Laserfiche WebLink
5 Comparison of Comparison of Alternatives <br /> 90 percent and 95 percent of supplied electricity from renewable sources by 2035 and <br /> 2040, respectively. <br /> 3. Assist California utilities in meeting their obligations under the CPUC Energy Storage <br /> Framework and Design Program. <br /> 4. Provide for the economically viable, commercially financeable, and environmentally <br /> beneficial use of the site's limited agricultural capacity due to the absence of available <br /> irrigation. <br /> 5. Develop a site in proximity to transmission infrastructure to minimize environmental <br /> impacts. <br /> 6. Develop a battery energy storage facility in San Joaquin County, which would support the <br /> economy by investing in the local community, creating local construction jobs, and <br /> increasing tax and fee revenue to the County. <br /> Table 5-2. Alternatives and Objectives <br /> No Three-Terrace Northern <br /> Project Objective Project Project Southeast Corner Site <br /> 1. Construct and operate a 400-MW BESS in San Joaquin Y N Y Y <br /> County with an interconnection at the Tesla Substation <br /> located in Alameda Count in a cost competitive manner. <br /> 2. Help to meet SB 100,which would obtain 100 percent Y N Y Y <br /> electricity by 2045. <br /> 3. Assist California utilities to meet their obligations under Y N Y Y <br /> CUPC's Energy Storage Framework and Design Program. <br /> 4. Provide for the economically viable,commercially Y N Y Y <br /> financeable,and environmentally beneficial use of the site's <br /> limited agricultural capacity. <br /> 5. Develop a site in proximity to transmission infrastructure to Y N N N <br /> minimize environmental impacts. <br /> 6. Develop a battery energy storage facility in San Joaquin Y N Y Y <br /> County,which would support the economy by investing in <br /> the local community,creating local construction jobs,and <br /> increasing tax and fee revenue to the County. <br /> 5.3 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE <br /> For the No Project Alternative, the Project site would continue to be used for agricultural grazing <br /> and the existing environmental setting would be maintained. Changes to the environmental <br /> setting, including changes to visual resources, habitat, and land use/agriculture, would not occur. <br /> Project-related impacts, such as construction noise, traffic, and air emissions, would not occur, <br /> and potential ground disturbance impacts to cultural and tribal resources and wildlife habitat would <br /> not occur. Additionally, the environmental benefits associated with energy resources and GHG <br /> reduction related to renewable energy generation would not be realized from solar development <br /> of the site. It is reasonable to assume that the land will remain in agricultural production for the <br /> foreseeable future if the Project is not approved based on current plans and consistent with <br /> available infrastructure and community services. <br /> Under the No Project Alternative, all Project-related impacts would be avoided due to the lack of <br /> development of the Project site. There would be no new impacts to the environment. No feasibility <br /> issues have been identified, which would eliminate the No Project Alternative from consideration; <br /> Griffith Energy Storage Project 5-5 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 <br /> Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023 <br />