DOCKETED
Docket Number: 07-AFC-06C
Project Title: Carlsbad Energy Center - Compliance
TN #: 203696
Document Title: CECP Amendment, Final Staff Assessment
Description: Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment, Final Staff Assessment
February 2015
Filer: April Dearbaugh
Organization: California Energy Commission
Submitter Role: Commission Staff
Submission 2/17/2015 2:17:40 PM
Date:
Docketed Date: 2/17/2015

 CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER PROJECT AMENDMENT

Final Staff Assessment

FEBRUARY 2015
C EC - 700- 2015 - 001 - FSA

CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor

DOCKET NUMBER 07 -AFC- OGC

 CALIFORNIA
ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/cartsbad/

MIKE MONASMITH

Senior Project Manager
CHRIS DAVIS

Siting Office Manager
ERIC KNIGHT

Environmental Office Manager
MATTHEW LAYTON

Engineering Office Manager
ROGER E. JOHNSON
Deputy Director
Siting, Transmission and
Environmental Protection Division

ROBERT P. OGLESBY

Executive Director

DISCLAIMER
Staff members of the California Energy Commission prepared this report. As such, it does not necessarily
represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Energy
Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express
or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any part represent that the
uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or
disapproved by the Energy Commission nor has the Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the
information in this report.

 CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER PROJECT AMENDMENT
(07-AFC-06C)
FINAL STAFF ASSESSMENT
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 1-1
Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2-1
Project Description ............................................................................................................ 3-1
Environmental Assessment
Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 4.2-1
Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 4.3-1
Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 4.4-1
Hazardous Materials Management ................................................................................ 4.5-1
Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 4.6-1
Noise and Vibration ........................................................................................................ 4.7-1
Public Health .................................................................................................................. 4.8-1
Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................. 4.9-1
Soil & Water Resources ............................................................................................... 4.10-1
Traffic & Transportation ................................................................................................ 4.11-1
Transmission Line Safety & Nuisance ......................................................................... .4.12-1
Visual Resources ......................................................................................................... 4.13-1
Engineering Assessment
Facility Design ................................................................................................................ 5.1-1
Geology & Paleontology ................................................................................................. 5.2-1
Power Plant Efficiency.................................................................................................... 5.3-1
Power Plant Reliability.................................................................................................... 5.4-1
Transmission System Engineering ................................................................................. 5.5-1
Waste Management ....................................................................................................... 5.6-1
Worker Safety & Fire Protection ..................................................................................... 5.7-1
Compliance Conditions and Compliance Monitoring Plan.......................................... 6-1
Conditions of Certification................................................................................................7-1
Declarations & Resumes...................................................................................................8-1
Preparation Team ............................................................................................................ 9-1

 LIST OF TABLES
Executive Summary
Table 1: Master List of Cumulative Projects
Table 2: Environmental and Engineering Assessment

1-1

Project Description
3-1
Table 1: Amended CECP Estimated Schedule
Table 2: Daily and Annual Water Use for Amended CECP Operations—Reclaimed
Water Supply
Air Quality
4.1-1
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Table 3: Federal and State Attainment Status for the San Diego Air Basin
Table 4: Ozone Air Quality Summary, 1990-2013 (ppm)
Table 5: PM10 Air Quality Summary, 1990-2013 (µg/m3)
Table 6: PM2.5 Air Quality Summary, 1999-2013 (µg/m3)
Table 7: CO Air Quality Summary, 1990-2013 (ppm)
Table 8: NO2 Air Quality Summary, 1990-2013 (ppm)
Table 9: SO2 Air Quality Summary, 1990-2011 (ppm)
Table 10: Staff Recommended Background Concentrations (µg/m3)
Table 11: Construction Phase I Maximum Daily Emissions, lbs/day
Table 12: Construction Phase II Maximum Daily Emissions, lbs/day
Table 13: Construction Phase II Peak Annual Emissions, tons/year
Table 14: Construction Phase IV Maximum Daily Emissions, lbs/day
Table 15: Construction Phase IV Peak Annual Emissions, tons/year
Table 16: Amended CECP Initial Commissioning Maximum Short-Term Emissions
Table 17: Amended CECP Initial Commissioning Emissions per Turbine, tons
Table 18: Maximum Short-Term Event Emissions, lbs/hr, per gas turbine
Table 19: Maximum Normal Pollutant Emission Rates, lb/hr\
Table 20: Amended CECP Worst-Case Daily and Annual Emissions
Table 21: Amended CECP Incremental Annual Emissions
Table 22: Amended CECP Maximum Onsite Construction Impacts, (µg/m3)a
Table 23: Amended CECP Normal Gas Turbine Operating Impacts - All Gas Turbines
Table 24: Amended CECP Normal Facility Operating Impacts – Gas Turbines and
Emergency Engines
Table 25: Amended CECP Startup/Shutdown Impacts, (µg/m3)
Table 26: Maximum Amended CECP Fumigation Impacts, (µg/m3)
Table 27: Maximum Amended CECP Initial Commissioning Impacts

 Table 28: Project Owner NOx and VOC Emission Reduction Credits
Table 29: Amended CECP Commissioning and EPS Operation Short-Term Maximum
Cumulative Impacts Modeling Results (µg/m3)
Table 30: Amended CECP Operations and EPS Demolition Cumulative Impacts
Modeling Results (µg/m3)
Figure 1: Normalized Maximum Short Term Historical Air Pollution Concentrations
Figure 2: Normalized Ozone Quality Maximum Concentrations
Figure 3: Ozone – Number of Days Exceeding Air Quality Standards
Figure 4: Normalized PM10 Air Quality Maximum Concentrations
Figure 5: PM10 – Number of Days Exceeding the Air Quality Standard
Alternatives
4.2-1
Table 1: Renewable Distributed Generation Resources through December 2014
Biological Resources
4.3-1
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Special-Status Species Reported or Suspected to Occur within One Mile of
CECP
Table 3: Predicted Demolition Noise Impacts on Nearest Biological Receptors
Cultural Resources
4.4-1
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Literature Review Results: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the
amended CECP Project Area
Hazardous Materials Management
4.5-1
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: (Attachment A) Hazardous Materials Proposed for Use at the Amended CECP
Land Use
Table 1: Applicable Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Project Compliance with Applicable State and Local Land Use LORS

4.6-1

Noise & Vibration
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels
Table 3: Predicted Amended CECP Construction Noise Impacts
Table 4: Predicted Encina Power Station Demolition Noise Impacts
Table 5: Pile Driving Noise Impacts
Table 6: Predicted Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Levels

4.7-1

 Public Health
4.8-1
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Emission Rates for Combustion Turbines and Emergency Generators Used in
this Analysis for Normal Operations for Cancer Risk and Hazard Analyses
Table 3: Results of Staff’s and Petitioner’s Analysis for Cancer Risk, Chronic Hazard
and Acute Hazard
Table 4: Contribution to Total Cancer Risk by Individual Substances at the Point of
Maximum Impact (PMI), Determined for Normal Operations
Table 5: Contribution to Total Cancer Risk by Individual Substances at the Maximally
Exposed Individual Receptor (MEIR), Determined for Normal Operations
Socioeconomics
4.9-1
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Amended CECP Estimated Schedule
Table 3: Minority Populations within the Project Area
Table 4: Poverty Data within the Project Area
Table 5: Historical and Projected Populations
Table 6: Total Labor by Skill in the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA versus
Project Labor Needs
Table 7: Housing Supply in the Project Area
Table 8: Current School District Data
Table 9: Cumulative Projects
Table 10: Total Labor Supply for San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA
Table 11: Summary of Socioeconomics Benefits
Soil & Water Resources
4.10-1
Table 1: Summary of Proposed Modifications to Conditions of Certification
Table 2: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) and Policies
Table 3: Licensed vs. Amended CECP Features Impacting Soil and Water Resources
Table 4: Water Use During EPS Decommissioning and Demolition
Table 5: Amended CECP Operational Water Usage
Chart 1: Statewide Water Usage
Table 6: Summary of Statewide Dwelling Usage
Table 7: Normal Year by Source – Water Supply and Demand Comparison (afy)
Table 8: CMWD Service Area Population Projections
Table 9: CMWD Current and Projected Water Supplies
Table 10: CMWD Additional Water Supplies
Table 11: CMWD Single Dry and Multiple Dry Year Supplies
Table 12: CMWD Demand, Current and Projected
Table 13: CMWD Current and Projected Supplies and Demand
Table 14: CMWD Projected Recycled Water Demand (afy)

 Table 15: CMWD Projected Recycled Water Demand
Table 16: CMWD Summary of Supply Requirements
Table 17: Funding for CMWD Phase III, Recycled Water Project
Table 18: CMWD Current and Projected Supplies and Demands
Traffic & Transportation
4.11-1
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: 2007 and 2013 Existing Conditions on Project Roadways
Table 3: 2007 and 2013 Existing Conditions on Project Intersections
Table 4: Licensed CECP – Estimated Average Daily Trips and Peak Hour Trips during
Peak Construction
Table 5: Amended CECP – Estimated Average Daily Trips and Peak Hour Trips during
Peak Construction
Table 6: Plume Average Velocity, Gas Turbine and Air Cooler Predicted Plume
Velocities
Table 7: Project Compliance with Adopted Traffic & Transportation Laws, Ordinances,
Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Transmission Line Safety & Nuisance
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)

7-1

Visual Resources
4.13-1
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Summary of Major Publicly Visible Structures
Table 3: Proposed Project’s Consistency with LORS Applicable to Visual Resources
Facility Design
5.1-1
Table 1: Key Engineering Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Major Structures and Equipment List (in COC Section)
7-1
Geology and Paleontology
5.2-1
Table 1: Licensed vs. Amended CECP Features Potentially Impacting Geologic and
Paleontologic Resources and Impacted by Geologic Hazards
Table 2: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 3: Planning Level 2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters Maximum Considered
Earthquake, ASCE 7 Standard
Power Plant Efficiency
Table 1: Simple Cycle Comparison at ISO Conditions

5.3-1

Transmission System Engineering
Table 1: Major Equipment List (in COC Section)

7-1

 Waste Management
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Licensed vs. Amended CECP Features Potentially Impacting Waste
Management
Table 3: List of Recognized Environmental Conditions
Table 4: List of Encina Power Station Items to be Demolished
Table 5: Nonhazardous and Hazardous Waste Totals
Table 6: Recycling/Disposal Facilities

5.6-1

Worker Safety & Fire Protection
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)

5.7-1

Compliance Conditions
Table 1: Summary of Compliance Conditions of Certification

6.1-1

 LIST OF FIGURES
Executive Summary
Figure 1: Cumulative Impacts

1-1

Project Description
Figure 1: Project Context and Layout
Figure 1A: Regional Transportation
Figure 2: Encina Power Station Transmission Routes
Figure 3: Site Plan
Figure 4: Plot Plan
Figure 5: Site Plan
Figure 6: Reclaimed Water Balance
Figure 7: Encina Power Station Demolition
Figure 8: Depiction of Site after EPS Demolition

3-1

Alternatives
Figure 1: Alternative Project Locations

4.2-1

Biological Resources
Figure 1: United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) Coastal California
Gnatcatcher
Figure 2: Agua Hedionda Lagoon

4.3-1

Cultural Resources
4.4-1
Figure 1: Project Site Map
Figure 2: Properties 45 Years or Older in Project Area Analysis
Figure 3: Historic Built Environment Resources within One Mile Literature Search
Area
Noise and Vibration
Figure 1: Noise Monitoring Locations

4.7-1

Public Health
Figure 1: Exposure Context

4.8-1

Socioeconomics
Figure 1: Census 2010 Minority Population by Census Block – Six Mile Radius

4.9-1

Traffic and Transportation
Figure 1: Regional Transportation
Figure 2: Local Transportation
Figure 3: San Diego Visual Flight Rules (VFR) Terminal Area Chart

4.11-1

 Visual Resources
4.13-1
Figure 1: Project Architectural Elevations
Figure 2: Aerial Conceptual Simulation of Amended CECP
Figure 3: KOP Map
Figure 4ab: KOP 1 – Existing View and Licensed CECP from Carlsbad
Figure 4cd: KOP1 - Amended CECP from Carlsbad Blvd
Figure 5ab: KOP 2 – Existing View and Licensed CECP from Pannonia Trail
Figure 5cd: KOP 2 - Amended CECP from Pannonia Trail
Figure 6ab: KOP 3 – Existing View and Licensed CECP from Cove Drive
Figure 6cd: KOP 3 - Amended CECP from Cove Drive
Figure 7ab: KOP 3A – Licensed CECP and Amended CECP from Adams Street
Figure 7c: Amended CECP (Phase IV), from Adams Street
Figure 8ab: KOP 4 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from Hoover Street
Figure 8cd: KOP 4 – Amended CECP from Hoover Street
Figure 9ab: KOP 5 – Existing View and Licensed CECP from Harbor Drive
Figure 9cd: KOP 5 – Amended CECP from Harbor Drive
Figure 10ab: KOP 6 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from I-5 Southbound
Figure 10cd: KOP 6 – Amended CECP from I-5 Southbound
Figure 10e: KOP 6 – Amended CECP from I-5 Southbound
Figure 11ab: KOP 7 – Existing View and Licensed CECP from I-5 Northbound
Figure 11c: KOP 7 – Amended CECP from I-5 Northbound
Figure 11d: Amended CECP from KOP 7A Looking North
Figure 12ab: KOP 9 – Licensed and Amended CECP
Figure 13ab: KOP 11 – Licensed and Amended CECP
Figure 14: Oblique Ariel View of I-5 – CECP Boundary Facing Southwest
Geology and Paleontology
Figure 1: Regional Map
Figure 2: Project Location Map
Figure 3: Geomorphic Provinces
Figure 4: Emergent Terraces
Figure 5A: Regional Geology
Figure 6: Fault Locations
Figure 7: Inner Continental Borderland Faults
Figure 8: Tsunami Inundation Map

5.2-1

Transmission System Engineering
Figure 1: One-line Conceptual Diagram
Figure 2: NCTD Rail Corridor Cross Section
Figure 3: Typical 2x2 Duct Bank Details

5.5-1

Waste Management
Figure 1: Site Layout Map
Figure 2: Areas Controlled & Current Recognized Environmental Conditions

5.6-1

 LIST OF APPENDICES
Air Quality
4.1-1
Appendix AQ-1: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 1: Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Table 2: Amended CECP Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 3: Amended CECP Estimated Potential Operating Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Table 4: Heat Rates, Capacity Factors, and GHG Emissions Performance
for San Diego Peakers, 2013
Table 5: Weighted Average Heat Rate for Operating Natural Gas-Fired Plants1 in
the WECC and California 2010-2013
Figure 1: Annual California Output (GWh), Selected Natural Gas-Fired Generation
Technologies, 2001 – 2013
Figure 2: California Generation Typical for a Non-Summer Day (“Duck” Chart)
Figure 3: Average Heat Rates for Gas Fired Electric Generation Serving California
Cultural Resources
4.4-1
Appendix CR-1: Background Information not Included in the FSA
Table A1: Literature Review Results within or adjacent to the PAA
Table A2: Literature Review Results: Studies outside PAA, in Records Search Area
Table A3: Literature Review Results: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
Table A4: Historic Maps Consulted
Table A5: Built Environment, Properties with Structures of Historic Age in the OneParcel PAA (Excluding EPS)
Table A6: Encina Power Station Inventory of Built Environment Resources
Table A7: Built Environment, Properties Identified by Carlsbad as Potential Historic
Resources
Table A8: Built Environment, Properties Identified by Carlsbad as Official Historic
Resources
Table A9: Sites Included in the Agus Hedionda Prehistoric Archeological District
Appendix CR-2: Cumulative Impacts
Table B1: Projects Considered in the Archeological and Ethnographic Cumulative
Impacts Analysis
Noise & Vibration
Appendix NV-1: Fundamental Concepts of Community Noise
Table 1: Definition of Some Technical Terms Related to Noise
Table 2: Typical Environmental and Industry Sound Levels
Table 3: Addition of Decibel Values
Table 4: OSHA Worker Noise Exposure Standards

4.7-1

 Traffic & Transportation
Appendix TT-1: Plume Velocity Analysis
Table 1: Gas Turbine and Air Cooler Parameters
Table 2: Gas Turbine and Air Cooler Predicted Plume Average Velocities

4.11-1

Visual Resources
4.13-1
Appendix VR-1: Energy Commission Visual Resource Analysis Evaluation Criteria
Facility Design
Appendix FD-1: Engineering Laws Ordinances, Regulations and Standards

5.1-1

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Jon R. Hilliard, AICP

INTRODUCTION
This Final Staff Assessment (FSA) is a publication by California Energy Commission
(Energy Commission) staff for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment
(amended CECP). The project owner and petitioner, Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC,
(petitioner/project owner), an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of NRG, Inc., proposes
to modify the project approved by the Energy Commission on May 31, 2012 (licensed
CECP).
This FSA contains staff’s independent, objective evaluation of the petition to amend the
Final Commission Decision of the licensed CECP in separate, technical analyses. The
analyses are similar to those normally contained in an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
For an amendment of an existing power plant over which it retains regulatory oversight,
the Energy Commission is the lead agency under CEQA. The Commission’s certified
regulatory program, approved by the Natural Resources Agency, implements the
substantive provisions in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Energy
Commission’s certified regulatory program provides the environmental analysis that
satisfies CEQA requirements. In fulfilling this responsibility, Energy Commission staff
provides an independent assessment of the amendment’s engineering design,
evaluates its potential effects on the environment and on public health and safety, and
determines whether the project, if modified, would remain in conformance with all
applicable local, state, and federal laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS).
LORS compliance and determinations of key federal Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act
requirements are made by staff’s active coordination with, and incorporation of input
from, other regulatory agencies and their findings (such as the San Diego Air Pollution
Control District’s (APCD) Preliminary and Final Determination of Compliance [DOC])1.
CEQA provides that once a CEQA process has reached conclusion, there should be no
new environmental document absent specific enumerated circumstances. (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, § 15162.) Such circumstances include the situation where substantial
changes are proposed in the project which may result in new significant environmental
effects, or the increased severity of such effects; or where information of substantial
importance, unknown at the time of the previous environmental analysis, could result in
new significant environmental effects not previously analyzed. (Ibid.) The CEQA
Guidelines also provide that a “supplement” to the environmental document may be
adequate in situations described above, but only minor changes or additions in the
1

At the time of FSA Publication, the San Diego APCD had not issued a Final DOC for the CECP. The
APCD estimates the Final DOC will be issued on or before March 3, 2015.
February 2015

1-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 discussion or mitigation would be necessary to make the previous environmental
analysis adequate. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15163.)
The petition to amend the CECP license would make significant changes to the
previously licensed project. The combined-cycle turbines and their ancillary equipment
would be replaced with simple-cycle turbines. This change requires some
reconfiguration of the project footprint and the location of project elements, as well as
new air quality modeling, and a new DOC from the local air district with new conditions
specific to this different emission sources. In addition, the petition to amend would result
in the demolition and removal of the existing Encina Power Station, with its considerable
infrastructure and 400-foot stack.
While these changes are substantial, staff does not believe that this will result in new
significant environmental effects not previously analyzed, nor an increase in the severity
of impacts that would be significant with the mitigation the staff proposes. Even so, the
resulting changes require much supplemental analysis, and either modifications to, or
additions to, the conditions of certification that include environmental mitigation. The
FSA addresses each of the technical areas to account for these changes, which vary
according to the technical area in question. The FSA will in each section address how
the petition to amend changes the analysis for that subject, including new impacts or
changes in the intensity of impacts, as well as any changes in mitigation.
For the ease of the reader, this FSA provides a description of the environmental setting
of the entire project. However, because this is an amendment to an existing Energy
Commission license, staff’s analysis focuses on the modifications proposed by the
amended CECP. These specific changes are explained in detail in the Project
Description section. A summary of the amended CECP is provided below.
This FSA serves as staff’s testimony during evidentiary hearings scheduled to be held in
the first week of April 2015 by the assigned Committee of two Energy Commissioners
(Commissioner and Presiding member Karen Douglas, and Commissioner and
Associate member Andrew McAllister), and a Hearing Advisor (Chief Hearing Advisor
Paul Kramer). During these evidentiary hearings, the Committee will consider testimony,
comment and input provided and presented by staff, the applicant, intervenors,
governmental agencies, tribes, and the public. The Committee will then engage in
deliberation and review of the record before writing and submitting the Presiding
Member’s Proposed Decision (PMPD) for a 30-day public comment period and then to
the full Commission for consideration and action. Following a public hearing, most likely
during a monthly Business Meeting, the full Energy Commission will make a final
decision on the amended CECP proposal, expected late in the second quarter of 2015.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-2

February 2015

 NECESSITY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
California Code of Regulations, title 20, sections 1769(a)(1)(B) and 1769(a)(1)(C) of the
California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) Siting Regulations, require a
discussion of the necessity for the proposed changes to the project and whether the
modifications sought by a project owner/petitioner are based on information known by
the petitioner during the original certification proceeding. In this amendment proceeding,
the purpose of the proposed amended CECP changes are to ensure regional electrical
reliability and provide for fast-response peaking generation that best responds to the
unanticipated retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in
June of 2013.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
The amended CECP evolved from a series of meetings and discussions which began in
late 2013 between the licensed CECP project owner and its parent company (NRG,
Inc.), the city of Carlsbad, its water agency (Carlsbad Municipal Water District), and the
local investor-owned utility, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E.) The meetings and
discussion resulted in a “Settlement Agreement” between the parties that provided for,
among other things: (i) the retirement, decommissioning, demolition and removal of the
Encina Power Station (EPS), (ii) the remediation and redevelopment of the site formerly
housing the EPS, (iii) future construction and redevelopment of the CECP, (iv) the
relocation and construction of a new service center for SDG&E, and (v) “other changes
in energy infrastructure and property considerations beneficial to the residents of
Carlsbad.” The amended CECP would also further the state’s policy goals regarding
eliminating impacts of once-through power plant cooling; reduce visual blight and other
environmental impacts at the Encina Power Station site; and help meet documented
local capacity requirements in the San Diego County region by adding new generation
to help off-set the June 7, 2013 closure of the 2,200-MW SONGS facility located 25
miles north of the project site in San Clemente, California.

PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The amended CECP would still be located on the northeastern corner of the 95-acre
EPS site in the northern coastal San Diego County city of Carlsbad, California. Prior to
construction of the amended CECP, the petitioner seeks permission to demolish three
above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (AST) —ASTs 1 and 2 (to provide space for
construction lay-down) and AST 4 (which, along with ASTs 5, 6 and 7 constitute the
EPS eastern tank farm and the 30-acre footprint where the amended CECP power plant
would be constructed and operated). Following successful commercial operation, the
petitioner seeks a three-year period of decommissioning and demolition of all aboveground EPS facilities west of the North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad tracks.

February 2015

1-3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 These proposed changes were filed by the project owner in two petitions (filed in late
April and early May, 2014) seeking to amend the licensed project, that were combined
into one proceeding by the Committee reviewing this case. The purpose of this FSA is
to provide clarification of the modifications to the licensed CECP, and analyze whether
these proposed changes would result in any new impacts or any increase in the severity
of impacts addressed in the licensed CECP proceeding, and that the amended CECP
would continue to conform to local, state, and federal LORS.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Based upon a review of the project objectives included in the Final Decision for the
licensed CECP (CEC 2012a, pg. 3-2) and the May 2, 2014 Petition to Amend (PTA) (LL
2014, pg. 1-6), staff developed the following objectives to guide the amended CECP
alternatives analysis. These objectives are consistent with the petitioner’s proposal but
are not so narrow as to limit consideration of potentially feasible alternatives to
construction of the amended CECP, as proposed. The project objectives for the
proposed amended CECP are as follows:


Meet the need for new, cost-effective, reliable energy resources that are
dispatchable by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and located in
the “load pocket” that includes the San Diego region.



Improve San Diego regional electrical system reliability through fast-starting energy
resources capable of rapid response to peak demand situations, and provide CAISO
a dependable resource to backup intermittent renewable generation resources such
as wind and solar.



Modernize existing aging electrical generation infrastructure in north coastal San
Diego County to enable retiring once-through cooling (OTC) facilities. Retiring the
use of OTC is an objective shared by the utilities and energy and environmental
agencies in California, including the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC),
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Energy Commission,
and CAISO.



Modify the licensed CECP to include retiring the five boiler units and one small
combustion turbine at the Encina Power Station (EPS), thereby allowing for better
grid support from the June 2013 shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station.



Use existing infrastructure to accommodate replacement generation, and avoid
potential environmental impacts and costs of developing a new power generating
facility at a greenfield location.



Meet the commercial qualifications for long-term power contract opportunities in
Southern California.



Achieve project consistency with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards (LORS).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-4

February 2015

 

Modify the project design to reduce potential environmental impacts and integrate
community-desired development on and adjacent to the site.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Preparation of a cumulative impact analysis is required under CEQA. In the CEQA
Guidelines, “a cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of
the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing
related impacts” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15130(a)(1)). Cumulative impacts must be
addressed if the incremental effect of a project, combined with the effects of other
projects is “cumulatively considerable” (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, §15130(a)). Such
incremental effects are to be “viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 14, §15164(b)(1)). Together, these projects comprise the cumulative scenario
which forms the basis of the cumulative impact analysis.
CEQA also states that both the severity of impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence
are to be reflected in the discussion, “but the discussion need not provide as great detail
as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion of cumulative impacts shall be guided by standards of practicality and reasonableness, and shall
focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather
than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact”
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15130(b)).

DEFINITION OF THE CUMULATIVE PROJECT SCENARIO
Cumulative impacts analysis is intended to identify past, present, and probable future
actions that are closely related either in time or location to the project being considered,
and consider how they have harmed or may harm the environment. Most of the projects
listed in the cumulative projects tables (Executive Summary Table 1) have, are, or will
be required to undergo their own independent environmental reviews under CEQA.

February 2015

1-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Executive Summary Table 1
Amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project – Master List of Cumulative Projects
Label ID
and
Shape

Project Name

Project Description

Location

North Coast
Corridor, near Agua
Hedionda Lagoon,
Carlsbad
Interstate 5,
Manchester Ave. to
State Route 78 (SR78), Encinitas and
Carlsbad
Interstate 5,
Manchester Ave. to
State Route 78 (SR78), Encinitas and
Carlsbad

Distance
from
amended
CECP site
(Miles)

Status

Estimated or Actual
Construction Start
Date & Duration

0.086

Operational

Construction
completed early 2012

0.095

Unknown

Construction begins
late 2015

0.095

Unknown

Construction begins
early 2016

0.178

Coastal
Development
Permit has
been issued by
Coastal
Commission.

Construction expected
to begin early 2015
and end 2017.

line

Carlsbad Double
Track

Add two miles of second track and replace Agua
Hedionda Lagoon rail bridge.

2

line

Two HOV Lanes
from Manchester
Avenue to SR 78

Add one HOV lane in each direction from
Manchester Avenue to SR 78 including the San
Elijo and Batiquitos lagoon bridge replacements,
Manchester direct access ramp, and
bike/pedestrian Trails under I-5 across the lagoons.

3

line

Manchester
Avenue to SR 78
Soundwalls

Construct soundwalls on private property from
Manchester Avenue to SR 78.

point

Capital
Improvement
Program (CIP) –
Vista/Carlsbad
Interceptor Agua
Hedionda Lift
Station (VC 12)

Replace existing sewer lift station and sewer line
with new lift station and line. The total project
extends 2.35 miles north-south.

South shore of
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon adjacent to
east side of railroad
tracks.

point

Carlsbad
Desalination
Project (Poseidon)

50-million gallon per day seawater desalination
plant, pipelines, pumps, and other appurtenant and
ancillary water facilities to produce and distribute
potable water. Includes conveyance pipeline: a tenmile, 54-inch water delivery pipeline that will travel
eastward from the seawater desalination plant
through Carlsbad, Vista and San Marcos to San
Diego County Water Authority’s Second Aqueduct
connection facility in San Marcos.

Carlsbad Blvd. /
Cannon Road,
Carlsbad

0.466

In construction

Construction began
late 2012, estimated to
be operational
November 2015

point

Hallmark Property
(mitigation for I-5
Express Lanes
Project)

Preserve and create a total of 19.3 acres of coastal
habitat adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in
Carlsbad.

Near Agua
Hedionda Lagoon,
Carlsbad

0.659

Unknown

Restoration begins in
2015

1

2

3

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-6

February 2015

 Label ID
and
Shape

4

5

line

point

Project Name

Carlsbad
Boulevard

Floral Trade
Center

Project Description

Location

Road and pedestrian improvements from Cannon
Road to Manzano Drive

Development of a new 44,180 sq. ft. floral trade
distribution center and marketplace, 9,900 sq. ft.
micro-brewery and winery building, 1984 sq. ft.
culinary center, and 896 sq. ft. farm shed with the
remaining land dedicated to farm plots, orchard,
hops farm, vineyard and parking on 17.22 acres of
land within a 45.60 acre site.

South of Cannon
Road and East of
Car Country Drive

Add one mile of second track through Carlsbad
Village Station and new rail bridge across Buena
Vista Lagoon. Funded through design.

North Coast
Corridor, near
Carlsbad Village
Station and Buena
Vista Lagoon,
Carlsbad
385 Juniper Ave.,
Carlsbad

line

Carlsbad Village
Double Track

6

point

CP Juniper
Apartments

Three story, four unit apartment complex

7

point

Tram Property

Two story building with office on ground floor and
apartment on second floor

8

point

9

point

10

point

Railroad Lofts

Four condos

11

point

Costco Gas
Station Canopy

Add three new dispensers and new canopy

5

State Mixed Use
30
Bicajessee
Adventures

February 2015

Carlsbad
Blvd/Cannon Road
south to Carlsbad
Blvd/Manzano Dr.,
Carlsbad

Four story mixed use building
Convert six office units to condos

3147 Roosevelt St,
Carlsbad
3068 State St,
Carlsbad
2815 Jefferson St,
Carlsbad
2685 State St,
Carlsbad
951 Palomar Airport
Rd, Carlsbad

1-7

Distance
from
amended
CECP site
(Miles)

Status

0.673

Unknown

0.841

Road
improvements
for project
currently being
constructed in
conjunction
with Carlsbad
desalination
pipeline on
Cannon Road

0.865

Unknown

0.874

Approved,
needs
construction
permits

1.385

In construction

1.452
1.678

Application in,
no entitlements
needs Village
Review permit

1.775

In construction

1.783

Approved

Estimated or Actual
Construction Start
Date & Duration

2016 to late 2017

Grading and building
permits have not been
issued. Unknown
construction start of
buildings.

Environmental
Completion: Late
2014. Funded through
design.
Estimated start
construction January
2015, 4 to 5 month
duration
Estimated completion
July-August 2014
Unknown
Existing building, no
construction
Estimated completion
summer 2014
Start construction
2014, one month
duration

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Label ID
and
Shape

6

line

Project Name

Project Description

Location

Buena Outfall
Force Main Phase
3

New sewer line belonging to Vista. 18-24 inch
17,700 foot long pipeline, part gravity and part force
main sewer line along Palomar Airport Road.

North side of
Palomar Airport Rd
between Paseo Del
Norte & El Camino
Real, Carlsbad

Distance
from
amended
CECP site
(Miles)

Status

1.904

Awaiting more
info to
complete
Coastal
Development
Permit

2531-2586 State St,
Carlsbad

1.944

Pending
approval of
Final Map

Estimated or Actual
Construction Start
Date & Duration

Estimated start
sometime 2015; one
year duration
Construction expected
to start November
2014 with estimated
completion by the end
of 2015 or early 2016
Estimated start
construction July
2014, duration four
months

12

point

State Street
Townhomes

41 market rate & 6 inclusionary housing units with
ground level office/flex space for live-work. Includes
demo of approx. 32,000 sq. ft. of existing
commercial and light industrial uses.

13

point

De Anda
Residence

Construct a 3,412 sq. ft. single-family residence
with attached two-car garage, and an attached 640
sq. ft. second dwelling unit with a one-car garage.

Jefferson St & Las
Flores Dr, Carlsbad

2.201

Awaiting
building permits

point

Robertson Ranch
East Village

469 residential units, 78 multi-family and the rest
single family detached

NE corner of El
Camino Real and
Cannon Rd,
Carlsbad

2.219

In construction

Construction almost
complete, finish by
end of 2014

Grading permit issued
August 2014 and
expected to be
complete within 12
months or less

14

NE corner of El
Camino Real and
Cannon Rd,
Carlsbad

2.325

Approval of
discretionary
applications for
construction of
commercial
and residential
components
required.
Applications
not submitted.

2.373

Unknown

Construction Early
2015

Approved

Expected start
construction July
2014, duration about 1
year

15

point

Robertson Ranch
West Village

Master Planned development for 653 residential
units and 150,000 sq ft commercial. 414 residential
units to be multi-family, remaining will be single
family detached.

16

point

Poinsettia Station
Improvements

Improve Poinsettia Station in Carlsbad to include
new grade-separated pedestrian crossing and
signals.

North Coast
Corridor, Poinsettia
Station, Carlsbad

26 single family residences

2311 Camino Hills
Dr, Carlsbad

17

point

Tabata 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-8

2.779

February 2015

 Label ID
and
Shape

18

19

20

Project Name

Project Description

Location

Distance
from
amended
CECP site
(Miles)

Status

Estimated or Actual
Construction Start
Date & Duration

2.937

Master Plan
project. Can
start grading,
putting in
utilities, but
needs more
permits to build

Estimated construction
start January 2015,
duration 5 years

Construction on
parking lot is expected
start January 2015.
Estimated start for
construction of church
addition January 2016.

Quarry Creek

636 residential units, a 0.5-acre nature/education
center, a 1.5-acre community facilities site, a 1.3acre park and ride site, 92.4 acres of natural open
space, and supporting infrastructure on a 155.4acre site in Carlsbad.

point

Daybreak
Community
Church

Addition of 17,391 sq. ft., 30-foot-tall assembly
building to existing church. New assembly building
accommodate up to 1,010 seats. 53 parking spaces
removed from existing parking lot and 221 parking
spaces added on vacant parcel to the west. New
access driveway proposed off Fisherman Drive to
the west.

6515 Ambrosia Ln,
Carlsbad

3.591

Approved by
city. Requires
approval of an
LCPA by the
CCC

point

Ayoub Property
(mitigation for I-5
Express Lanes
Project)

Protect 21.7 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat at
the Batiquitos Lagoon in Carlsbad.

Batiquitos Lagoon,
Carlsbad

3.833

Unknown

Unknown

NE corner of
Gateway Rd and El
Camino Real,
Carlsbad

4.133

In construction

One building in
construction,
estimated completion
January 2015. No
estimate for second
building

4.362

Application in,
no entitlements

Unknown

4.470

In construction

Expected completion
end of 2014 or
beginning of 2015

4.545

In construction

Expected completion
end of 2014 or
beginning of 2015

point

21

point

ViaSat Expansion

Two office buildings and pedestrian walkway across
El Camino Real with signalized light

22

point

Shea Industrial
Bressi Ranch

Two industrial/warehouse buildings

23

point

Holiday Inn

133 rooms, 83,693 sq ft three-story hotel

24

point

Staybridge Suites

106 rooms, 73,737 sq ft three-story hotel

February 2015

South of Haymar Dr
between College
Blvd & El Camino
Real, Carlsbad

6131 Innovation
Way, Carlsbad
south of Palomar
Airport Road, east
of Innovation Way,
and west of Colt
Place, Carlsbad
south of Palomar
Airport Road, east
of Innovation Way,
and west of Colt
Place, Carlsbad

1-9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Label ID
and
Shape

Project Name

Project Description

Location

Distance
from
amended
CECP site
(Miles)

Tenant improvements & expansion of existing
animal hospital

6986 El Camino
Real Ste 1,
Carlsbad

4.691

Additional 3,000 sq ft retail, 60 apartment units

La Costa Avenue
and El Camino
Real, Carlsbad

5.400

5.693

6.313

25

point

Aviara Animal
Health Center

26

point

La Costa Town
Center Renovation

7

line

La Costa
Recycled Water
Pipeline

Construction of 5200 foot-long eight-inch pipeline
for recycled water

East side of El
Camino Real
between Alga Rd &
Costa Del Mar Rd,
Carlsbad

27

point

La Costa Villas

Eight, three-story condos

7570 Gibraltar St,
Carlsbad

28

point

La Costa Town
Square

258,000 sq ft retail

29

point

Westfield
Carlsbad

Remodel and expand existing mall; addition of
226,000 sq ft, including movie theater, gym with
indoor pool, and rooftop basketball court

30

point

Commercial Office

8,025 sq ft commercial office building

31

point

La Costa Town
Square
Residential 63

63 single family homes

32

point

Blackstone Ranch

49 single family homes

Caruso Affiliated
Property*

Developer’s intention to “eventually…build a
destination retail center that would incorporate
shops and restaurants”

3434 Via Mercato,
Carlsbad
2525 El Camino
Real #100,
Carlsbad
Rancho Santa Fe
Rd and La Costa
Ave, Carlsbad

Status

Approved, but
has not
received
building permits
Approved but
must appeal to
city council;
lawsuit possible
Waiting for
funding,
Coastal
Development
Permit
Planning
Commission
hearing
5/21/2014

Estimated or Actual
Construction Start
Date & Duration

Expected to be
completed in 2014

Unknown

Expected start late
summer/early fall
2014, six month
duration
Start construction
2014, one year
duration

7.088

In construction

Completion 2015

7.183

In construction

Estimated completion
November 2014

7.250

In construction

Estimated completion
early 2015

7329 Calle Pera,
Carlsbad

7.317

In construction

Estimated completion
November 2014February 2015

Camino Junipero
and Avenida
Amapola, Carlsbad

7.858

In construction

Estimated completion
February 2015

Interstate 5 and
Cannon Road

No application
submitted to
Carlsbad
Planning
Department

Note: * There is not sufficient information for staff to analyze the cumulative impacts for the amended CECP. Development proposed on this property would undergo a California Environmental Quality Act
review once an application has been received by the Carlsbad Planning Department.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-10

February 2015

 Under CEQA, there are two acceptable and commonly used methodologies for establishing the cumulative impact setting or scenario: the “list approach” and the “projections
approach.” The first approach would use a “list of past, present, and probable future
projects producing related or cumulative impacts.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,
§15130(b)(1)(A)). The second approach is to use a “summary of projections contained
in an adopted general plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental
document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or
area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14,
§15130(b)(1)(B)). This FSA uses the “list approach” for purposes of state law to provide
a tangible understanding and context for analyzing the potential cumulative effects of
the proposed project.
In order to provide a basis for cumulative analysis for each discipline, this section provides
information on other projects in both maps and tables. All projects used in the
Cumulative Impacts Analysis for this FSA are provided in cumulative projects tables.
Executive Summary Figure 1, presented at the end of this section, shows project
sites.

APPROACH TO CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
This FSA evaluates cumulative impacts within the analysis of each resource area,
following these steps:


Define the geographic scope of cumulative impact analysis for each discipline, based
on the potential area within which impacts of the amended CECP could combine
with those of other projects.



Evaluate the effects of the amended CECP in combination with past and present
(existing) projects within the area of geographic effect defined for each discipline.



Evaluate the effects of the amended CECP with foreseeable future projects that occur
within the area of geographic effect defined for each discipline.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Environmental justice communities are commonly identified as those where residents
are predominantly minorities or low-income; where residents have been excluded from
the environmental policy setting or decision-making process; where they are subject to
a disproportionate impact from one or more environmental hazards; and where
residents experience disparate implementation of environmental regulations,
requirements, practices, and activities in their communities. Environmental justice
efforts attempt to address the inequities of environmental protection in these
communities.

February 2015

1-11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 An environmental justice analysis is composed of three parts:
1. Identification of areas potentially affected by various emissions or impacts from a
proposed project;
2. A determination of whether there is a significant population of minority persons or
persons below the poverty level living in an area potentially affected by the proposed
project; and
3. A determination of whether there may be a significant adverse impact on a
population of minority persons or persons below the poverty level caused by the
proposed project alone, or in combination with other existing and/or planned projects
in the area.
California law defines environmental justice as “the fair treatment of people of all races,
cultures and income with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (Gov. Code §65040.12;
Pub. Resources Code, §72000). All departments, boards, commissions, conservancies
and special programs of the Resources Agency must consider environmental justice in
their decision-making process if their actions have an impact on the environment,
environmental laws, or policies. Such actions that require environmental justice
consideration may include:


adopting regulations;



enforcing environmental laws or regulations;



making discretionary decisions or taking actions that affect the environment;



providing funding for activities affecting the environment; and



interacting with the public on environmental issues.

DEMOGRAPHIC SCREENING ANALYSIS
As part of its CEQA analysis for the Petition to Amend the CECP’s 2012 Commission
Decision, Energy Commission staff used demographic screening to determine whether
a low-income and/or minority population exists within the potentially affected area of the
amended CECP site2. The demographic screening is based on information contained in
two documents: Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental
Policy Act (CEQ, 1997) and Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns
in EPA’s Compliance Analyses (US EPA, 1998), which provides staff with information
on outreach and public involvement.

Minority Populations
According to Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy
Act, minority individuals are defined as members of the following groups: American
2

Demographic screening data is presented in the Socioeconomics section.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-12

February 2015

 Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or
Hispanic. An environmental justice population is identified when the minority population
of the potentially affected area is greater than fifty percent or the minority population
percentage is meaningfully greater than the minority population in the general
population or other appropriate unit of geographical analysis.
Based on the 2010 Census data presented in Socioeconomics Figure 1, the total
population within the six-mile radius of the project site was 158,518 persons with a
minority population of 61,357 persons, or 38.7 percent of the total population. As the
minority population is less than fifty percent, this population does not constitute an
environmental justice population as defined by Environmental Justice: Guidance Under
the National Environmental Policy Act, and would not trigger further scrutiny for
purposes of an environmental justice analysis.

Below-Poverty-Level-Populations
The official poverty thresholds do not vary by geography (e.g. state, county, etc.), but
are updated annually to allow for changes in the cost of living. The population for whom
poverty status is determined does not include institutionalized people, people in military
quarters, people in college dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old.
Staff’s demographic screening also identifies the presence of below-poverty-level
populations within a six-mile buffer of the proposed project site. The CEQA and US EPA
guidance documents identify a fifty-percent threshold to determine whether minority
populations are considered environmental justice populations, but do not provide a
similar threshold for below-poverty-level populations. As an initial indicator of whether a
low-income population of sufficient size is present and would warrant status as an
environmental justice community, staff compared the below-poverty-level populations in
the six-mile radius to other appropriate reference geographies. Staff used data for the
Oceanside-Escondido Census County Division (CCD), San Diego County, and
California as reference geographies to compare levels of poverty in populations near
the project.
Approximately 12 percent, or 49,205 people, in the six-mile buffer, live below the federal
poverty threshold. Of the cities used to determine the poverty status within the six-mile
radius, the city of Vista stands out with 15.2 percent of the population living below the
poverty level, compared with the three other cities’ (Carlsbad, Encinitas, and
Oceanside) more moderate nine to 12 percent below-poverty-level population. Other
reference geographies had percentages ranging from 13.7 percent for the project area
CCD to California’s 15.3 percent. Staff concludes that the below-poverty-level
population in a six-mile radius of the project site is not meaningfully greater than the
below-poverty-level population in the reference geographies, and does not constitute an
environmental justice population as defined by Environmental Justice: Guidance Under
February 2015

1-13

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 the National Environmental Policy Act and would not trigger further scrutiny for
purposes of an environmental justice analysis.

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Project alternatives developed for the amended CECP are fully discussed in the
Alternatives section of this FSA, and include an evaluation of the following:
1. No Project Alternative Scenario One: construction of the licensed CECP (“licensed
CECP scenario”).
2. No Project Alternative Scenario Two: continuance of current conditions at the EPS
site with no new construction “no-build scenario”).
3. Staff also analyzed a reduced capacity alternative that would consist of four GE
LMS100s providing a net nominal output of approximately 421 MWs, instead of six
GE LMS100s totaling 632 MWs as proposed for the amended CECP. Staff found
that the reduced capacity alternative could potentially result in slight increases or
decreases in the already less than significant impacts of the amended CECP in the
areas of Air Quality, Noise & Vibration, Public Health, Socioeconomics, Traffic &
Transportation, and Waste Management. However, staff eliminated the reduced
capacity alternative from further detailed consideration because a smaller plant
would not avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts.
Furthermore, this alternative could potentially require future expansion or the
development of additional capacity at another, possibly undeveloped location in the
San Diego region.

SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION
Below is a summary of environmental consequences and mitigation proposed in this
FSA. This section also provides a summary of outstanding information that will be
analyzed in the FSA.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-14

February 2015

 Executive Summary Table 2
Environmental and Engineering Assessment
Technical Area

Complies with
LORS

Impacts
Mitigated

Air Quality/Greenhouse gases
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Hazardous Materials
Land Use
Noise and Vibration
Public Health
Socioeconomics
Soil and Water Resources
Traffic & Transportation
Transmission Line Safety/Nuisance
Visual Resources
Waste Management
Worker Safety and Fire Protection
Facility Design
Geology & Paleontology
Power Plant Efficiency
Power Plant Reliability
Transmission System Engineering

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Additional
Information
Required
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No

AIR QUALITY/GREENHOUSE GASES
For construction and demolition-related impacts, staff concludes that the amended
CECP would have less than significant air quality impacts if the amended staff
conditions of certification are implemented.
For operation-related impacts, staff concludes that the amended CECP would be
consistent with the applicable air quality laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards,
as confirmed by the District’s Preliminary Determination of Compliance, if the amended
staff and District conditions of certification are implemented.
Staff has concluded that the amended CECP would have less than significant GHG
emissions impacts because it would not cause an increase in GHG emissions from the
electricity sector and it would comply with all relevant GHG emission reduction
regulations and policies. Additionally, staff has also determined that the amended CECP
would be consistent with all three main conditions in the precedent decision regarding
GHG emissions established by the Avenal Energy Project’s Final Energy Commission
Decision (not increase the overall system heat rate for natural gas plants, not interfere
with generation from existing or new renewable facilities, and ensure a reduction of
system-wide GHG emissions).

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The amended project would occur on a heavily developed industrial site; all native
vegetation has been previously removed. Therefore, the site is not expected to support
February 2015

1-15

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 any sensitive plant or wildlife species, and would have no onsite impacts on sensitive or
special status species. Offsite, the adjacent Agua Hedionda Lagoon supports special
status species that may be impacted by the project; however, these offsite impacts have
been determined to be similar to impacts associated with the licensed project; and
require no new conditions of certification. Staff has proposed deleting Condition of
Certification BIO-9, as it covered an action that is no longer part of the project
description. With the implementation of Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-8
(including staff’s proposed amendments), the project would remain in compliance with
all LORS and all direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts would be avoided, minimized,
or mitigated to less than significant levels.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The amended CECP differs from the licensed CECP in two important ways that affect
cultural resources. First, the amended CECP proposes to demolish the existing Encina
Power Station (EPS), a potentially historical resource due to its age. Second, the
footprint and areas of proposed ground-disturbance, differ from the licensed CECP in
that there are now ground-disturbing activities around above-ground storage tanks
(ASTs) 1 and 2 and in the area north of the existing switchyard. Staff has analyzed the
impacts of these changes on cultural resources and has concluded that the amended
CECP would not cause new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously
identified impacts on any archaeological, historical built environment, or ethnographic
resources.

EFFICIENCY
While the project would consume substantial amounts of energy, it would do so in a
sufficiently efficient manner to satisfy the project’s objectives of producing peak load
electricity and ancillary load-following services. It would not create significant adverse
effects on energy supplies or resources, would not require additional sources of energy
supply, and would not consume energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner. No
conditions of certification apply to Power Plant Efficiency.

FACILITY DESIGN
Staff has evaluated the proposed engineering LORS, design criteria, and design
methods in the record, and concludes that the project will comply with applicable
engineering LORS. The Facility Design conditions of certification will ensure that the
amended CECP is completed in accordance with these LORS.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY
The site is subject to strong seismic shaking originating from earthquakes from a variety
of local and regional sources. The site is also subject to other less significant geologic
hazards. Staff concludes that, with recommended mitigation, potential adverse impacts
to the project facilities from geologic hazards during their design life would be less than
significant.
While no geologic or mineralogic resources occur on the project site, paleontological
resources have been recovered from soils similar to those that underlie the site. Staff
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-16

February 2015

 concludes that, with recommended mitigation, the potential impacts to geologic,
mineralogic, and paleontologic resources from the construction, operation, and closure
of the proposed project would be less than significant.
Staff concludes that the amended CECP would be designed and constructed in
accordance with all LORS applicable to geological and paleontological resources, and
in a manner that both protects environmental quality and assures public safety.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Energy Commission staff concludes that if under the circumstances of the amended
CECP, the project owner fulfills the requirements of existing Conditions of Certification
HAZ-1 through -10 (with minor revisions to reflect tank demolition, demolition of the
EPS, scheduling, the inclusion of the Carlsbad Police Department for the review and
comment on security plans, and an update to HAZ-10), the amended project would
incorporate sufficient measures to ensure compliance with applicable laws, ordinances,
regulations, and standards.
Staff has also determined that the proposed amended CECP would not have a direct
incremental or cumulative hazardous materials management impact under both normal
and unique catastrophic circumstances and thus mitigation beyond that already required
is not needed.

LAND USE
Staff concludes that the amended CECP would be consistent with applicable LORS,
with the exception of a 35-foot height limitation in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan for
future buildings. The May 31, 2012, Commission Final Decision for the licensed CECP
adopted override findings, under both the Warren-Alquist Act and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), for nonconformance with several land use LORS,
including the 35-foot height limitation. Staff does not believe the nonconformance with
the height limitation would be a significant impact under CEQA, and recommends that
only a LORS override is needed for the amended CECP. The amended project would
not result in any other land use impacts that would be considered significant under
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines or other thresholds identified by staff.

NOISE AND VIBRATION
The Noise and Vibration conditions of certification will ensure that the demolition,
construction, and operational activities related to the amended CECP would comply with
all applicable noise and vibration LORS and would produce no significant adverse noise
impacts on people within the affected area - directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.

PUBLIC HEALTH
Staff concludes that the amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project would incorporate
sufficient measures to ensure that the risks to the off-site public are less than significant
and that it would comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards.
Staff analyzed the proposed changes to the licensed Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(CECP), which include replacing combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle
February 2015

1-17

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 turbines, reconfiguration of the project footprint, and the demolition and removal of
portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff concludes that there would not be any new
significant unmitigated public health impacts nor an increase in severity of
environmental impacts. Staff calculated the maximum theoretical risk and hazard to the
nearby public due to emissions from the facility using the most recent Cal-EPA
approved methodology and found that the risk and hazard would be lower than that
calculated by staff for the licensed project. Staff also concludes that the facility would
not contribute to a significant public health cumulative impact. Because of new
information learned during this amendment process, staff recommends that existing
condition of certification PUBLIC HEALTH-1 in the 2012 decision be deleted as it would
be unnecessary.

RELIABILITY
Based on a review of the Petition to Amend (petition) (LL2014d) and the will-serve letter
for water and sewer service from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, staff concludes
that the amended CECP would be built and would operate in a manner consistent with
industry norms for reliable operation, and that the equivalent availability factor of 95 to
98 percent would be achievable.

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
Staff has determined that like the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would not cause
a significant adverse direct, indirect or cumulative socioeconomic impact on the area’s
housing, schools, law enforcement, or parks and recreation. Like the licensed CECP,
the amended CECP would not induce a substantial population growth or displacement
of population, or induce substantial increases in demand for housing, law enforcement
services, or parks and recreation. Proposed minor edits to Condition of Certification
SOCIO-1 and a new proposed condition of certification, SOCIO-2, would ensure the
amended CECP complies with state laws, which were not applicable to the licensed
CECP (California Education Code and California Government Code).

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES
Staff determined that the amended CECP would not result in significant impacts to soil
or water resources that cannot be avoided or mitigated. A summary of proposed
modifications to the Soil & Water Resources Conditions of Certification is shown in
Soil & Water Resources Table 1. Soil & Water Resources Table 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-18

February 2015

 Soil & Water Resources Table 1
Summary of Proposed Modifications to Conditions of Certification
Condition of
Certification

Proposed Modification(s) to Condition

SOIL&WATER-1

TIER 3 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP: Updated reference to the most recent
general construction storm water permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ.

SOIL&WATER-2

NON-POTABLE CONSTRUCTION WATER USE PLAN: Added language
requiring recycled water use for EPS demolition activities.

SOIL&WATER-3

INDUSTRIAL SWPPP: Updated reference to the most recent industrial storm
water permit (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ).

SOIL&WATER-4

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS: Edited to mitigate for ocean
discharges of EPS wastewater during demolition.

SOIL&WATER-5

POTABLE WATER SUPPLY: Edited to allow potable water use for fire
protection and the emergency backup supply to recycled water.

SOIL&WATER-6

WATER METERING AND REPORTING: Added language to: limit the
amount of potable water use to three acre-feet per year; limit the use of
normal use of potable water to drinking, sanitary, and fire protection testing
purposes; allow potable water as the emergency backup for recycled water;
and require a petition to amend if potable water is needed during operation
for more than just an emergency use that exceeds 300 acre-feet during the
life of the project.

SOIL&WATER-7

SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: Edited to remove requirements for use of the
sanitary sewer system to discharge industrial wastewater.

SOIL&WATER-8

RECYCLED WATER PURCHASE AGREEMENT: Modified language in
Verification to limit recycled water use to 215 acre-feet per year.

SOIL&WATER-9

DEMOLITION WASTEWATER: Added new condition to mitigate for
wastewater disposal needs produced during EPS demolition.

Staff’s LORS analysis was updated to the extent necessary to analyze the compliance
of the amended CECP with LORS and state policies. Staff determined that the
amended CECP would comply with LORS and state policies with implementation of the
conditions of certification, as recommended by staff. Furthermore, staff determined that
the amended CECP does not instigate the need to prepare a Water Supply Assessment
(WSA) because it is not a “Project” as defined by Water Code Section 10912, although
staff did analyze the availability of long-term water supplies for the project, and
determined that such supplies are or will be made available to serve the amended
CECP. The city of Carlsbad has expressed willingness to deliver recycled water to the
project, and the Carlsbad Municipal Water District has issued a “will-serve” letter for
potable and recycled water service and sewer service for the project.

TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION
Staff recommends retaining the eight conditions of certification for the licensed CECP
with minor changes as noted under the “Proposed Conditions of Certification”
subsection of the Traffic and Transportation analysis. These conditions of certification
are recommended to prevent significant adverse traffic and transportation-related
impacts caused by amended CECP construction and demolition traffic, and thermal
plumes during operation of the project. The conditions of certification would also ensure
February 2015

1-19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 that the amended project would comply with all applicable LORS pertaining to traffic and
transportation. Energy Commission staff concludes that with implementation of
Conditions of Certification TRANS-1 through TRANS-8, the amended CECP, like the
licensed CECP, would not generate a significant impact under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines with respect to CEQA Appendix G
issues, “Transportation/Traffic.”

TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY/NUISANCE
The modifications to the amended CECP would relate to the 138 kV and 230 kV
transmission lines and related facilities as already approved in the licensed CECP. In
the presently proposed transmission scheme, Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be connected
to the SDG&E power grid using a new overhead 230-kV line, via the newly expanded
230 kV SDG&E Encina Switchyard. Units 10 and 11 would be connected to the SDG&E
138 kV Encina Switchyard using a new overhead 138 kV transmission line. Since, as
with the licensed CECP, the proposed lines would be located away from area
residences, there would be no potential for residential electric and magnetic field
exposures that have raised concern about human health effects in recent years. As also
with the licensed CECP, the proposed lines would be operated in the SDG&E service
area and therefore, their design, erection, and maintenance plan would be according to
standard SDG&E practices, which conform to applicable laws, ordinances, regulations
and standards (LORS). Since the line designs and operations would be the same for
both the licensed and amended CECP, staff considers the five conditions of certification
for the licensed CECP as adequate to also ensure against significant safety and
nuisance impacts for the amended CECP.

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING
Staff’s analysis concludes the proposed interconnecting facilities for the amended
CECP, including the 230 kV and 138 kV switchyards, the generator tie lines to the
existing 138 kV and 230 kV Encina switchyards and their terminations, and San Diego
Gas and Electric (SDG&E) reliability network upgrades and changes required for the
project. Staff concludes the amended CECP would meet all industry standards and
good utility practices, and comply with applicable engineering laws, ordinances,
regulations, and standards (LORS).
The System Impact studies performed by the California Independent System Operator
indicate that the transmission system impacts to the California grid could be mitigated
by operating procedures and transmission line projects in the SDG&E annual plan.
Therefore the proposed project could reliably interconnect to the SDG&E grid.
The amended CECP would conform to applicable LORS upon satisfactory compliance
with the staff recommended conditions of certification.

VISUAL RESOURCES
Staff concludes that with all proposed and recommended conditions of certification,
potential project-specific visual impacts of the amended CECP could be mitigated to
acceptable, less-than-significant levels. The project, with all proposed and
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-20

February 2015

 recommended conditions, would not have a substantial adverse effect on an identified
scenic vista; on a scenic resource; would not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and would not create a new source
of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area. The project, with recommended mitigation, would thus not cause a significant
aesthetic impact under CEQA.
The amended CECP would not conform with the 35-foot height limit established under
the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program. CECP would conform with all other
applicable aesthetics-related LORS.
Although no project-specific long-term significant impacts are anticipated, staff is
concerned that without appropriate coordination with the city of Carlsbad, Coastal
Commission, NRG, and Caltrans, significant adverse cumulative visual impacts could
result from the planned Caltrans North Coast Interstate 5 HOV/Managed Lanes Project,
in combination with the proposed amended CECP. The widening will require Caltrans to
purchase right-of-way from NRG. In doing so, it must be mindful of NRG’s duties in
VIS-5 to maintain visual screening. There is sufficient space for adequate screening that
should be devised in the course of the ROW negotiation. The negotiation will allow NRG
and the city, as well as interested agencies such as the California Coastal Commission,
to mitigate the impacts of the Caltrans project. The conditions of certification proposed
here accommodate that effort. In order to address potential cumulative impacts, staff
proposes adoption of Condition of Certification VIS-5. On the basis of available
information on the alignments of the I-5 Widening Project, available on-site buffer zone
area, and area required to provide adequate visual screening of the CECP,
implementation of this condition would mitigate potential cumulative impacts to lessthan-significant levels.

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Management of the waste generated during demolition, construction and operation of
the proposed amended CECP, including the closure/decommissioning and demolition of
the existing EPS, would not generate a significant adverse impact for Waste
Management under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
(Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems). Like
the licensed CECP, there is sufficient landfill capacity for the amended CECP. As with
the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would be consistent with the applicable waste
management LORS if staff’s proposed conditions of certification are implemented.

WORKER SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION
Staff has considered all relevant information as well as the views of the Carlsbad Fire
Department and has determined that if existing and one proposed new condition of
certification (WORKER SAFETY-12 to address proposed new natural gas compressor
enclosures), are adopted, the proposed amended CECP would provide adequate levels
of industrial safety and fire protection, would comply with applicable LORS, and would
not have a direct incremental or cumulative impact on the Carlsbad Fire Department’s
ability to respond to a fire or other emergency. Staff recommends that the project owner
provide a Project Construction Safety and Health Program, a Project Operations and
February 2015

1-21

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Maintenance Safety and Health Program, and a Demolition Safety and Health Program
as required by Conditions of Certification WORKER SAFETY-1 and 2, and fulfills the
requirements of Conditions of Certification WORKER SAFETY-3 through 12. Staff
concurs with the views expressed by the Carlsbad Fire Department that it has the ability
to supply emergency services (fire, rescue, EMS, and hazmat spill response) during all
phases of tank removal, construction, and operation of the amended CECP, during
demolition of the EPS, as well as during a major area-wide crisis. Furthermore, staff
also agrees with the position of the Carlsbad Fire Department that the present site
configuration that includes a below-ground bowl and the currently-aligned fire lanes
would provide adequate access for emergency response personnel and equipment and
also be safe for fire fighters.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
Staff received comments on the Executive Summary section of the PSA from one
intervenor and from the Petitioner.

INTERVENOR: POWER OF VISION: TN: 203547, JANUARY 21, 2015:
Comment: Power of Vision requests Energy Commission staff to include the Caruso
Affiliated project in the cumulative impacts analysis for the amended CECP. Power of
Vision acknowledges that although a plan for the property has not been filed with the
city of Carlsbad, Caruso Affiliated has publicly made known their plans to develop an
outdoor commercial shopping center. Because, according to Power of Vision, Caruso
Affiliated is getting ready to start the approval process with the Carlsbad Planning
Department, it is critical that this project be included in the cumulative project list as it is
a large project, adjacent to the proposed project.
Response: While there has been no application submitted to the city of Carlsbad
Planning Department for development on property owned by Caruso Affiliated, which
was confirmed by Carlsbad’s city manager during the PSA workshop, staff has
added the project to the list of cumulative projects for the amended CECP. However,
because very little information is available about the Caruso Affiliated project beyond
the developer’s intention to “eventually…build a destination retail center that would
incorporate shops and restaurants” (Carlsbad Lifestyle 2014), there is not sufficient
information for staff to analyze the cumulative impacts for the amended CECP. If,
and when, a project is proposed on Caruso Affiliated’s property and an application
has been submitted to the Carlsbad Planning Department, the project would
undergo a California Environmental Quality Act analysis before possible approval,
which would include an analysis with the amended CECP as a potential contributor
to cumulative impacts.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-22

February 2015

 PETITIONER: LOCKE LORD LLP: TN: 203549, JANUARY 21, 2015:
Comment: The petitioner’s letter takes issue with staff’s description of the settlement
agreement between the project owner (Cabrillo Power I, LLC, and Carlsbad Energy
Center, LLC), city of Carlsbad, the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, and San Diego
Gas and Electric, as noted below:


In “Project Background,” the PSA inaccurately describes the Settlement Agreement
in the Executive Summary (Project Background (p. 1-2, 1st paragraph) in this
phrase “The signed ‘Settlement Agreement’ included demolition and removal of
Encina Power Station by date certain...”)
Settlement Agreement Article 6.1(b) Redevelopment Process requires
commencement of demolition of existing Encina Power Station (EPS) within one
year after shutdown of EPS. Article 6.1(c) of the Settlement Agreements requires
completion of demolition of EPS to be completed within two years of the
commencement of shutdown of EPS.

 In “Project Background,” the petitioner recommends deletion of the phrase “…;
reducing visual blight and other environmental impacts at the Encina Power Station
site…” from the PSA’s Project Background discussion as these are not specific
goals stated in the “Settlement Agreement.”, and
In “Project Background,” the PSA incorrectly states that demolition and removal of
the Encina Power Station (EPS) by a date certain allows the state to meet its policy
regarding eliminating impacts of once-through cooling (OTC). The owner of the
existing EPS (Cabrillo Power I, LLC) has submitted the required OTC plan to the
State Water Resources Control Board regarding the methods by which the EPS will
comply with the California’s OTC requirements; and the EPS will comply with these
requirements with or without the Amended CECP.
The petitioner recommends deletion of the phrase “…allowing the state to meet its
policy goals regarding eliminating impacts of once-through power plant cooling;…”
In response to (the three) comments above, the petitioner recommends the following
change to the “Project Background” text of the PSA:
The amended CECP evolved from a series of meetings and discussions which
began in late 2013 between Project Owner and its parent company (NRG Energy,
Inc.), the city of Carlsbad, its water agency (Carlsbad Municipal Water District), and
the local investor- owned utility, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E.) The signed
“Settlement Agreement” Article 6.1(b) includes commencement of demolition of
existing EPS within 1 year after shutdown of EPS; and Article 6.1(c) of the
Settlement Agreement requires completion of demolition of EPS to be
completed within 2 years of the commencement of shutdown of EPS included
demolition and removal of the Encina Power Station by a date certain; allowing the
state to meet its policy goals regarding eliminating impacts of once-through power
plant cooling; reducing visual blight and other environmental impacts at the Encina
Power Station site; The Settlement Agreement also identifies the purpose of
meeting documented local capacity requirements and grid stability in this region of
February 2015

1-23

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 San Diego County by adding new generation to help off-set the June 7, 2013 closure
of the 2,200-MW SONGS facility located 25 miles north of the project site in San
Clemente, California.
Response: The Energy Commission is not a party to the “Settlement Agreement”
referenced in the petitioner’s comments, and as such, is not involved with the
enforcement or performance of its provisions. Staff has amended the “Project
Background” language to more generally characterize the settlement agreement
between the petitioner/project owner, city of Carlsbad, the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District, and SDGE, rather than reference any of its specific terms. Staff does not
recommend inserting the petitioner’s proposed language above into this Executive
Summary, as it unnecessarily parses specific articles and terms from an agreement
to which the Energy Commission is not a party. Staff recommends retaining the
reference to elimination of once-through cooling, with the minor adjustments
contained herein.
Comment: The PSA correctly notes the Amended CECP includes the project objectives
included in the Final Decision for the licensed CECP and the project objectives in the
May 2014 Petition to Amend (PTA). However, the PSA does not include the project
objectives from the April 2014 Petition to Remove (PTR), a separate petitioner’s filing.
The petitioner recommends the project objectives of the PTR be included in the PSA for
the Amended CECP project, as follows:
PTR Objectives: provides for removal of the additional Fuel Oil Storage Tanks
(FOSTs) 1, 2 and 4 at EPS to improve access to the CECP construction area,
accommodate construction worker parking, and provide laydown areas for
construction materials and equipment. Construction of either version of the
CECP— the currently licensed version or the version proposed in the PTA—
would benefit from expanded access to and at the project site, and additional
construction laydown and parking areas afforded by the PTR actions.
Response: Staff does not recommend including this language in the Executive
Summary for two reasons: (1) it makes reference to the PTR, which was combined
with the PTA into a single proceeding for consideration by the Committee and
Commission; and (2) it is narrowly focused on internal site features rather than the
broader project objectives developed by staff, and used as guidance in preparing
and analyzing project alternatives in this FSA.
Comment: The petitioner proposes the following edit: “Use existing onsite and offsite
infrastructure to accommodate replacement generation and reduce environmental
impacts and costs and avoid Greenfield development.”
Response: Staff does not recommend making this change to the Project Objectives,
for purposes of consistency with the project objectives developed by staff for
preparing and analyzing project alternatives in this FSA.
Comment: In the Environmental and Engineering Assessment (Summary
Table):Cultural Resources, Energy Commission Cultural Resource staff correctly finds,
and the petitioner agrees, the project will comply with Cultural Resources LORS as
noted in Executive Summary Table 2. However, as noted in Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-24

February 2015

 Table 2, and as discussed in PSA Section 4.4 Cultural Resources, staff has
determined that cultural resources are “Undetermined” for Impact Mitigated as staff
indicates additional information is required. The petitioner disagrees with this
determination by staff. Nonetheless, the petitioner and Energy Commission staff agree
that a targeted cultural resource assessment will be conducted adjacent to the Encina
138 kV and 230 kV switchyard and on the perimeter of aboveground storage tanks 1
and 2 to address the “undetermined” status and that the associated results will be
incorporated in the Final Staff Assessment.
As the petitioner has noted throughout the PTA’s proceedings, the inclusion of Cultural
Resources Conditions of Certification (COCs) CUL-1 through CUL-8 in the PSA for
Amended CECP (CUL 1 through CUL 8 are the same as or similar to Cultural
conditions included by CEC staff in various other power plant licenses) will ensure that
potential impacts to cultural resources are mitigated to a less than a significant impact.
The petitioner agrees with staff that, as found in PSA Section 4.4, the project will comply
with cultural resources LORS with the inclusion of Conditions of Certification CUL-1
through CUL-8; therefore, cultural resource impacts from the amended CECP will be
less than significant after mitigation.
Response: This comment has been sufficiently addressed by Cultural Resources
staff through completion of on-site archaeological surveying and analysis, the
conclusions of which are contained in the Cultural Resources section of this FSA.
Comment: Soil and Water Resources is correctly noted by staff in the Executive
Summary Table 2 as complying with LORS and that soil and water impacts from the
Amended CECP will be less than significant. However, staff requests additional
information from the petitioner in the form of a “will serve letter” from the city of Carlsbad
that the city will supply recycled and potable water to the Amended CECP and accept
industrial wastewater from the Amended CECP. The city of Carlsbad issued the subject
“will serve letter” to the project owner on January 8, 2015 and docketed the letter.
Response: Comment acknowledged, and no response is necessary.
Comment: Petitioner recommends the following change to the text of the “Soil and
Water Resources” subsection in the Executive Summary:
“In addition, staff requires use of recycled water for EPS demolition activities,
if available in sufficient quantities and pressure from a to-be-constructed
connection to the city’s recycled water pipeline east of the railroad tracks and
project owner is able to bring via pipeline the recycled water west under the
railroad tracks.”
Response: Staff recommends no changes to the language in the subsection, since
it could be misinterpreted in relation to the more thorough discussion of recycled
water used for construction and demolition activities in the Soil and Water
Resources section of this FSA.
Comment: The demolition of EPS Tanks 5, 6, and 7 is part of the licensed CECP and is
also part of the amended CECP; therefore, the demolition of tanks 5, 6, and 7 does not

February 2015

1-25

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 represent a cumulative impact to the amended CECP and needs to be deleted from the
Master List of Cumulative Projects.
Response: Staff has removed the demolition of tanks 5, 6, and 7 from the Master
List of Cumulative Projects and clarified its inclusion with the amended CECP where
appropriate in the Final Staff Assessment.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1-26

February 2015

 REFERENCES
CAR2015a – City of Carlsbad/ Bob Therkelsen (TN203507). Statement of the City of
Carlsbad’s willingness to serve potable water, recycled water, and water sewer
service to the amended CECP, dated January 8, 2015. Submitted 01/09/2015.
CEC2012a – California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CEC2014uv – California Energy Commission (TN203457). Preliminary Staff
Assessment, dated December 15, 2014. Submitted 12/17/2014.
CEQ 1997 – Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Justice: Guidance
Under the National Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997,
<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297
.pdf>.
LL2014d – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014e – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014f – Locke Lord LLP (TN202326). Application for the Authority to Construct,
(ATC) Petition to Amend. Submitted 05/13/2014.
LL2015c – Locke Lord LLP (TN203549). Project Owner’s Comments on the
Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted 01/21/2015.
US EPA 1998 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Final Guidance for
Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance
Analyses. April 1998.
<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_epa0498
.pdf>.

February 2015

1-27

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment- Cumulative Projects

~
'

Carlsbad Energy Cenler
Project Boundary
6 Miles Bufter lrom
Project Boundary

Cumulativ e Projects

~

m

•

Point
Line

()

c

-i

<
m
en

c

s:
s:
)>
::0

-<

Other Features

er

City
Major Road

H--l

Railroad
W:iter Body

Project lnrormallon with Label ID is
hied on Tablo 1.

1:140,000
0

2

Mi es

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: OpenStreetMap July 2014, ESRI, Bing Aerial Image, City of Carlsbad, CEC Staff

 INTRODUCTION
Mike Monasmith
On May 31, 2012, the California Energy Commission approved the 558-megawatt (MW)
combined-cycle Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) for construction and operation.
The licensed CECP was to be a natural-gas fired, air-cooled power plant approved for
construction on the northeastern section of the existing Encina Power Station (EPS) in
Carlsbad, California. Its operation would have allowed for the permanent retirement of
EPS Units 1-3. EPS Units 4-5 would continue operation, although a December 31, 2017
State Water Resources Control Board deadline for discontinuing use of seawater for
once-through cooling (OTC) would necessitate future re-configuration of EPS’ cooling
system, or complete cessation of current electricity production.
A shift in the local and regional electricity landscape then occurred in 2013 with the
closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) in San Clemente,
California – 25 miles north of Carlsbad. As a 20 percent owner of SONGS, local
investor-owned utility San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) began the process of
procuring new in-basin generation to replace SONGS, as well as to help integrate its
growing portfolio of renewable energy production. A new round of procurement offers
and an agreement between SDG&E, the city of Carlsbad, and the project owner
resulted in the Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC (petitioner) filing two petitions with the
California Energy Commission to amend the licensed CECP. The proposed amended
CECP contains several modifications, the most notable being the redesign of CECP
power plant into a simple-cycle facility, and the shutdown and demolition of the existing
Encina Power Station (EPS). All proposed modifications are described in the Project
Description section of this Final Staff Assessment (FSA).
This FSA addresses potential impacts related to the construction and operation of the
amended CECP, including the demolition of EPS. Where impacts are found to be the
same or less than impacts of the licensed CECP, staff applied the existing conditions of
certification, as contained in the Final Commission Decision for the licensed CECP
(CEC2012a), to reduce those impacts to less than significant. Aspects of the modified
project that are new or substantially different from the licensed project have been
identified and examined for potential impacts.
In this document, the term “licensed CECP” refers to the approved project. The
proposed modified project is referred to as the “amended CECP.” The amended CECP
would involve a schedule that is described in four separate and sequential phases: (1)
Phase I tank demolition; (2) Phase II construction and commissioning of the new power
plant; (3) Phase III retirement and decommissioning of the EPS facility; and, (4) Phase
IV demolition of the EPS facility. For details about the expected time periods of the
amended CECP schedule, see Table 1 in the Project Description section of this FSA.
The amended CECP would consist of six, GE LMS 100 combustion-turbine units
operating in simple-cycle mode. The amended CECP would generate 632 MW net
output rate at average annual ambient condition of 60.3 degrees Fahrenheit [°F] with
evaporative cooling and 79 percent relative humidity), and is designed to provide
peaking power at a maximum 31 percent annual capacity factor.

February 2015

2-1

INTRODUCTION

 The proposed modifications would align the project to better conform to current
electrical energy requirements. The amended CECP would be a peaking facility that is
ideally suited to serve the needs of Southern California’s electric system that will
increasingly rely on intermittent renewable resources such as solar and wind. The
amended CECP is designed to provide the fast-start, peaking, and ramping capabilities
that would be necessary to facilitate increasing reliance by load-serving entities like
SDG&E, on renewable resources and displacement of older, less efficient, conventional
facilities.
The six simple-cycle turbines would be capable of fast-start operation (within about ten
minutes from cold status), and are designed to be started, ramped up and down, and
shut down on an intra-day basis as needed to meet the varying needs of the system.
With an expected maximum annual capacity factor of 31 percent, the amended CECP
would operate as determined by the California Independent System Operator.
As noted above, SDG&E was one of the parties who signed the January 14, 2014
“Settlement Agreement” between petitioner, Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC, and its
parent company, NRG, Inc., the city of Carlsbad, and the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District. The FSA describes modifications and refinements to the licensed CECP that
were first stipulated in the Settlement Agreement (Appendix 2A of the May 2, 2014
Petition to Amend). The FSA provides detailed analyses on whether the modifications
and refinements sought by the petitioner would result in any environmental
consequences not previously analyzed and, if the modifications would comply with all
applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) at the local, state and
federal level.

INTRODUCTION

2-2

February 2015

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Mike Monasmith

INTRODUCTION
The Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment
(amended CECP) contains technical analyses of potential environmental and public
health and safety effects associated with the implementation of proposed modifications
to the May 31, 2012 licensed CECP1 approved by the California Energy Commission.
The project owner and petitioner, Carlsbad Energy Center LLC, an indirect, wholly
owned subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc. (petitioner/project owner), proposes to modify the
project licensed by the Energy Commission (licensed CECP) by amending the project
(amended CECP).
The amended CECP would still be located on the northeastern corner of the 95-acre
Encina Power Station (EPS) property in the northern coastal San Diego County city of
Carlsbad, California. Modifications to the licensed CECP electrical generation
equipment and associated linear features include changes that would help fulfill the
power generation needs of the San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) service territory, as
well as provide local and electrical transmission grid support in San Diego County and
the southern Orange County and Inland Empire communities served by the investorowned utility. Prior to construction of the amended CECP, the petitioner seeks
permission to demolish three above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) to provide
space for power plant construction, parking and lay-down,AST 4, (along with the ASTs
5, 6 and 7, currently constitute the EPS eastern tank farm, and would form the 30-acre
footprint upon which the amended CECP power plant would be constructed (ASTs 1
and 2 would provide necessary parking and laydown area required during construction).
Following successful commercial operation, petitioner seeks a maximum three-year
period for EPS shutdown and decommissioning, as well demolition of all above-ground
EPS facilities west of the North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad tracks.
The proposed changes of the amended CECP were filed by the petitioner in two
separate petitions (on April 29, 2014, and May 2, 2014). The two petitions were
consolidated and combined into one proceeding by the Committee reviewing this case
on September 23, 2014. The purpose of this FSA is for Energy Commission staff to
provide testimony on the modifications to the licensed CECP sought by the
petitioner/project owner, and determine whether such proposed modifications would
result in any new impacts or any increase in the severity of impacts previously analyzed
and addressed in the licensed CECP proceeding. This document also contains Energy
Commission staff’s review of the amended CECP to determine if the modified project
would conform to local, state, and federal laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards
(LORS).

1 California Energy Commission. 2012. Carlsbad Energy Center Project Commission Decision. June.
Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-800-2011-004/CEC-800-2011-004CMF.pdf.

February 2015

3-1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 NECESSITY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
California Code of Regulations, title 20, sections 1769(a)(1)(B) and 1769(a)(1)(C) of the
California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) Siting Regulations require a
discussion of the necessity for proposed changes to a licensed project and whether the
modification(s) are based on information known by the petitioner during the certification
proceeding. The purpose of the proposed changes is to help make the amended CECP
better conform to current electrical energy requirements by providing fast-response
peaking generation that would respond to the unanticipated retirement of the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Furthermore, it could not be anticipated during the
original proceeding that changing circumstances since the licensed CECP approval in
May 2012 created a unique opportunity for cooperation with the city of Carlsbad (city).
The result was an agreement between the city, the local investor-owned utility and the
project owner that seeks a changed project design, the full shut-down, demolition and
removal of EPS Units 1 through 5, and other above-ground features west of the railroad
tracks on the 95-acre EPS property.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
As mentioned above, the amended CECP evolved from an initial series of meetings and
discussions between the licensed CECP project owner and its parent company
(Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC and NRG, Inc., respectively), the city of Carlsbad, the
local water agency (Carlsbad Municipal Water District), and the local investor-owned
utility, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E.) These discussions culminated on January
14, 2014, with a signed “Settlement Agreement” signed by all five parties. The
agreement included the blueprint for the project modifications that would result in the
amended CECP. The motivating factors for the five-party settlement agreement
included several factors, including demolition and removal of the Encina Power Station
by a date certain; allowing the state to meet its policy goals regarding eliminating
impacts of once-through power plant cooling; reducing visual blight and other
environmental impacts at the Encina Power Station site important to local Carlsbad
residents; and meeting documented local capacity requirements and grid stability in this
region of northern San Diego County by adding new generation to help off-set the
premature closure of the 2,200-MW San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San
Clemente, California on June 7, 2013.

PROJECT LOCATION AND REGIONAL SETTING
The amended CECP would be located on the northeastern section of the Encina Power
Station (EPS) site, located immediately south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, within the
city of Carlsbad, in northern San Diego County. The EPS and the amended CECP (as
well as the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project) are located at 4600 Carlsbad
Boulevard, along the southern edge of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the Pacific
Ocean. The EPS property comprises approximately 95 acres, and is generally bounded
by SDG&E property on the south; the Pacific Ocean and Carlsbad Boulevard on the
west; Interstate 5 on the east; and the southern shore of the outer and middle basins of
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the north (see Project Description Figures 1 and 1A ).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-2

February 2015

 DESCRIPTION OF LICENSED PROJECT
The licensed CECP would have been a 558-megawatt (MW) gross combined-cycle
power generating facility configured with two, Siemens SCC6-5000F natural-gas fired
combustion turbines and a steam-turbine generator in a combined-cycle configuration.
As proposed, the 23-acre licensed CECP would be constructed and operated on the
northeast section of the larger, 95-acre EPS power plant complex. The proposed
amended CECP power plant site is currently occupied by the EPS east tank farm,
including above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (AST’s) 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Prior to demolition activities in Phase I for the amended CECP, above-ground fuel oil
storage tanks (AST’s) 5, 6, and 7 will have been removed, as previously approved by
the licensed CECP permit. The following briefly outline the permitted tasks that will be
performed in association of the removal of AST’s 5, 6, and 7:


Demolition of AST’s 5, 6, and 7



Berm removal between AST’s 5 and 6 as well as ASTs 6 and 7



Remediation activities for AST’s 5, 6, and 7

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES
The 632-MW amended CECP would be located at the same, slightly larger northeastern
parcel of the 95-acre EPS power plant complex. The amended CECP would involve
several phases over a 64-month period. These phases, described in detail below, would
include the Phase I demolition of above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) 1, 2 and 4
(following demolition of those AST’s permitted by the licensed CECP for demolition, i.e.
AST’s, 5, 6 and 7). Phase II would involve the construction, commissioning and
operation of the amended CECP power plant. Following commercial operation of the
amended CECP, Phase III would begin (on or before December 31, 2017); a maximum
12-month EPS phase including cessation of all once-through seawater cooling (OTC))
by December 31, 2017 to comply with state water board OTC Policy. The final Phase IV
of the amended CECP involves the demolition of EPS Units 1-5, the 200-ft. concrete
enclosure building housing the units, the 400-ft exhaust stack, and other above-ground
ancillary facilities located west of the North Coast Transit District (NCTD) railroad tracks.
The only facilities west of the railroad tracks that would remain following Phase IV
demolition would be facilities associated with the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination
Project (CSDP), and transmission and linear features necessary for the operation of the
amended CECP power plant.
The amended CECP electrical generation power plant re-configuration would include six
simple-cycle General Electric LMS100 natural gas-fired combustion turbines
(designated amended CECP Units 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11). Similar to the licensed CECP,
the amended CECP units would interconnect with SDG&E’s 138-kv and 230-kV
switchyard facilities. The estimated total length of the 230kV gen-tie line would be 2,171
feet. The estimated total length of the 138kV gen-tie line would be 1,150 feet. All key
power plant operation and maintenance features would be located to the eastern side of
the railroad tracks within the 30-acre project footprint (an expansion of seven acres from
February 2015

3-3

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 the licensed CECP footprint). Relocated features would include a new administrative
and control building and smaller warehouse.
While the licensed CECP would have consisted of two combustion turbine generators
(CTGs) and a steam-turbine generator in combined-cycle configuration, the amended
CECP would consist of six, General Electric LMS simple-cycle CTGs that would operate
a maximum of 2,700 hours per year per turbine, with no more than 400 startups and
shutdowns per year. By using smaller, fast-start, peaking units instead of larger,
combined-cycle power trains, the amended CECP would have greater operational
flexibility for use at various levels required by the state’s electricity balancing authority,
the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). The flexibility of the simple-cycle
amended CECP would enhance its ability to respond to changing electricity demands in
the state from cyclical and intermittent renewable generation in a more efficient and
integrated manner for SDG&E. The amended CECP would be a fast-start, readily
dispatchable source of 632-MW of electricity. Additionally, the amended CECP would
retire the older EPS generating facility, and eliminate its permitted use of up to 837
million gallons/day of sea water for once-through cooling. Cessation of OTC by EPS
Units 1-5 before December 31, 2017 allows NRG to comply with the state water board’s
OTC requirements.
A new 138-kV transmission line route and a new 230-kV transmission line route are
proposed for this project (see Project Description Figure 2). The 1,150-foot-long, 138kV transmission line and 2,171 -foot-long, 230-kV transmission line would be located
along the eastern and southern boundary of the CECP site before crossing the railroad
tracks and tying into the SDG&E Encina switchyards. Additional details regarding the
transmission lines are provided in the Transmission System Engineering section of
this document.
To support the evaporative air-cooling system make-up and other industrial uses, the
amended CECP would use no more than 215 acre-feet per year (afy) of California Code
of Regulations, Title 22 recycled water provided by the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD). The evaporative cooling blow-down would be recycled to an onsite
raw water storage tank for reuse. Recycled water would be provided to the amended
CECP through a 36-inch diameter pipeline that begins at the CWRF, with 3,700 feet still
remaining to be constructed within city easements from Cannon Road along the
Avenida Encinitas right-of-way.
Potable water for drinking, eye protection, safety showers, restrooms, and emergency
fire protection would be provided from the city’s existing potable water system, as
planned for the licensed CECP and would not exceed three acre-feet per year.
Sanitary and industrial wastewater would be discharged to a planned 42-inch Encina
Wastewater Authority (EWA) sanitary sewer system pipeline that would run along the
western edge of the amended CECP site. The EWA is a joint power authority that
includes the city of Carlsbad. Connection to the sewer line would require approximately
1,100 feet of new, onsite piping for points of connection from the proposed six peaking
units, administration and control building, and operations/maintenance building.
Wastewater would flow approximately 1.5 miles south for processing at the EWA’s
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-4

February 2015

 GENERATING COMPONENTS
The amended CECP would consist of six independent combustion turbine generators
(CTG) designed for demineralized water injection to reduce nitrogen oxide production;
an air-cooled fin-fan cooler; a shell and tube heat exchanger for cooling of system
cooling water as well as the intercooler between the low-pressure and high-pressure
compressor stages; and associated support equipment providing 632 MW net output.
The proposed combustion turbines are General Electric LMS100 units. The CTGs would
be supported by common, balance of plant (BOP) equipment including: a bulk water
storage and treatment plant, fuel gas compressor enclosure, compressed air system,
fire protection enclosure, and an aqueous ammonia storage area.
Each GE LMS100 turbine is capable of reaching 100 percent load in ten minutes or less
with ramp rates up to 50 MW per minute, providing rapid response to changes in grid
demand and flexibility for dispatch by the CAISO.

GENERATING PROCESS
Within each CTG, combustion air would flow through the inlet air filter, through the
evaporative cooler and associated air inlet ductwork, be compressed in the gas turbine
compressor section, and then flow to the CTG combustor. Natural gas fuel would be
injected into the compressed air in the combustor and ignited. The hot combustion
gases would expand through the power turbine section of the CTG, causing the shaft to
rotate, creating electricity and driving the electric generator and CTG compressor.

COMBUSTION TURBINE GENERATORS
In a typical GE LMS100 CTG, thermal energy is produced through the combustion of
natural gas, which is converted into mechanical energy required to drive the combustion
turbine compressors and electric generators. Each CTG system consists of a stationary
combustion turbine generator, supporting systems, and associated auxiliary equipment.
The CTGs would be equipped with the following required accessories to provide safe
and reliable operation:


Inlet air filters



Inlet air evaporative coolers



Demineralized water injection skid



Compressor intercooler



Fin/fan cooler, shell and tube heat exchanger as well as a cooling water circulating
pump



Metal acoustical enclosure



Redundant lube oil coolers



Compressor wash system



Fire detection and protection system

February 2015

3-5

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 EMISSIONS CONTROL
Metal acoustical enclosures would be provided for the CTGs and respective accessory
equipment, all of which would be located outdoors. Each CTG exhaust would be
equipped with a carbon monoxide (CO) oxidation catalyst and a selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) emission control system that uses 19-percent aqueous ammonia in the
presence of a catalyst to reduce oxides of nitrogen (NOx) levels in the exhaust gases.
Ammonia from the 19-percent aqueous ammonia storage tank would be vaporized and
then injected into the CTG exhaust gas stream via a grid of nozzles located upstream of
the catalyst module. The subsequent chemical reaction would reduce NOx to nitrogen
and water. Exhaust from each CTG would be discharged from individual, 90-foot-tall,
14.25-foot-diameter exhaust stacks.

MAJOR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT AND SYSTEMS
For the amended CECP, like the licensed CECP, the bulk of the electric power
produced by the facility would be interconnected to the CAISO grid via the existing
SDG&E 138-kV and 230-kV switchyards located on the EPS site. A small amount
(approximately 20.6 MW) of parasitic electric power would be used to power the
amended CECP’s onsite auxiliaries such as pumps, fans and compressors, control
systems, and general facility loads including lighting, heating, and air conditioning.
Some power would also be converted from alternating current (AC) to direct current
(DC), which would be used as backup power for control systems and other critical uses.

WATER SUPPLY AND USE
The amended CECP would use Title 22 recycled water as the primary water source.
The ocean water alternative approved in the licensed CECP would not be implemented
as a backup water supply for the amended CECP. And while high-purity demineralized
water would no longer be required for the steam cycle, it would still be required for
emission control via direct injection into the combustion turbines and turbine wash
water.

PRIMARY WATER SUPPLY SOURCE
Recycled water would be obtained via a new, 36-inch diameter recycled water pipeline
operated by the city of Carlsbad/Encina Water Authority. This entails the extension of
the existing 36-inch diameter recycled water pipeline that currently terminates at
Cannon Road. However, the city is implementing a capital improvement project to
extend the 36-inch diameter recycled water pipeline through an existing easement north
from Cannon Road across the Encina Power Station along the east side of the railroad
tracks, and continuing north beyond the Encina Power Station and Agua Hedionda
Lagoon. The amended CECP would include a connecting pipeline to the city’s recycled
water pipeline for industrial water use.
The 500,000-gallon raw water storage tank would be pretreated with a filter and then
passed through a series of demineralizers. The pre-filter and demineralizer vessels
would be trailer-mounted and connected with piping and hoses. As the resin beds within
a trailer are exhausted, the trailer would be disconnected and taken off-site to the
trailer’s lessors’ facility for regeneration. Between two to five trailers a day could be

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-6

February 2015

 exchanged, depending upon dispatch. The demineralizer trailer units would be located
on the northeastern corner of the amended CECP project footprint.
The demineralized water would be stored in a dedicated 250,000-gallon demineralized
water storage tank and used for NOx emission control of the combustion turbines. A
portion of the demineralized water would be mixed with untreated process water in a
2,500-gallon mix tank and used for evaporative cooling of the inlet air for the
combustion turbines, as needed. The demineralized water, mixed with minimal, nontoxic cleaning chemicals, would also be used for infrequent cleaning of the internal
components of the combustion turbines during scheduled outages.
The recycled water balance diagram (Project Description Figure 6) shows the
equipment required as well as water uses and waste streams for both a daily maximum
and yearly average use. The water diagram is more fully discussed and analyzed in the
Soil & Water Resources section of this FSA.

POTABLE WATER
The amended CECP would require minimal potable water for the administration/control
and warehouse buildings, as well as for emergency eye wash stations and showers in
the power block area. Similar to the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would use
potable water as the backup water source for all CECP needs should recycled water
become unavailable or be interrupted. Potable water would be supplied from the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District system, and would be protected against crosscontamination with recycled water by use of a reduced-pressure backflow prevention
device or air gap.

CONSTRUCTION
Demolition, remediation, construction, decommissioning, and site restoration activities
proposed by the amended CECP would take 64 months to complete, are anticipated to
begin in the 2nd or 3rd quarter of 2015, and would be completed in the 4th quarter of
2020. During that period, the amended CECP power plant would come online prior to
December 31, 2017. Construction of the amended CECP’s six generating units
(designated Units 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) would last approximately 21 months, with
commissioning activities requiring three additional months.
Like the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would be constructed within the recessed,
25-feet below-grade, location where the EPS east tank farm currently resides. This
location helps reduce and/or eliminate many issues commonly associated with large
power plants, some of which posed community challenges for the licensed CECP. For
instance, by being constructed at a lower elevation than the existing topography, the
generating units present a lower visual profile, and the site’s bowl-shaped topography
provides sound energy attenuation (combined effect of scattering and absorbing noise
created by the power plant). Additionally, the amended CECP would be located east of
the NCTD railroad tracks that bisect the EPS property, and would be farther from
Carlsbad State Beach than the existing EPS facilities, ensuring the amended CECP’s
consistency with the city’s land-use goal of enabling future non-power-production
redevelopment for portions of the former EPS footprint west of the railroad tracks.

February 2015

3-7

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 Once the amended CECP units are online, EPS Units 1 through 5 and the 17-MW
“black start” generator would be decommissioned in phases as amended CECP Units 611 are brought online to replace existing EPS power generation.
To support the 21-month construction activities, approximately 19.3 acres of the EPS
site west of the railroad tracks would be used for a combination of equipment laydown
and construction worker parking (see Project Description Figure 3). Some preparation
would be required to ensure the areas are usable for the purpose intended, including
removal of abandoned fuel oil storage tanks 1 and 2 (to their concrete ring-wall
foundations), and distribution of gravel over laydown areas. Removal of the eastern
fence of the SDG&E Encina switchyard would also occur so that a 435 foot-long trench
(five feet deep by two feet diameter) can be dug, allowing for placement of the
underground portion of the 230-kV transmission line to occur. Similar to the licensed
CECP, no offsite construction worker parking or construction equipment or material laydown areas would be necessary.
The approximately 30-acre amended CECP site is located in an area zoned Public
Utility, which specifically allows electrical generation and transmission facilities. Project
Description Figure 4 shows the location of the amended CECP generating facility, its
electric transmission lines, natural gas supply pipeline, reclaimed water supply pipeline,
and potable water supply line. Following demolition of the aboveground EPS structures,
parcels comprising Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 210-010-4600 would become
available for joint non-power redevelopment in conjunction with NRG, Inc., as defined in
the January 14, 2014 Settlement Agreement. The removal of the EPS units would
create environmental benefits, including the elimination of 857-million gallons per day of
seawater OTC permitted for the existing EPS units. This would enable compliance with
the state water board’s existing December 31, 2017 deadline for EPS to meet OTC
Policy requirements to decrease in impingement and entrainment of marine organisms
per EPA 316 ((b) Clean Water Act regulations.

SCHEDULE
The 64-month amended CECP schedule would involve four phases, including:

Phase I: Tank Demolition and Remediation: 3th Quarter, 2015 through 4th
Quarter, 2015
Amended CECP Phase I involves the demolition of above-ground fuel oil storage tanks
(ASTs) 1, 2 and 4, and removal of the earthen berm that separate AST 4 and AST 5.
These modifications to the licensed CECP were initially proposed through the April 29,
2014 Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities that was subsequently blended into one
amendment proceeding by Order of the CECP Amendment Committee reviewing this
proceeding. Activities will include:


Demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4;



Removal of berm between ASTs 4 and 5



Removal of oily sands from under ASTs 1, 2, and 4, as necessary

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-8

February 2015

 Note: licensed CECP activities previously permitted as part of the Energy Commission’s
May 31, 2012 Final Decision are scheduled to begin by March, 2015 and will include:


Demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7



Berm removal between ASTs 5 and 6 as well as between ASTs 6 and 7



Soil remediation activities for ASTs 5, 6, and 7, as necessary

Phase II: Construction / Commissioning / Operation of amended
CECP: 4th Quarter, 2015 through 4th Quarter 2017
The next amended CECP phase would involve the construction, commissioning and
operation of the reconfigured power plant, and would be expected to commence late in
the fourth quarter of 2015. Construction of the 632-MW facility and associated linear
facilities (recycled water pipeline, 138-kV and 230-kV transmission lines, and upgrade of
the SDG&E 230-kV switchyard) would last approximately 21 months. Following a threemonth commissioning process of the facility and successful commercial operation in the
3rd or 4th quarter of 2017, generation from the EPS would no longer be necessary and
permanent decommissioning of the EPS power plant would then begin. According to the
amended CECP filings, Phase II is expected to last a total of 24 months (21 months for
construction, and three months for commissioning and start-up trials).

Phase III: Retirement and Decommissioning of EPS units: 4th Quarter,
2017 through 4th Quarter, 2018
With the transfer of electricity production from the aging EPS Units 1-5 to the newly
constructed amended CECP Units 6-11, EPS would be permanently shut-down and
decommissioned. The settlement agreement has indicated that the decommissioning
phase would last no more than 12 months, and involve several activities following the
short process of shutting down the electricity-generating capability of EPS Units 1-5.
Several activities would occur prior to the commencement of demolishing EPS
structures, including


De‐energize unnecessary electrical equipment. Some electrical supplies may remain
in service in support of demolition activities.



Purge industrial gases from equipment (e.g., natural gas, hydrogen)



Remove industrial chemicals from the site, including aqueous ammonia, and
mercury if present



Remove oil from all pumps, motors, pipes, oil reservoirs, transformers, and other
equipment



Electrically isolate decommissioned equipment



Physically isolate decommissioned equipment by disconnecting from piping systems
or other means



Operate and maintain vital equipment as required for environmental permit
compliance (e.g., storm drainage system



Verify that all facilities are left in a safe and secure condition

February 2015

3-9

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 Another component of Phase III activities would be the removal and recycling of
equipment for resale or reuse. EPS equipment subject to resale could include
generators, transformers, switchgear, chillers and other power and cooling systems.

PHASE IV: EPS Demolition: 1st Quarter, 2019 through 4th Quarter, 2020
The final Phase IV of the Amended CECP involves the above grade demolition of EPS
Units 1-5, the above grade demolition of the 200-foot concrete enclosure building housing
the units, the above grade demolition of the 400-ft exhaust stack, and other aboveground facilities located west of the railroad tracks. The only facilities that would remain
west of the railroad tracks following the 22-month demolition period would be associated
with the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project and transmission and linear features
necessary for the operation of the amended CECP.
Demolition activities would last 22 months, and would occur through seven specified
steps, according to the January 14, 2014 settlement agreement, including:


Power plant building and contents



Combustion turbine and structures, east power plant building



Ocean water intake/discharge piping, structures and equipment



Northwest structures, tanks, and piping



Fuel oil piping and supports



Southeast corner structures



Two domestic water tanks on SDG&E property

Site restoration (grading and contouring) activities would last two months and complete
the amended CECP activities.
Table 1
Amended CECP Estimated Schedule
I
P
H
A
S
E
S

II
III
IV
YR
QTR

1

2015
2 3

4

1

2016
2 3

4

1

2017
2 3

4

1

2018
2 3

4

1

2019
2 3

4

1

2020
2 3

4

SITE ARRANGEMENT
The amended CECP site plan is shown in Project Description Figure 5. The primary
operations access would be from Carlsbad Boulevard, through the existing EPS site
and the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (CSDP). The main operations access
would also serve as a secondary construction access point. The primary construction
access would be from the Cannon Road Service Center gate, east of the railroad tracks
along Avenda Encinas. Heavy haul truck access would be from Cannon Road through
the Avenida Encinas entrance past the SDG&E switchyard property, east of the railroad
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-10

February 2015

 tracks. An existing North County Transit District railroad spur would be used for select
heavy and oversize equipment deliveries during construction. Please see the Traffic
and Transportation section of this document for more details.
Portions of the amended CECP site would be paved to provide internal access to
project facilities and buildings. The area surrounding equipment, where not paved,
would have gravel surfacing. The138-kV and 230-kV high-voltage transmission lines
would run from the three amended CECP power blocks before terminating at the
existing SDG&E 138-kV and 230-kV switchyards on the EPS property. The onsite route
for the high-voltage lines is shown in Project Description Figure 2. The single-line
representation of the interconnection scheme is depicted in, and further analyzed in, the
Transmission System Engineering section. Based on the previously approved large
generator interconnection agreement (LGIA), SDG&E would expand the existing Encina
230-kV switchyard to accommodate the new interconnection from the amended CECP
power block.

CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES
The amended CECP’s connection to the existing potable water line and connection to
the existing EWA sewer line would be constructed from the tie points immediately west
of the power plant site. The 36-inch diameter recycled water pipeline is more extensive
in scope, extending approximately 3,700 feet from the south at Cannon Road. The
pipeline to Cannon Road (and Avenida Encinas) originates at the Carlsbad Water
Recycling Facility, approximately 1.5 miles south of the EPS (the EWA complex also
includes the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility). The recycled water pipeline would
be installed under Cannon Road using partial traffic lane closures to accommodate
open trench construction. The installation crossing under Cannon Road is expected to
occur over a period of approximately three weeks.
All trenches would be backfilled using excavated soil and compacted for pipe stability
and minimum subsequent subsidence. Backfill would be to original grade or level. The
Cannon Road crossing for the recycled water line would be repaved to achieve original
traffic surface conditions.

WATER REQUIREMENTS
The replacement of the licensed CECP combined-cycle units by the amended CECP
simple-cycle units, along with the reduction of the maximum annual capacity factor
(from 60 percent to 31 percent), will reduce the project’s total water consumption from
an average of 440 gallons/minute to 120 gallon/minute. The estimated average daily,
maximum daily, and maximum annual quantity of recycled water required for operation
of the amended CECP is presented in Table 2, below. All water requirements shown
below are estimated quantities based on the simple-cycle amended CECP operating at
a 31percent capacity factor, with evaporative cooling.2

2 Peak water requirements shown in Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-2 are based on the plant operating at full load,
with evaporative cooling, and an ambient temperature of 60.3F and 79.0 percent relative humidity.

February 2015

3-11

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 Table 2
Daily and Annual Water Use for Amended CECP Operations:
Reclaimed Water Supply
Water Use
Reclaimed Water
Potable Water

Average Daily Use
(gpm)
120*
1.3

Maximum Daily Use
(gpd)
464,400
2,680

Maximum Annual Use
(afy)
215*
3

*Based on an annual operation of 2,700 hours/year at full plant output

PLANT COOLING SYSTEMS
The amended CECP cooling system would consist of air‐cooled fin‐fan coolers, shell
and tube heat exchangers with closed loop circulating water pumps and evaporative
coolers. The heat rejection system would cool the CTG lube oil to within specified limits
by the CTG manufacturer as well as reject the heat created by the high‐temperature
inter‐cooler.
Mixed recycled and demineralized water would be used for evaporative cooling. Mixing
of reclaimed and demineralized water would avoid formation of scales on the
evaporative cooler media. It is estimated that 50 percent of the evaporative cooling
water would be lost to atmosphere via CTG exhaust and the remaining 50 percent
would be recycled to the raw water storage tank. The evaporative cooling water would
not be treated with any chemicals.

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Similar to the licensed CECP, wastes produced at the amended CECP would be
properly collected, treated if necessary, and properly disposed of. Wastes would include
process and sanitary wastewater, and nonhazardous waste and hazardous waste, both
liquid and solid, as detailed in the Waste Management section of this document.

Wastewater Collection, Treatment, and Disposal
Evaporative cooler blowdown and other plant industrial water would be internally
recycled for reuse. Miscellaneous plant drains (sample cooling, pump leaks, equipment
washwater, etc.) would be collected. Oil and suspended solids contamination would be
removed by an oil/water separator and the balance would be discharged to the city and
Encina Wastewater Authority sewer system at approximately five gallons-per-minute
(gpm). Wastewater from sinks, toilets, showers, eye washes and other sanitary facilities
that originated from Carlsbad Municipal Water System-supplied potable water would
also be discharged to the sewer system (at ~1 gpm). Total wastewater discharged to
the sewer system during operations is estimated to be six gpm, or about ten afy. This
waste water stream would be accommodated and serviced by the city of Carlsbad
sewer system and the Encina Wastewater Authority treatment systems.
Accidental leaks and discharges inside the power generating areas would be contained
and disposed offsite, in accordance with approved Emergency Response and Spill
Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans. The trailer-mounted,
demineralizer units would be regenerated off-site and would produce no liquid or solid
wastes at the project site.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-12

February 2015

 Demineralizer Disposal
Specific processing of recycled water through the demineralizer units is discussed in
more detail in the Soil & Water Resources and Waste Management sections of this
document.
Plant Drains and Oil/Water Separator
Blowdown from the inlet air evaporative cooling system would be recycled to the raw
water tank for re-use. Normal plant drains would collect any containment area
washdown and drainage from facility equipment. Water from these areas would be
collected in a system of floor drains, hub drains, and sumps. Oil and grease and
suspended solids would be filtered from the water and the balance discharged to the
sewer system. Water from drains that can potentially contain accidental spills of oil or
grease would be routed through an oil/water separator first. Effluent from the oil/water
separator would be discharged to the sewer system. Plant wastewater that might carry
high amounts of oil and grease or chemicals would be collected and removed for offsite
disposal.
Storm Drains
The storm drain system would be installed to manage storm water collection around
each power block and the balance of plant area, with gravity drains to an oil/water
separator. A secondary containment system would provide additional verification that no
hydrocarbons are present prior to pumping the water to a bio-swale on the north side of
the amended CECP site. From the swale, the remaining water that has not evaporated
or absorbed would be drained through the existing permitted discharge into the lagoon.
An emergency generator would supply backup power for the storm drain system. The
existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the EPS
would be modified to support the amended CECP.

Solid Wastes
The amended CECP would produce wastes typical of power generation operations and
routine maintenance. Generation plant wastes include oily rags, broken and rusted
metal and machine parts, defective or broken electrical materials, empty containers, and
other solid wastes, including the typical refuse generated by workers. Solid wastes
would be trucked offsite for recycling and/or disposal.

Hazardous Wastes
Several methods would be used to properly manage and dispose of hazardous wastes
generated during Phase I and II construction and Phase III and IV decommissioning and
demolition activities. Please see the Hazardous Materials Management and Waste
Management sections of this document for more details. Waste lubricating oil from
operations of the amended CECP would be recovered and recycled by a waste oil
recycling contractor. Spent lubrication oil filters would be disposed of in a Class I landfill.
Spent SCR and oxidation catalysts would be recycled by the supplier or disposed of in
accordance with regulatory requirements. Workers would be trained to handle
hazardous wastes generated at the site.

February 2015

3-13

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 EMISSIONS
NOx Emission Control
The CTGs selected for the amended CECP require high-purity demineralized water for
injection into the combustors to control emissions of NOX. In addition, the exhaust duct
work incorporates SCR systems to further control NOx concentrations in the exhaust
stacks to no more than 2.5 parts per million, by volume dry (ppmvd), corrected to 15
percent oxygen (O2). The SCR process would use 19 percent aqueous ammonia.
Ammonia slip, or the concentration of un-reacted ammonia in the stack exhaust, would
be limited to 5.0 ppmvd, corrected to 15 percent O2. The SCR equipment would include
a reactor chamber, catalyst modules, ammonia storage system, ammonia vaporization
and injection system, and monitoring equipment and sensors.

Carbon Monoxide and Volatile Organic Compound Emission Control
The combustion turbine combustors incorporate staged combustion of a pre-mixed
fuel/air charge, resulting in high thermal efficiencies with reduced Carbon Monoxide
(CO) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions. CO and VOC emissions would
be further controlled by means of a CO oxidation catalyst. The CO emission rate in
stack exhaust would be limited to 4.0 ppmvd, corrected to 15 percent O2. VOC emission
rate would be limited to 2.0 ppmvd, corrected to 15 percent O2.

Particulate Emission Control
Emissions would be controlled by the use of best combustion practices, high-efficiency
air inlet filtration, and the use of pipeline quality natural gas. Similar to the licensed
CECP, natural gas would be the only fuel used which is low in sulfur and is very low in
particulate emissions.

Continuous Emission Monitoring
Similar to the licensed CECP, each CTG would have a continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS) that would sample, analyze, and record fuel gas flow rate, NOx and CO
concentration levels, and percentage of oxygen (O2) in the exhaust gas from the CTG
exhaust stacks. The CEMS system would transmit data to a data acquisition system
(DAS) that would store the data and generate emission reports in accordance with
federal, state, and regional permit requirements. The DAS would also include alarms to
signal plant personnel when the emissions approach or exceed pre-selected limits.

FIRE PROTECTION
The fire protection system design detailed in the licensed CECP has been modified with
the assistance of the Carlsbad Fire Department and is reflected in the amended CECP
site layout. The existing fire water loop located along the perimeter of the area above
the recessed power block would remain charged with potable water from the city’s fire
water supply system. A separate fire loop would be constructed around the perimeter of
the reconfigured power block within the recessed area as well as a deluge system
described below. These would also be supplied by the city’s potable water system. The
emergency backup water source would be the onsite storage in a dual-purpose,
combination raw water/fire water storage tank. Should an unlikely interruption in the
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-14

February 2015

 recycled water supply occur, the onsite storage tank would fill with potable water as a
backup source, therefore ensuring an onsite backup water source for fire protection is
always available. Access roads on the site would be expanded to a width of 28 feet to
ensure adequate space for firefighting equipment and trucks to access the site.
Additionally, General Electric (GE) would provide self-contained systems to provide
independent protection of the individual CTGs. The GE system would deploy National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) required protection for the new equipment.
The GE Fire and Explosion Protection System include the following fire protection
measures:


Mitigating fires from starting, through fire prevention,



Detects fires in early stages with fire detection systems,



Contains fires using confinement designs, and



Employs active fire suppression systems.

Additional fire protection measures for the amended CECP would include:


Establishing fire zones with physical separation between buildings,



Separating buildings and structures for mitigating smoke spread,



Constructing containment walls where oil is used,



Minimizing the use of combustible materials,



Providing sloped surfaces for draining combustible material to containment sumps,



Adding separate escape routes in enclosures to the outside, and



Implementing egress escape plans for large structures.

The amended CECP fire protection system would consist of wet pipe sprinkler systems
and carbon dioxide (CO2) systems. Fire detection devices, or methods for detection,
include fuel gas, thermal-rate compensated, and smoke- or manual-activated sensing.
Potential hazards being monitored include ammonia, natural gas, lubricating oil,
hydraulic oil, insulating oil, electrical gear, wood, PVC, and other flammable material like
the gas turbine inlet filter. System isolation and area classifications would be in
accordance with NFPA recommendations.
The primary source of the fire protection systems would be the city’s potable water
system, with the backup source the 500,000 gallon raw water storage tank supplied with
recycled water. Tank sizing is governed by NFPA 850A. A 100-percent-capacity electric
and a 100-percent-capacity diesel-driven fire pump would maintain system pressure
during filling and fire events. A low-capacity jockey fire pump would maintain system
pressure during non-fire suppression system activity.
A fire water loop would surround the power block with hydrants installed per criteria
specified in NFPA codes and standards. This loop would also supply the deluge system
in the air compressor enclosure, gas compressor enclosure, and the fire pump
enclosure in the BOP area, as well as provide fire suppression for the
warehouse/maintenance and administration/control buildings. Electrically sensitive
February 2015

3-15

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 areas in the administration/control building would be protected by automated dry agent
fire protection suitable for occupied spaces. Each CTG would be equipped with a CO2
fire-suppression system that is integrated into the turbine control system. The
automatically actuated CO2 system provides fire suppression in the turbine
compartments.
Power distribution centers and auxiliary enclosures in the power block would also be
equipped with fire extinguishers per NFPA guidelines.
The main transformers would be designed in accordance with NFPA 78 and would not
be provided with specific fire suppression systems.
Local fire protection and suppression panels would be provided for each area being
protected with automated functions and alarming. Local alarm annunciation would also
be replicated to the main control system.
The Hazardous Materials Management and Worker Safety & Fire Protection
sections include additional information for fire and explosion risk, and the
Socioeconomics section provides information on local fire protection capability.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The construction schedule addressed in the AFC for the licensed CECP has changed to
accommodate the modifications proposed in the amended CECP. The
Socioeconomics section provides the amended CECP construction workforce by labor
craft by month during the 24-month construction/commissioning schedule, as well as
the average and peak construction workforce throughout the entire 64 month, fourphased amended CECP schedule.
The hours at which construction takes place for the amended CECP have changed from
the licensed CECP (ending at “sunset” has been replaced by 6pm on Monday through
Friday, and 5pm on Saturdays). Please see the Traffic and Transportation section of
this FSA for the anticipated construction deliveries by truck, and for average and peak
construction traffic of construction workers and deliveries. Construction laydown and
construction worker parking areas for the amended CECP would occupy a total of 19.3
acres at selected locations within the existing EPS site.

GENERATING FACILITY OPERATION
Operations at the amended CECP would be staffed with an estimated 18-person
workforce, including operators on rotating shifts and maintenance technicians during the
standard eight-hour work day. This estimated 18-person workforce would be sourced
from the existing 50-person workforce that presently operates the EPS. The facility
would be staffed seven days a week, 24 hours per day, but would have a limit of 2,700
operating hours per CTG annually.
It is expected that the amended CECP would be operated primarily as a peaking facility
on daily cycles, especially during summer months. The exact operational profile of the
amended CECP, however, cannot be defined in detail because operation of the facility
depends on the variable demand in the service area and various grid conditions.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-16

February 2015

 The amended CECP may be operated in one or all of the following conditions:


Load Following. During non-peak seasons (primarily spring and fall), the facility
would most likely be operated at loads that may vary between maximum continuous
output (all six units operating at base load) and minimum load (one CTG operating
as low as 25 percent load) to meet electrical demand at all times between 0600 and
2400 hours.3 In this mode, the plant is dispatched on a real-time basis by the
Independent System Operator



Daily Cycling. The facility would most likely be operated in daily cycling condition,
wherein the plant is operated at pre-determined fixed load points during the day and
totally shut down at night or on weekends. This condition may occur either with daily
nighttime shutdowns or with weekend shutdowns depending on electrical demand,
and other issues.



Full Shutdown. This would occur if forced by lack of load demand/dispatch,
equipment malfunction, fuel supply interruption, transmission line disconnect, or
scheduled maintenance.

In the unlikely event of a situation that causes a longer-term cessation of normal
operations, security of the facilities would continue to be maintained on a 24-hour basis
and the Energy Commission would be notified. See the Compliance Conditions
section of this FSA for a full discussion of temporary cessation of operations and full
closure of the amended CECP.

ENCINA POWER STATION DEMOLITION
The amended CECP also incorporates the shutdown, decommissioning and demolition
of the EPS as part of the project modifications. Following shutdown of EPS Units 1
through 5, the project owner would demolish the EPS above-ground structures west of
the railroad tracks. This Phase IV demolition activity would also include the removal of
the 17-MW emergency/black start combustion turbine generator. This project change
would also allow and facilitate future redevelopment of western portions of the EPS site
for non-power-production uses. The demolition of EPS is another step toward facilitating
a remodeled coastal area and reflects a significant and important community objective
of the amended CECP.

EPS BACKGROUND
The EPS demolition (Phase IV) is anticipated to take 22 months (including a two month
period for grading/contouring and site restoration). Phase IV would begin after a
maximum 12-month period shutdown and decommissioning (Phase III) of EPS Units 1
through 5 (which would occur after achieving commercial operation of the amended
CECP power plant). The subject demolition areas are shown in Project Description
Figure 7. Project Description Figure 8 depicts the site after EPS demolition is
complete. Phase IV EPS demolition would generally occur within an area bounded by
3 Between mutual agreements with City of Carlsbad, the amended CECP would normally operate
between 0600 and 2400 hours. Only in emergency situations will the plant operate between 2400 and
0600 hours.

February 2015

3-17

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 the property fence line west of the railroad tracks, south of the lagoon, east of Carlsbad
Boulevard or the Pacific Coast Highway, and north of the SDG&E maintenance
property. Two EPS water storage tanks located on the SDG&E north coast maintenance
property would be included in Phase IV demolition as part of the amended CECP. No
activity is planned west of Carlsbad Boulevard. The SDG&E Encina switchyards and
supporting control house are excluded from Phase IV demolition. Additionally, areas of
the EPS property in the previously described boundary would remain, such as the
leased areas required by the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project. There are no
plans to use areas of the property east of the railroad tracks for demolition activities, but
vehicle access could occur through the southwest corner of the amended CECP site.
Generally, Phase IV demolition would proceed according to a planned set of segmented
tasks associated with each of the following major component areas on site:


Power plant building and contents, including 400-ft. exhaust stack



Combustion turbines and structures, east power plant building



Ocean water intake/discharge piping, structures and equipment



Northwest structures, tanks, and piping



Fuel oil piping and supports



Southeast corner structures



Two domestic water tanks on SDG&E property

The following is a more complete description of the seven primary demolition targets:
Power plant building and contents: The main powerhouse structures and systems
would be demolished to an “at grade” condition. This includes the transformers up to an
interface with the SDG&E switchyards. Crushed concrete would be used to fill
basements and other subgrade infrastructure that represent a safety risk by not being
filled. This period will also include the removal of Hazardous Building Materials (HBMs),
including one of the most prevalent HBMs, asbestos. State and federal law requires
specific steps for the proper removal of asbestos-containing materials.
Combustion turbine and structures, east power plant building: Removal of the
emergency/black-start gas turbine generator would include the ISO phase bus,
dedicated water storage tank, and structures that would no longer be necessary for
SDG&E switchyard operations and maintenance.
Ocean water intake/discharge piping, structures, and equipment: The EPS ocean
water intake system would be isolated from the lagoon. Poseidon Resources, Inc. would
continue to intake ocean water for its Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project from the
current EPS discharge tunnel, as permitted. The intake would have stop logs installed to
allow a concrete plug to be poured to isolate the intake piping from the lagoon, and the
circulating water piping at the inlet and exit of each condenser would be cut and a
welded cap installed. Aboveground piping, valves, screens, filters, and other structures
would be demolished and removed. The intake canals and underground circulating
piping would be isolated and remain intact. Crushed concrete and other onsite fill would
be used to restore subgrade areas to grade where they represent a safety risk by not
being filled.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION

3-18

February 2015

 Northwest structures, tanks and piping: The industrial wastewater facility north of the
switchyard would be demolished. Some of the tanks and equipment that would be
removed are Low Volume Waste Tanks #1 and #2 (that discharge via the NPDES
permit), Extended Waste Tanks #3 and #4 and Treated Water Tanks #5 and #6 (that
discharge to the Encina Wastewater Authority sewer system), as well as supporting
pumps, filters, piping, instrumentation and controls. The tanks, piping, valves, pumps,
and other structures would be demolished and removed and crushed concrete and
other onsite fill used to fill subgrade areas that represent a safety risk by not being filled.
Fuel oil piping and supports: Any final above-grade fuel oil piping and supports not
previously removed as part of the amended CECP development and/or during
construction of the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project would be removed.
Southeast corner structures: The machine shop and compressor building, each on
either side of the existing fuel gas regulating station, would be demolished to grade.
Two domestic water tanks on SDG&E property: Two welded steel tanks, located on
the SDG&E maintenance yard to the south of EPS, serve as storage for the EPS fire
water system. The aboveground tanks and associated piping, pumps, and structures
would be demolished to grade.

REMEDIATION
Subsurface remediation of the EPS site is not included as part of the Phase IV
demolition activities to occur under the amended CECP (unless obvious signs of soil
contamination occur based on odor or discoloration, which would trigger sampling,
demolition work discontinuation, and completion of soil sample analyses). If these
samples exceed county or state standards, the soil would be cleaned to industrial clean
up levels in coordination with the San Diego County Department of Environmental
Health Voluntary Action Plan guidelines before demolition activities would resume. More
specifics on remediation during Phase I demolition (above ground fuel storage tank
removal) or Phase IV (EPS demolition) can be found in the Waste Management
section of this document.

February 2015

3-19

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Project Context and Layout

LEGEND

CJ Encina Power Station Site

Q

c:J Licensed CECP
c:J Poseidon Desalinization Site Q
~

KOP

Tanks to be Removed Under the
Proposed Amendment
Tanks to be Removed as a Part of the
Licensed CECP

0

Tank Removed As Part of the
Development of the Poseidon
Desalinization Plant

0'--~~3~00 ~~-'
600

j
N

Feet

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: 07-AFC-06 Petition to Amend - Figure 1-1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - FIGURE 2
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Encina Power Station Transmission Line Routes

-

A- --~

t{f!~

·· -

I OCA~ ~ '

<ri>

otM.- fl\AA1

_ ....,,,.O•) il• • • t'toLl ll • ~ll - • •

·~ ....." ' , _ , " ~ "

1~ 11+'1

\,.,,. ,

!':'".. .L
,

,,~ 11. hol

'"··" ~'*

··-··-

I

· -- - ··- ··- ··- ··-··-·· -·· - ··- ··-·· - - · ·,

II'
·1
ii.!

!I
:

II

-

r·

I
·
~- -· -··- ··-··-·-· -·-··-·-··-i· 1

l: \I
I

'

!I

I
I

~
·"
I

I
I

: >~b

, ,,. >W'I· ~;. !

_,"\ , , ... ff•,.,,,

1•·;3
I

•

I
I

I I

IJ

:I

::0

0
c....

!

I

. .r ··-··- ··J I
/ r··- ··-··- ··
/ .·

m

_,

()

m

td~
;r

_ ..

..

0

I

rj I

/

~

..

.I:

(f)

(")

::0

_,

""'Cl

6
z
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION · SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Data Responses Sci 4 (Nos . 86·92) d ocketed November 21 , 2014 (TN 203363)

t

~' til . , ,

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - FIGURE 1 A
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Regional Transportation

PACIFIC
OCEAN

Encinitas

A
N

r---...r---i

o

3

6 Miles

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: AFC Figure 5.13.1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - FIGURE 3
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Site Plan

·- I
,/

I

- ·- . .. -

·- · . -·- ·-·- ·-

.I

I

/

\

"""'"

It

• • ,,

'·

l /

-.. 1_/ cir
iJ ---=-·
L... -..

...

LV\~J

"U

;:o
0
(._
m
0
-I
0

m
(/)
0
;:o

- ·· - 11C10,.,.n

1•-.1\UO

uu· ~to- ~ ··•

~- o.~ ~"
<C'C)'l.Cll'OQ.~

--

"°"'~
~-..-0

fOiil.'J l . .

..La, UI
•.•••I ,,.,,,

•

kM.f

-..:r-...... , "'"'

- i t U . ,:

t-...~ J li("- .....

.,.

!)

S-'1,,.SQlM
IUG _.C / .,.:...U~-,

- ·- t»>"••v•· n"!•llfllll
0 ..., . ~... """"'eiQA,;I

"
,,"
11

II

__ ,....,. .......
. . ...... ....,.,...
.,_"1lM110 .... ,.. t-

U•"-..:W"O
t...."
'-

=

CfW "'N".......,,. l a., •
Ulll ...Ht...t"IM

• n oll'(lllafW. • aoitt .__,
........ -<ll,.. . ~ --.,.-Ufll>=- M,......:

,

to..•a. '-""' 10 ~'-''QI r~

•"'

l"*._•llLI t t a.I Q "' •ff ..

JI

...., ,...,,r,:, ~ 1 · · ·~
u~ · ••"'9. •-0

..

~ "',•UC ~,,,........ ,
~ f'Otl::'I

,.

:, :!~~-;:

~~ .

~! ~~:~
' '

:.c; ...~..,~C'C:

ftt f •:X:."l"t

,.,,_..,. A,

t>l fft ............. , . , • ..,.1
t)lf.n; ..

H W,~'//U

,,, ""'- •••• ,,......O< """"'

~

.,.
'""'"""~

-.al-' ...... t f"~

••n ..u_,~""''''°"*"...-.

"'

"U
:j

0

z
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: 07-AFC-06C Petition to Amend- Figure 2.0-2

.,

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - FIGURE 4
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Plot Plan

_....,
e .•,,......._ .....

=--- a:

.....- .

,llOlD

~ ·~ l• ~• ..U ."f

u

•• • '4

tU •.- rt•<.rllJ\ .I f
· - · · """-"V"'l"). t H'

u : .. -..-,,~o
. . .... .

•-· · t • t 'f\tt•

- ··- ' ''
- ··-

-u

- -

:::0

c

()

r:

0c....
m

-i
0

m

(/)

()

:::0

(~

C?

~"'

U'(

J

•u "'J ,

-- --

Jl"I

· ur u "''

.;1..• I'-" \: "'J. .t.l,/'t ~fi.\I~ "" • " I
,.-.,.,.l) .> l.-• 4 O' f floo 1-V U' ... 1l.-'t• f..\
!<(f"'•"' ='
#;,:. • t• ! I ;f C.'I

n •

'-iC'"'C' ' "'l!:.(; 1.: , ..._ ,.. :.• :

"'(" "'C."".
-'\]I>

Ill , .

~

J

: .... (·' ( ..'\~:..; ,.:<U.VJt ''"I'
r o

(t f' "4..)l ......J ~

<• l}"

'" f""t-6V. •I\• P U

r;: ." ... ........ .. ,.,,,"'""''' '"""'..
l\:f14
C.A· h
, ,,.

u• r• • '"'' ' ,... ..; •"' ?4''• • ,.,,

:..... . . .~.
.

.a. .... n-· """"

&.

-u

::!

0

z
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Data Responses Set 4 (Nos. 86-92) docketed November 21, 201 4 (TN203363)

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - FIGURE 5
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Site Plan

-u

:0

0
c_

m

-··-

--

-

-l

0
:0

-u

~, . ,

CU U'C.

• •• • l'W

(~CMO

...,,l•
4' \tOf.,)

~.,.... , ,.~

lilOJfNO Mii

a:IC1.AMC1 •• '11•l)J!((~ D

"CJ,lt)IC.

_

'1.• U C:)

,...,.r...-. U:lif.1'1.#riC.

-•-ftlrtttUC/......._CtlO.Alt... •

'="-" o.xwf"' f

"O

.• . . ...

t •wU \tu.:

'911""'

I

l,..~C°J;,1!!11

""
,,""
"
::"

'"""''"~

I>

..

Ml tWf"fll(UQlll IUU)lflo"!;

f . . """~
Oil.U\.
\TQllV.tl I A.'fol (W "(lrltD)
1..w;:,1 , "toua: AAf>
C{Vfll(_~,

. ..

.

~t"• .!ttt..
"'\~nltfi!C

C'W~....~

· n~bQJl~llltM>

:t Ct: -¥0 flo"OCIDO.la wt:

C,I,~ ~~

'

,.
"
,,"
11

ttV't.."\.t:Dlitul9JWl

a""--.•t::llt o.uoaH

.,.

"'"''

0

CJ)

~1.HllOol ,,

(Uil._19 ..."'11~1 --1~

0

m

-

lOCA::O. U ~_,. llW "- ""' '

,,,N'lflll.

.
...

·~4"0 111'-"""'"l!:J...,.._po.....

. -.. -oi:w ...¥1 ~ ¥\1'1111 •,. -~

r'~I O I

Q.MI ..~"'._. .
Hlll_l\nut~

:a:t.
~tf>ll'W ...

....,~~

rOll U ""'t't

l \il"" -.C' Ol!Jl " ... "-'""

•~!
l:ll'lft
1~
tOJU 'Wflf •• V rtllt • ~-.-:;""""

100 (tVN U R, f11.f,C t •

.,,,•ttoo.a

I O JtWl, U fl)ro._...;
m-... • &ftJI l'ltAlD • ..,,._,..
O'll\ lliQ.OIUll
\IM l""4~...,,,,,.JOlltilP

""° rial.._.,

~ .. Nf> ""':O
~
6-w.J ~T {ol.-0

l~r,JIQ:·

-l

6
z

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION · SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Data Responses Set 4 (Nos. 86-92) docketed November 2 1. 2014 (TN203363)

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION • FIGURE 8

Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Reclaimed Water Balance
llml;
Cl1Y OF CMl.S8AD
POTABI.£ WA'l!R

1.

Cl1V OF CMlS8AD
mu; 22 REClMm> WA1ER

12 GPM

1MXDNM USE BASIS:
a) NOx USE - 55 GPM PER 1UR8INE
b) EVN' COOUNG USE - 18 GPll P£R TURBINE

2.

• DCJ. • DnERMJJ1!NT ROWS

3.

MAXDAIM DAILY CONSUMPl10H:
a) 1111.E 22 REaAMED WATER - 414.400
~~ASSUMES 18-HR OPERATIOH AT

b) POTMlE WA'1ER - 17.200 GM.IDAY. ASSUMES
OCCUPIED SITE FOR 24-HR IMY.
(NON-FIRE USE)
a) POTA8lE WATER - EMERGENC't ON1.\'
(FIRE USE)
cl) FIRE WA1ER SfOMJE REFIU. - llOOGPll
MIHIMUM (160,000 GM.S.JA1.L)
MIX TANK

F1RE WATER
STORAGE CAP.
180.000 CAL

2.500

cw..

4.

180

GPU

MAXDaAI WARLY COHSUMPnON:
a) 1111.E 22 RSUIMS> WA1ER - 70.082.480
cw,/m. MSUMES AIU. UW> OP£RA1IOH
FOR A 10W. OF 2.700 HRS PER YE'AR.
b) PG1'A8LE WATER - 8.278.000 GAL/YR.
ASSWIES OCCUPIED SITE 24-HR/MY MD
365 DAY/fR..

(ta>H-FIR£ USE)
c) POTABLE WATER - EM!RGINCY ONLY
(FUl£ USE)
.
cl) f1R£ WATER STORAGE REFU.L - 600GPM
MINIMUM (150.000 CAl.SJFIU,)

5.

D!MINERAUZER SYSTEM 10 COHSIST OF A
COM8lM1IDN OF PRE-RLTRA110H MD A

COMlllM1IOH OF CATION. NGOH MD MIXED

DmlNERAlJZERS.

•INT. FLOW-

MISC. PLANT OMNS

em

NEGUGIBLE
DEMlMERAUZED
COMBUSl'10N
WATER
TANK
- - - - 1UR8INES
250.000 cw.

WASH

8 GPU
OFF-snE DISPOSA\.

(BY' OllCERS)

1J

~
c..

~
m
0

c

OD. WA1ER
SEPARATOR

SIMPLE CYCLE
COMBUSnON TURBIHE
NOie CONTR01.

Oll.Y WASTE
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL

al

31z .___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________..
0

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION. smNG, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DMSION
SOURCE: Data Responses Set 4 (Nos. 88-92) docketed November 21. 2014 (TN203363)

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - FIGURE 7
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Enci na Power Station Demolition

''

I

-

I

- - - -· - -- - - - - -· - ,,..

.,!_,_~

J.£Wll;

!SSS] oa"' ocuo BOUHOARV
~ 2lO
- ··-

._y SYl1TCH

LOCA110H

O('

- · - - PROPr.RlY UHC

\~~

. .lta<IOAAQ'.'

\~,_--

~~

/

-0

:D

0

'm
0
~

0

m
CJ)

0
:D

...

""''""

-0
~

6
z
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: 0 7-AFC-06C Petition to Amend - Figure 2.2-1

YARD CXPNCSK>H

f'OSlOCH Oc:s.t PW/I

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION - FIGURE 8
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Depiction of Site after EPS Demolition

--.·oi>~-.,......-1
, · ~
·
'=
1
Ol•S'o&s.AO
.. . " = - · - ·
-

tlrt)C...·o.

=

CBilt [H'(A:Jf.;titll[ ll. l .t.l
.ti ....,.RASIR\JC0.11'1(

"U

::u
0

(._

m

()

-I
0

o

,~

'~ m ·

m

(/)

()

::u
"U

-l

0
z

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: 07-AFC-06C Petition to Amend - Figure 2.2-2

 Environmental
Assessment

AIR QUALITY
Testimony of William Walters, P.E.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
With the adoption of the attached conditions of certification, the proposed amended
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (amended CECP) would conform with applicable
federal, state, and San Diego Air Pollution Control District (District) air quality laws,
ordinances, regulations, and standards, and the proposed amended Carlsbad Energy
Center Project would not result in significant air quality related impacts.
The amendment presents new information and changed circumstances requiring new
air quality analysis for the following reasons: the amendment proposes a change from
two combined-cycle gas turbines to six simple-cycle gas turbines, a different technology
with revised construction and operation emissions; the turbine exhaust stacks have
been reduced in height; operating restrictions on the project have been requested (e.g.,
to change the maximum operating hours for each turbine); and Encina Power Station
demolition has been added to the project scope. These changes require new emissions
modeling, a new air district analysis and Determination of Compliance, and new
conditions of certification.
All air quality issues related to the amended project have been addressed in the San
Diego Air Pollution Control District’s Preliminary Determination of Compliance (PDOC)
for the amended project, and through additional staff recommended revised conditions
of certification. The District’s Final Determination of Compliance (DOC) was not
available prior to publication of the Final Staff Assessment. Therefore, a supplement to
the Air Quality section will be provided that describes any substantive changes to the
District’s DOC findings and provides changes to the District conditions. The project has
secured emission reduction credits in sufficient quantity to meet staff’s recommended
Condition of Certification AQ-SC10, will create or obtain sufficient emission reduction
credits to fully mitigate all nonattainment pollutants and their precursors at a minimum
ratio of one-to-one.
Staff has assessed both the potential for localized impacts and regional impacts for the
amended project’s construction and operation, including the proposed demolition of the
Encina Power Station (EPS), and as a product of this analysis, staff has recommended
revised mitigation and monitoring requirements that should be sufficient to reduce the
adverse construction, demolition, and operating emission impacts to less than
significant.
Global climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the amended project
are discussed and analyzed in Appendix AQ-1. The amended Carlsbad Energy Center
Project would replace less efficient existing facilities with lower emissions of carbon
dioxide per megawatt hour (CO2/MWh), and would emit approximately 0.503 metric
tonnes of carbon dioxide per net megawatt hour (MTCO2/MWh). The amended CECP
would be less efficient than the licensed CECP, but it would fill a different role, as a
peaker project rather than a mid-merit project. Also, the amended CECP would be
permitted for fewer hours than the licensed CECP and would be expected to operate at
February 2015

4.1-1

AIR QUALITY

 a lower fraction of those maximum permitted hours than the licensed CECP would due
to its lower place in the dispatch queue. The project would emit as much as 0.85 million
metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and therefore would be subject to
mandatory state and federal GHG reporting requirements. The amended project, as a
peaking project with an enforceable operating limitation less than 60 percent of
capacity, is not subject to the requirements of SB1368 (Perata, Chapter 598, Statutes of
2006), the state’s Emission Performance Standard.
If built, the amended CECP would be required to participate in California’s greenhouse
gas cap-and-trade program. This cap-and-trade program is part of a broad effort by the
State of California to reduce GHG emissions as required by AB 32, which is being
implemented by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Market participants such as
the amended CECP would be required to report their GHG emissions and to obtain
GHG emissions allowances (and offsets) for those reported emissions by purchasing
allowances from the capped market and offsets from outside the AB32 program. Thus,
the amended CECP, as a GHG cap-and-trade participant, would be consistent with
California’s landmark AB 32 Program, which is a statewide program coordinated with a
region-wide Western Climate Initiative program to reduce California’s GHG emissions to
1990 levels by 2020.

INTRODUCTION
This analysis evaluates the expected air quality impacts of the emissions of criteria air
pollutants due to the construction and operation of the proposed amended CECP by
Carlsbad Energy Center LLC (petitioner). The amended CECP would be located in
Carlsbad at the existing NRG-owned Encina Power Station (EPS) located west of
Interstate 5 and north of Cannon Road. The EPS would be demolished in the final
phase (IV) of the amended CECP project.
The analysis in this section focuses on the impacts of the proposed amended project’s
criteria air pollutant emissions, while the climate change/greenhouse gases emissions
impact analysis is provided in Appendix AQ-1, and the air toxics emissions health
impacts are analyzed separately in the Public Health section. Criteria air pollutants are
defined as those air contaminants for which the state and/or federal government has
established an ambient air quality standard to protect public health. The criteria
pollutants analyzed are nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide
(CO), ozone (O3), respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter
(PM2.5). In addition, volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions are analyzed
because they are precursors to both O3 and particulate matter. Because NO2 and SO2
readily react in the atmosphere to form other oxides of nitrogen and sulfur respectively,
the terms nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx) are also used when discussing
these two pollutants.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-2

February 2015

 In carrying out the analysis, the California Energy Commission staff evaluated the
following major points:


Whether the amended CECP is likely to conform with applicable federal, state and
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD or District) air quality laws,
ordinances, regulations and standards (Title 20, California Code of Regulations,
section 1744 (b));



Whether the amended CECP is likely to cause significant air quality impacts,
including new violations of ambient air quality standards or contributions to existing
violations of those standards (Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1742
(b)); and



Whether the amended mitigation proposed for CECP is adequate to lessen the
potential impacts to a level of insignificance (Title 20, California Code of Regulations,
section 1742 (b)).

PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
The amended project would revise the power plant design of the licensed project from a
540-MW rapid response, combined cycle gas turbine project to a 632-MW simple-cycle
gas turbine project. The major differences in the licensed and proposed amended
project design related to air quality are as follows (LL 2014b, LL 2014d, and LL 2014e):
Amended Project
Six GE LMS100 simple cycle turbines each with an
air-cooled fin fan cooler.
Amended CECP footprint would be 30 acres and
requires the additional removal of aboveground
storage tank (AST) 4 and the berm between ASTs
4 and 5. This additional demolition and construction
activity is the subject of a separate Petition to
Remove (PTR).
Amended CECP would be effectively limited to an
equivalent of 2,700 hours of operation at full load.
Operation would be restricted to 0600 to 2400
hours (6 am through midnight).
Auxiliary equipment with air pollutant emissions
would include:
1. A 327 brake-horsepower (bhp) diesel-fired
emergency fire water pump engine (tier 3
engine).
2. A 500-kW diesel fired emergency generator
engine (interim tier 4 engine).
3. Three electric-driven natural gas compressors
The amended project would retire all five Encina
Power Station (EPS) boilers and simple cycle gas
turbine.
The amended project includes a specific timeline
and specified methodology for the demolition of the
EPS.

February 2015

4.1-3

Licensed Project
Two Siemens Rapid Response SGT6-5000F gas
turbines operating in combined - cycle mode, each
with an air-cooled fin fan cooler.
Project footprint is 23 acres.

Project is effectively limited to an equivalent of
4,100 hours of operation at full load.
No operating hour restrictions.
Auxiliary equipment with air pollutant emissions
include:
1. A 246 brake-horsepower (bhp) diesel-fired
emergency fire water pump engine (engine tier
based on regulatory requirement for 2009 model
year).

The licensed project would require EPS Boilers 1-3
to retire.
The licensed project does not have a timeline or
specified methodology for EPS demolition.

AIR QUALITY

 Refer to the Project Description of this Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for more details
on specific components of the modified project, and accompanying figures identifying
project features and facilities.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
The following federal, state, and local laws and policies shown below in Air Quality
Table 1 pertain to the control of criteria pollutant emissions and mitigation of air quality
impacts. Staff’s analysis examines the project’s compliance with these requirements.
Air Quality Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LORS
Federal

40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 52

40 CFR 60 Subpart KKKK

40 CFR 60 Subpart IIII

40 CFR Part 70
40 CFR Part 72
State
Health and Safety Code (HSC)
Section 40910-40930
HSC Section 41700
California Code of Regulations
(CCR) Section 93115

AIR QUALITY

Description
Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requires a permit and
requires Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and offsets.
Permitting and enforcement are delegated to SDAPCD.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requires major sources
or major modifications to major sources to obtain permits for
attainment pollutants. The amended CECP would be a modification
of an existing major source, the Encina Power Station, and thus the
trigger levels are emissions increases of 40 tons per year of NOx or
VOC or SOx, 15 tons per year of PM10, or 100 tons per year of CO.
New Source Performance Standard for Stationary Combustion
Turbines: 15 parts per million (ppm) NOx at 15 % O2 and fuel sulfur
limit of 0.060 lb SOx per million Btu heat input. BACT would be more
restrictive.
New Source Performance Standard for Stationary Compression
Ignition Internal Combustion Engines. Establishes emission
standards for compression ignition internal combustion engines,
including emergency generators and fire water pump engines.
Title V: Federal permit. Title V permit application is required within
one year of start of operation. Permitting and enforcement are
delegated to SDAPCD.
Acid Rain Program. Requires permit and obtaining sulfur oxides
credits. Permitting and enforcement are delegated to SDAPCD.
Permitting of source needs to be consistent with Air Resource Board
(ARB) approved Clean Air Plans.
Restricts emissions that would cause nuisance or injury.
Airborne Toxics Control Measure for Stationary Compression
Ignition Engines. Limits the types of fuels allowed, establishes
maximum emission rates, and establishes recordkeeping
requirements.

4.1-4

February 2015

 Local – San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) Rule and Regulations
This regulation sets forth the regulatory framework of the application
for, and issuance of, construction and operation permits for new,
altered, and existing equipment. Included in these requirements are
the federally delegated requirements for New Source Review, Title V
Permits, and the Acid Rain Program.
Regulation II Rule 20.1 and 20.3 establish the pre-construction
Regulation II – Permits
review requirements for new, modified or relocated facilities, in
conformance with the federal New Source Review regulation to
ensure that these facilities do not interfere with progress in
attainment of the national ambient air quality standards and that
future economic growth in San Diego County is not unnecessarily
restricted. This regulation establishes Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) and emission offset requirements.
This regulation sets forth the restrictions for visible emissions, odor
nuisance, fugitive dust, various air emissions, and fuel contaminants.
This regulation also specifies additional performance standards for
Regulation IV – Prohibitions
stationary gas turbines and other internal combustion engines.
However, for this project, these provisions are less strict than the
New Source Review requirements of Regulation II.
Regulation X incorporates provisions of 40 CFR Part 60, Chapter I,
and is applicable to all new, modified, or reconstructed sources of air
pollution. Sections of this federal regulation apply to stationary gas
turbines (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK) and emergency generator
Regulation X – National
and fire pump engines (40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII) as described
Standards of Performance
above in the federal LORS description. Subpart KKKK establishes
(NSPS) for New Stationary
limits of NO2 and SO2 emissions from the facility as well as
Sources
monitoring and test method requirements. Subpart IIII establishes
emission standards for compression ignition internal combustion
engines. SDAPCD is delegated enforcement authority for these
NSPS through their authority to issue and enforce the Title V permit
for this existing Title V source.
Regulation XI – National Emission Regulation XI adopts federal standards for hazardous air pollutants
Standards for Hazardous Air
(40 CFR Section 63) by reference. No such standards presently
Pollutants
exist that would apply to the project.
Regulation XII, Rule 1200, establishes the pre-construction review
Regulation XII – Toxic Air
requirements for new, modified, or relocated sources of toxic air
Contaminants – New Source
contaminants, including requirements for Toxics Best Available
Review
Control Technology (T-BACT) if the incremental project risk exceeds
rule triggers.
Regulation XIV, Rule 1401 defines the permit application and
issuance as well as compliance requirements associated with the
Title V federal permit program. Any new source which qualifies as a
Title V facility must obtain a Title V permit within 12 months of
Regulation XIV – Title V
starting operation.
Operating Permits
Regulation II, Rule 1412 defines the requirements for the Acid Rain
Program, including the requirement for a subject facility to obtain
emission allowances for SOx emissions as well as monitoring SOx,
NOx, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the facility.

February 2015

4.1-5

AIR QUALITY

 SETTING
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The climate of San Diego County is controlled by a semi-permanent subtropical highpressure system that is located off the Pacific coast. In the summer, this strong highpressure system results in clear skies, high temperatures, and low humidity. Very little
precipitation occurs during the summer months because storms are blocked by the
high-pressure system. Beginning in the fall and continuing through the winter, the high
pressure weakens and moves south, allowing storm systems to move through the area.
Temperature, winds, and rainfall are more variable during these months, and stagnant
conditions occur more frequently than during summer months. Weather patterns include
periods of stormy weather with rain and gusty winds, clear weather that can occur after
a storm, or persistent marine layer conditions, with our without ground fog, that can
occur during extended parts of the year. The city of Carlsbad receives an average of
10.4 inches of rain annually (WC 2014).
Temperature, wind speed, and wind direction data collected in Camp Pendleton, about
6.3 miles north northwest of the project site, were processed and a five-year data set
(2008-2012) was provided with the Petition to Amend (PTA) air dispersion modeling
files (LL 2014i). The specific location of this meteorological station is approximately onehalf mile from the surf zone, on the ocean side of the I-5 Freeway, and should represent
the local weather patterns, including persistent marine layer and fog conditions, nearly
identical to the project site. The most predominant annual wind direction from this
monitoring site is onshore from the southwest to the west northwest with a strong
secondary northeast to east northeast offshore component. Onshore winds are the most
predominant during both the second and third quarters. The winds during the first and
fourth quarters have a more predominate offshore component. In all cases, annual and
quarterly, the wind frequencies outside of the previously stated predominate onshore
and offshore directions are fairly low. The average wind speed is 5.3 miles per hour,
and dead calm hours occur infrequently less than one-half percent of the time. The wind
speeds are generally higher during daylight hours, and are highest during the first and
second quarters.
Along with the wind flow, atmospheric stability and mixing heights are important factors
in the determination of pollutant dispersion. Atmospheric stability reflects the amount of
atmospheric turbulence and mixing. In general, the less stable an atmosphere, the
greater the turbulence, which results in more mixing and better dispersion. The mixing
height, measured from the ground upward, is the height of the atmospheric layer in
which convection and mechanical turbulence promote mixing. Good ventilation results
from a high mixing height and at least moderate wind speeds within the mixing layer. In
general, mixing is more limited at night and in the winter in San Diego County when
there is a higher potential for the presence of lower level inversion layers along with low
speed surface winds.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-6

February 2015

 EXISTING AIR QUALITY
The project is located within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control
District (District). The applicable federal and California ambient air quality standards
(AAQS) are presented in Air Quality Table 2. As indicated in this table, the averaging
times for the various air quality standards (the duration over which they are measured)
range from one hour to annual average. The standards are read as a mass fraction, in
parts per million (ppm), or as a concentration, in milligrams or micrograms of pollutant
per cubic meter of air (mg/m3 or µg/m3).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the California Air Resource
Board (ARB) classify an area as attainment, unclassified, or nonattainment, depending
on whether or not the monitored ambient air quality data show compliance, insufficient
data is available, or non-compliance with the ambient air quality standards, respectively.
The amended CECP project site is located within the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) and,
as stated above, is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
This area is designated as nonattainment for both the federal and state ozone
standards and the state PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Air Quality Table 3 summarizes
federal and state attainment status of criteria pollutants for the SDAB.

February 2015

4.1-7

AIR QUALITY

 Air Quality Table 2
Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant

Averaging Time

Federal Standard

California Standard

Ozone
(O3)

8 Hour

0.075 ppm (147 µg/m )

0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3)

1 Hour

—

0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3)

Carbon Monoxide
(CO)

8 Hour

9 ppm (10 mg/m3)

9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3)

1 Hour

35 ppm (40 mg/m3)

20 ppm (23 mg/m3)

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)

Annual

0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3)

0.03 ppm (57 µg/m3)

1 Hour

100 ppb (188 µg/m3) a

0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3)

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)

24 Hour

—

0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3)

1 Hour

75 ppb (196 µg/m3) b

0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3)

Respirable
Particulate Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)

Annual

—

20 µg/m3

24 Hour

150 µg/m3

50 µg/m3

Annual

12.0 µg/m3 c

12 µg/m3

24 Hour

35 µg/m3

—

24 Hour

—

25 µg/m3

30 Day Average

—

1.5 µg/m3

Rolling 3-Month
Average

0.15 µg/m3

—

1 Hour

—

0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3)

24 Hour

—

0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3)

—

In sufficient amount to
produce an extinction
coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer due to particles
when the relative humidity is
less than 70 percent.

Sulfates (SO4)
Lead
Hydrogen Sulfide
(H2S)
Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene)
Visibility Reducing
Particulates

3

8 Hour

Source: ARB 2014a.
Notes:
a - This one-hour federal standard is based on the 98th percentile of maximum daily peak hourly values, unlike the State onehour standard that is a not to exceed standard.
b - This one-hour federal standard is based on the 99th percentile of maximum daily peak hourly values, unlike the State onehour standard that is a not to exceed standard.
c - There is also a secondary standard of 15 µg/m3.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-8

February 2015

 Air Quality Table 3
Federal and State Attainment Status for the San Diego Air Basin a
Pollutant

Attainment Status
Federal

State

Ozone

Marginal Nonattainment (8-hr)

Nonattainment

CO

Attainment/Maintenance

Attainment

NO2

Attainment

Attainment

SO2

Attainment

Attainment

PM10

Attainment

Nonattainment

PM2.5

Attainment

Nonattainment

Source: ARB 2014b, U.S. EPA 2014a, U.S. EPA 2014b
Note: a – The term Attainment is used for all designations, such as unclassifiable, that are functionally the same as an attainment
designation.

The project site is located in northwestern San Diego County, in the city of Carlsbad just
west of the Interstate 5, 0.25 miles east of Carlsbad Boulevard, just south of Aqua
Hedionda Lagoon, and 0.4 miles north of Cannon Road.
The operating monitoring stations closest to the proposed project site with long-term
records for ozone and NOx are the Camp Pendleton and Oceanside Mission Avenue
monitoring stations, for CO and PM10/PM2.5 the Escondido East Valley Parkway
monitoring station, and for SOx the San Diego 12th Avenue and Beardsley Street
monitoring stations. The coastal location of the Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, and San
Diego monitoring stations make them somewhat more representative of conditions in
Carlsbad than the inland Escondido monitoring station, which due to its inland valley
location, would be expected to have higher CO and PM10/PM2.5 concentrations than
found in coastal Carlsbad.
Air Quality Figure 1 summarizes the historical air quality data for the project location
recorded at representative air monitoring stations (1990-2013 for Ozone, PM10, CO,
NO2, 1990-2011 for SO2; and 1999-2013 for PM2.5). In Air Quality Figure 1, the short
term normalized concentrations are provided from 1990 to 2013. Normalized
concentrations represent the ratio of the highest measured concentrations in a given
year to the most-stringent applicable national or state ambient air quality standard.
Therefore, normalized concentrations lower than one indicate that the measured
concentrations were lower than the most-stringent ambient air quality standard.

February 2015

4.1-9

AIR QUALITY

 Air Quality Figure 1
Normalized Maximum Short-Term Historical Air Pollutant Concentrations
3
Ozone, 1-hr
Ozone, 8-hr
NO2, 1-hour

2.5

PM10, 24-hr
PM2.5, 24-hr

Noramlized Concentrations

SO2, 24-hr

2

CO 8-hr
PM10, Annual

1.5

1

0.5

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Year

Source: ARB 2008, SDAPCD 2008, ARB 2014c, U.S. EPA 2014c.
Note: A normalized concentration is the ratio of the highest measured concentration to the applicable most stringent air quality
standard. For example, in 1999 the highest one-hour average ozone concentration measured at the Oceanside Mission Avenue
station was 0.091 ppm. Since the most stringent ambient air quality standard is the state standard of 0.09 ppm, the 1999 normalized
concentration is 0.091/0.09 = 1.011.

The following is a more in-depth discussion of ambient air quality conditions in the
project area.
Ozone
In the presence of ultraviolet radiation, both nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic
compounds (VOC) go through a number of complex chemical reactions to form ozone.
Air Quality Table 4 summarizes the best representative ambient ozone data collected
from the Oceanside Mission Avenue and Camp Pendleton monitoring stations. The
table includes the maximum one-hour and eight-hour ozone levels and the number of
days above the state standards. Ozone formation is higher in spring, summer, and early
fall and lower in the winter. The San Diego Air Basin (SDAB) was classified as an
attainment area for the previous federal one-hour ozone standard (no longer applicable)
and is classified as a marginal nonattainment area for the federal eight-hour ozone
standard. The SDAB is also classified as a nonattainment area for the state ozone
standards.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-10

February 2015

 Air Quality Table 4
Ozone Air Quality Summary, 1990-2013 (ppm)
Year

Days Above
CAAQS
1-Hr

Month of
Max.
1-Hr Avg.

Max.
1-Hr Avg.

Days Above
CAAQS
8-Hr

Month of
Max.
8-Hr Avg.

Max.
8-Hr Avg.

Oceanside - Mission Avenue
1990

14

OCT

0.170

9

OCT

0.119

1991

14

MAY

0.160

24

MAY

0.106

1992

12

SEP

0.150

19

SEP

0.103

1993

7

SEP

0.162

13

SEP

0.110

1994

2

JUN

0.109

10

SEP

0.089

1995

5

SEP

0.110

14

NOV

0.083

1996

4

MAY

0.106

12

OCT

0.090

1997

6

OCT

0.112

7

OCT

0.081

1998

3

JUL

0.105

12

JUL

0.089

1999

0

APR

0.091

4

APR

0.081

2000

1

MAR

0.095

2

MAR

0.083

2001

1

SEP

5

SEP

0.089

2002

0

MAY

5

MAY

0.073

2003

4

OCT

0.099

10

OCT

0.085

2004

4

MAY

0.110

12

OCT

0.095

2005

0

AUG

0.090

2

APR

0.075

2006

0

SEP

0.086

5

FEB

0.073

2007

0

MAR

0.083

4

MAY

0.074

2008

1

NOV

0.104

3

APR

0.077

2009

0

APR

0.090

5

APR

0.077

2010

0

SEP

0.092

1

SEP

0.079

2011

0

SEP

0.085

2

SEP

0.071

2012

0

SEP

0.092

1

SEP

0.081

2013

0

AUG

0.078

0

MAY

0.066

0.104
Camp Pendleton
0.087

California Ambient Air Quality Standard (CAAQS): One-Hr, 0.09 ppm, 8-Hr, 0.070 ppm
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS): Eight-Hr, 0.075 ppm, days above standard based on old standard of 0.080
ppm through 2007.
Source: ARB 2008 and ARB 2014c.

The yearly trends from 1990 to 2007 for the maximum one-hour and eight-hour ozone
concentrations, referenced to the most stringent standard, and the number of days
exceeding the California one-hour and eight-hour standards for the Oceanside Mission
Avenue (1990-2001) and Camp Pendleton (2002-2013) monitoring stations are shown
in Air Quality Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively.
As these two figures show, the one-hour and eight-hour ozone concentrations were
highest in 1990 and the number of exceedances was highest in 1990 or 1991.
Maximum concentrations and the number of AAQS exceedances have declined
significantly since 1990. The air basin cannot be redesignated as attainment of the
February 2015

4.1-11

AIR QUALITY

 federal and state ozone standards until all monitoring stations within the air basin show
no official exceedances of these standards for three consecutive years. Federal
redesignation requires an official request for redesignation and the approval of an
attainment maintenance plan.
Air Quality Figure 2
Normalized Ozone Air Quality Maximum Concentrations
2
Ozone, 1-hr
Ozone, 8-hr

1.8

Normalized Concentrations

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year
Source: ARB 2008 and ARB 2014c.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-12

February 2015

 Air Quality Figure 3
Ozone – Number of Days Exceeding the Air Quality Standards
25
Ozone, 1-hr
Ozone, 8-hr

Number of Exceedance Days

20

15

10

5

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year
Source: ARB 2008 and ARB 2014c.

Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)
PM10 can be emitted directly or it can be formed many miles downwind from emission
sources when various precursor pollutants interact in the atmosphere. Gaseous
emissions of pollutants like NOx, SOx, and VOC from turbines, and ammonia from NOx
control equipment, given the right meteorological conditions, can form particulate matter
in the form of nitrates (NO3), sulfates (SO4), and organic particles. These pollutants are
known as secondary particulates, because they are not directly emitted, but are formed
through complex chemical reactions in the atmosphere.
PM nitrate (mainly ammonium nitrate) is formed in the atmosphere from the reaction of
nitric acid and ammonia. Nitric acid in turn originates from NOx emissions from
combustion sources. The nitrate ion concentrations during the wintertime are a
significant portion of the total PM10, and are likely even a higher contributor to
particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5). The nitrate ion is only a portion of
the PM nitrate, which can be in the form of ammonium nitrate (ammonium plus nitrate
ions) and some as sodium nitrate. If the ammonium and the sodium ions associated
with the nitrate ion are taken into consideration, PM nitrate contributions to the total PM
are even more significant.

February 2015

4.1-13

AIR QUALITY

 As Air Quality Table 5 indicates, the representative monitoring stations annually
experience occasional violations of the state 24-hour PM10 standard and continue to
exceed the state annual PM10 standard. The SDAB is classified as an attainment area
for the federal PM10 standard and as a nonattainment area for the state PM10
standards.
Air Quality Table 5
PM10 Air Quality Summary, 1990-2013 (µg/m3)
Year

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Days * Above Daily
Month of Max.
Max.
CAAQS
Daily Avg.
Daily Avg.
Oceanside - Mission Avenue
35
NOV
115
-JAN
81
0
SEP
47
12
OCT
75
16
JAN
75
27
NOV
83
6
JAN
63
-NOV
50
0
AUG
38
Escondido – East Valley Parkway
0
DEC
50
12
DEC
63
13
JAN
72
0
SEP
51
31
DECa
58a
6
JAN
57
0
OCT
42
6
DEC
51
a
12
NOV
57a
-JAN
84
6
JAN
74
0
DEC
43
0
APR
40
0
DEC
33
6
FEB
82
3

Annual Arithmetic
Mean
32.8
-28.7
28.9
29.1
30.5
25.6
-22.1
29.7
29.5
30.6
27
32.7a
27.3
23.9
24.2
24a
-24.6
21.0
18.8
18.1
23.1

3

California Ambient Air Quality Standard: 24-Hr, 50 µg/m ; Annual Arithmetic, 20 µg/m
3
National Ambient Air Quality Standard: 24-Hr, 150 µg/m
* Days above the state standard (calculated), rounded to nearest whole day: PM10 is monitored approximately once every
six days. This value is a mathematical estimate of how many days the PM10 concentrations would have been greater than
the ambient air quality standard had each day been monitored.
-- Data not available
a
Excludes 2003 and 2007 firestorm events
Source: ARB 2008, SDAPCD 2008, and ARB 2014c.

As shown in Air Quality Table 5, the highest PM10 concentrations are generally
measured in the fall and winter when there are frequent low-level inversions. During the
wintertime high PM10 episodes, the contribution of ground-level releases to ambient
PM10 concentrations is disproportionately high.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-14

February 2015

 The 1990 to 2013 yearly trends for the maximum 24-hour PM10 and Annual Arithmetic
Mean PM10, referenced to the most stringent standard, and the number of days
exceeding the California 24-hour PM10 standard for the Oceanside (1990-1998) and
Escondido (1999-2007) monitoring stations are shown in Air Quality Figure 4 and
Figure 5, respectively.
As the two figures show, there is an overall gradual downward trend for annual PM10
concentrations and number of violations of the California 24-hour standard since 1990;
however, there has been little progress in the peak 24-hour PM10 concentrations since
1996.
Air Quality Figure 4
Normalized PM10 Air Quality Maximum Concentrations
2.5
PM10, 24-hr
PM10, Annual

Normalized Concentrations

2

1.5

1

0.5

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year
Source: ARB 2008, SDAPCD 2008, and ARB 2014c.

February 2015

4.1-15

AIR QUALITY

 Air Quality Figure 5
PM10 24-Hour – Number of Days Exceeding the Air Quality Standard
40
PM10, 24-hr

35

Number of Exceedance Days

30

25

20

15

10

5

0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Year
Source: ARB 2008, SDAPCD 2008, and ARB 2014c.

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
The SDAB is classified as nonattainment for the state fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
standard and is an attainment area for the federal PM2.5 standards. As shown in Air
Quality Table 6, the highest PM2.5 concentrations are generally measured in the
winter. The relative contribution of wood-smoke particles to the PM2.5 concentrations
may be even higher than its relative contribution to PM10 concentrations, considering
that most of the wood-smoke particles are smaller than 2.5 microns.
As Air Quality Table 6 indicates, the 24-hour (three-year average 98th percentile)
PM2.5 concentration levels and the annual average concentration levels have been
declining from 1999 through 2013. These concentrations were at or above the current
federal standards as of 2007, but the 24-hour concentrations have been below the
federal standard since that year and the area is classified as attainment of that federal
standard. The PM2.5 concentration data at the Escondido monitoring station has also
been below the state standard since 2008; however, other monitoring stations still show
exceedances and the air basin will not be deemed attainment until all of the monitoring
stations within the air basin meet the standard.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-16

February 2015

 Air Quality Table 6
PM2.5 Air Quality Summary, 1999-2013 (µg/m3)
Year

National
Maximum
Daily

Month of
Maximum Daily

98th Percentile
Maximum Daily

State
Annual
Average

National
Annual
Average

Escondido – East Valley Parkway
1999

64.3

OCT

--

--

18.0

2000

65.9

DEC

--

--

15.8

2001

60.0

JAN

40.8

--

17.5

2002

53.6

JAN

--

--

16.0

OCT

33.9

14.2

14.2

2003

37.9

a

2004

67.3

JAN

37.4

14.1

14.1

2005

43.1

JAN

--

--

--

2006

40.6

DEC

28.3

11.5

11.5

2007

36

a

DEC

37.7

12

12

2008

31.3

JUL

--

12.4

--

2009

64.9

JAN

24.5

--

11.0

2010

33.3

DEC

21.7

--

10.5

2011

27.4

NOV

22.0

10.4

10.4

2012

70.7

JAN

19.9

--

10.6

2013

56.3

JAN

24.9

10.5

10.5

3

California Ambient Air Quality Standard: Annual Arithmetic Mean, 12 µg/m
3
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: 24-Hr Avg. Conc., 35 µg/m (based on 98 percent of the daily concentrations, average
3
over three years); Annual Arithmetic Mean, 12 µg/m
“--“ = unavailable data.
a
Excludes 2003 and 2007 firestorm events
Source: ARB 2008, SDAPCD 2008, SDAPCD 2015, ARB 2014c.

Carbon Monoxide (CO)
The highest concentrations of CO occur when low wind speeds and a stable
atmosphere trap the pollution emitted at or near ground level in what is known as a
stable boundary layer. These conditions occur frequently in the wintertime, late in the
afternoon, persist during the night, and may extend one or two hours after sunrise.
Since mobile sources (motor vehicles) are the main cause of CO, ambient
concentrations of CO are highly dependent on motor vehicle activity. In fact, the peak
CO concentrations occur during the rush hour traffic in the mornings and afternoons.
CO concentrations in San Diego County and the rest of the state have declined
significantly due to two state-wide programs: 1) the 1992 wintertime oxygenated
gasoline program, and 2) Phases I and II of the reformulated gasoline program. New
vehicles with oxygen sensors and fuel injection systems have also contributed to the
decline in CO levels in the state. Today, all the areas of California are in attainment with
the CO ambient air quality standards.
Air Quality Table 7 shows the maximum one-hour and eight-hour CO concentrations
monitored in Oceanside and Escondido, where Escondido would be expected to have
higher CO concentrations than Carlsbad due to its inland valley location. CO is
considered a local pollutant, as it is found in high concentrations only near the source of
February 2015

4.1-17

AIR QUALITY

 emission. Automobiles and other mobile sources are the principal sources of the CO
emissions. High levels of CO emissions can also be generated from fireplaces and
wood-burning stoves. According to the data recorded at the Oceanside and Escondido
air monitoring stations, there has been only one exceedance of the ambient air quality
standards since 1990 and that exceedance was due to the 2003 firestorm (see Air
Quality Figure 1 and Table 7).
Air Quality Table 7
CO Air Quality Summary, 1990-2013 (ppm)
Year

1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

Month of Max. 8-Hr
Average

Maximum
1-Hr Average

Oceanside - Mission Avenue
6.0
JAN
7.0
DEC
7.0
JAN
5.3
DEC
5.2
DEC
4.4
JAN
4.0
JAN
6.1
JAN
3.2
DEC
Escondido – East Valley Parkway
9.9
DEC
9.3
NOV
8.5
JAN
8.5
JAN
a
8.9
OCT
6.3
JAN
5.9
JAN
5.7
DEC
DEC
5.2
JAN
5.6
JAN
4.4
JAN
3.9
JAN
3.5
JAN
4.4
-3.2

Maximum
8-Hr Average
4.00
3.33
3.88
3.40
3.91
3.13
2.60
2.88
2.31
5.26
4.93
5.11
3.85
3.90a
3.81
3.10
3.61
3.19
2.81
3.24
2.46
2.20
3.61
2.6

California Ambient Air Quality Standard: One-Hr, 20 ppm; Eight-Hr, 9.0 ppm
National Ambient Air Quality Standard: One-Hr, 35 ppm; Eight-Hr, 9 ppm
a
Excludes 2003 firestorm event where maximum 1-Hr and 8-Hr CO concentrations were 12.7 and 10.6 ppm, respectively.
Source: ARB 2006, ARB 2008, SDAPCD 2008, ARB 2014c, U.S. EPA 2014c.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Approximately 75 to 90 percent of the NOx emitted from combustion sources is Nitric
Oxide (NO), while the balance is NO2. NO is oxidized in the atmosphere to NO2 by
oxygen and ozone. In the summer, the conversion rates of NO to NO2 are high, but the
relatively high temperatures and windy conditions (atmospheric unstable conditions)
generally disperse pollutants, preventing the accumulation of NO2 to levels approaching
the California one-hour ambient air quality standard. Additionally NO2 concentrations
AIR QUALITY

4.1-18

February 2015

 are reduced during summer daylight conditions through consumption in the
photochemical reaction that creates ozone. The formation of NO2 in the presence of
ozone is according to the following reaction:
NO + O3  NO2+ O2
As shown in Air Quality Table 8, the maximum one-hour and annual concentrations of NO2
at the Oceanside and Camp Pendleton monitoring stations are lower than the California and
national ambient air quality standards and typically occurred in winter or fall.
Air Quality Table 8
NO2 Air Quality Summary, 1990-2013 (ppm)
Year

Month of Max. 1-Hr
Average

Maximum
1-Hr Average

Annual Average

Oceanside – Mission Avenue
1990

JAN

0.180

0.023

1991

FEB

0.130

0.024

1992

JAN

0.190

0.024

1993

FEB

0.124

0.020

1994

JAN

0.123

0.020

1995

NOV

0.139

0.019

1996

JAN

0.106

0.017

1997

OCT

0.106

0.018

1998

DEC

0.087

0.016

1999

JAN

0.133

0.019

2000

JAN

0.114

0.017

2001

FEB

0.096

0.016

Camp Pendleton
2002

FEB

0.109

0.013

2003

JAN

0.095

0.012

2004

JAN

0.099

0.012

2005

JAN

0.077

0.012

2006

MAY

0.081

0.011

2007

JAN

0.068

0.010

2008

NOV

0.089

0.010

2009

JAN

0.068

--

2010

NOV

0.081

0.009

2011

DEC

0.066 (0.046)

--

2012

NOV

0.061 (0.046)

0.008

2013

NOV

0.081 (0.050)

--

California One-Hr Ambient Air Quality Standard: 0.18 ppm
California Annual Arithmetic Mean Ambient Air Quality Standard: 0.03 ppm
National One-Hr 98th Percentile Ambient Air Quality Standard: 0.100 ppm
National Annual Arithmetic Mean Ambient Air Quality Standard: 0.053 ppm
Values in “()” are the last three year 98th percentile values
Source: ARB 2008, ARB 2014c, U.S. EPA 2014c.

February 2015

4.1-19

AIR QUALITY

 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Sulfur dioxide is typically emitted as a result of the combustion of a fuel containing
sulfur. Natural gas contains very little sulfur and consequently has very low SO2
emissions when combusted. By contrast, fuels high in sulfur content, such as coal, emit
very large amounts of SO2 when combusted.
Sources of SO2 emissions within the SDAB come from every economic sector and
include a wide variety of fuels: gaseous, liquid and solid. The SDAB is designated
attainment for all the SO2 state and federal ambient air quality standards. Air Quality
Table 9 shows the historical one-hour, 24-hour, and annual average SO2 concentrations
collected from the Oceanside Mission Avenue, San Diego 12th Avenue, and Beardsley
Street monitoring stations. As Air Quality Table 9 shows, concentrations of SO2 are far
below the state and federal SO2 ambient air quality standards.
Air Quality Table 9
SO2 Air Quality Summary, 1990-2011 (ppm)
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

Maximum
Month of Max.
1-Hr Avg.
24-Hr Avg.
Oceanside – Mission Avenue
0.020
DEC
0.020
NOV
0.020
SEP
San Diego - 12th Avenue a
0.047
JAN
0.069
JUN
0.063
AUG
0.048
APR
0.052
MAY
0.040
JUL
0.039
AUG
0.038
SEP
0.052
AUG
0.028
SEP
0.036
JAN
0.042
SEP
0.040
APR
San Diego – Beardsley Street
0.034
FEB
0.018
OCT
0.037 (0.020)
OCT
0.021 (0.014)
JAN
0.008 (0.007)
JAN
0.013
JAN

Maximum
24-Hr Avg.

Annual
Average

0.018
0.010
0.010

0.001
0.001
0.001

0.018
0.013
0.018
0.012
0.014
0.011
0.008
0.010
0.012
0.007
0.008
0.008
0.007

0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.003

0.009
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.002
0.003

0.004
0.003
0.003
0.001
0.000
--

California Ambient Air Quality Standard: One-Hr, 0.25 ppm; 24-Hr, 0.04 ppm
National Ambient Air Quality Standard: One-Hr, 0.075 ppm, 99th percentile of maximum daily values
a
th
2005 is a mixture of San Diego 12 Avenue and Beardsley Street.
Values in “()” are the last three year full years of data 99th percentile values
Source: ARB 2006, ARB 2008, SDAPCD 2008, ARB 2014c, U.S. EPA 2014c.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-20

February 2015

 Visibility
Visibility in the region of the project site depends upon the area’s natural relative
humidity and the intensity of both particulate and gaseous pollution in the atmosphere.
The most straightforward characterization of visibility is probably the visual range (the
greatest distance that a large dark object can be seen). However, in order to
characterize visibility over a range of distances, it is more common to analyze the
changes in visibility in terms of the change in light-extinction that occurs over each
additional kilometer of distance (1/km). In the case of a greater light-extinction, the
visual range would decrease.
The SDAB is currently designated as unclassified for visibility reducing particles.

Summary
In summary, staff recommends the background ambient air concentrations in Air
Quality Table 10 for use in the modeling and impacts analysis. The maximum criteria
pollutant concentrations from the past three years of available data collected at the
monitoring stations within San Diego County are typically used to determine the
recommended background values. However, for this project we are using data from
2010 to 2012 to determine the background concentrations, as determined by the
District, since these values correspond to the meteorological and hourly background
concentration data used by the District in their Air Quality Impact Analysis for the
amended CECP.
Air Quality Table 10
Staff Recommended Background Concentrations (µg/m3)
Pollutant
NO2

PM10
PM2.5
CO

SO2

Averaging
Time
1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
Annual
24 hour
Annual
24 hour
Annual
1 hour
8 hour
1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
24 hour

Recommended
Background
152
96
17
42
21
21.3
10.6
5,039
4,352
34
34
8

Limiting
Standard
339
188
57
50
20
35
12
23,000
10,000
655
196
105

Percent of
Standard
45%
51%
30%
84%
105%
61%
88%
22%
44%
5%
17%
8%

Source: SDAPCD 2015

Where possible, staff prefers that the recommended background concentrations come
from nearby monitoring stations with similar characteristics. For this project, the Camp
Pendleton monitoring station (ozone and NO2) is located reasonably close to the project
site, in the Camp Pendleton Marine Base approximately 6.3 miles north northwest of the
project site. The Escondido (CO, PM10, and PM2.5) and San Diego (SO2) monitoring
stations are located further from the site, but considering the inland valley location of
February 2015

4.1-21

AIR QUALITY

 Escondido and the more industrialized area of San Diego, these two locations should
provide conservatively high background concentrations for Carlsbad.
The background concentrations for PM10 are at or above the most restrictive existing
ambient air quality standards, while the background concentrations for the other
pollutants are all below the most restrictive existing ambient air quality standards.
The pollutant modeling analysis was limited to the pollutants listed above in Air Quality
Table 10; therefore, recommended background concentrations were not determined for
the other criteria pollutants (ozone, lead, visibility, etc.).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND EMISSIONS
The project owner has proposed to develop the amended CECP on a 30-acre site,
within the 95-acre Encina Power Station site. This 30-acre site currently contains four
unused fuel-oil aboveground storage tanks (ASTs 4, 5, 6, and 7) that previously
serviced the existing Encina Power Station (EPS). The amended CECP project would
consist of six General Electric LMS100 simple-cycle gas turbines, a diesel-fueled
emergency generator, a diesel-fueled fire water pump, and three electric-driven natural
gas compressors. The project would employ air cooling and would not include any other
stationary criteria pollutant emission sources. The entire existing EPS, including boiler
Units 1 through 5 and the gas turbine, would be removed from service after the new
power plant facilities are constructed, commissioned, and begin commercial operation.
Additionally, demolition of the EPS would begin within 12 months of the start of
commercial operation of the amended CECP power plant facilities.
The amended CECP would consist of: (1) Phase I demolition and AST removal
activities requested in the PTR (LL 2014b); (2) Phase II construction and commissioning
of the revised CECP power plant design, (3) Phase III shut-down and decommissioning
of EPS Units 1-5 and gas turbine, and (4) Phase IV EPS demolition activities that are
requested in the PTA (LL 2014d). The amended project would maximize the use of
existing linear lines; therefore, little or no off-site construction is necessary for
transmission, gas supply, or sewer/industrial wastewater lines for this project. The
amended project is proposed to be supplied with reclaimed water from the city of
Carlsbad’s recycled water facility, and would discharge waste water through an on-site
connection with the city of Carlsbad’s existing sanitary/industrial and Encina
Wastewater Authority sewer system. The portion of the approved project not being
amended includes demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7 along with any resulting soil
remediation.
The project site is located in the city of Carlsbad just west of the I-5, 0.25 miles east of
Carlsbad Boulevard, just south of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, and 0.04 miles north of
Cannon Road. The site location is in a man-made depression or basin that was
constructed as secondary containment for the ASTs 4, 5, 6, and 7. The general area
around the site has mixed use with heavy industrial use (the Encina Power Station),
light industrial use, commercial use, residential use, and school use, as well as
recreational use of the Pacific Ocean (Carlsbad State Beach), the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, and Cannon Park.
AIR QUALITY

4.1-22

February 2015

 The nearest residence is located approximately 0.44 miles to the northeast of the power
plant site, with other residences 0.49 miles and 0.51 miles to the northwest and
southwest of the site. The nearest school, Jefferson Elementary, is located
approximately 0.69 miles north northwest of the site.

CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the amended CECP would consist of the following four primary phases:
1. Phase I - Tank Demolition and Remediation
2. Phase II - Construction and Initial Commissioning of the amended CECP
3. Phase III - Retirement and Decommissioning of EPS units
4. Phase IV - EPS Demolition
Phase I is requested by the project owner in their PTR, and the other three phases for
the amended CECP are requested in their PTA. Phase II includes the initial
commissioning of the gas turbines that are described separately in the following
subsection. None of the construction/demolition phases overlap with each other, and
the demolition and remediation of ASTs 5, 6, and 7, approved as part of the licensed
CECP, would be completed prior to initiation of Phase I. The amended CECP operation
would overlap with Phase III and Phase IV.
The total construction period for all four phases is 64 months. During the construction
and demolition periods, Phases I, II and IV, of the amended CECP; most of heavier
construction and demolition activities, including truck trips, would occur between 6:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m., five days per week; and the use of heavy off-road equipment on-site
would occur primarily between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., five days per week.
However, there would be times when additional hours of construction may be necessary
to make up for construction delays due to weather or other unforeseen events. Some
activities would be continuous 24 hours per day, seven days per week, during some
construction or demolition periods and during startup and commission of the units.
Construction laydown and construction worker parking areas for this project would
occupy approximately 19.3 acres of property within the existing Encina Power Station,
west of the existing railroad tracks in the area of existing ASTs 1 and 2 (which would
both be demolished as part of the PTR). The existing railroad line, which would be
available for delivery of materials and heavy equipment, is located immediately west of
the project site. Materials and other equipment would also be delivered by truck,
accessed from Cannon Road via Avenida Encinitas.
Fugitive dust emissions during the construction of the amended CECP power plant and
EPS demolition would result from dust entrained during demolition, site preparation and
grading/excavation activities, on-site and off-site travel on paved and unpaved surfaces,
and aggregate and soil loading and unloading operations, as well as wind erosion of
areas disturbed during construction activities. The largest fugitive dust emissions are
often generated during site preparation activities, where work such as clearing, grading,
excavation of footings and foundations, and backfilling operations occur. These types of
activities require the use of large earth moving equipment, which generate combustion
February 2015

4.1-23

AIR QUALITY

 emissions, along with creating fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions resulting
from on-site soil disturbances, such as dozing and grading, and from on-site and off-site
traffic also were estimated.
Combustion emissions during the construction of the amended CECP and demolition of
the EPS would result from off-road and on-road equipment exhaust sources, such as
diesel construction equipment used for site preparation, water trucks used to control
dust emissions, cranes, excavators, diesel-powered welding machines, electric
generators, air compressors, water pumps, diesel trucks used for deliveries and
demolition waste hauling, trains used for deliveries, and automobiles and trucks used by
workers to commute to and from the construction sites. Construction/demolition
emissions were estimated by the project owner for three of the four primary construction
and demolition work phases as described below.

Phase I - Tank Demolition and Remediation
This phase includes the demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 including any necessary soil
remediation, and removal/reuse of the berm between ASTs 4 and 5 as proposed under
the PTR (LL 2014b). The project owner’s estimates for the maximum daily emissions
and maximum daily on-site emissions during the peak month for this phase are
summarized in Air Quality Table 11. The licensed CECP construction emissions
estimates are also provided in this table for comparison.
Air Quality Table 11
Construction Phase I Maximum Daily Emissions, lbs/day
Total Project Phase Emissions:
Tank Demolition/Berm Removal
Licensed CECP Maximum Daily Emissions
Total Onsite Emissions:
Tank Demolition/Berm Removal
Licensed CECP Maximum Daily Emissions

NOx
46.14
493.67
NOx
42.81
274.90

CO
59.64
529.42
CO
56.00
150.27

VOC
2.47
67.82
VOC
2.15
25.19

SOx
0.10
0.71
SOx
0.09
0.30

PM10
4.01
51.66
PM10
3.85
42.22

PM2.5
2.00
27.04
PM2.5
1.88
17.59

Source: LL 2014b, Tabled 3.1-1 and 3.1-2; CEC 2009b, Table 11

As can be seen in air pollutant emissions estimates provided in Air Quality Table 11,
the licensed CECP construction had much higher estimated emissions than those
estimated for the Phase I AST demolition and berm removal work.
This phase is a six month activity and it would be performed in the same twelve month
period as portions of the licensed CECP construction activities (demolition of ASTs 5, 6,
and 7) that are not included in the PTR or PTA and the amended CECP construction
activities: however, it along with the licensed CECP and amended CECP construction
activities are not expected to have a higher 12-month emissions peak than that
determined for the amended CECP construction as shown below.

Phase II – Construction and Initial Commissioning of the amended
CECP
Construction of the amended CECP would take 21 months of the 24 month schedule of
this phase. The peak daily and the and peak annual, based on the peak 12-month
period, total and on-site constructionTables a equipment exhaust and fugitive emissions
AIR QUALITY

4.1-24

February 2015

 estimated for construction of the amended CECP are shown in Air Quality Tables 12
and 13. The licensed CECP construction emissions estimates are also provided in
these tables for comparison.
Air Quality Table 12
Construction Phase II Maximum Daily Emissions, lbs/day
Total Project Phase Emissions:
Amended CECP Construction
Licensed CECP Maximum Daily Emissions
Total Onsite Emissions:
Amended CECP Construction
Licensed CECP Maximum Daily Emissions

NOx
122.31
493.67
NOx
118.31
274.90

CO
162.85
529.42
CO
146.18
150.27

VOC
7.38
67.82
VOC
6.01
25.19

SOx
0.31
0.71
SOx
0.27
0.30

PM10
11.01
51.66
PM10
8.47
42.22

PM2.5
7.58
27.04
PM2.5
6.86
17.59

Source: LL 2014e, Table 5.1F-2; CEC 2009b, Table 11

Air Quality Table 13
Construction Phase II Peak Annual Emissions, tons/year
Total Project Phase Emissions:
Amended CECP Construction
Licensed CECP Peak Annual Emissions
Total Onsite Emissions:
Amended CECP Construction
Licensed CECP Peak Annual Emissions

NOx
10.87
26.63
NOx
10.55
16.94

CO
14.51
44.95
CO
12.94
13.34

VOC
0.67
4.94
VOC
0.54
1.68

SOx
0.03
0.05
SOx
0.02
0.02

PM10
1.09
3.68
PM10
0.84
3.18

PM2.5
0.74
1.65
PM2.5
0.67
1.16

Source: LL 2014e, Table 5.1F-2; CEC 2009b, Table 12

As can be seen in air pollutant emissions estimates provided in Air Quality Tables 12
and 13, the licensed CECP construction had higher estimated emissions than those
estimated for the amended CECP construction. There are three primary reasons why
the amended CECP construction emissions are lower than the licensed CECP
construction emissions: 1) the construction activities are separated in more discrete
events with a longer schedule which reduces the peak fugitive dust emissions; 2) more
effective emissions reduction for the off-road equipment engines are assumed in the
form of newer engines with higher minimum U.S. EPA/ARB tier levels along with a
reduction in emissions factors associated with revisions by ARB to the OFFROAD
emissions estimating program; and 3) reduced on-road equipment emission factors that
correspond to the revised starting date for the construction schedule.
Initial commissioning, which would cover the last three months of this phase, is
described separately in the “Initial Commissioning” subsection.

Phase III – Retirement and Decommissioning of EPS units
This phase would start after the completion of initial commissioning and the start of
commercial operation of the amended CECP. This phase is estimated to require 12
months and would consist of the permanent shutdown and decommissioning of EPS
units 1-5 and the gas turbine. Other activities to be performed during this phase, that
would be required prior to the initiation of Phase IV - EPS Demolition, would include the
removal of EPS materials and equipment that would be reused, sold, or recycled; and
the removal of hazardous materials. In addition all of the SDAPCD air permits for the
EPS boilers and gas turbine would be retired at the beginning of this phase.
February 2015

4.1-25

AIR QUALITY

 The applicant did not provide an emissions estimate for this phase, which would occur
concurrently with amended CECP operation. However, due to the substantially lower
level of activity required, this phase would have emissions that would be substantially
lower than the emissions during the EPS demolition.

Phase IV – EPS Demolition
EPS demolition would require 22 months and would comprise removing all EPS
structures down to current grade levels. Specific major activities include the removal of
the EPS stack, removal of the boiler building, and plugging the ocean water intake and
outfalls. Demolition would not include implosion or felling of the EPS stack or boiler
building. The project owner provided a demolition plan that explains the methods,
requirements, and assumptions for the EPS demolition process (LL 2014cc) to respond
to staff data requests (CEC 2014u); and also provided a revised emissions estimate for
EPS demolition (LL 2014uu) that addressed staffs issues with the emissions estimate
provided with the PTA that were noted in staff’s data requests (CEC 2014i). This
construction phase would occur concurrently with the amended CECP operation.
The peak daily and the and peak annual, based on the peak 12-month period, total and
on-site construction equipment exhaust and fugitive emissions estimated for EPS
demolition are shown in Air Quality Tables 14 and 15. The licensed CECP construction
emissions estimates are also provided in these tables for comparison.
Air Quality Table 14
Phase IV – EPS Demolition Maximum Daily Emissions, lbs/day
Total Project Phase Emissions:
EPS Demolition
Licensed CECP Maximum Daily Emissions
Total Onsite Emissions:
EPS Demolition
Licensed CECP Maximum Daily Emissions

NOx
94.29
493.67
NOx
85.00
274.90

CO
170.00
529.42
CO
152.62
150.27

VOC
5.15
67.82
VOC
3.92
25.19

SOx
0.31
0.71
SOx
0.24
0.30

PM10
9.94
51.66
PM10
0.95
42.22

PM2.5
2.13
27.04
PM2.5
0.50
17.59

Source: LL2014uu, Table 5.1-12 (revised); CEC 2009b, Table 11

Air Quality Table 15
Phase IV – EPS Demolition Peak Annual Emissions, tons/year
Total Project Phase Emissions:
EPS Demolition
Licensed CECP Peak Annual Emissions
Total Onsite Emissions:
EPS Demolition
Licensed CECP Peak Annual Emissions

NOx
10.07
26.63
NOx
9.08
16.94

CO
17.71
44.95
CO
16.20
13.34

VOC
0.52
4.94
VOC
0.41
1.68

SOx
0.03
0.05
SOx
0.03
0.02

PM10
0.98
3.68
PM10
0.12
3.18

PM2.5
0.21
1.65
PM2.5
0.05
1.16

Source: LL2014uu, Table 5.1-12 (revised); CEC 2009b, Table 12

As can be seen in air pollutant emissions estimates provided in Air Quality Tables 14
and 15, the licensed CECP construction had higher estimated emissions than those
estimated for the Phase IV EPS demolition with the exception of a small increase in
maximum annual on-site CO and SOx emissions.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-26

February 2015

 INITIAL COMMISSIONING
The initial commissioning of a power plant refers to the time between the completion of
construction and the reliable production of electricity for sale on the market. The initial
commissioning is scheduled to occur during the last three months of Phase II. For most
power plants, normal operating emission limits usually do not apply during the initial
commissioning activities. The commissioning period is needed, in part, to ensure the
facility’s operation is fine-tuned to minimize emissions during normal operations.
The commissioning activities for the six turbines (known as Units 6 through 11) would
be completed simultaneously. Commissioning of the six turbines is estimated to require
three to four months and is estimated to require 213 fired hours per gas turbine, 125 of
which would be without the pollution control catalysts in operation and the last 88 would
be with the pollution control catalysts in operation. After completing the commissioning
period, the new units are expected to be available for commercial operation, with
pollution control catalysts. During the commissioning period, the existing EPS would be
also available for operation as needed. The EPS units would be shutdown and
decommissioned directly after the successful commercial operation of the amended
CECP gas turbine power plant.
Air Quality Table 16 presents the project owner’s estimated emissions during the initial
commissioning period (LL 2014e). The project would have a total of 11 major
commissioning test types, where the maximum emissions potentials are summarized in
the table. The emission rates for SO2 are not presented as they are fuel-flow based and
are not expected to be higher during any of the commissioning period activities than
during normal operation.
Air Quality Table 16
Amended CECP Initial Commissioning Maximum Short-Term Emissions
Time Period
Maximum Hourly (lbs/hr/turbine)
Maximum Hourly All Turbines (lbs/hour)
Maximum Daily (lbs/day/turbine)
Maximum Daily (lbs/day/all turbines)

NOx
90.0
540.0
1,080
6,480

CO
247.67
1,486
2,971
17,826

VOC
7.92
47.5
181
1,086.3

PM
5.0
30
120
720

Source: LL 2014e, GE estimates and Tables 5.1B-12 and 5.1B-13, PDOC (SDAPCD 2014)

The short-term air pollutant emissions estimates from Air Quality Table 16 were used
in air dispersion modeling impacts analysis, presented in the “Impacts” subsection, to
determine the worst-case air quality impacts during initial commissioning.
Air Quality Table 17 shows the summary of total initial commissioning emissions per
turbine, with a comparison to the licensed CECP initial commissioning emissions.

February 2015

4.1-27

AIR QUALITY

 Air Quality Table 17
Amended CECP Initial Commissioning Emissions per Turbine, tons
Per Gas Turbine
Total
Licensed CECP

NOx
2.96
17.74
12.48

CO
7.16
42.95
130.34

VOC
0.36
2.18
6.96

PM
0.35
2.11
3.92

Source: PDOC (SDAPCD 2014), CEC 2009b

The initial commissioning emissions estimated for the amended CECP, for all pollutants
except NOx, are well below the initial commissioning emissions estimated for the
licensed CECP. The total NOx emissions are approximately 40 percent higher than
those estimated for the licensed CECP. The maximum 12-month rolling average
emissions for the amended CECP, that includes the initial commissioning period, are
included in the SDAPCD permit conditions and are evaluated in the “Impacts”
subsection.

OPERATIONAL PHASE
Equipment Description
The amended CECP facility would consist of six gas turbine power blocks, with the
following major components, providing a total nominal generating capacity of 632 MW
net: (LL 2014d):


Six GE LMS100PA gas turbines equipped with water injection for NOx control, inlet
air filters, inlet air evaporative coolers, and compressor intercoolers;



Each gas turbine would be equipped with a selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
system with 19-percent aqueous ammonia injection to further reduce NOx
emissions, and an oxidation catalyst to reduce CO emissions;



Six air-cooled fin-fan coolers that serve the gas turbines’ intercoolers;



Six 90-foot tall, 13.5-foot inside diameter exhaust stacks;



A continuous emission monitoring (CEM) system installed on each stack would
record concentrations of NOx, CO, and oxygen in the flue gas;



A 779 brake-horsepower (bhp) emergency generator engine;



A 327 brake-horsepower (bhp) emergency fire pump engine; and



Three electric motor-driven 50 percent capacity fuel gas compressors.

Facility Operation
The facility would be capable of operating seven days a week, 24 hours per day, but is
being permitted to a maximum emission equivalent of 2,700 hours per year at full load
per gas turbine. This is equivalent to an annual facility-wide capacity factor of
approximately 31 percent. The licensed CECP is permitted to an annual facility-wide
capacity factor of 47 percent. The project owner is not able to determine the exact
operational schedule for amended CECP since the operation profile for a peaker facility
would change depending on the variable demand in the service area. However, the
AIR QUALITY

4.1-28

February 2015

 project owner has committed to operating only between the military time hours of 600
and 2400 daily except under emergency situations.
Annual non-emergency operation of the emergency engines would be limited to 50
hours per year of engine testing. The emissions estimates assume that the total annual
operation, engine testing and emergency operation, is 200 hours per year for each of
the two emergency engines.
The amended CECP operations would require an 18-person workforce including
operators on rotating shifts and maintenance technicians during the standard eight-hour
work day. However, CECP operation would not require new employees because this
18-person workforce would be provided from the 50-person workforce which operates
the existing Encina Power Station.1

Emission Controls
The exclusive use of pipeline-quality natural gas, a relatively clean-burning fuel, would
limit the formation of VOC, PM10, and SO2 emissions. Natural gas contains very little
noncombustible gas or solid residues and a small amount of reduced sulfur compounds,
including mercaptan. Gas turbine water injection and post-combustion NOx control in
the form of a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system would be provided for each
power block to control NOx concentrations in the exhaust gas. The SCR system would
use 19 percent aqueous ammonia to reduce NOx emissions to no greater than 2.5 parts
per million by volume, dry (ppmvd) adjusted to 15 percent oxygen from the gas
turbines/SCR systems. Ammonia slip would be limited to five ppmvd at 15 percent
oxygen on a dry basis. Staged combustion of a pre-mixed fuel/air charge would reduce
CO and VOC emissions, and a CO oxidizing catalyst would be used to further reduce
CO and VOC concentrations in the exhaust gas emitted to the atmosphere to 4.0
ppmvd and 2.0 ppmvd, adjusted to 15 percent oxygen, respectively. Particulate
emissions would be controlled through the use of best combustion practices, the use of
a high-efficiency inlet air filter, and the use of pipeline quality natural gas as the sole fuel
source. SOx emissions would be controlled using natural gas as the sole fuel for the
gas turbines. Compliance with Best Available Control Technology requirements are
described in the “Compliance with LORS” subsection.
The emergency engines would be controlled by the purchase of engines meeting the
best available U.S. EPA/ARB Tier engine and using California low sulfur (15 ppm sulfur)
diesel fuel. The emergency generator engine and the emergency fire pump are currently
assumed to have Tier 4i and Tier 3 engines, respectively.
Six 90-foot tall, 13.5-foot inside diameter stacks would release the gas turbine exhaust
gas into the atmosphere. A continuous emission monitoring (CEM) system would be
installed on the gas turbine stack to monitor flue gas flow rate, NOx and CO
concentration levels, and percentage of oxygen in the flue gas to assure adherence with
1

The project owner did not provide emissions data for vehicles required during the operation phase,
including the trucks required for the trailer mounted water filters. Therefore, staff has not presented
emissions from these mobile sources. The emissions from these sources would be minimal, within the
“noise” of the overall emissions estimate, and do not impact staff’s analysis of the operations emissions. It
should also be noted that these emissions would be offset partially or wholly by the vehicle emissions
from the EPS site that will cease after it is demolished.
February 2015

4.1-29

AIR QUALITY

 the proposed emission limits. The CEM system would generate reports of emissions
data in accordance with permit requirements and send alarm signals to the control room
in plant when the level of emissions approaches or exceeds pre-selected limits.

Project Operating Emissions
Expected maximum emission rates during startup and shutdown events are
summarized in Air Quality Table 18. Hourly startup emissions rates reflect 25 minutes
of elevated emissions followed by 35 minutes of normal operating emission levels.
During shutdown, the emissions rates reflect 13 minutes of elevated emission levels
preceded by 47 minutes of normal operating emissions. The project owner also expects
that there could be periodic cases that would have a startup, a shutdown, and another
startup event, all occurring within one hour. This case represents the worst-case hourly
emissions, reflecting 47 minutes of higher emissions levels in startup and 13 minutes of
higher emissions levels in shutdown in one hour; however, it is expected that this would
occur very infrequently. PM10 and SO2 emissions are not shown in the Air Quality
Table 18, since the emissions for these pollutants are not estimated to be higher or
lower during startup and shutdown events than during normal operation.
Air Quality Table 18
Maximum Short-Term Event Emissions, lbs/hr, per gas turbine
Startup/Shutdown
Amended CECP Startup
Amended CECP Shutdown
Amended CECP
Startup/Shutdown/Restart
Licensed CECP Startup
Licensed CECP Shutdown
Licensed CECP Startup/Shutdown

NOx
19.95
7.65

CO
12.53
10.29

VOC
3.46
4.36

28.24

17.31

6.16

69.2
47
86

545
286
814

15.5
8.2
19.8

Source: LL 2014e, Table 5.1B-12; PDOC (SDAPCD 2014); and FSA (CEC 2009b)

The maximum short-term pollutant emission rates for NOx, CO, and VOC are higher for
the licensed CECP than the amended CECP.
The maximum hourly normal operating emission rates for the gas turbines are provided
in Air Quality Table 19. The maximum hourly normal operating emission rates reflect
the average ambient temperature full load operating case without operation of the inlet
air evaporation unit. Included in this table is a comparison with the licensed CECP gas
turbine/HRSG maximum normal operating emissions.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-30

February 2015

 Air Quality Table 19
Maximum Normal Pollutant Emission Rates, lb/hr
Amended CECP Operating Unit
Gas Turbine Units 6 – 11 (each)
Total Maximum Gas Turbine Emissions
Emergency Generator Engine
Emergency Fire Pump Engine
Natural Gas Compressors
Licensed CECP Maximum Emissions for
Gas Turbines

NOx
9.07
54.42
3.84
1.87
--

CO
8.83
52.98
1.15
0.505
--

30.2

18.4

VOC
2.52
15.12
0.13
0.072
0.057

SOxa
2.07
12.42
0.01
0.003
--

PMb
5.00
30.00
0.09
0.079
--

8.0

8.8

19.00

Source: LL 2014e, Table 5.1B-12; and PDOC (SDAPCD 2014); and FSA (CEC 2009b)
a
SO2 short-term emissions are based on worst-case natural gas sulfur content of 0.75 grains/100 dry standard cubic feet.
Actual likely long-term worst-case sulfur content is less than 0.25 grains/100 dry standard cubic feet.
b
This is a short-term limit to determine maximum hourly and daily emissions limits. The annual emissions limit is based on
a facility wide average of 3.5 lbs/hour/turbine of PM10. PM=PM10=PM2.5

The maximum normal pollutant emission rates are higher for the amended CECP than
the licensed CECP for all pollutants.
Air Quality Table 20 summarizes the maximum (worst-case) estimated daily and
annual emissions for the amended CECP, and provides the licensed CECP maximum
daily and annual emissions for comparison. Maximum daily emissions for the gas
turbines are based on four hours of startup, four hours of shutdown, and 16 hours of
normal operation at annual average temperature full-load conditions. The daily
emergency engines emissions are based on one hour of operation at full load and the
daily natural gas compressor VOC emissions are based on 24 hours at the normal
hourly emission rate. Maximum annual emissions for the gas turbines are based on 400
hours of startup and 400 hours of shutdown and 1,900 hours of normal operation at
annual average temperature full-load conditions. The annual emergency engines
emissions are based on 50 hours at full load and the annual natural gas compressor
VOC emissions are based on 8,760 hours at the normal hourly emission rate.
Air Quality Table 20
Amended CECP Worst-Case Daily and Annual Emissions
Maximum (Single gas turbine, lbs/day)
Maximum (Six gas turbines, lbs/day)
Maximum (New Equipment, lbs/day)
Maximum (Single gas turbine, tons/year)
Maximum (Six gas turbines, tons/year)
Maximum (New Equipment, tons/year)
Licensed CECP Maximum (lbs/day)
Maximum Licensed CECP (tons/year)

NOx
259.9
1,535.2
1,541
14.15
84.9
85.07
1,756
75.59

CO
232.8
1,396.8
1,398.4
12.96
77.8
77.83
1,205
217.31

VOC
71.8
430.6
432.2
3.97
23.8
24.06
380
20.05

SOxa
49.6
297.9
298
0.93
5.59
5.59
211
5.61

PMb
120.0
720.0
720.2
4.7
28.35
28.35
456
38.95

NH3
160.9
965.2
965.2
9.0
54.3
54.3
672
53.62

Source: LL 2014e, Table 5.1B-13; PDOC (SDAPCD 2014); and FSA (CEC 2009b)
a
SO2 annual emissions are based on an annual average sulfur content of 0.25 grains/100 dry standard cubic feet.
b
The PM10 short-term limit to determine maximum hourly and daily emissions limits is 5.0 lbs/hour. The annual PM10
emissions limit is based on a facility wide annual average of 3.5 lbs/hour/turbine. PM=PM10=PM2.5

The maximum amended CECP worst-case daily and annual emissions estimates are
higher than those estimated for the licensed CECP with the exception of the daily NOx
emissions, the annual CO emissions, and the annual PM emissions.
February 2015

4.1-31

AIR QUALITY

 Air Quality Table 21 summarizes the estimate for the maximum annual emissions for
the amended CECP, the existing EPS annual emissions baseline as determined by
SDAPCD through a review of recent emissions data (years 2009 to 2013), and the
expected maximum annual incremental project emission increase or decrease from the
EPS baseline.
Air Quality Table 21
Amended CECP Incremental Annual Emissions

Amended CECP Expected Maximum Annual
Encina Power Station (EPS) Emissions Baselined
Amended CECP Net Emissions Change

NOx
84.8a
59.9
24.89

Pollutant (tons/year)
COb
VOC
SOx
77.83
24.06
5.59
122.1
30.73
4.00
-44.27
-6.67
1.59

Licensed CECP Net Emissions Changee

39.9

-51.51

Emission Source

4.8

PMc
28.35
42.55
-14.20

-0.6

7.5

Source: LL 2014e, Table 5.1B-14; PDOC (SDAPCD 2015); and FSA (CEC 2009b)
Notes:
a
The project owner has taken a reduced facility-wide NOx emission limit, a very small reduction of less than 0.3 tons/year,
to ensure that emissions were limited below District NSR permitting offset thresholds.
b
This represents normal operating years. For the initial commissioning year the annual CO emissions would be permitted
to 102.1 tons, which for that one year of initial commissioning would result in an emission decrease of 20.0 tons.
c
PM=PM10=PM2.5
d
This baseline represents the average annual values determined by SDAPCD using their approved 2012 and 2013 annual
emissions estimates for the EPS. This does not represent the maximum sequential two-year average from 2009 to 2013,
which would be the average of the 2011 and 2012 EPS emissions.
e
This is based on the EPS emissions baseline in effect at the time of the licensed CECP approval. Except for CO, these
values would be reduced with the use of the current EPS emissions baseline.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
Staff assesses three kinds of impacts: construction/demolition, operation, and
cumulative effects. As the name implies, construction/demolition impacts result from the
emissions occurring during the construction or demolition phases of the project. The
operation impacts result from the emissions of the proposed project during operation.
Cumulative impacts analysis assesses the impacts that result from the proposed
project’s incremental effect viewed over time, together with other closely related past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects whose impacts may compound or
increase the incremental effect of the proposed project. (Pub. Resources Code § 21083;
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15064(h), 15065(c), 15130, and 15355). Additionally,
cumulative impacts are assessed in terms of conformance with the District’s attainment
or maintenance plans.

METHOD AND THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Staff used two main significance criteria in evaluating this project. First, all project
emissions of nonattainment criteria pollutants and their precursors (NOx, VOC, PM10,
and SO2) are considered significant cumulative impacts that must be mitigated. Second,
any AAQS exceedance or any contribution to any AAQS exceedance caused by any
project emissions is considered to be significant and must be mitigated. For
construction/demolition emissions, the mitigation that is considered is limited to
controlling both construction equipment tailpipe emissions and fugitive dust emissions to
the maximum extent feasible. For operating emissions, the mitigation includes both

AIR QUALITY

4.1-32

February 2015

 feasible emission controls (BACT) and the use of emission reduction credits to offset
emissions of nonattainment criteria pollutants and their precursors.
The ambient air quality standards that staff uses as a basis for determining project
significance are health-based standards established by the ARB and U.S. EPA. They
are set at levels to adequately protect the health of all members of the public, including
those most sensitive to adverse air quality impacts such as the aged, people with
existing illnesses, children, and infants, including a margin of safety.

DIRECT/CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
While the emissions are the actual mass of pollutants emitted from the amended
project, the impacts are the concentration of pollutants from the amended project that
reach the ground level. When emissions are expelled at a high temperature and velocity
through the relatively tall stack, the pollutants would be significantly diluted by the time
they reach ground level. The emissions from the proposed project are analyzed through
the use of air dispersion models to determine the probable impacts at ground level.
Air dispersion models provide a means of predicting the location and ground level
magnitude of the impacts of a new emissions source. These models consist of several
complex series of mathematical equations, which are repeatedly calculated by a
computer for many ambient conditions to provide theoretical maximum offsite pollutant
concentrations for short-term (one-hour, three-hour, eight-hour, and 24-hour) and
annual periods. The model results are generally described as maximum concentrations,
often described as a unit of mass per volume of air, such as micrograms per cubic
meter (g/m3).
The project owner has used U.S. EPA-approved screening (SCREEN3) and refined
(AERMOD version 13350) air dispersion models to estimate the direct impacts of the
project’s NOx, PM10, CO, and SOx emissions resulting from project
construction/demolition and operation. Additionally, the District completed an analysis of
the project’s operating emissions using the SCREEN3 and AERMOD (version 14134)
air dispersion models in their Air Quality Impact Analysis, which was provided as
Appendix C of the Preliminary Determination of Compliance (PDOC).
Staff revised the background concentrations provided by the project owner, replacing
them with the ambient background concentrations determined by the District in their Air
Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA), and as shown in Air Quality Table 10. Staff has
provided the project owner (construction) or District (operation) modeled impacts with
the appropriate background concentrations, and compares the results with the ambient
air quality standards for each respective air contaminant to determine whether the
project’s emission impacts would cause a new exceedance of the ambient air quality
standards or would contribute to an existing exceedance.
The inputs for the air dispersion models include stack information (exhaust flow rate,
temperature, and stack dimensions), specific turbine emission data and meteorological
data, such as wind speed, atmospheric conditions, and site elevation. For this project,
the meteorological data used as inputs to the model included hourly wind speeds and
directions measured at the Camp Pendleton Station, which is the closest complete
meteorological data source to the project site, and is meteorological data both compiled
February 2015

4.1-33

AIR QUALITY

 by and approved for use by the SDAPCD. Additionally, the project owner obtained from
the District hourly ozone and NO2 ambient data from the Camp Pendleton monitoring
station that was used in a more refined NO2 impact modeling analysis using the Ozone
Limiting Method (OLM) options that are available with AERMOD. The project owner
modeled using data from 2008 through 2012, while the District used data from 2010 to
2012 in their AQIA, which included reprocessing of the meteorological data using the
newest version of AERMET, which is a program that process meteorological data for
use in AERMOD.

Construction Impacts and Mitigation
The following section discusses the project’s short-term direct and cumulative
construction ambient air quality impacts, as estimated by the project owner with revised
background concentrations from the District, and provides a discussion of appropriate
mitigation. Staff reviewed the construction emissions estimates and air dispersion
modeling procedures and requested that the project owner provided revisions to both
analyses as part of project discovery (CEC 2014i, LL 2014p). Staff considers the
analyses to provide an adequately conservative prediction of project construction
impacts. Please see the “Cumulative Impact Analysis” section for a description of the
current status of the impact analysis for the EPS demolition.
Construction Impact Analysis
The project owner used both the U.S. EPA guideline ARMS/EPA Regulatory Model
(AERMOD) to estimate ambient impacts. The District does not analyze construction
impacts in the Air Quality Impact Analysis that is completed with the Determination of
Compliance. Therefore, for construction, the project owner’s modeling analysis is
presented. The emission sources for the construction site were modeled as volume
source where the vertical dimension was set to six meters, and the horizontal dimension
was set to approximately 30 meters. The construction impact analysis also included the
emissions from the EPS boilers and gas turbine emissions as point sources, since these
units could be operating concurrently with the amended CECP project construction
activities.
For the determination of one-hour average construction NOx concentrations, the Ozone
Limiting Method (OLM) was used to determine worst-case near-field NO2 impacts. The
NOx emissions from internal combustion sources, such as diesel engines or gas
turbines, are primarily in the form of nitric oxide (NO) rather than NO2. The NO converts
into NO2 in the atmosphere, primarily through the reaction with ambient ozone, and NOx
OLM assumes full conversion of stack NO emission with the available ambient ozone.
The NOx OLM method used assumed an initial NO2/NOx ratio of 0.1 for diesel
construction equipment and for the EPS boilers. An initial NO2/NOx ratio of 0.13 was
used for the EPS gas turbine. Actual monitored hourly background ozone and NO2
concentration data (2008 to 2012 data that corresponds with the meteorological files)
were used by this modeling method to calculate maximum potential NO to NO2
conversion plus actual corresponding hourly NO2 background, to determine the
maximum hourly NO2 impacts. For the computing of annual average construction NOx
concentrations, the Ambient Ratio Method (ARM) with the national default value of 0.80
for the annual average NO2/NOx ratio was used by the project owner.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-34

February 2015

 To determine the construction impacts on short-term ambient standards (i.e. one-hour
through 24-hours), the worst-case daily on-site construction emission levels were
modeled. For pollutants with annual average ambient standards, the annual on-site
emissions levels were added to a conservatively estimated “background” of existing
emissions to determine the cumulative effect. For the modeling analysis, per the
assumptions provided in the project owner’s construction emissions impact analysis it is
assumed that all of the equipment would operate one eight-hour daylight shift from 7:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. for the short-term impact modeling (24 hours or less) and also only
work on weekdays for the annual impact modeling. Air Quality Table 22 provides the
results of this modeling analysis.
Air Quality Table 22
Amended CECP Maximum Onsite Construction Impacts, (µg/m3)a
Averaging
Period

Pollutant

NO2

PM10
PM2.5
CO

SO2

1 hour b
1 hour NAAQSc
annual
24 hour
Annual
24 hour
Annual
1 hour
8 hour
1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
24 hour

Project
Impact
(g/m3)
134.7
115.3d
10.8
3.6
0.9
2.9
0.7
736
163
4.7
4.7
0.4

Background
(g/m3) b
152
96
17
42
21
21.3
10.6
5,039
4,352
34
34
8

Total
Impact
(g/m3)
286.7
158 d
27.8
45.6
21.9
24.2
11.3
5,775
4,515
38.7
38.7
8.4

Limiting
Standard
(g/m3)
339
188
57
50
20
35
12
23,000
10,000
655
196
105

Type of
Standard
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS

Percent
of
Standard
85%
84%
49%
91%
110%
69%
94%
25%
45%
6%
20%
8%

Source: LL 2014e, Table 5.1F-1
a
This modeling includes the modeling of emissions estimated for the amended CECP construction and the emissions from the
continued operation of the Encina Power Station that would occur during construction.
b
Background values are adjusted, based on the District’s evaluation in their AQIA, as presented in Air Quality Table 10.
c
The hourly NOx modeling analysis was performed using the ozone limiting method
d
The maximum one-hour NAAQS NO2 project impacts shown in Air Quality Table 22 are not the maximum project impact plus
the background because this is a statistical standard. The statistical 98th percentile of the maximum project NO2 impact plus the
actual NO2 background result in a lower combination of project impacts plus background NO2 concentration.

As can be seen from the modeling results provided in Air Quality Table 22, the
construction impacts have the potential to worsen the existing violations of the annual
PM10 ambient air quality standard and are therefore potentially significant, and staff
recommends mitigation. The project owner’s construction modeling analysis indicates
that the maximum NO2, PM2.5, CO, and SO2 impacts would remain below the CAAQS
and NAAQS. The NOx and VOC emissions from construction, when considering their
potential secondary ozone formation added to the existing ozone “background,” have
the potential to contribute to existing exceedances of the ozone standard and are
therefore potentially significant and staff recommends mitigation.

February 2015

4.1-35

AIR QUALITY

 Construction Mitigation
Staff recommends that construction PM10 and ozone precursor emission impacts be
mitigated, including all required measures from the District’s rules and regulations, as
well as other measures considered necessary by staff to fully mitigate the construction
emissions.
Project Owner’s Proposed Mitigation
The project owner’s proposed mitigation measures are a continuation of the licensed
CECP conditions of certification for construction (AQ-SC1 through AQ-SC5) with two
specific modifications/updates (LL 2014p, DR 17). These modifications/updates are as
follows:


Including the term “demolition” in each of these conditions so that it is clear that
these conditions cover both the construction and demolition phases of the amended
CECP project.



Updating the off-road equipment conditions to have a base engine requirement of
Tier 4/4i, which would now be feasible for the project’s construction and demolition
phases.

The project owner’s construction emissions estimates as presented in Air Quality
Table 11 through 15, which were used to determine the construction modeling impact
results shown in Air Quality Table 22, assume the use of these fugitive emission
control measures, as well as the use of construction equipment that meets U.S.
EPA/ARB Tier 4/4i non-road diesel engine standards starting with the amended CECP
construction phase.
Adequacy of Proposed Mitigation
Staff generally considers these modification and updates to the existing conditions of
certification to be adequate, with a few additions. Staff also has additional site-specific
concerns that we believe need to be addressed with additional modifications to the
existing conditions and the inclusion of two new conditions.
Staff Proposed Mitigation
Staff recommends construction PM10 and NOx emission mitigation measures as
articulated in the licensed CECP Conditions of Certification AQ-SC1 through AQ-SC5
with a few suggested revisions. Staff also recommends new Conditions of Certification
AQ-SC12 and AQ-SC13.
Staff recommends limited nomenclature additions to Conditions of Certification AQSC1, AQ-SC2, and AQ-SC4 that make it clear that these conditions are effective for
both construction and demolition events that would be approved as part of the amended
license, including the period for demolition of the Encina Power Station.
For Condition of Certification AQ-SC3, staff recommends incorporation of the project
owner’s requested text additions, similar to that noted above, to clearly include the
approved demolition activities as part of this condition. Additionally, staff recommends
the addition of a requirement to ensure that the large amount of EPS demolition waste
AIR QUALITY

4.1-36

February 2015

 truck traffic is routed through the Encina site only on paved or graveled roads to reduce
the on-site localized impacts of fugitive dust during the EPS demolition.
Staff recommends the revision of Condition of Certification AQ-SC5 as proposed by the
project owner to include demolition as part of this condition and to upgrade the off-road
engine mitigation requirements to a more restrictive level that is currently feasible. This
update would change the base off-road engine requirement, with noted exceptions, from
U.S. EPA/ARB nonroad diesel engine Tier 3 to Tier 4/4i. This updated requirement
could reduce the PM10 and diesel particulate matter emissions from the off-road
equipment by as much as 90 percent over the licensed CECP condition; and reduce the
NOx emission up to 80 to 90 percent depending on the amount of full Tier 4 versus
interim Tier 4 (Tier 4i) off-road engines that are used during construction and demolition.
The only difference between the project owner’s suggested revision and staff’s is that
staff is recommending this for all construction and demolition phases covered under
both the PTR and PTA, while the project owner did not specifically request a change for
this condition for the construction and demolition activities covered under the PTR.
Staff recommends the new condition AQ-SC12 to ensure that the staging of specific
major construction, demolition, and commissioning events are not performed
concurrently. Staff’s impact analysis findings are based on these events being
sequential, which is how they have been identified and analyzed by the project owner.
Staff recommends the new condition AQ-SC13 to ensure that major short-term air
quality impacts would not occur from large implosion or felling events during the EPS
demolition. The project owner has not proposed and staff has not analyzed the potential
impacts of large implosion or felling events.
Implementation of staff’s recommended construction/demolition emission mitigation
measures contained in the recommended conditions of certification would substantially
reduce fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions during the amended CECP construction and
demolition phases, and reduce the potential for significant air quality impacts from these
temporary emission sources.

Operation Impacts and Mitigation
The following section discusses the project’s direct and cumulative ambient air quality
impacts, as estimated by the project owner, the District, and evaluated by staff.
Additionally, this section discusses the recommended mitigation measures.
The project owner performed direct impact modeling analyses, including operations,
startup and shutdown, fumigation, and an initial commissioning impact analysis. The
District performed these analyses in their Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) that is
included as an appendix in the PDOC. The District’s AQIA modeling analysis results are
shown below.
Operational Modeling Analysis
The project owner used the AERMOD model to estimate ambient impacts during normal
operation and higher short-term emissions events, such as worst-case initial
commissioning and start-up and shutdown emissions events (LL 2014e). The District
replicated this modeling analysis in the PDOC AQIA (SDAPCD 2014, Appendix C) using
February 2015

4.1-37

AIR QUALITY

 AERMOD version 14134. Staff is presenting the District’s modeling analysis results
below. For the determination of NOx concentrations under all operating conditions, the
Ozone Limiting Method option was used. The NOx emissions from internal combustion
sources, such as gas turbines, are primarily in the form of NO rather than NO2. The NO
converts into NO2 in the atmosphere, primarily through the reaction with ambient ozone,
and then assumes full conversion of stack NO emission with that available amount of
ozone. The District assumed initial NO2/NOx ratio of 0.13 for the gas turbines during
normal operation, 0.24 for the gas turbines during non-normal maximum emissions
events, 0.18 for the emergency generator engine, and 0.14 for the fire pump engine.
Actual monitored hourly background ozone and NO2 concentration data from the Camp
Pendleton monitoring station (2010 to 2012 data that corresponds with the
meteorological file surface data source) were used by this modeling method to calculate
maximum potential NO to NO2 conversion.
The District’s predicted maximum concentrations of the directly emitted (not secondarily
formed) pollutants for the amended CECP project under normal steady-state operating
conditions of the gas turbines are summarized in Air Quality Table 23.
Air Quality Table 23
Amended CECP Normal Gas Turbine Operating Impacts - All Gas Turbines
Averaging
Period

Pollutant

NO2 b

PM10
PM2.5
CO

SO2

1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
Annual
24 hour
Annual
24 hour
Annual
1 hour
8 hour
1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
24 hour

Project
Background
Impact
(g/m3) a
(g/m3)
NA b
152
NA b
96
0.08
17
2.15
42
0.04
21
2.15
21.3
0.04
10.6
20.1
5,039
7.2
4,352
4.7
34
4.7
34
0.6
8

Total
Impact
(g/m3)
153
97
17.1
44.2
21.04
23.5
10.64
5,059
4,359
38.7
38.7
8.6

Limiting
Standard
(g/m3)
339
188
57
50
20
35
12
23,000
10,000
655
196
105

Type of
Standard

Percent
of
Standard

CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS

45%
52%
30%
88%
105%
67%
89%
22%
44%
6%
20%
8%

Source: SDAPCD 2014, Appendix C Table 4-2
a
Background values are adjusted, based on the District’s evaluation in their AQIA, as presented in Air Quality Table 10.
b
NO2 1-hour impacts provided in the District’s AQIA are presented with background.

The District’s predicted maximum concentrations of the directly emitted pollutants for
the amended CECP project, including the fire pump and emergency generator engines
along with the gas turbines operating under normal steady-state conditions, are
summarized in Air Quality Table 24.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-38

February 2015

 Air Quality Table 24
Amended CECP Normal Facility Operating Impacts – Gas Turbines and
Emergency Engines
Averaging
Period

Pollutant

NO2

b

PM10
PM2.5
CO

SO2

1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
Annual
24 hour
Annual
24 hour
Annual
1 hour
8 hour
1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
24 hour

Project
Background
Impact
(g/m3) a
(g/m3)
NA b
152
b
NA
96
0.08
17
2.15
42
0.04
21
2.15
21.3
0.04
10.6
38.8
5,039
7.2
4,352
4.7
34
4.7
34
0.6
8

Total
Impact
(g/m3)
209
165
17.1
44.2
21.04
23.5
10.64
5,078
4,359
38.7
38.7
8.6

Limiting
Standard
(g/m3)
339
188
57
50
20
35
12
23,000
10,000
655
196
105

Type of
Standard

Percent
of
Standard

CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS

62%
88%
30%
88%
105%
67%
89%
22%
44%
6%
20%
8%

Source: SDAPCD 2014, Appendix C Table 4-2
a
Background values are adjusted, based on the District’s evaluation in their AQIA, as presented in Air Quality Table 10.
b
NO2 1-hour impacts provided in the District’s AQIA are presented with background.

As the difference in Air Quality Table 23 and 24 shows, the fire pump and emergency
generator engines, when testing, have a much higher short-term, near-field impact
potential for NOx and CO than the gas turbines during normal operations. This is due
both to its lower height and lower exhaust buoyancy that enhances downwash and
higher, near-field, ground-level impacts and the more concentrated NOx and CO
emissions in the fire pump and emergency engines exhausts. The District’s modeling
results indicate that the project’s normal operational impacts would not create
exceedances of NO2, SO2, or CO standards, but could further exacerbate violations of
the PM10 standards. In light of the existing state PM10 and PM2.5 non-attainment
status for the project site area, staff considers the modeled impacts to be significant
and, therefore, staff is recommending appropriate mitigation. Additionally, the NOx and
VOC emissions from operation, when considering their potential secondary ozone
formation added to the existing ozone “background,” have the potential to contribute to
existing exceedances of the ozone standard and are therefore potentially significant
and, therefore, staff is recommending appropriate mitigation.
Startup/Shutdown Event Modeling Impact Analysis
NOx and CO emissions are usually higher during startup and shutdown events than
during steady state operation as the gas turbine emissions are higher during the short
periods of unsteady state operation for startup and shutdown and the SCR and
oxidation catalyst control systems are not functioning at their peak efficiency
immediately upon startup or during shutdown. The District modeled the maximum
emissions from the simultaneous startup/shutdown of all six gas turbines and the
predicted maximum short-term NOx and CO concentrations are summarized in Air
Quality Table 25.

February 2015

4.1-39

AIR QUALITY

 Air Quality Table 25
Amended CECP Startup/Shutdown Impacts, (µg/m3)
Averaging
Period

Pollutant
NO2 b
CO

1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
1 hour
8 hour

Project
Impact
(g/m3)
NA b
NA b
61.0
20.9

Background
(g/m3) a
152
96
5,039
4,352

Total
Impact
(g/m3)
169.4
102
5,100
4,373

Limiting
Standard
(g/m3)
339
188
23,000
10,000

Type of
Standard

Percent
of
Standard

CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS

50%
54%
22%
44%

Source: SDAPCD 2015, Appendix C Table 4-2
a
Background values are adjusted, based on the District’s evaluation in their AQIA, as presented in Air Quality Table 10.
b
NO2 1-hour impacts provided in the District’s AQIA are presented with background.

The District’s modeling results indicate that the project’s maximum startup/shutdown
emission impacts would not cause any new significant ambient impacts associated with
maximum short-term NOx and CO concentrations that could occur near the project site.
Fumigation Modeling Impact Analysis
There is the potential that higher short-term concentrations may occur during fumigation
conditions. During the early morning hours before sunrise, the air is usually very stable.
During such stable meteorological conditions, emissions from elevated stacks rise
through this stable layer and are dispersed. When the sun first rises, the air at ground
level is heated, resulting in a vertical (both rising and sinking air) mixing of air for a few
hundred feet or so. Emissions from a stack that enter this vertically mixed layer of air
would also be vertically mixed, bringing some of those emissions down to the ground
level. Later in the day, as the sun continues to heat the ground, this vertical mixing layer
becomes higher and higher, and the emissions plume becomes better dispersed. The
early morning pollution event, called fumigation, usually lasts approximately 30 to 90
minutes.
Fumigation conditions are short-duration events and are generally only compared to
one-hour standards. Two types of fumigation are analyzed using the SCREEN3 model:
inversion breakup and shoreline. Inversion breakup fumigation occurs under low-wind
conditions when a rising morning mixing height caps a stack (i.e., is at or right above the
stack height) limiting plume rise and mixing, which fumigates the air below. Shoreline
fumigation occurs near a large water body shoreline when both a roughness boundary
and more dominant thermal boundary cause turbulent dispersion to be much more
enhanced near the ground, fumigating air below. The District modeled the worst-case
operating cases to determine the maximum fumigation impacts from the gas turbines.
The results of the District’s fumigation modeling analysis are shown in Air Quality
Table 26.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-40

February 2015

 Air Quality Table 26
Maximum Amended CECP Fumigation Impacts, (µg/m3)
Pollutant

Averaging
Period

NO2
PM10
PM2.5
CO
SO2

NO2
PM10
PM2.5
CO
SO2

1 hour
24 hour
24 hour
1 hour
8 hour
1 hour
24 hour
1 hour
24 hour
24 hour
1 hour
8 hour
1 hour
24 hour

Project
Total
Background
Impact
Impact
(g/m3) a
(g/m3)
(g/m3)
Inversion Breakup Fumigation
4.8
152
156.8
0.9
42
42.9
0.9
21.3
22.2
4.6
5,039
5,044
2.6
4,352
4,355
1.1
34
35.1
0.3
8
8.3
Shoreline Fumigation
33.9
152
185.9
1.4
42
43.4
1.4
21.3
22.7
32.7
5,039
5,072
6.2
4,352
4,358
1.1
34
35.1
0.3
8
8.3

Limiting
Standard
(g/m3)

Type of
Standard

Percent
of
Standard

339
50
35
23,000
10,000
196
105

CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS

46%
86%
63%
22%
44%
18%
8%

339
50
35
23,000
10,000
196
105

CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS

55%
87%
65%
22%
44%
18%
8%

Source: SDAPCD 2015, Appendix C Table 4-2
a
Background values are adjusted, based on the District’s evaluation in their AQIA, as presented in Air Quality Table 10.

Maximum inversion breakup fumigation impacts for the turbines are lower than normal
operating impacts predicted by AERMOD. The impacts under shoreline inversion
fumigation conditions were found to be above the maximum concentrations calculated
under normal gas turbine operations (see Air Quality Table 23). All fumigation impact
concentration levels were found to be below the CAAQS and NAAQS.
Initial Commissioning Short-Term Modeling Impact Analysis
The project owner presented several dozen initial commissioning activities and subactivities that would occur prior to meeting normal emission limits. The worst-case initial
commissioning conditions for the short-term NO2 and CO impacts occur prior to the
installation of the oxidation and SCR catalysts. The District modeled the two worst-case
activities, dynamic load step 10, and sync idle to determine the worst-case short-term
NO2 and CO impacts during initial commissioning. The District also modeled the
PM10/PM2.5 impacts as the exhaust conditions during initial commissioning can result
in reduced dispersion and elevated downwind concentrations. The project owner
expects that multiple gas turbines would undergo initial commissioning simultaneously,
so the absolute worst-case of all six gas turbines operating under these worst-case
initial commissioning conditions were modeled by the District. The results of this
conservative modeling analysis are show in Air Quality Table 27.

February 2015

4.1-41

AIR QUALITY

 Air Quality Table 27
Maximum Amended CECP Initial Commissioning Impacts
Averaging
Pollutant
Period
NO2 b
PM10
PM2.5
CO

1 hour
1 hour
NAAQS
24 hour
24 hour
1 hour
8 hour

Project
Impact
(g/m3)
NA b
NA

b

3.3
3.3
658.6
217.3

Total
Background
Impact
(g/m3) a
(g/m3)
152
169.4
96
42
21.3
5,039
4,352

Limiting
Standard
(g/m3)
339

Type of
Standard

Percent of
Standard

CAAQS

50%

138.2

188

NAAQS

74%

45.3
24.6
5,698
4,569

50
35
23,000
10,000

CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS

91%
70%
25%
46%

Source: SDAPCD 2015, Appendix C Table 4-3 and 4-4
a
Background values are adjusted, based on the District’s evaluation in their AQIA, as presented in Air Quality Table 10.
b
NO2 1-hour impacts provided in the District’s AQIA are presented with background.

The District’s modeling analysis indicates that the project’s maximum initial
commissioning emission impacts are below the most stringent ambient air quality
standards for NO2 and CO.
Chemically Reactive Pollutant Impacts
Ozone Impacts
The project’s gaseous emissions of NOx, SO2, VOC, and ammonia can contribute to the
formation of secondary pollutants: ozone and PM10/PM2.5.
There are air dispersion models that can be used to quantify ozone impacts, but they
are used for regional planning efforts where hundreds or even thousands of sources are
input into the modeling to determine ozone impacts. There are no regulatory agency
models approved for assessing single-source ozone impacts. However, because of the
known relationship of NOx and VOC emissions to ozone formation, it can be said that
the emissions of NOx and VOC from the amended CECP project do have the potential
(if left unmitigated) to contribute to higher ozone levels in the region. These impacts
would be cumulatively significant because they would contribute to ongoing violations of
the state and federal ozone ambient air quality standards.
PM2.5 Impacts
Secondary particulate formation, which is assumed to be 100 percent PM2.5, is the
process of conversion from gaseous reactants to particulate products. The process of
gas-to-particulate conversion, which occurs downwind from the point of emission, is
complex and depends on many factors, including local humidity and the presence of air
pollutants. The basic process assumes that the SOx and NOx emissions are converted
into sulfuric acid and nitric acid first and then react with ambient ammonia to form
sulfate and nitrate. The sulfuric acid reacts with ammonia much faster than nitric acid
and converts completely and irreversibly to particulate form. Nitric acid reacts with
ammonia to form both a particulate and a gas phase of ammonium nitrate. The
particulate phase will tend to fall out; however, the gas phase can revert back to
ammonia and nitric acid. Thus, under the right conditions, ammonium nitrate and nitric
acid establish a balance of concentrations in the ambient air. There are two conditions
AIR QUALITY

4.1-42

February 2015

 that are of interest, described as ammonia rich and ammonia poor. The term ammonia
rich indicates that there is more than enough ammonia to react with all the sulfuric acid
and to establish a balance of nitric acid-ammonium nitrate. Further ammonia emissions
in this case would not necessarily lead to increases in ambient PM2.5 concentrations. In
the case of an ammonia poor environment, there is insufficient ammonia to establish a
balance and thus additional ammonia would tend to increase PM2.5 concentrations.
U.S. EPA issued guidance on May 20th, 2014 that requires secondary PM2.5 impacts
be addressed for sources seeking PSD permits. This guidance provides several
methods, or tiers, that can be used to analyze secondary PM2.5 impacts; including
refined air dispersion modeling methods. The amended CECP has been determined to
not require PSD permitting, so this type of modeling analysis is not required. However,
the District completed a preliminary analysis that indicated that the conclusions of their
AQIA for PM2.5 and PM10 would not change if the modeling analysis included
secondary particulate formation (SDAPCD 2015).
Impact Summary
The project owner is proposing to mitigate the project’s NOx, VOC, SO2, and PM10
emissions through the use of BACT and limit the ammonia slip emissions to 5 ppm.
Additionally, the amended project would cause an emissions reduction for all pollutants
except NOx and a very small increase in SOx. The increase in SOx is offset by the
decrease in PM10/PM2.5 emissions, and no significant increases in secondary PM2.5
emission were determined by the District, so staff does not believe that this permit
increase of 1.6 tons per year of SOx requires additional mitigation. However, staff
believes that the permitted emissions increases for ozone precursors should be
mitigated.
Operations Mitigation
Project Owner’s Proposed Mitigation
Emission Controls
As discussed in the project description section, the project owner proposes to employ
gas turbines equipped with water injection and an SCR with ammonia injection for NOx
control, CO catalyst for CO and VOC control, and operate exclusively on pipeline quality
natural gas to limit turbine emission levels. The PDOC (SDAPCD 2014) provides the
following BACT emission limits, each for the six gas turbines:


NOx: 2.5 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 (one-hour average, excluding startup/shutdown)
and 9.07 lbs/hr



VOC: 2.0 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 (one-hour rolling average, excluding
startup/shutdown) and 2.52 lbs/hr



PM10: 5.0 lbs/hr (3.5 lbs/hr facility-wide annual average)



SO2: 2.07 lbs/hr with fuel sulfur content of 0.75 grains/100 scf



NH3: 5 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 and 6.70 lbs/hr

February 2015

4.1-43

AIR QUALITY

 The CO emissions do not require BACT; however, the project owner’s use of a CO
catalyst would control CO emissions to 4.0 ppmvd at 15 percent O2 (one-hour rolling
average, excluding startup/shutdown) and 8.83 lbs/hr. The District’s PDOC conditions
include provisions to meet these control emissions limits during normal operation and
provide separate emission limits for startup, shutdown, and initial commissioning
consistent with the amended CECP emission levels shown in Air Quality Table 16
through 18 and 20.
Emission Offsets
District Rules 20.1 and 20.3 require NOx and VOC offsets for a major modification to an
existing major stationary source, in this case the Encina Power Station, defined as an
emission increase of more than 25 tons per year for NOx or VOC. The net emissions
increase from the amended CECP would not exceed these thresholds, so NOx and
VOC offsets are not required per District rules.
Adequacy of Proposed Mitigation
Staff concurs with the District’s determination that the project’s proposed emission
controls/emission levels for criteria pollutants and ammonia slip meets BACT
requirements and that the proposed emission levels are reduced to the lowest
technically feasible levels. Staff also concurs that the District’s net emissions analysis,
with the PDOC’s specified annual emissions limits, that the project does not trigger
offsets per District rules. However, staff believes that for a CEQA determination of lessthan-significant air quality impacts from operation, the permitted increase in ozone
precursors should be mitigated.
Staff Proposed Mitigation
Staff is proposing no substantive changes, only editorial revisions, to licensed CECP
Conditions of Certification AQ-SC6 through AQ-SC8.
Staff is proposing to delete licensed CECP Condition of Certification AQ-SC9, which
would not apply to the initial commissioning of the amended CECP gas turbines. Staff is
recommending a new Condition of Certification AQ-SC9 that requires that the project
owner meets their stipulation in the petition that they will only operate the gas turbines
between the hours of 0600 and 2400, military time, except in the event of a declared
emergency.
Staff is proposing to amend Condition of Certification AQ-SC10 to mitigate the amended
CECP permitted ozone precursor emissions increase. This emissions increase is
determined as the sum of the increase in permitted NOx emissions and the decrease in
permitted VOC emissions. VOC emissions are considered equal to NOx at a 2:1 ratio
based on the allowance of VOC for NOx interpollutant offsets in District Rule 20.3.
Using this basis, the total permitted emissions increase in ozone precursors, as NOx, is
calculated as follows:
24.89 NOx tons/yr – 6.67 VOC tons/yr/2 = 21.56 tons/year NOx equivalent
Staff proposes that the modified Condition of Certification AQ-SC10 specify the
following three methods that the project owner can use in various combinations as
AIR QUALITY

4.1-44

February 2015

 needed to offset its emission increases for ozone precursors (specified as NOx
equivalent):
1. Use ERCs from the SDAPCD bank that are currently owned by the project owner.
2. Create enforceable emission reductions from third party sources, which could be
accomplished by funding the Carl Moyer Program2 or a similar emission reduction
program specific to this project3.
3. Use ERCs from the SDAPCD bank to be obtained by the project owner only if local
emission reduction projects are clearly demonstrated to be unavailable, using
methods 2 or 3 above, to meet the total emission reduction liability.
Air Quality Table 28
Project Owner NOx and VOC Emission Reduction Credits
Pollutant
NOx
NOx
VOC
VOC

Credit
Number

Origin Location

Naval Air Station – North Island
978938-05
3200 Harbor Drive, San Diego
981518-01
850 Lagoon Drive, Chula Vista
070823-02
7757 Andrews Avenue, San Diego
080212-01
Total NOx ERC
Net ERCs Still Required (and provided in AQ-SC10)

ERC
Amount
(tpy)
35.3
2.3
5.3
18.7

NOx
equivalent
Amount (tpy)
35.3
2.3
2.65
9.35
49.6
21.56

Source: PTA Appendix 5.1G (LL 2014e)

Air Quality Table 28 shows that the total amount of NOx ERCs available (49.6 tpy)
exceeds staff’s recommended offset requirements based on the revised potential to
emit and EPS background total ozone precursor emissions increase of 21.56 tpy.
Assuming that the project owner does use their currently owned credits to meet the staff
recommended offset liability, the project owner’s emission reduction fee for the
remaining 21.56 tons of emissions would, based on the current Carl Moyer Carl Moyer
Program Guideline cost-effectiveness limit value and an administration fee of 20
percent, would equal $458,452.
Staff is proposing to delete existing Condition of Certification AQ-SC11 as PSD
permitting does not apply to the amended CECP. Staff proposes a new Condition of
Certification AQ-SC11 that would require the project owner to develop and implement a
leak detection and repair (LDAR) plan to reduce VOC emissions from the proposed
2

The ARB Carl Moyer Web page has the following description of the program: “The Carl Moyer Memorial
Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Carl Moyer Program) provides grant funding for cleaner-thanrequired engines and equipment. Grants are administered by local air districts. ARB works collaboratively
with the districts and other stakeholders to set Guidelines and ensure the Program reduces pollution and
provides cleaner air for Californians. The Carl Moyer Program achieves reductions in emissions of key
pollutants which are necessary for California to meet its clean air commitments under regulatory
requirements. Eligible projects include cleaner on-road, off-road, marine, locomotive, lawn& garden, light
duty passenger vehicles being scrapped and agricultural equipment.” (ARB 2014d).
3
An example of a power plant project that completed a project specific emission reduction program is the
Otay Mesa Power Plant Project.
February 2015

4.1-45

AIR QUALITY

 three natural gas compressors. The District does not require that these compressors be
permitted and so has not included any conditions to ensure that the VOC emissions
from these units will meet the levels used to determine the net emissions for the
amended CECP. Staff recommends this condition to ensure that the ozone precursor
emissions mitigation levels proposed under Condition of Certification AQ-SC10 are
based on accurate VOC emissions estimates.
Staff has determined that the proposed emission controls and emission levels, along
with the project owner proposed and staff recommended emission offset package,
would mitigate all project air quality impacts to less than significant.
Staff has considered the demographics of the population surrounding the site (see
Socioeconomics Figure 1). Since the project’s direct air quality impacts have been
reduced to less than significant, there is no environmental justice issue for air quality.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or . . . compound or increase other environmental
impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). “A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is
created as a result of a combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with
other projects causing related impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15130[a][1]). Such impacts
may be relatively minor and incremental, yet still be significant because of the existing
environmental background, particularly when one considers other closely related past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
This analysis is primarily concerned with “criteria” air pollutants. Such pollutants have
impacts that are usually (though not always) cumulative by nature. Rarely will a project
cause a violation of a federal or state criteria pollutant standard. However, a new source
of pollution may contribute to violations of criteria pollutant standards because of the
existing background sources or foreseeable future projects. Air districts attempt to attain
the criteria pollutant standards by adopting attainment plans, which comprise a multifaceted programmatic approach to such attainment. Depending on the air district, these
plans typically include requirements for air offsets and the use of best available control
technology for new sources of emissions and restrictions of emissions from existing
sources of air pollution.
Much of the preceding discussion is concerned with cumulative impacts. The “Existing
Ambient Air Quality” subsection describes the air quality background in the San Diego
Air Basin, including a discussion of historical ambient levels for each of the significant
criteria pollutants. The “Construction Impacts and Mitigation” subsection discusses the
project’s contribution to the local existing background caused by project construction.
The “Operation Impacts and Mitigation” subsection discusses the project’s contribution
to the local existing background caused by project operation. The following subsection
includes two additional analyses:


a summary of projections for criteria pollutants by the air district and the air district’s
programmatic efforts to abate such pollution;



an analysis of the project’s localized cumulative impacts, the project’s direct
operating emissions combined with other local major emission sources;

AIR QUALITY

4.1-46

February 2015

 Summary of Projections
The SDAPCD has developed several elaborate plans to implement the federal Clean Air
Act and state law as it addresses the cumulative air impacts of criteria pollutants in the
San Diego Air Basin. These plans evaluate the regional context of air pollution in the air
basin, and provide the air district strategies for addressing these cumulative impacts
and eventually achieving "attainment" with various federal and state health-based
ambient air quality standards.
The FSA for the licensed CECP discusses all of these plans except two new plans that
have been approved by the District since that FSA. There are no specific differences
between the amended CECP and the licensed CECP in regards to compliance with the
plans discussed in the licensed CECP’s FSA. The summary of findings in regards to
those plans remains as follows (CEC 2009b):
“The applicable air quality plans do not outline any new control measures
applicable to the proposed project’s operating emission sources. Therefore,
compliance with existing District rules and regulations would ensure compliance
with those air quality plans.”
The two new adopted air quality plans are summarized below.
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone
Standard for San Diego County.
Link: http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/8_Hour_O3_Maint-Plan.pdf
2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision
Link: http://www.sdapcd.org/planning/2009-RAQS.pdf
Redesignation Request and Maintenance Plan for the 1997 National Ozone
Standard for San Diego County
This plan was prepared after 2009 to 2011 ambient monitoring data showed that the
SDAB came into compliance with the 1997 federal eight-hour ozone standard. This plan
does not propose any new rules or regulations or other control measures that are
applicable to the amended CECP. The existing measures from the previously approved
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are included in the District’s rules and regulations
and ARB vehicle emission regulations. Therefore, compliance with these rules and
regulations would ensure that the project conforms to the eight-hour ozone maintenance
plan.
2009 Regional Air Quality Strategy Revision
This plan is prepared to determine progress and measures needed to attain California
ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide,
and sulfur dioxide. San Diego County is in attainment with all of these state standards
except ozone. This plan describes the extent of ozone air quality improvement during
the previous three years, provides a discussion of actual versus forecasted ozone
precursor emission rates, and evaluates the need for further control measures in order
to achieve attainment with the state ozone ambient air quality standards. None of the
emission reduction measures proposed in this plan, which includes a Best Available
Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT) measure for existing stationary combustion
February 2015

4.1-47

AIR QUALITY

 turbines that has been adopted in amended Rule 69.3.1, would impact the new gas
turbines and internal combustion engines that would be installed as part of this project.
These two new applicable air quality plans do not outline any new control measures
applicable to the proposed project’s operating emission sources. Therefore, compliance
with existing District rules and regulations would ensure compliance with all local air
quality plans.

Localized Cumulative Impacts
Since the power plant air quality impacts can be reasonably estimated through air
dispersion modeling (see the “Operational Modeling Analysis” subsection) the project
contributions to localized cumulative impacts can be estimated. To represent past and,
to an extent, present projects that contribute to ambient air quality conditions, the
Energy Commission staff recommends the use of ambient air quality monitoring data
(see the “Environmental Setting” subsection), referred to as the background. The staff
undertakes the following steps to estimate what are additional appropriate “present
projects” that are not represented in the background and “reasonably foreseeable
projects.”


First, the Energy Commission staff (or the project owner) works with the air district to
identify all projects that have submitted, within the last year of monitoring data, new
applications for an authority to construct (ATC) or permit to operate (PTO) and
applications to modify an existing PTO within six miles of the project site. Based on
staff’s modeling experience, beyond six miles there is no statistically significant
concentration overlap for non-reactive pollutant concentrations between two
stationary emission sources.



Second, the Energy Commission staff (or the project owner) works with the air
district and local counties to identify any new area sources within six miles of the
project site. As opposed to point sources, area sources include sources like
agricultural fields, residential developments or other such sources that do not have a
distinct point of emission. New area sources are typically identified through draft or
final Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that are prepared for those sources. The
initiation of the EIR process is a reasonable basis on which to determine what is
“reasonably foreseeable” for new area sources.



The data submitted, or generated from the applications with the air district for point
sources or initiating the EIR process for area sources, provide enough information to
include these new emission sources in air dispersion modeling. Thus, the next step
is to review the available EIR(s) and permit application(s), determine what sources
must be modeled, and how they must be modeled.



Sources that are not new, but may not be represented in ambient air quality
monitoring are also identified and included in the analysis. These sources include
existing sources that are co-located with or adjacent to the proposed source (such
as the existing Encina Power Station). In most cases, the ambient air quality
measurements are not recorded close to the proposed project, thus a local major
source might not be well represented by the background air monitoring. When these
sources are included, it is typically a result of there being an existing source on the

AIR QUALITY

4.1-48

February 2015

 project site and the ambient air quality monitoring station being more than two miles
away.


The modeling results must be carefully interpreted so that they are not skewed
towards a single source, in high impact areas near that source’s fence line. It is not
truly a cumulative impact of the amended CECP if the high impact area is the result
of high fence line concentrations from another stationary source and the amended
CECP is not providing a substantial contribution to the determined high impact area.

Once the modeling results are interpreted, they are added to the background ambient
air quality monitoring data and thus the modeling portion of the cumulative assessment
is complete. Due to the use of air dispersion modeling programs in staff’s cumulative
impacts analysis, the project owner must submit a modeling protocol, based on
information requirements for an application, prior to beginning the investigation of the
sources to be modeled in the cumulative analysis. The modeling protocol is typically
reviewed, commented on, and eventually approved in the Data Adequacy phase of the
licensing procedure. Staff may assist the project owner in finding sources (as described
above), characterizing those sources, and interpreting the results of the modeling.
However, the actual modeling runs are usually left to the project owner to complete.
There are several reasons for this: modeling analyses take time to perform and require
significant expertise, the project owner has already performed a modeling analysis of
the project alone (see the “Operational Modeling Analysis” subsection), and the project
owner can act on its own to reduce stipulated emission rates and/or increase emission
control requirements as the results warrant. Once the cumulative project emission
impacts are determined, the necessity to mitigate the project emissions can be
evaluated, and the mitigation itself can be proposed by staff and/or the project owner
(see the “Mitigation” subsection).
The list of possible new sources from the SDAPCD included only one source within six
miles of the CECP project site that would have the potential to emit more than five tons
per year of any criteria pollutant (LL 2014e, Appendix 5.1H). That source, a digester gas
fueled engine located in Oceanside approximately 3.5 miles from the project site, could
emit up to approximately ten tons per year of CO, but would not emit more than five
tons of any other pollutant. Given the current state of CO attainment in the project area
staff does not believe there is a potential for significant cumulative impacts from this
source and the amended CECP.
There are other proposed construction projects near the proposed project site such as
the I-5 widening project; however, the timeframe and emissions from these projects is
unknown and these construction projects would be limited in duration. Meanwhile,
emissions from existing mobile emission sources, including emissions generated from
vehicles on the I-5 freeway, and emissions from construction emission sources, are
forecast to have long-term emission reductions or significantly reduced emission
potentials for most pollutants through improvements in on-road and off-road vehicle
engine technology and vehicle turnover, respectively.

February 2015

4.1-49

AIR QUALITY

 Considering that there are no major off-site cumulative stationary sources4, or other
nearby projects with known emissions estimates that could cause cumulative impacts
with the amended CECP, the only quantitative cumulative analysis that can be
performed is the concurrent emissions from various on-site emissions sources within
the Encina property. The project owner prepared two cumulative air dispersion modeling
analyses that included concurrent on-site emissions sources. The first of these analyses
is the construction emissions modeling analysis that included the concurrent amended
CECP construction and EPS operation. The results of this analysis are presented in Air
Quality Table 21. The second project owner cumulative impact air dispersion modeling
analysis included the cumulative initial commissioning operation of the amended CECP
and operation of the EPS. The results of this analysis are not presented because the
District also completed this air dispersion modeling analysis, and the District’s analysis
is presented below.
The District completed a cumulative modeling analysis for the amended CECP during
initial commissioning and the continued operation of the EPS boilers and gas turbine.
The results of that cumulative analysis are provided in Air Quality Table 29. This
modeling analysis assumed the same worst-case initial commissioning activities as
those assumed in the initial commissioning modeling analysis that was presented in Air
Quality Table 27, and added the EPS boilers and gas turbines emissions as inputs to
determine the maximum combined impacts during initial commissioning.
Air Quality Table 29
Amended CECP Commissioning and EPS Operation Short-Term Maximum
Cumulative Impacts Modeling Results (µg/m3)
Averaging
Period

Pollutant
NO2 b
PM10
PM2.5
CO
SO2

1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
24 hour
24 hour
1 hour
8 hour
1 hour
24 hour

Project
Impact
(g/m3)
NA b
NA b
3.8
3.8
664
219
5
0.7

Background
(g/m3) a
152
96
42
21.3
5,039
4,352
34
8

Total
Impact
(g/m3)
214.1
140.5
45.8
25.1
5,703
4,571
39
8.7

Limiting
Standard
(g/m3)
339
188
50
35
23,000
10,000
196
105

Type of
Standard

Percent
of
Standard

CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
NAAQS

63%
75%
92%
72%
25%
46%
20%
8%

Source: SDAPCD 2015, Appendix C Tables 4-3 and 4-4
a
Background values are adjusted, based on the District’s evaluation in their AQIA, as presented in Air Quality Table 10.
b
NO2 impacts provided in the District’s AQIA are presented with background.

The results of this modeling effort, Air Quality Table 29, show that the amended
CECP’s initial commissioning, along with the existing Encina Power Station (EPS),
would not contribute to new short-term AAQS violations. The EPS would be
decommissioned after initial commissioning and the amended CECP begins commercial
operation.

4

The adjacent Carlsbad Desalination Project is not a major stationary emissions source, and its
construction will be completed before the construction of the amended CECP.
AIR QUALITY

4.1-50

February 2015

 After the EPS is decommissioned, it will undergo demolition. The project owner did not
complete a cumulative impacts air dispersion modeling analysis that included the
concurrent operation of the amended CECP and EPS demolition. However, to respond
to staff’s questions about the EPS demolition, the project owner completed and
submitted a demolition plan on October 1, 2014 (LL 2014cc), and subsequently revised
the EPS demolition emissions estimate in mid-November (LL 2014uu). Using this
revised EPS demolition emissions estimate staff completed an additional air dispersion
modeling analysis of the potential cumulative air quality impacts of concurrent amended
CECP operation and EPS demolition.
Staff’s cumulative air dispersion modeling analysis was completed by starting with the
District’s worst-case start-up modeling input files for the amended CECP’s operation
and then adding the EPS demolition emissions into the modeling input files. It can be
argued that the amended CECP emergency engines do not have to be modeled to
show compliance with the federal one-hour NO2 standard per federal guidance on
intermittent sources (U.S.EPA 2011). However, the District included the engines in their
air quality impact assessment, and staff is taking the same conservative approach on
this issue.
The District’s meteorological files for 2010 to 2012, including corresponding ambient
background ozone and NO2 concentration files for NO2 ozone limiting method modeling,
were used in this modeling evaluation. The modeling inputs used the maximum daily
off-road, onsite on-road, and fugitive dust emissions estimates that were provided by
the applicant in their updated emissions estimate for EPS demolition. These maximum
daily EPS demolition emissions were spread out evenly over the assumed eight-hour
daytime work day. The off-road and related fugitive dust emissions were conservatively
placed as separate volume sources (where the fugitive dust emissions assumed a lower
initial height than the buoyant exhaust emissions) surrounding the EPS boiler building
and other areas of known demolition work. The onsite on-road vehicle emissions were
placed as volume sources, including the very small amount of fugitive dust emissions in
the same volume source, along the expected access/egress route for the primary onroad vehicle emissions source, the heavy haul trucks. The onsite on-road emissions
that were modeled were conservatively adjusted upward from the applicant’s estimate
by assuming that 5 percent of the total on-road emissions occurred onsite.
The pollutants included in this modeling analysis were particulate matter (PM10 and
PM2.5) and NO2. It is clear based on the worst-case EPS emissions estimates and the
comparative addition of the worst-case modeling results for construction and operations
that there is no potential for the cumulative CO or SO2 emissions to cause significant
impacts, so these two pollutants were not included in this additional cumulative
emissions modeling analysis.
The modeling included two steps of refinement. The first more simplified set of modeling
runs performed used a limited number of EPS emissions sources. The particulate and
annual NO2 modeling results are based on this more simplified set of assumptions. The
second more refined set of modeling runs were completed for the one-hour NO2 impact
analysis. The refinement performed in the second set of modeling runs was to better
match the number and location of the EPS demolition off-road emission sources to their
expected locations using the equipment counts in the revised demolition emissions
February 2015

4.1-51

AIR QUALITY

 estimate and Google Earth. The results of this modeling analysis are shown below in
Air Quality Table 30.
Air Quality Table 30
Amended CECP Operations and EPS Demolition
Cumulative Impacts Modeling Results (µg/m3)
Averaging
Period

Pollutant

NO2

b

PM10
PM2.5

1 hour
1 hour NAAQS
Annual
24 hour
Annual
24 hour
Annual

Project
Impact
(g/m3)
NA b
NA b
0.08
0.7
0.08
0.7
0.03

Background
(g/m3) a
152
96
17
42
21
21.3
10.6

Total
Impact
(g/m3)
191
160
17.1
42.7
21.08
22.0
10.63

Limiting
Standard
(g/m3)
339
188
57
50
20
35
12

Type of
Standard

Percent
of
Standard

CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
CAAQS
NAAQS
CAAQS

57%
85%
30%
85%
105%
63%
89%

Source: Staff Analysis
a
Background values are adjusted, based on the District’s evaluation in their AQIA, as presented in Air Quality Table 10.
b
NO2 impacts provided are presented with background.

The results of this modeling analysis do not show significant cumulative effects during
the EPS demolition period. All pollutant concentrations other than annual PM10 were
determined to remain below AAQS, and the increase in annual PM10 concentrations
would be negligible. Given this finding and the other cumulative impacts analysis
performed staff concludes that the amended CECP, with the recommended condition of
certification, would not have significant cumulative impacts.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
The San Diego Air Pollution Control District issued a Preliminary Determination of
Compliance (PDOC) for the amended CECP on December 12, 2014, with public notice
occurring from December 17, 2014 through February 2, 2015 (SDAPCD 2014). The
District will issue a Final Determination of Compliance (DOC) after the end of the public
comment period after consideration of the comments received from responsible
agencies and the public. The Final DOC was not available prior to publication of the
Final Staff Assessment. Compliance with all District Rules and Regulations was
demonstrated to the District’s satisfaction in the PDOC. The District’s PDOC conditions
are presented in the conditions of certification. A supplement to the Air Quality section
will be provided that describes any substantive changes to the District’s DOC finding
and provided changes to the District conditions.

FEDERAL
The District is responsible for issuing the Federal New Source Review (NSR) permit but
is not currently delegated enforcement for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permitting process. The project owner has stipulated to emission levels that
ensure that the amended project’s net emission increase of pollutants would be below
PSD permit trigger levels. The District’s PDOC permit conditions have been designed to
ensure that the amended project would comply with the applicable NSPS Subparts
AIR QUALITY

4.1-52

February 2015

 KKKK and IIIII that are delegated to the District for enforcement as part of its Title V
permit responsibility. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Region 9 has
reviewed the PDOC and provided correspondence noting that they had no further
comments at this time.

STATE
The project owner would demonstrate that the amended project would comply with
Section 41700 of the California State Health and Safety Code, which restricts emissions
that would cause nuisance or injury, with the issuance of the District’s Final
Determination of Compliance and the Energy Commission’s affirmative finding for the
project.
The District has evaluated compliance of the emergency generator and emergency
diesel fire pump engines with Air Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) requirements under
Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. The District has determined with their
PDOC permit conditions that these engines will comply with the ATCM requirements.

LOCAL
The project owner provided an air quality permit application to the SDAPCD in May
2014 (LL 2014f), and information request responses including air dispersion modeling
files to the District in June 2014 (LL 2014i); and the District issued a PDOC (SDAPCD
2014), which states that the amended project is expected to comply with all applicable
District rules and regulations.
The District rules and regulations specify the emissions control and offset requirements
for new sources such as the amended CECP. Best Available Control Technology would
be implemented, and emission reduction credits (ERCs) for NOx and VOC emissions
are not required by District rules and regulations based on the permitted emission levels
for this amended project. Compliance with the District’s new source requirements would
ensure that the amended project would be consistent with the strategies and future
emissions anticipated under the District’s air quality attainment and maintenance plans.
As part of the Energy Commission’s licensing process, in lieu of issuing a construction
permit to the project owner for the amended CECP, the District will prepare and present
to the Commission a DOC, both a PDOC, and after a public comment period, a Final
DOC. The PDOC was published on December 12, 2014 with the public notice period
occurring from December 17, 2014 to February 2, 2015. The Final DOC will be issued
after the public comment period for the PDOC. The Final DOC was not available prior to
the publication of the Final Staff Assessment, so a supplement to the Air Quality section
will be completed to address any substantive changes in the DOC findings and provide
changes to the District conditions. The DOC evaluates whether and under what
conditions the amended project would comply with the District’s applicable rules and
regulations, as described below.

February 2015

4.1-53

AIR QUALITY

 Regulation II – Permits
Rule 20.1 and 20.3 – New Source Review
Rules 20.1 and 20.3 generically apply to all sources subject to permitting under the
nonattainment NSR and PSD programs in the District. PSD permitting program authority
is not currently delegated from U.S. EPA to the District. However, the District has made
a determination that this permitting action does not trigger PSD permitting. U.S. EPA
evaluated this determination in their review of the District’s PDOC and determined that
they had no further comments on the District’s analysis. While the District does not have
federal PSD authority, they still evaluate compliance with their approved PSD rules. All
portions of Rule 20.1 apply. This includes definitions and instructions for calculating
emissions. Applicable components of Rule 20.3 are described below.
Rule 20.3(d)(1) – Best Available Control Technology/Lowest Achievable Emission
Rate
This subsection of the rule requires that BACT be installed on a pollutant-specific basis
if emissions exceed 10 lbs/day for each criteria pollutant (except for CO, for which the
PSD BACT threshold is 100 tons per year). Based on the project’s emissions limits, the
gas turbines are subject to BACT for NOx, VOC, PM10, and SOx, but not for CO. This
subsection also requires that Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) be installed on
a pollutant specific basis, for federal nonattainment pollutants and precursors, if the
amended project is a new major source or a major modification to an existing major
source. Because the District attains the national ambient air quality standards for CO,
SO2, and PM10, LAER does not apply to these pollutants (District Rule 20.3(d)(1)(v)).
The amended project is not defined as a major modification to an existing major source
because net emissions increases of NOx and VOC would be below 25 tons per year
due to permit emissions limits. Therefore, the gas turbines are not subject to LAER. The
emergency engines are not subject to BACT or LAER; and the natural gas compressors
are not subject to permitting under SDAPCD rules and regulations.
The District has determined the following normal operations BACT requirements for the
gas turbines:
NOx:

2.5 ppm @15% O2, one-hour average

VOC: 2.0 ppm @15% O2, one-hour average
PM10: Natural gas fuel with 5.0 lbs/hour on a short-term basis and 3.5 lbs/hour on a
facility-wide annual average basis
SOx:

Pipeline quality natural gas with fuel sulfur content of 0.75 gr/100 scf on a
short term basis and 0.25 gr/100 scf on an annual average basis.

The District also concluded that the gas turbine start-up and shutdown emissions limits
and durations proposed by the project owner meet BACT.
Rule 20.3(d)(2) – Air Quality Impact Analysis
This portion of the rule requires that an Air Quality Impact Analysis (AQIA) be performed
for air contaminants that exceed the trigger levels published in Table 20.3-1 of the
District’s Rules and Regulations. For an AQIA of PM10, the rules require that direct
AIR QUALITY

4.1-54

February 2015

 emissions and emissions of PM10 precursors be included in the analysis. The District
also included an analysis of secondary PM2.5 impacts for this project.
The District prepared an AQIA for NOx, CO, PM10 and PM2.5 that was evaluated as
part of the PDOC analysis. The results of the Districts AQIA are presented in the
preceding “Impacts” section.
Rule 20.3(d)(4) – Public Notice And Comment
This portion of the rule requires the District to publish a notice of the proposed action in
at least one newspaper of general circulation in San Diego County and requires sending
notices to the U.S. EPA and the ARB. The District must allow at least 30 days for public
comment and consider all comments submitted. The District must also make all
information regarding the evaluation available for public inspection.
The official public notice and comment period for the amended CECP started after
newspaper notice publication on December 17, 2014 and ended on February 2, 2015.
Rule 20.3(d)(4)(i) requires that the District consider all comments received before
issuing the Final DOC.
Rule 20.3(d)(5) – Emission Offsets
This portion of the rule requires that emissions of any federal nonattainment criteria
pollutant or its precursors, which exceed major source thresholds, be offset with actual
emission reductions. The District is a federal nonattainment area only for ozone.
Therefore, this rule requires offsets only for NOx and VOC emissions, as ozone
precursors, if the amended project’s net emissions increase more than 25 tons per year
for either of these two pollutants. The amended CECP permitted emission increase of
NOx will be limited to just below the offset threshold and the project would create a net
emissions decrease for VOC emissions. Therefore, offsets are not required by the
District for NOx or VOC emissions. (Note: Energy Commission staff recommend that the
Energy Commission require NOx mitigation for CEQA purposes; see condition AQSC10.)
Rule 20.3(e)(1) – Compliance Certification
The District has determined in the PDOC that a compliance certification is not required
due to the project not requiring LAER or offsets.
Rule 20.5 – Power Plants
This rule requires that the District prepare Preliminary and Final Determinations of
Compliance (PDOC and DOC), which shall confer the same rights and privileges as an
Authority to Construct only after successful completion of the Energy Commission‘s
licensing process. The District has prepared the PDOC and will prepare the Final DOC
following the District’s noticed public comment period.

February 2015

4.1-55

AIR QUALITY

 Regulation IV – Prohibitions
Rule 50 – Visible Emissions
This rule prohibits air contaminant emissions into the atmosphere darker than
Ringelmann Number 1 (20 percent opacity) for more than an aggregate of three minutes
in any consecutive 60-minute period. Compliance with this requirement is expected for
the gas turbines and emergency engines.
Rule 51 – Nuisance
This rule prohibits the discharge of air contaminants that cause or have a tendency to
cause injury, detriment, and nuisance or annoyance to people and/or the public or
damage to any business or property. Compliance with this requirement is expected for
the gas turbines and emergency engines.
Rule 52 – Particulate Matter
This rule is a general limitation for all sources of particulate matter to not exceed 0.10
grain per dry standard cubic foot (0.23 grams per dry standard cubic meter) of exhaust
gas. The District calculated the maximum grain loading to be 0.018 grains per dry
standard cubic foot, in compliance with the requirements of this rule.
Rule 53 – Specific Air Contaminants
This rule limits emissions of sulfur compounds (calculated as SO2) to less than or equal
to 0.05 percent, by volume, on a dry basis. This rule also contains a limitation restricting
particulate matter emissions from gaseous fuel combustion to less than or equal to 0.10
grains per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust calculated at 12 percent CO2. The District
calculated the worst-case shutdown condition amended project’s gas turbine particulate
concentration to be 0.018 grains per dry standard cubic foot, which is well below the
rule’s limit of 0.1 grains per dry standard cubic foot. The use of pipeline quality natural
gas fuel would ensure compliance with the sulfur compound emission limitation of this
rule.
Rule 55 – Specific Air Contaminants
This rule restricts visible dust from construction activities from reaching beyond the
property line for more than three minutes in any hour, and requires control of visible
roadway dust from track-out/carry-out from truck wheels and truck spillage. Staff
recommended fugitive dust conditions (AQ-SC1 through AQ-SC4) are as stringent as or
more stringent than the requirements of this rule.
Rule 62 – Sulfur Content of Fuels
This rule requires the sulfur content of gaseous fuels to contain no more than 10 grains
of sulfur compounds, calculated as hydrogen sulfide, per 100 cubic feet of dry gaseous
fuel (0.23 grams of sulfur compounds, calculated as hydrogen sulfide, per cubic meter
of dry gaseous fuel), at standard conditions. The use of pipeline quality natural gas
would ensure compliance with this rule.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-56

February 2015

 Rule 69.3 – Stationary Gas Turbines - Reasonably Available Control Technology
This rule limits NOx emissions from gas turbines greater than 0.3 MW to 42 ppm at 15
percent oxygen when fired on natural gas. The rule also specifies monitoring and record
keeping requirements. Startups and shutdowns are excluded from compliance with
these limits.
This rule’s emission limits are less stringent than the BACT/LAER requirement of Rule
20.3(d)(1) for normal operation. The District has included conditions for the amended
project to meet this emission limit during initial commissioning, low-load operation,
tuning, and transient operation periods, such as during periods of major turbine load
shifts.
Rule 69.3.1 – Stationary Gas Turbines - Best Available Retrofit Control
Technology
This rule limits NOx emissions from existing and new gas turbines greater than 10 MW
to 15 x (E/25) ppm when operating uncontrolled and 9 x (E/25) ppm at 15 percent
oxygen when operating with controls and averaged over a one-hour period (where E is
the percent thermal efficiency of the unit on a lower heating value [LHV] basis). The
District calculated this NOx standard to be equivalent to 22.6 ppm when uncontrolled
and 13.6 ppm when controlled, based on a thermal efficiency for the turbines of 41.85
percent, LHV. The rule also specifies monitoring and record-keeping requirements.
Startups and shutdowns are excluded from compliance with these limits.
This rule’s emission limits are less stringent than the BACT requirement of Rule
20.3(d)(1) for normal operation. The District has included conditions for the amended
project to meet these emission limits at all times when the gas turbines are not subject
to the normal operating emissions limit of 2.5 ppm.
Rule 69.4.1 – Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines – Best
Available Retrofit Control Technology
This rule limits emissions of NOx and CO for diesel engines, has maintenance and
record-keeping requirements, and requires the use of California diesel fuel. NOx
emissions are limited to 6.9 grams/bhp-hr, while the proposed emergency generator
and fire pump engines would meet this limit by having NOx emission guarantees of 2.7
grams/bhp-hr and 2.6 grams/bhp-hr, respectively. CO emissions are limited to 4,500
ppmv at 15 percent oxygen, where each engine’s CO emissions were found to be below
this value by the District based on the engine manufacturers’ specifications. This rule
also exempts emergency engines from periodic source testing. The proposed engines
meet the emission limits of this regulation and the District has included conditions to
ensure compliance with the other applicable provisions of this rule.

Regulation X – Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources
This regulation adopts federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS, 40 CFR,
Part 60) by reference. The relevant criteria pollutant NSPS subparts for the amended
CECP are Subpart KKKK (Stationary Combustion Turbines) and Subpart IIII (Stationary
Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines). The emission limits from Subpart
KKKK are less stringent than the BACT/LAER requirement of Rule 20.3(d)(1) for normal
February 2015

4.1-57

AIR QUALITY

 operation. The project owner is proposing newer diesel engines that meet appropriate
regulation specified U.S. EPA engine tier emissions standards (Tier 3 for the fire water
pump engine and Tier 4 for the emergency generator engine) that would meet the
performance requirements of Subpart IIII. The District’s conditions would ensure
compliance with the monitoring and record-keeping requirements of this regulation.

Regulation XI – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants
This regulation adopts federal standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) by
reference. The amended project, being part of a major source of HAPs emissions, is
subject to Subpart YYYY (Stationary Combustion Turbines) and Subpart ZZZZ
(Compression Ignition Internal Combustion Engines). The District has incorporated
conditions to ensure compliance with the emissions and operating limitations and
monitoring requirements of the two applicable subparts of this regulation.

Regulation XII – Toxic Air Contaminants
Rule 1200 – Toxic Air Contaminants, New Source Review
This rule requires a health risk estimate for sources of toxic air contaminants. Toxics
Best Available Control Technology (TBACT) must be installed if a health risk
assessment shows an incremental cancer risk greater than one in a million, and no
source would be allowed to cause an incremental cancer risk exceeding ten in a million.
The District found that the amended project, which was found to have an incremental
cancer risk of less than one in a million, complied with the requirements of this rule. The
Public Health section of this Final Staff Assessment provides additional information on
toxic air contaminants.

Regulation XIV – Title V Operating Permits
Rule 1401 – General Provisions
This rule contains the requirements for federal Title V Operating Permits. The project
owner is required to submit a revised Title V Operating Permit application no later than
12 months after initial operation of the gas turbines. The Encina Power Station currently
has a Title V Operating Permit and the project owner will be required to submit an
application to the District to modify its Title V operating permit to decommission the EPS
and to cover the amended CECP.
Rule 1412 – Federal Acid Rain Program Requirements
This rule contains the requirements for participation in the federal Acid Rain Program.
The project owner is required in the DOC conditions to submit an Acid Rain Program
application to the District 24 months prior to initial startup of the gas turbines.

NOTEWORTHY PUBLIC BENEFITS
The existing EPS power boilers (Units 1 through 5) and a stationary gas turbine that
total 963 MW of generation capacity would be shut down following the commissioning of
the amended CECP units. The existing EPS units would need to be shut down once the
AIR QUALITY

4.1-58

February 2015

 new gas turbines are in commercial operation in order for the new emissions of the
amended CECP to be allowed by the SDAPCD.
The amended project would improve the overall thermal efficiency of the power plant
due to the higher efficiency of the six new General Electric LMS100 gas turbines
compared to the existing Encina Power Station boilers and gas turbine. This, along with
an improved emission control system for the new gas turbines, leads to a reduction in
emissions of most pollutants emitted per unit of electricity produced. It also leads to a
reduction in the amount of natural gas fuel consumed to generate each megawatt hour
of power. Additionally, peaking facilities of this nature, which can be shut down when
not needed and with quick-start capabilities and a high level of generating
flexibility/turndown ratios, are needed to support California’s efforts to increase use of
renewable resources that will reduce system-wide criteria pollutant emissions from
power generation.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
Please note that where comments refer to both GHG emissions and criteria pollutant
emissions those comment responses are provided in the section which is the primary
issue of the comment, either below for air quality comments or in the Air Quality
Appendix for GHG emissions comments.

INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN: 203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: Terramar has a grave concern that the Air Pollution Control District has
chosen an inappropriate baseline of years for the amended CECP. This inappropriate
baseline allows the amended CECP to avoid PSD. Terramar is asking the APCD to
remain consistent in their process of choosing baseline years. (p. 3)
Response: Comment noted, and any revisions to the District’s DOC findings or
conditions will be provided in the Air Quality section supplement. Staff reviewed the
PSD baseline calculations and finds that the District’s calculations meet the
regulatory requirements and U.S. EPA guidance for power plant baseline emissions
calculations. More importantly, the U.S. EPA, which would be the responsible
agency for completing a PSD permit if one were required, provided correspondence
to the District noting that they had no comments on the PDOC, which addressed the
issue of PSD applicability.
It should also be noted that a PSD permit, if required, would be issued as a federal
permit outside the scope of the DOC or the Energy Commission decision. It would
primarily be a procedural action that would not impact the amended CECP
emissions limits, operating hours limits, or Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) determination that is required under the New Source Review (NSR)
permitting action that is incorporated within the DOC. Additionally, if a PSD permit
were to be required it would not change the NSR permitting review in the DOC or
affect the timing of the Energy Commission’s decision on whether to license the
amended CECP.

February 2015

4.1-59

AIR QUALITY

 Comment: Per Air Quality page 4.1-49, Terramar would like to know what values were
used for Encina in Air Quality table 29.
Response: The worst-case amended CECP and Encina Power Station cumulative
modeling assessment performed by the District, and provided in Air Quality Table
29, used the Encina Power Station modeling inputs as provided in the PDOC,
Appendix C Table 3-5. A summary of those inputs, with the addition of tons/year
provided for clarity, are shown below:
Encina Power Station Cumulative Modeling Assumptions
Stack Parameters
EPS Boiler Stack
EPS Gas Turbine Stack
Emission Rate
(lbs/hour)
EPS Boiler Stack
EPS Gas Turbine Stack
Emission Rates
(tons/year)
EPS Boiler Stack
EPS Gas Turbine Stack

Diameter
(m)
7.9
3.9
NOx

Height
(m)
116.7
13.3
CO

Temp
(K)
427.6
800.4
SOx

Velocity
(m/s)
29.8
23.8
PM10

99.5
7.5
NOx

287.6
9.5
CO

20.7
0.7
SOx

73.6
2.4
PM10

435.9
33.0

1259.8
41.6

90.9
2.9

322.3
10.4

Source: SDAPCD 2014 (PDOC Appendix C Table 3-5), calculated for tons/year

These inputs were modeled as the worst-case conditions for the Encina Power
Station and are extremely conservative. The actual emissions from the Encina
Power Station during the amended CECP initial commissioning period, particularly
the tons/year emissions, are expected to be generally much lower than the values
modeled.

INTERVENOR: HELPING HAND TOOLS/ R. SIMPSON, TN:203587,
FEBRUARY 2, 2015
Please note that all of the numbered items in pages 1 through 4 of Mr. Simpson’s
comment letter were previously addressed by staff as data request responses in
TN203332 and TN203483.
Comment: Numbered items 1 through 5 on page 1 of this comment letter address
questions related to the project’s PSD permitting.
Response: The District has determined that PSD permitting is not required for this
project (SDAPCD 2014, p. 26). There is no information that U.S. EPA disagrees with
this finding, and U.S. EPA provided the District a “no comment” correspondence in
regards to the PDOC, where the PDOC clearly made a determination that a PSD
permit was not required.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-60

February 2015

 Comment: Numbered items 6 through 8 on page 1 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter
request additional analysis for concurrent operation of the amended CECP and the
EPS.
Response: Concurrent operation of the amended CECP and the EPS, once the
amended CECP achieves commercial operation, would not be allowed, either by the
Energy Commission or the District. Cumulative impacts of the concurrent amended
CECP initial commissioning activities and EPS operation were assessed and
presented in the PSA. No additional analysis is necessary.
Comment: Numbered item 9 on page 1 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests
additional analysis for operation with LNG as a fuel source.
Response: The project is designed to run on and has been evaluated based on the
use of CPUC-regulated pipeline quality natural gas. The natural gas that would be
provided to the site, whether derived from the El Paso pipeline, from LNG piped from
Mexico, local natural gas production wells, or any other source would need to meet
CPUC pipeline gas quality specifications. Therefore, the project’s evaluation already
includes imported LNG as a potential fuel source. Moreover, the suggestion that
LNG would be the likely fuel for the project was considered and rejected in the prior
licensing proceeding, and the Commission Final Decision made an express finding
that “it is speculative to assume that CECP will be fueled by liquefied natural gas.”
(June 2012 Final Dec., p. 6.1-23 [Finding. No. 16].)
Comment: Numbered item 11 on page 1 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests
additional construction cumulative impacts modeling, including the adjacent desalination
project.
Response: The cumulative impacts modeling analyses performed for the project,
which includes modeling for amended CECP initial commissioning and EPS
operation, and amended CECP operation and EPS demolition, is adequate to
determine reasonable worst-case cumulative air quality impacts. Staff did not find
any other large cumulative construction project emissions sources located near
enough to the project site to cause adverse cumulative air quality impacts.
Specifically, the desalination project’s construction will be completed shortly, well
before the maximum construction impacts from the amended CECP would occur. No
additional cumulative modeling analysis is necessary for staff to make its
recommendation for the project.
Comment: Numbered items 27 and 28 on page 2 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter
requests two years of on-site air quality and meteorological monitoring data.
Response: No such data exist. Staff and the District evaluated available nearby air
quality and meteorological monitoring data and determined they were adequate for
analysis of the amended CECP.

February 2015

4.1-61

AIR QUALITY

 Comment: Numbered item 29 on page 2 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests
additional analysis related to the effect of urban CO2 domes.
Response: Staff determined that this single technical paper on this issue cited in the
comment did not constitute compelling regulatory or legal rationale to change the
regulatory agency-approved analysis procedures used by staff in the PSA, or the
District PDOC analyses referenced in the PSA. Staff is not convinced of the absolute
validity of this paper, nor are we aware that this paper has been thoroughly studied
or vetted by regulatory agencies, and certainly not in the context of requiring
revisions to recommended air quality impact analysis procedures. Staff also is
uncertain how this issue would be meaningfully applied into its air quality impact
analysis. Finally, staff does not believe that the Carlsbad area, which itself is
suburban with considerable surrounding open space, is in what would be considered
an urban CO2 dome. For these reasons, staff did not include any mention of this
paper or this issue in our analysis.
Comment: Numbered item 30 on page 2 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests
preparation of comparisons of air pollutant and GHG emissions at varying loads and
electrical outputs for the amended CECP and licensed CECP.
Response: Staff provided appropriate emissions comparisons between the
amended CECP and the licensed CECP in the Air Quality section’s tables. Staff is
aware that the amended CECP is a simple-cycle project that is not as efficient as the
combined-cycle licensed CECP project, and the comparison requested would
provide an “apples to oranges” comparison that would not be useful for staff’s impact
analysis of the amended CECP project. Additionally, the commenter is free to use
the amended CECP and licensed CECP available project data in the project record
to create any additional side by side emissions comparisons they desire to complete
their independent assessment of the amended CECP.
Comment: Numbered item 25 on page 2 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter and
numbered items 5, 8, and 9 on page 3 of this comment letter request additional analysis
of the effects of air pollutant emissions, including deposition, on biological resources.
Response: No additional analyses for the effects of air pollution on biological
resources are required for staff’s assessment of this project for the following
reasons:


The project was not found to have significant air quality impacts based on current
ambient air quality criteria, where those criteria consider secondary impacts to
the environment (i.e. effects to biological resources).



Deposition is not a locally intense phenomenon. Chemical transformation and
related particulate deposition occurs over time and over very large areas.



The project would not create an increase over historical pollutant emissions rates
from EPS and so would not increase the effect on biological resources. For
example, ARB data5 shows that the annual emissions rates from the EPS in 1990
were over 1,900 percent higher for NOx, over 17,500 percent higher for SOx, and

5

ARB Facility Search Engine, http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/facinfo/facinfo.php?dd=, for San Diego
County Facility ID 73.
AIR QUALITY

4.1-62

February 2015

 over 430 percent higher for PM than the maximum permitted emission rates for
the amended CECP.


Ammonia emissions from the project are a small fraction of the total ammonia
emissions in the county and maximum concentrations at any receptor location
would be well below current health thresholds.



Water vapor is not an air pollutant and the project would not emit enough water
vapor to affect the local environment.

Comment: Numbered item 22 on page 4 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks if the
project could operate more hours than permitted and the consequences of that action.
Response: The amended CECP cannot legally operate in excess of the District’s
permit limits, and these limits will become part of the Energy Commission’s license.
If they were to exceed these permit limits they would, at the very least, be subject to
compliance actions of both the District and the Energy Commission. There is also
the potential that they could be subject to federal actions, including both civil and
criminal penalty, under the Clean Air Act. However, as a practical matter, peaker
projects of this nature typically operate only a small fraction of the hours for which
they are permitted.
Comment: Numbered item 25 on page 4 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests a
description of the construction air quality impacts of the amended CECP.
Response: The air quality impacts for construction of the amended CECP are
discussed in the PSA Air Quality section. Specifically, see pages 4.1-22 through
4.1-25, 4.1-33 through 4,1-36, and 4.1-58 through 4.1-63 and 4.1-65 (for
recommended construction conditions of certification).
Comment: A comment on page 4 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests to model
emissions from the recessed position on the site, and provide maximum deposition
points for each pollutant.
Response: The air dispersion modeling conducted for the amended CECP properly
incorporated this recessed position and also properly incorporated the berms for
downwash calculations. No revision to the air dispersion modeling analysis is
required.
In regards to pollutant depositions please see the above consolidated response for
numbered item 25 on page 2 and 5, 8, and 9 on page 3 of the comment letter.
Comment: A comment on page 5 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks if the amended
CECP is being proposed because the original project was deemed illegal by federal
authorities and could not obtain a PSD permit. This comment also asks the effect on air
quality and the grid if the original project was developed with an additional 92 MW of
battery power.
Response: Staff cannot provide answers regarding the project owner’s reasons for
submitting the petition to amend nor has staff researched the current PSD permitting
situation of the licensed CECP and so cannot answer that question. Neither question
is pertinent to the analysis of the amended CECP.
February 2015

4.1-63

AIR QUALITY

 Construction of the original project, augmented with 92 MW of battery storage,
compared to the amended project, would result in an improvement in air quality as
plant dispatch could be co-optimized with storage injections and removal to provide
energy from a more efficient generation resource with fewer start-ups and less
cycling. This co-optimization assumes that the energy directed for battery storage is
from renewable energy or other power generation resources that are more efficient
and lower emitting that the amended CECP. Both projects would satisfy grid
reliability needs in the San Diego and Southern California areas. The CPUC has set
targets for investor-owned utility procurement of energy storage (see D.13-10-040 in
R.10-12-007, issued October 17, 2013) and assumed the procurement of at least 25
MW of storage by SDG&E in its Track 4 decision. For a discussion of preferred
resources (demand-side management, renewable generation and storage) as
alternatives to the amended CECP, see the Alternatives section of the Final Staff
Assessment.
Comment: A comment on page 5 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks if it is true that
the existing project does not conform to Federal PSD law.
Response: The PSA evaluates the amended CECP not the licensed CECP. As
noted above, staff has not researched the current PSD permitting situation of the
licensed CECP and so cannot answer this question. Please also see the response
above to items 1 through 5 on page 1 of the comment letter in regards to the PSD
permitting situation for the amended CECP.
Comment: A comment on page 5 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks for more
ambient pollutant data to demonstrate that the background data used was not cherry
picked and to provide a year of on-site data.
Response: Staff's analysis used the most representative, conservative background
data applicable to the project site. Data sources are publically available and
referenced in the staff analysis. The commenter is free to collect any background
data they choose.
Comment: A comment on page 6 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks for the
determination and addition of background concentration for ozone, lead, and visibility in
Air Quality Table 10.
Response: Air Quality Table 10 provides information for a specific purpose, the
determination of background data used in the impact analysis’ air dispersion
modeling. As noted in staff's analysis, the other pollutants did not need to be
modeled and so are not included in this particular table. Staff has no need to
determine staff recommended background concentrations for any other pollutants to
complete its analysis and recommendation for this project.
Comment: A comment on page 6 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests a
comparison of the emissions from the amended and licensed CECP on a MW basis.
Response: It would be more appropriate to compute emissions per MWh, but this is
not a specific metric that staff uses to evaluate project impacts because of the
different duty cycle of a simple-cycle compared to a combined-cycle facility.
However, this type of information can be developed using data in the amended
AIR QUALITY

4.1-64

February 2015

 CECP PSA and the licensed CECP Final Staff Assessment (FSA) and would be as
follows for the maximum permitted operation (using a MWh basis and not a MW
basis):
Emissions per MWh for Amended and Licensed CECP (lb/MWh)
Project
Amended CECP
Licensed CECP

NOx
0.096
0.072

CO
0.088
0.208

VOC
0.027
0.019

SOx
0.006
0.005

PM
0.032
0.037

NH3
0.062
0.051

The commenter can compute emissions on a per MW basis from data in the PSA
and the licensed CECP FSA if that is what they really intended.
Comment: A comment on page 6 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter notes that the
project needs a PSD applicability determination by U.S. EPA and that the emission
limits used in the PDOC would fit the definition of a sham permit as defined by U.S.
EPA.
Response: Staff disagrees with the statement that this is a sham permit. U.S. EPA6
notes the following:
…”Permits with conditions that do not reflect a source's planned mode of operation
are sham permits”…
…”Generally in "sham" permitting, a source attempts to expedite construction by
securing minor source status through permits containing operational restrictions
from which the source intends to free itself shortly after completion of construction
and commencement of operation.”
Permit limits to avoid regulatory triggers are regularly requested when such limits
reflect desired or needed operations, and limitations to annual operations for
facilities that will have limited operation such as peaking power plants are
appropriate. The amended CECP project is clearly a peaking power project that
would not operate 8,760 hours per year. The annual emissions limits are based on a
capacity factor of 30.8 percent, while simple-cycle plants generally operate with
capacity factors below 10 percent. Therefore, the annual emissions limit is not
restrictive for this project, so the DOC conditions are reasonable for this project and
this is clearly not a sham permit.
Please note that the PSA did erroneously identify the PSD permitting threshold in
the area quoted in the comment, it should have said “NSR offset threshold” and not
“PSD permitting threshold”. The project’s emissions increase is calculated to be over
15 tons of NOx below the PSD permitting threshold. The statement is corrected in
the FSA.
Please also see previous comment responses regarding the PSD permit applicability
for this project.

6

  Memorandum from John B. Rasnic, Director Stationary Source Compliance Division, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards to George T. Czerniak, Chief Enforcement Branch, Region V. June 23,
1993. http://www.epa.gov/region07/air/nsr/nsrmemos/maplwood.pdf. 
February 2015

4.1-65

AIR QUALITY

 Comment: A comment on page 6 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests a
presentation with the maximum baseline EPS emissions rather than the two-year
baseline selected by SDAPCD as representative.
Response: The baseline EPS emissions used by the District in the PDOC, and
shown in the PSA are conservative. Using the maximum baseline as requested in
this comment would only show lower incremental emissions from the project and
would serve no purpose in respect to analyzing the project's impacts. The
commenter is free to use the data presented in the PDOC to determine this
information.
Comment: A comment on page 6 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter notes that the
baseline was deemed illegal by U.S. EPA and should not be relied upon.
Response: The U.S. EPA has made no such finding regarding the EPS baseline
emissions calculations used by the SDAPCD in the PDOC, and in fact provided the
District a "no comment" correspondence to the District in regards to the PDOC.
Comment: A comment on page 6 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter states that the
Energy Commission should conduct its own air dispersion modeling analyses rather
than rely on the applicant or District analyses.
Response: Energy Commission staff conducts air dispersion modeling when they
find it is necessary, but does not necessarily duplicate analyses when review of
those analyses show they are complete and accurate. For this project staff reviewed
the construction emissions air dispersion modeling analysis conducted by the project
owner and the operations and cumulative modeling (amended CECP initial
commissioning and EPS operation) modeling analyses performed by the District and
determined that they were complete and accurate. Staff did determine that neither
party completed a cumulative modeling analysis of the amended CECP operation
and EPS demolition, so staff completed that air dispersion modeling analysis and
has presented the results of that analysis in the FSA.
Comment: A comment on page 6 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests that
fumigation impacts on endangered species and their habitats be determined.
Response: The worst-case project-related fumigation condition concentrations
determined by modeling were less than the concentrations determined under normal
operation. Therefore, no significant impacts to endangered species or their habitats
would occur during the infrequent conditions that could cause fumigation events.
Furthermore, normal operations would likewise not cause adverse impacts.
Comment: A comment on page 9 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter notes that modeling
is required to determine deposition patterns that would be different than for the EPS.
Response: Staff disagrees with this comment. There is no regulatory requirement or
compelling CEQA analysis rationale for completing deposition modeling for the
amended CECP. Please also see the combined response to comment items 25 on
page 2 and items 5, 8, and 9 on page 3 provided above.

AIR QUALITY

4.1-66

February 2015

 INTERVENOR: HELPING HAND TOOLS/ ROBERT SIMPSON, TN:
203588, FEBRUARY 1, 2015
Comment: A comment on page 3 reiterates the comment about assessing LNG as a
fuel source provided in Mr. Simpsons other comment letter (TN203587).
Response: Please see the response to comment letter TN203587 provided above.
Comment: A comment on page 3 and another on page 4 reiterate comments regarding
potential air quality impacts to biological resources provided in Mr. Simpsons other
comment letter (TN203587).
Response: Please see the response to comment letter TN203587 provided above.
Comment: A comment on page 3 reiterates the comment about assessing the local
pollution effects of CO2 domes in Mr. Simpsons other comment letter (TN203587).
Response: Please see the response to comment 9 of comment letter TN203587
provided above.

PETITIONER: CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER LLC, TN: 203549,
JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: In Air Quality comments 1 and 2, the petitioner proposes changes to the
verifications of staff conditions of certification AQ-SC1 and AQ-SC2, to address the
coordination for the construction/demolition work on the licensed CECP and the future
construction/demolition work on the amended CECP.
Response: Staff does not believe that these edits are necessary. Staff understands
that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun; however, it is staff’s opinion that
changing the verification date to a time that has passed is both confusing and
unnecessary. Petitioner will not be required to duplicate work completed that meets
the conditions of certification for the amended CECP.
Comment: In Air Quality comment 3, the petitioner proposes a minor clarifying edit to
the verification of condition of certification AQ-SC11.
Response: Staff has incorporated the suggested edit.
Comment: In Air Quality comments 4 through 10, the petitioner proposes edits to
several conditions of certification.
Response: Edits to these conditions will be made per the District’s revised Final
DOC conditions in the Air Quality section supplement.
Comment: In Air Quality comment 11, the petitioner proposes a correction to the
verification of condition of certification AQ-105.
Response: Staff has incorporated the suggested correction.

February 2015

4.1-67

AIR QUALITY

 CONCLUSIONS
Staff concludes that:


The amended project would comply with applicable District Rules and Regulations,
including New Source Review Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and offset
requirements, and staff recommends the inclusion of the Districts DOC conditions as
Conditions of Certification AQ-1 through AQ-116. Staff will present any revision to
the District’s DOC conditions in an Air Quality Supplement that will follow the
publication of the District’s Final DOC.



The amended project’s construction and demolition activities requested under the
PTR and PTA, if unmitigated, would likely contribute to significant adverse PM10
and ozone impacts. Therefore, staff recommends AQ-SC1 to AQ-SC5, AQ-SC12
and AQ-SC13 to mitigate these potential impacts.



The amended project’s operation would not cause new exceedances of any NO2,
SO2, PM2.5, or CO ambient air quality standards; therefore, the amended project’s
direct operation NOx, SOx, PM2.5, and CO emission impacts are not significant.



With the mitigation proposed by staff and the air district, no significant direct,
indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts to air quality should occur from the
construction or operation of amended CECP.



With the mitigation proposed by staff and compliance with applicable air district
rules, no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative adverse impacts to air quality
should occur from the demolition of EPS.



With the conditions of certification recommended by staff, including all requirements
in the air district’s DOC, the project will comply with all applicable LORS.



The amended project’s direct, or secondary, emissions contribution to existing
violations of the ozone and PM10 ambient air quality standards are potentially
significant if unmitigated. The District will not require offsets to mitigate the permitted
NOx emission increase; therefore, staff recommends AQ-SC10 to mitigate the
potential combined NOx/VOC emission increase that do not require District offsets,
so that all nonattainment pollutant and precursor emissions be offset at least one-toone.



Staff has considered the demographics of the population surrounding the site (see
Socioeconomics Figure 1). Since the amended project’s direct and cumulative air
quality impacts have been reduced to less than significant, there is no environmental
justice issue for air quality.

Staff proposes a number of additional conditions that are in addition to the permit
conditions that the SDAPCD has proposed, or the other staff recommended conditions
noted above. Condition AQ-SC6 provides the administrative procedure requirements for
project modifications. Condition AQ-SC7 forbids on-site contaminated soil remediation
activities, other than transport, as on-site soil remediation was not proposed or analyzed
as part of the amended project. Condition AQ-SC8 is a quarterly compliance reporting
requirement. Condition AQ-SC9 limits gas turbine operations between the hours of
2400 and 0600 as proposed by the project owner. AQ-SC11 requires the project owner
AIR QUALITY

4.1-68

February 2015

 to prepare and implement a leak-detection and repair program to reduce emissions from
the proposed on-site natural gas compressors. AQ-SC12 specifies the major
construction and demolition work phases that are not allowed to occur concurrently so
that project impacts are not higher than evaluated. Finally, AQ-SC13 restricts implosion
and felling as demolition methods for large concrete or masonry structures during the
EPS demolition.
Global climate change and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the amended project
are discussed and analyzed in Appendix AQ-1. The amended CECP, as a peaking
project with an enforceable operating capacity factor of less than 60 percent is not
subject to the requirements of SB1368, California’s Emission Performance Standard.
Additionally, the enforceable operating capacity factor for the amended CECP would be
below the 33 percent capacity factor trigger for applicability of the federal New Source
Performance Standard Subpart TTTT and that rule’s CO2 emissions standards for gas
turbines. The amended project would be licensed to emit as much as 0.85 million metric
tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions and therefore it would be subject to the
State cap-and-trade regulation and mandatory state and federal GHG reporting
requirements.

February 2015

4.1-69

AIR QUALITY

 REFERENCES
ARB 2006 - California Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Data
1980-2005 on CD ROM. December, 2006.
ARB 2008 - California Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Data
Statistics available on ARB website. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html.
Accessed September 2008.
ARB 2014a - California Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Standards
available on ARB Website. http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
Accessed July, 2014.
ARB 2014b - California Air Resources Board. Air Designation Maps available on ARB
website. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed July 2014.
ARB 2014c - California Air Resources Board. California Ambient Air Quality Data
Statistics available on ARB website. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/index.html.
Accessed July 2014.
ARB 2014d - California Air Resources Board. Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality
Standards
Attainment
Program
Webpage.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/moyer.htm. Accessed December 2014.
CEC 2009b – California Energy Commission (TN54475). Revised Sections for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Final Staff Assessment (Air Quality and Worker
Safety and Fire Protection), dated December 12, 2009. Document available
here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad/documents/2009-1217_Revised_Sections_Carlsbad_FSA.PDF. Submitted 12/17/2009.
CEC 2014i – California Energy Commission (TN202715). Carlsbad Energy Center
Protect Amendment (07-AFC-06C), Data Request Set 1 (1-30). Submitted
07/16/2014.
CEC 2014u – California Energy Commission (TN203012). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Amendment (07-AFC-06C), Data Requests Set 2A, Waste Management
(#59-66). Submitted 08/29/2014.
LL 2014b – Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL 2014d – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL 2014e – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL 2014f – Locke Lord LLP (TN202326). Application for the Authority to Construct,
(ATC) Petition to Amend. Submitted 05/13/2014.
AIR QUALITY

4.1-70

February 2015

 LL 2014i – Locke Lord LLP (TN202627). Supplemental Information re: Project Owner’s
Application for Authority to Construct, 2 CDs – Air Quality Modeling Files and
Encina Baseline Emission Calculations. Submitted 06/27/2014.
LL 2014p – Locke Lord LLP (TN202938). Project Owner’s Response to Data Requests
in Set 1 (#1-30). Submitted 08/15/2014.
LL 2014cc – Locke Lord LLP (TN203143). Response to Data Request Set 2A (No.64),
dated October 1, 2014. Submitted 10/01/2014.
LL 2014uu – Locke Lord LLP (TN203360). Amended CECP Revised EPS Demolition
Air Emissions Calculations. Submitted 11/14/2014.
SDAPCD 2008 - San Diego Air Pollution Control District. Five Year Air Quality
Summary. http://www.sdapcd.org/air/reports/smog.pdf.
SDAPCD 2014 – San Diego Air Pollution Control District (TN203441). Preliminary
Determination of Compliance – Carlsbad Energy Center. Submitted December
12, 2014.
U.S. EPA 2011 – United States Environmental Protection Agency. Additional
Clarification Regarding Application of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1hour
NO2
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard.
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/clarification/Additional_Clarifications_App
endixW_Hourly-NO2-NAAQS_FINAL_03-01-2011.pdf. March 01, 2011.
U.S. EPA 2014a - Air Quality Maps
http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/maps_top.html. Accessed July 2014.
U.S. EPA 2014b – Green Book. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/index.html.
Accessed July 2014.
U.S. EPA 2014c – AirData Monitor Values Report website. http://www.epa.gov/
airquality/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html. Accessed September 2014.
WC 2014 - Weather Channel. Averages and records for Carlsbad, California. Website:
http://www.weather.com. Accessed July 2014.

February 2015

4.1-71

AIR QUALITY

 ACRONYMS
AAQS

Ambient Air Quality Standard

AERMOD ARMS/EPA Regulatory Model
AFC

Application for Certification

APCD

Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)

AQCMM

Air Quality Construction Mitigation Manager

AQCMP

Air Quality Construction Mitigation Plan

AQMP

Air Quality Management Plan

AQIA

Air Quality Impact Assessment

ARB

California Air Resources Board

ARM

Ambient Ratio Method

AST

Aboveground Storage Tank

ATC

Authority to Construct

ATCM

Airborne Toxic Control Measure

BACT

Best Available Control Technology

BARCT

Best Available Retrofit Technology

bhp

brake horsepower

Btu

British thermal unit

CAAQS

California Ambient Air Quality Standard

CCR

California Code of Regulations

CEC

California Energy Commission (or Energy Commission)

CECP

Carlsbad Energy Center Project

CEQA

California Environmental Quality Act

CEM

Continuous Emission Monitor

CEMS

Continuous Emission Monitoring System

AIR QUALITY

4.1-72

February 2015

 CFR

Code of Federal Regulations

CO

Carbon Monoxide

CO2

Carbon Dioxide

CTG

Combustion Turbine Generator

CPM

(Energy Commission) Compliance Project Manager

DAHS

Data Acquisition and Handling System

DPM

Diesel Particulate Matter

dscf

dry standard cubic foot

dscm

dry standard cubic meter

EIR

Environmental Impact Report

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency (same as U.S. EPA)

EPS

Encina Power Station

ERC

Emission Reduction Credit

DOC

Final Determination Of Compliance

FSA

Final Staff Assessment

GHG

Greenhouse Gas

gpm

Gallons per minute

gr

Grains (1 gr  0.0648 grams, 7000 gr = 1 pound)

HAP

Hazardous Air Pollutant

hp

horsepower

H2S

Hydrogen Sulfide

LAER

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

lbs

pounds

LORS

Laws, ordinances, regulations and standards

MCR

Monthly Compliance Report

mg/m3

milligrams per cubic meter

February 2015

4.1-73

AIR QUALITY

 MMBtu

Million British thermal units

MW

Megawatts (1,000,000 Watts)

NAAQS

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

NH3

Ammonia

NO

Nitric Oxide

NO2

Nitrogen Dioxide

NO3

Nitrates

NOx

Oxides of Nitrogen or Nitrogen Oxides

NSPS

New Source Performance Standard

NSR

New Source Review

O2

Oxygen

O3

Ozone

OLM

Ozone Limiting Method

PDOC

Preliminary Determination Of Compliance

PM

Particulate matter

PM10

Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5

Particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

ppm

Parts per million

ppmv

Parts per million by volume

ppmvd

Parts per million by volume, dry

PSA

Preliminary Staff Assessment

PSD

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PTA

Petition to Amend

PTO

Permit to Operate

PTR

Petition to Remove

RATA

Relative Accuracy Test Audit

AIR QUALITY

4.1-74

February 2015

 scf

Standard cubic feet

SCR

Selective Catalytic Reduction

SDAB

San Diego Air Basin

SDAPCD

San Diego Air Pollution Control District

SIP

State Implementation Plan

SO2

Sulfur dioxide

SO3

Sulfate

SOx

Oxides of sulfur

T-BACT

Best Available Control Technology for Toxics

ULN

Ultra Low NOx

U.S. EPA

United States Environmental Protection Agency

g/m3

Microgram per cubic meter

VOC

Volatile organic compounds

February 2015

4.1-75

AIR QUALITY

 AIR QUALITY APPENDIX AQ-1
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Testimony of William Walters and David Vidaver

SUMMARY
The amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project (amended CECP) is a proposed addition
to the state’s electricity system. It would be a set of efficient, new, dispatchable, natural
gas-fired simple-cycle peaker power generation units that would provide fast-start
capabilities but would produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while generating
electricity for California consumers. The amended CECP proposal includes the use of
General Electric LMS100 gas turbines, the most efficient simple-cycle gas turbines
currently known to be in operation. Its addition to the system would displace other less
efficient, higher GHG-emitting peaker power plant generation, facilitate the retirement of
the Encina facility and facilitate the integration of renewable resources. Because the
project would improve the efficiency of existing system resources, the addition of the
amended CECP would contribute to a reduction of the California GHG emissions and
GHG emission rate average. The relative efficiency of the amended CECP and the
system build-out of renewable resources in California would result in a net cumulative
reduction of GHG emissions from new and existing fossil sources of electricity.
Electricity is produced by operation of an interconnected system of generation sources.
Operation of one power plant, like the amended CECP, affects all other power plants in
the interconnected system.
The amendment presents new information and changed circumstances requiring new
greenhouse gas analysis, for the following reasons: the amendment proposes a change
from combined-cycle turbines to simple-cycle turbines, a different technology with a
different role, efficiency, and revised construction and operation GHG emissions; the
amendment proposes the decommissioning of the less efficient higher GHG emitting
Encina Power Station (EPS) units 4 and 5; proposes the demolition of the entire EPS, a
new source of GHG emissions; and the CEQA guidelines have been updated to include
GHG emissions. These changes require new emissions modeling and additional impact
analysis to address the GHG emissions CEQA guidelines.
While the amended CECP would burn natural gas for fuel and thus would produce GHG
emissions that contribute cumulatively to climate change, it would have a beneficial
impact on system operation and facilitate a reduction in GHG emissions in several
ways:


When dispatched,1 the amended CECP would displace less efficient (and thus
higher GHG-emitting) generation. Because the project’s GHG emissions per
megawatt-hour (MWh) would be lower than those power plants that the project
would displace, the addition of the amended CECP would contribute to a reduction

1

The entity responsible for balancing a region’s electrical load and generation will “dispatch” or call on the
operation of generation facilities. The “dispatch order” is generally dictated by the facility’s electricity
production cost, efficiency, location or contractual obligations.
February 2015

AQ1-1

APPENDIX AQ-1

 of California and overall Western Electricity Coordinating Council system GHG2
emissions and GHG emission rate average.


The amended CECP would replace capacity and generation provided by aging, high
GHG-emitting power plants, which are likely to retire in order to comply with the
State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) policy restricting the use of once
through cooling (OTC).



The amended CECP would replace less efficient peaker power plant generation in
the California Independent System Operator - (CA ISO) designated San Diego Local
Capacity Area (LCA), reducing the GHG emissions associated with providing local
reliability services and facilitating the retirement of the Encina Power Station (EPS),
an aging, high GHG-emitting resource in the LCA.



The amended CECP would provide fast start and dispatch flexibility capabilities
necessary to integrate expected additional amounts of variable renewable
generation (also known as “variable” or “intermittent” energy resources) to meet the
State’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) and GHG emission reduction targets.

INTRODUCTION– WILLIAM WALTERS
GHG emissions are not criteria pollutants; they are discussed in the context of
cumulative impacts. In December 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) declared that greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten the public health and welfare
of the American people (the so-called “endangerment finding”), and this became
effective on January 14, 2010.
Federal rules that became effective December 29, 2009 (40 CFR 98) require federal
reporting of GHGs. As federal rulemaking evolves, staff at this time focuses on
analyzing the ability of the project to comply with existing federal- and state-level
policies and programs for GHGs. The state has demonstrated a clear willingness to
address global climate change though research, adaptation,3 and GHG inventory
reductions. In that context, staff evaluates the GHG emissions from the proposed
project, presents information on GHG emissions related to electricity generation, and
describes the applicable GHG standards and requirements.
Generation of electricity using any fossil fuel, including natural gas, can produce
greenhouse gases along with the criteria air pollutants that have been traditionally
regulated under the federal and state Clean Air Acts. For fossil fuel-fired power plants,
the GHG emissions include primarily CO2, with much smaller amounts of nitrous oxide
(N2O, not NO or NO2, which are commonly known as NOx or oxides of nitrogen), and
methane (CH4 – often from unburned natural gas). Also included are sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6) from high voltage equipment, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from refrigeration/chiller equipment. GHG emissions from the
electricity sector are dominated by CO2 emissions from the carbon-based fuels; other
2

Fuel-use closely correlates to the efficiency of and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from natural gasfired power plants. And since CO2 emissions from fuel combustion dominate greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions from power plants, the terms CO2 and GHG are used interchangeably in this section.
3
While working to understand and reverse global climate change, it is prudent to also adapt to potential
changes in the state’s climate (for example, changing rainfall patterns).
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-2

February 2015

 sources of GHG emissions are small and also are more likely to be easily controlled or
reused or recycled, but are nevertheless documented here as some of the compounds
have very high relative global warming potentials.
Global warming potential is a relative measure, compared to carbon dioxide, of a
compound’s residence time in the atmosphere and ability to warm the planet. Mass
emissions of GHGs are converted into carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2E) for ease of
comparison.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
The following federal, State, and local laws and policies in Greenhouse Gas Table 1
pertain to the control and mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Staff’s analysis
examines the project’s compliance with these requirements.
Greenhouse Gas Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR
Federal
40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Parts 51
and 52

40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 60
Subpart TTTT

40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 98

Description
A new stationary source that emits more than 100,000 TPY of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) is also considered to be a major
stationary source subject to Prevention of Significant Determination
(PSD) requirements. As of June 23, 2014 the US Supreme Court
has invalidated this requirement as a sole PSD permitting trigger.
However, PSD still applies to GHGs if the source is otherwise
subject to PSD (for another regulated NSR pollutant) and the GHG
emissions exceed this value. The proposed facility modifications are
not subject to the PSD analysis for other NSR pollutants and are
therefore not subject to GHG PSD analysis.
This rule sets annual CO2 emissions performance standards, based
on gross output, for new stationary combustion turbines. The
emissions standards are 0.45 MT CO2/MWh for gas turbines with
maximum heat input greater than 850 MMBtu/hr. As currently
proposed, this rule is triggered for facilities that would operate with a
capacity factor of 33 percent or higher. The amended CECP would
be limited to a capacity factor below 33 percent, so this emissions
performance standard would not apply.
This rule requires mandatory reporting of GHG emissions for
facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent
emissions per year. This requirement is triggered by this facility.

State
California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, AB 32
(Stats. 2006; Chapter 488;
Health and Safety Code
sections 38500 et seq.)
California Code of
Regulations, Title 17,
Subchapter 10, Article 2,
sections 95100 et. seq.

February 2015

This act requires the California Air Resource Board (ARB) to enact
standards to reduce GHG emission to 1990 levels by 2020.
Electricity production facilities are included. A cap-and-trade
program became active in January 2012, and enforcement began in
January 2013. Cap-and-trade is expected to achieve approximately
20 percent of the GHG reductions expected under AB 32 by 2020.
These ARB regulations implement mandatory GHG emissions
reporting as part of the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006 (Stats. 2006; Chapter 488; Health and Safety Code sections
38500 et seq.)

AQ1-3

APPENDIX AQ-1

 Applicable LOR
Title 20, California Code of
Regulations, Section 2900 et
seq.; CPUC Decision
D0701039 in proceeding
R0604009

Local
City of Carlsbad Draft
Climate Action Plan

Description
The regulations prohibit California utilities from entering into longterm contracts with any base load facility that does not meet a
greenhouse gas emission standard of 0.5 metric tonnes carbon
dioxide per megawatt-hour (0.5 MTCO2/MWh) or 1,100 pounds
carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour (1,100 lbs CO2/MWh). The
amended CECP would not be a base load facility and this regulation
would not apply.

This draft planning document identifies greenhouse gas emissions
reduction measures. These measures are generally designed for
residential, commercial, and traffic-based GHG emissions reduction
measures that would not specifically apply to the project. At this time
none of the measures in this draft plan appear to have been added
as ordinances within the City Municipal Code.

GHG ANALYSIS
California is actively pursuing policies to reduce GHG emissions that include adding
low-GHG emitting renewable electricity generation resources to the system. The GHGs
evaluated in this analysis include carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane
(CH4), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), and perflurocarbons (PFC).
CO2 emissions are far and away the most common of these emissions; as a result, even
though the other GHGs may have a greater impact on climate change on a per-unit of
mass basis due to their greater global warming potential as described more fully below,
GHG emissions are often “normalized” in terms of metric tons of CO2-equivalent
(MTCO2E) for simplicity. Global warming potential (GWP) is a relative measure,
compared to carbon dioxide, of a compound’s ability to warm the planet, taking into
account each compound’s expected residence time in the atmosphere. By convention,
carbon dioxide is assigned a global warming potential of one. In comparison, for
example methane has a GWP of 25,4 which means that it has a global warming effect
25 times greater than carbon dioxide on an equal-mass basis. The carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2E) for a source is obtained by multiplying each GHG by its GWP and
then adding the results together to obtain a single, combined emission rate representing
all GHGs in terms of CO2E.
GHG emissions are not included in the class of pollutants traditionally called “criteria
pollutants.” Since the impact of the GHG emissions from a power plant’s operation has
global rather than local effects, those impacts should be assessed not only by analysis
of the plant’s emissions, but also in the context of the operation of the entire electricity
system of which the plant is an integrated part. Furthermore, the impact of the GHG
emissions from a power plant’s operation should be analyzed in the context of
applicable GHG laws and policies, especially Assembly Bill (AB) 32, California’s Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

4

Updated global warming potential values became effective January 1, 2014.
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-4

February 2015

 GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE AND CALIFORNIA
Worldwide, with the exception of 1998, over the past 134-year record, the 11 warmest
years all have occurred since 2002, with the two hottest years on record being 2010 and
2005 (NCDC 2014). According to “The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change
Science Impacts and Response Options for California,” an Energy Commission
document, the American West is heating up faster than other regions of the United States
(CEC 2009c). The California Climate Change Center (CCCC) reports that, by the end of
this century, average global surface temperatures could rise by 4.7°F to 10.5°F due to
increased GHG emissions.
The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature.
Without these natural GHGs, the earth’s surface would be approximately 61°F (34°C)
cooler (CalEPA 2006); however, emissions from fossil fuel combustion for activities
such as electricity production and vehicular transportation have elevated the
concentration of GHGs in the atmosphere above natural levels. ARB estimated that the
mobile source sector accounted for approximately 37 percent of the GHG emissions
generated in California from 2009 through 2012, while the electricity generating sector
accounted for approximately 20 to 22 percent of the 2009 to 2012 California GHG
emissions inventory with just more than half of that on average from in-state generation
sources (ARB 2014).
The Fourth U.S. Climate Action Report concluded, in assessing current trends, that CO2
emissions increased by 20 percent from 1990 to 2004, while methane and nitrous oxide
emissions decreased by ten percent and two percent, respectively. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) constructed several emission
trajectories of GHGs needed to stabilize global temperatures and climate change impacts.
It concluded that stabilization of GHGs at 450 ppm carbon dioxide equivalent
concentration is required to keep the global mean warming increase below 3.8°F (2.1°C)
from year 2000 base line levels (IPCC 2007a).
GHGs differ from criteria pollutants in that GHG emissions from a specific project do not
cause direct adverse localized human health effects. Rather, the direct environmental
effect of GHG emissions is the cumulative effect of an overall increase in global
temperatures, which in turn has numerous indirect effects on the environment and
humans. The impacts of climate change include potential physical, economic, and social
effects. These effects could include inundation of settled areas near the coast from rises
in sea level associated with melting of land-based glacial ice sheets, exposure to more
frequent and powerful climate events, and changes in suitability of certain areas for
agriculture, reduction in Arctic sea ice, thawing permafrost, later freezing and earlier
break-up of ice on rivers and lakes, a lengthened growing season, shifts in plant and
animal ranges, earlier flowering of trees, and a substantial reduction in winter snowpack
(IPCC 2007b). For example, current estimates include a 70 to 90 percent reduction in
snow pack in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. Current data suggests that in the next
25 years, in every season of the year, California could experience unprecedented heat,
longer and more extreme heat waves, greater intensity and frequency of heat waves, and
longer dry periods. More specifically, the CCCC predicted that California could witness
the following events (CCCC 2006):

February 2015

AQ1-5

APPENDIX AQ-1

 

Temperature rises between 3 and 10.5 ºF



6 to 20 inches or greater rise in sea level



2 to 4 times as many heat-wave days in major urban centers



2 to 6 times as many heat-related deaths in major urban centers



1 to 1.5 times more critically dry years



Losses to mountaintop snowpack and water supply (e.g., according to the CCCC, Sierra
Nevada snowpack could be reduced by as much as 70 to 90 percent by 2100 [CEC
2009c])



25 to 85 percent increase in days conducive to ozone formation



3 to 20 percent increase in electricity demand



10 to 55 percent increase in the risk of wildfires

There is general scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that human
activity contributes in some measure (perhaps substantially) to that change. Man-made
emissions of GHGs, if not sufficiently curtailed, are likely to contribute further to
continued increases in global temperatures. Indeed, the California Legislature found
that “[g]lobal warming poses a serious threat to the economic well-being, public health,
natural resources, and the environment of California” (Cal. Health & Safety Code, sec.
38500, division 25.5, part 1).
The state has demonstrated a clear willingness to address global climate change (GCC)
through research, adaptation, and GHG emission reductions. In that context, staff
evaluates the GHG emissions from the proposed project, presents information on GHG
emissions related to electricity generation (see “Electricity System GHG Impacts”
subsection below), and describes the applicable GHG policies and programs.
In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHG emissions are pollutants within the
meaning of the Clean Air Act (CAA). In reaching its decision, the Court also
acknowledged that climate change results, in part, from anthropogenic causes
(Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency 549 U.S. 497, 2007). The
Supreme Court’s ruling paved the way for the regulation of GHG emissions by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) under the CAA.
In response to this Supreme Court decision, on December 7, 2009 the U.S. EPA
Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding GHGs under Section 202(a) of the
CAA:


Endangerment Finding: That the current and projected concentrations of the GHGs in the
atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations;
and



Cause or Contribute Finding: That the combined emissions of GHGs from new motor
vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG pollution, which
threatens public health and welfare.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-6

February 2015

 As federal rulemaking evolves, staff at this time focuses on analyzing the ability of the
project to comply with existing federal- and state-level policies and programs for GHGs.
As of June 23, 2014, the US Supreme Court has validated that GHG emissions should
continue to be regulated, but only for those facilities that are already regulated under
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for New Source Review (NSR) pollutants.
In 1998, the Energy Commission identified a range of strategies to prepare for an
uncertain climate future, including a need to account for the environmental impacts
associated with energy production, planning, and procurement (CEC 1998, p. 5). In
2003, the Energy Commission recommended that the state require reporting of GHGs
or global climate change emissions as a condition of state licensing of new electric
generating facilities (CEC 2003, IEPR p. 42). In 2006, California enacted the California
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32). It requires the ARB to adopt standards
that will reduce 2020 statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
AB 32 includes a number of specific requirements:
ARB shall prepare and approve a scoping plan for achieving the maximum
technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions from sources or categories of sources of greenhouse gases by 2020
(Health and Safety Code (HSC) §38561). The scoping plan, approved by the ARB on
December 12, 2008, provides the outline for actions to reduce greenhouse gases in
California. The approved scoping plan indicates how these emission reductions will be
achieved from significant greenhouse gas sources via regulations, market mechanisms,
and other actions. In early 2014, ARB completed its five-year update to the Scoping
Plan, tracking progress towards the 2020 emission goals and proposing new measures
as appropriate.
The adopted Scoping Plan anticipates that four-fifths of the planned reductions will
come from cost-effective programs and regulations, with the remainder provided by
economy-wide cap-and-trade. Measures that affect the electricity sector directly include
a 33 percent Renewable Portfolio Standard, alternative transportation fuels such as
vehicle and ship electrification, building energy efficiency, and combined heat and
power. Most of these measures have been implemented, such as Senate Bill X1 2
(Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of 2011-12), which established a firm goal requiring all
retail providers have 33 percent of California’s electricity supplies by renewable sources
by 2020. In January 2015, Governor Brown declared a goal of reaching 50 percent
renewable energy by 2030.
Identify the statewide level of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 to serve as the
emissions limit to be achieved by 2020 (HSC §38550). In December 2007, the ARB
approved the 2020 emission limit of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent
(MMTCO2E) of greenhouse gases. In 2013, ARB used EPA’s updated information to recalculate that level to 431 million metric tons.
Adopt a regulation requiring the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas
emissions (HSC §38530). In December 2007, the ARB adopted a regulation requiring
the largest electric power generation and industrial sources to report and verify their
greenhouse gas emissions. The reporting regulation serves as a solid foundation to
determine greenhouse gas emissions and track future changes in emission levels.
February 2015

AQ1-7

APPENDIX AQ-1

 Facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons per year are covered. That includes
most emitting power plants of five megawatts or larger. Reported emissions from
individual facilities may be found on the Mandatory Reporting website,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/reporting/ghg-rep/reported-data/ghg-reports.htm.
Adopt a regulation that establishes a system of market-based declining annual
aggregate emission limits for sources or categories of sources that emit
greenhouse gas emissions, applicable from January 1, 2012, to December 31,
2020 (HSC §38562(c)). In 2011, the ARB adopted the cap-and-trade original regulation.
The cap-and-trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the state such
as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The cap-andtrade program includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. The
state will distribute allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions
allowed under the cap. Sources under the cap will need to surrender allowances and
offsets equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period.
Individual in-state generating facilities and the first deliverers of imported electricity are
the point of regulation. They are responsible for determining their GHG emissions using
ARB and U.S. EPA regulations, and purchasing either carbon allowances or offsets to
meet their emissions obligation. Third party verification is required. If facilities find that it
is not economic to operate and to purchase sufficient compliance instruments to cover
its GHG obligations, facilities must lower their annual energy output. Further information
on cap-and-trade may be found at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm.
The first mandatory compliance period5 with cap-and-trade requirements commenced
on January 1, 2012, although enforcement was delayed until January 2013.
Convene an Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) to advise the
Board in developing the Scoping Plan and any other pertinent matter in
implementing AB 32 (HSC §38591). The EJAC met between 2007 and 2010, providing
comments on the proposed early action measures and the development of the scoping
plan, public health issues, and issues for impacted communities and cap-and-trade. To
advise the ARB on the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, ARB reconvened a new EJAC on
March 21, 2013. The committee met three times in 2013 and continued in 2014 to
provide advice to the ARB.
It is likely that GHG reductions mandated by ARB will be non-uniform or disproportional
across emitting sectors, in that most reductions will be based on cost-effectiveness (i.e.,
the greatest GHG reduction for the least cost). For example, ARB proposes a 40
percent reduction in statewide GHG emissions from the electricity sector even though
that sector currently only produces about 20 to 22 percent of the state’s GHG
emissions.
5

A compliance period is the time frame during which the compliance obligation is calculated. The years
2013 and 2014 are known as the first compliance period and the years 2015 to 2017 are known as the
second compliance period. The third compliance period is from 2018 to 2020. At the end of each
compliance period each facility will be required to turn in compliance instruments, including allowances
and a limited number of ARB offset credits, equivalent to their total GHG emissions throughout the
compliance period. (http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/guidance/chapter1.pdf)
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-8

February 2015

 SB 1368,6 enacted in 2006, and regulations adopted by the Energy Commission and
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) pursuant to that bill, prohibit
California utilities from entering into long-term commitments with any base load facilities
that exceed the Emission Performance Standard (EPS) of 0.5 metric tonnes CO2 per
megawatt-hour7 (1,100 pounds CO2/MWh). Specifically, the SB 1368 EPS applies to
new California utility-owned power plants, new investments in existing power plants,
and new or renewed contracts with terms of five years or more, including contracts with
power plants located outside of California, where the power plants are “designed or
intended” to operate as base load generation.8 If a project, in state or out of state, plans
to sell electricity or capacity to California utilities, those utilities will have to demonstrate
that the project meets the EPS. Base load units are defined as units that are expected
to operate at a capacity factor higher than 60 percent. Compliance with the EPS is
determined by dividing the annual average carbon dioxide emissions by the annual
average net electricity production in MWh. This determination is based on capacity
factors, heat rates, and corresponding emissions rates that reflect the expected
operations of the power plant and not on full load heat rates [Chapter 11, Article 1
§2903(a)].
The amended CECP would be required to participate in California’s GHG cap-and-trade
program. This cap-and-trade program is part of a broad effort by the State of California
to reduce GHG emissions as required by AB 32, which is being implemented by ARB.
As currently implemented, market participants, such as the amended CECP, are
required to report their GHG emissions and to obtain GHG emissions allowances (and
offsets) for those reported emissions by purchasing allowances from the capped market
and offsets from outside the AB 32 program. As new participants enter the market and
as the market cap is ratcheted down over time, GHG emission allowance and offset
prices will increase encouraging innovation by market participants to reduce their GHG
emissions. Thus, the amended CECP, as a GHG cap-and-trade participant, would be
consistent with California’s landmark AB 32 Program, which is a statewide program
coordinated with a region-wide Western Climate Initiative (WCI) program to reduce
California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
On January 8, 2014, in the Federal Register, the U.S. EPA proposed New Source
Performance Standard (NSPS) for GHG emissions for new electric power plants
(Federal Register, Volume 79, No. 5); the requirement is effective on the date of
publication unless it is significantly revised. This new requirement would limit large
natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines to no more than 1,000 lbs CO2 per
MWh and small natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines to no more than 1,100
lbs CO2 per MWh. Large natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines are those with
heat input ratings greater than 850 MMBtu/h and small natural gas-fired stationary
combustion turbines are those with heat input ratings less than 850 MMBtu/h. According
to U.S. EPA, the proposed NSPS limits apply to an electric generating unit if it supplies
more than one-third of its potential electric output and more than 219,000 MWh net
electric output to the grid per year.
6

Public Utilities Code § 8340 et seq.
The Emission Performance Standard only applies to carbon dioxide and does not include emissions of
other greenhouse gases converted to carbon dioxide equivalent.
8
See Rule at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUBLISHED/FINAL_DECISION/64072.htm
7

February 2015

AQ1-9

APPENDIX AQ-1

 The amended CECP would use turbines rated at larger than 850 MMBtu/h. However,
the project owner has proposed operating limits that would keep the maximum potential
electric output at just below one-third of its potential output; therefore, the amended
CECP would not be subject to this NSPS GHG emissions standard. Specifically, the
maximum capacity factor that will be licensed and permitted under the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) air quality permit would be equivalent to 30.8
percent, just under one-third or 33.3 percent regulation applicability trigger. The
expected normal capacity factor for this facility, based on the actual capacity factors of
other peaking facilities, including other high-efficiency General Electric LMS100 peaker
facilities within California, is expected to normally be well below this permitted maximum
annual capacity factor.

ELECTRICITY SYSTEM GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
While electricity use can be as simple as turning on a switch to operate a light or fan,
the system to deliver the adequate and reliable electricity supply is complex and
variable. It operates as an integrated whole to reliably and effectively meet demand,
such that the dispatch of a new source of generation unavoidably curtails or displaces
one or more less efficient or less competitive existing sources. Within the system,
generation resources provide electricity, or energy, generating capacity, and ancillary
services to stabilize the system and facilitate electricity delivery, or movement, over the
grid. Capacity is the instantaneous output of a resource, in megawatts. Energy is the
capacity output over a unit of time, for example an hour or year, generally reported as
megawatt-hours or gigawatt-hours (GWh). Ancillary services9 include regulation,
spinning reserve, non-spinning reserve, voltage support, and black start capability.
Individual generation resources can be built and operated to provide only one specific
service. Alternatively, a resource may be able to provide one or all of these services,
depending on its design and constantly changing system needs and operations.

GHG EMISSIONS FROM THE PROPOSED FACILITY
The specifics of the two petitions that are being evaluated, including the differences with
the approved project, are described more fully within the Air Quality section of the FSA.
One of the petitions would allow removal of obsolete fuel tanks (PTR) while the other
petition would amend the turbine type and duty cycle (PTA).

Project Construction
Construction of industrial facilities such as power plants requires coordination of
numerous equipment and personnel. The concentrated on-site activities result in
temporary, unavoidable increases in vehicle and equipment emissions that include
greenhouse gases. Construction of the amended CECP project would involve four
primary construction and demolition phases: 1) a tank demolition and remediation
phase; 2) the amended CECP construction; 3) a 12-month Encina decommissioning
phase during initial operation of the amended CECP; and 4) the Encina demolition that
would occur after the amended CECP is built and operating as proposed under the
PTA. The project owner provided GHG emissions estimates for each of these
construction/demolition phases.
9

See CEC 2009d, page 95.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-10

February 2015

 The GHG emissions estimate for project construction is presented below in
Greenhouse Gas Table 2. The term CO2E represents the total GHG emissions after
weighting by the appropriate global warming potential.
Greenhouse Gas Table 2
Amended CECP Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction Element
Amended CECP Tank Demolition
Amended CECP Berm Construction
Petition to Remove Subtotal
Amended CECP Construction
Amended CECP Encina Demolition
Petition to Amend Subtotal
Construction Total
Licensed CECP Construction Total

CO2 Equivalent
(MTCO2E) a
299
55
354
3,088
3,390
6,478
6,832
4,686

Source: (CEC 2009a/2009b; LL 2014b, Appendix 5.1F; LL 2014e, Appendix 3.1; LL 2014uu, Table 5.1F-15)
Note:
a
One metric tonne (MT) equals 1.1 short tons or 2,204.6 pounds or 1,000 kilograms.

There are certain elements of the licensed CECP not proposed or included in the GHG
amended CECP GHG emissions estimate, such as the demolition of Tanks 5 through 7
not being included and the on-site desalination plant no longer being proposed. Also,
since the time of the original construction GHG emissions estimate, several underlying
assumptions including ARB recommended load factors for off-road equipment have
been revised. Therefore, while there is considerably more total construction/demolition
work proposed than was proposed for the licensed CECP, the total emissions estimate
for the amended CECP construction is lower than estimated for the licensed CECP and
the total emissions including the EPS demolition is only approximately 46 percent
greater than that estimated for the licensed CECP. Secondary and indirect GHG
emissions sources have not been estimated, but staff concludes that the balance of
those GHG emissions is likely a reduction in GHG emissions given the large amount of
steel and concrete that would be recycled.

Project Operations
The amended CECP is a proposed natural-gas fired, simple-cycle, air-cooled, 632-net
megawatt (MW) electrical generating facility that would replace the existing Encina
Power Station. The amended CECP would consist of six General Electric LMS100 gas
turbines. The primary sources of GHG emissions would be the natural gas-fired
combustion turbines. The employee and delivery traffic GHG emissions from off-site
activities are negligible in comparison with the gas turbine GHG emissions.10

10

The project owner did not provide emissions data for vehicles required during the operation phase,
including the trucks required for the trailer mounted water filters. Therefore, staff has not presented
emissions from these mobile sources. The emissions from these sources would be minimal, within the
“noise” of the overall emissions estimate, and do not impact staff’s analysis of the operations emissions. It
should also be noted that these emissions would be offset partially or wholly by the vehicle emissions
from the EPS site that will cease after it is demolished.
February 2015

AQ1-11

APPENDIX AQ-1

 Greenhouse Gas Table 3 shows the estimated maximum annual CO2 and CO2E
emissions for the stationary sources and the two fugitive emissions sources (sulfur
hexafluoride containing equipment leaks and methane from estimated natural gas
compressor leaks). The applicant provided gas turbine heat rate performance data on
full load operation and for an expected maximum annual operating scenario that
included startup and shutdowns. The former is shown in this table to present the
maximum emissions potential and the latter is presented below the table in this section
as a more realistic estimate of expected annual GHG emissions performance. This table
also presents the maximum GHG emissions estimate for the licensed CECP.
Greenhouse Gas Table 3
Amended CECP Estimated Potential Operating Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project Emissions
(metric tonnes a per
year)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
845,845
Methane (CH4)
15.94
Methane (CH4) - Fugitive
2.19
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
1.59
Hexafluoride (SF6)
0.0054
Maximum Full-Load GHG emissions – MTCO2E per year
Total MWh per year (net)

Global
Warming
Potential b
1
25
25
298
22,800

Full-Load CO2 Emissions Performance - MTCO2/MWhc
Full-Load GHG Emissions Performance - MTCO2E/MWhc
Expected CO2 Emissions Performance- MTCO2/MWh
Expected GHG Emissions Performance - MTCO2E/MWh
Licensed CECP - Maximum Full-Load GHG Emissions – MTCO2e per year
Licensed CECP - Total MWh per year
Licensed CECP Full-Load CO2 Emissions Performance - MTCO2/MWh
Licensed CECP Full-Load GHG Emissions Performance - MTCO2E/MWh

CO2-equivalent
(MTCO2E per year)
845,845
399
55
475
123
846,896
1,763,159
0.4797
0.4802
0.5026
0.5033
846,076
2,089,764
0.404
0.405

Sources: LL 2014e, LL 2014nn, CEC 2009b, SDAPCD 2014, and SDAPCD 2015.
Notes:
a
One metric tonne (MT) equals 1.1 short tons or 2,204.6 pounds or 1,000 kilograms.
b
The global warming potential is a measure of the chemicals’ warming properties and lifetime in the atmosphere relative to
CO2.The analysis uses updated global warming potential values that became effective January 1, 2014.
c
Based on full load gas turbine emissions and corresponding gross energy production.

The emissions totals noted above in Greenhouse Gas Table 3 are maximum permitted
values, while actual annual emissions are likely to be well below these levels based on
experience that peaking power plants do not operate at capacity factors near the 30.8
percent proposed maximum capacity factor for the amended CECP. So, while the
amended project would have the permit limit based potential to emit greater than the
recent existing EPS baseline, which SDAPCD calculated to be 600,926 MTCO2E
(SDAPCD 2014, SDAPCD 2015), it is likely that the amended CECP would have actual
annual GHG emissions that are below the EPS baseline and the EPS has a much
higher effective GHG emissions permit limit. Additionally, the amended CECP would be
much more efficient than EPS, with an expected GHG emissions performance of
approximately 0.5033 MTCO2E/MWh versus the actual calculated annual GHG
emissions performance for EPS that has ranged from 0.656 to 0.724 MTCO2E/MWh
from 2008 to 2013 (CEC 2014a).
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-12

February 2015

 The amended CECP would be a peaking facility that would not be subject to SB1368
Emission Performance Standard of 0.500 MTCO2/MWh or the new federal NSPS of
0.454 MTCO2 per MWh gross. The estimated operating gross and net efficiency for the
gas turbines, not including the other emissions sources at the site that are shown in the
table above, is expected to just be above these values (approximately 0.503
MTCO2/MWh net, and 0.486 MTCO2/MWh gross – LL 2014nn). However, this
performance is only an estimate; real performance may be somewhat better or worse
than this depending on the actual operating conditions. However, these won’t be known
until after the facility becomes operational, if it is approved and constructed.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
Staff assesses the cumulative effects of GHG emissions caused by both construction
and operation. As the name implies, construction impacts result from the emissions
occurring during the construction of the project. The operation impacts result from the
emissions of the proposed project during operation.

METHOD AND THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The CEQA guidelines provide three factors for lead agencies to consider when
assessing the significance of impacts for the analysis of GHG emissions impacts
(CEQA Guidelines, tit. 14, §15064.4).


The extent to which the project may increase or reduce greenhouse gas emissions
as compared to the existing environmental setting;



Whether the project emissions exceed a threshold of significance that the lead
agency determines applies to the project.



The extent to which the project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to
implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions. Such requirements must be adopted by the relevant
public agency through a public review process and must reduce or mitigate the
project’s incremental contribution of greenhouse gas emissions. If there is
substantial evidence that the possible effects of a particular project are still
cumulatively considerable notwithstanding compliance with the adopted regulations
or requirements, an EIR must be prepared for the project.

Staff evaluates the emissions of the project in the context of the electricity sector as a
whole and the AB 32 Scoping Plan implementation efforts for the sector, including the
Cap and Trade regulation that implements the state’s primary approach to reducing
GHG emissions from the electricity sector. The Energy Commission’s assessment
approach does not include a specific numeric threshold of significance for GHG
emissions; rather the assessment is completed in the context of how the project will
affect the electricity sector’s emissions based on its proposed role and its compliance
with applicable regulations and policies.
Included in this sector-wide GHG emission analysis method is the determination of
whether a project is consistent with the Avenal precedent decision, which requires a
finding as a conclusion of law that any new natural gas-fired power plant certified by the
Energy Commission “must:
February 2015

AQ1-13

APPENDIX AQ-1

 

not increase the overall system heat rate for natural gas plants;



not interfere with generation from existing renewables or with the integration of new
renewable generation; and



taking into account the two preceding factors, reduce system-wide GHG
emissions”11

CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION IMPACTS
Staff believes that the small GHG emission increases from construction/demolition
activities would not be significant for several reasons. First, staff is recommending a
condition of certification in the Waste Management section (Waste-5) that requires
construction/demolition wastes be recycled during the amended CECP construction and
during the Encina demolition. Second, the intermittent emissions during the construction
phase are not ongoing during the life of the project. Additionally, control measures that
staff recommends to address criteria pollutant emissions, such as limiting idling times
and requiring, as appropriate, equipment that meets the latest criteria pollutant
emissions standards, would further minimize greenhouse gas emissions to the extent
feasible. The use of newer equipment will increase efficiency and reduce GHG
emissions and be compatible with low-carbon fuel (e.g., bio-diesel and ethanol)
mandates that will likely be part of future ARB regulations to reduce GHG from
construction vehicles and equipment.

DIRECT/INDIRECT OPERATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Operational impacts of the proposed project are described in detail in a later section
titled “California Electricity and Greenhouse Gases” since the evaluation of these effects
must be done by considering the project’s role(s) in the integrated electricity system. In
summary, these effects include reducing the operation and greenhouse gas emissions
from the older, existing power plants; potentially displacing local electricity generation;
the penetration of renewable resources; and accelerating generation facility retirements
and replacements, including facilities currently using once-through cooling. Additionally,
operation GHG emissions impacts are mitigated through compliance with the state’s
Cap and Trade regulation, which is designed to reduce electricity sector GHG emissions
to meet AB 32 statewide GHG emissions reduction goals.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or . . . compound or increase other environmental
impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15355). “A cumulative impact consists of an impact that is
created as a result of a combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with
other projects causing related impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15130[a][1]). Such impacts
may be relatively minor and incremental, yet still be significant because of the existing
environmental background, particularly when one considers other closely related past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

11

Final Commission Decision, Avenal Energy Application for Certification (08-AFC-1) December 2009,
pp. 111-114.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-14

February 2015

 This entire assessment is a cumulative impact assessment. The project alone would not
be sufficient to change global climate, but would emit greenhouse gases, and therefore
has been analyzed as a potential cumulative impact in the context of existing GHG
regulatory requirements and GHG energy policies.

CALIFORNIA ELECTRICITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES – DAVID
VIDAVER
California’s commitments to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over
the next four decades include moving to a high-renewable/low GHG electricity system.
However, natural gas-fired power plants--and the GHG emissions associated with their
output--will still be integral to the reliable operation of the electricity system at the outset
of this period. In the long-run, zero- and low-carbon resources, including demand-side
and storage resources may provide a majority, if not all of the balancing services
needed to integrate variable12 renewable resources. However, the technologies that are
needed to do so are not expected to be available in sufficient quantities by the early- to
mid-2020s to obviate the need for dispatchable, flexible, natural gas-fired electricity
generation. Furthermore, the 2017–2020 retirements of natural gas-fired generation
resources in the Los Angeles and San Diego regions that use once-through cooling
(OTC) technologies and the closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) will require the development of natural gas-fired generation as part of the set
of resources to maintain local reliability.
The amount of new natural gas-fired capacity needed to provide reliable service to the
customers of the state’s investor-owned utilities, direct access providers, and
community choice aggregators, over a ten-year planning horizon is determined in the
California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC’s) Long-term Procurement Planning
(LTPP) proceeding. The resulting portfolio of demand- and supply-side resources
satisfies the state’s loading order, which mandates development of cost-effective
preferred resources (zero- and low-GHG emitting resources, such as energy efficiency,
demand response, and renewable generation) in support of the state’s climate change
policies before authorizing the development/financing of conventional fossil resources.13
It is also consistent with Commission direction to investor-owned utilities to procure
energy storage resources in support of a high-variable generation resource system.14

12

Variable and intermittent are often used interchangeably, but variable more accurately reflects the
integration issues of renewables into the California grid. Winds can slow across a wind farm or cloud
cover can shade portions of a solar field, temporarily reducing unit or facility output, but not shut down the
unit or facility.
13
The loading order is set forth in California’s Energy Action Plans. Energy Action Plan I was adopted by
the state’s energy agencies in April/May 2003 and Energy Action Plan II in September 2005, An update to
these plans was issued in February 2008.
14
D.13-10-040 (October 17, 2013) established a procurement target of 1,325 MW in total for the state’s
three largest investor-owned utilities.
February 2015

AQ1-15

APPENDIX AQ-1

 THE ROLE OF NATURAL GAS-FIRED GENERATION IN A LOW-GHG
ENVIRONMENT
The need for natural gas-fired generation to reliably operate the electricity system is well
established. On October 8, 2008, the Energy Commission adopted an Order Instituting
Informational Proceeding (08-GHG OII-1) to solicit comments on how to assess the
greenhouse gas impacts of proposed new power plants in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).15 A report prepared as a response to the
GHG OII (CEC 2009e) defines the roles that natural gas-fired power plants fulfill in an
evolving high-renewables, low-GHG system (CEC 2009d, pp 93 and 94). Such new
facilities serve to:
1. Provide variable generation and grid operations support;
2. Meet extreme load and system emergency requirements;
3. Meet local capacity requirements; and,
4. Provide general energy support.

Variable Generation and Grid Operations Support
California’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS) requires that the state’s energy service
providers meet 33 percent of retail sales with renewable energy by 2020; meeting GHG
emission-reduction targets for 2050 will likely require a far higher percentage. Indeed, in
January 2015 Governor Brown expressed a goal of reaching 50 percent renewable
energy by 2030. Much of this energy will come from variable wind and solar resources
to be developed in California, or on an “as generated” basis from neighboring states.
The California Independent System Operator (CA ISO) has identified an increased need
for regulation services, “load-following” generation, and multi-hour ramping as a result of
the increase in these variable (intermittent-energy) renewable resources, whose output
changes over the course of the day, often in a sudden and unpredictable fashion.
Dispatchable capacity must provide “regulation,” small changes in output over a fiveminute period at CA ISO direction, requiring that the generator be equipped with
automated generation control (AGC). “Load following” requires larger changes in output
by the generation portfolio over a five-minute to one-hour period. Multi-hour ramping
needs require that units be dispatched, at CA ISO direction if necessary, over time
periods of one to nine hours and wider ranges of output in aggregate, requiring
dispatchable generation that can start and ramp up and down quickly and be capable of
operating at relatively low load levels if the amount of dispatchable capacity and
associated energy needed from these resources is to be minimized.
Natural gas-fired power plants are currently the only type of new facility that can provide
these “ancillary” services in the quantities needed now and in the near future. While
15

This need for gas-fired generation to reliably operate the system was reaffirmed in the CPUC decision
authorizing SDG&E to procure from 300 MW to 600 MW of generation from any resource. D.14-03-004,
See Decision Authorizing Long-Term Procurement for Local Capacity Requirements Due to Permanent
Retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generation Stations, March 13, 2014, p. 4.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-16

February 2015

 dispatchable hydroelectric plants can also provide them, the potential for adding
hydroelectric resources to the system is limited. Nuclear, coal, and geothermal facilities
are generally more economic if operated at or near their design point (i.e., base
loaded)16 and, therefore, are not the preferred technologies for providing ancillary
services. While demand-side resources and storage may ultimately provide significant
quantities of these ancillary services, only pumped hydro storage facilities are currently
capable of doing so on a large scale.
Historically, a large share of California’s load-following and ramping needs have been
provided by the natural gas-fired steam turbines built on the Pacific Coast and in the
San Francisco Bay Delta during the 1960s and 1970s. Very efficient when constructed,
these provided baseload energy through the 1980s and 1990s. However, they were
supplanted in this role by newer, more efficient combined-cycle technologies built
pursuant to the energy crisis of 2000 – 2001. While these natural gas-fired steam
turbine units were modified to operate successfully as load following and peaking
generation, they are not as efficient or economic as newer technologies. Several of
these facilities have retired as a result of the State Water Resource Control Board’s
(SWRCB’s) policy on the use of OTC technologies; others are expected to retire by
2020. This represents a loss of capacity capable of operating at a very wide range of
output and thus providing large quantities of flexible generation and other ancillary
services.

Local Capacity Requirements
The CA ISO has identified numerous local capacity areas (LCA) and sub-areas in which
threshold amounts of capacity are required to ensure reliability. Transmission
constraints prevent the import of sufficient energy into these areas under high load
conditions to ensure reliable service without requiring specified amounts of local
capacity to be generating or available to the CA ISO for immediate dispatch.
Reliable service requires that the CA ISO be able to maintain service under 1-in-10-year
load conditions given the sequential failure of two major components (a large power
plant and a major transmission line, for example); this requirement is imposed by the
North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). The amount of capacity needed in
each of these areas (the local capacity requirement, or “LCR”) is determined annually
by the CA ISO; the LCR study process culminates in an annual Local Capacity
Technical Analysis. The need for natural-gas fired capacity in LCAs stems in part from
their predominantly urban nature and coastal location (i.e., fewer transmission lines into
the coastal region as none are available from the west or ocean side of the LCAs). The
LCRs of the Greater Bay Area, Los Angeles Basin, San Diego, and Big Creek-Ventura
are too large to be met solely with non-natural gas fired generation; the renewable
development scenarios compiled by the CPUC for use in the 2014 LTPP proceeding
and the CA ISO’s 2014 – 2015 Transmission Planning Process– indicate that only a
share of the new capacity needed in the large LCAs can be expected to come from new
renewable resources. This share is not sufficient to eliminate the need for new natural
16

Issues can arise from: thermal fatigue due to cycling; difficulties starting and stopping solid or
geothermal fuel supplies; significant inefficiencies at low loads or standby points used to avoid full
shutdowns; and, significant capital outlays that make it necessary to operate the units as much as
possible.
February 2015

AQ1-17

APPENDIX AQ-1

 gas-fired generation in the San Diego LCA, as evidenced by the procurement
authorization issued in that proceeding.

Extreme Load and System Emergency Requirements
Sufficient capacity must exist to meet demand under very high load conditions or when
generator outages reduce capacity surpluses to levels low enough to threaten reliability.
Historically, generation capacity and demand response programs equal to 115 percent
to 117 percent of forecasted annual peak demand have been deemed sufficient to meet
these system-wide reliability requirements. Given the amount of time it takes to estimate
the need for, develop, permit, and construct a large power plant, capacity needs for ten
years in the future are assessed in California’s planning processes.

General Energy Support
The loading order indicates the resources that the state intends to rely on to meet
energy needs while reducing GHG emissions. While energy efficiency, demand
response programs, renewable generation, and combined heat and power are preferred
resources identified in the loading order that are to be developed before natural gasfired generation, they are not sufficient to meet the state’s future energy demand and
maintain the electric system’s reliability. In addition, a significant share of the state’s
still-operating generation fleet is expected to shut down to comply with the SWRCB’s
OTC policy. Energy from natural gas-fired generation will increasingly be needed during
a prolonged nuclear plant outage (for refueling for example) or during dry years, in
which hydroelectric production is reduced.

QUANTIFYING THE NEED FOR NATURAL GAS-FIRED GENERATION
Prior to the deregulation of the California electricity system during the 1990’s, the
Energy Commission’s power plant siting process considered the need for power plant
development. SB 110 (Chapter 581, Statutes of 1999) eliminated the requirement that
projects licensed by the Energy Commission be in conformance with an integrated
assessment of need that was conducted by the Energy Commission until that time.
The need for new generation capacity to ensure reliable service in the investor-owned
utility (IOU) service territories is now determined in the CPUC’s biennial LTPP
proceeding.17 This proceeding is the forum in which the state’s major IOUs are
authorized to finance the development of new “least-cost, best-fit” generation (on behalf
of either IOU customers or all ratepayers not served by publicly-owned utilities) needed
to reliably meet electricity demand.18 This need, specified in terms of: (a) the MW of
capacity needed; (b) the desired or required operating characteristics of the resource(s)
to be financed; and (c) the location of proposed additions if required for local reliability,
is a function of planning assumptions that reflect the state’s commitment to dramatically
reduce GHG emissions from the electricity sector. The MWs of capacity needed are
driven by:
17

The need for new generation capacity to ensure reliable service by publicly-owned utilities (POU) is
determined by the governing authorities of the individual utilities.
18
These include costs that account for environmental impacts such as the projected emissions allowance
costs (those required under the AB 32 cap-and-trade program, as well as those required for criteria
pollutants).
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-18

February 2015

 

Peak demand growth due to economic and demographic factors;



Reductions in peak demand due to committed and uncommitted energy efficiency
and demand response programs;



Reserve margins (dependable capacity in excess of peak demand) needed to
ensure system reliability, normally assumed to be 15 to 17 percent of peak demand,
but also including any additional dispatchable capacity needed to ensure reliability
given variation in the output of renewable resources (e.g., wind or solar generation);



Capacity needed in transmission-constrained areas to ensure local reliability under
extreme (1-in-10 year) weather conditions;



Capacity needed to remedy shortfalls in system ramping and/or turndown ability,
(i.e., flexible resources);



Capacity to be provided by fossil-fired resources being developed by Californiabased investor-owned utilities pursuant to authorization by the CPUC in previous
LTPP proceedings;



Capacity to be provided by new renewable resources built/contracted with to meet
the state’s RPS; and,



Capacity to be lost due to retirement, for example, capacity expected to cease
operation as a result of the SWRCB policy regarding the use of OTC.

As noted above, this capacity need is evaluated over a ten-year planning horizon due to
the length of time it takes to authorize the financing of, select, permit and construct new
power plants.
The planning assumptions adopted for use in the LTPP proceeding, and thus
determinant of the amount of new capacity authorized, consider both the state’s loading
order for resource development, as well as the expected development of specific types
of preferred resources, including energy efficiency, demand response, and renewable
generation. In other words, in authorizing the procurement/financing of dispatchable,
natural gas-fired capacity by an IOU, the CPUC assumes that cost-effective amounts of
these preferred resources will be procured.
Authorization for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) to procure natural gas-fired
generation or other least-cost resources to replace the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station in the San Diego LCA was granted in D.14-03-004 (March 13, 2014) in the
CPUC’s 2012 LTPP proceeding (R.12-03-014). The decision authorizes SDG&E to
procure 500 – 800 MW of capacity, at least 200 MW of which must be preferred
resources, including at least 25 MW of storage. This authorization is in addition to that
previously granted to contract with the 300-MW Pio Pico Energy Center.
The CPUC does not require Energy Commission certification for a generation project to
participate in a utility request for offers (RFOs), nor does the Energy Commission
require a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for a project to be considered for
certification. Requiring the sequencing of these processes would not only lengthen the
time needed to bring projects on line and thus threaten system reliability, it would
reduce the number of projects that could compete in utility RFOs. This could lead to
non-competitive solicitations, unnecessarily raising ratepayer costs.
February 2015

AQ1-19

APPENDIX AQ-1

 Energy Commission certification of fossil generation without a long-term PPA does not
result in the development of more fossil generation than that needed to reliably operate
the system. It is not expected that developers of new capacity, such as the developer of
the amended CECP facility, would bring a project to completion without a long-term
PPA with a utility that would guarantee recovery of the investment of several hundred
million dollars. Only one so-called “merchant plant” has been developed since the
energy crisis (2000 – 2001) without a PPA, and the conditions that led to that merchant
plant are specific to that one facility. This merchant plant, in turn, provides capacity and
ancillary services that obviates the need for energy and capacity from other, new gasfired generation and contributes to reduction in GHG emissions.19 However, if the
amended CECP were to be built and come on line without CPUC approval of a PPA, it
would still: (a) displace energy from higher GHG-emission facilities, and (b) not “crowd
out” renewable generation and demand-side programs (i.e., requirements/targets for the
procurement of preferred resources would be unaffected).

ENERGY DISPLACEMENT AND CHANGES IN GHG EMISSIONS
Any assessment of the impact of a new power plant on system-wide GHG emissions
must begin with the understanding that electricity generation and demand must be in
balance at all times; the energy provided by any new generation resource
simultaneously displaces exactly the same amount of energy from an existing resource
or resources.20 The GHG emissions produced by the amended CECP are thus not
incremental additions to system-wide emissions, but are partially or totally offset by
reductions in GHG emissions from those generation resources that are displaced,
depending on the relative GHG emission rates.
At renewable penetration levels of less than 33 percent, new natural gas-fired
generation such as the amended CECP displaces less efficient natural gas-fired
generation21 in a very straightforward fashion. It is reasonable to assume that the
amended CECP units would be dispatched (called upon to generate electricity)
whenever they are a cheaper source of energy than an alternative - i.e., that they will
displace a more expensive resource, if not the most expensive resource that would
otherwise be called upon to operate. The costs of dispatching a power plant are largely
the costs of fuel, plus variable operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, with the
former representing the lion’s share of such costs (90 percent or more). It follows that
the amended CECP units would be dispatched when they burn less fuel per MWh than

19

The unwillingness of developers (and lenders) to commit capital to new facilities without a long-term
contract follows from the size of the necessary investment and risk that it will prove uneconomic. While
some plants built ten plus years ago that no longer have contracts are generating adequate revenue,
others are not.
20
Over time, the development of demand-side and storage technologies that can cost-effectively
substitute for dispatchable generation as providers of regulation, load-following, and multi-hour ramping
services may obviate the need for gas-fired generation, but this is not expected to occur soon enough to
eliminate the need for gas-fired generation to replace a share of the capacity retired at San Onofre.
21
At very low gas prices relative to coal prices, i.e., when electricity from natural gas is cheaper than that
from coal, new gas-fired generation will displace coal-fired generation. In markets such as California,
where GHG emissions allowance costs are a component of the market price, coal-fired generation is
displaced even sooner due to its higher carbon content.
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-20

February 2015

 the resource(s) they displace, i.e., when they produce fewer GHG emissions. There are
exceptions in theory, but not in practice.22
Holding the portfolio of generation resources constant, energy from new natural gasfired plants displaces energy from existing natural gas-fired plants. The development
and operation of the amended CECP would reduce the use of less efficient generation
resources, and ultimately, lead to their retirement. By reducing revenue streams
accruing to other resources (for the provision of both energy and capacity-related
services, whether through markets or under a bilateral contract), the amended CECP
would render these other facilities less profitable and riskier to operate. This follows
from the fixed demand for energy and ancillary services; the developers of the amended
CECP cannot stimulate demand for energy and other products they provide, but merely
provide a share of the energy that is needed to meet demand and the capacity needed
to reliably operate the system. In doing so, the amended CECP both discourages the
use of, and allows for the retirement of less-efficient generation.
The long-run impact of the natural gas-fired fleet turnover as described here can be
seen from historical changes in resources that are providing electricity in California as
presented below in Greenhouse Gas Figure 1 (data includes combined cycles and
boilers only). In 2001, approximately 74,000 GWh (62.5 percent of natural gas-fired
generation) in California was from pre-1980 natural gas-fired boilers (called “aging” in
the figure), combusting an average of 11,268 Btu per kWh (not shown in the figure). By
2010, this share had fallen to approximately 6,000 GWh (5.4 percent); 64.1 percent of
natural gas-fired generation was from new combined cycles with an average heat rate
of 7,201 Btu per kWh (CEC 2011, also not shown in the figure).23 The net change over
this period was a 22 percent reduction in GHG emissions (also not shown in the figure),
despite a 3.5 percent increase in generation. The post-2000 development of new
combined-cycle generation has allowed for the retirement of aging natural gas-fired
boilers along the California Coast and in the San Francisco Bay Delta. Those that
remain in operation have seen a dramatic reduction in their capacity factors24 and are
used primarily as a source of dispatchable capacity.

22

If a plant’s variable O&M costs are so low as to offset the costs associated with its greater fuel
combustion, a less efficient (higher GHG emission) plant may be dispatched first. There is no indication
that the amended CECP’s variable O&M costs are unusually low and that they would be dispatched
before a more efficient facility. If a natural gas-fired plant’s per-mmBtu fuel costs are very low, it may be
less efficient (higher GHG emitting) but still be dispatched first. Natural gas costs in California, however,
are higher than elsewhere in the WECC and thus this scenario is unlikely to occur.
23
The remaining 30 percent of natural gas-fired generation is largely cogeneration; slightly more than one
percent is from peaking units. For a detailed discussion of the evolution of natural gas-fired generation in
California since 2000, see Thermal Efficiency of Gas-Fired Generation in California: 2012 Update (CEC200-2013-002; May 2013).
24
A unit’s capacity factor is its output expressed as a share of potential output, the amount it would
generate if it were operated continuously at 100 percent of their maximum capacity for every hour of the
year.
February 2015

AQ1-21

APPENDIX AQ-1

 Greenhouse Gas Figure 1
Annual California Output (GWh), Selected Natural Gas-Fired Generation
Technologies, 2001 – 2013

Source: Thermal Efficiency of Gas-Fired Generation in California: 2014 Update, CEC-200-2014-005, September 2014 (CEC
2014b).

The dispatch of the amended CECP would generally not result in the displacement of
energy from renewable resources or large hydroelectric generation. Most renewable
resources have must-take contracts with utilities, which must purchase all the energy
produced by these renewable generators. Rare exceptions occur due to transmission
congestion or seasonal surpluses. Even in those instances where this is not the case
(e.g., where renewable generation is participating in a spot market for energy), the
variable costs associated with renewable generation are far lower than those associated
with the amended CECP (e.g., fuel costs for wind, solar, other renewable generation
technologies, and large hydroelectric facilities are zero or minimal); these resources can
bid into spot markets for energy at prices far below the amended CECP and other
natural gas-fired generators. The amended CECP would not displace energy from the
one currently operating (zero-GHG emission) nuclear generation facility in California, as
it has far lower variable operating costs as well.
The relationship between a natural gas-fired plant’s heat rate and its dispatch in the real
world is in fact more complicated than that described above. While natural gas-fired
plants differ in their thermal efficiency – the amount of fuel combusted, and thus GHG
emissions per unit of electricity generated – very efficient natural gas plants are not
necessarily dispatched before less efficient ones. While this would seem to contradict
the assertion that output from a new plant will always displace a higher emitting one, a
less efficient (e.g., at full output) plant may actually combust less fuel during a duty
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-22

February 2015

 cycle than a plant with a lower heat rate, and thus produce fewer GHG emissions.
Consider a 30-MW peaking plant with a heat rate of 10,000 Btu/kWh when operated at
full output that can be turned on quickly, generating approximately 15 to 30 MW in a
matter of minutes. Use of this plant to meet contingency needs (e.g., demand on a hot
afternoon) may result in less incremental fuel combustion than a 100-MW boiler power
plant with a lower heat rate at full output if the latter requires several hours and
combusts large amounts of fuel to start up, must be kept on overnight or for several
hours in order to be available later the same day or the next day, and/or cannot operate
at 30 MW without a marked degradation in thermal efficiency (and thus increases in
GHG emissions).
At levels of renewable energy penetration in excess of 33 percent, relatively efficient
fast-start, fast-ramping resources such as the amended CECP units further contribute to
GHG emission reductions by increasing the amount of renewable energy that can be
integrated into the electricity system. This can be seen in Greenhouse Gas Figure 2,
which depicts the estimated operating profile of the generating resources of the highsolar electricity system that California will increasingly have over the next three to 15
years and beyond. While the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard is 33 percent of retail
sales for 2020, the value for 2030 may reach 50 percent as recently expressed by
Governor Brown. Much of the additional renewable energy will come from solar
resources even if there is limited development of utility-scale solar generation, as the
residential and commercial sectors take advantage of falling distributed solar costs and
new residential construction post-2020 is required to be zero-net energy, (i.e., include
solar panels).
Greenhouse Gas Figure 2
California Generation Typical for a Non-Summer Day (“Duck” Chart)

Source: CA ISO 2014

The large “belly” (Number 2 in the figure) represents solar generation on a typical nonsummer day; this gets larger over time as more solar is added to the system. The gray
area represents necessary thermal generation, which is increasingly natural gas over
February 2015

AQ1-23

APPENDIX AQ-1

 time as California portfolios are divested of coal pursuant to the state’s Emission
Performance Standard. Note that imports are reduced to zero at midday, and hydro
generation is limited to run-of-river (from hydro-generation facilities that do not have
water storage, and from water that must be allowed to flow due to recreational needs,
flood control, habitat preservation, etc.). A large share of midday generation must also
be flexible, dispatchable natural gas as: (a) a threshold amount of thermal capacity
needs to be idling (or at least readily available, not unlike a hybrid car) at mid-day at
minimum output to protect against sudden component failures (major power plants and
transmission lines); and, (b) a large amount of gas-fired generation will be needed four
to eight hours later when solar energy is unavailable, and thus may need to be on line
and generating at minimum output at mid-day.
Greenhouse Gas Figure 2 illustrates a case of over-generation; in which renewable
output at mid-day and necessary gas-fired generation jointly result in too much energy
being produced. There are several ways to deal with overgeneration. In theory, the
surplus energy can be exported to neighboring states. But much of the over-generation
expected in California will occur during the low-demand months of February to April,
when similar surpluses exist in the Pacific Northwest due to the snow melt and the
resulting increase in hydroelectric generation in the Columbia River basin. Under these
conditions, export potential is likely to be limited and export prices would be near zero.
The long-term solution for overgeneration is expected to be the development of costeffective, multi-hour storage, allowing the surplus to be stored until it can be used in
evening hours. In the interim, however, overgeneration can only be dealt with by
curtailing renewable generation or reducing the amount of gas-fired generation that is
needed during midday and early afternoon hours. The latter is facilitated by developing
gas-fired resources such as LMS100s that can cycle on and off at least twice a day.25
While the amended CECP is less thermally efficient than most of the natural gas-fired
combined cycles built in California during the past decade, the amended CECP units
would be capable of operating at lower levels of output, and doing so without a marked
decrease in efficiency. Moreover, they could be off line until moments before being
needed in the late afternoon and early evening, as they are able to reach full load within
ten minutes of startup (compared to 45 minutes for the licensed CECP facility). As a
result, they could allow for more renewable generation than a conventional combined
cycle, with the concomitant reduction in GHG emissions serving to offset the impact of
their lower efficiency. Finally, the LMS100s could make a greater contribution to
meeting the steep evening ramp (Number 3 in the figure) than the combined cycle as
they could change output more rapidly (50 MW/minute per unit), compared to the 150
MW/10 minute ramp rate noted for the licensed CECP (LL 2014dd, CEC 2009b).

25

For a detailed discussion of the operational needs for a high-solar portfolio, see Energy and
Environmental Economics, Investigating a Higher Renewables Standard in California, January 2014,
available at http://www.ethree.com/public_projects/renewables_portfolio_standard.php.
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-24

February 2015

 THE ROLE OF THE AMENDED CECP IN LOCAL GENERATION
DISPLACEMENT
As new generation capacity in the CA ISO-defined San Diego – Imperial Valley LCA,
the amended CECP would provide local reliability services. The CA ISO has determined
in their 2014 Local Capacity Technical Analysis that the San Diego – Imperial Valley
and its San Diego sub-area need 3,910 MW and 3,103 MW of local capacity,
respectively.26 The amended CECP facility would contribute up to 632 MW of local
capacity to these areas.
As stated above, local reliability requires generation by resources located within an
LCA; the LCR reflects the amount of capacity that must be generating, synchronous to
the grid or available within a few minutes under 1-in-10 load conditions.27 At lower levels
of demand, a share of local capacity must be generating, synchronous to the grid or
available on a moment’s notice as long as reliability cannot be maintained solely with
imported energy in the event of major component failures.
The number of hours per year that the amended CECP units would be required to
operate in support of local reliability needs and the amount of energy that would be
generated as a result are not known; CA ISO operating procedures that result in the
dispatch of specific generating units for local reliability purposes are confidential. When
called upon to generate for such purposes, however, it is reasonable to expect that the
amended CECP units would be the least-cost and thus lowest-emitting natural gas-fired
resources able to do so, given the duty cycle that was necessary to provide local
reliability. It would thus displace less-efficient resources, reducing GHG emissions
resulting from relying on the latter. Should it be dispatched for local reliability needs
ahead of units that were thermally more efficient, it would likely be because, able to
operate at lower levels of output, it would allow for the integration of a greater amount of
renewable energy.
Greenhouse Gas Table 4 illustrates the thermal efficiency of existing peakers in the
San Diego LCA and provides the expected thermal efficiency for the amended CECP
for comparison.
While the net heat rate for the amended CECP gas turbines will to a small degree
depend on their operating profile28, they have an expected heat rate that is clearly lower
than all of the existing peaking resources in the LCA. The proposed Pio Pico Power
Plant, which also proposes the use of newer model LMS100 gas turbines, would have a
nearly identical expected heat rate as the amended CECP.

26

California ISO, 2015 Local Capacity Technical Analysis: Final Report and Study Results, April 30,
2014, pp 93 - 101.
27
1-in-10 load conditions refer to a level of demand that is expected to be observed on only one day in
ten years.
28
The approximate 5 percent difference in full load versus the expected operating profile net heat rates,
shown in Greenhouse Gas Table 3, are likely the effect of startups and shutdown, variations in ambient
temperatures, and off design point operations on optimum full load heat rate.
February 2015

AQ1-25

APPENDIX AQ-1

 COMPLIANCE WITH LORS – WILLIAM WALTERS
FEDERAL
The amended CECP would not be subject to PSD permitting requirements of 40 CFR
Parts 51 and 52 (please see the Air Quality section’s Compliance with LORS
subsection), including not being subject to a GHG emissions BACT analysis. The
amended CECP would also not be subject to the proposed federal power plant GHG
emissions NSPS (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTT) due to having a permitted capacity
factor limitation that is below 33 percent. The amended CECP project would have to
comply with the federal mandatory GHG reporting regulation (40 CFR Part 98).
Greenhouse Gas Table 4
Heat Rates, Capacity Factors, and GHG Emissions Performance
for San Diego Peakers, 2013
Plant Name

Capacity
(MW)

Miramar Energy Facility
Larkspur Energy
El Cajon Energy Center
Orange Grove
CalPeak Enterprise
Cuyamaca Peak Energy Plant
CalPeak Border
Kearny 1
Kearny 2
Kearny 3
Encina Gas Turbine
Miramar 1A 1B
Chula Vista
El Cajon Gas Turbine
Total

95
90
49
100
49
49
50
15
57
55
14
33
44
13
713

Amended CECP Estimates

632

Output
(MWh)

Heat Rate a
(Btu/kWh)

Capacity
Factor

143,932
87,575
13,154
38,978
12,503
40,203
8,600
2,608
7,891
5,625
2,245
2,561
511
694
367,080

9,669
10,127
10,276
10,474
10,873
11,178
11,250
14,400
15,866
15,953
17,123
17,390
17,821
19,333
10,520

17.3%
11.1%
3.1%
4.4%
2.9%
9.4%
2.0%
2.0%
1.6%
1.2%
1.8%
0.9%
0.1%
0.6%
5.9%

9,473

GHG
Performance b
(MTCO2/MWh)
0.511
0.536
0.544
0.554
0.575
0.591
0.595
0.762
0.839
0.844
0.906
0.920
0.943
1.023
0.557
0.503

Source: Energy Commission QFER Database (CEC 2014a); LL 2014nn
Notes:
a. Based on the Higher Heating Value or HHV of the fuel. The heat rate includes start-up and low load operations fuel use.
b. GHG performance conversion factor for natural gas of 0.529 MTCO2/MW/10,000 Btu/KWh was used to derive these
performance values.

STATE
The amended CECP would be required to participate in California’s GHG cap-and-trade
program, which became active in January 2012, with enforcement beginning in January
2013. This cap-and-trade program is part of a broad effort by the state of California to
reduce GHG emissions as required by AB 32, which is being implemented by ARB. As
currently implemented, market participants such as the amended CECP are required to
report their GHG emissions and to obtain GHG emissions allowances (and offsets) for
those reported emissions by purchasing allowances from the capped market and offsets
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-26

February 2015

 from outside the AB 32 program. The amended CECP, as a GHG cap-and-trade
participant, would be consistent with California’s landmark AB 32 Program, which is a
statewide program coordinated with a region wide Western Climate Initiative program to
reduce California’s GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. ARB staff continues to
develop and implement regulations to refine key elements of the GHG reduction
measures to improve their linkage with other GHG reduction programs. The project may
face regulations expected to be developed by ARB.
Reporting of GHG emissions would enable the project to demonstrate consistency with
the policies described above and the regulations that ARB adopts and to provide the
information to demonstrate compliance with any future AB 32 requirements that could
be enacted in the next few years.
The amended CECP, due to having a permitted capacity factor of below 60 percent, is
not subject to California’s Emission Performance Standard of 1,100 lbs of carbon
dioxide per net MWh.

LOCAL
The SDAPCD does not currently have any approved GHG emissions regulations that
would apply to the project. The city of Carlsbad has published a Draft Climate Action
Plan, but has not yet approved any of the GHG emissions reduction measures as city
ordinances. Therefore, currently there are no applicable local LORS for GHG
emissions/climate change.

AVENAL PRECEDENT DECISION
The Energy Commission established a precedent decision in the Final Commission
Decision for the Avenal Energy Project, finding as a conclusion of law that any new
natural gas-fired power plant certified by the Energy Commission “must:


not increase the overall system heat rate for natural gas plants;



not interfere with generation from existing renewables or with the integration of new
renewable generation; and



take into account the two preceding factors, reduce system-wide GHG emissions”29

The Energy Commission in the recent Final Decision for the Huntington Beach Energy
Project30 noted that the Avenal decision has been augmented by two recent
developments. The first is the adoption of CEQA guidelines for the analysis of GHG
emissions impacts (CEQA Guidelines, tit. 14, §15064.4). The second development is
the enactment of the AB 32 Cap-and-Trade system that implements the state’s
approach to reducing GHG emissions from the electricity sector. Staff is continuing to
analyze this project against that precedent, while also taking into consideration the
CEQA guidelines.

29

Final Commission Decision, Avenal Energy Application for Certification (08-AFC-1) December 2009,
pp. 111-114.
30
Final Commission Decision, Huntington Beach Energy Project (12-AFC-02) November 2014, pp. 4.16,7.
February 2015

AQ1-27

APPENDIX AQ-1

 The average heat rate for the Western Electricity Coordinating Council (WECC) is
presented in Greenhouse Gas Table 5, as is the California specific data. These values
are an average across all natural gas-fired units that operated in that year. It is
interesting to note that the average heat rates in-state versus the average of those
across the greater WECC are not that different, and the slight uptick in the average heat
rate in 2011 was seen at the WECC level as well as the California level. This is due to
the large contribution of California generation to total WECC generation, and generally
similar energy resources and technology types throughout the WECC.
Greenhouse Gas Table 5
Weighted Average Heat Rate for Operating Natural Gas-Fired Plants1 in the WECC
and California 2010-2013
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013

Average WECC Heat Rate 2
(MMBtu/kWh)
7,784
7,995
7,918
Not available

Average CA Heat Rate 3
(MMBtu/kWh)
7,628
7,879
7,808
7,664

1

Excludes cogeneration facilities
Ventyx, Velocity Suite (compiled from EPA hourly Continuous Emission Monitoring Survey data)
3
Thermal Efficiency of Gas-Fired Generation in California: 2014 Update, CEC-200-2014-005, September 2014 (CEC 2014b)
2

Overall, the average heat rate for natural gas units has been declining for years, as
shown in Greenhouse Gas Figure 3. The improvement is likely the result of the
deployment of modern combustion turbine units, as shown in Greenhouse Gas Figure
1. The relationship is exemplified by the slight drop in combined-cycle generation in
2011, shown on Figure 2, and uptick average heat rate on Greenhouse Gas Figure 3.
Note also in Greenhouse Gas Figure 1 that by 2013 combined-cycle output is almost
70 percent of the natural gas output. In other words, the average heat rates in
Greenhouse Gas Table 5 are dominated by the deployment of modern combined
cycles in California and the WECC.
While simple-cycle peaking facilities have higher direct heat rates than combined-cycle
facilities and the system average heat rates shown in Greenhouse Gas Table 5 and
Greenhouse Gas Figure 3, peaking facilities must be evaluated based on their
function, and ultimately, their overall effect on the system. In this case, the amended
CECP is proposed to operate no more than a 31 percent annual capacity factor.
Historically, most peakers have operated at about three to five percent capacity factor,
while the listing of local San Diego peaking units in Greenhouse Gas Table 4 shows an
average capacity factor of almost six percent. If the amended CECP displaced the local
peaking units in both function and capacity, the amended CECP would operate about
six percent capacity factor, but with a much better heat rate than the displaced peaking
units; therefore lowering the system-wide heat rate. The amended CECP would also
help facilitate the decommissioning of EPS, and it would operate with a much better
heat rate than the EPS boilers and gas turbine. With the likely addition of the approved
300 MW Pio Pico (also LMS100 peaking units) in south San Diego county, the amended
CECP may operate even less.
However, as California moves to a high renewable/low-GHG system, efficient resources
like the amended CECP may operate more than a traditional, less flexible peaker unit.
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-28

February 2015

 As noted above, the addition of the amended CECP would not interfere with generation
from existing renewable facilities or with the integration of new renewable generation.
The flexible nature of the amended CECP would in fact serve to facilitate the integration
of additional variable renewable resources.
The amended CECP would reduce system-wide GHG emissions as discussed above;
this development is consistent with the goals and policies of AB 32 and thus is
consistent with the Avenal precedent decision.
Greenhouse Gas Figure 3
Average Heat Rates for Gas Fired Electric Generation Serving California

Source: Thermal Efficiency of Gas-Fired Generation in California: 2014 Update, CEC-200-2014-005, September 2014 (CEC
2014b).

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN: 203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The purpose of the amended CECP is to replace electricity generation lost
from the shut-down of San Onofre Plant. Terramar would like to know how the amended
CECP could create a net cumulative reduction in GHG emissions, as San Onofre had
no greenhouse gas emissions and the amended CECP is fossil fuel driven. (pp. 3-4)
Response: The relevant comparison is not between a system in which San Onofre
is operating and one in which it is not (as a system in which San Onofre is operating
is not possible due to its retirement); it is between two systems in which San Onofre
has been retired. These systems are identical save for one having the amended
CECP constructed and operating and the other not. In the former, the amended
CECP would only be dispatched (“turned on”) when it would be a lower-(operating)
cost resource than any (second-best) alternative (another generation resource). As
February 2015

AQ1-29

APPENDIX AQ-1

 operating costs are primarily fuel costs, this means that the amended CECP would
be operated when it combusted less natural gas than the alternative, and thus would
emit a smaller quantity of GHG, leading to a reduction in system-wide GHG
emissions.
Comment: Terramar comments that the amended CECP has stood in the way of new
renewable generation since there was no RFO, making the amended CECP
inconsistent with the Avenal Precedent decision. Since there has been no RFO allowed
for renewable generation, Terramar would like to again ask staff to explain how this is
not interference as there was no opportunity for this generation to go to be provided by
renewables (p. 4)
Response: In its 2012 Long Term Procurement Planning (LTPP) proceeding (R.1203-014), the CPUC allowed SDG&E to procure up to 600 MW of natural gas-fired
generation to fulfill its need for 800 MW of capacity (D.14-03-004; March 13, 2014).
The remaining need for capacity was assumed to be met by 200 MW of new
preferred resources (renewables, energy storage, demand-side programs), in
addition to those preferred resources assumed to be developed in the CPUC’s
Standardized Planning Assumptions and the Energy Commission’s CED 2012 –
2022 Final Forecast, which were used to estimate the total need for new capacity.
D.14-03-004 also allowed SDG&E to procure this capacity though bilateral
negotiation.
D. 14-03-004 contains a lengthy discussion of its decision to allow up to 600 MW of
the needed capacity to be met with gas-fired generation. Factors considered
included uncertainty regarding the availability of new preferred resources in a timely
fashion and their contribution to meeting local reliability needs, as well as the lead
time needed to develop gas-fired generation resources should they prove necessary
for local reliability.
In July 2014, SDG&E filed Application 14-07-009 for approval of a long-term contract
with Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC; the CPUC is hearing testimony considering a
contract between CECP and SDG&E and whether an all-source request for offers
(RFO) should be required before such a contract is considered (i.e., whether
incremental renewable and demand-side) resources can reliably be expected to
substitute for a share of the capacity (and related services) that the CECP would
provide. The appropriate place for considering this issue is the CPUC’s proceeding,
not the Energy Commission’s siting process.
The Avenal decision was not intended to provide Energy Commission review of
CPUC procurement decisions. The provision in the Avenal decision stating that new
natural gas-fired generation must not “interfere…with the integration of new
renewable generation” simply requires that, when and where natural gas-fired
generation is developed in order to ensure system and local reliability, its design and
operating characteristics be such that it facilitate the integration of variable energy
renewable generation (i.e., that it be fast-starting, fast-ramping, and be capable of
cycling on and off in accordance with system needs). Peaker facilities such as the
amended CECP meet this requirement.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-30

February 2015

 Comment: The PSA points out that a certain amount of the amended CECP is a
replacement from the shuttering of San Onofre. San Onofre had no GHG emissions.
Again Terramar would like to point out to staff that it is not possible for there to be a net
reduction in GHG emissions when a fossil fuel plant is replacing generation from San
Onofre. (p. 5)
Response: See the reply to Terramar Comments above.
Comment: Once again Terramar would like to comment to staff that the amended
CECP has stood in the way of new renewable generation since there was no RFO
making the amended CECP inconsistent with the Avenal Precedent decision. (pp. 5-6)
Response: See the reply to Terramar Comments,above.

INTERVENOR: POWER OF VISION, TN: 203547, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: We believe that the FSA should point out that arguments currently being
discussed at the CPUC concern whether all of the allowed maximum 600 MW should be
permitted at the Carlsbad site. The FSA should also include such statements as "there
will be no shortage of generation in the local area prior to 2018, even considering the
shutdown of SONGS and the imminent shutdown of EPS. Also, grid reliability
considerations may not require more than 200 MW of natural gas fired generation in the
local area.
Response: The discussion in the CPUC’s proceeding A.14-11-009 referred to here
is not whether the “allowed maximum 600 MW should be permitted at the Carlsbad
site”, but whether SDG&E should be authorized to enter into a contract with the
amended CECP for any or all of its capacity. Whether a project is needed to
maintain reliability or would reduce ratepayer costs is irrelevant to the Energy
Commission’s decision to grant or amend a license. Project “need” is simply no
longer a finding that the Energy Commission makes, as set forth in California Public
Resource Section 25009, which states:
“Before the California electricity industry was restructured, the regulated cost
recovery framework for powerplants justified requiring the [Energy Commission]
to determine the need for new generation, and site only powerplants for which
need was established. Now that powerplant owners are at risk to recover their
investments, it is no longer appropriate to make this determination.”
The CPUC, through its LTPP process, is the proper forum for determining whether
or not the ratepayers of San Diego should pay for the capacity of the amended
CECP. The comment acknowledges this, pointing out that the argument it is
interested in is being made to the CPUC in its need determination process.
Comment: The PSA contains many references to the need for fast startup and ramping
generation to help implement fuller use of renewable energy sources. Has there been
any study of how much more fast startup generation is needed in the immediate future?
Response: The need for flexible generation in the CA ISO balancing authority area
was addressed in the CPUC’s 2012 LTPP proceeding. While the CPUC found that
(1) there was no need to authorize new dispatchable, flexible capacity in the 2012
proceeding as a sufficient amount was available through 2020, it was agreed that (2)
February 2015

AQ1-31

APPENDIX AQ-1

 an assessment of the need for such capacity for 2021 – 2026 could be held over to
the 2014 proceeding, when methodological issues related to the analysis could be
discussed and resolved. The 2014 LTPP is ongoing.
Again, the amended CECP would only be dispatched (“turned on”) when it would be
a lower-(operating) cost resource or better provide the services than any (secondbest) alternative (another generation resource). The GHG Appendix has an
extensive discussion of the ongoing evaluation of new flexible capacity in the region.
Comment: On page 29 of Air Quality Appendix - AQ1, Greenhouse Gas Figure 3
shows a current California average heat rate for gas fired electric generation at about
8,500 Btu/kWh, whereas the best heat rate for the proposed GE LMS100s operating at
peak performance is 9,474 Btu/kWh. Yet, immediately below Figure 3, the first sentence
of the Conclusions states "The project will lead to a net reduction in GHG emissions
across the California electricity system." We suggest that this first sentence of the
Conclusion be stricken or elaborated upon. (pp. 2-3)
Response: The elaboration requested in this comment already exists on page AQ128 of the Air Quality appendix, preceding Greenhouse Gas Figure 3, where there
is a discussion of why this project with its specific heat rate, higher than that shown
in Greenhouse Gas Table 5, would still lead to a reduction in the system-wide heat
rate. However, we have provided some minor editing for clarification on that page of
the FSA.

INTERVENOR: HELPING HAND TOOLS/ R. SIMPSON, TN: 203587,
FEBRUARY 2, 2015
Please note that all of the numbered items in pages 1 through 4 of this comment letter
were previously addressed by staff as data request responses in TN# 203332 and TN#
203483.
Comment: Numbered items 31 through 34 on page 3 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter
request information on CO2 sequestration, use of CO2 or heat off site, and on-site solar
potential for the project and their effects
Response: CO2 sequestration and use of CO2 or heat off site are not feasible for an
intermittent peaking power plant, which will typically be operated at a very low
capacity factor. The project is not proposing on-site solar. Regardless, the effects of
on-site solar on the facility’s heat rate would be minimal due to the limited size of the
site and constraints on where solar panels could be placed on the site.
Comment: Numbered item 7 on page 2 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter requests that
the construction GHG emissions be modeled.
Response: Please see Greenhouse Gas Table 2 for the results of the construction
GHG emissions estimate, if this is what he meant by the term modeling. References
for the sources used are provided below the table. Air quality impact modeling for
GHG emissions is not appropriate because GHGs are global and not local
pollutants.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-32

February 2015

 Comment: Numbered item 21 on page 4 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks if the
project would displace less efficient gas plants or renewable energy.
Response: The project will displace less efficient natural gas plants; it will not
displace renewable energy. This is discussed on pages AQ1-20 through AQ-24 of
the PSA.
Comment: A comment on page 5 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter provides a list of
new businesses and asks which of them would accept heat or CO2 from the project.
Response: Please see the response above to items 31 to 34 on page 3 of the
comment letter.
Comment: A comment on pages 6 and 7 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks how
relying on the Avenal precedent decision would comply with the CEQA checklist for
greenhouse gases, and identify the CEC’s authority to rely on the precedent.
Response: The finding made in regards to the noted CEQA checklist item was
related to (as stated in the checklist item) "the extent to which the project complies
with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local
plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions". The Avenal
precedent decision is not such a regulation or requirement. The finding for this
checklist item is related to compliance with the Cap and Trade regulation of AB 32
and other applicable regulations and requirements for the reduction and mitigation of
greenhouse gas emissions for the electricity sector.
The Avenal precedent decision, which was created before these checklist items
were developed, was created as a basis for the Energy Commission to perform a
portion of its CEQA analysis and is not designed to specifically address any of the
later developed checklist items. For this project, staff has included findings related to
both the GHG Emissions CEQA checklist items and the separate Avenal precedent
decision.
Comment: A comment on page 7 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks whether
development can or cannot happen without a power purchase agreement (PPA) and
what percentage of projects the one noted without a PPA in the PSA represents, and
also asks if the project owner has indicated whether they would develop the project
without a PPA.
Response: The quoted statement "Energy Commission certification of fossil
generation without a long-term PPA does not result in the development of more
fossil generation than that needed to reliably operate the system" is not an assertion
that "certification does not result in development without a PPA;" any fossil plants
that are constructed without a PPA are considered in subsequent analysis of the
reliability of the system. The only merchant plant developed since 2003 that has
been constructed without a PPA is Inland Empire, owned by General Electric, a
world leader in supplying combustion turbines. They built and operate this facility for
purposes of demonstrating advanced gas turbine technologies to their potential
customers - beyond the typical merchant plant owner’s operating goals. Roughly 40
projects under Energy Commission jurisdiction have come on line since 2003 (see
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/all_projects.html). Energy Commission staff is
February 2015

AQ1-33

APPENDIX AQ-1

 not aware whether the project owner has provided information regarding their plans
if they do not obtain a PPA.
Comment: A comment on page 7 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks, based on
footnote 19 the PSA page AQ1-20, which plants are generating adequate revenue and
which are not, and whether excess capacity is already developed.
Response: Staff's assertion that "some plants are generating adequate revenue and
others are not" is based upon statements of plant owner operators in various public
forums and CAISO reports on the estimated annual revenues from market
participation (see, for example, 2013 Annual Report on Market Issues and
Performance, California Independent System Operator, April 2014, pp. 54-59). Staff
cannot provide information regarding which specific plants are generating adequate
revenue and which are not, as doing so would reveal information regarding the
existence/non-existence of resource adequacy contracts, information that is
considered confidential. Regarding the existence of excess capacity, staff offers that
there are plants without resource adequacy contracts, but notes that (1) resource
adequacy will require the existence of such plants if retirements (e.g., of oncethrough cooled facilities) are anticipated, and (2) the CPUC's authorization for the
development and financing of new capacity in the San Diego area is based on an
anticipated shortage of local capacity.
Comment: A comment on page 7 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks whether the
potential for low O&M costs for higher emitting facilities could undermine the Avenal
precedent decision, and asks if the O&M costs for the amended CECP are high and
asks how they compare to other facilities.
Response: Staff does not have data on the expected variable O&M costs of the
amended CECP. As stated in the passage cited, there is no indication that these
costs will be lower than those of other gas-fired facilities. In general, O&M costs are
linear with efficiency, where the development of higher efficiency and lower emitting
facilities is part of the intent of the Avenal precedent decision.
Comment: A comment on page 7 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks whether
battery or flywheel storage would smooth capacity issues.
Response: Multi-hour energy storage reduces the need for flexible, dispatchable
generation to meet ramping and reserve needs. For a discussion of preferred
resources (demand-side management, renewable generation and storage) as
alternatives to the amended CECP, see the Alternatives section of the Final Staff
Assessment.
Comment: A comment on page 7 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks whether
incorporating storage would better serve future needs and preserve the environment.
Response: Energy storage reduces the need for dispatchable, flexible generation
capacity and reduces cycling needs of existing facilities, both of which serve to
increase the thermal efficiency of such plants, and facilitate the integration of
variable energy resources (wind and solar). For a discussion of preferred resources
(demand-side management, renewable generation and storage) as alternatives to
the amended CECP, see the Alternatives section of the Final Staff Assessment.
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-34

February 2015

 Comment: A comment on page 7 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter asks whether the
development of Pio Pico reduces the need for the amended CECP.
Response: No. The CPUC assumed the construction and operation of the Pio Pico
project (or an equivalent amount of capacity in the San Diego area) in determining
that up to 800 MW of additional capacity was needed in the area to ensure reliability.
Comment: A comment on page 8 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter cites the PSA where
it notes recent developments in the assessment of greenhouse gas impacts related to
the CEQA guidelines and the Avenal precedent decision and asks when staff will
complete their analysis of these developments and whether it would be under a
separate proceeding.
Response: Staff's GHG impacts analysis in the FSA is complete and evaluated the
project impacts in relation to both CEQA guidelines for GHGs and the Avenal
precedent decision.
Comment: A comment on page 8 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter states disagreement
with staff’s position that this project would not interfere with the development of battery
storage or other preferred generation.
Response: Disagreement with staff’s position is noted.
Comment: A comment on page 8 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter notes the additional
total generating capacity of the amended CECP in comparison with the licensed CECP
(92 MW) and asks whether a need for this additional MW was demonstrated and if
batteries would be an environmentally superior method to achieve this increase in MW.
Response: Batteries can provide the capacity and capacity-related services
provided by the proposed amended CECP. The CPUC has found a need for up to
800 MW of new generation or demand-side resources in the San Diego area; the
proposed amended CECP has been nominated by SDG&E as a resource that will
meet 600 MW of that need. The CPUC has required that at least 25 MW of the 800
MW be in the form of energy storage. For a discussion of preferred resources
(demand-side management, renewable generation and storage) as alternatives to
the amended CECP, see the Alternatives section of the Final Staff Assessment.
Comment: A comment on page 8 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter challenges a
statement in the PSA (page 4.2-17) regarding potential continued operation of EPS
units 4 and 5 without the licensed CECP project, and notes that regardless of the
project NRG would retire EPS units 1-3 and that they indicated to the State Water Board
that they no longer intend to pursue Track 2 compliance options and will retire Units 4
and 5 no later than the compliance date for Encina of December 31, 2017.
Response: NRG’s statements regarding retirement of existing units assumed that
CECP will replace them. While NRG does not intend to pursue Track 2 compliance
and anticipates retiring Units 4 and 5 at the end of 2017, they will continue to
operate if the Statewide Advisory Committee on Cooling Water Intake Structures
(SACCWIS) determines that it is necessary to maintain reliability in the San Diego
and Southern California areas. The CPUC finding need for up to 800 MW of local
capacity is strong evidence that only securing 200 MW of it (i.e., not building the
amended CECP) would result in the continued operation of Units 4 and 5. Thus, one
February 2015

AQ1-35

APPENDIX AQ-1

 cannot assume the closure of the existing facility absent their replacement by
amended CECP.
Comment: A comment on pages 8 and 9 of Mr. Simpson’s comment letter quotes a
statement relevant to the licensed CECP (not the amended CECP) regarding the
potential continued operation of EPS units regardless of the construction of the licensed
CECP (p. 4.2-17), and asks if CAISO may mandate operation of the other Encina units
(1-3) and also asks if CAISO has the authority to override the mandate to discontinue
the use of ocean water cooling and the project owners determination to decommission
the EPS facility.
Response: The SACCWIS (composed of the CA ISO, the CPUC, and the Energy
Commission) makes recommendations to the SWRCB regarding the need to
operate OTC units beyond their OTC compliance dates. Should the SACCWIS fail to
achieve consensus, the CA ISO can recommend to the SWRCB that units be
allowed to continue to operate.
The preceding answer relates only to the licensed CECP and the operation of Units
4 and 5 as discussed in the PSA quote noted in the comment. Unlike the amended
CECP, the licensed CECP did not require the shutdown of Units 4 and 5. The CA
ISO or the SACCWIS does not have jurisdiction to override the Federal Clean Air
Act (CAA), where the air quality permit for the amended CECP that is under the
authority of the CAA requires the shutdown of all EPS generating units by the end of
the amended CECP’s commissioning phase.

INTERVENOR: HELPING HAND TOOLS/ ROBERT SIMPSON,
TN:203588, FEBRUARY 1, 2015
Comment: A comment on pages 1 through 3 notes that the project should be held to
the U.S. EPA NSPS GHG emissions standard for gas turbines regardless of the fact
that standard does not apply due to the capacity factor operating limit (called a
technicality in the comment) for the amended CECP.
Response: This comment is not correctly depicting the NSPS regulation or staff’s
impact assessment for greenhouse gases. The Federal NSPS is still in draft form
and has not yet been adopted. Thus, it could still undergo changes. The following
needs to be considered in relation to the assertions made by this comment.


First, the NSPS purposely provided the 33-percent capacity factor threshold for
applicability of the emissions standard to address peaking power plants like the
amended CECP. This is not a technicality, it is a specific provision built into this
regulation for peaking power plants. In other words, the proposed rule is not
intended to apply to peaking units such as amended CECP.



Second, there is a difference between the permitted maximum operation capacity
factor and the actual capacity factor. The actual operations are expected to be
lower than the permitted maximum, perhaps much lower. Most peaking power
plants operate at capacity factors well below 10 percent. The amended CECP
would be a highly efficient peaking power that would probably operate more than
most, but that is a good thing as it would then be displacing the use of the lower
efficiency peaking turbines.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-36

February 2015

 

Third, the project would mitigate its GHG emissions on a sector-wide
programmatic basis through the AB32 Cap and Trade program.



Finally, staff’s discussion about the estimated versus actual efficiency of the
project are strictly to note that the values provided are estimates. Regardless,
the amended CECP would be more efficient than any of the currently
operating peaking power plants in San Diego County.

Staff is not recommending additional GHG emissions control or reductions above
the current regulatory requirements for the amended CECP.

ORGANIZATION:EARTHJUSTICE/ TAMARA ZAKIM, TN: 203590,
JANUARY 30, 2015
Comment: The Commission Staff’s Analysis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Carlsbad Energy Center’s Operations Fails to Meet CEQA Requirements. (pp. 1-4)
Response: The assertion that “the existing environment,” against which a system
that includes the amended CECP should be evaluated is one that includes the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) implies that the amended CECP is
being considered for construction in lieu of continuing to operate SONGS. This is not
the case: SONGS last produced electricity 37 months ago and has been shut down
and slated for decommissioning for 20 months, i.e., with no consideration of its
possibly resuming operations in the future. The “existing physical conditions” against
which the impacts of the amended CECP are required to be measured under CEQA
are the current system, one in which SONGS produces no output. Staff’s analysis
correctly states that the amended CECP will displace currently operating natural
gas-fired facilities that are less efficient than the amended CECP (such as the
existing EPS facility it replaces), with the overall effect that GHG emissions would be
reduced by its operation.
Comment: Carlsbad Energy Center Project Interferes with Potential Procurement of
Renewable Generation. (p. 4)
Response: The issues raised herein have been and continue to be litigated at the
CPUC, both in Track 4 of the 2012 Long-term Procurement Planning (LTPP)
proceeding (R.12-03-014) and in response to SDG&E’s application to enter into a
contract with the amended CECP (A.14-07-009). In D.14-03-004 (March 13, 2014),
the CPUC found that allowing SDG&E to enter into a contract for conventional
natural gas-fired generation in the San Diego area was consistent with California’s
loading order, as well as considered the amount of new preferred resources in the
San Diego and Southern California areas that could safely be relied upon for
development through 2022 without threatening electric system and local area
reliability. The Energy Commission’s siting process is not a forum in which these
issues should be re-litigated.

February 2015

AQ1-37

APPENDIX AQ-1

 RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE ORDER FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY
STAFF ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE ORDER, TN: 203527, January 15, 2015.
Following its review of the PSA, the Committee directed staff to provide additional
information and analysis, as identified in the Order, in preparing its Final Staff Analysis.
Those relevant to greenhouse gas emissions are summarized and addressed below:
Comment: Staff must include a discussion of whether or not supplementation of the
previous EIR is necessary under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Response: In the Summary of Conclusions, staff briefly summarizes the substantial
changes or new information, the resulting new or increased significant effects, and
any resulting changes in the required mitigation. Staff determined that the amended
CECP would not result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated.
Comment: Staff must address the off-site impacts of the use of trailer-mounted water
filters.
Response: Off-site impacts of greenhouse gas emissions generated during
operations of the amended CECP are discussed in this Air Quality Appendix AQ-1
section of the FSA

CONCLUSIONS
The project would lead to a net reduction in GHG emissions across the electricity
system that provides energy and capacity to California. Thus, staff concludes that the
project would result in a cumulative overall reduction in GHG emissions from the state’s
power plants, would not worsen current conditions, and would thus not result in impacts
that are cumulatively significant. In addition, it would provide flexible, dispatchable, and
fast-ramping power in relatively small increments of capacity, which is expected to be
necessary to integrate variable-energy renewable generation on the scale projected in
the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and CA ISO long-term planning
processes.
Staff notes that mandatory reporting of GHG emissions per Federal Government and Air
Resources Board greenhouse gas regulations would occur, and these reports would
enable these agencies to gather the information needed to regulate the amended CECP
project in trading markets, such as those required by regulations implementing the
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32).
Staff does not believe that the GHG emission increases from construction or demolition
activities would be significant for several reasons. First, construction emissions would
be temporary and intermittent, and not continue during the life of the project.
Additionally, the control measures or best practices that staff recommends such as
limiting idling times and requiring, as appropriate, equipment that meets the latest
emissions standards, would further minimize greenhouse gas emissions. Staff believes
that the use of newer equipment would increase efficiency and reduce GHG emissions
and be compatible with low-carbon fuel (e.g., bio-diesel and ethanol) mandates that will
APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-38

February 2015

 likely be part of the California Air Resources Board (ARB) regulations to reduce GHG
from construction vehicles and equipment. For all these reasons, staff concludes that
the emission of greenhouse gases during construction would be sufficiently reduced
and would, therefore, not be significant.
The amended CECP is proposed as a simple-cycle peaker power plant, and is
proposing to use the most efficient simple-cycle gas turbine known to be in operation.
The amended CECP would have an expected annual capacity factor well below 60
percent; therefore the amended CECP is not subject to the Greenhouse Gases
Emission Performance Standard (Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 2900
et seq.). Finally, the amended CECP would have an enforced capacity factor limit below
the Federal NSPS Subpart TTTT regulatory trigger of 33 percent, so it is not subject to
this regulation including the CO2 emissions limit of this regulation.
Staff has reached the following conclusions about the amended CECP based on CEQA
guidelines:


The amended CECP would have less than significant GHG emissions impacts
because:
o The amended CECP is proposed as a high-efficiency, simple-cycle power plant
that would be more efficient and have lower GHG emissions than other simplecycle power plants currently operating in the San Diego region, whose
operations it will displace;
o The amended CECP would facilitate the integration of renewable energy
resources that would lower the statewide GHG emissions from the electricity
sector; and
o The amended CECP, as shown in Greenhouse Gas Table 3, is more efficient
than, and would have lower GHG emissions than, the Encina Power Station
whose retirement it would help facilitate. The amended CECP has an estimated
GHG emissions performance of 0.5033 MTCO2E/MWh versus the actual
calculated annual GHG emissions performance for EPS from 2008 to 2013 that
has ranged from 0.656 to 0.724 MTCO2E/MWh.



The amended CECP would have less than significant impacts by complying with
applicable regulations and plans related to the reduction of GHG emissions as
follows:
o The amended CECP would be subject to compliance with the AB 32 Cap and
Trade regulation that implements the state’s regulatory plan for reducing GHG
emissions from the electricity sector; and
o The amended CECP would recycle construction and demolition wastes to reduce
GHG emissions from construction and demolition activities (as required by
WASTE-5) to comply with state policy and local Climate Action Plans.

Additionally, staff has also determined that the amended CECP would be consistent
with all three main conditions in the precedent decision regarding GHG emissions
established by the Avenal Energy Project’s Final Energy Commission Decision (not
increase the overall system heat rate for natural gas plants, not interfere with generation
from existing or new renewable facilities, and ensure a reduction of system-wide GHG
February 2015

AQ1-39

APPENDIX AQ-1

 emissions). The amended CECP is not a base-load gas-fired power plant, it is a peaker
project; consistent with the Avenal decision, it will displace higher heat rate peaker
facilities, thereby reducing the overall system heat rate. The system-wide heat rate
analysis of this peaker power plant is consistent with the role and purpose of a peaker
power plant; including the small effect on the system-wide heat rate average it would
have given its expected low operating capacity factor, and the system-wide reduction in
GHG emissions and fossil fueled power plant use it would help to achieve given its role
in integrating non-dispatchable renewable energy resources.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-40

February 2015

 REFERENCES
ARB 2014 - California Air Resources Board. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for
2000-2012 – by Category as Defined in the 2008 Scoping Plan. March 24, 2014.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_0012_2014-03-24.pdf
CA ISO 2014 - California Independent System Operator Corporation. Flexible Resource
Adequacy Capacity Requirement Amendment. August 1, 2014.
CalEPA 2006 - California Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Action Team
Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature. March 2006.
CCCC 2006 - California Climate Change Center. Our Changing Climate – Assessing
the Risks to California. CEC-500-2006-077. July 2006.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-077/CEC-500-2006077.PDF
CEC 1998 - California Energy Commission. 1997 Global Climate Change, Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Reduction Strategies for California, Volume 2, Staff Report. 1998.
CEC 2003 - California Energy Commission. 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report.
December 2003.
CEC 2009a - California Energy Commission (TN54068). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Final Staff Assessment, dated November 12, 2009. Submitted
11/12/2009.
CEC 2009b - California Energy Commission (TN54475). Revised Sections for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Final Staff Assessment (Air Quality and Worker
Safety and Fire Protection), dated December 12, 2009. Document available
here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad/documents/2009-1217_Revised_Sections_Carlsbad_FSA.PDF. Submitted 12/17/2009.
CEC 2009c - California Energy Commission. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate
Change Science Impacts and Response Options for California. May 2009. http://
www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-500-2008-071/CEC-500-2008-071.
PDF
CEC 2009d - California Energy Commission, Framework for Evaluating Greenhouse
Gas Implications of Natural Gas-Fired Power Plants in California, consultant
report by MRW and Associates, LLC., submitted in in 08-GHG OII1(Informational Proceeding on Methods for Satisfaction of California
Environmental Quality Act Requirements Relating to Greenhouse Gas Emission
Impacts of Power Plants), December 2009
CEC 2009e - California Energy Commission, Order Instituting Informational Proceeding
in 08-GHG OII-1(Informational Proceeding on Methods for Satisfaction of
California Environmental Quality Act Requirements Relating to Greenhouse Gas
Emission Impacts of Power Plants), October 8, 2008
February 2015

AQ1-41

APPENDIX AQ-1

 CEC 2011 - California Energy Commission, Thermal Efficiency of Gas-Fired Generation
in California, August 2011, CEC-200-2011-008,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011publications/CEC-200-2011-008/CEC-200-2011008.pdf
CEC 2014a - California Energy Commission, QFER CEC-1304 Power Plant Owner
Reporting Database, http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/web_qfer/.
Accessed September/October 2014.
CEC 2014b - California Energy Commission, Thermal Efficiency of Gas-Fired
Generation in California: 2014 Update, September 2014, CEC-200-2014-005,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-200-2014-005/CEC-200-2014005.pdf.
IPCC 2007a - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the IPCC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html.
IPCC 2007b - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2007:
Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. November 2007. http://www.ipcc.
ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.
LL 2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL 2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL 2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL 2014nn - Locke Lord LLP (TN203298). Amended CECP Emissions Net GHG With
Low Load Information. Submitted 10/31/2014.
LL 2014uu - Locke Lord LLP (TN203360). Amended CECP Revised EPS Demolition
Air Emissions Calculations. Submitted 11/14/2014.
NCDC 2014 - National Climatic Data Center. Global Analysis website page. Accessed
August 2014. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13.
SDAPCD 2014 - San Diego Air Pollution Control District (TN203441). Preliminary
Determination of Compliance – Carlsbad Energy Center. Submitted December
12, 2014.

APPENDIX AQ-1

AQ1-42

February 2015

 ACRONYMS
AB
AGC
ARB
CAA
CA ISO
CCCC
CECP
CEQA
CFR
CH4
CO2
CO2E
CPUC
EIR
EJAC
EPA
EPS
GCC
GHG
GWP
HFC
HSC
IEPR
IOU
IPCC
LCA
LCR
LTPP
MT
MTCO2E
MW
NERC
N2O
NO
OTC
February 2015

Assembly Bill
Automated Generation Control
Air Resource Board
Clean Air Act
California Independent System Operator
California Climate Change Center
Carlsbad Energy Center Project
California Environmental Quality Act
Code of Federal Regulations
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
California Public Utilities Commission
Environmental Impact Report
Environmental Justice Advisory Committee
Environmental Protection Agency
Emission Performance Standard
Global Climate Change
Greenhouse Gas
Global Warming Potential
Hydrofluorocarbons
Health and Safety Code
Integrated Energy Policy Report
investor-owned utility
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Local Capacity Area
Local Capacity Requirement
Long-term Procurement Planning
Metric Tonnes
Metric Tons of CO2-Equivalent
Megawatt
American Electric Reliability Council
Nitrous Oxide
Nitric Oxide
Once-Through Cooling
AQ1-43

APPENDIX AQ-1

 PFC
PSD
PTA
PTR
RPS
SB
SDAPCD
SF6
SONGS
SWRCB
WECC
U.S. EPA

APPENDIX AQ-1

Perflurocarbons
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Petition to Amend
Petition to Remove
Renewable Portfolio Standard
Senate Bill
San Diego Air Pollution Control District
Sulfur Hexafluoride
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
State Water Resource Control Board
Western Electricity Coordinating Council
United States Environmental Protection Agency

AQ1-44

February 2015

 ALTERNATIVES
Testimony of Steven Kerr, Jeanine Hinde, and David Vidaver

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
This section evaluates alternatives to the amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(amended CECP) proposed by Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC (petitioner/project owner).
California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) staff has not identified a potentially
feasible alternative that would be environmentally superior to the amended CECP,
including the “no project” alternative. The range of alternatives considered by staff in
addition to the “no project” alternative includes alternative sites, alternative
technologies, and a reduced capacity alternative. A discussion of preferred resources
as project alternatives, including energy efficiency and demand response programs and
measures (demand-side management) and distributed generation, is also provided.
These alternatives have been eliminated from detailed consideration due to a failure to
meet most of the basic project objectives, probable infeasibility, and/or inability to avoid
significant environmental impacts. Demand-side management and small distributed
generation facilities and installations cannot reasonably or feasibly replace natural gasfired generation that is currently planned to serve electrical load in the Los Angeles
Basin and San Diego area.
New information and changed conditions require additional analysis for the proposed
amendment. These changes include: the project objective to retire the Encina Power
Station and terminate use of once-through cooling technology at the power plant; and
publication of additional studies by the California Independent System Operator
regarding grid system reliability and resource availability in the San Diego region.

CEQA REQUIREMENTS
As lead agency for the amended CECP, the Energy Commission is required to consider
and discuss alternatives to the proposed project. The guiding principles for the selection
of alternatives for analysis are provided by the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15000 et seq.). According to
section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the alternatives analysis must:


Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the
project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project.



Consider alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project, including alternatives that would be
more costly or would otherwise impede the project’s objectives.



Evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.

The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for
examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15126.6, subd. (a)). CEQA does not require an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to “consider every conceivable alternative to a
project.” Rather, CEQA requires consideration of a “reasonable range of potentially
feasible alternatives.” The reasonable range of alternatives must be selected and
February 2015

4.2-1

ALTERNATIVES

 discussed in a manner that fosters meaningful public participation and informed
decision making (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15126.6, subd. (f)). That is, the range of
alternatives presented in this analysis is limited to ones that will inform a reasoned
choice by the Energy Commission. Under the “rule of reason,” an agency need not
consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose
implementation is remote and speculative (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15126.6, subd.
(f)(3)).
The CEQA lead agency is also required to:
1.

Evaluate a “no project” alternative.

2.

Identify alternatives that were initially considered but then rejected from further
evaluation.

3.

Identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives if the
environmentally superior alternative is the “no project” alternative (Cal. Code Regs.,
tit. 14, §15126.6).

Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration by the lead agency if they
fail to meet most of the basic project objectives, are infeasible, or could not avoid any
significant environmental effects (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15126.6, subd.(c)).

ENERGY COMMISSION STAFF’S ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
PROCESS
The CEQA Guidelines describe selection of a reasonable range of alternatives and the
requirement to include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic project
objectives while avoiding or substantially lessening one or more of the significant effects
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15126.6, subd. (c)). The CEQA Guidelines address the
requirement for the alternatives analysis to briefly describe the rationale for selecting
alternatives to be discussed. The analysis should identify any alternatives that were
considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the
reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.
The CEQA Guidelines list factors that may be considered when addressing feasibility of
alternatives: site suitability; economic viability; availability of infrastructure; general plan
consistency; other plans or regulatory limitations; jurisdictional boundaries; and whether
the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the
alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors
establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives (Cal. Code Regs., tit.
14, §15126.6, subd. (f)(1)).
Pursuant to CEQA, the purpose of staff’s alternatives analysis is to identify the potential
significant impacts of the amended CECP and to focus on alternatives that are capable
of avoiding or substantially reducing those impacts while still meeting most of the basic
project objectives.

ALTERNATIVES

4.2-2

February 2015

 To prepare the analysis of alternatives, staff used the methodology summarized below:


Describe the objectives of the project and compare those against potentially feasible
alternatives to the project.



Identify any potentially significant environmental impacts of the project.



Identify and evaluate alternatives to the project that may reduce or avoid
environmental impacts.



Evaluate a “no project” alternative to compare the impacts of approving the project to
the impacts of not approving the project.

PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Based upon a review of the project objectives included in the Final Decision for the
licensed CECP (Energy Commission 2012a, pg. 3-2) and the May 2, 2014 Petition to
Amend (PTA) (LL 2014, pg. 1-6), the following objectives were used to guide the
amended CECP alternatives analysis. These objectives are generally consistent with
the petitioner’s proposal but are not so narrow as to limit consideration of potentially
feasible alternatives to construction of the amended CECP as proposed. The project
objectives for the proposed amended CECP are as follows:


Meet the need for new, cost-effective, reliable energy resources that are
dispatchable by the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) and located in
the “load pocket” that includes the San Diego region.



Improve San Diego regional electrical system reliability through fast-starting energy
resources capable of rapid response to peak demand situations, and provide CAISO
a dependable resource to backup intermittent renewable generation resources such
as wind and solar.



Modernize existing aging electrical generation infrastructure in north coastal San
Diego County to enable retiring once-through cooling (OTC) facilities. Retiring the
use of OTC is an objective shared by the utilities and energy and environmental
agencies in California, including the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC),
State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), Energy Commission,
and CAISO.



Modify the licensed CECP to include retiring the five boiler units and one small
combustion turbine at the Encina Power Station (EPS), thereby allowing for better
grid support from the June 2013 shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station.



Use existing infrastructure to accommodate replacement generation, and avoid
potential environmental impacts and costs of developing a new power generating
facility at a greenfield location.



Meet the commercial qualifications for long-term power contract opportunities in
Southern California.



Achieve project consistency with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards (LORS).

February 2015

4.2-3

ALTERNATIVES

 

Modify the project design to reduce potential environmental impacts and integrate
community-desired development on and adjacent to the site.

SUMMARY OF PREFERRED RESOURCES AS PROJECT
ALTERNATIVES
California is rapidly and fundamentally changing its electricity supply system. These
changes are driven in large part by the state’s programs addressing global climate
change and the policy imperative of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. These
include, but are not limited to the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), the
Emission Performance Standard established under Senate Bill 1368, and the cap-andtrade program that is part of the package of policies being implemented pursuant to
Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Applicable policies include
a loading order for electric generation that prefers and maximizes cost-effective,
reliable, and feasible energy efficiency, demand response programs and measures, and
renewable generation to supplant the need for new fossil fuel generation. Consistent
with state law, the CPUC has held that all utility procurement must be consistent with
this loading order (Pub. Utilities Code, § 454.5(b)(9)(C)).
At the same time, state policies and other factors have dramatically increased the nearterm need for new resources with which to reliably meet—or reduce—the state’s
demand for reliably delivered electricity. The state’s program to phase out OTC power
plants is forcing the rapid retirement of a substantial amount of dispatchable generation
in coastal areas and its replacement with new electrical supply and demand-side
resources to preserve system reliability. In addition, concerns about nuclear safety led
to the permanent closure of a large nuclear baseload facility in 2012 that was a critical
source of Southern California electricity generation.
All of these factors are considered by the state’s energy agencies when determining the
need for new electricity generation over the ten-year horizon for which the state energy
agencies undertake procurement planning. The Energy Commission considers them in
developing its ten-year electricity demand forecast. CAISO considers them as part of its
efforts to maintain electric system reliability. In tandem with CAISO planning, the CPUC
conducts its biennial Long-term Procurement Plan (LTPP) proceeding, in which it
determines how much new fossil-fired generation is required, and should be contracted
for by the state’s investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to maintain system reliability during this
rapid shift away from a system based on fossil fuel-fired generation.
As described below, the state’s programs implementing the loading order underlie the
energy agencies’ assumptions for determining the need for new gas-fired generation to
support the shift to a reduced carbon emissions system. State programs to minimize
reliance on combustion resources are known to be aggressively pursued through robust
implementing efforts. The state’s gas-fired generation is needed to maintain electric
system reliability and complement the many preferred resources programs, including
energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed renewable generation. Incremental
capacity from these coordinated programs, beyond that which has been assumed by
the CPUC in determining the need for dispatchable natural-gas fired generation in the
San Diego and Southern California areas, can theoretically contribute to meeting project

ALTERNATIVES

4.2-4

February 2015

 objectives addressing capacity-related services and rapid response capability (i.e.,
substantially increasing or decreasing electricity generation over a period ranging from
ten minutes to several hours). However, preferred resources are not reasonable or
sufficiently feasible alternatives to critically located gas-fired generation such as the
proposed amended CECP.

RELIABLE OPERATION OF THE ELECTRICITY SYSTEM
In May 2010, the State Water Board adopted a statewide Water Quality Control Policy
on the Use of Coastal and Estuarine Waters for Power Plant Cooling (OTC Policy). The
OTC Policy requires existing power plant operators to implement measures to reduce
impingement mortality and entrainment of marine life. In response to the OTC Policy,
and before the permanent retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station,
CPUC began a decision-making process to identify what share of the capacity ought to
be replaced with conventional gas-fired generation versus certain preferred resources
(e.g., energy efficiency, demand response, and renewable generation).
The June 2013 closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station added to the
state’s concerns about maintaining reliability of the electricity system in Southern
California. With the closure of San Onofre, concerns about electricity reliability in
Southern California became operational issues rather than planning exercises (Energy
Commission 2014a).
CPUC resource decisions and CAISO studies continue to respond to the permanent
retirement of San Onofre and replacement or retirement of OTC units. In March 2014,
as part of CPUC’s 2012 LTPP proceeding, the CPUC issued a decision (D.14-03-004)
authorizing Southern California Edison (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E)
to procure generating capacity from a combination of preferred resources and gas-fired
resources to meet local capacity needs stemming from the retirement of San Onofre.
The CPUC decision requires SCE to procure up to 60 percent of new local capacity in
the Los Angeles Basin from preferred resources. SDG&E is required to procure at least
25 percent, and up to 100 percent, of new local capacity from preferred resources. SCE
and SDG&E are required to procure at least 50 megawatts (MWs) and 25 MWs,
respectively, from energy storage. The conclusions for D.14-03-004 state the prudence
of providing procurement flexibility to the IOUs to ensure consistency with CAISO’s
reliability standards; the range of procurement should include gas-fired resources,
preferred resources, and energy storage. The CPUC decision also concludes that
reliability entails a gradual increase in the level of preferred resources and energy
storage in the resource mix.
The Energy Commission’s 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR) discusses the
coordinated effort between the state’s energy agencies in evaluating reliability needs in
Southern California (Energy Commission 2014b). A balanced portfolio of options will
support integration of increasing levels of renewables. The 2013 IEPR summarizes the
role of preferred policy resources and states that preferred resource additions cannot
reduce the need for repowering to satisfy local capacity requirements on a one-for-one
basis (Energy Commission 2014b).
The CPUC is overseeing SCE’s and SDG&E’s development of power purchase
agreements (PPAs) aimed at constructing new generation in desired locations. The
February 2015

4.2-5

ALTERNATIVES

 Energy Commission is evaluating applications for proposed natural gas-fired electrical
generating facilities in coastal Southern California. The CAISO is studying, and in some
cases authorizing, transmission system upgrades to address the voltage instability
concerns created by the San Onofre retirement.

DEMAND-SIDE MANAGEMENT: ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND DEMAND
RESPONSE
The state’s loading order established by the energy agencies in 2003 calls for meeting
new electricity needs first with efficiency and demand response (jointly, demand-side
management), followed by renewable energy and distributed generation, and only then
with clean fossil generation. Section 454.5(b)(9)(C) of the California Public Utilities Code
addresses requirements for an electrical corporation’s proposed procurement plan,
including the requirement to “first meet its unmet resource needs through all available
energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost effective, reliable, and
feasible.”

Energy Efficiency
Energy efficiency entails using less energy to provide the same service such as by
improving the efficiency of air conditioners or the insulation characteristics of building
shells, thereby using less energy to keep the temperature of a building at desired levels.
Continued development and implementation of comprehensive, long-term energy
efficiency strategies and programs remains the top priority to offset increased energy
demand. The CPUC oversees the IOU energy efficiency programs, and many of the
state’s municipal utilities administer similar programs. These efforts are funded by the
utilities’ ratepayers and include a wide variety of initiatives aiming to move energyefficient equipment and effective energy management practices into the marketplace at
increasing scale. The CPUC issues decisions approving the electric energy efficiency
budgets for the state’s IOUs. For 2013–2015, the approved electricity energy efficiency
budgets for the state’s three major IOUs total $2.388B (D.12-11-015, pages 102 and
103; and D.14-10-046, pages 104 and 105).
Appliance and building standards reflect the improved performance and decreased
costs of energy efficiency technologies. At the federal level, the Department of Energy
has adopted national standards for appliance efficiency for most appliances and
building standards to reduce the use of energy in federal buildings and at military bases.
At the state level, the Energy Commission has adopted comprehensive energy
efficiency standards for buildings constructed since 1976 and appliance efficiency
standards for specific devices not subject to federal appliance standards. These building
and appliance standards are generally considered the most stringent in the nation.
Many local governments have adopted building standards that exceed the state
standards for building efficiency. A few jurisdictions have, by ordinance, set retrofit
energy efficiency requirements for older buildings. New buildings may combine the need
for heat and power using a single fuel source, or may employ district-wide solutions for
heating and cooling a number of adjacent buildings, thereby increasing overall
efficiency.
The Energy Commission also provides grants for energy efficiency research,
development and demonstration through the Electric Program Investment Charge
ALTERNATIVES

4.2-6

February 2015

 (EPIC) program for electricity and the Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) program
for natural gas programs.
Energy efficiency programs have attributes that can partially meet some of the CECP’s
project objectives by: (1) reducing the amount of electricity that needs to be generated
when targeted at consumption during high-demand hours and when flexible generation
is needed most, and (2) reducing the need for new conventional, flexible, dispatchable
natural gas-fired generation capacity, as well as the need for load-serving entities to
procure such capacity to satisfy CAISO- and CPUC-imposed system-wide resource
adequacy requirements. In targeting consumption in San Diego and the San DiegoImperial Valley region, energy efficiency programs can reduce the need for conventional
generation in these areas and the need to procure such capacity to satisfy resource
adequacy requirements for local (San Diego) resources. Energy efficiency programs are
thus capable of reducing the need for energy and capacity-related reliability services
that conventional natural gas-fired generation such as the amended CECP would
provide.

Demand Response
Demand response (DR) programs provide an economic incentive for end-users to
modify energy use, whether through direct payments to reduce consumption when
requested to do so (i.e., event-triggered DR programs) or rate structures that encourage
reducing energy use during hours in which generation is expensive and/or system
reliability is threatened. On September 25, 2013, the CPUC authorized a new
rulemaking (R.13-09-011), in part, to facilitate the participation of aggregated loads in
ancillary service markets, allowing them to directly compete with generation resources
in providing reliability services and to satisfy resource adequacy requirements imposed
on load-serving entities. In exchange for a stream of revenue to provide such services,
aggregate loads can replace generation resources as sources of reliability.
DR continues to play an important role in meeting California’s capacity planning,
including requirements for peak summer demand. These programs are operated by the
state utilities; DR programs operated by the IOUs meet roughly five percent of total
CAISO-system resource adequacy capacity requirements (CAISO 2014, pg. 32). DR
has attributes that can partially meet some of the CECP’s project objectives by: (1)
contributing to or reducing the need for capacity-related reliability services, including an
array of ancillary services (regulation, spinning and non-spinning reserves), and (2)
reducing the need for generation flexibility if called upon during hours in which ramping
needs are highest. When such programs reduce loads in the San Diego area, they
reduce local capacity requirements. DR programs can facilitate the integration of
renewable resources by meeting incremental needs for regulation and reserves and
reducing ramping needs. Unlike gas-fired generation, DR can absorb load during
periods of renewable overgeneration (a condition that occurs when total supply exceeds
total demand in the CAISO balancing authority area). The 2013 IEPR acknowledges the
likely need for additional generating capacity above what is required for local reliability
to help integrate increasing levels of renewables and envisions the strong influence of
DR programs if successfully deployed at scale (Energy Commission 2014b).

February 2015

4.2-7

ALTERNATIVES

 Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs Are Not
Alternatives to the Amended CECP
The CPUC’s LTPP process has already made aggressive assumptions for DR and
energy efficiency programs when it found that new gas-fired generation is necessary. In
effect, if they were to be considered as alternatives to the CECP in the setting of this
proceeding, energy efficiency and DR programs would have to be far beyond those that
the CPUC assumes will be developed when it established the amount of conventional,
natural gas-fired capacity authorized in the San Diego area in its LTPP proceeding in
D.14-03-004. In that proceeding, the CPUC used the following assumptions:


Energy Commission’s 2012–2022 electricity demand final forecast and estimated
contribution of energy efficiency standards, technologies, and programs to reduce
load, including those already funded (“committed energy efficiency”) and those
anticipated beyond the current funding cycle (“additional available energy efficiency”)
(Energy Commission 2012b, CPUC 2012a).



Estimated capacity value of DR programs—existing or reasonably expected to be
developed over the ten-year planning horizon—that are capable of meeting CAISO
performance standards (e.g., response time and duration) required to effectively
reduce peak load and respond to contingencies that threaten system reliability, and
thus be eligible to contribute to resource adequacy requirements.

Thus, the CPUC has already accounted for energy efficiency savings over the planning
horizon that will result from existing and expected building and appliance standards,
levels of funding and the expected impact of existing energy efficiency programs and
those that are reasonably expected to be developed, and the adoption of energy
efficiency measures due to their changing price relative to that of retail electricity. Even
with the robust assumptions for these programs, the CPUC has determined that some
new gas-fired generation will be required for system reliability.
Similarly, the CPUC has determined the need for flexible, dispatchable generation in the
San Diego area based on the expected contribution of existing DR programs and
measures, as well as the impacts of those that are reasonably expected to be
developed over the planning horizon. While event-triggered programs (e.g., load
shedding agreements) can provide reliability under “foreseeable” conditions such as
high loads on extremely hot days, their value in responding to the sudden component
outages that threaten local reliability (e.g., the failure of large generators and
transmission lines) depends on their leading to load reductions in a matter of minutes or
less. Accordingly, only a subset of event–triggered DR programs can contribute to
meeting local capacity requirements. As noted above, aggregated loads capable of
bidding into ancillary service markets can reduce the need for dispatchable, flexible
conventional generation capacity. However, as noted in the CPUC proceeding on DR
referenced above, California does not currently have the market structure or
mechanisms to enable widespread use of or payment for DR for this purpose.
Deployment of DR in the San Diego and Southern California areas will depend on the
future development of these mechanisms as well as the nature of customer loads.
Although it is likely that federal, state, and local demand-side programs will receive even
greater emphasis in the future, both new dispatchable generation facilities (and

ALTERNATIVES

4.2-8

February 2015

 transmission) are needed in the planning horizon to maintain reliability. (Air Quality
Appendix AQ-1 in this document discusses the role of natural gas-fired generation in a
low GHG environment.)
For the reasons stated above, energy efficiency and demand response are not
considered viable or feasible alternatives to the amended CECP. In addition to the
above, they are not feasible alternatives inasmuch as they fail to satisfy project
objectives and legal and policy goals:


Failure to Meet Most of the Project Objectives – CEQA does not require
consideration of an alternative that would not meet most of the basic project
objectives. Although energy efficiency and demand response measures will
contribute to reducing the need for gas-fired generation, such measures and
programs cannot replace conventional generation and meet the energy agencies’
reliability standards. Also, energy efficiency and demand response would not attain
these basic project objectives:
o Failure to meet the project objectives addressing use of the existing EPS site to
modernize aging electrical generation infrastructure, retirement of the existing
EPS units, and compliance with the State Water Board’s OTC Policy.
o Failure to use the existing infrastructure at the EPS site and redevelop the
existing brownfield site. The EPS site does not encroach on designated resource
areas and is not prohibited from reasonable expansion at its existing site (see the
subsection below under “Expansion of Existing Coastal Power Plants”).
Continued use of the EPS site for power production avoids the potential
environmental impacts of constructing and operating new gas-fired generation at
a different site.
o Failure to attain the project owner’s objective to meet the commercial
qualifications for long-term power contract opportunities in Southern California.



Policy Goals to Maintain Reliability – State law repeatedly emphasizes the
importance of maintaining the reliability of the electric grid, including sections of the
Public Utilities Code addressing the importance of maintaining reliable electric
services to the state’s citizens and businesses (Pub. Utilities Code, §§ 330(g) and
(h), 334, 345.5(b), and 362(a)). The proposed amended CECP is consistent with the
project objective to improve the San Diego regional electrical system reliability
through fast-starting generating technology. Energy efficiency and demand response
are currently limited in their ability to support these policy goals.

DISTRIBUTED GENERATION
In 2010, Governor Jerry Brown set a ten-year goal of installing 12,000 MWs of localized
renewable electricity generation (i.e., renewable distributed generation (DG)) close to
consumer loads and transmission and distribution lines. Solar DG facilities vary in size
from kilowatts to 20 MWs and do not require transmission to move electricity to where it
is used. Renewable DG technologies can be located in industrial areas on previously
disturbed land or on existing residential, industrial, or commercial buildings. Standards,
codes, and fees vary widely for DG projects, and land use requirements for identical
systems can vary significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

February 2015

4.2-9

ALTERNATIVES

 The Energy Commission tracks progress toward the 12,000 MW goal for renewable DG.
Through December 2014, approximately 5,200 MWs of renewable DG projects were
operating in California (Energy Commission 2014c). Alternatives Table 1 summarizes
on-line and pending1 renewable DG by fuel type.
Alternatives Table 1
Renewable Distributed Generation Resources through December 2014
Resource

On-line (MW)

Pending (MW)

Total (MW)

Biomass

520

30

550

Geothermal

140

10

150

Small Hydropower

1,100

10

1,110

Solar

3,450

1,100

4,550

Wind

10

50

60

5,200

1,200

6,400

Total

Source: Data compiled by Energy Commission staff. Updated December 2014. Totals do not sum due to rounding.

Some 6,400 MW of renewable DG capacity is on line and pending development. Of the
remaining 5,600 MW needed to reach the 12,000 MW goal, existing programs are
expected to yield 2,500 MW.
CPUC oversees two incentive programs for customer-side of the meter DG (also called
on-site generation or self generation) for customers in the territories of Pacific Gas &
Electric Company (PG&E), SDG&E, and SCE (CPUC 2014a). The customer-side DG
programs include several existing, new, and emerging distributed energy sources,
including solar electric. The Energy Commission oversees related incentive programs.
The programs supporting on-site solar projects include CPUC’s California Solar
Initiative, the Energy Commission’s New Solar Homes Partnership, and a variety of
solar programs offered through publicly owned utilities. The overall goal of these
programs, known collectively as Go Solar California, is to encourage Californians to
install 3,000 MWs of solar energy systems on homes and businesses by the end of
2016 (Go Solar California 2014).
The CPUC oversees policies and programs relating to procurement of utility-side DG
(also called wholesale DG) (CPUC 2014a). Under its IOU solar PV programs, CPUC
authorized PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE to own and operate PV facilities and to execute
solar PV PPAs with independent power producers through a competitive solicitation
process. The energy produced under the solar PV programs will contribute to meeting
the state’s RPS program goals. The CPUC provides incentives for the development of
DG through its Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) (CPUC 2014a). This program
provides financial incentives for installing new, qualifying, self-generation equipment
that meets all or a portion of the electric energy needs of a facility. SGIP administrators
include PG&E, SCE, Southern California Gas Company, and the California Center for
Sustainable Energy. Eligible fuels for eligible SGIP generating technologies include
several renewable and non-renewable fuels. In 2009, Senate Bill 412 modified SGIP to
1

Pending projects include projects with reserved incentive funding from a self-generation incentive
program or projects that have secured a PPA.
ALTERNATIVES

4.2-10

February 2015

 require identification of distributed energy resources that will contribute to GHG
reduction goals.
CPUC’s Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) was created for the procurement of
renewable DG projects generating from 3 MWs up to 20 MWs of electricity. RAM is
open to all renewables (e.g., solar PV, small hydro, biogas, wind, and geothermal).
CPUC adopted RAM in 2010 to encourage development of resources that can use
existing transmission and distribution infrastructure and contribute to the state’s RPS
program in the near term. CPUC initially authorized the large IOUs to procure 1,000
MWs through RAM by holding four competitive auctions over two years. Total
procurement was expanded in early 2012 to 1,299 MWs (CPUC 2014b).
Under three CPUC decisions in 2012 and 2013, CPUC granted, in part, SCE’s and
SDG&E’s respective petitions for modification to merge each utility’s solar PV programs
into the RAM program. These decisions increased the authorized procurement under
RAM to 1,330 MWs. SCE’s program targeted small rooftop projects (1–2 MWs), and
SDG&E’s program targeted small ground-mount projects (1–5 MWs). By merging the
utility solar programs into RAM, CPUC is attempting to minimize ratepayer expenditures
on renewable DG and provide a more efficient DG procurement process. In May 2013,
CPUC passed a resolution authorizing a fifth RAM auction to allow the IOUs to delay
some of the previously authorized RAM to better align with the IOUs’ demonstrated
RPS compliance need.

Distributed Generation Is Not An Alternative to the Amended CECP
Renewable DG can provide energy and provides on-peak capacity to meet both
system-wide and local (San Diego) reliability needs. It is not, however, considered a
viable or feasible alternative to the amended CECP for several reasons:


CPUC’s LTPP Process Already Considers and Includes Renewable DG – The
CPUC assumed development of renewable DG in the San Diego and Southern
California areas in its analysis of need for dispatchable, flexible generation in the
San Diego area. The assumptions for DG are part of CPUC’s 2012 LTPP
proceeding and D.14-03-004 addressing the permanent retirement of the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. A share of the renewable DG is embedded in
the Energy Commission’s demand forecast, which was used to determine the need
for conventional, dispatchable capacity. Renewable DG also makes up a share of
the 200 MWs of preferred resources that SDG&E is required to procure to meet
reliability needs. Any renewable DG that would serve as an alternative to the CECP
would have to be in addition to the amount already assumed to be developed by the
CPUC.
As noted in the discussion of energy efficiency and demand response programs as
alternatives to the CECP, the CPUC not only could have required the incremental
(additional) development of renewable DG to meet energy and reliability needs, it is
effectively bound by the state’s loading order to do so where it is cost-effective and
can feasibly and reliably be developed. However, in using the Energy Commission’s
demand forecast to determine the share of new capacity that could come from
conventional generation resources, for example, the CPUC has assumed the

February 2015

4.2-11

ALTERNATIVES

 development of specific amounts of on-site generation as forecasted by the Energy
Commission.


Voluntary Participation in On-site Generation Programs – The development of onsite generation cannot be mandated. Participation in the state’s on-site generation
incentive programs is based on decisions made by individual residents and property
and business owners. Participation in the incentive programs is elective; no laws or
regulations mandate installation of on-site renewable energy systems; and utilities
do not approve or deny DG systems on private property.



Characteristics of DG Contribute to its Infeasibility As An Alternative to the Amended
CECP – State energy policy, including the loading order, does not require
substitution of preferred resources such as renewable DG for all new natural gasfired generation. The primacy of the loading order does not obviate the need for
conventional, dispatchable generation to ensure reliability given the current state of
renewable DG technologies:
o Renewable DG fails to meet the project objective of developing dispatchable,
flexible capacity, which is needed to balance an electricity system with a large
amount of variable energy generation resources (e.g., solar DG). At present, its
development increases ramping and regulation and reserve needs, and thus
increases the need for flexible, dispatchable generation (or rapid-response
demand-side) resources. Advances in solar PV, communications, and storage
technologies will reduce—and may someday all but eliminate—the impact of
variable generation resources on the need for dispatchable, flexible conventional
generation. In fact, these technologies may someday allow a distribution system
operator to dispatch renewable DG with storage, allowing it to provide the
reliability services that we now get from natural gas-fired generation. However,
these advances will not supplant natural gas-fired resources in the ten-year
planning horizon.
o Renewable DG cannot meet the project objective of providing a rapid response
to contingency events (the sudden failure of major system components such as
large power plants or transmission lines). Again, while technological advances
may someday make this possible, such is not the case for the immediate future.
Renewable DG can currently make only a limited contribution to providing
capacity in support of local resource adequacy requirements. San Diego’s peak
demand in summer occurs midafternoon when one MW of solar DG reliably
produces roughly one-half MW of energy. As the penetration of solar resources
increases, the incremental effect of additional solar capacity on the (net) peak
demand in the San Diego area will be smaller, and will continue to be so until
energy from DG projects can be stored for a multi-hour period.



Lack of Defined Projects with Sites – The proposed amended CECP would be
constructed and operated at the existing EPS site. By contrast, a renewable DG
alternative is indeterminate and impossible to analyze. Some renewable DG projects
are carried out by proponents and agencies at defined sites; however, the existence
of renewable DG projects does not mean that a DG alternative, as a category of
renewable energy generation, could be a valid alternative to replacing a central
station power plant at an existing industrial site. Achieving a level of electrical
generation comparable to the amended CECP would require putting together many

ALTERNATIVES

4.2-12

February 2015

 small-scale (approximately one - five MWs each) sites that could, in theory, include
rooftop and ground-mount PV systems for a distributed generation photovoltaic
project (DGPV). Even if such sites could be identified, it is unreasonable to assume
the petitioner could obtain access to and use of multiple small sites that are owned
and controlled by other people or organizations. The feasibility of a renewable DG
alternative is extremely speculative.


Failure to Meet Most of the Project Objectives – CEQA emphasizes consideration of
alternatives that would meet most of the basic project objectives for a project under
consideration. The amended CECP includes an objective to improve the regional
electrical system reliability through fast-starting generating technology, create a
rapid responding resource for peak demand situations, and provide a dependable
resource to backup intermittent renewable resources like wind generation and solar.
A DG alternative is extremely limited in its ability to meet these basic project
objectives. Also, a DG alternative would not attain these basic project objectives:
o Failure to meet the project objectives addressing use of the existing EPS site to
modernize aging electrical generation infrastructure, retirement of the existing
EPS units, and compliance with the State Water Board’s OTC Policy.
o Failure to use the existing infrastructure at the EPS site and redevelop the
existing brownfield site. The EPS site does not encroach on designated resource
areas and is not prohibited from reasonable expansion at its existing site.
Continued use of the EPS site for power production avoids the potential
environmental impacts of constructing and operating new gas-fired generation at
a different site.
o Failure to attain the project owner’s objective to meet the commercial
qualifications for long-term power contract opportunities in Southern California.



Policy Goals to Maintain Reliability – State law emphasizes the importance of
maintaining the reliability of the electric grid, including sections of the Public Utilities
Code addressing the importance of maintaining reliable electric services to the
state’s citizens and businesses (cited above). The proposed amended CECP is
consistent with the project objective to improve the San Diego regional electrical
system reliability through fast-starting generating technology. Renewable DG is
currently extremely limited in its ability to support these policy goals.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED
CONSIDERATION
Section 15126.6, subdivision (c) of the CEQA Guidelines describes selection of a
reasonable range of alternatives and the requirement to include those that could
feasibly accomplish most of the basic project objectives while avoiding or substantially
lessening one or more of the significant effects. The analysis should identify any
alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible.
CEQA requires a brief explanation of the reasons underlying the lead agency’s
determination to eliminate alternatives from detailed analysis.
The following alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed consideration
for the amended CECP. Those alternatives that were not carried forward for full analysis
February 2015

4.2-13

ALTERNATIVES

 include alternative sites, alternative technologies, and a reduced capacity alternative.
The following provides staff’s reasons for eliminating these alternatives from detailed
analysis.

ALTERNATIVE SITES
Relationship of the Proposed Amended CECP to the Project Site
The Warren-Alquist Act addresses aspects of an applicant’s site selection criteria for
thermal power plants and the use of an existing industrial site for such use when the
project has a strong relationship to the existing industrial site. When this is the case, it is
“reasonable not to analyze alternative sites for the project” (Pub. Resources Code, §
25540.6, subd. (b)). The analysis below addresses the project’s strong relationship to
the project site from a regulatory and practical standpoint and provides a framework for
staff’s selection of the project alternatives.
Use of the Existing EPS Site for Electrical Power Generation
The long-term historical use of the project site for electrical power generation is
applicable to the discussion of the project’s strong relationship to the site. This analysis
recognizes the fact that the amended CECP would be constructed and operated within
the existing EPS site at the same location as the licensed CECP.
The EPS Units 1, 2 and 3 were constructed in the 1950s, and feature 100-, 104- and
110-MW General Electric (GE) steam turbines and generators, respectively. EPS Units
4 and 5 were built in the 1970s, and utilize approximately 300-MW and 330-MW
Westinghouse steam turbines and generators, respectively. Additionally, a 17-MW GE
Frame five simple-cycle gas turbine and generator is used for black-start back feed
capability. All five units contain steam boilers, and all units are connected to the ocean
water intake and discharge systems. The 400-foot-tall exhaust stack is shared by all five
units. Other miscellaneous equipment and structures west of the North County Transit
District (NCTD) railroad tracks that bi-sect the 95-acre EPS property include
administrative, operations, and maintenance buildings and wastewater storage tanks
and associated pumps that manage EPS’s wastewater system. Additionally, SDG&E’s
Encina 138-kilovolt (kV) and 230-kV switchyards and transmission towers occupy
acreage west of the NCTD tracks, as does the nearly completed Carlsbad Desalination
Project.
The licensed CECP was certified by the Energy Commission on May 31, 2012. The
licensed CECP would have permanently retired EPS Units 1, 2, and 3 (but not units 4
and 5) once the licensed CECP was constructed and fully operational (Energy
Commission 2012a).
The amended CECP facility would be located on a 30-acre parcel on the northeast
corner of the 95-acre EPS property in Carlsbad. The 23-acre licensed CECP was
permitted at the same location, with the additional seven acres accrued by including all
four above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) that compose the EPS east tank farm
(ASTs 4–7). The seven-acres around and under AST 4 would be added to the
previously permitted area of ASTs 5, 6 and 7, as well as the berm separating ASTs 4
and 5, resulting in the 30-acre project footprint proposed by the amended CECP.
ALTERNATIVES

4.2-14

February 2015

 The amended CECP proposes implementing the following general changes to the
licensed CECP:


Change in generation equipment and technology from Siemens fast response,
combined-cycle to GE LMS100 simple-cycle turbines to allow better support of
renewable energy integration and local and regional demand.



Retirement and demolition of EPS units 1 through 5 and demolition of all abovegrade elements of the EPS power and support buildings west of the NCTD railroad
tracks.

The amended CECP would replace the aging EPS infrastructure with more efficient,
effective generating units and ancillary equipment that would all be located east of the
NCTD railroad tracks. The amended CECP would be further set back from Carlsbad
State Beach when compared to both the existing EPS facilities and some facets of the
licensed CECP, including the administrative building and control room. Movement of all
necessary power plant equipment to the east side of the rail tracks would then allow for
demolition of all above-grade EPS facilities west of the rail tracks, and enable future,
non-power redevelopment of those portions of the EPS property. Refer to the Project
Description section of this Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for more details on specific
components of the modified project and accompanying figures identifying existing and
proposed project features and facilities.
Expansion of Existing Coastal Power Plants
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) protects coastal resources from the
major impacts of power plant siting. In 1978, the California Coastal Commission
(Coastal Commission) adopted a report that satisfied a requirement of the Coastal Act
to designate specific locations in the coastal zone where the location of an electric
generating facility would prevent the achievement of the objectives of the Coastal Act
(Pub. Resources Code, § 30413, subd. (b)). The 1978 report was revised in 1984 and
re-adopted in 1985 (Coastal Commission 1985). In accordance with the Coastal Act, the
report designates sensitive resource areas along the California coast as unsuitable for
power plant construction and provides “that specific locations that are presently used for
such facilities and reasonable expansion thereof shall not be so designated.” This policy
encourages expansion of existing power plant sites if new plants are necessary, thereby
protecting undeveloped coastal areas (Coastal Commission 1985).
In a related effort, the Energy Commission prepared a 1980 study that examined
opportunities for the reasonable expansion of existing power plants in the state’s
Coastal Zone and reviewed the effects of the designated resource areas on expansion
opportunities (Energy Commission 1980). The 1980 study defines reasonable in this
context to mean the provision or maintenance of land area adequate to satisfy a specific
site’s share of the state’s need for increased electrical power generating capacity over
the Energy Commission’s planning intervals of 12 and 20 years (Energy Commission
1980). The study also gives practical consideration to coastal power plant expansion
and siting opportunities. The ancillary support facilities already exist at the power plant
sites, and the industrial-type land use has been established, which are important points
to consider from a practical standpoint (Energy Commission 1980).

February 2015

4.2-15

ALTERNATIVES

 The expansion areas should be inside or adjacent to the existing site boundaries, or
within a distance that would permit the cost effective use of the existing power plant
support facilities, where necessary or advisable.
The 1980 study describes expansion opportunities for various combinations of plant
types and sizes at 20 of the 25 evaluated sites. The EPS is characterized as having
existing expansion opportunities for various plant sizes and fuel types. “Available land
and endangered animal habitat impacts are all severe, but not prohibitive, constraints.”
“Available land constraints limit lateral expansion opportunities. Expansion opportunities
exist on agricultural land owned by SDG&E inland of I-5. Urban land use encroachment
is the primary contributor to reduction of availability of land” (Energy Commission 1980).
The proposed amended CECP project would be located inside the existing EPS site
boundary, and no off-site expansion of power plant facilities would be required.
Off-site Alternatives Considered in the Previous Analysis for the Licensed CECP
Section 15126.6, subdivision (f)(2)(c) of the CEQA Guidelines describes that where a
previous document has sufficiently analyzed a range of reasonable alternative locations
and environmental impacts for projects with the same basic purpose, the Lead Agency
should review the previous document. The EIR may rely on the previous document to
help it assess the feasibility of potential project alternatives to the extent the
circumstances remain substantially the same as they relate to the alternative.
A total of five candidate alternative sites were initially identified for analysis for the
licensed CECP. In considering potential off-site project alternatives, the previous
analysis identified screening criteria to guide the selection of alternatives. For an
alternative to be carried forward for full consideration, it would have to meet most of
these criteria (Energy Commission 2012a, p. 3-3):


Avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the potential significant effects of the
proposed project;



Satisfy the following criteria:
o Site suitability, including size (at least 23 acres were required for the original
power plant equipment, plus laydown and construction set-aside space);
o Availability of infrastructure—the site should be within a reasonable distance of
transmission, natural gas and water supply networks, as well as immediately
accessible by roads capable of transporting large equipment and supplies;
o Location that precludes significant noise, public health, and/or visual impacts to
adjacent residential areas or sensitive receptors (such as day care centers,
nursing homes, schools, and public recreation areas);
o Compliance with local land use and zoning designations;
o Site control—the site should be void of any site encumbrances (physical or
administrative obstructions to long-term use of property) and should be available
for sale or long-term lease; and
o Attainment of basic project objectives.

ALTERNATIVES

4.2-16

February 2015

 Of the five alternative sites, the Carlsbad Safety Center Site and the Encina Wastewater
Authority Site were rejected as not meeting most of the screening criteria.
Carlsbad Safety Center Site
Based on significant unmitigable aviation impacts coupled with potentially significant
land use compatibility impacts and the lack of nearby associated electric infrastructure
(transmission lines) development concerns, this alternative did not meet staff’s
screening criteria and was eliminated from further consideration (Energy Commission
2009, p. 6-7).
Encina Wastewater Authority Site
Although the site is zoned Public Utility, all 25.23 acres are fully developed with the
existing Encina Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Carlsbad Water Reclamation
Plant. Therefore, because the EWA site lacks sufficient acreage, this alternative did not
meet staff’s screening criteria and was eliminated from further consideration (Energy
Commission 2009, p. 6-8).
The remaining three sites that satisfied most of the screening criteria were the Maerkle
Alternative, the Carlsbad Oaks North Alternative, and the CATO Alternative, and they
were fully evaluated in the analysis for the licensed CECP. Their locations are plotted
on Alternatives Figure 1. Brief summaries from the Energy Commission’s decision on
the licensed CECP evaluating these three alternative sites are provided below. Please
refer to the Commission Decision on the licensed CECP (as well as the Final Staff
Assessment) for additional details regarding the evaluation of these sites (Energy
Commission 2012a and 2009).
Maerkle Alternative
Due to the site’s proximate location to residential development, the required increase in
construction of the site and linear infrastructure, the visual impacts associated with the
elevated topography of the site and required project stacks, the required conversion of a
greenfield site to brownfield development, the necessary change in zoning designations,
the uncertainty on aviation safety, and the need for significant construction and routing
of required utility connections, the previous analysis concluded that this alternative
would result in an increase in potential environmental impacts when compared to the
CECP. Furthermore, development of this site could potentially have involved
considerable time for securing required utility rights-of-way (ROWs). The Final Decision
concluded that the Maerkle site would fail to substantially lessen environmental impacts
when compared to the proposed CECP, and might actually have caused impacts that
would be worse. The Final Decision also concluded that the Maerkle Alternative site
would likely have been infeasible (Energy Commission 2012a, p. 3-4, 6).
Carlsbad Oaks North Alternative
Due to the visual impacts associated with the elevated topography of the site and
required project stacks, the possible intensified use of the site with heavy industrial
development, the necessary change in zoning designations, the uncertainty on aviation
safety, and the need for significant construction and routing of required utility
connections, this alternative would have resulted in an increase in potential

February 2015

4.2-17

ALTERNATIVES

 environmental impacts when compared to the CECP. Furthermore, development of this
site could potentially have involved considerable time in terms of securing the site and
obtaining required utility ROWs. The Final Decision concluded that the Oaks North site
would fail to substantially lessen environmental impacts when compared to the
proposed CECP, and could have caused greater impacts (Energy Commission 2012a,
p. 3-6, 9).
CATO Alternative
Due to the site’s immediate adjacency to residential development, the required increase
in construction of the access roads, the visual impacts associated with the elevated
topography of the site and required project stacks, the required conversion of an open
space site to brownfield development, the necessary change in zoning designations, the
uncertainty regarding aviation safety, and the need for significant construction and
routing of required utility connections, this alternative would have resulted in an increase
in environmental impacts when compared to the CECP. Furthermore, development of
this site could potentially have involved considerable time in terms of securing the site
and required utility ROWs resulting in time delays involved in project licensing. The
Final Decision concluded that the CATO site failed to substantially lessen environmental
impacts when compared to the proposed CECP, and could have caused greater
impacts (Energy Commission 2012a, p. 3-8, 11).

Alternative Site Summary
The Commission Decision for the licensed CECP concluded that no site alternative was
capable of meeting most of the project objectives (Energy Commission 2012a, p. 21),
and the environmental analyses resulted in conclusions that impacts of the off-site
alternatives would be greater than those of the licensed CECP. The discussions and
conclusions in the Commission Decision for the licensed CECP regarding the
alternative sites are still relevant to the amended CECP and do not require revisions.
Any alternative that would, in theory, require conversion of some other area of similar
acreage to a new electrical power generation facility would bring into question some of
the feasibility issues listed above. The petitioner owns and has full access to the EPS
site, and no other site is identified where the facility owner could reasonably acquire site
access to allow the timely completion of necessary environmental reviews, permitting,
and approvals. Furthermore, staff’s analysis provides evidence of the amended CECP’s
strong relationship to the project site, and no off-site location has been identified that
would avoid or substantially lessen any significant effects of the proposed modified
project; therefore, off-site alternatives were eliminated from further detailed
consideration.

TECHNOLOGY ALTERNATIVES
In Appendix 5.1C, Evaluation of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) of the
CECP PTA, the petitioner evaluated basic equipment alternatives in lieu of the
proposed simple-cycle gas turbines including renewable energy sources (e.g., solar,
wind, etc.) and combined-cycle turbines. The BACT analysis states that renewable
energy facilities require significantly more land to construct, and need to be located in
areas with very specific characteristics. Wind and solar facilities have power generation
profiles that cannot match demand; conventional power plants are needed in order to
follow demand. The capital costs for wind or solar facilities are substantially higher than
ALTERNATIVES

4.2-18

February 2015

 for a comparable conventional facility, making financing of such a project significantly
different. Solar and wind facilities require much more land than is available at the project
site (LL 2014, pg. 5.1C-3). Furthermore, the Commission Final Decision for the licensed
CECP determined that geothermal, solar, wind or biomass technologies did not present
feasible alternatives, and did not meet the following two critical project objectives:


Meet the expanding need for new, highly efficient, reliable electrical generating
resources that are dispatchable by the CAISO, and are located in the “load pocket”
of the San Diego region; and



Improve San Diego electrical system reliability through fast starting generating
technology, creating a rapid responding resource for peak demand situation and
providing a dependable resource to backup intermittent renewable resources like
wind generation and solar (Energy Commission 2012a, pg. 3-19).

As an alternative to the amended CECP, retrofitting existing units of the EPS while
maintaining the existing boilers would not provide the operating flexibility and efficiency
improvement offered by the GE LMS100. Boilers have very high thermal inertia, so are
not quick-starting or fast ramping. Boiler technology is generally used for base-load
power and not for highly variable demand response power applications. Because boiler
technology cannot meet the objectives of the project, it is not considered a
technologically feasible alternative (LL 2014, pg. 5.1C-17).
For additional information regarding the amended CECP power plant configuration and
equipment selection, please refer to the Power Plant Efficiency section of this FSA.

REDUCED CAPACITY ALTERNATIVE
Staff analyzed a reduced capacity alternative that would consist of four GE LMS100s
providing a net nominal output of approximately 421 MWs, instead of six GE LMS100s
totaling 632 MWs as proposed for the amended CECP.
Staff found that the reduced capacity alternative would likely provide no notable
differences in environmental impacts compared to the amended CECP in the areas of
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Facility Design, Geology & Paleontology,
Hazardous Materials Management, Land Use, Power Plant Efficiency, Power Plant
Reliability, Soil & Water Resources, Transmission Line Safety and Nuisance,
Transmission System Engineering, and Worker Safety and Fire Protection.
Staff found that the reduced capacity alternative could potentially result in slight
increases or decreases in the already less than significant impacts of the amended
CECP in the areas of Air Quality, Noise & Vibration, Public Health, Socioeconomics,
Traffic & Transportation, and Waste Management, which are briefly described below.
If Phase I: Tank Demolition and Remediation of the amended CECP remains the same,
as described in the Project Description section of this FSA, the impacts in the areas of
Air Quality, Noise & Vibration, Public Health, Socioeconomics, Traffic & Transportation,
and Waste Management would be the same during this phase. If some of the activities
proposed for Phase I are not required under the reduced capacity alternative, such as
the removal and remediation of ASTs 1, 2, and 4, then impacts in the areas of Air
Quality, Noise & Vibration, Public Health, and Traffic & Transportation could be slightly
February 2015

4.2-19

ALTERNATIVES

 decreased due to factors such as a potentially shorter schedule, smaller workforce, and
less vehicle trips. Conversely, a shorter schedule and smaller workforce would provide
less economic benefits in the area of Socioeconomics.
The impacts for the reduced capacity alternative would be similar or slightly decreased
for the reduced capacity alternative during Phase II: Construction, Commissioning and
Operation of the amended CECP in the areas of Air Quality, Noise & Vibration, Public
Health, and Traffic & Transportation if the construction schedule is shortened due to a
reduction in the number of units installed. Noise & Vibration impacts under the reduced
capacity alternative during the construction period could be slightly less due to a
possibly shorter construction schedule. As in Phase I, if the construction schedule is
shorter and a smaller construction workforce is needed in Phase II, then less economic
benefits in the area of Socioeconomics would be provided.
During operation of the reduced capacity alternative, annual air pollutant emissions
could possibly be less if one assumes that the same 2,700 hours per turbine per year
limit remains, and that the facility is run according to those hourly limits. Such
assumptions would reduce impacts in the areas of Air Quality and Public Health,
although these benefits are speculative given that peaker units are typically operated at
levels far below their hourly limits. Noise & Vibration impacts during operation would be
slightly less in certain locations depending on which two GE LMS100s were eliminated,
but again, the impacts of the amended CECP are already less than significant and
easily conform to local LORS. The thermal plumes from four stacks instead of six would
still need to be avoided for aviation safety.
If Phase III: Retirement and Decommissioning of the EPS units and Phase IV: EPS
Demolition would remain the same as proposed for the amended CECP, impacts during
this phase would also remain the same in the areas of Air Quality, Noise & Vibration,
Public Health, Socioeconomics, Traffic & Transportation, and Waste Management.
Eliminating the two southernmost GE LMS100s (Units 10 and 11) could allow one or
two transmission poles to be eliminated or moved below the “bowl” grade, reducing
potential impacts and would reduce the number and spatial extent of visible exhaust
stacks and generation components, reducing Visual Resources impacts. However,
eliminating Units 10 and 11 would not reduce impacts in the most constrained area for
visual mitigation, in the area east of Units 6 through 9. From a visual perspective,
elimination of Units 6 and 7 or 8 and 9 would cause a greater reduction in visual
impacts. The Visual Resources section of this FSA states that significant adverse
cumulative visual impacts could result, not from the amended CECP, but from the
planned Caltrans North Coast Interstate 5 (I-5) High-occupancy Vehicle
(HOV)/Managed Lanes Project (requiring the highway to be widened), in combination
with the proposed amended CECP. While the reduced capacity alternative would
somewhat reduce potential cumulative visual impacts, it would not avoid or substantially
lessen the impacts to a level such that staff could eliminate the recommendation for a
finding of (potential) significant cumulative environmental effect requiring changes or
alterations of the project within the responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency,
which can and should provide such mitigation, as stated in the Visual Resources
section. Moreover, the Visual Resources section concludes that visual impacts for the
amended CECP, even when combined with those of a future I-5 freeway widening, can
ALTERNATIVES

4.2-20

February 2015

 likely be effectively mitigated by vegetative screening provided by either Caltrans or
NRG.
A reduced capacity alternative of four GE LMS100s instead of six GE LMS100s on the
site of the amended CECP would likely be configured to allow for possible future
expansion and installation of the two additional GE LMS100s if the alternative should
fail to provide the needed capacity. If this was not the case, then the reduced capacity
alternative could potentially require the development of additional capacity at another,
possibly undeveloped location in the San Diego region.
As described in the Project Description section of this FSA, the project owner and the
city of Carlsbad have reached a settlement agreement that includes obligations such as
the decommissioning and demolition of the EPS, which would enable compliance with
the State Water Board’s existing December 31, 2017, deadline for reducing the
impingement and entrainment effects of OTC by the EPS. It would probably be
infeasible for the project owner to redesign the project from six units to four units and
have adequate time left to secure the necessary Energy Commission license
amendment and other permits needed to construct a reduced capacity alternative in
time to meet the State Water Board’s deadline. In addition, two fewer units would result
in less operational flexibility, because CA ISO would not have the option of dispatching
all six units, if needed. Significant project schedule delays would likely render this
alternative financially infeasible.
Staff eliminated the reduced capacity alternative from further detailed consideration
because a smaller plant would not avoid or substantially reduce significant
environmental impacts. This alternative could potentially require future expansion or the
development of additional capacity at another, possibly undeveloped location in the San
Diego region. Compared to the amended CECP, potential benefits in the areas of Air
Quality and Public Health are speculative and would likely be minimal. Project schedule
delays associated with the reduced capacity alternative would reduce its potential
feasibility and viability as an alternative to the amended CECP.

NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
This analysis evaluates the “no project” alternative to the amended CECP to fulfill the
requirements of Section 15126, subdivision (e) (1) of CEQA. As discussed in the
subsection “Energy Commission Staff’s Alternatives Screening Process,” the Energy
Commission is required to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project to
the impacts of not approving the project. The “no project” analysis shall discuss the
existing conditions at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as
what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were
not approved (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15126.6, subd. (e) (2)).
Should the amended CECP not be approved, the “no project” alternative could
reasonably be one of two no-project scenarios. The first scenario would be construction
of the licensed CECP (“licensed CECP scenario”). The second scenario assumes
continuance of current conditions at the EPS site with no new construction (“no-build
scenario”).

February 2015

4.2-21

ALTERNATIVES

 The technical sections within this FSA provide a detailed comparative analysis of
whether the proposed changes included in the amended CECP would result in any new
or any increased impacts or any increase in severity of impacts addressed in the
licensed CECP proceeding. Under the licensed CECP scenario, key changes included
in the amended CECP that would potentially reduce impacts over the licensed CECP
would not occur, such as:


The addition of the shutdown and decommissioning of the EPS’s once-through
cooled Units 1 through 5 and small combustion turbine, and the subsequent abovegrade removal of those units, the enclosure building that houses them, and other
existing buildings and support facilities at the EPS, including the 400-ft exhaust
stack. The amended CECP would allow better grid support from the shutdown of the
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, an advantage lost by the “no project”
alternative.



Redesign of the CECP into a simple-cycle combustion gas turbine power plant that
would be able to better serve the region’s electrical need of flexible, fast-start
generating technology, to more fully integrate renewable energy and ensure a
reliable and stable electrical grid.



Reduced visibility of the new generating units and exhaust stacks, which would have
considerably lower height and profile than the licensed CECP.



Improved site access, mobility and fire suppression that would satisfy the city of
Carlsbad Fire Department.



Support from the city of Carlsbad that would make the use of reclaimed water much
more feasible and likely.



Improved conformity to local land use ordinances and elimination of overrides of
LORS that would no longer be necessary.



Permanent elimination of seawater OTC at the generating station site.



Coordination of the project as part of a larger settlement agreement with the city of
Carlsbad and SDG&E that would benefit the environment, and promote open space
and coastal access for both residents and visitors alike.

According to the petitioner’s BACT analysis, the use of a combined-cycle turbine (as in
the licensed CECP Siemens SCC6-5000F natural-gas fired combustion turbines)
instead of the simple-cycle GE LMS 100 turbines proposed in the amended CECP
would now be less preferable or appropriate to meet project objectives. As discussed in
the Air Quality analysis of this FSA, the simple-cycle turbines are needed to effectively
handle variable loads and perform multiple startups/shutdowns per day. While
advanced combined-cycle turbines can start relatively quickly (within approximately 12
minutes to reach 100 percent rated capacity of the gas turbine generator), they may
need as much as two hours to reach full combined-cycle output (combined output of gas
turbine and steam turbine generator). While operating in simple cycle mode (while
waiting for the steam system to warm up), fast-start combined-cycle units will have
efficiencies that are no better than, and are likely worse than, those achieved with
advanced simple-cycle turbines such as the GE LMS100. Further, such units cannot
perform up to four starts per day, as required for the amended CECP project, without
substantially shortening the life of the unit (LL 2014, pg. 5.1C-16). Staff concurs with this
ALTERNATIVES

4.2-22

February 2015

 information in the Power Plant Efficiency section of this FSA. For additional
information please refer to the “Comparison of Power Plant Alternatives” subsection of
the Power Plant Efficiency section.
In the Commission Decision for the licensed CECP, the Energy Commission concluded
that if all of the conditions of certification were implemented, construction and operation
of the licensed CECP would not create any significant direct, indirect, or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts other than those associated with LORS inconsistency
(and required overrides). (Energy Commission 2012a, pg. 3-22). As concluded
throughout this FSA, staff has found that if all of the proposed conditions of certification
are implemented, the amended CECP also would not create any significant direct,
indirect, or cumulative adverse environmental impacts (with the potential exception of
the I-5 widening cumulative impact) and would include many improvements over the
licensed CECP, including the elimination of all but one of the overrides in the area of
Land Use. Staff notes that the Traffic & Transportation section identified greater
potential thermal plume exhaust velocities from the simple-cycle turbine exhaust stacks,
but the impacts remain less than significant with the implementation of the applicable
existing conditions of certification from the licensed CECP.
The Energy Commission also found that even if the licensed CECP was constructed,
the CAISO could mandate the continued operation of EPS Units 4 and 5 for electric
reliability purposes until further generation or transmission upgrades allowed for their
decommissioning. If the amended CECP is not approved and built, the region would not
benefit from the relatively efficient source of 92 MWs of new generation that the
amended CECP (632 MWs) would provide over the licensed CECP (540 MWs)
alternative. Moreover, the amended CECP generation would increase the supply of faststart, rapid-response energy, better serve load demands in the San Diego region, and
better respond to the fluctuating system needs that accompany higher deliveries of
intermittent renewable generation, combined with the retirement of the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station.
Under the no-build scenario, neither the licensed CECP nor the amended CECP would
be constructed. This scenario would be similar to the no project alternative previously
analyzed by staff and the Energy Commission in the licensed CECP proceeding. The
Energy Commission found that if the CECP was not constructed, the CAISO indicated
that EPS Units 4 and 5 would be required to stay on line indefinitely, thereby delaying
compliance with the state’s OTC policy directed at reducing impacts to the marine
environment (Energy Commission 2012a, pg. 3-22).
If no new natural gas plants were constructed, reliance on older power plants could
increase. These plants would consume more fuel and emit more air pollutants per
kilowatt-hour generated than the proposed modified project. In the near term, the more
likely result is that existing plants, many of which produce higher levels of pollutants,
would operate more than they do now. The no-build scenario would likely result in other
energy projects needed to serve the predicted demand for the service area and electric
system, and would not make use of the existing EPS infrastructure. It is assumed that
under the no-build scenario, the EPS would continue to operate under existing
conditions for an undetermined period of time. It is possible that a project similar to the
CECP could be permitted and constructed elsewhere in the San Diego area, although
February 2015

4.2-23

ALTERNATIVES

 no specific site or project is identified; therefore, the potential impacts of such a project
are unknown.
Under both the licensed CECP scenario and the no-build scenario, the “no project”
alternative would not achieve most of the basic project objectives of the amended
CECP.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN: 203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: Terramar comments that the amended CECP has stood in the way of new
renewable generation since there was no RFO, making the amended CECP
inconsistent with the Avenal Precedent decision. Since there has been no RFO allowed
for renewable generation, Terramar would like to again ask staff to explain how this is
not interference as there was no opportunity for this generation to be provided by
renewables.
Response: In its 2012 LTPP proceeding (R.12-03-014), the CPUC allowed SDG&E
to procure up to 600 MWs of natural gas-fired generation to fulfill its need for 800
MWs of capacity (D.14-03-004; March 13, 2014). The remaining need for capacity
was assumed to be met by 200 MWs of new preferred resources (renewables,
energy storage, demand-side programs), in addition to those preferred resources
assumed to be developed in the CPUC’s Standardized Planning Assumptions2 and
the Energy Commission’s California Energy Demand 2012–2022 Final Forecast,
which were used to estimate the total need for new capacity (CPUC 2012b, Energy
Commission 2012b). D.14-03-004 also allowed SDG&E to procure this capacity
though bilateral negotiation.
D. 14-03-004 contains a lengthy discussion of its decision to allow up to 600 MWs of
the needed capacity to be met with gas-fired generation. Factors considered
included uncertainty regarding the availability of new preferred resources in a timely
fashion and their contribution to meeting local reliability needs, as well as the lead
time needed to develop gas-fired generation resources should they prove necessary
for local reliability.
In July 2014, SDG&E filed Application 14-07-009 for approval of a long-term contract
with Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC; the CPUC is hearing testimony considering a
contract between CECP and SDG&E and whether an all-source RFO should be
required before such a contract is considered (i.e., whether incremental renewable
(and demand-side) resources can reliably be expected to substitute for a share of
the capacity (and related services) that the CECP would provide). The appropriate

2

Standardized Planning Assumptions are the set of assumptions regarding demand, resource additions
and retirements, fuel prices, etc. that parties are required to accept in the analysis undertaken in the
CPUC's LTPP proceedings (e.g., the analysis that led to the finding of a need for 800 MWs of new
capacity in the San Diego area). The assumptions used in the 2012 LTPP proceeding were issued on
June 27, 2012, as an attachment to the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling on Standardized Planning
Assumptions (CPUC 2012b).
ALTERNATIVES

4.2-24

February 2015

 place for considering this issue is the CPUC’s proceeding, not the Energy
Commission’s siting process.
The Avenal decision was not intended to provide Energy Commission review of CPUC
procurement decisions. The provision in the Avenal decision stating that new natural
gas-fired generation must not “interfere…with the integration of new renewable
generation…” simply requires that, when and where natural gas-fired generation is
developed in order to ensure system and local reliability, its design and operating
characteristics be such that it facilitate the integration of variable energy renewable
generation (i.e., that it be fast-starting, fast-ramping, and be capable of cycling on and
off in accordance with system needs). Peaker facilities such as the amended CECP
meet this requirement.
Comment: Terramar lists transmission upgrades from the CAISO’s 2013–2014
approved transmission plan and states that these transmission alternatives are not
presented in the PSA. Terramar would like for staff to consider these transmission
alternatives in the FSA. Terramar comments that the amended CECP is too large of a
project, especially with this abundance of transmission upgrades, and a better
alternative would be a 400-MW project or smaller.
Response: The need for new generation capacity is determined in the CPUC’s
LTPP proceeding. While new transmission is a substitute for new generation
capacity in many circumstances, and may very well be a substitute for such capacity
at the location of the CECP, the CPUC has considered the impact of planned and
potential transmission upgrades, including those mentioned above, in authorizing the
development of up to 600 MWs of new natural-gas-fired generation in the San Diego
area. The appropriate venues for commenting on the CPUC’s authorization and
SDG&E’s proposal to enter into a contract with the CECP were and are the 2012
LTPP proceeding and A.14-07-009, not the Energy Commission’s siting case.
Comment: Terramar suggests that staff consider the alternative of at most 400 MWs for
the project. This would mitigate all of these serious site issues. Terramar would like to
comment that the amended CECP is just too big for the site.
Response: Staff has provided an analysis of an approximately 400-MW alternative
under the “Reduced Capacity Alternative” subsection above.

PETITIONER: CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER LLC, TN: 203549,
JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The petitioner recommends the following edit regarding once-through power
plant cooling as part of the No Project Alternative on p. 4.2-16 of the PSA:
“The Amended CECP would allow faster and more complete response to both the
pending OTC reductions and better grid support from the shutdown of the San Onofre
Nuclear Generating Station.”
Response: Staff agrees with the comment and has incorporated the suggested edit.

February 2015

4.2-25

ALTERNATIVES

 RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE ORDER FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY
STAFF ASSESSMENT (PSA)
COMMITTEE ORDER, TN: 203527, JANUARY 15, 2015
Following its review of the PSA, the Committee directed staff to provide additional
information and analysis, as identified in the Order, in preparing its Final Staff
Assessment. Those relevant to alternatives are summarized and addressed below:
Comment: The PSA discusses alternative sites by referring to the discussion in the
2012 Final Decision. The PSA also suggests that it is not necessary to discuss
alternative sites due to the project’s “strong relationship to the existing industrial site,”
citing Public Resources Code section 25540.6. Please clarify which of these two
approaches staff is recommending and discuss whether any of the 2012 Final
Decision’s discussions and conclusions regarding the alternative sites require revisions.
Response: Staff has added additional language to the “Alternative Site Summary”
subsection to clarify that both rationales are applicable to the elimination of
alternative sites as alternatives to the amended CECP. The FSA includes an
extensive site analysis review which establishes the lack of feasible site alternatives
and also cites a statute that states that an alternative analysis is unnecessary in this
situation. Staff has also clarified in this subsection that the alternative sites analysis
in the prior licensing decision does not require revisions.
Comment: Regarding the demand-side management (DSM) and distributed generation
(DG) alternatives, we direct that the discussion of those alternatives be expanded to
include current information about the barriers to more extensive use of those resources,
timing issues, and the efforts that are being made to overcome those barriers.
Response: Staff has augmented the analysis with details on the status of energy
efficiency measures and demand response programs, their coordinated role with
conventional natural gas-fired generation to maintain system reliability, the joint
responsibilities of the energy agencies to continue to increase energy efficiency and
demand response, and timing issues. Staff’s analysis of renewable DG is similarly
augmented. Please see the analyses under the subheadings, “Demand-Side
Management: Energy Efficiency and Demand Response,” and “Distributed
Generation.”
Comment: The PSA discusses whether these alternatives satisfy the project objectives
in general conclusory terms; we direct that the FSA contain a more detailed discussion
regarding satisfaction of each of the identified objectives.
Response: Staff has augmented the analyses of DSM and renewable DG to
evaluate the potential for those resources to attain the project objectives. Please see
the detailed analysis under the subheadings, “Energy Efficiency,” and “Demand
Response,” in this section of the FSA on the potential for those resources to partially
meet some of the CECP’s project objectives. Please also see the analyses in the
subsections, “Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Programs Are Not
Alternatives to the Amended CECP,” and “Distributed Generation Is Not An
Alternative to the Amended CECP,” for additional analyses on the potential for these
preferred resources, including renewable DG, to attain the project objectives.
ALTERNATIVES

4.2-26

February 2015

 Comment: Regarding the Project Objectives, use of “generating” and “generation” in
the first four objectives unnecessarily excludes DSM from consideration. DSM should
be accepted or rejected on its performance characteristics rather than whether it is a
generating resource.
Response: Staff agrees that the project objectives in the PSA emphasized the use
of those terms in a way that could guide the alternatives analysis to consider only
electrical generation alternatives, which is not what staff intended. The terms,
“generating,” and “generation,” first appear in the applicant’s project objectives in the
September 2007 CECP Application for Certification (AFC). Staff has modified the
project objectives in this FSA and has substituted the terms, “reliable energy
resources,” and “fast-starting energy resources,” in the first two project objectives.
Please see the revisions under the subheading, “Project Objectives.”
Comment: In the first objective, please clarify what is meant by the use of “expanding.”
Response: The word, “expanding,” first appears in the applicant’s project objectives
in the September 2007 CECP AFC. Staff assumes it was used to mean,
“increasing,” or something similar. Staff considers its use to be vague and has
omitted it from the first project objective.
Comment: The third to last objective appears to merely duplicate themes contained in
the first and second objectives.
Response: Staff concurs with this comment and has omitted the third to last project
objective from page 4.2-3 of the PSA. It is not included in this FSA.

CONCLUSIONS
Staff has not identified a potentially feasible alternative that would be environmentally
superior to the amended CECP, including the “no project” alternative. Staff considered a
reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed modified project, including alternative
sites, alternative technologies, and a reduced capacity alternative. Each of these
alternatives have been eliminated from detailed consideration due to a failure to meet
most of the basic project objectives, infeasibility, inability to avoid significant
environmental impacts, or any combination thereof. As determined by Energy
Commission staff in this FSA, the demolition, construction, and operation of the
amended CECP would not cause potentially significant adverse impacts with the
incorporation of staff’s recommended modifications to the conditions of certification,
except for the potentially significant cumulative impact on visual resources that would
result with the I-5 widening project.
Staff concludes that:


Energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed generation are not viable or
feasible alternatives to the amended CECP.



Alternative technologies are not capable of meeting the stated project objectives.



No off-site alternative is identified that would avoid or significantly reduce
environmental impacts and meet most project objectives. No off-site alternative is
likely to provide a feasible alternative to the amended CECP.

February 2015

4.2-27

ALTERNATIVES

 

A reduced capacity alternative at the amended CECP site would not substantially
reduce the potentially significant cumulative impact on visual resources.



The reduced capacity alternative could potentially require future expansion or the
development of additional capacity at another, possibly undeveloped location in the San
Diego region.



Project schedule delays associated with the reduced capacity alternative would
reduce its potential feasibility and economic viability as an alternative to the
amended CECP.



No alternative, including the “no project” alternative, would avoid or substantially
lessen potentially significant environmental impacts.



The licensed CECP “no project” scenario would not achieve key changes included in
the amended CECP that would potentially reduce impacts over the licensed CECP.



The no-build “no project” scenario would not provide electrical system benefits,
including support for the integration of renewable energy.



Installation of photovoltaic projects or other local renewable generation is not
capable of providing the local reliability needs that the amended CECP, as a project
objective, is intended to satisfy.



Demand reduction, energy efficiency, and distributed generation are not capable of
meeting project objectives, particularly the objectives that address improving
electrical system reliability and closing the existing EPS to comply with the OTC
Policy.



Coastal Commission policy encourages expansion of existing power plant sites if
new plants are necessary, thereby protecting undeveloped coastal areas (Coastal
Commission 1985).



If all conditions of certification contained in the FSA are implemented, construction
and operation of the CECP would not create any significant direct, indirect, or
cumulative adverse environmental impacts except the one LORS inconsistency
identified in the Land Use section of this FSA and the potentially significant
cumulative impact on visual resources that would result from the I-5 widening project
identified in the Visual Resources section of this FSA.

ALTERNATIVES

4.2-28

February 2015

 REFERENCES
CAISO 2014 - California Independent System Operator, 2013 Annual Report on Market
Issues & Performance. Department of Market Monitoring. April 2014. Page 32.
Available:
http://www.caiso.com/Documents/May1_2014_2013AnnualRpt_MrktIssuesPerfor
mance_ZZ14-4.pdf. Accessed January 23, 2015.
Coastal Commission 1985 - California Coastal Commission. Designation of Coastal
Zone Areas Where Construction of an Electric Power Plant Would Prevent
Achievement of the Objectives of the California Coastal Act of 1976. Adopted
September 1978. Revised 1984. Re-adopted December 1985. San Francisco,
CA.
CPUC 2012a - California Public Utilities Commission, Analysis to Update Energy
Efficiency Potential, Goals, and Targets for 2013 and Beyond, Track 1 Statewide
Investor Owned Utility Energy Efficiency Potential Study. Prepared for the
California Public Utilities Commission. Prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc,
Walnut Creek, CA. May 8, 2012. Available:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/6FF9C18B-CAA0-4D63-ACC6F9CB4EB1590B/0/2011IOUServiceTerritoryEEPotentialStudy.pdf. Accessed
January 27, 2015.
CPUC 2012b - Order Instituting Rulemaking to Integrate and Refine Procurement
Policies and Consider Long-Term Procurement Plans. Assigned Commissioner’s
Ruling on Standardized Planning Assumptions. Rulemaking 12-03-014, Filed
June 27, 2012. Available: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C4BC9550941C-45DD-8DB1A443D65294EE/0/R1203014ACRonplanningassumptions62712.pdf. Accessed
February 10, 2015.
CPUC 2014a - Distributed Generation in California. Available:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/DistGen/. Last updated: April 16, 2014.
Accessed November 24, 2014.
CPUC 2014b - California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS). Available:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/. Accessed November 24,
2014.
Energy Commission 1980 - California Energy Commission. Opportunities to Expand
Coastal Power Plants in California. Staff Report P700-80-001. June 1980.
Sacramento, CA.
Energy Commission 2009 - (TN54068). Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Final Staff
Assessment, dated November 12, 2009. Submitted 11/12/2009.
Energy Commission 2012a - (TN66185). Commission Decision on the Carlsbad
Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
February 2015

4.2-29

ALTERNATIVES

 Energy Commission 2012b - 2012–2022 Final Forecast, Volume 1: Statewide
Electricity Demand and Methods, End-User Natural Gas Demand, and Energy
Efficiency. Commission Final Report. June 2012. Pages 62–72. Publication #
CEC-200-2012-001-CMV-VI.
Energy Commission 2014a - Commission Report, 2014 Draft Integrated Energy Policy
Report Update. November 2014. Pages 188 to 191. Publication # CEC-1002014-001-D, Docket # 14-IEP-1.
Energy Commission 2014b - Integrated Energy Policy Report, 2013 IEPR. Adopted
January 15, 2014. Pages 14, 15, and 143. Publication # CEC-100-2013-001CMF, Docket # 13-IEP-1.
Energy Commission 2014c - Tracking Progress, Renewable Energy. Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/tracking_progress/index.html. Last
Updated: December 31, 2014. Accessed: January 26, 2015.
Go Solar California 2014 - About Go Solar California. Available:
http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/about/index.php. Accessed: November 24,
2014.
LL 2014a - Lock Lord / Carlsbad Energy Center LLC (07-AFC-06C, tn 70442) Petition to
Amend, dated April 2014. Submitted to CEC Dockets on May 2, 2014.

ALTERNATIVES

4.2-30

February 2015

 ALTERNATIVES - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Alternative Project Locations

0
CATO

..

)>

~

m

:rJ

z

~

<
m

Cf)

*

r=-t
~

J
Alternative Project
Locaions

- - ,..J!lll_

0 0.1 0.2
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Califoria Energy Commission Statewide Power Plant Maps 2008, Tele Atlas2008, National Geographic Topo Maps, City of Carlsbad

 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Testimony of Carol Watson

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment (amended CECP or project) is a 632MW natural-gas-fired electrical generating facility that would be constructed on the site
of the existing 95-acre Encina Power Station (EPS) in the city of Carlsbad, California.
Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC (petitioner/project owner), seeks modifications to the
licensed CECP, which was permitted by the Energy Commission on May 31, 2012.
Staff analyzed the changes to the licensed project, which include replacing the
combined-cycle power blocks with simple cycle turbines, reconfiguration of the project
footprint, and the demolition and removal of portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff
concludes that there would not be any new significant biological resource impacts not
previously analyzed, nor an increase in severity of biological resource impacts. Staff
recommends the mitigation as proposed in the conditions of certification below.
The amended CECP project area is highly disturbed, and does not support sensitive
biological resources (e.g., wetlands) or provide suitable habitat for special-status
species. However, the adjacent Agua Hedionda Lagoon is included in the North County
Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP), which covers a portion of San Diego
County. Under the auspices of the MHCP, the city of Carlsbad adopted the Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the city of Carlsbad in 2004. The
HMP directs habitat management practices for several special-status species. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has designated critical habitat for the federally
threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
approximately one mile off the amended CECP site.
The amended CECP would include the demolition of above-ground storage tanks
(ASTs) 1, 2, and 4 (the licensed CECP includes demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7) and
demolition of the EPS, which includes Units 1-5, the concrete enclosure building
housing the units (power plant building), the 400-foot-tall exhaust stack and other
above-ground ancillary facilities. Demolition and removal of the EPS and ASTs 1, 2, and
4 would utilize similar construction equipment and consist of activities similar to those
demolition and removal activities approved for the licensed CECP; and would induce no
new construction-related impacts to biological resources beyond those analyzed for the
licensed project. The amended CECP would be air-cooled and would not employ oncethrough ocean water cooling. Water would be supplied by the city of Carlsbad. The
amended CECP would not withdraw water from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and therefore
would not result in impingement or entrainment of aquatic species.
Staff proposes deleting Condition of Certification BIO-9, for the potential use of
desalinated seawater, as the project’s proposed industrial water use was withdrawn by
the petitioner on September 29, 2014. Implementation of the Conditions of Certification
BIO-1 through BIO-8 and SOIL&WATER-3 and SOIL&WATER-4, would avoid or
minimize potential direct and indirect impacts of the amended CECP to biological
resources on the project site and other special status resources in the vicinity. The
February 2015

4.3-1

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 project owner agrees with staff that Conditions of Certification BIO-1 through BIO-8
remain applicable and appropriate for the amended CECP, and that BIO-9 is no longer
required (LL 2015). Staff concludes that the amended CECP would not result in any
significant unmitigated impacts to biological resources, and with implementation of the
conditions of certification, it would comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations,
and standards (LORS).

INTRODUCTION
This section provides the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) staff’s
analysis of potential impacts to biological resources from demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4,
construction and operation of the amended CECP power plant, and the
decommissioning and demolition of EPS Units 1-5 and above-ground ancillary buildings
west of the railroad tracks. This analysis addresses potential impacts to sensitive
species and other areas of biological concern.
To determine environmental effects of the proposed modifications, and to determine
consistency with applicable LORS, staff has reviewed the CECP Final Staff Assessment
(November 2009), staff’s August 12, 2011 Supplement Testimony, and the CECP
Commission Final Decision (May 31, 2012). The Final Decision consisted of the
Revised Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (RPMPD), dated March 28, 2012, the
Committee Revisions to the RPMPD, dated May 16, 2012, and the May 31, 2012
Errata, and additional changes described within the Commission Adoption Order.
Additionally, staff reviewed proposed modification information submitted by the
petitioner on April 29, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Staff’s analysis was also based on
information gathered during public workshops held on September 25, 2014, and
January 12 and 13, 2015, the project owner’s data responses to staff and intervenor
data requests, and staff’s own independent literature review, and January 12, 2015 site
visit. During a 30-day public comment period following publication of the PSA, the
project owner requested editorial revisions to several conditions, with no effect on the
intent or requirements of each condition.
Staff has also sought feedback and information from the numerous wildlife agencies,
including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the USFWS, the
California Coastal Commission (CCC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency
(NOAA) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Additionally, this analysis
determines compliance with applicable LORS and recommends conditions of
certification such that the amended project would continue to meet all LORS. No new
information or comments have been received by these agencies during the public
comment period on the PSA.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
During all four phases of the amended CECP, the project owner shall abide by the
LORS listed in Biological Resources Table 1. There are no new or changed biological
resource LORS since the original project was certified in 2012 that would affect the
amended project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-2

February 2015

 Biological Resources Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LORS
Federal
Clean Water Act of 1977
(Title 33, United States Code,
sections 1251–1376, and Code
of Federal Regulations, part
30, Section 330.5(a)(26))
Endangered Species Act
(Title 16, United States Code,
sections 1531 et seq.; Title 50,
Code of Federal Regulations,
part 17.1 et seq.)
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Title
16, United States Code,
sections 703–711)
State
California Endangered Species
Act (Fish and Game Code,
sections 2050 et seq.)
California Code of Regulations
(Title 14, sections 670.2 and
670.5)
Fully Protected Species
(Fish and Game Code,
sections 3511, 4700, 5050,
and 5515)
Native Plant Protection Act
(Fish and Game Code, section
1900 et seq.)
Nest or Eggs
(Fish and Game Code, section
3503)

Description

Prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters of the
United States without a Section 404 permit. Section 401 requires a permit
from a regional water quality control board (RWQCB) for the discharge of
pollutants. The administering agency is the USACE.

Designates and provides for the protection of threatened and endangered
plant and animal species and their critical habitat. The administering
agencies are USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
Prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird (or any
part of such migratory nongame bird), including nests with viable eggs.
The administering agency is USFWS.

Protects California’s rare, threatened, and endangered species. The
administering agency is CDFW.
Lists the plants and animals that are classified as rare, threatened, or
endangered, in California. The administering agency is CDFW.
Designates certain species as fully protected and prohibits take of such
species. The administering agency is CDFW.
Designates rare, threatened, and endangered plants in California and
prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants. The administering
agency is CDFW.
Prohibits take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of
any bird. The administering agency is CDFW.

Birds of Prey
(Fish and Game Code section
3503.5)

Specifically protects California’s birds of prey in the orders Falconiformes
and Strigiformes by making it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any
such birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any
such bird. The administering agency is CDFW.

Migratory Birds
(Fish and Game Code, section
3513)

Prohibits take or possession of any migratory nongame bird as designated
in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame
bird. The administering agency is CDFW.

Water Quality Control Plan,
Ocean Waters of California

Acts as the state’s water quality control plan for ocean waters. The plan is
reviewed every three years per federal law (Section 303(c) (1) of the
Clean Water Act) and state law (Section 13170.2(b) of the California
Water Code). The administering agency is the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB).

Porter-Cologne Water Quality
Control Act
California Water Code,
Division 7, section 13142.5(b)

Regulates discharges of waste and fill materials to waters of the state,
including “isolated” waters and wetlands.

February 2015

4.3-3

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 Applicable LORS

Description

Local
North County Multiple Habitat
Conservation Plan (MHCP)

Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) for Natural
Communities in the City of
Carlsbad

Local Coastal Program (LCP)
& Agua Hedionda Land Use
Plan (LUP)

City of Carlsbad General Plan
– Open Space and
Conservation Element

A long-term conservation program that addresses existing biological
resources, proposed urban growth, habitat losses, and indirect, direct, and
cumulative effects on sensitive species throughout the San Diego region.
The amended CECP lies within the planning area covered by the North
County MHCP.
Comprises the Carlsbad subarea plan required by the North County
MHCP in order for specific jurisdictions to obtain take authorization.
Additionally, the HMP proposes a comprehensive, citywide program to
preserve habitat diversity and protect sensitive biological resources while
allowing for additional development consistent with the city’s General Plan
and Growth Management Plan. The amended CECP is located within the
HCP’s Local Facilities Management Zone (LFMZ) 1 and Core Area 4.
Conservation goals within Zone 1 include conservation of the majority of
sensitive habitats in or contiguous with biological core areas, including no
net loss of wetlands and preservation of habitat adjacent to the inner Agua
Hedionda Lagoon southern shore
The city of Carlsbad’s LCP includes the city’s land use plans, policies, and
standards and an implementing ordinance for those portions of the city in
the Coastal Zone. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon LCP meets the
requirements and implements the provisions and policies of the California
Coastal Act. The amended CECP is located within planning area of the
Agua Hedionda LUP, which has been incorporated into the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon LCP.
Provides a planning framework for protection and enhancement of open
space and natural resources. The proposed project is located within the
city of Carlsbad.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 632-MW amended CECP would be located at the same, slightly larger northeastern
parcel of the 95-acre EPS as the licensed CECP. The amended CECP would involve
four phases over a 64-month period. These phases would include the initial demolition
of above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) 1, 2, and 4 (which would follow demolition
of those ASTs permitted by the licensed CECP in 2012, namely ASTs, 5, 6, and 7). The
next phase would involve the construction, commissioning and operation of the
amended CECP power plant, comprising six simple-cycle General Electric LMS100
natural gas-fired combustion turbines (designated amended CECP Units 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
and 11). Following commercial operation of the amended CECP, the third phase would
begin (on or before December 31, 2017); a 12-month EPS shutdown and
decommissioning phase that would result in the cessation of all 837 million gallons per
day of permitted once-through seawater cooling. The final phase (IV) of the amended
CECP would be the demolition of EPS Units 1-5, the 200-ft. tall concrete enclosure
building, the 400-ft tall exhaust stack, and other above-ground ancillary facilities located
west of the North Coast Transit District railroad tracks. A majority of concrete from the
exhaust stack and enclosure building would be crushed and reused onsite to backfill
subgrade areas to grade. Please see the Project Description section of this document
for further project details.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-4

February 2015

 SETTING
REGIONAL SETTING
The amended CECP site is located within the existing 95-acre EPS in the city of
Carlsbad in western San Diego County. Historically, this area was composed of coastal
salt marsh, but it has been converted to residential and industrial uses including electric
generation units at the existing EPS, which began commercial operations in 1954. The
nearest sensitive natural habitat areas are the Pacific Ocean, west of the CECP site, the
adjacent Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat,
less than a mile inland from the project site (please refer to Biological Resources
Figure 1).

PROJECT SITE AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION
The amended CECP site is located within the City Subarea Plan MHCP. The MHCP is a
regional plan under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP)
Act of 1991 (SANDAG, 2003). The MHCP is a long-term conservation program that
addresses existing biological resources, proposed urban growth, habitat losses, and
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on sensitive species throughout the San Diego
region. The MHCP requires the preparation of subarea plans in order for specific
jurisdictions in the region to obtain Take Authorization. The Habitat Management Plan
(HMP) for Natural Communities in the city of Carlsbad was developed in cooperation
with CDFW and the USFWS and provides the mechanism for a federal 10(a)(1)(B)
permit and a state 2835 permit (City of Carlsbad, 2004) and allows for take of Covered
Species.
The amended CECP site is bordered to the east by Interstate 5 (I-5), to the south by the
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) switchyard and the city of Carlsbad, to the west
by the Pacific Ocean, and to the north by the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The existing EPS
property, which comprises the proposed amended CECP site, consists primarily of
structures and facilities for electricity generation, transmission and associated access or
staging areas. The amended CECP site is disturbed or developed by large aboveground storage fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) that comprise the east tank farm. The 30acre parcel is low-quality habitat for plant and wildlife species. However, the adjacent
Agua Hedionda Lagoon provides high-quality habitat for a wide variety of species.

AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
The lagoon is the terminus of ephemeral Agua Hedionda Creek, which drains a largely
developed watershed. Originally, the lagoon was smaller and would often dry over the
summertime, until dredging was started to facilitate the flow of seawater into the outer
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, to be used for cooling purposes by the EPS. Currently, the
three segments of the lagoon (outer, middle and inner), totaling 400 acres, are divided
by Interstate-5 and the North County Transit District Railroad. The EPS, sited along the
outer and middle basins, pulls its cooling water from the southern end of the outer
lagoon. Cabrillo Energy (owner/operator of EPS and subsidiary of NRG, Inc.) leases
land for various uses including aquaculture of mussels, oysters, and sea bass. The
middle lagoon has a YMCA youth camp, private marina, and public boat launch. The
inner lagoon is extensively used for recreational purposes (please refer to Biological
February 2015

4.3-5

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 Resources Figure 2). The Lagoon’s connection to the Pacific Ocean occurs at the
northwest end of the Outer Lagoon, where a rock jetty inlet (which is leased, along with
the seawater intake channel and power plant discharge channel, as they were
constructed on sovereign lands under State Lands Commission jurisdiction) allows free
exchange of water between the ocean and the lagoon system. This inlet and the lagoon
system is kept open by routine maintenance dredging which first occurred in 1952 by
SDG&E before Cabrillo Power purchased EPS in the mid-90’s, and continued the
process (which Poseidon Industries will likewise continue for purposes of the daily
seawater needs. Poseidon’s Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (CSDP) will use a
maximum of 106 million gallons of seawater per day to produce 50 million gallons per
day of potable water.
Local habitats include open water, sand and mud substrates, rock revetment, pilings,
and aquaculture grow-out floats, which support diverse wildlife, bird, and fish
communities. Recent independent impingement surveys at the EPS intake structures
recorded 96 taxa, demonstrating that the lagoon is a highly productive and diverse
system (Tenera 2008). Additionally, the Agua Hedionda Lagoon supports important
populations of special-status species such as the southwestern pond turtle, white-faced
ibis, and western snowy plover, and provides foraging habitat for American peregrine
falcon and osprey. The estuarine and marsh habitat surrounding the lagoon (especially
the southern and eastern shores of the inner lagoon) provide suitable nesting habitat for
special-status species such as the California least tern, elegant tern, Belding’s
savannah sparrow, California brown pelican, and coastal California gnatcatcher.

CRITICAL HABITAT
Critical habitat is a formal designation under the Endangered Species Act. In
accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and the regulations at Title 50, Code of
Federal Regulations, section 424.12, in determining which areas occupied by the
species at the time of listing to designate as critical habitat, factors considered are those
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may
require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat for the
following federally listed species is located in the regional vicinity of the amended
CECP.1

Coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica)
Critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher is located approximately one mile
east of the amended CECP site (USFWS 2013). There is no critical habitat for the
coastal California gnatcatcher within ten miles of the offsite laydown area. The coastal
California gnatcatcher habitat within this designation includes upland sage scrub habitat
such as sage scrub, succulent scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan scrub, or coastal sage
chaparral scrub.

1

The Final Staff Assessment for the licensed CECP incorrectly identified the Agua Hedionda Lagoon as
being critical habitat for the federally endangered tidewater goby. Only the coastal California Gnatcatcher
has USFWS-designated critical habitat identified within one mile of the amended CECP project.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-6

February 2015

 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AND WATERS
The project area is actively maintained to facilitate operation of existing power
generation and therefore does not support wetlands of other waters potentially under
the jurisdiction of USACE, CDFW, and/or the CCC.

EXISTING VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
Surveys of the amended CECP site and vicinity include an aquatic survey of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon for SDG&E in 1994 and 1995, a biological resource survey of the
entire EPS property in 2003, and a reconnaissance-level survey conducted by the
project owner, which included the project site and a one-mile buffer, in August 2007.
The project owner’s survey of the proposed project site included an inventory of all plant
and wildlife species observed and an assessment of potential habitat suitability for
special-status species. The following description of biological resources presents the
results of previous surveys of the CECP site and vicinity. Most recently, the project
owner’s biological consultant conducted a site visit in February 2014 and an additional
site visit and reconnaissance survey in March 2014 (Carlsbad Energy Center, 2014),
and staff walked and drove safely accessible portions of the site on January 12, 2015.
The amended CECP site is highly disturbed and/or developed due to ongoing heavy
industrial work and operations within the existing 30-acre project footprint. Among
ongoing industrial uses, is construction activity of the CSDP, which will be located on six
acres within the EPS parcel west of the railroad corridor. The project owner’s site visits
and the reconnaissance surveys showed that there is minimal vegetation in the area not
currently under construction. The majority of the amended CECP footprint is composed
of bare ground, or a combination of bare ground and gravel with scattered ruderal
vegetation. Plant species observed include iceplant (Mesembryanthemum sp.), tocalote
(Centaurea melitensis), horseweed (Conyza sp.), black mustard (Brassica nigra),
fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), wild oat (Avena fatua), foxtail chess (Bromus
madritensis ssp. rubens), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), western marsh-rosemary
(Limonium californicum), salt heliotrope (Heliotropium curasavicum), buckwheat
(Eriogonum sp.), and cudweed (Gnaphalium sp.). Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) plantings
occur along the northern and eastern perimeter of the amended CECP site, and serve
as visual screening of the EPS facilities. These plantings include mature eucalyptus
trees greater than 45 feet in height and of sufficient canopy cover to potentially support
nesting raptors.
On March 10, 2014, the project owner conducted a site reconnaissance and nesting
bird survey and no evidence of roosting, nesting birds, new habitats, wetlands, or
special status species were observed. Due to the frequency and intensity of disturbance
from operation of the EPS, the amended CECP site does not provide habitat capable of
supporting a diverse assemblage of wildlife. Direct wildlife observations in the project
area include common species such as California ground squirrel (Spermophilus
beecheyi) and a variety of bird species typically found in disturbed and developed areas
such as; house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rock dove (Columba livia), European
starling (Sturnus vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and American crow
(Corvus branchyrhynchos). Additional common bird species observed within the
proposed CECP site include Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), black phoebe
February 2015

4.3-7

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 (Sayornis nigricans), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and California towhee
(Pipilo crissalis).
A storm drain within the amended CECP site drains Cannon Lake, located to the east
and off the project site and EPS property. An existing storm drains runs through the
project site and empties into the lagoon. This drain onsite contains hydrophytic
vegetation including cattails (Typha sp.), sedge (Carex sp.), and umbrella-plant
(Cyperus involucratus). This storm drain likely supports common amphibian species
such as California toad (Bufo boreas) and Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla).

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species are plant and wildlife species that have been afforded special
recognition by federal, state, or local resource agencies or organizations. Listed and
special-status species are of relatively limited distribution and typically require unique
habitat conditions. Special-status species are defined as meeting one or more of the
following criteria:


Federally or state-listed, proposed, or candidate for listing, as rare, threatened or
endangered under the Endangered Species Act or California Endangered Species
Act;



Protected under other state or federal regulations (e.g., Migratory Bird Treaty Act);



Identified as a California Species of Special Concern by the CDFW;



California Fully Protected Species;



A plant species considered by the California Native Plant Society and CDFW to be
“rare, threatened, or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR]
1A, 1B, and 2) as well as CRPR 3 and 4 species;



A plant listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act;



A locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide
perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or
region or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances; or



Any other species receiving consideration during environmental review under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Special-status plant and wildlife species were not observed within the amended CECP
site during biological surveys, and the project area does not provide suitable habitat for
special-status species. However, the adjacent Agua Hedionda Lagoon does provide
suitable nesting and foraging habitat for various special-status species that have the
potential to be affected by construction activity and noise, and future operations of the
power plant. Biological Resources Table 2 identifies the special-status species
reported to potentially occur within one mile of the project area, based on surveys of the
amended project area and vicinity, searches of the California Natural Diversity
Database (CNDDB), and California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare
and Endangered Plants. Staff’s analysis considers potential impacts to all species listed
in Biological Resources Table 2.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-8

February 2015

 Biological Resources Table 2
Special-Status Species Reported or Suspected to Occur within One Mile of CECP
Common Name
California adolphia
Coast woolly-heads
Cliff spurge
Orcutt’s pincushion
South Coast saltscale
Wart-stemmed ceanothus
Del Mar manzanita
Saltmarsh skipper butterfly
San Diego fairy shrimp
Tidewater goby
Southwestern pond turtle
American peregrine falcon
Belding’s savannah sparrow
California brown pelican
California least tern
Coastal California gnatcatcher
Cooper’s hawk
Elegant tern
Light-footed clapper rail
Osprey
Western snowy plover
White-faced ibis
Pocketed free-tailed bat

Scientific Name
Plants
Adolphia californica
Nemacaulis denudata var. denudate
Euphorbia misera
Chaenactis glabriuscula ssp. Orcuttiana
Atriplex pacifica
Ceanothus verrucosus
Arctostaphylos glandulosa var. crassifolia
Insects and Crustacea
Panoquina errans
Branchinecta sandiegonensis
Fish
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Reptiles
Emys marmorata pallida
Birds
Falco peregrinus anatum
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi
Pelecanus occidentalis californicus
Sterna antillarum browni
Polioptila californica californica
Accipiter cooperi
Sterna elegans
Rallus longirostris levipes
Pandion haliaetus
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Plegadis chihi
Mammals
Nyctinomops femorosaccus

Status
CRPR List 2
CRPR List 2
CRPR List 2; HMP
CRPR List 1B
CRPR List 1B
CRPR List 2; HMP
FE, CRPR 1B.1
HMP
FE; HMP
FE; CSC
CSC
FD; CE, HMP
CE; HMP
FE; CE, FP; HMP
FE; CE, FP; HMP
FT; CSC; HMP
WL; HMP
WL; HMP
FE; CE, FP; HMP
WL; HMP
FT; CSC; HMP
WL; HMP
CSC

Source: Carlsbad 2004, CH2M Hill 2007, CDFW 2007, CNPS 2008
State Status
CE = State-listed as endangered
CT = State-listed as threatened
CSC = California species of special concern
FP = Fully protected
WL = Watch list

CNPS Status/California Rare Plants Ranking (CRPR)
CRPR List 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California and elsewhere
CRPR CNPS List 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in
California, but more common elsewhere
HMP for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad
HMP = covered species

Federal Status
FE = Federally listed as endangered
FT = Federally listed as threatened
FD = Federally delisted

February 2015

4.3-9

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
A significant impact is defined under CEQA as “a substantial, or potentially substantial,
adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project”
(Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, [hereinafter CEQA Guidelines] section 15382). In this analysis,
the following impacts to biological resources are considered significant if the project
would result in:


a substantial adverse effect to wildlife species that are federally-listed or state-listed
or proposed to be listed; a substantial adverse effect to wildlife species of special
concern to CDFW, candidates for state listing, or animals fully protected in
California;



a substantial adverse effect to plant species considered by CDFW, USFWS, or
CNPS to be rare, threatened, or endangered in California or with strict habitat
requirements and narrow distributions; a substantial impact to a sensitive natural
community (i.e., a community that is especially diverse; regionally uncommon; or of
special concern to local, state, and federal agencies);



substantial adverse effects on habitats that serve as breeding, foraging, nesting, or
migrating grounds and are limited in availability or that serve as core habitats for
regional plant and wildlife populations;



interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;



substantial adverse effect on important riparian habitats or wetlands and any other
“Waters of the U.S.” or state jurisdictional waters; or



conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan.

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
According to the CEQA Guidelines, direct impacts are a result of construction or
operation of the project and occur at the same time and place as project activities.
Indirect impacts are caused by the project, but can occur later in time or are farther
removed in distance from the project site, but are reasonably foreseeable and projectrelated. This section analyzes the potential direct and indirect impacts of construction,
demolition, operation, and decommissioning of the proposed project to biological
resources and suggests mitigation, as necessary, in an effort to reduce the severity of
potentially adverse impacts to less than significant levels.
The project owner proposed mitigation measures and conditions of certification in the
original AFC to reduce impacts to biological resources (CECP 2007a, p. 5.2-22 through
28). As proposed in the AFC and as required by Condition of Certification BIO-6 from
the Final Commission Decision for the licensed CECP (CEC, 2012), all project ownerBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-10

February 2015

 proposed mitigation measures will be incorporated into the final Biological Resources
Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP) for the CECP. For the
amended CECP, the petitioner proposed retaining all the existing biological resources
conditions of certification and did not propose any changes in the Petition to Amend to
the conditions (LL 2014d).

Construction and Demolition Impacts and Mitigation
Construction and demolition activities would create similar direct and indirect impacts
compared to the licensed project; and therefore are discussed together in the following
paragraphs. Staff continues to recommend that a Designated Biologist and biological
monitor(s) be assigned to ensure avoidance and minimization of the impacts described
below and protection of the sensitive biological resources described above. Selection of
the Designated Biologist and biological monitor(s) is described in Conditions of
Certification BIO-1 (Designated Biologist Selection) and BIO-3 (Biological Monitor
Qualifications); their duties and authority are described in Conditions of Certification
BIO-2 (Designated Biologist Duties) and BIO-4 (Designated Biologist and Biological
Monitor Authority), respectively. The Designated Biologist and/or biological monitor(s)
would be responsible, in part, for developing and implementing the Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) (see Condition of Certification BIO-5),
which is a mechanism for training the workers on protection of the biological resources
described in this document.
Construction and Demolition Impacts to Vegetation
The amended CECP would have similar impacts to vegetation as were previously
analyzed for the licensed CECP. Construction impacts to vegetation could occur in a
variety of ways, including the direct removal of plants during construction. As these
impacts are generally localized and are primarily temporary, they are not usually
considered significant unless the habitat type is regionally unique or is known to support
special-status species. The CECP site is characterized by developed areas with
disturbed habitat and ornamental landscaping. Regionally unique habitat or habitat
capable of supporting special-status species is not present at the amended CECP site.
Construction activities, including equipment laydown, would require the removal of
weedy vegetation and some ornamental plantings (e.g., eucalyptus). Significant impacts
to native vegetation would not occur, and no mitigation is proposed.
Construction and Demolition Impacts to Common Wildlife
The amended CECP would have similar impacts to wildlife as were previously analyzed
for the licensed CECP. Although there is limited presence of small mammals, reptiles,
and other common species in the project area, the use of construction vehicles and
other heavy equipment could disrupt breeding or foraging activities for common wildlife
species, especially slow moving species and those who burrow.
The amended CECP site provides marginally suitable nesting habitat for a variety of
common bird species. Birds could nest in the eucalyptus trees along the eastern border
of the site. However, given the fire threat, removal of several taller, more mature trees in
this area has occurred since the licensed CECP approval in 2012. Removal of trees
suitable for nesting will only continue to occur with aging and continued drought
conditions. Caltrans’ future widening of Interstate-5 would also result in tree removal.
February 2015

4.3-11

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 Additionally, some bird species adapted to disturbed environments could nest in
equipment or other available substrate in the areas surrounding the site. The
compacted dirt and sparse vegetation associated with the barren areas of the CECP
site provide nesting substrate for small songbirds and some ground-nesting species
(e.g., killdeer). Construction activities during the nesting season (March through August)
could adversely affect breeding birds through direct take or indirectly through disruption
or harassment. The Commission’s Final Decision for the licensed CECP (CEC 2012,
page 7.1-4) has the following provisions the project owner has also agreed to implement
for the amended CECP:


Nesting substrate for songbirds (taller plants) would be removed outside of the
breeding season (September through February) before construction activities begin.



Open areas requiring grading would be graded prior to March 1 and would be
routinely inspected for nesting activities throughout construction and demolition.



Surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting raptors within 300
feet of the project site prior to the start of construction between January 1 and
August 31. Should a raptor nest be observed within 300 feet of the CECP site, a
qualified biologist would determine whether or not construction activities could
potentially disturb nesting raptors and implement appropriate measures (e.g., on-site
monitor, timing restriction) to adequately protect nesting raptors.



Any nests found in or adjacent to disturbance areas would be flagged and the area
immediately around the nest protected from construction equipment. Construction
activities would not be affected by nests on site; rather the protection and monitoring
of the nests would allow construction activities to continue. The nests would be
monitored and the results included in the monthly compliance reports to the Energy
Commission Compliance Unit.

Staff concludes these mitigation measures, incorporated by reference into Condition of
Certification BIO-6, would reduce impacts from modifications associated with the
amended CECP. Staff recommends a survey for migratory birds if work is proposed
between March 15 and August 31, and additional measures to protect nesting birds, as
presented in Condition of Certification BIO-8 (Mitigation Management to Avoid
Harassment or Harm), which would ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. With implementation of the mitigation measures above and Conditions of
Certification BIO-6 and BIO-8, significant impacts to nesting birds would not result from
amended CECP activities.
To ensure wildlife would not be entrapped in open trenches during Phase II construction
activities, BIO-8 also requires exclusion measures for open trenches (e.g., fencing or
covering), inspection of trenches prior to resuming construction activities each day, and
installation of escape ramps so that animals that fall in the trench could escape.
Implementation of this measure would mitigate adverse impacts to wildlife from
entrapment.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-12

February 2015

 Construction and Demolition Impacts to Special-Status Species
Plants
The amended CECP would have similar impacts to special-status plant species as
those previously analyzed for the licensed CECP. Special-status plants are not
expected to occur in the project area. Six special-status plants are known to occur
within one mile of the project area, but none were identified during field surveys of the
project site. Habitat suitability for special-status plants is generally poor at the amended
CECP site, which is inhabited by common, non-native plant species. Therefore,
significant adverse impacts to special-status plants would not occur from construction of
the amended CECP.
Wildlife
The amended CECP would have similar impacts to special-status wildlife species as
those previously analyzed for the licensed CECP. The amended project area does not
provide suitable habitat for special-status wildlife species, and none were identified
during a February 2014 survey of the amended project area by the project owner.
However, the adjacent Agua Hedionda Lagoon provides suitable nesting and foraging
habitat for various special-status animals. The nearest recorded occurrence of a
special-status species is for nesting coastal California gnatcatchers within Diegan
coastal sage scrub approximately 2,100 feet east-northeast of the amended CECP site.
Construction activities would not directly affect the Agua Hedionda Lagoon; indirect
impacts to nesting special-status birds that occur within the marsh, scrub, and estuarine
habitat associated with Agua Hedionda Lagoon inner section are discussed under the
“General Construction and Demolition Impacts” subsection below.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is a formal designation under the Endangered Species Act. It is a specific
area designated as essential to the conservation and recovery of a federally listed
species. These areas may require special management consideration or protection.
Critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher exists within one mile of the
amended CECP site; and approximately 3,200 feet east of the amended CECP site.
Similar to the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would have no adverse impacts on
upland habitat associated with Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Therefore, there would be no
impacts to critical habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher.
General Construction and Demolition Impacts
Construction activities, including noise and lighting impacts, have the potential to create
a variety of temporary impacts to biological resources, as discussed below.
Noise
The amended CECP would include the demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 (the licensed
CECP includes demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7) and demolition of EPS above-ground
facilities west of the railroad tracks , which includes Units 1-5, the 200-ft. concrete
enclosure building housing the units (power plant building), the 400-foot-tall exhaust
stack and other ancillary equipment. Demolition and removal of the EPS and ASTs 1, 2,
and 4 would utilize similar construction equipment and consist of activities similar to
February 2015

4.3-13

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 those demolition and removal activities approved for the licensed CECP. Active
demolition activities for the EPS are anticipated to occur after construction of the
amended CECP is complete, and would last approximately 22 months.
Existing operations at the EPS, traffic on Interstate 5, the NCTD rail corridor, and
ongoing construction of the CSDP and Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station could create
elevated ambient noise to which most local wildlife species have acclimated. However,
excessive construction noise has the potential to disrupt the nesting, roosting, or
foraging activities of sensitive wildlife, especially wildlife in the middle lagoon of Agua
Hedionda, or in adjacent natural habitat that buffers the Lagoon and surrounding
developments.
To evaluate the impacts associated with Phase IV demolition and removal of the EPS,
staff issued data requests 67-72 (CEC 2014kk), to which the petitioner responded (LL
2014pp). Biological Resources Table 3 below shows the maximum predicted noise
impact at the nearest sensitive biological receptor, (measured as the shortest distance
from the noise source to the edge of the Lagoon) as a result of construction and
demolition activities.
Biological Resources Table 3
Predicted Demolition Noise Impacts on Nearest Biological Receptors
Phase

Distance from Nearest Biological
Receptor (feet)

Highest Noise Levela
(dBA Leq)

Demo ASTs 1,2, 4

~350 feet from Lagoon

73

Demolition EPS

~600 feet from Lagoon

68

Sources: LL2014d; LL2014pp; and Noise and Vibration staff calculations.
Notes:
a. Construction and demolition equipment estimated to be 90 dBA at 50 feet (LL2014pp).

The project owner commits to performing noisy demolition/construction work during the
times specified in the city of Carlsbad Noise Ordinance, between the hours of 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no
construction allowed on Sundays and federal holidays (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.4). These
restrictions are incorporated into staff’s proposed Condition of Certification NOISE-6. To
ensure the project’s construction and demolition activities would create less than
significant adverse impacts at the most noise-sensitive receptors, the project owner and
its contractors would develop reasonable and feasible measures to reduce the level of
noise associated with demolition and construction activities (LL 2014pp). These
measures can include:


Using temporary noise or moveable task barriers;



Reorienting or relocating construction equipment to minimize noise on sensitive
habitats;



Avoiding pile driving or confining pile driving to areas of the project furthest from
sensitive habitats especially during the nesting season;



Reducing the number of noisy construction and demolition activities that occur
simultaneously; and

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-14

February 2015

 

Using blasting mats or similar structures that may reduce the impact of falling debris
inside the stack (LL 2014pp).

Staff believes these measures, in conjunction with staff’s proposed conditions of
certification, would provide appropriate and effective mitigation.
For land uses adjacent to estuarine habitat, the HMP specifies standard best
management practices, which require attenuation measures for activities that generate
noise levels greater than 60 decibels (dBA) occurring within 200 feet of important
breeding habitat during the breeding season (Carlsbad 2004). The project owner has
suggested that the provisions developed for the licensed CECP, and incorporated by
reference into Condition of Certification BIO-6 (Biological Resources Mitigation
Implementation and Monitoring Plan), would adequately mitigate noise generated by the
amended CECP. These project owner-proposed mitigation measures in the Application
for Certification of the licensed CECP (CECP 2007, page 5.2-13), and included in the
Commission Decision (CEC 2012, page 7.1-5) are as follows:


To avoid the riparian bird nesting season, excessively noisy construction and
demolition activities would not occur between March 15 and August 31 if possible,
especially during dusk and early morning hours if birds are nesting in the middle
lagoon (the limit of the 200-foot MHCP boundary). Construction and demolition
equipment will be in good working condition with properly operated and maintained
mufflers.



If construction cannot avoid the nesting season, then a qualified biologist would
conduct a preconstruction survey within the CECP site and the middle section of
Agua Hedionda Lagoon prior to ground disturbance and construction activities
between March 15 and August 31. The survey would be conducted no more than
two weeks prior to construction activities and would be conducted by a qualified
biologist familiar with the identification and vocalizations for coastal California
gnatcatcher and other estuarine species.



If nesting bird species are detected, noise monitoring and mitigation would be
incorporated. Should average noise levels exceed 60 dBA during the breeding
season, feasible noise reduction measures would be implemented to reduce noise
levels to below 60 dBA. Noise reduction measures could include locating stationary
equipment away from biologically sensitive areas and/or shielding nesting sites by
installing sound barriers. Once the average noise level returns to below 60 dBA, the
construction activities could resume. Educational programs to enhance employee
awareness would be implemented as necessary.

The implementation of the staff’s proposed mitigation measures in Conditions of
Certification BIO-6 and NOISE-6 would not only mitigate Phase II construction, but also
the Phase I and Phase IV demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 and the EPS facilities west of
the railroad tracks.
Lighting
Project construction and demolition activities are generally planned to occur between
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.; however, during some construction and demolition periods,
and during the start-up phase of the project, construction activities could continue 24
February 2015

4.3-15

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 hours a day. Bright lighting at night could disturb the resting, foraging, or mating
activities of wildlife and make wildlife more visible to predators. Additionally, night
lighting could be disorienting to migratory birds and, if placed on tall structures, may
increase the likelihood of collision, as discussed below. Although existing operations at
the EPS and traffic on Interstate 5 provide an elevated ambient level of lighting to which
local species have acclimated, potentially significant impacts to sensitive wildlife from
increased night lighting could occur.
If night construction were required (example: concrete pours), task-specific lighting
would be used to the extent practicable, and lighting would be downcast, shielded, and
pointed toward the center of where the activities are occurring (CECP 2007a, p. 5.1312). Further, the HMP specifies that direct lighting within 200 feet of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon must be directed away from the lagoon (Carlsbad 2004). These measures are
incorporated into Condition of Certification BIO-7 (Impact Avoidance Mitigation
Features). Staff believes that the amended CECP would not introduce impacts beyond
that which were already analyzed for the licensed CECP; and therefore, with
implementation of these measures, impacts to wildlife from temporary night lighting
would be less than significant.
Stormwater Runoff
Impacts to Agua Hedionda Lagoon from stormwater runoff during Phase II construction
or Phase IV demolition could occur in the absence of preventative measures. Please
refer to the Soil & Water Resources section of this FSA for more information and
staff’s proposed conditions of certification. With implementation of these measures, and
the project owner’s commitment to the impact minimization measures listed above,
project impacts to biological resources from stormwater runoff would be less than
significant.

Operation Impacts and Mitigation
Potential impacts resulting from operation of the amended CECP power plant include
bird collision with, and/or electrocution by, the interconnection transmission facilities and
towers (with heights ranging from 98 to 106 feet). Disturbance to wildlife due to
increased noise and lighting, and impacts to aquatic resources in Agua Hedionda
Lagoon due to industrial wastewater discharge could also occur. However, the
amended CECP would have operational impacts similar to the licensed CECP; and
introduces no new impacts from proposed modification that would go beyond those
analyzed previously and mitigated accordingly.
Avian Collision and Electrocution
The adjacent Agua Hedionda Lagoon is considered a concentration area for resident
and migratory birds because of abundant foraging opportunities and proximity to the
Pacific Ocean. This concentration of birds creates the potential for direct impacts
through collision or electrocution with the amended CECP exhaust stacks, transmission
lines and towers, support structures, and appurtenant buildings. The amended CECP
units would interconnect with SDG&E’s 138-kV and 230-kV switchyard facilities via 138kV and 230-kV lines running along single transmission towers located on the eastern
and southern perimeter of the project site. As detailed in the Transmission System
Engineering section of this document, transmission towers would range in height
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-16

February 2015

 between 98 and 106 feet (reduced by approximately 25 feet for towers sited along the
lower perimeter road). The amended project would include six combustion turbines,
each with an associated 90-foot-tall, 14.25-foot-diameter exhaust stack situated in three
clusters of two stacks each. The existing EPS exhaust stack is 400 feet tall. The height
of the licensed CECP exhaust stacks would be 135 feet.
Collision
It is possible that bird collisions with the amended CECP exhaust stacks and other
facilities could occur. The amended CECP exhaust stacks would be approximately 90feet tall (65-feet at grade), reducing the likelihood of stack collision as compared to the
licensed project. Bird mortality is significantly lower at towers shorter than 350 feet
(Karlsson 1977; Longcore et al 2008). Because the amended CECP exhaust stacks
would be significantly shorter than the existing EPS exhaust stack or licensed CECP
exhaust stacks, the amended CECP would pose a reduced collision risk to birds.
Because of its proximity to Palomar Airport, the amended CECP exhaust stacks may
require Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) aviation strobe lighting. Condition of
Certification VIS-4 recommends white strobe lighting, which results in far less mortality
than steady burning colored and flashing colored lights (Longcore et al 2008).
Additionally, Condition of Certification VIS-4 recommends lighting (other than aviation
warning lights) be designed so that it does not illuminate the night sky or cause
excessive reflected glare. The project owner has proposed to install bird flight diverters
(high-impact PVC spirals) on the proposed 230-kV transmission line (CECP 2007a, p.
5.2-16). In addition, Condition of Certification BIO-7 recommends the installation of bird
flight diverters on the 138-kV transmission line and clarifies that the bird flight diverters
should be installed on the overhead ground wires rather than the conductors.
Implementation of these combined measures would reduce potential impacts to birds
from collision with CECP facilities to a less-than-significant level.
Electrocution
Potential impacts from electrocution by transmission lines would be reduced with
Condition of Certification BIO-7, which would require transmission lines have a
minimum of 5.5 feet between conductor wires (CECP 2007a, p. 5.2-16).).
Implementation of this measure would prevent bird mortality from transmission line
electrocution. No additional impacts outside of those analyzed for the licensed project
are expected.
Noise
The amended CECP site is surrounded by a variety of industrial, residential,
recreational and commercial land uses. Wildlife species near the amended project are
accustomed to elevated ambient noise levels because of operation of the existing EPS,
ongoing construction of the CSDP, truck and car traffic on Interstate 5, commuter and
freight train traffic on the BNSF Santa Fe Railway. Operation of the amended CECP
would have biological impacts similar to those analyzed for the licensed CECP. Despite
expected lowering of operational noise impacts, Condition of Certification NOISE-4
would still require operation of the amended CECP include appropriate noise mitigation.
For more details, see the Noise & Vibration section of this FSA.
February 2015

4.3-17

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 Light
Condition of Certification VIS-4 recommends lighting be designed so that it does not
illuminate the night sky or cause excessive reflected glare. Operation of the amended
CECP would have similar lighting impacts, with implementation of project ownerproposed measures and staff’s conditions of certification, significant impacts to
biological resources would not occur.
Aquatic Species
The amended CECP would implement dry-cooling technology, with no intake or outflow
of seawater for once-through cooling. The amended project would use no more than
215-acre-feet per year (afy) of California Code of Regulations, title 22 reclaimed water
provided by the city of Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF). As opposed to the
licensed CECP, the amended CECP would be provided water by the city, and all intake
of lagoon water would cease.
The Final Decision for licensed CECP includes Condition of Certification BIO-9,
designed to direct the retirement of EPS Units 4 and 5 and associated service and
auxillary water pumps; as well as the necessity of using intake water from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. As the amended project would obtain potable or recycled water from
the city, BIO-9 is no longer necessary, and therefore staff proposes deleting this
condition.
Stormwater Runoff
Staff’s proposed Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-3 would require preparation
of a report of water discharge and acquisition of a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for operational industrial water discharge. The
petitioner would also develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
for the operation of the amended CECP. Additionally, SOIL&WATER-4 would require
the petitioner to acquire a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order from the
SDRWQCB for the discharge of amended CECP industrial wastewater to the Pacific
Ocean. Implementation of Conditions of Certifications SOIL&WATER-3 and
SOIL&WATER-4 would maintain stormwater quality and reduce impacts to local aquatic
organisms to less than significant. Further, implementation of these conditions would
ensure consistency with LORS pertaining to water quality. Refer to the Soil & Water
Resources section of the FSA for additional information regarding water quality.
Air Emissions - Nitrogen Deposition
The total nitrogen emission levels (based on NOx and NH3 emissions) for the amended
CECP would be reduced by the shutdown of EPS Units 1–5 and the peaker gas turbine.
The PTA (Table 5.1-41) demonstrates that there is a significant net reduction in nitrogen
emissions when comparing the amended CECP to the licensed CECP. Therefore, staff
concludes that there would be no significant impacts on the sensitive biological
resources from the nitrogen deposition of the amended CECP.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-18

February 2015

 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Cumulative impacts are those that result from the incremental impacts of a proposed
action considered with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions
taking place over time.
A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact if its effects are
cumulatively considerable. There are currently proposed projects near the CECP that
may impact local biological resources, especially those in Agua Hedionda Lagoon.
These projects include Poseidon’s Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (CSDP) and
the city’s Sewer Lift Station. Since the licensed CECP approval in 2012, the largest and
most impactful nearby project—the CSDP—began construction and at the time of
publication of this FSA, is nearly 80 percent complete
Due to ongoing operation of the EPS and construction activities associated with the
CSDP, the proposed 30-acre CECP footprint, Phase I demolition area, Phase II
laydown and parking area, and Phase IV demolition areas within the 95-acre EPS
property are all highly disturbed. This area and largely devoid of native vegetation, and
does not provide suitable habitat for special-status species. Although the amended
CECP is proximate to sensitive species and habitat within Agua Hedionda Lagoon,
implementation of proposed conditions of certification and compliance with LORS would
avoid or reduce any impacts to less than significant. Therefore, staff concludes that
impacts related to the amended CECP would not contribute significantly to cumulative
effects on biological resources in the region.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
The amended project is subject to several LORS including the MHCP and the HMP for
Natural Communities in the city of Carlsbad. In general, these plans are protective of
special-status species and identified conservation areas (e.g., Agua Hedionda Lagoon).
Staff determined that, with the implementation of the Conditions of Certification BIO-1
through BIO-8 and SOIL&WATER-3 and SOIL &WATER-4, the amended project would
not result in significant impacts to special status species or sensitive habitat. Therefore,
the amended CECP would comply with federal, state, and local LORS pertaining to
biological resources.

February 2015

4.3-19

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 RESPONSES TO PSA COMMENTS
Staff received several comments on the Biological Resources section of the
December 15, 2014 Preliminary Staff Assessment from the amended CECP Project
Owner. The following provides a summary of those comments, and staff’s
corresponding responses.

INTERVENOR: HELPING HAND TOOLS/ROBERT SIMPSON, TN 203588
Mr. Simpson docketed two sets of comments on the PSA (TN 203587 & 203588).
Comments on the Biological Resources Section of the PSA were due on January 21,
2015; therefore they are untimely filed. PSA comments relative to air quality and
greenhouse gas were due on February 2, 2015, and Mr. Simpsons’ comments relative
to those topics are timely filed. Staff has provided responses to all of Mr. Simpson’s
comments. For clarity, the comments have been aggregated, such that a certain topic of
interest, such as thermal plumes, may be discussed comprehensively.
Comment: Mr. Simpson expressed concern that the PSA only addressed the impact of
nitrogen deposition on local flora and fauna (PSA, p. 4.3-20), but failed to discuss how
any other air quality impacts from the CECP would affect flora and fauna, and the
lagoon. Mr. Simpson requests that such impacts be analyzed.
Response: Staff analyzed the project, using the licensed CECP as the CEQA
baseline. In the licensed CECP proceeding, nitrogen deposition was analyzed. With
appropriate implementation of air quality, biological resource, and soil and water
conditions of certification, the project would meet applicable LORS, and would
reduce overall emissions in comparison with the licensed project. Staff is unaware of
other, unmitigated air quality impacts as a result of the project. Please refer to staff’s
Air Quality section for further description of air quality issues.

INTERVENOR: HELPING HAND TOOLS/ROBERT SIMPSON, TN 203587
Comment 21. Please explain whether the waters of Agua Hedionda are waters of the
United States as defined in the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Response: Yes, the lagoon is considered a water of the U.S.
Comment 22. Please identify exactly what permits and government approvals – coastal
development, air pollution permit, PSD permit, endangered species act take permit,
Army Corps of Engineers, California Fish and Game, USFWS, NPDES, etc. – the CEC
license would represent
Response: Necessary permits are discussed in the PSA and FSA. As with the
amended project, there are no impacts to listed species or protected habitats that
would require a permit from the responsible wildlife agencies.
Comment: What state and federal regulations govern the project’s impacts on these
waters?

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-20

February 2015

 Response: Applicable LORS are presented in the PSA and FSA. The project
description does not require work in waters and, with implementation of all
conditions of certification, would have no impact on waters.
Comment: Please identify potential air quality impacts on adjacent endangered
species, flora, and sensitive habitats.
Response: This is a duplicate question (see TN 20388). Please refer to previous
response.
Comment: Mr Simpson asks a series of questions relative to avian risk from the stacks.
Response: The Energy Commission closely monitors all projects under its
jurisdiction, including solar thermal, coal- and gas-fired. Evidence of significant and
predictable injury or mortality from thermal or exhaust plumes has not been reported
or documented at other power plants; has not been noticed at the Encina plant, and
is not expected to occur with the proposed CECP project. The question of impacts
associated with thermal plumes and/or exhaust stacks has been raised in previous
siting cases. In 2009, the Contra Costa County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC), filed a letter with the Energy Commission requesting data on potential
avian—specifically raven- attraction to the Mariposa Energy Project (MEP) cooling
stacks. The MEP consultants performed a literature review investigating avian
interactions exhaust stacks and plumes (CH2M Hill, 2010)2.This technical paper
included interviews with CEC senior biologist Rick York, and failed to identify any
significant mortality or injury associated with these project features at operating
power plant sites. Staff has conducted an updated literature review, and, as
mentioned, has no further internal Energy Commission data or published data that
would indicate impacts would occur with a frequency or intensity that would have an
adverse biological effect. It is not uncommon for raptors and scavenging species
such as vultures to utilize thermal currents to search for prey and carcasses. While it
is possible that a raptor may be attracted to a thermal upcurrent emanating from the
stacks, there is no data to suggest that a raptor could be injured or killed while doing
so, and staff is unaware of any significant documented events of this nature;
although it certainly is possible. The stacks would not provide roosting or nesting
opportunities for birds or bats, and given the industrial characteristics and pervasive
human presence on the CECP site, the data indicates that most wildlife would have
sufficient environmental cues to avoid the site.
The turbines will be operating on a fully industrial site. Birds that roost in the area
would be expected to have acclimated to the various noises and lights associated
with plant construction and operation.
Comment: Please identify the distance between proposed electrical wires, identify the
wingspan of a typical adult brown pelican, and demonstrate how the distance between
the wires prevents avian electrocution and the associated threat to public health. Please
identify the distance between proposed electrical wires, identify the wingspan of a
typical adult brown pelican, and demonstrate how the distance between the wires
prevents avian electrocution and the associated threat to public health.
2

CH2M Hill. 2010. Technical Memorandum. Potential Bird Avoidance or Attraction to Exhaust Stacks and
Thermal Plumes. Dated July 27, 2010, Docketed September 28, 2010.
February 2015

4.3-21

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 Response: Pelicans exhibit behavior which is distinct from raptors. Raptors
preferentially select power poles for perching and occasionally nesting. Pelicans are
a pelagic bird and do not utilize power poles. No impacts of such nature have been
demonstrated. Staff is unaware of pelicans posing a public health threat.
Comment: It appears that the CEC biologist has never even visited the site. Conduct a
biological assessment which includes examining the biology present at and around the
site.
Response: A site visit was conducted on January 12, 2015. Staff reviewed the site
and adjacent environs. Staff confirmed the analysis appropriately reflects current
conditions at the site, and in particular noted that, given the ongoing construction
associated with the Poseidon Desalination facility, wildlife would be expected to
avoid the site as much as possible.
Comment: Describe the effects of potential raptor perches in the planned tree canopy.
Response: Raptors prefer to nest in tall trees. Plantings for visual screening may
eventually grow large enough to provide suitable perching. This would be considered
a benefit of the project.
Comment: The PSA states; Although collision may occur, it is not likely that bird
mortality due to collision with CECP transmission lines and facilities would significantly
reduce the population numbers of any bird species or that the reduction in numbers
within any population would impair its function within the local ecosystem. Because the
amended CECP exhaust stacks are significantly shorter than 350 feet (the height above
which is considered dangerous to migrating birds), and shorter than the existing built
environment (e.g., EPS exhaust stack), and with implementation of Condition of
Certification VIS-4, impacts resulting from bird collisions with CECP structures would be
less than significant. The above statement appears without basis in the present plan. It
fails to consider the removal of the EPS exhaust stack and the ½ mile high intermittent
invisible inferno which will surely kill birds.
Response: Please see previous response regarding thermal plumes and exhaust
stacks. Replacement of the stack with shorter stacks is, in general, preferable for
avian species. The collision risk for avian species from the amended or licensed
CECP are considered comparable. Collisions have not been demonstrated to occur
with the Encina power plant facilities; and there is no evidence to suggest that the
CECP site would introduce an avian attractant.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-22

February 2015

 PETITIONER: LOCKE LORD LLP, ON BEHALF OF PROJECT OWNER
(CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER LLC); TN#203549
Biological Resources Comment #2 (page 9): The project owner proposes replacing
the term “applicant” with the term “project owner” in BIO-1.
Response: Staff agrees and has made the correction.
Biological Resources Comment #3 (page 9): The project owner outlines slight
wording changes to condition BIO-1 to ensure that documentation submitted for each
phase of the project is streamlined, with no duplication of requirements.
Response: Staff understands that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun;
however, it is staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that has
past is both confusing and unnecessary. Petitioner will not be required to duplicate
work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended CECP
Biological Resources Comment #4 (page 9): Similar to Comment #3, the project
owner outlines slight wording changes to condition BIO-3.
Response: Staff understands that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun;
however, it is staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that has
past is both confusing and unnecessary. Petitioner will not be required to duplicate
work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended CECP
Biological Resources Comment #5 (page 10): Comment is similar to previous
comments (#3 and #4), to modify condition BIO-5.
Response: Staff understands that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun;
however, it is staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that has
past is both confusing and unnecessary. Petitioner will not be required to duplicate
work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended CECP
Biological Resources Comment #6 (page 10): Project owner proposes replacing the
phrase “applicant-proposed mitigation measures” with “project owner-proposed
mitigation measures” in BIO-6.
Response: Staff agrees and has made the correction.
Biological Resources Comment #7 (page 10): The project owner would like
clarification as to whether the term “completion of project construction” in BIO-6’s
verification requirement refers to the completion of Phase II activities or completion of
Phase IV activities.
Response: Staff considers this language to mean that the project owner would be
responsible for a single report at completion of the entire project. Reports after
completion of Phase II and Phase IV are not considered necessary, but may
alternately be prepared, should the project owner prefer that approach.

February 2015

4.3-23

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 CONCLUSIONS
The amended CECP is located in an industrial area that is currently occupied by aboveground fuel oil storage tanks. Because the proposed project area is highly disturbed due
to ongoing operations at the EPS, there is not suitable habitat for special-status species.
The proposed project is located adjacent to Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which is included
in the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program and the Habitat
Management Plan for Natural Communities in the city of Carlsbad, and provides habitat
for several special-status species. Potential impacts to special-status species, including
migratory birds, would be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementation of
staff’s proposed conditions of certification, which recommend minimization of light
pollution, installation of bird flight diverters, and nesting bird surveys among other
measures.
Additionally, the proposed project would be air-cooled and would not employ oncethrough cooling. Staff concludes that the amended CECP would not result in any
significant unmitigated impacts to biological resources with implementation of the
conditions of certification and compliance with applicable LORS, as presented in this
analysis.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-24

February 2015

 REFERENCES
APLIC 1996 - Avian Powerline Interaction Committee 1996. Suggested Practices for
Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric
Institute/Raptor Research Foundation., Washington, D.C.
APLIC 2006 - Avian Powerline Interaction Committee 2006. Suggested Practices for
Avian Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006. Edison Electric
Institute, APLIC, and the California Energy Commission. Washington, D.C. and
Sacramento, CA.
Banks 1979. - Human related mortality of birds in the United States. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report – Wildlife No. 215.
Brown 1993 - Brown, William, 1993. Avian collisions with utility structures: Biological
perspectives. In: Proceedings of the Avian Interactions with Utility Structures
International Workshop. Sponsored by Avian Powerline Interaction Committee
and Electric Power Research Institute.
Carlsbad 2004 - City of Carlsbad 2004. Habitat Management Plan for Natural
Communities in the City of Carlsbad. Amended December 1999. Final approval
November 2004.
CDFW 2007 - California Department of Fish and Game 2007. California Natural
Diversity Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Accessed
December 2007.
CDFW 2014 - California Department of Fish and Game 2014. California Natural
Diversity Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch.
CEC 2005 - California Energy Commission 2005. Issues and Environmental Impacts
Associated with Once-through Cooling at California’s Coastal Power Plants.
CEC-700-2005-013. June 2005.
CEC 2014kk - California Energy Commission (TN203149). Data Request Set 3 (Nos.
67-85), dated October 2, 2014. Submitted 10/02/2014.
Chesney 2009 - Chesney, Bryant 2009. Fishery Biologist with NMFS Southwest Region
to Heather Blair of Aspen Environmental Group. January 5, 2009. Personal
communication.
CNPS 2008 - California Native Plant Society 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered
Plants (on-line edition v7-08a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.
Accessed February 2008 from <http://www.cnps.org/inventory>.
CECP 2007a - Application for Certification for Carlsbad Energy Center Project.
Submitted to the California Energy Commission on September 11, 2007.

February 2015

4.3-25

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

 Jaroslow 1979 - Jaroslow, B.N. 1979. A review of factors involved in bird-tower kills,
and mitigative procedures. The Mitigation Symposium: a National Workshop on
Mitigating Losses of Fish and Wildlife Habitats. U.S. Forest Service General
Technical Report.
Karlsson 1977. - Bird collisions with towers and other man made constructions. Anser
16: 203-216.
Kerlinger 2000. - Avian Mortality at communication towers: A review of recent literature,
research, and methodology. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C.
Koski 2008 - Koski, Marci 2009. Biologist with USFWS Carlsbad Office to Heather Blair
of Aspen Environmental Group. January 5, 2009. Personal communication.
LL 2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL 2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL 2014pp - Locke Lord LLP (TN203300). Project Owner Responses to Data Request
Set 3 (Nos. 67-84), dated October 31, 2014. Submitted 10/31/2014.
LL 2015 - Locke Lord LLP (TN203549). Project Owner’s Comments on Preliminary Staff
Assessment., dated 01-05/2015. Submitted on 01/21/2015.
Longcore, et. al. 2008. - Height, guy wires, and steady-burning lights increase hazard
of communication towers to nocturnal migrants: A review and meta-analysis. The
Auk 125(2): 485-492.
NRC 1996 - Nuclear regulatory Commission 1996. Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, Volume 1.
Accessed February 2009 from <http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doccollections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/v1/ index.html>
Paznokas 2009 - Pasnokas, William 2009. Biologist with CDFG Marine Region to
Heather Blair of Aspen Environmental Group. January 5, 2009. Personal
communication.
SWRCB 2007 - State Water Resources Control Board 2007. Scoping Document –
Amendment of the Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California. June
2007.
SR 2008a - Stoel Rives. Data Responses, Set 2 (#76-112). Submitted to the California
Energy Commission on March 18, 2008.
SR 2008h. - Project Enhancements and Refinements (PEAR) supplement to Carlsbad
Energy Center Project. Submitted to the California Energy Commission on July
25, 2008.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3-26

February 2015

 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - United State Fish and Wildlife Service (US FW) Coastal California Gnatcatcher

OJ

0

r

0

(j)
()

)>

~

,,-,
,_
I

Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Boundary
5 Miles Buffer from
Project Boundary

Other Features

r
:::0

0

City

m

Major Road

0

Railroad

(/)

c

:::0

()

0

A

0.5

m
(/)

CALIFORN IA ENERGY COMMISSION, SITING, T RANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: USFW Service Critical Habitats - October 2014, ESRI, Bing Aerial Image

 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 2
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Agua Hedionda Lagoon

1. YMCA Aquatic Park
2. Hubbs-SeaWortd Fish Hatchery
3. Public Access to the Lagoon and
Coast
New Recreation Areas
5. Desalination Plant
6. Beach Sand Replenishment
7. Warm Water Jetties Surf Break
8. Enhancing Fish Habitat
9. Carlsbad Aquafarm
10. Recreational Boating
11. Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Foundation Discovery Center

{l)

0
r
0

G)

~

rAl

m

(f)

0

c

o

Al

250 500

1,000 Feet

~l~...___._1~..__,I

()

m
(f)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE:

Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation, ESRI

A

~

 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Testimony of Melissa Mourkas and Matthew Braun1

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) differs from the licensed CECP
in two important ways that affect cultural resources. First, the amended CECP proposes
to demolish the existing Encina Power Station (EPS), a potentially historical resource
due to its age. Second, the footprint and areas of proposed ground-disturbance differ
from the licensed CECP in that there are now ground-disturbing activities around aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) 1 and 2 and in the area north of the existing switchyard.
Staff has analyzed the impacts of these changes on cultural resources and has
concluded that the amended CECP would not cause new significant impacts or increase
the severity of previously identified impacts on any archaeological, historical built
environment, or ethnographic resources.
The conditions of certification included below are those from the May 31, 2012 licensed
CECP, and are the ones proposed by the petitioner in their May 2, 2014 Petition to
Amend (PTA). Based on the recently conducted subsurface archaeological
investigations, Condition of Certification CUL-6 (cultural resources monitoring) has been
modified to reflect the new information gathered.

INTRODUCTION
This cultural resources assessment identifies the potential impacts of the amended
CECP on cultural resources. Cultural resources are defined under state law as
buildings, sites, structures, objects, areas, places, records, manuscripts, and historic
districts (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§4852a, 5064.5(a)(3); Pub. Resources Code,
§§5020.1(h, j), 5024.1[e][2, 4]). Three broad classes of cultural resources are
considered in this assessment: prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic.
Prehistoric archaeological resources are those materials relating to prehistoric human
occupation and use of an area. These resources may include sites and deposits,
structures, artifacts, rock art, trails, and other traces of Native American human
behavior. In California, the prehistoric period began over 12,000 years ago and
extended through the eighteenth century until A.D. 1769, when the first Europeans
settled in California.
Ethnographic resources are those materials important to the heritage of a particular
ethnic or cultural group, such as Native Americans or African, European, or Asian
immigrants. They may include traditional resource collecting areas, ceremonial sites,
topographic features, value-imbued landscapes, cemeteries, shrines, or ethnic
neighborhoods and structures. Ethnographic resources are variations of natural
resources and standard cultural resource types. They are subsistence and ceremonial
locales and sites, structures, objects, and rural and urban landscapes assigned cultural
significance by traditional users. The decision to call resources "ethnographic" depends
1

Mourkas – Built environment resources; Braun – Archaeological and ethnographic resources.

February 2015

4.4-1

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 on whether associated peoples perceive them as traditionally meaningful to their identity
as a group and the survival of their lifeways.2
Historic-period resources are those materials, archaeological and architectural, usually
associated with Euro-American exploration and settlement of an area and the beginning
of a written historical record. They may include archaeological deposits, sites,
structures, traveled ways, artifacts, or other evidence of human activity. Under federal
and state requirements, historical cultural resources must be greater than fifty years old
to be considered of potential historic importance. A resource less than 50 years of age
may be historically important if the resource is of exceptional importance.
For the amended CECP, staff provides an overview of the environmental setting and
history of the project area, an inventory of the cultural resources identified in the project
vicinity, and an analysis of the potential impacts from the proposed project using criteria
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The primary concern is to ensure
that all potential impacts are identified and that conditions are set forth that ensure that
impacts are mitigated below the level of significance.
If cultural resources are identified, staff determines whether there may be a projectrelated impact to them. If the cultural resources cannot be avoided, staff determines
whether any of the impacted resources are eligible for the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR). If impacted resources are eligible for the CRHR, staff
recommends mitigation measures that ensure that impacts to the identified cultural
resources are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS (LORS)
Projects proposed before the Energy Commission are reviewed to ensure that the
proposed facilities would comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards (Pub. Resources Code, §25525; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, §§1702[n],
1744[b]).
See Cultural Resources Table 1 for a summary of cultural resources LORS applicable
to the project.

2

A “lifeway,” as used herein, refers to any unique body of behavioral norms, customs, and traditions that
structure the way a particular people carry out their daily lives.
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-2

February 2015

 Cultural Resources Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards
Applicable LOR
State

Public Resources
Code, §§5097.98(b)
and (e)

Public Resources
Code, §5097.99
Health and Safety
Code, §7050.5
Civil Code, §1798.24

Government Code,
§6250.10—California
Public Records Act
Local
County of San Diego
Guidelines for
Determining
Significance, Cultural
Resources:
Archaeological and
Historic Resources
2007
City of Carlsbad
General Plan – Open
Space and
Conservation
Element 2006

Description
Requires a landowner on whose property Native American human remains are
found to limit further development activity in the vicinity until s/he confers with the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC)-identified Most Likely
Descendents (MLDs) to consider treatment options. In the absence of MLDs or
of a treatment acceptable to all parties, the landowner is required to reinter the
remains elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further
disturbance.
§5097.99 prohibits the acquisition, possession, sale, or dissection with malice or
wantonness of Native American remains or artifacts taken from a Native
American grave or cairn.
This code prohibits the disturbance or removal of human remains found outside
a cemetery. It also requires a project owner to halt construction if human remains
are discovered and to contact the county coroner.
Provides for non-disclosure of confidential information that may otherwise lead to
harm of the human subject divulging confidential information
Provides for non-disclosure of records that relate to archaeological site
information and reports maintained by, or in the possession of, the Department
of Parks and Recreation (DPR), the State Historical Resources Commission, the
State Lands Commission, the NAHC, another state agency, or a local agency,
including the records that the agency obtains through a consultation process
between a California Native American tribe and a state or local agency.

These guidelines are used by county staff for the review of discretionary projects
and environmental documents pursuant to CEQA and assist in providing a
consistent, objective, and predictable evaluation of significant effects (San Diego
County 2007).

Encourages property owners to use all available incentives to preserve historic
resources, including tax incentives and regional, state, and federal programs that
promote cultural preservation to upgrade and redevelop property vitality;
encourages the rehabilitation of historic structures through adoption of the
Historic Building Code; and incorporates the cultural resource guidelines in the
environmental review of development applications (City of Carlsbad 2006:34-36).

SETTING
Information provided regarding the setting of the amended CECP places it within
geographical and geological contexts and specifies the technical description of the
project. Additionally, the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historical settings provide the
contexts for the CRHR evaluation of the historical significance of any identified cultural
resources within the Project Area of Analysis (PAA).

February 2015

4.4-3

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 REGIONAL SETTING
Like the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would be located in northwestern San
Diego County (LL 2014d: Figure 1.3-1). The proposed project site is located on the
coastal plain at the western edge of the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province of
Southern California. The region is within the geomorphic province of the Peninsular
Ranges, which extend south into Baja California and west into the Pacific Ocean and
make up the Southern Channel Islands, and are bounded on the east by the Colorado
Desert. This portion of northwestern San Diego County has undergone a geological
process for the past 54 million years known as marine regression, wherein the
previously submerged seafloor becomes exposed. Thus, this marine regression has
resulted in a thick sequence of marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks on the
seaside terrain.

PROJECT, SITE, AND VICINITY DESCRIPTION
The amended project site is located in the urban, beachside city of Carlsbad. Like the
licensed CECP, the project site is bordered on the north by the Agua Hedionda Lagoon;
on the east by Interstate 5 (I-5) freeway and agricultural fields; on the south/southeast
by residential and commercial properties; and, on the west by Carlsbad Boulevard and
the Pacific Ocean.

Environmental Setting
Identifying the kinds and distribution of resources necessary to sustain human life in an
environment, and the changes in that environment over time is central to understanding
whether and how an area was used during prehistory and history. During the time that
humans have lived in California, the region in which the project site is located has
undergone several climatic shifts. These shifts have resulted in variable availability of
vital resources, and that variability has influenced the scope and scale of human use of
the project vicinity. Consequently, it is important to consider the historical character of
local climate change, or the paleoclimate, and the effects of the paleoclimate on the
physical development of the area and its ecology. An overview is provided here for the
reader, with a more detailed environmental setting provided in Cultural Resources
Appendix CR-1.
Overview
The amended CECP project site is situated at an elevation of approximately 50 feet
above mean sea level (amsl) on southwestern shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and
proximate to the Pacific Ocean. The modern climate of the project vicinity is
Mediterranean, influenced by the adjacent open coastline.
The paleoclimate and ecology of the project vicinity is complex, but well-represented by
the following general framework: a moderately cool and moist period known as the
Anathermal (ca. 10,000–7500 B.P.); a warmer and drier period referred to as the
Altithermal (ca.7500–4000 B.P.); the moisture and temperature conditions that resemble
those of today known as the Medithermal (ca. 4000 B.P.–present (Moratto et al.
1978:147-148).

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-4

February 2015

 Geologically, the amended project site is situated on two types of artificial fill (a silty to
slightly clayey sand, and a sandy conglomerate fill), as well as marine and non-marine
terrace deposits of Late Pleistocene age (80,000 to 120,000 years old), which overlay
an Eocene-aged (about 50 million years old) marine bedrock strata. The
geomorphology considers how and when the underlying soils and sediments at the
amended project area developed, and is discussed in more detail in Cultural
Resources Appendix CR-1.
The ecological community most closely associated with the amended CECP project
area, and that which would have been available to prehistoric Native Americans, is that
associated with the Agua Hedionda estuary. There are three primary vegetation
communities that would have been present during prehistoric times, the Diegan coastal
sage scrub habitat, marsh, estuarine, freshwater and saltwater marsh, and other
wetland habitats, and riparian woodland. A host of plants and animals that are useable
for food and other resources live in these habitats and are detailed more fully in
Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1.

Prehistoric Setting
The regional archaeological history for the San Diego region presented by Gallegos
(2002: Figure 3.3) is most applicable to the amended project area. This sequence
identifies two periods, the Early/Archaic Period (ca. 10,000 years before present (B.P.)
to ca. 1,300 B.P.), and the Late Period (ca. 1,300 B.P. to historic contact), with various
traditions/complexes identified within these periods which are discussed in more detail
in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1. The periods are primarily separated on the
basis of differences in material culture through time, e.g., projectile point technologies,
use or non-use of various food-processing materials, burial practices, or ceramics.

Ethnographic Setting
Agua Hedionda and the land that surrounds the lagoon and creek was aboriginal
territory between the Luiseño to the north and the Kumeyaay (also referred to as the
Ipai and Tipai or Diegueño) to the south (Bean and Shipek 1978: Figure 1; Luomala
1978: Figure1). Thus, both groups have ties to the project area and will be discussed
throughout this cultural resources analysis.
The amended CECP is located in the coastal portion of the Luiseño and Kumeyaay
mainland territory and adjacent to the, now dredged, Agua Hedionda Estuary. Alfred
Kroeber (1976: Plate 57) provides a map of ethnographic village and camp locations.
Palamai is identified on this map as being located on the Pacific coast in the Carlsbad
region, and Kroeber (1907:147) suggests that Palamai was the Luiseño name of Agua
Hedionda. This ethnographic village later provided the name “Palomar” to several of the
surrounding features of Carlsbad (e.g., Palomar Airport Road, Palomar Mountain). More
detailed ethnographic information is included in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1.
Contemporary Tribal Entities with Ethnographic Affiliations
There are numerous Luiseño and Kumeyaay tribes, nations and other organizations.
Some of these groups are federally recognized and others have not yet received federal
recognition; however, the Energy Commission consults will all tribes on the list provided
by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), regardless of recognition status.
February 2015

4.4-5

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 The NAHC letter to staff (Singleton 2014) identified the tribal entities listed in Cultural
Resources Appendix CR-1.

Historic Setting
The historic period in the vicinity of the project site can be separated into three major
periods, the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the
American Period (1848–Present). The first significant Euro-American settlement in the
area began with the Rancho Agua Hedionda. Another notable event in the history of the
area included the owner of the Rancho, Robert Kelly, granting a coastal right-of-way to
the Southern California Railway for a railroad in 1880. Construction of the railroad
initiated development on the coast, including railroad depot stops and a stage coach
operation. At the northern depot in Carlsbad, Frazier’s Station, two wells provided water
for railroad passengers, and the water became famous for its high quality. With the
influx of publicity and tourism regarding the touted health aspects of the water, a resort
hotel was built and the land was subdivided for other commercial and residential
interests, initiating a population boom in the region until the late 1880s. Development in
Carlsbad was stagnant until about 1914 when the South Coast Land Company acquired
much of the land owned by the Carlsbad Land and Mineral Water Company, and
promoted real estate development along the coast. The Encina Power Station came
online in 1954 to accommodate the energy needs of the burgeoning population growth
in coastal Southern California (Harmon 1961). More detailed historic period information
is included in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Regulatory Context
The regulatory context with regard to cultural resources for the amended CECP has not
changed since the licensed CECP was approved; however, for the convenience of the
reader the context is included here.
California Environmental Quality Act
Various laws apply to the evaluation and treatment of cultural resources. CEQA requires
the Energy Commission to evaluate cultural resources by determining whether they
meet several sets of specified criteria. These evaluations then influence the analysis of
potential impacts to the resources and the mitigation that may be required to ameliorate
any such impacts.
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines define significant cultural resources under two
regulatory definitions: historical resources and unique archaeological resources. A
historical resource is defined as a “resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the
State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the CRHR”, or “a resource listed in
a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in a historical resource
survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code,”
or “any object , building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead
agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural,
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-6

February 2015

 engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or
cultural annals of California, provided the agency’s determination is supported by
substantial evidence in light of the whole record.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,
§15064.5[a].) Historical resources that are automatically listed in the CRHR include
California historical resources listed in or formally determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Registered Historical Landmarks from
No. 770 onward (Pub. Resources Code, §5024.1[d]).
Under CEQA, a resource is generally considered to be historically significant if it meets
the criteria for listing in the CRHR. These criteria are essentially the same as the
eligibility criteria for the NRHP. In addition to being at least 50 years old,3 a resource
must meet at least one (and may meet more than one) of the following four criteria
(Pub. Resources Code, §5024.1):
•

Criterion 1, is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history;

•

Criterion 2, is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;

•

Criterion 3, embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or
possesses high artistic values; or

•

Criterion 4, has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to history or
prehistory.

In addition, historical resources must also possess integrity of location, design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §4852[c]).
Even if a resource is not listed or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR,
CEQA allows the lead agency to make a determination as to whether the resource is a
historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code, sections, 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
In addition to historical resources, archaeological artifacts, objects, or sites can meet
CEQA’s definition of a unique archaeological resource, even if it does not qualify as a
historical resource (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15064.5[c][3]). Archaeological artifacts,
objects, or sites are considered unique archaeological resources if “it can be clearly
demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a
high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and
that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best
available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic
event or person.” (Pub. Resources Code, §21083.2[g].)

3

The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP 1995:2) endorses recording and evaluating resources over 45
years of age to accommodate a five-year lag in the planning process.
February 2015

4.4-7

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 To determine whether a proposed project may have a significant effect on the [cultural
resources] environment, staff analyzes the project’s potential to cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of historical or unique archaeological resources. The
significance of an impact depends on:
•

The cultural resource affected;

•

The nature of the resource’s historical significance;

•

How the resource’s historical significance is manifested physically and perceptually;

•

Appraisals of those aspects of the resource’s integrity that figure importantly in the
manifestation of the resource’s historical significance; and

•

How much the impact will change those integrity appraisals.

At Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15064.5(b), the State CEQA
Guidelines define a substantial adverse change as “physical demolition, destruction,
relocation or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.”

HISTORICAL RESOURCES INVENTORY
The development of an inventory of historical resources in and near the proposed
project area is the requisite first step in the assessment of whether the project might,
under Public Resources Code, section 21084.1, cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical resource, and could therefore, have a significant effect on
the environment. The effort to develop the inventory has involved conducting a
sequence of investigatory phases that includes doing background research, consulting
with local Native American communities, conducting primary field research, interpreting
the results of the inventory effort, as a whole, and evaluating whether found cultural
resources are historically significant. This section discusses the methods and the results
of each inventory phase, develops the historical resources inventory for the analysis of
the proposed project, and interprets the inventory to assess how well it represents the
archaeology of the PAA.

Project Area of Analysis
The PAA is a concept that staff uses to define the geographic area in which the
proposed project has the potential to affect cultural resources. The effects that a project
may have on cultural resources may be immediate, further removed in time, or
cumulative. They may be physical, visual, auditory, or olfactory in character. The
geographic area that would encompass consideration of all such effects may or may not
be one uninterrupted expanse. It may include the project area, which would be the site
of the proposed plant (project site), the routes of requisite transmission lines and water
and natural gas pipelines, and other offsite ancillary facilities, in addition to one or
several discontiguous areas where the project could be argued to potentially affect
cultural resources.
Staff defines the archaeological PAA as comprising (a) the proposed project site and a
one-mile radius (Cultural Resources Figure 1). The architectural study is defined as
the area set one parcel beyond the proposed project site (Cultural Resources Figure
2).
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-8

February 2015

 For ethnographic resources, the area of analysis is expanded to take into account
sacred sites, traditional cultural properties (places), and larger areas such as
ethnographic landscapes that can be vast and encompassing, including viewsheds that
contribute to the historical significance of such historical resources. The NAHC assists
project-specific cultural resources consultants and agency staff in identifying these
resources, and consultation with Native Americans and other ethnic or community
groups may contribute to defining the area of analysis. For the amended CECP, staff
identified one potential ethnographic resource in the area, the village of Palamai at
Agua Hedionda, and so defined an area of analysis that includes the estuary in its
entirety and the surrounding landforms. The ethnographic PAA directly corresponds to
the proposed Agua Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District (Cultural Resources
Figure 1).

Background Research
The background research for the present analysis employs information that the project
owner/petitioner and Energy Commission staff gathered from literature and record
searches, and information that staff obtained as a result of consultation with affiliated
Native American entities and the city of Carlsbad. The purpose of the background
information is to help formulate the initial cultural resources inventory for the present
analysis, to identify information gaps, and to inform the design and the interpretation of
the field research that will serve to complete the inventory.
Literature Review and Records Search
The literature review and records search portion of the background research attempts to
gather and interpret documentary evidence of the known cultural resources in the
project area of analysis. The source for the present search was the South Coastal
Information Center (SCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) located at San Diego State University.
Methods and Results
CH2M Hill, the cultural resources consultant to the petitioner, requested a records
search from the SCIC for the licensed CECP proceeding on June 25, 2007. The records
search covered the proposed project site and a one-mile radius surrounding it (CECP
2007:Appendix 5.3C). The records search, conducted by SCIC staff on July 5, 2007,
included examinations of the SCIC’s GIS database of previous cultural resource studies
and known cultural resources as well as:
•

The NRHP listings and determinations of eligibility.

•

The CRHR listings and determinations of eligibility.

•

Historic Property Data Records.

•

Known/recorded archaeological sites and associated Primary Forms.

•

Bibliography of all reports, surveys, excavations, inventories, and studies.

•

Historic maps.

•

Historic addresses

February 2015

4.4-9

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 In partial response to staff’s Data Request 31, the petitioner conducted an updated
cultural resources record search at the SCIC on October 3, 2014. In addition, staff
conducted an online search for proposed projects and environmental impact analyses
using the websites of the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas and Oceanside. The purpose of
this search was to identify cultural resource analyses that might not have been
submitted to the SCCIC or were submitted after October 3, 2014.
The literature review and records search indicate that 85 previous cultural resource
studies have been conducted in the records search area; of these, 13 cultural resource
studies have been conducted within or adjacent to the PAA. Additionally, a total of 35
cultural resources have been previously recorded in the records search area. Of these,
three are located in the amended CECP project area (see Cultural Resources Table
2). Tables detailing the literature review results are included in Cultural Resources
Appendix CR-1.
Cultural Resources Table 2
Literature Review Results: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources in the
amended CECP Project Area
Resource
Designation

Type

(unknown
prefix)
210/W-127A

Prehistoric

CA-SDI16885

Prehistoric

CA-SDI6751

Prehistoric

Description

Location

Archaeological Resources
Cobble
PAA
hearths, shell,
lithics
Shell and lithic
scatter, FAR,
PAA
scrapers,
hammerstones
Shell scatter

PAA

Significance

Source

Rogers N.D.

CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007

Additional Literature Review
Staff conducted additional research at the Energy Commission in-house library through
inter-library loans services, California History Room of the California State Library in
Sacramento, and online sources, as well as consulted the reports contained in the
applicant’s records searches (CH2M Hill 2007: Appendix 5.3C; Helton 2014). The
purpose of this research was to obtain an understanding of the natural and cultural
development of the land in and around the PAA, identify locations of potential historic
built environment and archaeological resources, and have a partial, chronological
record of disturbances in the PAA. All consulted historic maps are presented in Cultural
Resources Appendix CR-1.
Native American Consultation
Methods
The Governor’s Executive Order B-10-11, executed on September 19, 2011, directs
state agencies to engage in meaningful consultation with California Indian Tribes on
matters that may affect tribal communities. The California Resources Agency adopted a
Final Tribal Consultation Policy on November 20, 2012 that extols informed decision
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-10

February 2015

 making by collaboratively working with tribes to seek positive, achievable, and durable
outcomes, and the Energy Commission adopted its own Tribal Consultation Policy on
December 10, 2014. The Energy Commission Siting Regulations require applicants to
contact the NAHC for information on Native American sacred sites and a list of Native
Americans interested in the project vicinity. The applicant is then required to notify those
Native Americans on the NAHC’s list about the project and include a copy of all
correspondence with the NAHC and Native Americans, including any written responses
received, as well as a written summary of any oral responses in the AFC (Cal. Code
Regs., tit. 20, §1704[b][2], Appendix B[g][2][D]).
The NAHC is the primary California government agency responsible for identifying and
cataloging Native American cultural resources, providing protection to Native American
human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction, and
preventing irreparable damage to designated sacred sites and interference with the
expression of Native American religion in California. It also provides a legal means by
which Native American descendents can make known their concerns regarding the
need for sensitive treatment and disposition of Native American burials, skeletal
remains, and items associated with Native American burials.
The NAHC maintains two databases to assist cultural resources specialists in identifying
cultural resources of concern to California Native Americans, referred to by staff as
Native American ethnographic resources. The NAHC’s Sacred Lands database has
records for areas, places, sites and objects that Native Americans consider sacred or
otherwise important, such as cemeteries and gathering places for traditional foods and
materials. The NAHC Contacts database has the names and contact information for
individuals, representing a group or themselves, who have expressed an interest in
being contacted about development projects in specific areas.
Results
In an effort to conduct an independent analysis of ethnographic resources, staff also
requested information from the NAHC on the presence of sacred lands in the vicinity of
the proposed project, as well as a list of Native Americans to whom inquiries should be
sent to identify both additional cultural resources and any concerns the Native
Americans may have about the proposed project.
Staff contacted the NAHC on July 16, 2014 and requested a search of the Sacred
Lands File and a Native American contacts list. The NAHC responded on July 17, 2014
with a list of Native Americans interested in consulting on development projects in the
project area. A check of the NAHC Sacred Lands File resulted in the presence of
multiple Native American traditional sites/places within the project site. Staff sent letters
to all of the NAHC-listed tribes on August 19, 2014 inviting them to comment on the
proposed project and offered to hold face-to-face consultation meetings if any tribal
entities so requested. Follow-up phone calls were made by staff to those groups from
whom staff had not received a response on September 17, 2014. Additional phone calls
and emails occurred on September 2, 3, 16, and 22, 2014. Staff received several
comments from multiple tribal entities that the project area is very sensitive for cultural
resources and human remains and that there are significant concerns regarding impacts
to these resources, and that it is very important to have Native American monitors, both
February 2015

4.4-11

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Luiseño and Kumeyaay, during all project activities that have potential to impact cultural
resources.
A face-to-face meeting was held with two representatives of the San Luis Rey tribe on
September 26, 2014. The conversation concerned the known sites in the project area,
the need to test these sites for CRHR significance, the need for Native American
monitors, and the high potential for buried sites in the project area.
In accordance with federal and state law, regulations, policies, and guidance, staff
considered the proposed project’s potential to cause significant adverse impacts on
environmental justice populations (E.O. 12898; 40 C.F.R., §§1508.8, 1508.14; Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14, §§15064(e), 15131, 15382; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 20, §1704(b)(2),
App. B(g)(7); CEQ 1997). Socioeconomics Figure 1 indicates that an environmental
justice population does not exist within a six-mile buffer of the proposed project area
(see the Socioeconomics section of this Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for a discussion
of methods and composition of the environmental justice population). Staff also
reviewed the ethnographic and historical literature, and corresponded with Native
American tribes, to determine whether any environmental justice populations use or
reside in the project area. Staff concluded that because Indian tribes maintain longstanding ancestral and traditional use practices and concepts connected to the
environment and to their identities as Indian people, they do constitute an environmental
justice population.
These efforts are documented in the “Ethnographic Setting” and “Native American
Consultation” subsections, which can be found in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1.

Cultural Resources Distribution Models
One critical use of the information drawn together during the background research for a
cultural resources analysis is to inform the design and the interpretation of the field
research that will complete the cultural resources inventory for the analysis. The
background research for the present analysis of the amended CECP within the PAA
was recorded for the May 31, 2012 licensed CECP and the May 2, 2014 PTA (Carlsbad
Energy Center LLC. 2007, LL2014d). A further role of background research is to help
develop predictive or anticipatory models of the distribution of cultural resources across
the PAA. Such models of the types of archaeological, ethnographic, and builtenvironment resources, and the patterns of their distribution across and beneath the
surface of the landforms of the PAA, provide the means to tailor more appropriate
research designs for the field investigations that will complete a cultural resources
inventory, and help gauge the degree to which the results of those investigations may
reflect the actual population of archaeological, ethnographic, and built-environment
resources in the PAA. Such models also provide important contexts for the ultimate
interpretation of the results of those investigations.
Models of the distribution of prehistoric archaeological sites, of ethnographic resources,
and of historical archaeological sites and built-environment resources are developed
here and draw on information in the “Environmental Setting,” “Prehistoric Setting,”
“Ethnographic Setting,” and “Historic Setting” subsections of Cultural Resources
Appendix CR-1, in addition to the information in the “Background Research” subsection
of Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1. Staff formulated data requests during the
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-12

February 2015

 discovery phase of the present certification process on the basis of these models to
ensure the collection of enough information to factually support the conclusions of this
analysis. The discussions in the “Interpretation of Results” subsection below also
employ the models.
Model of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources
The analysis of the information in the “Environmental Setting,” “Prehistoric Setting,” and
“Background Research” subsections of the Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1 leads
to the conclusion that the likelihood of prehistoric archaeological deposits across the
surface of the PAA is low and subsurface prehistoric archaeological deposits could be
present in the PAA.
According to the Geomorphology subsection in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1,
the sandy ocean shoreline present today began to form between 6000 and 5000 B.P.,
and was in place by about 4000 B.P. Particularly in the last 4,000 years, sand spits and
droughts periodically closed larger estuaries and open bays, producing shallow lagoons
and wetlands attractive to waterfowl (Masters and Aiello 2007:40). The project area is
unique in that the Agua Hedionda estuary provided vast resources for prehistoric
peoples living close to it. Long-term human habitation with respect to the estuary would
have been restricted to the higher elevations around the margins of the estuary, with
resource processing (e.g., shellfish or lithics) locations located closer to the water. It
should be noted that the location of estuaries, lagoons, and bolsas changed over the
past 4,000–5,000 years (Engstrom 2006:852, 854). The entirety of the area around the
estuary, therefore, cannot be assumed to have been uninhabitable for the entirety of the
last 5,000 years. The resource base provided by the estuary is known to have been a
draw to human use and habitation of the project vicinity (e.g., Gallegos 1991; Koerper et
al. 1991; Moriarty 1967).
The petitioner suggests that the geomorphology and previous ground disturbance at the
proposed project site has reduced the likelihood of encountering buried archaeological
resources to a low level (Carlsbad Energy Center LLC. 2014:5.3-2; Helton 2014: 4-1 –
4-2). The PTA points out that construction of the existing EPS and subsequent
infrastructure development resulted in a large amount of ground disturbance and
placement of fill throughout most of the project area. Staff agrees that prior disturbance
and placement of fill reduces the probability of encountering intact buried archaeological
resources, but does not preclude their existence or their presumed integrity.
Whether the petitioner would encounter buried prehistoric archaeological deposits
during construction depends on several factors, including the location and depth of
construction, the depositional character and the ages of the sedimentary deposits that
construction would disturb, the presence of buried land surfaces or buried surfaces of
ancient soils (paleosols), the duration or stability of any paleosols, the post-depositional
character of geomorphic processes in the PAA, and the nature of past human activities
in the area. The information provided in the PTA, Helton (2014) and staff’s analysis
indicate that the proposed project site is on an uplifted marine terrace, suggesting that
the most likely form of deposition during the Holocene (the time period in which humans
occupied the area) would be the result of aeolian action. Much or all of any such
deposition would have occurred within the last 10,000 years. The Environmental and
Prehistoric settings in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1 show that the Agua
February 2015

4.4-13

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Hedionda estuary contains abundant natural resources, and as evidenced by the
recordation of three cultural resources in the PAA, this area was a draw to human use
of the project vicinity. Given these qualities of the PAA, staff suggests that the PAA is
likely to contain buried archaeological resources.
Model of Ethnographic Resources
Ethnography fulfills a supporting role for other anthropological disciplines as well as
providing contributions on its own merits. For example, ethnography provides a
supporting role to the discipline of archaeology by providing a cultural and historic
context for understanding the people associated with the material remains of the past.
By understanding the cultural milieu in which archaeological sites and artifacts were
manufactured, utilized, or cherished, this ethnographic information can provide greater
understanding for identification efforts, making significance determinations per the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) or CEQA, as applicable; eligibility
determinations for the NRHP or the CRHR, as applicable; and for assessing if and how
artifacts are subject to other cultural resources laws, such as the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
In addition, ethnography has merits of its own by providing information concerning
ethnographic resources that tend to encompass physical places, areas, or elements or
attributes of a place or area. Ethnographic resources have overlap and affinity to historic
preservation property types referred to as cultural landscapes, traditional cultural
properties (TCPs), sacred sites, heritage resources, historic properties, or historical
resources that are areas or places, and specific historic property or historical resource
types of sites, objects, buildings, structures, districts, areas or places. There is notable
overlap in terminology when referring to ethnographic resources. Studies that focus on
specific ethnographic resource types may also take on names such as ethnogeography,
ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnosemantics, ethnomusicology, etc. In general, the
ethnographic endeavor attempts to minimize human conflict by facilitating an iterative
cross-cultural understanding and, by extension, self-awareness.
While several definitions of ethnographic resources can be found in historic preservation
literature, the National Park Service (NPS) provides the most succinct and commonly
used definition (NPS 2007: Chapter10):
Ethnographic resources are variations of natural resources and standard
cultural resource types. They are subsistence and ceremonial locales and
sites, structures, objects, and rural and urban landscapes assigned
cultural significance by traditional users. The decision to call resources
"ethnographic" depends on whether associated peoples perceive them as
traditionally meaningful to their identity as a group and the survival of their
life ways.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-14

February 2015

 Ethnographic Methods
Ethnographic methods, when applied to projects of limited size and scope involve four
steps.4
Step 1 involves reviewing the project description and mapped project location and,
based upon the geographic and environmental setting, formulate preliminary guiding
questions that may be asked of people with cultural affiliation to the project area.
Step 2 involves contacting, informally discussing with, (or formally interviewing) people
who might have a cultural relationship or affiliation to a given area.
As Step 2 is being conducted, a parallel Step 3 involves archival “search, retrieve, and
assess” process that should be undertaken to provide supporting or conflicting
information to what is being discovered through the discussion process. In addition to
archives, book stores, and other informational repositories (e.g., the internet), the
people themselves or other ethnographers with previous experiences with the same
people, may provide source materials. Findings in Step 3 may require a repetition of
Step 2.
Step 4 involves field visit(s) that are intended to help the ethnographer triangulate
between what people currently say, what people have written in the past, and what is
actually or perceived to be in the project vicinity as a potential ethnographic resource.
Preliminary Guiding Research Domains
Based upon the project description and project location maps three preliminary Guiding
Questions were developed.
•

The Luiseño village of Palamai is located on a map (Kroeber 1976: Plate 57) in the
vicinity of Carlsbad. Research the location and any information regarding this village
site.

•

Research contemporary Luiseño and Kumeyaay connections to archaeological sites
at the project site and around Agua Hedionda.

•

Research Palamai and contemporary Luiseño and Kumeyaay connections with the
Palamai settlement.

As documented in the “Native American Consultation” subsection, staff made efforts to
make preliminary contact with Native Americans affiliated with the project area.
Meetings were held around the proposed project area in September of 2014. One
meeting was held with representatives of the San Luis Rey Tribe’s cultural resources
group. Discussions focused on the known sites in the project area, sites around Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, the need for Native American monitors, and the high potential for
sites in the project area.

4

See Pelto 2013, Chapter 16 for an overview of applied ethnographic methods for conducting focused
inquiry conducted in limited timeframes.
February 2015

4.4-15

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Interviews
Staff did not complete any interviews for inclusion in the FSA.
Archival Research
Staff made efforts to seek, obtain, and assess culturally relevant information from
various archival sources. Information specifically sought related to Palamai, the
relationship between Palamai and the Luiseño and Kumeyaay, as well as other
archaeological sites in the vicinity of Agua Hedionda. The California History Room of the
California State Library, located in Sacramento, was also used for retrieving
ethnographic information.
Field Visit
Ethnographic staff visited the project area and its surroundings on September 24, 2014.
Staff’s visual observation of the project site and vicinity did not result in the field
identification of ethnographic resources because of the paved character and industrial
nature of the area.
Ethnographic Method Constraints
Constraints on the ethnographic methods described above are twofold:
1. There has been a significant amount of loss of traditional cultural knowledge on the
part of the Luiseño and Kumeyaay, and
2. Little information is available concerning Palamai, other than Kroeber’s map of the
village and the interpretation of the word Palamai as meaning “Agua Hedionda”
(Kroeber 1907:147).
Model of Historical Archaeological Resources
The analysis of the information in the “Environmental Setting,” “Historic Setting,” and
“Background Research” of Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1, leads to the
conclusion that historic archaeological deposits are likely present in low frequency
across the surface of the PAA and subsurface historic archaeological deposits could be
present as well.
The primary historic land uses in the vicinity of the amended CECP include agricultural
and industrial uses. Thus, buried historic archaeological resources in the PAA are
expected to consist of refuse deposits associated with domestic, railroad, and industrial
disposal.

Cultural Resources Inventory Fieldwork
The field efforts to identify cultural resources in the PAA consist of the project
owner’s/petitioner’s pedestrian archaeological and historic built-environment surveys,
archaeological, built-environment, monitoring reports for other projects in the PAA,
staff’s field visits to the proposed project site and vicinity, and a subsurface
archaeological inventory in the vicinity of previously recorded archaeological sites (see
Cultural Resources Tables A1 and A2 in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1). On
the basis of the applicant’s/petitioner’s background research for the present analysis,
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-16

February 2015

 staff investigations and the results of the field efforts that are presently available, the
total cultural resources inventory for the PAA includes three archaeological, one
ethnographic, and 12 built-environment resources, in addition to one archaeological
district.
This section discusses the methods and the results of each field inventory phase and
interprets the resultant inventory relative to the cultural resources distribution models
above to assess how well the inventory represents the archaeology of the project area.
Descriptions of each cultural resource in the inventory, consideration of and potential
impacts on archaeological resources that may lie buried on the project site, and
proposed mitigation measures for significant impacts may be found in the “California
Register of Historical Resources Eligibility” and “Identification and Assessment of Direct
Impacts on Built-Environment Resources and Proposed Mitigation” subsections below.
Pedestrian Archaeological Surveys
Methods
As stated in the PTA, an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
professional qualifications surveyed the amended project site on February 4, 2014. The
amended project site consisted primarily of buildings, structures, and pavement,
rendering ground surface visibility to zero except in areas of unpaved dirt and grass
(Carlsbad Energy Center LLC. 2007:Appendix 5.3E; Helton 2014:Figure DR31-1).
Results
No evidence of the three previously recorded archaeological resources was identified
on the surface in the PAA as a result of the petitioner’s survey (Carlsbad Energy Center
LLC. 2007:Appendix 5.3F:3; Helton 2014:4-3). However, staff’s research and site visit
has led to the conclusion that an archaeological district, the Agua Hedionda
Archaeological District, is present in the PAA. Additionally, staff’s research and site visit
suggests that there is a potential for two of the previously recorded sites, CA-SDI-16885
and (unknown prefix) 210/W-127A to be extant subsurface in the PAA. Staff requested
the petitioner to determine the subsurface extent and CRHR eligibility of these sites in
areas where there could be impacts (Data Requests 34 and 35). The petitioner did not
agree to conduct testing of these sites. However, because staff considered this
information necessary to complete the cultural resources analysis, staff wrote a
research design and testing plan (of which the research questions portion is included in
Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1) for this investigation and asked the petitioner for
access to the CECP site to conduct the work. At the December 10, 2014 CECP status
conference, the petitioner agreed to allow staff access to conduct the subsurface
archaeological inventory.
Subsurface Archaeological Inventory
Methods
On behalf of staff, Applied Earthworks conducted a subsurface archaeological inventory
of the project site in the vicinity of sites CA-SDI-16885 and (unknown prefix) 210/W127A, in areas where the petitioner proposes ground-disturbing activities. This
investigation was a two-part exercise. The first step was to determine the horizontal and
February 2015

4.4-17

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 vertical extent of CA-SDI-16885 in the vicinity of ASTs 1 and 2, in particular to the east
and north of Tank 2, and west, north, and east of Tank 1, as well the horizontal and
vertical extent of (unknown prefix) 210/W-127A in the vicinity of the proposed electrical
conduit line near the 230 kV switchyard expansion area.
The second step of this investigation was an evaluation of each site for eligibility in the
CRHR and recommendation whether the site is an historical resource for the purposes
of CEQA. This evaluation entailed the collection of specific data sets which would fulfill
specific CRHR criteria or answer relevant research questions (CRHR criterion 4). In
addition to answering research questions, evaluation of a site can also be based on the
site’s significance in local, regional, or state history (CRHR criterion 1), particularly if
Native Americans ascribe significance to the site for religious or other reasons; the
association of the site to persons of significance (CRHR criterion 2), in the case of these
sites, likely a notable Native American; or, the artistic nature of the site (CRHR criterion
3).
Results
Three backhoe skip trenches were placed in the area where (unknown prefix) 210/W127A was recorded, just north of the 230kV switchyard. No evidence of (unknown
prefix) 210/W-127A was found subsurface in the vicinity of the switchyard expansion
area, and all three trenches exhibited similar stratigraphic profiles. The deposits were
found to consist entirely of redeposited, highly disturbed sediments to a depth of at least
5 feet below ground surface (Clark 2015).
Seven backhoe skip trenches were placed in the areas near where CA-SDI-16885 was
previously recorded. In one of the trenches on the northwest side of Tank 2,
approximately 17 inches below the ground surface, a flaked stone scraper tool and two
pieces of fire-affected rock were recovered. These deposits were found in a rodent
burrow within native soils, suggesting that intact archaeological deposits could be
present, and thus, according to the research design, a one meter x one meter x one
meter excavation unit was placed. The other six trenches in this area were negative for
archaeological materials and were found to consist of highly disturbed artificial fill
sediments ranging in depth from five to 20 centimeters overlying the culturally sterile
Pleistocene5 level (Clark 2015).

5

The identification of this level as Pleistocene is assumed based on Magorien’s (2006) descriptions and
other geological work conducted in the area that conforms to the same geologic profile as the assumed
Pleistocene terrace.
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-18

February 2015

 The excavation of the test unit revealed a lithic flake, and two additional pieces of
fire-affected rock. The stratigraphy of this unit consisted of a layer of redeposited
fill to about 20 centimeters below the ground surface. Below this layer were
native soils associated with the uppermost portion of the marine terrace deposit,
overlying a portion of the stratum which exhibited a moderate degree of
bioturbation (root activity and rodent-burrowing). It is in these disturbed terrace
deposits that the artifacts were recovered, suggesting that the artifacts were not
associated with in-situ deposits and that the artifacts were displaced downward
via bioturbation (Clark 2015).Results of Ethnographic Resources Investigations
Staff research and site visit leads staff to suggest that an ethnographic resource
consisting of the Luiseño village of Palamai may be present in the PAA.
Historic Built Environment Survey
Methods: 2007 Field Survey
For the original AFC, JRP Historical Consulting, LLC (petitioner’s consultant) conducted
an architectural field survey to assess the potential for historic architectural resources at
the licensed CECP location. JRP established a PAA that included above-ground fuel oil
storage tanks (ASTs) 5, 6 and 7, the Cannon Substation and a segment of the North
County Transit District (NCTD) railroad tracks, which bisect the EPS property (JRP
2007:18). The architectural study area was limited to these resources.
In 2007, JRP identified three historic structures within the project area from the records
search and the field survey. The only structure of historic age at the time was the
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway’s “Surfline”, recorded via the field survey. It is a
4,000-foot long rail line that runs through the EPS property west of the CECP site, now
owned by NCTD and used by freight and commuter trains, including Amtrak. The track
was originally built in 1881-1882, and underwent realignment in 1906. JRP evaluated
this segment of the rail line on behalf of the petitioner. According to that evaluation, this
resource did not appear to meet the criteria for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or the San
Diego County Register of Historical Resources as it lacks integrity of design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling, and association for the potential period of significance
of 1882. Moreover, the report found that continued development along the route had
impacted the integrity of the line; as such, little remains of the 1882 track except the
location (CECP 2007a, Appendix 5.3B:19).
Also identified during this 2007 survey effort was the historical Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot
located at 400 Carlsbad Village Drive (Previously 400 Elm Drive). This resource is listed
on the NRHP. It is located almost one mile from the proposed project location with
numerous modern structures between the Historic Depot and the amended project.
Another address that exceeded 50 years of age in 2007 appears to be a private
residence located at 519 Chinquapin Avenue, several blocks north of the lagoon. It has
been listed by San Diego County as not eligible for the NRHP, but not evaluated for
eligibility for either the CRHR or local listing. It was classified as 6Y- determined
ineligible for NRHP by consensus through the NHPA Section 106 process-not evaluated
for CRHR or local listing in 1995. 519 Chinquapin is not locally listed as of 2014 - see
Cultural Resources Tables A7 and A8 in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1
reflecting the 2014 update to the city’s historic properties listings). There is considerable
February 2015

4.4-19

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 modern development located between the building and the licensed CECP (CECP
2007, Confidential Filing, Appendix 5.3C, Part 1). Staff concluded there would be no
direct or indirect impacts to historic structures in the 2009 FSA.
Methods: 2014 Field Survey
Built environment staff reviewed the May 2, 2014 PTA and the April 29, 2014 Petition to
Remove Obsolete Facilities (PTR), as well as the original September 2007 AFC,
associated cultural resources documents, the September 2008 Project Enhancement
and Refinement (PEAR) document, the November, 2009 FSA, the August 2011
Supplemental Staff Testimony, and the May 31, 2012 Commission Final Decision for
the licensed CECP. Given the proposed modifications contained in the PTA and PTR
(which were combined on September 24, 2014 by the Committee reviewing this
project), including the proposed expansion of the areas slated for demolition west of the
railroad tracks, expansion of the CECP footprint by seven acres for new power plant
construction purposes, and the complexity of the proposed project changes outlined in
the Project Description section of this FSA, staff concludes that there is insufficient
information to analyze the proposed amendment’s potential impacts on builtenvironment resources. Summarized below are the areas where the project data was
insufficient for staff to complete an analysis of the potential impacts to the environment.
As noted in the discussion above, the licensed CECP included a very narrow built
environment survey area, confined to the immediate construction area and two adjacent
properties. In September of 2007, JRP (JRP 2007) conducted an architectural field
survey to assess the potential for historic architectural resources at the licensed project
location. The architectural study area considered the location of above ground fuel oil
storage tanks (ASTs) 5, 6 and 7 (the footprint where the 23-acre licensed CECP project
was permitted for construction and operation after AST removal), the Cannon
Substation, and a segment of the former AT&SF tracks, now owned by NCTD (Carlsbad
Energy Center et al. 2008:5.3-15; CEC 2009:4.3-13). ASTs 5, 6 and 7 and the Cannon
Substation were not evaluated for their significance as historical resources because
they were not 506 years of age at the time of the survey in 2007. The segment of the
AT&SF railroad tracks within the EPS boundaries was the only built environment
resource evaluated for its potential as a historical resource under CEQA. JRP
concluded that the AT&SF railroad segment was not eligible for listing on either the
NRHP or the CRHR. Energy Commission staff concurred with that conclusion in the
2009 FSA (CEC 2009). ASTs 5, 6 and 7 date either to the late 1960s to early 1970s
(JRP 2007:18) or to 1972-1975-1977 (JRP 2014; 15). Depending on which date applies,
anything constructed through 1969, would be 45 years or older in 2014. The Cannon
Substation is attributed to 1976-1984 (JRP 2007:19), making it not of historic age and
therefore there continues to be no need to study it.
The proposed amendment would be implemented within the bounds of the EPS, which
was constructed in the 1950s and is of historic age. The EPS and affiliated structures
have been evaluated for significance under CEQA (Carlsbad Energy Center 2014a:5.32; White 2013; JRP 2014). The proposed amendment would affect the EPS by
demolishing most of its structures and associated facilities. Several known structures
6

JRP limited their investigation to resources 50 years or older. The Energy Commission uses 45 years or
older in conformance with state standards for evaluating historic properties.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-20

February 2015

 associated with the EPS were not included in the survey and evaluation. These are the
Substation Expansion Area and the Railroad Spur leading into the EPS building from
the AT&SF line. Additional structures of the EPS slated for demolition are two large firesuppression water tanks located on the adjacent SDG&E North Coast Service Center.
Considering the narrow study results of the licensed CECP, and the substantial
modifications and changes proposed by the amended CECP, staff identified a PAA
which includes the active 95-acre EPS parcel, the 16-acre SDG&E service center
parcel, and a one-parcel boundary typically used in urban projects. Consistent with Title
20, California Code of Regulations, sections 1704(b), 2012, Appendix B(g)(2)(C)(iii) and
Instructions for Recording Historical Resources (OHP 1995:9), the PAA survey and
evaluation needs to include not only the EPS but other resources 45 years or older
within the PAA established by staff (Cultural Resources Figure 2), applying the CEQA
historical significance criteria contained in Public Resources Code, section 21084.1, and
Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15064.5(a).
Additional information based upon this PAA was requested in Data Requests nos. 3638. Specifically, no. 36 and no. 37 requested the additional survey areas be evaluated
and project impacts to historic resources, if any, identified. Initially the petitioner
objected to these requests. The objections and staff’s rationale for requesting the
information was discussed at a public workshop held in Carlsbad on September 25,
2014. A subsequent response to the data requests docketed on October 17, 2014
(Carlsbad Energy Center Project 2014d) reiterated the petitioner’s objection to
expanding the study area and methodology beyond that required for the licensed CECP
and the evaluation of the EPS, submitted as part of the May 2, 2014 PTA. Staff
proceeded to investigate the historic-age properties within the PAA without the benefit
of a survey or evaluation by the petitioner.
Built Environment staff Melissa Mourkas conducted a reconnaissance survey of the
PAA and toured the project site on September 24, 2014. In addition to the EPS, three
Terramar neighborhood streets were investigated: Tierra del Oro on the western
boundary across Carlsbad Boulevard, and El Arbol and Los Robles on the southern
boundary across Cannon Road. These streets are in what is known as the Terramar
Association. This windshield survey also included the SDG&E North Coast Service
Center on Cannon Road (immediately south of the EPS), and Olive Avenue on the
northern boundary at the north end of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Staff identified 12
properties of historic age, 45 years or older, within the PAA, including the EPS. These
are listed in Cultural Resources Table A5 in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1.
The SDG&E North Coast Service Center dates to sometime between 1953 and 1963.
Based upon aerial images provided in Appendix 5.14A, Phase 1 ESA, to the original
AFC (CECP 2007a), the SDG&E facility and the two EPS water tanks are visible by
1963. That makes this resource of historic age and therefore potential impacts need to
be analyzed. Staff requested an evaluation of the property as part of Data Requests 3637.
One-Mile Literature and Records Search Area
The 2007 records search for the licensed CECP included only two studies involving built
environment features. One is a wood and steel remnant of an unknown structure on the
February 2015

4.4-21

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon (8795H). The other is a minor discussion of the AT&SF
railroad that bisects the EPS property (Guerrero et al 2004).
Cultural Resources Table A7 in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1 lists all the
historic built environment resources that have been identified by the city of Carlsbad. As
of the 2007 literature search, only one listed resource was within the one-mile PAA: the
Santa Fe Railroad Depot. Another address that exceeded 50 years of age in 2007
appears to be a private residence located at 519 Chinquapin Avenue, several blocks
north of the lagoon. It was classified as 6Y- determined ineligible for NRHP by
consensus through the NHPA Section 106 process-and not evaluated for CRHR or local
listing in 1995. 519 Chinquapin is not locally listed as of 2014.
A number of other resources with the potential to be listed as historical resources are
listed in the 2014 Envision Carlsbad working papers (Carlsbad 2014c). Within the onemile PAA, those resources are: the Gage House, Cohn House, Twin Inns, the Barrio
Museum, Ramirez House, Mission Santiago and Gaus House. These resources, as well
as the Santa Fe Railroad Depot are shown on Cultural Resources Figure 3.

Cultural Resource Descriptions and Eligibility Evaluations
Staff has identified a total of 16 cultural resources in the PAA. Of these, three are
prehistoric archaeological sites (CA-SDI-16885, CA-SDI-6751, and (unknown prefix)
210/W-127A), one is an archaeological district (the Agua Hedionda Archaeological
District), one is an ethnographic resource, and 12 are built-environment resources.
Archaeological and Ethnographic Resources
Agua Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District
Staff proposes the designation of a prehistoric Native American archaeological district
that incorporates a zone of similar, discontiguous archaeological deposits buried along
the margins of the Agua Hedionda Estuary. The designation of the district is the Agua
Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District, and preliminarily includes those cultural
resources listed in Cultural Resources Table A9, located in Cultural Resources
Appendix CR-1. This is a newly identified archaeological district since the licensed
CECP. The district was not identified or evaluated in the documentation for the licensed
CECP because there were no identified impacts to any potential contributing elements
to the district.
The known prehistoric archaeological sites that make up the district appear to represent
long-term exploitation of the terrestrial and wetland resources in the vicinity of the Agua
Hedionda Estuary. The pattern of resource use was likely a significant component of the
economy of Native Americans groups from the Early Archaic period (9020 B.P.) to the
Late Prehistoric period (ca. 800 B.P.). Additional study of the district may provide new
and important information regarding the chronology, use, and settlement of Native
American lifeways along the Southern California Coast, and more particularly, Luiseño
or Kumeyaay chronology, use, and settlement around the Agua Hedionda Estuary.
The boundary and thematic associations of the Agua Hedionda Prehistoric
Archaeological District are necessarily provisional. The fact that our present knowledge
of the district only includes information from the PAA and the one-mile boundary
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-22

February 2015

 surrounding the PAA constrains the accuracy of the present boundary for the district.
The landforms that ultimately bound the district are the Buena Vista estuary to the north,
Canyon de las Encinas to the south, the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the area in the
vicinity of Agua Hedionda Creek near Mount Marron to the east. The present relatively
small sample of archeological deposits that make up the district similarly constrain the
scope of the historic themes that the district may represent.
Staff recommends that the Agua Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District is eligible
for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 1, because the district is associated with events
that have made significant contributions to California’s history and culture, in particular
the events associated with coastal Southern California Native American lifeways, and
more specifically, those related to Agua Hedionda, from the Early Holocene PaleoCoastal traditions, through the Late Prehistoric period. The associative values that
contemporary Native Americans hold regarding the events indicated by the
archaeological deposits further indicates the district’s significant contributions to the
regional and local events associated with these archaeological sites. The district is also
recommended eligible under Criterion 4, because the district has yielded and has the
potential to yield further information important to the prehistory of Native American
lifeways in coastal Southern California, and more particularly, in the Agua Hedionda
region, and because the district retains particularly high degrees of integrity of location,
design, materials, and association and is therefore well-able to convey its significance.
The presently known contributing elements for the district are those sites listed in
Cultural Resources Table A9, one of which is also recommended in the table as being
individually eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.
The following site descriptions are those cultural resources that have been documented
in the amended CECP project area, and could potentially be directly affected by
proposed activities associated with the amended CECP.
CA-SDI-16885
This artifact and shell scatter site was initially recorded in November of 2003 during
petroleum fuel remediation monitoring of the Encina Power Plant. CA-SDI-16885was
recorded to the west of ASTs 2 and 3, in the northwestern portion of the amended
CECP project site, and subsequently tested in the proposed impact area for this
previous project (an area that does not overlap in its entirety with the proposed grounddisturbance for the amended CECP) and found to represent a disturbed remnant of the
site. However, the archaeologists indicated that CA-SDI-16885 extends east into the
amended CECP project area. Artifacts recovered during monitoring and testing of the
site included 18 pieces of lithic debitage, 28,839.2 grams of shell, and 2.05 grams of
bone. This testing also included radiocarbon dating of two pieces of shell, which
returned dates of about 800 years B.P., one from zero to ten centimeters below the
ground surface, and the other from 30-40 centimeters below the ground surface. These
archaeologists noted fill in the excavated units was only four centimeters to about ten
centimeters deep (Guerrero, Stropes, and Gallegos 2004), despite the interpretations
drawn by the archaeologists for the petitioner regarding the geotechnical investigations
by Magorien (2006) that suggest fill extends 2.5 to ten feet deep. Staff suggests that the
geotechnical borings in the vicinity of CA-SDI-16885 are not conclusive regarding the
depth of fill in the vicinity of this site, and that the archaeologists who conducted
February 2015

4.4-23

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 intensive archaeological investigations of the site are a more reliable reference
regarding where the deposits are located rather than a geological technician.
CA-SDI-16885 was monitored again in 2005 during geotechnical borings (Magorien
2006) and the site boundaries increased to the west, south, and north. Additional
artifacts were identified including fire-affected rock, cooked marine shell, a lithic core, a
graver/scraper tool, a hammerstone, and lithic debitage. The monitoring archaeologist
suggested that the surface artifacts identified were mechanically re-deposited during
previous grading, but that “additional artifacts or archaeological deposits may exist
subsurface near ASTs #2 and #3” (Smallwood 2005: 4). Staff disagrees with the
assessment that the artifacts were re-deposited because there is no evidence to
support this conclusion, only the conjecture of the cultural resources monitor; however,
staff does agree that portions of the site have been disturbed by previous grading as
suggested by Guerrero et al. (2004). Moreover, monitoring geotechnical borings, like
that conducted by Smallwood (2005) does not provide the same degree of interpretive
capability that an archaeological excavation, like that conducted by Guerrero et al.
(2004) can afford.
During the recent subsurface inventory investigation for CA-SDI-16885 several artifacts
were recovered. These additional artifacts were found northwest of Tank 2. One
backhoe trench revealed a scraper in the sidewall of the trench, and was found to be in
a rodent burrow. Two pieces of fire-affected rock were also identified within the rodent
burrow. Per the protocol in the research design, a 1 meter by 1 meter by 1 meter cube
was excavated to determine the extent of the deposits in this area. The excavation
found one lithic flake in the upper few centimeters of the deposit (in a stratum
determined to be redeposited fill), in addition to two more pieces of fire-affected rock in
the stratum below. The fire-affected rock was found in native sediments (the marine
terrace), but the sediments in the unit were found to be disturbed by bioturbation.
Because of the limited area where testing was permitted and the lack of artifacts
recovered, testing was concluded in this area. The site boundaries were expanded to
include these newly recorded portions of the site and the site forms were updated.
Staff recommends that the portion of CA-SDI-16885 in the vicinity of ASTs 1 and 2 is
not eligible for listing in the CRHR. The site is not associated with significant events in
the broad patterns of local, regional, or state history (CRHR criterion 1). The site is not
associated with any persons of notoriety (CRHR criterion 2). The site is not
representative of a distinctive artistic style or the work of an artistic master (CRHR
criterion 3). The site has not provided important information to the prehistory of the
region, and the disturbed nature of the deposits indicates that it is unlikely to do so
(CRHR criterion 4).
CA-SDI-6751/W-1874
This shell scatter was initially recorded in March of 1978 as being located about 40
meters east of ASTs 4-7, on both the western and eastern sides of the railroad tracks
that bisects the amended CECP project area. The site was recorded as being 75 by 30
meters with a depth of about 30 centimeters (Franklin 1978). The site was revisited in
March of 1993 and three additional shell scatter loci were identified, expanding the
boundaries of the site to about 500 by 30 meters, to the north and south along the
railroad tracks. Additionally, a possible metavolcanic tool was noted during this update
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-24

February 2015

 to the site, as well as two unassociated purple glass bottles (Pigniolo and Mealey 1993).
The site was revisited again in 2004 during a survey conducted for the Carlsbad
Seawater Desalination Project and archaeologists relocated two of the shell scatter loci
changing the site boundaries accordingly, and noted that both loci were sparse and
highly fragmented. Based on the sparse and fragmented nature of the shell scatters and
lack of associated artifactual material, in addition to the geotechnical borings taken by
Magorien (2006) in the vicinity of the site which indicate that artificial fill directly overlays
the terrace deposits, staff finds that this suggests that there is likely no buried
component to this site and is therefore not eligible for listing in the CRHR.
Unknown Prefix 210/W-127A
This site was initially recorded by Malcolm Rogers sometime during the early 20th
century as an intermittent slough terrace campsite from the Early Archaic period with
cobble hearths, and a thickness of about three feet. Little definitive information is
available concerning this site, partially due to the antiquity of the site record as well as
the fact that the Museum of Man, which houses Rogers’ notes, is not currently available
for research. The site was tested in 1981 to determine if expanding Carlsbad Boulevard
would impact the site. The limited trenching that was conducted as part of this testing
procedure did not find any extant portions of the site in the proposed road expansion
area (Polan 1981). The initial recordation of the site is drawn in such a way as to
provide a somewhat ambiguous site boundary, and some of the researchers who have
conducted archaeological investigations at the EPS have suggested that CA-SDI-16885
and CA-SDI-6751/W-1874 may be extensions of the 210/W-127A deposit. Rogers’
suggestion that the site dates to the Early Archaic and that there is a buried component
to the site indicates to staff that there is a high potential for encountering this site during
ground-disturbing activities associated with the amended CECP.
Three backhoe skip trenches were placed in the vicinity of the 138kV underground
transmission line adjacent to the switchyard, where this site had been previously
recorded. The trenches were excavated to a depth of five feet (the presumed depth of
construction). No cultural materials were found in the trenches and the deposits were
found to consist of redeposited marine sediments mixed with artificial fill. Therefore,
staff recommends that in the vicinity of the switchyard expansion area (unknown prefix)
201/W-127A is not eligible for listing in the CRHR.
California Register of Historical Resources Eligibility
Staff recommends that the Agua Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District is eligible
for listing on the CRHR under Criterion 1 and 4. Staff recommends that the portion of
CA-SDI-16885 in the vicinity of ASTs 1 and 2 is not eligible for the CRHR, nor are sites
CA-SDI-6751/W-1874 or (unknown prefix) 210/W-127A.
Built Environment Resources
Staff reviewed the built environment resources within the PAA and did not discover any
historic age resources that had the potential to be impacted in a significant way. These
resources are captured in Cultural Resources Tables A5, A6, A7, and A8 in Cultural
Resources Appendix CR-1 and Cultural Resources Figures 2 and 3. Staff did not
identify any built environment resources within the one-mile record search area,
including the PAA, which would be impacted by the amended CECP.
February 2015

4.4-25

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Staff identified 11 historic-period built environment resources located within the PAA,
excluding EPS. These are listed in Cultural Resources Table A5. Ten of the resources
are residential and one, the SDG&E maintenance facility is an industrial property. Staff
concludes that they are ineligible for listing on the CRHR under Criteria 1–4. A brief
discussion of those found ineligible for listing on the CRHR follows.
Staff conducted a reconnaissance-level windshield survey on September 24, 2014. Ten
of the properties are residential, ranging in age from 1930 to 1966. Of those only one,
located on Tierra de Oro, had been substantially altered to the point where the original
form was not discernible. Seven were relatively unchanged from their original design
and construction, a scenario staff found to be surprising given their desirable location
near the ocean and beaches. One of the residences on Olive Avenue north of the
lagoon was not visible from the street due to vegetation, gates and fencing and the
other appeared to have undergone some alterations to its original form.
Also investigated by cultural resources staff was the broader area known as the
Terramar Association, which includes eight of the historic age resources in the PAA.
Terramar comprises a group of residents that live in the small neighborhood bordered
by Cannon Rd, Palomar Airport Rd, Cannon Lake (west of the railroad tracks), and the
Pacific Ocean. It also includes Tierra Del Oro. There are about 250 homes in this
neighborhood. The primary function of the Terramar Association is to care for and
maintain the beach access for resident members. Members can voluntarily belong to
this association and enjoy the beach access (Terramar 2014). The Association was also
an official party to the licensed CECP proceeding as an Intervenor, represented by
member Kerry Seikemann; the Association is likewise an Intervenor in the amended
CECP proceeding as well (status granted June 26, 2014 tn: 202620), The developer,
William D. Cannon, named the subdivision Terramar, (Jones 1982:142-144). Parts of
the one-parcel PAA are located in Terramar.
Within Terramar, the Tierra del Oro neighborhood has undergone substantial changes
over time and no longer reflects its 1950s-1960s roots. The El Arbol and Los Robles
neighborhoods remain largely intact, with few modern intrusions or remodels, reading
very much like a 1950s-1960s era-tract development. None of these residences nor
their respective neighborhoods seem to have the qualities that would make them
eligible as historic resources under CEQA, individually or as part of a district. Other than
the association with William D. Cannon as a developer, and the era of the EPS plant,
there does not appear to be any additional significance to the development that would
make it a candidate for listing on the CRHR. Staff recommends that they are not eligible
as historic resources and will not be impacted by the project in that sense.
Located within the PAA and considered part of the project, the SDG&E North Coast
Maintenance Facility was originally part of the SDG&E-owned EPS. SDG&E sold EPS
to Cabrillo Power 1, LLC (Cabrillo) in 1999 (CECP 2007a: p 5.6-1). An aerial
photograph from 1963 clearly shows the maintenance facility and associated structures,
including the two waste water tanks proposed to be demolished as part of the PTA. One
of those tanks may be visible in the 1953 aerial. Lacking better data, staff considers it
contemporary with the EPS’s construction and a component of the EPS. The primary
maintenance building exterior walls are an unknown material. The south-facing
elevation is capped by a clerestory of ribbon windows typical of the International Style
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-26

February 2015

 and other mid-20th Century architecture. A concrete block wall separates the facility
from Cannon Road.
Encina Power Station
Based upon the Historical Resource Evaluation and Update Report filed for this petition
(JRP 2014), The Encina Offshore Marine Terminal evaluation (White 2013) and staff’s
own independent research and analysis, staff concludes that the EPS is not an
historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. EPS does not meet the criteria for listing
in the NRHP or the CRHR.
Considering EPS under Criterion 1, it has not been found to have a significant
contribution in the areas of power generation, steam power plants or the history of the
regional power development. While it was an important post-war component of
SDG&E’s ability to provide reliable electric generation for a growing population, it did not
make a significant contribution in its own right to that development.
Considering EPS under Criterion 2, it is not associated with a historically significant
person or entity. While the property was acquired from William D. Cannon, a prominent
land developer in Carlsbad during the period when the plant was constructed, it does
not seem to have a significant attachment to Mr. Cannon or the Terramar subdivision
near the EPS. SDG&E was one of several power companies in California undergoing
rapid expansion in the post-war period and EPS was one of many plants built by
SDG&E to meet that need.
Considering EPS under Criterion 3, it is not historically significant for its design,
architecture or construction. EPS is a utilitarian facility with no architectural distinction.
While the dredging of the lagoon and creation of the intake channel are creative
solutions to providing a consistent water supply for the once-through cooling process, it
does not rise to the level of historical significance under Criterion 3.
Considering EPS under Criterion 4, it does not appear that it would yield important
information relative to history. Criterion 4 is rarely applied to the built environment and it
is highly unlikely EPS as a built environment feature would yield information especially
pertinent to United States or California history.
Therefore, the EPS as an entity with its appurtenant facilities does not rise to the level of
significance as an historical resource under CEQA. Additionally, when considering the
period of significance to be the 1950s to 1970s post-war development of steam power
at the coast and throughout Southern California, the EPS lacks integrity to that period.
There have been many alterations over time which intrude upon the underlying facility
from its construction period. Even though one could argue that the 400-foot tall stack
added in 1978 has attained significance as a potential contributing feature in its own
right, it still remains that the layers of change over time on the property obscure its
original form in terms of design, setting, materials, workmanship and feeling. Therefore,
the resource is lacking integrity.

February 2015

4.4-27

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Historic Age Structures within the PAA and One Mile Literature Search Area
Staff investigated historic age built environment resources in the PAA and have not
found any properties that would be eligible as historical resources under CEQA. While
the adjacent Terramar neighborhood has interesting associations with the development
of Carlsbad in the mid-20th Century, it does not rise to the level of significance for
consideration of eligibility under Criterion 1, 2, 3 or 4. There are several listed or eligible
historic landmarks within one mile of the project, mostly clustered in Carlsbad Village
center (see Cultural Resources Figure 3). While the AT&SF Railroad and its
predecessor, the California Southern, were instrumental in bringing Carlsbad to the
attention of tourists and others, the tracks are now part of a passenger and freight rail
line that bears little resemblance to the original railroad. Track realignment in 1906 and
the addition of a second track and rebuilding of the bridge over the lagoon in 2012 have
altered the physical railroad substantially. The change in use of the Santa Fe Depot to a
Visitor’s Center further affects the integrity of the railroad by lack of association with
structures from the historic period of significance. Staff is unable to draw the conclusion
that the railroad meets the test of significance and eligibility for CRHR or as an historical
resource under CEQA. And therefore, even though the railroad was important to
Carlsbad’s beginnings, it no longer resembles the original California Southern line in
terms of location, design, materials, setting or association, and therefore suffers a lack
of integrity.
California Register of Historical Resources Eligibility
Staff recommends that none of the built environment resources identified during the
course of the amended CECP process are eligible for listing in the CRHR. The EPS is
not eligible because it does not rise to the level of significance such that it would be
considered a historical resource under CEQA. The additional resources identified by
staff in the built environment PAA also do not meet the CRHR criteria, and thus are not
considered historical resources.

Interpretation of Results
Model of Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources
The PTA and associated cultural resources documentation suggest that the PAA has a
low-moderate potential to contain archaeological resources on the ground surface
because of the degree of surface disturbances and development. These expectations
were borne out by the cultural resources inventory described in this FSA; however, it
should be noted that the lack of surface manifestations of an archaeological site does
not preclude subsurface deposits.
The PTA and associated cultural resource documentation states that buried
archaeological resource potential is low based on previous disturbance of 100 percent
of the horizontal extent of the project site (the disturbance of the vertical extent is
unknown) as indicated by historic aerial photographs and geotechnical boring logs. Staff
conducted additional analysis to estimate the depth of fill across the proposed project
site; whether and where proposed excavation would penetrate native sediments; and
the age, characteristics, and preservation potential of any underlying native sediments.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-28

February 2015

 Aerial photographs and geotechnical boring tests indicate that essentially the entire
project area has been subject to some degree of grading. The geotechnical borings and
evaluation suggests that the sediments underlying the artificial fill are marine and nonmarine sands and Late Pleistocene age (80,000 to 125,000 years old) deposits
overlying Eocene age (about 40 million years old) marine and non-marine terraces,
(Magorien 2006:5-6).
The PTA and supporting documentation state that the project site rests atop 2.5-10 ft of
fill dirt, based on mapped geotechnical borings. However, archaeological investigations
suggest that fill, at least in the vicinity of CA-SDI-16885, is less than ten cm below the
existing ground surface. This investigation found cultural materials in the marine and
non-marine sands that overly the Eocene terrace deposits (Guerrero, Stropes, and
Gallegos 2004: 3-4, Appendix D).
The fill deposits in the PAA would not contain archaeological deposits with stratigraphic
integrity. Depending on where the existing fill material was obtained, such deposits
could contain archaeological materials with compromised integrity and/or human
remains. Based on the subsurface investigation conducted by staff the potential for
buried archaeological resources is low in the vicinity of the proposed switchyard
expansion area and in the proposed locations of the new turbines (i.e., east of the
railroad tracks). The potential for buried archaeological resources is moderate in the
vicinity of ASTs 1 and 2 based on previous archaeological investigations which found
several artifacts and intact deposits, and the recent subsurface inventory which also
found several artifacts, albeit in disturbed contexts.

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
In the abstract, direct impacts to cultural resources are those associated with project
development, construction, and operation. Construction usually entails surface and
subsurface disturbance of the ground, and direct impacts to archaeological resources
may result from the immediate disturbance of the deposits, whether from vegetation
removal, vehicle travel over the surface, earth-moving activities, excavation, oily sand
remediation, or demolition of overlying structures. Construction can have direct impacts
on historic standing structures when those structures must be demolished or removed
to make way for new structures or when the vibrations of construction impair the stability
of historic structures nearby. New structures can have direct impacts on historic
structures when the new structures are stylistically incompatible with their neighbors
and the setting, feeling and association. New structures might also produce something
harmful to the materials or structural integrity of the historic structures, such as
emissions or vibrations.
Generally speaking, indirect impacts to archaeological resources are those which may
result from increased erosion due to site clearance and preparation, or from inadvertent
damage or outright vandalism to exposed resource components due to improved
accessibility. Similarly, historic structures can suffer indirect impacts when project
construction creates improved accessibility to resources by non-project-affiliated
personnel and the potential for vandalism or greater weather exposure becomes
possible.

February 2015

4.4-29

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Ground disturbance accompanying construction at a proposed plant site has the
potential to directly affect archaeological resources, the significance of which is
unknown at this time. The potential direct, physical impacts of the proposed construction
on unknown archaeological resources are commensurate with the extent of ground
disturbance entailed in the particular mode of construction. This varies with each
component of the proposed project. Placing the proposed power plant into this particular
setting could have a direct impact on the integrity of association, setting, and feeling of
nearby standing historic structures.

Construction Impacts and Mitigation
Since this project is an amendment to the previously analyzed and licensed CECP, the
conclusions, recommendations, and conditions of certification from the licensed CECP
are applicable to the amended CECP, unless the petitioner or staff has justification for
changing the conditions of certification. For the licensed CECP (CEC 2009: 4.3-20 –
4.3-21) staff concluded,
The CECP would not have a significant impact on known significant
archaeological resources, historic structures, or ethnographic
resources. With the adoption and implementation of the proposed
Conditions of Certification CUL-1 through CUL-8, the CECP would not
have a significant impact on potentially significant archaeological
resources that may be discovered during construction. Staff
recommends that the Energy Commission adopt the following
proposed cultural resources conditions of Certification CUL-1 through
CUL-8. These conditions are intended to facilitate the identification and
assessment of previously unknown archaeological resources
encountered during construction and to mitigate any significant project
impacts on any newly found resources assessed as significant and on
any known resources that may be affected by the project in an
unanticipated manner. To accomplish this, the conditions provide for:
•

The hiring of a Cultural Resources Specialist, Cultural Resources
Monitors, and Cultural Resources Technical Specialists;

•

The archaeological and Native American (if needed) monitoring of
ground-disturbing activities;

•

The recovery of significant data from discovered archaeological
deposits;

•

The writing of a technical archaeological report on monitoring
activities and findings;

•

The curation of any recovered artifacts and associated notes,
records, and reports; and

•

Cultural resources surveys, if the petitioner chooses to use private
soil borrow or disposal site rather than a commercial one.

When properly implemented, staff believes that these conditions of
certification would mitigate any impacts to unknown significant

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-30

February 2015

 archaeological resources newly discovered in the project impact areas
to a less than significant level.
In the PTA, the petitioner recommended that the licensed CECP conditions of
certification be applied to the amended CECP (LL2014a: 5). Comments from the
petitioner on the PSA regarding the conditions of certification indicate that they would
like the conditions broken up into phases so as to reduce the duplication of compliance
efforts. These comments are addressed in the “Response to Comments” subsection of
this analysis.
Assessment of Direct Impacts on Archaeological Resources and Proposed
Mitigation
Archaeological Resources on the Surface of the PAA
Over the past approximately 80 years, three archaeological resources have been
identified on the surface of the PAA; CA-SDI-6751, CA-SDI-16885, and (unknown
prefix) 210/W-127A. However, the most recent survey of the PAA by the archaeologist
for the petitioner did not identify these sites on the surface.
Staff recommends that CA-SDI-6751 is not an historical resource for the purposes of
CEQA, and thus impacts to this resource would not be significant.
Staff recommends that (unknown prefix) 210/W-127A is not an historical resource for
the purposes of CEQA, and thus impacts to this resource would not be significant.
Buried Archaeological Resources in the PAA
CA-SDI-16885 is known to have a subsurface component (Clark 2015; Guerrero,
Stropes, and Gallegos 2004; Rogers n.d.). Proposed amended project activities in the
vicinity of site CA-SDI-16885 include the demolition and removal of ASTs 1 and 2, oily
sand remediation, and preparation and grading of the area after tank removal and
remediation for parking and laydown activities. It is unlikely that tank removal would
impact any extant archaeological deposits because this activity would not entail any
subsurface disturbance as the fuel oil tanks are set on concrete pads, and the pads
would stay in place. However, oily sand remediation, and preparing and grading the
area could impact subsurface archaeological deposits, if present. Remediation of oily
sands would be required if there were any contaminated soils found during project
activities, or were known from previous spills. Generally, this type of industrial level
remediation extends to a depth of two to three feet, but can go deeper depending on the
degree of contamination. Preparing and grading the area would entail laying gravel, of
an unknown thickness, and grading it to make a level area for parking and laydown.
This could impact subsurface archaeological deposits during the grading process if the
grader goes deeper than the gravel, and also via compaction and thus crushing any
archaeological deposits from the weight of the grader or any other heavy machinery that
is placed on top of deposits. Recent subsurface investigation of this site indicates that
there are archaeological deposits in the area. However, they are disturbed. That being
said, the disturbed nature of the deposits does not preclude the presence of additional
archaeological information that could be important to the prehistory of the region and
the amended CECP still could impact this site. Moreover, the sample size of the
February 2015

4.4-31

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 subsurface archaeological inventory was biased in that the entire laydown area was not
available for investigation due to the use of the area for current construction activities.
It is possible that this cultural resource could be impacted by the construction,
demolition, and remediation activities described above. While the portion of CA-SDI16885 tested was found to not be eligible for listing in the CRHR, there is potential for
there to be additional archaeological materials extant subsurface in this area. Thus,
while no mitigation would be required for the known portion of the site because it is not
an historical resource, CUL-6 (cultural resource monitoring) would still be applicable in
this area in the event additional cultural resources are found during ground-disturbing
activities. Implementation of CUL-6 would permit any impacts to undiscovered
resources to remain at a level of less than significant.
In the vicinity of proposed ground-disturbance near site (unknown prefix) 210/W-127A,
no subsurface component of the site was found, and the area was determined to consist
entirely of disturbed sediments. Thus, there is no potential for impacts to subsurface
archaeological resources in this area.
Staff finds that the Agua Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District is eligible for
listing in the CRHR under criterion 1 and 4. However, the contributing elements to the
district located in the PAA (CA-SDI-16885, CA-SDI-6751, and (unknown prefix) 210W127A) are not individually eligible for the CRHR. The information that these sites
contribute to the district is limited to the information already supplied by previous
investigations, i.e., location of the site, site function, and relative chronology. Thus, there
would be no significant impacts to the surface or subsurface components of the Agua
Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District in the PAA from the amended CECP
activities.
Assessment of Direct Impacts on Ethnographic Resources
One ethnographic resource, the village of Palamai, has been identified in the PAA.
However, staff finds that this resource lacks integrity and therefore is not considered a
historical resource for purposes of analyzing impacts from the amended CECP, and
staff is not recommending any mitigation measures for this resource.
Federal Environmental Justice (EJ) guidance directs agencies to consider to the extent
practicable whether there is or will be an impact on the natural or physical environment
that significantly (as employed by the National Environmental Policy Act) and adversely
affects Indian tribes. Such effects may include ecological, cultural or social impacts on
Indian tribes when those impacts are interrelated to impacts to the natural or physical
environment. Agencies must also consider whether environmental effects are significant
(as employed by the National Environmental Policy Act) and are or may be having an
adverse impact on Indian tribes that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably
exceed those on the general population or other appropriate comparison group.
Staff considers the Indian tribes affiliated to the Carlsbad area (through ancestral or
traditional use claims) to constitute environmental justice populations. Staff makes this
consideration because Indian tribes maintain long-standing ancestral and traditional use
practices and concepts connected to the environment and to their identities as Indian
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-32

February 2015

 people, unlike other populations that do not have territories linked to their collective
identities.
Staff does not expect that the proposed project would result in impacts on ethnographic
resources, and therefore would have no impacts on an environmental justice population.
Assessment of Direct Impacts on Built-Environment Resources and Proposed
Mitigation
Built environment technical staff has reviewed the literature search materials, other
available studies as noted herein and performed on-site and off-site reconnaissance
surveys. Based on the information available, staff concludes that the amended CECP
would have no direct impacts on known built environment historic resources. Therefore,
staff is not recommending any mitigation measures for built environment resources.

Indirect Impacts
Neither the petitioner nor staff has identified any indirect impacts on any cultural
resources that qualify as historical resources or unique archaeological resources under
CEQA
Staff has reviewed the literature search materials, other available studies as noted
herein and performed on-site and off-site reconnaissance surveys. Based on the
information available, staff concludes that the amended CECP would have no indirect
impacts on known archaeological, ethnographic, or built environment cultural resources.
Therefore, staff does not recommend any mitigation measures for indirect impacts to
archaeological, ethnographic, or built environment resources.

Operation Impacts and Mitigation
The measures proposed above and below for the mitigation of impacts to previously
unknown archaeological resources found during construction would mitigate impacts
that occur during operation-phase repairs to unknown sites. Operation of the amended
CECP would have no impacts upon ethnographic or built environment historic resources
as none have been determined to be historic resources.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The cumulative impact analyses contained in the licensed CECP AFC, Final Staff
Assessment, Supplemental Staff Testimony, and the Energy Commission Final
Decision for the licensed CECP, as well as information present in the PTA/PTR
documents relied on a cumulative impact list of eight projects situated within
approximately 0.5 mile of the proposed amended CECP project site. No cumulatively
considerable impacts on archaeological resources were identified in any of these
analyses. (LL2014a7; CEC 2009:4.3-19, 4.3-20; CEC 2012:7.3-6; LL2014d:5.3-3, 5.3-4,
5.6-3, Table 5.6-1.) Staff excludes seven of these projects from the present cumulative
impacts analysis, but includes Poseidon’s Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project since
it has both on-site and offsite components. In addition, staff has determined that the
cumulative area of analysis for archaeological resources comprises a six-mile-radius
7

Analyses of potential cumulative impacts are not contained in the PTR.

February 2015

4.4-33

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 circle from the proposed project (Executive Summary Figure 1). The cumulative
projects area of analysis encompasses the project site and geographic qualities that
were likely of concern to the prehistoric inhabitants of the project vicinity. The
ethnographic record indicates that the semisedentary Luiseño occupied villages and
base camps, from which they gathered the majority of their foodstuffs within a day’s
walk of home (Bean and Shipek 1978:551). Doubtlessly, California Indians forayed
much farther in all directions for resource procurement, socializing, and trading, but dayto-day activities of a settlement would have occurred nearby, over more limited
distances. A six-mile-radius circle from the project site therefore appears to form a
geographic unit that was probably meaningful to the prehistoric and historic-period
human inhabitants of the project vicinity, and a useful basis for assessing cumulative
impacts on archaeological resources.
In selecting projects that could contribute to cumulative impacts, staff identified those
projects in the six-mile radius that would result in ground disturbance because
excavation is the primary vehicle for archaeological resource impacts for the proposed
project. Staff presents its list of cumulative projects for archaeological resources in
Cultural Resources Table B1 in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-2. Cumulative
projects were identified by consulting planning websites for the municipalities in the sixmile radius: the cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Oceanside, and Vista; California
Department of Transportation; and San Diego Association of Governments. In many
instances, copies of environmental review documents were not available online for
staff’s perusal; such projects are listed as yielding “No information” in the Resources
Affected/Level of Significance column of Cultural Resources Table B1.
Staff identified a total of 42 cumulative projects in the six-mile buffer. Staff was unable to
locate environmental impact reviews for 21 of the projects summarized in Cultural
Resources Table B1. Three cumulative projects reportedly would result in no impacts
on archaeological resources. Nine out of 42 cumulative projects report less-thansignificant impacts on archaeological resources because none were identified in their
respective impact areas, identified archaeological resources were not found to qualify
as historical or unique archaeological resources under CEQA, or had been mitigated
prior to the project’s environmental review. Six cumulative projects would result in lessthan-significant impacts on archaeological resources with the implementation of
mitigation measures; all of these project areas contain known archaeological resources
(total of approximately 300) and one contains an Indian sacred site. (Cultural
Resources Table B1.) Because none of the known archaeological resources in the
PAA were found to be historical resources under CEQA, staff concludes that the
amended CECP would not contribute to cumulative impacts to archaeological
resources.
For cumulative impacts to the built environment, staff has used both the one-mile PAA
used for the literature search and an overlay including Los Angeles County, Orange
County and San Diego County, taking into account the numerous former or existing
generating stations built with once-through cooling technology in the post-war boom of
the 1950s to 1970s and located at the southern California coast. The literature search
results for the PAA yielded several environmental reports within the cumulative impacts
area, mostly pertaining to the I-5 expansion plans and the Poseidon desalination
project. Built environment technical staff has reviewed the literature search materials
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-34

February 2015

 and other available studies and performed on-site and off-site reconnaissance surveys.
In order to be as conservative and inclusive as possible, the projects included in this
cumulative analysis include project sites with historic-age buildings, regardless of
whether or not an eligibility determination was made.
Considered in conjunction with the potential removal and reconstruction of other
Southern California steam-generating plants from the 1950s to 1970s, such as
Huntington Beach Generating Station (HBGS), Alamitos Generating Station (AGS),
Redondo Beach Generating Station (RBGS), and El Segundo Steam Station (ESSS),
the loss of the EPS facility has the potential to add to the loss of information relative to
the development of electric steam power generation post-WWII and into the midtwentieth century in California. Another once-through cooling plant in the SDG&E
service area, the South Bay plant in Chula Vista, built in the1960s, was demolished and
remediated in 2013.8 However, most of these post-war power plants have been
recorded, their operations and expansion activities documented and evaluated at a
basic level (at the very least), and through the licensing process, that historical
information has been made available to the public. Due to the existence of this recorded
historical information, the likelihood of there being a cumulative impact from the
amended CECP is negligible.
Demolition of the EPS, which staff concludes is not an historical resource under CEQA,
does not add to the cumulative effects of other built environment projects in the PAA or
the built environment cumulative overlay. Therefore, staff is not recommending any
mitigation measures for the amended CECP beyond what already exists for the licensed
CECP.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
The applicable state laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards are listed above in
Cultural Resources Table 1. For this FSA, staff has not identified any cultural
resources in the PAA that would qualify as historical or unique archaeological resources
for the purposes of CEQA, and thus can definitively state that the amended project
would comply with all identified LORS. Impacts to as-yet-unidentified archaeological
resources that qualify as historical or unique under CEQA could occur during
construction and operation of the proposed project; staff-proposed Conditions of
Certification CUL-1 through CUL-8 would mitigate such impacts to less-than-significant
levels. These conditions establish the necessary protocols to constructively handle the
issues identified in Cultural Resources Table 1: the treatment of human remains
discoveries during project-related ground disturbance (CUL-1 – CUL-8), prevention of
unauthorized removal of Native American remains or artifacts from a Native American
grave or cairn (CUL-1 – CUL-8), and non-disclosure of records pertaining to
ethnographic consultants or archaeological site information (CUL-3).

8

Accounts vary as to construction dates for the South Bay plant. The Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan,
revised DEIR dates the power plant to 1969 (Chula Vista 2008: p. 2-11). The South Bay Power Plant
Timeline, published by the Port of San Diego, dates it from construction beginning in 1958 to Plant 4
coming online in 1964 (Port of San Diego).The DEIR did not evaluate the plant in the Cultural Resources
analysis, presumably because it was not considered of historic age at the time of the DEIR.
February 2015

4.4-35

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 The city of Carlsbad General Plan and other supporting policies and documents have
language promoting the general perseveration of cultural resources. The conditions of
certification require specific actions not just to promote but to effect historic preservation
and mitigate impacts to all cultural resources in order to ensure CEQA compliance. It is
unknown at this time if the project would comply with this preservation directive until the
presence or absence of archaeological sites is determined, and a recommendation
concerning their eligibility is provided.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
Staff received 14 comments on the PSA, all of which were from the petitioner. These
comments focused on streamlining the compliance process for the licensed CECP and
the amended CECP via changes to the conditions of certification and associated
verifications.
Staff understands that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun; however, it is
staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that has past is both
confusing and unnecessary. Petitioner will not be required to duplicate work completed
that meets the conditions of certification for the amended CECP.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based upon staff’s background research, the PTA and associated documentation, and
the recent subsurface archaeological inventory of portions of the Project Area of
Analysis (PAA), staff concludes that there would be no significant impacts from the
amended CECP on archaeological resources. There is potential for subsurface deposits
in the vicinity of ASTs 1 and 2, and the conditions of certification would permit the
impacts to these resources to remain at a level that is less than significant.
Based upon staff’s investigation of a number of built environment resources of historic
age within the PAA and the results of a one-mile literature search area for the project,
staff concludes that there would be no significant impacts from the project on built
environment resources.
As a result of ethnographic research, staff concludes that there are no ethnographic
resources that will be impacted by the proposed project. The ethnographic background
information included in Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1 provides a brief context for
the prehistoric resources discussed below, and one ethnographic resource that was
found by staff to lack integrity.
Staff has considered environmental justice populations in its analysis of the amended
project. Staff has not identified significant adverse direct, indirect, or cumulative cultural
resources impacts that would affect Native American environmental justice populations.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-36

February 2015

 REFERENCES
The tn: 00000 in a reference below indicates the transaction number under which the
item is catalogued in the Energy Commission’s Docket Unit. The transaction number
allows for quicker location and retrieval of individual items docketed for a case or used
for ease of reference and retrieval of exhibits cited in briefs and used at Evidentiary
Hearings.
AECOM 2014 - AECOM. Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement for the San Elijo Lagoon Restoration Project. Public review draft. July.
San Diego, CA. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, CA, and
County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, San Diego, CA.
SCH# 2011111013. Electronic document,
http://www.sanelijo.org/sites/sanelijo.org/files/Restoration/SELRP_EIREIS_Vol.1_Draft_EIR-EIS_7.24.14.pdf, accessed October 27, 2014.
AECOM et al. 2011 - AECOM, Moffatt & Nichol, SAIC, Coastal Frontiers Corporation,
Merkel & Associates, and Everest International Consultants. Revised
Environmental Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Diego
Regional Beach Sand Project II. May 27. San Diego, CA. Prepared for San Diego
Association of Governments, San Diego, CA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Carlsbad, CA. State Clearinghouse Number 2010051063. Electronic document,
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_358_14427.pdf, accessed
October 27, 2014.
Altschul et al. 2007 - Jeffrey H. Altschul, John G. Douglass, Richard Ciolek-Torrello,
Sarah Van Galder, Benjamin R. Vargas, Kathleen L. Hull, Donn R. Grenda,
Jeffrey Homburg, Manuel Palacios-Fest, Steven Shelley, Angela Keller, and
David Maxwell. Life at the Nexus of the Wetlands and Coastal Prairie, West Los
Angeles. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:34–42.
Altschul et al. 2005 - Jeffrey H. Altschul, Richard Ciolek-Torrello, Donn R. Grenda,
Jeffrey A. Homburg, Su Benaron, and Anne Q. Stoll. Ballona Archaeology: A
Decade of Multidisciplinary Research. Proceedings of the Society for California
Archaeology 18:283–301.
Anderson 2007 - Dan Anderson. http://www.carlsbad.ca.us/hedionda.html.1994-2007
Bean and Saubel 1972 - Lowell J. Bean and Katherine Siva Saubel. Temalpakh:
Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Banning, California: Maliki
Museum Press.
Bean and Shipek 1978 - Lowell Bean and Frank Shipek. “Luiseño”. In California, edited
by R. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. W.C.
Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

February 2015

4.4-37

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Bonner 2007a - Wayne H. Bonner. Cultural Resources Records Search Results for TMobile Candidate SD06919B (Tamarack HOA), 111 Tamarack Avenue,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Michael Brandman Associates. On file
at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Bonner 2007b - Wayne H. Bonner. Cultural Resources Records Search Results for TMobile Facility Candidate SD06643 (Sky line Road) 4140 Skyline Road,
Carlsbad, San Diego County,California. Michael Brandman Associates. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
Brandman 1983 - Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. Draft Environmental Impact
Report 83-4 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Kelly Ranch SCH
#83042707. Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. Submitted to City of Carlsbad.
On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Brown 2001 - Joan C. Brown. Archaeological Monitoring During Excavation for the
Hamptons Project, Located in Carlsbad, California. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.
Submitted to Greystone Homes. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Byrd and O’Neill 2002 - Brian F. Byrd and Collin O’Neill. Archaeological Survey
Report for the Phase I Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5, San Diego
County, California. ASM, Inc. Submitted to Caltrans. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Byrd and Raab 2007 - Brian F. Byrd and L. Mark Raab. Prehistory of the Southern
California Bight: Models for a New Millennium. Chapter 14 in California
Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and
Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215–227. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
Byrd and Reddy 2002 - Brian F. Byrd and Sean Reddy. “Late Holocene Adaptations
Along the Northern San Diego Coastline: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms”.
In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene of the California Coast, edited by J.
Erlandson and T. Jones, pp. 41-62. Costen Institute Of Archaeology. University
of California, Los Angeles.
CAHIghway - California Highways, Trails and Roads: El Camino Real
http://www.cahighways.org/elcamino.html. Accessed September 9, 2014.
CALTRANS n.d. - California Department of Transportation. TCR Program – Project #
74.1 – June 2007: San Diego Pacific Surfliner; Double Track Intercity Rail Line
within San Diego County, Add Maintenance Yard in San Diego County.
Electronic document,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/tcrp/factsheets/0741.pdf, accessed
October 14, 2014.
CALTRANS 2012 - California Department of Transportation. Interstate 5 North Coast
Corridor Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement. CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-38

February 2015

 CALTRANS 2013a - California Department of Transportation. Interstate 5 North Coast
Corridor Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Statement and Section 4(F) Evaluation. CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
CALTRANS 2013b - California Department of Transportation. I-5 North Corridor Project
Supplementals. CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
CALTRANS 2014 - California Department of Transportation. California Log of Bridges
on State Highway. District 11. April 2014.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd11.pdf
California Southern 1881a - California Southern. Map of the Location of the California
Southern Railroad, Part Second. On file at the California State Railroad Museum,
Sacramento CA: Record No. A-1-833. February 1881.
California Southern 1881b - California Southern. Map of the Location of the California
Southern Railroad. Showing right of way of railroad through private and
government lands. On file at the California State Railroad Museum, Sacramento
CA: Record No. A-6-1583.1881.
Carlsbad 1985 - City of Carlsbad. Plans for Construction of Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge
at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. On File at City of Carlsbad Land Devlopment
Engineering. April 16, 1985.
Carlsbad 2013a - City of Carlsbad. Agenda Bill to Approve Tram Property, RP 13-01.
Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=708&meta_id=
78562, accessed October 15, 2014.
Carlsbad 2013b - City of Carlsbad. Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Regarding the
Final Environmental Impact Report for Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan/Site
Development Plan Project. January. EIR 09-02; SP 09-01; SDP 09-04; SCH No.
2010011004. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=698&meta_id=
76956, accessed October 20, 2014.
Carlsbad 2014a - City of Carlsbad. History of Carlsbad.
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 7, 2014.
Carlsbad 2014b - City of Carlsbad. The Historical Evolution of Two Ranchos and a
Homestead: Agua Hedionda,Los Kiotes and Rancho de los Quiotes(author
unattributed).web.carlsbadca.gov/services/.../parks.../historical_evolution.pdf
Carlsbad 2014c - City of Carlsbad. Draft General Plan & Draft Cilmate Action Plan,
Draft Environmental Impact Report. Chapter 3.7 Historical, Archaeological and
Paleontological Resources.March.

February 2015

4.4-39

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Carlsbad 2014d - City of Carlsbad. E-mail correspondence with Kathleen
Lawrence,Engineering Technician II, Land Development Engineering. October 13,
2014.
Carlsbad Energy Center et al. 2008—Carlsbad Energy Center, Shaw Stone &
Webster, and CH2M Hill. Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) Project
Enhancement and Refinement Document. July. CH2M Hill, Sacramento, CA. On
file, Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission, Sacramento. TN 47257.
CECP2007a - Carlsbad Energy Center Project (TN42299). Application for
Certification for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, 09/11/2007.
Carlsbad Mineral Water Spa 2014 - Carlsbad Mineral Water Spa. Website-history.
http://www.carlsbadmineralspa.com/history-since-1882.html. Accessed August
20, 2014.
Carrico and Phillips 1983 - Richard Carrico and Roxana Phillips. Archaeological
Salvage at W-132A Carlsbad, California. WESTEC Services, Inc. Submitted to
Kamar Construction Co., Inc. On file, at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Caterino 2005 - David Caterino. The Cemeteries and Gravestones of San Diego
County: An Archaeological Study. David Caterino. Submitted to San Diego State
University, Department of Anthropology. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
CCC 1987 - California Coastal Commission. California Coastal Resource Guide.
Berkeley: University of California.
CEC2009a – California Energy Commission (TN54068). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Final Staff Assessment, dated November 12, 2009. Submitted
11/12/2009.
CEC2012a – California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CEQ 1997 - Council on Environmental Quality. CEQ Guidance Regarding
Environmental Justice. December 10.
CH2M Hill 2007 - CH2M Hill. Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Confidential Cultural
Resource Appendix 5.3C. September. Sacramento, CA. Docket No. 07-AFC-06.
On file , Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission, Sacramento. TN 42995.
Cheever and Gallegos - Dayle Cheever and Dennis Gallegos. Archaeological Survey
for a Road Detour and Storm Drain on a portion of Palomar Airport
Road.WESTEC Services, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Chula Vista 2008 - Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan revised DEIR. May 2008.
Modified March 2012.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-40

February 2015

 City of Carlsbad 2006 - City of Carlsbad General Plan. Open Space and Conservation
Element. Electronic Resource, available at
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/OpenSpac
eConservationElement.pdf accessed on September 2, 2014.
Clark 2015 – Tiffany Clark (Confidential Docket). Summary of Archaeological
Subsurface Investigations and Evaluations for the Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Submitted to California Energy
Commission February 4, 2015.
COASTER 2013 - COASTER Fact Sheet. North County Transit District. January.
Cook and Marino 1988 - Sherburne F. Cook and Cesare Marino. Roman Catholic
Missions in California and the Southwest. In History of Indian-White Relations,
edited by Wilcomb E. Washburne, pp. 472-480. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol.4, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution.
Crafts 1995 - Karen Crafts. Negative Archaeological Survey Report for 11-SD-5,
R47.5/R48.5, 05910K. Caltrans. Submitted to Caltrans. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Cratty 1993 - Patricia Cratty. Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot. National Register of Historic
Places Registration Form and Continuation Sheets. Listed September 30, 1993.
July 2.
CSE&A 2002 - Curtis Scott Englehorn and Associates. Draft Environmental Impact
Report, the Shoreline Resort. August. Cardiff by the Sea, CA. Prepared for City
of Encinitas, CA. Case No. 00-201 DR/CDP/MUP. SCH No. 2001061119.
Cupples 1976 - Sue Ann Cupples. Oceanside Harbor and Navigation Project:
Archaeological Survey Report. Dr. Larry L. Leach. Submitted to Department of
the Army, Corps of Engineers. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Davis 1961 - James T. Davis. Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the
Indians of California. Report 54. University of California Archaeological Survey,
Berkeley.
District 11 and SANDAG 2014 - District 11 and San Diego Association of
Governments. Final North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and
Resource Enhancement Program. June. California Department of Transportation,
San Diego, and San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA.
Electronic document, http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/Env_docs/I5PWP/5PWPFinal.html, accessed October 14, 2014.
Dolan and Allen 1996 - Christy Dolan and Rebecca Allen. Historic Study Report for the
Proposed Alternate Northern and Central State Route 5 Alignments. KEA
Environmental, Inc. Submitted to City of San Diego Engineering and Capital
Projects Department. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.

February 2015

4.4-41

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Dolan, Moomjian, Raen-Jenning, and Smith 1996 - Christy Dolan, Scott Moomjian,
Micahel Raen-Jenning, and Brian Smith. Result of a Data Recovery Program at
site SDI-6132, SDI-10671, and SDI-12814, Carlsbad Ranch Project, Carlsbad,
California. Carltas Development Co. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Dominici, Rosen, and White 2006 - Debra Dominici, Martin Rosen, and Chris White.
Historic Property Survey Report on Southbound Interstate 5 Between Palomar
Airport Road OC and Cannon Road UC. Caltrans. Submitted to Caltrans. On file
at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Dominici 2007 - Deb Dominici. Historic Property Survey Report, I-5 North Coast
Widening Project. CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Dominici 2010 - Deborah Dominici. Historic Property Survey Report for the Interstate 5
North Coast Corridor Project.CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
DuBois 1901 - Constance DuBois. “The Mythology of the Diegueños”. Journal of
American Folklore 14(54), 181-185.
DuBois 1904 - Constance DuBois. “Mythology of the Mission Indians”. Journal of
American Folklore 17(66), 185-188.
DuBois 1908 - Constance DuBois. “Ceremonies and Traditions of the Diegueño
Indians”. Journal of American Folklore 21(81-82), 228-236.
Dudek 2008 - Dudek. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Vista
2007 Sewer Master Plan Update. March. Encinitas, CA. Prepared for City of
Vista, CA. SCH No. 2007091072. Electronic document,
http://www.cityofvista.com/departments/engineering/EIR5675_Complete.zip,
accessed November 5, 2014.
Duke 2002 - Curt Duke. Cultural Resources Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No.
SD 747-02, San Diego County, California. LSA Associates. Submitted to Cingular
Wireless. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
EDAW 2009 - EDAW. La Costa Town Square Final Environmental Impact Report.
August. San Diego, CA. Prepared for Planning Department, City of Carlsbad, CA.
SCH #2003041159. Electronic document,
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/traffic/Documents/06268091%20La%20Costa
%20Town%20Sq%20FEIR.pdf, accessed October 20, 2014.
Eighmey and Wade 1990 - James Eighmey and Sue Wade. A Preliminary Cultural
Resource Survey of the Skyline Estates Property. RECON. Submitted to Skyline
Estates Partnership. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Elfend Associates 1984 - Elfend Associates. Environmental Information Kelly Ranch
Master Plan/Specific Plan. Elfend Associates. Submitted to City of Carlsbad Land
Use and Planning Department. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-42

February 2015

 Encinitas 2001 - City of Encinitas. Initial Study Checklist: Case No. 01-292, La Costa
Avenue Chevron Station. Planning and Building Department, City of Encinitas,
CA. Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/PDF/scsh4bauw1swxmm4clgwlf45/27/
2006-06-15%20Item%202%20Case%202001-292%20MUPDRCDPEIA.pdf,
accessed October 29, 2014.
Encinitas 2008 - City of Encinitas. Notice of Decision: PBD 2008-46. July 15. Planning
and Building Department, City of Encinitas, CA. Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/PDF/scsh4bauw1swxmm4clgwlf45/14/
2008-046.pdf, accessed October 29, 2014.
Encinitas 2009 - City of Encinitas. Environmental Initial Study Case No. 091-35
TCMD/DPR. October 22. Planning and Building Department, City of Encinitas,
CA. Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/PDF/scsh4bauw1swxmm4clgwlf45/15/
2009-12-17%20Item%204%20Case%202009-135%20TMDBDRCDPEIA.pdf,
accessed October 29, 2014.
Encinitas 2010 - City of Encinitas. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes.
September 2. Encinitas, CA.
Encinitas 2011 - City of Encinitas. Notice of Decision: PBD-2011-07. March 15.
Planning and Building Department, City of Encinitas, CA. Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/DocView.aspx?id=675301, accessed
October 29, 2014.
Engstrom 2006 - Wayne N. Engstrom. Nineteenth Century Coastal Geomorphology of
Southern California. Journal of Coastal Research 22:847–861.
Environmental Impact Profile 1973 - Environmental Impact Profile. Environemntal
Impact Report for the Planned Community, Carlsbad Palisades. Environmental
Impact Profiles. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Environmental Impact Profile 1974 - Environmental Impact Profile. Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Lagoon Shores Carlsbad, California.
Environmental Impact Profiles. Submitted to Ralph W. Irwin, General Partner. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Envision Carlsbad 2010 - Envision Carlsbad. Working Paper #4: History, the Arts and
Cultural Resources; High Quality Education and Community Services. Chapter 2:
Historic and Cultural Resources. Published on the City of Carlsbad website:
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/community/envisioncarlsbad/Pages/WhyEnvisionCarlsbad.aspx.
Erlandson et al. 2007 - Jon Erlandson, Torben Rick, Terry Jones, and Judith Porcasi.
“One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians?”. In California
Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T. Jones and J. Klar.
Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
February 2015

4.4-43

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Evans Point 2014 - Homes in Carlsbad-Evans Point. http://www.homes-in-carlsbadevans-point.com/history.html. Accessed August 18, 2014.
FHWA and Caltrans 2013 - Federal Highway Administration and California Department
of Transportation. Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project, San Diego County,
California, District 11–SD –5 (PM R28.4/R55.4), EA 235800 (P ID 1100000159),
Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Section
4(f) Evaluation. October. U.S. Department of Transportation, San Diego, CA, and
Division of Environmental Analysis, District 11, Department of Transportation,
San Diego, CA.
Fishchoice.com 2013 - Fishchoice.com. Carlsbad Aquafarm, Inc-Carlsbad Aquafarm
Cultivates a California Flavor. February 28.
Fisher and Rick 2014 - Greg Fisher and David Rick. A Report to the Planning
Commission Regarding SUP 13-03/SUP 98-03(C)/SDP 13-05/PUD 13-09/MCUP
13-13/MS 13-07 – ViaSat Expansion. January 15. Planning Division, City of
Carlsbad, CA. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id
=56, accessed October 20, 2014.
Flandreau 2013 - Madeleine Flandreau. Request for Concurrence on “Section 106”
Compliance and a Finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” for Vista/Carlsbad
Interceptor and Agua Hedionda Pump Station Replacement Project. State Water
Resource Control Board. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Franklin 1978 - Randy Franklin. DPR Site Record for CA-SDI-6751. On file at SCIC,
San Diego State University.
Gallegos 1986 - Dennis Gallegos. Archaeological Test at SDI-10478 Agua Hedionda
Carlsbad, California. WESTEC Services, Inc. Submitted to Conway and
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos 1991 - Dennis Gallegos. “Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda,
Carlsbad, California”. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene California, edited by
J.M. Erlandson and R. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, 1: 19-41.
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Gallegos 2002 - Dennis Gallegos. “Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene
Occupation of Southern San Diego County”. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late
Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L.
Jones, pp. 27-40. Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Gallegos and Carrico 1984 - Dennis Gallegos and Richard Carrico. Windsong Shores
Data Recovery Program for site W-131, Carlsbad. WESTEC Services, Inc.
Submitted to Hunts Partnership. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-44

February 2015

 Gallegos, Carrico, and Thesken - Dennis Gallegos, Richard Carrico, and Jay
Thesken. Archaeological Survey and Test of the Windsong Shores Property SDi10965. WESTEC Services, Inc. Submitted to Van Dell and Associates. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos and Kyle 1992 - Dennis Gallegos and Carolyn Kyle. Historical/Archaeological
Survey and Test Report for Carlsbad Ranch. Gallegos and Associates.
Submitted to P and D Technologies. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos, Mitchell, Schroth and Harris 1998 - Dennis Gallegos, Patricia Mitchell,
Adella Schroth, and Nina Harris. Data Recovery at CA-SDI-6133, Locus C,
Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to
Carltas Company. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos, Schroth, and Perry 1995 - Dennis Gallegos, Adella Schroth, and Jennifer
Perry. Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test for Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan Amendment. Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to
Cotton/Beland Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos, Doose, and Guerrero 2008 - Dennis Gallegos, Karen Doose, and Monica
Guerrero. Cultural Resource Survey for the Carlsbad Paseo Project, Carlsbad,
California. Gallegos and Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gifford 1918 - Edward Gifford. “Clans and Moieties in Southern California” University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14(2), 15-219.
Berkeley.
Gifford 1922 - Edward Gifford. “California Kinship Terminologies”. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 18(1), 1-285.
Berkeley.
Greene and Smith 2006 - Richard Greene and Brian Smith. Results of a Data
Recovery Program at CA-SDI-8797, Grand Pacific Resorts Project, Carlsbad,
California. Brian F. Smith and Associates. Submitted to Grand Pacific Resorts.
On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Greene 2007 - Richard Greene. A Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the Carlsbad
Boat Club Project, City of Carlsbad, APN 206-200-06. Brian F. Smith and
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gross and Bull 1973 - Tim Gross and Charles Bull. An Archaeological Survey of Tract
#72-28. San Diego State University. Submitted to Neste, Brudin, and Stone. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gross and Robbins-Wade 1987 - Timothy Gross and Mary Robbins-Wade. Cultural
Resources Inventory and Significance Assessment: Car County Expansion.
Carlsbad, California. RBR & Associates, Inc. Submitted to Carltas Company. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.

February 2015

4.4-45

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Guerrero and Gallegos 2003a - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. City of
Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans Cultural Resource Background Study,
City of Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to Dudek &
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2003b - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resources Background Study for the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer
Maintenance Access Road Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and
Associates. Submitted to Dudek & Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2003c - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resource Survey and Test Program for the Carlsbad Sewer Line Project,
Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to Dudek &
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2004a - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resource Survey for the Adams Street Property Carlsbad, California. Gallegos
and Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2004b - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resource Inventory for the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant Project,
Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
Universtiy.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2007 - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resource Inventory for the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage Improvements
Project, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Guerrero, Stropes, and Gallegos 2004 - Monica Guerrero, Tracy Stropes, and Dennis
Gallegos. Cultural Resource Monitor and Test Report for the Encina Power Plant
Project, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to HalEY &
Aldrich, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gutierrez 2002 - Susan Schnebelen Gutierrez. Windows on the Past: An Illustrated
History of Carlsbad, California. Donning Co., Virginia Beach, Virginia. 2002.
Gutierrez 2014 - Susan Schnebelen Gutierrez. Telephone conversation with Susan
Gutierrez and Melissa Mourkas (CEC staff). October 13, 2014.
Harmon - John Harmon. A History of Carlsbad: A Community Relations Project
Undertaken at the Behest of the “Friends of the Library” of Carlsbad.
Hatley 1978 - M. Jay Hatley. Cultural Resources Inventory and Impact Analysis of
Rancho Agua Hedionda Y Los Manos, Parcel 2. Contains interviews with Ida
Dawson, granddaughter of Emily Porter and Matthew Kelly. Recon
Environmental Consultants, San Diego, CA. June 9, 1978.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-46

February 2015

 HBS 2012 - Harvard Business School Baker library Historical Collections/Lehman
Brothers Collections. San Diego Gas & Electric Company. © 2012 President and
Fellows of Harvard College.
HDR 2013 - HDR Engineering. Final Environmental Impact Report Quarry Creek Master
Plan Carlsbad, California. January. San Diego, CA. Prepared for City of
Carlsbad, CA. SCH No. 2012021039. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=681&meta_id=
74704, accessed October 20, 2014.
Hector 1981 - Susan M. Hector. An Assessment of Archaeological Site SDM-W-131
Carlsbad, California. RECON. Submitted to Fontana and Mudge Building and
Development.
Hector 1985 - Susan Hector. An Archaeological Survey of the Panonia Property,
Carlsbad, California. RECON. Submitted to Mark A. Nordquist, M.A.N.
Construction. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Hector and Wade 1986 - Susan Hector and Sue Wade. Archaeological Investigations
at SDM-W-132/SDi-10,024 Carlsbad, California. RECON. Submitted to M.A.N.
Construction and Development. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Hedges and Beresford 1986 - Ken Hedges and Christina Beresford. Santa Ysabel
Ethnobotany. San Diego Museum of Man Ethnic Technology Notes No. 20. San
Diego Museum of Man: San Diego.
HELIX 2011 - HELIX Environmental Planning. Quarry Creek Preserve Management
Plan. June 16. La Mesa, CA. Prepared for Hanson Aggregates West, San Diego,
CA. Electronic document,
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24353,
accessed October 20, 2014.
Helton 2007 - Clint Helton. Technical Memorandum: Confidential Carlsbad Energy
Center Project (CECP); Cultural Resources Assessment. July 17. CH2M Hill.
Prepared for Carlsbad Energy Center, Carlsbad, CA. Appendix 5.3F in
Application for Certification, Carlsbad Energy Center Project, by CH2M Hill, Vol.
2. September. Prepared for Carlsbad Energy Center, Carlsbad, CA. On file,
Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 07-AFC-6. TN 42299.
Henshaw 1972 - Henry Henshaw. “The Luiseño Creation Myth”, ed. R. Heizer.
Masterkey 46(3), 93-100.
Heron Bay 2014 - Heron Bay Spyglass Hills Homeowner’s
Association.http://www.heronbayspyglasshillshoa.com/about.php. Accessed
August 18, 2014.
Hinman 2014 - Wendy Hinman, Our Working Lagoon. CalrsbadMagazine.com.
http://www.carlsbadmagazine.com/Stories/lagoon.html. Accessed August 18,
2014.
February 2015

4.4-47

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Hogan and Encarnacion 2009 - Michael Hogan and Deirdre Encarnacion.
Archaeological Survey Report: Carlsbad Double Track Project Control Point Carl
(MP 229.3) to Control Point Farr (MP 231.7) North County Transit District
Mainline San Diego County, California. CRM Tech. Prepared for CALTRANS. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Johnson and Snook 1967 - Myrtle E. Johnson and Harry J. Snook. Seashore Animals
of the Pacific Coast. 3rd ed. New York: Dover.
Jones 1982 - Marje Howard-Jones. Seekers of the Spring: A History of Carlsbad.The
Friends of the Carlsbad Library, Carlsbad, California. May.
Jones 2005 - Marje Howard Jones. Carlsbad Architecture. Presented at the Carlsbad
Historical Society Annual Meeting on September 30, 2005
JRP 2007 - JRP Historical Consulting. Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation
Report, Carlsbad Energy Center Project. July. Davis, CA. Prepared for CH2M
Hill, Santa Ana, CA. Appendix 5.3B in Application for Certification, Carlsbad
Energy Center Project, by CH2M Hill, Vol. 2. September. Prepared for Carlsbad
Energy Center, Carlsbad, CA. On file, Dockets Unit, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. 07-AFC-6. TN 42299. Also included in JRP 2014.
JRP 2014 - JRP Historical Consulting. Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation
Update Report, Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Encina Power Plant. March.
Prepared for CH2MHILL. On file, Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission,
Sacramento. 07-AFC-6. TN 202699
Kaldenberg 1976 - Russell L. Kaldenberg. A Predevelopment Archaeological Resource
Survey for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon North Shores Project. RECON. Submitted
to North Shores Property Owners, Kamar Construction Co. On file SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Kubota 2014 - Jack Y. Kubota. E-mail communication regarding Terramar water supply
with Melissa Mourkas. October 30, 2014.
Kennett and Kennett 2000 - Douglas J. Kennett and James P. Kennett. Competitive
and Cooperative Responses to Climatic Instability in Coastal Southern California.
American Antiquity 65:379–395.
Koerper et al. 1991 - Henry C. Koerper, Paul E. Langenwalter II, and Adella Schroth.
“Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from
the Allan O. Kelly site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon”. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early
Holocene California, edited by J.M. Erlandson and R. Colten. Perspectives in
California Archaeology, 1: 43-62. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber 1906 - A.L. Kroeber. “Two Myths of the Mission Indians of California”. Journal
of American Folklore 19(75), 309-321.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-48

February 2015

 Kroeber 1908 - A.L. Kroeber. “Notes on the Luiseño” Pp. 174-186 in The Religion of he
Luiseño Indians of Southern California, by Constance DuBois. University of
California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(3), 69-186.
Berkeley.
Kroeber 1976 - A. L. Kroeber. Handbook of the Indians of California. New York: Dover.
Reprint. Originally published in 1925 as Bulletin 78, Bureau of American
Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Kyle 2002 - Carolyn Kyle. Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless Facility
SD-747-01 City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California. Kyle Consulting.
Submitted to Paratus, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Laylander and Becker 2004 - Don Laylander and Mark Becker. Archaeological Testing
at Twelve Prehistoric Sites (SDI-603, -4553, -6831, -10965, -12670, -13484, 15678, -15679, -15680) on the Central San Diego Coast, San Diego County,
Califonria. ASM Affiliates. Submitted to Caltrans. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Laylander and Pallette 2005 - Don Laylander and Drew Pallette. Extended Phase I for
the Cannon Street Direct AccessRamp and Park-and Ride Lot, Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates. Submitted to California Department of
Transportation. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Laylander and Akyuz 2008 - Don Laylander and Linda Akyuz. Archaeological Survey
for the CALTRANS 1-5 North Coast Corridor Project Biological Mitigation
Parcels, San Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Lightfoot and Parrish 2009 - Kent G. Lightfoot and Otis Parrish. California Indians and
their Environment: An Introduction. California Natural History Guides 96.
Berkeley: University of California.
LL 2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL 2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL 2014cc - Locke Lord LLP (TN203143). Response to Data Request Set 2A (No.64),
dated October 1, 2014. Submitted 10/01/2014.
LL 2014ee - Locke Lord LLP (TN20311) Data Request Responses to nos. 31-33, 38,
39, and request for extension on no. 58, dated October 17, 2014. Submitted
10/17/2014.
Loftus 2013 - Shannon Loftus. Cultural Resource Record Search and Site Survey
AT&T Site SD0272 Carlsbad Lagoon 4800 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California 92008. ACE Environmental, Inc. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
February 2015

4.4-49

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Luomala 1978 - Kay Luomala. “Tipai and Ipai”. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp.
592-609. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general
editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Lynch and Rick 2014 - Van Lynch and David Rick. A Report to the Planning
Commission Regarding SDP 14-03/CDP 14-04 – CP Juniper Apartments. June
16. Planning Division, City of Carlsbad, CA. Submitted to Planning Commission,
City of Carlsbad, CA. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=773&meta_id=
85076, accessed October 15, 2014.
Magorien 2006 - D. Scott Magorien. Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Environmental
Assessment EIR, Encina Seawater Desalination Project. March 10. D. Scott
Magorien Engineering Geologist, Newport Beach, CA. Prepared for RBF
Consulting, Ontario, CA. Appendix 5.4A in Application for Certification, Carlsbad
Energy Center Project, by CH2M Hill, Vol. 2. September. Prepared for Carlsbad
Energy Center, Carlsbad,CA. On file, Dockets Unit, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. 07‐AFC‐6. TN 42299.
Masters 2012 - Nathan Masters. From Roosevelt Highway to the 1: A Brief History of
Pacific Coast Highway. May 2.
Masters 2013 - Nathan Masters, How El Camino Real, California’s Royal Road, was
Invented. KCET Public Television
<http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/history/la-as-subject/el-caminoreal.html>January 4, 2013.>
McGinnis 2009 - Patrick McGinnis. Cultural Resource Extended Phase I Report for the
Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Biomitigation Parcels Sites CA-SDI-209
and CA-SDI-18917 Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Masters and Aiello 2007 - Patricia M. Masters and Ivano W. Aiello. Postglacial
Evolution of Coastal Environments. In California Prehistory: Colonization,
Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 35–
51. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
McCorkle Apple 1987 - Rebecca McCorkle Apple. Archaeological Survey Report for
Minor Subdivisions 730 and 736 in Carlsbad, California. Dames & Moore.
Submitted to Brook Olsen and Leonard Mellgren. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Mithun 1999 - Marianne Mithun. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.
Mooney 1993 - Brian F. Mooney. Archaeological Survey Report for a Portion of Adams
Street Widening Project in the City of Carlsbad, California. Brian F. Mooney
Associates. Submitted to Dudek & Associates, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-50

February 2015

 Mooney and Cook 1993 - Brain Mooney and John Cook. Archaeological Survey Report
for a Portion of Adams Street Widening Project in the City of Carlsbad, California.
Brian F. Mooney and Associates. Submitted to Duder and Associates.. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
Moratto 1984 - Michael J. Moratto. California Archaeology. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Moratto et al. 1978 - Michael J. Moratto, Thomas F. King, and Wallace B. Woolfenden.
Archaeology and California’s Climate. Journal of California Anthropology 5:147–
161.
Moriarty 1967 - James R. Moriarty. “Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego
County, California”. Science, February 3, 1967, col. 155, pp. 553-556.
Morgan 2011 - Nicole B. Morgan. TCM Access Road Grading Project, Cultural
Resources Inventory Report. HDR Associate. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Moyer 1969 - Cecil C. Moyer. Historic Ranchos of San Diego. Edited by Richard F.
Pourade. Union-Tribune Publishing Co., San Diego, California.
Myers 1983 - William A. Myers. Iron Men and Copper Wires: A Centennial History of
the Southern California Edison Company. Trans-Anglo Books.
NCC Carlsbad 2014—North Coast Corridor. Carlsbad Village Double Track.
http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Lossan/lossan-carlsbad-double-track.aspx.
Accessed September, 2014.
NCTD 2014 - North County Transit District. San Diego County. Web page
http://www.gonctd.com/coaster. Accessed August 19, 2014.
NPS 2007 - National Park Service. NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline.
Electronic document,
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm, accessed
January 29, 2013.
OHP 1990 - Office of Historic Preservation (California). Archaeological Resource
Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. February.
Sacramento, CA. Electronic document,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf, accessed May 5, 2014.
OHP 1991 - Office of Historic Preservation. Guidelines for Archaeological Research
Designs. February. Preservation Planning Bulletin 5. Sacramento, CA. Electronic
document,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/arch%20research%20design.pdf,
accessed May 5, 2014.
OHP 1995 - Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historical
Resources. March. Sacramento, CA. Electronic document,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf, accessed May 5, 2014.
February 2015

4.4-51

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Page 2012 - Danielle M. Page. Section 106 Consultation for Third Amendment to Naval
Hospital Replacement, Camp Pendeleton. United States Marine Corps. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
Pelto 2013 - Pertti Pelto. Applied Ethnography: Guidelines for Field Research. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Pierson, Schiller, and Slater 1987 - Pierson, Schiller, and Slater. Archaeological
Resource Study: Morro Bay to Mexican Border. Pierson, Schiller, and Slater.
Submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Pignolo and Mealey 1993 - Andrew Pignolo and Andrea Mealey. DPR Site Record for
CA-SDI-6751. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Planning Commission 2006 - Planning Commission. CEQA Findings for the Coral
Cove Residential Project. May. City of Encinitas, CA. SCH No. 2004111010.
Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/PDF/2yz3p5jlmxmtoajwzwmd11fk/31/2
006-25.pdf, accessed November 4, 2014.
Planning Commission 2014 - Planning Commission. Agenda, Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission. March 6. City of Encinitas, CA. Electronic document,
http://encinitas.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=encinitas_60c4d31650c3
e488cebc62f001ca816d.pdf&view=1, accessed October 31, 2014.
Planning Division 2012 - Planning Division. Environmental Impact Assessment Form –
Initial Study for Robertson Ranch West Village (Rancho Costera). August 14.
City of Carlsbad, CA. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=664&meta_id=
71882, accessed October 15, 2014.
Planning Systems 2011 - Planning Systems. Environmental Inifital Study and Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Force Main,
and Gravity Sewer Replacement. Draft. June 28. Carlsbad, CA. Prepared for
Engineering/Public Works, City of Carlsbad, CA, and Brown & Caldwell, San
Diego, CA. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=603&meta_id=
65554, accessed October 15, 2014.
Polan 1981 - H. Keith Polan. An Archaeological Survey Report of the Right-of-Way for
Proposed Bridge and Street Improvements Between Tamarack Avenue and
Cannon Road. New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. Submitted to City of
Carlsbad. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Porcasi et al. 1999 - Paul Porcasi, Judith F. Porcasi, and Collin O’Neill. Early Holocene
Coastlines of the California Bight: The Channel Islands as First Visited by
Humans. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35(2–3):1–24.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-52

February 2015

 Port of San Diego - Port of San Diego. South Bay Power Plant Timeline. PDF.
http://www.portofsandiego.org/. Undated.
Robbins-Wade 2007 - Mary Robbins-Wade. Encina East Stormwater Management
Cultural Resources (Affinis Job No. 2244). Afffinis. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Robbins-Wade 2009 - Mary Robbins-Wade. Record Searches for Telecommunications
Sites SD-341-01 & SD 38-02. Affinis. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Rosen 1999 - Martin Rosen. Historic Property Survey Report Oceanside to San DiegoRail to Trail. Martin Rosen. Submitted to Unknown. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Rosen 2003 - Martin Rosen. Final Historic Property Survey Report. Martin D. Rosen.
Submitted to Kelly Finn. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Rosenberg et al. 2007 - Seth A. Rosenberg, Adriane Dorrler, and Brian F. Smith. A
Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Vista and Buena Sanitation District 2007
Sewer Master Plan Update, City of Vista and Buena Sanitation District.
September 27. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Poway, CA. Prepared for Dudek
and Associates, Encinitas, CA. Submitted to Planning Department, City of Vista,
CA. Appendix B to Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Vista 2007 Sewer Master Plan Update, by Dudek, March 2008. Encinitas, CA.
Prepared for City of Vista, CA. SCH No. 2007091072. Electronic document,
http://www.cityofvista.com/departments/engineering/EIR5675_Complete.zip,
accessed November 5, 2014.
San Diego County 2007 - San Diego County Land Use and Environment Group,
Department of Planning and Land Use, Department of Public Works. County of
San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance, Cultural Resources:
Archaeological and Historic Resources. Electronic Document, available at
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/pds/docs/Cultural_Guidelines.pdf Accessed
9/1/2014.
Santa Fe 2008 - Santa Fe Surviving Depots 2008. “ATSF Carlsbad, CA Depot”
<http://atsf.railfan.net/depots/carlsbad.html>, accessed on April 15, 2008.
Schoenherr 1992 - Allan A. Schoenherr. A Natural History of California. California
Natural History Guides 56. Berkeley: University of California.
Schroth, Harris, and Gallegos 1996 - Adella Schroth, Nina Harris, and Dennis
Gallegos. Archaeological Survey and Test for the Huber Property, Carlsbad,
California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to Gene Huber. On file at SCIC,
San Diego State University.

February 2015

4.4-53

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Schroth and Gallegos 1996 - Adella Schroth and Dennis Gallegos. Archaeological
Survey and Test for the Cade Property, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and
Associates. Submitted to Steve Cade. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Schroth, Schilz, and Cooley 1990 - Adella Schroth, Allan Schilz, and Theodore
Cooley. Data Recovery Car County, Carlsbad, California: CA-SDI-6134 & CASDI-10672, San Diego, California. WESTEC. Submitted to Carltas Company &
ERCE On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
SDC 1872 - San Diego County. Official Map of the Western Portion of San Diego
County. M.G. Wheeler Co. Surveys. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
SDC Assessor 1955 - San Diego County Assessor. Map Showing Roads and Trails in
use from 1769-1830. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Seeman 1982 - Larry Seeman. Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised Parks and
Recreation Element, Carlsbad, California. Larry Seeman. Submitted to the City of
Carlsbad. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
SGI 2014 - The Source Group, Inc. Draft Technical Document Soil Management Plan
for Ground Disturbance Activities, Encina Power Station. Prepared for Carlsbad
Energy Center LLC and docketed at the California Energy Commission on
10/21/14. TN 203231. October 2014.
Sippel 2014 - Marvin Sippel. Telephone interview with California Energy Commission
staff Melissa Mourkas. 10/22/2014.
Smallwood 2005 - Josh Smallwood. Archeological/ Paleontological Monitoring of
Boring Activities, San Diego Water Authority’s Seawater Desalination Project
Encina Power Station, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. CRM
Tech. Submitted to RBF Consulting. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Smith 1998 - Brian F. Smith. The Results of a Cultural Resources Survey and
Evaluation Program for “Area A” at the Kelly Ranch and the Improvement
Corridor for Park Drive. A.D. Hinshaw Associates. Submitted to A.D. Hinshaw
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Smith and Rosenberg 2007 - Brian F. Smith and Seth Rosenberg. An Archaeological
Survey and Significance Evaluation for the Adams Street Subdivision Project.
Brian F. Smith Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
SOHO 2006 - Save Our Heritage Organization. Reflections Quarterly Newslette
Summer 2006 - Volume 37, Issue 2: Marrόn Adobe
http://www.sohosandiego.org/reflections/2006-2/marron.htm
Sparkman 1905 - Phillip Sparkman. “Sketch of the Grammar of the Luiseño Language
of California”. American Anthropologist 7(4), 656-662.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-54

February 2015

 Sparkman 1908a - Phillip Sparkman. “The Culture of the Luiseño Indians”. University of
California Publications in Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4), 187-234. Berkeley.
Sparkman 1908b - Phillip Sparkman. “A Luiseño Tale”. Pp. 35-36 in Notes on
California Folklore. Journal of American Folklore 21(80).
Spier 1923 - Leslie Spier. “Southern Diegueño Customs”. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20(16), 295-358. Berkeley.
Stine 1998 - Scott Stine. Medieval Climatic Anomaly in the Americas. Chapter 3 in
Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change: Contributions from
an International Workshop within the Framework of International Hydrological
Program (IHP) UNESCO, held at Ben-Gurion University, Sede Boker, Israel from
7-12 July 1996, edited by A. S. Issar and Neville Brown, pp. 43–67. Water
Science and Technology Library 31. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Strong 1929 - William Strong. “Aboriginal Society in Southern California”. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1), 1-358.
Berkeley.
Strudwick 1993 - Ivan Strudwick. Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for
the Boyce Parcel Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and
Associates. Submitted to John Boyce. On file at SCIC, San Diego S tate
University.
Studwick 1994 - Ivan Strudwick. Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for the Moffat
Parcel, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates,
Submitted to Jerry Moffatt. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Tang, Hogan, Smallwood, Jacquemain, and Shaker 2004 - Bai Tang, Michael
Hogan, Josh Smallwood, Terry Jacquemain, and Laura Hensley Shaker.
Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties San Diego County Water
Authority Seawater Desalination Project in the Cities of Carlsbad, Vista, and San
Marcos, San Diego County, California. CRM Tech. Submitted to Alan Ashimine.
On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Tang 2009a - Bai Tom Tang. Historic Property Survey Report for the Proposed
Construction of a Second Mainline Track in the City of Carlsbad by the North
County Transit District. CALTRANS. Prepared for the State of California
Business, Transportation, and Housing Authority. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Tang 2009b - Bai “Tom” Tang. Historic Resources Evaluation Report, Carlsbad Double
Track Project. CRM TECH, Colton, CA. November 2, 2009.
Tennesen 2011 - Kristin Tennesen. ETS #21729 Cultural Resource Monitoring for the
Tower Brushing, 4 Towers, Encina Project, San Diego County, California. HDR
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.

February 2015

4.4-55

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 Terramar 2104 - Terramar Association Web Page. About Terramar Association and
Membership Application Package.
http://www.terramarassociation.com/about-terramar-association-andmembership-application-package. Accessed on October 8, 2014.
Thai 2013 - Minerva Thai. Much Ado About Fooding Online Blog by Minerva Thai
Meet Carlsbad Aquafarm: A Deep Dive into Oyster Farming (Part IV)
Monday, September 30.
TWC 2014 - The Weather Channel. Monthly Averages for Carlsbad, California.
Electronic Resource, available at
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA0182
accessed 9/5/2014
Ultra Systems 1983 - Results of Supplemental Archaeological Studies at SDI-9649
(KR-1) on the Kelly Ranch. Ultra Systems, Inc. Submitted to Unknown. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
USGS 1893 - United States Geological Survey. Topographic Map, Oceanside, CA
Surveyed 1891. 1893 Edition.
USGS 1898 - U.S. Geological Survey. Oceanside Sheet. 15-Minute Topographic
Quadrangle. Surveyed 1898. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
USGS 1901 - U.S. Geological Survey. San Luis Sheet. 30-Minute Topographic
Quadrangle. Surveyed 1901. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
USGS 1942 - U.S. Geological Survey. Oceanside Sheet. 15-Minute Topographic
Quadrangle. Surveyed 1942. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
USGS 1948 - U.S. Geological Survey. San Luis Rey and Encinitas. 7.5-Minute
Topographic Quadrangle. Surveyed 1948. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Van Wormer 1987 - Stephen Van Wormer. Historical Survey for the Carlsbad Union
Church and the Gaus House, Carlsbad, California.WESTEC Associates. On file
at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Various Authors N.D. - Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, 400 Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm
Ave.), Carlsbad, California 92008. Submitted to Unknown. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002 - René L. Vellanoweth and Donn R. Grenda. Paradise
or Purgatory: Environments, Past and Present. In Islanders and Mainlanders:
Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul
and Donn R. Grenda, pp. 67–84. Tucson, AZ: SRI.
Wade 1987 - Sue A. Wade. Archaeological Study for 260 Acres South of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. RECON. Submitted to Caltrans. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-56

February 2015

 Wade and Hector 1986 - Sue A. Wade and Susan M. Hector. Archaeological
Monitoring of the Encina Gas Pipeline Project, Profiles of Subsistence Patterns
Along the South Shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. RECON. Submitted to San
Diego Gas and Electric Company On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Wallace 1955 - W.J. Wallace. “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal
Archaeology”. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11:214-230.
Werneke 2014 - Shannon Werneke. Initial Study for Daybreak Community Church.
March 6. Planning Division, City of Carlsbad, CA. GPA 13-01/ZC 12-04/LCPA
12-04/SDP 00-06(C)/CUP 00-06(C)/CDP 00-09(C)/HMP 13-02. Electronic
document,
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/GPA1301.
NOI.pdf, accessed October 20, 2014.
West et al. 2007 - G. James West, Wallace Woolfenden, James A. Wankett, and R.
Scott Anderson. Late Pleistocene and Holocene Environments. Chapter 2 in
California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L.
Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 11–34. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
WESTEC 1980 - Westec Services, Inc. Regional Historic Preservation Study. WESTEC
Services, Inc. Submitted to Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San
Diego Region. On file at SC IC, San Diego State University.
WESTEC 1987 - Westec Services, Inc. Archaeological Survey of a Portion of Palomar
Airport Road. WESTEC Services, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Westman 2013 - Christer Westman. Initial Study for the Carlsbad Floral Trade Center.
October 15. City of Carlsbad, CA. CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03. Electronic
document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=53&meta_id=
80246, accessed October 15, 2014.
White 1963 - Raymond White. “Luiseño Social Organization”. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2) 91-194. Berkeley.
White 2013 - Laura S. White. Encina-1-Encina Offshore Marine Terminal. State of
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523B/L/J.
Archaeological Associates, Sun City, CA. February 18, 2013.
Woodward and Stammerjohan 1985 - Jim Woodward and George Stammerjohan.
Resource Inventory Cultural Resources San Diego Coast State Beaches.
Department of Parks and Recreation. Submitted to Department of Parks and
Recreation. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
York and Hildebrand 2011 - Andrew L. York and John Hildebrand. Cultural Resources
Investigation in support of Consultation for the Regional Beach Sand II Project
San Diego County, California. AECOM. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
February 2015

4.4-57

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 CULTURAL RESOURCES ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYM GLOSSARY
ACC

air-cooled condenser

ACHP

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

AFC

Application for Certification

ARMR

Archaeological Resource Management Report

asl

above sea level

bgs

below ground surface

Cal. Code
Regs.

California Code of Regulations

CCC

California Coastal Commission

CCGT

combined-cycle gas turbine

CEC

California Energy Commission

CECP

Carlsbad Energy Center Project

CEQ

Council on Environmental Quality

CEQA

California Environmental Quality Act

C.F.R.

Code of Federal Regulations

CHRIS

California Historical Resources Information System

COE

Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army

Conditions

conditions of certification

CRHR

California Register of Historical Resources

CPM

Compliance Project Manager

CRM

Cultural Resources Monitor

CRMMP

Cultural Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan

CRR

Cultural Resource Report

CRS

Cultural Resources Specialist

DPR

Department of Parks and Recreation (State of California)

DPR 523

Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resources recordation form

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-58

February 2015

 E.O.

Executive Order (presidential)

EPS

Encina Power Station

°F

degrees Fahrenheit

FSA

Final Staff Assessment

gal

gallon(s)

GLO

General Land Office

HABS

Historic American Building Survey

HAER

Historic American Engineering Record

HALS

Historic American Landscape Survey

HDP

Heritage Documentation Programs

HRSG

heat recovery steam generator

LORS

laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards

MCR

Monthly Compliance Report

MLD

Most Likely Descendent

MRS

Marine Research Specialists

NAHC

Native American Heritage Commission

NAM

Native American Monitor

NHPA

National Historic Preservation Act

NPS

National Park Service

NRHP

National Register of Historic Places

OHP

Office of Historic Preservation

PAA

Project Area of Analysis

PCH

Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1)

PSA

Preliminary Staff Assessment

SCIC

South Coastal Information Center

SHL

State Historical Landmark

February 2015

4.4-59

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 SHPO

State Historic Preservation Officer

SOI

Secretary of the Interior

SST

sea surface temperature

Staff

Energy Commission cultural resources technical staff

STG

steam turbine generator

TCP

traditional cultural property

USGS

U.S. Geological Survey

WEAP

Worker Environmental Awareness Program

CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.4-60

February 2015

 CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX CR-1
BACKGROUND INFORMATION NOT INCLUDED IN THE FSA
The following information in this Cultural Resources Appendix CR-1 is included to
provide the reader more context to gain a better understanding of those relevant
aspects briefly mentioned in the FSA Cultural Resources section.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Overview
The amended project site is situated at an elevation of approximately 50 feet above
mean sea level (amsl) on southwestern shore of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and
proximate to the Pacific Ocean. Current land uses in the project vicinity include planned
industrial, open space, travel/recreation, commercial, agricultural, and residential
(CH2M Hill 2014: 5-6.2).
The modern climate of the project vicinity is Mediterranean, influenced by the adjacent
open coastline. Consequently, the local weather conditions are typically mild, with
average daily highs of 63–71 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) and average daily lows of 45–
64°F. Summers are relatively warm and dry, and winters are typically mild and semiarid, with the majority of the region’s precipitation falling during the winter season (TWC
2014).

Paleoclimate and Ecology
The paleoclimate and ecology of the project vicinity is complex, belied by the fact that
former climatic and ecological conditions in the area generally conform to the longstanding, three-part paleoclimatic framework for arid western United States. In this
framework, the Holocene began with a moderately cool and moist period known as the
Anathermal (ca. 10,000–7500 B.P.). During the Altithermal (ca.7500–4000 B.P.), the
California climate warmed and dried, and in the following Medithermal period (ca. 4000
B.P.–present), moisture and temperature conditions resembled those of today (Moratto
et al. 1978:147-148). The wet winter/dry summer climate of southern California is
thought to have persisted through much of these three climatic periods and may be
about 160,000 years old (Masters and Aiello 2007:40). Locally, however, climate and
ecology changed considerably over the last 12,000–10,000 years.
Paleobotanical studies suggest that a warming trend commenced during the terminal
Pleistocene Epoch (15,000–11,750 B.P.) and continued into the Early Holocene
(11,750–7000 B.P.). The amount of conifer pollen decreased and was accompanied by
a simultaneous increase in the quantity of oak, chaparral, and herb pollen around
14,000–10,000 B.P. The rate of increase appears to have been rapid. (West et al.
2007:25).
The warming trend—called the Altithermal or Holocene Climatic Optimum—continued
throughout the Early Holocene, though cooling events are noticeable as well. For
February 2015

CR1-1

APPENDIX CR-1

 instance, between 8000 and 7000 B.P., the project vicinity is inferred to have been
warmer and wetter than today (Altschul et al. 2007:35), but is followed by a cooler
period about 7500–6800 B.P. During this latter interval, red abalone (Haliotis rufescens)
became more abundant than black abalone in the intertidal zone (H. carcherodii),
illustrating that climate change affects animal as well as plant life—changes which might
be represented in the archaeological record. Overall, mean summer temperatures were
higher and precipitation lower than present conditions. (Vellanoweth and Grenda
2002:75–77, 80).
During the Middle Holocene (7000–4000 B.P.), the southern California climate remained
predominantly warm and dry (Altschul et al. 2007:35; Vellanoweth and Grenda
2002:78). Dated pollen profiles illustrate this trend, with species favoring cooler and
wetter settings (pine and fern) giving way to drought- and heat-tolerant plants (oaks,
grasses, chenopods, and the sunflower family [Compositae]1) throughout this interval
(Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002:77–78). Despite the warm and dry conditions of the
Middle Holocene, locally sufficient stream flows were available to freshwater marshes
(Altschul et al. 2007:35). In such instances, indicator species of wetter conditions were
abundant, despite an overall arid trend (Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002:77–78).
By 5000–4500 B.P., at the end of the Middle Holocene, sea level reached
approximately present-day level, changing the character of near-ocean habitats going
into the Late Holocene (4000 B.P.–present). Sea level rise increased tidal influence and
direct reach into near-shore wetlands, changing water bodies from freshwater to largely
saltwater features. Wetland salinity was moderated during pulses of freshwater inputs
(Altschul et al. 2005:286).
Surface sea temperature (SST) oscillated between warm and cold temperatures on a
millennial timescale during the last 11,000 years. Cooling episodes occurred about
every 1,500 years. Over the last 3,000 years, SST followed a tri-phase development:
1. 3000–1500 B.P.: SST was warm and relatively stable. Marine productivity was low.
2. 1500–650 B.P.: SST was very cold and unstable. Precipitation was low. Marked dry
periods occurred at 1450–1150 and 970–700 B.P., corresponding with Stine’s
(1998) Medieval Climatic Anomaly or medieval drought periods. Between 1000 and
650 B.P., marine productivity was very high.
3. 650 B.P.–present: SST became warmer and more stable. The period of highest
marine productivity in the Late Holocene occurred about 650–400 B.P., followed by
low marine productivity. A severe dry interval occurred about 300–200 B.P.,
coincident with much of the Little Ice Age. (Kennett and Kennett 2000:383–385;
Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002:79–80; West et al. 2007:25–26).
The nineteenth-century climate on the southern California coast was a little different
than today’s climate. Northwesterly winds dominated then as today, although
southeasterly winds were more frequent and intense, likened to hurricanes. The turn of
the twentieth century heralded reduced influence of southeasterly winds and the Little
1

Grass and chenopod pollen, however, was relative sparse throughout sample taken (Vellanoweth and
Grenda 2002:78).

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-2

February 2015

 Ice Age (450–50 B.P.) ended with five El Niño events in a 20-year period. (Engstrom
2006:850–851).

GEOLOGY
The geology of the project vicinity is described in multiple sections of the 2007
Application for Certification (AFC) for the licensed CECP and a geotechnical study
conducted in support of the Poseidon desalination project (Carlsbad Energy Center LLC
2007, Magorien 2006). These discussions are not reproduced in full here, but are
summarized for the reader’s convenience, followed by a discussion of geological
characteristics relevant to this cultural resources analysis.
The amended project site is situated on two types of artificial fill (a silty to slightly clayey
sand, and a sandy conglomerate fill), as well as marine and non-marine terrace
deposits of Late Pleistocene age (80,000 to 120,000 years old), which overlay an
Eocene-aged (about 50 million years old) marine bedrock strata. The literature presents
evidence that fill deposits are present to about 10 centimeters in the northwestern
portion of the project area (Guerrero, Stropes, and Gallegos 2004: 3-4), and from three
to nine feet in other portions of the project site (Magorien 2006:8). The Pleistocene
terrace deposits are exposed in the project area near the railroad tracks and extend to a
depth of 22 feet in other areas of the project (Magorien 2006:9).

Geomorphology
The discussion of the geomorphology of the amended project area considers how and
when the underlying soils and sediments developed, and provides a baseline physical
context to assess whether surface and buried archaeological materials are likely to
occur in the proposed project area.
The project vicinity is located on the coastal plain of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic
province of Southern California. Granitic type rocks make up most of the composition of
the Peninsular Ranges province, but along the Southern California coast late
Cretaceous (65 to 90 million years old) and Cenozoic age (1.5 to 65 million years old)
sedimentary and volcanic rocks are widely exposed. The past 54 million years has seen
the deposition of both marine and non-marine sediments that resulted in thick
accumulations of marine and non-marine sedimentary rock overlying the older granitic
and volcanic deposits (Magorien 2006:3-4).
20,000–11,000 B.P.
During this time, sea level was markedly lower than today, presenting a wider shoreline
than is currently extant in southern California. As a result, many bays and estuaries
were far less pronounced than today. (Porcasi et al. 1999:2, Figure 1) The coast was
narrow and rocky, backed by 100–150-feet-tall sea cliffs. Stream action cut valleys onto
the coastal plain, with sediment discharge lost to the ocean. The shoreline was
energetic at this time owing to the action of large waves. Sea level rise increased wave
energy across the continental shelf and flooded the incised valleys that formed from
20,000 to 14,000 B.P. Kelp forests developed near the break of the continental shelf.
Estuaries expanded during the melt water pulses of 13,500 and 11,000 B.P., when
stream flows increased considerably. Stream sediments, however, were deposited into
the head of estuaries and did not reach the shore, which remained rocky. Kelp forests
February 2015

CR1-3

APPENDIX CR-1

 grew in extent and sea level sat approximately 180 feet below the present level.
(Masters and Aiello 2007:40).
10,000–8200 B.P.
This interval witnessed the development of quiet-water estuaries that fostered fish
nurseries, shellfish beds, shorebird foraging, and marine mammal visitation. Deposition
of sediment onto the shoreline was limited at this time. Hence, the coast remained rocky
with cobble beaches and supported shallow reefs and large fish communities. At this
juncture the ocean had transgressed to a point about 115 feet below modern sea level.
(Masters and Aiello 2007:40).
6000–5000 B.P.
Between 6000 and 5000 B.P., the southern California coast began its transition from a
rocky shore coastline to a sandy beach condition, aided by shore platform-cutting
waves. Shoaling estuaries became less productive and were replaced by sand and
mudflats. (Masters and Aiello 2007:40).
4000 B.P.–Present
During the Late Holocene (the last 4,000 years), large estuaries were replaced by
shallow wetlands and lagoons, which were periodically closed by the formation of sand
spits. During the last 2,000 years, “megadroughts” (see Stine 1998:51) lasting up to 200
years probably closed lagoons to direct ocean influence. “Megafloods” with a return
period of 200–400 years reopened lagoons to the ocean. Kelp forests were limited to
wave-cut platforms off rocky headlands. Shallow rocky reefs were smothered by sand
on the inner shelf. Sand beaches accreted within the littoral cells, certainly during
summers’ low-wave energy. (Masters and Aiello 2007:40).

NATIVE PLANTS AND ANIMALS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
The licensed CECP AFC describes the current suite of plants and animals of the project
vicinity, with an emphasis on special-status species and sensitive ecological
communities (Carlsbad Energy Center LLC. 2007: Section 5.2). The ecological
community most closely associated with the amended CECP project area, and that
which would have been available to prehistoric Native Americans, is that associated
with Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The lagoon is a valuable natural resource because this
“estuarine habitat provides abundant foraging and nesting opportunities, the structural
diversity provides cover resources and micohabitats, and the coastal lagoon is an
important source of water” (Carlsbad Energy Center LLC. 2007:5.2-7). The vegetation
communities that would have been present during prehistoric times are listed here with
some native species that typically occur in these areas.


Diegan coastal sage scrub – Some of the shrubs in this community include
California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California buckwheat (Eriogonum
fasciculatum var. fasciculatum), buckwheat sp. (Eriogonum sp.), lemonade berry
(Rhus integrifolia, coastal cholla (Opuntia prolifera), and coast prickly pear (Opuntia
littoralis). Animals that make their homes in coastal scrub habitats include desert
cottontail (Sylilagus audubonii), California quail (Callipepla californica), coyote
(Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), pocket
gophers (Thomomys bottae), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus)

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-4

February 2015

 

Marsh, estuarine, freshwater and saltwater marsh, and other wetlands – Some of the
species associated with these habitats include broad-leaved cattail (Typha latifolia),
bulrush sp. (Scirpus sp.), rush sp. (Juncus sp.), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), willows
(Salix sp.), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), pacific treefrog (Pseudacris regilla), and
California toad (Bufo boreas)



Riparian woodland – Some of the plant species in this habitat include willow (Salix
sp.), western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus
fremontii ssp. fremonti), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), palm (Washingtonia sp.).
Many of the same animals that make their home in this habitat are also listed in the
Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat (Bean and Saubel 1972; Carlsbad Energy Center
LLC. 2007: 5.2-7 – 5.2-8; Hedges and Beresford 1986).

Other Local Fauna
Several animals frequent the coastal strand: western and California gulls (Larus
occidentalis and L. californicus), sand crabs (Emerita analoga), razor clams (Siliqua
lucida), surf and coquina clams, Pismo clams (Tivela stultorum), kelp flies (Fucellia and
Coelopa spp.), wrack flies, rove and dune beetles, tiger beetles (Cicindelidae), pill bugs
(Isopoda), and beach hoppers (Orchestoidea californiana) (CCC 1987:21; Johnson and
Snook 1967:282, 441, 458, 460; Schoenherr 1992:635).
Coastal sand dunes and foredunes provided habitat for numerous insects and animals:
San Francisco tree lupine moth (Grapholita edwardsiana), Morro blue butterfly (Icaricia
icarioides moroensis), Pheres blue butterfly (Aricia icarioides pheres), deer mouse
(Peromyscus maniculatis), California vole (Microtus californicus), black legless lizard
(Anniella pulchra nigra), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoargenteus), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) (CCC 1987:19).
Fish, shellfish, and other aquatic animals of marshes and mudflats include California
killifish (Fundulus parvipinnis), bay goby (Lepidogobius lepidus), striped bass (Morone
saxatilis), topsmelt (Atherinops affinis), starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), moon
snails (Polinices spp.), horn snail or horn shell (Cerithidea californica), fiddler crabs
(Uca crenulata), ghost shrimp (Callianassidae Family), fat innkeeper (Urechis caupo),
pea crabs (Pinnotheres pisum), scale worms (Lepidonotus melanogrammus), gobies
(Gobiidae Family) and various other crabs, shrimp, clams, and worms (CCC 1987:24).
Locally available shellfish species include abalone (Haliotis spp.), bean clam (Donax
gouldii), black turban snail (Chlorostoma funebralis), California mussel (Mytilus
californianus), littleneck clam or rock cockle (Leukoma staminea), olive snail (Callianax
biplicata, formerly Olivella spp.), Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum), thick scallop
(Argopecten ventricosus), and Venus clams or hardshell cockles (Chione spp.)
(Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:271–272).
Pelagic or open-ocean fish in the project vicinity include anchovies (Engraulididae
Family), chub mackerel (Scomber japonicas), Pacific bonito (Sarda chiliensis), leopard
shark (Triakis semifasciata), Pacific angel shark (Squatina californica), Pacific
barracuda (Sphyraena argentea), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), shovelnose
guitarfish (Rhinobatos productus), soupfin shark (Galeorhinus galeus), and yellowtail
(Seriola lalandi). Near-shore fish in the area comprise cabezon (Scorpaenichthys
February 2015

CR1-5

APPENDIX CR-1

 marmoratus), California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher), surfperches
(Embiotocidae Family), rockfishes (Sebastes spp.), kelp bass (Paralabrax clathratus),
señorita (Oxyjulis californica), blacksmith (Chromis punctipinnis), bat ray (Myliobatis
californica), and soupfin shark (G. galeus). (Lightfoot and Parrish 2009:273.)
Prior to development of the project vicinity, the area supported various mammals.
Among marine mammals there were sea lions (Otariidae Family), sea otter (Enhydra
lutris), and northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). In addition to the terrestrial
mammals listed previously in this section, likely inhabitants of the project vicinity
included ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), hares and rabbits (Leporidae Family),
mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and woodrats (Neotoma spp.)(Lightfoot and Parrish
2009:275–277.)

PREHISTORIC SETTING
The Petition to Amend (PTA) submitted by the petitioner does not provide an historic
context for prehistoric resources. However, the FSA for the licensed CECP (CEC 2009)
includes a useful background regarding prehistoric human occupation in San Diego
County, and it is used as the basis for this section.
For the purposes of this project, the regional history for the San Diego region presented
by Gallegos (2002: Figure 3.3) is applicable. This chronological sequence identifies two
periods, the Early/Archaic Period (ca. 10,000 years before present (B.P.) to ca. 1,300
B.P.), and the Late Period (ca. 1,300 B.P. to historic contact), with various
traditions/complexes identified within these periods.
Archaeologists traditionally viewed the Early Holocene archaeology of coastal southern
California as the product of people who focused on extracting resources from the
terrestrial environment. These Paleoindians originally dwelt in the southern California
deserts, using lake and lakeside resources—an economic orientation referred to as the
Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition (WPLT)—until the Pleistocene lakes in the deserts and
Great Basin dried at the beginning of the Early Holocene, at which time some WPLT
people migrated west to the coast and adjusted their food gathering strategies (Byrd
and Raab 2007:217-218). The presence of archaeological sites on the Channel Islands2
at the beginning of the Holocene Epoch, however, suggests that the southern California
coast was not simply colonized by WPLT peoples, but another group was already
established or possibly colonized by two distinct groups. The Early Holocene marine
economy (fish and shellfish) has long been equated with the San Dieguito Complex
because of assumed links with the WPLT and similarities in flaked stone tools (Moratto
1984: Figure 4; Wallace 1955:218). The marine focus, however, clearly represents a
distinct lifeway and early coastal sites—situated on bays and estuaries, such as Agua
Hedionda in the project area—is now commonly classified as part of the Paleo-Coastal
Tradition (ca. 12,000–8000 B.P.) (Byrd and Raab 2007:218).
WPLT archaeological sites are typically characterized by leaf-shaped, Lake Mojave, and
Silver Lake projectile points; stone crescents; formal and expediently made flake tools;

2

The most reliable earliest dates on Early Holocene archaeological sites in the southern Bight come from
San Miguel Island and San Clemente Island (Byrd and Raab 2007:219) and from CA-ORA-64 on the
mainland (Erlandson et al. 2007:Table 4.1).
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-6

February 2015

 atlatl (spear-thrower) hooks; and micro-cores3. Tools for plant processing are generaly
absent. Presumably, these assemblages represent an economy focused on hunting.
Paleo-Coastal Tradition sites exhibit a similar flaked stone tool assemblage, but differ
from WPLT sites in the presence of pitted stones, asphaltum, pointed-bone objects, and
shell spoons and ornaments (Moratto 1984: 104, 190). Marine shellfish, fish, and
mammals are dominant at mainland coastal sites (approximately 73 percent of animal
remains) compared to pericoastal and other inland sites (25 percent) (Erlandson et al.
2007:61).
The La Jolla archaeological complex is representative of the post-San Dieguito complex
(ca. 7,500 B.P. to 1,300 B.P.) during the Middle Holocene in the vicinity of the amended
CECP. This complex is characterized by spear, crescent, lanceolate, and leaf-shaped
points, leaf-shaped knives, and obsidian sourced from Casa Diablo and the Coso
Mountains. Coastal lagoons in northern San Diego County, like Agua Hedionda,
supported large populations, with at least two excavated sites around Agua Hedionda
and in the close vicinity to the project area dating to this time period (CA-SDI-10965 and
CA-SDI-9649). However, there is a gap in the archaeological record around coastal
lagoons from about 6,000 years ago until about 3,000 years ago, a gap attributed to the
siltation of coastal lagoons and depletion of shellfish and other lagoon resources
(Warren and Pavesic 1963 cited in Guerrero and Gallegos 2004: 1-7). Although, some
researchers argue that the La Jolla complex may just represent seasonal or
geographical variations of the older and more general San Dieguito complex (Guerrero
and Gallegos 2004:1-7). Inland sites from this time period are referred to as Pauma
complex sites, and are typically characterized by a predominance of grinding
implements, a lack of shellfish remains, a variety of tool types, and an emphasis on
sedentism, as well as hunting and gathering. From about 10,000 to 1,300 years ago
there is a pattern of cultural continuity, and the material culture remains are similar in
many aspects, possibly representing slow cultural change (Gallegos 2002: 35; Guerrero
and Gallegos 2004:1-7 - 1-8).
The Late Period in the San Diego region (ca. 1,300 B.P. to historic contact) reflects
many of the same attributes with regard to the material culture that are known to have
been possessed by Native Americans at historic contact. Groups during this time period
focused on exploiting locally available resources and settlement was denser than in
preceding periods. Archaeological assemblages dating to the Late Period tend to
include small projectile points (for use in bow and arrows) such as Cottonwood and
Desert side-notched points, ceramics, acorn milling sites in the uplands, mortars and
pestles, obsidian sourced from Obsidian Butte, cremation, and reflect a pattern of
permanent or semi-permanent seasonal villages (Byrd and Reddy 2002:44; Guerrero
and Gallegos 2004: 1-8).
Many major settlements dating to the Late Period on the San Diego coast moved
eastward due to extensive siltation of lagoons which caused a decline in the shellfish
populations. This is not to say that coastal settlements were abandoned, but settlement
patterns were locally innovative as groups experienced and dealt with population
pressure, increased territoriality, and greater settlement permanence (Byrd and Reddy
2002: 41-42). Sites also tended to be located close to permanent water sources rather
3

Cores are masses of stone from which pieces are flaked off to make tools.

February 2015

CR1-7

APPENDIX CR-1

 than ephemeral streams as during earlier periods. There were usually two or more
permanent base camps, one used during the summer months and one during the winter
months, with secondary camps located within the groups’ territory. Secondary camps
were special-purpose sites used for activities such as acorn processing, quarrying lithic
material, or hunting or fishing camps. Ceremonies usually occurred at the winter base
camp (Gallegos 2002:31). The archaeological evidence from the coastal sites from Los
Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties during the Late Holocene demonstrate a
diffusion of elements, e.g., ceramics and cremations, and movement of linguistic
groups. This could be due to the influence of migrating Shoshonean groups after ca.
1500 B.P. (Erlandson 1994:43).
The Native American groups living in the San Diego region during the Late Period
interacted closely and for an extended period of time, sharing and exchanging cultural
ideas. This has caused an amalgamation of cultural traits that makes identifying
ethnographically known groups with specific archaeological deposits difficult.

ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING
Luiseño
The Luiseño people and representative tribes are one of two Native American groups
related to the project vicinity. Anthropologists in the early 20th century initially
distinguished the Luiseño and their immediate northern neighbors, the Juaneño, as
distinct ethnic nationalities (e.g., Kroeber 1976:636). However, later studies indicate that
they are ethnologically and linguistically related, and are referred to here as the Luiseño
(Bean and Shipek 1978:550).
The names ‘Luiseño’ and ‘Juaneño’ are derived from the Spanish missionaries who
established Catholic missions on the San Diego coast in the late 1700s. Two missions
were established in the, soon to be renamed, tribes’ territory: the Mission San Luis Rey,
founded in 1798 in Oceanside (about 6 miles northeast of the project area), and the
Mission San Juan Capistrano, founded in 1776 in San Juan Capistrano (over 30 miles
northwest of the project area). Those indigenous Californians closest to Mission San
Luis Rey became known as ‘Luiseños’ and those closest to Mission San Juan
Capistrano became known as ‘Juaneños’.
The Luiseño speak a language that belongs to the Cupan group of the Takic sub-family.
This language branch is part of what formerly was known as the Southern California
Shoshonean group because it is part of the Uto-Aztecan language family. It is not
known what the Luiseño called themselves, however it is likely that they, like most other
tribes in California, did not have a name for their own nationality (Bean and Shipek
1978:550).
The traditional territory of the Luiseño consisted of an estimated 1,500 square miles of
both coastal and inland environments. The Agua Hedionda estuary served as the
southern boundary which extended east-northeast to about Palomar Mountain. The
boundary from Palomar Mountain extended along the eastern side of the Elsinore Fault
Valley to Santiago Peak (Bean and Shipek 1978:550-551:Figure1).

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-8

February 2015

 Kumeyaay
The Kumeyaay people and representative tribes are the other Native American group
related to the project vicinity. This group is also referred to as the Diegueño because the
Spanish associated this group of people with the presidio and mission San Diego de
Alcalá. There are two subgroups within the Kumeyaay, the Ipai, which denotes the
northernmost group, and the Tipai, which denotes the southern group (Luomala 1978:
592).
The Kumeyaay speak Diegueño, which is a part of the Yuman family of the Hokan
stock. The Ipai and Tipai designations are in part linguistic categorizations, i.e, Ipai was
spoken primarily north of the U.S./Mexico border, and Tipai was spoken in Baja
California.
Agua Hedionda Creek served as the approximate northern boundary of the Kumeyaay’s
traditional territory, extending south into Baja California to about Todos Santos Bay.
Their territory extended east past Lake Cahuilla (Salton Sea) to the Sand Hills, to the
southeast where their territory met those of their Quechan and Cocopah (fellow Yumanspeakers) neighbors, and they ranged into the valley between Sierras de Júarez and
San Pedro de Mártir (Luomala 1978: 593, Figure 1).

Sources of Ethnographic Data
The earliest ethnographic sources of information can be found in the records of the
Spanish explorers and later missionary records. Of the various documents related to
Spanish exploration and subsequent colonization, Father Boscana’s manuscript on the
religious beliefs of the Luiseño and neighboring tribes, has provided invaluable
information, especially with regard to the Chingichngish religion. The earliest attempt at
Luiseño ethnography can be attributed to Henshaw (1972). Early twentieth-century
publications include publications by Sparkman (1905, 1908a, 1908b), Du Bois (1904,
1908), and Kroeber (1906, 1908, 1909, 1917, 1976). Later studies built on this
information, including works by Gifford (1918, 1922) and Strong (1929). Raymond
White’s (1963) work significantly added to the body of literature through his
interpretation of settlement patterns, social organization and worldview, and Bean and
Shipek (1978) provide a valuable synopsis of Luiseño culture.
As with the Luiseño, the earliest accounts of Kumeyaay lifeways are attributed to
Spanish explorers and missionaries, but Spier (1923) conducted a survey of Southern
Diegueno in the early twentieth-century. Constance Du Bois (1901, 1904, 1905, 1908)
did valuable work in explaining both Kumeyaay and Luiseño myths and rituals.
Luiseño and Kumeyaay Trade, Settlement Patterns, Economy, Resources and
Material Culture
The Luiseño tended to be somewhat isolationist and conservative in their relationships
with neighboring ethnic groups (Bean and Shipek 1978:550), and the ethnographic and
ethnohistoric information suggests that trade was not particularly important for the
Luiseño (Davis 1961:27). However, it is known that they obtained steatite bowls from
Santa Catalina Island, and obsidian from the north and east. The Luiseño settlement
pattern was one of sedentary and autonomous villages, with surrounding resource
locations for hunting, collecting, and fishing that were owned by individuals, families, the
February 2015

CR1-9

APPENDIX CR-1

 chief, or collectively by the village. Other private property interests included a family’s
house, ritual and ceremonial paraphernalia, eagle nests, songs, and various other nonmaterial possessions. Inland village groups usually had coastal areas they visited
annually, usually during low tides or when inland resources were less plentiful. But, in
general, most subsistence needs were available within a day’s travel (Bean and Shipek
1978:551).
Trade played a more prominent role for the Kumeyaay, but they traded more frequently
with each other than they did with other ethnic groups. Coastal groups were known to
have traded salt, dried seafood, dried greens, and abalone shells, for inland acorns,
agave, mesquite beans, and gourds (Luomala 1978:601). Davis (1961:20) summarizes
Kumeyaay trade in general, indicating that they supplied acorns to the Mohave,
tobacco, acorns, baked mescal roots, yucca fiber, sandals, baskets, carrying nets, and
eagle feathers to the Kamia, eagle feathers to the Cocopah, and acorns to the
Quechan. They received salt from the Cocopah, gourd seeds from the Mohave, vegetal
foods and salt from the Kamia, tule roots, bulbs, cattail sprouts, yucca leaves, mescal,
pine nuts, Manzanita berries, chokecherries, and mesquite beans from “The Desert”,
and gourd seeds from the Quechan.
Like many other Native American groups in California, acorns were the primary
subsistence source for the inland Luiseño and Kumeyaay. Acorns were also important
for coastal groups, though to a somewhat lesser degree. Because of the importance of
acorns, easy access to water was important for village locations to help with the acorn
leaching process. Seeds also provided an important component to the Luiseño and
Kumeyaay diet, including grass, Manzanita, sunflower, sage, chia, lemonade berry, wild
rose, holy-leaf cherry, prickly pear, lamb’s-quarters, and pine nuts for the Luiseño (Bean
and Shipek 1978:552), and various sage species, pigweed, peppergrass, flax,
buckwheat, cacti, and fruits for the Kumeyaay (Luomala 1978:600). Various greens,
fruits, and cacti were also eaten by the Luiseño (Bean and Shipek 1978:552). The
Kumeyaay ate fresh foods as well, including watercress, miner’s lettuce, clover, yucca
roots and stalks, grasses, shrubs, and the buds and blossoms of various flowers and
cacti (Luomala 1978:600). Inland groups ate more game, such as deer, rabbit, woodrat,
mice and ground squirrels, antelope, quail, doves, and ducks, than coastal groups who
ate more fish and marine mammals, including crustaceans, and mollusks (Bean and
Shipek 1978:552).
The Kumeyaay in the Imperial Valley adopted horticultural methods learned from their
eastern Quechan neighbors, and grew maize, beans, teparies, and melons after
seasonal floods. Both the Kumeyaay and Luiseño used fire to burn and rejuvenate
grasslands, as well as to draw out rabbits or deer (Bean and Shipek 1978:552; Luomala
1978:601).
Hunting was conducted both collectively and individually, with rabbit and deer drives the
most common animals taken as a community. For the Kumeyaay, most meat came from
rodents, but lizards, some snakes, insects, and insect larvae were also eaten (Luomala
1978:601). Bows were used for hunting and war, in addition to curved throwing sticks,
war clubs, thrusting sticks, lances, and slings. Balsa rafts or dugout canoes were used
for ocean fishing near the shores, and seines, fish traps made of basketry materials, dip

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-10

February 2015

 nets, bone or haliotis shell hooks, and harpoons captured seafood (Bean and Shipek
1978:552; Luomala 1978:601).
Basketry was an important component of Luiseño and Kumeyaay lifeways and various
types were constructed for different purposes. Coiled and twined baskets were used for
gathering, preparing, storing, and serving food. The Kumeyaay also constructed a
variety of soft textiles in basket-shapes made of string materials such as milkweed.
Winnowing grain chaff or separating coarse from finely ground meal was done by a long
shallow basket tray. Acorn leaching was done with openwork twined baskets, but basins
in fine sand were also used. Ceramic vessels in addition to baskets were also used for
storage. Acorn granaries were constructed from willow boughs and were set on a flat
rock base (Bean and Shipek 1978:552-553; Kroeber 1976:722).
Luiseño ceramics were made by the typical paddle-and-anvil technique, and were
sparsely decorated with simple lines using a fingernail or stick, or were painted on.
Ceramic shapes included shallow dishes, bowls, hemispherical bowls, wide- and
narrow-mouthed jars, ladles and dippers, and miniatures. Food was also prepared using
wooden paddles, brushes, tongs, tweezers, steatite bowls and cups, and wooden
digging sticks, in addition to various groundstone and flaked-stone tools for cutting,
scraping, prying, drilling, and pounding. Bedrock mortars were common in inland
locations (Bean and Shipek 1978:553; Kroeber 1976:722).
Luiseño house construction entailed conical, partially subterranean structures thatched
with reeds, brush, or bark. Other structures included a brush-covered rectangular shade
structures referred to as ramadas by the Spanish, sweathouses which were round,
semi-subterranean, and covered with earth, and a centrally located circular fenced-off
area used as a ceremonial location called a wamkis (Bean and Shipek 1978:553).
Houses of the Kumeyaay were elliptical in shape and similar to those of the Luiseño
except that Kumeyaay houses were covered with earth. Kumeyaay also built
sweathouses which were smaller but higher than domiciles. The Kumeyaay also dug
wells, particularly along the eastern slopes where springs are less plentiful. Communally
owned ceremonial structures were located in villages, and a brush dance circle was
also used (Kroeber 1976:721-722; Luomala 1978:597).
Luiseño and Kumeyaay Burial Knowledge and Practice
The Kumeyaay burial practices were similar to their eastern Yuman-speaking neighbors
and the Luiseño’s were more similar to their northern Gabrielino Tongva neighbors. The
Luiseño cremated their deceased, and conducted at least six different mourning
ceremonies after cremation. One ceremony entailed ritualistically washing the clothes of
the deceased, whilst singing, declaiming, and dancing in the ceremonial enclosure.
Another ceremony included burning the clothing of the dead and instructing them to
depart to the sky, while another ceremony was an annual or semi-annual public
ceremony observing the dead by burning images of them. An additional ceremony
involved a tall painted pole, which represented the spirit of the deceased, and climbing
contests of the pole, were held among tribal members during the ritual. The eagle killing
ceremony was held for chiefs, and the eagle’s body was ritualistically burned or buried.
Another ceremony was the burial of the feather headdress and other ritual
February 2015

CR1-11

APPENDIX CR-1

 paraphernalia belonging to the deceased in a central hole of a ground painting (Kroeber
1976:672-677).
The Kumeyaay also practiced cremation, and the ashes were placed in a ceramic jar
which was buried or hidden with a broken metate. They also practiced an image burning
ceremony like the Luiseño, but the ceremony was affiliated with the Yuman keruk
ceremony. The keruk was a mourning ceremony held a year after death, and entailed
the construction of a specific ceremonial structure in addition to the burning of the
images of the dead (Kroeber 1976:716; Luomala 1978:603).

Contemporary Tribes Entities with Ethnographic Affiliations
La Posta Band of Mission Indians
This federally recognized tribe has a reservation located near Boulevard, California.
Members are of Kumeyaay descent, and the tribe maintains a five-member tribal
council4.
Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation
The Kumeyaay of the Manzanita Band are a federally recognized tribe located on a
3,580 acre reservation near Boulevard, California. Their tribal council consists of one
tribal chairman5.
San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians
No information could be accessed regarding this tribe.
Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation
This federally recognized Kumeyaay tribe maintains a 640 acre reservation in the
Dehesa Valley, near El Cajon, California. The tribe’s casino is located in El Cajon as
well, and the tribe holds an annual pow-wow. The six-member tribal council determines
and administers laws, conditions, and regulations for the benefit of the Sycuan people6.
Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
The Viejas Band is a federally recognized tribe with a 15,000 acre reservation near
Alpine, California. The tribe maintains two councils, a general council which includes all
tribal members and votes on issues relating to budget and land use, and a tribal council
which serves as the legislative and executive branch, with quasi-judicial authority as
well. The tribe operates a casino in Alpine, in addition to an outlet center, and
campgrounds7.
Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee
This is not a tribe but a group that protects Kumeyaay cultural sites, and also maintains
the Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee.
4

http://www.lptribe.net/
http://www.sctca.net/manzanita.html
6
http://sycuantribe.org/tribal-government/tribal-council/
7
http://www.viejasbandofkumeyaay.org/index.html
5

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-12

February 2015

 Campo Band of Mission Indians
The Campo Band are of Kumeyaay descent, and have a federally recognized
reservation in Campo, California and maintain a seven-member tribal council. They
have a casino in Campo, and also a materials (ready-mix concrete, washed concrete
sand, and plaster sand) distribution business, and wind farm located on tribal lands8.
Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians
The federally recognized Mesa Grande Band maintains a 1,820-acre reservation near
Santa Ysabel, California and is governed by a general council consisting of all members
over 18 years old. A five-member, elected business committee governs the day-to-day
affairs of the tribe. This is a non-gaming tribe and they are committed to sustainable
business endeavors9.
Pala Band of Mission Indians
The Pala Band are a federally recognized group of Luiseño and Cupeño members with
a 12,273-acre reservation in Pala, California. They maintain a general council which
includes all eligible votes over 18 years old, and a six-member, elected Executive
Committee. The tribe’s casino resort and spa is located in Pala, California, and they
also maintain a skatepark, fire station, preschool, and fitness center10.
Pauma and Yuima Reservation
The Luiseño who live on the 5,777-acre reservation in Pala, California are governed by
a four-member tribal council. The tribe maintains a casino in Pauma Valley, California,
in addition to business in agriculture11.
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
The 5,500-acre federally recognized Pechanga reservation is located near Temecula,
California. The Luiseño who are eligible, voting members of this tribe consist of the
general council and elect a seven-member tribal council which is in charge of setting
policy and administering government programs. The income generated from the tribe’s
casino in Temecula has assisted in the establishment of a community park, youth
center, senior center, and tribal government center12.
Rincon Band of Mission Indians
The Rincon Band maintains an approximately 5,000-acre reservation near Valley
Center, California for their Luiseño members. This federally recognized tribe has a fivemember tribal council which, in addition to its executive, legislative, and executive
authority, also serves as the board of directors for tribal enterprises.

8

http://www.campo-nsn.gov/
http://mesagrandeband-nsn.gov/
10
http://www.palatribe.com/
11
http://www.paumatribe.com/index.php
12
http://www.pechanga-nsn.gov/
9

February 2015

CR1-13

APPENDIX CR-1

 Kwaaymii Laguna Band of Mission Indians
The Kwaaymii are a sub-group of the Kumeyaay who live in the Laguna Mountains.
They are not a federally recognized group, and only one member of the group is still
alive.
Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee
This committee is a part of the Kumeyaay Cultural Historic Committee, and “was
created in 1997 to aid the San Diego area Kumeyaay bands in the repatriation of their
ancestors’ human remains, tribal artifacts, and cultural objects of a patrimony heritage”13
Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office
The Ewiiaapaayp are a federally recognized group, and are also known as the
Cuyapaipe. They have an approximately 500-acre reservation near Alpine, California.
The tribe maintains a general council in addition to a three-member tribal council14.
San Luis Rey Band of Mission Indians
The San Luis Rey Band are not federally recognized and do not have a reservation in
southern California. However, they do have a tribal council and work together with some
of the federally recognized tribes as part of a larger Tribal Coalition to protect cultural
resources. They also hold an annual pow-wow in the summer in Oceanside, California.15
La Jolla Band of Mission Indians
The federally recognized La Jolla Band has a nearly 10,000-acre reservation near
Palomar Mountain. They are Luiseño and are governed by a five-member tribal council,
and have a campground on the reservation that is open to the public.16
Ipay Nation of Santa Ysabel
The Ipay Nation maintain an approximately 15,000-acre federally recognized
reservation near Santa Ysabel, California. The tribe recently adopted a constitution in
which they established four branches of government: the general council of all votingeligible members, the chairman and vice-chairman entailing the executive branch, a
seven-member legislative committee, and a judicial branch. The tribe also hosts
internet-gaming at the reservation17.
Kumeyaay Diegueno Land Conservancy
This group is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving and protecting
environmentally and culturally-sensitive lands in traditional Kumeyaay territory. There
are currently three properties under protection by the Land Conservancy, the Sacred
Mountain Ranch at Kuuchamaa Mountain, the Mosler Property in Julian, California, and
Sloan Canyon in the Dehesa Valley18
13

http://www.kumeyaay.info/repatriation/
http://www.sctca.net/ewiiaapaayp.html
15
http://www.slrmissionindians.org/about/
16
http://lajollaindians.com/lajollatribe/
17
http://www.iipaynation-nsn.com/index.html
18
http://www.kdlc.org/index.html
14

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-14

February 2015

 Inter-Tribal Cultural Resource Protection Council
Staff cannot find any current information regarding this group at this time.

HISTORIC SETTING
Spanish Period (1769 to 1822)
Although there was contact with Spanish explorers as early as 1542, it is generally
accepted that the historic period for San Diego County began in 1769, with the
introduction of the Spanish mission known as San Diego de Alcalá, which was originally
located on a hill overlooking San Diego Bay. It was founded by Father Junipero Serra,
who, along with Gaspar de Portola, led the initial Spanish expedition into Alta California.
In 1798, Mission San Luis Rey was established approximately six miles north of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon (located in modern-day Carlsbad). This mission became the largest
of the 21 missions in California, extending over 20 square miles and with the largest
number of Indian residents. The establishment of the mission system was the beginning
of the Spanish period (1769 to 1822) and the forced acculturation of native peoples in
this area. Ultimately, however, the entry of Spanish missionaries into the coastal region
resulted in large-scale destruction of native populations (Cook and Marino 1988). A
number of family ranchos were established during this period, although there are few
remnants of these early settlements.

Mexican Period (1822 to 1848)
The Mexican period followed the Spanish period as Mexico gained its independence
from Spain. It was during this time that land began to be granted to private citizens and
the missions became secularized. A number of ranchos between the coast and the
mountains of San Diego County included vast landholdings upon which cattle and
sheep were grazed. Natural valleys and slopes were used as open range for livestock
well into the subsequent American period. Political responsibility for the region was
transferred to the United States with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on
February 2, 1848. Despite these changes, the economic and demographic makeup of
the San Diego area remained virtually unchanged until sometime after California
became a state on September 9, 1850 (CEC 2009).

American Period 1848 to present
During the American period, which began in 1848, a growing number of farms appeared
along with the cattle and sheep ranches. As a result, a rural community pattern
emerged that continued until about 1930. This pattern consisted of communities made
up of population aggregates that lived within well-defined geographic boundaries. The
population lived on farmsteads, tied together by a common school district, church, post
office, and country store. These farmsteads and dispersed farming communities gave
way to horse ranches, dairies, and nurseries, which in turn were replaced by the
establishment of the roadside service complex, which was linked by state and federal
roadways (CEC 2009).

February 2015

CR1-15

APPENDIX CR-1

 Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Originally named “San Simeon Lipmaca” by Gaspar de Portola and Father Juan Crespi
in 1769, the soldiers travelling in the expedition referred to it as Agua Hedionda, which
is “stinking water” in Spanish (Harmon:1). The name has persisted to current times.
From Harmon’s account in A History of Carlsbad, it appears the lagoon would dry up in
the summer months, such that automobiles could cross the lagoon, bypassing the
circuitous county road which followed the northern edge of the lagoon (Harmon : 30-31).
The lagoon’s channel was cut out by several large storms in 1922 and 1927. After the
storm and flood of 1927, the channel remained open for five years and the beaches and
sand bars became popular picnic and swimming locations. Boating and fishing also
gained in popularity. However, when the state blew up the existing bridge crossing the
lagoon and dumped it into Agua Hedionda, it once again was blocked off from tidal
flows (Harmon:31).
Agua Hedionda Ranch
Rancho Agua Hedionda was granted to Don Juan María Marrón by Mexican Governor
Juan Bautista Alvarado in 1842. The grant extended south along the coast from the
present day city of Carlsbad to Encina Creek, then eastward about five miles, then north
to Buena Vista Creek (Harmon:1). Don Juan María Marrón died in 1853 at the age of
45; his widow and four children inherited Rancho Agua Hedionda, with the exception of
360 acres bequeathed to Silvestre Marrón. The latter also was given grazing rights on
the huge rancho. Francis Hinton purchased Rancho Agua Hedionda in 1860. The
transaction took several years to complete and three deeds were recorded between
1865-1869. (Harmon:2-3).
Robert Kelly became half-owner and head man at Francis Hinton's Rancho Agua
Hedionda, during the time of Hinton’s acquisition. When Hinton died in 1870, Robert
Kelly inherited Hinton's half of the property, receiving “all rights, title and interest" of the
Hinton rancho. Kelly put 25 miles of fence around the Hedionda property to avoid being
drawn into clashes with squatter farmers. At one time prior to the fencing, the cattle
roamed unhampered over the land from Los Angeles to Lower California. Harmon
writes in A History of Carlsbad that “even today” (ca. 1961), “it is possible to discover
remains of some of the old split redwood posts and original barbed wire fence at Aqua
Hedionda” (Harmon:4-5).
Robert Kelly died in 1890, leaving Rancho Agua Hedionda to his nine nephews and
nieces, the children of his brother, Matthew Kelly. The last of these heirs, William
Sherman Kelly, died on May 10, 1950, at the age of 85. Holdings of his son, Allan, 820
acres of the Marrón grant, included the upper part of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. “From
Allan Kelly's home can be seen the lagoon into which empties the creek of the same
name, the Encina power plant and the ocean. In the distance to the south is Palomar
Airport which had been carved out of the original land grant. Within the same
boundaries are two high hills, or mountains, which on county maps bear the historic
names of Mount Kelly and Mount Hinton” (Moyer 1969:38-40). Allan Kelly’s remaining
ranch has been since subdivided into a number of housing developments, including
Heron Bay, Spyglass Hills and Evan’s Point. Part of the mitigation for the Kelly Ranch
Master Plan (1984) was to create habitat conservation land. The Kelly Ranch Habitat
Conservation Area is located adjacent to the Heron Bay and Spyglass Hills
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-16

February 2015

 communities. Mention is made that the 6.5 acre parcel containing the historic Allan Kelly
ranch was not part of the sale of land19. Construction of Heron Bay and Spyglass Hills
did not commence until 2002. (Heron Bay 2014). There is a large parcel nearby at 2770
Sunny Creek Road, off El Camino Real, currently owned by Robert P. Kelly20 and
considered for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) in
Carlsbad’s 1990 Cultural Resources Survey (Carlsbad 2014c:3.7-7). The survey
information noted “Adobe rehab, 1842; outbuildings, c. 1900s”. Viewed from Google
Earth in historical aerial imagery, it appears the existing structure has been extant since
at least 1994. It is unclear what portion, if any, contains the original adobe referenced in
the survey notes.
The old Marrόn21-Kelly adobe was off of El Camino Real (Hatley 1978). Its location is
best described today as between El Camino Real to the west and College Boulevard to
the east, just south of Highway 78, on Haymar Drive. It is listed as a potential historical
resource in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan Update.
(Carlsbad 2014a:3.7-11). The list describes the property as including the “Buena Vista
Creek and El Salto Falls archaeological sites as well as natural open space, part of
which is sensitive habitat”.
Rancho Los Kiotes/Leo Carrillo Ranch
Robert Kelly’s older brother Matthew arrived with his family in 1868 to homestead
10,000 acres immediately adjacent to Rancho Agua Hedionda’s southern border. They
named it Rancho Los Kiotes (Quiotes). Leo Carrillo, an early to mid- 20th Century actor,
purchased 1,700 acres from Charles and Lavinia Kelly in 1937 and an additional 838
acres from Edward and Nettie Kelly in 1939 (Carlsbad 2014b: 6). Construction of the
bulk of the ranch buildings and facilities occurred between 1937 and 1940, even
incorporating a portion of the Kelly rancho adobe house into the main wing of his adobe
(Carlsbad 2014b:7). The Leo Carrillo Ranch has been found to be significant under
Criterion A, B and C of the National Register of Historic Places (Carlsbad 2014b: 1). Leo
Carrillo died in 1961. The ranch fell into decline during Carrillo’s later years and was
sold by his daughter in 1961 to developer Byron White’s Carrillo Ranch Partnership.
The city of Carlsbad took possession of the 10.5 acres at the heart of the ranch in 1978.
The city increased the landholding to a total of 27 acres. In 1991, the city commissioned
a Historic Structures Report and began the process of stabilization and rehabilitation of
the site. The property opened to the public as Leo Carrillo Ranch Historic Park in 2003
(Carlsbad 2014b:8-9).
Las Encinitas Rancho
Las Encinitas Rancho, (“little live oaks”), was a 4,431-acre tract given to Don Andres
Ybarra by Mexican Governor of Alta California Juan Bautista Alvarado in 1842. The
Ybarra family built an adobe home near a creek on the rancho. The rancho was sold in
19

Allan Kelly’s remaining property is located on Hemingway Drive. He built the adobe home in the 1960’s
(Gutierrez 2014).
20
The Robert P. Kelly residence at 2770 Sunny Creek Road is listed in a City of Carlsbad Building
Permits Pending report dated Monday, September 16, 2013, for installation of solar panels, permit #
CB132175.
21
This adobe is also noted by some sources as the Silvestre Marrón adobe, brother of Don Juan Maria
Marrón. (Moyer 1969; p37).
February 2015

CR1-17

APPENDIX CR-1

 1860 and the adobe house later became a stage stop. Located within modern-day
Carlsbad, what remains of the stage stop adobe has been preserved in situ and is now
incorporated into Stagecoach Community Park (Moyer 1969:41-43).
Frazier’s Well
John Frazier and his family arrived in Carlsbad by railroad in 1883. Frazier obtained a
property north and west of Rancho Agua Hedionda and drilled his well in what is now
the village center of modern-day Carlsbad. Frazier’s well water was soon known for its
high quality and as a way station for thirsty travelers. A water analysis revealed that
Frazier’s water was nearly identical in taste and chemical content to the famed water of
Well Number 9 in Karlsbad, Bohemia (Harmon:12-13). Hence, the name of the town
emerged as Carlsbad. In 1886, Frazier sold his 127 acres, including his well, to Gerhard
Schutte and Samuel Church, who also obtained 275 nearby acres (Carlsbad 2014a).
Frazier’s Well was made a California historical monument by Assembly Resolution 125
on April 20, 1955. The well had been abandoned. A monument to the well was created
by the then owner, B.M. Christiansen. He duplicated the pump house of the Karlsbad
well in Bohemia (Harmon:79-80). In 1993 Ludvik Grigoras, a Karlovy Vary (Karlsbad,
Czech Republic) native started to completely restore the old well and re-drilled another
of Frazier's wells which is naturally carbonated. Ludvik encouraged a hometown friend,
renowned sculptor Vaclav Lokvenc from Karlsbad, Czech Republic, to create a 13 ft.
bronze statue of Capt. John Frazier which was shipped from Europe in 1994 and is now
erected at the Alt Karlsbad Historic Site. Today the famous therapeutic water is being
bottled again as Carlsbad Alkaline Water and customers line up at the dispensing
machines to fill their gallon jugs. An elegant spa has opened in the beautiful Europeanstyle building on the site of the original hotel (Carlsbad Mineral Water Spa 2014). The
site of John Frazier's original well can still be found at Alt Karlsbad, located at 2802
Carlsbad Boulevard.
Carlsbad
As noted above, the community of Carlsbad was named for the popular 19th century
Karlsbad Spa in Europe. The original Carlsbad railroad depot, an open-air shed, was
built to serve the California Southern Railway in 1887. In 1905 or 1906 (accounts vary),
the railroad was purchased by the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe (ATSF) Railroad, as
it had become a shipping point for locally grown fruits, vegetables, and flowers. In 1907,
a new enclosed Queen Anne-styled station was built and the name on the station was
shortened to “Carl” to avoid confusion with Carlsbad, New Mexico (Gutierrez 2002:119).
The depot also served as a telegraph office, post office, Wells Fargo Express office, and
general store. Closed in 1960, the building was deeded to the city. It now serves as the
Tourist Information Center to provide information and assistance to the many tourists
who visit Carlsbad (CECP 2007a:5.3-9). The 1907 station is listed on the NRHP. A new
train station is located at Carlsbad Village Station north of the old depot and serves the
Amtrak Surfliner and the Coaster commuter train.
A railroad poster featured in A History of Carlsbad advertised an excursion train on April
11, 1888, to Carlsbad, the “Greatest Seaside Sanitarium on the Pacific Coast”. The
railroad was instrumental in opening access to Carlsbad’s now famous waters and
ultimately led to the development of Carlsbad as a resort and later as a city. Carlsbad

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-18

February 2015

 was incorporated as a city in 1952 and several subsequent annexations led to the City’s
boundary as it exists today (Gutierrez 2002:48-57).
Railroads: California Southern-ATSF Railroad-Amtrak Surfliner-The Coaster-North
San Diego County Transit District
To help bring the railroad through, Robert Kelly donated 40 acres of his Rancho Agua
Hedionda property for the railroad22 and "a money consideration" in addition to the rightof-way through his ranch (Harmon:5). The California Southern Railroad, a group of
investors closely affiliated with the ATSF (JRP 2007:15), completed the FallbrookNational City line through Carlsbad on January 2, 1881. After completing a rebuild of the
line in the wake of an 1885 flood, in 1888 the California Southern railroad became the
main line between San Diego and Los Angeles. In 1889, the California Southern and
several other branch lines were reorganized into the Southern California Railroad (JRP
2007:16, USGS 1893). The original track was realigned to the east and straightened out
in 1906 (JRP 2007:16). Encina Power Station (EPS) oil tanks occupy the original
location of the tracks (Guerrero et al 2004:1-9). A review of maps on file at the
California State Railroad Museum dating to 1881 show the original alignment (California
Southern 1881a, 1881b). Another adjustment to the ATSF rail line as it passed through
what is now EPS can be seen in historical topographic maps and aerial photographs
from 1939 to 1953. There was a siding on the peninsula where the original fuel tanks
were located. The 1953 aerial shows a portion of the siding remaining, but it appears to
have been partially destroyed by the EPS construction process at the time.
The Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot was originally built in 1907 and underwent an awardwinning rehabilitation in 1987. The depot is listed on the NRHP. The depot is located at
400 Elm Avenue (now 400 Carlsbad Village Drive) and is described in the NRHP
nomination as Folk Victorian/Carpenter Gothic (Cratty 1993). It also has Queen Anne
style elements of wood, weatherboard, decorative shingles and metal roof cresting. The
depot now serves as a visitor’s center for the city of Carlsbad.
The depot replaced an open air shed. The station was sometimes referred to as
Frazier’s Station, named after the famous waters discovered by John A. Frazier. After
all, it was the railroad that brought Frazier and his family to Carlsbad, where he
discovered the superb mineral and artesian waters in his well and brought the area to
national recognition. The railroad experienced a significant decline in passenger use
after a new section of I-5 was opened in 1953 from Oceanside to Carlsbad (Gutierrez
2002:62-63) and automobile travel became preeminent. This decline was especially
noticeable from 1960 to 1990. The North County Transportation District (NCTD)
introduced commuter rail service known as the Coaster in 1995 (Coaster 2013). The
Coaster commuter train travels past coastal scenery as it runs north and south through
San Diego County, serving eight stations between Oceanside and downtown San
Diego. More than twenty trains run on weekdays, with additional service on the
weekends. In addition, Amtrak’s Surfliner trains currently run six trains per day, serving
the same eight stations (NCTD 2014).

22

Various accounts describe this action but it is unclear as to what entity the land was given. Ultimately, it
became part of the line that the California Southern Railway built from National City to Fallbrook.

February 2015

CR1-19

APPENDIX CR-1

 The North San Diego County Transit Development Board (NSDCTDB) was created by
California Senate Bill 802 on September 20, 1975. The board was created to plan,
construct and operate public transit systems in its area of jurisdiction. On January 1,
2003, a new state law was enacted (SB 1703) that transferred future transit planning,
programming, development and construction to SANDAG, San Diego’s regional
planning agency. NSDCTDB continued to operate the Breeze (Passenger Bus Service),
Coaster (Commuter Rail) and Sprinter (Light Rail Line). On August 30, 2005, California
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 1238, which renamed the Board the North
County Transit District (NCTD), with the name change becoming effective January 1,
2006 (NCTD 2014).
As of February, 2012, the rail line has been upgraded to a double track for a 1.9-mile
section from Carlsbad Village southward past Cannon Road. This upgrade included the
replacement of the railroad bridge over Agua Hedionda Lagoon (NCC Carlsbad 2014).

ROADS AND BRIDGES
El Camino Real
The first mission was established in 1769 at San Diego, when they established a
fortress and a Franciscan mission. A footpath, called The El Camino Real, or Kings
Highway, was created to connect the outposts. Ultimately, El Camino Real linked 21
missions, pueblos and four presidios from San Diego to Sonoma (CAHighway 2014). An
article by Nathan Masters (Masters 2013) disputes the notion that the path was a welltraveled road and suggests the path changed over time based upon weather, modes of
travel and even tides.
Led by groups like the Auto Club, the California Federation of Woman's Clubs, and the
Native Daughters of the Golden West, efforts to develop El Camino Real into a tourist
destination highway gained traction in the first decade of the twentieth century. The El
Camino Real Association succeeded in placing more than 400 roadside markers
comprised of bells hung on poles along an approximation of the original footpath
between 1906 and 1914 (Masters 2013).
The 1910 State Highways Act authorized construction of a paved road along the route
of El Camino Real. However, construction lagged and for many years much of the
historic road was only a primitive trail. Between cities there were streams to ford and
steep grades to scale. Sometimes, teams of horses would rescue automobiles trapped
in mud. Finally, by the mid-1920s, the highway construction was complete, and in 1925
the route was signed as US 101 (CAHighway 2014).
El Camino Real currently traverses Carlsbad as County Route S11. El Camino Real
runs from near the old Mission San Luis Rey just north of the Carlsbad city boundary to
the intersection with Manchester Avenue in Encinitas. It is not a continuous route in San
Diego County.

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-20

February 2015

 Pacific Coast Highway/Carlsbad Boulevard
The old dirt road along the coast was paved in 1915-1916 (Harmon:31). This coincides
with the implementation of the 1910 State Highways Act (above) but it is not known if it
is connected. Carlsbad Boulevard is a segment of Pacific Coast Highway.
Pacific Coast Highway opened in the late 1920s as part of the Roosevelt Highway, a
1,400-mile road that traversed the westernmost United States. Pacific Coast Highway is
a road which connects coastal towns from Ventura to San Juan Capistrano, however
there are other sections which have adopted the moniker, the most obvious being the
segment along the Big Sur coastlines. Passing directly through coastal towns, the
Roosevelt Highway -- renamed Pacific Coast Highway in much of Southern California in
1941 -- adequately met the region's transportation needs in 1929 (Masters 2012). The
route was replaced by I-5 in the 1950s in the Carlsbad area. It is also identified as
Highway 101 or CA 1 in various sections.
The significance of this road to Carlsbad is that it was the first road that directly
connected Carlsbad to San Diego and Oceanside (Gutierrez 2002:111). The road in
Carlsbad was originally called Lincoln Street. The 1927 state realignment was when the
street name changed to Carlsbad Boulevard. The road was first paved in 1915 and a
concrete bridge over Buena Vista lagoon was built to replace a wooden bridge.
Carlsbad Boulevard became a catalyst for new businesses to spring up along its route
(Gutierrez 2002:111-112).

Cannon Road
A road following a portion of the route of Cannon Road is seen in historic aerials as far
back as 1947. The 1947 aerial shows it at the southern boundary of the agricultural
fields to the east of the ATSF railroad tracks, leading to the west presumably to the
coast road (now Carlsbad Boulevard), albeit diverted around some intervening
development. By 1953 it appears to go straight through to Carlsbad Boulevard,
achieving its modern alignment. Historical imagery from Google Earth reveals that by
May 31, 1994, Cannon Road dead ended at what is now Car Country Road. By May 21,
2002, the road extended to Faraday in the foothills and was paved from Frost Avenue to
El Camino, leaving an unpaved gap between Faraday and Frost. The gap was closed
by March 10, 2003. Cannon Road finally extended to its current completed alignment at
College Avenue by October 10, 2005.
William D. Cannon purchased 150 acres extending along the coast from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon southward in 1926. Water problems had made the property difficult
for agriculture. Cannon arranged for water to be delivered from wells located several
miles to the east along Agua Hedionda Creek by forming his own water company and
building a six-inch pipe across Allan Kelly’s rancho land (Gutierrez 2014;Kubota 2014;
Sippel 2014). The route of the water pipeline appears to be along the modern alignment
of much of Cannon Road (Sippel 2014). This account is borne out by a 1955 diagram of
the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Water District, which shows a pipeline route from the
San Diego Aqueduct (Gutierrez 2002:62). These coastal properties were included in
Carlsbad when incorporation took place in 1952. Cannon named the residential
subdivision south of Cannon Road Terramar and the name persists to today for the
beachside neighborhood which dates to the 1940s-1950s (Jones 1982:142-144).
February 2015

CR1-21

APPENDIX CR-1

 Presumably, Cannon Road was named for William D. Cannon, although it is unclear
when it acquired the name.

Interstate 5
The 11.7 mile section of I-5 from Oceanside to Carlsbad was opened in 1953 (Gutierrez
2002: pp 62-63: 114). This includes the section that abuts the Encina Power Station. I-5
bisected the city and reduced vehicle trips on Carlsbad Boulevard. It eventually had the
positive effect of bringing even more tourists to Carlsbad and new businesses
(Gutierrez 2002:114).

Bridges
Three bridges are on or abut the project site. The bridge on I-5 that crosses Agua
Hedionda Lagoon is a continuous concrete bridge, first built in 1953 and updated in
1970. The I-5 bridge that spans Cannon Road is made of pre-stressed concrete and
dates to 1971 (CALTRANS 2014). All highway bridges within the Area of Potential
Effect (APE) for the I-5 widening project were previously determined not significant in
accordance with Caltrans Statewide 1987 historic bridge inventory, which was
reconfirmed with the 2006 update (CALTRANS 2013:3.8-8). That would include the two
bridges noted above.
The bridge on County Route S21 (Carlsbad Boulevard) crossing the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon is not logged by Caltrans. The City of Carlsbad’s Land Development
Engineering Department developed plans for the reconstruction of the bridge in 1985
and has on file a Notice of Completion in 1987 for the bridge (Carlsbad 2014d).

San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)
San Diego Gas Company was founded in 1881 and incorporated as San Diego
Consolidated Gas & Electric Company in 1905. The utility built its first principal electricgenerating plant in 1905. It was the only provider of gas and electricity for San Diego
and its suburbs. The company's system included two steam electric-generating stations
by 1927.
In 1932 the company replaced manufactured gas with natural gas in its service area.
Two years later, San Diego Consolidated began purchasing power produced by the
Boulder Dam. In 1939, San Diego Consolidated was authorized to export 3.6 million
kilowatt hours per year to its wholesale customers in Tecate, Mexico.
The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 resulted in the Securities and Exchange
Commission ordering Standard Gas & Electric to sell all of its utility holdings in 1940.
This sale included San Diego Consolidated, which changed its name to San Diego Gas
& Electric Company and became publicly owned.
During the 1950s SDG&E began research into nuclear power, and in 1961 it agreed to
participate in development of what is known as the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station (SONGS) in partnership with Southern California Edison, where SDG&E owned
20 percent of the plant. SONGS Plant 1 came online in 1968, followed by Plants 2 and 3
in 1983 and 1984. Plant 1 was decommissioned in 1992 and Plants 2 and 3 were taken
permanently offline in 2013.
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-22

February 2015

 By the late 1960s air pollution control regulations were hindering the company's efforts
to build plants to supply the booming population of the San Diego area. By 1970, it was
one of the fastest-growing utilities in the United States. Fuel oil costs increased in 1970
due to local regulations that required the utility to burn higher-priced low-sulfur crude,
and the company began to look elsewhere for its power needs (HBS 2012).
SDG&E is now owned by Sempra Energy. Sempra Energy’s California utilities, San
Diego Gas & Electric Co. and Southern California Gas Co., serve more than 20 million
consumers.

Steam Generation Electric Plants in California
In 1879, the Brush Plant in San Francisco was the first central generating station on the
west coast to produce and distribute electricity on demand to customers. Prior to
Thomas Edison’s invention of the incandescent electric light bulb in 1879, only the
electric arc system was available, which turned out to be unsafe for indoor use. (Myers
1983:11.) Edison is also known for improving the generation and distribution systems
for electricity, which truly opened up the consumer market. This “central station” concept
was to become the cornerstone of the electric utility industry (Myers 1983:11).
Hydroelectric power was the dominant form of electric generation in California in 1920.
By 1940, it grew to 89 percent of the market in California. However, by 1960, steam
generating plants became the primary source of electricity in California as hydroelectric
generation had fallen to 27 percent (JRP 2014:5).
Power generating plants constructed before World War II were typically housed in an
architectural shell with a recognizable style of design. In the early part of the twentieth
century, this was partly an outgrowth of the City Beautiful Movement. San Diego
Consolidated Gas & Electric Company’s Station B (1911) and Sacramento’s PG&E
Station A are examples of this early beaux arts-based Classical Revival presentation of
an edifice housing the turbines, generators and various facilities of a steam generating
electric plant. The original Pacific Light and Power Company steam plant at Redondo
Beach, constructed in 1906, was also emblematic of the Classical Revival style. All of
these featured arched fenestration, distinct cornice details, rhythmic patterns of
windows, columns or piers and spacious interior volumes housing the equipment.
Later examples adopted the architectural style of their times. The City of Vernon’s
Station A, built in 1932, is an excellent example of the Art Deco style of architecture
popular at the time, especially in Southern California. A later addition to San Diego’s
Classical Revival style Station B (1928-1939) was constructed in the Spanish Revival
and Art Deco styles.
Post World War II, power plant design in Southern California transitioned to largely
outdoor turbines and generating equipment, with few plants being constructed within a
shell. EPS is an exception to that, as are portions of Redondo Beach Generating Station

February 2015

CR1-23

APPENDIX CR-1

 Encina Power Station (EPS)
The Encina Power Station was built by SDG&E and Plant 1 came online in October,
1954. (JRP 2014: p.11). The original site was comprised of 110 acres adjacent to the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon and was purchased by SDG&E in 1948 from Paul Ecke, who
had been granted the land by William D. Cannon in 1947 (Gutierrez 2002:47;SGI 2014:
57 ). (Ecke was a partner with Cannon in the development of Terramar). A 1947 aerial
seen in Appendix 5.14A, Phase 1 ESA, to the original AFC (CECP 2007a), shows the
entire site east of the railroad tracks to be in agricultural production. The area west of
the railroad tracks appears marshy and there are some structures shown in the
southwest corner of the site off what is now Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard. A
1948 USGS Topographic Map labels the area where the structures are visible as
“Military Res” (JRP 2014:12). EPS was designed to use once-through ocean water for
cooling. The natural lagoon was variable in its shape and how much water it contained,
so the EPS project also involved dredging the lagoon to create a large water body with
consistent water levels for intake purposes. Then an intake facility was located on the
south end of the outer lagoon and a discharge tunnel constructed to empty into a
cooling pond which ultimately is drawn into the ocean. A large intake at the northwest
end of the lagoon is flanked by rip-rap jetties and passes under PCH/Carlsbad
Boulevard into the lagoon.
EPS is a series of five generating plants coming online in phases from 1954 to 1978.
The first three are housed in a poured concrete structure with an internal steel support
system. The final two plants are housed in a composite material known as transite
panels. The original plants each had their own external exhaust stack. Those stacks
were replaced by a singular, 400-foot tall stack in 1978, allegedly so that emissions and
plumes would travel farther from the power plant site.
The 1953 aerial image also clearly shows the existence of a railroad spur leading from
the ATSF tracks into the south end of the power station. Presumably it carried the heavy
equipment onto the site during construction. The railroad spur exists today, although
portions of it have been abandoned to automobile parking and outdoor storage. The
spur enters the southernmost portion of the plant on the same level as the turbines.
A 1963 aerial shows the existence of the two water tanks associated with the EPS that
are now located on SDG&E property just south of the power plant site (CECP 2007a).
While the EPS may very well be one of the last electric generating plants in California to
be housed in an architectural shell, it is not a shell that is embellished with any
architectural style or merit. Unlike the architecturally significant Art Moderne Plant 1 and
Pump House at the Redondo Beach Generating Station (RBGS), it is a strictly utilitarian
housing for a power plant, with no decorative features. The interior is typical of these
types of plants: the turbines are located on a mezzanine floor along with the control
rooms. Although, in the case of EPS, much of the infrastructure is below grade while the
mezzanine is at grade.
The EPS expanded and added support facilities over time. Some of the original
buildings have been replaced, such as the administration building. Additional fuel tanks
were constructed in the 1970s (Tanks 4, 5, 6 and 7). The 1980s saw the addition of
waste water tanks, a hazardous waste building, a paint storage building and
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-24

February 2015

 maintenance shop. Most recently, the property has the addition of the Poseidon
Desalination Plant (Poseidon), currently under construction in an area west of the
railroad tracks and east of the waste water tanks where Tank 3 originally was located.
Tank 3 was removed as part of the locally-permitted Poseidon Plant.

BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Cultural Resources Table A1
Literature Review Results within or adjacent to the PAA
NADB23 Number
1123329
1129569

Author and Date of Study
Crafts 1995
Guerrero, Stropes, and Gallegos
2004
Helton 2007

N/A

0

Helton and Lawson 2008

N/A

0

Helton 2013
Laylander and Pallette 2005
Polan 1981
Rosen 1999
Rosen 2003

N/A
1129382
1121752
1126629
1128484

0
5
0
6
1

Seeman 1982
Smallwood 2005
Tang, Hogan, Smallwood,
Jacquemain, and Hensley
Shaker 2004

1124111
1130467
1129146

0
1
1

Wade 1987

1121665

8

23

Resources Identified
None
1

NADB is an acronym for the National Archaeological Database,

February 2015

CR1-25

APPENDIX CR-1

 Cultural Resources Table A2
Literature Review Results: Studies outside PAA, in Records Search Area
Author(s) and Date of Study
Bonner and Aislin-Kay 2007
Bonner and Keasling 2007
Brandman 1983
Brown 2001
Byrd and O’Neill 2002
CALTRANS 2012
CALTRANS 2013a
CALTRANS 2013b
Carrico and Phillips 1981
Caterino 2005
Cheever and Gallegos 1987
Cupples 1976
Dolan and Allen 1996

1131419
1131423
1122045
1125343
1129361
1133916
1134495
1134615
1120424
1129516
1120786
1120535
1123378

Dolan, Moomjian, Raen-Jenning, and Smith 1996
Dominici, Rosen, and White 2006
Dominici 2007
Dominici 2010
Duke 2002
Eigmey and Wade 1990

1123170
1129996
1131761
1132762
1127960
1121394

Elfend 1984
Environmental Impact Profile 1973
Environmental Impact Profile/Unknown Author 1974
Flandreau 2013
Gallegos and Kyle 1992
Gallegos 1986
Gallegos and Carrico 1984
Gallegos, Carrico, and Thesken 1983
Gallegos, Doose, and Guerrero 2008
Gallegos, Mitchell, Schroth, and Harris 1998
Gallegos, Schroth, and Perry 1995

1122016
1122296
1122088
1134757
1122474
1121028
1121055
11121054
1132043
1124093
1123943

Greene and Smith 2006
Greene 2007
Gross 1987
Gross and Bull 1973
Gross and Robbins-Wade 1987
Guerrero and Gallegos 2003a
Guerrero and Gallegos 2003b
Guerrero and Gallegos 2003c
Guerrero and Gallegos 2004a
Guerrero and Gallegos 2004b
Guerrero and Gallegos 2007
Guerrero, Stropes, and Gallegos 2004
Hector 1981
Hector 1985

1130655
1131177
1129215
1120980
1129215
1129571
1129575
1129586
1132016
1132019
1132035
1129569
1121122
1128738

APPENDIX CR-1

NADB Number

CR1-26

February 2015

 Author(s) and Date of Study
Hogan and Encarnacion 2009
Kaldenberg 1976
Keith 1981
Kyle 2002

1132738
1120716
1121752
1129082

Kyle and Gallegos 1998
Laylander and Becker 2004
Laylander and Akyuz 2008

1127250
1129362
1131783

Loftus 2013
McCorkle-Apple 1987
McGinnis 2009
Mooney 1993
Mooney and Cook 1993
Morgan 2011
Page 2012
Pierson, Schiller, and Slater 1987
Robbins-Wade 1999
Robbins-Wade 2007

1134888
1121745
1132444
1124440
1122694
1133626
1134574
1122200
1125045
1131224

Robbins-Wade 2009
Schroth and Gallegos 1996
Schroth, Harris, and Gallegos 1996

1132153
1123273
1123272

Schroth, Schilz, and Cooley 1990
Smallwood 2005
Smith 1998
Smith and Rosenberg 2007
Strudwick 1993
Strudwick 1994
Tang 2009
Tennesen 2011

1124367
1130467
1123586
1130651
1122691
1124806
1132693
1133707

Ultra Systems, Inc. 1983

1128750

Unknown Author Unknown Date (Santa Fe Depot)
Unknown Author Unknown Date (Santa Fe Depot)
Vanwormer 1987
Wade and Hector 1986

1130847
1131269
1124483
1121579

WESTEC 1980

1121984

WESTEC1987
Woodward and Stammerjohan 1985
York and Hildebrand 2011

1121618
1121638
1133488

February 2015

NADB Number

CR1-27

APPENDIX CR-1

 Cultural Resources Table A3
Literature Review Results: Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
Resource
Designation

Type

Description

Location

Significance

Source

Archaeological Resources
CA-SDI-I-485/
P-37-015183
CA-SDI-I-486/
P-37-015184
CA-SDI-I-487/
P-37-015185
CA-SDI-I-672/
P-37-015370

Prehistoric

Hammerstone

Prehistoric

Lithic Core

Prehistoric

Metate
Fragment

Prehistoric

Lithic Flake

P-37-027648

Unknown

P-37-027649

Unknown

CA-SDI-10024/
W-132

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-10025/
W-133

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-10478

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-10671/
W-118

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-10672/
W-125

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-10965/
W-131

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-13008/
CA-SDI-6132/
CA-SDI-10673/
W-119/ W-129

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-13076

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-13089

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-13124/
W-133

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-13701/
P-37-019009/
W-130

Prehistoric

24

Shell midden,
ground stone,
FAR24, burial
Shell midden
with lithics,
FAR,
Shell midden
with lithics
Shell midden
and lithic
scatter, stone
bead
Shell and lithic
scatter
Habitation site
with over 7,000
artifacts
Shell and lithic
scatter,
modified bone
Shell and lithic
scatter
Shell midden,
FAR
FAR,
sweathouse,
manos,
ceramics, core,
hammerstone,
flakes,
Shell midden,
FAR,
groundstone

Record Search
Area
Record Search
Area
Record Search
Area
Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area
Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

FAR is an acronym for Fire Affected Rock

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-28

February 2015

 Resource
Designation
CA-SDI-14335/
P-37-015589

Type

Description

Location

Significance

Source

Prehistoric

Manos,
metates, lithics

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Prehistoric

Shell and lithic
scatter, FAR,
groundstone

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Prehistoric

Shell midden,
lithics

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Prehistoric

Shell and lithic
scatter

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Prehistoric

Shell and lithic
scatter

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

CA-SDI-17959

Prehistoric

Shell scatter,
FAR

Record Search
Area

CA-SDI-17960

Unknown

CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007

Prehistoric

Shell midden
with lithic
flakes, cores,
hammerstone,
and mano

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Prehistoric

Shell and lithic
scatter,
groundstone,
bone, and
subsurface
deposits

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area
Record Search
Area
Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007
CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

Record Search
Area

CH2M Hill
2007

CA-SDI-17078/
P-37-025678
CA-SDI-17411/
P-37-026515/
W-127
CA-SDI-17413/
P-37-02657/ W468
CA-SDI-17414/
P-37-026518/
W-469

CA-SDI-209/
W-3329

CA-SDI-6134/
W-121

CA-SDI-6830/
W-1890
CA-SDI-6831/
W-1891

Prehistoric
Prehistoric

CA-SDI-8794

Prehistoric

CA-SDI-8795

Historic

CA-SDI-8796

Prehistoric

W-132A

Prehistoric

February 2015

Shell midden
with lithics
Shell midden
with lithcs
Shell and lithic
scatter, FAR
Wood beam
feature
(possibly part
of dock facility)
Shell and lithic
scatter,
groundstone,
FAR
Shell midden
with lithics

CR1-29

APPENDIX CR-1

 Cultural Resources Table A4
Historic Maps Consulted
Map Name
San Diego County
Historic Roads and
Trails: 1769-1885
San Luis Rey
Oceanside
Oceanside
San Luis Rey and
Encinitas

Scale
1:100,000

1872

Survey Date

Reference
SDC 1872

1:100,000

1769-1830

SDC Assessor 1955

1:125,000
1:62,500
1:62,500

1901
1898
1942

USGS 1901
USGS 1898
USGS 1942

1:24,000

1948

USGS 1948

Aerial Overview

1938

Aerial Overview

1947

Aerial Overview

1953

Aerial Overview

1963

Carlsbad Energy Center
LLC. 2007: Appendix
5.14A
Carlsbad Energy Center
LLC. 2007: Appendix
5.14A
Carlsbad Energy Center
LLC. 2007: Appendix
5.14A
Carlsbad Energy Center
LLC. 2007: Appendix
5.14A

BUILT ENVIRONMENT TABLES
Cultural Resources Table A5
Built Environment
Properties with Structures of Historic Age in the One-Parcel PAA (Excluding EPS)
Description
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
Residence
SDG&E North Coast Service
Center

APPENDIX CR-1

241 Olive Avenue
315 Olive Avenue
5081 El Arbol Drive
5050 Los Robles Drive
5051 Los Robles Drive
5032 Tierra del Oro
5030 Tierra del Oro
5022 Tierra del Oro
5020 Tierra del Oro
5016 Tierra del Oro

2060920300
2060920900
2101600100
2100340100
2100331700
2100200500
2100200400
2100200200
2100200100
2100202100

Year
Constructed
1930
1966
1956
1956
1962
1956
1956
1956
1956
1956

Cannon Road

2100104000

Ca. 1953-1963

Address

CR1-30

APN

February 2015

 Cultural Resources Table A6
Encina Power Station
Inventory of Built Environment Resources
Structures
ATSF Railroad
Tracks
Units 1, 2, & 3
Units 4 & 5
Fuel Tanks 1-2
Fuel Tank 4
Fuel Tanks 5-6-7
Paint Storage
Building
Administration
Building
Equipment Bay
Building
Wastewater
Storage Tanks
Compressor
Building
Machine Shop
Building
Storage Building
Exhaust Stack
Encina Substation 1
& 2

Year Built

Evaluated*

Surveyed

1882/1906/2012

Yes

Yes; not eligible

1954,1956, 1958
1974, 1978
1954,1956
1972
1972, 1975, 1977

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes; not eligible
Yes; not eligible
Yes; not eligible
Yes; not eligible
Yes; not eligible

Citation
JRP 2007:19; Tang
2009; NCC Carlsbad
2014
JRP 2007; JRP 2014
JRP 2007; JRP 2014
JRP 2007; JRP 2014
JRP 2007; JRP 2014
JRP 2104

ca. 1985

Yes

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014

1985

Yes

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014

1954-1978

Yes

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014

ca.1985

Yes

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014

ca. 1970

Yes

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014

ca. 1970

Yes

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014

ca. 1970
1978

Yes
Yes

Yes; not eligible
Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014
JRP 2014

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014

1954, 1975

No; less than 50
years old in
2007, not
evaluated in
2014
Yes; not eligible

Cannon Substation

1976–1984

Yes

Control Houses
EPS Power Plant
Seawater Intake
Structure
EPS Outflow Pond
Security Building
Dredge Dock
Gas Turbine
Generator
Hazardous Waste
Building
Substation
Expansion Area
Railroad Spur
Marine Fuel
Terminal
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon

1954, 1958

Yes

1954

Yes

1954
1954
ca. 1954

Yes
Yes
Yes

Yes; not eligible
Yes; not eligible
Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014
JRP 2014
JRP 2014

ca. 1970

Yes

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2014

ca. 1985

Yes

Yes-not eligible

JRP 2014

Unknown

No

No

Unknown

No

No

1954

Yes

Yes; not eligible

Dredged
ca.1953-1954

No

No

February 2015

CR1-31

Yes; not eligible

JRP 2007:i,17

JRP 2014
JRP 2014

White 2013

APPENDIX CR-1

 Cultural Resources Table A7
Built Environment
Properties Identified by the City Carlsbad as Potential Historic Resources
(Carlsbad 2014c; pp 3.7-7 to 3.7-12)
Name
Twin Inns/Ocean
House

Location
2978 Carlsbad
Boulevard
400 Elm
(Carlsbad Village
Drive)
3309 Roosevelt
Street
3329 Roosevelt
Street
2770 Sunny
Creek Road

Description
Queen Anne
Victorian

El Camino Real

El Camino Real

Road

Marrόn Adobe

Haymar Road

Adobe remodelSpanish

Gage
House/Monterey
Condominiums

3080 Lincoln
Street

South Coast Land
Company/Garcia’s
Barbershop
Rancho De Los
Kiotes/Quiotes

Santa Fe Depot
Ramirez House
Mission Santiago

Old Carlsbad

Barrio Neighborhood

St. Michael’s
Episcopal Church
Red Apple Inn/Army
Navy Academy
Carlsbad Mineral
Springs/Carlsbad-bythe-Sea
APPENDIX CR-1

Eligibility

Survey Year
1990;
2014

1887

NRHP

Carpenter
Gothic

1887

NRHP

1990

Vernacular

1917-18

NRHP

1990; 2014

B/C Spanish

1923

NRHP

1990; 2014

Adobe Rehab;
outbuildings

1842; ca
1900s.

NRHP

1990

CRHR
Landmark
No. 784

1990

1842/1850s

CRHR

1990; 2014

Monterey

1925

CRHR

1990; 2014

2956 State
Street

Spanish
Eclectic

Pre-1925

CRHR

1990;
2014

6200 Flying LC
Lane

Spanish

1935-39

CRHR
Landmark
No. 1020

1990

Adobe Ruins

1842

CRHR

1990

New England
style

varies

N/A

2014

Original town
site

Varies;
includes
several historic
structures

N/A

2014

Historic Barrio

1920s

N/A

2014

Stagecoach
Community Park
Carlsbad Village

Year

Carlsbad Village
Drive
S. of Buena Vista
Lagoon, W. of El
Camino Real and
N. of Cannon
Road
Within Old
Carlsbad along
Roosevelt Street,
Walnut and
Chestnut
Avenues
2775 Carlsbad
Boulevard
2585 Carlsbad
Boulevard
2855 Carlsbad
Boulevard

CR1-32

1894

2014

1927

2014

1930

2014

February 2015

 Cohn House/Norte
Killian Building
Los Diego
Hotel/Caldo
Pomodoro
Restaurant

2907 State
Street

Carlsbad Theatre
Barrio Museum
Gaus House
Shaw House
Shirley House
Culver House
Kreutzkamp House
Beller House
Ramsay House

3003 Carlsbad
Boulevard
2900 State
Street

2822 State
Street
3304 Roosevelt
Street
3442 Roosevelt
Street
3081 Highland
Drive
1542 Oak Street
3140 Highland
Drive
624 Laguna
Drive
1448 Forest
Avenue
1330 Chuparosa
Way

1929

2014

1920s

2014

1925

2014

1926-27

2014

1943

2014

1929

2014

1927

2014

Ca. late 1880s

2014

Ca. 1887

2014

1890s

2014

Ca. 1894

2014

1904

2014

Cultural Resources Table A8
Built Environment
Properties Identified by the City Carlsbad as Official Historic Resources (Carlsbad
2014c; pp 3.7-7 to 3.7-12)
Name

Location

Magee
House

258 Beech
Street, Magee
Park

Frasier’s
Well/Alt
Karlsbad

2802
Carlsbad
Boulevard

Old Santa
Fe Train
Depot
Rancho de
Los
Kiotes/Leo
Carrillo
Ranch
Historic Park

400 Carlsbad
Village Drive
6200 Flying
Leo Carrillo
Lane.

Description/Type
Craftsman
Recreation of 12th
Century European
building at historic
well site
Victorian railroad
station (Carpenter
Gothic)
Rancho and
associated structures

Year
Constructed

Listed or
Eligible

Survey
Year/Citation

1887

CRHR25

Carlsbad 2014c

1883/1964

CRHR26

Carlsbad 2014c

1907

NRHP

Carlsbad 2014c;
P-37-017443

1868/1937

NRHP:
CRHR
Landmark
No.
102027

Carlsbad 2014c

25

Identified by the San Diego Archaeological Center.
The Envision Carlsbad report lists this as a CRHR landmark, however, the Office of Historic
Preservation’s website does not have it listed as of October 8, 2014.
27
Identified by the San Diego Archaeological Center.
26

February 2015

CR1-33

APPENDIX CR-1

 CULTURAL RESOURCE DESCRIPTIONS
Cultural Resources Table A9
Sites Included in the Agua Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District
Contributor
to AHD?
Under which
CRHR
criteria
Yes, 1 and 4

Yes

Yes, 1 and 4

Yes

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

W131/Windsong
Shores

Camp midden,
shells, lithics
including flakes,
scrapers,
choppers,
obsidian and
hammerstones,
bowling stones,
and animal bone

Shell C-14
dated 7000
to 8500
years B.P.;
obsidian
sourced from
Coso and
Casa Diablo,
hydration
suggests
recent
antiquity;
took pollen
samples,
seed
analysis;
Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

W-130

Shell midden,
metates, manos,

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Camp midden

1625±65
B.P.,
4815±90
B.P.,
1310±55
B.P.; Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

9020 B.P.;
Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Site
Number/Name
CA-SDI-6751/

CA-SDI-16885

CA-SDI-6831/
W-1891

W-132a

CA-SDI210/UCLJ-M10
W-124
APPENDIX CR-1

Site Type
Shell scatter
Campsite with
shell, FAR, bone
and lithics
including
debitage,
hammerstone,
graver/scraper,
and core
Shell midden
with lithics
including
chopper, cobble
tools and flakes

Habitation

Time Period

Shell C-14
dated
1480±40
B.P. ,
Archaic

Eligibility
Determination

Recommended
not eligible
under criterion 4

Eligible (under
4)

CR1-34

In
Archaeological
PAA?

February 2015

 W-120

W-119

W-126

W-118

W-125

W-121

W-127
W-127A
W-133

W-1890
W-1894
CA-SDI-209/W3329

CA-SDI10478/W-3666

CA-SDI-13701

February 2015

Habitation,
manos and
metates
Habitation,
cobble hearths,
cobblestone
sweat house,
burial, manos
and metates
Campsite,shell
midden, scarce
cobble hearths,
Habitation ,
cobble hearths,
burial, Canalino
tools and beads
Campsite,
cobble hearths,
manos and
metates, flaking
and
hammerstones
Shell and lithic
scatter, manos,
steatite digging
weight, hematite
plummet tone,
burials
Shell midden,
stone tools
Cobble hearths,
Shell midden,
FAR, flakes,
cores, scrapers,
manos
Shell midden,
scraper, flakes
Shell and lithic
scatter, scraper
Shell midden,
core mano,
hammerstone,
flakes
Lithics including
cores,
hammerstones,
flakes, shell,
bone and
charcoal
Habitation site
with shell,
manos, FAR,
ceramics and
lithic tools

Archaic –
Late
Prehistoric

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic-Late
Prehistoric

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

Yes

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic-Late
Prehistoric

“A large and
important site”

Shell C-14
dated to
5520±100
B.P.; Archaic

“Not important
under CEQA”

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Shell C-14
dated to
1610±40
B.P.; Archaic

Two tested
portions (i.e.,
two different
tests) were
identified as not
significant

Yes, 1 and 4

No

CR1-35

APPENDIX CR-1

 W-123

W-122

W-124

W-128

W-132

W-116

Shell midden,
cobble hearths,
cremation,
Yuman III grave
goods
Midden, cobble
hearths, burial,
manos and
metates
Camping,
cobble hearths,
platforms (?),
washed-out
BURIAL, shell
Shell midden,
cobble hearths,
bedrock metates
Midden, cobble
hearths, burial,
shell, sherds,
flaked and
ground stone
Midden, cobble
hearths,
platforms,
manos, metates,
lithics

Archaic-Late
Prehistoric

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic-Late
Prehistoric

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Yes, 1 and 4

No

Archaic-Late
Prehistoric

SUBSURFACE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
The research questions employ regionally and locally relevant orientations and identify
data needs to approach these questions. There are many different questions that could
be applied to these two archaeological sites. Five primary research domains were
selected which focus on chronology, subsistence and paleoenvironment, settlement
patterns, trade and trails, and lithic technology. These questions will be used to guide
the study to determine whether recovered archaeological materials sufficiently answer
the research questions.

CHRONOLOGY
Definition of site chronology and recognition of cultural components within sites is
fundamental to examination of questions within other research domains and to
assessment of site research potential. The application of multiple methods of dating
provides for the most accurate reconstruction of prehistoric site chronology, including
the use of radiocarbon dating, obsidian hydration analysis, artifact cross-dating, and
horizontal and vertical stratigraphic observations.

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-36

February 2015

 Questions
1. During which time period(s) were CA-SDI-16885 and (unknown prefix) 210/W-127A
used and occupied?
2. What diagnostic artifacts and/or features are present that assign the site to its period
of occupation?
3. How do the sites fit into the chronological pattern of the Agua Hedionda Prehistoric
Archaeological District?
4. How do the sites fit into the larger regional pattern suggested by Gallegos (2002)?

Data Needs
1. Collection of artifacts, e.g., projectile points or ceramics, which are diagnostic of a
specific time period.
2. Collection of datable materials, such as organic material that could be dated using
radiocarbon techniques or obsidian that could be dated using obsidian hydration
techniques, or temporally diagnostic artifacts such as projectile points or ceramics.

Test Implications
This site could be considered eligible under this research domain, either singularly or in
combination with answering other research domains, if diagnostic artifacts or datable
material that can definitely ascribe the site to a time period of which there is less
information known, such as the Paleo Coastal or Early Archaic Period, are collected or
thought to be contained within the site. However, this is not the only manner in which
this research question can be answered and the site considered significant.

SUBSISTENCE AND PALEOENVIRONMENT
The study of past climates and environments relies heavily on analysis of fossil pollens
to ascertain diachronic environmental changes. Pollen studies can indicate which plants
were present near a locality. Although sites in an ecotone will naturally reflect overlap,
the presence of pine, oak, or grass pollen can not only indicate the local environment,
but what resources would have been available to the local inhabitants. Pollen evidence
can help track the environmental changes over time at a certain site, or within a given
region.
Analysis of recovered artifacts for protein residues may provide data for identification of
plant and animal remains on stone tools, while soils may also yield pollen and phytolith
remains. These remains may reflect environmental change and assist in determining
what tool kits (i.e., flaked lithic tools and ground stone) were necessary for localized
resource processing.
Research should also assess which resources were being exploited that necessitated
the use of tools. Did the tool kits used prehistorically reflect environmental change and

February 2015

CR1-37

APPENDIX CR-1

 associated changes in available resources? Use-wear studies along with microscopic
analysis of tools can supply insight into this research question.

Questions
1. What foods, if any, were processed at the sites?
2. Do the sites represent specialized food-processing locations?
3. Do the sites represent a diverse food-processing location?
4. What do the floral or faunal remains indicate about the environment around Agua
Hedionda?
5. Did changes in prehistoric subsistence activities take place within the project area in
response to changing technologies and/or climatic change?

Data Needs
1. Collection of floral and faunal remains that permit the reconstruction of dietary
practices of the site occupants. Particular species of plants and animals can indicate
the environmental niches which would have been available to prehistoric occupants.
2. Analysis of these data will include
a. Protein residue analysis of some select artifacts to identify floral or faunal
materials,
b. Classification of recovered faunal materials, with special attention given to
butchering and cooking these materials, and
c. Identifying the habitat in which these species thrived for the purposes of
reconstructing the paleoenvironmental habitats exploited by the prehistoric
occupants.

Test Implications
This site could be considered eligible under this research domain, either singularly or in
combination with answering other research domains, if sufficient material is present or
thought to be contained within the site to conduct a paleoenvironmental reconstruction,
or floral or faunal material not previously known to have been exploited is found, either
within a particular temporal period or overall, is recovered or thought to be contained
within the site. However, this is not the only manner in which this research question can
be answered and the site considered significant.

SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
Settlement patterns refer to the spatial distribution of sites and in part reflect the choices
people make in stationing themselves to best exploit available resources. Few intensive
studies have been undertaken regarding local or regional settlement patterns. Instead,
settlement and land use data, consisting of compilations of major village site locations,
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-38

February 2015

 are derived from ethnographic and historic literature, site survey, and archaeological
syntheses.

Questions
1. How do the sites fit into the temporal scheme of the overall settlement patterns for
San Diego County? Can the group or culture be identified?
2. What were the sites’ functions? How do they fit into the pattern of sites in the Agua
Hedionda Prehistoric Archaeological District?
3. Did different activities occur at different sites or within sites depending upon site
function and period of occupation, and are these activities represented by different
artifact and ecofact assemblages?
4. Did site location, site function, and resource procurement all have an effect upon the
availability, accessibility, and choice of raw material used for the manufacture of
flaked stone tools and debitage?
5. What settlement pattern is indicated by the sites?

Data Needs
1. Collection of datable materials, such as organic material that could be dated using
radiocarbon techniques or obsidian that could be dated using obsidian hydration
techniques, or temporally diagnostic artifacts such as projectile points or ceramics.
2. Recovery of sufficient artifactual and cultural material to determine the sites’
functions.

Test Implications
This site could be considered eligible under this research domain, either singularly or in
combination with answering other research domains, if information to make conclusive
interpretations about the seasonality of movement of the residents of this site is
collected, or thought to be contained within the site. However, this is not the only
manner in which this research question can be answered and the site considered
significant.

TRADE AND TRAILS
The presence of Native American trails and trade activities among different cultural
groups in the San Diego region was noted by early travelers and ethnographers.
Research will be necessary, however, to determine the extent of trade, what materials
were traded, and whether trade materials and routes changed through time. Imported
artifacts (i.e., those made from non-local materials) found within an archaeological site
signal the practice of trade or exchange with neighboring groups.

February 2015

CR1-39

APPENDIX CR-1

 Questions
1. To what extent are trade, contact, or trails evident at these sites? What economic
needs were met by any trade, contact, or trails?
2. With which groups or regions was trade conducted?
3. What was the nature of cultural contact (continuous, sporadic, or limited)? What
were the routes?
4. Various obsidian tool stones were exploited by the prehistoric inhabitants of the
study area. Are diachronic patterns in procurement and use evident in recovered
artifact assemblages?
5. Because the study area is located far from most obsidian sources, was all obsidian
imported in reduced forms and as finished tools, rather than as raw material?
6. What archaeological evidence exists for perishable trade items?

Data Needs
1. Collection and analysis of trade goods, such as obsidian, steatite, beads (glass or
shell), non-local lithic material, or textiles.
2. Source identification of the trade goods.

Test Implications
This site could be considered eligible under this research domain, either singularly or in
combination with answering other research domains, if information to reconstruct trade
patterns, either locally or regionally, is collected or thought to be contained within the
site. However, this is not the only manner in which this research question can be
answered and the site considered significant.

LITHIC TECHNOLOGY
Flaked stone artifacts comprise one of the most durable and ubiquitous types of cultural
material recovered from most archaeological sites in northern California. Due to their
manufacture from non-perishable lithic materials, these artifacts typically represent the
most numerous, and, in some cases, the only cultural specimens recovered from sites.
Having formed an integral and indispensable role in the daily lifeways of Native peoples,
these artifacts offer a glimpse of past lifeways that reveal patterns of technology,
economy, subsistence, and settlement, as well as elements of site function and period
of use.

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-40

February 2015

 Questions
1. What lithic reduction strategies are present at the sites based on the tools or
debitage?
2. What tools were produced with which technological strategies? Were the cobble
materials local or non-local?
3. Are groundstone tools present? Were the groundstone tools made at the site or
brought from somewhere else?
4. How do technologies and stages of tool reduction relate to site function and tools
found on the sites?

Data Needs
1. Collection of a sufficient sample of lithic cores and debitage.
2. Analyses of lithic cores and debitage.

Test Implications
This site could be considered eligible under this research domain, either singularly or in
combination with answering other research domains, if information to determine the
lithic reduction strategy used by site occupants is collected or thought to be contained
within the site, or if information is collected or thought to be contained within the site to
determine how the tool reduction technologies relate to the site’s function. However, this
is not the only manner in which this research question can be answered and the site
considered significant.

February 2015

CR1-41

APPENDIX CR-1

 REFERENCES
The tn: 00000 in a reference below indicates the transaction number under which the
item is catalogued in the Energy Commission’s Docket Unit. The transaction number
allows for quicker location and retrieval of individual items docketed for a case or used
for ease of reference and retrieval of exhibits cited in briefs and used at Evidentiary
Hearings.
AECOM 2014 - AECOM. Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement for the San Elijo Lagoon Restoration Project. Public review draft. July.
San Diego, CA. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Carlsbad, CA, and
County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, San Diego, CA.
SCH# 2011111013. Electronic document,
http://www.sanelijo.org/sites/sanelijo.org/files/Restoration/SELRP_EIREIS_Vol.1_Draft_EIR-EIS_7.24.14.pdf, accessed October 27, 2014.
AECOM et al. 2011 - AECOM, Moffatt & Nichol, SAIC, Coastal Frontiers Corporation,
Merkel & Associates, and Everest International Consultants. Revised
Environmental Assessment/Final Environmental Impact Report for the San Diego
Regional Beach Sand Project II. May 27. San Diego, CA. Prepared for San Diego
Association of Governments, San Diego, CA, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Carlsbad, CA. State Clearinghouse Number 2010051063. Electronic document,
http://www.sandag.org/uploads/projectid/projectid_358_14427.pdf, accessed
October 27, 2014.
Altschul et al. 2007 - Jeffrey H. Altschul, John G. Douglass, Richard Ciolek-Torrello,
Sarah Van Galder, Benjamin R. Vargas, Kathleen L. Hull, Donn R. Grenda,
Jeffrey Homburg, Manuel Palacios-Fest, Steven Shelley, Angela Keller, and
David Maxwell. Life at the Nexus of the Wetlands and Coastal Prairie, West Los
Angeles. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:34–42.
Altschul et al. 2005 - Jeffrey H. Altschul, Richard Ciolek-Torrello, Donn R. Grenda,
Jeffrey A. Homburg, Su Benaron, and Anne Q. Stoll. Ballona Archaeology: A
Decade of Multidisciplinary Research. Proceedings of the Society for California
Archaeology 18:283–301.
Anderson 2007 - Dan Anderson. http://www.carlsbad.ca.us/hedionda.html.1994-2007
Bean and Saubel 1972 - Lowell J. Bean and Katherine Siva Saubel. Temalpakh:
Cahuilla Indian Knowledge and Usage of Plants. Banning, California: Maliki
Museum Press.
Bean and Shipek 1978 - Lowell Bean and Frank Shipek. “Luiseño”. In California, edited
by R. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. W.C.
Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bonner 2007a - Wayne H. Bonner. Cultural Resources Records Search Results for TMobile Candidate SD06919B (Tamarack HOA), 111 Tamarack Avenue,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Michael Brandman Associates. On file
at SCIC, San Diego State University.
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-42

February 2015

 Bonner 2007b - Wayne H. Bonner. Cultural Resources Records Search Results for TMobile Facility Candidate SD06643 (Sky line Road) 4140 Skyline Road,
Carlsbad, San Diego County,California. Michael Brandman Associates. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
Brandman 1983 - Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. Draft Environmental Impact
Report 83-4 General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Kelly Ranch SCH
#83042707. Michael Brandman Associates, Inc. Submitted to City of Carlsbad.
On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Brown 2001 - Joan C. Brown. Archaeological Monitoring During Excavation for the
Hamptons Project, Located in Carlsbad, California. RMW Paleo Associates, Inc.
Submitted to Greystone Homes. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Byrd and O’Neill 2002 - Brian F. Byrd and Collin O’Neill. Archaeological Survey Report
for the Phase I Archaeological Survey along Interstate 5, San Diego County,
California. ASM, Inc. Submitted to Caltrans. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Byrd and Raab 2007 - Brian F. Byrd and L. Mark Raab. Prehistory of the Southern
California Bight: Models for a New Millennium. Chapter 14 in California
Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and
Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 215–227. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
Byrd and Reddy 2002 - Brian F. Byrd and Sean Reddy. “Late Holocene Adaptations
Along the Northern San Diego Coastline: New Perspectives on Old Paradigms”.
In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene of the California Coast, edited by J.
Erlandson and T. Jones, pp. 41-62. Costen Institute Of Archaeology. University
of California, Los Angeles.
CAHIghway - California Highways, Trails and Roads: El Camino Real
http://www.cahighways.org/elcamino.html. Accessed September 9, 2014.
CALTRANS n.d. - California Department of Transportation. TCR Program – Project #
74.1 – June 2007: San Diego Pacific Surfliner; Double Track Intercity Rail Line
within San Diego County, Add Maintenance Yard in San Diego County.
Electronic document,
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/ocip/tcrp/factsheets/0741.pdf, accessed
October 14, 2014.
CALTRANS 2012 - California Department of Transportation. Interstate 5 North Coast
Corridor Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental
Impact Statement. CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
CALTRANS 2013a - California Department of Transportation. Interstate 5 North Coast
Corridor Project Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Statement and Section 4(F) Evaluation. CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.

February 2015

CR1-43

APPENDIX CR-1

 CALTRANS 2013b - California Department of Transportation. I-5 North Corridor Project
Supplementals. CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
CALTRANS 2014 - California Department of Transportation. California Log of Bridges
on State Highway. District 11. April 2014.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/structur/strmaint/brlog/logpdf/logd11.pdf
California Southern 1881a - California Southern. Map of the Location of the California
Southern Railroad, Part Second. On file at the California State Railroad Museum,
Sacramento CA: Record No. A-1-833. February 1881.
California Southern 1881b - California Southern. Map of the Location of the California
Southern Railroad. Showing right of way of railroad through private and
government lands. On file at the California State Railroad Museum, Sacramento
CA: Record No. A-6-1583.1881.
Carlsbad 1985 - City of Carlsbad. Plans for Construction of Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge
at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. On File at City of Carlsbad Land Devlopment
Engineering. April 16, 1985.
Carlsbad 2013a - City of Carlsbad. Agenda Bill to Approve Tram Property, RP 13-01.
Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=708&meta_id=
78562, accessed October 15, 2014.
Carlsbad 2013b - City of Carlsbad. Candidate CEQA Findings of Fact Regarding the
Final Environmental Impact Report for Westfield Carlsbad Specific Plan/Site
Development Plan Project. January. EIR 09-02; SP 09-01; SDP 09-04; SCH No.
2010011004. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=698&meta_id=
76956, accessed October 20, 2014.
Carlsbad 2014a - City of Carlsbad. History of Carlsbad.
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed August 7, 2014.
Carlsbad 2014b - City of Carlsbad. The Historical Evolution of Two Ranchos and a
Homestead: Agua Hedionda,Los Kiotes and Rancho de los Quiotes(author
unattributed).web.carlsbadca.gov/services/.../parks.../historical_evolution.pdf
Carlsbad 2014c - City of Carlsbad. Draft General Plan & Draft Cilmate Action Plan,
Draft Environmental Impact Report. Chapter 3.7 Historical, Archaeological and
Paleontological Resources.March.
Carlsbad 2014d - City of Carlsbad. E-mail correspondence with Kathleen Lawrence,
Engineering Technician II, Land Development Engineering. October 13, 2014.

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-44

February 2015

 Carlsbad Energy Center 2014a - Carlsbad Energy Center, with CH2M Hill. Petition to
Remove Obsolete Facilities to Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy
Center Project CEC License for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Carlsbad,
California (07-AFC-06C). April. Submitted to Dockets Unit, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. TN 202267.
Carlsbad Energy Center 2014b - Carlsbad Energy Center, with CH2M Hill. Petition to
Remove Obsolete Facilities to Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy
Center Project CEC License for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Carlsbad,
California (07-AFC-06C). April. Submitted to Dockets Unit, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. TN 202267.
Carlsbad Energy Center 2014c - Carlsbad Energy Center, with CH2M Hill. Response
to Data Request Set 2A (No. 64). Submitted to Dockets Unit, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento.TN203143. October 1, 2014.
Carlsbad Energy Center 2014d - Carlsbad Energy Center, with CH2M Hill. Data
Request Responses and Request for Partial Extension). Submitted to Dockets
Unit, California Energy Commission, Sacramento. TN203211. October 17, 2014
Carlsbad Energy Center et al. 2008 - Carlsbad Energy Center, Shaw Stone &
Webster, and CH2M Hill. Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6) Project
Enhancement and Refinement Document. July. CH2M Hill, Sacramento, CA. On
file, Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission, Sacramento. TN 47257.
Carlsbad Energy Center LLC 2007 - Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for
Certification. September. Sacramento, California. Submitted to California Energy
Commission. On file at Dockets, TN42299.
Carlsbad Mineral Water Spa 2014 - Carlsbad Mineral Water Spa. Website-history.
http://www.carlsbadmineralspa.com/history-since-1882.html. Accessed August
20, 2014.
Carrico and Phillips 1983 - Richard Carrico and Roxana Phillips. Archaeological
Salvage at W-132A Carlsbad, California. WESTEC Services, Inc. Submitted to
Kamar Construction Co., Inc. On file, at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Caterino 2005 - David Caterino. The Cemeteries and Gravestones of San Diego
County: An Archaeological Study. David Caterino. Submitted to San Diego State
University, Department of Anthropology. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
CCC 1987 - California Coastal Commission. California Coastal Resource Guide.
Berkeley: University of California.
CEC 2009 - California Energy Commission. Final Staff Assessment, Carlsbad Energy
Center Project Application for Certification (07-AFC-6), San Diego County.
November. Sacramento, CA. CEC-700-2008-014-FSA. On file, Dockets Unit,
California Energy Commission, Sacramento. TN 54068.
February 2015

CR1-45

APPENDIX CR-1

 CEC 2012 - California Energy Commission. Carlsbad Energy Center Project:
Commission Decision. June. Sacramento, CA. CEC-800-2011-004-CMF. 07AFC-6. On file, Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission, Sacramento. TN
66185.
CEQ 1997 - Council on Environmental Quality. CEQ Guidance Regarding
Environmental Justice. December 10.
CH2M Hill 2007 - CH2M Hill. Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Confidential Cultural
Resource Appendix 5.3C. September. Sacramento, CA. Docket No. 07-AFC-06.
On file , Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission, Sacramento. TN 42995.
CH2M Hill 2014 - CH2M HILL. Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center Project. April.
Sacramento, CA. Docket No. 07-AFC-06. On file, Dockets Unit, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. TN 202287-2
Cheever and Gallegos - Dayle Cheever and Dennis Gallegos. Archaeological Survey
for a Road Detour and Storm Drain on a portion of Palomar Airport
Road.WESTEC Services, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Chula Vista 2008 - Chula Vista Bayfront Master Plan revised DEIR. May 2008.
Modified March 2012.
City of Carlsbad 2006 - City of Carlsbad General Plan. Open Space and Conservation
Element. Electronic Resource, available at
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/OpenSpac
eConservationElement.pdf accessed on September 2, 2014.
COASTER 2013 - COASTER Fact Sheet. North County Transit District. January.
Cook and Marino 1988 - Sherburne F. Cook and Cesare Marino. Roman Catholic
Missions in California and the Southwest. In History of Indian-White Relations,
edited by Wilcomb E. Washburne, pp. 472-480. Handbook of North American
Indians, Vol.4, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution.
Crafts 1995 - Karen Crafts. Negative Archaeological Survey Report for 11-SD-5,
R47.5/R48.5, 05910K. Caltrans. Submitted to Caltrans. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Cratty 1993 - Patricia Cratty. National Register of Historic Places Registration Form and
Continuation Sheets. Listed September 30, 1993. July 2.
CSE&A 2002 - Curtis Scott Englehorn and Associates. Draft Environmental Impact
Report, the Shoreline Resort. August. Cardiff by the Sea, CA. Prepared for City
of Encinitas, CA. Case No. 00-201 DR/CDP/MUP. SCH No. 2001061119.
Cupples 1976 - Sue Ann Cupples. Oceanside Harbor and Navigation Project:
Archaeological Survey Report. Dr. Larry L. Leach. Submitted to Department of
the Army, Corps of Engineers. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-46

February 2015

 Davis 1961 - James T. Davis. Trade Routes and Economic Exchange Among the
Indians of California. Report 54. University of California Archaeological Survey,
Berkeley.
District 11 and SANDAG 2014 - District 11 and San Diego Association of
Governments. Final North Coast Corridor Public Works Plan/Transportation and
Resource Enhancement Program. June. California Department of Transportation,
San Diego, and San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA.
Electronic document, http://www.dot.ca.gov/dist11/Env_docs/I5PWP/5PWPFinal.html, accessed October 14, 2014.
Dolan and Allen 1996 - Christy Dolan and Rebecca Allen. Historic Study Report for the
Proposed Alternate Northern and Central State Route 5 Alignments. KEA
Environmental, Inc. Submitted to City of San Diego Engineering and Capital
Projects Department. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Dolan, Moomjian, Raen-Jenning, and Smith 1996 - Christy Dolan, Scott Moomjian,
Micahel Raen-Jenning, and Brian Smith. Result of a Data Recovery Program at
site SDI-6132, SDI-10671, and SDI-12814, Carlsbad Ranch Project, Carlsbad,
California. Carltas Development Co. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Dominici, Rosen, and White 2006 - Debra Dominici, Martin Rosen, and Chris White.
Historic Property Survey Report on Southbound Interstate 5 Between Palomar
Airport Road OC and Cannon Road UC. Caltrans. Submitted to Caltrans. On file
at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Dominici 2007 - Deb Dominici. Historic Property Survey Report, I-5 North Coast
Widening Project. CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Dominici 2010 - Deborah Dominici. Historic Property Survey Report for the Interstate 5
North Coast Corridor Project.CALTRANS. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
DuBois 1901 - Constance DuBois. “The Mythology of the Diegueños”. Journal of
American Folklore 14(54), 181-185.
DuBois 1904 - Constance DuBois. “Mythology of the Mission Indians”. Journal of
American Folklore 17(66), 185-188.
DuBois 1908 - Constance DuBois. “Ceremonies and Traditions of the Diegueño
Indians”. Journal of American Folklore 21(81-82), 228-236.
Dudek 2008 - Dudek. Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of Vista
2007 Sewer Master Plan Update. March. Encinitas, CA. Prepared for City of
Vista, CA. SCH No. 2007091072. Electronic document,
http://www.cityofvista.com/departments/engineering/EIR5675_Complete.zip,
accessed November 5, 2014.

February 2015

CR1-47

APPENDIX CR-1

 Duke 2002 - Curt Duke. Cultural Resources Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility No.
SD 747-02, San Diego County, California. LSA Associates. Submitted to Cingular
Wireless. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
EDAW 2009 - EDAW. La Costa Town Square Final Environmental Impact Report.
August. San Diego, CA. Prepared for Planning Department, City of Carlsbad, CA.
SCH #2003041159. Electronic document,
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/traffic/Documents/06268091%20La%20Costa
%20Town%20Sq%20FEIR.pdf, accessed October 20, 2014.
Eighmey and Wade 1990 - James Eighmey and Sue Wade. A Preliminary Cultural
Resource Survey of the Skyline Estates Property. RECON. Submitted to Skyline
Estates Partnership. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Elfend Associates 1984 - Elfend Associates. Environmental Information Kelly Ranch
Master Plan/Specific Plan. Elfend Associates. Submitted to City of Carlsbad Land
Use and Planning Department. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Encinitas 2001 - City of Encinitas. Initial Study Checklist: Case No. 01-292, La Costa
Avenue Chevron Station. Planning and Building Department, City of Encinitas,
CA. Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/PDF/scsh4bauw1swxmm4clgwlf45/27/
2006-06-15%20Item%202%20Case%202001-292%20MUPDRCDPEIA.pdf,
accessed October 29, 2014.
Encinitas 2008 - City of Encinitas. Notice of Decision: PBD 2008-46. July 15. Planning
and Building Department, City of Encinitas, CA. Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/PDF/scsh4bauw1swxmm4clgwlf45/14/
2008-046.pdf, accessed October 29, 2014.
Encinitas 2009 - City of Encinitas. Environmental Initial Study Case No. 091-35
TCMD/DPR. October 22. Planning and Building Department, City of Encinitas,
CA. Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/PDF/scsh4bauw1swxmm4clgwlf45/15/
2009-12-17%20Item%204%20Case%202009-135%20TMDBDRCDPEIA.pdf,
accessed October 29, 2014.
Encinitas 2010 - City of Encinitas. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes.
September 2. Encinitas, CA.
Encinitas 2011 - City of Encinitas. Notice of Decision: PBD-2011-07. March 15.
Planning and Building Department, City of Encinitas, CA. Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/weblink8/DocView.aspx?id=675301, accessed
October 29, 2014.
Engstrom 2006 - Wayne N. Engstrom. Nineteenth Century Coastal Geomorphology of
Southern California. Journal of Coastal Research 22:847–861.

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-48

February 2015

 Environmental Impact Profile 1973 - Environmental Impact Profile. Environemntal
Impact Report for the Planned Community, Carlsbad Palisades. Environmental
Impact Profiles. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Environmental Impact Profile 1974 - Environmental Impact Profile. Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Lagoon Shores Carlsbad, California.
Environmental Impact Profiles. Submitted to Ralph W. Irwin, General Partner. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Envision Carlsbad 2010 - Envision Carlsbad. Working Paper #4: History, the Arts and
Cultural Resources; High Quality Education and Community Services. Chapter 2:
Historic and Cultural Resources. Published on the City of Carlsbad website:
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/community/envisioncarlsbad/Pages/WhyEnvisionCarlsbad.aspx.
Erlandson et al. 2007 - Jon Erlandson, Torben Rick, Terry Jones, and Judith Porcasi.
“One if by Land, Two if by Sea: Who Were the First Californians?”. In California
Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T. Jones and J. Klar.
Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Evans Point 2014 - Homes in Carlsbad-Evans Point. http://www.homes-in-carlsbadevans-point.com/history.html. Accessed August 18, 2014.
FHWA and Caltrans 2013 - Federal Highway Administration and California Department
of Transportation. Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project, San Diego County,
California, District 11–SD –5 (PM R28.4/R55.4), EA 235800 (P ID 1100000159),
Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Section
4(f) Evaluation. October. U.S. Department of Transportation, San Diego, CA, and
Division of Environmental Analysis, District 11, Department of Transportation,
San Diego, CA.
Fishchoice.com 2013 - Fishchoice.com. Carlsbad Aquafarm, Inc-Carlsbad Aquafarm
Cultivates a California Flavor. February 28.
Fisher and Rick 2014 - Greg Fisher and David Rick. A Report to the Planning
Commission Regarding SUP 13-03/SUP 98-03(C)/SDP 13-05/PUD 13-09/MCUP
13-13/MS 13-07 – ViaSat Expansion. January 15. Planning Division, City of
Carlsbad, CA. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=8&event_id
=56, accessed October 20, 2014.
Flandreau 2013 - Madeleine Flandreau. Request for Concurrence on “Section 106”
Compliance and a Finding of “No Historic Properties Affected” for Vista/Carlsbad
Interceptor and Agua Hedionda Pump Station Replacement Project. State Water
Resource Control Board. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Franklin 1978 - Randy Franklin. DPR Site Record for CA-SDI-6751. On file at SCIC,
San Diego State University.

February 2015

CR1-49

APPENDIX CR-1

 Gallegos 1986 - Dennis Gallegos. Archaeological Test at SDI-10478 Agua Hedionda
Carlsbad, California. WESTEC Services, Inc. Submitted to Conway and
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos 1991 - Dennis Gallegos. “Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda,
Carlsbad, California”. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene California, edited by
J.M. Erlandson and R. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, 1: 19-41.
Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Gallegos 2002 - Dennis Gallegos. “Southern California in Transition: Late Holocene
Occupation of Southern San Diego County”. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late
Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L.
Jones, pp. 27-40. Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los
Angeles.
Gallegos and Carrico 1984 - Dennis Gallegos and Richard Carrico. Windsong Shores
Data Recovery Program for site W-131, Carlsbad. WESTEC Services, Inc.
Submitted to Hunts Partnership. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos, Carrico, and Thesken - Dennis Gallegos, Richard Carrico, and Jay
Thesken. Archaeological Survey and Test of the Windsong Shores Property SDi10965. WESTEC Services, Inc. Submitted to Van Dell and Associates. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos and Kyle 1992 - Dennis Gallegos and Carolyn Kyle. Historical/Archaeological
Survey and Test Report for Carlsbad Ranch. Gallegos and Associates.
Submitted to P and D Technologies. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos, Mitchell, Schroth and Harris 1998 - Dennis Gallegos, Patricia Mitchell,
Adella Schroth, and Nina Harris. Data Recovery at CA-SDI-6133, Locus C,
Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to
Carltas Company. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos, Schroth, and Perry 1995 - Dennis Gallegos, Adella Schroth, and Jennifer
Perry. Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test for Carlsbad Ranch Specific
Plan Amendment. Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to
Cotton/Beland Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gallegos, Doose, and Guerrero 2008 - Dennis Gallegos, Karen Doose, and Monica
Guerrero. Cultural Resource Survey for the Carlsbad Paseo Project, Carlsbad,
California. Gallegos and Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gifford 1918 - Edward Gifford. “Clans and Moieties in Southern California” University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 14(2), 15-219.
Berkeley.
Gifford 1922 - Edward Gifford. “California Kinship Terminologies”. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 18(1), 1-285.
Berkeley.
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-50

February 2015

 Greene and Smith 2006 - Richard Greene and Brian Smith. Results of a Data
Recovery Program at CA-SDI-8797, Grand Pacific Resorts Project, Carlsbad,
California. Brian F. Smith and Associates. Submitted to Grand Pacific Resorts.
On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Greene 2007 - Richard Greene. A Phase I Archaeological Assessment of the Carlsbad
Boat Club Project, City of Carlsbad, APN 206-200-06. Brian F. Smith and
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gross and Bull 1973 - Tim Gross and Charles Bull. An Archaeological Survey of
Tract #72-28. San Diego State University. Submitted to Neste, Brudin, and
Stone. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gross and Robbins-Wade 1987 - Timothy Gross and Mary Robbins-Wade. Cultural
Resources Inventory and Significance Assessment: Car County Expansion.
Carlsbad, California. RBR & Associates, Inc. Submitted to Carltas Company. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2003a - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. City of
Carlsbad Water and Sewer Master Plans Cultural Resource Background Study,
City of Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to Dudek &
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2003b - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resources Background Study for the North Agua Hedionda Interceptor Sewer
Maintenance Access Road Project, City of Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and
Associates. Submitted to Dudek & Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2003c - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resource Survey and Test Program for the Carlsbad Sewer Line Project,
Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to Dudek &
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2004a - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resource Survey for the Adams Street Property Carlsbad, California. Gallegos
and Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2004b - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resource Inventory for the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant Project,
Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
Universtiy.
Guerrero and Gallegos 2007 - Monica Guerrero and Dennis Gallegos. Cultural
Resource Inventory for the Carlsbad Boulevard Slope and Drainage
Improvements Project, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.

February 2015

CR1-51

APPENDIX CR-1

 Guerrero, Stropes, and Gallegos 2004 - Monica Guerrero, Tracy Stropes, and Dennis
Gallegos. Cultural Resource Monitor and Test Report for the Encina Power Plant
Project, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to HalEY &
Aldrich, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Gutierrez 2002 - Susan Schnebelen Gutierrez. Windows on the Past: An Illustrated
History of Carlsbad, California. Donning Co., Virginia Beach, Virginia. 2002.
Gutierrez 2014 - Susan Schnebelen Gutierrez. Telephone conversation with Susan
Gutierrez and Melissa Mourkas (CEC staff). October 13, 2014.
Harmon - John Harmon. A History of Carlsbad: A Community Relations Project
Undertaken at the Behest of the “Friends of the Library” of Carlsbad.
Hatley 1978 - M. Jay Hatley. Cultural Resources Inventory and Impact Analysis of
Rancho Agua Hedionda Y Los Manos, Parcel 2. Contains interviews with Ida
Dawson, granddaughter of Emily Porter and Matthew Kelly. Recon
Environmental Consultants, San Diego, CA. June 9, 1978.
HBS 2012 - Harvard Business School Baker library Historical Collections/Lehman
Brothers Collections. San Diego Gas & Electric Company. © 2012 President and
Fellows of Harvard College.
HDR 2013 - HDR Engineering. Final Environmental Impact Report Quarry Creek Master
Plan Carlsbad, California. January. San Diego, CA. Prepared for City of
Carlsbad, CA. SCH No. 2012021039. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=681&meta_id=
74704, accessed October 20, 2014.
Hector 1981 - Susan M. Hector. An Assessment of Archaeological Site SDM-W-131
Carlsbad, California. RECON. Submitted to Fontana and Mudge Building and
Development.
Hector 1985 - Susan Hector. An Archaeological Survey of the Panonia Property,
Carlsbad, California. RECON. Submitted to Mark A. Nordquist, M.A.N.
Construction. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Hector and Wade 1986 - Susan Hector and Sue Wade. Archaeological Investigations
at SDM-W-132/SDi-10,024 Carlsbad, California. RECON. Submitted to M.A.N.
Construction and Development. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Hedges and Beresford 1986 - Ken Hedges and Christina Beresford. Santa Ysabel
Ethnobotany. San Diego Museum of Man Ethnic Technology Notes No. 20. San
Diego Museum of Man: San Diego.
HELIX 2011 - HELIX Environmental Planning. Quarry Creek Preserve Management
Plan. June 16. La Mesa, CA. Prepared for Hanson Aggregates West, San Diego,
CA. Electronic document,
http://www.carlsbadca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=24353,
accessed October 20, 2014.
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-52

February 2015

 Helton 2007 - Clint Helton. Technical Memorandum: Confidential Carlsbad Energy
Center Project (CECP); Cultural Resources Assessment. July 17. CH2M Hill.
Prepared for Carlsbad Energy Center, Carlsbad, CA. Appendix 5.3F in
Application for Certification, Carlsbad Energy Center Project, by CH2M Hill, Vol.
2. September. Prepared for Carlsbad Energy Center, Carlsbad, CA. On file,
Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission, Sacramento. 07-AFC-6. TN 42299.
Henshaw 1972 - Henry Henshaw. “The Luiseño Creation Myth”, ed. R. Heizer.
Masterkey 46(3), 93-100.
Heron Bay 2014 - Heron Bay Spyglass Hills Homeowner’s
Association.http://www.heronbayspyglasshillshoa.com/about.php. Accessed
August 18, 2014.
Hinman 2014 - Wendy Hinman, Our Working Lagoon. CalrsbadMagazine.com.
http://www.carlsbadmagazine.com/Stories/lagoon.html. Accessed August 18,
2014.
Hogan and Encarnacion 2009 - Michael Hogan and Deirdre Encarnacion.
Archaeological Survey Report: Carlsbad Double Track Project Control Point Carl
(MP 229.3) to Control Point Farr (MP 231.7) North County Transit District
Mainline San Diego County, California. CRM Tech. Prepared for CALTRANS. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Johnson and Snook 1967 - Myrtle E. Johnson and Harry J. Snook. Seashore Animals
of the Pacific Coast. 3rd ed. New York: Dover.
Jones 1982 - Marje Howard-Jones. Seekers of the Spring: A History of Carlsbad.The
Friends of the Carlsbad Library, Carlsbad, California. May.
Jones 2005 - Marje Howard Jones. Carlsbad Architecture. Presented at the Carlsbad
Historical Society Annual Meeting on September 30, 2005
JRP 2007 - JRP Historical Consulting. Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation
Report, Carlsbad Energy Center Project. July. Davis, CA. Prepared for CH2M
Hill, Santa Ana, CA. Appendix 5.3B in Application for Certification, Carlsbad
Energy Center Project, by CH2M Hill, Vol. 2. September. Prepared for Carlsbad
Energy Center, Carlsbad, CA. On file, Dockets Unit, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. 07-AFC-6. TN 42299. Also included in JRP 2014.
JRP 2014 - JRP Historical Consulting. Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation
Update Report, Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Encina Power Plant. March.
Prepared for CH2MHILL. On file, Dockets Unit, California Energy Commission,
Sacramento. 07-AFC-6. TN 202699
Kaldenberg 1976 - Russell L. Kaldenberg. A Predevelopment Archaeological Resource
Survey for the Agua Hedionda Lagoon North Shores Project. RECON. Submitted
to North Shores Property Owners, Kamar Construction Co. On file SCIC, San
Diego State University.
February 2015

CR1-53

APPENDIX CR-1

 Kubota 2014 - Jack Y. Kubota. E-mail communication regarding Terramar water supply
with Melissa Mourkas. October 30, 2014.
Kennett and Kennett 2000 - Douglas J. Kennett and James P. Kennett. Competitive
and Cooperative Responses to Climatic Instability in Coastal Southern California.
American Antiquity 65:379–395.
Koerper et al. 1991 - Henry C. Koerper, Paul E. Langenwalter II, and Adella Schroth.
“Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from
the Allan O. Kelly site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon”. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early
Holocene California, edited by J.M. Erlandson and R. Colten. Perspectives in
California Archaeology, 1: 43-62. Institute of Archaeology, University of
California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber 1906 - A.L. Kroeber. “Two Myths of the Mission Indians of California”. Journal
of American Folklore 19(75), 309-321.
Kroeber 1908 - A.L. Kroeber. “Notes on the Luiseño” Pp. 174-186 in The Religion of he
Luiseño Indians of Southern California, by Constance DuBois. University of
California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(3), 69-186.
Berkeley.
Kroeber 1976 - A. L. Kroeber. Handbook of the Indians of California. New York: Dover.
Reprint. Originally published in 1925 as Bulletin 78, Bureau of American
Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Kyle 2002 - Carolyn Kyle. Cultural Resource Assessment for Cingular Wireless Facility
SD-747-01 City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California. Kyle Consulting.
Submitted to Paratus, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Laylander and Becker 2004 - Don Laylander and Mark Becker. Archaeological Testing
at Twelve Prehistoric Sites (SDI-603, -4553, -6831, -10965, -12670, -13484, 15678, -15679, -15680) on the Central San Diego Coast, San Diego County,
Califonria. ASM Affiliates. Submitted to Caltrans. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Laylander and Pallette 2005 - Don Laylander and Drew Pallette. Extended Phase I for
the Cannon Street Direct AccessRamp and Park-and Ride Lot, Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates. Submitted to California Department of
Transportation. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Laylander and Akyuz 2008 - Don Laylander and Linda Akyuz. Archaeological Survey
for the CALTRANS 1-5 North Coast Corridor Project Biological Mitigation
Parcels, San Diego County, California. ASM Affiliates. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Lightfoot and Parrish 2009 - Kent G. Lightfoot and Otis Parrish. California Indians and
their Environment: An Introduction. California Natural History Guides 96.
Berkeley: University of California.
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-54

February 2015

 Loftus 2013 - Shannon Loftus. Cultural Resource Record Search and Site Survey
AT&T Site SD0272 Carlsbad Lagoon 4800 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California 92008. ACE Environmental, Inc. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Luomala 1978 - Kay Luomala. “Tipai and Ipai”. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp.
592-609. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general
editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Lynch and Rick 2014 - Van Lynch and David Rick. A Report to the Planning
Commission Regarding SDP 14-03/CDP 14-04 – CP Juniper Apartments. June
16. Planning Division, City of Carlsbad, CA. Submitted to Planning Commission,
City of Carlsbad, CA. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=773&meta_id=
85076, accessed October 15, 2014.
Magorien 2006 - D. Scott Magorien. Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Environmental
Assessment EIR, Encina Seawater Desalination Project. March 10. D. Scott
Magorien Engineering Geologist, Newport Beach, CA. Prepared for RBF
Consulting, Ontario, CA. Appendix 5.4A in Application for Certification,
CarlsbadEnergy Center Project, by CH2M Hill, Vol. 2. September. Prepared for
Carlsbad Energy Center, Carlsbad,CA. On file, Dockets Unit, California Energy
Commission, Sacramento. 07‐AFC‐6. TN 42299.
Masters 2012 - Nathan Masters. From Roosevelt Highway to the 1: A Brief History of
Pacific Coast Highway. May 2.
Masters 2013 - Nathan Masters How El Camino Real, California’s Royal Road, was
Invented. KCET Public Television
http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/history/la-as-subject/el-camino-real.html.
January 4, 2013.
McGinnis 2009 - Patrick McGinnis. Cultural Resource Extended Phase I Report for the
Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Biomitigation Parcels Sites CA-SDI-209
and CA-SDI-18917 Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Masters and Aiello 2007 - Patricia M. Masters and Ivano W. Aiello. Postglacial
Evolution of Coastal Environments. In California Prehistory: Colonization,
Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 35–
51. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
McCorkle Apple 1987 - Rebecca McCorkle Apple. Archaeological Survey Report for
Minor Subdivisions 730 and 736 in Carlsbad, California. Dames & Moore.
Submitted to Brook Olsen and Leonard Mellgren. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Mithun 1999 - Marianne Mithun. The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University.

February 2015

CR1-55

APPENDIX CR-1

 Mooney 1993 - Brian F. Mooney. Archaeological Survey Report for a Portion of Adams
Street Widening Project in the City of Carlsbad, California. Brian F. Mooney
Associates. Submitted to Dudek & Associates, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Mooney and Cook 1993 - Brain Mooney and John Cook. Archaeological Survey Report
for a Portion of Adams Street Widening Project in the City of Carlsbad, California.
Brian F. Mooney and Associates. Submitted to Duder and Associates.. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
Moratto 1984 - Michael J. Moratto. California Archaeology. San Diego, CA: Academic.
Moratto et al. 1978 - Michael J. Moratto, Thomas F. King, and Wallace B. Woolfenden.
Archaeology and California’s Climate. Journal of California Anthropology 5:147–
161.
Moriarty 1967 - James R. Moriarty. “Transitional Pre-Desert Phase in San Diego
County, California”. Science, February 3, 1967, col. 155, pp. 553-556.
Morgan 2011 - Nicole B. Morgan. TCM Access Road Grading Project, Cultural
Resources Inventory Report. HDR Associate. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Moyer 1969 - Cecil C. Moyer. Historic Ranchos of San Diego. Edited by Richard F.
Pourade. Union-Tribune Publishing Co., San Diego, California.
Myers 1983 - William A. Myers. Iron Men and Copper Wires: A Centennial History of
the Southern California Edison Company. Trans-Anglo Books.
NCC Carlsbad 2014 - North Coast Corridor. Carlsbad Village Double Track.
http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Lossan/lossan-carlsbad-double-track.aspx.
Accessed September, 2014.
NCTD 2014 - North County Transit District. San Diego County. Web page
http://www.gonctd.com/coaster. Accessed August 19, 2014.
NPS 2007 - National Park Service. NPS-28: Cultural Resource Management Guideline.
Electronic document,
http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/nps28/28contents.htm, accessed
January 29, 2013.
OHP 1990 - Office of Historic Preservation (California). Archaeological Resource
Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format. February.
Sacramento, CA. Electronic document,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/armr.pdf, accessed May 5, 2014.

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-56

February 2015

 OHP 1991 - Office of Historic Preservation. Guidelines for Archaeological Research
Designs. February. Preservation Planning Bulletin 5. Sacramento, CA. Electronic
document,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/arch%20research%20design.pdf,
accessed May 5, 2014.
OHP 1995 - Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historical
Resources. March. Sacramento, CA. Electronic document,
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1054/files/manual95.pdf, accessed May 5, 2014.
Page 2012 - Danielle M. Page. Section 106 Consultation for Third Amendment to Naval
Hospital Replacement, Camp Pendeleton. United States Marine Corps. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
Pelto 2013 - Pertti Pelto. Applied Ethnography: Guidelines for Field Research. Walnut
Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.
Pierson, Schiller, and Slater 1987 - Pierson, Schiller, and Slater. Archaeological
Resource Study: Morro Bay to Mexican Border. Pierson, Schiller, and Slater.
Submitted to U.S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service. On
file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Pignolo and Mealey 1993 - Andrew Pignolo and Andrea Mealey. DPR Site Record for
CA-SDI-6751. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Planning Commission 2006 - Planning Commission. CEQA Findings for the Coral
Cove Residential Project. May. City of Encinitas, CA. SCH No. 2004111010.
Electronic document,
http://archive.ci.encinitas.ca.us/WebLink8/PDF/2yz3p5jlmxmtoajwzwmd11fk/31/2
006-25.pdf, accessed November 4, 2014.
Planning Commission 2014 - Planning Commission. Agenda, Regular Meeting of the
Planning Commission. March 6. City of Encinitas, CA. Electronic document,
http://encinitas.granicus.com/DocumentViewer.php?file=encinitas_60c4d31650c3
e488cebc62f001ca816d.pdf&view=1, accessed October 31, 2014.
Planning Division 2012 - Planning Division. Environmental Impact Assessment Form –
Initial Study for Robertson Ranch West Village (Rancho Costera). August 14.
City of Carlsbad, CA. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=664&meta_id=
71882, accessed October 15, 2014.
Planning Systems 2011 - Planning Systems. Environmental Inifital Study and Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration: Agua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station, Force Main,
and Gravity Sewer Replacement. Draft. June 28. Carlsbad, CA. Prepared for
Engineering/Public Works, City of Carlsbad, CA, and Brown & Caldwell, San
Diego, CA. Electronic document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=603&meta_id=
65554, accessed October 15, 2014.
February 2015

CR1-57

APPENDIX CR-1

 Polan 1981 - H. Keith Polan. An Archaeological Survey Report of the Right-of-Way for
Proposed Bridge and Street Improvements Between Tamarack Avenue and
Cannon Road. New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. Submitted to City of
Carlsbad. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Porcasi et al. 1999 - Paul Porcasi, Judith F. Porcasi, and Collin O’Neill. Early Holocene
Coastlines of the California Bight: The Channel Islands as First Visited by
Humans. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 35(2–3):1–24.
Port of San Diego - Port of San Diego. South Bay Power Plant Timeline. PDF.
http://www.portofsandiego.org/. Undated.
Robbins-Wade 2007 - Mary Robbins-Wade. Encina East Stormwater Management
Cultural Resources (Affinis Job No. 2244). Afffinis. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Robbins-Wade 2009 - Mary Robbins-Wade. Record Searches for Telecommunications
Sites SD-341-01 & SD 38-02. Affinis. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Rosen 1999 - Martin Rosen. Historic Property Survey Report Oceanside to San DiegoRail to Trail. Martin Rosen. Submitted to Unknown. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Rosen 2003 - Martin Rosen. Final Historic Property Survey Report. Martin D. Rosen.
Submitted to Kelly Finn. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Rosenberg et al. 2007 - Seth A. Rosenberg, Adriane Dorrler, and Brian F. Smith. A
Cultural Resources Evaluation for the Vista and Buena Sanitation District 2007
Sewer Master Plan Update, City of Vista and Buena Sanitation District.
September 27. Brian F. Smith and Associates, Poway, CA. Prepared for Dudek
and Associates, Encinitas, CA. Submitted to Planning Department, City of Vista,
CA. Appendix B to Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Vista 2007 Sewer Master Plan Update, by Dudek, March 2008. Encinitas, CA.
Prepared for City of Vista, CA. SCH No. 2007091072. Electronic document,
http://www.cityofvista.com/departments/engineering/EIR5675_Complete.zip,
accessed November 5, 2014.
San Diego County 2007 - San Diego County Land Use and Environment Group,
Department of Planning and Land Use, Department of Public Works. County of
San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance, Cultural Resources:
Archaeological and Historic Resources. Electronic Document, available at
http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/pds/docs/Cultural_Guidelines.pdf Accessed
9/1/2014.
Santa Fe 2008 - Santa Fe Surviving Depots 2008. “ATSF Carlsbad, CA Depot”
<http://atsf.railfan.net/depots/carlsbad.html>, accessed on April 15, 2008.
Schoenherr 1992 - Allan A. Schoenherr. A Natural History of California. California
Natural History Guides 56. Berkeley: University of California.
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-58

February 2015

 Schroth, Harris, and Gallegos 1996 - Adella Schroth, Nina Harris, and Dennis
Gallegos. Archaeological Survey and Test for the Huber Property, Carlsbad,
California. Gallegos and Associates. Submitted to Gene Huber. On file at SCIC,
San Diego State University.
Schroth and Gallegos 1996 - Adella Schroth and Dennis Gallegos. Archaeological
Survey and Test for the Cade Property, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and
Associates. Submitted to Steve Cade. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Schroth, Schilz, and Cooley 1990 - Adella Schroth, Allan Schilz, and Theodore
Cooley. Data Recovery Car County, Carlsbad, California: CA-SDI-6134 & CASDI-10672, San Diego, California. WESTEC. Submitted to Carltas Company &
ERCE On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
SDC 1872 - San Diego County. Official Map of the Western Portion of San Diego
County. M.G. Wheeler Co. Surveys. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
SDC Assessor 1955 - San Diego County Assessor. Map Showing Roads and Trails in
use from 1769-1830. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Seeman 1982 - Larry Seeman. Draft Environmental Impact Report Revised Parks and
Recreation Element, Carlsbad, California. Larry Seeman. Submitted to the City of
Carlsbad. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
SGI 2014 - The Source Group, Inc.. Draft Technical Document Soil Management Plan
for Ground Disturbance Activities, Encina Power Station. Prepared for Carlsbad
Energy Center LLC and docketed at the California Energy Commission on
10/21/14. TN 203231. October.
Sippel 2014 - Marvin Sippel. Telephone interview with California Energy Commission
staff Melissa Mourkas. 10/22/2014.
Smallwood 2005 - Josh Smallwood. Archeological/ Paleontological Monitoring of
Boring Activities, San Diego Water Authority’s Seawater Desalination Project
Encina Power Station, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. CRM
Tech. Submitted to RBF Consulting. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Smith 1998 - Brian F. Smith. The Results of a Cultural Resources Survey and
Evaluation Program for “Area A” at the Kelly Ranch and the Improvement
Corridor for Park Drive. A.D. Hinshaw Associates. Submitted to A.D. Hinshaw
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Smith and Rosenberg 2007 - Brian F. Smith and Seth Rosenberg. An Archaeological
Survey and Significance Evaluation for the Adams Street Subdivision Project.
Brian F. Smith Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
SOHO 2006 - Save Our Heritage Organization. Reflections Quarterly Newsletter
Summer 2006 - Volume 37, Issue 2: Marrόn Adobe
http://www.sohosandiego.org/reflections/2006-2/marron.htm
February 2015

CR1-59

APPENDIX CR-1

 Sparkman 1905 - Phillip Sparkman. “Sketch of the Grammar of the Luiseño Language
of California”. American Anthropologist 7(4), 656-662.
Sparkman 1908a - Phillip Sparkman. “The Culture of the Luiseño Indians”. University of
California Publications in Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4), 187-234. Berkeley.
Sparkman 1908b - Phillip Sparkman. “A Luiseño Tale”. Pp. 35-36 in Notes on
California Folklore. Journal of American Folklore 21(80).
Spier 1923 - Leslie Spier. “Southern Diegueño Customs”. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 20(16), 295-358. Berkeley.
Stine 1998 - Scott Stine. Medieval Climatic Anomaly in the Americas. Chapter 3 in
Water, Environment and Society in Times of Climatic Change: Contributions from
an International Workshop within the Framework of International Hydrological
Program (IHP) UNESCO, held at Ben-Gurion University, Sede Boker, Israel from
7-12 July 1996, edited by A. S. Issar and Neville Brown, pp. 43–67. Water
Science and Technology Library 31. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
Strong 1929 - William Strong. “Aboriginal Society in Southern California”. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1), 1-358.
Berkeley.
Strudwick 1993 - Ivan Strudwick. Historical/Archaeological Survey and Test Report for
the Boyce Parcel Aqua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and
Associates. Submitted to John Boyce. On file at SCIC, San Diego S tate
University.
Studwick 1994 - Ivan Strudwick. Historical/Archaeological Survey Report for the Moffat
Parcel, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, Carlsbad, California. Gallegos and Associates,
Submitted to Jerry Moffatt. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Tang, Hogan, Smallwood, Jacquemain, and Shaker 2004 - Bai Tang, Michael
Hogan, Josh Smallwood, Terry Jacquemain, and Laura Hensley Shaker.
Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties San Diego County Water
Authority Seawater Desalination Project in the Cities of Carlsbad, Vista, and San
Marcos, San Diego County, California. CRM Tech. Submitted to Alan Ashimine.
On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Tang 2009a - Bai Tom Tang. Historic Property Survey Report for the Proposed
Construction of a Second Mainline Track in the City of Carlsbad by the North
County Transit District. CALTRANS. Prepared for the State of California
Business, Transportation, and Housing Authority. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Tang 2009b - Bai “Tom” Tang. Historic Resources Evaluation Report, Carlsbad Double
Track Project. CRM TECH, Colton, CA. November 2, 2009.

APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-60

February 2015

 Tennesen 2011 - Kristin Tennesen. ETS #21729 Cultural Resource Monitoring for the
Tower Brushing, 4 Towers, Encina Project, San Diego County, California. HDR
Associates. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Terramar 2104 - Terramar Association Web Page. About Terramar Association and
Membership Application Package. http://www.terramarassociation.com/aboutterramar-association-and-membership-application-package. Accessed on
October 8, 2014.
Thai 2013 - Minerva Thai. Much Ado About Fooding Online Blog by Minerva Thai Meet
Carlsbad Aquafarm: A Deep Dive into Oyster Farming (Part IV) Monday, September 30.
TWC 2014 - The Weather Channel. Monthly Averages for Carlsbad, California.
Electronic Resource, available at
http://www.weather.com/weather/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USCA0182
accessed 9/5/2014
Ultra Systems 1983. Results of Supplemental Archaeological Studies at SDI-9649 (KR1) on the Kelly Ranch. Ultra Systems, Inc. Submitted to Unknown. On file at
SCIC, San Diego State University.
USGS 1893 - United States Geological Survey. Topographic Map, Oceanside, CA
Surveyed 1891. 1893 Edition.
USGS 1898 - U.S. Geological Survey. Oceanside Sheet. 15-Minute Topographic
Quadrangle. Surveyed 1898. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
USGS 1901 - U.S. Geological Survey. San Luis Sheet. 30-Minute Topographic
Quadrangle. Surveyed 1901. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
USGS 1942 - U.S. Geological Survey. Oceanside Sheet. 15-Minute Topographic
Quadrangle. Surveyed 1942. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
USGS 1948 - U.S. Geological Survey. San Luis Rey and Encinitas. 7.5-Minute
Topographic Quadrangle. Surveyed 1948. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Van Wormer 1987 - Stephen Van Wormer. Historical Survey for the Carlsbad Union
Church and the Gaus House, Carlsbad, California.WESTEC Associates. On file
at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Various Authors N.D - Carlsbad Santa Fe Depot, 400 Carlsbad Village Drive (Elm
Ave.), Carlsbad, California 92008. Submitted to Unknown. On file at SCIC, San
Diego State University.
Vellanoweth and Grenda 2002 - René L. Vellanoweth and Donn R. Grenda. Paradise
or Purgatory: Environments, Past and Present. In Islanders and Mainlanders:
Prehistoric Context for the Southern California Bight, edited by Jeffrey H. Altschul
and Donn R. Grenda, pp. 67–84. Tucson, AZ: SRI.

February 2015

CR1-61

APPENDIX CR-1

 Wade 1987 - Sue A. Wade. Archaeological Study for 260 Acres South of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. RECON. Submitted to Caltrans. On file at SCIC, San Diego
State University.
Wade and Hector 1986 - Sue A. Wade and Susan M. Hector. Archaeological
Monitoring of the Encina Gas Pipeline Project, Profiles of Subsistence Patterns
Along the South Shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon. RECON. Submitted to San
Diego Gas and Electric Company On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
Wallace 1955 - W.J. Wallace. “A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal
Archaeology”. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 11:214-230.
Werneke 2014 - Shannon Werneke. Initial Study for Daybreak Community Church.
March 6. Planning Division, City of Carlsbad, CA. GPA 13-01/ZC 12-04/LCPA
12-04/SDP 00-06(C)/CUP 00-06(C)/CDP 00-09(C)/HMP 13-02. Electronic
document,
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/GPA1301.
NOI.pdf, accessed October 20, 2014.
West et al. 2007 - G. James West, Wallace Woolfenden, James A. Wankett, and R.
Scott Anderson. Late Pleistocene and Holocene Environments. Chapter 2 in
California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L.
Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 11–34. Lanham, MD: AltaMira.
WESTEC 1980 - Westec Services, Inc. Regional Historic Preservation Study. WESTEC
Services, Inc. Submitted to Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San
Diego Region. On file at SC IC, San Diego State University.
WESTEC 1987 - Westec Services, Inc. Archaeological Survey of a Portion of Palomar
Airport Road. WESTEC Services, Inc. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.
Westman 2013 - Christer Westman. Initial Study for the Carlsbad Floral Trade Center.
October 15. City of Carlsbad, CA. CUP 12-10/CDP 12-19/MS 12-03. Electronic
document,
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=6&event_id=53&meta_id=
80246, accessed October 15, 2014.
White 1963 - Raymond White. “Luiseño Social Organization”. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2) 91-194. Berkeley.
White 2013 - Laura S. White. Encina-1-Encina Offshore Marine Terminal. State of
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Form 523B/L/J.
Archaeological Associates, Sun City, CA. February 18, 2013.
Woodward and Stammerjohan 1985 - Jim Woodward and George Stammerjohan.
Resource Inventory Cultural Resources San Diego Coast State Beaches.
Department of Parks and Recreation. Submitted to Department of Parks and
Recreation. On file at SCIC, San Diego State University.
APPENDIX CR-1

CR1-62

February 2015

 York and Hildebrand 2011 - Andrew L. York and John Hildebrand. Cultural Resources
Investigation in support of Consultation for the Regional Beach Sand II Project
San Diego County, California. AECOM. On file at SCIC, San Diego State
University.

February 2015

CR1-63

APPENDIX CR-1

 CULTURAL RESOURCES APPENDIX CR-2:
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cultural Resources Table B1
Projects Considered in the Archaeological and Ethnographic
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Label ID

1

2

3

1

Point/
Line

line

line

Project

Description

Location

Resource/
Impact
Significance

Reference

Carlsbad
Double
Track

Add two mi of
second track and
replace Agua
Hedionda Lagoon rail
bridge.

North Coast
Corridor,
near Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon,
Carlsbad

Unknown/
CEQA
statutory
exemption

Caltrans
n.d.

Two HOV
lanes from
Manchester
Ave to SR
78

Add one HOV lane in
each direction from
Manchester Ave to
SR 78, including the
San Elijo and
Batiquitos Lagoon
bridge replacements,
Manchester direct
access ramp, and
bike/pedestrian trails
under I-5 across the
lagoons.

I-5,
Manchester
Ave to SR
78,
Encinitas
and
Carlsbad

15 NRHP/
CRHReligible
archaeological sites/
LTSWM

FHWA and
Caltrans
2013:3.8-3,
3.8-5–3.87, 4-2

11 NRHP/
CRHReligible
archaeological sites/No
impact

District 11
and
SANDAG
2014:5.6-5

Archaeological site CASDI-6751/
LTSWM

Planning
Systems
2011:51–53

line

Manchester
Ave to SR
78
Soundwalls

Construct soundwalls
on private property
from Manchester Ave
to SR 78.

point

Vista/Carlsb
ad
Interceptor
Agua
Hedionda
Lift Station
(VC 12)

Replace existing
sewer lift station and
sewer line with new
lift station and line.
The project extends
2.35 mi north–south.

February 2015

CR2-1

I-5,
Manchester
Ave to SR
78,
Encinitas
and
Carlsbad
South shore
of Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon
adjacent to
the east
side of the
railroad
tracks.

APPENDIX CR-2

 Label ID

2

4

3

4

Location

Resource/
Impact
Significance

Reference

50 MGD seawater
desalination plant,
pipelines, pumps,
and other
appurtenant and
ancillary water
facilities to produce
and distribute
potable water.
Includes Carlsbad
Desalination
conveyance pipeline:
a 10-mi, 54-inch
water delivery
pipeline through
Carlsbad, Vista, and
San Marcos to the
SDCWA’s Second
Aqueduct connection
facility in San
Marcos.

Carlsbad
Blvd/
Cannon Rd,
Carlsbad

29
archaeologica
l sites: 9
CRHReligible, 7
destroyed, 7
undetermined
, 6 CRHRineligible/
LTSWM

Guerrero
and
Gallegos
2004:4-4,
Table 4-1

line

Carlsbad
Blvd

Road and pedestrian
improvements from
Cannon Rd to
Manzano Dr.

Carlsbad
Blvd/Cannon Rd to
Carlsbad
Blvd/Manzano Dr,
Carlsbad

point

Hallmark
Property
(mitigation
for I-5
Express
Lanes
Project)

Preserve and create
19.3 ac of coastal
habitat adjacent to
Agua Hedionda
Lagoon.

Near Agua
Hedionda
Lagoon,
Carlsbad

Floral Trade
Center

Development of a
new 44,180-sf floral
trade distribution
center and
marketplace, 9900-sf
micro-brewery and
winery building,
1984-sf culinary
center, and 896-sf
farm shed with the
remaining land
dedicated to farm
plots, orchard, hops
farm, vineyard and
parking on 17.22 ac
within 45.6 ac.

South of
Cannon Rd,
east of Car
Country Dr.

Unknown/No
impact

Westman
2013:10

Point/
Line

point

point

APPENDIX CR-2

Project

Description

Carlsbad
Desalination
Project
(Poseidon)

CR2-2

February 2015

 Point/
Line

Project

Description

Location

line

Carlsbad
Village
Double
Track

Add one mi of
second track through
Carlsbad Village
Station and new rail
bridge across Buena
Vista Lagoon.

North Coast
Corridor,
Carlsbad

point

CP Juniper
Apartments

Three-story, 4-unit
apartment complex.

385 Juniper
Ave,
Carlsbad

6

point

Tram
Property

7

point

State Mixed
Use 30

Two-story building
with office on ground
floor and apartment
on second floor.
Four-story mixed use
building.

8

point

Bicajessee
Adventures

Convert six office
units to condos.

9

point

Railroad
Lofts

Four condos.

10

point

Costco Gas
Station
Canopy

Add three new
dispensers and new
canopy.

Buena
Outfall
Force Main
Phase 3

New sewer line
belonging to Vista.
18–24 inch, 17,700ft-long pipeline, part
gravity and part force
main sewer along
Palomar Airport Rd.

Label ID

5

5

6

line

11

point

State Street
Townhomes

12

point

De Anda
Residence

February 2015

41 market rate & 6
inclusionary housing
units with ground
level office/flex space
for live-work.
Demolition of 32,000
sf of commercial and
light industrial uses.
Construct a 3412-sf
single-family
residence with
attached two-car
garage, and attached
640-sf dwelling unit
with a one-car
garage.
CR2-3

3147
Roosevelt
St, Carlsbad

Resource/
Impact
Significance

Categorical
exemption/
No
information
Categorical
exemption/
No
information

Reference

Lynch and
Rick 2014:8

Carlsbad
2013a:2

3068 State
St, Carlsbad
2815
Jefferson St,
Carlsbad
2685 State
St, Carlsbad
951
Palomar
Airport Rd,
Carlsbad
North side
of Palomar
Airport Rd
between
Paseo Del
Norte & El
Camino
Real,
Carlsbad

2531–2586
State St,
Carlsbad

Jefferson St
& Las Flores
Dr, Carlsbad

APPENDIX CR-2

 Point/
Line

Project

Description

Location

Resource/
Impact
Significance

point

Robertson
Ranch East
Village

Build 469 residential
units, 78 multi-family
and the rest singlefamily detached.

NE corner of
El Camino
Real and
Cannon Rd,
Carlsbad

Nearly
complete; no
information

point

Robertson
Ranch West
Village

Master-planned
development for 653
residential units and
150,000 sf
commercial.

NE corner of
El Camino
Real and
Cannon Rd,
Carlsbad

Nine
archaeological sites; two
significant &
subjected to
data
recovery/ LTS

Planning
Division
2012:23–24

15

point

Poinsettia
Station
Improvemen
ts

Improve Poinsettia
Station in Carlsbad
to include new
grade-separated
pedestrian crossing
and signals.

North Coast
Corridor,
Poinsettia
Station,
Carlsbad

16

point

Tabata 10

26 single-family
residences.

2311
Camino Hills
Dr, Carlsbad
Sites CA-SDI5651
(CRHR/Cityeligible1), CASDI-9976 (not
significant2),
& CA-SDI17863
(CRHRineligible);
Indian sacred
site & TCP El
Salto Falls;
SCMC Hard
Rock Mining
Facility3/
LTSWM

HDR
2013:17–24

Label ID

13

14

17

point

Quarry
Creek

636 residential units,
a 0.5-ac
nature/education
center, 1.5-ac
community facilities
site, 1.3-ac park-andride site, 92.4 ac of
natural open space,
and supporting
infrastructure on
155.4 ac.

South of
Haymar Dr
between
College Blvd
& El Camino
Real,
Carlsbad

Reference

                                                            
1

City of Carlsbad (HDR 2013:17).
Criteria not specified in HDR (2013:19).
3
The SCMC Hard Rock Mining Facility was a rock quarry that operated from 1961 to 1995 (HELIX
2011:2). The quarry was not identified as a cultural resource in HDR (2013). 
APPENDIX CR-2
CR2-4
February 2015
2

 Label ID

18

19

20

21

Project

Description

Location

Resource/
Impact
Significance

Reference

point

Daybreak
Community
Church

Addition of 17,391-sf,
30-ft-tall assembly
building to existing
church. Add 221
parking spaces on
vacant parcel. New
access driveway
proposed off
Fisherman Dr.

6515
Ambrosia
Ln,
Carlsbad

None/LTS

Werneke
2014:27–28

point

Ayoub
Property
(mitigation
for I-5
Express
Lanes
Project)

Protect 21.7 ac of
coastal sage scrub
habitat at the
Batiquitos Lagoon.

Batiquitos
Lagoon,
Carlsbad

point

ViaSat
Expansion

Two office buildings
and pedestrian
walkway across El
Camino Real with
signalized light.

NE corner of
Gateway Rd
and El
Camino
Real,
Carlsbad

point

Shea
Industrial
Bressi
Ranch

Point/
Line

Two industrial/
warehouse buildings.

22

point

Holiday Inn

133-room, 83,693-sf,
three-story hotel.

23

point

Staybridge
Suites

106-room, 73,737-sf,
three-story hotel.

point

Aviara
Animal
Health
Center

Tenant
improvements &
expansion of existing
animal hospital.

point

La Costa
Town
Center
Renovation

Build 3000 sf of
retail, 60 apartment
units.

24

25

February 2015

CR2-5

Fisher and
Rick
2014:12

6131
Innovation
Way,
Carlsbad
South of
Palomar
Airport Rd,
east of
Innovation
Way, west
of Colt Pl,
Carlsbad
South of
Palomar
Airport Rd,
east of
Innovation
Way, west
of Colt Pl,
Carlsbad
6986 El
Camino
Real Suite
1, Carlsbad
La Costa
Ave and El
Camino
Real,
Carlsbad

In
construction

In
construction

3 CRHRineligible
archaeologica
l sites/LTS

EDAW
2009:3-12,
3-13, 6-42

APPENDIX CR-2

 Description

Location

Resource/
Impact
Significance

Reference

line

La Costa
Recycled
Water
Pipeline

Construction of
5200-ft-long, eighthinch pipeline for
recycled water.

East side of
El Camino
Real
between
Alga Rd &
Costa Del
Mar Rd,
Carlsbad

3 CRHRineligible
archaeologica
l sites/LTS

EDAW
2009:3-12,
3-13, 6-42

26

point

La Costa
Villas

Build eight threestory condos.

7570
Gibraltar St,
Carlsbad

27

point

La Costa
Town
Square

Build 258,000 sf of
retail.

3434 Via
Mercato,
Carlsbad

Westfield
Carlsbad

Remodel and expand
existing mall; add
226,000 sf: movie
theater, gym with
indoor pool, and
rooftop basketball
court.

2525 El
Camino
Real #100,
Carlsbad

None/LTS

point

Commercial
Office

Build 8,025-sf
commercial office
building.

Rancho
Santa Fe Rd
and La
Costa Ave,
Carlsbad

In
construction

point

La Costa
Town
Square
Residential
63

Build 63 single-family
homes.

7329 Calle
Pera,
Carlsbad

3 CRHRineligible
archaeologica
l sites/LTS

EDAW
2009:3-12,
3-13, 6-42

Blackstone
Ranch

Build 49 single-family
homes

Camino
Junipero
and Avenida
Amapola,
Carlsbad

Regional
Beach Sand
Project II

Potential offsite
materials placement
site (Oceanside,
North and South
Carlsbad, and
Batiquitos beaches)

None/No
impact

AECOM et
al.
2011:3.5-4,
Section 4.5;
Figure 2-4–
2-7

None/No
impact

AECOM
2014:3.715;
AECOM et
al.
2011:3.5-4,
Figure 2-8

Label ID

7

28

29

30

31

N/A

N/A

Point/
Line

point

point

N/A

N/A

APPENDIX CR-2

Project

San Elijo
Lagoon
Restoration

Potential offsite
materials placement
site (Leucadia)

CR2-6

Oceanside,
Carlsbad

Encinitas

3 CRHRineligible
archaeologica
l sites/LTS
3 CRHRineligible
archaeologica
l sites/LTS

EDAW
2009:3-12,
3-13, 6-42
EDAW
2009:3-12,
3-13, 6-42

Carlsbad
2013b:12–
13

February 2015

 Point/
Line

Project

Description

Location

Resource/
Impact
Significance

Reference

N/A

Blue Curl
Seawall

Demolish and
replace seawall

1084
Neptune
Ave,
Encinitas

Unknown/
CEQA
exempt

Encinitas
2010:2

N/A

Law condo
project

Demolish existing
structures, build fourtownhome condo
project

1265 N
Vulcan Ave,
Encinitas

No
information

N/A

N/A

La Esquina
Mixed-use
Project

Mixed-use project
with three live/work
units and one
commercial unit

1578 N
Coast
Highway
101,
Encinitas

No
information

N/A

N/A

TPM # 08132

Build four dwelling
units and remainder
parcel

1967 N.
Vulcan Ave,
Encinitas

No
information

Encinitas
2011:7–8

N/A

N/A

TPM #04286

Build four dwelling
units and remainder
parcel

232 Andrew
Ave,
Encinitas

Unknown/
CEQAexempt

Encinitas
2008:3

N/A

N/A

Hymettus
Estates

Ten-lot subdivision &
home construction

378 Fulvia
St, Encinitas

Unknown/No
impact

Encinitas
2009:3–4

N/A

La Costa
Chevron
Stormdrain
Pipe

Grading and wall
over six ft tall

540 La
Costa Ave,
Encinitas

Site CA-SDI603/LTSWM

Encinitas
2001:4

N/A

The
Leucadia
Club

Private club in
existing building

828 N Coast
Highway
101,
Encinitas

None/CEQA
exempt

Planning
Commissio
n 2014

N/A

Coral Cove
Subdivision
#03-090

A residential project
with 72 dwelling units
(39 single family and
33 attached) under
construction.

N.Vulcan
Ave/Coral
Cove Way,
Encinitas

N/A

Shoreline
Resort #00201

A timeshare/ hotel
project with 26 units.

Northeast
corner of N.
Hwy 101/La
Costa Ave.

N/A

Vista Sewer
Improvement Project
CIP No.
8175

Label ID

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

February 2015

Rehabilitate sewers
by installing cured-inplace pipe liners.

CR2-7

Various
locations in
Vista

Potential
historic
archaeological
resources/
LTSWM
Three CEQAineligible
isolated
artifacts/LTS
About 256
archaeological
resources/
LTSWM

Planning
Commissio
n 2006:6–
11
CSE&A
2002:61–
62, 64
Dudek
2008:ES-9,
Figure 2-3;
Rosenberg
et al.
2007:Table
4.0-1

APPENDIX CR-2

 Label ID

Point/
Line

Project

Description

Location

Resource/
Impact
Significance

Reference

Notes and abbreviations: ac = acre(s); Ave = avenue; Blvd = boulevard; CA = California; CEQA = California Environmental Quality
Act; CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources; Dr = drive; ft = foot/feet; HOV = high-occupancy vehicle(s); Hwy =
highway; I = Interstate; Ln = lane; LTS = less than significant; LTSWM = less-than-significant with mitigation; MGD = million gallons
per day; mi = mile(s); NE = northeast; NRHP = National Register of Historic Places; Pl= place; Rd = road; SANDAG = San Diego
Association of Governments; SCMC = South Coast Materials Company; SDCWA = San Diego County Water Authority; sf = square
foot/feet; SDI = San Diego County; SR = State Route; St = street; TCP = traditional cultural property

 

APPENDIX CR-2

CR2-8

February 2015

 CULTURAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment
"'-J

,

·· .···

-

•."lf'

-

• . ~·- cf•"•

n,...,.

,"

0

...
"'.,. I

"'J

...

'' .,.
'' ...
''
''
'
<'

·1-

' ... ... ...

0.25

0

..... .

0.5
I

Miles

Legend
Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Boundary

,.,
\

\

' .,

-

Archaeological Project
Area of Analysis
Agua Hedionda
Prehistoric Archaeological District

-Sr- - .....
7-· ,..r,

..._.·

:

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: City of Carlsbad, USGS Topo - Encinitas and San Luis Rey, CA 1:24.000 (1968) Photorevised 1975

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 CULTURAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 2
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Properties 45 Years or Older in Project Area of Analysis

Project Area of Analysis

c::J
c::J
c::J

Encina Power Station Site
Licensed CECP
Poseidon Desalinization Site

0

Tank Removed As Part of the
Development of the
Poseidon Desalinization Plant

0

Tanks to be Removed
Under the Proposed Amendment

0

Tanks to be Removed
as a Part of the Licensed CECP

-

Railway ROW

------ Railroad
~

Parcels with Structures

~ 45 years or older

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CH2MHILL Figure 1-1 (07-AFC-06) Petition to Amend - Amendment No. 1, & Bing Basemap

CULTURAL RESOURCES

 CULTURAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 3
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Historic Built Environment Resources within One Mile Literature Search Area

0
~

I
I

(/)

7

i

""1.~

I

7

''
'

0

0

:'·

0
7

\

~

~
~

\

~

....

\
0

''

~

""1.'?

\
\
\

7

'

it

...t.,. \

\

..a

Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Boundary

,. ....
\

1 Old Santa Fe Train Depot
2 Twin Inns/ Ocean House
3 Cohn House/Norte
4 Gage House/ Mon terey Condominiums
5 Barrio Musuem
6 Ramirez House
7 Mission Santiago
8 Gaus House
1:30,000

\ 1-Mile Buffer

'";

A

Historic Resources
•

Official Historic Resou rce
Potential Historic Resource

0

0.25

0.5

1 Miles

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: City of Carlsbad, USGS Topo - Encinitas and San Luis Rey, CA 1:24,000 (1968) Photorevised 1975

CU LTURAL RESOURCES

 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
Testimony of Alvin Greenberg, Ph.D.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Energy Commission staff (staff) concludes in this Final Staff Assessment (FSA) that the
modified project would incorporate sufficient measures to ensure compliance with
applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards addressing hazardous
materials management.
Staff analyzed the proposed changes to the licensed Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(CECP), which include replacing combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle
turbines, reconfiguration of the project footprint, and the demolition and removal of the
Encina Power Station. Staff concludes that there would not be any new significant
hazardous materials impacts not previously analyzed, nor an increase in severity of
environmental impacts. Staff recommends the mitigation as proposed in the conditions
of certification below. Adherence to the requirements of existing Conditions of
Certification HAZ-1 through 10, along with staff’s proposed minor revisions to reflect
tank demolition, closure/decommissioning and demolition of the Encina Power Station
(EPS), scheduling, the inclusion of the Carlsbad Police Department for the review and
comment on security plans, and an update to HAZ-10, would ensure that all phases of
the amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project (amended CECP) would provide proper
use, storage, and transportation of all hazardous materials.
The Carlsbad Fire Department and the San Diego County Department of Environmental
Health Hazardous Materials Division have both stated that their ability to supply hazmat
spill response during all phases of tank removal, construction, and operation of the
amended CECP and during demolition of the EPS, as well as during a major area-wide
crisis will not be impacted by the activities proposed in the petition and during operation
of this power plant.
Staff has therefore determined that the proposed amended CECP would not have a
direct incremental or cumulative hazardous materials management impact under both
normal and unique catastrophic circumstances and thus mitigation beyond that already
required is not needed.
Staff analyzed the proposed changes to the licensed Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(CECP), which include replacing combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle
turbines, reconfiguration of the project footprint, and the demolition and removal of
portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff concludes that there would not be any new
significant unmitigated hazardous materials impacts nor an increase in severity of
environmental impacts.

February 2015

4.5-1

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 INTRODUCTION
As discussed in detail in the Project Description of this FSA, the amended CECP
would be different from the licensed CECP, as approved by the Energy Commission on
May 31, 2012. For that reason, an evaluation of impacts, including the potential for
changes or additions to the licensed CECP conditions of certification (COCs) for the
project is required. The CECP amendment proposes implementing the following general
changes and modifications to the licensed CECP:
1. Add the demolition of three additional above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (AST’s 1,
2 and 4), and associated piping and equipment, removal of oily sands from under
ASTs 1, 2, and 4, and removal of an earthen berm between ASTs 4 and 5.
2. Change in generation equipment and technology from Siemens fast response,
combined-cycle to six natural gas-fired GE LMS 100 simple-cycle turbines with
approximately 632-MW net output of electrical generating capacity.
3. Add retirement and demolition of Encina Power Station (EPS). Units 1 through 5 of
EPS will be retired and all above-grade elements of the EPS power and support
buildings will be demolished and removed.
The amended CECP will continue to be situated adjacent to the EPS, in the
northeastern portion of the 95-acre parcel, between the existing North County Transit
District (NCTD) railroad tracks and Interstate-5, but the amended CECP will have a
larger footprint than the licensed CECP, expanding to 30 acres from 23 acres.
Construction equipment/material laydown and construction worker parking areas for the
project will remain immediately north of the existing EPS facility and in various areas
west of the existing railroad tracks. No offsite parking or laydown areas are anticipated
to be necessary for the construction of the amended CECP.
The amended CECP will continue to interconnect to the electrical transmission system
via 138-kilovolt (kV) and 230-kV lines that connect to the respective San Diego Gas and
Electric Company (SDG&E) switchyards situated on the EPS site. Natural gas will be
delivered to the amended CECP from the existing SDG&E transmission pipeline (Line
TL 2009, “Rainbow line”) via a new approximate 1,100-foot-long interconnection
pipeline that runs parallel to the existing NCTD railroad tracks. Similar to the licensed
CECP, with the exception of short, onsite interconnections, no offsite gas supply lines
are required for the amended CECP. The amended CECP will use reclaimed water
and/or potable water from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, and will connect to an
existing city of Carlsbad (Encina Wastewater Authority) sanitary sewer line.
Upon completion of construction of the amended CECP and achievement of commercial
operations, the EPS will be decommissioned, and the above-grade elements of the
main EPS power building and all support and ancillary buildings will be demolished and
removed. Upon completion of demolition of EPS, approximately 40 acres west of the
railroad tracks will transition from Energy Commission regulatory jurisdiction to that of
the city of Carlsbad (city), and be made available for later redevelopment. Some
portions west of the railroad tracks will remain dedicated to the amended CECP, such
as for transportation access, electrical interconnection, and water or gas supply.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-2

February 2015

 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
The amended CECP would continue to comply with all currently applicable hazardous
materials laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). The proposed activities
in the Petitions to Amend (petitions) do not trigger any additional hazardous materials
management LORS. The following federal, state, and local laws and policies as
described in the licensed CECP Commission Final Decision (Final Decision)
(CEC2012a) continue to apply to the protection of public health and hazardous
materials management.
Hazardous Materials Management Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR
Federal

Description

The Superfund
Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (42 USC
§9601 et seq.)

Contains the Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know Act (also
known as SARA Title III).

The Clean Air Act
(CAA) of 1990 (42
USC 7401 et seq. as
amended)

Established a nationwide emergency planning and response program and
imposed reporting requirements for businesses that store, handle, or produce
significant quantities of extremely hazardous materials.

The CAA section on
risk management
plans (42 USC
§112(r)

Requires states to implement a comprehensive system informing local agencies
and the public when a significant quantity of such materials is stored or handled
at a facility. The requirements of both SARA Title III and the CAA are reflected in
the California Health and Safety Code, section 25531, et seq.

49 CFR 172.800

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requirement that suppliers of
hazardous materials prepare and implement security plans.

49 CFR Part 1572,
Subparts A and B

Requires suppliers of hazardous materials to ensure that all their hazardous
materials drivers are in compliance with personnel background security checks.

The Clean Water Act
(CWA) (40 CFR 112)

Aims to prevent the discharge or threat of discharge of oil into navigable waters
or adjoining shorelines. Requires a written spill prevention, control, and
countermeasures (SPCC) plan to be prepared for facilities that store oil that
could leak into navigable waters.

Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations,
Part 190

Outlines gas pipeline safety program procedures.

Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations,
Part 191

Addresses transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline: annual reports,
incident reports, and safety-related condition reports. Requires operators of
pipeline systems to notify the DOT of any reportable incident by telephone and
then submit a written report within 30 days.

Title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations,
Part 192

Addresses transportation of natural and other gas by pipeline and minimum
federal safety standards, specifies minimum safety requirements for pipelines
including material selection, design requirements, and corrosion protection. The
safety requirements for pipeline construction vary according to the population
density and land use that characterize the surrounding land. This part also
contains regulations governing pipeline construction (which must be followed for
Class 2 and Class 3 pipelines) and the requirements for preparing a pipeline
integrity management program.

February 2015

4.5-3

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 Applicable LOR
Federal Register (6
CFR Part 27) interim
final rule

Description
A regulation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that requires facilities
that use or store certain hazardous materials to submit information to the
department so that a vulnerability assessment can be conducted to determine
what certain specified security measures shall be implemented.

State

Title 8, California
Code of Regulations,
section 5189

Requires facility owners to develop and implement effective safety management
plans that ensure that large quantities of hazardous materials are handled safely.
While such requirements primarily provide for the protection of workers, they also
indirectly improve public safety and are coordinated with the Risk Management
Plan (RMP) process.

Title 8, California
Code of Regulations,
section 458 and
sections 500 to 515

Sets forth requirements for the design, construction, and operation of vessels
and equipment used to store and transfer ammonia. These sections generally
codify the requirements of several industry codes, including the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) K61.1 and the National Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Inspection Code. These codes apply to anhydrous ammonia but
are also used to design storage facilities for aqueous ammonia.

California Health and
Safety Code, section
25531 to 25543.4

The California Accidental Release Program (CalARP) requires the preparation of
a Risk Management Plan (RMP) and off-site consequence analysis (OCA) and
submittal to the local Certified Unified Program Agency for approval.

Hazardous Material
Business Plan, Cal
HSC Sections 25500
to 25541

Requires the submittal of a chemical inventory and planning and reporting for
management of hazardous materials.

California Health and
Safety Code, section
41700

Requires that “No person shall discharge from any source whatsoever such
quantities of air contaminants or other material which causes injury, detriment,
nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public,
or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or
the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage
to business or property.”

California Safe
Drinking Water and
Toxic Enforcement
Act (Proposition 65)

Prevents certain chemicals that cause cancer and reproductive toxicity from
being discharged into sources of drinking water.

NFPA-56 Standard
for Fire and Explosion
Prevention During
Cleaning and Purging
of Flammable Gas
Piping Systems

This national professional consensus standard is designed to prohibit the use of
natural gas from being used to clean and purge the natural gas piping system
after construction of the power plant and before commissioning, thus eliminating
the risk of explosion occurring while venting the gas.

California Public
Utilities Commission
General Order 112-E
and 58-A

Contains standards for gas piping construction and service.

The Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) with the responsibility to review Risk
Management Plans (RMPs) and Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) is the
San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division
(SD DEH HMD). With regard to seismic safety issues, construction and design of

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-4

February 2015

 buildings and vessels storing hazardous materials would meet the seismic requirements
of CCR Title 24 and the current California Building Code.

SETTING
Several factors associated with the area in which a project is to be located affect the
potential for an accidental release of a hazardous material that could cause public
health impacts. These include:


local meteorology;



terrain characteristics; and



location of population centers and sensitive receptors relative to the project.

METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Meteorological conditions, including wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature,
affect both the extent to which accidentally released hazardous materials would be
dispersed into the air and the direction in which they would be transported. This affects
the potential magnitude and extent of public exposure to such materials, as well as their
associated health risks. When wind speeds are low and the atmosphere stable,
dispersion is severely reduced but can lead to increased localized public exposure.
Recorded wind speeds and directions are described in the Air Quality section (5.1) of
the licensed CECP Application for Certification (AFC) (CECP 2007a). Staff agrees with
the petitioner that use of F stability (stagnated air, very little mixing), wind speed of 1.5
meters per second, and a temperature of 88°F are appropriate for conducting the offsite consequence analysis for the amended CECP (LL 2014d, Section 5.5.2.3).

TERRAIN CHARACTERISTICS
The location of elevated terrain is often an important factor in assessing potential
exposure. An emission plume resulting from an accidental release may impact high
elevations before impacting lower elevations. The topography of the site is essentially
flat (about 29 feet above sea level) with the Pacific Ocean lying to the west and hills
rising to the north, east, and south of the project site.

LOCATION OF EXPOSED POPULATIONS AND SENSITIVE
RECEPTORS
The general population includes many sensitive subgroups that may be at greater risk
from exposure to emitted pollutants. These sensitive subgroups include the very young,
the elderly, and those with existing illnesses. In addition, the location of the population in
the area surrounding a project site may have a major bearing on health risk.
Section 5.7.2 of the petition explains that the closest residential area to the licensed
CECP is located north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, approximately 1,750 feet from the
facility site. However, demolition of the EPS would occur approximately 400 feet from
the nearest residential receptor (400 feet from the southwest corner of the power plant
building and 800 feet from the 400‐foot‐tall stack). This receptor is identified as receptor

February 2015

4.5-5

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 M4 in Figure 5.7‐3 of the original Application for Certification (AFC) for the licensed
CECP (07‐AFC‐06).
Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity are two schools located north of the project site
and an elder care facility located northeast of the project site, both about 0.8 miles
away.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Staff assessed the amendment proposals regarding hazardous materials management.
The review process includes an evaluation of the consistency of the proposed changes
and modifications with that of the Energy Commission’s existing Final Decision, and to
determine whether the project, as amended, would remain in compliance with
applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 20, §
1769).
Staff reviewed and assessed the potential for the transportation, handling, and use of
hazardous materials to impact the surrounding community. All chemicals and natural
gas were evaluated. Staff’s analysis addresses the potential impacts on all members of
the population including the young, the elderly, and people with existing medical
conditions that may make them more sensitive to the adverse effects of hazardous
materials. In order to accomplish this goal, staff utilized the most current public health
exposure levels (both acute and chronic) that are established to protect the public from
the effects of an accidental chemical release.
In order to assess the potential for released hazardous materials to travel offsite and
affect the public, staff analyzed several aspects of the proposed use of these materials
at the facility. Staff recognizes that some hazardous materials must be used at power
plants. Therefore, staff conducted its analysis by examining the choice and amount of
chemicals to be used, the manner in which the petitioner will use the chemicals, the
manner by which they will be transported to the facility and transferred to facility storage
tanks, and the way the petitioner plans to store the materials on site.
Staff reviewed the petitioner’s proposed engineering and administrative controls
concerning hazardous materials usage. Engineering controls are the physical or
mechanical systems, such as storage tanks or automatic shut-off valves, that can
prevent the spill of hazardous material from occurring, or which can either limit the spill
to a small amount or confine it to a small area. Administrative controls are the rules and
procedures that workers at the facility must follow that will help to prevent accidents or
to keep them small if they do occur. Both engineering and administrative controls can
act as methods of prevention or as methods of response and minimization. In both
cases, the goal is to prevent a spill from moving offsite and causing harm to the public.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-6

February 2015

 DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Staff reviewed and evaluated the petitioner’s proposed use of hazardous materials as
described by the petitioner. Staff has made the following determinations and
conclusions:


Staff has determined that the requested activities in the removal of existing aboveground oil storage tanks ASTs 1, 2, and 4, associated piping, a berm between ASTs
4 and 5, and oily sands from under ASTs 1, 2, and 4 would not result in any
significant change in hazardous materials use at the amended CECP site; only an
earlier scheduled use of such materials. Staff also has determined that the project
would continue to comply with all applicable LORS.



Staff has determined that the chemicals and the amounts proposed for use and
storage on-site during operations of the amended CECP, as described Tables 5.5-1,
5.5-2, and 5.5-3, are appropriate for a simple-cycle power plant and would not result
in any significant change in hazardous materials use at the site.



Staff has determined that regarding the use and storage of aqueous ammonia, as a
result of the changed technology, the two 10,000-gallon aqueous ammonia storage
tanks allowed in the Final Decision (CEC2012a) for the licensed CECP are now
proposed to be changed to one 20,0000-gallon tank. The tank would be filled to a
maximum of 17,000 gallons to allow for expansion. The changes to the tank size
also would result in minimal changes to the frequency of aqueous ammonia
deliveries to two deliveries per month during the summer (approximately four
months), and one delivery every other month for the rest of the year (approximately
eight months), for a total of 12 deliveries per year (one per month) for the amended
CECP as compared to up to five tanker truck deliveries of aqueous ammonia per
month during peak operation periods for the licensed CECP. This would reduce the
already insignificant risk of accidental release during transport to the licensed CECP
to an even lower incidence of risk for the amended CECP.



Staff has determined that the spill containment for the aqueous ammonia tank would
continue to be provided by a secondary containment basin surrounding the tank
draining into an underground sump at the amended CECP. A diked secondary
containment area would be 30 feet wide by 34 feet long. The underground sump
would be large enough to accommodate the full contents of the aqueous ammonia
tank plus rainwater. The truck unloading area adjacent to the ammonia tank would
be sloped such that any spill during unloading will flow into the tank containment
area.



Staff concludes that measures proposed by the petitioner to prevent spills, which
were reviewed and evaluated in the licensed CECP, including engineering controls
such as automatic shut-off valves, different-sized transfer-hose couplings, and
administrative controls such as worker training and safety management programs,
are adequate and appropriate to reduce the risk of a spill migrating off-site to a level
of insignificance.



Staff has determined that measures proposed by the petitioner to respond to
accidents at the amended CECP, including engineering controls such as catchment
basins and methods to keep vapors from spreading, and administrative controls
such as training emergency response crews, were also adequate and appropriate.

February 2015

4.5-7

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 

Staff concludes that the theoretical impacts on the public of a worst-case accidental
spill of aqueous ammonia from the storage tank, as modeled by the petitioner (LL
2014d; section 5.5.2.3 and Table 5.5-4) and reduced by the mitigation measures
proposed by the petitioner, would result in an off-site airborne concentration of
ammonia fumes less than the Energy Commission level of significance (75 ppm) and
that therefore any accidental release of aqueous ammonia from the storage tank
would result in impacts limited to the site.



Staff has determined that natural gas proposed for use at the amended CECP would
continue to pose a fire and/or possible explosion risk because of its flammability.
While natural gas will be used in significant quantities, it will not be stored on site.
Natural gas will be delivered to the amended CECP from the existing SDG&E
transmission pipeline (Line TL 2009, “Rainbow line”) via a new approximate 1,100foot-long 20” interconnection pipeline west of the amended CECP site that runs
parallel to the existing railroad tracks. Once on the site, the natural gas will flow
through a metering station, gas scrubber/filtering equipment, a gas pressure control
station, and a fuel gas compressor station, prior to injection into the combustion
turbines. Similar to the licensed CECP, with the exception of short, onsite
interconnections, no new off-site gas supply lines are required for the amended
CECP.



Staff has determined that the risk of a natural gas fire and/or explosion onsite can be
reduced to insignificant levels through adherence to applicable codes and the
development and implementation of effective safety management practices. The
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) code 85A requires both the use of
double-block and bleed valves for gas shut off and automated combustion controls.
These measures will significantly reduce the likelihood of an explosion in gas-fired
equipment. Additionally, start-up procedures would require air purging of the gas
turbines prior to start up, thereby precluding the presence of an explosive mixture.
The safety management plan proposed by the petitioner would address the handling
and use of natural gas, and would significantly reduce the potential for equipment
failure because of either improper maintenance or human error. However, staff
wishes to note that on June 28, 2010, the United States Chemical Safety and
Hazard Board (CSB) issued Urgent Recommendations to the United States
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the NFPA, the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and major gas turbine manufacturers, to
make changes to their respective regulations, codes, and guidance to require the
use of inherently safer alternatives to natural gas blows for the purposes of pipe
cleaning. Recommendations were also made to the 50 states to enact legislation
applicable to power plants that prohibits flammable gas blows for the purposes of
pipe cleaning. In accordance with those recommendations, staff proposes that
existing Condition of Certification HAZ-10 as found in the Final Decision (CEC
2012a) which prohibits the use of flammable gas blows for pipe cleaning at the
facility, either during construction or after the start of operations, be revised to be
consistent with the above agency recommendations and existing Energy
Commission conditions.



Therefore, if staff’s recommended revisions to conditions of certification are
approved, staff determines that all fuel gas pipe purging activities would vent any
gases to a safe location outdoors, away from workers and sources of ignition, fuel

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-8

February 2015

 gas pipe cleaning and purging would adhere to the provisions of NFPA 56 (the
Standard for Fire and Explosion Prevention During Cleaning and Purging of
Flammable Gas Piping Systems), and a special emphasis would be placed on
sections NFPA 56 4.3.1 (written procedures for pipe cleaning and purging) and
6.111 (prohibition on the use of flammable gas for cleaning or purging at any time).


Staff has determined that the retirement of Units 1 through 5 of EPS and the
demolition/removal of all above-grade elements of the EPS power and support
buildings would not include the use of hazardous materials beyond or uniquely
different to those proposed for use during demolition and removal of ASTs 1, 2, and
4 and associated piping or in the construction of the amended CECP as described in
the petition. Staff therefore concludes that the activities described in the Encina
Power Station Demolition Plan (Attachment DR64-1 to Petitioner’s Data Response
to Staff’s Data request #64, dated October 1, 2014) would not result in a significant
risk to the off-site public from the use and storage of hazardous materials during
demolition of the EPS.

SITE SECURITY
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) published Security
Guidelines for the Electricity Sector in 2002 (NERC 2002; 2012; 2014) as well as issued
a Critical Infrastructure Protection standard for cyber security (NERC 2009 and 2014),
and the U.S. Department of Energy published a draft Vulnerability Assessment
Methodology for Electric Power Infrastructure in 2002 (DOE 2002). The energy
generation sector is one of 14 areas of critical Infrastructure listed by the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). On April 9, 2007, the U.S Department of
Homeland Security published, in the Federal Register (6 CFR Part 27), an Interim Final
Rule (Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards or CFATS) requiring facilities that use
or store certain hazardous materials to conduct vulnerability assessments and
implement certain specified security measures. This rule was implemented with the
publication of Appendix A, the list of chemicals on November 2, 2007. The amended
CECP is not proposing to use any material on the list in an amount which would trigger
the need for compliance with the CFATS regulation.
However, even though the CFATS regulation does not apply, staff’s position is that all
power plants under the jurisdiction of the Energy Commission should implement a
minimum level of security consistent with the guidelines listed here. And although
security already exists at this site because it is an operating power plant, staff proposes
that the security be reviewed and updated.
In order to ensure that this facility (or a shipment of hazardous material) is not the target
of unauthorized access, the Final Decision (CEC2012a) requires implementation of
Conditions of Certification HAZ-7 and HAZ-8, resulting in the preparation and
implementation of first a formal written demolition/construction security plan and then an
operations security plan. This plan would require the implementation of site security
measures that are consistent with both the above-referenced documents and Energy
Commission guidelines. These security measures include perimeter fencing, breach
detectors, guards, alarms, site access procedures for employees and vendors, site
personnel background checks, and law enforcement contact in the event of a security
breach. To ensure adequacy of these security plans, staff proposes that HAZ-7 and
February 2015

4.5-9

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 HAZ-8 be amended to include a requirement that the plans are shared with the
Carlsbad Police Department for review and comment. The city of Carlsbad has
requested this addition and staff welcomes and supports it.
The goal of these conditions of certification is to provide the minimum level of security
for power plants needed to protect California’s electrical infrastructure from malicious
mischief, vandalism, or domestic/foreign terrorist attacks. The level of security needed
for this power plant is dependent upon the threat imposed, the likelihood of an
adversarial attack, the likelihood of success in causing a catastrophic event, and the
severity of consequences of that event.
Another site security issue addressed in the Final Decision involves the proposed routes
for a Coastal Rail Trail and the future expansion of Interstate-5 (I-5) east of the site.
Regarding the future expansion of I-5, adherence to existing Condition of Certification
WORKER SAFETY-7 would not only provide for safety against runaway vehicles
crashing the I-5 fence line and falling into the amended CECP site but would also
protect against line-of-sight viewing of critical energy infrastructure from the I-5 corridor.
Regarding the Coastal Rail Trail, staff remains very concerned about the safety and
security of the amended CECP should the project be built, and should the Coastal Rail
Trail be built. Staff continues to believe that placing the Coastal Rail Trail on the eastern
side of the railroad ROW raises several security, safety, and fire access problems. Staff
discusses the security concerns in this section of this Final Staff Assessment (FSA) and
refers the reader to the Worker Safety & Fire Protection section for discussion of the
safety and fire access issues.
Staff’s continued serious security and safety concerns about a Rail Trail on the east
side of the tracks leads to the conclusion that since NRG must place a security fence
with CCTV and breach detectors along the power plant’s entire perimeter as per the
requirements of existing Condition of Certification HAZ-8, it remains problematic to
move that security fence further east of the rail line and closer to power plant critical
energy infrastructure.
Therefore, staff continues to support existing Conditions of Certification HAZ-9 and
WORKER SAFETY-9 which require the project owner to maintain the security of the
power plant site and prohibit the placement of a public access rail trail east of the rail
corridor.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Staff analyzed the potential for the existence of cumulative impacts. A significant cumulative
hazardous materials impact is defined as the simultaneous uncontrolled release of hazardous
materials from multiple locations in a form (gas or liquid) that could cause a significant impact
where the release of one hazardous material alone would not cause a significant impact.
Existing locations that use or store gaseous or liquid hazardous materials, or locations where
such facilities might likely be built, were both considered. Staff believes that while cumulative
impacts are theoretically possible, they are not probable because of the many safeguards
implemented to both prevent and control an uncontrolled release. The chances of one
uncontrolled release occurring are remote. The chance of two or more occurring
simultaneously, with resulting airborne plumes mingling to create a significant impact, are even
more remote. It is staff’s position that the risk to the public is insignificant.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-10

February 2015

 Table 1 of the Executive Summary of this FSA provides a list of more than 32 projects
located within six miles of the amended CECP site that are built, under construction, or
are reasonably expected to be built. With the exception of the existing Encina Power
Plant which stores 19 percent ammonia and the Carlsbad Poseidon Desalination
Project (currently under construction between the amended CECP site and the existing
EPS), all the remaining existing or planned projects in the vicinity of the proposed
amended CECP would not store or use hazardous materials that may have a potential
cumulative impact. Since the EPS will cease operations as soon as the amended CECP
starts commissioning, and since both the petitioner’s and the staff’s modeling of an
accidental release show that ammonia concentrations exceeding 75 ppm would not
occur off-site, cumulative impacts from ammonia releases from these two facilities are
not expected to occur.
According to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Carlsbad Poseidon
Desalination Project (Carlsbad 2005 section 4.6 and Table 4.6-2), the following
hazardous materials that could potentially result in airborne vapors as a result of an
accidental spill will be used and stored at the desalination project:


Citric acid - (50 gal of 2 % solution)



Sodium hydroxide B (50 gal of 0.1 % solution)



Sulfuric acid (60,000 gal of 20% solution)



Aqueous ammonia (3,000 gal of 10% solution)



Sodium hypochlorite (10,000 gal of 10-15% solution)

Due to the very low vapor pressure of aqueous solutions of sulfuric acid, the potential
for an airborne acid plume extending more than a few feet from the release point is
below the level of significance. Staff has previously modeled accidental releases of 94
percent sulfuric acid and found that the impacts extend only a few feet from the source.
Citric acid and sodium hydroxide likewise have very low vapor pressures and thus the
risk of off-site consequences is less than significant. Sodium hypochlorite and aqueous
ammonia can result in off-site airborne concentrations upon an accidental release under
certain circumstances; however, in this case, the Poseidon EIR states that “a
catastrophic spill of the entire 10,000 gallon volume of liquid sodium hypochlorite stored
on site will not generate chlorine vapors of concentration high enough to form a
gaseous plume that presents a public health hazard because of the high solubility of
chlorine in water, and because of the low concentration of this chemical (only 10 to 15
%) in the bleach solution” (Carlsbad 2005, section 4.6) and “both the aqua ammonia
volume and concentration are significantly lower than the threshold levels at which
ammonia storage may present a public health hazard due to accidental spill of the entire
amount of aqua ammonia stored on site” (Carlsbad 2005, section 4.6). Furthermore, the
Poseidon facility will be storing and handling these hazardous materials according to
LORS and thus will be required to implement safety measures similar to those required
for the amended CECP.
The amended CECP project owner would develop and implement a hazardous
materials handling program independent of any other projects considered for potential
cumulative impacts, as would the desalination facility. Staff believes that the facility, as
February 2015

4.5-11

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 proposed by the petitioner and with the additional mitigation measures proposed by
staff, poses an insignificant risk of accidental release that could result in off-site impacts.
It is unlikely that an accidental release that has very low probability of occurrence (about
one in one-million per year) would independently occur at the amended CECP site and
another facility at the same time. Therefore, staff concludes that the facility would not
contribute to a significant hazardous materials-related cumulative impact.

COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND
STANDARDS
Staff concludes that construction and operation of the amended CECP project, including
the demolition and removal of the EPS, would be in compliance with all applicable laws,
ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) regarding long-term and short-term
project impacts in the area of hazardous materials management.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
Staff has received only a few comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA)
related to hazardous materials management issues, most of them from the petitioner.

AGENCY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, TN # 203543, JANUARY 20, 2015
Comment: At the January 12, 2015 PSA Staff Workshop, the city of Carlsbad
requested that the Carlsbad Police Department be given an opportunity to review and
comment on security plans for the amended CECP. The city reiterated this request in its
comment letter of January 20, 2015.
Response: Staff welcomes the interest of the Carlsbad Police Department and
recommends that Conditions HAZ-7 and HAZ-8 be amended to require that both
the Demolition and Construction Security Plan and the Operations Security Plan are
shared with the Carlsbad Police Department for review and comment.
Comment: In its comment letter of January 20, 2015, the city of Carlsbad requested
that HAZ-3 and HAZ-4 be modified so as to include the Carlsbad Fire Department
(CFD) in the review and comment of the Safety Management Plan (HAZ-3) and the
aqueous ammonia storage tank (HAZ-4).
Response: Staff agrees with these proposed revisions to HAZ-3 and 4 and
welcomes the review and comment by the CFD.

PETITIONER: CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER LLC, TN # 203549,
JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The petitioner filed comments on January 21, 2015 (TN203549) that for the
most part requested that HAZ-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 be revised to reflect a suggested
bifurcation of deliverables for Verification of compliance of what the petitioner terms
“Phase I licensed CECP activities” and “Phase I amended activities”. For example, the
petitioner suggests that HAZ-1 be revised so that the verification requires the provision
of a list of hazardous materials to be used/stored at the site for the licensed Phase I
tank demolition and that a separate requirement within the Verification be added for
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-12

February 2015

 Phase 1 amended activities “if not previously completed for Phase I licensed activities”.
A similar request was made for all existing Conditions HAZ-1 through 7. The intent is to
avoid duplication of effort in providing verification for existing licensed activities, some of
which has already been provided by the project owner, and to establish clear and
separate compliance obligations for the licensed and amended projects.
Response: Staff understands that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun;
however, it is staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that has
past is both confusing and unnecessary. Petitioner will not be required to duplicate
work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended CECP.
Comment: In addition to the proposed revisions to the Verification section of HAZ-1
through 7, the petitioner requested minor revisions to HAZ-2, -3, and -4 consisting of
adding the term “initial” to the Verifications and HAZ-7 to change the word “petitioner” to
“project owner” in HAZ-8.
Response: Staff agrees with the request for HAZ-2 and -3 and HAZ-8 but believes
adding the word “initial” is unnecessary for HAZ-4. Staff additionally proposes a
slight addition to HAZ-2 that would require the provision of an updated Hazardous
Materials Business Plan whenever a hazardous material not previously used on the
site is added to the site inventory. This is a standard requirement under Cal HSC
Sections 25500 to 25541 but staff believes it is important to emphasize it in a
condition of certification.

CONCLUSIONS
Staff’s evaluation of the proposed amended project (with proposed mitigation measures)
indicates that hazardous material use will not pose a significant impact to the public.
Staff’s analysis also shows that there will be no significant cumulative impact. With
adoption of staff’s proposed revisions to the existing conditions of certification, the
proposed amended CECP will comply with all applicable LORS. In response to Health
and Safety Code, section 25531 et seq., the project owner would continue to be
required to develop a Risk Management Plan (RMP). To ensure the adequacy of the
RMP, the existing conditions of certification require that the RMP be submitted for
concurrent review by the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health,
Hazardous Materials Division and by Energy Commission staff. In addition, existing
conditions of certification require the review and approval of the RMP by staff prior to
the delivery of any hazardous materials to the facility. Other existing conditions of
certification address the issue of the transportation, storage, and use of aqueous
ammonia, in addition to site security matters.
Staff recommends that the Energy Commission adopt the modest revisions proposed by
staff to the existing Conditions of Certification HAZ-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 to ensure that
all activities at the modified project, tank demolition, and the demolition and removal of
the EPS, comply with all applicable LORS in order to protect the public from significant
risk of exposure to an accidental release of a hazardous material. If all mitigation
measures are required and implemented, the use, storage, and transportation of
hazardous materials will not present a significant risk to the public.

February 2015

4.5-13

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 Staff recommends revisions to HAZ-10 (prohibition of natural gas blows) to further
enhance safety.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-14

February 2015

 REFERENCES
Carlsbad 2005 - Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
Environmental Impact Report.
CEC 2012a - California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CECP 2007a - California Energy Center Project/T. Hemig (tn: 42299). Application for
Certification for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project. 09/11/2007.
LL 2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL 2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) 2002 - Security Guidelines for
the Electricity Sector, Version 1.0, June 14, 2002.
U.S. Department of Energy (US DOE). 2002 - Draft Vulnerability Assessment
Methodology, Electric Power Infrastructure. Office of Energy Assurance,
September 30, 2002.
U.S. Department of Justice (US DOJ). 2002. - Special Report: Chemical Facility
Vulnerability Assessment Methodology. Office of Justice Programs, Washington,
D.C. July 2002.

February 2015

4.5-15

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Attachment A)
Hazardous Materials Proposed for Use at the Amended CECP
Material

CAS
No.

Application

Acetylene

47-86-2

Welding gas

Aqueous
Ammonia 19%
Solution

766441-7

NOX emissions
control

77-92-9

Cleaning RO units

Health: hazardous if inhaled
Physical: combustible, flammable
Health: irritation to permanent
damage from inhalation,
ingestion, and skin contact
Physical: reactive, vapor is
combustible
Health: eye or lung irritation

None

Periodic cleaning of
combustion turbine

Health: various
Physical: various

Diesel No. 2

None

Fuel for fire pump,
vehicles,
emergency
generator

General
Dispersant –
Cyanamer P-70

NA

Hydraulic Oil

Citric Acid
Cleaning
Chemicals/
Detergents

Hazardous Characteristics

Maximum
Quantity On Site

CERCLA
SARA RQa

300 pounds

NA

10,200 20,000
gallons

100 lbs

100 lbs
Up to 25 gal or
100 lbs per
chemical

NA

Health: may be carcinogenic
Fire hazard

3000 gal

42 gal

Anti-scaling
dispersant

Health: irritation of the eyes
and skin

55 gal

NA

None

In combustion
turbine and turbine
control valve
actuators

Health: hazardous if ingested
Physical: may be
flammable/combustible

150 500 gal

42 gal

Hydrochloric
acid

764701-0

RO cleaning

Health: strong corrosive;
significant irritation to eyes,
respiratory system, and skin

100 gal

5000 lbs

Ion Exchange
Resin

None

Health: immediate health hazard

110,000 lbs

NA

Lab reagents

Various

Various

10 gal liquids
100 lbs solids

NA

Lubrication Oil

None

Lubricate rotating
equipment

400 18,000 gal

42 gal

Mineral Insulating
Oil

801295-1

Transformers/switch
yard

550 76,000 gal

42 gal

Oxygen

778244-7

Welding gas

300 lbs

NA

Paint

Various

Touchup of painted
surfaces

Up to 25 gal or
100 lbs per type

NA

Propane

74-98-6

Torch gas

100 lbs

NA

Scale/Corrosion
inhibitor
Permatreat PC191

NA

Water treatment

400 gal

NA

Sodium
hydroxide (50%)

131073-2

Water treatment

500 gal

1000 lbs

Sulfur
hexaflouride

255162-4

Switchyard/switch
gear devices

400 960 lbs

NA

Demineralization of
boiler feedwater
Water/wastewater
analysis

Health: hazardous if ingested
Physical: may be
flammable/combustible
Health: hazardous if ingested
Physical: may be
flammable/combustible
Health: skin irritant
Physical: flammable
Health: various
Physical: various
Health: causes frostbites
Physical: flammable, oxidizing
Health: irritation with
prolonged contact
Health: very corrosive to the
skin, eyes, and mucus
membranes
Health: hazardous if inhaled
Physical: non-flammable

NA

Source: CECP 2007a Tables 5.5-1 through 5.5-3 and LL 2014d Table 5.5-1 through 5.5-3.
a. Reportable quantities for a pure chemical, per the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA).

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-16

February 2015

 SAMPLE CERTIFICATIONS
(Attachments B, C, and D)

February 2015

4.5-17

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 SAMPLE CERTIFICATION (Attachment B)
Affidavit of Compliance for Project Owners
I,
______________________________________________________________________________
(Name of person signing affidavit)(Title)
do hereby certify that background investigations to ascertain the accuracy of the identity and
employment history of all employees of
____________________________________________________________________________
(Company name)

for employment at
______________________________________________________________________________
(Project name and location)

have been conducted as required by the California Energy Commission Decision for the abovenamed project.
___________________________________________________
(Signature of officer or agent)

Dated this ___________________ day of ___________________, 20 _______.
THIS AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPENDED TO THE PROJECT
SECURITY PLAN AND SHALL BE RETAINED AT ALL TIMES AT THE PROJECT SITE
FOR REVIEW BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION COMPLIANCE PROJECT
MANAGER.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-18

February 2015

 SAMPLE CERTIFICATION (Attachment C)
Affidavit of Compliance for Contractors
I,
______________________________________________________________________________
(Name of person signing affidavit)(Title)
do hereby certify that background investigations to ascertain the accuracy of the identity and
employment history of all employees of
____________________________________________________________________________
(Company name)

for contract work at
______________________________________________________________________________
(Project name and location)

have been conducted as required by the California Energy Commission Decision for the abovenamed project.
___________________________________________________
(Signature of officer or agent)

Dated this ___________________ day of ___________________, 20 _______.
THIS AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPENDED TO THE PROJECT
SECURITY PLAN AND SHALL BE RETAINED AT ALL TIMES AT THE PROJECT SITE
FOR REVIEW BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION COMPLIANCE PROJECT
MANAGER.

February 2015

4.5-19

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT

 SAMPLE CERTIFICATION (Attachment D)
Affidavit of Compliance for Hazardous Materials Transport Vendors
I,
______________________________________________________________________________
(Name of person signing affidavit)(Title)
do hereby certify that the below-named company has prepared and implemented security plans in
conformity with 49 CFR 172.880 and has conducted employee background investigations in
conformity with 49 CFR 172, subparts A and B,
____________________________________________________________________________
(Company name)

for hazardous materials delivery to
______________________________________________________________________________
(Project name and location)

as required by the California Energy Commission Decision for the above-named project.
___________________________________________________
(Signature of officer or agent)

Dated this ___________________ day of ___________________, 20 _______.
THIS AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE SHALL BE APPENDED TO THE PROJECT
SECURITY PLAN AND SHALL BE RETAINED AT ALL TIMES AT THE PROJECT SITE
FOR REVIEW BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION COMPLIANCE PROJECT
MANAGER.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 4.5-20

February 2015

 LAND USE
Testimony of Michael C. Baron

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Staff analyzed the changes to the licensed CECP, which include replacing the
combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle turbines, reconfiguring the project
footprint, and demolishing and removing the Encina Power Station. Staff concludes that
there would not be any new significant land use impacts, nor an increase in the severity
of land use impacts previously identified.
Staff concludes that the construction and operation of the amended Carlsbad Energy
Center Project (amended CECP) would be consistent with applicable land use laws,
ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS), with the exception of a 35-foot building
height limitation in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. The May 31, 2012 Commission
Final Decision for the licensed CECP adopted override findings under both the WarrenAlquist Act and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for nonconformance
with several land use LORS, including the 35-foot height limitation. Staff does not
believe the nonconformance with the height limitation would be a significant impact
under CEQA, and recommends that only a LORS override is needed for the amended
CECP. The amended project would not result in any other land use impacts that would
be considered significant under Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines or other thresholds
identified by staff.

INTRODUCTION
This analysis considers the changes between the licensed CECP and modifications
sought by petitioner/project owner Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC, for the amended
CECP. This additional analysis is required because of new information and changed
circumstances that pertain to the amendment, including: the demolition of EPS; the
change in project footprint; the changes in the City of Carlsbad General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance that pertain to the CECP project that have occurred since the project
was licensed.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (LORS)
Although the Energy Commission issues a license in lieu of any state or local permit, it
must make findings concerning whether the proposed project conforms with state and local
laws, ordinances, regulations and standards, including local land use plans and zoning.
When determining whether a proposed project or amendment to a previously certified
project is consistent with local land use laws, Energy Commission staff consults with local
agencies to determine conformity, and, where necessary, correct or eliminate any noncompliance (Pub. Resources Code, § 25523).
At the time the original CECP was licensed, LORS applicable to land use were identified
in the June 2012 Final Commission Decision. Since approval of the original CECP, no
new land use LORS are identified requiring analysis under the amended CECP.

February 2015

4.6-1

LAND USE

 Some land use LORS analyzed as part of the original 2012 licensing of the CECP have
been amended or repealed by the city of Carlsbad as part of the city’s support of the
amended CECP. This includes repeal of the Encina Specific Plan (SP 144).
Land Use Table 1 summarizes land use LORS applicable to the amended CECP.
Discussion of the LORS amended by the city is contained in the “City of Carlsbad
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance” subsection of this Land Use analysis.
Land Use Table 1
Applicable Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR
Federal
State

Warren-Alquist Act section
25529

California Coastal Act

Subdivision Map Act

Description
None
Pursuant to section 25529 of the Warren-Alquist Act (Pub. Resources
Code, § 25000 et seq.), the Energy Commission shall require public
access to coastal resources as a condition of certification of a facility
proposed in the Coastal Zone as follows:
“When a facility is proposed to be located in the coastal zone or any
other area with recreational, scenic, or historic value, the commission
shall require, as a condition of certification of any facility contained in
the application, that an area be established for public use, as
determined by the commission. Lands within such area shall be
acquired and maintained by the applicant and shall be available for
public access and use, subject to restrictions required for security and
public safety. The applicant may dedicate such public use zone to any
local agency agreeing to operate or maintain it for the benefit of the
public. If no local agency agrees to operate or maintain the public use
zone for the benefit of the public, the applicant may dedicate such zone
to the state. The commission shall also require that any facility to be
located along the coast or shoreline of any major body of water be set
back from the shoreline to permit reasonable public use and to protect
scenic and aesthetic values.”
The California Coastal Act establishes a comprehensive scheme to
govern land use planning along the entire California coast (Pub.
Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.). The Coastal Act sets forth general
policies that govern the California Coastal Commission’s review of
permit applications and local plans (Pub. Resources Code, § 30200).
Sections 66410-66499.58 of the California Public Resources Code
provide procedures and requirements regulating land division
(subdivisions) and parcel legality. Regulation and control of the design
and improvement of subdivisions have been vested in the legislative
bodies of local agencies.

Local

Carlsbad General Plan

LAND USE

The Carlsbad General Plan establishes an overall multi-part vision for
the entire city. Implementation of the city’s overall vision is
accomplished by the various general plan elements and various
policies, programs, and procedures. The Encina Power Station (EPS)
property has a Public Utilities (U) land use designation. The U land use
designation includes the generation of electrical energy by fossil fuel
only if it is the subject of and consistent with the agreement between
and among the city of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD), Cabrillo Power I LLC, Carlsbad Energy Center LLC,
and San Diego Gas and Electric, and approved by the city and CMWD
on January 14, 2014.

4.6-2

February 2015

 Land Use Table 1
Applicable Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR
Carlsbad Municipal Code,
Chapter 21.36 (Zoning
Ordinance)

Encina Power Station Precise
Development Plan (PDP 0002-F)

Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program (LCP)/Agua
Hedionda Land Use Plan
(AHLUP)

Description
The Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance serves as the legal mechanism for
implementation of the general plan. Chapter 21.36 of the city’s
municipal code addresses the Public Utilities (“P-U”) Zone. The P-U
Zone permits generation and transmission of electrical energy
throughout the city. This section of the municipal code implements the
“Public Utility” land use designation of the city’s general plan.
The purpose of the Encina Power Station Precise Development Plan is
to identify existing and approved uses and provide land use information,
procedures and standards for development consistent with the
requirements of the Public Utility zone.
The AHLUP is the segment of the city’s LCP that applies to the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon area and the EPS property. The AHLUP is a certified
segment of the city’s LCP. The city does review projects in the coastal
zone for consistency with the requirements of the LCP, but has not
been granted authority to issue Coastal Development Permits (CDP),
which normally requires project proponent/developers to apply directly
to the California Coastal Commission to obtain a CDP for their projects.
The Energy Commission license is in lieu of the Coastal Commission
permit.

South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Plan (SCCRP)

In September 1997, the city formed the South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Area and the associated redevelopment plan. The
underlying intent of the redevelopment plan was to convert the industrial
land west of the railroad tracks to another land use that would provide a
greater benefit to the community and would eliminate the possibility of
an intensification of industrial uses at the EPS site. The plan’s intent is
to encourage the redevelopment of the EPS site and decommissioning
of the existing power plant.

Coastal Rail Trail (CRT)

The Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is intended to provide a multi-modal
transportation route that is separated from the roadway. The current
trail network consists of 38 miles of open space trails and 48 miles of
bike lanes. Future plans for approximately 20 more miles of trails in the
city will bring the total trail mileage to approximately 58 miles.

North County Multiple Habitat
Conservation Plan (NCMHCP)
and the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for
Natural Communities

The North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (NCMHCP) has
been prepared for a portion of San Diego County including the cities of
Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana
Beach, and Vista. The NCMHCP is a long-term conservation program
that addresses existing biological resources, proposed urban growth,
habitat losses, and direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on sensitive
species throughout the San Diego region. The NCMHCP is a multijurisdictional planning effort and each city is tasked with developing a
sub-area plan in order to set policies and regulatory mechanisms to
carry out the goals outlined in the regional NCMHCP. The Habitat
Management Plan (HMP) for Natural Communities in the City of
Carlsbad, which serves as the city’s sub-area plan, was approved in
November, 2004.

February 2015

4.6-3

LAND USE

 SETTING
PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
As discussed in detail in the Project Description section of this Final Staff Assessment
(FSA), the amended CECP includes proposed modifications to change generation
equipment and technology from two Siemens 5000F combined-cycle turbines to six
General Electric LMS 100 simple-cycle turbines with a combined net output of
approximately 632 megawatts (MW). Amended CECP activities sought by
petitioner/project owner Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC, also include the permanent
retirement and demolition of Encina Power Station (EPS) Units 1 through 5.
Prior to construction of the amended CECP, the petitioner proposes to demolish three
above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs 1, 2 and 4). This Phase I demolition and
removal activity would follow the previously licensed removal of ASTs 5, 6 and 7. The
resulting 30-acre footprint would be the location for all operational aspects of the
amended CECP. Following the 21-month Phase II construction and three-month
commissioning process, the petitioner seeks a maximum 12-month shut-down and
decommissioning of the EPS (Phase III), before commencing a 22-month EPS
demolition (Phase IV) and the removal of all above-ground EPS facilities west of the
North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad tracks. A two-month site restoration period
would complete the 64-month amended CECP schedule.

PROJECT SITE
The EPS has been in operation as a power generation station since 1954, with no
significant changes in the land use of the site since its origination. Over the years,
several operational and infrastructure changes have occurred, including expansion of
generation capacity, the addition of the 400-foot high exhaust stack that displaced five
individual stacks in 1974 to better disperse air emissions. Additional expansion of
various ancillary buildings, water treatment facilities and other tanks and equipment
necessary for electricity production has also occurred. The amended CECP site, a 30acre portion of the 95-acre EPS parcel (Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 210-010-4600),
is located east of the NCTD rail corridor, west of Interstate-5 (I-5), south of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, and north of San Diego Gas & Electric’s Cannon substation. The
amended CECP site is currently occupied by ASTs 4, 5, 6, and 7, known as the “east
tank farm” (see Project Description Figure 1). Temporary construction
equipment/material laydown and construction worker parking areas for the project would
be located west of the existing railroad tracks, including the area where existing ASTs 1
and 2 currently reside.
The primary access to the project site during Phase I demolition and Phase II
construction would be from Avenida Encinitas via Cannon Road off I-5, east of the
existing railroad crossing. No parking or laydown areas outside of the 95-acre EPS
property are anticipated to be used during Phase II construction and commissioning of
the amended CECP.

LAND USE

4.6-4

February 2015

 SURROUNDING AREA
Land uses surrounding the Encina Power Station include:


Outer, Middle and Inner Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the west, north and northeast,
respectively;



Carlsbad Boulevard directly to the west, which is considered a Community Scenic
Corridor pursuant to the Carlsbad General Plan;



Carlsbad State Beach located west of Carlsbad Boulevard;



Single-family residences to the southwest, located south of Cannon Bouldevard and
east of Carlsbad Boulevard;



Condominimum associations located north of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and west of
Interstate-5



Interstate-5 immediately adjacent the eastern edge of the project site;



The Carlsbad Aqua Farm located immediately west of ASTs 1 and 2 in the Outer
Agua Hedionda Lagoon's southeastern shore;



Hubbs Sea World Research Institute and fish hatchery, located on the north side of
the Outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon;



YMCA day camp in the middle Agua Hedionda Lagoon, directly north of the
amended CECP power plant site;



Agua Hedionda Lagoon Foundation Discovery Center located along the far
southeastern shore of the inner Agua Hedionda Lagoon



Car Country Park, located on Paseo Del Norte off Cannon Road, to the south and
adjacent to the east side of I-5; includes a privately owned/operated open space
greenbelt;



Cannon Boulevard to the south; provides on and off-ramp access to from I-5 and
intersects Carlsbad Boulevard.

Land uses surrounding the amended CECP site (within the 95-acre EPS parcel) consist
of:


Industrial facilities associated with the EPS to the west, south, and southwest;



Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe (AT&SF)/NCTD Rail Corridor to the west;



Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project located immediately west of the project site
and the NCTD rail corridor;



Vista-Carlsbad Interceptor & Agua Hedionda Lift Station Replacement Project
located immediately northwest of the project site; and,



I-5 transportation corridor directly to the east. I-5 is an Eligible State Scenic
Highway, and is considered a Community Scenic Corridor by the city of Carlsbad.

February 2015

4.6-5

LAND USE

 The following land uses, operate, or exist on land within one mile of the proposed
project site:


Recreational Facilities: There are five city parks or facilities, one state beach, and
one private park within approximately one mile of the amended CECP site.



Educational Facilities: There are 17 schools located within the Carlsbad Unified
School District, which serves the city of Carlsbad (PTA Appendix 5.9A).



Religious Facilities: There are five churches located within one mile of the amended
CECP site.



Preschool/Daycare: There are ten preschools and day care centers located in close
proximity to the proposed site.



Hospitals/Clinics: There are ten hospitals and clinics in close proximity to the
proposed project site.



Elder Care Facilities: There are eight elder care facilities in close proximity to the
project site.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS
Project Site
The amended CECP site has a city of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use designation of
Public Utility (U), and is zoned Public Utility (P-U). The P-U zoning designation
implements the corresponding General Plan U designation. The U General Plan
designation allows for the generation of electrical energy, treatment of waste water, and
operating facilities, or other primary utility functions designed to serve all or a substantial
portion of the community. The U General Plan designation was amended by the city
(Resolution 2014-096) on May 20, 2014, so that the amended CECP is the only primary
fossil fuel power generation permitted within the city of Carlsbad with the U General
Plan Land Use designation. The P-U Zone allows for the generation and transmission of
electrical energy, use and storage of fuel oils, and energy transmission facilities, all of
which are existing uses at the EPS. The P-U Zone also specifies that the issuance of
any building permits or entitlements cannot occur until an updated amendment to the
Encina Power Station Precise Development Plan (PDP) has been approved by the city
of Carlsbad for the property, were the city the permitting authority.

Land Uses Within One-Mile Radius of the Project Site
General plan land use designations within the project vicinity include Open Space,
Public Utilities, and Travel/Recreation Commercial. General plan land use designations
adjacent to the amended CECP site and within a one-mile radius of the project site
include Schools, Planned Industrial, Open Space, Public Utilities, Regional Commercial,
Local Shopping Center, Travel/Recreation Commercial, Office and Related Commercial,
Village, Low-Medium Density, Medium Density, Medium-High Density Residential, and
High Density/Residential.
Zoning designations (Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 21.36) within a one-mile radius
of the amended CECP include Residential Agricultural, Public Utility, and Open Space.
Zoning designations adjacent to the project site, and within a one-mile radius include

LAND USE

4.6-6

February 2015

 Residential Agricultural, One-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential, MultipleFamily Residential, Residential Density-Multiple, Residential Professional, Tourist
Commercial, Public Utility, Village Redevelopment, Planned Community, Open Space,
Neighborhood Commercial Zone, and General Commercial Zone.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
Energy Commission staff has analyzed the information provided in the CECP PTA, the
November 12, 2009 Final Staff Assessment, the August 11, 2011 Supplemental Staff
Testimony and the May 31, 2012 Commission Decision for the licensed CECP. This
information, as well as information from other sources, determined the amended
CECP’s consistency with applicable land use LORS and its potential to have significant
adverse land use impacts.

METHOD AND THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Significance criteria used in this document are based on Appendix G of the CEQA
Guidelines and performance standards or thresholds identified by Energy Commission
staff, as well as applicable LORS utilized by other governmental regulatory agencies.
An impact may be considered significant if the proposed project results in:


Conversion of Farmland or Forest Land.
o Conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or
Local Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Natural
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use1.
o Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
o Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Pub. Resources Code, § 12220 (g)), timberland (as defined by Pub. Resources
Code § 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Gov.
Code § 51104(g)).
o Loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
o Changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural2 use or conversion of forest
land to non-forest use.



Physical disruption or division of an established community.



Land use incompatibilities due to an unmitigated noise, odor, public health or safety
hazards, visual, or adverse traffic effect on surrounding properties.

[1]

FMMP defines “land committed to non-agricultural use” as land that is permanently committed by local
elected officials to non-agricultural development by virtue of decisions which cannot be reversed simply
by a majority vote of a city council or county board of supervisors.
2
A non-agricultural use in this context refers to land where agriculture (the production of food and fiber)
does not constitute a substantial commercial use

February 2015

4.6-7

LAND USE

 

Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or biological opinion.



Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction, or that would normally have jurisdiction, over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. This includes, but is not
limited to, a general plan, redevelopment plan, or zoning ordinance.



Incremental impacts that, although individually limited, are cumulatively considerable
when viewed in connection with other project-related effects or the effects of past
projects, other current projects, and probable future projects3.

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The project does not contain farmland or forestland and the amended CECP and its
related features/facilities would be located within the boundaries of an existing power
plant that has been in its current location since 1954. Therefore CEQA criteria regarding
forest and farmland and the physical disruption or division of an established community
would not apply to the amended CECP.
The Biological Resources section of this document provides a detailed discussion of
LORS applicable to wildlife and plants, including the amended CECP’s consistency with
the North County Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan and the Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan for Natural Communities. Biological Resources staff has determined
that the amended CECP is consistent with these plans.
The amended CECP would not result in land use incompatibilities with surrounding
properties due to any unmitigated noise, odor, public health or safety hazards, visual, or
adverse traffic impacts. Please see the discussions of impacts and any necessary
mitigation in the following technical areas: Noise and Vibration, Public Health, Air
Quality, Hazardous Materials Management, Visual Resources, and Traffic and
Transportation.

Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation
The following is a brief discussion of the applicable land use LORS analyzed for the
licensed CECP, and various subsequent amendments to these LORS by the city of
Carlsbad.
The May 16, 2011 Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (PMPD) for the licensed
CECP (TN #60618) evaluated consistency of the project with applicable Land Use
LORS. The PMPD analysis concluded that with the possible exception of a finding that
the CECP would serve an extraordinary public purpose (a requirement under the
Redevelopment Plan for the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Project); the
CECP was consistent with applicable land use LORS.
3

Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are
considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be
changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects and can result from individually
minor, but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (CEQA Guidelines §15355; 40
CFR 1508.7)

LAND USE

4.6-8

February 2015

 In September and October 2011, the city amended its land use regulations and
standards to disallow construction and operation of the project. The amendments are
summarized as follows:


General Plan – The Public Utility (U) land use designation was revised so that
generation of electricity was no longer a “primary” function in areas so designated
unless it was “located outside the Coastal Zone but only if it is conducted by a
government entity or by a company and such use is authorized or approved by the
California Public Utilities Commission [CPUC].”



Zoning Ordinance – An amendment to the Carlsbad Municipal Code changed the
descriptions of permitted uses in the Public Utility Zone (P-U) pertaining to the
generation and transmission of electrical energy. Under the amended zoning code,
electrical generation was permitted as an accessory use in or outside the Coastal
Zone and could only be undertaken “by a government entity or by a company
authorized or approved for such use by the California Public Utilities Commission
[CPUC].” Generating capacity of 50 MW or more was prohibited in the Coastal Zone
(including the CECP site).



Encina Power Station Precise Development Plan – The amendment revised the
text to mirror the amended general plan and zoning ordinance. The revisions
prohibited generation of 50 MW or more of electrical energy in the Coastal Zone and
disallowed expansion of the existing EPS or the addition of a new power facility.



Encina Specific Plan (SP 144) – The amendment incorporated wording from the
general plan and municipal code amendments to clarify the limitations on generation
of electricity on properties designated “U” and zoned “P-U” in the Coastal Zone. The
amendment eliminated provisions regarding future power generation at the EPS and
elsewhere in the plan area. It also eliminated an inconsistency with a policy in the
Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan by revising a condition in SP 144 so that future
buildings permitted at the EPS could not exceed a height of 35 feet.



Local Coastal Program, Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan – The amendment
deleted a policy addressing preservation of expansion opportunities for the EPS on a
45-acre parcel on the east side of I-5. Power generation was determined to be
inconsistent with the general plan land use designations for the property. The 35-foot
structure height limitation was maintained.

During its review and approval of the amendments listed above, the city reached a
conclusion of inconsistency with the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan. The
findings for the consistency determination were contained in the resolution for the
amendment to the zoning ordinance.
The Warren-Alquist Act specifies findings that must be made before approving a project
that does not comply with state or local LORS. The Commission approved the licensed
CECP on May 31, 2012, with a finding that the “facility is required for public
convenience and necessity and that there are not more prudent and feasible means of
achieving public convenience and necessity” (Pub. Resources Code, § 25525).
The May 31, 2012 Commission Decision on the licensed CECP (TN #66185) adopted
LORS override findings for inconsistencies with the city’s general plan, zoning

February 2015

4.6-9

LAND USE

 ordinance, Encina Power Station Precise Development Plan, and Encina Specific Plan
(SP 144). The original CECP was also found to be inconsistent with the policy in the
AHLUP limiting structure heights to 35 feet. Because the CEQA Guidelines define
inconsistency with local land use regulations and standards as a potentially significant
environmental impact (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 16, Appendix G, § X(b)), the Commission
Decision also adopted override findings under CEQA for the specified inconsistencies
with local LORS.
In its analysis of the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan, the 2012
Commission Final Decision determined that the licensed CECP would further the stated
goal to facilitate “redevelopment of the Encina power generating facility to a smaller,
more efficient power generating plant east of the railroad tracks.” The redevelopment
plan requires new development, including electrical generation facilities, to be found to
serve an “extraordinary public purpose.” The Commission Decision found that the
original CECP would serve a substantial but not extraordinary public purpose. As a
result, in addition to the LORS inconsistencies identified above, the Override Findings
section of the Commission’s 2012 Decision included override findings for the potential
conflict with the redevelopment plan.
In April 2014, the Carlsbad Planning Commission approved actions demonstrating
support of the amended CECP. These amendments to the city’s General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and Encina Power Station Precise Development Plan, removed prior
language (added in 2012) that had created non-conformity with the original CECP
project licensed in 2012. In addition, the Planning Commission repealed the Encina
Specific Plan (SP144), and approved a resolution finding that the amended CECP
would comply with the South Carlsbad Coastal Redevelopment Plan by virtue of the
“extraordinary benefits” it would provide to the city (COC 2014d). The Carlsbad City
Council took official action to approve the above amendments on May 20 and June 3,
2014. However, the city’s actions regarding the CECP did not include amending the 35foot AHLUP height limitation.
The adopted changes by the city are consistent with the Carlsbad Community Vision,
adopted in 2010, which reflects the community’s aspirations for the city’s future and also
informs the public about an ongoing General Plan Update. Staff received feedback from
the city outlining the amended CECP’s consistency with the Carlsbad Community Vision
that states, “The Community Vision is based upon nine diverse core values ranging
from open space and the natural environment to history, the arts and cultural resources.
Each core value is expanded by a vision statement. The amended CECP is consistent
with the Community Vision as expressed by these values and vision statements. For
example, the proposal’s location between the railroad and freeway and demolition of the
existing Encina Power Station frees up land for future community accessible uses. This
is consistent with core values supporting access to recreation, beaches and lagoons,
activating Carlsbad’s beachfront and promoting a stronger economy and tourism. Use of
recycled water by the amended CECP promotes expansion and use of the city’s
reclaimed water system and eliminates the need for ocean water, both of which promote
the core values of sustainability and open space and the natural environment. The
amended CECP’s reduced profile, hours of operation, noise, and greenhouse gas
emissions compared to the licensed CECP help it achieve consistency with the
neighborhood revitalization, community design, and livability core value.

LAND USE

4.6-10

February 2015

 The General Plan Update, released as a draft for public review in early 2014, envisions
demolition of the existing power plant, its redevelopment with open space and visitorserving commercial uses, and the development of the amended CECP. The draft also
identifies the many benefits of the amended CECP as compared to the existing power
plant.” The city anticipates completing the General Plan Update in mid-2015 and the
zoning update by the end of 2016. These updates will reflect all the changes made
previously to the city’s LORS to accommodate the amended CECP and be consistent
with the five party settlement agreement signed on January 14, 2014 that is discussed
in the Executive Summary of this document.
The amendments to the city’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Encina Power
Station Precise Development Plan (PDP00-02(F)) include minimal development
standards applicable to the amended CECP. The adopted development standards
include lot coverage, setbacks, parking, loading and refuse collection, landscaping,
grading, architecture and building materials types and designs.
Precise Development Plan 00-02(F) was approved by the city council (following a
second reading) on June 3, 2014 (ORD. CS-254). The adopted development standards
are summarized as follows:
Lot Coverage: PDP00-02(F) allows for a maximum of 50 percent lot coverage. The lot
coverage (buildings and paved areas) of the EPS with the amended CECP is identified
in PDP00-02(F) as 42.1 percent.
Parking, Loading & Refuse Collection: These areas should continue to be visually
screened from public view through the use of existing fencing and landscaping.
Loading, storage and refuse collection should be placed at the rear or the sides of the
building they serve. The amended CECP will be constructed below grade, providing a
lower profile from public view. Parking needs within the PDP may require case-by-case
analysis based on employee numbers, hours of operation, and other factors. In addition,
when applicable, the parking standards of Zoning Ordinance Chapter 21.44 shall be
followed. The amended CECP provides a total of 60 paved parking stalls. The number
of available parking stalls with an anticipated full-time workforce of 18 people once the
CECP is in operation would be consistent with the parking requirement.
Landscaping: The project should include appropriate landscaping per the requirements
of Section 21.36.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code, which requires landscaping with
irrigation systems within setbacks, where feasible, and consistency with the city of
Carlsbad Landscape Manual. Landscaping adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard and the
NCTD railroad right of way shall enhance the visual character of the area. When parking
is visible from Carlsbad Boulevard, landscaping shall screen views of parking from
passing motorists and pedestrians. With the implementation of Conditions of
Certification VIS-2 and VIS-5 the project would be consistent with the city landscaping
requirements.
Grading: Project grading in the visible areas surrounding the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
and EPS should utilize natural contour as opposed to hard, angular or extreme grading
concepts, whenever feasible. Any grading should preserve and enhance natural
appearances of areas visible to the public to minimize visual impacts. Grading shall

February 2015

4.6-11

LAND USE

 comply with all city and Coastal Commission requirements. Proposed grading for the
amended CECP complies with all city and Coastal Commission requirements.
Architecture & Building Materials: Future buildings and structures, including building
materials and finishes should be sited and designed in a compatible manner with the
existing surroundings. It is recognized that in some cases requirements of other
governmental agencies or the function, nature, or location of the structure or building
may limit or make impractical the ability or need to follow all of the required guidelines.
Accordingly, the City Planner may determine compliance with one or more of these
guidelines unnecessary in determining appropriate Architecture & Building Materials
based on the physical landscape. Condition of Certification VIS-1 requires future
buildings and structures, including materials and finishes, to be sited and designed in a
compatible, manner with the EPS’s surroundings.
Setbacks: The setback requirements applicable to the amended CECP are summarized
as follows: 50-foot setback from the Carlsbad Boulevard right of way, 50-foot setback
from the property line along the shoreline of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and a 25-foot
setback from Interstate 5 right-of-way, which would be subject to future Caltrans I-5
expansion plans and coordinated activities as discussed in the Visual Resources
section of this document. As adopted, PDP 00-02(F) allows the City Planner flexibility to
determine compliance with setback requirements based on the physical landscape. As
proposed, the amended CECP would comply with the setback requirements of
PDPD00-02(F).
A full description of the development standards required by PDP00-02(F) is available
via docketed item TN#203550 “Agenda Bill and Precise Development Plan 00-002(F)”.
Staff concludes that with the city’s actions, the amended CECP would be consistent
with all applicable local land use LORS, with the exception of the AHLUP’s 35-foot
height limitation. As discussed above, the LORS override finding in the 2012
Commission Decision on the licensed CECP regarding the height limitation would be
required for approval of the amended CECP as well. In its January 20, 2015 comment
letter on the Preliminary Staff Assessment, the city states that a variance to resolve this
non-conformity is not appropriate or possible and recommends that the Commission
override the standard as it did in the prior proceeding. The city believes an override is
justified in this case because of the “extraordinary public benefits” the amended CECP
would create, including removal of the existing Encina Power Station and the resulting
reduction in “visual blight” at the site.
Staff believes the amended CECP’s nonconformity with the AHLUP’s 35-foot height limit
is not a significant impact under CEQA. The amended CECP’s 90-foot tall exhaust
stacks would be much lower than the existing facility’s 400-foot tall stack, or the
licensed CECP’s 135-foot tall stacks. Thus, the effect of the amended CECP is to
lessen visual impacts, which are the primary concern of the 35-foot height limitation.
The amended CECP’s impacts on visually sensitive areas, such as Carlsbad State
Beach, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, nearby residential areas, and scenic travel corridors,
would be less than significant (see the impact discussions for Key Observation Points 15, 8, 9, and 11 in the Visual Resources section of this document). Furthermore, the
removal of the Encina Power Station would substantially improve views in this portion of

LAND USE

4.6-12

February 2015

 the coastal zone. Because the amended CECP would not create any unmitigated visual
impacts, no land use incompatibilities would result from exceeding the height standard.

Coastal Rail Trail Project
In November 2001, the Carlsbad City Council approved the Citywide Trails Report,
which outlines trail development guidelines, resulting in a current network consisting of
38 miles of open space trails and 48 miles of bike lanes running alongside the city’s
roadways called the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT). The CECP would be located entirely
within the fenced perimeter of the existing EPS east of the NCTD. Construction and
operation of the CECP would not impede or deter public access in the Coastal Zone,
including use of the existing constructed portions of the CRT within the city. Condition of
Certification LAND-1 for the licensed CECP required the project owner to dedicate an
easement for the CRT within the boundaries of the EPS area in a location mutually
agreed upon with the city of Carlsbad. This condition of certification also applies to the
amended CECP.

Warren-Alquist Act
Section 25529 of the Warren-Alquist Act discusses the Energy Commission’s statutory
requirement for a public use area for facilities proposed in the Coastal Zone. Pursuant
to section 25529, the Energy Commission shall require the establishment of an area for
public use as a condition of certification of a facility proposed in the Coastal Zone.
LAND-1 discussed above would ensure conformance with this provision of the WarrenAlquist Act.

California Coastal Act4
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) establishes a comprehensive approach
to govern land use planning along the entire California coast. Staff’s review of the
Coastal Act focuses on policies pertaining to coastal resources and land use.
The amended CECP would be located entirely within the 95-acre EPS property, with no
off-site expansion or use of property necessary for either the construction or operation
of the amended CECP power plant facility.
The amended CECP site is located within the Coastal Zone in the city of Carlsbad.
Although the city of Carlsbad has a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), the
amended CECP site (and the entire Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan area) is within the
retained jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission is responsible
for issuing Coastal Development Permits in its retained jurisdiction, based on an
4

In the prior AFC proceeding, Staff extensively addressed Coastal Act conformity in its 2009 Final Staff
Assessment (“Prior FSA”). The Prior FSA concluded that “the project would be consistent with the land
use related policies of the Coastal Act based on staff’s review of the project and applicable Coastal Act
policies” (prior FSA, pp. 4-5.1, 4.5-11, 4.5-19, 4.5-36). This conclusion of consistency was in turn
anchored on substantive analysis in the Prior FSA of the environmental resources that Chapter 3 of the
Coastal Act identifies as critical to coastal protection. The critical environmental resources are public
access and recreation (Pub. Resources Code, §§30210-30224), marine and aquatic resources (Pub.
Resources Code, §§ 30230-30236), agricultural land and species habitat (Pub. Resources Code, §§
30240-30242), and cultural resources (Pub. Resources Code, § 30244). Although the new or additional
analysis presented in this FSA for the amended CECP augments that earlier analysis, the conclusion that
the project conforms to the Coastal Act is unchanged.

February 2015

4.6-13

LAND USE

 evaluation of the project’s conformity with the policies of the Coastal Act. The policies of
the city of Carlsbad’s LCP, general plan, and zoning ordinance, however, are used by
the Coastal Commission as guidance. Because the Energy Commission has jurisdiction
over power plants 50 MW or greater and all related facilities, the Energy Commission
issues a license in lieu of any state or local permit and must make findings concerning
whether the proposed project conforms with applicable federal, state and local laws,
ordinances, regulations and standards, including land use plans and zoning. To that
end, staff has evaluated the amended CECP’s consistency with the city of Carlsbad’s
applicable LORS, including the city’s LCP, general plan and zoning ordinance, and the
Coastal Act.
As discussed above under the subsection “Conflict With Any Land Use Plan, Policy, or
Regulation,” staff concludes that with the city’s actions, the amended CECP would be
consistent with the city of Carlsbad land use LORS, except a Commission LORS
override finding would be required again for the 35-foot height limitation. The 2012
Commission Decision included a detailed analysis of the potential for the original CECP
to comply with the Coastal Act. Although the 2012 Commission Decision reached a
finding that the original CECP was consistent with the Coastal Act, precautionary
override findings were adopted by the Commission in response to interveners’ claims
that the project would increase visual blight and adversely impact aquatic species, and
therefore would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act. Given the lower profile of the
amended CECP compared to the licensed CECP, and the proposed cessation of oncethrough cooling by the existing EPS, staff concludes that the amended CECP would
greatly reduce or avoid the environmental impacts of the previously licensed project and
those of the existing facility, and that the amended CECP would be consistent with the
Coastal Act. Further, in its 2012 Decision the Commission found that Section 30260 of
the Coastal Act, which encourages coastal-dependent industrial facilities to locate or
expand within existing sites, does not prohibit non-coastal dependent facilities from
locating within the coastal zone.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
Section 30240 (b) of the Coastal Act states: Development in areas adjacent to
environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited
and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and
shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.
The Agua Hedionda Lagoon comprises an inner, middle and outer section; each with its
own unique habitat and recreation and aqua farming opportunities. The 95-acre EPS
parcel is south of the outer and middle sections. The Biological Resources section of
this document provides analysis of how the proposed modifications of the amended
CECP would comply with this section of the Coastal Act. The Visual Resources section
of this document addresses the amended CECP’s visual impacts on surrounding land
uses (including recreational resources).
From a land use perspective, demolition, construction, operation and decommissioning
activities of the amended CECP would not significantly impact environmentally sensitive
habitat areas and parks, including the Agua Hedionda Lagoon or Carlsbad State Beach,
because the amended CECP would be entirely within the fenced perimeter of the EPS,
which is an existing power plant facility.
LAND USE

4.6-14

February 2015

 Public Access Policies
Coastal Act section 30211 states: Development shall not interfere with the public’s right
of access to the sea where acquired through the use or legislative authorization,
including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first
line of terrestrial vegetation.
Coastal Act section 30212 (a) states: Public access from the nearest public roadway to
the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except
where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of
fragile coastal resources; (2) adequate access exists nearby; or (3) agriculture would be
adversely affected. Dedicated access shall not be required to be opened to public use
until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for
maintenance and liability of the access.
Carlsbad Boulevard runs along the Pacific Coast north to south, crosses directly in
between EPS and Carlsbad State Beach and currently provides adequate access to the
sea. The amended CECP would be wholly contained within the boundary of the existing
EPS and therefore construction and operation of the amended CECP would not
significantly impact public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and
along the coast.
Subdivision Map Act
Prior to the 2012 Commission Decision a Certificate of Compliance was recorded with
the San Diego County Recorder’s Office on October 30, 2001. The Certificate of
Compliance adjusted the EPS property along the northeast side of the railroad tracks to
accommodate the licensed CECP within the 95-acre EPS site. The EPS site currently
consists of a single 95-acre parcel (APN 210-010-4600) of which 30-acres would be
required for the amended CECP. Removal of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 and construction of the
amended CECP would be wholly contained within the boundaries of the 95-acre EPS
on a portion of the property located east of the NCTD rail corridor and west of I-5. After
certain criteria are met, the project owner will dedicate the portion of the EPS land west
of the railroad tracks to the city of Carlsbad based on agreements previously
established. Therefore, the amended CECP would not cause a re-evaluation of
compliance under the Subdivision Map Act.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact where its effects are
cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects (Cal. Code Regs., tit.14, § 15065, subd. (a)(3).

February 2015

4.6-15

LAND USE

 There are several large-scale planned and approved projects in the immediate vicinity
of the proposed CECP, some of which are located at the EPS. Projects of note that may
have cumulative impacts with the amended CECP include:


Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (CSDP) – Located on the EPS site,
immediately south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, CSDP is over 80 percent
completed as of January, 2015 and on schedule to begin operations in the third
quarter of 2015. This project, owned and operated by Poseidon Industries, Inc.
occupies approximately fourteen-acres, including the area where AST 3 once
resided. CSDP will produce 50-million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water for the
San Diego County Water Authority from 304 mgd of seawater utilizing EPS
pipelines, pumps, and other appurtenant and ancillary water and support facilities in
the process (COC 2005).



Aqua Hedionda Sewer Lift Station – Replacement of an existing sewer lift station
and 2.35-mile long, 42-inch, north-south sewer line located at the southern shore of
inner Agua Hedionda Lagoon, adjacent to east side of the NCTD rail corridor.
Construction expected to begin early second quarter 2015, and conclude in 2017.



Buena Outfall Force Main Phase 3 – New 18-24 inch diameter, 17,700-foot long
pipeline, part gravity and part force main sewer line along Palomar Airport Road.
The forecasted project will go into operation sometime in early 2015



Coastal Rail Trail – The Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) currently consists of 38 miles of
open space trails and 48 miles of bike lanes running alongside the city’s roadways.
Future plans for approximately 20 more miles of trails in the city will bring the total
trail mileage to approximately 58 miles. Sections of the CRT have been completed,
including in the city of Carlsbad. However, the precise CRT alignment has not been
finalized in the area of the EPS. (COC 2014c)



Hallmark Property – Preservation and creation of a 19.3 acre coastal habitat
adjacent to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in Carlsbad as mitigation for the Caltrans I-5
Express Lanes Project. The restoration project is scheduled to begin sometime
during 2015.



Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Double-Tracking Project - Improvements
along the San Diego coastal portion of the LOSSAN corridor included doubletracking of main line and bridges, curve realignment and the addition of crossovers
to increase capacity and enhance reliability of the railroad corridor for freight rail
service. Only 28 miles of the corridor within San Diego County consists of double
track. The San Diego segment of the corridor is predominantly used for freight
service. The “CP Carl to CP Double Track” portion of the project that bisects the
EPS facility added 1.9 miles of double track in February of 2012, , resulting in 3.1
miles of continuous double track in the city of Carlsbad. Additional LOSSAN Projects
are in various stages of development from preliminary engineering and
environmental review to pre-final design
<http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/Lossan/lossan-carlsbad-double-track.aspx>.

The area in the vicinity of the proposed amended CECP site is essentially dominated by
similar industrial and utility development. The proposed amended CECP would
represent a similar land use type to adjacent uses. In addition, the proposed amended
CECP would not require encroachment onto lands outside of the existing EPS.
LAND USE

4.6-16

February 2015

 Cumulative Impacts Analysis
The following land use areas have been analyzed with regard to cumulative land use
impacts.
Agriculture and Forest
The amended CECP does not have any impacts to agricultural or forest lands or conflict
with any land that is zoned for agricultural purposes and therefore, does not contribute
to cumulative impacts related to this land use area.
Physical Disruption or Division of an Established Community
The amended CECP would be located within the boundaries of an existing power plant
that has been in its current location since 1954 as well as on lands designated and
zoned for public utility uses, including electrical generating facilities. The amended
CECP would not disrupt or divide an established community and would not contribute to
a cumulative impact in this area.
Conflict with Any Applicable Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plan
The amended CECP does not conflict with any habitat or natural community
conservation plans and would not contribute to any cumulative impacts in this land use
area.
Conflict with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation
The amended CECP would be consistent with all applicable land use LORS, with the
exception of the AHLUP’s 35-foot height limitation. The amended CECP’s conflict would
not be a significant impact under CEQA; therefore the amended project would not make
a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts in this area. Staff
concludes that the amended CECP would have less than significant cumulative impacts
to land use.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
Staff concludes that the amended CECP would be consistent with applicable state and
local land use LORS, with the exception of the 35-foot height limitation in the city’s Agua
Hedionda Land Use Plan. As discussed above, the override finding in the Commission
Decision on the licensed CECP for the height limitation would likewise be required for
approval of the amended CECP. Land Use Table 2 summarizes the amended CECP’s
conformance with applicable LORS.

February 2015

4.6-17

LAND USE

 Land Use Table 2
Project Compliance with Applicable State and Local Land Use LORS
Applicable LORS

Description of Applicable LORS

Consistent?

Basis for Consistency

Yes

Condition of Certification LAND-1 from the Commission Decision
for the licensed CECP requires the project owner to dedicate an
easement for the Coastal Rail Trail within the boundaries of the
EPS site.

Yes

The amended CECP would be within an existing electrical
generating facility and would not result in a change in land use
that adversely affects coastal resources or public access. No
coastal access would be denied to the public as a result of the
PTA and no new access would be required.
The amended CECP would be developed on the property where
an existing electrical generating facility currently operates. With
the reduced profile of the amended CECP and the cessation of
once-through cooling of the existing EPS, staff concludes that the
amended CECP would be consistent with the Coastal Act.

Yes

Prior to the 2012 Commission Decision a Certificate of
Compliance was recorded with the San Diego County Recorder’s
Office on October 30, 2001. The Certificate of Compliance
adjusted the EPS property along the northeast side of the railroad
tracks to accommodate the licensed CECP within the 95-acre
EPS site. The EPS site currently consists of a single 95-acre
parcel (APN 210-010-4600) of which 30-acres would be required
for the amended CECP. Removal of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 and
construction of the amended CECP would be wholly contained
within the boundaries of the 95-acre EPS on a portion of the
property located east of the NCTD rail corridor and west of I-5.
After certain criteria are met, the project owner will dedicate the
portion of the EPS land west of the railroad tracks to the city of
Carlsbad based on agreements previously established.
Therefore, the amended CECP would not cause a re-evaluation
of compliance under the Subdivision Map Act.

State
Warren-Alquist Act,
section 25529

The Energy Commission shall require
public access to coastal resources as a
condition of certification of a facility
proposed in the Coastal Zone.

California Coastal Act

The California Coastal Act (Pub.
Resources Code, § 30000, et seq.)
Establishes a comprehensive scheme
to govern land use planning along the
entire California coast.
Section 30211: Development shall not
interfere with the public’s right of access
to the sea.
Section 30212: With exceptions, new
development shall provide public
access to the shoreline and along the
coast.

Subdivision Map Act
(Pub. Resources Code
sections 6641066499.58)

LAND USE

The Subdivision Map Act provides
procedures and requirements regulating
land divisions and the determination of
parcel legality. Regulation and control of
the design and improvement of
subdivisions by the Map Act have been
vested in the legislative bodies of local
government. Section 66412.1 of the
Subdivision Map Act exempts a project
from state subdivision requirements
provided that the project demonstrates
compliance with local ordinances
regulating design and improvements.

4.6-18

February 2015

 Land Use Table 2
Project Compliance with Applicable State and Local Land Use LORS
Applicable LORS

Description of Applicable LORS

Consistent?

Basis for Consistency

Local

Carlsbad General Plan

A primary function of the “U” land use
designation may include the generation
of electrical energy by fossil fuel only if
it is the subject of and consistent with
the January 2014 Agreement between
the city, CMWD, the project owner, and
SDG&E.

Carlsbad Municipal
Code, Chapter 21.36
(Zoning Ordinance)

The P-U zone permits generation and
transmission of electrical energy
throughout the city. This section of the
zoning ordinance implements the
“Public Utility” land use designation of
the city’s general plan. 

Encina Power Station
Precise Development
Plan (PDP 00-02)

The purpose of the PDP is to identify
existing and approved uses, and
provide land use information,
procedures and standards for
development, consistent with the
requirements of the P-U zone.

February 2015

Yes

The city of Carlsbad amended general plan text so the amended
CECP would be the only primary fossil fuel power generation
permitted in Carlsbad under the “U” GP Land Use designation,
whether in or out of the Coastal Zone.
Approved by Planning Commission on 4/16/2014 (Reso. 7039)
and City Council on 5/20/14 (Reso. 2014-096)

Yes

The city of Carlsbad adopted ZCA 14-01, which revised the
permitted use table to allow power generation and transmission
anywhere within the P-U Zone District. Based on the CECP’s
zoning and land use designation for Public Utilities (“P-U” and “U,”
respectively), and the fact that both designations allow for
electrical generation, the amended CECP would be consistent
with the Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance.
Approved by Planning Commission on
4/16/2014 (Reso. 7040) and City Council on 6/3/2014 (Ord. CS253)

Yes

The city of Carlsbad amended the PDP 00-02(F), which was
adopted by the Carlsbad City Council on 6/3/2014. The amended
PDP defines power plant as an allowed use on the EPS property.
Since the amended CECP would be located entirely within the
property of the EPS the proposed amended CECP would be
consistent with PDP 00-02.

4.6-19

LAND USE

 Land Use Table 2
Project Compliance with Applicable State and Local Land Use LORS
Applicable LORS

Description of Applicable LORS

Carlsbad Local Coastal
Program/Agua Hedionda
Land Use Plan (AHLUP)

The Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan
contains eight different sections: land
use, agriculture, environmental,
geologic hazards, public works,
recreation/visitor facilities, shoreline
access, and visual resources. These
sections contain policies affecting the
EPS and other properties. In 2016, the
city expects to align a revised LCP with
their new general plan and obtain local
permit authority for deferred certification
areas, including the Agua Hedionda
segment.

South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Plan
(SCCRP)

The city of Carlsbad formed a
redevelopment area known as the
South Carlsbad Coastal
Redevelopment Area, the boundaries
for which include the power plant
property, for the purpose of facilitating
the development of a new, high
efficiency replacement plant to improve
air quality and other environmental
conditions with the concurrent
decommissioning of the existing power
plant

Coastal Rail Trail (CRT)

The city of Carlsbad approved the
Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) project in 2001.
Upon the agreements made between
the project owner and the city of
Carlsbad, discussions regarding
alternative CRT alignments through and
along the EPS property would be
discussed to determine an alignment
that is mutually acceptable to the city
and the project owner.

LAND USE

Consistent?

Basis for Consistency

Yes, except for
height limit

The AHLUP designates the amended CECP site and the
surrounding EPS as U, consistent with the city’s general plan land
use and zoning designations for the site, which allow for electrical
generation. Based on this factor, staff concludes that the
amended CECP is consistent with the AHLUP, except for the 35foot height limitation.

Yes

The SCCRP details land uses permitted under the Carlsbad
General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the amended
CECP would be located on the existing EPS site consistent with
the SCCRP. The city of Carlsbad adopted a resolution finding
extraordinary public purpose on 4/22/2014. Given these factors,
staff concludes that the amended CECP is consistent with the
SCCRP.

Yes

The amended CECP would be located entirely within the fenced
perimeter of the existing EPS east of the NCTD. Construction and
operation of the CECP would not impede or deter public access in
the Coastal Zone, including use of the existing constructed
portions of the CRT within the city. Furthermore, with
implementation of Condition of Certification LAND-1, the project
owner would be required to dedicate an easement for the Coastal
Rail Trail within the boundaries of the EPS area in a location
mutually agreed upon with the city of Carlsbad.

4.6-20

February 2015

 Land Use Table 2
Project Compliance with Applicable State and Local Land Use LORS
Applicable LORS

North County Multiple
Habitat Conservation
Plan (NCMHCP) and the
Carlsbad Habitat
Management Plan (HMP)
for Natural Communities

February 2015

Description of Applicable LORS

Consistent?

The NCMHCP is a multi-jurisdictional
planning effort and establishes a
regional effort conducted in conjunction
with Section 10a of the Endangered
Species Act and the California Natural
Communities Conservation Planning Act
and is the framework for development of
a regional habitat preserve for rare plant
and wildlife species in northwestern San
Diego County.
The Habitat Management Plan for
Natural Communities in the City of
Carlsbad (HMP) serves as the city’s
sub-area plan.

Yes

4.6-21

Basis for Consistency

The LORS consistency analysis in the Biological Resources
section provides a detailed discussion of the amended CECP’s
compliance with the NCMHCP/HMP.

LAND USE

 NOTEWORTHY PUBLIC BENEFITS
The amended CECP includes the decommissioning, demolition, and removal of the
EPS and remediation of the site, which would be beneficial to the residents of Carlsbad
and provide an opportunity for future redevelopment of the EPS site west of the railroad
tracks. Additionally, lands along the coastline and lagoon would be dedicated to the city
and would allow for new beach and recreational opportunities and open space
amenities.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
The following comments have been received after the publication of the Preliminary
Staff Assessment:

INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR ASSOCIATION, TN #203545, JANUARY 21,
2015
Comment: The Terramar Association submitted comments stating that due to the
elimination of the use of ocean water in the project, the amended CECP violates the
California Coastal Act. With the availability of water from the city of Carlsbad, the
approved CECP also violates the Coastal Act.
Response: As discussed in this land use analysis and other sections of the FSA,
the amended CECP is consistent with the Coastal Act. A project does not need to be
“coastal dependent” to be consistent with the Coastal Act; most projects approved in
the coastal zone are not. A project only needs to be consistent with the other
provisions of the Coastal Act. The importance of the “coastal dependent” provision is
that, if a project is not otherwise consistent with the Coastal Act, it can still be
permitted if the project is “coastal dependent.”

INTERVENOR: POWER OF VISION, TN #203547, JANUARY 22, 2015
Comment: Power of Vision submitted comments requesting that staff amend the
language for Condition of Certification LAND-1 in regard to the Coastal Rail Trail
dedication. Power of Vision requests that the language on the Coastal Rail Trail
dedication and/or offer of funds should an alignment not work out be strengthened to
ensure the residents of Carlsbad receive the benefit due them under provision of the
Warren-Alquist Act. Power of Vision has requested that staff should identify at least one
feasible location for the Coastal Rail Trail prior to approving the amended CECP.
Response: Staff has received feedback from the city in regard to the Coastal Rail
Trail and amended LAND-1 in a manner that is both agreeable to the project owner
and the city. As revised, LAND-1 would require the project owner to grant the city an
indeterminate or blanket easement, prior to construction of the amended CECP, that
contains provisions that this easement would be quitclaimed upon later dedication of
a specific easement when specific redevelopment plans for the area are determined.
It would be premature to identify an exact route through the EPS property since
plans for reuse of the property have not been prepared. Staff believes the procedure
outlined in the revised LAND-1 will ensure that land will be dedicated on the EPS
property for the Coastal Rail Trail.

LAND USE

4.6-22

February 2015

 AGENCY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, TN #203543, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The city requested that staff add additional discussion regarding the city of
Carlsbad General Plan Vision. The city also provided feedback in reference to the 35foot maximum height requirement outlined in the AHLUP supporting an override action
by the Commission based on “extraordinary public benefits” that will result from the
amended CECP. The city also proposed modifications to proposed Condition of
Certification LAND-1 which clarifies the actions required by the project owner to
dedicate to the city of Carlsbad an indeterminate or blanket easement for the necessary
land area for construction of the Coastal Rail Trail.
Response: Staff has considered the proposed changes provided by the city and has
revised the General Plan discussion in the FSA to reflect the city’s General Plan
Vision. In addition, staff has made revisions to Condition of Certification LAND-1 to
reflect the city’s request.

RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE ORDER FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY
STAFF ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE ORDER, TN# 203527, January 15, 2015.
Following its review of the PSA, the Committee directed staff to provide additional
information and analysis, as identified in the Order, in preparing its Final Staff Analysis.
Those relevant to land use are summarized and addressed below:
Comment: The Committee Orders are as follows:
1. Discuss compliance with the city development standards.
2. Provide an analysis of the project’s compatibility or lack thereof, with neighboring
land uses.
3. Discuss whether expansion of the project footprint requires an adjustment of lot lines
to ensure that the project will occupy a single legal parcel.
4. Docket all of the applicable plans, ordinances and development standards relevant
to the proposed project.
Response: Staff has provided additional information for each Committee Order as
follows:
1. Staff has included additional discussion of the project’s compliance with
applicable city development standards in the “Conflict with Any Applicable Land
Use Plan, Policy or Regulation” subsection of this analysis.
2. Staff has provided additional analysis of the project’s compatibility with
neighboring land uses in the “Direct/Indirect Impacts and Mitigation” and “Conflict
with Any Applicable Land Use Plan, Policy or Regulation” subsections of this
analysis.

February 2015

4.6-23

LAND USE

 3. Staff has provided additional discussion in the “Subdivision Map Act” subsection
of this analysis identifying that the amended CECP would be wholly contained
within the 95-acre EPS parcel on a 30-acre portion east of the NCTD railroad
tracks and west of I-5.
4. Staff, in conjunction with the city of Carlsbad and their consultant, have docketed
all of the applicable plans, ordinances and development standards relevant to the
proposed project under the following:


TN #203550 - Agenda Bill and Precise Development Plan 00-002(F)



TN #203544 - Table of City of Carlsbad Land Use Actions Related to the
Amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project



TN#203555 - City of Carlsbad Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan



TN #203556 - City of Carlsbad Noise Standards



TN #203557 - City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance, P-U Zone



TN #203558 - City of Carlsbad General Plan Land Use Element.

CONCLUSIONS
Staff concludes the amended CECP:
1. Would be located on 30 acres entirely within the existing 95-acre Encina Power
Station, an operating power plant site.
2. Would not convert any farmland (as classified by the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program) to non-agricultural use, conflict with existing agricultural zoning
or Williamson Act contracts or convert forest land to non-forest use.
3. Would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act
contract.
4. Would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
5. Would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use.
6. Would not directly or indirectly disrupt or divide an established community.
7. Would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, except for
the 35-foot height limitation in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan.
8. Would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan, including the California Coastal Act.

LAND USE

4.6-24

February 2015

 9. Would not result in incremental impacts that, although individually limited, are
cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with other project-related
effects or the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future
projects.
Staff concludes that the amended CECP would not cause significant direct, indirect, or
cumulatively adverse land use impacts and would be consistent with the applicable
laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards pertaining to land use, except for a height
provision in the Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan. The Commission Final Decision for the
licensed CECP adopted override findings for, among other provisions, the 35-foot height
limitation. Assuming the Energy Commission approves the amended CECP; staff
recommends that the Commission adopt a LORS override finding under the WarrenAlquist Act for the 35-foot height limitation provision.

February 2015

4.6-25

LAND USE

 REFERENCES
CEC 2012a - California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CEC 2014b - California Energy Commission (TN202392). Notice of Receipt Petition to
Amend Final Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project. Submitted
05/29/2014.
CEC 2014c - California Energy Commission (TN202415). Notice of Receipt Petition to
Amend 5/31/12 CEC decision for CECP 07-AFC-6C. Submitted 06/02/2014.
CEC 2014c - California Energy Commission (TN203131). Public Workshop General
Plan Update Fact Sheet. Submitted 09/24/2014
COC 2014a - City of Carlsbad Land Use Provisions Related to the Amended CECP
Table 08/02/2014.
COC 2014b - City of Carlsbad Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Final
Environmental Impact Report. December 2005.
COC 2014c - City of Carlsbad (TN2013543) Amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project
Preliminary Staff Assessment Comments. 01/21/15.
COC 2014d - City of Carlsbad (TN203544) Table of City of Carlsbad Land Use Actions
Related to the Amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project 01/21/15.
COC 2014e - City of Carlsbad City Rails to Trails Program, 2001.
http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/parksandrec/trails/Pages/Trailshome.aspx, 10/06/2014.
COC 2014f - City of Carlsbad A Report to the Planning Commission. April 16, 2014.
http://carlsbad.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=8&clip_id=7
50, 10/26/2014.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.

LAND USE

4.6-26

February 2015

 NOISE & VIBRATION
Testimony of Joseph Hughes, Ed Brady, and Shahab Khoshmashrab

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
If built and operated in conformance with the following conditions of certification, the
modifications sought by the petitioner/project owner (Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC) for
the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (amended CECP) would comply with all applicable
noise and vibration laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS), and would
produce no significant adverse noise and vibration impacts on people within the affected
area, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively. To ensure that these modifications to the
licensed CECP (permitted by the Energy Commission on May 31, 2012) avoid any
significant adverse impacts, and comply with applicable LORS, the Energy Commission
staff (staff) proposes appropriate updates to the existing conditions of certification.
Due to the change in operational technology, reconfiguration of the project site,
extended construction period with inclusion of demolition of the Encina Power Station
(EPS) as part of this petition to amend, staff found it necessary to reevaluate the noise
and vibration impacts of the amended CECP for all proposed demolition, construction,
and operational activities. Please see the analysis below.

INTRODUCTION
The construction and operation of any power plant creates noise or intrusive sound. The
character and loudness of this noise, the times of day or night that it is produced, and
the proximity of the proposed facility to sensitive receptors all combine to determine
whether the facility would meet applicable noise control laws and ordinances and
whether it would cause significant adverse environmental impacts. In some cases,
vibration may be produced as a result of power plant construction practices such as
blasting or pile driving. The ground-borne energy of vibration has the potential to cause
structural damage and annoyance.
This analysis identifies and examines the noise and vibration impacts from the four
phases of amended CECP, and recommends procedures to ensure that the resulting
noise and vibration impacts would be adequately mitigated to comply with applicable
LORS and to lessen the impacts to less than significant. For an explanation of technical
terms used in this section, please refer to Noise Appendix NV-1 immediately following.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS (LORS)
FEDERAL
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) (United States Code, tit.
29, § 651 et seq.), the Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) adopted regulations (Code of Federal Regulations, tit. 29, §
1910.95) designed to protect workers against the effects of occupational noise
exposure. These regulations list permissible noise exposure levels as a function of the
amount of time during which the worker is exposed (see Noise Appendix NV-1, Table
February 2015

4.7-1

NOISE & VIBRATION

 A4, immediately following this section). The regulations further specify a hearing
protection program that involves monitoring the noise to which workers are exposed,
assuring that workers are made aware of overexposure to noise, and periodically testing
the workers’ hearing to detect any degradation in hearing.
Guidelines are available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to
assist state and local government entities in developing state and local LORS for noise.
Because there are existing local LORS that apply to this project, the USEPA guidelines
are not applicable.
There are no federal laws governing off-site (community) noise.
Noise Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR

Description

Federal:
Occupational Safety & Health Act
(OSHA): 29 U.S.C. § 651 et seq.

Protects workers from the effects of occupational noise
exposure

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) Guidelines

Assists state and local government entities in development
of state and local LORS for noise

State:
California Occupational Safety & Health
Act (Cal-OSHA): California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, §§ 5095-5099

Protects workers from the effects of occupational noise
exposure

Local:
City of Carlsbad General Plan, Noise
Element

Establishes goals, objectives, and procedures to protect
the public from noise intrusion. Sets community noise
exposure limits at 60 dBA CNEL1

City of Carlsbad Municipal Code - Noise
Ordinance, Title 8: Chapter 8.48, Section
8.48.010

Specifies construction hour limitations

City of Carlsbad Municipal Code - Noise
Ordinance, Title 8: Chapter 8.48, Section
8.48.020

Specifies that the building official, city engineer, or other
official designated by the city manager may modify the
hours of construction specified in Section 8.48.020

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published guidelines for assessing the
impacts of ground-borne vibration associated with construction of rail projects, which
have been applied by other jurisdictions to other types of projects. The FTArecommended vibration standards are expressed in terms of the “vibration level,” which
is calculated from the peak particle velocity measured from ground-borne vibration. The
FTA measure of the threshold of perception is 65 vibrational decibels (VdB), which
correlates to a peak particle velocity of about 0.002 inches per second (in/sec). The FTA
1

For an explanation of technical terms and acronyms employed in this section, please refer to Noise
Appendix NV-1 immediately following.

NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-2

February 2015

 measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive structures is
100 VdB, which correlates to a peak particle velocity of about 0.2 in/sec.

STATE
California Government Code section 65302(f) encourages each local governmental
entity to perform noise studies and implement a noise element as part of its general
plan. In addition, the California Office of Planning and Research has published
guidelines for preparing noise elements, which include recommendations for evaluating
the compatibility of various land uses as a function of community noise exposure.
The State of California, Office of Noise Control, prepared the Model Community Noise
Control Ordinance, which provides guidance for acceptable noise levels in the absence
of local noise standards. This model also defines a simple tone, or “pure tone,” as onethird octave band sound pressure levels that can be used to determine whether a noise
source contains annoying tonal components. The Model Community Noise Control
Ordinance further recommends that, when a pure tone is present, the applicable noise
standard should be lowered (made more stringent) by five A-weighted decibels (dBA).
The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) has
promulgated occupational noise exposure regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, §§
5095-5099) that set employee noise exposure limits. These standards are equivalent to
federal OSHA standards (see Noise Appendix NV-1, Table A4).

LOCAL
The project is located within the city of Carlsbad. The City of Carlsbad General Plan
Noise Element (COC 2014a) and the City of Carlsbad Noise Ordinance (COC 2014b)
apply to this project.

City of Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element
The City of Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element discourages new residential
development where the existing ambient noise level exceeds 60 dBA CNEL2 (COC
2014a).

City of Carlsbad Municipal Code
Chapter 8.48 of the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code addresses Noise. Section 8.48.010
limits disturbing or offensive construction noise to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00
p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and prohibits
such noise on Sundays and any federal holiday. Note that previously the code required
construction to end at sunset, but sometime after the approval of the licensed CECP, it
was modified to 6:00 p.m.
Section 8.48.020 states the building official, city engineer, or other official designated by
the city manager may modify the hours of construction specified in Section 8.48.010 if
the work is in the interest of the general public.
2

For an explanation of technical terms and acronyms employed in this section, please refer to Noise
Appendix NV-1 immediately following.

February 2015

4.7-3

NOISE & VIBRATION

 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The modifications proposed for the amended CECP include substituting the licensed
combined-cycle power generating facility, consisting of two Siemens 5000F class
natural gas-fired combustion turbine generators (CTGs) and two steam turbine
generators (STGs), with a simple-cycle generating facility, consisting of six General
Electric (GE) LMS100 natural gas-fired CTGs. The amended CECP would be located at
the same, slightly larger northeastern parcel of the 95-acre EPS (Encina Power Station)
in an area called the “east tank farm” with a footprint of 30 acres. The site boundary for
the amended CECP would be extended approximately 375 feet to the south-southeast
from what was approved for the licensed CECP.
The amended CECP would involve modification in the following four phases. Phase I
includes demolition of above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) 1, 2, and 4 (the
licensed CECP permitted demolition and removal of ASTs 5, 6, and 7). Following the
completion of the first phase, the second phase would begin and would involve the
construction, commissioning, and operation of the amended CECP power plant.
Following the start of commercial operation of the power plant, Phase III activity would
commence and include the shutdown of EPS power generating Units 1-5 and
decommissioning. The last phase would consist of the demolition of the existing EPS,
which includes power generating Units 1-5, the concrete enclosure building housing the
units, the 400-foot-tall exhaust stack, and other above-ground ancillary facilities.

SETTING AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The land use surrounding the amended CECP site is substantially the same as
previously analyzed for the licensed CECP. The project site is bounded by the San
Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) service center property and Cannon Road to the south,
I-5 to the east, Carlsbad Boulevard, the Pacific Ocean, and Carlsbad State Beach to the
west, and the Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the north. The north/south AT&SF/North
County Transit District Rail Corridor bisects the 95-acre parcel. Land uses surrounding
the project site include planned industrial, open space, travel/recreation, commercial,
and residential land uses. The amended CECP’s existing land uses within the project
site boundaries are similar to the licensed CECP (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.2).
The closest residential area to the licensed and amended CECP is located north of the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The closest residential receptor to the proposed demolition of
the EPS is located approximately 400 feet from the southwest corner of the EPS power
plant building. I-5 is the dominant noise source at the project’s closest receptors. The
COASTER commuter rail service, Amtrak rail services, and heavy rail traffic are also
prominent existing noise sources (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.2).

AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING
In order to establish a baseline for comparison of predicted project noise to existing
ambient noise for the licensed CECP, the project owner presented the results of an
ambient noise survey conducted in 2007 (CH2M2007a, AFC § 5.7.4.1; Tables 5.7-5
through 5.7-12; Figure 5.7-3). Since the licensing of the CECP, there have been no
substantial changes to the surrounding environment that would considerably influence
NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-4

February 2015

 the ambient noise levels, with the exception of commencement of construction of the
Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (desalination project). The desalination project
began construction on December 28, 2012 and is expected to complete construction by
November 2015 (CSDP 2015).
A new ambient noise survey would include the construction of the desalination project.
However, using the 2007 survey, instead, provides a conservative assessment since
the noise impacts associated with construction of the desalination project are not
included in the monitoring data. Thus, the monitored values in the 2007 survey are
lower than the ambient values when considering the desalination project’s construction
noise impacts. Using lower background values reduces the threshold for impacts when
evaluating the amended CECP’s expected noise impacts, because the lower the
ambient values, the more noticeable the amended CECP’s noise impacts may be, and
thus, could potentially be considered significant. Therefore, because the 2007 survey is
conservative, staff uses the results of this survey to evaluate the noise impacts of the
amended CECP and does not see the need for a new ambient noise survey.
Seven locations were monitored during this survey, labeled M1 through M7; see Noise
& Vibration Figure 1. The nearest noise-sensitive receptors among these monitoring
locations included the following – distances of the monitoring locations to center point of
the project site have been modified to account for the proposed reconfiguration of the
amended CECP project site, which would shift the center point of the project site
approximately 188 feet to the south-southeast:
1. Measuring Location M1: West of the West Hotel and Restaurant, near the AT&SF
rail line, approximately 2,200 feet south of the center of the amended CECP site and
near the San Diego Gas & Electric switchyard. Short-term monitoring showed that
ambient noise consisted chiefly of traffic on I-5, with some noise from the switchyard
and intermittent rail traffic.
2. Measuring Location M2: In front of a residence at 5120 El Arbol Drive, part of a
residential neighborhood approximately 2,950 feet south of the center of the
amended CECP site. Monitoring showed the prominent sources of noise to be I-5,
rail traffic, and aircraft over flights.
3. Measuring Location M4: On a bluff above the ocean, just north of Tiera Del Oro,
approximately 2,600 feet southwest of the center of the amended CECP site and
approximately 400 feet southwest of the EPS power plant building. Short-term
monitoring showed noise due to surf and traffic on Carlsbad Boulevard, with some
aircraft over flights.
4. Measuring Location M5: On a bluff above the Hubs-SeaWorld facility and on a
residential property line, approximately 2,450 feet northwest of the center of the
amended CECP site. Long-term (25-hour) monitoring showed noise due to traffic on
Carlsbad Boulevard and I-5, as well as rail traffic and surf noise.
5. Measuring Location M7: On a bluff at the end of Harbor Drive, overlooking the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and I-5, approximately 2,350 feet north-northwest of the center of
the amended CECP site. Short-term noise monitoring showed a noise regime
dominated by traffic on I-5.
February 2015

4.7-5

NOISE & VIBRATION

 Noise Table 2 summarizes the ambient noise measurements at the nearest noise
sensitive locations as presented in the Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for the licensed
CECP (CEC2009a, FSA § 4.6, Table 2):
Noise Table 2
Summary of Measured Ambient Noise Levels
Measurement
Location
M1: West Hotel and
Restaurant
M2: 5120 El Arbol
Drive
M4: North of Tierra
Del Oro
M5: Above HubsSeaWorld
M7: End of Harbor
Drive

Leq – Daytime

Measured Noise Levels, dBA
Leq – Nighttime

L90 – Nighttime

65

52

47

58

58

36

62

—

—

56

55

47

57

56

52

Source: CEC2009a, FSA § 4.6, Table 2; and staff calculations.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
Assessment of impacts and discussion of mitigation below includes methods and
thresholds for determining significance based on the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) guidelines, determination of compliance with applicable noise and vibration
LORS, and discussion of mitigation measures to ensure compliance with CEQA and
applicable LORS.

METHODS AND THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires that significant environmental impacts be identified and either eliminated
or mitigated to the extent feasible. Section XII of Appendix G of CEQA’s guidelines (Cal.
Code of Regs., tit.14, Appendix G) describes some characteristics that could signify a
potentially significant impact. Specifically, a significant effect from noise may exist if a
project would result in:
1. exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies;
2. exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive ground-borne vibration or
ground- borne noise levels;
3. substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project; or,
4. substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project.

NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-6

February 2015

 Staff, in applying Item 3, above, to the analysis of this and other projects, has concluded
that a potential for a significant noise impact exists where the noise of the project plus
the background exceeds the background by more than five dBA at the nearest sensitive
receptor.
Staff has concluded that an increase in background noise levels, up to and including
five dBA, in a residential setting is insignificant; an increase of more than ten dBA,
however, is significant. An increase between five and ten dBA should be considered
adverse, but could be either significant or insignificant, depending on the circumstances
of a particular case.
Factors to be considered in determining the significance of an adverse impact as
defined above include:
1. the resulting noise level3;
2. the duration and frequency of the noise;
3. the number of people affected; and,
4. the land use designation of the affected receptor sites.
Noise due to construction activities is usually considered to be insignificant in terms of
CEQA compliance if:


the construction activity is temporary; and,



the use of heavy equipment and noisy activities is limited to daytime hours.

Staff uses the above method and threshold to protect the most sensitive populations.
For purposes of evaluating impacts on residential uses, the project noise is compared
with measured nighttime ambient noise levels, when residents are trying to sleep.

DIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Noise impacts associated with the project can be created by short-term demolition and
construction activities and normal long-term operation of the project.

Construction and Demolition Impacts and Mitigation
Construction
Construction of the amended CECP would utilize similar construction equipment and
consist of similar activities to those identified for the licensed CECP (LL2014d, PTA§
5.7.3). Phase II, construction of the amended CECP power plant, would take
approximately the same amount of time as the licensed CECP power plant (amended
CECP would be 24 months; the licensed CECP would be 25 months).
3

For example, a noise level of 40 dBA would be considered quiet in many locations. A noise limit of 40
dBA would be consistent with the recommendations of the California Model Community Noise Control
Ordinance for rural environments and with industrial noise regulations adopted by European jurisdictions.
If the project would create an increase in ambient noise no greater than ten dBA, the project noise level
would not be significant if the resulting noise level does not exceed 40 dBA.
February 2015

4.7-7

NOISE & VIBRATION

 Compliance with LORS
Construction of an industrial facility such as a power plant is typically noisier than
permissible under standard noise ordinances. In order to allow the construction of new
facilities, the applicable local noise LORS do not limit the loudness of construction
noise, and instead limit the hours of day in which construction can occur. To evaluate
construction noise impacts, staff compares the projected noise levels to the ambient
levels (see CEQA Impacts below). Since construction noise typically varies continually
with time, it is most appropriately measured by, and compared to, the Leq (energy
average) metric.
The petitioner commits to performing noisy construction work during the times specified
in the City of Carlsbad Noise Ordinance, to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mondays
through Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with no construction allowed
on Sundays and federal holidays (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.6). To ensure that these hours
are, in fact, enforced, staff proposes Condition of Certification NOISE-6.
CEQA Impacts
Construction activities associated with the amended CECP would occur within the same
property boundary as the licensed CECP. However, due to the change in operating
technology, there is a slight reconfiguration of project equipment that would extend the
site boundary approximately 375 feet further south-southeast than what was previously
approved. Removal of AST 4 would make way for construction and installation of
combustion turbine Units 10 and 11, which would be located approximately 188 feet
south-southeast of the licensed CECP site boundary within the existing property
boundary line. Noise Table 3 provides the predicted noise impacts for the amended
CECP’s construction activities, taking into consideration the proposed reconfigured
project site.

NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-8

February 2015

 Noise Table 3
Predicted Amended CECP Construction Noise Impacts

Receptor

M1: West Hotel
and Restaurant
M2: 5120 El
Arbol Drive
M4: North of
Tierra Del Oro
M5: Above
HubsSeaWorld
M7: End of
Harbor Drive

Distance to
Nearest
Construction
Activity
(feet)

Construction
Activity

1,400
2,150
2,100

Highest
Construction
Noise Levela
(dBA Leq)

Daytime
Ambient
Noise
(dBA Leq)1

Cumulativeb
(dBA Leq)

Changec
(dBA)

61

65

66

+1

57

58

61

+3

58

62

63

+1

Unit 10 and
Unit 11
Unit 10 and
Unit 11
Unit 10 and
Unit 11

2,050

Unit 6 and
Unit 7

58

56

60

+4

1,950

Unit 6 and
Unit 7

58

57

61

+4

1. Source of Ambient Levels: Noise Table 2
Notes:
a. Construction noise is estimated to be 90 dBA at 50 feet, based on the loudest activities, site clearing and cleaning.
Construction noise levels are calculated using the noise distance logarithm.
b. Cumulative noise is calculated by adding the noise generated by construction to the measured existing ambient noise using the
noise addition logarithm.
c. The change is the difference between the cumulative noise and the measured existing ambient noise.

As seen in Noise Table 3, these activities would result in increases of one to four dBA
in the existing daytime ambient levels. As described in the Methods and Thresholds for
Determining Significance, an increase in background noise levels up to and including
five dBA is considered less than significant. However, to ensure that project
construction would create less than significant adverse impacts at the nearest noisesensitive receptors, in addition to Condition of Certification NOISE-6, staff proposes
Conditions of Certification NOISE-1 and NOISE-2, which would establish a public
notification and noise complaint process to resolve any complaints regarding
construction noise. In light of these conditions of certification, the noise impacts of the
amended CECP construction activities would be less than significant.
Demolition
The amended CECP includes Phase I, demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 (the licensed
CECP already permitted demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7), and Phase IV, demolition of
the EPS, which includes existing Units 1-5, the concrete enclosure building housing the
units (power plant building), the 400-foot-tall exhaust stack, and other above-ground
ancillary facilities. The Phase I demolition and removal of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 would utilize
similar construction equipment and consist of activities similar to those demolition and
removal activities approved for the licensed CECP (i.e., removal of ASTs 5, 6, and 7).
The Phase IV demolition activities for the EPS facilities would occur over an eight-step
process lasting 22 months (including a five-month demolition period for removal of the
400-foot-tall EPS exhaust stack, which consists of 12,829 tons of concrete, 233 tons of
scrap metal and 45 tons of miscellaneous debris). Following the demolition activity, site
restoration (grading and contouring) would last two months.

February 2015

4.7-9

NOISE & VIBRATION

 Compliance with LORS
Since demolition is an adjunct to construction, it is evaluated in the same manner as
construction. As described in the construction impacts section above, the applicable
local noise LORS do not limit the loudness of demolition/construction noise, and instead
limit the hours of day in which demolition/construction can occur. To evaluate demolition
noise impacts, staff compares the projected noise levels to the ambient levels (See
CEQA Impacts below).
The petitioner commits to performing noisy demolition/construction work during the
times specified in the City of Carlsbad Noise Ordinance, to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on Mondays through Fridays, and 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays, with
no construction allowed on Sundays and Federal holidays (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.4). To
ensure that these hours are, in fact, enforced, staff proposes modifications to Condition
of Certification NOISE-6.
CEQA Impacts
Although demolition and removal of the EPS would utilize similar construction
equipment and consist of activities similar to those demolition and removal activities
approved for the licensed CECP, the Phase IV activities would occur in different
locations than those previously analyzed, possibly having different impacts on nearby
residents. For example, Section 5.7.2 of the petition to amend (LL2014d) points out that
the closest residential area to the licensed CECP is located north of the Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, approximately 1,750 feet from the facility site (M7). In the amended CECP, the
residential receptor M4 is only approximately 400 feet from the southwest corner of the
EPS power plant building and thereby closer to construction and demolition activities.
To evaluate the impacts associated with demolition and removal of the EPS, staff
issued data requests 67-72 (CEC2014kk), to which the petitioner responded
(LL2014pp). Noise Table 4 shows the maximum predicted noise impacts at the noise
sensitive receptors, as a result of demolition of the EPS.

NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-10

February 2015

 Noise Table 4
Predicted Encina Power Station Demolition Noise Impacts

Receptor

Distance to
Nearest
Demolition
Activities at
EPS (feet)

M1: West
Hotel and
Restaurant

1,100

M2: 5120 El
Arbol Drive

1,200

M4: North of
Tierra Del Oro

400

M5: Above
HubsSeaWorld

3,100

M7: End of
Harbor Drive

3,500

Location of
Activity

Highest
Demolition
Noise Levela
(dBA Leq)

Daytime
Ambient
Noise
(dBA Leq)

Cumulativeb
(dBA Leq)

Changec
(dBA)

63

65

67

+2

62

58

63

+5

72

62

72

+10

54

56

58

+2

53

57

58

+1

Southeast
corner of
EPS housing
Southeast
corner of
EPS housing
Southwest
corner of
EPS housing
Northwestern
corner of
EPS housing
Northeastern
corner of
EPS housing

Notes:
a. Demolition noise is estimated to be 90 dBA at 50 feet (LL2014pp). Demolition noise impacts are calculated using the noise
distance logarithm.
b. Cumulative noise is calculated by adding the noise generated by demolition to the measured existing ambient noise using the
noise addition logarithm.
c. The change is the difference between the cumulative noise and the measured existing ambient noise.

The predicted demolition noise may reach levels as high as 72 dBA Leq at the nearest
noise sensitive receptor, M4. Comparing the projected noise level to the ambient noise
level at M4 shows an increase of ten dBA (see Noise Table 4). Even though demolition
of the EPS would occur during the daytime hours, it would occur over approximately 22
months, which would immediately follow approximately 24 months of construction (i.e.,
construction of the amended CECP’s power block). Thus, its noise impacts must be
mitigated. The petitioner has identified additional mitigation measures that may be used
during demolition of the EPS, as described below.
The petitioner’s plan for the demolition of the EPS’ 400-foot-tall exhaust stack is to use
an engineered mast‐climbing platform system that would be installed on the exterior of
the stack (LL2014pp). Demolition work would begin starting at the top of the stack and
move downwards using work crews or robotic units equipped with hammers, crushers,
or shears. As the crews break apart the stack, the material would be shoveled inside the
stack and funneled to the base. The platform would be lowered as necessary to remove
each section until the remaining stack height is approximately 80 feet. At this point, the
mast climbing platform system would be removed and the remaining portion of the stack
would be demolished using high‐reach excavators. Staff asked the petitioner to explain
how this work would be controlled, if necessary, to reduce its noise impacts. The
petitioner explained that the project would take feasible measures to reduce project‐
related noise (Requests Set 3, number 72, LL2014pp). The project owner and its
contractors would develop reasonable and feasible measures to reduce the level of
noise associated with demolition and construction activities (LL2014pp). Precise noise
February 2015

4.7-11

NOISE & VIBRATION

 mitigation measures would be developed by the construction contractor. Factors to be
considered include any additional wind loading and other safety considerations. Blasting
mats or similar structures may be used to reduce the impact of falling debris inside the
stack (LL2014pp). Staff believes these steps would provide appropriate and effective
mitigation measures.
Staff expects the removal of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 to be very similar to the removal of ASTs
5, 6, and 7 which was approved in the licensed CECP, and expects the impacts to be
less than those expected from the removal of the EPS since these tanks are further
away from residential receptors than the EPS.
To ensure the impacts of demolition activities are mitigated to a level of less than
significant, in addition to Condition of Certification NOISE-6, staff proposes Conditions
of Certification NOISE-1 and NOISE-2. NOISE-1 and NOISE-2 would require
notification to the public and the city of Carlsbad, and would establish a noise complaint
process to resolve any complaints regarding demolition noise. In light of the following
conditions of certification, the noise impacts of the amended CECP construction and
demolition activities would be less than significant.
Vibration
The petitioner predicted that pile driving would be required as part of the licensed CECP
(CH2M2007a, AFC § 5.7.5.2.3). Similar to the licensed CECP, pile driving would be
required for the amended CECP.
Noise from unsilenced pile driving could be expected to reach 104 dBA at a distance of
50 feet. Noise Table 5 provides the predicted pile driving noise impacts for the
amended CECP, taking into consideration the reconfiguration of the proposed site.

NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-12

February 2015

 Noise Table 5
Pile Driving Noise Impacts

Receptor

M1: West
Hotel and
Restaurant
M2: 5120 El
Arbol Drive
M4: North of
Tierra Del Oro
M5: Above
HubsSeaWorld
M7: End of
Harbor Drive

Distance to
Nearest Pile
Driving
Activity
(feet)

Pile Driving
Location

Pile Driving
Noise Levela
(dBA Leq)

Daytime
Ambient
Noise
(dBA Leq)

Cumulativeb
(dBA Leq)

Changec
(dBA)

1,400

Unit 10 and
Unit 11

75

65

75

+10

71

58

71

+13

72

62

72

+10

2,150
2,100

Unit 10 and
Unit 11
Unit 10 and
Unit 11

2,050

Unit 6 and
Unit 7

72

56

72

+16

1,950

Unit 6 and
Unit 7

72

57

72

+15

Notes:
a. Pile driving noise is estimated to be 104 dBA at 50 feet. Pile driving noise impacts are calculated using the noise distance
logarithm.
b. Cumulative noise is calculated by adding the noise generated by pile driving to the measured existing ambient noise using the
noise addition logarithm.
c. The change is the difference between the cumulative noise and the measured existing ambient noise.

Noise Table 5 shows that pile driving noise is projected to reach a level of 75 dBA at
M1 (West Hotel and Restaurant), 71 dBA at M2 (representing the community of
Terramar), and 72 dBA at M7 (the nearest residential receptor to this activity). Adding
pile driving noise to the daytime ambient levels would produce increases between ten
dBA and 16 dBA at the receptor locations provided.
These increases confirm that unsilenced pile drivers can cause a significant noise
impact at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. However, several methods are
available for reducing noise generated by pile driving. These methods are: (1) the use of
pads or impact cushions of plywood; (2) dampened driving, which involves some form of
blanket or enclosure around the hammer; and (3) the use of vibratory drivers. These
methods can be effective in reducing the noise by eight to15 dBA compared to
unsilenced impact drivers.
Even though no condition of certification for pile driving was proposed by staff for the
licensed CECP, staff believes that due to the proximity of pile driving to nearest noisesensitive receptors, unsilenced pile driving could cause an adverse community reaction.
Therefore, staff proposes Condition of Certification NOISE-8 (Pile Driving
Management), below. This condition of certification requires that pile driving be
performed in a manner to reduce the potential for project-related noise complaints.
NOISE-8 also requires the project owner to submit to the compliance project manager
(CPM) a description of the pile driving technique to be employed, including calculations
showing its projected noise impacts at monitoring locations M2, M5 and M7.
The FTA measure of the threshold of architectural damage for conventional sensitive
structures is 100 VdB (vibrational decibels), which correlates to a peak particle velocity
February 2015

4.7-13

NOISE & VIBRATION

 of about 0.2 in/sec (inches per second). NOISE-8 would ensure potential vibrations from
pile driving are limited to a peak particle velocity of 0.2 in/sec at the nearest sensitive
receptors.
Nighttime Concrete Pouring Activities
For the amended CECP, it is inevitable that concrete pours would take place during
nighttime (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.3). Pouring of equipment foundations may require a full
24-hour cycle to complete. Ambient temperatures at night improve the curing and
improve the strength and durability of the concrete. When these activities cause the
creation of excessive noise, mitigation measures must be implemented.
For nighttime conditions at the project site, an exception must be requested by the
project owner to the CPM to handle concrete pour that would require continuous
24-hour operation (as required by NOISE-9). As shown in Noise Table 6 below,
ambient Leq measurements are used to evaluate the impact of nighttime construction
activities because the Leq metric correlates to the variable nature of construction-related
noise.
Noise Table 6
Predicted Nighttime Concrete Pour Noise Levels

Receptor

M1: West
Hotel and
Restaurant
M2: 5120 El
Arbol Drive
M4: North of
Tierra Del Oro
M5: Above
HubsSeaWorld
M7: End of
Harbor Drive

Distance to
Nearest
Concrete
Pour Activity
(feet)

Concrete
Pour
Location

Concrete
Pour Noise
Levela
(dBA Leq)

Nighttime
Ambient
Noise
(dBA Leq)

Cumulativeb
(dBA Leq)

Changec
(dBA)

1,400

Unit 10 and
Unit 11

56

52

57

+5

52

58

59

+1

53

—

—

—

2,150
2,100

Unit 10 and
Unit 11
Unit 10 and
Unit 11

2,050

Unit 6 and
Unit 7

53

55

57

+2

1,950

Unit 6 and
Unit 7

53

56

58

+2

Notes:
a. Concrete pour noise is estimated to be 85 dBA at 50 feet. Concrete pour noise impacts are calculated using the noise distance
logarithm.
b. Cumulative noise is calculated by adding the noise generated by concrete pours to the measured existing ambient noise using
the noise addition logarithm.
c. The change is the difference between the cumulative noise and the measured existing ambient noise.

As seen in Noise Table 6 above, concrete pouring would result in an increase of two
dBA in the nighttime ambient levels at M5 and M7, which are the closest residential
receptors to these activities. Because staff regards an increase of up to five dBA as a
less-than-significant impact, this nighttime activity would be less than significant.
Nevertheless, the sensitivity to nighttime construction work in the surrounding
residential areas should not be undermined. Therefore, the project owner should be
required to implement preemptive noise control measures prior to the commencement
of this work and be prepared to take additional mitigation measures quickly while these
NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-14

February 2015

 activities are taking place. To ensure nighttime noise from concrete pour would be
effectively managed to reduce the impacts to less than significant, staff proposes
Condition of Certification NOISE-9 (Concrete Pour Noise Control), which would require
this noise to be controlled to the extent feasible. Accordingly, a host of appropriate
mitigation measures are available to accomplish this. Examples include:


portable partitions that can be placed so that noise receptors are protected;



encasing the transfer (concrete) pump boom arm to reduce the effect of pump
pulsing;



repair of defective mufflers and tightening of rattling components;



arranging work sites to avoid or minimize concrete truck reversing movements (the
use of backup alarms), ensuring vehicles enter and exit work sites in a forward
direction when possible, and installation of non-tonal and automatically adjusting
reversing alarms;



placing and orienting noise generating equipment in a manner to minimize impacts
to residential receptors, such as locating them in a pit;



using silenced powered equipment, and retrofitting silencers on powered equipment;
and



assuring that vibration is sufficiently isolated, i.e., no more than 0.2 in/sec at nearest
noise-sensitive receptors.

NOISE-9 also requires the following:


written notification of the initiation of nighttime concrete pouring activities to the
CPM, the city of Carlsbad, and all the residents that could potentially be affected by
this work, including a telephone number for use by the public to report any
undesirable noise conditions associated with these activities; and



CPM’s approval of nighttime concrete work prior to the start of this work.

In light of the requirements contained in Condition of Certification NOISE-9, nighttime
concrete pours would create a less-than-significant impact.
Worker Effects
The petitioner has acknowledged the need to protect construction workers from noise
hazards and has recognized those applicable LORS that would protect construction
workers (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.4). To ensure that construction workers are, in fact,
adequately protected, staff proposes modifications to Condition of Certification
NOISE-3.
Linear Facilities
Linear facilities include pipelines for natural gas, water and wastewater, and lines
interconnecting to the electrical transmission system. Linear facilities would lie within the
boundaries of the existing project site, so their construction noise impacts at project
receptors would be similar to those of the power plant itself (LL2014d, § 5.7.1). Limiting
noisy construction to daytime hours would provide adequate mitigation of impacts. To
ensure compliance with this, staff proposes Condition of Certification NOISE-6.
February 2015

4.7-15

NOISE & VIBRATION

 Steam Blows
Because the amended CECP would be a simple-cycle generating facility, consisting of
only natural gas-fired combustion turbines, there would be no steam turbines, so steam
blows would no longer be needed. Staff is proposing to delete Condition of Certification
NOISE-7, which limits steam blow noise to 89 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet.

Operation Impacts and Mitigation
The Application for Certification (AFC) for the licensed CECP described the power plant
components that were included in the noise modeling that was used to predict
operational noise impacts. The primary noise sources incorporated into the model
included two combustion turbine generators (CTGs), two heat recovery steam
generators (HRSGs), two exhaust stacks, two steam turbine generators (STGs), and
steam turbine fin fan coolers, fuel gas compressors, and step-up transformers
(CH2M2007a, AFC § 5.7.5.3.2, Table 5.7-16). The modeling was used to demonstrate
compliance with LORS and evaluate potential impacts as discussed in more detail
below.
The amended CECP would replace the two Siemens 5000F class natural gas-fired
CTGs and two STGs, with six GE LMS100 natural gas-fired CTGs. Although there
would be an additional two turbine generators, the amended CECP would not include
the equipment associated with the steam cycle of the licensed facility (e.g., the STGs,
steam turbine fin fan coolers, and HRSGs, etc.), because it would be a simple-cycle
facility, thus eliminating those noise sources from facility operation. In addition, the
simple-cycle facility also eliminates the need for steam blows, which was expected to be
a prominent source of noise for the licensed CECP.
Compliance with LORS
The noise modeling for the licensed CECP showed that project operational noise at the
nearest residential receptor (M7) was predicted not to exceed 51 dBA Leq (CH2M2007a,
AFC § 5.7.5.3.2). The City of Carlsbad Noise Guidelines Manual sets a limit for
residential land uses of 60 dBA CNEL. For a steady, continuous noise source such as a
power plant, this is equivalent to 53 dBA Leq.
To ensure compliance with LORS during facility operation, the Energy Commission
Decision for the licensed CECP included Condition of Certification NOISE-4, which
requires the project design and implementation to include appropriate noise mitigation
measures adequate to ensure that operation of the project will not cause noise levels
due solely to plant operation to exceed an average of 53 dBA Leq at the most sensitive
residential receptors (M2 and M7). Although the amended CECP proposes to change
the technology and configuration of the project site, the petitioner continues to commit to
complying with NOISE-4 for the amended project, which would ensure compliance with
LORS.
Please note that compliance with the requirements in NOISE-4 at M2 and M7 would
adequately protect all other receptors surrounding the project site, since this compliance
is expected to be achieved by quieting the noise source, the power plant, rather than by
mitigating the impacts at receptors. Many of today’s power plant equipment
components, such as those expected for the amended CECP, are designed to produce
NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-16

February 2015

 less noise, and acoustical treatments such as housing noise-producing portions of the
power plant inside buildings or noise-absorbing enclosures are very effective in helping
these plants to meet various local noise requirements. The city of Carlsbad’s noise level
threshold isn’t the most stringent requirement that exists. In California and other parts of
the United States, and in Europe, some local noise level thresholds are lower than
Carlsbad’s 53 dBA. Yet, modern power plants around the world, including those utilizing
the GE LMS100 and Siemens 5000F technologies, have been able to continuously
meet these lower noise thresholds.
For these reasons, staff does not find it necessary to require additional noise modeling
as part of the amended CECP. However, as promised at the January 13, 2015
Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA) workshop, staff has reviewed operational noise
data from the Sentinel Energy Project (Sentinel) (CPV2013), which consists of similar
equipment as the proposed amended CECP, to confirm that the amended CECP would
be able to comply with NOISE-4. In addition, staff has reviewed operational data for the
El Segundo Energy Center Project (ESEC2013), which consists of similar equipment as
the licensed CECP, to compare potential noise impacts from those of the licensed
CECP to those proposed under the amended CECP.
Sentinel is a nominally rated 850-megawatt (MW) electrical generating facility consisting
of eight GE LMS100 CTGs in a simple-cycle configuration. Each unit consists of inlet
housing, intercooler, cooling tower, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system, oxidation
catalyst and exhaust stack. Zero Liquid Discharge equipment and fuel-gas compressors
are also located at the facility. A noise survey was conducted on April 10, 2013 to verify
the facility’s compliance with its Energy Commission license (CPV2013). The results of
the survey concluded that the noise level from the facility was 48 dBA at approximately
1,750 feet from the center of the power plant site. Sentinel’s electrical generation during
the period of the measurement survey was steady state at approximately 850 MW.
Based on the operational noise data for Sentinel, staff expects that the amended CECP
(a 632 MW project consisting of only six GE LMS100 CTGs) would be able to comply
with NOISE-4’s 53 dBA at the nearest residential receptors, M2 and M7, which are
approximately 2,950 feet and 2,350 feet from the center of the proposed project site,
respectively.
The El Segundo Energy Center Project (El Segundo) is a nominally rated 560 MW
electrical generating facility. The facility is a combined-cycle project consisting of two
trains, each one containing a Siemens 5000F class CTG, a HRSG, one STG, and an
air-cooled heat exchanger for cycle heat rejection. A noise survey was conducted from
August 16, 2013 to September 24, 2013 to verify the facility’s compliance with its
Energy Commission license (ESEC2013). The results of the survey concluded that the
noise level from the facility was 50 dBA at approximately 2,300 feet from the center of
the project site. The project operated at a minimum of 80 percent capacity during the
measurement survey. This operational monitoring data is consistent with the modeled
noise impacts for the licensed CECP (at a similar distance), also a combined-cycle
project consisting of two Siemens 5000F class CTGs, two steam turbines, and similar
associated equipment.
Comparing the monitoring data for each of the facilities described above suggest that
operation of the proposed simple-cycle facility is expected to be quieter than operation
February 2015

4.7-17

NOISE & VIBRATION

 of the licensed combined-cycle facility. As noted above, the noise generated from the
simple-cycle facility was 48 dBA at 1,750 feet, while the noise generated from the
combined-cycle facility was 50 dBA at 2,300 feet. Based on this assessment, it is
expected that the amended CECP would comply with all noise-related LORS.
CEQA Impacts
Power plant noise is unique. Essentially, a power plant operates as a steady,
continuous, broadband noise source, unlike the intermittent sounds that comprise the
majority of the noise environment. As such, power plant noise contributes to, and
becomes part of, the background noise level, or the sound heard when most intermittent
noises cease. Where power plant noise is audible, it will tend to define the background
noise level. For this reason, staff compared the projected power plant noise to the
existing nighttime ambient background noise levels at the affected sensitive receptors to
identify any potential significant impacts for the licensed CECP.
The licensed CECP’s noise levels at both M5 and M7 were predicted to reach 51 dBA
Leq. When projected plant noise at M5 was added to the nighttime ambient value (as
calculated by staff), the cumulative level was five dBA above the ambient value. This
increase is considered to be less than significant. When projected plant noise at M7 was
added to the nighttime ambient value, the cumulative level was two dBA above the
ambient value; also considered to be less than significant. To ensure that operational
noise levels would be controlled appropriately, the Energy Commission license included
Condition of Certification NOISE-4.
The petitioner continues to commit to complying with NOISE-4 for the amended CECP,
which reduces the project’s operational noise impacts to less than significant. As a
result of the intervener’s and the city of Carlsbad’s comments received on the PSA, staff
proposes a minor modification to NOISE-4. The modification includes prohibiting the
amended CECP’s operation from 12 a.m. to 6 a.m. except to the extent reasonably
required for reliability-related purposes or as otherwise required by the ISO Tariff. This
modification further reduces the potential for significant impacts, because nighttime
operation would be greatly limited. As discussed in “Compliance with LORS”
immediately preceding this subsection, based on the operational noise data for similar
facilities, staff expects that the amended CECP would be able to comply with NOISE-4.
Tonal Noises
One possible source of annoyance would be strong tonal noises. Tonal noises are
individual sounds (such as pure tones) that, while not louder than permissible levels,
stand out in sound quality. The petitioner plans to avoid the creation of annoying tonal
(pure-tone) noises by balancing the noise emissions of various power plant features
during plant design (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.7). To ensure that tonal noises do not cause
annoyance, staff maintains Condition of Certification NOISE-4, below.
Linear Facilities
All water and gas piping lie underground and would be silent during operation. Noise
effects from the electrical interconnection line typically do not extend beyond the rightof-way easement of the line and would thus be inaudible to any receptors (LL2014d, §
5.7.1).
NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-18

February 2015

 Vibration
Vibration from an operating power plant could be transmitted by two chief means;
through the ground (ground-borne vibration) and through the air (airborne vibration).
The operating components of the amended CECP, a simple-cycle power plant, consist
of high-speed gas turbine generators, compressors, and various pumps and fans. All of
these pieces of equipment must be carefully balanced in order to operate; permanent
vibration sensors are attached to the turbines and generators. Based on experience
with numerous previous projects employing similar equipment, staff believes that
ground-borne vibration from the amended CECP would be undetectable by any likely
receptor.
Airborne vibration (low frequency noise) can rattle windows and objects on shelves and
can rattle the walls of lightweight structures. In staff’s experience, airborne vibration
impacts from a plant such as the amended CECP are typically imperceptible at any
significant distance from the plant. The amended CECP’s chief source of airborne
vibration would be the gas turbines’ exhaust. In a power plant such as the amended
CECP, however, the exhaust must pass through the selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
modules and the stack silencers before it reaches the atmosphere. The SCRs act as
efficient mufflers. The combination of SCR units and stack silencers ensure that the
amended CECP would not cause perceptible airborne vibration effects.
Worker Effects
The petitioner has acknowledged the need to protect plant operating and maintenance
workers from noise hazards and has committed to comply with applicable LORS
(LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.7). Condition of Certification NOISE-5 continues to ensure that
plant operation and maintenance workers are, in fact, adequately protected.

Facility Closure
All operational noise from the project would cease when the amended CECP closes,
and no further adverse noise impact from its operation would be possible. The
remaining potential temporary noise source would be the dismantling of the project
structures and equipment, as well as any site restoration work that may be performed.
Since this noise would be similar to that caused by the original demolition and
construction, it could be similarly treated - that is, noisy work could be performed during
daytime hours with machinery and equipment that are properly insulated and/or
equipped with mufflers. Any noise LORS in existence at that time would apply.
Applicable conditions of certification included in the Energy Commission decision would
also apply to facility closure, unless modified by a petition to amend.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Section 15130 of the CEQA guidelines (Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14) requires a
discussion of cumulative environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are two or more
individual impacts (from existing and/or reasonably foreseeable projects) that, when
considered together, compound or increase other environmental impacts. CEQA
guidelines require that this discussion reflect the severity of the impacts and the

February 2015

4.7-19

NOISE & VIBRATION

 likelihood of their occurrence, but do not need to provide as much detail as the
discussion of impacts solely attributable to the project.
As part of the licensed CECP, the petitioner identified several projects in the vicinity of
the proposed site for consideration in the cumulative impact assessment (CH2M2007a,
AFC § 5.7.5.3.6). As part of preparation of the petition to amend, the relevant planning
agencies were contacted and identified many of the same projects which were
previously assessed for the licensed CECP (LL2014d, PTA § 5.7.5). The only project
identified to most likely pose a potential for cumulative noise impacts was the
desalination project (Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project), located at the existing
EPS site, along the southern edge of the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon. The desalination
project, at a predicted operational noise level of 35 dBA CNEL (28 dBA Leq), would not
contribute significantly to ambient noise levels. Due to the moderately elevated noise
regime in the area, a level of 28 dBA will not be audible at the surrounding noise
receptors. Staff concludes that the amended CECP, when combined with this project,
would not create a significant cumulative noise impact.
Noise generated from operation of the amended CECP is expected to be similar to the
licensed CECP. Condition of Certification NOISE-4 limits the amended CECP
operational noise impacts to the same levels that were previously analyzed and
approved from the licensed CECP, and would therefore have similar cumulative impacts
as those approved for the licensed CECP.
The remaining projects would likely only have the potential for cumulative impacts
during demolition or construction, which is generally short-term in nature. With the
implementation of Conditions of Certification NOISE-1, NOISE-2, NOISE-6, NOISE-8,
and NOISE-9, the amended CECP’s demolition and construction work is not expected
to result in cumulative noise impacts that are significant.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
The proposed amended CECP would comply with all applicable noise-related LORS.
Condition of Certification NOISE-4 would ensure compliance with the City of Carlsbad
General Plan Noise Element, and NOISE-6 and NOISE-9 would ensure compliance with
the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code Noise Ordinance. NOISE-3 and NOISE-5 reduce
employee exposure to high noise levels during construction and operation, and ensures
compliance with applicable OSHA and Cal/OSHA standards.

NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-20

February 2015

 RESPONSES TO PSA COMMENTS
Since the publication of the PSA, staff has received the following written comments
regarding Noise & Vibration. The verbal comments made at the PSA workshop were
repeated in the written comments and are therefore addressed here.

INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN: 203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: After a significant time period of construction activity and noise from the
desalination plant, Terramar is now facing up to five more years of construction noise
and activity from the four phases of the amended CECP. Due to the extraordinary
amount of time that our neighborhood and the neighborhood to the north of the project
site must endure construction activity, vibration and noise, Terramar requests staff offer
as much consideration as possible for construction noise and vibration mitigation. The
time period will be so long it is more than temporary.
Response: Staff agrees with Terramar’s comment that an approximate five year
construction schedule should not be considered temporary and could cause
potentially significant impacts. Staff has proposed conditions of certification for the
various activities (i.e., removal of storage tanks, construction of CECP, and
demolition of EPS) to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant. Staff
has also proposed two new construction-related conditions of certification that are
not included in the Energy Commission Decision for the licensed CECP; NOISE-8,
Pile Driving Management, and NOISE-9, Concrete Pour Noise Control. Please also
note that, as appeared in NOISE-2 in the PSA and this FSA, the timelines for
addressing and resolving noise complaints related to nighttime construction work
have been reduced from those in the Energy Commission Decision for the licensed
CECP.
Please note that monitoring location M2, representing the community of Terramar,
would not be the nearest receptor location to pile driving and nighttime concrete pour
activities, and many noise control methods associated with these activities reduce
noise at the source, benefiting the surrounding community as a whole as opposed to
one receptor location only. However, to ensure that the community of Terramar is
specifically considered, M2 has been added to NOISE-8 and NOISE-9. In addition,
the distance requirement for notifying the public, of the commencement of these
activities, has been extended to one mile, instead of one-half mile.
Comment: Terramar quotes the following from staff’s PSA: “Construction noise from
the amended CECP is expected to be the same as the licensed CECP. There are no
new pieces of construction equipment or methods of construction that were not
proposed previously for the approved project. Therefore, staff uses the predicted power
plant construction noise impacts as identified in the FSA for the licensed CECP
(CEC2009a, FSA § 4.6, Table 3) to evaluate the amended CECP’s construction
impacts.”
Terramar finds this statement confusing, as the amended CECP is different equipment
than the CECP. Terramar would like to ask staff to provide a full evaluation of the noise
impacts.
February 2015

4.7-21

NOISE & VIBRATION

 Response: In general, heavy equipment and methods used to construct or demolish
structures associated with large-scale power plants are substantially the same.
Staff’s purpose of the statement quoted above is to emphasize this point. The
construction equipment and methods of construction that would be used to develop
the proposed amended CECP (a simple-cycle facility) would be similar to those that
would be used to develop the licensed CECP (a combined-cycle facility), and
therefore the noise impacts associated with construction would be similar between
the two projects, regardless of the operating technology being installed. Terramar’s
comment that, “the amended CECP is different equipment than the licensed CECP”
refers to operating equipment and does not relate to construction noise levels.
Nonetheless, staff has reevaluated the potential noise impacts for all construction
and demolition activities associated with the amended CECP (i.e., construction of
the power block, demolition of EPS, pile driving, and nighttime concrete pours) to
account for the lengthier construction period than the licensed CECP, and to
consider reconfiguration of the project site.
Please note that preparing a detailed mitigation plan, prior to the start of
construction, would be unnecessarily complicated and such a plan may not be very
effective as some of the assumptions used to prepare it may not represent the actual
work scope. This is the responsibility of the project’s construction contractor who
would develop precise noise mitigation measures. In addition, staff relies on the
CPM process and the following conditions of certification. Staff’s conclusion remains
that with the implementation of the following conditions of certification, construction
and demolition activities associated with the amended CECP would comply with all
applicable noise and vibration LORS and would produce no significant adverse
noise and vibration impacts.
Comment: Terramar requests that the public notification of the commencement of
project demolition and construction in Condition of Certification NOISE-1 be extended to
a one-mile circumference from the site in all directions to include the entire
neighborhood of Terramar.
Response: Staff has modified NOISE-1 to require the project owner to send this
notification to all residents within one mile of the site.
Comment: As part of Conditions of Certification NOISE-4 and NOISE-5, Terramar
would like to request that the CPM e-file the progress and reports made throughout this
process.
Response: Terramar has requested that the CPM e-file progress reports required
by conditions of certification in several technical areas. Since this request pertains to
more than one technical area, this comment is addressed in detail in the Executive
Summary section of the FSA. Nonetheless, the reports identified in Terramar’s
comments pertaining to NOISE-4 (Operational Survey) and NOISE-5 (Occupational
Survey) are retained by the Energy Commission and copies of these reports can be
obtained through a “public records request” filed with the Energy Commission.
In addition, Condition of Certification COM-2 in the Compliance Conditions section
of the FSA requires the project owner to maintain electronic copies of all project files,
NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-22

February 2015

 which include all site-related environmental impact and survey documentation (such
as the noise surveys reports). Also, Condition of Certification COM-11 requires the
project owner’s contact information to be posted on the project site and on the
Energy Commission’s web page at http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad/.
Consequently, these documents can be directly obtained from the project owner.

INTERVENOR: POWER OF VISION, TN: 203547, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: Power of Vision requested that staff investigate noise levels from Siemens
combined-cycle units and GE LSM100 units currently in operation in California to
compare the projected noise levels of the licensed and amended CECP projects.
Response: Staff has reviewed operational noise data from Sentinel (Sentinel
Energy Project) (CPV2013) which consists of similar equipment as the proposed
amended CECP (simple-cycle LMS100 CTGs), to confirm that the amended CECP
would be able to comply with NOISE-4. In addition, staff has reviewed operational
data for the El Segundo Power Plant Project (ESEC2013) which consists of similar
equipment as the licensed CECP (combined-cycle Siemens 5000F), for the purpose
of comparing potential noise impacts from those of the licensed project to those
proposed under the amended project. Based on this evaluation, staff expects the
amended CECP to comply with NOISE-4. This discussion is provided in detail under
“Operation Impacts and Mitigation, Compliance with LORS” of this section of the
FSA.
Comment: Power of Vision requests that NOISE-4 include language prohibiting
operation between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m., except to the extent reasonably
required for reliability-related purposes or as otherwise required by the ISO Tariff.
Response: Staff has revised NOISE-4 to reflect this statement, consistent with the
Settlement Agreement.

AGENCY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, TN: 203543, JANUARY 20, 2015
Comment: The city of Carlsbad requests that Conditions of Certification NOISE-1,
NOISE-8, and NOISE-9 be changed to reflect the city’s need to know when demolition
or other noisy activities are expected to occur.
Response: Staff has included a requirement in these conditions of certification to
notify the city prior to these activities.
Comment: During the Committee Conference on January 7, 2015, the Hearing Officer
asked whether the continuous concrete pours allowed under condition NOISE-9 are
appropriate within the city of Carlsbad’s noise ordinance. The city’s noise ordinance was
amended in April 2013 and allows the city to modify the allowable hours of construction
to accommodate circumstances such as the need for continuous concrete pours if “the
work is in the interest of the general public” (Section 8.48.020. exception f.)
Response: This comment has been addressed in the “Response to Committee
Order” below.

February 2015

4.7-23

NOISE & VIBRATION

 Comment: The Settlement Agreement between the city of Carlsbad, NRG, and San
Diego Gas and Electric Company (Settlement Agreement) limits operation of the
amended CECP between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m., except to the extent
reasonably required for reliability-related purposes or as otherwise required by the ISO
Tariff (Settlement Agreement, Exhibit G, Section 4.E, p. Exhibit G2). This limitation was
not reflected in the PSA and should be included in Condition of Certification NOISE-4.
Response: Staff has included the operational limitations consistent with the
Settlement Agreement as part of NOISE-4.
Comment: Condition of Certification NOISE-4 seems overly complicated and most of
the condition appears to deal with the process for selecting an alternative measurement
location, survey methods, and use of survey results. To provide a clearer and more
concise condition, the city recommends these points be moved to the verification. The
city proposes that the following text be moved to the verification:
“The measurement of power plant noise for the purposes of demonstrating compliance
with this condition of certification may alternatively be made at a location, acceptable to
the CPM, closer to the plant (e.g., 400 feet from the plant boundary) and this measured
level then mathematically extrapolated to determine the plant noise contribution at the
affected residence. The character of the plant noise shall be evaluated at the affected
residential locations to determine the presence of pure tones or other dominant
sources of plant noise.
A. When the project first achieves a sustained output of 80 percent or greater of rated
capacity, the project owner shall conduct a community noise survey at monitoring
locations M2 and M7 or at closer locations acceptable to the CPM. These surveys
shall be performed during power plant operation and shall also include measurement
of one-third octave band sound pressure levels to determine whether new pure-tone
noise components have been caused by the project.
B. If the results from the noise survey indicate that the power plant average noise level
(Leq) at M2 or M7 exceeds the above value, mitigation measures shall be
implemented to reduce noise to a level of compliance with this limit.
C. If the results from the noise survey indicate that pure tones are present, mitigation
measures shall be implemented to eliminate the pure tones.”
Response: Conditions of certification are established to ensure project compliance
with all LORS and to mitigate impacts to a level of less than significant. NOISE-4
limits noise levels due solely to plant operation to the city’s threshold requirement to
ensure compliance with the City of Carlsbad General Plan, Noise Element, and
therefore ensuring compliance with LORS. NOISE-4 requires that an operational
noise monitoring survey be completed to verify compliance with this limit. It then
requires that the character of plant noise be evaluated to determine if pure tones are
present and if the plant complies with the specified noise limit. Subparts B and C
require the implementation of mitigation measures to ensure compliance with
NOISE-4 if the required noise monitoring survey indicates that pure tones are
present or that the facility does not comply with the specified noise limit. Because
these are requirements necessary to ensure the project’s compliance with LORS
and to mitigate any potential impacts to a level of less than significant, and since
NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-24

February 2015

 moving the text related to the selection of an alternative monitoring location would
create discontinuity in the condition, staff proposes to leave these requirements in
the condition and not move them to the verification.

PETITIONER: CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER LLC, TN: 203549,
JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The petitioner notes that the staff’s statement on p.4.7-11, “When the noise
generated by these kinds of activities exceeds the nighttime limit of significance of five
dBA, mitigation measures must be implemented” is rather absolute and is seemingly in
contradiction with the thresholds discussed on p. 4.7-7 which states “an increase of
between five and ten dBA should be considered adverse, but could be either significant
or insignificant, depending upon the particular circumstances of a particular case.”
Response: Staff’s intent is to ensure that noise due to the nighttime concrete pour is
controlled as much as possible and that the surrounding residential communities are
adequately protected from the noise produced by this activity. Although the impact
would be temporary and would last no more than several nights, due to the potential
for noise complaints during the late night and early morning hours when most people
are trying to sleep, the impact should be minimized to the extent possible.
Nonetheless, while maintaining the five dBA threshold requirement in NOISE-9, staff
proposes an alternative option that would similarly result in adequately controlling
this noise impact. Without requiring a specified noise level threshold, this alternative
requirement prohibits the creation of excessive noise and requires this activity to be
performed in a manner to reduce the potential for noise complaints to the extent
feasible. Staff has revised NOISE-9 accordingly.
Comment: The petitioner notes a typographical error that appears in Condition of
Certification NOISE-4, wherein, the monitoring location M2, located in the Terramar
residential area was inadvertently changed to a non-residential monitoring location, M1.
Response: This was, in fact, a typographical error and staff has revised Condition of
Certification NOISE-4 so that monitoring requirements pertain to residential
receptors M2 and M7, as appeared in the Energy Commission Decision for the
licensed CECP. The Ambient Noise Monitoring discussion, Noise Table 2, and
Operation Impacts and Mitigation discussion have been revised accordingly.
Comment: Interveners have requested that the range for notices in all directions be
changed to one mile in Condition of Certification NOISE-1. The petitioner is agreeable
to this change and requests that NOISE-1 be modified to require a one mile radius.
Response: Staff has modified Condition of Certification NOISE-1 to require the
project owner to notify the city of Carlsbad and all residents within one mile of the
site.
Comment: The petitioner comments that staff modified NOISE-2 such that it does not
apply to the demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7. The petitioner has requested changes to
NOISE-2 in an attempt to clarify that NOISE-2 applies to all major project activities.
Response: If the requested modifications for the amended CECP are approved, the
following conditions of certification would pertain to any activities that were
previously approved as part of the licensed CECP and that are not being modified by
February 2015

4.7-25

NOISE & VIBRATION

 this petition to amend, in addition to the subsequent changes being proposed as part
of the amended CECP. Staff agrees, however, that in this case a language to
include the demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7 is appropriate; staff has revised NOISE-2
accordingly. For further discussion, please see “Conditions of Certification”
subsection below.
Comment: The petitioner comments that staff proposed modifications to NOISE-3
which is currently regulating the Phase-I licensed CECP activities of demolishing ASTs
5, 6 and 7. In this comment, the petitioner proposes a change that would affect the
verification date.
Response: Staff understands that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun;
however, it is staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that has
past is both confusing and unnecessary. The petitioner will not be required to
duplicate work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended
CECP. So, a change to the verification timeline is not necessary. Nonetheless, staff
proposes modified language to NOISE-3 to ensure that the noise control program
will be implemented throughout the demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7, in addition to all
major demolition and construction activities associated with the amended CECP. For
further discussion, please see “Conditions of Certification” subsection below.
Comment: The petitioner does not agree with the revisions to Conditions of
Certification NOISE-4 and NOISE-6 which strike out “legitimate complaint” from the text
and replace it with “project-related noise complaints.” The petitioner further expresses
that the current process of investigating a noise complaint is key.
Response: Staff is trying to avoid using the term “legitimate” in current and future
projects, as this term seems confusing. A complaint about unwanted sound from a
member of the public may be “legitimate”, or “genuine”, but may be the result of
some other source, not the project. See NOISE-6 for the definition of “project-related
noise complaint.” Furthermore, staff has not proposed any changes to the process of
investigating a noise compliant (see NOISE-2), as it has proven to be successful in
determining if a noise complaint is project-related.
Comment: The petitioner proposes revisions to NOISE-6 that would modify the timing
of the verification. These revisions pertain to the project owner’s statement
acknowledging that construction time restrictions will be observed.
Response: The requirement in NOISE-6 that restricts the hours of demolition and
construction does not differentiate between the licensed and amended CECP; it
states that it pertains to “any project features.” The petitioner will not be required to
duplicate work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended
CECP. The above statement for the removal of ASTs 5, 6, and 7 was received by
the CPM in August 2014, and so, it does not need to be resubmitted for these tanks.
However, a new statement will need to be submitted to the CPM, which includes the
removal of ASTs 1, 2, and 4, construction of the amended CECP, and demolition of
the EPS. But, no changes to the verification are necessary. For further discussion,
please see “Conditions of Certification” subsection below.

NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-26

February 2015

 RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE ORDER FOLLOWING THE PSA
After the publication of the PSA, the Committee directed staff to provide additional
information and analysis, as identified in the Order, in preparing its FSA. The
Committee’s direction relevant to Noise & Vibration is summarized and addressed
below.

COMMITTEE ORDER, TN: 203527, JANUARY 15, 2015
Comment: Staff is directed to ascertain, describe, and discuss the standards that the
city of Carlsbad would apply in considering a noise variance to allow nighttime concrete
pours and any other activities proposed outside of normal construction hours. The
discussion should include how those standards can be applied by the CPM. Staff shall
also include a discussion of any community outreach that may be required as a
condition of allowing such a noise variance.
Response: The city’s noise ordinance was amended in April 2013 and allows the
city to modify the allowable hours of construction to accommodate circumstances
such as the need for continuous concrete pours if “the work is in the interest of the
general public.” (Please see the City of Carlsbad Municipal Code, Title 8, Chapter
8.48, Section 8.48.020, which provides this exception to construction hour
limitations. This code has been added to the LORS section.) It is staff’s
understanding that the city views construction of the amended CECP to be “in the
interest of the general public”, and has therefore included NOISE-9 to allow for such
nighttime activities.
The CPM must approve the nighttime concrete work, prior to the start of this work.
Staff has revised NOISE-9 to ensure that this requirement is explicit and that the city
of Carlsbad will be notified of this approval. Also pursuant to NOISE-9, prior to the
commencement of this nighttime work, the area residents and the city will be notified
and will be provided with the project owner’s contact information to report any
undesirable noise conditions. Condition of Certification NOISE-2 would establish a
noise complaint process to resolve any noise complaints regarding this work. It is
staff’s opinion that the implementation of NOISE-2 and NOISE-9 would satisfy the
city of Carlsbad’s noise ordinance requirements, including the requirements for
community outreach before such activities occur.

CONCLUSIONS
If built and operated in conformance with the following conditions of certification, the
amended CECP would comply with all applicable noise and vibration LORS and would
produce no significant adverse noise and vibration impacts on people within the affected
area, directly, indirectly, or cumulatively.
To ensure that the modifications to the licensed CECP avoid any significant adverse
impacts and would comply with applicable LORS, and to ensure pile driving and
nighttime concrete pours would be performed in a manner to reduce the potential for
any noise or vibration complaints, staff proposes modifications to the existing conditions
of certification.
February 2015

4.7-27

NOISE & VIBRATION

 REFERENCES
CAR2015c – City of Carlsbad/B.Therkelsen (TN203542). Transmittal Letter for the
Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 20, 2015. Submitted 01/20/2015.
CEC2009a - California Energy Commission (TN54068). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Final Staff Assessment, dated November 12, 2009. Submitted
11/12/2009.
CEC2014kk - California Energy Commission (TN203149). Data Request Set 3 (Nos.
67-85), dated October 2, 2014. Submitted 10/02/2014.
CH2M2007a - CH2MHILL/Robert Mason (TN42299). Application for Certification for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project, dated September 11, 2007. Submitted
09/11/2007.
COC 2014a - City of Carlsbad General Plan Noise Element. Accessed November,
2014.
COC 2014b - City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Accessed November, 2014.
CPV 2013 – Competitive Power Ventures. Far-Field Noise Compliance Report,
Operational Sound Level Study for Condition of Certification NOISE-4 Sentinel
Energy Project (07-AFC-03), TN203600. April 17, 2013.
CSDP 2015 – Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Plant Construction Updates.
http://carlsbaddesal.com/desalination-plant1. Accessed January, 2015.
ESEC 2013 – El Segundo Energy Center, LLC. Post Construction Operational Sound
Level Study for Condition of Certification NOISE-6, El Segundo Energy Center
Project, (00-AFC-14C), TN203601. November 8,2013.
LL2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014pp - Locke Lord LLP (TN203300). Project Owner Responses to Data Request
Set 3 (Nos. 67-84), dated October 31, 2014. Submitted 10/31/2014.
LL2015c – Locke Lord LLP (TN203549). Project Owner’s Comments on the
Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted 01/21/2015.
POV2015e – Power of Vision/Arnold Roe (TN203547). Power of Vision’s Comments on
the Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted
01/21/2015.

NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-28

February 2015

 TER2015b – Terramar Association (TN203545). Terramar’s Comments on the
Preliminary Staff Assessment. Submitted 01/21/2015.

February 2015

4.7-29

NOISE & VIBRATION

 EXHIBIT 1 - NOISE COMPLAINT RESOLUTION FORM
Amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(07-AFC-6C)
NOISE COMPLAINT LOG NUMBER ________________________
Complainant's name and address:

Phone number: ________________________
Date complaint received: ________________________
Time complaint received: ________________________
Nature of noise complaint:

Definition of problem after investigation by plant personnel:

Date complainant first contacted: ________________________
Initial noise levels at 3 feet from noise source _________ dBA

Date: ___________

Initial noise levels at complainant's property: __________ dBA

Date: ___________

Final noise levels at 3 feet from noise source: _________ dBA

Date: ___________

Final noise levels at complainant's property: ___________ dBA

Date: ___________

Description of corrective measures taken:

Complainant's signature: ________________________

Date: ____________

Approximate installed cost of corrective measures: $ ____________
Date installation completed: ____________
Date first letter sent to complainant: ____________

(copy attached)

Date final letter sent to complainant: ____________

(copy attached)

This information is certified to be correct:
Plant Manager's Signature: ________________________
(Attach additional pages and supporting documentation, as required).
NOISE & VIBRATION

4.7-30

February 2015

 NOISE & VIBRATION APPENDIX NV-1
Fundamental Concepts of Community Noise
To describe noise environments and to assess impacts on noise sensitive areas, a
frequency weighting measure, which simulates human perception, is customarily used.
It has been found that A-weighting of sound intensities best reflects the human ear’s
reduced sensitivity to low frequencies and correlates well with human perceptions of the
annoying aspects of noise. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) is cited in most noise
criteria. Decibels are logarithmic units that conveniently compare the wide range of
sound intensities to which the human ear is sensitive. Noise Table A1 provides a
description of technical terms related to noise.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented
by an equivalent A-weighted sound level over a given time period (Leq), or by average
day and night A-weighted sound levels with a nighttime weighting of ten dBA (Ldn).
Noise levels are generally considered low when ambient levels are below 45 dBA,
moderate in the 45 to 60 dBA range, and high above 60 dBA. Outdoor day-night sound
levels vary over 50 dBA depending on the specific type of land use. Typical Ldn values
might be 35 dBA for a wilderness area, 50 dBA for a small town or wooded residential
area, 65 to 75 dBA for a major metropolis downtown (e.g., San Francisco), and 80 to 85
dBA near a freeway or airport. Although people often accept the higher levels
associated with very noisy urban residential and residential-commercial zones, they
nevertheless are considered to be levels of noise adverse to public health.
Various environments can be characterized by noise levels that are generally considered
acceptable or unacceptable. Lower levels are expected in rural or suburban areas than
what would be expected for commercial or industrial zones. Nighttime ambient levels in
urban environments are about seven decibels lower than the corresponding average
daytime levels. The day-to-night difference in rural areas away from roads and other
human activity can be considerably less. Areas with full-time human occupation that are
subject to nighttime noise, which does not decrease relative to daytime levels, are often
considered objectionable. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can result in the onset of
sleep interference effects. At 70 dBA, sleep interference effects become considerable
(Effects of Noise on People, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971).
In order to help the reader understand the concept of noise in decibels (dBA), Noise
Table A2 has been provided to illustrate common noises and their associated sound
levels, in dBA.

February 2015

NV1-1

APPENDIX NV-1

 Noise Table A1
Definition of Some Technical Terms Related to Noise
Terms

Definitions

Decibel, dB

A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the
logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the pressure of the sound
measured to the reference pressure, which is 20 micropascals (20
micronewtons per square meter).

Frequency, Hz

The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and
below atmospheric pressure.

A-Weighted Sound Level,
dBA

The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level
meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter deemphasizes the very low and very high frequency components of the
sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear
and correlates well with subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels
in this testimony are A-weighted.

L10, L50, & L90

The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 10%, 50%, and 90% of
the time, respectively, during the measurement period. L90 is generally
taken as the background noise level.

Equivalent Noise Level, Leq

The energy average A-weighted noise level during the noise level
measurement period.

Community Noise Equivalent
Level, CNEL

The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained
after addition of 4.8 decibels to levels in the evening from 7 p.m. to 10
p.m., and after addition of ten decibels to sound levels in the night
between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Day-Night Level, Ldn or DNL

The Average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained
after addition of ten decibels to levels measured in the night between
10 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Ambient Noise Level

The composite of noise from all sources, near and far. The normal or
existing level of environmental noise at a given location.

Intrusive Noise

That noise that intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at
a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon
its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or
informational content as well as the prevailing ambient noise level.

Pure Tone

A pure tone is defined by the Model Community Noise Control Ordinance
as existing if the one-third octave band sound pressure level in the
band with the tone exceeds the arithmetic average of the two contiguous
bands by five decibels (dB) for center frequencies of 500 Hz and
above, or by eight dB for center frequencies between 160 Hz and
400 Hz, or by 15 dB for center frequencies less than or equal to 125
Hz.

Source: Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan, Model Community Noise Control
Ordinance, California Department of Health Services 1976, 1977.

APPENDIX NV-1

NV1-2

February 2015

 Noise Table A2
Typical Environmental and Industry Sound Levels
Noise Source (at distance)
Civil Defense Siren (100')

A-Weighted Sound
Level in Decibels
(dBA)

Noise Environment

Subjective
Impression

140-130

Pain Threshold

Jet Takeoff (200')

120

Very Loud

Very Loud Music

110

Pile Driver (50')

100

Ambulance Siren (100')

90

Freight Cars (50')

85

Pneumatic Drill (50')

80

Freeway (100')

70

Vacuum Cleaner (100')

60

Data Processing Center
Department Store/Office

Light Traffic (100')

50

Private Business Office

Large Transformer (200')

40

Soft Whisper (5')

30

Quiet Bedroom

20

Recording Studio

Rock Music Concert
Boiler Room

Printing Press
Kitchen with Garbage
Disposal Running

Loud
Moderately Loud

Quiet

Threshold of
Hearing

10
Source: Handbook of Noise Measurement, Arnold P.G. Peterson, 1980

Subjective Response to Noise
The adverse effects of noise on people can be classified into three general categories:


Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction.



Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning.



Physiological effects such as anxiety or hearing loss.

The sound levels associated with environmental noise, in almost every case, produce
effects only in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise
effects in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the
subjective effects of noise, or of the corresponding reactions of annoyance and
dissatisfaction, primarily because of the wide variation in individual tolerance of noise.
One way to determine a person's subjective reaction to a new noise is to compare the
level of the existing (background) noise, to which one has become accustomed, with the
level of the new noise. In general, the more the level or the tonal variations of a new
noise exceed the previously existing ambient noise level or tonal quality, the less
acceptable the new noise will be, as judged by the exposed individual.

February 2015

NV1-3

APPENDIX NV-1

 With regard to increases in A-weighted noise levels, knowledge of the following
relationships can be helpful in understanding the significance of human exposure to
noise.
1. Except under special conditions, a change in sound level of one dB cannot be
perceived.
2. Outside of the laboratory, a three dB change is considered a barely noticeable
difference.
3. A change in level of at least five dB is required before any noticeable change in
community response would be expected.
4. A ten dB change is subjectively heard as an approximate doubling in loudness and
almost always causes an adverse community response. (Kryter, Karl D., The Effects
of Noise on Man, 1970).

Combination of Sound Levels
People perceive both the level and frequency of sound in a non-linear way. A doubling
of sound energy (for instance, from two identical automobiles passing simultaneously)
creates a three dB increase (i.e., the resultant sound level is the sound level from a
single passing automobile plus three dB). The rules for decibel addition used in
community noise prediction are:
Noise Table A3
Addition of Decibel Values
When two decibel
values differ by:

Add the following
amount to the
larger value

0 to 1 dB
2 to 3 dB
4 to 9 dB
10 dB or more

3 dB
2 dB
1 dB
0

Figures in this table are accurate to ± 1 dB.
Source: Architectural Acoustics, M. David Egan, 1988.

Sound and Distance
Doubling the distance from a noise source reduces the sound pressure level by six dB.
Increasing the distance from a noise source ten times reduces the sound pressure level
by 20 dB.

Worker Protection
OSHA noise regulations are designed to protect workers against the effects of noise
exposure, and list permissible noise level exposure as a function of the amount of time
to which the worker is exposed:

APPENDIX NV-1

NV1-4

February 2015

 Noise Table A4
OSHA Worker Noise Exposure Standards
Duration of Noise
(Hrs/day)
8.0
6.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.25

A-Weighted Noise Level (dBA)
90
92
95
97
100
102
105
110
115

Source: 29 CFR § 1910.95.

February 2015

NV1-5

APPENDIX NV-1

 NOISE AND VIBRATION - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Noise Monitoring Locations

Project Features

0

Noise Monitoring Locations

D

·--

Amended CECP Project Site

" • ~ Licensed CECP Boundary
Other Features
Major Road

-+--

Railroad

CJ County Boundary
0

312.5 625

I

1,250
I

Feet

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CH2MHill, Apri l 2014 - Petition to Amend

NOISE AND VIBRATION

 PUBLIC HEALTH
Testimony of Alvin Greenberg, Ph.D.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Staff concludes that the amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project (amended CECP),
would incorporate sufficient measures to ensure that the risks to public health are less
than significant and that it would comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations,
and standards.
Staff analyzed the proposed changes to the licensed Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(CECP), which include replacing combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle
turbines, reconfiguration of the project footprint, and the demolition and removal of
portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff concludes that there would not be any new
significant unmitigated public health impacts nor an increase in severity of
environmental impacts.
Because of new information learned during this amendment process, staff recommends
that existing Condition PUBLIC HEALTH-1 be deleted as it would be unnecessary.

INTRODUCTION
As discussed in detail in the Project Description of this Final Staff Assessment (FSA),
the amended CECP would be different than the licensed CECP approved by the Energy
Commission on May 31, 2012. These changes involve new information and project
changes that were unforeseeable when the project was originally licensed. For that
reason, an evaluation of impacts, including the potential for changes or additions to the
licensed CECP Conditions of Certification (COCs) for the project is required. The
amended CECP proposes implementing the following general changes and
modifications to the licensed CECP:
1. Add the demolition of three additional above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs 1, 2
and 4), and associated piping and equipment, removal of oily sands from under
ASTs 1, 2, and 4, and removal of an earthen berm between ASTs 4 and 5.
2. Change in generation equipment and technology from Siemens fast response,
combined-cycle to six natural gas-fired GE LMS 100 simple-cycle turbines with
approximately 632 MW net output of electrical generating capacity, requiring a new
quantitative health risk assessment.
3. Add retirement and demolition of Encina Power Station (EPS). Units 1 through 5 of
EPS would be retired and all above-grade elements of the EPS power and support
buildings would be demolished and removed.
The amended CECP would continue to be situated adjacent to the EPS, in the north
eastern portion of the 95-acre parcel, between the existing North County Transit District
(NCTD) railroad tracks and Interstate-5, but the amended CECP would have a larger
footprint, occupying most of that area (30 acres). Construction equipment/material
laydown and construction worker parking areas for the project would remain
February 2015

4.8-1

PUBLIC HEALTH

 immediately north of the existing EPS facility and in various areas west of the existing
railroad tracks. No offsite parking or laydown areas are anticipated to be necessary for
the construction of the amended CECP.
The amended CECP would continue to interconnect to the electrical transmission
system via 138-kilovolt (kV) and 230-kV lines that connect to the respective San Diego
Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) switchyards situated on the EPS site. Natural gas
would be delivered to the amended CECP from the existing SDG&E transmission
pipeline (Line TL 2009, “Rainbow line”) via an approximate 1,100-foot-long
interconnection pipeline that runs parallel to the existing NCTD railroad tracks. Similar to
the licensed CECP, with the exception of short, onsite interconnections, no offsite gas
supply lines would be required for the amended CECP. The amended CECP would use
reclaimed water and/or potable water from the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, and
would connect to an existing City of Carlsbad (Encina Wastewater Authority) sanitary
sewer line.
Upon completion of construction of the amended CECP and achievement of commercial
operations, the EPS would be decommissioned, and the above-grade elements of the
main EPS power building and all support and ancillary buildings would be demolished.
Upon completion of demolition of EPS, approximately 40 acres west of the railroad
tracks would transition from Energy Commission regulatory jurisdiction to that of the
city, and be made available for future redevelopment. Some portions west of the
railroad tracks would remain dedicated to the amended CECP, such as for
transportation access, electrical interconnection, and water or gas supply.

PUBLIC HEALTH

4.8-2

February 2015

 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATION, AND STANDARDS
Public Health Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR
Federal
Clean Air Act Section 112 (42
U.S. Code section 7412)
State
California Health and Safety
Code 25249.5 et seq.
(Proposition 65)

California Health and Safety
Code Section 41700

California Code of
Regulations, Title 22, Section
60306

California Public Resource
Code Section 25523(a); Title
20 CCR Section 1752.5,
2300-2309; and Division 2
Chapter 5, Article 1, Appendix
B, Part (1); California Clean
Air Act, H&SC Section 39650,
et seq.
Local
San Diego Air Pollution
Control District (SDAPCD)
Regulation XII, Toxic Air
Contaminants, Rule 1200

February 2015

Description
Requires new sources which emit more than ten tons per year of any
specified hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or more than 25 tons per year of
any combination of HAPs to apply Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT).
Establishes thresholds of exposure to carcinogenic substances above
which Prop 65 exposure warnings are required.
This section states that “no person shall discharge from any source
whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which
cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort,
repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which
cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business
or property.”
Requires that whenever a cooling system uses recycled water in
conjunction with an air conditioning facility and a cooling tower that
creates a mist that could come into contact with employees or members
of the public, a drift eliminator shall be used and chlorine or other
biocides shall be used to treat the cooling system recirculating water to
minimize the growth of Legionella and other micro-organisms.

These regulations require a quantitative health risk assessment for new
or modified sources, including power plants that emit one or more toxic
air contaminants.

This rule (New Source Review) specifies acceptable cancer and noncancer risk thresholds for toxic air contaminants in order to limit public
exposure.

4.8-3

PUBLIC HEALTH

 SETTING
The amended CECP would be located on the northeastern section of the Encina Power
Station (EPS) site, immediately south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, within the city of
Carlsbad, in northern San Diego County. The EPS and the amended CECP (as well as
the Carlsbad Poseidon Seawater Desalination Project) are located at 4600 Carlsbad
Boulevard, along the southern edge of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the Pacific
Ocean. The EPS comprises approximately 95 acres, and is generally bounded by
SDG&E property on the south, the Pacific Ocean and Carlsbad Boulevard on the west,
Interstate 5 on the east, and the southern shore of the outer and middle basins of the
Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the north (see Project Description Figure 1).
The amended CECP would involve several phases, including:

PHASE I: TANK DEMOLITION AND REMEDIATION:
This would consist of demolition of above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) 1, 2 and
4. Also slated for demolition are ASTs 5, 6 and 7 (previously permitted for demolition as
part of the licensed CECP Final Decision), which would occur just prior to Phase I
demolition activities.

PHASE II: CONSTRUCTION / COMMISSIONING / OPERATION OF
AMENDED CECP:
This would involve the construction, commissioning and operation of the amended
CECP power plant.

PHASE III: RETIREMENT AND DECOMMISSIONING OF EPS UNITS:
This would involve the permanent shut-down and decommissioning of the EPS. Several
activities would occur prior to the commencement of demolishing EPS structures,
including the removal from EPS of materials and equipment to be reused, sold or
recycled as well as the removal of all Hazardous Building Materials (HBM; materials
containing asbestos, lead, mercury, PCBs, or chlorofluorocarbons) which must occur
prior to demolition activities.

PHASE IV: EPS DEMOLITION:
The final phase of the amend CECP includes demolition and removal of all EPS
structures and building to ground level, including operating Units 1-5, the 400-ft. tall
stack, and the 600-ft. long concrete enclosure building.
The general population includes many sensitive subgroups that may be at greater risk
from exposure to emitted pollutants. These sensitive subgroups include the very young,
the elderly, and those with existing illnesses. In addition, the location of the population in
the area surrounding a project site may have a major bearing on health risk.
Section 5.7.2 of the petition explains that the closest residential area to the licensed
CECP is located north of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, approximately 1,750 feet from the
facility site. However, demolition of the EPS would occur approximately 400 feet from
the nearest residential receptor (400 feet from the southwest corner of the power plant
PUBLIC HEALTH

4.8-4

February 2015

 building and 800 feet from the 400‐foot‐tall stack). This receptor is identified as receptor
M4 in Figure 5.7‐3 of the original Application for Certification (AFC) for the CECP (07‐
AFC‐06).
Sensitive receptors in the project vicinity are two schools located north of the project site
and an elder care facility located northeast of the project site.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
Staff assessed the amendment proposals regarding potential impacts to public health.
The review process includes an evaluation of the consistency of the proposed changes
and modifications with that of the Energy Commission’s existing Final Decision, and to
determine whether the project, as amended, would remain in compliance with
applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (20 Cal. Code of Regs., §
1769).
Staff reviewed and assessed the potential for tank demolition, construction of the
amended CECP, operations of the amended CECP, and the demolition and removal of
the EPS to impact public health in the surrounding community. Staff’s analysis
addresses the potential impacts of Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) on all members of
the population including the young, the elderly, and people with existing medical
conditions that may make them more sensitive to the adverse effects of hazardous
materials. In order to accomplish this goal, staff utilized the most current public health
exposure levels (both acute and chronic) that are established to protect the public from
emitted TACs.
Staff has reviewed the proposed changes and the reasoning behind the petitions to
remove and amend and has made the following conclusions:

PHASE I TANK DEMOLITION
Staff determined that the petitioner does not propose to add any new equipment to the
project during tank demolition and project construction. The petitioner indicates that no
additional impacts are anticipated above those evaluated in the original AFC despite the
fact that the additional demolition of ASTs 1, 2 and 4 would add another six months to
the 25-month construction period because the demolition is not scheduled to overlap the
previously approved project construction phase.
Staff also determined that the Air Quality section (LL 2014b, Section 3.1) further
indicates that the number of equipment and vehicles necessary for removal of ASTs 1, 2
and 4 would be fewer than the number used in the worst-case construction phase
scenario evaluated in the licensed CECP. The petition concludes that: “project
modification is not expected to affect the peak emission levels or air quality impacts
previously analyzed for the demolition/construction phase of the CECP.” Peak 12-month
emission levels are projected to occur during the power plant construction phase, not the
demolition phase. The Public Health section (LL 2014b Section 3.2) concludes that the
activities are not expected to result in an increase over the peak toxic air contaminant
emission levels previously analyzed in the licensed CECP project. A health risk
assessment was not conducted to substantiate this projection.

February 2015

4.8-5

PUBLIC HEALTH

 Staff notes that the demolition phase as proposed would add an additional six months to
a 25-month construction phase. The demolition phase proposed would involve emissions
from additional equipment and vehicles and emissions from additional excavation,
grading and earth moving. These emissions would include criteria air pollutants as well
as diesel exhausts which contain the toxic air contaminant Diesel Particulate Matter
(DPM).
The Final Staff Assessment for the licensed CECP prepared by Energy Commission staff
for the licensed project in November 2009 (CEC 2009) reported the applicant modeled
worst-case construction emissions for the licensed CECP project, adjusted to a 25month construction period. The maximum calculated cancer risk due to construction
emissions of DPM was calculated to be 9.1 in a million, which is below the level of
significance of ten excess cancers in one million exposed people.
Staff concludes that despite the lack of a quantitative health risk assessment to
substantiate the petitioner’s projection that amendment requested activities are not
expected to result in an increase over the peak toxic air contaminant emission levels
previously analyzed in the approved licensed CECP project. The following facts support
that statement:
1. the number of equipment and vehicles necessary for removal of ASTs 1, 2 and 4
would be fewer than the number used in the worst-case construction phase scenario
evaluated in the approved project; and
2. the peak 12-month emission levels are projected to occur during the power plant
construction phase, not the demolition phase.
Therefore, staff concludes that there would be no significant impact on public health due
to the requested activities.

PHASE II OPERATIONS OF THE AMENDED CECP
Staff has determined that the proposed change in generation equipment and technology
from the licensed CECP (Siemens fast response combined-cycle) to the amended CECP
(six natural gas-fired GE LMS 100 simple-cycle turbines) would result in a lower health risk
to the off-site public. Staff makes this determination based upon the results of two Human
Health Risk Assessments conducted by staff: one using the current Cal-EPA Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) approved methodology (OEHHA
2012); and another one using a newly proposed OEHHA methodology (OEHHA 2014b;
2014c). Staff used the August 2012 approved methodology and the most recent toxicity
values (OEHHA 2014a; EPA 2014) to determine compliance but offers the results of the
newly proposed methodology for informational and comparison purposes.

Modeling Procedure
Emitting units for the proposed amended CECP would include six natural gas-fired
combustion turbines, a diesel emergency generator and a diesel firewater pump, for a
total of eight emitting sources staff evaluated.
Staff’s quantitative analysis of facility operations is based on air dispersion modeling
results for the proposed amended CECP facility contained in April 2014 modeling files
provided by the petitioner. The petitioner used AERMOD (American Meteorological
PUBLIC HEALTH

4.8-6

February 2015

 Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model) to conduct air dispersion
modeling and used the HARP (Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program) On-Ramp
program to load AERMOD results into the ARB/OEHHA HARP, Version 1.4f for the risk
analysis. The most recent update to the HARP program available on the ARB website is
dated May 4, 2012. Meteorological data for Camp Pendleton were used in AERMOD.
Exposure point concentrations used in staff’s analysis were generated using data
available in the modeling files provided by the petitioner. (See the Air Quality section
for more discussion of this meteorology and its applicability to this site.)
The most current exposure methodology developed by Cal-EPA OEHHA and approved
for human health risks assessment was used in this assessment (OEHHA 2012).
Exposure pathways assessed include inhalation, dermal absorption, soil ingestion,
homegrown produce, local angler-caught fish and mother’s milk.
Four operational scenarios were evaluated in this analysis for potential health risks:


New equipment normal operation (gas turbines and emergency generators). The
hourly and annual emission factors used in staff’s analysis are listed in Public
Health Table 2



Gas turbine startups/shutdowns



Gas turbine commissioning period (includes impacts for existing Encina units)



Gas turbine long-term commissioning (over a period of months) case

Four receptor types were evaluated in this analysis and risk results for the highest of
five years of modeling are presented, as follows:


Point of maximum impact (PMI) – appears to be located on the facility’s property



Maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) – located about 0.6 miles (0.9 km)
east of the project location



Maximally exposed individual worker (MEIW) – located at the PMI



Receptor at a nearby school (conservatively modeled as a residential receptor which
would be more health-protective because the hours a child spends at home are
greater than the hours spent at school) – located at Kelly Elementary School,
approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) from the project location

February 2015

4.8-7

PUBLIC HEALTH

 Public Health Table 2
Emission Rates for Combustion Turbines and Emergency Generators Used in this
Analysis for Normal Operations for Cancer Risk and Hazard Analyses
Emission Factor
lb/hr

Emission Factor
lb/yr

1,3-Butadiene

1.27E-03

4.93E+00

Acenaphthene

5.50E-05

2.14E-01

Acenapthyene

4.25E-05

1.65E-01

Acetaldehyde

1.18E-01

4.58E+02

Acrolein

1.90E-02

7.38E+01

Ammonia

4.06E+01

1.09E+05

Anthracene

9.78E-05

3.80E-01

Benzene

3.53E-02

1.37E+02

Benzo(a)anthrace

6.54E-05

2.54E-01

Benzo(a)pyrene

4.03E-05

1.56E-01

Benzo(b)fluorant

3.27E-05

1.27E-01

Benzo(e)pyrene

1.58E-06

6.12E-03

Benzo(g,h,i)pery

3.97E-05

1.54E-01

Benzo(k)fluorant

3.19E-05

1.24E-01

Chrysene

7.32E-05

2.84E-01

Dibenz(a,h)anthr

6.78E-05

2.63E-01

Chemical Name

Diesel PM

PUBLIC HEALTH

1.31E+01

Ethylbenzene

9.42E-02

3.67E+02

Fluoranthene

1.25E-04

4.85E-01

Fluorene

1.68E-04

6.54E-01

Formaldehyde

2.66E+00

1.03E+04

Hexane, n-

7.50E-01

2.91E+03

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)

6.78E-05

2.63E-01

Naphthalene

3.85E-03

1.49E+01

Phenanthrene

9.12E-04

3.53E+00

Propylene

2.23E+00

8.64E+03

Propylene oxide

8.58E-02

3.32E+02

Pyrene

8.04E-05

3.11E-01

Toluene

3.85E-01

1.49E+03

Xylene

1.89E-01

7.32E+02

4.8-8

February 2015

 Results of Operations Scenarios
Results of staff’s analysis for all four scenarios are summarized in Public Health Table
3 and are compared to the results presented in the petitioner’s analysis. Substancespecific risks for Normal Operations are presented in Public Health Table 4 for the
Point of Maximum Impact and in Public Health Table 5 for the maximum impacted
residence.
Public Health Table 3
Results of Staff’s and Petitioner’s Analysis for Cancer Risk, Chronic Hazard and
Acute Hazard
Amended CECP

Petitioner’s Analysis1

Staff’s Analysis
Cancer Risk
(per million)

Chronic
HI

Acute
HI

Cancer
Risk
(per
million)

Chronic
HI

Acute
HI

New Equipment Normal Operation (gas turbines/emergency engines)
PMI
(Rec 7772 for chronic, Rec 14092
for acute)
MEIR
(Rec 7277 for chronic, Rec 2012
for acute)
MEIW
(Rec 7772 for chronic, Rec 14092
for acute)

6.4

0.0054

0.027

2.9

0.0015

0.027

0.27

0.0020

0.017

0.078

0.00047

0.016

0.44

-

0.027

0.45

-

0.027

School (Rec 3831)2

0.10

0.0022

0.014

-

-

-

-

0.090

Gas Turbine Startups/Shutdowns (acute impact only)
MEI (Rec 9538)

-

-

0.092

-

Gas Turbine Commissioning Period (includes impacts for existing Encina units)
MEI (Rec 9327)

-

-

0.080

-

-

0.078

0.0074

0.000090

-

Gas Turbine Long-Term Commissioning Period
MEI (Rec 9682)

0.343

0.00044

-

1

Source: LL 2014d, Table 5.9-4
Kelly Elementary School was determined to be the local school with the highest predicted airborne concentrations. It is located
approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 km) east of the project location.
3
This value includes the fish ingestion pathway whereas the applicant’s analysis does not. The text of the applicant’s report
indicates that the fish ingestion pathway is quantified but the HARP modeling report files show 0 risk for that pathway. In staff’s
analysis, if the fish ingestion pathway is removed, the resulting risk would be reduced to 0.012 in a million from 0.34 in a million.
Note: The term “Rec” means “Receptor” number as found in the PTA (LL 2014d)
2

February 2015

4.8-9

PUBLIC HEALTH

 Public Health Table 4
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk by Individual Substances at the Point of
Maximum Impact (PMI), Determined for Normal Operations
Chemical Name

Cancer Risk
(per million)

1,3-Butadiene

4.5E-11

Acetaldehyde

7.0E-11

Benzene

2.1E-10

Benzo(a)anthracene

9.7E-09

Benzo(a)pyrene

5.9E-08

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

4.8E-09

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

4.7E-09

Chrysene

1.1E-09

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

3.4E-08

Diesel PM

6.3E-06

Ethylbenzene

4.9E-11

Formaldehyde

3.3E-09

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)

1.0E-08

Naphthalene

2.7E-11

Propylene oxide

6.6E-11

TOTAL RISK

6.4E-06

A review of Public Health Table 3 shows that staff’s health risk assessment results in
an overall maximum theoretical risk at the Point of Maximum Impact (PMI) and the
MEIR (a residential receptor) is greater by a factor of 2.2 to 3.5 than that calculated by
the petitioner. This is because the May 2012 HARP program used by the petitioner is
the most recent version available but has not yet been updated to include the August
2012 OEHHA methodology and therefore the petitioner’s HRA used the older
methodology no longer approved. Although staff used the August 2012 approved
methodology and determined the risk to be greater, those risks remain well below the
level of significant (ten in one million). Furthermore, staff determined that the PMI is
located on or very near the amended CECP fence line and therefore no residents or
members of the public could possibility be placed at that location (see Public Health
Figure 1).
Staff also determined that the toxic air contaminants (TACs) that would be emitted from
the amended CECP that contribute the most to cancer risk and noncancer hazard can
be found in Public Health Table 4 (for the PMI) and Public Health Table 5 (for the
MEIR). The TAC which contributes the most to risk at both locales is DPM (diesel
particulate matter) which would be emitted from the emergency diesel engines during
required periodic testing and not from the natural gas-fired combustion turbines.

PUBLIC HEALTH

4.8-10

February 2015

 Public Health Table 5
Contribution to Total Cancer Risk by Individual Substances at the Maximally
Exposed Individual Receptor (MEIR), Determined for Normal Operations
Chemical Name

Cancer Risk
(per million)

1,3-Butadiene

6.1E-10

Acetaldehyde

9.4E-10

Benzene

2.8E-09

Benzo(a)anthrace

1.0E-08

Benzo(a)pyrene

6.3E-08

Benzo(b)fluoranthene

5.1E-09

Benzo(k)fluoranthene

5.0E-09

Chrysene

1.1E-09

Dibenz(a,h)anthracene

3.6E-08

Diesel PM

8.8E-08

Ethylbenzene

6.5E-10

Formaldehyde

4.4E-08

Indeno(1,2,3-cd)

1.1E-08

Naphthalene

3.7E-10

Propylene oxide

8.9E-10

TOTAL RISK

2.7E-07

As mentioned above, staff also calculated the maximum theoretical risk and noncancer
hazard using the recently proposed OEHHA methodology (OEHHA 2014b; 2014c). In
this case, the risk to the PMI drops to 5.0 in one million (from 6.4 in one million as shown
in Public Health Table 3) and the risk to the MEIR drops to 0.24 in one million from 0.27
in one million, also as shown in Public Health Table 3). The noncancer hazard values
remain the same. The slight drop in calculated cancer risk is because the proposed
methodology has a new exposure duration value not presently used in the currently
approved method, a “Fraction of Time Spent at Home” (FAH) adjustment factor which
would become the new required approach should it become approved by Cal-EPA.
Staff also used this method to determine that the maximum calculated risk due to DPM
emitted from demolition and construction vehicles during the Phase I demolition activities
would be reduced by a factor of 72-85 percent from what would be calculated under the
existing approved OEHHA methodology. This reduction would more than offset any
potential increase in the calculated maximum risk to nearby residents due to the
extended time-frame of emissions during Phase I demolition and thus results in an
estimated overall risk due to emissions of diesel particulate matter less than the level of
significance (ten excess cancers in one million exposed people). However, staff supplies
these calculations for informational purposes only and is relying upon the August 2012
approved method to calculate the risk for regulatory and CEQA purposes. However, staff
wishes to reiterate that for the amended CECP, all risks to all receptors calculated using
all methodologies are less than the level of signicance (ten in one million).
February 2015

4.8-11

PUBLIC HEALTH

 Staff also reviewed the HRA prepared by the San Diego Air Pollution District (SDAPCD)
provided to staff in the Preliminary Determination of Compliance (SDAPCD 2014a). The
SDAPCD’s HRA used the same version of HARP as the petitioner and emission factors
from U.S. EPA (AP-42 Table 3.1-3) and CATEF (California Air Toxics Emission Factor)
database. The results are therefore very similar to the petitioner’s, 2.3 in one million for
the PMI and 0.065 in a million for the MEIR. All acute and chronic noncancer hazards
are well below the level of significance.
In summary, staff used the most recent OEHHA approved methodology (August 2012)
as well as the most recent OEHHA proposed methodology (June and September 2014)
and determined that all operating period risks and hazards posed to the off-site public
would be less than the level of significance. Staff also notes that the petitioner’s HRA
and the SDAPCD’s HRA also showed the level of risk and hazard to be less than
significant. Therefore, staff concludes that the amended CECP would not cause a
signficant impact to public health.

PHASE IV EPS DEMOLITION
Staff notes that the potential exists for off-site impacts to public health during demolition
of the EPS stack and buildings. The petition (LL 2014d) along with the responses to
staff’s data requests (LL 2014x and LL 2014cc) provide adequate information for staff to
review and assess potential impacts to public health associated with the requested
activities. Staff is satisfied that the demolition and removal of the 400-ft. stack and the
adjoining power station buildings and units, as described in the “Encina Power Station
Demolition Plan” (LL 2014cc, attachment to DR64-1) would provide a sound basis for
safely removing the stack with minimal impact to the surrounding off-site community.
Staff finds that inclusion of this plan in proposed revised Condition WORKER SAFETY1 would enhance safety and assure that the risks to workers and the off-site public
during the demolition and removal of the EPS would be less than significant.
Furthermore, air quality condition of certification AQ-SC13 would prohibit implosion for
EPS demolition.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Staff analyzed the potential for the existence of cumulative impacts. A significant cumulative
public health impact is defined as the short-term or long-term emissions of TACs from multiple
facilities that could cause a significant impact where the emissions from one facility alone
would not cause a significant impact. Existing locations that emit TACs, or locations where
such facilities might likely be built, were both considered. Staff believes that while cumulative
impacts are theoretically possible, they are not probable because of the requirements to
control the releases of TACs and the significant dispersion once airborne. The chances of two
airborne plumes of TACs mingling to create a significant cumulative impact are remote. Staff
has modeled numerous sources in the past (over 50 sources within a six-mile radius) and has
found that the sources must be very close to each other, within a few blocks, for this to even
potentially occur.
Table 1 of the Executive Summary of this FSA provides a list of more than 32 projects
located within six miles of the amended CECP site that are built, under construction, or
are reasonably expected to be built. With the exception of the existing Encina0 Power
PUBLIC HEALTH

4.8-12

February 2015

 Station and the Carlsbad Poseidon Desalination Project (currently under construction at
a location between the amended CECP site and the existing EPS), all the remaining
existing or planned projects in the vicinity of the proposed amended CECP would either
not emit TACs or the distance between the source and the amended CECP would be so
great as to preclude the airborne plumes from both sources mingling sufficiently to have
a potential cumulative impact. Since the EPS would cease operations as soon as the
amended CECP completes commissioning and becomes commercially available to
operate, cumulative impacts from these two facilities are not expected to occur.
According to the EIR for the Carlsbad Poseidon Desalination Project (Carlsbad 2005
section 4.2): “Long-term air emissions associated with operation of the desalination
plant consist of vehicle emissions generated during maintenance visits and employee
vehicle trips, stationary source emissions produced at the project site, and consumption
of electricity and natural gas. The desalination plant would operate 24 hours per day,
seven days a week upon completion of construction. All of equipment will utilize electric
power, will not utilize any combustion or other fuel sources, and will not generate any air
emissions during their operation. The desalination plant does not involve the direct
emission of toxic air contaminants and therefore not have the potential to expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.”
However, the Poseidon EIR makes note that the electrical power provided to the facility
would include indirect emissions associated with the generation of the electrical power
consumed by the desalination plant. Staff believes that the power generated would
come from the grid or from the amended CECP. If from the grid, the emissions source
would be too distant to pose a cumulative impact; if from the amended CECP, then the
source is already accounted for in the HRA of the amended CECP. In either case, staff
finds that the presence of both the Carlsbad Poseidon Desalination Project and the
amended CECP would not pose a cumulative risk to public health.
Staff finds that the amended CECP, as proposed by the petitioner and with the
additional mitigation measure proposed by staff, poses an insignificant risk of off-site
impacts to public health. It is unlikely that emissions of TACs from the amended CECP
would merge with emissions from another facility at the same location so as to create a
significant cumulative risk where an individual facility risk was less than significant.
Therefore, staff concludes that the facility would not contribute to a significant public
health cumulative impact.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
Staff concludes that construction and operation of the amended CECP would be in
compliance with all applicable LORS regarding long-term and short-term project impacts
in the area of Public Health.

February 2015

4.8-13

PUBLIC HEALTH

 RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
Staff has received only a few comments on the PSA related to public health issues.
Units [4 and 5] Given that the 2013 District Permit to Operate and the Title V Permit
both require the use of natural gas in Units 4 and 5 should they be dispatched by the
Cal-ISO during commissioning of the amended CECP, staff is recommending deletion
of condition PUBLIC HEALTH-1 because it is unnecessary.

INTERVENOR: ROBERT SIMPSON/ HELPING HAND TOOLS,
TN203587, FEBRUARY 2, 2015.
Comment: In a letter dated February 2, 2015, intervener Robert Simpson made four
comments and requests of staff on the subject of Public Health. He requested the
following:
1. that staff conduct a health risk assessment (HRA) assuming that both the EPS and
the amended CECP would operate simultaneously;
2. that staff study an alleged cancer cluster that was alleged to be potentially linked to
the existing EPS during public comments in the licensed CECP proceeding, and that
furthermore staff and the SDCAPCD respond to concerns raised by parents and test
the air;
3. that all emissions (staff assumes he includes Toxic Air Contaminants) be modeled to
show the point of maximum deposition; and
4. that the risk be calculated using present health risk assessment protocols.
Response:
1. Staff believes that it is not appropriate to conduct a full HRA that includes the
emissions from concurrent operation of the amended CECP and the existing
EPS because, simply put, they will not operate concurrently once the CECP
starts commercial operations (operation of the EPS would not be allowed, either
by the Energy Commission or the Air District). Furthermore, even if they did it is
doubtful the plumes would mingle and create a greater combined risk at the
same point of maximum impact because the stack heights are so very different.
After the CECP goes commercial, the EPS must shut down completely and
demolition and removal activities will commence. The only time the EPS could
operate when the CECP is operating is during the one-year commissioning
period of the CECP. And although it would not be appropriate to conduct a
chronic (long-term cancer) risk assessment for such a short period of time, staff
did conduct an acute (short-term) hazard assessment in this FSA (see Public
Health Table 3, above). The result of that assessment shows an acute Hazard
Index of 0.08 for concurrent operation of both the amended CECP turbines and
the ESP. This Hazard Index is so low that staff can confidently state that shortterm impacts would not occur due to emissions from the CECP during
commissioning and the concurrent operation of the EPS.

PUBLIC HEALTH

4.8-14

February 2015

 2. Staff has already responded to this request made by Mr. Simpson in his data
requests (see TN203332 Energy Commission Objections and Responses to
Simpson Data Requests, response number 45) and wishes once again to point
out that the California Department of Public Health and the San Diego Air
Pollution Control District have conducted studies that show there are no
leukemia/cancer cases and deaths linked to the existing EPS (Report of the
California Cancer Registry, California Department of Public Health 2009; Report
of the Cancer Surveillance Section, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch,
California Department of Public Health 2010; SDAPCD Ambient Air Toxics
Monitoring at Kelly Elementary School Carlsbad, California 2010). Concerns
raised by parents and the public have been addressed.
3. Staff provided a map in the PSA and FSA (Public Health Figure-1 above) that
shows the point of maximum impact, resident, and school for Toxic Air
Contaminants.
4. Staff conducted its HRA using the presently approved methodology and protocol
as described by Cal-EPA OEHHA. Staff also, for informational purposes,
conducted a HRA using the methodology and protocol under consideration by
OEHHA but which has not been approved or recommended for use by OEHHA.

RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE ORDER FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY
STAFF ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE ORDER, TN# 203527, January 15, 2015.
Following its review of the PSA, the Committee directed staff to provide additional
information and analysis, as identified in the Order, in preparing its Final Staff Analysis.
Those relevant to public health are summarized and addressed below:
Comment: Staff must include a discussion of whether or not supplementation of the
previous EIR is necessary under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162,
Response: In the Summary of Conclusions, staff briefly summarizes the substantial
changes or new information, the resulting new or increased significant effects, and
any resulting changes in the required mitigation. Staff determined that the amended
CECP would not result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated.

February 2015

4.8-15

PUBLIC HEALTH

 CONCLUSIONS
Staff has analyzed potential public health risks associated with tank removal,
construction and operation of the amended CECP, and the demolition of the EPS, and
does not expect any significant adverse cancer, short-term, or long-term health effects
to any members of the public including low income and minority populations, from
project toxic emissions. Staff also concludes that its analysis of potential health impacts
from the proposed amended CECP uses the most recent and conservative health
protective methodology that accounts for impacts to the most sensitive individuals in a
given population, including newborns and infants. According to the results of staff’s
health risk assessment, emissions from the amended CECP project would not
contribute significantly to morbidity or mortality in any age or ethnic group residing in the
project area. Furthermore, a quantitative assessment of the impacts of the amended
CECP shows that the maximum theoretical risk to nearby residents would be lower than
those calculated by staff for the licensed CECP. Staff also concludes that no significant
cumulative impacts would occur.
Because of new information learned during this amendment process, the uncertainty of
the shutdown of the EPS during commissioning and operations of the amended CECP
has now been resolved. The EPS will cease operations once the amended CECP
begins commercial operations but during commissioning Units 4 and 5 will be available
for operations should it be dispatched by the Cal-ISO. Also, the EPS’ 2013 Permit to
Operate (as well as the 2013 Title V permit) removed all oil-firing provisions and thus
Units 4 and 5 are now required to use only natural gas. Therefore, staff recommends
that Condition PUBLIC HEALTH-1 be deleted as it would be unnecessary.

PUBLIC HEALTH

4.8-16

February 2015

 REFERENCES
CEC 2012a - California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CEC2014ab – California Energy Commission (TN203332). Objections and Responses
to Rob Simpson’s Data Requests, dated November 14, 2014. Submitted
11/14/2014.
CECP 2007a - California Energy Center Project/T. Hemig (tn: 42299). Application for
Certification for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project. 09/11/2007.
EPA 2014. U.S - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Integrated Risk Information
System. July.
LL 2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL 2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014x - Locke Lord LLP (TN203094). Responses to Data Request Set 2 (Nos. 4057), dated September 23, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014cc - Locke Lord LLP (TN203143). Response to Data Request Set 2A (No.64),
dated October 1, 2014. Submitted 10/01/2014.
LL2015c - Locke Lord LLP (TN203549). Project Owner’s Comments on the Preliminary
Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted 01/21/2015.
OEHHA 2012 - Cal-EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA).
2012. “Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health
Risk Assessments.” August.
OEHHA 2014a - Cal-EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA). “Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment
Health Values. January 30.
OEHHA 2014b - Cal-EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. “The Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments”. June Review Draft
OEHHA 2014c - Cal-EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. “The Air
Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk
Assessments”. September Scientific Review Panel Draft
SDAPCD2014a - San Diego Air Pollution Control District (TN203441). Preliminary
Determination of Compliance, dated December 12, 2004. Submitted 12/12/214.

February 2015

4.8-17

PUBLIC HEALTH

 SIM2015a - Rob Simpson/Helping Hands Tools (TN203587). Comments on Preliminary
Decision of Compliance Preliminary Staff Assessment. Submitted 02/02/2015.
SIM2015b - Rob Simpson/Helping Hands Tools (TN203588). Rob Simpson’s
comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated February 2, 2015.
Submitted 02/02/2015.

PUBLIC HEALTH

4.8-18

February 2015

 PUBLIC HEALTH - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Exposure Context

""tJ

c

Project receptors are indicated by yellow push pins

r

Normal operations
Rec 7772 - PMI & MEIW, risk & chronic HI (UTME 468812.76, UTMN
3666785.52)
Rec 7277 - MEIR, ris k & chronic HI (UTME 469650, UTMN 3667370)
Rec 14092 - PMI & MEIW, acute HI (UTME 481950, UTMN 3669640)
Rec 2012 - MEI, acute only (UTME 482050, UTMN 3660950)

{l)

0
I

m
)>

~

I

Startups
Rec 9538 - MEI, acute study only (UTME 475730, UTMN
3668020)
Acute commissioning
Rec 9327 - MEI, acute only (UTME 475720, UTMN 3667920)
long-term commissioning
Rec 9682 - MEI, risk and chronic HI only (UTME 475950,
UTMN 3667890P

CALIFORN IA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVIS ION
SOURCE: Dr. A l vin Greenberg , De cember 2 0 14

 SOCIOECONOMICS
Testimony of Lisa Worrall

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Energy Commission staff (staff) has reviewed the amended Carlsbad Energy Center
Project (amended CECP) in accordance with the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff’s analysis considers the changes between the
May 31, 2012 licensed project (licensed CECP) and the modified project (amended
CECP) as proposed by Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC (petitioner/project owner).
Staff analyzed the changes from the licensed CECP to the amended CECP relevant to
Socioeconomics. These changes involve the number of workforce needed for the
project’s demolition, remediation, construction, decommissioning, and site restoration
(construction). Other changes include the number of operations workforce needed,
changes in the duration of construction, and estimated fiscal benefits. The demographic
and cumulative settings have also changed since the CECP was licensed in 2012. Staff
has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of these changes. There would not be
any new significant socioeconomic impacts not previously analyzed, nor an increase in
severity of environmental impacts.
Staff has determined that like the licensed CECP, the demolition, remediation,
construction, decommissioning, site restoration, and operation activities associated with
the amended CECP in Carlsbad, California, would not cause a significant adverse
direct, indirect or cumulative socioeconomic impact on the area’s housing, schools, law
enforcement or parks and recreation. Staff also concludes that like the licensed CECP,
the amended CECP would not induce a substantial population growth or displacement
of population, or induce substantial increases in demand for housing, law enforcement
services, or parks and recreation. Condition of Certification SOCIO-1 was included in
the June 2012 Commission Decision for the licensed CECP. To clarify the verification
process, staff has proposed minor edits to the verification process (CEC 2012a, pg. 8.36). Staff proposes a new condition of certification, SOCIO-2, to ensure the amended
CECP complies with state laws, which were not applicable to the licensed CECP
(California Education Code and California Government Code). The existing condition of
certification and new staff-proposed condition of certification would ensure project
compliance with state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS).
Staff concludes the minority population in the six-mile project radius does not constitute
an environmental justice population as defined by Environmental Justice: Guidance
Under the National Environmental Policy Act.

INTRODUCTION
In this socioeconomics analysis, staff presents an impact analysis of the project-caused
changes on existing population, housing, employment patterns, and community
services. Staff analyzes the potential impacts of the demolition, remediation,
construction, decommissioning, and site restoration activities (construction), plus
operation associated with the amended CECP on local communities, community
February 2015

4.9-1

SOCIOECONOMICS

 resources, and law enforcement services, and also provides a discussion of the
estimated beneficial economic impacts of the construction and operation of the
proposed project.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
Socioeconomics Table 1 contains socioeconomics laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards (LORS) applicable to the proposed project.
Socioeconomics Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LORS

Description

State
California Education Code,
Section 17620
California Government Code,
Sections 65996-65997

The governing board of any school district is authorized to levy a fee,
charge, dedication, or other requirement for the purpose of funding
the construction or reconstruction of school facilities.
Except for a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement authorized
under Section 17620 of the Education Code, state and local public
agencies may not impose fees, charges, or other financial
requirements to offset the cost for school facilities.

PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
The changes from the licensed CECP to the amended CECP relevant to
Socioeconomics involve the number of workforce needed for the project’s demolition,
remediation, construction, decommissioning, and site restoration (construction). Other
changes include the number of operations workforce needed, changes in the duration of
construction, and estimated fiscal benefits. The amended CECP would involve four
phases. In brief, the four phases include Phase I - Tank Demolition and Remediation of
above ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) 1, 2, and 4, Phase II - Construction /
Commissioning / Operation of amended CECP power plant, Phase III - Retirement and
Decommissioning of the EPS, and Phase IV - EPS Demolition and Site Restoration.
Prior to Phase I is the demolition and removal of ASTs 5, 6, and 7, permitted as part of
the licensed CECP in 2012.
If approved by the Energy Commission, the amended CECP would take 64 months to
complete with an estimated start date in the second quarter of 2015 and project
completion in the fourth quarter of 2020.1 An average workforce of 95 workers and a
peak of 279 workers during month 13 of Phase II would be needed for the amended
CECP based on the complete 64-month schedule. Conversely, the licensed CECP
(which involved tank demolition and power plant construction, but not EPS demolition)
had a 25-month construction schedule and required a construction workforce that
peaked at 357 (CEC 2012a, pgs. 1-1 and 8.3-2). The workforce needed for the licensed
CECP demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7 would be the same work crew for the tank
1

The October 30, 2014 Revised Committee Scheduling Order estimated a final decision from the Energy
Commission in the second quarter of 2015 (CEC 2014ww). Based on this estimate, start of project
construction with Phase I of the amended CECP could be pushed back to the third quarter of 2015,
thereby pushing the 64-month amended CECP schedule back by one quarter.
SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-2

February 2015

 demolition in Phase I for the amended CECP (LL 2014v). Demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and
7 would take approximately two months, augmenting the schedule for the amended
CECP, for a total of 66 months. Staff cannot specify the exact average workforce for the
entire 66-month schedule consisting of the licensed CECP demolition work plus all four
phases (I through IV) for the amended CECP schedule, as this data cannot be derived
from the construction workforce numbers for the CECP licensed in 2012.
Socioeconomics Table 2 presents a graphic representation of the estimated
construction schedule for the amended CECP. This does not include the two-month
demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7 approved in the licensed CECP.
Socioeconomics Table 2
Amended CECP Estimated Schedule
I
P
H
A
S
E
S

II
III
IV
YR
QTR

1

2015
2 3

4

1

2016
2 3

4

1

2017
2 3

4

1

2018
2 3

4

1

2019
2 3

4

1

2020
2 3

4

An operations workforce of 18 employees would operate the amended CECP power
plant, all of whom would be pulled from the existing 50-member EPS operations
workforce (LL 2014d, pg. 2-36). The licensed CECP required 14 employees who would
also have come from the EPS operations staff.
The changes to the fiscal benefits are presented in Socioeconomics Table 11. The
petitioner has not provided estimated fiscal benefits for activities associated with Phase
I, Phase III, and the site restoration activities in Phase IV of the amended CECP.
The proposed amended CECP power plant (Phase II) would be located on the same,
but slightly larger portion (30 acres) of the 95-acre EPS parcel as the licensed CECP
(23 acres). Phase I activities would be carried out on a portion of the 95-acre EPS
parcel adjacent to the amended CECP power plant (across the railroad track and at the
southern end of the amended CECP power plant); therefore, the study areas are not
changed from the licensed CECP.

SETTING
The proposed amended CECP is located in the city of Carlsbad in San Diego County.
San Diego County also encompasses the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The amended CECP would be built on 30 of the
approximate 95 acres of the existing Encina Power Station site which is currently
occupied by the east tank farm and ASTs 4, 5, 6 and 7.
The site is bounded by the Pacific Ocean and Carlsbad Boulevard to the west; San
Diego Freeway to the east; Carlsbad State Beach and Agua Hedionda Lagoon to the

February 2015

4.9-3

SOCIOECONOMICS

 north; and to the south, Cannon Road, San Diego Gas & Electric (SGD&E)
maintenance yard, and adjacent residential areas.

USING THE 2010 US CENSUS AND US CENSUS BUREAU’S
AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY IN STAFF ASSESSMENTS
The detailed social, economic, and housing information previously collected only in the
decennial census was not collected for the 2010 Census (US Census 2011). This
information is now collected through the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey (ACS). Decennial census data is a 100 percent count collected once every ten
years and represents information from a single reference point (April 1st). The main
function of the decennial census is to provide counts of people for the purpose of
congressional apportionment and legislative redistricting. ACS estimates are collected
from a sample of the population based on information compiled continually and
aggregated into one, three, and five-year estimates (“period estimates”) released every
year. The primary purpose of the ACS is to measure the changing social and economic
characteristics of the U.S. population. As a result, the ACS does not provide official
counts of the population in between censuses. Instead, the Census Bureau’s Population
Estimates Program will continue to be the official source for annual population totals, by
age, race, Hispanic origin, and sex.
ACS collects data at every geography level from the largest level (nation) to the
smallest level available (block group (BG)).2 Census Bureau staff recommends the use
of data no smaller than the Census tract level.3,4 Data from the five-year estimates is
used for our analysis as it provides the greatest detail at the smallest geographic level.
Because ACS estimates come from a sample population, a certain level of variability is
associated with these estimates. This variability is expressed as a margin of error
(MOE). The MOE is used to calculate the coefficient of variation (CV). CVs are a
standardized indicator of the reliability of an estimate. While not a set rule, the US
Census Bureau considers the use of estimates with a CV of more than 15 percent a
cause for caution when interpreting patterns in the data (US Census 2009). In situations
where CVs for estimates are high, the reliability of an estimate improves by using
estimates for a larger geographic area (e.g. city or community versus census tract), or
by aggregating estimates of adjacent geographic areas, such as cities.

2

Census Block Group - A statistical subdivision of a census tract. A BG consists of all tabulation blocks
whose numbers begin with the same digit in a census tract; for example, for Census 2000, BG 3 within a
census tract includes all blocks numbered between 3000 and 3999. The block group is the lowest-level
geographic entity for which the Census Bureau tabulates sample data from the decennial census.
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/glossary.html.
3
Census Tract - A small, relatively permanent statistical subdivision of a county or statistically equivalent
entity, delineated for data presentation purposes by a local group of census data users or the geographic
staff of a regional census center in accordance with Census Bureau guidelines. Census tracts are
designed to be relatively homogeneous units with respect to population characteristics, economic status,
and living conditions at the time they are established. Census tracts generally contain between 1,000 and
8,000 people, with an optimum size of 4,000 people. Census tract boundaries are delineated with the
intention of being stable over many decades, so they generally follow relatively permanent visible
features. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/glossary.html.
4
Census Workshop: Using the American Community Survey (ACS) and The New American Factfinder
(AFF) hosted by Sacramento Area Council of Governments on May 11 & 12, 2011. Workshop presented
by Barbara Ferry, U.S. Census Partnership Data Services Specialist.
SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-4

February 2015

 PROJECT-SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHIC SCREENING
Staff’s demographic screening analysis is based on information contained in two
documents: Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy
Act (CEQ 1997) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) document
“Final Guidance for Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA
Compliance Analyses (US EPA1998). The intention is to identify potentially sensitive
populations, which could be disproportionately impacted by the proposed action. Due to
the changes in the data collection methods used by the U.S. Census Bureau, the
screening process relies on 2010 U.S. Census data to determine the number of minority
populations and data from the 2008-2012 ACS to evaluate the presence of individuals
and households living below the federal poverty level.
Staff’s demographic screening is designed to identify the presence of minority and
below-poverty-level populations within a six-mile radius of the proposed project site. The
six-mile radius is based on air quality modeling. See the Air Quality section for more
information. No other technical area has identified potential impacts that might exceed
this distance, therefore, staff uses a six-mile distance from the project to conservatively
assess impacts, and to obtain data resulting in the best possible understanding of the
demographic makeup of the communities potentially impacted by the amended project.
When Socioeconomics staff identifies the presence of an environmental justice
population, staff from the 13 affected technical areas would then evaluate the project for
potential disproportionate impacts on the environmental justice population.5 When staff’s
screening analysis does not identify the population in the six-mile radius to be an
environmental justice population, as defined by Environmental Justice: Guidance Under
the National Environmental Policy Act, no further scrutiny of this population is required,
or necessary, for purposes of an environmental justice analysis.

Minority Populations
According to Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy
Act, minority individuals are defined as members of the following groups: American
Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or
Hispanic. An environmental justice population is identified when the minority population
of the potentially affected area is greater than fifty percent or the minority population
percentage is meaningfully greater than the minority population in the general
population or other appropriate unit of geographical analysis.
Socioeconomics Figure 1 shows the total population within the six-mile radius of the
project site was 158,518 persons, with a minority population of 61,357 persons, or about
38.7 percent of the total population (US Census 2010a). The population in the six-mile
radius lives primarily within the cities of Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and Encinitas.
When compared with minority populations in the larger geographic area of the Census
County Division (CCD), which encompasses the project radius and San Diego County,
the minority population in the six-mile radius is less than the minority populations in
these reference geographies (Socioeconomics Table 3).
5

The 13 technical staff/areas are Air Quality, Hazardous Materials Management, Land Use, Noise and
Vibration, Public Health, Socioeconomics, Soils and Surface Water Resources, Water Supply, Traffic and
Transportation, Transmission Line Safety and Nuisance, Visual Resources, Cultural Resources, and
Waste Management.
February 2015

4.9-5

SOCIOECONOMICS

 Socioeconomics Table 3
Minority Populations within the Project Area
Area
Six-Mile Radius of Project Site
(Socioeconomics Figure 1)
Carlsbad
Encinitas
Oceanside
Vista
Oceanside-Escondido CCD*
San Diego County
California

Total
Population

Not Hispanic or
Latino: White alone

Minority

Percent
Minority

158,518

97,161

61,357

38.70

26,449
12,637
86,237
55,547

25.11
21.23
51.61
59.20

308,841
1,595,266
22,297,703

49.19
51.54
59.85

CITIES IN THE SIX-MILE RADIUS
105,328
78,879
59,518
46,881
167,086
80,849
93,834
38,287
REFERENCE GEOGRAPHIES
627,851
319,010
3,095,313
1,500,047
37,253,956
14,956,253

Notes: Bold text- minority population 50 percent or greater. *CCD - Census County Division.
Source: US Census 2010a.

Staff concludes that the minority population in the six-mile radius is not greater than 50
percent or meaningfully greater than the minority populations in the reference
geographies, and therefore does not constitute an environmental justice population as
defined by Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy
Act, and would not trigger further scrutiny for purposes of an environmental justice
analysis.

Below-Poverty-Level-Populations
The poverty status of households and individuals is determined based on a set of
income thresholds, set by the U.S. Census Bureau, that vary by family size and
composition. If the total income of the family is less than the family’s threshold, that
family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The official poverty thresholds
do not vary by geography (e.g. state, county, etc.), but are updated annually to allow for
changes in the cost of living. The population for whom poverty status is determined
does not include institutionalized people, people in military quarters, people in college
dormitories, and unrelated individuals under 15 years old.
Staff identified the below-poverty-level population in the project area using place level
data from the 2009-2013 ACS Five-Year Estimates from the United States Census
Bureau (US Census 2013).6 Within six miles of the amended CECP site, approximately
13 percent, or 54,247 people, live below the federal poverty threshold.7
Socioeconomics Table 4 presents poverty data for the area that approximates a sixmile radius of the project site.

6

Staff determined that the data at the place level is the lowest level available that retains reasonable
accuracy. The data represents a period estimate, meaning the numbers represent an area’s
characteristics for the specified time period.
7
ACS estimates for the cities within a six-mile radius of the project site were aggregated using the ACS
calculator at the Oklahoma Department of Commerce, consistent with instructions received during the
May 11 & 12, 2011 Census Workshop.
SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-6

February 2015

 The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and US EPA guidance documents identify
a 50 percent threshold to determine whether minority populations are considered
environmental justice populations, but do not provide a similar threshold for below
poverty level populations. As an initial indicator of whether a low-income population of
sufficient size is present and would warrant status as an environmental justice
community, staff compared the below-poverty-level populations in the six-mile radius to
other appropriate reference geographies. As shown in Socioeconomics Table 4, staff
used data for the Oceanside-Escondido Census County Division, San Diego County,
and California as reference geographies to compare levels of poverty in populations
near the project.
Socioeconomics Table 4
Poverty Data within the Project Area
Income in the past 12
months below poverty
level

Total
Area

Cities Used to
Determine
Poverty StatusTotal6
--Carlsbad
--Encinitas
--Oceanside
--Vista
Oceanside
Escondido
CCD**
San Diego
County
California

Percent
below poverty level

Estimate*

MOE

CV
(%)

Estimate

MOE

CV
(%)

Estimate

MOE

CV
(%)

428,786

±489

0.07

54,247

±3013

3.38

12.65%

±0.70

3.36

106,807
59,931
168,873
93,175

±198
0.11
11,358
±1,173
±134
0.14
5,574
±982
±250
0.09
22,398
±1,943
±345
0.23
14,197
±1,721
REFERENCE GEOGRAPHIES

6.28
10.71
5.27
7.01

10.60%
9.30%
13.3%
16.0%

±1.1
±1.6
±1.1
±1.9

6.31
10.46
5.03
7.22

629,406

±2,303

0.22

90,674

±3,359

2.25

14.40%

±0.5

2.11

3,057,308

±1,961

0.04

441,648

±8,222

1.13

14.40%

±0.3

1.27

36,913,404

±3,433

0.01

5,855,417

±40,552

0.42

15.9%

±0.1

0.38

Note: * Population for whom poverty status is determined. **CCD – Census County Division.
Source: US Census 2013a.

Roughly 13 percent of the population within six miles of the project site lives below the
poverty level. Of the cities used to determine the poverty status within the six-mile
radius, the city of Vista stands out with 16 percent of the population living below the
poverty level, compared with the three other cities’ (Carlsbad, Encinitas, and
Oceanside) more moderate nine to 13 percent below-poverty-level population. Other
reference geographies had percentages ranging from 14.4 percent for the project area
CCD to California’s 15.9 percent. Staff concludes that the below-poverty-level
population in the six-mile radius is not meaningfully greater than the below-poverty-level
population in the reference geographies and does not constitute an environmental
justice population as defined by Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National
Environmental Policy Act.

February 2015

4.9-7

SOCIOECONOMICS

 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a list of criteria to determine
the significance of identified impacts. A significant impact is defined by CEQA as “a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions
within the area affected by the project” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15382).
Thresholds serve as the benchmark for determining if a project will result in a significant
adverse impact when evaluated against existing conditions (e.g., "baseline" conditions).
CEQA Guidelines section 15064(e) specifies that: "[e]conomic and social changes
resulting from the project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment."
Section 15064(e) states that when "a physical change is caused by economic or social
effects of a project, the physical change may be regarded as a significant effect in the
same manner as any other physical change resulting from the project. Alternatively,
economic and social effects of a physical change may be used to determine that the
physical change is a significant effect on the environment. If the physical change causes
adverse economic or social effects on people, those adverse effects may be used as a
factor in determining whether the physical change is significant."
If a sufficient number of workers is not available within the project area, workers would
likely travel to the project from outside the project area. Employing those workers can
result in significant socioeconomic impacts. Those impacts occur due to an increase in
demand for housing, schools, law enforcement services, and parks and recreation.
Staff has used Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines for this analysis, which specifies
that a project could have a significant effect on population, housing, schools, law
enforcement services, and parks and recreation if it would:
•

Induce substantial population growth in an area either directly or indirectly;

•

Displace substantial numbers of people and/or existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or

•

Adversely impact acceptable levels of service for police protection, schools, parks
and recreation.

Staff’s assessment of impacts on population, housing, police protection, schools, and
parks and recreation are based on professional judgments, input from local and state
agencies, and the industry-accepted two-hour commute range for construction workers
and one-hour commute range for operational workers. Emergency medical services,
capacities, and response times are analyzed in the Worker Safety & Fire Protection
section of this document.
To determine if the amended CECP would have any impacts within the project area,
staff analyzed the current status of community services (law enforcement and schools)
and capacities to determine if project-related impacts would significantly strain or
degrade those services. If services and capacities were significantly affected by the
amended CECP, staff would consider that to be a significant adverse impact and
propose mitigation.

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-8

February 2015

 Conversely, the amended CECP could also have beneficial effects on the project area,
as would the demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7 approved as part of the licensed CECP
permit. For example, property taxes, sales taxes, or local school impact or development
fees resulting from the construction and operation of the project could help local
governments augment needed public services funding. Consequently, in this
socioeconomic analysis, staff examines the beneficial impacts on local finances from
property and sales taxes.

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Induce Substantial Population Growth
For the purpose of this analysis, staff defines “induce substantial population growth” as
workers moving into the project area because of project construction and operation,
thereby encouraging construction of new homes or extension of roads or other
infrastructure. To determine whether the project would induce population growth, staff
analyzes the availability of the local workforce and the population within the region. Staff
defines “local workforce” for project construction as those workers residing within a twohour commute of the project site. This area includes the San Diego-Carlsbad-San
Marcos Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Construction workers residing in this MSA
with greater than a two-hour commute would be considered non-local and would likely
seek lodging closer to the project site. Staff defines “local workforce” for project
operation as workers residing within a one-hour commute of the project.
San Diego County’s annual average seasonally unadjusted unemployment rate in 2013
was 7.5 percent (San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA) compared with California’s
rate of 8.3 percent (EDD 2014a). The annual average seasonally unadjusted
unemployment rate for the construction industry in the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
MSA for 2013 was 11.3 percent (EDD 2014b).
Socioeconomics Table 5 shows the historical and projected populations for the cities
within the six-mile radius plus San Diego County for reference. The city of Carlsbad is
projected to grow about 19 percent between 2010 and 2035, compared with a more
sizable growth of 30 percent for San Diego County. Population growth within the study
area is projected to be concentrated in the cities of Encinitas, Oceanside, and Vista.
Socioeconomics Table 5
Historical and Projected Populations
Population
20001
20102
20203
20353
Number
Percent
1

Cities within the Project Study Area
Total
Carlsbad
Encinitas
Vista
Oceanside
387,147
78,247
58,014
89,857
161,029
425,766
105,328
59,518
93,834
167,086
481,722
117,657
68,594
100,016
195,455
529,195
125,293
74,218
117,471
212,213
Projected Population Change 2010-2035
103,429
19,965
14,700
23,637
45,127
24.29
18.96
24.70
25.19
27.01
2

San Diego
County
2,813,833
3,095,313
3,535,000
4,026,131
930,818
30.07

3

Sources: US Census 2000, US Census 2010a, SANDAG 2010.

February 2015

4.9-9

SOCIOECONOMICS

 Construction Phase Employment
Socioeconomics Table 6 shows the total labor by skill for the San Diego-Carlsbad-San
Marcos MSA would be more than adequate to provide construction labor for all phases
of the project. The table identifies the workforce needed for each phase of the project by
peak month, except for the licensed CECP demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7 and the site
restoration workforce for Phase IV. The petitioner has not indicated if a workforce would
need to be employed for the site restoration activities in Phase IV.
An average workforce of 95 workers and a peak of 279 workers during month 13 of
Phase II would be needed for the amended CECP based on the complete 64-month
schedule.
Phase I would require an average of 15 workers during the six-month demolition period
and a peak workforce of 20 (LL 2014b). Phase I demolition would begin following the
final Energy Commission approval of the amended CECP. Completion of Phase I is
anticipated in the third quarter of 2015.
Phase II would employ an average of 169 workers during the 24-month
construction/demolition period and reach a peak with 279 workers during month 13 of
the power plant construction (LL 2014d, pg.2-33 & 2-46). Phase II is estimated to begin
in the fourth quarter of 2015 with completion in the fourth quarter of 2017.
Phase III would span 12 months, from approximately the fourth quarter of 2017 to the
fourth quarter of 2018. The petitioner would use the existing EPS operations staff to
perform the majority of work during this phase (LL 2014pp, pg. 7). In the last three to six
months of the 12-month phase, the petitioner may need to supplement the EPS
workforce by employing up to six workers (four electricians, one boilermaker or
pipefitter, and one machinist) on an intermittent basis.
Phase IV demolition and site restoration would take 22 months and require an average
of 67 workers and a peak of 197 workers during month 6 (LL 2014d, pg. 2-46). The
petitioner has not indicated the need to employ workers for site restoration. Phase IV
would begin in the fourth quarter of 2018 and be completed in the fourth quarter of
2020.

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-10

February 2015

 Socioeconomics Table 6
Total Labor by Skill in the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA versus Project Labor Needs
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA

Amended CECP Construction

Phase I

Craft

Carpenter
Laborer
Teamster
Electrician
Ironworker
Millwright
Boilermaker
Pipefitter
/Sprinkler Fitter
Insulation
Worker
Operating
Engineer
Masons
Sheet Metal
Worker
Painters

February 2015

Total
Workforce
(2010)

Total
Projected
Workforce
(2020)

Phase II

Phase III

Phase IV:
Demolition of
EPS

Licensed CECP
Construction
Maximum
Needed Per
Month
(Single-Phased
Construction)*

Construction Period
nd

Growth from 2010

2
quarter
2015 to
3rd
quarter
2015/ 6
months

Number

Percent

Month 6

4th quarter
2015 to 4th
quarter 2017/
24 months

4th quarter
2017 to 4th
quarter
2018/ 12
months

Peak Month(s)
Months 6 to
Month 13
12
15 (26)
0
46
0
6 (27)
0
25 (35)
4
20 (31)
0
11 (14)
0
19 (22)
1

8,200
8,840
5,720
4,850
610
No data
110

9,690
10,620
7,160
5,950
670
No data
120

1,490
1,780
1,440
1,100
60
No data
10

18.2
20.1
25.2
22.7
9.8
No data
9.1

0
16
0
0
0
0
0

4,440

5,410

970

21.8

0

48

210

260

50

23.8

0

1,470

1,890

420

28.6

1,210

1,520

310

2,050

2,330

7,300

8,460

4th quarter
2018 to 4th
quarter 2020/
22 months

25 months

Month 6
0
165
0
0
0
0
0

32
46
28
40
34
18
24

0

0

50

0 (18)

0

0

20

1 (2)

19 (30)

0

4 (12)

38

25.6

0

1 (4)

0

0

5

280

13.7

0

10 (11)

0

0

12

1,160

15.9

0

3 (4)

0

0

5

4.9-11

SOCIOECONOMICS

 Plasterers
Surveyors
Machinist
Contractor Staff
(total)
Construction
Manager
Engineering
Supervisor1
Health & Safety
Engineer
Other Plant Staff
Linear
Construction
Staff
Plant & System
Operators

480
640
3,760

540
850
3,990

60
210
230

12.5
32.8
6.1

0
0
0

3 (4)
3 (5)
0

0
0
1

0
0
0

5
6
0

No data

No data

No data

No data

3

0

0

23

52

6,170

7,270

1,100

17.8

1 (2)

0

0

20

No data

2,990

3,680

690

23.1

1 (2)

0

0

1 (3)

No data

180
No data

210
No data

30
No data

16.7
No data

1 (2)

0

0

2

No data

0

46

0

0

0

No data

No data

No data

No data

0

4

0

0

0

1,620

1,860

240

14.8

0

0

0

0

54

194

357**

Total

20

279

6

Notes: ( ) Peak workforce by trade by phase when different from workforce in peak month(s).*Includes commissioning and operating phases.** Workforce by trade does not add up to the
total shown in the total line, as the number in the total line reflects the total peak workforce by month, and the number shown for each trade reflects the peak workforce by trade irrespective of
1
the month they are onsite. Architectural & Engineering Managers. Sources: CEC 2012a, pgs. 1-3 & 8.3-3; LL 2014b, pg. 1-1; LL 2014d, pgs. 2-33 & 2-46; LL 2014pp, pg. 7; EDD 2012.

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-12

February 2015

 In comparison, the licensed CECP estimated the 25-month, single-phased construction,
including connecting to the 230-kV switchyard, would reach a peak workforce of 357
workers (CEC 2012a, pgs. 1-3, 8.3-1, and 8.3-2). All of the components in the project
enhancement and refinement project would be completed during the first months of the
licensed CECP. Construction workers employed for the licensed CECP would
participate in the construction of the new SDG&E 230-kV switchyard (one of the
components in the project enhancement and refinement project).
The petitioner estimates that approximately 90 percent of the construction workforce for
the amended CECP would come from the local San Diego County area (LL 2014d, pg.
5.10-8). With the large labor supply in the San Diego- Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA, a
small workforce, about ten percent (28 workers at peak construction of the amended
CECP), would come from outside of the local commute area. Staff concurs with the
petitioner’s local versus non-local workforce supply estimates (90 percent local and ten
percent non-local).
The amended CECP would employ fewer workers during peak construction than the
licensed CECP, but would employ workers over a longer project schedule. By
extension, the number of workers coming from outside the local commute area would
be less with the amended CECP than the licensed CECP.
Operational Phase Employment
Currently, 50 workers are employed at the Encina Power Station (EPS) (LL 2014d, pg.
2-36). The amended CECP is estimated to begin operating in the fourth quarter of 2017
and would require 18 full-time employees during project operation, all of whom would be
sourced from the existing EPS workforce (LL 2014d, pgs. 1-5, 1-6, & 2-36). Once the
amended CECP is operational, existing EPS Units 1-5 would be retired, demolished,
and the site restored (Phases III and IV) (LL 2014d, pg. 2-3). Refer to the “Construction
Phase Employment” subsection above for a discussion of the demolition schedule and
estimated workforce.
The licensed CECP was expected to employ up to 14 full-time employees (CEC 2012a,
pgs.1-3 & 8.3-3). Once the licensed CECP became operational, the project owner would
retire EPS Units 1-3 and begin the planning process for retiring Units 4 and 5. Due to
the retirement of Encina Units 1 through 3, operations employees for the licensed CECP
would be transferred from the Encina plant. Therefore, with both the amended CECP
and the licensed CECP, no additional operations workers would be necessary.
The 2012 Final Decision concluded that the licensed CECP would not cause an influx of
new permanent workers (CEC 2012a, pg. 8.3-2). Similarly, staff concludes the amended
CECP’s construction and operation workforce would not directly or indirectly induce a
substantial population growth in the project area, and therefore, the amended project
would create a less than significant impact under this criterion.

February 2015

4.9-13

SOCIOECONOMICS

 Housing
Socioeconomics Table 7 presents housing supply data for the project area. U.S.
Census Bureau housing counts showed, as of April 1, 2010, that there were 165,834
housing units within a six-mile radius of the project site with a vacancy of 11,194 units,
representing a 6.7 percent vacancy rate. Housing data for San Diego County is
presented for reference. The housing counts in the project area indicate a sufficient
amount of available housing units in a six-mile radius of the project site.
Socioeconomics Table 7
Housing Supply in the Project Area
Area
Cities in a Six Mile
San Diego County
Radius of Project
Site*
Number Percent
Number
Percent

Subject
OCCUPANCY STATUS
Total housing units
--Occupied housing units
--Vacant housing units
VACANCY STATUS
Vacant housing units
--For rent
--For sale only
--For seasonal, recreational or occasional
--Other**

165,834
153,982
11,852

100
92.9
7.2

1,164,786
1,086,865
77,921

100
93.3
6.7

11,852
3,708
1,649
4,484
2,011

100
31.3
14.1
37.8
17.0

77,921
29,236
11,682
20,768
16,235

100
37.5
15.0
26.7
20.8

Notes: *Cities include Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista, and Encinitas. **Other includes rented, not occupied; sold, not occupied;
migratory workers, and other vacant. Source: US Census 2010b

Changes to population and housing stock have been updated by the California
Department of Finance for 2013. As of January 1, 2013, San Diego County had an
estimated 1,174,866 total housing units, with 77,933 vacant units, equaling a vacancy
rate of 6.6 percent (DOF 2014). Year 2013 housing estimates for the city of Carlsbad
indicated 45,522 housing units, with a vacancy of 15,931, for a vacancy of 7.4 percent.
A five percent vacancy is industry-accepted as a minimum benchmark for a sufficient
amount of housing available for occupancy (Virginia Tech 2006).
During construction, approximately 90 percent of workers would commute daily to the
project from within the local commute area of San Diego County. Workers living outside
of the local commute area would more likely seek lodging closer to the project site and
return to their residence over the weekend. Based on the peak workforce of 279 during
month 13 of Phase II, approximately 28 construction workers could seek lodging closer
to the project site. There is an ample supply of hotels and motels for these non-local
workers within the city of Carlsbad and San Diego County. Staff contacted the San
Diego County Building and Construction Trades Council to solicit comments and
concerns they may have about the workforce requirements of the amended CECP and
current labor supply, but did not receive a response.

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-14

February 2015

 Staff’s independent data gathering from the California Employment Development
Department and discussions with the San Diego County Building and Construction
Trades Council on several previous power plant siting cases proposed in San Diego
County show there would be a large availability of labor to fulfill the amended CECP’s
labor requirements. Carlsbad has over 30 hotels/motels with over 2,600 rooms, suites,
and villas (Visit Carlsbad 2014). San Diego County has a large supply of lodging options
with over 21 million rooms available in 2013 (July 2012 to June 2013) and an average
hotel occupancy rate of 70.7 percent (SDTA 2014). There are several recreational
vehicle camping sites within six miles of the project site, offering up to 500 spaces with
amenities including electricity, water, and washroom facilities (Good Sam 2014, Olive
Avenue 2014). Given the large supply of lodging choices in and around Carlsbad and
San Diego County and the estimated ten percent non-local project construction workers
(28 during the peak) who would likely use this lodging, staff expects no new housing
would be required as a result of the project.
The amended CECP would employ fewer workers during peak construction than the
licensed CECP, but would employ workers over a longer construction period. By
extension, fewer workers would be coming from outside the local commute area with
the amended CECP than with the licensed CECP.
The amended CECP would require 18 full-time employees during power plant
operation, compared with 14 full-time employees required for the licensed CECP. This
workforce would be sourced from the existing 50-person workforce at EPS, and thus
there would be no influx of new residents and no need for additional housing.
The 2012 Final Decision concluded that the licensed CECP would not cause an influx of
new permanent workers or any noticeable impact upon local housing (CEC 2012a, pg.
8.3-2). Similarly, staff concludes the amended CECP construction and operation
workforce would not have a significant adverse impact on the housing supply in the
project area, the city of Carlsbad or San Diego County, and therefore, the amended
project would create a less than significant impact under this criterion.

Displace Substantial Numbers of Existing Housing and People
The amended CECP is proposed on the site of the licensed CECP, in an area zoned for
public utilities, so the project would not directly displace existing housing or people. The
amended CECP would not induce substantial population growth or create the need for
replacement housing to be constructed elsewhere, as previously discussed.
The 2012 Final Decision concluded that the licensed CECP would not create new
population influx into the project area, and thus it would not create additional demands
for housing (CEC 2012a, pg. 8.3-3). Similarly, staff concludes the amended CECP
would have no impact on area housing as the amended project would not displace any
people or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Result in Substantial Physical Impacts to Government Facilities
The 2012 Final Decision concluded that the licensed CECP would not create new
population influx into the project area, and thus it would not create additional demands
for housing, schools, parks, or law enforcement (CEC 2012a, pg. 8.3-3). Similarly as
February 2015

4.9-15

SOCIOECONOMICS

 discussed under the subject headings below, the amended CECP would not cause
significant impacts to service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives
relating to law enforcement, schools, or parks.
Please refer to the Worker Safety & Fire Protection section of this document for a
detailed discussion of fire protection and emergency medical services.
Schools
Senate Bill 50 allows agencies to exclude discussion or analysis of new construction’s
impacts on school facilities; however, statutory school fees are still levied (see the
“School Impact Fees” discussion below) (DWK 2011). Because the Final Staff
Assessment for the licensed CECP discussed and analyzed the project’s impacts on
school facilities (local school district enrollment, capacity, and possible new students
added by the project), staff has included an update to the discussion specific to the
amended CECP.
The Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) serves the city of Carlsbad, including the
amended CECP site, and the adjoining communities of Oceanside and San Marcos.
CUSD provides Kindergarten through 12th grade education at nine elementary, three
middle, two high, and two alternative schools, with a combined enrollment of 10,993
students for the 2013/2014 school year (CDE 2014). Socioeconomics Table 8
presents the enrollment for the three previous school years, average pupil-to-teacher
ratio, and average classroom size for the school district. Correlating data for San Diego
County is provided for reference.
Socioeconomics Table 8
Current School District Data

Carlsbad Unified
School District

San Diego County*

Year

Enrollment

Pupil-to-Teacher
Ratio

Average Class
Size

2013/2014

10,993*

Not available

Not available

2012/2013
2011/2012
2013/2014
2012/2013
2011/2012

10,956
11,063
503,096*
499,850
498,003

26.1
25.1
Not available
22.3
22.4

33.6
30.0
Not available
28.8
22.9

Notes: *Preliminary data. Source: CDE 2014

Based on the pupil-to-teacher ratio and the average class size for the school district
compared with the corresponding data for San Diego County, presented in
Socioeconomics Table 8 above, the CUSD appears slightly more crowded than the
county average.
During construction of the amended CECP, staff expects the majority of the labor force
would be hired locally with approximately ten percent of the workforce coming from
outside the local area. Based on a peak employment of 279 workers during month 13 of
Phase II, approximately 28 new workers could temporarily relocate closer to the project
site. Comparatively, the 2012 Final Decision for the licensed CECP anticipated a peak
construction workforce of 357 workers, 36 of whom would potentially have relocated
SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-16

February 2015

 closer to the site (CEC 2012a, pg. 8.3-2). Staff’s research and communication with
building and construction trades’ councils has shown that construction workers do not
move their families with them when working on a project. Therefore, staff does not
expect a significant impact to schools from construction of the amended CECP.
Eighteen employees would be required to operate the amended CECP power plant,
compared with 14 employees for the licensed CECP power plant. The workers would be
drawn from the operators of the existing EPS, therefore no new workers are expected to
relocate to the project area and no new children would relocate to the CUSD (LL 2014d,
pg. 2.36). There would be no school population growth, and by extension, the amended
CECP would not necessitate the provision of new or physically altered government
facilities (e.g. schools) in order to maintain acceptable service ratios. Therefore, there
would be no impact to the existing school system as a result of the construction or
operation of the amended project.
There were no significant impacts to schools during construction or operation identified
for the licensed CECP.
School Impact Fees
California Education Code, section 17620, authorizes a school district to levy statutory
school fees against any construction projects with chargeable covered and enclosed
space built within the district. Local and state agencies are precluded from imposing
additional fees or other required payments on development projects to mitigate
enrollment impacts to schools. Currently (May 12, 2014), the one-time school impact fee
for new or redeveloped commercial or industrial development is $0.54 per square foot
(CEC 2014r).
The licensed CECP did not propose any chargeable, covered and enclosed space;
rather the workers would occupy a building already on site (at the EPS power plant).
The amended CECP proposes a new administrative/control room building and a
warehouse (LL 2014d, pg. 2-2). The applicable fees are calculated prior to the issuance
of building permits during plan review. Staff is proposing Condition of Certification
SOCIO-2 to ensure the payment of fees to the CUSD. The amended CECP would
comply with section 17620 of the Education Code through the one-time payment of
statutory school impact fees to the CUSD.
Parks and Recreation
The city of Carlsbad has 31 parks, community centers, and recreation facilities totaling
228 acres, offering such amenities as playground equipment, dog park, amphitheater,
picnic facilities, sports fields (e.g. softball and soccer), horseshoes, hiking trails, sports
courts (e.g. volleyball, basketball, tennis), swimming pools, golf course, and a skate
park (Carlsbad City 2014a). Recreation amenities also include approximately 40 miles
of walking trails. The closest parks to the project site are Cannon Park and Poinsettia
Park. There are two parks planned in the future, Robertson Park (13 acres) and
Veterans’ Park (100-acre site with 30 developable acres and the remaining site with
possibilities for trails), both scheduled for construction in 2020 or later (Carlsbad City
2014b).
February 2015

4.9-17

SOCIOECONOMICS

 The city has an overall park standard of 5.5 acres per 1,000 people (Carlsbad City
2003, pg. 4). ACS five year data (2009 - 2013) show the estimated population in
Carlsbad as 107,3078 (US Census 2013b). Based on this current estimate,
approximately 590 acres of parks would be needed to meet the park standard. The city
currently has 228 acres of parks and the two future parks would bring the count up to
341 acres.
Staff’s analysis shows there would not be a large number of workers moving into the
project area during project construction (approximately 28 workers during peak
construction), and no new operations workers would move into the project area.
Therefore, there would be little, if any, increase in the usage of or demand for parks or
other recreational facilities. Also, construction workers do not tend to use such facilities,
particularly as they tend to return to their residences over the weekend.
No significant impacts on parks and recreation were identified for construction and
operation of the licensed CECP. Similarly, staff concludes the amended CECP would
not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times, or other performance objectives with respect to parks. The project
would not increase the use of neighborhood or regional parks or recreational facilities to
the extent that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur, or be
accelerated. The project would not necessitate the construction of new parks in the
area, nor does the project propose any park facilities. For the above reasons, staff
concludes the amended project would have a less than significant impact on
neighborhood or regional parks and recreational facilities.
Law Enforcement
The city of Carlsbad Police Department (CPD) would provide services for the amended
CECP. Located approximately five miles from the amended CECP project site at 2560
Orion Way, the Carlsbad Police Department’s average time to a call from the amended
CECP is 5.8 minutes for a Priority 1 call and an average of 12.2 minutes for Priority 2
calls (CEC 2014mm). The Carlsbad Police Department has one police station with 112
sworn officers and 48 civilian personnel. At the time of the licensing of the CECP, the
estimated average response time for Priority 1 calls was five minutes with an average of
five to ten minutes for a Priority 2 call. Also during this same period, the Carlsbad Police
Department employed approximately 148 authorized officers.
Two project site-security conditions of certification (HAZ-7 and HAZ-8) were applied to
the licensed CECP and would be carried through to the amended CECP; one requiring
a construction site security plan, and the second requiring a site security plan for the
commissioning and operational phases. Between the two conditions, requirements
included perimeter fencing and security gate, site access control, and procedures for
employees, contractors, and vendors when encountering suspicious objects or
packages on- or off-site. Also included are protocol for contacting law enforcement in
the event of suspicious activity or an emergency, and evacuation procedures.
Background investigations are required on all project personnel, contractors who visit
8

The Five-Year ACS estimate for population in Carlsbad is 107,307, with a margin of error of +/- 71 and a
coefficient of variation of 0.04.
SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-18

February 2015

 the project site, and hazardous materials transport vendors, in accordance with state
and federal laws regarding security and privacy. Also required are a closed circuit TV
monitoring system, and site access controls for employees, contractors, vendors, and
visitors. During construction, security guards are required during the commissioning and
operations phases, either security guard(s) would be present 24 hours per day; seven
days per week, or power plant personnel would be on site 24 hours per day, seven days
per week. Perimeter breach detectors or on-site motion detectors are required to ensure
adequate perimeter security.
Staff contacted CPD to discuss the proposed project, ascertain their ability to provide
law enforcement services to the project, and solicit comments or concerns they might
have about the project. Ms. Fiona Everett, Senior Management Analyst with the CPD,
expressed concern that partial or complete road closures during construction along
roadways adjacent to the project site could have the potential to delay emergency
responses and cause an impact to emergency response times (CEC 2014mm). Traffic
and Transportation staff concluded the amended CECP would add traffic to local
roadways during the construction period and this increase in traffic could result in
impacts to emergency access. However, staff concluded that the amended CECP would
generate less construction traffic than the licensed CECP, resulting in reduced traffic
impacts. Condition of Certification TRANS-1 would require preparation and
implementation of a traffic control plan, which would mitigate these traffic impacts to
less than significant. TRANS-1 is a condition of certification for the licensed CECP,
which Traffic and Transportation staff has recommended be included for the amended
CECP as well.
Ms. Everett also expressed concern that during construction and operation activities,
crimes against people, theft of materials, and/or vandalism could occur, but she did not
indicate that the amended project would trigger the need for additional law enforcement
services. The two existing site-security conditions of certification (HAZ-7 and HAZ-8)
already include requirements for perimeter fencing and security gate, site access
control, a closed circuit TV monitoring system, security guard(s), and either perimeter
breach detectors or on-site motion detectors.
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is the primary law enforcement agency for state
highways and roads. Segments of Interstate 5 freeway, state highway 78, El Camino
Real (State Route 11), Palomar Airport Road (State Route 12), and Carlsbad Boulevard
(Coast Highway 101) are in the city of Carlsbad and are served by both the CHP and
CPD. The CHP enforces applicable laws; controls traffic, investigates accidents; and
manages hazardous materials spills. The nearest CHP office is located in Oceanside
(CHP 2014). The Hazardous Materials Management section of this document
discusses response times for hazardous material spill incidents.
Based on communication with local law enforcement who would serve the project, staff
concludes the project would not result in law enforcement response times being
affected so that they exceed adopted response time goals. The project would not
necessitate alterations to the police station or the construction of a new police station to
maintain acceptable response times for law enforcement services; therefore, no
associated physical impact would result from demolition, construction, or operation.

February 2015

4.9-19

SOCIOECONOMICS

 Staff concludes that for the above reasons, the project would create a less than
significant impact.
The demand for law enforcement should not be significantly increased because most of
the labor force would be commuting. For the operational phase, there would be no
change in population, as the operational workforce would be transferred from EPS to
work at the amended CECP power plant. Hence, there would be no change to existing
demand for law enforcement services.
No significant adverse impacts associated with law enforcement were identified for
construction and operation the licensed CECP.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
A project may result in significant adverse cumulative impacts when its effects are
cumulatively considerable; that is, the incremental effects of an individual project are
significant when viewed in connection with the effects of (1) past projects; (2) other
current projects; and (3) probable future projects [Pub. Resources Code § 21083; Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15064(h); 15065(c); 15130; and 15355]. Mitigation involves
taking feasible measures to avoid or substantially reduce the impacts.
In a socioeconomic analysis, cumulative impacts could occur when more than one
project in the same area has an overlapping construction schedule, thus creating a
demand for workers that cannot be met by local labor, or when a project’s demand for
public services does not match a local jurisdiction’s ability to provide such services. An
influx of non-local workers and their dependents can strain housing, schools, parks and
recreation, and law enforcement services.
Because of the large labor supply in the San Diego area and the mobility of the labor
supply, staff conducted a CEQANet9 database search using San Diego County and the
nearby cities to the project site within San Diego County as the geographic search
parameters. Staff considered projects within these search parameters that would likely
employ a similar workforce to the amended CECP as part of the project’s cumulative
impact analysis for socioeconomics. Staff contacted planning staff with the city of
Carlsbad, and the cities adjacent to Carlsbad (Encinitas, Oceanside, and Vista) to
develop a list of large residential development, industrial, and commercial projects that
could have construction schedules overlapping with the amended CECP. The petitioner
anticipates that if the amended CECP is approved, the project’s 64-month construction
period would begin in the second quarter of 2015.
Staff considers the following projects in Socioeconomics Table 9 part of the
cumulative setting for socioeconomic resources. Construction timing is estimated based
on the best information available during the preparation of this analysis.

9

The CEQANet database lists CEQA documents that have been submitted to the State Clearinghouse for
state agency review.
SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-20

February 2015

 Socioeconomics Table 9
Cumulative Projects
Project Name
Two HOV Lanes
from Manchester
Avenue to SR 78

Manchester
Avenue to SR 78
Soundwalls

CIP –
Vista/Carlsbad
Interceptor Agua
Hedionda Lift
Station (VC 12)
Carlsbad
Desalination
Project (Poseidon)

Buena Outfall
Force Main Phase
3
State Street
Townhomes

February 2015

Location

Status

Interstate 5 (I-5),
Manchester Ave. to
State Route 78 (SR78), Encinitas and
Carlsbad
Interstate 5 (I-5),
Manchester Ave. to
State Route 78 (SR78), Encinitas and
Carlsbad
South shore of Agua
Hedionda Lagoon
adjacent to the east
side of the railroad
tracks.
Carlsbad Blvd./ Cannon
Road, Carlsbad

Approved

North side of Palomar
Airport Rd between
Paseo Del Norte & El
Camino Real, Carlsbad
2531-2586 State St,
Carlsbad

Estimated or Actual
Construction State
Date & Duration
Construction Begins:
Late 2015

Project Description

Approved

Construction Begins:
Early 2016

Add one HOV lane in each direction from Manchester
Avenue to SR 78 including the San Elijo and
Batiquitos lagoon bridge replacements, Manchester
direct access ramp, and bike/pedestrian Trails under I5 across the lagoons.
Construct soundwalls on private property from
Manchester Avenue to SR 78.

CDP has been issued
by Coastal
Commission.

Construction expected
to begin early 2015 and
end 2017.

Replace existing sewer lift station and sewer line with
new lift station and line. The total project extends 2.35
miles north-south.

In construction

Construction began late
2012, estimated to be
operational Nov. 2015

Awaiting more info to
complete Coastal
Development Permit

Estimated start
sometime 2015; one
year duration

50-million-gallon-per-day seawater desalination plant,
pipelines, pumps, and other appurtenant and ancillary
water facilities to produce and distribute potable water.
Includes conveyance pipeline: a ten-mile, 54-inch
water delivery pipeline that will travel eastward from
the seawater desalination plant through Carlsbad,
Vista, and San Marcos to San Diego County Water
Authority’s second aqueduct connection facility in San
Marcos.
New sewer line belonging to Vista. 18-24 inch 17,700
foot long pipeline, part gravity and part force main
sewer line along Palomar Airport Road.

Pending approval of
Final Map

Construction expected
to start November 2014
with estimated
completion by the end
of 2015 or early 2016

4.9-21

41 market rate & six inclusionary housing units with
ground level office/flex space for live-work. Includes
demo of approx. 32,000 sq. ft. existing commercial
and light industrial uses.

SOCIOECONOMICS

 Project Name

Location

Quarry Creek

South of Haymar Dr
between College Blvd &
El Camino Real,
Carlsbad

La Costa Town
Center Renovation

La Costa Avenue and
El Camino Real,
Carlsbad
1578 N Coast Highway
101, Encinitas

La Esquina mixeduse project
Sports Shinko
Condominium Hotel
#93-172
Capri Mixed Use
ENV 13-0007
(Recycled Water
Easterly Main
Extension Project)

Estimated or Actual
Construction State
Date & Duration
Estimated construction
start January 2015,
duration five years

Status
Master Plan project.
Can start grading,
putting in utilities, but
needs more permits to
build
Approved but must
appeal to city council;
lawsuit possible
In review

Unknown

Project Description
636 residential units, a 0.5-acre nature/education
center, a 1.5-acre community facilities site, a 1.3-acre
park and ride site, 92.4 acres natural open space, and
supporting infrastructure on a 155.4-acre site in
Carlsbad.
Additional 3,000 sq. ft. retail, 60 apartment units

Unknown

Mixed-use project with three live/work units and one
commercial unit

2100 N. Hwy 101,
Encinitas

Entitlements Approved,
but not constructed

Unknown

A hotel project with 130 units

960 S Coast Highway
101, Encinitas
Escondido

Approved

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

5,000+ sq. ft. commercial space below two stories with
four residential units
Expand the existing recycled water pipeline
approximately 7.4 miles and construct and operate a
recycled water pump station and recycled water
storage tank. Install 12-inch brine disposal pipeline
and fiber optic cables parallel to proposed recycled
water pipeline from existing infrastructure located near
the city's Hale Avenue Resource Recovery Facility.
Specific plan to allow for the development of a mixeduse urban village, including a combination of up to 416
multi-family residential units, 61,000 sq. ft. commercial
or neighborhood-serving retail, 146,000 sq. ft.
commercial office space, and 146,000 sq. ft. hotel use
(500 rooms). Three planning areas: Baltimore Drive,
Spring Street, and University Avenue.
Replace two existing gantry cranes with two new 70
and 150 ton capacity cranes; a new pier system to
support the new larger crane; replace concrete slab;
demolish small structures; repair existing bulkhead;
1,240 sq. ft. new piers, docks, and piles; remove
1,247 sq. ft. existing docks.

Park Station at the
Crossroads of La
Mesa Specific Plan
EIR

Bordered by El Cajon
Blvd, Baltimore Dr,
University Ave, and
Nebo Drive, La Mesa

Unknown

Unknown

Shelter Island
Boatyard Crane
Replacement and
Pier Addition
Project

Shelter Island Drive,
San Diego

Unknown

Unknown

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-22

February 2015

 Jean Drive Storm
Drain Replacement

Miracle Drive, San
Diego

Unknown

Estimated or Actual
Construction State
Date & Duration
Unknown

Nob Hill
Improvements

Scripps Ranch Blvd., &
Scripps Lake Dr, San
Diego

Unknown

Unknown

Pacific Highlands
Ranch, Units 23-28
- Applicant: Pardee
Homes

Carmel Valley Road
and Mill Creek Road,
San Diego

Unknown

Unknown

CP Kelco Cooling
Tower
Replacement
Camino Del Rio
Mixed Use

Port of San Diego, San
Diego

Unknown

Unknown

Camino del Rio
North/Camino de la
Reina / Camino del
Arroyo, San Diego

Unknown

Unknown

Sunroad Harbor
Island Hotel Project
& East Harbor
Island Subarea
PMPA (UPD
83356-EIR-783)

Harbor Island Drive,
San Diego

Unknown

Unknown

Project Name

February 2015

Location

Status

4.9-23

Project Description
Remove and abandon failed 24-inch storm drain
corrugated metal pipe (CMP), repair extensive erosion
around failed pipe, and install new 24-inch reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP). Also remove 140 ft. of sidewalks
and 25 ft. of curbs and gutters and install 80 ft. of
sidewalk and 45 ft. of curb and gutter.
Remove and abandon failed 24-inch storm drain
corrugated metal pipe (CMP), repair extensive erosion
around failed pipe, and install new 24-inch reinforced
concrete pipe (RCP). Also remove 140 ft. of sidewalks
and 25 ft. of curbs and gutters and installation of 80 ft.
of sidewalk and 45 ft. of curb and gutter.
Mixed-use development containing 331 multi-dwelling
units; 195,000 sq. ft. commercial use, a civic use area,
other accessory improvements, and a lot reserved for
future development of a public library. Also construct
various site improvements, including associated
hardscape, retaining walls and landscaping.
Replace cooling towers and associated apparatusremove five cooling towers and two chillers and
replace with one tower and three fans.
Demolish existing structures and on-site surface
parking and construct a mixed-use development
consisting of 291 residential units, 14 shopkeepers
units, and 9,000 sq. ft. retail and commercial space in
a "wrap design". The project would range in height
from two stories to five stories and a total of 514
parking spaces in a six-story, above ground parking
structure, in addition to 78 surface parking spaces, for
a total of 592 parking spaces.
175-room, four-story limited service hotel with ancillary
meeting and fitness space, common areas, an exterior
pool, surface parking, and replacing existing locker
building and some parking. Existing marina offices
remain. PMPA would allow up to two other hotels, with
combined maximum of 500 rooms to be developed on

SOCIOECONOMICS

 Project Name

Location

Status

Estimated or Actual
Construction State
Date & Duration

Project Description
East Harbor Island, west of existing marina building.
Extend public promenade along Harbor Island East
Basin. Reconfigure a portion of eastern Harbor Island
Drive and the traffic circle at its terminus. Realign
utilities to accommodate project.
336-acre photovoltaic (PV) or concentrator PV (CPV)
solar facility on an approximately 440-acre property.
New drydock, Extend existing lease term, and enter
into future real estate agreement on neighboring twoacre land parcel and four-acre water area for potential
shipbuilding, repair and parking activities. Drydock
component involves 395,000 cubic yards of dredging;
pile driving; installation of two drydock mooring
dolphins and two wharf structures; construction of a
permanent sheetpile wall, and associated
infrastructure and utilities.
Development of four solar energy sites (Tierra del Sol,
Rugged Solar, LanWest, and LanEast) that would
collectively include approximately 1,473 acres of
Concentrated Photovoltaic (CPV) trackers and
generate approximately 168.5 megawatts of
electricity.

Ocotillo Wells Solar
Major Use Permit
Pier 1 North
Drydock, Future
Real Estate
Agreements &
Removal of Cooling
Tunnels

Split Mountain Road,
San Diego County
2205 and 400 E. Belt
Street, Port of San
Diego

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

Soitec Solar
Projects Program
Environmental
Impact Report
(LanWest, LanEast,
Rugged and
Tiedrra Del Sol)
Laurel Creek
Condominiums,
PC24-027
Hallmark
Communities
PC24-026
Vista Ridge PC14293

McCain Valley Road,
Ribbonwood Road, &
Tierra Del Sol Road,
San Diego County

Unknown

Unknown

Grapevine Rd/Date St.,
Vista

Unknown

Unknown

71 single-family, detached condominiums on a 9.24acre parcel.

2025 E. Vista Way,
Vista

Unknown

Unknown

73 detached condominium units and associated site
improvements

521 and 553 West
Bobier Drive, Vista

Unknown

Unknown

290 unit multi-family project and associated site
improvements

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-24

February 2015

 The petitioner/project owner would employ an average of 95 workers during the 64month construction activities for the amended CECP and employ a peak workforce of
279 during month 13 of Phase II. As shown in Socioeconomics Table 6 and
graphically represented in Socioeconomics Table 2, Phase I demolition and
remediation activities would begin in the second quarter of 2015, following project
approval by the Energy Commission (if granted, currently expected late in second
quarter of 2015), and would reach completion after demolition and site restoration
activities conclude in Phase IV in the fourth quarter of 2020.
Once operational, the amended CECP power plant would permanently employ 18
workers, all of whom would transfer from EPS. The licensed CECP would have
employed 14 workers from the EPS staff. Socioeconomics Table 10 presents the total
labor force for the crafts specifically needed for the construction of amended CECP. As
shown in the table, the labor force within the San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA is
more than sufficient to accommodate the labor needs for construction of the amended
CECP including other future planned projects in the cumulative study area.
Socioeconomics Table 10
Total Labor Supply for San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA
Total Labor for Selected MSAs/MD
(Construction Workforce)*
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos
MSA

Total
Workforce
for 2010

Total Projected
Workforce for
2020

Growth
from
2010

Percent
Growth from
2010

55,470

66,630

11,160

20.1

Note: Total workforce includes only the crafts specifically needed for the amended CECP (Phase II and demolition in
Phase IV). *See Socioeconomics Table 6 for a list of crafts and occupations included in the total construction workforce
figures. Source: EDD 2012

Because of the large supply of lodging choices and housing supply in Carlsbad and San
Diego County, staff does not anticipate the project’s 28 non-local construction workers
would create a significant reduction in the housing supply. No permanent population
increase would result from the operation of the project, as the operations workforce
would come from the existing EPS staff. Staff’s proposed Condition of Certification
SOCIO-2 would ensure applicable school fees are paid by the project. The increased
usage of neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of the
project would be minimal. The project would not result in law enforcement response
times being affected so that they exceed adopted response time goals and would not
increase the demand for law enforcement services.
Staff concludes the proposed amended CECP would not result in any significant and
adverse cumulative impacts on population, housing, schools, parks and recreation, or
law enforcement. Socioeconomics Table 10 shows there is a more than sufficient
workforce available for construction of the amended CECP project plus other future
planned projects. Operations workforce for the amended CECP would be supplied by
the EPS. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, staff does not expect the
construction or operation of the amended CECP to contribute to any significant adverse
cumulative socioeconomic impacts.

February 2015

4.9-25

SOCIOECONOMICS

 NOTEWORTHY PUBLIC BENEFITS
For the purpose of this analysis, staff defines noteworthy public benefits to include
changes in local economic activity and local tax revenue that would result from project
construction and operation. To assess the gross economic value of the proposed
project, the petitioner developed an input-output model using proprietary cost data and
the IMPLAN Professional 3.0 software package. The petitioner used IMPLAN to
estimate the fiscal benefits of the construction activities for Phase II, the demolition
activities for Phase IV, and the first year of operation of the amended CECP power plant
(Phase II), except for payroll. An estimate of fiscal benefits for the amended CECP
Phase I, Phase III, and site restoration activities associated with Phase IV were not
provided. Estimated fiscal benefits for licensed CECP demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7
could not be ascertained from information supplied in the amended CECP proceeding,
or derived from recorded information for the licensed CECP proceeding.
The IMPLAN assessment used San Diego County as the unit of analysis and the
petitioner assumes 90 percent of the construction workforce would reside in San Diego
County. Impact estimates reflect two different scenarios representing the demolition and
construction phase and the operations phase of the project. For both phases, the
petitioner estimated the total direct, indirect, and induced economic effects on
employment and labor income. Direct economic effects represent the employment,
labor income, and spending associated with demolition, construction, and operation of
the project. Indirect economic effects represent expenditures on intermediate goods
made by suppliers who provide goods and services to the project. Induced economic
effects represent changes in household spending that occur due to the wages, salaries,
and proprietor’s income generated through direct and indirect economic activity.
Operational payroll was not modeled, as the workforce would come from the EPS.
The resulting estimates from the IMPLAN analysis do not represent a precise forecast,
but rather an approximate estimate of the overall economic effect. The IMPLAN model
is a static model, meaning that it relies on inter-industry relationships and household
consumption patterns, as they exist at the time of the analysis. This is important given
the duration of construction (including demolition, remediation, decommissioning, and
site restoration) would be 64-months and is not estimated to begin until the second
quarter of 2015 with demolition in Phase I, and would continue until the fourth quarter of
2020 with the demolition and site restoration in Phase IV. The model also assumes that
prices remain fixed, regardless of changes in demand, and that industry purchasersupplier relationships operate in fixed proportions. The model does not account for
substitution effects, supply constraints, economies of scale, demographic change, or
structural adjustments.
Socioeconomics Table 11 reports the petitioner’s estimates of the economic
impacts/benefits that would accrue to San Diego County due to project construction and
operation (refer to the “Conclusions,” subsection below). The petitioner estimates that
90 percent of the construction payroll would stay in the local area. With the 18
operations workforce coming from the existing 50-person EPS workforce, 100 percent
of the operations payroll would occur within San Diego County. The petitioner assumes
that 100 percent of the annual operations and maintenance expenditures would be
made within San Diego County.
SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-26

February 2015

 Between Phase II and the demolition activities in Phase IV, the amended CECP would
generate almost 238 jobs (direct, indirect, and induced) and $153.9 to $164.9 million in
labor income (direct, indirect, and induced). The average annual economic impact of
project operations would equal roughly 78 jobs (including 51 existing direct jobs,
indirect, and induced) and $9 million in labor income (direct, indirect, and induced).
Phase I, Phase III, and the site restoration activities in Phase IV could also add to the
estimated fiscal benefits shown in Socioeconomics Table 11 for the amended CECP.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
INTERVENOR: POWER OF VISION, TN # 203547, JANUARY 21, 2015
Staff received one comment (from intervenor, Power of Vision) identified for the
Socioeconomics section of the amended CECP Preliminary Staff Assessment.
Comment: A possible commercial development tentatively slated to occur on property
east of the amended CECP and Interstate-5 (formerly known as Strawberry Fields)
should be included in the Master List of Cumulative Projects.
Response: For a discussion of this issue, please see the Cumulative Impacts
discussion and the Response to Comments section in the Executive Summary
section of this Final Staff Assessment.

CONCLUSIONS
Staff concludes that construction, AST and EPS demolition, site remediation, EPS
decommissioning, site restoration, and power plant operation of the amended CECP
would not cause a significant adverse socioeconomic impact or contribute to any
significant cumulative socioeconomic impacts for the following reasons:
1. The project’s construction and operation workforces would not directly or indirectly
induce a substantial population growth in the project area.
2. The project’s construction and operation workforce would not have a significant
impact on housing within the project area and would not displace any people or
housing, or necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
3. The project would not result in significant physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered government facilities in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives with
respect to law enforcement service, education, or parks and recreation.

February 2015

4.9-27

SOCIOECONOMICS

 Socioeconomics Table 11
Summary of Socioeconomics Benefits
LICENSED CECP
2007 Dollars
Fiscal Benefits
Estimated annual property
taxes
State and local sales taxes
Construction (amended
CECP)
Single-phase construction
Project enhancements &
refinements
State and local sales taxes:
Operation
Gas franchise fees
Non-Fiscal Benefits
Total capital costs
Construction payroll
Construction (amended
CECP)
Single-phased construction
Project enhancements &
refinements
Construction materials &
supplies
Construction (amended
CECP)
Single-phased construction

$3,564,610 $4,583,070 per year

2014 Dollars
$4.1 - $5.2
million1

$6.98 - $9.13 million

$4.46 - $4.53 million
$1,468,420
$232,500

No data
No data

$348,750 per year

$64,100

$15,000 - $20,000

$2.4 million per year

No data

No data

$350 - $450 million

No data

$650 - $850 million
$90 - $100 million

$54.6 million
$4.042 million

$62.2 million
No data

$455 - $595 million
$30 million

$279 - $359
million (reflects
total budget)
No data

$3 million
Project enhancements &
refinements
$4.5 million per year
$5.1 million
Operation & maintenance
budget
Direct, Indirect, and Induced Benefits
Estimated Direct Employment
Construction (amended
CECP) (average)
375
Not applicable
Single-phased construction
(average)
132 jobs
Not applicable
Project enhancements &
refinements
Operation
Not applicable
14 jobs
(existing from EPS)
Estimated Secondary Employment (indirect & induced combined)
Construction (amended
CECP)
555 jobs
Not applicable
Construction &
commissioning
SOCIOECONOMICS

AMENDED CECP (Phase II plus
demolition in Phase IV)
2014 Dollars

4.9-28

$1.5 - $2 million

120

18 jobs
(existing from EPS)
172 jobs

February 2015

 LICENSED CECP
2007 Dollars
2014 Dollars
77 jobs
Not applicable
Project enhancement &
refinements
Operation
21 jobs
Not applicable
Estimated Secondary Income (indirect & induced combined)
Construction (amended
CECP)
Construction; single-phased $21,039,080
No data
$3,116,340
No data
Project enhancements &
refinements
Operation
$1,678,250 per year
No data

AMENDED CECP (Phase II plus
demolition in Phase IV)
2014 Dollars

Not provided
$8,213,220

$478 ,750 - $638,330

1

Notes: Assumes that EPS is not demolished and thus includes property tax revenue associated with the land (LL 2014d, pg. 5.10-7).
*Fiscal information based on 2007 dollars; the 25-month single-phased and 10-month project enhancements and refinements construction
periods; and the 30-year life of the power plant. The results of the IMPLAN/Input-Output modeling are for San Diego County for construction
and operations and indicate secondary, indirect, and induced impacts as well as direct impacts. Sources: CEC 2012a, pg. 8-3-4; LL 2014d,
pgs. 5.10-7 to 5.10-11.

February 2015

4.9-29

SOCIOECONOMICS

 REFERENCES
Carlsbad City 2003 – City of Carlsbad, General Plan, Parks and Recreation Element,
<http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/planning/Documents/ParksRec
reationElement.pdf>.
Carlsbad City 2014a – City of Carlsbad Department of Parks and Recreation, 2014,
<http://web.carlsbadca.gov/SERVICES/DEPARTMENTS/PARKSANDREC/Page
s/default.aspx>.
Carlsbad City 2014b – City of Carlsbad Department of Parks and Recreation, Future
Projects, 2014,
<http://web.carlsbadca.gov/services/departments/parksandrec/parksfacilities/future-projects/Pages/default.aspx>.
CDE 2014 – California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit, Data
Quest, <http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/>, last updated March 24, 2014.
CEC 2012a – California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CEC 2014r – California Energy Commission (TN202971).Report of Conversation on
August 5, 2014 between CEC staff/L.Worall and Carlsbad Unified School District
staff/B.Banigan re: School Impact Fees. Submitted August 22, 2014.
CEC 2014mm – California Energy Commission (TN203170). Response from the
Carlsbad Police Department to law enforcement needs assessment, dated
October 2, 2014. Submitted 10/06/2014.
CEC 2014ww – California Energy Commission (TN203285). Revised Committee
Scheduling Order, dated October 30, 2014. Submitted 10/30/0214.
CEQ 1997 – Council on Environmental Quality. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under
the National Environmental Policy Act. December 10, 1997,
<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_ceq1297
.pdf>.
CHP 2014 – California Highway Patrol, 2014, <http://www.chp.ca.gov/offices/601.html>.
DOF 2014 – California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates
for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2011- 2014., Sacramento,
California, May 2014.
DWK 2011 – Dannis Woliver Kelley, Recent CEQA Decision Chawanakee Unified
School District v. County of Madera, The Point- Education Law Bulletin, Volume
2011, Client Bulletin No. 13 - July 11, 2011.

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-30

February 2015

 EDD 2012 – Employment Development Department, State of California, Labor Market
Information, Projections of Employment by Industry and Occupation. 2010-2020
Occupational Employment Projections for San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos MSA
(San Diego County) (Nov. 28, 2012),
<http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/Content.asp?pageid=145>.
EDD 2014a – Employment Development Department, State of California, Labor Force
for All Metropolitan Areas, Annual Averages, 2013, February 25, 2014,
<http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfhist/13aamsa.pdf>.
EDD 2014b – Employment Development Department, State of California, Industry
Employment and Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas, Labor Force and
Industry Employment Data for Metropolitan Areas, August 15, 2014,
<http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/sand$pds.pdf>.
Good Sam 2014 – Good Sam Camping, RV Parks Near Carlsbad, CA, 2014,
<http://www.goodsamcamping.com/>.
LL 2014b – Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL 2014d – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL 2014v – Locke Lord LLP (TN203082). Petition to Remove, Staff Information Request
– Traffic & Transportation, dated September 18, 2014. Submitted 09/18/2014.
LL 2014cc – Locke Lord LLP (TN203143). Response to Data Request Set 2A (No.64),
dated October 1, 2014. Submitted 10/01/2014.
LL 2014pp – Locke Lord LLP (TN203300). Project Owner Responses to Data Request
Set 3 (Nos. 67-84), dated October 31, 2014. Submitted 10/31/2014.
OK Dept. of Commerce 2010 – Oklahoma Department of Commerce ACS Calculator,
last updated December 6, 2010,
<www.okcommerce.gov/Libraries/Documents/ACS-Calculator-1_3209.xls>.
Olive Avenue 2014 – Olive Avenue RV Resort, 2014,
<http://www.oliveavervresort.com/index.html>.
POV 2015e – Power of Vision/Arnold Roe (TN203547). Power of Vision’s Comments on
the Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted
01/21/2015.
SANDAG 2010 – San Diego Association of Governments, Broad Report: 2050 Regional
Growth Forecast, February 26, 2010,
<http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=355&fuseaction=projects.detail >.
SDTA 2014 – San Diego Tourism Authority, 2013 Annual Report, March 27, 2014,
<http://www.sandiego.org/about-us.aspx>.
February 2015

4.9-31

SOCIOECONOMICS

 US Census 2000 – United States Census Bureau P001: Total Population [1] - Universe:
Total population, Census 2010 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data,
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml>.
US Census 2009 – United States Census Bureau, Compass for Understanding and
Using American Community Survey Data: What State and Local Governments
Need to Know, Issued February 2009,
<http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/handbooks/>.
US Census 2010a – United States Census Bureau QT-PL: Race, Hispanic or Latino,
Age, and Housing Occupancy: 2010 – 2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public
Law 94-171) Summary File,
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml>.
US Census 2010b – United States Census Bureau, QT-H1: General Housing
Characteristics: 2010 - 2010 Census Summary File 1,
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml>.
US Census 2011 – United States Census Bureau, American Community SurveyGuidance for Data Users Main, last revised May 24, 2011,
<http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_for_data_users/guidance_main/>.
US Census 2013a – United States Census Bureau, S1701 POVERTY STATUS IN THE
PAST 12 MONTHS 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,
<http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml>.
US Census 2013b – United States Census Bureau, B01003: TOTAL POPULATION –
Universe: Total population, 2009-2013 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates, <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml>.
US EPA 1998 – United States Environmental Protection Agency, Final Guidance for
Incorporating Environmental Justice Concerns in EPA’s NEPA Compliance
Analyses. April 1998.
<http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ej/resources/policy/ej_guidance_nepa_epa0498
.pdf>.
Virginia Tech 2006 – Virginia Tech, Virginia Tech Housing Needs and Market Analysis,
Thomas Jefferson PDC, Center for Housing Research Virginia Tech, October
2006, <http://www.vchr.vt.edu/pdfreports/tjhousingreportfinalrev3.pdf>.
Visit Carlsbad 2014 – Carlsbad Hotels and Resorts, 2014,
<http://visitcarlsbad.com/hotels>.

SOCIOECONOMICS

4.9-32

February 2015

 SOCIOECONOMICS • FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Census 2010 Minority Population by Census Block - Six Mile Radius
Camp
Pendleton
South

0

C0

~

Carlsbad Energy
Center
Encina Power Station
Property Boundary

Census 2010
% Minority Population
by Census Block

[=:J 0 - 24 .9%

D

25.0% - 49.9%

-

50.0% -74.9%

-

75.0% - 100%

Other Features

*
0

(/)

-

City
Community
Road

0

()

- - - Railroad

0

m

Airport

6 Mile Radius

()

0
z
0

s::

()

Radius as
Noted

0
0

t

0.5

A

1:125,000
2 Milos

I

(/)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION , SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONM ENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Multinet, Cen sus 2010 - PL94-17 1, Open S treet Map City Data January 2014

2010 Census Blocks
Six Mlle Radius
Total Population: 158,518
Non - Hispanic White: 97,161
Total Minority: 61.357
Percent Minority: 38.7%

 SOIL & WATER RESOURCES
Testimony of Mike Conway, P.G. and Marylou Taylor, P.E.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The proposed modified Carlsbad Energy Center Project (amended CECP) and the
decommissioning and demolition of the Encina Power Station (EPS) could potentially
impact soil and water resources. Staff evaluated the potential impacts related to:
accelerated wind or water erosion and sedimentation; flood conditions in the vicinity of
the project; local water supplies; wastewater disposal; water quality of surface and
groundwater; and compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations,
standards (LORS), and state policies.
New information and changed circumstances require this new analysis for the amended
CECP, even though the amendment would reduce impacts to soil and water resources.
These changes include: simple-cycle combustion gas turbine generators resulting in
reduced demand for potable water and recycled water; modified water treatment system
resulting in reduced amount of wastewater disposed to the municipal sewer system; and
EPS shutdown eliminating the use of ocean water for power plant cooling. Other
changes would result in impacts that are similar or somewhat greater than the licensed
CECP, such as the demolition of additional above-ground fuel oil storage tanks and the
increased footprint of the proposed power plant. To mitigate these impacts, staff has
suggested modifications to existing conditions of certification that were approved for the
licensed CECP. New significant impacts would result from the proposed EPS
decommissioning and demolition. To mitigate these impacts, staff recommends a new
condition of certification, as well as simple modifications to existing conditions of
certification that were approved for the licensed CECP.
Staff concludes that the amended CECP would not result in significant adverse impacts
that cannot be avoided or mitigated. A summary of proposed modifications to the Soil &
Water Resources conditions of certification is shown in Soil & Water Resources
Table 1.

February 2015

4.10-1

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Soil & Water Resources Table 1
Summary of Proposed Modifications to Conditions of Certification
Condition of
Certification
SOIL&WATER-1
SOIL&WATER-2
SOIL&WATER-3
SOIL&WATER-4
SOIL&WATER-5

SOIL&WATER-6

SOIL&WATER-7
SOIL&WATER-8
SOIL&WATER-9

Proposed Modification(s) to Condition
TIER 3 CONSTRUCTION SWPPP: Updated reference to the most recent
general construction storm water permit Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ.
NON-POTABLE CONSTRUCTION WATER USE PLAN: Added language
requiring recycled water use for EPS demolition activities.
INDUSTRIAL SWPPP: Updated reference to the most recent industrial storm
water permit (Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ).
WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS: Edited to mitigate for ocean
discharges of EPS wastewater during demolition.
POTABLE WATER SUPPLY: Edited to allow potable water use for fire
protection and the emergency backup supply to recycled water.
WATER METERING AND REPORTING: Added language to: limit the
amount of potable water use to three acre-feet per year; limit the use of
normal use of potable water to drinking, sanitary, and fire protection testing
purposes; allow potable water as the emergency backup for recycled water;
and require a Petition to Amend if potable water is needed during operation
for more than just an emergency use. The Petition to Amend would be
triggered if the amended CECP requires potable water for emergencies that
exceeds 300 acre-feet during the life of the project.
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM: Edited to remove requirements for use of the
sanitary sewer system to discharge industrial wastewater.
RECYCLED WATER PURCHASE AGREEMENT: Modified language in
Verification to limit recycled water use to 215 acre-feet per year.
DEMOLITION WASTEWATER: Added new condition to mitigate for
wastewater disposal needs produced during EPS demolition.

The previous LORS analysis was updated to the extent necessary to analyze the
compliance of the amended CECP with current LORS and state policies. Staff
concludes that the amended CECP would comply with LORS and state policies with
implementation of conditions of certification recommended by staff. Furthermore, staff
concludes that the amended CECP does not instigate the need to prepare a Water
Supply Assessment (WSA) because it is not a “Project” as defined by Water Code
Section 10912.
Socioeconomics staff has determined that the population in the six mile project radius
does not constitute an environmental justice population as defined by “Environmental
Justice: Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act” and would not trigger
further scrutiny for purposes of an environmental justice analysis.

INTRODUCTION
On May 31, 2012, the Energy Commission approved the 558-megawatt (MW)
combined-cycle Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) for construction and operation.
On May 2, 2014, Carlsbad Energy Center LLC (petitioner) filed a petition to amend
(PTA) the licensed CECP. The proposed amended CECP contains several
modifications, the most notable being the redesign of CECP into a simple-cycle power
plant and the shutdown and demolition of the existing Encina Power Station (EPS). All
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-2

February 2015

 proposed modifications are described in the Project Description section of this Final
Staff Assessment (FSA).
This analysis addresses potential impacts to soil and water resources through the
construction and operation of the amended CECP, including the demolition of EPS.
Where impacts are found to be the same or less than impacts of the licensed CECP,
staff applied the existing conditions of certification, as contained in the Commission
Decision dated May 31, 2012 (CEC2012a), to reduce those impacts to less than
significant. Aspects of the modified project that are new or substantially different from
the licensed project have been identified and examined for potential impacts.
In this analysis, the term “licensed CECP” refers to the approved project. The proposed
modified project is referred to as the “amended CECP.” The amended CECP would
involve a schedule that could be described in four phases: (1) tank demolition and
remediation; (2) construction, commissioning, and operation of the new power plant; (3)
retirement and decommissioning of the EPS facility; and (4) demolition of the EPS
facility. For details about the expected time periods of the amended CECP schedule,
see Table 1 in the Project Description section of this PSA. Demolition activities are
analyzed as phases separate from the construction and operation of the amended
CECP.

METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Significance criteria are based on those listed in CEQA Appendix G. Soil and water
resources impacts would be significant if the project would:


violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements;



substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted);



substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite;



substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite;



create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff;



otherwise substantially degrade surface water or groundwater quality;



place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map;

February 2015

4.10-3

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 

place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect
flood flows;



expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam;



result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil;



have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects); or



have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.

Although the CEQA Guidelines provide a checklist of suggested issues that should be
addressed in an environmental document, neither the CEQA statute nor the CEQA
guidelines prescribe thresholds of significance or particular methodologies for
performing an impact analysis. This is left to lead agency judgment and discretion,
based on factual data and guidance from regulatory agencies and other sources where
available and applicable. Staff assessed whether the amended CECP would comply
with the LORS and policies described in Soil & Water Resources Table 2 and whether
there would be a significant impact under the CEQA. Where a potentially significant
impact was identified, staff modified the existing conditions of certification or proposed
new mitigation to ensure the impacts would be less than significant.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-4

February 2015

 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS (LORS)
Soil & Water Resources Table 2
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) and Policies
Applicable LORS

Description

Federal
Clean Water Act (33 USC, §§
1251 et seq.)

Requires states to set standards to protect water quality, which include
regulation of storm water discharges during construction and operation
of power plant facilities.

Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (40
CFR Part 260 et seq.)

Seeks to prevent surface and groundwater contamination, sets
guidelines for determining hazardous wastes, and identifies proper
methods for handling and disposing of those wastes.

State
California Constitution,
Article X, section 2

Requires that the water resources of the state be put to beneficial use to
the fullest extent possible and states that the waste, unreasonable use or
unreasonable method of use is prohibited.

California Water Code
Sections 10910-10915

Requires public water systems to prepare water supply assessments
(WSA) for certain defined development projects subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act. Lead agencies determine, based on the
WSA, whether protected water supplies will be sufficient to meet project
demands along with the region’s reasonably foreseeable cumulative
demand under average-normal-year, single-dry-year, and multiple-dryyear conditions.

California Water Code,
section 13170.2

Requires the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to
formulate and adopt a water quality control plan for ocean waters of the
state that shall be known as the California Ocean Plan.

California Water Code,
section 13260

Requires filing with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
or appropriate Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a report
of waste discharge for any discharge that could affect the water quality of
the state.

California Water Code,
section 13523

Requires the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
(SDRWQRB) to prescribe water reuse requirements for water that is to
be used as recycled water after consultation with the Department of
Public Health (DPH).

California Water Code,
section 13550

Requires the use of recycled water for industrial purposes subject to
recycled water being available and upon other criteria such as the quality
and quantity of the recycled water are suitable for the use, the cost is
reasonable, the use is not detrimental to public health, and the use will
not impact downstream users or biological resources.

Title 17, California Code of
Regulations

Requires prevention measures for backflow and cross connection of
potable and non-potable water lines.

Title 22, California Code of
Regulations

Requires DPH to review and approve new or modified recycled water
projects to ensure they meet all recycled water criteria for the protection
of public health.

Title 23, California Code of
Regulations

Requires the RWQCB to issue waste discharge requirements specifying
conditions for protection of water quality.

February 2015

4.10-5

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Applicable LORS

Description

State Policies & Guidance
Integrated Energy Policy
Report (Pub. Resources
Code, Div. 15, § 25300 et
seq.)

In the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report, consistent with State Water
Resources Control Board Resolution 75-58 and the Warren-Alquist Act,
the Energy Commission adopted a policy stating it will approve the use
of fresh water for cooling purposes by power plants only where
alternative water supply sources and alternative cooling technologies are
shown to be “environmentally undesirable” or “economically unsound.”

Local
County of San Diego Code of
Regulatory Ordinances, Title
6, Division 4, Chapter 2,
Vector and Abatement
Control

This code section gives the county of San Diego Environmental Health
department the authority to take action to abate or control vectors.

City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code Title 13, Chapters
13.04, 13.10 & 13.16

Requires new sources of domestic and industrial wastewater to obtain
discharge permits from the city of Carlsbad.

City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code, Title 14, Chapter 14.08

Establishes procedures and requirements for connection to the City of
Carlsbad’s potable water mains to water pipes on any real property.

City of Carlsbad Municipal
Code Title 15, Chapter 15.12

Requires new development and redevelopment projects to abide by the
city of Carlsbad’s Storm Water Management and Discharge Control
provisions consistent with San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board (SDRWQCB) Order No. R9-2013- 0001, NPDES No.
CAS0109266.

City of Carlsbad
Ordinance No. 44

Adopts a Drought Response Plan and Water Conservation Program
establishing water management requirements necessary to conserve
water, and regulations to be implemented during times of declared water
shortages, or declared water shortage emergencies.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-6

February 2015

 PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Characteristics of the amended CECP that have the potential to impact soil and water
resources differently than the licensed CECP are shown in Soil & Water Resources
Table 3.
Soil & Water Resources Table 3
Licensed vs. Amended CECP Features Impacting Soil and Water Resources
Feature

Licensed CECP (558 MW)

Amended CECP (632 MW)

Power production

Two one-on-one combined cycle units

Six simple-cycle combustion gas
turbine generators with intercoolers

Annual capacity
factor

Up to 47% (4,100 of 8,760 possible
hours)

Estimated 31% (approximately 2,700
operating hours)

Project footprint

Approximately 23 acres

Approximately 30 acres

Water source for
operations and
wastewater
discharge

Recycled water (tertiary-treated) with
discharge to sewer system; or (if
recycled water is unavailable) purified
ocean water with discharge to existing
EPS discharge channel

Recycled water (tertiary-treated) with
process wastewater treated onsite
using demineralizer system (no
industrial wastewater discharge)

Demand for potable
water

19 acre-feet per year

Three acre-feet per year

Demand for recycled
water

517 acre-feet per year

215 acre-feet per year

Amount of
wastewater

187 acre-feet per year

Less than 11 acre-feet per year

Area of temporary
construction laydown

Ten acres

19 acres

Site preparation

Demolish above-ground fuel oil storage
Tanks 5, 6, and 7

Demolish above-ground fuel oil
storage Tanks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7

Encina Power Station

Retire units 1-3

Retire units 1-5 and demolish all
above-ground structures

Length of
construction

25 months (from site preparation to
CECP plant begin operation)

64 months (from site preparation to
EPS plant demolition to ground level)

Off-site linear
facilities

The amended project includes a new recycled water line approximately 3,700
feet long.

Source: CEC2012a, LL2014d, LL2014b

Construction of the amended project basically consists of four sequential phases: site
preparation and demolition of above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs), CECP
construction and commissioning, EPS shutdown and decommissioning, and EPS
demolition and site stabilization. Because the location of the amended CECP is
currently occupied by ASTs 4, 5, 6, and 7 (known as the East Tank Farm), the project
site must first be cleared, cleaned, and graded in preparation for power plant
construction. After site preparation is complete, 22 months of power plant construction
would begin. When the completed power plant is commissioned and operational, the
shutdown, decommissioning and eventual demolition of EPS would occur. Therefore,
EPS Units 1-5 shutdown and demolition would follow the amended CECP power plant
construction, but concurrent with CECP operations.

February 2015

4.10-7

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Refer to the Project Description section of this FSA for more information on major
features of the amended CECP. Project Description Figures 1 and 4 show the
location of the amended project with respect to the licensed project. Information relevant
to the soil and water resources analysis is summarized below. For a complete detailed
description of the proposed modified project, refer to the Petition to Amend (LL2014d)
and the petitioner's related supplemental material.

SETTING AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project site is located along the shore of the Pacific Ocean and on the south margin
of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon in the city of Carlsbad, northern San Diego County. The
power plant site would be located on the northeast portion of the existing 95-acre
Encina Power Station (EPS), with the laydown and parking areas located throughout the
EPS property. The amended CECP site would be approximately 30-acres and would
require an additional 19.3-acre portion of the EPS site for temporary parking and
laydown areas (LL2014d).
The petitioner proposes to construct and operate the 632-megawatt (MW) amended
CECP, which would be an air-cooled, natural gas-fired generating facility operating in
simple-cycle mode with evaporative air inlet cooling. A more complete description of the
amended CECP power plant, including the site layout, linears, and regional maps, can
be reviewed in the Project Description section of this FSA.

SOILS AND CONTAMINATION
In the vicinity of the CECP site, artificial fill overlies older quaternary marine and nonmarine deposits. The base soil underlying the CECP site and on-site construction
laydown areas is classified as Marina loamy coarse sand, which has superior drainage
characteristics and slow-to-medium erosion potential (CH2M2007a).
Extensive excavation, grading, and deposition of fill occurred during the various phases
of EPS construction and expansion, beginning in the early 1950’s, followed by stages of
upgrades and expansions. The East Tank Farm (ASTs 4, 5, 6, and 7), where the
amended CECP power block would be located, had been excavated to bedrock during
construction of the tank farm and the basin is approximately 25 feet below grade.
Geotechnical evaluations within the EPS property confirm the presence of fill to a depth
of at least ten feet. This fill is expected to consist of a mixture of coarse textured soils
suitable for compaction and power plant bearing loads (CH2M2007a).
Soil below the engineered tank bottoms and areas that may have experienced leaks in
the past could have soil contaminated with diesel or heavy fuel oil components. The
Commission Decision requires the licensed CECP to comply with Condition of
Certification WASTE-1 that prohibits the start of construction in areas requiring
characterization and remediation until all necessary remediation has been
accomplished. The project owner entered into the Voluntary Assistance Program (VAP)
with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (SDCDEH) for the
demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7. A Soil Remediation Plan would be developed pursuant
to the requirements of the SDCDEH as acting lead agency (CEC2012a §6.6).

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-8

February 2015

 For the amended CECP, the project owner would include ASTs 1, 2, and 4 in the VAP
application to be filed for ASTs 5, 6, and 7. The SDCDEH does not allow ground
disturbance prior to SDCDEH approval and characterization. Therefore, after the ASTs
are removed to grade, engineering controls would be deployed to stabilize the area in
the interim period between completion of above‐grade demolition and below‐grade
assessment and remediation. The VAP process tailors the site assessment and
subsurface characterization based on, in part, the particular future use of the property.
Because ASTs 4 – 7 would be replaced with a power plant, the required level of
remediation would match this future redevelopment (LL2014y).
ASTs 1 and 2 are located outside the facility boundary of the amended CECP. The
redevelopment process to determine future land uses of this area will be determined at
a future date as part of the city planning process. Because this city’s determination for
the type of redevelopment project will influence the site assessment and level of future
remediation, this area would remain stabilized and undisturbed. Prior to a subsequent
landowner’s future demolition of any of the ground level foundations, a subsurface site
characterization appropriate for the future redevelopment and land use would be
conducted under a separate VAP administered by SDCDEH (LL2014y).
The EPS site is also located outside the facility boundary of the amended CECP.
Similarly, this area would remain stabilized and undisturbed after completion of abovegrade demolition. The petitioner anticipates a two‐ to three‐year process to achieve
SDCDEH‐approved closure or certification of the demolished EPS site, which would be
addressed under a separate VAP to be filed by the future landowner (LL2014y). For
further discussion and recommended mitigation relating to soil contamination, refer to
the Waste Management section of this FSA.

GROUNDWATER
The amended CECP site is located within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon basin area. The
groundwater beneath the EPS is generally brackish and has been designated as having
no beneficial uses. Regionally the groundwater basins discharge to the Pacific Ocean,
and groundwater levels fluctuate with seasonal and tidal influences. Historic
groundwater levels in monitoring wells on the EPS site have ranged from 14 feet below
mean sea level (msl) to ten feet above msl, but actual static groundwater level is likely
to be near or above msl. The ground surface elevation across the property varies from
mean sea level to 55-feet above msl. The East and West Tank Farms are located on
marine terrace bluffs approximately 30- to 50-feet above msl. Measurements taken in
February 2014 in monitoring wells located in the central part of the property, in the
vicinity of the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project, showed groundwater levels
between 29.7 and 31.8 feet below ground surface (LL2014kk §3.2). The basements of
EPS Units 4 and 5 are more than 16 feet below msl and, as a result, receive seepage
from groundwater. To prevent flooding of these basements, sumps were installed to
collect the seepage water. The petitioner does not propose to use groundwater for any
phase of the amended CECP, and groundwater would not be encountered during
construction of the amended CECP due to its depth (LL2008a).

February 2015

4.10-9

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 SURFACE WATER
The amended CECP site is located within the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit between the
San Luis Rey River to the north and San Marcos Creek to the south. The site is situated
within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon watershed, which has a total drainage area of
approximately 29 square miles. Agua Hedionda Creek is the primary stream within the
watershed and flows in a southwestward direction to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon and
the Pacific Ocean (SR2008c).
Coastal waters in the vicinity of the amended CECP site include the Pacific Ocean,
Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and Buena Vista Lagoon. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the
Pacific Ocean are both listed on the current Clean Water Act section 303(d) list as
impaired water bodies. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon is listed as impaired for indicator
bacteria and sedimentation/siltation, and the Pacific Ocean at Carlsbad Beach is listed
as impaired for indicator bacteria (SR2008c).

LOCAL WATER SUPPLIES AND WASTEWATER SERVICE
The project site is located within the service area of the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD) which covers approximately 85 percent of the city, an area of about 32
square miles. CMWD is responsible for delivering potable and recycled water to
customers and providing sewer (wastewater) service. Currently, recycled water is not
available at the project site, but CMWD has initiated plans to expand the Carlsbad
Water Recycling Facility and extend its recycled water system to the project site.
CMWD believes recycled water service to the EPS property will be complete before the
end of 2017 (LL2014e Appendix 2B).

CECP CONSTRUCTION
Water Use
The amended CECP would use both potable and Title 22 tertiary treated recycled water
for construction. The amended CECP proposes to use approximately 142.5 acre-feet of
water for construction; 116.3 acre-feet of the total would be potable water and 26.2
acre-feet would be recycled water. The petitioner expects the CMWD’s recycled water
to be available in the spring of 2017. In the 21st month of construction (of the 24-month
construction period), the project would transition from potable water to recycled water
for construction.

Water Quality
The amended CECP site is located on the existing Encina Power Station within the east
tank farm impoundment basins containing ASTs 4, 5, 6, and 7. The existing storm water
collection system would be used during development of the amended CECP. The
existing storm water system collects runoff and pumps the runoff through existing
pipelines for eventual discharge to the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The petitioner proposes
to modify the drainage system as necessary to accommodate the plant layout and to
meet the requirements of federal Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit requirements.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-10

February 2015

 CECP OPERATION
Water Use
The amended CECP would eliminate use of the EPS generating units’ once-through
cooling system for source water as previously approved for the licensed CECP. Instead
of sea water, the amended CECP system would rely on Title 22 tertiary treated recycled
water, delivered to the site by the CMWD. As proposed, recycled water would be used
for evaporative cooling make-up, as feed water to the demineralizers that would provide
high-purity water for the six combustion turbine generators. Recycled water would also
be used for landscape irrigation at the amended CECP. A proposed 36-inch recycled
water pipeline would extend approximately 3,700 feet from the CECP to meet CMWD’s
line at Avenida Encinas and Cannon Road (LL2015c). The amended CECP would use
no more than 215 acre-feet per year (afy) of recycled water (LL2014vv). This is a
substantial decrease in the water requirement for the licensed CECP, which would have
used 517 afy.
Potable water would be provided by CMWD for drinking and sanitary uses. The
amended CECP would use a maximum of three afy according to the latest estimate
provided by the petitioner (LL2015c). This amount is less than the licensed CECP’s
maximum of 19 afy.

Wastewater Management
The licensed CECP would have discharged its process wastewater to the city’s sewer
system (when industrial water was supplied by recycled water from CMWD) or to the
Pacific Ocean through the existing EPS discharge channel (when industrial water was
supplied by desalinated sea water). When recycled water is not supplemented with
desalinated sea water, the annual discharge of process wastewater for the licensed
CECP was estimated to be 187 afy.
For the amended CECP, the petitioner proposes to use trailer-mounted demineralizer
units to internally recycle evaporative cooler blowdown and other plant industrial
wastewater for reuse. The trailer mounted demineralizer units, which would also
pretreat the recycled water from CMWD, are replaced with a fresh unit when the resin
beds within a trailer are exhausted. The depleted unit is transferred to an offsite facility
to be regenerated. At peak power output and production, the amended CECP could
exchange up to five trailers a day. This trailer mounted demineralizer system would
produce no liquid or solid wastes at the project site (LL2014vv).
Similar to the licensed CECP, industrial contact water (power block runoff, cooling water
samples, pump leaks, equipment wash‐water, etc.) that could contain oil and
suspended solids would be treated by an oil and water separator prior to discharge to
the city’s sewer system. For the amended CECP, this discharge stream would average
about eight afy (LL2014vv). The sanitary wastewater collection system would collect
wastewater from sinks, toilets, showers, eye wash stations, and other sanitary facilities,
and also discharge to the city’s sewer system. The sanitary discharge stream is
expected to be less than the amount of potable water supplied for sanitary uses.

February 2015

4.10-11

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 AST DEMOLITION
The May 31, 2012 Energy Commission Final Decision (licensed CECP) permitted the
removal of three existing aboveground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) and two berms in
order to create space for the construction and operation of a 540-MW combined-cycle
power plant. The three ASTs (5, 6, and 7 as seen in Project Description Figure 1) are
located within the 23-acre footprint of the licensed CECP. The amended CECP would
include the demolition of an additional berm and three additional ASTs (1, 2, and 4) to
accommodate the amended CECP power plant’s slightly larger 30-acre footprint, and
for the eventual shutdown of EPS.
The licensed CECP proposed: demolition and removal of ASTs 5, 6, and 7 with
associated piping and equipment; removal of oil-impregnated sand cushion and removal
of any associated impacted soil; removal of the two intermediate berms separating
ASTs 5, 6, and 7; and backfill of remedial excavations (LL2008a §2.3.3). In addition,
temporary use of areas surrounding abandoned ASTs 1 and 2 were proposed for
construction laydown1 (CEC2012a p.6.6-2).
Demolition of AST 4, situated immediately south of ASTs 5 through 7, would be required
to accommodate the larger, 30-acre footprint necessary for the amended CECP. ASTs
2 and 4 were most recently in use by EPS for storing backup fuel oil No. 6 under a “dual
fuel” requirement, which expired in 2007, for emergency backup in the event of an
interruption in natural gas supplies (LL2008a §2.3.3). Because the amended CECP
would allow for the shutdown of EPS units, all of the existing AST tanks would no longer
be of use.
The amended CECP would not change the demolition activities for ASTs 5, 6, and 7
already permitted and approved for demolition by the licensed CECP. The additional
demolition activities it proposes are to demolish and remove ASTs 1, 2, and 4, including
associated piping and equipment2; and the berm separating ASTs 4 and 5 (LL2014b
§1.1). Completion of the amended CECP’s AST demolition Phase I is expected to last
eight months, and would precede Phase II power plant construction of the amended
CECP (LL2014b §1.1).
The petitioner estimates that for the AST demolition phase of work, peak water use for
dust suppression would be 9,000 gallons per day. This is based on demolition work only
requiring periodic watering of the site and work area. Total water use would be as much
as one to 1.6 million gallons assuming average to peak water use. CMWD’s recycled
water pipeline project, which will run along the east side of the railroad (along the west
perimeter of CECP), is scheduled to be completed during 2017. Because this would
occur well past completion of the AST demolition phase, potable water would be used
for these demolition activities.

1

The licensed CECP does not include demolition of ASTs 1 and 2. Half an acre of construction laydown
area would have been located around each AST within the respective impoundment basin.
2
The concrete ring foundations of ASTs 1 and 2 would be left in place. AST 4 would be completely
removed in the same manner as ASTs 5, 6, and 7.
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-12

February 2015

 EPS DEMOLITION
The amended CECP would allow for the permanent shutdown and retirement of EPS
Units 1 through 5. Onsite features of the EPS facility to be demolished include: the
eight-story power plant enclosure building that houses the five steam turbine Units 1
through 5, associated boilers, turbine lube system, air emissions control devices, 400foot exhaust stack, pumps, fans, condensers, decommissioned fuel oil lines, sumps,
and three control rooms. The power plant building also houses the chemistry laboratory,
instrumentation, and control shops. Five oil-filled transformers associated with Units 1
through 5 are located adjacent to the power plant building (LL2014cc §1.1).
Ancillary structures supporting current EPS operations include a 17-megawatt
combustion turbine unit, multiple transformers, aboveground ammonia storage tanks,
administration building, maintenance shop/warehouse, machine shop, paint shop, guard
shacks, discharge basin equipment, chemical storage building, wastewater treatment,
and fire water storage tanks. Infrastructure supporting the main power block includes:
natural gas pipeline, once-through cooling tunnels, sanitary sewer system, 230- and
138-kV power lines, wastewater system (groundwater seepage discharge),
communication lines, and storm water discharge system (LL2014cc §1.1).
Other onsite equipment includes third-party telecommunications equipment (cellular
tower and cellular antennas, mostly located on the stack). Additionally, a former
subsurface 20-inch-diameter pipeline from an offsite marine oil terminal to the EPS tank
farms was cleaned and permanently closed in place in May 2013. A portion of the 20inch pipeline on the EPS site was removed as part of the ongoing construction of the
Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (LL2014cc §1.1).
Pre-demolition activities during the 12-month EPS shutdown and decommissioning
(Phase III of the amended CECP) would follow successful commercial operation of the
amended CECP power plant. The EPS above-grade demolition (Phase IV of the
amended CECP) is anticipated to take 22 months, with an additional two months for site
stabilization3. Soil & Water Resources Table 4 shows the maximum expected use of
water for these phases would total about 325 acre-feet. Recycled water would be used
if available at the EPS site (which is on the west side of the railroad tracks). Otherwise,
potable water would be used via the existing infrastructure currently at EPS.
Soil & Water Resources Table 4
Water Use during EPS Decommissioning and Demolition
Activity

Duration (months)

Maximum Water Use (acre-feet)

Phase III: Equipment Removal

12

17.31

Phase IV: Above-Grade Building Demolition

22

284.83

Phase IV: Site Stabilization

2

23.02

36

325.16

Total
Source: LL2014bb, Table DR50-1
3

Stabilization features would be implemented onsite to stabilize foundations, safety barriers, future
assessment areas, stockpiles, parking areas, etc. These features would be considered temporary until
final site assessment and development occurs. These features would be engineered to ensure safety and
environmental management and require minimal maintenance (LL2014cc §7.1).
February 2015

4.10-13

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Subsurface remediation of the EPS is not included as part of the amended CECP. The
removal of below-grade structures and foundations and subsurface soil and/or
groundwater remediation would be conducted as part of a future, joint redevelopment
initiative involving NRG Energy and the City of Carlsbad. During Phase IV demolition of
the above-grade EPS structures, if obvious areas of contamination are found (e.g.,
stained soil and/or soil with hydrocarbon-like odor), samples would be obtained to
assess the potential contamination. If these samples exceed county or state standards,
they would be cleaned to an industrial level in accordance with and under the direction
of the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health (SDCDEH) as the lead
agency for the EPS site under the County’s Voluntary Assistance Program (LL2014cc
§1.0).

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
This section provides an evaluation of the expected direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts to soil and water resources that could be caused by the construction and
operation of the amended CECP, including the decommissioning and demolition of
EPS. Staff’s analysis consists of a description of the potentially significant impacts,
gathering data related to construction and operation of the project, then reaching a
conclusion to determine whether or not the project presents potentially significant
impacts. If staff determines there is a significant impact, then staff evaluates the
licensed CECP mitigation contained in the Commission Decision (CEC 2012a) for
sufficiency and staff may or may not recommend additional or entirely different
mitigation measures that are potentially more effective than those in the Commission
Decision or proposed by the petitioner. Mitigation is designed to reduce the effects of
potentially significant impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Potential impacts of the amended CECP include soil erosion, flooding, groundwater
supplies, groundwater quality, surface water hydrology, and surface water quality
impacts.

CECP CONSTRUCTION
Surface and Groundwater Quality
The amended CECP would include six simple-cycle combustion gas turbine generators
and ancillary facilities on a 30-acre site. In preparation for construction of the amended
CECP, tanks 5, 6, and 7 would be demolished and the lateral berms removed before
site grading and perimeter berm construction begins. Approximately 49 acres of land
would be temporarily or permanently disturbed during construction of the amended
CECP, consisting of the project site, the various laydown and parking areas, and the
linear features. The CECP would be classified as a Tier 3 project (based on city of
Carlsbad standards) because the project is within 200 feet of an environmentally
sensitive area, the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. As a Tier 3 project, the CECP represents
the highest threat to water quality, and the project owner would be required to prepare a
Tier 3 Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevent Plan (SWPPP). A Tier 3 Construction
SWPPP is required to be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the General
Construction Permit and the standards contained in the city of Carlsbad Storm Water
Standards Manual (CAR2011). The petitioner has prepared a draft Construction
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-14

February 2015

 Stormwater Management and Pollution Prevention Plan in accordance with the above
referenced standards manual and all federal, state, and municipal storm water
discharge requirements promulgated by the Clean Water Act.
Surface waters in the vicinity of the CECP site are the Pacific Ocean and Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. The proper selection and implementation of BMPs would reduce the
impact of water and wind erosion to soil and water resources to a level that is less than
significant. Adherence to the procedures in an approved Tier 3 Construction SWPPP
that complies with the city of Carlsbad storm water standards would limit soil erosion
and the potential migration of sediment and other contaminants from entering the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon.
Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-1 of the licensed CECP requires a Tier 3
Construction SWPPP be prepared and implemented in accordance with the San Diego
Region’s municipal permit (Order No. R9-2013-0001, NPDES No. CAS0109266) and
Title 15, Chapter 15.12 of the Municipal Code. Staff believes the same requirements are
applicable and appropriate for the amended CECP. Through the preparation and
implementation of the Tier 3 Construction SWPPP that meets the City of Carlsbad’s
Storm Water Standards Manual, the amended CECP would also meet the requirements
of Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ and its updates (SWRCB General Construction
Storm Water Permit) and impacts to water quality would be mitigated to a level of less
than significant. The licensed CECP references a now out-of-date permit, Order No. 9908. SOIL&WATER-1 for the amended CECP now lists the current Order 2009-0009DWQ and its updates.
The Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-1 requires special attention to pre- and
post-project runoff conditions, with the intent of minimizing the impact to the local
watershed. The updated General Construction Permit also prescribes project-required
BMPs according to a project’s sedimentation risk and its potential to impact cold water
spawning habitat. The updated General Construction Permit also retains many of the
same requirements from the former permit to reduce erosion and sedimentation the
maximum extent practicable.

Water Supply
The amended CECP would use both potable and Title 22 recycled water for
construction. The amended CECP proposes to use approximately 142.5 acre-feet of
water for construction; 116.3 acre-feet of the total would be potable water and 26.2
would be recycled water. The petitioner expects CMWD’s recycled water to be available
in the spring of 2017. In the 21st month of construction (of the 24-month construction
period), the project would transition from potable water to recycled water for
construction.
The use of potable water for construction activities when a water source of lower quality
is available is inconsistent with California Constitution, Article X, section 2, which states
in part: “ … that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest
extent of which they are capable, and that the waste or unreasonable use or
unreasonable method of use be prevented, and that the conservation of such waters is
to be exercised with a view to the reasonable and beneficial use thereof in the interest
of the people and for the public welfare.”
February 2015

4.10-15

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 The petitioner’s proposal to use potable water is reasonable because it is currently not
economically feasible to use recycled water for the entire construction phase. When
CMWD makes recycled water available to the project, it will reduce any impacts to the
local water supply. Staff has proposed to keep existing Condition of Certification
SOIL&WATER-2, which prohibits the use of potable water for any construction activity
that is suitable for non-potable water use, when recycled water is available. When
available, recycled water must be used during construction of the CECP.

CECP OPERATION
Operation of the amended CECP project could lead to potential impacts to soil, water
supply, and surface or groundwater quality. Soils may be impacted through erosion or
the release of hazardous materials used during operation of the project. Storm water
runoff from the site could result in increased runoff flow rates and discharge volumes to
existing storm drain systems. Water quality could be impacted by the discharge of
eroded sediments from the site, the discharge of hazardous materials released during
operation, or the migration of existing hazardous materials present in the subsurface
soils. Potential impacts to soil, water quality, water supply, and wastewater related to
the operation of the CECP, including the petitioner’s proposed mitigation measures and
staff’s proposed mitigation measures, are discussed below.

Soil Erosion Due to Water and Wind
The proposed 30-acre site of the amended CECP is presently in use as a tank farm and
for other industrial activities associated with the EPS. After construction of the CECP,
the petitioner anticipates that the amount of overall impervious surface area would
decrease, resulting in a reduction in storm water runoff from pre-construction levels. The
overall reduction in impervious surface area would be accomplished by reducing the
paved area of the tank farm impoundment basin by approximately one acre. The
petitioner proposes not to pave this area, but to stabilize the area with pervious
materials that would allow for storm water infiltration. Routine vehicular access to the
site during operation would be limited to existing roads, and standard operating
activities would not involve soil disturbing activities.
During amended CECP operation, soil impacts and the potential for soil erosion would
not be significant. The project owner would need to implement an Industrial Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the Clean Water Act and
the SWRCB Industrial General Storm Water Permit 2014-0057-DWQ.
Staff has proposed that an Industrial SWPPP be prepared and implemented for
Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-3. Through the preparation and
implementation of the Industrial SWPPP, no significant impacts to soil and water
resources from plant operation are expected.
Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-3 of the licensed CECP requires an Industrial
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the Clean Water
Act and the SWRCB Industrial General Storm Water Permit. Staff believes the same
requirements are applicable and appropriate for the amended CECP. Through the
preparation and implementation of the Industrial SWPPP, no significant impacts to soil
and water resources from plant operation of the amended CECP are expected.
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-16

February 2015

 The licensed CECP incorrectly referenced the city’s municipal permit (Order R9-20070001) and Title 15, Chapter 15.12 of the Municipal Code as the authority requiring an
Industrial SWPPP. Staff has updated SOIL&WATER-3 for the amended CECP, to
reference the appropriate permitting structure which will ensure compliance with federal
NPDES requirements that are outside the Energy Commission’s jurisdiction and
address any impacts on the city’s stormwater management system the plant stormwater
discharges may have.

Flooding and Sea-Level Rise
The EPS and the CECP site are not located within a 100-year floodplain (Zone A) as
defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 1997). The amended
CECP site is located in a non-shaded Zone X area (areas determined to be outside the
500-year floodplain).
The general region is flat and there are no significant dams or levees in the project
vicinity. The site grading and drainage would be designed to comply with applicable
federal, state, and local regulations. The general site grading would establish a working
surface for plant operation and would provide positive drainage from buildings and
structures. A backup power feed would be provided to the power block area drainage
sump pumps to maintain operability of the drainage pumps and properly limit the
potential for flooding the amended CECP site (CH2M2007a).
Projected sea-level rise due to climate change has the potential to reduce the
effectiveness of local flood protection. The local protection from inundation is projected
to be reduced up to 30 centimeters (1.0 feet) by 2030 and 61 centimeters (2.0 feet) by
2050 (relative to 2000 levels) (CEC 2009; NAS 2012). The site would be expected to
have adequate flood protection even if relative sea-levels increased by 2.0 feet by 2050.
Tsunami
A tsunami is a seismic sea wave caused by sea-bottom deformations that are
associated with earthquakes, landslides, or volcanic activity beneath the ocean floor.
Local tsunamis can be caused by significant vertical displacement along offshore faults
or coastal and submarine landslides and are always largest closest to the source
region. The amended CECP site is not expected to be at risk of suffering damage due
to tsunami. For a more detailed discussion of tsunami impacts see the Geology &
Paleontology section of this analysis.
Seiche
Seiches are standing waves that occur in enclosed water bodies as a result of ground
shaking primarily due to earthquakes. According to the city of Carlsbad South Coastal
Redevelopment Plan (2000), seiches are not expected to affect areas five to ten feet
above the mean water level in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, well below the amended
CECP finished grade of 35 feet above mean sea level (CH2M2007a). For a more
detailed discussion of seiche impacts see the Geology & Paleontology section of this
analysis.
For these reasons, staff believes that operation of the amended CECP would not have
significant impacts pertaining to these identified flood hazards.
February 2015

4.10-17

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Water Supply
Potable Water
The licensed CECP approved 19 afy of potable water supplied by CMWD for domestic
purposes and fire protection, via the existing EPS water supply infrastructure. Just like
the licensed CECP, the amended CECP proposes to take delivery of potable water
through an existing 36-inch pipeline located adjacent to the west side of the site. The
potable water would be supplied by CMWD and would be used for domestic purposes
and fire protection. The amended CECP would use a maximum of three afy for drinking
water and sanitary uses according to the latest estimate provided by the petitioner
(LL2015c). Staff agrees that three afy is a reasonable estimate of potable water use at
the site.
Because the amended CECP would use just 15 percent the amount of potable water of
the licensed CECP, staff believes the amended CECP would not result in additional
impacts to CMWD’s potable water supply. In addition, the shutdown of the existing EPS
would further reduce the potable water usage. The amended CECP, staffed with an
estimated 18-person workforce, would require much less potable water than EPS, which
has a 50-person workforce.
In the PTA, Section 2.1.7.4, the petitioner states, “Similar to the licensed CECP, the
amended CECP will use potable water as the backup water source for all CECP needs
should the recycled water or ocean water systems become unavailable or interrupted.”
Staff reviewed the Commission Decision for the CECP, dated July 11, 2012 and found
that the Decision specifically prohibits use of potable water for operation.
SOIL&WATER-5 of the licensed CECP states, “Potable water shall not be used for any
construction or operation activity that is suitable for non-potable water use.” The
Commission Decision for the licensed CECP does not permit the petitioner to use
potable water for normal operations. Staff believes the amended CECP should be no
different; however staff does believe that in the event of interruptions in the recycled
water supply the project should have a backup water supply. It is staff’s experience that
upsets or outages occasionally occur at wastewater treatment plants that supply
recycled water for industrial use, and it is reasonable for short term, emergency potable
water use be allowed to ensure plant reliability. Staff has modified SOIL&WATER-5 for
the amended CECP to allow for short term interruptions that are beyond the control of
the petitioner. Staff notes that tertiary treated recycled water, such as that proposed for
this project, is generally a reliable source because of the strict requirements the
wastewater treatment plant must comply with for protection of downstream water quality
and health and safety for delivery to customers. The CMWD also has a well-developed
recycled-water program and staff, therefore, expects interruptions or outages to be
limited.
Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-5 of the licensed CECP also requires the
project owner to obtain service from CMWD for the hook-up and delivery of potable
water in accordance with the city’s Municipal Code, Title 14, Chapter 14.08. This would
also apply to the amended CECP, so it remains in the condition of certification.
Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-6 of the licensed CECP requires metering
devices to monitor, record, and report all water sources used. Staff has modified
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-18

February 2015

 SOIL&WATER-6 for the amended CECP as follows: limit the amount of potable water
use to three afy; limit the use of normal use of potable water to drinking, sanitary, and
fire protection testing purposes; allow potable water as the emergency backup for
recycled water; and require a Petition to Amend if potable water is needed during
operation for more than just an emergency use. The Petition to Amend would be
triggered if the amended CECP requires potable water for emergencies that exceeds
300 acre-feet during the life of the project. The 300 acre-feet is an appropriate trigger
based on staff’s experience. The CMWD is expected to have adequate recycled water
capacity to serve the CECP beginning in June 2017. The CMWD influent should be
extremely reliable due to the high population of the city of Carlsbad. Any interruptions
should be short enough that the project could operate with stored water. The CECP is
expected to use less water than the permitted maximum of 215 afy, perhaps closer to
100 afy. Coupled with onsite water storage, the 300 afy threshold would also give the
CECP the opportunity start plant operation prior to receiving an adequate recycled
supply. If the project requires a cumulative 300 acre-feet for operation, staff would like
to re-evaluate potential impacts to the local water supply, and the owner would be
required by SOIL&WATER-6 to file a petition to amend.
Recycled Water
The licensed CECP was approved to use two sources for its industrial water supply.
Tertiary treated recycled water from CMWD was originally proposed as the primary
source, but at the time the availability of recycled water was uncertain. As a result, the
Commission Final Decision approved desalinated ocean water produced on-site as an
alternative source of industrial water should recycled water not be available.
The amended CECP initially considered the use of a desalinated ocean water supply
similar to the licensed CECP but later requested that this alternative supply be removed
from consideration (LL2014aa). The amended CECP seeks to use Title 22 recycled
water exclusively for industrial purposes and potable water for sanitary uses (LL2014z).
Recycled water would be provided by CMWD for CECP industrial processes,
evaporative air inlet cooling, equipment wash water, backup fire water, and landscape
irrigation. The proposed use of up to 215 afy of recycled water is substantially less than
the permitted amount approved for the licensed CECP, which is 517 afy. This is a
reduction in proposed water use relative to the previously permitted amount. The
reduction is equal to 302 afy. Similar to the licensed CECP, landscaping would require
about 11 afy of recycled water. The maximum expected use of each source is identified
in Soil & Water Resources Table 5 below.
Soil & Water Resources Table 5
Amended CECP Operational Water Use

Recycled water
Potable water

4

Peak Daily Rate (gal/day)

Annual Maximum (acre-feet)

464,400

215

2,680

3

Source: LL2014vv, Table DR86-1

4

In response to staff’s inquiries at the PSA workshop in January 2015, the petitioner revised their
expected potable water usage to three afy.

February 2015

4.10-19

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 The existing CMWD pipeline ends at Avenida Encinas, south of Cannon Road. CMWD
proposes to construct a 36-inch recycled water pipeline adjacent to the existing rail line
that would connect CECP to the recycled water line located at Avenida Encinas and
Cannon Road. Recycled water would be stored onsite in a 500,000‐gallon raw water
storage tank, with a dedicated capacity of 150,000 gallons for the fire water back-up5
and 350,000 gallons for process water (LL2014vv).
The petitioner submitted a formal request to the city, dated August 2, 2014, requesting
service of potable and recycled water amounts equal to or greater than the amounts
listed in Soil & Water Resources Table 5 (LL2014z). Staff issued data requests
(CEC2014tt) on October 28, 2014 which included a request for a copy of the city issued
will-serve notice demonstrating there will be a reliable supply of recycled water for the
life of the project. The petitioner received a letter from the city of Carlsbad on January 9,
2015 stating their willingness to supply the CECP in the amounts requested
(CAR2015a).
During the PSA workshop in January 2015, the Carlsbad Fire Department’s division
chief expressed concern regarding the safety of using recycled water as a backup
supply for fire protection. He wanted assurance that his personnel would not be
exposed to water that is unsafe. Staff believes that the use of tertiary-treated recycled
water is safe and appropriate to supply the amended CECP for fire protection, as
explained below. The Carlsbad Fire Department would also have the opportunity to
review the amended CECP’s Fire Prevention Plan and the Emergency Action Plan, as
required in WORKER SAFETY-2 (see the Worker Safety & Fire Protection section of
this FSA).
One of the primary conditions for the use of recycled water is protection of public health.
The production and use of recycled water, including tertiary-treated recycled water, is
regulated under federal and state law. Under California Water Code, sections 13522.5,
13523, and 13523.1, any person who proposes to produce or use recycled water must
file a report and obtain water reclamation requirements or a master reclamation permit
from the appropriate RWQCB. The SWRCB shares jurisdiction with the RWQCB and
with the DPH over the use of recycled water. The SWRCB exercises general oversight
over recycled water projects, while DPH is charged with the protection of public health
and drinking water supplies through the development of uniform water recycling criteria.
The current Water Recycling Criteria (Title 22, California Code of Regulations, sections
60301 through 60355) allows for the use of tertiary-treated recycled water for specific
purposes, including structural and nonstructural fire fighting. It also requires the
submission of an engineering report to the RWQCB and DPH before recycled water
projects are implemented. For existing recycled water projects, the report must be
amended prior to any modifications or expansion. In addition, Title 17, California Code
of Regulations addresses the health and safety requirements of backflow prevention
and cross connection of potable and non-potable water lines. Through the approval of
the engineering report by DPH, that includes the backflow prevention and cross
5

The amended CECP’s primary source of fire protection water would be potable water supplied by
CMWD. Fire water back-up would be supplied from the on-site raw water storage tank sized to include
dedicated capacity for fire suppression. For information and analysis of the amended CECP’s fire
protection system, see the Worker Safety & Fire Protection section of this FSA.
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-20

February 2015

 connection provisions of Title 17, the health and safety requirements of Title 17 and
Title 22 would be met.
The licensed CECP requires Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-8 to ensure
compliance with federal and state laws. It also includes the requirement that the project
owner submit a copy of an approved engineering report and any other DPH or
SDRWQCB requirements to the compliance project manager (CPM) prior to the delivery
of recycled water to the CECP. Staff believes the same requirements are applicable and
appropriate for the amended CECP. Through compliance with federal and state law,
impacts to soil or water resources from the production and use of recycled water at the
amended CECP, impacts would be less than significant. Staff’s suggested edits to
SOIL&WATER-8 reflects the updated recycled water use of 215 afy for the amended
CECP.
The amended CECP would consider the use of potable water for industrial operation if
recycled water was not available. Staff’s suggested edits to Condition of Certification
SOIL&WATER-6 states that if the amended CECP were to use potable water for normal
operation, a petition to amend the project would need to be filed. Though the petitioner
formally withdrew the request to use ocean water for industrial operations, ocean water
is still a potentially feasible backup water supply for the project. A petition to amend
would need to be filed if the petitioner were to formally request to use ocean water for
power plant operation.
Wastewater
On September 24, 2014, staff attended a publicly noticed workshop along with the
petitioner and city of Carlsbad staff. In attendance were Terry Smith, an engineer from
the city of Carlsbad Utilities Department, and Gary Barberio the city of Carlsbad
Assistant City Manager. One of the subjects of discussion was the design of the
industrial wastewater discharge system as proposed in the PTA, if recycled water were
used for industrial purposes. The Recycled Water Balance diagram (LL2014d, Figure
2.1-3b) indicates the petitioner’s original intent to discharge 262 gallons per minute
(peak daily conditions) to the city sewer system. The discharge to the sewer system
would flow to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) where it would be
treated to secondary standards. A portion of the secondary effluent from the EWPCF
would be sent to the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (CWRF) where it would be
treated to tertiary standards and delivered throughout the city for authorized recycled
water uses.
The petitioner submitted a formal request to the city, dated August 2, 2014, requesting
their acceptance of the CECP discharge (LL2014z), as proposed in the PTA. The city
staff in attendance indicated that the discharge would likely contain high levels of total
dissolved solids (TDS) that would be unacceptable by the city and Encina Wastewater
Authority (EWA). City staff described how their recycled water facility is already
receiving the maximum allowable levels of TDS and cannot accept higher levels from
the project. For this reason, the petitioner’s request for service would likely not be
accepted.
In response to the city’s request to improve the quality of the industrial discharge, the
petitioner subsequently proposed to use trailer-mounted demineralizer units for the
February 2015

4.10-21

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 amended CECP. These demineralizer units would treat industrial wastewater for reuse
onsite as well as pretreat the recycled water supply from CMWD. When the resin beds
within a trailer are exhausted, it is replaced with a fresh unit and the depleted unit is
transferred to an offsite facility to be regenerated. Two to five trailers a day could be
exchanged, depending upon amended CECP needs (LL2014vv). The resin vessels are
drained of water prior to transportation. The resulting material in the resin beds is
considered non-hazardous recyclable solid waste and would be transported off site via
a bill-of-lading. This trailer mounted demineralizer system would not produce onsite
liquid or solid wastes (LL2015d).
Staff believes this modification to the amended CECP would not result in significant
impacts due to wastewater discharge. Because the trailers would be transported to a
regional state-licensed treatment facility for regeneration of the resin beds (LL2015d),
potential water quality impacts to local and regional water resources would be mitigated
by the vendor. Therefore, no additional conditions of certification are required for the
amended CECP’s proposed use of trailer-mounted demineralizer units. Please refer to
the Waste Management section for information about the potential impacts of the nonhazardous recyclable solid waste transported off site.
This modification to the amended CECP would leave a very small waste stream for
discharge to the city’s sewer system, consisting of sanitary waste and oily water from
onsite drains. Industrial contact water containing oil and suspended solids would be
treated by an oil and water separator prior to discharge to the city’s sewer system. This
stream would average about eight afy (LL2014vv). The sanitary wastewater collection
system would collect wastewater from sinks, toilets, showers, eye wash stations, and
other sanitary facilities, and also discharge to the city’s sewer system. Because a
sanitary discharge stream is expected to be less than the amount of potable water
supplies for sanitary uses, the amended CECP is expected to discharge less than three
afy of sanitary wastewater (see Soil & Water Resources Table 5). Compared to the
licensed CECP’s estimated process wastewater discharge of 187 afy, the amended
CECP’s total wastewater discharge to the city’s sewer system would be less than 11
afy.
The licensed CECP requires Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-7 to ensure
proper disposal of industrial and sanitary wastewater discharge to the city’s sanitary
sewer system. It requires the project owner to provide the CPM with a copy of the sewer
hookup permit required by city and/or EWA in accordance with the city’s Municipal
Code, Title 13, Chapters 13.10 and 13.16. Although the amended CECP would greatly
reduce the amount of wastewater disposal, staff believes the same requirements are
applicable and appropriate for the amended CECP. Through compliance with
SOIL&WATER-7, impacts to soil or water resources from the amended CECP’s
discharge of wastewater to the city’s sanitary sewer system would be less than
significant. Staff’s edits to SOIL&WATER-7 reflect the updated water treatment system
for the amended CECP which no longer proposes disposal of processes wastewater to
the city’s sanitary sewer system.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-22

February 2015

 AST DEMOLITION
The AST demolition phase would allow a larger footprint needed for the amended
CECP and provide additional equipment laydown, construction parking, and staging
areas. The demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 would take place in conjunction with the
demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7, which was approved in the licensed CECP Commission
Decision (LL2014b §1.1). This analysis, therefore, reviews the potential environmental
impacts that could occur due to the additional demolition activities, specifically removal
of the berm, the three additional ASTs, associated piping and equipment, and oily sands
underneath these ASTs.

Soil Erosion Due to Water and Wind
The petitioner states that no additional soils impacts are anticipated as a result of the
additional tank demolition beyond those discussed in the licensed CECP Commission
Decision. Soils within the demolition areas were analyzed during the licensing process
(LL2014b §3.3).
While the proposed additional demolition activities are outside the boundaries of the
licensed CECP site, the areas adjacent to ASTs 1 and 2 were identified as construction
laydown areas in the licensed CECP. Although demolition of ASTs 1 and 2 were not
originally analyzed for the licensed CECP, these activities are similar to the approved
demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7. Each AST is situated within its own hydraulically isolated
basin separated with berms. Additional impacts from the demolition in these areas are
expected to be similar considering the previously disturbed nature of the site. Also,
ASTs 1, 2, and 4 were constructed below-grade within containment berms, which would
effectively prevent water erosion and greatly minimize the chance for wind erosion
during demolition activities.
The Commission Decision states that proper selection and implementation of erosion
and sediment control best management practices (BMPs)6, as required in accordance
with SOIL&WATER-1, would reduce the impact of water and wind erosion to soil
resources to a level that is less than significant. The licensed CECP must prepare and
implement a Tier 3 Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which
includes site-specific BMPs and contains all of the elements required by the General
Permit for Construction Activities, the San Diego County Municipal Storm Water Permit,
and the city of Carlsbad’s Storm Water Standards Manual. Staff believes that
requirements of SOIL&WATER-1 are adequate for the proposed AST demolition phase
of the amended CECP.

Flooding
The Commission Decision states that the CECP site is located in an area of limited
potential for flooding caused by tsunamis, seiches, or large rain events. The proposed
additional demolition activities would be located adjacent to or within areas that were
6

Storm water and soil erosion BMPs are methods that have been determined to be the most effective,
practical means of preventing or reducing pollution from nonpoint sources. BMPs can be classified as
"structural" (i.e., devices installed or constructed on a site) or "non-structural" (procedures, such as
modified landscaping practices). There are a variety of BMPs available, depending on pollutant removal
capabilities. (See California Stormwater BMP Handbook at www.casqa.org.)
February 2015

4.10-23

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 included in the analysis of the licensed CECP. Proposed removal of the berm and AST
4 would occur within the east tank farm, which also includes ASTs 5, 6, and 7.
Proposed removal of ASTs 1 and 2 would occur within the construction laydown areas
approved for the licensed CECP. For these reasons, staff believes that the amended
CECP would also have limited potential for flooding.

Water Supply
Under SOIL&WATER-2, the licensed CECP is prohibited from using potable water for
any construction activity that is suitable for non-potable water use if a non-potable water
source is available at the project site (CEC2012a §7.2). Additional water would be used
for dust suppression for the incremental demolition activities (LL2014b, Table ES-1).
Installation of the proposed recycled water pipeline is not expected to occur until Spring
2017, which corresponds with the 21st month of construction (of the 24-month
construction period of the power plant), because ASTs currently occupy the location of
the amended CECP power plant site, AST demolition would occur prior to this 24-month
power plant construction period7. Therefore, the petitioner intends to use potable water
for AST demolition activities (LL2014bb, §49).
The petitioner states that no additional water resource impacts are anticipated as a
result of the additional tank demolition beyond those discussed in the Commission
Decision. Although additional water would be used for dust suppression, this would not
result in additional impacts (LL2014b, Table ES-1). Staff agrees that potable water use
is acceptable for AST demolition activities and would not result in additional impacts for
the amended CECP.

Wastewater
Wastewater generated during AST demolition of the amended CECP would result from
similar activities as the licensed CECP. Anticipated sources of wastewater would
primarily consist of wash water and sanitary wastes. Sanitary waste would be contained
in portable facilities and routinely disposed of at an offsite treatment/disposal facility by
a sanitary service. Although the amended CECP would require a larger workforce and
lengthen the AST demolition phase by about two or three months, staff believes this is
adequate to address the additional volumes of sanitary wastewater.

Water Quality of Surface Waters
Under SOIL&WATER-1, the licensed CECP is required to prepare and implement a
Tier 3 Construction SWPPP to mitigate impacts to the Pacific Ocean and Agua
Hedionda Lagoon from construction activities8 (CEC2012a §7.2). The petitioner
submitted a SWPPP that includes site-specific best management practices to control
storm water and soil erosion during the AST and berm demolition phase of the
7

The amended CECP would involve a schedule that could be described in four phases: (1) tank
demolition and remediation; (2) construction, commissioning, and operation of the new power plant; (3)
retirement and decommissioning of the EPS facility; and (4) demolition of the EPS facility. For details the
expected time periods of the amended CECP schedule, see Table 1 in the Project Description section
of this FSA.
8
For purposes of this FSA, demolition of the ASTs falls under the definition of project construction
activities. (See Compliance Conditions section of this FSA.)
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-24

February 2015

 amended CECP. The petitioner states that no additional water resource impacts are
anticipated as a result of the additional tank demolition beyond those discussed in the
Commission Decision (LL2014b, Table ES-1).
The existing topography of the area limits the potential for offsite water contamination.
ASTs 1, 2, and 4 were constructed below-grade within containment berms, which would
prevent direct discharge to nearby water bodies in the event of an accidental spill of a
harmful substance. Also, BMPs implemented for the Construction SWPPP would
provide added protection from accidental spills. Staff believes that requirements of
SOIL&WATER-1 in the licensed CECP are adequate for the amended CECP. Staff
updated permit numbers identified in SOIL&WATER-1 where applicable.

Water Quality of Groundwater
The CECP site is located within the Agua Hedionda groundwater basin. The
Commission Decision states that no contact with groundwater is expected and it would
not be encountered during construction activities. The elevation of the CECP site is
approximately 30 feet above mean sea level, and groundwater has been encountered
on the EPS site at depths between 20.8 and 28.9 feet below ground surface. The
proposed additional demolition activities would be located adjacent to or within areas
that were included in the analysis of the licensed CECP. Additionally, the petitioner does
not propose to use groundwater and the groundwater beneath the site is brackish with
no beneficial uses. For these reasons, staff believes that the amended CECP would
have limited potential for groundwater impacts.

EPS DEMOLITION
The Commission Decision imposed conditions of certification requiring the project
owner to develop a Demolition, Removal, and Remediation Plan to be implemented at
such a time when the EPS is no longer needed for the reliable operation of the
electricity system9. Because those conditions would have led to the eventual removal of
existing facilities and redevelopment of the EPS, the Commission Decision also
discusses the potential impacts of those activities. At the time, it was unknown when the
EPS would likely be decommissioned, so no plan was available regarding its demolition
and removal. As a result, staff assessed the reasonably foreseeable environmental
impact and recommended feasible mitigation measures for the possible demolition of
the EPS. The Commission Decision did not include SOIL&WATER-specific conditions
of certification for EPS demolition activities, but determined that potential environmental
impacts of EPS demolition can be mitigated with measures similar to those imposed
upon the licensed CECP (CEC2012a §8.1).
The amended CECP includes demolition of the EPS facility10. The EPS shutdown and
demolition schedule is anticipated to take 36 months and would begin after the
amended CECP facility achieves commercial operation. Subsurface remediation of the
EPS is not included in the amended CECP. The petitioner submitted a preliminary
9

For background and details on the requirement for the licensed CECP to develop a Demolition,
Removal, and Remediation Plan for the EPS, see the discussion pertaining to LAND-2 and LAND-3 in
the Land Use section of this FSA.
10
NRG Energy, Inc. is the parent company of both Carlsbad Energy Center LLC (project owner of CECP)
and Cabrillo Power West LLC (owner of EPS).
February 2015

4.10-25

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 demolition plan that provides an overview of how demolition would occur, the sequence
it would follow, what equipment and manpower would be required, what material would
be brought onto the site, types and volumes of material and waste that would leave the
site, and what could be salvaged for resale or recycling (LL2014cc §1.2). Staff analyzed
the preliminary demolition plan and related supplemental material submitted by the
petitioner for potential impacts to soil and water resources11.

Soil Erosion Due to Water and Wind
The amended CECP proposes that during demolition of EPS, all foundations at and
below plant‐grade would be left in place. The intent is to leave in place the base
foundation of the respective EPS Units 1–5 power blocks and the cooling water intake
canals. Ground disturbance would be mainly due to removal/capping of underground
pipes and equipment activity on unpaved/unstabilized surfaces. Related activities
include: removal of intake pumps and piping from the ocean intake structure12; removal
of all utility associated piping and cut and cap lines at grade; and remediation, cleaning,
dismantlement and removal of fuel oil lines contained in accessible below-grade
trenches. Below grade piping would be identified and sealed pending final below grade
demolition.
Upon completion of above-ground demolition of the EPS, stabilization features may be
required to stabilize areas onsite, such as foundations, safety barriers, future
assessment areas, stockpiles, and parking areas. These features would be considered
temporary until final site assessment and development occurs. These stabilization
features would need to be designed for long term management of areas and may
require significant engineering and construction. The petitioner states that these
features would be engineered to ensure safety and environmental management and
require minimal maintenance (LL2014cc §7.1).
Demolition projects are required to implement effective Storm Water BMPs to eliminate
discharge of pollutants to the storm drain conveyance system and to receiving water
bodies. If the demolition involves excavation or grading that results in ground
disturbance of one acre or greater, the project is subject to the State Construction
General Permit and is required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and
obtain a Notice of Intent from the State Water Board prior to issuance of a demolition
permit. Staff believes that requirements of SOIL&WATER-1 are adequate for the
proposed EPS demolition phase of the amended CECP.

11

For purposes of this FSA, demolition of the EPS falls under the definition of project construction
activities. (See Compliance Conditions section of this FSA.)
12
The Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project, currently under construction, is designed to use a portion
of the waste cooling water from EPS for desalination, eliminating the need to increase seawater intake for
the desalination facility compared to existing operating conditions of the power plant. Because shutdown
of EPS was speculative at the time that permits and approvals were issued by the city of Carlsbad,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, and State Lands Commission, each of these agencies required
that the desalination facility return for additional permitting if the power plant were to shut down. After
EPS announced intentions to shut down by 2017, the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project
subsequently applied for the additional permitting required due to this shutdown and planned stand-alone
operation of the seawater intake system by the desalination facility.
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-26

February 2015

 Flooding
Flood hazards include direct flooding due to overtopping of nearby rivers or streams
resulting from severe rainstorms. To identify the different types of flood risks for a given
location, various flood hazard maps were developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) from comprehensive studies of statistical data for river
flow, storm tides, hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, and rainfall and topographic surveys.
Comparing the EPS elevation (26 feet above msl) and EPS site location to these maps,
the EPS site is not located within a 100-year floodplain (Zone A) as defined by the
FEMA (1997). The general region is flat and there are no significant dams or levees in
the project vicinity.
Tsunami
The Pacific Ocean is approximately 300 feet to the west of the EPS western site
boundary. Because Southern California is oriented obliquely with major tsunami zones
and the continental shelf extends a significant distance offshore, there is a low potential
for catastrophic damage to the San Diego County coastline. The California Seismic
Safety Commission reported in 2005 that tsunami run up heights are estimated between
0.3 feet to slightly over three feet, well below EPS elevation of 26 feet amsl.
Additionally, the EPS site is located outside the area of expected coastal flooding from
tsunamis, as shown by San Diego County's Tsunami Inundation Map (2009).
Seiche
The Agua Hedionda Lagoon, located about 3,000 feet north of EPS, is a coastal estuary
extending approximately 1.7 miles inland and up to half a mile wide. According to the
City of Carlsbad South Coastal Redevelopment Plan (2000), seiches are not expected
to affect areas five to ten feet above the mean water level in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
which is well below EPS elevation of 26 feet amsl.
For these reasons, staff believes that EPS demolition activities would not have
significant impacts pertaining to these identified flood hazards.

Water Supply
Water would be required during demolition activities in and around structures for
decontamination and dust control. Based on the CMWD’s recycled water pipeline
installation project schedule, recycled water should be available before the end of 2017
for use during EPS demolition, which is anticipated to start in 2019. In the event
recycled water cannot or will not be made available, potable water from the public water
system would be used. The estimated total water use over the 36-month period is
approximately 325 acre-feet (see Soil & Water Resources Table 4).
The Commission Decision states that potable water shall not be used for any
construction activity that is suitable for non-potable water use if a non-potable water
source is available at the project site, in accordance with SOIL&WATER-2 of the
licensed CECP. Because the amended CECP includes EPS demolition of above-ground
structures (located west of the railroad tracks) in addition to the construction of a new
power plant (located east of the railroad tracks), both areas are considered included in
the overall project site. Therefore, staff recommends modifications to SOIL&WATER-2
February 2015

4.10-27

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 imposing the recycled water use requirements also apply to proposed activities related
to EPS demolition. Staff recommends similar modifications to SOIL&WATER-6 of the
licensed CECP to ensure that recycled water is used during EPS demolition.
During the PSA workshop in January 2015 and included in written comments on the
PSA (LL2015c), the petitioner requested edits to staff’s modifications to SOIL&WATER2 and -6 for the amended CECP. Because CMWD’s recycled water pipeline will be
installed east of the railroad tracks to service the new power plant, the petitioner states
that recycled water would not be available to the west side of the railroad tracks to
support EPS demolition purposes. The petitioner’s edits specify that the recycled water
requirement be applicable to EPS demolition if recycled water is available via pipeline
on the respective side (west side) of the railroad tracks.
Staff does not agree. The amended CECP project includes AST demolition, power plant
construction, and EPS decommissioning and demolition. Although they are scheduled
to occur in separate phases, staff considers these major activities as occurring
collectively at the amended CECP project site. The Commission Decision for the
licensed CECP does not permit the petitioner to use potable water for any construction
activity that is suitable for non-potable water use. Staff believes the amended CECP
should be no different. Furthermore, current drought conditions have resulted in the city
of Carlsbad enacting Level 2 Drought restrictions, which implement mandatory
measures to reduce consumer demand up to 20 percent. If the drought continues, the
mandated drought response measures escalate as Level 3 and Level 4 are declared,
with the eventual widespread mandatory water reduction of 40 percent during a Level 4
Drought condition.
Recycled water is expected to be available at the amended CECP project site before
the end of 2017, which occurs before the anticipated start of EPS demolition in 2019.
There are multiple options for recycled water to be conveyed to the EPS, including the
use of a temporary pipeline or water trucks. In addition, NRG Energy, Inc. is the parent
company of both Carlsbad Energy Center LLC (project owner of the amended CECP)
and Cabrillo Power West LLC (owner of EPS), which should reduce complications
regarding the transfer of recycled water between the properties. Staff expects the NonPotable Construction Water Use Plan, as required in SOIL&WATER-2 of the licensed
CECP and preserved for the amended CECP for staff review and approval, to include
sufficient information regarding conveyance and use of non-potable water in EPS
decommissioning and demolition activities. To ensure that recycled water is used during
EPS demolition, staff recommends modifications to SOIL&WATER-2 and -6 for the
amended CECP.

Wastewater
Wastewater generated from municipal water use is disposed of from the site via the
sanitary sewer system. The basements of EPS Units 4 and 5 are more than 16 feet
below sea level and, as a result, receive seepage from groundwater. To prevent
flooding of these basements, sumps were installed to collect the seepage water (which
is nonhazardous). Pumps automatically discharge the sump contents directly to the
once-through-cooling system. The other types of wastewater at the EPS site historically
included Low-Volume Waste, Extended Waste, and Treated Waste (further described
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-28

February 2015

 below). The EPS industrial wastewater facility, located north of the SDG&E switchyard,
includes six aboveground water storage tanks to manage these different types of
wastewater (LL2014kk).
Low-Volume Waste is wastewater that does not have the potential to be hazardous but
still requires management pursuant to the NPDES permit13. The Low Volume
Wastewater Treatment Facility treats this wastewater before it is discharged to the
facility’s once-through cooling water system. The Low Volume Waste Tanks (that
discharge via the NPDES permit), are in continuous service for current operations at
EPS (LL2014kk).
Extended Waste is wastewater with the potential to be hazardous. Formerly, the burning
of fuel oil at EPS generated metal cleaning wastes that required treatment by the
Wastewater Treatment System. The Extended Waste Tanks held untreated wastewater,
and the Treated Water Tanks held the treated wastewater prior to discharge to EWA.
When EPS began operating solely on natural gas in 2009, the need for the wastewater
treatment system was eliminated. It was decommissioned then later removed in
September 2012 due to construction of the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project.
The Treated Water Tanks formerly associated with the demolished wastewater
treatment system are empty and on standby. The Extended Waste Tanks are currently
in service for additional non-hazardous wastewater storage (LL2014kk).
During demolition of EPS, the pumps, tanks, and equipment associated with the existing
EPS Extended Waste Tanks and Low Volume Wastewater Management systems would
be maintained until the end of demolition to ensure management of wastewater
generated. Demolition of these wastewater systems would occur only after demolition of
the main EPS facility is complete and post-demolition dewatering and storm water
quality is assured (LL2014cc §5.5.4).
While EPS is in lay-up/stabilization phase prior to redevelopment, a modular wastewater
management system (temporary, Baker-type tanks) may be used to manage
wastewater from the power block areas and other general EPS areas (LL2014cc
§5.5.4).
According to the petitioner’s Preliminary Demolition Plan, EPS pre-demolition activities
would include removal of materials and equipment onsite that have the potential to
contain hazardous or objectionable material in addition to abatement activities
(LL2014cc §4.0). When water is used to help isolate hazardous material during removal
(when allowed), runoff water must be collected and disposed as required in the Waste
Management section of this FSA. Assuming that all hazardous substances would be
removed prior to demolition, staff agrees that maintaining the existing wastewater
systems during nonhazardous demolition activities would sufficiently manage
nonhazardous wastewater. However, prior to the demolition of ocean water
intake/discharge piping, structures and equipment, discharge from the Low Volume
Wastewater Treatment Facility and basement seepage of groundwater must be properly
collected and disposed of. Staff recommends new Condition of Certification
13

Low-Volume Waste is generated by the following waste streams: evaporator blowdown, sample drains,
floor drains, demineralizers, softeners, condenser cleaning, sand filter backwash, potable demineralizer
rinse flush, reverse osmosis membrane cleaning, and salt water heat exchanger drains.

February 2015

4.10-29

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 SOIL&WATER-9 requiring the project owner to submit proof of proper wastewater
disposal, in accordance with waste discharge requirements of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Adoption of SOIL&WATER-9 would reduce potential impacts from proposed
management and disposal of wastewater during EPS demolition to a less than
significant level.

Surface Water and Groundwater Quality
Materials and equipment onsite that have the potential to contain hazardous or
objectionable material would be surveyed to locate, characterize, and delineate the
removal quantities of environmentally hazardous and objectionable materials. Prior to
demolition of EPS, abatement activities would be conducted in accordance with
applicable conditions of certification and state and federal regulations (LL2014cc §4.0).
For further discussion on the characterization and abatement of hazardous materials,
see the Waste Management section of this FSA.
During demolition of EPS, all foundations at and below plant‐grade would be left in
place. Any equipment that can be removed from the EPS basement or vaulted areas
would be removed, leaving the basement or vault structures in place. The below‐grade
structures and onsite canal features may accumulate storm water or groundwater
seepage. This wastewater is collected and conveyed to the wastewater facility
described above, which is currently regulated under an individual industrial NPDES
waste discharge permit. Industrial NPDES discharge permits require monitoring and
testing as deemed necessary by the SDRWQCB. During demolition of EPS, the same
infrastructure would remain in-place, but a new Report of Waste Discharge would be
filed with the SDRWQCB (LL2014y §63, LL2014cc §7.1). The pumps, tanks, and
equipment associated with the existing EPS Extended Waste Tanks and Low Volume
Wastewater Management systems would be maintained until the end of demolition to
ensure management of wastewater generated.
The licensed CECP requires Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-4 to ensure
compliance with SDRWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements for ocean discharge of
industrial wastewater if the project chose to use desalinated water produced onsite for
its industrial water supply. Although this requirement is no longer applicable because
the use of desalinated ocean water was withdrawn for the amended CECP (LL2014aa),
staff believes the same requirements are applicable and appropriate for ocean
discharges during EPS demolition. SOIL&WATER-4 was modified to apply
requirements to nonhazardous wastewater due to EPS demolition, as proposed in the
amended CECP. With implementation of SOIL&WATER-4, staff agrees that maintaining
the existing EPS wastewater systems during nonhazardous demolition activities would
sufficiently manage nonhazardous wastewater for its demolition.
Demolition of these wastewater systems would occur only after demolition of the main
EPS facility is complete and post-demolition dewatering and storm water quality is
assured (LL2014cc §5.5.4). Upon completion of above-ground demolition of the EPS,
an updated NPDES permit is anticipated to regulate EPS during its lay-up/stabilization
phase. The site would be subject to continued observation, monitoring, and reporting
under the updated NPDES permit. In addition, the existing EWA wastewater discharge
permit would be maintained or updated as needed to manage wastewater streams from
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-30

February 2015

 the power block areas and other EPS areas currently serviced by the EWA discharge
permit (LL2014cc §7.1). At this point, the Energy Commission would no longer have
jurisdiction over activities at EPS. An updated NPDES permit or EWA discharge permit
would likely be required by the appropriate lead agency.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact where its effects are
cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects (California Code Regulations, Title 14, section 15130).
Staff believes that, similar to the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would reduce the
potential for significant environmental impacts to local water resources and water quality
relative to the licensed CECP. The amended CECP would therefore not contribute to a
significant cumulative impact.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS AND STATE POLICIES
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
California Water Code, Sections 10910-10915 (Senate Bill 610)
California Water Code, Sections 10910-10915 are intended to inform CEQA decisionmakers about project water supplies and their availability. The California Department of
Water Resources (DWR) Senate Bill 610 Guidebook provides general guidance about
how to interpret Water Code Sections 10910-10915. The central theme of the Guidance
is that Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) are necessary for projects that substantially
increase the potable water demand on a local system. The Guidebook discusses how to
manage water supplies and how to appropriately project future demands on the water
supply system with the next 20 years when considering new developments. Ultimately
the WSA should provide evidence that verifies the sufficiency of or the deficiencies in a
project’s water supply while ensuring there is an adequate supply for existing users and
future demand.
Definition of a project
Any CEQA project that meets the Water Code Section 10912 definition of a “project”
requires the preparation of a WSA. Section 10912 identifies a “project” as meeting one
of the following definitions excerpted from the water code and listed below. Staff bolded
the only definitions that could clearly apply to the CECP; the other definitions are not
tested here and do not require further explanation.
10912. For the purposes of this part, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) "Project" means any of the following:
(1) A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.

February 2015

4.10-31

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 (2) A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than
1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space.
(3) A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or
having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space.
(4) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms.
(5) (A) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), a proposed
industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to
house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or
having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area.
(B) A proposed photovoltaic or wind energy generation facility approved on or
after the effective date of the amendments made to this section at the 2011-12
Regular Session is not a project if the facility would demand no more than 75
acre-feet of water annually.
(6) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this
subdivision.
(7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater
than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
(b) If a public water system has fewer than 5,000 service connections, then "project"
means any proposed residential, business, commercial, hotel or motel, or industrial
development that would account for an increase of 10 percent or more in the number
of the public water system's existing service connections, or a mixed-use project that
would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water
required by residential development that would represent an increase of 10 percent or
more in the number of the public water system's existing service connections.
There are two “project” definitions that require further consideration. First in the list is
(5)(A), which states,
(5)(A) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B), a proposed industrial,
manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more
than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than
650,000 square feet of floor area.
This definition would not apply to the CECP on the basis of “1,000 persons,” since the
CECP is expected to have between ten and 20 full-time employees. The definition also
would not apply based on project area, since the proposed CECP would only occupy
approximately 30 acres. CECP floor area is expected to be less than 20,000 square
feet, far less than the 650,000 square foot threshold. None of the elements of (5)(A)
would trigger the requirement for a WSA for the CECP.
The other project definition that requires additional discussion is item (7), which would
require a WSA if a project used an amount of water equivalent to a 500 dwelling unit
project.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-32

February 2015

 (7) A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than,
the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
This requirement is the most difficult threshold in the list to interpret. Staff considered
the following in making an interpretation about item (7).
a) How much water does a 500 dwelling unit project use in California?
b) How much water does a 500 dwelling unit project use in the city of Carlsbad?
c) What would staff assume a 500 dwelling unit project would use?
d) Can the use of recycled water meet the definition of “equivalent to…water required
by a 500 dwelling unit?”
e) Would the city of Carlsbad define the CECP as a “project” under Water Code
Section 10912?
f) Would the CECP qualify as a “project” under Water Code Section 10912?
a) How much water does a 500 dwelling unit project use in California?
Guidance for interpreting Water Code Section 10912 is provided in a California
Department of Water Resources (DWR) document titled “Guidebook for Implementation
of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 (DWR2003).” A helpful interpretive
section on page three of the Guidebook, explains how to estimate water consumption
for 500 dwelling units. It states that one dwelling unit typically consumes 0.3 to 0.5 afy
(DWR2003). Therefore 500 dwelling units could be interpreted to mean 150 to 250 afy.
Staff looked more closely at how to interpret water use equal to 500 dwelling units in
California. Staff reviewed information collected by DWR as part of their efforts in
statewide water planning and accounting. Part of the Urban Water Management
Planning program is to have local agencies establish and report baseline per capita
water use for their service area. This effort is the numeric basis for comparison in the
state’s water conservation efforts, including the goal to reduce water consumption by 20
percent relative to baseline by December 31, 2020 (Water Code 10608).
Staff reviewed data submitted to DWR by every water district in California to determine
the statewide average per person water use, often labeled gallons per capita day, or
GPCD. Staff looked at 366 districts that reported their 2010 baseline water use to DWR
and broke up the district into 20 groups each representing 5 percent of the total districts
in California. The lowest use 5 percent reported an average of 92 GPCD, the highest 5
percent reported an average use of 396 GPCD. The statewide average is about 196
GPCD. Soil & Water Resources Chart 1 below shows the average GPCD water use
reported by each 5 percent of water districts in California.

February 2015

4.10-33

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Soil & Water Resources Chart 1
Statewide Water Use
Statewide Water Use (GPCD, groups of 5%)
396

400
350

329

Gallons Per Capita Day (GPCD)

303
300

268

250
200
150
114
100

125

135

147

157 166

176 184

196

205

216

230

241

283

251

92

50
0
5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
5% Groups, 366 total water districts reporting

Source: DWR2015

Staff also reviewed the US Census information for years 2009-2013, which provides
average persons per household. The reported number for California is 2.94
(CENSUS2015). This would indicate that 92 GPCD would result in a dwelling unit use of
270 gallons per day per dwelling unit (gpd/DU)(2.94 * 92 = 270). So the lowest using 5
percent of water districts would expect an average of 270 gpd/DU. Likewise, the highest
using 5 percent of districts would expect 1,164 gpd/DU (2.94 * 396), and the statewide
average would be 576 gpd/DU.
With the information provided above, it is possible to determine what 500 dwelling units
in California might use. To keep consistent with the categories described above, staff
will continue to show the Lowest 5 percent, Statewide Average, and the Highest 5
percent, per 500 dwelling. This data is summarized in Soil & Water Resources Table 6
below.
Soil & Water Resources Table 6
Summary of Statewide Dwelling Usage
Category

gpd/DU

gpd/500 DU

afy/DU

afy/500 DU

Lowest 5%

270

135,000

0.3

151

Statewide Avg.

576

288,000

0.9

322

1,163

582,000

1.3

651

Highest 5%
Source: DWR2015

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-34

February 2015

 In summary, the Guidance document provided by DWR suggests 500 homes would use
150 to 250 afy. It should be noted that the statewide data suggest that DWR’s
suggestion to use 150 to 250 afy is at the lower end of statewide usage. The statewide
data suggests the average use by 500 homes would be 322 afy.
b) How much water does a 500 dwelling unit project use in the city of Carlsbad?
The city of Carlsbad documents their water usage in their Urban Water Management
Plan (UWMP). The most recent one produced is the 2010 UWMP, dated June 2011.
Staff reviewed the 2010 UWMP and found the city’s reported GPCD is 256.6. Staff
reviewed the US Census information for years 2009-2013, for the city of Carlsbad,
which provides average persons per household. The reported number is 2.54
(CENSUS2015). Using the same assumptions used above, a 500 dwelling unit project
in the city of Carlsbad would be expected to use 365 afy.
The CMWD also calculated how much water a 500 dwelling unit project would use in
the city of Carlsbad. CMWD states that 500 dwelling units would be expected to require
308 afy (CAR2015b). This calculation is very close to the calculation made by staff.
A 500 dwelling unit project in the city of Carlsbad would be expected to use between
308 and 365 afy. These local estimates would be the most useful in the determining if
the CECP uses an amount equivalent to a 500 dwelling unit project.
c) What would staff assume a 500 dwelling unit project would use?
Staff used data supported by actual billing records and calculated using a documented
methodology as identified in the sections above. The numbers suggested by DWR (150
to 250 afy) are not provided with an explanation or basis. Staff would prefer to use
numbers based on the local system that would support the CECP. Local water usage
numbers would be most appropriate for evaluating CECP impacts to the local system.
Based on the city of Carlsbad’s data, staff calculated 500 dwellings would use 365 afy
of potable water. For the purposes of CEQA, a reasonable estimate for the project
location is highly supportable. While the data provided above suggests a wide range in
water usage exists in California, the average of state water districts is 322 afy of potable
water per 500 dwellings. These two numbers are very close and reasonable estimates
for 500 dwellings. The use of 365 afy of potable water should be used as the trigger
threshold, equivalent to the use needed by a 500 dwelling unit project in Carlsbad.
d) How should recycled water be considered when determining whether CECP is
a ‘project’ requiring a WSA
The proposed CECP would use up to three afy of potable water and up to 215 afy of
recycled water. The use of three afy of potable water would not be considered
equivalent to the use of 500 dwellings, under any of the calculations included above.
The above calculations are also specific to potable water. Potable sources include those
fit for human consumption. Recycled water is not permitted for direct potable uses in
California. There are a couple of important considerations necessary when assessing
equivalence of the two water sources, potable and recycled, before one can answer the
question of whether CECP is a project requiring a WSA.

February 2015

4.10-35

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Recycled water cannot meet all the needs of an entire 500 dwelling unit project. It can
however meet the landscape needs of 500 dwelling units. Recycled water specifically
cannot meet the sanitary needs of a dwelling. In this example, recycled water can be
used for landscaping, but not for sanitary uses, so that would be one of two total
possible uses. Potable water could be used for both landscaping and sanitary uses, so
it can meet the needs for all necessary uses. This suggests that recycled water and
potable water are not equivalent because they cannot meet the same needs.
Staff reviewed the DWR Guidance document for an explanation of how recycled water
is used in water accounting. The Guidance gives an example of how to determine the
sufficiency of local supplies for a project. A table is provided that itemizes the supplies
and the demands within the water service area (DWR2003). The table is included below
as Soil & Water Resources Table 7. The table shows an accounting method used by
most water suppliers in their UWMPs. The table also treats recycled water differently
than potable water. Recycled water is identified in the table as “Reclaimed Reduction”
and is treated as a negative in determining the total demand on the water supply
system. This is consistent with the water accounting performed by suppliers throughout
the state; every gallon of recycled water used can free a gallon of potable water for use
elsewhere.
Soil & Water Resources Table 7
Normal Year by Source – Water Supply and Demand Comparison (afy)
Water Demands

2000

Potable Water

2005

2010

2015

2020

13,040

13,680

14,310

14,930

15,540

810

810

810

810

810

0

0

-100

-200

-280

13,850

14,490

15,020

15,540

16,070

Drake Reservoir

9,421

9,421

9,421

9,421

9,421

West Water Project

4,500

4,500

4,500

4,500

4,500

0

2,300

2,300

2,300

2,300

13,921

16,221

16,221

16,221

16,221

71

1,731

1,201

681

151

Raw Water
Reclaimed Reduction
Total
Total (including proposed project)
Water Supply

Wells
Total
Surplus or (Deficiency)
Surplus or (Deficiency) (including
proposed project)
Source: DWR2003, page 33

Using this prescribed and accepted method one might conclude that the CECP would
have a demand of 3 afy (potable) and (-) 215 afy (recycled), for a total use of negative
(-) 212 afy. This numeric conclusion is consistent with the theme of UWMPs and WSAs
that promote thoughtful allocation of the state’s limited potable supply. An increase in
recycled water use reduces the demand on the potable water system.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-36

February 2015

 This method of accounting is also built into the definition of “recycled water” as defined
in Water Code Section 10608.12. This section lists definitions that govern the Water
Code’s requirement for sustainable water use and demand reduction. Below is an
excerpt from that section.
(m) “Recycled water” means recycled water, as defined in subdivision (n) of Section
13050, that is used to offset potable demand, including recycled water supplied for
direct use and indirect potable reuse, that meets the following requirements…”
e. Would the city of Carlsbad define the CECP as a “project” under Water Code
Section 10912?
Staff asked the public water supplier to the CECP, the city of Carlsbad (city), if they
would treat the CECP as a “project” under Water Code Section 10912. The city
indicated that the CECP would not meet their definition of a “project.” The city’s
interpretation of the Section 10912 requirements is that they would only apply to the use
of potable water at a rate of 308 afy or more. They also indicate that the water code
suggests that WSAs apply to projects served by public water systems. They define
public water system by citing Water Code Section 10912 (c), “…a system for the
provision of piped water to the public for human consumption that has 3,000 or more
service connections.” (CAR2014h)
f. Would the CECP qualify as a “project” under Water Code Section 10912?
Staff would not consider the CECP a “project” under Water Code Section 10912. The
use of three afy of potable water would not meet any reasonable trigger threshold
identified in the code. The use of recycled water does not reasonably or practically meet
the intent of the code either. The accepted accounting methodology for evaluating
supplies and demands accepts recycled water use as a net reduction in demand. To
keep consistent with the statewide water accounting methodology, staff would treat
recycled water in the same way. The use of recycled water by the CECP would not
preclude or limit potable water supplies in the city of Carlsbad.
Water Code Section 10912 however does not explicitly exclude recycled water as a
trigger for the need to prepare a WSA, and staff has yet to find a WSA prepared in
California that was triggered by recycled water use levels. Though it is unnecessary,
staff has provided all of the necessary elements of a WSA in this document to provide
the Committee a robust record. Staff provides the elements for potable water and for
recycled water, assuming that each source would individually trigger the need for a
WSA. Staff reiterates however that neither the use of potable water, nor the use of
recycled water, nor their combined uses would trigger the need to prepare a WSA in
accordance with Water Code Section 10910 et seq.

February 2015

4.10-37

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Summary of Required WSA Elements, for CECP Potable Supply
1. Is the CECP Accounted for in the city of Carlsbad 2010 UWMP
2. Description of CMWD Service Area
3. Population Projections
4. Description of Water Supplies, Current and Projected
5. Description of Demands, Current and Projected
6. Alternative/Backup Supplies
7. Expansion Programs
8. Demand Management Potential
9. Water Supply Conclusions
1. Is the CECP Accounted for in the city of Carlsbad 2010 UWMP?
The licensed and the amended CECP potable water use was not accounted for in the
2010 UWMP, but the EPS water use of up to 2,271 afy (CABRILLO2011) was. Though
the licensed CECP project may or may not have been included in the 2010 UWMP, the
amended CECP could not have been included in the city of Carlsbad 2010 UWMP. The
licensed CECP approved 19 afy of potable water supplied by CMWD for domestic
purposes and fire protection, via the existing EPS water supply infrastructure. The
amended CECP is expected to use three afy of potable water during operations (see
Soil & Water Resources Table 5). CMWD provided the petitioner with a will-serve
letter that states its willingness to provide the amended CECP with potable water for the
life of the project (CAR2015a). Regardless of how or if the CECP water was accounted
for in the UWMPs, the potable was use at the site shared by CECP and EPS has
declined significantly over time and would continue to decline if the amended CECP is
permitted as proposed.
The original CECP filed an Application for Certification September 14, 2007. The
original CECP received approval through the Commissioner’s Final Decision, dated May
31, 2012. CMWD has also provided the petitioner with a will-serve letter that states its
willingness to provide the amended CECP with potable water for the life of the project
(CAR2015a).
2. Description of the CMWD Service Area
The amended CECP is located within the service area of the Carlsbad Municipal Water
District (CMWD), which imports water through the San Diego County Water Authority
(SDCWA) for their potable water needs. SDCWA is San Diego County’s regional water
wholesaler supplying the western third of San Diego County, formed in 1944 for the
purpose of supplementing local supplies with imported water. The CMWD service area
encompasses about 20,682 acres. Approximately 80 percent of annual water supplies
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-38

February 2015

 in the SDCWA service area have been imported from the Colorado River and State
Water Project14.
CMWD currently does not deliver any local groundwater or surface water supplies,
although in the past both types of water sources were delivered. Potable water is
delivered to CMWD through four separate SDCWA treated water connections that
supply CMWD and other neighboring water districts. Water storage for the CMWD is
provided by Maerkle Reservoir and ten additional reservoirs within the 440 miles of the
piped distribution system. The CMWD water distribution system is flexible in that supply
from the four connections can be routed to different parts of the distribution system by
making changes to several key valve settings. This allows system operators to balance
reservoir levels and correct for discrepancies in the amount of water ordered versus the
amount that is delivered through service connections (CMWD2012b §1.1). The total
storage capacity of the CMWD system is 245.5 million gallons (UWMP2010).
3. Population Projections
The CMWD expects a steady increase in its service population through 2040. The city
of Carlsbad experienced steady growth through the last 50 years and expects the
growth trend to continue. Soil & Water Resources Table 8 below shows the population
projection provided by CMWD in the 2010 UWMP.
Soil & Water Resources Table 8
CMWD Service Area Population Projections
Year

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

Population

84,838

89,470

94,101

96,930

99,759

101,402

103,044

Source: UWMP2010

4. Description of Water Supplies, Current and Projected
CMWD Supplies, Normal Water Year
The most important element addressed by a WSA, is the evaluation of reasonably
foreseeable impacts associated with supplying water to the proposed project. Though it
is described in this document, it is not the intent to establish the likely source or origin of
the water supplied to the CECP. This section identifies the supplies available for
distribution through the CMWD system in the near and the long-term, in a normal water
year.
As stated earlier, CMWD gets all of its potable water for delivery through SDCWA, a
wholesaler. CMWD does not use any local groundwater or surface water supplies,
though CMWD has limited rights that may allow access to local groundwater and
surface water supplies. These sources could potentially augment CMWD’s future supply
portfolio; groundwater could potentially add 1,000 afy of supply to CMWD by the year
2020. A summary of CMWD’s current and projected supplies are included in Soil &
Water Resources Table 9 below.

14

Calculated five year average (2009-2013) from data published in SDCWA Annual Reports.

February 2015

4.10-39

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Soil & Water Resources Table 9
CMWD Current and Projected Water Supplies
Source

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Import from SDCWA

16,170

21,348

21,610

22,260

22,909

23,286

Groundwater

0

0

1,000

1,000

1,000

1,000

Total

16,170

21,348

22,610

23,260

23,909

24,286

Source: UWMP2010

The CMWD also has some additional water rights that are not being exercised at this
time. These water rights could serve as a backup supply if imported water from SDCWA
were not available. A summary of CMWD’s additional potential supplies are included in
Soil & Water Resources Table 10 below.
Soil & Water Resources Table 10
CMWD Additional Water Supplies
Water Right

Source

Amount (afy)

Mission Basin (pre-1914)

Groundwater

2,382

Mission Basin (1938)

Groundwater

750

Unspecified SWRCB

Surface Water

1,000

Calavera Creek

Surface Water

150

Agua Hedionda Creek

Surface Water

25

Total

4,307

Source: UWMP2010

Single-Dry Year Scenario and Multiple-Dry Years
CMWD has a secure potable water supply during both single and multiple-dry water
year scenarios. SDCWA has the ability to augment their own supplies during dry years
to meet higher demands. Therefore, the water provided to CMWD through the SDCWA
would not be subject to restriction during dry years (UWMP2010). A summary of
CMWD’s supplies during single dry and multiple dry years is included in Soil & Water
Resources Table 11 below.
Soil & Water Resources Table 11
CMWD Single Dry and Multiple Dry Year Supplies
Multiple Dry Water Years

Normal
Year

Single Dry
Water Year

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Import from SDCWA

21,348

21,348

21,399

21,451

21,502

21,554

Groundwater

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

21,348

21,348

21,399

21,451

21,502

21,554

Source

Source: UWMP2010

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-40

February 2015

 The last couple of sections of this analysis show that the CMWD potable water supplies
are very dependable and predictable. In the near and long-term and drought scenario,
potable water supplies would almost certainly be available to CMWD and its customers.
5. Project Water Demand, Current and Projected
The CMWD expects fairly steady potable water demand for the next 20 years. The city
of Carlsbad expects slow but steady growth through 2040. The city population is
expected to reach 103,044 by 2040, which amounts to about a 21 percent increase
above the 2010 population. This increase in population and potable water demand is
fairly slow, partially due to the city of Carlsbad’s already dense development that leaves
little opportunity for significant expansion within the city limits. Soil & Water Resources
Table 12 below lists CMWD current and projected potable water demands.
Soil & Water Resources Table 12
CMWD Demand, Current and Projected
Year

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Demand (afy)

15,076

20,281

20,529

21,147

21,764

22,122

Source: UWMP2010

Staff compared the total supplies and total demands projected by CMWD, including the
potential demand of the CECP of 217 afy. Soil & Water Resources Table 13 compares
the difference of supplies and demands expected by CMWD, with the additional
potential demand of the CECP.
Soil & Water Resources Table 13
CMWD Current and Projected Supplies and Demands
Supply/Demand

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

Supply Total (afy)

16,170

21,348

22,610

23,260

23,909

24,286

Demand Total (afy)

15,076

20,281

20,529

21,147

21,764

22,122

Demand Total
(including CECP, 3 afy)

15,079

20,284

20,532

21,150

21,769

22,125

Difference (afy)

1,094

1,067

2,081

2,113

2,145

2,164

Difference
(including CECP, 3 afy)

1,091

1,064

2,078

2,110

2,142

2,161

Soil & Water Resources Table 13 shows that adequate water supplies would be
available to meet the needs of the CECP in both the near and long-term. CMWD is
expected to have a surplus of available water supplies throughout the life of the CECP.
This comparison of supplies and demands gives staff confidence in the reliability of
CMWD potable water deliveries to the CECP.

February 2015

4.10-41

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 6. Alternative/Backup Supplies
The surplus in potable supplies calculated above lessens the need for an alternative
supply. Furthermore, potable water is not the primary source of water for the CECP.
The CECP would use recycled water for industrial operations, potable water is the
alternative to recycled water. Staff’s proposed Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER6 states that if the petitioner were to use potable water for full-time operation, a petition
to amend the project would need to be filed – the question of a WSA would be
addressed again in the PTA proceeding. Though the petitioner formally withdrew the
request to use ocean water for industrial operations, ocean water is still a potentially
feasible backup water supply for the project. A petition to amend would need to be filed
if the petitioner were to formally request to use ocean water for power plant operation the question of a WSA would be addressed again in the PTA proceeding.
The city of Carlsbad and CMWD are continuing to diversify their potential sources of
water in the future by approving a desalination facility. The Carlsbad Seawater
Desalination Project will be located on the property adjacent to the proposed CECP,
and is expected to be operational by November 2015. The desalination plant will
provide ten million gallons per day (mgd) or more to the San Diego region. The
desalination plant could provide up to 10,000 afy of desalinated water a portion of which
would supplement the CMWD potable supply system.
7. Expansion Programs
CMWD is currently working to increase their potable water supplies with pumped
groundwater. As noted above, CMWD expects to get an additional 1,000 afy from
CMWD-owned groundwater sources. This groundwater supply project is supposed to be
complete by 2018. This additional 1,000 afy would be available to CMWD during normal
years, single-dry, and multiple-dry water years (UWMP2010).
CMWD does not plan to participate in any future water transfers or exchanges with
other water suppliers or entities. CMWD will continue to rely on potable water
purchased from SDCWA (UWMP2010).
8. Demand Management Potential
The CMWD and the city of Carlsbad have a system in place for responding to statewide
drought conditions. CMWD established four formal drought response levels: Level 1
Drought Watch, Level 2 Drought Alert, Level 3 Drought Critical, Level 4 Drought
Emergency. The drought response levels begin with voluntary use reductions and
escalate with each successive step, eventually requiring widespread mandatory water
use restrictions. The drought response levels seek to conserve water usage levels
between 10-percent and 40-percent (UWMP2010).
On August 19, 2014 CMWD declared a Level 2 Drought alert by adopting Resolution
No. 1495. This resolution was adopted following the SWRCB adopting of statewide
emergency drought regulations. The CMWD resolution requires a consumer demand
reduction of 20-percent (UWMP2010). This drought response level primarily targets
residential and commercial landscape watering. By restricting the time of day for
watering and the length of time per assigned day, CMWD estimates that the 20 percent
conservation target would be met. Recycled water is exempt from these watering
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-42

February 2015

 restrictions because drought conditions generally have little effect on recycled water
supplies. CMWD’s use of recycled water as a water resource is further described below.
9. Conclusion
The data provided could be used in a WSA, which would likely demonstrate that an
adequate supply of potable water exists for serving the CECP. This potable water
supply should be available in normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years. Current
supplies and future projections of supplies show that CMWD has adequate water to
serve CMWD and maintain a potable water supply surplus.

Summary of WSA Elements, for CECP Recycled Water Supply
The amended CECP would use up to 215 afy of recycled water, compared to the
licensed CECP permitted amount of 517 afy. The primary source for industrial supply
would be Title 22 tertiary treated water from CMWD.
As discussed above, staff does not consider the CECP a “project” under Water Code
Section 10912. Although the use of recycled water does not reasonably or practically
meet the intent of the code, Water Code Section 10912 does not explicitly exclude
recycled water as a trigger for the need to prepare a WSA.
However, since the Committee has indicated that it wants a robust record in this area,
this section evaluates the demand for recycled water and the available supplies of
recycled water over a 20 year period, in five year increments, starting in 2015 through
2035. It includes a description of the available supplies; the existing and proposed
infrastructure to deliver the recycled water; and an analysis of the demand placed on
those supplies, by the amended CECP, and relevant existing and planned future uses.
Staff reiterates that neither the amended CECP’s use of recycled water, nor its
combined use with potable water would trigger the need to prepare a WSA in
accordance with Water Code Section 10910 et seq.
Urban Water Management Plan and Recycled Water Master Plan
CMWD strives to minimize dependence on imported water supplies and maximize the
use of local water resources. In June 2011, CMWD adopted its 2010 UWMP which
compared projected water supplies to water demands in order to assure sufficient levels
of reliability in its water service to customers. Recycled water is identified as a resource
to replace potable water for non-potable uses, such as landscape irrigation. The 2010
UWMP includes the quantity of wastewater generated in the service area, a description
of the collection, treatment, disposal and reuse of that wastewater, and the projected
amount of water recycling in CMWD’s service area.
To maximize the use of recycled water, CMWD updated its Recycled Water Master Plan
in January 2012 with the goal to define, encourage and develop the use of recycled
water. It contains a comprehensive analysis of the CMWD recycled water system,
including supply sources, demands, and past and future needs. The 2012 Recycled
Water Master Plan has accounted for the amended CECP’s future use of recycled
water. NRG West Coast LLC/Cabrillo Power is identified as the only potential customer
expected to take recycled water in the future for industrial purposes, with the future
demand estimated at 711 afy.
February 2015

4.10-43

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 CMWD Service Area and Population Projections
CMWD’s existing recycled water system currently extends to all parts of the city except
the northwest quadrant and the portion of the Vallecitos Water District service area
within Carlsbad city limits. The recycled water program started in 1990, and then later
expanded from 2004 through 2010 in response to increased demand. Demand
increased from 1,849 afy in 2004 to 3,517 afy in 2010 (CMWD2012a, Table 3.2).
Future recycled water demand projections do not necessarily have a direct correlation
to population projections. To estimate future use of recycled water, CMWD considered
non-potable uses that could be met by recycled water. For the 2010 UWMP, recycled
water estimates focused solely on existing and potential new landscape irrigation.
Future projections were estimated based on the scenario of a mandatory use ordinance
requiring retrofit at existing sites and new land development to use recycled water for
landscape irrigation. In turn, the projected recycled water use would reduce
dependence on CMWD’s imported potable water supplies.
The 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan evaluated different options to define the most
cost effective system expansions through build out conditions and to develop a capital
improvement program. The “future demand potential” involved a more thorough
evaluation of 161 identified potential new large recycled water customers and their
locations. Potential uses were not limited to only landscape irrigation, and potential
demand included some end users located in neighboring service areas. As a result,
future projections of recycled water use were larger compared to estimates in the 2010
UWMP, as shown in Soil & Water Resources Table 14. Expansion segments were
developed to maximize the number of customers that could be connected to the
recycled water distribution system. However, several customers were determined to be
too distant from the recycled water distribution system or isolated such that connection
to recycled water would not be viable.
Soil & Water Resources Table 14
CMWD Projected Recycled Water Demand (afy)
2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2010 UWMP

5,000

6,500

6,500

6,500

6,500

2012 Recycled Water
Master Plan

7,414

9,106

9,106

9,106

9,106

Source: UWMP2010, CMWD2012a

Recycled Water Supplies, Current and Projected
CMWD is a participating agency of the “North San Diego County Regional Recycled
Water Project” (NSDCRRWP). With eight other participating water and wastewater
agencies, they work together in developing a regional recycled water supply and
distribution system. CMWD is currently permitted by SDRWQCB under Order No. R92012-0027 to distribute recycled water from three water recycling facilities
(CMWD2012c §4.3):
1. Up to 4.0 mgd from the Carlsbad Water Recycling Facility (WRF) owned by CMWD
but operated by the Encina Wastewater Authority (EWA)

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-44

February 2015

 2. Up to 5.0 mgd from the Meadowlark WRF owned and operated by the Vallecitos
Water District
3. Up to 2.0 mgd from the Gafner WRP owned and operated by the Leucadia
Wastewater District
Under typical operations, CMWD first obtains supply from the Meadowlark WRF and
uses the Carlsbad WRF to balance supply with demand. In accordance with the interagency agreement, CMWD pays for allocated supplies from Meadowlark WRF even if
the supply is not used. During months of low recycled water demand, CMWD would
supply its customers almost exclusively from Meadowlark WRF (CMWD2012c §4.2).
The long-term, total potential demand calculated for planning purposes (“Ultimate”
system demand conditions) is estimated at 9,106 afy (CMWD2012a, Table 4.4). CMWD
is implementing a phased approach to meet its “Ultimate” demand conditions for
recycled water with a planning horizon of 2030. Soil & Water Resources Table 15
summarizes the projected demand conditions and target supply capacity for each
phase. The Peak Month Demand incorporates peaking factors to account for increased
demand during summer.
Soil & Water Resources Table 15
CMWD Projected Recycled Water Demand
Phase I & II (1993-2010)
Phase III (2011-2020)
Build Out Phase
(2021-2030)2

1

Average Annual (afy)

Average Daily (mgd)

Peak Month (mgd)

4,100

3.7

6.2

7,144

6.4

10.8

9,106

8.1

13.5

Source: CMWD2012a, Table4.4
Notes:
1. Does not include potential customers outside CMWD service area.
2. Includes potential customers outside CMWD service area (City of Oceanside, Olivehain Municipal Water District, and Vista
Irrigation District).

Despite the total permitted amount of 11.0 mgd from all three water recycling facilities,
average annual deliveries for CMWD are much less. While the rated capacity of
Meadowlark WRF is 5.0 mgd, the actual produced flow is less (3.2 mgd in 2009) due to
insufficient wastewater flow to Meadowlark. CMWD’s agreement with Vallecitos Water
District limits supply availability to 3.0 mgd during summer months and 2.0 mgd during
winter months. Also, the Gafner WRP does not connect to the rest of CMWD’s recycled
water distribution system and serves only the south golf course of the La Costa Resort.
Based on the agreement between Leucadia Water District and CMWD, Gafner WRP
can produce an annual maximum of 0.75 mgd and minimum of 0.35 mgd for CMWD.
The recycled water demand of the golf course is only 0.6 mgd, and any excess would
not be available to the rest of CMWD’s system. As a result, out of the total permitted
amount of 11.0 mgd, the total usable capacity for CMWD’s primary distribution system
is closer to 7 mgd (CMWD2012a §4.2).
Based on the information provided in the 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan, CMWD’s
average annual supply has been able to meet the recycled water demands of their
service area (CMWD2012a, Figure 4.1). However, during periods of high recycled water
February 2015

4.10-45

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 demands or recycled water supply outages, CMWD has supplemented its recycled
water system with potable water. Because existing recycled water use is for irrigation,
demand fluctuates seasonally. Highest demand occurs in the summer months during
higher temperatures and less rainfall, resulting in increased irrigation. For 2010, the
month of maximum demand occurred in June at 5.8 mgd, compared to the month of
minimum demand in February at 0.51 mgd. That year, CMWD added a total of 30 acrefeet of potable water to the recycled water system15 when daily demands exceeded the
supply capacity, comprising about one percent of the total supply of 2010
(CMWD2012a, Table 4.2).
Seasonal storage can be used to buffer the peak seasonal flows when the daily
demands exceed the supply capacity of the supply sources. Excess supply in months of
low seasonal demand would be placed into seasonal storage to be pulled out in months
where demand exceeds supply capacity. Vallecitos Water District owns and operates
Mahr Reservoir for recycled water storage, and under agreement allocates CMWD a
seasonal storage capacity of 32 million gallons (CMWD2012a, §2.5.7).
CMWD is approaching a supply shortfall once the future demands are realized. The
required supply capacity to meet the projected annual average demands and peak
month demands for each phase and the associated supply shortfalls are summarized in
Soil & Water Resources Table 16. For planning purposes, CMWD is assuming a peak
month supply capacity of 11 mgd would be required for Phase III and 14 mgd for the
Build Out Phase (CMWD2012a, §4.3).
Soil & Water Resources Table 16
CMWD Summary of Supply Requirements

Average Daily
(mgd)

Peak Month
(mgd)

Demand

Phase I & II
(1993-2010)
3.7

Phase III
(2011-2020)1
6.4

Build Out Phase
(2021-2030)2
8.1

Existing Supply3

7.0

7.0

7.0

Supply Balance

+3.3

+0.6

(-1.1)

Demand

6.2

10.8

13.5

Existing Supply

7.0

7.0

7.0

Supply Balance

+0.8

(-3.8)

(-6.5)

3

Source: CMWD2012a §4.3
Notes:
1. Does not include potential customers outside CMWD service area.
2. Includes potential customers outside CMWD service area (City of Oceanside, Olivehain Municipal Water District, and Vista
Irrigation District).
3. Out of the total permitted amount of 11.0 mgd, the total usable capacity for CMWD’s primary distribution system is closer to 7
mgd (CMWD2012a §4.2).

A Feasibility Study for Phase III Recycled Water Project was completed June 2012 that
recommended capital improvement projects to supply additional recycled water to meet
future demands (CMWD2012c). Phase III of the Recycled Water Master Plan includes
four major components with an estimated cost of $29,400,000:
15

Potable makeup water use of 30 acre-feet in 2010 was comprised of 4.8 acre-feet in June when
demands peaked and 25.7 acre-feet when Gafner WRP was offline for several months. Total supply to
customers in 2010 was 3,466 acre-feet (including potable makeup water).
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-46

February 2015

 1. Constructing 16 miles of pipeline ranging in size from four-inch to 18-inch diameter,
identified with eight separate pipeline expansion segments: $20,700,000.
2. Installing 156 metered service connections.
3. Expanding the capacity of the CWRF from 4.0 mgd to 7.0 mgd: $6,900,000.
4. Constructing a 1.5 million gallon storage reservoir: $1,800,000.
To meet future demand, Phase III would maintain current supply from the Meadowlark
WRF, discontinue CMWD use of the Gafner WRF, and increase capacity of the CWRF.
Expansion of the recycled water distribution system would include installation of new
pipelines, conversion of existing potable water facilities to recycled water use, and
retrofitting landscape irrigation water systems to use recycled water and provide supply
to proposed land development projects. Additional recycled water storage is proposed
to be located at CMWD’s existing “Twin D” tank site by either constructing a new 1.5
million gallon steel tank adjacent to the existing two tanks or relocating an existing steel
tank to the site (CAR2012).
A summary of the available funding for the Phase III Recycled Water Project is shown
below in Soil & Water Resources Table 17. Funding includes a 30-year loan issued by
the SWRCB, grants from Department of Water Resources (DWR) Proposition 84
Integrated Resources Water Management grant program, and Recycled Water Funds.
Any grant funds received would be expended first. If any excess funds remain when the
project is completed, the amount of the loan from the SWRCB would be reduced
(CMWD2015).
Soil & Water Resources Table 17
Funding for CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project
Source

Amount

SWRCB loan

Year Awarded

$29,500,000

DWR: Prop 84 (Round 1)

$130,000

2012

DWR: Prop 84 (Round 2)

$345,000

2014

DWR: Prop 84 (Round 3)

$4,000,000

2014

TOTAL

$33,975,000

Source: CMWD2015

February 2015

4.10-47

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 Single Dry Year and Multiple Dry Years
Recycled water supplies are often referred to as a drought-proof supply, because
supplies are generally constant year round and less affected by droughts. For potable
water, annual surface water deliveries in California are often determined based on
percent of precipitation relative to normal conditions. This means that in dry years, water
rights holders could receive less than 100 percent of their normal water supply. When
this occurs, the CMWD and the city of Carlsbad have a system in place for responding
to statewide drought conditions.
The supply of recycled water may not be subject to the same variability. For instance,
the EWPCF is a 40 mgd facility that treats wastewater flows from members of the
Encina Wastewater Authority to secondary levels. The city of Carlsbad owns capacity
rights of 10.26 mgd of secondary flows from EWPCF, a portion of these flows are sent
to the Carlsbad WRF for additional treatment to tertiary levels. The CWRF currently has
the capacity to treat 4.0 mgd of this secondary effluent to tertiary treatment standards
for recycled water customers, and any excess flows from EWPCF that are not treated to
tertiary levels are disposed of in the ocean through the Encina Ocean Outfall
(UWMP2010 §5.1). This suggests the CMWD has an abundant supply of secondary
effluent available from EWPCF to increase the treatment capacity for tertiary treated
recycled water.
In addition, the volume of water discharged to wastewater treatment plants from toilet,
sink, and other sanitary uses generally fluctuate less than the amount of rainfall from
year to year. And during drought conditions, reductions in the use of potable water for
watering would have limited effect on recycled water availability. Because landscape
irrigation produces only negligible wastewater flows to treatment plants during normal
years, watering restrictions during droughts would not reduce the amount of wastewater
available to produce recycled water. For these reasons, CMWD exempts recycled water
from its drought watering restrictions mandated for potable water customers.
Project Demand, Current and Projected
The 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan has accounted for the amended CECP’s future
use of recycled water. “Ultimate” system demand was developed assuming that future
need by the NRG power plant would be 711 afy (LL2014vv). The amended CECP is
currently proposing to use up to 215 afy recycled water. Although these numbers reveal
that the amended CECP would create less of a demand on the recycled water system
than previously expected, recycled water is not currently available at the proposed site
of the amended CECP.
CMWD provided the petitioner with a will-serve letter indicating its ability and willingness
to provide the amended CECP with recycled water for the life of the project
(CAR2015a). The letter states that CMWD has the capacity to produce the recycled
water needed, up to 464,000 gallons per day and up to 215 afy, except during peak
summer months. CMWD is in the process of improving the system capacity and
reliability of the recycled water system with the expansion of its recycled water
treatment plant and construction of additional transmission pipelines to the project site.
Construction of these projects is expected to start in the spring of 2015 and be

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-48

February 2015

 operational no later than the spring of 2017, in advance of the start-up of the amended
CECP.
Staff compared the total supplies and total demands projected by CMWD, including the
potential demand of the amended CECP of 215 afy. As shown in Soil & Water Table
18 implementation of the Recycled Water Master Plan would produce adequate
recycled water supplies to meet both the near and long-term needs including the
amended CECP. CMWD is expected to have a surplus of available water supplies
throughout the life of the CECP, when calculated on the average annual amounts.
Seasonal storage would be used to buffer the peak seasonal flows when the daily
demands exceed the supply capacity of the supply sources.
Soil & Water Table 18
CMWD Current and Projected Supplies and Demands
Supply/Demand

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

7,840

7,840

11,200

11,200

11,200

11,200

4,100

4,100

6,433

6,433

8,395

8,395

Demand Total
(including CECP, 215 afy)2

4,100

4,100

6,648

6,648

8,610

8,610

Difference (afy)

3,740

3,740

4,767

4,767

2,805

2,805

Difference
(including CECP, 215 afy)

-

-

4,552

4,552

2,590

2,590

Supply Total (afy)
Demand Total (afy)

1

Notes:
1. Calculated by subtracting 711 afy (initial estimate for “NRG power plant”) from CMWD’s projected total demands.
2. As proposed by the amended CECP.

Alternative/Backup Supplies
The surplus in recycled water supplies calculated above lessens the need for an
alternative supply. Furthermore, the planned pipeline expansion that includes service to
the amended CECP site (identified as Expansion Segment 2 in the 2012 Recycle Water
Master Plan) will increase redundancy in the distribution system, as supplies from
Carlsbad WRF will be conveyed via transmission mains along Palomar Airport Road
and Cannon Road in addition to the transmission main along Poinsettia Lane
(CMWD2012c §9.3.1.2).
CMWD considered other options to increase long-term supplies. Both the Carlsbad
WRF and the Meadowlark WRF have the ability to increase their production of tertiary
treated recycled water. Carlsbad WRF was originally sized to be increased up to 16
mgd, and it is therefore assumed that all expansions can be accommodated at the
current site. No additional pumping capacity would be required and expansion would be
limited to the tertiary treatment processes and disinfection. While the rated capacity of
Meadowlark WRF is 5.0 mgd, the actual produced flow is less due to insufficient
wastewater flow to Meadowlark. CMWD is permitted to purchase and distribute supplies
of up to 5.0 mgd, but its agreement with Vallecitos Water District limits supply
availability to 3.0 mgd during summer months and 2.0 mgd during winter months. If both
facilities were expanded to produce at maximum capacity, CMWD could potentially

February 2015

4.10-49

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 deliver up to 21 mgd (or 23,520 afy) of recycled water to customers16. However, these
options are less likely to benefit the amended CECP due to capital costs and the timely
completion of design and permits needed prior of the start-up of the project.
During periods of high recycled water demands or recycled water supply outages,
potable water is used to supplement the recycled water system. When the Meadowlark
WRF supply has been limited in the past, Vallecitos Water District has supplemented
with potable makeup water supplied to Mahr Reservoir to meet demand. If the
Meadowlark WRF is offline, CMWD currently has the capability to maintain full supply of
its recycled water system under peak month demand conditions with the supply
capacity of Carlsbad WRF and with the supplemental potable connection at its recycled
water storage site, the “Twin D” Tanks.
If recycled water was not available from CMWD, the amended CECP would use potable
water for industrial operation Staff’s suggested Condition of Certification
SOIL&WATER-6 states that if the petitioner were to use potable water for full-time
operation, a petition to amend the project would need to be filed. Though the petitioner
formally withdrew the request to use ocean water for industrial operations, ocean water
is still a potentially feasible backup water supply for the project. A petition to amend
would need to be filed if the petitioner were to formally request to use ocean water for
power plant operation.
Conclusion
In its 2012 Recycled Water Master Plan, CMWD projected that demands for recycled
water would increase from 4,100 afy in 2010 to 9,106 in 2035, an increase of
approximately 5,000 afy. Projections included anticipated demand of recycled water by
“the NRG power plant”, estimated to be 711 afy. The amended CECP is currently
proposing to use up to 215 afy recycled water, which indicates updated future use by
the amended CECP is accounted for in the Master Plan.
Although recycled water is not currently available at the proposed site of the amended
CECP, staff is confident that CMWD’s current capital improvement projects would
provide access to, and sufficient flows of recycled water in advance of the start-up of,
the amended CECP. With implementation of Phase III of the Master Plan, supply would
exceed demand over the course of the 20 year planning period and through the life of
the amended CECP. The recent grant awards and loan approvals give additional
confidence that CMWD could meet the amended CECP needs in the near term (20102020) and in the long term (2021-2030).

CLEAN WATER ACT
Staff has determined that the amended CECP would satisfy the requirements of the
NPDES permits with the adoption of Conditions of Certification SOIL&WATER-1 and -3.
These conditions require the development and implementation of a Tier 3 Construction
SWPPP (SOIL&WATER-1) and an Industrial SWPPP (SOIL&WATER-3) in accordance
with the city’s Storm Water Standards Manual.
16

Water recycling facilities are not designed to continually operate at the rated maximum capacity, so this
theoretical maximum supply is greater than actual maximum supply.
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-50

February 2015

 THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
By proper remediation of on-site soil contamination in accordance with Conditions of
Certification WASTE -1 and -4 and the implementation of the SWPPPs that are required
in Conditions of Certification SOIL&WATER-1 and -3, contamination of surface and
groundwater would be prevented.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE X, SECTION 2
The California Constitution, Article X, Section 2 requires that the water resources of the
state be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent possible and states that the waste,
unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use of water is prohibited. Through
compliance with Conditions of Certification SOIL&WATER-5, the use of potable water
for any construction or operation activity that is suitable for non-potable (recycled) water
use would be disallowed.

CALIFORNIA WATER CODE, SECTION 13260
Through the establishment of waste discharge requirements by the SDRWQCB, Pacific
Ocean water quality is maintained. To comply with the water quality standards
established by the SDRWQCB and SWRCB, the petitioner would submit a Report of
Waste Discharge (ROWD) and/or a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit application to the SDRWQCB or SWRCB for stormwater discharges.

CALIFORNIA WATER CODE, SECTION 13523
Through compliance with Conditions of Certification SOIL&WATER-8, the SDRWQCB,
after consulting with and receiving the recommendations from DPH, would prescribe
water reclamation requirements for the production and use of recycled water for
industrial purposes at the amended CECP.

CALIFORNIA WATER CODE SECTION 13550
Section 13550 of the California Water Code requires the use of recycled water for
industrial purposes if recycled water is available. Through the proposed use of recycled
water for operation of the amended CECP, the project owner would be fully compliant
with this section of the water code.

TITLE 17 AND TITLE 22 CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS
Through compliance with Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-8, the DPH would
review and approve an engineering report for the transmission and use of recycled
water.

THE CITY OF CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
Compliance with Chapters 13, 14, and 15 of the city of Carlsbad’s Municipal Code, as
proposed by the project owner, would ensure that a reliable potable water and sanitary
sewer service is supplied by the city and that the city’s Tier 3 requirements for storm
water discharge are met.

February 2015

4.10-51

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, ORDINANCE NO. 44
Through compliance with Conditions of Certification SOIL&WATER-2 and -6, the
amended CECP would comply with Ordinance No. 44 water conservation requirements
through the use of recycled water for power plant construction and EPS demolition.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION INTEGRATED ENERGY POLICY
REPORT: WATER USE AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGE POLICY
In prior policy documents (e.g., the 2003 Integrated Energy Policy Report) the California
Energy Commission has stated that it will approve the use of fresh water for cooling
purposes by power plants it licenses only where alternative water supply sources and
alternative cooling technologies are shown to be environmentally undesirable or
economically unsound. Through the use of recycled water for industrial processes, the
amended CECP would comply with this policy.

NOTEWORTHY PUBLIC BENEFITS
The amended CECP would eliminate the possibility of using ocean water for power
plant cooling at this site, which protects the beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean. In
addition, the amended CECP would use recycled water for plant construction and all
plant operational needs. This use would free potable water for other uses and also
helps reduce the discharge of wastewater to the Pacific Ocean.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN # 203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The intervenor is opposed to the petitioner’s request to use potable water if
recycled water is not available by the facility’s commissioning date of 11/1/17. Because
California is in a severe drought, the intervenor does not appreciate water meant for
residential use, being used for a power plant.
Response: Staff agrees that potable water should not be used for the CECP. The
petitioner proposes to use recycled water for both construction and operation of the
CECP plant. It is highly unlikely that the CECP would need to use any potable water
as an emergency backup, but during an emergency, the temporary use of potable
water is acceptable. Staff believes that the likeliness that the project would need to
rely on potable water at the beginning of operation is low enough to not cause
concern. The project is intending to run on recycled water for its operational life, this
is a great benefit to the local water supply system.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-52

February 2015

 AGENCY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, TN # 203543, JANUARY 20, 2015
Comment: The city states that on January 8, 2015, CMWD issued a Will Serve Notice
to NRG stating its willingness to provide potable water, reclaimed water, and sewer
service to the amended CECP.
Response: Staff has incorporated this information into its analysis.
Comment: The city considers the recycled water system to be highly reliable and
expects the lack of supply to be highly unlikely once the system improvements are
completed. The city also states that it would provide potable water as the emergency
back-up to recycled water if needed.
Response: Staff has incorporated this information into its analysis.
Comment: The city states that letters submitted on December 8, 2014 and January 12,
2015 explain in detail its position that a Water Supply Assessment is not necessary or
appropriate. The city requests that the CEC staff include this information in the Final
Staff Assessment.
Response: Staff has incorporated this information into its analysis, specifically in the
discussion of compliance with California Water Code, Sections 10910-10915.

AGENCY: COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, VECTOR CONTROL PROGRAM,
TN # 203548, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The agency requests that the FSA address potential impacts arising from
possible mosquito breeding sources created by the project including but not limited to:
1. The design and maintenance of storm water control, conveyance, and detention
structures such as impoundment basins, water quality treatment facilities, bioswales, below-grade drains, outfalls, and underground water clarifiers.
2. Construction related depressions such as those created by grading activities,
remedial excavations, equipment lay-down and construction worker parking areas,
and wheel ruts.
3. The transmission line trench, isolation of the ocean water canal, and remnant
basement areas.
Response: The mitigation for, and protection of resources that may be impacted by
storm water is addressed in this Soil & Water Resources section. The CECP would
be required by Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-1 to make sure standing
water does not persist longer than the limits identified in the City of Carlsbad Storm
Water Standards Manual. This limit ranges from 72 to 96 hours. The 96 hour limit
identified in the Manual cites the County of San Diego, Vector Control Program as
the origin of this requirement. All temporary and permanent best management
practices would be required to meet the draw down time standards identified in the
Manual.
Additional threats caused by standing water could be considered a public nuisance.
The County Department of Environmental Health has the authority to take action to
February 2015

4.10-53

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 abate or control vectors that cause a public nuisance. County of San Diego Code of
Regulatory Ordinances, Title 6, Division 4, Chapter 2, Vector and Abatement Control
describes the authority given to the County for vector control.

PETITIONER: CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER LLC, TN # 203549,
JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The petitioner proposes changes to staff’s modifications of SOIL&WATER2, to account for the possibility of recycled water only being available on the east side of
the railroad tracks at some point prior to the commencement of EPS demolition to
support EPS demolition purposes.
Response: Staff does not agree with the petitioner’s proposed edits. As discussed
in the analysis of water supply for EPS demolition, EPS demolition is a phase of the
amended CECP and therefore staff considers EPS included in the amended CECP
project site. CWMD’s recycled water pipeline would make recycled water available to
the amended CECP project site, and the project owner shall be responsible for
extending recycled water to all portions of the site where it is needed for construction
and demolition activities.
Comment: The petitioner proposes changes to SOIL&WATER-5, to account for the use
of potable water if the recycled water supply is interrupted.
Response: As discussed in the analysis of the potable water supply during the
amended CECP operations, staff agrees that edits to SOIL&WATER-5 are needed
to allow potable water use as the back-up supply. Proposed edits to conditions of
certification are shown below.
Comment: The petitioner proposes changes to staff’s modifications of SOIL&WATER6, to account for the use of potable water use if the recycled water supply is interrupted.
Response: As discussed in the analysis of the potable water supply during the
amended CECP operations, staff agrees that edits to SOIL&WATER-6 are needed
to allow potable water use as the back-up supply. Proposed edits to conditions of
certification are shown below.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-54

February 2015

 RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE ORDER FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY
STAFF ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE ORDER, TN# 203527, January 15, 2015.
Following its review of the PSA, the Committee directed staff to provide additional
information and analysis, as identified in the Order (CEC2015i), in preparing its Final
Staff Analysis. Those relevant to soil and water resources are summarized and
addressed below:
Comment: Staff must include a discussion of whether or not supplementation of the
previous EIR is necessary under CEQA Guidelines Section 15162,
Response: In the Summary of Conclusions, staff briefly summarizes the substantial
changes or new information, the resulting new or increased significant effects, and
any resulting changes in the required mitigation. Staff determined that the amended
CECP would not result in significant impacts that cannot be avoided or mitigated.
Comment: Staff must describe its analysis of the applicability Water Code section
10912, specifically whether a Water Supply Assessment is required. If staff determines
that one is required, it shall prepare an analysis which addresses the elements of a
WSA.
Response: Staff agrees with the city's conclusions that the amended CECP does
not require a WSA. Even so, staff has attempted to provide in this FSA the
substantive information that a WSA would include, were such a document required
for this project. The information is in the discussion of compliance with California
Water Code, Sections 10910-10915.
Comment: Staff must address the off-site impacts of the use of trailer-mounted water
filters.
Response: Offsite impacts of wastewater generated during operations of the
amended CECP are discussed in the Waste Management section of the FSA.
Comment: Staff must reconcile the description of the recycled water supply pipeline,
which was inconsistently described in the PSA.
Response: The petitioner states that the recycled water pipeline would be 36-inch
pipe (LL2015c, page 5) that would extend approximately 3,700 feet from the CECP
to meet CMWD’s line at Avenida Encinas and Cannon Road (LL2014d, page 2-21).
Staff used this information to update the section for the FSA.

February 2015

4.10-55

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 CONCLUSIONS
Staff’s conclusions based on analysis of the information are as follows:
1. The amended CECP would eliminate the possibility of using ocean water for power
plant cooling at this site. This protects the beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean and is
a public benefit.
2. The amended CECP would use recycled water for plant construction and all plant
operational needs. This use would free potable water for other uses and also helps
reduce the discharge of wastewater to the Pacific Ocean, and is therefore a public
benefit.
3. The amended CECP does not require a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) because
it is not a “Project” as defined by Water Code Section 10912.
4. CMWD has sufficient supplies to meet the CECP’s potable and recycled water
needs for the life of the project.
5. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-1, updated for the amended CECP to
reference the most recent general construction storm water permit Order No. 20090009-DWQ, would reduce or avoid impacts of soil erosion and storm water runoff to
surface water and groundwater quality during CECP construction, AST demolition,
and EPS demolition.
6. The amended CECP includes construction of the new CECP facility and the
demolition of above-ground structures of the existing EPS, therefore staff considers
both areas included in one overall project site. Staff also considers the proposed
demolition activities fall under the definition of project construction as described in
the Compliance Conditions section of this FSA. As a result, Conditions of
Certification SOIL&WATER-2 and -6 were edited to ensure the use of recycled
water for EPS demolition activities.
7. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-3, updated for the amended CECP to
reference the most recent general industrial storm water permit Order No. 20140057-DWQ, would reduce or avoid impacts of soil erosion and storm water runoff to
surface water and groundwater quality during CECP operations.
8. The amended CECP no longer proposes to discharge industrial wastewater into the
ocean, but EPS demolition activities are expected to discharge nonhazardous
wastewater into the ocean. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-4 was modified
to apply the ocean discharge requirements from industrial wastewater (no longer
pertinent) to nonhazardous wastewater due to EPS demolition (as proposed in the
amended CECP). Staff agrees that maintaining the existing EPS wastewater
systems during nonhazardous demolition activities would sufficiently manage
nonhazardous wastewater for its demolition.
9. Occasionally upsets or outages occur at wastewater treatment plants that supply
recycled water for industrial use. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-5 was
edited to allow potable water use for fire protection and the emergency backup
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-56

February 2015

 supply to recycled water in accordance with SOIL&WATER-6. Otherwise, potable
water use is prohibited for any construction or operation activity that is suitable for
non-potable use.
10. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-6 was edited to: limit the amount of potable
water use to three afy; limit the normal use of potable water to drinking, sanitary, and
fire protection testing purposes; allow potable water as the emergency backup for
recycled water; and require a Petition to Amend if potable water is needed during
operation for more than just an emergency use. The Petition to Amend would be
triggered if the amended CECP requires potable water for emergencies that exceeds
300 acre-feet during the life of the project. Annual compliance reports must
differentiate between recycled water use, normal potable water use, and emergency
backup use of potable water.
11. The amended CECP no longer proposes to discharge industrial wastewater into the
city of Carlsbad’s sanitary sewer system. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-7
was changed to remove the requirement for connection to the sanitary sewer for
discharge of high-salinity industrial wastewater.
12. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-8 for the licensed CECP was modified for
the amended CECP to limit recycled water use to 215 afy.
13. EPS pre-demolition activities would include removal of materials and equipment that
have the potential to contain hazardous or objectionable material. Wastewater not
suitable for ocean discharge under Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-4 must
be collected and properly disposed. Condition of Certification SOIL&WATER-9 was
added to mitigate for wastewater disposal needs produced during EPS demolition.

February 2015

4.10-57

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 REFERENCES
CABRILLO2011 - Encina Power Station, NPDES Permit CA0001350 Permit Renewal
Application. Submitted by Cabrillo Power LLC to the State Water Resources
Control Board March 30, 2011.
CAR2011 - City of Carlsbad. Engineering Standards, Storm Water Standards Manual.
Revised January 14, 2011.
CAR2012 - City of Carlsbad. CMWD Phase III Recycled Water Project Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (EIA 12-02), December 27, 2012.
CAR2014h - City of Carlsbad/B. Therkelsen (TN203421). Letter regarding Water Supply
Assessment, dated December 8, 2014. Submitted 12/09/2014.
CAR2015a - City of Carlsbad/B. Therkelsen (TN203507). Statement of the City of
Carlsbad’s willingness to serve potable water, recycled water, and water sewer
service to the amended CECP, dated January 8, 2015. Submitted 01/09/2015.
CAR2015b - City of Carlsbad/B. Therkelsen (TN203514). Response to staff questions
on water supply assessment (WSA) Supplement Letter, dated January 12, 2015.
Submitted 01/12/2015.
CEC2009 - The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast, Final Paper.
California Energy Commission, Docket CEC-500-2009-024-.
CEC2012a - California Energy Commission/Docket Unit (TN66185). Commission
Decision on the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification,
dated June 1, 2012. Submitted July 11, 2012.
CEC2014tt - California Energy Commission (TN203263). Data Request Set 4, Soil &
Water (Nos. 86-90), TSE (91-92), dated October 28, 2014. Submitted
10/28/2014.
CEC2015i - California Energy Commission (TN203527). Committee Order Following the
Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 15, 2015. Submitted 01/15/2015.
CENSUS2015 - United States Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts, website.
Accessed at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html. Accessed on
January 14, 2015.
CH2M2007a - CH2MHILL/Robert Mason (TN42299). Application for Certification for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project, dated September 11, 2007. Submitted
09/11/2007.
CMWD2012a - Carlsbad Municipal Water District. City of Carlsbad Recycled Water
Master Plan, January 2012.
CMWD2012b - Carlsbad Municipal Water District. 2012 Water Master Plan, Revised
April 2012.
SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-58

February 2015

 CMWD2012c - Carlsbad Municipal Water District. Phase III Recycled Water Project
Feasibility Study, June 2012.
CMWD2015 - Carlsbad Municipal Water District. CMWD Resolution Number 1511 to
approve Finance Agreement with the State Water Resources Control Board for
the Phase III Recycled Water Project. January 13, 2015.
DWR2003 - California Department of Water Resources. Guidebook for Implementation
of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities,
and counties in integrating water and land use planning. October 8, 2003.
DWR2015 - California Department of Water Resources, 2010 Urban Water
Management Plan Data, accessed at:
http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/2010_Urban_Water_Managem
ent_Plan_Data.cfm. Accessed on January 14, 2015.
LL2008a - Locke Lord LLP/Stoel Rives/J McKinsey (TN47257). Project Enhancement
and Refinement Document; Effects on Bio Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon;
Revised AQ Modeling Files; Cal ISO Study Report. Submitted 07/25/2008.
LL2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014y - Locke Lord LLP (TN203095). Responses to Data Request Set 2A (Nos. 5966), dated September 23, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014z - Locke Lord LLP (TN203099). Request for Service for Water Supply and
Sewer Connection, dated August 1, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014aa - Locke Lord LLP (TN203100). Project Owner Letter Re: Use of Ocean Water
Purification, dated September 24, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014bb - Locke Lord LLP (TN203105). Supplemental Responses to Data Request
Set 2 (Nos. 49 and 50), dated September 25, 2014. Submitted 09/25/2014.
LL2014cc - Locke Lord LLP (TN203143). Response to Data Request Set 2A (No.64),
dated October 1, 2014. Submitted 10/01/2014.
LL2014kk - Locke Lord LLP (TN203231). Project Owner’s Supplemental Responses to
Data Request Set 2A (No. 59 and 60), dated October 21, 2014. Submitted
10/21/2014.
LL2014vv - Locke Lord LLP (TN203363). Project Owner’s Responses to Data Requests
Set 4 (Nos. 86-92), dated November 21, 2014. Submitted 11/21/2014.
February 2015

4.10-59

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

 LL2015c - Locke Lord LLP (TN203549). Project Owner’s Comments on the Preliminary
Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted 01/21/2015.
LL2015d - Locke Lord LLP (TN203568). Project Owner’s Information Regarding
Recycled Water Supply, Processing and Treatment Systems, dated January 28,
2015. Submitted 01/28/2015
NAS2012 - Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past,
Present, and Future. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Sea Level
Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington. ISBN: 978-0-309-25594-3.
SDEHV2015a - San Diego Department of Environmental Health Vector Control
Program (TN203548). Comments on the Preliminary Staff Assessment for the
Proposed CECP, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted 01/21/2015.
SR2008c - Stoel Rives (TN46070). Site Preparation and Construction Stormwater
Management and Pollution Prevention Plan, April 29, 2008.
TER2015b - Terramar Association (TN203545). Terramar Comments on the Preliminary
Staff Assessment. Submitted 01/21/2015.
UWMP2010 - City of Carlsbad, Urban Water Management Plan, 2010.

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES

4.10-60

February 2015

 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION
Testimony of Andrea Koch, James Adams, and William Walters

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
California Energy Commission staff (staff) has analyzed the proposed modifications to
the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (licensed CECP) contained in the April 29, 2014
Petition to Remove (PTR) and the May 2, 2014 Petition to Amend (PTA) filed by
Carlsbad Energy Center LLC (project owner/petitioner). With this information and
information from other sources, staff has determined the potential for the amended
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (amended CECP) to cause significant adverse trafficand transportation-related impacts. Staff has also assessed the availability of mitigation
measures that could reduce or eliminate the significance of these impacts.
Staff analyzed the changes to the licensed project, which include replacing the
combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle turbines, reconfiguring the project
footprint, and demolishing and removing portions of the Encina Power Station (EPS).
Staff concludes that there would not be any new significant traffic and transportation
impacts not previously analyzed. There would be an increase in the severity of the
impacts from thermal plumes, as the plumes from the gas turbine exhaust stacks would
extend higher into the airspace for the amended project. However, this impact is
mitigated by existing conditions of certification.
Construction of the amended CECP and demolition of the existing EPS would add traffic
to local roadways. This increase in traffic could impact existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system. In addition, construction/demolition activities could result in impacts
to emergency access and parking capacity, encroachment on public transportation and
pedestrian facilities, and additional oversize and overweight vehicles on the local street
system. However, the amended CECP would generate less peak construction traffic
than the licensed CECP, resulting in reduced traffic impacts. Implementation of
proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-1, which would require preparation and
implementation of a traffic control plan, would mitigate these traffic impacts to less than
significant. Like the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would generate minor
operational traffic that would cause less than significant impacts to traffic levels of
service and would require no mitigation.
Like the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would generate exhaust stack plumes that
could pose aviation hazards to low-flying aircraft using McClellan-Palomar Airport.
Specifically, the amended CECP could result in increased risk to aircraft from gas
turbine exhaust stack plumes and decreased risk to aircraft from air cooler exhaust
stack plumes as compared to the licensed CECP. Condition of Certification TRANS-3
would require notification of pilots and the update of all applicable sectional aeronautical
charts to advise pilots that invisible air plume hazards could exist, and that pilots should
avoid direct overflight. This condition would mitigate potential impacts to aircraft from
exhaust stack plumes.
If the Energy Commission approves the amended CECP, staff recommends retaining
the eight Traffic and Transportation conditions of certification for the licensed CECP,
February 2015

4.11-1

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 with minor changes as noted under the “Proposed Conditions of Certification”
subsection of this analysis. These conditions of certification are recommended to
prevent significant adverse traffic and transportation-related impacts caused by
amended CECP construction and demolition-related traffic and, as noted above, from
thermal plumes during operation of the project. The conditions of certification would also
ensure that the amended project would comply with all applicable laws, ordinances,
regulations, and standards (LORS) pertaining to traffic and transportation. Energy
Commission staff concludes that with implementation of proposed Conditions of
Certification TRANS-1 through TRANS-8, the amended CECP, like the licensed CECP,
would not generate a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines with respect to CEQA Appendix G issues, “Transportation/Traffic.”

INTRODUCTION
In this Traffic and Transportation section of the Final Staff Assessment (FSA), staff
addresses the extent to which the amended CECP may affect the traffic and
transportation system within the vicinity of the project site. This analysis focuses on
whether construction and operation of the amended CECP, and demolition of the EPS,
would cause traffic and transportation impact(s) under CEQA and whether the project
complies with applicable LORS.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-2

February 2015

 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
Traffic and Transportation Table 1 provides a general description of adopted federal,
state, and local LORS pertaining to traffic and transportation and relevant to the
proposed project.
Traffic and Transportation Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LORS
Federal
Title 14,
Aeronautics and
Space, Code of
Federal
Regulations, part
77 Objects
Affecting Navigable
Airspace (14
C.F.R., part 77)
Title 49, Code of
Federal
Regulations,
Subtitle B
State
California Vehicle
Code, Division 2,
Chapter 2.5; Div. 6,
Chap. 7; Div. 13,
Chap. 5; Div. 14.1,
Chap. 1 & 2; Div.
14.8; Div. 15
California Streets
and Highways
Code, Division 1 &
2, Chapter 3 &
Chapter 5.5
Local
San Diego County
Department of
Public Works
City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code,
Section 10.33.030

February 2015

Description

Establishes standards for determining physical obstructions to navigable airspace;
sets noticing and hearing requirements; and provides for aeronautical studies to
determine the effect of physical obstructions on the safe and efficient use of
airspace.

Includes procedures and regulations pertaining to interstate and intrastate transport
(including hazardous materials program procedures) and provides safety measures
for motor carriers and motor vehicles that operate on public highways.

Includes regulations pertaining to licensing, size, weight, and load of vehicles
operated on highways; safe operation of vehicles; and the transportation of
hazardous materials.

Includes regulations for the care and protection of state and county highways and
provisions for the issuance of written permits.

Requires a permit for moving any extra-legal load which is overweight and/or
oversize.
Requires a permit to transport oversize/overweight loads on city roads.

4.11-3

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 SETTING
The approximately 30-acre amended CECP site is located at the eastern end of the
Encina Power Station at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard in the city of Carlsbad (CEC2014b).
Agua Hedionda Lagoon is located to the north of the site, Interstate 5 (I-5) to the east,
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) property to the south, and the north/south Atchison,
Topeka and Santa Fe Railway(AT&SF)/North County Transit District (NCTD) rail
corridor to the west. The McClellan-Palomar Airport, a commercial airport, is located
approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project site.

ROADS
The project site is bordered by Carlsbad Boulevard to the west, Cannon Road to the
south, and Interstate-5 to the east. Primary site access for construction workers and
operations employees would be from Cannon Road west to Carlsbad Boulevard, and
then north on Carlsbad Boulevard to the Encina Power Station’s front gate across from
Carlsbad State Beach and the Pacific Ocean. Primary project-related construction truck
deliveries would be from Avenida Encinas at Cannon Road to avoid crossing adjacent
rail lines (CEC2014oo). The surrounding regional and local roadway networks are
shown in Traffic and Transportation Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The following
describes in more detail the roadways that would be used for the proposed CECP.
Interstate 5
Located immediately east of the proposed project site and running in a north-south
direction, I-5 has four general purpose lanes in each direction. According to the most
recently published traffic counts by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) for the I-5 segment near the project site, I-5 carried approximately 198,000
average daily vehicle trips in 2012 (CECP 2014), slightly less than the 206,000 average
daily trips carried in 2006 just before application for the licensed project (CECP 2007).
Truck traffic accounts for approximately 4.8 percent of all trips on I-5 in the vicinity of
Cannon Road (CECP 2014).
Cannon Road
Cannon Road is an east-west roadway that connects the project site to I-5. It is an
undivided arterial that has two lanes in each direction. According to the city of Carlsbad
General Plan, Cannon Road is classified as a major arterial, which would typically limit
access to adjacent properties and enable circulation within the city, as well as provide
connection to regional roadways and freeways. The San Diego Northern Railway
(SDNR) tracks run north-south through Cannon Road at a point just west of Avenida
Encinas at a signalized crossing.
Carlsbad Boulevard
Carlsbad Boulevard is a north-south roadway that connects the project site to Cannon
Road to the south and Tamarack Avenue to the north. Carlsbad Boulevard is a divided
arterial that has two lanes in each direction along the Pacific Ocean. According to the
city of Carlsbad General Plan, Carlsbad Boulevard is considered a major arterial. It is

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-4

February 2015

 part of the regional Coast Highway 101, or “Historic Route 101”, that begins in San
Diego to the south and ends in Oceanside to the north.

RAILWAYS
The San Diego Northern Railway (SDNR), a subsidiary of NCTD, owns the train tracks
to the west of the project site that run north/south just west of Avenida Encinas and
bisect the 95-acre EPS property and Cannon Road. Amtrak, Coaster, and Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) use these tracks. Amtrak runs the Pacific Surfliner
(previously the San Diegan) from San Luis Obispo to San Diego. The Los Angeles to
San Diego portion of this line is the second busiest rail route in the Amtrak system.
Amtrak runs approximately one train per hour per day (12 daily roundtrips) on this line.
BNSF runs freight trains along this rail line. Most of the freight traffic takes place at
night.

BUS TRANSPORTATION
In addition to the Coaster commuter rail line described above, NCTD provides bus
service in the city of Carlsbad. Bus routes serving Carlsbad include Route 301 (from
Oceanside to San Diego University Towne, running on Carlsbad Boulevard near the
project site), Express Route 310 (from Plaza Camino Real to northern San Diego,
running on I-5 in the vicinity of the CECP site), Route 321 (from Poinsettia station along
I-5 to Carlsbad Village), and Route 344 (from South Carlsbad to San Marcos, running
on Carlsbad Boulevard and Cannon Road near the CECP site) (CECP 2007).
In addition, the Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) Jefferson Elementary School is
located approximately one mile from the CECP site. Due to the proximity of this school
to the project site and the overall residential nature of the area, school bus service could
have stops along CECP project area streets.

BICYCLES AND PEDESTRIANS
Due to its location near Carlsbad State Beach and residential neighborhoods, the
project site is located in a high bicycle and pedestrian use area, especially in the
summer months. Jefferson Elementary School is located approximately one mile away,
and its students frequently use public sidewalks in the site vicinity. Additionally, bike
lanes and sidewalks exist along both Cannon Road and Carlsbad Boulevard.

AIRPORTS
The closest airport to the CECP site is the McClellan-Palomar Airport located
approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast. The McClellan-Palomar Airport is a
commercial airport that also services the general aviation and corporate communities. It
is a single runway airport owned by the County of San Diego. There were approximately
388 operations per day at McClellan-Palomar Airport in 2014, compared to 528
operations per day in 2008 when the analysis for the licensed project was performed.
Types of aircraft that use the airport include: piston powered, turbo prop, jets, and
helicopters (CEC2015v).
McClellan-Palomar Airport has a Voluntary Noise Abatement Program (VNAP) in place.
The recommended VNAP procedures are for jet aircraft to depart on a 250-degree track
and to remain north of Palomar Airport Road until one mile offshore. Propeller aircraft
February 2015

4.11-5

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 departing north and southbound fly a 250 degree track until joining the Coastal Visual
Flight Rule (VFR) Flyway. However, departing and arriving aircraft may fly directly over
the existing EPS and the amended CECP site. Airspace above the existing EPS and
amended CECP site is located within the VFR Flyway Zone, which parallels the Pacific
Ocean coastline from the cities of Oceanside to Del Mar. The published altitude within
this Flyway Zone is 6,500 feet and below. In addition to airport departure and arrival
traffic over the existing EPS and amended CECP site, small aircraft pulling banner ads
along the Pacific coastline beaches and aircraft patrolling traffic conditions along I-5
regularly fly within the coastline Flyway Zone at altitudes below 1,500 feet AGL and
regularly fly directly over the existing EPS and amended CECP site (CEC2015v). See
Traffic and Transportation Figure 3 for the location of the McClellan-Palomar Airport
and the VFR Flyway Zone relative to the amended CECP.
On September 24, 2014, the FAA provided staff a Carlsbad Energy Project Airspace
Study (FAA 2014). The study provided flight information within a three nautical mile
radius of the EPS/CECP project site using the Performance Data Analysis and
Reporting System and air traffic information from the Los Angeles Air Route Traffic
Control Center. During August 2014, 6,558 aircraft tracks were detected from surface
(ground) to 7,000 feet mean sea level (MSL). The study also included tables showing
the departure and arrival airports of the aircraft identified as well as the type of aircraft
and the time of day. Key observations from the study are:


The greatest number of flights was between ground level and 4,000 feet;



The most frequently used airport was McClellan – Palomar Airport (CRQ) for both
departures and arrivals;



Flights occurred most frequently between 10 am and 4 pm, although they occurred
throughout the day as well.

Departures and arrivals from/to CRQ use the VFR Airway discussed earlier that runs
from Oceanside to Del Mar and extends up to 6,500 feet. The VFR Airway goes directly
over the CECP site at relatively low elevations (surface to 3,000 feet). The FAA study
showed that during August 2014, 2,754 tracks were recorded between the surface and
1,000 feet MSL, 4,157 tracks from 1,000 to 2,000 feet MSL, 1,371 tracks from 2,000 to
3,000 feet MSL, and 1,502 from 3,000 to 4,000 feet MSL. This constitutes
approximately 90 percent of the air traffic using this VFR corridor. It is important to note
that aircraft rose or descended through multiple elevations and were tracked
accordingly.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Significance criteria used in this document for evaluating environmental impacts are
based on the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA Environmental Checklist for
Transportation/Traffic, performance standards or thresholds identified by Energy
Commission staff, and applicable LORS used by other governmental agencies.
Specifically, staff analyzed whether the proposed project would:
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-6

February 2015

 1. cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load
and capacity of the street system1 (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections);
2. conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit;
3. conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not
limited to, level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways;
4. substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves,
dangerous intersections, or glint and glare) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment);
5. result in inadequate emergency access;
6. conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities;
7. result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks;
8. produce a thermal plume in an area where flight paths are expected to occur below
1,000 feet from the ground2; or
9. have individual environmental effects that, when considered with other impacts from
the same project or in conjunction with impacts from other closely related past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, are considerable or compound
or increase other environmental impacts.

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The amended CECP would involve four phases, as follows:


Phase I: Tank Demolition, lasting up to six months starting late 2nd Quarter 2015 and
ending 3rd quarter 2015.

1

Because this is a proposed amendment, “existing” is defined as the licensed project. Therefore,
amended CECP traffic will be compared to licensed CECP traffic.
2
The FAA recommends that pilots avoid overflight of plume-generating industrial sites below 1,000 feet
AGL (FAA 2006).
February 2015

4.11-7

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 

Phase II: Construction, Commissioning, and Initial Operation of the amended CECP
power plant, lasting 24 months starting 4th Quarter 2015 and ending 4th quarter
2017.



Phase III: Decommissioning of EPS and pre-demolition activity, lasting up to 12
months starting 4th Quarter 2017 and ending 4th quarter 2018.



Phase IV: Demolition of EPS and Site Restoration (grading and contouring), lasting
22 months starting 4th Quarter 2018 and ending 4th quarter 2020.

The total duration of amended CECP Phase I through IV activities would be 64 months
(66 months when licensed CECP demolition activities for ASTs 5, 6 and 7 are included)
compared to 25 months for the licensed CECP. The amended CECP phases that would
generate the greatest amount of traffic, Phases II (CECP construction) and IV (EPS
demolition) would not overlap.

Roadway and Intersection Levels of Service
Level of Service
Level of Service (LOS) is used to describe and quantify the congestion level on a
particular roadway or intersection and generally describes these conditions in terms of
such factors as speed, travel time, and delay. The Caltrans Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) defines six levels of service for roadways or intersections ranging from LOS A,
which represents the best operating conditions, to LOS F, which represents the worst.
The city of Carlsbad uses the LOS criteria, as defined by the HCM, to assess the
performance of its street and highway system and the capacity of roadways. The
requirements are specified in the Citywide Facilities and Improvements Plan. No
roadways in the project study area may fall below LOS D during peak hours (6:30 a.m.
– 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.) and LOS C during off-peak hours.
Traffic impacts during each phase of the amended CECP are discussed below.
Phase I: Tank Demolition
Demolition of above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) 1, 2 and 4 would take
approximately six months and would occur prior to Phase II construction of the
amended CECP power plant. It is anticipated that the average and peak workforce
would be 15 and 20 workers, respectively. The peak workforce of 20 workers would
occur during Month 6. Tank demolition is expected to require an average of four truck
round trips per day over the entire phase, with an average of ten truck round trips per
day during the peak demolition month (LL2014b).
The workforce used would be the same as that used for the demolition of ASTs 5, 6,
and 7 approved under the licensed CECP. While demolition of the additional ASTs
(ASTs 1, 2, and 4) would not increase the CECP construction workforce, it would extend
the duration of demolition work, meaning that demolition trips would now occur over a
slightly longer period of time. However, with only 20 peak tank demolition workers, the
number of additional trips resulting from increased demolition duration would not be
substantial and would not cause significant impacts.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-8

February 2015

 The number of truck trips for demolition of tanks 5, 6, and 7 approved under the
licensed CECP is unknown. Demolition of additional tanks 1, 2, and 4 as part of the
amended CECP would be expected to result in additional truck trips. However, during
the peak tank demolition month, there would only be ten truck roundtrips per day, not
enough to create a significant impact.
Phase II: Construction, Commissioning, and Initial Operation of the CECP
Construction, commissioning, and initial operation of the amended CECP would take
approximately 24 months. This phase of the project would generate the most
construction traffic. As discussed below, staff analyzed traffic impacts during the peak
construction period of this phase, which would represent the worst-case traffic scenario
for both this phase and for the entire construction and operation period of the amended
CECP.
Most construction workforce traffic would enter the site via the main EPS gate on
Carlsbad Boulevard (CECP 2014, CEC2014oo). However, a minority of workforce traffic
might use other access points (CEC2014oo). Heavy haul and delivery trucks would
primarily access the site via Avenida Encinas, off Cannon Road west of I-5 and east of
the railroad tracks. However, limited truck traffic access to the site may be necessary
via SDG&E’s service gate off of Cannon Road west of the railroad tracks, or via the
main EPS gate off Carlsbad Boulevard.
Staff compared traffic generated by the amended CECP to that predicted and permitted
for the licensed CECP, using the licensed CECP as the baseline for assessing impacts.
Trips generated by the amended CECP and licensed CECP can be directly compared
to determine traffic impacts. The city of Carlsbad’s Traffic Monitoring Program was used
to obtain 2013 traffic levels on roadways and intersections near the project site.
Although the exact road segments and intersections included in the city’s 2013 Traffic
Monitoring Program differ slightly from the roads and intersections used in the analysis
for the licensed CECP, there is sufficient overlap to conclude that traffic levels in the
area are similar now to the conditions under which the original project was licensed.
See Traffic and Transportation Tables 2 and 3 below for a comparison of existing
2007 and 2013 traffic levels in the vicinity of the project site on local roadways and
intersections.

February 2015

4.11-9

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 Traffic and Transportation Table 2
2007 and 2013 Existing Conditions on Project Roadways
Roadway

2007 Conditionsa
ADT
LOS

Segment
Tamarack Ave. to Tierra
del Oro
Cannon Rd. to Cerezo
Dr.
CECP Driveway to
Cannon Rd.
Paseo Del Norte to Car
Country Dr.
I-5 Southbound Ramps
to Avenida Encinas
Avenida Encinas to
Carlsbad Blvd.

Carlsbad Blvd.

Cannon Rd.

2013 Conditionsb
ADT
LOS

-

17,319

A

-

16,755

A

23,600

C

-

-

26,399

A

13,600

A

-

7,950

A

-

a

2007 data from the Final Decision for the licensed CECP.
2013 data from the City of Carlsbad 2013 Traffic Monitoring Program.
Note: A dash denotes a segment where data is not available.
b

Traffic and Transportation Table 3
2007 and 2013 Existing Conditions on Project Intersections
Intersection
Cannon Rd./I-5 Northbound
Ramps
Cannon Rd./I-5 Southbound
Ramps
Cannon Rd./Avenida Encinas
Cannon Rd./Carlsbad Blvd.
Cannon Rd./Paseo Del Norte

AM Peak Hour
2007a
2013b
ICUc
Delay
LOS
LOS
(Sec.)
Ratio

PM Peak Hour
2007a
2013b
ICUc
Delay
LOS
LOS
(Sec.)
Ratio

10.6

B

0.50

A

11.2

B

0.67

B

16.7

B

0.53

A

13.8

B

0.51

A

15.3
16.6

B
B

14.7
27.8

B
C

-

0.43
0.59

A
A

-

0.65
0.56

B
A

a

2007 data from the Final Decision for the licensed CECP.
2013 data from the City of Carlsbad 2013 Traffic Monitoring Program.
c
Intersection capacity utilization
Note: A dash denotes a segment where data is not available.
b

During an average construction month, the licensed CECP would have required 291
daily construction workers and 16 daily truck deliveries (or 32 one-way truck trips). The
amended CECP would require fewer construction workers and truck deliveries during
an average construction month: 171 daily construction workers and ten daily one-way
truck deliveries (LL2014x). The amended CECP, then, would generate lower traffic
impacts than the licensed CECP during an average construction month.
However, when comparing trips generated by the amended CECP and the licensed
CECP, it is most important to compare trips generated during the period of highest
construction activity, or “peak” construction month. Representing the worst-case traffic
scenario, the peak construction month for both the amended and licensed CECP would
occur during Month 13 of the project schedule. This peak construction month is during
Phase II of the amended project. During the peak construction month, the amended
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-10

February 2015

 CECP would use fewer daily workers (279 workers) than the licensed CECP (357
workers). Peak construction month daily truck trips would be 29 deliveries, or 58 oneway trips for the amended CECP, and nine deliveries, or 18 one-way trips for the
licensed CECP. The overall result, when combining peak construction workforce trips
and truck trips3, is that the amended CECP would generate fewer peak construction
trips (645 daily one-way trips) than the licensed CECP (695 daily one-way trips).
During peak construction, the amended CECP would also generate fewer peak hour
trips than the licensed CECP. For the amended CECP, 285 one-way peak hour trips
would occur during both the morning and evening peak hour. The licensed CECP would
have generated more peak construction peak hour trips, with 341 one-way trips during
the morning peak hour and 325 one-way trips during the evening peak hour.
See Traffic and Transportation Table 4 for average daily and peak hour one-way trips
for the licensed CECP during peak construction. See Traffic and Transportation Table
5 for average daily and peak hour one-way trips for the amended CECP during peak
construction.
Traffic and Transportation Table 4
Licensed CECP – Estimated Average Daily Trips and Peak Hour Trips during Peak
Construction
Average Daily
Trips
Total Construction
Traffic in PCE

695

A.M. Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
333

8

341

P.M. Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
0

325

325

Total Average Daily Trips includes construction-related trips that do not occur during peak hours.
Truck trips were converted to passenger car equivalent units (PCEs) at a ratio of 1.5 passenger cars per truck.

Traffic and Transportation Table 5
Amended CECP – Estimated Average Daily Trips and Peak Hour Trips during
Peak Construction
Average Daily
Trips
Total Construction
Traffic in PCE

645

A.M. Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
282

3

285

P.M. Peak Hour
In
Out
Total
3

282

285

Total Average Daily Trips includes construction-related trips that do not occur during peak hours.
Truck trips were converted to passenger car equivalent units (PCEs) at a ratio of 1.5 passenger cars per truck.

3

To calculate the total number of peak construction trips, truck trips were converted to passenger car
equivalent units (PCEs) at a ratio of 1.5 passenger cars for each truck, consistent with the 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual guidelines.
February 2015

4.11-11

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 In the May 31, 2012 Final Decision for the licensed CECP, the Energy Commission
concluded that traffic impacts of the licensed CECP would be less than significant with
implementation of the imposed conditions of certification. Because the amended CECP
would generate fewer average daily and peak hour trips during peak construction than
the licensed CECP as reflected in Traffic and Transportation Tables 4 and 5, the
amended CECP would cause fewer traffic impacts to LOS than the licensed CECP. The
petitioner has agreed to implement all conditions of certification from the 2012 Decision.
Although the amended CECP would generate smaller traffic impacts to LOS than the
licensed CECP due to fewer average daily and peak month construction trips, the
amended CECP would generate project-related traffic for a longer period of time than
the licensed CECP: 64 months for Phase I through IV of the amended project as
compared to 25 months for the licensed project.
To ensure that traffic impacts to LOS would remain less than significant, Condition of
Certification TRANS-1 would require the project owner to implement a Traffic Control
Plan during construction in order to minimize traffic impacts to LOS.
Traffic impacts during operation of the amended CECP are discussed later in this
section.
Phase III: Decommissioning of EPS
Decommissioning of the EPS would take no more than 12 months, during which
the petitioner would use the existing EPS operations staff of approximately 50 workers
to perform the majority of required tasks and work assignments (LL2014d, p. 2-36, LL
2014pp, p. 7). Decommissioning of the EPS is not expected to increase traffic impacts
compared to normal EPS operations. During this phase, the roadways and intersections
would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS. Therefore, Phase III would have a less
than significant impact on LOS.
Phase IV: Demolition of EPS and Site Restoration
Demolition of EPS and site restoration, which would include limited grading and
contouring, would last approximately 22 months. It is anticipated that the average
workforce would be 67 workers. There would be a six-month period where the number
of workers would exceed 100 (Months 4 through 9), with a peak of 194 workers during
Month 6. EPS demolition is expected to require eight truck round trips per day on
average over the entire demolition work phase. Demolition truck trips would peak during
Month 13 when 16 truck round trips per day are expected (LL2014uu). Assuming two
trips per employee and per truck round trip and a truck PCE of 1.5, demolition of the
EPS during Month 6 would result in a maximum of 406 peak daily trips.
Based on staff’s traffic analysis provided earlier in this report and results of the Carlsbad
2013 Traffic Monitoring Program, the roadways and intersections would continue to
operate at an acceptable LOS during this phase. Therefore, the demolition phase would
have a less than significant impact on LOS.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-12

February 2015

 Operation Phase Impacts and Mitigation
The main operations access for the amended CECP would be the same as that for the
licensed CECP, which is from Carlsbad Boulevard, through the EPS site and the
Poseidon Carlsbad Desalination Project, and over the NCTD railroad tracks at the
existing internal private crossing at the project site.
The amended CECP operations, like operations for the licensed CECP, would require
14 employees, probably drawn from the existing workforce at EPS. Therefore, the
amended CECP, like the licensed CECP, would cause negligible traffic impacts from
operations employees.
Both the licensed CECP and amended CECP would generate an annual average of one
aqueous ammonia truck delivery per month. The licensed CECP would generate an
average of 12 truck trips and a maximum of 32 truck trips per month to provide
chemicals for the reverse osmosis water treatment facility (CECP 2007, p. 5.12-21). The
amended CECP would not use desalinated seawater, but it would generate between
two to five truck trips per day during peak power output to exchange water
demineralizer trailers (LL2014vv). Therefore, the amended project would generate more
truck trips than the licensed project. However, the addition of two to five truck trips per
day would be a less than significant impact.
Operations-related and maintenance-related traffic associated with the project is
minimal and insignificant when added to major movements on freeways and local
roadways. Therefore, staff finds that amended CECP project operations, like licensed
CECP operations, would have no impact on study area roadways or intersection LOS.
Consequently, no operations-related mitigation measures are required.

Airports
As described in the environmental setting discussion for airports, aircraft using the
McClellan-Palomar Airport regularly fly over the EPS and amended CECP project site.
Given the current arrival and departure procedures, air traffic will continue to fly directly
over the existing EPS and proposed CECP. In addition, small aircraft pulling banner ads
along coastline beaches and aircraft patrolling road traffic conditions along I-5 regularly
fly within the VFR Flyway Zone route, which lies directly over the proposed CECP site,
at altitudes below 1,500 feet AGL.
The licensed CECP included combustion turbine stacks with heights of approximately
140 feet. As a result of stack height and proximity of the project to the McClellanPalomar Airport, the licensed CECP included Condition of Certification TRANS-2,
requiring the project owner to notify the FAA of the stacks by filing FAA Form 7460-1,
Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration. TRANS-2 also required the project owner
to secure a Determination of No Hazard to Navigable Airspace from the FAA as a result
of the filing, and to light, mark, and paint the stacks as required by the FAA. The
amended CECP stacks have a reduced height of 90 feet (65 feet at grade). This is well
below the approximate 140-foot threshold that staff calculated would require FAA
notification per Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77. However, during Phase II
construction and Phase IV demolition activities, the amended CECP would use
February 2015

4.11-13

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 construction cranes exceeding 140-feet in height, especially during demolition of the
EPS and installation of transmission poles. To reflect these changes, staff has modified
TRANS-2 to require notification of the FAA for all objects or structures used during
construction or operation exceeding 140 feet in height, including construction cranes.
Similar to the licensed CECP, the amended CECP’s gas turbine and air cooler exhaust
stacks would result in upward air plume velocities that could result in turbulence with the
potential to affect aircraft maneuverability above the CECP site. A plume velocity
analysis was conducted for the amended CECP and compared with the analysis for the
licensed CECP. It is presented in detail as APPENDIX TT-1 of this Final Staff
Assessment. This analysis assumed worst-case meteorological conditions (cool
temperatures and calm winds), whereupon the maximum upward plume velocity would
be generated. The worst-case ambient conditions used in the velocity calculations
would occur, potentially frequently, during the plant’s life when small aircraft could fly
above the amended CECP site. Traffic and Transportation Table 6 compares the
average plume velocity speed in meters per second (m/s) for the licensed and amended
CECP gas turbine and air cooler exhaust stack plumes at different heights above
ground level (AGL). It should be noted that the plume velocity speed presented is the
average speed of the entire plume diameter. Plume velocity speeds would be lower at
the plume diameter edge and greater at the plume center point.
Traffic and Transportation Table 6
Plume Average Velocity
Gas Turbine and Air Cooler Predicted Plume Velocities

Height (ft) 1
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300

Amended CECP
Gas Turbine
Plume Velocity (m/s)
60.3°F
9.91
8.41
7.56
6.99
6.56
6.22
5.94
5.71
5.51
5.34
5.18
5.04
4.92
4.81
4.71
4.61
4.52
4.44
4.37
4.30
4.23

Licensed CECP
Gas Turbine/HRSG
Plume Velocity (m/s)
61°F
8.16
6.71
5.96
5.47
5.11
4.83
4.60
4.42
4.26
4.12
3.99
3.88
3.79
3.70
3.62
3.54
3.47
3.41
[2]
[2]
[2]

Amended CECP
Air Cooler
Plume Velocity (m/s)
60°F
5.98
5.65
5.33
5.07
4.84
4.64
4.48
4.33
4.20
4.08
3.98
3.89
3.80
3.72
3.65
3.58
3.52
3.46
3.40
3.35
3.30

Licensed CECP
Air Cooler
Plume Velocity (m/s)
86°F
6.49
6.29
5.97
5.67
5.41
5.18
4.99
4.82
4.67
4.54
4.42
4.31
4.22
4.13
4.04
3.97
3.90
3.83
[2]
[2]
[2]

Source: APPENDIX TT-1.
1
Note: Velocity values are for heights above ground level. The heights above sea level that correspond to the heights listed in this
table would be approximately 34.5 feet higher for the amended CECP and 30 feet higher for the licensed CECP.
2
These values were computed for the Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for the licensed CECP but were not reported because it was
not necessary to extend the table to these heights in the FSA.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-14

February 2015

 For the purposes of this analysis, a vertical plume average velocity of 4.3 m/s has been
determined as the critical velocity of concern to light aircraft. For the amended CECP
gas turbines, the worst-case height at which the plume average velocity drops below 4.3
m/s is calculated to be 2,200 feet, which is much higher than the 1,070 feet calculated
for the licensed CECP gas turbine/HRSG design. At this 2,200-foot height, the plume
diameter for the amended CECP gas turbines would be approximately 673 feet, which
is much greater than the 299-foot plume diameter for the licensed CECP gas
turbines/HRSG at 1,070 feet AGL. Therefore, the amended CECP’s gas turbine design
would increase the potential risk to light aircraft from plume turbulence, which could be
moderate to severe.
For the amended CECP’s air cooler design, the worst-case height at which the plume
average velocity would drop below 4.3 m/s is approximately 1,020 feet AGL. This is
somewhat lower than for the licensed CECP’s air cooler design, where the plume
average velocity would drop below 4.3 m/s at a worst-case height of 1,410 feet AGL.
Therefore, the amended CECP’s air cooler design would decrease the potential risk to
light aircraft from plume turbulence, in contrast to the amended CECP’s increased risk
from the gas turbine plumes.
As discussed earlier in this Traffic and Transportation section, aircraft departing from
and arriving at McClellan-Palomar Airport could possibly experience impacts from the
plumes. Aircraft using the VFR route directly over the site could also possibly
experience plume impacts, as could California Highway Patrol and lifeguard helicopters
that regularly fly within close proximity of the amended CECP site during patrol of state
highways and beaches.
Proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-2 would ensure that the amended CECP
project owner complies with FAA regulations (FAA Form 7460 completion), which
includes the FAA’s determination that physical objects are not hazards to navigable
airspace. However, as thermal plumes are not physical structures, they are not subject
to the FAA Form 7460 requirements. Therefore, to ensure that plumes associated with
CECP operation do not impact aviation activities within the navigable airspace above
the site, staff proposes implementation of Condition of Certification TRANS-3. It would
require the project owner to work with the FAA to notify all pilots using the McClellanPalomar Airport and to update all applicable airspace charts to indicate that project
plume hazards could exist and that pilots should avoid direct overflight of the airspace
above the amended CECP site. The traffic pattern over the CECP site is not congested
and the surrounding airspace does not contain any restricted areas. Pilots should not
have problems avoiding overflight of the CECP site. Therefore, staff believes this
mitigation is adequate to reduce any potential aviation impacts to a less than significant
level.
Staff discussed the amended CECP’s plumes with San Diego County Airport Authority
staff, who stated that the Airport Authority (which acts as San Diego County’s Airport
Land Use Commission) only reviews permit applications processed and submitted by
local agencies and declined comment (CEC2014st). Staff also discussed the plumes
with staff from the McClellan-Palomar Airport, who agreed with the conclusions of the
Traffic and Transportation section of the Preliminary Staff Assessment and were
satisfied with staff’s proposed conditions of certification, which are included in this FSA.
February 2015

4.11-15

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 Hazards and Public Safety
During all phases of demolition and construction at the amended CECP site,
construction traffic routes would avoid concentrated residential areas, minimizing safety
impacts to residents.
The primary construction worker and operations employee access to the amended
CECP would be the Carlsbad Boulevard driveway. The posted speed limit along this
segment of Carlsbad Boulevard is 35 miles per hour, and the driveway location is not
visually obstructed, so construction and operations traffic entering the site at this
location is not expected to pose significant safety hazards. On the east side of Carlsbad
Boulevard where the driveway is located, beach parking is not allowed, which would
reduce any conflicts between construction traffic and beachgoers.
The other project access points, including Avenida Encinas, the primary access for
construction trucks, and the SDG&E service gate, are both off of Cannon Road. These
entrances are also not visually obstructed. However, they are located near the railroad
track crossing over Cannon Road. During the amended CECP workshops and public
comment period, Intervenor Kerry Siekmann of Terramar Association expressed
concern about large trucks exiting the site via the SDG&E Service Gate to travel
eastbound on Cannon Road. She reported that during construction of the Carlsbad
Desalination Project, trucks exiting via this route would sometimes become stuck near
the railroad tracks immediately after turning onto Cannon Road due to traffic back-ups
at the light signal at Avenida Encinas and Cannon Road. Ms. Siekmann requested that
large trucks exiting the site to travel eastbound on Cannon Road be restricted to using
the Avenida Encinas exit point, which is signalized and does not require trucks to cross
the railroad tracks at Cannon Road.
In response, staff modified proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-1 to require the
traffic control plan to specify that vehicles with eight wheels or more, such as semitrailer trucks, exit on Avenida Encinas to travel eastbound on Cannon Road, avoiding
use of the SDG&E Service Gate exit. Staff discussed this modification with John Kim,
Associate Engineer with the city of Carlsbad. Although he did not think this modification
was necessary, he had no issues with it (CEC2015t).
Another rail crossing affecting construction and operations traffic is located on the
project site itself, where the train tracks divide the western portion of the 95-acre EPS
site from the eastern tank farm and amended CECP project footprint. The private
internal crossing is protected by a drop guard and flashing cross buck and provides the
only means of movement between the project footprint and laydown and parking areas.
Many vehicles and pedestrians involved with construction and operation of the
amended CECP would need to cross this internal rail line, including: heavy and oversize
delivery trucks loaded at the existing on-site rail spur; vehicles transporting equipment
and materials from the laydown areas west of the railroad tracks; construction workers
parking west of the railroad tracks and needing to cross the tracks to access the project
site; and operations employees who would access the EPS site via Carlsbad Boulevard
and would need to cross the tracks to access the site.
The drop guards and flashing cross buck at the rail crossing ensure safe crossing by
passenger vehicles but do not provide safe pedestrian crossing or accommodate
oversize construction vehicles crossing the internal rail line. As a result, staff is
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-16

February 2015

 proposing Condition of Certification TRANS-4, which would require the project owner to
develop and implement a crossing safety plan for project demolition and construction to
address rail crossing hazards.
Demolition and construction workers entering and exiting the project site could
potentially cause vehicle congestion and back-ups posing traffic hazards to other
motorists and pedestrians. Proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-1, calling for the
preparation of a traffic control plan, would minimize hazards due to possible congestion
as workers enter and exit the plant site when their shifts begin and end.
There is also a potential for construction vehicles and equipment to cause damage to
roads in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, staff is proposing Condition of Certification
TRANS-5, which would require that any road damaged by project demolition or
construction be repaired to its original condition, with hazardous road damage required
to be repaired immediately. This would ensure that any damage to local roadways
would not be a safety hazard to motorists.
The use of oversize vehicles during demolition and construction could create a hazard
to the public by limiting motorists’ views of roadways and by obstructing space.
Therefore, staff is proposing Condition of Certification TRANS-6, which would require
that all oversize vehicles used on public roadways during demolition and construction
comply with Caltrans’ limitations on vehicle sizes and weights, as well as those
limitations of other relevant jurisdictions.
Delivery of hazardous materials and removal of wastes could potentially cause traffic
hazards. For a discussion of the potential impacts related to the transport of hazardous
materials, please see the Hazardous Materials Management section in this FSA.
As with the licensed CECP, implementation of the above stated conditions of
certification would result in the amended CECP having less than significant impacts as
far as creating traffic and transportation hazards that could threaten public safety.

Emergency Access
In the event of an emergency at the CECP site during demolition and construction,
emergency vehicles would use Cannon Road and then Avenida Encinas to access the
project site. To maintain temporary access for emergency vehicles and allow for
adequate access into the facility, proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-1 requires
the preparation of a traffic control plan which includes the assurance of access for and
movement of emergency vehicles. Once the plant becomes operational, emergency
access to the site would be slightly different for the amended CECP as compared to the
licensed CECP. The amended CECP would continue to have both a primary and
secondary access route, but these would be slightly modified. The project owner and
the Carlsbad Fire Department have developed a mutually agreed upon revised fire
access route through the Cabrillo Parcel that is designed to allow access to each of the
six units, onsite appurtenances, and support facilities at the amended CECP. For
additional discussion of emergency services serving the facility, refer to the Worker
Safety and Fire Protection section in this FSA.

February 2015

4.11-17

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 Parking
Approximately 19.3 acres of the EPS parcel west of the railroad tracks would be used
for a combination of equipment laydown and demolition/construction worker parking. As
with the licensed CECP, no offsite demolition/construction worker parking or equipment
or material laydown areas would be needed (CECP 2014a). The amended CECP would
actually include more acreage for parking and laydown compared to the licensed CECP,
which included up to seven acres for construction staging and parking, with up to three
acres for construction worker parking west of the railroad tracks (CECP 2007).
However, to ensure that no potential impacts to available public parking supply could
occur during demolition and construction, staff is proposing Condition of Certification
TRANS-7, which would require the development of a parking and staging plan to
enforce a policy that all demolition- and construction-related parking occur on-site or in
designated off-site parking areas.

Alternative Transportation
To ensure that construction and demolition activity for the amended CECP would not
impact public sidewalks, bus stops, or local bus routes, staff recommends Condition of
Certification TRANS-8, which requires the project owner to comply with Caltrans’ and
other relevant jurisdictional limitations for any encroachment into public rights-of-way
during construction and requires that all necessary encroachment permits be obtained
from Caltrans and all relevant jurisdictions. Furthermore, as the amended CECP would
require vehicle crossings of rail lines, staff is proposing Condition of Certification
TRANS-4, which would require the project owner to develop a construction and
demolition crossing safety plan for foot and vehicular traffic, including heavy/oversize
loads, to ensure that no impacts would occur to existing rail line use. With the above
conditions of certification, impacts to alternative transportation from the amended CECP
would be less than significant, as they were for the licensed CECP.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
A project may result in a significant adverse cumulative impact where its effects are
cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental
effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15130).
The amended CECP would be most likely to combine with other nearby projects to
result in cumulative traffic impacts during the demolition and construction phases, which
would generate much more traffic than the operations phase, when minimal traffic would
be generated. Because of this, staff evaluated cumulative traffic impacts for the time
period of demolition of the EPS and construction of the amended CECP.
Based on all current information, the following section outlines the status of major
projects within the amended CECP site area that could combine with the amended
CECP to produce traffic and transportation cumulative impacts. The following projects
were initially evaluated in staff’s analysis for the licensed CECP and have been updated
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-18

February 2015

 for this analysis.

Floral Trade Center
The 17.22-acre Floral Trade Center is proposed for location in the city of Carlsbad south
of Cannon Road and east of Car Country Drive on a 45.60-acre site. The project
consists of development of a new 44,180 square-foot floral trade distribution center and
marketplace, 9,900 square-foot micro-brewery and winery building, 1,984 square-foot
culinary center, and 896 square-foot farm shed with remaining land dedicated to farm
plots, an orchard, hops farm, vineyard and parking. The site is located approximately
0.8 mile southeast of the amended CECP site.
A Negative Declaration for the project has been adopted. The construction start date is
unknown, and no building or grading permits have yet been issued.

I-5 Widening Project
The I-5 widening project extends from the city of San Diego at its southern end to the
city of Oceanside at its northern end and includes the portion of I-5 adjacent to the
amended CECP site. Caltrans signed the Final EIR/EIS for the project in October 2013
and stated that a Record of Decision was expected in January 2015. The final defined
configuration of the I-5 improvements in the area of the CECP is shown on pages 2-113
to 2-115 of the Final EIR/EIS. In the area of the CECP site, this configuration includes
two carpool (HOV) lanes in each direction, four general purpose lanes in each direction,
and one auxiliary lane in each direction (CEC2014dv). (An auxiliary lane connects an
on-ramp and off-ramp.)
Phase I of the I-5 expansion project in the amended CECP vicinity consists of one new
carpool (HOV) lane in each direction of the freeway from Manchester Avenue in Cardiff
at the southern end to State Route 78 in Oceanside at the northern end. Construction is
expected to begin in 2016 (CEC2014dv). This is the only construction phase which
could potentially overlap with Phases I-IV of the amended CECP, although no definitive
timing on when the expansion would occur near the amended CECP site has been
provided by Caltrans staff.
Phase II of the I-5 expansion project is the remainder of the project, which consists of
the remaining new HOV lane in each direction and the new auxiliary lane in each
direction near the project site. This phase is scheduled for construction from 2025 to
2030, following completion of the amended CECP (CEC2014dv).

Carlsbad Desalination Plant Project (Poseidon)
The Carlsbad Desalination Project (CDP) is located on the EPS project site west of the
railroad tracks where AST #3 and the EPS wastewater treatment facilities were once
located. It is located immediately west of the amended CECP site. The CDP will use
304 million gallons-per-day (gpd) of seawater to produce 50 million gpd of potable water
for distribution by the San Diego County Water Authority. The project includes pipelines,
pumps, and other appurtenant and ancillary water facilities to produce and distribute the
potable water.

February 2015

4.11-19

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 Construction of the CDP began in late 2012. The project is currently 80 percent
complete, with onsite completion scheduled to occur in March 2015 and pipeline
completion scheduled to occur by late summer 2015. It is estimated to begin full
operations by November 2015. With the demolition of tanks as part of the amended
CECP scheduled to begin in the second quarter of 2015, CDP construction would
overlap with amended CECP activities.

City of Carlsbad Capital Improvement Program
As part of the City of Carlsbad Capital Improvement Program, the Vista/Carlsbad
Interceptor Agua Hedionda Lift Station will be constructed from early 2015 through
2017. The project involves replacement of the existing sewer lift station and sewer line.
The project is located at the south shore of Agua Hedionda Lagoon immediately east of
the railroad tracks, next to the amended CECP site.
On Carlsbad Boulevard between Cannon Road and Manzano Drive, road and
pedestrian improvements are planned to occur from 2016 to late 2017, approximately
0.7 mile west of the amended CECP site. These pedestrian improvements are part of
an overall upgrade to Carlsbad Boulevard that was mitigation for construction and
operation of the CSDP.

LOSSAN Double-Tracking Project
Improvements along the San Diego portion of the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis
Obispo (LOSSAN) rail corridor include double-tracking of the main line and bridges from
Orange County to downtown San Diego. Currently, approximately half of the San Diego
corridor has been double-tracked, including the 1.9-mile second main track from
Carlsbad Village southward past Cannon Road (passing adjacent to the amended
CECP site) and a new rail bridge over Agua Hedionda Lagoon, which was completed in
early 2012. During the time of staff analysis of the licensed CECP, double-tracking of
the rail line adjacent to the CECP site had not yet occurred. (SANDAG 2014, SANDAG
2014a).

Coastal Rail Trail
The goal of the Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is to provide a multi-modal transportation route
that is separated from the roadway. The CRT is envisioned to be 44 miles within the
railroad right-of-way from Oceanside to the train depot in downtown San Diego.
Sections of the CRT have been completed, including in the city of Carlsbad. The North
County Transit District (NCTD) has indicated that it would not support a trail in its
railroad right-of-way, possibly due to liability and plans to install an additional track. The
city of Carlsbad has considered alignments through the EPS, but outside of the NCTD
right-of-way. In addition, the city has considered alignments avoiding the EPS site. The
CRT route location has not been finalized in the area of the EPS. The licensed CECP
included provisions for the CRT in Condition of Certification LAND-1. As part of the city
of Carlsbad’s agreement with the project owner (“Settlement Agreement” in Appendix
2A of the PTA), the project owner and the city would coordinate location logistics for the
CRT as part of the redevelopment process for the EPS site that would occur following
amended CECP construction. The CRT is currently anticipated to be located west of the
railroad tracks.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-20

February 2015

 Cumulative Impacts Conclusions
Continued commercial and residential development in the city of Carlsbad and San
Diego County has historically contributed to congestion on area roadways that could be
used by traffic generated by the amended CECP. Of the major projects identified above,
construction and operation of the Floral Trade Center and the widening of I-5 could
possibly overlap with Phases I through IV of the amended CECP, resulting in
cumulative traffic impacts. Construction of the CSDP would overlap with Phase I of
CECP construction; however, construction of this project next to the amended CECP
would be completed well in advance of peak power plant construction, minimizing
cumulative traffic impacts. Double-tracking of the railroad tracks near the project site
has already occurred, meaning that there would be no cumulative impacts resulting
from this project and the amended CECP. Finally, because the CRT would be designed
and constructed in the future following amended CECP construction, there would be no
cumulative impacts resulting from the combination of the Coastal Rail Trail and
amended CECP.Construction and operation of the Floral Trade Center, the widening of
I-5, and development and operation of various minor projects (such as residential and
commercial developments) currently proposed in the area could occur simultaneously
with amended CECP activities. This could result in cumulative impacts to intersection
and street segment LOS, emergency vehicle access, parking, public transportation,
pedestrian, bicycle, or rail travel, and local transportation facilities. However, CECP
Conditions of Certification TRANS-1 through TRANS-8 are proposed to ensure that
potentially significant impacts associated with short-term transportation and traffic
impacts resulting from CECP demolition/construction are reduced to less-thansignificant levels. Therefore, the CECP cumulative contribution to this impact is
considered reduced to a less-than-cumulatively considerable level.
Furthermore, it is assumed that all cumulative projects identified above would include
mitigation similar to that for the proposed CECP (i.e., implementation of a traffic control
plan) and would require approval from the city of Carlsbad, Caltrans, and all affected
jurisdictions and agencies. This mitigation and approval would reduce not only projectlevel transportation and traffic impacts of these projects, but would reduce cumulative
transportation and traffic impacts from these projects as well. As agency approval of
projects is gained, jurisdictional staggering of project construction and timing may occur
to further reduce any potential cumulative transportation and traffic impacts. Therefore,
the CECP would not result in a considerable cumulative contribution to transportation
and traffic impacts within the area. In addition, the proposed CECP would not require
encroachment onto lands outside of the existing EPS, therefore not encroaching on
proposed I-5 widening, the proposed Coastal Rail Trail, or on the adjacent railroad that
was double-tracked in 2012.
Staff has determined that all significant direct or cumulative impacts specific to traffic
and transportation resulting from project demolition, construction or operation would
either be less than significant or be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Therefore,
the proposed project would not cause significant traffic and transportation impacts to an
environmental justice population.

February 2015

4.11-21

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND
STANDARDS
Traffic and Transportation Table 7 provides a general description of applicable
statutes, regulations, and standards adopted by the federal government, the State of
California, San Diego County, and the city of Carlsbad pertaining to traffic and
transportation with which the project is required to comply. Conditions of certification
have been proposed to ensure project consistency with a law, ordinance, regulation, or
standard.
Traffic and Transportation Table 7
Project Compliance with Adopted Traffic and Transportation Laws, Ordinances,
Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR
Federal
Title 14
Aeronautics and
Space, Code of
Federal
Regulations, part
77 Objects
Affecting Navigable
Airspace(14
C.F.R., part 77)

LORS Description and Project Compliance Assessment
Includes standards for determining physical obstructions to navigable airspace. Sets
forth requirements for notice to the Federal Aviation Administration of certain
proposed construction or alterations. Also provides for aeronautical studies of
obstructions to air navigation to determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of
airspace (including temporary flight restrictions).
Staff’s proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-2 would require a determination by
the FAA where applicable that structures and objects exceeding 140 feet in height,
such as construction cranes, are not a hazard to the navigable airspace at McClellanPalomar Airport. TRANS-2 would also require that all structures and objects
exceeding 140 feet in height have all lighting and marking required by the FAA. With
the implementation of TRANS-2, the project would be consistent with this regulation.
Includes procedures and regulations pertaining to interstate and intrastate transport
(includes hazardous materials program procedures) and specifies safety measures
for motor carriers and motor vehicles that operate on public highways.

Title 49, Code of
Federal
Regulations,
Subtitle B

Enforcement is conducted by state and local law enforcement agencies and through
state agency licensing and ministerial permitting (e.g., California Department of Motor
Vehicles licensing, Caltrans permits), and/or local agency permitting (e.g., San Diego
County Department of Public Works permits). For a discussion of the potential
impacts related to the transport of hazardous materials, please see the Hazardous
Materials Management section in this FSA.

State
Includes regulations pertaining to licensing, size, weight, and load of vehicles
operated on highways; safe operation of vehicles; and the transportation of hazardous
materials.
California Vehicle
Code, Division 2,
Chapter 2.5; Div. 6,
Chap. 7; Div. 13,
Chap. 5; Div. 14.1,
Chap. 1 & 2;
Div. 14.8; Div. 15

Enforcement is provided by state and local law enforcement agencies and through
ministerial state agency licensing and permitting and/or local agency permitting. The
use of oversize vehicles during demolition and construction can create a hazard to the
public by limiting motorist views on roadways and by the obstruction of space by the
oversize vehicle. Therefore, staff is proposing Condition of Certification TRANS-6,
which would require that all oversize vehicles used on public roadways during
demolition and construction comply with Caltrans’ limitations on vehicle sizes and
weights.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-22

February 2015

 Includes regulations for the care and protection of state and county highways and
provisions for the issuance of written permits.
California Streets
and Highways
Code, Division 1 &
2, Chapter 3 &
Chapter 5.5

Enforcement is provided by state and local law enforcement and through ministerial
state agency licensing and permitting and/or local agency permitting. There is also a
potential for unexpected damage to roads by vehicles and equipment within the
project area. Therefore, staff is proposing Condition of Certification TRANS-5, which
would require that any road damaged by project demolition and construction be
repaired to its original condition

Local
Requires a moving permit for moving any extra-legal load which is overweight and/or
oversize.
San Diego County
Department of
Public Works

City of Carlsbad
Municipal Code
Section 10.33.030

The use of oversize vehicles during demolition and construction could create a hazard
to the public by limiting motorists’ views on roadways and by the obstruction of space
by the oversize vehicle. Therefore, staff is proposing Condition of Certification
TRANS-6, which would require that all oversize vehicles used on public roadways
during demolition and construction comply with San Diego County limitations on
vehicle sizes and weights.
Requires a transportation permit for the transportation of oversize and overweight
loads through the city of Carlsbad
The use of oversize vehicles during demolition and construction could create a hazard
to the public by limiting motorists’ views on roadways and by the obstruction of space
by the oversize vehicle. Therefore, staff is proposing Condition of Certification
TRANS-6, which would require that all oversize vehicles used on public roadways
during demolition and construction comply with city of Carlsbad limitations on vehicle
sizes and weights.

NOTEWORTHY PUBLIC BENEFITS
Neither the applicant nor staff has identified any traffic-related benefits associated with
the amended CECP.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
The following is a list of public comments on the Traffic and Transportation section of
the PSA and staff’s responses.

INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN: 203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
(TER2015b)
Comment: Terramar asks staff to include a condition that prohibits any large
construction vehicles (eight or more wheels) from exiting across Cannon and turning in
an easterly direction from the SDG&E site. Terramar asks that the condition require the
large construction vehicles (eight wheels or more) to use the Avenida Encinas traffic
light intersection to turn left (or east).
Comment: Terramar disagrees with the exit of any large construction vehicles (eight or
more wheels) from the SDG&E service gate that would be turning east across Cannon
and crossing over the railroad tracks. Terramar asks that those vehicles be limited to
using the Avenida Encinas’ traffic light to make a left turn.

February 2015

4.11-23

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 Comment: Terramar is happy to see Condition of Certification TRANS-4 for crossing
the railroad tracks inside the project site, yet there is no plan for these large construction
vehicles (eight wheels or more) crossing against westbound traffic on Cannon, turning
left over the railroad tracks and facing a stop light. Terramar strongly suggests that staff
reconsider no eastbound exit plan from the SDG&E Cannon Road exit for large
construction vehicles (eight wheels or more).
Response: Staff modified proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-1 to require
the traffic control plan to specify that vehicles with eight wheels or more, such as
semi-trailer trucks, exit on Avenida Encinas to travel eastbound on Cannon Road,
avoiding use of the SDG&E Service Gate exit.
Staff discussed this modification with John Kim, Associate Engineer with the city of
Carlsbad. Although he did not think this modification was necessary, he had no
issues with it (CEC2015t).
Comment: Though Terramar is grateful for staff’s condition for the project owner to
repair the roads once the construction is completed, Terramar would like to point out
that this is a five-year project. Terramar would like to ask staff to update this condition
so that the project owner is responsible to maintain the roadways used for this project
during the five years. This is important to protect the safety of the roadway and the
condition of the cars from the neighborhood and other residents who will use these
roadways during this five-year project.
Response: Staff modified proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-5 to require
that significant roadway damage that could cause hazards be repaired during
construction.

AGENCY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, TN: 203543, JANUARY 20, 2015
(CAR2015j)
Comment: The city has reviewed the Traffic and Transportation section and concurs
with the analysis, conclusions, and conditions. The city requests that it be given an
opportunity to review and comment on the traffic control plan identified in condition
TRANS-1. The city’s revised language for this condition is shown in italics:
TRANS-1—The project owner shall consult with the city of Carlsbad and prepare and
submit to the City of Carlsbad for review and comment and the Compliance Project
Manager (CPM) for approval, a construction/demolition traffic control plan.
Response: Staff agrees and modified TRANS-1 to include this new language.
Comment: The city concurs with the recommendation to maintain the roads in the
vicinity of the project during construction and demolition as well as once the project is
completed and suggests the following change to condition TRANS-5:
TRANS-5—During and Ffollowing completion of project construction and demolition,
the project owner shall repair any damage to roadways affected by
construction/demolition activity to pre-project road conditions or better.
Response: Staff agrees and made the recommended modifications as well as other
similar modifications to TRANS-5.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-24

February 2015

 PROJECT OWNER: LOCKE LORD LLP, TN: 203549, JANUARY 21,
2015 (LL2015c)
Note: The petitioner indicated their proposed changes to the PSA’s conditions of
certification in bold, as shown below. The underlines and strike-outs that are not in bold
are staff’s changes to the licensed CECP’s conditions that were included in the PSA for
the amended CECP.
Comment: p. 4.11-24. TRANS-1: The petitioner proposes the following modification to
the verification requirements of TRANS-1 to clarify how existing Phase I compliance
activities will be adapted with new compliance obligations. The project owner also
proposes additional language to address necessary amendments to the traffic control
plan.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of licensed CECP Phase I tank
demolition site mobilization, the applicant or contractor project owner shall provide to
the CPM the a copy of the referenced documents traffic control plan for review and
approval.
If not previously completed for Phase I licensed CECP activities, at least 30
days prior to the start of amended CECP Phase I tank demolition, the project
owner shall provide to the CPM the traffic control plan for review and
approval.
If modification to the existing traffic control plan is necessary during any
phase of construction or demolition, project owner shall submit a revised
traffic control plan to the CPM for review and approval.
Comment: p. 4.11-24. TRANS-2: Petitioner proposes the following modification to the
verification requirements of TRANS-2 to clarify timing.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of Phase I tank demolition construction,
the Project Owner or contractor project owner shall provide copies of the FAA Form
7460-1 and copies of the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Navigable Airspace to the
CPM and the city of Carlsbad Planning Department. The project owner shall also
provide pictures of lit and marked the structures or objects CECP stack after the lighting
and marking have been completed.
If not previously completed for Phase I licensed CECP activities, at least 30
days prior to the start of amended CECP Phase I tank demolition, the project
owner shall provide copies of the FAA Form 7460-1 and copies of the FAA
Determination of No Hazard to Navigable Airspace to the CPM and the city of
Carlsbad Planning Department. The project owner shall also provide pictures
of lit and marked structures or objects after the lighting and marking have
been completed.
Comment: p. 4.11-25. TRANS-4: Petitioner proposes the following modification to
TRANS-4 to clarify how existing Phase I compliance activities will be adapted with new
compliance obligations.

February 2015

4.11-25

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of licensed CECP Phase I tank
demolition,site mobilization, the project owner shall submit the rail crossing safety plan
to the CPM for review and approval.
If not previously completed for Phase I licensed CECP activities, at least 60
days prior to the start of amended CECP Phase I tank demolition, the project
owner shall submit the rail crossing safety plan to the CPM for review and
approval.
Response: Staff understands that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun;
however, it is staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that has
passed is both confusing and unnecessary. The petitioner will not be required to
duplicate work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended
CECP.
Comment: p. 4.11-25. TRANS-5: For clarity, project owner proposes replacing the
phrase “Following completion of project construction and demolition” in TRANS-5 with
the phrase “Following completion of Phase IV”.
Response: In response to concerns from Terramar Association (see TT-13), staff
modified proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-5 to require that significant
roadway damage that could cause hazards be repaired during construction.
Because of this, staff deleted the language “Following completion of project
construction and demolition”, so comment TT-4 no longer applies.
Comment: p. 4.11-25. TRANS-5: For clarity, petitioner proposes modifying the TRANS5 verification requirement by replacing the phrase “Within 30 days after completion of all
project-related construction and demolition” with the phrase “Within 30 days after
completion of Phase IV”.
Response: Staff modified proposed Condition of Certification TRANS-5 to clarify
that the verification refers to 30 days after completion of Phase IV.
Comment: p. 4.11-26. TRANS-7: Petitioner proposes the following modification to
TRANS-7 to clarify how existing Phase I compliance activities will be adapted with new
compliance obligations.
Verification: At least 60 days prior to start of licensed CECP Phase I tank
demolition, site mobilization, the project owner shall submit the a parking and staging
plan to the city of Carlsbad and other jurisdictions affected by site selection, such as the
city and/or county of San Diego, for review and comment and to the CPM for review and
approval.
If not previously completed for Phase I licensed CECP activities, at least 60
days prior to the start of amended CECP Phase I tank demolition, the project
owner shall submit a parking and staging plan to the city of Carlsbad and
other jurisdictions affected by site selection, such as the city and/or county of
San Diego, for review and comment and to the CPM for review and approval.
Response: Staff understands that compliance for the licensed CECP has begun;
however, it is staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that has
passed is both confusing and unnecessary. The petitioner will not be required to
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-26

February 2015

 duplicate work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended
CECP.
Comment: 4.11-26. TRANS-8: Project owner proposes replacing the term “applicant” in
TRANS-8 with the term “project owner”.
Response: Staff agrees and made the changes.

RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE ORDER FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY
STAFF ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE ORDER, TN: 203527, January 15, 2015.
Comment: Staff is directed to address the off-site impacts of the use of trailer-mounted
water filters (waste disposal, traffic, air quality, and others).
Response: The amended CECP would generate between two to five truck trips per
day during peak power output to exchange water demineralizer trailers (LL2014vv).
This is more than the licensed CECP, which would generate an average of 12 truck
trips and a maximum of 32 truck trips per month to provide chemicals for the reverse
osmosis water treatment facility (CECP 2007, p. 5.12-21). However, the addition of
two to five truck trips per day during peak power output is negligible and would be a
less than significant impact.

CONCLUSIONS
Staff has analyzed the amended CECP’s potential construction, demolition, and
operations impacts to the regional and local traffic and transportation system and
concludes the following:


The amended CECP would generate less traffic than the licensed CECP. Condition
of Certification TRANS-1 should be implemented to ensure that all construction- and
demolition-related traffic and activities would not significantly impact transportation
facilities and existing traffic LOS within the project area.



Operations impacts of the amended CECP are similar to those of the licensed
CECP. Both projects would generate the same number of employee trips, although
the amended CECP would generate more truck trips. For both projects, workforce
and truck traffic to and from the facility would not result in a substantial increase in
congestion, deterioration of the existing LOS, or creation of a traffic hazard during
any time in the daily traffic cycle, and would have a less-than-significant adverse
impact along the routes or roadway intersections that would be used to access the
CECP site.



The amended CECP’s exhaust stacks would be shorter than those of the licensed
CECP and would not trigger FAA notification requirements. However, other tall
objects or structures, such as construction cranes, could trigger notification.
Condition of Certification TRANS-2, which has been modified for the amended
CECP, should be implemented to ensure the project owner submits to the FAA Form
7460-1, Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration, regarding any structure or
object on the site greater than 140 feet in height, and secures a Determination of No

February 2015

4.11-27

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 Hazard to Navigable Airspace. This condition would also require the project owner to
ensure that all structures or objects exceeding 140 feet in height would have all the
lighting and marking required by the FAA so that they would not create a hazard to
air navigation.


Like the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would generate gas turbine and air
cooler exhaust stack plumes that could pose aviation hazards to low-flying aircraft
using McClellan-Palomar Airport. Compared to the licensed CECP, the amended
CECP’s gas turbine design would increase the potential risk to light aircraft from
plume turbulence, which could be moderate to severe. However, the amended
CECP’s air cooler design would decrease the potential risk to light aircraft from
plume turbulence. Condition of Certification TRANS-3 would require notification of
pilots and an update of all sectional aeronautical charts that include the CECP site to
advise pilots that invisible air plume hazards could exist and that pilots should avoid
direct overflight. This would mitigate potential impacts to aircraft from the plumes.



Condition of Certification TRANS-4 should be implemented to ensure the project
owner implements a railroad crossing safety plan during project construction and
demolition to address foot traffic as well as construction/demolition vehicle crossing
and the transport of heavy/oversize loads over the internal rail crossing.



Condition of Certification TRANS-5 should be implemented to ensure that any road
damaged by project construction and demolition be repaired to its original condition.



Condition of Certification TRANS-6 should be implemented to ensure that all
oversize vehicles used on public roadways during construction and demolition
comply with limitations on vehicle sizes and weights imposed by Caltrans and other
relevant jurisdictions.



Condition of Certification TRANS-7 should be implemented to ensure the
development of a parking and staging plan for all phases of project construction and
demolition to enforce a policy that all project-related parking occur on site or in
designated off-site parking areas.



Condition of Certification TRANS-8 should be implemented to ensure that the project
owner complies with the limitations imposed by Caltrans and other relevant
jurisdictions for any encroachment into public rights-of-way during construction of the
sewer line. This condition also requires that all necessary encroachment permits be
obtained from Caltrans and all relevant jurisdictions regarding impact to public
sidewalks, bus stops, or local bus routes.

Implementation of staff’s recommended Conditions of Certification TRANS-1 through
TRANS-8 would ensure that the project’s direct and cumulative adverse traffic and
transportation impacts are reduced to a less than significant level and would ensure that
the project complies with applicable LORS regarding traffic and transportation.
Therefore, should the California Energy Commission approve the Petition to Amend,
staff recommends that the Energy Commission adopt the following conditions of
certification.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-28

February 2015

 REFERENCES
AirNav 2014 - AirNav. McClellan-Palomar Airport. http://www.airnav.com/airport/kcrq,
accessed October 2014.
CAR2014c - City of Carlsbad/Andrea Koch (TN203190). City of Carlsbad Responses to
California Energy Commission’s questions RE: Truck Traffic, dated October 8,
2014. Submitted 10/14/2014.
CAR2015j - City of Carslbad/B. Therkelsen (TN203543). City of Carlsbad Preliminary
Staff Assessment Comments, dated January 20, 2015. Submitted 01/30/2015.
CEC2014dv - California Energy Commission (TN203474). Report of Conversation on
December 22, 2014 between Andrea Koch/CEC staff and Caltrans re: future
widening of I-5. Submitted 12/22/2014.
CEC2014ft - California Energy Commission (TN203484). Caltrans’ ultimate design for
the I-5 widening in the area of the CECP project site, email dated December 29,
2014. Submitted 12/29/2014.
CEC2014oo - California Energy Commission (TN203196). Report of conversation on
October 16, 2014 between CEC staff/A. Koch and CH2MHILL/R. Mason re:
Carlsbad construction access for workers and trucks. Submitted 10/16/2014.
CEC2014st - California Energy Commission (TN203452). Report of Conversation on
December 16, 2014 between CEC staff\Andrea Koch and San Diego County
Regional Airport Authority re: Project Plumes. Submitted 12/16/2014.
CEC2015b - California Energy Commission (TN203501). Report of Conversation on
December 18, 2014 between CEC staff/A.Koch and McClellan-Palomar Airport
Manager, Olivier Brackett, re: airport operations and the Amended CECP’s
thermal plumes.
CEC2015i - California Energy Commission (TN203527). Committee Order Following
the Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 15, 2015. Submitted
01/15/2015.
CEC2015t - California Energy Commission (TN203651). Report of Conversation on
January 22, 2015 between CEC staff/A. Koch and City of Carlsbad, Associate
Engineer/John Kim re: Trucks exiting Eastbound onto Cannon Road. Submitted
02/12/2015.
CEC2015v - California Energy Commission (TN203656). Report of Conversation on
January 22, 2015 between CEC staff/J. Adams and D. Flores and McClellanPalomar Airport, Staff re: Review of the Accuracy of Airport Information in the
Amended CECP Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA). Submitted 02/12/2015.
CECP2007a - Carlsbad Energy Center Project (TN42299). Application for Certification
for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, 09/11/2007.
February 2015

4.11-29

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 CECP2007d - Carlsbad Energy Center Project (TN42303). Application for Certification
(AFC), Appendix 5.4A Representative Seismic Geological Report Data,
09/11/2007CECP 2014a – Carlsbad Energy Center Project/CH2MHill/R. Mason
(tn: 42301). Petition to Amend CECP. 05/02/2014
FAA 2014 - Federal Aviation Administration responses to Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) Requests 2014-012168WS and 2015-000032WS from Jim Adams of the
CEC. September 24, 2014 and October 27, 2014.
LL2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014pp - Locke Lord LLP (TN203300). Project Owner Responses to Data Request
Set 3 (Nos. 67-84), dated October 31, 2014. Submitted 10/31/2014.
LL2014x - Locke Lord LLP (TN203094). Responses to Data Request Set 2 (Nos. 4057), dated September 23, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014uu - Locke Lord LLP (TN203360). Amended CECP Revised EPS Demolition
Air Emission Calculations, dated November 19, 2014. Submitted 11/19/2014.
LL2014vv - Locke Lord LLP (TN203363). Project Owner’s Responses to Data
Requests Set 4 (Nos. 86-92), dated November 21, 2014. Submitted 11/21/2014.
LL2015c - Locke Lord LLP (TN203549). Project Owner’s Comments on the
Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted 01/21/2015.
SANDAG 2014 - San Diego Association of Governments. Coastal Rail (LOSSAN).
http://www.keepsandiegomoving.com/lossan/lossan-intro.aspx, accessed
October 2014.
SANDAG 2014a - San Diego Association of Governments. Los Angeles-San Diego-San
Luis Obispo Rail Corridor.
http://www.sandag.org/index.asp?projectid=260&fuseaction=projects.detail,
accessed October 2014.
TER2015b - Terramar Association (TN203545). Terramar Comments on the
Preliminary Staff Assessment. Submitted 01/21/2015.

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

4.11-30

February 2015

 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION APPENDIX TT-1:
PLUME VELOCITY ANALYSIS
William Walters

INTRODUCTION AND CONCLUSIONS
The following provides the assessment of the proposed amended Carlsbad Energy
Center Project (CECP) gas turbines and air coolers exhaust stacks plume average
velocities. Staff completed calculations to determine the worst-case vertical plume
velocities at different heights above the stacks using the applicant’s proposed gas
turbine and air cooler designs. The results of these new calculations are compared to
the results of the thermal plume calculations prepared for the approved CECP design.
Due to the change from combined cycle to simple cycle and the proposed layout that
has two simple cycle gas turbine stacks being adjacent, the height where vertical plume
velocity is less than 4.3 meters/second changes from 1,070 feet (combined cycle) to
2,200 feet (simple cycle), both above local ground level.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed amended project would utilize six GE LMS100 simple cycle gas turbines,
each with one air cooler (six air coolers total). The licensed CECP would utilize two
Siemens Rapid Response SGT6-5000F combined cycle gas turbines/HRSGs and two
fin-fanned air coolers.

PLUME VELOCITY CALCULATION METHOD
Staff selected a calculation approach from a technical paper (Best 2003) to estimate the
worst-case plume vertical velocities for both the approved facility design and the
proposed amended design of the CECP facility. The calculation approach, which is also
known as the “Spillane approach”, used by staff is limited to calm wind conditions, which
are the worst-case wind conditions. The Spillane approach uses the following equations
to determine vertical velocity for single stacks during dead calm wind (i.e. wind speed =
0) conditions:
(1) (V*a)3 = (V*a)o3 + 0.12*Fo*[(z-zv)2-(6.25D-zv)2]
(2) (V*a)o = Vexit*D/2*(Ta/Ts)0.5
(3) Fo = g*Vexit*D2*(1-Ta/Ts)/4
(4) Zv = 6.25D*[1-(Ta/Ts)0.5]
Where: V = vertical velocity (m/s), plume-average velocity
a = plume top-hat radius (m, increases at a linear rate of a = 0.16*(z- zv)
Fo= initial stack buoyancy flux m4/s3
z = height above ground (m)
February 2015

TT1-1

APPENDIX TT-1

 zv= virtual source height (m)
Vexit= initial stack velocity (m/s)
D = stack diameter (m)
Ta= ambient temperature (K)
Ts= stack temperature (K)
g = acceleration of gravity (9.8 m/s2)
Equation (1) is solved for V at any given height above ground that is above the
momentum rise stage for single stacks (where z > 6.25D) and at the end of the plume
merged stage for multiple plumes. This solution provides the plume-average velocity for
the area of the plume at a given height above ground. The peak plume velocity at the
plume centerline, based on a standard Gaussian profile (bell curve), would be about two
times higher than the plume-average velocity. As can be seen, the stack buoyancy flux
is a prominent part of Equation (1). The calm condition calculation basis clearly
represents the worst-case conditions, and the vertical velocity will decrease
substantially as wind speed increases.
For multiple stack plumes, where the stacks are equivalent, the multiple stack plume
average velocity during calm winds was calculated by staff in a simplified fashion,
presented in the Best paper as follows:
(5) Vm = Vsp*N0.25 (proposed two air cooler units combined)
(6) Vm = Vsp*N0.33 (proposed simple cycle stacks, combined approved and
proposed air cooler fans)
Where: Vm = multiple stack combined plume vertical velocity (m/s)
Vsp = single plume vertical velocity (m/s), calculated using Equation (1)
N = number of stacks
Staff notes that this simplified multiple stack plume average velocity calculation method
predicts somewhat lower velocity values than the full Spillane approach methodology as
given in data results presented in the Best paper (Best 2003). However, the Best paper
does not present the multiple stack calculations in a manner that has allowed staff to
determine the exact methodology and duplicate the results shown in the paper. Staff,
when using the 0.25 exponent value, has assumed a less than complete conservation
of energy due to the geometry of the stacks. Under ideal conditions for adjacent stacks
the Best paper proposes the use of a high exponent value (N0.33) that represents ideal
energy conservation and plume convergence.
For the proposed amended facility design, each air cooler unit is made up a 12 separate
fan exhausts that would combine above the unit. The single unit vertical velocities are
calculated for each air cooler fan and then the twelve air cooler fan exhausts are
merged using a 0.33 exponent value as described above in Equation 6. The proposed
amended project layout shows that most of the air cooler units are separated with large
gaps, except for two that are about 30 feet apart. Considering the separation between
them and the elongated design of these two air coolers, the worst case plume average
APPENDIX TT-1

TT1-2

February 2015

 velocity results for these closely placed amended air coolers assume the merging of two
plumes using a less conservative 0.25 exponent value as described above in Equation
5. The approved facility would have air coolers that are separated by distances too
great to allow the plumes to merge until plume average velocities are below a level of
concern.
The gas turbines for the amended CECP would be configured in pairs that have two
adjacent exhaust stacks. The exhaust plumes for these two stacks would readily merge
under most ambient conditions, so the results for the gas turbines are corrected
assuming the merging of two stack exhausts with the more conservative 0.33 exponent
value as described above in Equation 6. The licensed CECP’s gas turbine/HRSG
exhausts were not combined, due to the stack separation being too large to allow the
plumes to merge until plume average velocities are below a level of concern.

VERTICAL PLUME VELOCITY ANALYSIS
The vertical plume average velocities were calculated for reasonable worst case
conditions for the gas turbines and air coolers. The ambient and exhaust conditions for
the gas turbines and air coolers, operating at full load, are provided below in Plume
Velocity Table 1.
Plume Velocity Table 1
Gas Turbine and Air Cooler Parameters

Stack Height ft (m)
Stack Diameter ft (m)

Gas Turbines
60.3°F
90 (27.43) a
13.5 (4.11)

Stack Velocity ft/s (m/s)
Exhaust Temperature F (K)

119.05 (36.29)
781.7 (689.65)

Case

Air Coolers
60.3°F
14 (4.27) a
29.1 (8.88)
Equivalent diameter each for six
fans
13.45 (4.1)
90.9 (306)

Source: Locke Lord LLP 2014a; Locke Lord LLP 2014b, and staff calculations
a – Stack height is adjusted 25.5 feet lower than this value due to the proposed site being in a 25.5 foot deep basin.

Using the Spillane approach, the plume average velocity at different heights above
ground was determined. Plume Velocity Table 2 provides staff’s calculated plume
average velocity values for the amended project exhaust stacks, as well as the
approved CECP project’s exhaust stack plume average velocity values for comparison.
As explained in the Traffic & Transportation section, a vertical velocity of 4.3 m/s
(plume average velocity) has been determined as the critical velocity of concern to light
aircraft. For the amended gas turbines the worst-case height at which the plume
average velocity drops below 4.3 m/s is calculated to be 2,200 feet, which is much
higher than the 1,070 feet calculated for the approved gas turbine/HRSG design. At this
2,200 foot height the plume diameter for the amended gas turbines is calculated to be
673 feet which is much greater than the 299 foot diameter of the plume for the approved
gas turbines/HRSG at 1,070 feet. Therefore, the amended gas turbine design would
increase the potential risk to light aircraft from plume turbulence.

February 2015

TT1-3

APPENDIX TT-1

 For the amended air cooler design the worst-case height at which the plume average
velocity drops below 4.3 m/s is calculated to be 1,020 feet. This is somewhat lower than
for the approved air cooler design that had a calculated worst-case height of 1,410 feet
with a 4.3 m/s plume average velocity.

WIND SPEED STATISTICS (FROM FSA [CEC 2009])
The Camp Pendleton monitoring station is located approximately 6.3 miles north
northwest of the project site. The applicant provided three years of meteorological data
from this monitoring site, which indicates that an average hourly wind speed of zero
occurred only 0.8 percent of the hours. However, an average wind speed of less than
one m/s occurred over 16 percent of the hours and an average wind speed of less than
two m/s occurred over 45 percent of the hours. Hours with low average wind speeds are
likely to have shorter periods of calm winds. Therefore, calm conditions/low wind
speeds appear to be fairly common at the site.
Plume Average Velocity Table 2
Gas Turbine and Air Cooler Predicted Plume Average Velocities

Height (ft) 1
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
1,100
1,200
1,300
1,400
1,500
1,600
1,700
1,800
1,900
2,000
2,100
2,200
2,300

Amended CECP
Gas Turbine
Plume Velocity (m/s)
60.3°F
9.91
8.41
7.56
6.99
6.56
6.22
5.94
5.71
5.51
5.34
5.18
5.04
4.92
4.81
4.71
4.61
4.52
4.44
4.37
4.30
4.23

Licensed CECP
Gas Turbine/HRSG
Plume Velocity (m/s)
61°F
8.16
6.71
5.96
5.47
5.11
4.83
4.60
4.42
4.26
4.12
3.99
3.88
3.79
3.70
3.62
3.54
3.47
3.41
[2]
[2]
[2]

Amended CECP
Air Cooler
Plume Velocity (m/s)
60°F
5.98
5.65
5.33
5.07
4.84
4.64
4.48
4.33
4.20
4.08
3.98
3.89
3.80
3.72
3.65
3.58
3.52
3.46
3.40
3.35
3.30

Licensed CECP
Air Cooler
Plume Velocity (m/s)
86°F
6.49
6.29
5.97
5.67
5.41
5.18
4.99
4.82
4.67
4.54
4.42
4.31
4.22
4.13
4.04
3.97
3.90
3.83
[2]
[2]
[2]

Source: CEC 2014 Staff calculations.
Note:
1
Velocity values are above ground level, the heights above sea level that correspond to the heights listed in this table would be
approximately and 34.5 feet higher for the amended case and 30 feet higher for the approved case.
2
These values were computed for the Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for the licensed CECP but were not reported because it was
not necessary to extend the table to these heights in the FSA.

APPENDIX TT-1

TT1-4

February 2015

 CONCLUSIONS
The calculated calm wind condition vertical plume average velocities from the proposed
amended CECP gas turbines are predicted to be greater than 4.3 m/s at heights of up
to 2,200 feet above ground level, and the air coolers are predicted to be greater than
4.3 m/s at heights of up to 1,020 feet above ground level. Both results are well above
500 feet above ground. The simple cycle gas turbines would have an increased
potential to create aviation problems. This results because the potential to create plume
average vertical velocities of 4.3 m/s at heights that are well above those predicted for
the approved combined cycle project. On the other hand, the air coolers would have
less of a potential to create aviation problems because the potential to create plume
average velocities of 4.3 m/s is estimated to occur at a lower height than the approved
project. The worst-case ambient conditions used in the velocity calculations will occur,
potentially frequently, during the plant’s life when small aircraft could fly above the
CECP gas turbine exhausts. Therefore, the air traffic pattern should be evaluated and a
determination should be made to determine if the currently approved mitigation
measures for air traffic safety are adequate.

February 2015

TT1-5

APPENDIX TT-1

 REFERENCES
Best, P. et al. 2003 - Aviation Safety and Buoyant Plumes. Presented at the Clean Air
Conference, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia. By Peter Best, Lena
Jackson, Mark Kanowski of Katestone Environmental, Toowong, Queensland,
Australia and Kevin Spillane of Bendigo, Victoria, Australia.
CEC2009a - California Energy Commission (TN54068). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Final Staff Assessment, dated November 12, 2009. Submitted
11/12/2009.
LL2014a - Locke Lord, Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6C) Project Owner’s
Petition to Amend the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, TN 202287, May 2, 2014.
LL2014c - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-1). Locke Lord Cover letter for Carlsbad Energy
Project, Petition to Amend and Petition to Remove, dated May 2014. Submitted
05/02/2014.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014p - Locke Lord LLP (TN202938). Project Owner’s Response to Data Requests
in Set 1 (#1-30). Submitted 08/15/2014.

APPENDIX TT-1

TT1-6

February 2015

 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Regional Transportation

Project Features

c:::J Amended CECP Project Site
Other Features

Major Road
-+- Railroad

0

0.25

0.5
Miles

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - S ITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SO URCE: CH2MHill, April 2014 - Petition to Amend, Carlsbad Energy Cente r Project, Figure 5.13

TRAFFIC AN D TRANSPORTATION

 TRAFFIC A ND TRANSPORTATION - FIGURE 2
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Local Transportation

D

Amended CECP Proj ect Site

[ ~~i Cannon Substation

c::J Encina Power Station Site
Poseidon Desalinization Site

~ SDG&E Service Center

-

L _., SDG&E Switchyard
Other Features
Major Road
Main Construction
\/\brker Route
-

Main Truck Route

-+-0
I

Railroad

1 inch = 1,000 feet
250 500
1,000
I
Feet

I

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION A ND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CH2MHill, April 2014 - Petition to Amend, Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Figure 5.13

TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION

 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION -.FIGURE 3
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - San Diego Visual Flight Rules (VFR)Terminal Area Chart

l

"'

~

I'~

<'6

'Oa

~.>.

fi

Oa
i::>

"'

~

i(0
~

t

~•
~
~

-i
:0
)>

"'Tl
"'Tl

0
)>

z

(

0
-i
:0
)>

z

(/)

"'U

DELMAR

:0

RACE TRACK

0

~

"-I

0z

(VPSRT)

,,A
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: San DiegoTactical Area Chart- Effective 6/26/201 4 to 12/11/2014
Federal Aivalion Administration

 TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE
Testimony of Obed Odoemelam, Ph.D.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The petitioner, Carlsbad Energy Center, LLC’s amended Carlsbad Energy Center
Project (the amended CECP) resulted from a settlement agreement by the petitioner,
the city of Carlsbad (city), the Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD), and San
Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) on specific design and operational modifications to the
CECP already licensed by the Energy Commission in May 2012 (licensed CECP).
Some of these proposed modifications relate to the 138-kV and 230-kV transmission
lines and related facilities as already approved. In the presently proposed transmission
scheme, Units 6, 7, 8, and 9 would be connected to the SDG&E power grid using a new
overhead 230-kV line, via the newly expanded 230-kV SDG&E Encina Switchyard.
Units 10 and 11 would be connected to the SDG&E 138-kV Encina Switchyard using a
new overhead 138-kV transmission line. Since (as with the licensed CECP), the
proposed lines would be located away from area residences, there would be no
potential for residential electric and magnetic field exposures that have raised concern
about human health effects in recent years. As also with the licensed CECP, the
proposed lines would be operated in the SDG&E service area and their design,
erection, and maintenance plan would be according to standard SDG&E practices,
which conform to applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS). Since
the line designs and operations would be the same for both the licensed and amended
CECP, staff concludes that the five conditions of certification for the licensed CECP are
adequate to ensure against significant safety and nuisance impacts from the amended
CECP.

INTRODUCTION
The proposed amendment to the licensed CECP resulted from a settlement agreement
between the project owner, the city of Carlsbad, SDG&E, and the CMWD on how best
to refine the approved CECP design and operational plan approved in May 2012, to
address community concerns while ensuring the best type of facility for SDG&E’s power
generation needs for the area. Some of the proposed modifications would relate to the
transmission lines for transmitting the CECP-generated power to the SDG&E grid. Staff
analyzed the field and non-field impacts from the design and operational plan for the
licensed CECP and concluded that these impacts would be below significance levels
with implementation of the five conditions of certification in staff’s analysis. The present
staff analysis is to determine whether the design and operational plan for the amended
CECP would lead to field and non-field impacts that would differ significantly from those
identified for the licensed CECP. As with the licensed CECP, this analysis focuses on
the following issues, taking into account both the physical presence of the transmission
lines and the physical interactions of electric and magnetic fields:


aviation safety,



interference with radio-frequency communication,



audible noise,

February 2015

4.12-1

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

 

fire hazards,



hazardous shocks,



nuisance shocks, and



electric and magnetic field (EMF) exposure.

The following federal, state, and local laws and policies apply to the control of the field
and non-field impacts of electric transmission lines. Staff’s analysis examines the
amended CECP project’s compliance with these requirements.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
Transmission Line Safety & Nuisance (TLSN) Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR

Description
Aviation Safety

Federal
Title 14, Part 77 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR),”Objects Affecting
the Navigable Air Space”
FAA Advisory Circular No. 70/7460-1G,
“Proposed Construction and/or
Alteration of Objects that May Affect
the Navigation Space”

Describes the criteria used to determine the need for a Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) “Notice of Proposed Construction
or Alteration” in cases of potential obstruction hazards.
Addresses the need to file the “Notice of Proposed Construction
or Alteration” (Form 7640) with the FAA in cases of potential for
an obstruction hazard.
Describes the FAA standards for marking and lighting objects
that may pose a navigation hazard as established using the
criteria in Title 14, Part 77 of the CFR.

FAA Advisory Circular 70/460-1G,
“Obstruction Marking and Lighting”

Interference with Radio Frequency Communication
Federal
Title 47, CFR, section 15.2524, Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)

Prohibits operation of devices that can interfere with radiofrequency communication.

State
California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC) General Order 52 (GO-52 )

Governs the construction and operation of power and
communications lines to prevent or mitigate interference.

Audible Noise
Local
City of Carlsbad General Plan - Noise
Element

Discourages new noise-sensitive land uses in areas above
specified noise limits.

City of Carlsbad’s Municipal Code
Chapter 8.48.

Establishes limitations on the hours of construction within 1000
feet of residential buildings.

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

4.12-2

February 2015

 Hazardous and Nuisance Shocks
State
CPUC GO-95, “Rules for Overhead
Electric Line Construction”
GO-128, CPUC, “Rules for
Construction of Underground Electric
Supply and Communication Systems”.
Title 8, California Code of Regulations
(CCR) section 2700 et seq. “High
Voltage Safety Orders”

Governs clearance requirements to prevent hazardous shocks,
grounding techniques to minimize nuisance shocks, and
maintenance and inspection requirements.
Establishes requirements and minimum standards to be used
for underground installation of AC power and communication
circuits.
Specifies requirements and minimum standards for safely
installing, operating, working around, and maintaining electrical
installations and equipment.
Specifies grounding procedures to limit nuisance shocks. Also
specifies minimum conductor ground clearances.

National Electrical Safety Code
Industry Standards
Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) 1119, “IEEE Guide
for Fence Safety Clearances in
Electric-Supply Stations”

Specifies the guidelines for grounding-related practices within
the right-of-way and substations.

Electric and Magnetic Fields
State
CPUC GO-131-D, ”Rules for Planning
and Construction of Electric Generation
Line and Substation Facilities in
California”

Specifies application and noticing requirements for new line
construction including EMF reduction.

CPUC Decision 93-11-013

Specifies CPUC requirements for reducing power frequency
electric and magnetic fields.

Industry Standards
American National Standards Institute
(ANSI/IEEE) 644-1944 Standard
Specifies standard procedures for measuring electric and
Procedures for Measurement of Power
magnetic fields from an operating electric line.
Frequency Electric and Magnetic
Fields from AC Power Lines
Fire Hazards
State
Title 14, CCR sections 1250–1258,
“Fire Prevention Standards for Electric
Utilities”

Provides specific exemptions from electric pole and tower
firebreak and conductor clearance standards and specifies
when and where standards apply.

SETTING
As noted in the Project Description section, the site for the amended CECP would be
larger than for the licensed CECP (as described in the related staff analysis), but the
project would be located to still keep it within the portion of the licensed CECP east of
the railroad tracks and west of I-5.
In the proposed transmission scheme, Units 6, 7, 8 and 9 would be connected to the
SDG&E power grid using a new 4,000-foot-long overhead 230-kV line and via the newly
expanded 230-kV SDG&E Encina Switchyard to the south. This line would stretch
overhead from these generating units to an overhead/underground transition point at
February 2015

4.12-3

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

 the northeast corner of the Encina Switchyard from which the final connection would be
made using a 576-foot underground line. Units 10 and 11 would be connected to the
SDG&E grid using a new 2,200-foot-long overhead line via the SDG&E 138-kV Encina
Switchyard. As with the licensed CECP, these lines would be located within CECP and
SDG&E property lines away from residential areas.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project’s lines would consist of the following segments:


The 4,000-foot overhead 230-kV transmission line connecting the proposed Units 6,
7, 8, and 9 to the newly expanded 230-kV SDG&E Encina Switchyard to the south;



The 2,200-foot overhead 138-kV transmission line connecting Units 10 and 11 to the
138-kV SDG&E switchyard to the south;



The 576-foot underground 230-kV transmission line section of the connection
between the amended CECP and the expanded 230-kV SDG&E switchyard; and



Project-related modifications at SDG&E’s 138-kV and 230-kV Encina Switchyards.

As with the licensed CECP, the proposed project transmission lines would be owned,
operated, and maintained by the petitioner in keeping with SDG&E guidelines that
ensure transmission line safety and efficiency together with reliability and
maintainability. The petitioner has provided the design and structural dimensions of the
proposed transmission line structures as related to safety, reliability, and field reduction
efficiency (LL2014d, pp.3-5 through 3-7 and Figures 3.1-5 through 3.1-7). SDG&E built
and maintains the new 230-kV switchyard as part of its system improvement program
(LL2014d, p. 1-1). The conductors in the underground section of the proposed
connection to the new SDG&E 230-kV switchyard would be located in duct-bank
trenches according to standard SDG&E design and construction practices. Because
such underground cables are located more closely together in their encasements than
when overhead, they produce (through field cancellation effects), fields of the lowest
intensity possible without affecting safety, maintainability and reliability.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
METHODS AND THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The potential magnitude of the transmission line impacts of concern in this staff analysis
depends on compliance with the listed design-related LORS and industry practices.
These LORS and practices have been established to maintain impacts below levels of
potential significance. Thus, if the California Energy Commission staff (staff) determines
that the project would comply with applicable LORS; staff would conclude that any
transmission line-related safety and nuisance impacts would be less than significant.
The nature of these individual impacts is discussed below together with the potential for
compliance with the LORS that apply.

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

4.12-4

February 2015

 DIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Aviation Safety
Any potential hazard to area aircraft would relate to the potential for collision in the
navigable airspace. The related requirements in TLSN Table 1 establish the standards
for assessing the potential for obstruction hazards within the navigable space and
establish the criteria for determining when to notify the FAA about such hazards. As
noted for the licensed CECP (LL2014d, p.3-5), these regulations require FAA
notification in cases of structures over 200 feet from the ground. Notification is also
required if the structure is to be below 200 feet in height but would be located within the
restricted airspace in the approaches to public or military airports. For airports with
runways longer than 3,200 feet, the restricted space is defined by the FAA as an area
extending 20,000 feet (3.98 miles) from the runway, with no obstructing structures for
whom the ratio of distance from runway to height is greater than 100:1. For airports with
runways of 3,200 feet or less, the restricted airspace would be an area that extends
10,000 feet from the runway. For heliports, the restricted space is an area extending
5,000 feet.
As noted by the petitioner, the nearest public airport to the intended project site is
McClellan Palomar Airport, which is about 14,300 feet away at its nearest point from the
proposed project lines. According to FAA requirements, the maximum height of any
transmission line support structure at this distance will have to be 143 feet or less to
ensure the required maximum ratio of 100:1 (between the distance from the runway and
height of the potentially obstructing structure) that does not require FAA notification. The
petitioner intends to comply with this height limitation by ensuring a design height of less
than 120 feet for the proposed transmission line structures (LL2014d, pp.1-3 and 1-4).
There is no heliport located within 5,000 feet of the project lines and related facilities.
Thus, staff concludes that the two proposed lines would not pose an aviation hazard to
both area helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.

Interference with Radio-Frequency Communication
Transmission line-related radio-frequency interference is one of the indirect effects of
transmission line operation and is produced by the physical interactions of transmission
line electric fields. Such interference is due to the radio noise produced by the action of
the electric fields on the surface of the energized conductor. The process involved is
known as “corona discharge,” but is referred to as “spark gap electric discharge” when it
occurs within gaps between the conductor and insulators or metal fittings. When
generated, such noise manifests itself as perceivable interference with radio or
television signal reception or interference with other forms of radio communication.
Since the level of interference depends on factors such as transmission line voltage,
distance from the transmission line to the receiving device, orientation of the antenna,
signal level, transmission line configuration, and weather conditions, maximum
interference levels are not specified as design criteria for modern transmission lines.
The level of any such interference usually depends on the magnitude of the electric
fields involved and the distance from the transmission line. The potential for such
impacts and related complaints is therefore minimized by reducing the line electric fields
and locating the transmission line away from inhabited areas. Since (a) electric fields
are unable to penetrate the soil and other materials, and (b) the radio-frequency-related
February 2015

4.12-5

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

 effects are produced by the electric fields, communication interference and other field
effects are not encountered above underground lines and would therefore, not occur in
the underground section of the proposed 230-kV transmission line. Only the magnetic
field would be encountered above this segment.
The proposed transmission lines would be built and maintained according to SDG&E
practices that minimize surface irregularities and discontinuities. Moreover, the potential
for such corona-related interference is usually of concern for overhead transmission
lines of 345 kV and above, and not the 138-kV and 230-kV transmission lines proposed.
The proposed low-corona designs are used for all overhead SDG&E transmission lines
of similar voltage rating to reduce surface-field strengths and the related potential for
corona effects. Moreover, the transmission lines would be located away from area
residences making it unlikely that there would be complaints from radio-frequency
interference. Staff does not recommend any related condition of certification, since it
would be unwarranted.

Audible Noise
The noise-reducing designs for low-intensity electric field intensity are not specifically
mandated by federal or state regulations for overhead transmission lines in terms of
specific noise limits. As with radio noise, audible noise is not encountered above
underground transmission lines and is limited for overhead transmission lines through
design, construction, or maintenance practices established from industry research and
experience as effective without significant impacts on line safety, efficiency,
maintainability, and reliability. When it occurs, audible noise usually results from the
action of the electric field at the surface of the transmission line conductor and could be
perceived as a characteristic crackling, frying, or hissing sound or hum, especially in wet
weather. Since the noise level depends on the strength of the transmission line electric
field, the potential for perception can be assessed from estimates of the field strengths
expected during operation. Such noise is usually generated during rainfall, but mainly
from overhead transmission lines of 345 kV or higher. It is, therefore, not generally
expected at significant levels from overhead transmission lines of less than 345-kV as
those proposed for the amended CECP. Research by the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI 1982) has validated this by showing the fair-weather audible noise from
modern transmission lines to be generally indistinguishable from background noise at
the edge of a right-of-way of 100 feet or more. Since the low-corona designs for
overhead transmission lines are also aimed at minimizing field strengths, and
undergrounding eliminates such noise, staff does not expect the proposed transmission
line operation to add significantly to current background noise levels in the project area.
For an assessment of noise from the amended CECP, please refer to staff’s analysis in
the Noise & Vibration section.

Fire Hazards
The fire hazards addressed through the related LORS in TLSN Table 1 are those
caused by sparks from conductors of overhead transmission lines, or that result from
direct contact between the transmission line and nearby trees and other combustible
objects.

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

4.12-6

February 2015

 Standard fire prevention and suppression measures for similar SDG&E lines would be
implemented for the proposed project transmission lines (LL2014d, pp. 3-6 through 3-8).
The petitioner’s compliance with the clearance-related aspects of CPUC GO-95 for the
overhead transmission lines and CPUC GO-128 in the underground section would be
an important part of this mitigation approach. The same Condition of Certification TLSN3 that was approved for the licensed CECP would be adequate to ensure compliance
with important aspects of the fire prevention measures on the amended CECP.

Hazardous Shocks
Hazardous shocks are those that could result from direct or indirect contact between an
individual and the energized transmission line, whether overhead or underground. Such
shocks are capable of serious physiological harm or death and remain a driving force in
the design and operation of transmission and other high-voltage power lines.
No design-specific federal regulations have been established to prevent hazardous
shocks from overhead power lines. Safety is assured within the industry from
compliance with the requirements specifying the minimum national safe operating
clearances applicable in areas where the line might be accessible to the public.
The petitioner’s implementation of CPUC GO-95-and CPUC GO-128-related measures
against direct contact with the energized transmission lines (LL2014d pp. 3-5 and 3-6)
would serve to minimize the risk of hazardous shocks. Staff’s Condition of Certification
TLSN-1 as recommended for the licensed CECP would be adequate to ensure
implementation of the necessary mitigation measures for the amended CECP.

Nuisance Shocks
Nuisance shocks are caused by current flow at levels generally incapable of causing
significant physiological harm. They result mostly from direct contact with metal objects
electrically charged by fields from the energized transmission line. Such electric charges
are induced in different ways by the transmission line’s electric and magnetic fields.
There are no design-specific federal or state regulations to limit nuisance shocks in the
transmission line environment. For modern high-voltage lines, such shocks are
effectively minimized through grounding procedures specified in the National Electrical
Safety Code (NESC) and the joint guidelines of the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). For the
proposed project lines, the project owner will be responsible in all cases for ensuring
compliance with these grounding-related practices within the rights-of-way.
The potential for nuisance shocks around the proposed transmission lines would be
minimized through standard industry grounding practices (LL2014d, p. 3-5). As with the
licensed CECP, staff’s recommended Condition of Certification TLSN-4 would be
adequate to ensure such grounding for the amended CECP.

Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure
The possibility of deleterious health effects from electric magnetic field exposure has
increased public concern in recent years about living near high-voltage transmission
lines. Both electric and magnetic fields occur together whenever electricity flows and
February 2015

4.12-7

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

 exposure to them together is generally referred to as electric and magnetic field
exposure. The available evidence as evaluated by the CPUC, other regulatory
agencies, and staff has not established that such fields pose a significant health hazard
to exposed humans. There are no health-based federal regulations or industry codes
specifying environmental limits on the strengths of fields from power lines. Most
regulatory agencies believe, as staff does, that health-based limits are inappropriate at
this time. They also believe that the present knowledge of the issue does not justify any
retrofit of existing transmission lines.
Staff considers it important, as does the CPUC, to note that while such a hazard has not
been established from the available evidence, the same evidence does not serve as
proof of a definite lack of a hazard. Staff, therefore, considers it appropriate in light of
present uncertainty, to recommend feasible reduction of such fields without affecting
safety, efficiency, reliability, and maintainability.
While there is considerable uncertainty about electric and magnetic field health effects,
the following facts have been established from the available information and have been
used to establish existing policies:


Any exposure-related health risk to the individual will likely be small.



The most biologically significant types of exposures have not been established.



Most health concerns are about the magnetic field.



There are measures that can be employed for field reduction, but they can affect line
safety, reliability, efficiency, and maintainability, depending on the type and extent of
such measures.

State
In California, the CPUC (which regulates the installation and operation of many highvoltage power lines owned and operated by investor-owned utilities) has determined
that only no-cost or low-cost measures are presently justified in any effort to reduce
power line fields beyond levels existing before the present health concern arose. The
CPUC has further determined that such reduction should be made only in connection
with new or modified lines. It requires each utility within its jurisdiction to establish
electric and magnetic field-reducing measures and incorporate such measures into the
designs for all new or upgraded power lines and related facilities within their respective
service areas. The CPUC further established specific limits on the resources to be used
in each case for field reduction. Such limitations were intended by the CPUC to apply to
the cost of any redesign to reduce field strength or relocation to reduce exposure.
Publicly owned utilities, which are not within the jurisdiction of the CPUC, voluntarily
comply with these CPUC requirements. This CPUC policy resulted from assessments
made to implement CPUC Decision 93-11-013.
In keeping with this CPUC policy, staff requires a showing that each proposed overhead
or underground transmission line would be designed according to the electric and
magnetic field -reducing design guidelines applicable to the utility service area involved.
These field-reducing measures can impact transmission line operation if applied without
appropriate regard for environmental and other local factors bearing on safety,
reliability, efficiency, and maintainability. Therefore, it is up to the petitioner to ensure
T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

4.12-8

February 2015

 that such measures are applied in ways that prevent significant impacts on transmission
line operation and safety. The extent of such applications would be reflected by groundlevel field strengths as measured during operation and required by staff for all permitted
lines. When estimated or measured for lines of similar voltage and current-carrying
capacity, such field strength values can be used by staff and other regulatory agencies
to assess the effectiveness of the applied reduction measures. These field strengths
can be estimated for any given design using established procedures. Estimates are
specified for a height of one meter above the ground, in units of kilovolts per meter
(kV/m), for the electric field, and milligauss (mG) for the companion magnetic field. Their
magnitude depends on transmission line voltage (in the case of electric fields), the
geometry of the support structures, degree of cancellation from nearby conductors,
distance between conductors and, in the case of magnetic fields, amount of current in
the line.
Since most new transmission lines in California are currently required by the CPUC to
be designed according to the electric and magnetic field-reducing guidelines of the
electric utility in the service area involved, their fields are required under this CPUC
policy to be similar to fields from similar transmission lines in that service area.
Designing the proposed project transmission lines according to existing SDG&E field
strength-reducing guidelines would constitute compliance with the CPUC requirements
for transmission line field management.
The CPUC has recently revisited the electric and magnetic field management issue to
assess the need for policy changes to reflect the available information on possible
health impacts. The findings did not identify a need for significant changes to existing
field management policies. Since there are no residences in the immediate vicinity of
the proposed project lines, there would not be the long-term residential electric and
magnetic field exposures mostly responsible for the health concern of recent years. The
only project-related electric and magnetic field exposures of potential significance are
the short-term exposures of plant workers, regulatory inspectors, maintenance
personnel, visitors, or individuals in the vicinity of the lines. These types of exposures
are short term and well understood as not significantly related to the health concern.
Industry’s Approach to Reducing Field Exposures
The present focus is on the magnetic field because unlike electric fields, it can penetrate
the soil, buildings, and other materials to produce the types of human exposures at the
root of the health concern of recent years. The industry seeks to reduce exposure, not
by setting specific exposure limits, but through design guidelines that minimize
exposure in each given case. As one focuses on the strong magnetic fields from the
more visible high-voltage power lines, staff considers it important, for perspective, to
note that an individual in a home could be exposed to much stronger fields while using
some common household appliances than from high-voltage lines (National Institute of
Environmental Health Services and the U.S. Department of Energy, 1998). The
difference between these types of field exposures is that the higher-level, appliancerelated exposures are short-term, while the exposure from power lines is lower level, but
long term. Scientists have not established which of these types of exposures would be
more biologically meaningful in the individual. Staff notes such exposure differences

February 2015

4.12-9

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

 only to show that high-level magnetic field exposures regularly occur in areas other than
around high-voltage power lines.
As with similar SDG&E lines, specific field strength-reducing measures would be
incorporated into the proposed lines to ensure the field strength minimization currently
required by the CPUC in light of the concern over electric and magnetic field exposure
and health.
The field reduction measures to be applied include the following:
1. Increasing the distance between the conductors and the ground to an optimal level;
2. Reducing the spacing between the conductors to an optimal level;
3. Minimizing the current in the line; and
4. Arranging current flow to maximize the cancellation effects from interacting of
conductor fields.
The lack of nearby residences would eliminate the potential for the residential field
exposures at the root of the health concern of recent years. The strengths of the lines’
fields along the proposed route would depend on the effectiveness of the field-reducing
measures incorporated into their designs. These fields should be of the same intensity
as SDG&E transmission lines of the same voltage and current-carrying capacity. The
requirements in Condition of Certification TLSN-2 for field strength measurements are
intended to validate the applicant’s assumed minimization efficiency.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
When field intensities are measured or calculated for a specific location, they reflect the
interactive, and therefore, cumulative effects of fields from all contributing conductors.
This interaction could be additive or subtractive depending on prevailing conditions.
Since the proposed project transmission lines would be designed and erected according
to applicable field-reducing SDG&E guidelines as currently required by the CPUC for
effective field management, any contribution to cumulative area exposures should be at
levels expected for SDG&E lines of similar voltage and current-carrying capacity. It is
this similarity in intensity that constitutes compliance with current CPUC requirements
on EMF management. The actual field strengths and contribution levels for the
proposed 138-kV and 230-kV line designs would be assessed from the results of the
field strength measurements specified in Condition of Certification TLSN-2.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
As previously noted, current CPUC policy on safe electric and magnetic field
management requires that any high-voltage line within a given area be designed to
incorporate the field strength-reducing guidelines of the main area utility lines to be
interconnected. The utility in this case is SDG&E. Since the proposed project
transmission lines would be designed according to the respective requirements of the
LORS listed in TLSN Table 1, and operated and maintained according to current
SDG&E guidelines on transmission line safety and field strength management, staff
T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

4.12-10

February 2015

 considers the proposed design and operational plan to be in compliance with the health
and safety requirements of concern in this analysis. As with the licensed CECP, the
actual contribution to the area’s field exposure levels would be assessed from results of
the field strength measurements required in Condition of Certification TLSN-2.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
Staff did not receive any comments on the PSA regarding the specific issue of
Transmission Line Safety and Nuisance.

CONCLUSIONS
Since staff does not expect the transmission lines from the amended CECP to pose an
aviation hazard according to current FAA criteria, staff does not consider it necessary to
recommend location or other changes on the basis of a potential hazard to area
aviation.
The potential for nuisance shocks would be minimized through grounding and other
field-reducing measures to be implemented in keeping with current SDG&E guidelines
(reflecting standard industry practices). These field-reducing measures would maintain
the generated fields within levels not associated with radio-frequency interference or
audible noise.
The potential for hazardous shocks would be minimized through compliance with the
height and clearance requirements of CPUC’s General Orders 95 and 128. Compliance
with Title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 1250, would minimize fire hazards,
while the use of low-corona transmission line designs, together with appropriate coronaminimizing construction practices, would minimize the potential for corona noise and its
related interference with radio-frequency communication along the route.
Since electric or magnetic field health effects have neither been established nor ruled
out for the amended CECP and similar transmission lines, the public health significance
of any related field exposures cannot be characterized with certainty. The only
conclusion to be reached with certainty is that the proposed transmission line design
and operational plan would be adequate to ensure that the generated electric and
magnetic fields are managed to an extent the CPUC considers appropriate in light of the
available health effects information. The long-term, mostly residential, magnetic
exposure of health concern in recent years would be insignificant for the proposed
transmission lines given the absence of residences along the proposed route. On-site
worker or public exposure would be short term and at levels expected for SDG&E
transmission lines of similar design and current-carrying capacity. Such exposure is well
understood and has not been established as posing a significant human health hazard.
Since, as with the licensed CECP, the proposed project transmission lines would be
operated to minimize the health, safety, and nuisance impacts of concern to staff and
would be located within the existing plant’s and SDG&E’s property boundaries without
nearby residences, staff considers the proposed design, maintenance, and construction

February 2015

4.12-11

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

 plan as complying with the applicable laws. With the conditions of certification proposed
below, any such impacts would be less than significant.

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

4.12-12

February 2015

 REFERENCES
LL2008a - Locke Lord LLP/Stoel Rives /J McKinsey (TN47257). Project Enhancement
and Refinement Document; Effects on Bio resources of Aqua Hedionda Lagoon;
Revised AQ Modeling Files; Cal ISO Report. Submitted 07/25/2008.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend. Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. April 2014. Submitted to the California Energy Commission, 05/02l,
2014.
(EPRI). - Electric Power Research Institute. 1982. Transmission Line Reference Book:
345 kV and Above.
National Institute of Environmental Health Services 1998. - An Assessment of the
Health Effects from Exposure to Power-Line Frequency Electric and Magnetic
Fields. A Working Group Report, August 1998.

February 2015

4.12-13

T-LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE

 VISUAL RESOURCES
Testimony of William Kanemoto

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
In 2012 the Energy Commission approved the Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(licensed CECP). Petitions to amend that project have been filed that will change the
visual profile and impacts of the project. Staff concludes that these visual changes, as
mitigated by all recommended conditions of certification, would not result in a significant
adverse visual impact, and that overall impacts by comparison to licensed CECP will be
beneficial. In addition, the amended CECP project would comply with applicable laws,
ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) pertaining to aesthetics or preservation
and protection of sensitive visual resources.
As with licensed CECP, a future potentially significant cumulative visual impact may be
created as a result of the combination of the amended CECP and the I-5 North Coast
Corridor HOV/Managed Lanes (I-5 Widening) Project proposed by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The I-5 widening project would border the
amended CECP site, and would likely impinge on the eastern edge of the power plant
site, creating a potential visual impact by removing existing visual screening of the site.
The timing and final configuration of the I-5 widening is uncertain. This issue is
essentially the same one considered during the licensed CECP proceeding. Staff
anticipates that any cumulative impact from the combination of I-5 widening and the
amended CECP will be mitigated by implementation of Condition of Certification VIS-5.
However, staff’s current understanding suggests that adequate implementation of VIS-5
could require changes or alterations to layouts to either the amended CECP or the I-5
Widening project, or both. The adequate implementation of Condition VIS-5 is thus at
least partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which will presumably
coordinate with the project owner to accommodate the mitigation required under this
condition of certification. Because the final mitigation plan cannot be specifically defined
or implemented until negotiations between Caltrans and the project owner for right-ofway acquisition are conducted, staff recommends a finding of (potential) significant
cumulative environmental effect, the mitigation of which is within the responsibility of
another public agency which can and should provide such mitigation.
(CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(2).)
As implied by the paragraphs above, the proposed amendment to the licensed CECP
result in changes and new information that was unavailable when the project was
originally licensed. These include: a lowering of the visual profile, particularly with
regard to the exhaust stacks and removal of the heat recovery steam generators;
moving the transmission connection towers (four poles) from the west side of the site to
five poles along the east side; the demolition of the Encina Power Station (EPS); the
release of a more precise footprint for the I-5 freeway widening project; and, a new,
slightly larger proposed power plant project footprint (from 23 acres to 30 acres for the
amended CECP). These changes and new information require the additional analysis in
this section.

February 2015

4.13-1

VISUAL RESOURCES

 INTRODUCTION
Visual resources are the visible natural and man-made features of the environment.
In this section, staff evaluates the proposed project’s construction and operation using
the “Aesthetic” criteria of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines to
determine if the project would introduce a significant impact under CEQA, and if the
project would comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards
(LORS) pertaining to aesthetics or preservation and protection of sensitive visual
resources.
In order to provide a consistent framework for the analysis, a standard visual
assessment methodology developed by staff and applied to numerous siting cases in
the past was employed in this study. A description of this methodology is provided in
Appendix VR-1.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
Visual Resources Table 1 provides a general description of identified adopted state
and local LORS pertaining to aesthetics or preservation and protection of sensitive
visual resources relevant to the proposed project.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-2

February 2015

 Visual Resources Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR

Description

Federal
None

The project does not involve federal lands or any
federal laws related to visual resources.

State
California Coastal Act of 1976, Section 30251 –
Scenic and Visual Qualities

California Streets and Highways Code,
Sections 260 through 263 – Scenic
Highways
Local
city of Carlsbad General Plan, 1994 as amended

Ensures the protection of highway corridors that
reflect the state's natural scenic beauty.

Encourages visual integration of projects of
differing types or densities through the use of
building setbacks, landscaped buffers, or other
design features. Ensures that design reflects
concerns about the preservation of viewsheds.
Provides specific site development criteria,
including size, height and location of buildings and
the amount of landscaping and screening,
greenbelts and pathways. Requires screening of all
storage, assembly, and equipment areas
completely from view.

Land Use Element
- Implementation Policy C.7

Circulation/Scenic Highways Element
- Implementation Policy C.2

city of Carlsbad Specific Plan 144, amended 2014

February 2015

The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas
shall be considered and protected as a resource of
public importance. Permitted development shall be
sited and designed to protect views to and along
the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize
the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually
compatible with the character of surrounding areas,
and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual
quality in visually degraded areas. New
development in highly scenic areas such as those
designated in the California Coastline Preservation
and Recreation Plan prepared by the California
Department of Parks and Recreation and by local
government shall be subordinate to the character of
its setting.

4.13-3

Provides the Carlsbad Scenic Corridor Guidelines
and identifies designated scenic corridors and
streets. Carlsbad Boulevard is identified as a
Community Theme corridor, and Interstate 5 as a
Community Scenic corridor. The Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad is also
identified as one of four categories of scenic
corridor.
Provides development standards including
landscaping and exterior lighting for the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and the EPS property.
The city of Carlsbad repealed SP144(O).

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program - Land Use
Plan, adopted 1982.

Encina Power Station Precise Development Plan
(PDP-00-002f))

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-4

Identifies land uses and standards by which
development will be evaluated within the Coastal
Zone. Identifies uses and provides standards
adopted by the city of Carlsbad and the California
Coastal Act of 1976. Although the Implementation
Plan was adopted by the city in 1982, authority to
issue coastal permits under the plan remains with
the Coastal Commission.
Provided specific development standards for the
EPS property including architecture, building
materials, setback requirements, landscaping
treatment and grading
The PDP was recently amended by the city of
Carlsbad (June, 2014) to bring the proposed
amended CECP into conformance with the current
general plan and zoning ordinance.
Relevant visual requirements of the amended PDP
include: New parking, loading and refuse collection
areas must be visually screened from public view;
refuse collection and loading areas visible from
public areas should, at a minimum, be visually
screened to a height of ten feet.
A landscape plan may be required prior to
permitting. Landscaping shall be provided per
section 21.36.090 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code.
Landscaping adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard and
the North County Transit District (NCTD) railroad
right of way shall enhance the visual character of
the area.
Perimeter landscaping, trees or shrubs that are
diseased, dying, or removed shall be replaced with
similar plants of equal or better screening ability to
the satisfaction of the city planner.
Architecture and Building materials
The following architectural guidelines apply to the
EPS’s perimeter, and other publicly visible
components of the PDP area.
 Future buildings and structures, and additions
and alterations to them or to existing buildings
and structures, should be sited and designed in
a compatible manner with the surrounding land
uses, which include the overall lagoon and
ocean environment, views from scenic corridors,
public recreation and open space areas, and
established residential neighborhoods.
 Building materials and finishes should also
reflect compatibility with surroundings.
 Any mechanical and/or electrical equipment
located on the roof of any structure shall be
screened in a manner acceptable to the city
planner.

February 2015

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
LICENSED CECP PROJECT
For the purposes of this supplemental analysis of the amended CECP project under
CEQA, the environmental baseline is considered to be the previously approved and
licensed CECP project (CEC2012a). That is, impacts described in this analysis focus on
the differences in impact of the proposed amended project, compared to the previously
licensed project. The licensed project (licensed CECP) was approved based in part on
the evidence that the mitigation measures embodied in the visual conditions of
certification would adequately reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-thansignificant level.
It is therefore necessary to summarize the previously approved project (licensed CECP)
and its visual conditions of certification to provide an understanding of the
environmental baseline for the present amended project (amended CECP).
Visual Resources Figure 1 depicts architectural elevations of the licensed CECP, with
139-foot tall exhaust stacks and 88-foot tall heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs)
(CEC2009a).
The licensed CECP project included two combined-cycle power generation units,
including 88-foot tall HRSG structures and two 139-foot tall exhaust stacks, among
other visually prominent features. The two licensed units would have occupied portions
of the same site proposed for the amended CECP, the current site of three of four
existing unused above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs 5, 6, and 7), sited
approximately 24 feet below surrounding grade, in the northeast portion of the EPS site,
adjacent to existing U.S. Interstate 5 (I-5). Staff’s analysis of the licensed CECP
concluded that because of the existing landscaped earth berm surrounding the project
site, the project would, with rehabilitated and enhanced tree plantings on the earth berm
as called for in Condition of Certification VIS-2, provide sufficient screening to keep
potential visual impacts of the project to less-than-significant levels as seen by all
sensitive viewing groups. The existing earth berm, with its tall tree canopy, provides
substantial visual screening of the site, and would continue to provide sufficient
screening to strongly filter views of the proposed new units, as seen from nearby
sensitive visual receptors.
Staff identified a potentially significant cumulative visual impact of the licensed CECP
project, when considered together with the adjacent I-5 Widening Project. The
Commission agreed with this conclusion in its Final Decision. This impact is discussed
in relation to both the licensed and amended CECP in the “Cumulative Impacts”
subsection of this analysis.

February 2015

4.13-5

VISUAL RESOURCES

 PROPOSED AMENDED PROJECT
The licensed CECP combined-cycle project was approved for construction and
operation on a 23-acre parcel on the northeast corner of the 95-acre EPS. The current
amended 632-megawatt amended CECP would be located on a 30-acre parcel,
occupying the current site of four above-ground fuel oil storage tanks ASTs 4, 5, 6 and
7 rather than three of them, as under the licensed project (ASTs 5, 6 and 7). The
amended project would consist of four actions/phases:
Phase I – Removal of three above ground fuel oil storage tanks; one occupying the
amended CECP site ( AST 4); and, two (ASTs 1 and 2), located west of the railroad
tracks on the northern edge of the EPS site occupying an area required for Phase II
construction laydown and parking. ASTs 1 and 2 were once located adjacent to AST 3,
which was previously removed to make way for the Poseidon Carlsbad Seawater
Desalination Project (CSDP), nearing the completion of construction. AST 4, along with
ASTs 5, 6 and 7 (which were permitted for demolition as part of the licensed CECP),
would form the 30-acre footprint of the amended CECP power plant.
Phase II – Construction of the amended CECP power plant. Construction of six simplecycle generation units and associated support structures and facilities, on the 30-acre
site of ASTs 4, 5, 6, and 7.
Phase III – Decommissioning of the existing EPS (Units 1 through 5) located within the
existing EPS generation enclosure building.
Phase IV – Demolition of existing EPS facilities (including 200-ft EPS generation
enclosure building and 400-ft exhaust stack) west of the NCTD rail road tracks. The final
portion of Phase IV would include two months of grading and contouring the area that
would be the future Encina Redevelopment Project site.
Visual Resources Figure 2 depicts a simulated aerial perspective of the amended
CECP that provides some basis of comparison with the licensed CECP depicted in
Visual Resources Figure 1. (Data Response Set 3, Figure DR74-1)(LL2014pp).
Visual Resources Table 2 compares the number and height of major visual features of
the licensed and amended CECP projects.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-6

February 2015

 Visual Resources Table 2
Summary of Major Publicly Visible Structures
Number
of Units

Licensed
CECP
Height

Number of
Units

Amended CECP Height

Exhaust Stacks

2

139 feet

6

90 feet

HRSGs

2

88 feet

Transmission Poles

9

74-100 feet

9

98-106 feet

Air Cooling Units

2

22 feet

6

14 feet

Gas turbine inlets
230 kV Switchyard

2

76 feet

6

47.75 feet

1

56 feet

1

56 feet

VBV Exhaust Stack

-

NA

-

48 feet

SCR/CORR Ducts

-

NA

-

38.7 feet

1

34 feet

Proposed New Project
Component

Ocean Water Storage
Tank (sited at grade)
Warehouse/Maintenanc
e
(sited at grade)

-

None

1

30 feet

As shown in Visual Resources Table 2, the height of major features of the generation
units would be less under the amended project than under the licensed project, but the
number would be greater (six generation units rather than two).
Based upon plans provided in the PTA, the elevation of the proposed CECP site
(existing storage tank site) is roughly 31 feet, approximately 24 feet below the
surrounding grade of approximately 55 feet, and up to 39 feet below the top of the
existing earth berm (approximately 15 feet tall) adjoining I-5.
A major visual difference of the amended project versus the licensed project is the
inclusion of decommissioning and demolition of the existing EPS facility (Units 1 through
5) under the amended CECP. The 200-foot-tall existing EPS enclosure building that
houses Units 1 through 5 and includes its 400-foot-tall exhaust stack, which is the tallest
structure in the city of Carlsbad, and a singular city landmark, visible throughout the
surrounding area. The removal of the EPS, in itself, would constitute a major beneficial
change in the visual setting of the surrounding area, eliminating this dominant industrial
feature from the coastal landscape.
Transmission Lines – Under the licensed CECP, nine new single-pole transmission
towers, ranging in height from 74 to 100 feet would be added on the western edge of
the CECP site near the edge of the NCTD railroad right-of-way, and on the EPS site
leading to the SDG&E 138-kV switchyard and a new SDG&E 230-kV switchyard. Under
the amended project, nine new single-pole towers of up to106 feet in height would be
added, with five of the poles near I-5, along the amended CECP’s eastern boundary.
Four more poles would take the east-west leg of the transmission line (crossing over the
NCTD rail line) to the SDG&E 138-kv and 230-kv switchyards, with an overall
transmission length of approximately 2,171 feet.
February 2015

4.13-7

VISUAL RESOURCES

 New 230 kV Switchyard – Under the licensed CECP, a new SDG&E 230 kV switchyard
with A-frames of up to 56 feet in height was to be constructed directly south of the
licensed CECP on the existing SDG&E Cannon substation property, in a visually
exposed position adjacent to the southbound Cannon Road off-ramp of I-5.
Under the amended CECP, the existing SDG&E 230 kV switchyard east of the EPS
generating building and exhaust stack would be expanded directly south of the existing
SDG&E 138 kV switchyard, also located east of the existing EPS generating building in
a more visually isolated and buffered location at the center of the EPS site.
Construction Staging Area – Under the licensed CECP, slightly less than ten acres of
the EPS property, including the area surrounding ASTs 1 and 2, was proposed for
construction laydown and parking. Under the amended CECP, 19.3 acres at various
locations throughout the existing EPS site are proposed for laydown and parking,
including the northeast corner of the EPS site adjoining I-5; the site of existing ASTs 1
and 2; the area south of the Poseidon Desalination plant, the area adjoining the existing
EPS seawater intake on the shore of outer Agua Hedionda Lagoon; and other EPS sites
west of the railroad tracks (PTA Figure 2.0-2).

SETTING
The amended CECP would be built within the incorporated city of Carlsbad, California.
The project site is situated within the EPS property on the southern edge of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, a highly scenic 400-acre lagoon comprising outer, middle and inner
portions that, with the adjoining Pacific Ocean, dominates the project viewshed and
views in its vicinity.
The regional landscape setting is defined by the Pacific Ocean, situated less than 1/3mile to the west. The beach (Carlsbad State Beach) and a narrow coastal plain give
way to rolling low-elevation hills to the east, dominated by residential development with
a high proportion of tree canopy that provides an attractive and unifying visual element.
Substantial areas of agricultural open space are also visible on these hills throughout
the project viewshed. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon is one of three major tidal lagoons
within the city of Carlsbad, which represent a highly distinctive and dominant feature of
the city’s landscape. Farther to the east, peaks and ridges of the San Marcos and
Merriam Mountains rise to over 1,500 feet. In the far distance to the east, peaks of the
Peninsular Range within the Cleveland National Forest define the horizon, reaching
heights of 5,000 feet or more.
Land uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site are dominated by intensivelyused, scenically-sensitive recreational destinations, including the adjacent lagoon and
associated facilities, and Carlsbad State Beach. Highway I-5, an eligible State Scenic
Highway and designated city scenic corridor, and Carlsbad Boulevard, a locally
designated scenic corridor, bound the EPS site to the east and west respectively; and a
rail line (managed by the North Coast Transit District) carrying Amtrak and Coaster
regional commuter trains, bounds the CECP site to the west. In addition, other
designated local scenic roadways and adjoining residences have prominent views to the
site over the lagoon.
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-8

February 2015

 In general, the scenic quality of the project viewshed is high, distinguished by views of
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, the Pacific Ocean, substantial areas of agricultural open
space, and predominantly residential development with a relatively high degree of visual
intactness and unity.

PROJECT SITE
Visual Resources Figure 2 provides an aerial view of the proposed CECP site (all
figures referred to in the text may be found at the end of this section).
The amended CECP site comprises the northeastern portion of the present EPS
property, located immediately south of the Agua Hedionda middle and outer lagoons,
east of the railroad line that bisects the EPS property, and west of I-5.
The amended CECP would occupy the current site of four existing (unused) aboveground fuel oil storage tanks (ASTs) which sit roughly 24 feet below surrounding grade.
In addition, the proposed site is currently bordered to the north and east by an earthen
berm roughly ten to 15 feet above surrounding grade, which is planted with Eucalyptus
and other screening vegetation reaching 45 feet or more in height on the north and east.
This tall tree canopy is a prominent feature of the existing site, particularly in views from
the east. Visibility of the existing ASTs on the proposed CECP site to public off-site
viewers is thus virtually nonexistent. The tanks extend minimally above surrounding
grade due to their below-grade siting, and are effectively screened by the surrounding
earthen berm and landscaping.
The remainder of the existing EPS property consists of the EPS generation facility,
whose 200-foot tall main building enclosure, and 400-foot-tall exhaust stack are the
tallest structures in the city and a prominent regional landmark. Although the generation
structure and stack are large and generally industrial in character, they present a
relatively simple, uncluttered architectural form comparable to a large building, albeit
marked by the 400-foot tall exhaust stack, which extends its visibility and accentuates
its visual dominance over a wide area. A large SDG&E switchyard (comprising both
138-kV and 230-kV transmission facilities), located immediately east of the main EPS
enclosure building, is partly screened from off-site views by the EPS generation
structure itself to the west; by an earthen berm and tree screening foliage at the edge of
I-5 to the east; and by fencing, intervening structures, and a masonry wall and
landscaping on Cannon Road to the south. The switchyard is briefly visible to
southbound motorists and other viewers on Carlsbad Boulevard to the north, presenting
a highly industrial but visually subordinate element to those views. Other major visual
features on the EPS property include two remaining unused fuel oil storage tanks (EPS
west tank farm, ASTs1 and 2) located northeast of the EPS generation building; and,
directly south of these, the Poseidon Desalination facility, currently under construction
on what was previously the third of the unused fuel oil storage tanks (AST 3). The west
tank farm is sited at grade and overlooks the outer lagoon shoreline. Its tanks are
prominently visible to motorists and pedestrians using Carlsbad Boulevard.
Four series of highly prominent 138 kV and 230 kV single-pole transmission towers and
accompanying lines are visible east of the EPS generation building and cross I-5 from
west to east, contributing an additional element of industrial character to the site that is
especially dominant from the interstate.
February 2015

4.13-9

VISUAL RESOURCES

 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
To determine whether there is a potentially significant visual resources impact
generated by a project, Energy Commission staff reviews the project using the CEQA
Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et. seq), Appendix G Environmental
Checklist. The checklist questions pertaining to “Aesthetics” are as follows:
A. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
B. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
C. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
D. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Staff evaluates both the existing visible physical environmental setting, and the
anticipated visual change introduced by the proposed project to the view, from
representative, fixed vantage points (called “Key Observation Points” [KOPs]). KOPs
are selected to be representative of the most characteristic and most critical viewing
groups and locations from which the project would be seen. The likelihood of a visual
impact exceeding Criterion C of the CEQA Guidelines, above, is determined in this
study by two fundamental factors: the susceptibility of the setting to impact as a result of
its existing characteristics (reflected in its current level of visual quality, the potential
visibility of the project, and the sensitivity to scenic values of its viewers); and the
degree of visual change anticipated as a result of the project. These two factors are
summarized respectively as visual sensitivity (of the setting), and visual change (due to
the project) in the discussions below. Generally, KOPs with high sensitivity (due to
outstanding scenic quality, high levels of viewer concern, etc.), that experience high
levels of visual change from a project, are likely to experience significant adverse
impacts.
Staff also reviews federal, state, and local LORS and their policies or guidelines for
aesthetics or preservation and protection of sensitive visual resources that may be
applicable to the project site and surrounding area. These LORS include local
government land use planning documents (e.g., general plan, zoning ordinance).
Please refer to Appendix VR-1 for a complete description of staff’s visual resources
evaluation method and criteria.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-10

February 2015

 Visual Resources Figure 3 shows the locations of 11 KOPs used in this analysis:
•

KOP 1 – view from Carlsbad Boulevard looking southeast;

•

KOP 2 – view from Pannonia Trail at Capri Park;

•

KOP 3 – view from end of Cove Drive;

•

KOP 4 – view from end of Hoover Street;

•

KOP 5 – view from end of Harbor Drive;

•

KOP 6 – view from southbound I-5 at Agua Hedionda Lagoon;

•

KOP 7 – view from northbound I-5 north of Cannon Road;

The following KOPs support discussions of cumulative impacts. Simulations from these
KOPs were included in the Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for the licensed CECP, but
were not considered necessary to complete the current analysis of the amended CECP:
•

KOP 8 – view from Carlsbad Blvd. looking east from the EPS outfall;

•

KOP 9 – view from the BNSF rail corridor looking east;

•

KOP 10 – view from EPS site toward CECP

•

KOP 11 – view from railroad corridor, looking south to CECP site.

The KOPs may be grouped into the following broad categories of sensitive viewers with
visual exposure to the proposed project:


Carlsbad Beach/Carlsbad Boulevard - Viewers to the west of the site, in the corridor
defined by adjoining portions of Carlsbad State Beach and adjacent Carlsbad
Boulevard. These viewers include high numbers of visitors to the state beach, and
motorists on Carlsbad Boulevard, a locally designated scenic roadway (KOPs 1 and
8);



Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Residences - Viewers to the east, including recreational
viewers in and around Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and large numbers of residents in
the viewshed north and east of the lagoon. These KOPs are designated scenic vista
points in the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program, Land Use Implementation Plan
(KOPs 2, 3, 4, 5).



Interstate 5 - Large numbers of viewers on I-5, though less visually sensitive than
the two groups just described above, would have views directly to the adjacent
project site (KOPs 6 and 7).



Railroad Passengers - Viewers from the Amtrak and Coaster passenger trains would
be exposed to views of the project from within the railroad right-of-way. The BNSF
rail line has been identified as a “Scenic Corridor” by the city of Carlsbad (KOPs 9
and 11).



Future Encina Site - Foreseeable future viewers within the proposed Encina
Redevelopment Project area, comprising the current site of the existing EPS, would
also have views of the amended project (KOP 10).

February 2015

4.13-11

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Staff’s analysis of the project’s effect on each KOP is presented under “Operation
Impacts and Mitigation,” below.

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The impact discussion is presented under the following four criteria from CEQA
Guidelines Appendix G: scenic vistas, scenic resources, visual character or quality, and
light or glare.

A. Scenic Vistas
“Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?”
A scenic vista for the purpose of this analysis is defined as a distant view through and
along a corridor or opening that is valued for its high degree of scenic quality.
The city of Carlsbad’s Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program, Land Use
Implementation Plan, designates several locations within the proposed project’s
foreground viewshed along the northern Agua Hedionda Lagoon shore as scenic vistas.
These designated scenic vistas are included in this study as KOPs 2, 3, 4, and 5.
I-5, Carlsbad Boulevard, and the BNSF rail line -- all located in the immediate site visual
foreground -- are city- designated scenic routes or corridors. These are analyzed in this
study as KOPs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
The anticipated impact to each of these vistas is discussed by individual KOP under
“Visual Character or Quality,” below.

B. Scenic Resources
“Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway corridor?”
A scenic resource for the purpose of this analysis includes a unique water feature
(waterfall, transitional water, part of a stream or river, estuary); a unique physical
geological terrain feature (rock masses, outcroppings, layers or spires); a tree having a
unique visual/historical importance to a community (a tree linked to a famous event or
person, an ancient old growth tree); historic building; or other scenically important
physical features, particularly if located within a designated federal scenic byway or
state scenic highway corridor.
The Agua Hedionda Lagoon is an intensively used recreational destination and a highly
scenic landscape feature that defines the project viewshed. While the proposed project
site is located on the edge of the lagoon, the project would not damage the lagoon or its
scenic value. Other notable scenic features within the project viewshed include the
Carlsbad State Beach to the west. The beach would not be damaged by the proposed
project. No other notable scenic resources were identified within the project viewshed.
Interstate 5 is an eligible State Scenic Highway, although it has not been nominated or
designated. I-5 is also a designated San Diego County ‘third priority’ scenic route, and a
designated “Community Scenic Corridor” by the city of Carlsbad.
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-12

February 2015

 Carlsbad Boulevard is a designated “Community Theme Corridor” by the city of
Carlsbad. The BNSF rail line has also been identified as a “Scenic Corridor” by the city
of Carlsbad.
While viewers within these two corridors would be affected, as described below, the
resources themselves would not be damaged.

C. Visual Character Quality
“Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?” The project aspects evaluated under this criterion are broken
down into two categories: Construction Impacts and Operation Impacts.

CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Approximately 19.3 acres of the EPS property would be used as laydown and parking
areas for construction of the power plant and switchyard. Most of the proposed staging
and parking areas are at least partially screened from public view, either by location and
intervening site features, or by existing tree plantings and landscaping.
However, as depicted in Figure 2.0-2 of the PTA, a large laydown site in the northeast
corner of the EPS site directly north of CECP Units 6 and 7 and adjoining (to the east
of) the city of Carlsbad Sewer Lift Station site (under construction), could encroach into
the area currently occupied by the raised landscaped berm surrounding the CECP site.
The city Lift Station project has already resulted in the removal of trees comprising a
portion of that landscaped berm, causing loss of previously existing tree canopy and
associated screening. If the proposed staging area were to encroach further into the
landscaped berm, further loss of tree canopy and site screening could occur. This is of
particular concern because the same area of the site is also the proposed location of a
new warehouse/maintenance building (75’ x 116’ x 30’ height), and a planned
wastewater treatment facility, where no structures were previously proposed under the
licensed CECP. The amended proposed laydown area in this northeast location is
larger than the area proposed under the licensed project. If this expansion of the
laydown area were to result in loss of existing tree canopy or earth berm in this area, a
principal visual buffer for the amended CECP site as seen from Agua Hedionda Lagoon
could be removed or impaired. The loss of prominent tree canopy and the resulting
increased exposure of proposed project facilities could represent a substantial adverse
long-term impact. The portion of the site potentially affected by this laydown area may
be seen in KOPs 5 and 6, Visual Resources Figures 9a – 9d and 10a – 10d.
Above-ground storage tanks (ASTs) 1 and 2, located immediately north of the Poseidon
Desalination plant, would also be removed to serve as a laydown and parking area. This
site is currently partially screened by existing landscaping that serves to blend with the
natural lagoon setting and to filter views of the storage tanks as seen from Carlsbad
Boulevard. If these plantings remain undisturbed, they would also serve to filter and
partially screen views of staging activities and equipment as seen from Carlsbad
Boulevard and Carlsbad State Beach. Consequently, the use of this site for staging is
not expected to result in visual impacts. The removal of the tanks themselves would
represent a substantial beneficial visual impact.

February 2015

4.13-13

VISUAL RESOURCES

 A third proposed laydown area, immediately south of the existing EPS generation
building and the SDG&E switchyards, would potentially be visible in the foreground from
Carlsbad Boulevard. This area, currently largely vacant, is screened from view by low,
opaque chain-link fencing that encircles the entire frontage of the EPS site on Carlsbad
Boulevard. This perimeter fencing, located at the property line a few feet from the
roadway, serves to impose a moderate degree of visual unity on what would otherwise
be a cluttered view of parking and miscellaneous industrial equipment along the entire
EPS frontage. Assuming that the fence were to remain in place, as is, the use of this
site for staging would not be expected to have substantial visual impacts. Ultimately,
after Phase IV, this laydown site would be a part of the Encina Redevelopment Area.
Other proposed laydown sites would be largely screened to public view by location and
intervening site features, or by existing tree plantings and landscaping. Some of these
would be visible to train passengers from the railroad right-of-way. However,
considering the moderate existing visual quality of this railroad track segment, the very
fleeting nature of views within it, and the temporary nature of impacts, these effects are
considered to be less than significant.
Anticipated impacts from construction lighting are discussed under Light and Glare.
Staff-Recommended Mitigation: To address the potential adverse impacts of
construction and construction staging, staff recommends modified Condition of
Certification VIS-3 which would include the following:


Petitioner shall provide a detailed plan of the northeast laydown area for review and
approval



The footprint of the proposed laydown site in the northeast portion of the project site
shall be modified as needed to avoid berm or tree removal



Supplemental perimeter tree planting shall be installed during and/or prior to the
construction Phase II period to improve screening wherever needed due to
preparation and use of laydown sites



Maintain opaque fencing along Carlsbad Boulevard

Summary of Construction Impacts by Project Phase
Phase I
If the staging area just described in the northeast corner of the EPS site were to cause
loss of the existing earth berm or associated trees, a substantial component of site
screening as seen from Agua Hedionda Lagoon and adjoining areas to the north of the
site could be lost. This could, without appropriate mitigation, result in substantial longterm visual impacts. The contrast with existing views of the northeast portion of the site
as seen from the lagoon and adjacent residential areas would be moderately high due
to the loss of the substantial tree canopy that currently dominates these views. The
precise level of impact would depend on the extent of tree loss resulting from laydown
area preparation. It is unclear whether this specific staging site would be a part of Phase
I or of subsequent project phases, but is discussed here as part of Phase I.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-14

February 2015

 To address potential impacts caused by removal of existing screening vegetation at the
perimeter of proposed laydown areas, particularly in the northeast corner of the EPS,
staff recommends Condition of Certification VIS-3, as modified.
As discussed, removal of ASTs 1 and 2 and use of their footprint for Phase II
construction laydown and parking would not be expected to result in adverse impacts if
existing perimeter screening vegetation is not removed or damaged. Recommended
Condition VIS-3 however includes provisions for supplemental or replacement
screening at this and other laydown sites if such removal or damage is not avoidable.
Phase II
During Phase II, the contrast/impact of tree removal for laydown in the northeast area of
the site would be exacerbated by the introduction of the new generation units, and the
greater visual exposure to their mechanical, industrial character, as well as introduction
of the new warehouse/maintenance building and associated parking. The latter could be
fully exposed to public view by tree removal for laydown, depending upon the extent of
tree removal in that area.
Phase III
Phase III would comprise decommissioning of the existing EPS facility, removal and
recycling of EPS equipment. Adverse visual impacts from Phase III are not anticipated.
Phase IV
Phase IV, comprising the demolition of the EPS, could have temporary adverse visual
effects from a more chaotic appearance of the facility during different phases of its
demolition. Large volumes of debris (tons of concrete, steel, piping and other
miscellaneous building materials) from demolition will accumulate on-site at various
designated staging areas for testing and eventual disposal and movement off-site.
These piles would be at least partially screened by existing perimeter landscape
screening. Asbestos removal activities would require tents that would be sealed in order
to contain and preclude any off-site migration of air-born toxins to surrounding
neighborhoods. The effects of demolition however would be temporary and relatively
short-term. During the period of disturbance they would not substantially interfere with
adjacent recreational activities at either the lagoon or state beach. For these reasons
these temporary effects are considered less than significant. Staff-recommended
Condition of Certification VIS-3, as modified, includes maintenance of existing opaque
perimeter fencing through this phase of EPS demolition, in order to maintain screening
of both laydown and demolition as seen from Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad State
Beach.

February 2015

4.13-15

VISUAL RESOURCES

 OPERATION IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
As described above, Operation Impacts are discussed in relation to various
representative Key Observation Points (KOPs). As also described previously, potential
impacts are identified by two fundamental factors for each KOP: visual sensitivity (the
susceptibility of the setting to impact as a result of its existing characteristics, including
current level of visual quality, potential visibility of the project, and sensitivity to scenic
values of viewers); and the degree of visual change anticipated as a result of the
project.
The analysis of impacts is grouped by category of sensitive viewers in the principal
affected portions of the project viewshed, as described previously.

Carlsbad Beach/Carlsbad Boulevard (KOPs 1, 8)
KOP 1 – View from Carlsbad Boulevard Looking Southeast
Visual Resources Figures 4a through and 4d depict existing and simulated views
from Carlsbad Boulevard, looking southeast towards the project site (FSA VR Figures
4a and 4b; PTA Figures 5.13-2B, -2C)(CEC2009a; LL2014d). This view is
representative of a range of sensitive viewer groups, including recreational viewers on
Carlsbad State Beach, recreation-oriented pedestrians and bicyclists on the walkway
east of Carlsbad Boulevard, and southbound motorists on Carlsbad Boulevard.
Visual Sensitivity
Visual Quality: Motorists on Carlsbad Boulevard have spectacular views of the ocean
and lagoon. Existing visual quality in the vicinity, characterized by highly scenic views of
both the ocean and lagoon, is high.
Viewer Concern: Carlsbad State Beach is a very heavily used public beach located west
of the project site. Given the high recreational value and use of this area, viewer
concern is considered high. Viewer concern is also considered high due to the scenic
designation of the road corridor. This roadway is designated scenic “Community Theme
Corridor” in the city of Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Element.
Viewer Exposure: Viewer exposure to the project site, which occupies the visual
foreground of the roadway to the east, is moderate. The number of viewers, both
motorists and beach visitors, is very high, but intervening terrain and vegetation of the
EPS site, and the screening vegetation on the northern portion of the CECP site,
strongly filter views of the CECP site. Motorists’ attention tends to be drawn most
strongly to the ocean rather than eastward toward the project site, but scenic views
eastward to the lagoon are also prominent and striking, also drawing motorists’ attention
toward the site.
Views of the CECP site from the beach tend to be blocked by Carlsbad Boulevard,
which lies at a higher elevation than the beach. However, very high numbers of
pedestrians, joggers, and bicyclists utilize the public walkway adjoining the seawall
separating Carlsbad Boulevard from the beach. Viewer exposure is thus moderately low
from the beach, but high from the road and sidewalk.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-16

February 2015

 Overall Visual Sensitivity: Overall, sensitivity of the Carlsbad Boulevard/Carlsbad Beach
viewshed is thus considered high.
Visual Change
Licensed Project
Visual Resources Figure 4b presents a visual simulation of the licensed project as
viewed from KOP 1.
Overall Visual Change: As described in detail in the November 2009 Final Staff
Assessment, and May 31, 2012, Final Decision, due to a moderate level of contrast,
subordinate visual dominance, and weak view blockage, overall visual change due to
the licensed CECP was considered low to moderate as seen from KOP 1.
Impact Significance: In the context of the setting’s high visual sensitivity, the low to
moderate level of project visual change was considered a less-than-significant visual
impact as seen from Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad State Beach.
Amended Project
Visual Resources Figure 4c depicts a simulation of the amended project from the
same viewpoint through Phase III, and Figure 4d through Phase IV.
Visual Contrast: As suggested in Figure 4C, visual contrast of the amended project
generation units is less than that of the licensed project units. Color and form contrast of
Units 6 and 7 are evident and moderate. Units 8 through 11 are largely screened to
view from Carlsbad Boulevard by intervening existing trees along the railroad right-ofway within the EPS site. In this depiction of the site condition after Phase IV, the
removal of the EPS is a substantial beneficial change to the view. In effect, the contrast
of the overall EPS/CECP generation facilities with their scenic setting would greatly
decrease.
Project Dominance: Dominance of the new structures would be moderately low. After
Phase IV, the overall dominance of the EPS/CECP facilities as a whole would decrease
substantially, a beneficial effect.
View Blockage: Through Phase III, view blockage of the sky by new 90 ft. amended
CECP exhaust stacks (65 ft. above grade) would be moderately low. View blockage of
the sky by the very tall EPS building and exhaust stack would be eliminated after Phase
IV, greatly reducing overall view blockage of the EPS/CECP facilities.
Overall Visual Change: Overall visual change from the addition of the proposed Units 6
through 11 during Phase II would thus be moderately low as seen from Carlsbad
Boulevard and Carlsbad State Beach. The level of visual change after Phase IV would
be great, but beneficial.
Impact Significance: In the context of the setting’s high visual sensitivity, the moderately
low level of project visual change under Phase II is considered a less-than-significant
visual impact. The ultimate visual change after Phase IV would be beneficial, improving
February 2015

4.13-17

VISUAL RESOURCES

 the visual quality of the setting compared to the existing condition by greatly reducing
the presence of the overall EPS/amended CECP facility.
This analysis and comparison of licensed and amended CECP as seen from Carlsbad
Boulevard would apply generally to all viewpoints within this portion of the project
viewshed (Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad State Beach). Therefore, the analysis
would also apply to KOP 8 (Carlsbad Boulevard west of the EPS), also located in this
portion of the viewshed, and will not be repeated.

Agua Hedionda Lagoon and Residences (KOPs 2, 3, 3A, 4, 5)
KOPs 2 through 5 are designated ‘special vista points’ in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Local Coastal Program and Agua Hedionda Land Use Plan (CAR 1982). They represent
the range of views in and around the lagoon as experienced by recreational and
residential viewers, outdoor boating enthusiasts enjoying the lagoon from the southeast
to northwest. KOPs 3 through 5 particularly represent recreational views from the north
shore of the inner lagoon.
KOP 2 – View from Pannonia Trail at Capri Park
Visual Resources Figures 5a, 5b, 5c and 5d depict existing and simulated views from
Pannonia Trail at Capri Park at approximately ¾-mile distance due northeast from the
project site (FSA VR Figures 5a and 5b; PTA Figures 5.13-3B, -3C). This view is typical
of elevated views from residences on the east and north side of the lagoon who enjoy
unobstructed views from the slopes facing the outer lagoon, project site and Pacific
Ocean beyond.
Visual Sensitivity
Visual Quality: Visual quality in the areas surrounding Agua Hedionda Lagoon is high
with various and differing perspectives depending upon location. In addition to vivid,
highly intact views of the lagoon; elevated viewpoints such as KOP 2 also provides
views of the ocean and horizon. Particularly because of the mature tree canopy on the
eastern and northern perimeters of the EPS property , its industrial features are highly
filtered to views such as KOP 2, enhancing the unity and intactness of these views, a
point of civic pride for the city. The contribution to visual quality of the existing tree
canopy on the EPS site is substantial and an important component of the overall lagoon
visual character. Views eastward toward the ocean from throughout the lagoon
viewshed are defined to a great extent by this canopy, which adds an element of
vividness and intactness that enhances visual quality, helping to off-set the effect of the
EPS generation building. The canopy screens existing oil storage tanks, the Poseidon
Desalination plant, and other industrial features.
Viewer Concern: Residents in general are considered to have potentially high levels of
viewer concern due to the long periods of viewing time, and typically high levels of
concern for their residences. Likewise, recreational viewers, such as hiking and outdoor
enthusiasts to Capri Park and Pannonia Trail, are also considered to have high levels of
concern for existing and future scenic quality, which is a primary focus of their activity.
And often a central reason for their love of the area and decision to retire or relocate to
this coastal San Diego community.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-18

February 2015

 Viewer Exposure: Those residents most likely to experience visual impact would be a
number of viewers north and east of the lagoon whose views of the EPS/CECP sites
are not obstructed by other homes, terrain, or landscaping. These views are from
predominantly elevated positions on the hillsides facing the site, within a foreground
(1/2-mile) or near-middle-ground (up to one-mile) radius of the project site. Visual
exposure to the project site is considered moderate, mediated by distance from the
project site and, particularly, existing screening at the eastern site perimeter.
Overall Visual Sensitivity: Overall visual sensitivity of this KOP is thus moderately high.
Visual Change
Visual Resources Figure 5b depicts a simulation of the licensed CECP from KOP 2. In
the licensed CECP FSA, staff concluded that with implementation of Conditions of
Certification VIS-1 and VIS-2,which require alternative paint color treatment and
supplemental perimeter landscape screening on the existing berm, potential impacts
from KOP 2 could be reduced to an acceptable, less-than-significant level in the long
term (with maturity of supplemental, fast-growing tree screening). Figure 5b depicts the
unmitigated condition (without application of these required conditions).
Licensed CECP
Overall Visual Change: As described in detail in the 2009 FSA and 2012 Final Decision,
due to a moderate levels of contrast, dominance, and view (sky and horizon) blockage,
overall visual change due to the licensed CECP was considered moderate as seen from
KOP 2.
Impact Significance: In the context of the setting’s moderately high visual sensitivity, the
moderate level of project visual change was considered a potentially significant visual
impact as seen from KOP 2.
Residual Impact Significance after mitigation with staff-recommended measures: With
implementation of Conditions VIS-1 and VIS-2, lowered color contrast and improved
tree screening over time could lower project contrast to a low-to-moderate level,
particularly with fast-growing species, within a few years. With those measures, impacts
could be reduced to an adverse but less than significant level, within a few years.
Amended CECP
Visual Resources Figure 5C depicts the proposed amended CECP from KOP 2
through Phase III, and Figure 5d, through Phase IV.
Visual Contrast: As suggested in Figure 5C, visual contrast of the amended CECP
generation units and exhaust stack is much less than that of the licensed CECP units.
However, color and form contrast of the large mechanical electrical generating
components remains evident. Light-colored (ivory to off-white), painted metal enclosure
case finishes contrast starkly with the green colors of tree canopy and blue ocean vistas
beyond, and vertical and rectilinear forms of the exhaust stacks and generation units
contrast with tree canopy and ocean horizon. Contrast under Phase II would thus
remain moderate. In the depiction of the site condition after Phase IV, removal of the
large EPS enclosure building and 400 ft. tall exhaust stack is a substantial beneficial
February 2015

4.13-19

VISUAL RESOURCES

 change to the over-all view of Agua Hedionda Lagoon and the Carlsbad State Beach
vicinity. In effect, the contrast of the overall EPS/amended CECP generation facilities,
with their scenic setting, would greatly decrease.
Project Dominance: During Phase III decommissioning, the dominance of the new
generation structures and transmission poles would be relatively moderate. Their
distinctly industrial character would be evident and co-dominant in defining the
character of views to the lagoon and ocean. After completion of Phase IV and its seven
individual tasks, the overall dominance of the EPS/amended CECP facilities as a whole
would decrease substantially, a beneficial effect of the view shed.
View Blockage: During Phase II power plant construction, view blockage from intrusion
of the new exhaust stacks into the tree canopy and ocean horizon would be evident, but
to a moderately low degree. View blockage of the sky and horizon by the very tall EPS
building and exhaust stack would be removed after Phase IV, greatly reducing overall
view blockage of the EPS/amended CECP facilities.
Overall Visual Change: Overall, visual change from the addition of the proposed
amended CECP Units 6 through 11 under Phase II would thus be moderate. Overall
visual change after Phase IV EPS demolition would be great, but beneficial.
Impact Significance: In the context of the setting’s high visual sensitivity, the moderate
level of project visual change under Phase II through IV is considered a potentially
significant visual impact. The ultimate visual change after Phase IV however would be
beneficial, improving the visual quality of the setting compared to the existing condition
by greatly reducing the presence of the overall EPS/amended CECP facility.
Staff-Recommended Mitigation: In order to minimize potential impacts both during and
after project Phases II and III, staff recommends Condition of Certification VIS-1, as
modified, stipulating painting of all project structures to ensure the lowest feasible color
contrast in the short term. In this instance, a darker tan or green color more closely
matching the color value of the surrounding foreground tree canopy would reduce color
and overall contrast; or, alternatively, dark-colored generation structures, and light-bluecolored stacks to reduce contrast against the ocean and sky. Staff also recommends
Condition of Certification VIS-2, which provides supplemental perimeter landscape
screening, and ongoing replacement planting, as necessary, to maintain and enhance
existing screening of exhaust stacks, transmission poles, and generation units in both
the short and long term.
Residual Impact Significance after Mitigation with Staff-Recommended Measures: With
staff-recommended conditions of certification, overall contrast during project Phases II
and III would be reduced to a moderately low level, a less than significant impact. In the
long term the recommended conditions of certification would substantially enhance the
final project visual condition as seen by viewers in and around the lagoon.
The remaining KOPs within the eastern, lagoon/residential viewshed are presented and
discussed below as a group. In general, impacts would be similar to KOP 2, with
differences as noted.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-20

February 2015

 KOP 3 – View from end of Cove Drive
Visual Resources Figures 6a, 6b, 6c and 6d represent the view from the end of Cove
Drive (FSA VR Figures 6a and 6b; PTA Figures 5.13-4B, -4C). This view, from a public
access area on the northern shore of the inner lagoon just west of Bristol Cove
approximately 0.6 mile directly across the lagoon from the project site is representative
of recreational viewers, YMCA camp attendees during summer months, as well as
some condominium owners who own residences along the northern shoreline of the
inner lagoon.
KOP 3A – View from Adams Street
Visual Resources Figures 7a, 7b, 7c presents views of the licensed CECP and
amended CECP with and without EPS, seen from the end of Adams Street (PTA
Figures 5.13-5A, -5B, -5C), (Existing view was not available). This view, from a public
access area on the northern shore of the inner lagoon just west of Bristol Cove
approximately 0.5 mile from the site, is representative of recreational viewers along the
northern shoreline of the inner lagoon.
KOP 4 – View from end of Hoover Street
Visual Resources Figures 8a, 8b, 8c, and 8d present the view from the end of Hoover
Street (FSA VR Figures 7A, -7B; PTA Figures 5.13-6B, -6C). This view is a readily
accessible public access point near the shoreline recreation trail on the lagoon shore,
approximately 0.4 mile from the project site. Like KOP 3, it is typical of recreational
views from the lagoon shore, at a somewhat closer distance from the project site.
KOP 5 – View from end of Harbor Drive
Visual Resources Figure 9a and 9b presents a view from the end of Harbor Drive,
looking south from a distance of approximately 0.3-mile (FSA VR Figures 8A, -8B; PTA
Figures 5.13-7B, -7C). This view, from a public vista point on the north shore of the
middle lagoon, looking directly to the site, is representative of recreational viewers, and
a frequent walking and dog path used by local residents in search of a brisk daily walk.
The middle lagoon is the only area in which swimming is permitted from the shore, as
provided by maintenance and management activities funded by NRG. The opposite
(south) shore or the inner lagoon is managed by the California Department of Fish &
Wildlife (CDFW) for its breeding and nesting habitat for several popular and listed bird
species. There also exists a small visitor and youth educational center managed by
CDFW staff that educates hundreds of local school children each year through
organized field trips. The North Coast YMCA Aquatic Park can be seen in the
foreground to the right.
Visual Sensitivity (KOPs 3, 3A, 4, 5)
Visual sensitivity of all viewpoints in the lagoon viewshed would be as described under
KOP 2, except that viewer concern at KOPs 3 through 5, the closest KOPS to the
project site. Visual quality, viewer concern and viewer exposure are all considered high.
Overall Visual Sensitivity: Overall visual sensitivity of these KOPs is thus high.

February 2015

4.13-21

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Visual Change
Licensed CECP
Overall Visual Change: Similar to the discussion under KOP 2, due to a moderate level
of contrast, dominance, and view (sky and horizon) blockage, overall visual change due
to the licensed CECP was considered moderate as seen from KOPs 3 and 3A. From
viewpoints farther west such as KOPs 4 and 5, visual change would be lower due to tall,
dense perimeter tree screening in the northern portion of the EPS site, which provides
more complete screening from these viewpoints. For KOPs 3 and 3A, moderate visual
change from introduction of the new generation units during Phases II and III could
represent a significant impact in the context of high viewer sensitivity. As in the case of
KOP 2, however, potential impacts from KOP 3 and 3A would be mitigated to less-thansignificant levels by staff-recommended Conditions of Certification VIS-1 and VIS-2. The
moderately low level of effects from KOPs 4 and 5 would be less-than-significant.
Amended CECP
Overall Visual Change (KOPs 3 and 3A): Effects on viewers at the other KOPs within
the lagoon viewshed (KOPs 2 through 5) would be essentially similar to those described
under KOP 2, varying slightly in degree of impact depending on specific angle of view.
Thus, impacts from KOP 3 (Cove Drive) and KOP 3A (Adams Street), though at a lower
elevation on the lagoon shore and nearer to the proposed project, would be essentially
similar to those summarized under KOP 2, and the conclusions and recommended
conditions of certification would be the same. Overall visual change during Phases II
through IV would be moderate. Visual change from KOP 3A would be substantially the
same as from KOP 3. The ultimate visual change after Phase IV would be beneficial,
improving the visual quality of the setting compared to the existing condition by greatly
reducing the presence of the overall EPS/CECP facility.
Impact Significance: In the context of high viewer sensitivity, this moderate level of
impact, continuing into Phase IV, would be potentially significant.
Staff-Recommended Mitigation: In order to minimize impacts both during and after
project Phases II and III, staff recommends Condition of Certification VIS-1, painting of
all project structures to ensure the lowest feasible color contrast in the short term; and
Condition of Certification VIS-2, which provides supplemental perimeter landscape
screening, and replacement planting to enhance screening of exhaust stacks,
transmission poles, and generation units in both the short and long term.
Residual Impact Significance after Mitigation with Staff-Recommended Measures: With
staff-recommended Conditions of Certification VIS-1 and VIS-2, impacts represented in
KOPs 3 and 3A could be reduced to a moderately low, less-than-significant level within
the time frame of Phases II through IV. With completion of Phase IV, the ultimate visual
change would be beneficial. However, in the long term the recommended conditions of
certification would not only reduce impacts of Phases II and III in the short term, but
would also substantially enhance the final project visual condition as seen by viewers in
and around the lagoon over the long term, by providing adequate screening of the new
generation units and enhancing the tree canopy on the eastern boundary of the EPS
site.
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-22

February 2015

 Overall Visual Change (KOPs 4 and 5): As depicted in Visual Resources Figures 8a –
8d and Figures 9a – 9d, visual change from KOPs 4 and 5, representing more
westward areas of the lagoon viewshed, would be low. Contrast, dominance and view
blockage would all be low. As under the licensed project, EPS perimeter screening at
the north project boundary as seen from these westward portions of the lagoon would
reduce visibility of the new generation units and exhaust stacks to low levels. No
substantial adverse impacts are thus anticipated in this portion of the lagoon viewshed.
Impact Significance: In the context of high viewer sensitivity, this level of impact would
be less-than-significant.
Staff-Recommended Mitigation: None needed for viewpoints in this portion of the
viewshed.
PTA Figure 2.0-2, depicting proposed construction laydown and parking areas under
the PTA, suggest that some of the substantial existing perimeter landscape screening
on the north boundary of the EPS site, which appears prominently in the foreground of
KOPs 4 and 5 (Visual Resources Figures 8a – d and Figures 9a – d), could
potentially be negatively affected. The exact effect on existing tree plantings of the
proposed laydown areas is not yet known. If these portions of existing perimeter tree
plantings were to be affected, this could potentially also affect the impact conclusions
summarized here for KOPs 2 through 5. For purposes of the present analysis, it has
been assumed that existing landscaping would not be affected by proposed laydown, as
depicted in the PTA simulations. Additional information has been requested of the
Petitioner.

Views of Residential Receptors South of the Site
South of the project site, views by residents south of Cannon Road and west of
Carlsbad Boulevard are almost entirely blocked by intervening structures, including a
landscaped masonry wall on the north side of Cannon Road, between the railroad track
and Cannon Park. Overall, views to the project site from this portion of the viewshed are
negligible. No KOPs were selected in this area for this reason.

Views from Interstate 5 (KOPs 6, 6A, 7 and 7A)
KOP 6 – Southbound view of motorists/passengers from Interstate 5 at Agua
Hedionda Lagoon (northern CECP approach)
Visual Resources Figures 10a, 10b, 10c and 10d, represent a view from southbound
I-5 at Agua Hedionda Lagoon (FSA VR Figures 9a, -9b; PTA Figures 5.13-8B, -8C).
KOP 6 is very similar in most respects to KOP 5, but is representative of views of
southbound motorists on I-5 at a foreground distance from the project site as they
approach the site from across the lagoon.
Visual Sensitivity
Visual Quality: The I-5 bridge is separated into a southbound and northbound lane and
also serves to separate the middle and inner lagoons. This segment of highway
presents highly scenic views toward both the lagoon and ocean. The northern earthen
berm of the amended CECP site, and its tall Eucalyptus trees, are prominently featured,
February 2015

4.13-23

VISUAL RESOURCES

 as depicted in Visual Resources Figure 10a. The prominent tree canopy not only
provides screening of the EPS/amended CECP site, but contributes a prominent vivid
element that enhances unity and intactness of the lagoon setting. Existing visual quality
for southbound motorists approaching the project site is thus moderately high.
Viewer Exposure: The estimated number of average daily vehicle trips on I-5 by the
EPS property is 206,000 (CEC 2009a). Although duration of visual exposure to the
project site is brief, the number of viewers is very high, and many commuters are likely
to pass the site twice a day, daily. However, viewer exposure to the project site, due to
the substantial screening of the earth berm and tall Eucalyptus trees adjoining the
highway, is considered moderate. The EPS is not prominent from this KOP, but
becomes more visible as motorists move south.
Viewer Concern: Although typical urban motorists (e.g., commuters) are not necessarily
focused on scenery or scenic values, this portion of I-5 has been identified as a ‘third
priority’ scenic route in the San Diego County General Plan Scenic Highway Element,
and has been designated a “Community Scenic Corridor” in the city of Carlsbad General
Plan Circulation Element. These policies demonstrate recognition of special scenic
value accorded these views by the county and city. These segments are therefore
considered to have a moderately high viewer concern.
Overall Visual Sensitivity: Overall viewer sensitivity for southbound motorists on I-5 from
KOP 6 is thus considered to be moderately high.
Visual Change
Licensed CECP
Overall Visual Change: As described in detail in the November 2009 FSA and May 2012
Final Decision, due to a low level of contrast, visual dominance, and view blockage,
overall visual change due to the licensed CECP was considered low as seen from KOP
6.
Impact Significance: In the context of the setting’s moderately high visual sensitivity, the
low level of project visual change was considered a negligible, less-than-significant
visual impact as seen from KOP 6.
Amended CECP
As depicted in Visual Resources Figure 10b, from this viewing angle the existing berm
and trees would almost completely screen the project. The generation units and stacks
would not be visible from this location. As shown, the proposed maintenance and
warehouse building would be largely screened by the existing perimeter tree canopy.
Visual Contrast: As depicted, form and color contrast of the maintenance and
warehouse building would be moderately low. Other project structures would not be
seen.
Project Dominance: Due primarily to abundant existing perimeter screening, visual
dominance of the maintenance/warehouse building would be very subordinate and low.
The structure would be largely screened from view by the large existing perimeter trees.
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-24

February 2015

 View Blockage: The project would not block or intrude into scenic views from this KOP.
Overall Visual Change: Overall visual change would thus be low.
Impact Significance: Given the low level of visual change from this viewpoint,
anticipated impacts would be negligible.
Recommended Mitigation - None needed.
As noted under KOPs 4 and 5, above, if perimeter landscape screening on the north
boundary of the CECP site is affected by construction laydown, this could potentially
also affect the impact conclusions summarized here for KOP 6. Trees along this
boundary are a primary source of visual screening for both the existing EPS and
proposed amended CECP. For purposes of the present analysis, it has been assumed
that existing landscaping would not be affected by proposed laydown, as depicted in the
PTA simulations of KOP 6. Additional information to clarify these impacts has been
requested of the petitioner.
KOP 6A – Southbound view of motorists from I-5 adjoining CECP site
Visual Resources Figure 10e depicts a second simulated view of the amended CECP
as seen by southbound motorists on I-5, adjacent to the amended CECP site (the
existing view is not shown) (DR POV 5-2, LL2014t). KOP 6A was added to the analysis
in response to data requests by intervenor Power of Vision, and helps provide a fuller
understanding of the project as it would be seen by I-5 motorists.
Visual Sensitivity
Visual Quality: In contrast to KOP 6, existing visual quality for motorists in the segment
of I-5 directly adjoining the CECP site is moderate due to an absence of the dramatic
ocean and lagoon views that distinguish the view of motorists from KOP 6. The
landscaped earth berms, high tree canopy and tall shrub plantings west of the highway
contribute an attractive natural element that enhances visual quality while filtering views
of the EPS, switchyard, existing storage tanks and other industrial features on the EPS
and CECP sites.
Viewer Exposure: As noted under KOP 6, viewer numbers are very high. However,
along the I-5 frontage, visibility of the CECP site is intermittent and varies greatly, from
low where ample landscape screening is present, to moderately high where such
screening is absent. Overall, viewer exposure is considered moderate.
Viewer Concern: Viewer concern is considered moderately high due to special local
scenic designations of the highway.
Overall Visual Sensitivity: Overall viewer sensitivity for motorists at KOP 6A and on
CECP site’s I-5 frontage generally is considered moderate.
Site changes since licensed CECP proceedings: Since completion of the FSA analysis
in 2009, staff observed that there has been some degree of tree mortality or removal on
the eastern I-5 frontage of the CECP site. Thus, exposure of the CECP site to viewers
on I-5 and elsewhere to the east appears greater than when previously analyzed for the
February 2015

4.13-25

VISUAL RESOURCES

 licensed CECP. In addition, it should also be noted that a considerable portion of the
remaining existing landscape screening on the I-5 frontage of the CECP site lies not
within the CECP site, but within the Caltrans right-of-way. This important portion of
existing screening is thus outside of Petitioner’s control.
Visual Change
Licensed CECP
KOP 6A was not included in the analysis of the licensed CECP. However, views such
as KOP6A were addressed in the FSA analysis of KOP 7, which addressed views from
the highway in the segment adjacent to the CECP. At that time, visual change due to
the licensed project was considered to be moderate overall, due particularly to partial
screening by the landscaped berm and trees.
Impact Significance: In the context of moderate overall visual sensitivity, project impacts
were considered adverse but less-than-significant for motorists in the foreground vicinity
of the I-5/CECP site frontage.
Amended CECP
As depicted in Visual Resources Figure 10e, from this viewing angle the existing berm
and perimeter trees would largely screen the project features. The generation units and
exhaust stacks are not visible in this view, but would be visible to varying degrees
above and between the landscape screening along the I-5 frontage. Four new
transmission poles up to 106 feet in height, and their associated lines, would also be
located on the I-5 frontage within a few feet of the highway, which were not a part of the
licensed project. These four poles appear in Figure 10e. It should be noted that the
precise siting of these poles has subsequently been modified from this depiction by the
petitioner. As modified, the two nearest poles would be moved westward away from the
highway and into the sub-grade power plant area. The poles would thus appear farther
from the viewer, and roughly 25 feet lower in apparent height.
Visual Contrast: Form and color contrast of the new generation units, exhaust stacks,
transmission poles, lines and other visible features would vary depending upon the
condition of the perimeter landscaping. In some portions of the frontage, screening
would be high, but in others where tree and shrub removal has occurred, screening
would be nonexistent and contrast high. Where the poles and lines are clearly visible,
they would introduce an industrial character contrasting with the existing tree canopies.
Overall, contrast in this section is considered moderate.
Project Dominance: Due primarily to existing perimeter screening, visual dominance of
the CECP structures from I-5 would be moderate overall. The existing perimeter earth
berm on the CECP site would largely block views of most of the sub-grade generation
facilities. The taller structures such as the six new exhaust stacks, which would extend
roughly 60 to 65 feet above grade, and to a lesser extent the new transmission poles,
have the potential to be visually dominant viewed at such close distances. They thus
could intermittently appear visually dominant to passing motorists where loss of
screening due to tree mortality has occurred. The visibility and prominence of three of
the proposed transmission poles has been reduced from the configuration depicted in
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-26

February 2015

 the simulation. The simulation depicts the two nearest poles sited at grade very near the
site boundary. These two poles and a third new pole are now proposed to be relocated
below grade near the generation units, moving them farther from the roadway and
reducing their above grade height by 25 – 30 feet, from 100+ feet to 70 – 75 feet. The
two southernmost poles would remain at grade. The bottom portions of these two poles
would be screened by the existing earth berm and landscaping, while the upper portions
would remain visible above the tree and shrub canopies. All of the proposed poles are
located roughly 120 feet or more from the nearest travel way behind the elevated earth
berm, moderating their potential visual dominance somewhat.
View Blockage: The project would not block or intrude into scenic views from this KOP.
Taller project features would intrude into views of the sky to a moderate degree.
Overall Visual Change: Overall visual change from KOP 6A and the CECP I-5 frontage
generally would thus be moderate.
Impact Significance: Given the moderate level of visual sensitivity and visual change
from this viewpoint, anticipated adverse impacts would be moderate and less-thansignificant.
Recommended Mitigation: To address the very uneven existing screening on the I-5
frontage, enhance the perimeter screening generally, and provide on-site screening to
address any potential future losses of existing landscaping within the Caltrans right-ofway, staff recommends adoption of Condition of Certification VIS-2. To reduce project
contrast to the lowest feasible degree in the short term during growth of landscaping
under VIS-2, staff also recommends Condition of Certification VIS-1, including painting
of all publicly visible project structures.
KOP 7 – View from northbound U.S. I-5 north of Cannon Road (CECP I-5 frontage)
Visual Resources Figures 11a through 11d represent a view from northbound I-5
north of Cannon Road (FSA VR Figures 10a, -10b; PTA Figures 5.13-9B, -9C). Like
KOP 6A above, this view is representative of motorists’ views along the CECP/ I-5
frontage generally. The existing transmission lines are the most visually dominant
feature in this section, their large presence above I-5 lowering the visual quality of the
area. North of this point, visual intrusions from the industrial features of the EPS
become less evident and potential visual prominence of the amended CECP increases.
Visual Sensitivity
Visual Quality: Existing visual quality for motorists along the CECP/I-5 frontage is
moderate due to an absence of the ocean views that distinguish the view from KOP 6,
as well as the intrusion of existing SDG&E transmission lines crossing the highway. The
intrusion of transmission lines and prominence of the freeway itself are partly off-set by
the vividness of the landscaped earth berms and tree canopy west of the highway,
which also screen much of the industrial EPS features.
Viewer Concern: As discussed under KOP 6, viewer concern is considered moderately
high due to special local scenic designations of the highway.

February 2015

4.13-27

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Viewer Exposure: In general, visual exposure to the CECP would be moderate, with
some portions of the I-5 frontage well-screened by tree canopy, and other portions not
currently screened, as discussed under KOP 6A. Northbound views of the CECP site
are moderated by the greater distance to the site compared to southbound views, as
well as by the center-median landscaping on I-5.
Overall Visual Sensitivity: Overall viewer sensitivity for motorists along the CECP/I-5
frontage in this segment is thus considered to be moderate.
Visual Change
Licensed CECP
Overall Visual Change: As described in detail in the November 2009 FSA and May 2012
Final Decision, due to a moderate level of contrast, visual dominance, and view
blockage, overall visual change due to the licensed CECP was considered moderate as
seen from KOP 7 and the I-5 frontage.
Impact Significance: In the context of the viewpoint’s moderate visual sensitivity, the
moderate level of project visual change was considered a moderate, less-thansignificant visual impact as seen from KOP 7.
Amended CECP
Visual Contrast: As depicted in Visual Resources Figure 11c, the amended CECP
would be less visually prominent than the licensed CECP. However, approximately 50
vertical feet of the new exhaust stacks and the tops of the generation units would
remain visible in foreground views from I-5, and present a moderate level of form, line,
and color contrast to passing motorists.
Project Dominance: The proposed new exhaust stacks, generation units, and five new
transmission towers on the I-5 frontage would be visually co-dominant with the existing
SDG&E transmission towers, extending an industrial character along much of the
remainder of the amended CECP/EPS frontage with I-5. As discussed under KOP 6A,
their visibility and dominance is intermittent and variable depending on the condition of
the perimeter screening.
View Blockage: The new project features would intrude into views of the sky to a
moderate degree.
Overall Visual Change: Overall visual change of the amended CECP would thus be
moderate from KOP 7 and the I-5 frontage.
Impact Significance: In the context of the viewpoint’s moderate visual sensitivity, the
moderate level of project visual change would be a moderate, less-than-significant
visual impact as seen from KOP 7.
Staff-Recommended Mitigation: None required at this KOP. However, staff recommends
Condition of Certification VIS-1, including painting of all publicly visible project
structures, to ensure the lowest feasible color contrast in the short term. Staff also
recommends Condition of Certification VIS-2, which provides for additional perimeter
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-28

February 2015

 landscape screening and replacement planting to enhance screening of tall project
features in the medium to long term. In this segment of I-5, supplemental tall tree
screening, extending farther south on the eastern berm along the highway, would be
important in achieving more effective long-term screening of the project.
Residual Impact Significance after Mitigation with Staff-Recommended Measures: With
lowered color contrast, and with greater tree screening over time, both through
increased height of existing screening and with in-fill from new, tall tree plantings,
project contrast could be lowered to a moderately low level, particularly in the long term.
With those measures, impacts could be neutral or beneficial in the long term. Removal
of the above ground EPS buildings and facilities west of the railroad track after Phase IV
would of course be a beneficial impact.
KOP 7A – Northbound view of motorists from I-5 adjoining CECP site
Visual Resources Figure 11d depicts a second simulated view of the amended CECP
as seen by northbound motorists on I-5, adjacent to the amended CECP site (the
existing view is not shown) (DR POV 5-3, LL2014t). KOP 7A was added to the analysis
in response to data requests by intervenor Power of Vision, and helps provide a fuller
understanding of the project as it would be seen by I-5 motorists. KOP 7A is located
roughly 1,000 feet north of KOP 7 (or approximately ten seconds of travel later, at 70
mph).
Visual Sensitivity
Visual sensitivity for KOP 7A is as described for KOPs 6A and 7. Overall sensitivity is
moderate.
Visual Change
Licensed CECP
KOP 7A was not included in the analysis of the licensed CECP but visual change would
be the same as KOP 7, moderate overall.
Impact Significance: As KOP 7, in the context of moderate overall visual sensitivity,
project impacts would be adverse but less-than-significant.
Amended CECP
As depicted in Visual Resources Figure 11d, from this viewing angle the taller project
features would be intermittently visible, where screening by tall tree canopy is absent.
As with KOP 6A, the proposal has been changed so that the two transmission poles
seen in the simulation would be roughly 25 percent to 30 percent shorter than depicted
due to their relocation to the sub-grade portion of the site. Because the vertical visual
angle of project features is less from southbound lanes due to greater distance, they
would tend to be less visually prominent than as seen from northbound lanes. However,
overall visual change would be as described for KOP 7, moderate.
Impact Significance: As for KOP 7, in the context of moderate overall visual sensitivity,
project impacts would thus be considered adverse but less-than-significant.
February 2015

4.13-29

VISUAL RESOURCES

 KOP 8 – Carlsbad Boulevard looking east from Encina Power Station outfall
The analysis and comparison of licensed and amended projects as seen from Carlsbad
Boulevard is described under KOP 1 and would apply generally to all viewpoints within
this portion of the project viewshed (Carlsbad Boulevard and Carlsbad State Beach).
Therefore, the analysis and conclusions of KOP 1 would also apply to KOP 8 (Carlsbad
Boulevard west of the EPS), and are not repeated here.
Under amended CECP Phase IV, the removal of the EPS building would expose views
of the switchyard directly to its east. However, these views would continue to be
screened by fencing on the Carlsbad Boulevard frontage in the short term, and by
development of the EPS site over the long term.

Views from Rail Corridor (KOPs 9, 11)
KOP 9 – View from BNSF/NCTD Rail Corridor looking east
KOP 11 – View from BNSF/NCTD Rail Corridor looking southeast
Visual Resources Figures 12 (KOP 9) and 13 (KOP 11) represent the views from the
NCTD rail corridor adjacent to the CECP site, looking east (KOP 9) and southeast (KOP
11) respectively (LL2014)(Project Owner Response to Data Request Set 2 No. 58).
Visual Sensitivity / Visual Quality:
This specific segment of the double-track North County Transit District (NCTD) rail
corridor, which bisects the larger 95-acre EPS parcel and adjoins the amended CECP
to the east and the EPS to the west. The visual quality is moderate at best: it consists of
a foreground mainly comprised of raised earthen berms, with scattered trees screening
filtered views of the adjoining industrial facilities, particularly on the west side of the
tracks but also open views of industrial equipment intermittently on both sides, and a
general absence of any visible scenic features. Views of the lagoon and ocean are not
visible from this rail segment.
Viewer Concern: A portion of the NCTD rail corridor directly abuts the CECP site to the
west, separating the site from the remaining EPS. Passenger train service through the
corridor is provided by the San Diego Coast Express Rail or “Coaster,” and Amtrak. Five
thousand rail passengers per weekday travel between San Diego and Oceanside, which
averages approximately 20 trains per day (American Public Transportation Association
2008).
The rail corridor is identified as one of four categories of scenic corridors established
under Goal C.2 of the Scenic Roadways portion of the City’s General Plan Circulation
Element. Goal C.11 calls for improvement of the visual quality of the corridor adjacent to
this rail line. Consequently, viewer concern is considered to be high.
The NCTD right-of-way abutting the CECP western boundary is also part of an
approved regional, multi-jurisdictional Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) alignment, which has not
yet been completed, pending construction through the EPS property in the CECP
project vicinity. The precise location of the CRT in this segment has not been designed.
Potential effects on the CRT are discussed below in the “Cumulative Impacts”
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-30

February 2015

 subsection of this analysis. Please also review the Land Use section of this final staff
assessment for further analysis.
Viewer Exposure: Viewer exposure is currently moderately low. Viewer exposure is very
brief, lasting only a few seconds, and applies only to passengers with views facing
eastward. However, the number of viewers is relatively high, and viewer exposure
occurs repeatedly, often on a daily basis.
Overall Visual Sensitivity: Overall viewer sensitivity of the rail corridor is thus considered
to be moderate, reflecting the compromised existing visual quality and very brief viewer
exposure.
Visual Change
Licensed CECP
Overall Visual Change: As described in detail in the FSA and Final Decision, due to a
strong level of contrast, moderate visual dominance, and low view blockage, overall
visual change due to the licensed CECP was considered moderate as seen from KOPs
9, 11, and the adjoining NCTD rail corridor.
Impact Significance: In the context of the viewpoint’s moderate visual sensitivity, the
moderate level of project visual change was considered a moderate, less-thansignificant visual impact as seen from KOPs 9 and 11.
Amended CECP
Visual Contrast: As seen from KOPs 9, 11, and the rail corridor generally, the amended
CECP would be less visually prominent than the licensed CECP. However,
approximately 60 to 65 vertical feet of the new exhaust stacks and the tops of the
generation units would remain above grade and potentially visible in brief foreground
views from the rail corridor, and present a moderate level of form, line, and color
contrast to passing train passengers.
Project Dominance: For passengers with views eastward, the amended CECP would be
dominant in view, but for only a few seconds. Overall, dominance is thus considered
moderate.
View Blockage: The new project features would intrude into views of the sky to a
moderate degree, and would not block any scenic views. After completion of Phase IV,
the removal of the EPS would greatly lower existing blockage of views toward the
ocean.
Overall Visual Change: Overall visual change of the amended CECP would thus be
moderate from KOPs 9 and 11 through the completion of Phase IV. After its completion
removal of existing view blockage of the EPS building would be a substantial benefit.
Impact Significance: In the context of the viewpoint’s moderate visual sensitivity, the
moderate level of project visual change would be a moderate, less-than-significant
visual impact through project Phase IV. After completion of Phase IV, removal of
existing view blockage of the EPS would be a substantial beneficial impact.

February 2015

4.13-31

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Staff-Recommended Mitigation: Although impacts from this KOP would be less than
significant, staff recommends Condition of Certification VIS-1, which would require
painting all project structures to ensure the lowest feasible color contrast achievable in
the short term. Staff also recommends Condition of Certification VIS-2, to include
supplemental landscape screening on the western amended CECP boundary adjoining
the railroad track, as called for in the city of Carlsbad General Plan Circulation Policies
C.6 and C.11, in order to ensure conformance with those policies and enhance visual
quality for future viewers using the Coastal Rail Trail.

OVERALL PROJECT OPERATION IMPACTS ON EXISTING VISUAL
CHARACTER OR QUALITY
Project operation impacts from all identified KOPs on the existing visual character and
quality of the setting would be less-than-significant with staff-recommended color
mitigation (Condition of Certification VIS-1), staff-recommended perimeter landscape
screening (Condition of Certification VIS-2), staff-recommended screening of laydown
sites (Condition of Certification VIS-3), and staff-recommended lighting mitigation
(Condition of Certification VIS-4). With these measures, the impacts from the operation
of the amended CECP would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings, as perceived by sensitive receptors in the project
viewshed.

LINEARS
Overhead Transmission Lines: Eight new single-pole transmission towers up to 106 feet
in height, and associated power lines, are proposed under the amended CECP,
including five towers and lines extending roughly 1,400 feet along the eastern edge of
the project site, paralleling I-5. The original project described in the PTA was modified
so that the two northern (of the four original) towers on the eastern site boundary were
relocated farther from I-5 and 25 to 30 feet lower (to the below-grade portion of the site).
This modification required the addition of a third tower located between the two northern
towers, also located below grade (for a total of five towers along the eastern boundary).
The absolute above-grade height of the three northern poles would thus be 70 to 75 feet
rather than 100 feet+. Three additional poles along the southern boundary of the project
would carry the transmission lines roughly 1,000 feet due west to the SDGE
switchyards. A small portion of these east-west lines would be briefly visible to NCTD
passengers; the rest would be visually very subordinate from public viewpoints. Please
refer to KOPs 6 and 7 for discussion of visual effects of the proposed transmission lines,
or the Project Description and Transmission System Engineering sections of this
FSA for more details.
Visible Water Vapor Plumes
The proposed project would be cooled by use of (evaporative) air-cooled condensers.
Staff found that operational exhaust temperatures would prevent water vapor
condensation, and that there would be no plume opacity from pollutants under normal
operation. Therefore, no visible water vapor plumes would be emitted from the plant or
plant cooling system.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-32

February 2015

 D. LIGHT OR GLARE
“Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?”
The proposed project during operation has the potential to introduce light offsite to
surrounding properties, as well as to illuminate the night time sky. If bright exterior lights
are not properly hooded or directed, onsite lighting could introduce a significant light or
glare distraction to the project vicinity.
Necessary project construction lighting could occur between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM
throughout the four phase, 64 month amended CECP schedule. Some construction
activities may take place 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Currently, night lighting on the EPS property occurs primarily at the existing generation
building and 400 ft. exhaust stack, and pole-mounted area lighting.
Under staff-recommended Condition of Certification VIS-4, temporary and permanent
project lighting would require that: a) lamps and reflectors are not visible from beyond
the project site, including any off-site security buffer areas; b) lighting does not cause
excessive reflected glare; c) direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky; d)
illumination of the project and its immediate vicinity is minimized, and e) lighting
complies with local policies and ordinances. Where lighting is not required for normal
operation, safety or security, switches or motion detectors would be provided to allow
these areas to remain dark except as needed. To the extent possible, night construction
lighting would be pointed toward the center of the site. Task-specific lighting would be
used to the extent practical. FAA aviation strobe lighting could be required on the taller
project structures.
With implementation of Condition of Certification VIS-4, the project’s construction and
operation-related lighting impacts in the context of the existing lighting are anticipated to
be less-than-significant.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects
taking place over a period of time. In other words, while any one project may not create
a significant impact to visual resources, the combination of the new project with all
existing or planned projects in an area may create significant impacts. A significant
cumulative impact would depend on the degree to which (1) the viewshed is altered; (2)
view of a scenic resource is impaired; or (3) visual quality is diminished.

Carlsbad Seawater Desalination (Poseidon) Project
The Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (CSDP) is a large-scale industrial facility
currently under construction by Poseidon Resources, Inc., and is located just west
across the railroad tracks from the amended CECP site. It is visible from Carlsbad
Boulevard and Carlsbad State Beach viewshed west of the EPS site, yet its 30-foot
profile and exterior features and design were chosen to complement the visual
aesthetics of the site, as it has been designed to resemble a Class A office building, as
required by the city. According to the project EIR for the desalination project, various
February 2015

4.13-33

VISUAL RESOURCES

 visual mitigation measures, including replacement planting for trees removed for project
construction, screening of exterior mechanical equipment, retention and protection of
existing landscape screening, and city approval of building design, would minimize
visual impacts and allow the project to conform to city of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor
Guidelines (CAR 2005). The project would appear in the visual foreground of the
amended CECP, but would appear visually subordinate to viewers on Carlsbad
Boulevard due to substantial existing landscape screening. With the removal of ASTs 1
and 2 to the north of the desalination plant during amended CECP Phase I, the overall
industrial character of the EPS site in the area of the desalination plant would be greatly
reduced, a beneficial visual effect. This improvement in the appearance of the EPS site
would of course increase greatly during Phase IV with the removal of the EPS
generation building and exhaust stack. Assuming the CSDP EIR measures are
implemented, the incremental contribution of the amended CECP to visual impacts
would be minor, and no cumulative impact would be anticipated.

Future Non-Industrial Uses of a Decommissioned EPS Site
The site of the decommissioned EPS west of the railroad tracks will be transferred to
the city for joint non-power redevelopment in a manner that has yet to be determined
but is presumed to include a combination of visitor-serving commercial mixed use and
open space. This foreseeable future use, referred to in the city of Carlsbad Draft
General Plan as the Carlsbad Boulevard/Agua Hedionda Center, would represent a
potential future key viewpoint of the amended CECP. In the FSA and Final Decision,
potential future visual impacts to the anticipated future use of this site from the licensed
CECP were considered and it was determined that ample opportunities for mitigation of
views to the CECP through landscape screening exist on the proposed Agua Hedionda
Center site. Because this remains true, no cumulative impacts are anticipated.

Coastal Rail Trail
The Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) is an approved regional project that would eventually
create a Class I and Class II bicycle trail and a walking trail from San Diego to
Oceanside primarily within the railroad right-of-way. Portions of the project have been
completed, and a planned portion of the 7.2 mile trail involves use of the BNSF rail
corridor next to the CECP site. The precise trail alignment in this segment has not yet
been determined. Until such time, specific effects on trail users cannot be identified with
certainty. Please see the Land Use section of this staff assessment for more specific
analysis on the CRT.
In the FSA for the licensed CECP, staff determined that with recommended Condition of
Certification VIS-2 and project owner-proposed landscape plantings on the north- and
west-facing berms, overall impacts of the project to trail users would be less-thansignificant, declining over time with landscape maturity.
Under the amended CECP, staff-recommended Condition of Certification VIS-2 would
allow the project during Phases I through IV to conform with city scenic corridor policies
and objectives and reduce potential impacts of the amended CECP. Supplemental
landscape planting along the western CECP perimeter under this condition would
improve the visual quality of the amended CECP site as seen by future CRT viewers.
Views from the CRT would also be enhanced in the long term by the removal of the
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-34

February 2015

 EPS generation building. Under a Precise Development Plan Amendment 00-02(b), the
project petitioner is required to dedicate an easement for the CRT that is acceptable to
the city (CAR 2006). This is also a requirement of Condition of Certification LAND-1.
Given this city authority to review and approve the CRT alignment, with implementation
of Condition of Certification VIS-2 any potential future impacts to CRT viewers are
expected to be less-than-significant.

North Coast Corridor Interstate 5 HOV/Managed Lanes Project
Caltrans’ North Coast Interstate 5 HOV/Managed Lanes Project (I-5 Widening Project)
has been under active development and study since 2001, when the agency began
coordinating city discussions for those communities along the proposed widened
freeway facilitated by the San Diego Association of Governments.
Staff had the opportunity to meet and confer with Caltrans staff throughout the course of
the original licensed CECP proceeding. However at that time, the I-5 Widening EIR/EIS
had not been published. The Final Environmental Impact Statement / Environmental
Impact Report (FEIR/EIS) published in 2013 describes a preferred 8+4 w/ Barrier
Alternative for the 28-mile section of I-5 that runs from La Jolla Village Drive north to
Harbor Drive and Highway 76 in Oceanside. While no definitive time period for project
completion is yet available, Caltrans has indicated that construction of this portion of the
widening project will not occur for more than ten or even 20 years.
Caltrans analyzed four alternatives for the I-5 widening project and provided layout
information for these four in the immediate project site vicinity (CALTRANS 2013; CEC
2009a; CALTRANS 2014). Although a Preferred Alternative is identified in the EIS, the
final detailed design of the alternative to be constructed adjacent to the CECP site is not
known with certainty, and may not be known for some time. As described in the FEIS,
construction of this segment of the I-5 project is not anticipated until approximately
2035.
Energy Commission staff reviewed the four alternatives for the I-5 widening project and
concluded the following:


Under both the licensed and amended CECP, the four I-5 alternatives as depicted
would all require complete removal of the earthen berm and associated tall tree
landscaping currently occupying the eastern boundary of the CECP site.



Under both the licensed and amended CECP, removal of the earthen berm and
landscaping along the EPS property would eliminate most existing visual screening
of the CECP site from I-5, and from sensitive viewpoints to the east of the project
site, including viewpoints east of the inner Agua Hedionda Lagoon.



The tallest features of the amended CECP, the proposed exhaust stacks, would be
approximately 65 feet in height above the surrounding grade, visible at close
proximity to passing motorists and to viewers throughout the middle-ground
viewshed to the east of the EPS. The remaining Encina Power Station property,
which in addition to the generation building and stack, includes other industrial
features such as switchyard, transmission poles, and other features, would become
visible within the viewshed of KOPs 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7. After completion of CECP

February 2015

4.13-35

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Phase IV, the retired EPS generation building and stack would be permanently
removed, but the CECP and SDG&E features would remain.


The adverse effect on visual quality of this segment of I-5 from the loss of the
existing berm and trees, and the resulting exposure of both the licensed and
amended CECP as seen by motorists on I-5 and by recreationists and residents in
and east of the lagoon, is considered to be potentially substantial. Possible elevated
DAR lanes at the center median of I-5 under consideration by Caltrans could
partially screen views of the CECP as seen from the lagoon and vicinity, but this
structure, if included in the project, would not be as effective as the existing visual
screening on the CECP site’s eastern boundary, which currently provides screening
of up to 60 feet above surrounding grade (including both berm and tree canopy), and
contributes an attractive landscape feature in the form of its tree canopy and
landscaping.

The cumulative visual effect introduced by either the licensed or amended CECP in
combination with the I-5 widening project would thus nullify the less-than-significant
visual impact discussed in this analysis for KOPs 2, 3, 4 (north shore of lagoon), and 6
and 7 (Highway I-5), since that determination was dependent upon the presence of the
existing berm, existing landscape screening, and the staff-recommended in-fill
landscape planting under Condition of Certification VIS-2. Absent adequate mitigation, it
currently appears that a significant cumulative visual impact could occur in the absence
of modification to either the I-5 widening project alternatives, the amended CECP, or
both. This was also the conclusion of the Commission in the Final Decision with regard
to the licensed CECP.
The ultimate removal of the existing EPS facility under Phase IV of the amended CECP
would greatly improve visual quality for the viewers described. However, removal of the
earthen berm and tree screening along the eastern edge of the project site could
impose a substantial adverse visual impact, by removing the existing attractive and
prominent landscape features of the CECP perimeter tree canopy and replacing it with
fully exposed views of the taller features of the six new generation units, including
exhaust stacks, the upper portions of the generation units, VBV stacks, SCR ducts, and
other features, including new transmission line. Affected viewer groups would include I5 motorists, recreational lagoon visitors, and residential viewers to the east. The eastern
CECP boundary would be altered from a site visually dominated by tree canopy to one
dominated by the highly industrial character of the generation units. This could
represent a moderately high level of adverse visual change and, in the context of
moderately high viewer sensitivity, would constitute a significant adverse impact.
In order to address potential cumulative impacts of the I-5 Widening Project, staff
recommends adoption of Condition of Certification VIS-5, Cumulative Impact Buffer
Zone, Coordination with Caltrans, and Mitigation Plan.
Under Condition of Certification VIS-5, the project owner shall be required to maintain a
buffer zone immediately west of I-5, between the existing NRG fence line and storage
tank perimeter road, in order to maintain existing visual screening of berm and trees;
accommodate future I-5 widening as necessary; and accommodate future visual
screening and hazard protection features needed to fully address potential cumulative
impacts that could be caused by the proposed I-5 widening. In addition, the project
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-36

February 2015

 owner shall be required to maintain a permanent landscape planting buffer zone of 20
feet in width or greater, along the entire CECP/I-5 boundary, in order to substantially
screen the amended project in the long term following future I-5 widening.
During preparation of the licensed CECP FSA, staff determined that a buffer zone
capable of accommodating a replacement earth berm and landscaping would exist on
the CECP site after proposed I-5 widening. However, because the vertical profile and
potential visual prominence of the amended CECP would be much less than the
licensed CECP, staff concludes that adequate replacement visual screening of the
amended CECP at the eastern CECP boundary could be achieved by tall tree planting
alone, without the additional height of a replacement earth berm. The specific
requirements and layout of such screening, however, are not and cannot be known at
the present time, without further study and further detailed project design coordination
with Caltrans.
Condition of Certification VIS-5 has thus been modified to focus on stipulation of a
landscape screening buffer zone with a minimum width of 20 feet to be permanently
maintained, sufficient to provide adequate replacement tree screening of the amended
CECP in the event of removal of existing screening due to condemnation by the future I5 Widening project.
The mitigation plan under Condition of Certification VIS-5 shall include replacement tree
canopy of sufficient height and density to provide substantial visual screening of the tall
amended CECP features, including exhaust stacks and transmission poles; and to
substantially replace any existing tree canopy on the eastern CECP/I-5 boundary lost to
highway expansion. The plan developed under Condition of Certification VIS-5 shall not
preclude relocation or undergrounding of transmission poles or other features, if
necessary to provide the stipulated visual buffer.
Staff concludes that a sufficient buffer area does exist at the CECP eastern boundary
for an adequate visual screening solution to be devised in that future eventuality.
However, what particular site modifications or measures would be required of the CECP
or I-5 Widening projects to achieve the stipulated level of visual screening is not known
with certainty at the present time. Adequate screening as required in Condition VIS-5
could possibly be achievable within the CECP site alone or within Caltrans right-of-way
alone, but very likely will require a combination of both under the highly constrained
conditions posed by the footprints of the two projects. Staff’s current understanding thus
suggests that adequate implementation of VIS-5 could require changes or alterations to
layouts of BOTH the CECP and I-5 widening projects. The adequate implementation of
VIS-5 is thus at least partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which
should coordinate with project owner to accommodate the mitigation required under this
condition of certification. The ultimate, optimal mitigation plan thus cannot be specifically
determined until negotiations between Caltrans and the project owner for right-of-way
acquisition are conducted. To aid the reader in visualizing these issues of screening at
the I-5/CECP boundary, Visual Resources Figure 14 depicts an aerial view existing
conditions in the area under discussion. This view depicts the existing CECP
landscaped berm, as well as landscaping within the I-5 ROW.

February 2015

4.13-37

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Because of the uncertainty of which measures by each of the parties will be feasible,
staff acknowledges that there is a potential for a significant cumulative impact to remain
after I-5 widening. However, staff believes that the impact is not immitigable, and is
likely to be mitigated following negotiations between project owner and Caltrans.
Because the final mitigation plan cannot be specifically defined or implemented until
negotiations between Caltrans and the project owner for right-of-way acquisition are
conducted, staff recommends a finding of (potential) significant cumulative
environmental effect requiring changes or alterations of the project within the
responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency (CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(2)).
Energy Commission staff were recently informed by Caltrans of the possibility of interim
highway widening for a HOV lane at the CECP boundary, which could occur sooner
than the full widening project discussed in the I-5 North Coast Corridor EIR/S, and
would represent Phase I of that project. Staff’s understanding is that this interim Phase I
project would not require alteration to the existing I-5 right-of-way line. However,
removal of existing mature trees and vegetation within the Caltrans right-of-way, if
required for the interim HOV project, could potentially reduce the amount of visual
screening at the CECP or EPS sites, a potential adverse visual impact. Existing
landscape screening within the CECP site would remain following Phase I widening,
however, to be augmented by supplemental on-site screening called for under Condition
VIS-2. With application of this condition of certification, impacts of the Phase I widening
would be less than significant. Specific project description, design information and
timing for the interim project are currently under development by Caltrans and
forthcoming.

Other Potential Nearby Development Sites
In its letter of October 24, 2007, the city of Carlsbad expressed concern about potential
project visual incompatibility with an undeveloped parcel located directly east of I-5
designated for Travel/Recreation Commercial use under the Carlsbad General Plan
(city of Carlsbad, 1994).
In the absence of the proposed Caltrans I-5 widening project, discussed below, the
proposed CECP project would not be visually prominent in views from the referenced
site, and would thus be compatible with its designated use, due to screening effects of
the existing earth berm and landscape screening.
With the proposed I-5 widening project, the existing earth berm and tall landscape
screening could be removed, exposing the CECP site to view from the parcel of
concern. However, proposed elevated lanes near the center median of the I-5 project
under all alternatives would partially, and possibly substantially screen the CECP from
the adjoining parcel. Impacts to this parcel from the I-5 project are thus likely to obscure
potential impacts of the CECP project.

Sewer Interceptor and Lift Station Projects
The city of Carlsbad has approved a Sewer Interceptor project requiring condemnation
and use of a 20-foot wide right-of-way running north-south at the western boundary of
the CECP site. The city has also approved construction of a lift station connected with
VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-38

February 2015

 this project that would occupy a portion of the northwest corner of the CECP site. Based
on plans provided by the city, the proposed sewer right-of-way would encroach on a
portion of the CECP’s western boundary. It is unclear to staff at this time to what extent
this encroachment would interfere with or preclude adequate perimeter vegetative
screening.
From a purely visual perspective, reduction or elimination of vegetative screening on the
western boundary of the CECP would result in greater visual exposure of the CECP as
seen by passengers on Amtrak and Coaster trains as they pass the CECP site. This
increased exposure would represent a somewhat adverse visual effect on those
passengers. However, as discussed elsewhere in this FSA, the existing visual quality of
this segment of the railroad right-of-way is relatively low due to the industrial nature of
the surrounding EPS site, and the adjacent, engineered side slopes. In addition, the
exposure of train passengers to views of the CECP in this segment would be very brief.
In this context of lowered viewer exposure and sensitivity, adverse impacts to rail
viewers due to reduction in landscaping are considered to be less-than-significant.
Nevertheless, staff recommends adoption of Condition of Certification VIS-2, including
replacement and supplemental tree and shrub planting on the western boundary of the
CECP, in order to minimize these potential impacts to rail passengers, and to fully
conform with city of Carlsbad Scenic Corridor policies and guidelines pertaining to the
city-designated scenic rail corridor. This measure would also have long-term beneficial
effects in relation to the future CRT project described previously.
As depicted in city plans, the proposed lift station could also conflict with some
landscape screening measures described in Condition of Certification VIS-2, and result
in removal of some existing tree screening. However, construction of the lift station
would result in minimal canopy loss and additional visibility of the CECP as seen from
the middle lagoon. The northernmost existing tree canopy prominent in this view would
not be affected. Resulting impacts to sensitive viewers in the middle lagoon would thus
appear to be relatively minor.
The lift station itself could have adverse effects on the view of passing train passengers.
As discussed above, these views would be very brief, and in the context of the
compromised visual quality of the EPS/CECP site as seen from passing trains, impacts
would be adverse, but less-than-significant. Nevertheless, in order to address potential
cumulative impacts connected with the lift station project, Condition of Certification VIS2 calls for replacement of any trees removed on the CECP site due to that project, as
feasible.

Los Angeles to San Diego (LOSSAN) Double Tracking and Bridge
Replacement
The LOSSAN (San Diego – Los Angeles – San Luis Obispo) rail corridor improvements
project in the vicinity of the CECP site entailed double-tracking of the rail line and
replacement of the Agua Hedionda rail bridge and was completed in 2012. Train
ridership on these rail lines has thus increased, but the project has had minimal longterm visual effect on this portion of the lagoon viewshed.

February 2015

4.13-39

VISUAL RESOURCES

 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND
STANDARDS
Visual Resources Table 3 provides an analysis of the applicable LORS pertaining to
aesthetics or preservation and protection of sensitive visual resources relevant to the
proposed project. Conditions of certification are proposed to make the project conform
to a LORS where appropriate.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-40

February 2015

 Visual Resources Table 3
Proposed Project’s Consistency with
LORS Applicable to Visual Resources

Source
State
California Coastal
Act of 1976
Section 30251 –
Scenic and Visual
Qualities

California Streets
and Highways
Code,
Sections 260
through 263 –
Scenic Highways
Local
city of Carlsbad
General Plan,
1994 as amended
Land Use Element
- Implementation
Policy C.7

February 2015

LORS
Policy and Strategy
Descriptions

Consistency
Determination

The scenic and visual
qualities of coastal areas
shall be considered and
protected as a resource of
public importance. Permitted
development shall be sited
and designed to protect views
to and along the ocean and
scenic coastal areas, to
minimize the alteration of
natural land forms, to be
visually compatible with the
character of surrounding
areas, and, where feasible, to
restore and enhance visual
quality in visually degraded
areas.

Consistent, as
conditioned.
(VIS-1 through
VIS-4)
The CECP
project would be
consistent with
this policy.

Provides for local protection
of scenic quality in statedesignated scenic highways.

Not applicable.

C.7 Evaluate each application
for development of property
with regard to the following
specific criteria:
1. Site design quality which
may be indicated by the
harmony of the proposed
buildings in terms of size,
height and location, with
respect
to
existing
neighboring development.
2. Site design quality which
may be indicated by the
amount and character of
landscaping and screening.
3. Site design quality which
may be indicated by the
arrangement of the site for
efficiency of circulation, or onsite and off-site traffic safety,
privacy, etc.
4. The provision of public
and/or private usable open
space
and/or
pathways

Consistent, as
conditioned.
(VIS-1 through
VIS-4)

4.13-41

Basis for
Consistency

Views of scenic coastal
resources including the ocean
and adjoining lagoon would not
be adversely affected. With
existing prominent tree
screening, the CECP site
appears visually compatible
with its coastal surroundings,
and does not appear visually
degraded from public
viewpoints.
However, in combination with
the future I-5 Widening project,
the project setting could be
severely degraded and be
incompatible with its
surroundings.
The adjoining portion of
Highway I-5 is state-eligible, but
has not been designated as an
official state scenic highway.

The proposed CECP would be
generally consistent with this
policy, based primarily on the
effectiveness of existing and
staff-proposed landscape
screening, which would largely
conceal much of the project
from the public and thus
preserve visual compatibility
with its surroundings.

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Source

Circulation/Scenic
Highways Element
- Implementation
Policies C.2, C.6,
C.9

City of Carlsbad
Specific Plan 144
(SP 144), as
amended 2014

Encina Power
Station Precise
Development
(PDP 00-002f)
Amended 2014

LORS
Policy and Strategy
Descriptions
designated in the Open
Space
and
Parks
and
Recreation Elements.
5. Contributions to and
extensions of existing
systems of foot or bicycle
paths, equestrian trails, and
the greenbelts provided for in
the Circulation, Parks and
Recreation and Open Space
Elements of the General
Plan.
Policy C.2 -establishes the
system of scenic corridors,
which includes Highway I-5,
Carlsbad Boulevard, and the
BNSF rail corridor which
adjoin the CECP site.
C.6 Enhance and preserve
the natural and developed
environments along each
designated scenic route.
C.9 Coordinate the scenic
corridor program with the
state, county and adjacent
cities wherever possible.
SP 144(O) previously
included architectural review
and height requirements
potentially conflicting with the
CECP proposal.
Provided specific
development standards for
the Encina Power Station
property including
architecture, building
materials, landscaping and
grading.
Relevant visual requirements
of the amended (2014)PDP
include:
Under the amended PDP,
parking, loading and refuse
collection areas must be
visually screened from public
view; refuse collection and
loading areas visible from
public areas should be
visually screened, to a height
of ten feet.
A landscape plan may be
required prior to permitting.
Landscaping shall be
provided per Section

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-42

Consistency
Determination

Policy C.2 –
Consistent, as
conditioned
(VIS-1 through
VIS-4)
Policy C. 6 –
Consistent, as
conditioned
(VIS-1 through
VIS-4)
Not applicable
Consistent.
Consistent, as
conditioned.
(VIS-1 through
VIS-4)

Basis for
Consistency

C.2 With staff-recommended
Conditions of Certification VIS-1
and VIS-2, the project would
preserve and in some cases
enhance the setting along the
scenic routes.
C.6 With staff-recommended
Conditions of Certification VIS-1
and VIS-2, the project would
preserve and in some cases
enhance the setting along the
scenic routes.
C.9 Staff has addressed the
objectives of the city’s scenic
corridor program in the PSA
analysis and resulting
recommended conditions of
certification. With
recommended conditions the
project would conform with
those objectives.
The city of Carlsbad repealed
SP 144(O).
The PDP was amended by the
city of Carlsbad in June 2014 to
bring the proposed amended
CECP into conformance with
the current general plan and
zoning ordinance.
The requirements listed have
been addressed through staffrecommended conditions of
certification.

February 2015

 Source

February 2015

LORS
Policy and Strategy
Descriptions
21.36.090 of the Carlsbad
Municipal Code.
Landscaping adjacent to
Carlsbad Boulevard and the
NCTD railroad right of way
shall enhance the visual
character of the area.
Perimeter landscaping, trees
or shrubs that are diseased,
dying, or removed shall be
replaced with similar plants of
equal or better screening
ability to the satisfaction of
the city planner.
Architecture and Building
materials
The following architectural
guidelines apply to the EPS’s
perimeter, and other publicly
visible components of the
PDP area.
 Future buildings and
structures, and additions
and alterations to them or
to existing buildings and
structures, should be sited
and designed in a
compatible manner with
the EPS’s surroundings,
which include the overall
lagoon and ocean
environment, views from
scenic corridors, public
recreation and open space
areas, and established
residential neighborhoods.
 Building materials and
finishes should also reflect
compatibility with
surroundings.
 Any mechanical and/or
electrical equipment
located on the roof of any
structure shall be screened
in a manner acceptable to
the city planner.

4.13-43

Consistency
Determination

Basis for
Consistency

VISUAL RESOURCES

 Source
Agua Hedionda
Local Coastal
Program - Land
Use
Implementation
Plan, adopted
1982

LORS
Policy and Strategy
Descriptions
Identifies land uses and
standards by which
development will be
evaluated within the Coastal
Zone. Identifies uses and
provides standards adopted
by the city of Carlsbad and
the California Coastal Act of
1976.
Under the LCP Land Use
Plan, a 35-foot height limit
applies to the CECP site.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-44

Consistency
Determination

Basis for
Consistency

Inconsistent with
LCP 35-foot
height limitation.

Because the Energy
Commission retains authority
for power plant siting, no
coastal development permit is
required. However, the
Commission would need to
override the LCP 35-foot height
limit, as was done for the
licensed CECP.

February 2015

 NOTEWORTHY PUBLIC BENEFITS
With all recommended conditions of certification, the proposed amended CECP would
result in beneficial visual impacts at several public view locations due to the removal of
the existing EPS under Phase IV of the amended CECP.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR,TN: 203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment 1: Terramar recommended reduction in the size of the project as a solution
to what they feel will be significant future visual impacts due to planned I-5 widening.
Response: Staff believes that a variety of measures exist to reduce current and
future visual impacts of the amended project other than reducing project size.
However, the Reduced Capacity Alternative would not in itself sufficiently avoid or
lessen the impacts of the project. For example, elimination of two of the six proposed
units would still leave four tall, highly prominent features remaining after I-5
widening. The cumulative impacts would thus remain potentially significant with this
alternative. For a full discussion of reduced power and other alternatives, the reader
is referred to the Alternatives section of this FSA.

INTERVENOR: POWER OF VISION, TN: 203512, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment 1 and 2: Commenter identifies the proposed new transmission line as the
visual impact of greatest concern, and recommends that no above-ground transmission
line on the eastern side of the project be permitted.
Response: The proposed transmission line (four poles altogether) would introduce
an additional element of industrial character into the view from I-5 and areas to the
east. Several things serve to reduce this adverse effect: the setback of the
transmission poles from the existing highway (over 100’ to over 175’ from the
highway); the presence of a roughly 15-foot-tall intervening landscaped berm, with
substantial existing tree canopy; the comparatively thin forms of the poles and lines;
and the relocation of two of the towers to the sub-grade generator site, thus reducing
net above-grade height of the poles. These factors combine to make the overall
adverse impact of the poles and lines, though noticeable and visible, visually
subordinate overall (that is, less visually dominant than other features, such as
existing tree canopies, within the scene). In the context of staff’s impact assessment
method; this suggests an adverse but less-than-significant level of overall impact,
even assuming a moderately high level of viewer sensitivity. This judgment is
supported by simulations of the transmission line presented in response to Power of
Vision’s data requests (DR POV 5-1 and POV 5-2), particularly considering that DR
POV 5-1 depicts the northernmost two towers without their relocation westward into
the sub-grade bowl (Figures reproduced here as Visual Resources Figures 10e
and 11d). From middle-ground-distance viewpoints such as the lagoon and
residences east of the lagoon, the thin forms of the towers and lines would be more
visually subordinate at distance than bulkier forms such as the exhaust stacks. From
foreground viewpoints such as the highway, setbacks of 100 to 175 feet would
reduce their prominence to passing motorists by placing them farther to the
February 2015

4.13-45

VISUAL RESOURCES

 periphery of typical motorist views. Tree canopies in the visual foreground would
screen or filter a portion, though not all, of the poles and lines.
The future cumulative impact of I-5 widening by Caltrans might increase this impact.
The 15-foot-tall berm and trees would be removed, and the setback of the
transmission line from the highway would be much less. Staff’s judgment is that a
continuous, permanent landscape buffer with dense, tall shrub and tree planting, as
required under Condition of Certification VIS-5, would reduce visual dominance of
the transmission poles and lines to a subordinate level, an adverse but less-thansignificant level. However, as acknowledged elsewhere in this analysis, staff
recognizes that effective implementation of this condition will require negotiation and
coordination between the project owner and Caltrans.
Comment 3 and 4: Commenter recommended modified wording of Condition VIS-5 to
add the words ’power generating units and their smokestacks’ to the first and second
paragraphs of the condition.
Response: The intent of the proposed wording change is not clear to staff. The
intent of the condition’s wording is to achieve visual screening of the CECP as a
whole, including the generation units and exhaust stacks cited by the commenter, as
well as transmission lines, warehouse, parking, laydown, and other visible features
of the project. Staff does not see the benefit of limiting the scope of the condition to
only those portions of the project cited by commenter.
Comment 5: Commenter requests that the project owner be required to underground
transmission lines or move them from the eastern side of the site during the
construction phase of the amended project, rather than at a later date.
Response: Undergrounding the transmission line does not appear necessary to
mitigate the visual impact caused by freeway widening. It would reduce impacts
somewhat, but would not mitigate the visual impacts of the more dominant project
features. This is because the potential loss of existing tree canopy and the resulting
decline in both screening and visual quality require the preservation and
enhancement of a landscape buffer, which undergrounding alone would not provide.
Further, the establishment of a long-term landscape buffer, as required by Condition
VIS-5, would provide adequate mitigation of the cumulative project impacts for all
project features.
Comment 6: Commenter agrees with staff recommendation that project owner
complete planting and seek approval of CPM prior to project operation.
Response: The wording in Condition of Certification VIS-5 that the commenter
refers to was in error, and has been amended in the FSA. Staff does not foresee the
project owner being able to implement VIS-5 prior to project operation, for a variety
of reasons discussed above.

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-46

February 2015

 AGENCY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, TN: 203543, JANUARY 20, 2015
Comment 1, 2 and 3: The city of Carlsbad stated its willingness to work with the
Energy Commission, NRG and Caltrans on development of visual screening between
the amended CECP and I-5. The city requested that plans resulting from Conditions of
Certification VIS-2, -3, and -5 specify compliance with the city of Carlsbad Landscape
Manual, particularly regarding drought tolerant planting. The city also suggests that
perimeter fencing and security barrier along I-5 should complement the screening
objectives and feature an attractive design where visible to the public.
Response: City’s concerns regarding the Landscape Manual and design of safety
barriers have been incorporated into Condition VIS-5 in the FSA.

PETITIONER: CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER, LLC, TN: 203549,
January 21, 2015
Comment 1, 2 and 3: Project owner proposed minor changes in wording to Conditions
VIS-1, VIS-2 and VIS-3, including a change in VIS-2 giving the city of Carlsbad the
authority to require replacement planting of dead or dying vegetation through the life of
the project.
Response: Staff has no objection to the proposed changes to VIS-1, -2, and -3.
Comment 4: Project owner noted a typographic error by which a newly added
paragraph in Condition VIS-5 was not identified in the PSA as new. That error has been
corrected in the FSA. Project owner recommended minor modifications to wording of
VIS-5.
Response: Staff has no objection to the proposed changes to VIS-5.

CONCLUSIONS
Staff concludes that with all proposed and recommended conditions of certification,
potential project-specific visual impacts of the amended CECP could be mitigated to
acceptable, less-than-significant levels. The project, with all proposed and
recommended conditions, would not have a substantial adverse effect on an identified
scenic vista; on a scenic resource; would not substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its surroundings; and would not create a new source
of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area. The project with recommended mitigation would thus not cause a significant
aesthetic impact under CEQA. The amended CECP would not conform with the 35-foot
height limit established under the Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program. CECP would
conform with all other applicable aesthetics-related LORS.
Although no project-specific long-term significant impacts are anticipated, staff is
concerned that without appropriate coordination with the city of Carlsbad, Coastal
Commission, NRG, and Caltrans, significant adverse cumulative visual impacts could
result from the planned Caltrans North Coast Interstate-5 HOV/Managed Lanes Project,
in combination with the proposed amended CECP. The widening will require Caltrans to
purchase right-of-way from NRG. In doing so it must be mindful of NRG’s duties in VIS5 to maintain visual screening. There is sufficient space for adequate screening that
February 2015

4.13-47

VISUAL RESOURCES

 should be devised in the course of the ROW negotiation. The negotiation will allow NRG
and the city, as well as interested agencies such as the California Coastal Commission,
to mitigate the impacts of the Caltrans project. The conditions of certification proposed
here accommodate that effort. In order to address potential cumulative impacts, staff
proposes adoption of Condition of Certification VIS-5. On the basis of available
information on the alignments of the I-5 Widening Project, available on-site buffer zone
area, and area required to provide adequate visual screening of the CECP,
implementation of this condition would mitigate potential cumulative impacts to lessthan-significant levels.
However, staff believes that adequate implementation of Condition VIS-5 is at least
partially within the responsibility and jurisdiction of Caltrans, which should coordinate
with the project owner to accommodate the mitigation required under this condition of
certification. Because the final mitigation plan required under Condition of Certification
VIS-5, to address future cumulative impacts, cannot be specifically defined or
implemented until negotiations between Caltrans and the project owner for right-of-way
acquisition are conducted, staff recommends a finding of (potential) significant
cumulative environmental effect requiring changes or alterations of the project within the
responsibility or jurisdiction of another public agency which can and should provide such
mitigation. (CEQA Guidelines 15091(a)(2)).

VISUAL RESOURCES

4.13-48

February 2015

 REFERENCES
CCC (California Coastal Commission), 2008. - Coastal Act.
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 2006. - Scenic Highway Master
Plan.
Caltrans, 2008 - CAD files of I-5 Widening Layouts North of Cannon Road. 6/5/2008.
Caltrans, 2013a - Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project FEIR/FEIS
Caltrans 2013b - Design Guidelines: I-5 NCC Project.
Caltrans, 2014 - Map exhibits of I-5 Widening right-of-way and grading adjacent to
CECP site, depicting 8+4 Buffer Alternative.
CAR 1994 - (as amended). General Plan.
CAR 1982 - Agua Hedionda Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan.
CAR 2005 - Precise Development Plan and Desalination Project EIR.
CAR 2006 - Specific Plan 144 Amendment H, PDP Amendment 00-02(b), (Planning
Commission Resolution 6632).
CAR 2014 - CECP Amendment GPA 14-01/PDP 00-02(F)/SP144(O),
CEC2009a - California Energy Commission (TN54068). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Final Staff Assessment, dated November 12, 2009. Submitted
11/12/2009.
CEC2012a - California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014pp - Locke Lord LLP (TN203300). Project Owner Responses to Data Request
Set 3 (Nos. 67-84), dated October 31, 2014. Submitted 10/31/2014.
Smardon, R. and J. Palmer, J. Felleman, 1986 - Foundations of Visual Project
Analysis.

February 2015

4.13-49

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES APPENDIX VR-1
ENERGY COMMISSION VISUAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS EVALUATION
CRITERIA
Energy Commission staff conducts a visual resource analysis according to Appendix G,
“Environmental Checklist Form—Aesthetics,” California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). The CEQA analysis requires that commission staff make a determination of
impact ranging from “Adverse and Significant” to “Not Significant.”
Staff’s analysis is based on Key Observation Points or KOPs. KOPs are photographs of
locations within the project area that are highly visible to the public — for example,
travel routes; recreational and residential areas; and bodies of water as well as other
scenic and historic resources.
Those photographs are taken to indicate existing conditions without the project and then
modified to include a simulation of the project. Consequently, staff has a visual
representation of the viewshed before and after a project is introduced and makes its
analysis accordingly. Information about that analytical process follows.

VISUAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS WITHOUT PROJECT
When analyzing KOPs of existing conditions without the project, staff considers the
following conditions: visual quality, viewer concern, visibility, number of viewers,
duration of view. Those conditions are then factored into an overall rating of viewer
exposure and viewer sensitivity. Information about each condition and rating follows.

Visual Quality
An expression of the visual impression or appeal of a given landscape and the
associated public value attributed to the resource. Visual quality is rated from high to
low. A high rating is generally reserved for landscapes viewers might describe as
picture-perfect.
Landscapes rated high generally are memorable because of the way the components
combine in a visual pattern. In addition, those landscapes are free from encroaching
elements, thus retaining their visual integrity. Finally, landscapes with high visual quality
are visually coherent and harmonious when each element is considered as part of the
whole. On the contrary, landscapes rated low are often dominated by visually discordant
human alterations.

Viewer Concern
Viewer concern represents the reaction of a viewer to visible changes in the viewshed an area of land visible from a fixed vantage point. For example, viewers have a high
expectation for views formally designated as a scenic area or travel corridor as well as
for recreational and residential areas. Viewers generally expect that those views will be
preserved. Travelers on highways and roads, including those in agricultural areas, are
generally considered to have moderate viewer concerns and expectations.

February 2015

VR1-1

APPENDIX VR-1

 However, viewers tend to have low-to-moderate viewer concern when viewing
commercial buildings. And industrial uses typically have the lowest viewer concern.
Regardless, the level of concern could be lower if the existing landscape contains
discordant elements. In addition, some areas of lower visual quality and degraded visual
character may contain particular views of substantially higher visual quality or interest to
the public.

Visibility
Visibility is a measure of how well an object can be seen. Visibility depends on the angle
or direction of views; extent of visual screening; and topographical relationships
between the object and existing homes, streets, or parks. In that sense, visibility is
determined by considering any and all obstructions that may be in the sightline - trees
and other vegetation; buildings; transmission poles or towers; general air quality
conditions such as haze; and general weather conditions such as fog.

Number of Viewers
Number of viewers is a measure of the number of viewers per day who would have a
view of the proposed project. Number of viewers is organized into the following
categories: residential according to the number of residences; motorist according to the
number of vehicles; and recreationists.

Duration of View
Duration of view is the amount of time to view the site. For example, a high or extended
view of a project site is one reached across a distance in two minutes or longer. In
contrast, a low or brief duration of view is reached in a short amount of time - generally
less than ten seconds.

Viewer Exposure
Viewer exposure is a function of three elements previously listed, visibility, number of
viewers, and duration of view. Viewer exposure can range from a low to high. A partially
obscured and brief background view for a few motorists represents a low value; and
unobstructed foreground view from a large number of residences represents a high
value.

Visual Sensitivity
Visual sensitivity is comprised of three elements previous listed, visual quality, viewer
concern, and viewer exposure. Viewer sensitivity tends to be higher for homeowners or
people driving for pleasure or engaged in recreational activities and lower for people
driving to and from work or as part of their work.

VISUAL RESOURCE ANALYSIS WITH PROJECT
Visual resource analyses with photographic simulations of the project involve the
elements of contrast, dominance, view blockage, and visual change. Information about
each element follows.

APPENDIX VR-1

VR1-2

February 2015

 Contrast
Contrast concerns the degree to which a project’s visual characteristics or elements form, line, color, and texture - differ from the same visual elements in the existing
landscape. The degree of contrast can range from low to high. A landscape with forms,
lines, colors, and textures similar to those of a proposed energy facility is more visually
absorbent; that is, more capable of accepting those characteristics than a landscape in
which those elements are absent.1 Generally, visual absorption is inversely proportional
to visual contrast.

Dominance
Dominance is a measure of (a) the proportion of the total field of view occupied by the
field; (b) a feature’s apparent size relative to other visible landscape features; and (c)
the conspicuousness of the feature due to its location in the view.
A feature’s level of dominance is lower in a panoramic setting than in an enclosed
setting with a focus on the feature itself. A feature’s level of dominance is higher if it is
(1) near the center of the view; (2) elevated relative to the viewer; or (3) has the sky as
a backdrop. As the distance between a viewer and a feature increases, its apparent size
decreases; and consequently, its dominance decreases. The level of dominance ranges
from low to high.

View Blockage
The extent to which any previously visible landscape features are blocked from view
constitutes view disruption. The view is also disrupted when the continuity of the view is
interrupted. When considering a project’s features, higher quality landscape features
can be disrupted by lower quality project features, thus resulting in adverse visual
impacts. The degree of view disruption can range from none to high.

Visual Change
Visual change is a function of contrast, dominance, and view disruption. Generally,
contrast and dominance contribute more to the degree of visual change than does view
disruption.

1

Typically, the Energy Commission does not consider texture in its visual analyses.

February 2015

VR1-3

APPENDIX VR-1

 ~SUALRESOURCES-FlGURE1

Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Project Architectural Elevations

..

0:

. w

"' ~

~

....... "....
w

!

<

05

c

~

0

r
JJ

50

m
0
(/)

c

JJ

\·

()

m

(/)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC2012a

100

150

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 2
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Aerial Conceptual Simulation of Amended CECP

<
c)>

en
r

:n

m

(/)

0

c

:n
()

m

(/)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014pp - DR74-1

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 3
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP Map

<
c)>

en
r
JJ

m

CJ)

0

c

JJ

()

m

CJ)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: William Kanemoto & Associates

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 4a and 4b
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 1 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from Carlsbad

KOP 1- Existing View from Carlsbad Boulevard at Agua Hedionda Lagoon
looking southeast

KOP 1 - Visual Simulation, Licensed CECP

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC2012a

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 4c and 4d
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 1, Amended CECP from Carlsbad Boulevard

4c - Amended CECP from Carlsbad Boulevard {Phase Ill)

4d - Amended CECP from Carlsbad Boulevard (Phase IV)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014d

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 5a and 5b
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP2 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from Pannonia Trail

KOP 2 - Existing View from Pannonia Trail at Capri Park looking southwest

KOP 2- Visual Simulation, Licensed CECP

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC2012a

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE Sc and 5d
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 2 Amended CECP from Pannonia Trail

Sc - Amended CECP from Pannonia Trail (Phase Ill)

5d - Amended CECP from Pannonia Trail (Phase IV)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014d

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 6a and 6b
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 3 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from Cove Drive

KOP 3- Existing View from end of Cove Drive looking southwest

KOP 3- Visual Simulation, Licensed CECP

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC2012a

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 6c and 6d
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 3 - Amended CECP from Cove Drive

6c - KOP 3, (Phase 111)

6d - KOP 3 (Phase IV)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION • SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014d

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 7a and 7b
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment- KOP 3A - Licensed CECP and Amended CECP from Adams Street

?a - Licensed CEC P

?b - Amended CECP (Phase 111 )

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRON MENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC2012a : LL2014d

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 7c
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 3A - Amended CECP (Phase IV) from Adams Street

<
(/)
c)>
r

J)

rn
(/)
0

c

J)

0

m

(/)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014d

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE Ba and Sb
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 4 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from Hoover Street

KOP 4- Existing View from end of Hoover Street looking southwest

KOP 4- Visual Simulation, Licensed CECP

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC2012a

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE Sc and 8d
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 4 - Amended CECP from Hoover Street

8c - Amended CECP (Phase Ill)

8d - Amended CECP (Phase IV)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014d

VIS UAL RESO URCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 9a and 9b
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 5 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from Harbor Drive

KOP 5- Existing View from Harbor Drive looking south

KOP 5- Visual Simulation, Licensed CECP

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION • SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC2012a

VIS UAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 9c and 9d
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 5 - Amended CECP from Harbor Drive

(Phase Ill)

(Phase IV)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014d

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 1Oa and 1 Ob
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 6 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from 1-5 Southbound

KOP 6- Existing View from southbound Interstate 5 looking south

KOP 6- Visual Simulation, Licensed CECP

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC20 12a

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 1Oc and 1Od
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 6 - Amended CECP from 1-5 Southbound

(Phase Ill)

(Phase IV)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION· SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014d

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES- FIGURE 10e
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 6A - Amended CECP from 1-5 Southbound

<
c

(/)

)>

r
::D

m
0

(/)

c

::D
0

m

(/)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL20141

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 11 a and 11 b

Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 7 - Existing View and Licensed CECP from 1-5 Northbound
KOP 7- Existing View from northbound Interstate 5 looking northwest

KOP 7- Visual Simulation , Lice nsed CECP

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: CEC2012a

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 11c
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 7 - Amended CECP from 1-5 Northbound

<
c
)>

05

r
JJ

m

(J)

0

c

JJ

0

m

(J)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: LL2014d

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 11 d
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Amended CECP from KOP 7A Looking North

<
(/)
c
)>
r

JJ

m

(/)

0

c

JJ
0

m

(/)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Figure DR POV 5-3

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 12a and 12b
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 9 - Licensed and Amended CECP

12a - Licensed CECP - Baseline view looking toward the CECP site that is equivalent to
the view seen by Passengers on train cars passing adjacent to the site.
The licensed power plant's HRSGs and stacks wou ld be readily visible.

12b - Amended CECP - View toward the CECP site equivalent to the view seen by
passengers on train cars passing adjacent to the site as it would appear after the
development of the Amended CECP.
Only the tops of the Amended project's stacks wou ld be visible in this view.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Figure DR 58-11

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 13a and 13b
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - KOP 11 - Licensed and Amended CECP

13a - Licensed CECP
View looking toward southeast toward the CECP site from the rail corridor.

13b - Amended CECP
View looking southeast toward the CECP site from the rail corridor as it would
appear with development of the Amended CECP

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Figure DR58-1 3

VISUAL RESOURCES

 VISUAL RESOURCES - FIGURE 14
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Oblique Aerial View of 1-5 - CECP Boundary Facing Southwest

<
c)>

(f)

r

:::IJ

m

(f)

0

c

:::IJ

(")

m
(f)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOU RCE: Google Earth

 Engineering
Assessment

FACILITY DESIGN
Testimony of Edward Brady and Shahab Khoshmashrab

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The California Energy Commission staff concludes that the Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Amendment (amended CECP, or project) would comply with applicable
engineering laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS). The proposed
conditions of certification, below, would ensure compliance with these LORS.

INTRODUCTION
Facility design encompasses the civil, structural, mechanical, and electrical engineering
aspects of the amended CECP. The purpose of this analysis is to:


verify that the laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS) that apply to the
engineering design and construction of the project have been identified;



verify that both the project and its ancillary facilities are sufficiently described,
including proposed design criteria and analysis methods, in order to provide
reasonable assurance that the project will be designed and constructed in
accordance with all applicable engineering LORS, in a manner that also ensures the
public health and safety;



determine whether special design features should be considered during final design
to address conditions unique to the site which could influence public health and
safety; and



describe the design review and construction inspection process and establish the
conditions of certification used to monitor and ensure compliance with the
engineering LORS, in addition to any special design requirements.

Subjects discussed in this analysis include:


identification of the engineering LORS that apply to facility design;



evaluation of the petitioner’s proposed design criteria, including identification of
criteria essential to public health and safety; and



conditions of certification proposed by staff to ensure that the project will be
designed and constructed to ensure public health and safety and comply with all
applicable engineering LORS.

February 2015

5.1-1

FACILITY DESIGN

 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (LORS)
Lists of LORS applicable to each engineering discipline (civil, structural, mechanical,
and electrical) are described in the CECP amendment (LL 2014e, Appendix 2C). Key
LORS are listed in Facility Design Table 1, below.
Facility Design Table 1
Key Engineering Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR

Description

Federal

Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, Occupational Safety and Health
standards

State

2013 (or the latest edition in effect) California Building Standards Code (also known
as Title 24, California Code of Regulations)

Local

City of Carlsbad Municipal Ordinance, Title 18, Building Codes and Standards

General

American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
American Welding Society (AWS)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

The following conditions of certification require the project to comply with the California
Building Standards Code (CBSC) and the city of Carlsbad codes to ensure that the
project would be built to applicable engineering codes and ensure public health and
safety.
For the project to be built in a manner that would ensure public health and safety, the
LORS listed above in Facility Design Table 1 under the “General” heading, must also
be met by the project. The LORS listed under this heading are only some of the key
engineering standards applicable to the project; for a comprehensive list of engineering
LORS, please see Facility Design Appendix FD-1.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The amended CECP would include the demolition of above-ground fuel oil storage
tanks 1, 2 and 4 (ASTs 1, 2, and 4), the construction of the amended CECP power plant
(LL 2014d, § 1.1), and the demolition of the Encina Power Station (EPS) (LL 2014b, §
1.2). The amended CECP electrical generation re-configuration would include six
simple-cycle natural gas-fired combustion turbines, instead of the combined-cycle units
approved in the licensed CECP 2012 Final Decision. For more details and specifics
regarding the proposed modifications to the licensed CECP sought by the
petitioner/project owner, please see the Project Description section of this document.

FACILITY DESIGN

5.1-2

February 2015

 SETTING
Like the licensed CECP, the amended CECP would be located on the northeastern
section of the Encina Power Station (EPS) site, located immediately south of the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon and west of Interstate-5, within the city of Carlsbad, in northern San
Diego County.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
The purpose of this analysis is to ensure that the demolition and construction activities
proposed by the amended CECP would comply with applicable engineering codes,
ensure public health and safety, and verify that applicable engineering LORS have been
identified. This analysis also evaluates the petitioner’s proposed design criteria,
describes the design review and construction inspection process, and establishes
conditions of certification that would monitor and ensure compliance with engineering
LORS and any other special design requirements. These conditions allow both the
California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) compliance project manager
(CPM) and the petitioner to adopt a compliance monitoring program that will verify
compliance with these LORS.

SITE PREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT
The petitioner proposes the use of accepted industry standards, design practices, and
construction methods in preparing and developing the site (see LL 2014e, Appendix 2C,
for a representative list of applicable industry standards). Staff concludes that the
proposed design criteria for grading, flood protection, erosion control, and site drainage
would comply with all applicable site preparation LORS. To ensure compliance, staff
proposes the conditions of certification listed below.

MAJOR STRUCTURES, SYSTEMS, AND EQUIPMENT
Major structures, systems, and equipment are structures and their associated
components or equipment that are necessary for power production, costly or time
consuming to repair or replace, are used for the storage, containment, or handling of
hazardous or toxic materials, or could become potential health and safety hazards if not
constructed according to applicable engineering LORS.
The amended CECP will be designed and constructed to the 2013 California Building
Standards Code (CBSC), also known as Title 24, California Code of Regulations, which
encompasses the California Building Code (CBC), California Building Standards
Administrative Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California
Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California Fire Code, California Code for
Building Conservation, California Reference Standards Code, and other applicable
codes and standards in effect when the design and construction of the project actually
begin. If the initial designs are submitted to the chief building official (CBO) for review
and approval after the update to the 2013 CBSC takes effect, the 2013 CBSC
provisions shall be replaced with the updated provisions.
Certain structures in a power plant may be required, under the CBC, to undergo
dynamic lateral force (structural) analysis; others may be designed using the simpler
February 2015

5.1-3

FACILITY DESIGN

 static analysis procedure. In order to ensure that structures are analyzed according to
their appropriate lateral force procedure, staff has included condition of certification
STRUC-1, below, which, in part, requires the project CBO’s review and approval of the
owner’s proposed lateral force procedures before construction begins.

PROJECT QUALITY PROCEDURES
The petitioner describes a quality program intended to inspire confidence that its
systems and components will be designed, fabricated, stored, transported, installed,
and tested in accordance with all appropriate power plant technical codes and
standards (LL 2014e, Appendix 2C). Compliance with design requirements will be
verified through specific inspections and audits. Implementation of this quality
assurance and quality control program will ensure that the amended CECP is actually
designed, procured, fabricated, and installed as described in this analysis.

COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Under Division II, Section 104 of the 2013 CBC, the CBO is authorized and directed to
enforce all provisions of the CBC. The Energy Commission itself serves as the building
official, and has the responsibility to enforce the code, for all of the energy facilities it
certifies. In addition, the Energy Commission has the power to interpret the CBC and
adopt and enforce both rules and supplemental regulations that clarify application of the
CBC’s provisions.
The Energy Commission’s design review and construction inspection process conforms
to CBC requirements and ensures that all facility design conditions of certification are
met. As provided by Section 103 of the 2013 CBC, the Energy Commission appoints
experts to perform design review and construction inspections and act as delegate
CBOs on behalf of the Energy Commission. These delegates may include the local
building official and/or independent consultants hired to provide technical expertise that
is not provided by the local official alone. The petitioner, through permit fees provided by
the CBC, pays the cost of these reviews and inspections. While building permits in
addition to Energy Commission certification are not required for this project, the
petitioner pays in lieu of CBC permit fees to cover the costs of these reviews and
inspections.
Engineering and compliance staff will invite a third-party engineering consultant to act
as CBO for this project. When an entity has been assigned CBO duties, Energy
Commission staff will complete a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with that entity
to outline both its roles and responsibilities and those of its subcontractors and
delegates.
Staff has developed proposed Conditions of Certification GEN-1 through GEN-8,
STRUC-1 through STRUC-4, CIVIL-1 through CIVIL-4, MECH-1 through MECH-3, and
ELEC-1, to ensure protection of public health and safety and compliance with
engineering design LORS. Some of these conditions address the roles, responsibilities,
and qualifications of the engineers who will design and build the proposed project
(Conditions of Certification GEN-4 and GEN-5). These engineers must be registered in
California and sign and stamp every submittal of design plans, calculations, and
specifications submitted to the CBO. These conditions require that every element of the
FACILITY DESIGN

5.1-4

February 2015

 project’s demolition and construction (subject to CBO review and approval) be approved
by the CBO before it is performed. They also require that qualified special inspectors
perform or oversee special inspections required by all applicable LORS (Condition of
Certification GEN-6).
While the Energy Commission and delegate CBO have the authority to allow some
flexibility in scheduling construction activities, these conditions are written so that no
element of construction (of permanent facilities subject to CBO review and approval)
which could be difficult to reverse or correct can proceed without prior CBO approval.
Elements of construction that are not difficult to reverse may proceed without approval
of the plans. The petitioner bears the responsibility to fully modify construction elements
in order to comply with all design changes resulting from the CBO’s subsequent plan
review and approval, and inspection processes.

FACILITY CLOSURE
Facility closure is defined in the Compliance Conditions section of this document as a
facility shutdown with no intent to restart operation. It may also be the cumulative result
of unsuccessful efforts to re-start over an increasingly lengthy period of non-operation1,
condemned by inadequate means and/or lack of a viable plan. Facility closures can
occur due to a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, irreparable damage and/or
functional or economic obsolescence.
In order to ensure that facility closure would be completed in a manner that is
environmentally sound, safe, and protects the public health and safety, the project
owner must submit a closure plan to the Energy Commission for review and approval
prior to the commencement of closing the facility, as required in Condition of
Certification COM-15 (Facility Closure Planning) in Compliance Conditions.
Though future conditions that could affect facility closure are largely unknown at this
time, the requirements in Compliance Conditions are adequate protection, even in the
unlikely event that the project is abandoned.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
Staff received no comments from the public, interveners, agencies, or the petitioner in
the area of Facility Design.

1

Non-operation is defined in the Compliance Conditions section as a time-limited event and can
encompass part or all of a facility. Non-operation can be a planned event, usually for minor equipment
maintenance or repair, or unplanned, usually the result of unanticipated events or emergencies.
February 2015

5.1-5

FACILITY DESIGN

 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS) identified above apply to
the project.
2. Staff has evaluated the proposed engineering LORS, design criteria, and design
methods in the record, and concludes that the project will comply with applicable
engineering LORS.
3. The proposed conditions of certification will ensure that the amended CECP is
completed in accordance with applicable engineering LORS. This will be
accomplished through design review, plan checking, and field inspections that will be
performed by the CBO. Staff will audit the CBO to ensure satisfactory performance.
4. Though future conditions that could affect facility closure are largely unknown at this
time, it can reasonably be concluded that if the project owner submits a facility
closure plan in accordance with COM-15 as provided in the Compliance
Conditions portion of this document prior to facility closure, facility closure
procedures will comply with all applicable engineering LORS.
Energy Commission staff recommends that:
1. The following conditions of certification be adopted to ensure that the project is
completed in a manner that protects the public health and safety and complies with
all applicable engineering LORS;
2. The project be designed and built to the 2013 CBSC (or successor standards, if in
effect when initial project engineering designs are submitted to the CBO for review);
and
3. The CBO review the final designs, check plans, and perform field inspections during
construction. Energy Commission staff shall audit and monitor the CBO to ensure
satisfactory performance.

FACILITY DESIGN

5.1-6

February 2015

 REFERENCES
LL 2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014
LL 2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL 2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.

February 2015

5.1-7

FACILITY DESIGN

 FACILITY DESIGN APPENDIX FD-1:
ENGINEERING LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND
STANDARDS (LORS)
This appendix lists the LORS that would be used in the engineering design and
construction of the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment (amended CECP).

1. CIVIL ENGINEERING LORS:
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)—
Standards and Specifications
American Concrete Institute (ACI) − Standards and Recommended Practices
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) − Standards and Specifications
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) − Standards
American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) − Standards, Specifications, and
Recommended Practices
American Water Works Association (AWWA) − Standards and Specifications
American Welding Society (AWS) − Codes and Standards
Asphalt Institute (AI) − Asphalt Handbook
State of California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) Standard Specification
California Energy Commission (CEC) − Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for NonNuclear Generating Facilities in California, 1989
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) − Standards
Factory Mutual (FM) − Standards
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) − Standards
California Building Code (CBC) 2013
Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC) − Standards and Specifications
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) – Standards and Recommended Practices
International Building Code (IBC) 2012 Edition
United States Geological Survey (USGS)

February 2015

FD1-1

APPENDIX FD-1

 2. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING LORS:
California Building Code, 2013 Edition
American Concrete Institute (ACI)
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE)
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
American Welding Society (AWS)
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29—Labor, Chapter XVII, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA)
National Association of Architectural Metal Manufacturers (NAAMM)—Metal Bar Grating
Manual
Hoist Manufacturers Institute (HMI), Standard Specifications for Electric Wire Rope
Hoists (HMI 100)
IEEE 980 – Guide for Containment and Control of Oil Spills in Substations
National Electric Safety Code (NESC), C2-2007
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA Standards)
OSHA Williams-Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
Steel Deck Institute (SDI)—Design Manual for Floor Decks and Roof Decks

3. MECHANICAL ENGINEERING LORS:
California Building Standards Code, 2013 Edition
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code
ASME/ANSI B31.1 Power Piping Code
ASME Performance Test Codes
ASME Standard TDP-1
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B16.5, B16.34, and B133.8
American Boiler Manufacturers Association (ABMA)
American Gear Manufacturers Association (AGMA)
Air Moving and Conditioning Association (AMCA)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
APPENDIX FD-1

FD1-2

February 2015

 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
American Welding Society (AWS)
Cooling Tower Institute (CTI)
Heat Exchange Institute (HEI)
Manufacturing Standardization Society (MSS) of the Valve and Fitting Industry
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Hydraulic Institute Standards (HIS)
Tubular Exchanger Manufacturer’s Association (TEMA)

4. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING LORS:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
Anti-Friction Bearing Manufacturers Association (AFBMA)
California Building Standards Code
California Electrical Code
Insulated Cable Engineers Association (ICEA)
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
Illuminating Engineering Society (IES)
National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE)
National Electrical Code (NEC)
National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)
National Electrical Safety Code (NESC)
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL)

February 2015

FD1-3

APPENDIX FD-1

 GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY
Testimony of Casey Weaver, CEG

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Staff analyzed the proposed changes to the licensed Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(CECP), which include replacing combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle
turbines, reconfiguration of the project footprint, and the demolition and removal of
portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff concludes that there would not be any new
significant geological or paleontological resource impacts not previously analyzed, nor
an increase in severity of environmental impacts. Staff recommends the mitigation as
proposed in the conditions of certification below.
The proposed amended CECP is located in an active geologic area on the coast of
Southern California between Los Angeles and San Diego. The site is not underlain by
an active fault and the site is not subject to surface fault rupture. The closest known
active fault is the Rose Canyon segment of the Newport - Inglewood Fault Zone which
is located approximately two miles southwest of the proposed project site. Numerous
active faults are located in both the onshore and offshore vicinity of the project site.
Because of its geologic setting, the site could be subject to very strong levels of
earthquake-related ground shaking. While the potential for earthquake ground rupture is
low, several major off-shore faults are located between two and 11 miles of the site. The
significant effects of strong ground shaking on the CECP structures must be mitigated
through structural designs required by the most recent edition of the California Building
Code (CBC 2013) or its successor in effect at the time construction were to commence.
CBC 2013 requires that structures be designed to resist seismic stresses from
anticipated maximum ground acceleration.
Due to the relatively dense and granular nature of site soils, the project would not likely
be subject to seismically induced soil failure. A design-level geotechnical investigation
required for the project by the California Building Code, and proposed Condition of
Certification GEO-1 and Facility Design Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and
CIVIL-1, would present standard engineering design recommendations for mitigation of
potential expansive clay soils, as well as excessive settlement due to compressible soils
or dynamic compaction.
The project area is subject to inundation by tsunami; however, the project site is
mapped outside of a tsunami inundation zone. U.S. Building codes generally have not
addressed the subject of designing structures in tsunami zones (Reynolds 2013).
FEMA’s Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA P55), developed to provide design and
construction guidance for structures built in coastal areas, addresses seismic loads for
coastal structures and provides information on tsunami and associated loads (FEMA
2013).
Based on the sea level rise projections developed by the Sea-Level Rise Task Force of
the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team, sea level
is predicted to rise a maximum of 17 inches above the 2014 level by the year 2050 (CO-

February 2015

5.2-1

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 CAT 2013). Analysis of the effects of sea-level rise on the project is presented in the
Soil & Water Resources section of this document.
There are no known viable geologic or mineralogical resources at the amended CECP
site. Numerous paleontological resources have been documented within three miles of
the project, but no significant fossils were found during field explorations at the plant site
or ancillary facilities. Potential impacts to paleontological resources due to construction
activities are not likely, but if discovered during construction, they would be mitigated
through worker training and monitoring by qualified paleontologists, as required by
proposed Conditions of Certification, PAL-1 through PAL-8.
Based on this information, Energy Commission staff (staff) concludes that the potential
adverse cumulative impacts to the project facilities from geologic hazards during their
design life would be less than significant. Similarly, staff concludes the potential adverse
cumulative impacts to potential geologic, mineralogic, and paleontologic resources from
the construction, operation, and closure of the proposed project, if any, would be less
than significant. It is staff’s opinion that the amended CECP would be designed and
constructed in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards (LORS), and in a manner that both protects environmental quality and
assures public safety.

INTRODUCTION
As discussed in detail in the Project Description of this FSA, the amended CECP
would be different than the licensed CECP approved by the Energy Commission on
May 31, 2012. For that reason, an evaluation of impacts, including the potential for
changes or additions to the licensed CECP conditions of certification for the project is
required. The amended CECP proposes implementing the following general changes
and modifications to the licensed CECP:
1. Add the demolition of three additional above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (AST’s 1,
2 and 4), and associated piping and equipment, removal of oily sands from under
ASTs 1, 2, and 4, and removal of a an earthen berm between ASTs 4 and 5.
2. Change in generation equipment and technology from Siemens fast response,
combined-cycle to six natural gas-fired GE LMS 100 simple-cycle turbines with
approximately 632 MW net output of electrical generating capacity.
3. Add retirement and demolition of Encina Power Station (EPS). Units 1 through 5 of
EPS will be retired and all above-grade elements of the EPS power and support
buildings will be demolished and removed.
The amended CECP will continue to be situated adjacent to the EPS, in the north
eastern portion of the 95-acre parcel, between the existing North County Transit District
(NCTD) railroad tracks and Interstate-5, but the amended CECP will have a larger
footprint, occupying most of that area (30 acres). Construction equipment/material
laydown and construction worker parking areas for the project will remain immediately
north of the existing EPS facility and in various areas west of the existing railroad tracks.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-2

February 2015

 No offsite parking or laydown areas are anticipated to be necessary for the construction
of the amended CECP.
Since the original project was licensed, additional regional geologic information has
been developed in association with studies performed in accordance with AB 1632 and
for the proposed relicensing of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).
Information from those studies that pertains to the project site has been included in this
FSA and this FSA includes information not provided in the licensed CECP FSA and
Decision. The additional information provides some of the basis for changes to the
conditions of certification being recommended in the FSA.
Condition of Certification GEO-1 was added to assure that design and construction of
the plant conforms to the most recent edition of the California Building Code. Condition
of Certification PAL-5 was added to require that all site workers associated with ground
disturbing activities be adequately trained to respond to unexpected discovery of
paleontological resources. Condition of Certification PAL-8 was added to ensure that all
elements that are presented in the Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation
Plan (PRMMP) are adequately performed (previously, the requirement was to merely
prepare the PRMMP). Other changes to the conditions of certification were made for
editorial considerations or to make the conditions more enforceable.

PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Geology & Paleontology Table 1 below shows what staff previously analyzed in the
licensed CECP and the new or additional project elements for the amended CECP.
Where new or additional disturbance would occur there is the potential to impact
geologic and paleontologic resources beyond that analyzed in the licensed CECP. Also,
where new facilities are added or expanded for the amended CECP there is potential for
geologic hazards to exist beyond those analyzed in the licensed CECP.

February 2015

5.2-3

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 Geology & Paleontology Table 1
Licensed vs. Amended CECP Features Potentially Impacting Geologic and
Paleontologic Resources and Impacted by Geologic Hazards
Feature

Licensed CECP (558 MW)

Amended CECP (632 MW)

Power production

Two one-on-one combined cycle units

Six simple-cycle combustion turbine
units with intercoolers

Annual capacity
factor

Up to 47 % (4,100 of 8,760 possible
hours)

Estimated 31 % (approximately 2,700
operating hours)

Project footprint

Approximately 23 acres

Approximately 30 acres

Area of temporary
construction
laydown

Ten acres

19 acres

Site preparation

Demolish above-ground fuel oil storage
Tanks 5, 6, and 7

Demolish above-ground fuel oil
storage Tanks 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7

Encina Power
Station

Retire units 1-3

Retire units 1-5 and demolish all
above-ground structures

Length of
construction

25 months (from site preparation to
CECP plant begin operation)

64 months (from site preparation to
EPS plant demolition to ground level)

Off-site linear
facilities

The amended project includes a new reclaimed water line approximately 3,700
feet long.

Source: CEC2012a, LL2014d, LL2014b

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (LORS)
Applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS) are listed in the Petition
to Amend (PTA) (LL2014d, e). The following briefly describes the current LORS for both
geologic hazards and resources and mineralogic and paleontologic resources.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-4

February 2015

 Geology & Paleontology Table 2
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR
Federal

Description
The amended CECP is not located on federal land. There are no federal LORS for
geologic hazards and resources for this site.

State
California Building Code
(2013)

The California Building Code (CBC 2013) includes a series of standards that are used in
project investigation, design, and construction (including seismicity, grading and erosion
control). The CBC has adopted provisions in the International Building Code (IBC, 2012).

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act, Public
Resources Code (PRC),
section 2621–2630

Mitigates against surface fault rupture of known active faults beneath occupied
structures. Requires disclosure to potential buyers of existing real estate and a 50-foot
setback for new occupied buildings.

Seismic Hazards
Mapping Act, PRC
section 2690–2699
California Coastal Act,
sections 30244 and
30253

Maps identify areas (zones) that are subject to the effects of strong ground shaking, such
as liquefaction, landslides, tsunamis, and seiches. Requires a geotechnical report be
prepared that defines and delineates any seismic hazard prior to approval of a project
located in a seismic hazard zone.
Section 30244 requires mitigation for adversely impacted archaeological and
paleontological resources. Section 30253 requires that risks to life and property that may
result from geologic, flood and fire hazards be minimized, and that the “stability and
structural integrity” of the site and natural landforms in the surrounding area be
maintained.

Local

County of San Diego

County of San Diego
Grading Ordinance,
section 87.430
County of San Diego
Guidelines for
Determining Significance
for Paleontological
Resources
County of San Diego
General Plan, Part X,
Conservation Element
City of Carlsbad (COC)
General Plan

The county requires compliance with the seismic design criteria in the CBC (2007) and
mitigation of geologic hazards associated with earthquakes according to the Seismic
Hazards Mapping Act. Identification of and setback from faults that present potential
surface rupture hazards are required, as set forth in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning
Act. The “Conservation Element” of the General Plan and Guidelines for Determining
Significance address monitoring and collection of discovered resources on county lands.
May require paleontological monitor on grading sites located on county land. Discusses
suspension of operations, notification of county officials, and recovery of paleontological
resources, and resumption of operations.
The county guidelines address whether the project would directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or site, as described in the CEQA Guidelines 2014,
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form.
Provides for protection of natural resources on County lands, including Unique Geological
Features which includes fossiliferous formations.
Requires compliance with public safety aspects in the general plan with regard to
geologic hazards during construction, specifically site grading and trenching. The Cultural
Resources Guidelines used by the Planning Department also provide for evaluation of
potential impacts to scientifically valuable resources.

Standards
Society for Vertebrate
Paleontology (SVP), 2010
Bureau of Land
Management (BLM)
Instructional
Memorandum 2008-009

February 2015

The “Measures for Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Non-Renewable
Paleontological Resources: Standard Procedures” is a set of procedures and standards
for assessing and mitigating impacts to vertebrate paleontological resources developed
by the SVP, a national organization of professional scientists. The measures were
adopted in October 1995, and revised in 2010 following adoption of the Paleontological
Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) of 2009.
Provides up-to-date methodologies for assessing paleontological sensitivity and
management guidelines for paleontological resources on lands managed by the Bureau
of Land Management. While not required on non-BLM lands, the methodologies are
useful for all paleontological studies, regardless of land ownership.

5.2-5

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 SETTING
The amended CECP would be constructed on an approximately 30-acre portion of the
existing Encina Power Station (EPS) property (approximately 95 total acres) located in
southern Carlsbad, California in San Diego County (Geology & Paleontology Figure
1). The amended CECP site occupies the surface of an elevated peninsula with the
Pacific Ocean to the west and the Agua Hedionda lagoon to the north and east
(Geology & Paleontology Figure 2). The amended CECP site would be constructed
on the Agua Hedionda side of the peninsula. The site is situated between Interstate 5
(San Diego Freeway) to the east and active railroad right of way to the west.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
This section considers two types of impacts. The first is the potential impacts the
proposed construction and operation of the facility could have on existing geologic,
mineralogic, and paleontologic resources in the area. The second is geologic hazards,
which could impact the proper functioning of the proposed facility and create life/safety
concerns.

METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
No federal LORS concerning geologic hazards and geologic and mineralogic resources
apply to this proposed project. The California Building Standards Code (CBSC) and
CBC 2013 provide geotechnical and geological investigation and design guidelines,
which engineers must follow when designing a facility. As a result, the criteria used to
assess the significance of a geologic hazard includes evaluating each hazard’s potential
impact on the design and construction of the proposed facility. Geologic hazards include
faulting and seismicity, liquefaction, dynamic compaction, hydrocompaction,
subsidence, expansive soils, landslides, tsunamis, seiches, and others as may be
dictated by site-specific conditions.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, Appendix G, provide a
checklist of questions that lead agencies typically address.


Section (V) (c) includes guidelines that determine if a project will either directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site, or a unique geological
feature.



Sections (VI) (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) focus on whether or not the project would
expose persons or structures to geologic hazards.



Sections (X) (a) and (b) concern the project’s effects on mineral resources.

Staff has reviewed geologic and mineral resource maps for the surrounding area, as
well as site-specific information provided by the applicant, to determine if geologic and
mineralogic resources differ from those in the licensed CECP.
Staff reviewed the summary of the records review by the San Diego County Natural
History Museum that is presented in the original CECP AFC (CECP 2007a). Sitespecific information generated by the applicant for the amended CECP was also
reviewed. All research was conducted in accordance with accepted assessment
GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-6

February 2015

 protocol (SVP 2010) to determine whether any known paleontologic resources may
exist in areas not analyzed in the licensed CECP. If present or likely to be present,
conditions of certification which outline required procedures to mitigate impacts to
potential resources would be proposed as part of the projects approval.
Staff reviewed current geologic studies recently performed in association with
evaluation of seismicity of SONGS. The evaluation of site seismicity in this FSA has
been updated from that presented in the licensed CECP FSA and Final Commission
Decision.

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
An assessment of the potential impacts to geologic, mineralogic, and paleontologic
resources, and from geologic hazards is provided below. The assessment of impacts is
followed by a summary of potential impacts that may occur during construction and
operation of the project and provides recommended conditions of certification that would
ensure potential impacts are mitigated to a level that is less than significant. The
recommended conditions of certification would allow the Energy Commission’s
compliance project manager (CPM) and the applicant to adopt a compliance monitoring
scheme ensuring ongoing compliance with LORS applicable to geologic hazards and
the protection of geologic, mineralogic, and paleontologic resources.

GEOLOGIC AND MINERALOGIC RESOURCES
At the amended CECP site, the geologic units at the surface and in the subsurface are
widespread alluvial deposits that occur throughout the Carlsbad area (Geology &
Paleontology Figure 5A). These geologic units are not unique in terms of recreational,
commercial, or scientific value.
Staff did not identify any geological resources at the energy facility location or along
project linears. Aggregate for Portland cement concrete (PCC) has been produced from
two pits in the area, located three to seven miles northeast and east of the site (CDMG
1996b; CDMG 1990). Mesozoic age metamorphic rocks, which are not present in the
vicinity of the proposed power plant, are mined to produce the aggregate. The marine
and transitional facies sediments at the proposed site are characterized as “containing
mineral deposits the significance of which cannot be evaluated from available data”
(CDMG 1996b). Given the industrialized nature of the area and the lack of metamorphic
rocks suitable as a source of aggregate, there would be very low potential for this site to
have economically valuable industrial mineral deposits.
Minor quantities of gold were produced until the early 1900’s from small districts in the
relatively low-lying mountain ranges located at least 15 miles to the east (CDMG, 1998).
The gold, and occasionally nickel, was extracted from quartz veins hosted in granitic
and metamorphic rocks. World class gemstones formed in pegmatite dikes associated
with granitic rocks in San Diego County. Spectacular pink tourmalines, beryls and other
highly-valued gemstones have, and continue to be produced from mines located 20 to
25 miles to the northeast and east. Lithium is also extracted from these areas. The
potential for deposits of precious metals, base metals, or gemstones is negligible at the
amended CECP site because Mesozoic granitic and metamorphic rocks are not
present. No petroleum or geothermal resources are known to occur within 45 miles of
February 2015

5.2-7

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 the site. Staff concludes there would be no impacts to geologic and mineralogic
resources from the amended CECP construction or operation.

PALEONTOLOGIC RESOURCES
Staff reviewed the Paleontological Resources assessment in Section 5.8 and
Paleontological Records Search and Literature Review (Confidential) in Appendix 5.8A
of the AFC (CECP 2007a) for the licensed CECP. Staff has also reviewed
paleontological literature and records searches conducted by the San Diego Natural
History Museum (SDNHM) (Randall, 2008), San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM)
(Scott, 2008), and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (NHMLC)
(McCleod, 2008), as well as the online records database maintained by the University of
California, Museum of Paleontology (UCMP 2008).
Many paleontological sites are documented within three miles of the amended CECP
project area. The San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM) collection contains
specimens from 113 localities, including 30 from Pleistocene paralic deposits and 58
from the Santiago Formation (Randall, 2008; CECP 2007a). The Quaternary fossils
consist of marine invertebrates, such as worms, bryozoans, foraminifers, tusk shells,
ostracods, barnacles, crabs, snails, clams, oysters, pectens, sand dollars, and sea
urchins, as well as continental vertebrates, such as proboscidens (mammoths and
elephants), turkeys, rodents, tapirs, horses, camels, deer, and bison (Randall, 2008).
The specimens from the Santiago Formation were collected from marine, lagoonal,
estuarine, and fluvial siltstones and sandstones. The SDNHM collection also includes
specimens from two sites at Carlsbad State Beach. The localities are approximately
1,600 feet and 4,000 feet southwest of the amended CECP site, and have produced
vertebrate fossils of terrestrial mammals, including oreodonts (now extinct plant-eaters
distantly related to pigs, hogs, peccaries and hippopotamuses).
The nearest of these fossil localities is approximately 500 to 750 feet south of the
existing EPS ocean-water pipeline intake and discharge locations. The reported source
from which the fossils were recovered is fluvial sandstone of the Oligocene-age Sespe
or Vaqueros Formations (Randall, 2008). Although the age and geologic unit
designation is in disagreement with previous geologic mapping in the area (CDMG
1966; CDMG 1996a; CDMG 2007), the Tertiary sediments hosting the vertebrate fossils
is considered to be equivalent to the marine deposits (mapped as Santiago Formation)
that underlie Quaternary terrace deposits at the amended CECP site.
Marine invertebrate fossils, including mollusks, crustaceans and echinoids, and marine
vertebrates, including sharks, rays and bony fish, have been recovered by the SBCM
from neighboring Pleistocene marine terrace deposits (Scott, 2008). The fossil records
website maintained by the University of California, Museum of Paleontology, indicates
that several gastropod specimens of Quaternary age have been recovered from the
Carlsbad and Agua Hedionda lagoon areas (UCMP 2008).
The Pleistocene age paralic (nearshore) deposits, which represent sediments mapped
at the surface in the vicinity of the amended CECP site (and are expected to underlie fill
soils on the project site), are generally considered to have a high paleontological
sensitivity. Underlying the Pleistocene deposits is the Eocene age Santiago Formation,
which is also considered to be highly sensitive.
GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-8

February 2015

 Fill materials are assigned a zero sensitivity rating and have no paleontological potential
because any fossils that may be discovered would have been disturbed and cannot
provide useful scientific information.

GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS
The AFC (CECP 2007a) for the licensed CECP provides documentation of potential
geologic hazards at the amended CECP plant site, although no site-specific subsurface
information was available at the time the AFC was submitted. Review of the AFC,
coupled with staff’s independent research, indicates that the possibility of geologic
hazards at the plant site, during its practical design life, would be low. However,
geologic hazards, such as potential for expansive clay soils and settlement due to
compressible soils and dynamic compaction, hydrocompaction, or dynamic compaction,
would need to be addressed in a project geotechnical report per CBC 2013
requirements.
Staff’s independent research included the review of available geologic maps, reports,
and related data of the amended CECP plant site. Since the original project was
licensed, additional regional geologic information has been developed in association
with studies performed in accordance with AB 1632 and for the proposed relicensing of
the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS).

Faulting and Seismicity
In southern California, tectonic deformation between the Pacific and North American
plates is accommodated primarily by a zone of northwest trending strike-slip faults;
however, within this complex zone of shear, areas of compression also occur. Major
active and potentially active faults in the region are shown on Geology & Paleontology
- Figure 6. Most of the tectonic deformation in southern California occurs along strike
slip faults associated with the on-land portion of the San Andreas fault system. In
addition to the on-land faults, the tectonic shear is shared with faults in the offshore
inner Continental Borderland region (Grant 2004) (Geology & Paleontology - Figure
7).
In 2002, Grant and Rockwell postulated that an active 300-km-long Coastal Fault zone
extends between the Los Angeles basin and coastal Baja California (Grant 2002). This
Coastal Fault zone includes those faults contained within the inner Continental
Borderland which become contiguous with the Agua Blanca fault in Baja California
(Grant 2004). The Agua Blanca fault is considered to have a slip rate between five and
seven millimeters/year (Rockwell 2012). That slip is believed to be transferred to the
offshore faults within the inner Continental Borderland (Rockwell 2012). The geometry
and slip rate of faults in the inner Continental Borderland are poorly constrained relative
to onshore faults, yet they may pose significant seismic risk because they are close to
populated areas, and several offshore faults appear to displace seafloor sediments
(Legg, 1991).
Active faults in southern California associated with shear between the north American
and Pacific plates include (from east to west), the San Andreas fault zone, the San
Jacinto fault zone, the Elsinore fault zone, the Whittier fault zone, the NewportInglewood fault zone, the Palos Verdes fault zone, the San Diego Trough fault zone and
February 2015

5.2-9

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 the San Clemente fault zone. Faults specific to the inner Continental Borderland include
the Newport-Inglewood fault zone, the Palos Verdes fault zone, the San Diego Trough
fault zone and the San Clemente fault zone (Legg 2002).
In addition, to transform strike slip faulting, tectonic compression in the southern
California area has formed folds (anticlines and synclines), reverse faults and blind
thrust faults (Blind thrusts). Blind thrusts underlie regions undergoing contraction in the
Los Angeles Basin and are expressed at the surface only as active folds. The ComptonLos Alamitos fault and the San Joaquin Blind thrust are examples of this style of
deformation. Seismic hazards posed by active thrusts are assessed in the Los Angeles
Basin by a number of means, all of which are aimed at placing constraints on fault slip
rates, earthquake recurrence, and fault geometry and segmentation (Mueller 2005).
Research into the relationship between fault slip, fault geometry and fold growth thus
provides insight into the occurrence of earthquakes produced on these structures. Large
earthquakes originating on blind thrusts within Southern California have occurred in the
past century, illuminating their geometry and potential for seismic hazard and include
the moment magnitude (Mw) 5.9 1987 Whittier Narrows earthquake and the Mw 6.8
1994 Northridge earthquake. It is likely that in 1769, a M7+ earthquake occurred on the
San Joaquin Blind thrust which uplifted coastal Orange County approximately ten feet
(Grant 2004).
Active faults with a potential to affect the amended CECP site are listed and described
below and their locations presented on Geology & Paleontology - Figures 6 and 7.
San Andreas Fault Zone
The San Andreas is the "master" fault of an intricate fault system that defines the
boundary between the Pacific and North American crustal plates in California (Schulz
1992). The entire San Andreas fault system is more than 800 miles long and extends to
depths of at least ten miles within the Earth. In detail, the fault is a complex zone of
crushed and broken rock from a few hundred feet to a mile wide. Many smaller faults
branch from and join the San Andreas fault zone.
Over much of its length, a linear trough reveals the presence of the San Andreas fault;
from the air, the linear arrangement of lakes, bays, and valleys in this trough is striking.
Viewed from the ground, however, the features are more subtle. For example, many
people driving near Crystal Springs Reservoir, near San Francisco, or along Tomales
Bay, or through Cajon or Tejon Passes may not realize that they are within the San
Andreas fault zone. On the ground, the fault can be recognized by carefully inspecting
the landscape. The fault zone is marked by distinctive landforms that include long
straight escarpments, narrow ridges, and small undrained ponds formed by the settling
of small blocks within the zone. Many stream channels characteristically jog sharply to
the right where they cross the fault.
At least 350 miles of offset has occurred along the San Andreas fault since it came into
being about 15-20 million years ago (Schulz 1992). Surveying demonstrates the strain
(displacement) occurs along the fault at the rate of approximately two inches per year.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-10

February 2015

 San Jacinto Fault Zone
The San Jacinto fault zone is one of the major branches of the San Andreas fault
system in southern California (Sharp 1965).
The San Jacinto fault zone is a complex zone of splaying and overlapping strike-slip
fault segments, steps and bends, and associated zones of contractional and extensional
deformation (Dorsey 2002). Offsets on basement piercing points and Pleistocene strata
indicate that about 25 km of slip has accumulated on the San Jacinto fault during the
past 1.5 to 2.0 million years (Dorsey 2002). Based on GPS studies and offsets of dated
Quaternary deposits, the rate of slip on the San Jacinto system is generally agreed to
be ~10-12 mm/yr. This represents 20-25 percent of the present-day Pacific-North
American relative plate motion (Dorsey 2002).
The straightness, continuity, and high seismicity of the San Jacinto fault zone suggest
that it may be currently the most important member of the San Andreas fault system in
southern California (Sharp 1965).
Elsinore Fault Zone
The Elsinore fault zone parallels the San Jacinto and is part of the same right-lateral
crustal plate strain system as the San Andreas and the San Jacinto (ECI 2000).The
Elsinore branches into the Whittier fault near Santa Ana Canyon, where it borders the
Puente Hills to the southwest and the Chino fault to the northeast. The most apparent
displacements on the Whittier-Elsinore have been vertical, as evidenced by the steep
scarp (an earthquake-built cliff) along the Santa Ana Mountains.
Whittier Fault Zone
The Whittier fault zone is exposed for a distance of about 25 miles along the south
slopes of the Puente Hills from the Whittier Narrows on the northwest to the Santa Ana
River near its southwest end (Yerkes 1965). In the vicinity of the Santa Ana River, it
joins with the northern end of the Elsinore Fault Zone. Recent deformation along the
Whittier Fault Zone is indicated by steeply tilted and locally overturned strata of late
Pleistocene age (Yerkes 1965). Trenching along the fault has uncovered evidence of
recent offsets, including faulted Holocene alluvium dated at 1,400 to 2,200 years before
present (Gath 1988).
Compton-Los Alamitos Fault Zone
The Compton blind thrust fault is active and has generated at least six large-magnitude
earthquakes (Mw 7.0–7.4) during the past 14,000 years (Leon 2009). Deformed
Holocene strata record recent activity on the Compton thrust and are marked by
discrete sequences that thicken repeatedly across a series of buried fold scarps.
Minimum uplift in each of the scarp-forming events, which occurred at 0.7–1.75
thousand years ago (ka) (event 1), 0.7–3.4 ka or 1.9–3.4 ka (event 2), 5.6–7.2 ka (event
3), 5.4–8.4 ka (event 4), 10.3–12.5 ka (event 5), and 10.3–13.7 ka (event 6), ranged
from ~0.6 to ~1.9 m, indicating minimum thrust displacements of ≥1.3 to 4.2 m. Such
large displacements are consistent with the occurrence of large-magnitude earthquakes
(Mw ≥ 7). This large, concealed fault underlies the Los Angeles metropolitan area and

February 2015

5.2-11

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 thus poses one of the largest deterministic seismic risks in the United States (Leon
2009).
Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone
The Newport-Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ) is approximately 1.5-2.5 km wide, trends
N45-60W, is mainly a right-lateral tectonic structure that extends from the Santa Monica
Mountains on the north to offshore connection with the Rose Canyon fault at San Diego
on the south (Shlemon 2008). Known active fault traces in the NIFZ zone of deformation
have been mapped in Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones (CDMG 1997).
The Newport–Inglewood fault zone (NIFZ) was first identified as a significant threat to
southern California residents in 1933 when it generated the M6.3 Long Beach
earthquake, killing 115 people and providing motivation for passage of the first seismic
safety legislation in the United States (Grant 2004).
Ongoing studies indicate the NIFZ is capable of generating earthquakes with
magnitudes up to 7.4 Mw (Toppozada 1989) or 7.5Mw (Petersen 2008). The higher
magnitude indicated by Petersen uses a fault length of 208 km as described by
Shlemon (2008).
Rose Canyon Fault Zone
The Rose Canyon Fault is interpreted as the southern continuation of the historically
active Newport-Inglewood Fault and is a major component of the coastal system of
strike-slip faults that together transfer five to seven mm/yr of the crustal plate boundary
deformation (Rockwell 2012). Historical and paleoseismic activity on this zone suggests
that much or all of the primary fault elements of the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon
Fault Zone sustained rupture in a sequence of earthquakes over the past few hundred
years (Grant and Rockwell, 2002).
The size and frequency of earthquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone are key
parameters in the seismic ground motion hazard analysis of CECP. However, there is a
paucity of data on the late Holocene rupture history of large earthquakes on the
Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon Fault Zone. The Rose Canyon Fault has sustained at
least one late Holocene rupture, with the date of the earthquake estimated to be after
AD 1450 (Grant and Rockwell, 2002) and most likely prior to construction of the San
Diego Mission in 1769, as a large historical Rose Canyon earthquake would likely have
destroyed that mission (Rockwell 2012).
The slip rate on the Rose Canyon fault is not well constrained. Lindvall and Rockwell
(1995) determined a minimum early Holocene to present slip rate of 1.1 mm/yr, with a
best estimate of approximately 1.5mm/yr based on 3D trenching in Rose Creek and
interpretation of geomorphology. Review of early aerial imagery in the Old Town San
Diego area identified two deflected streams that are offset about 250 m, with both
streams incised into a 120 thousand year old (ka) terrace (Rockwell 2010). If correct,
and if the deflected streams reflect actual displacement, then this implies a long-term
slip rate of about two mm/yr for the Rose Canyon fault. Ongoing studies indicate the
Rose Canyon Fault Zone is capable of generating earthquakes with magnitudes up to
7.0 Mw (Rockwell 2014).

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-12

February 2015

 San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust
The late Quaternary uplift rate of the San Joaquin Hills is approximately twice as high as
uplift rates parallel to the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ) along the coast to the
south (Grant 2002). Several observations suggest that the San Joaquin Hills are
underlain by a fault that is distinct from the NIFZ, although they may be linked
kinematically. There are several Quaternary anticlines along the NIFZ north of the San
Joaquin Hills (Grant 2002). However, the San Joaquin Hills anticline is longer and has
the greatest topographic expression. Other topographically prominent anticlines, such
as Signal Hill, are located within the structurally complex NIFZ and are associated with
step-overs (Barrows, 1974).
Geomorphic studies along the coastline in the vicinity of the San Joaquin Hills have
discovered emergent shorelines along the open coast and an elevated marsh bench in
Newport Back Bay. The surface of the marsh bench is approximately five feet above the
current marsh elevation (Grant 2002). Radiocarbon dating and interpretation of the
introduction of exotic pollens contained within the elevated marsh bench indicates that
the marsh bench was uplifted between the years 1635 and 1797 (Grant 2002).
On July 28, 1769 a strong temblor was described by explorer Gaspar de Portola while
he was in the central Los Angeles basin area (Townley 1939). The mainshock was
described as violent, and at least two dozen earthquakes followed it over the course of
several days. It is likely that the 1769 San Joaquin Hills earthquake occurred on the San
Joaquin Blind Thrust and was responsible for the uplift of the elevated marsh bench in
Newport Bay and the emergent shorelines along the open coastline (Grant 2002). The
San Joaquin earthquake may be the largest known earthquake that has originated
within the greater Los Angeles region in the last few centuries (Grant 2002).
Palos Verdes Fault Zone
The Palos Verdes Fault Zone extends southwestward from the northern part of Santa
Monica Bay to the area southwest of Lasuen Knoll, offshore from Dana Point (Fisher
2004).The structure of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone changes markedly southeastward
across the San Pedro Shelf and slope. Under the northern part of the shelf, this fault
zone includes several strands, but the main strand dips west and is probably an
oblique-slip fault (Fisher 2004). Under the slope, this fault zone consists of several fault
strands having normal separation, most of which dip moderately east. To the southeast
near Lasuen Knoll, the Palos Verdes Fault Zone locally is a low angle fault that dips
east, but elsewhere near this knoll the fault appears to dip steeply. Fresh sea-floor
scarps near Lasuen Knoll indicate recent fault movement (Fisher 2004).
Analysis of wave-cut terraces and offset stream courses indicates total fault-slip rate to
be around three mm/yr. (Fisher 2004). The main style of movement along the Palos
Verdes Fault Zone has been strike slip and multi-beam bathymetric data show recent
scarps along this fault near Lasuen Knoll indicating the fault’s recent activity.
Coronado Bank Fault Zone
The Coronado Bank Fault Zone (CBFZ) is located approximately 20 miles west of the
project site. It is postulated that the CBFZ is the southern extension of the Palos Verde
Fault Zone (Rockwell 2012). Similar to other faults within the Inner Continental
February 2015

5.2-13

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 Borderland, the CBFZ is part of a 90‐km‐wide zone of faults within the inner Continental
Borderland that accommodates motion between the Pacific and North American plates
(Ryan 2012). Based on studies conducted by the Southern California Earthquake Data
Center, estimated slip rate of the CBFZ is two mm/yr.
San Diego Trough Fault Zone
The San Diego Trough Fault Zone runs roughly from the Mexican border northward
toward Catalina Island. The San Diego trough fault zone (SDTFZ) is part of an Inner
Continental Borderland. New seismic reflection data shows that the fault zone steps
across a five‐km‐wide stepover and continues for an additional 60 km north of its
previously mapped extent. At the latitude of Santa Catalina Island, the SDTFZ bends
20° to the west and may be linked via a complex zone of folds with the Palos Verdes
fault zone (PVFZ). If this is the case, this fault zone would be one of the longest in the
California Borderland, and could produce some of the largest earthquakes in the region
(Poppick 2013). The 1986 epicenter of the Oceanside earthquake (a magnitude 5.4
quake that caused nearly one million dollars in damage, 29 injuries, and one death) and
the associated 1986 earthquake swarm is located within the SDTFZ (Poppick 2013). In
a cooperative program between the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Monterey
Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), the coseismic offset of a submarine channel
that intersects the fault zone near the SDTFZ– PVFV junction was measured and dated.
This research indicated an estimated horizontal slip rate of about 1.5±0.3 mm/yr over
the past 12,270 yr (Ryan 2012).
San Clemente Fault Zone
The San Clemente fault zone is the westernmost of the group of right lateral faults
traversing the California Inner Continental Borderland (Legg 1989). The main trace of
the San Clemente fault cuts a straight path directly across the rugged topography of the
region, displaying evidence of a steeply dipping (near vertical) fault surface. Modern
tectonic activity along the San Clemente fault zone is demonstrated by numerous
earthquakes with epicenters located along the fault's trend. The average strike of the
San Clemente fault is parallel to the Pacific-North American relative plate motion vector
at this location and is a part of the broad Pacific-North American transform plate
boundary (Legg 1989).
Fault Rupture
All of the faults discussed above have the potential to generate strong seismic shaking
at the project site. However, none have the potential to cause fault offset of the ground
surface at the project site.
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1994 (formerly known as the AlquistPriolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972) stipulates that no structure for human
occupancy may be built within an Earthquake Fault Zone until geologic investigations
demonstrate that the site is free of fault traces that are likely to rupture with surface
displacement. Earthquake Fault Zones include faults considered to have been active
during Holocene time and to have a relatively high potential for surface rupture (CGS
2008). An Earthquake Fault Zone has not been mapped on the project site.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-14

February 2015

 Fault rupture almost always follows pre-existing faults, which are zones of weakness
(CGS 2007). No active faults are shown on published maps as crossing the boundary of
new construction on the amended CECP power plant site or associated linear facilities.
Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the site would experience surface fault rupture during
the project’s design life.
Seismic Shaking
Preliminary estimates of ground motion based on probabilistic seismic hazard analyses
have been calculated for the project site using the USGS Earthquake Hazards
application called the U.S. Seismic “DesignMaps” Web Application (Geology &
Paleontology Table 3). This application produces seismic hazard curves, uniform
hazard response spectra, and seismic design values. The values provided by this
application are based upon data from the 2008 USGS National Seismic Hazard
Mapping Project. These design parameters are for use with the 2012 International
Building Code, the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard, the 2009 NEHRP Provisions, and their
respective predecessors.
Geology & Paleontology Table 3
Planning Level 2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters Maximum Considered
Earthquake, ASCE 7 Standard
Parameter
Assumed Site Class
Structure Risk Category
SS – Mapped Spectral Acceleration, Short (0.2 Second) Period
S1 – Mapped Spectral Acceleration, Long (1.0 Second) Period
Fa – Site Coefficient, Short (0.2 Second) Period
Fv – Site Coefficient, Long (1.0 Second) Period
SDS – Design Spectral Response Acceleration, Short (0.2 Second) Period
SD1 – Design Spectral Response Acceleration, Long (1.0 Second) Period
SMS – Spectral Response Acceleration, Short (0.2 Second) Period
SM1 – Spectral Response Acceleration, Long (1.0 Second) Period

Value
D
III - Substantial
1.155 g
0.444 g
1.038
1.556
0.799 g
0.460 g
1.199 g
0.691g

ASCE = American Society of Civil Engineers
Values from USGS 2010b

These parameters are project-specific and, based on amended CECP’s location, were
calculated using latitude and longitude inputs of 33.141 degrees north and 117.334
degrees west, respectively. Other inputs for this application are the site “type” which is
based on the underlying geologic materials and the “Structure Risk Category”. The
assumed site class for amended CECP is “D”, which is applicable to soft clay soil.
These parameters can be updated as appropriate following the results presented in a
project-specific geotechnical investigation report performed for the site. The assumed
“Structure Risk Category” is “III”, which is based on its inherent risk to people and the
need for the structure to function following a damaging event. Risk categories range
from I (non essential) to IV (critical). Examples of risk category I include agriculture
facilities, minor storage facilities, etc., while examples of category IV include fire
stations, hospitals, nuclear power facilities, etc.

February 2015

5.2-15

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 The ground acceleration values presented are typical for the area. Other developments
in the adjacent area will also be designed to accommodate strong seismic shaking. The
potential for and mitigation of the effects of strong seismic shaking during an earthquake
should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical report, per CBC 2013
requirements, and proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 and Facility Design
Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1. Compliance with these
conditions of certification would ensure the project is built to current seismic standards
and potential impacts would be mitigated to insignificant levels in accordance with
current standards of engineering practice.

Liquefaction
Liquefaction is a condition where in a cohesionless soil may lose shear strength
because of sudden increase in pore water pressure caused by an earthquake. Historic
groundwater levels in monitoring wells on the EPS site have ranged from 14 feet below
msl to ten feet above mean sea level (msl), but actual static groundwater level is likely
to be near or above msl. The ground surface elevation across the EPS property varies
from mean sea level (msl) to 55-feet above msl. The East and West Tank Farms are
located on marine terrace bluffs approximately 30- to 50-feet above msl.
Measurements taken on February 2014 in monitoring wells located in the central part of
the EPS property, in the vicinity of the Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project, showed
groundwater levels between 29.7 and 31.8 feet below ground surface (LL2014kk §3.2).
The basements of EPS Units 4 and 5 are more than 16 feet below msl and, as a result,
receive seepage from groundwater.
Assuming elevations of 30 to 31 feet above mean sea level (msl) for amended CECP
building footings and three to five feet msl for the ground water surface, the depth to
ground water would be approximately 25 feet below the amended CECP power plant
site(CECP 2007d). Standard penetration testing (blowcounts) in borings conducted
during geotechnical evaluation of the adjoining desalination plant at the southeast end
of the amended CECP project site and across the railroad tracks to the southwest on
the desalination plant site are greater than 50 blows/foot below depths of 15.5 to 43
feet below ground surface (bgs). Blowcounts of 50 or greater indicate dense to very
dense materials that are unlikely to liquefy during an earthquake. Based on
interpretation of off-site subsurface information, soils become dense to very dense
through the groundwater saturated soil materials. Therefore, liquefaction potential
would be minimal. Based on the geotechnical report conducted for the desalination
plant, the basement walls and footings of the EPS structures are founded on and in
Santiago Formation bedrock and are not susceptible to liquefaction.
Ground water levels should be confirmed, and the liquefaction potential on the
amended CECP site should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical report, per
CBC 2013 in accordance with proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 and proposed
Facility Design Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-16

February 2015

 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading of the ground surface during an earthquake usually takes place along
weak shear zones that have formed within a liquefiable soil layer. Lateral spreading
generally takes place in the direction of a free-face (i.e., retaining wall, slope, and
channel).
An empirical model is typically used to predict the amount of horizontal ground
displacement within a site. For sites located in proximity to a free-face, the amount of
lateral ground displacement is strongly correlated with the distance of the site from the
free-face. Other factors such as earthquake magnitude, distance from the earthquake
epicenter, thickness of the liquefiable layers, and the fines content and particle sizes of
the liquefiable layers also affect the amount of lateral ground displacement.
A free-face slope occurs at the northern end on the peninsula on which the project is
proposed. Applicant did not provide a site-specific geotechnical investigation for the
amended CECP site, which could have addressed the potential for lateral spreading.
Rather, petitioner submitted the geotechnical report previously conducted for the
adjacent Desalination Project. The geotechnical report indicated that the adjoining
property to the southwest was not susceptible to lateral spreading due to the depth to
groundwater and the dense nature of the strata in which the groundwater occurs (CECP
2007d).
The potential for and mitigation of the effects of lateral spreading on the proposed site
should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical report, per CBC 2013
requirements and proposed Conditions of Certification GEO-1, and Facility Design
Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1.

Dynamic Compaction
Dynamic compaction of soils results when relatively unconsolidated granular materials
experience vibration associated with seismic events. The vibration causes a decrease in
soil volume, as the soil grains tend to rearrange into a more dense state (an increase in
soil density). The decrease in volume can result in settlement of overlying structural
improvements. Nearby borings advanced for the desalination plant indicate granular
soils with low blowcounts at shallow depths (CECP 2007d). Also, mechanical
compaction of fill materials during placement could not be confirmed. The potential for
and mitigation of the effects of dynamic compaction of proposed site native and fill soils
during an earthquake should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical report, per
CBC 2013 requirements and proposed Conditions of Certification GEO-1 and Facility
Design Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1. Common mitigation
methods would include deep foundations (driven piles; drilled shafts) for severe
conditions, geogrid reinforced fill pads for moderate severity and over-excavation and
replacement for areas of minimal hazard.

Hydrocompaction
Hydrocompaction (also known as hydro-collapse) is generally limited to young soils that
were deposited rapidly in a saturated state, most commonly by a flash flood. The soils
dry quickly, leaving an unconsolidated, low density deposit with a high percentage of
voids. Foundations built on these types of compressible materials can settle
February 2015

5.2-17

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 excessively, particularly when landscaping irrigation dissolves the weak cementation
that is preventing the immediate collapse of the soil structure. The geologic environment
of the amended CECP site suggests a low hydro-collapse potential, but it is not possible
to adequately assess the potential for hydrocompaction without site-specific
geotechnical exploration. The potential for and mitigation of the effects of
hydrocompaction of site soils should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical
report, per CBC 2013 requirements and proposed Conditions of Certification GEO-1
and Facility Design Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1. Typical
mitigation measures would include over-excavation/replacement, mat foundations or
deep foundations, depending on severity and foundation loads.

Subsidence
Local subsidence or settlement may occur when areas containing compressible soils
are subjected to foundation loads. It is not possible to assess the potential for
subsidence without site-specific geotechnical exploration. Compressibility testing and
samples of the Santiago Formation across the railroad tracks from the proposed site are
presented in the geotechnical report attached to the AFC (CECP 2007d). Test results
indicate a low potential for compressibility. Fill materials and Quaternary terrace
deposits were not evaluated. The potential for and mitigation of the effects of
subsidence due to compressible soils on the site should be addressed in a projectspecific geotechnical report, per CBC 2013 requirements and proposed Conditions of
Certification GEO-1 and Facility Design Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and
CIVIL-1. Mitigation would normally be accomplished by over-excavation and
replacement of the compressible soils. For deep-seated conditions, deep foundations
are commonly used.
Regional ground subsidence is typically caused by petroleum or ground water
withdrawal that increases the effective unit weight of the soil profile, which in turn
increases the effective stress on the deeper soils. This results in consolidation or
settlement of the underlying soils. The nearest known producing petroleum or gas fields
are located in the Los Angeles Basin roughly 45 miles northwest of the project site
(CDC 2001). Ground water levels would be unlikely to fluctuate significantly from current
levels due to the proximity of the amended CECP site to the Pacific Ocean. No
subsidence resulting from fluid extraction in the area would be anticipated.

Expansive Soils
Soil expansion occurs when clay-rich soils with an affinity for water exist in-place at a
moisture content below their plastic limit. The addition of moisture from irrigation,
precipitation, capillary tension, water line breaks, etc. causes the clay soils to absorb
water molecules into their structure, which in turn causes an increase in the overall
volume of the soil. This increase in volume can correspond to excessive movement
(heave) of overlying structural improvements. It is not possible to assess the potential
for expansive soils without site-specific geotechnical exploration. Tests were conducted
on fill materials to the southwest of the site across the railroad tracks (CECP 2007d),
and indicate low expansion potentials. Native soils were not tested. Plasticity index
tests, which are also an indicator of the expansive potential and clay content in soils,
were not performed either. The potential for and mitigation of the effects of expansive
soils on the proposed site should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical report,
GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-18

February 2015

 per CBC 2013 requirements and proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 and
Facility Design Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1. Mitigation
would normally be accomplished by over-excavation and replacement of the collapsible
soils. For deep-seated conditions, deep foundations are commonly used. Lime-treated
(chemical modification) is often used to mitigate expansive clays in pavement areas.

Corrosive Soils
The project site is located in a geologic environment that could potentially contain soils
that are corrosive to concrete and metals. Corrosive soils are defined as having earth
materials with more than 500 ppm chlorides, a sulfate concentration of 0.20 percent
(i.e., 2,000 ppm) or more, a pH of less than 5.5, or an electrical resistivity of less than
1,000 ohm-centimeters.
Corrosive soil conditions may exacerbate the corrosion hazard to buried conduits,
foundations, and other buried concrete or metal improvements. Corrosive soil could
cause premature deterioration of underground structures or foundations. Constructing
project improvements on corrosive soils could have a significant impact to the project.
The applicant did not provide a site-specific geotechnical investigation for the amended
CECP site. Rather, the applicant submitted the geotechnical report previously
conducted for the adjacent Desalination Project.
The potential for and mitigation of the effects of corrosive soils on the proposed site
should be addressed in a project-specific geotechnical report, per CBC 2013
requirements and proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1, and Facility Design
Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1. Mitigation of corrosive soil
conditions may involve the use of concrete resistant to sulfate exposure. Corrosion
protection for metals may be needed for underground foundations or structures in areas
where corrosive groundwater or soil could potentially cause deterioration. Typical
mitigation techniques include epoxy and metallic protective coatings, the use of
alternative (corrosion resistant) materials, and selection of the appropriate type of
cement and water/cement ratio.

Landslides
Landslides and slumping have been documented in the Carlsbad and Agua Hedionda
lagoon areas (CDMG 1995; CDMG 1996a; CDMG 2007). Finer-grained units of the
Santiago Formation are known to be particularly prone to instability (CDMG 1996a;
CDMG 2007). The amended CECP has been mapped as lying within Landslide
Susceptibility Area 2 (LSA 2) (Tan 1995), Designation LSA 2 denotes an area
marginally susceptible to landsliding. According to Tan 1995, “Landslides and other
slope failures are rare within this area, although slope hazards are possible on some
steeper slopes within the area or along its borders.” The steeper coast line that borders
the peninsula on which the proposed project would be situated is mapped as LSA 3-1,
which denotes areas generally susceptible to landslides. These areas “are at or within
their stability limits due to a combination of weak materials and steep slopes”, and
slopes “can be expected to fail, locally, when adversely modified” (Tan 1995). The
nearest mapped landslide relative to the site is on the coast of Agua Hedionda lagoon
400 feet to the southeast (CDMG 1995; CDMG 2007). The northwestern boundary of
February 2015

5.2-19

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 the 30-acre parcel is bordered by a LSA 3-1, although the zone is at least 400 to 600
feet from the proposed power plant footings (CDMG 1995). The Atchison, Topeka, and
Santa Fe railroad tracks and the San Diego Freeway are between the amended CECP
and the nearest LSA 3-1. The minimum 400-foot setback of the building footprint from
the nearest LSA 3-1 would minimize the potential effects of a slope failure along the
coast near the amended CECP site. The project-specific engineering geology report
should verify that landslide potential would be minimal, in accordance with the
requirements of the CBC 2013 and proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 and
Facility Design Condition of Certification GEN-4.

Tsunamis and Seiches
Tsunamis are large-scale seismic-sea waves caused by offshore earthquakes,
landslides and/or volcanic activity. The amended CECP power plant site would lie on
the inland portion of a peninsula, with Agua Hedionda lagoon on the nearest, northeast-,
northwest- and west-facing shorelines. The Pacific Ocean lies approximately 1,600 feet
to the southwest. The potential tsunami height that might impact Southern California
has been estimated at up to 11.5 feet (McCullogh, 1985). Recently, run-up heights up to
three feet amsl have been predicted on the Southern California coastline, although
heights up to 16 feet could occur at San Diego due to the configuration of the bay
(CSSC 2005). Given the power plant footing elevation of approximately 30 feet amsl
and that the site would be completely surrounded by berms of varying height, a tsunami
of the maximum indicated height of 11.5 feet would not impact the amended CECP site.
Further, the site has been mapped to lie outside of a tsunami inundation zone (Geology
& Paleontology Figure 8).
A seiche, which may result from the same factors that trigger tsunamis, is essentially
oscillation of water within an enclosed or restricted basin, such as Agua Hedionda.
According to the city of Carlsbad South Coastal Redevelopment Plan (2000), seiches
are not expected to affect areas five to ten feet above the mean water level in the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon. Therefore, the elevation of the amended CECP site would render
impacts from seiches negligible as well.

Construction Impacts and Mitigation
The design-level geotechnical investigation required for the proposed project by the
CBC (2013) and proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 and Facility Design
Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1 should provide standard
engineering design recommendations for mitigation of potential expansive clay soils, as
well as excessive settlement due to compressible soils or dynamic compaction, as
appropriate (See Proposed Conditions of Certification, Facility Design).
As noted above, no viable geologic or mineralogic resources are known to exist within
three miles of the amended CECP construction site or linear routes, although several
PCC-grade aggregate pits are present within seven miles. Staff concludes there would
be no impacts to geologic or mineralogic resources and no mitigation measures are
necessary.
Significant paleontological resources have been documented in Quaternary and Tertiary
marine and transitional deposits that may be encountered during future construction of
GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-20

February 2015

 the amended CECP. The nearest vertebrate fossil locality of Tertiary age is 1,600 feet
away at Carlsbad State Beach. The potential to impact significant paleontological
resources in Tertiary sediments, especially in deeper excavations, would be considered
to be high. However, all fossil remains from Quaternary age deposits have been
recovered from older terraces located inland and east of the amended CECP site. The
potential to impact significant paleontological resources in Pleistocene sediments at the
plant site would therefore be considered low. Fill materials have a negligible
paleontological sensitivity. Construction of the proposed project would include grading,
foundation excavation, and utility trenching. Staff would consider the probability of
encountering paleontological resources to be generally high on portions of the proposed
plant site and buried pipelines connecting to the plant that are at lower elevations (i.e.
30 feet amsl) near the building footings based on the sedimentary profile, SVP
assessment criteria, and the occurrence of the sensitive geologic units. The potential for
encountering fossils would increase with the depth of cut and near the southwestern
end of the ocean-water intake and discharge pipelines. In areas mapped as Quaternary
paralic deposits or artificial fill, future excavations for ancillary facilities, new pipelines
and on-site excavations deeper than two feet may have a high probability of
encountering potentially sensitive materials, although sensitive materials could even
occur nearer the surface.
Proposed Conditions of Certification PAL-1 to PAL-8 are designed to mitigate any
potential paleontological resource impacts, as discussed above, to a less than
significant level. Essentially, these conditions would require a worker education program
in conjunction with monitoring of proposed earthwork activities by qualified professional
paleontologists (paleontologic resource specialist; PRS). Earthwork would be halted any
time potential fossils are recognized by either the paleontologist or the worker. When
properly implemented, the Conditions of Certification would yield a net gain to the
science of paleontology since fossils that would not otherwise have been discovered
can be collected, identified, studied, and properly curated. A paleontological resource
specialist would be retained for the proposed project by the applicant to produce a
monitoring and mitigation plan, conduct the worker training, and provide the on-site
monitoring. During the monitoring, the PRS can and often does petition the CEC for a
change in the monitoring protocol. Most commonly, this would be a request for lesser
monitoring after sufficient monitoring has been performed to ascertain that there is little
chance of finding significant fossils. In other cases, the PRS can propose increased
monitoring due to unexpected fossil discoveries or in response to repeated out-ofcompliance incidents by the earthwork contractor.
Based upon the literature and archives search and onsite field surveys for the amended
CECP, the applicant has proposed monitoring and mitigation measures to be followed
during the construction of the amended CECP. Energy Commission staff believes that
the facility can be designed and constructed to minimize the effect of geologic hazards
at the site during project design life and that impacts to vertebrate fossils that might be
encountered during construction of the power plant and associated linears would be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
It is recommended that all areas of proposed power plant construction that lack
subsurface information be investigated to establish depths to ground water, as well as

February 2015

5.2-21

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 other geologic conditions per CBC 2013 and proposed Facility Design Conditions of
Certification GEN-1, GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 requirements.

Operation Impacts and Mitigation
Operation of the proposed plant facilities would not have any adverse impact on
geologic, mineralogic, or paleontologic resources. Potential geologic hazards, including
strong ground shaking; liquefaction; settlement due to compressible soils, ground water
withdrawal, hydrocompaction or dynamic compaction, and the possible presence of
expansive clay soils, can be effectively mitigated through compliance with Condition of
Certification GEO-1 and facility design (See proposed Conditions of Certification GEN1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1 in the Facility Design section) such that these potential hazards
should not affect future operation of the facility.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
The amended CECP would be situated in an active geologic environment. Strong
ground shaking potential must be mitigated through foundation and structural design as
required by CBC 2013. Expansive materials, as well as compressible soils and soils that
may be subject to subsidence due to dynamic compaction, must be mitigated in
accordance with a design-level geotechnical investigation as required by CBC 2013 in
accordance with proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1, and proposed Conditions
of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 under Facility Design.
Paleontological resources have been documented in the general area of the proposed
project and in sediments similar to those that are present on the site. However, to date,
none have been found on the plant site or along project linear routes during cursory field
studies of the licensed CECP. The potential impacts to paleontological resources due to
construction activities would be mitigated as required by proposed Conditions of
Certification PAL-1 to PAL-8.
Staff believes that the potential for significant adverse cumulative impacts to the
proposed project from geologic hazards during the project’s design life would be low,
and that the potential for cumulative impacts to geologic, mineralogic, and paleontologic
resources would be very low.
Based upon the literature and archives search and onsite field surveys for the amended
CECP project, the applicant proposes monitoring and mitigation measures during the
construction phase of the amended CECP. Staff agrees with the applicant that the
project can be designed and constructed to minimize the effects of geologic hazards at
the site, and that impacts to scientifically significant vertebrate and invertebrate fossils
that might be encountered during construction would be mitigated to levels of less than
significant.
The proposed conditions of certification allow the CPM and the applicant to adopt a
compliance monitoring scheme ensuring compliance with applicable LORS for geologic
hazards and geologic, mineralogic, and paleontologic resources.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-22

February 2015

 Facility Closure
Future facility closure activities would not be expected to impact geologic or mineralogic
resources since no such resources are known to exist at either the project location or
along its proposed linears. In addition, the decommissioning and closure of the
proposed project should not negatively affect geologic, mineralogic, or paleontologic
resources since the majority of the ground disturbed during plant decommissioning and
closure would have been already disturbed, and mitigated as required, during
construction and operation of the project.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Comments to the PSA were received only from the project owner. The project owner
provided some clarity and consistency in proposed Condition of Certification PAL-5, to
which staff agreed, and those comments were subsequently addressed in this FSA.
No other comments were received as of the completion date of this FSA.

CONCLUSIONS
Because of its geologic setting, the site could be subject to very strong levels of
earthquake-related ground shaking. While the potential for earthquake ground rupture is
low, several major off-shore faults are located between two and 11 miles of the site. The
significant effects of strong ground shaking on the amended CECP structures must be
mitigated through structural designs required by the most recent edition of the California
Building Code (CBC 2013). CBC 2013 requires that structures be designed to resist
seismic stresses from anticipated maximum ground acceleration.
Due to the relatively dense and granular nature of site soils, the project would not likely
be subject to seismically induced soil failure. A design-level geotechnical investigation
required for the project by the California Building Code, and proposed Facility Design
Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5 and CIVIL-1, would present standard
engineering design recommendations for mitigation of potential expansive clay soils, as
well as excessive settlement due to compressible soils or dynamic compaction.
The project area is subject to inundation by tsunami, however, the project site is
mapped outside of a tsunami inundation zone. U.S. Building codes generally have not
addressed the subject of designing structures in tsunami zones (Reynolds 2013).
FEMA’s Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA P55), developed to provide design and
construction guidance for structures built in coastal areas, addresses seismic loads for
coastal structures and provides information on tsunami and associated loads (FEMA
2013).
Based on the sea level rise projections developed by the Sea-Level Rise Task Force of
the Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team, sea level
is predicted to rise a maximum of 17 inches above the 2014 level by the year 2050 (COCAT 2013). Analysis of the effects of sea-level rise on the project is presented in the
Soil & Water Resources section of this document.

February 2015

5.2-23

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 There are no known viable geologic or mineralogical resources at the amended CECP
site. Numerous paleontological resources have been documented within three miles of
the project, but no significant fossils were found during field explorations at the plant site
or ancillary facilities. Potential impacts to paleontological resources due to construction
activities are not likely, but if discovered during construction, they would be mitigated
through worker training and monitoring by qualified paleontologists, as required by
proposed Conditions of Certification, PAL-1 through PAL-8.
Based on this information, staff concludes that the potential adverse cumulative impacts
to the project facilities from geologic hazards during their design life are less than
significant. Similarly, staff concludes the potential adverse cumulative impacts to
potential geologic, mineralogic, and paleontologic resources from the construction,
operation, and closure of the proposed project, if any, are less than significant. It is
staff’s opinion that the amended CECP can be designed and constructed in accordance
with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS), and in a
manner that both protects environmental quality and assures public safety.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-24

February 2015

 Certification of Completion
Worker Environmental Awareness Program
Amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6C)
This is to certify these individuals have completed a mandatory California Energy
Commission-approved Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The WEAP
includes pertinent information on cultural, paleontological, and biological resources for all
personnel (that is, construction supervisors, crews, and plant operators) working on site or
at related facilities. By signing below, the participant indicates that he/she understands and
shall abide by the guidelines set forth in the program materials. Include this completed form
in the Monthly Compliance Report.

No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.

Employee Name

Title/Company

Signature

Cultural Trainer: _____________ Signature:__________________ Date: ___/___/____
PaleoTrainer: ______________

Signature:__________________ Date: ___/___/____

Biological Trainer: _____________Signature:_______________

February 2015

5.2-25

Date:___/___/__

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 REFERENCES
Atwater 1998 - Atwater, Tanya M., Plate Tectonic History of Southern California with
emphasis on the Western Transverse Ranges and Santa Rosa Island, in
Weigand, P.W., ed., Contributions to the Geology of the Northern Channel
Islands, Southern California: American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Pacific Section, MP 45, 1998.
Barrows 1974 - Barrows, A. G., A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of
the Newport–Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California, California Division
of Mines and Geology, Special Report 114, 1974.
Borrero 2005 - Borrero, Jose, Sungbin, Cho, Moore, James E.II, Richardson, Harry W.,
Synolkis, Costas, Could it Happen Here?, Civil Engineering, April 2005.
Caltech 2011 - Southern California Earthquake Data Center, Division of Geological and
Planetary Sciences, Earthquake Data Base, 1933 to present, California
Institute of Technology, 2011. http://www.data.scec.org/
CBC 2013 - California Code of Regulations, Title 24, California Building Standards
Code [CBSC], Part 2, California Building Code (CBC), 2013.
CCA 2008 - California Coastal Act), Division 20 of the California Public Resources
Code.
CCC 2007 - California Coastal Commission, Letter dated October 16, 2007.
CDC 1982 - California Department of Conservation, Oil &, Gas Prospect Wells Drilled in
California Through 1980, Publication No. TR01, Second Edition.
CDC 1992 - California Oil & Gas Fields, Volume II (Southern, Central Coast, and
Offshore California).
CDC 2001 - Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Fields in California.
CDC 2010 - California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas, Oil, Gas,
and Geothermal Fields in California, 2010.
http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doms/doms-app.html
CDMG 1966 - California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of California,
Santa Ana Sheet. Scale 1:250,000.
CDMG 1990 - Industrial Minerals in California: Economic Importance, Present
Availability, and Future Development. Special Publication 105, reprinted from
U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1958.
CDMG 1995 - Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan
Area, San Diego County, California. Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-26

February 2015

 CDMG 1996a - Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County,
California, Open-File Report 96-02.
CDMG 1996b - Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the
Western San Diego County Production-Consumption Region, Open-File Report
96-04.
CDMG 1998 - Gold Districts of California, Sesquicentennial Edition, California Gold
Discovery to Statehood, Bulletin 193.
CDMG 2007 - Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California. Scale
1:100,000.
CDWR 2008 - California Department of Water Resources, Ground water Level Data
Website: http://wdl.water.ca.gov/gw/.
CECP 2007a - Carlsbad Energy Center Project (TN42299). Application for Certification
for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, 09/11/2007.
CECP 2007d - Carlsbad Energy Center Project (TN42303). Application for Certification
(AFC), Appendix 5.4A Representative Seismic Geological Report Data,
09/11/2007.
CGS 2002 - California Geological Survey, California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36,
2002.
CGS 2007a - California Geological Survey, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault
Zones Maps, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007.
CGS 2007b - California Geological Survey, California Historical Earthquake Online
Database, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/quakes/historical/.
CGS 2007c - California Geological Survey, Note 54, Regulatory Earthquake Hazard
Zones, Southern California Region, 2007.
CGS 2008 - California Geological Survey - California Public Resources Code, Division
2 Geology, Mines and Mining, Chapter 7.5 Earthquake Fault Zoning, Section
2621-2630 Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, 2008.
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/codes/prc/Pages/chap-7-5.aspx
CGS 2009 - California Geological Survey, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency
Planning, State of California, County of San Diego, Oceanside/San Luis Rey
Quadrangle, June 1, 2009.
CGS 2010a - California Geological Survey, Fault Activity Map of California, 2010.
CGS 2010b - California Geological Survey. 2010. Probabilistic Seismic Hazards
Mapping Ground Motion Page, 2010.
http://redirect.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamap.asp.
February 2015

5.2-27

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 CH2MHill 2014 - CH2MHill, Paleontological Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan,
Carlsbad Energy Center Project, San Diego County, California, October 2014.
Chirstensen 2007 - Chirstensen, Todd S., Potential Fossil Yield Classification (PFYC)
System, Attachment 1, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management, 2007.
CO-CAT 2013 - Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action
Team, State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Document, Ocean
Protection Council’s Science Advisory Team and the California Ocean Science
Trust, March 2013 update.
Conrad 2008 - Conrad, James E., Ryan, Holly F., Paull, Charles K., Caress, David W.,
and Sliter, Ray W., The Palos Verdes and Coronado Bank Fault Zones, Inner
Continental Borderland, Southern California - Do They Connect?, U.S.
Geological Survey, 2008.
CSSC 2005 - California Seismic Safety Commission, The Tsunami Threat to California,
Findings and Recommendations on Tsunami Hazards and Risks, December
2005.
DeCourten 2008 - DeCourten, Frank, Geology of Southern California, Department of
Earth Science, Sierra College, 2008.
http://www.grossmont.edu/garyjacobson/Naural%20History%20150/Geology%20
of%20Southern%20California.pdf.
DUDEK 2014 - Negative Cultural and Paleontological Resource Monitoring Letter
Report for the Carlsbad Sea Water Desalination Plant Project, Carlsbad,
California, May 2014.
Easterbrook 2011 - Easterbrook, Don J., The Little Ice Age (1300 A.D. to the 20th
century), Magnitude and Range of Climate Change, Dept. of Geology, Western
Washington University, January 26, 2011.
FEMA 1997 - Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map,
San Diego County, California and Incorporated Areas, Flood Insurance Rate Map
No. 06073C0764 F, Dated June 19, 1997.
FEMA 2013- Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA P-55, Coastal
Construction Manual: Principles and Practices of Planning, Siting, Designing,
Constructing, and Maintaining Residential Buildings in Coastal Areas (4th ed.),
Nov 13, 2013.
Fischer 1991 - Fischer, Peter J., Mills, Gareth I., The Offshore Newport-InglewoodRose Canyon Fault Zone, California: Structure, Segmentation and Tectonics,
Environmental perils San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologists,
October 20, 1991.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-28

February 2015

 Fisher 2004 - Fisher, Michael A., Normark, William R., Langenheim, Victoria E.,
Calvert, Andrew J., and Sliter, Ray, Marine Geology and Earthquake Hazards of
the San Pedro Shelf Region, Southern California, Professional Paper 1687, U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, 2004.
Grant 2002 - Grant, L.B. and Rockwell, T.K., A northward Propagating Earthquake
Sequence in Coastal Southern California?: Seismological Research Letters, v.
73, no. 4, p. 461-469, 2002.
Grant 2004 - Grant, Lisa B., and Peter M. Shearer, Activity of the Offshore Newport–
Inglewood Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Coastal Southern California, from
Relocated Microseismicity, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol.
94, No. 2, pp. 747–752, April 2004.
GSA 2009 - Earth Science in the Urban Ocean: The Southern California Continental
Borderland, The Geological Society of America Special Paper 454, eds. Homa
Lee and William Normark, 457 pp., 2009.
Guptill 1981 - Guptil, Paul D., Heath, Edward G., Surface Faulting Along the Newport –
Inglewood Zone of Deformation, California Geology, Vol. 34, No. 7, July 1981.
Haaker 2015 - Erik C. Haaker, Thomas K. Rockwell, George L. Kennedy, Lisa Grant
Ludwig, S. Thomas Freeman, Justin A. Zumbro, Karl J. Mueller, and R.
Lawrence Edwards, Long-Term Uplift of the Southern California Coast Between
San Diego and Newport Beach Resolved With New dGPS Survey Data: Testing
Blind Thrust Models in the Offshore California Borderland, 2015.
Hart 1999 - Hart - E. W. and Bryant, W. A. 1999, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake
Fault Zones Maps: California Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication
42.
ICBO 1998 - International Conference of Building Officials, Map of Known Active Fault
Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
ICC 2006 - International Code Council, International Building Code.
Jahns 1954 - Jahns, R.H., Geology of the Peninsular Ranges Province, southern
California and Baja California: California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin
170, 1954.
Lajoie 1991 - Lajoie, K.R., Ponti, D.J., Powell, C.L., Mathieson, S.A., and SarnaWjcicki, A.M. 1991, Emergent Marine Strandlines and Associated Sediments,
Coastal California; A Record of Sea-Level Fluctuations, Vertical Tectonic
Movements, Climate Changes and Coastal Processes, In The Geology of North
America, Volume K-2, Quaternary Non-Glacial Geology: Coterminous U.S.
Geological Society of America.
February 2015

5.2-29

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 Legg 1989 - Legg, M. R., B. P. Luyendyk, J. Mammerickx, C. deMoustier, and R. C.
Tyce , Sea Beam survey of an active strike-slip fault: The San Clemente fault in
the California Continental Borderland, J. Geophys. Res., 94(B2), 1727–1744,
1989.
Legg 1991 - Legg, M. R., and Kennedy, M. P., Oblique divergence and convergence in
the California Continental Borderland, in Abbott, P.L., and W.J. Elliott (Editors)
Environmental Perils of the San Diego Region, San Diego Association of
Geologists Guidebook, 1991.
Legg 2001 - Legg, M.R., and Kamerling, M.J., Large-scale basement-involved
landslides, California Continental Borderland, in Watts, P., Synolakis, C.E., and
Bardet, J.-P., editors, Prediction of Underwater Landslide Hazards, Proceedings
of the May 2000 Workshop, University of Southern California, 2001.
Legg 2002 - Legg, Mark R., Borrero, Jose C., Synolakis, Costas E., The Evaluation of
Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities, 2002 NEHRP Professional
Fellowship Report, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2002.
Legg 2005 - Legg, M. R., Geologic slip on offshore San Clemente fault, Southern
California, understated in GPS data, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting
2005.
Lindvall 1995 - Lindvall, S. and Rockwell, T.K., Holocene Activity of the Rose Canyon
fault, San Diego, California: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 100, no. B12, p.
241221-24132, 1995.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
McLeod, S.A. 2008 - Unpublished paleontology resources report, Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California, 2 p.
Mueller 1998 - Mueller, Karl, Shaw, John and Rivera, Carlos, Determining the
Geometry of the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust: Implications for Earthquake
Source Characteristics, Progress Report submitted to Southern California
Earthquake Center, February 23, 1998.
Mueller 2010 - Mueller, Karl, Determining Holocene Uplift Rates on the San Joaquin
Hills Blind Thrust, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Colorado,
NEHRP Final Technical Report, October 2010.

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-30

February 2015

 Murbach 2000 - Murbach, M.L., The Rose Canyon Fault Zone: New Evidence for
Holocene Earthquake, Activity in La Jolla, California: Master’s Thesis, San Diego
State University, 2000.
Norris, R. M. and R. W. Webb. 1990 - Geology of California, Second Edition. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Randall, K.A. 2008 - Unpublished paleontology resources report, San Diego Natural
History Museum, San Diego, California, 10 p.
Rockwell 1991 - RockwellT.K., Lindvall, S.C., Haraden, C.C., Hirabayashi, C.K., and
Baker, E., Minimum Holocene slip rate for the Rose Canyon fault in San Diego,
California in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils San Diego
Region: San Diego, San Diego Association of Geologists, p. 37-46, 1991.
Rockwell 1993 - Rockwell, T.K., et. al., Late Quaternary Slip Rates Along the Agua
Blanca Fault, Baja California, Mexico: in Geological Investigations of Baja
California: South Coast Geological Society, Annual Field Trip Guidebook, No.21,
1993.
Rockwell 1996 - Rockwell, T.K., and Murbach, M.L., Holocene Earthquake History of
the Rose Canyon Fault Zone: U.S. Geological Survey Final Technical Report for
Grant No. 1434-95-2613, 1996,.
Rockwell 2010 - Rockwell, T.K., The Rose Canyon Fault Zone in San Diego: Fifth
International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, May 24-29, Paper No. 7.06c, 9 pp., 2010.
Rockwell 2012 - Paleoseismic Assessment of the Late Holocene Rupture History of the
Rose Canyon Fault in San Diego, prepared for Southern California Edison San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Seismic Source Characterization Research
Report, December 2012.
Rockwell 2013 - Rockwell, T.K., Marine Terrace Report, Palos Verdes Peninsula,
California to Punta Banda, Baja California, Prepared for Southern California
Edison, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Seismic Research Project,
September 2013.
Ryan 2009 - Ryan - Holly F., Legg, Mark R., Conrad, James E. and Sliter, Ray W.,
Recent faulting in the Gulf of Santa Catalina:San Diego to Dana Point, The
Geological Society of America, Special Paper 454, 2009.
Ryan 2012 - Ryan, H.F, J.E. Conrad, C.K. Paul, M. McGann, Slip Rate on the San
Diego Trough Fault Zone, Inner California Borderland, and the 1986 Oceanside
Earthquake Swarm Revisited, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America,
Vol. 102, No. 6, December 2012.
February 2015

5.2-31

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 Scott, E. 2008 - Unpublished electronic mail communication, San Bernardino County
Museum, Redlands, California, 4 p.
SCEC 2008 - Southern California Earthquake Center, Data Center Website:
http://www.data.scec.org/.
SCEDC 2013 - Southern California Earthquake Data Center, California Institute of
Technology, on line application, http://www.data.scec.org/, 2013.
Scripps 2012 - Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Climate Change and Sea Level
Rise Scenarios for California Vulnerability and Adaptation Assessment, A White
Paper from the California Energy Commission’s California Climate Change
Center, July 2012.
Sharp 1965 - Sharp, Robert Victor, Geology of the San Jacinto Fault Zone in the
Peninsular Ranges of southern California, Dissertation (Ph.D.), California
Institute of Technology, 1965.
SVP 1995 - Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, Measures for Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Non-Renewable Paleontologic Resources:
Standard Procedures.
SVP 2010 - Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision
Committee Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of
Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources, 2010.
Toppozada 1989 - Toppozada, Tousson R., Bennett, John H., Borchardt, Glenn, Saul,
Richard, and Davis, James F., Earthquake Planning Scenario for a Major
Earthquake on the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, California Geology, Vol. 42,
No. 4, April 1989.
USGS 1968 - United States Geological Survey, Topographic Map Series, San Luis Rey,
California, 7.5 Minute Quadrangle Map.
USGS 2002 - The San Andreas Fault System in the Vicinity of the Central Transverse
Ranges Province, southern California,Open-File Report 92-354.
UCMP 2008 - University of California Museum of Paleontology, Paleontology Collection
Locality Records Website: http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/.
USGS 2010a - United States Geological Survey Earthquake Search.
http://.usgs.gov///epic/_circ.php, 2010.
USGS 2010b - United States Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, U.S.
Seismic “Design Maps” Web Application, 2010.
https://geohazards.usgs.gov/secure/designmaps/us/application.php
Yeats, Robert S., 2004 - Tectonics of the San Gabriel Basin and Surroundings,
Southern California, GSA Bulletin, v. 116, no. 9/10.
GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

5.2-32

February 2015

 Yerkes 1965 - Yerkes, R.F., McCulloh, T.H., Schoellhamer, J.E., and Vedder, J.G.,
Geology of the Los Angeles Basin California – An Introduction, U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 420-A, 1965.

February 2015

5.2-33

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLGY - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Regional Map

Project Site

Pacific

0 c e a n

0

5

10

15

~ • • - == == - • • Miles
~ 0

7

14

21

Kilometer

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMI SSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: DUDEK 2014

GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLGY - FIGURE 2
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Project Location Map

i
I

i

l

i

I
l

i

!

~

...:.,

i

! ("\
-

Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Site

i

I
i
j

i
j

0

I

_____ ------------------

i
,

l
e:

0

-t-

--~--.

i

I
I 000
2lO

....... ....
1000

~

l
i

!

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: DUDEK 201 4

GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

 GEOLOGYANDPALEONTOLOGY-FlGURE3
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Geomorphic Provinces

*

Legend
Carlsbad Energy Center

California Geomorphic Provinces
Range Name
Basin
and

~ Basin and Range
~ Cascade Range

CJ Colorado Desert
~

Great Valley

~ Klamath Mountains

Northern
Coastal
Ranges

NEVADA

CJ Modoc Plateau
CJ Mojave Desert
CJ Northern Coastal Ranges
CJ Peninsular Ranges
CJ Sierra Nevada
CJ Southern Coastal Ranges
CJ Transverse Ranges

Sierra
Nevada
Great
Valley

Basin
a nd Ra nge
Coastal
Ranges

Mojave
Desert

Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Site

0 20 40
Miles
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION -SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, 2002.

GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY - FIGURE 4
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Emergent Terraces

Digital Elevation Model (DEM ) depicting the Linda Vista suite of terrace beach ridges (dashed) that span the central San Diego County coastal zone.
(Haaker 2015)

(j)

m

0
r
0

(j)

-<

)>

z

0

~

r

m
0

z

j92.7j

e

Numbers Represent Elevations in Meters at Corresponding Red Dot Locations

d
r
0

(j)

-<

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Haaker 2015

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLGY - FIGURE SA
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Regional Geology

LEGEND
NOTE:
SEE
GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLGY FIGURE 58
FOR LEGEND

A
N

=

0

1 inch Approx.
1 Mile

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Californ ia Department of Conservation- Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle

GEOLOGY A ND PALEONTOLOGY

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY - FIGURE 6
Carlsbad Energ y Center Project Amend ment - Fault Locations

Legend
Fault Lines

r---,

Carlsbad Energy Center
L___J Project Boundary
Major Roads

\

1in=13 miles
6.5
13
Miles
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE:California Geological Survey Seismic Hazard Assessment & Geologic Mapping Programs

GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY - FIGURE 7
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Inner Continental Borderland Faults

11a.00°w

117.67°W

117.33°W

33.67°N

...,

Figure
Area

·~~

33.33°N

:..~-~

....... i> ••••

+

o;;<··._,..

..

33.00°N

I

I

32.67°N

•

*

Project Site
Epicenter Location

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
Modified from: Recent Faulting in the Gulf of Santa Catalina: San Diego to Dana Point (Ryan 2009)

GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

 GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY - FIGURE 8
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Tsunami Inundation Map

-,,

\

/

'

Project Site

/

.;,

LEGEND
TSUNAMI INUNDATION LINE
TSUNAMI INUNDATION AREA
CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER
1--~~~~~~~~~~~~___J

1,000

so0

1

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

- - -- - --::t=-N'
4,000

5,000

E:C:E3:===E====ic==:::E===:r:::==::J

Feet

!

"'4.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: State of California, County of San Diego - 2009 Tsunami lnudation Map for Emergency Planning, Oceanside/San Luis Rey
Quadrangle, Dated June 1, 2009

GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY

 POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY
Testimony of Edward Brady and Shahab Khoshmashrab

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The amended Carlsbad Energy Center project (amended CECP) would generate 632
MW (nominal net output) of peaking electric power at an overall project fuel efficiency of
43 percent lower heating value (LHV1) at maximum full load and average annual
ambient conditions2. While it would consume substantial amounts of energy, it would do
so in a sufficiently efficient manner to satisfy the project’s objectives of producing peak
load electricity and ancillary load-following services. It would not create significant
adverse effects on energy supplies or resources, would not require additional sources of
energy supply, and would not consume energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner. No
energy standards apply to the project. Staff therefore concludes that the project would
present no significant adverse impacts upon energy resources.
Staff analyzed the changes to the licensed project, which include replacing the
combined cycle power blocks with simple cycle turbines, reconfiguration of the project
footprint, and the demolition and removal of portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff
concludes that there would not be any new impacts related to power plant efficiency not
previously analyzed, nor an increase in severity of such environmental impacts.

INTRODUCTION
One of the responsibilities of the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) is
to make findings on whether the energy use by a power plant, including the amended
CECP, would result in significant adverse impacts on the environment, as defined in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If the Energy Commission finds that the
amended CECP’s energy consumption creates a significant adverse impact, it must
further determine if feasible mitigation measures could eliminate or minimize that
impact. In this analysis, staff addresses the inefficient and unnecessary consumption of
energy.
In order to fully evaluate the project in this regard, this analysis:


Examines whether the facility would likely present any adverse impacts upon energy
resources;



Examines whether these adverse impacts are significant; and if so,



Examines whether feasible mitigation measures or alternatives could eliminate those
adverse impacts or reduce them to a level of insignificance.

1

LHV is low heating value, or a measurement of the energy content of a fuel correcting for postcombustion water vapor.
2
At site average annual ambient temperature of 60.3°F and relative humidity of 70 percent (LL 2014d,
§ 2.0, Footnote 3)
February 2015

5.3-1

POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
No Federal, State or local/county laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS)
apply to the efficiency of this project.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The petitioner proposes to modify the project licensed by the Energy Commission
(licensed CECP) by reconfiguring the project to include six simple-cycle LMS100 natural
gas-fired combustion turbine generators (also referred to as gas turbines, combustion
turbines, or CTGs), instead of the two combined-cycle units approved in the licensed
CECP Commission Final Decision (CEC 2012a) (Final Decision). For more details and
specifics regarding the proposed modifications to the licensed CECP sought by the
petitioner, please see the Project Description section of this Preliminary Staff
Assessment (PSA).

SETTING
The petitioner proposes to construct and operate the 632-MW (nominal net output)
simple-cycle, quick-start3 amended CECP, providing peaking and load following power
to the San Diego area (LL 2014d, § 2.1.2). The project would consist of six General
Electric (GE) LMS100 CTGs and ancillary equipment (LL 2014d, §§ 2.3.1, 2.3.5).
Natural gas would be delivered to the amended CECP via a 20-inch-diameter pipeline
from an existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) high-pressure, natural gas pipeline
(Line TL 2009, “Rainbow Line”) (CEC 2014a, §§ 2.0, 2.1.6, 4.0). Natural gas would flow
through the gas metering and filtration stations and finally through the natural gas
compressors to boost gas pressure before injection into the CTGs.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
METHOD AND THRESHOLD FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE OF
ENERGY RESOURCES
CEQA guidelines state that the environmental analysis “…shall describe feasible
measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts, including where relevant,
inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy” (California Code of Regulations,
title 14, §15126.4[a][1]). Appendix F of the guidelines further suggests consideration of
such factors as the project’s energy requirements and energy use efficiency; its effects
on local and regional energy supplies and energy resources; its requirements for
additional energy supply capacity; its compliance with existing energy standards; and
any alternatives that could reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary
consumption of energy (California Code of Regulations, title 14, §15000 et seq.,
Appendix F).

3

The LMS100 machines to be employed in this project can achieve full load in ten minutes (LL 2014d, §
2.3.5; GE 2008).
POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

5.3-2

February 2015

 The inefficient and unnecessary consumption of energy, in the form of non-renewable
fuels such as natural gas and oil, constitutes an adverse environmental impact. An
adverse impact can be considered significant if it results in:


Adverse effects on local and regional energy supplies and energy resources;



A requirement for additional energy supply capacity;



Noncompliance with existing energy standards; or



The wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of fuel or energy.

PROJECT ENERGY REQUIREMENTS AND ENERGY USE EFFICIENCY
Any thermal power plant large enough to fall under Energy Commission siting
jurisdiction (50 MW or greater), by definition, consumes large amounts of energy. At
average annual ambient conditions, amended CECP would burn natural gas at a
maximum rate of approximately 5,323 million Btu4 per hour LHV (LL 2014d, § 2.3.5).
This is a substantial rate of energy consumption that could potentially, but will not,
impact energy supplies (See Adverse Effects on Energy Supplies and Resources below
for further discussion). Under typical ambient conditions, electricity would be generated
at a full load efficiency of approximately 43 percent LHV (LL 2014d, § 2.3.5). This
efficiency level compares favorably with the average fuel efficiency of a typical simple
cycle power plant.

ADVERSE EFFECTS ON ENERGY SUPPLIES AND RESOURCES
The petitioner has described its sources of supply of natural gas for the project (LL
2014d, §§ 2.3.5, 4.0). Natural gas for the amended CECP would be supplied from an
existing SDG&E natural gas transmission pipeline (Line TL 2009, “Rainbow Line”). The
SDG&E natural gas system has access to gas from the Rocky Mountains, Canada and
the southwest. This represents a resource of considerable capacity. Staff concludes that
there would be adequate natural gas supply and pipeline capacity to meet the project’s
needs.

ADDITIONAL ENERGY SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS
Natural gas would be delivered to the project site via a new natural gas pipeline that
would be connected to an existing SDG&E natural gas transmission pipeline (LL 2014d,
§ 2.3.5). This is a resource with adequate delivery capacity for this project. SDG&E has
confirmed its system’s adequate capacity to supply the project; a will-serve letter is
included in Appendix 4A of the petition (LL 2014d). The amended CECP would not
require additional capacity since regional supplies are currently plentiful.

COMPLIANCE WITH ENERGY STANDARDS
No standards apply to the efficiency of the amended CECP or other non-cogeneration
projects.

4

British thermal units

February 2015

5.3-3

POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

 ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT AND
UNNECESSARY ENERGY CONSUMPTION
The amended CECP could create significant adverse impacts on energy resources if
alternatives could reduce the project’s use of fuel. The evaluation of alternatives to the
project that could reduce wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary energy consumption first
requires examination of the project’s energy consumption. Project fuel efficiency, and
therefore its rate of energy consumption, is determined by both the configuration of the
power producing system and the selection of equipment used to generate power.

Project Configuration
The amended CECP would be configured as six independent simple-cycle power trains
in parallel, in which electricity is generated by six CTGs (gas turbines) (LL 2014d, §§
2.0, 2.1.2, 2.1.4). This configuration, with its short start-up time and fast ramping5
capability, is well suited to providing peaking power.
A gas turbine operates most efficiently at full load power output and its efficiency drops
at part load power output. When the project is required to operate at part load, one or
more gas turbines can be shut down, allowing the remaining machine(s) to operate at
full load at optimum efficiency, rather than operating more machines at a less efficient
part load.

Equipment Selection
Modern gas turbines embody the most fuel-efficient electric generating technology
available today. The amended CECP would employ six GE LMS100 modern gas
turbines. This model of the LMS1006 is nominally rated at 103.5 MW at a fuel efficiency
of 43.6 percent (GTW 2014).
Alternative machines that can meet the project’s objectives are the LM6000 SPRINT,
FT8 TwinPac, and the SGT-800, which are aeroderivative machines adapted from
General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, and Siemens Power Generation aircraft engines,
respectively.
The General Electric LM6000PC SPRINT gas turbine in a simple-cycle configuration is
nominally rated at 50.8 MW and 40.3 percent efficiency LHV at ISO conditions7 (GTW
2014).
The Pratt & Whitney FT8 TwinPac gas turbine in a simple-cycle configuration is
nominally rated at 51.2 MW and 38.3 percent efficiency LHV at ISO conditions (GTW
2014).
The Siemens SGT-800 gas turbine in a simple-cycle configuration is nominally rated at
47.5 MW and 37.7 percent efficiency LHV at ISO conditions (GTW 2014).
5

Ramping is increasing and decreasing electrical output to meet fluctuating load requirements.
Amended CECP would employ LMS100PA machines with single annular combustors equipped with
water injection to control oxides of nitrogen.
7
ISO (International Organization for Standardization): In this case, ISO Standard 27.040 for
measurement of gas and steam turbine capacity. These standard conditions are 15°C (59°F), 60 percent
relative humidity, and one atmosphere of pressure (equivalent to sea level).
6

POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

5.3-4

February 2015

 See Efficiency Table 1 below.
Efficiency Table 1
Simple Cycle Comparison at ISO Conditions
Machine
GE LMS100PA
GE LM6000PC SPRINT
P & W FT8 TwinPac
Siemens SGT-800

ISO Rated Net Output8 (MW)
103.2
50.8
51.2
47.5

ISO Efficiency (LHV)
43.6 %
40.3 %
38.3 %
37.7 %

Source: GTW 2014

As seen in Efficiency Table 1 above, the LMS100 enjoys a fair advantage in fuel
efficiency over these alternative machines (especially the FT8 TwinPac and SGT-800).
Staff concludes that in terms of thermal efficiency, the GE LMS100 is an appropriate
choice of machine for the amended CECP.

Efficiency of Alternatives to the Project
Alternative Generating Technologies
For purposes of this analysis, staff considered solar technology, other fossil fuels,
nuclear, biomass, hydroelectric, wind, and geothermal technologies as alternative
generating technologies for the amended CECP. Due to regulatory prohibitions, nuclear
technology was rejected. Biomass, hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, and solar
technologies were ruled out due to the limitations on the availability of these energy
resources in the project area and/or their unavailability all hours of the day. Given the
project objectives, location, and the commercial availability of the above technologies,
staff believes that the petitioner’s selection of a natural gas-burning technology is
reasonable.
Natural Gas-Burning Technologies
Fuel consumption is one of the most important economic factors in selecting an electric
generator; fuel typically accounts for over two-thirds of the total operating costs of a
fossil-fired power plant. Under a competitive power market system, where operating
costs are critical in determining the competitiveness and profitability of a power plant,
the plant owner is thus strongly motivated to purchase fuel-efficient machinery.
Although power plant efficiency is recognized as an important characteristic, it is not
exclusive. The licensed CECP limits the project’s start-up and shutdown cycles to 300
per year. The petitioner proposes to increase the start-up and shutdown cycle
requirements to 400 per year for the amended CECP. This requirement effectively
shifted the project’s start-up profile toward a quicker and more responsive plant system.
The amended CECP’s simple-cycle configuration suits the requirements outlined in the
petition, providing peaking power at a fast ramping rate, and reaching plant-wide full8

ISO rated MW values are used here because site-specific values are not available for the comparable
systems, such as the LM6000 SPRINT, FT8 TwinPac, and the SGT-800 machines. The 103.2 MW rating
used here for the GE LMS100 machine, thus, does not reflect the site-specific climatic conditions that
result in 632 MW plant wide (105.3 MW x 6 machines).

February 2015

5.3-5

POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

 load operation in less time than the combined-cycle system proposed in the licensed
CECP. Although the combined-cycle units proposed in the licensed CECP would
demonstrate a higher full load efficiency than the simple-cycle units proposed in the
amended CECP (48 percent versus 43 percent), these simple cycle units, with their
faster ramping rate capability, would be more suitable to respond to the project’s startup requirements than the approved combined-cycle units.
Inlet Air Cooling
Other alternatives include gas turbine inlet air cooling methods.9 The two most common
techniques are evaporative coolers or foggers, and chillers. Both increase power output
by cooling gas turbine inlet air. A mechanical chiller offers greater power output than the
evaporative cooler on hot, humid days; however, it consumes electric power to operate
its refrigeration process, slightly reducing its overall net power output and overall
efficiency. An absorption chiller uses less electricity but necessitates the use of a
substantial amount of ammonia. An evaporative cooler or fogger boosts power output
most efficiently on dry days; it uses less electricity than a mechanical chiller, possibly
producing a slightly higher operating efficiency. Efficiency differences between these
alternatives are relatively minor.
Given the climate at the project site (mild summers) and the relative lack of clear
superiority of one system over another, staff believes that the applicant’s choice of an
evaporative gas turbine inlet air cooling system (LL 2014d, § 2.1.4) would have no
significant adverse energy impacts.
In conclusion, the project configuration (simple cycle) and generating equipment
(LMS100) chosen, represent a sufficiently efficient combination to satisfy the project
objectives identified in the petition (LL 2014d, § 1.6). There are no alternatives that
could significantly reduce energy consumption.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
No nearby projects have been identified that could potentially combine with the
amended CECP to create cumulative impacts on natural gas resources. Note that the
SDG&E natural gas supply system draws from extensive supplies originating in the
Rocky Mountains, in the southwest, and in Canada. Staff concludes that the SDG&E
system is adequate to supply the project without adversely impacting its other
customers.

RESPONSE TO AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
Staff received no comments from the public, interveners, agencies, or the petitioner in
the area of Power Plant Efficiency.

9

A gas turbine’s power output decreases as ambient air temperatures rise. Cooling the air as it enters the
machine increases its power output.
POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

5.3-6

February 2015

 CONCLUSIONS
The project would generate 632 MW (nominal net output) of peaking electric power at
an overall project fuel efficiency of 43 percent LHV at maximum full load and average
annual ambient conditions. While it would consume substantial amounts of energy, it
would do so in a sufficiently efficient manner to satisfy the project’s objectives of
producing peak load electricity and ancillary load-following services. It would not create
significant adverse effects on energy supplies or resources, would not require additional
sources of energy supply, and would not consume energy in a wasteful or inefficient
manner. No energy standards apply to the project. Staff therefore concludes that the
project would present no significant adverse impacts upon energy resources.
Staff analyzed the changes to the licensed project, which include replacing the
combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle turbines, reconfiguration of the project
footprint, and the demolition and removal of portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff
concludes that there would not be any new impacts related to power plant efficiency not
previously analyzed, nor an increase in severity of such environmental impacts.

February 2015

5.3-7

POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

 REFERENCES
CEC 2012a – California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CEC 2014a – California Energy Commission (TN202392). Notice of Receipt Petition to
Amend Final Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project. Submitted
05/29/2014.
GE 2008 – General Electric Power Generation website http://www.gepower.com. 2008.
GTW 2014 – Gas Turbine World. Gas Turbine World 2014 Performance Specs, Simple
Cycle OEM Design Ratings, pp. 4-15.
LL 2014d – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.

POWER PLANT EFFICIENCY

5.3-8

February 2015

 POWER PLANT RELIABILITY
Testimony of Shahab Khoshmashrab and Jacquelyn Record

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Based on other power plant projects with similar technologies, the Carlsbad Energy
Center Project Amendment (amended CECP) would be expected to demonstrate an
equivalent availability factor1 between 95 to 98 percent, which is the industry norm.
In the Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA), staff concluded that due to the lack of a
water will-serve letter, the petitioner’s proposed source of water supply would not yield
reliable operation of this project. After the publication of the PSA, the Carlsbad
Municipal Water District provided, to the Energy Commission, a water will-serve letter
for this source of water supply, which was docketed on January 8, 2015 (CAR2015a;
TN203507). Based on a review of the Petition to Amend (petition) (LL2014d) and this
will-serve letter, staff concludes that the amended CECP would be built and would
operate in a manner consistent with industry norms for reliable operation, and that the
equivalent availability factor of 95 to 98 percent would be achievable.

INTRODUCTION
In this analysis, staff addresses the potential reliability issues of the amended CECP to
determine if the power plant is likely to be built in accordance with typical industry norms
for reliable power generation. Staff uses these norms as a benchmark because they
ensure that the resulting project would not be likely to degrade the overall reliability of
the electric system it serves (see Setting, below).
The scope of this power plant reliability analysis covers these benchmarks:
•

equipment availability and plant maintainability;

•

fuel and water availability; and,

•

power plant reliability in relation to natural hazards.

Staff uses the above benchmarks as appropriate industry norms to evaluate the
project’s reliability and determine if the expected availability factor is achievable.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
No specific federal, state, or local/county laws, ordinances, regulations, or standards
(LORS) apply to the reliability of this project.

1

Equivalent availability factor is the percentage of time a power plant is available to generate electrical
power, and reflects the probability of planned and unplanned (forced) outages.
February 2015

5.4-1

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY

 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project owner, Carlsbad Energy Center LLC (petitioner), proposes to modify the
project licensed by the Energy Commission (licensed CECP) by re-configuring the
project to include six simple-cycle LMS100 natural gas-fired combustion turbine
generators (CTGs), instead of two combined cycle units approved in the licensed CECP
2012 Final Decision. Refer to the Project Description section of this Final Staff
Assessment (FSA) for a detailed discussion of the proposed project design.

SETTING
In the restructured competitive electric power industry, the responsibility for maintaining
system reliability falls largely to the state’s control area operators, such as the California
Independent System Operator (CAISO), which purchase, dispatch, and sell electricity
throughout the state. How the CAISO and other control area operators ensure system
reliability is an evolving process; new protocols are being developed and put in place to
ensure sufficient reliability with the integration of renewable power sources in the
competitive, market system.
Historically, one of the primary mechanisms used to ensure system reliability was the
CAISO’s “Reliability Must-Run”, or RMR, power purchase agreement. In recent years,
the means of ensuring system reliability has shifted from RMR agreements to the
California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC’s) Resource Adequacy (RA) program.
Nearly all RAs have “Participating Generator Agreement”, or PGA, to ensure an
adequate supply of reliable power. PGA allows the CAISO operators to invoke
"command and control" authority on PGA resources and forces resources to conform to
the CAISO Tariff.
The CAISO also requires that power plants selling ancillary services fulfill certain
requirements, including:
•

filing periodic reports on plant reliability;

•

reporting all outages and their causes; and

•

scheduling all planned maintenance outages with the CAISO.

The above mechanisms to ensure adequate power plant reliability have apparently
been developed with the assumption that individual power plants competing to sell
power into the system will exhibit reliability levels similar to those of power plants of past
decades. Staff recommends that power plant owners continue to build and operate their
projects to the industry’s current level of reliability.

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY

5.4-2

February 2015

 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
METHOD FOR DETERMINING RELIABILITY
The Energy Commission must make findings as to how the project is designed, sited,
and operated in order to ensure its safe and reliable operation (California Code of
Regulations, Title 20, § 1752(b)(2)). Staff concludes that a project is acceptable if it
does not degrade the reliability of the utility system to which it is connected. This will be
the case if a project is at least as reliable as other power plants on that system.
The equivalent availability factor of a power plant is the percentage of time it is available
to generate electrical power. Both planned and unplanned outages subtract from this
availability. Measures of power plant reliability are based upon both the plant’s actual
ability to generate power when it is considered to be available, and upon starting
failures and unplanned (or forced) outages. For practical purposes, reliability can be
considered a combination of these two industry measures, making a reliable power
plant one that is available when called upon to operate. Power plant systems must be
able to operate for extended periods without shutting down for maintenance or repairs.
Achieving this reliability requires adequate levels of equipment availability, power plant
maintainability with scheduled maintenance outages, fuel and water availability, and
resistance to natural hazards. Staff examines these factors for the amended CECP and
compares them to industry norms. If they compare favorably for this project, staff will
then conclude that the amended CECP would be as reliable as other power plants on
the electric system and would not degrade system reliability. Please see the analysis
below.
The project is expected to achieve an equivalent availability factor between 95 to 98
percent. It is expected that the amended CECP would operate mainly to support
dispatch service in response to customer demands, as opposed to base load mode
(LL2014d, § 2.3.3.1). The operation of the amended CECP is limited to no more than
2,700 hours per CTG (combustion turbine generator) in a year, which would yield an
annual capacity factor of approximately 30 percent (based on 8,760 hours in a year).
Please note that annual capacity factor is a measure of how much electricity a power
plant is expected to actually produce during the year as compared to the maximum
power it could produce at continuous full power operation during the same period of
time. The 632 megawatt (MW) (nominal net output) amended CECP with operating
flexibility (that is, the ability to start up, shut down, turn down, and provide load
following, when needed) would allow the system operator to adapt the power plant’s
output to changing conditions in the energy and ancillary services markets in real time.

EQUIPMENT AVAILABILITY
Equipment availability would be ensured by adopting appropriate quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) programs during the design, procurement,
construction, and operation of the plant and by providing for the adequate maintenance
and repair of the equipment and systems discussed below.

February 2015

5.4-3

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY

 Quality Control Program
The petitioner describes a quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program that is
typical of the power industry (LL2014d, § 2.3.4). Equipment would be purchased from
qualified suppliers based on technical and commercial evaluations. Suppliers’
personnel, production capability, past performance, QA/QC programs, and quality
history would be evaluated. The project owner would perform receipt inspections, test
components, and administer independent testing/commissioning contracts. Also, a
power plant operation and maintenance program would be implemented during initial
power plant startup (LL2014d, § 2.3.4.2). Staff expects that implementation of these
programs would result in standard reliability of design, operation, and construction.

PLANT MAINTAINABILITY
Equipment Redundancy
A generating facility must be capable of being maintained while operating. A typical
approach to this is to provide redundant examples of those pieces of equipment that are
most likely to require service or repair. Because the project consists of six LMS100
CTGs operating in parallel as independent generating trains, the failure of a single train
cannot disable more than one train, which allows the power plant to continue to
generate, but at reduced output. Power plant ancillary systems are also designed with
adequate redundancy to ensure their continued operation if equipment fails. Staff
concludes that this project’s proposed equipment redundancy would be sufficient for its
reliable operation.

Maintenance Program
Equipment manufacturers provide maintenance recommendations for their products,
and the project owner would base the project’s maintenance program on those
recommendations (LL2014d, § 2.3.4.2). Historically, power plant owners’ standard
approach in employing maintenance programs has resulted in an acceptable level of
reliability. Because power plant equipment is costly to repair or replace, and the length
of time it takes for major repairs or replacements can sometimes result in lengthy power
plant shutdowns, power plant owners are strongly motivated to follow equipment
manufacturers’ maintenance recommendations to avoid such issues. The maintenance
program would encompass both preventive and predictive maintenance techniques.
When maintenance is needed, maintenance outages would probably be planned for
periods of low electricity demand. Staff concludes that the project would be adequately
maintained to ensure an acceptable level of reliability.

FUEL AND WATER AVAILABILITY
The long-term availability of fuel and of water for cooling or process use is necessary to
ensure the reliability of any power plant. The need for reliable sources of fuel and water
is obvious; lacking long-term availability of either resource the service life of the power
plant could be curtailed, threatening both the power supply and the economic viability of
the power plant.

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY

5.4-4

February 2015

 Fuel Availability
Natural gas would be delivered to the amended CECP via a 20-inch-diameter pipeline
from an existing San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) high-pressure, natural gas pipeline.
This pipeline would extend to the facility from the existing SDG&E natural gas pipeline
(Line TL 2009, “Rainbow line”) located adjacent to the amended CECP site (LL2014e,
§§ 2.0, 2.1.6, 4.0). SDG&E has confirmed its system’s adequate capacity to supply the
project; a will-serve letter is included in Appendix 4A of the petition. SDG&E’s natural
gas system represents a resource of considerable capacity and offers access to
adequate supplies of gas. This natural gas comes from resources in the Southwest,
Canada, and the Rocky Mountains. Staff concludes that there would be adequate
natural gas supply and pipeline capacity to meet the project’s needs.

Water Supply Reliability
The petitioner proposes to use reclaimed water provided by the city of Carlsbad for
power plant service needs, cooling system makeup, combustion turbine injection,
combustion turbine evaporative cooling makeup, and secondary fire protection. In the
PSA, staff concluded that due to the lack of a water will-serve letter, the petitioner’s
proposed source of water supply is not reliable. After the publication of the PSA, the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District provided, to the Energy Commission, a water willserve letter for this source of water supply, which was docketed on January 8, 2015
(CAR2015a; TN203507). Thus, staff concludes that this source of water supply would
yield reliable operation of this project. For further discussion of water supply, refer to the
Soil & Water Resources section of this FSA.

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY IN RELATION TO NATURAL HAZARDS
Natural forces can threaten the reliable operation of a power plant. Seismic shaking
(earthquakes), flooding, and tsunami could present credible threats to the project’s
reliable operation.

Seismic Shaking
The principal natural hazard associated with the amended CECP site is earthquakes.
The site is located in Seismic Risk Zone 4 (LL2014d, § 2.3.2); refer to the Geology &
Paleontology section of this FSA. The project would be designed and constructed to
the latest appropriate engineering LORS. A design-level geotechnical investigation is
required for the project by the 2013 California Building Code (CBC 2013), and standard
engineering design requirements would be applied to mitigate strong seismic shaking,
liquefaction and potential excessive settlement due to dynamic compaction. To ensure
this, staff has proposed Condition of Certification GEO-1 in the Geology &
Paleontology section of this FSA, and Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5, and
CIVIL-1 in the Facility Design section of this FSA.
Compliance with current seismic design LORS represents an upgrading of performance
during seismic shaking compared to older facilities since these LORS have been
continually upgraded. Because it would be built to the latest seismic design LORS, this
project would likely perform at least as well as, and perhaps better than, existing power
plants in the electric power system. In light of the general historical performance of
California power plants and the electrical system in seismic events, and considering the
February 2015

5.4-5

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY

 project will be constructed to comply with the latest applicable engineering LORS, staff
has no special concerns with the power plant’s functional reliability during seismic
events.

Flooding
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the project site is
outside the 100-year floodplain (LL2014d § 2.3.2.1). A drainage and grading plan, and
an erosion and sediment control plan would be implemented as part of project
construction (see Condition of Certification CIVIL-1 in the Facility Design section of this
FSA). In light of this, staff believes there are no special concerns with power plant
functional reliability due to flooding.

Tsunami
U.S. building codes generally have not addressed the subject of designing structures in
tsunami zones (Reynolds 2013). The FEMA’s Coastal Construction Manual (FEMA
2013), developed to provide design and construction guidance for structures built in
coastal areas, addresses seismic loads for coastal structures and provides information
on tsunami and associated loads. This manual cites ASCE Standard 7-10, Minimum
Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures as the reference to be consulted
during design of structures. ASCE 7-10 is codified in CBC 2013. Although the amended
CECP project site is not subject to inundation by tsunami, it would be designed and
constructed to CBC 2013 (see GEN-1 in the Facility Design section of this FSA).
For further discussion, refer to the Geology & Paleontology of this FSA.

COMPARISON WITH EXISTING FACILITIES
Industry statistics for equivalent availability factors are maintained by the North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). NERC regularly polls North American
utility companies on their project reliability through its Generating Availability Data
System, and periodically summarizes and publishes those statistics on the Internet
[http://www.nerc.com]. The NERC reported the following generating unit statistic for the
years 2007 through 2011 (NERC 2011):
For gas turbine units 50 MW and larger:
Availability Factor = 91.8 percent
The project’s combustion turbine models have been on the market for several years and
are expected to exhibit high availability. The project is expected to have an annual
equivalent availability factor of 95 to 98 percent, which appears reasonable when
compared with NERC figures for similar power plants throughout North America (91.8
percent). In fact, these machines can well be expected to outperform the fleet of
various, mostly older combustion turbines that make up NERC statistics. Additionally,
because the power plant would consist of six independent power generating trains,
maintenance can be scheduled during times of the year when the full power plant output
is not required to meet market demand, which is typical of industry standard
maintenance procedures. The expected power plant availability, therefore, is realistic.
Stated procedures for assuring the design, procurement, and construction of a reliable
POWER PLANT RELIABILITY

5.4-6

February 2015

 power plant are consistent with industry norms, and staff believes they would ultimately
produce an adequately reliable power plant.

RESPONSES TO PSA COMMENTS
INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Staff received one comment on the PSA identified under Power Plant Reliability, from
intervenor Terramar Association.
Comment: Terramar requests an explanation of the “need” for the 600-MW amended
CECP at the proposed location (TER2015b, p.13).
Response:The purpose of the technical area of Power Plant Reliability is to
evaluate the ability of proposed power plant projects to operate reliably, and
discussions related to the “need” for such projects are beyond the scope of this
technical area. However, these discussions and staff’s response to this comment are
included in the Alternatives and Project Description sections of this FSA; please
see Responses to Agency and Public Comments in those sections.
Staff received no other public comments, or any comments from the interveners,
agencies, or the petitioner, in the area of Power Plant Reliability.

CONCLUSION
Based on other power plant projects with similar technologies, the amended CECP
would be expected to demonstrate an equivalent availability factor between 95 to 98
percent, which is the industry norm.
Based on a review of the petition, and the water will-serve letter (received after the
publication of the PSA), staff concludes that the amended CECP would operate in a
manner consistent with industry norms for reliable operation, and that the equivalent
availability factor of 95 to 98 percent would be achievable.

February 2015

5.4-7

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY

 REFERENCES
CAR2015a – City of Carlsbad/B. Therkelsen (TN203507). Statement of the City of
Carlsbad’s willingness to serve potable water, recycled water, and water sewer
service to the amended CECP, dated January 8, 2015. Submitted 01/09/2015.
CBC 2013 - California Code of Regulations, Title 24, California Building Standards
Code [CBSC], Part 2, California Building Code (CBC), 2013.
CEC2014tt - California Energy Commission (tn: 203263). Data Request Set 4, Soil &
Water (Nos. 86-90), TSE (91-92), dated October 28, 2014. Submitted
10/28/2014.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
FEMA 2013 - Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA P-55, Coastal
Construction Manual: Principles and Practices of Planning, Siting, Designing,
Constructing, and Maintaining Residential Buildings in Coastal Areas (4th
edition), Nov 13, 2013.
NERC (North American Electric Reliability Council) 2011 - 2007 through 2011
Generating Availability Report.
Reynolds 2013 - Reynolds, David, Engineers Design Tsunami-Resistant Port in
California, ASCE Civil Engineering Magazine, January 15, 2013.
TER2015b - Terramar Association (TN203545). Terramar Comments on the
Preliminary Staff Assessment. Submitted 01/21/2015.

POWER PLANT RELIABILITY

5.4-8

February 2015

 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING
Testimony of Ajoy Guha, P. E. and Mark Hesters

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The proposed interconnecting facilities for the amended Carlsbad Energy Center
Project (amended CECP), including the 230 kV and 138 kV switchyards, the 230 kV and
138 kV generator overhead tie lines to the existing San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E) 138 kV and 230 kV Encina switchyards, and their terminations are adequate
in accordance with industry standards and good utility practices, and, upon satisfactory
compliance with the staff recommended conditions of certification, comply with
applicable engineering laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS).
The System Impact studies performed by the California Independent System Operator
(California ISO) indicate that the project’s transmission system impacts to the California
grid could be mitigated by installing a Special Protection System (SPS) in order to
implement operating procedures for generation curtailment. Therefore, the proposed
project could be reliably connected to the SDG&E grid.

INTRODUCTION
The Transmission System Engineering (TSE) analysis examines whether or not the
facilities associated with the proposed interconnection conform to all applicable LORS
required for safe and reliable electric power transmission. Staff’s analysis evaluates the
power plant switchyard, outlet line, termination and downstream facilities identified by
the applicant. Additionally, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
Energy Commission must conduct an environmental review of the “whole of the action,”
which may include facilities not licensed by the Energy Commission (California Code of
Regulations, title 14, §15378). Therefore, the Energy Commission must identify the
system impacts and necessary new or modified transmission facilities downstream of
the proposed interconnection that are required for interconnection and represent the
“whole of the action.” The downstream network upgrade mitigation measures that will be
required to maintain system reliability for the addition of the power plant are proposed to
satisfy the requirement for any general CEQA analysis.
Energy Commission staff relies on the interconnecting authority (California ISO) for the
analysis of impacts on the transmission grid as well as the identification and approval of
required new or modified facilities downstream from the proposed interconnection that
would be required as mitigation measures. As proposed, the amended CECP would
interconnect to the SDG&E transmission network and require analysis by SDG&E and
approval of the California ISO.

SDG&E’S ROLE
SDG&E is responsible for ensuring electric system reliability in the SDG&E service
system for addition of the proposed generating plant. SDG&E will provide the analysis
and reports in their System Impact and Facilities studies, and their approval for the
facilities and changes required in the SDG&E system for addition of the proposed
transmission modifications.
February 2015

5.5-1

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 CALIFORNIA ISO’S ROLE
The California ISO is responsible for ensuring electric system reliability for all
participating transmission owners and is also responsible for developing the standards
necessary to achieve system reliability. The California ISO will review the studies of the
SDG&E system to ensure adequacy of the proposed transmission interconnection. The
California ISO will determine the reliability impacts of the proposed transmission
modifications on the SDG&E transmission system in accordance with all applicable
reliability criteria. According to its Tariffs, the California ISO will determine the “need” for
transmission additions or upgrades downstream from the interconnection point to
ensure reliability of the transmission grid. The California ISO will, therefore, review the
Interconnection studies performed by SDG&E and/or any third party, and provide their
analysis, conclusions and recommendations. On satisfactory completion of the SDG&E
Facility study and in accordance with the Large Generator Interconnection Procedures
(LGIP) as in the California ISO Tariff, the California ISO, instead of issuing a final
approval letter, would proceed to execute a Large Generator Interconnection
Agreement (LGIA) with the project owner and subsequently perform an operational
study/procedure examining the impacts of the project on the grid based on the expected
date of operation. The California ISO may also provide written and verbal testimony on
their findings at the Energy Commission hearings, if necessary.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS (LORS)
•

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 95 (GO-95), “Rules for
Overhead Electric Line Construction,” formulates uniform requirements for
construction of overhead lines. Compliance with this order ensures adequate service
and safety to persons engaged in the construction, maintenance and operation or
use of overhead electric lines and to the public in general.

•

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) General Order 128 (GO-128), “Rules
for Construction of Underground Electric Supply and Communications Systems,”
formulates uniform requirements and minimum standards to be used for
underground supply systems to ensure adequate service and safety to persons
engaged in the construction, maintenance and operation or use of underground
electric lines and to the public in general.

•

The National Electric Safety Code, 2007 provides electrical, mechanical, civil and
structural requirements for overhead electric line construction and operation.

•

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Reliability Standards
define the plans, policies & procedures, methodologies & system models, coordination
& responsibilities, and performance criteria for reliable planning, control and operation
of the North American Bulk Electric System (BES) over broad spectrum of system
conditions and following a wide range of probable disturbances. The Standards cover
all aspects of an interconnected BES such as: Transmission system planning &
operation, consistent data (steady-state and dynamic) for modeling and simulation,
facility ratings methodology and connections, balancing real power, resources & load
demand, procedures for voltage control & reactive power, system protection, control,
communications & security, nuclear plant interface coordination, emergency operation
planning and system restoration plans. The transmission planning standards stipulate

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

5.5-2

February 2015

 periodic system simulations and associated assessments over a planning horizon by
the planning authority and transmission planner to ensure that reliable systems are
planned with sufficient lead time to meet the system performance requirements and
continue to be modified or upgraded as necessary for operating the network reliably to
supply projected customer demands and firm transmission services under normal and
forced or maintenance outage system conditions (NERC 2005-10).
•

The Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) Regional System Performance
Criteria is similar to the system performance limits as defined in NERC transmission
planning standards. The WECC performance criteria incorporate the Table I of the
NERC transmission planning standards and in addition include the WECC
Disturbance-Performance Table W-1 which provides standards for transient voltage
and frequency limits, and post-transient system voltage variation. Certain aspects of
the WECC performance criteria are either more stringent or specific than the NERC
standards such as inclusion of contingency event frequencies and additional
Category C & D contingencies. Adequate reactive power resources planning criteria
for transfer path ratings and post-transient voltage stability are also included. For
any past disturbance that actually resulted in cascading outages in the
interconnected system, the WECC performance criteria require remedial action so
that future occurrences of such event would not result in cascading (WECC 2008).

•

California ISO Planning Standards also provide standards and guidelines to ensure
the adequacy, security and reliability in the planning of the California ISO grid
transmission facilities. The Standards incorporate the current NERC Reliability
Planning Standards and WECC Regional System Performance Criteria. However,
the California ISO Standards are more stringent or specific than the NERC
standards and WECC performance criteria. The Standards include additional
Category B disturbance elements and criteria for existing nuclear plant unit’s control.
The Standards also address new transmission vs. involuntary load interruptions and
San Francisco greater bay area generation outage criteria for conducting grid
planning for the bay area. The California ISO Standards apply to the electric
systems of all participating transmission owners interconnecting to the California ISO
controlled grid. They also apply when there are any impacts to the California ISO
grid due to facilities interconnecting to adjacent controlled grids not operated by the
California ISO (California ISO 2002a).

•

California ISO/FERC Electric Tariff provides rules, procedures and guidelines for
construction of all transmission additions/upgrades (projects) within the California
ISO controlled grid. The California ISO determines the “Need” for the proposed
project where it will promote economic efficiency or maintain system reliability. The
California ISO also determines the Cost Responsibility of the proposed project and
provides an Operational Review of all facilities that are to be connected to the
California ISO grid. The Tariff specifies the required LGIP and LGIA to be followed
for any large generator interconnection to the California ISO controlled grid
(California ISO 2010a).

February 2015

5.5-3

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 EXISTING FACILITIES AND RELATED SYSTEMS
The petioner has proposed interconnection of the amended CECP simple-cycle Units
10 and 11 at the existing SDG&E Encina 138 kV switchyard, and amended CECP
simple-cycle Units 6-9 at an expanded SDG&E Encina 230 kV switchyard, both located
within the site of the Encina Power Station (EPS) property. Located at the coast line of
the city of Carlsbad, the EPS has five existing generating OTC units with a total 965
MW generation capacity. The EPS Units 1, 2, 3 and 4, with 620 MW generation output,
are connected to the existing SDG&E Encina 138 kV switchyard, and the 345 MW Unit
5 is connected to the existing SDG&E Encina 230kV switchyard. Units 1, 2 and 3 are
vintage gas-fired steam units about 50 years old, and Units 4 and 5 are also gas fired
units that were commissioned in the mid to late-1970’s.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed amended CECP plant site would be located within a 30-acre site of the
existing 95-acre SDG&E Encina Power Station in the city of Carlsbad and within San
Diego County. The proposed amended CECP site is bounded by south-bound Highway
I-5 on the east and the North Coast Transit District Rail Corridor (NCTD) on the west.
The amended CECP will comprise of six General Electric (GE) natural gas-fired simplecycle combustion turbine generator (CTG) units 6 thru 11 (GE Model LMS 100), each
generator (gen) unit rated as155 MVA, 13.8 kV, with a total net maximum generating
capacity of 63 MW and a gross maximum generating capacity of 654 MW.
The amended CECP project site will have three switchyards. The GE Model LMS 100
CTG generators are concealed type, covered by steel frame with accessible auxiliaries.
The CTG units 6 & 7 and CTG units 8 & 9 will be installed in the 13.8/230 kV
switchyards A & B respectively, which would be located side by side at the north side of
the plant site and the CTG units 10 & 11 will be installed in the 13.8/138 kV switchyard
C which would be located on the southeastern side of the plant site (LL2014d, pages 32 and 3-3), Please see Project Description Figure 2.

CECP SWITCHYARDS AND INTERCONNECTION FACILITIES:
Besides two concealed GE CTG gen units with auxiliaries, the amended CECP
switchyards would contain the following:
1. Two concealed steel frames, one for each CTG unit. Each concealed steel frame
would contain 13.8 kV interconnection facilities between the CTG 13.8 kV terminals
and the 13.8 kV insulators of the outdoor generator step-up (GSU) transformer.
2. Two outdoor 13.8/230 kV or 13.8/138 kV GSU transformers, one for each CTG unit.
3. Two steel H-pole gen outlet line take-off structures, one each for connection with the
high side (230 kV/138 kV) of each GSU transformer.
A concealed steel frame containing 13.8 kV interconnection facilities would be attached
with a GE CTG unit’s steel frame on one end and with the GSU transformer’s 13.8 kV
terminal insulators on the other end. Each H-pole take-off structure would connect to the

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

5.5-4

February 2015

 high side (230 kV/138 kV) of a GSU transformer at one end and with the Gen outlet line
with metering at the other end (LL2014d, Section 3).

CECP Units 6 and 7: Switchyard A and Outlet Line
According to the latest one-line electrical diagram of the switchyards (LL2014vv, Please
see Transmission System Engineering, Figure 1), each CTG would be connected
through a 6,000-ampere segregated bus duct 85 feet in length to its own dedicated
76/101/127 MVA, 13.8/230 kV generator step-up (GSU) transformer with a specified
impedance of 9.0 percent @76 MVA and 1,200 Amp circuit breakers (LL2014vv, Figure
DR 21-1).H-pole Take-off structures and Gen outlet line. Only unit 6 will have a 6,000ampere 15 kV breaker in the bus-duct
In switchyard A, two steel H-pole structures would be installed near the eastern fence
line of the switchyard and along the proposed right of way (ROW) of the 230 kV northsouth gen tie line. Each of the steel H-pole structures, 60-feet high and 42-feet wide,
with three cross arms, would be aligned close to high voltage terminals of each GSU
transformer. At the bottom of each H-pole on a concrete platform, a 1,200-ampere
circuit breaker would be installed which would be connected with adequately sized
jumper wires with a 1,200-ampere disconnect switch mounted on the lowest two cross
arms and the third top cross arm would be used for terminating the 1590-kcmil Steelsupported Aluminum conductor (ACSR) 230 kV gen outlet line and also for mounting
the current transformers and potential transformers on top of the cross arm for metering
of the power output from the CTGs in the switchyard. All equipment on the switchyard A
H-pole structure would be rated for 230 kV (LL2014d, Section 3).
Two sets of three-phase 1590-kcmil ACSR overhead gen-outlet lines of about 465-foot
length would terminate vertically at a 98-foot high dead-end pole for the north-south 230
kV gen-tie line (LL2014d, Section 3).

CECP Units 8 and 9: Switchyard B and Outlet Line
According to the latest one-line electrical diagram of the switchyards (LL2014vv, Please
see Transmission System Engineering, Figure 1), each CTG would be connected
through a 6,000-ampere segregated bus duct 85 feet in length to its own dedicated
76/101/127 MVA, 13.8/230 kV GSU transformer with a specified impedance of 9.0
percent @76 MVA and 1,200 Amp circuit breakers in Switchyard B.
In switchyard B, two steel H-pole structures would be installed near the eastern fence
line of the switchyard and along the proposed ROW of the 230 kV north-south gen tie
line. Each of the steel H-pole structures, 60-feet high and 42-feet wide, with three cross
arms, would be aligned close to high voltage terminals of each GSU transformer. At the
bottom of each H-pole on a concrete platform, a 1,200-ampere circuit breaker would be
installed which would be connected with adequately sized jumper wires with a 1,200ampere disconnect switch mounted on the lowest two cross arms and the third top
cross arm would be used for terminating the 1,590-kcmil Steel-ACSR 230 kV gen outlet
line and also for mounting the current transformers and potential transformers on top of
the cross arm for metering of the power output from the CTGs in the switchyard. All
equipment on the switchyard B H-pole structure would be rated for 230 kV (LL2014d,
Section 3).
February 2015

5.5-5

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 Two sets of three-phase, 1590-ACSR conductor overhead gen-outlet lines about 465feet long would terminate vertically at a 98-foot high dead-end pole for the north-south
230-kV gen-tie line (LL2014vv, Figure DR 21-1).

CECP Units 10 and 11: Switchyard C and Outlet Line
According to the latest one-line electrical diagram of the switchyards (LL2014vv, please
see Transmission System Engineering, Figure 1), each CTG would be connected
through a 6,000-ampere segregated bus duct 85 feet in length to its own dedicated
76/101/127 MVA, 13.8/138 kV GSU transformer with a specified impedance of 9.0
percent @76 MVA and 1,200 Amp circuit breakers in Switchyard C. The CTG unit 10
will have a 6,000-ampere 15 kV breaker. (LL2014vv, Figure DR 21-1).
In switchyard B, two steel H-pole structures would be installed near the eastern fence
line of the switchyard and along the proposed ROW of the 230 kV north-south gen tie
line. Each of the steel H-pole structures, 60-feet high and 42-feet wide, with three cross
arms, would be aligned close to high voltage terminals of each GSU transformer. At the
bottom of each H-pole on a concrete platform, a 1,200-ampere circuit breaker (CB)
would be installed which would be connected with adequately sized jumper wires with a
1,200-ampere disconnect switch mounted on the lowest two cross arms, and the third
top cross arm would be used for terminating the 1033-kcmil ACSR 138 kV gen outlet
line and also for mounting the current transformers and potential transformers on top of
the cross arm for metering of the power output from the CTGs in the switchyard. All
equipment in switchyard C would be rated for 138 kV (LL2014d, Section 3).
The CTG units 9 and 10 would also be connected through a 6,000-ampere 15 kV
breaker to the high voltage terminal of a 13.8/4.6 kV transformer designed to supply onsite station power (LL2014vv, Figure DR 21-1).

138 kV and 230 kV Overhead Gen-Tie Lines To the SDG&E Encina
Switchyards
The proposed generators would interconnect to the existing Encina switchyard at both
the 138 kV and 230 kV. The 230 kV gen-tie line would be about 2,600 feet long, with
2,171 feet overhead and 450 feet underground. The overhead portion of the 230 kV line
would be split into two segments, the first segment would be single circuit and about
1,018 feet long and the second segment, 1,153 feet, would use double circuit towers
with the 230 kV gen-tie line on one side and the 138 kV gen-tie line on the other side
(LL2014d, Section 3).
The entire 2,171-foot long 230 kV overhead gen-tie line would use1590-kcmil steel
ACSR while the 450-foot underground cable would use single-core 2,500-kcmil copper
230 kV Cross Linked Polyethylene (XLPE). The 138 kV would all be overhead and use
1,033-kcmil ACSR conductors.
The first segment of the 230 kV overhead gen-tie line between switchyard A and
switchyard C outlets would be a single-circuit line built on 98-foot high tubular steel
poles. The second segment of the gen-tie line (1,153 feet) would be built with doublecircuit 98- to 106-foot high steel tubular poles starting from the Switchyard C outlet to
the northeast corner of the Encina 138 kV switchyard. The line would have a railway
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

5.5-6

February 2015

 crossing over the double track North Coast Transit District (NCTD) Rail Corridor with
106-foot high steel poles on both sides (the poles will be installed at a distance of 150foot and 275-foot from the center line of the railway track and the ground clearance of
the railway tracks from the lowest conductor would be 47 feet , the top of top conductor
to ground clearance of the railway track would be 101-feet (LL2014pp, Figure DR76-1c).
The current north-south ROW near the eastern boundary of the site beside Interstate 5
(I-5) would be shifted 75 feet towards the west. For the overhead north-south portion of
the gen-tie line beside I-5, the gen tie overhead 230 kV line construction profile would
be as follows:
•

The first northern 98-foot 230 kV dead-end pole (switchyard A gen-outlet line
termination pole) would be installed about 65 feet from the eastern boundary line of
the125-foot-wide ROW.

•

The second double-circuit 98-foot high pole from the north would be installed about
100 feet away the eastern boundary line of the 125-foot-wide ROW. This pole would
be about 25-feet below normal ground level in the area.

•

The third 230 kV 98-foot pole from the north would be installed about 55 feet from
the eastern boundary line of the 125 foot-wide ROW.

•

The fourth double-circuit 98-foot high pole from the north about 42 feet away from
the eastern boundary line of the 125-foot-wide ROW.

•

The fifth double circuit 98-foot high dead-end pole from the north would be installed
about 42 feet away from the eastern boundary line of the 125-foot-wide ROW.

The 230 kV overhead line circuit terminating at the 98-foot high dead-end pole near the
northeast corner of the Encina 138 kV switchyard would be connected to the 450-foot
underground cable by installing an H-frame cable termination structure. The 450-foot,
three 2500-kcmil copper 230 kV XLPE underground cable lines would be installed within
six-inch PVC conduits with two-inch PVC conduits for grounding and communication
lines embedded in concrete as duct-bank construction (please see Transmission
System Engineering Figure 3). At the Encina 230 kV switchyard end, the 230 kV cable
line would connect to switchyard overhead buses through a 230 kV cable riser structure.
The petitioner/project owner Carlsbad Energy, LLC will build, own and operate the
amended CECP switchyards and the gen-tie lines (LL2014d, Section 3.1).

Interconnection of the proposed Amended CECP units 6 Thru 9 at the
SDG&E Encina 230 kV Switchyard:
In the 230 kV switchyard, SDG&E has agreed to take necessary action to ensure that a
switching bay position would be available in the future for interconnection of amended
CECP Units 6-through 9 thru 230 kV overhead and underground interconnection line.
SDG&E would build, own and operate the interconnection transmission outlet and
reliability upgrades in the existing Encina 230 kV switchyard.

February 2015

5.5-7

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 Interconnection of the proposed Amended CECP units 10 & 11 at the
SDG&E Encina 138 kV Switchyard:
The existing Encina generating Unit Nos. 1, 2, and 3 will be retired and be disconnected
from Switching Bays 2, 6, and 9, respectively, of the Encina 138 kV switchyard. To
accommodate termination of the new 138 kV interconnecting line, the existing EncinaCannon 138 kV transmission line (No. 13801) would be relocated from Switch Bay 1 to
adjacent Switch Bay 2, vacated after disconnection of Unit No. 1, after replacing two
2,000-ampere oil breakers and four disconnect switches with 2,000-ampere SF6 GIS
breakers and disconnect switches. The new interconnecting line would be terminated to
Switch Bay 1, previously occupied by the Encina-Cannon 138 kV line, after installing a
new 2,000-ampere SF6 breaker and replacing the existing breaker with a new 2,000ampere SF6 breaker with four associated disconnect switches. The overhead line would
be terminated through a 140-foot outlet to the double bus of the existing 138 kV Encina
switchyard (LL2014d, Section 3.1).

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND IMPACTS
For the interconnection of a proposed generating unit or transmission facility to the grid,
the interconnecting utility or Participating Transmission Owner (PTO), SDG&E in this
case, and the control area operator (California ISO) are responsible for ensuring grid
reliability. According to the California ISO Large Generator Interconnection Procedure
(LGIP), these entities perform the Phase 1, or System Impact Study, and Phase 2, or
Facility Study, Interconnection cluster studies to determine the transmission system
impacts for individual generating projects and to identify any mitigation measures
needed to ensure system conformance with reliability standards. These standards
include the NERC reliability standards, WECC system performance criteria, and
California ISO planning standards. The licensed CECP had completed the California
ISO interconnection process up to the signing of a LGIA. The amended project relies on
the completed studies plus several updates which are described below.
The California ISO issued the Interconnection Facilities Studies (IFS) on July 7, 2008
and June 4, 2008 for the licensed CECP 260-MW net Unit 6 and the 260-MW net
combined-cycle unit 7 to the then Interconnection Customer (IC), NRG West (now the
IC is Carlsbad Energy Center LLC.), in order to replace Encina Generating Station units
1, 2, and 3.The proposed points of interconnection were at the 138 kV bus of the
SDG&E Encina 138 kV Switchyard and at the 230 kV bus of the SDG&E Encina 230 kV
Switchyard. The report provided an analysis of the system impacts and necessary
mitigation measures. Subsequently the IC signed a LGIA for both of the queue projects
that made up the Carlsbad Energy Center.
However, the IC delayed the commercial operation date (COD), October, 2010, for both
Unit 6 and Unit 7 in letters dated December 9, 2011 to the California ISO and SDG&E,
to July 1, 2015. Subsequently the COD was extended to September 1, 2016.
On October 22, 2012 the California ISO issued an Interconnection Reassessment Study
for the all of the projects in the interconnection queue in the San Diego area. This study
included the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, and was done because of major changes
in the San Diego area including the retirement of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

5.5-8

February 2015

 Station (SONGS), the withdrawal of several natural gas-fired projects from the
interconnection queue, and new transmission projects expected in the region.
In situations where the reassessment study results indentified any required network
upgrades or interconnection facilities, the California ISO will use the results to amend
the existing executed LGIA.
These existing studies have analyzed the licensed CECP combined-cycle project with
the retirement of the existing Encina units 1-4. The amended CECP simple-cycle project
would consist of six new CTG Units 6 through 11; each rated as 155 MVA, 138 kV with
a total net 632-MW output and would include the retirement of all of the existing Encina
units (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5). The California ISO has found that electrically the amended
project, with the retirement of Encina 5, would not substantially differ from the
combined-cycle project with Encina 5 operating. Thus, the previous interconnection
studies are valid for the proposed amendment (LL2014p, Attachment DR30-1).

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IMPACT STUDIES
The California ISO performed the following Transmission System Impact Studies in
coordination with SDG&E in three phases as follows:
1. Interconnection Reassessment Study (SDG&E Area Report), dated October 22,
2013.
2. Interconnection Reassessment Study Individual Report (Encina Repower Project),
dated October 22, 2013.
3. Optional Interconnection Study and Repower Project (Encina Peaking and Repower
Project), dated September 11, 2014.

Interconnection Reassessment Study, Dated October 22, 2013:
This Reassessment study evaluates the system Impacts on the network upgrades
identified in the previous studies due to interconnection request withdrawals,
transmission additions, and upgrades approved by the California ISO in the most recent
transmission planning process (TPP) cycle and the San Onofre Nuclear generating
Station (SONGS) retirement (LL2014d, Appendix 3a and Appendix 3b).
The reassessment includes reliability and deliverability assessments. The study
comprised steady state power flow analysis, transient stability analysis, post-transient
voltage analysis, and short circuit study.
Study Assumptions
The Reliability Assessment evaluated the projects that entered the California ISO
Generator Interconnection Queue before the Cluster 5 (higher queued projects with inservice dates by 2016) under the 2016 heavy summer and light load conditions.
Interconnection request withdrawals were removed from the studies, transmission
additions and updates that were approved in the most recent TPP cycle were added,
and SONGS was not dispatched due to retirement.

February 2015

5.5-9

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 The Deliverability Assessment on-peak case modeled system load as 5,308 MW plus
losses in the SDG&E system (1-in-5 load SDG&E peak load forecast for 2016 from the
Energy Commission). The total import target was modeled as12,599 MW in the on-peak
base case.
Reassessment Study Results and Mitigation
Results for generators in the Pre-Transition Cluster
The San Luis Rey bank 51 160 MVA 138/69 kV no.1 transformer would be overloaded
by 74 percent of its normal capacity of 160 MVA. due to category C contingency of
SDG&E TL23003 Encina-San Luis Rey 230 kV no.1 and TL23011 Encina-San Luis
Rey-Palomer 230 kV #1 transmission lines.
The preferred mitigation identified for this overload is a Special Protection System
(SPS) to trip generation at EPS, preferably Q137 and Q189, if all the generation
projects modeled in the Reassessment study are developed.
Results for generators in the Transition Cluster
All network upgrades in the previous studies for Transition Cluster Projects remain
unchanged.
Results for generators in Queue Cluster 1 & 2
The SDG&E TL23042 Miguel-Bay Boulevard 230 kV no.1 transmission line was
overloaded by one percent to 119 percent of its normal rating of 1176 Amperes for one
category B contingency and four category C contingencies. The maximum 19 percent
overload was found for outages of SDG&E TL230022 & TL 230023 Miguel-Sycamore
230 kV no. 1 and no. 2 lines
The preferred mitigation identified for this overload is a SPS to trip generation. It is
recommended that if all the generation projects modeled in the Reassessment Study
are developed, then the Q510, Q574, Q590 and Q608 projects participate in the SPS.
Results for generators in the Queue Cluster 3 &4:
All network upgrades in the previous studies for Transition Cluster 3 & 4 projects
remain unchanged.
Short Circuit Duty Analysis:
The analysis of the SDG&E System did not find any overstressed Circuit Breakers.
The Transient Stability Analysis:
For the pre-QC5 projects, transient stability studies were performed with 2016 heavy
summer and light load cases following simulated selected critical disturbances within
SDG&E transmission system, no transient stability issues were identified in this
reassessment study
Post-Transient Voltage Stability Analysis:
No Voltage violations were observed.
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 5.5-10

February 2015

 Conclusions:
Based on the above Study results:
1. Pre-transition Cluster, Impacted projects: Q137 and Q189 (CECP and the amended
CECP).
Mitigation required: Implement an SPS to protect overloading on the San Luis Rey
Bank 51 138/69 kV transformer no.1 following a category C contingency.
2. Queue Cluster 1 & 2, impacted projects: Q510, Q574, Q590 and Q608.
Mitigation required: Modify the proposed SPS to protect overloading on the SDG&E
TL23042 Miguel-Bay Blvd. 230 kV line following a Category B and several Category
C contingencies.

Interconnection Reassessment Study Individual Report
The purpose of the October 22, 2013 Individual Reassessment was to update the
results of their Interconnection Facility Studies performed on July 7, 2008 and June 4,
2008. In situations where the reassessment study results indentified any Network
Upgrades and/or Interconnection Facilities, the California ISO will use the results to
amend the existing executed LGIAs. The study determined that a bay position at
SDG&E’s Encina 138 kV switchyard would need to be reconfigured and the 230 kV
switchyard would need to be extended to accommodate the project. A SPS would need
to be implemented in order to prevent overloads on the San Luis Rey Bank 51 138/69
kV transformer (LL2014d, Appendix 3a and Appendix 3b).

Optional Interconnection Study And Repower Report
The September 11, 2014 Optional Interconnection Study and Repower Report was
prepared by the California ISO in coordination with SDG&E (LL2014W, Attachment
DR30-1)
This Study determined that, as was the case for the previous interconnection studies,
the new generators’ responses are not in violation of NERC Reliability Standards.
System Impacts Study (SIS) Results
Power Flow Study
A set of bus faults and N-1 contingencies were applied to two cases, one with OLD
generators (pre-project case) i.e. the licensed CECP with Encina 5 operating and the
NEW case, amended CECP generators (post-project case) i. e. the amendment with the
six combustion turbines operating and Encina 5 retired, and the overload and voltage
violations were compared.
Transient Stability Analysis & Post-Transient Voltage Analysis
A full set of Transient Stability simulation including the Worst Case Analysis and Posttransient Voltage Analysis were performed for a set of major bus faults (Category C
contingency) and N-1 contingencies. In all cases no NERC Standards and WECC
Performance Criteria violations were observed.

February 2015

5.5-11

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 Short Circuit Duty Analysis
From the results of the interconnection study, it is apparent that the Encina 5 Repower
unit which would be interconnected at the Encina switchyard 230 kV bus, would have no
additional Reliability Network impacts.
Interconnection Facilities and Reliability Network Upgrades
For the proposed amendment, the California ISO provided the PTO’s (SDG&E)
Interconnection Facilities and Reliability Network upgrades:
1. Extend gen-tie from the 230 kV Encina switchyard 230 kV bus to the SDG&E
property line. Reconfigure bay positions 1 and 2 at the Encina 138 kV switchyard to
accommodate the amended CECP’s interconnection.
2. Implement an SPS to trip generation at Encina following Category C outage of
Encina – San Luis Rey 230 kV and Encina-San Luis Rey-Palomer 230 kV line.

DOWNSTREAM FACILITIES
For addition of the proposed amended CECP project, there would no new or modified
transmission facilities downstream of the proposed interconnection points at the SDG&E
Encina 230 kV and 138 kV switchyards.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The TSE analysis focuses on whether or not a proposed project will meet required
codes and standards. At all times the transmission grid must remain in compliance with
reliability standards, whether one project or many projects interconnect. Potential
cumulative impacts on the transmission network are identified through the California
ISO and utility generator interconnection process. In cases where a significant number
of proposed generation projects could affect a particular portion of the transmission grid,
the interconnecting utility or the California ISO can study the cluster of projects in order
to identify the most efficient means to interconnect all of the proposed projects.

ALTERNATIVE TRANSMISSION ROUTES
A new CECP 230 kV switchyard would be interconnected to a new SDG&E Encina East
230 kV switchyard bay by building a combination of a new 2,171-foot long 230 kV
overhead line and a 450-foot long underground cable line. The 138 kV interconnection
to the existing SDG&E Encina 138 kV switchyard bus would use the same towers as the
230 kV gen tie, but requires about 1,153-feet 138 kV overhead line. Both the tie lines
would follow the shortest and economic route within the fence line of the SDG&E Encina
Power Station.

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 5.5-12

February 2015

 COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
The proposed interconnecting facilities, which include the switchyards, generator tielines, and the terminations in SDG&E Switchyards, are adequate in accordance with
industry standards and good utility practices, and are acceptable to staff. Staff believes
that Conditions of Certification TSE-1 through TSE-6 will ensure the amended CECP
would comply with applicable LORS.
Staff’s proposed conditions of certification TSE-1 through TSE-6 would help ensure that
construction and operation of the transmission facilities for the proposed RBEP would
comply with applicable LORS:
1. Staff proposed Condition of Certification TSE-1 would ensure that the preliminary
equipment is in place for construction of the transmission facilities of the proposed
project to comply with applicable LORS.
2. Staff proposed Condition of Certification TSE-2 would ensure the final design of the
proposed transmission facilities comply with applicable LORS.
3. Staff proposed Condition of Certification TSE-3 would ensure that the proposed
project would be properly interconnected to the transmission grid. TSE-3 also
ensures that the generator output would be properly delivered to the transmission
system and all necessary documents for interconnection are completed.
4. Staff proposed condition of Certification TSE-4 would ensure any changes to TSE-3
conditions are in compliance with LORS.
5. Staff proposed Condition of Certification TSE-5 would ensure that the project would
synchronize with the existing transmission system and the operation of the facilities
would comply with applicable LORS.
6. Staff proposed Condition of Certification TSE-6 would ensure that the proposed
project has been built to required specifications and the operation of the facilities
would comply with applicable LORS.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN :203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: Terramar would like to know if the CAISO is planning to provide both written
and verbal testimony.
Response: Staff does not think such testimony is required or necessary. The
California ISO is the author of the interconnection studies analyzed for the amended
CECP and staff does not believe that more input beyond those studies already
conducted is required. Terramar’s inquiry appears to be more concerned with
whether or not a different project or set of projects, as an alternative, would be more
reliable than the proposed project.

February 2015

5.5-13

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 Comment: Terramar suggests that it would be more efficient to spread the quick start
power units around the county rather than placing them all in one location.
Response: This is beyond the scope of this TSE analysis for the amended CECP
project. Staff’s analysis is focused on whether or not the proposed project
amendment complies with applicable LORS and can be reliably connected to the
electric grid. We are not analyzing whether or not the grid would be more or less
reliable with the proposed project compared to a set of other hypothetical projects.

INTERVENOR: POWER OF VISION, TN: 203512, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The proposed steel poles do not need to be as tall as the project owner has
indicated.
Response: The pole heights as shown in the project owner’s diagrams are
according to normal industry standards, comply with CPUC G.O.95 rules and also
depend on the site terrain. The latest pole design diagrams (Figures 3.1.5 thru 3.1-7)
submitted by the applicant indicate that the exposed pole heights above ground level
could vary from 83 feet to 98 feet with 40-50 feet ground clearance (about 50/60 feet
for railroad crossing). Since the ground level is uneven, the height of the poles may
vary.
The project owner has proposed 17 feet of vertical clearance between phase
conductors which may be excessive based on the requirements of GO 95 and the
NESC. If the vertical clearances are reduced to 12 feet (according to G. O. 95 & 5
percent thermal effect), the pole heights could be reduced to 75 feet to 80 feet based
on the terrain. Please note that the poles located in the pit may need to be taller in
order to maintain leveled line and ground clearances outside of the pit. The poles on
either side of the tracks would need to be 80-feet to 85-feet high in order to maintain
a 50-foot clearance over the railroad tracks (accounting for the use of double tier
Amtrak cars). In general, transmission staff would prefer to see transmission poles
designed beyond the minimum LORS requirements to insure both the safety of
maintenance crews and the avoidance of unnecessary outages do to line faults.
It should be noted that the poles heights proposed for the Pio Pico Energy Center, a
peaker plant licensed in the San Diego region, were 90 feet. The transmission line
for the Panoche project was only a total of 300 feet long and is not a reasonable
comparison for the amended CECP.
Comment: The transmission lines should be buried.
Response: There are several issues associated with any underground transmission
line alternative. The south side of the project is complicated with the NCTD railway
tracks and infrastructure required for the proposed power plant. Importantly, absent
surveys and analyses, we do not know whether or not the ground under the upper
perimeter road or berm on the eastern edge of the project site is acceptable for
underground cables. Undergrounding the proposed overhead lines on the eastern
and southern area of the site would require building lines that start as overhead lines
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 5.5-14

February 2015

 from the three CECP switchyards (amended CECP Units 6 & 7 switchyard;
amended CECP Units 8 & 9 switchyard; and, amended CECP Unit 10 & 11
switchyard). It would then involve converting these overhead lines to underground
lines along the ROW before converting back to overhead lines in order to cross the
NCTD railroad tracks and then undergrounding again at the SDG&E Encina
switchyard. Hence, such a combination of overhead and underground lines would
require more components and infrastructure, would be very expensive, and would be
difficult to plan, install and maintain
Comment: Use H-frame structures in the pit instead of poles.
Response: H-frame transmission structures use two poles two spread the
conductors horizontally while maintaining required ground clearances. Thus, Hframes require shorter structures, but would use crossarms to accommodate the
insulators and conductors, and would need more ground space and a wider ROW.
In, the pit or the area between the service road and the berm there may not be
enough horizontal space.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The amended CECP project would conform to the applicable LORS and CEQA review
upon satisfactory compliance with the recommended conditions of certification.
Transmission system impacts on the California grid could be mitigated by installing SPS
for implementing operating procedures and transmission line projects in the SDG&E
annual plan, the proposed project can be reliably connected to the SDG&E grid.

RECOMMENDATIONS
If the Energy Commission approves the amendment, staff recommends the following
Conditions of Certification to ensure system reliability and conformance with LORS.

February 2015

5.5-15

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 REFERENCES
California ISO (California Independent System Operator) 1998a. - California ISO Tariff
Scheduling Protocol posted April 1998, Amendments 1,4,5,6, and 7 incorporated.
California ISO (California Independent System Operator) 1998b. - California ISO
Dispatch Protocol posted April 1998.
California ISO (California Independent System Operator) 2002a. - California ISO
Planning Standards, February 7, 2002.
California ISO (California Independent System Operator) 2007a. - California ISO,
FERC Electric Tariff, First Replacement Vol. No. 1, March, 2007.
CECP (Carlsbad Energy Center Project) 2007a. - Application For Certification for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6). Submitted to the Energy
Commission on 9-11-2007.
CH2MHILL 2007- CECP Data Adequacy Supplement A. Submitted to CEC on 10-242007.
CH2MHILL 2007c. - Interconnection System Impact study. Submitted to CEC on 12-202007.
CH2MHILL 2007b. - Data Response set 1, data requests 1-73. Submitted to CEC on
12-20-2007.
CH2MHILL 2008a. - Data Responses set 3. Submitted to CEC on 9-12-2008.
CH2MHILL 2009a. - Interconnection Facilities study from the California ISO. Submitted
to CEC on 3-19-2009.
CEC (California Energy Commission) 2008b. - CEC Data Requests set #2, dated 2-282008.
CEC (California Energy Commission) 2008e. - CEC Data Requests set #2A, dated 5-62008.
CEC (California Energy Commission) 2008i. - CEC Data Requests set #3, dated 8-2908.
CEC (California Energy Commission) 2008j. - CEC Data Requests set #3B, dated 9-1908.
COC (City of Carlsbad) 2008k. - Project Inconsistency with the city land use ordinances
and policies, dated 10-22-08.
LL2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). - Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 5.5-16

February 2015

 LL2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). - Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014w - Locke Lord LLP (TN203084). Supplemental Responses to Data Requests
in Set 1 (Nos. 28-30), dated September 19, 2014. Submitted 09/19/2014.
LL2014pp – Locke Lord LLP (TN203300). Project Owner Responses to Data Request
Set 3 (Nos. 67-84), dated October 31, 2014. Submitted 10/31/2014.
LL2014vv – Locke Lord LLP (TN203363). Project Owner’s Responses to Data
Requests Set 4 (Nos. 86-92), dated November 21, 2014. Submitted 11/21/2014
SR (Stoel Rives/J. McKinsey) 2008h. Project Enhancement and refinement Document ,
California ISO study report. Submitted dated 7-25-08.
NERC (North American Electric Reliability Council) 2006. Reliability Standards for the
Bulk Electric Systems of North America, May 2 2006.
WECC (Western Electricity Coordinating Council) 2006. NERC/WECC Planning
Standards, August 2006.

February 2015

5.5-17

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 DEFINITION OF TERMS
ACSR

Aluminum cable steel reinforced.

AAC

All Aluminum conductor.

Ampacity

Current-carrying capacity, expressed in amperes, of a conductor at
specified ambient conditions, at which damage to the conductor is
nonexistent or deemed acceptable based on economic, safety, and
reliability considerations.

Ampere

The unit of current flowing in a conductor.

Kiloampere (kA)

1,000 Amperes

Bundled

Two wires, 18 inches apart.

Bus

Conductors that serve as a common connection for two or more circuits.

Conductor The part of the transmission line (the wire) that carries the current.
Congestion Management
Congestion management is a scheduling protocol, which provides that
dispatched generation and transmission loading (imports) would not
violate criteria.
Emergency Overload
See Single Contingency. This is also called an L-1.
Kcmil/ KCM Thousand circular mil. A unit of the conductor’s cross sectional area, when
divided by 1,273, the area in square inches is obtained.
Kilovolt (kV) A unit of potential difference, or voltage, between two conductors of a
circuit, or between a conductor and the ground. 1,000 Volts.
Loop

An electrical cul de sac. A transmission configuration that interrupts an
existing circuit diverts it to another connection and returns it back to the
interrupted circuit, thus forming a loop or cul de sac.

Megavar

One megavolt ampere reactive.

Megavars

Megavolt Ampere-Reactive. One million Volt-Ampere-Reactive. Reactive
power is generally associated with the reactive nature of motor loads that
must be fed by generation units in the system.

Megavolt ampere (MVA)
A unit of apparent power, equals the product of the line voltage in kilovolts,
current in amperes, the square root of 3, and divided by 1000.
Megawatt (MW)
A unit of power equivalent to 1,341 horsepower.
TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 5.5-18

February 2015

 Normal Operation/ Normal Overload
When all customers receive the power they are entitled to without
interruption and at steady voltage, and no element of the transmission
system is loaded beyond its continuous rating.
N-1 Condition
See Single Contingency.
Outlet

Transmission facilities (circuit, transformer, circuit breaker, etc.) linking
generation facilities to the main grid.

Power Flow Analysis
A power flow analysis is a forward looking computer simulation of
essentially all generation and transmission system facilities that identifies overloaded
circuits, transformers and other equipment and system voltage levels.
Reactive Power
Reactive power is generally associated with the reactive nature of
inductive loads like motor loads that must be fed by generation units in the
system. An adequate supply of reactive power is required to maintain
voltage levels in the system.
Remedial Action Scheme (RAS)
A remedial action scheme is an automatic control provision, which, for
instance, would trip a selected generating unit upon a circuit overload.
SSAC

Steel Supported Aluminum Conductor.

SF6

Sulfur hexafluoride is an insulating medium.

Single Contingency
Also known as emergency or N-1 condition, occurs when one major
transmission element (circuit, transformer, circuit breaker, etc.) or one
generator is out of service.
Solid dielectric cable
Copper or aluminum conductors that are insulated by solid polyethylene
type insulation and covered by a metallic shield and outer polyethylene
jacket.
Switchyard
A power plant switchyard (switchyard) is an integral part of a power plant
and is used as an outlet for one or more electric generators.
Thermal rating
See ampacity.
TSE

Transmission System Engineering.

TRV

Transient Recovery Voltage

February 2015

5.5-19

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 Tap

A transmission configuration creating an interconnection through a sort
single circuit to a small or medium sized load or a generator. The new
single circuit line is inserted into an existing circuit by utilizing breakers at
existing terminals of the circuit, rather than installing breakers at the
interconnection in a new switchyard.

Undercrossing
A transmission configuration where a transmission line crosses below the
conductors of another transmission line, generally at 90 degrees.
Underbuild
A transmission or distribution configuration where a transmission or
distribution circuit is attached to a transmission tower or pole below
(under) the principle transmission line conductors.

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING 5.5-20

February 2015

 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Conceptual One-Line Diagram

-----------,

,----------,

:
I

I
I

I
I

138KV SOGE I
SWITCHYARO I
t BY OTHERS l 1
OR28-3 I

I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I

lE

lW

'--CJ-

-Q-/

I
I

@

1514.0 FT
-----~ 11.ETER

I

86.0 FT NOTE 5

86.0 FT NOTE 5

I I BY OTHERS l
3E

I DR28-4

3T

:~+~J

I
I

'----- ____ J
NOTE 5

I
I
I 230KV SDGE
I SWITCHYARD

I

2500 KCMIL XLPE

@

576.0 FT-----<p

NOTE 4

@

261.0 FT

- -- --~ lll:TER

NOTE 4 @ 407.0 FT

I

99.0 FT NOTE 4

··-·--·-·-·-·-·-·-···-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·
;

i

1200A

5.0 FT NOTE 5

~~~~tc

i

5~

92. 0 FT NOTE 4

92.0 FT NOTE 4

1200A
35. 0 FT NOTE 5

15.0 FT NOTE

99.0 FT NOTE 4

1200A

35. 0 FT NOTE 4

1200A
40KAIC

5.0 FT NOTE 4

1200A
40KAIC

15.Q FT NOTE 5

35.0 FT NOTE 4

1200A
40KAIC

5.0 FT NOTE 4

1200A
40KAIC

15.0 FT NOTE 4

1200A
40KAIC
15.Q FT NOTE 4

'-· -· .................................................................... -·
CSU XMFR
138/13.8KV
76/101/127 MVA
ONAN/ONAF /ONAF
Z=9'X@76MVA

CSU XMFR
138/13.BKV
76/101/127 MVA
ONAN/ONAF /ONAF
Z=9'W76MVA

6000A
ISO PHASE
BUS DUCT
85. 0 FT
TOTAL

6000A
ISO PHASE
BUS DUCT
85.0 FT

-I
:D

GSU XMFR
230/13.BKV
76/101/127 MVA
ONAN/ONAF /ONAF
Z=9'1376MVA
6000A
ISO PHASE
BUS DUCT
85.0 FT
TOTAL

UNIT AUX XMFR
13.8/4.16KV
12116120 MVA
ONAN/ONAF /ONAF
Z=5. 75'X@12MVA

)>

zCJ)

s::

n

GSU XMFR
230/13. 81\V
76/101 /127 MVA
ONAN/ONAF /ONAF
Z=9'1376MVA

GSU XMFR
230/13.BKV
76/101/127 MVA
ONAN/ONAF /ONAF
Z=9'W76MVA

6000A
ISO PHASE
BUS DUCT
85.0 FT

6000A
ISO PHASE
BUS DUCT
85.o rr

CSU XMFR
230/13.BKV
76/101 /127 MVA
ONAN/ONAF /ONAF
Z=9'1376MVA

n

6000A
ISO PHASE
BUS DUCT
85.0 FT

en
CJ)

5z
CJ)

-<
~
m
s::
m
z

G>

z

m

m

J:J

NO
CTG
155 MVA
13.8KV
PF=0.85
NOTE 3
ITYP 6 l

CTC
155 MVA
13. 8KV
PF=0.85

CTC
155 MVA
13.8KV
PF=0.85

CTG
155 MVA
13.8KV
PF =O. 85

CTG
155 MVA
13.8KV
PF=0.85

Note:
1. The 13BkV tronsmission line ond the 230kV transmission line will eoch be eQuipped with o set of rreterino eQUiprrent.
2. Ratings shown ore preliminary ond will be finalized during detoil desion.
3. The generators ore roted for 155MVA. however the roox output of the turbine is 108MW. hence the top tronsforrrer roting
of 121MVA (108 Mr@a.es power foctorl.
4. All 230KV conductor will be 1590KCMIL/ACSR. 1130A.
S. Al I 138KV conductor wi 11 be 1033KCMIL/ACSR. 1060A.

z

G>

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Data Respones Set 4 (Nos. 86-92) docketed November 21, 2014 (TN 203363)

CTG
155 MVA
13.8KV
PF=O. 85

 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING - FIGURE 2
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - NCTD Rail Corridor Cross Section

POLE TYPE 24-2
POLE TYPE 24-2

53' MSL
38' MSL

NCTD RAIL CORRIDOR
CROSS SECTION
SCALE 1:600

-I
::D
)>

z

(./)

s:
ISOMETRIC VIEW

(./)
(./)

SCALE 1:3072

6
z
(./)
-<
(./)
-I

m

s:

m

z
z

(j)

DETAIL A
SCALE 1:1000

m
m

::D

z

(j)

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION · SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE:Data Responses Set 3 (No. 76) docketed November 13, 201 4 (TN20 3327)

 TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING - FIGURE 3
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Typical 2.x2 Duct Bank Details

(2) 6" WIDE RED WARNING TAPES

COMPACTED NATIVE BACKFILL

0::

0

(1) 2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUIT FOR COMMUNICATIONS

(4) 6" SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUITS FOR POWER CABLE

{I) 2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC CONDUIT f"OR SPARE

CONCRETE MIX

<J

3"

3•

3•

1·-10~"

lllS DAIZllG ~ MJ'Mm BY POllR
DIGtlIRS. INC. FOR A Sl'lCflC PRO£T,
?.UC l1ITO CONSllEJWION 1HE Sl'£l:flC
NII IJllQll' R[QUR[MEJC1S ~ 11£ PRO£T.
RWSE~lHISDllAllH:OANtlNllRllATION

cacDHDlllllSlllAIDGRlRNtlPlll'OSE
IS PlllH8IUI 111.ESS IRTTDI PfRllSSICll

FRllll OOTH POWER NII POIER'S Q8T IS
CIWllED.

CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: Data Responses Set 1 (Nos. 1-30) docketed August 15, 2014 (TN202938)

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING

 WASTE MANAGEMENT
Testimony of Ellie Townsend-Hough

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Management of the waste generated during demolition, construction and operation of
the proposed amended Carlsbad Energy Center Project (amended CECP), including
the closure/decommissioning and demolition of the existing Encina Power Station
(EPS), would not generate a significant adverse impact for Waste Management under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Appendix G:
Environmental Checklist Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems). Like the licensed
CECP approved by Energy Commission Final Decision on May 31, 2012, there is
sufficient landfill capacity for the amended CECP. As with the licensed CECP, the
amended CECP would be consistent with the applicable waste management laws,
ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS) if staff’s proposed conditions of
certification are implemented.
Staff analyzed the changes to the licensed project, which include replacing the
combined-cycle power with simple cycle turbines, reconfiguration of the project footprint,
and the demolition and removal of portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff concludes
that there would not be any new significant waste management impacts not previously
analyzed, or an increase in severity of environmental impacts. Staff recommends the
mitigation as proposed in the conditions of certification.
Based on staff’s analyses of the amended CECP proposed by Carlsbad Energy Center,
LLC, (petitioner/project owner), Condition of Certification WASTE-1 was edited to clarify
requirements for the amended CECP and the project owner. Condition of Certification
WASTE-4 was updated to reflect all appropriate agencies and their corresponding
responsibilities related to all phases of the amended CECP. Condition of Certification
WASTE-5 was also modified to require receipts for recycled materials and demonstrate
compliance with construction and demolition recycling regulations. Condition of
Certification WASTE-6 was modified to accurately reflect the requirements of the San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District’s Asbestos Renovation and Demolition
Notice of Intention Form, and associated verification time requirements. Condition of
Certification WASTE-10 was deleted given the Ocean-Water Purification System for the
licensed CECP is not part of the project for the amended CECP.
The petitioner would be required to comply with applicable regulations and implement
procedures that would mitigate site conditions to ensure no harm to humans or to the
environment. Condition of Certification WASTE-12 is a new condition that requires a
Soil Management Plan be provided to the CPM prior to demolition and removal of
above-ground fuel oil storage tanks 1, 2 and 4 (Phase I). Staff proposed Condition of
Certification WASTE-12 would ensure that the petitioner adequately characterizes the
Phase I sites and completes clean-up as necessary in accordance with the Energy
Commission’s conditions of certification, as well as applicable LORS. If the petitioner
encounters obvious soil contamination after Phase I demolition, Phase II development,
and CECP operation, Condition of Certification WASTE-4 stipulates the methods for
determining the nature and extent of contamination, and appropriate remediation.
February 2015

5.6-1

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 Subsurface soil remediation for the development of the EPS site would be included as
part of the amended CECP but would be part of a subsequent project to develop the
EPS site following construction of the power plant. Remediation would be conducted in
accordance with existing agreements with the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health (SDCDEH). After Phase IV demolition of EPS, subsurface
remediation based on specific, non-power, redevelopment plans for the EPS site west
of the rail road tracks would begin. Any further remediation that would be necessary
would be jointly completed with NRG, and led by the city of Carlsbad, based on future
land uses for the amended site.
In this Final Staff Assessment (FSA) section, staff considers project compliance with
CEQA guidelines; applicable waste management LORS; and staff’s conditions of
certification necessary to ensure that any significant adverse waste management
impacts that may occur as a result of project modifications associated with the amended
CECP (including demolition of the EPS) are mitigated to a level of less than significant.
The project owner would recycle more than 80 percent of the demolition material
generated at the site. The amount of waste generated and disposed of from the
amended CECP would generate less than one percent of the total waste in San Diego
County. Based on staff’s research, the project owner’s proposed waste management
goals, and the project owner’s compliance with the California Green Building Standards
Code no cumulative waste management impacts would occur.
If the Commission certifies the amended CECP, adoption of staff's proposed conditions
of certification would ensure that the modifications to the May 31, 2012 licensed CECP
Final Decision would not result in any unmitigated, significant, adverse waste
management impacts, and that the project would comply with all applicable LORS.

INTRODUCTION
This section presents an analysis of issues associated with wastes generated from the
proposed construction and operation of the amended CECP and the
closure/decommissioning and demolition of the EPS. The technical scope of this
analysis encompasses solid and liquid wastes existing on site and wastes that would
likely be generated during the four phases of the amended CECP including facility
construction, commissioning, operation, and closure/decommissioning and demolition.
Management and discharge of wastewater is addressed in the Soil & Water
Resources section of this document. Additional information related to waste
management is covered in the Worker Safety & Fire Protection and Hazardous
Materials Management sections of this document.
The California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) staff’s (hereafter referred to
as staff) objectives in conducting this waste management analysis are to ensure that:


the management of project wastes would be in compliance with all applicable laws,
ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). Compliance with LORS ensures
that wastes generated during the construction, operation, and closure/decommissioning of the proposed modified project would be managed in an environmentally safe
manner.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-2

February 2015

 

the disposal of project wastes would not adversely impact existing waste disposal
facilities.



the site is managed in such a way that project wastes and waste constituents would
not pose a significant risk to humans or the environment.

METHODOLOGY AND THRESHOLDS FOR DETERMINING
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Section
XVII, Utilities and Service Systems), staff evaluated project wastes in terms of landfill
capacity and LORS compliance, for both non-hazardous and hazardous wastes. The
federal, state, and local environmental LORS listed in Waste Management Table 1
have been established to ensure the safe and proper management of both non-hazardous
and hazardous wastes in order to protect human health and the environment. Bolded
portions of the table highlight new LORS that staff evaluated for the amended CECP.

February 2015

5.6-3

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS (LORS)
Waste Management Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR
Federal

Title 42, United States
Code, §§ 6901, et seq.
Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1965 (as
amended and revised
by the Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976, et al.)

Title 42, United States
Code,
§§ 9601, et seq.
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation and
Liability Act

Description

The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended and revised by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) et al., establishes requirements for the
management of solid wastes (including hazardous wastes), landfills,
underground storage tanks, and certain medical wastes. The statute also
addresses program administration, implementation, and delegation to states,
enforcement provisions, and responsibilities, as well as research, training, and
grant funding provisions.
RCRA Subtitle C establishes provisions for the generation, storage, treatment,
and disposal of hazardous waste, including requirements addressing:
 generator record keeping practices that identify quantities of hazardous
wastes generated and their disposition;
 waste labeling practices and use of appropriate containers;
 use of a manifest when transporting wastes;
 submission of periodic reports to the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) or other authorized agency; and
 corrective action to remediate releases of hazardous waste and
contamination associated with RCRA-regulated facilities.
RCRA Subtitle D establishes provisions for the design and operation of solid
waste landfills.
RCRA is administered at the federal level by U.S. EPA and its 10 regional
offices. The Pacific Southwest regional office in San Francisco (Region 9)
implements U.S. EPA programs in California, Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii.

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), also known as Superfund, establishes authority and funding
mechanisms for cleanup of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites,
as well as cleanup of accidents, spills, or emergency releases of pollutants and
contaminants into the environment. Among other things, the statute addresses:
 reporting requirements for releases of hazardous substances;
 requirements for remedial action at closed or abandoned hazardous waste
sites and brownfields1; liability of persons responsible for releases of
hazardous substances or waste; and
 requirements for property owners/potential buyers to conduct “all
appropriate inquiries” into previous ownership and uses of the property to 1)
determine if hazardous substances have been or may have been stored
and or released at the site and 2) establish that the owner/buyer did not
cause or contribute to the release. A Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment is commonly used to satisfy CERCLA “all appropriate inquiries”
requirements.

1

Brownfield – an industrial or commercial site that is idle or underused because of real or perceived
environmental pollution.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-4

February 2015

 Title 40, Code of
Federal Regulations
(CFR), Subchapter I –
Solid Wastes

Title 49, CFR,
Parts 172 and 173
Hazardous Materials
Regulations
National Emission
Standard for
Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP),
as specified under
Rule 40, Code of
Federal Regulations
(CFR) 61, Subpart M,
is enforced locally by
the SDAPCD, under
authority of Regulation
XI, Subpart M Rule
361.145.
State
California Health and
Safety Code, Chapter
6.5, §§ 25100, et seq.
Hazardous Waste
Control Act of 1972, as
amended
Title 22, California
Code of Regulations
(CCR),
Division 4.5

February 2015

These regulations were established by U.S. EPA to implement the provisions of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act and RCRA (described above). Among other
things, the regulations establish the criteria for classification of solid waste
disposal facilities (landfills), hazardous waste characteristic criteria and
regulatory thresholds, hazardous waste generator requirements, and
requirements for management of used oil and universal wastes.
 Part 246 addresses source separation for materials recovery guidelines.
 Part 257 addresses the criteria for classification of solid waste disposal
facilities and practices.
 Part 258 addresses the criteria for municipal solid waste landfills.
 Parts 260 through 279 address management of hazardous wastes, used oil,
and universal wastes (i.e., batteries, mercury-containing equipment, and
lamps).
U.S. EPA implements the regulations at the federal level. However, California is
a certified authorized state so the regulations are implemented by state
agencies and authorized local agencies in lieu of U.S. EPA.
U.S. Department of Transportation established standards for transport of
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The standards include
requirements for labeling, packaging, and shipping of hazardous materials and
hazardous wastes, as well as training requirements for personnel completing
shipping papers and manifests. Section 172.205 specifically addresses use and
preparation of hazardous waste manifests in accordance with Title 40, CFR,
section 262.20.

This rule requires the owner of an establishment set for demolition or the owner
or operator of any equipment used to demolish any structure to submit an
Asbestos Demolition or Renovation Operational Plan (Notice of Intention
[NOI]) at least 10 working days before any asbestos stripping or removal work
begins (such as site preparation that would break up, dislodge, or similarly
disturb asbestos-containing material.)

This California law creates the framework under which hazardous wastes must
be managed in California. The law provides for the development of a state
hazardous waste program that administers and implements the provisions of
the federal RCRA program. It also provides for the designation of California-only
hazardous wastes and development of standards (regulations) that are equal to
or, in some cases, more stringent than federal requirements.
The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), Department of
Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) administers and implements the provisions of
the law at the state level. Certified Unified Program Agencies (CUPAs)
implement some elements of the law at the local level.
These regulations establish requirements for the management and disposal of
hazardous waste in accordance with the provisions of the California Hazardous
Waste Control Act and federal RCRA. As with the federal requirements, waste
generators must determine if their wastes are hazardous according to specified
characteristics or lists of wastes. Hazardous waste generators must obtain
identification numbers, prepare manifests before transporting the waste off site,
and use only permitted treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Generator
standards also include requirements for record keeping, reporting, packaging,
and labeling. Additionally, while not a federal requirement, California requires
5.6-5

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 Environmental Health
Standards for the
Management of
Hazardous Waste

California Health and
Safety Code, Chapter
6.11 §§ 25404–
25404.9
Unified Hazardous
Waste and Hazardous
Materials Management
Regulatory Program
(Unified Program)

Title 27, CCR, Division
1, Subdivision 4,
Chapter 1, §§ 15100,
et seq.
Unified Hazardous
Waste and Hazardous
Materials Management
Regulatory Program
Public Resources
Code, Division 30,
§§ 40000, et seq.
California Integrated
Waste Management
Act of 1989.
Title 14, CCR, Division
7, § 17200, et seq.
California Integrated
Waste Management
Board
WASTE MANAGEMENT

that hazardous waste be transported by registered hazardous waste
transporters.
The standards addressed by Title 22, CFR include:
 Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (Chapter 11, §§ 66261.1, et
seq.)
 Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste (Chapter 12, §§
66262.10, et seq.)
 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (Chapter 13, §§
66263.10, et seq.)
 Standards for Universal Waste Management (Chapter 23, §§ 66273.1, et
seq.)
 Standards for the Management of Used Oil (Chapter 29, §§ 66279.1, et seq.)
 Requirements for Units and Facilities Deemed to Have a Permit by Rule
(Chapter 45, §§ 67450.1, et seq.)
The Title 22 regulations are established and enforced at the state level by
DTSC. Some generator standards are also enforced at the local level by
CUPAs.
The Unified Program consolidates, coordinates, and makes consistent the
administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of
the six environmental and emergency response programs listed below.
 Aboveground Storage Tank Program
 Business Plan Program
 California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program
 Hazardous Material Management Plan / Hazardous Material Inventory
Statement Program
 Hazardous Waste Generator / Tiered Permitting Program
 Underground Storage Tank Program
The state agencies responsible for these programs set the standards for their
programs while local governments implement the standards. The local agencies
implementing the Unified Program are known as Certified Unified Program
Agencies (CUPAs). San Diego County Department of Environmental Health is
the area CUPA.
Note: The Waste Management analysis only considers application of the
Hazardous Waste Generator/Tiered Permitting element of the Unified Program.
Other elements of the Unified Program may be addressed in the Hazardous
Materials and/or Worker Health & Safety analysis sections.
While these regulations primarily address certification and implementation of the
program by the local CUPAs, the regulations do contain specific reporting
requirements for businesses.
 Article 9 – Unified Program Standardized Forms and Formats (§§ 15400–
15410).
 Article 10 – Business Reporting to CUPAs (§§ 15600–15620).
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (as amended)
establishes mandates and standards for management of solid waste. Among
other things, the law includes provisions addressing solid waste source
reduction and recycling, standards for design and construction of municipal
landfills, programs for county waste management plans, and local
implementation of solid waste requirements.
These regulations further implement the provisions of the California Integrated
Waste Management Act and set forth minimum standards for solid waste
handling and disposal. The regulations include standards for solid waste
management, as well as enforcement and program administration provisions.
 Chapter 3 – Minimum Standards for Solid Waste Handling and Disposal.
5.6-6

February 2015

  Chapter 3.5 – Standards for Handling and Disposal of Asbestos Containing
Waste.
 Chapter 7 – Special Waste Standards.
 Chapter 8 – Used Oil Recycling Program.
 Chapter 8.2 – Electronic Waste Recovery and Recycling.
California Health and
Safety Code, Division
20, Chapter 6.5, Article
11.9, §25244.12, et
seq.
Hazardous Waste
Source Reduction and
Management Review
Act of 1989
Title 22, CCR, §
67100.1 et seq.
Hazardous Waste
Source Reduction and
Management Review.
California Health and
Safety Code Section
101480 101490

This law was enacted to expand the state’s hazardous waste source reduction
activities. Among other things, it establishes hazardous waste source reduction
review, planning, and reporting requirements for businesses that routinely
generate more than 12,000 kilograms (~ 26,400 pounds) of hazardous waste in
a designated reporting year. The review and planning elements are required to
be done on a four-year cycle, with a summary progress report due to DTSC
every 4th year.

These regulations further clarify and implement the provisions of the Hazardous
Waste Source Reduction and Management Review Act of 1989 (noted above).
The regulations establish the specific review elements and reporting
requirements to be completed by generators subject to the act.

These regulations authorize the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health to enter into voluntary agreements for the oversight of
remedial action at sites contaminated by wastes.

Title 22, CCR, Chapter
32, §67383.1 –
67383.5

This chapter establishes minimum standards for the management of all
underground and aboveground tank systems that held hazardous waste or
hazardous materials, and are to be disposed, reclaimed or closed in place.

Title 8, CCR §1529
and §5208

These regulations require the proper removal of asbestos containing materials
in all construction work and are enforced by California Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (Cal-OSHA).

Title 27, CCR , division
2, Subdivision 1,
Chapter 3, Subchapter
4,

This regulation establishes that alternative daily cover (ADC) and other waste
materials beneficially used at landfills constitutes diversion through recycling,
and requires the California Integrated Waste Management Board to adopt
regulations governing ADC.

Title 14, Chapter 9
Division 7 –(AB 939)

AB 939 established the organization, structure, and mission of California
Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) in 1989. AB 939 not only
mandated local jurisdictions to meet numerical diversion goals of 25% by 1995
and 50% by 2000, but also established an integrated framework for program
implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill
compliance. Other elements included encouraging resource conservation and
considering the effects of waste management operations. The diversion goals
and program requirements are implemented through a disposal-based reporting
system by local jurisdictions under CIWMB regulatory oversight. Facility
compliance requirements are implemented under a different approach, primarily
through local government enforcement agencies.
Cal Recycle, formerly known as the CIWMB, is the state’s leading authority on
recycling, waste reduction, and product reuse, officially known as the
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.

Title 8, CCR, Division
1, Chapter 4, Section
1532.1

Section applies to all construction work where an employee may be
occupationally exposed to lead. Establishes permissible exposure limits (PELs);
exposure assessment; compliance methods; respiratory protection; protective
clothing and equipment; housekeeping; medical surveillance; medical removal
protection (MRP); employee information, training, and certification; signage;
record keeping; monitoring; and agency notification

February 2015

5.6-7

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 Title 17, CCR, Division
1, Chapter 8, Section
35001
Title 24, CCR, Part 11
2010 Green Building
Standards Code
(CALGreen)
Local
City of Carlsbad
General Plan (2004)Public Safety Section
San Diego County
Integrated Waste
Management Plan
San Diego County
Department of
Environmental Health,
Hazardous Material
Division various
programs
San Diego County
Code Section 68.905
San Diego Air
Pollution Control
District Regulation XI,
Subpart M – Rule
361.145

Requirements for lead hazard evaluation and abatement activities, accreditation
of training providers, and certification of individuals engaged in lead-based paint
activities.
The code is established to reduce construction waste, make buildings more
efficient in the use of materials and energy, and reduce environmental impact
during and after construction. Effective January 1, 2011, in jurisdictions without
a construction and demolition (C&D) ordinance requiring the diversion of 50% of
construction waste, the owners/builder of newly constructed buildings within the
covered occupancies are required to develop a waste management plan and
divert 50% of the construction waste materials generated during the project.
Provides guidance for siting and management of facilities that store, collect,
treat, dispose or transfer hazardous waste and hazardous materials.
The plan provides guidance for local management of solid waste and household
hazardous waste (incorporates the county’s Source Reduction and Recycling
Elements, which detail means of reducing commercial and industrial sources of
solid waste).
Hazardous Material Division is the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) for
San Diego County that regulates and conducts inspections of businesses that
handle hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, and/or have underground
storage tanks. Hazardous Material Division programs include assistance with
oversight on property re-development (i.e., brownfields and voluntary or private
oversight cleanup assistance).
Incorporates by reference the California Health & Safety Code Division 20,
Chapter 6.11 which requires the facility to operate as a unified program facility.
This rule requires the owner or operator of a demolition or renovation to submit
an Asbestos Demolition or Renovation Operational Plan (Notice of Intention) at
least ten working days before any asbestos stripping or removal work begins
(such as site preparation that would break up, dislodge or similarly disturb
asbestos containing materials). A Notice of Intent is required for all demolition
regardless of whether there is the presence of asbestos containing material.

PROPOSED MODIFIED PROJECT
Waste Management Table 2 below shows what staff previously analyzed in the
licensed CECP and the new or additional project elements for the amended CECP.
Where new or additional disturbance would occur, there is the potential to impact waste
beyond that analyzed in the licensed CECP. Also, where new facilities are added or
expanded for the amended CECP, there is potential for waste management issues to
exist beyond those analyzed in the licensed CECP.
The amended CECP would be located on a highly disturbed 95-acre brownfield
(previous industrial site) site at 4600 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, California (APN
210-01-46). Currently, the major components of the parcel consist of EPS, the Poseidon
Carlsbad Seawater Desalination Project (CSDP) currently under construction, and the
San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) switchyards. The North County Transit District rail
line bisects the 95-acre EPS parcel, north to south, separating the EPS East Tank Farm
from the West Tank farm and rest of the site. The amended CECP would be built on a
30-acre footprint on the site of the East Tank Farm, replacing obsolete aboveground
storage tanks (ASTs) Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7. The area including AST No. 4, and the berm
between ASTs 4 and 5, would be removed per a modification request of the amended
WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-8

February 2015

 CECP. The additional seven acres beneath AST 4 allows for the power plant facility to
be re-configured from two combined-cycle power blocks to six simple-cycle GE LMS
100 turbines. See the Project Description for more details on the amended CECP
project design. ASTs Nos. 1 and 2 are located in the West Tank Farm, and following
demolition would serve as laydown and parking for Phase II construction of the
amended CECP power plant. The West Tank Farm also included AST No. 3, which was
demolished as part of the Poseidon CSDP project construction. Refer to Waste
Management Figure 1.
The amended CECP would demolish three obsolete, aboveground fuel oil storage tanks
identified as ASTs 1, 2, and 4. Demolition activities would include removing the oily
sands from beneath ASTs 1, 2, 4, and associated piping and equipment, and remove
the berm separating ASTs 4 and 5, (LL 2014b). The fuel oil tanks were used to store
number (No.) 6 fuel oil. The tanks are constructed on top of a six-inch thick, oilimpregnated sand cushion that is surrounded by a concrete wall. The oil-impregnated
sand cushion comprises No. 2 fuel oil mixed with sand at a rate of 22 gallons of No 2
fuel oil per cubic yard of sand (LL 2014y, Data Responses 59-1 and 59-2). No. 2 fuel oil,
also known as heating oil, is a low viscosity flammable liquid petroleum product used to
fuel building heaters or boilers.
When EPS was originally constructed, the steam generators burned No. 6 heavy fuel oil
delivered to an offshore oil transfer facility by tanker and piped to ASTs 1 and 2, each
with a capacity of 131,000 barrels. The capacity of East Tank Farm AST 4 is 250,000
barrels. All of the ASTS are surrounded by secondary containment riprap earthen berms
that have a capacity of 110 percent of the tank volume. Fuel oil was transferred to EPS
through below-ground and later through aboveground pipelines. The aboveground
portions of these tanks (walls, and metal tank bottoms) and their associated piping and
control systems would be removed; no below‐grade demolition or removal is proposed.
The demolition contractor would conduct abatement (lead and asbestos) activities, as
needed, prior to demolition during Phase III decommissioning. ASTs and associated
equipment would be removed and structural steel would be salvaged for all demolished
ASTs. Above-ground concrete for AST 4 would be broken up and stored onsite or
removed, while the concrete pads beneath ASTs 1 and 2 will remain in place for
construction laydown and parking purposes.

February 2015

5.6-9

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 Waste Management Table 2
Licensed vs. Amended CECP Features Potentially Impacting Waste Management
Feature

Licensed CECP (558 MW)

Amended CECP (632 MW)

Power production

Two, one-on-one combined cycle units

Six simple-cycle combustion turbine
units with intercoolers

Annual capacity
factor

Up to 47% (4,100 of 8,760 possible
hours)

Estimated 31% (approximately 2,700
operating hours)

Project footprint

Approximately 23 acres

Approximately 30 acres

Area of temporary
construction laydown

Ten acres

19 acres

Site preparation

Demolish East Tank Farm ASTs 5, 6,
and 7 for power plant footprint

Demolish East Tank Farm ASTs 4, 5,
6 and 7 for power plant footprint, and
ASTs 1 and 2 for construction
laydown and parking

Encina Power Station

Retire units 1-3

Retire units 1-5 and demolish all
above-ground structures west of the
North County Transit District (NCTD)
railroad tracks

Length of
construction

25 months (from site preparation to
CECP plant begin operation)

64 months (from site preparation to
EPS plant demolition to site
restoration)

Off-site linear
facilities

The amended project includes the continued build-out of a new 36-foot
reclaimed water pipeline, extending approximately 2,600 feet from Cannon
Road along the Aveninda Encinitas right-of-way to the project site.

Source: CEC2012a, LL2014d, LL2014b

After the commercial operation of amended CECP begins, EPS Units 1 through 5 would
be shut down and the 12-month Phase III decommissioning period begins. Phase IV
demolition of the EPS units, aboveground piping, above-grade building and support
structures and systems would be removed to grade over a 22 month period, with a twomonth site restoration period of grading and contouring completing the 64-month
amended CECP process. The west side of the railroad tracks, except for easements
necessary to support site access, transmission and linear services, would be available
for city of Carlsbad subsurface remediation and redevelopment planning. Subsurface
remediation is not included as part of amended CECP, however, if obvious
contaminated areas (such as, soil with a strong odor or stained soil) are encountered
and soil samples would be collected and analyzed for contaminants that exceed county
or state standards, the areas would be cleaned up to industrial clean-up levels.

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AND DISCUSSION OF MITIGATION
This waste management analysis addresses: a) existing project site conditions and the
potential for contamination associated with prior activities on or near the project site, and
b) the impacts from the generation and management of wastes during project construction,
operation, closure and decommissioning/demolition activities.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-10

February 2015

 PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL FOR CONTAMINATION
For any site in California proposed for the construction of a power plant, the petitioner
must provide documentation about the nature of any potential or existing releases of
hazardous substances or contamination at the site. If potential or existing releases or
contamination at the site are identified, the CEQA significance of the release or
contamination would be determined by site-specific factors, including, but not limited to:
the amount and concentration of contaminants or contamination; the proposed use of
the area where the contaminants/contamination is found; and any potential pathways for
workers, the public, sensitive species, or environmental areas to be exposed to the
contaminants. Any unmitigated contamination or releases of hazardous substances that
pose a risk to human health or environmental receptors would be considered significant
under CEQA by staff.
In general, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) process involves a
qualified environmental professional who conducts specific on-site inquiries and
investigations into past uses and ownership of the property, researches any reported
hazardous substance releases and hazardous waste disposal occurrences at the site;
and, within a certain distance of the site, visually inspect and observes the property for
signs of any potential contamination and possible areas of concern. The findings of the
environmental professional are then consolidated and are published and released as an
ESA. The ESA may identify Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC), the presence
or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a
property. The ESA would also include documentation and discussion of a Historical
Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC), a past release of any hazardous
substances or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property. Or,
the ESA may identify a Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC), a
recognized environmental condition which involves a past release of hazardous
substances or petroleum product that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the
applicable regulatory authority and may be subject to activity and use limitations.
Additional investigation may be needed beyond a Phase I ESA, if, for example, there
were significant gaps in the information available about the site, if an ongoing release is
suspected, and/or, if additional information is necessary to confirm an existing
environmental condition.
If such additional investigations are needed to identify the extent of possible
contamination, a Phase II ESA may be required. The Phase II ESA usually includes
sampling and testing of potentially contaminated media (i.e. soil or other material
containing or retaining toxins) to verify the level of contamination and the potential for
remediation at the site. For the Encina Power Station, a Phase II ESA was initially
conducted in 1998, with a subsequent investigation in 2007.
In conducting its assessment of a proposed project site, staff first reviews the Phase I
ESA and works with the appropriate oversight agencies responsible for determining and
conducting additional site characterization work. Conditions of Certification are added if
additional mitigation is necessary to ensure protection of human health and the
environment from hazardous substance releases and on-site contamination.

February 2015

5.6-11

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 The Source Group, Inc. performed ESAs of the entire 95-acre EPS property in 1998 and
2007. An additional Phase I ESA dated October 17, 2014, was prepared by Source
Group Inc. for the Amended CECP, in accordance with the All Appropriate Inquiries
Final Rule (CFR 40 Part 312) of the United States Environmental Agency and the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards E-1527-13 for ESAs.
The 1998 and 2007 Phase I ESAs identified known releases. Refer to Waste
Management Table 3 for a listing of controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
(RECs) and known REC’s that remain to be addressed. The site has undergone
environmental assessments and remediation since the 1990s. There are two open
Voluntary Assistance Program VAPs, H13941-004 and -005, cases with SDCDEH. The
SDCDEH has closed the files on three VAP cases H13941-001,-002, and -004. See
Waste Management Figure 2 for location of open VAP cases. There are buildings
located on the EPS site that were constructed prior to 1980. The Phase I ESA listed
asbestos and lead as RECs on the project site. The asbestos would come from the
unabated areas in the plant, including but not limited to, insulation around tanks, vessels
and piping. Flaking or peeling lead-based paint could also be present in facilities to be
demolished. The petitioner would comply with Title 17, California Code of Regulations,
Division 1, Chapter 8, section 35001, to maintain a safe environment for workers.
Additional analysis and requirements for LORS compliance related to lead abatement
may be found in the Worker Safety section of this FSA.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-12

February 2015

 Waste Management Table 3
List of Recognized Environmental Conditions
Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions
Closed VAP H13941-003
Soil Remediation around Fuel Oil Tank No. 1 and 7
Paved area around Prouts Pond
Area around cutter oil tank
Former Underground diesel tank
Closed VAP H13941-002 gasoline spill in soil
Closed VAP H13941-001
Wastewater Holding Ponds
Recognized Environmental Conditions
Desalination Plant footprint remediation VAP H13941-004
VAP H13941-004 Desalination Plant outside footprint excavation
Area includes: cutter oil tank , Tank No. 3
Three diesel aboveground storage tanks, wastewater treatment system
VAP H13941-005 Transformer Release 2011/2012 in power block Unit 5
Power Plant Building – assessment in area incomplete due to presence of active equipment. Former
military reservation and former rubber plant occupied area around Unit 5.
Switchyard PCB bushings
Tanks Nos. 1 and 2 (West Tank Farm)
Tanks 4, 5, and 6 (East Tank Farm
Tank 7 (East Tank Farm)
Building and equipment built prior to 1980
asbestos
Lead paint
Source: LL 2014y Phase I ESA

The EPS site is an impacted brownfield. The southwestern portion of the site was used
as a military reservation in 1949 and later for a rubber plant. The power plant began
operation in 1952 and is currently operating. The EPS has two fuel oil tank farms. An
offshore oil mooring was built to deliver fuel to ASTs 1, 2, and 3 in 1958. The tanks
supplied fuel, Bunker C, and later No. 6 fuel oil, to the power blocks through
underground piping and later through above ground piping. There were various spills
and remedial activities on the EPS site, and a number of areas that have been subject
to investigations and clean-up activities. There are also a substantial number of
structures and equipment to be removed from the site where no investigations have
been conducted. Contaminated soils may be encountered during demolition in these
areas. Similar to the licensed CECP, staff has included Conditions of Certification
WASTE- 3 and -4 to protect human health and the environment if contaminated
conditions are encountered during demolition and construction. WASTE-3 requires that
an experienced and qualified engineer or geologist be available for demolition and
consultation. WASTE-4 lays out the procedures that need to be complied with if
contaminated soil is encountered. Condition of Certification WASTE-4 would change to
contact the CPM and SDCDEH and not the Department of Toxic Substance Control.

February 2015

5.6-13

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 IMPACTS DURING CECP DEMOLITION, CONSTRUCTION AND
OPERATION AND EPS CLOSURE/DECOMMISSIONING/DEMOLITION
As mentioned previously, staff considers project waste management to result in no
significant adverse impacts (as defined per CEQA guidelines in Checklist Section
XVII) if there is available landfill capacity and if the project complies with LORS. Staff
thus reviewed the petitioner’s proposed solid and hazardous waste management
methods regarding the management of project-related wastes generated during
construction, operation, and closure/decommissioning of the proposed modified project
to determine whether the methods proposed are consistent with the LORS identified for
waste disposal and recycling. Staff then reviewed the capacity available at off-site
treatment and disposal sites to determine whether or not the amended CECP waste
would impact the available capacity.
The handling and management of waste generated by the amended CECP would follow
the hierarchical approach of source reduction, recycling, treatment, and disposal as
specified in California Public Resources Code sections 40051 and 40196. The first
priority of the project owner is to use materials that reduce the waste that is generated.
The next level of waste management would involve reusing or recycling wastes. For
wastes that cannot be recycled, treatment would be used, if possible, to make the waste
nonhazardous. Finally, waste that cannot be reused, recycled or treated would be
transported off site to a permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility.

Construction and Demolition Impacts and Mitigation
The assessment, closure, and removal of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 would take six to 12 months
(LL 2014y Data Response 59). Engineering controls would be applied to stabilize the
area until below-grade assessment and remediation takes place. A temporary liner
system would be installed as Best Management Practice (BMP) for storm water
infiltration and runoff mitigation (LL 2014y Data Response 60). The proposed demolition
work is expected to take 242 days. The schedule of events is outlined below (LL2014b
page 2-1):
Phase I: Tank Demolition and Remediation


Site Mobilization for Tank Demolition and Remediation -five days



Tanks 5, 6, and 7 Demolition and Remediation – 91 days (previously permitted for
demolition as part of the licensed CECP Final Decision and separate from the
amended CECP project)



Tanks 1, 2, and 4 Demolition and Remediation -100 days



Berm Removal and Site Preparation -92 days



Berm Removal between Tanks 4 and 5 – 30 days

Construction workers and onsite industrial workers could be exposed to contaminated
surface and subsurface soils during these activities. Any activity that will invariably
disturb the contaminated soils at CECP (e.g., excavation, trenching, removal, and or
grading) could exacerbate potential exposure through incidental ingestion, dermal
contact, and inhalation of suspended particles from soils to onsite workers, including
construction workers, site visitors and residents near the plant.
WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-14

February 2015

 The petitioner would comply with applicable regulations that ensure conditions at the
site do not harm humans or the environment. The petitioner would enter into a Voluntary
Assistance Program (VAP) with the SDCDEH. SDCDEH staff provides project
oversight, and technical or environmental reports evaluation of projects pertaining to
properties contaminated with hazardous substances. SDCDEH enforces Health &
Safety Code sections 101480-101490, Administration of Public Health, Released
Waste. SDCDEH serves as the administering agency on environmental cleanup
projects in San Diego County (Health and Safety Code (HSC), section 25260 D) with
the ability to issue a Certificate of Completion (HSC Section 25264) indicating the site
has been remediated to a level that would ensure no impact to public health and safety.
The petitioner would incorporate the assessment and remediation of ASTs Nos. 1, 2
and 4 as part of VAP HI3941-004. VAP HI341-004 is currently established with
SDCDEH on ASTs No. 5, 6, and 7. The initial characterization process will require soil
sampling and analysis to depth, to determine complete horizontal and vertical
delineation of potential characterization (LL 2014y Data Response 61). The San Diego
Site Assessment and Mitigation Program (SAM) manual outlines the regulatory
requirements that should be addressed in the assessment and clean-up of the
aboveground fuel oil tank farms. The primary goal of the SAM is to protect public health,
water resources, and the environment from releases of contaminants by providing
oversight of assessments and cleanups in accordance with the California Health and
Safety Code and other pertinent sections of the California Code of Regulations.
Staff has also added Condition of Certification WASTE-12 which requires that a Soil
Management Plan be provided to the compliance project manager (CPM) prior to Phase
I demolition. Staff proposes Condition of Certification WASTE-12, to ensure that the
petitioner adequately characterizes the areas of ASTs 1, 2, and, 4 and completes cleanup as necessary in accordance with the Energy Commission’s conditions of certification
as well as applicable LORS. The project owner would be required to enter into an
additional VAP, H13941-006, with SDCDEH for ASTs 1, 2, and 4. VAP H13941-006
would require a SMP be completed for the project to obtain a closure letter (SDCDEH
2015).
In addition, existing Condition of Certification WASTE-1 states that in no event shall
project construction commence in areas requiring characterization and remediation until
SDCDEH and the CPM have determined that all necessary remediation has been
accomplished. AQ-SC7 states that the petitioner shall not conduct any on-site
remediation of contaminated soils on the project site, other than removal and transport.
The petitioner would provide records related to transportation or the disposal of
contaminated soil offsite (LL 2014 y Data Response-62). Additional information related
to AQ-SC7 is covered in the Air Quality section of this document.
Nonhazardous waste from demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 would be recycled where
practical and non-recyclable waste would be deposited in a Class III landfill. The
petitioner would recycle in accordance with Title 24, California Code of Regulations,
Part 11 2010 Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen).
In Phase IV, the petitioner proposes to demolish EPS’s Units 1 through 5, a 17-MW
combustion “black start” turbine, the enclosure buildings that house Units 1-5, and other
February 2015

5.6-15

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 existing buildings and support facilities including the 400-foot exhaust stack. Waste
Management Table 4 lists above-grade site features to be demolished (LL2014y, Data
Response 64-1). The 22-month Phase IV demolition process would proceed in the
following manner:
1. preparation of the site laydown and parking area,
2. removal of vessels and equipment associated with hazardous materials and wastes,
3. demolition of structures that would be recycled or disposed of in Class III landfill,
4. site laydown and stabilization (LL 2014 y Data Response-64-1).
Waste Management Table 4
List of Encina Power Station Items to be Demolished
Power plant building and contents
Powerhouse structures and systems
Eight-story power plant building
Five simple-cycle gas turbine generators (Units 1 through 5) and steam boilers
400-foot exhaust stack
Turbine lube system
Air emissions-control devices,
Pumps, fans, condensers, fuel oil lines, sumps and three control rooms
Chemistry laboratory, instrumentation, control shops
Five oil-filled transformers
Combustion turbine and structures, east power plant building
Remove emergency/black-start gas turbine generator
ISO phase bus
Water storage tank and structures
Ocean water intake/discharge piping, structures and equipment
Aboveground piping, valves, screens, filters, and other structures would be demolished and
removed.
Northwest structures, tanks, and piping
Low Volume Waste Tanks #1 and #2
Extended Waste Tanks #3 and #4
Treated Water Tanks #5 and #6
Tanks piping valves and pumps
Fuel oil Piping and supports
Remaining above-grade fuel oil piping and supports
Southeast corner structures
Machine shop and compressor building
Two domestic water tanks located on SDG&E North Coast Service Center property to be demolished,
after which concurrence of the removal of the structures is obtained from Carlsbad Fire Department
Sources: LL 2014y Data Response 64 and LL 2014b page 2-37

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-16

February 2015

 Once EPS is demolished, procedures would be implemented to ensure that historical
areas of contamination would not pose a risk to human health or the environment. The
petitioner would remove equipment located in the EPS basement and/or vaulted areas.
The petitioner would seal below-grade utility conduits, pipe trenches and corridors.
Below-grade demolition and remediation would not be a part of this petition. Discharge
of storm water or groundwater seepage in the below-grade structures would require a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge permit. The
petitioner would employ security guards to prevent unauthorized entry into the power
block (LL 2014y Data Responses 63 and 64). Signage would be posted around
potentially hazardous areas. Inspections would be performed on a regular basis to
determine if BMPs in unstable areas have been breached. Additionally, the petitioner
would monitor the site for areas that require immediate remedial action and warn
workers of proper protective equipment that may be required (LL 2014y Data response
63). Remediation would be conducted in accordance with existing agreements with the
SDCDEH.
Remediation of the EPS below-grade facilities would not take place until an approved
non-power Encina Redevelopment Plan is completed by the city of Carlsbad. Once the
redevelopment plan is finalized, the responsible party would initiate activity in
accordance with the SDCDEH VAP for site assessment and subsurface
characterization and remediation. The petitioner “anticipates a two to three-year process
to achieve a SDCDEH-approved closure or certification for the EPS site, exclusive of
the amended CECP site which would be addressed under a separate VAP focused on
the timely repurposing of [the] tank farm at the eastern portion of the site as defined in
the amended CECP” (LL 2014y Data Response 66). Nonhazardous waste from EPS
demolition would be recycled where practical and non-recyclable waste would be
deposited in a Class III landfill. The petitioner would recycle in accordance with Title 24,
California Code of Regulations, Part 11 2010 Green Building Standards Code
(CALGreen). The petitioner would generate approximately 81,000 tons of recyclable
materials (LL 2014p Data Response 7). The types and approximate quantities of the
stack/power plant building and other structures’ demolition waste expected to be
recycled on site are as follows: 36,000 tons of concrete and 36,000 tons of metal from
stack demolition, and EPS power plant buildings/other structures in addition to
recyclable material from the ASTs, and other construction activities.
Similar to the licensed CECP, staff includes Condition of Certification WASTE-1, to
ensure the project owner adequately characterizes the sites of ASTs 1, 2 and 4, and
EPS facilities, to complete remediation in accordance with a SDCDEH- and Energy
Commission-approved Correction Action Plan. Condition of Certification WASTE-2,
requires the project owner to obtain permits from SDCDEH and the city of Carlsbad Fire
Department. Prior to demolition and construction, the petitioner would develop, submit,
and implement a Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan, per Condition
of Certification WASTE-5.
Asbestos is located in various areas throughout the EPS, such as the EPS plant,
administration building, maintenance building, machine shop, chemical storage building,
and the aboveground storage tanks (Phase I ESA DR-59-2). Asbestos may be found in
the insulation, concrete, acoustical ceilings, flooring tile and mastic, drywall and plaster,
roofing, packing gaskets, and caulking. WASTE-6 would require the petitioner to submit
February 2015

5.6-17

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 an Asbestos Notification Form to San Diego Air Pollution Control District2 and the CPM
for approval prior to the Phase III removal and disposal of asbestos located on the
proposed site (San Diego Air Pollution Control District Regulation XI, Subpart M – Rule
361.145) before any demolition activity can commence.
The hazardous waste generated during Phase III decommissioning would include
asbestos debris, heavy metal dust, used oils, universal wastes, solvents, and empty
hazardous waste material containers. Universal wastes are hazardous wastes that
contain mercury, lead, cadmium, copper, and other substances hazardous to human
and environmental health. Examples of universal wastes are batteries, fluorescent
tubes, and some electronic devices. The hazardous waste would be disposed in a Class
I landfill. A hazardous waste generator number is required to dispose of waste in a
Class I landfill. The project owner would be required to obtain and retain a unique
hazardous waste generator number for the site prior to starting construction, pursuant to
proposed Condition of Certification WASTE-7.
Nonhazardous Wastes
Nonhazardous waste would be generated from the demolition of ASTs 1, 2 and 4, EPS
Units 1 through 5, and the ancillary equipment for the amended CECP. The amended
CECP project would generate approximately 88,573 tons of nonhazardous waste from
demolition and 230 tons from construction of the amended CECP power plant (See
Waste Management Table 5). Nonhazardous waste would consist of wood, glass,
plastic, paper, scrap metals, concrete, and asphalt. All non-hazardous wastes would be
recycled to the extent possible and non-recyclable wastes would be collected by a
licensed hauler and disposed in a solid waste disposal facility, in accordance with Title
14, California Code of Regulations, section 17200 et seq.
Waste Management Table 5
Nonhazardous and Hazardous Waste Totals
Project Phase

Phase I

Phase IV

Phase II

(post project)

Waste Types

ASTs1,2,4 & berm
(tons)1

EPS
Demolition(tons)2

CECP
Construction2
(tons)

CECP
Operation2
(tons)

Non-Hazardous

4,555

84,018

203

33

Hazardous

1,457

3,803

<1

<1

1

PTR page 3-13 and Table 3.6-1
2
PTASource: PTA Section 5.14.2, page 5.14-9, and Tables 5.14-1, Table 5.14-2 and Table 5.14-3

The California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (now CalRecycle,
formerly California Integrated Waste Management Board [CIWMB]) is responsible for
recycling, waste reduction, and product reuse programs in California. CalRecycle also
promotes innovation in technology to encourage economic and environmental
sustainability. The 2008 California Green Building Standards Code Requires all
construction projects to develop a recycling plan to divert and/or recycle at least 50
percent of waste generated during construction, (CALGreen Building Standards Code
2

The Asbestos National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), as specified under
Rule 40, CFR 61, Subpart M; (enforced locally by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District) .

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-18

February 2015

 Section 708 construction Waste Reduction, Disposal and Recycling). Approximately
45,000 tons of concrete and 36,000 tons of metal would be recycled (LL 2014p Data
Response 7).
Nonhazardous liquid wastes would also be generated during construction, including
sanitary wastes, dust suppression and stormwater drainage, and equipment wash and
test water. Sanitary wastes would be collected in portable, self-contained chemical
toilets and pumped periodically for disposal at an appropriate facility. Potentially
contaminated equipment wash and/or test water would be contained at designated
areas, tested to determine if hazardous, and either discharged to the storm water
retention basin (if nonhazardous) or transported to an appropriate treatment/disposal
facility. Please see the Soil & Water Resources section of this document for more
information on the management of project wastewater.
Hazardous Wastes
An estimated of 5,260 tons of hazardous wastes would be generated during various
phases of project demolition and construction activities. Waste would include asbestos
waste, electrical equipment, used hydraulic fluids, oils, greases, oily filters, spent
selective catalytic reduction catalysts, cleaning solutions and solvents, and batteries.
The hazardous wastes would be temporarily stored on site, transported off site by
licensed hazardous waste haulers, and recycled or disposed at authorized disposal
facilities in accordance with established standards applicable to generators of
hazardous waste (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 22, § 66262.10 et seq.). In addition, spills and
unauthorized releases of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes may generate
contaminated soils or materials that may require corrective action and management as
hazardous waste. Proper hazardous material handling and good housekeeping
practices would help keep spill wastes to a minimum. However, to ensure proper
cleanup and management of any contaminated soils or waste materials generated from
hazardous materials spills, Condition of Certification WASTE-11 would require the
project owner/operator to report, clean up, and remediate as necessary, any hazardous
materials spills or releases in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
requirements. More information on hazardous material management, spill reporting,
containment, and spill control and countermeasures plan provisions for the amended
CECP are provided in the Hazardous Materials Management section of the FSA.

February 2015

5.6-19

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 Wastes would be accumulated on site for less than 90 days and then properly
manifested, transported, and disposed at a permitted hazardous waste management
facility by licensed hazardous waste collection and disposal companies. Staff reviewed
the disposal methods described in the petition section 5.14.2.1.1 and concluded that all
wastes would be disposed in accordance with all applicable LORS (LL 2014b and LL
2014p). Should any construction waste management-related enforcement action be
taken or initiated by a regulatory agency for the amended CECP, the project owner
would be required by Condition of Certification WASTE-8 to notify the Energy
Commission’s CPM whenever the owner becomes aware of any such action.

Operation Impacts and Mitigation
The operation of the amended CECP project would produce a variety of mixed wastes,
such as but not limited to soil, wood, metal, and concrete, etc. Operation non-hazardous
waste would generate approximately 33 tons per year (LL 2014d 5.14-9).
The Ocean Water Purification System, approved as part of the licensed CECP, is not
included as part of the amended CECP (see the Soil & Water Resources section);
therefore, staff proposes to delete condition of certification WASTE-10 because the
briny waste that would need to be characterized and disposed would no longer be
generated.
Should any operations waste management-related enforcement action be taken or
initiated by a regulatory agency, the project owner would be required by proposed
Condition of Certification WASTE-8 to notify the CPM whenever the owner becomes
aware of any such action. Condition of Certification WASTE-9 would require the
petitioner to submit to the CPM for approval, an Operation Waste Management Plan
discussing how the project would generate, divert and dispose of material.
The Committee Order following the Preliminary Staff Assessment directed staff to
address the off-site impacts of the use of trailer-mounted water filters (CEC 2015i). The
project owner addressed the ‘Recycled Water Supply, Processing and Treatment Waste
Streams’ in a January 28, 2015 letter to the Committee (LL 2015c). The waste that
would be generated would be transported to a facility licensed to regenerate the resin
bed treatment system for reuse at the project. The licensed facility would take
responsibility for the waste stream from regeneration and ensure it is recycled and/or
disposed of in accordance with appropriate LORS. The project owner would not dispose
of any waste associated with this treatment system so there would be no direct impacts
from wastewater generated by the recycled water treatment systems. The wastewater
from these treatment systems is typically further treated by the licensed facility and in
some cases metals are economically recovered. Treatment of the wastewaters
generally results in a non-hazardous liquid waste that could be discharged to the
municipal wastewater authority. Staff believes there would also be no direct impacts
from project wastewater due to offsite wastewater management and disposal by the
licensed facility. Staff also contacted Evoqua Water Technology and reviewed
wastewater processing and disposal information and agrees with the project owner that
the liquid waste would not pose an environmental impact. See the Soil and Water
Resources section for analysis of wastewater disposal that will be the responsibility of
the project owner.
WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-20

February 2015

 Impact on Existing Waste Disposal Facilities
Non-Hazardous Wastes
The amended CECP facility would generate nonhazardous solid waste that would add
to the total waste generated in San Diego County, California. The proposed project
would generate 88,573 tons (177,146 cubic yards) of solid waste during Phase I and
Phase IV demolition, approximately 203 tons (1,353 3 cubic yards) of solid waste during
Phase II construction, and approximately 33 tons (220 cubic yards) per year would be
produced during ongoing amended CECP operations (LL 2014b and LL 2014d).
Nonhazardous waste would be disposed in a California Class III landfill (LL 2014b
Section 3.6.1.1.1).
Every three years the California Building Standards Commission adopts new and/or
updated model codes. These new codes are known as the California Green Building
Standard Code (CALGreen). CALGreen is Part 11 of the California Building Standards
code and is the first statewide “green” building code in the U.S. Effective January 1,
2014, CALGreen mandates permitted new residential and non-residential building
construction, demolition, and certain additions and alteration projects to recycle and/or
salvage for reuse a minimum 50 percent of the nonhazardous C&D debris generated
during the project (CALGreen Title 24 Part 11 sections 4.408, 5.408, 301.1.1 and
301.3). New construction and demolition projects with a combined disposal weight of
less than four lbs/ft2 in low rise (three stories or less) new residential structures and two
lbs/ft2 in non-residential and high rise (four stories or more) residential buildings meet
the 50 percent minimum diversion requirement.
Additions to non-residential buildings or structures of at least 1,000 square feet or
alterations with an estimated construction cost of at least $200,000 shall divert from
landfills at least 50 percent of nonhazardous C&D materials. Enforcing agencies can
require contractors to develop and maintain a waste management plan and/or utilize a
waste management company that certifies a minimum 50 percent waste diversion. The
petitioner proposes to recycle 91 percent of the waste generated or 81,000 tons or
metal and concrete from the EPS exhaust stack and power plant enclosure building.
The petitioner also proposes to recycle metal and concrete from the Phase I AST 1, 2
and 4, demolition. Staff reviewed the petitioner’s plans for recycle and anticipates that
the petitioner will meet the 50 percent diversion requirement of CALGreen.
Waste Management Table 6 presents details of three non-hazardous (Class III) waste
disposal facilities that could potentially take the non-hazardous construction and
operation wastes that would be generated but could not be diverted by the amended
CECP. Total solid waste disposal in San Diego County in 2013, was 3,360,593 tons4.
The remaining capacity for the three San Diego County landfills listed in the AFC
combined is approximately 82.5 million cubic yards. Eighty-one tons or 162,000 cubic
feet of metal and concrete would be recycled. The total amount of non-hazardous waste
3

The volume estimates (cubic yards) for solid/non-hazardous waste are staff generated numbers based
on a conversion factor of approximately 906 pounds per cubic yard (taking into account amount of ferrous
metal and cement) and 300 pounds per cubic yard for construction waste (CECP Tables 5.14-1, 5.14-2
and Table 5.14-3). See http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/library/dsg/apndxi.html.
4
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Landfills/Tonnages/.
February 2015

5.6-21

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 generated from project demolition, construction, and operation, after the material has
been diverted to the maximum extent feasible, would contribute less than one percent of
the available landfill capacity. Staff concludes that disposal of the solid wastes
generated by the amended CECP could occur without significantly impacting the
capacity or remaining life of any of these facilities.
Waste Management Table 6
Recycling/Disposal Facilities
Landfill

Location
City

Permitted
Capacity
Cubic yards

Remaining
Capacity
Cubic yards

Estimated
Closure Date

71 million

42 million

2031

88 million

15 million

2022

61

25.5 million

2028

13.1 million

12.8 million

2040

Class III -Nonhazardous
Sycamore Sanitary Landfill
West Miramar Landfill
Otay Landfill
Class I -Hazardous Waste
Clean Harbors Buttonwillow
(Class I)

San Diego,
CA
San Diego,
CA
Chula Vista,
CA
Kern, CA

Source: LL 2014b Table 3.6-2 and Section 3.6.1.2.2

Hazardous Waste
The petitioner proposes to dispose of hazardous waste in the Buttonwillow landfill. The
landfill has approximately 12.8 million cubic yards of remaining hazardous waste
disposal capacity, with up to 25 years of combined remaining operating lifetime (LL
2014b, Table 3.6-2).
Cumulative Effects
The CEQA Guidelines (section 15355) define cumulative effects as “two or more
individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which
compound or increase other environmental impacts.”
Long-term cumulative impacts are not anticipated with the implementation of the
amended CECP and the listed projects because each project is required to comply with
CEQA guideline requirements for evaluating potential cumulative impacts, and /or
demonstrating conformance to existing CALGreen (Title 24) C&D regulations and
ordinances. As proposed, the amount of non-hazardous and hazardous wastes
generated during construction and operation of the amended CECP would add to the
total quantity of waste generated in the State of California, however, project wastes
would be generated in modest quantities, approximately 88,809 tons of solid waste
during demolition, construction and operation. Approximately 81,000 tons of the waste
would be recycled. Waste recycling would be employed wherever practical, and
sufficient capacity is available at several treatment and disposal facilities to handle the
volumes of wastes that would be generated by the project. The amount of hazardous
waste generated for the project would use less than one half a percent of the total
Buttonwillow Class I capacity, therefore staff concludes there would be no impact to the
landfill capacity.
WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-22

February 2015

 The amended CECP FSA Executive Summary Table 1, Cumulative Projects- lists 32
projects. The projects vary in size and there is no data detailing the amount of waste
that would be generated from the various projects, however, all residential, commercial
and industrial projects would have to comply with Cal Recycle, Mandatory Commercial
Recycling, Title 14, Division 7, Chapter 9.1.5 and Title 24 (CALGreen). The
implementation of these regulations would reduce solid waste disposal in San Diego
County. All of the projects listed would be required to recycle 50 to 75 percent of the
waste generated from their project, thus minimizing the amount of waste generated from
construction and demolition of new and current projects. In 2013, 2.9 million tons of
solid waste was landfilled in San Diego County. The amended CECP’s contribution
would be less than one percent of the county’s waste generation.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
Energy Commission staff concludes that the proposed modified project would comply
with all applicable LORS regulating the management of hazardous and non-hazardous
wastes during both facility construction and operation. The petitioner is required to recycle
and/or dispose of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes at facilities licensed or
otherwise approved to accept the wastes. Because hazardous wastes would be
produced during project demolition, construction and operation, the proposed modified
project would be required to obtain or maintain the existing hazardous waste generator
identification number from U.S. EPA. The proposed modified project would also be
required to properly store, package, and label all hazardous waste; use only approved
transporters; prepare hazardous waste manifests; keep detailed records; and
appropriately train employees in accordance with state and federal hazardous waste
management requirements.
In the Socioeconomics section of this staff assessment, staff presents information that
shows that a greater than 50 percent minority population is not located within a six-mile
radius of the project. Staff concludes that the population located in the amended CECP
six-mile buffer zone does not constitute an environmental justice population, as defined
by Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act
(Socioeconomics section). There are no significant adverse direct or cumulative waste
management impacts for the amended CECP project.

5

Regulatory requirements; Businesses and public entities that generate four or more cubic yards of solid
waste per week, and multifamily residential dwellings that have five units or more, take action to reuse,
recycle, compost or otherwise divert commercial solid waste from disposal.
February 2015

5.6-23

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
INTERVENOR: ROBERT SIMPSON/HELPING HANDS TOOLS, TN:
203587, FEBRUARY 2, 2015
Comment: On page one of the intervenor’s; letter it states “The petition to amend
states that the amended CECP will be constructed in the footprint of several existing
fuel oil tanks. Given the known existing contamination near the fuel oil tanks, please
provide a schedule for:
13. Demolition of the fuel oil tanks.
14. Environmental investigation after removal of the tanks.
15. Remediation of contaminated soil found near the tanks to a level of insignificance.”
Response: Staff has incorporated the following information into the Construction
and Demolition Impacts and Mitigation section above.


Phase I: Tank Demolition and Remediation
•

Site Mobilization for Tank Demolition and Remediation -5 days

•

Tanks 5, 6, and 7 Demolition and Remediation – 91 days (previously
permitted for demolition as part of the licensed CECP Final Decision and
separate from the amended CECP project)

•

Tanks 1, 2, and 4 Demolition and Remediation -100 days

•

Berm Removal and Site Preparation -92 days

•

Berm Removal between Tanks 4 and 5 – 30 days

Items 14 and 15 were already addressed in the same section of the analysis.

PETITIONER: CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER LLC, TN: 203549,
JANUARY 15, 2015
Comment : Staff proposed a new Condition of Certification WASTE-12 that provides for
a Soil Management Plan (SMP) to ensure soils disturbed during demolition that are
contaminated are appropriately identified and handled. The primary ground disturbance
will occur under tanks 4, 5, 6 and 7. The demolition of tanks 1 and 2 and the demolition
of Encina Power Station are intended only to be to grade.
Response: Staff has incorporated this information into its analysis. Staff modified
Condition of Certification WASTE-12 to address the project owner’s comments.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-24

February 2015

 RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE ORDER FOLLOWING THE PRELIMINARY
STAFF ASSESSMENT
COMMITTEE ORDER, TN: 203527, JANUARY 15, 2015
Comment: Staff is directed to address the off-site impacts of the use of trailer-mounted
water filters (waste disposal, traffic, air quality, and others) are summarized and
addressed below:
Response: Staff has incorporated this information into its analysis. Staff believes
there would also be no direct impacts from project wastewater due to offsite
wastewater management and disposal by the licensed facility (see Operation
Impacts and Mitigation section in this FSA).

CONCLUSIONS
Consistent with the three main objectives for staff’s waste management analysis (as
noted in the Introduction section of this analysis), staff provides the following
conclusions:
1. After review of the petitioner’s proposed waste management procedures, staff
concludes that project wastes would be managed in compliance with all applicable
waste management LORS. Staff notes that demolition, construction and operation
wastes would be characterized and managed as either hazardous or non-hazardous
waste. All non-hazardous wastes would be recycled to the extent feasible, and nonrecyclable wastes would be collected by a licensed hauler and disposed of at a
permitted solid waste disposal facility. Hazardous wastes would be accumulated
onsite in accordance with accumulation time limits (90,180, 270, or 365 days
depending on waste type and volumes generated), and then properly manifested,
transported to, and disposed of at a permitted hazardous waste management facility
by licensed hazardous waste collection and disposal companies.
However, to help ensure and facilitate ongoing project compliance with LORS, staff
proposes Conditions of Certification WASTE-1 through 12. These conditions would
require the project owner to do all of the following:


Once the petitioner identifies which areas of contamination would be remediated,
staff proposes conditions that ensure the project site is investigated and any
contamination identified is remediated as necessary, with appropriate
professional and regulatory agency oversight (WASTE-1, 2, 3, 4 and 12).



Prepare Construction and Demolition Waste Management and Operation Waste
Management Plans detailing the types and volumes of wastes to be generated
and how wastes would be managed, recycled, and/or disposed of after
generation (WASTE-5 and 9).



Report any waste management-related LORS enforcement actions and how
violations would be corrected (WASTE-8).



Ensure that all spills or releases of hazardous substances are reported and
cleaned-up in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
requirements (WASTE-11).

February 2015

5.6-25

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 2. Existing conditions at the amended CECP project site do include areas where prior
site uses and/or demolition activities may have resulted in releases of hazardous
substances or soil contamination. To ensure that the project site is investigated and
remediated as necessary and to reduce any impacts from prior or future hazardous
substance or hazardous waste releases at the site to a level of insignificance, staff
proposes Conditions of Certification WASTE-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 12. These
conditions would require the project owner to ensure that the project site is
investigated and remediated as necessary; demonstrate that project wastes are
managed properly; and ensure that any future spills or releases of hazardous
substances or wastes are properly reported, cleaned-up, and remediated as
necessary. Therefore, staff concludes that construction and operation of the
amended project would not result in contamination or releases of hazardous
substances that would pose a substantial risk to human health or the environment.
3. Regarding impacts of project wastes on existing waste disposal facilities, staff uses
a waste volume threshold equal to ten percent of a disposal facility’s remaining
capacity to determine if the impact from disposal of project wastes at a particular
facility would be significant. The existing available capacity for the three Class III
landfills that may be used to manage nonhazardous project wastes exceeds 82.5
million cubic yards. The total amount of nonhazardous wastes generated from
construction and operation of amended CECP would contribute less than 0.1
percent of the remaining landfill capacity. Therefore, disposal of project generated
non-hazardous wastes would have a less than significant impact on Class III landfill
capacity.
In addition, the Class I disposal facility that could be used for hazardous wastes
generated by the construction and operation of the amended CECP has a remaining
capacity of 12.8 million cubic yards. The total amount of hazardous wastes
generated by the amended CECP project would contribute less than one percent of
the remaining permitted capacity. Therefore, impacts from disposal of amended
CECP generated hazardous wastes would also have a less than significant impact
on the remaining capacity at Class I landfills.
Staff removed Condition of Certification WASTE-10. The Ocean Water Purification
System is not included in the amended CECP.
Staff concludes that management of the waste generated during demolition,
construction and operation of the amended CECP would not result in any significant
adverse impacts, and would comply with applicable LORS, if the waste management
practices and mitigation measures proposed in the amended CECP AFC and staff’s
proposed conditions of certification are implemented.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-26

February 2015

 REFERENCES
CAR2007a – City of Carlsbad/B. Therklesen (TN43889). City of Carlsbad Second
Submittal Data Requests (# 49-61). Submitted 12/27/2007.
CEC2012a – California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated June 1, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CEC2014a – California Energy Commission (TN202392). Notice of Receipt Petition to
Amend Final Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project. Submitted
05/29/2014.
CEC2014i – California Energy Commission (TN202715). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Amendment (07-AFC-06C), Data Request Set 1 (1-30). Submitted July
16, 2014.
CEC2014s – California Energy Commission (TN202992). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Amendment (07-AFC-06C), Data Requests Set 2 (#31-58). Submitted
08/27/2014.
CEC2014u – California Energy Commission (TN203012). Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Amendment (07-AFC-06C), Data Requests Set 2A, Waste Management
(#59-66). Submitted 08/29/2014.
CEC2014v – California Energy Commission (TN203055). Notice of Public Workshop –
Data Request and Issues Resolution; September 24-25, 2014, dated September
12, 2014. Submitted 09/12/2014.
CEC2014x - California Energy Commission (TN203088). Letter to San Diego Building
and Construction Trades Council (BCTC); Re: Labor Requirements for the
Amended CECP from Lisa Worrall dated September 22, 2014. Submitted
09/22/2014.
CEC2014z – California Energy Commission (TN203092). Order Consolidated
Amendment Petitions, dated September 23, 2014. Submitted 09/23/2014.
CEC2014kk – California Energy Commission (TN203149). Data Request Set 3 (Nos.
67-85), dated October 2, 2014. Submitted 10/02/2014.
CEC2015i – California Energy Commission (TN203527). Committee Order Following
5the Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 15, 2015. Submitted
01/15/2015.
CH2M2007a – CH2MHILL/Robert Mason (TN42299). Application for Certification for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project, dated September 11, 2007. Submitted
09/11/2007.
DTSC2007a – Department of Toxic Substances Control/G. Holmes (TN43388).
Comments re: Preparation of a Supplemental EIR. Submitted 11/16/2007.
February 2015

5.6-27

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 LL2008a – Locke Lord LLP/Stoel Rives/J McKinsey (TN47257). Project Enhancement
and Refinement Document; Effects on Bio Resources of Agua Hedionda Lagoon;
Revised AQ Modeling Files; Cal ISO Study Report. Submitted 07/25/2008.
LL2014b – Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL2014c – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-1). Locke Lord Cover letter for Carlsbad Energy
Project, Petition to Amend and Petition to Remove, dated May 2, 2014.
Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014d – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014e – Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014g – Locke Lord LLC (TN202390). Letter Requesting Approval of the Petition to
remove separate for the Commission Approval of Petition to Amend. Submitted
05/28/2014.
LL2014j – Locke Lord LLP (TN202683). Pre-Hearing Brief in Favor of the Commission
Processing the Petition to Remove Separately from the Petition to Amend.
Submitted 07/11/2014.
LL2014k – Locke Lord LLP (TN202699). Supplemental Information re: Historical
Cultural Resources. Submitted 07/14/2014.
LL2014n – Locke Lord LLP (TN202886). Objections to Data Request Set 1 and
Request for Time Extension. Submitted 08/05/2014.
LL2014p – Locke Lord LLP (TN202938). Project Owner’s Response to Data Requests
in Set 1 (#1-30). Submitted 08/15/2014.
LL2014s – Locke Lord LLP (TN203021). Request for Response Time Extension to
Power of Vision’s Data Request Set 1, Submitter Dee Hutchinson, dated
September 2, 2014. Submitted 09/03/2014.
LL2014t – Locke Lord LLP (TN203058). Responses to Power of Vision (POV) Data
Request Set 1 (Nos. 1-5), dated September 12, 2014. Submitted 09/12/14.
LL2014u – Locke Lord LLP (TN203073). Objections and Time Extension Request for
Data Request Set 2, dated September 16, 2014. Submitted 09/17/14.
LL2014v – Locke Lord LLP (TN203082). Petition to Remove, Staff Information Request
– Traffic & Transportation, dated September 18, 2014. Submitted 09/18/2014.
LL2014w – Locke Lord LLP (TN203084). Supplemental Responses to Data Requests in
Set 1 (Nos. 28-30), dated September 19, 2014. Submitted 09/19/2014.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

5.6-28

February 2015

 LL2014x – Locke Lord LLP (TN203094). Responses to Data Request Set 2 (Nos. 4057), dated September 23, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014y – Locke Lord LLP (TN203095). Responses to Data Request Set 2A (Nos. 5966), dated September 23, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014z – Locke Lord LLP (TN203099). Request for Service for Water Supply and
Sewer Connection, dated August 1, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014aa – Locke Lord LLP (TN203100). Project Owner Letter Re: Use of Ocean
Water Purification, dated September 24, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014bb – Locke Lord LLP (TN203105). Supplemental Responses to Data Request
Set 2 (Nos. 49 & 50), dated September 25, 2014. Submitted 09/25/2014.
LL2014cc – Locke Lord LLP (TN203143). Response to Data Request Set 2A (No.64),
dated October 1, 2014. Submitted 10/01/2014.
LL2014dd – Locke Lord LLP (TN203148) – Status Report 1, dated October 2, 2014.
Submitted 10/02/2014.
LL2015c – Locke Lord LLP (TN203549). Project Owner’s Comments on the
Preliminary Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted 01/21/2015.
SDCDEH 2015 – Conversation between Ellen Townsend-Hough and Nasser Sionit
Dated January 26, 2015.
Simpson 2015 – Simpson, Robert (TN203587). Comments on Preliminary Decision of
Compliance and Preliminary Staff Assessment. Dated February 2, 2015.

February 2015

5.6-29

WASTE MANAGEMENT

 WASTE MANAGMENT - FIGURE 1
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Site Layout Map

5 ·FREEWAY

-------------' 0 .... , 0 "' ,o "

MIDDLE AGUA
HEDIOl.'OA LAGOON

-----

- ----r----r-1
\ '/.::::=-----..\:
1''
I

/

'

fl.Cl~~.!!'!:

a
v

CITY OF CARLSBAD
'\
SEVIER PUMP STATION
\
\

OUTER AGUA

HC(>d~W'

'

'\

\

\~----""-... ,
...

POSEIDON
DESAUNATION PLAHT

---- ---------- --------------LEGEND

~

SUBJECT SITE AAEA

(/)

-i

m
~

)>

z

)>

G)

m
~

m

z

-i
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE: 2014 Environmental Site Assessment Figure 3

 WASTE MANAGMENT - FIGURE 2
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment - Areas with Controlled & Current Recognized Environmental Conditions

5 · F REEWAY

l.tlDOlEAGUA
HEDIONDA lAGOON

I

..
'

''
OUTERAGUI\
llEDIONDA

\ _______ "-

LAGOON

'

,

/

----- ----- -·-----------LEGEND

~
(/)

-;

*
e

RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION (REC)
CONTROLLED REC (CREC)

m

s::
)>
z

e;m

s::
m
z

-;
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION - SITING, TRANSMISSION AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
SOURCE : 2014 Environmental Site Assessment Figure 5

 WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION
Testimony of Alvin Greenberg, Ph.D.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
Energy Commission staff (staff) concludes that the amended Carlsbad Energy Center
Project (amended CECP), would incorporate sufficient measures to ensure adequate
levels of industrial safety and comply with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and
standards.
Staff analyzed the proposed changes to the licensed Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(CECP), which include replacing combined-cycle power blocks with simple-cycle
turbines, reconfiguration of the project footprint, and the demolition and removal of
portions of the Encina Power Station. Staff concludes that there would not be any new
significant unmitigated worker safety or fire protection impacts nor an increase in
severity of environmental impacts. Staff recommends the mitigation as proposed in the
conditions of certification below.
Staff recommends that the project owner provide a Project Construction Safety and
Health Program, a Project Operations and Maintenance Safety and Health Program,
and a Demolition Safety and Health Program as required by Conditions of Certification
WORKER SAFETY-1 and 2, and fulfils the requirements of Conditions of Certification
WORKER SAFETY-3 through 12.
The proposed conditions of certification provide assurance that a Construction Safety
and Health Program, an Operations and Maintenance Safety and Health Program, and
a Demolition Safety and Health Program would be reviewed by the appropriate
agencies and the Energy Commission compliance project manager before
implementation. The conditions also require verification that the proposed plans
adequately assure worker safety and fire protection and comply with applicable laws,
ordinances, regulations, and standards. Staff recommends that existing Condition of
Certification WORKER SAFETY-8 be deleted as it is no longer necessary to require
operations personnel to be on-site when the power plant is operating. The amended
CECP would have the control room on-site.
The Carlsbad Fire Department (CFD) has stated that its ability to supply emergency
services (fire, rescue, EMS, and hazmat spill response) during all phases of tank
removal, construction, and operation of the amended CECP, during demolition of the
EPS, as well as during a major area-wide crisis, would not be impacted by the operation
of this power plant. The CFD Fire Marshall has stated that the present configuration with
a below-ground bowl and with the currently aligned fire lanes would provide adequate
access for emergency response personnel and equipment and also be safe for fire
fighters. Staff has determined that the proposed modified project as described in the
petition would not have a direct incremental or cumulative impact on the fire
department’s ability to respond to a fire or other emergency under unique catastrophic
circumstances and thus mitigation is not required. Please see the Socioeconomics
section of this Final Staff Assessment (FSA) for more information on impacts the
amended CECP would have on public safety resources.
February 2015

5.7-1

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

 INTRODUCTION
As discussed in detail in the Project Description of this FSA, the amended CECP
would be different from the licensed CECP approved by the Energy Commission on
May 31, 2012. For that reason, an evaluation of impacts, including the potential for
changes or additions to the licensed CECP conditions of certification is required. The
amended CECP proposes implementing the following general changes and
modifications to the licensed CECP:
1. Add the demolition of three additional above-ground fuel oil storage tanks (AST’s 1,
2 and 4), associated piping and equipment, removal of oily sands from under ASTs
1, 2, and 4, and removal of a an earthen berm between ASTs 4 and 5.
2. Change in generation equipment and technology from Siemens fast response,
combined-cycle to six natural gas-fired GE LMS 100 simple-cycle turbines with
approximately 632 MW net output of electrical generating capacity.
3. Add retirement and demolition of Encina Power Station (EPS) Units 1 through 5 and
the 17 MW combustion turbine would be retired and all above-grade elements of the
EPS power and support buildings would be demolished and removed.
See the Project Description section of this FSA for more details.

LAWS, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
The amended CECP would continue to comply with all currently applicable worker
safety and fire protection laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS). The
proposed activities would not trigger any additional worker safety or fire protection
LORS. However, the city of Carlsbad adopted the most recent version of the California
Fire Code as its city fire code in 2014 and staff added to this analysis for emphasis a
Cal-OSHA regulation regarding elevated work platforms. The following federal, state,
and local laws and policies as described in the Decision (CEC2012a) continue to apply
to the protection of public health and hazardous materials management. Staff has
updated this table to reflect the new fire code and to emphasize safe work practices for
elevated platforms. See items Title 8, California Code of Regulations, section 3642 and
Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter 17.04 Carlsbad City Ordinance No. CS-246 adopted
4/22/14.

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

5.7-2

February 2015

 Worker Safety & Fire Protection Table 1
Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS)
Applicable LOR

Description

Federal
Title 29 U.S. Code
(USC) section 651 et
seq (Occupational
Safety and Health Act of
1970)
Title 29 Code of Federal
Regulation (CFR)
sections 1910.1 to
1910.1500
(Occupational Safety
and Health
Administration Safety
and Health Regulations)
29 CFR sections
1952.170 to 1952.175

This act mandates safety requirements in the workplace with the purpose of
“[assuring] so far as possible every working man and woman in the nation
safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources”
(29 USC § 651).

These sections define the procedures for promulgating regulations and
conducting inspections to implement and enforce safety and health
procedures to protect workers, particularly in the industrial sector.

These sections provide federal approval of California’s plan for enforcement
of its own Safety and Health requirements, in lieu of most of the federal
requirements found in 29 CFR sections 1910.1 to 1910.1500.

State
Title 8, California Code
of Regulations (Cal
Code Regs.) all
applicable sections
(Cal/OSHA regulations)
Title 8, Cal Code Regs.,
section 3642
Title 24, Cal Code Regs.
section 3, et seq.
Health and Safety Code
section 25500, et seq.
Health and Safety Code
sections 25500 to 25541
Local (or locally
enforced)

These sections require that all employers follow these regulations as they
pertain to the work involved. This includes regulations pertaining to safety
matters during construction, commissioning, and operations of power plants,
as well as safety around electrical components, fire safety, and hazardous
materials use, storage, and handling.
This Cal-OSHA regulation requires that elevating work platforms – including
mast climbing platforms – have certain specified safety devices and be
operated in a specific safe manner.
This section incorporates the current edition of the International Building
Code.
This section presents Risk Management Plan requirements for threshold
quantities of listed acutely hazardous materials at a facility.
These sections require a Hazardous Material Business Plan detailing
emergency response plans for hazardous materials emergency at a facility.

Carlsbad Municipal
Code Chapter 17.04
Carlsbad City Ordinance
No. CS-246 adopted
4/22/14

The city of Carlsbad adopted the 2013 California Fire Code in April 2014. The
fire code contains general provisions for fire safety, including requirements for
proper storage and handling of hazardous materials and listing of the
information needed by emergency response personnel. Enforced by the
Carlsbad Fire Department.

National Fire Protection
Association standards

These standards provide specifications and requirements for fire safety,
including the design, installation, and maintenance of fire protection
equipment, including NFPA 850. Enforced by the Carlsbad Fire Department.

February 2015

5.7-3

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

 SETTING
The amended CECP would be located in the city of Carlsbad within an industrial area
that is currently served by the local fire department. Fire support services to the site
would be under the jurisdiction of the city of Carlsbad Fire Department. There are a total
of six fire stations within the city of Carlsbad. The closest station to the amended CECP
site would be Station #1, located at 1275 Carlsbad Village Drive, approximately 1.7
miles away. The total response time from the moment a call is made to the point of
arrival at the site would be approximately six minutes (CECP 2007a, § 5.16.4.5). The
next closest station would be Station #4, located at 6885 Batiquitos Drive, about 3.7
miles away, which would respond within seven to eight minutes (CFD 2008).
The CFD would also be the first responder to incidents involving hazardous materials,
with backup support provided by Camp Pendleton and/or the San Diego City and
County Hazardous Materials Incident Response Team (DEH-HIRT). According to the
DEH-HIRT, it is capable of handling any hazardous materials-related incident and would
have a minimum response time of at least one hour (CECP 2007a, §§ 5.10.3.6.2 and
5.10.3.6.3, and CFD 2008), a response time that staff finds to be acceptable given that
the CFD would provide first response assessment and containment actions. All CFD
firefighters are trained paramedics (CFD 2008).

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS
Two issues are assessed in Worker Safety & Fire Protection:
1. the potential for impacts on the safety of workers during demolition, construction,
and operations activities; and
2. fire prevention/protection, emergency medical response, and hazardous materials
spill response during demolition, construction, and operations.
Worker safety issues are thoroughly addressed by Cal/OSHA regulations. If all LORS
are followed, workers would be adequately protected. Thus, the standard for staff’s
review and determination of significant impacts on workers is whether or not the
applicant has demonstrated adequate knowledge about and dedication to implementing
all pertinent and relevant Cal/OSHA standards.
Regarding fire prevention matters, staff reviews and evaluates the on-site fire-fighting
systems proposed by the applicant and the time needed for off-site local fire
departments to respond to a fire, medical, or hazardous material emergency at the
proposed power plant site. If on-site systems do not follow established codes and
industry standards, staff recommends additional measures. Staff reviews and evaluates
the local fire department capabilities and response time in each area and interviews the
local fire officials to determine if they feel adequately trained, staffed, and equipped to
respond to the needs of a power plant. Staff then determines if the presence of the
power plant would cause a significant impact on a local fire department. If it does, staff
will recommend that the applicant mitigate this impact by providing increased resources
to the fire department.

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

5.7-4

February 2015

 Staff has also established a procedure for use when a local fire department has
identified either a significant incremental project impact to a local agency or a significant
incremental cumulative impact to a local agency. Staff first conducts an initial review of
the position and either agrees or disagrees with the fire department’s determination that
a significant impact would exist if the proposed power plant is built and operated. A
process then starts whereby the modified project applicant can either accept the
determination made by staff or refute the determination by providing a Fire Needs
Assessment and a Risk Assessment. The Fire Needs Assessment would address fire
response and equipment/staffing/location needs while the Risk Assessment would be
used to establish that while a potential impact to the fire department may indeed exist,
the probability (chances) of that impact occurring and causing injury or death is less
than significant.

DIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Industrial environments are potentially dangerous during construction and operation of
facilities. Workers at the proposed amended CECP would be exposed to loud noises,
moving equipment, trenches, and confined space entry and egress problems. The
workers may experience falls, trips, burns, lacerations, and numerous other injuries.
They have the potential to be exposed to falling equipment or structures, chemical
spills, hazardous waste, fires, explosions, and electrical sparks and electrocution. It is
important for the amended CECP to have well-defined policies and procedures, training,
and hazard recognition and control at its facility to minimize such hazards and protect
workers. If the facility complies with all LORS, workers would be adequately protected
from health and safety hazards.
Staff reviewed and evaluated the petitioner’s proposed activities and has the following
findings:


Staff has determined that the requested removal of existing former above-ground oil
storage tanks – ASTs 1, 2, and 4, associated piping, a berm between ASTs 4 and 5,
and oily sands from under ASTs 1, 2, and 4 – are reasonable and that no additional
worker safety and fire protection impacts are anticipated beyond those discussed in
the licensed CECP Commission Final Decision (CEC 2012a) as a result of the
additional proposed tank demolition and other activities.



Staff concludes that the petition to amend (LL 2014d) along with the responses to
staff’s data requests Sets 2 and 2A (LL 2014x and LL 2014cc, respectively) provide
adequate information for staff to review and assess potential worker safety and fire
protection impacts associated with the requested activities. Staff proposes that prior
to the start of demolition and removal of the ASTs, the project owner prepare and
then implement a Demolition and Construction Safety and Health Program
consisting of two parts: One part addressing tank demolition activities and the
demolition and removal of the EPS and a second part addressing power plant
construction activities (see Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-1). It is the
intent of staff that the Demolition Safety and Health Program part be specific to and
apply to both the removal of the ASTs and the demolition and removal of the EPS.

February 2015

5.7-5

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

  Staff has determined that the 400-ft. tall stack of the EPS is a stack within a stack
and that the demolition and removal of the stack and the adjoining power station
buildings and units, as described in the “Encina Power Station Demolition Plan” (LL
2014cc, attachment to DR64-1) would provide a sound basis for safely removing the
stack with minimal impact to the surrounding off-site community. Staff finds that
inclusion of this plan in proposed revised Condition of Certification WORKER
SAFETY-1 would enhance safety and assure that the risks to workers and the offsite public during the demolition and removal of the EPS are less than significant.


Staff has determined that during demolition activities (including the demolition and
removal of the EPS), construction, and operation of the proposed amended CECP,
there is the potential for both small fires and major structural fires. Staff reviewed the
information and spoke to representatives of the Carlsbad Fire Department to
determine if available fire protection services and equipment would adequately
protect workers and to determine the modified project’s impact on fire protection
services in the area. CFD has stated that its ability to supply emergency services
(fire, rescue, EMS, and hazmat spill response) during all phases of tank removal,
construction, and operation of the amended CECP and during demolition of the
EPS, as well as during a major area-wide crisis would not be impacted by the
operation of this power plant. The CFD Fire Marshall stated that the present licensed
configuration with a below-ground bowl, the currently-aligned fire lanes, the upper
“ring” road, and the existing upper fire water loop and hydrants, would provide
adequate access for emergency response personnel and equipment, adequate fire
water, and also be safe for fire fighters. Staff has therefore determined that the
proposed project would not have a direct incremental or cumulative impact on the
fire department’s ability to respond to a fire or other emergency under unique
catastrophic circumstances and thus mitigation is not required. Additionally,
compliance with all LORS would be adequate to assure protection from all fire
hazards.



In the petition to amend (LL 2014d), it is stated that a new compressor building
would be located in the North East corner of the facility. The proposed natural gas
compressors would need to be enclosed to mitigate noise. However, enclosing these
compressors poses the potential for explosion if leakage of natural gas were to
occur. The accumulation of natural gas in the enclosure can create a flammable and
potentially explosive mixture of fuel and air. The potentially applicable codes with
regard to appropriate fire protection measures for compressor enclosures within
power plants can be found in NFPA 850. Instead of treating the enclosure as an
occupied building with an occupancy class requiring a water deluge system – a
method that is ineffective to prevent conditions that potentially can lead to a fire
fueled by natural gas that is leaking outside of the enclosure, i.e. flare type fire NFPA 850 treats the enclosure as an industrial enclosure. Yet, NFPA 850 does not
specify fire suppression requirements. Staff believes NFPA 850 provides the proper
designation, because an industrial enclosure is neither normally occupied nor near
occupied buildings, but NFPA 850 does not adequately address fire protection
measures.
Staff proposes Condition of Certification WORKER SAFTY-12 to address this
oversight. This proposed condition of certification treats the compressor enclosure

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

5.7-6

February 2015

 as an industrial enclosure and requires compliance with 40 CFR 192 Sections 163
through171 which describe fire protection measures. 40 CFR normally would not be
applicable, as these provisions normally apply only to compressor enclosures along
a natural gas pipeline. However, staff recommends the provisions and protection
afforded by compliance to 40 CFR. These requirements mandate a system of
continuous measurement of natural gas levels in the enclosure with a mechanism for
automatic ventilation if the concentrations of natural gas approach a small fraction of
the combustible limit. This system is necessary to maintain natural gas
concentrations well below the combustible limit of the mixture of fuel and air in the
event of low levels of leakage. 40 CFR requirements also mandate the ability to shut
off the supply of natural gas from the transmission pipeline through double block and
bleed valves in the event of a larger release of fuel. This requirement provides a
means of controlling a release of fuel that exceeds the capability of the forced draft
protections to control for combustible conditions. Staff believes that this approach
provides the most effective fire and explosion mitigation and provides the most
effective protection of both workers and the public.


Staff has determined that emergency access to the site would be slightly different for
the amended CECP as compared to the licensed CECP. The amended CECP would
continue to have both a primary and secondary access route but these would be
slightly modified. The project owner and the Carlsbad Fire Department have
developed a mutually agreeable, revised, fire access route through the proposed
power plant property (Cabrillo Parcel) that is designed to allow access to each of the
six units, onsite appurtenances, and support facilities at the amended CECP. These
routes are shown in Figure 2.2.4 of the petition and WORKER SAFETY-1 below and
include an east–west connecting road within the Cabrillo Parcel and an increased
turning radius on the northern end of the parcel. The revised secondary fire access
route would enter from Cannon Road and follow north on a dirt road adjacent to the
existing railroad tracks to the southwest corner of the amended CECP boundary.
The revised fire access routes would comply with Condition of Certifications
WORKER SAFETY-6 and WORKER SAFETY-9, contained in the Final Decision.
Staff agrees with this approach and finds that site access is enhanced.



Staff has determined that the petitioner’s proposal to use raw water for firefighting
that would be stored in an approximately 500,000-gallon aboveground storage tank
(LL 2014d; section 5.15.3.2) and ocean water as a backup is not appropriate.
Despite the proposal to use both a newly-installed fire loop in the bowl and the
existing rim area hydrants for firefighting, it is staff’s position that potable water from
the city of Carlsbad as previously approved in the licensed CECP is the preferable
source of water. Therefore, staff does not agree with the petitioner’s proposal to
revise existing Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-11.



Staff remains concerned about the safety of workers and critical power plant
equipment when the future expansion of Interstate-5 occurs. Staff finds that
continued adherence to existing Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-7
would not only provide for worker safety against runaway vehicles crashing the I-5
fence line and falling into the amended CECP site but would also protect against
damage to critical infrastructure and blockage of fire access roads. Therefore, staff
continues to support this condition.

February 2015

5.7-7

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

 

Staff agrees with the Carlsbad Fire Marshall that the present configuration with a
below-ground bowl with sloped walls and with the currently-aligned fire lanes would
provide adequate access for emergency response personnel and equipment and
also be safe for fire fighters should they need to exercise emergency evacuation
procedures. Therefore, staff would oppose any suggestion to change this
configuration without proper mitigation.

Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation
Staff reviewed the potential for the construction and operation of the amended CECP
combined with existing industrial facilities and expected new facilities, including the
existing adjacent Encina Power Station and Carlsbad Poseidon Desalination Project, to
result in a significant cumulative impact on the fire and emergency service capabilities
of the CFD. A significant cumulative fire protection impact is defined as the
simultaneous emergency at multiple locations that would require the concurrent
response for rescue; firefighting, hazardous materials spill control, and/or EMS
response. Existing locations that would likely need emergency response, or locations
where such facilities might likely be built, were both considered.
Table 1 of the Executive Summary of this FSA provides a list of more than 32 projects
located within six miles of the amended CECP site that are built, under construction, or
are reasonably expected to be built. With the exception of the existing Encina Power
Plant and the Carlsbad Poseidon Desalination Project (currently under construction
between the amended CECP site and the existing EPS), all the remaining existing or
planned projects in the vicinity of the proposed amended CECP would not present any
unique or significant hazard warranting an extraordinary emergency fire, rescue, hazmat
spill, or EMS response that may have a potential cumulative impact. Since the EPS
would cease operations as soon as the amended CECP starts commissioning,
cumulative impacts from this facility are not expected to occur.
According to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Carlsbad Poseidon
Desalination Project (Carlsbad 2005), the desalination facility would have the potential
for fire, hazmat spills, and EMS response. However, the Poseidon EIR found that “The
proposed project will be required to comply with all of the standards and design
requirements of the Carlsbad Fire Department, which include adequate emergency
access, installation of fire sprinklers and maintenance of fire suppression equipment.
The Carlsbad Fire Department currently has the facilities and personnel to
accommodate the project, and it is not anticipated that any adverse impacts to service
delivery would result from implementation of the project, and impacts are less than
significant” (Carlsbad 2005, section 4.11-3).
The amended CECP project owner would develop and implement a fire protection
program independent of any other projects considered for potential cumulative impacts,
as would the desalination facility. Staff believes that the amended CECP, as proposed
by the petitioner and with the additional mitigation measures proposed by staff, poses
an insignificant risk of fire, need for rescue, hazmat spill, and EMS response that could
result in significant direct or cumulative impacts to the CFD. It is unlikely that the need
for emergency response that has very low probability of occurrence would
independently occur at the amended CECP site and another facility at the same time.
WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

5.7-8

February 2015

 Furthermore, given the CFD’s opinion that it has the ability to respond to a need for
emergency services at the amended CECP, staff concludes that no mitigation is
required.

COMPLIANCE WITH LORS
Staff concludes that demolition of the ASTs, construction and operation of the amended
CECP modified project, and the demolition and removal of the EPS would be in
compliance with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards (LORS)
regarding long-term and short-term modified project impacts in the area of worker safety
and fire protection if the existing conditions of certification are maintained and staff’s
proposed revisions and proposed new conditions are adopted.

RESPONSE TO PSA COMMENTS
Staff has received only a few comments on worker safety and fire protection issues,
most of them from the project owner.

INTERVENOR: TERRAMAR, TN: 203545, JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: In its comment letter of January 21, 2015, intervener Terramar wished to
emphasize that the proposed I-5 widening project would cause the amended CECP to
lose the safety berm that presently exists between I-5 and the project site.
Response: Staff acknowledges that the present berm between the I-5 right-of-way
and the project site will be impacted by the proposed widening of I-5. However, staff
wishes to emphasize that the safety of the power plant site would remain protected
by the project owner fulfilling the requirements of Condition WORKER SAFETY-7.
Staff is confident that the project owner will be able to construct and maintain a
barrier of sufficient strength and height at the eastern fence line so as to prevent a
runaway car or semi-trailer truck from piercing the barrier and going over the edge
and down into the power plant site as well as prevent line-of-sight viewing of the
power plant site from the shoulder of I-5. Staff has reviewed Caltrans’ examples of
barriers routinely placed along freeways that would meet staff’s goals.

AGENCY: CITY OF CARLSBAD, TN: 203543, JANUARY 20, 2015
Comment: In its comment letter of January 20, 2015, the city of Carlsbad requested
that Condition WORKER SAFETY-6 be revised to add the upper rim road to the
requirements for maintaining emergency access to the site.
Response: Staff agrees with the city of Carlsbad that this addition will clarify and
ensure the requirement to maintain the upper rim road for emergency responder
access, a point discussed in staff’s PSA but not included in a Condition of
Certification. Condition WORKER SAFETY-6 has been revised to reflect this
important requirement.

February 2015

5.7-9

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

 PETITIONER: CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER LLC, TN: 203549,
JANUARY 21, 2015
Comment: The petitioner filed comments on January 21, 2015 that for the most part
requested that all WORKER SAFETY conditions (1 through 10) be revised to reflect a
suggested bifurcation of deliverables for verification of compliance of what the project
owner terms “Phase I licensed CECP activities” and “Phase I amended activities”. For
example, the petitioner suggests that WORKER SAFETY-1 be revised so that the
verification requires the provision of a demolition and construction safety and health
program for the licensed Phase I tank demolition and that a separate requirement within
the verification be added for Phase 1 amended activities “if not previously completed for
Phase I licensed activities”. A similar request was made for all existing WORKER
SAFETY conditions. The intent is to avoid duplication of effort in providing verification
for existing licensed activities, some of which has already been provided by the project
owner and to establish clear and separate compliance obligations for the licensed and
amended projects.
Response: Staff understands that compliance activity for the licensed CECP has
begun; however, it is staff’s opinion that changing the verification date to a time that
has past is both confusing and unnecessary. Petitioner will not be required to
duplicate work completed that meets the conditions of certification for the amended
CECP.
The petitioner did not submit any other additional comments on Worker Safety and Fire
Protection.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff concludes that if all the existing conditions of certification are maintained and
staff’s proposed revised and new conditions of certification are adopted, the requested
activities described in the petition consisting of removal of existing former above ground
oil storage tanks ASTs 1, 2, and 4, associated piping, a berm between ASTs 4 and 5,
and oily sands from under ASTs 1, 2, and 4, and other requested activities consisting of
the construction and operation of the amended CECP and the demolition of the existing
EPS be approved. Staff also concludes that if the petition is approved along with staff’s
recommended revisions and additions to the conditions of certification, the project would
continue to comply with all applicable LORS.
Staff additionally concludes that the operation of this power plant would not present a
significant cumulative impact on the local fire department and therefore mitigation is not
required.

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

5.7-10

February 2015

 REFERENCES
Carlsbad 2005 - Precise Development Plan and Desalination Plant Project
Environmental Impact Report.
CAR2015j - City of Carlsbad/B. Therkelsen (TN203543). City of Carlsbad Preliminary
Staff Assessment Comments, dated January 20, 2015. Submitted 01/30/2015.
CEC 2012a - California Energy Commission (TN66185). Commission Decision on the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Application for Certification, dated May 31, 2012.
Submitted July 11, 2012.
CECP 2007a - Carlsbad Energy Center Project (TN42299). Application for Certification
for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, 09/11/2007.
CECP 2007d - Carlsbad Energy Center Project (TN42303). Application for Certification
(AFC), Appendix 5.4A Representative Seismic Geological Report Data,
09/11/2007.
LL 2014b - Locke Lord LLP (TN202267). Petition to Remove Obsolete Facilities to
Support Construction of the Carlsbad Energy Project. Submitted 04/29/2014.
LL 2014d - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-2). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014e - Locke Lord LLP (TN202287-3). Petition to Amend Carlsbad Energy Center
Project, Part Two, Appendix 2A-5.11A. Submitted 05/02/2014.
LL2014x - Locke Lord LLP (TN203094). Responses to Data Request Set 2 (Nos. 4057), dated September 23, 2014. Submitted 09/24/2014.
LL2014cc - Locke Lord LLP (TN203143). Response to Data Request Set 2A (No.64),
dated October 1, 2014. Submitted 10/01/2014.
LL2015c - Locke Lord LLP (TN203549). Project Owner’s Comments on the Preliminary
Staff Assessment, dated January 21, 2015. Submitted 01/21/2015.
TER2015b - Terramar Association (TN203545). Terramar Comments on the
Preliminary Staff Assessment. Submitted 01/21/2015.

February 2015

5.7-11

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION

 Compliance Conditions
and

Compliance Monitoring
Plan

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS
AND
COMPLIANCE MONITORING PLAN
Testimony of Joseph Douglas

INTRODUCTION
The Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) Compliance Conditions of Certification,
including a Compliance Monitoring Plan (Compliance Plan), are established as required
by Public Resources Code section 25532. The Compliance Plan provides a means for
assuring that the facility is constructed, operated, and closed in compliance with public
health and safety and environmental law; all other applicable laws, ordinances,
regulations, and standards (LORS); and the conditions adopted by the Energy
Commission and specified in the Commission’s written Decision on the project’s
Application for Certification, or otherwise required by law.
The Compliance Plan is composed of elements that:


set forth the duties and responsibilities of the compliance project manager (CPM),
the project owner or operator (project owner), delegate agencies, and others;



set forth the requirements for handling confidential records and maintaining the
compliance record;



state procedures for settling disputes and making post-certification changes;



state the requirements for periodic compliance reports and other administrative
procedures that are necessary to verify the compliance status for all Energy
Commission-approved conditions of certification;



establish contingency planning, facility non-operation protocols, and closure
requirements; and



establish a tracking method for the technical area conditions of certification that
contain measures required to mitigate potentially adverse project impacts associated
with construction, operation, and closure below a level of significance; each
technical condition of certification also includes one or more verification provisions
that describe the means of assuring that the condition has been satisfied.

KEY PROJECT EVENT DEFINITIONS
The following terms and definitions help determine when various conditions of
certification are implemented.

Project Certification
Project certification occurs on the day the Energy Commission dockets its Decision after
adopting it at a publically noticed Business Meeting or hearing. At that time, all Energy
Commission conditions of certification become binding on the project owner and the
proposed facility.

February 2015

6-1

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

 Site Assessment and Pre-Construction Activities
The below-listed site assessment and pre-construction activities may be initiated or
completed prior to the start of construction, subject to the CPM’s approval of the specific
site assessment or pre-construction activities.
Site assessment and pre-construction activities include the following, but only to the
extent the activities are minimally disruptive to soil and vegetation and shall not affect
listed or special-status species or other sensitive resources:
1. the installation of environmental monitoring equipment;
2. a minimally invasive soil or geological investigation;
3. a topographical survey;
4. any other study or investigation to determine the environmental acceptability or
feasibility of the use of the site for any particular facility; and
5. any minimally invasive work to provide safe access to the site for any of the
purposes specified in 1-4, above.

Site Mobilization and Construction
When a condition of certification requires the project owner to take an action or obtain
CPM approval prior to the start of construction, or within a period of time relative to the
start of construction, that action must be taken, or approval must be obtained, prior to
any site mobilization or construction activities, as defined below.
Site mobilization and construction activities are those necessary to provide site access
for construction mobilization and facility installation, including both temporary and
permanent equipment and structures, as determined by the CPM.
Site mobilization and construction activities include, but are not limited to:
1. ground disturbance activities like grading, boring, trenching, leveling, mechanical
clearing, grubbing, and scraping;
2. site preparation activities, such as access roads, temporary fencing, trailer and utility
installation, construction equipment installation and storage, equipment and supply
laydown areas, borrow and fill sites, temporary parking facilities, and chemical
spraying and controlled burns; and
3. permanent installation activities for all facility and linear structures, including access
roads, fencing, utilities, parking facilities, equipment storage, mitigation and
landscaping activities, and other installations, as applicable.

System Commissioning and Decommissioning
Commissioning activities are designed to test the functionality of a facility’s installed
components and systems to ensure safe and reliable operation. Although
decommissioning is often synonymous with facility closure, specific decommissioning
COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

6-2

February 2015

 activities also systematically test the removal of such systems to ensure a facility’s safe
closure. For compliance monitoring purposes, commissioning examples include
interface connection and utility pre-testing, “cold” and “hot” electrical testing, system
pressurization and optimization tests, grid synchronization, and combustion turbine “first
fire.” Decommissioning activity examples include utility shut down, system
depressurization and de-electrification, structure removal, and site reclamation.

Start of Commercial Operation
For compliance monitoring purposes, “commercial operation” or “operation” begins once
commissioning activities are complete, the certificate of occupancy has been issued,
and the power plant has reached reliable steady-state electrical production. At the start
of commercial operation, plant control is usually transferred from the construction
manager to the plant operations manager. Operation activities can include a steady
state of electrical production, or, for “peaker plants,” a seasonal or on-demand
operational regime to meet peak load demands.

Non-Operation and Closure
Non-operation is time-limited and can encompass part or all of a facility. Non-operation
can be a planned event, usually for minor equipment maintenance or repair, or
unplanned, usually the result of unanticipated events or emergencies.
Closure is a facility shutdown with no intent to restart operation. It may also be the
cumulative result of unsuccessful efforts to re-start over an increasingly lengthy period
of non-operation, condemned by inadequate means and/or lack of a viable plan. Facility
closures can occur due to a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, irreparable
damage and/or functional or economic obsolescence.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Provided below is a generalized description of the compliance roles and responsibilities
for Energy Commission staff (staff) and the project owner for the construction and
operation of the CECP.

COMPLIANCE PROJECT MANAGER RESPONSIBILITIES
The CPM’s compliance monitoring and project oversight responsibilities include:
1. ensuring that the design, construction, operation, and closure of the project facilities
are in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Decision;
2. resolving complaints;
3. processing post-certification project amendments for changes to the project
description, conditions of certification, ownership or operational control, and requests
for extension of the deadline for the start of construction (see COM-10 for
instructions on filing a Petition to Amend or to extend a construction start date);
4. documenting and tracking compliance filings; and

February 2015

6-3

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

 5. ensuring that compliance files are maintained and accessible.
The CPM is the central contact person for the Energy Commission during project preconstruction, construction, emergency response, operation, and closure. The CPM shall
consult with the appropriate responsible parties when handling compliance issues,
disputes, complaints, and amendments.
All project compliance submittals are submitted to the CPM for processing. Where a
submittal requires CPM approval, the approval shall involve appropriate Energy
Commission technical staff and management. All submittals must include searchable
electronic versions (.pdf, MS Word, or equivalent files).

Pre-Construction and Pre-Operation Compliance Meeting
The CPM usually schedules pre-construction and pre-operation compliance meetings
prior to the projected start-dates of construction, plant operation, or both. These
meetings are used to assist the Energy Commission and the project owner’s technical
staff in the status review of all required pre-construction or pre-operation conditions of
certification, and take proper action if outstanding conditions remain. In addition, these
meetings ensure, to the extent possible, that the Energy Commission’s conditions of
certification do not delay the construction and operation of the plant due to last-minute
unforeseen issues or a compliance oversight. Pre-construction meetings held during the
certification process must be publicly noticed unless they are confined to administrative
issues and processes.

Energy Commission Record
The Energy Commission maintains the following documents and information as public
records, in either the Compliance files or Dockets files, for the life of the project (or other
period as specified):


all documents demonstrating compliance with any legal requirements relating to the
construction, operation, and closure of the facility;



all Monthly and Annual Compliance Reports (MCRs, ACRs) filed by the project
owner;



all project-related complaints of alleged noncompliance filed with the Energy
Commission; and



all petitions for project or condition of certification changes and the resulting staff or
Energy Commission action.

CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL DELEGATION AND AGENCY
COOPERATION
Under the California Building Code Standards, while monitoring project construction and
operation, staff acts as, and has the authority of, the Chief Building Official (CBO). Staff
may delegate some CBO responsibility to either an independent third-party contractor or
a local building official. However, staff retains CBO authority when selecting a delegate
CBO, including the interpretation and enforcement of state and local codes and the use
of discretion, as necessary, in implementing the various codes and standards.
COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

6-4

February 2015

 PROJECT OWNER RESPONSIBILITIES
The project owner is responsible for ensuring that all conditions of certification in the
CECP Decision are satisfied. The project owner shall submit all compliance submittals
to the CPM for processing unless the conditions specify another recipient. The
Compliance conditions regarding post-certification changes specify measures that the
project owner must take when modifying the project’s design, operation, or performance
requirements, or to transfer ownership or operational control. Failure to comply with any
condition of certification may result in a correction order, an administrative fine,
certification revocation, or any combination thereof, as appropriate. A summary of the
Compliance conditions of certification are included as Compliance Conditions Table 1
at the end of this Compliance Plan.

COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT
The Energy Commission’s legal authority to enforce the terms and conditions of its
Decision are specified in Public Resources Code sections 25534 and 25900. The
Energy Commission may amend or revoke a project certification and may impose a civil
penalty for any significant failure to comply with the terms or conditions of the Decision.
The Energy Commission’s actions and fine assessments would take into account the
specific circumstances of the incident(s).

PERIODIC COMPLIANCE REPORTING
Many of the conditions of certification require submittals in the MCRs and ACRs. All
compliance submittals assist the CPM in tracking project activities and monitoring
compliance with the terms and conditions of the CECP Decision. During construction,
the project owner or an authorized agent shall submit compliance reports on a monthly
basis. During operation, compliance reports are submitted annually, except as
otherwise required. These reports, and the requirements for an accompanying
compliance matrix, are described below.

NONCOMPLIANCE COMPLAINT PROCEDURES
Any person or agency may file a complaint alleging noncompliance with the conditions
of certification. Such a complaint shall be subject to review by the Energy Commission
pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1237, but, in many
instances, the issue(s) can be resolved by using an informal dispute resolution process.
Both the informal and formal complaint procedures, as described in current state law
and regulations, are summarized below. Energy Commission staff shall follow these
provisions unless superseded by future law or regulations. The California Office of
Administrative Law provides on-line access to the California Code of Regulations at
http://www.oal.ca.gov/.

Informal Dispute Resolution Process
The following informal procedure is designed to resolve code and compliance
interpretation disputes stemming from the project’s conditions of certification and
applicable LORS. The project owner, the Energy Commission, or any other party,
including members of the public, may initiate the informal dispute resolution process.
February 2015

6-5

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

 Disputes may pertain to actions or decisions made by any party, including the Energy
Commission’s delegate agents.
This process may precede the formal complaint and investigation procedure specified in
Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1237, but is not intended to be a
prerequisite or substitute for it. This informal procedure may not be used to change the
terms and conditions of certification in the Decision, although the agreed-upon
resolution may result in a project owner proposing an amendment. The informal dispute
resolution process encourages all parties to openly discuss the conflict and reach a
mutually agreeable solution. If a dispute cannot be resolved, then the matter must be
brought before the full Energy Commission for consideration via the complaint and
investigation procedure specified in Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section
1237.

Request for Informal Investigation
Any individual, group, or agency may request that the CPM conduct an informal
investigation of alleged noncompliance with the Energy Commission’s conditions of
certification. The CPM shall evaluate the request and, if the CPM determines that
further investigation is necessary, shall ask the project owner to promptly conduct a
formal inquiry into the matter and provide within seven days a written report of the
investigation results, along with corrective measures proposed or undertaken.
Depending on the urgency of the matter, the CPM may conduct a site visit and/or
request that the project owner provide an initial verbal report within 48 hours.

Request for Informal Meeting
In the event that either the requesting party or Energy Commission staff are not satisfied
with the project owner’s investigative report or corrective measures, either party may
submit a written request to the CPM for a meeting with the project owner. The request
shall be made within 14 days of the project owner’s filing of the required investigative
report. Upon receipt of such a request, the CPM shall attempt to:
1. immediately schedule a meeting with the requesting party and the project owner, to
be held at a mutually convenient time and place;
2. secure the attendance of appropriate Energy Commission staff and staff of any other
agencies with expertise in the subject area of concern, as necessary; and
3. conduct the meeting in an informal and objective manner so as to encourage the
voluntary settlement of the dispute in a fair and equitable manner.
After the meeting, the CPM shall promptly prepare and distribute copies to all parties,
and to the project file, of a summary memorandum that fairly and accurately identifies
the positions of all parties and any understandings reached. If no agreement was
reached, the CPM shall direct the complainant to the formal complaint process provided
under Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1237.

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

6-6

February 2015

 Formal Dispute Resolution Procedure
Any person may file a complaint with the Energy Commission’s Dockets Unit alleging
noncompliance with a Commission Decision adopted pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 25500. Requirements for complaint filings and a description of how
complaints are processed are provided in Title 20, California Code of Regulations,
section 1237.

POST-CERTIFICATION CHANGES TO THE ENERGY COMMISSION
DECISION
The project owner must petition the Energy Commission pursuant to Title 20, California
Code of Regulations, section 1769, to modify the design, operation, or performance
requirements of the project and/or the linear facilities, or to transfer ownership or
operational control of the facility. It is the responsibility of the project owner to
contact the CPM to determine if a proposed project change should be considered
a project modification pursuant to section 1769. Implementation of a project
modification without first securing Energy Commission approval may result in an
enforcement action including civil penalties in accordance with Public Resources Code,
section 25534.
Below is a summary of the criteria for determining the type of approval process
required, reflecting the provisions of Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section
1769, at the time this Compliance Plan was drafted. If the Energy Commission modifies
this regulation, the language in effect at the time of the requested change shall apply.
Upon request, the CPM can provide sample formats of these submittals.

Amendment
The project owner shall submit a Petition to Amend the Energy Commission Decision,
pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations, section 1769 (a), when proposing
modifications to the design, operation, or performance requirements of the project
and/or the linear facilities. If a proposed modification results in an added, changed, or
deleted condition of certification, or makes changes causing noncompliance with any
applicable LORS, the petition shall be processed as a formal amendment to the
Decision, triggering public notification of the proposal, public review of the Energy
Commission staff’s analysis, and consideration of approval by the full Energy
Commission.

Change of Ownership and/or Operational Control
Change of ownership or operational control also requires that the project owner file a
petition pursuant to section 1769 (b). This process requires public notice and approval
by the full Commission. The petition shall be in the form of a legal brief and fulfill the
requirements of section 1769 (b).

Staff-Approved Project Modification
Modifications that do not result in additions, deletions, or changes to the conditions of
certification, that are compliant with the applicable LORS, and that do not have
significant environmental impacts, may be authorized by the CPM as a staff-approved
February 2015

6-7

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

 project modification pursuant to section 1769 (a) (2). Once the CPM files a Notice of
Determination of the proposed project modifications, any person may file an objection to
the CPM’s determination within 14 days of service on the grounds that the modification
does not meet the criteria of section 1769 (a) (2). If there is an objection to the CPM’s
determination, the petition must be processed as a formal amendment to the Decision
and must be considered for approval by the full Commission at a publically noticed
Business Meeting or hearing.

Verification Change
Each condition of certification (except for the Compliance Conditions) has one or more
means of verifying the project owner’s compliance with the provisions of the condition.
These verifications specify the actions and deadlines by which a project owner
demonstrates compliance with the Energy Commission-adopted conditions. Verification
may be modified by the CPM without requesting a Decision amendment if the change
does not conflict with any condition of certification, does not violate any LORS, and
provides an effective alternative means of verification.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND INCIDENT
REPORTING
To protect public health and safety and environmental quality, the conditions of
certification include contingency planning and incident reporting requirements to ensure
compliance with necessary health and safety practices. A well-drafted contingency plan
avoids or limits potential hazards and impacts resulting from serious incidents involving
personal injury, hazardous spills, flood, fire, explosions or other catastrophic events and
ensures a comprehensive timely response. All such incidents must be reported
immediately to the CPM and documented. These requirements are designed to build
from “lessons learned,” limit the hazards and impacts, anticipate and prevent
recurrence, and provide for the safe and secure shutdown and re-start of the facility.

FACILITY CLOSURE
The Energy Commission cannot reasonably foresee all potential circumstances in
existence when a facility permanently closes. Therefore, the closure conditions provided
herein strive for the flexibility to address circumstances that may exist at some future
time. Most importantly, facility closure must be consistent with all applicable Energy
Commission conditions of certification and the LORS in effect at that time.
Although a non-operational facility may intend to resume operations, if it remains nonoperational for longer than one year and the project owner does not present a viable
plan to resume operation, the Energy Commission can conclude that closure is
imminent and direct the project owner to commence closure preparations. Should the
project owner effectively abandon a facility, the Energy Commission can access the
required financial assurance funds to begin closure, but the owner remains liable for all
associated costs.
Prior to submittal of the facility’s Final Closure Plan to the Energy Commission, the
project owner and the CPM will hold a meeting to discuss the specific contents of the
plan. In the event that significant issues are associated with the plan's approval, the
COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

6-8

February 2015

 CPM will hold one or more workshops and/or the Commission may hold public hearings
as part of its approval procedure.
With the exception of measures to eliminate any immediate threats to public health and
safety or to the environment, facility closure activities cannot be initiated until the Energy
Commission approves the Final Closure Plan and Cost Estimate and the project owner
complies with any requirements the Commission may incorporate as conditions of
approval of the Final Closure Plan.

February 2015

6-9

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

 KEY EVENTS LIST
PROJECT:
DOCKET #:
COMPLIANCE PROJECT MANAGER:
EVENT DESCRIPTION

DATE

Certification Date
Obtain Site Control
On-line Date
POWER PLANT SITE ACTIVITIES
Start Site Assessment/Pre-construction
Start Site Mobilization/Construction
Begin Pouring Major Foundation Concrete
Begin Installation of Major Equipment
Completion of Installation of Major Equipment
First Combustion of Gas Turbine
Obtain Building Occupation Permit
Start Commercial Operation
Complete All Construction
TRANSMISSION LINE ACTIVITIES
Start T/L Construction
Synchronization with Grid and Interconnection
Complete T/L Construction
FUEL SUPPLY LINE ACTIVITIES
Start Gas Pipeline Construction and Interconnection
Complete Gas Pipeline Construction
WATER SUPPLY LINE ACTIVITIES
Start Water Supply Line Construction
Complete Water Supply Line Construction

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

6-10

February 2015

 Compliance Table 1:
Summary of Compliance Conditions of Certification
CONDITION
NUMBER

SUBJECT

DESCRIPTION

COM-1

Unrestricted Access

The project owner shall grant Energy Commission staff and delegate
agencies or consultants unrestricted access to the power plant site.

COM-2

Compliance Record

The project owner shall maintain project files on-site. Energy Commission
staff and delegate agencies shall be given unrestricted access to the files.

COM-3

Compliance Verification
Submittals

The project owner is responsible for the delivery and content of all
verification submittals to the CPM, whether such condition was satisfied by
work performed or the project owner or his agent.

COM-4

Pre-construction Matrix
and Tasks Prior to Start
of Construction

Construction shall not commence until all of the following activities/submittals
have been completed:


Project owner has submitted a pre-construction matrix identifying
conditions to be fulfilled before the start of construction;



Project owner has completed all pre-construction conditions to the
CPM’s satisfaction; and



CPM has issued a letter to the project owner authorizing construction.

COM-5

Compliance Matrix

The project owner shall submit a compliance matrix (in a spreadsheet
format) with each Monthly and Annual Compliance Report, which includes
the current status of all compliance conditions of certification.

COM-6

Monthly Compliance
Reports and Key Events
List

During construction, the project owner shall submit Monthly Compliance
Reports (MCRs) which include specific information. The first MCR is due 1
month following the docketing of the Energy Commission’s Decision and
shall include an initial list of dates for each of the events identified on the Key
Events List.

COM-7

Annual Compliance
Reports

After construction ends and throughout the life of the project, the project
owner shall submit Annual Compliance Reports (ACRs) instead of Monthly
Compliance Reports.

COM-8

Confidential Information

Any information the project owner designates as confidential shall be
submitted to the Energy Commission’s Executive Director with a request for
confidentiality.

COM-9

Annual Fees

Required payment of the Annual Energy Facility Compliance Fee.

COM-10

Amendments, StaffApproved Project
Modifications,
Ownership Changes,
and Verification
Changes

The project owner shall petition the Energy Commission to delete or change
a condition of certification, modify the project design or operational
requirements, and/or transfer ownership or operational control of the facility.

February 2015

6-11

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

 Compliance ConditionsTable 1:
Summary of Compliance Conditions of Certification
CONDITION
NUMBER

SUBJECT

DESCRIPTION

COM-11

Reporting of Complaints,
Notices, and Citations

Prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall provide all property
owners within a 1-mile radius a telephone number to contact project
representatives with questions, complaints or concerns. The project owner
shall respond to all recorded complaints within 24 hours. Within 10 days of
receipt, the project owner shall report to the CPM all notices, complaints,
violations, and citations.

COM-12

Site Contingency Plan

No less than 60 days prior to the start of commercial operation the project
owner shall submit an on-site Contingency Plan to ensure protection of
public health and safety and environmental quality during a response to an
unanticipated event or emergency.

COM-13

Incident-Reporting
Requirements

The project owner shall notify the CPM within 1 hour of an incident and
submit a detailed incident report within 30 days, maintain records of incident
report, and submit public health and safety documents with employee
training provisions.

COM-14

Non-Operation

No later than 2 weeks prior to a facility’s planned non-operation, or no later
than 2 weeks after the start of unplanned non-operation, the project owner
shall notify the CPM, interested agencies and nearby property owners of this
status. During non-operation, the project owner shall provide written updates
to the CPM.

COM-15

Facility Closure Planning

Within 60 days after initiating commercial operation, the project owner shall
submit a Provisional Closure Plan and Cost Estimate for permanent closure.
At least 3 years prior to closing, the project owner shall submit a Final
Closure Plan and Cost Estimate.

COM-16

Previously Licensed
Activities in Progress
Prior to Approval of the
Amended CECP

Any activity authorized to start prior to the effective date of the Commission
Decision approving the Amended CECP license is in compliance with this
license if it is conducted under, and in compliance with, the original CECP
license.

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

6-12

February 2015

 ATTACHMENT A
COMPLAINT REPORT/RESOLUTION FORM
COMPLAINT LOG NUMBER:

DOCKET NUMBER:

PROJECT NAME:
COMPLAINANT INFORMATION
NAME:

PHONE NUMBER:

ADDRESS:

COMPLAINT
DATE COMPLAINT RECEIVED:

TIME COMPLAINT RECEIVED:

COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY:

TELEPHONE

IN WRITING (COPY ATTACHED)

DATE OF FIRST OCCURRENCE:
DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT (INCLUDING DATES, FREQUENCY, AND DURATION):

FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION BY PLANT PERSONNEL:

DOES COMPLAINT RELATE TO VIOLATION OF A CEC REQUIREMENT?

YES

NO

YES

NO

DATE COMPLAINANT CONTACTED TO DISCUSS FINDINGS:
DESCRIPTION OF CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN OR OTHER COMPLAINT RESOLUTION:

DOES COMPLAINANT AGREE WITH PROPOSED RESOLUTION?
IF NOT, EXPLAIN:

CORRECTIVE ACTION
IF CORRECTIVE ACTION NECESSARY, DATE COMPLETED:
DATE FIRST LETTER SENT TO COMPLAINANT (COPY ATTACHED):
DATE FINAL LETTER SENT TO COMPLAINANT (COPY ATTACHED):
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION:

“This information is certified to be correct.”
PLANT MANAGER SIGNATURE:

DATE:

(ATTACH ADDITIONAL PAGES AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, AS REQUIRED)
February 2015

6-13

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS

 Conditions of
Certification

 

PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
AIR QUALITY
Staff recommends the following modified conditions of certification to address the
impacts associated with the construction and operation of the amended CECP. These
conditions include the SDAPCD proposed conditions from the DOC, with appropriate
staff-proposed verification language added for each condition, as well as Energy
Commission staff-proposed conditions. The temporary activities covered under approval
of the PTR would be subject to the construction/demolition conditions only, while the
temporary and long-term operation activities covered under approval of the PTA for the
amended CECP are subject to all of the proposed conditions of certification. (Note:
Deleted text is in strikethrough, new text is bold and underlined.)
The conditions of certification below include approved conditions of certification from the
licensed CECP related to construction and demolition and any modifications, additions
or deletions required for the amended CECP. If pre-construction or demolition activities
have been approved by the Energy Commission’s Compliance Project Manager, and no
changes are required for the amended CECP, then the project owner need not duplicate
those previously approved activities. The work already performed is duly noted.

STAFF CONDITIONS
AQ-SC1 Air Quality Construction/Demolition Mitigation Manager (AQCMM): The
project owner shall designate and retain an on-site AQCMM who shall be
responsible for directing and documenting compliance with conditions AQSC3, AQ-SC4, and AQ-SC5 for the entire project site and linear facility
construction/demolition. The on-site AQCMM may delegate responsibilities
to one or more AQCMM Delegates. The AQCMM and AQCMM Delegates
shall have full access to all areas of construction on the project site and linear
facilities and shall have the authority to stop any or all
construction/demolition activities as warranted by applicable
construction/demolition mitigation conditions. The AQCMM and AQCMM
Delegates may have other responsibilities in addition to those described in
this condition. The AQCMM shall not be terminated without written consent of
the Compliance Project Manager (CPM).
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project
owner shall submit to the CPM for approval the name, resume, qualifications, and
contact information for the on-site AQCMM and all AQCMM Delegates. The AQCMM
and all Delegates must be approved by the CPM before the start of ground disturbance.

February 2015

7-1

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

AQ-SC2 Air Quality Construction/Demolition Mitigation Plan (AQCMP): The project
owner shall provide an AQCMP, for approval, which details the steps that will
be taken and the reporting requirements necessary to ensure compliance with
conditions AQ-SC3, AQ-SC4, and AQ-SC5.
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to the start of any ground disturbance, the project
owner shall submit the AQCMP to the CPM for approval. The CPM will notify the project
owner of any necessary modifications to the plan within 30 days from the date of
receipt. The AQCMP must be approved by the CPM before the start of ground
disturbance.
AQ-SC3 Construction Fugitive Dust Control: The AQCMM shall submit documentation
to the CPM in each Monthly Compliance Report (MCR) that demonstrates
compliance with the following mitigation measures for the purposes of
preventing all fugitive dust plumes from leaving the project site and linear
facility routes. Any deviation from the following mitigation measures shall
require prior CPM notification and approval.
a) All unpaved roads and disturbed areas in the project and laydown
construction/demolition sites shall be watered as frequently as necessary
to comply with the dust mitigation objectives of AQ-SC4. The frequency of
watering may be reduced or eliminated during periods of precipitation.
b) No vehicle shall exceed ten miles per hour on unpaved areas within the
project and laydown construction/demolition sites.
c) The construction/demolition site entrances shall be posted with visible
speed limit signs.
d) All construction/demolition equipment vehicle tires shall be inspected and
washed as necessary to be cleaned and free of dirt prior to entering paved
roadways.
e) Gravel ramps of at least 20 feet in length must be provided at the tire
washing/cleaning station.
f) All unpaved exits from the construction/demolition site shall be graveled
or treated to prevent track-out to public roadways.
g) All construction/demolition vehicles shall enter the construction/demolition
site through the treated entrance roadways, unless an alternative route has
been submitted to and approved by the CPM.
h) Construction/demolition areas adjacent to any paved roadway shall be
provided with sandbags or other measures as specified in the Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent runoff to roadways.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-2

Februrary 2015

  

i) All paved roads within the construction/demolition site shall be swept at
least twice daily (or less during periods of precipitation) on days when
construction/demolition activity occurs to prevent the accumulation of dirt
and debris.
j) At least the first 500 feet of any public roadway exiting the
construction/demolition site shall be swept visually clean, using wet
sweepers or air filtered dry vacuum sweepers, at least twice daily (or less
during periods of precipitation) on days when construction/demolition
activity occurs or on any other day when dirt or runoff from the
construction/demolition site is visible on the public roadways.
k) All soil storage piles and disturbed areas that remain inactive for longer
than ten days shall be covered or shall be treated with appropriate dust
suppressant compounds.
l) All vehicles that are used to transport solid bulk material on public
roadways and that have the potential to cause visible emissions shall be
provided with a cover or the materials shall be sufficiently wetted and
loaded onto the trucks in a manner to provide at least two feet of
freeboard.
m) Wind erosion control techniques (such as windbreaks, water, chemical
dust suppressants, and/or vegetation) shall be used on all
construction/demolition areas that may be disturbed. Any windbreaks
installed to comply with this condition shall remain in place until the soil is
stabilized or permanently covered with vegetation.
n) Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated as soon as practical.
o) Haul trucks used during the Encina Power Station demolition shall
be limited to traveling on paved or graveled surfaces at all times
within the boundary of the Encina Power Station property.
The fugitive dust requirements listed in this condition may be replaced with as
stringent or more stringent methods as required by SDAPCD Rule 55.
Verification:
The project owner shall include in the MCR: (1) a summary of all
actions taken to maintain compliance with this condition, (2) copies of any complaints
filed with the air district in relation to project construction/demolition, and (3) any other
documentation deemed necessary by the CPM and AQCMM to verify compliance with
this condition. Such information may be provided via electronic format or disk at the
project owner’s discretion.

February 2015

7-3

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

AQ-SC4 Dust Plume Response Requirement: The AQCMM or Delegate shall monitor
all construction/demolition activities for visible dust plumes. Observations of
visible dust plumes that have the potential to be transported: (1) off the
project site, or (2) 200 feet beyond the centerline of the construction of linear
facilities, (3) within 100 feet upwind of any regularly occupied structures not
owned by the project owner, or (4) within 50 feet upwind of the I-5 freeway
indicate that existing mitigation measures are not resulting in effective
mitigation. The AQCMM or Delegate shall implement the following procedures
for additional mitigation measures in the event that such visible dust plumes,
other than those occurring upwind of the I-5 Freeway, are observed:
Step 1: The AQCMM or Delegate shall direct more intensive application of the
existing mitigation methods within 15 minutes of making such a
determination.
Step 2: The AQCMM or Delegate shall direct implementation of additional
methods of dust suppression if Step 1 specified above fails to result in
adequate mitigation within 30 minutes of the original determination.
Step 3: The AQCMM or Delegate shall direct a temporary shutdown of the
activity causing the emissions if Step 2 specified above fails to result
in effective mitigation within one hour of the original determination.
The activity shall not restart until the AQCMM or Delegate is satisfied
that appropriate additional mitigation or other site conditions have
changed so that visual dust plumes will not result upon restarting the
shut-down source. The owner/operator may appeal to the CPM any
directive from the AQCMM or Delegate to shut down an activity,
provided that the shutdown shall go into effect within one hour of the
original determination, unless overruled by the CPM before that time.
The AQCMM or Delegate shall implement the following procedures for
additional mitigation measures in the event that such visible dust plumes
occurring within 50 feet upwind of the I-5 Freeway are observed:
Step 1: The AQCMM or Delegate shall immediately cease the activities
causing the visible dust plumes if any obscuration of visibility is
occurring to drivers on the I-5 freeway. The AQCMM or Delegate shall
direct more intensive application of the existing mitigation methods
immediately if the visible plumes are seen within 50 feet of the I-5
freeway but are not causing obscuration of visibility to drivers.
Step 2: The AQCMM or Delegate shall direct implementation of additional
methods of dust suppression and monitor the start-up and/or
continuation of the dust causing activities to ensure that the additional
mitigation is effective.
Step 3: The AQCMM or Delegate shall direct a temporary shutdown of the
activity causing the emissions if Step 2 specified above fails to result
in effective mitigation. The activity shall not restart until the AQCMM or
Delegate is satisfied that appropriate additional mitigation or other site

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-4

Februrary 2015

  

conditions have changed so that visual dust plumes that could impact
visibility on the I-5 Freeway will not occur upon restarting the shutdown fugitive dust source.
Verification:
The AQCMP shall include a section detailing how the additional
mitigation measures will be accomplished within the time limits or directions specified.
AQ-SC5 Diesel-Fueled Engine Control: The AQCMM shall submit to the CPM, in the
Monthly Compliance Report, a construction/demolition mitigation report that
demonstrates compliance with the AQCMP mitigation measures for purposes
of controlling diesel construction/demolition-related emissions. The following
off-road diesel construction/demolition equipment mitigation measures shall
be included in the Air Quality Construction Mitigation Plan (AQCMP) required
by AQ-SC2, and any deviation from the AQCMP mitigation measures shall
require prior CPM notification and approval.
a) All diesel-fueled engines used in the construction/demolition of the facility
shall have clearly visible tags issued by the on-site AQCMM showing that
the engine meets the conditions set forth herein.
b) All construction/demolition diesel engines with a rating of 50 hp or higher
shall meet, at a minimum, the Tier 34 or 4i California Emission Standards
for Off-Road Compression-Ignition Engines, as specified in California
Code of Regulations, Title 13, section 2423(b)(1), unless a good faith
effort to the satisfaction of the CPM that is certified by the on-site AQCMM
demonstrates that such engine is not available for a particular item of
equipment. In the event that a Tier 334 or 4i engine is not available for
any off-road equipment larger than 50 hp, that equipment shall be
equipped with a Tier 23 engine, or an engine that is equipped with retrofit
controls to reduce exhaust emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and diesel
particulate matter (DPM) to no more than Tier 3 levels unless certified by
engine manufacturers or the on-site AQCMM that the use of such devices
is not practical for specific engine types. For purposes of this condition,
the use of such devices is “not practical” for the following, as well as other,
reasons.
1. There is no available retrofit control device that has been verified by
either the California Air Resources Board or U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency to control the engine in question to Tier 23
equivalent emission levels and the highest level of available control
using retrofit or Tier 12 engines is being used for the engine in
question; or
2. The construction/demolition equipment is intended to be on site for
ten working days or less.
3. The CPM may grant relief from this requirement if the AQCMM can
demonstrate a good faith effort to comply with this requirement and
that compliance is not practical.
February 2015

7-5

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

c) The use of a retrofit control device may be terminated immediately,
provided that the CPM is informed within ten working days of the
termination and that a replacement for the equipment item in question
meeting the controls required in item “b” occurs within ten days of
termination of the use, if the equipment would be needed to continue
working at this site for more than 15 days after the use of the retrofit
control device is terminated, if one of the following conditions exists:
1. The use of the retrofit control device is excessively reducing the normal
availability of the construction/demolition equipment due to increased
down time for maintenance, and/or reduced power output due to an
excessive increase in back pressure.
2. The retrofit control device is causing or is reasonably expected to
cause engine damage.
3. The retrofit control device is causing or is reasonably expected to
cause a substantial risk to workers or the public.
4. Any other seriously detrimental cause which has the approval of the
CPM prior to implementation of the termination.
d) All heavy earth-moving equipment and heavy duty
construction/demolition-related trucks with engines meeting the
requirements of (b) above shall be properly maintained and the engines
tuned to the engine manufacturer’s specifications.
e) All diesel heavy construction/demolition equipment shall not idle for more
than five minutes. Vehicles that need to idle as part of their normal
operation (such as concrete trucks) are exempted from this requirement.
f) Construction/demolition equipment will employ electric motors when
feasible.
Verification:
The AQCMM shall include in a table in the Monthly Compliance
Report the following to demonstrate control of diesel construction/demolition-related
emissions:
A. A summary of all actions taken to control diesel construction/demolition-related
emissions;
B. A list of all heavy equipment used on site during that month, including the owner of
that equipment and a letter from each owner indicating that equipment has been
properly maintained; and
C. Any other documentation deemed necessary by the CPM, and the AQCMM to verify
compliance with this condition. Such information may be provided via electronic
format or disk at the project owner’s discretion.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-6

Februrary 2015

  

AQ-SC6 The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval any
project air permit modification proposed by the project owner to any project
air permit. The project owner shall submit to the CPM any modification to any
permit proposed by the District or U.S. EPA, and any revised permit issued by
the District or U.S. EPA, for the project.
Verification:
The project owner shall submit any proposed air permit modification to
the CPM within five working days of its submittal either by: 1) the project owner to an
agency, or 2) receipt of proposed modifications from an agency. The project owner shall
submit all modified air permits to the CPM within 15 days of receipt.
AQ-SC7 The project owner shall not conduct any on-site remediation of contaminated
soils at the project site, other than removal and transport.
Verification:
The project owner shall provide transportation and disposition records
of the contaminated soil removal and off-site remediation completion demonstrating
compliance with this condition as part of the applicable Monthly Compliance Report
(MCR) until the contaminated soil removal is complete.
AQ-SC8 The project owner shall submit to the CPM Quarterly Operation Reports,
following the end of each calendar quarter that include operational and
emissions information as necessary to demonstrate compliance with the
Conditionsconditions of Certificationcertification herein. The Quarterly
Operation Report will specifically state that the facility meets all applicable
conditions of certification or note or highlight all incidences of
noncompliance.
Verification:
The project owner shall submit the Quarterly Operation Reports to the
CPM and District, if requested by the District, no later than 30 days following the end of
each calendar quarter.
AQ-SC9 The gas turbines shall only be operated between the military time hours
of 0600 to 2400, except in the event of a California Independent System
Operator declared emergency.
Verification:
The project owner shall submit the Quarterly Operation Reports
to the CPM and District, if requested by the District, no later than 30 days
following the end of each calendar quarter that demonstrate the operating hours
and that provide documentation regarding declared emergency events when the
gas turbines are operated between the hours of 2400 and 0600, military time.
AQ-SC9 Only one combustion turbine shall undergo commissioning at a time.
Verification:
The project owner shall provide the CPM CEMS data demonstrating
compliance with this condition as part of the monthly commissioning status report
(AQ-80).

February 2015

7-7

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

AQ-SC10 The project owner shall provide emission reduction mitigation to offset the
project’s PM (based on PM2.5) and VOC NOx emission increases at a ratio
of 1:1. ThisThese emission reductions mitigation requirement isare based
on the following maximum annual emissions NOx emission increase for the
facility (tons/yr).
Emission Reduction Credits/Pollutant
PM10NOx
VOC
Total Tons

Tons/yr
21.567.6
8.4
16.0

Emission reductions can be provided using any one of the following methods
in the following order of preference of their use:
1. Additional enforceable emission reductions created at the Encina Power
Station site, such as the permanent shutdown of the Encina gas turbine
peaker.
12.The project owner can fund enforceable emission reductions through the
Carl Moyer Fund in the amount of $17,72016,000/ton, or the applicable
ARB Carl Moyer Program Guideline cost-effectiveness limitcap value, if
different, at the time of funding the emission reductions, for the total ton
quantity listed in the above table, minus any tons offset using the other
two listed methods, with an additional 20 percent administration fee to
fund the SDAPCD and/or other responsible local agencies with jurisdiction
within 25 miles of the project site to be used to find and fund local
emission reduction projects to the extent feasible. Emission reduction
projects funded by this method will be weighted for evaluation and
selection by the local administering agency, within the funding guideline
value of $17,72016,000/ton of reduction, or revised ARB Carl Moyer
Program Guideline cost-effectiveness limit value, if different at the
time of fundingcurrent funding guideline limit value, based on the
proximity of the emission reduction project and the relative health benefit
to the local community surrounding the project site. Emission reduction
project cost will not be a consideration for selection as long as the
emission reduction project is within the approved 20142008, or later year
as applicable, Carl Moyer funding guideline value,
23. The project owner can fund other existing public agency regulated
stationary or mobile source emission reduction programs or create a
project specific fund to be administered through the SDAPCD or other
local agency, which would provide enforceable surplus emission
reductions. This funding shall include appropriate administrative fees as
determined by the administering agency to obtain local emission
reductions to the extent feasible. The project owner shall be responsible
for demonstrating that the amount of such funding meets the emission
reduction requirements of this condition. Emission reduction projects

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-8

Februrary 2015

  

funding by this method will be weighted for evaluation and selection by
the local administering agency based on the proximity of the emission
reduction project and the relative health benefit to the local community
surrounding the project site.
4. 2.9 tons of PM10 ERCs currently owned by the project owner can be used
to partially offset the PM emissions increase.
35.ERC certificates from other emission reductions occurring in the San
Diego Air Basin can be purchased and used to offset NOx
emissionseach pollutant on a 1:1 offset ratio basis for NOx ERCs and
on a 2:1 offset ratio basis for VOC ERCs. only if local emission
reduction projects are clearly demonstrated to be unavailable using
methods 1 to 3 to meet the total emission reduction burden required by
this condition. ERCs can be used on an interpollutant basis for SOX for
PM10 and NOX for VOC, where the project owner will provide a letter from
the SDAPCD that indicates the District’s allowed interpollutant offset ratio,
or PM10 for SOX ERCs can be used on a 1:1 basis.
Carl Moyer or other emission reduction funding shall be provided to the
responsible agencies prior to the initiation of on-site construction activities.
The project owner shall work with the appropriate agencies to target emission
reduction projects in the project area to the extent feasible. Emission
reduction project selection information will be provided to the CPM for review
and comment. Unused administrative fees shall be used for additional
emission reduction program funding. ERC certificates, if used, will be
surrendered prior to first turbine fire.
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM confirmation that the
appropriate quantity of Carl Moyer Project or other emission reduction program funding
and/or ERCs have been provided prior to initiation of on-site construction activities for
emission reduction program funding and at least 30 days prior to turbine first fire for
ERCs. If ERCs are proposed to be used to offset all or part of the NOx emissions
offset requirements of this condition the project owner shall provide the list of
specific ERCs from the SDAPCD offset bank that are proposed to be used to the
CPM prior to initiation of construction activities and shall update that list within
10 days of known changes to the proposed ERC list. The project owner shall
provide emission reduction project selection information to the CPM for review and
approval at least 15 days prior to committing funds to each selected emission reduction
project. The project owner shall provide confirmation that the level of emission reduction
program funding will meet the emission reduction requirements of this condition.
AQ-SC11 The project owner shall develop and implement a Leak Detection and
Repair (LDAR) plan for the onsite natural gas compressors.

February 2015

7-9

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Verification:
The project owner shall provide the LDAR plan to the CPM for
review and approval at least 60 days prior to the start of installation of the natural
gas compressors. The LDAR plan shall follow the general procedures outlined in
the U.S. EPA’s “Leak Detection and Repair – A Best Practices Guide” document.
If requested the project owner shall provide records of the implementation of the
LDAR plan.
AQ-SC11 Prior to the start of construction, the Project Owner shall provide proof of US
EPA’s approval of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit for
CECP or certification that no such permit is required.
Verification:
The project owner shall provide a report of its progress toward
obtaining the PSD permit or the CPM CEMS data demonstrating compliance with this
condition as part of monthly compliance reports.
AQ-SC12 The project owner shall not allow the overlap of specific construction
and demolition phase activities. The following activities shall not be
conducted concurrently with any of the other listed activities:
1. ASTs 5, 6, and 7 demolition (licensed CECP activity)
2. ASTs 1, 2, and 4 demolition and berm removal (PTR described
activities).
3. Amended CECP construction (PTA described activities).
4. EPS demolition (PTA and Encina Power Station Demolition Plan
described activities).
In addition, the gas turbines initial commissioning activity and the EPS
demolition activity shall not be performed concurrently.
Verification:
The project owner shall identify the start and conclusion of the
work phases described above in the Monthly Compliance R reports.
AQ-SC13 The project owner shall not implode or fell any concrete or mortar
structure, such as the main exhaust stack or the power plant building,
during the demolition of the Encina Power Station.
Verification:
The project owner shall provide updates on the demolition
progress and the demolition methods used in the Monthly Compliance Reports.

District Preliminary Determination of Compliance Conditions
(SDAPCD 2014)
Changes in the District conditions and staff verifications are shown in bold/underline
and strikeout. Considering the change in the gas turbine types and that fact that the
District produced a new DOC rather than amending the old DOC, the District conditions
for the amended CECP have many conditions that are substantially changed. In that
case, an entirely new condition is provided in bold/underline and the entire District

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-10

Februrary 2015

  

condition for the licensed CECP that it is replacing is provided directly after in strikeout.
Any changes to these conditions that are provided in the District’s Final DOC will be
provided in the Supplement to the Air Quality section that will be published after receipt
of the Final DOC.
District Application Number 985745
Power block Unit #6 consisting of one nominal 208 MW (219 MW with steam
augmentation) natural-gas fired combined-cycle Siemens SGT6-PAC5000F
combustion turbine generator, serial number to be determined, with an ultra low NOX
(ULN) combustor, an evaporative inlet air cooler, a heat recovery steam generator with
a selective catalytic reduction unit, an oxidation catalyst, and a steam turbine generator
and associated air-cooled heat exchanger to condense the exhaust steam from the
steam turbine.
District Application Number 985747
Power block Unit #7 consisting of one nominal 208 MW (219 MW with steam
augmentation) natural-gas fired combined-cycle Siemens SGT6-PAC5000F
combustion turbine generator, serial number to be determined, with an ultra low NOX
(ULN) combustor, an evaporative inlet air cooler, a heat recovery steam generator with
a selective catalytic reduction unit, an oxidation catalyst, and a steam turbine generator
and associated air-cooled heat exchanger to condense the exhaust steam from the
steam turbine.

General Conditions
AQ-1

The equipment authorized to be constructed under this permit is
described in Application Nos. APCD2014-APP-003480, APCD2014-APP003481, APCD2014-APP-003482, APCD2014-APP-003483, APCD2014APP-003484,
APCD2014-APP-003485,
APCD2014-APP-003486,
APCD2014-APP-003487.

Verification:
The project owner shall provide copies of any applications to alter
the equipment or the permit conditions for the equipment covered by the permit
applications numbered above to the CPM within five days of sending such
applications to the District. The project owner shall make the site available for
inspection of equipment and records by representatives of the District, ARB, and
the Energy Commission.
AQ-2

The project owner shall cancel all applications for permits and/or retire
all permits to operate for all of the equipment authorized to be
constructed under this permit on or before the date construction
commences for any equipment authorized for construction under
Application Numbers APCD2007-APP-985745, APCD2007-APP-985747,
or APCD2007-APP-985748.

Verification:
This condition requires canceling the amended CECP permit
applications if the project owner decides to build the previously licensed CECP.
The project owner shall provide to the CPM documentation of the cancellation of
the 2014 permit applications, if the project approved under the 2007 permit

February 2015

7-11

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

applications is built, by the time any construction activity approved under the
2007 permit applications commences.
AQ-3

The project owner shall cancel permit Application Nos. APCD2007-APP985745, APCD2007-APP-985747, and APCD2007-APP-985748 on or
before the date construction commences for any equipment authorized
for construction under this permit.

Verification:
This condition requires canceling the previously licensed CECP
permit application if the project owner decides to build the amended CECP. The
project owner shall provide to the CPM documentation of the cancellation of the
2007 permit applications, if the project approved under the 2014 permit
applications is built, by the time any construction activity approved under the
2014 permit applications commences.
AQ-14

This equipment shall be properly maintained and kept in good operating
condition at all times and, to the extent practicable, the project owner shall
maintain and operate the equipment and any associated air pollution control
equipment in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices for
minimizing emissions. [Rule 21 and 40 CFR §60.11]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-25

The project owner shall operate the project in accordance with all data and
specifications submitted with the application under which this license is issued
and District Application Nos. 2014-APP-003480, 2014-APP-003481, 2014APP-003482, 2014-APP-003483, 2014-APP-003484, 2014-APP-003485,
2014-APP-003486, and 2014-APP-003487. [Rule 14]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-5

Prior to the earlier of the initial startup dates for either of the two combustion
turbines, the project owner shall surrender to the District Class A Emission
Reduction Credits (ERCs) in an amount equivalent to 47.9 tons per year of
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) to offset the net maximum allowable increase of 39.9
tons per year of NOX emissions for the two combustion turbines and the
emergency fire pump engine described in District Application Nos. 985745,
985747, and 985748. [Rule 20.3(d)(8)]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM, within 15 days of ERC
surrender to the District, information demonstrating compliance with this condition.
AQ-36

The project owner shall provide access, facilities, utilities, and any necessary
safety equipment, with the exception of personal protective equipment
requiring individual fitting and specialized training, for source testing and
inspection upon request of the Air Pollution Control District. [Rule 19]

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-12

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
The project owner shall provide facilities, utilities, and safety equipment
for source testing and inspections upon request of the District, ARB, and the Energy
Commission.
AQ-47

The project owner shall obtain any necessary District permits for all ancillary
combustion equipment including emergency engines, prior to on-site delivery
of the equipment. [Rule 10]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit any proposed air permit modification to
the CPM within five working days of its submittal either by 1) the project owner to an
agency, or 2) receipt of proposed modifications from an agency. The project owner shall
submit all modified air permits to the CPM within 15 days of receipt.
AQ-68

A rolling 12-calendar-month period is one of a series of successive
consecutive 12-calendar-month periods. The initial 12-month-calendar period
of such a series shall begin on the first day of the month in which the
applicable beginning date for that series occurs as specified in this permit.
[Rule 20.3 (d)(3), Rule 20.3(d)(8) and Rule 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission. None
required.
AQ-79

Pursuant to 40 CFR §72.30(b)(2)(ii) of the Federal Acid Rain Program, the
project owner shall submit an application for a Title IV Operating Permit at
least 24 months prior to the initial startup of the combustion turbines. [40 CFR
Part 72]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM copies of the acid rain
permit application within five working days of its submittal by the project owner to the
District.
AQ-810

The project owner shall comply with all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part
73, including requirements to offset, hold and retire sulfur dioxide (SO2)
allowances. [40 CFR Part 73]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM and the District the
combustion turbine generator (CTG) annual SO2 emission totaloperating data and
SO2 allowance information demonstrating compliance with all applicable provisions of
40 CFR 73 as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-911

All records required by this permit shall be maintained on site for a minimum
of five years and made available to the District upon request. [Rule 1421]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.

February 2015

7-13

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

AQ-12

The fire pump and emergency diesel engines shall not be operated for
maintenance and testing purposes at the same time that any
combustion turbine is operating during a commissioning period. [Rule
20.3(d)(2)]

Verification:
The project owner shall maintain records of the fire-pump and
emergency diesel engine operation during the combustion turbine initial
commissioning period that shows compliance with this condition and shall
provide that data with the Monthly Compliance Reports required during any
commissioning period.

Combustion Turbine Conditions
District Application Number 2014-APP-003482
Unit #6: One nominal 104 MW natural-gas-fired simple-cycle General Electric LMS
100 PA combustion turbine generator with demineralized water injection, S/N
TBD; maximum heat input of 984 MMBtu/hr (HHV) at average site-specific ambient
conditions; an inlet-air evaporative cooler; combustion turbine exhaust ducted to
an oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system with
aqueous ammonia injection.
District Application Number 2014-APP-003483
Unit #7: One nominal 104 MW natural–gas-fired simple-cycle General Electric LMS
100 PA combustion turbine generator with demineralized water injection, S/N
TBD; maximum heat input of 984 MMBtu/hr (HHV) at average site-specific ambient
conditions; an inlet-air evaporative cooler; combustion turbine exhaust ducted to
an oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system with
aqueous ammonia injection.
District Application Number 2014-APP-003484
Unit #8: One nominal 104 MW natural-gas-fired simple-cycle General Electric LMS
100 PA combustion turbine generator with demineralized water injection, S/N
TBD; maximum heat input of 984 MMBtu/hr (HHV) at average site-specific ambient
conditions; an inlet-air evaporative cooler; combustion turbine exhaust ducted to
an oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system with
aqueous ammonia injection.
District Application Number 2014-APP-003485
Unit #9: One nominal 104 MW natural-gas-fired simple-cycle General Electric LMS
100 PA combustion turbine generator with demineralized water injection, S/N
TBD; maximum heat input of 984 MMBtu/hr (HHV) at average site-specific ambient
conditions; an inlet-air evaporative cooler; combustion turbine exhaust ducted to
an oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system with
aqueous ammonia injection.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-14

Februrary 2015

  

District Application Number 2014-APP-003486
Unit #10: One nominal 104 MW natural-gas-fired simple-cycle General Electric
LMS 100 PA combustion turbine generator with demineralized water injection, S/N
TBD; maximum heat input of 984 MMBtu/hr (HHV) at average site-specific ambient
conditions; an inlet-air evaporative cooler; combustion turbine exhaust ducted to
an oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system with
aqueous ammonia injection.
District Application Number 2014-APP-003487
Unit #11: One nominal 104 MW natural-gas-fired simple-cycle General Electric
LMS 100 PA combustion turbine generator with demineralized water injection, S/N
TBD; maximum heat input of 984 MMBtu/hr (HHV) at average site-specific ambient
conditions; an inlet-air evaporative cooler; combustion turbine exhaust ducted to
an oxidation catalyst and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system with
aqueous ammonia injection.

DEFINITIONS
AQ-1013 For purposes of determining compliance with the emission limits of this
permit, a shutdown period is the 13 minute period preceding the moment
at which fuel flow ceases. period of time that begins with the lowering of the
gross electrical output (load) of the combustion turbine below 114 megawatts
(MW) and that ends five minutes after fuel flow to the combustion turbine
ceases, not to exceed 35 consecutive minutes. [Rule 20.3 (d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM the CTG shutdown event
duration data demonstrating compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly
Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-1114 A startup period is the period of time that begins when fuel flows to the
combustion turbine following a non-operational period. For purposes of
determining compliance with the emission limits of this permit, the duration of
a startup period shall not exceed 2560 consecutive minutes. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM the CTG startup event
duration data demonstrating compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly
Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-1215 A non-operational period is any five-consecutive-minute period when fuel
does not flow to the combustion turbine. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-13

Tuning is defined as adjustments to the combustion or emission control
system that involves operating the combustion turbine or emission control
system in a manner such that the emissions control equipment may not be
fully effective or operational. Only one gas turbine shall be tuned at any given
time. Tuning events shall not exceed 720 unit operating minutes in a calendar

February 2015

7-15

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

day nor exceed 40 hours in a calendar year for each turbine. The District
compliance division shall be notified at least 24 hours in advance of any
tuning event. For purposes of this condition, the number of hours of tuning in
a calendar year is defined as the total unit operating minutes of tuning during
the calendar year divided by 60. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall notify the District and CPM at least 24 hours in
advance of any tuning event. The project owner shall submit to the CPM the CTG
operating data demonstrating compliance with tuning limitations identified in this
condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-1416 A Continuous Emission Monitoring System (CEMS) protocol is a document
approved in writing by the District that describes the methodology and quality
assurance and quality control procedures for monitoring, calculating, and
recording stack emissions from the combustion turbine that is monitored by
the CEMS. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
KKKK, and 40 CFR Part 75]
Verification:
The project owner shall maintain a copy of the CEMS protocol on site
and provide it for inspection on request by representatives of the District, ARB, and the
Energy Commission.
AQ-15

A transient hour is a clock hour during which the change in gross electrical
output produced by the combustion turbine exceeds 50 MW per minute for
one minute or longer during any period that is not part of a startup or
shutdown period. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-1617 For each combustion turbine, the commissioning period is the period of time
commencing with the initial startup of that turbine and ending the sooner of
120 calendar days from the initial startup, after 213415 hours of turbine
operation, or the date the project owner notifies the District the commissioning
period has ended. For purposes of this condition, the number of hours of
turbine operation is defined as the total unit operating minutes during the
commissioning period divided by 60. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide commissioning event data that
shows compliance with the commissioning period operation limits for each
combustion turbine in the Monthly Compliance Reports and shall make the site
available for inspection of records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the
Energy Commission.
AQ-17

For each combustion turbine, the shakedown period is the period of time
commencing with the initial startup that turbine and ending the sooner of 180
calendar days from the initial startup or the date the project owner notifies the
District that the shakedown period has ended. [Rules 20.1(c)(16) and 21]

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-16

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-18

Turbine A is the combustion turbine as described on Applications No. 985745
or No. 985747, as applicable, that first completes its shakedown period. If
both turbines complete their shakedown period on the same date, then
Turbine A is the turbine described on Application No. 985745. [Rules
20.1(c)(16) and 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-2118 For each combustion turbine, a unit operating day, hour, and minute mean
the following:
a) A unit operating day means any calendar day in which the turbine
combusts fuel.
b) A unit operating hour means any clock hour in which the turbine combusts
fuel.
c) A unit operating minute means any clock minute in which the turbine
combusts fuel and any clock minute that is part of a shutdown period.
[Rule 21, 40 CFR Part 75, Rule 20.3(d)(1), 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission. None
required.
AQ-19

Turbine B is the combustion turbine as described on Applications No. 985745
or No. 985747, as applicable, that last completes its shakedown period. If
both turbines complete their shakedown period on the same date, then
Turbine B is the turbine described on Application No. 985747. [Rules
20.1(c)(16) and 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-20

Low load operation is a period of time that begins when the gross electrical
output (load) of the combustion turbine is reduced below 114 MW and that
ends 10 consecutive minutes after the combustion turbine load exceeds 114
MW, provided that fuel is continuously combusted during the entire period
and one or more clock hour concentration emission limits specified in this
permit are exceeded as a result of the low-load operation. For each
combustion turbine, periods of operation at low load shall not exceed 130 unit
operating minutes in any calendar day nor an aggregate of 780 unit operating
minutes in any calendar year. No low load operation period shall begin during
a startup period. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]

February 2015

7-17

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM the gas turbine operating
data demonstrating compliance with this condition on request and shall make the site
available for inspection of records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the
Energy Commission.

GENERAL CONDITIONS
AQ-2219 The exhaust stacks for each combustion turbine shall be at least 90139 feet
in height above site base elevation, and with an interior exhaust stack
diameter of no more than 13.5 feet at the point of release unless it is
demonstrated to the District that all requirements of District rules 20.3
and 1200 are satisfied with a different stack configuration. [Rules
20.3(d)(2) and 1200]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review the exhaust
stack specification at least 60 days before the installation initial construction of the
stack.
AQ-2320 The combustion turbines shall be fired on Public Utility Commission (PUC)
quality natural gas. The project owner shall maintain, on site, quarterly
records of the natural gas sulfur content (grains of sulfur compounds per 100
dscf of natural gas) and hourly records of the higher and lower heating values
(btu/scf) of the natural gas; and provide records to District personnel upon
request. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)] Natural gas sulfur content records must be kept
with a minimum reporting limit of 0.25 grains sulfur compounds per 100
dscf of natural gas. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit the quarterly fuel sulfur content values
in the in the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8) and make the site available for
inspection of records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy
Commission.
AQ-2421 Unless otherwise specified in this permit, all continuous monitoring data shall
be collected at least once every minute. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission. None
required.

EMISSION LIMITS
AQ-2522 For purposes of determining compliance with emission limits based on source
testing, the average of three subtests shall be used. For purposes of
determining compliance with emission limits based on a Continuous Emission
Monitoring System (CEMS), data collected in accordance with the CEMS
protocol shall be used and the averages for averaging periods specified
herein shall be calculated as specified in the CEMS protocol. [Rules 69.3,
69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR Part
75]
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-18

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
Source tests demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be
provided to the CPM and are due within the timeframes specified in Conditions AQ-53
and AQ-54. CEMS data summaries shall be submitted to the CPM as part of the
Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-2623 For purposes of determining compliance with emission limits based on CEMS
data, all CEMS calculations, averages, and aggregates shall be performed in
accordance with the CEMS protocol approved in writing by the District. [Rules
69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR
Part 75]
Verification:
CEMS data summaries shall be submitted to the CPM as part of the
Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-2724 For each emission limit expressed as pounds, pounds per hour, or parts per
million based on a one-hour or less averaging period or compliance period,
compliance shall be based on using data collected at least once every minute
when compliance is based on CEMS data except as specified in the
District approved CEMS Protocol. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
CEMS data summaries shall be submitted to the CPM as part of the
Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-2825 When a combustion turbine is combusting fuel (operating), the emission
concentration of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), calculated as nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), shall not exceed 2.52.0 parts per million by volume on a dry basis
(ppmvd) corrected to 15% percent oxygen averaged over a one-clock-hour
period, except during commissioning, low load operation, startup, and
shutdown, or tuning periods for that turbine. For purposes of determining
compliance based on CEMS data, the following averaging periods calculated
in accordance with the CEMS protocol shall apply:
a. For any transient hour, a 3-clock hour average, calculated as the average
of the transient hour, the clock hour immediately prior to the transient hour
and the clock hour immediately following the transient hour.
b. For all other hours, a 1-clock hour average.
[Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-2926 When a combustion turbine is operating, the emission concentration of
carbon monoxide (CO) shall not exceed 4.02.0 ppmvd corrected to 15
percent oxygen, averaged over a one-clock-hour period, except during
commissioning, low load operation, startup, and shutdown, or tuning periods
for that turbine. For purposes of determining compliance based on CEMS
data, the following averaging periods calculated in accordance with the CEMS
protocol shall apply:

February 2015

7-19

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

a. For any transient hour, a 3-clock-hour average, calculated as the average
of the transient hour, the clock hour immediately prior to the transient hour
and the clock hour immediately following the transient hour.
b. For all other hours, a 1-clock-hour average.
[Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-3027 When a combustion turbine is operating, the volatile organic compound
(VOC) concentration, calculated as methane, measured in the exhaust stack,
shall not exceed 1.5 ppmvd corrected to 15 percent oxygen and averaged
over a one-clock-hour period, except during commissioning, low load
operation, startup, and shutdown, or tuning periods for that turbine. For
purposes of determining compliance based on the CEMS, the District
approved CO/VOC surrogate relationship, and the CO CEMS data, averaged
over a one-clock-hour period, and the following averaging periods
calculated in accordance with the CEMS protocol shall be used:
a. For any transient hour, a 3-clock-hour average, calculated as the average
of the transient hour, the clock hour immediately prior to the transient hour
and the clock hour immediately following the transient hour.
b. For all other hours, a 1-clock-hour average.
The CO/VOC surrogate relationship shall be verified and/or modified, if
necessary, based on source testing. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide the CEMS data, using the appropriate
CO/VOC surrogate relationship, to demonstrate compliance with this condition as part
of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-3128 When a combustion turbine is operating, the ammonia concentration
(ammonia slip), shall not exceed 5.0 ppmvd corrected to 15 percent oxygen
and averaged over a one-clock-hour period, except during commissioning,
low load operation, startup, and shutdown, or tuning periods for that turbine.
[Rule 1200]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide the estimated ammonia concentrations
and ammonia emissions based on the annual source test data, the CEMS data and
SCR ammonia flow data to demonstrate compliance with this condition as part of the
Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-3429 When a combustion turbine is operating, the emission concentration of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX), calculated as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) shall not exceed 42
ppmvd calculated over each clock-hour period and corrected to 15 percent
oxygen, on a dry basis, except forduring periods of startup and shutdown, as
defined in Rule 69.3. This limit does not apply during any period in which the

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-20

Februrary 2015

  

facility is subject to a variance from the emission limits contained in Rule 69.3.
[Rule 69.3]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-3230 When a combustion turbine is operating with post-combustion air pollution
control equipment that controls oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions, the
emission concentration of NOX, calculated as nitrogen dioxide (NO2), shall not
exceed 13.612.9 ppmvd calculated over each clock-hour period and corrected
to 15 percent oxygen, except for periods of startup and shutdown, as defined
in Rule 69.3.1. This limit does not apply during any period in which the facility
is subject to a variance from the emission limits contained in Rule 69.3.1.
[Rule 69.3.1]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-3331 When a combustion turbine is operating without any post-combustion air
pollution control equipment that controls oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions,
the emission concentration of NOX calculated as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from
each turbine shall not exceed 22.621.6 parts per million by volume on a dry
basis (ppmvd) calculated over each clock-hour period and corrected to 15
percent oxygen, except for periods of startup and shutdown, as defined in
Rule 69.3.1. This limit does not apply during any period in which the facility is
subject to a variance from the emission limits contained in Rule 69.3.1. [Rule
69.3.1]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-3532 For each rolling four unit operating hour period, average emission
concentration of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) for each turbine calculated as
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in parts per million by volume dry (ppmvd)
corrected to 15 percent oxygen or, alternatively, as elected by the
project owner, the average NOx emission rate in pounds per megawatthour (lb/MWh) shall not exceed an average emission limit calculated in
accordance with 40 CFR Section 60.4380(b)(3). The emission
concentration and emission rate averages shall be calculated in
accordance with 40 CFR Section 60.4380(b)(1). The average emission
concentration limit and emission rate limit shall be based on an average
of hourly emission limits over the four unit operating hour period
including the operating-hour and three unit operating-hours
immediately preceding. For any unit operating hour where multiple
emission standards would apply based on load of the turbine, the
applicable standard shall be the higher of the two limits. The hourly
emission concentration limit and emission rate limit shall be as follows
based on the load of the turbine over the four unit operating hour
period:
February 2015

7-21

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Case Emission Limit, ppm

Emission Limit, lb/MWh

i. All four hrs at or above 75% Load

15

0.43

ii. All four hrs below 75% Load

96

4.7

iii. Combination of hrs (a x 15+b x 96)/4

(a x 0.43+b x 4.7)/4

Where: a = no. unit operating hrs in four-hr-period with all operation
above 75% load and b = 4-a.
The averages shall exclude all clock hours occurring before the Initial
Emission Source Test but shall include emissions during all other times
that the equipment is operating including, but not limited to, emissions
during startup and shutdown periods. For each six-calendar-month
period, emissions in excess of these limits and monitor downtime shall
be identified in accordance with 40 CFR Sections 60.4350 and
60.4380(b)(2), except that Section 60.4350(c) shall not apply for
identifying periods in excess of a NOx concentration limit. For the
purposes of this condition, unit operating hours shall have the meaning
as defined in 40 CFR 60.4420. [40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK]
For each rolling 30-day-unit-operating-day period, average emission
concentration of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for each turbine calculated as
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in parts per million by volume dry (ppmvd) corrected to
15 percent oxygen or, alternatively, as elected by the project owner, the
average NOX emission rate in pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh) shall not
exceed an average emission limit calculated in accordance with 40 CFR
Section 60.4380(b)(3). The emission concentration and emission rate
averages shall be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR Section
60.4380(b)(1). The average emission concentration limit and emission rate
limit shall be based on an average of hourly emission limits over the 30-dayunit-operating-day period. The hourly emission concentration limit and
emission rate limit shall be15 ppmvd corrected to 15 percent oxygen and 0.43
lb/MWh, respectively, for clock hours when the combustion turbine load is
equal to or greater than 156 megawatts at all times during the clock hour,
respectively, and 96 ppmvd corrected to 15 percent oxygen and 4.7 lb/MWh
for all other clock hours when the combustion turbine is operating,
respectively. The averages shall exclude all clock hours occurring before the
Initial Emission Source Test but shall include emissions during all other times
that the equipment is operating including, but not limited to, emissions during
low load operation, startup, shutdown, and tuning periods. For each sixcalendar-month period, emissions in excess of these limits and monitor
downtime shall be identified in accordance with 40 CFR Sections 60.4350
and 60.4380(b)(2), except that Section 60.4350(c) shall not apply for
identifying periods in excess of a NOX concentration limit, and reported to the
District and the federal EPA in accordance with Title V Operating Permit No.
974488. [40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK]

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-22

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-3633 The emissions of particulate matter less than or equal to ten microns in
diameter (PM10) shall not exceed 5.09.5 pounds per hour for each
combustion turbine. [Rule 20.3(d)(1),(2)]
Verification:
Source tests demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be
provided to the CPM and are due within the timeframes specified in Conditions AQ-53
and AQ-54.
AQ-34

The emissions of particulate matter less than or equal to ten microns in
diameter (PM10) shall not exceed 3.5 pounds per hour per turbine,
averaged over all six combustion turbines, calculated as the arithmetic
average of the most recent source test for each turbine. [Rule
20.3(d)(1),(2)]

Verification:
Source tests demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be
provided to the CPM and are due within the timeframes specified in Conditions AQ-53
and AQ-54.
AQ-3735 The discharge of particulate matter from the exhaust stack of each
combustion turbine shall not exceed 0.10 grains per dry standard cubic foot
(0.23 grams/dscm). The District may require periodic testing to verify
compliance with this standard. [Rule 53]
Verification:
Source tests demonstrating compliance with this condition shall be
provided to the CPM and are due within the timeframes specified in Conditions AQ-53
and AQ-54.
AQ-3836 Visible emissions from the lube oil vents and the exhaust stack of each
combustion turbine shall not exceed 20 percent opacity for more than three
minutes in any period of 60 consecutive minutes. [Rule 50]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-3937 Mass emissions from each combustion turbine of oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
calculated as NO2; carbon monoxide (CO); and volatile organic compounds
(VOC), calculated as methane, shall not exceed the following limits, except
during commissioning, low load operation, startup, and shutdown
operations, or tuning periods for that turbine. A one-clock-hour averaging
period for these limits shall apply to CEMS data. except for emissions during
transient hours when a 3-clock-hour averaging period shall apply. [Rule
20.3(d)(2)]

February 2015

7-23

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Pollutant

Emission Limit, lb

a) NOX

9.115.1

b) CO

8.89.2

c) VOC

2.54.0

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM operating data
demonstrating compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports
(AQ-SC8).
AQ-4038 Excluding any minutes that are coincident with a shutdown period, cumulative
mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), calculated as NO2; carbon
monoxide (CO); and volatile organic compounds (VOC), calculated as
methane, during a combustion turbine’s startup period shall not exceed the
following limits during any startup period, except during that turbine’s
commissioning period. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Pollutant

Emission Limit, lb

a) NOX

14.769.2

b) CO

7.4545

c) VOC

2.015.5

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM operating data
demonstrating compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports
(AQ-SC8).
AQ-4139 Cumulative mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), calculated as NO2;
carbon monoxide (CO); and volatile organic compounds (VOC), calculated as
methane, during a combustion turbine’s shutdown period shall not exceed the
following limits during any shutdown period, except during that turbine’s
commissioning period. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]
Pollutant

Emission Limit, lb

a) NO

0.625.7

b) CO

3.4277

c) VOC

2.46.2

Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-4240 The oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from each combustion turbine shall
not exceed 90200 pounds per hour and total aggregate NOX emissions from
both combustion turbines combined shall not exceed 286 pounds per hour,
calculated as nitrogen dioxide and measured over each 1-clock hour
period.calculated as nitrogen dioxide and measured over each one-

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-24

Februrary 2015

  

clock-hour period. In addition, the emission concentration of NOx
calculated as nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from each turbine shall not exceed
100 parts per million by volume on a dry basis (ppmvd) calculated over
each clock-hour period and corrected to 15 percent oxygen. These
emission limits shall apply during all times one or botha turbines are is
operating, including, but not limited to, emissions during commissioning, low
load operation, startup, and shutdown, and tuning periods. [Rule 20.3(d)(2)]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-4341 The carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from each combustion turbine shall not
exceed 2483813 pounds per hour and total aggregate CO emissions from
both combustion turbines combined shall not exceed 4627 pounds per hour
measured over each 1-clock hour period.measured over each 1-clock-hour
period. In addition, the emission concentration of CO from each turbine
shall not exceed 400 parts per million by volume on a dry basis (ppmvd)
calculated over each clock-hour period and corrected to 15 percent
oxygen. This emission limit shall apply during all times that one or both a
turbines are is operating, including, but not limited to, emissions during
commissioning, low load operation, startup, and shutdown, and tuning
periods. [Rule 20.3(d)(2)(i)]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide CEMS emissions data to demonstrate
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-42

Beginning with the earlier of the initial startup dates for either combustion
turbine, aggregate emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), calculated as
nitrogen dioxide (NO2); carbon monoxide (CO); volatile organic compounds
(VOCs), calculated as methane; particulate matter less than or equal to 10
microns in diameter (PM10); and oxides of sulfur (SOX), calculated as sulfur
dioxide (SO2), from the combustion turbines described in District Applications
No. 985745 and 985747 and the emergency fire pump described in
Application No. 985748, except emissions or emission units excluded from
the calculation of aggregate potential to emit as specified in Rule 20.1 (d) (1),
shall not exceed the following limits for each rolling 12-calendar-month period:
Total emissions from the equipment authorized to be constructed under
this permit, except emissions or emission units excluded from the
calculation of aggregate potential to emit as specified in Rule 20.1 (d)
(1), shall not exceed the following limits for each rolling 12-calendarmonth period, beginning with the 12-calendar-month period beginning
with the month in which the earliest initial startup among the equipment
authorized to be constructed under this permit occurs:

February 2015

7-25

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Pollutant

Emission Limit, tons per year

a) NOX

84.872.11

b) CO

77.8339.9

c) VOC

24.123.7

d) PM10

28.439.0

e) SOX (calculated as SO2)

5.6

In addition, beginning with the date on which both turbines have
completed their commissioning periods aggregate emissions of CO and
VOC from the equipment specified above in this condition shall not
exceed 217.3 and 20.1 tons per year, respectively, for each rolling 12calendar-month period.
The aggregate emissions of each pollutant shall include emissions during all
times that the equipment is operating. All calculations performed to show
compliance with this limit shall be performed according to a protocol
approved in advance by the District. including, but not limited to, emissions
during commissioning, low load operation, startup, shutdown, and tuning
periods. [Rules 20.3(d)(3)(2), 20.3(d)(5), 20.3(d)(8) and 21]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM and the District the facility
annual operating and emissions data demonstrating compliance with this condition as
part of the fourth quarter’s Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-43

Total emissions from each combustion turbine shall not exceed 14.3
tons per year of NOx calculated as nitrogen dioxide and shall not
exceed 4.73 tons per year of PM10. For the purposes of this condition
emissions shall be calculated on a rolling 12-calendar month basis
beginning with the calendar month in which the initial start of the
turbines occurs. All calculations performed to show compliance with
this limit shall be performed according to a protocol approved in
advance by the District.

Verification:
The project owner shall provide emissions summary data in
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQSC8). The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of records by
representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-44

Total emissions from the equipment permitted under APCD2003-PTO001267, APCD2003-PTO-000791, APCD2003-PTO-000792, APCD2003PTO-000793, APCD2003-PTO-001770 and APCD2003-PTO-005238 shall
not exceed any of the following limits in quantities and according to the
schedule based on the number of turbines that have undergone their
initial startup as described in the following table:
Number of Turbines Started

NOx (ton/yr)

One gas turbine
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

No Limit
7-26

PM10 (ton/yr)
No Limit
Februrary 2015

  

Total of two gas turbines

56.4

No Limit

Total of three gas turbines

42.2

No Limit

Total of four gas turbines

28.1

38.5

Total of five gas turbines

13.9

33.8

Total of six gas turbines

0.0

29.1

For the purposes of this condition, emissions shall be calculated on a
rolling 12-calendar-month basis beginning with the calendar month in
which 180 days has passed since the latest initial start from among the
indicated number of turbines. All calculations performed to show
compliance with this limit shall be performed according to a protocol
approved in advance by the District.
Verification:
This condition requires the existing Encina boilers and turbine to
cease operations once the amended CECP is operational. The project owner shall
provide emissions summary data in compliance with this condition as part of the
Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8). The project owner shall make the site
available for inspection of records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the
Energy Commission.
AQ-4545 For each calendar month and each rolling 12-calendar-month period,, the
project owner shall maintain records, as applicable, on a calendar monthly
basis, of mass emissions during each calendar month and rolling 12calendar-month period of NOX (calculated as NO2), CO, VOCs (calculated
as methane), PM10, and SOX (calculated as SO2), in tons, from each
emission unit located at this stationary source described in District
Applications No. 985745, 985747, and 985748 , except for emissions or
emission units excluded from the calculation of aggregate potential to emit as
specified in Rule 20.1 (d) (1). These records shall be made available for
inspection within 15 calendar days after the end of each calendar month.
[Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8) and 21]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide emissions summary data in
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of records by
representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-46

For each combustion turbine, the number of annual operating hours in
each calendar year shall not exceed 2,700. For the purposes of this
condition, the number of operating hours shall be calculated as the total
number of unit operating minutes divided by 60. [Rules 1200, 20.3(d)(2)
and 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit facility annual operating data
demonstrating compliance with this condition as part of the fourth quarter’s
Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).

February 2015

7-27

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

AQ-46

For each calendar month and each rolling 12-calendar-month period, the
project owner shall maintain records as applicable, on a calendar monthly
basis, of aggregate mass emissions of NOX (calculated as NO2), CO, VOCs
(calculated as methane), PM10, and SOX (calculated as SO2) in tons for the
emission units described in District Applications No. 985745, 985747, and
985748, except for emissions or emission units excluded from the calculation
of aggregate potential to emit as specified in Rule 20.1 (d) (1). These records
shall be made available for inspection within 15 calendar days after the end of
each calendar month. [Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8) and 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall provide emissions summary data in
compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of records by
representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-47

For each combustion turbine, the number of startup periods occurring in each
calendar year shall not exceed 4001460. [Rules 1200 , 20.3(d)(2) and 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit facility annual operating data
demonstrating compliance with this condition as part of the fourth quarter’s Quarterly
Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).

Ammonia – SCR
AQ-48

Not later than 90 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the project
owner shall submit to the District the final selection, design parameters and
details of the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and oxidation catalyst
emission control systems for the combustion turbines including, but not
limited to, the minimum ammonia injection temperature for the SCR; the
catalyst volume, catalyst material, catalyst manufacturer, space velocity
and area velocity at full load with and without steam injection; and control
efficiencies of the SCR and the oxidation catalyst CO at temperatures
between 100 °F and 1,000 °F at space velocities corresponding to 100
percent (with steam injection) and 2560 percent load. Such information may
be submitted to the District as trade secret and confidential pursuant to
District Rules 175 and 176. [Rules 20.3(d)(1) and 14]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and District for
approval final selection, design parameters and details of the SCR and oxidation
catalyst emission control systems at least 90 days prior to the start of construction.
AQ-49

When a combustion turbine is operating, ammonia shall be injected at all
times that the associated selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system outlet
temperature is 540450 degrees Fahrenheit or greater. [Rule 20.3 (d)(1)]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-28

Februrary 2015

  

AQ-50

Continuous monitors shall be installed on each SCR system prior to their
initial operation to monitor or calculate, and record the ammonia solution
injection rate in pounds per hour and the SCR outlet temperature in degrees
Fahrenheit for each unit operating minute. The monitors shall be installed,
calibrated and maintained in accordance with a District approved protocol,
which may be part of the CEMS protocol. This protocol, which shall include
the calculation methodology, shall be submitted to the District for written
approval at least 90 days prior to initial startup of the gas turbines with the
SCR system. The monitors shall be in full operation at all times when the
turbine is in operation. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval a turbine operation monitoring protocol in compliance with this condition at
least 90 days prior to the initial startup.
AQ-51

Except during periods when the ammonia injection system is being tuned or
one or more ammonia injection systems is in manual control for compliance
with applicable permit conditions, the automatic ammonia injection system
serving the SCR system shall be in operation in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications at all times when ammonia is being injected into
the SCR system. Manufacturer specifications shall be maintained on site and
made available to District personnel upon request. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-52

The concentration of ammonia solution used in the ammonia injection system
shall be less than 20 percent ammonia by weight. Records of ammonia
solution concentration shall be maintained on site and made available to
District personnel upon request. [Rule 14]

Verification:
The project owner shall maintain on site and provide on request of the
CPM or District the ammonia delivery records that demonstrate compliance with this
condition.
Testing witnessed by the District, a proposed test protocol shall be submitted to
the District for written approval at least 60 days prior to source testing.
Additionally, the District shall be notified a minimum of 30 days prior to the test
so that observers may be present unless otherwise authorized in writing by the
District. [Rules 20.3(d)(1) and 1200 and 40 CFR Part60 Subpart KKKK and 40 CFR
AQ-53

All source test or other tests required by this permit/license shall be
performed by the District or an independent contractor approved by the
District. Unless otherwise specified in this permit or authorized in writing by
the District, if testing will be performed by an independent contractor and
witnessed by the District, a proposed test protocol shall be submitted to the
District for written approval at least 60 days prior to source testing.
Additionally, the District shall be notified a minimum of 30 days prior to the
test so that observers may be present unless otherwise authorized in writing

February 2015

7-29

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

by the District. [Rules 20.3(d)(1) and 1200 and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK
and 40 CFR §60.8]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval the initial source test protocol at least 60 days prior to the initial source test.
The project owner shall notify the CPM and District no later than 30 days prior to the
proposed source test date and time.
AQ-54

Unless otherwise specified in this permit or authorized in writing by the
District, within 45 days after completion of a source test or RATA performed
by an independent contractor, a final test report shall be submitted to the
District for review and approval. [Rules 20.3(d)(1) and 1200 and 40 CFR Part
60 Subpart KKKK, 40 CFR §60.8, and 40 CFR Part 75]

Verification:
The project owner will submit all RATA or source test reports to the
CPM for review and the District for approval within 45 days of the completion of those
tests.
AQ-55

The exhaust stacks for each combustion turbine shall be equipped with
source test ports and platforms to allow for the measurement and collection of
stack gas samples consistent with all approved test protocols. The ports and
platforms shall be constructed in accordance with District Method 3A, Figure
2, and approved by the District. Ninety days prior to construction of the
turbine stacks the project owner shall provide to the District for written
approval detailed plan drawings of the turbine stacks that show the sampling
ports and demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this condition.
[Rule 20]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and District for
approval a stack test port and platform plan at least 90 days before the construction of
the turbine stacks.
AQ-56

Not later than 60 calendar days after completion of the commissioning period
for each combustion turbine, an Initial Emissions Source Test shall be
conducted on that turbine to demonstrate compliance with the NOX, CO,
VOC, PM10, and ammonia emission standards of this permit. The source test
protocol shall comply with all of the following requirements:
a) Measurements of NOX, CO concentrations and emissions and oxygen (O2)
concentration shall be conducted in accordance with U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) methods 7E, 10, and 3A, respectively, and
District source test Method 100, or alternative methods approved by the
District and EPA;
b) Measurement of VOC emissions shall be conducted in accordance with
EPA Methods 25A and/or 18, or alternative methods approved by the
District and EPA;

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-30

Februrary 2015

  

c) Measurements of ammonia emissions shall be conducted in accordance
with Bay Area Air Quality Management District Method ST-1B or an
alternative method approved by the District and EPA;
d) Measurements of PM10 emissions shall be conducted in accordance with
EPA Methods 201A and 202 or alternative methods approved by the
district and EPA;
e) Source testing shall be performed at the normal load level, as specified in
40 CFR Part 75 Appendix A Section 6.5.2.1 (d), provided it is not less than
80 percent of the combustion turbine’s rated load unless it is
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the District that the combustion turbine
cannot operate under these conditions . If the demonstration is accepted,
then emissions source testing shall be performed at the highest
achievable continuous power level. The District may specify additional
testing at different load levels or operational conditions to ensure
compliance with the emission limits of this permit and District Rules and
Regulations;
f) Measurements of particulate matter emissions shall be conducted in
accordance with SDAPCD Method 5 or an alternative method approved by
the District and EPA; and
g) Measurements of opacity shall be conducted in accordance with EPA
Method 9 or an alternative method approved by the District and EPA.
h) Unless otherwise authorized in writing by the District, testing for NOX, CO,
VOC, PM10 and ammonia concentrations and emissions, as applicable,
shall be conducted concurrently with the NOX and CO continuous
emission measurement system (CEMS) Relative Accuracy Test Audit
(RATA).
[Rule 20.3(d)(1) and 1200]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval the initial source test protocol and source test report within the timeframes
specified in Conditions AQ-53 and AQ-54.
AQ-57

A renewal source test and a NOX and CO Relative Accuracy Test Audit
(RATA) shall be periodically conducted on each combustion turbine to
demonstrate compliance with the NOX, CO, VOC, PM10, and ammonia
emission standards of this permit and applicable relative accuracy
requirements for the CEMS systems using District approved methods. The
renewal source test and the NOX and CO RATAs shall be conducted in
accordance with the applicable RATA frequency requirements of 40 CFR 75,
Appendix B, Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.3. The renewal source test shall be
conducted in accordance with a protocol complying with all the applicable
requirements of the source test protocol for the Initial Emissions Source Test.

February 2015

7-31

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

[Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and
40 CFR Part 75]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval the periodic RATA and source test protocols, and RATA source test reports
within the timeframes specified in Conditions AQ-53 and AQ-54
AQ-58

Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATAs) and all other required certification tests
shall be performed and completed on the NOX CEMS in accordance with
applicable provisions of 40 CFR Part 75 Appendix A and B and 40 CFR
§60.4405 and on the CO CEMS in accordance with applicable provisions of
40 CFR Part 60 Appendix B and F. [Rule 21, Rule 20.3 (d)(1), 40 CFR Part
60 Subpart KKKK and 40 CFR Part 75]

Verification:
The results and field data collected during source tests required by this
condition shall be submitted to the CPM for review and the District for approval as
required by Condition AQ-54.
AQ-59

Not later than 60 calendar days after completion of the commissioning period
for each combustion turbine, an initial emission source test for toxic air
contaminants shall be conducted on that turbine to determine the emissions
of toxic air contaminants from the combustion turbines. At a minimum the
following compounds shall be tested for, and emissions, if any, quantified:
a) Acetaldehyde
b) Acrolein
c) Benzene
d) Formaldehyde
e) Toluene
f) Xylenes
This list of compounds may be adjusted by the District based on source test
results to ensure compliance with District Rule 1200 is demonstrated. The
District may require one or more or additional compounds to be quantified
through source testing as needed to ensure compliance with Rule 1200.
Within 60 calendar days after completion of a source test performed by an
independent contractor, a final test report shall be submitted to the District for
review and approval. [Rule 1200]

Verification:
The results and field data collected during source tests required by this
condition shall be submitted to the CPM for review and the District for approval within 60
days of testing.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-32

Februrary 2015

  

AQ-60

The District may require one or more of the following compounds, or
additional compounds to be quantified through source testing periodically to
ensure compliance with rRule 1200 and quantify toxic emissions:
a) Acetaldehyde
b) Acrolein
c) Benzene
d) Formaldehyde
e) Toluene
f) Xylenes
If the District requires the project owner to perform this source testing, the
District shall request the testing in writing a reasonable period of time prior to
the testing date. [Rule 1200, California H&S Code §41510]

Verification:
The results and field data collected during source tests required by the
District under this condition shall be submitted to the CPM for review and the District for
approval within 60 days of testing.
AQ-61

The higher heating value of the combustion turbine fuel shall be measured by
ASTM D1826–94, Standard Test Method for Calorific Value of Gases in
Natural Gas Range by Continuous Recording Calorimeter or ASTM D1945–
96, Standard Method for Analysis of Natural Gas by Gas Chromatography or
an alternative test method approved by the District and EPA. [Rules 69.3,
69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR Part
75]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-62

The sulfur content of the combustion turbine fuel shall be sampled not less
than once each calendar quarter in accordance with a protocol approved by
the District, which shall be submitted to the District for approval not later than
90 days before the earlierearliest of the initial startup dates for anyeither of
the two combustion turbines and measured with ASTM D1072–90
(Reapproved 1994), Standard Test Method for Total Sulfur in Fuel Gases;
ASTM D3246–05, Standard Test Method for Sulfur in Petroleum Gas by
Oxidative Microcoulometry; ASTM D4468–85 (Reapproved 2000), Standard
Test Method for Total Sulfur in Gaseous Fuels by Hydrogenolysis and
Rateometric Colorimetry; ASTM D6228–98 (Reapproved 2003), Standard
Test Method for Determination of Sulfur Compounds in Natural Gas and
Gaseous Fuels by Gas Chromatography and Flame Photometric Detection; or
ASTM D6667–04, Standard Test Method for Determination of Total Volatile
Sulfur in Gaseous Hydrocarbons and Liquefied Petroleum Gases by

February 2015

7-33

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Ultraviolet Fluorescence or an alternative test method approved by the District
and EPA. [Rule 20.3 (d)(1), Rule 21, and 40 CFR Part 75]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.

Continuous Monitoring
AQ-63

The project owner shall comply with the applicable continuous emission
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR Part 75. [40 CFR Part 75.]

Verification:
The project owner shall maintain a copy of the CEMS protocol required
by AQ-65 on site and provide it, other CEMS data, and the CEMS for inspection on
request by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-64

A continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) shall be installed on each
combustion turbine and properly maintained and calibrated to measure,
calculate, and record the following, in accordance with the District approved
CEMS protocol:
A. Hourly average(s) concentration of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) uncorrected
and corrected to 15 percent oxygen, in parts per million (ppmvd),
necessary to demonstrate compliance with the NOX limits of this permit;
B. Hourly average concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) uncorrected and
corrected to 15 percent oxygen, in parts per million (ppmvd), necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the CO limits of this permit;
C. Percent oxygen (O2) in the exhaust gas for each unit operating minute;
D. Average concentration of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for each continuous
rolling 3-hour period, in parts per million (ppmv) corrected to 15 percent
oxygen;
D. Hourly mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) calculated as NO2, in
pounds;
E. Cumulative mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) calculated as
NO2 in each startup and shutdown period, in pounds;
F. Daily mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) calculated as NO2, in
pounds;
G. Calendar monthly mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) calculated
as NO2, in pounds;
H. Rolling30-unit-operating-dayfour-unit-operating-houraverage
concentration of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) corrected to 15 percent oxygen,
in parts per million (ppmvd);

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-34

Februrary 2015

  

I. Rolling 30-unit-operating-day four-unit-operating-hour average oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) emission rate, in pounds per megawatt-hour (MWh);
J. Calendar quarter, calendar year, and rolling 12-calendar-month period
mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX), in tons;
K. Cumulative mass emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) in each startup and
shutdown period, in pounds;
L. Hourly mass emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), in pounds;
M. Daily mass emission of carbon monoxide (CO), in pounds;
N. Calendar monthly mass emission of carbon monoxide (CO), in pounds;
O. Rolling 12-calendar-month period mass emission of carbon monoxide
(CO), in tons;
P. Average concentration of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and carbon monoxide
(CO) uncorrected and corrected to 15 percent oxygen, in parts per million
(ppmvd), during each unit operating minute;
Q. Average emission rate in pounds per hour of oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
calculated as NO2 and carbon monoxide (CO) during each unit operating
minute.
[Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and
40 CFR Part 75.]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval a CEMS protocol, as required by AQ-65, which includes description of the
methods of compliance with the requirements of this condition. The project owner shall
make the site available for inspection of records and equipment by representatives of
the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-65

No later than 90 calendar days prior to initial startup of each combustion
turbine, the project owner shall submit a CEMS protocol to the District, for
written approval that shows how the CEMS will be able to meet all District
monitoring requirements. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part
60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR Part 75]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval a CEMS operating protocol at least 90 days prior to the initial startup of
each combustion turbine.
AQ-66

No later than the earlier of 90 unit operating days or 180 calendar days after
each combustion turbine commences commercial operation, a Relative
Accuracy Test Audit (RATA) and other required certification tests shall be
performed and completed on the that turbine’s NOx CEMS in accordance with

February 2015

7-35

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

40 CFR Part 75 Appendix A and on the CO CEMS in accordance with 40
CFR Part 60 Appendix B. The RATAs shall demonstrate that the NOX and CO
CEMS comply with the applicable relative accuracy requirements. At least 60
calendar days prior to the test date, the project owner shall submit a test
protocol to the District for written approval. Additionally, the District and U.S.
EPA Region 9 shall be notified a minimum of 45 calendar days prior to the
test so that observers may be present. Within 45 calendar days of completion
of this test, a written test report shall be submitted to the District for approval.
For purposes of this condition, commences commercial operation is defined
as the first instance when power is sold to the electrical grid. [Rules 69.3,
69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR Part
75]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval the RATA certification test protocol at least 60 days prior to the RATA test
and shall notify the CPM, the U.S. EPA Region 9, and District of the RATA test date at
least 45 days prior to conducting the RATA and other certification tests. The project
owner will submit all RATA or source test reports to the CPM for review and the District
for approval within 45 days of the completion of those tests.
AQ-67

A monitoring plan in conformance with 40 CFR 75.53 shall be submitted to
U.S. EPA Region 9 and the District at least 45 calendar days prior to the
Relative Accuracy Test Audit (RATA), as required in 40 CFR 75.62. [40 CFR
Part 75]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
and the U. S. EPA Region 9 for approval a monitoring plan in compliance with this
condition at least 45 days prior to the RATA test.
AQ-68

The oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and oxygen (O2) components of the CEMS shall
be certified and maintained in accordance with applicable Federal
Regulations including the requirements of sections 75.10 and 75.12 of title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations Part 75 (40 CFR 75), the performance
specifications of Appendix A of 40 CFR 75, the quality assurance procedures
of Appendix B of 40 CFR 75 and the CEMS protocol approved by the District.
The carbon monoxide (CO) components of the CEMS shall be certified and
maintained in accordance with 40 CFR 60, Appendices B and F, unless
otherwise specified in this permit, and the CEMS protocol approved by the
District. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
KKKK, and 40 CFR Part 75]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval a CEMS protocol, as required by AQ-65, which includes description of the
methods of compliance with the requirements of this condition. The project owner shall
make the site available for inspection of records and equipment by representatives of
the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-36

Februrary 2015

  

AQ-69

The CEMS shall be in operation in accordance with the District approved
CEMs protocol at all times. When when the turbine is in operation a copy of
the District approved CEMS monitoring protocol shall be maintained on site
and made available to District personnel upon request. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1,
and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR Part 75]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records and equipment by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy
Commission.
AQ-70

When the CEMS is not recording data and the combustion turbine is
operating, hourly NOx emissions for purposes of calendar year and rolling 12calendar-month period emission calculations shall be determined in
accordance with 40 CFR 75 Subpart C. Additionally, hourly CO emissions for
rolling 12-calendar-month period emission calculations shall be determined
using CO emission factors to be determined from source test emission
factors, recorded CEMS data, and fuel consumption data, in terms of pounds
per hour of CO for the gas turbine. Emission calculations used to determine
hourly emission rates shall be reviewed and approved by the District, in
writing, before the hourly emission rates are incorporated into the CEMS
emission data. [Rules 20.3(d)(3) and 21 and 40 CFR Part 75]

Verification:
The project owner shall provide the District for approval and the CPM
for review all emission calculations required by this condition, in a manner and time
required by the District, and shall provide notation of when such calculations are used in
place of operating CEMS data in the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8).
AQ-71

Any violation of any emission standard as indicated by the CEMS shall be
reported to the District's compliance division within 96 hours after such
occurrence. [Rule 19.2]

Verification:
The project owner shall notify the District regarding any emission
standard violation as required in this condition and shall document all such occurrences
in each Quarterly Operation Report (AQ-SC8).
AQ-72

The CEMS shall be maintained and operated, and reports submitted, in
accordance with the requirements of Rrule 19.2 Sections (d), (e), (f) (1), (f)
(2), (f) (3), (f) (4) and (f) (5), and a CEMS protocol approved by the District.
[Rule 19.2]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the District the CEMS reports as
required in this condition and shall make the site available for inspection of records and
equipment by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-73

Except for changes that are specified in the initial approved CEMS protocol or
a subsequent revision to that protocol that is approved in advance, in writing
by the District, the District shall be notified in writing at least 30 calendar days
prior to any planned changes made in the CEMS or Data Acquisition and
Handling System (DAHS), including, but not limited to, the programmable

February 2015

7-37

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

logic controller, software which affects the value of data displayed on the
CEMS / DAHS monitors with respect to the parameters measured by their
respective sensing devices or any planned changes to the software that
controls the ammonia flow to the SCR. Unplanned or emergency changes
shall be reported within 96 hours. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40
CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR Part 75]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval any revision to the CEMS/DAHS or ammonia flow control software, as
required by this condition, to be approved in advance at least 30 days before any
planned changes are made. The project owner shall notify the District regarding any
unplanned emergency changes to these software systems within 96 hours and shall
document all such occurrences in each Quarterly Operation Report (AQ-SC8).
AQ-74

At least 90 calendar days prior to the Initial Emissions Source Test, the
project owner shall submit a monitoring protocol to the District for written
approval which shall specify a method of determining the CO/VOC surrogate
relationship that shall be used to demonstrate compliance with all VOC
emission limits. This protocol can be provided as part of the Initial Source
Emissions Testing Protocol. [Rule 20.3 (d)(1)]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval the monitoring protocol as part of the initial source test protocol in
compliance with requirements of this condition at least 90 days prior to the initial source
test.
AQ-75

Fuel flowmeters shall be installed and maintained to measure the fuel flow
rate, corrected for temperature and pressure, to each combustion turbine.
Correction factors and constants shall be maintained on site and made
available to the District upon request. The fuel flowmeters shall meet the
applicable quality assurance requirements of 40 CFR Part 75, Appendix D,
and Section 2.1.6. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60
Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR Part 75]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM the natural gas usage data
from the fuel flow meters as part of the Quarterly Operation Report (AQ-SC8).
AQ-76

Each combustion turbine shall be equipped with continuous monitors to
measure, calculate and record unit operating days and hours and the
following operational characteristics:
a) Date and time;
b) Natural gas flow rate to the combustion turbine during each unit operating
minute, in standard cubic feet per hour;
c) Total heat input to the combustion turbine based the fuels higher heating
value during each unit operating minute, in million British thermal units per
hour (MMBtu/hr);

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-38

Februrary 2015

  

d) Higher heating value of the fuel on an hourly basis, in million British
thermal units per standard cubic foot (MMBtu/scf);
e) Stack exhaust gas temperature during each unit operating minute, in
degrees Fahrenheit;
f) Combustion turbine energy output during each unit operating minute in
megawatts hours (MWh); and
g) Water injection rate in gallons per minute (gpm) or pounds per hour
(lb/hr)Steam turbine energy output during each unit operating minute in
megawatts hours (MWh).
The values of these operational characteristics shall be recorded each unit
operating minute. The monitors shall be installed, calibrated, and
maintained in accordance with a turbine operation monitoring protocol,
which may be part of the CEMS protocol, approved by the District, which
shall include any relevant calculation methodologies. The monitors shall
be in full operation at all times when the combustion turbine is in
operation. Calibration records for the continuous monitors shall be
maintained on site and made available to the District upon request. [Rules
69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40
CFR Part 75]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval a turbine operation monitoring protocol in compliance with this condition
and within the timeframes specified in AQ-77 and the project owner shall make the site
available for inspection of records and equipment required in this condition by
representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-77

At least 90 calendar days prior to initial startup of the each combustion
turbine, the project owner shall submit a turbine monitoring protocol to the
District for written approval. This may be part of the CEMS protocol. [Rules
69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3 (d)(1) and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR
Part 75]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and the District
for approval a turbine monitoring protocol in compliance with this condition at least 90
days prior to the initial startup of each combustion turbine.
AQ-78

Operating logs or Data Acquisition and Handling System (DAHS) records
shall be maintained to record the beginning and end times and durations of all
startups, shutdowns, and tuning periods to the nearest minute, quantity of fuel
used in each clock hour, calendar month, and 12-calendar-month period in
standard cubic feet; hours of operation each day; and hours of operation
during each calendar year. For purposes of this condition, the hours of turbine
operation is defined as the total minutes the turbine is combusting fuel during
the calendar year divided by 60. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, and 20.3(d)(1) and 40
CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, and 40 CFR Part 75]

February 2015

7-39

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.

Commissioning and Shakedown
AQ-79

Before the end of the commissioning period for each combustion turbine, the
project owner shall install post-combustion air pollution control equipment on
that turbine to minimize NOX and CO emissions. Once installed, the postcombustion air pollution control equipment shall be maintained in good
condition and shall be in full operation at all times when the turbine is
combusting fuel and the air pollution control equipment is at or above its
minimum operating temperature. [Rule 20.3(d)(1)]

Verification:
The project owner shall provide the CPM District records
demonstrating compliance with this condition as part of the monthly commissioning
status report (AQ-80).
AQ-80

Thirty calendar days after the end of the commissioning period for each
combustion turbine, the project owner shall submit a written progress report to
the District. This report shall include, at a minimum, the date the
commissioning period ended, the periods of startup and shutdown periods,
the emissions of NOX and CO during startup and shutdown periods, and the
emissions of NOX and CO during steady state operation. This report shall also
detail any turbine or emission control equipment malfunction, upset, repairs,
maintenance, modifications, or replacements affecting emissions of air
contaminants that occurred during the commissioning period. All of the
following continuous monitoring information shall be reported for each minute
and, except for cumulative mass emissions, averaged over each hour of
operation:
a) Concentration of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) uncorrected and corrected to
15% percent oxygen, in parts per million (ppmvd);
b) Concentration of carbon monoxide (CO) uncorrected and corrected to
15% percent oxygen, in parts per million (ppmvd);
c) Percent oxygen (O2) in the exhaust gas;
d) Mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) calculated as NO2, in pounds;
e) Cumulative mass emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) calculated as
NO2 in each startup and shutdown period, in pounds;
f) Cumulative mass emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) in each startup and
shutdown period, in pounds;
g) Mass emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), in pounds;

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-40

Februrary 2015

  

h) Total heat input to the combustion turbine based on the fuel’s higher
heating value, in million British thermal units per hour (MMBtu/hr);
i) Higher heating value of the fuel on an hourly basis, in million British
thermal units per standard cubic foot (MMBtu/scf);
j) Gross electrical power output of the turbine, in megawatts hours (MWh)
for each hour;
k) SCR outlet temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit; and
l) Water injection rate in gallons per minute (gpm) or pounds per hour
(lb/hr).Stack exhaust gas temperature, in degrees Fahrenheit.
The hourly average information shall be submitted in writing and in an
electronic format approved by the District. The minute-by-minute
information shall be submitted in an electronic format approved by the
District. [Rules 69.3, 69.3.1, 20.3(d)(1) and 20.3(d)(2)]
Verification:
A log of the dates, times, and cumulative unit operating hours when
fuel is being combusted during the commissioning period shall be maintained by the
project owner. The project owner shall submit, commencing one month from the time of
gas turbine first fire, a monthly commissioning status report throughout the duration of
the commissioning phase that demonstrates compliance with the requirements listed in
this condition. The monthly commissioning status report shall be submitted to the CPM
by the tenth of each month for the previous month, for all months with turbine
commissioning activities following the turbine first fire date. The project owner shall also
provide the reporting required by this condition to the District and CPM within 30 day of
completing commissioning of each turbine. The project owner shall make the site
available for inspection of records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the
Energy Commission.
AQ-8981 For each combustion turbine, the project owner shall submit the following
notifications to the District and U.S. EPA, Region IX9:
a) A notification in accordance with 40 CFR Section 60.7(a)(1) delivered or
postmarked not later than 30 calendar days after construction has
commenced;
b) A notification in accordance with 40 CFR Section 60.7(a)(3) delivered or
postmarked within 15 calendar days after initial startup; and
c) An Initial Notification in accordance with 40 CFR Section 63.6145(c) and
40 CFR Section 63.9(b)(2) submitted no later than 120 calendar days after
the initial startup of the turbine.
In addition, the project owner shall notify the District when: (1) construction is
complete by submitting a Construction Completion Notice before operating
any unit that is the subject of this permit, (2) each combustion turbine first

February 2015

7-41

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

combusts fuel by submitting a First Fuel Fire Notice within five calendar days
of the initial operation of the unit, and (3) each combustion turbine first
generates electrical power that is sold by providing written notice within five
days of this event.
[Rules 24 and 21 and 40 CFR Part 75, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK, 40
CFR Part §60.7, 40 CFR Part 63 Subpart YYYY, and 40 CFR Part §63.9.]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide notification to the District and U.S.
EPA Region IX9 as required by this condition and shall provide copies of these
notifications as part of the final monthly commissioning status reports (AQ-80) due the
month after the notifications are sent.
AQ-81

The three utility boilers described on District Permits to Operate No. 791, 792,
and 793 shall not operate at any time one or both combustion turbines are
operating. [Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8) and 21 and 40 CFR §52.1]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM and the District the facility
operating and emissions data demonstrating compliance with this condition, while the
boilers regulated by this condition are still operational, as part of the monthly
commissioning status report (AQ-80).
AQ-82

Beginning with the initial startup of Turbine A, aggregate emissions of oxides
of nitrogen (NOX), calculated as nitrogen dioxide (NO2); carbon monoxide
(CO); volatile organic compounds (VOCs), calculated as methane; particulate
matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10); and oxides of
sulfur (SOX), calculated as sulfur dioxides (SO2), from Turbine A and the
emergency fire pump described in Application No. 985748, except emissions
or emission units excluded from the calculation of aggregate potential to emit
as specified in Rule 20.1(d)(1), shall not exceed the following limits for each
rolling 12-calendar-month period:
Pollutant

Emission Limit, tons per year

a. NOX

36.05

b. CO

169.95

c. VOC

11.85

d. PM10

19.5

e. SOX

2.8

The aggregate emissions of each pollutant shall include emissions during all
times that the equipment is operating including, but not limited to, emissions
during commissioning, low load operation, startup, shutdown, and tuning
periods. This condition shall not apply on and after the date Turbine B
completes its shakedown period. [Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8) and 21]

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-42

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM and the District the facility
12-month rolling operating and emissions data demonstrating compliance with this
condition as part of the monthly commissioning status report (AQ-80).
AQ-83

Beginning with the date Turbine A completes its shakedown period,
aggregate emissions of carbon monoxide (CO); particulate matter less than
or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5); and particulate matter less than
or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10) from the three utility boilers
described on District Permits to Operate No. 791, 792, and 793, shall not
exceed the following limits for each rolling 12-calendar-month period:
Pollutant

Emission Limit, tons per year

a. CO

198.75

b. PM2.5

21.80

c. PM10

26.89

The aggregate emissions of each pollutant shall include emissions during all
times that the equipment is operating including, but not limited to, emissions
during startup, shutdown, and tuning periods. [Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8)
and 21]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM and the District the facility
12-month rolling operating and emissions data demonstrating compliance with this
condition as part of the monthly commissioning status report (AQ-80).
AQ-84

On and after the date that Turbine B completes its shakedown period, the
three utility boilers described on District Permits to Operate No. 791, 792, and
793 shall not operate. [Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8) and 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM and the District information
that the boiler regulated by this condition are no longer operational, or the steps being
taken to ensure that they will not be operated, once Turbine B completes its shakedown
period as part of the final monthly commissioning status report (AQ-80).
AQ-85

For each calendar month and each rolling 12-calendar-month period, the
project owner shall maintain records on a calendar monthly basis, of
aggregate mass emissions of NOx (calculated as NO2), CO, and PM10 in
tons, for Turbine A and the emergency generator described on Application
No. 985748, except for emissions or emission units excluded from the
calculation of aggregate potential to emit as specified in Rule 20.1(d)(1).
There records shall be made available for inspection within 15 calendar days
after the end of each calendar month. [Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8) and 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.

February 2015

7-43

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

AQ-86

For each calendar month, the project owner shall maintain records on a
calendar monthly basis, of mass emissions during each calendar month of
NOx (calculated as NO2), CO, PM10, and PM2.5, in tons, from each emission
unit described on District Permits to Operate No. 791, 792, and 793. These
records shall be made available for inspection within 15 calendar days after
the end of each calendar month. [Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8) and 21]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-87

For each calendar month and each rolling 12-calendar-month period, the
project owner shall maintain records on a calendar monthly basis, of
aggregate mass emissions of NOx (calculated as NO2), CO, PM10, and
PM2.5, in tons, for the emission units described in District Permits to Operate
No. 791, 792, and 793. These records shall be made available for inspection
within 15 calendar days after the end of each calendar month. [Rules
20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8) and 21.]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-88

No later than 18 months before the initial startup of either combustion turbine,
the project owner shall submit an application to the District for a significant
Title V permit modification to limit the aggregate emissions of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), calculated as nitrogen dioxide; carbon monoxide (CO);
particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10); and
particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), from
the three utility boilers described on District Permits to Operate No. 791, 792,
and 793 in each rolling 12-calendar-month period as specified in this permit.
The application shall include a proposed emissions calculation protocol to
calculate the emissions from each emission unit. Where applicable, this
protocol may rely in whole or in part on the CEMS or other monitoring
protocols required by this permit. [Rules 20.3(d)(3), 20.3(d)(8), 1410 and 21.]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit copies of all applications and protocols
required by this condition to the CPM for review within 5 days of their submittal to the
District and no later than 18 months before the initial startup of either combustion
turbine.

Reporting
AQ-82

The project owner shall file semiannual reports in accordance with 40
CFR §60.4375. [40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK]

Verification:
AQ-83

None required.

Each semiannual report must cover the semiannual reporting period
from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual reporting period
from July 1 through December 31. Each such semiannual compliance

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-44

Februrary 2015

  

report shall be postmarked or delivered no later than January 30 or July
30, whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual
reporting period. [40 CFR Part 60 Subpart KKKK and Rule 21]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide the District’s Compliance
Division the semi-annual reports required in this condition within the due dates
specified in this condition, shall provide summaries of these semi-annual reports
in the Quarterly Operation Reports (AQ-SC8) following each semi-annual report,
and shall provide full copies of these reports to the CPM upon request.
AQ-84

All semiannual compliance reports shall be submitted to the District
Compliance Division [40 CFR §60.7]

Verification:
AQ-85

None required.

Within 120 days of startup of each gas turbine, the owner or operator
shall submit an initial notification to US EPA Region 9 in accordance
with 40 CFR 63.6145(c) with the information specified in 40 CFR
63.6145(d). [40 CFR 63 Subpart YYYY]

Verification:
The project owner shall provide a copy of the initial notification
required by this condition to the CPM as part of the Quarterly Operation Reports
(AQ-SC8).

CONDITIONS FOR EMERGENCY FIRE PUMP ENGINE
Verification: District Application Number 985093
An emergency fire pump engine, Cummins diesel engine, Model CFP6E-F35, as
preliminarily proposed, rated at 246 brake horsepower.
2014-APP-003481
Emergency fire-pump diesel engine: John Deere/Clark model JW6H-UFADF0; S/N
TBD; EPA certified Tier 3, family EJDXL09.0114; 327 bhp rated at 1760 rpm;
turbocharged with charge air cooler for emission control; driving an emergency
fire-pump.
AQ-86

The exhaust stack for the emergency fire pump engine shall be a
minimum of 20 feet in height above grade and a maximum of 0.5 feet in
diameter at the point of release and shall not be equipped with a rain
cap unless it is of flapper valve design. [Rules 1200, 20.3(d)(2)]

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review the exhaust
stack specification at least 60 days before the installation of the stack.
AQ-9087 The engine shall be EPA certified to the applicable emissions2009 model
year or later requirements for emergency fire pump engines of 40 CFR Part
60 Subpart IIII, Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition
Internal Combustion Engines, based on the power rating of the engine and

February 2015

7-45

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

the engine model year. [Rule 20.3(d)(1), 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII, and 40
CFR Part 63 Subpart ZZZZ, 17 CCR §93115]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide to the CPM for review and approval
engine documentation demonstrating compliance with the condition at least 30 days
prior to purchasing the engine.
AQ-88

This EPA certified engine shall be installed, configured, operated and
maintained according to the manufacturer's emission related
instructions. The owner or operator may not change any emission
related settings unless those changes are permitted by the
manufacturer and do not affect the engine's compliance with the
emission standards to which it is certified. [40 CFR 60 subpart IIII]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
equipment and records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy
Commission.
AQ-89

The engine shall be operated exclusively during emergencies as defined
in Rule 69.4.1, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII or 17 CCR §93115 as
applicable, or for maintenance and testing.

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-9190 Engine operation for maintenance and testing purposes shall not exceed
3550 hours per calendar year unless otherwise required by the National
Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Section 25. (ATCM reportable) [Rules
20.3(d)(1) and 69.4.1, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII,17 CCR §93115]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM the fire pump engine
operating data demonstrating compliance with this condition as part of the Quarterly
Operation Report (AQ-SC8).
AQ-9291 The engine shall only use CARB Diesel Fuel. [Rules 20.3(d)(1), 69.4.1, and
17 CCR §93115]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-9392 Visible emissions including crankcase smoke shall comply with Air Pollution
Control District Rule 50. [Rule 50]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-9493 The equipment described above shall not cause or contribute to public
nuisance. [Rule 51]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-46

Februrary 2015

  

AQ-9594 This engine shall not operate for non-emergency use during the following
periods, as applicable:
a) Whenever there is any school sponsored activity, if engine is located on
school grounds or
b) Between 7:30 and 3:30 PM on days when school is in session, if the
engine is located within 500 feet of, but not on school grounds.
This condition shall not apply to an engine located at or near any school
grounds that also serve as the student’s place of residence. (ATCM
reportable) [17 CCR §93115]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-9695 A non-resettable engine hour meter shall be installed on this engine,
maintained in good working order, and used for recording engine operating
hours. If a meter is replaced, the Air Pollution Control District’s Compliance
Division shall be notified in writing within ten calendar days. The written
notification shall include the following information:
a) Old meter’s hour reading.
b) Replacement meter’s manufacturer name, model, and serial number if
available and current hour reading on replacement meter.
c) Copy of receipt of new meter or of installation work order.
A copy of the meter replacement notification shall be maintained on site and
made available to the Air Pollution Control District upon request. [Rules
69.4.1, 17 CCR §93115, and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide notification to the District as required
by this condition and shall make the site available for inspection of records by
representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-9796 The owner or operator shall conduct periodic maintenance of this engine and
add-on control equipment, if any, as recommended by the engine and control
equipment manufacturers or as specified by the engine servicing company’s
maintenance procedure. The periodic maintenance shall be conducted at
least once each calendar year. [Rule 69.4.1 and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-97

The owner or operator shall keep manuals of recommended
maintenance as provided by the engine and control equipment
manufacturers for at least the same period of time as the engine to

February 2015

7-47

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

which the records apply is located on site. [Rule 69.4.1 and 40 CFR Part
60 Subpart IIII]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-98

The owner or operator of this engine shall maintain records of all
maintenance conducted on the engine, including a description of the
maintenance and date the maintenance was performed. [Rule 69.4.1 and
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII]
The owner or operator of the engine shall maintain the following records on
site for at least the same period of time as the engine to which the records
apply is located at the site:
A. Documentation shall be maintained identifying the fuel as CARB diesel;
B. Manual of recommended maintenance provided by the manufacturer, or
maintenance procedures specified by the engine servicing company; and
C. Records of annual engine maintenance, including the date the
maintenance was performed.
These records shall be made available to the Air Pollution Control District
upon request. [Rule 69.4.1]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-99

The owner or operator shall maintain documentation for all fuel
deliveries identifying the fuel as CARB diesel. [Rule 69.4.1, 17 CCR
§93115, and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-99100 The owner or operator of this engineequipment shall maintain a monthly
operating log containing, at a minimum, the following:
a) Dates and times of engine operation, indicating whether the operation was
for compliance with the testing requirements of National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 25maintenance and testing purposes or
emergency use;, and, the nature of the emergency, if known;
b) Hours of operation for all uses other than those specified above and
identification of the nature of that use.
[Rule 69.4.1, 40 CFR 60 subpart IIII and 17 CCR §93115]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-48

Februrary 2015

  

Conditions for Emergency Engines (Generator)
District Application Number 2014-APP-003480
Emergency diesel engine generator: Caterpillar model C15 ATAAC; S/N TBD; EPA
Certified Tier 4i, family ECPXL15.2HZA; 779 bhp rated; turbocharged with charge
air cooler and exhaust gas recirculation for emission control; driving a 500 kW
generator.
AQ-101 The exhaust stack for the emergency generator engine shall be a
minimum of 70 feet in height above grade and a maximum of 0.46 feet in
diameter at the point of release and shall not be equipped with a rain
cap unless it is of flapper valve design. [Rules 1200, 20.3(d)(2)]
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review the exhaust
stack specification at least 60 days before the installation of the stack.
AQ-102

The engine shall be EPA certified to the applicable emissions
requirements for emergency engines of 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII,
Standards of Performance for Stationary Compression Ignition Internal
Combustion Engines, based on the power rating of the engine and the
engine model year. [40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII, and 40 CFR Part 63
Subpart ZZZZ, 17 CCR §93115]

Verification:
The project owner shall provide to the CPM for review and
approval engine documentation demonstrating compliance with the condition at
least 30 days prior to purchasing the engine.
AQ-103 This EPA certified engine shall be installed, configured, operated and
maintained according to the manufacturer's emission related
instructions. The owner or operator may not change any emission
related settings unless those changes are permitted by the
manufacturer and do not affect the engine's compliance with the
emission standards to which it is certified. [40 CFR 60 subpart IIII]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
equipment and records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy
Commission.
AQ-104

The engine shall be operated exclusively during emergencies as defined
in Rule 69.4.1, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII or 17 CCR §93115 as
applicable, or for maintenance and testing.

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-105

Engine operation for maintenance and testing purposes shall not
exceed 50 hours per calendar year. [Rule 69.4.1, 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart
IIII, 17 CCR §93115]

February 2015

7-49

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM the emergency
generator engine operating data demonstrating compliance with this condition as
part of the Quarterly Operation Report (AQ-SC8).
AQ-106 The engine shall only use CARB Diesel Fuel. [Rules 20.3(d)(1), 69.4.1,
and 17 CCR §93115]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-107

Visible emissions including crankcase smoke shall comply with Air
Pollution Control District Rule 50. [Rule 50]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-108

The equipment described above shall not cause or contribute to public
nuisance. [Rule 51]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-109

This engine shall not operate for nonemergency use during the
following periods, as applicable:
a) Whenever there is any school sponsored activity, if engine is located
on school grounds or
b) Between 7:30 and 3:30 PM on days when school is in session, if the
engine is located within 500 feet of, but not on school grounds.
This condition shall not apply to an engine located at or near any school
grounds that also serve as the student’s place of residence. [17 CCR
§93115]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-110

A non-resettable engine hour meter shall be installed on this engine,
maintained in good working order, and used for recording engine
operating hours. If a meter is replaced, the Air Pollution Control
District’s Compliance Division shall be notified in writing within ten
calendar days. The written notification shall include the following
information:
a) Old meter’s hour reading.
b) Replacement meter’s manufacturer name, model, and serial number
if available and current hour reading on replacement meter.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-50

Februrary 2015

  

c) Copy of receipt of new meter or of installation work order.
A copy of the meter replacement notification shall be maintained on site
and made available to the Air Pollution Control District upon request.
[Rule 69.4.1, 17 CCR §93115, and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII]
Verification:
The project owner shall provide notification to the District as
required by this condition and shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-111 The owner or operator shall conduct periodic maintenance of this
engine and add-on control equipment, if any, as recommended by the
engine and control equipment manufacturers or as specified by the
engine servicing company’s maintenance procedure. The periodic
maintenance shall be conducted at least once each calendar year. [Rule
69.4.1 and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-112 The owner or operator shall keep manuals of recommended
maintenance as provided by the engine and control equipment
manufacturers for at least the same period of time as the engine to
which the records apply is located on site. [Rule 69.4.1 and 40 CFR Part
60 Subpart IIII]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-113

The owner or operator of this engine shall maintain records of all
maintenance conducted on the engine, including a description of the
maintenance and date the maintenance was performed. [Rule 69.4.1 and
40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-114

The owner or operator shall maintain documentation for all fuel
deliveries identifying the fuel as CARB diesel. [Rule 69.4.1, 17 CCR
§93115, and 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart IIII]

Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-115 The owner or operator of this engine shall maintain a monthly operating
log containing, at a minimum, the following:
a) dates and times of engine operation; whether the operation was for
maintenance and testing purposes or emergency use; and the nature of
the emergency, if known;

February 2015

7-51

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

b) hours of operation for all uses other than those specified above and
identification of the nature of that use. [Rule 69.4.1, 40 CFR 60 subpart
IIII and 17 CCR §93115]
Verification:
The project owner shall make the site available for inspection of
records by representatives of the District, ARB, and the Energy Commission.
AQ-116

Within 120 days of startup of this engine, the owner or operator shall
submit a notification to the District indicating that this source is a major
source of HAP. [40 CFR 63 Subpart ZZZZ]

Verification:
The project owner shall provide the notification as required to the
District within the timeframe required and shall provide a copy of this notification
to the CPM in the Quarterly Operation Report that follows the timing of the
notification (AQ-SC8).

AQ-1
No conditions of certification related to the greenhouse gas emissions from facility
operation or construction are proposed. However, the formulation of state and local
GHG emissions reduction policies and goals are fairly recent and occurred after the
original licensed CECP approval, so staff reviewed the currently known construction
emissions related policies and goals that could be appropriate to this project and that
also may provide a substantial reduction in GHG emissions. Staff’s review determined
that to conform to policies and goals related to recycling and waste reduction, it is
reasonable to require that the construction and demolition wastes be recycled to the
extent feasible. The requirement to appropriately recycle construction and demolition
wastes is included in the Waste Management Section (Condition of Certification
WASTE-5), so no additional conditions related to construction GHG emissions
reductions are proposed.
During facility operation, the facility owner would participate in California’s GHG capand-trade program. The facility owner is required to report GHG emissions and to obtain
GHG emissions allowances (and offsets) for those reported emissions by purchasing
allowances from the capped market and offsets from outside the AB 32 program.
Similarly, the proposed facility modifications would be subject to federal mandatory
reporting of GHG emissions. The facility owner may have to provide additional reports
and GHG reductions, depending on the future regulations formulated by the U.S. EPA
or the ARB.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-52

Februrary 2015

  

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The conditions of certification below include the approved conditions of certification from
the licensed CECP and any modifications, additions or deletions required for the
amended CECP. If compliance work has begun and no changes are required for the
amended project, then the project owner need not duplicate those previous compliance
activities. The compliance work already performed has been duly noted.
Staff recommends including all the biological resources conditions of certification from
the Commission Decision for the licensed CECP, with the exception of BIO-9, which is
not applicable to the amended CECP. Staff has proposed minor edits to BIO-6, BIO-7
and BIO-8. Staff has also made changes to BIO-1as proposed by the project owner
(Note: Bold and underline is used to indicated new language, strikethrough is used to
indicate deleted language).

Designated Biologist Selection
BIO-1

The project owner shall assign a Designated Biologist to the project. The
project owner shall submit the resume of the proposed Designated Biologist,
with at least three references and contact information, to the compliance
project manager (CPM) for approval.
The Designated Biologist must at least meet the following minimum
qualifications:
1. bachelor's degree in biological sciences, zoology, botany, ecology, or a
closely related field; and
2. three years of experience in field biology or current certification from a
nationally recognized biological society, such as The Ecological Society of
America or The Wildlife Society; and
3. at least one year of field experience with biological resources found in or
near the project area.
In lieu of the above requirements, the resume shall demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the CPM, that the proposed or alternate Designated Biologist
has the appropriate training and background to implement effectively the
applicant project owner -proposed mitigation measures and conditions of
certification.

Verification:
The project owner shall submit the specified information at least 90
days prior to the start of any site (or related facilities) mobilization. No site or related
facility activities shall commence until an approved Designated Biologist is available to
be on site.
If a Designated Biologist needs to be replaced, the specified information of the
proposed replacement must be submitted to the CPM at least ten working days prior to
the termination or release of the preceding designated biologist. In an emergency, the

February 2015

7-53

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

project owner shall immediately notify the CPM to discuss the qualifications and
approval of a short-term replacement while a permanent Designated Biologist is
proposed to the CPM for consideration.

Designated Biologist Duties
BIO-2

The project owner shall ensure that the Designated Biologist performs the
following during any site (or related facilities) mobilization, ground
disturbance, grading, construction, operation, and closure activities. The
Designated Biologist may be assisted by the approved biological monitor(s),
but remains the contact for the project owner and CPM. The designated
biologist shall:
1. advise the project owner's construction and operation managers on the
implementation of the Biological Resources Conditions of Certification;
2. consult on the preparation of the Biological Resources Mitigation
Implementation and Monitoring Plan (BRMIMP), to be submitted by the
project owner;
3. be available to supervise, conduct, and coordinate mitigation, monitoring,
and other biological resource compliance efforts, particularly in areas
requiring avoidance or containing sensitive biological resources, such as
wetlands and special-status species or their habitat;
4. clearly mark sensitive biological resource areas and inspect these areas at
appropriate intervals for compliance with regulatory terms and conditions;
5. inspect active construction areas where animals may have become
trapped prior to construction commencing each day. At the end of the day,
inspect for the installation of structures that prevent entrapment or allow
escape during periods of construction inactivity. Periodically inspect areas
with high vehicle activity (i.e., parking lots) for animals in harm’s way;
6. notify the project owner and the CPM of any non-compliance with any
Biological Resources Condition of Certification;
7. respond directly to inquiries of the CPM regarding biological resource
issues;
8. maintain written records of the tasks specified above and those included in
the BRMIMP. Summaries of these records shall be submitted in the
monthly compliance report and the annual report; and
9. train the biological monitors as appropriate, and ensure their familiarity
with the BRMIMP, Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training, and all permits.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-54

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
The Designated Biologist shall submit in the monthly compliance report
to the CPM copies of all written reports and summaries that document biological
resources activities. If actions may affect biological resources during operation, a
Designated Biologist shall be available for monitoring and reporting. During project
operation, the Designated Biologist shall submit record summaries in the annual
compliance report unless his/her duties are ceased as approved by the CPM.

Biological Monitor Qualifications
BIO-3

The project owner’s CPM-approved Designated Biologist shall submit the
resume, at least three references, and contact information of the proposed
biological monitor(s) to the CPM for approval. The resume shall demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the CPM, the appropriate education and experience to
accomplish the assigned biological resource tasks.
Biological monitor(s) training by the Designated Biologist shall include
familiarity with the conditions of certification, BRMIMP, WEAP, and all
permits.

Verification:
The project owner shall submit the specified information to the CPM for
approval at least 30 days prior to the start of any site (or related facilities) mobilization.
The Designated Biologist shall submit a written statement to the CPM confirming that
individual biological monitor(s) has been trained including the date when training was
completed. If additional biological monitors are needed during construction, the
specified information shall be submitted to the CPM for approval ten days prior to their
first day of monitoring activities.

Designated Biologist and Biological Monitor Authority
BIO-4

The project owner's construction and operation manager shall act on the
advice of the Designated Biologist and biological monitor(s) to ensure
conformance with the biological resources conditions of certification.
If required by the Designated Biologist and biological monitor(s), the project
owner's construction and operation manager shall halt all site mobilization,
ground disturbance, grading, construction, and operation activities in areas
specified by the Designated Biologist.
The Designated Biologist shall:
1. require a halt to all activities in any area when determined that there would
be an unauthorized adverse impact to biological resources if the activities
continued;
2. inform the project owner and the construction and operation manager
when to resume activities; and

February 2015

7-55

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

3. notify the CPM if there is a halt of any activities and advise the CPM of
any corrective actions that have been taken, or will be instituted, as a
result of the work stoppage.
If the Designated Biologist is unavailable for direct consultation, the lead
biological monitor shall act on behalf of the Designated Biologist.
Verification:
The project owner shall ensure that the Designated Biologist or
biological monitor, notifies the CPM immediately (and no later than the following
morning of the incident, or Monday morning in the case of a weekend) of any noncompliance or a halt of any site mobilization, ground disturbance, grading, construction,
and operation activities. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the circumstances
and actions being taken to resolve the problem.
Whenever corrective action is taken by the project owner, a determination of success or
failure will be made by the CPM within five working days after receipt of notice that
corrective action is completed, or the project owner will be notified by the CPM that
coordination with other agencies will require additional time before a determination can
be made.

Worker Environmental Awareness Program
BIO-5

The project owner shall develop and implement a CPM-approved Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) in which each of its employees,
as well as employees of contractors and subcontractors who work on the
project site or any related facilities during site mobilization, ground
disturbance, grading, construction, operation and closure, is informed about
sensitive biological resources associated with the project.
The WEAP must:
1. be developed by or in consultation with the Designated Biologist and
consist of an on-site or training center presentation in which supporting
written material and electronic media are made available to all
participants;
2. discuss the locations and types of sensitive biological resources on the
project site and adjacent areas;
3. present the reasons for protecting these resources;
4. present the meaning of various temporary and permanent habitat
protection measures;
5. identify whom to contact if there are further comments and questions
about the material discussed in the program; and
6. include a training acknowledgment form to be signed by each worker
indicating that he/she received training and shall abide by the guidelines.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-56

Februrary 2015

  

The specific program can be administered by a competent individual(s)
acceptable to the Designated Biologist.
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to the start of any project-related any projectrelated ground disturbing activities, the project owner shall provide to the CPM two
copies of the proposed WEAP and all supporting written materials and electronic media
prepared or reviewed by the Designated Biologist and a resume of the person(s)
administering the program.
The project owner shall provide in the monthly compliance report the number of persons
who have completed the training in the prior month and a running total of all persons
who have completed the training to date. At least ten days prior to site (and related
facilities) mobilization, the project owner shall submit two copies of the CPM-approved
materials.
The signed training acknowledgement forms from construction shall be kept on file by
the project owner for a period of at least six months after the start of commercial
operation.
During project operation, signed statements for active project operational personnel
shall be kept on file for six months following the termination of an individual's
employment.

Biological Resources Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring Plan
BIO-6

The project owner shall submit two copies of the proposed BRMIMP to the
CPM (for review and approval) and to CDFG CDFW and USFWS (for review
and comment) and shall implement the measures identified in the approved
BRMIMP.
The BRMIMP shall be prepared in consultation with the Designated Biologist
and shall identify:
1. all biological resource mitigation, monitoring, and compliance measures
proposed and agreed to by the project owner;
2. all applicant project owner -proposed mitigation measures presented in
the Application for Certification;
3. all biological resource conditions of certification identified as necessary in
the Final Commission Decision to avoid or mitigate impacts;
4. all biological resource mitigation, monitoring and compliance measures
required in other state agency terms and conditions, such as those
provided in the Regional Water Quality Control Board permits;
5. all Biological Resource mitigation, monitoring, and compliance measures
required in local agency permits, such as site grading and landscaping
requirements;

February 2015

7-57

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

6. all sensitive biological resources to be impacted, avoided, or mitigated by
project construction, operation, and closure;
7. all required mitigation measures for each sensitive biological resource;
8. a detailed description of measures that shall be taken to avoid or mitigate
temporary disturbances from construction activities;
9. all locations on a map, at an approved scale, of sensitive biological
resource areas subject to disturbance and areas requiring temporary
protection and avoidance during construction;
10. aerial photographs, at an approved scale, of all areas to be disturbed
during project construction activities - one set prior to any site (and related
facilities) mobilization disturbance and one set subsequent to completion
of project construction. Include planned timing of aerial photography and a
description of why times were chosen;
11. duration for each type of monitoring and a description of monitoring
methodologies and frequency;
12. performance standards to be used to help decide if/when proposed
mitigation is or is not successful;
13. all performance standards and remedial measures to be implemented if
performance standards are not met;
14. a preliminary discussion of biological resources-related facility closure
measures;
15. restoration and revegetation plan; and
16. a process for proposing plan modifications to the CPM and appropriate
agencies for review and approval.
Verification:
The project owner shall provide the specified document at least 60
days prior to the start of any project any project-related ground disturbing activities.
The CPM will determine the BRMIMP’s acceptability within 45 days of receipt. If there
are any permits that have not yet been received when the BRMIMP is first submitted,
these permits shall be submitted to the CPM, the CDFG CDFW, and USFWS within five
days of their receipt, and the BRMIMP shall be revised or supplemented to reflect the
permit condition within ten days of their receipt by the project owner. Ten days prior to
site (and related facilities) mobilization, the revised BRMIMP shall be resubmitted to the
CPM.
The project owner shall notify the CPM no less than five working days before
implementing any modifications to the approved BRMIMP to obtain CPM approval.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-58

Februrary 2015

  

Any changes to the approved BRMIMP must also be approved by the CPM in
consultation with CDFG CDFW, the USFWS, and appropriate agencies to ensure no
conflicts exist.
Implementation of BRMIMP measures will be reported in the monthly compliance
reports by the designated biologist (i.e., survey results, construction activities that were
monitored, species observed). Within 30 days after completion of project construction,
the project owner shall provide to the CPM, for review and approval, a written
construction closure report identifying which items of the BRMIMP have been
completed; a summary of all modifications to mitigation measures made during the
project's site mobilization, ground disturbance, grading, and construction phases; and
which mitigation and monitoring items are still outstanding.

Impact Avoidance Mitigation Features
BIO-7

Any time the project owner modifies or finalizes the project design, all feasible
measures shall be incorporated that avoid or minimize impacts to the local
biological resources. The project owner shall:
1. design, install, and maintain transmission line poles, access roads, pulling
sites, and storage and parking areas to avoid identified sensitive
resources;
2. design, install, and maintain transmission lines and all electrical
components in accordance with the Suggested Practices for Avian
Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 to reduce the
likelihood of electrocutions of large birds;
3. install bird flight diverters on the overhead ground wires of proposed
transmission lines (230- and 138-kV) to reduce the likelihood of bird
collision with power lines; if overhead ground wires are not installed, bird
flight diverters shall be placed on the conductors.
4. eliminate from landscaping plans any List A California exotic pest plants of
concern as defined by the California Exotic Pest Plant Council;
5. prescribe a road sealant that is non-toxic to wildlife and plants; and
6. design, install, and maintain facility lighting to prevent side casting of light
toward wildlife habitat (i.e., Agua Hedionda Lagoon); obstruction lighting
shall be white flashing lights unless specifically prohibited by FAA.

Verification:
All mitigation measures and their implementation methods shall be
included in the BRMIMP. Implementation of the measures will be reported in the
monthly compliance reports by the Designated Biologist. Within 30 days after
completion of project construction, the project owner shall provide to the CPM, for
review and approval, a written construction termination report identifying how measures
have been completed.

February 2015

7-59

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Mitigation Management to Avoid Harassment or Harm
BIO-8

The project owner shall implement the following measures to manage its
construction site (and related facilities) in a manner to avoid or minimize
impacts to local biological resources:
1. install temporary fencing and provide wildlife escape ramps for
construction areas that contain steep-walled holes or trenches if outside
an approved, permanent exclusionary fence. The temporary fence shall be
hardware cloth or similar material that is approved by USFWS and CDFG
CDFW;
2. ensure that all food-related trash is disposed of in closed containers and
removed at least once a week;
3. prohibit feeding of wildlife by staff and subcontractors;
4. prohibit non-security-related firearms or weapons on site;
5. prohibit pets on site;
6. avoid work between March 1 and August 15 to avoid impacts to birds
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
A. If this is not feasible, a survey shall be conducted for nesting birds
within the project area.
B. Should an active nest be discovered, the Designated Biologist or
biological monitor shall establish an appropriate buffer zone (in which
construction activities are not allowed) to avoid disturbance in the
vicinity of the nest.


Construction activities shall not commence until the Designated
Biologist or biological monitor has determined that the nestlings
have fledged or that construction activities will not affect adults or
newly fledged young; OR



The Designated Biologist or biological monitor shall develop a
monitoring plan that permits the activity to continue in the vicinity of
the nest while monitoring nesting activities to ensure that nesting
birds are not disturbed.

7. report all inadvertent deaths of sensitive species to the biological monitor,
who will notify CDFG CDFW or USFWS, as appropriate; and
8. minimize use of rodenticides and herbicides in the project area.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-60

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
All mitigation measures and their implementation methods shall be
included in the BRMIMP. Implementation of the measures shall be reported in the
monthly compliance reports by the Designated Biologist. Within 30 days after
completion of project construction, the project owner shall provide to the CPM, for
review and approval, a written construction termination report identifying how biological
resource measures have been completed.

Future Agency Coordination
BIO-9

In the event that the auxiliary pumps for EPS Units 4 and 5 that supply
discharge water for desalination and use by the CECP cease to operate, and
the CECP would require intake of ocean water, the project owner shall inform
the resource agencies (i.e., NMFS, USFWS, and CDFG) and coordinate
regarding compliance with Clean Water Act Section 316(b) and/or
Endangered Species Act requirements, as necessary.

Verification:
Annual reports of the operational status of Units 4 and 5 shall be
submitted to the CPM and planned closure of these units shall be reported to the CPM
as soon as possible. No later than 30 days prior to decommissioning of Units 4 and 5,
the project owner shall provide copies of pertinent records of conversation, permit
applications, associated technical reports, and permits (as applicable) to the CPM to
verify that federal and state agency coordination has occurred regarding compliance
with Clean Water Act Section 316(b) and/or Endangered Species Act requirements, as
necessary.

February 2015

7-61

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

CULTURAL RESOURCES
The conditions of certification below include the approved conditions of certification from
the licensed CECP with some minor changes to CUL-6 based on new information from
the recent subsurface archaeological inventory. If compliance work has begun and no
changes are required for the amended project, then the project owner need not
duplicate those previous compliance activities. The compliance work already performed
has been duly noted.
Modifications proposed by staff are shown in strikethrough for deletions and bold
underline for additions.
CUL-1

Prior to the start of ground disturbance,1 including tank removal demolition
and soil remediation, the project owner shall obtain the services of a Cultural
Resources Specialist (CRS) and one or more alternates, if alternates are
needed. The CRS shall manage all monitoring, mitigation, curation, and
reporting activities required in accordance with the Conditions of Certification
(Conditions). The CRS may elect to obtain the services of Cultural Resources
Monitors (CRMs) and other technical specialists, if needed, to assist in
monitoring, mitigation, and curation activities. The project owner shall ensure
that the CRS makes recommendations regarding the eligibility for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) of any cultural resources
that are newly discovered or that may be affected in an unanticipated manner
(discovery). No ground disturbance, including tank removal and soil
remediation, shall occur prior to CPM approval of the CRS, unless specifically
approved by the CPM. Approval of a CRS may be denied or revoked for noncompliance on this project.

CULTURAL RESOURCES SPECIALIST
The resumes for the CRS and alternate(s) shall include information
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the CPM that their training and
backgrounds conform to the U.S. Secretary of Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards, as published in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36
CFR Part 61. In addition, the CRS shall have the following qualifications:
1. The CRS’s qualifications shall be appropriate to the needs of the project
and shall include a background in anthropology, archaeology, history,
architectural history, or a related field; and
2. At least three years of archaeological or historic, as appropriate, resources
mitigation and field experience in California.
3. At least one year of experience in a decision-making capacity on cultural
resources projects in California and the appropriate training and

1

“Ground disturbance” includes “preconstruction site mobilization”; “construction ground disturbance”;
and “construction grading, boring and trenching,” as defined in the General Conditions for this project.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-62

Februrary 2015

  

experience to knowledgably make recommendations regarding the
significance of cultural resources.
The resumes of the CRS and alternate CRS shall include the names and
telephone numbers of contacts familiar with the work of the CRS/alternate
CRS on referenced projects and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CPM
that the CRS has the appropriate education and experience to accomplish the
cultural resource tasks that must be addressed during ground disturbance,
including tank removal and soil remediation. After all ground disturbance is
completed and the CRS has fulfilled all responsibilities specified in these
cultural resources conditions, the project owner may discharge the CRS, if the
CPM approves. With the discharge of the CRS, these cultural resources
conditions no longer apply to the activities of this power plant.

CULTURAL RESOURCES MONITORS
CRMs shall have the following qualifications:
1. a BS or BA degree in anthropology, archaeology, historical archaeology or
a related field and one year’s experience monitoring in California; or
2. an AS or AA degree in anthropology, archaeology, historical archaeology,
or a related field, and four years experience monitoring in California; or
3. enrollment in upper division classes pursuing a degree in the fields of
anthropology, archaeology, historical archaeology, or a related field, and
two years of monitoring experience in California.
4. CRMs assigned to monitor during tank removal and soil remediation shall
hold an appropriate hazardous waste operations training certificate(s).

CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL SPECIALISTS
The resume(s) of any additional technical specialists, e.g., historical
archaeologist, historian, architectural historian, and/or physical anthropologist,
shall be submitted to the CPM for approval.
Verification:
1. At least 45 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank removal and
soil remediation, the project owner shall submit the resume for the CRS, and
alternate(s) if desired, to the CPM for review and approval.
2. At least ten days prior to a termination or release of the CRS, or within ten days after
the resignation of a CRS, the project owner shall submit the resume of the proposed
new CRS to the CPM for review and approval. At the same time, the project owner
shall also provide to the approved new CRS the AFC and all cultural documents,
field notes, photographs, and other cultural materials generated by the project.

February 2015

7-63

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

3. At least 20 days prior to ground disturbance, including tank demolition removal and
soil remediation, the CRS shall provide a letter naming anticipated CRMs for the
project and stating that the identified CRMs meet the minimum qualifications for
cultural resources monitoring required by this Condition. CRMs possessing current
hazardous waste operations certificates shall be identified. If additional CRMs are
obtained during the project, the CRS shall provide additional letters to the CPM
identifying the CRMs and attesting to the qualifications of the CRMs, at least five
days prior to the CRMs beginning on-site duties.
4. At least ten days prior to beginning tasks, the resume(s) of any additional technical
specialists shall be provided to the CPM for review and approval.
5. At least ten days prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank removal and
soil remediation, the project owner shall confirm in writing to the CPM that the
approved CRS will be available for on-site work and is prepared to implement the
Cultural Resources Conditions.
CUL-2

Prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank demolition removal
and soil remediation, if the CRS has not previously worked on the project, the
project owner shall provide the CRS with copies of the Application for
Certification (AFC), data responses, and confidential cultural resources
reports for the project. The project owner shall also provide the CRS and the
CPM with maps and drawings showing the footprint of the power plant, all
linear facilities, access roads and laydown areas. Maps shall include the
appropriate U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles and a map at an appropriate
scale (e.g., 1:2000 or 1 inch = 200 feet) for plotting cultural features or
materials. If the CRS requests enlargements or strip maps for linear facility
routes, the project owner shall provide copies to the CRS and CPM. The CPM
shall review submittals and, in consultation with the CRS, approve those that
are appropriate for use in cultural resources planning activities.
The CRS and CRM shall coordinate their oversight of ground disturbance with
the Geotechnical Investigation required by the Facility Design Conditions of
Certification.
No ground disturbance, including tank removal and soil remediation, shall
occur prior to CPM approval of maps and drawings, unless specifically
approved by the CPM.
If construction of the project should proceed in phases, maps and drawings
not previously provided shall be submitted prior to the start of each phase.
Written notification identifying the proposed schedule of each project phase
shall be provided to the CRS and CPM.
At a minimum, the CRS shall consult weekly with the project construction
manager to confirm area(s) to be worked during the next week, until ground
disturbance, including tank removal and soil remediation is completed.
The project owner shall notify the CRS and CPM of any changes to the
scheduling of the construction phases.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-64

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
1. At least 40 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank demolition
removal and soil remediation, the project owner shall provide the AFC, data
responses, and confidential cultural resources documents to the CRS, if needed,
and the subject maps and drawings to the CRS and CPM. The CPM will review
submittals in consultation with the CRS and approve maps and drawings suitable for
cultural resources planning activities.
2. If there are changes to any project-related footprint, revised maps and drawings
shall be provided at least 15 days prior to start of ground disturbance, including tank
removal and soil remediation, for those changes.
3. If project construction is phased, if not previously provided, the project owner shall
submit the subject maps and drawings 15 days prior to each phase.
4. On a weekly basis during ground disturbance, including tank removal and soil
remediation, a current schedule of anticipated project activity shall be provided to the
CRS and CPM by letter, email, or fax.
5. Within five days of identifying changes, the project owner shall provide written notice
of any changes to scheduling of construction phase.
CUL-3

Prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank demolition removal
and soil remediation, the project owner shall submit the Cultural Resources
Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (CRMMP), as prepared by or under the
direction of the CRS, to the CPM for review and approval. The CRMMP shall
be provided in the Archaeological Resource Management Report (ARMR)
format, and, per ARMR guidelines, the author’s name shall appear on the title
page of the CRMMP. The CRMMP shall identify general and specific
measures to minimize potential impacts to sensitive cultural resources.
Implementation of the CRMMP shall be the responsibility of the CRS and the
project owner. Copies of the CRMMP shall reside with the CRS, alternate
CRS, each monitor, and the project owner’s on-site construction manager. No
ground disturbance, including tank removal and soil remediation, shall occur
prior to CPM approval of the CRMMP, unless specifically approved by the
CPM.
The CRMMP shall include, but not be limited to, the following elements and
measures:
1. A general research design that includes a discussion of archaeological
research questions and testable hypotheses specifically applicable to the
project area, and a discussion of artifact collection, retention/disposal, and
curation policies as related to the research questions formulated in the
research design. A prescriptive treatment plan may be included in the
CRMMP for limited resource types. A refined research design will be
prepared for any resource where data recovery is required.
2. The following statement included in the Introduction: “Any discussion,
summary, or paraphrasing of the Conditions in this CRMMP is intended as

February 2015

7-65

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

general guidance and as an aid to the user in understanding the
Conditions and their implementation. The Conditions, as written in the
Commission Decision, shall supersede any summarization, description, or
interpretation of the Conditions in the CRMMP. The Cultural Resources
Conditions of Certification from the Commission Decision are contained in
Appendix A.”
3. Identification of the person(s) expected to perform each of the tasks, his or
her responsibilities, and the reporting relationships between project
construction management and the mitigation and monitoring team.
4. A description of the manner in which Native American observers or
monitors will be included, the procedures to be used to select them, their
roles and responsibilities, and provisions to comply with NAHC Guidelines.
5. A statement that all cultural resources encountered shall be recorded on a
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) form 523 and mapped and
photographed. In addition, all archaeological materials retained as a result
of the archaeological investigations (survey, testing, data recovery) shall
be curated in accordance with the California State Historical Resources
Commission’s Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Collections,
into a retrievable storage collection in a public repository or museum.
6. A statement that the project owner will pay all curation fees and a copy of
an agreement with, or other written commitment from, a curation facility to
accept artifacts from this project. Any agreements concerning curation will
be retained and available for audit for the life of the project.
7. A statement that the CRS has access to equipment and supplies
necessary for site mapping, photography, and recovery of any cultural
resources materials that are encountered during construction and cannot
be treated prescriptively.
8. A description of the contents and format of the Cultural Resources Report
(CRR), which shall be prepared according to ARMR guidelines.
Verification:
1. At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank demolition
removal and soil remediation, the project owner shall submit the subject CRMMP to
the CPM for review and approval. Ground disturbance, including tank removal and
soil remediation, may not commence until the CRMMP is approved, unless
specifically approved by the CPM.
2. At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank demolition
removal and soil remediation, a letter shall be provided to the CPM indicating that
the project owner agrees to pay curation fees for any materials collected as a result
of the archaeological investigations (survey, testing, data recovery).
CUL-4

The project owner shall submit the Cultural Resources Report (CRR) to the
CPM for approval. The CRR shall be written by or under the direction of the
CRS and shall be provided in the ARMR format. The CRR shall report on all

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-66

Februrary 2015

  

field activities including dates, times and locations, findings, samplings, and
analyses. All survey reports, Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523
forms, and additional research reports not previously submitted to the
California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) shall be included as an appendix to the
CRR.
If the project owner requests a suspension of construction activities, then a
draft CRR that covers all cultural resources activities associated with the
project shall be prepared by the CRS and submitted to the CPM for review
and approval on the same day as within 30 days of the
suspension/extension request. The draft CRR shall be retained at the project
site in a secure facility until construction resumes or the project is withdrawn.
If the project is withdrawn, then a final CRR shall be submitted to the CPM for
review and approval at the same time as the withdrawal request.
Verification:
1. Within 90 days after completion of ground disturbance (including landscaping), the
project owner shall submit the CRR to the CPM for review and approval. If any
reports have previously been sent to the CHRIS, then receipt letters from the CHRIS
or other verification of receipt shall be included in an appendix.
2. Within ten days after CPM approval, the project owner shall provide documentation
to the CPM confirming that copies of the CRR have been provided to the SHPO, the
CHRIS, and the curating institution, if archaeological materials were collected.
3. Within 30 days after requesting a suspension of construction activities, the project
owner shall submit a draft CRR to the CPM for review and approval.
CUL-5

Prior to and for the duration of ground disturbance, including tank removal
demolition and soil remediation, the project owner shall provide Worker
Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training to all new workers within
their first week of employment. The training shall be prepared by the CRS,
may be conducted by any member of the archaeological team, and may be
presented in the form of a video. The CRS shall be available (by telephone or
in person) to answer questions posed by employees. The training may be
discontinued when ground disturbance, including tank removal and soil
remediation, is completed or suspended, but shall be resumed when ground
disturbance, such as landscaping, resumes. The training shall include:
1. A discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law;
2. Samples or visuals of artifacts that might be found in the project vicinity;
3. Instruction that the CRS, alternate CRS, and CRMs have the authority to
halt construction in the area of a discovery to an extent sufficient to ensure
that the resource is protected from further impacts, as determined by the
CRS;

February 2015

7-67

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

4. Instruction that employees are to halt work on their own in the vicinity of a
potential cultural resources discovery and shall contact their supervisor
and the CRS or CRM, and that redirection of work would be determined by
the construction supervisor and the CRS;
5. An informational brochure that identifies reporting procedures in the event
of a discovery;
6. An acknowledgement form signed by each worker indicating that he/she
has received the training; and
7. A sticker that shall be placed on hard hats indicating that environmental
training has been completed.
No ground disturbance, including tank removal and soil remediation, shall
occur prior to implementation of the WEAP program, unless specifically
approved by the CPM.
Verification:
17. At least 30 days prior to the beginning of ground disturbance, including tank
demolition , the CRS shall provide the training program draft text and graphics and
the informational brochure to the CPM for review and approval, and the CPM will
provide to the project owner a WEAP Training Acknowledgement form for each
WEAP-trained worker to sign.
18. On a monthly basis, the project owner shall provide in the Monthly Compliance
Report (MCR) the WEAP Training Acknowledgement forms of persons who have
completed the training in the prior month and a running total of all persons who have
completed training to date. The project owner shall provide in the monthly
compliance report (MCR) the number of persons who have completed the
training in the prior month and a running total of all persons who have
completed the training to date. At least ten days prior to site (and related
facilities) mobilization, the project owner shall submit two copies of the CPMapproved materials. The signed training acknowledgement forms from
construction shall be kept on file by the project owner for a period of at least
six months after the start of commercial operation.
CUL-6

The project owner shall ensure that the CRS, alternate CRS, or CRMs
monitor full time all ground disturbance of native soils at the project site, along
linear facilities and roads, and at parking and other ancillary areas, including
wetlands mitigation areas, if cultural materials are identified in these areas
during these ground-disturbing activities, to ensure there are no impacts
to undiscovered resources and to ensure that known resources are not
impacted in an unanticipated manner.
Full-time archaeological m Monitoring for this project shall be restricted to
the archaeological monitoring of all earth-moving activities on the project site
and laydown areas, including tank removal and soil remediation, for as long
as the activities are ongoing, in those areas where cultural materials are

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-68

Februrary 2015

  

identified during these earth-moving activities. Full-time a Archaeological
monitoring shall require at least one monitor where machines are actively
disturbing native soils in areas where cultural material is identified. If an
excavation area or areas are too large for one monitor to effectively observe
the soil removal, one or more additional monitors shall be retained to observe
the area.
In the event that the CRS believes that the current level of monitoring is not
appropriate in certain locations, a letter or e-mail detailing the justification for
changing the level of monitoring shall be provided to the CPM for review and
approval prior to any change in the level of monitoring.
If future geotechnical core borings are conducted for the project, they shall be
monitored and the boring cores examined by a geoarchaeologist or qualified
archaeologist for the presence of cultural material. If cultural material is
identified, that information shall be reported to the CPM within 24 hours.
Whether or not cultural material is identified, the results of the core
examinations shall be provided in a report to the CPM.
In the event that the CRS determines that the current level of monitoring is
not appropriate in certain locations, a letter or e-mail detailing the justification
for changing the level of monitoring shall be provided to the CPM for review
and approval prior to any change in the level of monitoring.
The research design in the CRMMP shall govern the collection, treatment,
retention/disposal, and curation of any archaeological materials encountered.
On forms provided by the CPM, CRMs shall keep a daily log of any
monitoring and other cultural resources activities and any instances of noncompliance with the Conditions and/or applicable LORS. From these logs, the
CRS shall compile a monthly monitoring summary report to be included in the
Monthly Compliance Report (MCR). If there are no monitoring activities, the
summary report shall specify why monitoring has been suspended.
The CRS, at his or her discretion, or at the request of the CPM, may
informally discuss cultural resources monitoring and mitigation activities with
Energy Commission technical staff.
Cultural resources monitoring activities are the responsibility of the CRS. Any
interference with monitoring activities, removal of a monitor from duties
assigned by the CRS, or direction to a monitor to relocate monitoring activities
by anyone other than the CRS shall be considered non-compliance with these
Conditions.
Upon becoming aware of any incidents of non-compliance with the Conditions
and/or applicable LORS, the CRS and/or the project owner shall notify the
CPM by telephone or e-mail within 24 hours. The CRS shall also recommend
corrective action to resolve the problem or achieve compliance with the
Conditions. When the issue is resolved, the CRS shall write a report
describing the issue, the resolution of the issue, and the effectiveness of the

February 2015

7-69

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

resolution measures. This report shall be provided in the next MCR for the
review of the CPM.
The project owner shall retainobtain a Native American monitor to monitor
ground disturbance in any areas where Native American artifacts are
discovered in native cultural resource monitoring is required. Informational
lists of concerned Native Americans and guidelines for monitoring shall be
obtained from the Native American Heritage Commission. Preference in
selecting a monitor shall be given to Native Americans with traditional ties to
the area that shall be monitored. If efforts to obtain the services of a qualified
Native American monitor are unsuccessful, the project owner shall
immediately inform the CPM. The CPM will either identify potential monitors
or will allow ground disturbance, including tank removal and soil remediation,
to proceed without a Native American monitor.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank
removal and soil remediation, the CPM will provide to the CRS an electronic copy of a
form to be used as a daily monitoring log. While monitoring is ongoing, the project
owner shall include in each MCR a copy of the monthly summary report of cultural
resources-related monitoring prepared by the CRS.
19. Daily When monitoring is occurring, daily the CRS shall provide a statement that
“no cultural resources more than 50 years of age were discovered” to the CPM as an
e-mail or in some other form acceptable to the CPM. The statement shall also
include information based on the twice daily observations of soils by the
archaeological monitor and indicate the likelihood of disturbing native soils. If the
CRS concludes that daily reporting is no longer necessary, a letter or e-mail
providing a detailed justification for the decision to reduce or end daily reporting shall
be provided to the CPM for review and approval at least 24 hours prior to reducing
or ending daily reporting. At least 24 hours prior to implementing a proposed change
in monitoring level, documentation justifying the change shall be submitted to the
CPM for review and approval.
20. At least 24 hours prior to implementing a proposed change in monitoring level,
documentation justifying the change shall be submitted to the CPM for review and
approval.
21. If geotechnical core borings are conducted and cultural material is identified by a
geoarchaeologist or archaeologist, the CPM shall be notified within 24 hours. Within
30 days after the examination of the core borings is completed, the CRS shall
provide a copy of the results of the core examinations in a report to the CPM.
CUL-7

The project owner shall grant authority to halt construction to the CRS,
alternate CRS, and the CRMs in the event of a discovery. Redirection of
ground disturbance, including tank removal and soil remediation, shall be
accomplished under the direction of the construction supervisor in
consultation with the CRS.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-70

Februrary 2015

  

In the event cultural resources more than 50 years of age or considered
exceptionally significant are found, or impacts to such resources can be
anticipated, construction shall be halted or redirected in the immediate vicinity
of the Discovery sufficient to ensure that the resource is protected from
further impacts. The halting or redirection of construction shall remain in effect
until the CRS has visited the Discovery, and all of the following have
occurred:
1. the CRS has notified the project owner, and the CPM has been notified
within 24 hours of the discovery, or by Monday morning if the cultural
resources discovery occurs between 8:00 a.m. on Friday and 8:00 a.m. on
Sunday morning, including a description of the discovery (or changes in
character or attributes), the action taken (i.e. work stoppage or
redirection), a recommendation of eligibility, and recommendations for
mitigation of any cultural resources discoveries, whether or not a
determination of significance has been made.
2. the CRS has completed field notes, measurements, and photography for a
DPR 523 primary form. The “Description” entry of the 523 form shall
include a recommendation on the significance of the find. The project
owner shall submit completed forms to the CPM.
3. The CRS, the project owner, and the CPM have conferred, and the CPM
has concurred with the recommended eligibility of the discovery and
approved the CRS’s proposed data recovery, if any, including the curation
of the artifacts, or other appropriate mitigation; and any necessary data
recovery and mitigation have been completed.
Verification:
1. At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, including tank removal
demolition and soil remediation, the project owner shall provide the CPM and CRS
with a letter confirming that the CRS, alternate CRS, and CRMs have the authority to
halt construction activities in the vicinity of a cultural resources discovery, and that
the project owner shall ensure that the CRS notifies the CPM within 24 hours of a
discovery, or by Monday morning if the cultural resources discovery occurs between
8:00 a.m. on Friday and 8:00 a.m. on Sunday morning.
2. Completed DPR form 523s shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval
no later than 24 hours following the notification of the CPM, or 48 hours following the
completion of data recordation/recovery, whichever is more appropriate for the
subject cultural resource, as determined by the CRS.
CUL-8

If fill soils must be acquired from a non-commercial borrow site or disposed of
to a non-commercial disposal site, unless less-than-five-year-old surveys of
these sites for archaeological resources are documented to and approved by
the CPM, the CRS shall survey the borrow and/or disposal site(s) for cultural
resources and record on DPR 523 forms any that are identified. When the
survey is completed, the CRS shall convey the results and recommendations
for further action to the project owner and the CPM, who will determine what,

February 2015

7-71

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

if any, further action is required. If the CPM determines that significant
archaeological resources that cannot be avoided are present at the borrow
site, all these conditions of certification shall apply. The CRS shall report on
the methods and results of these surveys in the CRR.
Verification: As soon as the project owner knows that a non-commercial borrow site
and/or disposal site will be used, he/she shall notify the CRS and CPM and provide
documentation of previous archaeological survey, if any, dating within the past five
years, for CPM approval.
In the absence of documentation of recent archaeological survey, at least 30 days prior
to any soil borrow or disposal activities on the non-commercial borrow and/or disposal
sites, the CRS shall survey the site/s for archaeological resources. The CRS shall notify
the project owner and the CPM of the results of the cultural resources survey, with
recommendations, if any, for further action.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-72

Februrary 2015

  

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
Strikethrough is used to indicate deleted language and bold underline is proposed for
new language.
The conditions of certification below include the approved conditions of
certification from the licensed CECP and any modifications, additions or
deletions required for the amended CECP. If compliance work has begun and no
changes are required for the amended project, then the project owner need not
duplicate those previous compliance activities. The compliance work already
performed has been duly noted.
HAZ-1

The project owner shall not use any hazardous materials not listed in
Attachment A, below, or in greater quantities or strengths than those
identified by chemical name in Attachment A, below, unless approved in
advance by the compliance project manager (CPM).

Verification:
No later than 60 days prior to the start of the removal of the any
above ground storage tanks or ancillary piping and the berms, tThe project owner
shall provide to the CPM and to the Carlsbad Fire Department, in the Annual
Compliance Report, a list of hazardous materials contained and used at the facility site.
An updated list shall also be provided to the CPM and the Carlsbad Fire
Department no later than 60 days prior to the start of construction, 60 days prior
to the start of commissioning operations, and in the Annual Compliance Report.
HAZ-2

The project owner shall concurrently provide a Business Plan and a Risk
Management Plan (RMP) prepared pursuant to the California Accidental
Release Program (CalARP) to the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division (HMD), and the CPM for
review. After receiving comments from the San Diego County DEH HMD and
the CPM, the project owner shall reflect all recommendations in the final
documents. Copies of the final Business Plan and RMP shall then be
provided to the San Diego County DEH HMD and the Carlsbad Fire
Department for information and to the CPM for approval.

Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the initial receipt of receiving any hazardous
material on the site for tank demolition, commissioning, or operations, the project
owner shall provide a copy of a final Business Plan or updated business plan to the
CPM for approval and to the San Diego County DEH HMD and the Carlsbad Fire
Department for information.
At least 30 days prior to delivery of aqueous ammonia to the site, the project owner
shall provide the final RMP to the DEH HMD and the Carlsbad Fire Department for
information and to the CPM for approval.
HAZ-3

The project owner shall develop and implement a Safety Management Plan
for delivery of aqueous ammonia and other liquid hazardous materials by
tanker truck. The plan shall include procedures, protective equipment

February 2015

7-73

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

requirements, training, and a checklist. It shall also include a section
describing all measures to be implemented to prevent mixing of incompatible
hazardous materials including provisions to maintain lockout control by a
power plant employee not involved in the delivery or transfer operation. This
plan shall be applicable during construction, commissioning, and operation of
the power plant.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the initial delivery of any liquid hazardous
material to the facility for demolition, commissioning, or operations, the project
owner shall provide a Safety Management Plan as described above to the City of
Carlsbad Fire Department for review and comment and to the CPM for review and
approval.
HAZ-4

The aqueous ammonia storage facility shall be designed to either the ASME
Pressure Vessel Code and ANSI K61.6 or to API 620. In either case, the
storage tank shall be protected by a secondary containment basin capable of
holding 125 percent of the storage volume or the storage volume plus the
volume associated with 24 hours of rain assuming the 25-year storm. The
final design drawings and specifications for the ammonia storage tank and
secondary containment basins shall be submitted to the CPM.

Verification:
At least 60 days prior to delivery of aqueous ammonia to the facility,
the project owner shall submit final design drawings and specifications for the ammonia
storage tank and secondary containment basin to the City of Carlsbad Fire
Department for review and comment and to the CPM for review and approval.
HAZ-5

The project owner shall direct all vendors delivering aqueous ammonia to the
site to use only tanker truck transport vehicles which meet or exceed the
specifications of DOT Code MC-307.

Verification:
At least 30 days prior to receipt of aqueous ammonia on site, the
project owner shall submit copies of the notification letter to supply vendors indicating
the transport vehicle specifications to the CPM for review and approval.
HAZ-6

The project owner shall direct all vendors delivering any hazardous material
to the site to use only the route approved by the CPM (I-5 to Cannon Road to
Avenida Encinas to the project site). The project owner shall obtain approval
from the CPM if an alternate route is desired.

Verification:
At least 60 days prior to receipt of any hazardous materials on site for
tank demolition, construction, or operations, the project owner shall submit copies
of the required transportation route limitation direction to the CPM for review and
approval.
HAZ-7

Prior to commencing tank demolitionconstruction, a site-specific Demolition
and Construction Site Security Plan for the tank demolition and construction
phases shall be prepared and made available to the CPM for review and
approval. The Construction Security Plan shall include the following:

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-74

Februrary 2015

  

1. perimeter security consisting of fencing enclosing the demolition and
construction areas;
2. security guards;
3. site access control consisting of a check-in procedure or tag system for
demolition and construction personnel and visitors;
4. written standard procedures for employees, contractors, and vendors
when encountering suspicious objects or packages on-site or off-site;
5. protocol for contacting law enforcement and the CPM in the event of
suspicious activity or emergency; and
6. evacuation procedures.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to commencing tank demolition construction,
the project owner shall notify the CPM and the Carlsbad Police Department that a
site-specific Demolition and Construction Security Plan is available for review and
comment. After receiving comments from the Carlsbad Police Department and
the CPM, the project owner shall revise the Demolition and Construction Security
Plan to reflect those comments and notify the CPM that the revised plan is
available for review and approval.
HAZ-8

The project owner shall also prepare a site-specific security plan for the
commissioning and operational phases that will be available to the Carlsbad
Police Department for review and comment and to the CPM for review
and approval. The project owner shall implement site security measures that
address physical site security and hazardous materials storage. The level of
security to be implemented shall not be less than that described below (as per
NERC 2002).
The Operation Security Plan shall include the following:
1. permanent full perimeter fence or wall, at least eight feet high and topped
with barbed wire or the equivalent (and with slats or other methods to
restrict visibility if a fence is selected;
2. main entrance security gate, either hand operated or motorized;
3. evacuation procedures;
4. protocol for contacting law enforcement and the CPM in the event of
suspicious activity or emergency;
5. written standard procedures for employees, contractors, and vendors
when encountering suspicious objects or packages on site or off site;

February 2015

7-75

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

a) a statement (refer to sample, Attachment B), signed by the project
owner certifying that background investigations have been conducted
on all project personnel. Background investigations shall be restricted
to determine the accuracy of employee identity and employment
history and shall be conducted in accordance with state and federal
laws regarding security and privacy;
b) a statement(s) (refer to sample, Attachment C), signed by the
contractor or authorized representative(s) for any permanent
contractors or other technical contractors (as determined by the CPM
after consultation with the project owner), that are present at any time
on the site to repair, maintain, investigate, or conduct any other
technical duties involving critical components (as determined by the
CPM after consultation with the project owner) certifying that
background investigations have been conducted on contractors who
visit the project site;
6. site access controls for employees, contractors, vendors, and visitors;
7. a statement(s) (refer to sample, Attachment D), signed by the owners or
authorized representative of hazardous materials transport vendors,
certifying that they have prepared and implemented security plans in
compliance with 49 CFR 172.880, and that they have conducted
employee background investigations in accordance with 49 CFR Part
1572, subparts A and B;
8. closed circuit TV (CCTV) monitoring system, recordable, and viewable in
the power plant control room and security station (if separate from the
control room) with cameras able to pan, tilt, and zoom, have low-light
capability, and are able to view 100 percent of the perimeter fence, the
ammonia storage tank, the outside entrance to the control room, and the
front gate; and,
9. Additional measures to ensure adequate perimeter security consisting of
either:
a) security guard(s) present 24 hours per day, seven days per week; or
b) power plant personnel on site 24 hours per day, seven days per week,
and perimeter breach detectors or on-site motion detectors.
The project owner shall fully implement the security plans and obtain CPM
approval of any substantive modifications to those security plans. The CPM
may authorize modifications to these measures, or may require additional
measures such as protective barriers for critical power plant components—
transformers, gas lines, and compressors—depending upon circumstances
unique to the facility or in response to industry-related standards, security
concerns, or additional guidance provided by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, the U.S. Department of Energy, or the North American

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-76

Februrary 2015

  

Electrical Reliability Council, after consultation with both appropriate law
enforcement agencies and the petitioner project owner.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the initial receipt of hazardous materials on
site for commissioning or operations, the project owner shall notify the Carlsbad
Police Department and the CPM that a site-specific Operations Site Security Plan is
available for review. After receiving comments from the Carlsbad Police
Department and the CPM, the project owner shall revise the Operations Site
Security Plan to reflect those comments and notify the CPM that the revised plan
is available for review and approval. In the annual compliance report, the project
owner shall include a statement that all current project employee and appropriate
contractor background investigations have been performed, and that updated
certification statements have been appended to the operations security plan. In the
annual compliance report, the project owner shall include a statement that the
operations security plan includes all current hazardous materials transport vendor
certifications for security plans and employee background investigations.
HAZ-9

If the project owner dedicates an easement for the Coastal Rail Trail, it shall
be located within the boundaries of the overall Encina Power Station Precise
Development Plan area in a location mutually agreed upon with the city of
Carlsbad and located west of the north/south AT&SF/North County Transit
District Rail Corridor. In no event shall the project owner grant or dedicate an
easement for the Coastal Rail Trail east of the Rail Corridor on the CECP site.

Verification:
Not later than ten days after drafting an agreement, the project owner
shall submit to the CPM for review and approval the instrument of easement dedication
showing that the location mutually agreed upon with the city of Carlsbad is west of the
north/south AT&SF/North County Transit District Rail Corridor.
HAZ-10

The project owner shall not conduct or allow any fuel gas pipe cleaning
activities on the site involving fuel gas pipe of four-inches or greater external
diameter, either before placing the pipe into service or at any time during the
lifetime of the facility, that involve “flammable gas blows” where natural (or
flammable) gas is used to blow out debris from piping and then vented to
atmosphere. Instead, an inherently safer method involving a non-flammable
gas (e.g. high pressure air, nitrogen, steam) or mechanical “pigging” shall be
used. The project owner shall prepare a Fuel Gas Pipe Cleaning Work Plan
which shall indicate the method of cleaning to be used, what gas will be used,
the source of pressurization, and whether a mechanical Pipeline Inspection
Gizmo (PIG) will be used, and submit this Plan to the CBO for information, to
the Carlsbad Fire Department for review and comment, and to the CPM for
review and approval. Exceptions to any of these provisions will be made only
if no other satisfactory method is available, and then only with the approval of
the CPM after review and comment from the CBO and the Carlsbad Fire
Department.

Verification:
At least 30 days before any fuel gas pipe cleaning activities involving
pipe of four-inches or greater external diameter, the project owner shall submit a copy of

February 2015

7-77

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

the Fuel Gas Pipe Cleaning Work Plan to the CBO for information, to the Carlsbad Fire
Department for review and comment, and to the CPM for review and approval.
HAZ-10

The project owner shall not allow any fuel gas pipe cleaning activities
on site at any power unit, either before placing the pipe into service or
at any time during the lifetime of the facility, that involve “flammable gas
blows” where natural (or flammable) gas is used to blow out debris from
piping and then vented to the atmosphere. Instead, an inherently safer
method involving a non-flammable gas (e.g. air, nitrogen, steam) or
mechanical pigging shall be used as per NFPA 56. A written procedure
shall be developed and implemented as per NFPA 56, section 4.3.1

Verification:
At least 30 days before any fuel gas pipe cleaning activities begin
at any unit, the project owner shall submit a copy of the Fuel Gas Pipe Cleaning
Work Plan (as described in NFPA 56, section 4.3.1) which shall indicate the
method of cleaning to be used, what gas will be used, the source of
pressurization, and whether a mechanical PIG will be used, to the CBO for
information and to the CPM for review and approval.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-78

Februrary 2015

  

LAND USE
Staff recommends retaining Condition of Certification LAND-1 from the Final
Commission Decision for the licensed CECP, as modified herein based on comments
from the city of Carlsbad. Staff also recommends deleting Conditions of Certification
LAND-2 and LAND-3 because demolition of the existing EPS facility is part of the
amended CECP’s project description and these conditions would be inconsistent with
the agreement established between the project owner and the city of Carlsbad. (Note:
New language is shown in bold/underline; strikethrough is used to indicate deleted
language).
LAND-1 The project owner shall dedicate an easement for the Coastal Rail Trail within
the boundaries of the overall Encina Power Station Precise Development
Plan area in a location mutually agreed upon with the city of Carlsbad located
west of the north/south AT&SF/North County Transit District Rail Corridor
within 180 days from the start of construction.
If the project owner and the city of Carlsbad cannot reach agreement on the
location of the easement (for example due to public safety and security
reasons) the project owner shall provide funds to the city of Carlsbad for use
in the development of the Coastal Rail Trail within the city of Carlsbad. The
project owner shall provide funding to the city of Carlsbad for development of
the Coastal Rail Trail as approved by the Compliance Project Manager (CPM)
within 180 days of the start of construction. The amount and payment of funds
will be determined by an independent appraisal of property within the
boundaries of the Encina Power Station that would have been provided for a
Coastal Rail Trail easement. The project owner shall select an appraiser for
approval by the CPM and pay all costs associated with the appraisal.
Verification:
The project owner shall provide proof to the compliance project
manager of easement dedication or appraisal and payment to the city of Carlsbad
within 180 days of prior to the start of construction. To meet this requirement, an
indeterminate or blanket easement may be granted, containing provisions that it
will be quitclaimed upon later dedication of a specific easement when specific
redevelopment plans for the area are determined. Any easement granted to the
city of Carlsbad must be subservient to and have inferior rights against later
granted easements to the project owner for access or utility connections through
the area west of the north/south AT&SF/North County Transit District Rail
Corridor necessary for operation of the amended CECP. Within 30 days of
recording the specific trail easement, the project owner shall provide a copy of
the easement to the CPM.
LAND-2 On or before January 1, 2016, the project owner shall prepare and submit a
Demolition, Removal, and Remediation Plan (DRRP) to the CPM, the city of
Carlsbad, and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency. The DRRP shall
propose the process, schedule, and legal requirements for the demolition,
removal, and remediation of the Encina Power Station (Units 1 through 5),
associated structures, the black start unit and the exhaust stack. As part of

February 2015

7-79

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

completion of the DRRP, project owner shall consult with the California
Energy Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the city of Carlsbad,
the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, the San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board, the San Diego Air Pollution Control Board, and the California
Independent System Operator to ensure the DRRP best reflects the
procedural and substantive requirements that will apply to the site.
On or before January 1, 2017, project owner shall prepare and submit to the
CPM, the city of Carlsbad, and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency, a study
of the estimated costs associated with implementing the DRRP.
Project owner shall demonstrate, to the CPM’s satisfaction, fiscal capability to
implement the DRRP prior to commencement of demolition activities. Such
demonstration could be accomplished by submittal of a financial plan, deposit
of funds into a dedicated account, or any combination thereof.
Verification:
On or before January 1, 2016, project owner shall provide the DRRP to
the CPM for review and approval and to the city of Carlsbad, the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency, and the California Coastal Commission for review and
comment. The city of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency shall provide
comments on the DRRP to the CPM and project owner within 60 days or a date
mutually agreeable to project owner and the city of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad
Redevelopment Agency.
On or before January 1, 2016, project owner shall submit to the CPM evidence that the
redevelopment process with the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for redeveloping the
Encina Power Station site has begun or shall submit to the CPM evidence of a later
mutually agreed upon date by project owner and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency
to begin the redevelopment process.
On or before January 1, 2017, project owner shall submit the results of the study on
estimated costs of implementing the DRRP to CPM for review and approval and to the
city of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency for review and comment. The
city of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency shall provide comments on
cost estimate to the CPM and project owner within 60 days or a date mutually agreeable
to the project owner and the city of Carlsbad and the Carlsbad Redevelopment Agency.
The project owner shall report to the CPM on June 30, 2012 and every June 30
thereafter until notified by the CPM that reports are no longer required, as to the
progress made toward satisfaction of this Condition and Condition LAND-3. The reports
shall include all relevant information, including an assessment of the factors which
continue to require that any or all of Units 1 through 5 and the black start unit remain
operational.
LAND-3 On or before January 1, 2017, project owner shall submit applications for
required permits and approvals for demolition, removal, and remediation of
the Encina Power Station Units 1 through 5, associated structures, the black
start unit and the exhaust stack.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-80

Februrary 2015

  

Upon the commencement of commissioning activities of the project, project
owner shall request permission from the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) and California Independent System Operator to
permanently shutdown Units 1 through 5 and the black start unit. The request
shall be resubmitted annually thereafter until permission is granted.
Project owner shall seek partners to complete redevelopment of the Encina
Power Station according to the Demolition, Removal, and Remediation Plan
(DRRP) approved by the CPM pursuant to LAND-2. Upon the permanent
retirement of Units 1 through 5 at Encina Power Station, Project Owner shall
actively pursue fiscally viable redevelopment of the Encina Power Station.
Such pursuit could include selling or transferring the land and facilities to a
developing entity or entering into a joint venture with one or more developers.
The project owner is not expected to commence demolition and remediation
without a viable city approved redevelopment plan. Redevelopment of the site
to the west of the rail corridor shall be for a purpose other than the generation
of electricity.
Verification:
Project Owner shall report to CPM on annual basis the status of the
redevelopment efforts at the Encina Power Station. Within 60 days of receiving the
report, the CPM shall schedule and hold a public workshop to present the report and
solicit public comments and questions

February 2015

7-81

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

NOISE & VIBRATION
The conditions of certification below include the approved conditions of certification
from the licensed CECP and any modifications, additions, or deletions required for the
amended CECP. If compliance work has begun and no changes are required for the
amended project, then the project owner need not duplicate those previous compliance
activities. Therefore, it is staff’s opinion that no changes to the verification are
necessary. For example, submittal of the noise control program to the CPM, as
required by Condition of Certification NOISE-3, does not need to be resubmitted if it
has previously occurred as a part of the licensed CECP compliance work. No changes
to the verification are necessary in this regard. In contrast, since the requirement to
notify the public of start of construction work, in Condition of Certification NOISE-1, has
been extended to the city of Carlsbad and the residents beyond the distance specified
for the licensed CECP, and since the notification sent in July 2014 only notified the
public of the removal of tanks 5, 6, and 7 and stated that this phase continues through
only March 2015, a new notification must be sent prior to any demolition activities
associated with the amended CECP. However, in this case too, no changes to the
verification are necessary.
Yet, staff has revised two of the conditions of certification to provide clarification about
their requirements; these changes are not related to the timing of submittals. These
modifications include clarification that the noise complaint process described in
NOISE-2 and the noise control program specified in NOISE-3 apply not only to all
major activities associated with the amended CECP, but also to the demolition of ASTs
5, 6, and 7 as part of the licensed CECP.
Even though the CPM’s approval of work beyond the hours allowed in NOISE-6 is a part
of the CPM process for all power plant projects under the Energy Commission’s
licensing jurisdiction, staff includes assurances in NOISE-9 that the requirement for the
CPM approving the nighttime concrete work is explicit and that the city of Carlsbad will
be notified of this approval.
In the PSA, staff modified NOISE-3 to identify the applicable regulations, and it updated
the allowed construction time in Condition of Certification NOISE-6 to reflect the recent
change in the local code. These revisions remain unchanged.
The added text is identified as bold and underlined, and the deleted text is identified
as strikethrough.
NOISE-1 At least 15 days prior to the start of any demolition activities associated
with the amended CECP ground disturbance, the project owner shall notify
the city of Carlsbad and all residents within one mile of the site to the north
and northeast and one-half mile in all other directions, by mail or other
effective means, of the commencement of project demolition and
construction. At the same time, the project owner shall establish a telephone
number for use by the public to report any undesirable noise conditions
associated with the demolition, construction, and operation of the amended
CECP project and include that telephone number in the above notice. If the
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-82

Februrary 2015

  

telephone is not staffed 24 hours per day, the project owner shall include an
automatic answering feature, with date and time stamp recording, to answer
calls when the phone is unattended. This telephone number shall be posted
at the project site during construction in a manner visible to passersby. This
telephone number shall be maintained until the amended CECP has been
operational for at least one year, and all subsequent demolition activities
at the Encina Power Station have been completed.
Verification: Prior to the start of any demolition activities ground disturbance, the
project owner shall transmit to the compliance project manager (CPM) a statement,
signed by the project owner’s project manager, stating that the above notification has
been performed and describing the method of that notification, verifying that the
telephone number has been established and posted at the site, and giving that
telephone number.

Noise Complaint Process
NOISE-2 Throughout the demolition of above-ground fuel oil storage tanks 1, 2, 4,
5, 6, and 7 (ASTs 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7), construction and operation of the
amended CECP, and demolition of the Encina Power Station, the project
owner shall document, investigate, evaluate, and attempt to resolve all
project-related noise complaints. The project owner or authorized agent shall:
Use the Noise Complaint Resolution Form (below), or a functionally
equivalent procedure acceptable to the CPM, to document and respond to
each noise complaint;


Attempt to contact the person(s) making the noise complaint within 24
hours (within 12 hours if the complaint is related to nighttime
concrete pour);



Conduct an investigation to determine the source of noise related to the
complaint;



Take all feasible measures to reduce the noise at its source if the noise is
project related; and



Submit a report documenting the complaint and the actions taken. The
report shall include: a complaint summary, including final results of noise
reduction efforts, and if obtainable, a signed statement by the complainant
that states that the noise problem has been resolved to the complainant’s
satisfaction.

Verification: Within five days of receiving a noise complaint, the project owner shall
file a copy of the Noise Complaint Resolution Form with the CPM, documenting the
resolution of the complaint. If mitigation is required to resolve a complaint and the
complaint is not resolved within a three-day period (within 24 hours for noise
complaints related to nighttime concrete pour), the project owner shall submit an
updated Noise Complaint Resolution Form when the mitigation is implemented.

February 2015

7-83

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

NOISE-3 The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval a noise
control program and a statement, signed by the project owner’s project
manager, verifying that the noise control program will be implemented
throughout the demolition of ASTs 5, 6, and 7, and construction and
demolition activities associated with of the amended CECP project. The
noise control program shall be used to reduce employee exposure to high
noise levels during demolition and construction in accordance with Title 8,
California Code of Regulations, sections 5095-5099, and Title 29, Code
of Federal Regulations, section 1910.95 and shall also comply with
applicable OSHA and Cal/OSHA standards.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of any demolition activities ground
disturbance, the project owner shall submit to the CPM the noise control program and
the project owner’s project manager’s signed statement. The project owner shall make
the program available to OSHA and Cal/OSHA upon request.

Noise Restrictions
NOISE-4 There shall be no operation of the power plant between midnight and
6:00 a.m. except to the extent reasonably required for reliability-related
purposes or as otherwise required by the ISO Tariff. The project design
and implementation shall include appropriate noise mitigation measures
adequate to ensure that operation of the project will not cause noise levels
due solely to plant operation to exceed an average of 53 dBA Leq measured at
monitoring locations M2 and M7. No new pure-tone components shall be
caused by the project. No single piece of equipment shall be allowed to stand
out as a source of noise that draws legitimate project-related noise
complaints.
The measurement of power plant noise for the purposes of demonstrating
compliance with this condition of certification may alternatively be made at a
location, acceptable to the CPM, closer to the plant (e.g., 400 feet from the
plant boundary) and this measured level then mathematically extrapolated to
determine the plant noise contribution at the affected residence. The
character of the plant noise shall be evaluated at the affected residential
locations to determine the presence of pure tones or other dominant sources
of plant noise.
a) When the project first achieves a sustained output of 80 percent or greater
of rated capacity, the project owner shall conduct a community noise
survey at monitoring locations M2 and M7 or at closer locations
acceptable to the CPM. These surveys shall be performed during power
plant operation and shall also include measurement of one-third octave
band sound pressure levels to determine whether new pure-tone noise
components have been caused by the project.
b) If the results from the noise survey indicate that the power plant average
noise level (Leq) at M2 or M7 exceeds the above value, mitigation

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-84

Februrary 2015

  

measures shall be implemented to reduce noise to a level of compliance
with this limit.
c) If the results from the noise survey indicate that pure tones are present,
mitigation measures shall be implemented to eliminate the pure tones.
Verification: The survey shall take place within 30 days of the project first achieving
a sustained output of 80 percent or greater of rated capacity with all turbine
generators operating. Within 15 days after completing the survey, the project owner
shall submit a summary report of the survey to the CPM. Included in the survey report
shall be a description of any additional mitigation measures necessary to achieve
compliance with the above-listed noise limit and a schedule, subject to CPM approval,
for implementing these measures. When these measures are in place, the project
owner shall repeat the noise survey(s).
Within 15 days of completion of the new survey(s), the project owner shall submit to the
CPM a summary report of the new noise survey(s), performed as described above and
showing compliance with this condition.
NOISE-5 Following the project first achieving a sustained output of 80 percent or
greater of rated capacity, the project owner shall conduct an occupational
noise survey to identify the noise hazardous areas in the facility.
The survey shall be conducted by a qualified person in accordance with the
provisions of Title 8, California Code of Regulations sections 5095–5099 and
Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations section 1910.95. The survey results
shall be used to determine the magnitude of employee noise exposure.
The project owner shall prepare a report of the survey results and, if
necessary, identify proposed mitigation measures that will be employed to
comply with the applicable California and federal regulations.
Verification: Within 30 days after completing the survey, the project owner shall
submit the noise survey report to the CPM. The project owner shall make the report
available to OSHA and Cal/OSHA upon request.

Construction Time Restrictions
NOISE-6 Noisy construction and demolition work relating to any project features shall
be restricted to the times of day delineated below:
Weekdays
Saturdays

7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.sunset
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.sunset

Haul trucks and other engine-powered equipment shall be equipped with
mufflers that meet all applicable regulations. Haul trucks shall be operated in
accordance with posted speed limits. Truck engine exhaust brake use shall
be limited to emergencies.

February 2015

7-85

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

For purposes of this condition, “noisy construction work” shall be defined as
steam blows and any other project-related work that draws a legitimate noise
complaint caused by the construction or demolition activities associated
with of the CECP, as opposed to another source, as verified by the CPM. A
legitimate project-related noise complaint constitutes either: a violation by
the project of any noise condition of certification, which is documented by an
individual or entity affected by such noise or vibration; or a minimum of three
complaints over a 24-hour period that are is confirmed by the CPM, the
project owner, or any local or state agency that would, but for the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Energy Commission, otherwise have the responsibility for
investigating noise complaints or enforcing noise mitigation.
Verification: Prior to the start of the demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4 ground
disturbance, the project owner shall transmit to the CPM a statement acknowledging
that the above restrictions will be observed throughout the demolition of ASTs 1, 2,
and 4, the construction of the project amended CECP power plant, and the
subsequent demolition of the Encina Power Station.

STEAM BLOW RESTRICTIONS
NOISE-7 The project owner shall equip high pressure steam blow piping with a
temporary silencer that quiets the noise of steam blows to no greater than
89 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet.
Verification: At least fifteen (15) days prior to the first steam blow, the project owner
shall submit to the CPM drawings or other information describing the temporary steam
blow silencer and the noise levels expected.

Pike Driving Management
NOISE-8 The project owner shall perform pile driving in a manner to reduce the
potential for any project-related noise or vibration complaints. The
project owner shall notify the city of Carlsbad and the residents in the
vicinity of pile driving prior to start of this activity. Vibrations from pile
driving shall be limited to a peak particle velocity of 0.2 inches per
second at receptors M2, M5, and M7.
Verification: At least 15 days prior to first pile driving, the project owner shall
submit to the CPM a description of the pile driving technique to be employed,
including calculations showing its projected noise impacts at monitoring
locations M2, M5 and M7.
At least ten days prior to first production pile driving, the project owner shall
notify the city of Carlsbad and the residents within one mile of the pile driving.
The notification may be in the form of letters, or other effective means, as
approved by the CPM. In this notification, the project owner shall state that it will
perform this activity in a manner to reduce the potential for any project-related

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-86

Februrary 2015

  

noise and vibration complaints. The project owner shall submit a copy of this
notification to the CPM prior to the start of pile driving.

Concrete Pour Noise Control
NOISE-9 When concrete work requires continuous pouring that may extend
beyond the times specified in Condition of Certification NOISE-6, the
project owner shall notify the city of Carlsbad and all residences in the
vicinity of the project site of the commencement date and the duration
of concrete pouring activities.
The average Leq noise levels from these activities shall not exceed the
hourly average nighttime ambient Leq levels at M2, M5, and M7, by more
than five dBA, or alternatively, this activity shall be performed in a
manner to ensure excessive noise is prohibited and the potential for
noise complaints is reduced to the extent feasible.
At least ten days prior to concrete pouring activities that are anticipated to extend
beyond the times specified in Condition of Certification NOISE-6, the project
owner shall submit a statement to the CPM, specifying the time of night and the
number of nights for which activities will occur, the approximate distance of
activities to receptor locations M2, M5, and M7, and the expected sound levels at
these receptors, and requesting an exemption to perform these activities outside
of the above timeframe.
In this statement, the project owner shall either indicate that the expected sound
levels from this activity will not exceed the nighttime noise limits specified above,
or state that it will perform this activity in a manner to ensure excessive noise is
prohibited and the potential for noise complaints is reduced to the extent
feasible. The project owner shall not perform this nighttime work until the CPM
has granted the request for exemption. After the above exemption is granted by
the CPM and before the start of this activity, the project owner shall notify the city
of Carlsbad of this approval.
At least ten days prior to concrete pouring activities, the project owner shall
notify the city of Carlsbad and the residents within one mile of this work. The
notification may be in the form of letters, or other effective means as approved by
the CPM. In this notification, the project owner shall state that it will perform this
activity in a manner to ensure excessive noise is prohibited, and include a
telephone number that will be staffed throughout this activity for use by the
public to report any undesirable noise conditions associated with these activities.
The project owner shall submit a copy of this notification to the CPM prior to the
start of this work.

February 2015

7-87

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

PUBLIC HEALTH
No public health conditions of certification are proposed, and staff recommends deleting
the exiting condition.
PUBLIC HEALTH-1 The project owner shall only use pipeline quality natural gas in the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project, Encina Unit 4, Encina Unit 5 and Encina
EGT.
Verification:
The project owner shall provide a statement to the CPM in the yearly
compliance report that only pipeline quality natural gas has been used to fuel the CECP
and the EPS.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-88

Februrary 2015

  

SOCIOECONOMICS
Condition of Certification SOCIO-1 was included in the 2012 Energy Commission
Decision for the licensed CECP (CEC 2102a, pg. 8.3-6). The amended CECP would not
affect this condition; however; staff proposes minor edits to the verification for the
purpose of clarity. Staff proposes SOCIO-2 to ensure the amended CECP complies with
state LORS that were not applicable to the licensed CECP (Note: New text is bold and
underlined).
SOCIO-1 The project owner shall pay or reimburse the city of Carlsbad for costs
incurred in accordance with actual services performed by the city that the city
would normally receive for a power plant or similar industrial development.
Verification:
The project owner shall provide to the compliance project manager
(CPM), proof of payment prior to the start of commercial operation.
SOCIO-2 The project owner shall pay the one-time statutory school facility
development fees to the Carlsbad Unified School District as required by
Education Code Section 17620.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the start of project construction, the
project owner shall provide to the CPM, proof of payment to the Carlsbad Unified
School District of the statutory development fee.

February 2015

7-89

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

SOIL & WATER RESOURCES
The conditions of certification below include the approved conditions of certification from
the licensed CECP and any modifications, additions or deletions required for the
amended CECP. (Note: Deleted text is in strikethrough, new text is bold and
underlined). If compliance work has begun and no changes are required for the
amended project, then the project owner need not duplicate those previous compliance
activities. The compliance work already performed has been duly noted.
SOIL&WATER-1: The project owner shall comply with the requirements of the San
Diego County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order No. R9-20072013- 0001,
NPDES No. CAS0109266 CAS0108758) and city of Carlsbad (city) Municipal
Code Title 15, Chapter 15.12. The project owner shall develop and implement
a Tier 3 Construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (Construction
SWPPP) for the construction of the CECP site, laydown and parking areas,
and all linear facilities. The Tier 3 Construction SWPPP shall be submitted to
the city for review and comment and to the CPM for approval and shall
contain all of the elements required by the General Permit for Construction
Activities (Order No. -99-08 2009-0009-DWQ and its updates), the Municipal
Permit (Order No. R9-2013- 0001, NPDES No. CAS0109266Order No. R92007-0001), and the city’s current Storm Water Standards Manual.
Verification:
Prior to site mobilization, the project owner shall submit to the
compliance project manager (CPM) a copy of the Tier 3 Construction SWPPP that has
been reviewed by the city and retain a copy on site.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM all copies of correspondence between the
project owner and the city regarding the Tier 3 Construction SWPPP within ten days of
its receipt or submittal. This information shall include copies of the Notice of Intent and
Notice of Termination submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board for
enrollment under the NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities.
SOIL&WATER-2: Potable water shall not be used for any construction activity,
including EPS demolition activities, that is suitable for non-potable water
use if a non-potable water source is available at the project site. Prior to site
mobilization, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a Non-Potable
Construction Water Use Plan (plan) for the supply and use of non-potable
water in construction activities. The plan shall consider the use of recycled
water available at the site. The plan shall specify those construction activities
that would use non-potable water and those construction activities that would
use potable water.
Verification:
Prior to site mobilization, the project owner shall submit to the CPM for
review and approval the Non-Potable Construction Water Use Plan. Within the Monthly
Compliance Report, the project owner shall report the volume of potable and nonpotable water used and the construction activities for which each was used.
SOIL&WATER-3: The project owner shall comply with the requirements of the San
Diego County Municipal Storm Water Permit (Order R9-2007- 0001, NPDES
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-90

Februrary 2015

  

No. CAS0108758) and City of Carlsbad (city) Municipal Code Title 15,
Chapter 15.12. The project owner shall develop and implement a Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan (Industrial SWPPP) for the operation of
CECP. The industrial SWPPP shall be submitted to the city for review and
comment and to the CPM for review and approval and shall be prepared in
accordance with the requirements of the NPDES General Permit for Industrial
Activities (WQO-97-03-DQM Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ) and the city’s
Storm Water Standards Manual.
Verification:
Prior to commercial operation, the project owner shall submit to the
CPM a copy of the Industrial SWPPP and retain a copy on site.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM all copies of all correspondence between the
project owner and the city regarding the Industrial SWPPP within ten days of its receipt
or submittal. This information shall include a copy of the Notice of Intent submitted to
the State Water Resources Control Board for enrollment under the NPDES General
Permit for Industrial Activity.
SOIL&WATER-4: The project owner shall submit to the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) all information required by the
SDRWQCB to obtain a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order for the
discharge of CECP industrial EPS demolition wastewater to the Pacific
Ocean in accordance with NPDES requirements. The project owner shall
submit to the CPM all copies of correspondence between the project owner
and the SDRWQCB regarding the WDR Order within ten days of its receipt or
submittal.
Verification:
At least two weeks prior to the operation of the CECP ocean-water
purification system start of EPS demolition activities, the project owner shall submit
to the CPM a copy of the approved WDR Order for the discharge of CECP industrial
EPS demolition wastewater to the Pacific Ocean.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM the annual water quality monitoring report
required by the SDRWQCB in the annual compliance report. The project owner shall
notify the CPM of all WDR Order violations, the actions taken or planned to bring the
project back into compliance with the WDR Order, and the date compliance was
reestablished.
SOIL&WATER-5: Prior to the use of potable water from the city of Carlsbad (city) for
any purpose related to the construction or operation of the CECP, the project
owner shall provide the CPM with copies of all permit(s) for the delivery and
hookup of potable water. The project owner shall comply with the city’s
Municipal Code Title 14, Chapter 14.08 for the supply and use of potable
water. Potable water shall not be used for any construction or operation
activity that is suitable for non-potable water use, unless needed for fire
protection or emergency backup supply to the recycled water service, in
accordance with SOIL&WATER-6.

February 2015

7-91

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Verification:
No later than 30 days prior to the connection to the city’s potable water
system, the project owner shall provide the CPM with copies of all permits for the
delivery and hookup of potable water.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM any water quality monitoring reports required
by the city in the annual compliance report. The project owner shall notify the CPM of
any violations of the permit(s) and conditions, the actions taken or planned to bring the
project back into compliance with the permit(s), and the date compliance was
reestablished.
SOIL&WATER-6: During normal operation the project shall use no more than
three acre-feet per year of potable water for drinking, sanitary, and fire
protection testing purposes. The project shall use recycled water for all
industrial and landscape irrigation purposes during operation of the
CECP, unless potable water is needed for emergency backup use. For
the purpose of this condition, the term emergency shall mean the
inability of the CECP to take, or for the city of Carlsbad to deliver,
recycled water to the CECP in a quantity sufficient to meet CECP
demand due to Acts of God, natural disaster, and other circumstances
beyond the control of the project owner, including interruption of
recycled water service and it is necessary for the CECP to prepare to or
continue to operate to serve a peaking load. If potable water is needed
during operation for more than just an emergency use, the owner shall
be required to file a formal petition to amend the project. Recycled water
shall also be used for EPS demolition.
If the CECP requires potable water for emergencies that will
cumulatively exceed 300 acre-feet, during the life of the project, the
project owner shall file a petition to amend. All emergency water use
shall be reported in annual compliance reports. Reported values shall
include monthly use and cumulative lifetimes use, in acre-feet.
Prior to the use of potable or recycled, or ocean water during the operation of
the CECP, the project owner shall install and maintain metering devices as
part of the water supply and distribution system to monitor and record in
gallons per day the volume of all water sources used by the CECP. The
metering devices shall be operational for the life of the project, and an annual
summary of daily water use by the CECP, differentiating between potable,
emergency backup, and recycled supplies, and ocean water, shall be
submitted to the CPM in the annual compliance report.
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to use of any water source for CECP operation,
the project owner shall submit to the CPM evidence that metering devices have been
installed and are operational on all water supply pipelines serving the project. The
project owner shall provide a report on the servicing, testing, and calibration of the
metering devices in the annual compliance report.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-92

Februrary 2015

  

The project owner shall submit a water use summary report to the CPM in the annual
compliance report for the life of the project. The annual summary report shall be based
on and shall distinguish recorded daily use and emergency uses of potable and,
recycled, and ocean water. The report shall include calculated monthly range, monthly
average, and annual use by the project in both gallons per minute and acre-feet. After
the first year and for subsequent years, this information shall also include the yearly
range and yearly average potable and ocean recycled water used by the project.
The project owner shall submit a petition to amend within three months of
exceeding the maximum allowable 300 acre-feet of potable water for operational
uses.
SOIL&WATER-7: Prior to connection to the city of Carlsbad’s (city) sanitary sewer
system, the project owner shall submit to the city all information and
documentation required to satisfy city of Carlsbad Municipal Code Title 13,
Chapters 13.04, 13.10, and 13.16 for the discharge of recycled and sanitary
wastewater to the city’s sewer system. During CECP operation, any
monitoring reports provided to the city shall also be provided to the CPM. The
CPM shall be notified of any violations of discharge limits or amounts.
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to commercial operation, the project owner shall
submit the information and documentation required to satisfy Municipal Code Title 13,
Chapters 13.04, 13.10, and 13.16 and provide the CPM a copy of the city permits for
the discharge of recycled and sanitary wastewater to the city’s sewer system.
During operations, the project owner shall submit to the CPM any wastewater quality
monitoring reports required by the city in the annual compliance report. The project
owner shall submit any notices of violation from the city to the CPM within ten days of
receipt and fully explain the corrective actions taken in the annual compliance report.
SOIL&WATER-8: If the project owner relies on recycled water for CECP water
supply, the project owner shall provide the CPM two copies of the executed
Recycled Water Purchase Agreement (agreement) with the recycled water
producer and the city of Carlsbad (city) for the supply and delivery of tertiary
treated recycled water to the CECP. The CECP shall not connect to the city’s
recycled water pipeline without the final agreement in place. The project
owner shall comply with the requirements of Title 22 and Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations and section 13523 of the California Water
Code.
Verification:
No later than 180 days prior to the connection to the city’s recycled
water pipeline, the project owner shall submit two copies of the executed agreement for
the long-term supply and delivery of tertiary treated recycled water to the CECP. The
agreement shall specify a maximum delivery rate of 945 gpm 215 afy and shall specify
all terms and costs for the delivery and use of recycled water by the CECP.
No later than 60 days prior to connection to the city’s recycled water pipeline, the project
owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the Engineering Report and Cross Connection

February 2015

7-93

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

inspection and approval report from the California Department of Public Health and all
water reuse requirements issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
SOIL&WATER-9: Prior to transport and disposal of any facility construction or
demolition-related wastewaters offsite, the project owner shall test and
classify the stored wastewater to determine proper management and
disposal requirements. The project owner shall provide evidence that
wastewater is disposed of at an appropriately licensed facility. The
project owner shall ensure that the wastewater is transported and
disposed of in accordance with the wastewater’s characteristics and
classification and all applicable LORS (including any CCR Title 22
Hazardous Waste and Title 23 Waste Discharges to Land requirements).
Where discharge of wastewater must comply with the San Diego
Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) and State Water
Resources Control Board regulatory requirements, the project owner
shall submit a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) to the compliance
project manager (CPM) and SDRWQCB for determination of which
regulatory waiver or permit applies to the proposed discharges. The
project owner shall pay all necessary fees for filing and review of the
ROWD and all other related fees. Checks for such fees shall be
submitted to the SDRWQCB and shall be payable to the State Water
Resources Control Board. The project owner shall ensure compliance
with the provisions of the waiver or permit applicable to the discharge.
Where the regulatory requirements are not applied pursuant to a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, it is the
Commission's intent that the requirements of the applicable waiver or
permit be enforceable by both the Commission and the SDRWQCB. In
furtherance of that objective, the Commission hereby delegates the
enforcement of the waiver or permit requirements, and associated
monitoring, inspection, and annual fee collection authority, to the
SDRWQCB. The CPM and SDRWQCB shall confer with each other and
coordinate, as needed, in the enforcement of the requirements.
Verification:
The project owner shall submit to the CPM copies of all relevant
correspondence between the project owner and the SWRCB or SDRWQCB about
the EPS demolition wastewater discharge requirements within ten days of its
receipt or submittal. This information shall include copies of the Notice of Intent
and Notice of Termination for the project. A letter from the SWRCB or SDRWQCB
indicating that there is no requirement for the discharge of EPS demolition
wastewater would satisfy this condition.
Prior to transport and disposal of any facility construction-related wastewaters
offsite, the project owner shall test and classify the stored wastewater to
determine proper management and disposal requirements. The project owner
shall ensure that the wastewater is transported and disposed of in accordance
with the wastewater’s characteristics and classification and complies with all

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-94

Februrary 2015

  

applicable LORS (including any CCR Title 22 Hazardous Waste and Title 23 Waste
Discharges to Land requirements). The project owner shall provide evidence to
the CPM of proper wastewater disposal, via a licensed hauler to an appropriately
licensed facility, in the monthly compliance report.
Where a ROWD is submitted to the SDRWQCB to obtain the appropriate waiver or
permit, the appropriate waiver or permit must be obtained at least 30 days prior to
the discharge.
The project owner shall submit a copy of any correspondence between the
project owner and the SDRWQCB regarding the waiver or permit and all related
reports to the CPM within ten days of correspondence receipt or submittal.

February 2015

7-95

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION
The conditions of certification below include the approved conditions of certification from
the licensed CECP and any modifications, additions or deletions required for the
amended CECP. If compliance work has begun and no changes are required for the
amended project, then the project owner need not duplicate those previous compliance
activities. The compliance work already performed has been duly noted. Changes to
approved conditions of certification from the licensed CECP for the amended CECP are
shown in strike-through for deletions and bold underline for additions.
TRANS-1 The project owner shall consult with the city of Carlsbad and prepare and
submit to the city of Carlsbad for review and comment and the
Compliance Project Manager (CPM) for approval a construction/demolition
traffic control plan. and implementation program which The plan shall be
implemented during all phases of construction/demolition and shall
addresses the following issues:
•

timing of heavy equipment and building materials deliveries

•

redirecting construction traffic with a flag person

•

signing, lighting, and traffic control device placement if required

•

need for construction work hours and arrival/departure times outside peak
traffic periods

•

ensurance of access for emergency vehicles to the project site

•

temporary closure of travel lanes

•

access to adjacent residential and commercial property during the
construction of all pipelines

•

specification of construction-related haul routes

•

specification that large vehicles with eight wheels or more, such as
semi-trailer trucks, use the Avenida Encinas exit, not the SDG&E
Service Gate exit, when exiting the site to travel east on Cannon
Road to avoid possible blockage of the railroad tracks

•

identification of safety procedures for exiting and entering the site access
gate

Verification:
At least 30 days prior to tank demolition site mobilization, the
applicant or contractor project owner shall provide the traffic control plan to the city
of Carlsbad for review and comment and to the CPM a copy of the referenced
documentsfor review and approval.
TRANS-2 The project owner shall submit to the FAA Form 7460-1, Notice of Proposed
Construction or Alteration, regarding any structures or objects exceeding
140 feet in height used during construction or operation of the Carlsbad
Energy Center Project (CECP), or during any related activities, such as
demolition of the Encina Power Station, stack and shall secure a

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-96

Februrary 2015

  

Determination of No Hazard to Navigable Airspace for each structure or
object. The structures or objects stacks shall be marked and lit as have
all lighting and marking required by the FAA so that they stacks do not create
a hazard to air navigation.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the start of tank demolition, construction, the
Project Owner or contractor project owner shall provide copies of the FAA Form 74601 and copies of the FAA Determination of No Hazard to Navigable Airspace to the CPM,
and the city of Carlsbad Planning Department, and the county of San Diego at
McClellan-Palomar Airport. The project owner shall also provide pictures of lit and
marked the structures or objects CECP stack after the lighting and marking have
been completed.
TRANS-3 Prior to start-up and testing activities of the plant and all related facilities, the
project owner shall work with the FAA and the county of San Diego at
McClellan-Palomar Airport to notify all pilots using the McClellan-Palomar
Airport and airspace above the CECP of potential air hazards. These
activities would include, but not be limited to, the applicant’s project owner
working with the FAA in issuing a notice to airmen (NOTAM) of the identified
air hazard and updating the Terminal Area Chart and all other FAA-approved
airspace charts used by pilots that include the CECP site to indicate that
pilots should avoid direct overflight.
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to start of project operation, the project owner
shall submit to the CPM for review and approval a letter from the FAA showing
compliance with these measures.
TRANS-4 Prior to During project construction/demolition of the plant and all related
facilities, the project owner shall develop implement a rail crossing safety
plan for all phases of project construction to address foot traffic as well as
construction- and demolition-related vehicle crossing and the transport of
heavy/oversize loads over the internal rail crossing.
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to the start of tank demolition,site mobilization,
the project owner shall submit the rail crossing safety plan to the CPM for review and
approval.
TRANS-5 During and fFollowing completion of project construction and demolition,
the project owner shall repair any damage to roadways affected by
construction/demolition activity to pre-project road conditions or better.
Restoration of significant damage which could cause hazards (such as
potholes, deterioration of pavement edges, or damaged signage) shall
take place immediately after the damage has occurred.along with the
primary roadways identified in the traffic control plan for construction traffic to
the road’s pre-project construction condition. Prior to the start of demolition
and construction, the project owner shall photograph or videotape, or digitally
record images of the all roadways that will be affected by pipeline
construction and heavy construction truck traffic. The project owner shall
provide the CPM and the city of Carlsbad with a copy of the images for the
February 2015

7-97

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

roadway segments under its jurisdiction. Also, prior to start of demolition and
construction, the project owner shall notify the city about the schedule for
project demolition/construction. The purpose of this notification is to allow
the city the opportunity to postpone any planned roadway resurfacing
and/or improvement projects until after the project demolition/construction
has taken place and to coordinate demolition/construction-related activities
associated with other projects.
Verification:
If damage to public roads, easements, or rights-of-way occurs
during demolition and construction, the project owner shall notify the CPM, and
the city of Carlsbad if the damage occurs in their jurisdiction, to identify the
sections to be repaired. At that time, the project owner and CPM shall establish a
schedule for completion and approval of the repairs. The project owner shall
provide monthly inspection reports of the condition of the roadways during the
demolition and construction period, and roadway repairs undertaken during that
period. Following completion of any repairs in the city of Carlsbad’s jurisdiction,
the project owner shall provide the CPM with letters signed by the city of
Carlsbad stating their satisfaction with the repairs.
Within 30 days after completion of all project-related construction and demolition
(completion of Phase IV), the redevelopment project, the project owner shall meet with
the CPM and the city of Carlsbad to determine, and receive approval for, and
schedule the actions necessary and schedule to complete the repair of identified
sections of public roadways to original condition or better or as near-original condition
as possible. Following completion of any regional road improvements, the project owner
shall provide to the CPM a letter from the city of Carlsbad if work occurred within its
jurisdictional public right-of-way stating its satisfaction with the road improvements.
TRANS-6 The project owner shall comply with Caltrans’ and other relevant
jurisdictions’ limitations on vehicle sizes and weights. In addition, the project
owner shall obtain necessary transportation permits from Caltrans and all
relevant jurisdictions for roadway use.
Verification:
In the Monthly Compliance Reports, the project owner shall submit
copies of any permits received during that reporting period. In addition, the project
owner shall retain copies of these permits and supporting documentation in its
compliance file for at least six months after the start of commercial operation.
TRANS-7 During project construction/demolition, of the plant and all related facilities,
the project owner shall develop implement a parking and staging plan for all
phases of project construction and demolition to enforce a policy that all
project-related parking occurs on site or in designated off-site parking areas.
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to start of tank demolition, site mobilization, the
project owner shall submit the a parking and staging plan to the city of Carlsbad and
other jurisdictions affected by site selection, such as the city and/or county of San
Diego, for review and comment and to the CPM for review and approval.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-98

Februrary 2015

  

TRANS-8 The project owner shall comply with limitations for encroachment into public
rights-of-way imposed by Caltrans and other relevant jurisdictions and shall
obtain necessary encroachment permits from Caltrans and all relevant
jurisdictions.
Verification:
In Monthly Compliance Reports, the project owner shall submit copies
of permits received during the reporting period. In addition, the project owner applicant
shall retain copies of these permits and supporting documentation in its compliance file
for at least six months after the start of commercial operation.

February 2015

7-99

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

TRANSMISSION LINE SAFETY & NUISANCE
TLSN-1 The project owner shall ensure that the proposed 138-kV and 230-kV
transmission lines are constructed according to the respective requirements
of California Public Utility Commission’s GO-95, GO-52, GO-131-D, GO-128,
Title 8, and Group 2, High Voltage Electrical Safety Orders, Sections 2700
through 2974 of the California Code of Regulations, and San Diego Gas &
Electric’s EMF-reduction guidelines.
Verification:
At least 30 days before starting construction of the transmission lines
or related structures and facilities, the project owner shall submit to the compliance
project manager (CPM) a letter signed by a California registered electrical engineer
affirming that the lines will be constructed according to the requirements stated in the
condition.
TLSN-2 The project owner shall use a qualified individual to measure the strengths of
the electric and magnetic fields from each transmission line at the points of
maximum intensity along its route. The measurements shall be made after
energization according to the American National Standard Institute/Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers (ANSI/IEEE) standard procedures. These
measurements shall be completed not later than six months after the start of
operations.
Verification:
The project owner shall file copies of the post-energization
measurements with the CPM within 60 days after completion of the measurements.
TLSN-3 The project owner shall ensure that the rights-of-way of the proposed
transmission lines are kept free of combustible material, as required under the
provisions of section 4292 of the Public Resources Code and Section 1250 of
Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
Verification:
During the first five years of plant operation, the project owner shall
provide a summary of inspection results and any fire prevention activities carried out
along the right-of-way of each line and provide such summaries in the Annual
Compliance Report.
TLSN-4 The project owner shall ensure that all permanent metallic objects within the
right-of-way of each of the two project-related transmission lines are
grounded according to existing industry practices.
Verification:
At least 30 days before the lines are energized, the project owner shall
transmit to the CPM a letter confirming compliance with this condition.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-100

Februrary 2015

  

VISUAL RESOURCES
Staff recommends retaining all of the conditions of certification for the licensed CECP.
Staff is proposing modifications to Conditions of Certification VIS-3 and VIS-5 to reflect
changes in project design and changed circumstances. Minor edits are proposed to
Conditions of Certification VIS-1, VIS-2 and VIS-4. Modifications are shown in
strikethrough for deletions and bold underline for additions.

Surface Treatment of Project Structures and Buildings
VIS-1

The project owner shall treat the surfaces of all project structures and
buildings visible to the public such that a) their colors minimize visual intrusion
and contrast by blending with the landscape; b) their colors and finishes do
not create excessive glare; and c) their colors and finishes are consistent with
local policies and ordinances. The transmission line conductors shall be nonspecular and non-reflective, and the insulators shall be non-reflective and
non-refractive.
Surface color treatment shall include painting of HRSGs, turbine inlet filters,
and other features in a dark color and value to match the surrounding tree
canopy; and painting of exhaust stacks of a light color and value to blend with
the sky.
The project owner shall submit for CPM review and approval, a specific
surface treatment plan that will satisfy these requirements. The treatment plan
shall include:
a) A description of the overall rationale for the proposed surface treatment,
including the selection of the proposed color(s) and finishes;
b) A list of each major project structure, building, tank, pipe, and wall; the
transmission line towers and/or poles; and fencing, specifying the color(s)
and finish proposed for each. Colors must be identified by vendor, name,
and number; or according to a universal designation system;
c) One set of color brochures or color chips showing each proposed color
and finish;
d) One set of 11” x 17” color photo simulations at life size scale, of the
treatment proposed for use on project structures, including structures
treated during manufacture, from Key Observation Points 2 and 5
(locations shown on Visual Resources Figure 1 3 of the Staff
Assessment);
e) A specific schedule for completion of the treatment; and
f) A procedure to ensure proper treatment maintenance for the life of the
project.

February 2015

7-101

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

The project owner shall not specify to the vendors the treatment of any
buildings or structures treated during manufacture, or perform the final
treatment on any buildings or structures treated in the field, until the project
owner receives notification of approval of the treatment plan by the CPM.
Subsequent modifications to the treatment plan are prohibited without CPM
approval.
At least 90 days prior to specifying to the vendor the colors and finishes of the
first structures or buildings that are surface treated during manufacture, the
project owner shall submit the proposed treatment plan to the CPM for review
and approval and simultaneously to the City of Carlsbad for review and
comment.
If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall
provide to the CPM a plan with the specified revision(s) for review and
approval by the CPM before any treatment is applied. Any modifications to
the treatment plan must be submitted to the CPM for review and approval.
Prior to the start of commercial operation, the project owner shall notify the
CPM that surface treatment of all listed structures and buildings has been
completed and they are ready for inspection and shall submit one set of
electronic color photographs from the same key observation points identified
in (d) above.
The project owner shall provide a status report regarding surface treatment
maintenance in the Annual Compliance Report. The report shall specify a):
the condition of the surfaces of all structures and buildings at the end of the
reporting year; b) maintenance activities that occurred during the reporting
year; and c) the schedule of maintenance activities for the next year.

Additional Perimeter Landscape Screening
VIS-2

The project owner shall provide perimeter landscaping that reduces the
visibility of the power plant structures in accordance with local policies and
ordinances and with findings and recommendations of Applicant Data
Responses DR70-1, and DR106 and DR107. Trees and other vegetation
consisting of informal groupings of tall, fast-growing evergreen shrubs and
trees shall be strategically placed along the eastern, western, and northern
facility boundaries as called for in the above-referenced data responses,
consistent with transmission line safety requirements. The objective shall be
to create landscape screening of sufficient density and height to screen the
power plant structures to the greatest feasible extent in the shortest feasible
time; and to provide timely replacement for aging or diseased tree specimens
on site in order to avoid future loss of existing visual screening. The design
approach shall include both fast-growing tall shrubs to provide quick
screening, and tall evergreen trees similar to those existing on site, to provide
an ultimate overall canopy height comparable to that existing atop the CECP
site earth berms. In order to compensate for recent tree losses in the

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-102

Februrary 2015

  

berm along the I-5 frontage and enhance perimeter screening in the
earliest feasible time-frame, implementation of VIS-2 shall begin at the
earliest feasible time, in conjunction with Phase I construction. Also, in
anticipation of future I-5 widening, planting under VIS-2 shall include
supplemental tall tree planting in available areas outside of the
anticipated I-5 right-of-way.
In addition, the project owner shall, in coordination with the city of Carlsbad,
prepare and submit supplemental, modified landscape plans to provide for
replacement tree planting as needed, to the greatest feasible extent, in the
future event of loss of existing tree screening due to city of Carlsbad sewer
and/or lift station projects. Such supplemental landscape plans shall also
provide the plan components described in items a through d, below, and be
subject to the same verification procedures.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval, and
simultaneously to the city of Carlsbad for review and comment, a landscaping
plan whose proper implementation will satisfy these requirements. The plan
shall include:
a)

A detailed landscape, grading, and irrigation plan, at a reasonable scale.
The plan shall demonstrate how the requirements stated above shall be
met. The plan shall provide a detailed installation schedule demonstrating
installation of as much of the landscaping as early in the construction
process as is feasible in coordination with project construction.

b)

A list (prepared by a qualified professional arborist familiar with local
growing conditions) of proposed species, specifying installation sizes,
growth rates, suitable native and non-invasive plant species, and local
availability of proposed species. expected time to maturity, expected
size at five years and at maturity, spacing, number, availability, and a
discussion of the suitability of the plants for the site conditions and
mitigation objectives, with the objective of providing the widest possible
range of species from which to choose;

c)Maintenance procedures, including any needed irrigation and a plan for
routine annual or semi-annual debris removal for the life of the project;
d)

A procedure for monitoring for and replacement of unsuccessful plantings
for the life of the project; and

e)

One set of 11”x17” color photo-simulations of the proposed landscaping at
five years and 20 years after planting, as viewed from adjoining segments
of I-5.

The plan shall not be implemented until the project owner receives final
approval from the CPM.

February 2015

7-103

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

The landscaping plan shall be developed and submitted for review at
the earliest feasible time during or prior to Phase I construction. The
landscaping plan shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval and
simultaneously to the city of Carlsbad for review and comment at least 90
days prior to installation.
If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall
provide to the CPM and simultaneously to the city of Carlsbad a revised plan
for review and approval by the CPM.
The planting must occur during the first optimal planting season following site
mobilization. The project owner shall simultaneously notify the CPM and the
city of Carlsbad within seven days after completing installation of the
landscaping, that the landscaping is ready for inspection.
The project owner shall report landscape maintenance activities, including
replacement of dead or dying vegetation, for the previous year of operation in
each Annual Compliance Report. The city of Carlsbad, with the concurrence
of the CPM, shall have authority to require replacement planting of dead or
dying vegetation through the life of the project.

Landscape Screening of Construction Staging Sites D and E
VIS-3

The project owner shall provide a detailed plan of the northeast laydown
area for review and approval. The project owner shall modify the
footprint of the proposed northeast laydown site as needed to avoid
perimeter berm or tree removal. The project owner shall provide
supplemental landscaping during or prior to the construction phase that
reduces the visibility of construction staging activities, equipment and
materials, as needed. at proposed Staging Sites ‘D’ and ‘E’ of the EPS site
(near fuel tanks #1 and #2) as seen from Carlsbad Boulevard and other public
viewpoints, and that complies with local policies and ordinances. Where
supplemental or replacement planting is needed to provide screening of
staging activities, tTrees and other vegetation consisting of informal
groupings of fast-growing evergreens shall be strategically placed along the
northern, eastern and western boundaries of the staging sites, as
appropriate, of sufficient density and height to provide the greatest feasible
screening within the shortest feasible time. Planting of the landscape
screening shall be implemented as soon after start of project construction as
feasible, in order to maximize growing time and screening of staging activities
during the construction period.
If necessary to provide visual screening of staging activities, equipment and
materials in the short term, the project owner shall provide temporary darkcolored, opaque fencing to provide visual screening until landscape screening
described above has achieved sufficient maturity to provide visual screening.
Existing opaque fencing shall be maintained along the Carlsbad

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-104

Februrary 2015

  

Boulevard frontage of the EPS for the duration of construction and
demolition.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval, and
simultaneously to the city of Carlsbad for review and comment, a landscaping
plan whose proper implementation will satisfy these requirements. The plan
shall include:
a) A detailed landscape, grading, and irrigation plan, at a reasonable scale.
The plan shall demonstrate how the requirements stated above shall be
met. The plan shall provide a detailed installation schedule demonstrating
installation of as much of the landscaping as early in the construction
process as is feasible in coordination with project construction. The intent
of the plan shall be to minimize loss of existing perimeter tree and
shrub screening, particularly at the northeast laydown site; and to
provide supplemental and replacement plantings as needed to
screen staging sites.
b) A list (prepared by a qualified professional arborist familiar with local
growing conditions) of proposed species, specifying installation sizes,
growth rates, expected time to maturity, expected size at five years and at
maturity, spacing, number, availability, and a discussion of the suitability of
the plants for the site conditions and mitigation objectives, with the
objective of providing the widest possible range of species from which to
choose;
c) Maintenance procedures, including any needed irrigation and a plan for
routine annual or semi-annual debris removal for the life of the project;
d) A procedure for monitoring for and replacement of unsuccessful plantings
for the life of the project; and
e) One set of 11”x17” color photo-simulations of the proposed landscaping
landscape condition at start of construction and at five years and
twenty years after planting, as viewed from Key Observation Point 1 6
(location shown on Visual Resources Figure 3 of the Staff Assessment).
The plan shall not be implemented until the project owner receives final
approval from the CPM.
The landscaping plan shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval,
and simultaneously to the City of Carlsbad for review and comment, at least
90 days prior to installation start of construction.
If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall
provide to the CPM and simultaneously to the city of Carlsbad a revised plan
for review and approval by the CPM.

February 2015

7-105

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

The planting must occur during the first optimal planting season following site
mobilization. The project owner shall simultaneously notify the CPM and the
city of Carlsbad within seven days after completing installation of the
landscaping, that the landscaping is ready for inspection.
The project owner shall report landscape maintenance activities, including
replacement of dead or dying vegetation, for the previous year of operation in
each Annual Compliance Report.

Temporary and Permanent Exterior Lighting
VIS-4

To the extent feasible, consistent with safety and security considerations, the
project owner shall design and install all permanent exterior lighting such that
a) lamps and reflectors are not visible from beyond the project site, including
any off-site security buffer areas; b) lighting does not cause excessive
reflected glare; c) direct lighting does not illuminate the nighttime sky; d)
illumination of the project and its immediate vicinity is minimized, and e) the
plan lighting complies with local policies and ordinances.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval, and
simultaneously to the city of Carlsbad for review and comment, a lighting
mitigation plan that includes the following:
a) Location and direction of light fixtures shall take the lighting mitigation
requirements into account;
b) Lighting design shall consider setbacks of project features from the site
boundary to aid in satisfying the lighting mitigation requirements;
c) Lighting shall incorporate fixture hoods/shielding, with light directed
downward or toward the area to be illuminated;
d) Light fixtures that are visible from beyond the project boundary shall have
cutoff angles that are sufficient to prevent lamps and reflectors from being
visible beyond the project boundary, except where necessary for security;
e) All lighting shall be of minimum necessary brightness consistent with
operational safety and security; and
f) Lights in high illumination areas not occupied on a continuous basis (such
as maintenance platforms) shall have (in addition to hoods) switches,
timer switches, or motion detectors so that the lights operate only when
the area is occupied.
g) In order to conform with Condition of Certification BIO-7, FAA-required
exhaust stack lighting shall be white strobe-type lighting.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-106

Februrary 2015

  

At least 90 days prior to ordering any permanent exterior lighting, the project
owner shall contact the CPM to discuss the documentation required in the
lighting mitigation plan.
At least 60 days prior to ordering any permanent exterior lighting, the project
owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval, and simultaneously to
the city of Carlsbad for review and comment, a lighting mitigation plan.
If the CPM determines that the plan requires revision, the project owner shall
provide to the CPM a revised plan for review and approval by the CPM.
The project owner shall not order any exterior lighting until receiving CPM
approval of the lighting mitigation plan.
Prior to commercial operation, the project owner shall notify the CPM that the
lighting has been completed and is ready for inspection. If after inspection the
CPM notifies the project owner that modifications to the lighting are needed,
within 30 days of receiving that notification the project owner shall implement
the modifications and notify the CPM that the modifications have been
completed and are ready for inspection.
Within 48 hours of receiving a lighting complaint, the project owner shall
provide the CPM with a complaint resolution form report as specified in the
Compliance Conditions including a proposal to resolve the complaint, and a
schedule for implementation. The project owner shall notify the CPM within 48
hours after completing implementation of the proposal. A copy of the
complaint resolution form report shall be submitted to the CPM within 30
days.

Cumulative Impact Buffer Zone, Coordination with Caltrans, and
Mitigation Plan
VIS-5

In order to address potential cumulative visual impacts resulting from I-5
widening, the applicant project owner shall maintain a permanent buffer
zone, including the existing vegetative visual screening, on the eastern
portion of the CECP site, between the existing NRG fence line and storage
tank perimeter road. This measure shall be coordinated with Conditions of
Certification LAND-1 and HAZ- 8, requiring construction of a tall
wall/safety barrier at the future right-of-way. The existing landscape
screening within the buffer zone shall be maintained and enhanced per
Condition of Certification VIS-2 after start of project construction. The buffer
zone shall be kept available to maintain existing visual screening,
accommodate future possible I-5 widening to the extent necessary, and to
accommodate both future hazard protection features and visual screening.
In addition, the applicant project owner shall work with Caltrans to develop a
mitigation plan for accommodating the widening project while maintaining

February 2015

7-107

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

visual screening of the CECP to acceptable levels over the long term
following I-5 widening. This plan could include complete or partial
avoidance of the CECP site, complete or partial berm retention or
replacement, complete or partial retention of existing landscape screening,
and replacement screening as needed. The objective of the plan shall be to
accommodate the I-5 widening within the designated buffer zone to the extent
that encroachment is unavoidable, while providing needed hazard protection
and acceptable levels of visual screening of the power plant.
The mitigation plan shall include, at a minimum, a 20-foot-wide or
greater landscape planting buffer zone along the entire CECP/I-5
boundary, to accommodate replacement tree canopy of sufficient height
and density as to provide substantial visual screening of the tall
amended CECP features, including exhaust stacks and transmission
poles; and to substantially replace any existing tree canopy on the
eastern CECP boundary lost to highway expansion. The landscape
buffer may occupy portions of the CECP site, the Caltrans right-of-way,
or both. The solution developed under Condition of Certification VIS-5
shall not preclude relocation or undergrounding of transmission poles
or other features, if necessary to provide the stipulated visual buffer or
achieve adequate long-term project screening.
If construction of a new landscaped berm west of the existing berm and
proposed future Caltrans right-of-way is determined to be the most feasible
measure to address potential cumulative impacts of the I-5 Widening Project,
then design and construction of the new berm shall be implemented at the
earliest feasible time, and no later than start of project operation, in order to
maximize growing time for trees planted on the new berm. Landscaping of
the buffer zone a replacement berm shall include installation of largecontainer (24-inch box or larger, as needed), fast-growing evergreen trees in
sufficient density to provide comparable or better visual screening of the
CECP site than currently exists, within the shortest feasible period. Trees
shall be selected and located so as to achieve substantial screening within a
period of five years from start of project operation the time of planting.
The plan shall, at a minimum, include the following components:
a) a record of discussions, meetings and planning activities conducted with
Caltrans;
b) the conclusions of these coordination activities;
c) a detailed Mitigation Plan providing plans, elevations, cross-sections or
other details, including a detailed list of plants and container size, sufficient
to fully convey how the objectives of effective visual screening of the CECP
are to be achieved. To the extent possible, the plans shall comply with
the city of Carlsbad Landscape Manual as applicable. The plan shall
specifically address visual design of security barriers required under
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-108

Februrary 2015

  

Condition of Certification HAZ-8 to ensure their aesthetic quality and
compatibility. To the extent feasible, the plans shall conform with the
intent of the Caltrans Design Guidelines for the I-5 NCC Project,
Coastal Mesa Theme Unit (Caltrans 2013).
d) a proposed construction schedule.
Verification: At the earliest feasible time, applicant the project owner shall
coordinate with Caltrans to discuss specific hazard and visual mitigation strategies.
Following publication of the I-5 Widening DEIS, applicant The project owner shall work
with Caltrans to devise a specific Cumulative Impact Mitigation Plan for accommodating
hazard protection and visual screening, to be implemented at the time of I-5
widening.
Following coordination and plan development with Caltrans, the project owner shall
submit a draft of the Cumulative Impact Mitigation Plan to the cty of Carlsbad for review
and comment, and to the CPM for review and approval, at least 180 days prior to
completion by Caltrans of I-5 widening in the area of the CECP boundary. The
project owner shall submit any required revisions within 30 days of notification by the
CPM. The project owner shall not implement the plan until receiving approval from the
CPM. After receiving approval, the project owner shall complete implementation of the
mitigation plan at the earliest feasible opportunity, but not later than 180 days after plan
approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM within seven days after implementing
the approved plan that the plan is ready for inspection. Planting must be completed and
approved by the CPM prior to start of project operation.

February 2015

7-109

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

FACILITY DESIGN
Following are the existing conditions of certification applicable to the amended CECP
with the following revisions. The compliance requirements for facility design designated
Conditions of Certification GEN-1 through GEN-8, CIVIL-1 through CIVIL-4, STRUC-1
through STRUC-4, MECH-1 through MECH-3, and ELEC-1 have been revised
accordingly. These revisions include the following.


The applicable version and section references of the CBSC have been updated.



Condition of Certification GEN-1 has been updated to require that the demolition of
ASTs 1, 2, and 4 and the demolition of the EPS be subject to the CBO’s approval, in
compliance with the CBC.



Condition of Certification GEN-2 has been updated to reflect the equipment
proposed for the amended CECP as specified in GEN-2, Table 1: Major Structures
and Equipment List.



The building code requires that the minimum electrical load for electrical equipment
and systems requiring CBO review and inspection be 120 volts, not 480 volts as
currently stated in Condition of Certification ELEC-1; ELEC-1 has been revised
accordingly.

The added text is identified as bold and underlined, and the deleted text is identified as
strikethrough.
GEN-1

The project owner shall design, construct, and inspect the project in
accordance with the 20132007 California Building Standards Code (CBSC),
also known as Title 24, California Code of Regulations, which encompasses
the California Building Code (CBC), California Administrative Code, California
Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code,
California Energy Code, California Fire Code, California Code for Building
Conservation, California Reference Standards Code, and all other applicable
engineering laws, ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS) in effect at
the time initial design plans are submitted to the chief building official (CBO)
for review and approval (the CBSC in effect is the edition that has been
adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and published at
least 180 days previously). The project owner shall ensure that all the
provisions of the above applicable codes are enforced during the
construction, addition, alteration, moving, demolition, repair, or maintenance
of the completed facility, including the demolition of above-ground fuel oil
storage tanks 1, 2, and 4 (ASTs 1, 2, and 4), and the demolition of the
Encina Power Station (EPS) (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, §
1.1.3101.2, Scope). All transmission facilities (lines, switchyards, switching
stations and substations) are covered in the conditions of certification in the
Transmission System Engineering section of this document.
In the event that the initial engineering designs are submitted to the CBO
when the successor to the 20132007 CBSC is in effect, the 20132007 CBSC

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-110

Februrary 2015

  

provisions shall be replaced with the applicable successor provisions. Where,
in any specific case, different sections of the code specify different materials,
methods of construction or other requirements, the most restrictive shall
govern. Where there is a conflict between a general requirement and a
specific requirement, the specific requirement shall govern.
The project owner shall ensure that all contracts with contractors,
subcontractors, and suppliers clearly specify that all work performed and
materials supplied comply with the codes listed above.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the demolition of ASTs 1, 2, and 4, the
project owner shall contact the CBO to obtain the CBO’s approval of the work. At
least five days prior to the start of this demolition, the project owner shall notify
the CPM of the CBO’s approval of this work.
At least 30 days prior to the demolition of the EPS, the project owner shall
contact the CBO to obtain the CBO’s approval of the work. At least five days prior
to the start of this demolition, the project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s
approval of this work.
Within 30 days following receipt of the certificate of occupancy, the project owner shall
submit to the compliance project manager (CPM) a statement of verification, signed by
the responsible design engineer, attesting that all designs, construction, installation, and
inspection requirements of the applicable LORS and the Energy Commission’s decision
have been met in the area of facility design. The project owner shall provide the CPM a
copy of the certificate of occupancy within 30 days of receipt from the CBO (20132007
CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 111110, Certificate of Occupancy).
Once the certificate of occupancy has been issued, the project owner shall inform the
CPM at least 30 days prior to any construction, addition, alteration, moving, demolition,
repair, or maintenance to be performed on any portion(s) of the completed facility that
requires CBO approval for compliance with the above codes. The CPM will then
determine if the CBO needs to approve the work.
GEN-2

Before submitting the initial engineering designs for CBO review, the project
owner shall furnish the CPM and the CBO with a schedule of facility design
submittals, master drawing and master specifications lists. The schedule shall
contain a list of proposed submittal packages of designs, calculations, and
specifications for major structures and equipment. To facilitate audits by
Energy Commission staff, the project owner shall provide specific packages
to the CPM upon request.

Verification:
At least 60 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall submit
to the CBO and to the CPM the schedule, the master drawing and master specifications
lists of documents to be submitted to the CBO for review and approval. These
documents shall be the pertinent design documents for the major structures and
equipment listed in Facility Design Table 2, below. Major structures and equipment

February 2015

7-111

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

shall be added to or deleted from the table only with CPM approval. The project owner
shall provide schedule updates in the monthly compliance report.
Facility Design Table 2
Major Structures and Equipment List
Equipment/System

Quantity
(Plant)

Combustion Gas Turbine (CGT) Foundation and Connections

6

Selective Catalytic Reduction Stack Foundations and Connections

6

CGT Generator Foundations and Connections

6

CGT Transformer Foundations and Connections

6

Auxiliary Transformer Foundations and Connections

6

Generator Circuit Breaker Foundations and Connections

6

Fin Fan Cooler Foundations and Connections

6

Balance of Plant PDC

1

CGT Lube Oil Cooler Foundations and Connections

2

CGT Inlet Filter Foundations and Connections

2

Air Compressor Building Structure, Foundations and Connections

1

Fuel Gas Compressors Building Structure, Foundations and Connections

1

Water Treatment Trailer Foundations and Connections

1

Continuous Emissions Monitoring System Foundations and Connections

3

Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger Foundations and Connections

6

Auxiliary Skid Foundations and Connections

6

Attemporation Blower Skid Foundations and Connections

6

CGT and Intercooler MCC

6

Warehouse and Maintenance Building Structure, Foundations and Connections

1

Control Room and Administration Building Structure, Foundations and Connections

1

Emergency Diesel Generator Foundations and Connections

1

Storage Tanks Structure, Foundations and Connections

4

Fuel Gas Metering Foundations and Connections

1

Ammonia Prep Foundations and Connections

1

Raw/Fire Water Tank Foundation and Connections

1

Demineralized Water Storage Tank Foundation and Connections

1

Fire Water Pumps Building Foundations and Connections

1

Crane Maintenance Pad Foundations and Connections

2

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-112

Februrary 2015

  

Facility Design Table 2
Major Structures and Equipment List
Equipment/System

Quantity (Plant)

Combustion Gas Turbine (CGT) Foundation and Connections

2

Heat Recovery Steam Generator (HRSG) Foundation and Connections

2

HRSG Stack Foundations and Connections

2

Steam Turbine (ST) Foundations and Connections

2

CGT Generator Foundations and Connections

2

ST Generator Foundations and Connections

2

CGT Generator Transformer Foundations and Connections

2

ST Generator Transformer Foundations and Connections

2

Auxiliary Transformer Foundations and Connections

2

Generator Circuit Breaker Foundations and Connections

2

Electrical Package Foundations and Connections

2

Medium Voltage Switchgear Foundations and Connections

2

ST Fin Fan Cooler Foundations and Connections

2

Rotor Air Fin Fan Cooler Foundations and Connections

2

Condensate Polishing Fin Fan Cooler Foundations and Connections

2

ST Lube Oil Cooler Foundations and Connections

2

CGT Lube Oil Cooler Foundations and Connections

2

CGT Inlet Filter Foundations and Connections

2

Air Compressor Foundations and Connections

2

Fuel Gas Compressors Enclosure Foundations and Connections

1

Fuel Gas Conditioner/Meter Foundations and Connections

1

Selective Catalytic Reduction Skid Foundations and Connections

2

Balance of Plant Power Control Center Foundations and Connections

2

Steam Turbine Power Control Center Foundations and Connections

2

Continuous Emissions Monitoring System Foundations and Connections

2

Ammonia Storage Foundations and Connections

2

Chemical Dosing Equipment Foundations and Connections

2

Oil/Water Separator Foundations and Connections

2

Boiler Feedwater Pump Foundation and Connections

2

Boiler Blowdown Tank Foundations and Connections

2

Gland Steam Condenser Foundations and Connections

2

Raw/Reclaimed Water Tank Foundation and Connections

1

Demineralized Water Storage Tank Foundation and Connections

1

Fire Water Tank Foundation and Connections

1

Raw Water Forwarding Pumps Foundations and Connections

1

Demineralized Water Forwarding Pumps Foundations and Connections

1

Fire Water Pumps Enclosure Foundations and Connections

1

February 2015

7-113

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Equipment/System

Quantity (Plant)

Deaerator/Drain Tanks/ Condensate Pumps Foundations and Connections

2

Reverse Osmosis Drain Foundations and Connections

1

Crane Maintenance Pad Foundations and Connections

2

GEN-3

The project owner shall make payments to the CBO for design review, plan
checks, and construction inspections, based upon a reasonable fee schedule
to be negotiated between the project owner and the CBO. These fees may be
consistent with the fees listed in the 20132007 CBC (20132007 CBC,
Appendix Chapter 1, § 109, Fees Appendix Chapter 1, § 108, Fees; Chapter
1, § 108.4, Permits, Fees, Applications and Inspections), adjusted for inflation
and other appropriate adjustments; may be based on the value of the facilities
reviewed; may be based on hourly rates; or may be otherwise agreed upon
by the project owner and the CBO.

Verification:
The project owner shall make the required payments to the CBO in
accordance with the agreement between the project owner and the CBO. The project
owner shall send a copy of the CBO’s receipt of payment to the CPM in the next
monthly compliance report indicating that applicable fees have been paid.
GEN-4

Prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall assign a Californiaregistered architect, structural engineer, or civil engineer, as the resident
engineer in charge of the project (20132007 California Administrative Code, §
4-209, Designation of Responsibilities). All transmission facilities (lines,
switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are addressed in the
conditions of certification in the Transmission System Engineering section
of this document.
The resident engineer may delegate responsibility for portions of the project
to other registered engineers. Registered mechanical and electrical engineers
may be delegated responsibility for mechanical and electrical portions of the
project, respectively. A project may be divided into parts, provided that each
part is clearly defined as a distinct unit. Separate assignments of general
responsibility may be made for each designated part.
The resident engineer shall:
1. Monitor progress of construction work requiring CBO design review and
inspection to ensure compliance with LORS;
2. Ensure that construction of all facilities subject to CBO design review and
inspection conforms in every material respect to applicable LORS, these
conditions of certification, approved plans, and specifications;
3. Prepare documents to initiate changes in approved drawings and
specifications when either directed by the project owner or as required by
the conditions of the project;

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-114

Februrary 2015

  

4. Be responsible for providing project inspectors and testing agencies with
complete and up-to-date sets of stamped drawings, plans, specifications,
and any other required documents;
5. Be responsible for the timely submittal of construction progress reports to
the CBO from the project inspectors, the contractor, and other engineers
who have been delegated responsibility for portions of the project; and
6. Be responsible for notifying the CBO of corrective action or the disposition
of items noted on laboratory reports or other tests when they do not
conform to approved plans and specifications.
The resident engineer shall have the authority to halt construction and to
require changes or remedial work if the work does not meet requirements.
If the resident engineer or the delegated engineers are reassigned or
replaced, the project owner shall submit the name, qualifications and
registration number of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and
approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the
new engineer.
Verification:
At least 30 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall submit
to the CBO for review and approval, the resume and registration number of the resident
engineer and any other delegated engineers assigned to the project. The project owner
shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approvals of the resident engineer and other
delegated engineer(s) within five days of the approval.
If the resident engineer or the delegated engineer(s) is subsequently reassigned or
replaced, the project owner has five days to submit the resume and registration number
of the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project owner
shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer within five days of the
approval.
GEN-5

Prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall assign at least one
of each of the following California registered engineers to the project: a civil
engineer; a soils, geotechnical, or civil engineer experienced and
knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering; and an engineering
geologist. Prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall assign at
least one of each of the following California registered engineers to the
project: a design engineer who is either a structural engineer or a civil
engineer fully competent and proficient in the design of power plant structures
and equipment supports; a mechanical engineer; and an electrical engineer.
(California Business and Professions Code section 6704 et seq., and sections
6730, 6731 and 6736 require state registration to practice as a civil engineer
or structural engineer in California) All transmission facilities (lines,
switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled in the

February 2015

7-115

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

conditions of certification in the Transmission System Engineering section
of this document.
The tasks performed by the civil, mechanical, electrical, or design engineers
may be divided between two or more engineers, as long as each engineer is
responsible for a particular segment of the project (for example, proposed
earthwork, civil structures, power plant structures, equipment support). No
segment of the project shall have more than one responsible engineer. The
transmission line may be the responsibility of a separate California registered
electrical engineer.
The project owner shall submit, to the CBO for review and approval, the
names, qualifications, and registration numbers of all responsible engineers
assigned to the project (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 104, Duties
and Powers of Building Official).
If any one of the designated responsible engineers is subsequently
reassigned or replaced, the project owner shall submit the name,
qualifications and registration number of the newly assigned responsible
engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project owner shall notify
the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer.
A. The civil engineer shall:
1. Review the foundation investigations, geotechnical, or soils reports
prepared by the soils engineer, the geotechnical engineer, or by a civil
engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice of soils
engineering;
2. Design (or be responsible for the design of), stamp, and sign all plans,
calculations, and specifications for proposed site work, civil works, and
related facilities requiring design review and inspection by the CBO. At
a minimum, these include: grading; site preparation; excavation;
compaction; and construction of secondary containment, foundations,
erosion and sedimentation control structures, drainage facilities,
underground utilities, culverts, site access roads and sanitary sewer
systems; and
3. Provide consultation to the resident engineer during the construction
phase of the project and recommend changes in the design of the civil
works facilities and changes to the construction procedures.
B. The soils engineer, geotechnical engineer, or civil engineer experienced
and knowledgeable in the practice of soils engineering, shall:
1. Review all the engineering geology reports;
2. Prepare the foundation investigations, geotechnical, or soils reports
containing field exploration reports, laboratory tests, and engineering

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-116

Februrary 2015

  

analysis detailing the nature and extent of the soils that could be
susceptible to liquefaction, rapid settlement or collapse when saturated
under load (20132007 CBC, Chapter 18, § 1803, Soils Engineering
Report Appendix J, § J104.3, Soils Report; 1802.2, Foundation and
Soils Investigations)
3. Be present, as required, during site grading and earthwork to provide
consultation and monitor compliance with requirements set forth in the
20132007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 1704, Special Inspection Appendix J,
section J105, Inspections, and the 20132007 California Administrative
Code, section 4-211, Observation and Inspection of Construction
(depending on the site conditions, this may be the responsibility of
either the soils engineer, the engineering geologist, or both); and
4. Recommend field changes to the civil engineer and resident engineer.
This engineer shall be authorized to halt earthwork and to require changes if
site conditions are unsafe or do not conform to the predicted conditions used
as the basis for design of earthwork or foundations (20132007 CBC,
Appendix Chapter 1, § 115114, Stop Work Orders).
C. The engineering geologist shall:
1. Review all the engineering geology reports and prepare a final soils
grading report; and
2. Be present, as required, during site grading and earthwork to provide
consultation and monitor compliance with the requirements set forth in
the 20132007 California Administrative Code, § 4-211, Observation
and Inspection of Construction (depending on the site conditions, this
may be the responsibility of either the soils engineer, the engineering
geologist, or both).
D. The design engineer shall:
1. Be directly responsible for the design of the proposed structures and
equipment supports;
2. Provide consultation to the resident engineer during design and
construction of the project;
3. Monitor construction progress to ensure compliance with engineering
LORS;
4. Evaluate and recommend necessary changes in design; and
5. Prepare and sign all major building plans, specifications, and
calculations.

February 2015

7-117

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

E. The mechanical engineer shall be responsible for, and sign and stamp a
statement with, each mechanical submittal to the CBO, stating that the
proposed final design plans, specifications, and calculations conform to all
of the mechanical engineering design requirements set forth in the Energy
Commission’s decision.
F. The electrical engineer shall:
1. Be responsible for the electrical design of the project; and
2. Sign and stamp electrical design drawings, plans, specifications, and
calculations.
Verification:
At least 30 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of rough grading, the project owner shall submit
to the CBO for review and approval, resumes and registration numbers of the
responsible civil engineer, soils (geotechnical) engineer and engineering geologist
assigned to the project.
At least 30 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved alternative time frame)
prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for review
and approval, resumes and registration numbers of the responsible design engineer,
mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer assigned to the project.
The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO's approvals of the responsible
engineers within five days of the approval.
If the designated responsible engineer is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the
project owner has five days in which to submit the resume and registration number of
the newly assigned engineer to the CBO for review and approval. The project owner
shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s approval of the new engineer within five days of the
approval.
GEN-6

Prior to the start of an activity requiring special inspection, the project owner
shall assign to the project qualified and certified special inspector(s) who shall
be responsible for the special inspections required by the 20132007 CBC,
Chapter 17, § 1704; Special Inspections, Chapter 17A, § 1704A, Special
Inspections; and Appendix Chapter 1, § 110109, Inspections. All transmission
facilities (lines, switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled
in conditions of certification in the Transmission System Engineering
section of this document.
A certified weld inspector, certified by the American Welding Society (AWS),
and/or American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) as applicable,
shall inspect welding performed on site requiring special inspection (including
structural, piping, tanks and pressure vessels).
The special inspector shall:

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-118

Februrary 2015

  

1. Be a qualified person who shall demonstrate competence, to the
satisfaction of the CBO, for inspection of the particular type of construction
requiring special or continuous inspection;
2. Observe the work assigned for conformance with the approved design
drawings and specifications;
3. Furnish inspection reports to the CBO and resident engineer. All
discrepancies shall be brought to the immediate attention of the resident
engineer for correction, then, if uncorrected, to the CBO and the CPM for
corrective action [20132007 CBC, Chapter 17, Section 1704.2.41.2,
Report Requirements]; and
4. Submit a final signed report to the resident engineer, CBO, and CPM,
stating whether the work requiring special inspection was, to the best of
the inspector’s knowledge, in conformance with the approved plans,
specifications, and other provisions of the applicable edition of the CBC.
Verification:
At least 15 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of an activity requiring special inspection, the
project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval, with a copy to the CPM,
the name(s) and qualifications of the certified weld inspector(s) or other certified special
inspector(s) assigned to the project to perform one or more of the duties set forth above.
The project owner shall also submit to the CPM a copy of the CBO’s approval of the
qualifications of all special inspectors in the next monthly compliance report.
If the special inspector is subsequently reassigned or replaced, the project owner has
five days in which to submit the name and qualifications of the newly assigned special
inspector to the CBO for approval. The project owner shall notify the CPM of the CBO’s
approval of the newly assigned inspector within five days of the approval.
GEN-7

If any discrepancy in design and/or construction is discovered in any
engineering work that has undergone CBO design review and approval, the
project owner shall document the discrepancy and recommend required
corrective actions (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 109.6, Approval
Required; Chapter 17, § 1704.2.41.2, Report Requirements). The discrepancy
documentation shall be submitted to the CBO for review and approval. The
discrepancy documentation shall reference this condition of certification and,
if appropriate, applicable sections of the CBC and/or other LORS.

Verification:
The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO’s approval of any
corrective action taken to resolve a discrepancy to the CPM in the next monthly
compliance report. If any corrective action is disapproved, the project owner shall advise
the CPM, within five days, of the reason for disapproval and the revised corrective
action to obtain CBO’s approval.
GEN-8

The project owner shall obtain the CBO’s final approval of all completed work
that has undergone CBO design review and approval. The project owner shall

February 2015

7-119

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

request the CBO to inspect the completed structure and review the submitted
documents. The project owner shall notify the CPM after obtaining the CBO’s
final approval. The project owner shall retain one set of approved engineering
plans, specifications, and calculations (including all approved changes) at the
project site or at an alternative site approved by the CPM during the operating
life of the project (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 110106.3.1,
Inspections Approval of Construction Documents). Electronic copies of the
approved plans, specifications, calculations, and marked-up as-builts shall be
provided to the CBO for retention by the CPM.
Verification:
Within 15 days of the completion of any work, the project owner shall
submit to the CBO, with a copy to the CPM, in the next monthly compliance report, (a) a
written notice that the completed work is ready for final inspection, and (b) a signed
statement that the work conforms to the final approved plans. After storing the final
approved engineering plans, specifications, and calculations described above, the
project owner shall submit to the CPM a letter stating both that the above documents
have been stored and the storage location of those documents.
Within 90 days of the completion of construction, the project owner shall provide to the
CBO three sets of electronic copies of the above documents at the project owner’s
expense. These are to be provided in the form of “read only” files (Adobe .pdf 6.0), with
restricted (password-protected) printing privileges, on archive quality compact discs.
CIVIL-1

The project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the
following:
1. Design of the proposed drainage structures and the grading plan;
2. An erosion and sedimentation control plan;
3. Related calculations and specifications, signed and stamped by the
responsible civil engineer; and
4. Soils, geotechnical, or foundation investigations reports required by the
20132007 CBC, Chapter 18, § 1803.6 Reporting, and § 1803,
Geotechnical Investigation Appendix J, section J104.3, Soils Report;
and Chapter 18, section 1802.2, Foundation and Soils Investigation.

Verification:
At least 15 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of site grading the project owner shall submit the
documents described above to the CBO for design review and approval. In the next
monthly compliance report following the CBO’s approval, the project owner shall submit
a written statement certifying that the documents have been approved by the CBO.
CIVIL-2

The resident engineer shall, if appropriate, stop all earthwork and construction
in the affected areas when the responsible soils engineer, geotechnical
engineer, or the civil engineer experienced and knowledgeable in the practice
of soils engineering identifies unforeseen adverse soil or geologic conditions.
The project owner shall submit modified plans, specifications, and

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-120

Februrary 2015

  

calculations to the CBO based on these new conditions. The project owner
shall obtain approval from the CBO before resuming earthwork and
construction in the affected area (20132007 CBC, § 115114, Stop Work
Orders).
Verification:
The project owner shall notify the CPM within 24 hours when
earthwork and construction is stopped as a result of unforeseen adverse geologic/soil
conditions. Within 24 hours of the CBO’s approval to resume earthwork and
construction in the affected areas, the project owner shall provide to the CPM a copy of
the CBO’s approval.
CIVIL-3

The project owner shall perform inspections in accordance with the 20132007
CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 110109, Inspections; and Chapter 17, § 1704,
Special Inspections. All plant site-grading operations, for which a grading
permit is required, shall be subject to inspection by the CBO.
If, in the course of inspection, it is discovered that the work is not being
performed in accordance with the approved plans, the discrepancies shall be
reported immediately to the resident engineer, the CBO, and the CPM
(20132007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 1704.2.41.2, Report Requirements). The
project owner shall prepare a written report, with copies to the CBO and the
CPM, detailing all discrepancies, non-compliance items, and the proposed
corrective action.

Verification:
Within five days of the discovery of any discrepancies, the resident
engineer shall transmit to the CBO and the CPM a non-conformance report (NCR), and
the proposed corrective action for review and approval. Within five days of resolution of
the NCR, the project owner shall submit the details of the corrective action to the CBO
and the CPM. A list of NCRs, for the reporting month, shall also be included in the
following monthly compliance report.
CIVIL-4

After completion of finished grading and erosion and sedimentation control
and drainage work, the project owner shall obtain the CBO’s approval of the
final grading plans (including final changes) for the erosion and sedimentation
control work. The civil engineer shall state that the work within his/her area of
responsibility was done in accordance with the final approved plans
(20132007 CBC, Chapter 17, §1703.2, Written Approval).

Verification:
Within 30 days (or project owner- and CBO-approved alternative time
frame) of the completion of the erosion and sediment control mitigation and drainage
work, the project owner shall submit to the CBO, for review and approval, the final
grading plans (including final changes) and the responsible civil engineer’s signed
statement that the installation of the facilities and all erosion control measures were
completed in accordance with the final approved combined grading plans, and that the
facilities are adequate for their intended purposes, along with a copy of the transmittal
letter to the CPM. The project owner shall submit a copy of the CBO's approval to the
CPM in the next monthly compliance report.

February 2015

7-121

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

STRUC-1 Prior to the start of any increment of construction of any major structure or
component listed in Facility Design Table 2 of Condition of Certification GEN
2, above, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and
approval the proposed lateral force procedures for project structures and the
applicable designs, plans and drawings for project structures. Proposed
lateral force procedures, designs, plans and drawings shall be those for the
following items (from Table 2, above):
1. Major project structures;
2. Major foundations, equipment supports, and anchorage; and
3. Large field-fabricated tanks.
Construction of any structure or component shall not begin until the CBO has
approved the lateral force procedures to be employed in designing that
structure or component.
The project owner shall:
1. Obtain approval from the CBO of lateral force procedures proposed for
project structures;
2. Obtain approval from the CBO for the final design plans, specifications,
calculations, soils reports, and applicable quality control procedures. If
there are conflicting requirements, the more stringent shall govern (for
example, highest loads, or lowest allowable stresses shall govern). All
plans, calculations, and specifications for foundations that support
structures shall be filed concurrently with the structure plans, calculations,
and specifications (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, §104.1, Duties
and Powers of Building Official, 105, Permits109.6, Approval
Required);
3. Submit to the CBO the required number of copies of the structural plans,
specifications, calculations, and other required documents of the
designated major structures prior to the start of on-site fabrication and
installation of each structure, equipment support, or foundation (2013
CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 107.5 Retention of Construction
Documents2007 California Administrative Code, § 4-210, Plans,
Specifications, Computations and Other Data);
4. Ensure that the final plans, calculations, and specifications clearly reflect
the inclusion of approved criteria, assumptions, and methods used to
develop the design. The final designs, plans, calculations, and
specifications shall be signed and stamped by the responsible design
engineer (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, §107.3.4 106.3.4, Design
Professional in Responsible Charge); and

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-122

Februrary 2015

  

5. Submit to the CBO the responsible design engineer’s signed statement
that the final design plans conform to applicable LORS (20132007 CBC,
Appendix Chapter 1, § 107.3.4 106.3.4, Design Professional in
Responsible Charge).
Verification:
At least 60 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of any increment of construction of any structure
or component listed in Facility Design Table 2 of Condition of Certification GEN-2,
above, the project owner shall submit to the CBO the above final design plans,
specifications and calculations, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM.
The project owner shall submit to the CPM, in the next monthly compliance report, a
copy of a statement from the CBO that the proposed structural plans, specifications,
and calculations have been approved and comply with the requirements set forth in
applicable engineering LORS.
STRUC-2 The project owner shall submit to the CBO the required number of sets of the
following documents related to work that has undergone CBO design review
and approval:
1. Concrete cylinder strength test reports (including date of testing, date
sample taken, design concrete strength, tested cylinder strength, age of
test, type and size of sample, location and quantity of concrete placement
from which sample was taken, and mix design designation and
parameters);
2. Concrete pour sign-off sheets;
3. Bolt torque inspection reports (including location of test, date, bolt size,
and recorded torques);
4. Field weld inspection reports (including type of weld, location of weld,
inspection of non-destructive testing procedure and results, welder
qualifications, certifications, qualified procedure description or number (ref:
AWS); and
5. Reports covering other structural activities requiring special inspections
shall be in accordance with the 20132007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 1704,
Special Inspections, and § 1709.1, Structural Observations.
Verification:
If a discrepancy is discovered in any of the above data, the project
owner shall, within five days, prepare and submit an NCR describing the nature of the
discrepancies and the proposed corrective action to the CBO, with a copy of the
transmittal letter to the CPM (20132007 CBC, Chapter 17, § 1704.2.41.2, Report
Requirements). The NCR shall reference the condition(s) of certification and the
applicable CBC chapter and section. Within five days of resolution of the NCR, the
project owner shall submit a copy of the corrective action to the CBO and the CPM.

February 2015

7-123

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

The project owner shall transmit a copy of the CBO’s approval or disapproval of the
corrective action to the CPM within 15 days. If disapproved, the project owner shall
advise the CPM, within five days, the reason for disapproval, and the revised corrective
action necessary to obtain the CBO’s approval.
STRUC-3 The project owner shall submit to the CBO design changes to the final plans
required by the 20132007 CBC, including the revised drawings,
specifications, calculations, and a complete description of, and supporting
rationale for, the proposed changes, and shall give to the CBO prior notice of
the intended filing (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 107106.1,
Submittal Documents;, §106.4, Amended Construction Documents;
20132007 California Administrative Code, § 4-215, Changes in Approved
Drawings and Specifications).
Verification:
On a schedule suitable to the CBO, the project owner shall notify the
CBO of the intended filing of design changes and shall submit the required number of
sets of revised drawings and the required number of copies of the other abovementioned documents to the CBO, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM. The
project owner shall notify the CPM, via the monthly compliance report, when the CBO
has approved the revised plans.
STRUC-4 Tanks and vessels containing quantities of toxic or hazardous materials
exceeding amounts specified in the 20132007 CBC, Chapter 3, Table
307.1(2), shall, at a minimum, be designed to comply with H-2 Occupancy
Category of the 2013 CBC the requirements of that chapter.
Verification:
At least 30 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternate time frame) prior to the start of installation of the tanks or vessels containing
the above specified quantities of toxic or hazardous materials, the project owner shall
submit to the CBO for design review and approval final design plans, specifications, and
calculations, including a copy of the signed and stamped engineer’s certification.
The project owner shall send copies of the CBO approvals of plan checks to the CPM in
the following monthly compliance report. The project owner shall also transmit a copy of
the CBO’s inspection approvals to the CPM in the monthly compliance report following
completion of any inspection.
MECH-1 The project owner shall submit, for CBO design review and approval, the
proposed final design, specifications and calculations for each plant major
piping and plumbing system listed in Facility Design Table 2, Condition of
Certification GEN-2, above. Physical layout drawings and drawings not
related to code compliance and life safety need not be submitted. The
submittal shall also include the applicable quality assurance and quality
control QA/QC procedures. Upon completion of construction of any such
major piping or plumbing system, the project owner shall request the CBO’s
inspection approval of that construction (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1,
§ 107106.1, Submittal Documents; § 110109.5, Inspections Inspection

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-124

Februrary 2015

  

Requests; § 105, Permits109.6, Approval Required; 20132007 California
Plumbing Code, § 301301.1.1, Materials Approvals).
The responsible mechanical engineer shall stamp and sign all plans,
drawings, and calculations for the major piping and plumbing systems,
subject to CBO design review and approval, and submit a signed statement to
the CBO when the proposed piping and plumbing systems have been
designed, fabricated, and installed in accordance with all of the applicable
laws, ordinances, regulations and industry standards (20132007 CBC,
Appendix Chapter 1, § 107.3.4106.3.4, Design Professional in Responsible
Charge), which may include, but are not limited to:


American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B31.1 (Power Piping Code);



ANSI B31.2 (Fuel Gas Piping Code);



ANSI B31.3 (Chemical Plant and Petroleum Refinery Piping Code);



ANSI B31.8 (Gas Transmission and Distribution Piping Code);



Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5 (California Plumbing
Code);



Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6 (California Energy Code,
for building energy conservation systems and temperature control and
ventilation systems);



Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2 (California Building Code);
and



San Diego County codes; and



City of Carlsbad Municipal Ordinance, Title 18, Building Codes and
Standards regulations and ordinances.

The CBO may deputize inspectors to carry out the functions of the code
enforcement agency (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, §103.3,
Deputies).
Verification:
At least 30 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of any increment of major piping or plumbing
construction listed in Facility Design Table 2, Condition of Certification GEN-2, above,
the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and approval the final
plans, specifications, and calculations, including a copy of the signed and stamped
statement from the responsible mechanical engineer certifying compliance with
applicable LORS, and shall send the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the next
monthly compliance report.
The project owner shall transmit to the CPM, in the monthly compliance report following
completion of any inspection, a copy of the transmittal letter conveying the CBO’s
inspection approvals.

February 2015

7-125

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

MECH-2 For all pressure vessels installed in the plant, the project owner shall submit
to the CBO and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(Cal-OSHA), prior to operation, the code certification papers and other
documents required by applicable LORS. Upon completion of the installation
of any pressure vessel, the project owner shall request the appropriate CBO
and/or Cal-OSHA inspection of that installation (20132007 CBC, Appendix
Chapter 1, §110109.5, Inspections Requests).
The project owner shall:
1. Ensure that all boilers and fired and unfired pressure vessels are
designed, fabricated, and installed in accordance with the appropriate
section of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler
and Pressure Vessel Code, or other applicable code. Vendor certification,
with identification of applicable code, shall be submitted for prefabricated
vessels and tanks; and
2. Have the responsible design engineer submit a statement to the CBO that
the proposed final design plans, specifications, and calculations conform
to all of the requirements set forth in the appropriate ASME Boiler and
Pressure Vessel Code or other applicable codes.
Verification:
At least 30 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of on-site fabrication or installation of any
pressure vessel, the project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and
approval, the above-listed documents, including a copy of the signed and stamped
engineer’s certification, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM.
The project owner shall transmit to the CPM, in the monthly compliance report following
completion of any inspection, a copy of the transmittal letter conveying the CBO’s
and/or Cal/OSHA inspection approvals.
MECH-3 The project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and approval the
design plans, specifications, calculations, and quality control procedures for
any heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC), or refrigeration system.
Packaged HVAC systems, where used, shall be identified with the
appropriate manufacturer’s data sheets.
The project owner shall design and install all HVAC and refrigeration systems
within buildings and related structures in accordance with the CBC and other
applicable codes. Upon completion of any increment of construction, the
project owner shall request the CBO’s inspection and approval of that
construction. The final plans, specifications and calculations shall include
approved criteria, assumptions, and methods used to develop the design. In
addition, the responsible mechanical engineer shall sign and stamp all plans,
drawings and calculations and submit a signed statement to the CBO that the
proposed final design plans, specifications and calculations conform with the
applicable LORS (20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 110.3.7109.3.7,

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-126

Februrary 2015

  

Energy Efficiency Inspections; § 107.3.4106.3.4, Design Professionals in
Responsible Charge).
Verification:
At least 30 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of construction of any HVAC or refrigeration
system, the project owner shall submit to the CBO the required HVAC and refrigeration
calculations, plans, and specifications, including a copy of the signed and stamped
statement from the responsible mechanical engineer certifying compliance with the CBC
and other applicable codes, with a copy of the transmittal letter to the CPM.
ELEC-1 Prior to the start of any increment of electrical construction for all electrical
equipment and systems 120480 Volts or higher (see a representative list,
below), with the exception of underground duct work and any physical layout
drawings and drawings not related to code compliance and life safety, the
project owner shall submit, for CBO design review and approval, the
proposed final design, specifications, and calculations (20132007 CBC,
Appendix Chapter 1, § 107106.1, Submittal Documents). Upon approval, the
above listed plans, together with design changes and design change notices,
shall remain on the site or at another accessible location for the operating life
of the project. The project owner shall request that the CBO inspect the
installation to ensure compliance with the requirements of applicable LORS
(20132007 CBC, Appendix Chapter 1, § 105109.6, Permits; Approval
Required; § 110109.5, Inspections Requests). All transmission facilities (lines,
switchyards, switching stations, and substations) are handled in conditions of
certification in the Transmission System Engineering section of this
document.
A. Final plant design plans shall include:
1. one-line diagrams for the 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV and 120/480 V systems;
and
2. system grounding drawings.
B. Final plant calculations must establish:
1. short-circuit ratings of plant equipment;
2. ampacity of feeder cables;
3. voltage drop in feeder cables;
4. system grounding requirements;
5. coordination study calculations for fuses, circuit breakers and
protective relay settings for the 13.8 kV, 4.16 kV and 120/480 V
systems; and
6. system grounding requirements; and

February 2015

7-127

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

67. lighting energy calculations.
C. The following activities shall be reported to the CPM in the monthly
compliance report:
1. Receipt or delay of major electrical equipment;
2. Testing or energization of major electrical equipment; and
3. A signed statement by the registered electrical engineer certifying that
the proposed final design plans and specifications conform to
requirements set forth in the Energy Commission decision.
Verification:
At least 30 days (or within a project owner- and CBO-approved
alternative time frame) prior to the start of each increment of electrical construction, the
project owner shall submit to the CBO for design review and approval the above-listed
documents. The project owner shall include in this submittal a copy of the signed and
stamped statement from the responsible electrical engineer attesting compliance with
the applicable LORS, and shall send the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the next
monthly compliance report.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-128

Februrary 2015

  

GEOLOGY & PALEONTOLOGY
The conditions of certification below include the approved conditions of certification from
the licensed CECP and any modifications, additions or deletions required for the
amended CECP. If compliance work has begun and no changes are required for the
amended project, then the project owner need not duplicate those previous compliance
activities. The compliance work already performed has been duly noted.
Staff has proposed modifications to the Geology & Paleontology Conditions of
Certification for the originally-licensed CECP, as shown below. (Note: Deleted text is in
strikethrough, new text is bold and underlined).
General Conditions of Certification with respect to engineering geology are proposed
under Conditions of Certification GEN-1, GEN-5, and CIVIL-1 in the Facility Design
section and in GEO-1 of this section. Proposed paleontological Conditions of
Certification follow in PAL-1 through PAL-8. It is staff’s opinion that the likelihood of
encountering paleontologic resources could be high in areas where native Pleistocene
or Eocene age deposits occur in excavations. Staff would consider reducing monitoring
intensity, at the recommendation of the project PRS, following examination of sufficient,
representative excavations that fully describe site stratigraphy.
GEO-1

A Soils Engineering Report as required by Section 1803 of the California
Building Code (CBC 2013), or its successor in effect at the time
construction of the project were to commence, shall specifically include
laboratory test data, associated geotechnical engineering analyses, and
a thorough discussion of seismicity; liquefaction; dynamic compaction;
compressible soils; corrosive soils; and tsunami. In accordance with
CBC 2013, the report should also include recommendations for ground
improvement and/or foundation systems necessary to mitigate these
potential geologic hazards, if present.

Verification:
The project owner shall include in the application for a grading
permit a copy of the Soils Engineering Report which addresses the potential for
strong seismic shaking; liquefaction; dynamic compaction; settlement due to
compressible soils; corrosive soils, and tsunami, and a summary of how the
results of the analyses were incorporated into the project foundation and grading
plan design for review and comment by the delegate chief building official (CBO).
A copy of the Soils Engineering Report, application for grading permit and any
comments by the CBO are to be provided to the CPM at least 30 days prior to
grading.
PAL-1

The project owner shall provide the compliance project
managerCompliance Project Manager (CPM) with the resume and
qualifications of its paleontological resource specialistPaleontological
Resource Specialist (PRS) for review and approval. If the approved PRS is
replaced prior to completion of project mitigation and submittal of the
paleontological resources report (PRR), Paleontological Resources
Report, the project owner shall obtain CPM approval of the replacement PRS.

February 2015

7-129

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

The project owner shall keep resumes on file for qualified Paleontological
Resource Monitors (PRMs). If a PRM is replaced, the resume of the
replacement PRM shall also be provided to the CPM.
The PRS resume shall include the names and phone numbers of references.
The resume shall also demonstrate to the satisfaction of the CPM the
appropriate education and experience to accomplish the required
paleontological resource tasks.
As determined by the CPM, the PRS shall meet the minimum qualifications
for a qualified professional paleontologist vertebrate paleontologist as
defined described in the Standard Procedures for the Assessment and
Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources by the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010).guidelines of 1995. The
experience of the PRS shall include the following:
1. Institutional affiliations, appropriate credentials, and college degree;
2. Ability to recognize and collect fossils in the field;
3. Local geological and biostratigraphic expertise;
4. Proficiency in identifying vertebrate and invertebrate fossils; and
5. At least three years of paleontological resource mitigation and field
experience in California and at least one year of experience leading
paleontological resource mitigation and field activities.
The project owner shall ensure that the PRS obtains qualified paleontological
resource monitors (PRMs) to monitor as he or she deems necessary on the
project.
Paleontologic Resource MonitorsPRMs shall have the equivalent or
combination of the following qualifications approved by the CPM:


BS or BA degree in geology or paleontology, and one year of experience
monitoring in California; or



AS or AA in geology, paleontology, or biology, and four years’ experience
monitoring in California; or



Enrollment in upper division classes pursuing a degree in the fields of
geology or paleontology and two years of monitoring experience in
California.

The project owner shall keep resumes on file for qualified
paleontological resources monitors (PRMs). If a PRM is replaced, the
resume of the replacement PRM shall also be provided to the CPM for
review and approval.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-130

Februrary 2015

  

Verification:
1. At least 60 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall
submit a resume and statement of availability of its designated PRS for on-site work
to the CPM for approval.
2. At least 20 days prior to ground disturbance, the PRS or project owner shall provide
a letter with resumes naming anticipated PRMs monitors for the project. The letter
shall state, stating that the identified PRMs monitors meet the minimum
qualifications for paleontological resource monitoring as required by this the
condition of certification. If additional PRMs monitors are obtained during the
project, the PRS shall provide additional letters and resumes to the CPM. The letter
shall be provided to the CPM for approval no later than one week prior to the
monitor’s beginning on-site duties.
3. Prior to any change the termination or release of the a PRS, the project owner shall
submit the resume of the proposed new PRS to the CPM for review and approval.
PAL-2

The project owner shall provide to the PRS and the CPM, for approval, maps
and drawings showing the footprint of the power plant, construction lay down
areas, and all related facilities. Maps shall identify all areas of the project
where ground disturbance is anticipated. If the PRS requests enlargements or
strip maps for linear facility routes, the project owner shall provide copies to
the PRS and CPM. The site grading plan and the plan and profile drawings
for the utility lines would be acceptable for this purpose. The plan drawings
should show the location, depth, and extent of all ground disturbances and be
at a scale between 1 inch = 40 feet and 1 inch = 100 feet range. If the
footprint of the project or its linear facilities change, the project owner shall
provide maps and drawings reflecting those changes to the PRS and CPM.
If construction of the project proceeds in phases, maps and drawings may be
submitted prior to the start of each phase. A letter identifying the proposed
schedule of each project phase shall be provided to the PRS and CPM.
Before work commences on affected phases, the project owner shall notify
the PRS and CPM of any construction phase scheduling changes.
At a minimum, the project owner shall ensure that the PRS or PRM consults
weekly with the project superintendent or construction field manager to
confirm area(s) to be worked the following week and until ground disturbance
is completed.

Verification:
1. At least 30 days prior to the start of ground disturbance, the project owner shall
provide the maps and drawings to the PRS and CPM.
2. (2) If there are changes to the footprint of the project, revised maps and drawings
shall be provided to the PRS and CPM at least 15 days prior to the start of ground
disturbance. 

February 2015

7-131

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

3. (3) If there are changes to the scheduling of the construction phases, the project
owner shall submit a letter to the CPM within five days of identifying the changes.
PAL-3

The project owner shall ensure that the PRS prepares a Paleontological
Resources Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PRMMP) and the project
owner submits the PRMMP to the CPM for review and approval, a
paleontological resources monitoring and mitigation plan (PRMMP) to identify
general and specific measures to minimize potential impacts to significant
paleontological resources. Approval of the PRMMP by the CPM shall occur
prior to any ground disturbance. The PRMMP shall function as the formal
guide for monitoring, collecting, and sampling activities, and may be modified
with CPM approval. The PRMMP This document shall be used as the basis of
discussion when on-site decisions or changes are proposed. Copies of the
PRMMP shall include all updates and reside with the PRS, each
monitorPRM, the project owner’s on-site manager, and the CPM.
The PRMMP shall be developed in accordance with the guidelines of the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010, 1995) and shall include, but
not be limited, to the following:
1. Assurance that the performance and sequence of project-related tasks,
such as any literature searches, pre-construction surveys, worker
environmental training, fieldwork, flagging or staking, construction
monitoring, mapping and data recovery, fossil preparation and collection,
identification and inventory, preparation of final reports, and transmittal of
materials for curation will be performed according to PRMMP procedures;
2. Identification of the person(s) expected to assist with each of the tasks
identified within the PRMMP and these conditions the Conditions of
certification Certification;
3. A thorough discussion of the anticipated geologic units expected to be
encountered, the location and depth of the units relative to the project
when known, and the known sensitivity of those units based on the
occurrence of fossils either in that unit or in correlative units;
4. An explanation of why sampling is needed, a description of the
sampling methodology, how, and how much sampling is expected to
take place and in which geologic what units. Include descriptions of
different sampling procedures that shall be used for fine-grained and
coarse-grained units;
5. A discussion of the locations where the monitoring of project construction
activities is deemed necessary, and a proposed plan for monitoring and
sampling at these locations;

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-132

Februrary 2015

  

6. A discussion of procedures to be followed: (a)in the event of a significant
fossil discovery, (b) stopping halting construction, (c) resuming
construction, and (d) how notifications will be performed;
7. A discussion of equipment and supplies necessary for collection of fossil
materials and any specialized equipment needed to prepare, remove,
load, transport, and analyze large-sized fossils or extensive fossil
deposits;
8. Procedures for inventory, preparation, and delivery for curation into a
retrievable storage collection in a public repository or museum, which
meet the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s standards and
requirements for the curation of paleontological resources;
9. Identification of the institution that has agreed to receive data and fossil
materials collected, requirements or specifications for materials delivered
for curation, and how they will be met, and the name and phone number of
the contact person at the institution; and
10. A copy of the paleontological resource conditions Conditions of
certification Certification.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall
provide a copy of the PRMMP to the CPM. Approval of the PRMMP by the CPM shall
occur prior to any ground disturbance. The PRMMP shall include an affidavit of
authorship by the PRS, and acceptance of the PRMMP by the project owner evidenced
by a signature.
PAL-4

Prior to ground disturbance the project owner and the PRS shall
prepare a CPM-approved Worker Environmental Awareness Program
(WEAP).

PAL-4

Prior to ground disturbance and for the duration of construction activities
involving ground disturbance, the project owner and the PRS shall prepare
and conduct weekly CPM-approved training for the following workers: project
managers, construction supervisors, foremen and general workers involved
with or who operate ground-disturbing equipment or tools. Workers shall not
excavate in sensitive units prior to receiving CPM-approved worker training.
Worker training shall consist of an initial in-person PRS training during the
project kick-off, for those mentioned above. Following initial training, a CPMapproved video or in-person training may be used for new employees. The
training program may be combined with other training programs prepared for
cultural and biological resources, hazardous materials, or other areas of
interest or concern. No ground disturbance shall occur prior to CPM approval
of the Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP), unless specifically
approved by the CPM.

February 2015

7-133

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

The WEAP shall address the possibility of encountering paleontological
resources in the field, the sensitivity and importance of these resources, and
legal obligations to preserve and protect those resources. The purpose of
the WEAP is to train project workers to recognize paleontologic
resources and identify procedures they should follow to ensure there
are no impacts to sensitive paleontologic resources. The WEAP shall
include:
The training shall include:
1. A discussion of applicable laws and penalties under the law;
2. Good quality photographs or physical examples of vertebrate fossils for
project sites containing units of high paleontologic sensitivity;
3. Information that the PRS or PRM has the authority to stop halt or redirect
construction in the event of a discovery or unanticipated impact to a
paleontological resource;
4. Instruction that employees are to stop halt or redirect work in the vicinity
of a find and to contact their supervisor and the PRS or PRM;
5. An informational brochure that identifies reporting procedures in the event
of a discovery;
6. A WEAP certification of completion form signed by each worker indicating
that he/she has received the training; and
7. A sticker that shall be placed on hard hats indicating that environmental
training has been completed.
8. The Project Owner shall also submit the training script and, if the
project owner is planning to use a multimedia presentation for
training, a copy of the training presentation with the set of reporting
procedures for workers to follow that will be used to present the
WEAP and qualify workers to conduct ground disturbing activities
that could impact paleontologic resources.
Verification:
1. At least 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall submit to the
CPM for review and comment the draft the proposed WEAP, including the
brochure and sticker. The submittal shall also include a draft training script
and, if the project owner is planning to use a multimedia presentation for
training, a copy of the training presentation with the set of reporting procedures
for workers to follow.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-134

Februrary 2015

  

2. At least 15 30 days prior to ground disturbance, the project owner shall submit the
script and final video to the CPM for approval if the final WEAP and project owner is
planning to use a video for interim training script.
PAL-5

No worker shall excavate or perform any ground disturbance activity
prior to receiving CPM-approved WEAP training, (3) If the prepared in
accordance with the requirements of PAL-4 unless specifically
approved by owner requests an alternate paleontological trainer, the CPM.
Prior to site mobilization or resume and any ground disturbance
qualifications of the following workers trainer shall be WEAP trained by
submitted to the PRS in-person: project managers, construction
supervisors, foremen, CPM for review and all general workers involved
with or who operate ground-disturbing equipment or tools. Following
this initial training, approval prior to installation the WEAP certification of
completion form shall be used an alternate trainer. Alternate trainers shall
not conduct training prior to document who has received the required
training. CPM authorization.Workers subsequently receiving training may
be trained using the materials and procedures required in PAL-4.

Verification:
(4) In the Monthly Compliance Report monthly compliance report (MCR), the project
owner shall provide copies of the WEAP certification of the completion forms with the
names of those trained and the trainer or type of training (in-person and/or video)
offered that month. An example of a suitable WEAP certification of completion form
is provided below. The MCR shall also include a running total of all persons who have
completed the training to date.
PAL-65

The project owner shall ensure that the PRS and PRM(s) monitor, consistent
with the PRMMP, all construction-related grading, excavation, trenching, and
augering in areas where potential fossil-bearing materials have been
identified, both at the site and along any constructed linear facilities
associated with the project. In the event that the PRS determines full-time
monitoring is not necessary in locations that were identified as potentially
fossil-bearing in the PRMMP, the project owner shall notify and seek the
concurrence of the CPM.
The project owner shall ensure that the PRS and PRM(s) have the authority
to stop halt or redirect construction if paleontological resources are
encountered. The project owner shall ensure that there is no interference with
monitoring activities unless directed by the PRS. Monitoring activities shall be
conducted as follows:
1. Any change of monitoring from the accepted schedule in the PRMMP shall
be proposed in a letter or email from the PRS and the project owner to the
CPM for review and approval prior to the change in monitoring. and will
be included in the monthly compliance report. The letter or email shall

February 2015

7-135

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

include the justification for the change in monitoring and be submitted to
the CPM for review and approval.
2. The project owner shall ensure that the PRM(s) keep a daily monitoring
log of paleontological resource activities. The PRS may informally discuss
paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation activities with the CPM
at any time.
3. The project owner shall ensure that the PRS notifies the CPM within 24
hours of the occurrence of any incidents of non-compliance with any
paleontological resources conditions Conditions of certification
Certification. The PRS shall recommend corrective action to resolve the
issues or achieve compliance with the conditions Conditions of
certification. Certification.
4. For any significant paleontological resources encountered, either the
project owner or the PRS shall notify the CPM within 24 hours, or Monday
morning in the case of a weekend event, when where construction has
been stopped halted because of a paleontological find.
The project owner shall ensure that the PRS prepares a summary of
monitoring and other paleontological activities that will be included in each
MCR. placed in the monthly compliance reports. The summary will include the
name(s) of PRS or PRM(s) active during the month, general descriptions of
training and monitored construction activities, and general locations of
excavations, grading, and other activities. A section of the report shall include
the geologic units or subunits encountered, descriptions of samplings within
each unit, and a list of identified fossils. A final section of the report will
address any issues or concerns about the project relating to paleontologic
monitoring, including any incidents of non-compliance or any changes to the
monitoring plan that have been approved by the CPM. If no monitoring took
place during the month, the report shall include an explanation in the
summary as to why monitoring was not conducted.
Verification: The project owner shall ensure that the PRS submits the summary of
monitoring and paleontological activities in the MCR. When feasible, the CPM shall be
notified ten days in advance of any proposed changes in monitoring different from that
the plan identified in the PRMMP. If there is any unforeseen change in monitoring, the
notice shall be given as soon as possible prior to implementation of the change.
PAL-6

The project owner, through the designated PRS, shall ensure that all
components of the PRMMP are adequately performed including collection of
fossil materials, preparation of fossil materials for analysis, analysis of fossils,
identification and inventory of fossils, the preparation of fossils for curation,
and the delivery for curation of all significant paleontological resource
materials encountered and collected during project construction.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-136

Februrary 2015

  

Verification: The project owner shall maintain in his/her compliance file copies of
signed contracts or agreements with the designated PRS and other qualified research
specialists. The project owner shall maintain these files for a period of three years after
project completion and approval of the CPM-approved paleontological resource report
(see PAL-7). The project owner shall be responsible for paying any curation fees
charged by the museum for fossils collected and curated as a result of paleontological
mitigation. A copy of the letter of transmittal submitting the fossils to the curating
institution shall be provided to the CPM.
PAL-7

The project owner shall ensure preparation of a Paleontological Resources
Report (PRR) by the designated PRS. The PRR shall be prepared following
completion of the ground-disturbing activities. The PRR shall include an
analysis of the collected fossil materials and related information, and shall be
submitted submit it to the CPM for review and approval.
The report shall include, but is not limited to, a description and inventory of
recovered fossil materials; a map showing the location of paleontological
resources encountered; the PRS’ description determinations of sensitivity
and significance of those resources; and a statement by the PRS that
project impacts to paleontological resources have been mitigated below the
level of significance.; and indicate if and how fossil material was curated
in accordance with PAL-8;

Verification: Within 90 days after completion of ground-disturbing activities, including
landscaping, the project owner shall submit the PRR under confidential cover to the
CPM.
PAL-8

The project owner, through the designated PRS, shall ensure that all
components of the PRMMP are adequately performed, including
collection of fossil material, preparation of fossil material for analysis,
analysis of fossils, identification and inventory of fossils, preparation of
fossils for curation, and delivery for curation of all significant
paleontological resource materials encountered and collected during
project construction. The project owner shall pay all curation fees
charged by the museum for fossil material collected and curated as a
result of paleontological mitigation. The project owner shall also
provide the curator with documentation showing the project owner
irrevocably and unconditionally donates, gives, and assigns permanent,
absolute, and unconditional ownership of the fossil material.

Verification: Within 60 days after the submittal of the PRR, the project owner
shall submit documentation to the CPM showing fees have been paid for curation
and the owner relinquishes control and ownership of all fossil material.

February 2015

7-137

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

TRANSMISSION SYSTEM ENGINEERING
TSE-1

The project owner shall furnish to the CPM and to the CBO a schedule of
transmission facility design submittals, a Master Drawing List, a Master
Specifications List, and a Major Equipment and Structure List. The schedule
shall contain a description and list of proposed submittal packages for design,
calculations, and specifications for major structures and equipment. To
facilitate audits by Energy Commission staff, the project owner shall provide
designated packages to the CPM when requested.

Verification:
At least 60 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the
project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of construction, the project owner shall
submit the schedule, a Master Drawing List, and a Master Specifications List to the
CBO and to the CPM. The schedule shall contain a description and list of proposed
submittal packages for design, calculations, and specifications for major structures and
equipment (see a list of major equipment in Table 1: Major Equipment List below).
Additions and deletions shall be made to the table only with CPM and CBO approval.
The project owner shall provide schedule updates in the Monthly Compliance Report.
Table 1:
Major Equipment List
Breakers
Step-up Transformer
Switchyard
Busses
Surge Arrestors
Disconnects and Wave-traps
Take off facilities
Electrical Control Building
Switchyard Control Building
Transmission Pole/Tower
Insulators and Conductors
Grounding System

TSE-2

For the power plant switchyard, outlet line and termination, the project owner
shall not begin any increment of construction until plans for that increment
have been approved by the CBO. These plans, together with design changes
and design change notices, shall remain on the site for one year after
completion of construction. The project owner shall request that the CBO
inspect the installation to ensure compliance with the requirements of
applicable LORS. The following activities shall be reported in the Monthly
Compliance Report:
A. receipt or delay of major electrical equipment;
B. testing or energization of major electrical equipment; and

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-138

Februrary 2015

  

C. the number of electrical drawings approved, submitted for approval, and
still to be submitted.
Verification:
At least 30 days (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the
project owner and the CBO) prior to the start of each increment of construction, the
project owner shall submit to the CBO for review and approval the final design plans,
specifications, and calculations for equipment and systems of the power plant
switchyard, outlet line and termination, including a copy of the signed and stamped
statement from the responsible electrical engineer attesting to compliance with the
applicable LORS, and send the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter in the next Monthly
Compliance Report.
TSE-3

The project owner shall ensure that the design, construction and operation of
the proposed transmission facilities will conform to all applicable LORS,
including the requirements listed below. The project owner shall submit the
required number of copies of the design drawings and calculations to the
CBO as determined by the CBO.
a) The power plant switchyard and outlet line shall meet or exceed the
electrical, mechanical, civil and structural requirements of CPUC General
Order 95 or National Electric Safety Code (NESC), Title 8 of the California
Code and Regulations (Title 8), Articles 35, 36, and 37 of the “High
Voltage Electric Safety Orders”, California ISO standards, National Electric
Code (NEC) and related industry standards.
b) Breakers and busses in the power plant switchyard and other switchyards,
where applicable, shall be sized to accommodate full output from the
project and to comply with a short-circuit analysis.
c) Outlet line crossings and line parallels with transmission and distribution
facilities shall be coordinated with the transmission line owner and comply
with the owner’s standards.
d) The project conductors shall be sized to accommodate the full output from
the project.
e) Termination facilities shall comply with applicable SDG&E interconnection
standards.
f) The project owner shall provide the following for all 6 CECP units to the
CPM:
i) The Special Protection System (SPS) sequencing and timing if
applicable,
ii) The electrical one-line diagrams for the SDG&E Encina 230 kV
switchyard with all updates of buses and circuit breakers with
associated disconnect switches including their types and/or ampere

February 2015

7-139

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

ratings and leveled transmission outlets, considering decommissioning
and disconnection of all existing Encina generator units
iii) A letter stating that the mitigation measures or projects selected by the
transmission owners for each criteria violation are acceptable, if
applicable,
iv) The operational study report based on 2017 in-service date or current
commercial operation date (COD) system conditions from the
California and/or SDG&E.
v) A copy of the executed LGIA signed by the California ISO and the
project owner
Verification:
At least 60 days prior to the start of construction of transmission
facilities (or a lesser number of days mutually agreed to by the project owner and CBO),
the project owner shall submit to the CBO for approval:
a) Design drawings, specifications and calculations conforming with CPUC General
Order 95 or NESC, Title 8, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the “High Voltage Electric Safety
Orders”, NEC, applicable interconnection standards and related industry standards,
for the poles/towers, foundations, anchor bolts, conductors, grounding systems and
major switchyard equipment.
b) For each element of the transmission facilities identified above, the submittal
package to the CBO shall contain the design criteria, a discussion of the calculation
method(s), a sample calculation based on “worst case conditions”2 and a statement
signed and sealed by the registered engineer in responsible charge, or other
acceptable alternative verification, that the transmission element(s) will conform with
CPUC General Order 95 or NESC, Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Articles
35, 36 and 37 of the, “High Voltage Electric Safety Orders”, NEC, applicable
interconnection standards, and related industry standards.
c) Electrical one-line diagrams signed and sealed by the registered professional
electrical engineer in responsible charge, a route map, and an engineering
description of equipment and the configurations covered by requirements TSE-3 a)
through f) above.
d) The electrical one-line diagrams for the SDG&E Encina 230 kV switchyard with all
updates of buses and circuit breakers with associated disconnect switches
including their types and/or ampere ratings and leveled transmission outlets,
considering decommissioning and disconnection of all existing Encina generator
units
e) The Special Protection Scheme (SPS) sequencing and timing if applicable shall be
provided concurrently to the CPM.
f) A letter stating that the mitigation measures or projects selected by the transmission
owners for each criteria violation are acceptable, if applicable.
2

Worst case conditions for the foundations would include for instance, a dead-end or angle pole.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-140

Februrary 2015

  

g) The operational study report for the CECP units based on 2017 in-service date or
current COD system conditions from the California ISO and/or SDG&E.
h) A copy of the executed LGIA for the CECP signed by the California ISO and the
project owner.
TSE-4

The project owner shall inform the CPM and CBO of any impending changes
that may not conform to requirements TSE-3 a) through f), and have not
received CPM and CBO approval, and request approval to implement such
changes. A detailed description of the proposed change and complete
engineering, environmental, and economic rationale for the change shall
accompany the request. Construction involving changed equipment or
substation configurations shall not begin without prior written approval of the
changes by the CBO and the CPM.

Verification:
At least 60 days prior to the construction of transmission facilities, the
project owner shall inform the CBO and the CPM of any impending changes that may
not conform to requirements of TSE-3 and request approval to implement such
changes.
TSE-5

The project owner shall provide the following notice to the California ISO prior
to synchronizing the facility with the California Transmission system:
a) At least one week prior to synchronizing the facility with the grid for
testing, provide the California ISO a letter stating the proposed date of
synchronization; and
b) At least one business day prior to synchronizing the facility with the grid
for testing, provide telephone notification to the California ISO Outage
Coordination Department.

Verification:
The project owner shall provide copies of the California ISO letter to
the CPM when it is sent to the California ISO one week prior to initial synchronization
with the grid. The project owner shall contact the California ISO Outage Coordination
Department, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 0700 and 1530 at (916) 3512300 at least one business day prior to synchronizing the facility with the grid for testing.
A report of conversation with the California ISO shall be provided electronically to the
CPM one day before synchronizing the facility with the California transmission system
for the first time.
TSE-6

The project owner shall be responsible for the inspection of the transmission
facilities during and after project construction, and any subsequent CPM and
CBO approved changes thereto, to ensure conformance with CPUC GO-95 or
NESC, Title 8, CCR, Articles 35, 36 and 37 of the, “High Voltage Electric
Safety Orders”, applicable interconnection standards, NEC and related
industry standards. In case of non-conformance, the project owner shall
inform the CPM and CBO in writing, within ten days of discovering such nonconformance and describe the corrective actions to be taken.

February 2015

7-141

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

Verification:
Within 120 days after first synchronization of the project, the project
owner shall transmit to the CPM and CBO:
a) “As built” engineering description(s) and one-line drawings of the electrical portion of
the facilities signed and sealed by the registered electrical engineer in responsible
charge. A statement attesting to conformance with CPUC GO-95 or NESC, Title 8,
California Code of Regulations, Articles 35, 36, and 37 of the “High Voltage Electric
Safety Orders” and applicable interconnection standards, NEC, related industry
standards, and these conditions shall be provided concurrently.
b) An “as built” engineering description of the mechanical, structural, and civil portion of
the transmission facilities signed and sealed by the registered engineer in
responsible charge or acceptable alternative verification. “As built” drawings of the
electrical, mechanical, structural, and civil portion of the transmission facilities shall
be maintained at the power plant and made available, if requested, for CPM audit as
set forth in the “Compliance Monitoring Plan”.
c) A summary of inspections of the completed transmission facilities, and identification
of any nonconforming work and corrective actions taken, signed and sealed by the
registered engineer in charge.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-142

Februrary 2015

  

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Staff has proposed modifications to the Waste Management conditions of certification
in the licensed CECP Decision as shown below. Included is a new staff proposed
WASTE-12, which incorporates comments received on the PSA version. (Note: Deleted
text is in strikethrough, new text is bold and underlined)
WASTE-1 The project owner shall ensure that the project site is properly characterized
and remediated as necessary pursuant to the Corrective Action Plan
reviewed and approved by the San Diego County Department of
Environmental Health (SDCDEH). In no event shall project construction
commence in areas requiring characterization and remediation until SDCDEH
and the CPM have determined that all necessary remediation has been
accomplished.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to remediation, the project owner shall submit to
the CPM for review and approval copies of all pertinent correspondence, work plans,
agreements, and authorizations between the project owner and SDCDEH regarding
the Corrective Action Plan requirements and activities at the project site. At least 60
days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project owner shall provide to the CPM for
review and approval written notice from SDCDEH that the site has been investigated
and remediated as necessary in accordance with the Correction Action Plan.
WASTE-2 Prior to removal of the aboveground storage tanks (ASTs), the project owner
shall complete a SDCDEH Hazardous Waste Tank Certification form and
obtain a permit from the city of Carlsbad Fire Department. Prior to demolition
of the ASTs, SDCDEH and the Fire Department must acknowledge the form
is complete, and provide written concurrence that the information presented is
adequate to comply with permitting requirements for removal. This
information and written concurrence must be submitted to the CPM for review
and approval.
Verification: At least 60 days prior to commencement of site mobilization, the project
owner shall provide the form and permits to remove the ASTs to the CPM for review
and approval. The project owner shall inform the CPM via the monthly compliance
report, of the date when all ASTs were removed from the site.
WASTE-3 The project owner shall provide the résumé of an experienced and qualified
professional engineer or professional geologist who shall be available for
consultation during site characterization (if needed), demolition, excavation,
and grading activities, to the CPM for review and approval. The résumé shall
show experience in remedial investigation and feasibility studies.
The professional engineer or professional geologist shall be given full
authority by the project owner to oversee any earth moving activities that
have the potential to disturb contaminated soil.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization, the project owner
shall submit the résumé to the CPM for review and approval.

February 2015

7-143

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

WASTE-4 If potentially contaminated soil is identified during site characterization,
demolition, excavation, or grading at either the proposed site or linear
facilities, as evidenced by discoloration, odor, detection by handheld
instruments, or other signs, the professional engineer or professional
geologist shall inspect the site, determine the need for sampling to confirm
the nature and extent of contamination, and provide a written report to the
project owner, authorized representatives of Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC), the SDCDEH, and the CPM stating the recommended
course of action.
Depending on the nature and extent of contamination, the professional
engineer or professional geologist shall have the authority to temporarily
suspend construction activity at that location for the protection of workers or
the public. If, in the opinion of the professional engineer or professional
geologist, significant remediation may be required, the project owner shall
contact the authorized representatives of DTSC, the SDCDEH, and the CPM
for guidance and possible oversight.
Verification:
The project owner shall submit any final reports filed by the
professional engineer or professional geologist to the authorized representatives of
DTSC, the SDCDEH, and the CPM for approval within five days of their receipt. The
project owner shall notify the CPM within 24 hours of any orders issued to halt
construction.
WASTE-5 The project owner shall prepare a Demolition and Construction Waste
Management Plan for all wastes generated during demolition and
construction of the facility and shall submit the plan to the CPM for review and
approval. The plan may be submitted in two sections: Demolition activities
and Construction activities. Both sections of the plan shall contain, at a
minimum, the following:


a description of all demolition and construction waste streams, including
projections of frequency, amounts generated, and hazard classifications;



management methods to be used for each waste stream, including
temporary on-site storage, housekeeping and best management practices
to be employed, treatment methods and companies providing treatment
services, waste testing methods to assure correct classification, methods
of transportation, disposal requirements and sites, and recycling and
waste minimization/source reduction plans.



A reuse/recycling Debris Management Plan for demolition and
construction materials that meets or exceeds the waste diversion goals
established by the Integrated Waste Management Compliance Act (Pub.
Resources Code, § 41780 et seq.) and CALGreen Title 24, California
Code of Regulations, Part 11sections 4.408, 5.408, 301.1.1 and 301.3.

Verification:
The project owner shall submit the demolition section of the Demolition
and Construction Waste Management Plan to the CPM for approval at least 30 days

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-144

Februrary 2015

  

prior to the initiation of demolition activities at the site. The project owner shall submit to
the Construction section of the Demolition and Construction Waste Management Plan to
the CPM for approval at least 30 days prior to the initiation of construction activities at
the site. CPM copies of receipts from a construction and demolition recycling facility
certified by the city of San Diego.
WASTE-6 Prior to demolition of existing structures, the project owner shall complete
and submit a copy of a San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(District) SDCDEH Asbestos Renovation and Demolition Notification Form
to the CPM and the District for review. After receiving approval, theThe
project owner shall remove all asbestos-containing material (ACM) from the
site prior to demolition.
Verification: At least 60 ten days prior to commencement of structure demolition, the
project owner shall provide the Asbestos Renovation and Demolition Notification Form
to the CPM and to the SDCDEH District for review. The project owner shall inform the
CPM via the monthly compliance report, of the date asbestos is removed.
WASTE-7 The project owner shall obtain a hazardous waste generator identification
number from the United States Environmental Protection Agency prior to
generating any hazardous waste during construction and operations.
Verification:
The project owner shall keep a copy of the identification number on file
at the project site and provide the number to the CPM in the next Monthly Compliance
Report.
WASTE-8 Upon becoming aware of any impending waste management-related
enforcement action by any local, state, or federal authority, the project owner
shall notify the CPM of any such action taken or proposed to be taken against
the project itself, or against any waste hauler or disposal facility or treatment
operator with which the owner contracts.
Verification:
The project owner shall notify the CPM in writing within ten days of
becoming aware of an impending enforcement action. The CPM shall notify the project
owner of any changes that will be required in the way project-related wastes are
managed.
WASTE-9 The project owner shall prepare an Operation Waste Management Plan for
all wastes generated during operation of the facility and shall submit the plan
to the CPM for review and approval. The plan shall contain, at a minimum, the
following:
a detailed description of all operation and maintenance waste streams,
including projections of amounts to be generated, frequency of generation,
and waste hazard classifications;
management methods to be used for each waste stream, including temporary
on-site storage, housekeeping and best management practices to be
employed, treatment methods and companies providing treatment

February 2015

7-145

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

services, waste testing methods to assure correct classification, methods
of transportation, disposal requirements and sites, and recycling and
waste minimization/source reduction plans;
all information and reports of conversations with the local Certified Unified
Program Agency and the Department of Toxic Substances Control
regarding any waste management requirements necessary for project
activities. Copies of all required waste management permits, notices,
and/or authorizations shall be included in the plan and updated as
necessary;
a detailed description of how facility wastes will be managed and any
contingency plans to be employed in the event of an unplanned closure or
planned temporary facility closure; and
a detailed description of how facility wastes will be managed and disposed
upon closure of the facility.
Verification:
The project owner shall submit the Operation Waste Management Plan
to the CPM for approval at least 30 days prior to the start of project operation. The
project owner shall submit any required revisions to the CPM within 20 days of
notification from the CPM that revisions are necessary.
The project owner shall also document in each Annual Compliance Report the actual
volume of wastes generated and the waste management methods used during the year;
provide a comparison of the actual waste generation and management methods used to
those proposed in the original Operation Waste Management Plan; and update the
Operation Waste Management Plan as necessary to address current waste generation
and management practices.
WASTE-10 Deleted, The project owner shall ensure that the Ocean-Water Purification
System’s filter cake is tested pursuant to the requirements of California Code
of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66262.10, report the findings to the CPM,
and ensure that the filter cake is properly transported and deposited at an
appropriate disposal facility.
Verification:
The project owner shall report the results of filter cake testing to the
CPM. If two consecutive tests show that the sludge is non-hazardous, the project owner
may apply to the CPM to discontinue testing.
WASTE-11 The project owner shall ensure that all spills or releases of hazardous
substances, materials, or waste are reported, cleaned up, and remediated as
necessary, in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local
requirements
Verification:
The project owner shall document all unauthorized releases and spills
of hazardous substances, materials, or wastes that occur on the project property or
related pipeline and transmission corridors. The documentation shall include, at a
minimum, the following information: location of release; date and time of release; reason
for release; volume released; amount of contaminated soil/material generated; how

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-146

Februrary 2015

  

release was managed and material cleaned up; if the release was reported; to whom
the release was reported; release corrective action and cleanup requirements placed by
regulating agencies; level of cleanup achieved and actions taken to prevent a similar
release or spill; and disposition of any hazardous wastes and/or contaminated soils and
materials that may have been generated by the release. Copies of the unauthorized spill
documentation shall be provided to the CPM within 30 days of the date the release was
discovered.
WASTE-12 The project owner shall prepare and submit to the CPM and SDCDEH,
a Soils Management Plan (SMP) prior to demolition of Tanks 1, 2, or 4.
The SMP must be prepared by a California Professional Geologist, or a
California Registered Civil Engineer with sufficient experience in
hazardous waste management. The SMP shall be updated as needed to
reflect changes in laws, regulations or site conditions. A SMP summary
report, which includes all analytical data and other findings, must be
submitted once the earthwork has been completed. Topics covered by
the SMP shall include, but not be limited to:


Land use history, including description and locations of known
contamination.



The nature and extent of previous investigations and remediation at the
site.



The nature and extent of unremediated areas at the site.



A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the city’s
excavation ordinance and other local, state, and federal regulations and
laws that will apply to the project.



Names and positions of individuals involved with soils management and
their specific role.



An earthwork schedule.



A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of
previously unidentified contamination that may be potentially
encountered, including any temporary and permanent controls that may
be required to reduce exposure to onsite workers, visitors, and the
public.



Hazardous waste determination and disposal procedures for known and
previously unidentified contamination.



Requirements for site specific techniques at the site to minimize dust,
manage stockpiles, run-on and run-off controls, waste disposal
procedures, etc.



Copies of relevant permits or closures from regulatory agencies

February 2015

7-147

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

The SMP may cite to Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in lieu of the
above requirements for the Encina Power Station where such information is
contained in the Phase I Investigation.
At least 45 days prior to demolition of Tanks 1, 2 or 4 and at least 45 days prior to
EPS demolition, the project owner shall submit the applicable SMP to the CPM for
review and approval. All demolition-associated earthworks at the site, approved
subsequent to the Final Commission Decision authorizing this condition shall
conform to the SMP. A SMP summary shall be submitted to CPM and SDCDEH
within 25 days of completion of any demolition-associated earthwork.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-148

Februrary 2015

  

WORKER SAFETY & FIRE PROTECTION
Strikethrough is used to indicate deleted language and bold underline is proposed for
new language.
One new Condition of Certification is proposed along with minor revisions to existing
Conditions to reflect demolition activities, time-line, and verification schedule.
The conditions of certification below include the approved conditions of certification from
the licensed CECP and any modifications, additions or deletions required for the
amended CECP. If compliance work has begun and no changes are required for the
amended project, then the project owner need not duplicate those previous compliance
activities. The compliance work already performed has been duly noted.
WORKER SAFETY-1 The project owner shall submit to the compliance project
manager (CPM) a copy of the Project Demolition and Construction Safety
and Health Program containing the following:
1. a Demolition and Construction Personal Protective Equipment Program;
2. a Demolition and Construction Exposure Monitoring Program;
3. a Demolition and Construction Injury and Illness Prevention Program;
4. a Demolition and Construction Emergency Action Plan; and
5. a Demolition and Construction Fire Prevention Plan.
6. an Encina Power Station Demolition Plan.
The Personal Protective Equipment Program, the Exposure Monitoring
Program, and the Injury and Illness Prevention Program shall be
submitted to the CPM for review and approval concerning compliance of
the program with all applicable safety orders. The Demolition and
Construction Emergency Action Plan, and the Demolition and
Construction Fire Prevention Plan, and an Encina Power Station
Demolition Plan shall be submitted to the Carlsbad Fire Department for
review and comment prior to submittal to the CPM for approval.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of tank demolition construction, the
project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval a copy of the Project
Demolition and Construction Safety and Health Program. The project owner shall
provide a copy of a letter to the CPM from the Carlsbad Fire Department stating the fire
department’s comments on the Demolition and Construction Fire Prevention Plan and
Emergency Action Plan.
At least 30 days prior to the start of the demolition of the Encina Power Station,
the project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval a copy of the
Encina Power Station Demolition Plan. The project owner shall provide to the

February 2015

7-149

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

CPM a copy of a letter from the Carlsbad Fire Department (CDF) stating the fire
department’s comments on the Encina Power Station Demolition Plan.
WORKER SAFETY-2 The project owner shall submit to the CPM a copy of the Project
Operations and Maintenance Safety and Health Program containing the
following:


an Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan;



an Emergency Action Plan;



Hazardous Materials Management Program;



Fire Prevention Plan Cal Code Regs., tit. 8, § 3221); and



Personal Protective Equipment Program (Cal Code Regs., tit. 8, §§
3401—3411).

The Operation Injury and Illness Prevention Plan, Emergency Action Plan,
and Personal Protective Equipment Program shall be submitted to the CPM
for review and approval concerning compliance of the programs with all
applicable safety orders. The Fire Prevention Plan and the Emergency Action
Plan shall also be submitted to the Carlsbad Fire Department for review and
comment.
Verification: At least 30 days prior to the start of first-fire or commissioning, the
project owner shall submit to the CPM for approval a copy of the Project Operations and
Maintenance Safety and Health Program. The project owner shall provide to the CPM a
copy of a letter to the CPM from the Carlsbad Fire Department stating the fire
department’s comments on the Operations Fire Prevention Plan and Emergency Action
Plan.
WORKER SAFETY-3 The project owner shall provide a site Demolition Safety
Supervisor (DSS) and a Construction Safety Supervisor (CSS) who, by way
of training and/or experience, is are knowledgeable of tank demolition,
power plant construction activities, and relevant laws, ordinances, regulations,
and standards; is are capable of identifying workplace hazards relating to the
demolition and/or construction activities; and have authority to take
appropriate action to assure compliance and mitigate hazards. The DSS or
CSS shall:
1. have overall authority for coordination and implementation of all
occupational safety and health practices, policies, and programs;
2. assure that the safety program for the project complies with Cal/OSHA
and federal regulations related to power plant projects;
3. assure that all demolition, construction and commissioning workers and
supervisors receive adequate safety training;

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-150

Februrary 2015

  

4. complete accident and safety-related incident investigations and
emergency response reports for injuries and inform the CPM of safetyrelated incidents; and
5. assure that all the plans identified in Conditions of Certification Worker
Safety-1 and 2 are implemented.
Verification: At least 30 60 days prior to the start of tank demolition site
mobilization, the project owner shall submit to the CPM the name and contact
information for the Demolition Safety Supervisor (DSS) and the Construction Safety
Supervisor (CSS). The contact information of any replacement DSS or CSS shall be
submitted to the CPM within one business day.
The DSS and CSS shall submit in the Monthly Compliance Report a monthly safety
inspection report to include:
1. record of all employees trained for that month (all records shall be kept on site for
the duration of the project);
2. summary report of safety management actions and safety-related incidents that
occurred during the month;
3. report of any continuing or unresolved situations and incidents that may pose danger
to life or health; and
4. report of accidents and injuries that occurred during the month.
WORKER SAFETY-4 The project owner shall make payments to the Chief Building
Official (CBO) for the services of a Safety Monitor based upon a reasonable
fee schedule to be negotiated between the project owner and the CBO.
Those services shall be in addition to other work performed by the CBO. The
Safety Monitor shall be selected by and report directly to the CBO and will be
responsible for verifying that the Construction Safety Supervisor, as required
in Condition of Certification WORKER SAFETY-3, and for implements ing all
appropriate Cal/OSHA and Energy Commission safety requirements. The
Safety Monitor shall conduct on-site (including linear facilities) safety
inspections at intervals necessary to fulfill those responsibilities and shall do
this during the period of tank demolition/removal, construction of the
CECP, and demolition/removal of the EPS.
Verification: At least 30 60 days prior to the start of tank demolition construction,
the project owner shall provide proof of its agreement to fund the Safety Monitor
services to the CPM for review and approval.
WORKER SAFETY-5 The project owner shall ensure that a portable automatic
external defibrillator (AED) is located on site during tank demolition,
construction and operations, and demolition/removal of the EPS and shall
implement a program to ensure that workers are properly trained in its use
and that the equipment is properly maintained and functioning at all times.
February 2015

7-151

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

During demolition of the tanks and the EPS, construction, and
commissioning, the following persons shall be trained in its use and shall be
on site whenever the workers that they supervise are on site: the Demolition
or Construction Project Manager or delegate, the Demolition or Construction
Safety Supervisor or delegate, and all shift foremen. During operations, all
power plant employees shall be trained in its use. The training program shall
be submitted to the CPM for review and approval.
Verification: At least 30 60 days prior to the start of tank demolition site
mobilization, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a letter stating that a portable
automatic external defibrillator (AED) exists on site and a copy of the training and
maintenance program for review and approval.
WORKER SAFETY-6 The project owner shall ensure that the below-grade site fire
lanes, access points, and ramps (with no more than a ten percent grade) are
constructed as per the dimensions shown in Worker Safety Figure 1 and so
that at least two access points through the site perimeter and into the belowgrade power plant site are available to the CFD and other emergency
response providers. The access roads, below-grade perimeter road, and
ramps shall be no less than 28 feet wide. The project owner shall guarantee
that the two fire access ramps down into the project site, the upper rim-road,
and the fire lane around the perimeter of the below-grade site, are free and
clear of all vehicles, equipment, or any other object (mobile or stationary) at
all times and that the boundaries or curbs of the ramps and lanes are painted
red and contain signage to indicate that they are fire roads and lanes on
which parking is not allowed. The final blueprints for the site shall be
submitted at least 30 days prior to the start of site mobilization to the Carlsbad
Fire Department for review and comment and to the CPM for review and
approval. Any requested changes in the fire lanes, upper rim road, ramps,
and access points shall be made in writing to the CPM and the CBO for
review and approval after obtaining comments from the CFD.
Verification: At least 30 60 days prior to the start of tank demolition site
mobilization, the project owner shall submit a copy of the final site blueprints to the
Carlsbad Fire Department for review and comment and to the CPM for review and
approval. The project owner shall also submit to the CPM a copy of the transmittal letter
to the CFD.
At least 60 days prior to the start of commissioning or the arrival on-site of any liquid
fuel, natural gas, or hazardous material, whichever occurs first, the project owner shall
submit to the CBO for information, to the Carlsbad Fire Department for review and
comment, and to the CPM for review and approval, a signed declaration along with
photographic evidence that the access ramps and fire lanes are guaranteed to always
be clear and unobstructed and that signs and red paint have been placed in the
appropriate locations.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-152

Februrary 2015

  

WORKER SAFETY-7 The project owner shall place a barrier of sufficient strength and
height at the eastern fence line of the project at the widened I-5 Right-of-Way
so as to prevent a runaway car or semi-trailer truck from piercing the barrier
and going over the edge and down into the power plant site. This barrier shall
also serve to prevent line-of-sight viewing of the power plant site from the
shoulder of I-5. In designing this barrier, the project owner shall consult with
Caltrans and then submit a final plan to the CPM for review and approval. The
project owner may also negotiate cost-sharing of this barrier with Caltrans
and, if the project owner chooses to do so, the cost-sharing contract with
Caltrans shall be submitted to the CPM for review and approval.
Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of tank demolition site mobilization,
the project owner shall submit a copy of the final plans for the barrier and any costsharing contract to the CPM for review and approval.
WORKER SAFETY-8 The project owner shall ensure that not less than two workers two technical workers or one technical and one security staff - will be present
on the site (the “bowl”) at all times whenever the CECP is operating. When
the units are dispatched from a shutdown condition, the project owner shall
send the two workers to the site while commencing startup; and those two
workers shall proceed directly to the site. The project owner shall prepare a
plan describing the work- force that shall be present on the power plant site
(the “bowl”), their shifts, their duties, their training, the method(s) of real-time
continuous communication with the control room they will have available, their
enclosed stations (e.g., portable office building), and facilities for personal
hygiene on the site, to the CPM for review and approval.
Verification: At least 60 days prior to the start of commercial operations, the project
owner shall submit a copy of the staffing plan to the CPM for review and approval.
WORKER SAFETY-9 The project owner shall maintain the current dirt access road
located on the western perimeter fence line in a sufficient state so as to serve
as an emergency response road. In no event shall the project owner grant or
dedicate an easement for the Coastal Rail Trail east of the Rail Corridor on
the CECP site.
Verification: At least 30 60 days prior to the start of tank demolition site
mobilization, the project owner shall submit to the CPM for review and approval a copy
of the final plans for maintaining this access road.
WORKER SAFETY-10 The project owner shall prepare a Transformer Fire Protection
Plan which shall evaluate any feasible methods that can be used to prevent,
contain, and/or control a transformer fire, including the use of new dielectric
fluids, pressure sensors with shut-down capability, dissolved gas analyzers,
use of compressed-air-foam for fire suppression, on-site storage of
suppressants, and sub-surface vaults to contain spilled/leaked dielectric
fluids. The project owner shall submit this Plan to the CBO for information, to

February 2015

7-153

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

the Carlsbad Fire Department for review and comment, and to the CPM for
review and approval.
Verification:
At least 60 days before the arrival of a transformer on site, the project
owner shall submit a copy of the Transformer Fire Protection Plan to the CBO for
information, to the Carlsbad Fire Department for review and comment, and to the CPM
for review and approval.
Not later than 30 days after submitting the Plan for review, the project owner shall
submit to the CPM for approval a final plan that incorporates comments and
suggestions from the CPM and the CFD.
WORKER SAFETY-11 The project owner shall ensure that the primary source of fire
protection water is the city of Carlsbad water system and that the on-site
250,000 gallon raw water storage tank is the back-up supply.
Verification:
At least 60 days before commencing commissioning, the project owner
shall submit to the Carlsbad Fire Department for review and comment, and to the CPM
for review and approval engineering drawings showing the source and piping of the
primary and back-up fire protection water supplies and a statement that the primary
supply is the city of Carlsbad water system.
WORKER SAFETY-12 The owner shall ensure that the compressor building at the
modified amended CECP will comply with NFPA requirements for
compressor enclosures and that it will also comply with the requirement
set forth in 40 CFR Sections 163 through 171 regarding fire and explosion
protection systems.
Verification:
At least 30 days prior to the start of construction mobilization, the
project owner shall submit to the CPM and the CFD for review and for approval by
the CPM, documentation of plans for the compressor enclosure at the modified
amended CECP demonstrating compliance with the condition described above.

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-154

Februrary 2015

  

COMPLIANCE CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION
For the CECP, staff proposes the Compliance conditions of certification below. These
Compliance conditions replace those adopted in the Commission’s previous Final
Decision for the CECP, TN66185, July 11, 2012.
COM-1: Unrestricted Access. The project owner shall take all steps necessary to
ensure that the CPM, responsible Energy Commission staff, and delegated
agencies or consultants have unrestricted access to the facility site, related
facilities, project-related staff, and the records maintained to facilitate audits,
surveys, inspections, and general or closure-related site visits. Although the
CPM shall normally schedule site visits on dates and times agreeable to the
project owner, the CPM reserves the right to make unannounced visits at any
time, whether such visits are by the CPM in person or through representatives
from Energy Commission staff, delegated agencies, or consultants.
COM-2: Compliance Record. The project owner shall maintain electronic copies of all
project files and submittals on-site, or at an alternative site approved by the
CPM, for the operational life and closure of the project. The files shall also
contain at least one hard copy of:
1. the facility’s Application(s) for Certification;
2. all amendment petitions and Energy Commission orders;
3. all site-related environmental impact and survey documentation;
4. all appraisals, assessments, and studies for the project;
5. all finalized original and amended structural plans and “as-built” drawings
for the entire project;
6. all citations, warnings, violations, or corrective actions applicable to the
project; and
7. the most current versions of any plans, manuals and training
documentation required by the conditions of certification or applicable
LORS.
Energy Commission staff and delegate agencies shall, upon request to the
project owner, be given unrestricted access to the files maintained pursuant
to this condition.
COM-3: Compliance Verification Submittals. Verification lead times associated with
the start of construction or closure may require the project owner to file
submittals during the AFC process, particularly if construction is planned to
commence shortly after certification. The verification procedures, unlike the
conditions, may be modified as necessary by the CPM.

February 2015

7-155

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

A cover letter from the project owner or an authorized agent is required for all
compliance submittals and correspondence pertaining to compliance matters.
The cover letter subject line shall identify the project by AFC number,
cite the appropriate condition of certification number(s), and give a brief
description of the subject of the submittal. When submitting
supplementary or corrected information, the project owner shall reference the
date of the previous submittal and the condition(s) of certification applicable.
All reports and plans required by the project’s conditions of certification shall
be submitted in a searchable electronic format (.pdf, MS Word, or Excel, etc.)
and include standard formatting elements such as a table of contents,
identifying by title and page number each section, table, graphic, exhibit, or
addendum. All report and/or plan graphics and maps shall be adequately
scaled and shall include a key with descriptive labels, directional headings, a
bar scale, and the most recent revision date.
The project owner is responsible for the content and delivery of all verification
submittals to the CPM, whether the actions required by the verification were
satisfied by the project owner or an agent of the project owner. All submittals
shall be accompanied by an electronic copy on an electronic storage medium,
or by e-mail, as agreed upon by the CPM. If hard-copy submittals are
required, please address as follows:
Compliance Project Manager
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (07-AFC-6C)
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street (MS-2000)
Sacramento, CA 95814
COM-4: Pre-Construction Matrix and Tasks Prior to Start of Construction. Prior to
start of construction, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a compliance
matrix including only those conditions that must be fulfilled before the start of
construction. The matrix shall be included with the project owner’s first
compliance submittal or prior to the first pre-construction meeting, whichever
comes first, and shall be submitted in a format similar to the description
below.
Site mobilization and construction activities shall not start until all of
the following occur: the project owner has submitted the preconstruction matrix and all submittals required by compliance
verifications pertaining to all pre-construction conditions of
certification, and the CPM has issued an authorization-to-construct
letter to the project owner. The deadlines for submitting various compliance
verifications to the CPM allow sufficient staff time to review and comment on,
and if necessary, allow the project owner to revise the submittal in a timely
manner. These procedures help ensure that project construction proceeds
according to schedule. Failure to submit required compliance documents by

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-156

Februrary 2015

  

the specified deadlines may result in delayed authorizations to commence
various stages of the project.
If the project owner anticipates site mobilization immediately following project
certification, it may be necessary for the project owner to file compliance
submittals prior to project certification. In these instances, compliance
verifications can be submitted in advance of the required deadlines and the
anticipated authorizations to start construction. The project owner must
understand that submitting compliance verification requirements prior to these
authorizations is at the owner’s own risk. Any approval by Energy
Commission staff prior to project certification is subject to change based upon
the Commission Decision, or amendment thereto. Early staff compliance
approvals do not imply that the Energy Commission will certify the project for
actual construction and operation.
COM-5: Compliance Matrix. The project owner shall submit a compliance matrix to
the CPM with each MCR and ACR. The compliance matrix provides the CPM
with the status of all conditions of certification in a spreadsheet format. The
compliance matrix shall identify:
1. the technical area (e.g., biological resources, facility design, etc.);
2. the condition number;
3. a brief description of the verification action or submittal required by the
condition;
4. the date the submittal is required (e.g., sixty (60) days prior to
construction, after final inspection, etc.);
5. the expected or actual submittal date;
6. the date a submittal or action was approved by the CBO, CPM, or
delegate agency, if applicable;
7. the compliance status of each condition (e.g., “not started,” “in progress,”
or “completed” (include the date); and
8. if the condition was amended, the updated language and the date the
amendment was proposed or approved.
The CPM can provide a template for the compliance matrix upon request.
COM-6: Monthly Compliance Reports and Key Events List. The first MCR is due
one month following the docketing of the project’s Decision unless otherwise
agreed to by the CPM. The first MCR shall include the AFC number and an
initial list of dates for each of the events identified on the Key Events List.
(The Key Events List form is found at the end of this Compliance Plan).

February 2015

7-157

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

During project pre-construction, construction, or closure, the project owner or
authorized agent shall submit an electronic searchable version of the MCR
within ten business days after the end of each reporting month, unless
otherwise specified by the CPM. MCRs shall be clearly identified for the
month being reported. The searchable electronic copy may be filed on an
electronic storage medium or by e-mail, subject to CPM approval. The
compliance verification submittal condition provides guidance on report
production standards, and the MCR shall contain, at a minimum:
1. a summary of the current project construction status, a revised/updated
schedule if there are significant delays, and an explanation of any
significant changes to the schedule;
2. documents required by specific conditions to be submitted along with the
MCR; each of these items shall be identified in the transmittal letter, as
well as the conditions they satisfy, and submitted as attachments to the
MCR;
3. an initial, and thereafter updated, compliance matrix showing the status of
all conditions of certification;
4. a list of conditions that have been satisfied during the reporting period,
and a description or reference to the actions that satisfied the condition;
5. a list of any submittal deadlines that were missed, accompanied by an
explanation and an estimate of when the information will be provided;
6. a cumulative listing of any approved changes to the conditions of
certification;
7. a list of any filings submitted to, and permits issued by, other
governmental agencies during the month;
8. a projection of project compliance activities scheduled during the next two
months; the project owner shall notify the CPM as soon as any changes
are made to the project construction schedule that would affect
compliance with conditions of certification;
9. a list of the month’s additions to the on-site compliance file; and
10. a listing of complaints, notices of violation, official warnings, and citations
received during the month; a description of the actions taken to date to
resolve the issues; and the status of any unresolved actions.
COM-7: Annual Compliance Reports. After construction is complete, the project
owner must submit searchable electronic ACRs instead of MCRs. ACRs are
due for each year of commercial operation and may be required for a
specified period after decommissioning to monitor closure compliance, as

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-158

Februrary 2015

  

specified by the CPM. The searchable electronic copies may be filed on an
electronic storage medium or by e-mail, subject to CPM approval. Each ACR
must include the AFC number, identify the reporting period, and contain the
following:
1. an updated compliance matrix showing the status of all conditions of certification
(fully satisfied conditions do not need to be included in the matrix after they have
been reported as completed);
2. a summary of the current project operating status and an explanation of any
significant changes to facility operations during the year;
3. documents required by specific conditions to be submitted along with the ACR;
each of these items shall be identified in the transmittal letter with the condition it
satisfies and submitted as an attachment to the ACR;
4. a cumulative list of all post-certification changes approved by the Energy
Commission or the CPM;
5. an explanation for any submittal deadlines that were missed, accompanied by an
estimate of when the information will be provided;
6. a list of filings submitted to, and permits issued by, other governmental agencies
during the year;
7. a projection of project compliance activities scheduled during the next year;
8. a list of the year’s additions to the on-site compliance file;
9. an evaluation of the Site Contingency Plan, including amendments and plan
updates; and
10. a list of complaints, notices of violation, official warnings, and citations received
during the year, a description of how the issues were resolved, and the status of
any unresolved matters.
COM-8: Confidential Information. Any information that the project owner designates
as confidential shall be submitted to the Energy Commission’s Executive
Director with an application for confidentiality, pursuant to Title 20, California
Code of Regulations, section 2505 (a). Any information deemed confidential
pursuant to the regulations shall remain undisclosed, as provided in Title 20,
COM-9: Annual Energy Facility Compliance Fee. Pursuant to the provisions of
section 25806 (b) of the Public Resources Code, the project owner is required
to pay an annually adjusted compliance fee. Current compliance fee
information is available on the Energy Commission’s website at
http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/filing_fees.html. The project owner may also
contact the CPM for the current fee information. The initial payment is due on

February 2015

7-159

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

the date the Energy Commission dockets its final Decision. All subsequent
payments are due by July 1 of each year in which the facility retains its
certification.
COM-10: Amendments, Staff-Approved Project Modifications, Ownership
Changes, and Verification Changes. The project owner shall petition the
Energy Commission, pursuant to Title 20, California Code of Regulations,
section 1769, to modify the design, operation, or performance requirements of
the project or linear facilities, or to transfer ownership or operational control of
the facility. The CPM will determine whether staff approval will be sufficient, or
whether Commission approval will be necessary. It is the project owner’s
responsibility to contact the CPM to determine if a proposed project
change triggers the requirements of section 1769. Section 1769 details
the required contents for a Petition to Amend an Energy Commission
Decision. The only change that can be requested by means of a letter to the
CPM is a request to change the verification method of a condition of
certification.
Implementation of a project modification without first securing Energy
Commission, or Energy Commission staff, approval may result in an
enforcement action, including civil penalties, in accordance with section
25534 of the Public Resources Code. If the Energy Commission’s rules
regarding amendments are revised, the rules in effect at the time the change
is requested shall apply.
COM-11: Reporting of Complaints, Notices, and Citations. Prior to the start of
construction or decommissioning, the project owner shall send a letter to
property owners within one mile of the project, notifying them of a telephone
number to contact project representatives with questions, complaints, or
concerns. If the telephone is not staffed 24 hours per day, it shall include
automatic answering with a date and time stamp recording.
The project owner shall respond to all complaints within 24 hours or the next
business day. The project owner shall post the telephone number at the
project site and make it easily visible to passersby during construction,
operation, and closure. The project owner shall provide the contact
information to the CPM who will post it on the Energy Commission’s web
page at http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/carlsbad/
The project owner shall report any disruption to the contact system or
telephone number change to the CPM promptly, to allow the CPM to update
the Energy Commission’s facility webpage accordingly.
In addition to including all complaints, notices, and citations with the MCRs
and ACRs, within ten days of receipt, the project owner shall report, and
provide copies to the CPM, of all complaints, including noise and lighting
complaints, notices of violation, notices of fines, official warnings, and

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-160

Februrary 2015

  

citations. Complaints shall be logged and numbered. Noise complaints shall
be recorded on the form provided in the Noise and Vibration conditions of
certification. All other complaints shall be recorded on the complaint form
(Attachment A) at the end of this Compliance Plan.
COM-12: Emergency Response Site Contingency Plan. No less than 60 days prior
to the start of commercial operation (or other date agreed to by the CPM), the
project owner shall submit for CPM review and approval, an Emergency
Response Site Contingency Plan (Contingency Plan). The Contingency Plan
shall evidence a facility’s coordinated emergency response and recovery
preparedness for a series of reasonably foreseeable emergency events. The
CPM may require the updating of the Contingency Plan over the life of the
facility. Contingency Plan elements include, but are not limited to:
1. a site-specific list and direct contact information for persons, agencies, and
responders to be notified for an unanticipated event;
2. a detailed and labeled facility map, including all fences and gates, the windsock
location (if applicable), the on- and off-site assembly areas, and the main roads
and highways near the site;
3. a detailed and labeled map of population centers, sensitive receptors, and the
nearest emergency response facilities;
4. a description of the on-site, first response and backup emergency alert and
communication systems, site-specific emergency response protocols, and
procedures for maintaining the facility’s contingency response capabilities,
including a detailed map of interior and exterior evacuation routes, and the
planned location(s) of all permanent safety equipment;
5. an organizational chart including the name, contact information, and first
aid/emergency response certification(s) and renewal date(s) for all personnel
regularly on-site;
6. a brief description of reasonably foreseeable, site-specific incidents and accident
sequences (on- and off-site), including response procedures and protocols and
site security measures to maintain twenty-four-hour site security;
7. procedures for maintaining contingency response capabilities; and
8. the procedures and implementation sequence for the safe and secure shutdown of
all non-critical equipment and removal of hazardous materials and waste (see also
specific conditions of certification for the technical areas of Public Health, Waste
Management, Hazardous Materials Management, and Worker Safety).

February 2015

7-161

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

COM-13: Incident-Reporting Requirements. Within one hour after it is safe and
feasible, the project owner shall notify the CPM or compliance office
manager, by telephone and e-mail, of any incident at the power plant or
appurtenant facilities that results, or could result, in any of the following:
1. health and safety impacts on the surrounding population;
2. property damage off-site;
3. response by off-site emergency response agencies;
4. serious on-site injury;
5. serious environmental damage; or
6. emergency reporting to any federal, state, or local agency.
The notice shall describe the circumstances, status, and expected duration of
the incident. If warranted, as soon as it is safe and feasible, the project owner
shall implement the safe shutdown of any non-critical equipment and removal
of any hazardous materials and waste that pose a threat to public health and
safety and to environmental quality (also, see specific conditions of
certification for the technical areas of HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MANAGEMENT and WASTE MANAGEMENT).
Within one week of the incident, the project owner shall submit to the CPM a
detailed incident report, which includes, as appropriate, the following
information:
1. a brief description of the incident, including its date, time, and location;
2. a description of the cause of the incident, or likely causes if it is still under
investigation;
3. the location of any off-site impacts;
4. description of any resultant impacts;
5. a description of emergency response actions associated with the incident;
6. identification of responding agencies;
7. identification of emergency notifications made to federal, state, and/or local
agencies;
8. identification of any hazardous materials released and an estimate of the quantity
released;
9. a description of any injuries, fatalities, or property damage that occurred as a
result of the incident;
CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-162

Februrary 2015

  

10. fines or violations assessed or being processed by other agencies;
11. name, phone number, and e-mail address of the appropriate facility contact person
having knowledge of the event; and
12. corrective actions to prevent a recurrence of the incident.
The project owner shall maintain all incident report records for the life of the
project, including closure. After the submittal of the initial report for any
incident, the project owner shall submit to the CPM copies of incident reports
within 24 hours of a request.
COM-14: Non-Operation. If the facility ceases operation temporarily, either planned or
unplanned, for longer than one week, but less than three months (or other
CPM-approved date), the project owner shall notify the CPM (by telephone
and e-mail), interested agencies, and nearby property owners. Notice of
planned non-operation shall be given at least two weeks prior to the
scheduled date. Notice of unplanned non-operation shall be provided no later
than one week after non-operation begins.
For any non-operation, a Repair/Restoration Plan for conducting the activities
necessary to restore the facility to availability and reliable and/or improved
performance shall be submitted to the CPM within one week after notice of
non-operation is given. If non-operation is due to an unplanned incident,
temporary repairs and/or corrective actions may be undertaken before the
Repair/Restoration Plan is submitted. The Repair/Restoration Plan shall
include:
1. identification of operational and non-operational components of the plant;
2. a detailed description of the repair or restoration activities;
3. a proposed schedule for completing the repair or restoration activities;
4. an assessment of whether or not the proposed activities would require
changing, adding, and/or deleting any conditions of certification, and/or
would cause noncompliance with any applicable LORS; and
5. planned activities during non-operation, including any measures to
ensure continued compliance with all conditions of certification and
LORS.
The CPM will determine if CBO oversight or compliance site monitoring is
required.
Written updates to the CPM for non-operational periods, until operation
resumes, shall include:
1. progress relative to the schedule;

February 2015

7-163

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

2. developments that delayed or advanced progress or that may delay or
advance future progress;
3. any public, agency, or media comments or complaints; and
4. projected date for the resumption of operation.
During non-operation, all applicable conditions of certification and reporting
requirements remain in effect. If, after one year from the date of the project
owner’s last report of productive Repair/Restoration Plan work, the facility
does not resume operation or does not provide a plan to resume operation,
the Executive Director may assign suspended status to the facility and
recommend commencement of permanent closure activities. Within 90 days
of the Executive Director’s determination, the project owner shall do one of
the following:
1. If the facility has a closure plan, the project owner shall update it and
submit it for Energy Commission review and approval.
2. If the facility does not have a closure plan, the project owner shall
develop one consistent with the requirements in this Compliance Plan
and submit it for Energy Commission review and approval.
COM-15: Facility Closure Planning. To ensure that a facility’s eventual permanent
closure and long-term maintenance do not pose a threat to public health and
safety and/or to environmental quality, the project owner shall coordinate with
the Energy Commission to plan and prepare for eventual permanent closure.
A. Provisional Closure Plan and Estimate of Permanent Closure Costs
To assure satisfactory long-term site maintenance and adequate closure for
“the whole of a project,” the project owner shall submit a Provisional Closure
Plan and Cost Estimate for CPM review and approval within 60 days after the
start of commercial operation. The Provisional Closure Plan and Cost
Estimate shall consider applicable final closure plan requirements, and reflect
the use of an independent third party to carry out the permanent closure.
The Provisional Closure Plan and Cost Estimate shall provide for a phased
closure process and include but not be limited to:
1. comprehensive scope of work and itemized budget;
2. closure plan development costs;
3. dismantling and demolition;
4. recycling and site clean-up;
5. mitigation and monitoring direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
6. site remediation and/or restoration;

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-164

Februrary 2015

  

7. interim and long term operation monitoring and maintenance, including
long-term equipment replacement costs; and
8. contingencies.
The project owner shall include an updated Provisional Closure Plan and
Cost Estimate in every fifth-year ACR for CPM review and approval. Each
updated Provisional Closure Plan and Cost Estimate shall reflect the most
current regulatory standards, best management practices, and applicable
LORS.
B. Final Closure Plan and Cost Estimate
At least three years prior to initiating a permanent facility closure, the project
owner shall submit for Energy Commission review and approval, a Final
Closure Plan and Cost Estimate, which includes any long-term, post-closure
site maintenance and monitoring. Final Closure Plan and Cost Estimate
contents include, but are not limited to:
1. a statement of specific Final Closure Plan objectives;
2. a statement of qualifications and resumes of the technical experts
proposed to conduct the closure activities, with detailed descriptions of
previous power plant closure experience;
3. identification of any facility-related installations not part of the Energy
Commission certification, designation of who is responsible for these, and
an explanation of what will be done with them after closure;
4. a comprehensive scope of work and itemized budget for permanent plant
closure and site maintenance activities, with a description and explanation
of methods to be used, broken down by phases, including, but not limited
to:
a)

dismantling and demolition;

b)

recycling and site clean-up;

c)

impact mitigation and monitoring;

d)

site remediation and/or restoration and;

e)

any contingencies.

5. a revised/updated Final Cost Estimate for all closure activities, by phases,
including site monitoring and maintenance costs, and long-term equipment
replacement;

February 2015

7-165

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

  

6. a schedule projecting all phases of closure activities for the power plant
site and all appurtenances constructed as part of the Energy Commissioncertified project;
7. an electronic submittal package of all relevant plans, drawings, risk
assessments, and maintenance schedules and/or reports, including an
above- and below-ground infrastructure inventory map and registered
engineer’s or delegate CBO’s assessment of demolishing the facility;
additionally, for any facility that permanently ceased operation prior to
submitting a Final Closure Plan and Cost Estimate and for which only
minimal or no maintenance has been done since, a comprehensive
condition report focused on identifying potential hazards;
8. all information additionally required by the facility’s conditions of
certification applicable to plant closure;
9. an equipment disposition plan, including:
a) recycling and disposal methods for equipment and materials; and
b) identification and justification for any equipment and materials that
will remain on-site after closure;
10. a site disposition plan, including but not limited to:
a) proposed rehabilitation, restoration, and/or remediation procedures,
as required by the conditions of certification and applicable LORS;
and
b) site maintenance activities.
11. identification and assessment of all potential direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts and proposal of mitigation measures to reduce
significant adverse impacts to a less-than-significant level; potential
impacts to be considered shall include, but not be limited to:
a)

traffic

b)

noise and vibration

c)

soil erosion

d)

air quality degradation

e)

solid waste

f)

hazardous materials

g)

waste water discharges

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

7-166

Februrary 2015

  

h)

contaminated soil

12. identification of all current conditions of certification, LORS, federal, state,
regional, and local planning efforts applicable to the facility, and proposed
strategies for achieving and maintaining compliance during closure;
13. updated mailing list or listserv of all responsible agencies, potentially
interested parties, and property owners within one mile of the facility;
14. identification of alternatives to plant closure and assessment of the
feasibility and environmental impacts of these; and
15. description of and schedule for security measures and safe shutdown of
all non-critical equipment and removal of hazardous materials and waste
(see conditions of certification for Public Health, Waste Management,
Hazardous Materials Management, and Worker Safety).
If implementation of an Energy Commission-approved Final Closure Plan and
Cost Estimate is not initiated within one year of its approval date, it shall be
updated and re-submitted to the Commission for supplementary review and
approval. If a project owner initiates but then suspends closure activities, and
the suspension continues for longer than one year, or subsequently abandons
the facility, the Final Closure Plan and Cost Estimate shall be resubmitted to
the Commission for supplementary review and approval. The project owner
remains liable for all costs of contingency planning and closure.
COM-16:

Previously Licensed Activities in Progress Prior to Approval of the
Amended CECP. Any activity authorized to start prior to the effective date
of the Commission Decision approving the Amended CECP license is in
compliance with this license if it is conducted under, and in compliance with,
the original CECP license.

February 2015

7-167

CONDITIONS OF CERTIFICATION

 Declarations 
Resumes

DECLARATION OF
James Adams

I, James Adams, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Planner II Traffic
and Transportation Analyst).
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference herein.
3. I helped prepare the staff testimony on Traffic and Transportation, for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment (07-AFC-OGC), based on my
independent analysis of the Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove, and the
2012 Energy Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center, and
supplements thereto, data from reliable documents and sources, and my
professional experience and knowledge. I attest to the accuracy of this
testimony, and support its conclusions, findings and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issue(s) addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony
and , if called as a witness, could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Daledd!lf::C
At: Sacramento, California

 DECLARATION OF
Michael Baron
I, Michael Baron, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Land Use Technical
Analyst.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Land Use for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment. Therefore,
based on the independent analysis of the Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove, the
2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) and
associated supplements; based on data from reliable document$ and sources; and,
based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this
testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:
At:

d/S-/I~
Sacramento. California

 DECLARATION OF
EDWARD BRADY

I, EDWARD BRADY, declare as follows:
1.
I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission , Siting ,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division, as a Mechanical Engineer.
2.
A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference herein.
3.
I prepared or assisted other members of the staff in the preparation of
testimony in the technical areas of Power Plant Efficiency, Power Plant
Reliability and Noise for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment,
based on my independent analysis of the Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove,
the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP),
and supplements hereto, data from reliable documents and sources, and my
professional experience and knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this testimony,
and support its conclusions, findings and recommendations hereto.
4.
It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and
accurate with respect to the issues addressed therein .
5.
I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the
testimony and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.
j)/J
Dated: February 13, 2015

At:

Sacramento, California

Signed: ~
-..!...J.~~~'12.:::::!:~k
Edward Brady

 DECLARATION OF
Matthew Braun
I, Matthew Braun, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Cultural Resources
Analyst.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Cultural Resources for the Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove the 2012

Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Center Energy Project (CECP).
Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Application for Certification and
associated supplements; based on data from reliable documents and sources; and,
based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this
testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:

z.Ir; 15

At:

Sacramento. California

---7---1~-------------

Signed:

 DECLARATION OF
Mike Conway
I, Mike Conway, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Soil & Water Technical
Analyst.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein .
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Soil & Water Resources for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment.
Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Petition to Amend , Petition to
Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(CECP), and associated supplements; based on data from reliable documents and
sources; and, based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to the
accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and
recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein .
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and co rrect to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

~

·J_ At:

5 - 15

Sacramento, California

Signed :

 DECLARATION OF
Joseph Douglas
I, Joseph Douglas declare as follows :
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Facilities Siting
Office of the Energy Facilities Siting Division as a Planner Ill (Compliance Project
Manager) .
2. I helped prepare the Compliance General Conditions and Closure Plan section for
the Carlsbad Energy Center Project based on my independent analysis of the
Application for Certification and supplements hereto, data from reliable documents
and sources, and my professional experience and knowledge.
3.

It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue(s) addressed therein.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

d.-~) 1_(1_S____

Dated:_ _
At:

1_·

Sacramento, California

Signed

~~/!M~

 DECLARATION OF
Alvin Greenberg, Ph.D.

I, Alvin Greenberg, Ph.D. declare as follows:
1. I am presently contract staff to the California Energy Commission, Siting,
Transmission, and Environmental Protection Division .
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto
and incorporated by reference herein.
3. I helped prepared the staff testimony on Public Health, Hazardous
Materials Management, and Worker Safety/Fire Protection for the Petition
to Amend/Petition to Remove the June 1, 2012 Commission Final Decision
for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) based on my independent
analysis of the Petition to Amendment dated May 2, 2014 and Petition to
Remove dated April 29, 2014 and supplements hereto, responses to staff
data requests, data from reliable documents and sources, and my
professional experience and knowledge.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony
and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

At:

San Rafael, California

 DECLARATION OF
Ajoy Guha
I, Ajay Guha, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as an Associate Electrical
Engineer.

2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein .

3. I am familiar with , and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Transmission System Engineering for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project
Amendment. Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Application for
Certification and associated supplements; based on data from reliable documents
and sources; and, based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to
the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and
recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated :

February 12, 2015

At:

Sacramento, California

a
- - :>/1
" ~0;
--ri[
---=£
_='1-.-__._j

Signed: _ _

 DECLARATION OF
Mark Hesters
I, Mark Hesters, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Senior Electrical Engineer.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Transmission System Engineering for the Petition to Amend, Petition to
Remov7. the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Amendment. Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the
Application for Certification and associated supplements; based on data from
reliable documents and sources; and, based on my professional experience and
knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions,
finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:
At:

2 7/--S-7J
l_,.------ ---+
-I Sacramento, California

Signed: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

 DECLARATION OF
JON R. HILLIARD, AICP
I, JON R. HILLIARD, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission, and Environmental Protection Division as a Planner Ill, Siting

Project Manager.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I participated in the preparation of the staff testimony on the Executive
Summary for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment based on my
independent analysis of the Petition to Remove/ Petition to Amend, the 2012
Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, and supplements
thereto, data from reliable documents and sources, and my professional
experience and knowledge. I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and
support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issues addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony,
and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct tp the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:
At:

11-a ... z-o1~
Sacramento. California

Signed:

~;/)

 DECLARATION OF
Jeanine Hinde
I, Jeanine Hinde, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the
Environmental Office of the Siting, Transmission and Environmental Protection
Division as a Planner 11.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.

3. I coauthored the staff testimony on Alternatives for the Amendment to the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project, based on my independent analysis of the
Petition to Amend and supplement hereto, data from reliable documents and
sources, and my professional experience and knowledge.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony
and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:
At:

February 11. 2015
Sacramento. California

 DECLARATION OF
Joseph Hughes
I, Joseph Hughes, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as an Air Resources Engineer.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I helped prepare the staff testimony on Noise and Vibration for the Carlsbad
Energy Center Project Amendment based on my independent analysis of the
Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP), and supplements hereto, data from reliable
documents and sources, and my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to
the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and
recommendations hereto.

4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

'2../11

Dated:

2/11 /2015

At:

Sacramento. California

/1!5

 DECLARATION OF
William Kanemoto

I, William Kanemoto, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by Aspen Environmental Group, a contractor to the
California Energy Commission, Systems Assessment and Facilities Siting Division,
as a senior associate in engineering and physical sciences.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I helped prepare the staff testimony on Visual Resources for the Carlsbad
Energy Center Project Amendment based on my independent analysis of the
Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP), and supplements hereto, data from
reliable documents and sources, and my professional experience and knowledge.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and
if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.
Dated: February 5. 2015
At:

Sacramento, California

Signed:--'~
~...L...--?Cc
~v.9
~--

 DECLARATION OF
Steven Kerr
I, Steven Kerr, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Planner II.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Alternatives for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment. Therefore,
based on the independent analysis of the Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove, the
2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP) and
associated supplements; based on data from reliable documents and sources; and,
based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this
testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

2/6/15
---------------

Dated:
At:

Sacramento. California

Signed:

~-K

 DECLARATION OF
SHAHAB KHOSHMASHRAB

I, SHAHAB KHOSHMASHRAB , declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the
ENGINEERING OFFICE of the Siting, Transmission, and Environmental
Protection Division as a SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I participated in the preparation of the staff testimony on Noise and Vibration
for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment based on my
independent analysis of the Petition to Remove/ Petition to Amend, the 2012
Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, and supplements
thereto, data from reliable documents and sources, and my professional
experience and knowledge. I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and
support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issues addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony,
and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of .
my knowledge and belief.

fJ_. _ t I_,_,_ Vo
_ t-=r--

Dated:

.....

At:

Sacramento. California

Signed:

 DECLARATION OF
SHAHABKHOSHMASHRAB

I, SHAHAB KHOSHMASHRAB , declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the
ENGINEERING OFFICE of the Siting, Transmission, and Environmental
Protection Division as a SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein .
3. I participated in the preparation of the staff testimony on Facility Design for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment based on my independent
analysis of the Petition to Remove/ Petition to Amend , the 2012 Commission
Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, and supplements thereto, data
from reliable documents and sources, and my professional experience and
knowledge. I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its
conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issues addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony,
and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:
At:

ful,. rl,

io1~

I

Sacramento, California

Signed:

 DECLARATION OF
SHAHAB KHOSHMASHRAB

I, SHAHAB KHOSHMASHRAB, declare as follows :
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the
ENGINEERING OFFICE of the Siting, Transmission, and Environmental
Protection Division as a SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I participated in the preparation of the staff testimony on Power Plant
Reliability for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment based on my
independent analysis of the Petition to Remove/ Petition to Amend, the 2012
Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, and supplements
thereto, data from reliable documents and sources, and my professional
experience and knowledge. I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and
support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issues addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony,
and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:

~b . II 7.621)
7

At:

Sacramento, California

Signed:

~~

 DECLARATION OF
SHAHAB KHOSHMASHRAB

I, SHAHAB KHOSHMASHRAB , declare as follows :
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the
ENGINEERING OFFICE of the Siting , Transmission , and Environmental
Protection Division as a SENIOR MECHANICAL ENGINEER.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I participated in the preparation of the staff testimony on Power Plant
Efficiency for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment based on my
independent analysis of the Petition to Remove/ Petition to Amend , the 2012
Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project, and supplements
thereto, data from reliable documents and sources, and my professional
experience and knowledge. I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and
support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issues addressed therein .
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony,
and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated :
At:

Signed :
Sacramento. California

 DECLARATION OF
Andrea Koch
I, Andrea Koch , declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting ,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Traffic and Transportation
Technical Analyst.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Traffic and Transportation for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project
Amendment. Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Petition to
Amend, Petition to Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy
Center Project (CECP), and the associated supplements; based on data from
reliable documents and sources; and , based on my professional experience and
knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions,
finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness cou ld testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated
At:

;(

~ ) /J:;

~~,
-1--~7
--~~~~~~

Sacramento, California

Signed: ~~

 DECLARATION OF
Mike Monasmith
I, Mike Monasmith, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Senior Project Manager.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I prepared (or helped prepare) the staff testimony on the Project Description for the
for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment based on my independent
analysis of the Petition to Amend , Petition to Remove, the 2012 Commission
Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP), and supplements hereto,
data from reliable documents and sources, and my professional experience and
knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions,
finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein .
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

At:

Sacramento. California

 DECLARATION OF
Melissa Mourkas
I, Melissa Mourkas, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Planner II, Cultural
Resources Specialist.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Cultural Resources-Built Environment for the Petition to Amend, Petition to
Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center
Project (CECP).
4. Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Application for Certification and
associated supplements; based on data from reliable documents and sources; and,
based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this
testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
5. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
6. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:
At:

-1&~ 51?46
Sacramento, California

'h~

Signed:-+U.....~
--=---"---------

 DECLARATION OF
Dr.Obed Odoemelam
I, Obed Odoemelam, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Staff Toxicologist.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of staff testimony
on Transmission Line Safety and Nuisance for the Carlsbad Energy Center
Project Amendment. Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Petition
to Remove/Petition to Amend and associated supplements; based on data from
reliable documents and sources; and, based on my professional experience and
knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions,
finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

2./ s / ,!>-----------

Dated:
At:

Sacramento. California

/?~.~~

Signed: __UJ
_________

 DECLARATION OF
I, Jacquelyn Leyva Record declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Facilities
Siting Office of the Systems Assessments and Facilities Siting Division as an Air
Resources Engineer.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I helped prepare the staff testimony on Reliability for the Carlsbad Energy
Center Project Amendment based on my independent analysis of the Petition
to Amend, Petition to Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad
Energy Center Project (CECP), and supplements hereto, data from reliable
documents and sources, and my professional experience and knowledge: I attest
to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and
recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate
with respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony
and if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

At:

Sacramento. California

 DECLARATION OF
Marylou Taylor, P.E.
I, Marylou Taylor, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Engineering
Office of the Siting, Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as an
Associate Civil Engineer.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Soils & Water Resources for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project
Amendment. Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the /\pplication for
Certification Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision
for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP), and associated supplements; based
on data from reliable documents and sources; and, based on my professional
experience and knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its
conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:

02-06-2015

At:

Sacramento. California

 DECLARATION OF
Ellen Townsend-Hough
I, Ellen Townsend-Hough , declare as follows :
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting ,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as an Associate Mechanical
Engineer.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Waste Management for the Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove, the 2012
Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP).
Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Application for Certification and
associated supplements; based on data from reliable documents and sources; and,
based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this
testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated: \:::,
At:

\,:.y,.,~S 1 ~Jl l<;:; s1 9 ned:~~~~=~~~~

Sacramento. California

 DECLARATION OF
Dave Vidaver
I, Dave Vidaver, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Energy
Assessments Division as a Electric Generation System Program Specialist.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Air Quality and Alternatives for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project
Amendment. Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Application for
Certification and associated supplements; based on data from reliable documents
and sources; and, based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to
the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and
recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Signed:~~
At:

Sacramento. California

 DECLARATION OF
Testimony of William Walters, P.E.

I, William Walters, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by Aspen Environmental Group, a contractor to the
California Energy Commission, Systems Assessment and Facilities Siting Division,
as a senior associate in engineering and physical sciences.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
3. I helped prepare the staff testimony on Air Quality/Greenhouse Gases for the
Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment based on my independent
analysis of the Petition to Amend, Petition to Remove, the 2012 Commission
Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP), and supplements hereto,
data from reliable documents and sources, and my professional experience and
knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions,
finding and recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and
if called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

Dated: February 11, 2015
At:

Agoura Hills, California

Signed:

 DECLARATION OF
Carol Watson
I, Carol Watson, declare as follows:
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a staff biologist.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff
testimony on Biological Resources for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project
Amendment. Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Petition to
Amend, Petition to Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad
Energy Center Project (CECP), and associated supplements; based on data from
reliable documents and sources; and, based on my professional experience and
knowledge: I attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions,
finding and recommendations hereto.
3. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
4. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:o/--~ /F
At:

Sacramento. California

~/

~~
..

Signed:_L--=......a-~--------~--~---

 DECLARATION OF
Casey Weaver, CEG

I, Casey Weaver declare as follows:
1.
I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission, Siting, Transmission and
Environmental Protection Division, as an Engineering Geologist.

2.

A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and incorporated by
reference herein.

3.
I prepared the staff testimony on Geology and Paleontology for the for the Carlsbad Energy
Center Project Amendment based on my independent analysis of the Petition to Amend, Petition to
Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP), and supplements
hereto, data from reliable documents and sources, and my professional experience and knowledge: I
attest to the accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and recommendations
hereto.

4.

It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with respect to
the issue addressed therein.

5.
I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if called as a
witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
Dated: February 11, 2015
At:

Sacramento, California

Signed:

/

l

 DECLARATION OF
Lisa Worrall
I, Lisa Worrall, declare as follows :
1. I am presently employed by the California Energy Commission in the Siting ,
Transmission and Environmental Protection Division as a Socioeconomics Technical
Analyst.
2. A copy of my professional qualifications and experience is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein .
3. I am familiar with, and have reviewed the analysis and preparation of, staff testimony
on Socioeconomics for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project Amendment.
Therefore, based on the independent analysis of the Petition to Amend , Petition to
Remove, the 2012 Commission Decision for the Carlsbad Energy Center Project
(CECP), and associated supplements; based on data from reliable documents and
sources; and , based on my professional experience and knowledge: I attest to the
accuracy of this testimony, and support its conclusions, finding and
recommendations hereto.
4. It is my professional opinion that the prepared testimony is valid and accurate with
respect to the issue addressed therein.
5. I am personally familiar with the facts and conclusions related in the testimony and if
called as a witness could testify competently thereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of
my knowledge and belief.

Dated:

r:f/b. 5 ~O )5
1

'

At:

Sacramento, California

\o- LU .

01

Signed :_ ___c~
,,___ _ _ _
Ci}1A:UV
_ _ _ _1 _

 James S. Adams
Environmental Protection Office
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814-5504
PH (916) 653-0702, FAX (916) 654-3882
Jim.Adams@energy.ca.gov
7/2014
Present - Environmental Planner – Retired Annuitant
5/1999
6/2014 Environmental Planner
Review applications for certification to acquire permits from the California
Energy Commission to build electric generating power plants. Specific
technical fields include traffic and transportation. In particular, I have
throughout my 15 year career focused on aviation safety issues such as
thermal and high-velocity plumes and glint and glare related to power
plant siting cases. Recent work involves Ivanpah and Palen Solar Electric
Generating Stations. Pilots and air traffic controllers have reported
significant glare from the Ivanpah project and I have been the lead analyst
for the Environmental Office in investigating this issue. This involves
working with the Federal Aviation Administration, Caltrans Aeronautics,
and Clark County (Nevada) Department of Aviation.
11/1997
5/1999 Energy and Resource Consultant
Provided clients with technical expertise on various issues related to
natural resource use and development. Activities included managing an
Intervention by the Redwood Alliance before the California Public Utilities
Commission regarding the decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Power
Plant's nuclear reactor.
9/1994-10/1997 Senior Analyst - Safe Energy Communication Council (SECC)
Responsible for developing and/or implementing campaigns on various
energy issues involving the promotion of energy efficiency and renewable
energy and advocating less reliance on nuclear power. Managed
educational outreach efforts to newspaper editorial writers throughout the
U.S. to encourage coverage of energy issues. Participated in meetings
and negotiations with key President Clinton administration officials,
members of Congress and staff, national coalitions, and grassroots
organizations on important energy issues (e.g. U.S. Department of Energy
Budget for Fiscal Years 1996-1998). Successfully raised $140,000 from
private foundations to support SECC activities.
6/1978-12/1992 Principal Consultant - Redwood Alliance
Provided consulting services to the Alliance; a renewable energy/political

 advocacy organization. Major responsibilities included managing and/or
participating in several interventions/appearances before the California
Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Commission, California
Legislature, U.S. Congress and the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Issues included electric utility planning options, greater reliance on energy
efficiency and renewable energy, nuclear power economic analyses,
decommissioning cost estimates, and nuclear waste management and
disposal.
2/1983-8/1986 Natural Resource Specialist
Assisted private consulting, firms, non-profit corporations and government
agencies in various projects related to the enhancement and protection of
national forests in Northern California and Southern Oregon. This included
contracts with the U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Park Service, the California Coastal Conservancy, and private
landowners.
6/1978-1999
Consultant/Journalist/Paralegal/Lobbyist
Throughout the period of work outlined above, I have written a
considerable amount of news articles and reports connected to ongoingprojects and issues of personal interest. The legal/administrative
interventions have required extensive paralegal work to support attorneys,
and technical expertise to identify and assist consultants. In addition,
many of the projects required consulting services and lobbying, at the
local, state and federal level whenever necessary, as well as
working with the print and television media as appropriate.
From 1978 through 1984 1 served on the Board of Directors for two locals
non-profit agencies devoted to sustainable community development,
Redwood Community Development Council and Redwood Community
Action Agency (RCAA). I also was hired on staff at RCAA as a natural
resource specialist which is explained more fully above. I am proficient
with computers, printers, fax machines and related equipment.
EDUCATION
M.A.

Social Science. Political science and natural resources emphasis.
California State University at Humboldt. Graduated December 1988.

B.A.

Political Science. Political and economic aspects of natural resource
development, with a particular emphasis in forest ecology and appropriate
technology. California State University at Humboldt. Graduated June
1978.

Academic
Honors. Member of PI GAMMU MU Honor Society since 1986.

 MILITARY SERVICE

U.S. Navy. Air Traffic Controller -- Honorable Discharge.

Michael C. Baron
Professional
experience

2013-Present

California Energy Commission

Sacramento, CA

Planner II - Siting Transmission and Environmental Protection
 Technical Writing
 Prepare and Analyze Land Use Sections, Conditions of Approval,
Findings and CEQA Documentation
 Energy Policy Analysis
 Perform Site Inspections
2011-2013

Caldwell Compliance

Pleasanton, CA

Regulatory Analyst
 Audit Existing Leased/Owned ATT Cell Tower Facilities for NEPA,
SHPO, FAA, & FCC Compliance
 Analyze 1A/2C surveys, 620/621 SHPO submittals, NEPA reports,
Phase I ESA, Tribal Notification System (TCNS), RF/Spectrum,
Programmatic Agreement Letters (PAL)
 Verify Tower Height (HV), Marking and Lighting (M&L)
 Update and Upload Compliance Documentation within AT&T Internal
Tracking Systems using Internal Software. i.e. ANGELS, Guardian,
and Siterra
 FAA/FCC Database searches using notice Criteria Tool, TOWAIR
Circle Search, and ASR Registration Search
 Use Microsoft Outlook, Word, Excel
 Participate/Lead in regulatory status meeting and conference calls
2004-2010

El Dorado County Planning Services Placerville, CA

Senior Planner
 Intake and Process Subdivision Maps, Planned Developments
Commercial Design Reviews, Proposed Utility Projects, Variances,
DEIR preparation, and Land Use Permits
 Develop Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
 Coordinate Site Improvements/Modifications with Utility Companies
 Front Counter Customer Service/Public Assistance
 Prepare and Analyze Staff Reports, Conditions of Approval, Findings
and CEQA Documentation
 Present Findings and Make Recommendations to Boards and
Commissions
 Plan Review for Ordinances and General Plan Consistency
 Proficient Using Arcview, Arc Map, and Arc Catalog for GIS Long
Range Planning Support and Exhibits
 Perform Site Inspections
2003-2004

BAP Construction

Supervisor/Crew Leader

Westmont, IL

 






Estimating Construction Costs
Construction Management
Interpret and Analyze Proposed Construction Plans
Responsible for Permit Processing and Approvals
Supervise and Assign Daily Tasks
Scheduling and Tracking Project Milestones

2000-2002

SIUC Geography Department

Carbondale, IL

Teaching Assistant- Weather Forecasting





Guide Students Through Laboratory Experiments
Assist Students During Office Hours
Proctor Exams
Grade All Homework and Exams

1999-2000

Southern 5 County Planning Commission

Ullin, IL

GIS/Cartographic Assistant
 Develop and Layout Spatial Datasets using Arcview/ArcInfo
 Created, Maintained and Managed Road and Utility Database for Five
Counties
 Present Data and Findings to Supervisors, Boards, and Commissions
 Perform Site Inspections
 Public Assistance
Education

1999-2003
Southern Illinois University
Master of Science, Geography









Urban/Environmental Planning
Quantitative Research Methods
Socio-Cultural Research
Sustainable Development Practices
Alternative Energy Resources
GIS/Cartographic Applications
Disaster Planning
Parks and Wild Lands Management

1996-1999
Southern Illinois University
Bachelor of Arts, Geography







Carbondale, IL

Urban/Environmental Planning
GIS/Cartographic Applications
Natural Resources Planning
U.S. Environmental Policies Analysis
Sustainable Development
Socio-Economics

Carbondale, IL

 Edward James Brady
Mechanical Engineer
Summary of Experience
Forty years of experience in the profession of mechanical engineering as a staff
engineer to the California Energy Commission, engineering consultant, design group
supervisor in a major power plant project, senior engineer for a gas and electric utility,
sales and design engineer for a contractor, and instructor in a community college.
Education
•
•
•
•

BSME, Santa Clara University, 1972
Graduate Engineering Studies, Santa Clara University
Graduate Business Studies, University of San Francisco
Continuing Education, UC Extension

Professional Registration
•

Mechanical Engineer

•

Civil Engineer

(M 17924) California
(25505) Washington
(33082) Colorado
(9248, Inactive) Nevada
(C36174) California

Affiliations
•
•

American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Life Member
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers
(ASHRAE), Life Member

Edward James Brady

1

Resume

 Curriculum Vitae
2011 - Present

Staff Mechanical Engineer, California Energy Commission, Siting,
Transmission, and Environmental Protection Division (STEP).
Performs analysis of generating capacity, reliability, efficiency, noise
and vibration, and the mechanical, civil, electrical, and structural
aspects of power plant siting and construction cases.

1988-2011

Principal Mechanical Engineer, Brady Engineering. Provided
design and consulting services for the permitting and construction
of industrial and commercial facilities, and residential buildings in
the fields of heating, ventilating air conditioning (HVAC), plumbing,
fire protection and energy analyses.

1984-1988

Design Group Supervisor, Joint PG&E and Bechtel Project.
Worked as the mechanical group supervisor responsible for the
design modifications required for the licensing of Diablo Canyon
Power Plant, Units 1 and 2.

1980-1988

Senior Mechanical Engineer, PG&E Civil Engineering
Department, Architectural Section. Provided work group
supervision and design of building mechanical systems for common
utility plant facilities (CUP) and balance of plant systems for power
production facilities.

1977-1980

Mechanical Engineer, PG&E Civil Engineering Department,
Architectural Section. Provided HVAC and plumbing design for
CUP and power production facilities.

1974-1977

Instructor, San Francisco Community College District, John
O'Connell Evening School. Provided apprenticeship training in the
technical fields of HVAC and refrigeration.

1977

Design Engineer, Charles and Braun Consulting Engineers, San
Francisco. Worked as a staff designer in the fields of HVAC and
plumbing for commercials facilities include a sentence detention
facilities and a proto-type regional facility for a federal agency.

1972-1976

Sales and Design Engineer, Scatena York Company, San
Francisco. Worked as a sales and design engineer for a
refrigeration contractor, which provided design and installation of
refrigeration systems for supermarkets and cold storage facilities.

Edward James Brady

2

Resume

 Power Plant/Utility Exoerience
California Energy Commission, Carlsbad Energy Center Project (CECP)
632 MW Peaker Facility, Carlsbad, California
Rio Mesa Solar Electric Generation Station (RMSEGS).
500 MW Solar Power Tower. Riverside County
, Hidden Hills Solar Electric Generating Station
(HHSEGS). 500 MW Solar Power Tower. Inyo County.
, Hydrogen Energy California (HECA). 405 MW
Combined Cycle, Fuel Gasification, C02 Sequestration,
Ammonia Production. Kern County
, Quail Brush Generating Project (QBGP). 1100 MW
Reciprocating Engine Electric Generation. City of San
Diego
, Huntington Beach Energy Project (HBEP). 939 MW
Combined Cycle. City of Huntington Beach.
, Redondo Beach Energy Project (RBEP). 496 MW
Combined Cycle. City of Redondo Beach, Los Angeles
County.
, Alamitos Energy Center (AES). 1936 MW Combined
Cycle. City of Los Alamitos.
, Palen Solar Electric Generating Station (PSEGS). 500
MW Power Tower, Licensing Amendment. Riverside
County, California.
Bottle Rock Power Plant. 55 MW Geothermal Facility,
Repowering Amendment. Lake County, California
PG&E, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2. Licensing of safety related systems.
, Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Administration Building, SLO County Emergency
Response Building
, Geysers Power Plant, Units 16, 17, 20, and 21. Ventilation and cooling for
turbine building and hazardous waste disposal facilities, administration building.

Edward James Brady

3

Resume

 , Helms Pumped Storage Facility, Kern County. Smoke control ventilation for
underground transformer vaults.
, Humboldt No. 3, Eureka. Decommissioning of nuclear facility and construction
of hazardous materials storage and handling.
·
1

Moss Landing Power Plants, Units 1 through 6, Monterey County

, Morro Bay Power Plant, Morro Bay
, Hunters Point Power Plant, San Francisco
, Potrero Power Plant, San Francisco. Combined Cycle
, Gas Transmission Facilities, Line 300 and 400, Topock and Corning
Compressor Stations, McDonald Island and Brentwood Gas Storage Facilities
, Central Computer Facilities, San Francisco and Vacaville
, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco. Energy Management System
, 215 Market Street, San Francisco. Boiler Replacement
, Underground Fuel Tank Replacement. Upgrade of more than 500 gallon fuel
storage tanks to meet double containment requirements.
, Contra Costa Power Plants, Unit 1 through 6, Water Treatment
, Pittsburg Power Plants, Unit 1-5, Water Treatment Facilities
, Avon, Martinez and Oleum (AVO), Water Treatment Upgrade
, Tiger Creek Powerhouse, North Fork Feather River
, Kirchoff No. 2 .Pump Storage Facility.
, Technical Support Services, Marketing Department

South Bay Sanitary Authority, 1400 Radio Road, Redwood Shores. Gas piping and
boiler conversion.

Edward James Brady

4

Resume

 MATTHEW BRAUN

 

Cultural Resources Specialist 

Academic Background 
MA, Anthropology (Archaeology), Northern Illinois University 
BS, Anthropology and Psychology, University of Pittsburgh 

Professional Experience 
Mr. Braun is a Secretary of the Interior qualified prehistoric archaeologist and cultural anthropologist. He 
has  over  8  years  of  experience  conducting  archaeological  field  work,  consulting  with  Native  American 
groups,  researching,  analyzing,  and  writing  about  Native  American  concerns,  archaeology,  ethnohistory, 
anthropology,  cultural  and  ethnographic  landscapes  and  paleontology.  Mr.  Braun  has  experience 
preparing  cultural  resources  technical  reports  and  environmental  documents  pursuant  to  applicable 
federal,  state  and  local  regulations  in  compliance  with  the  National  Environmental  Policy  Act  (NEPA), 
Section  106  and  110  of  the  National  Historic  Preservation  Act  (NHPA),  and  the  California  Environmental 
Quality Act (CEQA).  
California Energy Commission………………………………………………………………………………………2014‐present 
The California Energy Commission is the State Agency responsible for licensing energy facilities 50 
megawatt and greater and environmental review is conducted under a CEQA‐equivalent Certified 
Regulatory Program. As a Planner II, Mr. Braun provides independent analyses of prehistoric and 
ethnographic resources for proposed energy facilities throughout California by conducting fieldwork, 
report writing, and critical analysis of Applicant proposed impacts and mitigation measures. As a cultural 
resources analyst with the Energy Commission, Mr. Braun participated in the following projects: 
 


Alamitos Generating Station. Mr. Braun conducted analyses of impacts to ethnographic resources for 
this natural gas‐fired power plant in Long Beach, California. 



Carlsbad  Energy  Center  Project.  Mr.  Braun  conducted  analyses  of  impacts  to  ethnographic  and 
archaeological resources for this natural‐gas fired power plant in Carlsbad, California. 



Argus  Cogeneration  Project.  Mr.  Braun  conducted  analyses  of  impacts  to  ethnographic  and 
archaeological  resources  from  the  decommissioning  of  this  coal‐fired  powered  plant  in  Trona, 
California.  



Gateway Generating Station Power Project. Mr. Braun oversaw portions of the compliance efforts of 
this natural gas‐fired power plant in Antioch, California.  

Aspen Environmental Group……………………………………………………………………………………………2012‐2014 
California  Energy  Commission.  Under  contract  with  the  CEC  as  an  employee  of  Aspen,  Mr.  Braun 
participated in the following projects: 


Rio  Mesa  Solar  Electric  Generating  Facility,  Cultural  Resources  Staff  Assessment  (2012‐2013).  Mr. 
Braun  conducted  analyses  of  impacts  to  archaeological  resources,  ethnographic  resources  and 
ethnographic  landscapes  through  fieldwork,  archival  research  and  interviews  with  local  Native 
American  tribal  representatives  from  the  area  near  the  3,960  acre  500  MW  solar  concentrating 
thermal  plant  located  on  the  Palo  Verde  Mesa  near  Blythe,  California.  Important  resource  issues 
included impacts to trail systems, prehistoric archaeological sites, plant and animal resources, and 
other elements that are part of a Native American tribe’s ethnographic landscape. This was a large, 
complex  project,  coordinated  with  other  solar  projects  and  with  Native  American  representatives 
from  the  Fort  Mojave  Tribe,  the  Chemehuevi  Tribe,  the  Colorado  River  Indian  Tribes,  the  Agua 
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and the Fort Yuma Quechan Tribe.    

 Matthew Braun, page 2 

 


Hydrogen Energy California, Cultural Resources Staff Assessment (HECA) (2012‐present). Mr. Braun 
conducted  analyses  of  impacts  to  ethnographic  resources  and  ethnographic  landscapes  through 
consultation with local Native American Tribal representatives and archival research of the area near 
the  453  acre  400  MW  Integrated  Gasification  Combined  Cycle  (IGCC)  power  plant  and  associated 
linear facilities.  Important resources include known and unknown burials, traditional gathering and 
hunting  areas,  and  other  ethnographic  resources.    This  project  was  coordinated  with  the 
Department  of  Energy  and  Native  American  representatives  from  the  Tejon  Indian  Tribe  and  the 
Tubatalabals of Kern County.   



Palen  Solar  Electric  Generating  Facility,  Cultural  Resources  Staff  Assessment  (2013).  Mr.  Braun  is 
conducting analyses of impacts to ethnographic resources through fieldwork, archival research and 
interviews  with  Native  American  tribal  representatives  from  the  area  near  the  3,794  acre 
concentrating solar thermal plant located near Desert Center, California. He is the lead author of the 
ethnographic technical report, and co‐author to the Staff Assessment issued by the CEC. Important 
resource issues include impacts to cultural landscapes, components of which include trail systems, 
archaeological  sites,  plant  and  animal  resources,  rock  art  and  earth  figures,  among  intangible 
spiritual and religious values. This is a large, complex project coordinated with other solar projects 
and with Native American representatives from the Chemehuevi Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribes, 
Fort  Mojave  Tribe,  Fort  Yuma  Quechan  Tribe,  Cocopah  Indian  Tribe,  Morongo  Band  of  Cahuilla 
Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Cabazon Band 
of Mission Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians. 



Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, southern CA desert (DRECP) (2013‐present). The goal 
of  this  planning  project  is  to  generate  an  efficient  and  effective  biological  mitigation  and 
conservation program providing renewable project developers with permit timing and cost certainty 
under  the  federal  and  California  Endangered  Species  Acts  while  at  the  same  time  preserving, 
restoring and enhancing natural communities and related ecosystems. The DRECP Plan Area consists 
of  approximately  22.5  million  acres  of  federal  and  non‐federal  California  desert  land  in  Imperial, 
Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties. Mr. Braun is an author of 
the  Cultural  Resources  and  Tribal  Interest  chapters  of  the  associated  EIR/EIS  (BLM  and  CEC  lead 
agencies).   



Genesis Solar Energy Project, Cultural Resources Compliance (2010‐2014). Mr. Braun reviewed all 
of the licensees’ submittals and actions related to compliance with cultural resources conditions of 
certification  and  providing  recommendations  to  staff  regarding  acceptability.  The  GSEP  is  a  large, 
complex  project  for  which  cultural  resources  compliance  review  has  been  coordinated  with  other 
solar  projects,  with  BLM  as  the  federal  lead  agency,  and  with  local  Native  American  tribal 
representatives.  This  effort  included  reviewing  more  than  3100  daily  monitoring  logs,  30  monthly 
compliance reports, and more than 950 DPR forms associated with the collection of more than 2700 
artifacts. 

Western Power Administration, Desert Southwest Region.  Under contract with WAPA as an employee 
of Aspen, Mr. Braun participated in the following project: 


Parker‐Blythe  Transmission  Line  1  &  2,  Cultural  Resources  Survey  (2014).  Mr.  Braun  co‐led  an 
archaeological  field  crew  in  re‐recording  56  archaeological  sites,  and  providing  recommendations 
concerning  the  NRHP  eligibility  of  these  resources.  Important  resources  included  trails,  lithic 
scatters,  petroglyphs,  intaglios,  ceramics,  and  cleared  circles.  The  transmission  line  is  located  on 
land managed by the Colorado River Indian Tribes, several different BLM field offices, and the BOR, 
and this project required coordination for permits and fieldwork. 

 Matthew Braun, page 3 

 
Other California projects  


Renewable Energy General Plan Amendment, Opportunities and Constraints Study (2013‐present). 
Inyo County is proposing to amend their General Plan to designate some lands for renewable energy 
development.  As  part  of  this  amendment,  an  Opportunities  and  Constraints  Technical  Study  was 
conducted to identify areas of the County that would be less likely to impact cultural resources. Mr. 
Braun worked closely with GIS specialists to construct cultural resources sensitivity maps to identify 
those less sensitive areas.  



California Valley Solar Ranch, Cultural and Paleontological Resources Compliance (2012‐2013). The 
CVSR  project  is  a  250  MW  solar  photovoltaic  power  plant  on  the  Carrizo  Plain  in  rural  San  Luis 
Obispo County. The solar arrays for the project will cover nearly 2,000 acres. Mr. Braun served as an 
assistant technical reviewer for cultural resources and paleontology during the compliance process.  
Duties included the review of licensees’ submittals and actions related to compliance with cultural 
resources  and  paleontological  conditions  of  approval  and  providing  recommendations  to  San  Luis 
Obispo County regarding acceptability. 



Renewable Energy General Plan Amendment, Opportunities and Constraints Study (2013‐present). 
San  Luis  Obispo  County  is  proposing  to  amend  their  General  Plan  to  designate  some  lands  for 
renewable  energy  development.  As  part  of  this  amendment,  an  Opportunities  and  Constraints 
Technical Study was conducted  to identify areas of the County  that would be less likely  to impact 
cultural  resources.  Mr.  Braun  worked  closely  with  GIS  specialists  to  construct  cultural  resources 
sensitivity maps to identify those less sensitive areas.  



Santa  Margarita  Quarry  Expansion  Project,  Environmental  Impact  Report  (2013‐present).  The 
Santa Margarita Quarry is an aggregate quarry along the Salinas River in San Luis Obispo County, and 
is  proposing  to  expand  existing  operations  by  approximately  50  acres  and  is  applying  for  a 
Conditional  Use  Permit  to  expand.  A  Reclamation  Plan  is  also  being  proposed,  and  Mr.  Braun  is 
authoring  the  corresponding  cultural  and  paleontological  resources  EIR  section  and  conducting 
Native American outreach with those groups interested in the project.  



Donnell Basin Flood Control Project, Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (2013). Mr. 
Braun conducted archaeological survey of the 65 acre Donnell Basin and co‐authored the technical 
report. Donnell Basin is an area proposed by the San Bernardino Flood Control District to be used for 
overflow in the Twenty‐nine Palms area. Important resource issues included a prehistoric quarry and 
built‐environment resources.   



Mission  Channel  and  Zanja  Creek  Routine  Maintenance  Project,  Technical  Report  and  Mitigated 
Negative  Declaration (2014‐present).  Under contract with the Department of Public Works, Flood 
Control  District  Mr.  Braun  conducted  a  cultural  resources  record  search,  and  is  the  co‐author  a 
technical  report  and  IS/MND  sections  associated  with  vegetation  management,  channel  shaping, 
slope repairs and sediment removal along approximately 8 miles of the Mission Channel/Zanja Creek 
in Redlands,  CA.  The  Mission Channel/Zanja Creek  was built in  1819 and is listed on the  National 
Register of Historic Places. 



Costa Photovoltaic Solar Energy Facility, Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey and Technical 
Report (2013). Mr. Braun conducted a cultural resources reconnaissance survey and co‐authored a 
technical report in support of a CEQA review and preparation of an Initial Study for a proposed 170 
acres  solar  energy  facility  on  private  land  in  Kings  County,  California.  Cultural  resources  identified 
and evaluated include segments of an historic irrigation canal. 



Gales Photovoltaic Solar Energy Facility, Cultural Resources Reconnaissance Survey and Technical 
Report (2013). Mr. Braun conducted a cultural resources reconnaissance survey and co‐authored a 
technical report in support of a CEQA review and preparation of an Initial Study for a proposed 20 

 Matthew Braun, page 4 

 
acre solar energy facility on private land in Kings County, California. Cultural resources identified and 
evaluated include segments of two historic irrigation canals. 


Venable  Photovoltaic  Solar  Energy  Facility,  Cultural  Resources  Reconnaissance  Survey  and 
Technical Report (2013). Mr. Braun conducted a cultural resources reconnaissance survey and co‐
authored  a  technical  report  in  support  of  a  CEQA  review  and  preparation  of  an  Initial  Study  for  a 
proposed  20  acre  solar  energy  facility  on  private  land  in  the  City  of  Blythe,  Riverside  County, 
California. 



Zuni  Photovoltaic  Solar  Energy  Facility,  Cultural  Resources  Reconnaissance  Survey  and  Technical 
Report (2013). Mr. Braun conducted a cultural resources reconnaissance survey and co‐authored a 
technical report in support of a CEQA review and preparation of an Initial Study for a proposed 20 
acre  solar  energy  facility  on  private  land  in  the  town  of  Apple  Valley,  San  Bernardino  County, 
California.  



Desert  Harvest  Solar  Project  (CEQA‐equivalent  document)  (2012).  Under  contract  with  EDF 
Renewable  Energy,  Mr.  Braun  assisted  senior  cultural  resources  staff  with  writing  the  cultural 
resources,  Native  American  concerns,  and  paleontology  sections  of  the  Desert  Harvest  EIS.  The 
proposed project is a 1,280 acre 150 MW photovoltaic generating facility in the Chuckwalla Valley 
near Desert Center, California.  

Argonne National Laboratory (Environmental Sciences Division) ..........................2010‐present 
The  Environmental  Sciences  Division  at  Argonne  conducts  environmental  analyses  in  compliance  with 
NEPA and other applicable environmental regulations.  The main Argonne Campus is located in Lemont, 
Illinois with satellite branches in Denver, Colorado and Washington, D.C.  


Programmatic  Environmental  Impact  Statement  for  Solar  Energy  Development  in  Six  Western 
States  (2010‐2012).  Under  contract  with  the  BLM,  Mr.  Braun  provided  technical  expertise  by 
developing, synthesizing, and interpreting prehistoric and historic contexts, ethnohistoric contexts, 
paleontological  contexts  and  Native  American  concerns  in  order  to  assess  the  impacts  to  these 
resources at  the  programmatic level and a  more focused Solar Energy Zone level. The six  western 
states  that  were  analyzed  in  this  study  were  California,  Nevada,  Arizona,  Utah,  New  Mexico,  and 
Colorado. This research involved archival studies, communication and coordination with cooperating 
partners in the BLM, National Park Service (NPS), State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO), as well 
as  Native  American  tribal  governments,  and  responding  to  and  addressing  comments  from 
cooperators and the public.     



Oil  Shale  and  Tar  Sands  Programmatic  Environmental  Impact  Statement  (2011‐2012).  Mr.  Braun 
assisted senior cultural resource staff in updating a Class I survey based on GIS data from SHPOs in 
Wyoming, Colorado and Utah for the BLM. Through the analysis of this data, a predictive model was 
developed  in  determining  the  probability  of  encountering  significant  archaeological  sites  in  the 
affected areas proposed for oil shale and tar sands development.     



Generic  Environmental  Impact  Statements  for  License  Renewals  for  the  Nuclear  Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) (2010‐2012).  Under contract with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mr. Braun 
conducted archival and site specific analyses for impacts related to the relicensing of NRC permitted 
facilities  for  the  Diablo  Canyon  Nuclear  Power  Plant  (California),  the  Davis  Besse  Nuclear  Power 
Station (Ohio), and the Grand Gulf Nuclear Station (Mississippi).   



2012‐2012  Outer  Continental  Shelf  Oil  and  Gas  Programmatic  Environmental  Impact  Statement 
(2012). Mr. Braun conducted archival research related to whaling practices by indigenous groups on 
the North Slope, the Chukchi Sea and the St. Lawrence Island regions of Alaska. This information was 
then  used  to  analyze  potential  impacts  that  off‐shore  oil  and  gas  leases  issued  by  the  Bureau  of 

 Matthew Braun, page 5 

 
Ocean  Energy  Management,  Regulation  and  Enforcement  would  have  on  indigenous  whaling 
practices. 


Uranium  Leasing  Program  Programmatic  Environmental  Impact  Statement  (2012).  Mr.  Braun 
conducted research analyzing potential impacts to cultural resources in uranium mining lease tracts in 
Colorado. This research was conducted in conjunction with the Department of Energy which issues the 
leasing permits and the Colorado and Utah SHPOs. 



Long‐Term Monitoring Strategies for Cultural and Natural Resources Affected by Utility Scale Solar 
Energy Development on BLM lands (2011). Mr. Braun collaborated in a multi‐disciplinary group to 
develop strategies for the protection and monitoring of significant resources affected by large‐scale 
solar energy projects on BLM land in California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Colorado. 



National Register of Historic Places Evaluation of Five Test Grids and Buildings at Dugway Proving 
Ground,  Dugway,  Utah  (2011).  Under  contract  with  the  Department  of  Defense,  Mr.  Braun 
conducted  field  work  and  evaluations  of  historic  properties  related  to  the  chemical  and  biological 
weapons testing that occurred at Dugway Proving Ground in the post‐World War (WW) II and Cold 
War Eras. Evaluations were conducted of large‐scale grids which were laid out in a pattern to collect 
sampling information about the rate of dispersal and efficacy of the agent being tested from the air 
or the ground, as well as evaluations of a naval gun and a WW II Era tar‐paper structure. 



National  Register  of  Historic  Places  Evaluation  of  the  Intense  Pulsed  Neutron  Source  (IPNS)  at 
Argonne  National  Laboratory,  Argonne,  Illinois  (2012).  Under  the  direction  of  senior  cultural 
resources staff, Mr. Braun conducted research related to the history of neutron studies at Argonne 
and  other  facilities  to  evaluate  the  significance  of  the  IPNS  located  at  Argonne.  The  IPNS  was  the 
first  neutron  accelerator  of  its  kind  constructed  in  the  world,  and  this  user‐facility  provided 
physicists extensive knowledge regarding the behavior of high‐speed neutron activity. 



Phase  I  Cultural  Resources  Survey  for  the  Materials  Design  Laboratory  at  Argonne  National 
Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois (2010). Mr. Braun assisted senior cultural resources staff in planning, 
conducting and authoring a Phase I survey for cultural resources potentially affected by construction 
of the Materials Design Laboratory and ancillary facilities. 

American Resources Group…………………………………………………………………………………………...(2012) 
American Resources Group is a cultural resources firm based out of Carbondale, Illinois. 


Keystone XL Pipeline Phase I Cultural Resources Survey (2012). Mr. Braun conducted a pedestrian 
survey in Eastern Nebraska for a re‐alignment of the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline.  

Professional Affiliations and Training   


Section 106 Agreement Documents (National Preservation Institute, 2012) 



Consultation and Protection of Native American Sacred Lands (National Preservation Institute, 2012) 



NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act (ICF, 2013) 



CEQA and Historic Resources (CPF, 2013) 



UXO Hazards Training   

 

 Resume for Mike Conway
Education:

Master of Science in Geology, California State University, Sacramento, July 2012.
Bachelor of Science in Geology, University of California, Davis, August 2003.

Certifications:

California Professional Geologist (PG), no. 9107
Certified Professional in Erosion and Sediment Control (CPESC)
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP)

Experience:








Engineering Geologist: California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA
2009-Present
Serve as an expert witness in water policy and technical analyses for power plant siting cases
Prepare expert testimony in subject areas of hydrogeology, soil erosion, surface water flow
Help develop and implement statewide policy on power plant water use
Prepare expert analyses of state law, ordinance, regulations, and standards applicable to water use
Perform onsite evaluations of soil and water resource impacts pre- and post-project
Construct hydraulic and hydrogeologic models to evaluate resource impacts







Environmental Scientist: Central Valley Water Board, Rancho Cordova, CA
Wrote municipal storm water permits for Phase I communities in the Central Valley
Reviewed storm water annual reports for Phase I and II municipalities
Conducted audits of industrial sites for compliance with storm water permits
Conducted audits of municipalities for compliance with municipal permits
Represented Water Board in large technical workshops and other public forums

2009









Environmental Consultant: Wood Rodgers, Inc., Sacramento, CA
2006-2009
Consulted clients on how to comply with Federal, State and local storm water quality regulations
Helped public and private sector clients gain State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) permit
coverage under Large and Small MS4 General Permits, NPDES Permits, CWA Section 401 Permits
Consulted clients on Army Corps of Engineers, 404 Permitting
Developed a storm water quality manual for Yolo County
Prepared Caltrans environmental documentation and design for all project phases
Drafted water pollution control exhibits using both AutoCAD and MicroStation
Prepared Caltrans Storm Water Data Reports including cost estimates
Designed landscaping plans for Caltrans’ Modesto Ramp Rehabilitation Project
Prepared Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans






Storm Water Quality Consultant: Envirosafety Services, Elk Grove, CA
2004-2006
Wrote site specific SWPPPs to include guidance specific to city, county, and geographical constraints
Designed exhibits using AutoCAD
Conducted inspectioas at construction sites throughout the Central Valley for (SWPPP) compliance
Resolved storm water compliance issues in cooperation with site superintendents and inspectors









Post-Graduate Researcher: Dept. of Land, Air, and Water Resources, U.C. Davis, CA 2003
Studied the affect of irrigation practices on wetland ecology and water quality
Independently organized monthly analyses and data processing of selenium contaminated invertebrate,
algae, and water samples from the Tulare Lake Drainage District
Managed concentrated acids, carcinogenic solutions, and final fluorescence measurements
Compiled research data and presented findings to a team of eight colleagues

 Joseph Douglas
Experience November 2008 – June 2009

State of California, Energy Commission

Sacramento, CA

Siting, Transmission, and Environmental Protection Division
Oversight of large power plant projects with state and federal involvement
Writing and processing of environmental documents with specific time deadlines requirements
Coordination with multiple agencies including: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, EPA
Partnership with local governments to inform the public
Organized multi-functional teams to determine project impacts and transmission requirements
Quality assurance and quality control for state and federal compliance of environmental regulations
ƒ Participated in field studies to determine project impacts

ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

March 2003 - October 2008

State of California, Department of Transportation

Oakland, CA

Office of Environmental Analysis, Environmental Coordinator
ƒ Oversight of large transportation projects with state and federal involvement
ƒ Writing and processing of environmental documents with specific time deadlines requirements
ƒ Coordination with multiple agencies including: Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, EPA,
State Historic Officer, Homeland Security, California Highway Patrol
ƒ Partnership with local governments to implement growth/environmental strategies
ƒ Organized multi-functional teams to determine project cost, scope, risk, impacts, and benefits in order to meet funding and programming
deadlines
ƒ Participated in Value Analysis studies and made recommendations regarding least environmentally damaging alternative
ƒ Establish purpose and need of project to justify benefits of future capital cost expenditures
ƒ Quality assurance and quality control for state and federal compliance of environmental regulations
ƒ Participated in field studies to determine project impacts
May 2000 – March 2003

State of California, Department of Transportation

Oakland, CA

Right of Way Agent, Cost and Impact Estimation
ƒ Determination of community impacts of large transportation projects
ƒ Estimated costs, and time needed for acquisition of parcels, and relocation assistance
ƒ Coordination with multiple disciplines within the Department including: engineering, survey, legal, and environmental to forecast cost
ƒ Investigation of Assessors Parcel Numbers, Right of Way data maps, and property databases
ƒ Research of city and county zoning codes, general plan, and property records
ƒ Identified utility conflicts and estimated time and cost of relocation

Education ƒ University of South Florida – Tampa, Fl
ƒ Graduated 1999
ƒ B.S., Economics

Skills ƒ Map Reading:

o Engineering Specs
o Blue Prints
o Assessor Parcel
ƒ Data Processing:
o Microsoft Word Versions 3.1 - current
ƒ Spreadsheet::
o Microsoft Excel

 Alvin Greenberg, Ph.D., QEP
37 Mt. Whitney Dr., Suite A, San Rafael, Ca. 94903
office 415-472-6056 cell 415-302-0438
e-mail agreenberg@risksci.com

Alvin Greenberg has a B.S. from the University of Illinois, Urbana, and a Ph.D. from the University
of California San Francisco. He conducted postdoctoral research in neurotoxicology and served as an
Assistant Professor at UCSF. He also attended the prestigious Lovelace Institute of Inhalation
Toxicology in 1980 and is Board Certified as a Qualified Environmental Professional (QEP). Dr.
Greenberg was formerly Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Hearing Board, a
former Member of the State of California Occupational Health and Safety Standards Board
(appointed by the Governor), and former Assistant Deputy Chief for Health, California OSHA.
Dr. Greenberg’s expertise in risk assessment has led to his appointment as a member of several state
and federal advisory committees, including the Cal/EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control
Program Review Committee, the DTSC Integrated Site Mitigation Committee, the California State
Water Resources Control Board Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program Advisory Committee,
the California EPA Advisory Committee on Stochastic Risk Assessment Methods, the U.S. EPA
Workgroup on Cumulative Risk Assessment, the Cal/EPA Peer Review Committee of the Health
Risks of Using Ethanol in Reformulated Gasoline, and the California Air Resources Board Advisory
Committee on Diesel Emissions. He has also served as an expert witness on odor issue cases and
adjudicated several such cases while serving as Chair of the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District Hearing Board.
Dr. Greenberg has considerable experience and ability to manage and prepare CEQA and NEPA
documentation for many projects, including gas-fired and solar power plants. In his work under
contract to the California Energy Commission, He has authored and defended at Evidentiary Hearing
over 150 CEQA-equivalent Staff Assessments for power plant siting cases in California over a 20year period, including EIRs and EISs for ten solar power plants or solar/gas hybrids in the Southern
California desert and a coal gasification plant in the San Joaquin Valley. He was responsible for
preparing this documentation in the areas of Hazardous Materials Management, Worker Safety/Fire
Protection, Public Health and Safety, Glare Risk Assessment, Impacts of Solar Flux on Avian
Species, and Waste Management.
Since January 2005, he has trained and led an audit team conducting hazmat, safety, and security
audits at power plants throughout California that are under the jurisdiction of the California Energy
Commission. His unique experience in Cal-OSHA and with the CEC allows him to effectively
identify safety and health hazards and recommend cost-effective solutions. Additionally, his training
and experience in critical infrastructure security led to him to becoming the lead for the California
Energy Commission development of a power plant vulnerability assessment methodology and model
power plant security plan, reviewing and evaluating power plant security plans, testifying at hearings
on power plant security, preparing a “background” report on the risks and hazards of siting LNG
terminals in California, consulting for the City of Vallejo on a proposed LNG terminal and storage
facility at the former Mare Island Naval Shipyard, and preparing safety and security
recommendations for the proposed LNG terminal in Long Beach, CA.
He has also been the lead person for the CEC in gas pipeline safety review and evaluation. He is
knowledgeable about and has experience implementing infrastructure security needs and methods and
has U.S. Coast Guard Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and U.S. Department of Energy Critical
Energy Infrastructure (CI) security clearances. Perhaps just as important, Dr. Greenberg has
considerable experience and expertise in risk communication, explaining issues of exposure and risk
to large groups of very concerned citizens on very complex and challenging projects. He has also
testified in both Superior Court and U.S. District Court as an expert witness.

1

 RESUME

AJOY GUHA
Associate Electrical Engineer
California Energy Commission
1516 Ninth Street, MS 46
Sacramento, CA 95814
EDUCATION:
MSEE, POWER SYSTEMS ENGINEERING, PURDUE UNIVERSITY, INDIANA
BSEE, ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING, CALCUTTA UNIVERSITY, INDIA
CERTIFICATIONS:
REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, CALIFORNIA, INDIANA & ILLIINOIS
MEMBER OF IEEE; MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTION OF ENGINEERS OF INDIA
SUMMARY OF PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND:
Ajoy Guha, P. E. has years of electric utility experience with an extensive background in evaluating and determining current
and potential transmission system reliability problems and their cost effective solutions. He has a good understanding of the
transmission issues and concerns. He is proficient in utilizing computer models of electrical systems in performing power flow,
dynamic stability and short circuit studies, and provide system evaluations and solutions, and had performed generator
interconnection studies, area transfer and interconnected transmission studies, and prepared five year transmission alternate
plans and annual operating plans. He is also experienced in utilizing Integrated Resource Planning computer models for
generation production costing and long term resource plans, and had worked as an Executive in electric utilities and
experienced in construction, operation, maintenance and standardization of transmission and distribution lines.
WORK EXPERIENCE:
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, ENERGY FACLITIES SITING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION,
SACRAMENTO, CA, 11/2000-Present.
Working as Associate Electrical Engineer in the Transmission System Engineering unit on licensing generation projects. Work
involves evaluating generation interconnection studies and their impacts on transmission system, and providing staff
assessments and testimony to the commission, and coordination with utilities and other agencies.
ALLIANT ENERGY, DELIVERY SYSTEM PLANNING, MADISON, WI, 4/2000-9/2000.
Worked as Transmission Services Engineer, performed Generator Interconnection studies and system planning studies.
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, POWER DEPT., Imperial, California, 1985-1998.
Worked as Senior Planning Engineer in a supervisory position and in Transmission, Distribution and Integrated Resource
planning areas. Performed interconnection studies for 500 MW geothermal plants and developed plan for a collector system,
developed methodologies for transmission service charges , scheduling fees and losses. Worked as the Project Leader in the
1992 Electricity Report (ER 92) process of the California Energy Commission. Worked as the Project Leader for installation of
an engineering computer system and softwares. Assumed the Project Lead in the standardization of construction and materials,
and published construction standards.
CITY LIGHT & POWER, Frankfort, Indiana, 1980 – 1985.
Worked as Assistant Superintendent and managed engineering, construction and operation depts.
WESTERN ILLINOIS POWER CO-OP., Jacksonville, Illinois, 1978 – 1980.
Worked as Planning Engineer and was involved in transmission system planning.
THE CALCUTTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD. (CESC), Calcutta, India, 1964 –1978.
Worked as District Engineer and was responsible for managing customer relations, purchasing and stores, system
planning, construction, operation and maintenance departments of the most industrialized Transmission and
Distribution division of the Utility. Worked as PROJECT MANAGER for construction of a 30 mile Double Circuit
132 kV gas-filled Underground Cable urban project. During 1961-63, worked as Factory Engineer for design,
manufacturing and testing of transformers, motor starters and worked in a coal-fired generating plant.
1

 Mark Hesters 
916‐654‐5049 
mark.hesters@energy.state.ca.us 

 

 

Qualifications 

 Analyzed the reliability impacts of electric power plants for nine 
years. 
 As  an  expert  witness,  produced  written  and  oral  testimony  in 
numerous  California  Energy  Commission  proceedings  on 
power plant licensing. 
 Expertise  in  power  flow  models  (GE  PSLF  and  PowerWorld), 
production  cost  models  (GE  MAPS),  Microsoft  word‐
processing, spreadsheet and database programs. 
 Contributing  author  to  many  California  Energy  Commission 
reports.
 Represented  the  Energy  Commission  in  the  development  of 

electric reliability and planning standards for California.

Experience  

Senior Electrical Engineer
2005‐Present  California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA 
 Program  manager  of  the  transmission  system  engineering 
analysis for new generator Applications of Certification. 
 Lead  the  development  of  transmission  data  collection 
regulations. 
 Overhauled the transmission data adequacy regulations for the 
Energy Commission’s power plant certification process. 
 Participated in the analysis of regional transmission projects. 
 Technical lead for Commission in regional planning groups. 
 Energy  Commission  representative  to  the  Western  Electric 

Coordinating Council Operations Committee.

 Associate Electrical Engineer
1998–2005  California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA 
 Lead  transmission  systems  analyst  for  power  plant  licensing 
under 12‐month, 6‐month and 21‐day licensing processes. 
 Provided  expert  witness  testimony  on  the  potential 
transmission impacts of new power plants in California Energy 
Commission licensing hearings. 
 Authored  chapters  for  California  Energy  Commission  staff 
reports on regional transmission issues. 
 Studied the economics of transmission projects using electricity 
production simulation tools. 
 Analyzed  transmission  systems  using  the  GE  PSLF  and 
PowerWorld load flow models. 
 Collected  and  evaluated  transmission  data  for  California  and 

the Western United States

Electric Generation Systems Specialist
1990–1998  California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA 
 Lead generation planner for southern California utilities. 
 Analyzed electric generation systems using complex simulation 
tools. 
 Provided analysis on the impact of resource plans on air quality 
and electricity costs for California Energy Commission reports. 
 Developed modeling characteristics for emerging technologies. 
 Evaluated resource plans.

Education 

1985–1989  University of California at Davis 
 B.S., Environmental Policy Analysis and Planning

Davis, CA

 Jon R. Hilliard, AICP
Profile
Project manager, environmental and land planning professional with two decades of experience managing
small and large-scale public and private environmental compliance, infrastructure, energy planning and
development projects to timely and successful completion.

Education, Certification & Associations







Bachelor of Arts, Urban and Regional Planning, Texas State University (1987)
Post-graduate courses in Planning and Environmental Law, Sustainability, Real Estate Development UC Davis
Completion of Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Course – GW University
American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Certification
Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)
Society of American Military Engineers (SAME)

Work Experience
State of California Energy Commission (CEC) (Sacramento, CA),
Apr 2013 to Present
Planner III - Cultural Resources Unit Supervisor (2013-2014), Siting Project Manager (Present)
Planner III and Cultural Resources Unit Supervisor in the Siting, Transmission and Environmental
Protection (STEP) Division of the California Energy Commission, leading the review, analysis and expert
testimony for archaeological, ethnographic and historic built-environment resources impacted by proposed
large-scale power generation facilities located throughout the state. Responsibilities include supervising the
work performance of Unit staff, and QA/QC of CEQA-equivalent documents prepared for renewable
(solar, geothermal) and conventional (natural gas) power projects that are presented before the Commission
in accordance with the administrative law process mandated by state statute. Oversight of interagency
coordination with other state departments (Cal SHPO, Caltrans, Native American Heritage Commission)
federal agencies (Bureau of Land Management, National Parks Service, US Department of Energy), and
sovereign government authorities (numerous Native American Tribes) as part of the Energy Commission’s
certification process for new, expanded, altered or de-commissioned facilities. Recently transferred to Siting
Unit (September 2014). Responsible for managing the preparation of and public hearing process for CEQAequivalent environmental documents for new power generation facilities (both conventional gas fired plants
and renewable solar trough and power tower facilities) throughout the state.
Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) (Sacramento, CA)
Dec 2010 – Mar 2013
Regional NEPA/CEQA Project Manager
Project Management and Task Order Management on HCP's/ NCCP's (Bay Delta Conservation Plan for
CA DWR, Butte Regional Conservation Plan for BCAG, Yolo Natural Heritage Program for Yolo County);
CWA Section 404 Regional Permits and 401 Programmatic Certification strategies; State Emergency
Planning (Emergency Functions Development for CA OES); Marketing, Proposal Development and
Budgeting, including working as Capture Manager for over $3.8M in successful procurements.
JRH Planning (Vacaville, CA)
Nov 2009 - Dec 2010
Owner/ Principal
Worked as sole proprietor of a consulting practice assisting partner firms and private clients (Jacobs
Engineering, REY Engineering, GW Properties and Lilley Planning Group) in marketing and business
development for on-call and project-specific environmental, planning and policy implementation work with
local governments and private developers throughout Northern California.

February 2015

 Jon R. Hilliard, AICP

Page 2 of 2

Jacobs Engineering, Inc. (Sacramento, CA)
Nov 2006 - Aug 2009
Senior Urban Planner/ Project Manager – Urban Design and Planning Studio
Managed the land use and environmental projects for a variety of public and private sector clients as part of
a multi-disciplined engineering consulting firm. Responsible for the complete quality management of client
deliverables such as development plans, design guidelines, policy documents, technical reports and
environmental impact studies (CEQA and NEPA compliance, CWA, ESA, NHPA and Environmental
Justice), and supervising the work of support technical staff.
GSJ, Inc. (Roseville, CA)
Oct 2005 - Oct 2006
Project Manger
Project Manager for a private equity firm & added over $4M value to RE portfolio assets. Responsible for all
facets of land acquisition, entitlements and development of residential and commercial projects including
advance research, due diligence, management of local land use and environmental entitlements, budgeting,
and oversight of work activities to the ultimate delivery of a successful project.
City of Fairfield (Solano County, CA)
Nov 1989 - Oct 2005
Senior Planner – Department of Community Development
Managed the review and environmental compliance for the city’s most complex environmental and
development projects. Directed the city’s inter-agency review processes for development proposals and
capital improvements projects. Managed the CEQA and NEPA compliance for the city’s capital
improvements program(s), and prepared topical EIR and EIS resource sections to timely competition.
Mentored and trained lower-level staff.

February 2015

 JEANINE M. HINDE
Professional Experience
Planner II
February 2010–Present
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA
Environmental Office of the Siting, Transmission, and Environmental Protection Division
Generalist skilled in research and analysis and preparing staff assessments for siting of a variety of power plant
projects filed with the Energy Commission. Assesses environmental impacts on land use, agricultural resources, and
visual resources. Prepares alternatives analyses to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Evaluates project conformance with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. Prepared the visual
resources analysis for the Huntington Beach Energy Project, a 939-MW natural gas-fired plant that was proposed to
replace the AES Huntington Beach Generating Station. Prepared the alternatives analysis for an amendment to the
previously approved 500-MW Palen Solar Electric Generating System in Riverside County. Prepared the alternatives
analysis on the Hidden Hills Solar Electric Generating System, a 500-MW solar power tower project in the eastern
Mojave Desert. Testified before the Siting Committee at the evidentiary hearings for these three projects. Prepared the
land use analyses for a 159-MW geothermal power plant in Imperial County and a 174-MW electrical generating plant
in Ceres. Coauthored the alternatives analysis on the proposed amendment to the Carlsbad Energy Center Project.

Environmental Analyst and Project Coordinator
EDAW-AECOM, Sacramento, CA

2004–2009

Coordinated preparation of environmental studies to satisfy CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act and
related permitting and regulatory requirements. Contributed to the preparation of regulatory compliance documents for
projects addressing flood protection, wastewater management, water quality, habitat restoration, and urban
development. As an assistant project manager, contributed to the preparation, technical review, and distribution of a
variety of environmental compliance documents for projects that included a levee repair project on the Feather and
Yuba Rivers, a levee seepage project on the San Joaquin River near the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), a
wastewater treatment plant improvement project in Atwater, and a habitat restoration project adjacent to the middle
Sacramento River. As an analyst, prepared environmental impact analyses for resource topics that included land use;
agricultural resources; visual/aesthetic resources; public services, utilities and service systems; hazardous materials;
recreation; and geology, soils, and mineral resources. Prepared mitigation monitoring and reporting program
documents and assisted with fulfilling CEQA noticing and filing requirements.

Environmental Analyst, Independent Consultant
Sackheim Consulting, Fair Oaks, CA

2003–2004

Researched and wrote the aesthetics analyses for the CEQA documents on related neighborhood electrical distribution
projects in the Natomas and Elkhorn areas of Sacramento. Prepared a similar analysis for a project in Elk Grove.
Assisted with the analyses addressing potential impacts on cultural resources and issues related to hazards and
hazardous materials.

Environmental Specialist II
Jones & Stokes Associates, Sacramento, CA

1986–1997

Evaluated impacts on land use, visual resources, and recreation for several state and federal projects, including a water
supply management program in the East Bay, a project addressing long-term management of resources in the Delta and
Suisun Marsh, and a military operations project at Camp Roberts. Provided technical review and coordinated
preparation of report sections prepared by staff, and assisted with research and documentation of required federal,
state, and local permits and approvals for inclusion in regulatory compliance plans.

Education
B.A. Geography, California State University, Chico

 Joseph Hughes 
Education 
California State University, Sacramento, 2003‐2008 
Sacramento, Ca 

Bachelor of Science, Mechanical Engineering Technology, May 2008 
AA degree in liberal arts and science

Experience 
California Energy Commission, March 2009‐Present 
Sacramento, Ca 
Air Resources Engineer 
Technical expert responsible for completing environmental analysis on 
thermal power plant project applications seeking a California Energy 
Commission license, or an amendment or project modification to an existing 
license; in addition to determining ongoing operational compliance for 
facilities operating under existing Energy Commission licenses. Specific 
responsibilities, by technical area, include the following:  
Air Quality 







Reviewing project applications to verify worst case emissions during 
construction and various operating profiles, and completing air 
dispersion modeling to identify the worst case impacts associated 
with construction and the various operating profiles, and determine 
whether the project would result in any significant air quality related 
impacts;  
Determining whether the project would comply with all local, state, 
and federal, air quality laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards;  
Determining whether the mitigation measures proposed for the 
project would reduce potential air quality impacts to a level of less 
than significant under California Environmental Quality Act 
requirements; 
Determining ongoing air quality compliance for operational power 
plant facilities. 

Greenhouse Gas 



Reviewing project applications and quantifying potential greenhouse 
gas emissions associated with construction, commissioning, and 
operation of the proposed facilities; 
Determining whether the project would comply with all local, state, 
and federal, greenhouse gas laws, ordinances, regulations, and 
standards (including the Greenhouse Gas Emission Performance 
Standard); 

 

Analyzing the implications the proposed facility may have on 
California’s electricity sector, and how it may affect greenhouse gas 
emissions in California and globally.  

Visible Water Vapor Plume 



Assisting the technical experts authoring the Visual Resources section 
to identify potential visual impacts as a result of visible water vapor 
plumes; 
Reviewing operational design data from visible water vapor plume 
emitting sources and calculating plume frequencies and sizes.   

Vertical Plume Velocity 




Assisting the technical experts authoring the Traffic and 
Transportation section to identify potential hazards to aircrafts as a 
result of vertical plume velocities; 
Reviewing operational design data from vertical plume emitting 
sources and calculating the vertical plume velocities at various heights 
above the source; 
Identifying at what height above the plume sources the vertical plume 
velocities drop below the threshold of concern set by the Federal 
Aviation Administration.  

Noise and Vibration 




Reviewing project applications to verify worst case noise and 
vibration impacts during construction and operation, and determine 
whether the project would result in any significant impacts; 
Determining whether the project would comply with all local, state, 
and federal, noise and vibration laws, ordinances, regulations, and 
standards;  
Determining whether the mitigation measures proposed for the 
project would reduce potential noise and vibration impacts to a level 
of less than significant under California Environmental Quality Act 
requirements.  

Capital Engineering Consultants, Inc, April 2008‐2009 
Sacramento, Ca                         
Mechanical Engineer 
 Responsible for detailed and accurate take off calculations to ensure 
successful project completion; 
 Completing engineering design for Heating Ventilation Air 
Conditioning and Plumbing by utilizing complex engineering 
calculations and software; 
 Responsible for meeting code regulation and requirements to the 
degree acceptable by various organizations; 
 Lead productive weekly team meetings to discuss project scheduling, 
cost effectiveness, request for information, and change orders. 

 Wiiiiam Kanemoto
Visual Resource/Aesthetics Analvst
Academic Background:

M. Landscape Architecture, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1982
B.A. Liberal Arts (Honors), University of California, Santa Cruz, 1973
Professional Experience:
p~~~

.

Wiiiiam Kanemoto & Associates, Oakland, California, 1993 - Present
Wlllfam Kanemoto Is Principal of William Kanemoto & Associates, an environmental consulting
practice specializing in visual analysis and computer visualization in the context of environmental
review. In this capacity he has served as principal investigator for visual analysis and simulation
on a wide range of major infrastructure and development projects, including the High Desert
Power Projed AFC, Port of Oakland Expansion EIS, Route 4 East/Pittsburg BART EIS, FMC
Substation and. Transmission Line PEA, and numerous other infrastructure and transportation
projeds. Mr. Kanemoto received recognition from the California Association of Environmental
Professionals for visual analysis, computer simulation, animation, and video production for the
Stanford Sand Hill Road Projects EIR, prepared by EIP Associates and judged 'Best State-Wide
EIRof 1997'.
Associate Director
Environmental Simulation Laboratory,
Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
Center for Environmental Design Research
University of California, Berkeley, 1994 - 2000
Instructed graduate students in the College of Environmental Design, U.C. Berkeley, served a.s
consultant on various major planning projects In the San Francisco Bay Area, and conducted
design collaborations with counterparts at Keio University and ARK CyberUniversity in Tokyo,
Japan via the Internet.
Principal Investigator/Project Manager
Dames & Moore, San Francisco/Oakland, California, 1988-1992
Served as principal investigator of numerous visual analyses of major infrastructure projects
throughout the U.S., in Europe, and In Asia. Gained extensive familiarity with the application of a
wide range of professionally accepted visual assessment techniques in the context of CEQA,
NEPA, and related regulatory requirements of the CPUC, CEC, FERC, DOT, U.S. Forest Service,
BLM, and other agencies.
Project Manager
LSAAssociates, Pt. Richmond, California, 1987-1988
Project manager and planner on environmental impact reports for various residential and
commercial development projects in northern California.
Environmental Planner
Holton Associatesi Berkeley, California, 1984-1987
PreparatioFl of various resource and regulatory studies including EIRs, FERC Exhibit E, Section
404 alternative analyses, riparian restoration studies,· and cumulative impact methodology studies
~or E~RI and Sierra County, CA.
~ .

 Steven Kerr
Professional Experience:
California Energy Commission
Sacramento, CA
January 2012-Present
Planner II
 Review power plant applications and amendments for alternatives, land use,
socioeconomic, land use, transportation, and visual impacts.
 Evaluate projects in accordance with CEQA, the California Energy Commission siting
regulations, and federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations, standards (LORS).
 Participate in public workshops and hearings regarding proposals.
 Write environmental analysis documents.
Thomas P. Kerr Inc.
Sacramento, CA
August 2011-January 2012
Property Manager
 Management of properties and assets throughout California and Oregon.
 Assist in the preparation of mobile home park closure impact report for Port of San Luis.
 Use various software applications to produce and review billing and financial records.
 Work with local agencies to coordinate infrastructure improvements.
Ground(ctrl)
Sacramento, CA
February 2010-August 2011
Director of Customer Support
 Coordinate and provide customer support for A-list musical artist fan clubs, online stores,
e-mail marketing, ticketing, aggressive online marketing, and much more.
 Resolve escalated customer support issues, credit card disputes, and Better Business
Bureau cases.
 Supervise and train customer support team members and interns.
City of Sacramento
Sacramento, CA
General Services Department
Customer Service Representative
July 2009-February 2010
 Perform concurrently multiple customer service related duties for all City of Sacramento
departments by phone/email.
 Interpret and apply City regulations and procedures as applicable to billing, fees, and
collections.
 Learn and explain the organization, procedure and operation details of the City.
 Use a variety of business software applications and assess maps.
City of Sacramento
Sacramento, CA
Development Services Department
Assistant Planner
February 2007-July 2009
 Project manager for various residential, commercial, industrial, and office development
projects.
 Assist customers with zoning, design review, preservation, environmental, subdivision
code, and sign questions, both at the public counter and by phone/email.
 Provide customers with required entitlement information, fee estimates, and accept
applications for proposed development projects.
 Review applications and plans for consistency with City Codes, General Plan, and
applicable community plans, specific plans and planned unit development guidelines.
 Present projects at community meetings and work with neighborhood association leaders
on controversial projects.
 Write staff reports and conditions of approval.
 Present projects at Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and City Council public
hearings.
 Research development and entitlement histories of parcels.

 City of Atascadero
Atascadero, CA
Community Development Department
Planning Intern
March 2005-June 2006
 Prepare environmental review documents.
 Review business licenses and building permits.
 Draft letters and staff reports.
 Respond to questions from the public on planning and zoning related issues.
 Access and update information in GIS and Excel
Education:
2000-2005

California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, CA
Bachelor of Science in City and Regional Planning

 Shahab Khoshmashrab
Senior Mechanical Engineer

Professional Experience
2001-Current—Senior Mechanical Engineer – Siting, Transmission, and Environmental
Protection Division – California Energy Commission
- Perform analysis of, and address complex engineering issues related to, generating
capacity, power plant reliability, energy efficiency, noise and vibration, jurisdictional
determination, and the mechanical, civil, electrical, and structural aspects of power plants
during licensing, construction, and operation.
- Review and evaluate projects to ensure compliance of power plants and related facilities
with applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards and California Environmental
Quality Act, or CEQA;
- Assist the California Energy Commission in policy making related to power generation.
1998-2001—Structural Engineer – Rankin & Rankin
Engineered concrete foundations, structural steel and sheet metal of various building
structures including energy related structures such as fuel islands. Performed energy
analysis/calculations of such structures and produced both structural plans and detailed
shop drawings using AutoCAD.
1995-1998—Manufacturing Engineer – Carpenter Advanced Technologies
Managed manufacturing projects of various mechanical components used in high tech
medical and engineering equipment. Wrote and implemented QA/QC procedures and
occupational safety procedures. Conducted developmental research of the most advanced
manufacturing machines and processes including writing of formal reports. Developed
project cost analysis. Developed/improved manufacturing processes.
Education
•
•

California State University, Sacramento-- Bachelor of Science, Mechanical
Engineering
Registered Professional Engineer (Mechanical), California
License No. M 32883, Exp. 9/30/2016

 ANDREA KOCH

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, December 2009 – Present
Siting, Transmission, and Environmental Protection Division, Sacramento, California
Environmental Planner II- Perform environmental review of power plant applications.
 Review power plant applications for traffic and transportation and land use impacts.
 Write environmental analysis documents.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO, June 2007 – July 2009
Planning Department, Long-Range Planning Division, Sacramento, California
Assistant Planner- Performed long-range city planning for Sacramento.
 Coordinated review of the Draft 2030 General Plan, a comprehensive citywide land use plan.
 Prepared Ben Ali and Hagginwood neighborhood plans. Worked with City staff and community members
to identify strategies for resolving neighborhood issues, such as infrastructure deficiencies.
 Reviewed 70 development applications, analyzing their consistency with City policy and providing written
feedback to applicants.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, June 2005 – June 2007
Planning Department, Environmental Planning Division, Santa Cruz, California
Resource Planner II- Performed resource planning for Santa Cruz County.
 Reviewed development permit applications to ensure their consistency with regulations for creeks,
wetlands, grading, geologic hazards, erosion control, and sensitive plant and animal species.
 Wrote staff reports analyzing development proposals and providing recommendations to the Environmental
Planning Division Manager.
 Performed an average of 5 weekly pre-construction meetings and final inspections at project sites to ensure
that development was consistent with County regulations and required mitigations.
 Regularly assisted the public with resource planning questions, both in-person and over the phone.
COUNTY OF MONTEREY, November 2004 – June 2005
Planning Department, Marina, California
Assistant Planner- Performed current planning for Monterey County.
 Reviewed development permit applications for consistency with County regulations.
 Prepared and presented staff reports for development applications. Reports provided recommendations to
the Zoning Administrator.
 Assisted the public with zoning questions, both in-person and over the phone.

EDUCATION
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California
 Master of City and Regional Planning, Concentration in Environmental Planning, 2004
University of California, Davis
 Bachelor of Science in Wildlife, Fish, & Conservation Biology, Concentration in Conservation Biology,
2002
 Graduated with High Honors and a Department Citation

 MATTHEWS. LAYTON
Experience Summary

Twenty five years.of experience in the electric power generation field, including regulatory
compliance and modification; research and development; licensing of nuclear, coal-fired,
peaking and combined cycle power plants; and engineering and policy analysis of
regulatory issues.
Education

B.S., Applied Mechanics, University of California, San Diego.
Registered Professional Engineer - Mechanical, California.
Experience

1987-present - Senior Mechanical Engineer, Systems Assessment and Facilities Siting
Division, California Energy Commission. Review and evaluate power plant proposals,
identify issues and resolutions; coordinate with other agencies; and prepar:e testimony, in
the areas of:
• Air quality resources and potential impacts, and mitigation measures;
• Public Heath; and
• Transmission Line Safety and Nuisance.
Prepared Commission demonstration project process; contributed to the Energy
Technology Status, Energy Development, and Electricity Reports; Project Manager for
demonstration projects; evaluated demonstration test plans, procedures, data and
reports; disseminated test results; and managed research and development contracts.
1983-1986 - Control Systems Engineer, Bechtel Power Corporation. Managed a multidisciplined effort to environmen~lly qualify client's safety related nuclear plant equipment
Performed analyses, calculations and reviews against vendor test reports, NRC
guidelines and plant normal and postulated accident conditions. Initiated purchase ord~rs
for testing and formulated test objectives and test plans. Developed and implemented
plant equipment maintenance and surveillance program based on test results, vendor
recommendations and industry operating experiences. Trained client in environmental
qualification engineering analysis and equipment maintenance program. Prepared dient
·
for NRC audits and presentation.
1981-1983 - Engineer, GA Technologies, Inc. Supervised design and procurement of
full-scale test assembly used to evaluate design changes to operating r~actor graphite
core assembly. Conducted experiment to determine the relationship of graphite
oxidation rate to water concentration, temperature, and helium pressure.
Environmentally qualified essential and safety related nuclear power plant equipment to
comply with NRC guidelines.

 J. MIKE MONASMITH
Sacramento, CA 95831

WORK HISTORY:
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, Sacramento
Siting, Transmission & Environmental Protection
Senior Project Manager (2007 – present) -CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, Sacramento
Associate Public Adviser (2003 - 2007) -CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY, Sacramento
Special Assistant to the Secretary, Policy & Planning (2003) -CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Los Angeles
Director of Communications (2002) -Coordinated Campaign, Gore/Lieberman Deputy Director (2000) -Press Secretary, Coordinated Campaign, Californians for Feinstein (1994) -U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN JANE HARMAN, Washington DC
Chief of Staff (1997 - 1998) -Deputy Campaign Manager, Harman for Governor (1998) -Political Director (2001) -STATE CONTROLLER KATHLEEN CONNELL, Los Angeles
Chief Deputy Controller (2000 - 2001) -Assistant Deputy Controller, External Affairs (1995 - 1996) -VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, Thousand Oaks, CA
Director, Los Angeles Government Affairs (1999 - 2000) -Company’s Registered Lobbyist for L.A. City Council / L.A. Board of Supervisors

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington DC
Special Assistant, Assistant Secretary for Water & Science, (1997) -CLINTON/GORE ‘96 GENERAL COMMITTEE, Los Angeles
California Deputy State Director (Southern California Political Lead) (1996)
California Desk Co-Director, Presidential Inaugural Committee (1997)
SHEILA JAMES KUEHL FOR ASSEMBLY, Los Angeles
Campaign Manager / Candidate Spokesman (1994)
LOS ANGELES MAYOR RICHARD RIORDAN, Los Angeles
Deputy Press Secretary / Mayoral Assistant / Advance Co-Lead (1993-94)
Deputy Field Director / Deputy Director, Advance (Riordan for Mayor 1993)

Monasmith, Page 2

 DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF ORANGE COUNTY, Santa Ana
Office Manager / Chief Assistant, Chairman Adler (1991-92)
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, Santa Cruz
Federal Work-study Program Manager, UCSC Student Employment (1990 – 1991)
ICICLE SEAFOODS, Inc., Seward, AK
Production Supervisor, Towa Eggroom (Summers, 1988-1991)

EDUCATION:

University of California at Santa Cruz (College VIII)
B.A., Environmental Studies/Politics (Policy & Planning), 1990
(Thesis Honors: Resource Management, Tongass National Forest, Alaska)

 MELISSA MOURKAS, ASLA
EDUCATION
MASTER OF ARTS, LANDSCAPE DESIGN & PLANNING, 1994
CONWAY SCHOOL OF LANDSCAPE DESIGN, CONWAY, MASSACHUSETTS
Graduate landscape design program providing professional training in site design and land-use
planning. Curriculum emphasis is on sustainable landscape planning and design. Graduate projects
included: Master Plan for a 45-acre historic resort, original landscape designed by F.L. Olmsted and
Performance Standards for a proposed industrial park.

BACHELOR OF ARTS, HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE & ART, 1981
SCRIPPS COLLEGE, CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA
Major studies in Art and Architectural History, Urban Development. Senior thesis: documentation and
analysis of the innovative residential designs and construction techniques of California modern
architect Rudolf M. Schindler. Minor studies in Art and the Humanities.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE/QUALIFICATIONS
•
•

Licensed Landscape Architect, California # 5139
Qualified Architectural Historian, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation,
Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE:
1994 to Present: Landscape Architecture and Design. Experience in landscape architecture,
landscape construction estimating, site planning, historic landscapes and landscape master plans.
Provide landscape architecture and consulting services to private clients, public organizations,
contractors, and design firms. Preparation of Cultural Landscape Reports. Frequent speaker to
various groups on landscape design, construction and cultural landscapes.

PLANNING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
April 2010 to Present: Planner II, California Energy Commission, Siting, Transmission and
Environmental Protection Division. Provide technical environmental analysis of proposed energy
facilities and development. Review of EIR/EIS documents prepared by other agencies under NEPA.
Specific tasks include: the assessment of potential impacts of new electric power plants on both
Visual and Cultural Resources; identification of suitable mitigation measures under CEQA;
preparation of written testimony; participation in public workshops; presentation of sworn testimony
during evidentiary hearings, and project monitoring to ensure compliance with local, state and federal
environmental laws and regulations. Cultural Resources specialty in the built environment. Section
106 review of federally-funded energy efficiency upgrades under Programmatic Agreement with
California OHP.
2008-2014: Member, City of Sacramento Preservation Commission (Chair 2013-2014)
2005 to 2008: Assistant Planner, Historic Preservation Office, City of Sacramento, CA
Responsible for design review and approval for private and public development projects involving
rehabilitation, preservation and restoration of historic resources and districts under CEQA. Prepared
staff reports for Preservation Commission and Council, and coordinated with other planning staff on
concurrent entitlements. Staff liaison on municipal development projects involving historic resources.

 RESUME

....

DR. OBED ODOEMELAM
EDUCATION:
1979-1981

University of California, Davis, Cali(omia. PhD., Ecotoxicology

1976-1978

University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

M.S., Biology.

1972-1976

University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.

B.S., Biology

EXPERIENCE:
1989
The Present:

California Energy Commission. Staff Toxicologist.

Respo11S11>le for the technical oversight of staffs from all Divisions in the Commission as
well as outside consultants or University researchers who manage or conduct multi-disciplinmy
research in support of Commission programs. Research is in the following program areas: Energy
conservation-related indoor pollution, power plant-related outdoor pollution, power plant-related
waste management, alternative fuels-related health effects, waste water treatment, and the health
effects of electromagnetic fields. Serve as scientific adviser to Commissioners and Commission
staff on issues related to energy conservation. Serve on statewide advisory panels on issues related
to multiple chemical sensitivity, ventilation standants, electromagnetic field regulation, health risk
assessment, and outdoor pollution control technology. Testify as an expert witness at Commission
hearings and before the· California legislature on health issues related to energy development and
conservation. Reyiew research proposals and findings for policy implications, interact with federal
and state agencies and industry on the. establishment of exposure limits for environmental
pollutants, and' prepare reports for publication.
1985-1989

California Energy Commission.

Responsible for assessing the potential impacts of criteria and noncriteria pollutants and
hazardous wastes associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of specific
power plant projects. Testified before the Commission in the power plant certification process, and
interacted with federal and state agencies on the establishment of environmental limits for air and
water pollutants.
1983-1985

California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Environmental Health Specialist.
Evaluated pesticide registration data regarding the health and environmental effects of
agricultural chemicals. Prepared reports for public information in connection with the eradication
of specific agricultural pests in California

 Jacquelyn Leyva Record
Experience

March ’09 – Present
Air Resources Engineer






CA Energy Commission

Currently authoring staff assessment analyses for the technical area of air quality and
Reliability for the Engineering and Siting Division permitting power plant projects over 50
MW in the state of CA. Worked on renewable ARRA funding projects along with natural
gas power projects.
Reviewing emission compliance reports
Authored staff analyses for project amendments
Trained in CEQA and NEPA analysis, along with AERMOD air modeling.

August ’08 – March ‘09
Engineering Assistant





ERRG, Inc.

Martinez, CA

Assisted with both technical and field duties for a variety of environmental investigations.
Assisted on an environmental site assessment, preliminary assessments (PA), site
inspections, and remedial investigations feasibility studies.
Field duties performed include groundwater sampling and air sampling

June ’07 – March ‘08
Tetra Tech EC, Inc
Engineering Assistant Intern




Sacramento, CA

Santa Ana, CA

Working on various Department of Defense projects in environmental engineering.
Helped assist in 5 year review of remediation approaches.
Helping assist with a commercial project creating a water reuse/recycle treatment plant.

June ’05 – September ’05 SF Regional Water Board
Contract Work – Special Project

Oakland, CA

 Wrote a memorandum regarding total petroleum hydrocarbons showing up as false
positives in submitted quarterly monitoring reports for NPDES FUEL permit.

 Researched various EPA methods of testing for VOC, and Fuel constituents in water.
 Communicated with consultants from Weiss Associates and state funded laboratories to
come to a conclusion for memorandum.

 Site inspections, site reports.
Education

2003-June 2008

University of California Irvine

Irvine, CA

 B.S., Chemical Engineering
 MAES (Mexican American Engineers and Scientists) - Vice Chair 2004-2005
 CAMP summer science program participant 2003
June 1999 – September 2003

Las Lomas High School

Walnut Creek, CA

 High School Diploma
 Life time member of CSF (California Scholarship Federation).

 MARYLOU TAYLOR, P.E.
REGISTRATIONS/LICENCES:
California Professional Engineer License # C64353
EDUCATION:
B.S. Civil Engineering
University of California, Davis

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY:
Associate Civil Engineer
2010 to Present
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA
Duties within the Water and Soils Unit of the Engineering Office in the Facilities Siting Division
include review and evaluation of applications for certification of thermal power plants within the
state of California. The focus of staff work is on sensitive project sites that may have issues
involving groundwater and surface water resources, soil erosion, flooding potential, water quality
and plant-derived waste generation and disposal. Additional duties include staff to evaluate
construction, operation and maintenance of the facilities and conduct investigations to determine if
violations of the program’s regulations, the Energy Commission’s conditions of certification, or the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have occurred.

Transportation Engineer, Civil
2000 to 2010
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), District 3, Sacramento, CA
As Project Engineer in the Office of Design, identified storm water quality issues along public
highways within the Tahoe Lake area and designed appropriate features in an effort to preserve and
enhance the unique natural environment; and prepared reports evaluating alternatives and proposing
a design concept and scope for development and programming.
Designed drainage systems for highways throughout Northern California to comply with Caltrans
standards, including: analysis of site hydrology and hydraulic design; storm water management near
impaired water bodies; and preparing layouts and construction details for contract plans.
Also performed engineering inspections of State contract construction projects and enforced
contractor’s compliance with plans and State specifications. Duties include: assisting Resident
Engineer in re-designing areas where the contract plans conflicted with field conditions; performing
inspections of construction site activities; and managing problems that develop in the field.

 Ellen Townsend-Hough
SUMMARY
I am a chemical engineer with 32 years of experience. I have a working knowledge of the California
Environmental Quality Act. I have working knowledge of the National Environmental Policy Act. My
strengths are in analyzing and performing complex environmental engineering analyses, in areas such
as Waste Management, Hazardous Materials Management, and Worker Safety, for electric generating
stations. I worked as a policy advisor for a California Energy Commission Commissioner. I am also an
US Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Justice trainer.

One of the primary functions of the Energy Commission is CEQA review of license applications
to build and operate power plants 50 MW and greater in California. In the Energy Commission’s
Engineering Office, I fulfill this function by working through and managing a wide variety of
CEQA and environmental policy issues. The product of this effort is expressed in expert
testimony and staff analysis for siting new power plants and power plant compliance activity.
His testimony and analyses cover, waste management. I participate as a technical speaker at
public workshops as needed.
I have worked on simple-cycle, combined cycle, cogeneration, geothermal, and large-scale
thermal solar power plants, and is familiar with most of the major power plants in construction
and operation in California today. I has conducted construction and operation compliance
inspections at many of these plants. .
I have knowledge of CEQA/NEPA impact analysis and mitigation involving waste management.
The assessments I has authored waste management, worker safety, hazardous materials and
public health.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, Chemical Engineering
Drexel University, Philadelphia Pennsylvania
Continuing Education
Hazardous Material Management Certificate, University California Davis
Urban Redevelopment and Environmental Law, University of California Berkley
Analytical Skills, California Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) Training Center
Legislative Process/Bill Analysis, DPA Training Center
Federally Certified Environmental Justice Trainer
Community Emergency Response Team Trained

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Technical Analysis and Presentation
 Performs mechanical engineering analysis of designs for complex mechanical engineering analysis
of designs for systems such as combustion chambers and steam boilers, turbine generators, heat
transfer systems, air quality abatement systems, cooling water tower systems, pumps and control
systems


Review and process compliance submittals in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act, the Warren Alquist Act, the Federal Clean Air Act and the California and Federal Occupational
Health and Safety Acts to assure compliance of projects

1 Ellen Townsend-Hough

 

Provide licensing recommendations and function as an expert witness in regulatory hearings.



Provide waste management and sustainability analysis on construction, demolition and operation of
power plant design.



Provide public health impact analysis to assess the potential for impacts associated with project
related air toxic/non-criteria pollutant emissions.



Evaluate the potential of public exposure to pollutant emissions during routine operation and during
incidents due to accidents or control equipment failure



Provide an engineering analysis examining the likelihood of compliance with the design criteria for
power plants and also examine site specific potential significant adverse environmental impacts

Technical Proficiencies








Establish mitigation that reduces the potential for human exposure to levels which not result in
significant health impact or risk in any segment of the exposed population.
Conduct environmental audits and inspections of electrical generating stations during construction
and operation to assure compliance with Commission decisions.
Review and evaluate the pollution control technology applied to thermal power plants and other
industrial energy conversion technologies.

Operating Systems: MS Windows Server
Networking: Local Area Network (LAN)
Software: MS Office (WORD, EXCEL, POWERPOINT)

Policy Advisor
 Provided policy, administrative and technical advice to the Commissioner Robert Pernell. My work
with the Commissioner focused on the policy and environmental issues related to the Commission’s
power plant licensing, research and development and export programs.


Track and provide research on varied California Energy Commission (CEC) programs. Prepare
analysis of economic, environmental and public health impacts of programs, proposals and other
Commission business items.



Represent Commissioner’s position in policy arenas and power plant siting discussions.



Write and review comments articulating commission positions before other regulatory bodies
including Air Resources Board, California Public Utilities Commission, and the Coastal Commission.

Power Plant/Utility Experience
California Energy Commission,
A list of power plant siting cases for which I have authored assessments, in whole or in part follows:
Abengoa Solar (Solar Thermal), Chevron USA (Natural Gas), CPV Sentinel (Natural Gas), Ivanpah
SEGS (Solar Thermal), Carlsbad Energy Center (Natural Gas), Quail Brush (Natural Gas),Pio Pio
(Natural Gas), Hidden Hills (Solar Thermal), Genesis (Solar Thermal), Rio Mesa SEGF (Solar Thermal),
and San Joaquin Solar (Solar Thermal-Biomass).
I also work on power plant construction and operation compliance, some of which are: Abengoa Solar,
Colusa, Genesis, Elk Hills, geothermal power plants, Henrietta, Inland Empire, Ivanpah SEGS, La
Paloma, Marsh Landing, Mountain View, TID Almond, SEGS III-VII, SEGS VII & IX, and Sutter.
2 Ellen Townsend-Hough

 3 Ellen Townsend-Hough

..
Dave Vidaver
Electricity Analysis Office
Energy Assessments Division
California Energy Commission
(916) 654-4656
david.vidaver@energy. ca.gov

Employment (all with the California Energy Commission)
Electric Generation System Program Specialist II, Electricity Analysis Office 2011 present
Senior analyst responsible for evaluation of procurement, resource adequacy
and renewable generation development policies, potential impacts of generation
resource development on greenhouse gas emissions. Designed and teach a 10hour course on Electricity Systems Operations and Planning for energy
Commission staff.
Electric Generation System Specialist Ill, Electricity Analysis Office, 2005 - 2011
Supervisor of Procurement and Resource Adequacy Unit, supervise nine staff
responsible for evaluating utility procurement and resource adequacy, combined
heat and power and distributed generation issues, role of aging and oncethrough cooled power plants, compiling and maintaining office databases.
Energy Commission Specialist II, Demand Analysis Office, 2005
Monitoring near-term load growth at utility and regional level across the WECC;
assessing load-temperature relationships for California and major western
utilities and long-term changes in temperatures and load-temperature
relationships .
Electric Generation System Specialist 11 , Electricity Analysis Office 2002 - 2005
Supervisor of Electricity System Modeling Unit; supervised four staff responsible
for studies of resource adequacy, market price forecasts, emissions and fuel use
studies, assessments of market conditions, role of aging power plants;
contributing and principal author of numerous reports, papers, and presentations,
Electric Generation System Specialist I, Electricity Analysis Office, 1998 - 2002

 ..
Simulation modeling of WECC for studies of resource adequacy, market price
forecasts, emissions and fuel use studies; assessments of market conditions;
contributing and principal author of numerous papers, reports and presentations.
Education
BA, Political Science, University of California, Berkeley
MS, Agricultural Economics, University of California, Davis

Additional Information
Member of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's Generation Resource
Committee, which characterizes the cost and performance of generation technologies
for studies undertaken in support of the Council's 5-year power plans; numerous reports
at conferences and symposia on topics ranging from natural gas demand in California's
electricity sector to implementation of resource adequacy measures in California during
2001- 2004; participant in collaborative proceedings with CPUC (resource adequacy,
long-term procurement)

 Carol Watson
Sacramento, CA
WORK EXPERIENCE

California Energy Commission
Sacramento, CA

2/2010 - Present

Siting Transmission &
Environmental Protection
Division

Regulatory Responsibilities: Analyze power plants over 50MW, including solar thermal,
photovoltaic, natural gas, and coal technologies. Analyze applications to permit construct and
operate new projects, conduct CEQA-certified regulatory program under the Warren-Alquist
Act. Assess compliance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 1600 and 2081
permits, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 process, Regional Board 401
compliance, and US Army Corps (Corps) 404 permits. Carol has extensive experience working
on large scale permitting projects in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts. These projects involved
extensive 1600, 2081, Section 7 consultation, and coordination with the BLM, CDFG, and
USFWS; along with development of appropriate mitigation.
Compliance Responsibilities: Provide compliance oversight for permitted projects during all
stages: construction, operation, and closure, and ensure proper implementation of mitigation
and resolve biological-related construction issues. Synthesize developing regulations (REAT
agency, DRECP Sec. 10 process among others) and relevant legislation to ensure Energy
Commission compliance. Coordinate with— and negotiate— solutions with diverse entities as
BLM, USWS, Water Quality Control Board, US Army Corps of Engineers, Governor’s Office
liaisons to the Energy Commission, private interest groups, and solicitors working on behalf of
these interests.
Expert Witness Experience: Responsible for testifying before the Commission on active Siting
and Compliance projects, including preparation of testimony, rebuttal testimony, and posthearing briefings for Commissioners. Carol has testified the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating
System, the Blythe Solar Electric Project, and the Palen Solar Power Project.
Parsons Corporation
Las Vegas, Nevada

10/2004 - 12/2009

Principal Scientist

Worked in-house with client, Southern Nevada Water Authority. Served as Principal scientist
from 11/2008 to 2/2010. Prepared Environmental Species Act Section 7 Permit for the
Southern Nevada Water Authority Pipeline Project. Species included desert tortoise and 10
other Mojave and Great Basin aquatic and upland species. Perform general site surveys, spring
snail counts, sage grouse telemetry, mist netting for bats, Amargosa toad surveys in Death
Valley, Nevada, and assist the Nevada Department of Wildlife with bat telemetry studies.
From 2004-2008 served as project scientist. Duties included mapping riverbank vegetation of
the Virgin river, from the lower reach in Nevada through the confluence with Lake Mead.
Ground-truthed plant assemblages based on aerial imagery and 3-dimensional (stereoscopic)
views of vegetation. Familiar with cadastral and rastral imagery analysis.
From 9/2005-11/2008 served on consultant basis. Prepared EIS/EIR analysis for impacts to
peregrine falcon and special status bat species from the Gerald Desmond Bridge Project, in the
Port of Long Beach, California.
Enercon

9/2005-11/2008

Tulsa, Oklahoma
Project Biologist

Fulltime from 7/2008-11/2008, consulting status from 9/2005 to 5/2007. Served as project
biologist, performing a range of work from baseline surveys for the Oklahoma Department of
Transportation, preparing NEPA documents, preparing and responding to Requests for

 Proposals and Requests for Qualifications. Representative projects include coordination of
environmental studies and preparation of an Environmental Assessment for the Federal
Highway Administration, on behalf of Kellogg Engineering, in Rogers County, Oklahoma.
Conducted public scoping and agency solicitation, attending county plenary sessions as
technical environmental consultant. Prepared an Environmental Information Document for the
Environmental Protection Agency for the expansion of the Rural Water District #3 Tacora
Water Treatment plant in Rogers County, OK. Conduct protocol surveys for the federally
endangered American burying beetle on behalf of clients such as Chesapeake Operating
Systems, OKDOT, and Panther Energy Company, surveyed new pipeline routes from Oklahoma
though northern Texas for OG&E.
Representative Project: City of Moreno Valley, Riverside Co., California. Prepared Caltrans’
Natural Environment Study for improvements to SR-60 at the Moreno Beach Drive and
Nason Street interchanges. Studies included oversight of a jurisdictional delineation of
wetlands and waters of the U.S., and coordination with project engineers to determine
project boundaries and impacts. Developed mitigation in conformance with the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
BonTerra Consulting

2/2004 – 10/2004

Pasadena, California
Wildlife Biologist

Draft RFQ/RFP, perform general biological surveys on behalf of public and private sector
clients, and prepare CEQA/NEPA documentation. Representative Project: Plum Canyon
Development, Los Angeles Co., California: Conducted salvage (pitfall trapping & grubbing
salvage) and relocation of sensitive and local populations of reptiles and amphibians.
Species handled included Western spadefoot toad, coastal western whiptail, and silvery
legless lizard. Coordinated with CDFG regarding species of special concern, drafting
relocation plans, and assisted with developing a protocol to simulate and force spring
emergence and subsequent relocation of spadefoot toads prior to grubbing.
Sapphos Environmental

12/2000-2/2003

Pasadena, California
Wildlife Biologist

Responsible for all phases of project management and biological technical work. Responded
to and prepared RFP/RFQ, designed and conducted environmental study sufficient to project
details (i.e. determination and development of appropriate ESA, NEPA, CEQA, Clean Water
Act permits); and prepared environmental documentation. Prepared and conducted all
public noticing and scoping per regulations, and prepared as technical consultant before the
county and city and planning committees of Ventura and Los Angeles.
Representative Project: Ahmanson Ranch, Ventura County, California: Conducted long-term
monitoring of a population of California red-legged frog with detailed notes as to location,
behavior, and conditions.
Assisted permitted biologists in placing passive integrated
transponders, or PIT tags, as part of a radio telemetry study designed to aid understanding
of habitat use and foraging distances. Assisted with the preparation of a Biological
Assessment for an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation. Managed the design and
creation of enclosed habitat and a captive breeding program. Prepared monthly status
reports, and conducted various studies at the Ahmanson Ranch, including San Fernando
Valley spineflower introduction studies, seed counts and collections, and oak tree surveys
and assessments.
EDUCATION

M.S. Zoology, Eastern Illinois
University
Focus: environmental ecology;
population dynamics
Paid Teacher’s Assistantship
B.S., Biology, Western Michigan

2000

1998

 University
Minor in Chemistry
RELEVANT TRAINING &
Affiliations



Member of inter-agency Raven Management Group, as a
representative of the Energy Commission



Desert Tortoise Surveying, Monitoring, and Handling Workshop,
(2000)
BLM certified to survey for the flat-tailed horned lizard (2001)
California red-legged frog workshop (2001)
Passed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service survey exam for El Segundo
blue butterfly (2002)
American Burying Beetle Bait-away Surveys and Pitfall Trapping
(performed under a permitted biologist’ supervision), 2006-2007






 CASEY W. WEAVER, PG, CEG
1621 Delta Drive
Woodland, CA 95695
(530) 662-0482

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE:
Certified Engineering Geologist with over 20 years of environmental and
geotechnical consulting experience. Experience includes remedial investigations
and feasibility studies (RI/FS), groundwater investigations, corrective action plans,
landfill studies (SWATs, siting, closure), preliminary environmental site
assessments (PESA, Phase I), regulatory compliance (RCRA/CERCLA),
geotechnical investigation/evaluation, geologic hazard evaluations, active fault
evaluations, seismic studies, landslide evaluation/repair, foundation suitability
studies, personnel management and business development.

EDUCATION:
B.S. Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1981
University of California, Davis Extension Courses

REGISTRATIONS/LICENCES/CERTIFICATIONS:
Certified Engineering Geologist, California
Registered Geologist, California, Oregon, Arizona
Registered Environmental Assessor
OSHA 1910.120 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response - 40hr
OSHA 1910.120 Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response Supervising Operations at Hazardous Waste Sites.

PROFESSIONAL HISTORY:

2008 to Present

Engineering Geologist
California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA
Duties within the Geosciences Unit of the Engineering Office in the
Siting, Transmission, and Environmental Protection Division
include review and evaluation of applications for certification of
thermal power plants within the state of California. The focus of the
work is on sensitive project sites that may have issues involving
geologic hazards, paleontological, mineralogical, groundwater and
surface water resources, soil erosion, flooding potential, water
quality and plant-derived waste generation and disposal. In
addition, evaluate construction, operation and maintenance of the
facilities and conduct investigations to determine if violations of the

 program’s regulations, the Energy Commission’s conditions of
certification, or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
have occurred.
Selected as the Energy Commission's seismic expert and CEC’s
representative on the multi-jurisdictional Independent Peer Review
Panel which reviews and provides comments to major utilities
regarding their seismic investigations and evaluations conducted
for California's nuclear power plants.

2001 to 2008

Engineering Geologist
State Water Resources Control Board, Headquarters, Sacramento,
CA
With the UST Enforcement Unit, under direction from the State
Attorney General’s Office, conducted inspections of UST systems
to evaluate compliance with 1998 upgrade requirements. This
work culminated in the largest settlement of its kind in the nation’s
history. In addition, conducted surveillance of unlawful discharges
from remediation systems and conducted investigations of UST
Fund fraud cases.
With the USTCF Technical Review Unit, evaluated the technical
elements of USTCF claims.
With the Division of Financial Assistance, assisted with the
development of program policy for the Agricultural Water Quality
Grant Program ($46 million) and the Integrated Water Quality Grant
Program ($380 million), participated in stakeholder workshops,
contributed to multijurisdictional work groups for program
development and implementation.
With the Special Operations Unit of the Office of Enforcement,
conducted investigations of operator misconduct, wrote
enforcement investigation reports and prepared disciplinary letters.

1998 to 2001

Senior Engineering Geologist
BSK & Associates, Rancho Cordova, CA
Designed and directed hydrogeologic investigations for use with
environmental remediation projects. Supervised field personnel
installing groundwater monitoring wells, conducting aquifer tests &
SVE pilot tests, reviewed reports and workplans, and conducted
business development.
Conducted review of Alquist-Priolo active fault hazard reports as
county geologist for Kern County.

 1993 to 1998

Senior Geologist, Geoscience Team Leader and RI/FS Task
Leader
LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento,
CA
As Geoscience Team Leader, responsible for career development,
training and personnel management of ten employees. This group
consisted of 3 senior-level geologists, 4 project level geologists and
scientists, 2 junior level geologists and 1 technician.
As RI/FS Task Leader, responsible for the development of cost
estimates/budgets, preparation of Work Plans and Sampling and
Analysis Plans, management of field activities, data collection and
documentation associated with the investigation of 15 Installation
Restoration Program sites at Beale Air Force Base awarded under
several Delivery Orders with combined project budgets of $18
million. Also responsible for aerial photographic interpretations
associated with a basewide (23,000 acres), Preliminary
Assessment, and preparation of a basewide Hydrogeologic
Evaluation Report.

1990 to 1993

Senior Project Manger/General Manager
Earthtec, Ltd., Roseville, CA
Management of Environmental Department, business
development, preparation of cost estimates and proposals, client
and regulatory agency interface, supervision and training, report
writing, technical review, budget management, and quality control.
Initiated and supported the development of company’s wetland and
wildlife departments. Typical projects included preliminary site
assessments, soil vapor studies, detailed hydrogeologic
evaluations, waste plume delineations, and development of
remediation alternatives associated with landfills, service stations,
bulk oil facilities and other potentially contaminated sites.

1981 to 1990

Project Geologist
SHN Group, Inc. Eureka, CA
Managed project work directed toward solving environmental issues
at variably contaminated sites and provided geotechnical information
for land development and construction. Responsibilities included
development of cost estimates/budgets, planned and supervised field
operations, collected and interpreted subsurface information,
evaluated areas traversed by Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones
and sites subject to slope stability hazards. Typical projects included
geotechnical evaluations and geologic hazard studies for major
subdivisions, hospitals, schools, lumber companies, run-of-the-river

 hydroelectric projects, underground storage tank sites, and solid
waste landfills.

1979 to 1981

Geologist/Seismologic Technician
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, CA
Designed and operated a laboratory model to study surface effects of
thrust faulting in connection with seismic evaluation studies for the
PG&E Humboldt Bay nuclear reactor. In addition, installed and
operated field seismographs in the Humboldt Bay region.

 WILLIAM WALTERS, PE
 

Senior Associate, Engineering and Physical Sciences

Academic Background 
BS, Chemical Engineering, Cornell University, 1985 

Professional Experience 
Mr. Walters has over 25 years of technical and project management experience specializing in air quality 
environmental compliance work, including environmental impact reports, criteria pollutant and green‐
house gas emissions inventories, source permitting, as well as experience in RCRA/CERCLA site assess‐
ment and closure, site inspection, source monitoring, and energy and pollution control research. 

Aspen Environmental Group ..................................................................................2000‐present 
He is responsible as the environmental issue area technical lead and/or project manager of environmental 
projects. Specific responsibilities and relevant projects include the following: 


Power  Plant  Siting  Projects,  California  Energy  Commission  (CEC),  Air  Quality  Analyst  and  Project 
Manager  (2000‐present).  Multiple  Projects.  Aspen  is  assisting  the  CEC  in  evaluating  the  environ‐
mental and engineering aspects of new power plant applications throughout the State. As part of this 
effort,  Mr.  Walters  is  serving  or  has  served  as  a  technical  specialist  and  project  manager  for  air 
quality assessments for over two dozen power plant projects. He completed or is completing the air 
quality staff assessments and as necessary has provided or will provide expert witness testimony for 
the following power plant projects: 



























Hydrogen Energy California Power Plant (2008‐present). Kern County. 
Carlsbad Energy Center Power Plant (2007‐2012). San Diego County. 
Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Project (2009‐2010). San Bernardino County. 
Rice Solar Energy Project (2009‐2010). Riverside County. 
Ridgecrest Solar Power Project (2009‐2010). Kern County. 
Palen Solar Power Project (2009‐2010). Riverside County. 
Blythe Solar Power Project (2009‐2010). Riverside County. 
Genesis Solar Energy Project (2009‐2010). Riverside County 
Abengoa Mojave Solar Project (2009‐2010). San Bernardino County. 
Calico Solar Project (2008‐2010). San Bernardino County. 
Imperial Valley Solar (2008‐2010). Imperial County. 
Beacon Solar Energy Project (2008‐2010). Kern County. 
Canyon Power Plant Project (2008‐2010). Orange County. 
Orange Grove Power Plant Project (2007‐2009). San Diego County. 
Chula Vista Energy Upgrade Project (2007‐2009). San Diego County. 
Riverside Energy Resource Center Units 3&4 (2008). Riverside County. 
Colusa Generating Station (2006‐2008). Colusa County. 
Starwood Power‐Midway Peaking Power Plant (2006‐2007). Fresno County. 
Panoche Energy Center (2006‐2007). Fresno County. 
Pastoria Energy Facility Expansion (2005‐2006). Kern County. 
Riverside Energy Resource Center (2004). Riverside County. 
Walnut Energy Center (2002‐2003). Stanislaus County. 
Modesto Irrigation District Electric Generation Station (2003). San Joaquin County. 
Salton Sea Unit 6 Project (2002‐2003). Imperial County. 
Magnolia Power Project (2001‐2003). Los Angeles County. 
San Joaquin Valley Energy Center (2001‐2003). Fresno County. 

 William Walters, PE, page 2 

 










Tracy Peaking Power Plant Project (2001‐2002). San Joaquin County. 
Henrietta Peaker Project (2001‐2002). Kings County. 
Woodland Generating Station 2 (2001). Stanislaus County. 
Huntington Beach Modernization Project (2000‐2001). Orange County. 
United Golden Gate, Phase I (2000‐2001). San Francisco County. 
Hanford Energy Park (2000‐2001). Kings County. 
Significant work product completion on several other projects that were suspended by the project 
applicants  including  the  Avenal  Energy  Project,  Colusa  Power  Project,  Roseville  Energy  Center, 
Ocotillo Energy Project Phase 1, Bullard Energy Center, and Rio Linda/Elverta Power Plant Project. 

Power  Plant  Siting  Projects,  CEC,  Amendment/Compliance  Assessments  for  Air  Quality  or  Visual 
Plume  Impacts  (2001‐Current).  Multiple  Projects.  He  completed  the  air  quality  staff  assessments, 
the visual plume or plume air quality staff assessments, or the condition of certification compliance 
assessments for the following power plant projects: 
































Carlsbad Energy Center Project (2014‐current). San Diego County. 
Black Rock 1, 2, and 3 Geothermal Power Plant Major Amendment (2009‐2011). Imperial County 
Hanford Combined Cycle Power Plant Amendment (2008‐2009). Kings County 
Henrietta Combined Cycle Power Plant Amendment (2008‐2009). Kings County 
Colusa Generating Station (2008‐2009). Colusa County. 
Proctor & Gamble Cogeneration Project (2008). Sacramento County. 
Roseville Energy Center (2008). Sacramento County. 
Starwood Power‐Midway Peaking Power Plant (2008). Fresno County. 
Panoche Energy Center (2008). Fresno County. 
Palomar Energy Center (2006‐2008). San Diego County. 
SMUD Cosumnes Power Plant (2004 and 2008). Sacramento County. 
El Segundo Power Plant (2007). Los Angeles County. 
Russell City Energy Center (2007). Alameda County. 
Inland Empire Energy Center (2006). Riverside County. 
Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility (2006). Santa Clara County. 
Blythe Energy Project Phase II (2005). Riverside County. 
Salton Sea Unit 6 Project (2005). Imperial County. 
Metcalf Energy Center (2004‐2005). Santa Clara County. 
Riverside Energy Resource Center (2004‐2005). Riverside County. 
Blythe Energy Power Plant (2003‐2005). Riverside County. 
Pastoria Power Plant (2004). Kern County. 
Donald Von Raesfeld Power Plant Project (2004). Santa Clara County. 
Magnolia Power Project (2004). Los Angeles County. 
Walnut Energy Center (2004). Stanislaus County. 
San Joaquin Valley Energy Center (2004). Fresno County. 
City of Vernon Malburg Generating Station (2004). Los Angeles County. 
Otay Mesa Power Plant (2003). San Diego County. 
Elk Hills Power Plant (2003). Kern County. 
Delta Energy Center (2003). Contra Costa County. 
Henrietta Peaker Project (2003). Kings County. 
Tracy Peaker Project (2003). San Joaquin County. 

 William Walters, PE, page 3 

 


Power  Plant  Siting  Projects,  CEC,  Visible  Plume/Plume  Turbulence  Analyst  (2000‐2011).  Multiple 
Projects. Mr. Walters served as a technical specialist for the visible plume assessment and/or plume 
turbulence  hazard  assessment  for  over  three  dozen  power  plant  projects  and  has  completed  the 
visual plume or plume turbulence assessments, and as necessary has provided or will provide expert 
witness testimony, for the following power plant projects: 












































Hydrogen Energy California Power Plant (2008‐2010). Kern County. 
Oakley Generating Station (2010‐2011). Contra Costa County 
Mariposa Energy Project (2009‐2011). Alameda County 
Palmdale Hybrid Power Plant Project (2009‐2011). Los Angeles County. 
Watson Cogeneration Steam and Electric Reliability Project (2009‐2011). Los Angeles County. 
CPV Vaca Station Project (2008‐2011). Yolo Solano County. 
Carlsbad Energy Center Power Project (2007‐2011). San Diego County. 
Abengoa Mojave Solar Project (2009‐2010). San Bernardino County. 
Blythe Solar Power Project (2009‐2010). Riverside County. 
Genesis Solar Energy Project (2009‐2010). Riverside County. 
Lodi Energy Center (2009‐2010). San Joaquin County. 
San Joaquin Solar 1&2 Power Plant (2009). Fresno County. 
Beacon Solar Energy Project (2008‐2009). Kern County. 
Canyon Power Plant Project (2008‐2010). Orange County. 
GWF Tracy Combined‐Cycle Power Plant (2008‐2009). San Joaquin County. 
San Gabriel Generating Station (2007‐2008). San Bernardino County. 
Eastshore  Energy  Power  Project,  including  expert  witness  testimony  (2007‐2008).  Alameda 
County. 
Chevron Richmond Power Plant Replacement Project (2007). Contra Costa County. 
Bullard Energy Center (2007). Fresno County. 
CPV Sentinel Energy Project (2007). Riverside County. 
Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project (2007). San Bernardino County. 
AES Highgrove Power Plant (2006‐2007). San Bernardino County. 
Southeast Regional Energy Center (2006‐2007). Los Angeles County. 
Sun Valley Energy Project (2006‐2007). Riverside County. 
Walnut Creek Energy Park (2006‐2007). Los Angeles County. 
Russell City Energy Center (2001 and 2007). Alameda County. 
South Bay Replacement Project (2006). San Diego County. 
Panoche Energy Center (2006‐2007). Fresno County. 
Colusa Generating Station (2006‐2007). Colusa County. 
Starwood Power‐Midway Peaking Power Plant (2006‐2007). Fresno County. 
Pastoria Energy Facility Expansion (2005‐2006). Kern County. 
Blythe Energy Project Phase II (2003‐2005). Riverside County. 
San Francisco Electric Reliability Project (2004). San Francisco County. 
Los Esteros Critical Energy Facility Phase II (2004). Santa Clara County. 
Roseville Energy Park (2003‐2004). Sacramento County. 
Riverside Energy Resource Center (2004). Riverside County. 
Modesto Irrigation District Electric Generation Station (2003). San Joaquin County. 
SMUD Cosumnes Power Plant Project, including expert witness testimony (2002‐2003). Sacramento 
County. 
Donald Von Raesfeld Power Plant Project (2002‐2003). Santa Clara County. 
East Altamont Energy Center, including expert witness testimony (2001‐2003). Alameda County. 
City of Vernon Malburg Generating Station (2001‐2002). Los Angeles County. 

 William Walters, PE, page 4 

 


















Walnut Energy Center (2002‐2003). Stanislaus County. 
Salton Sea Unit 6 Project (2002‐2003). Imperial County. 
Magnolia Power Project (2001‐2003). Los Angeles County. 
Morro Bay Power Plant Project (2001‐2002). San Luis Obispo County. 
Valero Cogeneration Project (2001). Solano County. 
San Joaquin Valley Energy Center (2001‐2003). Fresno County. 
Woodland Generating Station 2 (2001). Stanislaus County. 
Mountainview Power Project (2001). San Bernardino County. 
Potrero Power Plant Project (2001). San Francisco County. 
El Segundo Modernization Project (2001). Los Angeles County. 
Huntington Beach Modernization Project (2001). Orange County. 
United Golden Gate, Phase I (2001). San Francisco County. 
Hanford Energy Park (2001). Kings County. 
Metcalf  Energy  Center  Power  Project,  including  Expert  Witness  Testimony  (2001).  Santa  Clara 
County. 
Contra Costa Power Plant Project, including Expert Witness Testimony (2001). Contra Costa County. 
Significant work product completion on several other projects that were suspended by the project 
applicants  including  the  Avenal  Energy  Project,  Colusa  Power  Project,  Roseville  Energy  Center, 
Ocotillo Energy Project Phase 1, Bullard Energy Center, and Rio Linda/Elverta Power Plant Project. 



Visible  Water  Vapor  Plume  Modeling  Training,  CEC  (2004  and  2011).  He  prepared  instruction 
materials  and  provided  onsite  instruction  of  visible  water  vapor  plume  modeling  methodology  for 
the California Energy Commission in 2004, and updated the training materials and completed onsite 
instruction for additional Energy Commission Staff in 2011. 



Construction  Emissions  Estimation  Training,  CEC  (2012).  He  prepared  instruction  materials  and 
provided  onsite  instruction  of  construction  emissions  estimation  techniques  for  California  Energy 
Commission Air Quality Unit staff. 



Cost of Generation Model Update, CEC, Technical Analyst (2005‐2007, 2009‐2010, 2012‐2013). He 
preparation information requests and performed data analysis to update the Energy Commission’s 
capital and operating cost factors for combined and simple cycle gas turbine projects within the Cost 
of Generation model.  



Natural  Gas  Heat  Content  Study,  CEC  (2005‐2006).  He  prepared  the  staff  paper  “Natural  Gas 
Quality: Power Turbine Performance During Heat Content Surge” for the CEC (2005), and presented 
the preliminary findings at the California Air Resources Board Compressed Natural Gas Workshop, at a 
SoCalGas  Technical  Advisory  Committee  meeting,  and  the  California  Energy  and  at  the  Air  Quality 
Conference (2006). 

Certifications 



Chemical Engineer, California, License 5973 
Lead Verifier – California’s Mandatory GHG Reporting Program 

Air Quality Emissions and Air Dispersion Modeling Expertise 
EMFAC; OFFROAD, CalEEMod, URBEMIS; AERMOD; ISC; CALINE4; CAL3QHC; EDMS.  

 LISA WORRALL
Summary




Preparation of environmental documents in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
California Energy Commission siting regulations, and federal, state and local laws,
ordinances, regulations and standards (LORS).
Projects include thermal power plants, private residential and commercial
development, county and public works, and state transportation.

Employment Experience
California Energy Commission
Planner II




Sacramento, California
January 2010 to Present

Prepare an independent CEQA analysis of the environmental impacts from thermal
power plants related to land use and socioeconomics.
Evaluate projects in accordance with CEQA, the California Energy Commission
siting regulations, and federal, state and local LORS.
Review information provided by the project applicant and other resources to assess
the environmental effects of energy facility proposals

Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review & Assessment
Associate Environmental Analyst
Sacramento, California
April, 2006 – May, 2009





Prepared a variety of environmental documents in compliance with CEQA, NEPA
and local, state and federal LORS.
Conducted project site assessments, reviewed engineering plans, and researched and
interpreted scientific data for project impact analysis.
Managed multiple public works and private development projects with a variety of
environmental concerns and overlapping deadlines.
Maintained effective relationships with other Sacramento County departments,
agencies, and service providers to ensure comments and recommended conditions of
project approval were obtained and any associated environmental impacts assessed.

Analytical Environmental Services
Associate






Sacramento, California
April, 2004 – October, 2005

Interpreted highly technical traffic impact studies, utilizing the information to develop
a traffic impact assessment chapter for use in a variety of environmental documents
complying with CEQA, NEPA, and county and city transportation policies and codes.
Managed the preparation of traffic studies, including developing the scope of study,
securing the contract, and reviewing the work product.
Managed multiple private development projects simultaneously under tight deadlines.
Clients included Native American tribes and cities.
Coordinated with state, county and city officials in the development of traffic study
methodology, parameters and assumptions for proposed projects.

 LISA WORRALL



Worked closely with transportation engineers to understand the complexities of each
project’s specific traffic impacts.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Associate Environmental Planner
Environmental Planner






Fresno, California
March, 2003 – March, 2004
August, 2000 – March, 2003

Prepared all levels of environmental documentation for transportation projects in
compliance with CEQA and NEPA.
Coordinated and interpreted environmental technical studies for incorporation into the
environmental document and for explanation to other team members, agencies, and
the public.
Managed and represented environmental concerns with other functional units.
Led and participated in public outreach events.
Coordinated project development with other Caltrans departments, agencies and the
public.

Education
California State University, Northridge
Bachelor of Arts in Geography

May, 2000

 Preparation
Team

CARLSBAD ENERGY CENTER PROJECT
(07-AFC-06C)
FINAL STAFF ASSESSMENT
PREPARATION TEAM
Executive Summary .............................................................................................. Jon Hilliard
Introduction ...................................................................................................Mike Monasmith
Project Description ........................................................................................Mike Monasmith
Environmental Assessment
Air Quality ...................................................................................... Dave Vidaver\Will Walters
Alternatives .......................................................... Dave Vidaver\Steven Kerr\ Jeanine Hinde
Biological Resources ......................................................................................... Carol Watson
Cultural Resources .............................................................. Melissa Mourkas\Matthew Braun
Hazardous Materials Management ............................................................... Alvin Greenberg
Land Use ...............................................................................................................Mike Baron
Noise & Vibration ..................................... Shahab Khoshmashrab\Joseph Hughes\Ed Brady
Public Health ................................................................................................. Alvin Greenberg
Socioeconomics ................................................................................................... Lisa Worrall
Soil & Water Resources ............................................................Mike Conway\Marylou Taylor
Traffic & Transportation ..................................... Andrea Koch\James Adams\William Walters
Transmission Line Safety & Nuisance ....................................................... Obed Odoemelam
Visual Resources ....................................................................................... William Kanemoto
Engineering Assessment
Facility Design ............................................................ Edward Brady/Shahab Khoshmashrab
Geology & Paleontology .................................................................................. Casey Weaver
Power Plant Efficiency................................................ Edward Brady/Shahab Khoshmashrab
Power Plant Reliability.......................................... Shahab Khoshmashrab/Jacquelyn Record
Transmission System Engineering ................................................... Ajoy Guha\Mark Hesters
Waste Management ............................................................................ Ellie Townsend-Hough
Worker Safety & Fire Protection .................................................................... Alvin Greenberg
Compliance Conditions and Compliance Monitoring Plan...................... Joseph Douglas

February 2015

9-1

PREPARATION TEAM