SAEJ - SOUTHEAST ALLIANCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

SAEJ-1.

The comments submitted on the Draft Initial Study by the Southeast Alliance for Environmental Justice (SAEJ) were reviewed and considered in the process of preparing the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The remainder of the topics raised by this comment (e.g., use of a program EIR, underestimation of cumulative impacts, and deferral of mitigation measures) are addressed in detail in the responses to this letter, below.

SAEJ-2.

PG&E’s current proposal to sell three plants is a "project" in and of itself under CEQA. The commentor is correct that PG&E has stated its intention to submit an application in the future for the sale of additional fossil fuel power plants and its Geysers geothermal plants. However, the CPUC’s action on PG&E’s current application will not affect or in any way curtail the CPUC’s discretion with respect to such later application, which would be subject to CEQA. The near-term sale by PG&E of three plants, if approved by the CPUC, is not the initial step toward, or a necessary precedent for action on, the sale of additional plants. As the commentor has noted, CEQA Guidelines §15165 states:

Where one project is one of several similar projects of a public agency, but is not deemed to be part of a larger undertaking or a larger project, the agency may prepare one EIR for all projects, or one for each project, but shall in either case comment upon the cumulative effect.

This section of the CEQA Guidelines speaks to cases in which an EIR is required, but can be analogized to a project such as this where a Mitigated Negative Declaration is prepared. Since PG&E’s pending divestiture application is not deemed to be part of a larger undertaking or larger project, but is a separate and distinct "project" under CEQA, the CPUC may conduct CEQA review for that project separately from any others. Recognizing, however, the potential for cumulative impacts of PG&E’s application together with Southern California Edison’s pending divestiture application, as well as the possible future sale by PG&E of additional plants, the cumulative impacts analysis within the Initial Study addresses any combined impacts of these related projects. See, pages 4.16.2 - 4.16.14 of the Initial Study.

SAEJ-3.

As explained , in response to SAEJ-2, the Mitigated Negative Declaration properly applies to one "project" under CEQA ¾ PG&E’s proposed sale of the Moss Landing, Oakland and Morro Bay power plants. As CEQA Guidelines §15378(c) notes, a "project" may be subject to several discretionary approvals. For instance, PG&E’s current divestiture project requires approval by the CPUC, but may also require approvals from other agencies, such as the pertinent air quality management districts.

The commentor has cited the case of Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 396 (1988), somewhat incorrectly. That case requires an analysis of future activity or expansion only if "(1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion or action will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects." Id. PG&E’s stated intention to sell additional plants is not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the CPUC’s action on the current proposal. However, as noted in response to SAEJ-2, above, because the sale of additional plants by PG&E is reasonably foreseeable, the potential additional sales are addressed in the cumulative impacts discussion of the Initial Study.

SAEJ-4.

The possible sale by PG&E of additional plants in the future will not change the impacts of the sale of the three plants covered by the pending application. There is no basis for requiring a program-level document to be prepared. In any event, the cumulative impacts of all foreseeable sales have been analyzed in the Initial Study.

SAEJ-5.

The sentence quoted from the Mitigated Negative Declaration merely pointed out that, since PG&E has not yet submitted an application for the sale of additional plants, the CPUC has not received a Proponent’s Environmental Assessment or conducted its own project-level environmental assessment of such potential future application. Contrary to the indication of the commentor, however, the CPUC has not refused to include such a foreseeable project in its cumulative impact analysis. The cumulative impacts analysis within the Initial Study does take into account a projected second divestiture application from PG&E.

SAEJ-6.

The four Bay Area power plants referred to are identified in the second paragraph on page 4.16.3 and considered in the cumulative impact analyses on pages 4.16.3 and 4.16.4. Specific data from these four plants were not included because it was not considered relevant to the conclusions. What is important for this divestiture project is that, as shown in Table 4.5.6 on page 4.5.23 of the Initial Study, the Oakland power plant is a very minor generator of air emissions in Alameda County (and in the San Francisco Bay Area). Table 4.5.6 shows that historical emissions from this plant are less than 0.01% of Alameda County total emissions for reactive organic gasses (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO) and respirable particulates (PM10); 0.01% of the Alameda County total for NOx; and 0.2% of the Alameda County total for SOx.

Divestiture is not expected to change the traditional operation of the Oakland power plant (see response PO-5) and, therefore, there would be no incremental air quality effects that would cumulate with other projects (including the four Bay Area power plants mentioned by the commentor).

SAEJ-7.

See response to SAEJ-6.

SAEJ-8.

See response to SAEJ-6. Any more stringent requirements that may be placed upon the combustion turbines at the Oakland power plant (presumably through revisions to BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 9) would apply to any owner of the power plant.

SAEJ-9.

The Draft Initial Study indicated that if nuclear power stations were displaced by the additional capacity resulting from the divestiture, then excess CO2 emissions may impact global warming. Comments received on the Draft Initial Study pointed out that there could be increased use of existing capacity, but there would be no capacity increase from divestiture, and that closure of nuclear plants is not a realistic consequence of divestiture of fossil-fuel fired power plants. Upon further consideration the lead agency agrees that this is not a likely consequence of divestiture, and for that reason, the Initial Study concluded that "The project will not impact ... temperature, or cause any change in climate" (fourth paragraph, page 4.5.30).

Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) has not been required as mitigation for this project. .

SAEJ-10.

The CPUC does not consider the current application to be one phase of a two-phase PG&E sale process, but rather a "project" in its own right. Approval of the current application would not commit the CPUC to approving a later application, and the first sales are not a necessary precedent to later sales, but are wholly independent. Thus, it is appropriate to conduct CEQA review for the current application, taking the potential future sales into account in a cumulative sense. Also, see responses to SAEJ-2, SAEJ-3 and SAEJ-4.

SAEJ-11.

The commentor appears to have mistakenly assumed a correlation between two concepts that are not in fact related. The Initial Study explains that it is not feasible to predict at which plants and by how much operations (and thus generation) would increase as a result of divestiture. Contrary to the commentor's assertion, that statement does not rest on the assumption that increased generation will not necessarily result in increased emissions. That would be illogical since the first statement concerns the amount of generation and not emissions. Rather, the statement about generation is based on the factors presented in the Initial Study at pages 3.1-3.6. The air quality analysis within the Initial Study then explains that, even assuming (despite the uncertainty) that generation will increase at a particular plant, such increase would not automatically translate to increased emissions (see page 4.5.25). Furthermore, at page 4.5.25, the Initial Study explains that, even if it were assumed that the sales of the plants would result in higher emissions, such increased emissions would not result in a significant environmental impact. Thus, there is no substantial evidence to support a fair argument that divestiture will generate significant impacts. The commentor's reference to page 4.16.3 is to the cumulative impacts analysis, which discusses both of these concepts (increased generation and increased emissions) to the extent that they affect cumulative impacts.

SAEJ-12.

See response to SAEJ-6.

SAEJ-13.

The Initial Study appropriately recognizes that numerous existing regulatory models are in place to address such issues as water quality, air quality, hazards and noise. The Initial Study does not rely on "hoped for future action by other agencies." Rather, it recognizes that the plants will be transferred subject to existing permits and will continue to be governed by existing laws that protect environmental quality and human health and safety. There is no reason to assume that the new owners would violate pertinent laws and regulations.

As to the CPUC ensuring that mitigation measures will be implemented, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared in accordance with Public Resources Code §21081.6. If PG&E's divestiture application is approved, the CPUC will monitor the mitigation measures in the Mitigation Negative Declaration to ensure that they are implemented in a timely manner. The Initial Study demonstrates that as long as such mitigation measures are implemented, the project will not result in significant environmental impacts.

SAEJ-14.

The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study do not defer either the development of specific mitigation measures or the analysis of whether such measures will successfully mitigate the impacts to which they are addressed. The mitigation measures are detailed, directive and clear. They contain objective standards, and they plainly indicate the time frame for compliance. With respect to reliance on existing rules and permits (such as those of the BAAQMD), see the response to SAEJ-13.

 
Top of Page | Back to Home Page | Back to Comment Letter