SU0015801 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

3 Alternatives conservation and demand side management approaches are part of a sustainable energy future, this potential alternative was not carried forward for more detailed consideration because it would not meet most of the basic objectives of the Project, it relies on speculation regarding future behavior, and it would be infeasible from a technical perspective. Increased energy efficiencies and reductions in energy demand would not meet Project Objectives. For example, they would not result in a 400-MW BESS in San Joaquin County; would not assist California utilities in meeting their obligations under either California's RPS Program and SB 100, or the CPUC's Energy Storage Framework and Design Program; and would not provide for the economically viable and environmentally beneficial use of a site with physically impaired agricultural capacity. This potential alternative also was not carried forward because reliance on conservation and demand side management alone would be a technically infeasible alternative to the Project and would be speculative. California's long-term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (adopted by the CPUC in September 2008 and updated in January 2011) provides an integrated framework of goals and strategies for saving energy through 2020 (CPUC 2011). The plan champions specific programmatic initiatives for key market sectors (i.e., commercial, residential, industrial, and agricultural) and a series of "big bold energy efficiency strategies," including all new residential construction being zero net energy by 2020 and all new commercial construction being zero net energy by 2030. Given the aggressiveness of these goals, it would be speculative to assume that incremental savings beyond them could be achieved. While energy efficiency efforts have been effective and will continue to be part of California's overall energy future, conservation and demand side management alone will not be sufficient to address California's rising energy demand. 3.3.2 Alternative Sites Feasibility Analysis The Applicant used a number of criteria to screen alternative sites for feasibility to function as a 400-MW BESS site in San Joaquin County. These criteria included the following: oo Proximity to the Tesla Substation (i.e., within 1 mile to minimize the length of the generation tie (gen-tie) line and associated energy loss); oo Zoning compatible with renewable energy (i.e., AG, I-W, I-L, I-G, P-F, or R zones); oo Enough acreage for desired Project size (i.e., at least 40 acres in size); oo Minimize the number of parcels crossed by the gen-tie line to reduce the number of landowner negotiations required (i.e., three or fewer parcels crossed); oo North of the rail line to avoid crossing a rail corridor with the gen-tie line; and oo South and west of Interstate 580 to avoid crossing the interstate with the gen-tie line. Identification of sites that met these criteria resulted in the selection of the Northern Site Alternative, which was carried forward for analysis and is described below. 3.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR FURTHER ANALYSIS In addition to the mandatory No Project Alternative, a Project on the same parcel, but in the southeastern portion of the property, and an offsite Project north of West Patterson Pass Road Griffith Energy Storage Project 3-3 Tetra Tech/SCH 2022120675 Draft Environmental Impact Report August 2023