Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2004-0002-1975
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-07-07T04:00Z

ENERGY
POLICY:
Calif.
bans
once­
through
water
cooling
at
coastal
power
plants
Arthur
O'Donnell,
special
to
Greenwire
The
California
State
Lands
Commission
voted
unanimously
yesterday
to
ban
the
use
of
oncethrough
water
cooling
at
coastal
power
plants
in
a
bid
to
stop
"
killing
large
numbers
of
fish
and
other
wildlife,
larvae
and
eggs"
in
the
facilities'
cooling
systems.

The
ban,
which
takes
effect
immediately,
would
prevent
power
plants
from
obtaining
leases
from
the
Lands
Commission
unless
they
employ
alternative
cooling
methods.
It
also
could
force
costly
cooling
technology
upgrades
at
nearly
two
dozen
existing
power
stations,
including
four
nuclear
units,
when
those
projects
seek
to
renew
leases
or
permits
from
key
state
agencies.

Additionally,
the
ban
would
allow
the
commission
to
reopen
existing
leases
and
demand
retrofits
if
it
finds
"
that
an
alternative,
environmentally
superior
technology
exists
that
can
be
feasibly
installed"
without
impairing
electric
system
reliability.

U.
S.
EPA
rules
effectively
prevent
use
of
once­
through
cooling
by
new
power
plants.

Paul
Thayer,
the
State
Lands
Commission's
executive
officer,
said
the
final
version
of
the
resolution
dropped
a
2020
deadline
for
full
elimination
of
once­
through
cooling,
instead
opting
for
a
phaseout
as
permits
expire
or
projects
apply
for
significant
upgrades.
For
example,
he
said,
water
discharge
permits
from
the
Water
Resources
Control
Board
come
up
for
renewal
every
five
years.

Because
the
California
Energy
Commission
does
not
routinely
revisit
its
previous
decisions
for
approval
of
existing
power
plants,
application
of
the
ban
on
once­
through
cooling
could
come
into
play
only
if
a
project's
owners
seek
a
modernization
of
the
facilities
to
increase
output
by
more
than
50
megawatts
­­
the
CEC's
threshold
for
siting
authority.

There
are
21
large
power
stations
and
at
least
two
smaller
plants
that
currently
use
once­
through
cooling,
taking
as
much
as
16.2
billion
gallons.
Together
they
account
for
22
percent
of
the
electricity
generated
in
California
and
over
20,000
MW
of
installed
capacity.

The
Lands
Commission
did
not
provide
any
figures
related
to
the
ban's
potential
cost
effects,
while
the
Energy
Commission
suggests
it
would
take
a
case­
by­
case
analysis
that
has
not
been
conducted.

The
most
vocal
opponent
of
the
ban
has
been
the
California
Council
for
Environmental
and
Economic
Balance
(
CCEEB),
a
business­
oriented
group
that
includes
in
its
membership
utilities
and
power
plant
owners.
CCEEB
contends
that
once­
through
cooling
does
not
have
a
significant
effect
on
adult
fish
populations
or
adversely
affect
use
of
coastal
waters.
In
addition,
the
group
argues
that
forcing
retrofits
of
existing
plants
to
eliminate
once­
through
cooling
could
costs
up
to
$
4
billion
and
reduce
peak
generating
capacity
by
at
least
900
MW
and
possibly
2,250
MW,
depending
on
the
technologies
required.

Move
protects
fish
and
wildlife,
commission
says
The
immediate
effect
of
the
ban
is
less
certain
than
the
commission's
firm
determination
that
"
once­
through
cooling
significantly
harms
the
environment
by
killing
large
numbers
of
fish
and
other
wildlife,
larvae
and
eggs
as
they
are
drawn
through
the
screens"
and
the
facilities'
cooling
systems.
Only
10
of
the
existing
plants
with
leases
from
the
Lands
Commission
appear
to
fall
under
an
immediate
obligation
to
comply
with
the
ban,
a
dozen
others
could
be
forced
to
change
only
if
they
seek
to
significantly
alter
their
operations.
The
Energy
Commission's
executive
director,
B.
B.
Blevins,
said
at
least
two
power
plants
have
already
chosen
to
do
away
with
once­
through
cooling
when
they
repower,
by
installing
combustion
turbines
that
do
not
require
cooling.
Two
other
power
plants
that
employed
oncethrough
cooling
are
no
longer
operational.
Several
others
have
taken
to
using
recycled
water,
instead
of
drawing
directly
from
the
ocean
or
estuaries.

Among
power
plants
currently
under
review
or
in
construction
in
California,
the
CEC
reports
that
more
than
half
say
they
will
use
recycled
water
for
cooling.

Another
alternative
is
the
use
of
newer,
dry­
cooling
technologies,
which
has
become
a
requirement
at
newer
power
facilities
built
in
desert
areas.
Two
power
stations
under
construction
in
the
state
will
use
dry
cooling,
said
the
CEC,
even
though
it
entails
higher
costs.

I
n
the
example
of
a
500
MW
power
station,
the
CEC
has
found
that
replacement
of
once­
through
cooling
with
dry­
cooling
technologies
could
save
over
2,000
acre­
feet
of
water
each
year.
However,
the
costs
of
such
a
change
are
significant:
Capital
costs
will
rise
by
5
percent
to
15
percent,
energy
output
is
reduced
by
about
2
percent,
and
peak
output
drops
by
about
5
percent.
In
all,
the
plant
owner
could
see
their
revenues
trimmed
by
about
$
3
million
per
year
besides
footing
a
cost
of
between
$
8
million
and
$
27
million
to
retrofit
a
facility.

Nuclear
facilities
pose
a
particular
problem,
because
potential
retrofits
would
be
very
expensive
and
pose
engineering
challenges,
the
CEC
said.
"
Very
little
information
on
the
potential
costs
of
retrofitting
nuclear
facilities
to
use
cooling
towers
is
available,"
the
agency
said.
It
is
also
unknown
if
there
is
enough
reclaimed
water
available
for
cooling.
The
state's
two
operating
nuclear
complexes
at
Diablo
Canyon
and
San
Onofre
(
each
with
two
working
units)
are
permitted
to
use
more
than
2.3
billion
gallons
of
sea
water
per
unit
per
day,
about
twice
as
much
as
the
next
largest
gas­
fired
plants
located
on
the
California
coast.

Politics
at
play
The
Lands
Commission's
action
is
in
part
a
political
one
in
that
two
of
its
three
members
are
prominent
Democrats
running
for
higher
office.
State
Controller
Steve
Westly
is
a
contender
for
the
nomination
to
challenge
Gov.
Arnold
Schwarzenegger
(
R)
in
this
year's
elections
and
has
made
the
ban
a
focus
of
his
"
Clean
Coast
Initiative."
Lt.
Gov.
Cruz
Bustamante
is
running
for
the
office
of
Insurance
Commissioner.

Yusef
Robb,
a
spokesman
for
Westly,
called
the
new
ban
the
toughest
state
action
to
minimize
adverse
effects
of
power
plants
on
coastal
environments.
"
Once­
through
cooling
destroys
marine
life
on
a
massive
scale,
it
literally
kills
tons
of
fish
everyday.
Also,
the
alteration
of
temperatures
of
the
water
around
power
plants
fundamentally
changes
the
ecosystem."

O'Donnell
is
an
independent
energy
and
environmental
writer
in
San
Francisco.