California Energy Commission Staff report: Fountain Wind Project

11.14 Proposed Findings of Fact Regarding Whether the Project is required for Public Convenience and Necessity

Based on the entire record of the proceeding staff proposes the following findings of fact.

1) The project is inconsistent with Shasta County Code section 17.88.335 which prohibits large wind facilities in unincorporated areas of the county, section 17.08.010 which authorizes the creation of timber production districts such as on the project site, and Shasta County General Plan, Scenic Highways Element.

2) The project’s noncompliance with zoning laws has not been corrected or eliminated given Shasta County’s opposition to the project.

3) The first requirement Under Public Resources Code section 25525 is that the CEC may not certify a facility that does not conform with applicable laws unless the CEC determines that the facility is required for public convenience and necessity. 

4) There is no enacted definition of “Public Convenience and Necessity” in statute, regulation, or case law.

5) In determining whether a project is necessary for “Public Convenience and Necessity”, the CEC has previously compared the project’s ability to further the stated goals and policies of the Warren-Alquist Act to the purpose and benefits of the conflicting law at issue. There is no reason evident in this record suggesting this method of assessing the public convenience and necessity of a project would be inappropriate.

6) The stated purpose in the Shasta County ordinance for the prohibition on large wind facilities is to protect and promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the county’s citizens.

7) Other findings contained in the Shasta County ordinance include adverse impacts of large wind energy systems, with respect to wildfire, aerial firefighting, aesthetics, biological resources, and historical, cultural and tribal resources.

8) Most areas subject to the large wind facility ban are in high and very high fire hazard zones as designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

9) With regards to wind systems in these fire zones, such as the project, the Shasta County ordinance finds that large wind energy systems are incompatible in the high and very high fire hazard severity zones.

10) The Shasta County ordinance also finds that due to the identified impacts, the construction or operation of large wind energy systems will not have an overall net positive economic benefit to Shasta County.

11) The project site is considered productive timberland and designated primarily Site Class I, with some areas of Site Class II and zoned for timber production through Shasta County Code section 17.08.010.

12) The stated goals and policies of the Warren-Alquist Act the project contributes to includes the SB 100 targets of requiring 50% of all retail sales of electricity be from renewable resources by December 31, 2026, 60% by December 31, 2030, and by December 31, 2045, 100% of all retail sales be from renewable and zero carbon sources. (See Public Utilities Code sections 399.15(b)(2)(B) and 454.53(a).)

13) SB 100 also requires the Energy Commission, Public Utilities Commission and Air Resources Board to issue a joint policy report on SB 100 by 2021 and every four years thereafter. (See Public Utilities Code section 454.53(d).) 

14) The 2021 SB 100 report contains several key findings including that construction of clean electricity generation and storage facilities must be sustained at recordsetting rates. Specifically, the 2021 report estimated the following build-out by 2030 is required to meet the ultimate 2045 targets: The addition of 16.9 GW of utility scale solar, 9.5 GW of battery storage and 8.2 GW of terrestrial wind. 

15) The project’s 205 MW is a contribution to the 2030 target identified in the SB 100 report of adding an additional 8,200 MW of terrestrial wind to the existing capacity, or .25% of the targeted amount.

16) As detailed in the environmental impact report, the project presents significant unmitigable impacts in the areas of biological resources, visual resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, forestry resources, wildfire, and land use. 

17) The project would provide local consumer benefits in the form of temporary employment during construction, about eight permanent jobs during operations, sales, and property tax revenue and, targeted community benefits.

18) Shasta County identified categories of costs such as wildfire recovery and fire insurance premiums that may offset some project benefits.

19) The project would provide renewable generation for statewide needs but is not designed to meet any specific reliability needs of the region and the project is likely to have a lower capacity factor during the summer and would therefore not be reliable generation to address summer net peak needs during heat events.

20) The Pit River Tribe opposes the project on the basis that the project is on traditional ancestral lands and will impact tribal cultural resources.

21) The project may not be consistent with AB 1757 and policies that encourage the use of nature-based climate solutions because it removes forested lands, the retention of which has been identified in state law as addressing the deleterious effects of climate change.