BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 387
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senator Jerry Hill, Chair
2013-2014 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 387
AUTHOR: Wright
AMENDED: As Introduced
FISCAL: Yes HEARING DATE: April 17, 2013
URGENCY: No CONSULTANTS: Laura
Feinstein and Rachel Machi
Wagoner
SUBJECT : COASTAL RESOURCES: ONCE-THROUGH COOLING
SUMMARY :
Existing law :
1) The federal Clean Water Act:
a) Requires that the location, design, construction, and
capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the
best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact (�316(b)).
b) Authorizes the point source discharge of pollutants
to navigable waters through National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits (�402).
2) The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is
designated as the state water pollution control agency
under the Clean Water Act (California Water Code ��13160,
13372, 13377, 40 CFR parts 122, 123, and 124).
3) The State and Regional Water Boards regulate waste
discharges that could affect water quality and issue NPDES
permits (California Water Code ��13263 and 13377).
a) In 2010 the SWRCB issued a statewide policy on the
use of once-through cooling at existing powerplants
(referred to as the "OTC policy.") The OTC policy
requires that powerplants adopt measures to reduce
SB 387
Page 2
aquatic organism mortality from once-through cooling by
following two possible tracks:
Track 1 requires conversion to closed-cycle cooling or
dry cooling. Track 1 is expected to reduce entrainment
mortality (in which organisms are sucked through the
cooling system) by 93%, and impingement mortality
(caused by trapping organisms against water intake
screens) by 100%.
Track 2 allows the facility to continue using
once-through cooling, but requires operational or
structural controls to reduce mortality to a comparable
level to that which would be achieved under Track 1. A
"comparable level" achieves at least 90% of the
reductions expected under Track 1 (that is, to decrease
mortality from entrainment and impingement by at least
83% and 90%, respectively).
Deadlines were set for each powerplant on a case-by-case
basis depending on the complexity of the facility's plan
and local power needs. Deadlines are reviewed annually
in case extensions are necessary to ensure electrical
grid reliability. Three powerplants have already
complied with the policy; the remaining fifteen are
scheduled to comply by 2029 or earlier.
This bill requires the SWRCB to permit once-through cooling to
continue at existing powerplants to the extent allowable by
federal law.
COMMENTS :
1) Purpose of Bill . The author's intention is for the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to authorize the use
of a once-through cooling system for an existing powerplant
facility, but only to the extent that it is allowed by
federal law under the Clean Water Act, including any
federal regulations adopted by the US Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA).
According to the author, there is already extensive federal
SB 387
Page 3
regulation of once-through cooling. The US EPA intends to
publish final rules on once-through cooling no later than
June 27, 2013, that will limit impingement to a similar
degree as California's policy and will review options for
reducing entrainment on a case-by-case basis.
The author argues that California's OTC policy far exceeds
the US EPA's rules. The author states that the OTC policy
calls for the retirement or extensive modification of 19
powerplants within the state that are critical for electric
system and local electric reliability. The author argues
that California's OTC policy is the only one in the nation
that effectively prohibits marine water use by existing
powerplants by requiring "closed-cycle cooling" at all
existing facilities unless an owner/operator can
demonstrate that conversion is infeasible. According to the
author, the costs associated with the SWRCB rules have been
estimated to run into the hundreds of millions, or billions
of dollars.
The author believes that California's rules will not result
in meaningful additional reductions in mortality of aquatic
organisms. The author states that closed-cycle cooling
systems could reduce impingement and entrainment mortality
by up to 98%, compared to the US EPA's targets of 80 to 95%
impingement reduction.
The author is concerned that California's once-through
cooling policy poses grid reliability problems. The author
states that about 12,000 MW of additional electric power
will be needed to replace the electrical generation that
will be lost upon implementation of the California-only
once-through cooling rules. Ten areas of the state in which
electric transmission is constrained - called Local
Capacity Areas (LCAs) - need local powerplants to hold up
grid stability and avoid outages. The author believes that
the San Francisco Bay area, Los Angeles Basin and the San
Diego region may all encounter reliability challenges if
once-through cooling plants are forced to shut down. In
addition, the extended outage of San Onofre Nuclear
Generation Station (SONGS) units 2 and 3 north of San Diego
means the Southern California area may be short of electric
SB 387
Page 4
generating capacity.
2) Terminology .
Once-through cooling by powerplants uses water from a
nearby source, pipes it through heat-exchange systems, and
returns the now warmer water to the source.
Impingement occurs when aquatic organisms are trapped
against water intake screens.
Entrainment is when smaller organisms are sucked through
the system and subjected to heat, turbidity and pressure.
Both impingement and entrainment result in high levels of
mortality.
3) Environmental impacts of once-through cooling . Coastal
powerplants in California are permitted to withdraw nearly
17 billion gallons of seawater per day. Intake water flows
through screens, where organisms can be trapped and killed.
Those that escape the screens are often injured and will
die later. Nearly all the smaller organisms sucked through
the screens die before they are discharged. Animals
impinged and/or entrained by once-through cooling annually
include 431 California sea lions, 281 harbor seals, 56 sea
turtles, over 19.4 billion fish larvae, more than 49,000
endangered Delta smelt, and untold numbers of invertebrate
larvae, which form the basis of the marine food web. Warm
water discharges alter the marine environment, creating
habitat that is inhospitable to native organisms while
fostering invasive species. The consensus among regulatory
agencies at both the state and federal levels is that OTC
systems contribute to the degradation of the aquatic
ecosystem, including declining fisheries and impaired
coastal habitats. Impingement and entrainment impacts are
estimated to equal the loss of biological productivity of
thousands of acres of habitat.
4) History of California's OTC policy at existing powerplants .
Before 2010, regional water quality control boards issued
permits for once-through cooling powerplants in their
jurisdiction. However, this approach resulted in an
SB 387
Page 5
overwhelming caseload for the regional water boards and
inconsistent permitting requirements. The lack of a clear
policy basis meant permits were challenged repeatedly,
resulting in a significant NPDES permit backlog. The SWRCB
concluded that a statewide policy was necessary to make the
process consistent and efficient. On May 4, 2010, the SWRCB
issued a statewide policy on once-through cooling, since
amended on July 19, 2011.
The process of adopting the OTC policy began in 2005 and
followed the state and federal laws on adoption of a policy
or regulation. The SWRCB must prepare a "program-level
analysis," evaluate environmental effects, consult with
other agencies, allow public review, respond to comments on
the draft environmental document, adopt CEQA findings, and
provide for mitigation monitoring and reporting, as
appropriate. The scientific basis for any policy or
regulation must be peer-reviewed by independent scientists.
The SWRCB must consider specific factors to ensure the
reasonable protection of beneficial uses (California Water
Code �13241) and formulate a program of implementation for
the water quality objective under consideration (California
Water Code �13242). After a policy or regulation has been
adopted, it must be approved by the California Office of
Administrative Law and US EPA.
The SWRCB addresses potential problems for electrical grid
reliability in several ways. The OTC policy: a) gives the
California Independent System Operator (CAISO) the
authority to require any plant to continue to operate 90
days past the deadline if the situation warrants it; if
CAISO determines that the deadline needs to be extended
longer than 90 days, the SWRCB will re-evaluate the
compliance deadline for the plant, b) set compliance
deadlines for each powerplant depending on local grid
requirements and the complexity of a facility's plan, c)
established the Statewide Advisory Committee on Cooling
Water Intake Structures (SACCWIS). SACCWIS is composed of
representatives from the State Water Resources Control
Board, California Energy Commission, California Public
Utilities Commission, California Coastal Commission,
California State Lands Commission, California Air Resources
SB 387
Page 6
Board, and the California Independent System Operator.
SACCWIS meets at least annually or as necessary to ensure
that implementation plans and schedules established by the
once-through cooling policy are realistic and will not
cause disruption to the state's electrical power supply.
5) US EPA's proposed rules on once-through cooling at existing
powerplants . As the agency authorized to implement the
Clean Water Act's requirements, the US EPA has made
repeated efforts to develop national regulations that would
establish uniform performance standards for facilities that
use cooling water. US EPA's first two attempts at a
national rule, in 1977 and 2004, were withdrawn following
litigation. US EPA proposed new regulations in 2011 and
plans to issue final rules in June 2013. The proposed rules
require existing powerplants to reduce intake velocity to
0.5 ft/sec., which would result in a close to 100%
reduction in impingement. The proposed rule has no standard
for entrainment, rather, it requires the powerplants to
conduct studies to determine what can be done to reduce
entrainment, and the US EPA will review each facility's
plan individually.
6) Arguments in Opposition . According to opponents, SB 387
would perpetuate devastating impacts to the marine and
coastal environment. At the time the OTC Policy was
adopted, California had 19 powerplants using OTC,
withdrawing up to 16 billion gallons of seawater every day,
killing nearly everything that passes through the plants'
machinery. The California Energy Commission estimated that
impingement at southern California powerplants equals 8-30%
of the fish caught in the southern California recreational
fishery.
Opponents argue that SB 387 would create regulatory
uncertainty instead of the SWRCB policy's straightforward
and flexible, two-track path to compliance. The US EPA has
not finalized its regulations for once-through cooling;
opponents state that SB 387 would eliminate the statewide
policy on once-through cooling and return to the pre-2010
practice of Regional Water Boards permitting once-through
cooling by following a subjective and lengthy case-by-case
SB 387
Page 7
process. The federal standards, once finalized, would
require a generator to perform studies, determine the
technology to be used, and then perform extensive
monitoring to show compliance.
Opponents are also concerned that SB 387 undermines state laws
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In response to the
once-through cooling policy, many powerplant owners are
repowering their generation capacity with high-efficiency
"combined cycle" generators. These modern generators reduce
the fuel and air emissions per megawatt generated, and
allow fast start-up and shut down capability - making them
a necessary component of grid reliability as renewable
energy sources come on-line.
7) The OTC compliance schedule . The OTC Policy established a
schedule for phasing out once-through cooling based on
consultation with the California Energy Commission, the
California Public Utilities Commission, the California
Independent System Operator (CAISO), and the Los Angeles
Department of Water and Power (LADWP). The CAISO and the
LADWP submit annual grid reliability studies. SACCWIS
reviews the studies and makes recommendations on any
necessary deadline extensions. The schedule for OTC policy
compliance is given below.
SB 387
Page 8
------------------------------------------------------------
|Facility |Deadline |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Humboldt Bay Power Plant |12/31/201|
| |0 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Potrero Power Plant |10/01/201|
| |1 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|South Bay Power Plant |12/31/201|
| |1 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Haynes units 5 & 6 (LADWP) |12/31/201|
| |3 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|El Segundo and Morro Bay power plants |12/31/201|
| |5 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Scattergood unit 3 (LADWP) |12/31/201|
| |5 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Encina, Contra Costa, Pittsburg, Moss Landing |12/31/201|
|[Section 1.J] |7 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Huntington Beach, Redondo, Alamitos, Mandalay, |12/31/202|
|Ormond Beach |0 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station |12/31/202|
| |2 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Diablo Canyon Power Plant |12/31/202|
| |4 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Scattergood units 1 & 2 (LADWP) |12/31/202|
| |4 |
|--------------------------------------------------+---------|
|Haynes units 1 & 2, Harbor unit 5, Haynes unit 8 |12/31/202|
|(LADWP) |9 |
------------------------------------------------------------
SB 387
Page 9
8) Facilities in or approaching compliance . To date, three
powerplants have complied with the OTC policy, including
Humboldt Bay, Potrero in San Francisco, and South Bay in
San Diego. Other plants have begun construction of
retrofits, including El Segundo in Manhattan Beach and the
Haynes Generating Station in Long Beach. This bill could
set a precedent of rewarding entities for delaying
regulatory compliance.
9) The SWRCB has amended the OTC policy on request from
owner/operators . Following the issuance of first version of
the OTC policy, the LADWP requested extensions to final
compliance dates. On review, SACCWIS found that the LADWP
did not demonstrate the local area or grid reliability
requirements sufficient to justify modifying the current
schedules. Nonetheless, the SWRCB amended its policy to
push back deadlines for a number of units operated by LADWP
by 4-14 years, to 2024 and 2029.
10)Does SB 387 conflict with the federal directive to the
state ? The SWRCB is complying with the US EPA's directive
to reduce the environmental impact of once-through cooling
using best professional judgment. The bill implies that the
state could permit once-through cooling at existing
facilities to a greater extent than the current
regulations. This could conflict with the federal mandate
that the SWRCB exercise its best professional judgment on
the best available technology to minimize adverse
environmental impacts from once-through cooling because the
regulations as adopted are based on the SWRCB's judgment on
the best available technology.
11)The future of US EPA's proposed rules is uncertain . The US
EPA has yet to finalize its rules; when it does, they
expect court challenges as they experienced in the past two
rulemaking attempts. If the US EPA successfully finalizes
regulations, this bill would replace state policy with a
flexible federal policy which requires the US EPA to make
permitting decisions regarding entrainment mortality on a
facility-by-facility basis.
12)The existing OTC policy already addresses grid reliability
SB 387
Page 10
concerns . The SWRCB worked with stakeholders and regulators
to ensure grid reliability would not be jeopardized by the
OTC policy. The two-track approach allows facilities to
continue to use once-through cooling with mortality
reduction measures where conversion to closed-cycle or dry
cooling is infeasible. Owners and operators have long
timelines for compliance, and a protocol for examining grid
reliability annually and adjusting deadlines as necessary
is built into the OTC policy.
SOURCE : Senator Wright
SUPPORT : None on file
OPPOSITION : California Coastal Protection Network
California Coastkeeper Alliance
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Water Impact Network
Center for Biological Diversity
Clean Water Action
Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation
Earth Law Center
Environment California
Environmental Defense Center
Environmental Water Caucus
Food & Water Watch
Heal the Bay
Los Angeles Waterkeeper
Ocean Conservancy
Orange County Coastkeeper
Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's
Association
Planning and Conservation League
Residents for Responsible Desalination
Save the Bay
Southern California Watershed Alliance
Surfrider Foundation
Ventura Coastkeeper
Wishtoyo
SB 387
Page 11