BILL ANALYSIS 1
1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
SB 42 - Corbett Hearing Date:
April 21, 2009 S
As Amended: April 14, 2009 FISCAL B
4
2
DESCRIPTION
Current federal law requires that the location, design,
construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures
reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse
environmental impact.
Current federal law requires the operator of any conveyance that
discharges pollutants into waters of the United States to obtain
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
(NPDES). This requirement is administered by the California
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and regional water
quality control boards which assess a fee for the permit.
Current state law requires that new and expanded coastal water
plants using seawater for cooling utilize the best available
site, design, technology, and mitigation measures feasible to
minimize the intake and mortality of all forms of marine life.
This bill defines once through cooling (OTC) as a system that
uses an open seawater intake to pump seawater from an ocean,
estuary, or bay and then discharges the water after only one
cycle of cooling.
This bill prohibits OTC for a new power plant or industrial
facility that commences operation on or after January 1, 2010
and requires the SWRCB to adopt a statewide policy on OTC, in
consultation with the California Energy Commission, by March 1,
2010.
This bill requires state regional water boards to review and
reissue NPDES permits for power plants within six months of
expiration or by July 1, 2010 if that permit has already
expired, and to regulate the cooling water intake of those
plants according to standards of the federal Clean Water Act as
it existed on October 18, 1972 and also restricts the
enforcement of water discharges under the NPDES.
This bill requires the operator of a power plant that uses OTC
to pay a fee, determined by the SWRCB, based on the volume of
seawater that is pumped which would be used for specified
administrative purposes by the SWRCB or the State Coastal
Conservancy and for grants awarded by the conservancy, upon
appropriation by the Legislature.
BACKGROUND
Once Through Cooling - Until the early 1970s, most power plants
were located next to a sizable body of water or major river to
ensure adequate water supply for cooling. These plants used OTC,
a process that borrows the water, uses it to condense the steam
from the turbine, and then returns it to the original water body
approximately 20?F warmer. While highly efficient for cooling,
the process has the potential for a twofold impact on aquatic
life: fish entrainment and impingement at the front end of the
process, and thermal discharge at the back end.
Cooling water intake structures do cause adverse environmental
impact by pulling large numbers of fish and shellfish or their
eggs and larvae into a power plant's cooling system
(entrainment). There, the organisms may be killed or injured by
heat, physical stress, or by chemicals used to clean the cooling
system. Larger organisms may be killed or injured when they are
trapped against screens at the front of an intake structure
(impingement).
According to the SWRCB each year California power plants impinge
about 9 million biological specimens having a mass of
approximately 97,000 lbs. California power plants also annually
entrain about 80 billion biological specimens, of which
approximately 60 percent (48 billion) are larval fish. In
addition, 57 marine tetrapods (seals, sea lions, or sea turtles)
are impinged annually. Of these tetrapods, roughly 50 percent
are killed.
Other cooling technologies and water sources have been developed
generally allowing new thermoelectric power plants to avoid OTC.
Still over 30 percent of the national thermoelectirc plant fleet
utilizes OTC. In California, more than 21,000 megawatts of the
state's generation fleet uses OTC, approximately 15,200 MW of
which is aging capacity recommended for retirement by the
California Energy Commission.
Federal Clean Water Act - In 1972 Congress addressed these
impacts through section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act which
requires the location, design, construction and capacity of
cooling water intake structures to reflect the best technology
available to minimize the adverse impacts of OTC. However the
United States Environmental Protection Agency has encountered
extensive delays, including litigation, in its attempts to
implement 316(b). As a consequence, the EPA has suspended 316(b)
as it relates to existing power plants but has generally
directed states to use best professional judgment in applying
316(b) to OTC. The result in California is that some regional
water boards regulate seawater intake and some do not.
SWRCB Policy - In 2006 the SWRCB stepped in to the void with the
intent of drafting a statewide policy for OTC at coastal and
estuarine power plants to be completed by the end of 2008.
However, due to staffing changes, contract delays, and the
formation of a working group including the State Water Board,
the California Air Resources Board, the California Public
Utilities Commission, the California Independent System
Operator, the Coastal Commission, and the State Lands
Commission, to ensure the reliability of electric-generating
plants, the projected release date for the draft environmental
document has been extended to the end of the summer.
NPDES Permits - Under federal law operators of plants using OTC
are required to obtain a permit to discharge water into oceans
and estuaries. The NPDES permits are administered by local
water boards, expire five years after issuance, and must be
reissued every five years. During the reissuance process the
discharger (power plant) must comply with all conditions of the
existing permit until a new final permit is reissued. The
author is concerned that water boards have been slow to review
and reissue NPDES permits. Today permits for 11 of the state's
19 plants have expired and are pending review.
COMMENTS
1. Author's Intent - The adverse environmental impacts of
OTC have been known for decades but federal and state
agencies have been slow to address them. Although the
California Energy Commission has generally ceased to
approve OTC for new power plants there is no restriction on
this form of cooling technology in state law. At least 19
power plants initially sited along ago still use the
technology. The author notes that even though
implementation of federal law has been repeatedly delayed,
there is nothing restricting California from regulating
this harmful technology which would be required by this
bill.
2. NPDES Permit Review: Cart Before the Horse - This bill
does provide a deadline for the SWRCB to complete its
policy work on OTC. In testimony before the Assembly
Utilities and Commerce Committee earlier this year, the
agency indicated that it is on track to complete its work
by November, 2009. This bill is consistent with that
intent and schedule.
However, the bill goes further to require that regional
water boards, at the time of renewing an NPDES permit, to
address seawater intake impacts associated with OTC using
the federal Clean Water Act's section 316(b) policy as a
guidepost. This mandate would jump ahead of the SWRCB's
work on developing a statewide policy and undermine its
work product. Additionally, the NPDES permit is an
assessment of impacts due to the discharge of water. This
bill would mandate that the regional boards set aside
discharge impacts and only assess intake impacts at the
time the permit is reviewed thus turning the water
discharge permit to an intake review regulation potentially
superseding current discharge law.
3. Ratepayer Impact; OTC Fee - Under current state law, the
NPDES permit has an associated fee the basis of which is
the volume of water used in OTC which generally corresponds
to the size of the plant. Examples of recent fees on power
plants range from $60,508 for the Harbor Beach Generating
Station to nearly $1.8 million for the Diablo Canyon
Nuclear Power Plant.
When CEQA mitigation is required or an NPDES permit fee is
assessed, those costs are built into the cost of building
or operating the plant and passed on to ratepayers. This
bill calls for an additional fee to be determined and
assessed by the SWRCB for each gallon of water that is used
in the cooling of a power plant. This fee will not be
borne by the plant operator but will be passed on to
ratepayers. The author opines that the funds could be
available to the plant operator to facilitate in repowering
and elimination of OTC. However, this is not required.
For plants that must continue to operate to ensure a
reliable electricity supply (e.g. Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant) the better use of any additional costs on the
plant would be for direct mitigation of intake impacts
associated with the operation of the plant.
4. Technical Amendments - Prior versions of this bill
included other industrial facilities, including
desalination plants, which use seawater intake. For
clarity if it is the author's intent to limit the
applicability of this bill to power plants, then the
following provisions should also be stricken from the bill:
Page 4, strike lines 39-40
Page 5, strike lines 1-2
Page 5, line 28, strike "or a new industrial facility"
Page 5, line 30, strike "or industrial facility"
VOTES
Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee
(6-3)
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
*Support:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Alliance for Nuclear |Pacific Coast Federation of |
|Responsibility |Fishermen's Assn. |
|California Coastkeeper Alliance |San Diego Coastkeeper |
|California League of Conservation |San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper |
|Voters |Santa Monica Baykeeper |
|Defenders of Wildlife |Sierra Club California |
|Heal the Bay |Surfrider Foundation |
|Natural Resources Defense Council | |
|Ocean Conservancy | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*Oppose:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|AES Southland |Pacific Gas and Electric |
|American Council of Engineering |Company |
|Companies |Porterville Chamber of Commerce |
|California Building Industry |Rainbow Municipal Water |
|Association |District |
|California Business Properties |Regional Council of Rural |
|Association |Counties |
|California Chamber of Commerce |Rincon del Diablo Municipal |
|CA Council for Environmental & |Water District |
|Economic Balance |San Diego Regional Chamber of |
|California League of Food |Commerce |
|Processors |Santa Fe Irrigation District |
|California Taxpayers' Association |Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce |
|Chemical Industry Council of |Sempra Energy |
|California |Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce |
|City of Carlsbad (unless amended) |Soquel Creek Water District |
|City of Oceanside |Southern California Edison |
|Dynegy |Sweetwater Authority |
|Greater Fresno Area Chamber of |The Chamber - San Diego East |
|Commerce |County |
|Independent Energy Producers |Vallecitos Municipal Water |
|Industrial Environmental |District |
|Association |Valley Center Municipal Water |
|Milpitas Chamber of Commerce |District |
|Olivenhain Municipal Water |West Basin Municipal Water |
|District |District |
|Orange Chamber of Commerce |Western Electrical Contractors |
| |Assn., Inc. |
| | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*Most letters were received prior to April 14 amendments which
could affect some positions.
Kellie Smith
SB 42 Analysis
Hearing Date: April 21, 2009