This Section Details the Environmental and Regulatory Setting of the E&B Oil Development Project (Proposed Project) Relevant to Public Services
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Notice to Consider Adoption of the Renewables Portfolio Standard 2014-2016 Retail Sellers Procurement Verification Lead Commissioner Report
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 Ninth Street Sacramento, California 95814 Main website: www.energy.ca.gov ITEM 14 In the matter of: ) Docket No.18-RPS-02 ) Renewables Portfolio Standard Compliance ) NOTICE OF BUSINESS MEETING Period 2 (2014-2016) ) RE: Adoption of the Renewables ) Portfolio Standard 2014-2016 Retail ) Sellers Procurement Verification ___________________________________ ) Lead Commissioner Report Notice to Consider Adoption of the Renewables Portfolio Standard 2014-2016 Retail Sellers Procurement Verification Lead Commissioner Report The Energy Commission will hold a business meeting on: Wednesday, November 7, 2018 10:00 a.m. CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 Ninth Street First Floor, Arthur Rosenfeld Hearing Room Sacramento, California 95814 (Wheelchair Accessible) As part of the November 7, 2018, Business Meeting, the California Energy Commission will consider adopting the Renewables Portfolio Standard 2014-2016 Retail Sellers Procurement Verification Lead Commissioner Report. More information about the November 7, 2018, Business Meeting, including the full agenda and instructions for participation is available on the Energy Commission’s website at https://www.energy.ca.gov/business_meetings/. Background The Renewables Portfolio Standard 2014-2016 Retail Sellers Procurement Verification Lead Commissioner Report (RPS 2014-2016 Retail Sellers Verification Report) provides the results of Energy Commission staff’s verification of renewable energy -
REVISED 2020 Power Source Disclosure Filing
DOCKETED Docket Number: 21-PSDP-01 Project Title: Power Source Disclosure Program - 2020 TN #: 238715 Document Title: REVISED 2020 Power Source Disclosure Filing Public Redacted version of the 2020 Power Source Disclosure Description: Annual Filing of Direct Energy Business, LLC Filer: Barbara Farmer Organization: Direct Energy Business, LLC Submitter Role: Applicant Submission Date: 7/7/2021 1:51:24 PM Docketed Date: 7/7/2021 Version: April 2021 2020 POWER SOURCE DISCLOSURE ANNUAL REPORT For the Year Ending December 31, 2020 Retail suppliers are required to use the posted template and are not allowed to make edits to this format. Please complete all requested information. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS RETAIL SUPPLIER NAME Direct Energy Business, LLC ELECTRICITY PORTFOLIO NAME CONTACT INFORMATION NAME Barbara Farmer TITLE Reulatory Reporting Analyst MAILING ADDRESS 12 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 CITY, STATE, ZIP Houston, TX 77046 PHONE (281)731-5027 EMAIL [email protected] WEBSITE URL FOR https://business.directenergy.com/privacy-and-legal PCL POSTING Submit the Annual Report and signed Attestation in PDF format with the Excel version of the Annual Report to [email protected]. Remember to complete the Retail Supplier Name, Electricity Portfolio Name, and contact information above, and submit separate reports and attestations for each additional portfolio if multiple were offered in the previous year. NOTE: Information submitted in this report is not automatically held confidential. If your company wishes the information submitted to be considered confidential an authorized representative must submit an application for confidential designation (CEC-13), which can be found on the California Energy Commissions's website at https://www.energy.ca.gov/about/divisions-and-offices/chief-counsels-office. -
3.17 Utilities and Infrastructure
3.17 UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section discusses wastewater, solid waste, electricity, natural gas, and telecommunications within the City’s Planning Area. The City’s Planning Area consists of its incorporated boundaries and adopted Sphere of Influence (SOI). The County’s Planning Area consists of unincorporated land within the One Valley One Vision (OVOV) Planning Area boundaries that is outside the City’s boundaries and adopted SOI. Both the City and County Planning Areas comprise the OVOV Planning Area. This environmental impact report (EIR) section evaluates the effects of General Plan buildout on utilities and infrastructure. Wastewater Treatment With implementation of the proposed goals, objectives, and policies the potential impacts of the City’s Planning Area buildout on the wastewater treatment system capacity would be less than significant. As the City reaches its buildout population of 275,000 residents, new projects would be evaluated for their potential impact on the capacity and effectiveness of the wastewater treatment system to treat additional sources of wastewater. The need for construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities as buildout occurs would be determined by the Santa Clarita Valley Sanitation District (SCVSD). The SCVSD provides wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal services for residential, commercial, and industrial users in the City and surrounding unincorporated areas. The construction of new facilities would be subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. No mitigation measures are required. Solid Waste The City’s Planning Area uses three landfills within or near the OVOV Planning Area. They include the Chiquita Canyon Landfill, Antelope Valley Landfill, and the Sunshine Canyon Landfill. -
San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment
Draft San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment September 2011 Produced by the Pacifi c West Regional Offi ce Park Planning and Environmental Compliance National Park Service San Francisco, California U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Top, left to right: Frank G. Bonelli Regional Park, NPS photo; Inspiration Point, Angeles National Forest, NPS photo. Bottom: Eaton Canyon Natural Area, NPS photo. California Broom Sage, Santa Clara River near Acton. Photo courtesy of BonTerra Consulting. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study & Environmental Assessment Errata October 2012 1 San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study & Environmental Assessment Errata October 2012 The following errata provide factual corrections, additions, and revisions to the Draft San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment (draft study report/EA), dated September 2011. Changes to the draft study report/EA, and references to the page number where the change has occurred are provided. The reader must have access to a copy of the draft study report/EA in order to fully understand the changes. Additional copies of this document and the September 2011 report can be downloaded from the internet at www.nps.gov/pwro/sangabriel. Printed copies are also available on request from the address below. National Park Service Attn: San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study 333 Bush Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94104 2 INTRODUCTION The following document includes errata that correct and add factual information to the September 2011 Draft San Gabriel Watershed and Mountains Special Resource Study and Environmental Assessment (draft study report/EA). -
[Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Project Title]
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Submitted to: Puente Hills Landfill Native Habitat Preservation Authority 7702 Washington Avenue, Suite C Whittier, CA 90602 (562) 945-9003 Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc. LSA Associates, Inc. 20 Executive Park, Suite 200 157 Park Place Irvine, CA 92614 Point Richmond, CA 94801 (949) 553-0666 (510) 236-6810 Adopted July 26, 2007 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Board of Directors Chairman Bob Henderson Vice Chair Barbara Fish Director Dickie Simmons Director Steve Maguin Alternate Director Chan Alternate Director Hughes Alternate Director Newcomer Alternate Director Pederson. Citizens Technical Advisory Committee Chairman Bud Welch* Vice Chair Michael Hughes* Member David Rodriguez Member David Cowardin* Member Alex Moisa Member Chuck Hanson Member Bill McDermott* Member Steve Garcia Member Suzann Chung Member Shelley Andros* (former) *Indicates Trails Subcommittee. Habitat Authority Staff Andrea Gullo, Executive Director Amy Henderson*, (former) Resource Ecologist Meaghan O’Neill, (former) Park Interpreter Special Thanks: The Habitat Authority would like to recognize other contributors to the preparation and creation of the document: Jim Donovan*, AICP, National Park Service - Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program; Deputy Chief Ranger Kenn Hughes*, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority; Biological Workshop participants: Dr. Ray Sauvajot, National Parks Service; Trish Smith, The Nature Conservancy; Dan Cooper, National Audubon Society; Dr. Cheryl Swift, Whittier College; Peter Bloom; Lisa Lyren, U.S. Geological -
Execution Version POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
Execution Version POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC POWER AUTHORITY AND COSO GEOTHERMAL POWER HOLDINGS, LLC DATED AS OF ________________, 2020 ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION...............................................................1 Section 1.1 Definitions ............................................................................................1 Section 1.2 Interpretation.......................................................................................25 Section 1.3 Order of Precedence ...........................................................................26 ARTICLE II EFFECTIVE DATE, TERM AND EARLY TERMINATION ..............................26 Section 2.1 Effective Date .....................................................................................26 Section 2.2 Agreement Term and Delivery Term .................................................27 Section 2.3 Survivability .......................................................................................27 Section 2.4 Early Termination...............................................................................27 ARTICLE III DEVELOPMENT OF THE FACILITY................................................................28 Section 3.1 In General ...........................................................................................28 Section 3.2 Commencement Date Notices ............................................................28 Section 3.3 Other Information ...............................................................................28 -
Regional Solid Waste Management in Southern California for the New Millenium
REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM January 20, 1999 REGIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM I. Introduction This report examines major solid waste management issues in southern California, directing particular attention to the two key waste-generating jurisdictions -- the City and County of Los Angeles. It reviews the region’s history of waste management, and it explores the role and viability of potential waste-to-energy, waste-by-rail, and new or expanded landfill disposal projects for the region, as well as the technical and political interplay among these options. Based on information contained in official records and the reports and publications of responsible agencies and private promoters of waste-by-rail projects, it addresses three important questions: 1. What happened to the disposal “crisis” once predicted for the region and how serious is the problem now? 2. What is the status of the once-promising option of waste-by-rail, especially as it relates to new or expanded landfill projects in the urbanized areas of the region? 3. From a public-policy perspective, what needs to be done now? A. Background Until two decades ago, responsible solid waste management agencies, encouraged by the policies and directives of local elected officials in Los Angeles City and County, actively considered waste incineration for the region as a principal means for dealing with both the anticipated reduction of landfill capacity and the increasing difficulties and delays in obtaining permits for new landfill capacity. In the early 1980s, however, several waste-to-energy projects in the southern California region (and particularly in Los Angeles County itself) began undergoing permit review.