1 

Palmdale Hybrid Power Project 

Proposed PSD Permit No. SE 09-01 

Environmental Justice Analysis 

August 2011 

Introduction 

Executive Order 12898, entitled “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” states in relevant part that “each Federal 

agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations.” Section 1-101 of Exec. Order 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629, (Feb. 16, 1994). 

“Federal agencies are required to implement this order consistent with, and to the extent 

permitted by, existing law.” Id. at 7632. Based on this Executive Order, the EPA’s 

Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has held that environmental justice issues must be 

considered in connection with the issuance of federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permits issued by EPA Regional Offices and states acting under delegations of Federal 

authority. See, e.g., In re Prairie State Generating Company, 13 E.A.D. 1, 123 (EAB 2006); In 

re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 121, 174-75 (EAB 1999) (“Knauf I”). EPA Regional 

Offices or their delegates in the states have for several years incorporated environmental justice 

considerations into their review of applications for PSD permits. The EAB reinforced the 

importance of completing an environmental justice analysis in a recent opinion. See In re: Shell 

Gulf of Mexico, Inc. and Shell Offshore, Inc., OCS Appeal Nos. 10-1 to 10-4, Slip Op. at 63-4 

(EAB December 30, 2010) (“Shell II”). 

EPA determined that there may be minority or low-income populations potentially 

affected by its proposed action on the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project (PHPP or Project) PSD 

permit application, and determined that it would be appropriate to prepare an Environmental 

Justice Analysis for this action. EPA therefore prepared this analysis. 

For purposes of the Executive Order on environmental justice, EPA has recognized that 

compliance with the applicable National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) is 

emblematic of achieving a level of public health protection that demonstrates that EPA’s 

issuance of a PSD permit for a proposed facility will not have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 

populations. See, e.g., Shell II, slip op. at 74; In re Shell Offshore Inc., 13 E.A.D. 357, 404-5 

(EAB 2007) (“Shell I”); In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 9 E.A.D 1, 15-17 (EAB 2000) (“Knauf 

II”); In re AES Puerto Rico, L.P., 8 E.A.D. 324, 351 (EAB 1999). This is because the NAAQS 

are health-based standards, designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, 

including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and asthmatics. As the EAB 

recently observed, “[i]n the context of an environmental justice analysis, compliance with the 

NAAQS is emblematic of achieving a level of public health protection that, based on the level of 

protection afforded by the NAAQS, demonstrates that minority or low-income populations will 

not experience disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects due to 

exposure to relevant criteria pollutants.” Shell II, Slip Op. at 73. 
2 

The studies assessed by EPA in setting NAAQS and the integration of the scientific 

evidence presented therein have undergone extensive critical review by EPA, the Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and the public. See, e.g., Primary National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide, Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474, 6478 (Feb. 9, 2010). 

“The rigor of the review makes these studies, and their integrative assessment, the most reliable 

source of scientific information on which to base decisions on the NAAQS.” Id. When setting 

the NAAQS, “[t]he Administrator’s final decisions draw upon scientific information and analysis 

related to health effects, population exposures, and risks; judgments about the appropriate 

response to the range of uncertainties that are inherent in scientific evidence and analyses; and 

comment received from CASAC and the public.” Id. at 6483. In light of these characteristics of 

the process for setting the standards, the EAB generally “relies on and defers to the Agency’s 

cumulative expertise when upholding a permit issuer’s environmental justice analysis based on a 

proposed facility’s compliance with the relevant NAAQS in a PSD appeal.” Shell II, Slip Op. at 

74. The NAAQS are also the underpinning for the State Implementation Plan process, which 

requires states to adopt rules and programs that will reduce emissions causing air pollution. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 165(a)(3), construction of a major emitting facility may 

not commence until the owner or operator of such facility demonstrates, among other things, that 

the facility will not cause or contribute to air pollution in excess of any NAAQS applicable to the 

permit decision. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(k), 52.21(i)(2). EPA 

proposes to regulate emissions affecting the following NAAQS under the PSD permit for the 

PHPP: NO2 (1-hr and annual average), CO (1-hr and 8-hr average), PM2.5 (24-hr and annual), and 

PM10 (24-hr). The proposed permit does not contain emission limitations for lead or SO2 as the 

Project is not expected to emit lead, and the Project’s SO2 emissions are estimated to be 8.9 tons 

per year, which is well below the 40 tons per year significant emissions rate for SO2. See 40 

C.F.R. §§ 52.21(b)(23)(i); 52.21(j)(2); 52.21(m)(1). EPA has determined that the proposed 

facility’s projected emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable 

NAAQS. Using that information for our environmental justice analysis, EPA has determined 

that compliance with the applicable NAAQS is sufficient to satisfy the Executive Order as to 

those regulated pollutants. 

Project Description and Regulatory Framework 

The City of Palmdale, in conjunction with Inland Energy Inc., has applied to EPA for a 

PSD permit for the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project (PHPP or Project), a proposed hybrid 

combined-cycle/solar-thermal power plant to be located in the northern part of Los Angeles 

County, California, within the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (District). The 

District is located within the Mojave Desert air basin. The District’s jurisdiction begins in the 

south near the town of Acton, and extends north to the Kern County line, east to the San 

Bernardino County line, and west to the Quail Lake area. 

Under the Clean Air Act, new sources of pollutants for an area that has been designated 

attainment or unclassifiable are regulated under the PSD program. In addition, certain other 

pollutants for which no NAAQS have been set are subject to regulation with a defined 

applicability threshold under the PSD regulations. Within the District’s boundaries, the 

pollutants regulated under the PSD program and for which the Project is a major source or which 
3 

the Project has the potential to emit in significant amounts include NO2, PM, PM10, PM2.5, CO, 

and greenhouse gases (GHG). These pollutants are addressed by the PSD permit for the Project. 

The emissions of other air pollutants from the proposed Project, including the pollutants for 

which the area is not meeting the NAAQS (and precursors that lead to the formation of such 

pollutants), are regulated by the District. The District implements the Nonattainment New Source 

Review (NNSR) permitting program for this area as required under the Clean Air Act and 40 

CFR 51.160 to 51.165. The District is designated as a severe ozone non-attainment area. The 

non-attainment pollutants subject to non-attainment NSR permitting by the District include NOx 

and VOC as ozone precursors. On May 13, 2010, the District issued a Final Determination of 

Compliance (FDOC) for the Project, which includes, among other things, the District’s NNSR 

permit requirements.

1

 Also, for power plants over 50 MW, the California Energy Commission 

(CEC) must issue a license to authorize construction of a proposed power plant. The CEC issued 

its Final Commission Decision approving the Project’s Application for Certification on August 

10, 2011 (08-AFC-09). 

The PHPP is designed to use solar technology to supplement a portion of the Project’s 

energy output. Primary equipment for the generating facility will include two General Electric 

(GE) Frame 7FA natural gas-fired combustion turbine-generators (CTGs) rated at 154 megawatt 

(MW, gross) each, two heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs), one steam turbine generator 

(STG) rated at 267 MW, and 251 acres of parabolic solar-thermal collectors with associated 

heat-transfer equipment with the capacity to produce up to 50 MW of supplemental power

2

. The 

Project will have an electrical output of 570 MW (nominal) or 563 MW (net). The GE CTG 

incorporates the “Rapid Start Process” (RSP), which allows for shorter startup of the gas 

turbines. Additional add-on pollution control technologies for the Project include selective 

catalytic reduction (SCR) and an oxidation catalyst, which are required to meet Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) requirements under the PSD permitting program. 

The facility is expected to have emissions of pollutants regulated under the PSD program 

as shown in the following table3. 

 

1 New source review in non-attainment areas is different from PSD review. Because the area already has air quality 

that does not meet national health standards, and yet to preserve the ability for economic development to occur in 

those areas without exacerbating air quality and public health concerns, the Clean Air Act requires that sources 

seeking to build or expand in a non-attainment area must meet the Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) and 

offset their anticipated new emissions by eliminating emissions of an equal, or depending on the severity of the nonattainment, greater amount. LAER requires a level of emissions reduction, through the use of control technology or 

other approaches, that is as or more stringent than BACT, which is required in attainment/unclassifiable areas. 

2

On sunny days, the solar array is capable of providing 50 MW of the total electrical generation from the steam 

turbine, allowing the facility to reduce operation of the natural gas-fired duct burners during periods of peak 

demand, thereby reducing air pollution.

3 While there is a NAAQS for lead, the facility is not expected to emit lead. 
4 

Pollutant Estimated Annual 

Emissions 

(tons/year) 

Major Source 

Threshold 

(tons/year) 

Significant 

Emission Rate 

(tons/year) 

Does PSD 

apply? 

CO 250.2 100 100 Yes 

NOX 114.9 100 40 Yes 

PM 79.1 100 25 Yes 

PM10 62.5 100 15 Yes 

PM2.5 56.0 100 15 Yes 

SO2 8.9 100 40 No 

H2SO4 3.4 7 7 No 

CO2e 1,913,000 100,000 75,000 Yes 

As mentioned above, BACT is required under the PSD permitting program. EPA’s proposed 

permit includes, among other requirements, 1-hour emissions limits for NO2, CO, and 

PM/PM2.5/PM10 on a mass basis as well as 1-hour emissions limits for NO2 and CO on a 

concentration basis. Additionally, the proposed permit includes CO2 limits on a mass per energy 

input and a mass per energy output basis as BACT for GHG emissions. 

Demographics, Public Participation/Outreach Activities, and Air Quality in the Palmdale 

Area 

Description of Local Area 

The proposed Project would be located within approximately 333 acres of industrial 

zoned lands administered by the City of Palmdale. Currently, the site is vacant and undeveloped. 

The area is located about 60 miles (~96.5 km) north of downtown Los Angeles and about 4 miles 

(~6.4 km) north of the main population base of the City of Palmdale. The residential area 

nearest to the Project site is located approximately one mile (1.6 km) north in the City of 

Lancaster, which borders the project site along Avenue M. The property is located immediately 

north and west of the combined facilities of Los Angeles/Palmdale Regional Airport and Air 

Force Plant 42. The Air Force Plant 42 site is over 6,600 acres and supports facilities for the 

production, engineering, final assembly and flight testing of high performance aircraft. 

Palmdale’s population was 152,750 at the 2010 census, up from 116,670 as of the 2000 

census, and is currently the fastest growing city in Los Angeles County. The most prominent 

industries in the City of Palmdale include manufacturing, aerospace, and educational, health and 

social services. Air Force Plant 42 is home to several of the largest employers in the area, 

including many in the aerospace industry. Other population centers located within the county of 
5 

Los Angeles in the vicinity of the project site include the City of Lancaster (6 miles/9.7 km 

north) with a population of 156,633 as of the 2010 census, up from 118,718 in 2000; as well as a 

number of smaller unincorporated communities including Quartz Hill (8 miles/12.9 km west), 

Lake Los Angeles (20/32.2 km miles east), Acton (19 miles/30.6 km south), Desert View 

Highlands (6 miles/9.7 km southwest), and Littlerock (15 miles/24.1 km southeast). The 

sizeable cities nearest to the Project site include Santa Clarita (25 miles/40.2 km west), Adelanto 

(39 miles/62.8 km east), Victorville (40 miles/64.4 km east), Hesperia (41 miles/66.0 km east) 

and Apple Valley (44 miles/70.8 km east), all of which are located in San Bernardino County.

4

Demographic Information 

EPA believes an area encompassed by a 25 km radius from the proposed facility is 

appropriate for this environmental justice analysis as our modeling analysis indicates that a 25 

km radius includes the primary populations of interest in the area that may be impacted by 

emissions from the Project. Demographic information for areas of 15 and 50 km radii are also 

provided for comparison. These areas include portions of Kern and San Bernardino counties. 

Thus, for health information, EPA will present metrics for both Kern and San Bernardino 

counties. Relevant areas of comparison include the 8-county area of the San Joaquin Valley and 

the State of California as a whole. 

Demographic information5is captured within three radii surrounding the proposed 

Palmdale Hybrid Power Project at 50, 25, and 15 km. 

 

4 All distances are approximate. 

5 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Data, Summary File 3. 2000 U.S. Census data was used for this analysis as the relevant 

2010 U.S. Census data is not fully available at this time. 
6 

City/Area Population 

Percent 

Minority 

Percent 

Under 

Age 18 

Percent 

Over 

Age 64 

Percent 

Linguistically 

Isolated6

Percent 

w/o High 

School 

Diploma 

Average 

Median 

Household 

Income, $ 

Palmdale 116,670 59.0 38.0 5.6 6.8 26.0 46,941 

Lancaster 118,718 47.6 32.3 8.6 4.2 21.7 41,127 

Lake Los 

Angeles

11,523 50.6 39.9 5.6 8.5 33.6 38,794 

Quartz 

Hill 9,890 25.8 30.5 9.5 2.5 14 49,098 

Acton 2,390 10.9 30.6 8.6 2.4 11.5 63,156 

Desert 

View 

Highlands

2,337 48.4 35.1 9.4 2.7 21.9 37,341 

Littlerock 1,402 28.3 38.5 7.5 4.8 30.3 39.000 

15 km 251,502 51.8 34.6 7.8 5.3 22.2 45,788 

25 km 33,578 35.2 29.3 9.1 5.2 23.1 52,260 

50 km 296,297 40.4 29.3 9.2 6.9 23.0 61,114 

Los 

Angeles 

County

9,519,338 68.9 28.0 9.7 15.2 30.1 42,189 

Kern 

County

661,645 49.5 31.9 9.4 8.1 31.5 35,446 

San 

Bernardin

o County 

1,709,434 66.0 32.3 8.6 6.9 25.8 42,066 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley

3,182,529 55 33 10 9 33 38,162 

State of 

CA

33,871,64

8

53 27 11 9.6 23.2 47,493 

All three radii capture populations below the state average for percent minority and 

similar or above the state average for median household income. 

Linguistic isolation limits a household’s capacity for civic engagement in the regulatory 

process. All three radii capture households that are below the state average for linguistic 

 

6 A linguistically isolated household is defined by the US Census Bureau as a household in which no member 14 

years old and over (1) speaks only English or (2) speaks a non-English language and speaks English "very well." In 

other words, all members 14 years old and over have at least some difficulty with English. 
7 

isolation. The percent of linguistically isolated households in the State of California is 9.6% and 

the percent of households in the 25 km radius is 5.2%. 

Education level is another factor that may influence susceptibility and vulnerability to air 

pollution. Limited formal education is a barrier to employment, health care and social resources, 

and can increase the risk of poverty, stress, and impacts from environmental stressors. The 

percent of population over 25 years of age without a high school diploma in the 25 km radius is 

similar to the State average of 23%. The percent of the population without a high school 

diploma decreases slightly when considering the population closest to the facility. 

Public Participation/Outreach Activities for EPA’s Proposed PSD Permit Decision 

EPA is undertaking a number of actions to provide enhanced public participation 

opportunities for its proposed PSD permit decision for the PHPP. 

In light of the Spanish-speaking population in the nearby community, EPA is issuing its 

public notice for the proposed PSD permit in both English and Spanish. The notice is being 

provided to the public through a wide variety of methods, including the following: posting on the 

EPA Region 9 website, publication in English and Spanish in the Antelope Valley Press, 

followed by an additional publication in Spanish in La Prensa Popular; distribution by U.S. Mail 

to an extensive mailing list; and distribution by email to those who have requested to be notified 

by email. 

EPA’s proposed PSD permit for the Project, the accompanying fact sheet/ambient air 

quality impact report (AAQIR), and the Public Notice, will be available for review at the 

following locations: Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District in Lancaster, CA; 

Palmdale City Library in Palmdale, CA; Lancaster Regional Library in Lancaster, CA; Lake Los 

Angeles Library in Palmdale, CA; and Quartz Hill Library in Quartz Hill, CA. Key documents 

in EPA’s administrative record for the proposed PSD permit, including, among others, the permit 

application, the proposed PSD permit, and EPA’s fact sheet/AAQIR, are also available for public 

review on the EPA Region 9 website as well as at the EPA Region 9 Office in San Francisco, 

CA. 

EPA has scheduled a public information meeting followed by a public hearing for 

September 14, 2011 in Palmdale, CA. The purpose of the public information meeting is to 

provide interested parties with additional information and an opportunity for informal discussion 

of the proposed Project. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide the public with an 

additional opportunity to provide oral and/or written comments on EPA’s proposed PSD permit. 

EPA will be providing English-Spanish translation services at both the public meeting and the 

public hearing. EPA has prepared a number of extra informational handouts relating to its 

proposed PSD permitting action for the Project for distribution at the public meeting and hearing, 

including a public information sheet that provides a brief overview of EPA’s proposed PSD 

permitting action for the Project. These handouts have also been translated into Spanish. 
8 

Status of Air Quality in the Area 

The District is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for PM10, PM2.5, NO2, CO, SO2, 

and lead. The District is also designated a severe ozone non-attainment area. As discussed 

above, the District’s FDOC, rather than EPA’s PSD permit, addresses non-attainment pollutants, 

i.e., ozone precursors associated with the Project. 

Impact of Project’s Emissions on the NAAQS Applicable to the PSD Permit Application 

EPA’s environmental justice analysis focuses on the potential effects on minority or low 

income populations from emissions that may affect the NAAQS that are applicable in this PSD 

permit application. Those are emissions affecting the NAAQS for NO2 (1-hr and annual 

average), CO (1-hr and 8-hr average), PM2.5 (24-hr and annual), and PM10 (24-hr). As noted 

earlier, the potential emissions of the Project are below significance levels for SO2 and lead; 

thus, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on the applicable SO2 or lead 

NAAQS. 

EPA has determined from the modeled results for the Project impacts are below the 

applicable NAAQS for the PSD pollutants regulated under the PSD permit, as follows: The 

modeled impact annual NO2 impact is 0.98 μg/m3, which is below the Significant Impact Level 

(SIL) of 1 μg/m3and did not trigger a cumulative NAAQS analysis, and the cumulative 1-hour 

NO2 impact is 185.3 μg/m3, as compared with the NAAQS of 188 μg/m3. The cumulative 24-

hour PM10 impact is 98.9 μg/m3as compared to the PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 μg/m3. The 

cumulative 24-hour PM2.5 impact is 28.9 μg/m3, as compared with the NAAQS of 35 μg/m3, and 

the cumulative annual PM2.5 impact is 8.9 μg/m3, as compared with the NAAQS of 15 μg/m3. 

The modeled 8-hr CO impact is 20.4 μg/m3, which is below the SIL of 500 μg/m3and did not 

trigger a cumulative NAAQS analysis, and the modeled 1-hour CO impact is 369.6 μg/m3, which 

is below the SIL of 2000 μg/m3, which did not trigger a cumulative NAAQS analysis. As stated 

above, the NAAQS are health-based standards and are designed to protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety, including sensitive populations. Taking into account these modeled 

results in light of the health-based nature of the applicable NAAQS, EPA has determined that 

proposed emissions for these pollutants will not result in disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations. 

Emissions of Pollutants for Which Area Exceeds Air Quality Standards 

While ozone is not regulated under EPA’s PSD permit for the Project, as noted above, the 

District is designated a severe ozone non-attainment area. Scientific studies have linked groundlevel ozone exposure to a variety of problems, including, for example, airway irritation, 

coughing, and pain when taking a deep breath; wheezing and breathing difficulties during 

exercise or outdoor activities; inflammation, which is much like a sunburn on the 

skin; aggravation of asthma and increased susceptibility to respiratory illnesses like pneumonia 

and bronchitis; and permanent lung damage with repeated exposures. 

With respect to ozone levels in the Antelope Valley, EPA, the State of California and the 

local air districts are working diligently through the air quality planning process under the CAA 
9 

to ensure that there is a comprehensive plan with adequate controls for attaining the 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) NAAQS for ozone. EPA is currently reviewing the State of California plan 

for the Western Mojave Desert nonattainment area, which includes Antelope Valley. This plan 

and the State’s analysis of it may be found on the California Air Resources Board (ARB) website 

at the following URL: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/planarea/mojavesedsip.htm. The plan 

was open for public comment before it was adopted by the districts and before it was adopted by 

the State. When EPA proposes action on this plan, there will be an additional 30-day comment 

period on EPA’s action. Further, as noted above, the District’s FDOC includes provisions to 

address ozone precursors. 

In order to provide further information about the potential air quality impacts of the 

Project, EPA notes that the CEC analyzed environmental justice considerations in the Presiding 

Member’s Proposed Decision (08-AFC-9), pp. 8.3-6 to 8.3-8 (June 2011). The Commission 

proposed, based on the evidentiary record that the fully mitigated project would not result in any 

significant adverse environmental or public health impacts to any population. Id. at 8.3-8. With 

respect to air quality impacts, the Commission found that the PHPP will not cause or contribute 

to disproportionate impacts upon minority or low income populations, as all PHPP significant 

impacts will be mitigated below significance. Id. at 8.3-8. 

Conclusion 

As explained above, EPA’s analysis indicates that this Project will not cause or contribute 

to air quality levels in excess of health standards for the pollutants regulated under EPA’s 

proposed PSD permit for the Project and that there will not be disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects with respect to these air pollutants on minority or 

low-income populations residing near the proposed Project or the community as a whole. 

Nonattainment pollutants are addressed by the State and District Project approval and 

comprehensive air quality planning processes.