General Information on Permitting Electric Transmission Projects at the California Public Utilities Commission June 2009 Presentation created by the Transmission.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Gold Ray Dam Interagency Technical Team Meeting. NEPA Update Deconstruction Plans Hydraulic Modeling Next Steps Agenda.
Advertisements

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT FORESTRY DIVISION (323)
Introduction to EIS/EA Managing the Environmental & Project Development Process Presented by the Ohio Dept. of Transportation.
Ecological Survey Reports The level of ESR Report is determined by the type of project and its probable level of impacts.
Yuba-Sutter Regional Conservation Plan EIS/EIR SCOPING MEETING January 6, 2015.
Environmental Compliance Negotiating our way through the process…
ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance Measures February 2012.
Conservation Commissions and the Kinder Morgan Proposed Gas Pipeline PRESENTATION TO NORTHEAST MUNICIPAL GAS PIPELINE COALITION SEPTEMBER 22, 2014 MASSACHUSETTS.
Reclamation Plan Project Purpose: To Satisfy Syar’s Reclamation Obligation under SMARA for the Healdsburg Terraces (Basalt, Phase I, Phase II and No Name.
Transmission Corridor Zone Designation Process Terrence O'Brien, CEC December 11, 2007 Energy Action Plan.
LOCAL REGULATION AND CLIMATE CHANGE QUICK TELECONFERENCE American Bar Association Section of Environment, Energy, and Resources Climate Change, Sustainable.
Regional View Ballona Creek Watershed December 19, 2003 Area A & part of Area B (192 acres total) purchased for $139 million (Prop 50 funds) Area B.
Clean Water Act Section 404 Basics Clean Water Act Section 404  Regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including.
City Council Meeting January 18, Background  Staff receiving increasing number of inquiries regarding installation of wireless telecommunications.
Module 15 Environmental Considerations Civil Works Orientation Course - FY 11.
1 State Water Resources Control Board Environmental Review for State Bond Funded Grant Projects Presented by Lisa Lee, Environmental Review Unit.
L O N G B E A C H, C A. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Roles Of Sponsor, Consultant and FAA During NEPA Process L O N G B E.
Implementing one of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country CALIFORNIA’S Implementing one of the most ambitious renewable energy standards.
Our mission ead and execute environmental programs and provide expertise that enables Army training, operations, acquisition and sustainable military communities.
Regulations Governing Siting of Electric Facilities in California AEP Orange County Chapter June 30, 2009 Christine McLeod, Project Manager - Regulatory.
Lassen Lodge Hydroelectric Project Public Scoping Meetings November 5, 2014 (Sacramento and Red Bluff) State Water Resources Control Board Division of.
MassDOT P3 Project Overview. MassDOT Project Mobility.
Renewable Energy and the BLM May 4, 2009 Ashley Conrad-Saydah BLM Renewable Energy Project Manager.
Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Region 10 Regional Response Team Northwest Area Committee Seattle, WA February 12, 2014 EFSEC.
State of Oregon New Hydroelectric Projects Mary Grainey October 2008 Oregon Water Resources Department.
Buckhorn Mountain EIS Project August Buckhorn Mountain Exploration Project Echo Bay Exploration is seeking federal and state authorization for.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
State Permitting Issues for Wind Developments Southeast and Mid-Atlantic Regional Wind Summit 19 September 2005 Jennifer A. DeCesaro Energy Policy Specialist.
Reclamation Bureau Interagency Forum Local Agency Planning Process City of Rancho Cordova December 6, 2007.
Presented to American Society of Civil Engineers Oregon Section Environmental & Water Resources Group Dana Siegfried David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) Final Environmental Impact Report Amendment of SMUD’s Sphere of Influence and SMUD Yolo Annexation.
Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council Jim Luce, EFSEC Chair Port Of Vancouver Presentation Vancouver, WA June 27, 2013 EFSEC These Slides.
Monterey Peninsula Water Management District 1 Confirm Scope of Work and Description for MPWMD ASR Project Item 13 April 18, 2005 Regular Meeting Staff.
ODOE Presentations and EFSC Standards Presented by Max Woods and Sarah Esterson September 18, 2015.
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
Number of Copies Agency Submissions & Comments. Coordination ESRs are reviewed by OES and coordinated with resource agencies as part of the NEPA review.
1 CEQA and CEQA-Plus Presented by Cookie Hirn, Lisa Lee, and Michelle Jones Regional Programs Unit July 2008.
Planning and Permitting Part II: Permitting Overview S.P. Cramer & Associates, Inc. 636 Hedburg Way, Suite 22 Oakdale, CA
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision Authority l All permit decisions, scope of analysis, 404(b)(1), mitigation, alternatives, jurisdiction -- Corps.
California Energy Commission Options for Developing Contingency Mitigation Measures 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report UC Irvine Campus, Irvine, California.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Pre-Filing Process IRWA/AI January 13-14, 2009 IRWA/AI.
NEWPORT POINTE COUNTY FILES: GP# , RZ# , SD# , AND DP# BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING June 4, 2013.
1.What is the standard relicensing process in the U.S. and what is the ALP (Alternative Licensing Process) ? 2.How did we convince FERC to agree to an.
Solano Habitat Conservation Plan 580,000 Acres 36 Covered Species; 4 Natural Communities 17,500 acres of Urban Development; 1,280 acres of other New Facilities.
1 Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference August 27, 2006 Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project.
California’s Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative Anne Gillette Renewable Energy Policy Analyst California Public Utilities Commission August 12, 2008.
Channel Rehabilitation Projects TAMWG - June ‘04 Trinity River at Hocker Flat 1/16/2003.
April 2006 Middle Fork Project Relicensing Process April 25, 2006
Salton Sea Species Conservation Habitat Scoping Meetings July 7 and 8, 2010.
Kilarc-Cow Creek Hydroelectric Project Decommissioning FERC Project No. 606 Shasta County Board of Supervisors March 4, 2008.
Southwest Renewable Energy Transmission Conference May 21, 2010 This report contains transmission planning data that may be conceptual in nature and is.
1 Sunrise Powerlink Project Update Orange County Business Council March 10, 2009.
CALENDAR ITEM 101 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) S A N F R A N C I S C O B A Y A N D D E L T A S A N D M I N I N G P R O J E C T STATE CLEARINGHOUSE.
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
California Energy Commission 1 LNG Permitting and Environmental Review: the View from California DOE LNG Forum Los Angeles June 1, 2006 Kevin Kennedy,
Report On The Status Of The Remediation Of The Sonoma County Waste Tire Sites Board Meeting Agenda Item 4 February 18, 2004.
C A L I F O R N I A E N E R G Y C O M M I S S I O N Integrated Energy Policy Report Workshop Landscape-Scale Environmental Evaluations for Energy Infrastructure.
Responsibilities of Lead Agency Pages 7-8 of Training Guide 1. Preliminary review a) Determine if activity is a project as described by CEQA b) May require.
Imperial Valley Study Group Transmission Planning Collaborative 2005 California Geothermal Summit June 9, 2005 California Geothermal Energy Collaborative.
California Energy Action Plan December 7, 2004 Energy Report: 2004 and 2005 Overview December 7, 2004.
Gregory Canyon Landfill San Diego County LEA Gary Erbeck, Director California Integrated Waste Management Board Hearing December 14-15, 2004.
1 Calcasieu River & Pass, Louisiana Dredged Material Management Plan (DMMP) Kick off Meeting February 2, 2005 Project Manager Mireya Laigast, Civil Engineer,
Energy Policy Act – 2005 West-Wide Energy Corridors.
Hidden Hills Solar Energy Generating System (HHSEGS) Presentation to Inyo County Board of Supervisors March 13, 2012.
WGA Consultants Keyes & Fox LLP is a law firm that specializes in the renewable energy and distributed generation sectors. K&F has in-depth experience.
Barriers and Challenges to Developing Renewable Energy Projects
Fifth Standard Solar Project Complex
SEQRA as a Tool to Review Energy Projects
Environmental Assessment PUC Application Process
Environmental Requirements and planning grants
Presentation transcript:

General Information on Permitting Electric Transmission Projects at the California Public Utilities Commission June 2009 Presentation created by the Transmission and Environmental Permitting Team

2 Who Does What?  CAISO Approves transmission plans of service What electrical upgrades are needed to add the line to the system? Economic and reliability analysis to determine value of line to system Does not physically site the transmission line and does not include environmental review  CEC Permits thermal facilities greater than 50 MW, including solar thermal plus gen-tie from facility to first point of interconnection

3 Who Does What? (Continued)  Counties Permit all wind facilities, solar PV, and solar thermal less than 50 MW  CPUC Permits transmission facilities Greater than 50 KV Exemptions per General Order 131-D

Gen-tie Renewable/Fossil Fuel Generator Substation Transmission Towers and Lines Distribution (<50 kV) Small Electric Consumer Transmission 115, 230, 500 kV lines Simplified Electric Delivery System

5 Permitting Process at the CPUC  Utility prepares Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) and preliminary engineering for project  Utility communicates with CPUC 3 to 6 months before filing application for PTC* or CPCN** to ensure most complete application possible – prefiling  Utility files PTC or CPCN application with the CPUC  CPUC takes approximately months to process the application – primarily determined by quality of PEA and CEQA review  Utility takes 1 to 5 years to construct project, depending upon size and complexity *PTC = Permit to Construct **CPCN = Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

Prefiling Permitting Activities at the CPUC Implemented on all projects starting late 2008/early 2009:  Work with the applicant during the development of their alternatives Understand the applicant’s logic for selection of alternatives Possibly suggest alternatives that may reduce environmental impacts CPUC staff does not approve the project or alternatives  Collaborate on key observation points and methodology for visual simulations Run simulations once  Oversee biological and cultural surveys early Conduct surveys once

7 FINAL EIR/MND PREPARED UTILITY FILES APPLICATION AND PROPONENT’S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (PEA) PROPOSED DECISION COMMENTS ON PROPOSED DECISION FINAL DECISION AND FINAL EIR/MND CERTIFIED COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR/MND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARINGS PEA REVIEWED AND DEEMED COMPLETE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT (EIR OR MND) ISSUED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARINGS BRIEFS TESTIMONY PROTESTS TO APPLICATION FILED PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE (PHC) SCOPING MEMO EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS CPCN Process

8 Time Frame to Plan, Permit, and Construct a Transmission Line  Planning includes the IOU evaluating and identifying transmission lines that need to be upgraded or constructed, and putting a plan together for CAISO evaluation and approval.  Permitting includes 1 to 2 years for the IOU to prepare a Proponent’s Environmental Assessment (PEA) and application. Average time for CPUC decision is 18 months (includes permits from Resource Agencies).  Construction of all segments of Tehachapi will take approximately 5 years. Average construction time is approximately 1 to 2 years. PlanningPermittingConstruction 3 to 4 years 1 to 5 years

9 Permitting, Planning & Construction

10 Historic Permitting Times Notes: Project time is taken from application deemed complete to a Commission decision. CPUC projects are linear i.e. transmission lines or substations; some are joint projects with federal agencies. Jefferson Martin Sunrise Devers-Paula Verde 2Antelope-Vincent Antelope-Pardee El Casco CPUC 17 Months Average to Permit Project

11 Authority and Permits to Construct Energy Infrastructure  Transmission lines CPUC - CPCN or PTC CPUC/federal agency – CPCN or PTC/Record of Decision (ROD) (NEPA) County - certified environmental document (CEQA) Agency Permits in addition to the CPCN or PTC  Generation CEC – Final Staff Assessment (FSA) (CEQA equivalent) CEC/Federal agency – FSA /Record of Decision County – certified environmental document (CEQA)

12 Typical Required Permits After the CPUC Issues the CPCN or PTC – State Resource Agency Permits  Resource Agency Permits Obtained by the Applicant  State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Section 401 Water Quality Permit (Clean Water Act) Needed if there are potential impacts to waters of the state Issued after the Project is Approved  California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) (Fish and Game Code) Needed if project activities are within 100 ft of a water body or have the potential to affect the water body Issued after the Project is Approved

13 Other Permits That May be Required - Federal  Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) 404 Permit (Clean Water Act) Needed if placement of dredge material into US waters, including wetlands  Nationwide permit (NWP) – less than 5 acres  Regional or individual permit – more than 5 acres Takes approximately 9 months (NWP) to 15 months (regional permit) from when the application is submitted  United State Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 consultation (Federal Endangered Species Act) Biological Assessment (BA) is prepared by the applicant and submitted to the ACOE (for river & wetland modification) USFW issues a Biological Opinion (BO) – issued within 135 days of acceptance of the BA

14 Other Permits That May be Required - State  California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) - Fish and Game Code Consistency Determination Required if the project may result in take of species that are both federally and state-listed Applicant requests that CDFG review the BO issued by USFWS to determine if conservation measures in BO are acceptable CDFG has 30 days from receipt of the request to review the BO and issue a determination  California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) –Section 2080 Take Permit Required if project has potential to result in take of a state- only listed endangered species or threatened species Applicant submits application to CDFG to identify mitigation measures to reduce, avoid and minimize the potential for take. Authorization received from CDFG in approximately 30 to 90 days, depending upon the species involved and complexity of the project.