Hidden Hills Solar Energy Generating System (HHSEGS)

1. Hidden Hills Solar Energy Generating System(HHSEGS) Presentation to Inyo County Board of Supervisors March 13, 2012

2. Project Overview • BrightSource Energy has proposed a 500-megawatt Solar Thermal Power Plant Project on approximately 3,300 acres in Charleston View, north of Old Spanish Trail adjacent to Nevada. • Two 750-Foot Towers surrounded by 85,000 heliostats (mirrors on a pylon), generators, and related infrastructure. • California Energy Commission (CEC) is processing pursuant to the Warren Alquist Act. • Transmission through Nevada – Separate EIS.

4. HHSEGS Location

6. Regulation by the CEC • The Warren Alquist Act vests the California Energy Commission with authority to approve solar thermal generating plants with a capacity of 50 megawatts or greater—the County does not have approval authority. • The CEC is the CEQA lead agency and its staff must prepare an assessment of the environmental impacts of proposed projects. • The CEC is required to consider comments from the County on proposed projects.

7. Regulation by the CEC • The CEC must consider whether the proposed project conforms with County laws, ordinances and regulations (“LORs”) which include the General Plan, zoning and the County’s Renewable Energy Ordinance. • If non-compliance cannot be corrected, the CEC may override the County’s LORs if it finds “…that the facility is required for public convenience and necessity and there are not more prudent and feasible means of achieving public convenience and necessity.”

8. Regulation by the CEC • The County may request a fee for the County’s added costs of reviewing and commenting on a proposed project and the County may request the CEC to require reimbursement for permit fees that the County would receive but for the CEC’s jurisdiction. • A decision by the CEC on a project is only reviewable by the California Supreme Court.

9. Solar Projects by the City of L.A. • A solar photovoltaic (“PV”) project does not require CEC approval. • A solar PV project construed by L.A. on L.A.-owned lands is immune from the County’s building and zoning ordinances. • L.A. may not construct a solar PV project on L.A.-owned lands without review by the Planning Commission for consistency with the General Plan—but an inconsistency may not prevent the project.

10. Taxation of Solar Projects • Under Revenue and Taxation Code section 73, a large scale solar project (such as the proposed Hidden Hills project) may be largely excluded from property taxation. • Under Article 13, section 11(a) of the California Constitution, a solar project constructed by L.A. on L.A.-owned land is immune from property taxation.

11. PROCEDURAL TIMELINE • DATA ADEQUACY REVIEW PERIOD • Initial review to determine if Application for Certification (“AFC”) meets the minimum requirements; if so, 12-month licensing period commences • DISCOVERY & ANAYSIS PERIOD • Identification of issues through review, analysis, data requests and public workshops; results in the issuance of the Preliminary and Final Staff Assessments (“PSA” and “FSA”) • COMMITTEE HEARINGS & FINAL DECISION • Evidentiary hearings on the FSA and other issues; Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision (“PMPD”) issued; final hearing on PMPD and final decision.

12. CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION ENERGY COMMISSION STAFF • INDEPENDENT OF COMMISSION • CHARGED WITH MAKING INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF APPLICATION • PREPARES PRELIMINARY AND FINAL STAFF ASSESSMENT OF PROJECT • IS A PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING • DISCUSSIONS WITH PARTIES MUST BE PUBLIC ENERGY COMMISSION • DECISION MAKING BODY • PRESIDING MEMBER AND ASSOCIATE MEMBER ASSIGNED TO EACH PROPOSED PROJECT AS COMMITTEE • COMMITTEE CONDUCTS HEARINGS ON ALL INFORMATION • PRESIDING MEMBER ISSUES PROPOSED DECISION • FULL COMMISSION MAKES FINAL DECISION

13. COUNY OF INYO PARTICIPATION • COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL LAWS, ORDINANCES AND STANDARDS WHICH WOULD APPLY BUT FOR THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE CEC (“LORS”) • LAND USE CONSISTENCY • TITLE 21 OF THE INYO COUNTY CODE • OTHER COUNTY STANDARDS, I.E. WATER • ASSURANCE THAT INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES ARE SUFFIENT TO SUPPORT NEEDED LOCAL IMPROVEMENTS & PUBLIC SERVICES REQUIRED TO SERVE THE PROJECT

14. APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION • AFC FILED AUGUST 5, 2011 • 20+ AREAS EVALUATED, INCLUDING: • AIR QUALITY • BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES • WATER RESOUCES • CULTURAL RESOURCES • LAND USE CONSISTENCY • WASTE MANAGEMENT • TRAFFIC • NOISE • PUBLIC HEALTH • SOILS • VISUAL RESOUCES

15. OCTOBER 5, 201112 MONTH LICENSING PERIOD • PROPOSED PROJECT DEEMED DATA ADEQUATE OCTOBER 5, 2011 • INFORMATIONAL HEARING & SITE VISIT HELD OCTOBER 27, 2011 IN TECOPA • COMMITTEE SCHEDULE ADOPTED

16. COMMISSION’S INITIAL SCHEDULE vs. APPLICANT’S CURRENT SCHEDULE AUGUST 1, 2012 – FSA SEPTEMBER 8, 2012 - EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS NOVEMBER 15, 2012 – PMPD DECEMBER 28, 2012 - CEC FINAL DECISION • OCTOBER 5, 2011 – DISCOVERY PERIOD • REVIEW HEARINGS • JANUARY 24, 2012 • FEBRUARY 28, 2012 • APRIL 3, 2012 • MAY 1, 2012 • MAY 22, 2012 • APRIL 13, 2012– PSA • JUNE 15, 2012– FSA • EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS ON FSA - TBD • PMPD – TBD • HEARING - TBD

17. WHERE ARE WE TODAY? • 146 DATA REQUESTS • 8 WORKSHOPS • 2 IN TECOPA • 3 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS • INFORMATIONAL HEARING IN TECOPA • REVIEW HEARINGS IN SACRAMENTO • 3 INTERVENORS • JON ZELLHOEFER • CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY • OLD SPANISH TRAIL ASSOCIATION • STAFF TO STAFF MEETINGS • IN PERSON MEETINGS IN SACRAMENTO, TECOPA & HENDERSON, NV. • TELEPHONE CONFERENCES • CORRESPONDENCE & INPUT • LANDUSE • SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS • WATER IMPACTS • POST-CLOSURE/RECLAMATION

18. WHERE ARE WE GOING? • CONTINUE TO WORK WITH CEC STAFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF PSA DUE APRIL 13, 2012 • PARTICIPATE IN FUTURE WORKSHOPS AND REVIEW HEARINGS • PROVIDE FORMAL COMMENTS TO PSA, FSA AND PMPD • PARTICIPATE IN EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS

19. Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards (LORS) • CEC cannot certify a project that fails to comply with LORS unless it finds that (1) the project is needed for public convenience and necessity and (2) there are no more prudent and feasible means of achieving such public convenience and necessity. • Inconsistent General Plan Land Use Designation – Open Space and Recreation (OSR) and Resort/Recreation (REC) • Inconsistent Zoning – Open Space (OS-40)

20. LORS (continued) • Zoning Standards (height, setbacks) • Renewable Energy Ordinance (Title 21) • Definition of Environment • Renewable Energy Development Agreement/Permit/Determination • Reclamation • CEC’s Exclusive Permitting Jurisdiction

21. Approvals Necessary by the Board of Supervisors • General Plan Amendment • Zoning Change • Reversion to Acreage • Abandonment of public roads on site • Encroachment Permit/Reconstruction of Old Spanish Trail • Adoption of CEC environmental analysis

22. Water Related Impacts/Issues • Effects on neighboring property owners’ domestic wells • Effects on groundwater dependent vegetation near site • Effects on down gradient water users • Effects on down gradient water-dependent habitat • Contribution to overdraft in Pahrump Valley groundwater basin • Cumulative effects with other power generation projects • Consideration of state-mandated groundwater monitoring requirements (CASGEM)

25. Socioeconomic Impacts to the County

26. Information Services Impacts

27. Other Departments

28. Questions For more information, refer to the CEC and County websites: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/hiddenhills/ http://inyoplanning.org/BrightSource.htm