BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 28X|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 28X
Author: Sher (D), et al
Amended: 3/14/01
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE ENV. QUALITY COMMITTEE 7-0, 2/26/01
AYES: Sher, McPherson, Chesbro, Figueroa, Kuehl,
McClintock, O'Connell
SENATE ENERGY, U.&C. COMMITTEE : 9-0, 3/6/01
AYES Bowen, Morrow, Battin, Dunn, Poochigian, Sher,
Speier, Vasconcellos, Vincent
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 8-0, 3/12/01
AYES: Alpert, Battin, Bowen, Johnson, Karnette, McPherson,
Perata, Speier
SUBJECT : Powerplant siting
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill contains a series of provisions
intended to accommodate increased construction and
operation of power plants.
ANALYSIS : Siting provisions (Sections 5 through 10) :
1.Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to limit
local jurisdictions'comment period on power plant
applications to 45 days following filing of an
application for initial comments, and 100 days for final
CONTINUED
SB 28X
Page
2
comments. Sunsets January 1, 2004.
2.Requires the CEC, in its written decision on a power
plant application, to discuss any public benefits from
the project (economic, environmental or reliability).
3.Requires the CEC to adopt a regulation governing ex parte
contacts, which allows substantive contacts between
parties and CEC officials, but requires prompt disclosure
and a written summary of the contact.
4.Provides that CEC siting decisions are subject to Supreme
Court review. (Currently, CEC decisions track the appeal
process of California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
decisions, which used to go directly to the Supreme
Court. The process applicable to the CPUC was changed to
provide for lower appellate court review of adjudicatory
decisions by SB 1322 (Calderon), Chapter 855, Statutes of
1996. This bill changes the CEC's process back to the
way it was prior to the enactment of SB 1322.)
5.Requires the CEC to issue its final decision for
certification for "re-powering" projects within 180 days
(Decisions on modifications to existing power plants are
currently subject to a 12-month deadline). For purposes
of this section, "re-powering" means a project that:
A. Initial evidence suggests will not cause a
significant adverse impact on the environment or the
electrical system and will comply with applicable
legal standards.
B. Is located within the boundaries of an existing
power plant and will not require significant
additional rights-of-way for transmission or fueling,
but does not necessarily replace the existing plant.
C. Will significantly and substantially increase the
efficiency of the project, on a per kilowatt-hour
basis, with respect to gas consumption, water use and
discharge, and air pollution.
D. Has a contract for an adequate supply of skilled
labor to construct, operate and maintain the plant.
SB 28X
Page
3
E. Complies with CEC regulations regarding
environmental justice.
With respect to re-powering projects, limits the comment
period for local, regional and state jurisdictions to
100 days.
These provisions sunset on January 1, 2004.
1.Extends the application of the four-month siting process
for temporary "peaker" power plants. As established by
AB 970 (Ducheny), Chapter 329, Statutes of 2000, plants
had to be in service by August 1, 2001 to qualify. This
bill extends the date 17 months, to December 31, 2002.
2.Expands the application of the "peaker" process to allow
re-certification or replacement by a co-generation
facility within three years. Under AB 970, simple-cycle
peakers were required to be replaced by combined-cycle
plants.
Air quality provisions (Sections 1, 2 and 3) :
1.Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to implement a
program for "expedited retrofit" of power plant pollution
controls.
2.Requires ARB to implement an expedited statewide program
for "identification and banking" of emission reduction
credits for power plants and natural gas transmission
facilities.
3.Requires each air district to adopt an expedited program
for permitting of standby or distributed generation
facilities and natural gas transmission facilities.
4.Authorizes payment to air districts of mitigation fees
for a new power plant in lieu of obtaining actual
emissions offsets, when the owner or operator of the
plant has shown that offsets are not available.
Mitigation fees are to be used first to secure emission
reductions from comparable stationary sources.
SB 28X
Page
4
5.Authorizes posting of a bond equivalent to the cost of
required offsets for a new power plant. If all required
offsets have not been obtained by the time the plant
starts operating, a share of the bond sufficient to
acquire offsets not obtained is forfeited to the
district.
6.Requires the air district to hold a public hearing to
determine the appropriate amount of fees or bonds to be
paid in lieu of offsets. The amount shall be sufficient
to obtain equivalent emission reductions.
7.Authorizes the air district to suspend or limit these
provisions if it determines their application would
interfere with attainment or maintenance of air quality
standards, or if it determines adequate offsets are
available at a "reasonable" price.
8.These provisions sunset on January 1, 2004.
Tax provisions Section 4 :
Requires the CEC, in its final report on a power plant
application, to address whether increased property taxes
due to construction of the project are sufficient to
support local improvements and public services necessary to
serve the project.
NOTE: Provisions relating to the allotment of property tax
revenues were recently deleted from the bill to be inserted
into SB 30X (Brulte). According to the author's office,
after these provisions have been heard in Senate Revenue
and Taxation Committee, they will be amended back into SB
28X.
Funding provisions (Section 11) :
Appropriates $53,250,000 from the General Fund to the CEC
until January 1, 2005 as follows:
1.$50 million to increase rebates for clean, renewable,
grid-connected distributed energy systems including fuel
cells smaller than 10 kilowatts.
SB 28X
Page
5
2.$3 million to assist cities and counties with expedited
review of power plant applications.
3.Not more than $250,000 for a study, in consultation with
the Orange County Sanitation District, of the remedies to
mitigate the effects of shoreline water contamination in
Huntington Beach.
Background :
In 1974, in response to a previous energy crisis, the
Warren-Alquist Act established an exclusive process for
siting of thermal power plants 50 megawatts and larger.
The siting process was intended to provide comprehensive
environmental review and predictable, one-stop permitting
of applications. It was also integrated with a planning
process that was intended to guard against under or
overbuilding of power plants.
The Act required the CEC to develop long-term forecasts of
state energy needs, which served as the basis for planning
and certification of individual power plants. Since the
advent of electrical restructuring, the planning and siting
functions have been de-coupled, but the Act still grants
the CEC exclusive authority to certify power plants and
authorizes the CEC to override other state, local or
regional decisions and certify a power plant it determines
is required for "public convenience and necessity."
The construction of the CEC's siting review function in the
Warren-Alquist Act strikes a balance between project
applicants' interest in certainty and the public's interest
in environmental protection and prudent planning of
generation resources. The CEC's siting process is a
CEQA-equivalent project evaluation process and was intended
to be rigorous and comprehensive. In approving a proposed
power plant, the CEC must find that the facility's
construction and operation is consistent with a variety of
environmental standards.
This bill proposes a series of changes to air quality and
CEC siting designed to encourage the expedited siting of
clean new generation in the state. The author notes that
the package of proposals contained in this measure are
SB 28X
Page
6
similar to many such proposals identified by generators,
the Governor's office, and other parties to address the
need for clean new generation in the state.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: Yes Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2000-01 2001-02
2002-03 Fund
CEC appropriation At least $53,250* --
-- General
Air Resources Board $ 59 $ 235
$ 235 General
*Appropriated in the bill until January 1, 2005
SUPPORT : (Verified 3/14/01)
California Chamber of Commerce
CP:jk 3/14/01 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****