The Pittsburg District Energy Facility (PDEF) is proposed by Pittsburg District Energy, LLC (a joint venture between the City of Pittsburg, Enron, and USS-Posco Industries subsidiary of Enron Capital and Trade), and would be operated as part of an alliance agreement between Enron and the City of Pittsburg. The agreement is primarily a statement of the two parties’ intention to work together.

The site is located on the northwest corner of the property owned by USS-Posco Industries, which has agreed to purchase steam and electric energy from the PDEF.

The AFC was filed on June 15, 1998, and the CEC accepted the application on July 29, 1998.

Operation of the new plant could adversely affect water resources in the Bay-Delta. Based on the proximity of the plant to the Contra Costa and Pittsburg Power Plants, the new plant could increase the potential for thermal discharge impacts to marine water quality. This would be a potentially significant cumulative impact on water resources. No increase in thermal discharge is anticipated for the PDEF as it will utilize cooling towers for heat rejection of cooling water. However, any water discharges resulting from cooling-tower blowdowns, like those associated with Pittsburg Unit 7, would be subject to permitting. For these reasons, the owner of the new plant would be required to apply for an NPDES permit from the SFRWQCB prior to operation of the plant. In issuing the NDPES permit, which would establish effluent limitations for the proposed plant, the SFRWQCB would consider all of the discharge sources in the Bay-Delta, including the Contra Costa and Pittsburg Power Plants. Therefore, it is anticipated that any significant cumulative impact on water resources with respect to the inclusion of the PDEF could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.

Emissions estimates have been made for cumulative scenarios with and without the new PDEF. Tables G-6 and G-14, in Attachment G of this EIR, show estimates of criteria air pollutant emissions under the 2005 Cumulative Analytical Maximum scenario and the 2005 Variant 2 cumulative scenario, respectively. A comparison of these scenarios shows that at a regional level (which accounts for the sum of emissions from the three four divested fossil-fueled plants, the retirement of the Hunters Point Power Plant, the projected new 480 MW plant in San Francisco and the new PDEF), emissions of each criteria pollutant, except PM-10, would decrease with the inclusion of the new PDEF. PM-10 emissions concentrations are shown to increase in 2005 by an estimated 9 20 tons per year regionally with the new PDEF. However, as shown in Table 4.5-26b, as a percentage of BAAQMD-projected Bay Area regional emissions in 2005, there would be a net decrease in Bay Area power plant emissions of PM-10 and PM-10 precursors under variant 2 in 2005 compared to 1999 baseline conditions. Therefore, Bay Area power plant emissions would not contribute to the cumulative effect of increased emissions from new development in the Bay Area on regional PM-10 concentrations. the change in power plant emissions of PM-10 over 1999 baseline conditions would be less than 1 percent and, therefore, would be considered a less than significant cumulative impact to regional air quality.