SU0015801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

4 Environmental Analysis 4.6 Energy belowground line as shown in Figure 2-1 of Chapter 2, Project Description. Either right-of-way corridor is assumed to be up to 100 feet in width. Additionally, PG&E would upgrade the Tesla Substation, and the improvements would include the installation of a grounding system, disconnect switches, surge arresters, outdoor lighting and outlets, and fiber termination for the gen-tie line. The improvements made would be within the existing Tesla Substation footprint. Thus, the improvements would not be wasteful or cause unnecessary usage of energy. Additionally, the PG&E improvements would not conflict with any plans or policies for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the improvements would have no impact on energy usage. No mitigation would be required. 4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts There would be no impact with respect to conflicts with or obstructions to a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, the Project would not cause or contribute to any potential significant cumulative impact related to these conflicts. The Project would use energy resources during construction, O&M, and decommissioning; therefore, it could contribute to potential cumulative impacts during any of these phases. The Project would improve grid reliability that could serve the cumulative demand, such that the Project would not contribute to or worsen an existing significant adverse condition. The Project would assist California utilities in meeting their obligations under state energy storage targets and the CPUC's energy storage program. No significant adverse cumulative effect would result relating to electricity use; instead, a beneficial cumulative impact on energy resources would result. The geographic context for potential cumulative impacts related to vehicle fuel use is within the Project's construction equipment delivery and average travel radius of up to 34 miles for workers and up to 40 miles for materials, since these are the areas within which energy resources would be demanded and supplied for the Project. There is no existing significant adverse condition of fuel use (such as a shortage) to which the Project would contribute or worsen. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within 34 to 40 miles of the Project site could require gasoline or diesel, but would not combine with the fuel demands of the Project to cause a significant adverse cumulative impact relating to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption or use of fuel. In the event of a future fuel shortage, higher fuel prices would reduce trips that could be termed "wasteful" and would moderate choices regarding vehicles, equipment, and fuel efficiency. The Project's less than significant impact relating to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption or use of fuel would not be cumulatively considerable. 4.6.8 References BAAQMD (Bay Area Air Quality Management District). 2017. Final Clean Air Plan — Spare the Air Cool the Climate: A Blueprint for Clean Air and Climate Protection in the Bay Area. Griffith Energy Storage Project 4.6-7 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023