Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

This section describes the regulatory setting, affected environment, potential impacts, and 

mitigation measures for public utilities and energy in the area potentially affected by the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative (F-B LGA) to the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the 

California High-Speed Rail (HSR) system.

This Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS compares the F-B LGA to the complementary portion of the 

Preferred Alternative that was identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section California HighSpeed Train Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) 

(Authority and FRA 2014). As discussed in Section 1.1.3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the 

complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative consists of the portion of the BNSF Railway 

Alternative from Poplar Avenue to Hageman Road and the Bakersfield Hybrid from Hageman 

Road to Oswell Street (further referenced as the “May 2014 Project” in this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS). Since the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS does not evaluate the May 2014 

Project as a discrete subsection of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project (as it did for the Allensworth 

Bypass, for example), affected environment and impact summary discussion included in this 

section for the May 2014 Project has been extrapolated from the available information contained 

in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

3.6.1 Regulatory Setting

This section identifies the federal, state, regional, and local regulations, laws, and orders that 

apply to public utilities and energy. The project would comply with all applicable regulations. 

3.6.1.1 Federal

Please see Section 3.6.2.1 (pages 3.6-1 and 3.6-2) of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) for a detailed discussion of applicable federal regulations.

Agencies responsible for implementing federal laws and regulations include but are not limited to 

the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC); the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, which regulates Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards; and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), which measures vehicle fuel efficiency. Applicable 

federal laws and regulations relevant to public utilities and energy include the following:

• Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (Executive Order 12185, 44 C.F.R. Section 75093;

Public Law 95-620), Section 403(b)

• Norman Y. Mineta and Special Programs Improvement Act (Public Law 108-426)

• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.)

No new federal regulations for public utilities and energy have been adopted since release of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

3.6.1.2 State

Please see Section 3.6.2.1 (pages 3.6-2 through 3.6-4) of Chapter 3.6, Public Utilities and 

Energy, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) for a 

detailed discussion of applicable state regulations. Applicable state laws and regulations relevant 

to public utilities and energy include the following:

• Public Utilities Code Section 1001–1013 (California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC]

General Order 131-D)

• California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards

• Renewable Portfolio Standard Program (Senate Bill 1078)

• Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 939)

• Local Government Construction and Demolition (C&D) Guide (Senate Bill 1374)
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• Protection of Underground Infrastructure [California Government Code, Section 4216)

• Pavley Rule (Assembly Bill 1493)

• CPUC General Order No. 95

• Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7)

• Rules for Overhead 25-kilovolt (kV) alternating current (AC) Railroad Electrification Systems

In addition, since release of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the CPUC adopted 

General Order 176, Safety Rules and Regulations Governing 25 kV AC Railroad Electrification for 

the Operation of High Speed Trains, on March 26, 2015. General Order 176 establishes uniform 

safety requirements governing the design, construction, operation, and maintenance electrical 

wires constructed under the HSR project alignment and facilities. Activities associated with the 

proposed project would be consistent with rules and regulations established by the CPUC in 

order to protect workers and the public from potential safety hazards. 

3.6.1.3 Regional and Local

Please see Section 3.6.2.3 (page 3.6-4) of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

(Authority and FRA 2014) for a detailed discussion of regional and local regulations. Applicable 

regional and local laws and regulations relevant to public utilities and energy include the 

following:

Kern County:

• Kern County General Plan: Land Use, Open Space, and Conservation Element

— Public Facilities and Services Goals 1 through 13, Policies 1 through 17, Implementation

Measures A through II

— General Provisions Goal 1, Policies 9 through 17, Implementation Measures D and E

• Kern County Municipal Code, Title 14, Utilities

• Kern County Planning Department, “Energy Element,” in Kern County General Plan, 214–215

• Kern County and Incorporated Cities Integrated Waste Management Plan

City of Shafter:

• City of Shafter General Plan, Public Services and Facilities Program, Water Facilities Policies

1 through 6, Sewer Facilities Policies 1 through 8, Solid Waste Policies 1 through 5, Drainage

and Flooding Policies 1 through 4, Public Services and Facilities Policies 1 through 6

Shafter Code of Ordinances, Title 13, Public Services

City of Bakersfield:

• Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan, “Public Services and Facilities Element,” General

Utility Services Goals 1 through 4, Policies 1 through 6; Water Distribution Goal 1, Policies 1

through 3; Sewer Service Goals 1 through 3, Policies 1 through 3; Storm Drainage Goals 1

and 2, Policies 1 through 3; Solid Waste Goals 1 and 2, Policies 1 and 2

• Bakersfield Municipal Code, Title 14, Water and Sewers

Those regional and local regulations described for the Shafter, Bakersfield, and Kern County are 

also applicable to the F-B LGA. As with the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA would be compatible 

with applicable local plans and policies.
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.6.2 Methods of Evaluation of Impacts

3.6.2.1 Public Utilities and Energy Data Collection and Analysis

Utilities

Data provided by local utilities service providers in the study area describe the type, size, and 

location of existing and proposed utility infrastructure. Field survey information gathered in 2009 

and 2010 augments the information provided by utility service providers, which was also the 

methodology used in support of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014). The impact evaluation considers all utilities but focuses on major utilities. This 

analysis considers high-voltage (HV), underground, and aboveground electrical lines; 

underground high-pressure natural gas lines; and petroleum lines and facilities “high-risk” utilities, 

as discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 

3.6-11). In addition, this analysis considers electrical substations to be high-risk. The remaining 

utilities, such as water and wastewater lines, have a lower safety risk.

Estimates for water demand, wastewater, stormwater, and waste removal services for HSR

stations are based on typical rates, such as gallons per minute, acre-feet per acre per year, or 

ridership and employment projections. The analysis compares these estimated quantities with 

anticipated supply and capacity, as reported by the service providers in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section of the HSR corridor.

Water demand estimates are presented in Appendix 3.6-B, Technical Memorandum: Water 

Usage Analysis for CHSR Fresno to Bakersfield Section. Water demand estimates for 

construction are based on an estimated five-year time period in which earthmoving and 

construction activities requiring water use would occur. Annual operational water use estimates 

are based on full buildout of the HSR system in 2035. Estimates of existing water use were 

generated by applying region-specific water use rates for the known land uses in the project 

footprint (see Section 3.13, Station Planning, Land Use, and Development). Wastewater 

generation would be approximately 50 percent of total water demand during operation. For 

additional detail regarding water supply, stormwater, and hydrology, see Section 3.8, Hydrology 

and Water Resources.

The quantity of waste generated by HSR C&D activities is based on estimates made by project 

engineers using the existing character of the study area and the requirements of various project 

attributes. Operational waste generation is based on the anticipated ridership and number of 

employees, taking into account the estimates of waste generation and recycling in California.

Energy

The proposed HSR system would obtain electricity from the statewide grid. Any potential impacts 

on electrical production that may result from the proposed HSR system would affect statewide 

electricity reserves and, to a lesser degree, transmission capacity. To identify the projected 

energy demand of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR system, the estimated energy 

impact for the entire HSR system was prorated based on the proportion of the length of HSR

guideway in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section study area, as shown in Table 3.6-2, Construction 

Energy Consumption Assumptions for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.6-14). 

Energy is commonly measured in terms of British thermal units (Btu). A Btu is defined as the

amount of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of water by 1 degree Fahrenheit. For 

transportation projects, energy usage is predominantly influenced by the amount of fuel used. 

The average Btu content of fuels is the heat value (or energy content) per quantity of fuel as 

determined from tests of fuel samples. As described in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.6-12), 1 gallon of gasoline produces approximately 

114,000 Btu. However, the Btu value of gasoline varies from season to season and from batch to 

batch. The Btu is the unit of measure used to quantify the overall energy effects expected to 

result from construction and operation of the HSR. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Transportation energy is generally discussed in terms of direct and indirect energy. Direct energy 

involves all energy consumed by vehicle propulsion (e.g., automobiles and airplanes). This 

energy is a function of traffic characteristics such as volume, speed, distance traveled, vehicle 

mix, and thermal value of the fuel being used. This energy also includes the electrical power 

requirements of the HSR project, including recoverable energy during HSR train braking, as well 

as aircraft fuel.

Indirect energy consumption involves the nonrecoverable, one-time energy expenditure involved 

in constructing the physical infrastructure associated with the project, typically through the 

irreversible burning of hydrocarbons for operating equipment and vehicles in which energy is lost 

to the environment.

Energy impacts caused by the project might include the additional consumption of electricity 

required to power the HSRs (direct use) and consumption of resources to construct the proposed 

HSR facilities (indirect use). Energy used for vehicle propulsion is a function of traffic 

characteristics and the thermal value of the fuel used. Petroleum consumption rates for vehicle 

travel were derived from the travel demand forecast for the HSR and growth projections 

performed by the California Energy Commission (CEC). These consumption rates were used to 

determine the amount of petroleum used for transportation under the No Project Alternative

(where no HSR system would be constructed and transportation conditions would continue as 

present) and HSR Build Alternatives (including the Fresno-Bakersfield Section, where the HSR 

system would be utilized as an alternative to existing transportation options). Current electricity 

consumption rates from the CEC are compared with the projected energy consumption of the 

HSR system. 

The entire HSR system will be approximately 800 miles long. The length of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section alignment alternatives is approximately 114 miles or less, depending on the 

design options selected. This is approximately 14 percent of the length of the entire HSR system. 

Indirect energy consumption involves the nonrecoverable, one-time energy expenditure required 

to construct the physical infrastructure associated with the project. Indirect energy impacts are 

evaluated quantitatively. This analysis uses construction energy data from other sources or 

existing HSR systems. Construction energy information for comparable HSR systems is not 

readily available. Therefore, construction energy consumption factors identified for the proposed 

HSR system are derived from data gathered for typical heavy-rail systems and the San Francisco 

Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) heavy-rail commuter system. These data were used to 

estimate the projected construction energy consumption for the HSR alternatives in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section.

The construction energy payback period is the number of years required to pay back the energy 

used in construction, with operational energy consumption savings of the HSR alternative 

prorated to statewide energy savings. The payback period is calculated for the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section by dividing the estimated HSR system construction energy by the amount of 

energy that would later be saved by the full operation of the HSR system (based on the prorated 

statewide value). The calculations assume that the amount of energy saved in the study year 

(2035) would remain constant throughout the payback period.

3.6.2.2 Methods for Evaluating Effects under National Environmental Policy 

Act

In the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, analysts applied specified thresholds for each 

resource topic to assess whether the intensity of each impact is negligible, moderate, or 

substantial for the Build Alternatives, and provided a conclusion of whether the impact was 

“significant.” Since the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS does not evaluate the May 

2014 Project as a discrete subsection of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project (as it did for the 

Allensworth Bypass, for example), it does not provide conclusions using intensity thresholds for 

the May 2014 Project. Therefore, intensity thresholds are not used for the F-B LGA. Instead, the 

evaluation of impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act in this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS focuses on a comprehensive discussion of the project’s potential impacts in terms of 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

context, intensity, and duration and provides agency decision makers and the public with an 

apples-to-apples comparison between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA.

3.6.2.3 CEQA Significance Criteria

Public Utilities

According to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute §21068, a “significant effect on 

the environment” means a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the 

environment. For this project, the following criteria are used in determining whether the project 

would result in a significant impact on public utilities service and systems:

• Construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities

that could cause significant environmental effects

• New or expanded entitlements to supply water to the project

• A determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project

that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the projected project demand in addition to

its existing commitments

• Construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities that could

cause significant environmental effects

• Insufficient permitted capacity at the landfill serving the project to accommodate solid waste

disposal needs

• Noncompliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste

• Conflict with a fixed facility such as an electrical substation or wastewater treatment plant

Energy

According to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, EIRs must discuss the potential energy

impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, 

wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Wise and efficient use of energy may include 

decreasing overall per-capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as 

coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The criteria 

discussed herein are used to determine whether the HSR system would have a potentially 

significant effect on energy use, including energy conservation.

Significant long-term operational or direct energy impacts would occur if the HSR system would 

place a substantial demand on regional energy supply, require significant additional capacity, or 

significantly increase peak- and base-period electricity demand.

3.6.3 Affected Environment

This section describes the current conditions for public utilities and infrastructure as well as 

energy demand. 

As with the analysis of public utilities and energy provided in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), this analysis of the F-B LGA uses one study area for 

utilities and one study area for energy generation and transmission.

As described in Section 3.6.3.4 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014), the study area for evaluating conflicts with public utilities consists of the construction 

footprint (area of temporary disturbance during project construction) as well as the project 

footprint (area of permanent disturbance associated with project features), and includes surface, 

subsurface, and overhead utilities. 

Also as described in Section 3.6.3.4 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority

and FRA 2014), the study area for evaluating impacts of the project on electricity generation and 

transmission includes the entire state of California (and western states that produce energy that is 

exported to California), because the HSR system would obtain electricity from the statewide grid. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

For this reason, this analysis cannot apportion the use of any particular generation facilities to a 

particular regional study area. Statewide energy impacts are discussed in Appendices 3.6-A, 

Existing Plus Project Conditions Energy Analysis, and 3.6-C, Energy Analysis Memorandum, of 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014). These appendices are 

not recreated for the purposes of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS because the statewide analysis 

of electricity generation and transmission is applicable to all sections of the HSR system, 

including the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. 

3.6.3.1 Summary of the May 2014 Project Affected Environment

This section provides a summary of the affected environment related to public utilities and energy 

in the study area of the May 2014 Project using information from the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS. The May 2014 Project is the comparable portion of the Preferred 

Alternative used to compare impacts to the F-B LGA.

Public Utilities

As discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), public 

utilities are considered either “high-risk” or “low-risk.” High-risk utilities include electrical lines, 

natural gas distribution lines, petroleum and fuel pipelines, and electrical substations, while lowrisk utilities include communications facilities, irrigation canals, water lines, sewers, stormwater

retention ponds, and stormwater pipelines. Points where the proposed rail alignment and 

associated facilities would overlie existing high-risk or low-risk utilities are described as “conflicts.” 

Tables 3.6-14 and 3.6-15 (pages 3.6-51 through 3.6-53) in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) quantify utility conflicts along the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section of the HSR system. The May 2014 Project alignment and the F-B LGA would also 

traverse the types of high-risk and low-risk utilities identified in these tables and discussed in the 

impact analysis provided in Section 3.6.4.

Major public utilities in the study area for the May 2014 Project include facilities for electricity, 

natural gas, and petroleum distribution; telecommunications; potable and irrigable water delivery; 

and stormwater, wastewater, and solid-waste disposal. Public utilities and energy providers in the 

study area for the May 2014 Project are identified in Table 3.6-1. 

Table 3.6-1 Study Area Utility and Energy Providers

Utility Type Provider Jurisdiction

Electrical Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) Western Kern County

Southern California Edison Eastern Kern County

Natural Gas

PG&E Western Kern County

Sempra Kern County (Shafter, Bakersfield)

Shell Oil Company Kern County (Bakersfield)

Petroleum and Fuel Pipelines

ConocoPhillips Kern County (Bakersfield)

ExxonMobil Corporation Kern County (Bakersfield)

Shell Oil Corporation Kern County (Bakersfield)

British Petroleum Kern County (Bakersfield)

Chevron Corporation Kern County (Bakersfield)

Kinder Morgan, Inc. Kern County (Bakersfield)

Communications Telephone AT&T Kern County

Cable/Internet Various Kern County

Water Supply1

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Kern County 

California Water Service Company Kern County
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Utility Type Provider Jurisdiction

Kern County Water 

District No. 4

Agency Improvement Kern County

North Kern Water Storage District Kern County

Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District Kern County (Shafter, Wasco)

East Niles Community Services District Kern County

North of the River Municipal Water District Kern County

Oildale Mutual Water Company Kern County

Cawelo Water District Kern County

Sewer/Wastewater

City of Shafter, Public Works Department City of Shafter

North of River Sanitary District (7th 

Standard Road Wastewater Treatment 

Facility)

City of Shafter

City of Bakersfield, Public Works 

(Wastewater Treatment Facility #2) City of Bakersfield

Kern Waste Management Department (Kern 

Sanitation Authority Wastewater Treatment 

Plant)

Kern County

Stormwater

City of Shafter City of Shafter

City of Bakersfield City of Bakersfield

Kern County Kern County

Solid Waste Collection2

Bena, Boron, Mojave-Rosamond, 

Ridgecrest, Shafter-Wasco, Taft, and 

Tehachapi Landfills

Kern County

1 Figures 3.8-3a and 3.8-3b, Water Districts, in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS show the 

alignment of water district boundaries along the F-B LGA. 2 Table 3.6-9 (Landfill Facility Summary for Kern County) of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS provides the following information 

regarding solid waste collection facilities in the study area: permitted daily disposal capacity (tons/day), remaining capacity (million cubic yards), 

estimated closure date, and actual daily disposal volume (tons/day).

Electrical Transmission Lines

PG&E provides electricity to much of Northern California, from approximately Bakersfield to the 

Oregon border. The company’s generation portfolio includes hydroelectric facilities, a nuclear 

power plant, and a natural-gas-fired power plant. PG&E provides electrical service to 

approximately 15 million people throughout a 70,000-square-mile service area in northern and 

central California. In the study area, PG&E provides electricity to western Kern County. Southern 

California Edison provides electricity to those areas not served by PG&E. Southern California 

Edison serves more than 14 million people in a 50,000-square-mile area of central, coastal, and 

Southern California (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.6-19). 

The May 2014 Project would traverse a number of electrical transmission lines along its 

alignment. There are no electrical substations along the May 2014 Project alignment.

High-Pressure Natural Gas Pipelines

PG&E, Sempra, and Shell Oil Company provide natural gas service and are responsible for 

maintaining the infrastructure for natural gas distribution in the study area (Authority and FRA 

2014: page 3.6-20). 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Petroleum and Fuel Pipelines

California is the third-largest oil-producing state in the United States, and many of the onshore 

oilfields are in the San Joaquin Valley between Fresno and the Tehachapi Mountains. All oil 

produced is processed into fuels and other petroleum products at refineries in the San Francisco 

Bay Area and Southern California. As a result, crude oil pipelines run throughout the study area. 

These pipelines are owned and operated by ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corporation, Shell Oil 

Corporation, British Petroleum, Chevron Corporation, and Kinder Morgan (Authority and FRA

2014: page 3.6-20). 

Communication Facilities

Communication facilities in the study area are owned and operated by AT&T, Verizon Telecom, 

Sprint, Quest, Comcast Cable, and Charter Communication Cable companies. Other 

communication service providers may also own or lease cellular service or microwave towers and 

antennas, or telecommunication cable or overhead distribution lines. Underground or 

aboveground components of this infrastructure are located in the study area (Authority and FRA 

2014: page 3.6-20). 

Water Supply Infrastructure

Surface water and groundwater are the basic sources of drinking water and irrigation in the 

region. Municipal service providers typically use groundwater sources. However, surface water 

sources may also supplement supplies. Many residents in rural and unincorporated areas rely on 

private groundwater wells for drinking water. Agricultural water users augment their groundwater 

supplies with surface water that is conveyed through a network of natural and constructed 

channels. Irrigation of agricultural land is the primary water use in the San Joaquin River region. 

Numerous large- and small-scale districts provide municipal and irrigation water service to the 

communities in the study area. The predominant domestic water source in unincorporated 

portions of the study area is individual private well systems. 

Water districts in the study area are identified in Table 3.6-1. Predominant water uses are for 

agricultural, municipal, groundwater recharge, and transfer to other groundwater agencies.

Wastewater Infrastructure

Generally, onsite sewage systems (e.g., septic tanks) treat rural and low-density areas of the 

study area. Table 3.6-2 summarizes municipal wastewater systems for the urban areas of the 

study area, which are discussed further below. 

Table 3.6-2 Wastewater Treatment Plants 

Jurisdiction Agency WWTP Name WWTP Address Average 

Flow/Capacity Flow 

(mgd)

Kern County Kern Waste 

Management 

Department

Kern Sanitation 

Authority 

Wastewater 

Treatment Plant

4101 Kimber 

Avenue, Bakersfield 

CA

4.0/6.0

City of Shafter City of Shafter Public 

Works Department 

and North of River 

Sanitary District

7th Standard Road 

Wastewater 

Treatment Facility

28970 7th Standard 

Road

5.32/7.50 

City of Bakersfield City of Bakersfield 

Public Works

City of Bakersfield 

Wastewater 

Treatment Facility #2

Mt. Vernon Avenue 

and White Lane

16.5/25.0

Source: Authority and FRA, 2014 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-9 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Storm Drains

Storm drain systems are more prominent in developed urban areas. In the rural areas, roadside 

ditches, irrigation canals, and natural drainages convey stormwater runoff. The storm drainage 

systems in the study area reflect the limited annual rainfall and relatively flat topography of the 

region. The systems convey stormwater runoff to retention or detention basins, typically for 

groundwater recharge (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.6-27). 

As mentioned in Table 3.6-1, stormwater facility providers include the City of Shafter and the City 

of Bakersfield. More rural facilities are also provided and maintained in unincorporated Kern 

County by jurisdictions including Kern County, the North Kern Water Storage District, and the 

Kern Delta Water District.

Solid Waste Facilities

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Assembly Bill 939, affected county or 

municipal solid waste disposal facilities are required to plan for non-hazardous solid waste facility 

expansions, or addition from all anticipated sources. Following reuse or recycling, anticipated 

HSR solid waste disposal volumes destined for county and municipal facilities would be 

considered in the mandated five-year Countywide Siting Element review process, along with all

other prospective sources, and eventually included in the affected Integrated Water Management 

Plan documentation (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.6-31). 

The May 2014 Project would not directly affect active solid waste disposal facilities (i.e., landfills) 

or recycling facilities. Table 3.6-3 lists the permitted daily disposal capacities, remaining 

capacities, and estimated closure dates for the Kern County landfills in the vicinity.

Table 3.6-3 Landfill Facility Summary for Kern County

Facility 

Name

Activity Location Permitted 

Daily 

Disposal 

Capacity 

(tons/day)

Remaining 

Capacity 

(million 

cubic 

yards)

Permitted 

Disposal 

Area 

(acres)

Estimated 

Closure 

Date

Actual Daily 

Disposal 

Volume 

(tons/day)

ShafterWasco 

Sanitary 

Landfill

Solid 

waste 

landfill

17621 

Scofield 

Avenue, 

Shafter, CA

900 7.90 135 2027 321

Bakersfield 

Metropolitan 

(Bena) 

Sanitary 

Landfill

Solid 

waste 

landfill

2951 

Neumarkel 

Road, 

Caliente, 

CA

4,500 32.80 229 2038 1,137

Source: Authority and FRA, 2014 

The Shafter/Wasco Landfill is Shafter’s primary landfill, although the Bena Landfill accepts some 

refuse from industrial uses in the city. All Bakersfield solid waste is disposed of in countyoperated landfills, primarily the Bena Landfill (Authority and FRA 2014: page 36-33). 

Energy

The transportation sector in California consumes 38 percent of the state’s energy, the industrial 

sector consumes 23 percent, the residential sector consumes 19 percent, and the commercial 

sector consumes 20 percent (EIA 2015). These figures are comparable to those presented in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, which were based on 2008 data. Updated 2013 data 

is used for the purposes of energy analysis for the F-B LGA. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-10 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

In California, electricity and natural gas are nearly synonymous with stationary energy usage. 

Petroleum use is similarly synonymous with transportation energy (CEC 2006). As discussed in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), 2008 energy 

consumption for transportation was characterized by 96.7 percent petroleum, 2.6 percent ethanol, 

0.6 percent natural gas, and 0.1 percent electricity. In 2015, the CEC reports that petroleum 

continues to account for about 96 percent of the energy used for transportation in California (CEC 

2015a).

Energy resources discussed in this affected environment include electricity, natural gas, and 

petroleum resources.

Electricity

As discussed in Section 3.6.1.1, the study area for electricity is the same as that described in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014). It includes the entire state 

of California and western states that produce energy that is exported to California. This 

discussion of electricity focuses on updates to data that have developed since the publication of 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, including as relevant to the electricity demand, 

generation, transmission, and demand/generation capacity outlook. With the exception of the 

data provided below, the affected environment for electricity is the same as described in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

Demand for electricity can be measured by consumption rates or by peak demand. According to 

the CEC, total statewide electricity consumption fell from 281,199 gigawatt-hours (GWh) in 2006 

to 274,984 GWh in 2010 (CEC 2015b). In 2013, energy consumption in Kern County was 

approximately 14,947 GWh (CEC 2015c). Peak demand in the San Joaquin Valley has not 

changed since publication of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA

2014), and typically occurs in August between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. 

Generation of electricity is the fastest-growing share of the energy economy in California. The 

projected net power supply in the grid controlled by the California Independent System Operator

(CAISO) for summer 2015 was 54,044 megawatts (MW) (CAISO 2015). In 2014, California 

companies produced approximately 68 percent of the state’s electricity from power plants located 

in the state and from those located outside of the state but owned by California utilities

companies (CEC 2015e). Fuel sources for electric power in California for the year 2005 are 

presented in Table 3.6-11 (page 3.6-35) in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

(Authority and FRA 2014). Fuel sources for electric power in California for the year 2011 are 

presented in Table 3.6-4. 

Table 3.6-4 Fuel Sources for Electric Power in California in 2011

Fuel Source Quantity Used (trillion British 

thermal units) 

Percentage of Fuel Matrix

Coal 19.7 1

Petroleum 11.5 1

Nuclear 383.6 22

Renewable 688.1 40

Natural Gas 630.1 36

Source: United States Department of Energy, 2015

Transmission of California’s electricity occurs on a complex system linking generation to 

distribution while balancing supply and demand on a nearly instantaneous basis. The CAISO is a 

nonprofit entity that operates California’s transmission system and is responsible for the system’s 

reliability and for the nondiscriminatory transmission of energy. In addition to the in-state 

transmission connections, there are transmission interconnections that connect California’s 

electricity grid with out-of-state electricity utilities. These transmission systems are discussed in 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-11

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

detail in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.6-35 

and 3.6-36). 

Accurate data on electricity demand and generation capacity are important for ensuring 

continuous power supply as it is needed throughout the state. The statewide projected average 

summer power supply in 2015 was forecast at 63,822 MW, or approximately 959 MW more than 

the 2014 weather normalized peak (CAISO 2015). The result is an average planning reserve 

margin of 39 percent (CAISO 2015). California’s population is projected to exceed 49.3 million by 

2025 and more than 53 million by 2030, a net increase of 17.8 million over a 30-year period. This 

projected population increase will require approximately 92 gigawatts of peak summer capacity in 

2030 to meet demand and have an adequate reserve margin (CEC 2003). As described in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), projections of in-state 

generation capacity for 2035 are not possible because generation infrastructure decisions 

typically are made three to five years in advance of construction. However, the Western Electricity 

Coordinating Council 2013 Power Supply Assessment projects that sufficient generation 

resources are proposed to meet the calculated targets for all subregions analyzed (Western 

Electricity Coordinating Council 2013). 

Petroleum

Automobile travel is the predominant mode of passenger transportation in the study area. In 

California, historic demand for transportation services and its associated petroleum consumption 

has mirrored the growth of population and economic output. The Transportation Energy 

Forecasts for the 2007 Integrated Energy Policy Report (CEC 2007), produced by the CEC, 

indicates that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in California will increase by approximately 53 percent 

over the period of 2005 to 2030, for an average VMT increase of 1.71 percent per year. VMTs 

increase in relation to a variety of factors, including population, household income, and general 

economic activity. The CEC estimates that on-road gasoline use in California generally increases 

with increasing VMTs (CEC 2007). 

Natural Gas

In 2010, natural gas power plants provided 42 percent of California’s electricity. Natural gas used 

for electricity generation also represented 42 percent of total natural gas demand in California 

(EIA 2014). Natural gas-fired electricity generation has become the dominant source of electricity 

in California, fueling about 43 percent of electricity consumption throughout the state (CEC 

2015d). Natural gas used for electricity generation in 2011 was 617 billion cubic feet, compared to 

2010 and 2012 when gas use for electricity was 736 billion cubic feet and 855 billion cubic feet, 

respectively (CEC 2015d). 

In 2013, proved reserves of U.S. total natural gas increased 31 trillion cubic feet, or approximately 

10 percent, to 354 trillion cubic feet. Proved reserves are estimated volumes that analysis of 

geologic and engineering data demonstrates with reasonable certainty are recoverable under 

defined economic and operating conditions. Natural gas supplies are not considered to limit 

California’s projected demand (EIA 2014).

3.6.3.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

As with the May 2014 Project, major public utilities in the study area for the F-B LGA include 

facilities for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum distribution; telecommunications; potable and 

irrigable water delivery; and stormwater, wastewater, and solid waste disposal. Public utilities and 

energy providers identified in Table 3.6-1 for the May 2014 Project study area are the same 

public utilities and energy providers in the study area for the F-B LGA. 

Public Utilities

Major public utilities in the study area for the F-B LGA include facilities for electricity, natural gas, 

and petroleum distribution; telecommunications; potable and irrigable water delivery; and 

stormwater, wastewater, and solid waste disposal. Public utilities and energy providers in the 

study area for the F-B LGA are identified in Table 3.6-1. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-12 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Electrical Transmission Lines

Electrical transmission lines and networks in the study area for the F-B LGA are similar to those 

described above for the May 2014 Project. The proposed alignment would traverse a number of 

electrical transmission lines. As shown on Figure 3.6-1, transmission lines crossed by the F-B 

LGA are owned by PG&E, and would primarily be located in and near Bakersfield. There are no 

electrical substations along the F-B LGA alignment.

High-Pressure Natural Gas Pipelines

PG&E, Sempra, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Shell, and Kinder Morgan provide natural gas 

service and are responsible for maintaining the infrastructure for natural gas distribution in the 

study area (Authority and FRA 2014). As shown on Figure 3.6-2, natural gas pipelines that would 

be crossed by the proposed F-B LGA alignment are owned by PG&E, Sempra Energy, and Shell 

Oil. 

Petroleum and Fuel Pipelines

The affected environment for petroleum and fuel pipelines under the F-B LGA is similar to that 

described above for the May 2014 Project. As shown on Figure 3.6-3, petroleum and fuel 

pipelines that would be crossed by the proposed F-B LGA alignment primarily occur in and near 

Oildale, just north of Bakersfield. These crossings include pipelines owned by Shell Oil, Chevron, 

ExxonMobil, and Kinder Morgan. 

Communication Facilities

The affected environment for petroleum and fuel pipelines under the F-B LGA is similar to that 

described above for the May 2014 Project. As shown on Figure 3.6-4 , the nearest

communication facilities to the proposed F-B LGA alignment is an AM radio broadcast facility 

located south of the alignment near Oildale and Bakersfield.

Water Supply Infrastructure

The affected environment for water supply infrastructure under the F-B LGA is similar to that 

described above for the May 2014 Project, and includes the water districts identified in Table 

3.6-1. The alignment of the F-B LGA would be served by the same water service providers as 

discussed above for the May 2014 Project. In the community of Oildale, the proposed alignment 

for the F-B LGA traverses through the jurisdiction of the Oildale Mutual Water Company. Oildale 

Mutual Water Company and Highland Park Public Utility District were the original retail suppliers 

of the water imported and distributed to the Oildale community by the North of the River Municipal 

Water District, a public water agency formed in 1969 (OMWD 2016). Highland Park Public Utility 

District later merged with the North of the River Municipal Water District in 1982 (OMWD 2016). 

Water districts in the project area service multiple purposes, including municipal, agricultural, 

groundwater recharge, and transfer to other water districts.

Wastewater Infrastructure

The affected environment for wastewater infrastructure under the F-B LGA is similar to that 

described above for the May 2014 Project, and includes the municipal wastewater systems 

identified in Table 3.6-2. 

Storm Drains

The affected environment for storm drain systems under the F-B LGA is similar to that described 

above for the May 2014 Project, and stormwater facility providers are the same as described in 

Table 3.6-1. 

Solid Waste Facilities

The affected environment for solid waste facilities under the F-B LGA is similar to that described 

above for the May 2014 Project. Solid waste disposal facilities are the same as described in 

Table 3.6-3. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-13

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.6-1 Electric Transmission Lines
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-14 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.6-2 Natural Gas Transmission Pipelines
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-15

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.6-3 Petroleum and Fuel Transmission Pipelines
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-16 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 3.6-4 Communication Facilities and Sites
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-17

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Energy

Energy resources include electricity, natural gas, and petroleum resources. As discussed for the 

May 2014 Project, these resources are assessed on a state-wide scale. Energy resources 

applicable to the F-B LGA are the same as described for the May 2014 Project. 

3.6.4 Environmental Consequences

This section provides the impact analysis relating to public utilities and energy. Section 3.6.4.1 in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) provides an overview 

of impacts described for the May 2014 Project, and Section 3.6.4.2 characterizes impacts that 

would occur under the F-B LGA. 

3.6.4.1 Summary of Analysis for the May 2014 Project

This section provides a summary of those effects of the May 2014 Project using information from 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS relevant to the issue areas of utilities, energy, 

and electrical requirements. Section 3.6 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

included three appendices:

• Appendix 3.6-A, Existing Plus Project Conditions Energy Analysis

• Appendix 3.6-B, Water Usage Analysis Technical Memorandum

• Appendix 3.6-C, Energy Analysis Memorandum

Of the appendices listed above, 3.6-A and 3.6-C address the statewide HSR system, and 

Appendix 3.6-B presents project-specific data and analysis related to water usage requirements. 

For the purposes of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the statewide analyses (Appendices 3.6-A 

and 3.6-C) are referenced where applicable, and updated project-specific water usage data 

(previously identified in Appendix 3.6-B) is now presented in-text in Section 3.6.4.2 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS. Therefore, Appendices 3.6-A through 3.6-C from the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) are not attached to this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS because the relevant information is incorporated by reference or provided 

in the text. 

Utilities

The May 2014 Project could result in scheduled and accidental interruptions of utility services. 

The permanent project footprint in some places would be located where current utility lines exist, 

creating a potential conflict. At some locations, current utility infrastructure would be upgraded 

and/or extended to serve the HSR system. Utilities inside the permanent project footprint would 

be either relocated outside the restricted access areas of the HSR right-of-way (ROW), or would 

be modified (i.e., encased in a pipe sturdy enough to withstand the weight of HSR system

elements and allow for maintenance access from outside the HSR ROW) to avoid conflict. 

Probing for existing underground utilities prior to the start of construction would reduce the risk of 

accidental service interruptions.

The May 2014 Project would also generate C&D material that would be disposed of in local 

landfills that have available capacity, and in appropriate facilities for hazardous or potentially 

hazardous materials. Where feasible, C&D material would be recycled or repurposed to divert it 

from landfills. Based on anticipated reuse, recycling, and waste diversion that will be implemented 

during the construction of the HSR, existing landfill capacity is adequate to meet project 

demands.

Utility demand occurring under the May 2014 Project would not require expansion of existing 

facilities or construction of new facilities or entitlements related to water and wastewater 

treatment, or stormwater drainage. The potential effect on these facilities would constitute a less 

than significant impact under CEQA. 

The May 2014 Project alignment would cross existing transmission lines, and modifications to 

existing transmission lines would be implemented to provide adequate clearance, as needed in 

coordination with PG&E. The May 2014 Project will require the installation of a 50 kV AC Traction 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-18 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Electrification System (TES) to power the electric trains. In order to have adequate capacity for 

train operations, the proposed TES will interconnect into local utility networks at 115 kV or 230 

kV, with approximately 30-mile intervals between the traction power substations. This spacing 

requirement results in five traction power substations situated along the May 2014 Project 

alignment. All interconnection points require redundant transmission from the point of 

interconnection (at 115 kV or 230 kV) to supply the TES, with each interconnection connected 

only to two phases of the transmission source. At each interconnection point, the traction power 

substation will have two 115/50 kV, or 230/50 kV, single-phase transformers. Both transformers 

will be rated at 60 megavolt amperes. The autotransformer feed system then steps down the 

transmission voltage to 50 kV (phase-to-phase), with 25 kV (phase-to-ground) to power the 

traction system. 

These system requirements are assessed in detail in PG&E’s Technical Study Report evaluating 

proposed traction power substation interconnections for Sites 4 through 13 (PG&E 2016). Site 13 

in Bakersfield, at Casa Loma Substation, is located inside the footprint of the May 2014 Project. 

The Authority is conducting ongoing efforts and contract negotiations with PG&E to ensure that all 

necessary utility modifications or expansions are appropriately planned and implemented.

In the event that additional utility relocations are identified during final engineering design of the 

May 2014 Project and those relocations are situated outside of the footprint evaluated in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), additional CEQA review 

would be conducted for those relocations as necessary.

Energy

Potential impacts associated with energy use are considered on a statewide basis, due to the 

geographic extent of the HSR system and California’s electricity generation and transmission 

network, as well as the fact that the HSR system (and associated energy savings) would not be 

fully operational for almost 25 years. The energy analysis provided in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), therefore, uses a dual baseline approach, and

energy impacts are evaluated against existing and “background” conditions that are expected in 

2035. Results for both baselines are presented in the main report and in Appendix 3.6-A of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

Electrical Requirements of the High-Speed Rail

The electrical demand for the propulsion of the trains and for the operation of the trains at 

terminal stations and in storage depots and maintenance facilities has been conservatively 

estimated by project engineers to be 12.66 GWh per day for the 50 percent fare scenario and 

8.44 GWh per day for the 83 percent fare scenario (the “fare scenario” refers to ticket prices and 

what percentage of corresponding airfare is represented by the price of transit on the HSR

system). Transmission losses, or the percentage of energy lost due to transmission from the 

power plant to the project, have been estimated at approximately 4 percent. Applying this factor 

to the electrical requirement of the HSR system, the total electrical requirement at the power plant 

would be approximately 13.17 GWh (or 44,900 million Btu [MMBtu1

]) per day for the 50 percent

fare scenario and 8.78 GWh (30,000 MMBtu) per day for the 83 percent fare scenario. This 

change in electrical demand is predicted to occur under the existing conditions plus project 

scenario and the 2035 build scenario.

The analysis provided in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS estimated the changes 

in energy use anticipated throughout the state with and without the HSR system. The analysis 

included estimation of the energy changes from reduced state-wide on-road VMT, reduced 

intrastate airplane travel, and increased electrical demand. Although the HSR system would 

result in an increase in electricity demand, it would reduce the energy demands from automobile 

and airplane travel, resulting in an overall beneficial effect on statewide energy use (Table 3.6-12, 

2035 Estimated Change in Energy Consumption due to the HSR system [50 percent to 83

1 One megawatt [MW] is equivalent to approximately 3.41 MMBtu (IT)/hour [MMBtu/h]
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-19

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

percent Fare Scenario] in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA

2014: page 3.6-43]). The payback period for energy used during construction would be two to 

four years for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR system, where two to four years

indicates the time required to “pay back” the energy used in construction with operational energy 

consumption savings of the HSR, prorated to statewide energy savings.

3.6.4.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

The following sections evaluate direct and indirect impacts of the F-B LGA. As described in the 

Affected Environment discussion provided in Section 3.6.3, there are a number of utility conflicts 

along the F-B LGA, comparable to the portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section comprised by 

the May 2014 Project. The F-B LGA would affect the same utility and energy jurisdictions and 

types of facilities as would be affected under the May 2014 Project, with site-specific differences 

in where the conflicts occur. 

The analysis provided below presents potential impacts to public utilities and energy for two time 

periods.

• Construction-period impacts, or those that would be of short duration and limited to the

construction period

• Project-period impacts, or those that would occur during operation and maintenance of the

project and could persist for the lifetime of the project

Where impacts under the F-B LGA would be the same as described for the wider Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section, the impact discussion below refers to the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) for additional analysis. Detailed discussion of potential impacts 

specific to the F-B LGA is provided below, as applicable. 

Construction-Period Impacts

The construction of any of the F-B LGA facilities could result in planned temporary interruption of 

utility service, accidental disruption of services, increased water use, and increased waste 

generation. As discussed in Section 2.4.5.3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the proposed F-B 

LGA crosses a number of utilities including HV transmission lines, water conveyance 

pipelines/canals, natural gas pipelines, and fiber-optic lines. To the extent that it is feasible and 

reasonable, utilities located in the proposed F-B LGA ROW would be relocated to outside of the 

ROW during the construction period. This may result in temporary disruptions to utility service, as 

assessed under the following impact discussions. 

Impact PU&E#1 – Temporary Interruption of Utility Service

Potential impacts of the F-B LGA associated with temporary interruption of utility service would 

occur in the same way as for the May 2014 Project, with the exception that site-specific crossings 

would be different where the proposed rail alignments and auxiliary facilities vary in location. As 

with the May 2014 Project, high-risk and low-risk utility crossings would occur under the F-B LGA, 

and construction could require the temporary shutdown of utility lines such as water, sewer, 

electricity, petroleum, or gas to safely move or extend these lines. Implementation of the project 

will adhere to the National Electrical Safety Code, a United States standard for the safe 

installation, operation, and maintenance of electric power and communication utility systems 

(including power substations, power and communication overhead lines, and power and 

communication underground lines). 

The types of HV transmission tower modifications that may occur with implementation of the F-B 

LGA include the following:

• The overall height of existing HV transmission towers would be raised in order for the power

conductors to clear F-B LGA facilities in accordance with CPUC requirements and PG&E

standards

• Existing steel lattice towers or steel truss towers would be modified at their existing locations

to provide necessary clearance.
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-20 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• Existing HV transmission timber poles would be replaced with new, taller timber poles or

tubular steel poles depending on the height adjustment required.

• Should an HV steel lattice tower or steel truss tower be determined through the evaluation

and structural analysis process to be inadequate for modifying, then the tower would be

replaced with a new tubular steel poles.

• Existing towers located too close to the F-B LGA would be relocated horizontally if any

portion of the existing HV transmission tower would impact the F-B LGA viaduct in the event

the existing tower should fall over. If the tower is determined to be too close to the F-B LGA,

the relocated tower would be placed 200 feet clear of the F-B LGA right-of-way.

High-voltage transmission lines along the F-B LGA alignment would need to be modified in five 

areas in order to accommodate implementation of the proposed F-B LGA. These locations and 

modifications are summarized below and described in further detail in Section 2.4.5.3 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

• Coffee Road, Shafter (115-Kilovolt Line). Two HV towers are located perpendicular to

Coffee Road in Shafter, east and west of the F-B LGA alignment. The existing 60-foot-tall

towers would be raised to provide clearance for the F-B LGA alignment.

• 7th Standard Road, City of Shafter/Bakersfield (115-Kilovolt Line). Two HV towers are

located parallel to 7th Standard Road in Shafter. The existing 80- and 110-foot-tall towers

would be raised to provide clearance for the F-B LGA alignment.

• Southwest of State Route 99 and northeast of Lerdo Canal, City of Bakersfield (70-

Kilovolt Line). Two HV towers are located on vacant land southwest of SR 99 and northeast

of Beardsley Canal in Bakersfield, east and west of the F-B LGA alignment. The existing 110-

foot-tall towers would be raised to provide clearance for the F-B LGA alignment.

• West/East of State Route 204 Near the Kern County Water Agency Treatment Plant and

Kern River, City of Bakersfield (115-Kilovolt Line). Two HV towers are located east and

west of SR 204 on land near the Kern County Water Agency treatment plant and Kern River,

as well as the Union Pacific Railroad in Bakersfield. The existing 110-foot-tall towers would

be raised to provide clearance for the F-B LGA.

• Adjacent to Sam Lynn Ball Park and Parallel to Elm Street, City of Bakersfield (115-

Kilovolt and 70-Kilovolt Mixed Voltage). Three HV towers are located near Sam Lynn Ball

Park, two are located in the proposed F Street Station area, and two are parallel to Elm

Street in Bakersfield. The existing 110-foot-tall towers would be raised to provide clearance

for the F-B LGA. As described in Section 2.4.5.3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the

towers would be sited to avoid conflicts with the City of Bakersfield/Kern County Water

Agency Carrier Canal property.

The transmission towers that would be modified with implementation of the F-B LGA would be 

evaluated by an Authority engineering contractor (who will be approved by PG&E). Existing tower 

conditions would be evaluated and a structural analysis performed to evaluate the feasibility of 

modifying the existing HV transmission towers. Where necessary, project design and phasing of 

construction activities would be implemented to minimize utility interruptions, including for 

upgrades of existing power lines to connect the HSR system to existing PG&E substations. Prior 

to construction in areas where utility service interruptions are unavoidable, the contractor would 

notify the public through a combination of communication media (e.g., by phone, email, mail, 

newspaper notices) in that jurisdiction and the affected service providers of the planned outage. 

The notification would specify the estimated duration of the planned outage and would be 

published no fewer than seven days prior to the outage. Construction would be coordinated to 

avoid interruptions of utility service to hospitals and other critical users.

Construction of the F-B LGA may require upgrades to existing PG&E infrastructure to meet the 

projected power demands of the HSR system. However, as discussed in Section 2.1.5 of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, PG&E network upgrades would not be immediately needed. If 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-21

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

PG&E determines that network upgrades are needed (e.g., conductor replacement), it will be the 

result of accumulation of increased power demands from other users on a given circuit, and not 

necessarily just the addition of load demand from HSR operations. There may be substation 

upgrades needed to serve the HSR project, but it will generally be circuitry modifications needed 

to supply power for the Traction Power Substation Site. In addition to this work, the Authority will 

be constructing its own interconnections from the PG&E system to the HSR system. Planned and 

temporary interruptions of electrical utilities service associated with construction would be of short 

duration, and the public would be notified of planned interruptions in accordance with detailed 

procedures that would occur prior to any anticipated interruption to utility services. Therefore, 

potential impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#2 – Accidents and Disruption of Services

During construction, the potential for accidental disruption of utility systems, including overhead 

utility lines (e.g., telephone, fiber optic systems, and cable television) and buried utility lines 

(e.g., water, wastewater, petroleum, and natural gas lines) is low due to the established practices 

of utility identification and notification that occur in advance of any project-related, grounddisturbing activities. In addition, California Government Code Section 4216 establishes required 

procedures for identifying buried utilities prior to initiating excavation. In compliance with 

California Government Code Section 4216, the construction contractor would use a utility locator 

service and manually probe for buried utilities inside the construction footprint prior to initiating 

ground-disturbing activities. This would avoid accidental disruption of utility services. 

Transmission lines between the transmission power supply stations and the existing substations 

would be improved or constructed aboveground to industry standards, and would not conflict with 

services provided using existing infrastructure. Implementation of these standards during 

construction would minimize the likelihood of accidental disruption of service. In addition, potential 

disruptions would be temporary and limited to localized areas. Therefore, potential impacts 

associated with accidents and disruption of services would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#3 – Water Demand during Construction

Construction activities would use water to prepare concrete, control dust, wash equipment tires 

and parts as needed, and re-seed disturbed areas. Table 3.6-5 shows the estimated constructionrelated water use purposes and rates along the proposed F-B LGA and associated facilities. 

Table 3.6-5 Construction Water Use Summary1

Facility Item Total Volume 

(MG)

Total Volume (acrefeet)Annualized Water 

Use2

(acre-feet/year)

F-B LGA Rail Alignment

23.13 miles Concrete Work 40.28 123.36 24.74

Earth Work 5.42 16.62 3.25

Dust Control (tracks) 128.78 395.56 79.11

Irrigation (tracks) 29.08 89.41 17.88

Total 196.51 603.27 124.98

Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility (MOIF)4 

28 acres Concrete Work3 14.67 44.01 9.78

Dust Control 132.02 405.83 80.68

Irrigation 14.67 41.56 7.33

Total 161.35 491.39 97.79
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-22 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Facility Item Total Volume 

(MG)

Total Volume (acrefeet)Annualized Water 

Use2

(acre-feet/year)

F Street Station3

45.46 acres Concrete Work 2.24 6.72 1.31

Dust Control 31.36 96.32 19.23

Irrigation 1.12 3.55 0.75

Total 34.72 106.59 21.28

Maximum Use Total 392.59 1,201.25 244.05

1 Construction water use for the F-B LGA was estimated by extrapolating water use quantities on a per-mile or per-acre basis, as identified in 

Appendix 3.6-B of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 2 Annualized water use is for a five-year construction period (for consistency with the approach used in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS). 3 Assumed that the water use values for the F Street Station would be the same as the values for the Kings/Tulare Station-West Station analyzed in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, as the acreage of that station (48 acres) was the most comparable to the proposed F Street 

Station (46.45 acres) analyzed in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 4 Assumed that construction water uses at the MOIF would be comparable to a heavy maintenance facility site as analyzed in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

MG = million gallons

As noted in Table 3.6-5, total construction water use associated with the F-B LGA would be 

approximately 1,201.25 acre-feet, for an annualized (over five years) construction water usage of 

approximately 244.05 acre-feet per year. In order to estimate how water use patterns and 

intensities may be affected by implementation of the F-B LGA, this analysis includes an 

estimation of existing water usage along the project footprint (following the same approach used 

in Appendix 3.6-B of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014]). 

Table 3.6-6 provides these estimates, accounting for the proposed rail alignment for the F-B LGA, 

the MOIF, and the F Street Station (Bakersfield passenger station). 

Table 3.6-6 Existing Water Use for the F-B LGA

Project Feature Current Land Use Acres Water Use 

Factors1 

(acre-feet/

acres/year)

Annual Water 

Use

(acre-feet/year)

F-B LGA – Rail 

Alignment

Single-Family 1.46 3.5 5.12

Multi-Family 1.79 6.2 11.12

Commercial 9.54 1.9 18.12

Industrial 86.06 1.9 163.51

Institutional 63.45 1.9 120.55

Agricultural 291.88 2.91 849.38

Roadways/ROW/No Data 269.31 1.9 511.68

Total 723.49 - 1,679.49

MOIF Single-Family 0.00 3.5 0.00

Multi-Family 0.00 6.2 0.00

Commercial 0.00 1.9 0.00

Industrial 18.55 1.9 35.25

Institutional 0.00 1.9 0.00

Agricultural 31.32 2.91 91.14
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-23

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Project Feature Current Land Use Acres Water Use 

Factors1 

(acre-feet/

acres/year)

Annual Water 

Use

(acre-feet/year)

Roadways/ROW/No Data 1.08 1.9 2.05

Total 50.95 - 128.44

F Street Station Single-Family 0.00 3.5 0.00

Multi-Family 0.00 6.2 0.00

Commercial 7.50 1.9 14.25

Industrial 13.88 1.9 26.37

Institutional 8.17 1.9 15.52

Agricultural 0.00 2.91 0.00

Roadways/ROW/No Data 14.86 1.9 28.23

Total 44.41 - 84.37

TOTAL 994.06 n/a 1,892.3

1 Water use factors from the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Appendix 3.6-B) were used for this analysis, with the exception of the 

Agriculture Water Use Factor, which was updated per new Kern County data derived from the California DWR Irrigated Crop Acres and Water 

Use Information by County (DWR 2010). A county-specific weighted average for all crop types was used. No water use factors were available for 

Roadways/ROW/No Data land uses; therefore, an estimated water use factor of 1.9 was applied, as it seemed likely that water use on such land 

parcels would not be more than for commercial, industrial or institutional land uses (as described in Appendix 3.6-B of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS).

DWR = Department of Water Resources

A comparison of the water use totals presented in Table 3.6-5 and Table 3.6-6 indicates that less 

water use would occur along the F-B LGA during construction, as compared to existing water 

uses associated with land uses along the alignment (244.05 acre-feet per year during 

construction of the F-B LGA, versus 1,892.3 acre-feet per year of ongoing water use associated 

with identified land uses along the alignment, including the Northern Shafter MOIF and the F 

Street Station). The acreages of land use types shown in Table 3.6-5 and Table 3.6-6 reflect the 

physical footprint of the proposed F-B LGA (i.e., only the physical area that would be converted 

from existing land uses under the project). 

Water supply providers along the study area are listed in Table 3.6-1. During construction of the 

F-B LGA, it is anticipated that the same water sources currently used to provide water supply for 

uses along the alignment would also be used to provide construction-related water needs. 

Existing water uses along the alignment would be reduced under the F-B LGA because projectrelated water requirements would be less intense than water requirements associated with 

existing land uses along the proposed F-B LGA (as described above, water use factors were 

applied to acres of existing land uses inside the footprint of the proposed alignment, including the 

MOIF and passenger station, in order to estimate current water usage rates). Water used during 

construction of the project would be offset by the reduction in water uses at the properties 

acquired inside the proposed footprint area, due to the land use conversion. Overall, the F-B LGA

would decrease water supply requirements in the study area and existing water supply would 

sufficiently meet the needs for construction activities. 

Existing water supply is sufficient for the anticipated water use during construction, and 

construction of the F-B LGA would require neither construction nor expansion of a water

treatment facility and would also not require new or expanded entitlements for water. This would 

result in a less than significant impact under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#4 – Waste Generation during Construction

During construction of the F-B LGA, waste would be generated as a result of vegetation clearing, 

removal of existing asphalt and gravel, and demolition of existing structures. The Fresno to 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-24 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Bakersfield Section of the HSR would generate an estimated 2.6 million cubic yards of solid 

waste, as discussed in detail in Impact PU&E#4 in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.6-49 and 3.6-50). The F-B LGA comprises 

approximately 18 percent of the total Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR system, 

accounting for the length of the alignment between the F-B LGA’s northern and southern termini. 

It is therefore assumed that the F-B LGA would generate approximately 18 percent of the quantity 

of C&D waste associated with the Fresno to Bakersfield Section, equating to approximately 

468,000 cubic yards of solid waste. In comparison, as noted in Table 8-A-11 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, Summary of Differentiating Features between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA, the May 2014 Project would generate an estimated 484,068 cubic yards of solid waste. 

These estimates are an extrapolation based on the length of the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project 

alignments, and do not detail waste generation associated with project facilities such as the MOIF

and passenger station. 

As standard practice, the construction contractor would divert C&D waste from landfills by reusing 

or recycling to aid to the extent practicable with the implementation of the Local Government 

Construction and Demolition Guide (Senate Bill 1374) and to meet solid waste diversion goals.

Additionally, the 2010 Green Building Standards Code requires every city and county in California 

to develop a waste management plan and divert at least 50 percent of the construction materials 

generated from any project in the state. The Authority’s 2013 sustainability policy further specifies 

that all (100 percent) of the steel and concrete waste generated during construction will be 

recycled and a minimum of 75 percent of construction waste will be diverted from landfills 

(Authority 2013).

The design-build contract will require the design-build contractor to prepare and implement a 

Sustainability Management Plan that establishes how construction waste will be diverted from 

landfills to recycling centers. For example, the Authority has received and approved Sustainability 

Management Plans from the design-build contractor for Construction Package 1 (Tutor Perini, 

Zachry, Parsons 2013) and Construction Package 2/3 (Dragados Flatiron Joint Venture 2016). 

Tutor Perini, Zachry, Parsons estimates that it will divert 81 percent of waste from the landfills 

(page 17), and Dragados Flatiron Joint Venture estimates a diversion of 92 percent of materials 

from building demolition and 100 percent from streets, sidewalks, and driveways (page 14). 

Landfills in the study area are identified in Table 3.6-1 and Table 3.6-3. The specific landfills to 

which C&D material from the project would be sent have not been identified. However, as 

discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), there are 

a number of active landfills with sufficient disposal capacity in the study area. Other regional 

facilities may also be used, particularly for disposal of hazardous wastes, as needed. The Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS discusses requirements for disposal and diversion of C&D 

waste. These requirements are also applicable to the F-B LGA, including those related to landfill 

use and hazardous waste disposal. The F-B LGA would comply with federal, state, and local 

statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Thus, there exists sufficient, permitted capacity at 

the landfills serving the area to accommodate solid waste disposal needs.

Hazardous wastes generated during C&D activities would be handled, stored, and disposed of by 

the Authority in accordance with applicable requirements. A certified hazardous waste collection 

company would deliver the waste to an authorized hazardous waste management facility for 

recycling or disposal, including the Kettleman Hills Landfill, an in-state facility that accepts 

hazardous waste. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) 

discusses in detail an anticipated expansion of the Kettleman Hills Landfill due to implementation 

of the B-20 landfill addition, which would provide permitted capacity for the disposal of hazardous 

and designated waste for an additional 24 years. This landfill would therefore have sufficient 

capacity to accommodate disposal of hazardous wastes associated with construction of the F-B 

LGA. Under CEQA, the impact on permitted landfills that would serve the project would be less 

than significant.
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-25

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact PU&E#5 – Energy Consumption during Construction

Although Section 3.6.2.3 does not identify a CEQA criterion specific to energy consumption, 

according to Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, EIRs must discuss the potential energy 

impacts of proposed projects, with particular emphasis on avoiding or reducing inefficient, 

wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy. Wise and efficient use of energy may include 

decreasing overall per-capita energy consumption; decreasing reliance on fossil fuels such as 

coal, natural gas, and oil; and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. Significant longterm operational or direct energy impacts would occur if the project would place a new demand 

on regional energy supply or require significant additional capacity, or significantly increase peak 

and base period electricity demand. 

During construction of the F-B LGA, energy would be required to produce and transport 

construction materials to work areas along the project footprint, and to transport C&D material 

away from the work area for recycling and disposal. The operation and maintenance of

construction equipment would also consume energy resources. Energy used for the construction 

of track work, guideways, maintenance yards, stations, support facilities, and other structures 

would be a one-time requirement and would create a non-recoverable energy cost.

Energy consumption during construction of the F-B LGA was estimated by applying energy use 

factors associated with project facilities of the May 2014 Project (as identified in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014]), including those related to lengths of 

at-grade versus elevated or below-grade design. Using this methodology, Table 3.6-7 provides an 

overview of energy consumption associated with the F-B LGA. 

Table 3.6-7 Construction Energy Consumption Assumptions for the F-B LGA

HSR Alignment At-Grade 

Design2

Elevated/BelowGrade Design2Passenger 

Stations

MOIF2 Total

Energy Consumption 

Factor1

19.11 billion 

Btu/one-way 

guideway mile

55.63 billion Btu/

one-way guideway 

mile

78 billion Btu/

station

38.22 billion 

Btu/MOIF3

–

Guideway Miles2 10.52 12.61 1 Station 1 MOIF –

Energy Consumption 

(billion Btu)

201.04 701.49 78 38.22 1,018.75

1. Energy consumption factors are identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, Section 3.6.3.1, Table 3.6-2. 2 Of the total 23.13 guideway miles for the F-B LGA, 10.52 miles would be at-grade and 12.61 miles would be of elevated or below-grade design. 3 The Energy consumption factor for the MOIF is based on the energy consumption factor for two guideway miles.

Direct energy involves all energy consumed by vehicle propulsion (e.g., automobiles and 

airplanes). This energy is a function of traffic characteristics such as volume, speed, distance 

traveled, vehicle mix, and thermal value of the fuel being used. This energy also includes the 

electrical power requirements of the HSR system, including recoverable energy during train 

braking, as well as aircraft fuel. Indirect energy consumption involves the non-recoverable, onetime energy expenditure involved in constructing the physical infrastructure associated with the 

project, typically through the irreversible burning of hydrocarbons for operating equipment and 

vehicles in which energy is lost to the environment.

Energy impacts caused by the project might include the additional consumption of electricity 

required to power the HSR system (direct use) and consumption of resources to construct the 

proposed HSR facilities (indirect use). Energy used for vehicle propulsion is a function of traffic 

characteristics and the thermal value of the fuel used. Petroleum consumption rates for vehicle 

travel were derived from the travel demand forecast for the HSR and growth projections 

performed by the CEC. These consumption rates were used to determine the amount of 

petroleum used for transportation under the HSR sections, including the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section, and portions of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section comprised by the May 2014 Project 

and the F-B LGA (as shown in Table 3.6-7). 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-26 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Although measurable, the energy used for project construction would not require significant 

additional capacity, and would not significantly increase peak- or base-period demands for 

electricity or other forms of energy. Energy efficiency is assumed for the offsite production of 

construction materials (Authority and FRA 2005) based on the cost of nonrenewable resources 

and the economic incentive for efficiency. Standard best management practices would be 

implemented onsite so that nonrenewable energy would not be consumed in a wasteful, 

inefficient, or unnecessary manner.

As mentioned in the discussion of construction waste management, the design-build contract will 

require that the design-build contractor prepare and implement a Sustainability Management Plan 

that establishes strategies for minimizing energy use during construction. As an example of 

measures that could be implemented in its approved plan, Tutor Perini, Zachry, Parsons identifies 

five strategies for minimizing energy use (pages 10–12):

• Utilize renewable energy sources

• Utilize efficient lighting fixtures and natural lighting

• Reduce energy consumption by computers and network equipment

• Utilize sustainable methods for temperature control

• Utilize energy-efficient appliances

Dragados Flatiron Joint Venture plans to implement five additional energy-reduction measures to 

the reduction measures listed above (page 17):

• Participate in energy-efficient programs at leased facilities (e.g., Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design and Energy Star)

• Use solar power equipment in the field when possible

• Use “cool roof” technology when possible

• Streamline delivery of materials

• Coordinate ride sharing for workers

Similar measures would be applied during construction of the F-B LGA. 

As discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (page 3.6-5) (Authority and FRA

2014), the Energy Element of the Kern County General Plan defines the critical energy-related 

issues facing the county and sets forth goals, policies, and implementation measures to protect 

the energy resources of the county, to encourage orderly energy development, and to afford the 

maximum protection for the public’s health and safety, and for the environment. Additionally, the 

Authority will produce a sustainability report annually. Following the example of peer 

organizations (HSR agencies and major transportation agencies) the report will contain a subset 

of indicators recommended by the Global Reporting Initiative. If required by regulation or other 

stakeholder interest, the Authority will undertake the steps and procedures necessary to enable 

its environmental and sustainability claims to be audited and verified in compliance with the 

International Standards Organization 14001 standard (Authority 2013). 

Additional discussion of energy consumption during construction is provided in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.6-13 through 3.6-44),

including discussion related to the energy payback period, the number of years required to “pay 

back” the energy used in construction through operational energy savings prorated to statewide 

energy savings. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section would contribute approximately 14 percent to 

the HSR energy demand as well as to annual energy savings (approximately 5,278,000 to 

7,910,000 MMBtu/day, depending on the fare scenario). As such, the payback period for energy 

consumed during construction would be approximately two to four years of full project operations 

because the project will remove less energy-efficient cars and planes from the system.

As noted above, significant long-term operational or direct energy impacts would occur if the 

project would place a substantial new demand on regional energy supply, require significant 

additional capacity, or significantly increase peak- and base-period electricity demand. However, 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-27

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

as discussed, the project would employ energy-saving features where feasible, and the overall 

energy payback period would be limited to two to four years. Therefore, the F-B LGA would not 

place substantial new demand on regional energy supply, require significant additional capacity, 

or significantly increase peak- and base-period electricity demand. The effect of indirect use of 

energy for construction of the F-B LGA would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Project-Period Impacts

The operation and maintenance of the proposed F-B LGA could result in permanent impacts to 

public utilities and energy, including the following: 

• Relocation and extension of utilities

• Reduced access to existing utilities in the project footprint

• Increased demand for water, wastewater, and waste disposal services in certain locations,

including the passenger station and MOIF

Impact PU&E#6 – Conflicts with Existing Utilities

As discussed under Impact PU&E#1, many utilities are located in or traverse the study area for 

the proposed F-B LGA and associated facilities. These crossings are referred to as “utility 

conflicts.” During construction of the project, there may be temporary disruptions in utility service 

during planned relocations of certain facilities, where utility conflicts occur. As with the May 2014 

Project, the F-B LGA would avoid, protect, or relocate existing utility infrastructure as needed to 

avoid conflicts. Also, as discussed in the introduction to “Construction-Period Impacts” above and 

in Section 2.4.5.3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, to the extent that it is feasible and 

reasonable, utilities located in the proposed F-B LGA ROW would be relocated to outside of the 

ROW. This may result in temporary service interruptions (as discussed under Impact PU&E#1), 

but operational service will be restored and maintained. Pursuant to utility agreements negotiated 

between the Authority and individual utility owners, the Authority would work with utility owners 

during final engineering design and construction of the F-B LGA to relocate utilities or protect 

them in place.

To date, the Authority has entered into Joint Use Agreements (JUA) or Common Consent to Use 

Agreements (CCUA) with nine utilities in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section, two of which provide 

services in the F-B LGA (and May 2014 Project) resource study areas south of Poplar Avenue. 

The JUAs and CCUAs provide utility providers with assurance that any required and approved 

relocation of the utilities’ facilities will be pursuant to the facility owners’ standards or the 

Authority’s design criteria existing at the time of the execution of the applicable agreement. In the 

event of a difference between the facility owners’ standards and the Authority’s design criteria, 

the more stringent is to apply. In some cases, the design standards of the facility owner refer to a 

county standard or the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials, and 

the JUA or CCUA stipulate those standards. As an example of the necessary coordination 

between the Authority and the utility owner, if conflicts are identified during final design, overhead 

electrical lines that traverse the F-B LGA may be placed underground (depending on the voltage). 

Alternatively, they may be raised to provide necessary clearance, or relocated to avoid HSR 

facilities. 

Following completion of the construction period, operation and maintenance of the F-B LGA

would not include ongoing relocation or upgrade of existing utilities beyond what would be 

implemented during the construction period (as discussed under Impact PU&E#1). Routine 

inspection of utilities along the F-B LGA, and implementation of repairs and maintenance 

activities where necessary, would avoid the potential for significant impacts to occur as a result of 

project operation. Repair and maintenance of existing utilities would occur regardless of project 

implementation. 

Section 3.6.5.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: 

pages 3.6-50 through 3.6-54) describes potential impacts of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

related to conflicts with existing utilities, including a high likelihood for potential conflicts with 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-28 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

ancillary utility infrastructure, specifically existing electrical substations. As noted in Section 

3.6.2.3, CEQA significance thresholds specify that a significant impact could occur due to 

conflicts with a fixed facility such as an electrical substation. As described in Section 2.4.5.3 of 

this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS and under Impact PU&E#1, the project would conflict with 

existing utility facilities that would require modifications (HV transmission towers) and/or 

relocation (water service lines). These conflicts would be addressed during project construction, 

such that further modifications or relocations would not be required during the operation and 

maintenance period.

As described under Impact PU&E#1, implementation of the F-B LGA would not require any 

immediate PG&E network upgrades. Also as described in Section 2.1.5 (Study Electrical 

Interconnections and Network Upgrades), project-related changes to electrical interconnection 

facilities required to meet the projected power demands of the HSR system (including the F-B 

LGA) would include: 

• Minor movement of traction power supply stations, switching stations, and electrical tie line

• Expansion of the existing PG&E substation north of SR 178 near the intersection of 30th

Street and Union Avenue

• Implementation of new utility switching stations and an HSR traction power supply station

As noted above and in Section 3.6.2.3, CEQA significance thresholds specify that a significant 

impact could occur due to conflicts with a fixed utility such as a substation. In order to avoid 

significant impacts associated with the described modifications, the Authority would use JUAs 

and CCUAs with utility providers to identify and resolve utility conflicts similar to the approach it 

has taken for HSR activities north of the F-B LGA’s northern terminus (Poplar Avenue in Shafter). 

Based on this coordination, and the implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

including PUE-IAMM#1 (Minimization of Utility Interruption), provided in Section 3.6.5, the effects 

of the F-B LGA on existing utilities during operation and maintenance would be less than 

significant under CEQA.

Impact PU&E#7 – Reduced Access to Existing Utilities in the HSR Right-of-Way

As with the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA ROW would be fenced and secured after 

construction, including after the relocation or in-place protection of any utilities located in or 

through the ROW. Further discussion of how utilities would be relocated or protected in-place is 

provided in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014) (Impact 

PU&E#6 in Section 3.6.5.3), which states that implementation of standard engineering and utility 

access practices and the casing and maintenance access requirements of utilities located 

underneath or inside the HSR ROW would reduce access to existing utility lines. 

As discussed, the Authority has entered into JUAs or CCUAs with utility providers in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section. These JUAs or CCUAs commit the Authority to provide sufficient access to 

ensure the safe and regular maintenance of facilities, including access roads, if required. This 

may include easement rights to maintain, operate, dredge, and spray canals in accordance with 

standard facility owners’ practices, including access for heavy equipment trucks. In situations 

where existing canal or ditch access roads are blocked by the HSR ROW, the Authority has to 

design culverts with extra length to allow a maintenance vehicle to turn around at each side of the 

HSR embankment. Generally, these culverts will be extended to have 25 feet of clearance from 

the face of the headwall to the HSR ROW to allow construction of a 15-foot turnaround road, 

unless the facility owner has other standard specifications. The Authority has also committed to 

provide for the construction of a 15-foot turnaround for any other maintenance or access road that 

is blocked by the HSR ROW. The Authority would take a similar approach for the F-B LGA, 

thereby maintaining utility providers’ access to facilities. 

Based on the above discussion, and with implementation of these standard engineering and utility 

access practices, maintenance access will be provided to utilities located underneath HSR ROW. 

Potential impacts associated with reduced access to existing utility facilities would be less than 

significant under CEQA. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-29

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact PU&E#8 – Upgrade or Construction of Power Lines

As with the other parts of the HSR system, the F-B LGA would use an electrified line with traction 

power for electric vehicles. Electricity would be supplied and distributed by a 2x25 kV 

autotransformer power supply system and an overhead contact system (Authority 2009). As 

discussed in Section 2.4.5.3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS and under Impact PU&E#1 

above, implementation of the F-B LGA would include modification to several sections of existing 

HV transmission line, specifically with tower height required to provide clearance for the F-B LGA 

alignment. Also as discussed under Impact PU&E#6, conflicts with existing utilities (including 

power lines) would be addressed during project construction.

California’s electricity grid would power the proposed HSR system. Therefore, construction of the 

project would not include the construction of a separate power source. As discussed in Section 

2.2.6 (page 2-12) of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), 

although it is not feasible to physically control the flow of electricity from particular sources, it 

would be feasible for the Authority to obtain the quantity of power required for the HSR system

from 100 percent clean, renewable energy sources through a variety of mechanisms, such as 

paying a clean-energy premium for the electricity consumed. Operation of the project would not 

include additional or continued upgrade or construction of power lines (beyond the construction 

period), except where necessary for routine maintenance.

Although the project would not require construction of a new power source separate from 

California’s existing electricity grid, certain infrastructure modifications would be required to 

ensure delivery of the electricity required for operation of the project. As discussed in Section 

3.6.4.1 for the May 2014 Project, and as would occur for the F-B LGA, a 50 kV AC TES would be 

installed, and would interconnect into local utility networks at 115 kV or 230 kV, with 

approximately 30-mile intervals between the traction power substations. One traction power 

substation would occur on the F-B LGA alignment. This substation, located in Bakersfield and 

referred to in PG&E’s (2016) Technical Study Report as “Site 13”, is the same substation that 

would be implemented in Bakersfield under the May 2014 Project (as described above in Section 

3.6.4.1). 

As outlined above, the potential impact of operation and maintenance of the F-B LGA on power 

lines would be the same as described in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Impact 

PU&E#7 in Section 3.6.5.3: page 3.6-54) (Authority and FRA 2014). Potential impacts would be 

less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#9 – Potential Conflicts with Electrical Facilities

As with the May 2014 Project, there would be a number of potential conflicts between existing 

electrical facilities and the proposed F-B LGA. The Authority is working with utility providers to 

identify utility conflicts, and will continue to coordinate through final engineering design and 

construction of the F-B LGA to relocate these transmission lines or protect them in place. On 

October 11, 2016, the Authority’s Board of Directors approved a resolution to enter into an 

Engineering and Permits contract with PG&E to provide PG&E with the resources necessary to 

complete design, acquisition of permits, and facilities to provide service to the HSR system. As 

described above, PG&E’s Technical Study Report (PG&E 2016) assessed traction power 

substation locations and system interconnection requirements along the HSR system, one of 

which would occur on the May 2014 Project alignment. In Bakersfield, the F-B LGA would 

implement the same traction power substation and interconnection features as would occur under 

the May 2014 Project. The Authority is working in coordination with PG&E to ensure that the 

interconnection site identified for the F-B LGA is feasible and that necessary contract agreements 

are in place. If the F-B LGA is approved, PG&E would implement the facility as described in its

Technical Study Report (PG&E 2016). 

The Authority would build the transmission line to the interconnection facility as described in 

Section 2.4.5.3, Utility Modifications, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. As discussed in Section 

2.4.5.3 and under Impact PU&E#1, a number of HV transmission lines and supporting facilities 

would be upgraded or modified during the construction period in order to accommodate the 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-30 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

proposed HSR facilities while maintaining utility service. This includes the proposed 

interconnection site. In the event an electrical distribution line must be relocated during 

construction of the F-B LGA, the relocation would be done in coordination and cooperation with 

the utility owner so that the relocation would not result in prolonged disruption of services and 

would not result in the loss or reduction of access to public utility lines or pipes.

Operation and maintenance of the F-B LGA would not include any ongoing relocation or upgrade 

of existing electrical facilities beyond what would occur during the construction period (as 

discussed under Impact PU&E#1). Potential impacts would be the same as described in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Impact PU&E#8 in Section 3.6.5.3: page 3.6-55)

(Authority and FRA 2014). Effects associated with upgrade or construction of power lines would

be less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#10 – Potential Conflicts with Natural Gas Lines (High Pressure)

As with the May 2014 Project, there would be a number of potential conflicts between existing 

natural gas lines (considered a high-risk utility) and the F-B LGA and associated station area. As 

discussed under “Construction-Period Impacts” above, the Authority would work with utility 

owners to place affected lines underground in a protective casing so that future maintenance of 

the line could be accomplished outside of the F-B LGA ROW. The project would not result in 

prolonged disruption of services and would not result in the loss of or reduced access to public 

utility pipes. As noted in Section 3.6.2.3, a significant impact could occur if the project would

conflict with a fixed facility. The F-B LGA would protect or relocate natural gas pipelines that 

traverse the proposed alignment. Protecting in place or relocating the high-pressure natural gas 

pipeline resolves the conflict. Therefore, the effect would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#11 – Potential Conflicts with Petroleum and Fuel Pipelines

Figure 3.6-3 shows potential conflicts of the F-B LGA alignment with existing petroleum and fuel 

pipelines. Oil and gas wells are further assessed in Section 3.10, Hazardous Materials and 

Wastes (see Impacts HMW#3, Construction on or Near PEC Sites, HMW#5, Construction in 

Proximity to Landfills and Oil Well Sites, and HMW#8, Operation in Proximity to Landfills and Oil 

Well Sites). As with the May 2014 Project, there would be a number of potential high-risk conflicts 

between existing petroleum and fuel pipelines and the F-B LGA and associated facilities. As 

discussed under “Construction-Period Impacts” above, the Authority would work with pipeline 

owners to place affected lines underground in a protective casing so that future maintenance of 

the line could be accomplished outside the F-B LGA ROW. 

As discussed in Section 3.9.5 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014: page 3.9-33), unless existing oil and gas wells and ancillary/appurtenant facilities 

necessary to maintain oil field operations are identified and remediated inside the project 

footprint, they could be disrupted and have environmental consequences during construction. 

Discussion of oil and gas fields is further provided in Section 3.9.3.7, Geology, Soils, Seismicity, 

and Paleontological Resources, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Therefore, construction 

contractors would use safe and explosion-proof equipment during construction in areas where 

explosion hazards exist, and would test for gases regularly.

The project would not result in prolonged disruption of services and would not result in the loss of 

or reduced access to public utility lines or pipes. As noted in Section 3.6.2.3, a significant impact 

could occur if the project would conflict with a fixed facility. The F-B LGA would protect or relocate 

petroleum and fuel pipelines that traverse the proposed alignment. Protecting in place or 

relocating the petroleum and fuel pipelines resolves the conflict. Therefore, the effect would be 

less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#12 – Potential Conflicts with Water Facilities

Potential conflicts with water facilities (considered a low-risk utility, as described in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014]) could occur through physical 

alterations to water supply facilities or through the introduction of water supply reliability concerns.
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-31

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

As with the May 2014 Project, there would be a number of potential low-risk utility conflicts 

associated with the proposed F-B LGA alignment and facilities, including water lines. As 

discussed in Section 3.6.5.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014), the majority of water line crossings would occur in urban areas where the HSR would 

be on an elevated guideway, making it likely that disturbance will be avoided. The F-B LGA would 

not, however, be elevated through Shafter. This configuration could result in increased conflicts 

with existing water lines, compared to the elevated guideway configuration used in other portions 

of the alignment. Where conflicts would occur between the proposed alignment and existing 

water lines, the water lines would be relocated away from HSR facilities in order to ensure 

continued service. The Authority would work with the appropriate city public works departments to 

move affected lines and water facilities with minimal disruption to existing service. 

In the rural portion of the F-B LGA, the project would cross a number of irrigation pipelines and 

canals. As is the case with the May 2014 Project, the Authority would work with irrigation districts 

and landowners to protect irrigation systems as they intersect the HSR. When relocating an 

irrigation facility is necessary, the Authority shall ensure that, where feasible, the new facility is 

operational prior to disconnecting the original facility to help alleviate the potential for service 

interruptions.

In the case of the F-B LGA, irrigation services would not experience prolonged disruption

because of the need for relocation of or improvements to irrigation systems. As noted in Section 

3.6.2.3, significant impacts could occur if the project would require construction of new water or 

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, or new or expanded entitlements 

to supply water to the project. The protection in-place or relocation of water facilities along the 

project alignment would not require new or expanded resources or entitlements. Impacts would 

therefore be less than significant under CEQA. 

An operational water supply would not be required along the rail alignment for the F-B LGA. 

Operational water would be required at the MOIF and the F Street Station. Operational water 

estimates for the F-B LGA are provided in Table 3.6-8. 

Existing water uses along the F-B LGA are provided in Table 3.6-6. Comparison of estimates 

provided in Table 3.6-6 and Table 3.6-8 indicate that operation and maintenance of the F-B LGA 

would require substantially less water than would continuation of current land uses and 

associated water use factors (approximately 65 acre-feet per year for operation of the F-B LGA, 

versus approximately 3,626.41 acre-feet per year to support existing land uses along the 

alignment, including the north Shafter MOIF and the F Street Station).

Operation of the station in the F-B LGA would use water from the municipal systems of 

Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (City of Bakersfield 

2014) indicates that sufficient water supplies are available or planned to meet anticipated water 

demands inside the Bakersfield study area over a 20-year projection period, under normal-year, 

single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions (City of Bakersfield 2014). The proposed F 

Street Station would not require or result in new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing 

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Table 3.6-6 indicates that operational water use at the MOIF would be up to approximately 

6 acre-feet per year. As discussed in Appendix 3.6-B to the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), this water demand estimate is based on per capita water use 

data from a comparable facility operated by BART in Hayward, California, and considers water 

used for industrial operations and landscaping uses. The resulting water use factor is 

approximately 30 gallons per employee per day. It is anticipated that water service to the MOIF 

site would be provided by the Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District, shown on Figure 3.8-3 in Section 

3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. The Shafter-Wasco 

Irrigation District currently provides water supply to this area and, as shown in the comparison 

between Table 3.6-6 and Table 3.6-8, land uses at the MOIF site currently require 128.44 acrefeet per year, while operation of the proposed MOIF would require 6 acre-feet per year. Therefore 

the Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District would have sufficient capacity to meet these reduced water 

needs. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-32 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 3.6-8 Operational Water Demand Summary

Facility Daily Employee 

and Passenger 

Use

Facility Feature Facility 

Area

Use Factor 

(gal/day/

1,000 sq ft) 

Use Factor 

(gal/capita/

day)

Estimated 

Daily 

Volume 

(gal/day)

Annual 

Water Use 

(acre-feet/

year)

MOIF1 180 employees – – – 30 5,400 6

MOIF Water Use, Based on Number of Employees 5,400 6

F Street 

Station2

9,200 

passengers 

(2035 estimate)

Station (Office) 5,000 sf 150 – 750 1

Station 

(Concourse)

57,500 sf 20 – 1,150 1

Parking Structure 4.5 acres 5 – 1,000 1 

Landscaping 2.5 acres – – 3,300 4

– – – 5 gal/

passenger

46,000 52

Station Water Use, Based on Station Area 7

Station Water Use, Based on Number of Passengers 52

TOTAL OPERATIONAL WATER USE 65

1 Operational water use at the MOIF is estimated based on a per-capita rate of 30 gallons per day (the same rate assumed for the Heavy 

Maintenance Facility [HMF]/MOIF in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS) based on water use data from a comparable facility 

operated by BART in Hayward, California. This is a conservative estimate because the per-capita rate used for the HMF/MOIF also accounted for 

train washing at the HMF, which would not occur at the MOIF (the May 2014 Project co-located the HMF and MOIF). In addition, it was further 

assumed that water use at the MOIF would occur 365 days per year, and overall water use was rounded up from 5.84 acre-feet per year to six

acre-feet per year. 2 Assumed that operational water use at the F Street Station would be the same as described for the Truxtun Avenue Station in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, as these two stations would be designed to accommodate the same number of passengers and employees.

gal = gallons

sf = square feet

As with the May 2014 Project, and as discussed in Section 3.6.5.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014), based on the water-supply capacity and existing

rates of water use along the F-B LGA, the overall impact of operational water requirements on 

water supply availability would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#13 – Wastewater Facilities – Conflicts and Capacity

The F-B LGA operations would generate wastewater at the F Street Station and the MOIF. The 

proposed F-B LGA would also traverse a number of existing wastewater pipelines.

As with the May 2014 Project, there would be a number of potential wastewater pipeline 

(considered a low-risk utility) conflicts that would occur along the F-B LGA. In areas where the 

F-B LGA route would be elevated, it is likely that disturbance to these pipelines would be avoided 

during final engineering design when the specific placement of columns is determined. There 

may, however, be some locations where it would be necessary to relocate wastewater pipelines. 

In this case, the Authority would work with the appropriate service provider to relocate affected 

lines away from HSR support columns and foundations and schedule relocations to minimize 

service disruptions. The Authority would work with utility owners to place affected pipelines 

underground in a protective casing so that future maintenance of the line could be accomplished 

outside the HSR ROW. 

Operational wastewater generated at the F Street Station under the F-B LGA would be the same 

as under the May 2014 Project because it would accommodate the same number of daily 

passengers and employees. Table 3.6-17, Estimated Project Wastewater (Sewage) Generated 

for Each High-Speed Train Station, in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority

and FRA 2014), indicates that approximately 25,300 gallons per day of wastewater (sewage) 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-33

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

would occur at the F Street Station. The discussion of this impact in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (Impact PU&E#12) determines that wastewater treatment capacity for 

Bakersfield exceeds existing average daily volume of treatment by approximately 10.5 million 

gallons per day. This indicates that sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available to 

accommodate wastewater generated at the proposed F Street Station. As discussed in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the population in this area is projected to grow over 

the next 20 years, and treatment capacity will need to be expanded to meet the demand of that 

growing population. The volume of wastewater generated at the proposed F Street Station would 

not, however, result in inadequate capacity to serve the project’s anticipated demand in addition 

to the existing sewer service demand. 

As noted, operational wastewater would also be generated at the MOIF. It is assumed that 

wastewater generation rates at the MOIF site would be comparable to those at the heavy 

maintenance facility (HMF) site(s), because the operation and maintenance activities at each type 

of site would be comparable, consisting of facility and infrastructure repair and cleaning. As 

discussed in Section 3.6.5.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Impact 

PU&E#13), operational activities at each HMF would produce approximately 5.7 million gallons of 

wastewater annually (or approximately 15,600 gallons per day). Where regional or municipal 

wastewater services are unavailable, the facilities would be served by an onsite wastewater 

treatment package plant that would process project-related wastewater. Treated wastewater from 

the package plant would be used for onsite irrigation. Sludge generated by the process would be 

removed onsite using aerobic digestion, a bacterial process occurring in the presence of oxygen. 

Under aerobic conditions, bacteria rapidly consume organic matter and convert it into carbon 

dioxide. These facilities are commonly used in rural regions of California to dispose of wastewater 

without causing impacts to surface water resources. 

Based on projected usage and engineering practices for treating operational activities, potential 

impacts associated with wastewater facility conflicts and wastewater treatment capacity would be 

less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#14 – Storm Drain Facilities – Conflicts and Capacity

The proposed F-B LGA could result in impacts associated with storm drain facilities through 

physical conflicts with existing storm drain facilities, and/or through the introduction of new 

stormwater runoff in quantities or quality that overwhelm existing or planned storm drain facilities.

As with the May 2014 Project, there would be a number of potential storm drain facilities conflicts 

along the F-B LGA. Potential impacts associated with relocating or protecting the facilities in

place in the alignment are discussed under Impact PU&E#1, and substantial or significant 

impacts would not occur as a result of storm drain facility conflicts.

It is possible that implementation of the F-B LGA could result in increased stormwater runoff, 

where impervious surfaces such as unpaved fields are replaced with impermeable surfaces such 

as metal and concrete. The project would be designed to address stormwater volumes and flow 

requirements, to anticipate potential increases in runoff and plan for adequate conveyance 

capacity. The project would be in compliance with the Waste Discharge Requirements for the 

County of Kern and the City of Bakersfield for Urban Storm Water Discharges, National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. CA0085324, Order No. R5-2016-0040, 

issued June 23, 2016. Phase I MS4 permittees shall enroll under the region-wide permit as their 

current individual permits expire and Phase II MS4 permittees may choose to enroll.

During final design, an evaluation of each receiving stormwater system’s capacity to 

accommodate project runoff would be conducted and, as necessary, onsite stormwater 

management measures such as detention or selected upgrades to the receiving system would be 

included in the design to provide adequate capacity. This would occur for the entire Fresno to 

Bakersfield Project, as discussed under Impact PU&E#13 in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014). Similarly, the F-B LGA would occur in compliance with 

the General Construction Stormwater Permit issued by the State Water Resources Control Board, 

requiring implementation of best management practices to address stormwater runoff. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-34 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

In summary, and as discussed in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, stormwater runoff

could increase and collect as a result of the project, but project design and coordination with 

relevant agencies would ensure adequate conveyance capacity. Potential effects associated with 

storm drain facilities would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#15 – Waste Generation during Operation

As with the May 2014 Project, operation of the F-B LGA would generate solid waste, including

passenger refuse disposal at the F Street Station and materials used for maintenance of 

proposed facilities. Because the F Street Station under the F-B LGA would be designed to 

accommodate the same number of passengers and employees as the Truxtun Avenue Station in 

the May 2014 Project, the amount of waste generation during operation would also be the same 

(approximately 1.3 tons per day). The recycling diversion factor estimates that 65 percent of 

waste is recycled and 35 percent is sent to the landfill after processing. The F-B LGA would 

therefore not conflict with the capacities of existing solid waste disposal facilities. No existing or 

proposed expansion areas for solid waste disposal would be affected by the F-B LGA. 

Activities at the MOIF site, including administrative (office) work, packaging of materials and 

equipment used for maintenance of the HSR facilities, and incidental waste from employees, 

would generate solid waste such as paper, cardboard, plastics, and other materials similar to 

household waste. Waste generated at the MOIF would be comparable to waste generated at the 

HMF sites discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA

2014), and would equate to approximately 41,000 cubic yards of waste annually, or less than 

0.2 percent of estimated remaining landfill capacity in the area. Existing landfill capacity will either 

be adequate or will increase along with other needs, and will expand sufficiently during the life of 

the project.

All nonhazardous solid waste generated as a result of the proposed F-B LGA would be disposed 

of in landfills operated by Kern County, primarily the Bena Sanitary Landfill or the Shafter-Wasco 

Sanitary Landfill. As discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014), the combined permitted daily disposal capacity of these two landfills is 5,388 

tons/day. Bena Sanitary Landfill alone has a maximum permitted daily throughput of 4,500 tons 

per day and a remaining capacity of 33,000 cubic yards, with an estimated closure date of 2038.

These available capacities indicate that effects associated with waste generation during operation 

would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#16 – Hazardous Waste Generation during Operation

As discussed in Section 3.10, Hazardous Materials and Wastes, routine maintenance of the F-B 

LGA would produce small quantities of hazardous waste, and operational activities would also

involve the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and petroleum products. Potential 

impacts associated with hazardous waste generation and disposal would be comparable to that 

of the entire May 2014 Project, as discussed under Impact PU&E#15 in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014). Hazardous wastes generated as a result of the 

F-B LGA would be handled, stored, and disposed of in accordance with applicable requirements. 

A certified hazardous waste collection company would deliver the waste to an authorized 

hazardous waste management facility for recycling or disposal. Hazardous wastes could be 

disposed of at permitted landfills that have sufficient capacity. Therefore, the impacts would be 

less than significant under CEQA. 

Impact PU&E#17 – Energy Consumption – Project Period Impacts

The assessment of energy consumption associated with the May 2014 Project was conducted on 

a statewide basis to reflect the nature of energy production and transmission in California, and to 

indicate fully the statewide extent of potential energy-saving effects associated with reductions in 

airline travel and VMT that would occur during operation the HSR system. 

The electric vehicles of the HSR system would use an electrified line with traction power 

connected to existing PG&E substations. For determining overall energy consumption, the 

analysis assumed use of a Siemens ICE-3 Velaro vehicle operating as two eight-car trainsets and 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-35 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

traveling 43.1 million annual train miles by 2035 (Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

[Authority and FRA 2014]: page 3.6-72). The analysis conservatively includes the use of 

regenerative braking as well as transmission losses. Electrical demand for the propulsion and

operation of the HSR system at terminal stations, storage depots, and maintenance facilities is 

conservatively estimated to be 16,388,500 MMBtu annually (44,900 MMBtu per day) under the 

50 percent fare scenario, and 10,950,000 MMBtu annually (30,000 MMBtu per day) under the 

83 percent fare scenario (Table 3.6-18, page 3.6-73 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS) (one MMBtu is equivalent to approximately 0.29 MWh). This energy estimate utilized

current conversion factors, ridership forecasts, trainsets, and VMTs. For the overall system, this is 

an increase in electric energy consumption of approximately 28,404 MMBtu per day, or less than 

1.5 percent of statewide consumption under the 50 percent fare scenario and less than 1 percent

of statewide consumption under the 83 percent fare scenario.

Appendix 3.6-A, Existing Plus Project Conditions Energy Analysis, and Appendix 3.6-C, Energy 

Analysis Memorandum, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA

2014) present project-period analysis of energy consumption impacts associated with the May 

2014 Project. As an alternative to a portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR 

system, the F-B LGA would contribute to energy-related impacts as discussed in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, including Appendices 3.6-A and 3.6-C. Potential project-period 

impacts associated with energy consumption could occur as a result of peak electricity demand 

and/or overall operational-related energy consumption.

As with the overall HSR system and the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA would increase electricity 

demand in the area. Because of the anticipated times of peak rail travel, impacts on electricity 

generation and transmission facilities would be particularly focused on peak electricity demand 

periods (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). According to the Statewide Program EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA

2005), the HSR would increase peak electricity demand on the state’s generation and 

transmission infrastructure by an estimated 480 MW in 2020. Based on the assumption that this 

peak demand would be evenly spread throughout the HSR system, the F-B LGA portion of rail 

that extends from Shafter to Bakersfield would require approximately 15.9 MW of additional peak 

capacity from existing uses. This is extrapolated from the 78 MW of additional peak capacity that 

would be required under the May 2014 Project, as discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.6-77). 

Also as discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: 

page 3.6-77), summer electricity reserves were estimated (for 2010) to be between 27,708 MW 

for 1-in-2 summer temperatures and 18,472 MW for 1-in-10 summer temperatures. The projected 

peak demand of the HSR system is not anticipated to exceed these existing reserve amounts. 

The project’s impact on peak electricity demand would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Electricity supplies for the year 2035 cannot be predicted at the time of preparation of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, given the planning period available and the known demand from the 

project. However, energy providers have sufficient information to include the HSR system in their 

demand forecasts. Additionally, the HSR system would result in an overall net benefit in energy 

consumption. As described in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA

2014: page 3.6-77), HSR project buildings would conform to U.S. Green Building Council 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating standards for environmentally sustainable 

new construction. HSR facilities, including passenger stations and the MOIF, would be 

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design-certified at minimum level of Silver, and would 

be required to meet or exceed energy-efficiency targets with the goal of zero net energy use for 

facilities. Achieving the Authority’s policy goal of using up to 100 percent renewable energy

sources for the HSR system would result in a total estimated reduction in fossil fuel energy 

resources for the HSR system of up to 12.7 million barrels of oil annually by 2030. Given the net 

benefit of the HSR system on the overall energy demand (even if the 100 percent renewable 

policy is not fully successful), operational energy consumption effects would have a less than

significant impact under CEQA. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-36 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

3.6.5 Avoidance and Minimization Measures

All of the Avoidance and Minimization Measures (referred to as project design features in Section 

3.6.6 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS) are applicable to the F-B LGA. The 

applicable list is provided in Technical Appendix 2-G Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan. 

Technical Appendix 2-H describes how implementation of these four measures would reduce 

adverse effects on public utilities and energy. The following Avoidance and Minimization Measure 

would be applicable to the May 2014 Project as well as the F-B LGA. 

PUE-IAMM#1: Minimization of Utility Interruption: This measure requires that when relocating 

an irrigation facility is necessary, if feasible the Contractor will provide a new operational facility 

prior to disconnecting the original facility where feasible. Irrigation facility relocation preferences 

are included in the design-build contract and reduce unnecessary impacts to continued operation 

of irrigation facilities.

This obligation reduces impacts to public utility interruptions by coordinating planned interruptions 

providing utility users an opportunity to plan appropriately for the service interruption. Prior to 

construction in areas where utility service interruptions are unavoidable, the contractor will notify 

the public through a combination of media in that jurisdiction (e.g., phone, email, mail, newspaper 

notices) and the affected service providers of the planned outage. The notification will specify the 

estimated duration of the planned outage and would be published no less than seven days prior 

to the outage. Construction will be coordinated to avoid interruptions of utility service to hospitals 

and other critical users. The contractor will submit the public communication plan to the Authority 

in advance of the work for verification that appropriate notification was provided.

This measure reduces impacts to public utility interruptions by coordinating planned interruptions 

providing utility providers an opportunity to plan appropriately for the service interruption. Prior to 

construction the contractor shall prepare a technical memorandum documenting how construction 

activities will be coordinated with service providers to minimize or avoid interruptions, including 

upgrades of existing power lines to connect the HSR system to existing utility substations.

In addition, Section 3.6.6 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA

2014: pages 3.6-77 and 3.6-78) states that the avoidance and minimization measures for 

stormwater management identified in Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, are also 

applicable to public utilities and energy, and would be implemented to minimize or avoid 

potentially adverse impacts to stormwater conveyance facilities. As discussed in the Authority’s

(2011) Technical Memorandum, Section 2.6.5 Hydraulics and Hydrology Guidelines, during the 

detailed design phase for the project, the capacity of all receiving stormwater systems that would 

be affected by runoff from the project vicinity will be evaluated to ensure that existing systems will 

accommodate project runoff for the design-level storm event. Onsite stormwater management

facilities will be designed and constructed to capture runoff and provide treatment prior to 

discharge of pollutant-generating surfaces, including station parking areas, access roads, new 

road over- and underpasses, reconstructed interchanges, and new or relocated roads and 

highways. Low-impact development techniques will be used to detain runoff onsite and to reduce 

offsite runoff. Constructed wetland systems, biofiltration and bioretention systems, wet ponds, 

organic mulch layers, planting soil beds, and vegetated systems (biofilters), such as vegetated 

swales and grass filter strips, will be used where appropriate. Portions of the MOIF site will be 

used for onsite infiltration of runoff, if feasible, or for stormwater detention if not feasible. 

Vegetated setbacks from streams will be used.

3.6.6 Mitigation Measures

3.6.6.1 Mitigation Measures Identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS

One mitigation measure for public utilities and energy was approved under the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Mitigation and Monitoring Enforcement Plan (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 

1–8): Mitigation Measure PU&E-MM#1, Reconfigure or Relocate Substations and/or Substation 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.6-37

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Components. This measure is not applicable to the May 2014 Project because it addresses sitespecific substation components that are not located in the May 2014 Project study area. 

3.6.6.2 Mitigation Measures Specific to the Fresno to Bakersfield Locally 

Generated Alternative

No additional mitigation measures are required to address public utilities and energy impacts 

resulting specifically from the F-B LGA. 
Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3.6-38 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank