BILL ANALYSIS � 1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
AB 796 - Muratsuchi Hearing
Date: June 18, 2013 A
As Amended: April 10, 2013 FISCAL B
7
9
6
DESCRIPTION
Current law vests the California Energy Commission (CEC) with
exclusive certification jurisdiction over thermal powerplants
with a generating capacity of 50 megawatts (MW) or more, and any
appurtenant facilities, and permits a developer of a thermal
powerplant with a generating capacity of less than 50 MW to
voluntarily submit to the CEC's exclusive certification
jurisdiction. The CEC is also required to cooperate with the
California Coastal Commission and the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission in studying applications
for sites proposed to be located within the coastal zone, the
Suisun Marsh, or the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission if requested by those
organizations. (Public Resources Codes 25500 and 25508)
Current law mandates that applications for site certification
include a description of the design, construction and operation
of the proposed facility, safety and reliability information,
site information (e.g., geological, ecological, water supply,
etc.), fuel information, electric line information, and other
information deemed necessary by the CEC. (Public Resources Code
25520)
This bill would require that the CEC consider the potential
impacts and damage caused by sea level rise, such as storm
surges and flooding, in the process of certifying a site.
BACKGROUND
The Pacific Institute published a research report in 2009<1>,
funded in part by the CEC, regarding the impacts of sea level
rise on the Californian coastline. Historically, the sea level
in the San Francisco Bay has risen 2.0 millimeters per year
between 1897 and 2006. The research considered impacts of medium
levels of greenhouse gas emissions that predict a sea level rise
ranging from 1.0 to 1.4 meters between 2000 and 2100. The
authors estimated that a 1.4 meter sea level rise would put
480,000 people at higher risk of a 100-year flood event (an
event that has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year). They
also estimated the costs related to property damage from this
flooding to be $100 billion (year 2000 dollars), whereas the
costs of protective seawalls and levees would be on the order of
$14 billion plus additional maintenance costs. Even regions that
are not susceptible to flooding are still susceptible to erosion
processes.
There are currently procedures in place that establish the
review of facility impacts on the environment. Most notably
these are codified in the California Environmental Quality Act.
Furthermore, other legislation has established California's
goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions (AB 32, 2006).
However, neither of these statutes contains provisions that
protect facilities from impacts of potential changes in the
environment.
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) Division of Flood
Management provides statewide flood forecasting and emergency
response activities. The FloodSAFE California program
coordinates federal, state, and local officials in flood
management and emergency response systems throughout California.
The department produces "best available" maps of 100-year,
200-year, and 500-year floodplains, which are intended to inform
local districts for development planning purposes. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) also produces floodplain
maps, but only for 100-year flood events. The maps developed by
the two agencies are not the same, and the National Flood
Insurance Program relies on data from FEMA maps.
COMMENTS
1. Author's Purpose . The author is concerned that sea level
--------------------------
<1> Heberger, M. et al., "The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the
California Coast", 2009, CEC-500-20009-024-F
rise may affect coastal power plants and related
facilities. The bill would require the CEC to consider
effects related to sea level rise on future power plants,
including risks due to storm surge and flooding. Current
law requires the CEC to consider the effects of the
facility on the environment, but does not require the
consideration of the reverse: effects of the environment on
the facility.
2. Common Sense ? It seems obvious that when considering the
site of a facility, an agency should consider and plan for
the effects of potential changes in the environment. This
is a somewhat difficult task because of the inherent
uncertainty in predictive models. However, incorporating a
review of potential sea level rise into the planning
structure could help prevent significant damage from storm
surges and flooding.
3. Better Safe Than Sorry . The magnitude of sea level rise
is not precisely determined and could range depending on a
variety of factors. CEC considerations will have to be
flexible enough to accommodate mild to severe sea level
rise. The bill is not specific in its direction, so the
exact implementation of considerations will be at the
discretion of the CEC.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Assembly Floor (54-20)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (12-5)
Assembly Natural Resources Committee
(6-2)
Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee
(12-3)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
California Coastkeeper Alliance
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Sierra Club California
Oppose:
None on file.
Kyle Hiner
AB 796 Analysis
Hearing Date: June 18, 2013