[California Energy Commission Letterhead]


STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Energy Resources Conservation
and Development Commission



APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION OF ) DOCKET NO. 00-AFC-12
DUKE ENERGY FOR THE ) APPLICATION COMPLETE
MORRO BAY POWER PLANT PROJECT ) JANUARY 10, 2001
_______________________________________ )  

COMMITTEE SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW
OF APPLICANT’S HABITAT ENHANCEMENT AND AQUATIC FILTER BARRIER PROPOSALS

I. BACKGROUND

At the June 6, 2002 evidentiary hearing, the Committee directed the parties to present a schedule for a thorough review of Applicant's habitat enhancement plan (HEP) for the Morro Bay Estuary and for a pilot project testing an aquatic filter barrier (AFB) at the plant's cooling water intake. Staff sponsored a teleconference on June 14 during which the parties offered their respective schedule recommendations. However, no schedule was agreed upon.
Accordingly, Staff filed its proposal on June 19, stating that other agencies and parties supported the Staff schedule1. On June 21, Applicant filed its schedule recommendation, stating that the City of Morro Bay also supported Applicant's approach. Intervenor CAPE filed its schedule comments on June 24, basically agreeing with Staff, although requesting more time to formulate data requests.
The Committee has carefully considered the parties' arguments and recommendations and has arrived at the schedule noted below.

II. HEARING ORDER

Applicant is proposing the HEP and the pilot project for an AFB in order to address requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board). Those requirements include the Regional Board making a "Best Technology Available" (BTA) determination under the Clean Water Act before granting Applicant a permit under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). However, since Applicant's proposals may also be evaluated as mitigation of a significant environmental impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Committee expects the parties to examine Applicant's proposals according to the standards and guidelines of CEQA.

In the Committee's view, an adequate HEP proposal should address a number of items including, but not limited to: 1) a description of a HEP which is adequate to actually compensate for the environmental impact, is feasible, as defined by CEQA Guidelines (section 15364), and which meets constitutional requirements for nexus and proportionality; 2) identification of the goals and objectives to be achieved by the HEP; 3) performance standards for accomplishing the goals and objectives; 4) identification of how the HEP will be fully enforceable through permits conditions, agreements, or other measures to ensure that identified mitigation projects will be carried out; 5) a reporting and monitoring program to ensure that specific elements of the HEP are implemented, that performance standards are met, that responsibilities are assigned, that monitoring activities are scheduled, and that any needed corrections to the plan can be taken in a timely way; 6) contingency plans to be implemented if a specific project has not or is not likely to meet its objectives, or if a project is found to be more successful than anticipated; 7) substantiated cost estimates and an enforceable payment schedule.

The schedule which follows shall apply for the remainder of this proceeding through issuance of the Presiding Member's Proposed Decision (PMPD). The requirement for Applicant to identify its HEP on July 1 anticipates that Applicant will specify the precise portions of the record which contain a description of its HEP, along with any supplements to that description which Duke wishes to file at that time2 . The parties will rely on the Applicant's description to formulate their data requests.

Submittals required in this schedule must be served upon all parties to this proceeding and one original and eleven (11) copies to the Commission's Docket Unit, MS-4, 1516 Ninth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. All documents must also be served electronically to each party showing an email address on the proof of service list. Each party is responsible for ensuring that its respective submissions are received no later than 5:00 p.m. on the dates indicated. Identify all documents with "Docket No. 00-AFC-12."

Further Information

Marc Pryor, the Commission's Project Manager, will respond to technical questions concerning the Morro Bay Power Plant Project at (916) 653-0159, or by e-mail at: mpryor@energy.state.ca.us Information concerning the status of the project, as well as notices and other relevant documents, is also available on the Energy Commission's Internet home page at:

www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/morrobay/index.html

Questions of a legal or procedural nature should be directed to the Hearing Officer, Gary Fay at (916) 654-3893.


Committee Schedule to Address
Applicant's Habitat Enhancement and Aquatic Filter Barrier Proposals

Action or Event

Date or Deadline

Comment

Duke identifies HEP

July 1

Reference previous testimony?

Staff, Intervenor data requests to Duke

July 15

+14 days after HEP identified

Duke responses and
supplementary direct
testimony

August 9

+25 days after data requests

Data response workshop

August 19 (approximate)

+10 (approx.) from Duke data responses

Staff supplementary
Testimony

August 30

+21 days after Duke data responses

Intervenor Testimony and Duke Rebuttal to Staff

September 16

+17 days after Staff files testimony

Hearing

September 26

+10 days after testimony

Opening Briefs

October 7

+11 days after hearing

Reply Briefs

October 15

+8 days after opening brief

PMPD

Pending

 

By Order of the Committee

1 Staff states that its schedule recommendation is preferred over Applicant's schedule by staff representatives of the California coastal Commission, Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service and by Intervenor CAPE.

2 In Applicant's Response to Staff Proposed schedule for Remaining Hearings, filed June 21, 2002, applicant refers, at page 3, to "prior information regarding HEP/AFB in this proceeding".

Dated:


WILLIAM J. KEESE
Chairman and Presiding Member
Morro Bay AFC Committee

JAMES D. BOYD
Commissioner and Associate Member
Morro Bay AFC Committee



| Back to Main Page | Homepage | Calendar | Directory/Index | Search | Contact Us |