Presentation given on March 30, 2010, at Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York. Titled “Environmental and Regulatory Challenges to Developing Energy Alternatives – a Case Study,” the presentation focused on difficulties companies face when seeking regulatory approvals for proposed solar thermal energy projects in Southern California.

1. GENEVA | HOUSTON | KANSAS CITY | LONDON | MIAMI | ORANGE COUNTY | SAN FRANCISCO | TAMPA | WASHINGTON, D.C.
Environmental and Regulatory Challenges to
Developing Energy Alternatives – A Case Study
Seminar Program on Law, Science and Sustainability
Cornell Law School, Ithaca NY – March 30, 2009

2. Disclaimer
This presentation is based in substantial part on publicly-available, non-copyright
protected internet resources, including but not limited to materials published by
the California Energy Commission, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and
Solar Millennium LLC. No representation is made herein regarding the accuracy or
completeness of information provided in these materials, nor does any reference
to or reliance on that information constitute an endorsement of the views
expressed by the publishers.

3. The Goal –
Increasing the Use of Renewable Energy
Resources in the United States

4. California Renewable Portfolio Standard
• California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard Program established in
2002, with the goal of increasing the percentage of renewable
energy in the state's electricity mix to 20 percent by 2010.
• Senate Bill 107 created the California Renewable Portfolio Standard
(RPS), codifying the 20 percent goal and requiring electric utilities to
increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by
at least 1 percent of retail sales annually.
• Executive Order S-14-08 (November 17, 2008) requires California
utilities to reach a 33 percent renewables goal by 2020.
• Renewable energy sources utilize many different technologies to
produce electricity (solar (photovoltaic and thermal); large and small
hydroelectricity plants; geothermal; biomass).
• Solar thermal (using reflectors to concentrate sunlight to produce
steam for use in conventional power generation turbines).

5. World Wide Solar Energy Intensity

6. Solar Energy Potential in the United States

7. Ridgecrest Solar Thermal Project
• Applications for certification on file for 12 projects, located in San
Bernardino, Kern, Imperial, Fresno and Riverside counties.
• Total capacity under review: 4,802.8 MW.
• Application of Solar Millennium LLC for Ridgecrest Solar
Development Project (California Energy Commission DOCKET No.
09-AFC-9).
• Located in the high northern Mojave Desert in northeastern Kern
County, California, about five miles southwest of the City of
Ridgecrest, California.
• Utility-scale solar thermal electric power generating will have a
nominal output of 250 megawatts (MW), consisting of a single
power plant utilizing two solar fields.
• Project right-of-way (ROW) will extend across approximately 3,920
acres of public lands owned by the federal government.

8. Ridgecrest Solar Thermal Project

9. Solar Thermal Technology
• Solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity.
• Arrays of parabolic mirrors collect heat energy from the sun and
refocus the radiation on a receiver tube located at the focal point of
the parabola.
• Heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated to high temperatures (750
degrees Fahrenheit) as it circulates through the receiver tubes.
• Heated HTF is piped through a series of heat exchangers where it
releases its stored heat to generate high pressure steam.
• Steam fed to a traditional steam turbine generator where electricity
is produced.

10. Solar Thermal Technology

11. CEC Certification Authority
• State law requires California Energy Commission (CEC) to certify
“sites” for thermal solar power plants with a rated capacity of 50
megawatts or greater.
– Commission has 5 members – 2 appointed as Committee to
conduct the certification process.
– All decisions made solely on the basis of the public record.
• Sites are certified together with their related facilities (i.e.
transmission lines, substations, water supply systems, natural gas
pipelines, waste disposal facilities, access roads, etc.).
• CEC is “lead agency” for California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
• Also monitors compliance with all conditions of certification during
life of the project, including closure and decommissioning.

12. Coordination with BLM
• Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
– Administers public lands under Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) Issuance of right-of-way grants for
use of federal land under 43 CFR Sec. 2800.
– Prepares land use plan (LUP) amendment to authorize proposed
use (power generation and transmission).
– Lead agency for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
National Historic Preservation Act, other Federal laws.
• Major federal action triggering environmental review under NEPA.
– Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
– Preparation of environmental impact statement (EIS).
– Environmental review in conjunction with state law (CEQA).
• BLM and CEC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning
joint environmental review in a single NEPA)/CEQA process.

13. Coordination with Responsible Agencies
• Local:
– City of Ridgecrest and surrounding communities.
• Regional:
– Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
• State:
– Department of Fish and Game.
– State Water Resources Control Water Board (SWRCB).
– Office of Historic Preservation.
– Native American Heritage Commission.
• Federal:
– Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
– Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Parks Service).

14. CEC Certification Process
• Project proponent submits application for CEC certification.
• CEC project staff reviews application to ensure that it meets
minimum requirements and determination to accept application.
• Staff discovery and analyses (data requests and responses; “issues
identification” and public workshops).
• Preliminary and Final Staff Assessment (FSA).
• Committee evidentiary hearing and issuance of Presiding Member’s
Proposed Decision (PMPD), including:
– Findings relating to environmental impacts, public health and
engineering considerations.
– Determination of project’s compliance with Laws, Ordinances,
Regulations and Standards (LORS), potential impacts to the
environment, and related mitigation measures.
– Recommendations regarding conditions of certification.

15. CEC Certification Process (Cont.)
• PMPD hearing and Commission decision.
• Judicial review (30 day CEQA statute of limitations).

16. Ridgecrest Certification Process
TO DATE
• ROW Application – 03/2007
• AFC Submitted – 09/2009
• Data Adequacy – 11/2009
• NOI Published – 11/2009
• Public Workshop – 12/2009
• Scoping Hearing – 01/2010
• Data Requests – 01/2010
GOING FORWARD
• Data Submittal – 01/2010
• BLM ROD – 09/2010
• CEC Decision – 09/2010
• Notice to Proceed – 11/2010
• Begin Construction – 12/2010
• Begin Operations – 07/2013

17. Current Obstacles
• Lack of direction regarding allocation of development in West
Mojave LUP – BLM
• Interim mitigation requirements uncertain – DFG, FWS, BLM
• High level of detail required from applicant – CEC, BLM
• Timing of compliance / combined schedule – CEC, BLM
• Alternatives analysis overly prescriptive – CEC, BLM
• Permitting status and process for network upgrades identified for
renewables – CEC, CPUC, BLM

18. Issue 1 : Individual Impacts (Sacred Lands)
• Mountainous area to the
southwest of project site
known as the El Paso
Mountains Sacred Lands.
• Listed in Native American
Heritage Commission’s
database of Sacred Lands.
• Project could impact view shed
identified by Native Americans
as sacred.
• Exclusive use of no more than
3,926 acres of public land
could eliminate other BLM
authorized land uses.

19. Issue 2 : Individual Impacts (Ground Water)
• Project proposes using high
quality groundwater from wells
located within the Indian Wells
Valley Groundwater Basin.
• Proposed uses include:
– Site construction.
– Plant operations (power
cycle makeup water, mirror
wash water, domestic
potable water, dust.
suppression water, cooling
of ancillary equipment).
• Overdraft in basin will continue
and be exacerbated by the
additional water requirements
of the project.

20. Issue 3 : Cumulative Impacts (Traffic)
• Brown Road/S. China Lake
Blvd./US 395 intersection (post
mile 15) has overall collision
rate 2.8 times higher than the
State-wide average for similar
type facility.
• In both phases of the project
(construction and operational),
additional trips would be
generated by assorted vehicle
types.
• New access point from US 395
is likely a necessity for the
project.

21. Issue 4 : Process (Transmission)
• July 28,
2009 California Independent
System Operator (California
ISO) Phase I Interconnection
Study for project provided
without the generation plant.
• Required to determine the
potential project’s impacts on
existing transmission network.
• CEQA analysis of potential
downstream transmission
upgrades could cause a delay
in the licensing process.

22. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSION

23. ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY CHALLENGES TO
DEVELOPING ENERGY ALTERNATIVES – A CASE STUDY
Kevin Haroff | Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP | www.shb.com
Geneva | Houston | Kansas City | London | Miami | Orange County | San Francisco | Tampa | Washington D.C.