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-CMF1516 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. ChairCOMMISSIONERSFINAL COMMISSION DECISION

Application For Certification (08-AFC-1) Kings County CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

AVENAL ENERGY

DECEMBER 2009 (08-AFC-1) CEC-800-2009-006-CMFB EFORE THE E NERGY R ESOURCES C ONSERVATION AND D EVELOPMENT C OMMISSION OF THE S TATE OF C ALIFORNIA

1516 N INTH S TREET , S ACRAMENTO , CA 95814 1-800-822-6228

– WWW

. ENERGY

. CA

. GOV

D OCKET N O

. 08-AFC-1 A PPLICATION FOR C ERTIFICATION FOR THE 

### A VENAL 

### E NERGY 

### P ROJECT O RDER N O

. 09-1216-04



### C OMMISSION 

### A DOPTION 

### O RDER

This Commission Order adopts the Commission De cision on the Avenal Energy Project

. It incorporates the Presiding Mem ber’s Proposed Decision (PMPD) in the above-captioned matter and the Committee Errata. The Commission Decisi on is based upon the evidentiary record of these proceedings and considers the comments re ceived 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 t he findings reached and Conditions imposed.

This O RDER adopts by reference the text, Conditions of Certification, Compliance Verifications, and Appendices contained in the Commission Decisi on. It also adopts specific requirements contained in the Commission Decisi on 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.



### F INDINGS

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 benef its and electricity reliability to the local area.

2. The Conditions of Certification contained in the accompanyi ng 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, or dinances, regulations, and standards, including applicabl e public health and safety standards, and air and water quality standards.

3. Implementation of t he Conditions of Certification cont ained in the accompanying text will ensure protection of environment al 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 contri bute substantially to, any significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse environmental impacts.

12 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 reco rd 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 di sproportionate impact on low-income or minority populations.

9. The Decision contains a discussion of the pub lic benefits of the proj ect as required by Public Resources Code section 25523(h).

10. The Decision contains measures to ensur e that the planned, te mporary, 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 regulat ions governing the c onsideration of an Application for Certification and thereby meet the requirements of Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq. and 25500 et seq.



### O RDER

Therefore, the Commission O RDERS the following:

1. The Application for Certificat ion 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 Certificat ion is subject to the timely performance of the Conditions of Certif ication 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 ensur e adequate performance of a Condition or Verificati on may not be delegated.

3. This Decision is adopted, issued, effect ive, 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 gov erned by Public Resources Code, section 25531.

6. The Commission hereby adopts the Conditions of Certificat ion, Compliance Ve rifications, and associated dispute resolution procedures as part of this Decision in order to im plement the compliance monitoring progra m required by Public Resour ces Code section 25532. All conditions in this Decisi on take effect immediat ely upon adoption and apply to al l 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. Subj ect to the provisions of Californ ia Code of Regu lations, title 20, section 1720.3, this licens e expires by operation of law when the project’s start-ofconstruction deadline passes with no construction.

8. The project owner shall provide the Executiv e 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 docume nts, including the Department of Fish and Game fee, as provided by Public Resources Code, section 25537, Ca lifornia Code of Regu lations, title 20, section 1768, and Fish and Game Code, se ction 711.4.

10. We order that the Applicati on for Certification docket file for this proceeding be closed effective the date of this Decision, with the ex ception 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

3TABLE OF CONTENTS
P AGE

INTRODUCTI ON ..................................................................................... 1
A. S UMMARY

.... . .............................................................................................. 1

B . S ITE C ERTIFICATION P ROCESS

...................................................................... 3

C . P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY

................................................................................. 4

D . C OMMISSION O UTREACH

............................................................................... 6

E . P UBLIC C OMMENT ......................................................................... 7

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

II. PROJECT ALTERNATIV ES ............................................................ 16 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE



### ....................................... 16 F INDINGS OF F ACT ........................................................................... 23 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ..................................................................... 24

III. COMPLIANCE AND CLOSURE ....................................................... 25 S UMMARY OF THE E VIDENCE



### ............................................................. 25 F INDINGS OF F ACT ........................................................................... 26 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ..................................................................... 26 G ENERAL C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ......................................... 27

IV. ENGINEERING AS SESSMENT ....................................................... 47

A. FACILITY DESIGN ................................................................ 47 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE



### ....................................... 47 F INDINGS OF F ACT ........................................................................... 49 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ..................................................................... 49 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ........................................................ 50
B. POWER PLANT E FFICIENCY ................................................ 69 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE



### ....................................... 69 F INDINGS OF F ACT ........................................................................... 71 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ..................................................................... 72
C. POWER PLANT RELIABILITY ............................................... 73 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE .............................................. 73 F INDINGS OF F ACT ........................................................................... 76 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ..................................................................... 77
D. TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING ............................ 78 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE .............................................. 79 F INDINGS OF F ACT ........................................................................... 82 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ..................................................................... 84 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ........................................................ 84

iTABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
P AGE

E. TRANSMISSION LINE SAF ETY AND NUISA NCE .................. 91 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE .............................................. 91 F INDINGS OF F ACT .......................................................................... 94 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ..................................................................... 95 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ........................................................ 96

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

A. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ........................................... 98
I NTRODUCTION AND S UMMARY .................................................................... 98 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 111 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 113
B. AIR QUALITY ...................................................................... 115 S UMMARY OF THE E VIDENCE ..................................................................... 115 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 131 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 132 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 132
C. PUBLIC HEALTH ................................................................ 168 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 168 F INDINGS OF F ACT ........................................................................ 172 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 173
D. WORKER SAFETY/FIRE PROTECTION ............................... 174 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 174 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 178 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 179 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 179
E. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ......................... 183 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 183 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 192 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 193 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 194
F. WASTE MANAGEMENT ...................................................... 206 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 206 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 212 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 213 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 213

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

A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURC ES ................................................. 218 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 218 F INDINGS OF F ACT ........................................................................ 230 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 231 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 231

iiTABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)
P AGE

B. SOIL AND WATER RESOURC ES ......................................... 244 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 244 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 258 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 261 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 261
C. CULTURAL RESOURC ES .................................................... 268 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 269 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 276 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 276 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 277
D. GEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 289 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 289 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 291 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 292 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 292

VII. LOCAL IMPACT ASSESSMEN T .................................................... 301

A. LAND USE. ......................................................................... 301 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 301 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 307 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 309 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 309
B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

............................................. 312 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 312 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 321 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 321 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 321
C. SOCIOEC ONOMICS ............................................................ 324 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 324 F INDINGS OF F ACT

........................................................................ 332 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 333 C ONDITION OF C ERTIFICATION ........................................................ 334
D. NOISE AND VIBRATION ..................................................... 336 S UMMARY OF THE E VIDENCE ..................................................................... 336 F INDINGS OF F ACT

........................................................................ 340 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 341 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 342
E. VISUAL RESOURC ES ......................................................... 347 S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE ............................................ 347 F INDINGS OF F ACT ......................................................................... 367 C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW ................................................................... 368 C ONDITIONS OF C ERTIFICATION ...................................................... 368

iiiiv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

APPENDIX A: L AWS

, O RDINANCES

, R EGULATIONS

, AND S TANDARDS
APPENDIX B: E XHIBIT L IST
APPENDIX C: P ROOF OF S ERVICE L IST

### INTRODUCTION

A. S UMMARY OF THE 

### D ECISION

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 ap plicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). The project may ther efore be licensed. Our Decision is based exclusively upon the record establis hed during this certif ication proceeding and summarized in this document. We have independently evaluated the evidence, provided references to the record 1 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, prom ote the general welf are, and preserve environmental quality.

This Decision also assesses the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that are likely to result from the construction and operat ion of the Avenal Energy Project. We
conclude that the Avenal Energy Project’s GHG emi ssions will comply with all applicable LORS and will not result in any signific ant, adverse, unmitigated environmental impacts. We also conclude that the Avenal Ener gy Project will be consistent with California’s ambitious GHG goals and policies.

On February 21, 2008, Av enal Power Center, LLC (Av enal Power or Applicant) filed an Application fo r Certification (AFC) for the Av enal Energy Project with the Energy Commission seeking approval to construct and operat e a 600-megawatt (MW) power plant in the Cit y of Avenal in Kings Coun ty. The project would be built on approximately 34 acres of a 148-acre site that is just south of the Fresno County line, and approx imately two miles east of In terstate 5. Although the proposed project is within City of Aven al 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 pr oject and is consideri ng the proposal under a review process established by Publ ic Resources Code se ction 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 ex hibits included in the evidentiary record are cited as “Ex. number .” A list of all exhibits is cont ained in Appendix B of this Decision.

1Energy 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 natur al gas-fired General Electr ic 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam G enerators (HRSG) and one G eneral Electric Steam Turbine. Oxidation catalysts would also be located within each heat recovery steam generator to reduc e 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 Kettlem an compressor station. The City of Avenal would provide water to the pr oposed 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 pr oject via two separate pipelines, totaling less than 1.4-miles. The proposed projec t 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 c onsumption and eliminate waste water discharge. The project would be connect ed to the PG&E transm ission 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 cons truction of the Avenal Energy Project in April of 2010. Construction is expect ed to take approximately 27 months. Assuming there are no unanticipated delay s, commercial operat ion would begin in June of 2012. The greatest number of construction workers would occur in the
19 th and 20 th 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 comple ted, the facility will be operated up to 7 days per week, 24 hours a day, employin g up to 25 full-time employees. Applicant estimates capital costs associat ed with the project to be approximately $530 million. (Ex. 200, p. 4.8-11.)

2B. S ITE C ERTIFICATION P ROCESS

The Avenal Energy Project and its rela ted facilities are subject to Energy Commission licensing jurisdicti on. (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. Re s. 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 pr ovides a thorough review and analysis of all aspects of a proposed power plant project. During this process, the Energy Commission conducts a comprehensive ex amination of a pr oject's potential economic, public health and safety, reliabi lity, engineering, and environmental
ramifications.

Specifically, the Commission's proce ss allows for and encourages public participation so that members of t he public may become involved either informally or on a formal level as inte rvenor parties who have the opportunity to present evidence and cro ss-examine witnesses. Public participation is encouraged at every st age of the process.

The process begins when an Applicant submits an AF C. 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 evi dentiary record is developed and becomes the basis for the Presiding Me mber’s Proposed Decision (PMPD). The PMPD determines a project's environm ental impact and conformity with applicable laws, ordinances, regulat ions, and standards and provides
recommendations to the full Commission.

The initial portion of the cert ification process is weight ed heavily toward assuring public awareness of the proposed Projec t and obtaining necessary technical information. During this time, the Commission staff sponsors public workshops

3at which Intervenors, agency representat ives, 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 availa ble 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 (F SA, 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 present ed at this event, the Committee issues a Hearing Order to schedule formal evidentiary hearings. At the evidentiary hearings, all formal parties, including in tervenors, may present sworn testimony, which is subject to cross-examination by other parties and questioning by the Committee. Members of the public may o ffer oral or written comments at these hearings. Evidence submitted at the hearings provides the basis for the Committee’s analysis and recommendatio ns to the full Commission.

The Committee’s analysis and recommendati ons appear in the PMPD, which is available for a 30-day public comment per iod. Depending upo n the extent of revisions necessary after considering co mments 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 decisi on-makers. Other parties, including the Applicant, Commission staff, and formal intervenors, function independently with equal legal st atus. An "ex parte" rule prohibits parties in the case, or other persons with an interest in the case, fr om communicating on substantive matters with the decision-makers, t heir staffs, or assigned hearing officer unless these
communications are made on t he public record. The Office of the Public Adviser is available to assist the public in partici pating in all aspects of the certification proceeding.

C. P ROCEDURAL H ISTORY

Public Resources Code, sections 25500 et seq. and Energy Commission regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1701, et seq.) mandat e a public review

4process and specify the occurrence of ce rtain procedural events in which the public may participate. T he key procedural events that occurred in the present
case are summarized below.

On February 21, 2008, Avenal Power file d 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 t he AFC data adequate (sufficient data to proceed) and assigned a Committee of two Co mmissioners to conduct proceedings.

The formal parties included the Applican t, the Energy Commission staff (Staff),
Intervenors: California Unions for Reliabl e Energy (CURE); the Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment; Rob Simps on; 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 t he vicinity of the Avenal En ergy Project. The Public Adviser’s Office prepared a bilingual Notice about the public hearing and site visit
and distributed it to local officials and s ensitive 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 Proj ect site and then convened a public Informational Hearing at the Avenal Recr eation Center in Avenal. At that event, the Committee, the parties, interested gover nmental 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, St aff 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 wi th people that are particularly susceptible to illness, such as the elderly, very young child ren, people already weakened by illness (e.g., asthmatics), and persons engaged in strenuous exercise.

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

On March 23, 2009, the Committee c onducted 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 di scuss 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 Tr affic and Transportation.
Staff issued its Final Staff Assessment (FSA) on June 5, 2009, and held a workshop on June 23, 2009 in Avenal, Ca lifornia, to ac cept comments.

On June 15, 2009, the Committee issued a Notice of Prehearing Conference and Notice of Evidentiary Hearings. T he Prehearing Conference was held at the Energy Commission headquarters in Sa cramento, on June 30, 2009. The Evidentiary Hearing was conducted in t he 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 Sacrament o 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 t he PMPD expired on December 10, 2009. Written comm ents were submitted by December 10,
2009. A Notice of Avail ability was published in the Avenal Chimes , a general circulation publication. The Commission co nsidered, and approved the PMPD at a regularly scheduled Business Meeting held on December 16, 2009.

D. C OMMISSION O UTREACH

Several entities within the Energy Commission provide various notices concerning power plant siting cases. St aff provides notices of staff workshops
and the release of the Pre liminary and Final Staff A ssessments. The Hearing
Office notices Committee-led events such as the informational hearing and site visit, status conferences, the preheari ng conference, and evid entiary hearings. The Public Adviser’s Office provides a dditional outreach for critical events and

6provides information to interested persons that would like to become more actively involved in a power plant siting pr oceeding. (7/7/09 RT 55-59.) Further, the Media Office provides notice of event s to local and regional press through press releases. The public may also subs cribe to the proceeding's e-mail List Server offered on the web page for eac h project which gives an immediate notification of documents post ed 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 resi dents and entities in Av enal, the noticing
efforts included outreach to entities and re sidents 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 pref erred Spanish-English translation. (7/7/09 RT 57-58.) An informational sheet descr ibing the project was provided in Spanish and the Public Ad viser, 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 Commi ssion Business Meeting.

E. P UBLIC C OMMENT

The record contains public comm ents from concerned individuals and organizations. Throughout these proceeding s, as reflected in the transcribed record, the Committee provided an opport unity for public comment at each Committee-sponsored confer ence and hearing. The fo llowing 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 Cit y of Avenal has not

78 taken into account local concerns about the Avenal Energy Pr oject. His other remarks repeated comments he made at the evidentiary hearing. (7/7/09 RT 341-346.)

When the full Commission considered adopt ion of the PMPD on December 16, 2009, all written comments received with in 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 s ubsidiary of Macquarie Energy North America Trading Inc, filed an Applicat ion for Certification (AFC) with the California Energy Commission on Februar y 21, 2008, to construct and operate a combined-cycle natural gas-fired power plant. The proposed Avenal Energy project site is located on approximatel y 34 acres of land in a predominantly agricultural region of the southwestern San Joaquin Valley within the City of
Avenal in western Ki ngs County, just south of t he Fresno County line, and two
miles east of Interstate 5. While the site is within the city limit s of Avenal, it is separated from the business, commercia l 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 st eam generators and one G eneral Electric steam turbine, would utilize dry cooling, and would be nominally rated at 600 megawatts (MW).

Project construction, from the site pr eparation through commercial operation, will take about twenty-seven months. O peration is anticipated by 2012. Construction is expected to cost approximat ely $530 million. (7/7/09 RT 26.)

1. Project Objectives

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

• To construct and operate a cost-effe ctive, environmentally sound, and efficient natural gas-fired, combined- cycle merchant generating facility to provide 600 MW of power generati on 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 in frastructure where feasible; and

• To develop a site consistent with co mmunity planning and existing zoning at a location that is suppor ted by the local community.

9Regional Location Map – Figure 1

Source: Ex. 200

.

10Site Location Map – Figure 2

Source: Ex. 200

112. Site Conditions

The approximate 34-acre project would include the power plant footprint and ancillary infrastructure in cluding 1.2 acres of perm anent disturbance resulting from tower footing for an electrical tr ansmission line and appr oximately 1.3 acres
to be used for an access road. The cons truction phase would require a 24-acre temporary laydown area also within t he 148-acre parcel. The geographical location of the site is Section 19, To wnship 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. T he northernmost backup water supply well and a portion of the transmi ssion line are located in Fresno County on land designated for agricultural use. However, the county does permit transmission lines on agricultural land. (E x. 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 (t wo-on-one configuration);

• Natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA model PG7241 combustion turbine generators, equipped with dry low-nitrogen oxide (NO x ) combustors and inlet-air mechanical chillers;

• Selective catalytic reduction and oxi dation 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 Deve lopment Director Steven Sopp sent a letter to the Hearing Officer in an effort to answe r any questions re garding the a ddress of the Avenal E nergy Center. He stated that when the AFC process began the address, 33119 Avenal Cutoff, Av enal, CA, was assigned by City Staff. However, the address was not registered at the U.S. Post Office as an offi cial 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 construc tion. 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.)

12Elements that will be located out side the fenced area include:

• Backup water supply from new under ground raw, recycled, potable and waste water pipelines connecting to th e 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 Gate s Substation. (Ex. 200, p. 3-2.)

Avenal Power anticipates t hat 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 ex pected to be approximately 90 percent or greater. The project capacity fact or would depend upon the demand for electricity and ancillary serv ices. (Ex. 1, p. 1-8.)

4. Associated Facilities

Transmission Lines : Electricity generated by t he proposed project would be delivered by 6.4 miles of new, single circuit, 230-kV transmi ssion line extending from the onsite switchyard to the exis ting 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 t hat 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 appr oximately 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 typi cal year and 104 acre-feet of water in a maximum use year. To mini mize water consumption, t he project will incorporate dry cooling, zero liquid discharge (ZLD) resulting in no wast ewater disposal needs, dry low-NO x reduction, and closed loop inlet ai r chillers to minimize water

use.

13The primary water source identified in the AFC is the City of Avenal turnout on the California Department of Water Resour ces’ San Luis Canal (located adjacent to the site). The City of Avenal has prov ided a will-serve letter for the use of the
San Luis Canal water. An on-site Se rvice Water/Firewater Storage Tank, providing up to 750,000 gallons of wate r storage, would be provided on-site in
the event that water sources are tem porarily interrupted or water quality is temporarily degraded. Domestic water, supplied by the City of Avenal, would be treated onsite and used for toilets, show ers, emergency eyewash, and shower
stations. Bottled water would be used fo r drinking. Additional backup water supplies would come from nearby agric ultural wells, requiring several new pipelines. (Ex. 200, p. 3-3.)

5. Facility Closure

The Avenal Energy Project would be desig ned 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 ens ure 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 chemical s would be returned to suppl iers or sold to other users. Equipment containing chemic als would be drained and shut down in a manner to assure public health and sa fety and protect the environment.
Nonhazardous wastes would be collected and disposed of in licensed landfills or recycled at licensed waste collection facili ties. 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.

1415 3. The project includes associated transmission, gas supply, and water supply lines.

4. The project and its objectives ar e adequately described by the relevant documents contained in the record.

CONCLUSION

We therefore conclude that the Avenal En ergy Project is described at a level of
detail sufficient to allow review in co mpliance with the prov isions of both the Warren-Alquist Act and the California Environmental Quality Act.

### II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guid elines and the Energy Commission’s regulations r equire an evaluation of the comparative merits of a range of feasible site and facility alternat ives which meet the basic objectives of the proposed project but would avoid or substantially less en potentially significant environmental impacts. [Cal. Code Regs., ti t. 14, §§ 15126.6(c) and (e); tit. 20, § 1765.]

The range of alternatives, including the “No Project” al ternative, is governed by
the “rule of reason” and need not include those alternativ es whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and w hose implementation is remote and speculative. [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15126.6(f).] Ra ther, the analysis is necessarily limited to alternatives that the “lead agency dete rmines 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 addi ng energy efficiency and demand response, followed by renewables and distributed generation, combi ned heat and power (cogeneration) and then fuel efficient fossi l-fueled generation and infrastructure development.

Applicant provided an alternatives analysis in the Application for Certification (AFC) (Ex. 1, Vol. I, § 5.0), describi ng the site selecti on process and project configuration in light of pr oject objectives. Staff incl uded a similar analysis in the Final Staff Assessment (FSA). (E x. 200, p. 6-1 et seq.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

Energy Commission staff used the follo wing methodology to analyze project
alternatives:

• identified basic objectiv es of the project and its potentially significant adverse impacts (which are discussed by topic in this Decision);

• identified and evaluated alternativ e sites to determine whether an alternative site would mitigate impac ts 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 cons tructing 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-effe ctive, 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, di scharge lines, and transmission interconnections;

• To deliver electricity to the Ca lifornia transmission system backbone; and

• To develop a site consistent with comm unity planning and existing zoning at a location that is supported by the lo cal community. (Ex. 200, p. 6-5.)

2. Alternative Sites

Energy Commission staff’s review of alte rnative sites was bas ed on the following
criteria:

• Avoid or substantially lessen one or mo re of the potential significant effects of the project;

• Site size of approximately 40+ ac res, to accommodate both the actual project site and any tempor ary construction areas;

• Compliance with general plan desi gnation and zoning classification;

• Within a reasonable distance of the electric transmission system, natural gas supply, and water supply;

• Available for leas e 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 in itially identified several alternative sites to which it applied the above screening criter ia. After rejecting those sites which

17did not meet the screening cr iteria, Staff conducted a det ailed evaluation of five remaining options. These include two site alternatives proposed by the Applicant in the AFC, one site alternative propos ed by Staff in the FSA, one project alternative, and the “No Project” alternat ive. (Ex. 200, pp. 6-11 to 6-17.)

Avenal Power Alternative Site A is lo cated within the City of Avenal near the Kettleman compressor station, approximat ely one mile southwest of the Avenal Energy site. The site is between 341⁄2 Avenue and 34 th 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 loca ted 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 indus trial 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 Vall ey of Monterey Count y, 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 adj acent to the San Ardo Fields and would be the logical connecti on point for this alternative site.

3. Generation Technology Alternative

Commission staff also analyzed the alternativ e of reducing the size of the project in order to reduce its impacts. The propos ed 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 st eam generators (HRSGs) would be directed to the one steam turbine gen erator (STG), wh ich would generate approximately 291 MW of gros s power with duct burners in service. Under these conditions, the power plant would pr oduce approximately 636 MW of gross power; however, for the purposes of anal yzing 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 proj ect alternative is based on the construction of one GE 7FA 180 MW natural gas-fired combus tion turbine with inle t 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

18combustion 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 sugg ests the development of solar PV generation on farmland. ( Id .) Third, Mr. Simpson sugges ts the installation of PV resources on rooftops. ( Id .)

Regarding the proposal to in stall PV generation over the State Water Project, Mr. Simpson cites recent legislation allo wing 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 panel s 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 feasib ility of placing PV on local farmland, nor demonstrated any reduction of significant impacts ov er 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 rooft op solar alternative to the Project, Staff examined that alternative, st ating that “[p]hotovoltaic arrays mounted on buildings generally require about 4 ac res per MW.” (Ex. 200 at 6-20.) To generate 600 MW, therefore, 2400 acres of solar photov oltaic arrays would be needed. As a practical matter, the quantit y of suitable structures required for placement of large-scale photovoltaic generation is fo und almost exclusively in urban or
suburban areas where the roofs of fa ctories and warehouses, and vehicle shelters over parking lots, provide an opport unity for installation of solar arrays without occupying otherwise useful space. The evidence shows that there are very few rooftops or parking lots in the pr oject vicinity. (Ex. 1, figure 2.1-5A.) Staff ultimately concluded that alternative gener ation technologies su ch 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

19alternatives do not meet t he project objectives. (Ex. 200 p. 6-21; 7/7/2009 RT 434:21 to 435:3.)

Alternatives Table 1 , below, summarizes the Staf f analysis of the site and project alternatives in terms of impact re lative to the proposed site. This analysis
shows that none of the alternative site s 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 c onsiderably 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 su mmarized herein, we find that none of the alternative sites, nor the 30 0 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

20Avenal 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 Pr oject” 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 c onditions 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 pr oject were not approved.

If the “No Project” alternative were selected, the construction and operational impacts to biological resources and pr ime 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 res ources and prime farmland to a less than significant level.

21Furthermore, all of the Avena l 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 disp lace and facilitate the replacement of some older, less-efficient power plants, thus providing a reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions. T hus, substantial evidence establishes that the “No-Project” alter native is not environmentally s uperior 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 stat e's growing demand for electricity. (Ex. 1, p. 5-2; Ex. 200, p. 6-21.)

5. Alternative Fuels and Technologies

Applicant presented evidence on alte rnative fuels, in cluding nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, solar, and wind energy. (Ex. 1, § 5.6.) However, Applicant and Sta ff agreed that none of these alternatives is feasible due to unavailability at the proposed si te (hydro, geothermal), lack of suitable space at or near the propos ed site (wind, biomass, and solar), environmental impacts (biomass), and/or legal prohibiti ons (nuclear). (E x. 200, p. 6-20.)

Applicant also reviewed alternative tech nologies for air poll ution control and combustion modification, including the XONON catalytic combustor and
SCONO x . None of the alternativ e pollution control technol ogies 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 a mmonia on-site, which woul d eliminate the need for transport and storage of amm onia used in the SCR syst em. However, urea has not been commercially demonstrated for use with SCR on gas turbines attempting to meet the extremely low NO x levels proposed for the project. ( Id. )

Therefore, the evidence show s that none of the alternativ e 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 al leged failure to adequately analyze

22renewable energy alternatives. As noted above, the primary goal of an alternatives analysis is to avoid or subs tantially 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 mitigat ed 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 approv ed without resort to an evaluation of the feasibility of vari ous project alternatives c ontained in the environmental impact report.”) Nevertheless, the reco rd shows that both Staff and Applicant presented evidence analyzing a reason able 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 por tions 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 alte rnatives to the project as proposed.

2. None of the site locati on and generation alternatives to the project offer a superior alternative in terms of feasib ly meeting project objectives or of reducing any significant potential environmental impacts.

3. The evidentiary record contains an adequate review of al ternative 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 woul d not avoid or substantially lessen potentially significant environmental im pacts since no unmitigable impacts have been found.

6. The “No Project” alternative woul d not provide electrical system benefits such as the likely displacement of greenhouse gas emissions from older, less efficient power plants.

2324 7. If all Conditions of Certification cont ained in this Decision are implemented, construction and operation of the Avenal Energy Project will not create any significant direct, indirect, or cumu lative 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 adv erse environmental impacts will be mitigated to a level below the threshol d of significance; therefore detailed analysis of the feasibility of the alter natives discussed in the record is not
necessary.

No Conditions of Certificati on are required for this topic.

### III. COMPLIANCE AND CLOSURE

Public Resources Code section 25532 requ ires the Commission to establish a post-certification monitoring system. Th e 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 Certif ication adopted as part of this Decision.

S UMMARY OF THE E VIDENCE

The evidence of record cont ains 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 Certificat ion. It essentially describes the respective duties and expectations of the Project Owner and the Staff Compliance Project Manager (CPM) in implementing the design, construc tion, and operation crit eria set forth in
this Decision.

Compliance with the Conditions of Certific ation contained in this Decision is verified through mechanisms such as peri odic reports and site visits. The Plan also contains requirements governing the planned closure, as well as the unexpected temporary and unexpected perm anent closure, of the Project.

The Compliance Plan is composed of tw o broad elements. The first element
establishes the "General Conditions," which:

• Set forth the duties and responsib ilities 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 di sputes and making post-certification changes;

• Set forth the requirements for per iodic 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 c ontains the specific “Conditions of
Certification.” These are found following the summary and discussion of each individual topic area in this Decision. The individua l Conditions contain the measures required to miti gate potentially adverse Project impacts associated with construction, operation, and closure to levels of insignificance. Each Condition also includes a verification prov ision describing the method of assuring
that the Condition has been satisfied.

The contents of the Compliance Pl an are intended to be implemented in conjunction with any additional require ments 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 Certificat ion are intended to be implemented in conjunction with one another.

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

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The compliance and monitoring provisi ons incorporated as a part of this Decision satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code section
25532.

2. The Compliance Plan and the specif ic Conditions of Certification contained in this Decision assure t hat the Avenal Ener gy Project will be designed, constructed, operated, and closed in c onformity with applicable law.

26

### GENERAL CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

DEFINITIONS
The following terms and definit ions are used to establish when Conditions of Certification ar e implemented.

PRE-CONSTRUCTION SI TE MOBILIZATION
Site mobilization is limited preconstruction activities at the site to allow for the installation of fencing, construction tr ailers, construction trailer utilities, and construction trailer parking at the site . Limited ground dist urbance, grading, and trenching associated with th e above mentioned pre-cons truction activities is considered part of site mobilization. Wa lking, driving, or parking a passenger vehicle, pickup truck and light vehicles is allowable during site mobilization.

CONSTRUCTION
Onsite work to install permanent equipm ent or structures for any facility.

Ground Disturbance
Construction-related ground disturbance refers to activities that result in the removal of top soil or v egetation at the site beyond site mobilization needs, and for access roads and linear facilities.

Grading, Boring, and Trenching
Construction-related grading, boring, and trenchi ng 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 ar ea to another, and removal of soil.

Notwithstanding the definitions of gr ound disturbance, gr ading, boring and trenching above, construction does not include the following:

1. The installation of envir onmental monitoring equipment;

2. A soil or geological investigation;

3. A topographical survey;

4. Any other study or in vestigation to determine t he environmental acceptability or feasibility of the use of the site for any particular facility; and

5. Any work to provide access to the si te for any of the pur poses specified in “Construction” 1, 2, 3, or 4 above.

27START OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION
For compliance monitoring purposes, “c ommercial operation” begins after the completion of start-up and commissioni ng, when the power plant has reached reliable steady-state production of electricit y at the rated capacit y. At the start of commercial operation, plant control is us ually transferred from the construction manager to the plant operations manager.

COMPLIANCE PROJECT MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES
The Compliance Project Manager (C PM) shall oversee the compliance monitoring and is responsible for:

1. Ensuring that the design, constructi on, operation, and closure of the project facilities are in compliance with the terms and Conditions of this Decision;

2. Resolving complaints;

3. Processing post-certific ation changes to the Condit ions 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 tracki ng 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 E nergy 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 Condi tion of Certification requires CPM approval, the approval will involve all appropriate Energy Commission staff and management. All submittals must include s earchable electronic versions (pdf or Microsoft WORD files).

PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND PRE-OPERATION COMPLIANCE MEETING
The CPM usually schedules pre-constr uction and pre-operation compliance meetings prior to the projected start-dat es of construction, plant operation, or both. The purpose of these meetings is to assemble both the Energy Commission’s and project owner’s technical st aff 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 Certificati on 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 Conditi ons will not delay the construction and operation of the plant due to oversight and to preclude any last minute, unforeseen issues from arising. Pre-c onstruction meetings held during the

28certification process must be publicly noticed unle ss 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 per iod as required):

• All documents demonstrating compliance with any legal requirements relating to the construction and oper ation of the facility;

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

• All complaints of noncompliance f iled 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 t hat 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 Ce rtification or the compliance conditions may result in reopening of the case and revocation of Energy Commission certificat ion; an administrative fine; or other action as appropriate. A summary of the Compliance C onditions of Certif ication is included

as Compliance Table 1 at the conclusion of this section.

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

Unrestricted Access (COMPLIANCE-1)
The CPM, responsible Energy Commi ssion staff, and delegated agencies or consultants shall be guar anteed and granted unrestrict ed access to the power plant site, related facilities, project-re lated 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 CP M 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 lif e 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.

29Energy 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 fo llowed by a means of verification. The verification describes the Energy Commission’s procedure(s) to ensure postcertification compliance with adopted Cond itions. The verification procedures, unlike the Conditions, may be modified as necessary by the CPM.

Verification of compliance with t he Conditions of Certification can be accomplished by the following:

1. Monthly and/or annual compliance r eports, filed by the project owner or authorized agent, reporting on work done and providing pertinent documentation, as required by the spec ific 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 t he certification proces s, 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 certificati on 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 fo r information only and is not required by a specific Condition of Cert ification.” When submitting supplementary or corrected information, the project owner shall refer ence the date of the previous submittal and CEC submittal number.

The project owner is responsible for t he delivery and content of all verification submittals to the CPM, whether such c ondition was satisfied by work performed by the project owner or an agent of the project owner.

30All 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 Commi ssion 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 t he 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 CP M. 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-constructi on matrix is submitted, all pre-construction Conditions have be en complied with, and the CPM has issued a letter to the proj ect owner authorizing construction. Various lead times for submittal of compliance verification do cuments to the CPM for Conditions of Certification are established to allow suffi cient 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 wit hin the specified lead-time may result in delays in authorization to commence va rious stages of project development.

If the project owner anticipates commencin g project construction as soon as the project is certified, it ma y be necessary for the projec t 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 appr oval by Energy Commission staff is subject to change, based upon the Commission Decision.

31COMPLIANCE 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 Monthl y Compliance Reports. During operation, an Annual Complianc e Report must be submitted. These reports, and the requirement for an accompanying compliance matrix, are described below. The majority of the Condi tions of Certificat ion 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 curr ent status of a ll Conditions of Certification in a spreadsheet format. T he compliance matrix must identify:

1. The technical area;

2. The condition number;

3. A brief description of the verificati on 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 plac ed 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.

32During 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 Co mpliance Reports shall be cl early 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 t hese items must be identified in the transmittal letter, as well as the cond itions 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 sa tisfied during the r eporting period, and a description or reference to the acti ons that satisfied the condition;

5. A list of any submittal deadlines that were missed, accompanied by an explanation and an estimate of w hen the information will be provided;

6. A cumulative listing of any approved c hanges 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 viol ation, official warn ings, 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 shal l be separated by tabbed dividers or as acceptable by the CPM.

Annual Compliance Report (COMPLIANCE- 

### 7 )
After construction is complete, the proj ect owner shall submit Annual Compliance Reports instead of Monthly Compliance Repo rts. The reports are for each year of commercial operation and are due to the CP M each year at a date agreed to by

33the CPM. Annual Compliance Reports shall be submitted over the life of the project unless otherwise specified by t he CPM. Each Annual Compliance Report shall include the AFC number , identify the reporting peri od and shall contain the following:

1. An updated compliance matrix showi ng the status of a ll 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 oper ating 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. Ea ch of these items must be identified in the transmittal letter, with the condition it sa tisfies, and submitted as attachments to the Annual Compliance Report;

4. A cumulative listing of all post-cert ification changes appr oved by the Energy Commission or cleared by the CPM;

5. An explanation for any submittal deadl ines that were mi ssed, 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 ac tivities 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 conti ngency plan for unplanned facility closure, including any suggestions necessary fo r bringing the plan up to date [see Compliance Conditions for Facility Clos ure addressed later in this section]; and

10. A listing of complaints, notices of viol ation, official warn ings, 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 de ems 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 conf idential shall be kept confidential as provided for in Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 2501 et. seq.

34Annual Energy Facility Compliance Fee (COMPLIANCE- 

### 9 )
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 25806(b) of the Pub lic Resources Code, the project owner is requir ed 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 re tains its certification. The payment instrument shall be made payable to the California Ener gy Commission and mailed to: Accounting Office MS-02, California Energy Commission, 1516 9 th St., Sacramento, CA 95814.

Reporting of Complaints, Notices, and Citations (COMPLIANCE-1 

### 0 )
Prior to the start of construction, the proj ect owner must send a letter to property owners living within one mile of the project notifying th em of a telephone number to contact project represent atives with questions, compla ints or concerns. If the telephone is not staffed 24 hours per day , it shall include aut omatic answering with date and time stamp recording. All recorded complaints shall be responded to within 24 hours. The telephone number s hall be posted at the project site and made easily visible to passersby durin g construction and operation. The telephone number shall be pr ovided to the CPM who wil l post it on the Energy Commission’s web page at:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siti ngcases/power_plants_contacts.html

Any changes to the tel ephone number shall be submi tted 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 li ghting complaints, notices of violation, notices of fines, official warnings, and citations, within 10 days of receipt. Complaints shall be logged and numbered. Noise complain ts shall be recorded on the form provided in the NOISE Conditions of Certif ication. All other complaints shall be recorded on the complaint form (Attachment A).

FACILITY CLOSURE
At some point in the future, the projec t will cease operation and close down. At that time, it will be necessary to ensure t hat the closure occurs in such a way that public health and safety and the environ ment are protect ed 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 St andards (LORS) pertaining to facility closure are

35identified in the sect ions 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, unplann ed temporary closure and unplanned permanent closure

.

CLOSURE DEFINITIONS

Planned Closure
A planned closure occurs when the facilit y is closed in an anticipated, orderly manner, at the end of its us eful economic or mechanica l 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 bas is, due to unforeseen circumstances such as a natural disaster or an emergency.

Unplanned Permanent Closure
An unplanned permanent closure occurs if the project owner cl oses the facility suddenly and/or unexpectedly, on a permanent basis. Th is 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 projec t is essentially abandoned.

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS FOR FACILITY CLOSURE

Planned Closure (COMPLIANCE-1 

### 1 )
In order to ensure that a planned faci lity closure does not create adverse impacts, a closure process that provides for careful consideration of available options and applicable la ws, ordinances, regula tions, standards, and local/regional plans in existence at t he 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 per iod of time agreed to by the CPM) prior to commencement of closure activities. Th e project owner shall file 120 copies (or other number of copies agreed up on by the CPM) of a proposed facility closure plan with the Energy Commission.

The plan shall:

1. Identify and discuss any impacts and mi tigation to address significant adverse impacts associated with proposed closure activities and to address facilities, equipment, or other project related re mnants that will remain at the site;

362. Identify a schedule of activities for closure of the power plant site, transmission line corridor, and all other app urtenant 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 wi th all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, standards, and loca l/regional plans in exis tence at the time of facility closure, and applicable Conditions of Certification.

Prior to submittal of the proposed facilit y 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 ar e significant issues associ ated with the proposed facility closure plan’s approval, or the desires of local officials or interested parties are inconsistent with the plan, the CPM sha ll hold one or more wo rkshops and/or the Energy Commission may hold public hearings as part of its appr oval procedure.

As necessary, prior to or during the closur e plan process, the project owner shall take appropriate steps to el iminate any immediate thr eats to public health and safety and the environment, but shall not commence any other closure activities until the Energy Commission approv es the facility closure plan.

Unplanned Temporary Closure/On-Sit e 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 clos ure, it is essential to have an on-site contingency plan in plac e. 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-si te 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 commercia l operation of the fa cility and shall be kept at the site at all times.

The project owner, in consultation wit h 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 pr oject. In the annual compliance reports submitted to the Energy Commission, t he 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.

37The on-site contingency plan shall provid e 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 ma terials and hazardous wastes, draining of all chemicals from storage tanks and other equipment, and the safe shutdown of all equipment. (Also see specific Condit ions of Certification for the technical areas of Hazardous Materials Management and Waste Management .)

In addition, consistent with require ments 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 closur e, 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 t han 12 months, a closur e plan consistent with the requirements for a planned clos ure shall be develo ped and submitted to the CPM within 90 days of the CPM’s de termination (or other period of time agreed to by the CPM).

Unplanned Permanent Closure/On-Sit e Contingency Plan (COMPLIANCE1 

### 3 )
The on-site contingency plan required fo r unplanned temporary closure shall also cover unplanned permanent facility closure. A ll of the requirements specified for unplanned temporary closure shall also apply to unpl anned permanent closure.

In addition, the on-site contingency plan shall address how the project owner will ensure that all required cl osure steps will be successfully undertaken in the event of abandonment.

In the event of an unplanned permanent clos ure, the project owner shall notify the CPM, as well as other responsible agencies, by te lephone, fax, or e-mail, within 24 hours and shall take all necessary steps to implement the on-site contingency plan. The project owner shal l keep the CPM informed of the status of all closure activities.

A closure plan, consistent with the requi rements for a planned closure, shall be developed and submitted to the CPM withi n 90 days of the permanent closure or another period of time agreed to by the CPM.

38Post Certification Changes to the Energy Commission Decision: Amendments, Ownership Changes, Staf f Approved Project Modifications and Verification Changes (COMPLIANCE-1 

### 4 )
The project owner must petition the E nergy Commission pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1769, in order to modify the project (including linear facilities) design, operat ion 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 pr oposed project change should be considered a project modifi cation pursuant to section 1769. Implementation of a proj ect modification without first securing Energy Commission, or Energy Commission staff approval, may result in enforcement action that could result in civil penalties in accor dance with section 25534 of the Public Resources Code.

A petition is required for amendment s 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 ca ses, 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 provis ions of Section 1769 at the time this condition was drafted. If the Commi ssion’s rules regarding amendments are amended, the rules in effect at the ti me an amendment is r equested shall apply.

Amendment
The project owner shall petition the Ener gy Commission, pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, Secti on 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 Certific ation, or makes changes that would cause the project not to comply with any applicable laws, ordinanc es, regulations or standards, the petition will be processed as a formal amendment to the final decision, which requires public notice and review of t he Energy Commission staff analysis, and approval by the full Commission. The petition shall be in the form of a legal brief and fulfill the requirement s 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 operat ional 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 Se ction 1769(b). Upon request, the CPM will provide you with a sample petition to use as a template.

39Staff Approved Project Modifications

Modifications that do not result in de letions or changes to Conditions of Certification, and that ar e 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 pr ocess usually requires minimal time to complete, and it requires a 14-day public re view of the Notice of Staff Approved Project Modification that includes staff’s intention to approve the modification unless substantive objections are filed. Th ese requests must also be submitted in the form of a “petition to amend” as described above.

Verification Change
A verification may be modified by t he CPM without requesting an amendment to the decision if the change does not conflict with the Conditions of Certification and provides an effective alter nate 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 Chie f Building Official (CBO). Energy Commission staff may delegat e CBO responsibility to either an independent third party cont ractor or the local building official. Energy Commission staff retains CBO author ity 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 t he cooperation of st ate, 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 secti ons 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 Co mmission may impose would take into account the specific circumstances of th e incident(s). This would include such factors as the previous compliance hist ory, whether the cause of the incident involves willful disregard of LORS, ov ersight, unforeseeable events, and other factors the Energy Co mmission may consider.

NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
Any person or agency may file a compla int alleging noncompliance with the Conditions of Certification. Such a comp laint will be subject to review by the Energy Commission pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1237, but in many instances the noncomp liance can be resolved by using the

40informal dispute resolution process. Bo th the informal and formal complaint procedure, as described in current St ate 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 Commi ssion, or any other party, including members of the public, may initiate an informal dispute resolution process. Disputes may pertain to actions or decis ions 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 Regu lations, 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 Condi tions 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 par ties involved in a dispute to discuss the matter and to reach an agreement resolving the di spute. If a dispute cannot be resolved, then the matter must be brought before the full Energy Commission for consideration via the complaint and investigati on 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 Cert ification. All requests for informal investigations shall be m ade to the designated CPM.

Upon receipt of a request for informal inve stigation, the CPM s hall promptly notify the project owner of the allegation by telephone and letter. All known and relevant information of the alleged noncomp liance 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 nece ssary, the project owner will be asked to promptly investigate the ma tter. 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 undertak en. 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 init ial verbal report, within 48 hours.

41Request for Informal Meeting

In the event that either the party requesting an inve stigation or the Energy Commission staff is not satisfied with the project owner’s report, investigation of the event, or corrective measures propos ed 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 t he project owner’s f iling 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 informa l 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 m eeting, promptly pr epare and distribute copies to all in attend ance 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, Calif ornia 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 noncomplia nce with a Commission decision adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code section 25500. Requirements for complaint filings and a description of how complaints are proce ssed 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

43Compliance Table 1 Summary of Compliance Cond itions of Certification

CONDITION NUMBER SUBJECT DESCRIPTION

COMPLIANCE-1 Unrestricted Access The project owner shall grant Energy Commission staff and delegate agencie s or consultants unrestricted access to the power plant site.

COMPLIANCE-2 Compliance Record The project owner shall ma intain 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 verifica tion submittals to the CPM, whether such condition was satisfied by work performed or the proj ect 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 matr ix 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 shal l submit a compliance matrix (in a spreadshe et 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 meeti ng date on which the project was approved and s hall include an initial list of dates for each of the events identified on the Key Events List.

44CONDITION NUMBER SUBJECT DESCRIPTION

COMPLIANCE-7 Annual Compliance Reports After construction ends and throughout the life of the project, the project ow ner shall submit Annual Compliance Reports instead of Monthly Compliance Reports.

COMPLIANCE-8 Confidential Information Any information the project owner deems confidential shall be subm itted 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 s ubmit 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 closur e, 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 requirement s and/or transfer ownership of operational c ontrol of the facility.

4546 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 wr iting (attach copy if written): Date of first occurrence:

Description of complaint (incl uding 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 findi ngs: Description of corrective measures taken or other complaint resolution:

Indicate if complainant agr ees with proposed resolution: If not, explain:

Other relevant information:

If corrective action necessary, date completed: Date first letter sent to co mplainant: (copy attached) Date final letter sent to co mplainant: (copy attached)

This information is certified to be correct. Plant Manager's Signature: Date:

(Attach additional pages and supporti ng documentation, as required.)

### IV. ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

The broad engineering assessment conducted for the Av enal 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-relat ed linear facilities.

A. FACILITY DESIGN

This review covers several technical di sciplines including the civil, electrical, mechanical, and structural engineering elements relat ed to project design and construction. The evidentiary presentati ons were uncontested. (7/7/09 RT 446- 48; Exs. 1; 25( q); 200, § 5.1.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

The Application for Certification (AFC) descr ibes the preliminary facility design. In considering the adequacy of the pl ans, the Commission reviews whether the power plant and linear facilities are described with sufficient detail to assure the project can be designed and construc ted in accordance with applicable engineering laws, ordinances , regulations, and standards (LORS). The review also includes, as appropriate, the identificat ion of special design features that are necessary to deal with unique site c onditions which could impact public health and safety, the environment, or the operational reliability of the pr oject. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.1-1 to 5.1-2.)

Staff proposed several Conditi ons of Certification, wh ich we have adopted, that establish a design review and construction inspection process to verify compliance with applicable standards and s pecial requirements. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.1-2, 5.1-5.) The project will be des igned 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 e ffect 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 geolo gical hazards and reviewed the preliminary project design with respect to grading, flood protec tion, erosion control, site drainage, and site access in addition to the criteria for designing and constructing related
linear facilities such as the natur al gas pipeline and the transmission interconnection facilities. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.1-2 to 5.1-3; see also, the GEOLOGY

47AND PALEONTOLOGY section of this Decision.) The evidence establishes that the project will incorporate accepted indus try standards. This includes design practices and construction methods for pr eparing and developing the site. (Ex. 200, p. 5.1-3

. ) Conditions CIVIL-1 through CIVIL-4 ensure that these activities will be conducted in comp liance with applicable LORS.

Major structures, system s, and equipment include those structures and associated components necessary for pow er 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 engin eering design for the project. Conditions
GEN-3 through GEN-8 require that qualif ied 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 require ments will be verified thr ough specific inspections
and audits.

The power plant site is located in Seismic Risk Zone 4. (Ex. 20 0, p. 5.4-5.) The 2007 CBC requires specific “dynamic” lateral force procedures for certain
structures to determine their seismic design criteria; ot hers 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 decommi ssioning 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 a ppropriate element of project construction be first approved by the CBO and t hat qualified personnel perform or oversee inspections.

48applicable LORS and be completed in a m anner that protects the environment and public health and safety, the proj ect 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 conclusive ly establishes that the project will be designed and constructed in compliance wi th all applicable LORS, and that these activities will not negatively impac t 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 suffi cient information to establish that the proposed facility can be designed and c onstructed 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 se t 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 se t forth below are necessary to ensure that the project is des igned and constructed both in accordance with applicable law and in a m anner that protects envir onmental quality as well as public health and safety.

5. The GENERAL CONDITIONS, included in a separat e section of this Decision, establish requirements to be followed in the event of facility closure.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. Implementation of the C onditions of Certification lis ted below will ensure that the Avenal Project will be designed and c onstructed in conformance with the applicable laws pertinent to the engi neering aspects summarized in Appendix A of this Decision.

49CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

GEN-1 The project owner shall design, cons truct, and inspect the project in accordance with the 2007 California Building Standards Code (CBSC), also known as Title 24, Califor nia Code of Regulations, which encompasses the California Buil ding Code (CBC), California Administrative Code, California Elec trical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California Fire Code, California Code for Building Conservation, California Reference Standards Code, and all ot her 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 effe ct is the edition that has been adopted by the California Buil ding 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, alte ration, moving, de molition, repair, or maintenance of the completed fa cility (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 engi neering 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 ca se, different sections of the code specify different materials, met hods of construction, or other requirements, the most restrictiv e 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 complianc e project manager (CPM) a statement of verification, signed by the responsible design engineer, attesting that all designs, construction, installa tion, and inspection requirements of the applicable LORS and the Energy Commiss ion’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 bee n issued, the project owner shall inform the CPM at least 30 days prior to any cons truction, addition, alteration, moving,

50demolition, repair, or ma intenance 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 furn ish 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, calc ulations, 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) prio r to the start of rough gradi ng, 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 CB O for review and approval. These documents shall be th e pertinent design documents for the major structures and equipment listed in Facility Design Table 1, below. Major structures and equipment s hall be added to or deleted fr om the table only with CPM approval. The project owner shall pr ovide schedule updates in the monthly compliance report.

//

//

//

51Facility 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

52Quantity 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 constr uction inspections based upon a reasonable fee schedule to be negot iated between the project owner and the CBO. These fees ma y be consistent with the fees listed in the 2007 CB C (2007 CBC, Appendi x Chapter 1, § 108, Fees; Chapter 1, Section 108.4, Permits, Fees, Applications and Inspections), adjusted for in flation 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 betw een the project owner and the CBO. The project owner shall send a copy of the CB O’s receipt of payment to the CPM in the next monthly compliance report indi cating that applicable fees have been paid.

53GEN-4 Prior to the start of rough gradi ng, the project ow ner shall assign a California registered architect, struct ural engineer, or civil engineer as the resident engineer in charge of the project (2007 California Administrative Code, § 4-209, Desig nation of Responsibilities). All transmission facilities (lines, swit chyards, switching stations, and substations) are addressed in the Cond itions 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 engi neers. Registered mechanical and electrical engineers may be delegat ed 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 constructi on work requiring CBO design review and inspection to ensure compliance with LORS;

2. Ensure that construction of al l facilities subject to CBO design review and inspection conforms in every material respect to applicable LORS, these Cond itions of Certification, approved plans, and specifications;

3. Prepare documents to initiate changes in approv ed drawings and specifications when ei ther directed by the project owner or as required by the conditi ons of the project;

4. Be responsible for providing pr oject inspectors and testing agencies with complete and up-to-date sets of stamped drawings, plans, specifications, and any ot her required documents;

5. Be responsible for the timely submittal of construction progress reports to the CBO from the projec t inspectors, the contractor, and other engineers who have been delegated responsibility for portions of the project; and

6. Be responsible for notifying th e CBO of corrective action or the disposition of items not ed 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 wo rk if the work does not meet requirements.

54If the resident engineer or the del egated engineers ar e reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall s ubmit the name, qualifications, and registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project ow ner 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) prio r to the start of rough gradi ng, 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 t he 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 fi ve days to submit the resume and registration number of the newly assign ed 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, t he project owner shall assign at least one of each of the following California regi stered 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 l east one of each of the following California registered engineers to t he project: a design engineer who is either a structural en gineer or a civil engine er fully competent and proficient in the design of powe r 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 stat e registration to practice as a civil engineer or stru ctural engineer in Cali fornia.) All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, swit ching 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 responsib le for a particular segment of the project (for example, proposed earthwork, civil st ructures, power plant structures, equipment support). No segment of t he project shall have more than one responsible engineer. The transmission line may be the responsibility of a separate Califor nia registered electrical engineer.

The project owner shall submit to the CBO, for review and approval, the names, qualifications, and regist ration numbers of all responsible

55engineers assigned to the project (2007 CBC, Appendi x 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 fo r 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 investi gations, 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 t he design of), stamp, and sign all plans, calculations, and specific ations 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 fa cilities, underground utilities, culverts, site access roads and sanitary sewer systems; and

3. Provide consultation to t he resident engineer during the construction phase of the proj ect 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 t he practice of soils engineering shall:

1. Review all the engineering geology reports;

2. Prepare the foundation investi gations, geotechnical or soils reports containing field exploratio n reports, laboratory tests, and engineering analysis detai ling the nature and extent of the soils that could be susceptible to li quefaction, 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, duri ng site grading and earthwork to provide consultation and monito r 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, t he engineering geol ogist, or both); and

4. Recommend field changes to th e 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 des ign of earthwork or foundations (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 114, Stop Orders).

C. The engineering geologist shall:

1. Review all the engineering g eology reports and prepare a final soils grading report; and

2. Be present, as required, duri ng 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 t he 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 engi neer shall be responsible for, and sign and stamp a statement with, each me chanical submittal to the CBO stating that the prop osed 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 electric al design of the project; and

572. Sign and stamp electrical desig n drawings, plans, specifications, and calculations.

Verification : At least 30 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved alternative time frame) prio r to the start of rough gradi ng, 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, resu mes and registration numbers of the responsible design engineer, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer assigned to the project.

The project owner shall notif y the CPM of the CBO's appro vals of the responsible engineers within five da ys of the approvals.

If the designated responsible engineer is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner has five days in whic h 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 re quiring special inspection, the project owner shall assign to the project qualified and certified special inspector(s) who shall be responsib le for the special inspections required by the 2007 CBC, Chapt er 17, Section 1704, Special Inspections; Chapter 17A, Section 1704A, Special Inspections; and Appendix Chapter 1, Section 109, Inspections. All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, swit ching stations, and substations) are addressed in Conditions of Certification in the TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING section of this Decision.

A certified weld inspector, certif ied by the Americ an Welding Society (AWS) and/or American Society of Me chanical Engineers (ASME) as applicable, shall inspect welding performed on-site requiring special inspection (including structural, pipi ng, tanks, and pressure vessels).

The special inspector shall:

1. Be a qualified person who sha ll 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 an d specifications;

583. Furnish inspection reports to the CBO and resident engineer. All discrepancies shall be brought to t he immediate attention of the resident engineer for correction t hen, if uncorrected, to the CBO and the CPM for corrective acti on (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 requi ring special inspection was, to the best of the inspector’s kno wledge, 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 CB O for review and approval, with a copy to the CPM, the name(s) and qualif ications 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 specia l inspectors in the next monthly compliance report.

If the special inspector is subsequently r eassigned or replaced, the project owner has five days in which to submit t he 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 assi gned 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 shal l document the discrepancy and recommend required corrective actions (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 109.6, A pproval Required; Chap ter 17, § 1704.1.2, Report Requirements). The discr epancy documentation shall be submitted to the CBO for revi ew and approval. The discrepancy documentation shall reference this C ondition 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 correct ive action is disapproved, the project owner shall advise the CPM, within five days, of the reason for disapproval and the revised corrective action necessa ry to obtain the CBO’s approval.

GEN-8 The project owner shall obtain t he 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

59approval. 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 operat ing 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 nex t monthly compliance report: (a) a written notice t hat the completed work is ready for final inspection; and (b) a signed statement that the work co nforms to the final approved plans. After storing the final approved engin eering 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 cons truction 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 (passwor d-protected) printing privile ges, 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 sedim entation control plan;

3. Related calculations and specif ications, signed and stamped by the responsible civil engineer; and

4. Soils, geotechnical, or foundation investigati on reports required by the 2007 CBC, Appendix J, section J104.3, Soils Report, and Chapter 18, section 1802.2, Foundat ion and Soils Investigation.

Verification : At least 15 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved alternative time frame) prio r to the start of site gr ading the project owner shall submit the documents described above to the CBO for design review and approval. In the next monthly compli ance report following the CBO’s approval, the project owner shall subm it a written statement cert ifying 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

60unforeseen 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 hour s 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 in spections in accordance with the 2007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, sect ion 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 t he work is not being performed in accordance with the approved plans, the discrepancies shall be reported immediately to the resident engine er, the CBO, and the CPM (2007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 1704.1.2, Report Requirements). The project owner shall prepare a wr itten report, with copies to the CBO and the CPM, deta iling all discrepancies, n on-compliance items, and the proposed corrective action.

Verification : Within five days of the discovery of any discrepancies, the resident engineer shall transmit to t he 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 s ubmit 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 gr ading and erosion and sedimentation control and drainage work, the proj ect 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 responsibil ity 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 er osion 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 t he installation of the facilities and all erosion control measures were completed in accordance with the final

61approved 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 t he CBO's approval to the CPM in the next monthly compliance report.

STRUC-1 Prior to the start of any increm ent 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 re view and approval the proposed lateral force procedures for proj ect 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 forc e 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, so ils reports, and applicable quality control procedures. If there are c onflicting requirements, the more stringent shall govern (for example, highest loads, or lowest allowable stresses shall govern) . All plans, calculations, and specifications for foundat ions that support structures shall be filed concurrently with the structure plans, calculations, and specifications (2007 CB C, Appendix Chapter 1, § 109.6, Approval Required);

3. Submit to the CBO the required num ber 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 installati on of each structure, equipment support, or foundation (2007 California Administ rative Code, § 4-210, Plans, Specifications, Computations and Other Data);

4. Ensure that the final plans, calc ulations, and specifications clearly reflect the inclusion of approved criteria, assumptions, and methods used to develop the design. The fi nal designs, plans, calculations,

62and specifications shall be sign ed and stamped by the responsible design engineer (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapt er 1, § 106.3.4, Design Professional in Responsible Charge); and

5. Submit to the CBO the res ponsible design engineer’s signed statement that the final design pl ans conform to applicable LORS (2007 CBC, Appendix Chapt er 1, § 106.3.4, Desi gn Professional in Responsible Charge).

Verification : At least 60 days (or within a project owner and CBO approved alternative time frame) prio r to the start of any increm ent 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 calc ulations, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM.

The project owner shall s ubmit to the CPM, in t he next monthly compliance report, a copy of a statement from the CBO that the proposed structural plans, specifications, and calculations hav e 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 re lated to work that has undergone CBO design review and approval:

1. Concrete cylinder strength test r eports (including date of testing, date sample taken, design conc rete strength, tested cylinder strength, age of test, type and size of sample, loca tion 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 (inc luding 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 accordanc e with the 2007 CBC, Chapter 17, section 1704, Special Inspection s, 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 propo sed corrective action to the CBO, with

63a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM (2007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 1704.1.2, Report Requirements). The NCR shall refer ence 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 20 07 CBC, including the revised drawings, specifications, calculat ions, and a complete description of, and supporting rationale for, t he 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 Approv ed Drawings and Specifications).

Verification : On a schedule suitable to the CB O, the project owner shall notify the CBO of the intended filing of desig n changes and shall submit the required number of sets of revis ed drawings and the required number of copies of the other above-mentioned docum ents to the CBO, with a c opy 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 quant ities of toxic or hazardous materials exceeding amounts specified in the 2007 CBC, Chapter 3, Table 307.1(2) sha ll, at a minimum, be des igned 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 installa tion of the tanks or vessels containing the above specifie d quantities of toxic or hazardous materials, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review a nd approval final design plans, specifications, and calculatio ns, 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 complianc e report. The project owner shall also transmit a copy of the CBO’s inspection approvals to the CPM in the monthly compliance report following comp letion 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 pl umbing system listed in Facility Design Table 1 , Condition of Certification GEN-2 , above. Physical layout

64drawings 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 Do cuments; § 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 inst alled in accordance with all of the applicable laws, or dinances, regulations, and industry standards (2007 CBC, Appendix Ch apter 1, § 106.3.4, Design Professional in Respons ible Charge) which ma y include, but are not limited to:

• American National Standar ds 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 Regula tions, Part 5 (California Plumbing Code);

• Title 24, California C ode of Regulations, Part 6 (California Energy Code, for building energy conservation systems and temperature control and vent ilation systems);

• Title 24, California Code of Regula tions, 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, Ap pendix 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, s pecifications, and calculations , including a copy of the signed and stamped statement from the responsible mechanical engineer

65certifying compliance with a pplicable LORS, and shall se nd the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the nex t 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 requir ed by applicable LORS. Upon completion of the insta llation of any pressure ve ssel, 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 fir ed and unfired pressure vessels are designed, fabricated, and insta lled in accordance with the appropriate section of the Am erican Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boil er and Pressure Vessel Code, or other applicable code. Vendor certificat ion, with identification of applicable code, shall be submitt ed for prefabricated vessels and tanks; and

2. Have the responsible design engineer submit a statement to the CBO that the proposed final des ign plans, specifications, and calculations conform to all of the requirements set forth in the appropriate ASME Boiler and Pressure Vesse l 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 fabric ation or insta llation of any pressure vessel, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and approval the above-listed documents, in cluding a copy of the signed and stamped engineer’s certificati on, with a copy of the tran smittal 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 de sign review and approval the design plans, specific ations, calculations, and quality control procedures for any heating, v entilating, air conditioning (HVAC) or refrigeration system. Packaged HV AC systems, where used, shall be identified with the appropriate manufacturer’s data sheets.

66The project owner shall design and in stall 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. T he final plans, specifications, and calculations shall include approved cr iteria, assumptions, and methods used to develop the design. In additi on, the responsible mechanical engineer shall sign and stamp all pl ans, drawings, and calculations and submit a signed statement to the CB O that the proposed final design plans, specifications, and calculat ions conform with the applicable LORS (2007 CBC, Append ix Chapter 1, § 109.3. 7, Energy Efficiency Inspections; § 106.3.4, Design Profe ssionals 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 pr oject owner shall submit to the CBO the required HVAC and refrigeration calculations, pl ans, and specifications, including a copy of the signed and stamped stat ement from the responsib le mechanical engineer certifying compliance with the CBC and ot her 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 drawi ngs 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). U pon approval, the above-listed plans, together with design changes and desi gn change notices, shall remain on the site or at another accessible lo cation for the operating life of the project. The project ow ner 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 rati ngs of plant equipment;

6768 2. ampacity of feeder cables;

3. voltage drop in feeder cables;

4. system grounding requirements;

5. coordination study ca lculations 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 CP M in the monthly compliance report:

1. Receipt or delay of ma jor 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 fo rth 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 su bmit 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 st amped statement from the responsible electrical engineer attesting complia nce with the applicabl e 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 us e substantial amounts of nat ural 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 resour ces. (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 effici ency, effects on local and regional energy supplies and resources, require ments for additional energy supply capacity, and compliance with applicabl e energy standards. In addition, the
evidence of record addresses whether t here are feasible alternatives which would reduce any wasteful, inefficien t, or unnecessary energy consumption attributable to the projec t. (7/7/09 RT 446-448; Exs. 1; 25(s); 200, § 5.3.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

The project objectives include provid ing 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-pr essure heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs) with duct burners, and one rehe at steam turbine generator (STG) with
an air cooled condenser for exhaust steam c ooling. (7/7/09 RT 24; Ex. 200, p. 5.3-1.) The CTGs will be equipped with dry low-NO x combustors and the HRSGs with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) syst ems. (Ex. 200, pp . 5.3-1 to 5.3-2.)

The project will burn natural gas at a rate of approx imately 3,236 million Btu (British Thermal Units) per hour, lowe r 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 expect ed conditions, Avenal will generate electricity at a full load effici ency of approximately 50.5 percent, LHV. (Ex. 200, p. 5.3-2.) Proj ect fuel efficiency, and therefore its rate of energy consumption, is determined by the configuration of t he power producing system and by the selection of equipm ent used to generate power.

The Avenal Project will be configured as a combined cycle power plant in which electricity is generated by two gas turb ine generators and additio nally by a reheat steam turbine generator that operates on heat energy recovered from the gas

69turbines’ exhaust. By recovering this heat which would other wise be lost up the exhaust stacks, the efficiency of any combined cycle power plant is increased considerably from that of either gas turb ines or a steam turbine operating alone. (Ex. 200, p. 5.3-3.)

The project will incorporat e mechanical inlet air chil lers, HRSG duct burners (reheaters), multi-pressure HRSGs, and a st eam 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 efficien cy 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 t he STG cycle during high ambient temperatures when CTG capacity drops and for added power output. Duct firing also provides a number of oper ational benefits such as load following, as well as balancing and optimizing t he operation of the STG cycle. The evidence
establishes that Avenal’s conf iguration is well-suited to large, steady loads met by a base load power plant intended to supp ly 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 pr oject. The alternatives to the GE Frame 7FA, i.e. t he Siemens SCC6-5000F and t he 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 Fram e 7H have not yet been shown to possess significant energy efficiency impr ovements over the Frame 7FA. (Ex. 200, p. 5.3-5.) The evidence also esta blishes that the use of a mechanical chiller, as proposed, is appr opriate since the alternativ e – 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 interc onnect with the existing Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) lines. The evidence conclusively establishes that PG&E’s present fuel supply capacity is suffici ent to meet the dem ands of the Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, pp. 5.3-2 to 5.3.-3.) Mo reover, the evidence shows that only natural gas burning technologies are feasible for this project. Other technologies such as nuclear, solar, bi omass, hydroelectric, wind and geothermal

70were all considered but cannot meet project objectives or are simply not feasible
or are unavailable in the area. (Ex. 200, p. 5.3-4.) T he evidence addressing these other technologies is discussed furthe r in the Alternatives section of this
Decision. 5

In conclusion, the uncontr adictated evidence of record convincingly shows that the Avenal Project will be nefit 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 benef it in the most fuel efficient manner practicable, without creating adverse effe cts on energy supplies or resources. The project will not require additional s ources of energy supply or consume energy in a wasteful or ineffici ent manner. (Ex. 200, p. 5.3-6.)

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the uncontroverted evidence of re cord, we make the following findings and reach the following conclusions:

1. The Avenal Project will provide appr oximately 600 MW of electrical power, operate in combined cycle mode, and utilize two GE Frame 7FA gas turbines.

2. Under average annual ambient condition s, Avenal will gen erate electricity at a full load efficiency of appr oximately 50.5 percent, LHV.

3. The project’s combined cycle conf iguration 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 requir e the development of new fuel supply

resources.

6. The Avenal Project will consume natur al 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.

7172 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 benef it the State’s electrical system as a whole by enhancing power supply reliability and di splacing the operation of older, less efficient power plants.

9. No Federal, State, or local la ws, 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 sour ces of energy supply, or consume energy in a wasteful or inefficient m anner. 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, ther e are no LORS that establish either power plant reliability criteria or proc edures for attaining reliable operation. Therefore, we look to typi cal industry norms for reliabi lity of power generation as a benchmark against which to evaluate th is 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 entit ies decide how much generating capacity and ancillary services to build or purchase. Load serving entities then issue power purchase agreements to satisfy t hese needs. Avenal must satisfy these criteria, which include maintaining a 15 percent reserve margin and increasing local generation to reduce reliance on import ed power. (Ex. 200, p. 5.4-2.) The Applicant has elected to pursue a power purchase agr eement 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 mainta in system-wide reliabilit y. However, it is possible that, if numerous power plants operated at re liability levels sufficiently lower than historical levels, the assu mptions used by CAISO to ensure system reliability would prove invalid. As a result, the Commission must ensure that individual power plant owners continue to bu ild and operate thei r projects to the traditional level of reliability reflected in the power generat ion industry. The evidence presented was uncontested. ( 7/ 7/09 RT 446 - 48; Exs.1; 25 (t); 200, § 5.4.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

Applicant expects an avail ability 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 pl anned and unplanned outages subtract from a plant’s availability. For practical purpos es, 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.

73availability; 2) plant ma intainability with scheduled ma intenance outages; 3) fuel and water availability; and 4) re sistance to natural hazards.

Commission staff evaluated the proposed pr oject against typical industry norms as a benchmark for assessing plant reliab ility. If the factors mentioned above compare favorably to industry norms, then the power plant wil l 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) pr ograms 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 purc hase from qualified suppliers and the project owner will perform receipt inspections, test components, and administer independent test ing contracts. To ensure these measures are taken, we hav e incorporated appropriate Cond itions 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 maintain ed while operating. A typical approach for achieving this is to provide redundanc y for those pieces of equipment most likely to require service or r epair. (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 adequ ate redundancy to ensure continued operation in the fa ce of equipment failure. ( Id .)

The project owner will establish a main tenance program typical of the power generation industry and based on recomm endations from the various equipment manufacturers. This will encompass bot h preventive and predictive maintenance techniques. Maintenance outages will be planned for periods of low electricity

74demand. The evidence est ablishes that the planned maintenance measures will ensure acceptable reliability. ( Id. )

3. Fuel and Water Availability

For any power plant the long-term availab ility 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 f uel 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 untr eated fresh water from th e City of Avenal’s water treatment facility, supplied by the San Lui s 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 supp ly 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 wa ter/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 di scharge 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 Certificat ion in the FACILITY DESIGN section to
ensure this occurs.

The site does not receive stormwater r unoff 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.)

755. Comparison to Industry Norms

The North American Electric Reliability Co rporation (NERC) maintains statistics for availability factors and ot her 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 availabi lity 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 tu rbines 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 fact or of 92-96 percent.

Finally, the evidence shows that the Ave nal 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 benefit s.” (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 degr ade the reliability of the utility system to which it is connected.

3. The North American Electric Reliabili ty Corporation (NE RC) reports that for the years 1999 through 2003 combined cycle units of all sizes exhibited an availability factor of 89 percent.

4. Undisputed evidence indi cates that an availability factor of 92-96 percent is achievable by the Avenal Project.

5. Implementation of Quality Assur ance/Quality Contro l (QA/QC) programs during design, procurement, construc tion, 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.

7677 7. The project’s fuel and water supply will be reliable.

8. The project will meet or exceed i ndustry norms for reliability, including reliability during seismic events, and wi ll not degrade the overall electrical system.

9. The Avenal Project is expected to operate at an annual c apacity factor of 80 percent, with 25 percent duct firing.

10. The use of two combustion turbi ne generators, configured as independent equipment trains, provides the Av enal Project inherent reliability.

11. The Applicant intends to procure a power purchase agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company a nd 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 operatin g flexibility.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The project will be constructed and operated in accordance with the typical power industry norms for relia ble electricity generation and will not degrade overall system reliability. No Conditions of Certification other
than those incl uded 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 t hermal 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 proj ect 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 partici pating entities, and determines both the standards necessary to achieve system re liability and whether a proposed project
conforms to those standards. The Ener gy Commission works in conjunction with the CAISO in assessing a project. Commission Staff normally relies on the interconnecting authority, CAISO, or the in terconnecting 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 faci lities downstream fr om the proposed
interconnection.

However, the CAISO’s generator interconnec tion process is transitioning from a queue or serial study process to a cluste r 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 utilit y studies during the CAISO’s transition period in order to a llow 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 additio nal 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 CAIS O 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 ow ner provide the executed LGIA79 to the Energy Commission before star ting 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 ensur e 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)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

1. Transmission Facilities Description

Each of the project’s two combustion tu rbine 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 break er to the low voltage
terminal of a dedicated 132/176/220 m egavolt ampere (MVA), 18/230-kV generation step-up (GSU) transformer with a specified impedance of 9.00 percent at 132 MVA. The steam turb ine generator (STG) unit rated 373 MVA,
18-kV would be connected th rough a 13,000-ampere bus duct to the low voltage
terminal of a dedicated 234/312/390 M VA, 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 switchya rd 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-f oot high tubular st eel poles within a new 120-foot right-of-way on public and private lands adj acent to existing PG&E
230 and 500-kV transmission lines. The A pplicant will build, own and operate the Avenal Energy 230-kV switch yard 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 add itional switching bays at the Gates substation would
involve extension of the substation fenc e 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 ma intained by PG&E and is considered80 disturbed land. The expansion area was analyzed under parameters for soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resource s, paleontological resources and land use. (Ex. 24.) The results of the facilities study will be updated in the Phase 1 Interconnection st udy currently being performed by
PG&E for CAISO. The evidence estab lishes 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 coul d be identified in the CAISO Phase 1 Interconnection study. The Applicant has ag reed to provide timely information in case the interconnection to the PG&E syst em changes from the Gates substation
to a different location. No tification is required in Condition of Certification TSE-5

.

2. Transmission System Impacts Analysis

For Avenal Energy, PG&E an d CAISO are responsible for ensuring grid reliability. In accordance with the FERC/CAISO/Utility Tariffs, the Interconnection Feasibility study (IFS), SI S, 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) re liability criteria, and CAISO reliability criteria. In this case, the SIS was performed by a third party (Navigant Consulting, Inc.) at the request of the A pplicant. The Avenal Energy Project will still be required to complete the CAIS O Large Generator Interconnection Process (LGIP) before being allowed to connect to t he CAISO controlled grid. (Ex. 200, p. 5.5-6.)

The SIS and Facilities Study (FS) analyze the grid wit h and without the proposed project under conditions specified in the pla nning 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 pr oject causes the grid to be out of compliance with reliability standards, the study will then iden tify 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 gr id could be brought into compliance with reliability standards. If the interconnecting utility determines that the only feasible mitigation includes transmission modificati ons or additions which require CEQA review as part of the “whole of the ac tion,” the Energy Commission must analyze
those modifications or additions a ccording to CEQA requirements.

The September 18, 2008 SIS and Novem ber 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 generat ion on the PG&E transmission system. The SIS cases we re prepared with and without Avenal Energy Project’s 600 MW generation outpu t assuming June 1, 2012, operation
date:

• A 2013 summer peak base case wa s developed from PG&E 2007 base case series and has 1-in -10 year ex treme weather load level (PG&E load 28,118 MW) for the greater Fresno area;

• A 2013 summer off-peak base case wit h 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 develo ped with typical sp ring season load conditions (PG&E load 22,792 MW) and high hydro generation available.

In each of the cases Nort hern 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-approv ed 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 Projec t would cause some adverse impacts on the PG&E’s system for new overloads on nine transmission lines during emergency contingency conditions for whic h the Avenal Ener gy 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.) Depend ing on the line impacted, mitigation steps include: rerating the line for higher emergency rating, or installing a special protections system (SPS) operations procedure for cu rtailing the Avenal Energy Project generation output. Commission staff found the applicant’s mitigation recommendations to be reasonable. ( Id .) However, Staff no ted that the SIS is valid only for the AFC process for interc onnection of the Avenal Energy Project at82 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 subs tation 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 deficienc ies, or downstream fa cilities. (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 junc tion of Northern California bulk power system, the project could create some cumu lative effects in the CAISO network. However, the evidence shows that cumula tive impacts identified in the SIS as attributable to the Avenal Energy Pr oject 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 Ga tes substation would result in some positive impacts. This is because the Av enal Energy Projec t’s generation would meet the increasing load demand in the Fresno and Kings Counties areas, would provide additional reactive power and volt age stability support in the network, enhance reliability, and may reduce syst em losses in the PG&E system. ( Id .)

The evidence also contains an examination of potentia l 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 facilitie s including the Avenal Energy 230-kV switchyard, the generator overhead 230-kV tie line to the existing PG&E Gates substation and its terminating fa cilities, are adequate in accordance with NESC standards, GO-95 Rules an d good utility practices, and are acceptable according to engineeri ng 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-eas t and 360 feet north-south.

3. The likely substation expansion area is owned and maintained by PG&E and is considered disturbed land. T he expansion area was analyzed under parameters for SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES, BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, CULTURAL RESO URCES, PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES and LAND USE

. 4. Evidence of record found in Exhi bit 22 establishes that potential environmental impacts of the anticipat ed expansion of the Gates substation related to the Avenal Energy Proj ect have been anal yzed and are not significant.

5. The record includes a System Impac t 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 Consul ting demonstrate that the addition of the Avenal Energy Project w ould 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 i dentified overloads during 2013 summer peak system conditions for higher am pere 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 su mmer daylight hours only and would be subject to PG&E re-rate study guideli nes including detaile d study and cost estimates.

9. The mitigation plan identified in Ex hibits 20 and 200 w ould be adequate to eliminate the adverse impac ts from the project. For single (N-1) contingency overload violations on three trans mission lines, the mitigation option includes re-rating two 230- kV and one 70-kV transmi ssion lines for higher emergency ampere ratings. The System Impact Studies also identified six lines that overload under double or ca tegory B contingency (N-2 or more) conditions.

10. The evidence contains mitigation opt ions which include re-rating for higher emergency rating or installing Special Pr otection System (SPS) for curtailing Avenal Energy generation for two 230- kV and one 115-kV lines, SPS or operation procedure for two 230-kV li nes, and operation procedure for one 70-kV line.

11. PG&E has indicated some uncerta inty about interconnecting the Avenal Energy Project at the PG&E Gates s ubstation due to potential lack of room in the substation

. However, in the absence of written confirmation from84 PG&E or the CAISO about any chang e in the interconnection point, consideration of changes to the proposed interconnection would be speculative and premat ure at this time.

12. Testimony of record establishes hi gh probabilities exist that the proposed interconnection is feasible through ex pansion 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 interconnecti on 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 loca l generation, would meet the increasing load demands in the Fresno and Kings Co unties, 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 Certif ication which follow, and assuming interconnecting directly into PG &E Gates substation, the proposed transmission interconnection for the projec t will not contribute to significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts.

2. The Conditions of Ce rtification below ensure that the transmission-related aspects of the Avenal E nergy Project will be desi gned, constructed, and operated in conformance with the applic able laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards identified in t he 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 subm ittals, a Master Drawing List, a Master Specifications List, and a Ma jor Equipment and Structure List. The schedule shall contain a descript ion and list of proposed submittal packages for design, calculations, and specifications for major structures and equipment. To facilita te audits by Energy Commission staff, the project owne r shall provide designat ed 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 pr oposed 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 approv al. 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 e ngineer; B) a geotechnica l 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 full y competent and proficient in the design of power plant structures and equi pment supports; or D) a mechanical engineer. (Business and Professions Code Sect ions 6704 et seq., require state registration to practice as a civ il engineer or struct ural engineer in California.)

The tasks performed by the civil, mechanical, electrical or design engineers may be divided bet ween two or more engi neers, as long as each engineer is responsible for a particular segment of the project (e.g., proposed earthwork, civil stru ctures, power plant structures, equipment support). No segment of t he 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 regist ration numbers of all engineers86 assigned to the project. If any one of the designated engineers is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall submit the name, qualificat ions 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 approv al 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 revi ew 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 approval s 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 assign ed 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 c onstruction is discovered in any engineering work that has undergone CBO design review and approval, the project owner s hall document the discrepancy and recommend corrective action (1998 CBC, Chapter 1, Se ction 108.4, Approval Required; Chapter 17, Section 1701.3, Duties and Responsibilities of t he Special Inspector; Appendix Chapter 33, Section 3317.7, Notification of Noncompliance). The discrepancy documentation shall become a c ontrolled 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 ta ken to resolve a discrepancy to the CPM within 15 days of receipt. If disapproved, t he project owner shall advise the CPM, within five days, the reason for disappr oval, and the revised corrective action required to obtain the CBO’s approval.

TSE-4 For the power plant switchyard, out let line and termination, the project owner shall not begin any increment of construction until plans for that87 increment have been approved by the CBO. These plans, together with design changes and design change not ices, shall remain on the site for one year after completion of construction. The project owner shall request that the CBO inspec t 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 electr ical 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 st art of each increment of construction, the project owner shall subm it 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 elec trical 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 t hat the design, construction and operation of the proposed transmission facilities will conform to all applicable LORS, including the require ments listed below. The project owner shall submit t he required number of copies of the design drawings and calculations to t he CBO as determined by the CBO.

A. The power plant swit chyard and outlet line sh all meet or exceed the electrical, mechanical, civil and structural requirements of CPUC General Order 95 or National Electr ic 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 pow er plant switchyard and other switchyards, where applicable, shal l 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 coor dinated 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 shal l comply with applicable PG&E interconnection standards.

F. The project owner shal l provide to the CPM:88 1. Confirmation that Avenal Ener gy 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 mitigatio n measures or projects selected by the transmission owners for each criteria violation are acceptable,

4. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 interc onnection 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 star t of construction of transmission facilities (or a lesser number of days mu tually 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, Ar ticles 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 sa mple calculation based on “worst case conditions” 8 and a statement signed and sealed by the registered engineer in responsible charge, or other acceptable alternativ e verification, that the transmission element(s) will conform with CPUC Gene ral Order 95 or NESC, Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Articl es 35, 36 and 37 of the, “High Voltage Electric Safety Orders”, NEC, applic able interconnection standards, and related industry standards.

C. Electrical one-line diag rams signed and sealed by the registered professional electrical engineer in responsible charge, a rout e map, and an engineering description of equipment and the configurations covered by requirements TSE-5 A) through F) above.

D. Confirmation that Avenal Energy wil l 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 m easures or projects selected by the transmission owners for each criter ia violation are acceptable.

8 Worst case conditions for the foundations woul d include for instance, a dead-end or angle pole.89 G. The Phase 1 and Phase 2 interconnecti on 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 deta iled description of the proposed change and complete engineering, environmental, and economic rationale for the change shall accom pany the request. Construction involving changed equipment or substation configurations shall not begin without prior writt en 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 info rm 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 Operat or (California ISO) prior to synchronizing the facility with the Calif ornia Transmission system:

1. At least one week prior to synchr onizing 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 t he California ISO one week prior to initial synchronization with the grid. The project owner shall contact the California ISO Outage Coordination Department, Monday th rough 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 fo r testing. A report of conversation with the California ISO shall be provided el ectronically to the CPM one day before synchronizing the facility with the Californ ia transmission system for the first time.

TSE-8 The project owner shall be respons ible for the inspection of the transmission facilities during and a fter 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 Elec tric Safety Orders”, applicable interconnection standards, NEC and related industry standards. In case of non-conformance, the proj ect owner shall inform the CPM and90 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 synchr onization of the project, the project owner shall transmit to the CPM and CBO:

A. “As built” engineering de scription(s) and one-line drawin gs of the electrical portion of the facilities signed and sealed by the registered electrical engineer in responsible charge. A statement a ttesting to conformance with CPUC GO95 or NESC, Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the, “High Voltage Electr ic Safety Orders”, and applicable interconnection standards, NEC, related industry standar ds, 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 mainta ined 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 mu st be constructed and operated in a manner that protects environm ental quality, assures publ ic health and safety, and complies with applicable law. This por tion of the Decision assesses the potential impacts of the transmission line on aviati on 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 re duce 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.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

The Avenal Project’s associated trans mission 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 re inforced 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 adjac ent to the existing PG&E transmission
corridor. The line will traverse land wh ich 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, erecti on, 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 projec t’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 t han 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.)

91nearest 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 aviati on 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 aim ed at minimizing any interference. Moreover, there are no nearby residential re ceptors. If interfer ence 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 no ise level depends upon the strength of the line’s electric field, and is a concern ma inly 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 expect ed that the line wil l 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 individua l and the energized line. Compliance with the CPUC’s GO-95, as r equired 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 t he energized line. They are effectively minimized through grounding procedures for a ll metallic objects within the right92of-way as specified in C ondition of Certification TLSN-5 . (Ex. 200, pp. 4.11-6 to 4.11-7.)

• Fire Hazards

Fire can be caused by sparks from the li ne’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 r equired in Condition of Certification
TLSN-4 , ensure that appropriate fire preven tion measures are implemented. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-6.) Furthermore, the line wi ll traverse an agric ultural 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 uncert ainty regarding potential h ealth effects from EMF exposure, CPUC policy requires reduction of such fields, if feasible, without affecting the safety, efficiency, reliabilit y, 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 li nes 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 m easures will be incorporated into the project line’s desi gn 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 maintena nce of new or modified transmission facilities within their service areas. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-7.)

93• Minimizing the curr ent 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 estima tion of the field str engths 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, a ccording to accepted procedures, before and after energization of the line. These m easurements will be used to assess any contribution the project may make to cumu lative area exposures. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-9.)

Since there are no residences in the vici nity of the proposed project line, there would not be the long-term human resi dential EMF exposu res primarily responsible for the health concern of re cent years. The only project-related EMF exposures of potential significance ar e the short-term exposures of plant workers, regulatory inspectors, maintenance personnel, visitors, or individuals in the immediate vicinity of the line. These types of ex posures 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 Certif ication will ensure t hat any impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. (Ex. 200, p. 4.11-11.)

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the uncontroverted evidence of re cord, we make the following findings

and conclusions:

1. The Avenal Project will interc onnect 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.)

942. The evidentiary record includes analyses of potential impacts from the project’s transmission line involving aircraft collisions, interference with radio frequency communication, audi ble noise, hazardous shocks, nuisance shocks, fire danger, and EMF exposure.

3. The new interconnection line will tr averse 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 rout e of the project’s transmission line.

6. The electric and magnetic fields gener ated by the project’s transmission line will be managed to the extent t he CPUC considers appropriate, based on available health effects information.

7. The Avenal transmission line will comp ly with existing LORS for public health and safety.

8. The Avenal transmission line wil l incorporate standard EMF-reducing measures established by the CPUC and used by PG&E.

9. The project owner will provide fiel d intensity measurements before and after line energization to assess EM F 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 cumula tive impacts in the areas of aviation safety, radio frequency communication, fire hazards, nuisance or hazar dous shocks, or electric and magnetic field exposure.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Implementation of the C onditions of Certification, below, will ensure that the Avenal Project’s outlet line co mplies 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.

95CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

TLSN-1 The project owner shall constr uct the proposed transmission line according to the requirements of Ca lifornia Public Utility Commission’s GO-95, GO-52, GO-131-D, Titl e 8, and Group 2, High Voltage Electrical Safety Orders, Sections 2700 through 2974 of the California Code of Regulations, and Pacific Ga s 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 lette r signed by a California registered electrical engineer affirming that the lines w ill be constructed according to the requirements stated in the Condition.

TLSN-2 The project owner shall ensure t hat every reasonable effort will be made to identify and correct, on a case-specific basis, any complaints of interference with radio or televi sion signals from operation of the project-related lines and associat ed switchyards. The project owner shall maintain written records for a per iod of five years of all complaints of radio or television interference a ttributable to line op eration together with the corrective action taken in response to each complaint.

Verification: All reports of line-related compla ints shall be summarized for the project-related lines and included during t he first five years of plant operation in the Annual Compliance Report.

TLSN-3 The project owner shall use a qual ified individual to measure the strengths of the electric and magnetic fields from the line at the points of maximum intensity identified by t he Applicant in Exhibit 1, Table A6.18-1. The measurements s hall be made before and after energization according to t he American National Standard Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (ANSI/IEEE) standard procedures. These measurements shall be completed not later than six months afte r the start of operations.

Verification: The project owner shall file copies of the pre-and postenergization measurements with the CPM wit hin 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 co mbustible 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 oper ation, the project owner shall provide a summary of inspection results and any fire prevention activities carried out along the right-of-way and provid e such summaries in the Annual Compliance Report.

9697 TLSN-5 The project owner shall ensure t hat all permanent metallic objects within the right-of-way of the pr oject-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 lette r confirming compliance with this Condition.

### V. PUBLIC HE ATH 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 progr ams, standards, protocols, and analyses
that address these issues.

A. G REENHOUSE G AS (GHG) E MISSIONS

1. Introduction and Summary

The generation of electricity using fossil fuels, such as the natural gas that Avenal will consume, produces both “cri teria 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 se ction of this Decision.

This part of the PMPD assesses the GHG em issions that are likely to result from the construction and the operation of the Avenal facility.

The greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 ), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ), hydrofluorocarbons (H FC), and perflurocarbons (PFC). CO 2 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 CO 2 -equivalent” (MTCO 2 e) for simplicity. (See, 7/7/09 RT 191: 19 to 192: 4; Ex. 200, p. 4.1-76 - 4.1-77.)

Prevailing scientific opinion consider s 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

98health, natural resources, and the environm ent of California.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 38500.)

In this part of the PM PD we determine that:

• The Avenal Energy Project’s GHG construction emissions will be insignificant;

• from a physical standpoint, the GH G emissions from a power plant’s operation should be assessed not by i naccurately treating the plant as a standalone facility operating in a vac uum, but rather in the context of the operation of the entir e 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 as sessed in the context of the state’s GHG laws and policies, such as AB 32; and

• Avenal’s operation will be consist ent with the state’s GHG policies and will help achieve the state’s GHG goal s, by (1) causing a decrease in overall electricity system GHG emissi ons; 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 no t result in any significant, adverse, unmitigated environmental impa cts. 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 st ate 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 heal th and safety, for promotion of the general welfare, and for environmental qua lity protection.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 25001.) Today, as a result of legislation, t he most resent aspect of “environmental quality protection” is the reduction of GHG emissions. Several laws and statements of po licy are applicable.

a. AB 32

The organizing framework for California’s GH G policy is set forth in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. [A ssembly Bill 32, codified in Health &

99Saf. Code, § 38560 et seq. (hereinafter AB 32).] AB 32 requi res the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) to adopt r egulations 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 le vel 80 percent bel ow the 1990 GHG emissions, by the year 2050.

Along with all other regulat ory agencies in California , the Energy Commission recognizes that meeting t he AB 32 goals is vital to the state’s economic and
environmental health. Wh ile 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, an d other priority resources in the loading order to achieve significant reductions of emission s in the electricity sector by 2020.
Even more dramatic reductions in electric ity sector emissions would likely be required to meet California’s 2050 greenhouse gas reduction goal. Facilities under our jurisdiction, such as the Avena l 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 requ ires 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 Commi ssion pursuant to the bill, prohibits utilities from entering into long-term co mmitments 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.

100that exceed an Emission Performance Sta ndard (EPS) of 0.500 metric tonnes of
CO 2 per megawatt-hour (this is the equivalent of 1100 pounds CO 2 /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 re sources that should be added are energy efficiency and demand response (at the maximu m level that is feasible and costeffective); followed by renewables and di stributed generation, and combined heat and power (also known as cogeneration); and finally efficient fossil sources and infrastructure development. 13 CARB’s AB 32 Scoping Pl an reflects these policy preferences. (California Air Resource s 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 constructi on emissions are likely to be between 3,000 and 7,000 metric tons of CO 2 -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 CO 2 -equivalent GHG per year. (By way of comparison, as discussed in t he 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 ar e considered “significant” under CEQA. Nevertheless, there is guidance from r egulatory 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 constructi on emissions. (CARB, Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal, Recommended Approache s for Setting Interim Significance
Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under t he California Environmental Quality Act (Oct. 24, 2008), p. 9 [available at: www.arb.ca.gov/cc/localgov/ - ceqa/meetings/102708/pre limdraftproposal102408.pdf , last visited Oct. 26,

13 California Energy Commission 2008, 2008 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update , (IEPR) (CEC-100-2008-008-CMF.)

1012009].) Such an approach is also recommended on an interim basis, or proposed, by major local ai r 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 GH G emissions. As the “best practices” approach is currently recommended by the state agency primarily responsible not only for air quality standards but also fo r 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 Proj ect project will use (1) operational measures, such as limiting vehicle idling time and shutti ng down equipment when not in use; (2) regular preventive maint enance to prevent emission increases due to vehicular engine problems; and (3) use of low-emitting diesel engines meeting
federal emissions standards for construc tion equipment, whenever available. (Ex. 200 at 4.1-15.) These are the current “best practi ces” for limiting emissions from construction equipment; no party sugg ested otherwise. (E x. 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 si gnificance, we would still find that the project’s GHG emissions are more likely th an not insignificant. That is because, when the project is viewed as a whole – bo th its construction and its operation – overall GHG emissions from electricity generat ion will likely decline as a result of the project. The next part of th is 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 t he natural gas-fired combustion turbines. There will also
be a small amount of GHG emissions from t he auxiliary boiler, diesel-fueled fire pump engine, emergency generator, and electrical equip ment. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-

10277.) If the Avenal Energy Project operated for one ye ar (assuming 7,960 hours at 500 MW during normal operation, pl us 800 hours at 600 MW during duct firing), it would be expected to pr oduce 1,712,224 metr ic tons of CO 2 equivalent annually. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-77; Ex. 1 T able 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 CO 2 per megawatt hour.
This is less than the Emission Perform ance Standard of 0.500 metric tons of CO 2 per megawatt-hour described abov e. (See Ex. 200, p. 4.1-78.) Therefore, under
SB 1368 California utilities will be allowe d to purchase power from Avenal under long-term contracts (five or more years).

As we also noted above, t he 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 complic ated matter.

b. Determining Significance: the Necessity of a System Approach

The process of electricity generation, pr oduction, and consumpt ion has a unique physical reality. As a result, asse ssing 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 CE QA analysis of a proposed factory, shopping mall, or resi dential subdivision, it does no t need to analyze how the operation of the proposed projec t is going to affect the en tire system of factories, malls, or houses in a large multistate r egion. 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, an d Mexico – is large and complex. Hundreds of power plants, thousands of miles of transmission and distribution lines, and millions of points of electricity demand operat e in an interconnected, integrated, and simultaneous fashion. Be cause the system is integrated, and because electricity is produced and consumed instantaneously, and will be unless and until large-scale electricity st orage technologies ar e available, any change in demand and, most important for this anal ysis, any change in output from any generation source, is likely to a ffect 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

103CEQA Guidance ( Committee Guidance on Fulfilli ng 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 syst em integrated physically, but it is also operated as such. The California Independe nt System Operator (CAI SO) is responsible for operating the system so that it provides power reliably and at the lowest cost. Thus the CAISO dispatches generating facili ties generally in order of cheapest to operate (i.e., typically the most efficient) to most expensive (i.e., typically the least efficient). (Committee CEQA Guidan ce, p. 20.) Because operating cost is correlated with heat rate (the amount of fuel that it ta kes to generate a unit of electricity), and, in turn, heat rate is dire ctly correlated with emissions (including GHG emissions), when one power plant runs, it us ually 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 pow er plants operate in an integrated system means that we must assess their oper ational GHG emissions on a system-wide
basis.

We now turn to the specifics of th e Avenal Energy Project’s operation.

c. The Avenal Energy Project’s E ffects 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 (typ ically referred to as “load”). But in order to keep the system functioning properl y, they must also meet local needs for capacity and for the “ancillary servic es” of regulation, sp inning reserve, nonspinning reserve, voltage support, and bla ck 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 Ener gy Project will be necessary to provide intermittent generation support, grid oper ations 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 a nd is found on the Commission website at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publicati ons/CEC-700-2009-004-C EC-700-2009-004.PDF

104plants are better able to provide such services than are most renewables because they can be called upon when th ey are needed (dispatchable). (7/7/09 RT 74 - 75, 140; Ex. 203, pp. 47, 93.)

(2) Displacement of More-C ostly, 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 ot her generating units in the area. (Ex. 200, Table 3, p. 4.1-80.) Therefor e, when the Avenal Energy Project operates, it will most likely disp lace 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 “w orst-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 th us higher heat rates and higher emissions) would have to run. (7/7/09 RT 72, 84.)

Parties in the AFC proceeding challenge several aspe cts 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 ado pted here).

First, CRPE claims that the Avenal Energy Project would displace more efficient generators because, CRPE says, the projec t’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-fo ssil generation, such as nuclear and renewables, with lower heat rates or lowe r 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 Avena l Energy Project
will never run at al l unless it can displace other less desirable generation. Therefore, what matters is whether there is enough less efficient (fossil) generation in the system so t hat 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 le ss efficient sources, particularly if inefficient generators that may be displa ced 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 po ssible, indeed practically certain over the

105lifetime of a facility such as the Avenal Energy Project, that another generator displaced by the Avenal Energy Proj ect on one day will oper ate on another day. But that is not the point. The point is that whenever the Av enal Energy Project operates, it will take the place of a less-efficient plant t hat otherwise would have operated. One day the disp laced generation might be fr om plant A, another day from plant B, and so on. It is not nece ssary, 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 Proj ect’s operation will reduce GHG emissions. Such an approach w ould 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 fa ct, highly likely – that whenever the Avenal Energy Project runs, the “physica l 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, ho wever, is valid: “Taken to its logical conclusion, under [the displacement theor y] one could add an infini te number of power plants to the system without any present or fu ture impact on greenhouse gas production . . . .” (CRPE Reply Brief, p. 4.) Ther e are indeed limits to the number of naturalgas-fired power plants that should be add ed 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 t he limit is not crossed we describe analytic and decisi on-making principles for futu re fossil plants below, in part 4.d. of this chapter, “The Limi ted Benefits Effects of Natural Gas Powerplants.”

CRPE also contends that the system -wide approach incorporates an inappropriate “future baseline” for assessi ng a project’s impact. (7/7/09 RT 162 - 163.) Not so. When assessi ng 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 poi nt 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 Pr oject, the GHG impacts to the current environment will most likely be beneficial – in other words, a ll else being equal,
there will be fewer GHG emi ssions from the electricity system than there are

106now. (Of course, all else will not be equ al – 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 fores eeable 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 Av enal 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 le gal reality that utilities are obligated to meet whatever demand ex ists; therefore, additional demand is not going to be created simply as a re sult of building more capacity. 15 (Moreover, no matter what the demand is, t he most efficient plants will generally be dispatched first. (7/7/09 RT 114.) Intervenor Rob Simpson takes the argument further by asserti ng that by increasing generation capacity, the project could drive down the price of electricit y 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. Simps on 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 el asticity 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 taki ng into account the GHG reductions from less efficient displaced generation could resu lt in double-counti ng 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 descripti on of the project’s impacts , not a description of recommended mitigation. That evidence indicated, and we conclude, that mitigation is unnecessary because the pr oject will not cause a significant GHG impact (and would in fact cause a net r eduction of GHG emi ssion). CRPE also
states that because of t he importance of reducing GHG emissions, “the CEC cannot afford to squander any opportunity to adopt feasible mitigation and
alternatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions fr om the proposed project.” (CRPE Reply Brief, p. 5.) However, becaus e there is no significant impact from

15 C alifornia'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].)

107the operation of the Avenal Energy Project, we are precluded from adopting any “mitigation” or “alternatives ” to reduce impacts from po wer plant operation. We agree, however, with CRPE’ s main point, that it is crit ically important to reduce
the GHG emissions of our electricit y generation system. As the foregoing discussion indicates, we belie ve that the Avenal Energy Project will help meet that goal.

(3) Replacement of Generatio n from Out-of-State Coal Powerplants and In-Sta te Once-Through-Cooling Powerplants

The Avenal Energy Project’s role in displacing higher-GHG-emitting powerplants will be accentuated by the future unavailabili ty of tens of thousands of megawatts of generation.

The State Water Resources Control Boar d has proposed significant curtailment
or retirements of dozens of coastal power plants that use environmentallythreatening once-through cool ing systems, which in 2 008, collectively produced around 58,000 GWh, with average GHG emissions of approximately 0.75
MTCO 2 /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 additi on, 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 GW h of energy now supplied to California utilities under existing long-term contracts with out-o f-state coal plants will have to be replaced, as the contracts expire. (E x. 200, p. 4.1-82.) Those coal plants average around 1.0 MTCO 2 /MWh of GHG emissions, al most three times more than new natural gas-fir ed combined-cycle projects like the Avenal Energy Project. This will likely result in a si gnificant net reduction in GHG emissions for the California electricity sector. (7/7/ 09 RT 76- 8, 82-83, 1 08:5-9; Ex. 200, pp. 4.1-71-4.1-72, 4.1-83.)

CRPE raises a concern related to the Avena l Energy Project’s ab ility to displace generation from out of state facilities. It contends that if the project exports power outside of California, then the emissions that ar e consequentially displaced should not count toward “offs etting the project’s impacts.” (CRPE Reply Brief, p. 4.) While CEQA analyses might ordinarily distinguish between instate and out-of-state impacts, doing so w ould be improper fo r the GHG impacts of an electrical system that serves the ent ire western region of the United States, Canada and Mexico. The impacts of GHGs are global rather than local, so a ton

108of CO 2 emitted in Nevada or Utah contributes to glo bal 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, t here is nothing to indicate that the market-based system approach a nalysis described above is unique to California. Thus, the project would only export electric ity outside of California if, and to the extent that, it is more efficient t han the resources available out-of-state. Consequently, the operation of the pr oject will result in a net GHG benefit, irrespective of where its power is ultimately cons umed and the consequential displacement of less-effi cient generation occurs.

(4) Fostering Rene wables Integration

Most new renewable generation in Ca lifornia will be wind and solar generated power. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-81. ) Unfortunately, the wi nd does not blow, nor does the sun shine, around the clock. As a resu lt, 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 Rene wable Resources, November 2007). Indeed, because of this need for backup ge neration, or if and when utility-scale storage becomes feasible and cost-effect ive, nonrenewable gener ation 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/minut e), it will provide flexible, dispatchable power necessary to integrate some of the grow ing generation from in termittent 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 ab le to support or firm up intermittent renewables as well as a simple-cycle, co mbustion-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 provid e 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 Av enal Energy Project will back up new renewable generation is unc ertain, because the proj ect does not yet have a power purchase agreement specifying its c ontractual 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

109efficient 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 fa cilities” (Simpson Reply Brief, p. 5) – has no support in the record, and the record actually demonstrates the contrary,
for several reasons. Fi rst, most renewable energy facilities have contracts requiring utilities to take all the electric ity they can generate (7/7/09 RT 149, 194- 95), which eliminates the possibility of t hose facilities getting “crowding out.” Moreover, the recent executive order incr easing the RPS target to 33 percent by 2020 ensures that electricity from renew able energy generation will have priority for at least the next decade, and a st ate or federal cap- and-trade program (or similar mechanism for pricing GHG em issions) would likewise ensure that electricity from non-GHG em itting renewable resources receives priority over
fossil sources such as the Avenal Energy Project. Fi nally, renewable generation facilities are generally able to sell thei r power at a lower cost than gas-fired facilities because they need not purchas e fuel; therefore electricity from
renewable facilities would lik ely 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 ge neration 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 effi cient gas-fired generati on to displace and replace less efficient generation, and to help integrate additional intermittent renewable generation. But as new gas pl ants 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 re sult, each plant will have somewhat different impacts. Furthermore , future implementation of efficiency and demand response measures, and new te chnologies such as storage, smart grid, and distributed g eneration, may also signific antly change the physical needs and operation of the electrical system.

Therefore, although the parti es 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 feasib le, 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

110they 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 syst em heat rate for natural gas plants;

(2) not interfere wit h 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 MTCO 2 equivalent (“MTCO 2 E”) during the 27- month construction period, which is the annual equivalent of 1333 – 3111 MTCO 2 E.

2. There is no numerical threshol d 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 responsibilit y to ensure a reliable electricity supply, consistent with environment al, 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 deci sion or part of a decision that contains a significant legal or policy determination of general ap plication 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 gene ral principle in the decision, even though the principle has not been adopted in a rulemaking proceeding. ( Ibid .)

1117. Under SB 1368 and implem enting regulations, Californ ia’s electric utilities may not enter into long-term commi tments with base load power plants with CO 2 emissions that exceed the Emissions Performance Standard (“EPS”) of 0.500 MTCO 2 / MWh.

8. The maximum annual CO 2 emissions from the Avenal Energy Project’s operation will be 1,712,224 MTCO 2 , which constitutes an emissions performance factor of 0.383 MTCO 2 / 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) r equires 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 fr om 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 su pport, extreme load and system emergencies support, and gener al 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-rat e and therefore higher-GHG-emitting) power plants.

11217. In addition, the Avenal Energy Project will probably replace power fromtwo types of power plants that are less-efficient (and therefore higherGHG-emitting): coal-fired power plants t hat are unable to se ll to California utilities under the SB 1368 EPS, and power plants that must be retired because they currently us e once-through cooling.

18. The Avenal Energy Project operati on will reduce overall GHG emissions from the electr icity system.

19. Intermittent solar and wind generat ion will account for most of the installation of renewables in the next few decades.

20. Intermittent generation needs dispatc hable generation, such as the Avenal Energy Project, in order to be integr ated 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 renew ables into California’s electricity system and meet the stat e’s RPS and GHG goals, but the amount is not without limit.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Avenal Energy Project’s constr uction-related GHG emissions will not cause a significant adverse environmental impact.

2. The GHG emissions from a power pl ant’s operation sh ould be assessed in the context of the operati on of the entire electric ity system of which the plant is an integrated part.

3. The Avenal Energy Project’s operat ional GHG emissions will not cause a significant adverse environmental impact.

4. The Avenal Energy Pr oject’s GHG emissions wi ll comply with the SB 1368 EPS.

5. The Avenal Energy Project’s operati on will help Californi a utilities meet their RPS obligations.

113114 6. The Avenal Energy Project’s c onstruction and oper ation will not be inconsistent with California’s load ing order for power supplies.

7. The Avenal Energy Proj ect’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 renewab les or with the integration of new r enewable generation; and

• take into account the two prec eding factors, reduce system-wide GHG emissions.B. AIR QUALITY

This section examines the potential adverse impacts of criteria air pollutant emissions resulting from project construc tion and operation. In consultation with the local air pollution control distric t, the Commission dete rmines whether the project will likely conform with applicable LO RS, whether it will likely result in significant air quality impacts, includi ng violations of ambient air quality standards, and whether the project’s pr oposed mitigation measures will likely reduce potential impacts to insignificant levels.

Applicant and Staff reached agreement on all relevant issues, including the
Conditions of Certif ication following this narrative . Intervenors Rob Simpson and Center on Race, Poverty and the Environm ent (CRPE) argued that some aspects of the air quality analysis were incorrect, but introduced no evidence in support of
those claims.

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established for
seven air contaminants identified as “criteri a air pollutants.” These include sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), particulate matter less than 10 micr ons in diameter (PM10) and particulate
matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). The review of potential impacts also includes the precursor pol lutants for ozone, which are nitrogen oxides (NO X ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), and the precursors for PM10 and PM2.5, which are primarily NO X , sulfur oxides (SO X ), and ammonia (NH 3 ). Sulfur oxides (SO X ) 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 co ncentrations for the criteria pollutants
identified above. The Ca lifornia 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.

115AIR QUALITY Table 1 State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard Federal Standard

Ozone (O 3 ) 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 μg/m 3 ) None

8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 μg/m 3 ) 0.075 ppm (147 μg/m 3 )

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) 24 Hour 50 μg/m 3 150 μg/m 3

Annual 20 μg/m 3 None

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24 Hour None 35 μg/m 3

Annual 12 μg/m 3 15 μg/m 3

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m 3 ) 35 ppm (40 mg/m 3 )

8 Hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3 ) 9 ppm (10 mg/m 3 )

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) 1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 μg/m 3 ) None

Annual 0.030 ppm (57 μg/m 3 ) 0.053 ppm (100 μg/m 3 )

Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 μg/m 3 ) None

3 Hour None 0.5 ppm (1300 μg/m 3 )

24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 μg/m 3 ) 0.14 ppm (365 μg/m 3 )

Annual None 0.03 ppm (80 μg/m 3 ) Source: Ex. 200, p. 4.1-7.

In general, an area is designated as “atta inment” if the concentration of a particular air contaminant does not exce ed the standard. Likewise, an area is designated as "non-attainment” for an ai r contaminant if that contaminant
standard is violated. W here 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 atta inment for one air c ontaminant while nonattainment for another, or attainment for the federal standar d and non-attainment
for the state standard for t he same air contaminant.

The Avenal Energy Project is locat ed within the San J oaquin Valley and under the jurisdiction of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District).
Violations of Feder al 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 to ward controlling these pollutants. Although air quality improv ements have occurred, viol ations of standards for particulate matter and ozone persist.

116Air 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

NO 2 Attainment Attainment

SO 2 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 dat a show existing violations of ambient air quality standards for O3 , PM10, and PM2.5. Staf f used the highest locallymeasured (Hanford or Corcoran) backgrou nd ambient air concen trations 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 Sacr amento are used for CO, NO 2 , and SO 2 , respectively. The highest concentrations are shown in Air Quality Table 3

.

117Air Quality Table 3

Highest Local Background Concentrations Used in Staff Assessment ( μ g/m 3 ) 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

NO 2 1 hour 137.2 339 40

Annual 22.6 57 40

SO 2 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 incl ude the following stationary sources of emissions: two stationary natural gas-f ired combustion turbine generators (CTGs) in a combined-cycle configurat ion. Each rated at 180 MW each, consisting of General Electr ic 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 condensi ng steam turbine generator (STG)
rated at 300 MW shared between the two CTGs; one natural ga s-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 Ti er 2 certified or Tier 3, depending on purchase date (Ex. 1, p. 6.2-31 and Appen dix 6.2-1.4). This emer gency-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 se t, rated at 860 bhp.

1181. Proposed Construction Emissions

Construction of Avenal Energy is expecte d to take about 27 months. On-site construction activities include clearing of agricultural vegetati on, grading, hauling and layout of equipment, mate rials and supplies, facilit y construction and testing (Ex. 1, § 2.3.18). During the constr uction period, air emissions would be generated from the exhaust of off-r oad/non-road construction equipment and onroad vehicles and fugitive dust from ac tivity on unpaved surfaces and material handling. Construction activities woul d occur during an approximate 8-hour day staggered over multiple shifts (Ex. 1, § 2.3.18). Cons truction 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 trav el on paved and unpaved surfaces;

• dust entrained during aggregate and soil loading and unloading operations; and

• wind erosion of soil at areas dist urbed during construction activities.

Combustion emissions during construction would result from:

• exhaust from the diesel constructi on equipment used for site preparation, grading, excavation, and construc tion 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-pow ered welding machines, electric generators, air compresso rs, 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 auto mobiles 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

.

119Air Quality Table 4 Avenal Energy, Estimated Maximum Construction Emissions

Activity NO X VOC PM10/PM2.5 CO SO x 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 cons truction 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, su ch as limiting engine id ling 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 em issions (Ex. 1, Appendix 6.2-3.3):

• Use either water application or chem ical dust suppressa nt 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 adjac ent public streets impacted by construction activities) and paved parking areas;

• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and ot her loose materials, or require all trucks to maintain at le ast two feet of freeboard;

• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved surfaces to 25 mph;

• Install sandbags or other erosion contro l measures to prevent silt runoff to roadways;

• Re-plant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;

• As needed, use gravel pads along with wh eel 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 stor age piles) by applic ation of either water or chemical dust suppress ant and/or use of wind breaks.

The Applicant proposes to reduce emission s 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 signif icant level by further reducing construction emissions of particulate matter and combustion contam inants. The evidence shows that the use of oxidizing soot filters is a viable emissions control technology for all heavy diesel-powered construction equipment t hat 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 Qua lity Construction Mitigation Plan (AQCMP)

121that specifically identifies mitigation measures to be employed by the Applicant to limit air quality impacts durin g construction. We adopt C onditions of Certification
AQ-SC1 through AQ-SC5 to implement these require ments. These Conditions
are consistent with both the Applicant’s proposed mi tigation and the Conditions of Certification adopted in similar prio r licensing cases. Compliance with these
Conditions would substant ially reduce the potential fo r 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 caus es 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, a nd conduct testing before emission control systems are functioning or fine-tuned fo r optimum performance.

The Applicant identifies the series of commissioning tests and expects that up to 408 hours of operation woul d 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 commi ssioning would occur on each CTG sequentially.

Operation emissions

Particulate matter emissions from rout ine operation would cause a significant impact because they will contribute to existing violations of PM10 and PM2.5 ambient air quality standards. The predi cted maximum concentrations of nonreactive pollutants are summarized in Air Quality Table 5

.

//

//

122Air Quality Table 5 Avenal Energy, Routine Operation Maximum Impacts ( μ g/m 3 )

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

NO 2 1 hour 190.0 137.2 327.2 339 97

Annual 0.5 22.6 23.1 57 41

SO 2 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 NO X , SO X , VOC, and ammonia are precursor pollutants that can contribute to the fo rmation of the secondar y pollutants ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Gas-to-particulate conversion in ambient air involves complex chemical and physical proc esses that depend on many factors, including local humidity, pollutant tr avel time, and the presence of other compounds. Currently, t here are no agency-recommen ded models or procedures for estimating ozone or particulate nitr ate or sulfate formation from a single project or source. However, becaus e of the known relationships of NO X and
VOC to ozone and of NO X , SO X , and ammonia emissions to secondary PM10 and PM2.5 formation, it can be said t hat unmitigated emi ssions of these pollutants would contribute to higher ozone and PM10/PM2.5 levels in the region. Significant impacts of oz one and PM10/PM2.5 precurso rs 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, agric ultural sources, and as a byproduct of tailpipe controls on motor vehicles. Amm onia particulate forms more readily with sulfates than with nitrates, and particula te formation in the San Joaquin Valley

123has been found to be limited by the availability of SO X and NO X in ambient air, rather than the availability of ammoni a. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-25.) Off-setting SO X and
NO X emissions would both avoid signific ant secondary PM10/PM 2.5 impacts and reduce secondary pollutant impacts to a less than significant level.

Energy Commission staff recommends limi ting ammonia slip emissions to the
extent feasible. The evidence of reco rd 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 duri ng 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 signif icance 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 contro l devices for the project. Those, along with the use of the latest clean-burning equipme nt 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 NO x formed during combustion using dry low-NO X (DLN) combustors. ( Id .) To further reduc e 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 co mbustion turbine: the SCR system to
reduce NO X ; and the oxidation catalyst system to reduce CO and VOC. The exclusive use of pipeline- quality natural gas, a relati vely clean-burning fuel,
would further limit the fo rmation of VOC, PM10, and SO 2 emissions. ( Id .)

The project’s dry cooling des ign would eliminate the use of a wet cooling tower,
which would otherwise be a so urce of particulate matte r drift or mist. The auxiliary boiler would include ultra low-NO X 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 purchas e date, and the emergency standby generator would include a non- selective catalytic redu ction (NSCR) system for exhaust control. (E x. 200, p. 4.1-27.)

In addition to emission control strat egies included in the project design, SJVAPCD Rule 2201 requires the Applicant to provide ERCs to offset the new

124emissions of NO X , VOC, and PM10. Air Quality Table 6 summarizes the emissions as viewed by the District, a ssuming 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 Av enal 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 o ffset 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 NO X and VOC ERCs that it will use to fully satisfy the District’s NO X and VOC offset r equirements (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-28 and 4.1-29.) T hese offsets will also sati sfy the CEQA mitigation requirements for ozone impacts.

The evidence also shows that the Applicant holds SO X and PM10 ERCs sufficient to fully satisfy the District of fset requirements for PM10. This will be accomplished through the use of interpollu tant trading ratios established by the District on a case-by-case basis. Since SO X is accepted as one of the major precursors of PM10 and PM 2.5 through reaction with ammonia, reductions in
SO X can reduce particulate formation. The District’s case-by-case analysis of the interpollutant ratio for Avenal Energy re sulted in a ratio of one-to-one based on a
consideration of the shar ed emission inventory and loca l concentrations within Kings and Tulare counties (E x. 58); the District notes that this is the “minimum
technical value” due to a small inventory of local SO X sources in Kings and Tulare counties. In early 2009, t he SJVAPCD recalculated the ratio and confirmed the one-to-one ratio as being appropriate throughout the entire air basin. ( Id. )

//

//

125Air Quality Table 6 Avenal Energy, SJVAPCD Offset De termination and Requirements (lb)

Source NO X VOC PM10/ PM2.5 CO SO X

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 1.2x10 6 33,521 Offset Requirements
Offset Threshold 20,000 20, 000 29,200 200,000 54,750 Offsets Triggered? Yes Yes Yes No a 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 Reas onable 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 assumpti on 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 SO X 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). Fu rthermore, the Avenal Energy Applicant showed that
1.4 tons of SO X reductions would be needed to offset each new ton of PM10 emissions. (Ex 1, Table 6.2-39.) Nonethel ess, the 1-to-1 interpollutant ratio would provide the minimum level of o ffsets required by the Commission for PM10/PM2.5 precursors and the Applicant ’s ERCs would satisfy the CEQA mitigation requirements for particulate matte r 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.

126We therefore find that the proposed em ission 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 co mpound or increase other environmental impacts.” (CEQA Guidelin es, § 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 it self, cause a violation of a federal or st ate criteria pollutant standard, it may c ontribute to violations of criteria pollu tant standards because of pre-existing elev ated background condi tions. 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 requ irements that provide offsets and use
Best Available Control Technology (BACT), comb ined 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. T he regulations also include requirements for obtaining Authority to Construct (A TC) permits and subsequent operating permits.

The evidence discussed in this section shows that the Avenal Energy Project would contribute to existing exceedanc es 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 (N SR) rule to increase the standard offset ratio to 1.5-
to-1 from the current one-to-one ratio t hat 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 t he 2007 Ozone Plan were not adopted at the time the Avenal Energy Project filed its applicati on. Because the project would use BACT to control ozone precurso r emissions and ERCs to fully offset

127ozone precursors as requir ed by the then existing rule s 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, in cluding Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) for large existing sources of PM10 and fugitive dust. The 2007 PM10 Mainte nance Plan includes a request for
reclassification to “attainment” for the f ederal PM10 standard, an d it provides for continued attainment for 10 years from t he designation. In November 2008, the U.S. EPA redesignated t he SJVAPCD to attainment for the federal PM10 standard. (Ex. 200, p. 4.1-34.)

The 2008 PM2.5 Plan was ado pted by the SJVAPCD Governing Board on April 30, 2008 and adopted by ARB on May 22, 2008, and the plan wa s 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 Pl an includes measures for attaining the 1997 and 2006 federal PM 2.5 standards. The 2008 PM2.5 Plan
shows that emissi on reductions of NO X , directly emitted PM2.5, and SO 2 are needed to demonstrate attainment of th e PM2.5 NAAQS in the San Joaquin Valley. The Applicant relied on data from 1997 and 1998 to show that 1.4 tons of
SO X 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 Av enal Energy. Although t here is no formal federal endorsement of the District’s interpollut ant trading approach, Energy Commission
staff concluded that the Avena l 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 rule making requiring offsets for PM2.5 emissions. However, the triggering threshol d 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 leve l 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 t hat the Applicant’s proposed 1:1 interpollutant trading
ratio for PM10 and SO X will not have any significant adverse environmental impact, and will comply with applicable LORS.

128Cumulative Impacts

The proposed project and ot her 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 suffi cient 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 Re gulations was demonstrated to the District’s satisfaction in the FDOC, and the FDOC conditions are presented in the
Conditions of Ce rtification.

40 CFR 52.21, Prevention of Significant Deterioration

The U.S. EPA has not yet issued a pre liminary Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pe rmit for the project 17 . 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 ar e likely to comply with the applicable emission limits by achieving a NO X 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 Unit ed 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 PU BLIC 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.

129It is not clear if the emergency fire wa ter 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 oper ating 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 th is engine. Any applicable future standard which is more stringent shall supe rcede these minimum requirements.

The Applicant has demonstrated that th e project would comply with Section
41700 of the Californi a State Health and Safety C ode, 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 c ontrol and offset requirements for new sources such as Avenal. The project would use the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) as defi ned by the District, and ERCs, proposed by the Applicant and approved and certified by the District, w ould fully mitigate project nonattainment pollutant (including precurso rs) 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 comment s 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 co mments at different times during the July 7, 2009 evidentiary hearing in Avenal. Comm ents were made in equal numbers by people for and against the proj ect. However, many of those who spoke in opposition noted their concern that the project would contribute to

130existing air pollution in the area 18 . Several people voiced t heir concern that the project would worsen exis ting asthma conditions among their family members and in the community 19

.

In preparing this Decision, we have c onsidered these comments, as well as the comments previously submitt ed in writing by public agencies and by members of the public on this matter. All such comm ents are part of the record in this proceeding. We believe that the implementation of the C onditions 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-a ttainment for the state 1-hour and federal 8-hour ozone, the st ate 24-hour and annual PM 10, standards and the state and federal PM2.5 standar ds. The District meet s applicable standards for all other criteria pollutants.

3. The project will employ the best available technology (BACT) to control emissions of crit eria pollutants.

4. Project nonattainment and nonattainme nt 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 pack age, along with the proposed emissions controls, will mitigate all project air qua lity impacts to a less than significant level.

7. The District issued a Final Dete rmination 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.

1318. The Commission has properly consi dered the analysis and comments of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Cont rol District in an area in which the SJVAPCD has demonstrated ex pertise and jurisdiction.

9. The record establishes that Commi ssion staff has independently evaluated the SJVAPCD analysis and determi ned that it is accurate.

10. The project’s construction-related im pacts are temporary and short-term in nature. They are mitigated to below a level of signific ance by measures identified in the Conditi ons of Certification.

11. The record contains an adequate anal ysis of the project’ s contributions to cumulative air quality impacts.

12. The project’s offset package complie s 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 C onditions 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 Mitigat ion Manager (AQCMM): The project owner shall designate and retain an on-site AQCMM who shall be responsible for directing and docum enting 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 acce ss to all areas of construction on the project site and linear facilitie s, and shall have the authority to stop any or all construction activities as warranted by applicable construction mitigation condi tions. The AQCMM and AQCMM delegates may have other responsib ilities in addition to those described in this Condition. T he AQCMM shall not be terminated without written consent of the cons truction project manager (CPM).

132Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall subm it 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 gr ound disturbance.

AQ-SC2 Air Quality Construction Mitigatio n Plan (AQCMP): The project owner shall provide, for approval, an AQCM P 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 st art of any ground disturbance, the project owner shall submit the AQCM P 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 C ontrol: 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 fugiti ve 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 water ed as frequently as necessary to comply with the dust mitigation objectives of AQ-SC4 . The frequency of watering may be either reduced or elim inated during periods of precipitation.

B. No vehicle shall exceed 15 mile s per hour within the construction site.

C. The construction site entrances shall be posted with visible speed limit signs.

D. All construction equipment vehi cle 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 construc tion site shall be graveled or treated to prevent track-out to public roadways.

G. All construction vehicles shall enter the construction site through

133the treated entrance r oadways 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 construc tion site shall be swept at least twice daily (or less during periods of precipitation) on days when construction activity occurs to prev ent 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 di rt or run-off from t he 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 tran sport solid bulk material on public roadways and that have t he potential to caus e 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 dist urbed. 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 sha ll 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 proj ect owner’s discretion.

AQ-SC4 Dust Plume Response Requirement: The AQCMM or an AQCMM delegate shall monitor all construc tion activities for visible dust plumes. Observations of visible dus t plumes with the potential to be

134transported 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 ow ned by the project owner indicate that existing mitigation measures are not providing effective mitigation.
The AQCMM or delegate shall t hen implement the following procedures for additional mitigation m easures in the event that such visible dust plumes are observed.
Step 1: The AQCMM or del egate shall direct more intensive application of the existing mitigation methods wit hin 15 minutes of making such a determination.
Step 2: The AQCMM or delegate s hall direct implementation of additional methods of dust suppressi on if Step 1 specified above fails to result in adequate mitigation with in 30 minutes of the original determination.
Step 3: The AQCMM or del egate shall direct a te mporary 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 mi tigation 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 AQC MM 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 accomplis hed within specified time limits.

AQ-SC5 Diesel-Fueled Engine Control: The AQ CMM shall submit to the CPM, in the MCR, a construction miti gation report that demonstrates compliance with the following mitigat ion measures for purposes of controlling diesel construction-rela ted emissions. Any deviation from the following mitigation measures shall require prior CPM notification and approval.

A. All diesel-fueled engines used in t he 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

135a 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-r oad engine larger than 100 hp, that engine shall be equipped with a di esel particulate filter (DPF) unless certified by engine manufa cturers or the on-site AQCMM that the use of such devices is not practical for specific engine types. For purposes of this Conditi on, 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 effo rt 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 c onstruction 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 implement ation 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 equip ment shall not idle for more than five minutes, to the extent practical.

136Verification: The project owner sha ll include in the MCR: (1) a summary of all actions taken to maintain compliance with th is Condition; (2) a list of all heavy equipment used on site during that month, including t he owner of that equipment and a letter from each owner indicating that the equipment has been properly maintained; and (3) any other document ation 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 pr oject 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 subm it any proposed air permit modification to the CPM within five workin g days of its submittal either by: 1) the project owner to an agency, or 2) rece ipt of proposed modifications from an agency. The project owner sha ll submit all modified air permits to t he CPM within 15 days of receipt.

AQ-SC7 The project owner shall provide em ission reductions in the form of offsets or emission reduction credits (ERCs) as calculated per SJVAPCD Rule 2201 to offset NO X , VOC, PM10, and SO X 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 t hose that are listed in the Final Preliminary Determination of Compliance Conditions (SJVAPCD 2008b) or a modified list, as allow ed by this Condition. If additional ERCs are submitted, t he project owner shall submit an updated table including the additional ERCs to the CPM. The project owner shall request CPM approval for any subs titutions, 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 chang e(s) will not cause the project to result in a significant environm ental impact. The Dist rict must also confirm that each requested change is consistent with applicable federal and state la ws and regulations.

Verification: The project owner shall submit to the CPM records showing that the project’s offset require ments have been met prior to initiating construction. If the CPM approves a substitution or m odification to the list of ERCs, the CPM shall file a statement of the approval with the pr oject owner and Commission

137docket. 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 emissi ons information as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Cond itions of Certification. The quarterly operation report shall specific ally 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 fo llowing 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 su ch 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 (NH 3 ) emissions from each combustion turbine shall not exceed 10 ppmvd at 15 percent O 2 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 O 2 over a 24 hour rolling average. The SCR ammonia injecti on grid replacement, repair, or reconditioning scheduled event may be cancelled if the owner or operator can demonstrate that, subs equent to the initial exceedance, the ammonia slip consistently re mains below 5 ppmvd at 15 percent O 2 averaged over 24 hours, and that t he initial exceedance does not accurately indicate expected future operating conditions.

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded 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 tw o combustion turbine exhausts shall not exceed 240 lb/hr of NO X (as NO 2 ).

138Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maint enance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

DISTRICT FINAL DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS The SJVACPD permits each device sepa rately, which causes duplication of conditions. Staff has compiled the SJ VAPCD 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 natu ral gas-fired combustion turbine generator with dry low NO X combustor, a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, an oxidation catalyst, heat recovery steam generator #1 (HRSG) with a 562 mmbtu/hr duct bur ner 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 natu ral gas-fired combustion turbine generator with dry low NO X combustor, a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, an oxidation catalyst, heat recovery steam generator #2 (HRSG) with a 562 mmbtu/hr duct bur ner and a 300 mw nominally rated steam turbine shared with c-3953-10

AQ-1 Permittee shall submit an applicat ion to comply with SJVUAPCD District Rule 2520 – Federally Ma ndated Operating Permits within twelve months of commencing o peration. [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 applicat ion 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 NO X (as NO2) emission reduction credits for the following quantit ies of emissions: 1st quarter – 67,103 lb; 2nd quarter – 67,104 lb; 3rd quarter – 67,104 lb; and 4th quarter – 67,104

139lb. 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 offs et 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 emi ssion 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 appropr iate 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 o ffset 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 prov ide PM10 emission r eduction 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 appropr iate distance ratio specified in Rule 2201. SO X ERC's may be used to offs et PM10 increases at an interpollutant ratio of 1.0 lb-SO X : 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 offs et requirements have been met prior to initiating operation.

AQ-6 ERC certificate numbers (or any split s 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 determinati on of compliance (DOC) shall be reissued, administratively specifyi ng 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 offs et requirements have been met prior to initiating operation.

140AQ-7 No air contaminant shall be di scharged into the atmosphere for a period or periods aggr egating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark as, or darke r 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 Distric t, 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 Distric t, 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 gr eater 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 incl uded 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 oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report (AQ- SC8 ).

AQ-12 The owner or operator shall insta ll, certify, maintain, operate and quality-assure a Continuous Emi ssion Monitoring System (CEMS) which continuously measures and records the exhaust gas NO X , CO and O 2 concentrations. Continuous emissions monitor(s) shall be capable of monitoring emissions during normal operating conditions, and during startups and shutdown s provided the CEMS passes the relative accuracy requirement for startups and shutdowns specified herein. If relative accuracy of CE MS cannot be demonstrated during startup conditions, CEMS results during startup and shutdown events

141shall be replaced with startup emi ssion rates obtained from source testing to determine compliance with emission limits cont ained in this document. [District Rules 1080 an d 4703 and 40 CFR 60.4340(b)(1)]

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by representatives of the Distr ict, 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 re cording) 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 subm it to the CPM and APCO CEMS audits demonstrating compliance with this Condition as part of the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-14 The NO X , CO and O 2 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, t he ARB, and the EPA. [District Rule 1080 and 40 CFR 60.4345(a)]

Verification: The project owner shall subm it 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 em ission monitors shall be conducted quarterly, except during quarters in whic h relative accuracy and compliance source testing are both perform ed, in accordance with EPA guidelines. The District shall be notif ied prior to completion of the audits. Audit reports shall be submitted along with quarterly compliance reports to the Dis trict. [District Rule 1080]

Verification: The project owner shall subm it 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 NO X , CO and O 2 as specified by 40 CFR Part 60, Appendix F, 5.11, at least once every four calendar quarters. The permittee shall comply with the appl icable requirements for quality assurance testing and maintenanc e of the contin uous emission monitor equipment in accordance with the procedures and guidance specified in 40 CFR Part 60, Ap pendix F. [District Rule 1080]

142Verification: The project owner shall subm it 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 representativ e shall be allowed to inspect, as determined to be necessary, the r equired monitoring devices to ensure that such devices are functi oning properly. [District Rule 1080]

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by representatives of the Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-18 Results of the CEM system shall be averaged over a one hour period for NO X 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 quar terly operation report (AQ- SC8) that follows the definitions of this Condition.

AQ-19 Results of continuous emissi ons monitoring shall be reduced according to the procedures est ablished in 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix P, paragr aphs 5.0 through 5.3.3, or by other methods deemed equivalent by mutual agr eement with the District, the ARB, and the EPA. [Distr ict 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 obtai ned 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 Dist rict’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 pr ovide a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEM) pr otocol for approval by the APCO and CPM at least 60 days prior to installation of the CEM. The project owner shall make the site

143available 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 facilit y may continue to operate without providing automated data for a ma ximum of 30 days per calendaryear provided the CEM data is sent to the District by a Districtapproved alternative method. [District Rule 1080]

Verification: The project owner shall provid e required non-polled CEM data to the District by a District- approved alternative method.

AQ-23 The owner or operator shall s ubmit 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 interv als, data and magnitude of excess NO X emissions, nature and the cause of excess (if known), corrective actions taken and preventive meas ures 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 inoperativ e (monitor downtime), except for zero and span checks, and the nature of system repairs and adjustments; A negative declara tion 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 mo nitor 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 late r than one hour after its detection, unless the owner or operator dem onstrates to the District's satisfaction that the longer reporti ng period was necessary. [District Rule 1100, 6.1]

Verification: The project owner shall comply with the notification requirements of the District and submit wr itten copies of these notif ication reports to the CPM and the APCO as part of the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-25 The District shall be notified in writ ing within ten days following the correction of any breakdown conditi on. The breakdown notification shall include a description of the equi pment malfunction or failure, the date and cause of the in itial failure, the estimated emissions in excess of those allowed, and t he methods utilized to restore normal operations. [District Rule 1100, 7.0]

144Verification: The project owner shall comply with the notification requirements of the District and submit wr itten copies of these notif ication reports to the CPM and the APCO as part of t he quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-26 Emission rates from this unit (wit h duct burner firing), except during startup and shutdown periods, shall not exceed any of the following limits: NO X (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 perce nt O2; PM10 – 11.78 lb/hr; or SO X (as SO2) – 6.65 lb/hr. NO X (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 oper ation and maint enance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-27 Emission rates from this unit (wit hout duct burner firing), except during startup and shutdown periods, shall not exceed any of the following limits: NO X (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 SO X (as SO2) – 5.23 lb/hr. NO X (as NO2) emission limits are one hour rolling averages . All other emission limits are three hour rolling averages. [Dis trict Rules 2201, 4001, and 4703]

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be incl uded 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: NO X (as NO2) – 160 lb/hr; CO – 1,000 lb/hr; VOC (as methane) – 16 lb/hr; PM10 – 11.78 lb/hr; SO X (as SO 2 ) – 6.652 lb/hr; or NH 3 – 32.13 lb/hr. [District Rules 2201 and 4703]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-29 Daily emissions from the CTG shal l not exceed the following limits: NO X (as NO2) – 412.8 lb/day; CO – 254.4 lb/day; VOC – 141.4 lb/day; PM 10 – 282.7 lb/day; SO X (as SO2) – 159.6 lb/day, or NH 3 – 771.1 lb/day. [District Rule 2201]

145Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-30 Emissions from this unit, on da ys when a startup and/or shutdown occurs, shall not exceed the following limits: NO X (as NO2) – 789.6 lb/day; VOC – 202.0 lb/day; CO – 5,590.8 lb/day; PM10 – 282.7 lb/day; SO X (as SO2) – 159.6 lb/day, or NH 3 – 771.1 lb/day. [District Rule 2201]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report (AQ- SC8 ).

AQ-31 The ammonia (NH 3 ) emissions shall not exceed 10 ppmvd @ 15 percent O2 over a 24 hour rolling average. [District Rule 2201]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded 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 great er than 1.0 grain of su lfur compounds (as S) per 100 dry scf of natur al 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, calc ulated on a twelve month rolling basis, shall not exceed any of the following limits: NO X (as NO2) – 143,951 lb/year; CO – 601,810 lb/year ; VOC – 34,489 lb/year; PM10 – 80,656 lb/year; or SO X (as SO2) – 16,694 lb/year; or NH 3 – 208,708 lb/year. [District Rule 2201]

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be incl uded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-34 The duration of each startup or s hutdown shall not exceed six hours. Startup and shutdown emissions shall be counted toward all applicable emission lim its. [District Ru les 2201 and 4703]

146Verification: The project owner shall submit to the District and CPM the CTG startup and shutdown event duration data demonstrati ng compliance with this condition as part of the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-35 Each one hour period shall comm ence on the hour. Each one hour period in a three hour rolling aver age will commence on the hour. The three hour average will be compiled fr om 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 m onth in the twelve consecutive month rolling average emissions shal l 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 peri od of time during which a unit is brought from a shutdown status to its operating temperature and pressure, including the time requ ired by the unit's emission control system to reach full operations. S hutdown 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 te mperature 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 comp liance 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 tec hnologically 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 equi pped with permanent pr ovisions to allow collection of stack gas samples consistent with EPA test methods and shall be equipped with safe permanent provisions to

147sample stack gases with a portable NO X , 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 Stati onary Emission Monitoring and Testing. [District Rule 1081]

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by representatives of the Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-40 Source testing to measure startup NO X , CO, and VOC mass emissionrates 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 te sting in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendix B. [District Rule 1081]

Verification: The results and field data collec ted 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 duc t burner firing) to measure the NO X , CO, and VOC emission rates (l b/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 collec ted 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 ope ration shall be conducted upon initial operation a nd at least once every twelve months.

AQ-42 Source testing (with and without duc t 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 collec ted 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 ope ration shall be conducted upon initial operation a nd at least once every twelve months.

AQ-43 Compliance with natural gas sulf ur content limit shall be demonstrated within 60 days afte r the end of the commissioning period and weekly thereafter. After demonstrating compliance with the fuel sulfur content limit for eight consec utive weeks for a fuel

148source, 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 t he annual average sulfur content limit shall be demonstrated by a 12 month rolling averag e of the sulfur content either (i) documented in a valid purchase contract, a supplier certification, a tariff sh eet or transportation contract or (ii) tested using ASTM Methods D1072, D3246, D4084, D4468, D4810, D6228, D6667 or Gas Processors Associat ion 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 NO X , CO and VOC emission rates (lb/hr and ppmvd @ 15 percent O2), NH 3 emission rate (ppmvd @ 15 percnet O2) and PM 10 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 collec ted 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 ope ration shall be conducted upon initial operation a nd at least once every twelve months.

AQ-46 Compliance with the NO X and CO emission limits shall be demonstrated with the auxiliary bur ner 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 samp les shall be collected by a California Air Resources Board cert ified testing laboratory. Source testing shall be conducted using the methods and procedures approved by the District. The District mu st be notified 30 days prior to any compliance source test, and a source test plan must be

149submitted for approval 15 days prior to testing. The results of each source test shall be submitted to t he District within 60 days thereafter. [District Rule 1081]

Verification: The project owner shall submit the proposed source test plan or protocol for the source te sts 15 days prior to the prop osed 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 s ource 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: NO X – 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) m onitored within 60 days of the end of the commission period and weekly ther eafter. If the sulfur content is demonstrated to be less than 1.0 gr /100 scf for eight consecutive weeks, then the monitoring frequen cy shall be every six months. If the result of any six month monito ring demonstrates that the fuel does not meet the fuel sulfur content limit, w eekly 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 f uel 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 ho ur in which the 4-hour or 30-day rolling average NO X concentration exceeds applicable emissions limit and a peri od of monitor downtime shall be any unit operating hour in which su fficient data are not obtained to validate the hour for either NO X or O2 (or both). [40 CFR 60.4380(b)(1)]

150Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-51 Fuel sulfur content shall be m onitored using one of the following methods: ASTM Methods D1072, D 3246, 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 f uel 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 NO X control system operating parameters to the associated measured NO X output. The information must be sufficient to allow the District to determine compliance with the NO X 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 NO X 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 follo wing records: the date, time and duration of any malfunction of t he continuous monitoring equipment; dates of performance te sting; dates of evaluations, calibrations, checks, and adjustments of the cont inuous monitoring equipment; date and time period wh ich a continuous monitoring system or monitoring device was inoperative. [District Rule s 1080 and 2201 and 40 CFR 60.8(d)]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-54 The permittee shall maintain the fo llowing records: date and time, duration, and type of any startu p, shutdown, or malfunction; performance testing, evaluations, ca librations, checks, adjustments, any period during which a cont inuous monitoring system or monitoring device was inoperative, and maintenance of any continuous emission monitor. [District Rules 2201 and 4703]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

151AQ-55 The permittee shall maintain t he following records: hours of operation, fuel consumption (sc f/hr and scf/rolling twelve month period), continuous emission moni tor measurements, calculated ammonia slip, and calculated NO X 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 incl uded 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 ti me for a period of five years. [District Rules 2201 and 4703]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-57 Disturbances of soil related to any construction, demolition, excavation, extraction, or other ear thmoving activities shall comply with the requirements for fugitive dus t control in District Rule 8021 unless specifically exempted under Se ction 4.0 of Rule 8021 or Rule 8011. [District Rules 8011 and 8021]

Verification: A summary of significant constr uction activities and monitoring records required shall be included in t he 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 di sturbed surface area for residential developments, or five acres or more of disturbed surface area for non-residential development, or will in clude moving, depositing, or relocating more than 2,500 cubic yard s 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 construc tion activities and monitoring records required shall be included in the cons truction 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 80 41 Section 5.0,

152unless specifically exempted under Sect ion 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 Distric t, 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 specifica lly 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-61 Any paved road or unpaved road sha ll comply with the requirements of District Rule 8061 unless specif ically exempted und er 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 Distric t, 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 Em issions 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-63 Where dusting materials are allo wed to accumulate on paved surfaces, the accumulation shall be removed daily or water and/or chemical/organic dust stabilizers/supp ressants shall be applied to the paved surface as required to main tain continuous compliance with the requirements for a stabilized unpav ed road as defined in Section 3.59 of District Rule 8011 and limit Vi sible 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-64 On each day that 50 or more Vehi cle Daily Trips or 25 or more Vehicle Daily Trips with three axle s or more will occur on an unpaved vehicle/equipment traffi c area, permittee shall apply water, gravel, roadmix, or chemical/organic dust stabilizers/suppressants, vegetative materials, or other Dis trict-approved control measure as

153required 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. [Distr ict Rule 8011 and 8071]

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by representatives of the Distric t, 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-66 Records and other supporting document ation 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 lo cation 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 dus t suppressant and application instructions. Records shall be k ept for one year following project completion that results in the termination of al l dust generating activities. [District Rules 8011, 8031, and 8071]

Verification: A summary of significant operation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be incl uded 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 mo del Profire, or district approved equivalent, ultra low NO X burner.

AQ-67 Permittee shall submit an applicat ion to comply with SJVUAPCD District Rule 2520 – Federally Ma ndated Operating Permits within twelve months of commencing o peration. [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 NO X (as NO2) emission reduction credits

154for the following quantit ies of emissions: 1st quarter – 67,103 lb; 2nd quarter – 67,104 lb; 3rd quarter – 67,10 4 lb; and 4th quarter – 67,104 lb. Offsets shall be provided at t he appropriate distance ratio specified in Rule 2201. [District Rule 2201]

Verification: The project owner shall subm it to both the District and CPM records showing that the project’s o ffset 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 em ission 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 appropr iate distance ratio specified in Rule 2201. [District Rule 2201]

Verification: The project owner shall subm it to both the District and CPM records showing that the project’s offs et 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 em ission 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 appropr iate distance ratio specified in Rule 2201. SO X ERC's may be used to offs et PM10 increases at an interpollutant ratio of 1.0 lb-SO X : 1.0 lb-PM10. [ District Rule 2201]

Verification: The project owner shall subm it to both the District and CPM records showing that the project’s offs et requirements have been met prior to initiating operation.

AQ-71 ERC certificate numbers (or any sp lits 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 determinati on of compliance (DOC) shall be reissued, administratively specifyi ng the new offsetting proposal. Original public noticing requirement s, 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 o ffset requirements have been met prior to initiating operation.

155AQ-72 The permittee shall obtain written Dis trict approval for the use of any equivalent equipment not specifically approved by this Authority to Construct. Approval of the equival ent 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 equipm ent. [District Rule 2201]

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the application for equival ent equipment as needed.

AQ-73 The permittee’s request for approval of equivalent equipment shall include the make, model, manuf acturer’s maximum rating, manufacturer’s guaranteed emission rates, equipment drawing(s), and operational characteristics/param eters. [District Rule 2010]

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the application for equival ent 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 equival ent equipment as needed.

AQ-75 No emission factor and no emission shall be greater for the alternate equipment than for the proposed equi pment. No changes in the hours of operation, operating rate, th roughput, or firing rate may be authorized for any alternate equi pment. [District Rule 2201]

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the application for equival ent 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 atmos phere. [District Rule 2201]

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by representatives of the Distric t, 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

156AQ-78 No air contaminant shall be disc harged into the atmosphere for a period or periods aggr egating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark as, or darke r 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 Distric t, 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 oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded 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 oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-81 Emission rates from this unit sha ll not exceed any of the following limits: NO X (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 SO X (as SO2) – 0.00285 lb/MMBtu. [District Rules 2201, 4305, and 4306].

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded 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 s hut off for 30 minutes or longer, or within 30 minutes after a re-igniti on 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

.

157AQ-83 Source testing to measure NO X 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 NO X 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 re sult of the 36-month source test demonstrates that the unit does not meet the applic able emission limits, the source testing frequency s hall revert to at least once every twelve (12) months. [Dis trict 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 onc e every twelve months.

AQ-85 The source test plan shall identif y which basis (ppmv or lb/MMBtu) will be used to demonstrate compli ance. [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 NO X 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]

158Verification: 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, t he arithmetic aver age of three 30- consecutive-minute test runs shal l apply. If two of three runs are above an applicable limit the test cannot be used to demonstrate compliance with an applicable limi t. [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 te st 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 un it 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-93 Permittee shall maintain daily record s of the type and quantity of fuel combusted by the boiler. [Dis trict Rules 2201 and 40 CFR 60.48 (c)(g)]

159Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-94 All records shall be maintained and re tained on-site for a minimum of five (5) years, and shall be made av ailable for District inspection upon request. [District Rules 1070, 4305, and 4306]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-95 The exhaust stack shall be equippe d with a continuous emissions monitor (CEM) for NO X , CO, and O2. The CEM shall meet the requirements of 40 CFR parts 60 and 75 and shall be capable of monitoring emissions during star tups 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-96 The facility shall install and maintain equipment, facilities, and systems compatible with the Distr ict'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 prov ide a Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEM) pr otocol 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 facilit y may continue to operate without providing automated dat a for a maximum of 30 days per calendaryear provided the CEM data is sent to the District by a Districtapproved alternative method. [District Rule 1080]

Verification: The project owner shall provid e required non-polled CEM data to the District by a District- approved alternative method.

AQ-98 The exhaust stack shall be equi pped 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 NO X , CO, and O2 an alyzer during

160District inspections. The sampli ng ports shall be located in accordance with the CARB regulation titled Ca lifornia 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-99 Results of continuous emissions m onitoring shall be reduced according to the procedure es tablished 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 Distric t, 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 em ission 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. A udit reports shall be submitted along with quarterly co mpliance reports to the District. [District Rule 1080]

Verification: The project owner shall subm it 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 Pa rt 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 subm it 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

161preventive measures adopted; av eraging period used for data reporting shall correspond to the av eraging period for each respective emission standard; applicable time and date of each period during which the CEM was inoperative (exc ept 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 mo nitor 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 Emergen cy IC Engine Powering A Fire Pump

AQ-103 Permittee shall submit an applic ation to comply with SJVUAPCD District Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits within twelve months of commencing o peration. [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 Distric t, 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 disc harged into the atmosphere for a period or periods aggr egating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark as, or darke r 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-107 The exhaust stack shall vent vertic ally upward. The vertical exhaust flow shall not be impeded by a rain cap, roof overhang, or any other obstruction. [District Rule 4102]

162Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by representatives of the Distric t, 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-109 This engine shall be equipped with an operat ional non-resettable elapsed time meter or other APCO appr oved alternative. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 93115]

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by representatives of the Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-110 Emissions from this IC engine s hall not exceed any of the following limits: 3.4 g-NO X /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 oper ation and maint enance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-111 Emissions from this IC engine s hall 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 oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-112 This engine shall be oper ated 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, Test ing, and Maintenance of WaterBased Fire Protection Systems", 1998 edition. Total hour s of operation for all maintenance, testing, and required regulatory purposes shall not exceed 50 hours per calendar y ear. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 93115]

163Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-113 An emergency situation is an unscheduled electrical power outage caused by sudden and reasonably un foreseen natural disasters or sudden and reasonably unforeseen ev ents beyond the control of the permittee. [District Rule 4702]

No verification necessary

.

AQ-114 The permittee shall maintain mont hly 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 test ing, rolling blackout, general area power outage, etc.). For units wit h automated testing systems, the operator may, as an alternative to keeping records of actual operation for testing purposes, maintain a read ily accessible written record of the automated testing sc hedule. [District Ru le 4702 and 17 CCR 93115]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-115 All records shall be maintained and re tained on-site for a minimum of five (5) years, and shall be made av ailable for District inspection upon request. [District Rule 4702 and 17 CCR 93115]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION, UNIT C-3953-14-0 860 Bhp Caterpillar Model 3456 Natu ral Gas-Fired Emergency IC Engine Powering With Non-Selective Catalyti c Reduction (Nscr) Powering A 500 Kw Electrical Generator

AQ-116 Permittee shall submit an applicat ion to comply with SJVUAPCD District Rule 2520 – Federally Mandated Operating Permits within twelve months of commencing o peration. [District Rule 2520]

Verification: The project owner shall submit to both the District and CPM the Operating Permit application after completing commissioning.

164AQ-117 Permittee shall submit an applic ation 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 Distric t, 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 di scharged into the atmosphere for a period or periods aggr egating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark as, or darke r 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-121 The exhaust stack shall vent vertic ally 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 Distric t, 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-123 This engine shall be equipped with an operat ional 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 Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

165AQ-124 Emissions from this IC engine sha ll not exceed any of the following limits: 1.0 g-NO X /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 oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-125 This engine shall be operated and ma intained in proper operating condition as recommended by the engi ne manufacturer or emissions control system supplier. [District Rule 4702]

Verification: The project owner shall make the site available for inspection by representatives of the Distric t, ARB and the Commission upon request.

AQ-126 During periods of operation for main tenance, 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 (f or example: check engine fluid levels, battery, cables and connections; c hange 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 quarterl y operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-127 This engine shall be oper ated only for testing and maintenance of the engine, required regulatory purposes, and during emergency situations. Operation of the engi ne for maintenanc e, testing, and required regulatory purpos es shall not exceed 50 hours per calendar year. [District Rule 4702]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-128 An emergency situation is an unscheduled electrical power outage caused by sudden and reasonably un foreseen natural disasters or sudden and reasonably unforeseen ev ents beyond the control of the permittee. [District Rule 4702]

No verification necessary.

166167 AQ-129 This engine shall not be used to produce power for the electrical distribution system, as part of a vo luntary 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 quarterl y operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-130 The permittee shall maintain mont hly 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 operati onal characteristics monitoring. For units with automated testing syst ems, the operator may, as an alternative to keeping records of ac tual operation for testing purposes, maintain a readily accessible writt en record of the automated testing schedule. [District Rule 4702]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be incl uded in the quarterly operation report ( AQ-SC8 ).

AQ-131 All records shall be maintained and re tained on-site for a minimum of five (5) years, and shall be made av ailable for District inspection upon request. [District Rule 4702]

Verification: A summary of significant oper ation and maintenance events and monitoring records required shall be in cluded 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 pub lic health effects from pr oject emissions of toxic air contaminants. In this analysis, we review the evidenc e concerning whether
such emissions will result in significant adverse public health impacts that violate standards for public health protection. 20

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

Project construction and operat ion will result in routi ne emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs). These substanc es are categorized as noncriteria pollutants because there are no ambient air quality standards established to regulate their emissions. 21 In the absence of st andards, state and federal regulatory programs have developed a h ealth risk assessment procedure to evaluate potential health effe cts from these emissions.

The risk assessment consists of the following steps:

• Identify the types and am ounts of hazardous substa nces 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 e ffects. (Ex. 2 00, 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) abso rption, soil ingestion, consumption of locally grown plant foods, and mother’s milk.

168Typically, 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 condit ions in the study. Such Conditions
include:

• Using the highest levels of pollutants that could be emitted from the plant;

• Assuming weather conditions that w ould lead to the maximum ambient concentration of pollutants;

• Using the type of air quality comput er model which pr edicts the greatest plausible impacts;

• Calculating health risks at the loca tion where the polluta nt concentrations are estimated to be the highest;

• Assuming that an individ ual’s exposure to cancer-causing agents occurs continuously for 70 years; and

• Using health-based standar ds 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 th ree categories of health impacts:

• acute (short-term) health effects;

• chronic (long-term) n on-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 ar e those which arise as a result of long-term exposure to lower conc entrations of pollutant s. The exposure period is considered to be approximately fr om 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 call ed “reference exposure levels” or RELs.
These are amounts of toxic substances to which even sensitive people can be exposed and suffer no adverse health e ffects. 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

169on the most sensitive adverse health e ffects reported, and include margins of safety.

For carcinogenic substances, the health as sessment considers the total risk from all cancer-causing chemicals from the so urce 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 wo rst-case assumptions. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.7-5 to 4.7-6.)

Cancer risk is usually expressed in ca ses 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 per iod. Title 22, California Code of Regulations, section 12 703(b) states in this regard that “the risk level which represents no significant ri sk shall be one which is calculated to
result in one excess case of canc er 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 estimat ed. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.7-5 to 4.7-6.)

If the screening analysis predict s 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 h ealth risks. If this analysi s confirms that the risk exceeds the significance level of 10 in one million, we woul d require appropriate
measures to reduce the risk to less than significant. If, after all risk reduction
measures have been considered , a refined analysis still i dentifies a cancer risk of greater than ten in one mi llion, the Commission woul d not approve a project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-6.)

Toxic emissions will be attributable to t he project during its construction and operation phases. Applic ant and Staff each performed an analysis of the construction and operation impacts of the Avenal Projec t 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 excavati on and grading, and emissions from construction-related equipment. (Ex. 1, p. 6.16-11; Ex. 200, p. 4.7-8.) The Applicant has specified mi tigation measures to minimize construction-related

170fugitive dust. The requirements for these mitigation meas ures are adopted as
Conditions of Cert ification in the AIR QUALITY section of this Decision.

It is well established that the exhaust from diesel-fuel ed construction and other equipment is a potent human carci nogen. (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 pha se will be 7.7 lbs per day or 0.66 tons per year.
The maximum cancer risk from these dies el emissions was calculated as 3.6 in
one million for an uninhabited zo ne immediately beyond the project’s boundaries. (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-9. ) This risk estimate is sign ificantly 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 emi ssion sources at the Av enal Project will be its combustion turbines and the diesel engine of the emergency fire water pump. The evidence of record explains, in dept h, the methodology used in identifying and quantifying the emission ra tes of the toxic non-criter ia pollutants which could adversely affect public health. (E x. 200, pp. 4.7- 9 to 4.7-12.) Public Health
Table 1 of the FSA (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-11) lists the projec t’s toxic emissions and
shows how each contributes to the risk es timated from the health risk analysis.

The Applicant’s estimates of the projec t’s potential contribut ion to the area’scarcinogenic and non-carcinogenic pollutants were obtained from a screeninglevel health risk assessment conducted acco rding to procedures specified in the
1993 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPC OA) guidelines.

The results from this assessment, ex pressed as the “hazard index,” are
summarized in PUBLIC HEALTH Table 2 of the FSA (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-12). The
chronic noncancer hazard i ndex for the maximally expo sed individual is 0.023
while the maximum hazard index for ac ute noncancer effects is 0.19. ( Id .)
These values are well below the Commissi on’s significance criterion of 1.0, suggesting that the pollutant s in question are unlikely to pose a significant risk of
chronic or acute noncancer health effect s anywhere in the project area. The cancer risk to the maximally exposed i ndividual from normal project operation is shown as 0.046 in one million, which is we ll below the Commission’s significance
criterion of 10 in one m illion for this screening-level assessment. (Ex. 200, p. 4.7-12.)

171The project’s contributions to health risks are well below the le vel of significance
and therefore do not contribut e 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 c ontradict the evidence from Applicant and Staff summarized above. (07/07/09 RT 354 to 367.)

In their respective post-hearing submi ssions, both Applicant and Staff thoroughly discount the validity of the Intervenors’ contentions by convin cingly 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 Av enal Energy Projec t. (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 t he evidence of record, the Commission makes the following findings and conclusions:

1. Construction and normal operation of t he project will result in the routine release of criteria and noncriteria pol lutants 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 pollut ants, 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 stat e regulatory agencies in assessing the significance for both acute and chronic noncarcinogenic public health effects

172173 is known as the hazard index met hod. A similar method is used for assessing the significance of pot ential carcinogenic effects.

6. Application of the haz ard index method establis hes that emission of noncriteria pollutants from the Avenal Pr oject will not cause acute or chronic adverse public health effects.

7. The maximum non-cancer and the ma ximum cancer risks associated with the project are substant ially below the significance thresholds commonly accepted for risk analysis purposes.

8. Cumulative impacts from noncriteri a 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 si gnificant 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 t he appropriate portion of Appendix A of this Decision.

No Conditions of Certific ation are adopted in connection with this section of the
Decision.174 D. WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION

Industrial workers are expos ed 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 he alth and safety plans are in accordance with all applicable LORS and thus will be adequate to protect industrial workers. The
record also addresses the availabili ty and adequacy of fire protection and emergency response services, as well as po tential site contam ination 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.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

1. Site and Soil Contamination

Contaminated soils may be exposed duri ng site preparation. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) did no t find evidence or record of any use, spillage, or disposal of hazardous subs tances on the site or nearby, nor any
other environmental concern that would re quire 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 “organi c” 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 accordan ce 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 pr esent 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 profe ssional engineer or geologist be available during soil excavation and gr ading to ensure pr oper handling and

23 Certified “organic” means t hat 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 adequat e 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 requ ired. (7/7/09 RT 390:1-12.)

2. Worker Safety

Industrial environments are pot entially dangerous during construction, operation,
and demolition activities. Workers at t he Avenal Project will be exposed to loud noises, moving equipment, trenches, an d confined space entry and egress problems. The workers may experience falls, trips, burns, lacerations, and various other injuries. They may be expos ed to falling equipment or structures, chemical spills, hazardous waste, fires, explosions, and el ectrical sparks and electrocution. Thus, it is important fo r the project to have well-defined policies and procedures, training, and hazard rec ognition 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 Progra m” and an “Operations and Maintenance Safety and Health Program,” both of whic h must be reviewed by the Compliance Project Manager prior to project construc tion and operation. A separate “Injury and Illness Prevention Program,” “Perso nal Protective Equipment Program,” “Emergency Action Plan,” “Fire Prot ection and Prevention Plan,” and other general safety procedures will be prepar ed for both the construction and operation phases of the project. ( Id. ) Conditions of Certification WORKER
SAFETY-1 and -2 ensure that these measur es will be developed and implemented.

OSHA and Cal-OSHA standar ds encourage employers to monitor worker safety by employing a “competent person” who has knowledge and experience with enforcing OSHA/Cal-OSHA standards, can i dentify workplace hazards relating to specific project operations, and has author ity to take appropriate action. To implement the intent to provide a safe work place du ring 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 invest igate any safety-related incidents and emergency responses. (E x. 200, p. 4.14-10.)

To reduce and/or eliminate safety haz ards during project construction and operation, it is also necessary to employ a professional Safety Monitor. The Safety Monitor, who is hired by the proj ect 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 periodi cally audit safety compliance during construction, commissioning, and the transition to operati onal 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 automa tic, 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 appropria te 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 f uel oil, natural gas, hydraulic fluid, mineral oil, insulating fluid or flamm able liquids, explosions, and over-heated equipment may cause small fire s. The project will rely upon both on-site and local fire protection services.

The on-site fire protection system provid es the first line of defense for such
occurrences. The Construction Fire Pr evention and Protecti on 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 t hat the potential for both work-related and non work-related heart attacks exists at power plants. The quickest m edical 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 l oop. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-11.)

During operation, the pr oject will meet the fire protection and suppression requirements of the California Fire C ode, 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 exti nguishing 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 suppressi on. An electric motordriven pump, a diesel pump, and a jocke y pump will be provided. These pumps can maintain a delivery rate of 2,000 ga llons 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 acco rdance with NFPA r equirements. Fire hydrants supplied by the fire loop will be located at appropriate intervals throughout the facility and a deluge fire water system will protect oil-filled equipment (STG Lube/Hydraulic oil systems and the CTG and STG step-up transformers). A carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) fire protection system will be provided for the combustion turbine generators and acce ssory 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 CO 2 . In addition to the fixed fire protection syst em, the appropriate class of service portable extinguishers and fire hydrants wi ll 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 wi ll ensure adequate fire protection. (Ex. 200, p.4.14-12.) Conditi ons of Certification WORKER SAFETY

-1 and -2 require the project owner, prior to construction and operation of the project, to provide the final Fire Pr otection and Prevention Program to the Compliance Project Manager a nd to the Kings County Fire Department (KCFD) to confirm the adequacy of the propos ed 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 5 th Street and Skyline Boulevard, approxim ately 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 St ation, located about 10 miles away; the response time to the site is within 15 minutes. The KCFD has an automatic aid178 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 leve l of Emergency Medica l Technician Level 1 (EMT-1) and as hazardous material speciali sts. In the event of a large spill, backup support will be provided by the Cit y 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 inde ntified and can be called upon for clean-up in the event of a hazardous materials spill. ( Id. )

Finally, the evidence establ ishes 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 la ck of unique fire hazards associated with a modern gas-fired power plant, the pres ence 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 no t place any significant incremental burden upon local fire protection se rvices. (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 pot ential health and safety hazards on a daily basis.

2. To protect workers from job-relat ed injuries and illnesses, the project owner will implement comp rehensive Safety and Health Programs for both the construction and the operatio n 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 def ense in the event of a fire.

5. The Kings County Fire Department (KCF D) 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 aut omatic defibrillator on-site to provide immediate response in the ev ent of a medi cal emergency.

9. Compliance with applicable LORS ens ures that workers will be adequately protected from health and safety hazards.

10. No soil contamination from the use of agricultu ral 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 Ce rtification, below, and the mitigation measures contained therei n will ensure that the project conforms with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulati ons, and standards on industrial worker health and safety as identi fied 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 Projec t 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 Illne ss 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 Fi re Prevention Plan shall be submitted to the Kings County Fi re Department for review and comment prior to submitta l 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 Co unty Fire Department stating the Fire Department’s comments on the Constr uction Fire Prevention Plan and Emergency Action Plan.

WORKER SAFETY-2 The project owner shall subm it to the CPM a copy of the Project Operations and Maintenanc e Safety and Health Program containing the following:
1. an Operation Injury a nd 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 Equi pment Program (8 CCR §§ 3401-3411).

The Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Emergency Action Plan, and Personal Protective Equi pment Program s hall 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 Ma terials 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 star t of first-fire or commissioning, the project owner shall subm it to the CPM for approval a copy of the Project Operations and Maintenance Safety and H ealth 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 Em ergency 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 construc tion 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 coordi nation and implem entation of all occupational safety and health practices, policies, and programs;

2. assure that the safety progr am for the project complies with Cal/OSHA and federal regulations re lated to power plant projects;

3. assure that all construction and commissioning workers and supervisors receive adequate safety training;

4. complete accident and safety-r elated 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 durati on of the project);

2. a summary report of safety managem ent actions and safety-related incidents that occurred during the month;

3. a report of any continuing or unreso lved situations and in cidents 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 servic es of a Safety Monitor based upon a reasonable fee schedule to be negot iated 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 and182 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 safe ty 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 f und the Safety Monitor servic es to the CPM for review and approval.

WORKER SAFETY-5 The project owner shall ensur e that a portable automatic external defibrillator (AED) is located on-site during construction and operations, and shall implement a progr am to ensure that workers are properly trained in its use and that the equi pment 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 s hall 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 t he 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 MA TERIALS 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 fo r project-related hazardous materials to cause adverse impacts. These include meteorological conditions, terrain characteristics, any special site factor s, and the proximity of population centers and sensitive receptors. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-5.) In add ition, sensitive subgroups such as the young, elderly, and thos e 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.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

1. Potential Risks

The evidence of record chronicles th e method used to assess risks posed by
hazardous materials. This method included the following elements:

• A review of chemicals, the am ounts proposed for on-site use, and a determination of the need and ap propriateness of their use.

• Chemicals which would be used in sm all amounts, or whose physical state is such that there is virtually no c hance that a spill would migrate off the site and impact the public, were remo ved from further consideration.

• Measures proposed to pr event 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 c ontrols such as catchment basins and methods to keep vapors from spr eading, 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 theoret ical impacts on the public of a worst-case spill of hazardous materials even with the mitigatio n measures in place. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-6 to 4.4-7.)

Hazardous materials used during construc tion will include gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, hydraulic fluid, welding gases, lubricants, solvents, paint, and paint thinner. No acutely toxic materials w ill 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 material s 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 Co mmission’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 toxici ty, their physical state, and/or their environmental mobility. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-2, 4.4-7.)

a. Natural Gas

Project operations will involv e 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, Nati onal Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Code 85A requires both the use of double-block and bleed valves for gas shut-off and automated com bustion controls. These measures will significantly reduce the likelihood of an explosion in gas-fired equipment. Additionally, air purging of the gas turbi nes will be required prior to start-up, thereby precluding the presence of an explosive mixture. The safety management plan will address the handlin g and use of natural gas, and the
evidence establishes that it will significantly reduce the potential for equipment failure because of either improper maint enance 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 pipeli ne 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 la ws and codes govern the construction of

184natural gas pipelines. Thes e are intended to minimize the risk to public health and safety from pipeline accidents such as rupture and explosi on. For example,
current codes address: corrosion failure s by requiring the use of corrosion resistant coatings and cathodic corro sion protection; damage from excavation activities by requiring clear marking of the pipeline route; seismic hazards by requiring design and construction in acco rd with up-to-date standards; and faulty welds by requiring the use of high qualit y 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 operat ion 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 wate r 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 rupt ure by heavy equipment excavating in the area; and (5) valves at the meter will be in stalled to isolate the line if a leak

occurs.

The evidence establishes that confo rmance with existing codes will ensure minimal risks of pipeline failu re. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-10.)

b. Aqueous Ammonia

The use of aqueous ammonia is necessary to control oxides of nitrogen (NO x ) emissions resulting from nat ural 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 a mmonia vapor in the event of a spill. (7/7/09 RT 406; Ex. 200, p. 4.4-11.) T he evidence contains a detailed analysis of both the potential impacts resulting fr om an ammonia spill and the adequacy of
measures available to limit t he severity of any impacts.

2. Risk Mitigation

The use of aqueous ammonia rather t han anhydrous ammonia significantly reduces off-site risks. Anhydrous amm onia is stored as a liquefied gas at high pressure and could explode in an accident al release, resulti ng in high downwind concentrations. Aqueous ammonia spills are much easier to contain, and

185emissions 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 t he 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 undergroun d tertiary containment vault capable of holding the full contents of one tank plus the rain fall 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 limi t any spills will result in a “state of the art” mitigation design. (7/7/09 RT 407: 1-2.)

To assess the potential impacts asso ciated with an accide ntal release of aqueous ammonia, the evidence shows that Staff used several benchmark exposure levels of ammonia gas occurri ng off-site. (Exs. 200, pp. 4.4-11 to 4.4- 12; 204.) These include:

a. the lowest concentration posing a ri sk of lethality, i. e. 2,000 parts per million (ppm);

b. the concentration imm ediately dangerous to life an d health, a level of 300
ppm;

c. the emergency response planning guideline level 2 of 150 ppm; and

d. the level of 75 ppm, c onsidered by the Energy Commission staff to be without serious adverse effects on t he public for a one-time exposure.

If the exposure associated with a potential re lease 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 whet her 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 applic ability to sensitive populations, and exposurespecific conditions.

186In addition, Applicant performed an off-si te consequence analysis (OCA) for the
worst-case release scenario. This involv ed the failure and complete discharge of one of the storage tanks, as well as an alternative re lease scenario involving a spill during truck unloading which woul d drain form the sloped truck unloading area through a 10-inch pipe into the underground containment vault beneath the storage tanks. Ammonia emissions fr om 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 occu r off-site. Concentrations exceeding 75 ppm could extend approximately 200 feet beyo nd 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 trans port vehicle, and accident rates. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-14.)

Aqueous ammonia will be deliver ed to the facility in DO T-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. Conditi on 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 approximatel y 2.0 miles from I-5 along the Avenal Cuttoff Road to the power plant. 29 The facility will require about f our 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 proj ect area per year. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-15.)

29 Condition of Certification HAZ-6 requires the use of this, the sh ortest route from the interstate to the project.

187U.S. DOT data show that t he 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 mode l 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 admin istrative controls affect the significance of potential impacts from hazardous material s usage. Engineering controls are those physical or mechanical systems (suc h as storage tanks or automatic shutoff valves) which can prevent a hazardous material spill from occurring, which can limit the spill to a sm all amount, or which can conf ine it to a small area.
Administrative controls are those rules and procedures that workers at the facility must follow. These are designed to help pr event accidents or ke ep them small if they do occur. Timely and adequate emer gency spill response is also a crucial factor. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-12 to 14.)

The engineered safety featur es 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 containm ent 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 rel eases that might happen during storage or delivery plus the volume of rainfa ll associated with a 24-hour, 25-year storm event;

• Physical separation of stored chemical s, in isolated cont ainment areas, in order to prevent accidental mixing of incompatible materials which could result in the evolution and rel ease 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 containm ent areas surrounding each of the aqueous ammonia storage t anks with 24-inch drains leading into an underground vault capable of holding the contents of one tank plus the volume of rainfall associated wit h a 24-hour, 25-year storm event;

• A sloped pad beneath the aqueous amm onia truck unloading area that drains into the underground vault beneat h the storage tanks through a 10- inch opening;

• Use of floating high density polyethy lene (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 includi ng continuous tank level monitors, temperature and pressure monitors, alarms, excess flow and emergency isolation valves, and a concrete c ontainment 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 pr event accidents and releases (spills) from moving off-site and affecting neighbor ing communities. These include those required in Conditions of Certification HAZ-1 (limitations on th e use and storage
of hazardous materials and their strength and volume), Condition HAZ-2 (Risk Management Plan for aqueous a mmonia), and Condition HAZ-3 (development of a safety management plan). (Ex. 200, pp. 4.4-13 to 4.4-14.)

Worker training programs, proce ss safety management programs, and compliance with all applicable health and safety laws, ordinances, and standards
will also reduce risks. The worker health and safety progr am which will be prepared by the project owner will include (but not be limited to) the following
elements:

• Worker training regarding chemical haz ards, 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 includi ng facility evacuation, hazardous material spill clean-up, and fire prevention. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-13.)

In order to address the issue of spill re sponse, the project ow ner will prepare and implement an emergency res ponse plan that includes information on hazardous materials contingency and emergency resp onse procedures, spill containment and prevention systems, personnel traini ng, spill notification and on-site containment, as well as other element s. Emergency procedures will include evacuation, spill cleanup, haz ard 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 firefighter s at the KCFD are trained to the level of hazardous materials specialists and t hey 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 re spond to the project site in about 30 minutes. In addition, the Applicant has id entified two licensed contractors that can be called upon for clean-up in the even t 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 establ ishes that the project’s use and storage of hazardous materials, including nat ural gas and aqueous ammonia, poses a less than significant risk to public health and safety. Th is includes the theoretical instance of the nearby aqueduct receivi ng, 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, DO E) in Vulnerability Assessments requiring special site security measures to prevent unauthorized access. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-17.) The evidence cat egorizes the Avenal Project as “low

30 At the evidentiary hearing, Staff’s expert wi tness 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.)

190vulnerability” due to its rural setting and ab sence of close sensitive receptors. Even though federal rules do not strictly apply to this project, the evidence shows that a minimum level of security measur es are appropriate in order to protect
California’s electrical infrastructure from malicious mischief, vandalism, or terrorist attack. In the present inst ance these include perimeter fencing and breach detectors, alarms, site access procedures for employees and vendors, site personnel background checks, and law enf orcement contacts in the event of a security breach. (Ex. 200, p. 4.4-18.)

Site access for vendors will be strictly c ontrolled. 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 trai ned 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 vendor s 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 addi tional guidance provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, t he U.S. DOE, or the NERC, after consultation with both appropriate la w 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 analysi s of potential cumulative impacts. For present purposes, a significant cumulati ve impact is basica lly the simultaneous
uncontrolled release of hazardous material s 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 occu rrence, would independently occur at the project and at another facilit y 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 ma terials impacts. The only facility located in the vicinity is the Avenal wate r treatment plant which is adjacent to the
site but does not store or use ammonia or other materi als with potential off-site

191impacts. The Great Valley Ethanol Projec t 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 mile s), in the hills southwest of Kettleman City along SR-41. (E x. 200, p. 4.4-18.)

The evidence establishes that the pr oject owner will develop a hazardous materials handling program independent of ot her 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 t he evidence of record, the Commission makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:

1. The Avenal Project will use hazar dous 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 acci dental release of aqueous a mmonia 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 amm onia will not cause significant impacts. A worst-case ca tastrophic release of aqueous ammonia from the Avenal facility will not pose a hazard to the public, nor result in offsite concentrations of gr eater than 75 ppm in populated areas or in areas with sensitive receptors.

31 We also note that the evidence of record co nsidered 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 bi rth 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 Projec t’s hazardous materials, as described in this section, would create or add to any impacts.

1925. Compliance with appropriate engine ering 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 nat ural gas will be reduced to insignificant levels through adherence to applicabl e codes and the im plementation of effective safety management practices.

7. Potential impacts from the other hazardous subst ances used on-site are not considered significant since quantit ies will be limited and appropriate storage will be maintained in acco rdance 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 s pecified in Condition of Certification HAZ-6 , below.

10. The likelihood of cumulative impacts originating from simultaneous releases of hazardous materials from the Av enal Project and near by 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 possi bility of cumulative impacts from a simultaneous release of hazardous materials.

12. The analysis of record considered pot ential effects of a release of hazardous materials upon minority/low income populations and sensitive groups.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Implementation of the mitigation measures describ ed in the evidentiary record and contained in the Conditions of Certification, bel ow, 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 Conditi ons of Certification below, the Avenal Project will comply with all applicabl e 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.

1933. 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 ad verse 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 Atta chment 1, below, unless approved in advance by the Complianc e Project Manager (CPM).

Verification: The project owner shall provide to the CPM, in the Annual Compliance Report, a list of hazardous ma terials contained at the facility.

HAZ-2 The project owner shall concurr ently provide a Business Plan and a Risk Management Plan (RMP) prepared pursuant to the California Accidental Release Program (Cal ARP) to the Kings County Environmental Health Department (KCEHD) and the CPM for review. After receiving comments from t he 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 Pr ogram 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 amm onia and other liquid hazardous materials by tanker truck. The plan shall include procedures, protective equipment requirements, tr aining, 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 empl oyee not involved in the delivery or transfer operation. Th is 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 ow ner 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 C ode and ANSI K61. 6 or to API 620. In either

194case, the storage tank shall be prot ected by a secondary containment basin capable of holding 125 percent of the storage volume or the storage volume plus the volume a ssociated 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 s hall submit final design drawi ngs 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 deliverin g aqueous ammonia to the site to use only tanker tru ck 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 t he notification letter to supply vendors indicating the transport vehicle specific ations 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 vendor s delivering any hazardous material to the site to use only the rout e approved by the CPM. Trucks will travel on I-5 to the Avenal Cutoff R oad 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 t he CPM for review and approval copies of notices to hazardous materials vendors describing the requi red transportation
route.

HAZ-7 Prior to commencing construction, a site-specific Construction Site Security Plan for the constructi on phase shall be pr epared 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 proc edure 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;

1955. 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 comme ncing construction, the project owner shall notify the CPM that a site-spec ific 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 pr oject owner shall implement site security measures that address ph ysical site security and hazardous materials storage. The level of secu rity 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 enf orcement and the CPM in the event of suspicious activity or emergency;

5. written standard procedures fo r employees, contractors, and vendors when encountering suspic ious 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 proj ect personnel. Background investigations shall be restri cted to determine the accuracy of employee identity and employ ment history and shall be conducted in accordance with st ate and federal laws regarding security and privacy;

B. a statement(s) (refer to sample, Attachment B ), signed by the contractor or author ized 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 repai r, maintain, investigate, or conduct any other technical duties involving critical components (as determined by the CPM after consultation with the project owner) certifying t hat background investigations have been conducted on contractors w ho visit the project site;

1967. site access controls for em ployees, 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 empl oyee background investigations in accordance with 49 CFR Part 1572, subparts A and B;

9. closed circuit TV (CCTV) mo nitoring system, recordable, and viewable in the power plant cont rol room and security station (if separate from the control room) c apable of viewing, at a minimum, the main entrance gate and the ammonia storage tank; and

10. additional measures to ens ure 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 recordabl e; and are able to view 100 percent of the perim eter fence, the ammonia storage tank, the outside entrance to the c ontrol 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 impl ement the security plans and obtain CPM approval of any substantive modi fications 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 circumstanc es unique to the facility or in response to industry-related standards, security concerns, or additional guidance provided by t he U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Energy, or the North American Electrical Reliability Council, afte r consultation both with appropriate law enforcement agencies and the Applicant.

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the initia l receipt of hazardous materials on-site, the project owner shall notify the CPM that a site-specif ic operations site security plan is available for revi ew and approval. In the annual compliance report, the project owner shall include a statement that all current project

197employee and appropriate contractor background investigations have been performed, and that updated certificati on 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 cert ifications for security plans and employee background investigations.

198

## HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
ATTACHMENT 1

Hazardous Materials Proposed for Use at the Avenal Energy Project

199Hazardous 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 NO X 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

200Material 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 CERTIFICATIO N (Attachment A)

Affidavit of Complianc e for Project Owners

I,

___________________________________________________________________ (Name of person signing affidavit)(Title)

do hereby certify that background investig ations 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 CERTIFICATIO N (Attachment B)

Affidavit of Compliance for Contractors

I,

________________________ _____________________ ___________________ (Name of person signing affidavit)(Title)

do hereby certify that backgr ound investigations to asce rtain the accuracy of the identity and employment hist ory of all employees of:

________________________ ________________________________________ (Company name)

for contract work at:

________________________ _____________________ ___________________ (Project name and location)

have been conducted as required by the Ca lifornia 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.

204205 

### SAMPLE CERTIFICATIO N (Attachment C)

Affidavit of Compliance for Hazard ous Materials Transport Vendors

I,

________________________ _____________________ ___________________ (Name of person signing affidavit)(Title)

do hereby certify that the below-nam ed 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, s ubparts 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 generat e nonhazardous and hazardous wastes during construction and operation. This section reviews the project’s waste management plans for reducing the risks an d environmental impacts associated with handling, stora ge, and disposal of project-related nonhazardous and
hazardous wastes. The evidence on this t opic 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 iner t materials, which do not contain concentrations of soluble pollutants t hat 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 to xicity, corrosivity, ignitability, or reactivity as establish ed by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 32 State law requires haz ardous waste generators
to obtain U.S. EPA identific ation 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.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

1. Site Excavation

The certification process requires a P hase 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 contami nation. If there is reasonable potential that the site contains hazardous substances, a Phase II ESA must be conducted to analyze the contamination and to est ablish a remediation plan. Applicant submitted a Phase I ESA, which was completed October 30, 2007, in accordance with the American Society fo r Testing and Materials St andard 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 25 100 et seq. (Hazardous Waste Control Act of 1972, as amended) and Title 22, California Code of Regulations, Section 66261.1 et seq.

206The ESA found no evidence of any recogni zed environmental conditions (RECs) associated with the project site. 33 However, the ESA did not address the possible presence of persistent legacy agric ultural 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. Ov er the years, agricultural pesticides were applied to the property by airpla ne, truck, and/or hand held sprayer; however, state and local regulations have st rictly limited use of pesticides to reduce exposure to farmworkers, consum ers, 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, chem ical 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 work ers will encounter cont emporary agricultural pesticides in site soils during project constr uction. (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 c oncerned 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 adopt ed Condition of Certification WASTE-1 to require the Project Owner to conduct a so il sampling analysis for the presence of hazardous agricultural chemicals and to im plement remediation measures if the
chemical concentrations exceed the leve ls 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 conditi ons 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.

207The 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 dow n gradient of the disposal ponds was impacted with chromium cons tituents. Subsequently , changes in operating procedures at the compressor facility reduced chromium inhibitors and chromium concentrations in groundwater began decr easing by 1988. As of April 1994,
neither hexavalent chromium nor to tal chromium has been detected in groundwater collected from down gradient monitoring wells at concentrations above their respective method detection limi ts (MDL). According to the ESA,
there is no indication that contami nated 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 submi tted a second Phase I ESA, completed September 19, 2008, which evaluated the entire lengths of the project’s linear alignments for potential RE Cs. The second ESA fo und no environmentally sensitive operations located near the natural gas or wate r pipeline corridors. (Ex. 14(c); Ex. 200, p. 4.13-11.)

However, the project’s transmission li ne 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 indica ted that during reconnaiss ance, soil staining was observed while viewing the Ca rberry property from outsi de the perimeter fence. Considering the history of use at this property and the observation of stained surface soil, the ESA ident ified the Carberry Farms property as an REC and
recommended that soil disturbance in th is area be avoided. The ESA further
recommended that additional investigation be con ducted if one or more transmission line poles are installed on the Carberry Fa rms 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 miti gate any previously unrecognized contaminated so il or groundwater that may be encountered during construction and operation. The Conditio ns require a regi stered professional geologist or engineer with experience in re medial investigatio n to monitor soil excavation and grading activities and to determine whether soil sampling and remediation should be required. Implem entation of these m easures ensure that exposure to contaminated soils at the Carberry Farms property will be reduced to insignificant levels.

2082. Construction

Site preparation and construction of the po wer plant and its associated facilities will generate both non hazardous 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 C onstruction Waste Management Plan that must identify all waste streams and t he methods of managing each waste.

a. Nonhazardous Wastes

Construction of the Avenal Energy Pr oject will generate about 600 tons of nonhazardous solid waste products comp rised 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 suppr ession 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 wastewat er treatment facility. See the SOIL AND
WATER RESOURCES section of this Decision fo r 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, wast e 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 recy cled, 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 wa ste will be considered for recycling and/or transported to a suitable tr eatment, storage, or disposal facility. ( Id .) (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-13.)

209Generally, hazardous wastes will be a ccumulated onsite for less than 90 days and then properly manife sted, transported, and di sposed 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; Ex s. 7(h), 21(k).)

Condition of Certification WASTE-5 requires the Project Owner to obtain a unique hazardous waste generat or identification number for the site prior to
construction. Condition WASTE-6 requires the Project Owner to notify the Energy Commission’s Compliance Projec t Manager (CPM) whenever any waste management related enforcement action c oncerning the Avenal Energy Project or its waste disposal contractors is init iated 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 dur ing 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 cata lyst from the air emissions control equipment), as well as domestic/sanitary and office wastes (such as office paper, newsprint, aluminum cans, glass, and s eptic 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 soli d waste disposal facility. Nonhazardous liquid wastes generated during project operat ion 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 id entification number, applies dur ing project operation. Hazardous solid wastes that may be ge nerated during routine project operation

210include oil filters and oily rags, spent Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) and oxidation catalysts, waste paint and em pty containers, as well as batteries, fluorescent light tubes, and similar items. Hazardous liquid wastes include used crankcase oil, used hydraulic oil, chem ical cleaning solutions, spent solvents, Combustion Turbine Generator (C TG) wash water and hydrocarbon
contaminated water reclaimed from the oil/ water separator. (E x. 1, § 6.14.2.2,
TABLE 6.14-3 .)

The amount of hazardous waste gene rated during project operation is
considered low due to source reducti on and recycling when feasible. Hazardous wastes will be temporarily stored onsit e and transported by licensed hazardous waste haulers to authorized disposal facilities in accordance with LORS applicable to generators of haza rdous waste. Condition WASTE-6

, supra
, applies to any waste manage ment-related enforcement action during project operations. (Ex. 200, p. 4.13-14.)

Spills and unauthorized releas es 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 re mediate as necessary, any hazardous materials spills or releases in acco rdance with applicable la w. 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 operatio n 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 cons truction and operation will c ontribute less than 0.001 percent of the available l andfill capacity. Thus, dis posal of the solid wastes generated by the Avenal Energy Project will not signifi cantly 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 .)

211Hazardous 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 Count y. The Kettleman Hills facility also accepts Class II, and III waste. In addition, there are se veral other certified hazardous waste disposal facilities throughout California. Evidence indicates there is sufficient capacity at these facilities to handle t he 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 co mmercial development in California. However the Avenal Energy Project’s wast e stream is relatively low, recycling efforts will be prioritized, and sufficient dispos al 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 En vironmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the site did not identify any recognized environm ental conditions (RECs); however, the ESA for the linear facilities corridor s identified an REC at the Carberry Farms property along the transmission line corridor.

2. The project will generate nonhazar dous and hazardous wastes during excavation, construction, and operation.

3. The Project Owner will implement appr opriate characterization, disposal, and remediation measures to ensure that the risk of exposure to contaminated soils at the site or al ong the linear corridors is reduced to insignificant levels.

4. The project will recycle nonhazardous and hazardous wastes to the extent feasible and in compli ance with applicable law.

2125. Hazardous wastes that canno t 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 si gnificant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts on existi ng 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 insignif icant levels and ensure that project wastes are handled in an environmenta lly safe manner.

2. The management of proj ect wastes will comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards related to waste management as identified in the per tinent 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 pr ovide 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, t hen by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Environment al Screening Levels (ESLs), or if no ESL has been developed, then by the EPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediati on Goals (PRGs), then no further sampling and mitigation is required.

2132. Human Health Risk Assessment - If agricultural chemicals are detected at levels above the risk-bas ed 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 pub lic or to site workers (defined as a total cancer risk via all releva nt exposure pathwa ys 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 t han 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), worker s wearing personal protective equipment for short durations, or a combination of these measures.

Verification: At least 30 days prior to so il sampling and analysis for the presence of persistent agricul tural chemicals, the Proj ect 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 s hall 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 re view and approval, a human health risk assessment and a Remedial Action Work plan not later than 60 days after the CPMs direction to prepare such documents.

WASTE-2 The Project Owner shall provide t he resume of an experienced and qualified Professional E ngineer 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 star t of site mobilization, the Project Owner shall submit the resume to the CPM for review and approval.

214WASTE-3 If potentially contaminated soil is identified duri ng 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 inspec t the site, determine the need for sampling to confirm the nature and extent of contamination, and provide a written report to the Pr oject Owner, representatives of DTSC, and the CPM stating the recommended course of action.

Depending on the nature and exte nt 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 repres entatives of the DTSC for guidance and oversight.

Verification: The Project Owner shall submit any final reports filed by the Professional Enginee r 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 mi nimum, the following:

• A description of all construc tion waste streams, including projections of frequency, am ounts 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 se rvices, waste testing methods to assure correct classificati on, methods of transportation, disposal requirements and sites, and recycling and waste minimization/source reduction plans.

Verification: The Project Owner shall su bmit 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 obtai n a hazardous waste generator identification number from the United States Environmental

215Protection Agency prior to generat ing any hazardous waste during construction and operations.

Verification: The Project Owner shall keep a copy of the ident ification 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 wh ich the owner contracts, and describe how t he violation will be corrected.

Verification: The Project Owner shall notify th e CPM in writing within 10 days of becoming aware of an impending enforcement action and provide a description and timeline for correction of t he violation. The CPM shall notify the Project Owner of any changes that will be r equired 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 duri ng operation of the facility and shall submit the plan to the CPM for review and approval. The plan shall contain, at a mi nimum, the following:

• A detailed description of all operation and maintenance waste streams, including projecti ons 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 se rvices, waste testing methods to assure correct classificati on, 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 projec t activities. Copies of all required waste management pe rmits, notices, and/or authorizations shall be included in the plan and updated as
necessary;

216217 • A detailed description of how facility wastes will be managed, and any contingency plans to be em ployed, in the event of an unplanned closure or planned tem porary facility closure; and

• A detailed description of how fa cility wastes wil l be managed and disposed of upon closur e of the facility.

Verification: The Project Owner shall s ubmit the Operation Waste Management Plan to the CPM for approval no less than 30 days prior to the start of project operation. The Pr oject 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 al so document in each Annu al 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 Oper ation 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, st ate, and local requirements.

Verification: The Project Owner shall document management of all unauthorized releases and spills of hazard ous substances, hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes that occur on the proj ect property or related linear facilities. The documentation shall in clude, 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 re lease was reported; to whom the release was reported; any corrective action and/or cleanup requirements placed by regulating agenc ies; level of cleanup achieved and actions taken to prevent a similar rele ase or spill; and disposition of any hazardous wastes and/or c ontaminated soils and materi als that may have been generated by the release. A copy of t he 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, in cluding state and f ederally listed species, species of special concern, wetlands, and other resource s 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 biol ogical resources in the vici nity 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, regul ations, and standards (LORS).

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

1. Setting

The Applicant’s testimony described la nds 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 Joaq uin Valley floor, open spaces, and petroleum production in the Guijarral and Kettlem an Hills. The portion of the region generally east of Interstate 5 is compris ed primarily of agricultural lands with the predominant vegetation communiti es made up of crop land and orchards/vineyards. Open space and a habitat conser vation bank exists in the Kreyenhagen Hills. The Kettleman and Kreyenhag en Hills, in addition to areas farther north and west, support large expanses of grasslands consisting of mostly non-native annual grasses, wh ich are successful at colonizing disturbed soils. 35

A United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) ri ght-of-way dissects the agricultural lands in this region and cons ists 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 occasion al pesticide applications. The USBR

35 Historic native grasses have been replaced ov er the last 50 years by nonnative vegetative communities. (Ex. 1, p. 6.6-3.)

218right-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, approxim ately 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 sp ecies that inhabit the regi on. While the agricultural
lands east of Interstate 5 have low w ildlife habitat values due to farming disturbance, natural communities exist we st 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 proj ect lies. (Ex. 1, p. 6.6-5.)

Within the project region, a federal protected specie s recovery plan has been established to address the loss and fragment ation of habitat in the valley. By connecting large areas of is olated natural land, there should be a reduction in the
harmful effects of habitat loss and fragmentation. The Plan 36 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 corridor s so San Joaquin kit fox and other species can move between the Kettlem an 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, appr oximately 23 miles northwest of the project site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-5.) All of these areas referenc ed 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 identif ied 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 desi gnated 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.

219plant or animal species once associated with the natural habitats historically found in the project area are now only found in the few re maining natural areas in
the hills to the west that have not been disturbed by agriculture or development.

The proposed Avenal Energy facilities wo uld be permanently located on a 34.8- acre portion of a 148-acre parcel of agricul tural land. The project site and land surrounding has been in agricultural pr oduction as croplands, orchards, and vineyards for more than 50 years. The si te has recently been used as an irrigated grain field.

During this proceeding, Applicant and par ticipating wildlife agencies worked together and proposed a 300-f oot setback from the edge of the USBR right-ofway along the San Luis Canal of the Califo rnia Aqueduct to the project security fence onsite. The proposed 30 0-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 redes ign the project’s original storm water holding basin and project layout to accomm odate the setback. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2- 5).

2. Potential Impacts and Mitigation

Sensitive wildlife species are found in t he 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 withi n 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, an d 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 in sect 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 fi eld surveys. (Ex. 1.)

//

//

220Biological 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 nitratoi des brevinasus __/CSC
Tipton kangaroo rat Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides FE/SE

221Mammals (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 (C NPS) 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 permanent ly occupy approximately 2.9 acres. There will also be temporary impacts incurred from the heav y 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 tempor ary disturbance areas in less than 24 months after project constructi on. 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 ac res 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.

222Impacts 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 Biologi st and Biological Monitor(s) to ensure that the Avenal Energy Project would be in compliance with the applicable wildlife protection LORS. The Applicant woul d also need to creat e and implement a Biological Resources Mitigation Implem entation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP) as prescribed by Condition of Certification BIO-6 . The project owner must also prepare a Worker Environm ental Awareness Program (W EAP) to train workers for protection of sensitive biological sp ecies and to avoid impacts during facility construction and operation (C ondition of Certification BIO-5 ). Pre-construction surveys must be carried out according to the USFWS Standardized
Recommendations for Protecti on of the San J oaquin 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 mo vement corridor areas (Conditions of Certification BIO-7 and BIO-8 ).

a. Transmission Line Impacts

The project proposes to build an onsite 2 30 kilovolt (kV) switchyard to connect
new transmission lines travelin g 6.4 miles off-site to t he 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 trans mission line poles will be
within areas that are current ly orchards and row crops. Temporary disturbance
for the transmission line installation would be 2,400 squar e 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 woul d be a total of 1.2 acres of permanent surface disturbance an d 2.4 acres of tem porary disturbance. (Ex. 200, p. 4.2-11.)

Transmission lines can be a co llision 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 coul d be affected. As a result, no significant impacts from collisions with new transmission lines are expected. To
reduce the risk of bird electr ocution at substations, we have included Condition of

223Certification BIO-10 . As a result, any transmission line impacts are expected to be less than significant.

b. Pipeline Impacts

Avenal Energy Project’s nat ural 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 di rt roads at the edge of agricultural fields located along Avenal Cutoff Road and Plymouth Avenue after exiting a nearby orchard. The total te mporary 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 approx imately 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-wa y. The total temporary impact of the water pipelines would be 5.4 acres. ( Id .)

Typically, pipelines are inst alled with a width of 50 to 75 feet area of disturbance. However the Applicant has committed to ma intain pipeline construction within a
25-foot wide area of di sturbance. The installation of pipelines will not result in permanent surface disturbance since the pipelines will be underground. The temporary construction impact of 5.4 acre s 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

224c. Lighting Impacts

Since there would be no nighttime cons truction 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 li ght 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 si te, 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 ki t 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 meas urement from construction of the proposed project could result in behaviora l changes in nearby wildlife. Some sensitive species like the burrowing owl and San Joaquin ki t fox could be disturbed by increases in noise, and co uld abandon burrows or dens due to the increase in noise expected during constructi on. This disruption from noise due to construction would be expected to last 27 months and occur with different equipment at different ti mes on and off-site.

Construction activities during the nesting season of the state Species of Special Concern tricolored and yellow-headed blackb irds, mid-April to late July, could
result in site or nest abandonment if cons truction 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 nesti ng season is complete. (Condition of
Certification BIO-8 .) We conclude that implement ing these impact avoidance
and minimization measures would result in less than significant effects to sensitive species that may nest or occ upy the project site and adjacent areas.

225Concerning noise levels once the Aven al Energy Project is operational, the
evidence established that the predicted operational noise at the eastern property
line will be 63 dBA 37 . Staff testified that this leve l of operational noise is on the low end of the range of 60 to 85dBA wh ich can cause behavioral change in animals and thus has the potential to di sturb some sensitive species like the burrowing owl and San Joaquin kit fox. Staff analysis included consultations with CDFG and USFWS biologists who conc luded they do not expect any major negative impacts to animals using the adjac ent 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 Pr oject 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 thr eatened) and San Joaquin kit fox (state
listed threatened and federa lly listed endangered). These impacts to sensitive species would require habitat compensat ion and other mitigation as shown in
Table 4 and discussed above. Avenal En ergy Project would permanently impact
34.8 acres on-site and 1.2 acres off-si te, 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 Ener gy. 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 specie s. For the loss of San Joaquin kit fox habitat, CDFG and USFWS woul d require 1.1 acres for every acre permanently impacted by Avenal Energy and 0.3 acre fo r 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 t he project site or linear facilities.

37 Ex. 1, Table 6.12-7, p. 6.12-24.

226Biological Resources Table 4 Habitat Compensation Acreage Require d 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 bot h been deemed accept able locations to secure the compensatory habitate of 54. 1 acres as mitigation. Purchasing
habitate at either of these banks would miti gate 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, prov iding 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 al ong the canal. Based on t he 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 conclu de that the Avenal En ergy Project will not have a significant impact on any sensit ive 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

227evaporate or percolate. Wastewater w ould be routed to a sanitary system connecting to an on-site septic tank and leach field. (Ex. 1) 38 . The Commission
concludes that there woul d be no significant impacts to biological resources associated with the discharge of storm water and wastew ater during operations.

f. Cumulative impacts

The other energy projects closest to Avenal Energy that could be considered to
create a cumulative habitat loss with Av enal Energy would be the Panoche Energy Center (PEC) Project, Star wood Power-Midway Peaking (Starwood Midway) Project, and Great Valley Et hanol (GVE) Project. The PEC and Starwood Midway Projects are adj acent to each other and are both approximately 55 miles northwest of Av enal Energy. Both projects have compensated for their habitat losses by purchasing land credits in the Kreyenhagen Hills Mitigation Bank as required by the wil dlife agencies and Energy Commission. The GV E Project is approximatel y 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 spec ies 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 develop ment in the City of Avenal industrial zone, the low urbanization pressures in the area, and the habi tat compensation we have required for the Avenal Energy Project, its construction and operation would not significantly affect biologi cal 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 ev idence regarding project impacts to biological resources. However, he did question the Staff’s witness as to the adequacy of the proposed mi tigation measures. (7/7/09 RT 326-331.) The witness explained that the mitigation for pr oject 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.

228Commisson staff, in consultation wit h CDFG and USFWS biologists, agreed to apply mitigation ratios to the acreage dist urbed. (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 potent ial impacts of projectrelated nitrogen deposition up on 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 pl ant 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 ma rsh habitats nearby. While there are possible vernal pools withi n the adjacent USBR right-o f-way, these pools would not be impacted by Avenal Energy Project. The proposed project does not conflict with provisions of an adopted Habi tat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approv ed local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan because there are no applic able 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 requ ested the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consult with the USFWS unde r the Section 7 consultation process based upon Avenal Power’s re quest for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit from EPA. If granted, t he BO would include a Sect ion 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 t he Commission staff biological analysis was closely coordinated with sta ff from both CDFG and USFWS. As a result, the
record established that the Conditions of Certification reflected below are consistent with the require ments of the USFWS Draft Biological Opinion dated July 1, 2009. (7/7/09 RT 300; Ex. 204.)

229FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the uncontroverted record of evidence, we find the following:

1. The proposed Avenal Energy facili ties would be permanently located on a 34.8-acre portion of a 148-acre parce l 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 im pacts require habitat com pensation of 39.6 acres for permanent impacts and 14.5 acres for te mporary 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 res ources onsite would be largely avoided because the proposed Avenal Energy si te 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 f ederal endangered San Joaqui n kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) and state threatened Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In addition, there are wil dlife 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 construc tion and operation.

8. Potential direct impacts to special-st atus species in the surrounding area can be mitigated with implementation of t he 300-foot setback from the USBR right-of-way, habitat compensation, Be st Management Practices, and other impact minimization and avoidance measur es set forth in the Conditions of Certification.

9. The project owner will implement a construction mitigation management plan by educating workers on habitat prot ection, 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 Monitori ng Plan (BRMIMP) incor porating all biological

23011. Transmission lines will be designed to r educe the risk of avian collisions and electrocutions. Nighttime lighting wi ll be designed to avoid disruption to wildlife.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The project owner will implement appr opriate avoidance and mitigation measures to prevent significant adverse impacts to all sensitive species.

2. With implementation of the mitigati on measures described in the evidentiary record and incorporated into the Conditi ons of Certification below, as well as those in other portions of this Decisi on, the Avenal Energy Project will not result in significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to biological

resources.

3. With implementation of the mitigati on measures described in the evidentiary record and incorporated into the Cond itions of Certification, the Avenal Energy Project will conform to all app licable 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 Biologi st Selection

BIO-1 The project owner shall assign a De signated 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 M onitor (CPM) for approval.

The Designated Biologist must at least meet the following minimum qualifications:

1. Bachelor’s Degree in biological sciences, zo ology, 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

2313. At least one year of field experie nce with biological resources found in or near the project area.

In lieu of the above requirements, t he resume shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CPM that the proposed Designated Biologist or alternate has the appropriate trai ning and background to effectively implement the conditions of certification.

Verification: The project owner shall submit t he specified information at least 90 days prior to the start of any site (or re lated facilities) mobilization. No site or site related facility activities s hall commence until an approved Designated Biologist is available to be on site.

If a Designated Biologist needs to be repl aced, 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 imme diately notify the CPM to discuss the qualifications and approval of a short-term replac ement 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 relat ed facilities) mobilization, ground disturbance, grading, construction, operation, and closure activities. The Designated Biologist may be assi sted by the approved Biological Monitor(s), but remains the contac t for the project owner and CPM.

1. Advise the project owner’s Construction and O peration Managers on the implementation of biological resources Conditions of Certification;

2. Consult on the preparation of t he Biological Resource Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (B RMIMP), 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 av oidance or containing sensitive biological resources such as specia l status species or their habitat;

4. Clearly mark sensitive biologica l 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 comm encing each day. At the end of the day, inspect for installation of structures that prevent entrapment or allow escape duri ng periods of construction

232inactivity. Periodically inspect ar eas 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 Conditi on of Certification;

7. Respond directly to inquires of the CP M 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, Wo rker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training and all permits.

Verification: The Designated Biologist shall s ubmit in the M onthly Compliance Report to the CPM copies of all writt en 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 Biol ogist shall submit record summaries in the Annual Compliance Report unless their duties are ceased as approved by the CPM.

Biological Moni tor Selection

BIO-3 The project owner’s CPM-approved De signated Biologist shall submit the resume, at least three referenc es and contact information for the proposed Biological Monitors to t he CPM for approval. The resume shall demonstrate to the satisfac tion of the CPM, the appropriate education and experience to acco mplish 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. T he 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 comp leted. If additional Biological Monitors are needed during construction, the specif ied information shall be submitted to the CPM for approval 10 days prior to thei r first day of moni toring activities.

233Designated Biologist and Biological Monitor Authority

BIO-4 The project owner’s Construction /Operation Manager(s) shall act on the advice of the Designat ed Biologist and Biol ogical Monitor(s) to ensure conformance with the biolog ical resources Conditions of Certification. If required by the De signated Biologist and Biological Monitor(s), the project owner’s C onstruction/ Operation Manager shall halt all site mobilization, ground di sturbance, grading, construction, and operation activities in areas specif ied by the Desig nated Biologist.

The Designated Biologist shall:

1. Require a halt to all activities in any area when determined that there would be an unauthorized adver se impact to biological resources if the activities continued;

2. Inform the project owner and t he Construction/Operation Manager when to resume activities; and

3. Notify the CPM if there is a hal t 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 unavail able for direct consultation, the Biological Monitor shall act on behal f of the Designated Biologist.

Verification: The project owner shall ensure th at the Designated Biologist or Biological Monitor notifies the CPM immedi ately (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 oper ation 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 comple ted, 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 deve lop and implement a CPM approved Worker Environmental Awareness Pr ogram (WEAP) in which each of its employees, as well as employ ees of contractors and subcontractors who work on the project site or any related facilities during site mobilization, ground dist urbance, grading, constr uction, operation and closure are informed about sensitive biological resources associated with the project.

234The WEAP shall:

1. Be developed by or in consul tation with the Designated Biologist and consist of an on-site or training center presentation in which supporting written material and elec tronic 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 pr otecting these resources;

4. Present the meaning of vari ous temporary and permanent habitat protection measures;

5. Identify whom to contact if there are further comments and questions about the material di scussed in the program; and

6. Include a training acknowledgm ent form to be signed by each worker indicating that they rece ived 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 ow ner shall provide to the CPM two (2) copies of the proposed WEAP and all supp orting written materials and electronic media prepared or reviewed by the Designated Biol ogist and a resume of the person(s) administering the program.

The project owner shall provide in the Monthly Compli ance Report the number of persons who have completed t he training in the prior m onth 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 subm it two copies of the CPM approved materials.

The signed training acknowl edgement forms from constr uction 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 statem ents for active project operational personnel shall be kept on f ile for six months following the termination of an individual's employment.

Biological Resources Mitigation Impl ementation and Monitoring Plan

BIO-6 The project owner shall submit two copies of the proposed Biological Resources Mitigation Implementati on and monitoring Plan (BRMIMP) to the CPM (for review and approval ) and to USFWS (for review and

235comment) and shall implem ent the measures ident ified in the approved BRMIMP. The BRMIMP shall be prepar ed in consultation with the Designated Biologist and shall identify:

1. All biological resources miti gation, monitoring, and compliance measures proposed and agreed to by the project owner;

2. All biological resources Conditi ons of Certification identified as necessary to avoid or mitigate impacts;

3. All biological resources miti gation, monitoring, and compliance measures required in federal ag ency terms and conditions, such as those provided in the USFWS Biological Opinion;

4. All biological resources miti gation, monitoring, and compliance measures required in local agency permits, such as site grading and landscaping requirements;

5. All sensitive biological resour ces to be impacted, avoided, or mitigated by project construc tion, operation and closure;

6. All required mitigati on measures for each sensitive biological

resource;

7. Required habitat compensation st rategy, including provisions for acquisition, enhancement, and management for any temporary and permanent loss of sensitive biological resources;

8. A detailed description of measures that sha ll 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 subj ect 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 m onitoring 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;

23613. 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 US FWS 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 t he 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 mob ilization 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 BR MIMP must also be approved by the CPM and submitted to the USFWS to ensure no conflicts exist.

Implementation of BRMIMP measur es 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 cons truction, the project owner shall provide to the CPM, for review and approval, a written constr uction closure report identifying which items of the BRMIMP have been complete d, a summary of all modifications to mitigation measures made during the pr oject's site mobilization, ground disturbance, grading, and constructi on phases, and which mitigation and monitoring items ar e still outstanding.

Impact Avoidance Mitigation measures

BIO-7 Any time the project owner modifies or finalizes the project design they shall incorporate all feasible measur es 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;

2372. Eliminate any California Exotic Pest Plants of Concern (CalEPPC) List A species from landscaping plans;

3. Establish a plan to return the si te to agricultural production after construction;

4. Prescribe a road sealant that is non-toxic to wildlif e and plants that will limit dust on dirt roads;

5. Design, install, and maintain faci lity lighting to prevent side casting of light towards wildlife habitat;

6. Establish the 300-foot setba ck zone between the proposed project security fence and the Bureau of Reclamation’s San Luis Canal right-of-way. This is intended to mi nimize 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 week s 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 associ ated with maintaining suitable habitat for San Joaquin kit fox would be prohibited within the buffer zone.

G. Night lighting within the buffe r zone would be prohibited or minimized to the necessary le vel for security purposes.

H. The perimeter fence would be constructed to be wildlife compatible, which would allow for unobstructed and unhampered movement through the f ence. The internal security

2387. Install a wildlife compatible perimeter fence to allow for unobstructed and unham pered wildlife mo vement 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 transmissi on 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. Im plementation of the measur es shall be reported in the Monthly Compliance Reports by the De signated Biologist. Within thirty (30) days after completion of project construc tion, the project owner shall provide to the CPM, for review and approval, a wr itten construction termination report describing how measures for t he setback have been completed.

Mitigation Management to avoid Harassment or Harm

BIO-8 The project owner sha ll implement the followin g 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 st eep walled holes or trenches if outside of an approved, permanent exclusionary fence. The temporary fence shall be hardware cl oth or similar materials that are approved by USFWS. Before such holes or trenches are filled, they should be thoroughl y 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 representativ e. Injured animals shall be reported to CDFG and the project owner shall follo w instructions

239that 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 CD FG for specific notification procedures;

7. Use of rodenticides and pestici des in the project areas will be restricted. This is necessary to prevent primar y or secondary poisoning of kit foxes and the depl etion of prey populations on which it depends. All uses of su ch compounds should observe label and other restri ctions mandated by the EPA, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other State and Federal legislation, as well as additi onal 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 St ate and Federal highways; this is particularly impo rtant at night when kit foxes are most active. Off-road traffic out side of designated project areas is prohibited.

9. Fence areas with sensitive spec ies and habitat such as the USBR right-of-way, the soil berms to t he 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 i dentified 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, imperv ious 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 transmi ssion 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 meas ures shall be reported in the Monthly Compliance Reports by the De signated Biologist. Within thirty (30) days after completion of project construc tion, the project owner shall provide to the CPM, for review and approval, a wr itten construction termination report

240describing how all biologic al 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 com pensation ratios agreed upon are 1.1:1 ratio for permanent impact s 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 projec t owner shall submit written verification to the CPM, USFWS, and CDFG that th e transaction for habitat compensation has occurred.

Compliance With Avian Power Line Interaction Committee Guidelines

BIO-10 The project owner shall design, inst all, and maintain transmission lines and all electrical components in acco rdance with the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee, Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The Stat e 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 verificati on 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 si te and project linear facilities. Preconstruction surveys shall follow USFWS Standardized Recommendations for Protection of the San Joaqui n 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 wi th the CPM, USFWS, and CDFG.

Burrowing Owl Impact Avoidan ce and Minimization Measures

BIO-12 If burrowing owls are found during pr econstruction 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;

2412. 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) desig nating presence of sensitive

area;

3. Passively relocate all owls occupying burrows that will be temporarily or permanently impact ed 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) unl ess a qualified biologist can verify through non-invasive met hods that egg laying/incubation has not begun or juveniles are fo raging 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 Mitigat ion and Monitoring Plan to CDFG for review and approval prior to relo cation 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 st art of site mobilization that describes when surveys were completed, observations, mitigat ion measures, and the results of the measures. If owls are to be relocated, the project owner s hall 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 Mo nitoring Plan. Within 30 days after completion of owl relocation and monitoring, and the st art of ground distur bance, 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 c opy of the Biological Opinion per Section 7 of the federa l Endangered Species Act wr itten by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cons ultation with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The terms and conditions contained in the Biological Opinion shall be incorporat ed into the project’s BRMIMP and implemented by the project owner.

242243 Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of any site or related facilities mobilization activities, the project owner sh all submit to the CPM a copy of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’ s Biological Opinion and ve rification that the terms and conditions contained in the Biological Opinion ar e 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 phot ographs will be used to determine the actual area impacted by the project and c an be used to determine if any additional habitat compens ation is appropriate.

Verification: Within 30 days following the st art of power plant commercial operation, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the aerial photographs and actual area im pacted calculations. Also, the project owner will provide an analysis of w hether or not additional habitat compensation is necessary to compensate for additional temporary and permanent impacts and, if additional habitat compensation is necessa ry, how the additional impacts will be mitigated.B. SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES

This section focuses on the soil and wate r resources associat ed with the Avenal Energy Project, including the projec t’s potential to induce erosion and sedimentation, adversely affect water supplies, and degrade water quality. The analysis also considers site contaminat ion and any potential cumulative impacts to water quality in the vicini ty of the project. Mitigati on 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 a ll LORS. (Exs. 1, 3, 6, 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, 25, 56, 59, 200; 07/ 07/09 RT 446:7-25.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

1. Soil Resources

The Avenal Energy Project is a 600 mega watt (MW) natural gas-fired, combined cycle electric generating facility. The proj ect will incorporate technologies such as dry cooling, Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD), dry NO x reduction and cl osed loop inlet
air chillers to minimi ze water use. The proposed site location is with in the Westside
Groundwater Basin on the we stern edge of the San J oaquin 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 facili ty which is owned and operated by the City of Ave nal. The water treatment fa cility is located at the
northeast corner of the site and the U.S. Bur eau 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 pl ant site development will include construction of the power blo ck, 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 d eep, well-drained soil formed on alluvial fans and derived primarily from sandst one. The soil has moderately rapid permeability and good drainage. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-4.)

The transmission line corridor will traver se areas designated as Prime Farmland
and Williamson Act contract lands near a nd 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.)

244Three soils (Westhaven Loam, Kim berlina 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 corrido r near the Gates Substation. The Westhaven Loam is a very deep, well draine d soil found on alluvial fans, formed in alluvium derived predominantly from calcareous sedimentary rock. The Kimberlina Sandy Loam is located along the transmi ssion 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 dat a can be found in Ta ble 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. Activiti es that expose and disturb the soil leave soil pa rticles vulnerable to detac hment by wind and water.
Soil erosion results in the loss of topsoil and increas ed sediment loading to nearby receiving waters or sewer system s. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-10.)

Construction of the Avenal E nergy Project will permanent ly disturb approximately
34.8 acres on-site and 1.2 acres off-site . During constructi on, there will be additional temporary disturbance of approx imately 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.) T he earth work will cons ist of primarily cut and fill grading with excavation for f oundations 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 m onths. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-10 to 4.9-11.)

The waterline interconnections to the exis ting 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 fo r agriculture; therefor e, their affect on farm land or farming operations will be neglig ible. Similarly, the natural gas

245pipeline 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 si te. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-11.)

In general, soils of the project site ar e highly permeable and have low to moderate water erosion potential. Howe ver, the coarse texture of the soils causes them to be highly vulnerable to wi nd erosion, during construc tion and operation. The implementation of appropriate erosion control measures will help conserve soil resources, maintain water quality, prevent accelerated soil lo ss, and protect air quality. (Ex. 20 0, p. 4.9-11.)

The erosion and sedimentati on control measures for t he construction phase of project development include but are not lim ited to: wetting the roads in active construction and laydown areas; contro lling 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 ar ea 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/S torm Water Retention Facility will offset the loss of permeable surface area by attenuating storm water discharges and promoting water in filtration into the soil. Condition of Certification
SOIL & WATER-3 (which requires im plementation of an operation Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) fully mitigates any impacts to soil resources that may arise during operati on of the Avenal Energy Proj ect. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-14.)

2. Surface Hydrology, Erosion, St orm Water Management, and Flooding

Several ephemeral streams descend the Kettl eman Hills to the west of the site and one terminates in the site vicinity. T he stream closest to the site is Arroyo Largo which terminates approximately 1.5 mile s 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 al ong 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 f eet northeast of the project site and supplies water to the City of Avenal and to other central and southern California

246users. A 100- year flood zone has been mapped along both sides of the canal. The western edge of the mapped zone encr oaches upon the northeastern corner of the project site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-7.)

Potentially significant water quality im pacts could occur during construction, excavation, and grading activities if contaminated or hazar dous soil or other materials used during construction were to contact storm water runoff and drain off-site. Water quality coul d 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 possi bly into surface waters. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-12.)

During construction, the laydown and par king/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 wa ter to the storm water holding basin. The Power Block area will be graded to cr eate a ridgeline through the center of the Block causing sheet flow to be dire cted to the northwest and southeast where it will be intercepted by perimeter inte rcept 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 signific ant potential for water erosion effects, including the high volume of earth disp lacement, a long duration for construction, and soil properties that have a low to mode rate 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 m easures. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-12.)

Storm water falling within the plant bounda ry, outside of potenti ally contaminated areas, will be collected in a gravity drainage system and routed to the storm water evaporation/percolation basin. The evaporati on/percolation basin is designed to capture runoff generated at the site follo wing 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 hou r, 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 des ign storm to escape the basin and flow into a naturally occurring depression adjac ent to the west levee of the San Luis Canal. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-12.)

247Storm water falling onto the relatively sm all areas containing equ ipment items that
could be a source of cont amination will be collected in a segregated drainage system and routed to an oily water sump. T he 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 Res ources Control Board (SWRCB), in implementing federal law, will require the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) for construction activity for the Avenal Energy Project. C ondition of Certification SOIL & WATER-2 requires Avenal Energy to prepare a Final Drainag e, Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (DESCP) for construction to assure BM Ps are implemented. The DESCP must include measures for proper ly storing and containing hazardous materials used, and hazardous waste gener ated, 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 r educed to a level that is less than significant. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.9-12 to 4.9-13.)

During operations, runoff from the Avenal E nergy Project site will, in the absence of mitigation, exce ed pre-development runoff due to the increase of impervious areas in proportion to the overall site. As a result, Avenal Ener gy will design the drainage features for the site in acco rdance with the SWRCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Syst em (NPDES) General Pe rmits 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 landscapi ng. Non-contact areas of the Power Block (where there is no potential for cont amination from hazardous materials) will be graded to drain to the northwest and s outheast by means of sheet flow away from equipment foundations and into swal es, 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 eastwa rd by ditches and culverts into the Sediment/Stormwater Retention Facility. Following settlement of suspended sediments and attenuation of peak flows, sto rm water will either infiltrate into the

248ground, evaporate, or in the case of r unoff exceeding design fl ow, discharge into an existing depression immediately east of the site. During operation, the capacity of the Sediment/Stormwater Re tention Facility will be maintained by performing sediment removal as needed. Contac t areas (in the vicinity of oil-filled transformers and hazardous materials storage) will drain into a separate collection system and be conveyed throug h an oil-water separator before it is conveyed to the cooling tower for reuse. Secondary containment structur es will be built around the oil-filled equipment and hazardous material s to prevent dispersion in case of a spill. Solid wastes and small amounts of hazardous wa ste that are generated will be properly accounted for, tracked, handl ed, and disposed of off-site using licensed transporters and disposal fac ilities. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-15.)

A 100-year flood zone has been mapped along bot h sides of the San Luis Canal. The western edge of the mapped zone encr oaches upon the northeastern corner of the project property, however, no structures or other proj ect facilities are planned for this area. Therefore, cons truction of the proj ect 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 (A FY) of water for process use (101 AFY), domestic use (1 AFY), and landscape irri gation (2 AFY). This water will be supplied to the project from the City of Avenal’s wate r treatment facility which
obtains untreated surface wate r from the adjacent San Lui s Canal. The San Luis Canal is operated as part of the Central Valley Projec t (CVP) by the Bureau of
Reclamation and delivers water from the Sacramento-San Joaqui n Delta. (Ex. 200, pgs. 4.9-7 to 4.9-8)

The City of Avenal has a contract with t he USBR that allocates 3,500 AFY to the City of Avenal. The City of Avenal’s wate r use is roughly split between the Avenal State Prison and the City. Whil e 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 a llocation from the canal. Over the past 10 years, it has drawn an average of 75 percent of t heir 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 treat ment plant will be

249the 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 pot able water supply. The project will also rely on pumped groundwater fo r the process backup water supply. The project’s potential effect s on these three water suppli es are evaluated below. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-15.)

Daily water demand during construction wi ll average approximat ely 8,000 gallons per day for dust control, soil compaction, and other needs. T he estimated volume of water needed for construction is approximat ely 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 pr oject from the City of Avenal. The construction period will last an estimated 27 months. T here will not be significant adverse environmental impacts associ ated 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 su pply drinking water for the construction
workforce. Portable facilities will be used for sanitary needs and operate without water. Therefore, there will not be significant adver se environmental impacts associated with potable wate r use during project construc tion. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9- 13.)

Groundwater is not expected to be encoun tered during plant or linear feature excavation activities. If any groundwat er 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 Ener gy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-13.)

a. Surface Water

The City of Avenal obtains fresh, untreated surface wate r through a turn out on the
CVP’s San Luis Canal. The surface wa ter is pumped to the treatment plant located adjacent to th e canal for treatment by filtration and ch lorination 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 pl ant operation, thereby increasing the

250likelihood 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 Applic ant estimates its maximum water use for plant operations will be 104 AFY which will incr ease the City of Avenal’s draw from the San Luis Canal by 3.9 percent. The in crease in the City of Avenal’s current draw from the San Luis Canal due to powe r plant operation is minor and the power plant’s contribution to reducti on in available surface wate r for other users will also
be minor. Even with the incr eased draw from the canal, based on historic draws by the City of Avenal, the Cit y 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 proj ect use of untreated surfac e water. Therefore, the project use of CVP water will not cause sign ificant impacts to ei ther surface water or groundwater resources. (E x. 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. Neverthele ss, 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 specif y requirements for the meteri ng and reporting of water use. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-17.)

b. Domestic Water

The Avenal Energy Project wi ll be plumbed to distribu te potable wa ter obtained from the City of Avenal’s pot able water supply. The City of Avenal’s potable water supply comes from the San Lu is Canal and is treated at the City of Avenal’s Water
Treatment Plant to be distributed to the City of Aven al’s water supply system. The City of Avenal has th e ability and has agree d to provide up to 10 acre-feet per year of potable water to Avenal En ergy 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. Agai n, to ensure that water use will not exceed the amount evaluated and permitted by th e Energy Commission, Conditions of
Certification SOIL & WATER-4 and -5 establish the projec t’s annual water-use limit and specifies requirements for the mete ring and reporting of water use. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-17.)

251c. Groundwater

The maximum monthly consumptive water us e 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). Ground water 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 cont ains analyses of groundwater withdrawal vs. groundwater surface elevation changes within the Westside Su b-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 Fa rms installed drip irrigation systems and microsprinklers on almond orchards in the i mmediate vicinity of the Avenal Energy Project site shortly after Kochergen Farms received payment of option agreement funds from the Applicant in associati on 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 Kocherge n Farms property, or 140 acre-feet of water per year. In addition, the projec t will permanently remove approximately 34.8 acres of land from irrigation at t he site. Taken together, these measures save more water each year than the proj ect will use, even when compared to a maximum use scenario (104 AFY), and will result in a net reduction in groundwater pumping from the specif ied wells. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-20.)

We find that the limited use of groundw ater for emergency backup of process needs will not result in substantial depletion or degradat ion of groundwater resources or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. To ensure that groundwater use is consistent with th e 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 signif icant impacts to water resources during operation of the Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9- 20.)

Summaries of the Avenal Energy Proj ect water use are provided below in Soil
and Water Table 1

.

252Soil 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 esti mated from weighted daily requirement s 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 hour s 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 ma keup and providing demineralized water makeup demand as outlined in the water balance diagr am 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 c onsumption 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 Us e 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 Ener gy 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 pr oject, as defined by Water Code section 10912, to perform a water supply and dema nd assessment. However, the Avenal Energy Project does not meet any of t he parameters for a qua lifying project.

Specifically, Water Code se ction 10912 defines project as a “proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or i ndustrial 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.)

253Further, Water Code section 10912 also defi nes 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 pr oject.” [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 count ies in integrating water and land use planning, Department of Wa ter 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 woul d be 150 acre feet of wate r per year. The evidence
established that Avenal Ener gy 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 te sting 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 test ing purposes. After use, this water will be stored in portable tan ks and tested. Once the te sting confirms that the water is not impacted, it will be releas ed to the storm water basin for disposal through evaporation. If the testing indica tes that the water is not suitable for evaporation/infiltration in t he storm water collection basin, it will be dis posed 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 wa stewater 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 Ener gy Project, and will c oncentrate the solids into a salt cake for disposal at a loca l Class III landfill. Power plant discharges consisting of leakage and drainage fr om facility containment areas will be collected in a system of fl oor drains, sumps, and pipe s within the Avenal Energy Project and discharged to an oil/water separ ator. 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.)

254The second wastewater-collection system is the sanitary system. The sanitary system will collect wastewater from sinks, toilets, and ot her sanitary facilities for discharge to an on-site wastewater dispos al system consisting of septic tank and
associated leach lines. C ondition of certification SOIL & WATER-7 will ensure no significant water or soil related impacts will result from s anitary 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. T here is also no indication that contaminated groundwater is present beneath the Avena l Energy Project site. Nevertheless, a soil sampling program will be required in the WASTE
MANAGEMENT section of this Decision to addr ess any potential for impacts to workers from any possible residual agricult ural 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 adv erse cumulative impact where its effects are cumulatively considerable. “Cumul atively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of an individual project are signi ficant 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 acti ons 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 vari able 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 a nd dependent upon climat ic conditions. During periods of low precipitation (d rought), the USBR severely restricts deliveries of surface water for agriculture . As a result, agr iculture relies on groundwater pumped from wells. During thes e drought conditions, deliveries for industrial and municipal uses have priori ty over other uses and sufficient surface water supply will be available from the cana l. 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.)

255The record identifies four ot her projects in the vicini ty of the Avenal Energy Project. These projects include t he 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 approx imately 27 miles to the northwest), and the San Joaquin Solar 1 & 2 Project (located approxim ately 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 obtai ned from the underlying semi-confined aquifer and
likewise will not affect surface wate r supplies. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-22.)

The Great Valley Ethanol Plan t 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 wa ter from the Great Valley Ethanol Plant will be reused in the process. While water is apparently available as stipulated in the Urban Water Management Pl an, the project may requi re 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 Projec t will not affect surface water supplies for the Avenal Energy Project facility. (Ex. 2 00, 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 su b-basin on a temporary basis until recycled water from the city of Coal inga can be delivered. The evidence establishes that use of these supplies wi ll not affect the proposed surface water supply. The backup supply for the Avena l Energy Project will be obtained from the Westside groundwater sub-basin. Th e 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 ti me in the Westside sub-basin. The
evidence of record establishes that limit ed 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 th at the project comp lies with Condition

256of 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 Man ager (CPM) for any additional volume. Based upon the evidence received and Condi tions imposed, we fi nd that there are no significant cumulative impacts in the site vicinity that will result from operation of the Avenal Energy Projec t. (Ex. 200, p. 4.9-23.)

6. Compliance with LORS

a. CLEAN WATER ACT

Avenal Energy will satisfy the requirem ents of the General NPDES Storm Water
Permits under Conditions of Certification SOIL & WATER-1 and -3 which, in addition to the requirements of the NPD ES permits, requires t he development and implementation of a SWPPP for both constr uction 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 impl ementation of the DESCP and SWPPPs, as well adherence with the discharge requ irements of the c ounty’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 PO LICY 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 th e fullest extent possible and prohibits waste, unreasonable water use or unreasonable method of wa ter use. In order to
better define what “unreasonable use” means in relation to pow er plant cooling, the SWRCB issued Resolution 75-58, “W ater Quality Control Policy on the Use and Disposal of Inland Waters Used for Po wer Plant Cooling” (Resolution 75-58). It sets forth a list of preferable water sour ces 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.)

257In the 2003 IEPR , consistent with State Water Resources Control Board Policy 75-58 and the Warren-Alquist Act, the Ener gy Commission reiterated State Water Policy, stating it wil l approve the use of fresh wate r for cooling purposes by power plants only where alternative water s upply sources and alternative cooling technologies are shown to be “environmentally undesir able” or “economically unsound.” Due to the projec t’s design incorporating dr y cooling, ZLD, and dry
NO x reduction technologies, t he Avenal Energy Project is in compliance with the State Water Policy and its intent to di scourage the use of fresh water for power plant cooling. (E x. 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 t he aqueduct [a]nd the residents contracted illness that they are still sufferi ng 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 di sposal on the site. There is also no indication that contaminated groundwater is present beneath the Avenal En ergy Project site. We
are satisfied that the analysis of the wastewater management, zero liquid discharge system, septic system , and all of the stormwat er 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 th at the Avenal Energy Proj ect 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 Ener gy 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-si te and nine acres off-site.

3. It will take 27 months to comple te 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.

2585. 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 Cont rol Plan (DESCP) for construction to assure BMPs are implemented.

7. Through the proper applic ation of BMPs, the im pact 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 desi gn the drainage features for the site in accordance with the State Water Resources Contro l Board NPDES Gener al 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 occurrenc e of the 100-year flood.

10. The Avenal Energy facility is es timated 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 us e untreated surface water and potable water supplied by t he City of Avenal.

12. The estimated annual water requirem ent 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 su rface 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.

25917. 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 C VP water will not cause sign ificant impacts to either surface water or groundwater resources.

19. The project’s use of su rface 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 s ubstantial depletion or degr adation of groundwater resources or substantially inte rfere with groundwater recharge.

22. Backup water supply will adequately suffice during short-term interruptions in water deliveries and will have le ss than a significant impact on water

resources.

23. Condition of Certification SOIL & WATER-5 ensures that use of the water will be secured and impos es caps on water use so there will be no significant impacts to water resour ces 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 pr esent hazardous substance use, storage, or disposal on the property.

28. There is also no indi cation that contaminated groundwater is present beneath the Avenal Energy Project site.

26029. There are no significant cumulative im pacts in the site vicinity that will result from operation of t he Avenal Energy Project.

The Avenal Energy Project will not use fr esh water for cooling and is therefore
consistent with the SWRCB Policy 75-58 and the Ener gy Commission’s policy of discouraging the use of fresh wa ter for power plant cooling.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Avenal Energy Project will not re sult in any unmitigated, significant project-specific or cumulative adverse impacts to Soil or Water Resources.

2. The Avenal Energy Pr oject 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 require ments of the general National Pollutant Dischar ge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharge of stormwater a ssociated with construction activity. The Project Owner shall develop and implement a construction stormwater pollution prevention pl an (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 t he compliance Project Ma nager (CPM) of all correspondence between the Project Ow ner and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding the NPDES permit for the discharge of stormwater associated with construction ac tivity within 10 days of its receipt or submittal. Copies of corres pondence shall include the notic e of intent sent to the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Board’s confirmation letter indicating receipt and acceptanc e 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 pr oper protection of water quality and soil resources, demonstrate no increase in off-site flooding potential, include provisions for s ediment and storm water retention, and identify all monitoring and maintenance activities. The DESCP shall contain elements 1 through 9 below outli ning site management activities and erosion- and sediment -control BMPs to be im plemented during site

261mobilization, excavation, constructi on, and post construction (operating) activities.

A. Vicinity Map – A map(s) at a minimu m scale 1”=100’ shall be provided indicating th e location of all project elements (construction site, laydown area, pipelines) with depictions of all significant geographic features including swal es, 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 st ructures, 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 drai nage systems and drainage-area boundaries. On the map, spot el evations 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 na rrative shall include the summary pages from the hydraulic analysi s prepared by a professional engineer and erosion control speciali st. 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 clear ed of vegetation an d areas to be preserved. The plan shall provid e elevations, slopes, locations, and extent of all proposed grading as shown by cont ours, cross sections, or other means. The locations of any disposal areas, fills, or other special features shall also be shown. Existing and proposed

262G. 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 sh all identify on the topographic site map(s) the location of the site specific BMPs to be employed during each phase of c onstruction (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 pr oject element (site, pipelines) excavations and construction, final grading/stabilization, and postconstruction. Separate BMP impl ementation 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 stat ement 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 Co unty and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (C VRWQCB) 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 DESC P. The DESCP shall be c onsistent 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 Acti vity. The Project Owner shall provide in the monthly compliance report a narrati ve on the effectivene ss of the drainage, erosion, and sediment-cont rol measures and the resu lts of monitoring and maintenance activities. Once operational, the Project Owner shall update and maintain the DESCP for the life of the project and shall prov ide 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 th e requirements of the General NPDES Permit fo r Discharges of Storm Water

263Associated 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 co mmercial 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 I ndustrial Activity within 10 days of its receipt or submittal. This information shall include copies of the Notice of Intent and Notice of Terminati on for the project.

SOIL & WATER-4: The Project Owner shall use untreated surface water supplied from the city of Avenal Wa ter 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’ agricul ture wells as its backup water supply for process water, landscape irrigation and for other approved non-potable uses. Potable water will be pr ovided 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 operat ion, the Project Owner shall install and maintain metering devices as part of the water supply and distribution systems to monitor and reco rd, in gallons per day, the total volume(s) of water supplied to Avenal Energy from the water sources. Those metering devices shall be operati onal 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-potabl e water usage in gallons per day, and total water used by the projec t 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 year s, 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 Wate r Use Summary to the CPM in the annual compliance report. The report shall distingu ish the recorded water use from City of Avenal water supply and the Kochergen Farms’ agriculture wells. The Project

264Owner shall provide a repor t on the servicing, testing and calibration of the metering devices in the annual compliance report.

SOIL & WATER-5: Prior to site mobilization, t he Project Owner shall provide the CPM with two (2) copies of the exec uted and final Service Agreements for connecting the project’s water s upply 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 t he water from the source(s). The Project Owner shall not connect to t he City of Avenal’s water system or to the Kochergen Farm’s wells without final approval from the local agency. The Project Owner shall prov ide the CPM copies of the final approval from the local agency and al l monitoring or other reports required by the Service Agreements. The CPM shall be notified of any violations of the Service Agreement s terms and conditions, the actions taken or planned to bring the proj ect 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 combi ned 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 exce ed 104 AFY in any single year. If, for any reason, Avenal Energy requires more than 104 AFY, Avenal Energy shall estimate the addi tional volume needed, explain why additional volume is needed, and acqui re approval from the CPM prior to increased use. Similarly, as de scribed in the AFC and restricted here, the project’s potable water use s hall average one AF Y and not exceed 2 AF in any single year. If, for any r eason, Avenal Energy requires more than 2 AFY, Avenal Energy shall estimate the additional volume needed, explain why additional volume is needed, and ac quire 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 fi nal Service Agreement(s) for supplying both the primary and backup process water supplies and the potable water supply to the project. The Project Owner shal l 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 Serv ice 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 calc ulating the total water use, the term “year” will correspond to the date establ ished for the annual compliance report submittal.

265No 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 s hall 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 fo r 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 a ccordance with a ZLD management plan approved by the CPM. The ZL D management plan shall include the following elements:

A. a flow diagram showing all wate r 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 per iods of ZLD system shutdown or maintenance;

D. a maintenance schedule;

E. a description of on-site storage fa cilities and containment measures;

F. a table identifying influent water quality; and

G. a table characterizing the cons tituent concentrations of the solid waste or brine and specifying the permit limits of the selected landfill.

The Avenal Energy operation and wa stewater 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 star t of commercial operation, the Project Owner shall submit to the CPM ev idence 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. T he 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.

266267 In the annual compliance report, the Projec t Owner shall submit a status report on operation of the ZLD syst em, including dates and length of disruptions, maintenance activities perfo rmed, volumes of interim wa stewater streams stored on site, monthly volumes of residual salt ca ke or brine generated, and results of at least one annual sampling of the waste soli ds 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 oper ated within the parameters described in the ZLD m anagement 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-s pecific 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 t he septic system in accordance with an operations and maintenance m anual prepared by a qualified professional.

Verification: No later than ninety (90) days prio r to commercial operation, the Project Owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the sept ic 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) da ys 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 sha ll be monitored following eit her the general standards adopted in State Water Resources Control Board’s On-Site Wastewater Treatment System Regulatio ns or the procedures out lined in the CPM-approved operations and maintenance manual. Any te sting 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 activiti es. Cultural resource materials such as artifacts, structures, or land modi fications reflect the history of human development. Certain places that are im portant to Native Americans or local national/ethnic groups are also considered valuable cult ural resources. Analysis in this topic area pertains to the stru ctural 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 signific ant, it is eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historic Resour ces (CRHR). (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14 § 48 50 et seq.) An archaeologi cal resource that does not qualify as an historic re source may be considered a “unique” archaeological
resource under California Envi ronmental Quality (CEQA). ( See Pub. Res. Code, § 21083.2.) In addition, structures older th an 50 years (or less if the resource is deemed exceptional) can be c onsidered 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 ident ified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the P ublic Resources Code,” or “any object, building, struct ure, site, area, place, re cord, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, econo mic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of Califor nia, 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 hi storical 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 Histor ical 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 crit eria 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 t hat have made a signif icant contribution to the broad patterns of our histor y (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 ma ster, or possesses high artist ic values (Criterion 3); or, that it has yielde d, 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 res ource is a historical resource.

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

1. Setting

The project is located in the southwestern portion of the San Joaquin Valley. The valley is a vast trough filled with sediment ary deposits, the oldest of marine origin and the youngest resulting from the eros ion of the surroundi ng mountains and deposition of the eroded materi al 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 re latively flat. The land use historically has been almost exclusively for agricultu re—mostly orchards—but the site has been annexed by the Cit y of Avenal and zoned for industrial use. The 148-acre Avenal Energy site, with an elevation r ange 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 Aqu educt’s San Luis Canal is lo cated approximately 200
feet northeast of the Avenal Energy site, but there are no natural perennial streams in the project vici nity. The routes of the linear facilities pass across

269privately owned farmland by means of easements acquired by Avenal Power Center (APC). (E x. 200, p. 4.3-4.)

Within the 148-acre Avenal Energy parce l, the area permanently required for the power plant is about 34 acres. The ar ea 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 construc ted. (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, on e between 2,000 BC and 500 AD, and another between 1500 and 1850 AD. Sites occupied during this time per iod in the lower San Joaquin Valley contai n higher numbers of groundst one milling artifacts used to process hard seeds into meal, suggesting an increased use of vegetal food
sources. There is evi dence that populations expanded and village s increased in
numbers after about 1500 AD in the sout hern and western parts of the San Joaquin Valley. The arc haeological evidence includes groundstone artifacts associated with acorn processing, bow-and-arrow technology, and large occupation sites representing permanent v illages with large, semi-subterranean communal structures. The project area is located within t he 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 ex plore the great interior valley, hopeful of making fresh converts and expanding th e mission system. The missionaries recruited and settled a few Southern Valley Yokuts at Missions San Luis Obispo, San Juan Bautista, Soledad, and San Anto nio, 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 “Horsethie f Indians.” (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-10.)

After 1821, the succeeding Mexican adminis tration made no greater inroads into settling the San Joaquin Valley than the Spanish had, but increased interaction with rancheros exposed the Southern Va lley Yokuts to European diseases.

270In 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 So uthern Valley Yokuts, along with other Native American groups, were settled on two reservations, the Tule River Reservation, in the Sierra Nevada foothi lls near Porterville, and the Santa Rosa Reservation, in the valley near Le moore. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-10.)

Following the conclusion of the Mexican War in 1848, t he Avenal Energy Project
area came under the control of the United States. Afte r 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 earlies t American use of the Av enal area was the cattleraising enterprise of Dave Kettleman, Jim McClure, and John Fisher, which supplied beef to the miners in the gold fields. Kettl eman 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 ninet eenth century, with Basque shepherds among the last arri vals. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-11.)

At the time of Californi a’s statehood, in 1850, what would eventually become Kings County was part of a vast Ma riposa 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 re cently founded towns in Kings County. Both came into being in 1929 as a result of a major oil stri ke in the Kettleman Hills. Needing to establis h 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 la id and tents were soon replaced with houses. Avenal was a boomtown, and bef ore 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 fric tion with oil producers in Oklahoma and Texas, whose marketing strategy kept pr ices high by limiti ng production. North Dome production peaked in 1936, and by t he post-World War II era, the reservoir was greatly reduced. In 1953, the vari ous oil companies wit h holdings in the
area fields consolidated and made Standard Oil the sole o perator of the field. Production continued to dwindle, and so did Avenal’s economy and population. During the 1960s an influx of agricultura l 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 bas is. (Ex. 200, p. 4.3-12.)

2712. Cultural Resources

Applicant’s records search included a ll known cultural resources within a onehalf-mile radius of the plant site, layd own area, and appurtenant linear facilities.
Sources checked included:

• Previous archaeological studies within one-half m ile of the components of the Avenal Energy site;

• Previously documented cultural resour ces or archaeological studies in the project area;

• Resources listed on the National Regi ster of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Res ources (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 da tabase 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 cultur al properties. The NAHC responded on March 29, 2001, indicating a negative retu rn from the search of t heir Sacred Lands File and providing contact information for nine Na tive Americans. The NAHC responded again on September 6, 2006, indicating t hat no sites of concern to Native
Americans had been found in the Sacred Lands database. On May 13, 2008, Energy Commission staff requested from t he NAHC a list of Native Americans interested in development in Kings and Fresno Counti es and on May 15, Staff
received a list of seven contacts from t he 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 cont act Staff if they had any concerns regarding cultural resources. The evi dence indicates that no Native Americans communicated any interest in the site ; therefore, no resources of ethnographic concern were identified. (E x. 200, pp. 4.3-14 to 4.3-16.)

272Between April 2, 2001 and March 12, 2008, t he plant site, related linear facilities, and surrounding area within a one-mile radius were physically surveyed for archaeological resources. All of APC’s e fforts to identify potentially significant archaeological resources through exis ting records, databases, and informed persons, and by conducting new field surv eys, 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 Pr oject. With respect to individual builtenvironment resources, no potentially sign ificant built-envir onment resources
were identified on the Avenal Energy site or within the impact areas of the project’s underground linear fa cilities, so such resources need not be considered when assessing the direct physical impacts of the project. The only individual
built-environment resources identi fied 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—ori ginally 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, C ondition of Ce rtification CUL-8 requires recordation and documentation should there be any m odifications to the existing TeslaMidway 230-kV transmi ssion line towers.

3. Potential Impacts

Direct impacts to cultural resource s are those associated with project development, construction, and co-exist ence. 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 vegetat ion removal, vehicle travel over the surface, earthmoving activities, excavation, or demoliti on of overlying structures. Construction can have direct impacts on historic res ources when those structures must be

273removed to make way for new structures or when the vibrations of construction impair the stability of histor ic 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 integrit y of the historic structures, such as emissions or vibrat ions. (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. Si milarly, 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 t hat no significant k nown archaeological
resources have been identif ied in any of the area s affected by project construction. Subsurface disturbance, during construction, however, has the potential to disturb as ye t unknown archaeological resources. We include
Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through CUL-7 to ensure that all impacts to cultural resources discovered during constr uction are mitigated below the level of significance. Mitigation measures fo r identifying, evaluating, and possibly mitigating impacts to previously unknow n archaeological resources discovered during construction include having an ar chaeologist monitor all excavation
activities in excess of fi ve feet on the project site , at the laydown areas, and along the pipeline and tr ansmission line routes; and having a Native American monitor construction activities if prehistor ic 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 signif icant (that is, eligible for the CRHR). Nonetheless, they agreed to have a qualifie d architectural historian document, to
a modified Level III Historic American En gineering Record (HAER) standard, any of the Tesla–Midway 230-kV transmission lin e’s towers that would have to be modified, as mitigation for the new trans mission line’s potential impact on the old line, should modification prove unavoidable. Condit ion of Certification CUL-8 enforces that agreement and w ill provide mitigation in t he form of recordation and
documentation in the event t hat these modifications must be made. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.3-34 to 4.3-35.)

274During 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 r epairs 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 constr uction of the plant and linear facilities ( CUL-1 through CUL-7 ) will also serve to mitigate im pacts from repairs occurring during operation of the plan t. (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 near by, 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 proj ect could affect unknown subsurface archaeological deposits, both pr ehistoric 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 operati on. 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 disc overed 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, Se ction 5097.98. Since the impacts from the Avenal Energy Proj ect will be mitigated to a less-thansignificant level by the project’s comp liance 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 t he Avenal Energy Project will not be cumulatively considerable when vi ewed in conjunction wit h other projects.

2755. Agency and Public comments

No public or agency comments were rece ived concerning Cult ural 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 constr uction in the Avenal Energy site, the linear facilities, or the surrounding area.

2. There are no historic districts or cult ural landscapes in the vicinity of the Avenal Energy Project.

3. No potentially significant built-envir onment resources were identified on the Avenal Energy site or within the im pact 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 Subs tation, 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 dur ing 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 ev ent that modifica tions 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 ot her projects so there will be no significant cumulative impacts to cultural resources.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. With implementation of the Conditi ons of Certificatio n below, the project will conform to all applic able laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards relating to cultural resources as se t forth in the pertinent portion of Appendix A of this Decision.

2762. Through implementation of the Conditions of Certification below, the project will have no signific ant 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 def ined in the General Conditions for this project), the project owner s hall obtain the servic es 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 acti vities required in accordance with the Conditions of Certification (C onditions). The CRS may elect to obtain the services of Cultural Re sources Monitors (CRMs) and other technical specialists, if needed, to assi st in monitoring, mitigation, and curation activities. The project owner shall ensure that the CRS makes recommendations regarding the eligibil ity for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) of any cultural resources that are newly discovered or that ma y be affected in an unanticipated manner. No ground disturbance shall oc cur 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 alter nate(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 archaeolog ical or historical, as appropriate (per nature of predominat e 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.

277The resumes of the CRS and alter nate CRS shall include the names and telephone numbers of contacts familiar with the work of the CRS/alternate CRS on referenced pr ojects 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 follo wing qualifications:

1. A B.S. or B.A. degree in anthropology, ar chaeology, historical archaeology or a related field and one year experience monitoring in California; or

2. An AS or AA degree in anthropol ogy, 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, histor ical archaeology or a related field, and two years of monitori ng experience in California.

CULTURAL RESOURCES TE CHNICAL SPECIALISTS
The resume(s) of any additional techni cal specialist(s), e.g., historical archaeologist, historian, architec tural 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 s ubmit 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 CR S the AFC and all cultural resources documents, fiel d notes, photographs, and other cultural resources materials generated by the proj ect. 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 dist urbance may continue up to a maximum of three days wit hout a CRS. If cultural resources are discovered then ground disturbance will re main halted until there is a CRS or alternate CRS to make a recommendation regarding significance.

At least 20 days prior to ground distur bance, the CRS shall provide a letter naming anticipated CRMs for the project a nd stating that the identified CRMs meet the minimum qualificati ons for cultural resources monitoring required by this Condition. If additional CRMs are obtain ed during the projec t, the CRS shall

278provide additional letters to the CPM id entifying 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 av ailable for onsite work and is prepared to implement the cultural resources conditions.

CUL-2 Prior to the start of ground disturbanc e, if the CRS has not previously worked on the project, the project owner sha ll provide the CRS with copies of the AFC, data responses, and confidential cu ltural 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, a ll access roads, and all laydown areas. Maps shall include the appr opriate 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 planni ng 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 w ould proceed in phases, maps and drawings not previously provided shal l be submitted prior to the start of each phase. Written notification i dentifying the proposed schedule of each project phase shall be pr ovided to the CRS and CPM.

At a minimum, the CRS shall c onsult weekly with the project construction manager to confirm ar ea(s) to be work ed 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, dat a 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 suit able for cultural resources planning activities.

1. If there are changes to any projec t-related footprint, revised maps and drawings shall be provided at least 15 days prior to start of ground disturbance for those changes.

2792. 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 curr ent schedule of anticipated project activity shall be pr ovided 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 schedul ing of construction phase.

CUL-3 Prior to the start of ground disturbanc e, 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 CP M, and the author’s name shall appear on the title page of the CR MMP. The CRMMP shall identify general and specific measures to minimize potenti al impacts to sensitive cultural resources. Im plementation 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 construc tion manager. No ground disturbance shall occur prior to CPM approv al 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 des ign that includes a discussion of archaeological research questions and testable hypotheses specifically applicable to the project ar ea, and a discussion of artifact collection, retention/di sposal, 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 buri ed 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 in cluded in the Introduction: “Any discussion, summary, or paraphras ing of the Conditions of Certification in this CRMMP is intended as general guidance and as an aid to the user in under standing the Conditions and their implementation. The Conditions, as written in the Commission Decision, shall supersede any su mmarization, description, or interpretation of the conditions in the CRMMP. The Cultural

280Resources Conditions of Certif ication from the Commission Decision are contained in Appendix A .”

3. Specification of the implem entation sequence and the estimated time frames needed to accomplish all project-related tasks during the ground disturba nce and post-ground–dist urbance analysis phases of the project.

4. Identification of t he person(s) expected to perform each of the tasks, their responsibilities, a nd 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 a ll impact-avoidance measures (such as flagging or fencing) to prohibit or other wise restrict access to sensitive resource areas that are to be avoided during project-related ground disturbance, constructi on, and/or operation, and identification of areas where these measures are to be implemented. The description shal l 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 a ll encountered cultural re sources over 50 years old shall be recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and mapped and ph otographed. 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 th e project owner will pay all curation fees for artifacts recovered and for rela ted documentation produced during cultural resources investigatio ns 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, ph otography, and recovery of any

281cultural resource materials t hat are encounter ed during ground disturbance and cannot be treated prescriptively.

10. A description of the contents and format of the final Cultural Resource Report (CRR), which s hall be prepared according to ARMR guidelines.

Verification: Upon approval of the CRS propos ed by the project owner, the CPM will provide to the CRS an elec tronic 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 appr oval. 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 le tter 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 invest igations (survey, testing, data recovery).

CUL-4 The project owner shall submit the final Cultur al 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 prov ided in the ARMR format. The final CRR shall report on all field activities including dates, times and locations, findings, samp lings, and analyses. All survey reports, DPR 523 forms, data reco very reports, and any additional research reports not previously s ubmitted 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 wit h 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 resume s or the project is withdrawn. If the project is withdrawn, then a fi nal CRR shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval at t he same time as the withdrawal request.

Verification: Within 90 days after completion of ground disturbance (including landscaping), the project owner shall subm it the final CRR to the CPM for review and approval. If any reports have previo usly been sent to the CHRIS, then receipt letters from the CHRIS or other ve rification of receipt shall be included in an appendix.

282Within 90 days after completion of ground disturbance (including landscaping), the project owner shall provide to the CP M 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 Archaeologic al Collections , to accept cultural materials, if any, from this project. Any agreements concerning curati on 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 cu rating institution, if archaeological materials were collected, and to any Nati ve 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 Environm ental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to all new worker s within their first week of employment at the project site, laydown area, and along the linear facilities routes. The training shall be prepared by t he 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 availabl e (by telephone or in person) to answer questions posed by empl oyees. The training may be discontinued when ground disturbance is completed or suspended, but must be resumed when ground distur bance, such as landscaping, resumes. The training shall include:

1. A discussion of applicable la ws and penalties under the law;

2. Samples or visuals of artifact s that might be f ound 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 id entifies reporting procedures in the event of a discovery;

6. An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that they have received the training; and

2837. 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 begi nning 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 ow ner a WEAP Training Acknowledgement form for each WEAP-trained worker to sign.

On a monthly basis, until ground disturbanc e is completed, the project owner shall provide in the Monthly Complianc e Report (MCR) the WEAP Training Acknowledgement forms of workers at t he 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, al ong linear facilities routes, at pull sites, and in any other ancillary pr oject-related impact areas, and all ground disturbance at any depth along existing paved roads, to ensure there are no impacts to undiscover ed 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 li near facility routes, and at roadsor 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 additiona l 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 m onitoring 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, CRM s shall keep a daily log of any monitoring and other cultural resource s activities and any instances of non-compliance with the Conditions and/ or applicable LORS. Copies of

284the daily monitoring logs shall be provided by the CRS to the CPM, if requested by the CPM. From thes e 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. T he 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 t he 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 applic able 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 acti on to resolve the problem or achieve compliance with the Condition s. 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 sha ll be obtained to monitor ground disturbance in areas where Native Am erican artifacts are discovered. Contact lists of interested Nati ve 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 t he area that shall be monitored. If efforts to obtain the services of a qualified Native American monitor are unsuccessful, the project owner shall immediately info rm the CPM. The CPM will either ident ify potential monitors or will allow ground disturbance to proceed without a Native American monitor.

Verification: At least 30 days prior to the star t of ground disturbance, the CPM will provide to the CRS an electronic c opy of a form to be used as a daily monitoring log. While monitoring is on-goi ng, 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 resour ces 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

285provided to the CPM for review and appr oval 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 Americ an tribes or groups who requested the information. Additionally , the project owner shall submit to the CPM copies of letters of transmittal fo r 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 aut hority 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 ov er 50 years of age or, if younger, determined exceptionally significant by the CPM, are f ound, or impacts to such resources can be antici pated, 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-disturbi ng activities elsewher e on the project site. The halting or redirecti on of ground distur bance shall remain in effect until the CRS has visited the discov ery, and all of the following have occurred:

1. The CRS has notifie d the project owner, an d 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 elig ibility, and provided recommendations for mitigation of any cultural resources discoveries, whether or not a dete rmination 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 fi eld notes, measurements, and photography for a DPR 523 “Primary” form. The “Description” entry of the DPR 523 “Primary” form shall include a recommendation on

286the 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 re commended 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 hal t 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 et hnographic resource, the project owner shall ensur e 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 resour ces 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 subjec t 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 equi valent study as provided for in the CAISO’s Open Access Transmission Tariff, completed by CAISO/PG&E for the project, indica tes the need for modifications to any existing Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line towers to accommodate AE’s new transmission lin e, then the project owner shall document any towers subject to modification.
The documentation shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian whose resume demonstr ates training and background conforming to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standard s (36 C.F.R., part 61) and three years’ experience in recording twentieth-c entury industrial structures.

The documentation shall include:

1. Representative photography of the transmission line and of the individual affected towers (all elevat ions) to be submitted in 5” x 7” or 8” x 10” prints on archival-quality paper;

287288 2. Preparation of a site plan or li near location map of the affected segment(s) and of individual affect ed towers within the alignment;

3. Technical descriptions of t he 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 Te sla-Midway 230-kV transmission line, drawn from public and non-confidential sources, from the time of its construction to the present, plac ing 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 t he Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center at California St ate 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 ow ner and PG&E documenting the project owner’s efforts to persuade PG&E to desi gn 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 t he Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line, if there will be project im pacts to the Tesla-Midway 230-kV transmission line towers, the project owner shall submit t he resume of the proposed architectural historian to the CPM for review and approval.
At least 30 days prior to any work on t he 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 conc erning the project’s potential impacts on significant geological and paleontological resources. The evidence evaluates whether project-related activities could re sult in exposure to geological hazards, as well as whether the facility can be designed and constructed to avoid any
such hazard which could im pair its proper functioning. These include faulting and seismicity, liquefaction, dynamic compaction, hydrocompaction, subsidence, expansive soils, landslides, tsunamis, and se iches. Next, the evidence of record assesses whether the projec t will impact any geologic or mineralogic resources. Finally, the analysis of record examines whether fossilized remains or trace remnants of prehistoric plant s or animals are present at the site and, if so, whether the project’s pot ential 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.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

1. Geologic Hazards

The project site is located in the sout hwestern San Joaquin Va lley, which is part of the Great Valley geomorphi c province of California. The Great Valley is approximately 400 miles long and 60 mile s wide, bounded on the north by lowlying hills; on the northeast by the volcani c 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 f an deposits of Holocene age underlain by Pliocene-Pleistocene aged non-marine cl astic sediments of the Tulare Formation. These units together extend to depths of 2,000 to 2,800 feet below the surface. ( Id .)

289The site parcel is not crossed by any k nown 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 pr oject is within an active geologic area.

The record contains specific subsurface information, as well as Staff’s independent research and review of geolog ic 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 pr oject 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 ap proximately 4.5 miles below the surface. Three earthquakes with a Richter magnit ude range of 5.6 to 6.7 occurred along
this fault zone between 1983 and 1985. Nu merous 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 magni tudes of less than 4.0. The Parkfield segment of the San Andreas Fault is abo ut 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 ex isting grade, the potential for liquefaction is negligible . Consequently, the potential for lateral spreading of the site surf ace during seismic events is also negligible.

• Alluvial deposits underlying the si te 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 ar e 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 thru st fault system that occurs at depth throughout the site vicinity. (Ex. 200, p. 5.2-6.)

290Overall, the evidence shows that, because b lind thrust faults do not intersect the surface, there is no known hazard due to surface rupture. Although strong ground shaking may occur, seismic c oncerns are adequately addressed by following proper design cr iteria as required in FACILITY DESIGN Condition of
Certification GEN-1 . The evidence similarly estab lishes that adverse impacts for the potential geologic haz ards 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 beneat h 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 variet y of vertebrate fossils. Accordingly, the evidentiary record contains site specific information, including field examinations, as well as information gle aned from records searches from the San Bernardino County Museum and the Natural History Mu seum of Los Angele s County. (Ex. 200, p. 5.2-5.) None of th is evidence indicates the pr esence of paleontological resources at the project site. Moreover , even if on-site construction, including
that for the associated natural gas line, includes signif icant earth disturbance, the likelihood of encountering paleontological resources re mains 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 re sources present as the Conditions will mitigate any construction impacts to less than significant levels. This mitigation will occur through a worker educ ation program in conjunction with the monitoring of earthworks activities by a pr ofessional paleontologist. (Ex. 200, p. 5.2-12.)

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the uncontroverted evidence, we make the following findings.

2911. The project is located in an active geologic area.

2. Ground shaking is the main geologi c hazard to the Avenal Project.

3. Potential geologic hazar ds 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, dy namic compaction, hydrocompaction, ground subsidence, landslides, flooding, tsunamis, and seiches pose low or negligible project risks.

5. There is no evidence of existing or potential geologica l 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 Mitigat ion Plan, and having a Paleontologic Resource Specialist on-site.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Conditions listed below ensure t hat project activities will not cause significant adverse impacts to geologic al, mineralogical, or paleontological

resources.

2. Compliance with t he Conditions of Ce rtification 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 Cert ification with respect to engineering geology are under
Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 in the FACILITY
DESIGN section. Paleontological Condit ions of Certification follow.

PAL-1 The project owner shall provid e the compliance project manager (CPM) with the resume and qualific ations of its paleontological resource specialist (PRS) for re view and approval. If the approved PRS is replaced prior to completion of project mitigation and submittal of the Paleontological Resources Report, the proj ect owner shall obtain

292CPM approval of the replacement PR S. The project ow ner shall keep resumes on file for qualif ied paleontological res ource 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 ve rtebrate paleontol ogist as described in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) guidelines of 1995. The experience of the PRS shall include the following:

1. Institutional affiliations, appropr iate credentials, and college degree;

2. Ability to recognize and co llect fossils in the field;

3. Local geological and bi ostratigraphic expertise;

4. Proficiency in identifying vert ebrate and invertebrate fossils; and

5. At least three years of paleontolog ical resource mitigation and field experience in California and at leas t one year of experience leading paleontological resource mi tigation 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. Paleontol ogic 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 classe s 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 distur bance, the PRS or project owner shall provide a letter with resumes naming antic ipated monitors for the project. The letter shall state that the i dentified monitors meet the minimum qualifications for paleontological resource monitoring requ ired by the condition. If additional monitors are obtained during the project, the PRS shall provide additional letters

293and resumes to the CPM. The letter shall be provided to the CPM no later than one week prior to the monito r’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 proj ect where ground disturbance is anticipated. If the PRS requests enlar gements or strip maps for linear facility routes, the proj ect 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 ext ent 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 re flecting 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 work ed 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 wit hin five days of identifying the changes.

PAL-3 The project owner shall ensure th at the PRS prepares , and the project owner submits to the CPM for revi ew 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 disturbanc e. The PRMMP shall function as

294the formal guide for monitoring, colle cting, 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 s hall 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 performanc e and sequence of project-related tasks, such as any literature sear ches, pre-construction surveys, worker environmental training, fi eldwork, flagging or staking, construction monitoring, mapping and data recovery, fossil preparation and collection, identifica tion and inventory, preparation of final reports, and transmittal of materials for cura tion will be performed according to PRMMP procedures;

2. Identification of t he person(s) expected to assist with each of the tasks identified within the PR MMP and the Conditions of Certification;

3. A thorough discussion of the anticipated geolog ic 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 s upplies necessary for collection of fossil materials and any specializ ed 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

295standards and requirement s for the curation of paleontological

resources;

9. Identification of the institution that has agr eed to receive data and fossil materials collected, requi rements 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. Th e 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 gr ound disturbance, the pr oject owner and the PRS shall prepare and conduct weekly CPM-approved training for the following workers: project manager s, construction supervisors, foremen and general workers invo lved with or who operate grounddisturbing equipment or t ools. Workers shall not excavate in sensitive units prior to receiving CPM-approved worker training. Worker training shall consist of a CPM-approved vid eo or in-person presentation. The training program may be combined with other training programs prepared for cultural and biological re sources, hazardous materials, or other areas of interest or concern. No ground distur bance shall occur prior to CPM approval of the Wo rker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) unless specific ally approved by the CPM.

The WEAP shall address the possibility of encountering paleontological resources in the fiel d, the sensitivity and importance of these resources, and legal obligations to pres erve and protect those

resources.

The training shall include:

1. A discussion of applicable la ws and penalties under the law;

2. Good quality photographs or ph ysical examples of vertebrate fossils for project sites contai ning 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 hal t or redirect work in the vicinity of a find and to contact their supervisor and the PRS or PRM;

2965. An informational brochure that id entifies 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 t he set of reporting procedures for workers to follow.
At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the projec t 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 paleo ntological trainer, the resume and qualifications of the trainer shall be submitted to the CP M for review and approval prior to installation of an alternate tr ainer. Alternate trai ners shall not conduct training prior to CPM authorization.

In the monthly compliance report (MCR), th e project owner shall provide copies of the WEAP certification of completi on forms with the names of those trained and the trainer or type of training (in-per son 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 t hat 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 associ ation 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 not ify 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 construc tion if paleontological resources are encountered. The project owner s hall 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 fr om the accepted schedule in the PRMMP shall be proposed in a lette r or email from the PRS and the project owner to the CPM prio r to the change in monitoring and will be included in the monthly compliance report. The letter or

297email shall include the justificat ion for the change in monitoring and be submitted to the CPM for review and approval.

2. The project owner shall ensur e that the PRM(s) keeps a daily monitoring log of paleont ological resource activities. The PRS may informally discuss paleontologica l resource monitoring and mitigation activities wit h the CPM at any time.

3. The project owner shall ensure that the PRS notifies the CPM within 24 hours of the occurr ence of any incidents of noncompliance with any paleontologi cal resources Conditions of Certification. The PRS shall reco mmend corrective action to resolve the issues or achieve complia nce with the Conditions of Certification.

4. For any significant paleontological resources encountered, either the project owner or the PRS sha ll 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 paleont ological activities to be placed in the monthly compliance reports. The summa ry shall include the name(s) of PRS or PRM(s) active during the month; general descriptions of training and monitored c onstruction activities; an d general locations of excavations, grading, and other activi ties. A section of the report shall include the geologic units or subuni ts encountered, descriptions of samplings within each unit, and a list of identified fossils. A final section of the report will address any iss ues or concerns about the project relating to paleontologic monitori ng, including any incidents of noncompliance or any changes to the monitoring plan that have been approved by the CPM. If no monitori ng took place during the month, the report shall include an explanat ion in the summary as to why monitoring was not conducted.

Verification: The project owner shall ensur e that the PR S submits the summary of monitoring and pale ontological 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 id entified in the PRMMP . If there is any unforeseen change in monitori ng, the notice shall be given as soon as possible prior to implementat ion of the change.

PAL-6 The project owner, through the designa ted 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, identificati on and inventory of fossils, the preparation of fossils for curation, and the delivery for curation of all

298significant paleontological resour ce materials encountered and collected during project construction.

Verification: The project owner shall maintain in his/her compliance file copies of signed contracts or agr eements with the designate d PRS and other qualified research specialists. The project owner sh all 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 paleont ological mitigation. A copy of the letter of transmittal submi tting the fossils to the curating institution shall be provided to the CPM.

PAL-7 The project owner shall ensure pr eparation of a Paleontological Resources Report (PRR) by the des ignated PRS. Th e PRR shall be prepared following completion of the ground-disturbing activities. The PRR shall include an analysis of t he 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 materi als; a map showing the location of paleontological resources encountered; determinations of sensitivity and significance; and a st atement 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 pr oject owner shall submit th e PRR under confidential cover to the CPM.

//

//

//

299300 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 Environm ental Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP includes pert inent information on cultural, pa leontological, and biological resources for all personnel (that is, construction supervisors, crews, and plant operators) working on site or at related fa cilities. 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 incompat ible with existing or planned land uses resulting in significant impac ts such as unmitigated nois e, dust, public health or safety hazards, adverse traffic or visual effects, or an excess ive burden on local community services. The following secti ons 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 Proj ect 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 existi ng and planned land uses. The evidence on this topic was undisputed. (Ex. 1, § 6.9; Ex. 200, p. 4.5-1 et seq.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

According to CEQA Guidelines 41 a project results in signi ficant land use impacts
if it would:

• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Fa rmland, 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 agricultu ral 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 di vide an established community.

• Conflict with any applicabl e habitat conservation pl an or natural community conservation plan.

• Conflict with any applicable land use pl an, 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, comm unity or specific plan, local coastal program, airport l and 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 consid ered with other impacts from the same project or in conjunction with impacts from other closely related past, present, and reasonab ly foreseeable future projects, are considerable, compound, or increa se 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 Intersta te 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 popul ation density. See Land Use Figure 1 (Regional Map) at the end of this sect ion. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-3.)

The site is part of the city’s industrial zone, which is physicall y separated from the
residential and business district s of the city by a dist ance of six miles. The
terrain between the industrial zone and th e city’s population center includes I-5 and the intervening topography of the Kettl eman Hills. The industrial zone extends from the Kettleman compressor st ation near I-5 to the city's water treatment plant at t he northeast corner of the city. According to St aff, 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 si te, excluding the
transmission line corridor.

302Land Use Table 2 General Plan Land Use Desi gnations 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-M ile 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 withi n 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 Zoni ng regulations, electric transmission lines and substations are permi tted 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 desig nated Prime Farmland by the California Department of Conservation (CDC). T he 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 physica l conversion of 34.8 acres of Prime Farmland. Applicant agreed to offset th is impact by preserving other Prime Farmland in the vicinity at a 1:1 ratio for the project’s pe rmanent disturbed acreage. We have adopted Co ndition of Certification LAND-2 to ensure that the

303project owner will implement this miti gation 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 adjac ent to the site that are also designated as Prime Farmland, Uniq ue Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The record establishes, howev er, 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 other wise will not conf lict with existing agricultural zoning, or interfere with Williamson Act contracts. (E x. 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, co mmercial, institutional, or other industrial land use patterns in the ar ea. (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 s pecifically applicabl e to the Avenal Energy Project. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-10.)

3. Consistency with Land Use LORS.

Use of the site for power plant developmen t is consistent with the city’s General
Plan Industrial Land Use element. The H eavy 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 deve lopment 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” timeli ne for Condition of Certification LAND-2 , Applicant and Staff proposed that proof of the farmland conversi on 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) stat es that project off-site linear facilities would not result in permanent farmland conversion. However, Staff’s Biologi cal Resources testimony identifies 1.2 acres of permanent farmland conver sion 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 impac ts to Prime Farmland (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-9.)

304To ensure that the project is consist ent local LORS, Sta ff reviewed the use permit findings that the City would have made but for the Energy Commission’s exclusive jurisdiction and found that the proj ect would be eligible for a use permit,
as follows:

1. The proposed use is desirable fo r public convenience or welfare. According to Staff, the project is consistent wit h the General Plan to promote orderly development with a functional mix of l and 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 t he project complies with the city’s development standards (lot requirements and height limitati ons) 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 t he project, including setback requirements, signage, landscaping, loading; fencing; and parki ng 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 citiz ens of the City of Avenal. Each technical topic discussed in this Decision was anal yzed according to well-established scientific methodology and applicable law designed to protect the most sensitive receptors. The mitigation m easures contained in the Conditions of Certification for each topic ensure that development of the project will not be detrimental to the public health, safe ty, 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 devel opment of the project components and provide agricultural buffers to protect su rrounding agricultural uses. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-14.)

The project’s water pipe from existing groun dwater wells located north of the site will traverse unincorporated land in Kings County. This use is consistent with the Kings County General Agriculture land us e designation because it will not harm long-term agricultural uses surrounding t he site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-12.)

305Approximately 200 feet of underground water pipeline from an existing well to the site for the standby water supply will cr oss into Fresno County. This short pipeline will not detrimentally affect agr icultural uses surrounding the site and is
therefore consistent with t he 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 responsibilit y 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 reco rd shows that the city has effectively
isolated the industrial area six miles from Avenal’s popula tion center to minimize impacts on residents. Beyond Avenal ci ty limits, the next closest population
centers from the site incl ude Huron eight miles to t he north and Kettleman City
about 10 miles to the south. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-15.)

The Conditions of Certific ation ensure that the proj ect will not result in unmitigated project-related impacts to surrounding properties. Under CEQA, a project site may be considered unaccept able if it presents a new source of pollution or creates a hazard in close proxim ity to a sensitive receptor. Sensitive receptors include schools, day-care c enters, hospitals, nursing homes, and residential areas. Close proximity is def ined as “within 1,000 feet” of a school (California Health & Safe ty 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 on e-mile radius of the site, there is no evidence that the project will pose a sign ificant 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 us es and zoning districts.

3065. Cumulative Impacts

There is no evidence of potential cumula tive land use impacts resulting from development of the Avenal Energy Pr oject because there are no anticipated zoning changes or proposals for future dev elopment near the proj ect site. (Ex. 200, p. 4.5-16.)

CRPE asserted that CEQA requires an a nalysis of whether the addition of the project’s 600 MW into the electric grid will induce populatio n growth throughout
the State of California. (CRPE Opening Brief, p. 15, citing § 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines.) In response, App licant 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 plan ts 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; Applic ant’s Reply Brief, at 17.) Where such demand for electricity exists, public utilitie s are required to serve that demand, or load, and this Commission must ensure the reliability of generat ing 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 stat e. Staff analysis of potential cumulative land use impacts revealed no trends in zoning c hanges 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 resu lt 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 mi tigation by preser ving other Prime Farmland in the vicinity at a 1:1 rati o 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 Prim e Farmland to an insignificant level.

3074. Construction of the project’s off-site linear facilities will not result in a conflict with existing agr icultural 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 t he Avenal Energy Project.

7. Local ordinances and policies applicable to the Avenal Energy Project include the City of Avenal General Pl an, City of Avenal Zoning Ordinance, the Kings County General Plan and the Fresno County General Plan.

8. The project site is designated Indust rial “I” under the Avenal General Plan and zoned Heavy Industrial “M-2”, which al lows a broad range of industrial activities and development including an “electrical power gener ating 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 requir ed findings for a Use Permit under the Avenal Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with applicable LORS.

11. The project will be designed and c onstructed in accordance with all applicable development standards identified in the Avenal Zoning Ordinance.

12. The City of Avenal has effectively is olated the industrial area, where the project site is located, by a dist ance of six miles from areas zoned for residential, public, and retail commerc ial use to minimize impacts on sensitive receptors.

13. The project is compatible with surrounding uses and zoni ng districts since the primary purpose of the city’s Indus trial “I” District is to encourage industrial development in an ar ea suitable for this use.

14. There is no evidence of direct, i ndirect, or cumulative land use impacts resulting from development of the Avenal Energy Project.

15. There is no evidence that the pr oject will induce significant population growth either near the site or throughout the State of California.

308CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. With implementation of the mitigation measures specified in this Decision, and the Conditions of Certif ication below, we conc lude that construction and operation of the Avenal Energy Project will no t result in significant adverse direct, indirect, and cu mulative 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 proj ect will create no unmitigated , significantly adverse land use effects as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act.

3. The Conditions of Certification, bel ow, ensure that the Av enal 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 (Chapt er 9.31) which incl udes the following:

• Meet the setba ck requirements;

• Off-street parking and loading spaces sha ll 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 remediati on on the power plant project site or its associated easements, the pr oject owner shall submit the proposed development plan to the City of Avenal Planning Depa rtment for review and comment and to the CPM for review and appr oval. The project owner sh all also provide the CPM with a copy of the transmitta l letter to the City of Avenal.

309310 At least 30 calendar days prior to the star t 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 developm ent 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 fa rmland 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 mitigati on 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 Fa rmland Trust consistent with a prepared Farmlands Mitigation Agr eement. 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 apprai ser 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 agricultu ral 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 M ap, but in no case sh all 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 co mmercial operations.
For option 2, the project owner shall pr ovide 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 satisfacti on of the CPM that the project owner has secured the creation of an in-perpetui ty agricultural easement for the total required acreage.LAND USE - FIGURE 1
Avenal Energy Regional Map

Source: Ex. 200

311B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

This section addresses the extent to which the proposed project will affect the local area’s transportation network. The ev idence includes an analysis of: (1) the roads and routings that ar e proposed to be used for construction and operation; (2) potential traffic-related problems asso ciated 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 e ffect of project operations on local airport flight traffic.

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

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 Trans portation Figure 1 , below, Regional Transportation System shows the r egion surrounding the project site.

///

///

///

312Traffic and Transportation – Figure 1 Avenal Energy – Regional Transportation System

Source: Ex. 200.

3132. Access Roads

Access to the Avenal site would be via the following hi ghways 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 v ehicles 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 vehi cles 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 si te. 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 pr oject site. It
intersects I-5 and heads south to the Ci ty 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 directi on from I-5. Traffic volu mes on SR-41 in the project vicinity are 14,200 vehicles per day (13 per cent 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. A dditional aviation facilities include Harris Ranch Airport (fifteen miles northwest at Interstate 5 and State route 198) , and Lemoore Naval Air Station (fifteen miles northea st). The project site is not in the landing or takeoff pattern of any of these facilities.

314However, the project would be located beneath the Military O perational Airspace of the Lemoore facility. T here are no agricultural airstr ips in the project area. (7/709 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, p. 4.10-4.)

b. Public Transportation

The Kings Area Rural Transit provides bu s 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 Cit y of Avenal to Kettleman City three times per day; 7 a.m., 3:15 p. m., and 3:30 p.m. School s are let out early on Wednesdays; the bus would pass by the si te 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 ar e the Union Pacific (UP) line (leased by the San Joaquin Valley Railroad) which connects the communities of Huron and Exeter, and th e 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 li ne 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 qua litative 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 affe cted in the project area.

315Traffic 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 ta ke 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 aver age and peak construction periods, the Applicant assumed that wo rkers 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 w ould be approximately 320, while the peak workforce would consist of 550 work ers 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 skill ed laborers, the bulk of construction workers would probably come from Fresno County, with some from Kern and Kings counties. Those comi ng from Kings and Fresno counties would use SR-41, SR-198 and SR-269 and turn on to Avenal Cutoff Road. They would then go west until reaching t he 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 signif icant traffic impacts are identified at
two different locations.

316Construction of the generat ing plant would require t he use and installation of heavy equipment and associated systems and structures. Heavy equipment would be used throughout the constructi on period, including trenching and earthmoving equipment, forklifts, cranes, ce ment mixers and dr illing equipment. A passenger car equivalent (PCE) factor of three cars per truck was used to determine the traffic impacts of trucks and heavy equipment deliv eries. 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, to tal average construction traffic impact (workforce and trucks) would be 302 vehi cle 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 tr ucks and deliveries), or 1596 one-way vehicle trips. The average construction to tal is about a 12 percent increase in traffic when compared to 2007 Avenal Cu toff Road average daily traffic counts (5,000). Peak construction total is about a 35 percent increase. Staff and the Applicant believe the LO S 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 dam age to Avenal Cutoff Road from construction traffic, particularly heavy trucks.

Two potentially significant impacts to lo cal roads from project construction were identified during analysis of the AFC. The first invo lves the SR-198 eastbound ramp at Avenal Cutoff Road. Currently, t he afternoon peak is LOS D which is at the threshold for unacceptable congestion acco rding to Caltrans’ Guide to Traffic Impact Studies. During peak construc tion (in 2011) the congestion during the afternoon peak would increase to an unacc eptable level (LOS F). To mitigate this potential impact the Applicant has propos ed hiring an off-duty traffic officer to direct traffic or installing a trailer-mount ed camera activated temporary signal. We adopt that requirement in C ondition of Certification TRANS-1

.

The second potential impact involves the intersection of Jayne Avenue and Avenal Cutoff Road. Existing eastbound se mi-truck and traile r traffic on Jayne
Avenue must cross over t he centerline to enter Av enal Cutoff Road and could cause a delay, depending on traffic flow on Avenal Cutoff Road. Though the
current situation is less t han ideal, the Applicant and Sta ff agree that it is unlikely

317that Avenal Energy construction truck traffic would use this intersection. However, given the possibility of a signif icant 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 th e 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 nece ssary, and would not significantly impact traffic flow. Condi tion of Certification TRANS-1 requires that the project owner work with the city of Avenal to mi tigate any significant adverse impact on traffic flows on Avenal Cutoff Road during co nstruction of the linear facilities.

The Reef-Sunset Unified School District pr ovides school bus service between the city of Avenal and Kettleman City. The bus route includes Aven al 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 constr uction 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 suppor ted of Staff’s proposed Condition of
Certification TRANS-1 requiring that project construction contractors and subcontractors not arrive or depart the si te 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 worker s 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 thei r 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 material s of about two truck trips per month to and from the site. Material s handling on site wo uld be conducted in accordance with all applicable feder al and state statutes (see the HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS MANAGEMENT section of this Decision for more information). The preferred transportation route for ha zardous materials would use I-5 and Avenal Cutoff Road. (7/709 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.10-5 to 4.10.8.)

318b. Operation

Plant operations will require 25 full time workers generating 50 one-way trips per day. Plant operations would also gener ate approximately 5 del ivery 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 Ranc h Airport is loca ted about 15 miles northwest, and the Lemoore Naval Air Stat ion 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 with in the Military Operat ional Airspace of the Lemoore facility. Ther e are no agricultural airstr ips 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 w ould 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 moder ate to severe turbulence. Staff estimates that the 4.3 m/s average therma l plume velocity would rise up to almost 1,000 above ground level (AGL) duri ng certain meteorol ogical conditions (calm wind, cool temperatures). The di ameter of the thermal plume at this elevation would be 265 feet ( 80 meters). The peak veloci ty in the center of the plume could be considerably higher. Staff believes that the Avenal Energy HRSG would have thermal plume velocities resulting in tur bulence that could affect low-flying aircraft maneuverability. The thermal plume velocities from the air condenser could be considerably hi gher 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 Av enal Airport and t he 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.

319The agricultural fields near the project ar ea are sprayed by crop-dusting aircraft. The Applicant controls the 148-acre parcel that surrounds the proj ect site and will implement requirements that would preclu de 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 Co mmissioners that crop-dusting aircraft should avoid direct overflight of the project site.

Visible HRSG plumes rise vertically and would not creat e ground hugging plumes that could impact vehicle traffic on Avenal Cutoff Road. The project air
condenser would not emit vi sible 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 hazardo us substances including sulfuric acid and cleaning and water treatment chemicals. It is estimated that there would be an average of approximately seven truck tr ips per month including four deliveries per month of aqueous ammonia. In additi on, there would be 27 additional truck trips of various hazardous materials ev ery 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 west ern Kern County near the communities
of Buttonwillow and Kettlem an City, and in Imperial County near the community
of Westmoreland. The hand ling and disposal of hazar dous 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 standar ds, deliveries of hazardous materials such as aqueous a mmonia 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 cons truction project that would affect the surrounding roadways and therefore finds that no cumulative impacts on traffic or transportation are expected from constructi on or operation of t he Avenal Energy project. (7/709 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.10-9 to 4.10-10.)

320FINDINGS 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 rela ted to Traffic and Transportation.

2. The evidence includes an analysis of the project’s pot ential 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 mitigat ed herein, will not result in any significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to the local or regional traffic and tran sportation system.

2. The project as proposed would comply with all applicable LORS related to Traffic and Transportation, which are set fo rth in Appendix A of this Decision.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

TRANS-1 The project owner shall, in coordi nation 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 mob ilization. Specifically, the traffic control plan shall include the following:

• The use of an off-duty traffic office r 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 pr oject construction contractors and subcontractors that they should not arrive or depart the site within

321one-half hour of the times when school buses use Avenal Cutoff Road between Orange Av enue 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 avoi d using the Jayne Road/Avenal Cutoff Road intersection.

• Traffic safety measures for ingre ss/egress from the project site to Avenal Cutoff Road shall include at a minimum a full time stop sign, and a flag person during shi ft changes and heavy equipment ingress/egress.

• Ensure that the construction of the linears uses appropriate mitigation such as cones, si gns, 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 star t of site mobili zation activities, the project owner shall submit a construction traffic control plan to the city of Avenal, the Kings County Public Works De partment, and the Reef-Sunset Unified School District for review and comment, an d 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 tra ffic 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 work ers will be advised to avoid arriving and departing the Avenal Energy si te within one-half hour of the time when the school bus uses Avenal Cutoff Road. The projec t 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 activiti es, 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 constr uction it will be repaired and reconstructed to original or as near original condition as possible. This plan shall include:

• Documentation of the pre-constr uction condition of Avenal Cutoff Road from I-5 to the access road to t he 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 oversi ze or large construction vehicles, and identify necessa ry remediation measures;

322323 • 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 Av enal Cutoff Road that are damaged by project construction due to oversi ze or overweight construction vehicles.

Verification: At least 90 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project owner shall submit a mitigat ion plan for restoring Ave nal 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 th e completion of construction , the project owner shall provide photo/videotape documentation to the Kings County Planning Department, and the CPM t hat the damaged sections of Avenal Cutoff Road have been restored to their pre-project condition.

TRANS-3 Prior to start-up and testing activiti es, the project owner shall notify the Kings and Fresno County Agricu ltural Commissioners that due to the potential presence of project the rmal plumes with significant size and velocities, crop-dusting aircraft s hould 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 Commissi oners that crop dusting airc raft should avoid direct overflight of the Avenal Energy site.C. SOCIOECONOMICS

This topic reviews pertinent demographi c information concerning population centers near the project site and evaluat es 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 disproporti onate impacts on low in come and/or minority populations.

The evidence for this topic regarding im pacts on public services was undisputed but the evidence regarding env ironmental justice was contes ted. (Ex. 1, § 6.10, Exs. 3(d), 25(j); Ex. 200, p. 4.8- 1 et seq.; 07/07/09 RT 59 et seq.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

The analysis is focused on the construc tion 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 comm unity 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 populati on 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 construc tion and an overall average workforce of about 326 workers per mont h, 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 t hat 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

324workers are expected to commute from the population cent ers of Fresno and
Bakersfield about one hour from the site. According to Staff, workers typically commute from their homes on a daily ba sis 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 r ental properties on a weekly basis and
return to their homes on the weekends. Th e evidentiary record indicates there is an adequate supply of hotels/motels, rent al 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 bas ed 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

.

325Applicant expects to hire about 25 pe rmanent, full-time employees for project operation from Kings C ounty and neighboring counties within commuting distance of the project site . A minimal number of empl oyees may relocate to the area and require permanent ho using 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 se rvices will be negligible in relation to the supply of available housing and servic es available. No replacement or displacement of residential housing will be necessary as a resu lt of the project because project construction and operation will not increa se demand for housing. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.8-4, 4.8-7; Ex. 1, § 6. 10.1.3.)

Since project-induced potential populati on increases will be minimal or nonexistent, construction and operation of the project will not resu lt 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 potentia l impacts on law enforcement and emergency services at the site, the project owner will implement appropriate site se curity measures and medical emergency training to reduce the need for assistance to insignific ant levels. (Ex. 200, p. 4.8-9.)

Section 17620 of the Californ ia Education Code allows a school district to levy a school development fee against new commer cial or industrial construction within
its boundaries. State and lo cal agencies are precluded from imposing additional fees or other required payments on development projects for the purpose of mitigating possible enrollment impacts to sch ools. (Gov. Code, § 65996 et seq.)

The Avenal Energy Project is located within the Re ef-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 proj ects. [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 estima ted 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 eviden ce of any significant project-related adverse socioeconomic impacts on educational resources. ( Id. )

3262. Section 25523(h) Pub lic Benefit Findings

Public Resources Code section 25523(h) requires discussion of the project’s public benefits. Applicant used an IMPL AN input-output model of the study area to estimate the project’s multiplier e ffect associated with construction and operation. Project constr uction will provide local ec onomic benefits by creating direct, indirect, and induced short-term em ployment. Property tax revenues from the project will be allo cated 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

327Socioeconomics 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 capi tal costs. Construction would be for 27 months and the project’s life is planned for 30 years. U nemployment information is for Kings County. The results of the IMPLAN inputoutput modeling are for Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties and show secondary impacts (indi rect 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 no t result in high and adverse impacts to any population, there are no disp roportionate impacts on the environmental justice population and no further environmen tal 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 Openi ng Brief, pp. 12 through 15, Sta ff’s Reply Brief, p. 17.)

The Center on Race, Poverty and the Environment (CRPE) and Rob Simpson claim that the environmental justic e analysis failed to consider the localized air quality and public health e ffects on the minority/low- income populations who
reside near the site. CRPE also assert s that nearby Spanis h-speaking residents
were denied access to information abou t the project becaus e the Final Staff Assessment was not translated into Spanis h. (CRPE’s Opening Reply Brief, p. 24 et seq; Rob Simpson’s Opening Brief, last page.)

328California law defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enfor cement 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 im pact on the environment. (Govt. Code, § 65040.12(b)(1).) The Resources Agen cy’s guidance includes demographic screening, public outreach, and impact analysis as important factors in implementing its envir onmental justice policy. In conjunction with the Resources Agency’s mandate, the California Envi ronmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) has established an action plan to address en vironmental 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 Executiv e 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 envir onmental effects of thei r 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) do es the potentially affected community include minority and/or low-income popul ations and, if it does, (2) are the environmental impacts likely to fall disp roportionately 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 environm ental justice population exists if the low-income and/or minority populations of the affected area constitute 50 percent or more of the general populat ion or if the minority popu lation percentage in the area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate un it of geographic anal ysis. (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/E nvJustice/ActionPlan/ and Phase 2 updates at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJust ice/ActionPlan/Phase2/default.htm and en español at: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/EnvJustice/

329Staff 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 effect s. 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 subdivis ion of a census tract) shows that the below-poverty population is 30.89 per cent within the si x 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 justic e screening analysis was triggered because minority populations within the six mile radius exceed the 50 percent threshold. The Commission’s screening analysis incorpor ates the guidance from both the Resources Agency and the federal governm ent and includes (1) specific public outreach to notify, inform, and invo lve community members, including nonEnglish speaking individuals; (2) assessi ng potential environm ental and health impacts of the proposed project; and (3 ) determining whether any potential impacts disproportionately bur den the minority populations. 47 (Ex. 200, pp. 1-3, 1-4.)

The Commission’s public outreach prog ram is an integral part of the Commission’s siting process. The Public Adviser’s Office facilitates the public outreach program by sending letters and noti ces to city and county officials, as well as "sensitive receptors" (including schools, community, cultural and health facilities, daycare and senior-care centers, and environm ental and ethnic organizations) within a six-mile radius of t he 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 Staf f to send notices to property owners within 1,000 feet of a projec t and 500 feet of linear faci lities. The notification letters include project website informa tion, Staff contact information, and information on how to access project-rela ted 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

330public and agency review, comment, and c ontinued 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, agenc ies, 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 Av enal area to publicize the public hearings on the project. Notice was also published in the Community News Section of the May 14, 2008, i ssue 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 we ll as the Kings County Economic Development Corporat ion. (Ex. 200, p. 1-3.)

CRPE did not provide evidence of signific ant errors in the conduct of public outreach efforts in this proceeding. Al though the Final Sta ff Assessment was not translated into Spanish, the Spanish-s peaking population received sufficient notice of the proceedings in Spanish, including informa tion on how to participate. Moreover, CRPE represented the intere sts of the environmental justice populations and had the opportunity to ra ise concerns specific to their communities. Furthermore, a Spanish tran slator was availabl e at most Staff workshops and at the evidentia ry 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 pr oceeding. (07/07/09 RT, pp. 58-59.) Therefore, we find the public outreach was adequat e and that due process was served.

The evidentiary record indicates that the fu lly mitigated project will not result in any significant adverse envir onmental or public health impacts to any population, including farm workers in the region, r egarding 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 RESOU RCES, AND WASTE MANAGEMENT . The analyses for each topic were based on well- established scientific protocols and regulatory standards, which a ccount for sensitive recept ors that are presumed to be most susceptible to adverse environm ental or public health impacts. Since the project will not result in significant impacts for any sensitive receptor

331population, we conclude that the project will not resu lt in a disproportionate impact on the environmental ju stice populations. (Ex. 200, pp. 1-4; see also the
sections of this Decision conc erning the topics identified above.)

4. Cumulative Impacts

Since the project will not resu lt in any significa nt adverse socioe conomic impacts on housing, schools, or public se rvices, it is not expected to contribute to significant
cumulative socioeconomic im pacts in the project vicini ty. Construction of the Avenal Energy Project may coincide with c onstruction of two ot her power plants in Kings County and one power plant in Fr esno County. In addi tion, several other projects in the area could begin construc tion during the same period, including a new landfill and expansion of an existing l andfill in Kettleman City. Staff reviewed the potential construction workforce over lap during the project’s anticipated 27- month construction period be ginning April 2010, and dete rmined that the workforce in the four-county area is large enough to accommodate construction of the power plant projects as well as the other projec ts scheduled within th e same timeframe. (Ex. 200, p. 4.8-10.)

According to Staff, construction of the f our power projects and other development projects will provide economic benefits to the four-county area because currently there is a high unemployment rate. (Ex. 20 0, p. 4-11.) Thus, we find no evidence that the project will have a cumulatively considerable im pact on the labor force causing an influx of non-local worker s 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 p ool in Kings County and ne ighboring Tulare, Fresno and Kern Counties is available for construction and operation of the project.

2. The project will not caus e an influx of a signific ant number of construction or operation workers to relocate in the local area.

3. The project will not result in si gnificant adverse effects on local employment, housing, schools, public ut ilities, 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.

3325. The project will prov ide a construction payroll of about $126 million (2007 dollars).

6. The project will spend an estimat ed $2.5 million (2007 dollars) on local purchases of materials and equipm ent 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 appr oximately $2.1 mill ion (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), wit hout linear facilities.

10. The combined public out reach efforts of the P ublic 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 screeni ng level environmental justice analysis.

12. The screening level environmental just ice analysis indicates that there are no disproportionate impacts on low-in come and/or minorit y populations. The project affects all local residents equally regardless of ethnicity or income level.

13. The project will provide direct, in direct and induced economic benefits to Kings County and surrounding communities.

14. Construction and operation of the proj ect will not result in any direct, indirect, or cumulative signific ant 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 t hat implementation of all Cond itions of Certification in this Decision, including the Condition of Certification be low, ensures the project will comply with all applicab le laws, ordinances, regulations, and

333standards relating to socioeconomic factors as identified in the pertinent portions of Appendix A

.

2. The evidence of record contai ns an adequate analysis of socioeconomic effects related to the pr oject 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 cont ains an adequate analysis of potential
socioeconomic effects related to the project pursuant to Federal and state guidelines concerning envir onmental justice and estab lishes that the project will create no disproportionat e adverse effects on minority or low-income populations.

CONDITION OF CERTIFICATION

SOCIO-1 The project owner shall pay the one- time statutory sch ool 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 Compli ance Project Manager (CPM) proof of payment of the statut ory development fee.

//

//

//

334335D. NOISE AND VIBRATION

The construction and operation of any power plant will create noise. The character and loudness of this noise, the ti mes 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 adver se 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 vibratio n produced during project construction and operation will be sufficient ly 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.)

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

The project site is located on about 34 ac res 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 am bient noise in the project area include vehicle traffic, farm operations, the City of Avenal Water Treatment Plant, occasional aircraft over-flights, and natur al sounds such as birds and insects. The nearest sensitive noise receptors ar e a farmhouse located approximately 1.3 miles to the northeast, and another farmhou se 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. Therefor e, both the noise element of the City of Av enal’s General Plan and t hat 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 b oundaries 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 dB A as “unacceptable.” (Ex. 200, p.4.6- 4.)

CEQA Guidelines also set forth characteri stics of noise impacts that may indicate potentially significant effect s 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.)

336permanent 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 pr oject-related noise emissions exceed existing ambient noise levels at the neares t 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 t he significance of an adverse impact as defined above include: (1) the resultin g 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 noi se 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 pr oject area which would affect the ambient noise level. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-6.) Although t he 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 (f armhouse) 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 wa s conducted several times during the day-time and night-time peri ods at the front yard of this residence.

337The 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

L 90 Average During Daytime Hours

L eq 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 operati on 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 M L4 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 L eq

(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 t he County’s Noise Element limits the loudness of
construction noise. Moreov er, the greatest increase – i.e. 2 dBA at ML4 – is barely noticeable. Thus, the evidence co nvincingly establis hes that project

338construction will comply with applicable LORS. To further insure construction noise levels will not be disruptive at t he nearest residences, we have adopted
Conditions of Certification NOISE-1

, NOISE-2 , and NOISE-6 . The first two Conditions establish a comp laint 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 c onstruction allowed on Sundays. This is consistent with the applicable local noise ordinances. (E x. 200, p. 4.6-8.)

High pressure steam blows, typically the loudest noise encountered during construction, if not silenced, could creat e 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 modifi ed Staff’s recommendation to limit steam blows to the day and time restri ctions 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 contro l 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. W hen it is operating, the Av enal Energy Project will essentially be a continuous noise source . This noise contributes to, and becomes part of, the background noise le vel when most intermittent noises cease. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-11.) The primary noise so urces of this project include the gas turbine generators and their ex haust 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 ba lancing the noise emissions of various power plant features during the design stage to av oid creating annoying tonal (pure-tone)
noises. Other measures in clude stack, generator exhaus t, 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

339and 28 dBA at ML5. These levels are substantially below the 65 dBA noise standards contained in the City’s and the C ounty’s LORS. (Ex. 200, pp. 4.6-10 to 4.6-11.)

Increases in ambient noise level c an be especially annoying at night, during normal sleeping hours. Table 3 shows the effect of pr oject 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 L 90
(dBA) Project Plus Ambient L 90
(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. Conditi on of Certification NOISE-4 ensures compliance with the foregoing noise levels. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-12.)

As with construction activities, operati onal 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 E nergy Project, even when co upled with noise from expansion and operat ion of the Chemical Wast e Management Kettleman Hills Facility, will not create a significant cumu lative impact to the existing receptors
due to the several miles distance betw een them. (Ex. 200, p. 4.6-13.)

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the evidence of record, the Commission makes the following findings.

3401. 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 co mplaint process to the public.

3. Traditional high pressure steam blows would result in excessive levels of noise.

4. Additional mitigation, su ch 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 reduc ed to below a level of significance.

5. Project construction will increase day-t ime ambient noise levels by 2 dBA at the nearest residential receptor. T he 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. T he evidence establishes that this will not be a significant increase.

7. The project owner will implement meas ures to protect wo rkers from injury due to excessive noise levels during both construction and operation.

8. The Avenal Project will not create ground or air bor ne vibrations which will cause significant off-site impacts.

9. Implementation of the Conditions of Certificat ion, 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 t hat the Avenal Energy Project will comply with the applicable laws, or dinances, 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.

341CONDITIONS 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 cons truction. At the same time, the project owner shall establish a tel ephone number for use by the public to report any undesirable noise conditions associated with the construction and operation of the projec t. If the telephone is not staffed 24 hours a day, the project owner shal l include an automatic answering feature, with date and ti me 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 maintai ned until the proj ect 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 t hat 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 operat ion 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 det ermine the source of noise mentioned in the complaint;

• if the noise is project related, ta ke 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 su mmary, including the final results of noise reduction efforts and, if obtainable, a signed statement by the complainant stating that t he noise problem has been resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction.

342Verification: 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 re solve the complaint, and the complaint is not resolved within a three-day period, the project owner s hall submit an updated Noise Complaint Resolution Form w hen 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 applicabl e 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 ava ilable to Cal-OSHA upon request.



### NOISE RESTRICTIONS

NOISE-4 The project design and implementa tion shall include appropriate noise mitigation measures adequate to ensure that the noise levels due to operation of the projec t alone will not exceed: an hourly average of 33 dBA during the four quietest consecutive hours of the nighttime, measured at or near moni toring location ML4 ( approximately 1.3 miles northeast of the project site b oundary); and an hourly average of 28 dBA, during the four quietest c onsecutive hours of the nighttime, measured at or near moni toring 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 legi timate complaints.

A. When the project first achiev es a sustained output of 85% or greater of rated capacity, the pr oject 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 al so 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 moni toring location ML5, or at a closer location acceptable to the CP M. 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.

343The 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 fr om the plant boundary) and this measured level then ma thematically extrapol ated to determine the plant noise contribution at the affected residenc e. 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 surv ey indicate that the power plant noise at the affected receptor sites exceeds the above values during the four quietest consec utive hours of the nighttime, mitigation measures shall be im plemented to reduce noise to a level of compliance with these limits.

C. If the results from the noise su rvey indicate that pure tones are present, mitigation measures sha ll 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 ow ner shall submit a summary report of the survey to the CPM. Included in the su rvey 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 Ti tle 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.

344Verification: 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 OS HA and Cal-OSHA upon request.

CONSTRUCTION RESTRICTIONS

NOISE-6 Heavy equipment operation and noisy construction work relating to any project features shall be restri cted 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-power ed equipment shall be equipped with adequate mufflers. Haul trucks shall be operated in accordance with posted speed limits. Truck engi ne 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 construc tion of the project.

STEAM BLOW RESTRICTIONS

NOISE-7 The project owner shall equip the st eam 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.

345346 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 rece ived: ____________

____________ Nature of noise complaint:

Definition of problem after inve stigation by plant personnel:

Date complainant first contacted:

________________________ Initial noise levels at three feet from noise source _________ dBA Date:

_____________ Initial noise levels at complain ant's property: __________ dBA Date:

____________

Final noise levels at three feet from noise source: ________ dBA Date:

_____________ Final noise levels at complain ant's property: __________ dBA Date:

____________ Description of corrective measures taken:

Complainant's signatur e: ________________________ Date:

____________ Approximate installed cost of corrective measures: $ ____________ Date installation completed: ____________ Date first letter s ent to complainant: ____________ (copy attached) Date final letter sent to co mplainant: ____________ (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 contri bute 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 vi sta or damage scenic resources, or create a new source of subs tantial light or glar e affecting day or nighttime views in the area. (Cal. C ode Regs., tit. 14 § 153 82, Appendix G.)

Key Observation Points (KOP s) represent the most crit ical 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 sens itivity 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, domi nance, 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.

S UMMARY AND D ISCUSSION OF THE E VIDENCE

The proposed Avenal Energy Pr oject would be built in the City of Avenal in Kings County, California. The proj ect site is in the northeastern portion of the City on the east side of the Kettleman Hills (elevati on 1,200 feet), two miles east of U.S. Interstate 5 (I-5) on undev eloped 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.

347Visual 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 containi ng 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 elec trical equipment; exhaust stack fabrication and condenser work; and installation of the air cooled condenser, aboveground tanks and prefabri cated buildings. As pr oject structures are erected that exceed the height of the orchards, they wo uld become visible to the public. Construction materials, heavy eq uipment, 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 ni ght time construction activities would,
to the extent feasible and c onsistent with worker safety codes, be directed toward
the center of the construction site and sh ielded to prevent lig ht from straying offsite. Task-specific construction li ghting would be used where feasible. The
use of shielded directional exterior lights and fixtures of a non-glare type on the

348construction site and laydown area woul d minimize offsite light and glare impacts. We adopt Condit ion of Certification VIS-2 to formalize appropriate construction lighting measures.

The project’s proposed construction acti vities, 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 Condi tions of Certification
VIS-1 and VIS-2 , will cause less than significant vis ual 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 sceni c vista or damage sce nic resources, or
create a new source of subst antial light or glare affecti ng day or night time views in the area. There are no publicly desig nated national, state, or county scenic vistas in the project’s vici nity and therefore no impacts in that regard. Similarly,
there are no scenic resource s identified by a federal, st ate, or local agency and thus no potential for damage to such a re source. (7/7/09 RT 447-448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-3 to 4.12-4.)

Operation of the proposed proj ect has the potential to in troduce light offsite to surrounding properties, and up-lighting to the night time sky. If bright exterior lights were not hooded, and lights not dire cted onsite, they could introduce significant light or gl are to the vicinity.

The Applicant proposes that operational lighting be directed onsite and shielded from public view. Non-glare fixtures and us e of switches, sensors, and timers to minimize the time that lights would be needed for safety and security will be specified. We adopt Co ndition of Certification VIS-5 requiring submittal and approval of a light management plan. With the effect ive implementation of the proposed light mitigation meas ures, the project will not become a substantial new source of light that could adversely affect existing night time views.

The photographic simulations of the co mpleted power plant provided by the Applicant show the use of a surface tr eatment on major proj ect structures and buildings consisting of a light color and a flat finish. The Applicant proposes to treat or paint all new structures including perm anent equipment a nd fencing with
a non-reflective finish so as to reduc e potential glare effects. Condition of
Certification VIS-3 requires submittal of a surface treatment plan for publicly visible power plant structures and the el ectric transmission line poles to assure that the proper treatments ar e applied. With that miti gation, project structures

349would not be a source of s ubstantial 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 visi ble at that location due to intervening landscaping trees and orchards. (7/7/ 09 RT 447- 448; Ex. 20 0, pp. 4.12-5 to 4.12-6.)

//

//

//

350351KOP 1

− View from Avenal Cutoff Road Bridge Over U.S. Interstate 5 Looking East

Visual Resources Figure 2 is a photo simulation of the pr oject 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 t han the I-5 road surface.

//

//

//

352353Visual 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 moder ate 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 farml and (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 re latively unobstructed view of the project’s structures. The visibility of proposed power plant structures at this KOP would be moderately high. Vi ewers 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 cons idered moderately high. Th e 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 proj ect site from this KOP. The overall viewer exposure is considered to be moderately high.

Considering moderately low vi sual 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 vi ew geometric forms with vertical and
horizontal lines of an indus trial character, specific ally 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 (for m, line, color, and

354texture) introduced by the pr oject’s publicly visible stru ctures is moderate. The contrast would begin to attr act attention and begin to do minate the characteristic landscape from this KOP. T he project structures are s hown in a light color which
makes them more visible within the dar k color of surrounding orchards. The potential contrast of the structures is moderate.

The visible project structures would occupy a small port ion 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 sm all amount of the sky and a sm all amount of the view of the valley floor.

Impact Significance

The overall visual change (moderate vis ual contrast, low visual dominance, low view blockage) caused by the introducti on of the proposed pr oject’s structures into the view is moderately low.

The moderate overall visual sensitivity and the moderately low overall visual change, indicate a less than si gnificant 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 approxim ately one-mile southwest of the project site. It is also the approximate location of a span of the project’s
overhead transmission line.

355356Visual 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 ap peal 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 highwa y. 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 le gal 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, moderatel y 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 veget ation. The exhaust stacks, the HRSGs (heat recovery steam generators) and ACC would be visible above the existing trees. The project would introduce contrasting elemen ts of form, line, and color, particularly
in relation to the darker colored su rrounding orchards in the foreground and middle ground.

The simulations show the us e of a light color surface treatment on major publicly visible project structures. The exhaus t stacks and tanks appear to be lighter in color than other structures. The light colo r structures are notic eable in the view. The degree of contrast intr oduced by the project’s public ly visible structures is moderate. The contrast begins to attr act attention and begins to dominate the characteristic landscape from this KOP.

357The visible project structures would occupy a small port ion of the total field-ofview of KOP 2 . Project structures would ap pear co-dominate when compared to
other elements in the KOP view. The dom inance of the struct ures 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 pr oject’s structures
into the view is moderatel y 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 substa ntially degrade the existing
view at KOP 2 . When considering t he moderate overall visu al sensitivity and the moderately low visual change, we conclude that the introduction of the proposed project’s publicly visible structures to the existing physi cal 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 t he 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.

//

//

358359Visual Sensitivity

The view largely includes unimproved (dir t) roadway and grassl and. A portion of the City of Avenal’s water treat ment plant is visible to the east at the end of the roadway. An orchard is in the background vi ew. 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 wo uld have an unobstructed view of project structures. Visibility is high. As the young orchar d that borders the proj ect 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 5,03 0 vehicles per day travel along the Avenal Cutoff Road, making potential viewer exposures to the project structures moderately high. A motorist traveli ng at 55 miles per hour would have an approximately 10 second view duration. The overa ll viewer exposure is moderately high.

The overall visual sensitivity is moderate at KOP 3

.

Visual Change

The proposed project would in troduce prominent industrial features to the view. The degree of contrast introduced by the project’s publicly visible structures would demand attention, woul d not be overlooked, and w ould 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. Approxim ately one-third of project fa cilities would be obscured by project-related landsc aping when the almond trees lining the access road are approximately four to five years old.

360361The 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 interf ere 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 overal l visual change created by project structures into the KOP 3 view is high.

The moderate overall visual sensitivity and the high over all 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 insignific ant 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.

362363Visual 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 moderat e. From this location, a motorist would have a relatively unobstruc ted view of projec t structures. The visibility of structures is therefore high.

Approximately 5,030 vehicles per day trav el Avenal Cutoff Road. This number of potential motorist exposures is moderately high. The level of viewer concern in preserving the existing is moderately lo w. 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 unob scured prominent industrial features to the view. The degree of contrast intr oduced 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 wo uld extend to the ridgeline of the Kettleman Hills in this KO P view. The amount of view blockage created by project structur es is moderately low.

The overall visual change caused by the pr oject’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 projec t’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 KO P. (7/7/09 RT 447 - 448; Ex. 200, pp. 4.12-11 to 4.12-12.)

3642. 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 sma ll due to the small size of the boiler. The potential boiler-e mitted 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 tubul ar steel poles woul d connect the proj ect to the PG&E Gates substation. New transmission pol es would be located within a new 120-
foot wide transmission line easement that would parallel three existing lines of transmission lattice towers. New projec t transmission lines at road crossings
would be noticeable to motorists. See Visual Resources Figure 7.

//

//

//

365366Natural 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 provid ed from Well 24-5 loca ted 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 t he project site. The wa ter pipelines would be underground.

The new transmission poles would introduce contrast along the horizon. Proposed transmission poles would be non-refl ective gray colored tubular steel. View blockage created by the transmi ssion 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 in stallation of the overhead transmission lines would not cause signi ficant 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 th is Decision, the proj ect will conform with all applicable laws, ordinances, r egulations 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.

3672. The project owner wil l provide landscaping to screen some project features from view.

3. The project owner will tr eat 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 appl icable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards regarding project desig n, architecture, landscaping, signage, and other requirements rela ted to Visual Resources.

6. The introduction of pr oposed project structures and associated linear facilities would have a less t han significant visual impact with implementation of the Conditions of Certification adopted herein.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Implementation of the follo wing Conditions of Certific ation, will result in the project causing no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to
visual resources.

2. The project will comply with all appl icable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards regarding project desig n, architecture, landscaping, signage, and other requirem ents 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 su rface to the original condition or better condition, including the replac ement of any vegetation or paving removed during construction wher e 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 t hese requirements. The project owner shall complete surfac e restoration within 60 days after the start of commercial operation.

368Verification: At least 60 days prior to the st art 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 day s of receiving that notification the project owner shall submit to the CPM a plan with the specified revisions.

The project owner shall complete surf ace restoration within 60 days after the start of commercial operation. The proj ect owner shall notify the CPM within seven days after completion of surface restor ation that the restoration is ready for inspection.

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY LIGHTING

VIS-2 The project owner shall ensure t hat lighting for construction of the power plant is used in a manner that minimize s potential night lighting impacts, as follows:

A. All lighting shall be of minimu m 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 boundar ies of the power plant site or the site of construction of ancillary faciliti es, including any security related boundaries);

C. Wherever feasible and safe an d 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 sha ll notify the CPM and shall use the complaint resolution form incl uded in the Gener al 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 co mplaint form to the CPM.

Verification: Within seven days after the first us e of construction lighting, the project owner shall notify t he CPM that the lighting is ready for inspection.

If the CPM notifies the projec t owner that modifications to the lighting are needed to minimize impacts, within 15 days of re ceiving that notification the project owner shall implement the necessary modifications and notify the CPM that the modifications have been completed.

Within 48 hours of receivin g a lighting complaint, the project owner shall provide to the CPM; a) a report of the complain t, b) a proposal to resolve the complaint,

369and c) a schedule for implementation of the proposal. The project owner shall notify the CPM within 48 hours after comp leting implementatio n 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 fini sh 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 insu lators shall be non-specular with low reflectance.

The project owner shall submit a surface treatm ent 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 select ion of the proposed color(s) and finishes;

B. A list of each major project st ructure 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 treat ment maintenance for the life of the project.

The project owner shall not request vendor surface treatment of any buildings or structures during thei r manufacture, or perform final field treatment on any buildings or structures, until the project owner has received treatment plan appr oval by the CPM.

The project owner shall notify the CP M that surface treatment of all listed structures and buildings ha s been completed and is ready for inspection; and shall submit one set of electronic color photographs from the selected KOP 3 location show ing 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 surf ace treated during manufacture, the project

370owner shall submit the proposed treatm ent plan to the CPM for review and approval, and simultaneously to the Directo r of the City of Av enal Planning and Community Development for review. The pr oject owner shall allow the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and Community Developm ent at least 30 days to provide comment on the submitted surfac e 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 t he CPM a copy of the transmittal letter submitted to the Director of the Cit y of Avenal Planning and Community Development requesting their review of t he 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 specif ied revision(s) for review and approval by the CPM before any treatment is applie d. 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 Cit y of Avenal Planning and Community Development a plan with the sp ecified revision(s) for re view before the plan is implemented.

Within ninety (90) days after the start of commercial operation, the project owner shall notify the CPM that su rface treatment of all liste d structures and buildings has been completed and is ready for insp ection; 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 pr ovide a status report re garding surface treatment maintenance in the Annual Compliance Report. The re port 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 maintenanc e activities for the next year.

PROJECT LANDSCAPING

VIS-4 The project owner shall provide projec t site landscaping consistent with the policies and ordinances of the City of Avenal, s pecifically municipal code sections 9.60 and 9.63, and Visual Resources Figure 8 - Conceptual Landscape Plan Aerial Photo.

371372Landscaping shall consist of plant materials consistent with Climate Zones 8 and 9 as identified in the Sunset Western Garden Book. Landscaping plans shall emphasiz e 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 s paces 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 t he 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 satisf y these requirements.

An irrigation plan shall be submi tted 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 comp leted 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 Aven al Planning and Community Development comments to the CPM prior to the installation of the landscaping.

The project owner shall al low the Director of the Cit y of Avenal Planning and Community Development 30 days to provide comment on the submitted surface treatment plan. The project owner shall pr ovide a copy of the Director of the City of Avenal Planning and Community De velopment 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 pl an with the specified revi sion(s) for review and approval by the CPM before the plan is im plemented.

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.

373PERMANENT 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 exce ssive reflected glare;

C. direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky,

D. illumination of the pr oject and its immediate vicinity is minimized; and

E. lighting conforms to the lighti ng 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 mitigat ing 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 minimu m necessary brightness consistent with operational safety and security; and

D. lights in high illumi nation 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 60 49 days prior to ordering any permanent exterior lighting, the project owner shall contact the CPM to determine the required documentation for the li ghting management plan.

At least 45 days prior to ordering any permanent exterior lighting, the project owner shall submit to the CPM for appr oval 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 wit h the specified revision(s) for approval.

49 This deadline as proposed by Staff, was 45 days and the deadl ine in the following paragraph was 60 days. It does not seem logical that t he 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.

374The project owner shall not order any exterior lighting until receiving CPM approval of the lighting management plan.

Prior to commercial operation, the projec t 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 modificati ons to the lighting are needed, within 30 days of receiving notificati on the project owner shall im plement the modifications and notify the CPM that the modifications have been completed and are ready for inspection.

Within 10 days of receiving a lighting co mplaint, 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 pr oject owner shall notify t he CPM within 10 days after completing implementation of the proposal. A copy of the complaint resolution form report shall be submitt ed to the CPM within 30 days of complaint resolution.

SIGNAGE

VIS-6 The project owner shall install minimal signage visi ble to the public, which shall a) have unobtrusive colors and fini shes that prevent excessive glare; and b) be consistent with the sign policies and or dinances of the City of Avenal. The design of any signs requi red 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 commen t. The project owner shall not implement the plan until the projec t owner receives approval of the submittal from the CPM.

Verification: Prior to the start of commerc ial operation and at least 60 days prior to installing signage, the project ow ner 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 Aven al 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 specif ied revision(s) for review and approval by the CPM before any signage visible to the public is installed.

The project owner shall provide the CP M with electronic color photographs after completing installation of signage.

375376 SCREENING OF COMMERCIAL T RASH DISPOSAL CONTAINERS

VIS-7 In accordance to the City of Av enal 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 bui lding or structure.

Verification: Prior to the start of commercial operation, the project owner shall provide to the CPM a site plan showin g the permanent location of the commercial disposal container(s) on the project site.

Forty-five days after the start of comme rcial operation, the project owner shall notify the CPM that the commercial disp osal containers have been screened or enclosed from public view and are ready fo r inspection. If after inspection the CPM notifies the project owner that modi fications 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 t he modifications have been completed and are ready for inspection.

FRESNO COUNTY REVIEW OF T RANSMISSION LINE TOWERS

VIS-8 Prior to the start of the constructi on of the transmission line in Fresno County, the project owner shall prov ide to the Director of the Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning elevation drawings of the transmission towers and/or pol es, 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 th e Director of the Fresno County Department of Public Works and Plann ing 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 Departm ent 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 sha ll notify the CPM within 10 days after completing installation of the of the transmission li ne towers/poles and pl anting 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 Q uality Standards (NAAQS).

CAA Sec. 171-193, 42 USC 7501 New Source Review (NSR) – Requires NSR permit for new stationary sources. This requi rement is addressed through SJVAPCD Rule 2201.

40 CFR 52.21 Prevention of Significa nt Deterioration (PSD) – Requires dispersion modeling to demonstr ate no violation of NAAQS or PSD increments, for pollutants t hat attain the NAAQS. A PSD permit is required for Avenal Energy because the emissions would exceed the applicable PSD thresholds for NO 2 and CO from sources in the fossil f uel-fired steam-electric plant category. The PSD program is withi n the jurisdiction of the U.S. EPA.
40 CFR 60, Subpart KKKK Standards of Performance for Stationary Combustion Turbines, New Source Performance Standa rd (NSPS). Replaces NSPS Subpart Da and Subpart GG fo r 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 fo r the proposed auxiliary boiler.
40 CFR 60, Subpart IIII Standards of Performance for St ationary 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 Stat ionary Spark Ignition Internal Combustion Engines. Propos ed standard would require the natural gas-fired emergency gener ator engine to achieve: 1.0 g/bhp-hr NMHC.

40 CFR 70, CAA Sec 401, 42 USC 7651 Federal Title V Operating Permi t 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: 1Applicable 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 withi n the jurisdiction of the SJVAPCD with U.S. EPA oversight [SJVAPCD Rule 2540].

State California Air Resources Boar d 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 ofRegulations for OffRoad Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR §2449, et seq.) General Requirements for In-Use Off-Road Diesel-F ueled 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 requirem ents and standards for stack monitoring, source sampling, and breakdown events and identifies penalties.

Regulation II, Permits Establishes the regulatory fram ework for permitting new and modified sources. Included in these requirements are the federally-delegated requirements fo r 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 fa cilities 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. Est ablishes the requirement to prepare a Preliminary Determinat ion of Compliance (PDOC) and Final Determination of Compli ance (FDOC) during District

Appendix A: 2Applicable LORS Description review of an application for a power plant. This regulation establishes Best Available Co ntrol Technology (BACT) and emission offset requirements.

Rule 2520, Federally Mandated Operating Permits Establishes the permit appl ication and compliance requirements for the federal Ti tle 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 sa mpling 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 boile rs and steam generators. The proposed auxiliary boiler is subjec t 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-generat or 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 fo r 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: 3ALTERNATIVES

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

Energy Commission staff is required by agency regulations to examine the “feasibility of available site and facility alte rnatives to the App licant’s proposal which substantially lessen the significant adv erse impacts of the proposal on the environment.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, § 1765.)

The “Guidelines for Implementation of th e California Environmental Quality Act,” Title 14, California Code of Regulat ions, Section 15126.6(a), requires an evaluation of the com parative 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 s hould identify and compare the impacts of the various alternatives, but analysis of altern atives 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 alternativ e if its effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and if its impl ementation 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 permi t 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: 5Applicable LORS Description

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act Title 16, United States Code, section 2901 et seq.; Title 50 Code of Federal Regu lations 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 Calif ornia 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 mi gratory non-game bird.

Appendix A: 6Applicable 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 protec ted 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 pl ants 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 pop ulations of native species to ensure continued existence.



### California Pesticide Regulations 3 California Code of Regula tions (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 t hat 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 cons ervation area protection policies and standards and r equires 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 natur al resources, including groundwater, soils, and air qua lity, 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 cr eate 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 fu rther development activity in the vicinity until he/she confer s with the NAHC-identified Most Likely Descendents (MLDs) to consider treatment options. In the absence of MLDs or of a trea tment acceptable to all parties, the landowner is required to rein ter the remains elsewhere on the property in a location not s ubject 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 hi storical 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 objec tives, 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, Californi a Code of Regulations)

Local Kings County regulations and ordinances; City of Avenal regulations and ordinances

General

American National St andards Institute American Society of Mechanical Engineers American Welding Society American Society for Testing and Materials

Appendix A: 9

### GEOLOGY AND PA LEONTOLOGY

Applicable LORS Description

Federal
The proposed project is not locat ed 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 ru pture 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 s ubject 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 paleontologic al resources from state lands, defines unauthorized removal of fossil resources as a misdemeanor, and requires mitiga tion of disturbed sites.

Society for Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP), 1995 The “Measures for Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Non-Renewable Paleont ological Resources: Standard Procedures” is a set of procedures and standards for assessing and mitigating impacts to vertebr ate paleontological resources. The measures were adopted in October 1995 by the SVP, a national organization of pr ofessional 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: 11Applicable 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 disch arge 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 caus e 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: 12Applicable LORS Description

The Certified Unified Program Aut hority (CUPA) with responsibility to review RMPs and Hazardous Ma terials Business Plans (HMBPs) is the Kings County Environmental He alth Department (Ex. 1, Table 6.15-4). In regards to seismic safety issues, the site is located in Seismic Risk Zone 4. Constructi on and design of buildings and vessels storing hazardous mate rials 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 Govern ment 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 Av enal General Plan and Avenal Municipal Zoning Ordinance. The Av enal 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 Or dinance Section 9.31 specifies uses permitted in an industrial distri ct, 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 developm ent standards are defined in Chapter 17 of the Zoning Ordinance. Standards for street improvements, off-stre et parking, trash enc losures, utilities, landscaping, fencing, and sign st andards 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 Gener al Plan policies, guidelines and standards apply to land use dev elopment within unincorporated areas of Fresno County. The Project would include approximately 200 feet of water pipeline in Fr esno 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 ca pacity, economic viability, or detrimentally impact surrounding agr icultural operations to the extent that further losses in pr oduction may occur. (Fresno County General Plan, 1988, Sec. 204-02.).

Appendix A: 14Applicable LORS Description

King County

Land Use Policies The Kings County General Pl an policies, guidelines and standards apply only to land use and development within the unincorporated territory of the County. They do no t apply to development within the City of Avenal. The City and the Count y work together to develop complementary planning documents. However, the County does not have land use author ity in the City.

The only project land use that would occur on unincorporated lands is the 1.6-mile water pipeline fr om 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 wo rkers 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’ heari ng to detect any degradation.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Assists state and local governm ent entities in development of state and local LORS for noi se. Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.), the Guidelines ar e available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to assist state and local government ent ities in developing state and local LORS for noise. Because there are existing local LORS that apply to this project, t he USEPA guidelines are not applicable. There ar e 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 constr uction 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 parti cle 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 conventi onal sensitive structures is 100 VdB, which correlates to a peak particle velocity of about 0.2 in/sec.

Appendix A: 16Applicable 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 ef fects 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 guidel ines 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 s hould 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 employ ee 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, comme rcial 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: 17Applicable LORS Description

Kings County General Plan, Noise Element Limits noise levels to 65 dBA L dn 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 categorie s 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 (L dn )

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: 18POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

No federal, state, local, or county laws, ordinances , regulations and standards (LORS) apply to the effici ency 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 pollut ant (HAP) or more than 25 tons per year of any combination of H APs to apply Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT).

State

California Health and Safety Code sections 39650 et
seq. These sections mandated the Ca lifornia Air Resources Board (CARB) and the Department of Health Services to establish safe exposure limits for toxic air po llutants and identify pertinent best available control technologies. T hey 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 t hat “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 sa fety 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 t he 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, char ge, dedication, or other requirement for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruc tion 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, ex cept for fees established under Education Code 17620, state and local public agencies may not impose f ees, charges, or other financial requirements to of fset 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: 22Applicable 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 forbackflow 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: 24Applicable 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 TRAN SPORTATION

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 requirem ents for notice to the Federal Aviation Administration of ce rtain 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 regulati ons 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 hi ghways, 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 ca re 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 gui de the development of the transportation system, and manag ement of access to the highway system by new development, throughout the unincorporated areas of the count y. 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 re sidents 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 Cit y. The Element addresses the circulation improvement s 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 condition s. With regard to power flow and stability simulations , while these Reliability Standards are similar to NE RC/WECC Standards, certain aspects of the NERC/WECC Standards are either more stringent or more specific than the NERC Standards for Transmission System Contin gency 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 perfo rmance standards used in assessing the reliability of the interconnected system. These standards require the cont inuity of service to loads as the first priority and preservation of interconnected operation as a secondary priori ty. Certain aspects of the NERC/WECC standards are either more stringent or more specific than the NERC st andards alone. These standards provide planning for electric systems so as to withstand the more probable forced and maintenance outage system contingencies at projec ted customer demand and anticipated electricity transfer levels, while continuing to operate reliably within equipm ent and electric system thermal, voltage and stabilit y 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 PlanningStandards with Table I and WECC DisturbancePerformance Table” and on Section I.D, “NERC and WECC Standards for Volt age Support and Reactive Power”. These standards require that the results of power

Appendix A: 27flow and stability simulations verify defined performance levels. Performance levels are defined by specifying the allowable variations in t hermal loading, voltage and frequency, and loss of load t hat 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 circumst ances, 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 requirement s 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 requirement s 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 us e of underground electric lines, and for the safety of the general public.

National Electric Safety Code 1999 Provides electrical, mechani cal, 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 Californi a 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: 28to the NERC/WECC or NERC Reliability Planning Standards for Transmission System Contingency Performance. However, the Ca lifornia ISO Standards also provide some additional require ments that are not found in the WECC/NERC or NERC Stand ards. The California ISO Standards apply to all partici pating 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 operat ed 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 Responsib ility of the proposed project and provides an Operational Review of all facilities that are to be connected to the Californi a 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 Scen ic Byway or All-American Road within its vicinity.

State

California Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263 – Scenic Highways Ensures the protection of hi ghway corridors that reflect the State's natural scenic b eauty. The project site does not involve a designated St ate 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 ci rculation, 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: 30City 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 proj ect review and comment on electric transmission facilities and electric utility facilities which are subject to approval by the California Public Utilities Commission or Calif ornia Energy Commission. Provision C. includes that r outes of proposed electric transmission facilities be submi tted to the Director of the Fresno County Department of Public Works and Planning for review either prior to f iling an applicatio n 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 t he management of solid wastes (including hazardous wastes), landfills, underground storage tanks, and certain medical wastes . The statute also addresses program administration, implement ation and delegation to states, enforcement provisions, and respons ibilities, as well as research, training, and grant funding provisions.

RCRA Subtitle C establishes pr ovisions for the generation, storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste, including requirements addressing:

• Generator record keeping prac tices 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 repo rts 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 wi th RCRA-regulated facilities.

RCRA Subtitle D establishes pr ovisions 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: 32Applicable 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 fundi ng 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 environm ent. 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 establis hed 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 characte ristic 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 eq uipment, and lamps).
U.S. EPA implements the regulati ons at the federal level. However, California is an RCRA-aut horized state, so most of the solid and hazardous waste regulat ions are implemented by state agencies and authorized local agenc ies in lieu of U.S. EPA.

Appendix A: 33Applicable LORS Description

Title 49, CFR, Parts 172 and 173.

Hazardous Materials Regulations These regulations address the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) establishe d standards for transport of hazardous materials and hazardo us 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 s pecifically addresses use and preparation of hazardous waste m anifests 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 mana ged in California. The law provides for the development of a state hazardous waste program that administers and impl ements the provisions of the federal RCRA program. It also provides for the designation of California-only hazardous wast es 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 provis ions of the law at the state level. Certified Unified Program Agenc ies (CUPAs) implement some elements of the law at the local level.

Appendix A: 34Applicable 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 fo r the management and disposal of hazardous waste in accordance with the provisions of the California Ha zardous Waste Control Act and federal RCRA. As with the f ederal requirements, waste generators must determine if t heir wastes are hazardous according to specified characte ristics or lists of wastes. Hazardous waste generators must obtain identification numbers; prepare manifests before transporti ng the waste off site; and use only permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Generator standards also incl ude requirements for record keeping, reporting, packaging, and labeling. Additionally, while not a federal requirement, Calif ornia requires that hazardous waste be transported by r egistered hazardous waste transporters. The standards addressed by Title 22, CCR include:

• Identification and Li sting of Hazardous Waste (Chapter 11, §66261.1, et seq.).

• Standards Applicable to G enerator of Hazardous Waste (Chapter 12, §66262.10, et seq.).

• Standards Applicable to Trans porters of Hazardous Waste (Chapter 13, §66263.10, et seq.).

• Standards for Universal Wa ste Management (Chapter 23, §66273.1, et seq.).

• Standards for the Management of Used Oil (Chapter 29, §66279.1, et seq.).

• Requirements for Units and Fa cilities Deemed to Have a Permit by Rule (Chapter 45, §67450.1, et seq.).
The Title 22 regulations are es tablished 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: 35Applicable LORS Description
HSC, Chapter 6.11 §§25404 – 25404.9

Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program) The Unified Program consoli dates, coordinates, and makes consistent the administrative requi rements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of the six envir onmental and emergency response programs listed below.

• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Act requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Count ermeasure (SPCC) Plans.

• Hazardous Materials Releas e 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 Stor age Tank Program.
The state agencies responsible for these programs set the standards for their programs wh ile local governments implement the standards. The local agencie s 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 Wa ste Generator/Tiered Permitting element of the Un ified 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 primar ily address certification and implementation of the program by the local CUPAs, the regulations do contain specif ic 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 standard s for management of solid waste in California. The law addresses solid waste landfill diversion requirements; establishes the preferred waste management hierarchy (source reduc tion 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 soli d waste requirements.

Appendix A: 36Applicable 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 adm inistration 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 O il 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 (appro ximately 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 s ubject to the act.

Policies
Kings County, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan This document sets forth t he county’s goals, policies, and programs for reducing dependence on landfilling solid wastes and increasing source reducti on, recycling, and reuse of products and waste, in complianc e with the CIWMA. The plan also addresses the siting and de velopment of recycling and disposal facilities and progr ams within the county.

Appendix A: 37Appendix 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 ex plosion hazards. Enforced by the KCFD.B EFORE THE E NERGY R ESOURCES C ONSERVATION AND D EVELOPMENT C OMMISSION

OF THE S TATE OF C ALIFORNIA 1516 N INTH S TREET , S ACRAMENTO , CA 95814 1-800-822-6228

– WWW

. ENERGY

. CA

. GOV

A PPLICATION FOR C ERTIFICATION FOR THE AVENAL ENERGY PROJECT D OCKET N O . 08-AFC-1



### E XHIBIT 

### L IST A PPLICANT ’ S E XHIBITS

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 2 Air Quality and Public Health Mode ling Files; dated February 12, 2008, and docketed February 21, 2008. (a) Air Q uality Modeling Files; (b) Public Health Modeling Files. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 3 Supplement to the Avenal Energy Proj ect 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 Groundwat er 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 – Syst em Impact Study Agreement

E XHIBIT 4 CHRIS Cultural Resource Reports for the Avenal Energy Application for Certification; dated Apr il 1, 2008, and docketed April 2, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

. E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 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

E XHIBIT 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

E XHIBIT 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: 2E XHIBIT 9 Phase I Environmental Site Assessm ent and Appendices; dated October 30, 2007, and docketed July 23, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 13 Response to CEC Data Request Set 1 and Workshop for Avenal Energy (System Impact Study); dated S eptember 19, 2008, and docketed September 22, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 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

E XHIBIT 15 Avenal Power Center’s Response to September 8, 2008 Letter from United States Fish and Wildlife Servic e to United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9; dat ed October 1, 2008, and docketed October 3, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 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: 3E XHIBIT 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

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 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

E XHIBIT 20 Supplement to the System Impact St udy; dated November 21, 2008, and docketed November 21, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 21 Applicant’s Final Comments to Av enal 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

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 24 Environmental Analysis for Gates S ubstation and Surrounding Property Owned by PG&E; dated May 21, 2009, and docketed May 22, 2009, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 25 Written Testimony, Witness Declar ations 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

E XHIBIT 26 Supplemental Testimony Regarding Gr eenhouse Gas Issues; dated June 8, 2009, and docketed June 8, 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBITS 27 to 49 Reserved

E XHIBIT 50 Letter from Department of Conservati on Regarding Avenal Power Center, LLC Application for Certification; dat ed April 4, 2008, and docketed April 8, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 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 M eeting; dated May 27, 2008, and docketed May 30, 2008. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 53 California Air Resources Board’s Co mments 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.

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 55 Letter From United States Environm ental 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.

E XHIBIT 56 Letter from City of Avenal to Avenal Power Center in Response to Request Regarding Potable Water Avail ability; dated September 22, 2008,

Appendix B: 6and docketed January 13, 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 57 Letter from Environmental Protecti on 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.

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 59 Letter from Westlands Water District Withdrawing Its May 29, 2008 Letter; dated January 12, 2009, and docketed J anuary 26, 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 60 Letter from Kings County Economic De velopment 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.

E XHIBIT 61 Letter from San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Clarifying Questions from CEC Staff Duri ng 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.

E XHIBIT 62 Statement of Basis and Ambient Air Quality Impact Report; dated June 2009. Sponsored by Applicant, and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E NERGY C OMMISSION S TAFF ’ S E XHIBITS

E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 201 Energy Commission Staff’s Pre-Hear ing Conference Statement, dated June 22, 2009, docketed June 22, 2009. Sponsored by Staff; and received into evidence on July 7, 2009.

E XHIBIT 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: 7Appendix B: 8 E XHIBIT 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.

E XHIBIT 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.

I NTERVENOR E XHIBITS

E XHIBIT 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.B EFORE THE E NERGY R ESOURCES C ONSERVATION AND D EVELOPMENT C OMMISSION

OF THE S TATE OF C ALIFORNIA 1516 N INTH S TREET

, S ACRAMENTO

, 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 15 th

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: 1Appendix C: 2 D ECLARATION OF S ERVICE

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 we b page for this project at: [ http://www.energy.ca.gov/sit ingcases/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 )

F OR 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

F OR FILING WITH THE E NERGY C OMMISSION :

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.