Other Agencies and Governments Involved in Permitting

The California Public Utilities Commission
The CPUC regulates investor-owned utilities in California, oversees the procurement of renewable energy in the state under the RPS implementation program, and permits electrical transmission.¹

In order to sell the power produced by a new facility, a solar developer must enter into a long term contract, known as a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), with a utility for the purchase of the power that the solar energy facility will produce. Before the PPA is finalized, the CPUC must approve the contract.² In doing so, the CPUC considers the perceived viability of the project, the price of power in the contract, and how purchasing that power will contribute to the utility’s goals under the RPS program before approving or denying the contract.³ As an analyst at CPUC noted, “It’s rare that we deny contracts, because we have been working with them all along. If we have concerns about a project, we would have given the utility that feedback beforehand. It is pretty rare that they would get to the point of filing a contract with us, and then we would deny the approval for that project.”⁴ PPA contracts can come to CPUC before the developer submits permit applications, during the approval process, or after the facility has been approved. This can vary because developers must obtain permits to construct the facility, obtain transmission connection, and obtain a PPA, and progress on one component can hinge on the progress of another.⁵

In addition to approving individual PPAs and ensuring utilities sign contracts that will help them achieve their goals under the state RPS program, the CPUC has statutory responsibility to permit transmission lines. Most of the transmission grid in California is owned by investor-owned utilities. CalISO operates the transmission grid in California, but the CPUC is responsible for determining if a new line is needed, for determining if the cost of the lines recovered through increased rates is a justifiable to rate payers, and for permitting the routing of new lines, including those undergoing environmental review under the CEQA.⁶

The California Independent System Operator
CalISO operates the majority of California’s high-voltage transmission grid.⁷ They conduct technical planning for electrical transmission, including determining availability across various lines to ensure power can be delivered through the grid to meet demand. CalISO works closely with CPUC in the permitting of new transmission lines.⁸ In order for a solar facility to gain interconnection into the grid, CalISO performs three studies. The feasibility study “evaluates the feasibility of the proposed interconnection by performing power flow and short circuit analyses.”⁹ This study requires a $10,000 deposit and takes 60 days. The system impact study “evaluates the impact of the proposed interconnection on the reliability of the grid.”¹⁰ This study requires a $50,000 deposit and takes 120 days. The facilities study evaluates the impact on interconnection facilities and determines if any network upgrades needed. This study requires a $100,000 deposit and takes 120 to 210 days. In addition to the deposits noted, the solar facility developer must pay for the actual costs of these studies.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The FWS is responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies to “consult with the FWS to ensure that the effects of actions they authorize, fund, or carry out will not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species.”¹¹ Permitting solar facilities on BLM land qualifies as an agency action. A Section 7 Consultation, as this process is known, is likely to be required for most, if not all, solar facility right-of-way applications because of the numerous listed species found throughout the CDCA, notably the widely dispersed and threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). The consultation process is typically initiated by the BLM during their development of the biological assessment as part of the Draft EIS for a proposed solar facility.¹²

During this Section 7 Consultation, the FWS issues a biological opinion on the proposed action that analyzes the impacts of the action on listed species and determines if the action will jeopardize the continued existence of the species.¹³ If a jeopardy determination is made, which is rare, the agency offers alternative recommendations for how the proposed action can be altered to avoid jeopardy.¹⁴ If the determination is that there will be impacts to the species, but such impacts will not jeopardize its existence or substantially lead to its extinction, the FWS issues terms and conditions within a biological opinion document. These are measures that the FWS feels need to be implemented to minimize impacts to the species under the proposed action.¹⁵

The California Department of Fish and Game
The DFG is responsible for the management of fish and wildlife in the state, which includes administering the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Under the CESA, the CEC must consult with the DFG to determine any impacts to species listed under the CESA. Similar to implementation of the federal ESA, the DFG must issue an incidental take permit for any action that would impact one or more species listed under the CESA before the action impacting the species can be undertaken.¹⁶

The Office of Historic Preservation
The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) for the State of California is responsible for ensuring the projects carried out or sponsored by federal or state agencies comply with appropriate federal and state historic preservation laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Section 106 of the NHPA requires any federal agency undertaking an action that may affect historic properties to consult with the SHPO.¹⁷ Historic properties are those included in the National Register of Historic Places or properties that meet National Register criteria.

For any proposed solar facilities that may affect historic properties, the BLM must initiate a Section 106 consultation. During this consultation, the SHPO identifies any historic properties that may be impacted and assesses possible adverse effects. If adverse effects are found, the SHPO and the BLM will typically sign a Memorandum of Agreement outlining the measures that the BLM will take to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects.¹⁸ The parties may also agree that “no such measures are possible, but that the adverse effects may be accepted in the public interest”.¹⁹

The U.S. Department of Defense
The DOD operates several large military installations in the CDCA, including Fort Irwin, Twentynine Palms Marine Corps Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Center, and Edwards Air Force Base. The DOD reviews all applications processed by the BLM to determine if proposed facilities will have any effect on the ability for the DOD to carry out its mission.²⁰ While the DOD has no authority or jurisdiction in altering or denying an application, they may issue recommendations to the BLM on individual projects regarding any possible conflicts with DOD missions. The DOD issues red, yellow, or green recommendations based on possible conflicts with missions in established low-flight zones.

Tribes
There are many tribes in the California desert that have historic and cultural ties to BLM land. For any proposed solar facilities, the BLM must conduct Government-to-Government consultation with the Tribes as mandated under Section 106 of the NHPA. The CDD formally notifies the tribes of each project, with follow–up, and they are encouraged to provide their views and comments through all available processes, including NEPA, Section 106, and formal government-to-government meetings.²¹ Tribal views and comments are then taken into consideration during decision-making for solar projects.

1 California Public Utilities Commission Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 21, 2009.

2 California Public Utilities Commission Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 21, 2009.

3 California Public Utilities Commission Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 21, 2009.

4 California Public Utilities Commission Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 21, 2009.

5 California Public Utilities Commission Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 21, 2009.

6 California Public Utilities Commission Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 21, 2009.

7 California ISO, California ISO, http://www.caiso.com/.

8 California Public Utilities Commission Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 21, 2009.

9 California Independent System Operator, Centralized Generator Interconnection Study Process, http://www.caiso.com/1841/18419740650d0.pdf.

10 California Independent System Operator, Centralized Generator Interconnection Study Process, http://www.caiso.com/1841/18419740650d0.pdf.

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ESA Basics, http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/factsheets/ESA_basics.pdf.

12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 23, 2009.

13 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 23, 2009.

14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ESA Basics, http://www.fws.gov/Endangered/factsheets/ESA_basics.pdf.

15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, October 23, 2009.

16 California Department of Fish and Game, California Endangered Species Act, http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/cesa/.

17 34 C.F.R. 800.

18 U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Section 106 Regulations Summary, http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html.

19 U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Section 106 Regulations Summary, http://www.achp.gov/106summary.html.

20 U.S. Department of Defense Staff Member 1, Personal Communication, December 4, 2009.

21 U.S. Bureau of Land Management Staff Member 12, Personal Communication, February 16, 2010.