuous 

monitoring system is properly installed and operational. 

AQ-13 The CEMS shall complete a minimum of one cycle of operation 

(sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-

minute period or shall meet equivalent specifications established by 

mutual agreement of the District, the ARB and the EPA. [District Rule 

1080 and 40 CFR 60.4345(b)] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM and APCO CEMS 

audits demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part of the quarterly 

operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-14 The NOX, CO and O2 CEMS shall meet the requirements in 40 CFR 

60, Appendix F Procedure 1 and Part 60, Appendix B Performance 

Specification 2 (PS 2), or shall meet equivalent specifications 

established by mutual agreement of the District, the ARB, and the 

EPA. [District Rule 1080 and 40 CFR 60.4345(a)] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM and APCO CEMS 

audits demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part of the quarterly 

operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-15 Audits of continuous emission monitors shall be conducted quarterly, 

except during quarters in which relative accuracy and compliance 

source testing are both performed, in accordance with EPA 

guidelines. The District shall be notified prior to completion of the 

audits. Audit reports shall be submitted along with quarterly 

compliance reports to the District. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM and APCO CEMS 

audits demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part of the quarterly 

operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-16 The owner/operator shall perform a relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) for NOX, CO and O2 as specified by 40 CFR Part 60, 

Appendix F, 5.11, at least once every four calendar quarters. The 

permittee shall comply with the applicable requirements for quality 

assurance testing and maintenance of the continuous emission 

monitor equipment in accordance with the procedures and guidance 

specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F. [District Rule 1080] 

142 
Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM and APCO CEMS 

audits demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part of the quarterly 

operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-17 APCO or an authorized representative shall be allowed to inspect, as 

determined to be necessary, the required monitoring devices to 

ensure that such devices are functioning properly. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-18 Results of the CEM system shall be averaged over a one hour period 

for NOX emissions and a three hour period for CO emissions using 

consecutive 15-minute sampling periods in accordance with all 

applicable requirements of CFR 60.13. [District Rule 4703 and 40 

CFR 60.13] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM the report 

of emission data in the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8) that follows the 

definitions of this Condition. 

AQ-19 Results of continuous emissions monitoring shall be reduced 

according to the procedures established in 40 CFR, Part 51, 

Appendix P, paragraphs 5.0 through 5.3.3, or by other methods 

deemed equivalent by mutual agreement with the District, the ARB, 

and the EPA. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM emission 

data in the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8) that follows the definitions of this 

Condition. 

AQ-20 The owner or operator shall, upon written notice from the APCO, 

provide a summary of the data obtained from the CEM systems. This 

summary shall be in the form and the manner prescribed by the 

APCO. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM the report 

of CEM operations upon notice from the APCO. 

AQ-21 The facility shall install and maintain equipment, facilities, and 

systems compatible with the District’s CEM data polling software 

system and shall make CEM data available to the District’s 

automated polling system on a daily basis. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall provide a Continuous Emission 

Monitoring System (CEM) protocol for approval by the APCO and CPM at least 

60 days prior to installation of the CEM. The project owner shall make the site 

143 
available for inspection by representatives of the District, ARB and the 

Commission upon request. 

AQ-22 Upon notice by the District that the facility's CEM system is not 

providing polling data, the facility may continue to operate without 

providing automated data for a maximum of 30 days per calendar 

year provided the CEM data is sent to the District by a Districtapproved alternative method. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall provide required non-polled CEM data to 

the District by a District-approved alternative method. 

AQ-23 The owner or operator shall submit a written report of CEM 

operations for each calendar quarter to the APCO. The report is due 

on the 30th day following the end of the calendar quarter and shall 

include the following: Time intervals, data and magnitude of excess 

NOX emissions, nature and the cause of excess (if known), corrective 

actions taken and preventive measures adopted; Averaging period 

used for data reporting corresponding to the averaging period 

specified in the emission test period used to determine compliance 

with an emission standard; Applicable time and date of each period 

during which the CEM was inoperative (monitor downtime), except for 

zero and span checks, and the nature of system repairs and 

adjustments; A negative declaration when no excess emissions 

occurred. [District Rule 1080 and 40 CFR 60.4375(a) and 60.4395] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM the report 

of CEM operations, emission data, and monitor downtime data in the quarterly 

operation report (AQ-SC8) that follows the definitions of this Condition. 

AQ-24 Permittee shall notify the District of any breakdown condition as soon 

as reasonably possible, but no later than one hour after its detection, 

unless the owner or operator demonstrates to the District's 

satisfaction that the longer reporting period was necessary. [District 

Rule 1100, 6.1] 

Verification: The project owner shall comply with the notification requirements 

of the District and submit written copies of these notification reports to the CPM 

and the APCO as part of the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-25 The District shall be notified in writing within ten days following the 

correction of any breakdown condition. The breakdown notification 

shall include a description of the equipment malfunction or failure, the 

date and cause of the initial failure, the estimated emissions in 

excess of those allowed, and the methods utilized to restore normal 

operations. [District Rule 1100, 7.0] 

144 
Verification: The project owner shall comply with the notification requirements 

of the District and submit written copies of these notification reports to the CPM 

and the APCO as part of the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-26 Emission rates from this unit (with duct burner firing), except during 

startup and shutdown periods, shall not exceed any of the following 

limits: NOX (as NO2) – 17.20 lb/hr and 2.0 ppmvd @ 15 percent O2; 

VOC (as methane) – 5.89 lb/hr and 2.0 ppmvd @ 15 percent O2; CO 

– 10.60 lb/hr and 2.0 ppmvd @ 15 percent O2; PM10 – 11.78 lb/hr; or 

SOX (as SO2) – 6.65 lb/hr. NOX(as NO2) emission limits are one hour 

rolling averages. All other emission limits are three hour rolling 

averages. [District Rules 2201, 4001, and 4703] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-27 Emission rates from this unit (without duct burner firing), except 

during startup and shutdown periods, shall not exceed any of the 

following limits: NOX (as NO2) – 13.55 lb/hr and 2.0 ppmvd @ 15 

percent O2; VOC (as methane) – 3.34 lb/hr and 1.4 ppmvd @ 15 

percent O2; CO – 8.35 lb/hr and 2.0 ppmvd @ 15 percent O2; PM10 

– 8.91 lb/hr; or SOX (as SO2) – 5.23 lb/hr. NOX (as NO2) emission 

limits are one hour rolling averages. All other emission limits are 

three hour rolling averages. [District Rules 2201, 4001, and 4703] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-28 During start-up and shutdown, CTG exhaust emission rates shall not 

exceed any of the following limits: NOX (as NO2) – 160 lb/hr; CO – 

1,000 lb/hr; VOC (as methane) – 16 lb/hr; PM10 – 11.78 lb/hr; SOX

(as SO2) – 6.652 lb/hr; or NH3 – 32.13 lb/hr. [District Rules 2201 and 

4703] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-29 Daily emissions from the CTG shall not exceed the following limits: 

NOX (as NO2) – 412.8 lb/day; CO – 254.4 lb/day; VOC – 141.4 

lb/day; PM10 – 282.7 lb/day; SOX (as SO2) – 159.6 lb/day, or NH3 – 

771.1 lb/day. [District Rule 2201] 

145 
Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-30 Emissions from this unit, on days when a startup and/or shutdown 

occurs, shall not exceed the following limits: NOX (as NO2) – 789.6 

lb/day; VOC – 202.0 lb/day; CO – 5,590.8 lb/day; PM10 – 282.7 

lb/day; SOX (as SO2) – 159.6 lb/day, or NH3 – 771.1 lb/day. [District 

Rule 2201] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-31 The ammonia (NH3) emissions shall not exceed 10 ppmvd @ 15 

percent O2 over a 24 hour rolling average. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-32 The CTG shall be fired exclusively on PUC-regulated natural gas with 

a sulfur content no greater than 1.0 grain of sulfur compounds (as S) 

per 100 dry scf of natural gas. [District Rule 2201 and 40 CFR 

60.4330(a)(2)] 

Verification: The result of the natural gas fuel sulfur monitoring data and other 

fuel sulfur content source data shall be submitted to the District and CPM in the 

quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-33 Annual emissions from the CTG, calculated on a twelve month rolling 

basis, shall not exceed any of the following limits: NOX (as NO2) – 

143,951 lb/year; CO – 601,810 lb/year; VOC – 34,489 lb/year; PM10 

– 80,656 lb/year; or SOX (as SO2) – 16,694 lb/year; or NH3 – 208,708 

lb/year. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-34 The duration of each startup or shutdown shall not exceed six hours. 

Startup and shutdown emissions shall be counted toward all 

applicable emission limits. [District Rules 2201 and 4703] 

146 
Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM the CTG 

startup and shutdown event duration data demonstrating compliance with this 

condition as part of the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-35 Each one hour period shall commence on the hour. Each one hour 

period in a three hour rolling average will commence on the hour. The 

three hour average will be compiled from the three most recent one 

hour periods. Each one hour period in a twenty-four hour average for 

ammonia slip will commence on the hour. [District Rule 2201] 

No verification needed. 

AQ-36 Daily emissions will be compiled for a twenty-four hour period starting 

and ending at twelve-midnight. Each month in the twelve consecutive 

month rolling average emissions shall commence at the beginning of 

the first day of the month. The twelve consecutive month rolling 

average emissions to determine compliance with annual emissions 

limitations shall be compiled from the twelve most recent calendar 

months. [District Rule 2201] 

No verification needed. 

AQ-37 Startup shall be defined as the period of time during which a unit is 

brought from a shutdown status to its operating temperature and 

pressure, including the time required by the unit's emission control 

system to reach full operations. Shutdown shall be defined as the 

period of time during which a unit is taken from an operational to a 

non-operational status by allowing it to cool down from its operating 

temperature to ambient temperature as the fuel supply to the unit is 

completely turned off. [District Rules 2201 and 4703] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM the CTG 

startup and shutdown data demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part 

of the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-38 The emission control systems shall be in operation and emissions 

shall be minimized insofar as technologically feasible during startup 

and shutdown. [District Rule 4703] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM the CTG 

startup and shutdown emissions data demonstrating compliance with this 

Condition as part of the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-39 The exhaust stack shall be equipped with permanent provisions to 

allow collection of stack gas samples consistent with EPA test 

methods and shall be equipped with safe permanent provisions to 

147 
sample stack gases with a portable NOX, CO, and O2 analyzer during 

District inspections. The sampling ports shall be located in 

accordance with the CARB regulation titled California Air Resources 

Board Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Volume VI, Standard 

Operating Procedures for Stationary Emission Monitoring and 

Testing. [District Rule 1081] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-40 Source testing to measure startup NOX, CO, and VOC mass emission 

rates shall be conducted for one of the gas turbines (C-3953-10 or C3953-11) prior to the end of the commissioning period and at least 

once every seven years thereafter. CEM relative accuracy shall be 

determined during startup source testing in accordance with 40 CFR 

60, Appendix B. [District Rule 1081] 

Verification: The results and field data collected during source tests shall be 

submitted to the District and CPM within 60 days of testing and according to a 

pre-approved protocol (AQ-47). Testing of startups shall be conducted for the 

CTG upon initial operation, and at least once every seven years. 

AQ-41 Source testing (with and without duct burner firing) to measure the 

NOX, CO, and VOC emission rates (lb/hr and ppmvd @ 15 percent 

O2) shall be conducted within 60 days after the end of the 

commissioning period and at least once every twelve months 

thereafter. [District Rules 1081 and 4703] 

Verification: The results and field data collected during source tests shall be 

submitted to the District and CPM within 60 days of testing and according to a 

pre-approved protocol (AQ-47). Testing for steady operation shall be conducted 

upon initial operation and at least once every twelve months. 

AQ-42 Source testing (with and without duct burner firing) to measure the 

PM10 emission rate (lb/hr) and the ammonia emission rate shall be 

conducted within 60 days after the end of the commissioning period 

and at least once every twelve months thereafter. [District Rule 1081] 

Verification: The results and field data collected during source tests shall be 

submitted to the District and CPM within 60 days of testing and according to a 

pre-approved protocol (AQ-47). Testing for steady operation shall be conducted 

upon initial operation and at least once every twelve months. 

AQ-43 Compliance with natural gas sulfur content limit shall be 

demonstrated within 60 days after the end of the commissioning 

period and weekly thereafter. After demonstrating compliance with 

the fuel sulfur content limit for eight consecutive weeks for a fuel 

148 
source, then the testing frequency shall not be less than monthly. If a 

test shows noncompliance with the sulfur content requirement, the 

source must return to weekly testing until eight consecutive weeks 

show compliance. [District Rules 1081, 2540, and 4001]. 

Verification: The result of the natural gas fuel sulfur monitoring data and other 

fuel sulfur content source data shall be submitted to the District and CPM in the 

quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-44 Demonstration of compliance with the annual average sulfur content 

limit shall be demonstrated by a 12 month rolling average of the sulfur 

content either (i) documented in a valid purchase contract, a supplier 

certification, a tariff sheet or transportation contract or (ii) tested using 

ASTM Methods D1072, D3246, D4084, D4468, D4810, D6228, 

D6667 or Gas Processors Association Standard 2377. [District Rules 

1081 and 2201] 

Verification: The result of the natural gas fuel sulfur monitoring data and other 

fuel sulfur content source data shall be submitted to the District and CPM in the 

quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-45 Source testing to determine compliance with the NOX, CO and VOC 

emission rates (lb/hr and ppmvd @ 15 percent O2), NH3 emission 

rate (ppmvd @ 15 percnet O2) and PM10 emission rate (lb/hr) shall 

be conducted at least once every 12 months. [District Rules 1081, 

2201 and 4703 and 40 CFR 60.4400(a)] 

Verification: The results and field data collected during source tests shall be 

submitted to the District and CPM within 60 days of testing and according to a 

pre-approved protocol (AQ-47). Testing for steady operation shall be conducted 

upon initial operation and at least once every twelve months. 

AQ-46 Compliance with the NOX and CO emission limits shall be 

demonstrated with the auxiliary burner both on and off. [District Rule 

4703] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

condition AQ-47. 

AQ-47 Compliance demonstration (source testing) shall be District 

witnessed, or authorized and samples shall be collected by a 

California Air Resources Board certified testing laboratory. Source 

testing shall be conducted using the methods and procedures 

approved by the District. The District must be notified 30 days prior to 

any compliance source test, and a source test plan must be 

149 
submitted for approval 15 days prior to testing. The results of each 

source test shall be submitted to the District within 60 days thereafter. 

[District Rule 1081] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed source test plan or 

protocol for the source tests 15 days prior to the proposed source test date to 

both the District and CPM for approval. The project owner shall notify the District 

and CPM no later than seven days prior to the proposed source test date and 

time. The project owner shall submit source test results no later than 60 days 

following the source test date to both the District and CPM. 

AQ-48 The following test methods shall be used: NOX – EPA Method 7E or 

20; CO – EPA Method 10 or 10B; VOC – EPA Method 18 or 25; PM10 

– EPA Method 5 (front half and back half) or 201 and 202a; ammonia 

– BAAQMD ST-1B; and O2 – EPA Method 3, 3A, or 20. EPA 

approved alternative test methods as approved by the District may 

also be used to address the source testing requirements of this permit. 

[District Rules 1081 and 4703 and 40 CFR 60.4400(1)(i)] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

AQ-49 The sulfur content of each fuel source shall be: (i) documented in a 

valid purchase contract, a supplier certification, a tariff sheet or 

transportation contract or (ii) monitored within 60 days of the end of 

the commission period and weekly thereafter. If the sulfur content is 

demonstrated to be less than 1.0 gr/100 scf for eight consecutive 

weeks, then the monitoring frequency shall be every six months. If 

the result of any six month monitoring demonstrates that the fuel 

does not meet the fuel sulfur content limit, weekly monitoring shall 

resume. [District Rule 2201 and 40 CFR 60.4360, 60.4365(a) and 

60.4370(c)] 

Verification: The result of the natural gas fuel sulfur monitoring data and other 

fuel sulfur content source data shall be submitted to the District and CPM in the 

quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-50 Excess emissions shall be defined as any operating hour in which the 

4-hour or 30-day rolling average NOX concentration exceeds 

applicable emissions limit and a period of monitor downtime shall be 

any unit operating hour in which sufficient data are not obtained to 

validate the hour for either NOX or O2 (or both). [40 CFR 

60.4380(b)(1)] 

150 
Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-51 Fuel sulfur content shall be monitored using one of the following 

methods: ASTM Methods D1072, D3246, D4084, D4468, D4810, 

D6228, D6667 or Gas Processors Association Standard 2377. [40 

CFR 60.4415(a)(1)(i)] 

Verification: The result of the natural gas fuel sulfur monitoring data and other 

fuel sulfur content source data shall be submitted to the District and CPM in the 

quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-52 The permittee shall submit to the District information correlating the 

NOX control system operating parameters to the associated 

measured NOX output. The information must be sufficient to allow the 

District to determine compliance with the NOX emission limits of this 

permit during times that the CEMS is not functioning properly. 

[District Rule 4703] 

Verification: The project owner shall compile the required NOX control system 

and emissions data and submit the information to the District and CPM before 

issuance of the Operating Permit. 

AQ-53 The permittee shall maintain the following records: the date, time and 

duration of any malfunction of the continuous monitoring equipment; 

dates of performance testing; dates of evaluations, calibrations, 

checks, and adjustments of the continuous monitoring equipment; 

date and time period which a continuous monitoring system or 

monitoring device was inoperative. [District Rules 1080 and 2201 and 

40 CFR 60.8(d)] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-54 The permittee shall maintain the following records: date and time, 

duration, and type of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction; 

performance testing, evaluations, calibrations, checks, adjustments, 

any period during which a continuous monitoring system or 

monitoring device was inoperative, and maintenance of any 

continuous emission monitor. [District Rules 2201 and 4703] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

151 
AQ-55 The permittee shall maintain the following records: hours of 

operation, fuel consumption (scf/hr and scf/rolling twelve month 

period), continuous emission monitor measurements, calculated 

ammonia slip, and calculated NOX mass emission rates (lb/hr and 

lb/twelve month rolling period). [District Rules 2201 and 4703] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-56 The owner or operator of a stationary gas turbine system shall 

maintain all records of required monitoring data and support 

information for inspection at any time for a period of five years. 

[District Rules 2201 and 4703] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-57 Disturbances of soil related to any construction, demolition, 

excavation, extraction, or other earthmoving activities shall comply 

with the requirements for fugitive dust control in District Rule 8021 

unless specifically exempted under Section 4.0 of Rule 8021 or Rule 

8011. [District Rules 8011 and 8021] 

Verification: A summary of significant construction activities and monitoring 

records required shall be included in the construction monthly compliance report 

(AQ-SC3). 

AQ-58 An owner/operator shall submit a Dust Control Plan to the APCO 

prior to the start of any construction activity on any site that will 

include 10 acres or more of disturbed surface area for residential 

developments, or five acres or more of disturbed surface area for 

non-residential development, or will include moving, depositing, or 

relocating more than 2,500 cubic yards per day of bulk materials on 

at least three days. [District Rules 8011 and 8021] 

Verification: The Dust Control Plan shall be included within the Air Quality 

Construction Mitigation Plan and submitted to the District and CPM (AQ-SC2), 

and a summary of significant construction activities and monitoring records 

required shall be included in the construction monthly compliance report (AQSC3). 

AQ-59 An owner/operator shall prevent or cleanup any carryout or trackout 

in accordance with the requirements of District Rule 8041 Section 5.0, 

152 
unless specifically exempted under Section 4.0 of Rule 8041 (8/19/04) 

or Rule 8011(8/19/04). [District Rules 8011 and 8021] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-60 Whenever open areas are disturbed, or vehicles are used in open 

areas, the facility shall comply with the requirements of Section 5.0 of 

District Rule 8051, unless specifically exempted under Section 4.0 of 

Rule 8051 or Rule 8011. [District Rules 8011 and 8051] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-61 Any paved road or unpaved road shall comply with the requirements 

of District Rule 8061 unless specifically exempted under Section 4.0 

of Rule 8061 or Rule 8011. [District Rules 8011 and 8061] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-62 Water, gravel, roadmix, or chemical/organic dust 

stabilizers/suppressants, vegetative materials, or other District-approved 

control measure shall be applied to unpaved vehicle travel areas as 

required to limit Visible Dust Emissions to 20 percent opacity and 

comply with the requirements for a stabilized unpaved road as defined 

in Section 3.59 of District Rule 8011. [District Rule 8011 and 8071] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-63 Where dusting materials are allowed to accumulate on paved 

surfaces, the accumulation shall be removed daily or water and/or 

chemical/organic dust stabilizers/suppressants shall be applied to the 

paved surface as required to maintain continuous compliance with 

the requirements for a stabilized unpaved road as defined in Section 

3.59 of District Rule 8011 and limit Visible Dust Emissions (VDE) to 

20 percent opacity. [District Rule 8011 and 8071] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-64 On each day that 50 or more Vehicle Daily Trips or 25 or more 

Vehicle Daily Trips with three axles or more will occur on an unpaved 

vehicle/equipment traffic area, permittee shall apply water, gravel, 

roadmix, or chemical/organic dust stabilizers/suppressants, 

vegetative materials, or other District-approved control measure as 

153 
required to limit Visible Dust Emissions to 20 percent opacity and 

comply with the requirements for a stabilized unpaved road as 

defined in Section 3.59 of District Rule 8011. [District Rule 8011 and 

8071] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-65 Whenever any portion of the site becomes inactive, Permittee shall 

restrict access and periodically stabilize any disturbed surface to 

comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface as defined in 

Section 3.58 of District Rule 8011. [District Rules 8011 and 8071] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-66 Records and other supporting documentation shall be maintained as 

required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the 

rules under Regulation VIII only for those days that a control measure 

was implemented. Such records shall include the type of control 

measure(s) used, the location and extent of coverage, and the date, 

amount, and frequency of application of dust suppressant, 

manufacturer's dust suppressant product information sheet that 

identifies the name of the dust suppressant and application 

instructions. Records shall be kept for one year following project 

completion that results in the termination of all dust generating 

activities. [District Rules 8011, 8031, and 8071] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION, UNIT C-3953-12-0 

37.4 mmbtu/hr Cleaver Brooks model CBL-700-900-200#ST natural gas-fired 

boiler with a Cleaver Brooks model Profire, or district approved equivalent, ultra 

low NOX burner. 

AQ-67 Permittee shall submit an application to comply with SJVUAPCD 

District Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits within 

twelve months of commencing operation. [District Rule 2520] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

Operating Permit application after completing commissioning. 

AQ-68 Prior to initial operation of C-3953-10-0, C-3953-11-0, and C-3953-12-

0, permittee shall provide NOX (as NO2) emission reduction credits 

154 
for the following quantities of emissions: 1st quarter – 67,103 lb; 2nd 

quarter – 67,104 lb; 3rd quarter – 67,104 lb; and 4th quarter – 67,104 

lb. Offsets shall be provided at the appropriate distance ratio specified 

in Rule 2201. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM 

records showing that the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to 

initiating operation. 

AQ-69 Prior to initial operation of C-3953-10-0, C-3953-11-0, and C-3953-12-

0, permittee shall provide VOC emission reduction credits for the 

following quantities of emissions: 1st quarter – 12,294 lb; 2nd quarter 

– 12,295 lb; 3rd quarter – 12,295 lb; and 4th quarter – 12,295 lb. 

Offsets shall be provided at the appropriate distance ratio specified in 

Rule 2201. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM 

records showing that the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to 

initiating operation. 

AQ-70 Prior to initial operation of C-3953-10-0, C-3953-11-0, and C-3953-12-

0, permittee shall provide PM10 emission reduction credits for the 

following quantities of emissions: 1st quarter – 33,087 lb; 2nd quarter 

– 33,086 lb; 3rd quarter – 33,086 lb; and 4th quarter – 33,086 lb. 

Offsets shall be provided at the appropriate distance ratio specified in 

Rule 2201. SOX ERC's may be used to offset PM10 increases at an 

interpollutant ratio of 1.0 lb-SOX : 1.0 lb-PM10. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM 

records showing that the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to 

initiating operation. 

AQ-71 ERC certificate numbers (or any splits from these certificates) C-897-

1, C-898-1, N-724-1, N-725-1, S-2812-1, S-2813-1, S-2817-1, C-899-

2, C-902-2, N-720-2, N-722-2, N-726-2, N-728-2, S-2814-2, S-2321-

2, C-896-4, N-721-4, N-723-4, S-2791-5, S-2790-5, S-2789-5, S2788-5, or N-762-5 shall be used to supply the required offsets, 

unless a revised offsetting proposal is received and approved by the 

District, upon which this determination of compliance (DOC) shall be 

reissued, administratively specifying the new offsetting proposal. 

Original public noticing requirements, if any, shall be duplicated prior 

to reissuance of the DOC. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM 

records showing that the project’s offset requirements have been met prior to 

initiating operation. 

155 
AQ-72 The permittee shall obtain written District approval for the use of any 

equivalent equipment not specifically approved by this Authority to 

Construct. Approval of the equivalent equipment shall be made only 

after the District’s determination that the submitted design and 

performance of the proposed alternate equipment is equivalent to the 

specifically authorized equipment. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

application for equivalent equipment as needed. 

AQ-73 The permittee’s request for approval of equivalent equipment shall 

include the make, model, manufacturer’s maximum rating, 

manufacturer’s guaranteed emission rates, equipment drawing(s), and 

operational characteristics/parameters. [District Rule 2010] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

application for equivalent equipment as needed. 

AQ-74 Alternate equipment shall be of the same class and category of 

source as the equipment authorized by the Authority to Construct. 

[District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

application for equivalent equipment as needed. 

AQ-75 No emission factor and no emission shall be greater for the alternate 

equipment than for the proposed equipment. No changes in the hours 

of operation, operating rate, throughput, or firing rate may be 

authorized for any alternate equipment. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

application for equivalent equipment as needed. 

AQ-76 All equipment shall be maintained in good operating condition and 

shall be operated in a manner to minimize emissions of air 

contaminants into the atmosphere. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-77 No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere which 

causes a public nuisance. [District Rule 4102] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

156 
AQ-78 No air contaminant shall be discharged into the atmosphere for a 

period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one 

hour which is as dark as, or darker than, Ringelmann 1 or 20 percent 

opacity. [District Rule 4101] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-79 Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.1 grains/dscf in 

concentration. [District Rule 4201] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-80 The unit shall only be fired on PUC-regulated natural gas. [District 

Rule 2201] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-81 Emission rates from this unit shall not exceed any of the following 

limits: NOX (as NO2) – 9.0 ppmvd @ 3 percent O2 or 0.011 

lb/MMBtu; VOC (as methane) – 10.0 ppmvd @ 3 percent O2; CO – 

50.0 ppmvd @ 3 percent O2 or 0.037 lb/MMBtu; PM10 – 0.005 

lb/MMBtu; or SOX (as SO2) – 0.00285 lb/MMBtu. [District Rules 

2201, 4305, and 4306]. 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-82 All emissions measurements shall be made with the unit operating 

either at conditions representative of normal operations or conditions 

specified in the Permit to Operate. No determination of compliance 

shall be established within two hours after a continuous period in 

which fuel flow to the unit is shut off for 30 minutes or longer, or 

within 30 minutes after a re-ignition as defined in Section 3.0 of 

District Rule 4306. [District Rules 4305 and 4306] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

157 
AQ-83 Source testing to measure NOX and CO emissions from this unit 

while fired on natural gas shall be conducted within 60 days of initial 

start-up. [District Rules 2201, 4305, and 4306] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

AQ-84 Source testing to measure NOX and CO emissions from this unit while 

fired on natural gas shall be conducted at least once every twelve 

(12) months. After demonstrating compliance on two (2) consecutive 

annual source tests, the unit shall be tested not less than once every 

thirty-six (36) months. If the result of the 36-month source test 

demonstrates that the unit does not meet the applicable emission 

limits, the source testing frequency shall revert to at least once every 

twelve (12) months. [District Rules 4305 and 4306] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. Testing for steady operation shall be conducted upon initial 

operation and at least once every twelve months. 

AQ-85 The source test plan shall identify which basis (ppmv or lb/MMBtu) 

will be used to demonstrate compliance. [District Rules 4305 and 

4306] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

AQ-86 Source testing shall be conducted using the methods and procedures 

approved by the District. The District must be notified at least 30 days 

prior to any compliance source test, and a source test plan must be 

submitted for approval at least 15 days prior to testing. [District Rule 

1081] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

AQ-87 NOX emissions for source test purposes shall be determined using 

EPA Method 7E or ARB Method 100 on a ppmv basis, or EPA 

Method 19 on a heat input basis. [District Rules 4305 and 4306] 

158 
Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

AQ-88 CO emissions for source test purposes shall be determined using 

EPA Method 10 or ARB Method 100. [District Rules 4305 and 4306] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

AQ-89 Stack gas oxygen (O2) shall be determined using EPA Method 3 or 

3A or ARB Method 100. [District Rules 4305 and 4306] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

AQ-90 For emissions source testing, the arithmetic average of three 30-

consecutive-minute test runs shall apply. If two of three runs are 

above an applicable limit the test cannot be used to demonstrate 

compliance with an applicable limit. [District Rules 4305 and 4306] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. 

AQ-91 The results of each source test shall be submitted to the District 

within 60 days thereafter. [District Rule 1081] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed protocol for the 

source tests to both the District and CPM for approval in accordance with 

Condition AQ-47. The results of each source test shall be submitted to the 

District within 60 days thereafter. 

AQ-92 A non-resettable, totalizing mass or volumetric fuel flow meter to 

measure the amount of fuel combusted in the unit shall be installed, 

utilized and maintained. [District Rules 2201 and 40 CFR 60.48 

(c)(g)] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-93 Permittee shall maintain daily records of the type and quantity of fuel 

combusted by the boiler. [District Rules 2201 and 40 CFR 60.48 

(c)(g)] 

159 
Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-94 All records shall be maintained and retained on-site for a minimum of 

five (5) years, and shall be made available for District inspection upon 

request. [District Rules 1070, 4305, and 4306] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-95 The exhaust stack shall be equipped with a continuous emissions 

monitor (CEM) for NOX, CO, and O2. The CEM shall meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR parts 60 and 75 and shall be capable of 

monitoring emissions during startups and shutdowns as well as 

during normal operating conditions. [District Rules 2201 and 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-96 The facility shall install and maintain equipment, facilities, and 

systems compatible with the District's CEM data polling software 

system and shall make CEM data available to the District's 

automated polling system on a daily basis. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall provide a Continuous Emission 

Monitoring System (CEM) protocol for approval by the APCO and CPM at least 

60 days prior to installation of the CEM. The project owner shall make the site 

available for inspection by representatives of the District, ARB and the 

Commission upon request. 

AQ-97 Upon notice by the District that the facility's CEM system is not 

providing polling data, the facility may continue to operate without 

providing automated data for a maximum of 30 days per calendar 

year provided the CEM data is sent to the District by a Districtapproved alternative method. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall provide required non-polled CEM data to 

the District by a District-approved alternative method. 

AQ-98 The exhaust stack shall be equipped with permanent provisions to 

allow collection of stack gas samples consistent with EPA test 

methods and shall be equipped with safe permanent provisions to 

sample stack gases with a portable NOX, CO, and O2 analyzer during 

160 
District inspections. The sampling ports shall be located in 

accordance with the CARB regulation titled California Air Resources 

Board Air Monitoring Quality Assurance Volume VI, Standard 

Operating Procedures for Stationary Source Emission Monitoring and 

Testing. [District Rule 1081] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-99 Results of continuous emissions monitoring shall be reduced according to the procedure established in 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix P, 

paragraphs 5.0 through 5.3.3, or by other methods deemed 

equivalent by mutual agreement with the District, the ARB, and the 

EPA. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM emission 

data in the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8) that follows the definitions of this 

Condition. 

AQ-100 Audits of continuous emission monitors shall be conducted quarterly, 

except during quarters in which relative accuracy and total accuracy 

testing is performed, in accordance with EPA guidelines. The District 

shall be notified prior to completion of the audits. Audit reports shall 

be submitted along with quarterly compliance reports to the District. 

[District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM and APCO CEMS 

audits demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part of the quarterly 

operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-101 The owner/operator shall perform a relative accuracy test audit 

(RATA) as specified by 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, 5.11, at least 

once every four calendar quarters. The permittee shall comply with 

the applicable requirements for quality assurance testing and 

maintenance of the continuous emission monitor equipment in 

accordance with the procedures and guidance specified in 40 CFR 

Part 60, Appendix F. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM and APCO CEMS 

audits demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part of the quarterly 

operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-102 The permittee shall submit a written report to the APCO for each 

calendar quarter, within 30 days of the end of the quarter, including: 

time intervals, data and magnitude of excess emissions, nature and 

cause of excess emissions (if known), corrective actions taken and 

161 
preventive measures adopted; averaging period used for data 

reporting shall correspond to the averaging period for each respective 

emission standard; applicable time and date of each period during 

which the CEM was inoperative (except for zero and span checks) 

and the nature of system repairs and adjustments; and a negative 

declaration when no excess emissions occurred. [District Rule 1080] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM the report 

of CEM operations, emission data, and monitor downtime data in the quarterly 

operation report (AQ-SC8) that follows the definitions of this Condition. 

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION, UNIT C-3953-13-0: 

288 Bhp Clarke Model Jw6h-Uf40 Diesel-Fired Emergency IC Engine Powering 

A Fire Pump 

AQ-103 Permittee shall submit an application to comply with SJVUAPCD 

District Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits within 

twelve months of commencing operation. [District Rule 2520] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

Operating Permit application after completing commissioning. 

AQ-104 No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere which 

causes a public nuisance. [District Rule 4102] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-105 Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.1 grains/dscf in 

concentration. [District Rule 4201] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the results of source tests to both 

the District and CPM in accordance with AQ-111. 

AQ-106 No air contaminant shall be discharged into the atmosphere for a 

period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one 

hour which is as dark as, or darker than, Ringelmann 1 or 20 percent 

opacity. [District Rule 4101] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-107 The exhaust stack shall vent vertically upward. The vertical exhaust 

flow shall not be impeded by a rain cap, roof overhang, or any other 

obstruction. [District Rule 4102] 

162 
Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-108 Only CARB certified diesel fuel containing not more than 0.0015 

percent sulfur by weight is to be used. [District Rules 2201 and 4801 

and 17 CCR 93115] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-109 This engine shall be equipped with an operational non-resettable 

elapsed time meter or other APCO approved alternative. [District Rule 

4702 and 17 CCR 93115] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-110 Emissions from this IC engine shall not exceed any of the following 

limits: 3.4 g-NOX/bhp-hr, 0.447 g-CO/bhp-hr, or 0.38 g-VOC/bhp-hr. 

[District Rule 2201 and 13 CCR 2423 and 17 CCR 93115] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-111 Emissions from this IC engine shall not exceed 0.059 g-PM10/bhp-hr 

based on USEPA certification using ISO 8178 test procedure. [District 

Rules 2201 and 4102 and 13 CCR 2423 and 17 CCR 93115] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-112 This engine shall be operated only for testing and maintenance of the 

engine, required regulatory purposes, and during emergency 

situations. For testing purposes, the engine shall only be operated 

the number of hours necessary to comply with the testing 

requirements of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 25 – 

"Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of WaterBased Fire Protection Systems", 1998 edition. Total hours of operation 

for all maintenance, testing, and required regulatory purposes shall 

not exceed 50 hours per calendar year. [District Rule 4702 and 17 

CCR 93115] 

163 
Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-113 An emergency situation is an unscheduled electrical power outage 

caused by sudden and reasonably unforeseen natural disasters or 

sudden and reasonably unforeseen events beyond the control of the 

permittee. [District Rule 4702] 

No verification necessary. 

AQ-114 The permittee shall maintain monthly records of emergency and nonemergency operation. Records shall include the number of hours of 

emergency operation, the date and number of hours of all testing and 

maintenance operations, and the purpose of the operation (for 

example: load testing, weekly testing, rolling blackout, general area 

power outage, etc.). For units with automated testing systems, the 

operator may, as an alternative to keeping records of actual operation 

for testing purposes, maintain a readily accessible written record of 

the automated testing schedule. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 

93115] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-115 All records shall be maintained and retained on-site for a minimum of 

five (5) years, and shall be made available for District inspection upon 

request. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 93115] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION, UNIT C-3953-14-0 

860 Bhp Caterpillar Model 3456 Natural Gas-Fired Emergency IC Engine 

Powering With Non-Selective Catalytic Reduction (Nscr) Powering A 500 Kw 

Electrical Generator 

AQ-116 Permittee shall submit an application to comply with SJVUAPCD 

District Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits within 

twelve months of commencing operation. [District Rule 2520] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

Operating Permit application after completing commissioning. 

164 
AQ-117 Permittee shall submit an application to comply with SJVUAPCD 

District Rule 2540 – Acid Rain Program within 12 months of 

commencing operation. [District Rule 2540] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the 

Acid Rain Program application after completing commissioning. 

AQ-118 No air contaminant shall be released into the atmosphere which 

causes a public nuisance. [District Rule 4102] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-119 Particulate matter emissions shall not exceed 0.1 grains/dscf in 

concentration. [District Rule 4201] 

Verification: The project owner shall provide emissions records to both the 

District and CPM in accordance with AQ-124. 

AQ-120 No air contaminant shall be discharged into the atmosphere for a 

period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one 

hour which is as dark as, or darker than, Ringelmann 1 or 20 percent 

opacity. [District Rule 4101] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-121 The exhaust stack shall vent vertically upward. The vertical exhaust 

flow shall not be impeded by a rain cap, roof overhang, or any other 

obstruction. [District Rule 4102] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-122 This IC engine shall be equipped with a three-way catalyst. [District 

Rule 2201] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-123 This engine shall be equipped with an operational non-resettable 

elapsed time meter or other APCO approved alternative. [District 

Rule 4702] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

165 
AQ-124 Emissions from this IC engine shall not exceed any of the following 

limits: 1.0 g-NOX/bhp-hr, 0.034 g-PM10/bhp-hr, 0.6 g-CO/bhp-hr, or 

0.33 g-VOC/bhp-hr. [District Rule 2201] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-125 This engine shall be operated and maintained in proper operating 

condition as recommended by the engine manufacturer or emissions 

control system supplier. [District Rule 4702] 

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by 

representatives of the District, ARB and the Commission upon request. 

AQ-126 During periods of operation for maintenance, testing, and required 

regulatory purposes, the permittee shall monitor the operational 

characteristics of the engine as recommended by the manufacturer or 

emission control system supplier (for example: check engine fluid 

levels, battery, cables and connections; change engine oil and filters; 

replace engine coolant; and/or other operational characteristics as 

recommended by the manufacturer or supplier). [District Rule 4702] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM engine 

operation procedures and data demonstrating compliance with this Condition as 

part of the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-127 This engine shall be operated only for testing and maintenance of the 

engine, required regulatory purposes, and during emergency 

situations. Operation of the engine for maintenance, testing, and 

required regulatory purposes shall not exceed 50 hours per calendar 

year. [District Rule 4702] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-128 An emergency situation is an unscheduled electrical power outage 

caused by sudden and reasonably unforeseen natural disasters or 

sudden and reasonably unforeseen events beyond the control of the 

permittee. [District Rule 4702] 

No verification necessary. 

166 
167 

AQ-129 This engine shall not be used to produce power for the electrical 

distribution system, as part of a voluntary utility demand reduction 

program, or for an interruptible power contract. [District Rule 4702] 

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM engine 

operation procedures and data demonstrating compliance with this Condition as 

part of the quarterly operation report (AQ-SC8). 

AQ-130 The permittee shall maintain monthly records of emergency and nonemergency operation. Records shall include the number of hours of 

emergency operation, the date and number of hours of all testing and 

maintenance operations, the purpose of the operation (for example: 

load testing, weekly testing, rolling blackout, general area power 

outage, etc.) and records of operational characteristics monitoring. 

For units with automated testing systems, the operator may, as an 

alternative to keeping records of actual operation for testing purposes, 

maintain a readily accessible written record of the automated testing 

schedule. [District Rule 4702] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 

AQ-131 All records shall be maintained and retained on-site for a minimum of 

five (5) years, and shall be made available for District inspection upon 

request. [District Rule 4702] 

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and 

monitoring records required shall be included in the quarterly operation report 

(AQ-SC8). 
C. PUBLIC HEALTH 

The public health analysis supplements the previous discussion on air quality 

and considers the potential public health effects from project emissions of toxic 

air contaminants. In this analysis, we review the evidence concerning whether 

such emissions will result in significant adverse public health impacts that violate 

standards for public health protection.20

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

Project construction and operation will result in routine emissions of toxic air 

contaminants (TACs). These substances are categorized as noncriteria 

pollutants because there are no ambient air quality standards established to 

regulate their emissions.21 In the absence of standards, state and federal 

regulatory programs have developed a health risk assessment procedure to 

evaluate potential health effects from these emissions. 

The risk assessment consists of the following steps: 

• Identify the types and amounts of hazardous substances that the Avenal 

Project could emit to the environment; 

• Estimate worst-case concentrations of project emissions in the environment 

using dispersion modeling; 

• Estimate amounts of pollutants to which people could be exposed through 

inhalation, ingestion, and dermal contact;22 and 

• Characterize potential health risks by comparing worst-case exposure to 

safe standards based on known health effects. (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-5.) 

 

 

20 This Decision discusses other potential public health concerns in the following sections. The 

accidental release of hazardous materials is discussed in HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

MANAGEMENT and WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION. Electromagnetic fields are 

discussed in the section on TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND NUISANCE. Potential impacts 

to soils and surface water sources are discussed in the SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES

section. Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes are described in WASTE MANAGEMENT. 

21 Criteria pollutants are discussed in the AIR QUALITY section of this Decision, supra. 

22 Exposure pathways, or ways in which people might come into contact with toxic substances, 

include inhalation, dermal (through the skin) absorption, soil ingestion, consumption of locally 

grown plant foods, and mother’s milk. 

168 
Typically, the initial risk analysis for a project is performed at a “screening level” 

which is designed to estimate actual health risks. The risks for screening 

purposes are based on examining conditions that would lead to the highest, or 

worst-case, risks and then using those conditions in the study. Such Conditions 

include: 

• Using the highest levels of pollutants that could be emitted from the plant; 

• Assuming weather conditions that would lead to the maximum ambient 

concentration of pollutants; 

• Using the type of air quality computer model which predicts the greatest 

plausible impacts; 

• Calculating health risks at the location where the pollutant concentrations 

are estimated to be the highest; 

• Assuming that an individual’s exposure to cancer-causing agents occurs 

continuously for 70 years; and 

• Using health-based standards designed to protect the most sensitive 

members of the population (i.e., the young, elderly, and those with 

respiratory illnesses). (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-5.) 

The risk assessment process addresses three categories of health impacts: 

• acute (short-term) health effects; 

• chronic (long-term) non-cancer effects; and 

• cancer risk (also long-term). 

Acute health effects result from short-term (one-hour) exposure to relatively high 

concentrations of pollutants. Chronic health effects are those which arise as a 

result of long-term exposure to lower concentrations of pollutants. The exposure 

period is considered to be approximately from twelve to one hundred percent of a 

lifetime, or from eight to seventy years. (Id.) 

The analysis for non-cancer health effects compares the maximum project 

contaminant levels to safe levels called “reference exposure levels” or RELs. 

These are amounts of toxic substances to which even sensitive people can be 

exposed and suffer no adverse health effects. These exposure levels are 

designed to protect the most sensitive individuals in the population such as 

infants, the aged, and people suffering from illness or disease which make them 

more sensitive to the effects of toxic substance exposure. The RELs are based 

169 
on the most sensitive adverse health effects reported, and include margins of 

safety. 

For carcinogenic substances, the health assessment considers the total risk from 

all cancer-causing chemicals from the source in question. The risk that is 

calculated is not meant to predict the actual expected incidence of cancer, but is 

rather a theoretical estimate based on worst-case assumptions. (Ex. 200, pp. 

4.7-5 to 4.7-6.) 

Cancer risk is usually expressed in cases per million, and is a function of the 

maximum expected pollutant concentration, the probability that a particular 

pollutant will cause cancer, and the length of the exposure period. Title 22, 

California Code of Regulations, section 12703(b) states in this regard that “the 

risk level which represents no significant risk shall be one which is calculated to 

result in one excess case of cancer in an exposed population of 100,000, 

assuming lifetime exposure.” This risk level is equivalent to a cancer risk of 10 in 

one million, or 10x10-6. The conservative nature of the screening assumptions 

used means that actual cancer risks due to project emissions are likely to be 

considerably lower than those estimated. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.7-5 to 4.7-6.) 

If the screening analysis predicts no significant risks, then no further analysis is 

required. However, if the predicted risk is significant then further analysis, using 

more realistic, site-specific assumptions, is performed to obtain a more accurate 

assessment of potential public health risks. If this analysis confirms that the risk 

exceeds the significance level of 10 in one million, we would require appropriate 

measures to reduce the risk to less than significant. If, after all risk reduction 

measures have been considered, a refined analysis still identifies a cancer risk of 

greater than ten in one million, the Commission would not approve a project. 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.7-6.) 

Toxic emissions will be attributable to the project during its construction and 

operation phases. Applicant and Staff each performed an analysis of the 

construction and operation impacts of the Avenal Project which evaluated 

potential cancer and non-cancer health risks to the public. (Ex.1, pp. 6.6-13 to 

6.6-18; Ex 200, pp. 4.7-1 to 4.7-143.) 

Possible construction-phase health impacts are those from human exposure to 

the windblown dust from site excavation and grading, and emissions from 

construction-related equipment. (Ex. 1, p. 6.16-11; Ex. 200, p. 4.7-8.) The 

Applicant has specified mitigation measures to minimize construction-related 

170 
fugitive dust. The requirements for these mitigation measures are adopted as 

Conditions of Certification in the AIR QUALITY section of this Decision. 

It is well established that the exhaust from diesel-fueled construction and other 

equipment is a potent human carcinogen. (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-9.) Table 6.16-4 of 

the AFC (Ex. 1, p. 6.16-11) shows that emissions from the diesel equipment to 

be used in the construction phase will be 7.7 lbs per day or 0.66 tons per year. 

The maximum cancer risk from these diesel emissions was calculated as 3.6 in 

one million for an uninhabited zone immediately beyond the project’s boundaries. 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.7-9.) This risk estimate is significantly below the significance 

criterion of 10 in one million for such emissions. We find the recommended 

control measures specified in AIR QUALITY Condition of Certification AQ-SC3

and AQ-SC4 to be adequate to minimize this cancer risk during the construction 

period. 

During operation, the emission sources at the Avenal Project will be its 

combustion turbines and the diesel engine of the emergency fire water pump. 

The evidence of record explains, in depth, the methodology used in identifying 

and quantifying the emission rates of the toxic non-criteria pollutants which could 

adversely affect public health. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.7-9 to 4.7-12.) Public Health

Table 1 of the FSA (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-11) lists the project’s toxic emissions and 

shows how each contributes to the risk estimated from the health risk analysis. 

The Applicant’s estimates of the project’s potential contribution to the area’s 

carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic pollutants were obtained from a screeninglevel health risk assessment conducted according to procedures specified in the 

1993 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) guidelines. 

The results from this assessment, expressed as the “hazard index,” are 

summarized in PUBLIC HEALTH Table 2 of the FSA (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-12). The 

chronic noncancer hazard index for the maximally exposed individual is 0.023 

while the maximum hazard index for acute noncancer effects is 0.19. (Id.) 

These values are well below the Commission’s significance criterion of 1.0, 

suggesting that the pollutants in question are unlikely to pose a significant risk of 

chronic or acute noncancer health effects anywhere in the project area. The 

cancer risk to the maximally exposed individual from normal project operation is 

shown as 0.046 in one million, which is well below the Commission’s significance 

criterion of 10 in one million for this screening-level assessment. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.7-12.) 

171 
The project’s contributions to health risks are well below the level of significance 

and therefore do not contribute significantly to a cumulative health impact. 

(07/07/09 RT 371:14-25 to 372:1-3.) 

Intervenors Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) and Rob 

Simpson contend that the analysis of record is insufficient in that it does not 

adequately account for cumulative impacts to public health. These Intervenors, 

however, offered no expert testimony to contradict the evidence from Applicant 

and Staff summarized above. (07/07/09 RT 354 to 367.) 

 

In their respective post-hearing submissions, both Applicant and Staff thoroughly 

discount the validity of the Intervenors’ contentions by convincingly showing that 

an adequate cumulative impacts analysis has in fact been performed. This 

analysis clearly establishes the lack of adverse public health impacts attributable 

to construction and operation of the Avenal Energy Project. (Applicant Opening 

Brief, pp. 39 to 42; Applicant Reply Brief, pp. 2 to 7; Staff Opening Brief, pp. 8 to 

9; Staff Reply Brief, pp. 6 to 8.) 

No credible evidence of record rebuts these conclusions. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the persuasive weight of the evidence of record, the Commission 

makes the following findings and conclusions: 

1. Construction and normal operation of the project will result in the routine 

release of criteria and noncriteria pollutants that have the potential to 

adversely impact public health. 

2. Potential construction-related adverse health effects from diesel emissions 

and fugitive dust will be mitigated to insignificant levels. 

3. Emissions of criteria pollutants, which are discussed in the AIR QUALITY

section of this Decision, will be mitigated to levels consistent with applicable 

standards. 

4. Applicant performed a health risk assessment, using well-established 

scientific protocol, to analyze potential adverse health effects of toxic air 

contaminants. 

5. The accepted method used by state regulatory agencies in assessing the 

significance for both acute and chronic noncarcinogenic public health effects 

172 
173 

is known as the hazard index method. A similar method is used for 

assessing the significance of potential carcinogenic effects. 

6. Application of the hazard index method establishes that emission of noncriteria pollutants from the Avenal Project will not cause acute or chronic 

adverse public health effects. 

7. The maximum non-cancer and the maximum cancer risks associated with 

the project are substantially below the significance thresholds commonly 

accepted for risk analysis purposes. 

8. Cumulative impacts from noncriteria pollutants were analyzed in accordance 

with the provisions of CEQA. Impacts from the Avenal Project’s emissions 

of these pollutants are not expected to be significant. 

9. Emissions from the construction and operation of the proposed natural gasburning Avenal Project will not have a significant adverse impact on the 

public health of the surrounding population. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Project emissions do not pose a significant direct, indirect, or cumulative 

adverse public health risk. 

2. The project will comply with the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and 

standards specified in the appropriate portion of Appendix A of this Decision. 

 

No Conditions of Certification are adopted in connection with this section of the 

Decision. 
174 

 

D. WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION 

Industrial workers are exposed to potential health and safety hazards on a daily 

basis. Implementation of various existing laws and standards will suffice to 

reduce these hazards to minimal levels. Therefore, this subsection focuses on 

whether Applicant’s proposed health and safety plans are in accordance with all 

applicable LORS and thus will be adequate to protect industrial workers. The 

record also addresses the availability and adequacy of fire protection and 

emergency response services, as well as potential site contamination concerns. 

The evidence on this topic was presented as part of the discussion on public 

health matters. (7/7/09 RT 347-50, 353, 357 to 58, 370-71, 377-80, 390; Exs. 1, 

§2.3.11.5, 6.17, Appen. 6.17-1, 6.17-2, 6.17-3, 6.17-4; 7(i); 8(b); 25(p); 54; 200, § 

4.14.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Site and Soil Contamination 

Contaminated soils may be exposed during site preparation. The Phase I 

Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) did not find evidence or record of any use, 

spillage, or disposal of hazardous substances on the site or nearby, nor any 

other environmental concern that would require remedial action. (7/7/09 RT 357, 

378-79.) However, the Phase I ESA did not address the use of agricultural 

chemicals on the site prior to its being certified “organic” by the US Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) National Organic Program.23 

To ensure there is no risk to public or worker health and safety from residual 

pesticides, we have required that the project owner develop and implement a 

sampling and analysis plan, in accordance with Condition of Certification 

WASTE-1, so the site can be screened for the presence of agricultural chemicals 

and evaluated as to whether they are present in hazardous concentrations. 

Furthermore, to address the possibility that soil contamination could be 

encountered during construction, Conditions of Certification WASTE-2 and 

WASTE-3 require that a registered professional engineer or geologist be 

available during soil excavation and grading to ensure proper handling and 

23 Certified “organic” means that documentation must indicate that no synthetic or prohibited 

substances (pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers) have been applied to the site for a period 

of three years immediately preceding harvest of a crop. (7/7/09 RT 357, 378:23 to 379:3.) 
175 

 

disposal of contaminated soil.24 (Ex. 200, pp. 4.14-3 to 4.14-4, 4.14-14.) These 

measures will provide adequate safeguards in the event contaminated soil is 

discovered and they are consistent with the uncontradicted expert testimony of 

record. (7/7/09 RT 357:23 to 358:18, 378:12 to 379:19.) If contaminated soil is 

found, a Phase II ESA may be required. (7/7/09 RT 390:1-12.) 

2. Worker Safety 

Industrial environments are potentially dangerous during construction, operation, 

and demolition activities. Workers at the Avenal Project will be exposed to loud 

noises, moving equipment, trenches, and confined space entry and egress 

problems. The workers may experience falls, trips, burns, lacerations, and 

various other injuries. They may be exposed to falling equipment or structures, 

chemical spills, hazardous waste, fires, explosions, and electrical sparks and 

electrocution. Thus, it is important for the project to have well-defined policies 

and procedures, training, and hazard recognition and controls to minimize 

injuries and protect workers. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.14-4 to 4.14-5.) 

The evidence extensively details the type and content of several plans which will 

be developed to ensure the protection of worker health and safety, as well as 

compliance with applicable LORS. (7/7/09 RT 377-78; Ex. 200, pp. 4.14-5 to 

4.14-9.) For example, the project owner will develop and implement a 

“Construction Safety and Health Program” and an “Operations and Maintenance 

Safety and Health Program,” both of which must be reviewed by the Compliance 

Project Manager prior to project construction and operation. A separate “Injury 

and Illness Prevention Program,” “Personal Protective Equipment Program,” 

“Emergency Action Plan,” “Fire Protection and Prevention Plan,” and other 

general safety procedures will be prepared for both the construction and 

operation phases of the project. (Id.) Conditions of Certification WORKER 

SAFETY-1 and -2 ensure that these measures will be developed and 

implemented. 

OSHA and Cal-OSHA standards encourage employers to monitor worker safety 

by employing a “competent person” who has knowledge and experience with 

enforcing OSHA/Cal-OSHA standards, can identify workplace hazards relating to 

specific project operations, and has authority to take appropriate action. To 

implement the intent to provide a safe work place during power plant construction 

24 The WASTE MANAGEMENT portion of this Decision contains a more detailed analysis of the 

matter. 
176 

 

expressed in these standards, Condition WORKER SAFETY-3 requires the 

project owner to designate a power plant Construction Safety Supervisor. This 

individual will coordinate and implement the Construction and Operation Safety 

and Health programs, as well as investigate any safety-related incidents and 

emergency responses. (Ex. 200, p. 4.14-10.) 

To reduce and/or eliminate safety hazards during project construction and 

operation, it is also necessary to employ a professional Safety Monitor. The 

Safety Monitor, who is hired by the project owner but reports to the Chief Building 

Official and the Compliance Project Manager, will track compliance with 

OSHA/Cal-OSHA regulations and serve as an on-site OSHA expert. This 

professional will periodically audit safety compliance during construction, 

commissioning, and the transition to operational status, as well as ensure that 

safety procedures and practices are fully implemented. (Ex. 200, p. 4.14-11.) 

Condition WORKER SAFETY-4 describes the role of the Safety Monitor. 

The project owner will maintain an automatic, portable defibrillator on-site to 

provide immediate response in the event of a medical emergency.25 Condition 

WORKER SAFETY-5 requires the project owner to ensure this device is 

available during construction and operation, and that appropriate personnel are 

trained to use it. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.14-12 to 4.14-13.) 

3. Fire Protection and Emergency Response 

Project construction and operation pose the potential for both small fires and 

major structural fires. Electrical sparks, combustion of diesel fuel oil, natural gas, 

hydraulic fluid, mineral oil, insulating fluid or flammable liquids, explosions, and 

over-heated equipment may cause small fires. The project will rely upon both 

on-site and local fire protection services. 

The on-site fire protection system provides the first line of defense for such 

occurrences. The Construction Fire Prevention and Protection Plan (Condition 

WORKER SAFETY-1) will address and detail measures to minimize the 

likelihood of fires during construction. These measures include the placement of 

25 Staff’s testimony contends that the potential for both work-related and non work-related heart 

attacks exists at power plants. The quickest medical intervention can be achieved with the use of 

an on-site defibrillator. Many modern industrial and commercial enterprises maintain defibrillators 

for emergency use. Staff therefore endorses, and we have adopted, this as an appropriate safety 

and health precaution. (Ex.200, pp. 4.14-12 to 4.14-13.) 
177 

portable fire extinguishers, availability of a dust control water truck, and the use 

of the permanent fire water loop. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-11.) 

During operation, the project will meet the fire protection and suppression 

requirements of the California Fire Code, all applicable recommended National 

Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards (including Standard 850 

addressing fire protection at electric generating plants), and all Cal/OSHA 

requirements. (7/7/09 RT 377:20 to 378:11.) Fire suppression elements will 

include both fixed and portable fire extinguishing systems. The fire water will be 

provided on-site by a 750,000 gallon storage tank. Approximately 240,000 

gallons of this water will be dedicated to fire suppression. An electric motordriven pump, a diesel pump, and a jockey pump will be provided. These pumps 

can maintain a delivery rate of 2,000 gallons per minute to the fire protection 

loop. (Exs. 1, §§ 2.3.7.1, 2.3.11.5; 200, p. 4.14-12.) 

A fixed sprinkler system will be installed in areas of risk and in the warehouse 

and administrative/control buildings in accordance with NFPA requirements. Fire 

hydrants supplied by the fire loop will be located at appropriate intervals 

throughout the facility and a deluge firewater system will protect oil-filled 

equipment (STG Lube/Hydraulic oil systems and the CTG and STG step-up 

transformers). A carbon dioxide (CO2) fire protection system will be provided for 

the combustion turbine generators and accessory equipment. This system will 

have fire detection sensors that trigger alarms, shut down the CTGs, turn off 

ventilation, close ventilation openings, and automatically actuate the CO2. In 

addition to the fixed fire protection system, the appropriate class of service 

portable extinguishers and fire hydrants will be located throughout the facility at 

code-approved intervals. These systems are a standard NFPA and Uniform Fire 

Code requirement, and the evidence shows that they will ensure adequate fire 

protection. (Ex. 200, p.4.14-12.) Conditions of Certification WORKER SAFETY 

-1 and -2 require the project owner, prior to construction and operation of the 

project, to provide the final Fire Protection and Prevention Program to the 

Compliance Project Manager and to the Kings County Fire Department (KCFD) 

to confirm the adequacy of the proposed fire protection measures. 

Local fire support services are under jurisdiction of the KCFD. The closest 

station to the project is the City of Avenal Fire Station, located at 5th Street and 

Skyline Boulevard, approximately four miles away. Response time from the 

moment a call is received to arrival at the site is about 11 minutes. The next 

closest station is the Kettleman City Station, located about 10 miles away; the 

response time to the site is within 15 minutes. The KCFD has an automatic aid 
178 

agreement with the Avenal State Prison Fire Station located at Highway 33 and 

King Avenue. This station would respond in about 18 minutes. (Ex. 200, p. 4.14-

3.) 

The KCFD will also be the first responder for hazardous materials incidents. All 

KCFD firefighters are trained at the level of Emergency Medical Technician Level 

1 (EMT-1) and as hazardous material specialists. In the event of a large spill, 

backup support will be provided by the City of Hanford Hazardous Materials 

Response Team. This is a Regional State Type II Hazmat team which can 

respond to the project site in about 30 minutes. In addition, two licensed 

contractors have been indentified and can be called upon for clean-up in the 

event of a hazardous materials spill. (Id.) 

Finally, the evidence establishes that the Avenal Project has only minimal 

potential to increase the burden on KCFD services. While a large fire at the 

facility conceivably could require all the KCFD’s resources – thus leaving Avenal, 

Huron, and Kettleman cities vulnerable – the chances of one occurring are 

remote. The evidence shows that the lack of unique fire hazards associated with 

a modern gas-fired power plant, the presence of multiple on-site manual and 

automated fire detection and suppression systems, and the measures contained 

in the Construction and the Operations Fire Protection and Prevention Plans 

reasonably assure that the project will not place any significant incremental 

burden upon local fire protection services. (Ex. 200, p. 4.14-13.) 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Commission makes the following 

findings. 

1. Industrial workers are exposed to potential health and safety hazards on a 

daily basis. 

2. To protect workers from job-related injuries and illnesses, the project 

owner will implement comprehensive Safety and Health Programs for both 

the construction and the operation phases of the project. 

3. The project will employ an on-site professional Safety Monitor during 

construction and operation. 
179 

4. The Avenal Project will include on-site fire protection and suppression 

systems as the first line of defense in the event of a fire. 

5. The Kings County Fire Department (KCFD) will provide fire protection and 

emergency response services to the project. 

6. Existing fire and emergency service resources are adequate to meet 

project needs. 

7. The Avenal Project will not create cumulative adverse impacts upon the 

fire and emergency response capabilities of the KCFD. 

8. The project owner will maintain an automatic defibrillator on-site to provide 

immediate response in the event of a medical emergency. 

9. Compliance with applicable LORS ensures that workers will be adequately 

protected from health and safety hazards. 

10. No soil contamination from the use of agricultural chemicals has been 

detected on the site. 

11. If soil contamination is discovered during construction, Conditions of 

Certification contained in the WASTE MANAGEMENT portion of this 

Decision assure adequate mitigation. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, and the mitigation 

measures contained therein will ensure that the project conforms with all 

applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards on industrial 

worker health and safety as identified in the pertinent portion of Appendix 

A of this Decision. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

WORKER SAFETY-1 The project owner shall submit to the Compliance Project 

Manager (CPM) a copy of the Project Construction Safety and Health 

Program containing the following: 

1. a Construction Personal Protective Equipment Program; 

2. a Construction Exposure Monitoring Program; 

3. a Construction Injury and Illness Prevention Program; 
180 

4. a Construction Emergency Action Plan; and 

5. a Construction Fire Prevention Plan. 

The Personal Protective Equipment Program, the Exposure Monitoring 

Program, and the Injury and Illness Prevention Program shall be 

submitted to the CPM for review and approval concerning compliance 

of the programs with all applicable Safety Orders. The Construction 

Emergency Action Plan and the Fire Prevention Plan shall be 

submitted to the Kings County Fire Department for review and 

comment prior to submittal to the CPM for approval. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of construction, the project 

owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval a copy of the Project 

Construction Safety and Health Program. The project owner shall provide a copy 

of a letter to the CPM from the Kings County Fire Department stating the Fire 

Department’s comments on the Construction Fire Prevention Plan and 

Emergency Action Plan. 

WORKER SAFETY-2 The project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the 

Project Operations and Maintenance Safety and Health Program 

containing the following: 

1. an Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan; 

2. an Emergency Action Plan; 

3. a Hazardous Materials Management Program; 

4. an Operation Fire Prevention Program (8 CCR § 3221); and 

5. a Personal Protective Equipment Program (8 CCR §§ 3401-3411). 

The Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Emergency Action 

Plan, and Personal Protective Equipment Program shall be submitted 

to the CPM for review and comment concerning compliance of the 

programs with all applicable Safety Orders. The Operation Fire 

Prevention Plan, the Hazardous Materials Management Program, and 

the Emergency Action Plan shall also be submitted to the Kings 

County Fire Department for review and comment. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of first-fire or commissioning, 

the project owner shall submit to the CPM for approval a copy of the Project 

Operations and Maintenance Safety and Health Program. The project owner 

shall provide a copy of a letter to the CPM from the Kings County Fire 

Department stating the Fire Department’s comments on the Operations Fire 

Prevention Plan and Emergency Action Plan. 
181 

WORKER SAFETY-3 The project owner shall provide a site Construction Safety 

Supervisor (CSS) who, by way of training and/or experience, is 

knowledgeable of power plant construction activities and relevant laws, 

ordinances, regulations, and standards; is capable of identifying 

workplace hazards relating to the construction activities; and has 

authority to take appropriate action to assure compliance and mitigate 

hazards. The CSS shall: 

1. have overall authority for coordination and implementation of all 

occupational safety and health practices, policies, and programs; 

2. assure that the safety program for the project complies with 

Cal/OSHA and federal regulations related to power plant projects; 

3. assure that all construction and commissioning workers and 

supervisors receive adequate safety training; 

4. complete accident and safety-related incident investigations and 

emergency response reports for injuries and inform the CPM of 

safety-related incidents; and 

5. assure that all the plans identified in Conditions of Certification 

WORKER SAFETY-1 and -2 are implemented. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project 

owner shall submit to the CPM the name and contact information for the 

Construction Safety Supervisor (CSS). The contact information of any 

replacement CSS shall be submitted to the CPM within one business day. 

The CSS shall submit in the Monthly Compliance Report a monthly safety 

inspection report which includes: 

1. a record of all employees trained for that month (all records shall be kept on 

site for the duration of the project); 

2. a summary report of safety management actions and safety-related incidents 

that occurred during the month; 

3. a report of any continuing or unresolved situations and incidents that may 

pose danger to life or health; and 

4. a report of accidents and injuries that occurred during the month. 

WORKER SAFETY-4 The project owner shall make payments to the Chief 

Building Official (CBO) for the services of a Safety Monitor based upon 

a reasonable fee schedule to be negotiated between the project owner 

and the CBO. Those services shall be in addition to other work 

performed by the CBO. The Safety Monitor shall be selected by and 
182 

report directly to the CBO, and shall be responsible for verifying that 

the Construction Safety Supervisor, as required in Condition of 

Certification WORKER SAFETY-3, implements all appropriate 

Cal/OSHA and Energy Commission safety requirements. The Safety 

Monitor shall conduct on-site (including linear facilities) safety 

inspections at intervals necessary to fulfill those responsibilities. 

Verification: Prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall provide 

proof of its agreement to fund the Safety Monitor services to the CPM for review 

and approval. 

WORKER SAFETY-5 The project owner shall ensure that a portable automatic 

external defibrillator (AED) is located on-site during construction and 

operations, and shall implement a program to ensure that workers are 

properly trained in its use and that the equipment is properly 

maintained and functioning at all times. During construction and 

commissioning, the following persons shall be trained in use of the 

AED and shall be on-site whenever the workers that they supervise are 

on-site: the Construction Project Manager or delegate; the 

Construction Safety Supervisor or delegate; and all shift foremen. 

During operations, all power plant employees shall be trained in use of 

the AED. The training program shall be submitted to the CPM for 

review and approval. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project 

owner shall submit to the CPM proof that a portable automatic external 

defibrillator (AED) exists on-site and a copy of the training and maintenance 

program for review and approval. 
E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

This analysis considers whether the construction and operation of the Avenal 

Project will create significant impacts to public health and safety resulting from 

the use, handling, transportation, or storage of hazardous materials.26 Several 

locational factors affect the potential for project-related hazardous materials to 

cause adverse impacts. These include meteorological conditions, terrain 

characteristics, any special site factors, and the proximity of population centers 

and sensitive receptors. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-5.) In addition, sensitive subgroups 

such as the young, elderly, and those with existing conditions may be at 

heightened risk from exposure to emitted pollutants. 

The parties presented evidence on this topic as part of the public health 

discussion. (7/7/09 RT 347, 352-53, 370-71, 379-80; Exs. 1, § 6.15, Appen. 

6.15-1; 7 (b); 25 (f); 200, § 4.4.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Potential Risks 

The evidence of record chronicles the method used to assess risks posed by 

hazardous materials. This method included the following elements: 

• A review of chemicals, the amounts proposed for on-site use, and a 

determination of the need and appropriateness of their use. 

• Chemicals which would be used in small amounts, or whose physical state 

is such that there is virtually no chance that a spill would migrate off the 

site and impact the public, were removed from further consideration. 

• Measures proposed to prevent spills were reviewed and evaluated. These 

included engineering controls such as automatic shut-off valves and 

different size transfer-hose couplings, as well as administrative controls 

such as worker training and safety management programs. 

• Measures proposed to respond to accidents were reviewed and evaluated. 

These measures included engineering controls such as catchment basins

and methods to keep vapors from spreading, as well as administrative 

controls such as training emergency response crews. 

 

26 The WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION portion of this Decision analyzes the 

protection of workers from such risks. 

183 
• An analysis of the theoretical impacts on the public of a worst-case spill of 

hazardous materials even with the mitigation measures in place. (Ex. 200, 

pp. 4.4-6 to 4.4-7.) 

Hazardous materials used during construction will include gasoline, diesel fuel, 

motor oil, hydraulic fluid, welding gases, lubricants, solvents, paint, and paint 

thinner. No acutely toxic materials will be used on-site during construction. 

Hazardous materials will be used or stored during operation only in small 

quantities. 

Attachment 1 (incorporated in Condition of Certification HAZ-1 at the end of this 

section) lists the hazardous materials that will be used and stored on-site. 

Condition HAZ-1 prohibits the project owner from using hazardous materials not 

listed in Attachment 1, or storing them in greater quantities than specified, 

without prior approval of the Energy Commission’s Compliance Project Manager. 

None of these materials, except for natural gas and aqueous ammonia as 

discussed below, pose significant potential for off-site impacts as a result of the 

quantities on-site, their relative toxicity, their physical state, and/or their 

environmental mobility. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-2, 4.4-7.) 

a. Natural Gas 

Project operations will involve the handling – but not storage – of large quantities 

of natural gas. The evidence shows that, while natural gas poses some risk of 

both fire and explosion, this risk can be reduced to insignificant levels through 

adherence to applicable codes and the development and implementation of 

effective safety management practices. For example, National Fire Protection 

Association (NFPA) Code 85A requires both the use of double-block and bleed 

valves for gas shut-off and automated combustion controls. These measures will 

significantly reduce the likelihood of an explosion in gas-fired equipment. 

Additionally, air purging of the gas turbines will be required prior to start-up, 

thereby precluding the presence of an explosive mixture. The safety 

management plan will address the handling and use of natural gas, and the 

evidence establishes that it will significantly reduce the potential for equipment 

failure because of either improper maintenance or human error. (Ex. 200, pp. 

4.4-2, 4.4-7 to 4.4-8.) 

The project will connect, at the Kettleman compressor station, to PG&E’s existing 

natural gas lines. A new 2.8 mile-long, 20 inch pipeline will be built which will 

travel through farmlands with no residences or public receptors along the route. 

(Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-7 to 4.4-8.) Various laws and codes govern the construction of 

184 
natural gas pipelines. These are intended to minimize the risk to public health 

and safety from pipeline accidents such as rupture and explosion. For example, 

current codes address: corrosion failures by requiring the use of corrosion 

resistant coatings and cathodic corrosion protection; damage from excavation 

activities by requiring clear marking of the pipeline route; seismic hazards by 

requiring design and construction in accord with up-to-date standards; and faulty 

welds by requiring the use of high quality arc welding techniques by certified 

welders as well as the inspection of such welds. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-8.) 

 

More specifically, these codes ensure that the following safety features will be 

incorporated into the design and operation of the natural gas pipeline (as 

required by current federal and state codes): (1) while the pipeline will be 

designed, constructed, and tested to carry natural gas at a certain pressure, the 

working pressure will be less than the design pressure; (2) butt welds will be Xrayed and the pipeline will be tested with water prior to the introduction of natural 

gas into the line; (3) the pipeline will be surveyed for leakage annually; (4) the 

pipeline will be marked to prevent rupture by heavy equipment excavating in the 

area; and (5) valves at the meter will be installed to isolate the line if a leak 

occurs. 

The evidence establishes that conformance with existing codes will ensure 

minimal risks of pipeline failure. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-10.) 

b. Aqueous Ammonia 

The use of aqueous ammonia is necessary to control oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

emissions resulting from natural gas combustion. The evidence of record is in 

accord that aqueous ammonia is the only hazardous material that could 

realistically, without proper mitigation, pose a significant risk of off-site impact. 

This could result from the release of ammonia vapor in the event of a spill. 

(7/7/09 RT 406; Ex. 200, p. 4.4-11.) The evidence contains a detailed analysis of 

both the potential impacts resulting from an ammonia spill and the adequacy of 

measures available to limit the severity of any impacts. 

2. Risk Mitigation 

The use of aqueous ammonia rather than anhydrous ammonia significantly 

reduces off-site risks. Anhydrous ammonia is stored as a liquefied gas at high 

pressure and could explode in an accidental release, resulting in high downwind 

concentrations. Aqueous ammonia spills are much easier to contain, and 

185 
emissions from such spills are limited by the slow mass transfer from the surface 

of the spilled material. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-1 to 4.4-2.) 

Avenal will store aqueous ammonia (in a 19 percent solution) in two aboveground ammonia tanks with a maximum capacity of 27,000 gallons each.27 A 

secondary containment basin containing floating plastic balls designed to reduce 

ammonia evaporation from the surface of a spill will surround each storage tank. 

Both secondary containment structures will be equipped with a 24-inch drain 

connected to a single underground tertiary containment vault capable of holding 

the full contents of one tank plus the rainfall associated with a 24-hour, 25-year 

storm. (7/7/09 RT 375:8-20; Ex. 200, p. 4.4-11.) The testimony establishes that 

these two types of engineering controls to limit any spills will result in a “state of 

the art” mitigation design. (7/7/09 RT 407: 1-2.) 

 

To assess the potential impacts associated with an accidental release of 

aqueous ammonia, the evidence shows that Staff used several benchmark 

exposure levels of ammonia gas occurring off-site. (Exs. 200, pp. 4.4-11 to 4.4-

12; 204.) These include: 

a. the lowest concentration posing a risk of lethality, i.e. 2,000 parts per 

million (ppm); 

b. the concentration immediately dangerous to life and health, a level of 300 

ppm; 

c. the emergency response planning guideline level 2 of 150 ppm; and 

d. the level of 75 ppm, considered by the Energy Commission staff to be 

without serious adverse effects on the public for a one-time exposure. 

If the exposure associated with a potential release exceeds 75 ppm at any public 

receptor, Staff also assesses the probability of occurrence of the release, the 

severity of the consequences, and the nature of the potentially exposed 

population in determining whether the likelihood and extent of exposure would be 

significant.28 (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-10 to 4.4-11.) 

 

27 Seismic criteria governing storage tanks is addressed in the FACILITY DESIGN section of this 

Decision. 

28 Staff’s Hazardous Materials Appendix A (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-33 to 4.4-34) discusses the criteria 

for ammonia exposure guidelines, their applicability to sensitive populations, and exposurespecific conditions. 

186 
In addition, Applicant performed an off-site consequence analysis (OCA) for the 

worst-case release scenario. This involved the failure and complete discharge of 

one of the storage tanks, as well as an alternative release scenario involving a 

spill during truck unloading which would drain form the sloped truck unloading 

area through a 10-inch pipe into the underground containment vault beneath the 

storage tanks. Ammonia emissions from the two potential release scenarios 

were calculated following methods provided by USEPA guidance. (Exs.1 § 

6.15.2.2; 200, pp. 4.4-11 to 4.4-12.) 

The evidence indisputably establishes that no ammonia concentrations 

exceeding 200 ppm would occur off-site. Concentrations exceeding 75 ppm 

could extend approximately 200 feet beyond the facility’s eastern fence line in 

either worst-case scenario. However, no residences or public receptors are 

located there, thus removing any threat to the public. (7/7/09 RT 373-76; Ex. 

200, p. 4.4-12.) 

a. Transportation Risk Reduction 

The evidence shows that transport of aqueous ammonia poses the predominant 

risk to off-site receptors. Ammonia can be released during a transportation 

accident; the extent of impact would depend upon the location of the accident 

and the rate of dispersion of ammonia vapor from the surface of the aqueous 

ammonia pool. The actual likelihood of an accidental release during transport 

depends upon the tanker driver’s skill, the type of transport vehicle, and accident 

rates. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-14.) 

Aqueous ammonia will be delivered to the facility in DOT-certified vehicles with 

design capacities of 8,000 gallons. These high-integrity vehicles are designed to 

DOT Code MC-307, and are suitable for hauling caustic materials such as 

ammonia. Condition of Certification HAZ-5 ensures that only tankers which meet 

or exceed these specifications will be used for ammonia deliveries. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.4-15.) 

Trucks will travel approximately 2.0 miles from I-5 along the Avenal Cuttoff Road 

to the power plant.29 The facility will require about four tanker truck deliveries of 

aqueous ammonia per month (i.e., 48 annually). This will result in about 96 miles 

of tanker truck delivery travel in the project area per year. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-15.) 

 

29 Condition of Certification HAZ-6 requires the use of this, the shortest route from the interstate 

to the project. 

187 
U.S. DOT data show that the actual risk of a release from hazardous material 

transportation is between 0.06 and 0.19 releases per 1,000,000 miles traveled. 

Staff’s transportation risk assessment model shows that there is a total annual 

risk of 12.8 in 1,000,000 for an accident which results in the release of a 

hazardous material. Given the inherent conservatism of the assumptions used, 

the evidence supports the conclusion that the risk of a transportation accident 

resulting in the release of a hazardous material is insignificant. (7/7/09 RT 

373:12-16, 385-86; Ex. 200, p. 4.4-15.) 

b. Engineering and Administrative Controls 

Engineering controls and administrative controls affect the significance of 

potential impacts from hazardous materials usage. Engineering controls are 

those physical or mechanical systems (such as storage tanks or automatic shutoff valves) which can prevent a hazardous material spill from occurring, which 

can limit the spill to a small amount, or which can confine it to a small area. 

Administrative controls are those rules and procedures that workers at the facility 

must follow. These are designed to help prevent accidents or keep them small if 

they do occur. Timely and adequate emergency spill response is also a crucial 

factor. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-12 to 14.) 

The engineered safety features which will be used at the Avenal Project include: 

• Storage of petroleum-containing materials in their original containers which 

are designed to resist impact and prevent releases; 

• Construction of secondary containment areas surrounding each of the 

hazardous materials storage areas (such as the containment basin 

required by Condition of Certification HAZ-4 for aqueous ammonia) 

designed to contain accidental releases that might happen during storage 

or delivery plus the volume of rainfall associated with a 24-hour, 25-year 

storm event; 

• Physical separation of stored chemicals, in isolated containment areas, in 

order to prevent accidental mixing of incompatible materials which could 

result in the evolution and release of toxic gases or fumes; 

• Installation of both an automatic sprinkler system and an exhaust system 

for indoor hazardous materials storage areas; 

188 
• Construction of secondary containment areas surrounding each of the 

aqueous ammonia storage tanks with 24-inch drains leading into an 

underground vault capable of holding the contents of one tank plus the 

volume of rainfall associated with a 24-hour, 25-year storm event; 

• A sloped pad beneath the aqueous ammonia truck unloading area that 

drains into the underground vault beneath the storage tanks through a 10-

inch opening; 

• Use of floating high density polyethylene (HDPE) balls (about 1.5 to 3 

inches in diameter) in the secondary containment areas surrounding each 

ammonia tank to reduce the surface area of evaporating liquid to a tenth of 

the total surface area; and 

• Process protective systems including continuous tank level monitors, 

temperature and pressure monitors, alarms, excess flow and emergency 

isolation valves, and a concrete containment structure surrounding the 

ammonia tanks and piping system. (7/7/09 RT 406-07; Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-12 

to 4.4-13.) 

Administrative controls also help prevent accidents and releases (spills) from 

moving off-site and affecting neighboring communities. These include those 

required in Conditions of Certification HAZ-1 (limitations on the use and storage 

of hazardous materials and their strength and volume), Condition HAZ-2 (Risk 

Management Plan for aqueous ammonia), and Condition HAZ-3 (development of 

a safety management plan). (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-13 to 4.4-14.) 

Worker training programs, process safety management programs, and 

compliance with all applicable health and safety laws, ordinances, and standards 

will also reduce risks. The worker health and safety program which will be 

prepared by the project owner will include (but not be limited to) the following 

elements: 

• Worker training regarding chemical hazards, health and safety issues, and 

hazard communications; 

• Procedures to ensure the proper use of personal protective equipment; 

• Safety operating procedures for the operation and maintenance of 

systems utilizing hazardous materials; 

• Fire safety and prevention; and 

189 
• Emergency response actions including facility evacuation, hazardous 

material spill clean-up, and fire prevention. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-13.) 

In order to address the issue of spill response, the project owner will prepare and 

implement an emergency response plan that includes information on hazardous 

materials contingency and emergency response procedures, spill containment 

and prevention systems, personnel training, spill notification and on-site 

containment, as well as other elements. Emergency procedures will include 

evacuation, spill cleanup, hazard prevention, and emergency response. (Ex. 1, § 

6.15.2.2.11.) 

The Kings County Fire Department (KCFD) will be the first responder for 

hazardous materials incidents. All firefighters at the KCFD are trained to the level 

of hazardous materials specialists and they are able to arrive on-site within 15 

minutes. In the event of a large spill, backup support will be provided by the City 

of Hanford Hazardous Materials Response Team. This is a Regional State Type 

II Hazmat team and they are able to respond to the project site in about 30 

minutes. In addition, the Applicant has identified two licensed contractors that 

can be called upon for clean-up in the event of a hazardous materials spill. The 

evidence indicates that these organizations are capable of handling any 

hazardous materials related incident posed by the Avenal Project. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.4-14.) 

Overall, the evidence conclusively establishes that the project’s use and storage 

of hazardous materials, including natural gas and aqueous ammonia, poses a 

less than significant risk to public health and safety. This includes the theoretical 

instance of the nearby aqueduct receiving, and being adversely affected by, 

hazardous materials from the project.30 (7/7/09 RT 373-75: 5-7; 407:6 to 408:19; 

see also, Applicant’s Opening Brief at 42; Staff’s Opening Brief at 8.) 

3. Site Security 

The hazardous materials used by the Avenal Project are listed by several federal

agencies (USEPA, Homeland Security, DOE) in Vulnerability Assessments 

requiring special site security measures to prevent unauthorized access. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.4-17.) The evidence categorizes the Avenal Project as “low 

 

30 At the evidentiary hearing, Staff’s expert witness clarified that even intentionally dumping 

aqueous ammonia into the aqueduct would not likely cause adverse public health impacts. (Ex. 

7/7/09 RT 408:8-18.) 

190 
vulnerability” due to its rural setting and absence of close sensitive receptors. 

Even though federal rules do not strictly apply to this project, the evidence shows 

that a minimum level of security measures are appropriate in order to protect 

California’s electrical infrastructure from malicious mischief, vandalism, or 

terrorist attack. In the present instance these include perimeter fencing and 

breach detectors, alarms, site access procedures for employees and vendors, 

site personnel background checks, and law enforcement contacts in the event of 

a security breach. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-18.) 

Site access for vendors will be strictly controlled. Consistent with current state 

and federal regulations governing the transport of hazardous materials, 

hazardous materials vendors will have to maintain their transport vehicle fleet 

and employ only properly licensed and trained drivers. The project owner is 

required, through the use of contractual language with vendors, to ensure that 

vendors supplying hazardous materials strictly adhere to the U.S. DOT 

requirements for hazardous materials vendors to prepare and implement security 

plans and to ensure that all hazardous materials drivers are in compliance 

through personnel background security checks. The compliance project 

manager (CPM) may authorize modifications to these measures or may require 

additional measures in response to additional guidance provided by the U.S. 

Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. DOE, or the NERC, after 

consultation with both appropriate law enforcement agencies and the project 

owner. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-17 to 4.4-18.) 

Conditions of Certification HAZ-7 and HAZ-8 embody these requirements. 

4. Cumulative Risks 

Finally, the evidence contains an analysis of potential cumulative impacts. For 

present purposes, a significant cumulative impact is basically the simultaneous

uncontrolled release of hazardous materials from multiple locations in a form 

(gas or liquid) that could cause a significant impact. The evidence establishes 

that the Avenal facility poses a minimal risk of an accidental release which could 

result in off-site impacts. Moreover, it is unlikely that an accidental release, 

which has a very low probability of occurrence, would independently occur at the 

project and at another facility at the same time. 

There are no facilities within a one-mile radius of the Avenal site that have the 

potential to cause cumulative hazardous materials impacts. The only facility 

located in the vicinity is the Avenal water treatment plant which is adjacent to the 

site but does not store or use ammonia or other materials with potential off-site 

191 
impacts. The Great Valley Ethanol Project would be located 27 miles away. At 

this distance there is no potential for a hazardous materials cumulative impact. 

The Chemical Waste Management Hazardous Waste Facility is also located a 

significant distance away (about 7 air miles), in the hills southwest of Kettleman 

City along SR-41. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-18.) 

The evidence establishes that the project owner will develop a hazardous 

materials handling program independent of other projects and that the project, as 

mitigated, poses only a minimal risk of an accidental release of hazardous 

materials. We therefore conclude that the Avenal facility will not cause, or 

contribute to, a significant adverse cumulative impact.31

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the persuasive weight of the evidence of record, the Commission 

makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 

1. The Avenal Project will use hazardous materials during construction and 

operation, including aqueous ammonia and natural gas. 

 

2. The major public health and safety dangers associated with these hazardous 

materials include the accidental release of aqueous ammonia as well as fire 

and explosion from natural gas. 

3. Staff’s independent analysis indicated that appropriate design measures to 

contain spilled ammonia are necessary to ensure that no significant off-site 

public health consequences will result from an accidental ammonia release. 

4. A concentration of 75 ppm or less of aqueous ammonia will not cause 

significant impacts. A worst-case catastrophic release of aqueous ammonia 

from the Avenal facility will not pose a hazard to the public, nor result in offsite concentrations of greater than 75 ppm in populated areas or in areas with 

sensitive receptors. 

 

31 We also note that the evidence of record considered the potential cumulative impacts upon the 

Cities of Huron and Kettleman City, as well as upon minority/low income populations and 

sensitive receptors such as a purported existing birth defect cluster in Kettleman City. (7/7/09 RT 

371-73; 375:21 to 376:25; 383:12 to 384:14; 391; Ex. 200, 4.4-19 to 4.4-20.) No evidence 

supports the proposition that the Avenal Project’s hazardous materials, as described in this 

section, would create or add to any impacts. 

192 
5. Compliance with appropriate engineering and regulatory requirements for 

safe transportation, delivery, handling, and storage of ammonia will reduce 

potential risks of accidental release to insignificant levels. 

6. The risk of fire and explosion from natural gas will be reduced to insignificant 

levels through adherence to applicable codes and the implementation of 

effective safety management practices. 

7. Potential impacts from the other hazardous substances used on-site are not 

considered significant since quantities will be limited and appropriate storage 

will be maintained in accordance with applicable law. 

8. The project owner will submit an approved Safety Management Plan for 

handling aqueous ammonia, an approved Hazardous Materials Business 

Plan, and an approved Risk Management Plan prior to delivery of any 

hazardous materials to the site. 

9. The project owner will ensure that truck deliveries of aqueous ammonia are 

restricted to the truck delivery route specified in Condition of Certification 

HAZ-6, below. 

10. The likelihood of cumulative impacts originating from simultaneous releases 

of hazardous materials from the Avenal Project and nearby facilities is 

statistically remote and considered insignificant. 

11. No other existing or planned projects are close enough to the Avenal Project 

to create a credible possibility of cumulative impacts from a simultaneous 

release of hazardous materials. 

12. The analysis of record considered potential effects of a release of hazardous 

materials upon minority/low income populations and sensitive groups. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Implementation of the mitigation measures described in the evidentiary 

record and contained in the Conditions of Certification, below, ensures that 

the project will not cause significant impacts to public health and safety as 

the result of handling, use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials. 

2. With implementation of the Conditions of Certification below, the Avenal 

Project will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and 

standards related to hazardous materials management as identified in the 

evidentiary record and in the pertinent portion of Appendix A of this 

Decision. 

193 
3. The Commission concludes that the storage, use, and transportation of 

hazardous materials associated with the Avenal Project will not result in any 

significant direct or cumulative adverse public health and safety impacts. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

HAZ-1 The project owner shall not use any hazardous materials not listed in 

Attachment 1, below, or in greater quantities or strengths than those 

identified by chemical name in Attachment 1, below, unless approved 

in advance by the Compliance Project Manager (CPM). 

Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM, in the Annual 

Compliance Report, a list of hazardous materials contained at the facility. 

HAZ-2 The project owner shall concurrently provide a Business Plan and a 

Risk Management Plan (RMP) prepared pursuant to the California 

Accidental Release Program (CalARP) to the Kings County 

Environmental Health Department (KCEHD) and the CPM for review. 

After receiving comments from the KCEHD and the CPM, the project 

owner shall reflect all recommendations in the final documents. Copies 

of the final Business Plan and RMP shall then be provided to the 

KCEHD for information and to the CPM for approval. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to receiving any hazardous material on the 

site for commissioning or operations, the project owner shall provide a copy of a 

final Business Plan to the CPM for approval. At least 30 days prior to delivery of 

aqueous ammonia to the site, the project owner shall provide the final RMP to 

the Certified Unified Program Agency for information and to the CPM for 

approval. 

HAZ-3 The project owner shall develop and implement a Safety Management 

Plan for delivery of aqueous ammonia and other liquid hazardous 

materials by tanker truck. The plan shall include procedures, protective 

equipment requirements, training, and a checklist. It shall also include 

a section describing all measures to be implemented to prevent mixing 

of incompatible hazardous materials including provisions to maintain 

lockout control by a power plant employee not involved in the delivery 

or transfer operation. This plan shall be applicable during construction, 

commissioning, and operation of the power plant. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the delivery of any liquid hazardous 

material to the facility, the project owner shall provide a Safety Management Plan 

as described above to the CPM for review and approval. 

HAZ-4 The aqueous ammonia storage facility shall be designed to either the 

ASME Pressure Vessel Code and ANSI K61.6 or to API 620. In either 

194 
case, the storage tank shall be protected by a secondary containment 

basin capable of holding 125 percent of the storage volume or the 

storage volume plus the volume associated with 24 hours of rain 

assuming the 25-year storm. The final design drawings and 

specifications for the ammonia storage tank and secondary 

containment basins shall be submitted to the CPM. 

Verification: At least 60 days prior to delivery of aqueous ammonia to the 

facility, the project owner shall submit final design drawings and specifications for 

the ammonia storage tank and secondary containment basin to the CPM for 

review and approval. 

HAZ-5 The project owner shall direct all vendors delivering aqueous ammonia 

to the site to use only tanker truck transport vehicles which meet or 

exceed the specifications of DOT Code MC-307. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to receipt of aqueous ammonia on-site, the 

project owner shall submit copies of the notification letter to supply vendors 

indicating the transport vehicle specifications to the CPM for review and 

approval. 

HAZ-6 At least 30 days prior to receipt of any hazardous materials on-site, the 

project owner shall direct all vendors delivering any hazardous material 

to the site to use only the route approved by the CPM. Trucks will 

travel on I-5 to the Avenal Cutoff Road to the plant site. The project 

owner shall obtain approval of the CPM if an alternate route is desired. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to receipt of any hazardous materials onsite, the project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval copies of 

notices to hazardous materials vendors describing the required transportation 

route. 

HAZ-7 Prior to commencing construction, a site-specific Construction Site 

Security Plan for the construction phase shall be prepared and made 

available to the CPM for review and approval. The Construction 

Security Plan shall include the following: 

1. perimeter security consisting of fencing enclosing the construction 

area; 

2. security guards; 

3. site access control consisting of a check-in procedure or tag system 

for construction personnel and visitors; 

4. written standard procedures for employees, contractors, and 

vendors when encountering suspicious objects or packages on-site 

or off-site; 

195 
5. protocol for contacting law enforcement and the CPM in the event 

of suspicious activity or emergency; and 

6. evacuation procedures. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to commencing construction, the project 

owner shall notify the CPM that a site-specific Construction Security Plan is 

available for review and approval. 

HAZ-8 The project owner shall also prepare a site-specific security plan for 

the commissioning and operational phases that will be available to the 

CPM for review and approval. The project owner shall implement site 

security measures that address physical site security and hazardous 

materials storage. The level of security to be implemented shall not be 

less than that described below (as per NERC 2002). 

The Operation Security Plan shall include the following: 

1. permanent full perimeter fence or wall, at least eight feet high; 

2. main entrance security gate, either hand operated or motorized; 

3. evacuation procedures; 

4. protocol for contacting law enforcement and the CPM in the event 

of suspicious activity or emergency; 

5. written standard procedures for employees, contractors, and 

vendors when encountering suspicious objects or packages onsite or off-site; 

6. A. a statement (refer to sample, Attachment A), signed by the 

project owner certifying that background investigations have 

been conducted on all project personnel. Background 

investigations shall be restricted to determine the accuracy of 

employee identity and employment history and shall be 

conducted in accordance with state and federal laws regarding 

security and privacy; 

B. a statement(s) (refer to sample, Attachment B), signed by the 

contractor or authorized representative(s) for any permanent 

contractors or other technical contractors (as determined by the 

CPM after consultation with the project owner) that are present 

at any time on the site to repair, maintain, investigate, or 

conduct any other technical duties involving critical 

components (as determined by the CPM after consultation with 

the project owner) certifying that background investigations 

have been conducted on contractors who visit the project site; 

196 
7. site access controls for employees, contractors, vendors, and 

visitors; 

8. a statement(s) (refer to sample, Attachment C), signed by the 

owners or authorized representative of hazardous materials 

transport vendors, certifying that they have prepared and 

implemented security plans in compliance with 49 CFR 172.880, 

and that they have conducted employee background investigations 

in accordance with 49 CFR Part 1572, subparts A and B; 

9. closed circuit TV (CCTV) monitoring system, recordable, and 

viewable in the power plant control room and security station (if 

separate from the control room) capable of viewing, at a minimum, 

the main entrance gate and the ammonia storage tank; and 

10. additional measures to ensure adequate perimeter security 

consisting of either: 

A. security guard(s) present 24 hours per day, 7 days per week; 

or 

B. power plant personnel on-site 24 hours per day, 7 days per 

week, and all of the following: 

1. the CCTV monitoring system required in item 9, above, 

shall include cameras able to pan, tilt, and zoom; have lowlight capability; are recordable; and are able to view 100 

percent of the perimeter fence, the ammonia storage tank, 

the outside entrance to the control room, and the front gate 

from a monitor in the power plant control room; and

2. perimeter breach detectors or on-site motion detectors. 

The project owner shall fully implement the security plans and obtain 

CPM approval of any substantive modifications to those security plans. 

The CPM may authorize modifications to these measures, or may 

require additional measures such as protective barriers for critical 

power plant components— transformers, gas lines, and 

compressors—depending upon circumstances unique to the facility or 

in response to industry-related standards, security concerns, or 

additional guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, the U.S. Department of Energy, or the North American 

Electrical Reliability Council, after consultation both with appropriate 

law enforcement agencies and the Applicant. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the initial receipt of hazardous materials 

on-site, the project owner shall notify the CPM that a site-specific operations site 

security plan is available for review and approval. In the annual compliance 

report, the project owner shall include a statement that all current project 

197 
employee and appropriate contractor background investigations have been 

performed, and that updated certification statements have been appended to the 

operations security plan. In the annual compliance report, the project owner shall 

include a statement that the operations security plan includes all current 

hazardous materials transport vendor certifications for security plans and 

employee background investigations. 

198 
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

ATTACHMENT 1 

Hazardous Materials Proposed for Use at the 

Avenal Energy Project 

199 
Hazardous Materials Attachment 1 

Hazardous Materials Proposed for Use at the Avenal Energy Project 

Material CAS No. Application Hazardous 

Characteristics

Maximum 

Quantity 

On Site

Federal RMP 

Threshold 

Quantity

Acetylene 47-86-2 Welding Health: hazardous 

if inhaled 

Physical: 

combustible, 

flammable 

25 pounds 10,000 pounds 

Aqueous 

Ammonia 19% 

Solution 

7664-41-7 NOX emissions 

control in SCR 

Health: irritation to 

permanent damage 

from inhalation, 

ingestion, and skin 

contact 

Physical: reactive, 

vapor is 

combustible 

122,500 

pounds 

(24,000 

gallons) 

20,000pounds 

(for <20% 

ammonia) 

Carbon 

Dioxide 

124-38-9 Generator 

Purging 

Dissolved 

Health: asphyxiant 

Physical: pressure 

2,920 

pounds 

(25,200 scf) 

NA 

Carbon 

Dioxide 

124-38-9 Fire 

Suppression 

Health: asphyxiant 

Physical: pressure 

24,000 

pounds 

NA 

Carbon 

Dioxide 

124-38-9 HRSG Cleaning Health: asphyxiant 

Physical: pressure 

Not stored 

on-site 

(cleaning 

performed by 

contractor) 

NA 

Carbonic 

Dihydrazide 

497-18-7 Boiler Feed 

Water Dissolved 

Oxygen Control 

Health: Irritant 

Physical: none 

3,400 

pounds (400 

gallons) 

NA 

Cyclohexylami

ne 

108-91-8 Boiler Feed 

Water Corrosion 

Control 

Health: skin irritant, 

corrosive toxicity 

Physical: 

flammable 

450 pounds 

(55 gallons) 

NA 

Diesel Fuel 68476-34-6 Firewater Pump 

Engine 

Health: none 

Physical: 

flammable 

1,060 

pounds (150 

gallons) 

NA 

Ethylene 

Glycol 

107-21-1 Antifreeze for 

Closed Cooling 

Water System 

and in Inlet Air 

Chillers 

Health: chronic 

toxicity 

Physical: moderate 

flammability, 

explosive 

12,550 

pounds 

(1,458 

gallons) 

NA 

Hydrogen 1333-74-0 Generating 

Cooling Steam 

Turbine 

Health: none 

Physical: 

flammable, 

pressure, explosive 

75 pounds 

(14,200 scf) 

10,000 pounds 

Light 

Petroleum 

Distillers 

8002-05-9 Solvent For 

Cleaning 

Health: none 

Physical: 

flammable 

310 pounds 

Lubrication Oil None Mechanical 

Equipment 

Health: hazardous 

if ingested 

Physical: may be 

flammable/combust

ible 

97,000 

pounds 

(6,200 

gallons) 

42 gallons 

200 
Material CAS No. Application Hazardous 

Characteristics

Maximum 

Quantity 

On Site

Federal RMP 

Threshold 

Quantity

Mineral 

Insulating Oil 

None Electrical 

Transformers 

Health: hazardous 

if ingested 

Physical: may be 

flammable/combust

ible 

412,830 

pounds 

(15,000 

gallons) 

42 gallons 

Morpholine 110-91-8 Boiler Feed 

Water pH 

Control 

Health: acute 

toxicity, corrosive 

skin irritant 

Physical: 

flammable 

450 pounds 

(55 gallons) 

NA 

Natural Gas None Gas Turbine 

Generator and 

Duct Cleaning 

Fuel 

Health: none 

Physical: 

flammable, 

pressure 

1,300 

pounds 

NA 

Nitrogen 7727-37-9 Blanketing Health: none 

Physical: pressure 

200 scf 

Propane 74-98-6 Forklift Fuel Health: none 

Physical: 

flammable, 

pressure, explosive 

50 pounds 10,000 pounds 

Sodium Sulfite 7757-83-7 Auxiliary Boiler 

Treatment, 

Oxygen 

Scavenging 

Health: acute and 

chronic toxicity 

Physical: reactive 

irritant 

570 pounds 

(55 gallons) 

NA 

Sulfuric Acid 

29.5% 

7664-93-9 Station and Gas 

Turbine 

Batteries 

Health: acute and 

chronic toxicity 

Physical: reactive 

and corrosive 

17,640 

pounds 

(1,500 

gallons) 

NA 

Source: Ex. 1, Table 6.15-1. 

201 
SAMPLE CERTIFICATIONS 

(Attachments A, B, and C) 

202 
SAMPLE CERTIFICATION (Attachment A) 

Affidavit of Compliance for Project Owners

I, 

___________________________________________________________________ 

(Name of person signing affidavit)(Title) 

do hereby certify that background investigations to ascertain the accuracy of the 

identity and employment history of all employees of: 

___________________________________________________________________ 

(Company name) 

For employment at: 

___________________________________________________________________ 

(Project name and location) 

have been conducted as required by the California Energy Commission Decision for 

the above-named project. 

___________________________________________________ 

(Signature of officer or agent) 

Dated this ___________________ day of ___________________, 20 _______. 

THIS AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPENDED TO THE PROJECT 

SECURITY PLAN AND SHALL BE RETAINED AT ALL TIMES AT THE PROJECT 

SITE FOR REVIEW BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION COMPLIANCE 

PROJECT MANAGER. 

203 
SAMPLE CERTIFICATION (Attachment B) 

Affidavit of Compliance for Contractors

I, 

________________________________________________________________ 

(Name of person signing affidavit)(Title) 

do hereby certify that background investigations to ascertain the accuracy of the 

identity and employment history of all employees of: 

________________________________________________________________ 

(Company name) 

for contract work at: 

________________________________________________________________ 

(Project name and location) 

have been conducted as required by the California Energy Commission Decision 

for the above-named project. 

 

___________________________________________________ 

(Signature of officer or agent) 

Dated this ___________________ day of ___________________, 20 _______. 

THIS AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPENDED TO THE PROJECT 

SECURITY PLAN AND SHALL BE RETAINED AT ALL TIMES AT THE PROJECT 

SITE FOR REVIEW BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION COMPLIANCE 

PROJECT MANAGER. 

204 
205 

SAMPLE CERTIFICATION (Attachment C) 

Affidavit of Compliance for Hazardous Materials Transport Vendors

I, 

________________________________________________________________ 

(Name of person signing affidavit)(Title) 

do hereby certify that the below-named company has prepared and implemented 

security plans in conformity with 49 CFR 172.880 and has conducted employee 

background investigations in conformity with 49 CFR 172, subparts A and B: 

________________________________________________________________ 

(Company name) 

for hazardous materials delivery to: 

_______________________________________________________________ 

(Project name and location) 

as required by the California Energy Commission Decision for the above-named 

project. 

 

___________________________________________________ 

(Signature of officer or agent) 

Dated this ___________________ day of ___________________, 20 _______. 

THIS AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPENDED TO THE PROJECT 

SECURITY PLAN AND SHALL BE RETAINED AT ALL TIMES AT THE PROJECT 

SITE FOR REVIEW BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION COMPLIANCE 

PROJECT MANAGER. 
F. WASTE MANAGEMENT

The Avenal Energy Project will generate nonhazardous and hazardous wastes 

during construction and operation. This section reviews the project’s waste 

management plans for reducing the risks and environmental impacts associated 

with handling, storage, and disposal of project-related nonhazardous and 

hazardous wastes. The evidence on this topic was undisputed. (Ex. 1, § 6.14; 

Exs. 7(h), 9, 14(c), 19(b), 21(k), 25(o); Ex. 200, p. 4.13-1 et seq., 7/07/09 RT 

447-448.) 

Nonhazardous wastes are degradable or inert materials, which do not contain 

concentrations of soluble pollutants that could degrade water quality and are 

therefore eligible for disposal at Class II or III disposal facilities. (Cal. Code 

Regs., tit. 14, § 17200 et seq.) 

Hazardous waste consists of materials that exceed criteria for toxicity, corrosivity, 

ignitability, or reactivity as established by the California Department of Toxic 

Substances Control (DTSC).32 State law requires hazardous waste generators 

to obtain U.S. EPA identification numbers and contract with registered hazardous 

waste transporters to transfer hazardous waste to appropriate Class I disposal 

facilities. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 66262.10 et seq.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Site Excavation 

The certification process requires a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 

(ESA) to provide the history of how the site has been used and a list of 

hazardous waste releases on or near the site to document the presence of any 

actual or potential soil or water contamination. If there is reasonable potential 

that the site contains hazardous substances, a Phase II ESA must be conducted 

to analyze the contamination and to establish a remediation plan. Applicant 

submitted a Phase I ESA, which was completed October 30, 2007, in accordance 

with the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard Practice E 1527-05 

for ESAs. (Ex. 9; Ex. 200, pp. 4.13-8 to 4.13-9.) 

 

32 California Health and Safety Code, section 25100 et seq. (Hazardous Waste Control Act of 

1972, as amended) and Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Section 66261.1 et seq. 

206 
The ESA found no evidence of any recognized environmental conditions (RECs) 

associated with the project site.33 However, the ESA did not address the 

possible presence of persistent legacy agricultural chemicals remaining in site 

soils. (Ex. 9, p. 21; Ex. 200, p. 4.13-10.) 

The site and surrounding area have been used by Kochergen Farms for 

agricultural purposes since the 1950s. Over the years, agricultural pesticides 

were applied to the property by airplane, truck, and/or hand held sprayer; 

however, state and local regulations have strictly limited use of pesticides to 

reduce exposure to farmworkers, consumers, and the environment. In August 

2008, agricultural production at the project site was certified “organic” by the 

USDA National Organic Program, which means that no synthetic or prohibited 

substances (pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers) had been applied to the 

site for a period of three years since August 2005. (Ex. 19(b), p. 8, “Exhibit C6”.) 

According to the record, no storage or mixing of pesticides has occurred onsite 

so it is unlikely that construction workers will encounter contemporary agricultural 

pesticides in site soils during project construction. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.13-9 to 4.13-

10; Ex. 19(b), p. 9; Ex. 9, pp. 16, 19 to 20.) 

Despite the site’s “organic” designation, Staff was concerned that persistent 

agricultural chemicals could be present at the site and recommended that an 

evaluation of harmful concentrations of residual chemicals be conducted to 

ensure there is no risk to public or worker health and safety. Applicant 

responded that several half-lives of the chemicals have passed, indicating a 

limited risk. (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-10; Ex. 19(b), pp. 8 to 9.) 

We believe that Staff’s recommendation represents the best health protective 

approach. We have therefore adopted Condition of Certification WASTE-1 to 

require the Project Owner to conduct a soil sampling analysis for the presence of 

hazardous agricultural chemicals and to implement remediation measures if the 

chemical concentrations exceed the levels established by pertinent regulatory 

agencies. Conditions WASTE 2 and WASTE-3 require the Project Owner to 

further characterize and remediate the site if other hazardous soil conditions are 

found during site preparation. 

 

33 An REC is considered to be the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or 

petroleum products on a property under the conditions that indicated an existing release, past 

release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products into 

structures on the property or in the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. 

207 
The site is located northeast of and down gradient from PG&E’s Kettleman 

Compressor Station, which has been used to compress natural gas since 1929. 

Wastewater from that facility was formerly contained in unlined surface 

impoundments but chromium-based corrosion inhibitor was added to the cooling 

tower make up water between 1959 and 1979. During that time, groundwater 

collected in monitoring wells located down gradient of the disposal ponds was 

impacted with chromium constituents. Subsequently, changes in operating 

procedures at the compressor facility reduced chromium inhibitors and chromium 

concentrations in groundwater began decreasing by 1988. As of April 1994, 

neither hexavalent chromium nor total chromium has been detected in 

groundwater collected from down gradient monitoring wells at concentrations 

above their respective method detection limits (MDL). According to the ESA, 

there is no indication that contaminated groundwater is presently found beneath 

the Avenal Energy site. (Ex. 9, pp. 12 to 15, 20; Ex. 200, p. 4.13-9.) 

Based on Staff’s request, Applicant submitted a second Phase I ESA, completed 

September 19, 2008, which evaluated the entire lengths of the project’s linear 

alignments for potential RECs. The second ESA found no environmentally 

sensitive operations located near the natural gas or water pipeline corridors. (Ex. 

14(c); Ex. 200, p. 4.13-11.) 

However, the project’s transmission line will cross a portion of the Carberry 

Farms property, which has been used for storage and dispensing of fuels, 

pesticides, and other hazardous substances that may have adversely impacted 

the soil. The ESA indicated that during reconnaissance, soil staining was 

observed while viewing the Carberry property from outside the perimeter fence. 

Considering the history of use at this property and the observation of stained 

surface soil, the ESA identified the Carberry Farms property as an REC and 

recommended that soil disturbance in this area be avoided. The ESA further 

recommended that additional investigation be conducted if one or more 

transmission line poles are installed on the Carberry Farms property. (Ex. 14(c), 

pp. 18 to 19, 21, 23-24; Ex. 200, p. 4.13-11.) 

Conditions WASTE-2 and WASTE-3 are designed to mitigate any previously 

unrecognized contaminated soil or groundwater that may be encountered during 

construction and operation. The Conditions require a registered professional 

geologist or engineer with experience in remedial investigation to monitor soil 

excavation and grading activities and to determine whether soil sampling and 

remediation should be required. Implementation of these measures ensure that 

exposure to contaminated soils at the Carberry Farms property will be reduced to 

insignificant levels. 

208 
2. Construction 

Site preparation and construction of the power plant and its associated facilities 

will generate both nonhazardous and hazardous wastes in solid and liquid forms. 

(Ex. 1, § 6.14.2.1; Ex. 200, p. 4.13-12.) Condition WASTE-4 requires the Project 

Owner to develop and implement a Construction Waste Management Plan that 

must identify all waste streams and the methods of managing each waste. 

a. Nonhazardous Wastes 

Construction of the Avenal Energy Project will generate about 600 tons of 

nonhazardous solid waste products comprised of vegetation, scrap wood, 

concrete, steel/metal, paper, glass, and plastics. (Ex. 1, § 6.14.2.1, TABLE 6.14-

2.) These wastes will be recycled where practical. Non-recyclable wastes will be 

collected and deposited pursuant to applicable LORS. (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-12.) 

Non-hazardous liquid wastes will also be generated during construction, 

including sanitary wastes, dust suppression drainage, and equipment wash 

water. Sanitary wastes will be collected in portable, self-contained toilets and 

pumped periodically for disposal at an appropriate facility. Potentially 

contaminated equipment wash water will be contained at designated wash areas 

and transported to a sanitary wastewater treatment facility. See the SOIL AND 

WATER RESOURCES section of this Decision for further discussion of project 

wastewater. (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-12.) 

b. Hazardous Wastes 

The total volume of hazardous wastes generated during construction is estimated 

at 12.5 tons and includes solvents, waste paint, oil absorbents, used oil, oily 

rags, batteries, cleaning wastes, spent welding materials, and empty hazardous 

material containers. (Ex. 1, § 6.4.2.1, TABLE 6.14-2.) Approximately 6.75 tons 

of hazardous wastes, which cannot be recycled, will be transported to a Class I 

landfill. (Ex. 200, p. 6.14-12; Ex. 21(k), p. 47.) 

The total volume of liquid hazardous wastes generated during construction is 

estimated at 6,100 gallons, including oils, paints, and solvents. (Ex. 1, § 

6.14.2.1, TABLE 6.14-2.) All liquid hazardous waste will be considered for 

recycling and/or transported to a suitable treatment, storage, or disposal facility. 

(Id.) (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-13.) 

209 
Generally, hazardous wastes will be accumulated onsite for less than 90 days 

and then properly manifested, transported, and disposed at a permitted 

hazardous waste management facility by licensed hazardous waste collection 

and disposal companies. The disposal methods described in the evidentiary 

record indicate that wastes will be handled in accordance with all applicable 

LORS. (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-13; Ex. 1 §§ 6.14.2.1, 6.14.2.2; Exs. 7(h), 21(k).) 

Condition of Certification WASTE-5 requires the Project Owner to obtain a 

unique hazardous waste generator identification number for the site prior to 

construction. Condition WASTE-6 requires the Project Owner to notify the 

Energy Commission’s Compliance Project Manager (CPM) whenever any waste 

management related enforcement action concerning the Avenal Energy Project 

or its waste disposal contractors is initiated by a regulatory agency. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.13-10.) 

3. Operation 

Condition WASTE-7 requires the Project Owner to develop and implement an 

Operation Waste Management Plan to identify all waste streams and the 

methods of managing each waste. (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-13.) 

a. Nonhazardous Wastes 

Nonhazardous solid wastes generated during project operation will include 

routine maintenance wastes (such as used air filters, scrap metal, and plastics) 

and concentrated process waste (salt cake from the Zero Liquid Discharge 

system (ZLD) and spent CO oxidation catalyst from the air emissions control 

equipment), as well as domestic/sanitary and office wastes (such as office paper, 

newsprint, aluminum cans, glass, and septic system sludge). All non-hazardous 

wastes will be recycled to the extent feasible, and non-recyclable wastes will be 

regularly transported offsite to a local solid waste disposal facility. Nonhazardous 

liquid wastes generated during project operation are discussed in the SOIL AND

WATER RESOURCES section of this Decision. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.13-13 to 4.13-

14.) 

b. Hazardous Wastes 

Condition WASTE-5, which requires the Project Owner to obtain a hazardous 

waste generator identification number, applies during project operation. 

Hazardous solid wastes that may be generated during routine project operation 

210 
include oil filters and oily rags, spent Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and 

oxidation catalysts, waste paint and empty containers, as well as batteries, 

fluorescent light tubes, and similar items. Hazardous liquid wastes include used 

crankcase oil, used hydraulic oil, chemical cleaning solutions, spent solvents, 

Combustion Turbine Generator (CTG) wash water and hydrocarbon 

contaminated water reclaimed from the oil/water separator. (Ex. 1, § 6.14.2.2, 

TABLE 6.14-3.) 

The amount of hazardous waste generated during project operation is 

considered low due to source reduction and recycling when feasible. Hazardous 

wastes will be temporarily stored onsite and transported by licensed hazardous 

waste haulers to authorized disposal facilities in accordance with LORS 

applicable to generators of hazardous waste. Condition WASTE-6, supra, 

applies to any waste management-related enforcement action during project 

operations. (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-14.) 

Spills and unauthorized releases of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes 

may result in contaminated soils. To ensure proper cleanup and management of 

contamination due to spills, Condition WASTE-8 requires the Project 

Owner/Operator to report, clean up, and remediate as necessary, any hazardous 

materials spills or releases in accordance with applicable law. See also, the 

HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT section of this Decision. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.13-14.) 

1. Potential Impacts on Waste Disposal Facilities 

Applicant’s WASTE TABLE 6.14-1 identifies three non-hazardous (Class III) 

waste disposal facilities within ten miles of the site that could potentially take the 

non-hazardous construction and operation wastes generated by the project.34 

(Ex. 1, § 6.14.1.2, TABLE 6.14-1.) The combined remaining capacity for the 

landfills is over 45 million cubic yards. The total amount of nonhazardous waste 

generated from project construction and operation will contribute less than 0.001 

percent of the available landfill capacity. Thus, disposal of the solid wastes 

generated by the Avenal Energy Project will not significantly impact the capacity 

or remaining life of any of these facilities. (Id.) (Ex. 200, pp. 4.13 to 15.) 

 

34 The three landfills are identified as the City of Avenal on North Hydril Road, Coalinga Disposal 

Site near Hwy 198 and Alcade, and the Kettleman Hills Facility. (Ex. 1, § 6.14.1.2, TABLE 6.14-

1.) 

211 
Hazardous wastes will be transported to one of California’s three available Class 

I landfills: Clean Harbors Buttonwillow Landfill in Kern County, Clean Harbors 

Westmorland in Imperial County, and Chemical Waste Management Kettleman 

Hills Landfill in Kings County. The Kettleman Hills facility also accepts Class II, 

and III waste. In addition, there are several other certified hazardous waste 

disposal facilities throughout California. Evidence indicates there is sufficient 

capacity at these facilities to handle the project’s hazardous wastes during its 

operating lifetime. (Ex. 1, § 6.14.1.2; Ex. 200, pp. 4.13 to 15-4.13-16.) 

Regarding potential cumulative impacts, the quantities of solid and hazardous 

wastes generated by the Avenal Energy Project will add to the total quantities of 

waste generated by new residential and commercial development in California. 

However the Avenal Energy Project’s waste stream is relatively low, recycling 

efforts will be prioritized, and sufficient disposal capacity is available. As a result, 

the project’s cumulative impacts on disposal facilities will be insignificant for both 

nonhazardous and hazardous waste disposal. (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-16.) 

PUBLIC COMMENT 

No public comment was received regarding WASTE MANAGEMENT. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Commission makes the following 

findings: 

1. Applicant’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the site did 

not identify any recognized environmental conditions (RECs); however, 

the ESA for the linear facilities corridors identified an REC at the Carberry 

Farms property along the transmission line corridor. 

2. The project will generate nonhazardous and hazardous wastes during 

excavation, construction, and operation. 

3. The Project Owner will implement appropriate characterization, disposal, 

and remediation measures to ensure that the risk of exposure to 

contaminated soils at the site or along the linear corridors is reduced to 

insignificant levels. 

4. The project will recycle nonhazardous and hazardous wastes to the extent 

feasible and in compliance with applicable law. 

212 
5. Hazardous wastes that cannot be recycled will be transported by 

registered hazardous waste transporters to appropriate Class I landfills. 

6. Solid nonhazardous wastes that cannot be recycled will be deposited at 

Class II and III landfills in the local area. 

7. Liquid wastes will be classified for appropriate disposal and managed in 

accordance with the Conditions of Certification listed in the SOIL AND 

WATER RESOURCES section of this Decision. 

8. Disposal of project wastes will not result in any significant direct, indirect, 

or cumulative impacts on existing waste disposal facilities. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, and the waste 

management practices described in the evidentiary record will reduce 

potential impacts to insignificant levels and ensure that project wastes are 

handled in an environmentally safe manner. 

2. The management of project wastes will comply with all applicable laws, 

ordinances, regulations, and standards related to waste management as 

identified in the pertinent portions of Appendix A of this Decision. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

WASTE-1 The Project Owner shall sample site soil to determine the presence of 

persistent agricultural chemicals and provide a plan to prevent worker 

exposure if such chemicals are found and shall submit the following 

reports to the CPM for review and approval: 

1. Sampling and Analysis Plan: A soil sampling and analysis plan to 

determine the presence of agricultural chemicals. In preparing this 

plan, the Project Owner shall use the California Department of 

Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) “Interim Guidance for Sampling 

Agricultural Fields for School Sites (Third Revision August 07, 

2008)” as guidance. Should contaminants be detected at levels 

below the risk-based industrial soil criteria, as defined first in the 

CalEPA California Human Health Screening Levels (CHHSLs), or if 

no CHHSL has been developed, then by the San Francisco Bay 

Regional Water Quality Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs), or 

if no ESL has been developed, then by the EPA Region 9 

Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs), then no further sampling 

and mitigation is required. 

213 
2. Human Health Risk Assessment - If agricultural chemicals are 

detected at levels above the risk-based industrial soil criteria, then 

the Project Owner shall prepare a human health risk assessment 

(HRA) and submit this assessment to the CPM for review and 

approval. 

3. Remedial Action Work Plan: If the results of the HRA show there is 

a significant risk to the off-site public or to site workers (defined as 

a total cancer risk via all relevant exposure pathways greater than 

one in one million for the off-site public, a total cancer risk via all 

relevant exposure pathways greater than 10 in one million for site 

worker, and a Hazard Index greater than 1.0 for both the off-site 

public and on-site workers), the Project Owner shall prepare and 

submit to the CPM a Remedial Action Workplan (RAW) that will 

ensure that all risks and hazards posed by all relevant exposure 

pathways are reduced to less than significant. The RAW shall 

identify remedial measures that include soil removal, refined or 

enhanced airborne dust mitigation measures (such as increased 

watering frequency, use of a chemical “wetting agent”, continuously 

covering stockpiled soils), workers wearing personal protective 

equipment for short durations, or a combination of these measures. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to soil sampling and analysis for the 

presence of persistent agricultural chemicals, the Project Owner shall submit a 

sampling and analysis plan to the CPM for review and approval. Not later than 60 

days after sampling, the Project Owner shall provide the CPM the results of the 

sampling and analysis. If the CPM deems it appropriate, the Project Owner shall 

prepare and submit to the CPM for review and approval, a human health risk 

assessment and a Remedial Action Workplan not later than 60 days after the 

CPMs direction to prepare such documents. 

WASTE-2 The Project Owner shall provide the resume of an experienced and 

qualified Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist, who shall 

be available for consultation during site construction, excavation, 

and grading activities, to the CPM for review and approval. The 

resume shall show experience in remedial investigation and 

feasibility studies. 

The Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist shall be given 

full authority by the Project Owner to oversee any earth moving 

activities that have the potential to disturb contaminated soil. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the Project 

Owner shall submit the resume to the CPM for review and approval. 

214 
WASTE-3 If potentially contaminated soil is identified during site construction, 

excavation, or grading at either the proposed site or along linear 

facilities, as evidenced by discoloration, odor, detection by handheld 

instruments, or other signs, the Professional Engineer or 

Professional Geologist shall inspect the site, determine the need for 

sampling to confirm the nature and extent of contamination, and 

provide a written report to the Project Owner, representatives of 

DTSC, and the CPM stating the recommended course of action. 

Depending on the nature and extent of contamination, the 

Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist shall have the 

authority to temporarily suspend construction activity at that location 

for the protection of workers or the public. The Professional 

Engineer or Professional Geologist shall contact the Project Owner, 

the CPM, and representatives of the DTSC for guidance and 

oversight. 

Verification: The Project Owner shall submit any final reports filed by the 

Professional Engineer or Professional Geologist to the CPM within five days of 

their receipt. The Project Owner shall notify the CPM within 24 hours of any 

orders issued to halt construction. 

 

WASTE-4 The Project Owner shall prepare a Construction Waste Management 

Plan for all wastes generated during construction of the facility and 

shall submit the plan to the CPM for review and approval. The plan 

shall contain, at a minimum, the following: 

• A description of all construction waste streams, including 

projections of frequency, amounts generated and hazard 

classifications; and 

• Management methods to be used for each waste stream, 

including temporary on-site storage, housekeeping and best 

management practices to be employed, treatment methods and 

companies providing treatment services, waste testing methods 

to assure correct classification, methods of transportation, 

disposal requirements and sites, and recycling and waste 

minimization/source reduction plans. 

Verification: The Project Owner shall submit the Construction Waste 

Management Plan to the CPM for approval no less than 30 days prior to the 

initiation of construction activities at the site. 

WASTE-5 The Project Owner shall obtain a hazardous waste generator 

identification number from the United States Environmental 

215 
Protection Agency prior to generating any hazardous waste during 

construction and operations. 

Verification: The Project Owner shall keep a copy of the identification number 

on file at the project site and provide the number to the CPM in the next Monthly 

Compliance Report. 

WASTE-6 Upon becoming aware of any impending waste management-related 

enforcement action by any local, state, or federal authority, the 

Project Owner shall notify the CPM of any such action taken or 

proposed against the project itself, or against any waste hauler or 

disposal facility or treatment operator with which the owner 

contracts, and describe how the violation will be corrected. 

Verification: The Project Owner shall notify the CPM in writing within 10 days 

of becoming aware of an impending enforcement action and provide a 

description and timeline for correction of the violation. The CPM shall notify the 

Project Owner of any changes that will be required in the way project-related 

wastes are managed to ensure compliance with LORS. 

WASTE-7 The Project Owner shall prepare an Operation Waste Management 

Plan for all wastes generated during operation of the facility and 

shall submit the plan to the CPM for review and approval. The plan 

shall contain, at a minimum, the following: 

• A detailed description of all operation and maintenance waste 

streams, including projections of amounts to be generated, 

frequency of generation, and waste hazard classifications; 

• Management methods to be used for each waste stream, 

including temporary on-site storage, housekeeping and best 

management practices to be employed, treatment methods and 

companies providing treatment services, waste testing methods 

to assure correct classification, methods of transportation, 

disposal requirements and sites, and recycling and waste 

minimization/source reduction plans; 

• Information and summary records of conversations with the local 

CUPA and DTSC regarding any waste management 

requirements necessary for project activities. Copies of all 

required waste management permits, notices, and/or 

authorizations shall be included in the plan and updated as 

necessary; 

216 
217 

• A detailed description of how facility wastes will be managed, 

and any contingency plans to be employed, in the event of an 

unplanned closure or planned temporary facility closure; and 

• A detailed description of how facility wastes will be managed and 

disposed of upon closure of the facility. 

Verification: The Project Owner shall submit the Operation Waste 

Management Plan to the CPM for approval no less than 30 days prior to the start 

of project operation. The Project Owner shall submit any required revisions to the 

CPM within 20 days of notification from the CPM that revisions are necessary. 

The Project Owner shall also document in each Annual Compliance Report the 

actual volume of wastes generated and the waste management methods used 

during the year; provide a comparison of the actual waste generation and 

management methods used to those proposed in the original Operation Waste 

Management Plan; and update the Operation Waste Management Plan as 

necessary to address current waste generation and management practices. 

WASTE-8 The Project Owner shall ensure that all spills or releases of 

hazardous substances, hazardous materials, or hazardous waste 

are documented and cleaned up and that wastes generated from the 

release/spill are properly managed and disposed of, in accordance 

with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. 

Verification: The Project Owner shall document management of all 

unauthorized releases and spills of hazardous substances, hazardous materials, 

or hazardous wastes that occur on the project property or related linear facilities. 

The documentation shall include, at a minimum, the following information: 

location of release; date and time of release; reason for release; volume 

released; how release was managed and material cleaned up; amount of 

contaminated soil and/or cleanup wastes generated; if the release was reported; 

to whom the release was reported; any corrective action and/or cleanup 

requirements placed by regulating agencies; level of cleanup achieved and 

actions taken to prevent a similar release or spill; and disposition of any 

hazardous wastes and/or contaminated soils and materials that may have been 

generated by the release. A copy of the unauthorized release/spill documentation 

shall be provided to the CPM within 30 days of the date the release was 

discovered. 
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

The Commission must consider the potential impacts of project-related activities 

on biological resources, including state and federally listed species, species of 

special concern, wetlands, and other resources of critical biological interest such 

as unique habitats. The evidence contained in the record is undisputed (7/7/09 

RT 293-334; 327-336; Exs. 1, § 6.6, 3(b), 7(b), 11, 15, 16, 17(g), 17(h), 19(g), 

21(b), 25(d), 52, 55, 57, 200 pp. 4.2-1 to 4.2-36, and 204 [draft biological 

opinion]) and describes the biological resources in the vicinity of the project site 

and linear alignments, assesses the potential for adverse impacts, and 

determines whether mitigation measures are necessary to ensure compliance 

with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Setting 

The Applicant’s testimony described lands within a 10-mile radius of the 

proposed site as the “region.” (Ex. 1, p. 6.6-2) The region includes agricultural 

production on the San Joaquin Valley floor, open spaces, and petroleum 

production in the Guijarral and Kettleman Hills. The portion of the region 

generally east of Interstate 5 is comprised primarily of agricultural lands with the 

predominant vegetation communities made up of crop land and 

orchards/vineyards. Open space and a habitat conservation bank exists in the 

Kreyenhagen Hills. The Kettleman and Kreyenhagen Hills, in addition to areas 

farther north and west, support large expanses of grasslands consisting of mostly 

non-native annual grasses, which are successful at colonizing disturbed soils.35

A United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) right-of-way dissects the 

agricultural lands in this region and consists of the man-made concrete-lined San 

Luis Canal and adjacent maintained grassland swaths that occur between the 

canal and the edge of the right-of-way. (Ex. 1, p. 6.6-3.) The Department of 

Water Resources (DWR) manages the San Luis Canal and adjacent grassland 

areas by mowing and applying occasional pesticide applications. The USBR 

 

35 Historic native grasses have been replaced over the last 50 years by nonnative vegetative 

communities. (Ex. 1, p. 6.6-3.) 

218 
right-of-way width varies from 20 to 400 feet, with an average of 80 feet in most 

places The USBR right-of-way provides some habitat, foraging opportunities, 

and acts as a wildlife corridor. (Id.) 

The closest natural habitat communities are located within the Kettleman Hills on 

the west side of Interstate 5, approximately 2 miles west and southwest of the 

project. These are noted in Biological Resources Table 1. Also listed in the 

table are the many wildlife species that inhabit the region. While the agricultural 

lands east of Interstate 5 have low wildlife habitat values due to farming 

disturbance, natural communities exist west of Interstate 5. These natural 

communities provide habitat for vegetation and wildlife, including several special 

status species such as the San Joaquin kit fox, the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, 

San Joaquin pocket mouse, and the San Joaquin antelope squirrel. The Avenal 

Energy Project will not directly impact these species and Interstate 5 limits 

movement of terrestrial wildlife between the Kettleman Hills and the agricultural 

lands to the east of where the project lies. (Ex. 1, p. 6.6-5.) 

Within the project region, a federal protected species recovery plan has been 

established to address the loss and fragmentation of habitat in the valley. By 

connecting large areas of isolated natural land, there should be a reduction in the 

harmful effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. The Plan36 lists three core San 

Joaquin kit fox populations, and the Kettleman Hills provide linkages between 

these core populations, and also most likely the smaller, more isolated 

populations in adjacent valleys (USFWS 1998, p. 132). The plan seeks to 

maintain and enhance connecting corridors so San Joaquin kit fox and other 

species can move between the Kettleman Hills and the San Joaquin Valley’s 

edge through the farmed gap between the Kettleman and Guijarral Hills, and the 

Guijarral Hills and the Anticline Ridge, approximately 23 miles northwest of the 

project site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-5.) All of these areas referenced as important in 

the plan are west of Interstate 5 and would not be affected by the project. 

However, the San Luis Canal right-of-way, which lies on the east side of 

Interstate 5 and adjacent to the project site, has been identified by the USFWS 

as a kit fox movement route through the agricultural region on the San Joaquin 

Valley floor. 

At the local level, City of Avenal designated the project area as an industrial area 

in 1992 due to the proximity of the natural gas supply pipeline, transmission line, 

Pacific Gas and Electric’s (PG&E) Gates Substation, and Interstate 5. Special 

 

36 Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, USFWS, 1998.

219 
plant or animal species once associated with the natural habitats historically 

found in the project area are now only found in the few remaining natural areas in 

the hills to the west that have not been disturbed by agriculture or development. 

The proposed Avenal Energy facilities would be permanently located on a 34.8-

acre portion of a 148-acre parcel of agricultural land. The project site and land 

surrounding has been in agricultural production as croplands, orchards, and 

vineyards for more than 50 years. The site has recently been used as an irrigated 

grain field. 

During this proceeding, Applicant and participating wildlife agencies worked 

together and proposed a 300-foot setback from the edge of the USBR right-ofway along the San Luis Canal of the California Aqueduct to the project security 

fence onsite. The proposed 300-foot setback will result in a wider open space 

setback to be used as a wildlife corridor and habitat for state and federally listed 

species. The Applicant has agreed to redesign the project’s original storm water 

holding basin and project layout to accommodate the setback. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-

5). 

2. Potential Impacts and Mitigation 

Sensitive wildlife species are found in the project area that could potentially be 

affected by the Avenal Energy Project. The state Species of Special Concern 

western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is known to occupy areas similar to 

the soil berms adjacent to the site and within the USBR right-of-way. It is likely 

that the burrowing owl and other wildlife species use the habitat within the USBR 

right-of-way, along the San Luis Canal, and the soil berms to the south and east 

of the site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-9.) In addition, the waters of the San Luis Canal 

support a variety of fish and aquatic insect species which provide foraging 

opportunities for several birds, including the state Species of Special Concern, 

double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). These have been observed 

using the canal during the field surveys. (Ex. 1.) 

// 

// 

220 
Biological Resources Table 1 

Special Status Species Potentially Occurring in Avenal Energy Area 

Plants Scientific Name Status 

Round-leaved filaree California macrophylla __/__/1B.1 

California jewel-flower Caulanthus californicus FE/SE/1B.1

Lemmon’s jewel-flower Caulanthus coulteri var. lemmonii __/__/1B.2 

Recurved larkspur Delphinium recurvatum __/__/1B.2 

Pale-yellow layia Layia herterotricha __/__/1B.1 

Showy madia Madia radiata __/__/1B.1 

San Joaquin woollythreads Monolopia congdonii FE/__/1B.2 

Invertebrates 

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus FT/__ 

Doyen’s trigonoscuta dune weevil Trigonoscuta sp. __/CSC 

Amphibians 

California tiger salamander Ambystoma californiense FT/CSC 

Western spadefoot Spea hammondii __/CSC 

Reptiles 

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia sila FE/SE 

San Joaquin whipsnake Masticophis flagellum ruddocki __/CSC 

Birds 

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi __/CSC 

Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor __/CSC 

Long-eared owl Asio otus __CSC 

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia __/CSC 

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni __/ST 

Merlin Falco columbarius __/CSC 

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus __/CSC 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicanus __/CSC 

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus __/CSC 

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus __/CSC 

Mammals 

Nelson’s or San Joaquin antelope squirrel Ammospermophilus nelsoni __/ST 

Short-nosed kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides brevinasus __/CSC 

Tipton kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides FE/SE 

221 
Mammals (Continued) Scientific Name Status 

Western mastiff bat Eumopos perotis californicus __/CSC 

Tulare grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus tularensis FE/CSC 

San Joaquin pocket mouse Perognathus inornatus inornatus __/CSC 

American badger Taxidea taxus __/CSC 

San Joaquin kit fox Vulpes macrotis mutica FE/ST 

*Status Legend (Federal/State/California Native Plant Society (CNPS) lists, CNPS list is for plants only): 

FE = Federally listed Endangered; FT = Federally listed Threatened; FC = Candidate Species for Listing; SE = State-listed 

Endangered; ST = State-listed Threatened; CSC = California Species of Concern; List 1B = Rare or Endangered in California and 

elsewhere; .1 = Very endangered in California; .2 = Rare, threatened, or endangered in California, more common elsewhere __ = 

not listed in that category. (Sources: Avenal Power 2008a; CNDDB 2008). 

The evidence of record establishes that the power plant site facilities would 

permanently occupy approximately 34.8 acres of the 148-acre parcel (Ex. 21(b), 

Attachment 1). In addition to the facilities inside the security fencing, primary and 

secondary site access roads will permanently occupy approximately 2.9 acres. 

There will also be temporary impacts incurred from the heavy equipment staging 

area, two parking areas, an emergency staging area, and temporary construction 

disturbance for access roads and pipelines. As shown in Biological Resources 

Table 2, the temporary disturbances total 39.3 acres of the 148-acre parcel. To 

reduce construction impacts to biological resources, Applicant has committed to 

remove the roadbed gravel from temporary disturbance areas in less than 24 

months after project construction. Condition of Certification BIO-14 will 

determine the actual area impacted both temporarily and permanently and make 

adjustments in habitat compensation as needed. 

Biological Resources Table 2 

Avenal Energy Permanent and Temporary 

Acreage Impacts on the 148-Acre Parcel 

Facility Structure Permanent Acres Temporary Acres Total Acres 

Area Inside Security 

Fencing 

31.9 acres 0 acre 31.9 acres 

Heavy Equipment 

Staging Area 

0 acres 3.1 acres 3.1 acres 

Staff Parking 0 acres 1.5 acres 1.5 acres 

Craft Parking 0 acres 4.5 acres 4.5 acres 

Construction Laydown 0 acres 23.5 acres 23.5 acres 

Emergency Staging Area 0 acres 0.9 acres 0.9 acres 

Access Roads 2.9 acres 2.4 acres 5.3 acres 

Water pipelines onsite 0 acres 2.03 acres 2.03 acres 

Natural gas pipelines 

onsite 

0 acres 1.3 acres 1.3 acres 

Total acres 34.8 acres 39.3 acres 74.1 acres 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.2-10. 

222 
Impacts to wildlife species during construction would be minimized through 

Conditions of Certification. BIO-1 to BIO-4. These Conditions would require the 

project owner to hire a Designated Biologist and Biological Monitor(s) to ensure 

that the Avenal Energy Project would be in compliance with the applicable wildlife 

protection LORS. The Applicant would also need to create and implement a 

Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP) 

as prescribed by Condition of Certification BIO-6. The project owner must also 

prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) to train workers 

for protection of sensitive biological species and to avoid impacts during facility 

construction and operation (Condition of Certification BIO-5). Pre-construction 

surveys must be carried out according to the USFWS Standardized 

Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During 

Ground Disturbance (USFWS 1999) and the California Burrowing Owl 

Consortium (CBOC) Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. (Condition of 

Certification BIO-11). Protection for burrowing owls is contained in Conditions of 

Certification BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-12). In addition, we require fencing of the 

USBR right-of-way and soil berms in areas near construction activities to keep 

workers and equipment from entering habitat and movement corridor areas 

(Conditions of Certification BIO-7 and BIO-8). 

a. Transmission Line Impacts 

The project proposes to build an onsite 230 kilovolt (kV) switchyard to connect 

new transmission lines traveling 6.4 miles off-site to the PG&E Gates Substation. 

The planned transmission lines would include 43 steel tubular towers at a height 

of 120 feet each and set 800 feet apart. New transmission line poles will be 

within areas that are currently orchards and row crops. Temporary disturbance 

for the transmission line installation would be 2,400 square feet per pole 

installation site and an additional 1,200 square feet would be permanently 

impacted for each pole. For the estimated 43 poles, there would be a total of 1.2 

acres of permanent surface disturbance and 2.4 acres of temporary disturbance. 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.2-11.) 

Transmission lines can be a collision threat to birds in certain situations. 

However, the proposed transmission line is not on a major flight corridor adjacent 

to the San Luis Canal where birds of special-status species such as California 

condors or double crested cormorants could be affected. As a result, no 

significant impacts from collisions with new transmission lines are expected. To 

reduce the risk of bird electrocution at substations, we have included Condition of 

223 
Certification BIO-10. As a result, any transmission line impacts are expected to 

be less than significant. 

b. Pipeline Impacts 

Avenal Energy Project’s natural gas pipeline would be 2.5 miles long and consist 

of a 20-inch diameter pipe connecting with the PG&E Kettleman Compressor 

Station east of the site. It would be buried beneath dirt roads at the edge of 

agricultural fields located along Avenal Cutoff Road and Plymouth Avenue after 

exiting a nearby orchard. The total temporary offsite habitat impacts from the 

natural gas pipeline would be 1.2 acres. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-12.) 

The sewer and water supply pipelines would be relatively short and located 

underground at the edge of agricultural fields. The water supply pipeline to the 

Avenal Water Plant (AWP) would be approximately 0.3 miles long and entirely 

on-site. A 1.1 mile water pipeline from agricultural wells #18-1 and #18-4 to the 

project site would be at least 30 feet from the USBR right-of-way within the 

middle of the agricultural well right-of-way. The total temporary impact of the 

water pipelines would be 5.4 acres. (Id.) 

Typically, pipelines are installed with a width of 50 to 75 feet area of disturbance. 

However the Applicant has committed to maintain pipeline construction within a 

25-foot wide area of disturbance. The installation of pipelines will not result in 

permanent surface disturbance since the pipelines will be underground. The 

temporary construction impact of 5.4 acres is included in the disturbance acreage 

impact that will require habitat compensation at a ratio of 0.3 acres of 

compensation for every acre impacted. The pipelines would have a less than 

significant effect on biological resources. (Id.) 

Biological Resources Table 3 

Avenal Energy Off-site Linear Facility Permanent 

and Temporary Acreage Impacts 

Facility Structure Permanent Acres Temporary Acres Total Acres 

Transmission Line 1.2 acres 2.4 acre 3.6 acres 

Water Pipelines 0 acre 5.4 acres 5.4 acres 

Natural Gas Pipeline 0 acre 1.2 acre 1.2 acres 

Total acres 1.2 acres 9.0 acres 10.2 acres 

Source: Exhibit 22, p. 4.2-13 

224 
c. Lighting Impacts 

Since there would be no nighttime construction on the project, construction 

lighting would have a less than significant effect on biological resources. The 

lighting to be used during operations is designed to shield light downward to 

eliminate escape of light off site. (Ex. 1). Due to the nocturnal habits of the 

burrowing owl and San Joaquin kit fox, the nighttime lighting on-site should be 

shielded to light only the power plant site, and not the adjacent areas that serve 

as sensitive species habitat. Condition of Certification BIO-7 (Impact Avoidance 

Mitigation Features) requires appropriate lighting be installed to limit effects to 

biological resources to less than significant levels. 

d. Noise Impacts 

Sensitive species such as San Joaquin kit fox and burrowing owls could be within 

several hundred feet of the construction activities. Studies have shown that 

animal behavior can change as a result of exposure to noise. The sound levels 

that can result in behavioral changes range from 60 dBA to 85 dBA, depending 

on the study and the species. The evidence established that the loudest 

construction equipment used for construction of the project is expected to be the 

250 to 700 horsepower bulldozer and the 6 to 15 cubic yard front end loader, 

which will range from 68 dBA at 500 feet to 58 dBA at 1,500 feet. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.2-13.) 

The change in the ambient noise measurement from construction of the 

proposed project could result in behavioral changes in nearby wildlife. Some 

sensitive species like the burrowing owl and San Joaquin kit fox could be 

disturbed by increases in noise, and could abandon burrows or dens due to the 

increase in noise expected during construction. This disruption from noise due to 

construction would be expected to last 27 months and occur with different 

equipment at different times on and off-site. 

Construction activities during the nesting season of the state Species of Special 

Concern tricolored and yellow-headed blackbirds, mid-April to late July, could 

result in site or nest abandonment if construction and noise occur too close to the 

colony’s nests. To avoid site or nest abandonment, Applicant will install a 

temporary barrier fence 250 feet from the nearest active nest to establish a 

construction buffer zone until the nesting season is complete. (Condition of 

Certification BIO-8.) We conclude that implementing these impact avoidance 

and minimization measures would result in less than significant effects to 

sensitive species that may nest or occupy the project site and adjacent areas. 

225 
Concerning noise levels once the Avenal Energy Project is operational, the 

evidence established that the predicted operational noise at the eastern property 

line will be 63 dBA37. Staff testified that this level of operational noise is on the 

low end of the range of 60 to 85dBA which can cause behavioral change in 

animals and thus has the potential to disturb some sensitive species like the 

burrowing owl and San Joaquin kit fox. Staff analysis included consultations 

with CDFG and USFWS biologists who concluded they do not expect any major 

negative impacts to animals using the adjacent USBR right-of-way as a wildlife 

corridor and that the impacts of the project would be less than significant for 

operational noise impacts to biological resources. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-17.) 

Since the Avenal Energy Project would be constructed on an agricultural site, the 

site provides limited habitat and foraging opportunities for two sensitive species, 

the Swainson’s hawk (state listed threatened) and San Joaquin kit fox (state 

listed threatened and federally listed endangered). These impacts to sensitive 

species would require habitat compensation and other mitigation as shown in 

Table 4 and discussed above. Avenal Energy Project would permanently impact 

34.8 acres on-site and 1.2 acres off-site, and temporarily impact 39.3 acres onsite and 9.0 acres off-site, requiring a total of 54.1 acres of compensation habitat. 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.2-14.) 

For the loss of Swainson’s hawk habitat, CDFG would require one acre for every 

acre permanently impacted by Avenal Energy. CDFG has agreed that impacts to 

Swainson’s hawk can be covered by land purchased for San Joaquin kit fox as 

long as the land is suitable for both species. For the loss of San Joaquin kit fox 

habitat, CDFG and USFWS would require 1.1 acres for every acre permanently 

impacted by Avenal Energy and 0.3 acre for every acre temporarily impacted. 

Preconstruction survey results will determine if any additional mitigation would be 

required to address impacts to active burrowing owl burrows. Condition of 

Certification BIO-12 (Burrowing Owl Impact Avoidance and Minimization 

Measures) will address mitigation in the event that burrowing owls are found 

within 500 feet of the project site or linear facilities. 

 

37 Ex. 1, Table 6.12-7, p. 6.12-24. 

226 
Biological Resources Table 4 

Habitat Compensation Acreage Required for the Avenal Energy Project 

Total Impacts 

(acres) 

Compensation 

Ratio 

Compensation 

Acres Required 

Permanent 

• Power plant 

• Transmission 

line towers 

Total: 

34.8 

1.2 

36.0 

1.1 to 1 39.6 

Temporary 

Onsite 

Offsite 

Total: 

 

39.3 

9.0 

48.3 

0.3 to 1 14.5 

TOTAL 84.3 acres 54.1 acres 

Source: Exhibit 83-2 from Avenal Power 2008f, Gilliland 2008 

The regulatory wildlife biologists involved in this case have agreed upon 

appropriate mitigation ratios. The Kern Water Bank (KWB) and the Kreyenhagen 

Hills Conservation Bank (KHCB) have both been deemed acceptable locations to 

secure the compensatory habitate of 54.1 acres as mitigation. Purchasing 

habitate at either of these banks would mitigate habitat impacts to a level that is 

less than significant. (7/7/09 RT 299.) 

The region’s protected species currently use the area along the San Luis Canal 

for a wildlife corridor. Therefore, providing open space through a wildlife corridor 

or setback from the canal is important to allow for wildlife movement. The 

Applicant has come to an agreement with Energy Commission, CDFG, and 

USFWS staff that project facilities will be set back 300 feet to maintain the 

existing wildlife corridor along the canal. Based on the evidence of record we 

have included Condition of Certification BIO-7 to implement the establishment 

and maintenance of the setback. With the establishment of the 300-foot setback 

and the habitat compensation, we conclude that the Avenal Energy Project will 

not have a significant impact on any sensitive biological resources. (7/7/09 RT 

332.) 

e. Storm Water and Wastewater Impacts 

Storm water drainage from the proposed project could contain pollutants that 

would affect the local water quality if not handled appropriately. Storm water that 

comes in contact with plant facilities that could have oil or other chemicals in the 

storm water would be routed through an oil/water separator and then collected to 

be recycled for plant operations. Clean storm water runoff would be collected onsite and drained into a retention basin where water would be allowed to 

227 
evaporate or percolate. Wastewater would be routed to a sanitary system 

connecting to an on-site septic tank and leach field. (Ex. 1)38. The Commission 

concludes that there would be no significant impacts to biological resources 

associated with the discharge of storm water and wastewater during operations. 

f. Cumulative impacts 

The other energy projects closest to Avenal Energy that could be considered to 

create a cumulative habitat loss with Avenal Energy would be the Panoche 

Energy Center (PEC) Project, Starwood Power-Midway Peaking (Starwood 

Midway) Project, and Great Valley Ethanol (GVE) Project. The PEC and 

Starwood Midway Projects are adjacent to each other and are both 

approximately 55 miles northwest of Avenal Energy. Both projects have 

compensated for their habitat losses by purchasing land credits in the 

Kreyenhagen Hills Mitigation Bank as required by the wildlife agencies and 

Energy Commission. The GVE Project is approximately 27 miles northwest and 

located within the Kings Industrial Park on property zoned for industrial use. 

The Avenal Energy Project site is located in the City of Avenal industrial zone on 

land currently farmed in field crops. The record establishes that the foraging 

opportunities for wildlife species are limited on row crop land and that the 

removal of this land from agriculture would not significantly affect the local 

common and special status species in the vicinity. (7/7/09 RT 299.) Due to the 

significant distances PEC, Starwood Midway, and GVE are from the Avenal 

Energy site, the lack of other new development in the City of Avenal industrial 

zone, the low urbanization pressures in the area, and the habitat compensation 

we have required for the Avenal Energy Project, its construction and operation 

would not significantly affect biological resources and therefore would not 

contribute to any significant cumulative impact concerns for habitat loss. (Ex. 

200, p. 4-2.18.) 

Intervenor Rob Simpson introduced no evidence regarding project impacts to 

biological resources. However, he did question the Staff’s witness as to the 

adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. (7/7/09 RT 326-331.) The 

witness explained that the mitigation for project impacts to biological resources, 

including noise-related impacts, is based on a comprehensive evaluation of the 

project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to biological resources. The 

 

38 The SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES section of this Decision contains more detailed 

information on storm water discharge, wastewater treatment, and permitting. 

228 
Commisson staff, in consultation with CDFG and USFWS biologists, agreed to 

apply mitigation ratios to the acreage disturbed. (7/7/089 RT 328.) The ratios 

are reflected in Condition of Certification BIO-9 and require the project owner to 

provide a total of 54.1 acres of habitat compensation to mitigate temporary and 

permanent project impacts to sensitive species. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-30.) Mr. 

Simpson also questioned the Staff witness about the potential impacts of projectrelated nitrogen deposition upon nearby plant species. Staff’s witness explained 

that given the soil and plant types in the project area, nitrogen deposition is 

unlikely to have a negative impact on plant life. (7/7/2009 RT 330 - 331) 

3. LORS Compliance 

The proposed Avenal Energy would not be located adjacent to any riparian 

habitat or sensitive natural communities, nor are there federally protected 

wetlands, including vernal pools or marsh habitats nearby. While there are 

possible vernal pools within the adjacent USBR right-of-way, these pools would 

not be impacted by Avenal Energy Project. The proposed project does not 

conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural 

Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or 

state habitat conservation plan because there are no applicable HCP’s or 

NCCP’s for this area. 

Avenal Energy would not require a state Incidental Take Permit (ITP), but would 

require a federal Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) take 

authorization. The Applicant has requested the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) consult with the USFWS under the Section 7 consultation process 

based upon Avenal Power’s request for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permit from EPA. If granted, the BO would include a Section 7 take authorization 

to address the impacts to the federally listed species associated with this project. 

(See Condition of Certification BIO-13.) 

The Staff biologist testified that the Commission staff biological analysis was 

closely coordinated with staff from both CDFG and USFWS. As a result, the 

record established that the Conditions of Certification reflected below are 

consistent with the requirements of the USFWS Draft Biological Opinion dated 

July 1, 2009. (7/7/09 RT 300; Ex. 204.) 

229 
FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the uncontroverted record of evidence, we find the following: 

1. The proposed Avenal Energy facilities would be permanently located on a 

34.8-acre portion of a 148-acre parcel of disturbed agricultural land. 

2. The proposed Avenal Energy Project will temporarily impact 39.3 acres onsite and 9.0 acres off-site. 

3. Avenal Energy Project impacts require habitat compensation of 39.6 acres for 

permanent impacts and 14.5 acres for temporary impacts or a total habitat 

compensation of 54.1 acres. 

4. The Avenal Energy Project power plant site is located in a portion of the City 

of Avenal which, since 1992, has been zoned for industrial uses. 

5. Direct impacts to biological resources onsite would be largely avoided 

because the proposed Avenal Energy site and laydown areas are currently 

being used for agriculture. 

6. The site provides limited habitat for protected wildlife species such as the 

state threatened and federal endangered San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes 

macrotis mutica) and state threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). 

In addition, there are wildlife movement corridors and foraging opportunities 

immediately adjacent to the site. 

7. The evidence contains an analysis of potential adverse impacts of the Avenal 

Energy Project upon biological resources, including special-status species, 

which may potentially be affected by project construction and operation. 

8. Potential direct impacts to special-status species in the surrounding area can 

be mitigated with implementation of the 300-foot setback from the USBR 

right-of-way, habitat compensation, Best Management Practices, and other 

impact minimization and avoidance measures set forth in the Conditions of 

Certification. 

9. The project owner will implement a construction mitigation management plan 

by educating workers on habitat protection, and designating a qualified 

biologist and biological monitors with authority to halt activities to avoid 

impacts to sensitive resources. 

10. The project owner will submit a Biological Resources Mitigation 

Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP) incorporating all biological 

230 
11. Transmission lines will be designed to reduce the risk of avian collisions and 

electrocutions. Nighttime lighting will be designed to avoid disruption to 

wildlife. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The project owner will implement appropriate avoidance and mitigation 

measures to prevent significant adverse impacts to all sensitive species. 

2. With implementation of the mitigation measures described in the evidentiary 

record and incorporated into the Conditions of Certification below, as well as 

those in other portions of this Decision, the Avenal Energy Project will not 

result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to biological 

resources. 

3. With implementation of the mitigation measures described in the evidentiary 

record and incorporated into the Conditions of Certification, the Avenal 

Energy Project will conform to all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, 

and standards related to biological resources as identified in the pertinent 

portion of Appendix A of this Decision. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

Designated Biologist Selection 

BIO-1 The project owner shall assign a Designated Biologist to the project. 

The project owner shall submit the resume of the proposed Designated 

Biologist, with at least three references and contact information to the 

Energy Commission Compliance Monitor (CPM) for approval. 

The Designated Biologist must at least meet the following minimum 

qualifications: 

1. Bachelor’s Degree in biological sciences, zoology, botany, ecology, 

or a closely related field; 

2. Three years of experience in field biology or current certification of 

a nationally recognized biological society, such as the Ecological 

Society of America or the Wildlife Society; and 

231 
3. At least one year of field experience with biological resources found 

in or near the project area. 

In lieu of the above requirements, the resume shall demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the CPM that the proposed Designated Biologist or 

alternate has the appropriate training and background to effectively 

implement the conditions of certification. 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the specified information at least 

90 days prior to the start of any site (or related facilities) mobilization. No site or 

site related facility activities shall commence until an approved Designated 

Biologist is available to be on site. 

If a Designated Biologist needs to be replaced, the specified information of the 

proposed replacement must be submitted to the CPM at least ten working days 

prior to the termination or release of the preceding Designated Biologist. In an 

emergency, the project owner shall immediately notify the CPM to discuss the 

qualifications and approval of a short-term replacement while a permanent 

Designated Biologist is proposed to the CPM for consideration. 

Designated Biologist Duties 

BIO-2 The project owner shall ensure that the Designated Biologist performs 

the following during any site (or related facilities) mobilization, ground 

disturbance, grading, construction, operation, and closure activities. 

The Designated Biologist may be assisted by the approved Biological 

Monitor(s), but remains the contact for the project owner and CPM. 

1. Advise the project owner’s Construction and Operation Managers 

on the implementation of biological resources Conditions of 

Certification; 

2. Consult on the preparation of the Biological Resource Mitigation 

Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP), to be submitted by 

the project owner; 

3. Be available to supervise, conduct and coordinate mitigation, 

monitoring, and other biological resources compliance efforts, 

particularly in areas requiring avoidance or containing sensitive 

biological resources such as special status species or their habitat; 

4. Clearly mark sensitive biological resource areas and inspect these 

areas at appropriate intervals for compliance with regulatory terms 

and conditions; 

5. Inspect active construction areas where animals may have become 

trapped prior to construction commencing each day. At the end of 

the day, inspect for installation of structures that prevent 

entrapment or allow escape during periods of construction 

232 
inactivity. Periodically inspect areas with high vehicle activity (i.e. 

parking lots) for animals in harm’s way; 

6. Notify project owner and CPM of any non-compliance with any 

biological resources Condition of Certification; 

7. Respond directly to inquires of the CPM regarding biological 

resource issues; 

8. Maintain written records of the tasks specified above and those 

included in the BRMIMP. Summaries of these records shall be 

submitted in the Monthly Compliance Report and the Annual 

Report; and 

9. Train the Biological Monitors as appropriate, and ensure their 

familiarity with the BRMIMP, Worker Environmental Awareness 

Program (WEAP) training and all permits. 

Verification: The Designated Biologist shall submit in the Monthly Compliance 

Report to the CPM copies of all written reports and summaries that document 

biological resources activities. If actions may affect biological resources during 

operation a Designated Biologist shall be available for monitoring and reporting. 

During project operation, the Designated Biologist shall submit record summaries 

in the Annual Compliance Report unless their duties are ceased as approved by 

the CPM. 

Biological Monitor Selection 

BIO-3 The project owner’s CPM-approved Designated Biologist shall submit 

the resume, at least three references and contact information for the 

proposed Biological Monitors to the CPM for approval. The resume 

shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CPM, the appropriate 

education and experience to accomplish the assigned biological 

resources tasks. 

Biological Monitor(s) training by the Designated Biologist shall include 

familiarity with the Conditions of Certification and the BRMIMP, WEAP, 

and all permits. 

Verification: The project owner shall submit the specified information to the 

CPM for approval at least 30 days prior to the start of any site (or related 

facilities) mobilization. The Designated Biologist shall submit a written statement 

to the CPM confirming that individual Biological Monitor(s) have been trained 

including the date when training was completed. If additional Biological Monitors 

are needed during construction, the specified information shall be submitted to 

the CPM for approval 10 days prior to their first day of monitoring activities. 

233 
Designated Biologist and Biological Monitor Authority 

BIO-4 The project owner’s Construction/Operation Manager(s) shall act on 

the advice of the Designated Biologist and Biological Monitor(s) to 

ensure conformance with the biological resources Conditions of 

Certification. If required by the Designated Biologist and Biological 

Monitor(s), the project owner’s Construction/ Operation Manager shall 

halt all site mobilization, ground disturbance, grading, construction, and 

operation activities in areas specified by the Designated Biologist. 

The Designated Biologist shall: 

1. Require a halt to all activities in any area when determined that 

there would be an unauthorized adverse impact to biological 

resources if the activities continued; 

2. Inform the project owner and the Construction/Operation Manager 

when to resume activities; and 

3. Notify the CPM if there is a halt of any activities, and advise the 

CPM of any corrective actions that have been taken, or will be 

instituted, as a result of the work stoppage. 

If the Designated Biologist is unavailable for direct consultation, the 

Biological Monitor shall act on behalf of the Designated Biologist. 

Verification: The project owner shall ensure that the Designated Biologist or 

Biological Monitor notifies the CPM immediately (and no later than the morning 

following the incident, or Monday morning in the case of a Friday or weekend 

incident) of any non-compliance or a halt of any site mobilization, ground 

disturbance, grading, construction, and operation activities. The project owner 

shall notify the CPM of the circumstances and actions being taken to resolve the 

problem. 

Whenever corrective action is taken by the project owner, a determination of 

success or failure will be made by the CPM within five working days after receipt 

of notice that corrective action is completed, or the project owner will be notified 

by the CPM that coordination with other agencies will require additional time 

before a determination can be made. 

Worker Environmental Awareness Program 

BIO-5 The project owner shall develop and implement a CPM approved 

Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) in which each of 

its employees, as well as employees of contractors and subcontractors 

who work on the project site or any related facilities during site 

mobilization, ground disturbance, grading, construction, operation and 

closure are informed about sensitive biological resources associated 

with the project. 

234 
The WEAP shall: 

1. Be developed by or in consultation with the Designated Biologist 

and consist of an on-site or training center presentation in which 

supporting written material and electronic media is made available 

to all participants; 

2. Discuss the locations and types of sensitive biological resources on 

the project site and adjacent areas; 

3. Present the reasons for protecting these resources; 

4. Present the meaning of various temporary and permanent habitat 

protection measures; 

5. Identify whom to contact if there are further comments and 

questions about the material discussed in the program; and 

6. Include a training acknowledgment form to be signed by each 

worker indicating that they received training and shall abide by the 

guidelines. 

The specific program can be administered by a competent 

individual(s) acceptable to the Designated Biologist. 

Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of any site (or related facilities) 

mobilization, the project owner shall provide to the CPM two (2) copies of the 

proposed WEAP and all supporting written materials and electronic media 

prepared or reviewed by the Designated Biologist and a resume of the person(s) 

administering the program. 

The project owner shall provide in the Monthly Compliance Report the number of 

persons who have completed the training in the prior month and a running total of 

all persons who have completed the training to date. At least 10 days prior to site 

and related facilities mobilization submit two copies of the CPM approved 

materials. 

The signed training acknowledgement forms from construction shall be kept on 

file by the project owner for a period of at least six months after the start of 

commercial operation. 

During project operation, signed statements for active project operational 

personnel shall be kept on file for six months following the termination of an 

individual's employment. 

Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan 

BIO-6 The project owner shall submit two copies of the proposed Biological 

Resources Mitigation Implementation and monitoring Plan (BRMIMP) 

to the CPM (for review and approval) and to USFWS (for review and 

235 
comment) and shall implement the measures identified in the approved 

BRMIMP. The BRMIMP shall be prepared in consultation with the 

Designated Biologist and shall identify: 

1. All biological resources mitigation, monitoring, and compliance 

measures proposed and agreed to by the project owner; 

2. All biological resources Conditions of Certification identified as 

necessary to avoid or mitigate impacts; 

3. All biological resources mitigation, monitoring, and compliance 

measures required in federal agency terms and conditions, such 

as those provided in the USFWS Biological Opinion; 

4. All biological resources mitigation, monitoring, and compliance 

measures required in local agency permits, such as site grading 

and landscaping requirements; 

5. All sensitive biological resources to be impacted, avoided, or 

mitigated by project construction, operation and closure; 

6. All required mitigation measures for each sensitive biological 

resource; 

7. Required habitat compensation strategy, including provisions for 

acquisition, enhancement, and management for any temporary 

and permanent loss of sensitive biological resources; 

8. A detailed description of measures that shall be taken to avoid or 

mitigate temporary disturbances from construction activities; 

9. All locations on a map, at an approved scale, of sensitive 

biological resource areas subject to disturbance and areas 

requiring temporary protection and avoidance during construction; 

10. Aerial photographs, at an approved scale, of all areas to be 

disturbed during project construction activities - one set prior to 

any site or related facilities mobilization disturbance and one set 

taken at the start of commercial operation (see BIO-14 for more 

detailed information regarding the aerial photographs taken at time 

of commercial operation); 

11. Duration for each type of monitoring and a description of 

monitoring methodologies and frequency; 

12. Performance standards to be used to help decide if/when 

proposed mitigation is or is not successful; 

236 
13. All performance standards and remedial measures to be 

implemented if performance standards are not met; 

14. A plan to return the site to agricultural production after 

construction; 

15. A process for proposing plan modifications to the CPM and 

appropriate agencies for review and approval; and 

16. A copy of all biological resources-related permits obtained. 

Verification: The project owner shall provide the specified document at least 

60 days prior to start of any site (or related facilities) mobilization. 

The CPM, in consultation with the USFWS and any other appropriate agencies, 

will determine the BRMIMP’s acceptability within 45 days of receipt. If there are 

any permits that have not yet been received when the BRMIMP is first submitted, 

these permits shall be submitted to the CPM and the USFWS within five days of 

their receipt and the BRMIMP shall be revised or supplemented to reflect the 

permit condition within 10 days of their receipt by the project owner. Ten days 

prior to site and related facilities mobilization the revised BRMIMP shall be 

resubmitted to the CPM. 

The project owner shall notify the CPM no less than five working days before 

implementing any modifications to the approved BRMIMP to obtain CPM 

approval. Any changes to the approved BRMIMP must also be approved by the 

CPM and submitted to the USFWS to ensure no conflicts exist. 

Implementation of BRMIMP measures will be reported in the Monthly 

Compliance Reports by the Designated Biologist (i.e. survey results, construction 

activities that were monitored, species observed). Within thirty (30) days after 

completion of project construction, the project owner shall provide to the CPM, 

for review and approval, a written construction closure report identifying which 

items of the BRMIMP have been completed, a summary of all modifications to 

mitigation measures made during the project's site mobilization, ground 

disturbance, grading, and construction phases, and which mitigation and 

monitoring items are still outstanding. 

Impact Avoidance Mitigation measures 

BIO-7 Any time the project owner modifies or finalizes the project design they 

shall incorporate all feasible measures that avoid or minimize impacts 

to the local biological resources, including: 

1. Design, install, and maintain transmission line poles, access roads, 

pulling sites, and storage and parking areas to avoid identified 

sensitive resources; 

237 
2. Eliminate any California Exotic Pest Plants of Concern (CalEPPC) 

List A species from landscaping plans; 

3. Establish a plan to return the site to agricultural production after 

construction; 

4. Prescribe a road sealant that is non-toxic to wildlife and plants that 

will limit dust on dirt roads; 

5. Design, install, and maintain facility lighting to prevent side casting 

of light towards wildlife habitat; 

6. Establish the 300-foot setback zone between the proposed project 

security fence and the Bureau of Reclamation’s San Luis Canal 

right-of-way. This is intended to minimize effects of the proposed 

project on San Joaquin kit fox use of the Canal. The applicant has 

proposed to manage the area between the security fence and the 

canal as follows: 

A. Mow one to four times each spring, March to May during the 

grasses peak growing season, to maintain the height of the 

grass between four and ten inches. 

B. Monitor once every two weeks from March 1 to May 31 to 

determine if mowing is needed to meet the grassland height 

criteria. 

C. If the grassland vegetation is succeeded by a native San 

Joaquin Valley vegetation community, such as valley saltbrush 

scrub, no mowing will occur. 

D. Ground or vegetation disturbing activities outside of mowing 

would be prohibited within the buffer zone. 

E. Trash removal would be conducted every three months in the 

buffer zone. 

F. Human activities not associated with maintaining suitable 

habitat for San Joaquin kit fox would be prohibited within the 

buffer zone. 

G. Night lighting within the buffer zone would be prohibited or 

minimized to the necessary level for security purposes. 

H. The perimeter fence would be constructed to be wildlife 

compatible, which would allow for unobstructed and 

unhampered movement through the fence. The internal security 

238 
7. Install a wildlife compatible perimeter fence to allow for 

unobstructed and unhampered wildlife movement through the 

fence; and 

8. Do not exceed a 25-foot wide disturbance corridor for water and 

natural gas pipeline installation and 3,600 square foot area of 

temporary disturbance for transmission tower installation as stated 

in Exhibit 83-2 (Avenal Power 2008f). 

Verification: All mitigation measures and their implementation methods shall 

be included in the BRMIMP. Implementation of the measures shall be reported in 

the Monthly Compliance Reports by the Designated Biologist. Within thirty (30) 

days after completion of project construction, the project owner shall provide to 

the CPM, for review and approval, a written construction termination report 

describing how measures for the setback have been completed. 

Mitigation Management to avoid Harassment or Harm 

BIO-8 The project owner shall implement the following measures (Some of 

the following measures were adopted from USFWS Standardized 

Recommendations for Protection of SJKF Prior to or During Ground 

Disturbance, 1999) to manage their construction site, and related 

facilities, in a manner to avoid or minimize impacts to the local 

biological resources. 

1. Install temporary fencing and provide wildlife escape ramps for 

construction areas that contain steep walled holes or trenches if 

outside of an approved, permanent exclusionary fence. The 

temporary fence shall be hardware cloth or similar materials that 

are approved by USFWS. Before such holes or trenches are filled, 

they should be thoroughly inspected for trapped animals by the 

Designated Biologist or Biological Monitor; 

2. Make certain all food-related trash is disposed of in closed 

containers and removed at least once a week from the project site; 

3. Prohibit feeding of wildlife by staff and subcontractors; 

4. Prohibit non-security related firearms or weapons from being 

brought to the site; 

5. Prohibit pets from being brought to the site; 

6. Report all inadvertent deaths of special-status species to the 

appropriate project representative. Injured animals shall be 

reported to CDFG and the project owner shall follow instructions 

239 
that are provided by CDFG. The Sacramento USFWS Office shall 

be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental 

death or injury to a San Joaquin kit fox during project related 

activities. Contact USFWS and CDFG for specific notification 

procedures; 

7. Use of rodenticides and pesticides in the project areas will be 

restricted. This is necessary to prevent primary or secondary 

poisoning of kit foxes and the depletion of prey populations on 

which it depends. All uses of such compounds should observe 

label and other restrictions mandated by the EPA, California 

Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal 

legislation, as well as additional project-related restrictions 

deemed necessary by the USF WS. 

8. Project-related vehicles shall observe a 20-mph speed limit in all 

project areas, except on county roads and State and Federal 

highways; this is particularly important at night when kit foxes are 

most active. Off-road traffic outside of designated project areas is 

prohibited. 

9. Fence areas with sensitive species and habitat such as the USBR 

right-of-way, the soil berms to the south of the site, and areas of 

nesting tricolored and yellow-headed blackbirds to 250 feet from 

nearest active nest between mid-March through August; 

10. Design transmission line poles, access roads, pulling sites, and 

storage and parking areas to avoid identified sensitive resources; 

11. Establish a 300-foot minimum buffer/avoidance zone measured 

from the edge of the USBR right-of-way to any project related 

buildings, other structures, impervious surfaces, outdoor activity 

areas and ornamental landscaped areas to minimize potential 

disturbance to the San Joaquin kit fox and other sensitive species; 

12. Design and construct transmission lines and all electrical 

components to reduce the likelihood of electrocutions of large 

birds; and 

13. Use hooded lights on the project facilities and face lights 

downward and away from the San Luis Canal. 

Verification: All mitigation measures and their implementation methods shall 

be included in the BRMIMP. Implementation of the measures shall be reported in 

the Monthly Compliance Reports by the Designated Biologist. Within thirty (30) 

days after completion of project construction, the project owner shall provide to 

the CPM, for review and approval, a written construction termination report 

240 
describing how all biological resource-related mitigation measures have been 

completed. 

Habitat Compensation 

BIO-9 The project owner shall provide 54.1 acres of habitat compensation for 

temporary and permanent impacts to San Joaquin kit fox and 

Swainson’s hawk habitat. The compensation ratios agreed upon are 

1.1:1 ratio for permanent impacts and 0.3:1 ratio for temporary 

impacts. The same mitigation lands may be used for both species 

provided that it is suitable habitat for both species. 

Verification: No less than 30 days prior to the start of any site or related 

facilities mobilization activities, the project owner shall submit written verification 

to the CPM, USFWS, and CDFG that the transaction for habitat compensation 

has occurred. 

Compliance With Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Guidelines 

BIO-10 The project owner shall design, install, and maintain transmission lines 

and all electrical components in accordance with the Avian Power Line 

Interaction Committee, Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on 

Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006, to reduce the likelihood of 

electrocutions of large birds. 

Verification: Within 30 days of transmission line construction, the project 

owner shall submit written and photographic verification to the CPM that the 

transmission line has been constructed to APLIC guideline specifications. 

Pre-construction Surveys 

BIO-11 The Designated Biologist shall survey for the presence of sensitive 

species and nesting birds on the 148-acre proposed project site and 

within 500 feet of the site and project linear facilities. Preconstruction 

surveys shall follow USFWS Standardized Recommendations for 

Protection of the San Joaquin Kit Fox Prior to or During Ground 

Disturbance (USFWS1999) and California Burrowing Owl Consortium 

Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. 

Verification: At least 14 days prior to the expected start of any project-related 

site or related facilities mobilization, the project owner shall provide the CPM, 

USFWS, and CDFG with the survey results and identify any mitigation measures 

to be employed in consultation with the CPM, USFWS, and CDFG. 

Burrowing Owl Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

BIO-12 If burrowing owls are found during preconstruction surveys within 500 

feet of the project site or linear facilities, then the CDFG burrowing owl 

guidelines (1995) shall be implemented as follows: 

1. Monitor burrowing owl pairs within 500 feet of any activities that 

exceed ambient noise and/or vibration levels; 

241 
2. Establish a 500-foot setback from any active burrow and construct 

additional noise/visual barriers (e.g., haystacks or plywood fencing) 

to shield the active burrow from construction activities. Post signs 

(in both English and Spanish) designating presence of sensitive 

area; 

3. Passively relocate all owls occupying burrows that will be 

temporarily or permanently impacted by the project and implement 

the following CDFG take avoidance measures: 

A. Occupied burrows shall not be disturbed during the nesting 

season (February 1 – August 31) unless a qualified biologist can 

verify through non-invasive methods that egg laying/incubation 

has not begun or juveniles are foraging independently and able 

to fly; 

B. A qualified biologist must relocate owls, confirm that owls have 

left burrows prior to ground-disturbing activities, and monitor the 

burrows. Once evacuation is confirmed, the biologist should 

hand excavate burrows and then fill burrows to prevent 

reoccupation; and 

C. Relocation of owls shall be approved by and conducted in 

consultation with CDFG. 

4. Submit a Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to CDFG 

for review and approval prior to relocation of owls (and incorporate 

it into the project’s BRMIMP) to CDFG and CPM for approval no 

less than 10 days prior to completing owl relocation and monitoring. 

Verification: The project owner shall submit a report to CDFG and the CPM at 

least 14 days prior to the start of site mobilization that describes when surveys 

were completed, observations, mitigation measures, and the results of the 

measures. If owls are to be relocated, the project owner shall coordinate with 

CDFG on the number of new burrows, their locations, and how any created 

burrows and compensation land will be protected for the life of the project in a 

Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Within 30 days after completion of 

owl relocation and monitoring, and the start of ground disturbance, the project 

owner shall provide written verification to the CDFG and CPM that burrowing owl 

mitigation measures have been completed. 

Federal Biological Opinion 

BIO-13 The project owner shall provide a copy of the Biological Opinion per 

Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act written by the U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in consultation with U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. The terms and conditions contained in the 

Biological Opinion shall be incorporated into the project’s BRMIMP and 

implemented by the project owner. 

242 
243 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of any site or related facilities 

mobilization activities, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the U. 

S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion and verification that the terms 

and conditions contained in the Biological Opinion are included in the BRMIMP. 

Aerial Photographs 

BIO-14 The project owner shall provide aerial photographs of the Avenal 

Energy site and out 1000 feet surrounding the site, taken at the start of 

the Avenal Energy power plant operation at a scale of one inch equals 

100 feet. The aerial photographs will be used to determine the actual 

area impacted by the project and can be used to determine if any 

additional habitat compensation is appropriate. 

Verification: Within 30 days following the start of power plant commercial 

operation, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the aerial 

photographs and actual area impacted calculations. Also, the project owner will 

provide an analysis of whether or not additional habitat compensation is 

necessary to compensate for additional temporary and permanent impacts and, if 

additional habitat compensation is necessary, how the additional impacts will be 

mitigated. 
B. SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES 

This section focuses on the soil and water resources associated with the Avenal 

Energy Project, including the project’s potential to induce erosion and 

sedimentation, adversely affect water supplies, and degrade water quality. The 

analysis also considers site contamination and any potential cumulative impacts 

to water quality in the vicinity of the project. Mitigation measures are included in 

the Conditions of Certification to ensure that the project will have no significant 

impacts on the environment and that it will comply with all LORS. (Exs. 1, 3, 6, 7, 

14, 17, 19, 21, 25, 56, 59, 200; 07/07/09 RT 446:7-25.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Soil Resources 

The Avenal Energy Project is a 600 megawatt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined 

cycle electric generating facility. The project will incorporate technologies such as 

dry cooling, Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD), dry NOx reduction and closed loop inlet 

air chillers to minimize water use. The proposed site location is within the Westside 

Groundwater Basin on the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley in Kings 

County, California, about six miles northeast of the City of Avenal. The site lies 

approximately two miles east of Interstate 5 and adjacent to the right bank of the 

State Water Project’s San Luis Canal. All lands adjacent to the power plant site 

are currently open farmland except for the water treatment facility which is owned 

and operated by the City of Avenal. The water treatment facility is located at the 

northeast corner of the site and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) right of 

way for the San Luis Canal located along the eastern side of the site. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.9-4.) 

Currently, the project site is a wheat field. The site has been extensively graded, 

tilled, planted and farmed for over 40 years. Power plant site development will 

include construction of the power block, office buildings, parking areas and a 

stormwater retention basin. The soil at the power plant site consists of Wasco 

sandy loam. Wasco sandy loam is very deep, well-drained soil formed on alluvial 

fans and derived primarily from sandstone. The soil has moderately rapid 

permeability and good drainage. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-4.) 

The transmission line corridor will traverse areas designated as Prime Farmland 

and Williamson Act contract lands near and north of Avenal Cutoff Road. The 

transmission line will follow an existing PG&E regional transmission line corridor, 

thereby minimizing conflict with ongoing agricultural operations. (Ex. 1, p. 6.4-8.) 

244 
Three soils (Westhaven Loam, Kimberlina Sandy Loam, and Wasco Sandy 

Loam), occupy the area traversed by the transmission line corridor. The southern 

portion of the transmission line corridor near the Avenal Energy Project site is 

underlain by Wasco Sandy Loam soils. The Westhaven Loam is located at the 

northern end of the transmission corridor near the Gates Substation. The 

Westhaven Loam is a very deep, well drained soil found on alluvial fans, formed in 

alluvium derived predominantly from calcareous sedimentary rock. The 

Kimberlina Sandy Loam is located along the transmission line corridor between 

the Westhaven Sandy Loam and the Wasco Sandy Loam. The Kimberlina Sandy 

Loam is a very deep, well drained soil with moderately rapid permeability found on 

floodplains and recent alluvial fans. The characteristics of the Wasco Sandy 

Loam are discussed above. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-4.) 

The water line routes traverse Milham Sandy Loam and Wasco Sandy Loam soils. 

The Milham Sandy Loam is restricted to a small area adjacent to the San Luis 

canal. The remaining water line routes traverse areas underlain by Wasco Sandy 

Loam. Additional soil characteristic data can be found in Table 6.2-3 of the 

Application for Certification (AFC). (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-4 to 4.9-5.) 

Construction activities can lead to adverse impacts to soil resources including 

increased soil erosion, soil compaction, loss of soil productivity, and disturbance 

of soils crucial for supporting vegetation or wetlands. Activities that expose and 

disturb the soil leave soil particles vulnerable to detachment by wind and water. 

Soil erosion results in the loss of topsoil and increased sediment loading to nearby 

receiving waters or sewer systems. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-10.) 

Construction of the Avenal Energy Project will permanently disturb approximately 

34.8 acres on-site and 1.2 acres off-site. During construction, there will be 

additional temporary disturbance of approximately 39.3 acres on-site and nine 

acres off-site. According to the AFC, it will take a 27-month period to complete 

project construction. (Ex. 1, p. 2-46.) The earth work will consist of primarily cut 

and fill grading with excavation for foundations and underground systems. (Ex. 1, 

p. 2-48.) The record indicates that temporary construction disturbance at any 

specific location will last no more than 24 months. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-10 to 4.9-11.) 

The waterline interconnections to the existing groundwater wells that will be used 

for power plant back up water supply will traverse Prime Farmlands and 

Williamson Act contract lands. The water line routes generally follow the edges of 

fields outside of the areas typically planted for agriculture; therefore, their affect on 

farm land or farming operations will be negligible. Similarly, the natural gas 

245 
pipeline that will supply fuel to the power plant will be buried along existing roads 

and only cross Prime Farmland and Williamson Act lands for a short distance near 

the northwest corner of the site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-11.) 

In general, soils of the project site are highly permeable and have low to moderate 

water erosion potential. However, the coarse texture of the soils causes them to 

be highly vulnerable to wind erosion, during construction and operation. The 

implementation of appropriate erosion control measures will help conserve soil 

resources, maintain water quality, prevent accelerated soil loss, and protect air 

quality. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-11.) 

The erosion and sedimentation control measures for the construction phase of 

project development include but are not limited to: wetting the roads in active 

construction and laydown areas; controlling speed on unpaved surfaces; placing 

gravel in entrance ways; use of straw bales, silt fences, and earthen berms to 

control runoff. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-11.) 

During operations, the Power Block area will be covered predominantly with 

gravel (about 70 percent) and landscaping, serving to prevent wind and water 

erosion while maintaining a high degree of the pre-project water infiltration 

capacity into the soil. The balance of the Power Block area (30 percent) will be 

covered by foundations and paving. The Sediment/Storm Water Retention 

Facility will offset the loss of permeable surface area by attenuating storm water 

discharges and promoting water infiltration into the soil. Condition of Certification 

SOIL & WATER-3 (which requires implementation of an operation Stormwater 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) fully mitigates any impacts to soil resources 

that may arise during operation of the Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-14.) 

2. Surface Hydrology, Erosion, Storm Water Management, and Flooding 

Several ephemeral streams descend the Kettleman Hills to the west of the site 

and one terminates in the site vicinity. The stream closest to the site is Arroyo 

Largo which terminates approximately 1.5 miles west of the site. There is no 

visible evidence of its channel to the east of its terminus. However, a 100-year 

flood zone has been mapped along its reach, extending approximately 1.5 miles 

to the northeast of its visible terminus. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-7.) 

The other surface water body in the site vicinity is the San Luis Canal. The San 

Luis Canal is located approximately 200 feet northeast of the project site and 

supplies water to the City of Avenal and to other central and southern California 

246 
users. A 100- year flood zone has been mapped along both sides of the canal. 

The western edge of the mapped zone encroaches upon the northeastern corner 

of the project site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-7.) 

Potentially significant water quality impacts could occur during construction, 

excavation, and grading activities if contaminated or hazardous soil or other 

materials used during construction were to contact storm water runoff and drain 

off-site. Water quality could also be potentially diminished if the storm water 

drainage pattern concentrates runoff in areas that are not properly protected with 

Best Management Practices (BMPs), causing erosion of soils and sediment 

discharge off-site and possibly into surface waters. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-12.) 

During construction, the laydown and parking/staging areas will be graded to 

generally drain from southwest to northeast by means of sheet flow to intercept 

trenches that will convey collected storm water to the storm water holding basin. 

The Power Block area will be graded to create a ridgeline through the center of 

the Block causing sheet flow to be directed to the northwest and southeast where 

it will be intercepted by perimeter intercept trenches. Following settlement of 

suspended sediments and attenuation of peak flows, storm water will discharge 

into an existing depression immediately east of the storm water holding basin. 

Several factors contribute to the significant potential for water erosion effects, 

including the high volume of earth displacement, a long duration for construction, 

and soil properties that have a low to moderate potential for water erosion. The 

Applicant recognizes that construction of the Avenal Energy Project will add 

impervious areas to the site causing an increase in storm water runoff, and has 

proposed drainage and erosion control measures. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-12.) 

Storm water falling within the plant boundary, outside of potentially contaminated 

areas, will be collected in a gravity drainage system and routed to the storm water 

evaporation/percolation basin. The evaporation/percolation basin is designed to 

capture runoff generated at the site following two back to back 100-year, 24-hour 

storms. Percolation rates are expected to range between two to six inches per 

hour. On the basis of two inches per hour, the water surface in the basin will 

recede approximately 48 inches in a 24 hour period. The basin will be 

constructed with a spillway on the eastern (down slope) side. The spillway will 

allow collected water in excess of the design storm to escape the basin and flow 

into a naturally occurring depression adjacent to the west levee of the San Luis 

Canal. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-12.) 

247 
Storm water falling onto the relatively small areas containing equipment items that 

could be a source of contamination will be collected in a segregated drainage 

system and routed to an oily water sump. The oily water collected in the sump will 

be treated in an oil/water separator. Clear water will be returned to the plant clear 

water sump for recycling and the separated oil will be collected and sent to an 

offsite treatment facility. During grading work, soil will be stabilized by maintaining 

sufficient water content to make it resistant to erosion by wind and water. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.9-12.) 

Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-1 ensures compliance with State and 

Federal LORS. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), in 

implementing federal law, will require the preparation and implementation of a 

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activity for the 

Avenal Energy Project. Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-2 requires 

Avenal Energy to prepare a Final Drainage, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan 

(DESCP) for construction to assure BMPs are implemented. The DESCP must 

include measures for properly storing and containing hazardous materials used, 

and hazardous waste generated, during the course of construction. Through the 

proper application of BMPs, the impact to soil and water resources from storm 

water drainage during construction will be reduced to a level that is less than 

significant. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-12 to 4.9-13.) 

During operations, runoff from the Avenal Energy Project site will, in the absence 

of mitigation, exceed pre-development runoff due to the increase of impervious 

areas in proportion to the overall site. As a result, Avenal Energy will design the 

drainage features for the site in accordance with the SWRCB National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permits for management of 

storm water during both the construction and operations phases of the project. 

Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-1, 2, and 3 will ensure compliance with 

State and Federal LORS. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-13 to 4.9-14.) 

The 25-acre Power Block will be gently sloped and surfaced with equipment and 

foundations, paving, gravel and landscaping. Non-contact areas of the Power 

Block (where there is no potential for contamination from hazardous materials) will 

be graded to drain to the northwest and southeast by means of sheet flow away 

from equipment foundations and into swales, inlets and/or storm sewer pipes 

along the perimeter of the Power Block. At the north and south sides of the 

Power Block, the runoff will be conveyed eastward by ditches and culverts into the 

Sediment/Stormwater Retention Facility. Following settlement of suspended 

sediments and attenuation of peak flows, storm water will either infiltrate into the 

248 
ground, evaporate, or in the case of runoff exceeding design flow, discharge into 

an existing depression immediately east of the site. During operation, the 

capacity of the Sediment/Stormwater Retention Facility will be maintained by 

performing sediment removal as needed. Contact areas (in the vicinity of oil-filled 

transformers and hazardous materials storage) will drain into a separate collection 

system and be conveyed through an oil-water separator before it is conveyed to 

the cooling tower for reuse. Secondary containment structures will be built around 

the oil-filled equipment and hazardous materials to prevent dispersion in case of a 

spill. Solid wastes and small amounts of hazardous waste that are generated will 

be properly accounted for, tracked, handled, and disposed of off-site using 

licensed transporters and disposal facilities. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-15.) 

A 100-year flood zone has been mapped along both sides of the San Luis Canal. 

The western edge of the mapped zone encroaches upon the northeastern corner 

of the project property, however, no structures or other project facilities are 

planned for this area. Therefore, construction of the project will neither be 

impacted nor cause impacts resulting from the occurrence of the 100 year flood. 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.9-13.) 

3. Water Resources and Supply 

During operation, the Avenal Energy Project is estimated to require a maximum 

annual supply of 104 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water for process use (101 AFY), 

domestic use (1 AFY), and landscape irrigation (2 AFY). This water will be 

supplied to the project from the City of Avenal’s water treatment facility which 

obtains untreated surface water from the adjacent San Luis Canal. The San Luis 

Canal is operated as part of the Central Valley Project (CVP) by the Bureau of 

Reclamation and delivers water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. (Ex. 

200, pgs. 4.9-7 to 4.9-8) 

The City of Avenal has a contract with the USBR that allocates 3,500 AFY to the 

City of Avenal. The City of Avenal’s water use is roughly split between the Avenal 

State Prison and the City. While the City’s use is relatively predictable, the prison’s 

use is highly variable. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-7 to 4.9-8.) Historically, the City of 

Avenal has not drawn their full contracted allocation from the canal. Over the past 

10 years, it has drawn an average of 75 percent of their 3,500 AFY allocation. 

(Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-16.) 

The project will rely on three sources of water for project operations. Untreated 

raw surface water obtained from the City of Avenal’s water treatment plant will be 

249 
the primary water supply for all of the project’s process water demands. Water for 

domestic use will be provided from the City of Avenal’s potable water supply. The 

project will also rely on pumped groundwater for the process backup water supply. 

The project’s potential effects on these three water supplies are evaluated below. 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.9-15.) 

Daily water demand during construction will average approximately 8,000 gallons 

per day for dust control, soil compaction, and other needs. The estimated volume 

of water needed for construction is approximately 20 acre feet. A sufficient supply 

of untreated surface water is available to meet the construction water demand, 

and has been approved for delivery to the project from the City of Avenal. The 

construction period will last an estimated 27 months. There will not be significant 

adverse environmental impacts associated with water use during project 

construction. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-13.) 

Potable water demands during construction will be minimal. The Avenal Energy 

Project proposes to use bottled water to supply drinking water for the construction 

workforce. Portable facilities will be used for sanitary needs and operate without 

water. Therefore, there will not be significant adverse environmental impacts 

associated with potable water use during project construction. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-

13.) 

Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during plant or linear feature 

excavation activities. If any groundwater is encountered during construction, the 

water will be collected and discharged to the on-site storm water 

evaporation/percolation basin. The evidence shows that the likelihood of 

encountering useable groundwater during construction is remote, and based on 

the project’s dewatering operations, no impacts to groundwater resources will 

occur during construction of the Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-13.) 

a. Surface Water 

The City of Avenal obtains fresh, untreated surface water through a turn out on the 

CVP’s San Luis Canal. The surface water is pumped to the treatment plant 

located adjacent to the canal for treatment by filtration and chlorination prior to 

delivery to the City of Avenal and Avenal State Prison. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-16.) 

The maximum monthly consumptive water use for the Avenal Energy Project 

operation is estimated to be less than 8.7 AF. Surface water storage at the site is 

sufficient for several days of power plant operation, thereby increasing the 

250 
likelihood that even during periods when canal deliveries to the City of Avenal are 

reduced; there will be an adequate supply of water available for power plant 

operation. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-16.) 

The City of Avenal has the ability and has agreed to provide untreated surface 

water to Avenal Energy for power plant process needs (Ex. 1, App. 6.5-3.). The 

Avenal Energy Project will treat (filter) the surface water on-site to a quality 

necessary for process needs. The Applicant estimates its maximum water use for 

plant operations will be 104 AFY which will increase the City of Avenal’s draw from 

the San Luis Canal by 3.9 percent. The increase in the City of Avenal’s current 

draw from the San Luis Canal due to power plant operation is minor and the power 

plant’s contribution to reduction in available surface water for other users will also 

be minor. Even with the increased draw from the canal, based on historic draws 

by the City of Avenal, the City would still draw less than their 3,500 AFY allocation. 

The record does not identify any potential for the degradation of surface water or 

groundwater caused by project use of untreated surface water. Therefore, the 

project use of CVP water will not cause significant impacts to either surface water 

or groundwater resources. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-16 to 4.9-17.) 

The record also shows that the project’s use of surface water will cause no impact 

to the regional water supply. Nevertheless, to ensure that water use will not 

exceed the amount evaluated and permitted by the Energy Commission, 

Conditions of Certification SOIL & WATER-4 and -5, establish the project’s annual 

water-use limits and specify requirements for the metering and reporting of water 

use. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-17.) 

b. Domestic Water 

The Avenal Energy Project will be plumbed to distribute potable water obtained 

from the City of Avenal’s potable water supply. The City of Avenal’s potable water 

supply comes from the San Luis Canal and is treated at the City of Avenal’s Water 

Treatment Plant to be distributed to the City of Avenal’s water supply system. The 

City of Avenal has the ability and has agreed to provide up to 10 acre-feet per year 

of potable water to Avenal Energy for domestic use. The project’s use of surface 

water for domestic needs is minimal (1 AFY maximum) and will cause no impact to 

the local or regional water supply. Again, to ensure that water use will not exceed 

the amount evaluated and permitted by the Energy Commission, Conditions of 

Certification SOIL & WATER-4 and -5 establish the project’s annual water-use 

limit and specifies requirements for the metering and reporting of water use. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.9-17.) 

251 
c. Groundwater 

The maximum monthly consumptive water use for the Avenal Energy power plant 

operation is estimated to be less than 8.7 AF/month. Avenal Energy expects that, 

if the backup water supply is ever needed, it will be for a relatively short duration 

(less than a month). Groundwater will be pumped from neighboring agricultural 

wells and piped to the facility if a backup water supply is needed. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-

17.) 

The record contains analyses of groundwater withdrawal vs. groundwater surface 

elevation changes within the Westside Sub-basin over the last 30 years. The 

increasing water levels and related estimated increase in storage indicate the use 

of 8.7 AF/month will not have a substantial effect on groundwater supplies and 

recharge in the basin. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-17 to 4.9-20.) 

The record reflects that Kochergen Farms installed drip irrigation systems and 

microsprinklers on almond orchards in the immediate vicinity of the Avenal Energy 

Project site shortly after Kochergen Farms received payment of option agreement 

funds from the Applicant in association with the Water Supply Agreement between 

the Applicant and Kochergen Farms. The record shows that this water 

conservation method is saving approximately 0.50 acre-foot per acre annually 

over approximately 280 acres of Kochergen Farms property, or 140 acre-feet of 

water per year. In addition, the project will permanently remove approximately 

34.8 acres of land from irrigation at the site. Taken together, these measures 

save more water each year than the project will use, even when compared to a 

maximum use scenario (104 AFY), and will result in a net reduction in 

groundwater pumping from the specified wells. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-20.) 

We find that the limited use of groundwater for emergency backup of process 

needs will not result in substantial depletion or degradation of groundwater 

resources or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. To ensure that 

groundwater use is consistent with the amount evaluated, Condition of 

Certification SOIL & WATER-4 requires metering and reporting of water use. 

Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-5 ensures that use of the water will be 

secured and imposes caps on water use so there will be no significant impacts to 

water resources during operation of the Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-

20.) 

Summaries of the Avenal Energy Project water use are provided below in Soil 

and Water Table 1. 

252 
Soil and Water Table 1 

Avenal’s Annual Water Demands 

Water Use 

Maximum 

Annual 

Use (AFY) 

(1) 

Average Annual 

Use (AFY) (2, 3) 

Maximum Daily Use 

(gpm) (4) 

Average Daily Use 

(gpm) (3,5) 

Process Water 101 15 66 9.6 

Operational 

Workforce 

1 1 1 0.9 

Landscape 

Irrigation 2 2 1 0.9 

Contingency 

(10%) ----- 2 ------ 1.2 

Total Power 

Plant Use 104 20 68 12.4 

(1) The basis for Maximum Annual Use is the Maximum Daily Use flow rate (67.9 gpm) for 8,322 hours. 

(2) Annual Use requirements are estimated from weighted daily requirements and plant operations at expected load 

conditions based on continuous plant consumption at average annual operating conditions of 63°F and 53 percent relative 

humidity unfired, using a capacity factor of 80 percent, 8,000 hours per year of plant availability, 2,000 hours per year of 

duct firing, and the ZLDF plant in operation. Both CTG inlet air mechanical chillers are in service. 

(3) Includes credit for recycled high purity distillate from ZLDF, lowering raw water makeup and providing demineralized 

water makeup demand as outlined in the water balance diagram and water balances. Water usage for high ambient cases 

is also offset by water condensed by the inlet air chillers. 

(4) Maximum Daily Use requirements are based on water consumption at average ambient operating conditions of 63°F 

and 53 percent relative humidity. Both CTG inlet air mechanical chillers are in service with supplemental duct firing in the 

HRSGs. The ZLDF plant is down for this case. 

(5) Average Daily Use requirements are the Annual Use requirements converted to an average daily value. 

(Ex. 1, p. 2-17.)

 

At the evidentiary hearing, Intervenor, CPRE, raised the issue of whether an 

analysis of the Avenal Energy Project pursuant to Water Code section 10910 was 

necessary [7/7/09 RT 439:15 through 445:23]. Water Code section 10910 

requires a city or county reviewing a project, as defined by Water Code section 

10912, to perform a water supply and demand assessment. However, the Avenal 

Energy Project does not meet any of the parameters for a qualifying project. 

Specifically, Water Code section 10912 defines project as a “proposed industrial, 

manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 

1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 

650,000 square feet of floor area.” [Water Code §10912(a)(5).] The evidence 

indicates that the Avenal Energy project will have only 25 full-time employees, 

occupy only 34 acres, and have only 98,400 square feet of floor space. (Ex. 200, 

p. 4.8-2, 3-2; Ex. 1, Figure 2.3-3 and Appendix 2-2, Figure B-13.) 

253 
Further, Water Code section 10912 also defines project as a “project that would 

demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water 

required by a 500 dwelling unit project.” [Water Code §10912(a)(7).] 

The guidelines developed by the Department of Water Resources to aid agencies 

in interpreting the requirements of this Water Code provision state that “one 

dwelling unit typically consumes 0.3 to 0.5 acre-feet of water per year.” 

(Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to 

assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use 

planning, Department of Water Resources, October 8, 2003, p. 3.) Taking the 

smallest predicted use of 0.3 acre feet per dwelling, a water use equivalent to a 

500 unit dwelling would be 150 acre feet of water per year. The evidence 

established that Avenal Energy will only use 104 acre feet of water per year at 

maximum. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-7.) Therefore, Avenal Energy will not trigger the water 

supply and demand assessment described in Water Code § 10910. 

4. Wastewater 

During project construction, hydrostatic testing of pipelines and pressure vessels 

will require up to 85,000 gallons of water per day. It is estimated that a total of 

300,000 gallons of water will be used for testing purposes. After use, this water 

will be stored in portable tanks and tested. Once the testing confirms that the 

water is not impacted, it will be released to the storm water basin for disposal 

through evaporation. If the testing indicates that the water is not suitable for 

evaporation/infiltration in the storm water collection basin, it will be disposed of at 

an appropriate facility. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-14.) 

During operations, Avenal Energy proposes two separate wastewater-collection 

systems. The first is the process wastewater system, which collects all 

wastewater generated from operation of the plant and delivers it to the zero liquid 

discharge (ZLD) system. The ZLD system will recover about 90 percent of the 

wastewater for reuse by the Avenal Energy Project, and will concentrate the solids 

into a salt cake for disposal at a local Class III landfill. Power plant discharges 

consisting of leakage and drainage from facility containment areas will be 

collected in a system of floor drains, sumps, and pipes within the Avenal Energy 

Project and discharged to an oil/water separator. The oil-free water will be reused 

in the power production cycle. Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-6 will 

ensure the ZLD system operates efficiently and the production of wastewater is 

minimal (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-20 to 4.9-21.) 

254 
The second wastewater-collection system is the sanitary system. The sanitary 

system will collect wastewater from sinks, toilets, and other sanitary facilities for 

discharge to an on-site wastewater disposal system consisting of septic tank and 

associated leach lines. Condition of certification SOIL & WATER-7 will ensure no 

significant water or soil related impacts will result from sanitary wastewater 

disposal. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-21.) 

The record indicates that there is no evidence of past or present hazardous 

substance use, storage, or disposal on the property. There is also no indication 

that contaminated groundwater is present beneath the Avenal Energy Project site. 

Nevertheless, a soil sampling program will be required in the WASTE 

MANAGEMENT section of this Decision to address any potential for impacts to 

workers from any possible residual agricultural chemicals that may remain at the 

site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-21.) 

5. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation 

A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact where its effects 

are cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the 

incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in 

connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, 

and the effects of probable future projects. [14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15065(A)(3).] 

Cumulative impacts can result from actions taking place over time in the same 

area that are minor when taken individually, but are collectively significant. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.9-22.) 

The Avenal Energy Project is situated in an extensive agricultural area. 

Agricultural production is highly variable based on weather and market trends. 

Agriculture consumes large volumes of water which, in this area, is supplied 

mainly by deep groundwater wells. Deliveries of surface water for agricultural 

production are extremely variable and dependent upon climatic conditions. 

During periods of low precipitation (drought), the USBR severely restricts 

deliveries of surface water for agriculture. As a result, agriculture relies on 

groundwater pumped from wells. During these drought conditions, deliveries for 

industrial and municipal uses have priority over other uses and sufficient surface 

water supply will be available from the canal. Therefore, the record concludes 

that agriculture demand will not have an impact on availability of surface water 

deliveries necessary for power plant needs. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-22.) 

255 
The record identifies four other projects in the vicinity of the Avenal Energy 

Project. These projects include the Panoche Energy Center (located 

approximately 55 miles to the northwest), the Starwood Power-Midway Peaking 

Project (located adjacent to the Panoche Energy Center), the Great Valley 

Ethanol Project (located approximately 27 miles to the northwest), and the San 

Joaquin Solar 1 & 2 Project (located approximately five miles northwest). (Ex. 

200, p. 4.9-22.) 

The evidence shows that Panoche Energy Center uses groundwater obtained 

from deep groundwater wells and will not affect surface water supplies. The 

Starwood Power-Midway Peaking Project will use either Baker Farms backwash 

water or groundwater obtained from the underlying semi-confined aquifer and 

likewise will not affect surface water supplies. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-22.) 

The Great Valley Ethanol Plant will use water from the City of Hanford’s municipal 

water supply system. The City of Hanford obtains its water from the groundwater 

aquifer beneath the city. All process water from the Great Valley Ethanol Plant 

will be reused in the process. While water is apparently available as stipulated in 

the Urban Water Management Plan, the project may require improvements to the 

water system. A supplemental water well, tanks or booster pumps may be 

required to provide the required fire flow. The evidence indicates that the Great 

Valley Ethanol Project will not affect surface water supplies for the Avenal Energy 

Project facility. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-22 to 4.9-23.) 

The proposed San Joaquin Solar 1 & 2 Power Plant Project would use 

groundwater from the Pleasant Valley sub-basin on a temporary basis until 

recycled water from the city of Coalinga can be delivered. The evidence 

establishes that use of these supplies will not affect the proposed surface water 

supply. The backup supply for the Avenal Energy Project will be obtained from 

the Westside groundwater sub-basin. The Westside sub-basin and Pleasant 

Valley sub-basin are part of the San Joaquin Valley groundwater basin. Water 

levels in the Pleasant Valley sub-basin are in decline, while water levels and 

groundwater storage have increased over time in the Westside sub-basin. The 

evidence of record establishes that limited use of groundwater from the Westside 

sub-basin will have no cumulative impacts on the Pleasant Valley sub-basin. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.9-23.) 

The Applicant has executed a service agreement with the City of Avenal for 

annual delivery of 200 acre-feet of surface water. The Committee believes this is 

an acceptable amount of water provided that the project complies with Condition 

256 
of Certification SOIL & WATER-5. The Avenal Energy Project will have to justify 

any increase in water use above 104 AFY. Avenal Energy will have to obtain prior 

approval from the Compliance Project Manager (CPM) for any additional volume. 

Based upon the evidence received and Conditions imposed, we find that there are 

no significant cumulative impacts in the site vicinity that will result from operation 

of the Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-23.) 

6. Compliance with LORS 

a. CLEAN WATER ACT 

Avenal Energy will satisfy the requirements of the General NPDES Storm Water 

Permits under Conditions of Certification SOIL & WATER-1 and -3 which, in 

addition to the requirements of the NPDES permits, requires the development and 

implementation of a SWPPP for both construction and industrial activities. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.9-23.) 

b. PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT 

Avenal Energy will satisfy the applicable requirements of the Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control Act through implementation of the DESCP and SWPPPs, 

as well adherence with the discharge requirements of the county’s Municipal 

Storm Water NPDES Permit. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-24.) 

c. STATE WATER POLICY: SWRCB POLICY 75-58 AND ENERGY 

COMMISSION—INTEGRATED ENERGY POLICY REPORT (IEPR) - 

POWER PLANT WATER USE AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGE 

POLICY 

Article 10, Section 2, of the California Constitution requires that state water 

resources be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent possible and prohibits 

waste, unreasonable water use or unreasonable method of water use. In order to 

better define what “unreasonable use” means in relation to power plant cooling, 

the SWRCB issued Resolution 75-58, “Water Quality Control Policy on the Use 

and Disposal of Inland Waters Used for Power Plant Cooling” (Resolution 75-58). 

It sets forth a list of preferable water sources for power plant cooling in order of 

priority as follows: (1) wastewater being discharged to the ocean, (2) ocean, (3) 

brackish water from natural sources or irrigation return flow, (4) inland 

wastewaters of low TDS, and (5) other inland waters. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-24.) 

257 
In the 2003 IEPR, consistent with State Water Resources Control Board Policy 

75-58 and the Warren-Alquist Act, the Energy Commission reiterated State Water 

Policy, stating it will approve the use of fresh water for cooling purposes by power 

plants only where alternative water supply sources and alternative cooling 

technologies are shown to be “environmentally undesirable” or “economically 

unsound.” Due to the project’s design incorporating dry cooling, ZLD, and dry 

NOx reduction technologies, the Avenal Energy Project is in compliance with the 

State Water Policy and its intent to discourage the use of fresh water for power 

plant cooling. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-24.) 

7. Agency and Public Comments 

Gloria Preciado commented that she opposed the project. She mentioned that, in 

the past, PG&E “put the chemicals in the aqueduct [a]nd the residents contracted 

illness that they are still suffering with” (07/07/09 RT 317:17-20.) 

The record indicates that there is no evidence of past or present hazardous 

substance use, storage, or disposal on the site. There is also no indication that 

contaminated groundwater is present beneath the Avenal Energy Project site. We 

are satisfied that the analysis of the wastewater management, zero liquid 

discharge system, septic system, and all of the stormwater drainage and pollution 

discharge safeguards contained in Conditions of Certification SOIL & WATER-1 

and -2 fully mitigate any potential impacts to soil and water resources that the 

project may cause. We find that the Avenal Energy Project will not result in any 

unmitigated, significant project-specific or cumulative adverse impacts to Soil or 

Water Resources. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. Construction of the Avenal Energy Project will permanently disturb 

approximately 34.8 acres on-site and 1.2 acres off-site. 

2. During construction, there will be additional temporary disturbance of 

approximately 39.3 acres on-site and nine acres off-site. 

3. It will take 27 months to complete construction of the project. 

4. The Sediment/Storm Water Retention Facility will offset the loss of 

permeable surface area by attenuating storm water discharges and 

promoting water infiltration into the soil. 

258 
5. Avenal Energy must prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution 

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction activity as required by the State 

Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in implementing federal law. 

6. Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-2 requires Avenal Energy to 

prepare a Final Drainage, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (DESCP) for 

construction to assure BMPs are implemented. 

7. Through the proper application of BMPs, the impact to soil and water 

resources from storm water drainage during construction will be reduced to 

a level that is less than significant. 

8. Avenal Energy will design the drainage features for the site in accordance 

with the State Water Resources Control Board NPDES General Permits for 

management of storm water during both the construction and operations 

phases of the project. 

9. Construction of the Avenal Energy Project will have no impact nor be 

impacted by the occurrence of the 100-year flood. 

10. The Avenal Energy facility is estimated to require a maximum annual 

supply of 104 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water for process use, domestic 

use, and landscape irrigation. 

11. The Avenal Energy facility will use untreated surface water and potable 

water supplied by the City of Avenal. 

12. The estimated annual water requirement for operational workforce needs is 

one AFY. 

13. The estimated total volume of water needed for construction is 

approximately 20-acre feet. 

14. A sufficient supply of untreated surface water is available meet the 

construction water demand and has been approved for delivery to the 

project from the City of Avenal. 

15. The Avenal Energy Project is not a qualifying project under Water Code 

section 10910. 

16. There will be no significant adverse environmental impacts associated with 

water use during project construction. 

259 
17. Avenal Energy will use bottled water to supply drinking water for the 

construction workforce and portable facilities that operate without water, for 

sanitary needs. 

18. The project’s use of CVP water will not cause significant impacts to either 

surface water or groundwater resources. 

19. The project’s use of surface water will cause no significant impact to the 

regional water supply. 

20. Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-4 identifies requirements for the 

metering and reporting of water use by the project. 

21. The limited use of groundwater for emergency backup of process needs 

will not result in a substantial depletion or degradation of groundwater 

resources or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. 

22. Backup water supply will adequately suffice during short-term interruptions 

in water deliveries and will have less than a significant impact on water 

resources. 

23. Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-5 ensures that use of the water 

will be secured and imposes caps on water use so there will be no 

significant impacts to water resources during operation of the Avenal 

Energy Project facility. 

24. The likelihood of encountering useable groundwater during construction is 

remote such that no impacts to groundwater resources will occur during 

construction of the Avenal Energy Project. 

25. Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-6 will ensure the ZLD operates 

efficiently and the production of waste water is minimal. 

26. SOIL & WATER-7 will ensure no significant water or soil related impacts 

will result from sanitary waste water disposal. 

27. There is no evidence of past or present hazardous substance use, storage, 

or disposal on the property. 

28. There is also no indication that contaminated groundwater is present 

beneath the Avenal Energy Project site. 

260 
29. There are no significant cumulative impacts in the site vicinity that will 

result from operation of the Avenal Energy Project. 

The Avenal Energy Project will not use fresh water for cooling and is therefore 

consistent with the SWRCB Policy 75-58 and the Energy Commission’s policy of 

discouraging the use of fresh water for power plant cooling. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The Avenal Energy Project will not result in any unmitigated, significant 

project-specific or cumulative adverse impacts to Soil or Water Resources. 

2. The Avenal Energy Project will comply with all applicable LORS with 

implementation of the Conditions of Certification set forth herein. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

SOIL & WATER-1: The Project Owner shall comply with the requirements of the 

general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit for discharge of stormwater associated with construction activity. 

The Project Owner shall develop and implement a construction 

stormwater pollution prevention plan (construction SWPPP) for the 

construction of the Avenal Energy site, laydown area, and all linear 

facilities. 

Verification: The Project Owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the 

construction SWPPP prior to site mobilization and retain a copy on site. The 

Project Owner shall submit copies to the compliance Project Manager (CPM) of all 

correspondence between the Project Owner and the Central Valley Regional 

Water Quality Control Board regarding the NPDES permit for the discharge of 

stormwater associated with construction activity within 10 days of its receipt or 

submittal. Copies of correspondence shall include the notice of intent sent to the 

State Water Resources Control Board, and the Board’s confirmation letter 

indicating receipt and acceptance of the notice of intent. 

SOIL & WATER-2: Prior to site mobilization, the Project Owner shall obtain CPM 

approval for a site-specific drainage, erosion, and sediment control plan 

(DESCP). The DESCP must ensure proper protection of water quality 

and soil resources, demonstrate no increase in off-site flooding 

potential, include provisions for sediment and storm water retention, 

and identify all monitoring and maintenance activities. The DESCP shall 

contain elements 1 through 9 below outlining site management activities 

and erosion- and sediment-control BMPs to be implemented during site 

261 
mobilization, excavation, construction, and post construction (operating) 

activities. 

A. Vicinity Map – A map(s) at a minimum scale 1”=100’ shall be 

provided indicating the location of all project elements (construction 

site, laydown area, pipelines) with depictions of all significant 

geographic features including swales, storm drains, and sensitive 

areas. 

B. Site Delineation – All areas subject to soil disturbance for the 

Avenal Energy Project (project site, laydown area, all linear facilities, 

landscaping areas, and any other project elements) shall be 

delineated showing boundary lines of all construction areas and the 

location of all existing and proposed structures, pipelines, roads, and 

drainage facilities. 

C. Watercourses and Critical Areas – The DESCP shall show the 

location of all nearby watercourses including swales, storm drains, 

and drainage ditches. It shall indicate the proximity of those features 

to the Avenal Energy power plant construction, laydown, and 

landscape areas and all transmission and pipeline construction 

corridors. 

D. Drainage Map – The DESCP shall provide a topographic site 

map(s) at a minimum scale 1”=100’ showing existing, interim, and 

proposed drainage swales and drainage systems and drainage-area 

boundaries. On the map, spot elevations are required where 

relatively flat conditions exist. The spot elevations and contours shall 

be extended off site for a minimum distance of 100 feet. 

E. Drainage of Project Site Narrative – The DESCP shall include a 

narrative of the drainage measures to be taken to protect the site 

and downstream facilities. The narrative shall include the summary 

pages from the hydraulic analysis prepared by a professional 

engineer and erosion control specialist. The narrative shall state the 

watershed size(s) in acres that was used in the calculation of 

drainage features. The hydraulic analysis shall be used to support 

the selection of BMPs and structural controls to divert off-site and 

on-site drainage around or through the Avenal Energy site and 

laydown and linear areas. 

F. Clearing and Grading Plans – The DESCP shall provide a 

delineation of all areas to be cleared of vegetation and areas to be 

preserved. The plan shall provide elevations, slopes, locations, and 

extent of all proposed grading as shown by contours, cross sections, 

or other means. The locations of any disposal areas, fills, or other 

special features shall also be shown. Existing and proposed 

262 
G. Clearing and Grading Narrative – The DESCP shall include a 

table with the quantities of material excavated or filled for the site 

and all project elements (project site, laydown area, transmission 

and pipeline corridors, roadways, and bridges) whether such 

excavation or fill is temporary or permanent, and the amount of such 

material to be imported or exported.

H. Best Management Practices Plan – The DESCP shall identify on 

the topographic site map(s) the location of the site specific BMPs to 

be employed during each phase of construction (initial grading, 

project element excavation and construction, and final 

grading/stabilization). BMPs shall include measures designed to 

prevent wind and water erosion. 

I. Best Management Practices Narrative – The DESCP shall show 

the location (as identified in H above), timing, and maintenance 

schedule of all erosion- and sediment-control BMPs to be used prior 

to initial grading, during all project element (site, pipelines) 

excavations and construction, final grading/stabilization, and postconstruction. Separate BMP implementation schedules shall be 

provided for each project element for each phase of construction. 

The maintenance schedule shall include post-construction 

maintenance of structural-control BMPs, or a statement provided 

about when such information will be available.

Verification: No later than 90 days prior to start of site mobilization, the Project 

Owner shall submit a copy of the DESCP to Kings County and the Central Valley 

Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) for review and comment. No 

later than 60 days prior to start of site mobilization, the Project Owner shall submit 

the DESCP with the county’s and CVRWQCB’s comments to the CPM for review 

and approval. The CPM shall consider comments by the county and CVRWQCB 

before approval of the DESCP. The DESCP shall be consistent with the grading 

and drainage plan as required by Condition of Certification CIVIL-1, and relevant 

portions of the DESCP shall clearly show approval by the chief building official. 

The DESCP shall be a separate plan from the SWPPP developed in conjunction 

with any NPDES permit for Construction Activity. The Project Owner shall provide 

in the monthly compliance report a narrative on the effectiveness of the drainage, 

erosion, and sediment-control measures and the results of monitoring and 

maintenance activities. Once operational, the Project Owner shall update and 

maintain the DESCP for the life of the project and shall provide in the annual 

compliance report information on the results of monitoring and maintenance 

activities. 

SOIL & WATER-3: The Project Owner shall comply with all of the requirements 

of the General NPDES Permit for Discharges of Storm Water 

263 
Associated with Industrial Activity. The Project Owner shall develop and 

implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the 

operation of the power plant (operation SWPPP). The Project Owner 

shall keep the CPM informed of any modifications to the permit. 

Verification: The Project Owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the 

operation SWPPP prior to commercial operation and retain a copy on-site. The 

Project Owner shall submit to the CPM copies of all correspondence between the 

Project Owner and the CVRWQCB about the General NPDES permit for the 

Discharge of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activity within 10 days of its 

receipt or submittal. This information shall include copies of the Notice of Intent 

and Notice of Termination for the project. 

SOIL & WATER-4: The Project Owner shall use untreated surface water 

supplied from the city of Avenal Water Treatment Plant as its water 

supply for process water, landscape irrigation and for other approved 

non-potable uses. The Project Owner shall use untreated groundwater 

supplied from Kochergen Farms’ agriculture wells as its backup water 

supply for process water, landscape irrigation and for other approved 

non-potable uses. Potable water will be provided to the site from the city 

of Avenal municipal water supply. 

Prior to the use of these water sources for process needs and for 

domestic use during commercial operation, the Project Owner shall 

install and maintain metering devices as part of the water supply and 

distribution systems to monitor and record, in gallons per day, the total 

volume(s) of water supplied to Avenal Energy from the water sources. 

Those metering devices shall be operational for the life of the project. 

For the first year of operation, the Project Owner shall prepare an 

annual Water Use Summary, which will include the monthly range and 

monthly average of daily non-potable water usage in gallons per day, 

and total water used by the project on a monthly and annual basis in 

acre-feet. Potable water for domestic use on-site shall be recorded on a 

monthly basis. For subsequent years, the annual Water Use Summary 

shall also include the yearly range and yearly average water use by the 

project. The annual Water Use Summary shall be submitted to the CPM 

as part of the annual compliance report. 

Verification: At least sixty (60) days prior to commercial operation of Avenal 

Energy, the Project Owner shall submit to the CPM evidence that metering 

devices have been installed and are operational on the water supply and 

distribution systems. 

The Project Owner shall submit a Water Use Summary to the CPM in the annual 

compliance report. The report shall distinguish the recorded water use from City of 

Avenal water supply and the Kochergen Farms’ agriculture wells. The Project 

264 
Owner shall provide a report on the servicing, testing and calibration of the 

metering devices in the annual compliance report. 

SOIL & WATER-5: Prior to site mobilization, the Project Owner shall provide the 

CPM with two (2) copies of the executed and final Service Agreements 

for connecting the project’s water supply lines (potable for domestic use 

and untreated for process use) to the city of Avenal’s Water Treatment 

Plant and to the Kochergen Farms’ agriculture wells. The Service 

Agreements shall detail any requirements, conditions, or restrictions on 

the Project Owner for the use of the water from the source(s). The 

Project Owner shall not connect to the City of Avenal’s water system or 

to the Kochergen Farm’s wells without final approval from the local 

agency. The Project Owner shall provide the CPM copies of the final 

approval from the local agency and all monitoring or other reports 

required by the Service Agreements. The CPM shall be notified of any 

violations of the Service Agreements terms and conditions, the actions 

taken or planned to bring the project back into compliance with the 

Service Agreements, and the date compliance was reestablished. 

The existing will-serve letter from the City of Avenal (Avenal Energy 

2008), allocates 200 AFY of combined untreated surface water to 

Avenal Energy for power plant use and potable water for domestic use. 

As described in the AFC and restricted here, the project’s process water 

use shall average 20 AFY and not exceed 104 AFY in any single year. 

If, for any reason, Avenal Energy requires more than 104 AFY, Avenal 

Energy shall estimate the additional volume needed, explain why 

additional volume is needed, and acquire approval from the CPM prior 

to increased use. Similarly, as described in the AFC and restricted here, 

the project’s potable water use shall average one AFY and not exceed 

2 AF in any single year. If, for any reason, Avenal Energy requires more 

than 2 AFY, Avenal Energy shall estimate the additional volume 

needed, explain why additional volume is needed, and acquire approval 

from the CPM prior to increased use. 

Verification: No later than sixty (60) days prior to site mobilization, the Project 

Owner shall submit the executed and final Service Agreement(s) for supplying 

both the primary and backup process water supplies and the potable water supply 

to the project. The Project Owner shall submit any water quality monitoring 

required by the City of Avenal to the CPM in the annual compliance report. The 

Project Owner shall submit any notice of violation of the Service Agreement terms 

and conditions to the CPM within ten (10) days of receipt, and shall fully explain 

the corrective actions taken in the next monthly compliance report or annual 

compliance report, as appropriate. For calculating the total water use, the term 

“year” will correspond to the date established for the annual compliance report 

submittal. 

265 
No later than sixty (60) days prior to any excess water use, the Project Owner 

shall submit a request to the CPM for approval for use of process water in excess 

of 104 AFY. 

No later than sixty (60) days prior to use, the Project Owner shall submit a request 

to the CPM for approval for use of potable water in excess of 2 AFY. 

SOIL & WATER-6: The Project Owner shall treat all routine process waste water 

streams with a zero liquid discharge (ZLD) system that results in a 

residual solid waste. The solid waste shall be disposed of in the 

appropriate class of landfill suitable for the constituent concentrations in 

the waste. Surface or subsurface discharge of process waste water 

from the Avenal Energy power plant is prohibited. The Project Owner 

shall operate the ZLD system in accordance with a ZLD management 

plan approved by the CPM. The ZLD management plan shall include 

the following elements: 

A. a flow diagram showing all water sources and waste water disposal 

methods at the power plant; 

B. a narrative of expected operation and maintenance of the ZLD 

system; 

C. a narrative of the redundant or back-up waste water disposal 

method to be implemented during periods of ZLD system shutdown 

or maintenance; 

D. a maintenance schedule; 

E. a description of on-site storage facilities and containment measures; 

F. a table identifying influent water quality; and 

G. a table characterizing the constituent concentrations of the solid 

waste or brine and specifying the permit limits of the selected 

landfill. 

The Avenal Energy operation and wastewater production shall not 

exceed the treatment capacity of the ZLD system or result in an 

industrial waste water discharge. 

Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of commercial operation, the 

Project Owner shall submit to the CPM evidence that the final design of the ZLD 

system has the approval of the CBO. At least 60 days prior to the start of 

commercial operation, the Project Owner shall prepare a ZLD management plan 

for review and approval by the CPM. The ZLD management plan shall be updated 

by the Project Owner and submitted to the CPM for review and approval if a 

change in water source or infrastructure is needed. 

266 
267 

In the annual compliance report, the Project Owner shall submit a status report on 

operation of the ZLD system, including dates and length of disruptions, 

maintenance activities performed, volumes of interim wastewater streams stored 

on site, monthly volumes of residual salt cake or brine generated, and results of at 

least one annual sampling of the waste solids or brine comparing the constituent 

concentrations to the permit limits of the landfill. The annual compliance report 

shall contain an evaluation of whether the ZLD is being operated within the 

parameters described in the ZLD management plan. The ZLD management plan 

shall be updated by the Project Owner if the CPM has determined it is necessary 

based on the Project Owner’s annual compliance report(s). 

SOIL & WATER-7: The Project Owner shall install an on-site wastewater system 

(septic system) designed for site-specific soils and percolation 

conditions by a qualified professional. The septic system design shall 

comply with Chapter 5, Article VI, Sec. 5-83 of the Kings County Code. 

The Project Owner shall operate the septic system in accordance with 

an operations and maintenance manual prepared by a qualified 

professional. 

Verification: No later than ninety (90) days prior to commercial operation, the 

Project Owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the septic system design, 

construction, and operations plan that has been reviewed and commented on by 

the Kings County Health Officer. 

No later than sixty (60) days prior to commercial operation, the Project Owner 

shall submit the operations and maintenance manual to Kings County for review 

and comment. No later than thirty (30) days prior to commercial operation, the 

Project Owner shall submit the operations and maintenance manual to the CPM 

for review and approval. The submittal shall include copies of any agency 

comments the Project owner has received. 

The wastewater system shall be monitored following either the general standards 

adopted in State Water Resources Control Board’s On-Site Wastewater 

Treatment System Regulations or the procedures outlined in the CPM-approved 

operations and maintenance manual. Any testing results or correspondence 

exchanged between Project Owner and the California Department of Health 

Services, the CVRWQCB, or Kings County during operations shall be provided to 

the CPM in the annual compliance report. 
C. CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The potential for impacts to cultural resources depends upon whether such 

resources are present and whether they would actually be encountered during 

project development and construction activities. Cultural resource materials such 

as artifacts, structures, or land modifications reflect the history of human 

development. Certain places that are important to Native Americans or local 

national/ethnic groups are also considered valuable cultural resources. Analysis 

in this topic area pertains to the structural and cultural evidence of human 

development in the project vicinity, as well as appropriate mitigation measures 

should cultural resources be disturbed by project excavation and construction. 

The term “cultural resource” is used broadly to include the following categories of 

resources: buildings, sites, structures, objects, and historic districts. When a 

cultural resource is determined to be significant, it is eligible for inclusion in the 

California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1; 

Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 4850 et seq.) An archaeological resource that does 

not qualify as an historic resource may be considered a “unique” archaeological 

resource under California Environmental Quality (CEQA). (See Pub. Res. Code, 

§ 21083.2.) In addition, structures older than 50 years (or less if the resource is 

deemed exceptional) can be considered for listing as significant historic 

structures..39

The CEQA Guidelines provide a definition of a historical resource as a “resource 

listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources 

Commission, for listing in the CRHR”, or “a resource listed in a local register of 

historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource survey 

meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code,” or 

“any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a 

lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the 

architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, 

political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the agency’s 

determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.” 

[Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15064.5(a).] Historical resources that are 

automatically listed in the CRHR include California historical resources listed in 

or formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places 

 

39 The Office of Historic Preservation’s Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (1995) 

endorses recording and evaluating resources over 45 years of age to accommodate a five-year 

lag in the planning process.

268
(NRHP) and California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward. 

[Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1(d).] 

Under the CEQA Guidelines, a resource is generally considered to be historically 

significant if it meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR. These criteria are 

essentially the same as the eligibility criteria for the NRHP. In addition to being 

at least 50 years old, a resource must meet at least one of the following four 

criteria: it is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to 

the broad patterns of our history (Criterion 1); or, it is associated with the lives of 

persons significant in our past (Criterion 2); or, that the resource embodies the 

distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that it 

represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values (Criterion 3); 

or, that it has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to history or 

prehistory (Criterion 4). (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1.) In addition, historical 

resources must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 4852(c); Pub. 

Res. Code § 5020.1 (j) or 5024.1). Even if a resource is not listed or determined 

to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, CEQA allows the lead agency to make a 

determination as to whether the resource is a historical resource. 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Setting 

The project is located in the southwestern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. The 

valley is a vast trough filled with sedimentary deposits, the oldest of marine origin 

and the youngest resulting from the erosion of the surrounding mountains and 

deposition of the eroded material as alluvium up to 2,800 feet deep beneath the 

site. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.3-3 to 4.3-4.) 

The vicinity of the Avenal Energy site is relatively flat. The land use historically 

has been almost exclusively for agriculture—mostly orchards—but the site has 

been annexed by the City of Avenal and zoned for industrial use. The 148-acre 

Avenal Energy site, with an elevation range of 320 to 360 feet above mean sea 

level, is on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, about two miles east of the 

Kettleman Hills and Interstate 5 and about six miles northeast of the City of 

Avenal. The California Aqueduct’s San Luis Canal is located approximately 200 

feet northeast of the Avenal Energy site, but there are no natural perennial 

streams in the project vicinity. The routes of the linear facilities pass across 

269
privately owned farmland by means of easements acquired by Avenal Power 

Center (APC). (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-4.) 

Within the 148-acre Avenal Energy parcel, the area permanently required for the 

power plant is about 34 acres. The area will temporarily use an additional 34 

acres. The temporarily used part of APC’s parcel will be returned to agricultural 

use after the plant is constructed. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-4.) 

The earliest documented human occupation in the Tulare Lake area, 50 miles 

north of the site, dates to about 9,000 BC. Archaeological evidence indicates two 

eras of significant occupation, one between 2,000 BC and 500 AD, and another 

between 1500 and 1850 AD. Sites occupied during this time period in the lower 

San Joaquin Valley contain higher numbers of groundstone milling artifacts used 

to process hard seeds into meal, suggesting an increased use of vegetal food 

sources. There is evidence that populations expanded and villages increased in 

numbers after about 1500 AD in the southern and western parts of the San 

Joaquin Valley. The archaeological evidence includes groundstone artifacts 

associated with acorn processing, bow-and-arrow technology, and large 

occupation sites representing permanent villages with large, semi-subterranean 

communal structures. The project area is located within the vast traditional 

territory claimed by the California Native American group known as Yokuts. The 

Southern Valley Yokuts, in whose former territory the Avenal Energy site is 

probably located, lived most of the year in their villages, but starting in the spring 

and for most of the summer, migrated to camp out in various parts of their 

territories to gather various wild plant foods, shifting locations as each crop 

became mature. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.3-6 to 4.3-9.) 

The Spanish settlement of Alta California began in 1769, but it was not until the 

early nineteenth century that the Spanish governor and the missionaries of the 

Catholic Church began systematically to explore the great interior valley, hopeful 

of making fresh converts and expanding the mission system. The missionaries 

recruited and settled a few Southern Valley Yokuts at Missions San Luis Obispo, 

San Juan Bautista, Soledad, and San Antonio, but the Spanish had little impact 

on the great majority of the Southern Valley Yokuts, who began raiding mission 

and rancho herds and were so successful at taking horses that the Spanish 

referred to them as the “Horsethief Indians.” (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-10.) 

After 1821, the succeeding Mexican administration made no greater inroads into 

settling the San Joaquin Valley than the Spanish had, but increased interaction 

with rancheros exposed the Southern Valley Yokuts to European diseases. 

270
In the summer of 1833, a particularly severe malaria epidemic devastated them, 

resulting in a mortality rate estimated at 75 percent. After several relocations to 

temporary reservations, the remaining Southern Valley Yokuts, along with other 

Native American groups, were settled on two reservations, the Tule River 

Reservation, in the Sierra Nevada foothills near Porterville, and the Santa Rosa 

Reservation, in the valley near Lemoore. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-10.) 

Following the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848, the Avenal Energy Project 

area came under the control of the United States. After the first frenzy of the 

Gold Rush, farmers began to settle the Upper Kings River area, but the area 

where the Avenal Energy Project is located was seen as only suitable for grazing 

cattle and sheep. The earliest American use of the Avenal area was the cattleraising enterprise of Dave Kettleman, Jim McClure, and John Fisher, which 

supplied beef to the miners in the gold fields. Kettleman received the first patent 

for land in central California from the United States in 1852. Stock-raising was 

the primary economic activity in the area until the late nineteenth century, with 

Basque shepherds among the last arrivals. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-11.) 

At the time of California’s statehood, in 1850, what would eventually become 

Kings County was part of a vast Mariposa County. Kings County became a 

separate entity, splitting off from Tulare County in 1893. The town of Avenal and 

the town of Kettleman City are the most recently founded towns in Kings County. 

Both came into being in 1929 as a result of a major oil strike in the Kettleman 

Hills. Needing to establish a permanent work force to develop the new field, in 

1929 Standard Oil surveyed a new company town to house workers and called it 

Avenal. Water and sewer lines were laid and tents were soon replaced with 

houses. Avenal was a boomtown, and before the year was out, nearly 20 

businesses had sprung up along Kings Street and Skyline Boulevard. (Ex. 200, 

pp. 4.3-11 to 4.3-12). 

Production from the Kettleman Hills North Dome oil field, as in all of California at 

that time, was unrestricted, causing friction with oil producers in Oklahoma and 

Texas, whose marketing strategy kept prices high by limiting production. North 

Dome production peaked in 1936, and by the post-World War II era, the reservoir 

was greatly reduced. In 1953, the various oil companies with holdings in the 

area fields consolidated and made Standard Oil the sole operator of the field. 

Production continued to dwindle, and so did Avenal’s economy and population. 

During the 1960s an influx of agricultural workers boosted the town’s population 

but it was the construction of the Avenal State Prison in 1987 that finally provided 

the town’s economy a stable basis. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-12.)

271
2. Cultural Resources 

Applicant’s records search included all known cultural resources within a onehalf-mile radius of the plant site, laydown area, and appurtenant linear facilities. 

Sources checked included: 

• Previous archaeological studies within one-half mile of the components of 

the Avenal Energy site; 

• Previously documented cultural resources or archaeological studies in the 

project area; 

• Resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or 

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) within the project area; 

• Kings and Fresno County history at the Avenal Museum, in the Kings 

County Library’s history collection; 

• Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center site and study base maps; 

• National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) directory; 

• Office of Historic Preservation database of historical resources; 

• California Historic Resources Inventory; 

• California Historical Landmarks; 

• California Points of Historical Interest 

(Ex. 200, pp. 4.3-14 to 4.3-15.) 

On March 21, 2001, consultants for APC requested the Native American 

Heritage Commission (NAHC) to search its Sacred Lands File for any Native 

American traditional cultural properties. The NAHC responded on March 29, 

2001, indicating a negative return from the search of their Sacred Lands File and 

providing contact information for nine Native Americans. The NAHC responded 

again on September 6, 2006, indicating that no sites of concern to Native 

Americans had been found in the Sacred Lands database. On May 13, 2008, 

Energy Commission staff requested from the NAHC a list of Native Americans 

interested in development in Kings and Fresno Counties and on May 15, Staff 

received a list of seven contacts from the NAHC. Staff sent letters informing the 

seven Native American individuals or groups about the Avenal Energy Project on 

June 18, 2008, and requested them to contact Staff if they had any concerns 

regarding cultural resources. The evidence indicates that no Native Americans 

communicated any interest in the site; therefore, no resources of ethnographic 

concern were identified. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.3-14 to 4.3-16.) 

272
Between April 2, 2001 and March 12, 2008, the plant site, related linear facilities, 

and surrounding area within a one-mile radius were physically surveyed for 

archaeological resources. All of APC’s efforts to identify potentially significant 

archaeological resources through existing records, databases, and informed 

persons, and by conducting new field surveys, yielded no results for the Avenal 

Energy site, the linear facilities, and the surrounding area. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.3-16 to 

4.3-21.) 

The evidence indicates that there are no historic districts or cultural landscapes 

in the vicinity of the Avenal Energy Project. With respect to individual builtenvironment resources, no potentially significant built-environment resources 

were identified on the Avenal Energy site or within the impact areas of the 

project’s underground linear facilities, so such resources need not be considered 

when assessing the direct physical impacts of the project. The only individual 

built-environment resources identified as being old enough to be potentially 

significant and also possibly subject to an impact (from the project’s transmission 

line) are: 

• Kochergen Farms Agricultural Complex residence and outbuildings 

(approximately 80 years old); 

• Gates Substation (approximately 53 years old); and 

• PG&E’s 230-kV transmission line—originally Tesla–Midway, now known 

as Gates–Arco–Midway (portions approximately 60 years old). 

• Avenal Cut-Off Road (approximately 80 years old). (Ex. 200, pp. 4.3-24 to 

4.3-29) 

The evidence establishes that none of these resources are likely to be eligible for 

the CRHR. Nevertheless, Condition of Certification CUL-8 requires recordation 

and documentation should there be any modifications to the existing TeslaMidway 230-kV transmission line towers. 

3. Potential Impacts 

Direct impacts to cultural resources are those associated with project 

development, construction, and co-existence. Construction usually entails 

surface and subsurface disturbance of the ground, and direct impacts to 

archaeological resources may result from the immediate disturbance of the 

deposits, whether from vegetation removal, vehicle travel over the surface, earthmoving activities, excavation, or demolition of overlying structures. Construction 

can have direct impacts on historic resources when those structures must be 

273
removed to make way for new structures or when the vibrations of construction 

impair the stability of historic structures nearby. New structures can have direct 

impacts on historic structures when the new structures are stylistically 

incompatible with their neighbors and the setting, and when the new structures 

produce something harmful to the materials or structural integrity of the historic 

structures, such as emissions or vibrations. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.3-29 to 4.3-30.) 

Generally speaking, indirect impacts to archaeological resources are those which 

may result from increased erosion due to site clearance and preparation, or from 

inadvertent damage or outright vandalism to exposed resource components due 

to improved accessibility. Similarly, historic structures can suffer indirect impacts 

when project construction creates improved accessibility and vandalism or 

greater weather exposure becomes possible. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-30.) 

The evidence is uncontradicted in that no significant known archaeological 

resources have been identified in any of the areas affected by project 

construction. Subsurface disturbance, during construction, however, has the 

potential to disturb as yet unknown archaeological resources. We include 

Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through CUL-7 to ensure that all impacts to 

cultural resources discovered during construction are mitigated below the level of 

significance. Mitigation measures for identifying, evaluating, and possibly 

mitigating impacts to previously unknown archaeological resources discovered 

during construction include having an archaeologist monitor all excavation 

activities in excess of five feet on the project site, at the laydown areas, and 

along the pipeline and transmission line routes; and having a Native American 

monitor construction activities if prehistoric cultural resources are found. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.3-33.) 

The parties differed on the question of whether the Tesla–Midway 230-kV 

transmission line may be historically significant (that is, eligible for the CRHR). 

Nonetheless, they agreed to have a qualified architectural historian document, to 

a modified Level III Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standard, any 

of the Tesla–Midway 230-kV transmission line’s towers that would have to be 

modified, as mitigation for the new transmission line’s potential impact on the old 

line, should modification prove unavoidable. Condition of Certification CUL-8 

enforces that agreement and will provide mitigation in the form of recordation and 

documentation in the event that these modifications must be made. (Ex. 200, pp. 

4.3-34 to 4.3-35.) 

274
During operation of the Avenal Power Plant, if a leak should develop in the gas or 

water pipelines supplying the plant, repair of the buried utility could require the 

excavation of a large hole. Such repairs could impact previously unknown 

subsurface archaeological resources in areas unaffected by the original trench 

excavation. The measures for mitigating impacts to previously unknown 

archaeological resources during the construction of the plant and linear facilities 

(CUL-1 through CUL-7) will also serve to mitigate impacts from repairs occurring 

during operation of the plant. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-35.) 

4. Cumulative Impacts 

A cumulative impact refers to a project's incremental effects considered over time 

and together with those of other nearby, past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects whose impacts may compound or increase the 

incremental effect of the project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21083; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 

14, § 15064(h), 15065(a)(3), 15130, and 15355.) The construction of other 

projects in the same area as the project could affect unknown subsurface 

archaeological deposits, both prehistoric and historic. 

Four projects have been identified near the Avenal Project: Panoche Energy 

Center, Starwood Power-Midway Peaking Project, San Joaquin Solar 1&2 Hybrid 

Project, and The Great Valley Ethanol Project. Any impacts to significant cultural 

resources from the Panoche and the Starwood Power Plant projects have been 

evaluated and mitigated by Conditions of Certification imposed by the Energy 

Commission on their construction and operation. Impacts to as-yet-undiscovered 

subsurface archaeological sites or cultural resources from the remaining projects 

can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by requiring construction 

monitoring, evaluation of resources discovered during monitoring, avoidance or 

data recovery for resources evaluated as significant (eligible for the CRHR or 

NRHP). Impacts to human remains can be mitigated by following the protocols 

established by state law in Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98. Since the 

impacts from the Avenal Energy Project will be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level by the project’s compliance with Conditions of Certification CUL1 through CUL-7, and since similar protocols can be applied to other projects in 

the area, we find that any incremental effects of the Avenal Energy Project will 

not be cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with other projects. 

275
5. Agency and Public comments 

No public or agency comments were received concerning Cultural Resources. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Commission makes the following 

findings and reaches the following conclusions: 

1. No significant known archaeological resources have been identified in any 

of the areas affected by project construction in the Avenal Energy site, the 

linear facilities, or the surrounding area. 

2. There are no historic districts or cultural landscapes in the vicinity of the 

Avenal Energy Project. 

3. No potentially significant built-environment resources were identified on the 

Avenal Energy site or within the impact areas of the project’s underground 

linear facilities. 

4. None of the individual built-environment resources identified as being old 

enough to be potentially significant (Kochergen Farms Agricultural Complex 

residence and outbuildings, Gates Substation, PG&E’s Gates–Arco–Midway 

230-kV transmission line and the Avenal Cut-Off Road) are likely to be 

eligible for the CRHR. 

5. Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through CUL-7 ensure that all impacts to 

cultural resources discovered during construction and operation are 

mitigated below the level of significance. 

6. Condition of Certification CUL-8 provides mitigation in the form of 

recordation and documentation in the event that modifications must be 

made to the Gates–Arco–Midway 230-kV transmission line. 

7. Any incremental effects of the Avenal Energy Project will not be 

cumulatively considerable when viewed in conjunction with other projects so 

there will be no significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. With implementation of the Conditions of Certification below, the project 

will conform to all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards 

relating to cultural resources as set forth in the pertinent portion of 

Appendix A of this Decision. 

276
2. Through implementation of the Conditions of Certification below, the 

project will have no significant environmental impacts. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

CUL-1 Prior to the start of ground disturbance (includes “preconstruction site 

mobilization”; “construction ground disturbance”; and “construction 

grading, boring and trenching,” as defined in the General Conditions 

for this project), the project owner shall obtain the services of a Cultural 

Resources Specialist (CRS), and one or more alternate CRSs, if 

alternates are needed. The CRS shall manage all monitoring, 

mitigation, curation and reporting activities required in accordance with 

the Conditions of Certification (Conditions). The CRS may elect to 

obtain the services of Cultural Resources Monitors (CRMs) and other 

technical specialists, if needed, to assist in monitoring, mitigation, and 

curation activities. The project owner shall ensure that the CRS makes 

recommendations regarding the eligibility for listing in the California 

Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) of any cultural resources that 

are newly discovered or that may be affected in an unanticipated 

manner. No ground disturbance shall occur prior to CPM approval of 

the CRS and alternates, unless such activities are specifically 

approved by the CPM. Approval of a CRS may be denied or revoked 

for non-compliance on this or other projects. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES SPECIALIST 

The resumes for the CRS and alternate(s) shall include information 

demonstrating to the satisfaction of the CPM that their training and 

backgrounds conform to the U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Professional 

Qualifications Standards, as published in Title 36, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 61 (36 C.F.R., part 61). In addition, the CRS shall 

have the following qualifications: 

1. The CRS’s qualifications shall be appropriate to the needs of the 

project and shall include a background in anthropology, 

archaeology, history, architectural history, or a related field; 

2. At least three years of archaeological or historical, as appropriate 

(per nature of predominate cultural resources on the project site), 

resource mitigation and field experience in California; and 

3. At least one year of experience in a decision-making capacity on 

cultural resources projects in California and the appropriate training 

and experience to knowledgably make recommendations regarding 

the significance of cultural resources. 

277
The resumes of the CRS and alternate CRS shall include the names 

and telephone numbers of contacts familiar with the work of the 

CRS/alternate CRS on referenced projects and demonstrate to the 

satisfaction of the CPM that the CRS/alternate CRS has the 

appropriate training and experience to implement effectively the 

Conditions. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES MONITORS 

CRMs shall have the following qualifications: 

1. A B.S. or B.A. degree in anthropology, archaeology, historical 

archaeology or a related field and one year experience monitoring 

in California; or 

2. An AS or AA degree in anthropology, archaeology, historical 

archaeology or a related field, and four years experience monitoring 

in California; or 

3. Enrollment in upper division classes pursuing a degree in the fields 

of anthropology, archaeology, historical archaeology or a related 

field, and two years of monitoring experience in California. 

CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS 

The resume(s) of any additional technical specialist(s), e.g., historical 

archaeologist, historian, architectural historian, and/or physical 

anthropologist, shall be submitted to the CPM for approval. 

Verification: At least 45 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the 

project owner shall submit the resume for the CRS, and alternate(s) if desired, to 

the CPM for review and approval. 

At least 10 days prior to a termination or release of the CRS, or within 10 days 

after the resignation of a CRS, the project owner shall submit the resume of the 

proposed new CRS to the CPM for review and approval. At the same time, the 

project owner shall also provide to the proposed new CRS the AFC and all 

cultural resources documents, field notes, photographs, and other cultural 

resources materials generated by the project. If there is no alternate CRS in 

place to conduct the duties of the CRS, a previously approved monitor may serve 

in place of a CRS so that project-related ground disturbance may continue up to 

a maximum of three days without a CRS. If cultural resources are discovered 

then ground disturbance will remain halted until there is a CRS or alternate CRS 

to make a recommendation regarding significance. 

At least 20 days prior to ground disturbance, the CRS shall provide a letter 

naming anticipated CRMs for the project and stating that the identified CRMs 

meet the minimum qualifications for cultural resources monitoring required by this 

Condition. If additional CRMs are obtained during the project, the CRS shall 

278
provide additional letters to the CPM identifying the CRMs and attesting to the 

qualifications of the CRMs, at least five days prior to the CRMs beginning on-site 

duties. 

At least 10 days prior to any technical specialists beginning tasks, the resume(s) 

of the specialists shall be provided to the CPM for review and approval. 

At least 10 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall 

confirm in writing to the CPM that the approved CRS will be available for onsite 

work and is prepared to implement the cultural resources conditions. 

CUL-2 Prior to the start of ground disturbance, if the CRS has not previously 

worked on the project, the project owner shall provide the CRS with 

copies of the AFC, data responses, and confidential cultural resources 

reports for the project. The project owner shall also provide the CRS 

and the CPM with maps and drawings showing the footprints of the 

power plant, all linear facilities, all access roads, and all laydown 

areas. Maps shall include the appropriate USGS quadrangles and a 

map at an appropriate scale (e.g., 1:2000 or 1” = 200’) for plotting 

cultural features or materials. If the CRS requests enlargements or 

strip maps for linear facility routes, the project owner shall provide 

copies to the CRS and CPM. The CPM shall review map submittals 

and, in consultation with the CRS, approve those that are appropriate 

for use in cultural resources planning activities. No ground disturbance 

shall occur prior to CPM approval of maps and drawings, unless such 

activities are specifically approved by the CPM. 

 If construction of the project would proceed in phases, maps and 

drawings not previously provided shall be submitted prior to the start of 

each phase. Written notification identifying the proposed schedule of 

each project phase shall be provided to the CRS and CPM. 

At a minimum, the CRS shall consult weekly with the project 

construction manager to confirm area(s) to be worked during the next 

week, until ground disturbance is completed. 

The project owner shall notify the CRS and CPM of any changes to the 

scheduling of the construction phases. 

Verification: At least 40 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the 

project owner shall provide the AFC, data responses, and confidential cultural 

resources documents to the CRS, if needed, and the subject maps and drawings 

to the CRS and CPM. The CPM will review submittals in consultation with the 

CRS and approve maps and drawings suitable for cultural resources planning 

activities. 

1. If there are changes to any project-related footprint, revised maps and 

drawings shall be provided at least 15 days prior to start of ground 

disturbance for those changes. 

279
2. If project construction is phased, if not previously provided, the project owner 

shall submit the subject maps and drawings 15 days prior to each phase. 

3. On a weekly basis during ground disturbance, a current schedule of 

anticipated project activity shall be provided to the CRS and CPM by letter, email, or fax. 

4. Within five days of identifying changes, the project owner shall provide written 

notice of any changes to scheduling of construction phase. 

CUL-3 Prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall submit 

the Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP), as 

prepared by or under the direction of the CRS, to the CPM for review 

and approval. The CRMMP shall follow the content and organization of 

the model CRMMP, provided by the CPM, and the author’s name shall 

appear on the title page of the CRMMP. The CRMMP shall identify 

general and specific measures to minimize potential impacts to 

sensitive cultural resources. Implementation of the CRMMP shall be 

the responsibility of the CRS and the project owner. Copies of the 

CRMMP shall reside with the CRS, alternate CRS, each CRM, and the 

project owner’s on-site construction manager. No ground disturbance 

shall occur prior to CPM approval of the CRMMP, unless such 

activities are specifically approved by the CPM. 

The CRMMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements 

and measures: 

1. A proposed general research design that includes a discussion of 

archaeological research questions and testable hypotheses 

specifically applicable to the project area, and a discussion of 

artifact collection, retention/disposal, and curation policies as 

related to the research questions formulated in the research 

design. The research design will specify that the preferred 

treatment strategy for any buried archaeological deposits is 

avoidance. A mitigation plan will be prepared for any CRHReligible resource (as determined by the CPM), impacts to which 

cannot be avoided. A prescriptive treatment plan may be included 

in the CRMMP for limited data types. 

2. The following statement included in the Introduction: “Any 

discussion, summary, or paraphrasing of the Conditions of 

Certification in this CRMMP is intended as general guidance and 

as an aid to the user in understanding the Conditions and their 

implementation. The Conditions, as written in the Commission 

Decision, shall supersede any summarization, description, or 

interpretation of the conditions in the CRMMP. The Cultural 

280
Resources Conditions of Certification from the Commission 

Decision are contained in Appendix A.” 

3. Specification of the implementation sequence and the estimated 

time frames needed to accomplish all project-related tasks during 

the ground disturbance and post-ground–disturbance analysis 

phases of the project. 

4. Identification of the person(s) expected to perform each of the 

tasks, their responsibilities, and the reporting relationships 

between project construction management and the mitigation and 

monitoring team. 

5. A description of the manner in which Native American observers or 

monitors will be included, the procedures to be used to select 

them, and their role and responsibilities. 

6. A description of all impact-avoidance measures (such as flagging 

or fencing) to prohibit or otherwise restrict access to sensitive 

resource areas that are to be avoided during project-related 

ground disturbance, construction, and/or operation, and 

identification of areas where these measures are to be 

implemented. The description shall address how these measures 

would be implemented prior to the start of ground disturbance and 

how long they would be needed to protect the resources from 

project-related effects. 

7. A statement that all encountered cultural resources over 50 years 

old shall be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation 

(DPR) 523 forms and mapped and photographed. In addition, all 

archaeological materials retained as a result of the archaeological 

investigations (survey, testing, data recovery) shall be curated in 

accordance with the California State Historical Resources 

Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological 

Collections, into a retrievable storage collection in a public 

repository or museum. 

8. A statement that the project owner will pay all curation fees for 

artifacts recovered and for related documentation produced during 

cultural resources investigations conducted for the project. The 

project owner shall identify three possible curation facilities that 

could accept cultural resources materials resulting from project 

activities. 

9. A statement that the CRS has access to equipment and supplies 

necessary for site mapping, photography, and recovery of any 

281
cultural resource materials that are encountered during ground 

disturbance and cannot be treated prescriptively. 

10. A description of the contents and format of the final Cultural 

Resource Report (CRR), which shall be prepared according to 

ARMR guidelines. 

Verification: Upon approval of the CRS proposed by the project owner, the 

CPM will provide to the CRS an electronic copy of the model CRMMP. 

At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall 

submit the subject CRMMP to the CPM for review and approval. The CPM will 

provide the project owner with a model CRMMP to adapt for project use. 

At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, a letter shall be provided 

to the CPM indicating that the project owner agrees to pay curation fees for any 

materials collected as a result of the archaeological investigations (survey, 

testing, data recovery). 

CUL-4 The project owner shall submit the final Cultural Resources Report 

(CRR) to the CPM for approval. The final CRR shall be written by or 

under the direction of the CRS and shall be provided in the ARMR 

format. The final CRR shall report on all field activities including dates, 

times and locations, findings, samplings, and analyses. All survey 

reports, DPR 523 forms, data recovery reports, and any additional 

research reports not previously submitted to the California Historical 

Resource Information System (CHRIS) and the State Historic 

Preservation Officer (SHPO) shall be included as appendices to the 

final CRR. 

If the project owner requests a suspension of ground disturbance 

and/or construction activities, then a draft CRR that covers all cultural 

resources activities associated with the project shall be prepared by 

the CRS and submitted to the CPM for review and approval on the 

same day as the suspension/extension request. The draft CRR shall 

be retained at the project site in a secure facility until ground 

disturbance and/or construction resumes or the project is withdrawn. If 

the project is withdrawn, then a final CRR shall be submitted to the 

CPM for review and approval at the same time as the withdrawal 

request. 

Verification: Within 90 days after completion of ground disturbance (including 

landscaping), the project owner shall submit the final CRR to the CPM for review 

and approval. If any reports have previously been sent to the CHRIS, then 

receipt letters from the CHRIS or other verification of receipt shall be included in 

an appendix. 

282
Within 90 days after completion of ground disturbance (including landscaping), 

the project owner shall provide to the CPM a copy of an agreement with, or other 

written commitment from, a curation facility that meets the standards stated in the 

California State Historical Resources Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation 

of Archaeological Collections, to accept cultural materials, if any, from this 

project. Any agreements concerning curation will be retained and available for 

audit for the life of the project. 

Within 10 days after CPM approval, the project owner shall provide 

documentation to the CPM confirming that copies of the final CRR have been 

provided to the SHPO, the CHRIS, the curating institution, if archaeological 

materials were collected, and to any Native American groups requesting copies 

of project-related reports. 

Within 30 days after requesting a suspension of construction activities, the 

project owner shall submit a draft CRR to the CPM for review and approval. 

CUL-5 Prior to and for the duration of ground disturbance, the project owner 

shall provide Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) 

training to all new workers within their first week of employment at the 

project site, laydown area, and along the linear facilities routes. The 

training shall be prepared by the CRS, may be conducted by any 

member of the archaeological team, and may be presented in the form 

of a video. The CRS shall be available (by telephone or in person) to 

answer questions posed by employees. The training may be 

discontinued when ground disturbance is completed or suspended, but 

must be resumed when ground disturbance, such as landscaping, 

resumes. The training shall include: 

1. A discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law; 

2. Samples or visuals of artifacts that might be found in the project 

vicinity; 

3. Instruction that the CRS, alternate CRS, and CRMs have the 

authority to halt project-related ground disturbance in the area of a 

discovery to an extent sufficient to ensure that the resource is 

protected from further impacts, as determined by the CRS; 

4. Instruction that employees are to halt work on their own in the 

vicinity of a potential cultural resources discovery and shall contact 

their supervisor and the CRS or CRM, and that redirection of work 

would be determined by the construction supervisor and the CRS; 

5. An informational brochure that identifies reporting procedures in the 

event of a discovery; 

6. An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that 

they have received the training; and 

283
7. A sticker that shall be placed on hard hats indicating that 

environmental training has been completed. 

No ground disturbance shall occur prior to implementation of the 

WEAP program, unless such activities are specifically approved by the 

CPM. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance, the 

CRS shall provide the training program draft text and graphics and the 

informational brochure to the CPM for review and approval, and the CPM will 

provide to the project owner a WEAP Training Acknowledgement form for each 

WEAP-trained worker to sign. 

On a monthly basis, until ground disturbance is completed, the project owner 

shall provide in the Monthly Compliance Report (MCR) the WEAP Training 

Acknowledgement forms of workers at the project site and on the linear facilities 

who have completed the training in the prior month and a running total of all 

persons who have completed training to date. 

CUL-6 The project owner shall ensure that the CRS, alternate CRS, or CRMs 

monitor full time all ground disturbance exceeding five feet in depth at 

the project site, at laydown areas, along linear facilities routes, at pull 

sites, and in any other ancillary project-related impact areas, and all 

ground disturbance at any depth along existing paved roads, to ensure 

there are no impacts to undiscovered resources and to ensure that 

known resources are not impacted in an unanticipated manner. 

Full-time archaeological monitoring for this project shall be the 

archaeological monitoring of all earth-removing activities on the project 

site, at the laydown area, along the linear facility routes, and at roads 

or other ancillary areas for as long as the activities are ongoing. Fulltime archaeological monitoring shall require at least one monitor per 

excavation area where machines are actively removing earth. If an 

excavation area is too large for one monitor to effectively observe the 

earth removal, one or more additional monitors shall be retained to 

observe the area. 

In the event that the CRS believes that the current level of monitoring 

is not appropriate in certain locations, a letter or e-mail detailing the 

justification for changing the level of monitoring shall be provided to the 

CPM for review and approval prior to any change in the level of 

monitoring. 

The research design in the CRMMP shall govern the collection, 

treatment, retention/disposal, and curation of any archaeological 

materials encountered. 

On forms provided by the CPM, CRMs shall keep a daily log of any 

monitoring and other cultural resources activities and any instances of 

non-compliance with the Conditions and/or applicable LORS. Copies of 

284
the daily monitoring logs shall be provided by the CRS to the CPM, if 

requested by the CPM. From these logs, the CRS shall compile a 

monthly monitoring summary report to be included in the MCR. If there 

are no monitoring activities, the summary report shall specify why 

monitoring has been suspended. The CRS or alternate CRS shall 

report daily to the CPM on the status of cultural resources-related 

activities at the project site, unless reducing or ending daily reporting is 

requested by the CRS and approved by the CPM. 

The CRS, at his or her discretion, or at the request of the CPM, may 

informally discuss cultural resources monitoring and mitigation 

activities with Energy Commission technical staff. 

Cultural resources monitoring activities are the responsibility of the 

CRS. Any interference with monitoring activities, removal of a monitor 

from duties assigned by the CRS, or direction to a monitor to relocate 

monitoring activities by anyone other than the CRS shall be considered 

non-compliance with these Conditions. 

Upon becoming aware of any incidents of non-compliance with the 

Conditions and/or applicable LORS, the CRS and/or the project owner 

shall notify the CPM by telephone or e-mail within 24 hours. The CRS 

shall also recommend corrective action to resolve the problem or 

achieve compliance with the Conditions. When the issue is resolved, 

the CRS shall write a report describing the issue, the resolution of the 

issue, and the effectiveness of the resolution measures. This report 

shall be provided in the next MCR for the review of the CPM. 

A Native American monitor shall be obtained to monitor ground 

disturbance in areas where Native American artifacts are discovered. 

Contact lists of interested Native Americans and guidelines for 

monitoring shall be obtained from the Native American Heritage 

Commission. Preference in selecting a monitor shall be given to Native 

Americans with traditional ties to the area that shall be monitored. If 

efforts to obtain the services of a qualified Native American monitor are 

unsuccessful, the project owner shall immediately inform the CPM. The 

CPM will either identify potential monitors or will allow ground 

disturbance to proceed without a Native American monitor. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the CPM 

will provide to the CRS an electronic copy of a form to be used as a daily 

monitoring log. While monitoring is on-going, the project owner shall include in 

each MCR a copy of the monthly summary report of cultural resources-related 

monitoring prepared by the CRS. 

Daily, as long as no cultural resources are found, the CRS shall provide a 

statement that “no cultural resources over 50 years of age were discovered” to 

the CPM as an e-mail, or in some other form acceptable to the CPM. If the CRS 

concludes that daily reporting is no longer necessary, a letter or e-mail providing 

a detailed justification for the decision to reduce or end daily reporting shall be 

285
provided to the CPM for review and approval at least 24 hours prior to reducing 

or ending daily reporting. 

At least 24 hours prior to implementing a proposed change in monitoring level, 

documentation justifying the change shall be submitted to the CPM for review 

and approval. 

No later than 30 days following the discovery of any Native American cultural 

materials, the project owner shall submit to the CPM copies of the information 

transmittal letters sent to the Chairperson of the Native American tribes or groups 

who requested the information. Additionally, the project owner shall submit to the 

CPM copies of letters of transmittal for all subsequent responses to Native 

American requests for notification, consultation, and reports and records, and 

any comments or information provided in response by the Native Americans. 

CUL-7 The project owner shall grant authority to halt project-related ground 

disturbance to the CRS, alternate CRS, and the CRMs in the event of 

a discovery. Redirection of ground disturbance shall be accomplished 

under the direction of the construction supervisor in consultation with 

the CRS. 

In the event cultural resources over 50 years of age or, if younger, 

determined exceptionally significant by the CPM, are found, or impacts 

to such resources can be anticipated, ground disturbance shall be 

halted or redirected in the immediate vicinity of the discovery sufficient 

to ensure that the resource is protected from further impacts. 

Monitoring and daily reporting as provided in CUL-6 shall continue 

during all ground-disturbing activities elsewhere on the project site. 

The halting or redirection of ground disturbance shall remain in effect 

until the CRS has visited the discovery, and all of the following have 

occurred: 

1. The CRS has notified the project owner, and the CPM has been 

notified within 24 hours of the discovery, or by Monday morning if 

the cultural resources discovery occurs between 8:00 AM on Friday 

and 8:00 AM on Sunday morning, including a description of the 

discovery (or changes in character or attributes), informed of the 

action taken (i.e., work stoppage or redirection), provided a 

recommendation of CRHR eligibility, and provided 

recommendations for mitigation of any cultural resources 

discoveries, whether or not a determination of CRHR eligibility has 

been made. 

2. If the discovery is prehistoric or ethnographic, the CRS has notified 

all Native American groups that expressed a desire to be notified in 

the event of such a discovery. 

3. The CRS has completed field notes, measurements, and 

photography for a DPR 523 “Primary” form. The “Description” entry 

of the DPR 523 “Primary” form shall include a recommendation on 

286
the CRHR eligibility of the discovery. The project owner shall 

submit completed forms to the CPM. 

4. The CRS, the project owner, and the CPM have conferred, and the 

CPM has concurred with the recommended eligibility of the 

discovery and approved the CRS’s proposed data recovery, if any, 

including the curation of the artifacts, or other appropriate 

mitigation; and any necessary data recovery and mitigation have 

been completed. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the 

project owner shall provide the CPM and CRS with a letter confirming that the 

CRS, alternate CRS, and CRMs have the authority to halt project-related ground 

disturbance in the vicinity of a cultural resources discovery, and that the project 

owner shall ensure that the CRS notifies the CPM within 24 hours of a discovery, 

or by Monday morning if the cultural resources discovery occurs between 8:00 

AM on Friday and 8:00 AM on Sunday morning. 

Within 48 hours of the discovery of an archaeological or ethnographic resource, 

the project owner shall ensure that the CRS notifies all Native American groups 

that expressed a desire to be notified in the event of such a discovery. 

Completed DPR 523 forms for resources newly discovered during ground 

disturbance shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval no later than 

24 hours following the notification of the CPM, or 48 hours following the 

completion of data recordation/recovery, whichever the CRS decides is more 

appropriate for the subject cultural resource. 

CUL-8 The project owner shall suggest to PG&E in writing that, if feasible, the 

Avenal Energy transmission line interconnection to the Gates 

Substation be designed to avoid changes to the existing Tesla-Midway 

230-kV transmission line towers. 

If the Facilities Study, or other equivalent study as provided for in the 

CAISO’s Open Access Transmission Tariff, completed by 

CAISO/PG&E for the project, indicates the need for modifications to 

any existing Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line towers to 

accommodate AE’s new transmission line, then the project owner shall 

document any towers subject to modification. 

The documentation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural 

historian whose resume demonstrates training and background 

conforming to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional 

Qualifications Standards (36 C.F.R., part 61) and three years’ 

experience in recording twentieth-century industrial structures. 

The documentation shall include: 

1. Representative photography of the transmission line and of the 

individual affected towers (all elevations) to be submitted in 5” x 7” 

or 8” x 10” prints on archival-quality paper; 

287
288

2. Preparation of a site plan or linear location map of the affected 

segment(s) and of individual affected towers within the alignment; 

3. Technical descriptions of the Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission 

line, as available from public and non-confidential sources, 

including descriptions of each tower type installed; and 

4. A narrative history of the Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line, 

drawn from public and non-confidential sources, from the time of its 

construction to the present, placing it in the context of the 

development of California’s electrical grid in the 1950s. 

Once approved by the CPM, this documentation shall be submitted to 

the Avenal Public Library and the Southern San Joaquin Valley 

Information Center at California State University, Bakersfield, for 

inclusion in their respective archives. 

Verification: At least 90 days prior to any work on the Tesla-Midway 230-kV 

transmission line, the project owner shall provide to the CPM copies of written 

correspondence between the project owner and PG&E documenting the project 

owner’s efforts to persuade PG&E to design the project interconnection to avoid 

impacts to the Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line towers and providing a 

copy of any design agreement reached between the project owner and PG&E. 

At least 60 days prior to any work on the Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line, 

if there will be project impacts to the Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line 

towers, the project owner shall submit the resume of the proposed architectural 

historian to the CPM for review and approval. 

At least 30 days prior to any work on the Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line, 

the project owner shall provide a copy of the completed documentation to the 

CPM for review and approval. 

Within 90 days after the CPM approves the completed documentation, the 

project owner shall submit copies of transmittal letters for the submission of 

copies of the CPM-approved documentation to the Avenal Public Library and the 

Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, California State University, 

Bakersfield. 
D. GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

This section summarizes the record concerning the project’s potential impacts on 

significant geological and paleontological resources. The evidence evaluates 

whether project-related activities could result in exposure to geological hazards, 

as well as whether the facility can be designed and constructed to avoid any 

such hazard which could impair its proper functioning. These include faulting 

and seismicity, liquefaction, dynamic compaction, hydrocompaction, subsidence, 

expansive soils, landslides, tsunamis, and seiches. Next, the evidence of record 

assesses whether the project will impact any geologic or mineralogic resources. 

Finally, the analysis of record examines whether fossilized remains or trace 

remnants of prehistoric plants or animals are present at the site and, if so, 

whether the project’s potential impacts to these resources are adequately 

mitigated. The parties did not dispute any matters in this discipline. (7/7/09 RT 

446-48; Exs. 1; 25 (n); 200, § 5.2.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Geologic Hazards 

The project site is located in the southwestern San Joaquin Valley, which is part 

of the Great Valley geomorphic province of California. The Great Valley is 

approximately 400 miles long and 60 miles wide, bounded on the north by lowlying hills; on the northeast by the volcanic plateau of the Cascade Range; on the 

west by the Coast Ranges; on the east by the Sierra Nevada; and on the south 

by the Coast Ranges and the Tehachapi Mountains. Much of the valley fill 

alluvium is underlain by marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks and 

crystalline basement which have undergone anticlinal and synclinal folding and 

faulting related to regional tectonism. This tectonism has been uplifting the 

Coast Ranges since the middle Jurassic period. Major oil fields have been 

developed in the southern portion of the valley, primarily to the east of the site. 

(Ex. 200, p. 5.2-3.) 

Site surface soils are comprised of a permeable sandy loam. The depth to 

ground water can vary from 200 to 250 feet below existing grade. Site nearsurface geology consists of alluvial fan deposits of Holocene age underlain by 

Pliocene-Pleistocene aged non-marine clastic sediments of the Tulare 

Formation. These units together extend to depths of 2,000 to 2,800 feet below 

the surface. (Id.) 

289 
The site parcel is not crossed by any known active faults and does not lie within a 

designated special studies zone. A number of major, active faults lie within 70 

miles of the site. (Ex. 200, p. 5.2-4.) Thus, the project is within an active 

geologic area. 

The record contains specific subsurface information, as well as Staff’s 

independent research and review of geologic information from sources such as 

the California Geological Survey and the U. S. Geological Survey, concerning the 

location, recency, and the type of faulting in the project area. (Ex. 200, p. 5.2-6.) 

This evidence shows that eighteen Type A and B faults and fault segments are 

within 70 miles of the site.40 

At the site, the ramp thrust fault is approximately 4.5 miles below the surface. 

Three earthquakes with a Richter magnitude range of 5.6 to 6.7 occurred along 

this fault zone between 1983 and 1985. Numerous smaller earthquakes continue 

to occur throughout the site area, most commonly with epicenters at or below the 

thrust ramp (4.5 miles down) and with magnitudes of less than 4.0. The Parkfield 

segment of the San Andreas Fault is about 25.3 miles away, and is capable of a 

moment magnitude earthquake of 6.5. (Ex. 200, p. 5.2-7.) 

The evidence also shows that: 

• Since the depth to ground water is 200-250 feet below existing grade, the 

potential for liquefaction is negligible. Consequently, the potential for 

lateral spreading of the site surface during seismic events is also 

negligible. 

• Alluvial deposits underlying the site are generally too dense to allow 

significant dynamic compaction. The potential for significant 

hydrocompaction is remote because the site has been extensively 

irrigated and cultivated. 

• Subsidence, landslides, flooding, tsunamis, and seiches similarly pose 

insignificant risks. 

• Soils in the project area consist of a sandy loam which would likely not 

pose any significant expansive soil hazard. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.2-9 to 5.2-11.) 

 

40 These are indentified in Table-2, Ex. 200, p. 5.2-8. The closest are segments 14 and 13 of the 

Great Valley Blind Thrust Fault System which are 1.1 and 6.1 miles away, respectively. Three 

other segments of the Great Valley System (12, 11, and 10) are also within 70 miles of the site. 

The Great Valley Blind Thrust is a blind ramp thrust fault system that occurs at depth throughout 

the site vicinity. (Ex. 200, p. 5.2-6.) 

290 
Overall, the evidence shows that, because blind thrust faults do not intersect the 

surface, there is no known hazard due to surface rupture. Although strong 

ground shaking may occur, seismic concerns are adequately addressed by 

following proper design criteria as required in FACILITY DESIGN Condition of 

Certification GEN-1. The evidence similarly establishes that adverse impacts for 

the potential geologic hazards mentioned above are adequately mitigated by 

other FACILITY DESIGN Conditions of Certification such as GEN-5 and CIVIL-1. 

(Ex. 200, pp. 5.2-10, 5.2-12.) 

2. Mineralogic and Paleontologic Impacts 

The evidence further shows there are no known viable geologic or mineralogical 

resources at the site. The site is not located within an established Mineral 

Resource Zone. (Ex. 200, p. 5.2-5.) Although the site is close to producing oil 

and gas fields, these are located beneath the structural anticlines of the 

Kettleman and Gurjaral Hills to the west and northwest; the potential for 

production from beneath the site is low. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.2-1, 5.2-11.) 

Similarly, no paleontological resources have been identified at the site. 

Quaternary alluvial and lakebed deposits like those which underlie the project 

site can potentially contain a wide variety of vertebrate fossils. Accordingly, the 

evidentiary record contains site specific information, including field examinations, 

as well as information gleaned from records searches from the San Bernardino 

County Museum and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. (Ex. 

200, p. 5.2-5.) None of this evidence indicates the presence of paleontological 

resources at the project site. Moreover, even if on-site construction, including 

that for the associated natural gas line, includes significant earth disturbance, the 

likelihood of encountering paleontological resources remains low. (Ex. 200, pp. 

5.2-5, 5.2-12.) The evidence establishes that Conditions of Certification PAL-1

to PAL-7, below, provide protection to any resources present as the Conditions 

will mitigate any construction impacts to less than significant levels. This 

mitigation will occur through a worker education program in conjunction with the 

monitoring of earthworks activities by a professional paleontologist. (Ex. 200, p. 

5.2-12.) 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence, we make the following findings. 

291 
1. The project is located in an active geologic area. 

2. Ground shaking is the main geologic hazard to the Avenal Project. 

3. Potential geologic hazards to the project are effectively mitigated by standard 

engineering design measures as specified in Conditions GEN-1, GEN-5, and 

CIVIL-1 of the Facility Design section of this Decision. 

4. Liquefaction, lateral spreading, dynamic compaction, hydrocompaction, 

ground subsidence, landslides, flooding, tsunamis, and seiches pose low or 

negligible project risks. 

5. There is no evidence of existing or potential geological or mineralogical 

resources at the project site or along the linear alignments. 

6. The project owner will implement several mitigation measures to avoid 

impacts to paleontological resources including worker education, preparing a 

Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan, and having a Paleontologic 

Resource Specialist on-site. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Conditions listed below ensure that project activities will not cause 

significant adverse impacts to geological, mineralogical, or paleontological 

resources. 

2. Compliance with the Conditions of Certification specified below will ensure 

that the Avenal Project conforms to all applicable laws, ordinances, 

regulations, and standards related to geological, mineralogical, and 

paleontological resources as indentified in Appendix A of this Decision. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

General Conditions of Certification with respect to engineering geology are under 

Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 in the FACILITY 

DESIGN section. Paleontological Conditions of Certification follow. 

PAL-1 The project owner shall provide the compliance project manager 

(CPM) with the resume and qualifications of its paleontological 

resource specialist (PRS) for review and approval. If the approved 

PRS is replaced prior to completion of project mitigation and submittal 

of the Paleontological Resources Report, the project owner shall obtain 

292 
CPM approval of the replacement PRS. The project owner shall keep 

resumes on file for qualified paleontological resource monitors (PRMs). 

If a PRM is replaced, the resume of the replacement PRM shall also be 

provided to the CPM. 

The PRS resume shall include the names and phone numbers of 

references. The resume shall also demonstrate to the satisfaction of 

the CPM the appropriate education and experience to accomplish the 

required paleontological resource tasks. 

As determined by the CPM, the PRS shall meet the minimum 

qualifications for a vertebrate paleontologist as described in the 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines of 1995. The 

experience of the PRS shall include the following: 

1. Institutional affiliations, appropriate credentials, and college degree; 

2. Ability to recognize and collect fossils in the field; 

3. Local geological and biostratigraphic expertise; 

4. Proficiency in identifying vertebrate and invertebrate fossils; and 

5. At least three years of paleontological resource mitigation and field 

experience in California and at least one year of experience leading 

paleontological resource mitigation and field activities. 

The project owner shall ensure that the PRS obtains qualified 

paleontological resource monitors to monitor as he or she deems 

necessary on the project. Paleontologic resource monitors (PRMs) 

shall have the equivalent of the following qualifications: 

• BS or BA degree in geology or paleontology and one year of 

experience monitoring in California; or 

• AS or AA in geology, paleontology, or biology and four years’ 

experience monitoring in California; or 

• Enrollment in upper division classes pursuing a degree in the fields 

of geology or paleontology and two years of monitoring experience 

in California. 

Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the 

project owner shall submit a resume and statement of availability of its 

designated PRS for on-site work. 

At least 20 days prior to ground disturbance, the PRS or project owner shall 

provide a letter with resumes naming anticipated monitors for the project. The 

letter shall state that the identified monitors meet the minimum qualifications for 

paleontological resource monitoring required by the condition. If additional 

monitors are obtained during the project, the PRS shall provide additional letters 

293 
and resumes to the CPM. The letter shall be provided to the CPM no later than 

one week prior to the monitor’s beginning on-site duties. 

Prior to the termination or release of a PRS, the project owner shall submit the 

resume of the proposed new PRS to the CPM for review and approval. 

PAL-2 The project owner shall provide to the PRS and the CPM, for approval, 

maps and drawings showing the footprint of the power plant, 

construction lay-down areas, and all related facilities. Maps shall 

identify all areas of the project where ground disturbance is 

anticipated. If the PRS requests enlargements or strip maps for linear 

facility routes, the project owner shall provide copies to the PRS and 

CPM. The site grading plan and plan and profile drawings for the utility 

lines shall be acceptable for this purpose. The plan drawings shall 

show the location, depth, and extent of all ground disturbances and be 

at a scale between 1 inch = 40 feet and 1 inch = 100 feet. If the 

footprint of the project or its linear facilities changes, the project owner 

shall provide maps and drawings reflecting those changes to the PRS 

and CPM. 

If construction of the project proceeds in phases, maps and drawings 

may be submitted prior to the start of each phase. A letter identifying 

the proposed schedule of each project phase shall be provided to the 

PRS and CPM. Before work commences on affected phases, the 

project owner shall notify the PRS and CPM of any construction phase 

scheduling changes. 

At a minimum, the project owner shall ensure that the PRS or PRM 

consults weekly with the project superintendent or construction field 

manager to confirm area(s) to be worked the following week and until 

ground disturbance is completed. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the 

project owner shall provide the maps and drawings to the PRS and CPM. 

If there are changes to the footprint of the project, revised maps and drawings 

shall be provided to the PRS and CPM at least 15 days prior to the start of 

ground disturbance. 

If there are changes to the scheduling of the construction phases, the project 

owner shall submit a letter to the CPM within five days of identifying the changes. 

PAL-3 The project owner shall ensure that the PRS prepares, and the project 

owner submits to the CPM for review and approval, a paleontological 

resources monitoring and mitigation plan (PRMMP) to identify general 

and specific measures to minimize potential impacts to significant 

paleontological resources. Approval of the PRMMP by the CPM shall 

occur prior to any ground disturbance. The PRMMP shall function as 

294 
the formal guide for monitoring, collecting, and sampling activities and 

may be modified with CPM approval. This document shall be used as 

the basis of discussion when on-site decisions or changes are 

proposed. Copies of the PRMMP shall reside with the PRS, each 

monitor, the project owner’s on-site manager, and the CPM. 

The PRMMP shall be developed in accordance with the guidelines of 

the SVP (1995) and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

1. Assurance that the performance and sequence of project-related 

tasks, such as any literature searches, pre-construction surveys, 

worker environmental training, fieldwork, flagging or staking, 

construction monitoring, mapping and data recovery, fossil 

preparation and collection, identification and inventory, preparation 

of final reports, and transmittal of materials for curation will be 

performed according to PRMMP procedures; 

2. Identification of the person(s) expected to assist with each of the 

tasks identified within the PRMMP and the Conditions of 

Certification; 

3. A thorough discussion of the anticipated geologic units expected to 

be encountered, the location and depth of the units relative to the 

project when known, and the known sensitivity of those units 

based on the occurrence of fossils either in that unit or in 

correlative units; 

4. An explanation of why, how, and how much sampling is expected 

to take place and in what units. Include descriptions of different 

sampling procedures that shall be used for fine-grained and 

coarse-grained units; 

5. A discussion of the locations of where the monitoring of project 

construction activities is deemed necessary, and a proposed plan 

for monitoring and sampling; 

6. A discussion of procedures to be followed in the event of a 

significant fossil discovery, halting construction, resuming 

construction, and how notifications will be performed; 

7. A discussion of equipment and supplies necessary for collection of 

fossil materials and any specialized equipment needed to prepare, 

remove, load, transport, and analyze large-sized fossils or 

extensive fossil deposits; 

8. Procedures for inventory, preparation, and delivery for curation 

into a retrievable storage collection in a public repository or 

museum which meets the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s 

295 
standards and requirements for the curation of paleontological 

resources; 

9. Identification of the institution that has agreed to receive data and 

fossil materials collected, requirements or specifications for 

materials delivered for curation and how they will be met, and the 

name and phone number of the contact person at the institution; 

and 

10. A copy of the paleontological Conditions of Certification. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner 

shall provide a copy of the PRMMP to the CPM. The PRMMP shall include an 

affidavit of authorship by the PRS and acceptance of the PRMMP by the project 

owner evidenced by a signature. 

PAL-4 Prior to ground disturbance and for the duration of construction 

activities involving ground disturbance, the project owner and the PRS 

shall prepare and conduct weekly CPM-approved training for the 

following workers: project managers, construction supervisors, 

foremen and general workers involved with or who operate grounddisturbing equipment or tools. Workers shall not excavate in sensitive 

units prior to receiving CPM-approved worker training. Worker training 

shall consist of a CPM-approved video or in-person presentation. The 

training program may be combined with other training programs 

prepared for cultural and biological resources, hazardous materials, or 

other areas of interest or concern. No ground disturbance shall occur 

prior to CPM approval of the Worker Environmental Awareness 

Program (WEAP) unless specifically approved by the CPM. 

The WEAP shall address the possibility of encountering 

paleontological resources in the field, the sensitivity and importance of 

these resources, and legal obligations to preserve and protect those 

resources. 

The training shall include: 

1. A discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law; 

2. Good quality photographs or physical examples of vertebrate 

fossils for project sites containing units of high paleontologic 

sensitivity; 

3. Information that the PRS or PRM has the authority to halt or 

redirect construction in the event of a discovery or unanticipated 

impact to a paleontological resource; 

4. Instruction that employees are to halt or redirect work in the vicinity 

of a find and to contact their supervisor and the PRS or PRM; 

296 
5. An informational brochure that identifies reporting procedures in the 

event of a discovery; 

6. A WEAP certification of completion form signed by each worker 

indicating that he/she has received the training; and 

7. A sticker that shall be placed on hard hats indicating that 

environmental training has been completed. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance the project owner 

shall submit the proposed WEAP, including the brochure, with the set of reporting 

procedures for workers to follow. 

At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall submit the 

script and final video to the CPM for approval if the project owner is planning to 

use a video for interim training. 

If the owner requests an alternate paleontological trainer, the resume and 

qualifications of the trainer shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval 

prior to installation of an alternate trainer. Alternate trainers shall not conduct 

training prior to CPM authorization. 

In the monthly compliance report (MCR), the project owner shall provide copies 

of the WEAP certification of completion forms with the names of those trained 

and the trainer or type of training (in-person or video) offered that month. The 

MCR shall also include a running total of all persons who have completed the 

training to date. 

PAL-5 The project owner shall ensure that the PRS and PRM(s) monitor, 

consistent with the PRMMP, all construction-related grading, 

excavation, trenching, and augering in areas where potential fossilbearing materials have been identified, both at the site and along any 

linear facilities constructed in association with the project. In the event 

that the PRS determines full-time monitoring is not necessary in 

locations that were identified as potentially fossil bearing in the 

PRMMP, the project owner shall notify and seek the concurrence of 

the CPM. 

The project owner shall ensure that the PRS and PRM(s) have the 

authority to halt or redirect construction if paleontological resources are 

encountered. The project owner shall ensure that there is no 

interference with monitoring activities unless directed by the PRS. 

Monitoring activities shall be conducted as follows: 

1. Any change of monitoring from the accepted schedule in the 

PRMMP shall be proposed in a letter or email from the PRS and 

the project owner to the CPM prior to the change in monitoring and 

will be included in the monthly compliance report. The letter or 

297 
email shall include the justification for the change in monitoring and 

be submitted to the CPM for review and approval. 

2. The project owner shall ensure that the PRM(s) keeps a daily 

monitoring log of paleontological resource activities. The PRS may 

informally discuss paleontological resource monitoring and 

mitigation activities with the CPM at any time. 

3. The project owner shall ensure that the PRS notifies the CPM 

within 24 hours of the occurrence of any incidents of noncompliance with any paleontological resources Conditions of 

Certification. The PRS shall recommend corrective action to resolve 

the issues or achieve compliance with the Conditions of 

Certification. 

4. For any significant paleontological resources encountered, either 

the project owner or the PRS shall notify the CPM within 24 hours, 

or Monday morning in the case of a weekend event, where 

construction has been halted because of a paleontological find. 

The project owner shall ensure that the PRS prepares a summary of 

monitoring and other paleontological activities to be placed in the 

monthly compliance reports. The summary shall include the name(s) of 

PRS or PRM(s) active during the month; general descriptions of 

training and monitored construction activities; and general locations of 

excavations, grading, and other activities. A section of the report shall 

include the geologic units or subunits encountered, descriptions of 

samplings within each unit, and a list of identified fossils. A final section 

of the report will address any issues or concerns about the project 

relating to paleontologic monitoring, including any incidents of noncompliance or any changes to the monitoring plan that have been 

approved by the CPM. If no monitoring took place during the month, 

the report shall include an explanation in the summary as to why 

monitoring was not conducted. 

Verification: The project owner shall ensure that the PRS submits the 

summary of monitoring and paleontological activities in the MCR. When feasible, 

the CPM shall be notified 10 days in advance of any proposed changes in 

monitoring different from the plan identified in the PRMMP. If there is any 

unforeseen change in monitoring, the notice shall be given as soon as possible 

prior to implementation of the change. 

PAL-6 The project owner, through the designated PRS, shall ensure that all 

components of the PRMMP are adequately performed including 

collection of fossil materials, preparation of fossil materials for analysis, 

analysis of fossils, identification and inventory of fossils, the 

preparation of fossils for curation, and the delivery for curation of all 

298 
significant paleontological resource materials encountered and 

collected during project construction. 

Verification: The project owner shall maintain in his/her compliance file copies 

of signed contracts or agreements with the designated PRS and other qualified 

research specialists. The project owner shall maintain these files for a period of 

three years after project completion and approval of the CPM-approved 

paleontological resource report (see Condition of Certification PAL-7). The 

project owner shall be responsible for paying any curation fees charged by the 

museum for fossils collected and curated as a result of paleontological mitigation. 

A copy of the letter of transmittal submitting the fossils to the curating institution 

shall be provided to the CPM. 

PAL-7 The project owner shall ensure preparation of a Paleontological 

Resources Report (PRR) by the designated PRS. The PRR shall be 

prepared following completion of the ground-disturbing activities. The 

PRR shall include an analysis of the collected fossil materials and 

related information and submit it to the CPM for review and approval. 

The report shall include, but is not limited to, a description and 

inventory of recovered fossil materials; a map showing the location of 

paleontological resources encountered; determinations of sensitivity 

and significance; and a statement by the PRS that project impacts to 

paleontological resources have been mitigated below the level of 

significance. 

Verification: Within 90 days after completion of ground-disturbing activities, 

including landscaping, the project owner shall submit the PRR under confidential 

cover to the CPM. 

// 

// 

// 

299 
300 

Certification of Completion 

Worker Environmental Awareness Program 

Avenal Energy Project (08-AFC-1) 

This is to certify these individuals have completed a mandatory California Energy 

Commission-approved Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The 

WEAP includes pertinent information on cultural, paleontological, and biological 

resources for all personnel (that is, construction supervisors, crews, and plant 

operators) working on site or at related facilities. By signing below, the participant 

indicates that he/she understands and shall abide by the guidelines set forth in the 

program materials. Include this completed form in the Monthly Compliance Report. 

No. Employee Name Title/Company Signature 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

Cultural Trainer: Signature: Date: 

___/___/ 

PaleoTrainer: Signature: Date: 

___/___/ 

Biological Trainer: Signature: 

Date:___/___/ 
VII. LOCAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

In general, a power plant may be incompatible with existing or planned land uses 

resulting in significant impacts such as unmitigated noise, dust, public health or 

safety hazards, adverse traffic or visual effects, or an excessive burden on local 

community services. The following sections of this Decision discuss local 

impacts under the technical topics of land use, traffic and transportation, visual 

resources, noise, and socioeconomics. 

A. LAND USE 

To determine whether the Avenal Energy Project will result in a significant impact 

on land use, the analysis focuses on two main issues (1) whether the project is 

consistent with local land use plans, ordinances, and policies; and (2) whether 

the project is compatible with existing and planned land uses. The evidence on 

this topic was undisputed. (Ex. 1, § 6.9; Ex. 200, p. 4.5-1 et seq.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

According to CEQA Guidelines41 a project results in significant land use impacts 

if it would: 

• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 

Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the 

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources 

Agency, to non-agricultural use. 

• Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. 

• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location 

or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses. 

• Physically disrupt or divide an established community. 

• Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community 

conservation plan. 

• Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency 

with jurisdiction, or that would normally have jurisdiction, over the project. 

This includes, but is not limited to, a General Plan, community or specific 

plan, local coastal program, airport land use compatibility plan, or zoning 

ordinance. 

 

41 Title 14, Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq., Appendix G, Sections II, IX, XVI. 

301 
• Create individual environmental effects which, when considered with other 

impacts from the same project or in conjunction with impacts from other 

closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, are 

considerable, compound, or increase other environmental impacts.

Local ordinances and policies applicable to the Avenal Energy Project include the 

City of Avenal General Plan (1992 and 2005 Updates), the Avenal Zoning 

Ordinance, the Kings County and Fresno County General Plans. (Ex. 1, § 

6.9.2.2, et seq.) 

1. The Site 

The project site is located in a predominantly rural area within Avenal city limits, 

about two miles east of Interstate 5 (I-5). Agriculture is the primary land use east 

of I-5. The Kettleman Hills and other uplands to the west of I-5 are characterized 

by extensively disturbed areas due to grazing and oil/gas development. The 

entire region has a low population density. See Land Use Figure 1 (Regional 

Map) at the end of this section. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-3.) 

The site is part of the city’s industrial zone, which is physically separated from the 

residential and business districts of the city by a distance of six miles. The 

terrain between the industrial zone and the city’s population center includes I-5 

and the intervening topography of the Kettleman Hills. The industrial zone 

extends from the Kettleman compressor station near I-5 to the city's water 

treatment plant at the northeast corner of the city. According to Staff, the city 

zoned these lands “Industrial” to take advantage of the bulk natural gas supply 

available from the compressor station, the adjacent electrical transmission 

corridor, and the transportation corridor along I-5. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-3.) 

The project site, construction laydown area, and linear facilities are designated 

Industrial (“I”) under the Avenal General Plan and zoned Heavy Industrial (“M-2”) 

under the Avenal Zoning Ordinance. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-3.) 

Staff’s Land Use Tables 2 and 3, below, show the general plan and zoning 

designations within a one-mile radius of the project site, excluding the 

transmission line corridor. 

302 
Land Use Table 2 

General Plan Land Use Designations within the 

One-Mile Radius Project Study Area 

Direction Jurisdiction Designation 

North Kings County General Agricultural 

South City of Avenal Industrial 

East Kings County General Agricultural 

West City of Avenal Industrial 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.5-4; Ex. 1, p. 6.9.3. 

Land Use Table 3 

Zoning Designations within the One-Mile Radius Project Study Area 

Direction Jurisdiction Designation 

North Kings County General Agricultural 

South City of Avenal Heavy Industrial 

East Kings County General Agriculture 

West City of Avenal Heavy Industrial 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.5-4; Ex. 1, p. 6.9.3. 

The project’s new 6.4-mile transmission line from the on-site switchyard to the 

Gates Substation will be constructed within a 120-foot wide right-of-way partially 

within the City of Avenal on lands zoned Industrial and partially in Fresno County 

on lands zoned Agricultural. Under Fresno County’s Zoning regulations, electric 

transmission lines and substations are permitted uses in agricultural lands. (Ex. 

200, pp. 4.5-4 and 4.5-5.) 

2. Potential Impacts 

Conversion of Farmland. The project will occupy 36 acres of land currently 

used for agricultural production and designated Prime Farmland by the California 

Department of Conservation (CDC). The CDC requested that Staff perform a 

Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) to determine the environmental 

significance of project-specific impacts on farmland. Staff’s LESA evaluation 

found that the project’s potential conversion score exceeded the significance 

threshold and would result in the physical conversion of 34.8 acres of Prime 

Farmland. Applicant agreed to offset this impact by preserving other Prime 

Farmland in the vicinity at a 1:1 ratio for the project’s permanent disturbed 

acreage. We have adopted Condition of Certification LAND-2 to ensure that the 

303 
project owner will implement this mitigation measure prior to the start of 

construction.42 (Ex. 200, pp. 4.5-8 to 4.5-10, 4.5-16.) 

The project’s linear facilities will traverse properties adjacent to the site that are 

also designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide 

Importance. The record establishes, however, that construction of the project’s 

off-site linear facilities will only result in the permanent conversion of 1.2 acres of 

farmland to nonagricultural use, and otherwise will not conflict with existing 

agricultural zoning, or interfere with Williamson Act contracts. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-8, 

4.2-11, 4.9-10.) We have added these 1.2 acres of permanently converted prime 

farmland to the mitigation required in Condition of Certification LAND-2.

43

Division of Existing Community. There is no evidence that the project will 

physically divide or disrupt an established community. Given its location, the 

project will not alter existing residential, recreational, commercial, institutional, or 

other industrial land use patterns in the area. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.5-6 to 4.5-7, 4.5-

13.) 

Conflict with Habitat or Conservation Plan. There is no regulatory Habitat or 

Natural Community Conservation Plan specifically applicable to the Avenal 

Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-10.) 

3. Consistency with Land Use LORS. 

Use of the site for power plant development is consistent with the city’s General 

Plan Industrial Land Use element. The Heavy Industrial “M-2” zone within the 

Industrial “I” district is intended to accommodate a broad range of industrial 

activities and development. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.5-11 to 4.5-12.) The “M-2” zone 

specifically allows development of an “electrical power generating plant” as a 

conditional use within the “M-2” zone. (See Zoning Ordinance of the City of 

Avenal § 9.31; see also Ex. 200, p. 3-2.) 

 

42 In the “Verification” timeline for Condition of Certification LAND-2, Applicant and Staff proposed 

that proof of the farmland conversion mitigation plan could be provided prior to the start of project 

operation. We changed the deadline to require proof of mitigation prior the start of construction 

because the impacts to farmland will occur when project construction begins. 

43 Staff’s Land Use testimony (Ex. 200, p 4.5-8) states that project off-site linear facilities would 

not result in permanent farmland conversion. However, Staff’s Biological Resources testimony 

identifies 1.2 acres of permanent farmland conversion resulting from the construction of 43 

transmission poles. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-11). We have added the 1.2 acres to the 34.8 acres Staff 

established as the area for project site impacts to Prime Farmland (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-9.) 

304 
To ensure that the project is consistent local LORS, Staff reviewed the use 

permit findings that the City would have made but for the Energy Commission’s 

exclusive jurisdiction and found that the project would be eligible for a use permit, 

as follows: 

1. The proposed use is desirable for public convenience or welfare. According 

to Staff, the project is consistent with the General Plan to promote orderly 

development with a functional mix of land uses. The project will provide fiscal 

benefits and new energy capacity to the City of Avenal and surrounding 

communities. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-13.) 

2. The proposed use will not impair the character and integrity of the zoning 

district and surrounding area. The site is located in an industrial setting and 

does not adjoin any existing residential, recreational, office, or commercial 

zones. The record shows that the project complies with the city’s 

development standards (lot requirements and height limitations) for the “M-2” 

District. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.5-7, 4.5-11 to 4.5-12.) 

Additional development standards in Chapter 9.31 of the city’s Zoning 

Ordinance also apply to the project, including setback requirements, signage, 

landscaping, loading; fencing; and parking requirements. Condition of 

Certification LAND-1 ensures that the project will comply with all applicable 

development standards in Chapter 9.31 of the Zoning Ordinance. (Ex. 200, p. 

4.5-13.) 

3. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or 

general welfare of the citizens of the City of Avenal. Each technical topic 

discussed in this Decision was analyzed according to well-established 

scientific methodology and applicable law designed to protect the most 

sensitive receptors. The mitigation measures contained in the Conditions of 

Certification for each topic ensure that development of the project will not be 

detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare of the local 

population. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-14.) 

4. The size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the 

proposed use. The record establishes that the parcel size and shape of the 

site are adequate to allow full development of the project components and 

provide agricultural buffers to protect surrounding agricultural uses. (Ex. 200, 

p. 4.5-14.) 

The project’s water pipe from existing groundwater wells located north of the site 

will traverse unincorporated land in Kings County. This use is consistent with the 

Kings County General Agriculture land use designation because it will not harm 

long-term agricultural uses surrounding the site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-12.) 

305 
Approximately 200 feet of underground water pipeline from an existing well to the 

site for the standby water supply will cross into Fresno County. This short 

pipeline will not detrimentally affect agricultural uses surrounding the site and is 

therefore consistent with the Fresno County General Plan. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-13.) 

4 Land Use Compatibility 

When a jurisdictional authority, such as the City of Avenal, establishes zoning 

districts, it is that agency’s responsibility to ensure the compatibility of adjacent 

zoning districts and uses, and to ensure that those uses will not result in adverse 

impacts to surrounding properties. The record shows that the city has effectively 

isolated the industrial area six miles from Avenal’s population center to minimize 

impacts on residents. Beyond Avenal city limits, the next closest population 

centers from the site include Huron eight miles to the north and Kettleman City 

about 10 miles to the south. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-15.) 

The Conditions of Certification ensure that the project will not result in 

unmitigated project-related impacts to surrounding properties. Under CEQA, a 

project site may be considered unacceptable if it presents a new source of 

pollution or creates a hazard in close proximity to a sensitive receptor. Sensitive 

receptors include schools, day-care centers, hospitals, nursing homes, and 

residential areas. Close proximity is defined as “within 1,000 feet” of a school 

(California Health & Safety Code § 42301.6 et seq.) or within 0.25 mile of a 

sensitive receptor under CEQA. Proximity is not necessarily the deciding factor 

for a potentially significant impact but it is the threshold generally used to require 

further evaluation. Since there are no schools, childcare, hospitals, medical 

facilities, or residential areas within a one-mile radius of the site, there is no 

evidence that the project will pose a significant public health hazard to sensitive 

receptors in the general vicinity of the site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-15.) 

Since the primary purpose of the city’s Industrial “I” District is to encourage 

industrial development in an area suitable for this use, we find that the project is 

compatible with surrounding uses and zoning districts. 

306 
5. Cumulative Impacts 

There is no evidence of potential cumulative land use impacts resulting from 

development of the Avenal Energy Project because there are no anticipated 

zoning changes or proposals for future development near the project site. (Ex. 

200, p. 4.5-16.) 

CRPE asserted that CEQA requires an analysis of whether the addition of the 

project’s 600 MW into the electric grid will induce population growth throughout 

the State of California. (CRPE Opening Brief, p. 15, citing § 15126.2(d) of the 

CEQA Guidelines.) In response, Applicant noted that power plants do not create 

a demand for electricity but rather new power plants are built in response to 

changes in demand. (07/07/09 RT 83:13-21; Ex. 26, p. A10.) The economic 

reality of developing a power plant ensures that natural gas plants will not be built 

unless there is existing demand for the new power to be produced by the plant. 

(Applicant’s Opening Brief, at 17; Applicant’s Reply Brief, at 17.) Where such 

demand for electricity exists, public utilities are required to serve that demand, or 

load, and this Commission must ensure the reliability of generating resources. 

The record indicates there is sufficient demand for the Avenal Energy Project’s 

output and no basis to examine whether development of this project will induce 

population growth in the state. Staff analysis of potential cumulative land use 

impacts revealed no trends in zoning changes or future development proposals 

in the area of the project site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-16.) 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the uncontroverted evidence, the Commission makes the following 

findings: 

1. The Avenal Energy Project will result in the permanent physical conversion 

of Prime Farmland to non-agricultural use of 36 acres, made up of 34.8 

acres at the project site plus 1.2 acres for transmission poles. 

2. The project owner will provide mitigation by preserving other Prime 

Farmland in the vicinity at a 1:1 ratio to compensate for the loss of 34.8 

acres of Prime Farmland at the project site plus 1.2 acres for transmission 

poles. 

3. The mitigation set forth in Condition of Certification LAND-2 below, will 

mitigate project-related impacts to Prime Farmland to an insignificant level. 

307 
4. Construction of the project’s off-site linear facilities will not result in a 

conflict with existing agricultural zoning, or interfere with Williamson Act 

contracts. 

5. There is no evidence that the Avenal Energy Project will physically divide 

or disrupt an established community. 

6. There is no regulatory Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plan 

specifically applicable to the Avenal Energy Project. 

7. Local ordinances and policies applicable to the Avenal Energy Project 

include the City of Avenal General Plan, City of Avenal Zoning Ordinance, 

the Kings County General Plan and the Fresno County General Plan. 

8. The project site is designated Industrial “I” under the Avenal General Plan 

and zoned Heavy Industrial “M-2”, which allows a broad range of industrial 

activities and development including an “electrical power generating plant.” 

9. The City of Avenal has determined that power plants are a conditional use 

in the Heavy Industrial “M-2” zone under the “utilities and resource 

extraction” category. 

10. The Avenal Energy Project complies with the four required findings for a 

Use Permit under the Avenal Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with 

applicable LORS. 

11. The project will be designed and constructed in accordance with all 

applicable development standards identified in the Avenal Zoning 

Ordinance. 

12. The City of Avenal has effectively isolated the industrial area, where the 

project site is located, by a distance of six miles from areas zoned for 

residential, public, and retail commercial use to minimize impacts on 

sensitive receptors. 

13. The project is compatible with surrounding uses and zoning districts since 

the primary purpose of the city’s Industrial “I” District is to encourage 

industrial development in an area suitable for this use. 

14. There is no evidence of direct, indirect, or cumulative land use impacts 

resulting from development of the Avenal Energy Project. 

15. There is no evidence that the project will induce significant population 

growth either near the site or throughout the State of California. 

308 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. With implementation of the mitigation measures specified in this Decision, 

and the Conditions of Certification below, we conclude that construction 

and operation of the Avenal Energy Project will not result in significant 

adverse direct, indirect, and cumulative land use impacts. 

2. The evidence of record contains an adequate analysis of the land use laws, 

ordinances, regulations, and standards that are relevant to the project and 

establishes that the project will create no unmitigated, significantly adverse 

land use effects as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act. 

3. The Conditions of Certification, below, ensure that the Avenal Energy Project 

will be designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with the 

applicable land use laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) 

identified in the evidentiary record and listed in the pertinent portion of 

Appendix A of this Decision. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

LAND-1 The project owner shall design and construct the project in accordance 

with the standards listed in the I Zone (“Industrial”) of the Avenal 

Municipal Code (Chapter 9.31) which includes the following: 

• Meet the setback requirements; 

• Off-street parking and loading spaces shall be provided as 

stipulated; 

• Signage requirements; 

• Loading requirements; 

• Landscaping requirements; 

• Lighting requirements; and 

• Fencing requirements. 

Verification: At least 90 calendar days prior to the start of construction, 

including any grading or site remediation on the power plant project site or its 

associated easements, the project owner shall submit the proposed development 

plan to the City of Avenal Planning Department for review and comment and to 

the CPM for review and approval. The project owner shall also provide the CPM 

with a copy of the transmittal letter to the City of Avenal. 

309 
310 

At least 30 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall 

provide copies of any comment letters received from the City of Avenal, along 

with any changes to the proposed development plan, to the CPM for review and 

approval. 

LAND-2 The project owner shall mitigate at a one-to-one (1:1) ratio for the 

conversion of 36 acres of prime farmland as classified by the California 

Department of Conservation, to a non-agricultural use, for the 

construction of the power generation facility, switchyard, and the storm 

water evaporative/percolation basin. The mitigation shall consist of one 

of the following: 

1. Pay a mitigation fee to a City of Avenal or Kings County agricultural 

land trust or the American Farmland Trust consistent with a 

prepared Farmlands Mitigation Agreement. The payment amount 

shall be determined by consulting with the local assessor’s office to 

determine the assessed value for 36 acres of prime agricultural 

land; or by a real estate appraiser selected by the project owner 

and approved by the CPM; or 

2. Secure the acquisition of an agricultural easement or otherwise 

ensure the creation of an agricultural easement for other farmland 

in the vicinity. Easements for prime farmland would be acquired 

based on the California Department of Conservation’s Important 

Farmland Classification Map, but in no case shall be less than a 1:1 

ratio. 

Verification: Prior to the start of ground disturbance (as defined in this 

Decision), the project owner shall provide documentation to the CPM 

demonstrating compliance with one of these options. For option 1, 

documentation shall consist of proof of mitigation fee payment and a discussion 

of any land and/or easements purchased to date by the trust with the mitigation 

fee money provided, and the provisions to guarantee that the land managed by 

the trust will be preserved for farming in perpetuity. If the total required acreage 

has not been purchased by this time, then this discussion shall include the 

schedule for purchasing any additional required acres of prime farmland and/or 

easements within one year of the start of commercial operations. 

For option 2, the project owner shall provide to the CPM a copy of the deed 

restriction or other documentation at least 60 calendar days prior to the start of 

construction demonstrating to the satisfaction of the CPM that the project owner 

has secured the creation of an in-perpetuity agricultural easement for the total 

required acreage. 
LAND USE - FIGURE 1 

Avenal Energy Regional Map 

 Source: Ex. 200 

311 
B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 

This section addresses the extent to which the proposed project will affect the 

local area’s transportation network. The evidence includes an analysis of: (1) the 

roads and routings that are proposed to be used for construction and operation; 

(2) potential traffic-related problems associated with the use of those routes; (3) 

the frequency of trips and probable routes associated with the delivery of 

hazardous materials; and (4) the possible effect of project operations on local 

airport flight traffic. 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

1. Location 

The Avenal Energy site is located on Avenal Cutoff Road about two miles east of 

Interstate 5 (I-5) in western Kings County. The facility would be located adjacent 

to the San Luis Canal. Traffic and Transportation Figure 1, below, Regional 

Transportation System shows the region surrounding the project site. 

/// 

/// 

/// 

312 
Traffic and Transportation – Figure 1 

Avenal Energy – Regional Transportation System 

Source: Ex. 200. 

313 
2. Access Roads 

Access to the Avenal site would be via the following highways and roads: 

Interstate 5: I-5 is a north-south four-lane freeway that connects the Central 

Valley with northern and southern California. Caltrans reports traffic volume on I5 in the project area as averaging 35,400 vehicles per day, 30 percent of which is 

truck traffic. 

Avenal Cutoff Road: Avenal Cutoff Road is a two-lane northeast-southwest 

road that provides access to the project site from I-5 and the highways described 

below. East of I-5, it has unimproved shoulders 15-20 feet wide which contain 

telephone poles. Further east the road shoulders adjoin agricultural fields. 

Avenal Cutoff Road carries about 5,000 vehicles per day with 16 percent truck 

traffic. It also connects with the local circulation network to the east and north 

accessing communities such as Huron (north), Kettleman City (east), and Fresno 

(north) via SR-41. 

State Route (SR)-198: SR-198 is a two lane east-west highway approximately 

10 miles to the north of the project site. It connects I-5 to Highway 99 and 

communities to the east of the project site. Traffic volumes are 18,500 vehicles 

per day (8 percent trucks). 

SR-296: SR-296 is a two lane highway to the west of the project site. It 

intersects I-5 and heads south to the City of Avenal and north to SR-198 and 

beyond. Reported traffic volumes in the project area are 3,984 vehicles per day 

(26 percent trucks). 

SR-41: SR-41 is a two lane highway to the east of the project site, heading in a 

north/north-easterly direction from I-5. Traffic volumes on SR-41 in the project 

vicinity are 14,200 vehicles per day (13 percent trucks). (7/709 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 

200, pp. 4.10-3, 4.10-15 to 4.10-16.) 

a. Airports 

The Avenal Airport, a private facility, is located about seven miles southwest of 

the Avenal Energy site. Additional aviation facilities include Harris Ranch Airport 

(fifteen miles northwest at Interstate 5 and State route 198), and Lemoore Naval 

Air Station (fifteen miles northeast). The project site is not in the landing or takeoff pattern of any of these facilities. 

314 
However, the project would be located beneath the Military Operational Airspace 

of the Lemoore facility. There are no agricultural airstrips in the project area. 

(7/709 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, p. 4.10-4.)

b. Public Transportation 

The Kings Area Rural Transit provides bus service from Avenal to Hanford six 

times per day and uses Avenal Cutoff Road. The Reef-Sunset School District 

provides school bus service from the City of Avenal to Kettleman City three times 

per day; 7 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 3:30 p.m. Schools are let out early on 

Wednesdays; the bus would pass by the site at 1:20 p.m. and 2:20 p.m. The 

school bus route uses Avenal Cutoff Road between Orange Avenue and I-5. 

(7/709 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, p. 4.10-4.) 

C. Railroads 

The major rail lines in the vicinity of Avenal Energy site are the Union Pacific 

(UP) line (leased by the San Joaquin Valley Railroad) which connects the 

communities of Huron and Exeter, and the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 

(BNSF) line spur to the community of Corcoran. The UP line is about eight miles 

north of the project site and the BNSF line is about 35 miles east of the project 

site. (7/709 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, p. 4.10-4.) 

d. Traffic Congestion 

“Level of service” (LOS) is a qualitative measure describing operational 

conditions within a traffic stream. LOS is a term used to describe and quantify 

the congestion level on a particular roadway or intersection and generally 

describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, and 

delay. The Highway Capacity Manual defines six levels of service for roadways 

or intersections ranging from LOS A, which represents free flow conditions and 

the best operating conditions, to LOS F, which represents the worst and 

overcapacity conditions. According to the Kings and Fresno County’s Circulation 

Element of the respective General Plans, LOS D is the lowest acceptable level. 

Traffic and Transportation Table 1 below summarizes the existing LOS for 

intersections that may be affected in the project area. 

315 
Traffic and Transportation Table 1 

Roadway Segment Average Daily Traffic Volume and LOS 

Roadway Segment Volume LOS 

I-5 – Intersection with 

SR-269 34,000 B 

SR-198 18,850 A* 

SR-41 14,200 A 

SR-269 3,984 A 

Avenal Cutoff Road 5,031 C 

*SR-198 is currently LOS D during afternoon peak period at the ramp from Avenal Cutoff Road 

(Ex. 200, pp. 4.10-3 to 4.10-4.) 

3. Direct/Indirect Impacts on Traffic 

a. Construction 

Facility construction is projected to take place over 27 months. Parking for 

construction workers would be provided on the project site. To determine the 

amount of vehicle trips to the project site during average and peak construction 

periods, the Applicant assumed that workers would commute during the morning 

and afternoon peak intervals (7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m.). Workers would 

operate in two shifts; 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The 

average number of construction workers would be approximately 320, while the 

peak workforce would consist of 550 workers during a two month period (months 

19 and 20). The Applicant used a 15 percent carpool rate for the construction 

worker traffic analysis. Staff found the Applicant’s assumptions and estimates to 

be reasonable. 

Based on regional demographics and availability of skilled laborers, the bulk of 

construction workers would probably come from Fresno County, with some from 

Kern and Kings counties. Those coming from Kings and Fresno counties would 

use SR-41, SR-198 and SR-269 and turn onto Avenal Cutoff Road. They would 

then go west until reaching the Avenal Energy access road. A left turn (heading 

south) would lead onto the project site. Workers from the Bakersfield area could 

travel on I-5 via SR-41. Construction traffic is not expected to degrade the LOS 

on these roads. However, potentially significant traffic impacts are identified at 

two different locations. 

316 
Construction of the generating plant would require the use and installation of 

heavy equipment and associated systems and structures. Heavy equipment 

would be used throughout the construction period, including trenching and 

earthmoving equipment, forklifts, cranes, cement mixers and drilling equipment. 

A passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor of three cars per truck was used to 

determine the traffic impacts of trucks and heavy equipment deliveries. Project 

construction is expected to require 10 trucks per day on average and 110 trucks 

on two days during peak construction (PCE of 30 and 330, respectively per day). 

In-bound and out-bound truck traffic would arrive and depart the project site 

using the same routes as construction workers. 

Given the 320-person average construction workforce and the 15 percent carpool 

rate estimated by the Applicant, total average construction traffic impact 

(workforce and trucks) would be 302 vehicle round trips (272 workers plus 30 

PCE for trucks and deliveries), or 604 one-way vehicle trips. Total peak 

construction traffic impact with 15 percent carpooling would be 798 vehicle round 

trips (468 workers plus 330 PCE for trucks and deliveries), or 1596 one-way 

vehicle trips. The average construction total is about a 12 percent increase in 

traffic when compared to 2007 Avenal Cutoff Road average daily traffic counts 

(5,000). Peak construction total is about a 35 percent increase. Staff and the 

Applicant believe the LOS C on Avenal Cutoff Road would not degrade during 

construction. To mitigate any damage to the roadway, we adopt Condition of 

Certification TRANS-2 requiring repair of any damage to Avenal Cutoff Road 

from construction traffic, particularly heavy trucks. 

Two potentially significant impacts to local roads from project construction were 

identified during analysis of the AFC. The first involves the SR-198 eastbound 

ramp at Avenal Cutoff Road. Currently, the afternoon peak is LOS D which is at 

the threshold for unacceptable congestion according to Caltrans’ Guide to Traffic 

Impact Studies. During peak construction (in 2011) the congestion during the 

afternoon peak would increase to an unacceptable level (LOS F). To mitigate 

this potential impact the Applicant has proposed hiring an off-duty traffic officer to 

direct traffic or installing a trailer-mounted camera activated temporary signal. We 

adopt that requirement in Condition of Certification TRANS-1. 

The second potential impact involves the intersection of Jayne Avenue and 

Avenal Cutoff Road. Existing eastbound semi-truck and trailer traffic on Jayne 

Avenue must cross over the centerline to enter Avenal Cutoff Road and could 

cause a delay, depending on traffic flow on Avenal Cutoff Road. Though the 

current situation is less than ideal, the Applicant and Staff agree that it is unlikely 

317 
that Avenal Energy construction truck traffic would use this intersection. 

However, given the possibility of a significant impact, Condition of Certification 

TRANS-1 prohibits project truck traffic from using the Jayne Avenue/Avenal 

Cutoff Road intersection. 

Traffic impacts from the construction of the project’s linear facilities (natural gas 

and water supply lines, electric transmission lines) would be short term in nature, 

mitigated by cones and flagmen when necessary, and would not significantly 

impact traffic flow. Condition of Certification TRANS-1 requires that the project 

owner work with the city of Avenal to mitigate any significant adverse impact on 

traffic flows on Avenal Cutoff Road during construction of the linear facilities. 

The Reef-Sunset Unified School District provides school bus service between the 

city of Avenal and Kettleman City. The bus route includes Avenal Cutoff Road at 

7 a.m., 3:15 p.m., and 3:30 p.m., and at 1:20 and 2:20 p.m. on Wednesdays. 

Staff expressed a concern that construction worker and truck traffic could 

interfere with the school bus service or compromise the safety of the bus or 

school children. It discussed the issue with the bus driver for the School District 

who expressed similar concerns and supported of Staff’s proposed Condition of 

Certification TRANS-1 requiring that project construction contractors and 

subcontractors not arrive or depart the site within one half-hour of the times that 

school buses use Avenal Cutoff Road. We adopt Staff’s proposal but note that 

the requirement appears to conflict with the shift times (6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. 

and 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.). The workers on the earlier shift cannot arrive one 

minute late, nor can the workers on the later shift arrive one minute early. In the 

afternoon, no one may leave the site between 2:45 and 4:00, which would 

seriously impact the earlier shift. We invite the parties to comment on this 

apparent conflict in their comments on this PMPD. 

Deliveries to the Avenal Energy site would include small quantities of hazardous 

materials to be used during project construction. The Applicant estimates that 

there would be delivery/disposal of hazardous materials of about two truck trips 

per month to and from the site. Materials handling on site would be conducted in 

accordance with all applicable federal and state statutes (see the HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS MANAGEMENT section of this Decision for more information). 

The preferred transportation route for hazardous materials would use I-5 and 

Avenal Cutoff Road. (7/709 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.10-5 to 4.10.8.) 

318 
b. Operation 

Plant operations will require 25 full time workers generating 50 one-way trips per 

day. Plant operations would also generate approximately 5 delivery truck trips 

per day. The workers are expected to use the same routes as those used by 

construction workers. The LOS of those roads would not be significantly 

affected. (7/709 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, p. 4.10-13.) 

c. Airports 

The Avenal Airport, a private facility, is located about seven miles southwest of 

the Avenal Energy site, the Harris Ranch Airport is located about 15 miles 

northwest, and the Lemoore Naval Air Station is located 15 miles northeast. The 

project site is not in the landing or take-off pattern of any of these facilities. 

However, the project would be located within the Military Operational Airspace of 

the Lemoore facility. There are no agricultural airstrips in the project area. 

The two heat recovery steam generator (HRSG) stacks would be 145 feet high, 

the air cooled condenser 139 feet high, and the transmission line towers would 

be 100 feet high. These structures would not penetrate navigable airspace for 

any airport. 

Plume velocities from the HRSGs and other project components have the 

potential to destabilize low flying aircraft. A threshold velocity of 4.3 meters per 

second (m/s) or greater can cause moderate to severe turbulence. Staff 

estimates that the 4.3 m/s average thermal plume velocity would rise up to 

almost 1,000 above ground level (AGL) during certain meteorological conditions 

(calm wind, cool temperatures). The diameter of the thermal plume at this 

elevation would be 265 feet (80 meters). The peak velocity in the center of the 

plume could be considerably higher. Staff believes that the Avenal Energy 

HRSG would have thermal plume velocities resulting in turbulence that could 

affect low-flying aircraft maneuverability. The thermal plume velocities from the 

air condenser could be considerably higher and could achieve the 4.3 m/s 

threshold at 2,250 feet AGL. In addition, the diameter of the condenser plume is 

very large (900 feet (287 meters)) compared to the HRSG plume. 

The existing flight pattern for the Avenal Airport and the Lemoore Naval Air 

Station does not bring aircraft at 1,500 feet or lower over the project site. 

Representatives from the military have reviewed the project and have concluded 

that it would not have any impact on the military mission in the area. 

319 
The agricultural fields near the project area are sprayed by crop-dusting aircraft. 

The Applicant controls the 148-acre parcel that surrounds the project site and will 

implement requirements that would preclude aerial spraying without prior notice 

and permission from the Applicant. To help avoid potential impacts on aircraft 

encountering plumes from the HSRGs and the air cooled condenser, we adopt 

Condition of Certification TRANS-3 requiring the project owner to advise the 

Kings and Fresno County Agricultural Commissioners that crop-dusting aircraft 

should avoid direct overflight of the project site. 

Visible HRSG plumes rise vertically and would not create ground hugging plumes 

that could impact vehicle traffic on Avenal Cutoff Road. The project air 

condenser would not emit visible plumes. (7/709 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 

4.10-8 to 4.10-9.) 

d. Hazardous Materials Transport 

In operation the project would use hazardous substances including sulfuric acid 

and cleaning and water treatment chemicals. It is estimated that there would be 

an average of approximately seven truck trips per month including four deliveries 

per month of aqueous ammonia. In addition, there would be 27 additional truck 

trips of various hazardous materials every year. A licensed hazardous waste 

transporter would haul any hazardous waste from the project site to one of three 

Class 1 hazardous waste landfills in western Kern County near the communities 

of Buttonwillow and Kettleman City, and in Imperial County near the community 

of Westmoreland. The handling and disposal of hazardous substances are also 

addressed in the WASTE MANAGEMENT, WORKER SAFETY and FIRE 

PROTECTION and HAZARDOUS MATERIALS sections of this Decision. 

If conducted in compliance with existing federal and state standards, deliveries of 

hazardous materials such as aqueous ammonia and water treatment chemicals 

will not cause a significant impact. (7/709 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, p. 4.10-8.) 

4. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation 

The Committee is unaware of any other construction project that would affect the 

surrounding roadways and therefore finds that no cumulative impacts on traffic or 

transportation are expected from construction or operation of the Avenal Energy 

project. (7/709 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.10-9 to 4.10-10.) 

320 
FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the evidence, and the implementation of the Conditions of 

Certifications below, we find as follows: 

1. The evidence of record contains an analysis of the project’s likely ability to 

comply with all applicable LORS related to Traffic and Transportation. 

2. The evidence includes an analysis of the project’s potential impacts to 

aviation safety in the area. 

3. The project will not pose significant risk to aviation safety. 

4. Condition of Certification TRANS-2 requires a mitigation plan to repair area 

roads that are damaged by project construction-related traffic. 

5. There would be no significant direct or cumulative traffic and transportation 

impacts related to the project. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Construction and operation of the project, as mitigated herein, will not result 

in any significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the local or 

regional traffic and transportation system. 

2. The project as proposed would comply with all applicable LORS related to 

Traffic and Transportation, which are set forth in Appendix A of this Decision. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

TRANS-1 The project owner shall, in coordination with the city of Avenal and 

Kings County, and in consultation with the Reef-Sunset Unified 

School District, develop and implement a construction traffic control 

plan prior to construction site mobilization. Specifically, the traffic 

control plan shall include the following: 

• The use of an off-duty traffic officer or the installation of a trailermounted camera activated temporary signal to maintain the existing 

LOS D during the afternoon peak on the SR-198 eastbound ramp 

on Avenal Cutoff Road. 

• The project owner shall advise project construction contractors and 

subcontractors that they should not arrive or depart the site within 

321 
one-half hour of the times when school buses use Avenal Cutoff 

Road between Orange Avenue and I-5 (at the time of analysis 

those time were: weekdays at 7 a.m., Monday, Tuesday, Thursday 

and Friday at 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m., and Wednesdays at 1:20 

p.m. and 2:20 p.m.). 

• Project truck traffic shall avoid using the Jayne Road/Avenal Cutoff 

Road intersection. 

• Traffic safety measures for ingress/egress from the project site to 

Avenal Cutoff Road shall include at a minimum a full time stop sign, 

and a flag person during shift changes and heavy equipment 

ingress/egress. 

• Ensure that the construction of the linears uses appropriate 

mitigation such as cones, signs, trailer-mounted camera, and 

flagmen/traffic officer to avoid unnecessary disruption of traffic 

flows on Avenal Cutoff Road; 

Verification: At least 90 days prior to the start of site mobilization activities, 

the project owner shall submit a construction traffic control plan to the city of 

Avenal, the Kings County Public Works Department, and the Reef-Sunset Unified 

School District for review and comment, and to the CPM for review and approval, 

to ensure that the construction of the linears and the increase in construction 

traffic would not adversely affect traffic flow on Avenal Cutoff Road, and would 

not degrade existing LOS on the SR-198 eastbound ramp at Avenal Cutoff Road. 

The plan shall also describe how workers will be advised to avoid arriving and 

departing the Avenal Energy site within one-half hour of the time when the school 

bus uses Avenal Cutoff Road. The project owner shall provide the CPM with a 

copy of any comments received regarding the construction traffic control plan 

within 15 days of receipt. 

TRANS-2 Prior to site mobilization activities, the project owner shall prepare a 

mitigation plan for Avenal Cutoff Road should it be damaged by 

project construction. The plan shall ensure that if Avenal Cutoff Road 

is damaged by project construction it will be repaired and 

reconstructed to original or as near original condition as possible. This 

plan shall include: 

• Documentation of the pre-construction condition of Avenal Cutoff 

Road from I-5 to the access road to the site. Prior to the start of site 

mobilization, the project owner shall provide to the CPM 

photographs or videotape of Avenal Cutoff Road. 

• Documentation of any portions of Avenal Cutoff Road that may be 

inadequate to accommodate oversize or large construction 

vehicles, and identify necessary remediation measures; 

322 
323 

• Provide for appropriate bonding or other assurances to ensure that 

any damage to Avenal Cutoff Road due to construction activity will 

be remedied by the project owner; and 

• Reconstruction of portions of Avenal Cutoff Road that are damaged 

by project construction due to oversize or overweight construction 

vehicles. 

Verification: At least 90 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project 

owner shall submit a mitigation plan for restoring Avenal Cutoff Road to its preproject condition to the city of Avenal for review and comment, and to the CPM 

for review and approval. 

Within 90 days following the completion of construction, the project owner shall 

provide photo/videotape documentation to the Kings County Planning 

Department, and the CPM that the damaged sections of Avenal Cutoff Road 

have been restored to their pre-project condition. 

TRANS-3 Prior to start-up and testing activities, the project owner shall notify 

the Kings and Fresno County Agricultural Commissioners that due to 

the potential presence of project thermal plumes with significant size 

and velocities, crop-dusting aircraft should avoid direct overflight of 

the Avenal Energy site. 

Verification: At least 60 days prior to start-up and testing activities, the project 

owner shall provide the CPM with a copy of letters advising the Kings and Fresno 

County Agricultural Commissioners that crop dusting aircraft should avoid direct 

overflight of the Avenal Energy site. 
C. SOCIOECONOMICS 

This topic reviews pertinent demographic information concerning population 

centers near the project site and evaluates the potential impacts of projectrelated population changes on housing, local schools, medical and fire protection 

services, public utilities, and other public services, as well as the fiscal and 

physical capacities of local government to meet those needs. The public benefits 

of the project are also reviewed, including the effects on local finances from 

property and sales taxes and school impact fees. In addition, an environmental 

justice screening analysis is performed to determine whether project-related 

activities would result in disproportionate impacts on low income and/or minority 

populations. 

The evidence for this topic regarding impacts on public services was undisputed 

but the evidence regarding environmental justice was contested. (Ex. 1, § 6.10, 

Exs. 3(d), 25(j); Ex. 200, p. 4.8-1 et seq.; 07/07/09 RT 59 et seq.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

The analysis is focused on the construction phase of project development due to 

the potential influx of workers to the site. Socioeconomic impacts are considered 

significant if a large influx of non-resident workers and dependents move to the 

project area, increasing demand for community resources that are not readily 

available. (Ex. 200, p. 4.8-3.) 

The study area for the Avenal Energy Project includes communities in the City of 

Avenal and Kings County that would most likely be affected by an influx of 

workers. The nearest population center in Avenal is about six miles southwest of 

the site. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.8-2, 4.8-4; Ex. 1, §§ 6.10.1, 6.10.1.1.) 

1. Potential Impacts 

The construction period will take about 27 months with a peak workforce of 550 

workers in the 19th and 20th months of construction and an overall average 

workforce of about 326 workers per month, including skilled workers and 

contractor staff. (Ex. 200, p. 4.8-4; Ex. 1, § 6.10.2.1, Table 6.10-11.) 

The evidentiary record indicates that approximately 80 percent of the 

construction workforce will be drawn from the large labor pool residing in Kings 

County and neighboring Tulare, Fresno, and Kern Counties. The majority of 

324 
workers are expected to commute from the population centers of Fresno and 

Bakersfield about one hour from the site. According to Staff, workers typically 

commute from their homes on a daily basis within a two-hour commute. An 

estimated 20 percent of the workforce with longer commutes may stay in local 

hotels, motels, mobile homes, or other rental properties on a weekly basis and 

return to their homes on the weekends. The evidentiary record indicates there is 

an adequate supply of hotels/motels, rental properties, and permanent housing to 

accommodate weekly commuters. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.8-4, 4.8-7; Ex. 1, pp. 6.10-9, 

6.10-19.) 

Socioeconomics Table 1, below, shows that local labor would be adequate to 

meet project construction needs based on data from the year 2005. 

Socioeconomics Table 1 

Total Labor in Fresno, King, Tulare, and Kern Counties 

By Skill for Construction in 2005 

Occupational Title Annual Average 2005 

Maximum Needed Per 

Month By Avenal Energy 

Insulation Workers 430 33 

Boilermakers 150* 65 

Brick Masons/Block Masons 5,240 10 

Carpenters 5,490 53 

Electricians 2,870 90 

Structural Iron and Steel Workers 130 47 

Construction Workers 19,510 33 

Millwrights 970 60 

Operating Engineers and other 

Construction Equipment Operators 1,560 33 

Painters 2,330 33 

Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters 2,660 176 

Surveyors 190 6 

Teamsters 15,477 5 

Staff Not Available 46 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.8-5; Ex. 1, p. 6.10-20, Table 6.10-12. 

325 
Applicant expects to hire about 25 permanent, full-time employees for project 

operation from Kings County and neighboring counties within commuting 

distance of the project site. A minimal number of employees may relocate to the 

area and require permanent housing but any resulting effects on public services 

are considered de minimis. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.8-4, 4.8-8; Ex. 1, § 6.10.2.2, Table 

6.10-13.) 

It is therefore unlikely that a large influx of workers will seek housing 

accommodations in the study area due to relatively short commuting distances to 

the site. Impacts on housing and related services will be negligible in relation to 

the supply of available housing and services available. No replacement or 

displacement of residential housing will be necessary as a result of the project 

because project construction and operation will not increase demand for housing. 

(Ex. 200, pp. 4.8-4, 4.8-7; Ex. 1, § 6.10.1.3.) 

Since project-induced potential population increases will be minimal or nonexistent, construction and operation of the project will not result in significant 

adverse impacts on schools, parks and recreation, public utilities, law 

enforcement, or emergency services in the local communities. (Ex. 1, § 6.10.1.3 

et seq; Ex. 200, p. 4.8-7 et seq.) Regarding potential impacts on law 

enforcement and emergency services at the site, the project owner will 

implement appropriate site security measures and medical emergency training to 

reduce the need for assistance to insignificant levels. (Ex. 200, p. 4.8-9.) 

Section 17620 of the California Education Code allows a school district to levy a 

school development fee against new commercial or industrial construction within 

its boundaries. State and local agencies are precluded from imposing additional 

fees or other required payments on development projects for the purpose of 

mitigating possible enrollment impacts to schools. (Gov. Code, § 65996 et seq.) 

The Avenal Energy Project is located within the Reef-Sunset Unified School 

District. The school development fee is calculated at $0.33 per square footage of 

the covered and enclosed space of commercial or industrial projects. [Ed. Code, 

§ 17620 (a)(1)(A).] Based on the total area of the project’s covered and enclosed 

structures, the project owner will pay a one-time fee estimated at $3,000. (Ex. 1, 

p. 6.10-26; Ex. 200, p. 4.8-8.) Condition of Certification SOCIO-1 ensures 

payment of this one-time school development fee to comply with applicable 

LORS. There is no evidence of any significant project-related adverse 

socioeconomic impacts on educational resources. (Id.) 

326 
2. Section 25523(h) Public Benefit Findings 

Public Resources Code section 25523(h) requires discussion of the project’s 

public benefits. Applicant used an IMPLAN input-output model of the study area 

to estimate the project’s multiplier effect associated with construction and 

operation. Project construction will provide local economic benefits by creating 

direct, indirect, and induced short-term employment. Property tax revenues from 

the project will be allocated to local schools and for city and county infrastructure, 

and redevelopment. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.8-5, 4.8-6, 4.8-7; Ex. 1, §§ 6.10.2.1.8, 

6.10.2.2.5, 6.10.2.2.8.) 

A summary of the project’s economic benefits is shown in 2 Socioeconomics 

Table 2, below. 

Socioeconomics Table 2 

Data and Information**

Estimated Project Costs without linear facilities $530 million 

Estimate of Locally Purchased Materials 

 Construction $2.5 million 

 Operation (Operation and Maintenance) $2 million annually 

Estimated Annual Property Taxes (Kings 

County and the city of Avenal) $5.3 million per year 

Estimated School Impact Fees $3,000 to the Reef-Sunset Unified School 

District 

Estimated Direct Employment 

 Construction (average) 326 jobs (average per month) 

 Operation 25 jobs 

Estimated Construction Secondary Impacts 

(Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties) 

Personal Income $124 million 

Value Added $731 million 

Estimated Operation Secondary Impacts 

(Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties) 

Personal Income $1.5 million 

Value Added $153 million 

Estimated Payroll 

 Construction $126 million total 

 Operation $2.1 million annually 

327 
Socioeconomics Table 2 

Data and Information**

Estimated Sales Taxes (to the State of 

California with amounts flowing to Kings County 

and the city of Avenal as well as the cities of 

Hanford, Lemoore, and Corcoran) 

 Construction $181,000 

 Operation $145,000 annually 

Natural gas transportation franchise fee 

surcharge (city of Avenal) 

May vary but could be as high as $2.5 

million annually 

Preliminary Existing Unemployment Rates 12.9% in December 2008, for Kings 

County (Not Seasonally Adjusted) and 

9.1% in December 2008 for California (Not 

Seasonally Adjusted) 

Percent Minority Population (6-mile radius) 92.44% 

Percent Poverty Population (6-mile radius and 

beyond) 30.89% 

** Table 2 uses 3rd quarter 2007 dollars with no escalation for capital costs. Construction would be for 27 months and the 

project’s life is planned for 30 years. Unemployment information is for Kings County. The results of the IMPLAN inputoutput modeling are for Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties and show secondary impacts (indirect and induced). Population 

is for a six-mile radius from the power plant, except as noted. 

Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.8-12.

3. Environmental Justice Screening Analysis 

Applicant provided a screening analysis to determine whether environmental 

justice concerns are present in this case. (Ex. 1, § 6.10.2.2.10.) According to 

Applicant, since the mitigated project will not result in high and adverse impacts 

to any population, there are no disproportionate impacts on the environmental 

justice population and no further environmental justice analysis is required. (Id.) 

Staff’s screening analysis reflects the same conclusion. (Ex. 200, pp. 1-3, 1-4, 

4.8-2, 4.8-3; Staff’s Opening Brief, pp. 12 through 15, Staff’s Reply Brief, p. 17.) 

The Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) and Rob Simpson 

claim that the environmental justice analysis failed to consider the localized air 

quality and public health effects on the minority/low-income populations who 

reside near the site. CRPE also asserts that nearby Spanish-speaking residents 

were denied access to information about the project because the Final Staff 

Assessment was not translated into Spanish. (CRPE’s Opening Reply Brief, p. 

24 et seq; Rob Simpson’s Opening Brief, last page.) 

328 
California law defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment of people of all 

races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and 

policies.” (Govt. Code § 65040.12(e); Pub. Res. Code, § 71116(j).) 

The Resources Agency directs entities under its jurisdiction, including the Energy 

Commission, to consider environmental justice in their decision-making 

processes if their actions have an impact on the environment. (Govt. Code, § 

65040.12(b)(1).) The Resources Agency’s guidance includes demographic 

screening, public outreach, and impact analysis as important factors in 

implementing its environmental justice policy. In conjunction with the Resources 

Agency’s mandate, the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) 

has established an action plan to address environmental justice in its programs, 

policies, and standards.45 (Pub. Res. Code, §§ 71110-71116.) 

Two federal directives also provide guidance on incorporating environmental 

justice concerns in the environmental analyses conducted by state agencies. 

Federal Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” requires the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (“USEPA”) and all other federal agencies and 

state agencies receiving federal aid to address disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs on minority and 

low-income populations. The USEPA’s Final Guidance for Incorporating 

Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance Analyses 3.2.1

(1998) calls for a two-step analysis: (1) does the potentially affected community 

include minority and/or low-income populations and, if it does, (2) are the 

environmental impacts likely to fall disproportionately on minority and/or lowincome members of the community. [See also, Title VI Public Involvement 

Guidance for EPA Assistance Recipients Administering Environmental Permitting 

Programs, 71 Fed. Reg. 14207 et seq. (March 21, 2006).] 

According to USEPA’s guidance, an environmental justice population exists if the 

low-income and/or minority populations of the affected area constitute 50 percent 

or more of the general population or if the minority population percentage in the 

area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the 

general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis. (Ex. 1, § 

6.10.2.2.10; Ex. 200, p. 4.8-2.) 

 

45 October 2004, Cal-EPA Action Plan at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/ActionPlan/ and 

Phase 2 updates at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/ActionPlan/Phase2/default.htm and en 

español at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/

329 
Staff typically uses a one-mile and a six-mile radius to determine the presence of 

environmental justice populations because the same distances are used to 

assess air quality and public health effects. In this case, Census 2000 data 

indicate that the minority population by census block (the smallest geographic 

unit for which the Census Bureau collects and tabulates data) is at least 92.44 

percent within a six-mile radius of the project site. The Census Block group 

(combination of census blocks and subdivision of a census tract) shows that the 

below-poverty population is 30.89 percent within the six mile radius.46 Staff’s 

Socioeconomics Figure 1 at the end of this chapter shows the communities 

included in the analysis. (Ex. 200, pp. 1-4, 4.8-3.) 

An environmental justice screening analysis was triggered because minority 

populations within the six mile radius exceed the 50 percent threshold. The 

Commission’s screening analysis incorporates the guidance from both the 

Resources Agency and the federal government and includes (1) specific public 

outreach to notify, inform, and involve community members, including nonEnglish speaking individuals; (2) assessing potential environmental and health 

impacts of the proposed project; and (3) determining whether any potential 

impacts disproportionately burden the minority populations. 47 (Ex. 200, pp. 1-3, 

1-4.) 

The Commission’s public outreach program is an integral part of the 

Commission’s siting process. The Public Adviser’s Office facilitates the public 

outreach program by sending letters and notices to city and county officials, as 

well as "sensitive receptors" (including schools, community, cultural and health 

facilities, daycare and senior-care centers, and environmental and ethnic 

organizations) within a six-mile radius of the site. (Ex. 200, p. 1-3.) The Public 

Adviser testified that such notification was implemented in this case. (07/07/09 

RT 59 - 61.) 

The Commission’s regulations require Staff to send notices to property owners 

within 1,000 feet of a project and 500 feet of linear facilities. The notification 

letters include project website information, Staff contact information, and 

information on how to access project-related documents. These letters request 

 

46 Several census block groups extend beyond the six-mile radius and may have affected this 

population statistic. (Ex. 200, p. 4.8-3.) 

47 California Energy Commission Staff Approach to Environmental Justice, which is available at: 

http://www.energy.ca.gov/public_adviser/staff_env_justice_approach.html 

330 
public and agency review, comment, and continued participation in the public 

workshops and hearings. (Ex. 200, p. 1-3.) 

Staff provided testimony that notices and letters were sent as required to a 

comprehensive list of libraries, agencies, organizations, residents, and property 

owners within a six-mile radius of the project site. The Public Adviser arranged 

for the City of Avenal to distribute 1,200 copies of a bilingual notice to local 

facilities frequented by the public, such as City Hall, the community/recreation 

center, grocery stores, and gas stations within the Avenal area to publicize the 

public hearings on the project. Notice was also published in the Community 

News Section of the May 14, 2008, issue of the Avenal Chimes, a weekly 

newspaper with the highest circulation in the Avenal area. In addition, notice of 

the July 7, 2009, evidentiary hearing was sent to the Native American Heritage 

Commission, the Sierra Club and Audubon Society, as well as the Kings County 

Economic Development Corporation. (Ex. 200, p. 1-3.) 

CRPE did not provide evidence of significant errors in the conduct of public 

outreach efforts in this proceeding. Although the Final Staff Assessment was not 

translated into Spanish, the Spanish-speaking population received sufficient 

notice of the proceedings in Spanish, including information on how to participate. 

Moreover, CRPE represented the interests of the environmental justice 

populations and had the opportunity to raise concerns specific to their 

communities. Furthermore, a Spanish translator was available at most Staff 

workshops and at the evidentiary hearing. (Applicant’s Opening Brief, p. 52.) An 

informational sheet describing the project was provided in Spanish and the Public 

Adviser, who speaks Spanish, offered to help members of the public to 

participate more actively in the proceeding. (07/07/09 RT, pp. 58-59.) Therefore, 

we find the public outreach was adequate and that due process was served. 

The evidentiary record indicates that the fully mitigated project will not result in 

any significant adverse environmental or public health impacts to any population, 

including farm workers in the region, regarding the following technical topics: AIR 

QUALITY, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT, LAND USE, NOISE, 

PUBLIC HEALTH, SOCIOECONOMICS, SOILS AND WATER RESOURCES, 

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION, TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND 

NUISANCE, VISUAL RESOURCES, AND WASTE MANAGEMENT. The 

analyses for each topic were based on well-established scientific protocols and 

regulatory standards, which account for sensitive receptors that are presumed to 

be most susceptible to adverse environmental or public health impacts. Since 

the project will not result in significant impacts for any sensitive receptor 

331 
population, we conclude that the project will not result in a disproportionate 

impact on the environmental justice populations. (Ex. 200, pp. 1-4; see also the 

sections of this Decision concerning the topics identified above.) 

4. Cumulative Impacts 

Since the project will not result in any significant adverse socioeconomic impacts on 

housing, schools, or public services, it is not expected to contribute to significant 

cumulative socioeconomic impacts in the project vicinity. Construction of the 

Avenal Energy Project may coincide with construction of two other power plants in 

Kings County and one power plant in Fresno County. In addition, several other 

projects in the area could begin construction during the same period, including a 

new landfill and expansion of an existing landfill in Kettleman City. Staff reviewed 

the potential construction workforce overlap during the project’s anticipated 27-

month construction period beginning April 2010, and determined that the workforce 

in the four-county area is large enough to accommodate construction of the power 

plant projects as well as the other projects scheduled within the same timeframe. 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.8-10.) 

According to Staff, construction of the four power projects and other development 

projects will provide economic benefits to the four-county area because currently 

there is a high unemployment rate. (Ex. 200, p. 4-11.) Thus, we find no evidence 

that the project will have a cumulatively considerable impact on the labor force 

causing an influx of non-local workers to migrate to the study area. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the evidence of record, we make the following findings: 

1. A large skilled labor pool in Kings County and neighboring Tulare, Fresno 

and Kern Counties is available for construction and operation of the 

project. 

2. The project will not cause an influx of a significant number of construction 

or operation workers to relocate in the local area. 

3. The project will not result in significant adverse effects on local 

employment, housing, schools, public utilities, parks and recreation, law 

enforcement, or emergency services. 

4. The project owner will pay the one-time statutory school development fee 

estimated at $3,000. 

332 
5. The project will provide a construction payroll of about $126 million (2007 

dollars). 

6. The project will spend an estimated $2.5 million (2007 dollars) on local 

purchases of materials and equipment during construction. 

7. The project will generate property tax revenues of approximately $5.3 

million (2007 dollars) per year to Kings County, of which $1 million will be 

distributed to the City of Avenal. 

8. The local operations payroll of approximately $2.1 million (2007 dollars) 

and local purchases of supplies during operation will yield an estimated 

$145,000 (2007 dollars) per year in sales tax revenues. 

9. Total capital cost of the project including payroll is estimated at $530 

million (2007 dollars), without linear facilities. 

10. The combined public outreach efforts of the Public Adviser’s Office and 

the Staff were consistent with Commission requirements. 

11. The minority population within a six-mile radius of the project site exceeds 

the 50 percent threshold for a screening level environmental justice 

analysis. 

12. The screening level environmental justice analysis indicates that there are 

no disproportionate impacts on low-income and/or minority populations. 

The project affects all local residents equally regardless of ethnicity or 

income level. 

13. The project will provide direct, indirect and induced economic benefits to 

Kings County and surrounding communities. 

14. Construction and operation of the project will not result in any direct, 

indirect, or cumulative significant adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

15. Implementation of the Condition of Certification, below, and the mitigation 

measures described in the evidentiary record, ensures that the project will 

not result in adverse socioeconomic impacts. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. We therefore conclude that implementation of all Conditions of Certification in 

this Decision, including the Condition of Certification below, ensures the 

project will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and 

333 
standards relating to socioeconomic factors as identified in the pertinent 

portions of Appendix A. 

2. The evidence of record contains an adequate analysis of socioeconomic 

effects related to the project and establishes that the project will create no 

significant adverse socioeconomic effects as defined under the California 

Environmental Quality Act. 

3. The evidence of record contains an adequate analysis of potential 

socioeconomic effects related to the project pursuant to Federal and state 

guidelines concerning environmental justice and establishes that the project 

will create no disproportionate adverse effects on minority or low-income 

populations. 

CONDITION OF CERTIFICATION

SOCIO-1 The project owner shall pay the one-time statutory school development 

fee to the Reef-Sunset Unified School District as required by Education 

Code Section 17620. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to start of project construction, the 

project owner shall provide the Compliance Project Manager (CPM) proof of 

payment of the statutory development fee. 

// 

// 

// 

334 
335 
D. NOISE AND VIBRATION 

The construction and operation of any power plant will create noise. The 

character and loudness of this noise, the times of day or night during which it is 

produced, and the proximity of the project to sensitive receptors combine to 

determine whether project noise will cause significant adverse impacts. In some 

cases, vibration may be produced as a result of construction activities such as 

blasting or pile driving; these activities have the potential to cause structural 

damage and annoyance. The analysis of record summarized below was 

uncontested and evaluates whether noise and vibration produced during project 

construction and operation will be sufficiently mitigated to comply with applicable 

law and avoid the creation of significant adverse impacts.48 (7/7/09 RT 446-48; 

Exs. 1, § 6.12.4.2; 25 (h); 200 pp. 4.6-1 to 4.6-19.) 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

The project site is located on about 34 acres of a 148 acre parcel in an area 

designated for industrial uses. (Ex. 200, p. 3-2.) Primarily agricultural uses exist 

in the immediate vicinity. Sources of ambient noise in the project area include 

vehicle traffic, farm operations, the City of Avenal Water Treatment Plant, 

occasional aircraft over-flights, and natural sounds such as birds and insects. 

The nearest sensitive noise receptors are a farmhouse located approximately 1.3 

miles to the northeast, and another farmhouse about 1.8 miles southwest of the 

project site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-4.) 

Although the site is within the City of Avenal, the City – Kings County boundary is 

adjacent to the northern and eastern site boundaries. Therefore, both the noise 

element of the City of Avenal’s General Plan and that of the Kings County 

General Plan apply. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.6-3 to 4.6-4.) Under the City’s criteria, noise 

generating land uses should be discouraged if resulting noise levels will exceed 

65 dBA CNEL at the boundaries of planned or existing noise sensitive land uses. 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.6-3.) For residential land uses, the County designates noise levels 

below 65 dBA as “acceptable”, those between 65-70 dBA as “conditionally 

acceptable”, and noise levels above 70 dBA as “unacceptable.” (Ex. 200, p.4.6-

4.) 

CEQA Guidelines also set forth characteristics of noise impacts that may indicate 

potentially significant effects from project-related noise, such as “a substantial 

 

48 The evidence also considered whether the project would cause disproportionate impacts to 

minority and low income populations. (Staff’s Opening Brief, at 12.) 

336 
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 

existing without the project.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 15000 et seq., Appen. G, 

Section XI.) In accordance with this standard, the Commission uses the 

significance threshold of 5 dBA when project-related noise emissions exceed 

existing ambient noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor. We believe that 

an increase in background noise levels of up to 5 dBA in a residential setting is 

insignificant and that an increase of more than 10 dBA is clearly significant. An 

increase of between 5 dBA and 10 dBA may be considered adverse, but could 

be either significant or insignificant depending upon the particular circumstances 

of a given case. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-5.) 

Factors to be considered in determining the significance of an adverse impact as 

defined above include: (1) the resulting noise level; (2) the duration and 

frequency of the noise; (3) the number of people affected; and (4) the land use 

designation of the affected receptor sites. Noise due to construction activities is 

usually considered insignificant in terms of CEQA compliance if the construction 

activity is temporary and the use of heavy equipment and noisy activities is 

limited to day-time hours. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.6-5 to 4.6-6.) 

The evidence consists, in part, of a noise survey performed by the Applicant on 

April 19-20, 2001. (Ex. 1, § 6.12.4.2, Table 6.12-4, Figures 6.12-2, 6.12-3, 6.12-

4.) The evidence establishes that this 2001 noise survey remains valid since 

there has been no known change in the project area which would affect the 

ambient noise level. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-6.) Although the ambient noise level was 

measured at five locations (Id.), only the nearest sensitive receptors are pertinent 

for present purposes: 

• Location 4 (ML4): Nearest residence (farmhouse) to the northeast of the 

project site. This residence is located approximately 1.3 miles from the project 

site, at the intersection of Avenal Cutoff Road and Orange Avenue. Shortterm monitoring was conducted several times during the day-time and nighttime periods at the front yard of this residence. 

• Location 5 (ML5): Nearest residence (farmhouse) to the southwest of the 

project site. This residence is located approximately 1.8 miles from the project 

site, at the intersection of Avenal Cutoff Road and Plymouth Avenue, near 

Interstate 5. Short-term monitoring was conducted several times during the 

day-time and night-time periods at the front yard of this residence. 

337 
The existing measured ambient noise levels are shown on Table 1 below: 

Noise Table 1 

Summary of Noise Levels 

Measurement Site 

Measured Noise Levels, dBA 

Night-time 

Hours 

L90

Average During Daytime Hours

Leq

ML4, Residence 1.3 Miles Northeast of the 

Site 35 42-46 

ML5, Residence 1.8 Miles Southwest of the 

Site, Near Interstate 5 60 ≥60 

Source: Ex. 1, §6.12.4.2, Table 6.12-4, Figures 6.12-2, 6.12-3, 6.12-4. 

The evidence further shows the effects the project’s short-term construction 

activities and its long-term operation will have upon the ambient levels. 

1. Construction 

Construction noise is a temporary event, in this case expected to last about 27 

months. (Ex. 200, p. 3-4.) The evidence shows that the predicted noise levels 

would not exceed 40 dBA at ML4 or 37 dBA at ML5. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-7.) These 

are summarized in Table 2, below: 

Noise Table 2 

Predicted Construction Noise Levels 

Receptor Highest 

Construction 

Noise Level 

(dBA) 

Existing 

Ambient, 

Average Daytime Leq

(dBA) 

Cumulative, Using 

Lowest Ambient 

Noise Level 

Change in 

Ambient 

ML4 40 42 44 +2 

ML5 37 60 60 0 

Source: Ex. 1, §6.12.5.3. 

Neither the City’s nor the County’s Noise Element limits the loudness of 

construction noise. Moreover, the greatest increase – i.e. 2 dBA at ML4 – is 

barely noticeable. Thus, the evidence convincingly establishes that project 

338 
construction will comply with applicable LORS. To further insure construction 

noise levels will not be disruptive at the nearest residences, we have adopted 

Conditions of Certification NOISE-1, NOISE-2, and NOISE-6. The first two 

Conditions establish a complaint process to resolve issues arising from any 

excessive construction noise; Condition NOISE-6 limits construction to day-time 

hours on weekdays and Saturdays, with no construction allowed on Sundays. 

This is consistent with the applicable local noise ordinances. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-8.) 

High pressure steam blows, typically the loudest noise encountered during 

construction, if not silenced, could create noise levels of roughly 60 dBA at ML4 

and 63 dBA at ML5. With the temporary silencer installed as required by 

Condition NOISE-7, these levels will be attenuated by 20 to 30 dBA. (Ex. 200, 

pp. 4.6-8 to 4.6-9.) We have modified Staff’s recommendation to limit steam 

blows to the day and time restrictions identified in Condition NOISE-6. 

Next, construction of the linear facilities progresses rapidly, thus not subjecting 

any one receptor to noise impacts for more than a few days. To protect 

construction workers from injury due to excessive noise, Condition NOISE-3

requires the project owner to implement a noise control program consistent with 

OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-9.) Finally, there is no 

indication in the evidence of record that vibration from construction activities 

would be perceptible at any appreciable distance from the project site, or that it 

would cause any impact. (Id.) 

2. Operations 

The noise emanating from a power plant is unique. It is generally broadband, 

steady state in nature. When it is operating, the Avenal Energy Project will 

essentially be a continuous noise source. This noise contributes to, and 

becomes part of, the background noise level when most intermittent noises 

cease. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-11.) The primary noise sources of this project include 

the gas turbine generators and their exhaust stacks, combustion air inlets, 

electrical transformers, and various pumps and fans. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-10.) 

The evidence identifies various mitigation measures which will be used to reduce 

operational noise, including balancing the noise emissions of various power plant 

features during the design stage to avoid creating annoying tonal (pure-tone) 

noises. Other measures include stack, generator exhaust, and air inlet silencing, 

as well as turbine and auxiliary skid enclosures. (Id.) As a result of mitigation 

efforts, the evidence indicates project operational noise levels of 33 dBA at ML4 

339 
and 28 dBA at ML5. These levels are substantially below the 65 dBA noise 

standards contained in the City’s and the County’s LORS. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.6-10 to 

4.6-11.) 

Increases in ambient noise level can be especially annoying at night, during 

normal sleeping hours. Table 3 shows the effect of project operations upon night 

time noise levels: 

Noise Table 3 

Predicted Operational Night-Time Noise Levels 

Receptor Project Alone 

Operational Noise 

Level 

(dBA) 

Measured Existing 

Ambient, Average 

Night-time L90

(dBA)

Project Plus 

Ambient L90

(dBA) 

Change in 

Ambient 

Level 

ML4 33 35 37 +2 

ML5 28 60 60 0 

Source: Ex. 1, Table 6.12-7. 

As with day-time levels, the 2 dBA increase at ML4 will be essentially 

imperceptible. Condition of Certification NOISE-4 ensures compliance with the 

foregoing noise levels. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-12.) 

As with construction activities, operational and maintenance activities will meet 

OSHA and Cal/OSHA standards to protect workers. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.6-12 to 4.6-

13; Condition of Certification NOISE-5.) The evidence also establishes that 

operational vibration – whether ground borne or air borne – will be undetectable 

by likely receptors. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-13.) Finally, the evidence shows that the 

noise from the Avenal Energy Project, even when coupled with noise from 

expansion and operation of the Chemical Waste Management Kettleman Hills 

Facility, will not create a significant cumulative impact to the existing receptors 

due to the several miles distance between them. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-13.) 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the evidence of record, the Commission makes the following findings. 

340 
1. Construction and operation of the Avenal Energy Project will not 

significantly increase noise levels above existing ambient levels in the 

surrounding community. 

2. Construction noise levels are temporary and transitory in nature and will 

be mitigated to the extent feasible by sound reduction devices, limiting 

construction to day-time hours in accordance with local noise control 

LORS, and providing a notice and complaint process to the public. 

3. Traditional high pressure steam blows would result in excessive levels of 

noise. 

4. Additional mitigation, such as that identified in the evidence of record and 

adherence to Condition of Certification NOISE-7, will assure that noise 

from steam blow activities is reduced to below a level of significance. 

5. Project construction will increase day-time ambient noise levels by 2 dBA 

at the nearest residential receptor. The evidence establishes that this will 

not be a significant increase. 

6. Project operations will increase night-time ambient noise levels by 2 dBA 

at the nearest residential receptor. The evidence establishes that this will 

not be a significant increase. 

7. The project owner will implement measures to protect workers from injury 

due to excessive noise levels during both construction and operation. 

8. The Avenal Project will not create ground or air borne vibrations which will 

cause significant off-site impacts. 

9. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification, below, ensure that 

project-related noise emissions will not cause significant adverse impacts 

to sensitive noise receptors. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Commission concludes that implementation of the following 

Conditions of Certification ensure that the Avenal Energy Project will 

comply with the applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards 

on noise and vibration as set forth in the pertinent portion of Appendix A 

of this Decision. 

2. The project will not cause indirect, direct, or cumulative significant adverse 

noise impacts. 

341 
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

NOISE-1 At least 15 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project 

owner shall notify all residents within two miles of the project site and 

one-half mile of the linear facilities, by mail or by other effective means, 

of the commencement of project construction. At the same time, the 

project owner shall establish a telephone number for use by the public 

to report any undesirable noise conditions associated with the 

construction and operation of the project. If the telephone is not staffed 

24 hours a day, the project owner shall include an automatic answering 

feature, with date and time stamp recording, to answer calls when the 

phone is unattended. This telephone number shall be posted at the 

project site during construction where it is visible to passersby. This 

telephone number shall be maintained until the project has been 

operational for at least one year. 

Verification: Prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall transmit to 

the compliance project manager (CPM) a statement, signed by the project 

owner’s project manager, stating that the above notification has been performed 

and describing the method of that notification, and that the telephone number has 

been established and posted at the site, as well as providing that telephone 

number. 

NOISE COMPLAINT PROCESS 

NOISE-2 Throughout the construction and operation of the project, the project 

owner shall document, investigate, evaluate, and attempt to resolve all 

project-related noise complaints. The project owner or authorized 

agent shall: 

• use the Noise Complaint Resolution Form (below), or a functionally 

equivalent procedure acceptable to the CPM, to document and 

respond to each noise complaint; 

• attempt to contact the person(s) making the noise complaint within 

24 hours, or by 5:00 p.m. Monday if the complaint is received on 

the preceding Friday, Saturday, or Sunday; 

• conduct an investigation to determine the source of noise 

mentioned in the complaint; 

• if the noise is project related, take all feasible measures to reduce 

the source of the noise; and 

• submit a report documenting the complaint and actions taken. The 

report shall include: a complaint summary, including the final results 

of noise reduction efforts and, if obtainable, a signed statement by 

the complainant stating that the noise problem has been resolved 

to the complainant’s satisfaction. 

342 
Verification: Within five days of receiving a noise complaint, the project owner 

shall file a Noise Complaint Resolution Form, shown below, with both the local 

jurisdiction and the CPM. This form shall document the resolution of the 

complaint. If mitigation is required to resolve the complaint, and the complaint is 

not resolved within a three-day period, the project owner shall submit an updated 

Noise Complaint Resolution Form when the mitigation is performed and 

complete. 

NOISE-3 The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval a 

noise control program. The noise control program shall be used to 

reduce employee exposure to high (above permissible) noise levels 

during construction in accordance with the applicable OSHA and CalOSHA standards. 

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the 

project owner shall submit the noise control program to the CPM. The project 

owner shall make the program available to Cal-OSHA upon request. 

NOISE RESTRICTIONS 

NOISE-4 The project design and implementation shall include appropriate noise 

mitigation measures adequate to ensure that the noise levels due to 

operation of the project alone will not exceed: an hourly average of 

33 dBA during the four quietest consecutive hours of the nighttime, 

measured at or near monitoring location ML4 (approximately 1.3 miles 

northeast of the project site boundary); and an hourly average of 

28 dBA, during the four quietest consecutive hours of the nighttime, 

measured at or near monitoring location ML5 (approximately 1.8 miles 

southwest of the project site boundary). 

No new pure-tone components shall be caused by the project. No 

single piece of equipment shall be allowed to stand out as a source of 

noise that draws legitimate complaints. 

A. When the project first achieves a sustained output of 85% or 

greater of rated capacity, the project owner shall conduct a 25-hour 

community noise survey at monitoring location ML4, or at a closer 

location acceptable to the CPM. This survey during the power 

plant’s full-load operation shall also include measurement of onethird octave band sound pressure levels to ensure that no new 

pure-tone noise components have been caused by the project. 

During the period of this survey, the project owner shall conduct a 

short-term survey of noise at monitoring location ML5, or at a closer 

location acceptable to the CPM. The short-term noise 

measurements at this location shall be conducted during the 

nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 

343 
The measurement of power plant noise for the purposes of 

demonstrating compliance with this Condition of Certification may 

alternatively be made at a location, acceptable to the CPM, closer 

to the plant (e.g., 400 feet from the plant boundary) and this 

measured level then mathematically extrapolated to determine the 

plant noise contribution at the affected residence. The character of 

the plant noise shall be evaluated at the affected receptor locations 

to determine the presence of pure tones or other dominant sources 

of plant noise. 

B. If the results from the noise survey indicate that the power plant 

noise at the affected receptor sites exceeds the above values 

during the four quietest consecutive hours of the nighttime, 

mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce noise to a 

level of compliance with these limits. 

C. If the results from the noise survey indicate that pure tones are 

present, mitigation measures shall be implemented to eliminate the 

pure tones. 

Verification: The survey shall take place within 60 days of the project first 

achieving a sustained output of 85% or greater of rated capacity. Within 30 days 

after completing the survey, the project owner shall submit a summary report of 

the survey to the CPM. Included in the survey report shall be a description of any 

additional mitigation measures necessary to achieve compliance with the above 

listed noise limit and a schedule, subject to CPM approval, for implementing 

these measures. When these measures are in place, the project owner shall 

repeat the noise survey. 

Within 30 days of completion of the new survey, the project owner shall submit to 

the CPM a summary report of the new noise survey, performed as described 

above and showing compliance with this condition. 

NOISE-5 Following the project’s attainment of a sustained output of 85% or 

greater of its rated capacity, the project owner shall conduct an 

occupational noise survey to identify any noise hazardous areas in the 

facility. 

The survey shall be conducted by a qualified person in accordance 

with the provisions of Title 8, California Code of Regulations, sections 

5095-5099 (Article 105) and Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, 

section 1910.95. The survey results shall be used to determine the 

magnitude of employee noise exposure. 

The project owner shall prepare a report of the survey results and, if 

necessary, identify proposed mitigation measures to be employed in 

order to comply with the applicable California and federal regulations. 

344 
Verification: Within 30 days after completing the survey, the project owner 

shall submit the noise survey report to the CPM. The project owner shall make 

the report available to OSHA and Cal-OSHA upon request. 

CONSTRUCTION RESTRICTIONS 

NOISE-6 Heavy equipment operation and noisy construction work relating to any 

project features shall be restricted to the following times: 

Mondays through Fridays: 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 

Saturdays: 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 

Sundays: No Noisy Construction Allowed 

Haul trucks and other engine-powered equipment shall be equipped 

with adequate mufflers. Haul trucks shall be operated in accordance 

with posted speed limits. Truck engine exhaust brake use shall be 

limited to emergencies. 

Verification: Prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall transmit to 

the CPM a statement acknowledging that the above restrictions will be observed 

throughout the construction of the project. 

STEAM BLOW RESTRICTIONS 

NOISE-7 The project owner shall equip the steam blow piping with a temporary 

silencer. The project owner shall conduct steam blows only during the 

days and hours identified for noisy construction in Condition NOISE-6. 

Verification: At least 15 days prior to the first high pressure steam blow, the 

project owner shall submit to the CPM drawings or other information describing 

the temporary steam blow silencer and a description of the steam blow schedule.

345 
346 

NOISE COMPLAINT RESOLUTION FORM 

Avenal Energy Project 

(08-AFC-1) 

NOISE COMPLAINT LOG NUMBER ________________________ 

Complainant's name and address: 

Phone number: ________________________ 

Date complaint received: ________________________ 

Time complaint received: ________________________ 

Nature of noise complaint: 

Definition of problem after investigation by plant personnel: 

Date complainant first contacted: ________________________ 

Initial noise levels at three feet from noise source _________ dBA Date: 

_____________ 

Initial noise levels at complainant's property: __________ dBA Date: 

____________ 

Final noise levels at three feet from noise source: ________ dBA Date: 

_____________ 

Final noise levels at complainant's property: __________ dBA Date: 

____________ 

Description of corrective measures taken: 

Complainant's signature: ________________________ Date: 

____________ 

Approximate installed cost of corrective measures: $ ____________ 

Date installation completed: ____________ 

Date first letter sent to complainant: ____________ (copy attached) 

Date final letter sent to complainant: ____________ (copy attached) 

This information is certified to be correct: 

Plant Manager's Signature: ________________________ 

Attach additional pages and supporting documentation, as required.
E. VISUAL RESOURCES 

Visual resources are the features of the landscape that contribute to the visual 

character or quality of the environment. CEQA requires an examination of a 

project’s visual impacts in order to determine whether the project has the 

potential to cause substantial degradation to the existing visual character of the 

site and its surroundings, substantially affect a scenic vista or damage scenic 

resources, or create a new source of substantial light or glare affecting day or 

nighttime views in the area. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 15382, Appendix G.) 

Key Observation Points (KOPs) represent the most critical locations from which 

the project would be seen. These reflect, in particular, those key sensitive viewer 

groups most likely to be affected by the project. Assessments of project impact 

are determined from these KOPs. 

KOPs are rated for their level of visual sensitivity to impact. Visual simulations of 

the project as seen from KOPs, along with field observations, are used to 

evaluate the projected levels of project contrast, dominance, and view blockage. 

In addition, the project is evaluated for conformance with applicable LORS. 

Local public policy pertaining to visual resources is also taken into account in 

determining levels of viewer concern. 

As needed, Conditions of Certification are imposed to mitigate potentially 

significant impacts, and to ensure LORS conformance. 

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE

The proposed Avenal Energy Project would be built in the City of Avenal in Kings 

County, California. The project site is in the northeastern portion of the City on 

the east side of the Kettleman Hills (elevation 1,200 feet), two miles east of U.S. 

Interstate 5 (I-5) on undeveloped property zoned for industrial use that is 

surrounded by irrigated farmlands, orchards, and open space. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 

448; Ex. 200, p. 4.12-3.) 

The most prominent visual features of the Avenal Energy Project are 

summarized in Visual Resources Table 1, below. 

347 
Visual Resources Table 1 

Summary of Proposed Avenal Project 

Major Publicly Visible Structures 

Project Component Number of 

Units 

Length, Width, Diameter 

(approximately) 

Height 

(approximately)

Materials 

Heat Recovery Steam 

Generator Stacks 2 19-foot diameter 145 feet steel 

Air Cooled Condenser 1 278-foot x 258-foot 139 feet composite 

230-kV Transmission 

Pole 43 6-foot diameter 120 feet steel 

Heat Recovery Steam 

Generator Enclosure 2 125-foot x 35-foot 80 feet steel 

Combustion Turbine 

Generator Air Inlet 2 60-foot x 45-foot 55 feet steel 

(Ex. 200, p. 4.12-4). 

1. Direct/Indirect Impacts and Mitigation 

a. Construction Impacts 

Approximately 35 acres of construction laydown and parking area would be on 

the 148-acre parcel containing the projects site. They will be removed after 

completion of project construction and the area replanted in row crops. 

Construction activities would occur over approximately 27-months. Activities 

include installation of the gas turbine generators and power train foundations; 

erecting of the heat recovery steam generators; installation of pipe supports, liner 

plates and baffles and aboveground electrical equipment; exhaust stack 

fabrication and condenser work; and installation of the air cooled condenser, 

aboveground tanks and prefabricated buildings. As project structures are 

erected that exceed the height of the orchards, they would become visible to the 

public. Construction materials, heavy equipment, trucks, modular offices, and 

parked vehicles on the construction site and the laydown area would have limited 

public visibility due to the adjacent orchard. 

Project construction activities would take place primarily during daylight hours. 

Lighting that may be required to facilitate night time construction activities would, 

to the extent feasible and consistent with worker safety codes, be directed toward 

the center of the construction site and shielded to prevent light from straying 

offsite. Task-specific construction lighting would be used where feasible. The 

use of shielded directional exterior lights and fixtures of a non-glare type on the 

348 
construction site and laydown area would minimize offsite light and glare 

impacts. We adopt Condition of Certification VIS-2 to formalize appropriate 

construction lighting measures. 

The project’s proposed construction activities, though noticeable from I-5 (KOP 

1) and Avenal Cutoff Road (KOPs 2, 3, and 4), with the implementation of 

mitigation measures proposed by the Applicant and Conditions of Certification 

VIS-1 and VIS-2, will cause less than significant visual effects. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 

448; Ex. 200, p. 4.12-13.) 

b. Operation Impacts 

Before considering individual KOPs, we consider generally whether the proposed 

project would substantially affect a scenic vista or damage scenic resources, or 

create a new source of substantial light or glare affecting day or night time views 

in the area. There are no publicly designated national, state, or county scenic 

vistas in the project’s vicinity and therefore no impacts in that regard. Similarly, 

there are no scenic resources identified by a federal, state, or local agency and 

thus no potential for damage to such a resource. (7/7/09 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, 

pp. 4.12-3 to 4.12-4.) 

Operation of the proposed project has the potential to introduce light offsite to 

surrounding properties, and up-lighting to the night time sky. If bright exterior 

lights were not hooded, and lights not directed onsite, they could introduce 

significant light or glare to the vicinity. 

The Applicant proposes that operational lighting be directed onsite and shielded 

from public view. Non-glare fixtures and use of switches, sensors, and timers to 

minimize the time that lights would be needed for safety and security will be 

specified. We adopt Condition of Certification VIS-5 requiring submittal and 

approval of a light management plan. With the effective implementation of the 

proposed light mitigation measures, the project will not become a substantial new 

source of light that could adversely affect existing night time views. 

The photographic simulations of the completed power plant provided by the 

Applicant show the use of a surface treatment on major project structures and 

buildings consisting of a light color and a flat finish. The Applicant proposes to 

treat or paint all new structures including permanent equipment and fencing with 

a non-reflective finish so as to reduce potential glare effects. Condition of 

Certification VIS-3 requires submittal of a surface treatment plan for publicly 

visible power plant structures and the electric transmission line poles to assure 

that the proper treatments are applied. With that mitigation, project structures 

349 
would not be a source of substantial glare that could adversely affect day time 

views. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-13 to 4.12-14.) 

The following KOPs were selected for this project: 

• KOP 1 – Avenal Cutoff Road Bridge Over U.S. Interstate 5 Looking East; 

• KOP 2 – Avenal Cutoff Road Looking East; 

• KOP 3 – Entrance To Project Site From Avenal Cutoff Road Looking 

Southeast; and 

• KOP 4 – Avenal Cutoff Road Bridge Over San Luis Canal Looking South. 

(7/7/09 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-5.) 

The location of the KOPs in relation to the project site are shown on Visual 

Resources Figure 1, which includes a fifth KOP 5. We do not discuss KOP 5

further because the project would not be visible at that location due to intervening 

landscaping trees and orchards. (7/7/09 RT 447- 448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-5 to 

4.12-6.) 

// 

// 

// 

350 
351 
KOP 1 − View from Avenal Cutoff Road Bridge Over U.S. Interstate 5 

Looking East 

Visual Resources Figure 2 is a photo simulation of the project structures that 

would be visible from KOP 1 after completion of project construction. KOP 1 is 

located on the Avenal Cutoff Road overpass for I-5, chosen to approximate the 

view of a motorist on I-5 at its closest point to the project site. This point is 

approximately 25 feet higher than the I-5 road surface. 

// 

// 

// 

352 
353 
Visual Sensitivity

The most prominent features in the existing view are the Avenal Cutoff Road, 

orchard, row crops, overhead utility poles and lines in the foreground and 

middleground, PG&E overhead electric transmission lattice towers in the 

middleground, and orchard in the background. The estimated public appeal of 

the visual quality of the KOP 1 view is moderately low. 

Motorists on the freeway would have a moderate to low sensitivity to the visual 

environment due to their concentration on driving and their focus on their 

destination. The brief view of the project site for a motorist traveling along I-5 in 

this area would be partially obstructed by the earthen support for the elevated 

overpass and young orchard. The posted speed limit is 70 miles per hour. 

The view towards the project site from the Avenal Cutoff Road Bridge is a flat 

checkerboard mosaic of irrigated farmland (row crops such as tomatoes, cotton, 

and barley) and young orchard (almond and orange trees). From this elevated 

vantage point, a motorist would have a relatively unobstructed view of the 

project’s structures. The visibility of proposed power plant structures at this KOP 

would be moderately high. Viewers at this KOP would consist largely of travelers 

to the cities of Lemoore and Hanford. The estimated level of viewer concern 

towards preserving the existing KOP 1 view is moderately low. 

The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) count of vehicle trips along this segment of 

Avenal Cutoff Road is approximately 5,030. The estimated number of potential 

motorist exposures is considered moderately high. The legal speed limit along 

this rural county road is 55 miles per hour. A motorist would have an extended 

view (longer than two minutes) of the project site from this KOP. The overall 

viewer exposure is considered to be moderately high. 

Considering moderately low visual quality, moderately low viewer concern, and a 

moderately high overall viewer exposure, the overall visual sensitivity is 

moderate from KOP 1. 

Visual Change

The project would introduce to the view geometric forms with vertical and 

horizontal lines of an industrial character, specifically the two 145-foot tall 

exhaust stacks, the 40-foot tall raw water/firewater storage tank, the 32-foot tall 

demineralized water storage tank, and the 139-foot tall ACC unit. The 

surrounding orchards as they grow to maturity would help soften the industrial 

character of the facility in the view. The degree of contrast (form, line, color, and 

354 
texture) introduced by the project’s publicly visible structures is moderate. The 

contrast would begin to attract attention and begin to dominate the characteristic 

landscape from this KOP. The project structures are shown in a light color which 

makes them more visible within the dark color of surrounding orchards. The 

potential contrast of the structures is moderate. 

The visible project structures would occupy a small portion of the total field-ofview of KOP 1 and appear subordinate to other elements in the view. The 

relative visual dominance of the structures is low. 

The degree of view blockage introduced by project structures is low. Project 

structures would block a small amount of the sky and a small amount of the view 

of the valley floor. 

 

Impact Significance

The overall visual change (moderate visual contrast, low visual dominance, low 

view blockage) caused by the introduction of the proposed project’s structures 

into the view is moderately low. 

The moderate overall visual sensitivity and the moderately low overall visual 

change, indicate a less than significant visual impact at KOP 1. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 

448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-6 to 4.12-7.) 

KOP 2 – Avenal Cutoff Road Looking East 

Visual Resources Figure 3 is a photo simulation of the project structures that 

would be visible from KOP 2 after completion of project construction. KOP 2 is 

located along Avenal Cutoff Road approximately one-mile southwest of the 

project site. It is also the approximate location of a span of the project’s 

overhead transmission line. 

355 
356 
Visual Sensitivity

Avenal Cutoff Road, a young orchard, and open space are in the foreground and 

middleground. A north-south line of overhead transmission towers are also in the 

middleground. The estimated public appeal of the visual quality of the KOP 2

view is moderately low. 

Avenal Cutoff Road provides access from I-5 to the cities of Lemoore and 

Hanford. It is a two-lane paved and striped arterial carrying approximately 5,030 

vehicles per day. There are no lights or stop signs along this segment of the 

road. It is not a designated state or county scenic highway. The level of viewer 

concern towards preserving the existing KOP 2 view is moderately low. 

From this KOP, a motorist would have a relatively unobstructed view of power 

plant structures on the project site. The visibility of proposed structures at this 

KOP would be considered high. The legal speed limit along this rural county 

road is 55 miles per hour. A motorist would have a mid-length duration view (20 

seconds to 1 minute) of the project site from this KOP. The overall viewer 

exposure is moderately high. 

The overall visual sensitivity is moderate from KOP 2 a result of a moderately low 

visual quality, moderately low viewer concern, and a moderately high overall 

viewer exposure. 

Visual Change

The project would have a high visibility from this KOP and be seen with minimal 

filtering by existing vegetation. The exhaust stacks, the HRSGs (heat recovery 

steam generators) and ACC would be visible above the existing trees. The 

project would introduce contrasting elements of form, line, and color, particularly 

in relation to the darker colored surrounding orchards in the foreground and 

middle ground. 

The simulations show the use of a light color surface treatment on major publicly 

visible project structures. The exhaust stacks and tanks appear to be lighter in 

color than other structures. The light color structures are noticeable in the view. 

The degree of contrast introduced by the project’s publicly visible structures is 

moderate. The contrast begins to attract attention and begins to dominate the 

characteristic landscape from this KOP. 

357 
The visible project structures would occupy a small portion of the total field-ofview of KOP 2. Project structures would appear co-dominate when compared to 

other elements in the KOP view. The dominance of the structures is moderately 

low. 

The project structures would block a very small portion of valley floor and sky. 

The view blockage therefore low. 

The overall visual change caused by the introduction of the project’s structures 

into the view is moderately low as a result of a moderate visual contrast, 

moderately low visual dominance, and low view blockage. 

Impact Significance

The introduction of project structures would not substantially degrade the existing 

view at KOP 2. When considering the moderate overall visual sensitivity and the 

moderately low visual change, we conclude that the introduction of the proposed 

project’s publicly visible structures to the existing physical environment would 

create a less than significant visual impact from this KOP. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 448; 

Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-7 to 4.12-9.) 

KOP 3 – Entrance to Project Site From Avenal Cutoff Road Looking 

Southeast 

Visual Resources Figure 4 is a photo simulation of the project structures that 

would be visible from KOP 3 after completion of project construction. KOP 3 is 

located approximately 2,000 feet northwest of the proposed power plant foot 

print. 

// 

// 

358 
359 
Visual Sensitivity

The view largely includes unimproved (dirt) roadway and grassland. A portion of 

the City of Avenal’s water treatment plant is visible to the east at the end of the 

roadway. An orchard is in the background view. There is no visually interesting 

or engaging feature in the view. The estimated public appeal of the visual quality 

of the view is moderately low. 

From this KOP, a viewer would have an unobstructed view of project structures. 

Visibility is high. As the young orchard that borders the project on three sides 

grows to maturity, the view from the road will be softened. The primary viewer 

would be a motorist traveling along Avenal Cutoff Road. The level of viewer 

concern towards preserving the existing KOP 3 view is moderately low. 

As previously noted, approximately 5,030 vehicles per day travel along the 

Avenal Cutoff Road, making potential viewer exposures to the project structures 

moderately high. A motorist traveling at 55 miles per hour would have an 

approximately 10 second view duration. The overall viewer exposure is 

moderately high. 

The overall visual sensitivity is moderate at KOP 3. 

Visual Change

The proposed project would introduce prominent industrial features to the view. 

The degree of contrast introduced by the project’s publicly visible structures 

would demand attention, would not be overlooked, and would be dominant in the 

view. The Applicant proposes a light gray color surface treatment on major 

project structures and buildings. 

The Applicant proposes to landscape undeveloped portions of the 148-acre 

project site. Visual Resources Figure 5 is a photo simulation depicting the 

landscaping after five years of growth viewed from KOP 3. As the landscaping 

matures, it would reduce the project’s visibility while improving the appearance of 

the project site. Approximately one-third of project facilities would be obscured 

by project-related landscaping when the almond trees lining the access road are 

approximately four to five years old. 

360 
361 
The visible project structures would occupy a large portion of the total field-ofview of KOP 3 and appear dominant when compared to other elements in the 

view. Dominance of the structures is therefore high. 

The 139-foot tall air cooled condenser and the 145-foot tall HRSG stacks would 

intrude into the horizon, but do not interfere or block a view of any designated 

scenic vista or identified scenic resource. The view blockage created by project 

structures is moderately low at this KOP. The overall visual change created by 

project structures into the KOP 3 view is high. 

The moderate overall visual sensitivity and the high overall visual change, absent 

mitigation, could be a significant visual impact at this KOP. Condition of 

Certification VIS-3, requires surface treatments that “minimize visual intrusion 

and contrast by blending with the landscape,” and VIS-4, requires a landscaping 

plan and landscaping that will reduce the project’s potential impacts. 

Impact Significance

The Implementation of Conditions VIS-3 and VIS-4 will reduce the potentially 

significant visual impact to an insignificant level. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, 

pp. 4.12-9 to 4.12-10.) 

KOP 4 – Avenal Cutoff Road Bridge Over San Luis Canal Looking South 

Visual Resources Figure 6 is a photograph of the view from KOP 4. KOP 4 is 

located at the Avenal Cutoff Road Bridge over the San Luis Canal approximately 

1/3-mile north north-east of the project site. This KOP was chosen to represent 

the view for westbound motorists on the Avenal Cutoff Road. 

362 
363 
Visual Sensitivity

The KOP 4 view includes the San Luis Canal, dense, evenly planted orchards, 

the tops of structures and tanks at the City of Avenal’s water treatment plant in 

the foreground. Grassland and orchard are in the middleground. In the 

background is the rolling form silhouette of the Kettleman Hills. The public 

appeal of the visual quality of the view is moderate. From this location, a 

motorist would have a relatively unobstructed view of project structures. The 

visibility of structures is therefore high. 

Approximately 5,030 vehicles per day travel Avenal Cutoff Road. This number of 

potential motorist exposures is moderately high. The level of viewer concern in 

preserving the existing is moderately low. A motorist would have a low to 

moderate duration of view (10 seconds to 20 seconds) of the project site at this 

location. The overall viewer exposure is moderate, as is the overall visual 

sensitivity. 

Visual Change

The proposed project would introduce unobscured prominent industrial features 

to the view. The degree of contrast introduced by the project’s publicly visible 

structures would be high. Structures would be dominant when compared to other 

elements in the view. View dominance is moderately high. 

The 145-foot tall HRSG stacks and the 139-foot tall ACC would extend to the 

ridgeline of the Kettleman Hills in this KOP view. The amount of view blockage 

created by project structures is moderately low. 

The overall visual change caused by the project’s structures is moderately high. 

As the project’s landscaping matures, the project’s visual impact would be 

reduced. 

Impact Significance

The introduction of the project’s publicly visible structures would not substantially 

degrade the existing view at KOP 4. The project structures would create a less 

than significant visual impact at this KOP. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 

4.12-11 to 4.12-12.) 

364 
2. Visible Vapor Plumes 

The project will be using an air cooled condenser. The air cooled condenser 

would not emit visible water vapor plumes. 

A small auxiliary boiler is proposed for the project. It could occasionally emit 

visible water vapor plumes; however, the plumes would be small due to the small 

size of the boiler. The potential boiler-emitted plumes will not cause significant 

impacts. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-12 to 4.12-13.) 

3. Project Linears 

An approximately 6.4-mile long, 230-kV transmission line with approximately 

forty-three 120-foot tall tubular steel poles would connect the project to the PG&E 

Gates substation. New transmission poles would be located within a new 120-

foot wide transmission line easement that would parallel three existing lines of 

transmission lattice towers. New project transmission lines at road crossings 

would be noticeable to motorists. See Visual Resources Figure 7. 

// 

// 

// 

365 
366 
Natural gas would be supplied to the project from the Kettleman Compressor 

Station by means of a 2.5-mile underground pipeline. 

A backup water supply would be provided from Well 24-5 located approximately 

2,700 feet west of the site, and Well 18-1 and Well 18-4 approximately 1,000 feet 

and 3,000 feet north of the project site. The water pipelines would be 

underground. 

The new transmission poles would introduce contrast along the horizon. 

Proposed transmission poles would be non-reflective gray colored tubular steel. 

View blockage created by the transmission poles and overhead wires is low. 

We adopt Condition of Certification VIS-1 to ensure the restoration of ground 

surfaces affected by temporary construction activities and laydown areas, so that 

these disturbed areas do not become a source of long-term impacts to visual 

character and quality of the site and its surroundings. We also adopt Condition 

of Certification VIS-3 which requires submittal of a surface treatment plan for 

project structures. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, p. 4.12-12.) 

With these mitigation measures, the installation of the overhead transmission 

lines would not cause significant visual impacts. 

4. Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation 

No planned or foreseeable projects have been identified in the vicinity of the 

project. Therefore no cumulative impacts are expected. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 448; 

Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-14 to 4.12-15.) 

5. LORS compliance 

As is discussed in the LORS section of this Decision, the project will conform with 

all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards relating to Visual 

Resources. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

Based on the evidence of record, we find and conclude as follows: 

1. The project’s potential impacts on visual resources were analyzed from 

four defined key observation points (KOP) at different locations 

surrounding the project site. 

367 
2. The project owner will provide landscaping to screen some project 

features from view. 

3. The project owner will treat project surfaces with colors that minimize 

visual intrusion and contrast. 

4. The project owner will implement appropriate mitigation measures to 

reduce or eliminate visual impacts from night time lighting and day time 

glare. 

5. The project will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations 

and standards regarding project design, architecture, landscaping, 

signage, and other requirements related to Visual Resources. 

6. The introduction of proposed project structures and associated linear 

facilities would have a less than significant visual impact with 

implementation of the Conditions of Certification adopted herein. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Implementation of the following Conditions of Certification, will result in the 

project causing no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to 

visual resources. 

2. The project will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations 

and standards regarding project design, architecture, landscaping, 

signage, and other requirements related to Visual Resources and listed in 

Appendix A of this Decision. 

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION 

SURFACE RESTORATION 

VIS-1 The project owner shall remove all evidence of temporary construction 

activities, and shall restore the ground surface to the original condition or 

better condition, including the replacement of any vegetation or paving 

removed during construction where project development does not 

preclude it. The project owner shall submit to the Compliance Project 

Manager (CPM) for review and approval a surface restoration plan, the 

proper implementation of which will satisfy these requirements. The 

project owner shall complete surface restoration within 60 days after the 

start of commercial operation. 

368 
Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of commercial operation, the 

project owner shall submit the surface restoration plan to the CPM for review and 

approval. 

If the CPM notifies the project owner that any revisions of the surface restoration 

plan are needed, within 30 days of receiving that notification the project owner 

shall submit to the CPM a plan with the specified revisions. 

The project owner shall complete surface restoration within 60 days after the 

start of commercial operation. The project owner shall notify the CPM within 

seven days after completion of surface restoration that the restoration is ready for 

inspection. 

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY LIGHTING 

VIS-2 The project owner shall ensure that lighting for construction of the 

power plant is used in a manner that minimizes potential night lighting 

impacts, as follows: 

A. All lighting shall be of minimum necessary brightness consistent 

with worker safety and security; 

B. All fixed position lighting shall be shielded/hooded, to direct light 

downward and toward the area to be illuminated to prevent direct 

illumination of the night sky and direct light trespass (direct light 

extending outside the boundaries of the power plant site or the site 

of construction of ancillary facilities, including any security related 

boundaries); 

C. Wherever feasible and safe and not needed for security, lighting 

shall be kept off when not in use; and 

D. If the project owner receives a complaint about construction 

lighting, the project owner shall notify the CPM and shall use the 

complaint resolution form included in the General Conditions 

section of the Compliance Plan to record each lighting complaint 

and to document the resolution of that complaint. The project owner 

shall provide a copy of each complaint form to the CPM. 

Verification: Within seven days after the first use of construction lighting, the 

project owner shall notify the CPM that the lighting is ready for inspection. 

If the CPM notifies the project owner that modifications to the lighting are needed 

to minimize impacts, within 15 days of receiving that notification the project 

owner shall implement the necessary modifications and notify the CPM that the 

modifications have been completed. 

Within 48 hours of receiving a lighting complaint, the project owner shall provide 

to the CPM; a) a report of the complaint, b) a proposal to resolve the complaint, 

369 
and c) a schedule for implementation of the proposal. The project owner shall 

notify the CPM within 48 hours after completing implementation of the proposal. 

The project owner shall provide a copy of the completed complaint resolution 

form to the CPM in the next Monthly Compliance Report. 

SURFACE TREATMENT OF PROJECT STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS 

VIS-3 The project owner shall color and finish the surfaces of all project 

structures and buildings visible to the public to ensure that they: (1) 

minimize visual intrusion and contrast by blending with the landscape; (2) 

minimize glare; and (3) comply with local design policies and ordinances. 

The transmission line conductors and insulators shall be non-specular with 

low reflectance. 

The project owner shall submit a surface treatment plan to the CPM for 

review and approval. The surface treatment plan shall include: 

A. A description of the overall rationale for the proposed surface 

treatment, including the selection of the proposed color(s) and 

finishes; 

B. A list of each major project structure and building (e.g., building, 

tank, pipe, and wall; transmission line towers and/or poles; and 

fencing), specifying the color(s) and finish proposed for each. 

Colors must be identified by vendor, name, and number; or 

according to a universal designation system; 

C. One set of color brochures or color chips showing each proposed 

color and finish; 

D. A specific schedule for completing the treatment; and 

E. A procedure to ensure proper treatment maintenance for the life of 

the project. 

The project owner shall not request vendor surface treatment of any 

buildings or structures during their manufacture, or perform final field 

treatment on any buildings or structures, until the project owner has 

received treatment plan approval by the CPM. 

The project owner shall notify the CPM that surface treatment of all 

listed structures and buildings has been completed and is ready for 

inspection; and shall submit one set of electronic color photographs 

from the selected KOP 3 location showing the “as built” surface treated 

structures and buildings. 

Verification: At least 45 days prior to applying vendor color(s) and finish(es) 

for structures or buildings to be surface treated during manufacture, the project 

370 
owner shall submit the proposed treatment plan to the CPM for review and 

approval, and simultaneously to the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and 

Community Development for review. The project owner shall allow the Director of 

the City of Avenal Planning and Community Development at least 30 days to 

provide comment on the submitted surface treatment plan. The project owner 

shall provide a copy of the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and 

Community Development comments to the CPM. 

The project owner shall provide to the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter 

submitted to the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and Community 

Development requesting their review of the submitted surface treatment plan. 

If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall 

provide to the CPM a plan with the specified revision(s) for review and approval 

by the CPM before any treatment is applied. Any modifications to the treatment 

plan must be submitted to the CPM for review and approval. 

If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall 

provide to the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and Community 

Development a plan with the specified revision(s) for review before the plan is 

implemented. 

Within ninety (90) days after the start of commercial operation, the project owner 

shall notify the CPM that surface treatment of all listed structures and buildings 

has been completed and is ready for inspection; and shall submit one set of 

electronic color photographs from KOP 3, at the least, showing the “as built” 

surface treated structures and buildings. 

The project owner shall provide a status report regarding surface treatment 

maintenance in the Annual Compliance Report. The report shall specify a): the 

condition of the surfaces of all structures and buildings at the end of the reporting 

year; b) major maintenance activities that occurred during the reporting year; and 

c) the schedule of major maintenance activities for the next year. 

PROJECT LANDSCAPING 

VIS-4 The project owner shall provide project site landscaping consistent with 

the policies and ordinances of the City of Avenal, specifically municipal 

code sections 9.60 and 9.63, and Visual Resources Figure 8 - 

Conceptual Landscape Plan Aerial Photo. 

371 
372 
Landscaping shall consist of plant materials consistent with Climate 

Zones 8 and 9 as identified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. 

Landscaping plans shall emphasize the use of drought-tolerant 

species, grouped by similar water usage. 

Landscaping in parking lots shall have one 15-gallon shade tree 

planted every three (3) parking spaces along parking rows. Fifty 

percent of the paved parking lot’s surface shall be shaded by tree 

canopies within 10 years of planting. 

For parking lots containing six or more parking spaces, at least 5 

percent of the total ground area of the parking lot shall be landscaped. 

The project owner shall submit to the CPM for approval, and 

simultaneously to the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and 

Community Development for review, a landscaping plan whose proper 

implementation will satisfy these requirements. 

An irrigation plan shall be submitted along with the landscaping plan. 

The irrigation plan shall show an irrigation conformance calculation 

with a 10 percent safety margin. 

The project owner shall not implement the landscaping plan until the 

project owner receives approval of the landscape plan from the CPM. 

The planting shall be completed by the start of commercial operation, 

and the planting shall occur during the optimal planting season. 

Verification: Prior to commercial operation and at least 45 days prior to 

installing the landscaping, the project owner shall submit the landscaping plan to 

the CPM for approval and simultaneously to the Director of the City of Avenal 

Planning and Community Development for comment. The project owner shall 

provide a copy of the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and Community 

Development comments to the CPM prior to the installation of the landscaping. 

The project owner shall allow the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and 

Community Development 30 days to provide comment on the submitted surface 

treatment plan. The project owner shall provide a copy of the Director of the City 

of Avenal Planning and Community Development comments to the CPM. 

If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall 

provide to the CPM and the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and 

Community Development a plan with the specified revision(s) for review and 

approval by the CPM before the plan is implemented. 

The project owner shall simultaneously notify the CPM and the Director of the 

City of Avenal Planning and Community Development that the landscaping is 

ready for inspection within seven days after completing installation of the 

landscaping.

373 
PERMANENT EXTERIOR LIGHTING 

VIS-5 To the extent feasible, consistent with safety and security considerations 

and commercial availability, the project owner shall design and install all 

permanent exterior lighting such that: 

A. light fixtures do not cause obtrusive spill light beyond the project 

site; 

B. lighting does not cause excessive reflected glare; 

C. direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky, 

D. illumination of the project and its immediate vicinity is minimized; 

and 

E. lighting conforms to the lighting requirements of the City of Avenal 

M-2 zone district, where applicable. 

In addition, the project owner shall submit to the CPM for approval a 

lighting management plan that includes the following: 

A. a process for addressing and mitigating lighting related complaints; 

B. lighting shall incorporate commercially available fixture 

hoods/shielding, with light directed downward or toward the area to 

be illuminated; 

C. all lighting shall be of minimum necessary brightness consistent 

with operational safety and security; and 

D. lights in high illumination areas not occupied on a continuous basis 

(such as maintenance platforms) shall have (in addition to hoods) 

switches, timer switches, or motion detectors so that the lights 

operate only when the area is occupied. 

Verification: At least 6049 days prior to ordering any permanent exterior 

lighting, the project owner shall contact the CPM to determine the required 

documentation for the lighting management plan. 

At least 45 days prior to ordering any permanent exterior lighting, the project 

owner shall submit to the CPM for approval a lighting management plan. If the 

CPM determines that the lighting management plan requires revision, the project 

owner shall provide to the CPM a plan with the specified revision(s) for approval. 

 

49 This deadline as proposed by Staff, was 45 days and the deadline in the following paragraph 

was 60 days. It does not seem logical that the project owner should submit the plans before 

learning of the requirements. We’ve therefore swapped the deadlines but invite the parties to 

comment if there is a logical reason for the original formulation that we’ve overlooked. 

374 
The project owner shall not order any exterior lighting until receiving CPM 

approval of the lighting management plan. 

Prior to commercial operation, the project owner shall notify the CPM that the 

lighting has been installed and is ready for inspection. If after inspection the CPM 

notifies the project owner that modifications to the lighting are needed, within 30 

days of receiving notification the project owner shall implement the modifications 

and notify the CPM that the modifications have been completed and are ready for 

inspection. 

Within 10 days of receiving a lighting complaint, the project owner shall provide 

the CPM with a complaint resolution form report as specified in the Compliance 

General Conditions including a proposal to resolve the complaint, and a schedule 

for implementation. The project owner shall notify the CPM within 10 days after 

completing implementation of the proposal. A copy of the complaint resolution 

form report shall be submitted to the CPM within 30 days of complaint resolution. 

SIGNAGE 

VIS-6 The project owner shall install minimal signage visible to the public, which 

shall a) have unobtrusive colors and finishes that prevent excessive glare; 

and b) be consistent with the sign policies and ordinances of the City of 

Avenal. The design of any signs required by safety regulations shall 

conform to the criteria established by those regulations. The project owner 

shall submit a signage plan for the project to the CPM for approval and 

simultaneously to the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and 

Community Development for comment. The project owner shall not 

implement the plan until the project owner receives approval of the 

submittal from the CPM. 

Verification: Prior to the start of commercial operation and at least 60 days 

prior to installing signage, the project owner shall submit the signage plan to the 

CPM for approval and simultaneously to the Director of the City of Avenal 

Planning and Community Development for comment. The project owner shall 

provide a copy of the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and Community 

Development comments to the CPM. 

If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall 

provide to the CPM a plan with the specified revision(s) for review and approval 

by the CPM before any signage visible to the public is installed. 

The project owner shall provide the CPM with electronic color photographs after 

completing installation of signage. 

375 
376 

SCREENING OF COMMERCIAL TRASH DISPOSAL CONTAINERS 

VIS-7 In accordance to the City of Avenal Municipal Code section 9.79.08 N, 

commercial trash disposal containers (e.g., trash bins or dumpsters) shall 

be visually screened from public view to the maximum extent feasible or 

stored within an enclosed building or structure. 

Verification: Prior to the start of commercial operation, the project owner shall 

provide to the CPM a site plan showing the permanent location of the commercial 

disposal container(s) on the project site. 

Forty-five days after the start of commercial operation, the project owner shall 

notify the CPM that the commercial disposal containers have been screened or 

enclosed from public view and are ready for inspection. If after inspection the 

CPM notifies the project owner that modifications to the screening or enclosure 

are needed, within 30 days of receiving notification the project owner shall 

implement the modifications and notify the CPM that the modifications have been 

completed and are ready for inspection. 

FRESNO COUNTY REVIEW OF TRANSMISSION LINE TOWERS 

VIS-8 Prior to the start of the construction of the transmission line in Fresno 

County, the project owner shall provide to the Director of the Fresno 

County Department of Public Works and Planning elevation drawings of 

the transmission towers and/or poles, a discussion of the surface 

treatment to be used on the towers or poles, and any landscaping for the 

individual transmission tower or pole sites for comment, and to the CPM 

for approval. 

Verification: The project owner shall allow the Director of the Fresno County 

Department of Public Works and Planning 30 days to provide comment. The 

project owner shall provide a copy of the Fresno County Department of Public 

Works and Planning comments to the CPM prior to the start of construction of the 

transmission line. 

The project owner shall provide a copy of the submitted transmittal letter to the 

Director of the Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning 

requesting their review. 

If the CPM determines that the drawings and/or plans require revision, the project 

owner shall provide to the CPM drawings and/or plans with the specified 

revision(s) for review and approval by the CPM. 

The project owner shall notify the CPM within 10 days after completing 

installation of the of the transmission line towers/poles and planting landscaping, 

if any. 
. 

. 

. 

. 

. 

.

. 

. 

. 

. 

 

 Appendix A: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and 

Standards 

Appendix B: Exhibit List

Appendix C: Proof of Service List

 

 APPENDICES 

 
AIR QUALITY 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

CAAA of 1990, 40 

CFR 50 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

CAA Sec. 171-193, 

42 USC 7501 

New Source Review (NSR) – Requires NSR permit for new 

stationary sources. This requirement is addressed through 

SJVAPCD Rule 2201. 

40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) – Requires 

dispersion modeling to demonstrate no violation of NAAQS or 

PSD increments, for pollutants that attain the NAAQS. A PSD 

permit is required for Avenal Energy because the emissions 

would exceed the applicable PSD thresholds for NO2 and CO 

from sources in the fossil fuel-fired steam-electric plant 

category. The PSD program is within the jurisdiction of the U.S. 

EPA. 

40 CFR 60, Subpart 

KKKK 

Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines, 

New Source Performance Standard (NSPS). Replaces NSPS 

Subpart Da and Subpart GG for the proposed combustion 

turbines and duct burners with heat recovery steam generators. 

Requires the proposed combined cycle units to achieve 15 ppm 

NOx and achieve fuel sulfur standards. 

40 CFR 60, Subpart 

Dc 

Standards of Performance for Small Industrial-CommercialInstitutional Steam Generating Units. Requires monitoring of 

the natural gas fuel source for the proposed auxiliary boiler. 

40 CFR 60, Subpart 

IIII 

Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition 

Internal Combustion Engines. Requires the emergency fire 

water pump engine to achieve: 3.0 grams per horsepower-hour 

(g/bhp-hr) of non-methane hydrocarbons and NOx 

(NMHC+NOx) and 0.15 g/bhp-hr PM, which are levels 

equivalent to U.S. EPA Tier 3 standards. 

40 CFR 60 

(Proposed Subpart 

JJJJ) 

Standards of Performance for Stationary Spark Ignition Internal 

Combustion Engines. Proposed standard would require the 

natural gas-fired emergency generator engine to achieve: 1.0 

g/bhp-hr NMHC. 

40 CFR 70, CAA 

Sec 401, 42 USC 

7651 

Federal Title V Operating Permit Program. Consolidates the 

federally-enforceable operating limits. Application required 

within one year following start of operation. This program is 

within the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD with U.S. EPA oversight 

[SJVAPCD Rule 2520]. 

Appendix A: 1 
Applicable LORS Description 

40 CFR 72, CAA 

Sec 401 42 USC 

7651 

Title IV Acid Rain – Applicable to electrical generating units 

greater than 25 MW. Requires Title IV permit and compliance 

with acid rain provisions, implemented through the Title V 

program. This program is within the jurisdiction of the 

SJVAPCD with U.S. EPA oversight [SJVAPCD Rule 2540]. 

State California Air Resources Board and Energy Commission 

Health and Safety 

Code (HSC) 

Section 40910-

40930 

Permitting of source needs to be consistent with approved 

clean air plan. The SJVAPCD New Source Review (NSR) 

program is consistent with regional air quality management 

plans. 

California Health & 

Safety Code 

Section 41700 

Public Nuisance Provisions – Outlaws the discharge of air 

contaminants that cause nuisance, injury, detriment, or 

annoyance. 

California Code of 

Regulations for OffRoad Diesel-Fueled 

Fleets (13 CCR 

§2449, et seq.) 

General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets 

– Requires owners and operators of in-use (existing) off-road 

diesel equipment and vehicles to begin reporting fleet 

characteristics to CARB in 2009 and meet fleet emissions targets 

for diesel particulate matter and NOx in 2010. 

Airborne Toxic 

Control Measure for 

Idling (ATCM, 

13 CCR §2485) 

ATCM to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling 

– Generally prohibits idling longer than five minutes for dieselfueled commercial motor vehicles. 

Local San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

Regulation I, 

General Provisions 

Establishes the requirements and standards for stack 

monitoring, source sampling, and breakdown events and 

identifies penalties. 

Regulation II, 

Permits 

Establishes the regulatory framework for permitting new and 

modified sources. Included in these requirements are the 

federally-delegated requirements for NSR, the Title V Operating 

Permit Program, and the Title IV Acid Rain Program. 

Rule 2201, New 

and Modified 

Stationary Sources 

Establishes the pre-construction review requirements for new, 

modified or relocated emission sources, in conformance with 

NSR to ensure that these facilities do not interfere with 

progress in attainment of the ambient air quality standards and 

that future economic growth in the San Joaquin Valley is not 

unnecessarily restricted. Establishes the requirement to 

prepare a Preliminary Determination of Compliance (PDOC) 

and Final Determination of Compliance (FDOC) during District 

Appendix A: 2 
Applicable LORS Description 

review of an application for a power plant. This regulation 

establishes Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and 

emission offset requirements. 

Rule 2520, 

Federally Mandated 

Operating Permits 

Establishes the permit application and compliance 

requirements for the federal Title V federal permit program. 

Avenal Energy qualifies as a Title V facility and must submit the 

Title V application within twelve months after starting operation. 

Rule 2540, Acid 

Rain Program 

Implements the federal Title IV Acid Rain Program, which 

requires subject facilities to obtain emission allowances for SOx 

emissions and requires fuel sampling and/or continuous 

monitoring to determine SOx and NOx emissions. 

Regulation IV, 

Prohibitions 

Sets forth the restrictions for visible emissions, odor nuisance, 

various air emissions, and fuel contaminants. Regulation IV 

incorporates the NSPS provisions of 40 CFR 60, including 

standards for stationary combustion turbines (Subpart KKKK). 

These rules limit emissions of NOx, VOC, CO, particulate 

matter, and sulfur compounds. 

Rule 4306, Boilers, 

Steam Generators, 

and Process 

Heaters 

Limits NOx and CO from boilers and steam generators. The 

proposed auxiliary boiler is subject to NOx limit of 9 parts per 

million by volume (ppmv) and CO limit of 400 ppmv. 

Rule 4702, Internal 

Combustion 

Engines 

Limits emissions of NOx, CO, and VOC from internal 

combustion engines. However, as emergency units, the 

proposed emergency engine-generator set and emergency fire 

water pump engine are exempt from emission limits, subject to 

monitoring and recordkeeping. 

Rule 4703, 

Stationary Gas 

Turbines 

Limits the proposed stationary gas turbine emissions of NOx to 

3 ppmv and CO to 25 ppmv over a 3-hour averaging period. 

Provided certain demonstrations are made, the emission limits 

do not apply during startup, shutdown, or reduced load periods 

(defined as “transitional operation periods”). 

Regulation V, 

Procedure before 

the Hearing Board 

Establishes the procedures for reporting emergencies and 

emergency variances. 

Regulation VIII, 

Fugitive PM10 

Prohibition 

Sets forth the requirements and performance standards for the 

control of emissions from fugitive dust causing activities. 

Appendix A: 3 
ALTERNATIVES 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

Energy Commission staff is required by agency regulations to examine the 

“feasibility of available site and facility alternatives to the Applicant’s proposal which 

substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts of the proposal on the 

environment.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1765.) 

The “Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,” 

Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15126.6(a), requires an 

evaluation of the comparative merits of “a range of reasonable alternatives to the 

project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the 

basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the 

significant effects of the project.” 

In addition, the analysis must address the No Project Alternative. (Cal. Code Regs., 

tit. 14, § 15126.6[e].) The analysis should identify and compare the impacts of the 

various alternatives, but analysis of alternatives need not be in as much detail as 

the analysis of the proposed project. 

The range of alternatives is governed by the “rule of reason,” which requires 

consideration only of those alternatives necessary to permit informed decision 

making and public participation. CEQA states that an environmental document 

does not have to consider an alternative if its effect cannot be reasonably 

ascertained and if its implementation is remote and speculative. (Cal. Code 

Regs., tit. 14, §15126.6[f][3].) However, if the range of alternatives is defined too 

narrowly, the analysis may be inadequate (City of Santee v. County of San Diego

[4th District, 1989] 214 Cal. App. 3d 1438). 

Appendix A: 4 
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal

Clean Water Act 

(CWA) of 1977 

Title 33, United States Code, sections 1251 through 

1376, and Code of Federal Regulations, part 30, 

section 330.5(a) (26), requires the permitting and 

monitoring of all discharges to surface water bodies. 

Section 404 requires a permit from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) for a discharge from 

dredged or fill materials into waters of the U.S., 

including wetlands. Section 401 requires a permit from 

a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for 

the discharge of pollutants. By federal law, every 

applicant for a federal permit or license for an activity 

which may result in a discharge into a California water 

body, including wetlands, must request state 

certification that the proposed activity will not violate 

state and federal water quality standards. 

Endangered Species 

Act 

(ESA) of 1973 

Title 16, United States Code, Section 1531 et seq., 

and Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 17.1 et 

seq., designate and provide for the protection of 

threatened and endangered plant and animal species 

and their critical habitat. The administering agency is 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act 

Title 16, United States Code, Sections 703 through 

711, prohibit the taking of migratory birds, including 

nests with viable eggs. The administering agency is 

the USFWS. 

Fish and Game 

Coordination Act 

Title 16, United States Code, section 661 et seq. 

requires federal agencies to coordinate federal actions 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to 

conserve fish and wildlife resources. 

Appendix A: 5 
Applicable LORS Description 

Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act 

Title 16, United States Code, section 2901 et seq.; 

Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations part 83, requires 

states to develop conservation plans for fish and 

wildlife. 

State

The administering agency for the following state LORS 

is the California Department of Fish and Game 

(CDFG), except for the CWA Section 401 certification, 

which is administered by the Regional Water Quality 

Control Board.

California Endangered 

Species Act (CESA) of 

1984 

Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 through 2098 

protect California’s rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. 

California Code of 

Regulations 

California Code of Regulations Title 14, Division 1, 

Subdivision 3, Chapter 3, Sections 670.2 and 670.5, 

list plants and animals of California that are designated 

as rare, threatened, or endangered. 

Fully Protected Species Fish and Game Code, sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 

5515, designates certain species as fully protected and 

prohibits the take of such species or their habitat 

unless for scientific purposes (see also California Code 

of Regulations Title 14, section 670.7). 

Nest or Eggs – Take, 

Possess, or Destroy 

Fish and Game Code Section 3503 protects 

California’s birds by making it unlawful to take, 

possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any 

bird. 

Migratory Birds – Take 

or Possession 

Fish and Game Code Section 3513 protects 

California’s migratory non-game birds by making it 

unlawful to take or possess any migratory non-game 

bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or 

any part of such migratory non-game bird. 

Appendix A: 6 
Applicable LORS Description 

California 

Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) 

Public Resources Code 

section 15380 

CEQA defines rare species more broadly than the 

definitions for species listed under the state and 

federal Endangered Species Acts. Under section 

15830, rare species that meet the criteria for listing but 

are not otherwise protected receive additional 

consideration. Included in this category are many 

plants considered rare by the California Native Plant 

Society and some animals on CDFG’s Special Animals 

list. 

Native Plant Protection 

Act of 1977 

Fish and Game Code Sections 1900 et seq. designate 

rare, threatened, and endangered plants in the State of 

California. 

California Species 

Preservation Act of 

1970 

California Native 

Species Conservation 

and Enhancement Act 

California Fish and Game Code section 900-903, 

requires the protection and enhancement of birds, 

mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles of California. 

Fish and Game Code section 1750 et seq., mandates 

maintenance of sufficient populations of native species 

to ensure continued existence. 

California Pesticide 

Regulations 

3 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 6, 

requires the minimal use of rodenticides and 

herbicides. 

Regional Water Quality 

Control Board 

By federal law, every applicant for a federal permit or 

license for an activity which may result in a discharge 

into a California water body, including wetlands, must 

request state certification that the proposed activity will 

not violate state and federal water quality standards. 

Local

City of Avenal General 

Plan. Open Space, 

Conservation and 

Recreation Element. 

Contains open space and conservation area protection 

policies and standards and requires preservation of 

natural resources and the promotion of biological 

diversity (Avenal Power 2008a). Objectives of the 

Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element 

include “protection of natural resources, including 

groundwater, soils, and air quality, to meet the needs 

of present and future generations; ensure that 

environmental hazards, including potential flooding 

and impacts from agricultural practices, are adequately 

addressed in the development process within the City 

and Planning Area; and create and preserve open 

space in the Avenal area to meet the needs of the 

community now and in the future to include the 

protection of natural and biological resources” (City of 

Avenal General Plan 2005). 

Appendix A: 7 
CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Applicable LORS Description 

State 

Public Resources 

Code 5097.98 (b) 

and (e) 

Requires a landowner on whose property Native American 

human remains are found to limit further development activity in 

the vicinity until he/she confers with the NAHC-identified Most 

Likely Descendents (MLDs) to consider treatment options. In 

the absence of MLDs or of a treatment acceptable to all parties, 

the landowner is required to reinter the remains elsewhere on 

the property in a location not subject to further disturbance. 

California Health and 

Safety Code, Section 

7050.5 

This code makes it a misdemeanor to disturb or remove human 

remains found outside a cemetery. This code also requires a 

project owner to halt construction if human remains are 

discovered and to contact the county coroner. 

Local 

Kings County 

General Plan (Pacific 

Legacy 2001, p. 5) 

Goal 26: Preserve significant historical and archaeological sites 

relevant to Kings County history. 

Objective 26.1: Establishes Kings County Museum Advisory 

Committee as keeper of list of designated county landmarks, 

and as review board for landmark designations and for projects 

potentially affecting county landmarks. 

City of Avenal 

General Plan 

Policies, 2005 

The Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation Element (3.0) 

identifies cultural resources among the resources addressed in 

this element, but no specific objectives, policies, or standards 

are set forth. 

Appendix A: 8 
FACILITY DESIGN 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal

Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, 

Occupational Safety and Health Standards 

State 

California Building Standards Code (CBSC) (also known 

as Title 24, California Code of Regulations) 

Local 

Kings County regulations and ordinances; City of 

Avenal regulations and ordinances 

General 

American National Standards Institute 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers 

American Welding Society 

American Society for Testing and Materials 

Appendix A: 9 
GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal 

The proposed project is not located on federal land. There are no 

federal LORS for geologic hazards and resources for this site. 

State 

California Building 

Code (CBC), 2007 

The CBC (2007) includes a series of standards that are used in 

project investigation, design, and construction (including grading 

and erosion control). 

Alquist-Priolo 

Earthquake Fault 

Zoning Act, Public 

Resources Code 

(PRC), section 

2621–2630 

Mitigates against surface fault rupture of known active faults 

beneath occupied structures. Requires disclosure to potential 

buyers of existing real estate and a 50-foot setback for new 

occupied buildings. No portions of the site and proposed 

ancillary facilities are located within designated Alquist-Priolo 

Fault Zones. 

The Seismic 

Hazards Mapping 

Act, PRC Section 

2690–2699 

Areas are identified that are subject to the effects of strong 

ground shaking, such as liquefaction, landslides, tsunamis, and 

seiches. 

PRC, Chapter 1.7, 

sections 5097.5 and 

30244 

Regulates removal of paleontological resources from state lands, 

defines unauthorized removal of fossil resources as a 

misdemeanor, and requires mitigation of disturbed sites. 

Society for 

Vertebrate 

Paleontology (SVP), 

1995 

The “Measures for Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse 

Impacts to Non-Renewable Paleontological Resources: Standard 

Procedures” is a set of procedures and standards for assessing 

and mitigating impacts to vertebrate paleontological resources. 

The measures were adopted in October 1995 by the SVP, a 

national organization of professional scientists. 

Local None 

Appendix A: 10 
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal

The Superfund 

Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act 

of 1986 (42 USC 

§9601 et seq.) 

Contains the Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act 

(also known as SARA Title III). 

The Clean Air Act 

(CAA) of 1990 (42 

USC 7401 et seq. 

as amended) 

Established a nationwide emergency planning and response program and 

imposed reporting requirements for businesses that store, handle, or 

produce significant quantities of extremely hazardous materials. 

The CAA section on 

risk management 

plans (42 USC 

§112(r) 

Requires states to implement a comprehensive system informing 

local agencies and the public when a significant quantity of such 

materials is stored or handled at a facility. The requirements of both 

SARA Title III and the CAA are reflected in the California Health and 

Safety Code, section 25531, et seq. 

49 CFR 172.800 The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirement that suppliers 

of hazardous materials prepare and implement security plans. 

49 CFR Part 1572, 

Subparts A and B 

Requires suppliers of hazardous materials to ensure that all their 

hazardous materials drivers are in compliance with personnel background 

security checks. 

The Clean Water 

Act (CWA) (40 CFR 

112) 

Aims to prevent the discharge or threat of discharge of oil into navigable 

waters or adjoining shorelines. Requires a written spill prevention, control, 

and countermeasures (SPCC) plan to be prepared for facilities that store 

oil that could leak into navigable waters. 

Title 49, Code of 

Federal 

Regulations, Part 

190 

Outlines gas pipeline safety program procedures. 

Title 49, Code of 

Federal 

Regulations, Part 

191 

Addresses transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline: annual 

reports, incident reports, and safety-related condition reports. Requires 

operators of pipeline systems to notify the DOT of any reportable incident 

by telephone and then submit a written report within 30 days. 

Title 49, Code of 

Federal 

Regulations, Part 

192 

Addresses transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline and 

minimum federal safety standards, specifies minimum safety 

requirements for pipelines including material selection, design 

requirements, and corrosion protection. The safety requirements for 

pipeline construction vary according to the population density and land 

use that characterize the surrounding land. This part also contains 

regulations governing pipeline construction (which must be followed for 

Class 2 and Class 3 pipelines) and the requirements for preparing a 

pipeline integrity management program. 

Appendix A: 11 
Applicable LORS Description 

Federal Register (6 

CFR Part 27) 

interim final rule 

A regulation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that requires 

facilities that use or store certain hazardous materials to submit 

information to the department so that a vulnerability assessment can be 

conducted to determine what certain specified security measures shall be 

implemented. 

State 

Title 8, California 

Code of 

Regulations, 

section 5189 

Requires facility owners to develop and implement effective safety 

management plans that ensure that large quantities of hazardous 

materials are handled safely. While such requirements primarily provide 

for the protection of workers, they also indirectly improve public safety 

and are coordinated with the Risk Management Plan (RMP) process. 

Title 8, California 

Code of 

Regulations, 

section 458 and 

sections 500 to 515 

Sets forth requirements for the design, construction, and operation of 

vessels and equipment used to store and transfer ammonia. These 

sections generally codify the requirements of several industry codes, 

including the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler 

and Pressure Vessel Code, the American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) K61.1 and the National Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspection 

Code. These codes apply to anhydrous ammonia but are also used to 

design storage facilities for aqueous ammonia. 

California Health 

and Safety Code, 

section 25531 to 

25543.4 

The California Accidental Release Program (CalARP) requires the 

preparation of a Risk Management Plan (RMP) and off-site consequence 

analysis (OCA) and submittal to the local Certified Unified Program 

Agency for approval. 

California Health 

and Safety Code, 

section 41700 

Requires that “No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever 

such quantities of air contaminants or other material which causes injury, 

detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of 

persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, 

or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a 

natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.” 

California Safe 

Drinking Water and 

Toxic Enforcement 

Act (Proposition 65) 

Prevents certain chemicals that cause cancer and reproductive toxicity 

from being discharged into sources of drinking water. 

California Public 

Utilities 

Commission 

General Order 112-

E and 58-A 

Contains standards for gas piping construction and service. 

Local None Applicable 

Appendix A: 12 
Applicable LORS Description 

The Certified Unified Program Authority (CUPA) with responsibility 

to review RMPs and Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) 

is the Kings County Environmental Health Department (Ex. 1, Table 

6.15-4). In regards to seismic safety issues, the site is located in 

Seismic Risk Zone 4. Construction and design of buildings and 

vessels storing hazardous materials will meet the seismic 

requirements of the California Building Code for Seismic Zone 4 

(Ex. 1, Section 6.3.2.4). 

Appendix A: 13 
LAND USE 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal None 

State None 

Local 

City of Avenal 

General Plan The California Government Code (Section 65302a) mandates a 

land use element designating the proposed general distribution, 

general location and extent of uses of the land. State requirements 

are implemented through the Avenal General Plan and Avenal 

Municipal Zoning Ordinance. The Avenal Energy project site is 

designated Industrial by the General Plan. 

Municipal Code The 148-acre site is zoned Heavy Industrial (M-2) by the Avenal 

Municipal Code (AMC). Zoning Ordinance Section 9.31 specifies 

uses permitted in an industrial district, subject to the approval of a 

conditional use permit (CUP). A Site Plan Review is required of all 

CUP applications, following Zoning Ordinance Chapter 27 

procedures. The Project would require a CUP and Site Plan 

Review under the Zoning Ordinance, except that state law provides 

for certification of power plant sites by the Energy Commission in 

lieu of any local requirements. 

City of Avenal property development standards are defined in 

Chapter 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Standards for street 

improvements, off-street parking, trash enclosures, utilities, 

landscaping, fencing, and sign standards for industrial areas are 

identified Zoning Ordinance Sections 17.02, 17.03, 17.04, 17.05, 

17.06, 17.07, 17.08 and 17.09. 

Fresno County 

Land Use Policies The Fresno County General Plan policies, guidelines and 

standards apply to land use development within unincorporated 

areas of Fresno County. The Project would include approximately 

200 feet of water pipeline in Fresno County that would connect an 

existing well to the site for standby water supply. Under the Fresno 

County General Plan, non-agricultural uses in areas zoned for 

agricultural uses are permitted so long as those uses do not 

diminish agricultural production capacity, economic viability, or 

detrimentally impact surrounding agricultural operations to the 

extent that further losses in production may occur. (Fresno County 

General Plan, 1988, Sec. 204-02.). 

Appendix A: 14 
Applicable LORS Description 

King County 

Land Use Policies The Kings County General Plan policies, guidelines and standards 

apply only to land use and development within the unincorporated 

territory of the County. They do not apply to development within the 

City of Avenal. The City and the County work together to develop 

complementary planning documents. However, the County does 

not have land use authority in the City. 

The only project land use that would occur on unincorporated lands 

is the 1.6-mile water pipeline from the existing ground water wells 

located north of the site along the San Luis canal. 

Appendix A: 15 
NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal 

Occupational Safety 

& Health Act 

(OSHA): 29 U.S.C. 

§ 651 et seq. 

Protects workers from the effects of occupational noise exposure. 

Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, (OSHA) adopted regulations (29 C.F.R. § 

1910.95) designed to protect workers against the effects of 

occupational noise exposure. These regulations list 

permissible noise exposure levels as a function of the 

amount of time during which the worker is exposed (see 

Noise Appendix A, Table A4, immediately following this 

section). The regulations further specify a hearing 

conservation program that involves monitoring the noise to 

which workers are exposed, assuring that workers are 

made aware of overexposure to noise, and periodically 

testing the workers’ hearing to detect any degradation.

U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency 

(USEPA) 

Assists state and local government entities in development 

of state and local LORS for noise. Under the Occupational 

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (29 U.S.C. § 651 

et seq.), the Guidelines are available from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to assist state 

and local government entities in developing state and local 

LORS for noise. Because there are existing local LORS that 

apply to this project, the USEPA guidelines are not 

applicable. There are no federal laws governing off-site 

(community) noise. 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published 

guidelines for assessing the impacts of ground-borne 

vibration associated with construction of rail projects, which 

have been applied by other jurisdictions to other types of 

projects. The FTA-recommended vibration standards are 

expressed in terms of the “vibration level,” which is 

calculated from the peak particle velocity measured from 

ground-borne vibration. The FTA measure of the threshold 

of perception is 65 vibrational decibel (VdB), which 

correlates to a peak particle velocity of about 0.002 inches 

per second (in/sec). The FTA measure of the threshold of 

architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is 

100 VdB, which correlates to a peak particle velocity of 

about 0.2 in/sec.

Appendix A: 16 
Applicable LORS Description 

State 

California 

Occupational Safety 

& Health Act (CalOSHA): 29 U.S.C. 

§ 651 et seq., Cal. 

Code Regs., tit. 8, 

§§ 5095-5099 

Protects workers from the effects of occupational noise 

exposure. California Government Code Section 65302(f) 

encourages each local governmental entity to perform noise 

studies and implement a noise element as part of its 

general plan. In addition, the California Office of Planning 

and Research has published guidelines for preparing noise 

elements, which include recommendations for evaluating 

the compatibility of various land uses as a function of 

community noise exposure. 

The State of California, Office of Noise Control, prepared 

the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance, which 

provides guidance for acceptable noise levels in the 

absence of local noise standards. This model also defines a 

simple tone, or “pure tone,” as one-third octave band sound 

pressure levels that can be used to determine whether a 

noise source contains annoying tonal components. The 

Model Community Noise Control Ordinance further 

recommends that, when a pure tone is present, the 

applicable noise standard should be lowered (made more 

stringent) by five A-weighted decibels (dBA). 

The California Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (Cal-OSHA) has promulgated occupational 

noise exposure regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, 

§§ 5095-5099) that set employee noise exposure limits. 

These standards are equivalent to federal OSHA standards. 

Local 

City of Avenal 

General Plan, Noise 

Element 

Discourages creation of noise levels above 65 dBA CNEL 

(Community Noise Equivalent Level) at the property line of 

noise-sensitive land uses. The project is located within the 

City of Avenal. The “City of Avenal General Plan,” Noise 

Element (City of Avenal 2005) applies to this project. 

Community noise controls are specifically addressed in the 

Noise Element. Noise Standard 3 of the Noise Element 

states that industrial, commercial or other noise generating 

land uses should be discouraged if resulting noise levels 

will exceed 65 dBA CNEL at the boundaries of planned or 

existing noise-sensitive land uses. 

Appendix A: 17 
Applicable LORS Description 

Kings County 

General Plan, Noise 

Element 

Limits noise levels to 65 dBA Ldn at the property line of 

noise-sensitive land uses. Although the Avenal Energy site 

is within the City of Avenal, the City–County boundary is 

adjacent to the northern and eastern site boundaries. 

Therefore, the Kings County General Plan, Noise element 

(Kings County 1993) also applies to the project. 

The Kings County Noise Element establishes compatibility 

for various land use categories with respect to exterior 

community noise levels. The noise level ranges are 

described as acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and 

unacceptable, for each land use category. The land use 

category that applies to the Avenal Energy’s nearest 

residential receptors is residential. 

The exterior noise exposure allowances for residential land uses, as specified in 

the Kings County Noise Element, Appendix 8, Table 18, are summarized below: 

Kings County Exterior Noise Exposure Allowances (Ldn) 

Land Use Category <65 dBA 65-70 dBA >70

Residential Acceptable Conditionally 

Acceptable Unacceptable 

Source: Kings County 1993, Appendix 8, Table 18; AFC §6.12.3.4, Table 6.12-3 

Appendix A: 18 
POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY 

No federal, state, local, or county laws, ordinances, regulations and standards 

(LORS) apply to the efficiency of this project. 

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY 

No federal, state, local, or county laws, ordinances, regulations and standards 

(LORS) pertain to the reliability of this project. 

Appendix A: 19 
PUBLIC HEALTH 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal 

Clean Air Act 

section 112 (42 

U.S. Code section 

7412) 

Requires new sources which emit more than ten tons per year of 

any specified hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or more than 25 tons 

per year of any combination of HAPs to apply Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT). 

State 

California Health 

and Safety Code 

sections 39650 et 

seq. 

These sections mandated the California Air Resources Board 

(CARB) and the Department of Health Services to establish safe 

exposure limits for toxic air pollutants and identify pertinent best 

available control technologies. They also required that the new 

source review rule for each air pollution control district include 

regulations that require new or modified procedures for controlling 

the emission of toxic air contaminants. 

California Health 

and Safety Code 

section 41700 

This section states that “no person shall discharge from any source 

whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material 

which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any 

considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger 

the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the 

public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury 

or damage to business or property.” 

California Code of 

Regulations, Title 

22, section 60306 

Requires that whenever a cooling system uses recycled water in 

conjunction with an air conditioning facility and a cooling tower that 

creates a mist that could come into contact with employees or 

members of the public, a drift eliminator shall be used and chlorine, 

or other, biocides shall be used to treat the cooling system recirculating water to minimize the growth of Legionella and other 

micro-organisms. 

Local 

San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control 

District Rule 2201 

Requires safe exposure limits for Toxic Air Pollutants (TACs), use 

of best Available Control Technology (BACT) and New Sources 

Review (NSR). 

Appendix A: 20 
SOCIOECONOMICS 

Applicable LORS Description

State 

California Education 

Code, Section 1762

The governing board of any school district is 

authorized to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other 

requirement for the purpose of funding the 

construction or reconstruction of school facilities. 

California Government 

Code, Sections 65996-

65997 

These sections include provisions for school district 

levies against development projects. As amended by 

Senate Bill (SB) 50 (stats. 1998, ch. 407, sec. 23), 

these sections state that, except for fees established 

under Education Code 17620, state and local public 

agencies may not impose fees, charges, or other 

financial requirements to offset the cost of school 

facilities. 

Appendix A: 21 
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal

Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. Section 1251 

et seq.)

The Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1257 et seq.) requires states to 

set standards to protect water quality, which includes regulation of 

storm water discharges during construction and operation of a 

facility.

Resource 

Conservation and 

Recovery Act

The Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 (40 

CFR Part 260 et seq.) seeks to prevent surface and groundwater 

contamination, sets guidelines for determining hazardous wastes, 

and identifies proper methods for handling and disposing of those 

wastes.

State

California Water Code 

Section 13260

Requires filing with the appropriate Regional Board a report of 

waste discharge that could affect the water quality of the state, 

unless the requirement is waived pursuant to Water Code section 

13269.

California Water Code 

Section 13551

Requires the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use 

to the fullest extent of which they are capable, and the waste or 

unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water be 

prevented, and that the conservation of such water is to be 

exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof 

in the interest of the people and for the public welfare.

Local

Kings County Article 

VI, Sec. 5-81, Uniform 

Plumbing Code

601.1 Except where not deemed necessary for safety or sanitation 

by the Administrative Authority, each plumbing fixture shall be 

provided with an adequate supply of potable running water piped 

thereto in an approved manner, so arranged as to flush and keep 

it in a clean and sanitary condition without danger of backflow or 

cross-connection.

Chapter 5, Article VI, 

Sec. 5-83, Kings 

County Code

Sewage disposal systems for commercial, industrial, and 

multifamily units are subject to review by the health officer. 

Deviation from any guidelines regulating the location of private 

sewage disposal systems shall be granted only with the 

concurrence of the health officer. (Ord. No. 375, § 10, 1-4-77; Ord. 

No. 480, § 5, 12-12-89; Ord. No. 513, § 5, 6-16-92; Ord. No. 545, 

§ 3, 12-19-95)

State Policies and Guidance

California 

Constitution, Article X, 

Section 2

This section requires that the water resources of the State be put 

to beneficial use to the fullest extent possible and states that the 

waste, unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water 

is prohibited.

Appendix A: 22 
Applicable LORS Description 

The Porter-Cologne 

Water Quality Control 

Act of 1967, Water 

Code Sec 13000 et 

seq.

Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and 

the nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality criteria to protect state 

waters. Those regulations require that the RWQCBs issue Waste 

Discharge Requirements specifying conditions for protection of 

water quality as applicable.

SWRCB Resolutions 

75-58 and 88-63

The principal policy of the SWRCB that addresses the specific 

siting of energy facilities is the Water Quality Control Policy on the 

Use and Disposal of Inland Waters Used for Power Plant Cooling 

(adopted by the Board on June 19, 1976, by Resolution 75-58). 

This policy states that use of fresh inland waters should only be 

used for power plant cooling if other sources or other methods of 

cooling would be environmentally undesirable or economically 

unsound. Resolution 75-58 defines brackish waters as “all waters 

with a salinity range of 1,000 to 30,000 mg/l” and fresh inland 

waters as those “which are suitable for use as a source of 

domestic, municipal, or agricultural water supply and which 

provide habitat for fish and wildlife”. 

Resolution 88-63 defines suitability of sources of drinking water. 

The total dissolved solids must exceed 3,000 mg/L for it to not be 

considered suitable, or potentially suitable, for municipal or 

domestic water supply.

SWRCB WQO 99-08 The SWRCB regulates storm water discharges associated with 

construction projects affecting areas greater than or equal to one 

acre to protect state waters. Under Order 99-08, the SWRCB has 

issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) General Permit for storm water discharges associated 

with construction activity for which applicants can qualify if they 

meet the criteria and upon preparing and implementing an 

acceptable Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and 

notifying the SWRCB with a Notice of Intent.

California Code of 

Regulations, Title 17

Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 5, addresses the requirements for 

backflow prevention and cross connections of potable and nonpotable water lines.

California Code of 

Regulations, Title 23

Title 23, Division 3, Chapter 15, requires the Regional Board issue 

Waste Discharge Requirements specifying conditions for 

protection of water quality as applicable. 

2003 Integrated 

Energy Policy Report 

In the 2003 IEPR, consistent with State Water Resources Control 

Board Policy 75-58 and the Warren-Alquist Act, the Energy 

Commission reiterated the State Water Policy, stating the 

Commission will approve the use of fresh water for cooling 

purposes by power plants only where alternative water supply 

sources and alternative cooling technologies are shown to be 

“environmentally undesirable” or “economically unsound. 

Appendix A: 23 
TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY AND NUISANCE 

Applicable LORS Description

Aviation Safety 

Federal

Title 14, Part 77 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations 

(CFR),”Objects Affecting the 

Navigable Air Space” 

Describes the criteria used to determine the need for a 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) “Notice of 

Proposed Construction or Alteration” in cases of potential 

obstruction hazards. 

FAA Advisory Circular No. 70/7460-

1G, “ Proposed Construction and/or 

Alteration of Objects that May 

Affect the Navigation Space” 

Addresses the need to file the “Notice of Proposed 

Construction or Alteration” (Form 7640) with the FAA in 

cases of potential for an obstruction hazard. 

FAA Advisory Circular 70/460-1G, 

“Obstruction Marking and Lighting”

Describes the FAA standards for marking and lighting 

objects that may pose a navigation hazard as established 

using the criteria in Title 14, Part 77 of the CFR. 

Interference with Radio Frequency Communication

Federal 

Title 47, CFR, Section 15.2524, 

Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) 

Prohibits operation of devices that can interfere with 

radio-frequency communication. 

State 

California Public Utilities 

Commission (CPUC) General 

Order 52 (GO-52 ) 

Governs the construction and operation of power and 

communications lines to prevent or mitigate interference. 

Audible Noise

Local 

Kings County Noise Element Sets noise limits for specific land uses. 

Fresno County Noise Element Sets sound level limits at residences and outdoor activity 

areas. 

City of Avenal Noise Element. Sets noise limits for sensitive land uses. 

Hazardous and Nuisance Shocks

State 

CPUC GO-95, “Rules for Overhead 

Electric Line Construction” 

Governs clearance requirements to prevent hazardous 

shocks, grounding techniques to minimize nuisance 

shocks, and maintenance and inspection requirements. 

Appendix A: 24 
Applicable LORS Description

Title 8, California Code of 

Regulations (CCR) Section 2700 et 

seq. “High Voltage Safety Orders” 

Specifies requirements and minimum standards for safely 

installing, operating, working around, and maintaining 

electrical installations and equipment. 

National Electrical Safety Code Specifies grounding procedures to limit nuisance shocks. 

Also specifies minimum conductor ground clearances. 

Industry Standards 

Institute of Electrical and 

Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 1119, 

“IEEE Guide for Fence Safety 

Clearances in Electric-Supply 

Stations” 

Specifies the guidelines for grounding-related practices 

within the right-of-way and substations. 

Electric and Magnetic Fields

State 

GO-131-D, CPUC ”Rules for 

Planning and Construction of 

Electric Generation Line and 

Substation Facilities in California” 

Specifies application and noticing requirements for new 

line construction including EMF reduction. 

CPUC Decision 93-11-013 Specifies CPUC requirements for reducing power 

frequency electric and magnetic fields. 

Industry Standards 

American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI/IEEE) 644-1944 

Standard Procedures for 

Measurement of Power Frequency 

Electric and Magnetic Fields from 

AC Power Lines 

Specifies standard procedures for measuring electric and 

magnetic fields from an operating electric line. 

Fire Hazards 

State 

14 CCR Sections 1250-1258, “Fire 

Prevention Standards for Electric 

Utilities” 

Provides specific exemptions from electric pole and tower 

firebreak and conductor clearance standards and 

specifies when and where standards apply. 

Appendix A: 25 
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal 

Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 

Title 14, Chapter 1, 

Part 77

Includes standards for determining obstructions in navigable 

airspace. Sets forth requirements for notice to the Federal 

Aviation Administration of certain proposed construction or 

alteration. Also, provides for aeronautical studies of 

obstructions to air navigation to determine their effect on the 

safe and efficient use of airspace. 

Title 49, Subtitle B Includes procedures and regulations pertaining to interstate 

and intrastate transport (includes hazardous materials 

program procedures), and provides safety measures for motor 

carriers and motor vehicles who operate on public highways. 

State 

California Vehicle 

Code, Division 2, 

Chapter. 2.5, Div. 6, 

Chap. 7, Div. 13, 

Chap. 5, Div. 14.1, 

Chap. 1 & 2, 

Div. 14.8, Div. 15 

Includes regulations pertaining to licensing, size, weight and 

load of vehicles operated on highways, safe operation of 

vehicles, and the transportation of hazardous materials. 

California Streets 

and Highway Code, 

Division 1 & 2, 

Chapter 3 & 

Chapter 5.5

Includes regulations for the care and protection of State and 

County highways, and provisions for the issuance of written 

permits. 

Local 

Kings County 

General Plan –

Circulation Element 

Reflects the urban and rural nature of Kings County and 

establishes standards that guide the development of the 

transportation system, and management of access to the 

highway system by new development, throughout the 

unincorporated areas of the county. Roadways are classified 

in this system based on the linkages they provide, their 

function in the hierarchy of roadways, and the importance of 

the route’s service to the residents and businesses of Kings 

County. 

City of Avenal 

General Plan –

Circulation Element 

Purpose is to provide a safe, efficient, and adequate 

circulation system for the City. The Element addresses the 

circulation improvements needed to provide adequate 

capacity for future land uses. 

Appendix A: 26 
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 

Applicable LORS Description 

The North American 

Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC)

North American Reliability Council (NERC) Reliability 

Standards for the Bulk Electric Systems of North America 

provide national policies, standards, principles and 

guidelines to assure the adequacy and security of the 

electric transmission system. The NERC Reliability 

Standards provide for system performance levels under 

normal and contingency conditions. With regard to power 

flow and stability simulations, while these Reliability 

Standards are similar to NERC/WECC Standards, certain 

aspects of the NERC/WECC Standards are either more 

stringent or more specific than the NERC Standards for 

Transmission System Contingency Performance. The 

NERC Reliability Standards apply not only to 

interconnected system operation but also to individual 

service areas (NERC 2006). 

Western Electricity 

Coordinating 

Council’s (WECC) 

The Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) 

Planning Standards are merged with the North American 

Electric Reliability Council (NERC) Planning Standards 

and provide the system performance standards used in 

assessing the reliability of the interconnected system. 

These standards require the continuity of service to loads 

as the first priority and preservation of interconnected 

operation as a secondary priority. Certain aspects of the 

NERC/WECC standards are either more stringent or more 

specific than the NERC standards alone. These standards 

provide planning for electric systems so as to withstand 

the more probable forced and maintenance outage system 

contingencies at projected customer demand and 

anticipated electricity transfer levels, while continuing to 

operate reliably within equipment and electric system 

thermal, voltage and stability limits. These standards 

include the reliability criteria for system adequacy and 

security, system modeling data requirements, system 

protection and control, and system restoration. Analysis of 

the WECC system is based to a large degree on Section 

I.A of the standards, “NERC and WECC Planning 

Standards with Table I and WECC DisturbancePerformance Table” and on Section I.D, “NERC and 

WECC Standards for Voltage Support and Reactive 

Power”. These standards require that the results of power 

Appendix A: 27 
flow and stability simulations verify defined performance 

levels. Performance levels are defined by specifying the 

allowable variations in thermal loading, voltage and 

frequency, and loss of load that may occur on systems 

during various disturbances. Performance levels range 

from no significant adverse effects inside and outside a 

system area during a minor disturbance (loss of load or a 

single transmission element out of service) to a level that 

seeks to prevent system cascading and the subsequent 

blackout of islanded areas during a major disturbance 

(such as loss of multiple 500 kV lines along a common 

right of way, and/or multiple generators). While controlled 

loss of generation or load or system separation is 

permitted in certain circumstances, their uncontrolled loss 

is not permitted (WECC 2006). 

California Public 

Utilities Commission 

(CPUC) General 

Order 95 (GO-95), 

Rules for Overhead 

Electric Line 

Construction

Specifies uniform requirements for the construction of 

overhead electric lines. Compliance with this order 

ensures both reliable service and a safe working 

environment for those working in the construction, 

maintenance, operation, or use of overhead electric lines, 

and for the safety of the general public. 

CPUC General 

Order 128 (GO-128), 

Rules for 

Underground 

Electric Line 

Construction

Establishes uniform requirements for the construction of 

underground electric lines. Compliance with this order also 

ensures both reliable service and a safe working 

environment for those working in the construction, 

maintenance, operation, or use of underground electric 

lines, and for the safety of the general public. 

National Electric 

Safety Code 1999 

Provides electrical, mechanical, civil, and structural 

requirements for overhead electric line construction and 

operation. 

California 

Independent System 

Operator (CAISO)

California ISO Planning Standards also provide standards, 

and guidelines to assure the adequacy, security and 

reliability in the planning of the California ISO transmission 

grid facilities. The California ISO Grid Planning Standards 

incorporate the NERC/WECC and NERC Reliability 

Planning Standards. With regard to power flow and 

stability simulations, these Planning Standards are similar 

Appendix A: 28 
to the NERC/WECC or NERC Reliability Planning 

Standards for Transmission System Contingency 

Performance. However, the California ISO Standards also 

provide some additional requirements that are not found in 

the WECC/NERC or NERC Standards. The California ISO 

Standards apply to all participating transmission owners 

interconnecting to the California ISO controlled grid. They 

also apply when there are any impacts to the California 

ISO grid due to facilities interconnecting to adjacent 

controlled grids not operated by the California ISO 

(California ISO 2002a). 

California ISO/FERC Electric Tariff provides guidelines for 

construction of all transmission additions/upgrades 

(projects) within the California ISO controlled grid. The 

California ISO determines the “Need” for the proposed 

project where it will promote economic efficiency or 

maintain system reliability. The California ISO also 

determines the Cost Responsibility of the proposed project 

and provides an Operational Review of all facilities that are 

to be connected to the California ISO grid (California ISO 

2007a). 

Appendix A: 29 
VISUAL RESOURCES 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal

Transportation Equity Act 

for the 21st Century of 

1998, and 

Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act 

of 2005. 

The project site does not involve federal managed lands, 

nor a recognized National Scenic Byway or All-American 

Road within its vicinity. 

State

California Streets and 

Highways Code, 

Sections 260 through 

263 – Scenic Highways 

Ensures the protection of highway corridors that reflect 

the State's natural scenic beauty. The project site does 

not involve a designated State Scenic Highway. 

Local

City of Avenal General 

Plan, adopted August 

11, 2005 

• Chapter 6.0 

Circulation Element 

o Policy 6.1 General 

Circulation and 

Street System 

• Chapter 7.0 Land Use 

Element 

o Policy 7.4 Industrial 

Land Use 

• Chapter 8.0 

Community Design 

Element 

o Policy 8.3 

Commercial and 

Industrial 

Development 

Includes a provision to provide additional landscaping, 

including street trees, along existing roadways. 

Includes a requirement that industrial development should 

not create significant off-site circulation, noise, dust, visual 

and hazardous material impacts that cannot be 

adequately mitigated. 

Includes a requirement that commercial and industrial 

development be attractive and of high-quality design to 

enhance the image of the city. 

Appendix A: 30 
City of Avenal Municipal 

Code Title 9-Zoning 

Ordinance 

• Section 9.60.08 - 

Parking Lot 

Landscaping 

• Section 9.61.11- 

Business Signage 

• Section 9.63 - Site 

Landscaping 

• Section 9.79 – 

Screening of Trash 

Bins and Dumpsters 

• 

Provides site development requirements for projects. 

Local

County of Fresno 

Ordinance 

Chapter 1, Part VII, 

Division VI – 

Zoning Division 

• Section 875 – Electric 

Utilities and Services 

o C. Review Of 

Electric 

Transmission 

Facilities 

The section is intended to provide the County of Fresno 

with a formal means of project review and comment on 

electric transmission facilities and electric utility facilities 

which are subject to approval by the California Public 

Utilities Commission or California Energy Commission. 

Provision C. includes that routes of proposed electric 

transmission facilities be submitted to the Director of the 

Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning 

for review either prior to filing an application with a State 

agency or prior to any property right acquisition or 

condemnation proceedings; or at least 100 days prior to 

construction. 

Appendix A: 31 
WASTE MANAGEMENT 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal 

Title 42, United 

States Code 

(U.S.C.), §6901, et 

seq. 

Solid Waste 

Disposal Act of 1965 

(as amended and 

revised by the 

Resource 

Conservation and 

Recovery Act of 

1976, et al.) 

The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended and revised by the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) et al., 

establishes requirements for the management of solid wastes 

(including hazardous wastes), landfills, underground storage 

tanks, and certain medical wastes. The statute also addresses 

program administration, implementation and delegation to states, 

enforcement provisions, and responsibilities, as well as research, 

training, and grant funding provisions. 

RCRA Subtitle C establishes provisions for the generation, 

storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste, including 

requirements addressing: 

• Generator record keeping practices that identify quantities of 

hazardous wastes generated and their disposition; 

• Waste labeling practices and use of appropriate containers; 

• Use of a manifest when transporting wastes; 

• Submission of periodic reports to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or other 

authorized agency; and 

• Corrective action to remediate releases of hazardous waste 

and contamination associated with RCRA-regulated facilities. 

RCRA Subtitle D establishes provisions for the design and 

operation of solid waste landfills. 

RCRA is administered at the federal level by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and its 10 regional 

offices. The Pacific Southwest regional office (Region 9) 

implements U.S. EPA programs in California, Nevada, Arizona, 

and Hawaii. 

Appendix A: 32 
Applicable LORS Description 

Title 42, U.S.C., 

§9601, et seq. 

Comprehensive 

Environmental 

Response, 

Compensation and 

Liability Act 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, 

establishes authority and funding mechanisms for cleanup of 

uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites, as well as 

cleanup of accidents, spills, or emergency releases of pollutants 

and contaminants into the environment. Among other things, the 

statute addresses: 

• Reporting requirements for releases of hazardous 

substances; 

• Requirements for remedial action at closed or abandoned 

hazardous waste sites, and brownfields; 

• Liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous 

substances or waste; and 

• Requirements for property owners/potential buyers to conduct 

“all appropriate inquiries” into previous ownership and uses of 

the property to 1) determine if hazardous substances have 

been or may have been released at the site, and 2) establish 

that the owner/buyer did not cause or contribute to the 

release. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is 

commonly used to satisfy CERCLA “all appropriate inquiries” 

requirements. 

Title 40, Code of 

Federal Regulations 

(CFR), Subchapter I 

– Solid Wastes 

These regulations were established by U.S. EPA to implement 

the provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and RCRA 

(described above). Among other things, the regulations establish 

the criteria for classification of solid waste disposal facilities 

(landfills), hazardous waste characteristic criteria and regulatory 

thresholds, hazardous waste generator requirements, and 

requirements for management of used oil and universal wastes. 

• Part 257 addresses the criteria for classification of solid 

waste disposal facilities and practices. 

• Part 258 addresses the criteria for municipal solid waste 

landfills. 

• Parts 260 through 279 address management of hazardous 

wastes, used oil, and universal wastes (i.e., batteries, 

mercury-containing equipment, and lamps). 

U.S. EPA implements the regulations at the federal level. 

However, California is an RCRA-authorized state, so most of the 

solid and hazardous waste regulations are implemented by state 

agencies and authorized local agencies in lieu of U.S. EPA. 

Appendix A: 33 
Applicable LORS Description 

Title 49, CFR, 

Parts 172 and 173. 

Hazardous Materials 

Regulations 

These regulations address the United States Department of 

Transportation (DOT) established standards for transport of 

hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The standards 

include requirements for labeling, packaging, and shipping of 

hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, as well as training 

requirements for personnel completing shipping papers and 

manifests. Section 172.205 specifically addresses use and 

preparation of hazardous waste manifests in accordance with 

Title 40, CFR, section 262.20. 

 

State 

California Health 

and Safety Code 

(HSC), Chapter 6.5, 

§25100, et seq. 

Hazardous Waste 

Control Act of 1972, 

as amended 

This California law creates the framework under which 

hazardous wastes must be managed in California. The law 

provides for the development of a state hazardous waste 

program that administers and implements the provisions of the 

federal RCRA program. It also provides for the designation of 

California-only hazardous wastes and development of standards 

(regulations) that are equal to or, in some cases, more stringent 

than federal requirements. 

The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), 

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) administers 

and implements the provisions of the law at the state level. 

Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs) implement some 

elements of the law at the local level. 

Appendix A: 34 
Applicable LORS Description 

Title 22, California 

Code of Regulations 

(CCR), 

Division 4.5. 

Environmental 

Health Standards for 

the Management of 

Hazardous Waste 

These regulations establish requirements for the management 

and disposal of hazardous waste in accordance with the 

provisions of the California Hazardous Waste Control Act and 

federal RCRA. As with the federal requirements, waste 

generators must determine if their wastes are hazardous 

according to specified characteristics or lists of wastes. 

Hazardous waste generators must obtain identification numbers; 

prepare manifests before transporting the waste off site; and use 

only permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. 

Generator standards also include requirements for record 

keeping, reporting, packaging, and labeling. Additionally, while 

not a federal requirement, California requires that hazardous 

waste be transported by registered hazardous waste 

transporters. 

The standards addressed by Title 22, CCR include: 

• Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Chapter 11, 

§66261.1, et seq.). 

• Standards Applicable to Generator of Hazardous Waste 

(Chapter 12, §66262.10, et seq.). 

• Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste 

(Chapter 13, §66263.10, et seq.). 

• Standards for Universal Waste Management (Chapter 23, 

§66273.1, et seq.). 

• Standards for the Management of Used Oil (Chapter 29, 

§66279.1, et seq.). 

• Requirements for Units and Facilities Deemed to Have a 

Permit by Rule (Chapter 45, §67450.1, et seq.). 

The Title 22 regulations are established and enforced at the 

state level by DTSC. Some generator and waste treatment 

standards are also enforced at the local level by CUPAs. 

Appendix A: 35 
Applicable LORS Description 

HSC, Chapter 6.11 

§§25404 – 25404.9 

Unified Hazardous 

Waste and 

Hazardous Materials 

Management 

Regulatory Program 

(Unified Program) 

The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes 

consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, 

and enforcement activities of the six environmental and 

emergency response programs listed below. 

• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act requirements for Spill 

Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans. 

• Hazardous Materials Release and Response Plans and 

Inventories (Business Plans). 

• California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program. 

• Hazardous Material Management Plan / Hazardous Material 

Inventory Statements. 

• Hazardous Waste Generator / Tiered Permitting Program. 

• Underground Storage Tank Program. 

The state agencies responsible for these programs set the 

standards for their programs while local governments implement 

the standards. The local agencies implementing the Unified 

Program are known as CUPAs. The San Bernardino County Fire 

Department, Hazardous Materials Division is the CUPA for the 

SGGS project. 

Note: The Waste Management analysis only considers 

application of the Hazardous Waste Generator/Tiered Permitting 

element of the Unified Program. 

Title 27, CCR, 

Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter 

1, §15100, et seq. 

Unified Hazardous 

Waste and 

Hazardous Materials 

Management 

Regulatory Program 

While these regulations primarily address certification and 

implementation of the program by the local CUPAs, the 

regulations do contain specific reporting requirements for 

businesses. 

• Article 9 – Unified Program Standardized Forms and Formats 

(§§ 15400-15410). 

• Article 10 – Business Reporting to CUPAs (§§15600–15620). 

Public Resources 

Code, Division 30, 

§40000, et seq. 

California Integrated 

Waste Management 

Act of 1989 

The California Integrated Waste Management Act (CIWMA) 

establishes mandates and standards for management of solid 

waste in California. The law addresses solid waste landfill 

diversion requirements; establishes the preferred waste 

management hierarchy (source reduction first, then recycling and 

reuse, and treatment and disposal last); sets standards for 

design and construction of municipal landfills; and addresses 

programs for county waste management plans and local 

implementation of solid waste requirements. 

Appendix A: 36 
Applicable LORS Description 

Title 14, CCR, 

Division 7, §17200, 

et seq. 

California Integrated 

Waste Management 

Board 

These regulations implement the provisions of the California 

Integrated Waste Management Act and set forth minimum 

standards for solid waste handling and disposal. The regulations 

include standards for solid waste management, as well as 

enforcement and program administration provisions. 

• Chapter 3 – Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling 

and Disposal. 

• Chapter 3.5 – Standards for Handling and Disposal of 

Asbestos Containing Waste. 

• Chapter 7 – Special Waste Standards. 

• Chapter 8 – Used Oil Recycling Program. 

• Chapter 8.2 – Electronic Waste Recovery and Recycling. 

HSC, Division 20, 

Chapter 6.5, Article 

11.9, §25244.12, et 

seq. 

Hazardous Waste 

Source Reduction 

and Management 

Review Act of 1989 

This law was enacted to expand the state’s hazardous waste 

source reduction activities. Among other things, it establishes 

hazardous waste source reduction review, planning, and 

reporting requirements for businesses that routinely generate 

more than 12,000 kilograms (approximately 26,400 pounds) of 

hazardous waste in a designated reporting year. The review and 

planning elements are required to be done on a four-year cycle, 

with a summary progress report due to DTSC every fourth year. 

Title 22, CCR, 

§67100.1 et seq. 

 

Hazardous Waste 

Source Reduction 

and Management 

Review 

These regulations further clarify and implement the provisions of 

the Hazardous Waste Source Reduction and Management 

Review Act of 1989 (noted above). The regulations establish the 

specific review elements and reporting requirements to be 

completed by generators subject to the act. 

Policies 

Kings County, 

Countywide 

Integrated Waste 

Management Plan 

This document sets forth the county’s goals, policies, and 

programs for reducing dependence on landfilling solid wastes 

and increasing source reduction, recycling, and reuse of 

products and waste, in compliance with the CIWMA. The plan 

also addresses the siting and development of recycling and 

disposal facilities and programs within the county. 

Appendix A: 37 
Appendix A: 38 

WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION 

Applicable LORS Description 

Federal 

29 U.S. Code § 651 et 

seq (Occupational 

Safety and Health Act 

of 1970) 

This act mandates safety requirements in the workplace with the 

purpose of “[assuring] so far as possible every working man and 

woman in the nation safe and healthful working conditions and to 

preserve our human resources” (29 USC § 651). 

29 CFR sections 

1910.1 to 1910.1500 

(Occupational Safety 

and Health 

Administration Safety 

and Health 

Regulations) 

These sections define the procedures for promulgating regulations and 

conducting inspections to implement and enforce safety and health 

procedures to protect workers, particularly in the industrial sector. 

29 CFR sections 

1952.170 to 1952.175 

These sections provide federal approval of California’s plan for 

enforcement of its own safety and health requirements, in lieu of most 

of the federal requirements found in 29 CFR §§1910.1 to 1910.1500. 

State 

8 CCR all applicable 

sections (Cal/OSHA 

regulations) 

Requires that all employers follow these regulations as they pertain to 

the work involved. This includes regulations pertaining to safety 

matters during construction, commissioning, and operations of power 

plants, as well as safety around electrical components; fire safety; and 

hazardous materials use, storage, and handling. 

24 CCR section 3, et 

seq. 

Incorporates the current addition of the Uniform Building Code. 

Health and Safety 

Code section 25500, 

et seq. 

Risk Management Plan requirements for threshold quantity of listed 

acutely hazardous materials at a facility. 

Health and Safety 

Code sections 25500 

to 25541 

Requires a Hazardous Material Business Plan detailing emergency 

response plans for hazardous materials emergency at a facility. 

Local (or locally enforced) 

Uniform Fire Code, 

Articles 4, 79, & 80 

Specify requirements for proper storage and handling of hazardous 

materials and flammable/combustible liquids. Enforced by Kings 

County Fire Department (KCFD). 

National Fire 

Protection Association 

(NFPA) Standards 

Contain standards necessary to establish a reasonable level of safety 

and protect property from fire and explosion hazards. Enforced by the 

KCFD. 
BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 

1-800-822-6228 – WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION FOR THE

AVENAL ENERGY PROJECT DOCKET NO. 08-AFC-1 

EXHIBIT LIST

APPLICANT’S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 1 Avenal Energy Project Application for Certification; dated February 2008, 

and docketed on February 21, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and 

admitted into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 2 Air Quality and Public Health Modeling Files; dated February 12, 2008, 

and docketed February 21, 2008. (a) Air Quality Modeling Files; (b) Public 

Health Modeling Files. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into 

evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 3 Supplement to the Avenal Energy Project Application for Certification; 

dated March 27, 2008, and docketed March 28, 2008. Sponsored by 

Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

(a) Section 2.0 - Air Quality 

(b) Section 3.0 – Biological Resources 

(c) Section 4.0 – Cultural Resources 

(d) Section 5.0 - Socioeconomics 

(e) Section 6.0 – Transmission System Design 

(f) Section 7.0 – Water Resources 

(g) Attachment A.1 – Air Permit Application Completeness Letters 

(h) Attachment A.2 – Corrected AFC Page 6.2-20 

(i) Attachment C.1 – CHRIS Record Search 

(j) Attachment C.2 – Letters to Local Historical and Archaeological Societies 

(k) Attachment C.3 – Historical Architectural Survey Report 

(l) Attachment C.4 – Letter to NAHC 

(m) Attachment S.1 – Agency Contacts for Socioeconomics 

(n) Attachment W.1 – Existing Site Drainage 

(o) Attachment W.2 – 100 Year Flood Zone 

(p) Attachment W.3 – Pre-Construction Runoff and Drainage Plan 

(q) Attachment W.4 – Existing Groundwater Wells Within One Half Mile 

(r) Attachment W.5 – Land Option and Water Agreement 

(s) Attachment W.6 – Conceptual Sanitary Sewer System and Leaching 

Field/Septic System 

Appendix B: 1 
(t) Attachment W.7 – Ground Water Drawdown Modeling Report 

(u) Attachment T.1 – Interconnection Feasibility Study Report 

(v) Attachment T.2 – One Line Diagram for Gates Substation 

(w) Attachment T.3 – System Impact Study Agreement 

EXHIBIT 4 CHRIS Cultural Resource Reports for the Avenal Energy Application for 

Certification; dated April 1, 2008, and docketed April 2, 2008. Sponsored 

by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

.

EXHIBIT 5 Applicant’s Response to Department of Conservation’s April 4, 2008 Letter 

Regarding the Avenal Application for Certification; dated May 15, 2008, 

and docketed May 16, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into 

evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 6 Avenal Power Center, LLC’s Objection to California Energy Commission 

Staff Data Requests (Set 1); dated June 10, 2008, and docketed June 10, 

2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 

2009. 

(a) Objections to Data Request 16 

(b) Objections to Data Request 53 

(c) Objections to Data Requests 66, 67, and 68 

EXHIBIT 7 Response to California Energy Commission Data Requests 1-74 for 

Avenal Energy; dated June 20, 2008, and docketed June 20, 2008. 

Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

(a) Responses 1-6; Exhibit 2-1

(b) Responses 7-10; Exhibits 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 10-1

(c) Responses 11-20; Exhibits 17-1, 17-2

(d) Response 21

(e) Responses 22-23; Exhibits 22-1, 23-1

(f) Responses 24-53; Exhibits 25-1, 35-1, 38-1, 48-1, 48-2

(g) Responses 54-58; Exhibit 58-1

(h) Responses 59-68; Exhibit 61-1

(i) Responses 69-74

EXHIBIT 8 Avenal Energy’s Response to California Energy Commission Data 

Request Workshop for Avenal Energy (Site Cut and Fill Depth Plan); 

dated July 11, 2008, and docketed July 14, 2008. Sponsored by 

Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

(a) Site Cut and Fill Depth Plan 

(b) Cover Letter; Will-Serve Letter from Kings County Fire Department 

Appendix B: 2 
EXHIBIT 9 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Appendices; dated October 

30, 2007, and docketed July 23, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and 

received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 10 Additional Pipeline Details for Avenal Energy Project; dated August 1, 

2008, and docketed August 4, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and 

received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 11 Letter from Avenal Power to United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Regarding Migratory Buffer for Kit Fox; dated August 15, 2008. Not 

docketed. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 

2009. 

EXHIBIT 12 Memorandum Regarding SR 198 EB Ramps at Avenal Cutoff Road; dated 

August 25, 2008, and docketed August 26, 2008. Sponsored by 

Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 13 Response to CEC Data Request Set 1 and Workshop for Avenal Energy 

(System Impact Study); dated September 19, 2008, and docketed 

September 22, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence 

on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 14 Response to California Energy Commission Data Requests Set 2 (# 75-

94) for Avenal Energy; dated September 24, 2008, and docketed 

September 24, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence 

on July 7, 2009. 

(a) Responses 75-77 

(b) Responses 78-88; Exhibits 79-1, 80-1, 83-1, 83-2, 83-3, 84-1 

(c) Response 89; Exhibit 89-1 

(d) Responses 90-94; Exhibits 92-1, 93-1 

EXHIBIT 15 Avenal Power Center’s Response to September 8, 2008 Letter from 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service to United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 9; dated October 1, 2008, and docketed 

October 3, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on 

July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 16 Supplemental Information Regarding a Buffer Along the San Luis Canal 

for Avenal Energy; dated October 6, 2008, and docketed October 7, 2008. 

 Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

Appendix B: 3 
EXHIBIT 17 Avenal Power Center LLC’s Objections to California Unions for Reliable 

Energy’s Data Requests; dated October 16, 2008, and docketed October 

21, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 

2009. 

(a) Objections to Data Request 2 

(b) Objections to Data Requests 6(a), 6(c), 7(a), and 7(b) 

(c) Objection to Data Request 9 

(d) Objections to Data Requests 10-30 

(e) Objections to Data Request 35 and 41 

(f) Objections to Data Request 47 

(g) Objections to Data Request 48 

(h) Objections to Data Request 53 

EXHIBIT 18 Letter from Avenal Energy to San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District Regarding Avenal Energy Carbon Monoxide Emission Limit 

Reduction; dated October 28, 2008, and docketed November 13, 2008. 

Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 19 Response to CURE Data Request Set 1 for Avenal Energy; dated October 

30, 2008, and docketed November 3, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and 

received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

(a) Responses 1-5 

(b) Responses 6-7; Exhibit C6 

(c) Response 8 

(d) Response 9 

(e) Responses 10-30 

(f) Responses 31-44; Exhibits C31-1, C31-2, C31-3, C31-4, C32, C40 

(g) Responses 45-59 

EXHIBIT 20 Supplement to the System Impact Study; dated November 21, 2008, and 

docketed November 21, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into 

evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 21 Applicant’s Final Comments to Avenal Energy Preliminary Staff 

Assessment; dated March 4, 2009, and docketed March 5, 2009. 

Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

(a) Attachment 1, Pages 1-4 

(b) Attachment 1, Pages 5-21 

(c) Attachment 1, Pages 22-28 

(d) Attachment 1, Pages 29-33 

(e) Attachment 1, Pages 34-35 

(f) Attachment 1, Page 36 

(g) Attachment 1, Pages 37-39 

Appendix B: 4 
(h) Attachment 1, Pages 40-42 

(i) Attachment 1, Pages 43-44 

(j) Attachment 1, Pages 45-46 

(k) Attachment 1, Pages 47-48 

(l) Attachment 1, Page 49 

(m) Attachment 1, Page 50 

(n) Attachment 2 (Revised Exhibit 83-3 from Response to California 

Energy Commission Data Requests Set 2) 

(o) Attachment 3 (Revised Exhibit 83-2 from Response to California 

Energy Commission Data Requests Set 2) 

(p) Attachment 4 (Kettleman Hills Facility Cumulative Impact 

Considerations 

EXHIBIT 22 Avenal Project System Impact Study Determining Re-Rate Potential for 

Impacted Lines; dated April 17, 2009, and docketed April 21, 2009. 

Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 23 Study Regarding Change in Carbon Emissions from the Base Case When 

the Avenal Energy Power Plant Is Added; dated May 7, 2009, and 

docketed May 14, 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into 

evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 24 Environmental Analysis for Gates Substation and Surrounding Property 

Owned by PG&E; dated May 21, 2009, and docketed May 22, 2009, and 

received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 25 Written Testimony, Witness Declarations and Resumes; dated June 8, 

2009, and docketed June 8, 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and received 

into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

(a) Executive Summary 

(b) Project Description 

(c) Air Quality 

(d) Biological Resources 

(e) Cultural Resources 

(f) Hazardous Materials Management 

(g) Land Use 

(h) Noise and Vibration 

(i) Public Health 

(j) Socioeconomics 

(k) Soil and Water Resources 

(l) Traffic and Transportation 

(m) Transmission Line Safety and Nuisance 

(n) Visual Resources 

(o) Waste Management 

(p) Worker Safety and Fire Protection 

Appendix B: 5 
(q) Facility Design 

(r) Geology and Paleontology 

(s) Power Plant Efficiency 

(t) Power Plant Reliability 

(u) Transmission System Engineering 

(v) Alternatives 

EXHIBIT 26 Supplemental Testimony Regarding Greenhouse Gas Issues; dated June 

8, 2009, and docketed June 8, 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and 

received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBITS 27 to 49 Reserved 

EXHIBIT 50 Letter from Department of Conservation Regarding Avenal Power Center, 

LLC Application for Certification; dated April 4, 2008, and docketed April 8, 

2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 

2009. 

EXHIBIT 51 Report of Conversation with TRC Solutions Regarding Avenal Energy AFC 

Socioeconomics Questions; dated May 9, 2008, and docketed July 9, 

2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 

2009.

EXHIBIT 52 Letter from California Department of Fish and Game to the California 

Energy Commission Summarizing Department of Fish and Game’s 

Comments from the March 18, 2008 Meeting; dated May 27, 2008, and 

docketed May 30, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into 

evidence on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 53 California Air Resources Board’s Comments on the Avenal Power Center; 

dated June 16, 2008; and docketed June 17, 2008. Sponsored by 

Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 54 Kings County Fire Department Service Support Letter for Avenal Energy; 

dated June 27, 2008, and docketed June 30, 2008. Sponsored by 

Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 55 Letter From United States Environmental Protection Agency to United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service Regarding Request for Formal 

Consultation Under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act; 

dated July 10, 2008, and docketed July 11, 2008. Sponsored by 

Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 56 Letter from City of Avenal to Avenal Power Center in Response to 

Request Regarding Potable Water Availability; dated September 22, 2008, 

Appendix B: 6 
and docketed January 13, 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and received 

into evidence on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 57 Letter from Environmental Protection Agency to United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service; dated October 22, 2008. Not docketed. Sponsored by 

Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 58 Final Determination of Compliance; dated October 30, 2008, and docketed 

November 4, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence 

on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 59 Letter from Westlands Water District Withdrawing Its May 29, 2008 Letter; 

dated January 12, 2009, and docketed January 26, 2009. Sponsored by 

Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 60 Letter from Kings County Economic Development Corporation Supporting 

Avenal Energy Project; dated April 1, 2009, and docketed April 1, 2009. 

Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

EXHIBIT 61 Letter from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Clarifying 

Questions from CEC Staff During February 18, 2009 PSA Workshop; 

dated May 27, 2009 and docketed June 2, 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, 

and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 62 Statement of Basis and Ambient Air Quality Impact Report; dated June 

2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 

2009. 

ENERGY COMMISSION STAFF’S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 200 Final Staff Assessment for the Avenal Energy Project, dated June 2009, 

docketed June 2, 2009. Sponsored by Staff; and received into evidence 

on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 201 Energy Commission Staff’s Pre-Hearing Conference Statement, dated 

June 22, 2009, docketed June 22, 2009. Sponsored by Staff; and 

received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 202 Energy Commission Staff’s Update to Pre-Hearing Conference Statement 

and Minor Errata To Final Staff Assessment dated June 25, 2009, 

docketed June 25, 2009. Sponsored by Staff; and received into evidence 

on July 7, 2009. 

Appendix B: 7 
Appendix B: 8 

EXHIBIT 203 MRW & Associates Report: Framework for Evaluating Greenhouse Gas 

Implications of Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants in California, dated May, 

2009, docketed June 4, 2009. Sponsored by Staff; and received into 

evidence on July 7, 2009. 

EXHIBIT 204 Draft Biological Opinion on the Proposed Avenal Power Center, LLC, 

Avenal Energy Power Plant Project, dated, July 1, 2009, docketed, July 3, 

2009. Sponsored by Staff; and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 

INTERVENOR EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT 300 Intervenor Rob Simpson Testimony: Avenal Testimony Interpollutant 

Trade, filed as rebuttal testimony and labeled as Avenal W, 3 page 

document, docketed June 16, 2009. Sponsored by Intervenor Rob 

Simpson; and received into evidence on July 7, 2009. 
BEFORE THE ENERGY RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

1516 NINTH STREET, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814

1-800-822-6228 – WWW.ENERGY.CA.GOV

APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION Docket No. 08-AFC-1

 For the AVENAL ENERGY PROJECT 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE 

APPLICANT 

Jim Rexroad, 

Project Manager 

Avenal Power Center, LLC 

500 Dallas Street, Level 31 

Houston, TX 77002 USA 

Jim.Rexroad@macquarie.com 

Tracey Gilliland 

Avenal Power Center, LLC 

500 Dallas Street, Level 31 

Houston TX 77002 

Tracey.Gilliland@macquarie.com

APPLICANT CONSULTANT

Joe Stenger, Project Director 

TRC Companies 

2666 Rodman Drive 

Los Osos, CA 93402 

jstenger@trcsolutions.com

COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT

Jane E. Luckhardt 

Downey Brand 

621 Capitol Mall, 18th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814

jluckhardt@downeybrand.com 

INTERESTED AGENCIES

California ISO 

e-recipient@caiso.com

INTERVENORS

Loulena A. Miles 

Marc D. Joseph 

Adams Broadwell Joseph & 

Cardozo 

601 Gateway Boulevard, 

Ste. 1000 

South San Francisco, CA 94080 

mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com

lmiles@adamsbroadwell.com

Ingrid Brostrom 

Center on Race, Poverty & the 

Environment 

47 Kearny Street, Ste. 804 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

ibrostrom@crpe-ej.org 

John E. Honnette, Vice Chair 

Tehipite Chapter, Sierra Club 

2543 15th Avenue 

Kingsburg, CA 93631-1110 

jhonnette@aol.com 

Rob Simpson 

Environmental Consultant 

27126 Grandview Avenue 

Hayward, CA 94542 

rob@redwoodrob.com 

ENERGY COMMISSION 

Jeffrey D. Byron 

Commissioner and Presiding Member 

jbyron@energy.state.ca.us 

Karen Douglas 

Chair and Associate Member 

kldougla@energy.state.ca.us

Gary Fay 

Hearing Officer 

gfay@energy.state.ca.us

Joseph Douglas 

Project Manager 

jdouglas@energy.state.ca.us

Lisa DeCarlo 

Staff Counsel 

ldecarlo@energy.state.ca.us

Public Adviser’s Office 

publicadviser@energy.state.ca.us

Appendix C: 1 
Appendix C: 2 

DECLARATION OF SERVICE

I, , declare that on , 2009, I served and filed copies of the attached, dated , 

2009. The original document, filed with the Docket Unit, is accompanied by a copy of the most recent Proof of 

Service list, located on the web page for this project at: 

[http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/avenal/index.html]. 

The documents have been sent to both the other parties in this proceeding (as shown on the Proof of Service list) 

and to the Commission’s Docket Unit, in the following manner: 

(Check all that Apply)

FOR SERVICE TO ALL OTHER PARTIES: 

 sent electronically to all email addresses on the Proof of Service list; 

 by personal delivery or by depositing in the United States mail at Sacramento, California with first-class 

postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed as provided on the Proof of Service list above to those 

addresses NOT marked “email preferred.” 

AND 

FOR FILING WITH THE ENERGY COMMISSION: 

 sending an original paper copy and one electronic copy, mailed and emailed respectively, to the address 

below (preferred method); 

OR 

 depositing in the mail an original and 12 paper copies, as follows: 

 CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 

 Attn: Docket No. 08-AFC-1

 1516 Ninth Street, MS-4 

 Sacramento, CA 95814-5512 

 docket@energy.state.ca.us

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.