BOARD MEETING DATE: July 13, 2007 AGENDA NO. 29

BOARD MEETING DATE: July 13, 2007
AGENDA NO. 29

PROPOSAL:

Adopt Proposed Amended Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve and Re- Adopt Rule 1315 – Federal New Source Review Tracking System, and Issue Request for Proposal to Conduct Analysis on Energy Resource Planning, and Approve Inland Energy’s Request for Inter-District Transfer of VOC Credits.

SYNOPSIS:

The proposed amendments to Rule 1309.1 are to replace the amendments adopted on September 8, 2006 and in addition, establish air quality and economic criteria for the purchase of emission offset credits from the Priority Reserve by electrical generating facilities (EGFs) based on the location of the project. The proposal for Rule 1315 is to re-adopt the rule adopted on September 8, 2006. Staff also proposes to issue a Request for Proposal to conduct analysis on energy resource planning, and to approve Inland Energy’s request for Inter-District transfer of VOC credits.

COMMITTEE:

Stationary Source, May 25, 2007, Reviewed.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Adopt the attached resolution:

Amending Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve by adopting only one of the following options:

Option 1(Tiered mitigation fee structure); or

Option 2 (Uniform mitigation fee structure); and

Re-Adopting Rule 1315 – Federal New Source Tracking System; and

Certifying the Program Environmental Assessment for Proposed Amended Rule 1309.1 (Option 1 or Option 2), and Proposed Readopted Rule 1315; and

Authorizing the issuance of a Request for Proposal for up to $450,000 from the mitigation fees collected under Rule 1309.1 to conduct a comprehensive analysis on energy resource planning and maximizing renewable energy production.

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Executive Officer

Background

In 2005, despite new EGF projects, California once again experienced some Stage 2 shortages (power reserves down to 5%) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) outlook for the foreseeable future is that demand for electrical power will continue to increase. At the September 8, 2006 Public Hearing, Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve was amended to allow EGFs temporary access to the Priority Reserve to obtain SO_x, CO and PM10 credits. These September amendments once again provided new EGFs access to the Priority Reserve where these proposed projects can not secure the needed offsets on the open market.

The September 8, 2006 amendments to Rule 1309.1 provided access for electrical generating facilities (EGFs) to the Priority Reserve credits subject to certain limitations and criteria, including the payment of a mitigation fee. Concerns were raised by Board members at that hearing that additional criteria should be developed to address localized impacts. In response to the Board direction, staff drafted several proposals and conducted an extensive outreach program consisting of several public forums and meetings with representatives from the energy industry, impacted community, environmental representatives, and regulatory and municipal agencies. The current staff proposal for Rule 1309.1 reflects the Board directive as well as consideration of input from the public outreach. However, public comments and suggestions have varied widely regarding this potential action, and in many cases are diametrically opposite. These proposed amendments fully replace the September 8, 2006 amendments to Rule 1309.1.

Rule 1315 was developed at the request of and with the approval of the U.S. EPA to formalize the AQMD’s accounting methodology in tracking debits and credits to its offset accounts as required by U.S. EPA to establish that sufficient offsets are provided for all major sources pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act. Rule 1315 was adopted on September 8, 2006 and forwarded to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and ultimately U.S. EPA for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Staff is proposing the re-adoption of the September 8, 2006 version of Rule 1315.

Upon amendment of Rule 1309.1 and adoption of Rule 1315 on September 8, 2006, the District was sued by members of the environmental community that alleged the rulemaking did not undergo the appropriate CEQA analysis. Although staff strongly disagrees with this allegation, a programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for this replacement and re-adoption rulemaking to resolve the CEQA matter.

Proposed Amendment

In addition to addressing the Board’s directives, the staff proposal includes all the categories of provisions of the amendments to Rule 1309.1 and Rule 1315 adopted by the Board on September 8, 2006. The reason for re-approving the actions already taken last September is to provide those actions with a full CEQA analysis, thus addressing the concerns raised in pending litigation. For Rule 1309.1, this includes the limited window of opportunity for EGFs to purchase credits from the Priority Reserve subject to certain conditions, including demonstration that credits were not available in the open market and use of a 1.2 to 1.0 offset ratio. EGF projects in downwind air pollution control districts and air quality management districts under certain limited conditions could purchase VOC credits from the Priority Reserve and staff again recommends the approval of Inland Energy’s request for transfer of credits for two projects in the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District and the Mojave Desert Air Pollution Control District. The partial refund of mitigation fees if a project is cancelled under certain conditions is also authorized.

Rule 1315 formalizes the AQMD’s NSR accounting methodology including the adjustment of account balances per the discussions with the U.S. EPA, the methods used to demonstrate equivalency with federal NSR, provisions for a two-year projection of equivalency and measures to be taken should demonstration of equivalency be in doubt.

No changes are proposed for Rule 1315. However, the following summarizes the proposed amendments to Rule 1309.1 that add additional criteria for EGFs seeking Priority Reserve credits for PM10, SOx, or CO in the more polluted regions of the AQMD.

EGFs are significant emitters of PM2.5 and exposure to PM2.5 has been linked to serious health impacts. Staff is proposing the AQMD be divided into 3 zones based on historical measured ambient concentrations of PM2.5. Zone 1 has the lowest concentrations, Zone 2 has higher concentrations than Zone 1, and Zone 3 has the highest concentrations. To address concerns expressed by the environmental community that other health and social criteria should also be used for determining access to the Priority Reserve, the proposal adds an overlay of Environmental Justice Areas (EJA) to the three PM2.5 ambient concentration zones. The EJA is based upon percentage of the population below the poverty level as determined by the 2000 Federal Census, cancer risk as determined by the AQMD MATES II and exposure to ambient concentrations of PM10 based on AQMD monitoring.

Under the staff proposal, EGFs located in any area of the AQMD could seek access to Priority Reserve credits provided they pay applicable mitigation fees in addition to meeting more stringent emission limitations to those currently applicable under other District rules and regulations. Staff has prepared two mitigation fee proposals for Board’s consideration. Under Option 1, EGFs located in Zone2, Zone 3, or the EJA will be subject to higher mitigation fee rates and more stringent criteria than Zone 1. The mitigation fees in Zone 2 are 50% greater than Zone 1 and the mitigation fees in Zone 3 or the EJA are 100% higher than Zone 1. Under Option 2, EGFs will be subject to a uniform mitigation fee across the Basin, based on 2006 and first quarter 2007 weighted average prices.

The more stringent criteria for those located in Zone 2, Zone 3, or the EJA also depends on whether the project is 500 MW or less or more than 500 MW. Projects greater than 500 MW located in Zone 3 or the EJA have the most stringent criteria, including an hourly PM10 mass emission limitation. The toxic and air quality impact criteria for projects in Zone 2, Zone 3 and the EJA are more stringent than that required by other District rules, and the NOx and PM10 emission rate limitations in the three zones (the same in Zones 1, 2, and for projects of 500 MW capacity or less in Zone 3 or the EJA) reflect the state of the art on low emission gas turbine technology. Finally, there are annual hours of use limitations on simple cycle units to ensure their use when they are most effective as a peaking unit and not for base loads where combined cycle units are most effective from an emissions perspective. Included in the staff report are potential EGF projects. The potential projects are in each of the three zones and some are also in the EJA.

It is to be noted that in addition to the mitigation fees, each project that seeks access to the Priority Reserve in Zone 2, Zone 3, or the EJA is also subject to the more stringent requirements for certain criteria pollutants and cancer risk, chronic and acute hazard index and cancer burden. The cumulative mitigation fee total under Option 1 and 2 could be as high as 333.7 to 419.1 million dollars respectively. Such estimate is based on the assumption that all current proposed projects will be approved and constructed. However, it is not likely that all projects will be constructed and the resulting mitigation fees collected are expected to be significantly less than the total potential fees collected. The mitigation fee estimate is also based on the scenario that EGFs will need to obtain PM and SOx credits and not need to purchase CO credits because AQMD has recently been designated by U.S. EPA to be in attainment for CO.

The proposed amendments also include a clarification of the applicable version of the rule for determining eligibility for access to the Priority Reserve and mitigation fees, a requirement that renewable/alternative energy in lieu of a gas-fired EGF is not feasible for any project seeking Priority Reserve credits and a provision that could allow a partial refund of mitigation fees for projects that submitted permit applications in 2000 through 2003 provided certain conditions are met.

In addition to the proposed amendments to Rule 1309.1, staff will be making the following recommendations to the Governing Board as part of the adoption resolution:

Staff will be committing to prepare a plan by September 2007 for the Governing Board’s approval to disburse the balance of the mitigation fees collected that will also include investments in renewable energy projects.

Recent modifications to the staff proposal

The staff proposal included in this Board letter differs slightly than that released as part of the Set Hearing Package in June 2007, in that the NOx and PM10 emission rate limitations originally proposed for projects locating in Zone 2 and projects less than 500 MW locating in Zone 3 and the EJA are now proposed to be applicable to projects locating in Zone 1 as well. It also clarifies that compliance with the proposed NOx and PM10 limitations is to be measured when electrical generating units are operated at full load. Staff has also prepared and is included in this Board package an alternative mitigation fee proposal listed as Option 2 that provides a uniform fee structure across the Basin in lieu of the tiered mitigation fee structure included in Option 1.

Issues

Staff conducted an extensive public outreach program for the development of this proposal. As a result, a number of comments were received and issues identified. The staff proposal reflects the input from this process and specific comments and responses to those comments are included in the attached staff report. Although not intended to be all-inclusive, the following are some of the major issues from the rule development:

Access to Priority Reserve:

Should EGF projects in specific areas be excluded from access to the Priority Reserve? Community representatives commented that the most polluted areas of the AQMD should be excluded from access to the Priority Reserve and that the exclusion area be expanded to include the moderately polluted areas as well. Industry representatives and other agencies, on the other hand, commented that there should be no exclusion areas and to subject the EGFs in the most polluted areas to the same or perhaps more stringent requirements that would apply to EGFs in the moderately polluted areas. Both CEC and California Independent System Operators (Cal ISO) commented against restricting access to Priority Reserve for those EGFs proposed to locate in Zone 3. Both agencies commented that necessary power infra-structure composed of sub-stations and transmission lines already exist in Zone 3 and locating power plants in this area is vital to addressing growth-induced voltage and power limitations in the eastern portions of the Basin, in general. In response to the input from the impacted stakeholders and after careful consideration, staff is proposing that EGFs be allowed to site in any area provided that they comply with very stringent conditions for locating in high impacted areas, pay the applicable mitigation fees, and perform due diligence to investigate and document the lack of availability of alternative/renewable energy to their proposals. All projects in Zone 2 and Zone 3 or the EJA must meet additional criteria to purchase credits from the Priority Reserve.

Graduating Mitigation Fees:

Should there be a graduating mitigation fee structure with increasing mitigation fees from the lesser to the higher impacted areas? Staff has initially proposed such a fee structure to act as an incentive to locate EGFs in those areas with the least emissions impact. In addition, it is expected that most of the mitigation fees will be used for air quality improvement projects near the EGF, so that those in the more polluted areas will receive the benefit from the additional funding of these projects in their area resulting from the high fees charged in the more polluted areas. During the rulemaking process, arguments were made that the tiered mitigation fee structure leaves EGFs proposing to locate in the more polluted areas due to the available infrastructure and the public residing in those areas at an economic disadvantage, which was characterized as unfair since much of the pollution in those areas is due to emissions released and transported from upwind areas. In response, staff has developed an alternative proposal included here as Option 2 that establishes a uniform mitigation fee structure across the Basin.

Renewable/Alternative Energy Vs Conventional Power Supply:

Environmental and community representatives argue that if access to the Priority Reserve is not allowed for gas-fired EGFs, project proponents will install the more environmentally beneficial renewable/alternative energy technology. Staff supports the development and use of clean renewable/alternative energy sources. However, these sources or the ability to transmit power from distantly located renewable sources of energy are not currently sufficient to meet the power needs by 2010. To encourage the development of necessary power reserves in the near-term, access to the Priority Reserve is proposed through 2008. In addition, the staff proposal requires the project proponent to demonstrate renewable/alternative energy in lieu of gas-fired EGFs is not feasible as a condition for accessing the Priority Reserve. Also, some portion of the mitigation fees received will likely be designated for renewable/alternative energy projects in the area near the EGF qualifying for Priority Reserve credits. Finally, there is a commitment for use of some of the mitigation fees to identify avenues to maximize renewable energy production in the AQMD. Staff believes this to be the best approach for encouraging the development and use of renewable/alternative technology and meet the near-term power needs for this area.

Stringency of Proposed Emission Limits:

Small municipal utilities’ representatives argue that the proposed NOx and PM10 per MW-hr limits for the three zones and the EJA may not be achievable for small peaking units that municipal utilities may opt for to meet their demands. In addition, municipal utilities do not have the option for locating outside of their service area if that area is in Zone 2, or Zone 3, or the EJA. The staff proposal set NOx and PM10 per MW-hr emission limits that reflect the state of the art of emission technology for gas turbines that are achievable. As a condition to purchase credits from the Priority Reserve for EGFs locating in the more polluted areas of the AQMD, the lowest emission technology available should be used. However, due to the concerns discussed above, staff believes it is necessary to set standards at levels that can be achieved. The proposed standards intend to provide incentives for the installation of more efficient and lesser polluting base-load units and establish emissions-based performance standards, as a pre-condition for installation of larger units.

CEQA Analysis

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and AQMD Rule 110, the AQMD staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined the proposed amendments may have the potential to generate significant adverse environmental impacts. A Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOP/IS) was prepared and released for a 30-day public review and comment period from March 23, 2007 to April 24, 2007. Seven comment letters on the NOP/IS were received. Responses to the comments on the NOP/IS can be found in the Program Environmental Assessment (PEA) which is attached to this letter. The PEA has been prepared to analyze and address any potential environmental impacts of Rule 1315 as well.

Socioeconomic Impacts

A socioeconomic assessment for Rule 1309.1 has been prepared and included as Attachment G to this Board letter. The assessment concludes that since Rule 1309.1 is not part of the 2007 AQMP, cost-effectiveness is not applicable and that while Proposed Amended Rule 1309.1 is not a control measure included in the AQMP, its requirements are consistent with AQMP objectives. Under the proposed amendments, EGFs are required to perform a due diligence effort to secure offsets from the third-party market prior to accessing the Priority Reserve, which is to be used only as a last resort. A comparison of third-party market offset prices and mitigation fees is made although EGFs are likely not able to obtain sufficient offsets from the third-party market due to the lack of supply in the market and the projected demand by the affected EGFs. Under the proposed amended rule, the nine potentially affected facilities, if all constructed, could pay as much as a cumulative mitigation fee of $333.7 to $419.1 million to purchase the required ERCs from the Priority Reserve under Options 1 and 2, respectively. At present, specific emission reduction or clean air projects have not been designated for the mitigation fee revenue from the Priority Reserve so that costs associated with the relevant control technologies and the geographic distribution of costs cannot be determined and hence a regional economic analysis using the REMI model cannot be performed.

The socioeconomic assessment for Rule 1315 is the same as it was prepared for the September 8, 2006 adoption and is included as part of the Staff Report for the September adoption of Rule 1315. Staff has determined that there has been no change in the assessment since it was prepared for the September 2006 adoption.

AQMP and Legal Mandates

The California Health and Safety Code requires the AQMD to adopt an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin. In addition, the California Health and Safety Code requires that the AQMD adopt rules and regulations that carry out the objectives of the AQMP.

While Proposed Amended Rule 1309.1 is not a control measure included in the AQMP, its requirements are consistent with the AQMP objectives. Since this proposal does not impose a new emission limit or standard, make an existing emission limit or standard more stringent, or impose new or more stringent monitoring, reporting or recordkeeping requirements, it is not subject to the comparative analysis provisions of California Health & Safety Code Section 40727.2.

Resource Impacts

Proposed Amended Rule 1309.1 requirements can be implemented within the current staffing levels.

Attachments (EXE 14.6 mb)
A. Rule Development Process
B. Key Contacts
C. Resolution
D. Rule Language
E. Staff Report
F. CEQA – Programmatic Environmental Assessment
G. Socioeconomic Assessment

ERRATA SHEET AGENDA NO: 29

BOARD MEETING DATE: JULY 13, 2007

Please add the following paragraphs to the Resolution for PAR 1309.1 – Priority Reserve:

RESOLUTION:

WHEREAS, the Governing Board has determined that it is appropriate to divide the South Coast Air Basin into sub-regions based on the annual average PM2.5 ambient air concentrations, cancer risk thresholds, and the Environmental Justice Areas, as defined in the rule, and impose differential requirements based on these sub-regions for the sole purpose of providing positive incentives for siting power plants away from impacted communities. The justification for these sub-regional requirements is based solely on the discretionary nature of the Governing Board providing access to the Priority Reserve credits; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that because access to the Priority Reserve credits is discretionary in nature and that the process for sub-dividing the region and imposing differential requirements based on those sub-divisions does not establish precedent for non-discretionary criteria or toxic pollutant regulatory programs; and

Please add the following paragraph to PAR 1309.1 – Priority Reserve (Option 1 and Option 2)

RULE LANGUAGE:

(d)(12) The Executive Officer shall authorize the release of Priority Reserve credits for the first 2700 MW requested by EGFs, provided such EGFs have submitted complete applications for Permit to Construct to the District in calendar years 2005 through 2008, and complied with all applicable provisions of this rule. Requests by EGFs for Priority Reserve credits for calendar years 2005 through 2008 in excess of the first 2700 MW may only be approved by the Governing Board at a public meeting, applying the criteria in this rule.

(d)(13) The Executive Officer shall not authorize the release of any Priority Reserve Credits for an EGF in an EJA that has submitted complete application for a Permit to Construct to the District in calendar years 2005 through 2008 and complied with all applicable provisions of this rule prior to the Governing Board approving a plan to invest the anticipated mitigation fees from the EGF.

ERRATA SHEET AGENDA NO: 1

BOARD MEETING DATE: AUGUST 3, 2007

Staff is proposing to make the following modifications to the Rule language and Resolution of Proposed Amended Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve (Option 1 and Option 2) and Resolution of Proposed Re-adopted Rule 1315 – Federal New Source Review Tracking System. All changes to the July 13, 2007, Board Package are indicated as bold/underlined.

RULE LANGUAGE OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1309.1

(b)(4)(B)(i) and (b)(4)(B)(ii):

~~In case the September 8, 2006 version of this rule is determined to be invalid by a court of law, the July 13, 2007 version would be applicable;~~

(d)(14) The Executive Officer shall not authorize the release of any Priority Reserve credits for an In-District EGF, unless the EGF seeking Priority Reserve credits has obtained certification from CEC and entered into a long-term contract with the Southern California Edison Company, or the San Diego Gas and Electric Company, or the State of California to provide electricity in Southern California; and complied with all applicable provisions of this rule. However, a municipal-owned EGF need not enter into a long-term contract, provided such EGF is designed and constructed to not exceed its native demand load based upon future year projections to 2016 or earlier. A municipal-owned EGF obtaining Priority Reserve credits to exclusively serve its native load may not sell electricity to the state grid unless it is directed to do so under a direct order from Cal-ISO or under a state of emergency declared by the State of California or its agencies including Cal-ISO. Any EGF may petition the Governing Board at a public hearing to waive the requirement to enter into a long-term contract in order to access Priority Reserve credits. The Governing Board shall grant such a waiver if it finds that there is a need for additional power from non-renewable sources that is not being fulfilled by presently available long-term contracts. Any such petition shall not delay any other EGF’s access to Priority Reserve credits.

(d)(15) The Executive Officer shall annually prepare a report for the Governing
Board on the status of the emission reduction projects funded by the mitigation fees from this rule.

(g)(1)(F) An In-District EGF located in the Salton Sea portion of the South Coast Air Quality Management District where a complete initial application for certification to the CEC or a complete application for a Permit to Construct was filed in calendar year 2005, 2006, or 2007 and which has entered into a binding power purchase agreement with Southern California Edison prior to (date of adoption):

PM10 $50,417
SOx $15,083

RESOLUTION OF PROPOSED AMENDED RULE 1309.1

A Resolution of the Governing Board adopting ~~the Statement of~~ Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, ~~and Mitigation Monitoring Plan~~ for proposed amended Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve.

WHEREAS, the Governing Board has determined that a need exists to amend Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve, to establish additional requirements and limitations for EGFs locating in communities in the AQMD that are disproportionately impacted by adverse air quality to have access to Priority Reserve credits and to replace or re-adopt provisions adopted September 8, 2006, to assure that a full CEQA analysis is provided for such provisions; and

WHEREAS, mitigation measures were identified and, thus a Mitigation Monitoring Program under Public Resources Code §21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 was required to be prepared; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary that the AQMD prepare ~~a Statement of~~ Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15091 and 15093, respectively, regarding adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to insignificance; ~~and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081.6, regarding the mitigation included in the Final PEA;~~ and,

WHEREAS, the Governing Board voting on proposed amended Rule 1309.1 – Priority Reserve, has reviewed, and considered, and hereby approves the Final PEA, including responses to comments, the ~~Statement of~~ Findings, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations; ~~and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan~~ and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governing Board does hereby adopt the ~~Statement of~~ Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15091 and 15093, respectively, ~~and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081.6~~ regarding adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to insignificance, ~~and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4,~~ as required by CEQA and which are included as Attachment 1 and incorporated herein by reference; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governing Board does hereby direct that the AQMD set aside $1,000,000 from the mitigation fees collected from EGFs seeking access to the Priority Reserve to conduct a comprehensive energy resource planning analysis for the next 20 years and identify avenues to maximize renewable energy production in the Basin, and issue a Request for Proposal to implement the the study~~included as Attachment 2~~; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governing Board does hereby direct that the balance of the mitigation fees less the authorized administration cost recovery, collected from EGFs seeking access to the Priority Reserve be invested, to the extent possible, on emission mitigation programs including renewable and alternative energy projects in and around the communities most impacted by the proposed project and direct staff to submit ~~a plan proposed~~ guiding principles to implement those expenditures for Governing Board consideration by September 2007; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governing Board does hereby direct that the AQMD staff calendar a report at a regularly scheduled Board Meeting immediately after credits have been issued to an EGF; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Governing Board does hereby direct that the AQMD staff establish a working group to provide input and guidance for design of future energy demand and supply analyses, and potential for and barriers to renewable energy use and to provide input to staff on the development of future proposed amendments to Rule 1309.1; that the working group shall hold their first meeting in August 2007, and that the working group, if they are willing to serve, shall include:

Mr. Bahram Fazeli – Communities for a Better Environment

Mr. Bob Lawhn – Reliant Energy

Mr. David Ashuckian – California Energy Commission

Mr. Donal O’Callaghan – City of Vernon

Mr. Gary L. DeShazo – California Independent System Operator

Mr. Henry Martinez – Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

Ms Jane Williams – California Communities Against Toxics

Mr. Jesse N. Marquez – Coalition for a Safe Environment

Mr. John White – Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies

Ms Julie Way – AES

Mr. Mark Turner – Competitive Power Ventures

Mr. Michael Beck – City of Riverside

Mr. Michael J. Carroll – Latham & Watkins

Mr. Nader Mansour – Southern California Edison

Mr. Stephen J. Sciortino – City of Anaheim

Mr. Tim Grabiel – Natural Resources Defense Council

Mr. Tim Hemig – NRG Energy

Mr. Tom McCabe – Edison Mission Energy

Representative – California Public Utilities Commission;

Mike Scheible - CARB

and that additional members may be added, as appropriate, at the discretion of the AQMD Administrative Committee; and

RESOLUTION OF PROPOSED RE-ADOPTED RULE 1315

A Resolution of the Governing Board adopting the ~~Statement of~~ Findings, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, ~~and Mitigation Monitoring Plan~~ for proposed re-adopted Rule 1315 –Federal New Source Tracking System.

WHEREAS, mitigation measures were identified and, thus a Mitigation Monitoring Program under Public Resources Code §21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines §15126.4 was required to be prepared; and

WHEREAS, it is necessary that the AQMD prepare a Statement of Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §§15091 and 15093, respectively, regarding adverse environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to insignificance; ~~and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan pursuant to Public Resources Code §21081.6, regarding the mitigation included in the Final PEA;~~ and

WHEREAS, the Governing Board voting on proposed re-adopted Rule 1315 – Federal New Source Review Tracking System, has reviewed, and considered, and hereby approves the Final PEA, including responses to comments, the ~~Statement of~~ Findings, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations~~, and Mitigation Monitoring Plan~~; and

This page updated: June 26, 2015
URL: ftp://lb1/hb/2007/July/070729a.html