CCC - CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
CCC-1.
The Initial Study systematically analyzed potential impacts from the proposed divestiture of each power plant on the environment. The project description includes all reasonably foreseeable actions attributed to divestiture. Actions associated with the restructuring of the electric industry in the state were not considered because, as noted on page 3.1 of the Initial Study, actions taken by the California Legislature rendered an EIR on restructuring unnecessary. The language on page 3.1 of the Initial Study was derived from CPUC Decision No. 96-12-075, which stated, "In this order we halt preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) studying our preferred policy for electric restructuring. We find that Assembly Bill (AB) 1890 (Stats. 1996, ch. 854.) resolves to move from traditional electric utility regulation to a more competitive scheme, and outlines a new competitive market structure. The EIR's purpose was to study the environmental effects of moving to the market structure outlined in the preferred policy so we could consider those effects in a final decision. However, we now have no discretion to make a decision on moving to a competitive market or to frame the basic structure of that market. In such a situation an EIR is neither appropriate nor necessary. . . . We also will continue to consider CEQA issues in individual electric restructuring proceedings, if appropriate."
The Initial Study used the environmental checklist provided in Appendix I of the CEQA Guidelines. All reasonably foreseeable effects of the divestiture were analyzed and, where environmental effects were found to be potentially significant, mitigation measures were incorporated. No significant impacts were identified that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
The divestiture project has necessitated the identification of site contamination as part of due diligence and, as noted on pages 4.9.12 and 4.9.13, the Initial Study determined that, "...Environmental Site Investigations have been conducted for each plant site. These reports document known site conditions, and would be provided to prospective new owners as part of the due diligence process and to appropriate regulatory agencies as part of the remediation process." On the same page, the Initial Study continues, "under terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement, Edison will be responsible for any legally required remediation of existing contaminated soil and ground water at the divested plants that is necessitated by on-going operations of existing plant facilities and, therefore, will be responsible for remediation activities that are part of the ownership transition." However, the terms of the Purchase and Sale Agreement provide that the new owners will be responsible for remediation associated with decommissioning. Finally, on the same page, the Initial Study concludes, "To the extent that the transfer of ownership and associated due diligence will identify site contamination and lead to its remediation, a beneficial impact on the environment might result." Please see response to CRB-8.
Divestiture does not affect the decision whether or when to close any particular power plant. The market forces which will determine the viability of each facility, as well as most other generators, arise primarily from restructuring itself, not divestiture. As discussed in response CCC-1, the legislation enacting restructuring is exempt from CEQA requirements. Attachment C, at page C.16, discusses how the incentives to repower (or implicitly, to retire) the facilities proposed for divestiture will not differ substantially in a reasonably foreseeable manner over the next decade. As a result, the Initial Study concludes that these power plants will likely continue to exist in their current configuration under reasonably foreseeable conditions. There is no basis for concluding that the these plants will close; thus, that remote and unforeseeable occurrence need not be evaluated. Since the divestiture project would not result in the prolonged use of these plants, such analysis was not appropriate for the Initial Study.
The commentor states that their comment on the possibility of existing stacks being replaced by other pollution control technology, submitted on the Draft Initial Study (DIS) on July 15, 1997 was not evaluated. The comments provided in the July 15, 1997 letter was concerned with the issue that there would be an impact to coastal viewsheds by these stacks as a result of the project. These concerns were considered and evaluated in the Initial Study as part of the aesthetics analysis discussed in Section 4.13. Since the stacks are already in existence, and expected to remain with or without divestiture, visual impacts were found to be less than significant, and therefore, no mitigation is required.
As a point of information, we know of no such technology to replace one of the primary functions of power plant stacks, emission of exhaust gases above the atmospheric building wake immediately downwind of the power plant buildings.