The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013/10/15 Item 15 PresentationGPA-10-04 PCM-10-12 October 15, 2013 Electrical Generating Facilities (EGFs) INTRODUCTION City Council Meeting • February 10, 2010 City Council direction to: 1) Form Working Group: GPU Environmental Subcommittee 2) Develop Regulation and Criteria for Siting of EGFs 3) Amendments to General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as necessary • MMC 2008 - 2009 Context •Envir. Working Group meetings (May – Sept. 2010) •Staff prepares draft GPA, Zoning Ordinance and Council Policy documents (Oct 2010 – April 2011) •May 2011- Initial review with Resource Conservation Commission, Council Energy Subcommittee •EGF WG on follow ups (July 2011) •Planning Commission (Aug 2011) •Industry/User outreach - (Sept 2011 – Aug 2012) •Joint Environmental and Industry Group (Oct 2012) •Council-led Environmental Workshop (Jan 2013) Process Environmental Working Group Theresa Acerro Southwest Civic Association Laura Hunter Environmental Health Coalition Lynn Baker Endangered Habitat League Teresa “Terry” Thomas Director, Governing Board, Sweetwater Authority Georgie Stillman Resource Conservation Commissioner Joy Williams Environmental Health Coalition Steve Moore APCD Industry Working Group Josh Brock SDG&E Jay Norris/Steve Miesen Chula Vista Chamber Mike Nagy SD Regional Chamber Claudia Valenzuela SDG&E Christine Moore AT&T Xema Jacobson South County EDC Andy Taylor AT&T Adrianna Kripke SDG&E Mike Harrington/Paul Sackos Goodrich 1) EGF Definition 2) Purpose and Components of Proposed EGF Amendments and Policy 3) Working Group Inputs, Policy Options Overview 4) Recommendations to City Council A. Base Load Plant C. Private Facility B. Peaking Facility D. Backup and Emergency E. Residential - Level Proposed Regulatory Structure Chula Vista General Plan Policy Amendments Revised Zoning Ordinance Provisions Council E.G.F. Policy General Plan Amendments 1) Land Use and Transportation Element - Clarify PQ and IL Definitions Limited Industrial: The Limited Industrial designation is intended for light manufacturing; warehousing; certain public utilities; auto repair; auto salvage yards; and flexible-use projects that combine these uses with associated office space. The FAR for this category ranges from 0.25 to 0.5. Public and Quasi-Public: The Public and Quasi-Public designation is intended for schools; churches; hospitals; civic centers; fire stations; libraries; landfills; public utilities and other similar public uses. When PQ or other Public Facilities symbol is used alone, or within a floating bubble on the Land Use Diagram, it indicates the possible location of a future facility. General Plan Amendments 2) Environmental Element - Revision to Policy E6.4: Baseload and Peaking EGFs minimum 1,000 ft. from Sensitive Receptors E 6.4 Avoid siting new or re-powered energy generation facilities and other toxic air emitters Do not site fossil- fueled baseload or peaking-type Electrical Generating Facilities within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receiver receptors, or placement of a site sensitive receiver receptors within 1,000 feet of a major toxic emitter such facilities. 2) Environmental Element (cont.) - Revision to Policy E23.3: Proximity of Hazardous Industrial Facilities to school or residential dwellings E 23.3 Avoid siting Do not site industrial facilities and uses that pose a significant hazard to human health and safety in proximity to schools or residential dwellings. General Areas Meeting Baseload and Peaking Criteria 3 Aspects of Zoning Code 2) Individual Zones: Permitted Uses, Conditionally Permitted Uses, Accessory Uses 1) Definitions 3) Uses – Special Considerations Zoning Ordinance Amendments 1)19.04 (Definitions), Establish 5 types of EGFs 2)Identifies Zones in which each EGF type allowed 3) 19.58 (Uses) Establishes regulations and requirements for the siting of all types of EGFs • Other local, regional, state and federal regulations for EGFs • Consistent with performance standards of existing zoning ordinance • Requires compliance with new Council Policy • Requires periodic BACT review MY Of CHULA VISTA Yelopment Services r Department ..................................... Permitted p Accessory Uses ACC Not - Permitted Conditionally Permitted CUP Permitted subject to and regulated by the California Electrical and Mechanical Codes; and Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 15. * * Permitted similar to RE, R1 and R2 Zones. Zones EGF Sub- types RE R1 R2 R -3 C -0 C -N C -C C -V C -T I -L I P -Q PC Baseload CUP CUP CUP CUP Peaking CUP CUP CUP CUP Private ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC Backup and Emergency P* P* P* ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC ACC Residential- level P* P* P* P** Permitted p Accessory Uses ACC Not - Permitted Conditionally Permitted CUP Permitted subject to and regulated by the California Electrical and Mechanical Codes; and Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 15. * * Permitted similar to RE, R1 and R2 Zones. Zoning Ordinance Edits per Industry Group •Definition Private Facility: Up to 25 megawatts as general definition. •Private and Back Up and Emergency EGFs are considered as “Accessory uses and buildings”, do not require a conditional use permit, but must meet siting criteria. Chapter 19:58 Uses: •Section A.) Most EGFs are considered as “Accessory Uses”; Only Baseload and Peakers require CUP. •Section C.13) CUP review every 10 years (rather than 5); CUP review cycle begin at EGF commission to operate, rather than from date of the CUP approval. •Section E.2) BACT upgrade review for Private Facilities •Section E.4) that wind, solar or other renewables should not require location in an enclosed building if not practicable. •Set of guidelines & standards for siting all types of EGFs, including associated tables •Works in conjunction with Zoning Ordinance •Standard format; Background, Purpose, Policy •Policy section- Clarifies that Policy & ZO constitute CEC LORS for EGFs of 50MW or greater; local regulations for those under 50MW Defines 27 terms EGF Siting Criteria (Tables A-E; one for each type of EGF) Emissions Offsets Calculations & Requirements Best Available Control Technology Review Requirements EGF Council Policy TABLE A – BASELOAD ELECTRICAL GENERATING FACILITIES (EGFs) SITING CRITERIA EGF Provisions •For new or re-powered projects only; not retroactive •Encourage use of cleaner fuels & technology over time •Back Up & Emergency of 50hp or greater; minimum for APCD •“Offset” provisions create focus on local conditions / affects Why “Offsets” • EGF Mitigation often not local • Citizens live with effects • Focus on fossil fuel burning reduction • Result in air quality improvement • Emphasize local provision / benefit EGF Council Policy – Base Version Emissions Offset Options •Calculate facility’s uncaptured GHG emissions using Climate Registry’s or CARB protocols •Provide equivalent fossil-fuel burning Offsets Contribute to City’s Energy Conservation Fund; select from list of projects o Municipal operations, residences, businesses, social service, schools, non-profits o Efficiency retrofits, solar, electric vehicle chargers, alternative fuels, transit passes, shade trees, etc. Provide own projects •Offsets tied to unmitigated GHG only; GHG is commodity we know & can readily quantify & address •Offsets are one time, based on one year of unmitigated GHG outputs, not operating life Energy Saving Retrofits Fleet Conversion Solar Photovoltaic = X Less Kwh = Y Less Fuel = Z Less Kwh = = = MITIGATED UNMITIGATED “Offset” Amount (GHG Proxy) Fossil Fuel Reducing Offset Activities Associated GHG Policy “Offsets” Approach •Clarification of existing definitions, and addition of several new definitions; •Expanded explanation of “Offset” requirements; •Expanded explanation of the use of GHG as a proxy commodity in determining the amount of Offsets; •Added Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review requirements so that the applicant can clearly understand what information to submit to the City for the review. EGF Policy Edits per Industry Group (Base Original) (Base Original) m tftW MY Of CHULA VISTA velopment Services r Department ..................................... EGF Policy Evaluation Feedback by Joint Working Group Version 3 1. Removed . Original Working Group noted Local Offset is Staff drafted Version 4 as a hybrid, 2. Removed an important component of the EGF Policy, requiring Local Offset for only 3. Removed and should not be removed. Baseload and Peakers. This avoids the 4. (Same) . Deletes potentially complicated Offset small business concerns with Version program, and focuses specifically on CEQA/ 2. APCD - related mitigation being done locally. Version 4 1. Local Offset for Baseload & . Offset only for Baseload /Pecker that can Similar to Version 2 with the exception Peakers only shoulder the cost. of Offset only for Baseload & Peakers. 2. Removed . Avoid fee study. Joint Group has not reviewed this 3. (Same) . Avoid small business impacts. version. 4. (Same) m tftW MY Of CHULA VISTA velopment Services r Department ..................................... EGF Policy Evaluation Feedback by Joint Working Group Version 3 1. Removed . Original Working Group noted Local Offset is Staff drafted Version 4 as a hybrid, 2. Removed an important component of the EGF Policy, requiring Local Offset for only 3. Removed and should not be removed. Baseload and Peakers. This avoids the 4. (Same) . Deletes potentially complicated Offset small business concerns with Version program, and focuses specifically on CEQA/ 2. APCD - related mitigation being done locally. Version 4 1. Local Offset for Baseload & . Offset only for Baseload /Pecker that can Similar to Version 2 with the exception Peakers only shoulder the cost. of Offset only for Baseload & Peakers. 2. Removed . Avoid fee study. Joint Group has not reviewed this 3. (Same) . Avoid small business impacts. version. 4. (Same) •Industry Group recommends Version 3 without Offset provision •Environmental Group prefers Version 4 with Offset provision for Baseload and Peakers only Working Group Recommendations Conclusion Conclusion 1) Clear, Comprehensive regulations for all EGF Types 3) Prohibit Nuclear and emphasize cleaner burning fuels 4) Meets Working Group objectives and Council direction 2) Minimum distance and limited Zones for Major EGFs 5) Reflects RCC and CES, and both Working Groups final edits and clarifications Offset Issues by SDG&E a) Offset violates federal and state constitutional requirements for agencies to place conditions on development; b) lacks factual justification for using GHG emissions as a proxy for air pollutants; and SDG&E June 3, 2013 letter to Mayor and Council: c) existing federal and state air quality and GHG laws raise preemption problems. City responses to SDG&E a)City can exercise its police power authority to protect the health and safety of its citizens by placing conditions on development, including provision such as the “Offsets” proposal; b) ATP and GHG are only indirectly related; and c) local governments can adopt air pollution control requirements that are more stringent than state and federal legislative authority; including air pollution controls such as the “Offsets”. Recommendation Recommendations •Approve Resolution adopting General Plan Amendment; •Approve Ordinance adopting Zoning Ordinance (Title 19) Amendments (first reading); and •Approve Resolution adopting Council EGF Policy Version 3 (without Offsets) 4" it 7 Development Services M� Department CHUM VISTA