BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  AB 1318
                                                                  Page 1

          Date of Hearing:  May 11, 2009

                       ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                                Nancy Skinner, Chair
                    AB 1318 (V. Perez) - As Amended:  May 4, 2009
           
          SUBJECT  :  South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD):   
          emission reduction credits for electrical generating facilities

           SUMMARY  :  Establishes special air pollution permitting and  
          mitigation procedures, which are applicable to one power plant,  
          in order to circumvent an unfavorable court ruling and  
          facilitate construction of the power plant.

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Under the federal Clean Air Act:

             a)   Requires each major new and modified source of air  
               pollution to undergo "new source review" to ensure that  
               facilities install the best available control equipment,  
               obtain emission reduction credits, or "offsets," for any  
               new emissions, and comply with any other requirement to  
               ensure that the new and modified sources do not adversely  
               affect air quality. 

             b)   Provides that, except as otherwise stated, the Act does  
               not preclude a state or any political subdivision from  
               adopting standards or requirements for the reduction of air  
               pollution.

          2)Designates the state Air Resources Board (ARB) as the air  
            pollution control agency responsible for the coordination of  
            the activities of air pollution control districts and air  
            quality management districts for the purposes of the federal  
            Clean Air Act. 

          3)Subject to the powers of the ARB, requires air districts to  
            adopt and enforce rules and regulations to achieve and  
            maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards  
            in all areas affected by non-vehicular emission sources under  
            their jurisdiction. 

          4)Authorizes each air district to establish a permit system that  
            requires, except as specified, that before any person builds,  








                                                                  AB 1318
                                                                  Page 2

            erects, alters, replaces, operates, or uses any article,  
            machine, equipment, or other contrivance that may cause the  
            issuance of air contaminants, the person obtain a permit from  
            the air pollution control officer of the district. 

          5)Authorizes air districts, among their general powers, to  
            establish offset systems, by which reductions in air pollution  
            at one source may be used to offset certain future increases  
            in air pollution at another source.  The SCAQMD requires  
            sources to obtain offsets for increased emissions of  
            nonattainment pollutants, including sulfur oxides (SOx) and  
            fine particulate matter (PM10), in excess of 0.5 pounds per  
            day.  The SCAQMD has adopted rules creating internal offset  
            accounts, including a "priority reserve" account to provide  
            offsets for essential public services and other priority  
            sources, including power plants under certain circumstances  
            (SCAQMD Rule 1309.1).

          6)Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),  
            requires a lead agency with the principal responsibility for  
            carrying out or approving a proposed discretionary project to  
            evaluate the environmental effects of its action and prepare a  
            negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or  
            environmental impact report (EIR).  If an initial study shows  
            that the project may have a significant effect on the  
            environment, the lead agency must prepare an EIR.  Generally,  
            an EIR must accurately describe the proposed project, identify  
            and analyze each significant environmental effect expected to  
            result from the proposed project, identify mitigation measures  
            to reduce those impacts to the extent feasible, and evaluate a  
            range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project.  If  
            mitigation measures are required or incorporated into a  
            project, the agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring  
            program to ensure compliance with those measures.

          7)Grants the California Energy Commission (CEC) exclusive  
            authority to license thermal power plants 50 megawatts and  
            larger and requires consultation with specified agencies,  
            including the applicable air district.  

          8)Requires the CEC to find that a proposed power plant conforms  
            to a variety of standards, including applicable air quality  
            standards.  The CEC may not find that a power plant conforms  
            to applicable air quality standards unless the applicable air  
            district certifies that complete emissions offsets for the  








                                                                 AB 1318
                                                                  Page 3

            proposed plant have been identified and will be obtained by  
            the applicant within the time required by the district's  
            rules.  The applicant must obtain any required emission  
            offsets within the time required by the applicable district  
            rules, consistent with any applicable federal and state laws  
            and regulations, and prior to the commencement of the  
            operation of the power plant.

          9)The CEC process is a certified regulatory program under CEQA,  
            meaning the CEC staff report on an application for  
            certification of a power plant serves in lieu of an EIR.  In  
            approving a power plant, the CEC has the authority to override  
            any contrary state or local decision if it makes specified  
            findings.  Judicial review of a CEC power plant license  
            decision is limited to the state Supreme Court.

           THIS BILL  :

          1)Includes extensive findings and declarations to support the  
            argument that new fossil power plants are urgently needed to  
            serve the Los Angeles region.

          2)Requires the SCAQMD's executive officer, in cooperation with  
            the CEC, to transfer from the SCAQMD's internal offset  
            accounts to "eligible electrical generation facilities"  
            offsets up to the following amounts:

             a)   0.1 tons (200 pounds) per day of SOx.

             b)   0.6 tons (1200 pounds) per day of PM10.

          3)Establishes the following eligibility criteria for electrical  
            generation facilities, which limit the application of the bill  
            to the proposed CPV Sentinel power plant in Riverside County:

             a)   Have a purchase agreement, executed on or before  
               December 31, 2008, to provide electricity to a public  
               utility (i.e. Southern California Edison) for use within  
               the Los Angeles Basin Local Reliability Area.

             b)   Be under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD, but not within  
               the South Coast Air Basin.

          4)Permits the SCAQMD to rely on existing rules for tracking  
            offsets (Rule 1315), making priority reserve offsets available  








                                                                  AB 1318
                                                                  Page 4

            to power plants (Rule 1309.1), and establishing offset prices  
            in the form of mitigation fees (Rule 1309.1) (notwithstanding  
            the fact that the ruling in NRDC, et al  v. SCAQMD has  
            enjoined the implementation of these rules).

          5)Provides that offsets issued pursuant to the bill shall  
            satisfy all state and district requirements related to the  
            provision of offsets for new power plants.

          6)Requires payment for offsets according to a schedule of  
            mitigation fees included in Rule 1309.1.  Requires fees to be  
            used for emission reduction purposes, at least 30 percent in  
            areas within close proximity to the power plant and at least  
            30 percent in areas designated by the SCAQMD as "environmental  
            justice areas."

          7)Provides the CEC exclusive authority to review the  
            environmental impact of, and impose mitigation for, the  
            executive officer's acts related to transferring offsets to  
            the power plant, overriding CEQA and related laws governing  
            air district authority over air quality standards.  Requires  
            the CEC to complete its review within 60 days of the effective  
            date of this bill.

          8)Permits the CEC to find that offsets transferred pursuant to  
            this bill conform to air quality standards without  
            certification by the SCAQMD.

          9)Provides the actions of the CEC shall be subject to judicial  
            review only by the State Supreme Court.

          10)Requires the bill to be implemented in a manner consistent  
            with the federal Clean Air Act.

          11)Provides that the bill shall remain in effect until January  
            1, 2013.

          12)Contains an urgency clause.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  Unknown

           COMMENTS  :

           1)Background.   Emission reduction credit banking is defined as  
            "a system? by which reductions in emissions may be banked or  








                                                                  AB 1318
                                                                  Page 5

            otherwise credited to offset future increases?or a calculation  
            method which enables internal emission reductions to be  
            credited against increases" (Health and Safety Code Section  
            40709.5).  Once created, emission reduction credits may be  
            banked with the district for future use by the source that  
            generated them, used concurrently to offset new projects, or  
            sold to other sources for use as mitigation.

            The most common method of creating emission reduction credits  
            is to control or curtail the emissions from an existing  
            stationary source.  Control of emissions is generally from the  
            application of emission control technology beyond that which  
            is required by any regulation or rule.  Curtailment could be  
            from a change in operating hours of a source, or through the  
            shutdown of a source.  Credits must be generated pursuant to  
            district rules and regulations, and must be reviewed and  
            certified by the district.

            The SCAQMD has adopted a variety of rules to govern the use of  
            offsets in the district, including Rule 1309.1, which  
            establishes a "priority reserve" account for essential public  
            services, and Rule 1315, which governs the tracking of offsets  
            used within the district.

            In 2007, SCAQMD adopted changes to these rules to permit the  
            transfer of offsets to power plants in exchange for mitigation  
            fees at prices set in the rules.  A group of environmental and  
            environmental justice groups (NRDC, et al) sued SCAQMD,  
            alleging violations of CEQA, including failure to analyze or  
            mitigate the significant environmental effects of the rules.  

            In NRDC, et al v. SCAQMD (Los Angeles Superior Court, 2007,  
            No. BS 110792), the court sided with the plaintiffs, finding  
            the SCAQMD's rule changes are subject to CEQA and enjoining  
            the distribution of offsets from the priority reserve account  
            until SCAQMD prepares the appropriate CEQA documentation.   
            SCAQMD has appealed the Superior Court ruling and begun  
            preparing an EIR for its rule changes.  The plaintiffs have  
            filed a separate suit in federal court alleging the offsets  
            held in SCAQMD's internal accounts are not valid under the  
            Clean Air Act.  The federal suit is pending.

            According to the CEC: 

               The CPV Sentinel Energy Project is a proposed  








                                                                  AB 1318
                                                                  Page 6

               nominally rated 850-megawatt electrical generating  
               facility.  The power plant site encompasses 37 acres  
               of land situated within unincorporated Riverside  
               County, California.

               The proposed project consists of eight natural  
               gas-fired General Electric LMS100 combustion turbine  
               generators operating in simple cycle mode.  The  
               project will supply quick-start peaking capacity,  
               energy, and ancillary services into the California  
               Independent System Operator's Los Angeles Basin Local  
               Capacity Requirement Area, which has been identified  
               as an area in need of additional peaking capacity to  
               meet resource adequacy requirements and ensure grid  
               reliability.

               The proposed project will be constructed,  
               commissioned, owned, and operated by CPV Sentinel.   
               CPV Sentinel anticipates selling the capacity, energy,  
               and ancillary services under long-term contract to one  
               or more load serving entities.  CPV Sentinel has a  
               power purchase agreement with Southern California  
               Edison for five of the units and anticipates securing  
               an agreement to sell the capacity, energy, and  
               ancillary services under long-term contract to one or  
               more load-serving entities for the remaining three  
               units.

            The CPV Sentinel power plant is under review by the CEC, but  
            cannot be approved until CPV obtains the offsets necessary to  
            mitigate its emissions.  According to CPV, it must obtain 173  
            tons/year of PM10 offsets and 16.4 tons/year of SOx offsets to  
            satisfy SCAQMD (and therefore CEC) permit conditions, obtain  
            financing, and commence construction.  Until the ruling in  
            NRDC, et al v. SCAQMD, CPV had been depending on obtaining  
            offsets from the SCAQMD's priority reserve accounts.  The  
            SCAQMD planned to provide offsets from the priority reserve to  
            power plants in exchange for mitigation fees at prices  
            significantly lower than limited offsets available in private  
            markets.  Recent trades of PM10 offsets in private markets  
            have been reported at over six times the fees SCAQMD planned  
            to collect from CPV Sentinel for offsets from its internal  
            accounts.

            At the prices set in Rule 1309.1, it appears CPV would pay  








                                                                  AB 1318
                                                                  Page 7

            SCAQMD mitigation fees of approximately $48 million for PM10  
            and $1.4 million for SOx.  The bill requires these fees to be  
            used for unspecified emission reduction purposes, at least 30  
            percent in areas within close proximity to the power plant and  
            at least 30 percent in areas designated by the SCAQMD as  
            "environmental justice areas."  SCAQMD rules permit the  
            district to spend 10 percent of the fees for its  
            administrative costs.

           2)Is it necessary for the Legislature to intervene in the  
            litigation?   There is a clear administrative remedy under  
            existing law to permit the SCAQMD to resume issuing offsets  
            from its internal accounts - the certification of an EIR for  
            the rule changes.  The preparation of an EIR which meets the  
            requirements of CEQA, which is already underway and could be  
            completed by the end of 2009, will permit the SCAQMD to resume  
            transferring any valid offsets it holds in its accounts to  
            eligible sources.  There are also the potential judicial  
            remedies of settlement or reversing the Superior Court ruling  
            on appeal.   

          3)Should the interests of one power plant be placed above all  
            other sources?   This bill commits a significant share of  
            offsets in the SCAQMD's internal accounts to a single power  
            plant, even though there are hundreds, if not thousands, of  
            other sources within the district, including essential public  
            services and other power plants, that may need offsets to  
            operate and there may not be sufficient valid offsets to go  
            around.  
           
           4)Should the permitting process be altered to favor quick  
            approval of one power plant?   Essentially, this bill asks the  
            Legislature to set aside a court ruling and the normal  
            permitting process for the sake of approving the CPV Sentinel  
            power plant.  To accomplish this, the bill alters the process  
            for reviewing two distinct projects.  One project is the power  
            plant, which is subject to CEQA-equivalent environmental  
            review by the CEC in a process where the determination of  
            compliance with air quality standards is made by the air  
            district.  The other project is the SCAQMD rule changes that  
            affect the way that offsets are used in the district, which  
            requires environmental review by the district pursuant to  
            CEQA.  
             
            This bill proposes to lump both projects together and give CEC  








                                                                  AB 1318
                                                                  Page 8

            exclusive authority and 60 days to approve both, withdrawing  
            the SCAQMD's authority to determine the power plant's  
            compliance with air quality standards, as well as the SCAQMD's  
            obligation to review its rule changes under CEQA, at least for  
            purposes to transferring offsets to this power plant.

            The new process proposed by the bill (subdivision (g) on page  
            5, line 26 through page 6, line 17), appears to be designed to  
            circumvent the injunction in NRDC, et al v. SCAQMD, facilitate  
            quick approval of the power plant, and insulate the applicant  
            from future lawsuits.  

            Subdivision (g):

                     Overrides CEQA by giving the CEC exclusive authority  
                 to review the environmental impacts of the SCAQMD's  
                 actions.

                     Overrides the CEC process with regard to air quality  
                 by authorizing the CEC to find the project conforms to  
                 air quality standards without the approval of the SCAQMD.

                     Requires the CEC to complete its review within 60  
                 days of the bill's enactment.

                     Provides that the above actions by the CEC may only  
                 be reviewed by the state Supreme Court under a limited  
                 scope of review prescribed by statute.

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support 
           
          Building Industry Association, Desert Chapter
          Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
          Competitive Power Ventures, Inc. (co-sponsor)
          Councilman Scott Matas, City of Desert Hot Springs
          Desert Water Agency
          Environmental Service Professionals
          GE Energy Financial Services
          Mayor Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City
          Mayor Stephen Pougnet, City of Palm Springs
          Mayor Yvonne Parks, City of Desert Hot Springs
          Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation
          State Building and Construction Trades Council (co-sponsor)








                                                                  AB 1318
                                                                  Page 9

          Southern California Edison
          Supervisor Marion Ashley, 5th District, Riverside County
          Supervisor Roy Wilson, 4th District, Riverside County

          Opposition 
           
          Breath California (unless amended)
          California Communities Against Toxics (unless amended
          California Environmental Rights Alliance (unless amended)
          California League of Conservation Voters (unless amended)
          Natural Resources Defense Council (unless amended)
          Sierra Club California (unless amended)
          Union of Concerned Scientists (unless amended)
           

          Analysis Prepared by :  Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)  
          319-2092