BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 267
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 29, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
SB 267 (Rubio) - As Amended: April 13, 2011
SENATE VOTE : 37-1
SUBJECT : Water supply planning: renewable energy plants.
SUMMARY : Excludes a proposed photovoltaic or wind energy
generation facility approved on or after the effective date of
this measure from the definition of a "project" subject to a
water supply assessment if the facility would demand an amount
of water equivalent to, or less than, the amount of water
required by a 250 dwelling unit project. Specifically, this
bill :
1)Excludes a proposed photovoltaic or wind energy generation
facility approved on or after the effective date of this
measure from the definition of a "project" subject to a water
supply assessment if the facility would demand an amount of
water equivalent to, or less than, the amount of water
required by a 250 dwelling unit project.
2)Contains a sunset date of January 1, 2017.
3)Contains an urgency clause.
EXISTING LAW :
1)States that a water supply assessment is required on any of
the following types of "projects":
a) A proposed residential development of more than 500
dwelling units;
b) A proposed shopping center or business establishment
employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
500,000 square feet of floor space;
c) A proposed commercial office building employing more
than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet
of floor space;
SB 267
Page 2
d) A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500
rooms;
e) A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing
plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000
persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having
more than 650,000 square feet of floor area;
f) A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the
projects specified in this subdivision; or,
g) A project that would demand an amount of water
equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water
required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
2)Prohibits approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for
which a tentative map was not required, or a development
agreement for a subdivision of property of more than 500
dwelling units, except as specified, including the design of
the subdivision or the type
of improvement, unless the legislative body of a city or county
or the designated advisory agency provides written
verification from the applicable public water system that a
sufficient water supply is available or, in addition, a
specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient
water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion
of the project.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)The Subdivision Map Act prohibits approval of a tentative map
for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units,
unless the legislative body of a city or county provides
written verification from the applicable public water system
that a sufficient water supply is available or, in addition, a
specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient
water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion
of the project. This requirement was placed into law by SB
221 (Kuehl), Chapter 642, Statutes of 2001. Existing law
further provides that whenever a city or county determines
that a development project is subject to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project must comply with
SB 267
Page 3
the provisions of law that evaluate the sufficiency of water
supplies. This requirement was placed into law by SB 610
(Costa), Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001. Under AB 221 and
SB 610, proof of the availability of a sufficient water supply
to serve the proposed subdivision or development project is
based on written verification from the applicable retail water
supplier.
2)Existing law states that a proposed industrial, manufacturing,
or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more
than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres
of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area
requires a water supply assessment. In the recent case of
Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino
(210 185 Cal, App. 4th 866) the California Court of Appeals
found that an open air nursery/composting facility on more
than 40 acres of land violated CEQA for failing to include a
water supply assessment. Based on the Court's ruling a
renewable energy facility is now deemed to be an industrial
plant and subject to a water supply assessment if the facility
is over 40 acres.
3)At least 33% of retail energy sales by investor owned
utilities, local publicly owned utilities, and energy service
providers must come from renewable energy resources by
December 31, 2020 (SB 2x, Simitian, Chapter 1, Statutes of
2011). To meet this goal, utility systems and private
investors need locations to build renewable energy facilities.
The California Energy
Commission tracks more than 375 renewable energy projects,
including 252 solar photovoltaic projects spread over 21
counties.
4)According to the author, in the wake of the May 2010 Court
decision, project opponents have challenged solar projects in
the counties of San Diego and San Bernardino on the basis that
the projects do not have a water supply assessment, and
therefore, are not in compliance with CEQA. Concerned with
litigation, some counties, including Kern, are now requiring
water
supply assessments to avoid future claims. The author states
that wind and solar photovoltaic
renewal energy projects do not use significant water and should
SB 267
Page 4
not be required to study water use above and beyond CEQA. To
apply a requirement that is clearly intended for large water
users will stymie the state's ongoing efforts to encourage
renewable energy projects.
5)Support arguments: Supporters argue that wind farms and solar
photovoltaic projects use negligible amounts of water and
should not be subject to the detailed hydrological analysis
of a water supply assessment. Moreover, the bill will remove
additional barriers in siting renewable energy facilities.
Opposition arguments: Opposition, including the Association
of California Water Agencies, argues that there should not be
an industry specific exception given but that there should be
a blanket exception for all industrial facilities that demand
an amount of water less than the amount of water required by a
500 dwelling unit project.
6)This bill is double-referred to the Committees on Water, Parks
and Wildlife and Local Government.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Wind Energy Association �CO-SPONSOR]
County of Kern �CO-SPONSOR]
NextEra Energy Resources
Opposition
Association of California Water Agencies (unless amended)
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Eastern Municipal Water District (unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Katie Kolitsos / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958