BILL ANALYSIS � 1
SENATE ENERGY, UTILITIES AND COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE
ALEX PADILLA, CHAIR
AB 1073 - Fuentes Hearing Date:
March 12, 2012 A
As Amended: February 23, 2012 FISCAL/Urgency
B
1
0
7
3
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.
Current law excludes from the definition of a thermal powerplant
any wind, hydroelectric, or solar photovoltaic (PV) electrical
generating facility.
Current law allows a thermal powerplant with a generating
capacity of less than 50 MW to voluntarily submit to the CEC's
exclusive certification jurisdiction.
Current law authorizes the CEC to retain jurisdiction over
specified solar thermal powerplants where the owner seeks an
amendment to the certification to convert the electric
generating facility to PV thus avoiding the necessity of filing
a new application with a local jurisdiction.
This bill clarifies that the CEC's jurisdiction over specified
solar thermal powerplants which seek conversion to PV also
applies to a PV powerplant that was challenged in court but for
which the challenge was later dismissed.
BACKGROUND
CEC Siting Process - The CEC performs the siting review function
for all large thermal powerplants, including concentrated solar
thermal, natural gas combined cycle, and geothermal powerplants.
It is a one-stop shop wherein all state, local, and regional
environmental reviews are completed. The process begins with an
Application for Certification (AFC) by the powerplant developer.
Once complete the CEC staff reviews the project and issues a
Preliminary Staff Assessment (PSA), which contains their
analysis of the engineering, environmental, public health and
safety aspects of the project. The PSA determines if the
project conforms to all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations
and standards. Upon identifying any potentially significant
environmental impacts, the PSA recommends mitigation measures in
the form of conditions of certification for construction,
operation, and closure of the project. The PSA is issued for
public comment and is revised, if warranted, and reissued as a
Final Staff Assessment (FSA). This document is subject to
formal public hearings before CEC Commissioners. The five
member CEC may accept or revise the FSA, which is voted on in a
public meeting.
Changing Market Conditions - Solar thermal generation uses
mirrors or lenses to concentrate a large area of sunlight, or
solar thermal energy, onto a small area. Electrical power is
produced when the concentrated light is converted to heat, which
drives a heat engine (usually a steam turbine) connected to an
electrical power generator. Since 2007 the CEC has received
project applications from developers of 16 solar thermal plants
collectively totaling over 5,700 MW of generation primarily
located in the Mojave and Colorado desert regions of Southern
California. However as the siting process neared completion for
some of these projects, and in some instances after an
application had been certified by the CEC, market prices for
solar PV dropped so precipitously that some solar thermal
project developers desired to change technologies seeking a
lower cost of power generated from the plant. Had the
developers began the siting process with PV they would have been
required to gain siting approvals from the city or county in
which the project was located. But because the CEC had already
done much, if not all of the work required for siting the solar
thermal projects, a question was raised as to whether the
project applicant should be required to begin the siting process
all over again at the local level or whether the CEC had the
authority to accept an amended application from the developer to
convert the plant to PV.
In response the Legislature adopted SB 226 (Simitian) in 2011
which provided the CEC with limited jurisdiction over PV
projects which were filed after August 15, 2007 and approved by
the CEC and for projects on federal land where a decision had
been issued by the Bureau of Land Management before September 1,
2011. The one caveat was that a project would not qualify for
the exception if the project had been challenged in court. The
author of the bill submitted a letter to the Senate Daily
Journal expressing his intent that this limitation did not apply
to a project which was challenged in court but subsequently
dismissed.
K Road Calico Solar - This project originated with the CEC in
2008 as a solar thermal project and was approved as such in
December 2010. The 663.5-megawatt project was to be constructed
on a 4,613-acre site located in San Bernardino County
approximately 37 miles east of Barstow.
In December 2010 the project was challenged in the California
Supreme Court alleging that the CEC's environmental review was
deficient. The challenge was dismissed in April 2011.
In March of 2011 the project developers filed an amendment to
their project with the CEC to convert the electrical generation
to PV from solar thermal. The amendment did not propose to
change the size, boundary, or generating capacity of the
previously approved project but additional environmental review
by the CEC would be necessary.
COMMENTS
1. Author's Statement . AB 1073 is a "clean up" measure
that clarifies one minor issue contained in SB 226
(Simitian) from last year. The bill authorized a small
group of solar projects that were certified by the CEC to
petition the CEC for an amendment to the certificate if
they switch their technology from solar thermal to solar
PV. Any project that was challenged in court was barred
from seeking such an amendment.
In a letter to the Senate Journal, Senator Simitian
clarified his intent relative to SB 226 language - stating
that it was not his intent to bar projects "?whose
certificate was challenged and subsequently dismissed by
the California Supreme Court." AB 1073 simply clarifies
that point in statute - using the same language from the
letter itself - to ensure there is no ambiguity. Further,
AB 1073 clarifies that nothing in the new law abrogates a
party's right to challenge projects going forward - a point
also contained in the letter to the Senate Journal.
2. Conversion . On its face it seems logical and efficient
to allow one siting agency, which had already invested a
great deal of time and expertise in the siting of a
project, to continue the work even if a project applicant
later modifies the electrical generation technology. That
was the purpose behind SB 226. On its face, this bill is
technical and clarifying. Its provisions, in effect, will
only apply to one project - K Road Calico Solar.
There is however opposition to this measure from several
environmental advocacy groups which reportedly supported or
remained neutral on SB 226 last fall. Their concern isn't
necessarily related to the authority of the CEC but the way
that authority has been used for the Calico project. They
remain concerned that the CEC's environmental review of K
Road Calico's original application was deficient and that
local agency review would be more effective. They also
opine that this project location was a bad choice from the
start and its siting cannot strike the balance between the
necessity for clean energy while maintaining a healthy
environment.
3. CEC Taking License ? A proposed decision (PD) of the CEC
on a siting application referred to as Ridgecrest has drawn
fire. It is germane to this bill because the PD asserted
that the CEC has the authority to allow any project
developer of any non-thermal electric generation facilities
in the state to voluntarily utilize the CEC's siting
process.
At issue in Ridgecrest is the conversion of a solar thermal
plant to PV and the CEC's siting jurisdiction. The law
prior to SB 226 and still in effect does provide for an
exception for a project developer to "voluntarily" file an
application with the CEC for any facility excluded from the
CEC's specific statutory authority which the PD argues
includes PV.
If the law provided for that option, then this bill and its
predecessor SB 226 would not be necessary.
Current law defines a "facility" as a thermal powerplant
and a "thermal powerplant" is defined as a plant of 50 MW
or more. The committee sees the CEC's jurisdictional
exception as one for plants under 50 MW in size, not for
any non-thermal plant. Legislative history approving SB
226 is consistent with this interpretation.
Moreover, the CEC's siting division is not funded to
accommodate the additional responsibility of siting
non-thermal powerplants. Although thermal developers do
pay licensing fees, those fees are not sufficient to cover
the full agency costs of siting the projects.
Consequently, siting is subsidized by electric ratepayers
through the surcharges that all gas and electric customers
pay to the agency through fees on their utility bills and
the CEC would face adverse budget impacts if it routinely
accepted applications for non-thermal plants.
ASSEMBLY VOTES
Not relevant
POSITIONS
Sponsor:
Author
Support:
K Road Calico Solar
Oppose:
Audobon California
Center for Biological Diversity
Defenders of Wildlife
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
Sierra Club California
The Wilderness Society
Kellie Smith
AB 1073 Analysis
Hearing Date: March 12, 2012