DOCSLIB.ORG

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Coast Air Quality Management District SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT VOLUME I: DRAFT FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SUNSHINE GAS PRODUCERS RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT SCH No. 92041053 May 2011April 2012 Executive Officer Barry Wallerstein, D.Env. Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources Elaine Chang, DrPH Assistant Deputy Executive Officer, Planning, Rule Development, and Area Sources Laki Tisopulos, Ph.D, P.E. Planning and Rules Manager, CEQA and Toxics Susan Nakamura Prepared by: ARCADIS U.S., Inc. Reviewed by: Jeffrey Inabinet – Air Quality Specialist Steve Smith, Ph.D. – Program Supervisor Barbara Baird – District Counsel Veera Tyagi – Senior Deputy District Counsel Lauren Nevitt – Deputy District Counsel II THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD CHAIRMAN: WILLIAM A. BURKE, Ed.D. Speaker of the Assembly Appointee VICE CHAIRMAN: DENNIS YATES Mayor, City of Chino Cities Representative, San Bernardino County MEMBERS: MICHAEL D. ANTONOVICH Supervisor, Fifth District Los Angeles County Representative JOHN BENOIT Supervisor, Fourth District Riverside County MICHAEL CACCIOTTI Councilmember, City of South Pasadena Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Eastern Region SHAWN NELSON Supervisor, Fourth District Orange County Representative JANE W. CARNEY Senate Rules Committee Appointee JOSIE GONZALES Supervisor, Fifth District San Bernardino County Representative RONALD O. LOVERIDGE Mayor, City of Riverside Cities Representative, Riverside County JOSEPH K. LYOU, Ph.D. Governor's Appointee JUDITH MITCHELL Councilmember, Rolling Hills Estates Cities Representative, Los Angeles County, Western Region JAN PERRY Councilmember, Ninth District City of Los Angeles Representative MIGUEL A. PULIDO Mayor, City of Santa Ana Cities Representative, Orange County EXECUTIVE OFFICER: BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN, D.Env. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS Final SEIR TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 PURPOSE/LEGAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.2.1 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS ........................................................... 1-3 1.2.2 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE ................................................................................................ 1-4 1.3 SCOPE AND CONTENT ............................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES........................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.5 INTENDED USES OF THE FINAL SEIR ........................................................................................................ 1-7 1.6 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY ........................................................................................................................ 1-7 1.7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CHAPTER 2: PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................. 1-9 1.7.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1-10 1.7.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................................. 1-10 1.7.3 PROJECT LOCATION ..................................................................................................................... 1-10 1.7.4 LAND USE AND ZONING ............................................................................................................... 1-11 1.7.5 SITE BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1-11 1.7.6 PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................... 1-11 1.7.7 CONSTRUCTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ............................................................................... 1-12 1.7.8 OPERATION OF PROPOSED PROJECT ....................................................................................... 1-12 1.7.9 PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS......................................................................... 1-13 1.8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CHAPTER 3: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ......................................................... 1-13 1.8.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1-13 1.8.2 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................. 1-13 1.8.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 1-13 1.8.4 ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................... 1-14 1.8.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................... 1-14 1.8.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................... 1-15 1.8.7 NOISE .............................................................................................................................................. 1-15 1.9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........... 1-16 1.9.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1-16 1.9.2 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................. 1-16 1.9.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 1-18 1.9.4 ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................... 1-19 1.9.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................... 1-19 1.9.6 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................... 1-20 1.9.7 NOISE .............................................................................................................................................. 1-21 1.10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CHAPTER 5: CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................ 1-22 1.10.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1-22 1.10.2 POTENTIALLY RELATED PROJECTS ........................................................................................... 1-22 1.10.3 AIR QUALITY .................................................................................................................................. 1-23 1.10.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................... 1-26 1.10.5 ENERGY ........................................................................................................................................... 1-27 1.10.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................... 1-28 1.10.7 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................... 1-28 1.10.8 NOISE .............................................................................................................................................. 1-29 1.11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CHAPTER 6: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ................................................................. 1-30 1.11.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1-30 1.11.2 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED AS INFEASIBLE .............................................................................. 1-30 1.11.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................ 1-31 1.11.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ............................................... 1-31 1.12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – CHAPTERS 7 AND 8: REFERENCES, ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ..................... 1-32 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Final SEIR TOC-1 April 2012 SUNSHINE GAS PRODUCERS RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECT 2.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 PROJECT LOCATION .................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Energy Storage and Distribution Project: Network Capacity Barriers
    Programme Area: Energy Storage and Distribution Project: Network Capacity Title: Barriers to Application of Multi-Terminal HVDC in the UK Abstract: The report assesses both technical and non-technical barriers to the deployment of MTHVDC in the UK transmission system. Context: The Network Capacity research project identified and assessed new technology solutions that could enhance transmission and distribution capacity in the UK. It assessed the feasibility and quantified the benefits of using innovative approaches and novel technologies to provide improved management of power flows and increased capacity, enabling the deployment of low carbon energy sources in the UK. The project was undertaken by the management, engineering and development consultancy Mott MacDonald and completed in 2010. Disclaimer: The Energy Technologies Institute is making this document available to use under the Energy Technologies Institute Open Licence for Materials. Please refer to the Energy Technologies Institute website for the terms and conditions of this licence. The Information is licensed ‘as is’ and the Energy Technologies Institute excludes all representations, warranties, obligations and liabilities in relation to the Information to the maximum extent permitted by law. The Energy Technologies Institute is not liable for any errors or omissions in the Information and shall not be liable for any loss, injury or damage of any kind caused by its use. This exclusion of liability includes, but is not limited to, any direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential, punitive, or exemplary damages in each case such as loss of revenue, data, anticipated profits, and lost business. The Energy Technologies Institute does not guarantee the continued supply of the Information.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Life Extension of Existing HVDC Systems Working
    649 Guidelines for life extension of existing HVDC systems Working Group B4.54 February 2016 GUIDELINES FOR LIFE EXTENSION OF EXISTING HVDC SYSTEMS WG B4.54 Members L.D. Recksiedler, Convenor (CA), Rajesh Suri, Secretary (IN),, Leena Abdul‐Latif (FR), Les Brand (AU), Phil Devine (UK), Malcolm Eccles (AU), Abhay Kumar (SE), Mikael O Persson (SE), Maurice Smith (SE), Stefan Frendrup Sörensen (DK), Marcio Szechtman (BR), Takehisa Sakai (JP), Rick Valiquette (CA), Andrew Williamson (ZA) Corresponding Members Hans Björklund (SE), John Chan (US), Richard Michaud (US), Predrag Milosevic (NZ), Van Nhi Nguyen (CA), Randy Wachal (CA) Copyright © 2016 “Ownership of a CIGRE publication, whether in paper form or on electronic support only infers right of use for personal purposes. Unless explicitly agreed by CIGRE in writing, total or partial reproduction of the publication and/or transfer to a third party is prohibited other than for personal use by CIGRE Individual Members or for use within CIGRE Collective Member organisations. Circulation on any intranet or other company network is forbidden for all persons. As an exception, CIGRE Collective Members only are allowed to reproduce the publication”. Disclaimer notice “CIGRE gives no warranty or assurance about the contents of this publication, nor does it accept any responsibility, as to the accuracy or exhaustiveness of the information. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law”. ISBN : 978-2-85873-352-1 Guidelines for Life Extension of Existing HVDC Systems Guidelines for Life Extension of Existing HVDC Systems WG B4-54 Table of Contents DEFINITIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2024 Capital Improvement Program Electric System
    FY 2020 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program Electric System Total Appropriated Proposed Estimated Through Recommended Proposed Proposed Proposed FY 2024 Priority Description Costs FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 and Beyond 1 Conductor Replacement Program (FY 2020 - 2024) 18,900,000 0 3,300,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 3,900,000 2 Fire Threat Mitigation Tier 3 Areas 4,450,000 0 250,000 2,250,000 1,950,000 0 0 3 GT-1 and GT-2 Upgrades and Replacements (3182) 28,197,292 28,197,292 0 0 0 0 0 4 4kV to 17kV Distribution System Conversions (FY 2020 - 2024) 13,900,000 0 2,800,000 2,775,000 2,775,000 2,775,000 2,775,000 5 Customer Information System (3022) 13,648,021 3,886,052 2,422,000 7,018,489 321,480 0 0 6 Installation of Low Voltage Electrical Services (3221) 16,181,000 5,000,000 1,181,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 7 Installation of High Voltage Electrical Services (3220) 15,701,000 5,000,000 701,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 8 Distribution System Expansion (FY 2020 - 2024) 6,250,000 0 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 1,250,000 9 Electrical Vault Replacement and Reinforcement (FY 2020 - 2024) 7,000,000 0 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 10 Restraint Systems and Lid Enhancement for Vault Manhole Covers 1,125,000 0 125,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 11 Distribution Switch Replacements (FY 2020 - 2024) 12,100,000 0 2,100,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 12 Transmission System Enhancements (3195) 6,042,000 4,750,000 1,092,000 200,000 0 0 0 13 Replacement of Power
    [Show full text]
  • The Complete Story About the Pacific Intertie HVDC Link – up Until 2013
    The complete story about the Pacific Intertie HVDC Link – up until 2013 At the beginning of the 1960s, major hydropower resources were being exploited on the Columbia River in the north-western United States. The Federal authorities, who own the power resources in the north, were able to offer electricity at rates so far below the production costs in Los Angeles as to make long-distance transmission economical. At that time ABB had already completed a number of HVDC projects, having developed the technology over several decades. The US authorities were consequently interested in introducing this technology in the USA. Over the years ABB has been heavily involved in the Pacific HVDC Intertie, from the first contact in 1965, major expansions and rebuildings. The fifth order will be put in service in 2016. First order 1965: The largest ABB project with mercury-arc valves. In 1965 ABB was awarded a contract together with General Electric for two converter stations for a 1440 MW, ± 400 kV transmission scheme, the Pacific Intertie. Although the technology was well established by then, the contract nevertheless represented a challenge to both the owners and the suppliers, since the line voltage, the line length and the line current were greater than for any previous HVDC project, making it the most complex yet. The site chosen for the northern terminal was The Dalles, Oregon, which lies close to several large power stations on the Columbia River, with Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) as owner. The southern terminal was located at Sylmar, in the northern tip of the Los Angeles basin.
    [Show full text]
  • OO-\EP-\B DATE AUG 0 1 2008 the STATE of CALIFORNIA Reed
    DOCKET OO-\EP-\B DATE AUG 0 1 2008 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REeD. AUG 0 4 2008 BEFORE THE : ••t CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter qf: ) ) . Preparation of the ) Docket No. 08-IEP-IB 2008 Integrated Energy Policy Report ) Update and the 2009 Integrated ) Energy Policy Report ) POST WORKSHOP COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION, IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER, AND THE SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT . Pursuant to the Notice of Staff Workshop on Transmission Issues for 33% Renewables by 2020, the California Municipal Utilities Association and certain of its member utilities, the Imperial Irrigation District ("IID"), Los Angeles Department of Water and Power ("LAPWP"), and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District ("SMUD") (collectively "Joint Commentors"), respectfully submit these Post-Workshop Comments on issues regarding transmission infrastructure development to meet renewable energy goals. CMUA is a statewide organization of local public agencies in California that provide water, gas, and electricity service to California consumers. CMUA membership includes 43 electric distribution systems and other public agencies directly involved in the electricity industry. 1 CMUA members, including those listed above, own and operate CMUA electric utility members iilclude the Cities of Alameda, Anaheim, Azusa, Banning, Burbank, Cerritos, Colton, Corona, Glendale, Healdsburg, Lodi, Lompoc, Los Angeles, Needles, Palo Alto, Pasadena, Rancho Cucamonga, Redding, Riverside, Roseville, Santa Clara, and Vernon, as well as the Imperial, Merced, Modesto, Turlock Irrigation Districts, the Northern California Power Agency, Southern California Public Power Authority, Transmission Agency of Northern California, Lassen Municipal Utility District, Power and Water Resources Pooling Authority, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, the Trinity and Truckee Donner Public Utility Districts, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the City and COlmty of San Francisco, Hetch-Hetchy.
    [Show full text]
  • Sylmar Converter Station Turns 50
    Sylmar Converter Station Turns 50 By Christy Holland Fifty years ago, LADWP celebrated the completion of the 846-mile Pacific DC Intertie (PDCI) and the launch of the Sylmar Converter Station—a state-of-the-art power transmission facility. The Sylmar Converter Station is the southern anchor of the PDCI, which is a high-voltage, direct current transmission power line that originates at the Celilo Converter Station in The Dalles, Oregon. Today, the station has not only withstood the test of time; it remains just as relevant and vital as when it received its first megawatt in 1970. “When the PDCI was first completed, it was the longest and highest voltage DC line in the United States,” said Robert Fick, Manager, Hydro & Renewable Generation/High Voltage Stations, Power Supply Operations Division. “Nothing of this magnitude had been built before, so there was a lot of risk in taking on a project of this size.” Giant thyristors at Sylmar Converter Station. Photo by Chris Corsmeier Flash forward 50 years and the PDCI is still the longest DC line in the United States and in North America. While it is no longer the highest voltage DC line, it can boast that its southern anchor, the Sylmar Converter Station, has recently increased its capacity from 3,100 megawatts (MW) to 3,220 MW following a $223 million facility upgrade. This modernization project was designed to extend the facility’s lifespan for 40 more years, ensuring continued reliability of power transmission between the two regions. Think of the PDCI as a high-voltage electric superhighway and the Sylmar Converter Station as a transfer hub.
    [Show full text]
  • Celilo Converter Station
    Celilo Converter Station By Unknown Located along the Columbia River, near The Dalles Dam, the Celilo Converter Station is the northern terminus of an 800 kilovolt d-c (direct current) extra-high-voltage transmission line stretching 846 miles south to the Sylmar Converter Station, its counterpart near Los Angeles. Electrical power generated by the Columbia River hydrosystem as a-c (alternating current) power is converted into d-c power at the station, allowing for more economical long-distance energy transfers between the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest. Once the energy reaches Sylmar, the power is converted back to a-c power before being distributed to electrical customers. Operating as one leg of the Pacific Northwest-Pacific Southwest Intertie, the high voltage d-c transmission line was once the longest of its kind anywhere in the world, helping to create the largest interconnected electrical grid in the United States. Nearly 265 miles of the line was constructed by the Bonneville Power Administration, reaching from the Columbia River southeast through Central Oregon to the Nevada border. The remaining 580 miles of line, passing through western Nevada and then arching southwest to Sylmar near Los Angeles, was built by the city of Los Angeles. Construction of the d-c leg of the Pacific Intertie began in 1966 and lasted until 1970, with the Celilo Converter Station facility itself costing $54 million. The development of d-c technology and the construction of the Pacific Intertie was looked on closely by many members of Congress and mining interests hoping to capitalize on the availability of power-producing fossil fuels in their own districts and territories.
    [Show full text]
  • UPA Contract No. 14TX-15783 LADWP Contract No. BP 14-018
    i UPA Contract No. 14TX-15783 LADWP Contract No. BP 14-018 PACIFIC DIRECT CURRENT INTERTIE OPERATING AGREEMENT executed by the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY . acting by and through the BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION and LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER iI Index to Sections i Section , Page 1. Term and Termination.................. .......................;................................ 3 2. Definitions ........................ .J....................................................... ................ 3 3. Exhibits and Revisions............................... ................................... ....... 5 4. Interconnected Operation................................... ................................ 5 5. Coordination of Operations, Maintenance and Construction 6 6. Metering....................................................................... ....................i......... 8 7. Proprietary Information.................................................. ................... 9 8. Uncontrollable Forces......................... ........................... ....................... 11 9. Limitations of Liability ........12 10, Dispute Resolution........ 12 11, General Provisipns........ 13 12. Signatures........................ .... 15 Exhibit A Facility and Procedural Details Exhibit B Notices Exhibit C Southern Owners5 Advisory Committee Resolution . j ■ This PACIFIC DIRECT CURRENT INTERTIE OPERATING AGREEMENT (Agreement) is entered into hy the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Department of Energy, acting by and through the
    [Show full text]
  • 2015-Apr-Bpa
    TRANSMISSION PLANNING WECC 2015 Progress Report February 23, 2015 Report Prepared By: Eric Heredia - TPP/OPP-3 (360) 619-6846 BPA TS TPP 2015-006 Page 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 2 Planned Transmission Projects ............................................................................................... 1 2.1 West of McNary Reinforcement Project Phase 2 (Big Eddy-Knight 500 KV Line) ....... 1 2.2 I-5 Corridor Reinforcement Project ................................................................................. 2 2.3 Little Goose Area Reinforcement Project ........................................................................ 3 2.4 Lower Valley Area Reinforcement Project ...................................................................... 4 2.5 Raver 500/230 kV Transformer Addition Project ............................................................ 4 2.6 Schultz-Raver #3 & #4 500 Series Capacitors Project ..................................................... 6 2.7 PDCI Uprate Project ......................................................................................................... 6 2.8 Morrow Flats Project ........................................................................................................ 7 2.9 Montana to Washington ................................................................................................... 8 3 Planned Generation Interconnection Projects ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sylmar Converter Station Turns 50,Retirements: August-September
    Sylmar Converter Station Turns 50 By Christy Holland Fifty years ago, LADWP celebrated the completion of the 846-mile Pacific DC Intertie (PDCI) and the launch of the Sylmar Converter Station—a state-of-the-art power transmission facility. The Sylmar Converter Station is the southern anchor of the PDCI, which is a high-voltage, direct current transmission power line that originates at the Celilo Converter Station in The Dalles, Oregon. Today, the station has not only withstood the test of time; it remains just as relevant and vital as when it received its first megawatt in 1970. “When the PDCI was first completed, it was the longest and highest voltage DC line in the United States,” said Robert Fick, Manager, Hydro & Renewable Generation/High Voltage Stations, Power Supply Operations Division. “Nothing of this magnitude had been built before, so there was a lot of risk in taking on a project of this size.” Giant thyristors at Sylmar Converter Station. Photo by Chris Corsmeier Flash forward 50 years and the PDCI is still the longest DC line in the United States and in North America. While it is no longer the highest voltage DC line, it can boast that its southern anchor, the Sylmar Converter Station, has recently increased its capacity from 3,100 megawatts (MW) to 3,220 MW following a $223 million facility upgrade. This modernization project was designed to extend the facility’s lifespan for 40 more years, ensuring continued reliability of power transmission between the two regions. Think of the PDCI as a high-voltage electric superhighway and the Sylmar Converter Station as a transfer hub.
    [Show full text]
  • Direct Current
    018007 RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Pacific Direct Current Intertie (PDCI) is a 500 kV (kilovolts) Direct Current (DC) transmission system that includes the Celilo Converter Station (Ceiilo CS) located in Dalles, Oregon, the Sylmar Converter Station (Sylmar CS) located in Sylmar, California, and the DC transmission line that connects Celilo CS and Sylmar CS; WHEREAS, the PDCI was built jointly by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Southern Owners as a single high voltage DC system to connect the Pacific Northwest with Southern California; WHEREAS, the Southern Owners consists of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Southern California Edison Company, a California corporation (Edison), the City of Burbank (Burbank), the City of Glendale (Glendale) and the City of Pasadena (Pasadena); WHEREAS, BPA is the owner and operating agent of the Celilo CS and the DC transmission line from Celilo to the Nevada - Oregon Border (NOB) (collectively the Northern Portion); WHEREAS, the Southern Owners jointly own the Sylmar CS and the DC transmission line from NOB to Sylmar (collectively the Southern Portion) and LADWP is the operating agent of the Southern Portion on behalf of the Southern Owners; WHEREAS, the Northern and Southern Portions have been physically connected at NOB and in operation since May 21, 1970; WHEREAS, BPA and LADWP, on behalf of the Southern Owners, desire to enter into the PDCI Operating Agreement (BP 14-018) (Operating Agreement) to outline the terms and conditions related to the shared operation
    [Show full text]
  • Transfers Between Pacific Northwest and California
    2018-2019 Transmission Planning Process Study Scope for Increased Capabilities for Transfers of Low Carbon Electricity between the Pacific Northwest and California Informational Study April 12, 2018 DRAFT ISO Market and Infrastructure Development Division April 12, 2018 Intentionally left blank Study Scope PNW-CA Transfer Increase Special Study Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2 2 Objective .......................................................................................................... 4 3 Study Assumptions and Criteria........................................................................ 5 3.1 Standards and Criteria .................................................................... 5 3.2 Study Horizon and Years ................................................................ 5 3.3 Study Areas .................................................................................... 5 3.4 Transmission Assumptions ............................................................. 6 3.5 Load Forecast Assumptions ............................................................ 6 3.5.1 Energy and Demand Forecast ................................................... 6 3.5.2 Power Factor Assumptions ........................................................ 6 3.5.3 Self-Generation ......................................................................... 6 3.6 Generation Assumptions ................................................................
    [Show full text]